D&D 5E Passive skills

[Psikerlord#]

Correct. The GM should only be asking for dice rolls when there is a chance of failure *and* a meaningful cost of failure.

If there is no time pressure and no material cost preventing the thief from opening the lock then the GM should say, "You open the lock after a few minutes. What do you do next?".

The problem with this though is - why even have a lock in the first place?

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem with this though is - why even have a lock in the first place?

So the pcs don't make fun of the jeweler for not locking the door to his shop?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The problem with this though is - why even have a lock in the first place?

Actually, I see this questioned/mentioned quite a bit. My answer is always the same, there is no problem. It's there because it belongs there.

So you have a temple, and certain areas are off limits to the general public or hold valuables, etc. Or they are private chambers. They are naturally locked. There may not be any immediate issue at the time the PCs are there, nor will they know whether there really is something valuable behind the locked door. It's up to them to decide if they will investigate or not.

Note that in these circumstances I still require a skill check. They don't know whether somebody might come down the hall while they're trying to get in. It may still take a few minutes to succeed. The lock may still serve it's purpose, which is to be a deterrent from somebody (like the PCs) entering.

While I understand the general reason why some DMs think they shouldn't put a lock if there's no immediate danger, that's really just the DM metagaming. The DM knows there is no immediate danger so is skipping a "boring" event. But, do the PCs remember to lock the door behind them? Are there any marks left that would alert the occupant that somebody entered without their permission? What if there's a reason for them to return to this door, and at that time there is a time pressure or material cost to opening it. If the door should be locked and wasn't the first time, but now it is, why?

Also, if you hand-wave opening the lock, you're giving away the fact that there is no danger at that time. You're reducing the "fun" by doing so. If what you as the DM are choosing to include/not include is based on whether there will be any danger or material cost, then why include the room either?

To me, the world should make sense. Locks exist in the world to keep people out, or act as a deterrent to keep people out. A lock shouldn't exist/not exist based on whether it makes an interesting encounter for the PCs, nor because the DM knows that there is no risk at this point in time. It should exist/not exist because it makes sense in the world the characters live in and are exploring.

One of the three pillars of D&D is exploring. The process of exploration is mundane. Anything behind a locked door or a trapped hallway could be interesting. It keeps the players thinking, acting. Maybe they missed something important. Maybe not. But the mundane accentuates the unusual. They've explored what appears to be the barracks, and the first 8 doors to private sleeping chambers have been locked, but the 9th is not. Does that mean something? There was nothing other than personal effects in any of the others, and this is no different. Maybe somebody just forgot to lock the door. Maybe it's a trap. Maybe there was something they missed in the other rooms.

The exploration of the rooms can be quick or not. We don't actually have to wait the time indicated by a failed skill check. And if the locks are all similar, simple, and within the passive ability of the PC in question, it's OK to indicate that these are all pretty similar locks, and you're able to get this one open more quickly as a result and go with the passive ability. But I wouldn't hand-wave the first lock, and it would be clear that the other locks are opened because of their skill.

The same thing applies to things like travel. Sure, in some cases it's worth jumping from one location to another. But if you include those portions from time to time, it gives them the sense that they are arriving somewhere when they do. My group spent several months (real time) exploring some catacombs, and had one goal when doing so. Everything else was trying to find that one goal. Of course they found other things, and learned other things on the way, not to mention had numerous encounters and found some treasure. But it was a long time looking for one thing. And finding it was a huge deal because of the time and effort they put into locating it. There was also a time element in that others were looking for the same thing. But the catacombs were huge (based on the maps of the ones in Rome and Paris), and nobody knew where within them they needed to look.

Now they were just entering another dungeon. Once they explored the ruins of the temple and found the entrance to the dungeon, they went back outside to see the sun one last time because they aren't sure when they'll see it again.

Ilbranteloth

 

[iserith]

The problem with this though is - why even have a lock in the first place?

I'll answer with an example.

In an adventure I'm working on, there is a half-flooded chamber occupied by three sahuagin in an unstable ruin. On the mezzanine of this multilevel chamber (which is above the water line), there is a locked door that leads up some stairs and brings the party closer to the heart of the complex. One of the walls in the submerged portion of the room is made of glass. The sea devils are commanding a giant shark on the other side of the glass to ram the glass wall in an effort to break it and flood the rest of the chamber.

The lock in this scenario is either a time sink, an obstacle, or both. If the PCs want to sneak past the sahuagin and get through the door without a fight or escape the chamber after the glass breaks but before the chamber is fully flooded, the lock may stymie their progress. Failure on the check to open the lock could mean the sahuagin are alerted or that the lockpicks break off in the door which closes off that avenue of approach while the room is flooding. If instead they want to kill the sahuagin first, they can then take their time on the lock and open it without a roll; however, this time sink brings the party closer to the time when the ruin, damaged by water and time, begins to fall down around them.

 

[C-F-K]

I never say things like "You find a chest containing X amount of stuff", instead I tell the players "You find a closed chest (and some details)". Locked or not.

Yes a player can open a lock chest given enough time (million monkey theory anyone?) but where is the real exploration if you just hand it to them?

And on blind rolling of checks: I only roll stealth and death saves in the blind.
I found out that when players roll their own death saves, the others start to meta the hell out of it "Ok, lets fight the BBEG this round, our friend has 2 successful saves and 0 failed ones".

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'll answer with an example.

