How do you handle lockpicking?

[HidesHisEyes]

How does your group handle the picking of locks? The eternal problem is of course that if a player makes a Dex/Thieves' Tools check to pick a lock and fails, then assuming they're not in combat or otherwise under time pressure there is no reason why they shouldn't keep trying until they succeed, in which case there's no point bothering with a check in the first place, but it more or less takes locks out of your game as a gameplay element.

A common observation is that rolling dice is only necessary when there would be meaningful consequences for failure. So it seems the best approach would be looking for a way or ways to make failure to pick a lock meaningful even outside of combat (where it's self-evidently a big deal because you've used up a precious action on it). Here are the ideas I can think of:

- situational failure costs: you decide on the cost of failing to pick a lock on a case-by-case basis. It's a time cost if there is any kind of time pressure, or maybe some NPC realised the door has been tampered with and is alert to your presence at some point. If there's really no cost then you don't make the roll. This one is good for realism but I dislike it because it seems to demand that the DM be forever contriving new failure costs or else just let lockpicking vanish as a game element.

- random encounters: GM rolls on a random encounter table if you fail. A much more gamey and standardised approach than the one above. The cost of failure is that you spend some time faffing around with the lock and as a result you risk getting ambushed by wandering monsters.

- one chance: if you fail you fail. You can't try again, you already tried your best and you can't open the lock. Super simple and retains locks as a gameplay element - but it's not very exciting, might feel harsh or unfair, and doesn't really make sense since if you're capable of picking a lock (i.e. your bonus is high enough) then surely you would be able to eventually.

- the Bethesda approach: failing to pick a lock = lockpick breaks, and you can only carry a finite number of lockpicks. This one really appeals to me for its simplicity, but I can see many players balking at an arbitrary limit on how many lockpicks you can carry.

Now on the whole I like the latter two approaches, especially the last one, because they offer simplicity and certainty. They mean you can drop a locked door or chest into your adventure the same way you'd drop in a goblin: as a gameplay element, a challenge. It's still possible to combine them with the first approach too, adding additional failure costs in some situations.

What do you think about these ideas and how do you handle locks?

[Sigreid]

Simple, if your picking locks it is unlikely that they can try all day without being noticed. Each attempt you can roll a chance something comes along.

[lunaticfringe]

Eh. Locks that require picking are more of a plot device in my games. Escaping a cell & what not. It depends on you and how many locks you wanna place in the parties path. More locks, more checks, slower game.


Picking them is really a more modern thing. You would just bust a lot of medieval style locks with brute force realistically. Enter the Axe wielding BDF.

[Hrugner]

After a few tries I say that the lock is beyond their skill and they need to disassemble the lock or break the door down. Disassembling the lock takes a minute and can be heard with a perception check of 10. This honestly hasn't come up much though.

[Tetrasodium]

I used to work in a place that had a colo section of their datacenter & would occasionally have to break into customer cages because they quit paying (ie out of business or whatever). we had a lockpick set & honestly it's not very difficult at all if you aren't pressed for time. Then a couple years back & had a tenant move out & lock the only keys inside. The locksmith I called out didn't even break his stride using a set of picks (not a gun or something) in unlocking & opening the door to the point where I'm not sure I could have unlocked it with the key as fast as that eastern european guy did while exclaiming "dees sheet lock! I get you new lock from truck that good lock!"

I usually don't make a big deal out of locked stuff & am more likely to use traps than locked stuff.

[BeefGood]

If time's not a factor, then autopick. The story justification in many cases might be that the lock is to keep the bad guy's non-rogue henchman from pilfering his loot. It wasn't really designed to stop a rogue.
If the lock is designed to stop a rogue, then failure should probably trigger a trap or alarm.
The trouble with making time a factor is, the amount of time is six seconds, or twelve seconds, or eighteen seconds...in most circumstances it's not a factor. The bad guys would have to be chasing you, getting 60 feet closer each round, for that increment of time to matter. I don't think it makes sense to roll for a random encounter because an extra six or twelve seconds have passed.
If it's a door lock, then the rogue may have left the rest of the party some ways down the hall, so that the clankier party members don't alert any creatures on the other side of the door. Split party could be an opportunity for fun.

[Sigreid]

I used to work in a place that had a colo section of their datacenter & would occasionally have to break into customer cages because they quit paying (ie out of business or whatever). we had a lockpick set & honestly it's not very difficult at all if you aren't pressed for time. Then a couple years back & had a tenant move out & lock the only keys inside. The locksmith I called out didn't even break his stride using a set of picks (not a gun or something) in unlocking & opening the door to the point where I'm not sure I could have unlocked it with the key as fast as that eastern european guy did while exclaiming "dees sheet lock! I get you new lock from truck that good lock!"

I usually don't make a big deal out of locked stuff & am more likely to use traps than locked stuff.

I have known several people that med it clear locks and alarms only stop or slow down amatures. A few of them could work fast enough to not draw attention on a crowded street.

[Hrugner]

I used to work in a place that had a colo section of their datacenter & would occasionally have to break into customer cages because they quit paying (ie out of business or whatever). we had a lockpick set & honestly it's not very difficult at all if you aren't pressed for time. Then a couple years back & had a tenant move out & lock the only keys inside. The locksmith I called out didn't even break his stride using a set of picks (not a gun or something) in unlocking & opening the door to the point where I'm not sure I could have unlocked it with the key as fast as that eastern european guy did while exclaiming "dees sheet lock! I get you new lock from truck that good lock!"

I usually don't make a big deal out of locked stuff & am more likely to use traps than locked stuff.

I had a similar experience with a guy replacing the lock on my apartment door. He put some sort of tool in and just unscrewed the lock core, put a new one in, and unlocked the door. It took maybe ten seconds. He looked at me and said "I know right? Illusion of security that's all it is." We have to accept that locks in a fantasy game are just a bit more secure than those in real life.

[mephnick]

Videogame approach. Can't pick lock? Break chest, but maybe break items inside.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I think locks used in d&d the way they normally are are a remnant from a time where everyone is the party had a party role. Dragon age does the same thing to make you have a diverse party.
I use locks in my game but mostly to give the opportunity for creative problem solving. So they can try to pick the lock but if they fail they cont unlock it. Then if they fail they have to find a different way through the door: smash through the door but that will alert enemies to their location, acrobatics their way in, find someone with a key and get it from them, search for a hidden entrance, etc

[DireSickFish]

If they're proficient in the skill and they have time. Then they can open almost any lock.

If it's in combat or under pressure then they have to make a skill check. They can re-try. If it's because of a tense situation then they break the lock, or can't work the mechanism and the lock can't open.

If it's a swanky lock and out of combat then they can only try once. Swanky locks should be used very sparingly. And only when you are prepared to deal with the consequences of them not opening whatever is locked.

[MrStabby]

The roll just determines the disparity between the lock's quality and the PC's ability. Rerolling won't change that.

Personally i think a better approach might be to have the passive lockpick score and then roll for the DC of the lock - that way there is a strong correlation between one character being unable to pick it and a less skilled one being unable to.

