D&D 5E How to open a door

[machineelf]

A few days ago I replied to a thread and detailed the way I conceptualize and adjudicate skill checks related to picking locks, bashing in doors, and other checks. I wanted to make it its own thread (I hope I haven't broken the laws of the forum gods. If I have then I accept my punishment).

It's a long post. If you love it, then let me know. I enjoy being told I'm awesome. If you hate it, or think there's a better way, then let me know too. I love good criticism and evolving and improving my DMing. I am really curious to see what opinions are and promise to give consideration to every comment. At the very least, if you read the whole thing I hope you enjoy it.

You can find the original post here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358835-Can-you-retry-a-failed-skill-check-How-long/page5

-----

TL;DR: Give players one roll that encompasses all of their tries. If they fail, they have to come up with another solution. Solves a lot of problems and is more fun.

-----
The problem with doors

I have thought long and hard on this issue, like most of you. And I have read The Angry DM's article on only allowing a roll if there is a chance of failure and a penalty associated. And that's great advice, but the way most people implement it is flawed, in my view. Let me explain.

Do you know what the penalty is in my games when a character rolls a lock-picking check and fails? The damn door won't open, that's what. That's the penalty. Even in an empty dungeon without wandering monsters, there's a penalty. You can't get into the room that way. I guess we're going to have to have the barbarian try to bust it down. That's roleplaying, and that's fun, in my estimation.

By the way, when's the last time you had to have your strongest character try to bust down the door because the rogue couldn't pick the lock? Never, that's when. Because you have the rogue just keep trying until she gets it open, and she eventually will. Sure you have decided to put in a penalty for failure and trying again, like extra time that it takes and a roll on the wandering monster check. But when you roll for a wandering monster and roll a 'no encounter,' to your players' perspective there was no penalty for the failed check. What's more, thinking in terms of "I have to design some penalties for taking more time to retry checks" puts more work on you as the DM than there needs to be. Even if there is some wandering monster encounter for taking time for an extra check, it ends up just being a time-killing penalty that doesn't do much to add to the story or make the role-playing very fun.

So what happens when you're in an empty dungeon area with no wandering monsters and no monsters on the other side of the locked door? You don't let the rogue roll, you just give her an automatic success? That makes the rogue feel like her trained skill is a little bit worthless. Could have had the fighter unlock the door too without a roll (he would roll a 20 eventually, right?), and he would have an automatic success.

Also, does it feel strange to you that a level 1 rogue can seem to unlock any chest or door she comes across? Sure maybe she has to try a few times, and maybe the group has to fight off a wandering monster before she gets it open. But she gets it open eventually, no matter what. ... At level 1. Because eventually she will roll a 20 and get that very difficult door open, at level 1.

You know what's more fun? "You rolled too low. I guess you are still a bit of a beginner at lock-picking." And then they might have to have Ogar the barbarian try to bust down the door instead, or find another way in. ... That's fun. Not some time-wasting random monsters until finally she inevitably gets the door open anyway. Ogar never, ever gets to bash down the door with his 18 strength. Poor Ogar.

So what to do instead, and resolving some problems:

Well, first off, the philosophy that you only roll if there's a chance for failure and a penalty for failure still is in play. But when you get to a locked door, there is an obstacle. If you fail a check at some attempt to bypass the obstacle, the obstacle still exists, so there's your penalty for failure -- the door's still locked. Come up with another idea, guys -- there's your roleplaying and a bit of fun.

So, as other people have advised here, you get one check. It doesn't represent how many times you attempt, necessarily. It represents whether your attempts have succeeded.

By the way, as an important conceptual side note, I don't think the DC you assign to a locked door should represent how difficult the lock is, not directly anyway. I think it should represent the difficulty class that your skill roll has to meet. But if you are a level 1 rogue and are facing a DC 18 lock, and you roll a 20, then the lock must not have been too difficult to open, because after all a level 1 rogue was able to get it open with her limited training. And if a level 15 rogue, who is exceptional at picking locks, comes across a DC 10 lock and rolls a 2, well that lock is a well-crafted, very difficult lock to pick.

So conceptually, the difficulty of the lock is not represented directly by the DC rating, it is represented by how great of a measure you succeed or how great of a measure you fail. As a DM, you don't really know how difficult a lock is until the roll is made. You only have indirect control over that by setting a high or low DC.

