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

[dropbear8mybaby]

Has anyone mentioned deadlocks yet? You fail and it trips a deadlock so that only the key can open it.

 

[Garresh]

One of the core rules of D&D is do not roll without a necessary conflict. Near anyone can pick a lot given enough time. For my own amusement I picked up some lockpicks from a friend and tried to pick a lock with no experience at all. After 45 minutes I got it open, whether from dumb luck or slowly learning the basics.

There are three approaches viable here:
1. If there is no risk of discovery/conflict, don't make them roll. They have proficiency so they just do it.
2. If there is risk of discovery or wandering monsters, degree of success determines how long it takes.
3. All locks are trapped. Failure to properly get it first try triggers the trap.

I like to mix all 3 because it is interesting.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hi there,

I pick locks as a hobby (got hooked at a local con's lockpick village). Realistically speaking, if you fail once you can keep trying until you get it most of the time. Unless you're working with something abnormally complicated (or have really crappy/cheap tools) your tools won't just break like in Skyrim. And if they do you might as well move on because that means there's a piece of metal stuck in it. No more tries (possible great consequence for a critical fumble). What will happen with a tumbler lock, though, is that the lock will gradually wear down. You damage the lock every single time you pick it. Eventually the tumblers will become so loose that it might not open at all, or (more likely) will open with one good bump. That takes a lot of trying though. A lot of very lazy lock pickers will just use a rake and saw it back and forth in the lock until it gives. It takes a lot of dexterity and patience to pick a lock.

So a consequence there could be that they bust the lock. Using time and noise as a consequence is also a good way to introduce encounters, as suggested above. You might also consider frustration as an effect. The more they fail the more frustrated they get, incurring a -1 to their roll until they take a break or do something to calm down, etc.

That's pretty cool.

One thing that I think folks don't take into account though is that we're not talking about tumbler locks etc. They were invented in 1778, well beyond the technology level of most D&D campaigns. Yes, we can consider things like gnomes being skilled in mechanical devices, etc. But in general, the next step from a basic lock would be to apply some sort of magical protection.

Of course, you can consider whatever sort of technology in your campaign. But personally I don't see the point. The design isn't really important, since the DC itself indicates the complexity of the lock. Since an average person is not proficient in thieves' tools/lock picking, a relatively simple lock will keep probably 80-90% of the population out. And of those that do break in, probably 90%+ of those will simply break in somehow. Whether it's kicking in a door, smashing a chest, or prying the lock itself off, it's only purpose is to be a deterrent to all but the most persistent.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The idea behind no-reroll is that the one roll you make represents your best attempt, period; as opposed to just one of many attempts where you can just try again. (in other words, it builds all the rolls into one)

And a failure option that hasn't been mentioned yet (or if it has I missed it) is that while your tools survive you've mangled the lock itself in your attempt to open it, and now the key won't even open it.

Speaking of keys - it's amazing how often a party struggles with a locked door when they've in fact got access to the key - somewhere - if they just look carefully for it.

Lan-"forgot in previous post picks and shovels as an alternate way through for an all-Dwarf party"-efan

The problem I have with this approach is that a character with a 20 ability score and expertise in the skill can fail and never be able to succeed at something that a character with a 10 in the ability score and no proficiency can.

I like using the fail by 5, fail by 10, and critical miss options. Usually I use a critical miss (natural 1) when it's something that they can succeed at (20 + skill bonus or less) and there is no other obvious potential consequences (falling, setting off a trap, etc.). I use the fail by 5 or 10 when there are other potential consequences built into the situation.

So for picking locks, breaking the thieves' tools, breaking the lock, etc. would be a potential result for a critical failure. Also, if picking the lock takes several rounds, then the DC for anything on the other side hearing the attempt would be reduced by 1 for each additional round, to a maximum of 5 (essentially advantage). Just because the longer you take, the more opportunity they have to notice it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

...
I definitely disagree. If your dungeon only has one way into it then there are poor design decisions beyond the nature of locks. Being stymied at that stealthy approach might mean breaking down the door, using knock, becoming ethereal, scaling dangerous walls, trying to smuggle yourselves in… I mean there’s a mountain of tropes and narrative devices to get around this hypothetical door, and being forced to adapt to the unexpected is part of the charm of playing and running the game. If I knew I would always have some degree of lock-picking success that would bore me as a player, and encourage me to be lazy as a DM.

Why would somebody build a second entrance into a crypt? I have plenty of places where getting in is very difficult. And in some cases they turn out to be impossible for the PCs...at that time. Perhaps some research is needed? Or different resources? Or they aren't high enough level yet?

For a published adventure, I get it. It has to be designed for maximum playability, relatively short sessions/short campaign time, etc. So the design approach is a bit different.