[mephnick]

The roll just determines the disparity between the lock's quality and the PC's ability. Rerolling won't change that.

Personally i think a better approach might be to have the passive lockpick score and then roll for the DC of the lock - that way there is a strong correlation between one character being unable to pick it and a less skilled one being unable to.

This is actually how I do traps. I use everyone's passive perception and roll a "stealth" score for the trap with a small modifier depending on how tough I think the trap is. Prevents me from knowing if the party will definitely detect it or not.

[Tetrasodium]

I had a similar experience with a guy replacing the lock on my apartment door. He put some sort of tool in and just unscrewed the lock core, put a new one in, and unlocked the door. It took maybe ten seconds. He looked at me and said "I know right? Illusion of security that's all it is." We have to accept that locks in a fantasy game are just a bit more secure than those in real life.

The problem isn't accepting "that locks are more secure", the problem is that they are generally boring & pointless. while one player is fiddling with the lock, the rest of the group can do just about nothing beyond stare at the ceiling or maybe say "and I cast guidance on him"

[Hrugner]

The problem isn't accepting "that locks are more secure", the problem is that they are generally boring & pointless. while one player is fiddling with the lock, the rest of the group can do just about nothing beyond stare at the ceiling or maybe say "and I cast guidance on him"

How to make locks interesting seems like an entirely separate issue.

[Slipperychicken]

Someone in my group picks locks for a hobby and always says that it's really not that big a deal to pick a mechanical lock.

Locks are mostly meant to keep honest people out anyway. If someone actually has ill intentions and is serious, they can just break the door, pick it, or find a way around.

[ad_hoc]

If there is no consequence for failure and it could be picked then there is no roll. They succeed. Most of the time they don't even need to pick the lock anyway, a crowbar will do.

If the lock is trapped then a successful check means they bypass/disarm the trap.

A check might be required if they need to keep quiet while doing it.

So yeah, traps, noise, and time are the most common reasons.

I could also see a ruling that the lock could get jammed. This would probably only be important if it needs to be able to be reset after.

[Tanarii]

If the only consequence of failure is not picking the lock, and they can pick it (which I take to be a as if they had rolled a 20) then they can take ten times as long and succeed. Per the DMG.

Generally speaking for I use locks in dungeons (or other adventure sites) for three purposes:
1) Trapped, and failure causes the trap to go off. This includes traps that disable the lock. Some traps can be circumvented first if found, other can't.
2) In 'combat' or other time sensitive situations. Most often, it's to prevent easy access to an avenue of travel (for escape, evasion, or bypassing) during a combat. Also, locking a lock with no key behind you to slow pursuit is a fairly common PC action. Usually these are simple locks that can be picked in a few rounds.
3) Delay or eat up time, in situations where there is no immediate time pressure that absolutely requires a single check one time, but time still matters. Since I use wandering monsters, a 10 min delay to pick a 1 min lock is meaningful.

Also note, you can set the time it takes to pick a lock, as a form of complexity other than just raising the DC. If a given lock will take 5 minutes, that's a 50 min delay, which is rather significant.

Same thing applies to searching for things, commonly traps, secret doors, or even just a room (or portion of it). Taking the time, if available, will typically mean automatic success for the average concealed thing. But that still has consequences in terms of time spent, and in many cases still leaves interesting decisions or the need for further investigation.

[HidesHisEyes]

If the only consequence of failure is not picking the lock, and they can pick it (which I take to be a as if they had rolled a 20) then they can take ten times as long and succeed. Per the DMG.

Generally speaking for I use locks in dungeons (or other adventure sites) for three purposes:
1) Trapped, and failure causes the trap to go off. This includes traps that disable the lock. Some traps can be circumvented first if found, other can't.
2) In 'combat' or other time sensitive situations. Most often, it's to prevent easy access to an avenue of travel (for escape, evasion, or bypassing) during a combat. Also, locking a lock with no key behind you to slow pursuit is a fairly common PC action. Usually these are simple locks that can be picked in a few rounds.
3) Delay or eat up time, in situations where there is no immediate time pressure that absolutely requires a single check one time, but time still matters. Since I use wandering monsters, a 10 min delay to pick a 1 min lock is meaningful.

Also note, you can set the time it takes to pick a lock, as a form of complexity other than just raising the DC. If a given lock will take 5 minutes, that's a 50 min delay, which is rather significant.

Same thing applies to searching for things, commonly traps, secret doors, or even just a room (or portion of it). Taking the time, if available, will typically mean automatic success for the average concealed thing. But that still has consequences in terms of time spent, and in many cases still leaves interesting decisions or the need for further investigation.

Sounds good. When it comes to number 3 do you just decide on a case by case basis what the consequences are for eating up time? I like the idea but I find it difficult to do this, and as I mentioned I don't like having to contrive different setbacks for the party every time. Some people would say if there's no cost there's no cost and just ignore locks unless there clearly is a cost, but what I'm after is a way of making lockpicking work as an element of gameplay. Tying it to random encounters as you do seems like a good solution. I guess my next question is how do you handle random encounters? But maybe that's a separate thread.

[Sceptic]

Locks are generally just something to keep out amateurs, or to slow people down. I'd probably give the character a jammed lock or broken lockpick or something on a roll of significantly less than the DC of the lock.

For an interesting youtube video about physical security that can, to some extent, be relevant to how you handle security in your game, just google "the search for the perfect door". (I'd post a link to the video, but my post count isn't high enough. Yay arbitrary limitations...)

[hymer]

I guess it depends on the lock. Most locks are rogue fodder, and for them I usually just go 'Sooner or later you succeed' if he doesn't get it on the first roll.
But some locks have more personality. They can be part of a trap, where screwing the roll up by 5 or more sets the trap off. Or the lock could jam if you fail by that margin. Or yu might even risk damage to your lockpicks.
Picking locks, as opposed to breaking it open, can be done for various reasons. It's a lot quieter and leaves fewer traces. You may also want to be able to close the lid or door again securely, and maybe even lock it. And finally, some places the lock is really the weak point. A door of solid oak in a solid oak frame with multiple, strong iron hinges on the other side - you could spend an hour getting through that thing, and you'd be extremely noisy. But maybe a good rogue can get through in a minute or less.

TLDR: If it's a bog standard lock, just let them through if they have a proficient locksmith with picks. But some locks should be more interesting.

[Tanarii]

Sounds good. When it comes to number 3 do you just decide on a case by case basis what the consequences are for eating up time?No. Consequences for time passing are pretty standardized in most adventuring sites in my world: wandering monster checks + resources expended + need to get back to safety. Generally speaking the party needs to get to a safe place by the end of the session, or they're considered lost and another party will need to go in and retrieve them, although some locations designed for tier 2 adventures are explicitly multi-session adventures (which the players know before the session begins, although the PCs might not), but that has the additional consequence of time passes in the campaign. If I ever start incorporating hex crawl wilderness adventures It'll work the same way.

