Lockpicking Skill: Useless?

[BlizzardSucks80]

I have played in many D&D games and other systems over the years. Never have I ever seen the Lockpicking skill come up that much or even be necessary when you think it would be.
Playing at the table is a lot different from playing video games like the Elder Scrolls. I mean, in Skyrim, Oblivion, etc. the Lockpicking skill does come up quite a bit and is important if you want to get all that sweet loot or break into people's houses. And you want to know why? Because containers and doors in those games are indestructible or simply can't be attacked.


In D&D, whenever a locked door or container comes up, the first response is just to have Buff McMuscles Dude smash it. He might have to roll 7000 Strength checks to get there, but eventually it gets done, and then you have your loot or be able to progress to the next room. Meanwhile the Rogue is sitting there with her arms crossed and a chip on her shoulder.
And what's worse? Mages, man. Friggin'...mages. Some of them can cast spells that make that whole Unlocking minigame pointless.

And if worse comes to worse, and Buff McMuscles sprains his Mighty Biceps or something, or Mage Man runs out of spells, there's always a key. The GM may not hand you the key freely all the time, but that GM is a dum dum if he keeps it away from the players intentionally. Even if you have to fight, or sneak around, or do some puzzles, you can still get that key.


The point I'm trying to make here is, since there is already so many ways to deal with a locked door or chest, why bother even having a Lockpicking skill at all? You can always just say, "Yeah, my character is or was a thief at some point so he knows how to pick locks just fine. Alls he needs is a bit of alone time with that sweet sweet lock. *wink*"


I had designed a system recently and in its 1st version there was a Lockpicking skill. But after playtesting it enough I realized that skill was unnecessary, so I took it out.

What do you guys think?

[OldTrees1]

Does noise matter? Strong guy and magic guy are loud.
Does time matter? Strong guy will take time and sometimes even the magic guy is too slow (see any lock in a death trap).
Does resource management matter? Magic guy expends resources.
Does breaking in vs using the key matter? Strong guy and magic guy fail this riddle when present.
Does the trap matter? Strong guy and magic guy spring the trap.

I use a Mechanism skill to represent Locks, Traps, and other Mechanisms.

[LibraryOgre]

Does noise matter? Strong guy and magic guy are loud.
Does time matter? Strong guy will take time and sometimes even the magic guy is too slow (see any lock in a death trap).
Does resource management matter? Magic guy expends resources.
Does breaking in vs using the key matter? Strong guy and magic guy fail this riddle when present.
Does the trap matter? Strong guy and magic guy spring the trap.

I use a Mechanism skill to represent Locks, Traps, and other Mechanisms.

Very much this. AD&D, especially 1e, derived a good chunk of your XP from treasure, to the point where you frequently wanted to sneak in, steal everything, and leave, since that maximized your XP to lost HP. Bashing open a chest or door made noise, and made it more likely that dungeon denizens would come to investigate... either drawn off set encounters or pulled off the random encounter chart.

[Mastikator]

One game I played did well to roll lockpicking, pickpocketing, finding hidden stuff and even sneak attacks and all general thief/rogue/bandit stuff into a single skill sort of called "Secrecy" (doesn't translate well). Thieves just put points into this skill and if lockpicking never came up then that was fine because the skill was also used to sneaking around or pickpocketing or something else that did come up a lot.

This was in a game with fewer supernatural elements and the ones that were in were less fantastical so a warrior would be unlikely to have super human strength (but of course a horse does have super human strength and a roles are easy to come by so...)

[Koo Rehtorb]

In no roleplaying game ever should the result of a failed test be "nothing happens, try again". On a fighter failing to smash down a door the kindest thing I would possibly say would be "the door is too strong for you to break down, try something else". And most likely it would be something a lot worse than that.

[Morty]

A locked door isn't a challenge to a group of adventurers. Opening it quickly, quietly or in such a way that no one knows it happened might be, though. But a locked door in itself is just a thin barrier. Treating rogues as "the locks and traps guys/gals" is a problem on its own.

[Thrudd]

If you are going to use skills and rolls for lock picking, breaking stuff, finding stuff, etc., then the game and GM should enforce the results of failing the rolls. If you fail a lock pick, the lock doesn't get opened, they'll need to think of something, else. If the strength test to break the door fails, then the door doesn't break, period. Think of something else. If you allow repeated checks until something succeeds, you might as well not have a check. So as a GM or game designer you need to consider the circumstances in the game where different mechanics will be used and what it is exactly the rolls are meant to determine.

