Duration of a Thieves' Tools Check?

[Gurifu]

Is disabling a lock or trap with Thieves' Tools supposed to take place in a single action? Thief Rogue getting to do it as a Cunning Bonus Action seems to indicate that it is. But that can't be right, can it? I feel like any lock or trap that requires the use of Thieves' Tools (instead of an expired credit card and an ill-spent childhood) should take several full turns, at a minimum.

[imanidiot]

Is disabling a lock or trap with Thieves' Tools supposed to take place in a single action? Thief Rogue getting to do it as a Cunning Bonus Action seems to indicate that it is. But that can't be right, can it? I feel like any lock or trap that requires the use of Thieves' Tools (instead of an expired credit card and an ill-spent childhood) should take several full turns, at a minimum.

Keep in mind that the locks they are picking are far less secure than modern ones. Any trained locksmith would be able to pick a typical lock from the 1600's in just a few seconds.

[Hrugner]

RAW it takes a single action to use an object to do a thing. You could get around this by requiring multiple use object actions to unlock more difficult doors, but you'd probably irritate the fast hands rogue and slow down the game at a point where most of the other player's are being excluded.

[Tanarii]

IMO it's however long the DM says it is. It could take a single action, or several actions.

Also, don't forget if there's no time pressure or failure other than not succeeding, it's possible to take ten times as long and automatically succeed, so long as success is possible. Obviously that doesn't matter if you're in combat, or dealing with a trap designed to trigger or lock to break if jiggers wrong. But otherwise you just keep trying until you get it, so long as that's possible.

[Kane0]

If that were the case you wouldnt have to roll at all, cause the outcome isnt in doubt nor is there a consequence for failure.

Anyways, i envision it like the chick from bioshock infinite. You're a PC after all, if youre trained in theives tool's you're a hero with fingers like skeleton keys.

[RSP]

IMO it's however long the DM says it is. It could take a single action, or several actions.

Also, don't forget if there's no time pressure or failure other than not succeeding, it's possible to take ten times as long and automatically succeed, so long as success is possible. Obviously that doesn't matter if you're in combat, or dealing with a trap designed to trigger or lock to break if jiggers wrong. But otherwise you just keep trying until you get it, so long as that's possible.

RAW, taking the Action to use thieves tools ten times in a row falls under Passive Ability Checks (10+prof+mod), rather than an auto success, as you're doing the same Action repeatedly.

[Tanarii]

If that were the case you wouldnt have to roll at all, cause the outcome isnt in doubt nor is there a consequence for failure.
That is correct. If you have ten times as long, you don't have to roll at all. The outcome is not in doubt if there is no consequence for failure, and all you need is time, and you have the time to try repeatedly.

This makes perfect sense of course. It's kind of crazy they had to explicitly spell it out to DMs. But they did. (Edit: It's worth noting this is basically 5e's version of the 'Take 20' rule.)


RAW, taking the Action to use thieves tools ten times in a row falls under Passive Ability Checks (10+prof+mod), rather than an auto success, as you're doing the same Action repeatedly.That is not correct. DMG p. 237 under Ability Checks.

The passive rule is for if you're doing a task over and over again, but only one result matters, so you need the average result. Not sure how that would translate to using Thieves Tools. Disarm a row of traps, only one of which is real? Or a secret result. Picking locks you didn't even know was there? I'm sure someone else can think of a way it might apply. :smallbiggrin:

[RSP]

That is not correct. DMG p. 237 under Ability Checks.

The passive rule is for if you're doing a task over and over again, but only one result matters, so you need the average result. Not sure how that would translate to using Thieves Tools. Disarm a row of traps, only one of which is real? Or a secret result. Picking locks you didn't even know was there? I'm sure someone else can think of a way it might apply. :smallbiggrin:

I was correct. The rule is for doing the same Action repeatedly. In this case: "I use my theives tools to unlock the door." If your DM allows multiple checks, it falls into repeated action; that is, you're doing the same thing over and over (presumably until you succeed). The DM is well within the RAW to call for the Passive score and move on, rather than just having the character repeatedly roll over and over again (which is what I believe one of the exact intents of the Passive mechanic is meant for: to avoid slowing the game down with rolls).

[Tanarii]

I was correct. The rule is for doing the same Action repeatedly. In this case: "I use my theives tools to unlock the door."IMO that is not the intent of the rule. The intent is when you are doing something repeatedly, but different, over and over again. And need the average result at any given point when the actual check is needed.