But unless you're completely winging it, it's pretty easy to build in a 'time crunch' factor into most adventures. If you don't have that, many game rules becomes pretty meaningless outside of set-piece encounters. The majority of the exploration pillar just becomes an exercise in hand-waving.


Tying it to random encounters as you do seems like a good solution. I guess my next question is how do you handle random encounters? But maybe that's a separate thread.The reason wandering encounters & logistics existed in the first place was to make something that's otherwise meaningless, in-game time passing, be a meaningful resource. That said, I change up one important aspect for 5e: random encounters are worth much less 'defeated creature' XP. Otherwise players won't care about avoiding / evading them.

[Glorthindel]

Depend on lock and situation. If it is a standard manufacturer lock (so the one that came with the chest) and there is no time constraint, auto-pick. That said, I would always require a roll, in order to disguise when that is the situation, and when the roll is more important.

However, if the lock is trapped, then the trap could be triggered by someone fiddling with the lock. And more intricate (or expensive ones with this set up as a fail-safe feature) locks could be rendered inoperable by a bad roll. Also, if there is a time constraint, generally I will let the result of the roll determine how long the repeated attempts take.

[BeefGood]

Also note, you can set the time it takes to pick a lock, as a form of complexity other than just raising the DC.

This is a neat idea and certainly addresses my six-seconds-is-meaningless point above. Out of curiosity, is it RAW? (I'm AFB). Somehow I got into my head the idea that picking a lock takes an action, end of story.

[Sigreid]

This is a neat idea and certainly addresses my six-seconds-is-meaningless point above. Out of curiosity, is it RAW? (I'm AFB). Somehow I got into my head the idea that picking a lock takes an action, end of story.

Maybe set a time to pick and allow them to try to do it faster at a higher DC.

[Thrudd]

One try per character with the proficiency. If they fail, it is unpickable for whatever reason. If there is no pressure or time limit, they automatically succeed if their passive dex+proficiency is high enough (take 10 on the check), if not then they need to roll.

Same thing for any sort of binary check - lifting a heavy thing or breaking a door or finding a secret door. One check, one roll only - a passive check is allowed as a sort of preliminary for the roll if the situation allows it (usually when there is no pressure or time limit). A failed roll means the character can't accomplish the task, period. That rock is just too heavy for you to lift.

[HidesHisEyes]

No. Consequences for time passing are pretty standardized in most adventuring sites in my world: wandering monster checks + resources expended + need to get back to safety. Generally speaking the party needs to get to a safe place by the end of the session, or they're considered lost and another party will need to go in and retrieve them, although some locations designed for tier 2 adventures are explicitly multi-session adventures (which the players know before the session begins, although the PCs might not), but that has the additional consequence of time passes in the campaign. If I ever start incorporating hex crawl wilderness adventures It'll work the same way.

But unless you're completely winging it, it's pretty easy to build in a 'time crunch' factor into most adventures. If you don't have that, many game rules becomes pretty meaningless outside of set-piece encounters. The majority of the exploration pillar just becomes an exercise in hand-waving.

The reason wandering encounters & logistics existed in the first place was to make something that's otherwise meaningless, in-game time passing, be a meaningful resource. That said, I change up one important aspect for 5e: random encounters are worth much less 'defeated creature' XP. Otherwise players won't care about avoiding / evading them.

Have you ever written a comprehensive explanation of your method for "gamifying" the exploration pillar? If not would you consider doing so? Or do you know of any good resources online that provide something like this? Sorry to pick your brains so much but I feel it's something that is missing from the game's rules and it's hard to find tangible advice on it (possibly because the narrativist idea that such things "distract from the story" seems to be much more popular). I have some ideas of my own but it's tricky and I am more interested in building adventures than rules.


This is a neat idea and certainly addresses my six-seconds-is-meaningless point above. Out of curiosity, is it RAW? (I'm AFB). Somehow I got into my head the idea that picking a lock takes an action, end of story.

I think the rules do seem to imply that, but it seems sensible to me to say when you make a check to pick a lock it represents your whole attempt, with success representing a clean, textbook example and failure representing that you screwed up at first and had to faff around for a while.

[a_flemish_guy]

one thing that I've always read is that you house doesn't need to be totally secure against burglars, it needs to slow them down for at least 15 minutes which is when 99% of them get cold feet and give up

which is what locks do, they slow down, they don't stop

so lockpicking is a mechanic I'd only use when the party is either strapped for time or they're on a stealth mission, an chest in an abandonned ruin could have a mechanical lock but there's no reason to give lockpicking skill checks, they'll either try and try again or brute-force their way in

a mansion which is infested with guards on the other hand that's where it comes into place

[Tanarii]

Have you ever written a comprehensive explanation of your method for "gamifying" the exploration pillar? If not would you consider doing so? Or do you know of any good resources online that provide something like this? Sorry to pick your brains so much but I feel it's something that is missing from the game's rules and it's hard to find tangible advice on it (possibly because the narrativist idea that such things "distract from the story" seems to be much more popular). I have some ideas of my own but it's tricky and I am more interested in building adventures than rules.Not really. I just played enough old-school dungeon crawls, mostly in BECMI but some in AD&D 1e & 2e, that it comes naturally to me. I couldn't even articulate how I "gamify" the exploration pillar, especially in 5e. Large chunks of how I run the game are rulings using the ability check system as intended as toolbox resolution system for when that's needed, and making sure I'm aware of the underlying effect on player motivations of what I'm doing, and trying like hell to avoid "gamifying" the game as much as possible, both in and out of combat. It helps I use Theatre of the Mind, as pompous as that label is. (Edit: That said, I can't stand narrative or story interpretations of D&D. I don't want to distract from the focus of players making decisions, aka roleplaying.)

I also played LOTS of battle-mat oriented set-piece encounter type D&D from 2e Combat & Tactics through 4e. ie Tactical-mini game, Combat-as-sport, whatever you want to call it. So the difference is clear and stark to me. This holds even when encounters are non-combat, they can still be 'scenes' that you go from one to the other, each being a set-piece encounter. It's a style that works fine in 5e ... but so does not having an 'encounter swoosh', which is the same thing as the 'combat swoosh' except more generalized.

[Specter]

Specter's Cute Little Lockpicking System

Characters untrained in Thieves' Tools don't get to attempt a DEX check to open locks or disarm traps.

The DC for a simple lock (e.g. tavern room) is 10; a more elaborate one (e.g. castle gates), 15; and a masterwork lock (e.g. the lich's forbidden library), 20.

These DCs assume the player is taking his time (1-10 minutes, gambled on the die) and not trying to be quiet.

If he wants to be quick (under 1 minute), increase it by 5 too. A Thief Rogue ignores this penalty. If he wants to be silent, increase the DC by 5.

It's not perfect, but it works.

[Tanarii]

Ouch. That sucks. I regularly see non-Rogue/Criminal/Urchin characters with high dex and no tool proficiency try their hand at lock picking or disarming traps. I'd hate to nerf PCs like that. 'Proficiency only' checks are a major house rule change to the system.