If you are going to allow success no matter what, and the consequences only involve time spent and/or noise made, then just have the roll determine how long it takes or how noisy it gets rather than whether or not the lock is picked or door is broken. Of course, this means the game needs to have real consequences for time spent and noise made, or else determining that is pointless, too.

If some mechanic seems pointless in your game, that either means you shouldn't be using it or you are not playing the game properly.

[Knightofvictory]

I've played a few games in my time with rogue players, and I can't imagine the game without lockpicking, or at least a 'thievery' skill. Lockpicking seems to come up more in "city" based games, where you want to sneak into a backroom while no one is looking, or break into a house without alerting the city watch. Most casters I know don't want to prepare a precious spell to do what the rogue can do anyway. Also, some editions specify that Knock spells make a loud knocking sound when you cast it.

Even in dungeons, I've played with several DMs that roll a percentile dice to see if you accidentally break fragile loot (wands, scrolls, jewelry) when forcibly smashing a treasure chest.

[Deophaun]

For D&D, PF rolled Open Lock into Disable Device. 4th rolled it into Thievery. 5th made it a plain Dex check. As editions rolled on it became clear that devoting resources solely to lockpicking was a sucker's game. So while lockpicking itself may not be useless, it's recognized that the opportunity cost made specializing in it not worthwhile.

[Darth Ultron]

The skill is not useless, of course, but it really depends on the type of gameplay.

If your playing a all combat smash and loot type game, then picking locks and just about all non combat skills won't even come up. There are other types of games.

And it's true of all feats, skills and even rules: they really are only useful if your game play style uses them in the first place.

You just need to find the right game style.

[Nifft]

One game I played did well to roll lockpicking, pickpocketing, finding hidden stuff and even sneak attacks and all general thief/rogue/bandit stuff into a single skill sort of called "Secrecy" (doesn't translate well).

Exalted used the word Larceny as the skill umbrella for that type of stuff.

5th made it a plain Dex check.

Actually 5e has it hidden in a tool proficiency, which costs the same as any skill proficiency, and as a Rogue you can take Expertise in that proficiency.

So in 5e D&D it's still the same pay-a-whole-skill game for that competency.

[Mastikator]

Exalted used the word Larceny as the skill umbrella for that type of stuff.

YES larceny!
The system wasn't exalted, but I have seen this in exalted and I was impressed with this decision.

Unless you're playing a heist game where everyone is a thief and everyone is highly specialized in one area of larceny it just makes sense to roll these up into one skill.

[Thrawn4]

Once again I laugh at the mess that is D&D...
Anyway, in all the RPGs I have played over the years, lockpicking has never been useless, quite the contrary, because usually magic is rare/expensive and fighters rarely have superhuman strength.
Isn't that the reason why there are tiers in D&D? I mean, it's not official, but it is a widely recognized issue, isn't it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually 5e has it hidden in a tool proficiency, which costs the same as any skill proficiency, and as a Rogue you can take Expertise in that proficiency.

So in 5e D&D it's still the same pay-a-whole-skill game for that competency.

Except that

a) rogues get proficiency in Thieves Tools for free
b) anyone else can get it for free from a background
c) other than that, you have to use the downtime training rules to get it. You can't buy it with a skill proficiency at character creation.

Oddly enough, it's also the only "normal" check that both requires proficiency and requires having a toolkit on hand. It's exactly the same as the other tool proficiencies, but it comes up much more frequently IME.

[Avigor]

Another question worth considering is whether not picking a chest might break the contents. How do you know it's not filled with potions bottles that'll shatter if you smash the top in? What if the lock mechanism or hinges have some alchemical or magical contingency installed so they explode if they are broken or exposed to magic (at least more than a detection)?

Doors could also trigger a trap if not opened properly.

Ultimately it depends on the DM, but yeah there are other considerations.

[Deophaun]

Anyway, in all the RPGs I have played over the years, lockpicking has never been useless, quite the contrary, because usually magic is rare/expensive and fighters rarely have superhuman strength.

You don't need superhuman strength. Doors can be kicked in or just sworded to death. Depending on your setting, a gun is perfectly capable of disabling a lock. Padlocks come off with bolt cutters or a pair of wrenches.

It's really only in safe-cracking that you need either lots of skill or really expensive and hard to move equipment. Regular locks are nothing more than speedbumps.

