D&D 5E Meaningful Consequences of Failure for Picking Locks

[Prakriti]

Tales from the Yawning Portal is getting me back into the AD&D vibe, when skill checks couldn't generally be re-attempted. Some of the dungeons in Yawning Portal were obviously written with this in mind, so how can we best emulate this in 5E? (And is it even necessary?)

Imagine there is a door with a DC 15 lock on it and the character attempting to unlock it fails the check. What are some meaningful consequences of failure?

Some possibilities:
No retrying: The lock is beyond the character's abilities, and any future checks will result in failure until the conditions change. (This is the AD&D model).
Consequences: The party must find another way through the dungeon or break down the door. Since breaking down a door is noisy, every attempt will result in a wandering monster check.
- I like this a lot, but is it against the spirit of 5E?

Retrying, with consequences: The character suffers a negative consequence as a result of the failure, but can make a new attempt afterwards.
Possible Consequences:
- The thieves' tools are damaged in the attempt, effectively increasing the DC and all future DC's made with those tools. (This, like damaged armor, acts as a gold sink.)
- The thieves' tools are broken in the attempt.
- The character must wait 1 day before re-attempting (or some other significant amount of time).
- Monsters on the other side of the door hear the noise and prepare an ambush (this probably goes without saying).

Any thoughts or other ideas?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I've used this method a few times. Fail by 10 means you've broken the lock and/or thieves tools. Increase DC by 5 per attempt.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When I did a recent 1e campaign, one of the things the newer players had trouble with was the no-retrying things. I tried to explain it that if it’s just a matter of rolling the dice again and again, every challenge just becomes a waiting game until someone rolls the right number.

Anyway…I like the idea of damaging the thieves tools, though rather than a cumulative penalty, I might just give the PC disadvantage until they’re replaced.

You could also use the fail-forward mechanic, especially if the PCs have to get through the door. Maybe it turns out that it was just jammed – the rogue finds a note in the lock from an NPC master thief who’s out to get to the treasure first. Now it’s a race! Or more simply, a random wandering monster breaks down the door, getting a surprise round in.

 

[Satyrn]

No retrying: The lock is beyond the character's abilities, and any future checks will result in failure until the conditions change. (This is the AD&D model).
Consequences: The party must find another way through the dungeon or break down the door. Since breaking down a door is noisy, every attempt will result in a wandering monster check.
- I like this a lot, but is it against the spirit of 5E?

I wouldn't say it's against the spirit at all, especially if you as DM decide the reason for rolling the check in the first place is to determine whether or not the task is within the character's ability. (This would go along with having him succeed automatically when the lock is horribly made; or even having him automatically fail with rolling for absolutely perfect locks, which probably shouldn't happen often, if at all, beyond the legendary Lock of Hephaestus)

 

[Cyrinishad]

I'm not so sure I would go so far as to prohibit retrying, but perhaps requiring a short rest before retrying, and if the retry fails require a long rest before retrying again...

...and the threat of Wandering Monsters is always good to keep them on their toes.

 

[aco175]

The problem with locks is that the PCs are meant to get through them. The adventure would end if the PCs fail to get into the dungeon. I agree that there should be some sort of penalty, but there should also be another way around it. I like adding 5 to the DC and letting a try on the next round and having to wait a day if that failed as well.

 

[Lanliss]

I would say that "Failure" Doesn't accomplish a whole lot, story wise. Instead, I would have "Success", and "Success with a minor/major complication" depending on how much they fail. So, for example, your example of them damaging the thieves tools. Let the check succeed, but they have damaged their thieves tool (Disadvantage), or if their thieves tools were already damaged from one failure, they are now broken (No more lock picking.)

Now, if they fail a whole lot, they might have some serious problems. For example, they automatically trigger a random encounter, which happens to have unlocked the door from the other side. Now they have a fight, and possibly an alarm getting sounded if they don't finish this quick.

The only time I might call for an actual failure is if they roll a natural 1, and even then they might just get a "Massive complication", like the door loudly falling off it's hinges, the sound of it echoing throughout the dungeon halls ahead of them. No more stealth, and their goal in the dungeon is probably being moved immediately.

 

[Satyrn]

The problem with locks is that the PCs are meant to get through them.

If we're at a door that totally needs to be passed through, you may want to set failure to just being "It takes five minutes to pick" (with success being "It takes 30 seconds") and thus you get rid of pointless rerolling.

This is essentially your "monsters hear and prep an ambush" but set up in a way so you can tell your players exactly what the check is about, leaving the possibility of an ambush out of it (there may or may not be, and they can bother to figure that out if they want or just barge in).

 

[Caliban]

In real life, someone skilled with lockpicking will eventually get through any normal lock, unless it is absolutely beyond their ability.

Another suggestion: each retry after a failed attempt increases the time required for the next attempt. It goes from 1 action, to 2 actions, to 5 actions, to a full minute, to five minutes, etc.

Giving plenty of opportunities for wandering monsters, or an ambush to be prepared.

Maybe if they roll a 1 on two or more of the checks they break a lockpick off in the door and have to either drill the lock or break the door.

 

[Shiroiken]

The problem with locks is that the PCs are meant to get through them. The adventure would end if the PCs fail to get into the dungeon. I agree that there should be some sort of penalty, but there should also be another way around it. I like adding 5 to the DC and letting a try on the next round and having to wait a day if that failed as well.

Then why have the lock at all? Or if you have the lock for world reasons, why bother requiring a roll? Unless the delay matters, all this does is allow the party to Long Rest before continuing.

There needs to be consequences, and that's where adventure design comes in. If you cannot pick the lock, you could use the Knock spell or you could smash the door, but both of those have noise factors. This could add an encounter (as guards come running), make the encounter harder (as the enemy gathers together), ruin surprise, or even provide a chance for the party to be surprised. A unassailable lock might force the party to go a long way around (taking time and causing additional combats). Finally, a treasure room might become inaccessible, denying the party loot.