[Thrudd]

Ouch. That sucks. I regularly see non-Rogue/Criminal/Urchin characters with high dex and no tool proficiency try their hand at lock picking or disarming traps. I'd hate to nerf PCs like that. 'Proficiency only' checks are a major house rule change to the system.

Well, they'd at least need to actually have a set of lock picking tools. But the way I see it, the whole point of there being tool proficiencies is that it represents something special that particular character has. They spent a proficiency on it, and that should mean something. At high levels and with expertise, I know it makes a big difference versus someone with no proficiency - but low levels is where the game is more often taking place, and at those levels a thief with tool proficiency might feel like it was a wasted choice if anyone with high dex is almost as good at it.

[Zorku]

Autopick, but I try not to stick locks on every single door or dresser. If I want a blatant waste of time to teach the party to only care about unlocking stuff they're actually interested in then there's a dormitory with a dozen beds that each have a locked chest full of clothing and maybe a little jerky or similar morsels.

You have locks on a couple of closets that only one person in the place should be getting into, on the front and back doors, and that's about it. Maybe there's some kind of gatehouse dividing the place into the nice area and the dregs. If this is really meant to keep people out then there aren't locks to pick at all, but rather some sort of portcullis or drawbridge or what have you, all of which need to be operated from inside the structure.

If I decide that there's actually some kind of external pressure riding on this then I pull from a couple of ideas I've picked up with locks, notably the type that trip from bad input, with a need to be reset by turning the key backwards before you can attempt to pick them again, and the dungeonworld style consequence of drawing unwanted attention for this. That's largely like a wandering monster situation, but most of the time I'm going to have it be some guard that runs back to their buddies, alerting the compound, and making the next fight(s) harder.


Not really. I just played enough old-school dungeon crawls, mostly in BECMI but some in AD&D 1e & 2e, that it comes naturally to me. I couldn't even articulate how I "gamify" the exploration pillar, especially in 5e. Large chunks of how I run the game are rulings using the ability check system as intended as toolbox resolution system for when that's needed, and making sure I'm aware of the underlying effect on player motivations of what I'm doing, and trying like hell to avoid "gamifying" the game as much as possible, both in and out of combat. It helps I use Theatre of the Mind, as pompous as that label is. (Edit: That said, I can't stand narrative or story interpretations of D&D. I don't want to distract from the focus of players making decisions, aka roleplaying.)

I also played LOTS of battle-mat oriented set-piece encounter type D&D from 2e Combat & Tactics through 4e. ie Tactical-mini game, Combat-as-sport, whatever you want to call it. So the difference is clear and stark to me. This holds even when encounters are non-combat, they can still be 'scenes' that you go from one to the other, each being a set-piece encounter. It's a style that works fine in 5e ... but so does not having an 'encounter swoosh', which is the same thing as the 'combat swoosh' except more generalized.

Would you be able to recount a couple of scenes from fairly recent games where you were dealing with exploration pillar material?

[ad_hoc]

One try per character with the proficiency. If they fail, it is unpickable for whatever reason. If there is no pressure or time limit, they automatically succeed if their passive dex+proficiency is high enough (take 10 on the check), if not then they need to roll.

Same thing for any sort of binary check - lifting a heavy thing or breaking a door or finding a secret door. One check, one roll only - a passive check is allowed as a sort of preliminary for the roll if the situation allows it (usually when there is no pressure or time limit). A failed roll means the character can't accomplish the task, period. That rock is just too heavy for you to lift.

What does this add to the game for you?

It seems to me that it would just make everything swingy. Characters wouldn't have basic competency in many skills as they have a huge chance at failing.

It also means that you end up with weird situations such as the character with 18 strength being unable to lift a boulder but a character with 8 strength having no problem with it.

[Specter]

Ouch. That sucks. I regularly see non-Rogue/Criminal/Urchin characters with high dex and no tool proficiency try their hand at lock picking or disarming traps. I'd hate to nerf PCs like that. 'Proficiency only' checks are a major house rule change to the system.

No, what 'sucks' is the master locksmith failing his check and then the 8 DEX paladin who knows nothing about lockpicking succeed with a half-decent roll. If you want a test of that, get some lockpicking tools today, go home and try to unlock your door. What will happen is what should happen if any realism is involved.

[Sigreid]

No, what 'sucks' is the master locksmith failing his check and then the 8 DEX paladin who knows nothing about lockpicking succeed with a half-decent roll. If you want a test of that, get some lockpicking tools today, go home and try to unlock your door. What will happen is what should happen if any realism is involved.
First lock I ever picked was one of those realestate key lock boxes when I was in the 3rd grade. It took about an hour or so, but I did it. We were moving to the house and our agent was a no show.

[Tanarii]

No, what 'sucks' is the master locksmith failing his check and then the 8 DEX paladin who knows nothing about lockpicking succeed with a half-decent roll.
'Master locksmith' isn't an adventuring profession. a:smalltongue: And who says the Dex 8 Paladin doesn't know anything about lockpicking? I mean, if he doesn't, then the player shouldn't have the PC attempt to do it, obviously. Because he'd automatically fail.

Not to mention that a person with a low bonus vs high bonus only matters if there is a time pressure, in which case both characters can't be checking at the same time. Otherwise the 'master locksmith', which I'll presume you use to mean a person with a high total bonus, will succeed anyway, because of the auto success rule. So your scenario shouldn't ever actually occur in play, if you use the 5e resolution rules as intended. What you're doing is denying someone who MIGHT have a chance in a time sensitive situation a chance to succeed. (As well as saying that a person with an Dex 16 is worse at lockpicking that one with a Dex 10 and Thieves Tool Proficiency at 1st level.)

I mean, house-rule it if you want. House-rules are a fine D&D tradition. So it wasn't fair of me to say 'it sucks', sorry about that. But this one is big enough you should warn your players in advance. It affects the core of 5e task resolution.

Edit:

Well, they'd at least need to actually have a set of lock picking tools.No reason a DM can't rule that you need a Tool to make certain checks. Or take disadvantage without it, or with a makeshift version of it. I believe the former is in even explicitly the DMG.


But the way I see it, the whole point of there being tool proficiencies is that it represents something special that particular character has. They spent a proficiency on it, and that should mean something. At high levels and with expertise, I know it makes a big difference versus someone with no proficiency - but low levels is where the game is more often taking place, and at those levels a thief with tool proficiency might feel like it was a wasted choice if anyone with high dex is almost as good at it.In the few situations Tool proficiency is required to make a check or do something, the PHB and DMG are pretty clear about calling it out.

Certainly it's easy to assume proficiency only checks for Tools (or Skills) if you come from a 3e background with Trained only being a thing. But 5e isn't 3e. The system math doesn't assume any such thing. In fact, Ability Score modifier, without proficiency, are clearly stated to include training.
"Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability."

[ad_hoc]

'Master locksmith' isn't an adventuring profession.

This is important.

Skills are just a little extra. The main things the character is trained at are the class abilities.