Another question worth considering is whether not picking a chest might break the contents. How do you know it's not filled with potions bottles that'll shatter if you smash the top in? What if the lock mechanism or hinges have some alchemical or magical contingency installed so they explode if they are broken or exposed to magic (at least more than a detection)?

While fine for game purposes, these kinds of defenses--like traps--rarely make practical sense. It's just strange to protect your physical treasures by having something nearby that can accidentally destroy them. Now, if you wanted to guard, say, the plans to your super secret doomsday weapon, having a contingency that will destroy them to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands makes sense, as a security breach there puts that super secret doomsday weapon at risk.

Potions, though? Destroying them doesn't protect you from anything. You're just spending money to spite thieves while also risking it going off accidentally whenever you try to retrieve one.

[jindra34]

While fine for game purposes, these kinds of defenses--like traps--rarely make practical sense. It's just strange to protect your physical treasures by having something nearby that can accidentally destroy them. Now, if you wanted to guard, say, the plans to your super secret doomsday weapon, having a contingency that will destroy them to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands makes sense, as a security breach there puts that super secret doomsday weapon at risk.

Potions, though? Destroying them doesn't protect you from anything. You're just spending money to spite thieves while also risking it going off accidentally whenever you try to retrieve one.

I think my preferred security for these kinds of things is just to have the box, on being tampered with, teleport somewhere else. Or at least teleport its contents elsewhere. Then again thats kinda the thing that marks the trap maker/owner as an archmage whom you may not want to anger anyway.

[Nifft]

YES larceny!
The system wasn't exalted, but I have seen this in exalted and I was impressed with this decision.

Unless you're playing a heist game where everyone is a thief and everyone is highly specialized in one area of larceny it just makes sense to roll these up into one skill.

Totally agree, Larceny as a skill is a great thing.

These days my preference is to have multiple overlapping skills -- so there might be Larceny and Investigation, and both would allow you to take the Case A Joint action to swiftly and inconspicuously scan an area -- but Investigation wouldn't help you stealth-infiltrate, and Larceny wouldn't help you do library research.

Similarly, I'm in favor of Athletics and Acrobatics both helping you balance and jump, but climbing a wall or lifting a grate would be Athletics, and tumbling would be Acrobatics. If there were a Mountaineering skill, that would work on climb checks, but not jumping or tumbling. It would also give you some Knowledge (geography) and Survival uses, and a few tricks from Use Rope.

(snip)

Okay, you're veering into unnecessary detail. My point was simple.

5e lock-picking is not just a Dex check.
- Lockpicking is a Dex check that can get (up to double) a tool proficiency.
- You can pay for that tool proficiency in a variety of ways, including taking a level of Rogue.

That's the primary error that I'm correcting.

Are we all clear on that?

[Mr Blobby]

YES larceny!
The system wasn't exalted, but I have seen this in exalted and I was impressed with this decision.

Unless you're playing a heist game where everyone is a thief and everyone is highly specialized in one area of larceny it just makes sense to roll these up into one skill.

World of Darkness did this; converted 'Security' [3rd] to 'Larceny' [20th/4th]. Worked much better. And quit GM's arguing 'no, cracking keypads are Computer!' and the like.

[dps]

The skill is not useless, of course, but it really depends on the type of gameplay.

If your playing a all combat smash and loot type game, then picking locks and just about all non combat skills won't even come up. There are other types of games.

And it's true of all feats, skills and even rules: they really are only useful if your game play style uses them in the first place.

You just need to find the right game style.

Yep, and again, this is something that probably should be discussed at least somewhat before or during character creation.

[Deophaun]

And it's true of all feats, skills and even rules: they really are only useful if your game play style uses them in the first place.

There's no equality here: some things are used in more games than others.

Let's take 3.5's Open Lock skill with another thing that gets the job done: mountain hammer.


Need to open a locked chest? Both will do it.
Need to get through a locked door? Both will do it.
Need to get through a swollen door? Mountain hammer.
Need to get through a grate into a sewer? Mountain hammer.
Need to take out the wheel on a carrage that's about to escape? Mountain hammer.
Need to make an Intimidate check during a conference? Pound the table with your fist and mountain hammer.