So one roll. You fail, you fail, unless there is some other influencing factor that changes things. One of those influencing factors, in the way I run it, is if a character with a higher proficiency (or higher attribute) wants to try.

So, let's say the rogue is in another room because he fell through a hole in the floor and has to find her way back to the group. The other members find a locked door. The bard says, "Well our rogue isn't here, but I also have a lock pick set. I'm not very good at it, but I can give it a go." So he tries and fails. Suddenly, the rogue walks in. "Hey guys! Miss me?"

"Yeah, we can't get this door open."

"Well, let me try."

If the rogue has a higher proficiency, then I let her make a roll. But if she doesn't have a higher proficiency, well she can't get the darned lock picked either. No need for a roll.

There are a couple of potential problems though that you might have already thought of.

First problem (a question, really): Can more than one person try the skill? In the story narrative, yeah they can all grab the lock pick set and give it a shot. But in terms of the mechanics for the abstract attempts, only one roll. If if it fails, then you can only roll again if there is a change in the influencing circumstances, including if someone who is more skilled at the task wants to try.

Second problem: Couldn't the players meta-game and always have the worst person at a skill try first, then incrementally let other players who are better try? No they can't, because you as the DM don't allow it. If they are all in the room together, then they get one check. This will make them want the most skilled person at the task do the roll. This will make players feel like their proficiency at skills really matter. If some unusual circumstance occurs, like the most skilled player is out of the room for some reason but shows up later, then the more skilled player can give it a shot and roll. Once they get it open, they can brag about how the other players just don't know much about the fine art of lock-picking.

What about bashing in a door? Can't all the characters try? You let Ogar the barbarian try, and if he fails, well the door seems to be a heavy-set door that just won't budge. Every weaker character will also fail, no need for a roll. But, if the paladin says, "hey, let me put my shoulder into it too and help you," then the paladin is helping Ogar, and Ogar gets to roll again with advantage.

Running checks this way helps to bring in fun and interesting role-playing details. The strong players get to try to bash down a door if the rogue can't pick the lock (which almost never happens if you pretty much guarantee the rogue will pick the lock with multiple tries, whether you incorporate penalties for failures or not). The wizard gets to use his knock spell. Did you find a chest that you just can't open? "Let's take the whole chest with us and try to use a crowbar on it back home."

It also keeps you as the DM from having to use a system of boring time-consuming penalties that you wouldn't have designed in the first place. And it keeps the level 1 rogue from being able to open every single lock she comes across. Guess what rogue, this one is just out of reach of your ability at present. It becomes more rewarding to level up and increase proficiency. Fewer and fewer locked doors are inaccessible to a higher level rogue. But you have to make sure that some doors and chests and whatnot, are inaccessible to lower-level rogues.

 

[Rabbitbait]

I'm thinking of putting in a few houserules and clarifications

• If you are proficient in a skill or in tools, the minimum you can roll is 10. So if you roll a 3 + bonuses then it will be considered 10+bonuses.
• For skill and tool checks there is no such thing as critical success or failure (not a houserule, but a clarification)
• You can only roll one attempt. BUT, you can prepare. For instance, if a rogue wants to pick a lock as an action then it will be a normal roll, but if they want to take a minute or more to do it then I will let them do it with advantage. If a brute really lines up the door, takes time to look at where weak spots might be then they get advantage.
• If a person fails when they are in extreme danger and they have just taken an action, I might give them an extra go. Maybe.
• Each person can get a go though - someone else might just have beginners luck, or hit the right spot, or the door has already been weakened and just needed one more hit.

Just thoughts at this stage. I'll put them into play and see how well they work.

 

[machineelf]

I'm thinking of putting in a few houserules and clarifications

• If you are proficient in a skill or in tools, the minimum you can roll is 10. So if you roll a 3 + bonuses then it will be considered 10+bonuses.
• For skill and tool checks there is no such thing as critical success or failure (not a houserule, but a clarification)
• You can only roll one attempt. BUT, you can prepare. For instance, if a rogue wants to pick a lock as an action then it will be a normal roll, but if they want to take a minute or more to do it then I will let them do it with advantage. If a brute really lines up the door, takes time to look at where weak spots might be then they get advantage.
• If a person fails when they are in extreme danger and they have just taken an action, I might give them an extra go. Maybe.
• Each person can get a go though - someone else might just have beginners luck, or hit the right spot, or the door has already been weakened and just needed one more hit.