Expertise is a minor class ability which makes a character an expert in a skill, not a master, or grandmaster.

A wizard with proficiency in arcana knows some things but is not a loremaster. Not even if they have the sage background. Maybe if they had stuck with being a sage instead of becoming a wizard they would know more.

[Tanarii]

Mainly it focuses on the wrong thing. Proficiency is not training, or more accurately both the ability score modifier and proficiency can represent training. It also ignores that it's entirely possible to be 'trained' in everything related to the ability score by virtue of having a high ability score, and be as good or better than someone who is merely trained in one aspect of it.

For example, a Dex 14 is trained in lock picking just as well as someone with a Dex 10 and proficiency in thieves tools, if the player desires them to be. (And for many adventurers, its a reasonable talent to assume they know something of at some level.) And they're better at all the other Dex things that can be done, including Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand.

Ditto for a Int 16 Eldritch Knight. They're already 'trained' in Arcana, Nature, Religion, etc to the extent of a +3 modifier. etc etc.

Edit: Then on top of that there's the fact that it doesn't even matter as a worry in the 5e resolution system. The system doesn't assume 'one check to rule them all' situations, nor one person fails and another goes next and succeeds (where a Rogue fails, there's no failure state, and the clumsy Paladin succeeds), should ever arise. We have the DM deciding if a check is even needed, DM decision to apply Advantage/Disadvantage, passive checks, group checks, and the automatic success rule, all things that prevent 'ludicrous' resolution states from happening in the first place.

[Thrudd]

What does this add to the game for you?

It seems to me that it would just make everything swingy. Characters wouldn't have basic competency in many skills as they have a huge chance at failing.

It also means that you end up with weird situations such as the character with 18 strength being unable to lift a boulder but a character with 8 strength having no problem with it.

Not every skill or check is a "trained only" thing. Just when it is a particularly niche thing, like thief stuff or knowledge proficiencies. Knowledge is another one of those things that are a big waste if everyone is allowed to check for everything - a high INT character with proficiency in all INT checks could get away with ignoring those proficiencies entirely - and since knowledge proficiencies make up the bulk of what those types of characters get to choose from, it is really important for me to make them actually useful.

It adds verisimilitude at the appropriate level of abstraction that I believe D&D operates on, and gives particular classes niches that keep them relevant. I use passive checks for many things when there is no immediate consequence of failure, like that boulder situation. If it's a DC 15 to lift the boulder, and the passive strength score is 16 from proficiency and str bonus, then he lifts it without even rolling so long as it isn't in the middle of a combat. If it's in a combat, then he can try rolling every round if he wants to.
I actually rule that if the 18 STR character can't lift something, any character with lower strength definitely can't and doesn't even get to try. That's verisimilitude and abstraction for me, again. Likewise with knowledge checks - if the smartest guy with the proficiency in a specific subject doesn't know something, nobody else is going to, either. We're not going around with everyone rolling for everything "just in case". The non-combat passive check (and roll, if passive isn't high enough) represents the character doing his best to lift the thing for as long as it takes to get it done. The failed roll means he can't do it, no matter how long he tries. In combat, the roll represents a six second period of time in which he is trying to lift. If he fails, it just means he couldn't get it done within that time period, and maybe in the next six seconds he will adjust his grip and succeed.

If you're the strong guy, then you do the strong guy stuff. If you're the thief-y guy, you do the thief-y stuff. The only time the strong guy or anyone else should try the thief-y stuff is if the thief isn't there. We can role play everyone trying to do something they don't and shouldn't know how to do, I won't tell you that your character can't try something, if that's what you think your character would do - but it's going to be a fail. If the thief who's an expert lock picker couldn't pick the lock, you aren't going to be able to unless you are a similarly or better skilled thief. That is also how I make sure the characters feel competent at the things they are supposed to be competent in. The 8 STR guy can try to lift the boulder after the 18 STR guy fails, and it will be funny for everyone that he is delusional enough to think he can do it - but it won't succeed.

I also don't run adventures which place skill checks as barriers to progress in the adventure. That's against my philosophy, and I basically never do linear plot type adventures for D&D, period. So the consequence for not being able to unlock a door is that they will need to go someplace else or think of something else to get past the door. Failure motivates creativity.

[Tanarii]

Okay, so the 'problem' (so to speak) is you've hacked the intended uses of the 5e resolution system, breaking it in the process. Things like allowing everyone to roll for a knowledge check instead of making it a passive check (secret) or group check (everyone discussing the answer), or using passive checks for situations that don't require it (lifting a boulder out of combat). (edit: plus trying to add niche protection for skills, also not intended outside of Expertise-like class Features.)

And then you're having to hack it further to fix the stuff you broke, by adding proficiency only checks. Which FURTHER breaks the system by making a High Int / non-proficient character, who is per the PHB can be considered to be trained in Arcana, Nature, anything related to Int, and who has a higher score than a low Int / proficient character .. and making the former worse than the latter, instead of being better, as the system intentionally intends.

Mathematically, proficiency represents "about as good as an appropriately high ability score at a given level" in one small focused area. It's nice, because if you want it stacks with high ability score. Or it can substitute for it in it's one little area. But what it isn't intended in any way to mean is 'better than someone who has the same modifier from the appropriate ability score.' By definition proficiency is actually worse than ability score, since they both represent training and focus, but proficient only applies to one limited thing, not a bunch of different related things like an ability score does.

[Thrudd]

Okay, so the 'problem' (so to speak) is you've hacked the intended uses of the 5e resolution system, breaking it in the process. Things like allowing everyone to roll for a knowledge check instead of making it a passive check (secret) or group check (everyone discussing the answer), or using passive checks for situations that don't require it (lifting a boulder out of combat). (edit: plus trying to add niche protection for skills, also not intended outside of Expertise-like class Features.)

And then you're having to hack it further to fix the stuff you broke, by adding proficiency only checks. Which FURTHER breaks the system by making a High Int / non-proficient character, who is per the PHB can be considered to be trained in Arcana, Nature, anything related to Int, and who has a higher score than a low Int / proficient character .. and making the former worse than the latter, instead of being better, as the system intentionally intends.

Mathematically, proficiency represents "about as good as an appropriately high ability score at a given level" in one small focused area. It's nice, because if you want it stacks with high ability score. Or it can substitute for it in it's one little area. But what it isn't intended in any way to mean is 'better than someone who has the same modifier from the appropriate ability score.' By definition proficiency is actually worse than ability score, since they both represent training and focus, but proficient only applies to one limited thing, not a bunch of different related things like an ability score does.

I see where you're coming from and realize that I am altering the RAW or RAI in this respect. But I don't think it really breaks the math, at least not how I play. I fundamentally disagree with the direction the designers went with some of 5e, and when forced to run it (not my first choice) I am houseruling it to something closer to what I prefer.