Lockpicking is only useful if there is a lock present to be picked, and getting insanely good at lockpicking is only useful if the GM includes locks that need those insane skills, in which case he's probably only including them because you made an insanely good lockpicker. Mountain hammer, on the other hand, is useful as long as there are things. The DM generally doesn't have to spend any additional effort ensuring there are things. When you get really high level and are now capable of dealing hundreds of damage with mountain hammer or its higher level brethren, he doesn't have to make things specifically to show off how good you are at breaking things. The DM could literally place you in an empty room with no doors or windows, and you could still mountain hammer. Featureless plain? Mountain hammer a pit. You're now playing minecraft. If you somehow find yourself playing in a thing-free campaign, then you have bigger problems than mountain hammer being useless. Meanwhile, if a campaign has no locks, does anyone notice except the lockpicker?

[LibraryOgre]

Operate with a modicum of stealth? Only lockpicking.
Preserve fragile contents inside? Only lockpicking.
Allow you to reuse the object in question? Only lockpicking.
Close an object so it's not easy to open again? Only lockpicking.

Mountain Hammer is a solution if you don't mind the problem of making a ton of noise, breaking everything, and not being able to reuse anything.

[Deophaun]

Mountain Hammer is a solution if you don't mind the problem of making a ton of noise, breaking everything, and not being able to reuse anything.

And? It's still a solution as long as a thing exists. Lockpicking can only be a solution if a lock exists.

[OldTrees1]

And? It's still a solution as long as a thing exists. Lockpicking can only be a solution if a lock exists.

Mark Hall's point was that Mountain Hammer requires more than just "a thing exists". It requires "a thing exists" AND "you don't care about the negative consequences of using Mountain Hammer". Mark Hall also described some of the negative consequences as they related to the locked barrier comparision vs lockpicking.

Adding one more to the pile:
Mountain Hammer is slow, even on an idiot crusader. Slow might be fast enough, but sometimes it is faster to just open the barrier rather than recharge Mountain Hammer multiple times.

So yes, Mountain Hammer is a very useful technique and does have some overlap with Lockpicking. Just like the strong guy, Mountain Hammer is not a universal replacement for Lockpicking. But even with these consequences that decrease the versatility of its usefulness, you are right that Mountain Hammer is a good counterexample to Darth Ultron's claim.

[D+1]

I have played in many D&D games and other systems over the years. Never have I ever seen the Lockpicking skill come up that much or even be necessary when you think it would be.

Seems strange. IME lockpicking has been a major deal ever since the thief class was introduced. It deserves all the derision people are giving it, but up to this point it's still been put front and center for opening doors, chests, cages, and on rare occasions some other peripheral use.

Playing at the table is a lot different from playing video games like the Elder Scrolls. I mean, in Skyrim, Oblivion, etc. the Lockpicking skill does come up quite a bit and is important if you want to get all that sweet loot or break into people's houses. And you want to know why? Because containers and doors in those games are indestructible or simply can't be attacked.

And that lockpicking mini-game deserves all the derision it gets too. It's a distraction to occupy your time and a means to bleed off skill points. You get some reward for that skill expenditure and time in the game by gaining access to treasure and areas of dungeons you otherwise won't have, but how many people now just use mods to get around it entirely? It's not a part of the game that anybody confesses to ENJOY, it's a part of the game that people only TOLERATE at best because they want the added loot and access to otherwise sealed areas.

In D&D, whenever a locked door or container comes up, the first response is just to have Buff McMuscles Dude smash it. He might have to roll 7000 Strength checks to get there, but eventually it gets done, and then you have your loot or be able to progress to the next room. Meanwhile the Rogue is sitting there with her arms crossed and a chip on her shoulder.
And what's worse? Mages, man. Friggin'...mages. Some of them can cast spells that make that whole Unlocking minigame pointless.

Mages are an issue because they gain the ability to invalidate ALL THE OTHER CLASSES special abilities, with the exception of healing (and recent editions take that from clerics and spread it to everyone - hell, I did it with house rules in my last 1E campaign). As for muscling open doors and chests, as suggested before, that is what was done prior to the introduction of thieves and their lockpicking ability.

If you want lockpicking to matter as an ability then it needs to be a BETTER solution to opening things than muscle. Whether because it's actually faster, quieter, easier, less likely to damage loot, or whatever doesn't much matter. IF you're going to have it exist in the game as a thing, then the DM needs to take steps to ensure that it has MERIT as a thing. So if players are defaulting to muscle instead of LETTING the thief do the thief's JOB, there must be consequences. The noise of battering draws unneeded and unwanted attention. The rough treatment destroys fragile and valuable contents of chests. And of course, without letting the thief do the standard accompanying task of looking for traps then those deadly traps need to fall again, and again, and AGAIN on the dumb fighter who just wants to be, "Hulk SMASH!" all the time.