Just thoughts at this stage. I'll put them into play and see how well they work.

You're such a nice DM. A meaner person would just give players disadvantage for when they are not prepared, and a normal check when they are. But I like your suggestions. I'm going to give them some thought and maybe incorporate them. I'd be interested to know how you felt they worked after you run them in-game.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm thinking of putting in a few houserules and clarifications

• If you are proficient in a skill or in tools, the minimum you can roll is 10. So if you roll a 3 + bonuses then it will be considered 10+bonuses.

Just thoughts at this stage. I'll put them into play and see how well they work.

You'll need to replace a couple of class features that provide for that benefit.

 

[Faradon]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with retrying skills.

If a particular challenge is within your ability to accomplish without needing a "critical success" to trump the rules for you, then I see nothing wrong with spending more time on the task until you finally get the tumblers where you need them, find the right hand holds, apply pressure to the right spots, etc.

However, If you need a critical success to even have a chance at success then I could see house ruling that you get 1 roll and that's it... or that you can attempt, but the chance of critical failure increases by 1 each attempt until 1-5=crit failure and 20=success, or any other house rule you can think of.

If there is a rope (like in gym class) and you try to climb it (and have the strength/skill and don't need a crit 20), but fail.. you can't try again? Couldn't of just gotten a bad grip, a cramp, your backpack shifted on you, etc? Now granted, if you wanted to apply a fatigue penalty as multiple attempts are made, that seems pretty legit.

Busting down a door, forcing open a chest lid with a crowbar, or similar actions seem similar and perhaps weakening the material as you go making it easier, though likely noisy and destroying the hinges, locking mechanisms, etc.

The same should apply for picking locks. If it is within the lock picker's ability to get the job done and they don't need some miracle to make it happen, there is nothing wrong with trying multiple times. A 1 can still mean a broken lockpick or a jammed lock tumbler from the attempts that freeze the lock and make it more difficult (+5 DC) or impossible if that's what you want.

I almost feel like you are saying, It's boring to always watch the rogue do their job over and over and some variety would be fun. If so, just have the door barred from the other side or stuck in the frame and still need a str check to dislodge after the lock is disabled.. or don't even have a lock.

In the end it's your game and as long as you and your players have fun, nothing else matters. Rules be damned in lieu of fun.

 

[Astrosicebear]

When I start a long dungeon or area where i anticipate alot of mundane perception/search checks etc. I ask each PC for 10-20 d20 rolls, and i put em all on a post it. Takes all of 1 minute. I then refer to that for typical checks... "I search the door" "ok.. (looks at note) no traps." Generally of course ill know or write the rogues search/percept, and I usualyl like to have each chars passive perception on hand anyways.

If they do something unique or interesting, let them roll it. Otherwise, move the game on.

 

[Skyscraper]

I play as the OP described, and I've played this way for a long time. I like reducing the number of die rolls at the table to a minimum, and make those die rolls meaningful. Nothing bores me more than useless loss of time at a gaming table, such as

Player: "my rogue attempts to pick the lock. 8. Does it work?"
DM: "Nope, your rogue can't pick the lock."
Player: "Can I retry?"
DM: "Sure."
Player: "12?"
DM: "Nope."
Player: "9... No. Hold on. 8 again, another miss. Ohhh... 16?"
DM: "not quite, it's a tough one."
Player: "7. 11. 9. 13. 15. 16. 12. 10. 8. 14. 10. Yay, natural 20!"
DM: (dramatically) "you successfully pick the lock and open the door, revealing..."

What I do, however, is evaluate whether rolling an ability or skill check is necessary. I try to reduce rolling dice for ability or skill checks to avoid uselss rolls. If a PC can retry a skill or ability check as much as he wants and I know that if he gets a high enough roll, and if the PC isn't pressed for time, I'll avoid the die roll entirely and tell the player that his PC succeeds, given a bit of time, at the task at hand; and go on with the game.

If the PC is pressed for time and he must succeed on his first attempt; if there is a consequence for failure; or if there is the possibility that he'll simply not succeed given the time he has (or a reasonable timeframe), then I'll have him roll a single die and it's failure or success.