I have players roll for abilities with a fairly strict method, and wish to downplay the overall prominence of ability scores in play and increase the importance of choice of class, abilities and proficiencies. I vehemently oppose the school of thought that classes are chassis of abilities to be fluffed to fill any role you want - my preference is for classes and subclasses to represent specific professions and the training of specific in-world organizations and religions and cultures wherever possible. What the dice give you for ability scores should be relatively meaningless next to what class and abilities you select, IMO.

[Naez]

Generally always roll for a lockpicking. checks made without thieves' tools are at a disadvantage.

If they flub the roll too hard (by more than 5) the lock jams and they have to bust whatever open, also it jams after 3 attempts if it's still not opened. Standard locks 10, Good locks 15 (most chests, rich people's houses, shops, etc.), important locks 20 (safes, gates to the palace, etc), master work locks 25 (Vaults, etc.)

Also picking a lock takes time probably 1 min minimum with longer times for more complex locks. Wandering patrols or a time limit would make that an issue.

If they then have to break open whatever it is then it draws attention from nearby enemies, or it could damage whatever object is inside, or it could set off a trap, or may they need to think of a more inventive way to get inside or take another route.

[Tanarii]

I see where you're coming from and realize that I am altering the RAW or RAI in this respect. But I don't think it really breaks the math, at least not how I play. I fundamentally disagree with the direction the designers went with some of 5e, and when forced to run it (not my first choice) I am houseruling it to something closer to what I prefer.Okay. That's fair. I prefer the 5e way that (generally speaking) the assumption is all PCs can make checks for things. If you don't, you don't.

And to be fair in return, it's an unwritten assumption, so I'm not being fair by calling it a house rule. The actual 'rule' (air quotes since it's a DMG guideline) is the DM decides what doesn't or does need a check, and what the check is if one is needed. So a DM is technically exercising that judgement if he sets restrictions on who can make a check, and for that matter sets different DCs for different characters.

But IMO it's worth making sure the players understand what you'll be doing first. It hugely impacts their character creation choices. Otoh pretty much whatever the DM decides to do under his DM judgement on how to arbitrate/resolve will. For example, how frequently he calls for checks and what standard he uses for them (e.g. Mostly Easy 10 or mostly Medium 15 or whatever).

[mephnick]

my preference is for classes and subclasses to represent specific professions and the training of specific in-world organizations and religions and cultures wherever possible. What the dice give you for ability scores should be relatively meaningless next to what class and abilities you select, IMO.

I see a lot of people with that view and it's fine to play that way, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the system assumes your profession is "Adventurer" 100% of the time and works quite well if you use it that way. But we constantly get people who say the system doesn't make sense because they don't understand the design philosophy behind it, so we need to be clear on how the system is supposed to work RAW and RAI.

That's why I always roll my eyes when people complain about not being able to create master craftsmen, or spies, or demand in depth crafting rules and then blame the system. You're not a blacksmith or a surgeon or a politician. You're an adventurer who can kind of do some of those things, sometimes, if you have to. Your character's profession is "not dying while raiding tombs and fighting monsters". Most of your skills are aimed towards that and everyone is considered competent at it with some being slightly more consistent than others. Loremasters are stuffed in a library. Master craftsmen slave over their forges all day. Experienced politicians wine and dine and hold endless meetings. These are NPC's and you aren't supposed to make one of those. You're supposed to make an adventurer.

Side-rant aimed at no one in particular:

If you ignore the system and decide to play political intrigue, or mystery, or business craftsmen, or something like that, you dont get to complain that the system doesn't work well. It's not supposed to do those things, no matter what BS WotC is always spouting about being the system for any story you want. The system is entirely based around a group of adventurers (all of them being adventurers, not hesitant or useless tagalongs) exploring the wilderness, raiding dungeons and entering conflicts. If you find that boring, choose another system, there's hundreds of them. Don't try and twist D&D into something it's not and then complain when it doesn't work.

[Thrudd]

I see a lot of people with that view and it's fine to play that way, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the system assumes your profession is "Adventurer" 100% of the time and works quite well if you use it that way. But we constantly get people who say the system doesn't make sense because they don't understand the design philosophy behind it, so we need to be clear on how the system is supposed to work RAW and RAI.

That's why I always roll my eyes when people complain about not being able to create master craftsmen, or spies, or demand in depth crafting rules and then blame the system. You're not a blacksmith or a surgeon or a politician. You're an adventurer who can kind of do some of those things, sometimes, if you have to. Your character's profession is "not dying while raiding tombs and fighting monsters". Most of your skills are aimed towards that and everyone is considered competent at it with some being slightly more consistent than others. Loremasters are stuffed in a library. Master craftsmen slave over their forges all day. Experienced politicians wine and dine and hold endless meetings. These are NPC's and you aren't supposed to make one of those. You're supposed to make an adventurer.

Side-rant aimed at no one in particular:

If you ignore the system and decide to play political intrigue, or mystery, or business craftsmen, or something like that, you dont get to complain that the system doesn't work well. It's not supposed to do those things, no matter what BS WotC is always spouting about being the system for any story you want. The system is entirely based around a group of adventurers (all of them being adventurers, not hesitant or useless tagalongs) exploring the wilderness, raiding dungeons and entering conflicts. If you find that boring, choose another system, there's hundreds of them. Don't try and twist D&D into something it's not and then complain when it doesn't work.

Oh, I totally agree that all the classes are "adventurers" by trade, first and foremost, and all characters should be designed under this assumption. I would never run D&D as anything but a dungeon-delving, wilderness-exploring adventure game - it really doesn't work as anything else. I just want to emphasize the different strategic niche of each class so that party composition is an important element of planning and ensure each class has clear situations where they are definitely necessary or the optimal choice. I don't want a party of six nearly identical adventurers that can all basically do anything, who each have slightly different flavored forms of damage and a couple +1's shifted in different places.
I also want to make sure the decision of class and background is far more relevant than the fact that someone rolled two 18's somehow. The proficiencies from Backgrounds combined with classes and sub classes, never mind feats, allows for very individualized and varied characters, so I don't think that giving more weight to those proficiencies versus standard ability checks throws off the balance of the game.

I actually want 5e to be more "D&D" than it already is.

[CaptainSarathai]

The system doesn't assume 'one check to rule them all' situations, nor one person fails and another goes next and succeeds (where a Rogue fails, there's no failure state, and the clumsy Paladin succeeds), should ever arise
It should be noted that I see the
"Fighter can't lift a boulder" example a lot, and it's actually wrong. The PHB gives you a hard value for the weight that your character can push/pull and lift. There is no roll for that, you either can or can't or need help. That's not what Athletics is for.
----

As far as picking locks, the Tool proficiencies already have a built-in requirement: you need the actual tool.
Proficiency with Thieves Tools is worthless if you don't actually have the tools. If the rogue is trying to pick the lock with her hair-pin and not her set of Tools, then she doesn't get her proficiency bonus, representing how difficult the task is without proper equipment.

And as far as Lockpicking and skill checks in general - the penalty for failure is either a trap, or time. If time doesn't matter and you still want to penalize failure, then you either need an alternate means to the same end (climb through a window, bust down the door, etc) or you need a distinct punishment (springs a trap, sounds an alarm, alerts the occupants).