Walking along a corridor searching is a perfect example of that. You're repeatedly looking for something, but not in the same spot. If you're searching the same spot, and take ten times as long, the DMG automatic success rule should apply. Not the passive checks rule.

Same for unlocking a lock, or disabling a trap. Assuming there is no consequence for failure except using up time.

The DM is not only 'well within his rights' to use automatic success (as opposed to passive) in this case to avoid a roll, he's explicitly directed to.

[RSP]

IMO that is not the intent of the rule. The intent is when you are doing something repeatedly, but different, over and over again. And need the average result at any given point when the actual check is needed.

Walking along a corridor searching is a perfect example of that. You're repeatedly looking for something, but not in the same spot. If you're searching the same spot, and take ten times as long, the DMG automatic success rule should apply. Not the passive checks rule.

Same for unlocking a lock, or disabling a trap. Assuming there is no consequence for failure except using up time.

The DM is not only 'well within his rights' to use automatic success (as opposed to passive) in this case to avoid a roll, he's explicitly directed to.

They're all legit options for the DM, to cover different playstyles or in-game situations; I wouldn't discount Passive as an option anymore than one of the others.

If it doesn't fit a particular DM's style, cool, but it's still a valid option RAW.

[Thrudd]

I think it would make sense for the DM to dictate how long a given trap or lock would generally take to disable/pick. Maybe on a nat 20 or any result over 20, the time is reduced by some amount, like cut in half, maybe. But regardless, I agree that those types of operations generally should not be able to be completed in the course of a 6 second combat round. I'd think minimum of 30 seconds to a minute. How long are 5e's exploration rounds/turns now? I mean, a thief could be working on a lock while combat is going on, but the rest of the party will need to keep enemies away from him, and it is likely the fighting will be done by the time the lock is picked.

It's possible some traps could be disabled more quickly than that, but again this is an attribute the DM should give to each trap based on logic guided by how complex it and its mechanisms are.

[imanidiot]

Is disabling a lock or trap with Thieves' Tools supposed to take place in a single action? Thief Rogue getting to do it as a Cunning Bonus Action seems to indicate that it is. But that can't be right, can it? I feel like any lock or trap that requires the use of Thieves' Tools (instead of an expired credit card and an ill-spent childhood) should take several full turns, at a minimum.

Here's a video of a guy picking 4 modern locks in less than 2 minutes without even trying. The quickest one takes him 2-3 seconds.

https://youtu.be/yx-Boa4GNPI

[Zejety]

I had this come up yesterday in a time sensitive situation (random encounter roll every 10 minutes).
I ruled that a successful roll took almost no time at all, but a failed roll represented the character trying and failing for 10 minutes.
I'd add some granularity if it came up more often but this worked fine in the situation and I feel like it was a believable adjucation.

[Tanarii]

How long are 5e's exploration rounds/turns now? technically, they aren't. But effectively, you can make them 10 minutes, like classic was. If you look at spells and light sources, they almost all have durations of 1 min (ie combat), 10 min (one turn of exploration) or 1 hr + (multiple turns of exploration).

It also means that making a single check (open locks, disabling a trap, searching a specific area) out of combat cover 1 minute is perfect. Because then the players can choose to take 10 minutes instead to automatically succeed if it's possible, per the DMG automatic success rule.

Which only matters if you have consequences for Time outside of combat, of course.

[Thrudd]

Here's a video of a guy picking 4 modern locks in less than 2 minutes without even trying. The quickest one takes him 2-3 seconds.

https://youtu.be/yx-Boa4GNPI

Irrelevant. Unless the thief already has the tools at the ready and just happens to have analyzed the lock and has the right tools for the job in hand. Otherwise, the time spent "using thief tools" is partly the time to take them out of your pack, analyze the lock or device in question, select the appropriate tools, and then actually perform the operation.

[Gurifu]

Here's a video of a guy picking 4 modern locks in less than 2 minutes without even trying. The quickest one takes him 2-3 seconds.

https://youtu.be/yx-Boa4GNPI

For what it's worth, 4 locks in 2 minutes still averages to 5 full rounds per check.

[imanidiot]

Irrelevant. Unless the thief already has the tools at the ready and just happens to have analyzed the lock and has the right tools for the job in hand. Otherwise, the time spent "using thief tools" is partly the time to take them out of your pack, analyze the lock or device in question, select the appropriate tools, and then actually perform the operation.

It shows that it is at least possible to pick a lock extremely quickly. I don't know of anyone that can make 9 effective attacks with a Greatsword in 6 seconds either.