In an adventure I'm working on, there is a half-flooded chamber occupied by three sahuagin in an unstable ruin. On the mezzanine of this multilevel chamber (which is above the water line), there is a locked door that leads up some stairs and brings the party closer to the heart of the complex. One of the walls in the submerged portion of the room is made of glass. The sea devils are commanding a giant shark on the other side of the glass to ram the glass wall in an effort to break it and flood the rest of the chamber.

The lock in this scenario is either a time sink, an obstacle, or both. If the PCs want to sneak past the sahuagin and get through the door without a fight or escape the chamber after the glass breaks but before the chamber is fully flooded, the lock may stymie their progress. Failure on the check to open the lock could mean the sahuagin are alerted or that the lockpicks break off in the door which closes off that avenue of approach while the room is flooding. If instead they want to kill the sahuagin first, they can then take their time on the lock and open it without a roll; however, this time sink brings the party closer to the time when the ruin, damaged by water and time, begins to fall down around them.

Very cool, although not an example of a locked door that doesn't have any time pressure or material cost to it.

My group was just exploring ruined temple. They were looking for a way to the library specifically. There were numerous rooms that were locked, with nothing of interest other than the monks and clerics meager personal belongings. Once they had unlocked and checked one of the doors in that wing, they could have deduced what was behind the others, but chose to open them anyway. No monsters, nothing chasing them, no time pressure. Just a long forgotten ruined temple high in the mountains. It added to the sense of abandonment, the utter emptiness of the ruin. They were expecting monsters (and they did find a few), but for the most part it was just there.

Some would have found the exploration boring, I suppose. I think it set the scene better, and although they suspected that each room might be empty and devoid of danger (and wealth), they still proceeded cautiously, and with respect for the holy nature of the place, and that it was the final resting place for a number of people that didn't expect to suddenly die. The defenders were found primarily in a single area where a tower had been, now rubble, collapsed by some unknown catastrophe or attack. What happened may or may not come back to haunt them...

Ilbranteloth

 

[iserith]

Very cool, although not an example of a locked door that doesn't have any time pressure or material cost to it.

I guess my point is, you don't necessarily know whether there will be time pressure or material cost for any given lock placed in an adventure. If the PCs remove those concerns by their own efforts, then the lock is still there and just becomes trivial - spend the time and open it up, no roll necessary. We DMs put obstacles of all stripes in adventures. We don't necessarily know ahead of time how the players will get past them or whether a roll will be required.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I guess my point is, you don't necessarily know whether there will be time pressure or material cost for any given lock placed in an adventure. If the PCs remove those concerns by their own efforts, then the lock is still there and just becomes trivial - spend the time and open it up, no roll necessary. We DMs put obstacles of all stripes in adventures. We don't necessarily know ahead of time how the players will get past them or whether a roll will be required.

That I agree with, although even if you're using passive abilities, they should at least know that it was their skill that allowed them to pick the lock, not just the DM deciding it wasn't important.

But to be clear, sometimes there are locks that the PCs don't have the ability to unlock. I know that 5e is designed in a large way around that point - that anybody can try anything, and that there's always a chance for success. I'd argue that there is more than one way to bypass a lock, and if they don't have somebody with the proper skill, or skill that is high enough to do this job, then you have to resort to one of the other options.

Of course, if the 2nd level PCs come across a lock they can't pick (say, a DC 25 or DC 30), they might want to think twice about getting around it at all. Obviously somebody is willing to spend the money to protect something that they don't want disturbed. Who knows what other defenses may be in place, or what they are willing to do to anybody they catch in places they shouldn't be.

Ilbranteloth

 

[iserith]

That I agree with, although even if you're using passive abilities, they should at least know that it was their skill that allowed them to pick the lock, not just the DM deciding it wasn't important.

I don't handle passive checks that way. As per the basic conversation of the game, the players describe what they want to do and the DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. It's only when there is uncertainty as to the PCs' ability to do a thing when a check (passive or otherwise) need come into play. In some cases, what is fictionally established about a lock may create a baseline of uncertainty such as if it's locked up with rust, magically sealed, or some other reasonable circumstance is in play. Even so, the smart play in my view is to remove the uncertainty as best you can so no check is required.

And when it comes to passive checks, I'm only using that if the players declare a task they are performing repeatedly. If there is no drama to wring out of the situation, I'm not likely to call for a check and just ask the players if they'll trade time for success (per DMG page 237).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'll answer with an example.

In an adventure I'm working on, there is a half-flooded chamber occupied by three sahuagin in an unstable ruin. On the mezzanine of this multilevel chamber (which is above the water line), there is a locked door that leads up some stairs and brings the party closer to the heart of the complex. One of the walls in the submerged portion of the room is made of glass. The sea devils are commanding a giant shark on the other side of the glass to ram the glass wall in an effort to break it and flood the rest of the chamber.

The lock in this scenario is either a time sink, an obstacle, or both. If the PCs want to sneak past the sahuagin and get through the door without a fight or escape the chamber after the glass breaks but before the chamber is fully flooded, the lock may stymie their progress. Failure on the check to open the lock could mean the sahuagin are alerted or that the lockpicks break off in the door which closes off that avenue of approach while the room is flooding. If instead they want to kill the sahuagin first, they can then take their time on the lock and open it without a roll; however, this time sink brings the party closer to the time when the ruin, damaged by water and time, begins to fall down around them.

Thats fine if there is a chance of failure of picking the lock - I was meaning a lock that the PC will auto pick, due to passive high lock pick skill.