This is exactly how I use any trap or locked door, and the "alternate way around" really informs a lot of what I do.
Usually, for a door, I try to have one or the other with an elevated DC. If it's a really good lock, there's a fault in the door: bust it down and make noise. If it's a really good door, you'll need to pick the lock: this takes time and you need to cover the thief.
I do the same with traps. If it's easy to spot, it's harder to disarm or does more damage. Easy to disarm, and it's harder to spot.

You should only lock doors or install traps where it makes sense to do so: either from a "living world" perspective (most homes don't lock interior doors) or because it suits the game situation.
I had an encounter where an interior door was locked. Didn't really make sense from a realism perspective, but the room was full of angry spiders and the party was trying to escape quickly; a locked door took a rather "run of the mill" spider encounter and made the party sweat just a little bit more. The extra tension made it a memorable encounter and managed to burn some resources (Guidance).

[Tanarii]

I also want to make sure the decision of class and background is far more relevant than the fact that someone rolled two 18's somehow. The proficiencies from Backgrounds combined with classes and sub classes, never mind feats, allows for very individualized and varied characters, so I don't think that giving more weight to those proficiencies versus standard ability checks throws off the balance of the game.

I actually want 5e to be more "D&D" than it already is.
You want it to be considerably less D&D than it already is. Basic & AD&D the general rule was: anyone can do anything other than their class features by describing it to the DM, and the DM decides how to resolve it.

Thieves had some exceptionally almost impossible things they could do on top of that, like Hide in Very Shadows, Move Completely Soundlessly, Climb Impossible to Climb Surfaces, Find Traps others would Overlook. (To use names that represent what their abilities actually did.) But anyone could attempt to do any non-combat / spell thing they wanted. There was no special 'niche' other than that.

3e added a specific resolution method for DMs to use for those non-niche tasks. 5e also does that, just with an extra emphasis on DM flexibility in determining if a check is actually needed, and setting target numbers if so. (Edit: And Rogues class feature is to have exceptional ability to do things everyone else can already do, as per earlier editions.)

So the 5e way is very much D&D. And your 'niche protection' absolutely isn't.

IMO yadda yadda yadda :smallbiggrin:

That said, what's even more D&D is changing the game to work the way you want it to work. :smallwink:

[Nefariis]

In my games I've actually added a physical component to lock picking.

Do you guys remember this game? -- MasterMind (https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/blogs/geekmom/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Game.png)

What I do is -
- choose the difficulty of the lock 1-6 (which corresponds to the number of possible colors),
- player rolls and adds bonuses/proficiency
- for each multiple of 5 in his roll, it subtracts 1 possible color from the answer
- then he actually has to solve the puzzle in 5 turns

If he gets solve it, the door/lock opens, if he fails, the lock breaks and no more attempts.

It has actually made lock picking a little more fun and definitely more intense.

Our resident rogue seems to love the puzzles and it actually makes everyone at the table feel like he is physically trying to pick a lock.

All and all it's been a good change and it only adds 3-5 minutes to the skill check.

[HidesHisEyes]

Not really. I just played enough old-school dungeon crawls, mostly in BECMI but some in AD&D 1e & 2e, that it comes naturally to me. I couldn't even articulate how I "gamify" the exploration pillar, especially in 5e. Large chunks of how I run the game are rulings using the ability check system as intended as toolbox resolution system for when that's needed, and making sure I'm aware of the underlying effect on player motivations of what I'm doing, and trying like hell to avoid "gamifying" the game as much as possible, both in and out of combat. It helps I use Theatre of the Mind, as pompous as that label is. (Edit: That said, I can't stand narrative or story interpretations of D&D. I don't want to distract from the focus of players making decisions, aka roleplaying.)

I also played LOTS of battle-mat oriented set-piece encounter type D&D from 2e Combat & Tactics through 4e. ie Tactical-mini game, Combat-as-sport, whatever you want to call it. So the difference is clear and stark to me. This holds even when encounters are non-combat, they can still be 'scenes' that you go from one to the other, each being a set-piece encounter. It's a style that works fine in 5e ... but so does not having an 'encounter swoosh', which is the same thing as the 'combat swoosh' except more generalized.

Interesting. Maybe it's just a matter of experience then, as I only started DMing with 5E. I agree the basic resolution mechanic is wonderfully powerful when used properly, but I still feel that, apart from in combat, I'm on my own in the task of making everything into compelling gameplay. Combat had a structure - turn order, action economy, hit points - that means it takes care of itself in that respect, but other aspects of gameplay really don't. As I said, it's possible to do things on a case by case basis, looking to the story to determine the cost of failure in each situation - but when the situation doesn't immediately suggest anything, and I find it often doesn't, what do you do? You can either contrive something, which takes effort and results in something that seems, well, contrived - or you can just let it go and not make a gameplay element out of it, but doing that all the time leads to a game in which 80 or 90 per cent of the actual gameplay is combat and most other things are handwaved, which is what I'd like to get away from.

[90sMusic]

I usually handle lockpicking like this...

Natural 1 breaks that particular lockpick off inside the locking mechanism and you can no longer attempt to unlock it.

Each time they try to pick the lock, have a contested roll against the perception of creatures on the other side of the door. If it takes multiple attempts, it's far more likely they'll be warned that someone is about to come through that door and they can be ready for the party.

And of course, you can always actually put a time pressure on them to make each of those failed attempts hurt them by costing them time and making them spend their turns picking a lock instead of doing anything else.

Also, locks can be trapped. If they don't notice and they just try to pick it instead of trying to disarm the trap first, that can end badly for them as well.

Aside from that, lockpicking honestly doesn't really need any additional arbitrary penalties. I mean do you penalize players who fail to make that athletics check to climb a wall by suddenly declaring "THE WALL IS NO LONGER CLIMBABLE BY YOU!"? Or do you say that if you fail to break down a door instantly with a strength check that it can no longer be attempted? It is very silly to put arbitrary restrictions on things. The limitation of lockpicking is requiring you to have thieves' tools which aren't readily available. Aside from rogues starting with them, getting your hands on them should require obtaining them from some shady individuals or stealing them off the body of a burglar of some sort, they don't just grow on trees nor are they just laying around for sale at general goods stores.

If someone is playing a rogue and has thieves tools and proficiency in using thieves tools, for goodness sake just let them be able to use their equipment and skills without you arbitrarily penalizing them because you just don't like that thieves tools do what they do. There is nothing wrong with players feeling heroic or useful in a party. There are ways to make those failures matter without just cutting them off after one failed attempt.

[90sMusic]

I see a lot of people with that view and it's fine to play that way, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the system assumes your profession is "Adventurer" 100% of the time and works quite well if you use it that way. But we constantly get people who say the system doesn't make sense because they don't understand the design philosophy behind it, so we need to be clear on how the system is supposed to work RAW and RAI.