I also usually reduce the number of die rolls that a party can make, to a single roll (perhaps with help from another). For example, it's useless to have all members of a 6 PC party roll a DC 10 or even a DC 15 perception check to verify whether anyone will note a specific detail in a dungeon. Someone will inevitably succeed. I'll just have anyone standing nearby that detail, or anyone inspecting the area, find the detail. If something is hard to find and might escape notice, I'll have a single player roll for the entire group. I pick the PC that seems like the most logical pick given the circumstances, not necessarily the one whose the best in the skill, contrarily to what the OP said. Indeed, I want the other PCs to have skills that matter.

Likewise, if a party is trying to sneak by a sentry undetected, if there is no way they'll succeed, I'll roll no die (and probably hint at it pretty clearly to the players beforehand). If I see success and failure both being possible, I'll have the PCs roll a single die. I may pick the loudest PC (e.g. the paladin), or the sneakiest (e.g. the rogue) if I think that the latter guided all of his group through the danger. I might give penalties (or disadvantage) as a consequence of the number of PCs trying to sneak by.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'd agree with giving a roll at a locked door, and that the penalty for doing so is that they can't get through the door. I suspect the Angry DM would too. The real question is whether there should be a locked door there at all. But you do need some locked doors going to empty rooms because otherwise they'd know that if the door is locked there MUST be something there, even if they didn't detect it through other means first. Just don't overdo it.

I don't think you want to start with a base 10 for all rolls, anymore than you want to with attack rolls where you have proficiency. The proficiency bonus, plus ability modifiers, plus other things (like expertise), can get you to a base of 10 relatively quickly anyway. Expertise in thief's tools (+4) with an 18 DEX gives even a 1st level thief +8 so the minimum roll would be a 9 anyway.

Although not written in the rules, I would not allow an attempt to pick locks for anybody who is not proficient in thief's tools. Pick up a padlock and try it sometime. Anybody can become proficient in thief's tools, so you don't always have to have a rogue in the party. On the other hand, there's more than one way to get past a locked door so I don't feel it's necessary to ensure that every party can choose to pick the lock.

Instead of rolling multiple time, just roll to see how much time it takes to succeed. There's not any point in rolling over and over again. A simple option for this would be to say it takes x number of minutes per point of failure. So if it's a DC 20 and they rolled a 16, it takes 4 minutes for them to successfully pick the lock. This was the point of the old 'take 10' and 'take 20' rules. That 1st level thief with a +8 bonus would eventually roll a 20, meaning they could handle any lock with a DC of 28 or lower. In the 3rd ed taking 20 took 2 minutes if it would normally take 1 round. I prefer a variable amount of time.

On the other hand, if there's a situation where successfully picking the lock must be done in a certain amount of time, then making a check every round until successful can be very suspenseful and is worthwhile. For example, the room is filling with water and the 3' thick stone door can't be kicked in, and you have 5 rounds before you're under water, and then a few more rounds before people start drowning, yes, multiple checks are essential.

In the example of a party trying to sneak undetected, even if there is no chance of success I'd probably still roll a check. You may know they will fail, but they won't. Even if you don't call a natural 20 an automatic success, it could provide a success long enough for a second check. If they keep rolling 20's then maybe they SHOULD succeed, regardless of the difficulty. Note that there are specific rules for group checks on pg 175, instead of going with the worst character's abilities (they all roll, and if half or more succeed, then they all succeed).

Ilbranteloth

 

[Rabbitbait]

Double post. Failed my posting check. I'll try again next round.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Instead of rolling multiple time, just roll to see how much time it takes to succeed. There's not any point in rolling over and over again. A simple option for this would be to say it takes x number of minutes per point of failure. So if it's a DC 20 and they rolled a 16, it takes 4 minutes for them to successfully pick the lock. This was the point of the old 'take 10' and 'take 20' rules. That 1st level thief with a +8 bonus would eventually roll a 20, meaning they could handle any lock with a DC of 28 or lower. In the 3rd ed taking 20 took 2 minutes if it would normally take 1 round. I prefer a variable amount of time.

On the other hand, if there's a situation where successfully picking the lock must be done in a certain amount of time, then making a check every round until successful can be very suspenseful and is worthwhile. For example, the room is filling with water and the 3' thick stone door can't be kicked in, and you have 5 rounds before you're under water, and then a few more rounds before people start drowning, yes, multiple checks are essential.

Ilbranteloth

Yoink. Brilliant. That's how I'll do this. Thanks very much.