And if worse comes to worse, and Buff McMuscles sprains his Mighty Biceps or something, or Mage Man runs out of spells, there's always a key. The GM may not hand you the key freely all the time, but that GM is a dum dum if he keeps it away from the players intentionally. Even if you have to fight, or sneak around, or do some puzzles, you can still get that key.

That, however, is not an invalidation of the thief/rogue ability - spending time and effort in finding keys and trap triggers is sensible play on the part of ALL PC's which avoids the consequences for failure that lockpicking/trapfinding still entails.

The point I'm trying to make here is, since there is already so many ways to deal with a locked door or chest, why bother even having a Lockpicking skill at all? You can always just say, "Yeah, my character is or was a thief at some point so he knows how to pick locks just fine. Alls he needs is a bit of alone time with that sweet sweet lock. *wink*"

All of this is stuff that I would characterize as part of the gameplay that could be filed under the umbrella heading of, "The Searching Game". Loot and clues are not just laying out in the open to be blundered over and mindlessly and effortlessly processed. Loot is made difficult for PC's to access by locking it up or hiding it. It's not enough to just kill the guards or owners of the treasure. It is intended as a significant part of gameplay to need to spend time, resources, and effort to get the best loot even after killing the opponents. Now, it doesn't have to always be so, but IMO the amount of effort expended should at least be commensurately rewarded - if players and their PC's are taking time to literally look under every rock then either they're insane or that persistence and thoroughness is intended to pay off at some point. Maybe not in every dungeon room, but sometime, somewhere, there is bound to be treasure of sufficient compensatory value hidden under floor tiles.

If the Search Game is not something that interests you in any way as a DM and you don't want the players to ever even bother with it, by all means, remove all the skills and abilities that make it a thing and just HAND the PC's the loot and the clues that otherwise would require more effort to obtain. I have certainly in the past called into question the occasionally outrageous lengths to which modules and DM's have gone to hide treasure (and then often not have the treasure be at all worth the Herculean effort of the search to get it). Things CAN be done to make the Search Game a more interesting or at least more tolerable process. Much depends on what kind of game you're looking to run, and what the players want out of the game (keeping in mind that wanting is sometimes better than having - not logical but often true).

[Deophaun]

Mark Hall's point was that Mountain Hammer requires more than just "a thing exists". It requires "a thing exists" AND "you don't care about the negative consequences of using Mountain Hammer". Mark Hall also described some of the negative consequences as they related to the locked barrier comparision vs lockpicking.

I can control what I care about. I cannot control what the DM includes in the campaign. As that explanation continues to have no relation to the point that Mark Hall responded to, I will repeat my question: And?

To elaborate further: A Warblade gets mountain hammer at the same level that a Cleric gets silence. Since mountain hammer is always an option, the trick becomes turning it into a good option. That trick is in the hands of the player. You can absolutely use mountain hammer when you need to be stealthy. Now try using lockpicking when you have no locks.

[Jay R]

Like most skills, its value is dependent on the GM.

If your GM never uses locks in places you need to be quiet, or on doors you will want to close, or to protect things that will be destroyed when the lock is, then, yes, lockpicking skill is useless.

Similarly, swimming skill is useless if you never go near lakes, rivers , or oceans.
Diplomacy and Bluff skills are useless if all the encounters are beasts or undead that don't talk.
Use Magic Device skill is useless if you never find magic devices that you can't already use.
Ride and Handle Animal skills are useless when there are no animals.

Virtually all skills are useless except in the right situation. If the right situation never comes up, then they remain useless. But don't blame the skill.

[Slipperychicken]

In shadowrun, getting through buildings, barriers, and containers without making too much noise is quite useful. Though the lockpicking skill itself is basically useless (you'll basically never run into an old-fashioned lock and key that you can't simply kick down), the equivalents for opening electronically locked doors are important.

[Whyrocknodie]

It's very useful when you have to pick a lock. Maybe also if you're giving a lecture on how to pick locks. If you're not doing that, then it's much less useful. Rarely comes up in trifle-making, for example.

[Nifft]

It's very useful when you have to pick a lock. Maybe also if you're giving a lecture on how to pick locks. If you're not doing that, then it's much less useful. Rarely comes up in trifle-making, for example.

"Oh no, my trifle cookbook is in that locked cabinet over there!"