That's why I always roll my eyes when people complain about not being able to create master craftsmen, or spies, or demand in depth crafting rules and then blame the system. You're not a blacksmith or a surgeon or a politician. You're an adventurer who can kind of do some of those things, sometimes, if you have to. Your character's profession is "not dying while raiding tombs and fighting monsters". Most of your skills are aimed towards that and everyone is considered competent at it with some being slightly more consistent than others. Loremasters are stuffed in a library. Master craftsmen slave over their forges all day. Experienced politicians wine and dine and hold endless meetings. These are NPC's and you aren't supposed to make one of those. You're supposed to make an adventurer.

Side-rant aimed at no one in particular:

If you ignore the system and decide to play political intrigue, or mystery, or business craftsmen, or something like that, you dont get to complain that the system doesn't work well. It's not supposed to do those things, no matter what BS WotC is always spouting about being the system for any story you want. The system is entirely based around a group of adventurers (all of them being adventurers, not hesitant or useless tagalongs) exploring the wilderness, raiding dungeons and entering conflicts. If you find that boring, choose another system, there's hundreds of them. Don't try and twist D&D into something it's not and then complain when it doesn't work.

You might "be an adventurer" but that isn't all you are as a person. You have backgrounds for a reason and you could be a member of a smithing guild or something along those lines without houseruling or homebrewing a single thing, that is straight out of the PHB. So let's assume for a moment your adventurer retires, you're saying if you're a fighter the only potential job opportunities you have in the future are overqualified soldier, overqualified guard, or overqualified gladiator? They could never resume their life as a blacksmith?

I disagree with your analysis of the situation. The reason the system DOES actually have rules in place for crafting a lot of things, it even has rules for how long and how much money it costs to repair a boat after it sustains battle on the high seas. The only thing it doesn't have is rules dictating the creation of magical items and the REASON it doesn't has nothing to do with adventurers being inept at crafting and only able to do very "basic and general" things with their skills, the one and only reason is because WOTC wanted magical items in 5e to work differently and be acquired entirely through adventure. They don't want you to have magical item shops in your campaign either anymore. Both of these things are departures from older editions and it was just some kind of game balance reason for it existing, probably because the nature of magical weapons that add +1 or more to attack and damage are so much more significant in 5e than in older editions.

The adventuring party are experts at their chosen skills and can do amazing things with them, not just mediocre activities that anyone could do. Some can climb an almost sheer cliff face, some can spot every potential trap triggering mechanism in an entire room with a glance, some can talk dragons into giving up a portion of their hoard to charity, some are so adept at tracking they know where something went, how many were there, if they were especially heavy for whatever reason, and so on. Adventurers are AMAZING at their skills and abilities, they have to be in order to be heroes. And again, you could've been a sage who WAS locked up in a library who spent all their time learning before becoming an adventurer. That is why older editions had age tables for different classes because some, like wizards, had to spend most of their life studying long before they were adept enough to even shoot sparkles from their fingers. 5e did away with that as a hard rule, but your character's background and history is entirely up to you and Sage and Craftsman are both valid possibilities straight from the player's handbook.

[Tanarii]

Interesting. Maybe it's just a matter of experience then, as I only started DMing with 5E. I agree the basic resolution mechanic is wonderfully powerful when used properly, but I still feel that, apart from in combat, I'm on my own in the task of making everything into compelling gameplay. Combat had a structure - turn order, action economy, hit points - that means it takes care of itself in that respect, but other aspects of gameplay really don't.Maybe you need something like this:
http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

[HidesHisEyes]

I see a lot of people with that view and it's fine to play that way, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the system assumes your profession is "Adventurer" 100% of the time and works quite well if you use it that way. But we constantly get people who say the system doesn't make sense because they don't understand the design philosophy behind it, so we need to be clear on how the system is supposed to work RAW and RAI.

That's why I always roll my eyes when people complain about not being able to create master craftsmen, or spies, or demand in depth crafting rules and then blame the system. You're not a blacksmith or a surgeon or a politician. You're an adventurer who can kind of do some of those things, sometimes, if you have to. Your character's profession is "not dying while raiding tombs and fighting monsters". Most of your skills are aimed towards that and everyone is considered competent at it with some being slightly more consistent than others. Loremasters are stuffed in a library. Master craftsmen slave over their forges all day. Experienced politicians wine and dine and hold endless meetings. These are NPC's and you aren't supposed to make one of those. You're supposed to make an adventurer.

Side-rant aimed at no one in particular:

If you ignore the system and decide to play political intrigue, or mystery, or business craftsmen, or something like that, you dont get to complain that the system doesn't work well. It's not supposed to do those things, no matter what BS WotC is always spouting about being the system for any story you want. The system is entirely based around a group of adventurers (all of them being adventurers, not hesitant or useless tagalongs) exploring the wilderness, raiding dungeons and entering conflicts. If you find that boring, choose another system, there's hundreds of them. Don't try and twist D&D into something it's not and then complain when it doesn't work.

We've gone way off the original topic but I want to express my total agreement with this!

[The_Jette]

I've got a bit of a homebrew here. I basically give every lock a rating between one and fifteen. If the characters aren't in a hurry, and their thieves' tools bonus is equal to or higher than the rating, they automatically unlock it. If they are in a hurry, i.e. combat, or the bonus is lower, then I give them a roll to unlock it. The roll DC is 10 + the rating, which is essentially the same as the book calls for, but in my mind a little easier, since a basic lock has a DC of 15. So, in that situation, if the rogues is 1st level, is trained with Thieves' Tools, and has at least a +3 to Dex, he unlocks it without a roll. If he's in a hurry, he still has a 55% chance of unlocking it. Same Rogue with Expertise with Thieves' Tools only needs a Dex bonus of +1 to get the same result. Once you get into the high levels, a mastwork lock would have a DC of 25, and a rating of 15. That Rogue, with expertise and a +3 Dex bonus, has a +15 bonus. He unlocks it without a check, unless he's in a hurry. If he only had a +2 Dex (for a +14), he'd still have to make a roll. Temporary bonuses don't count into this, though.

[Tanarii]

I've got a bit of a homebrew here. I basically give every lock a rating between one and fifteen. If the characters aren't in a hurry, and their thieves' tools bonus is equal to or higher than the rating, they automatically unlock it.for reference, the DMG automatic success guideline is: if it's possible at all, you can do it with ten times as long. I've adjudicated that as: if you could do it with 20+bonus. With the normal caveat, if it's not just an automatic failure or success already, so a roll would be needed at all. (edit: ie a roll if 'in a hurry')

I get that your kinda home brewing. But pointing out that automatically succeeding on DC 15 at first level when not in a hurry is pretty different from automatically succeeding on DC 25 at first level given ten times as long amount of not in a hurry under the DMG guideline. It makes it considerably harder.

[HidesHisEyes]

Maybe you need something like this:
http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

Thanks! I had been re-reading his megadungeon series now that he's gone back to it, so I hadn't seen this article yet. Looking forward to reading it.

EDIT now that I've read it: this is going to change D&D for me in a big way. Angry is really onto something good here.