Regardless, I still prefer things to make sense. If a door should have a lock, it does, and if it should be locked, it is. You can skip past them if you'd like, but ultimately I think that skews the game a bit, it's like putting a sign on the door that "this is important" if you suddenly ask them to make a skill check when you skipped it on the last 3 locked doors.

You know that you'll always have some degree of combat success. Is that boring?

If you, as a DM, get lazy when you know there's nothing at stake with the locked door, then you are also depriving the players who don't.

Locks should be consistent. There might be better quality locks, stuck locks, rusted locks, locks with keys available, locks with missing keys, magically enhanced locks, etc. But the nature of locks should be consistent. Most of them are purchased and installed by people without any regard to the small percentage of adventurers with significant skills. So most of them are of little consequence to somebody who is a classed adventurers with significant skills.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

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

I'm calling BS on this. No, the PCs are not "meant" to get though them any more than they are "meant" to beat any particular monster or encounter. They are "meant" to try... but not to "win" or "loose". The game, and the DM, are (or should be), ambivalent, uncaring, neutral, etc.

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.

If the PC's/Players fail to get through that door...they have to think of a different way. There are millions of ways to get around a locked door. The easiest/safest without magic is picking the lock. But not doing so doesn't mean they just up and go home. That would be the same thing as every 100m dash Olympic sprinter hearing the starting pistol, and then 1 second later, everyone of them that isn't in the front just gives up and says "Oh, well, I'm not in the lead so I can't win. Guess I'll just give up".

And for the record, yes, I am a more or less "neutral" DM. I don't care if the PC's live or die...it's not up to me to set up the board so the players always win...and it's not up to me to set up the board so they players always loose. I set up the board the way the board 'should' be set up, and let how to win/loose rest firmly in the hands of the players. If they can't figure out a way to get through a locked door, and the bad guy ends up summoning an arch-devil that enslaves the entire town...so be it. Not my fault they couldn't figure out how to get around a locked door.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Ilbranteloth]

One of the core rules of D&D is do not roll without a necessary conflict. Near anyone can pick a lot given enough time. For my own amusement I picked up some lockpicks from a friend and tried to pick a lock with no experience at all. After 45 minutes I got it open, whether from dumb luck or slowly learning the basics.

There are three approaches viable here:
1. If there is no risk of discovery/conflict, don't make them roll. They have proficiency so they just do it.
2. If there is risk of discovery or wandering monsters, degree of success determines how long it takes.
3. All locks are trapped. Failure to properly get it first try triggers the trap.

I like to mix all 3 because it is interesting.

No. That is not a core rule. It's very frequent advice, but it's not a core rule. It's also advice I don't agree with.

There are an endless number of viable approaches.

I recommend against option #1. If you don't make them roll when there isn't a risk, then they'll know that the only time you make them roll that there is one.

I agree with number 2. Although the degree of success determines how long it takes when there isn't a risk of discovery or wandering monsters too.

Number 3 doesn't make any sense. Traps are risky, even if you have the key. Plus they cost money. Consider why, when, and where people actually install locks. It hasn't changed much. It's usually to protect valuables, to protect people, and to keep something from leaving. In other words - to keep something out, or to keep something in.

Installing a trap is a step well beyond what most people need or will install.

I'm impressed you were able to pick a lock. Never tried it myself, but I didn't think I'd be able to. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Has anyone mentioned deadlocks yet? You fail and it trips a deadlock so that only the key can open it.

Never heard of it, but that doesn't make any sense. Isn't that the point of a lock in the first place?

Why would you design a lock that can be picked unless somebody fails at an attempt to pick it, after which it cannot be picked? If you could actually design a lock that can't be picked, why not make it so it can't be picked in the first place?

 

[Lanefan]

Never heard of it, but that doesn't make any sense. Isn't that the point of a lock in the first place?

Why would you design a lock that can be picked unless somebody fails at an attempt to pick it, after which it cannot be picked? If you could actually design a lock that can't be picked, why not make it so it can't be picked in the first place?

Maybe the deadlock is there more as a flag to indicate someone's tried to pick it since it was last locked?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If the PC's/Players fail to get through that door...they have to think of a different way. There are millions of ways to get around a locked door. The easiest/safest without magic is picking the lock. But not doing so doesn't mean they just up and go home. That would be the same thing as every 100m dash Olympic sprinter hearing the starting pistol, and then 1 second later, everyone of them that isn't in the front just gives up and says "Oh, well, I'm not in the lead so I can't win. Guess I'll just give up".

I'm with you. It would be incredibly boring if the game just let my PC overcome every obstacle in the most obvious way. Puzzling out alternative methods to reach the goal and exercising my resourcefulness is a key element of the fun for me.