I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
If the door needs to open to progress... make sure there's a way to open it without picking it.
What is the point of even locking it, if the PC's are going to open the door anyway?
To allow a character the opportunity to shine and unlock it.
Also: pacing, verisimilitude, making them look for alternate paths, and many other reasons.
I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
If the door needs to open to progress... make sure there's a way to open it without picking it.
What is the point of even locking it, if the PC's are going to open the door anyway?
First of all, you probably don't want to make game progression dependent on opening a door. However, just because the door is going to wind up open in the end does not mean all ways for it to become open are equally convenient.
Before calling for the roll, the first question to ask yourself is "Can the players fail this roll and the story still proceed?" In the scenario you present, if the access to the vault is essential to proceed with the story then this should not left to a skill check. One can't control the dice, so there needs to be a set of consequences that will allow for the story to proceed regardless of what the roll turns out to be. Just remember, there is a fine line between failing Investigation or Perception checks and missing out on discovering a jewel worth 1500Gp and not being able to bribe a guard so that jail break adventure can begin. With the latter, relying on a player making a successful roll could result in wasted real world time as the game drags to a halt; instead have the guard approach them with a reasonable deal (and a note to players: If the DM is giving us a reasonable offer then just take it. Let's not waste time haggling over a deal when we really have no leverage). Another good practice is to have multiple options for the success. This way if the players fail on attempt they are doing more than just repeating it. The options could be an alternative plan or modifying the conditions so that a new attempt is warranted with a easier targeted difficulty value. Now the players can fail an attempt but can attempt to discover a different or modified solution. But ultimately, if you don't have a path for the story and the players after a failed roll then you shouldn't call for the dice.
So two other optons you can explore for scenarios like the one you have:
1) Have everyone in the party make an ability check. You have established the party must succeed here so all you are doing is seeing who comes up with the successful role and they rewarded for cracking the safe. Based on the character who wins; narrate the success that fits their design. The low INT muscle player can manage a brute force to pry open or break the leaver. Another crafty player with good INT might notice a flaw in the design. If the Rouge wins, then just say how the manufacturer of this lock was no match for your skills and knowledge. This gives the players the roll and excitement of a success v. failure.
2) The roll will always result in the lock being picked; but the success or failure still has consequences. Maybe the lock is tough to pick and in doing so the tools get stuck or snap. The door unlatches but the character triggers a trap. The gate immediately swings open, catching the player off guard, and causing 7 (2d6) bludgeoning damage. This still makes the roll mean something but it doesn't prevent the story from progressing.
How many times do you limit your players to for making an ability check? In a lot of circumstances I can limit things by putting a clock on whatever they are trying to do, or a fail makes it impossible to do again because the thing broke or they got caught or the person got away, etc. But sometimes instances come up where there just isn't anything like that, but I feel like the players shouldn't be able to just keep rolling until they get the result they want. The scenario that prompted this was a lock picking check. They were at a vault in a basement, middle of the night, no patrolling guards, the residents all fast asleep, so they had hours realistically. They failed the first try, and the second, but got it on the third. It occurred to me that unless they got a nat 1 (we do crit fails on skill checks) and I say the tools broke off in the lock, there really wasn't any point in the skill check, they just keep rerolling until they succeed. This happens with investigation checks too sometimes. So what does everyone else do or do you just let it happen in those circumstances? Am I over thinking this possibly?
In a situation like that, where they’re under no real pressure and have all the time in the world, I would do one of theee things depending what’s in that safe:
If whatever is in that safe is mission critical for the campaign to succeed,*1 then I would grant them advantage on the roll, and they would succeed on any reasonable roll. I’m specifically leaving what constitutes as “reasonable” vague so as to allow you as the DM to determine that for yourself.
If whatever is in there is either fairly mundane, or fairly good, cool, or relatively powerful (but not super good, cool, or powerful), then I would assess their chance of success using the PC’s Passive Dex (Lock Picking) Score. What I mean is I would take the PC’s passive score and if they really do have absolutely no time or pressure constraints then I would add 5 to that passive score to account for advantage. Then I would compare it to the DC of the lock and if their adjusted score beats that DC by more than 12*2 then I would either just tell them that they succeed without even requiring a roll, or at worst tell them to roll with advantage just to rule out the off chance they roll a double 1.
I would let them roll with advantage because they’re under absolutely no pressure, and if they fail I would tell them that they’ve been at it for a couple of hours and try as they might they seem to be making absolutely no headway, and they don’t expect that’s gonna change any time soon unless they come up with something new to try.*3
*1, 2, & 3 👇
I’m personally not a fan of locking campaign progression behind a single thing, and if I were to do that I’m absolutely not gonna take that thing and give them any chance to fail at acquiring or achieving that thing. I personally believe that A) there should never be only one path to success, B) as a DM it’s not my job to figure out how the players & PCs are gonna succeed, that’s up to them, my job is to simply come up with the challenges, and C) even if they don’t succeed at whatever challenge I placed before them that the campaign still progresses, just in a different direction is all.
Now, a standard [Tooltip Not Found] has a DC of 15, so to get a passive score high enough for me to simply handwave the check means they are probably at least 9th level, and the PC has expertise in lock picking. But by the same token I would expect a 9th level (or higher) PC with expertise to be able to pick a standard lock without even trying.
That’s actually RAW. If the circumstances surrounding the check change, they not only get a new roll, a new roll is actually required.
I HATE the idea of PC's always succeeding at some challenge, given enough time. But at the same time, you are 100% correct about putting some key element of a session/campaign behind an all or nothing ability check.
The Rule of 3 is critical in D&D. If there is some key element to the session/campaign, a DM must provide the players multiple lines of opportunity to that element. I am not talking multiple attempts at the same some locked door. But maybe there is a secret door that ultimately leads to the same location. Or there is a teleport area that if the players learn the command word and sigils will also get them to the same location, behind that locked door. Players/PC's need 3 different avenues to success for some goal. What they don't need is "we will always succeed at this precise test, if we try enough times".
If you read the footnotes of my post you’ll have seen that I’m not a huge fan of the party automatically succeeding at something just because it’s critical to campaign progress either. I really don’t like it in fact. Hence why, as you yourself endorsed, I prefer giving them multiple pathways to success so that they can fail at some stuff and still succeed overall.
But if all that’s in the safe is some moderately cool swag, or some extra superfluous clues, or some fluff stuff that embellishes the world and increases verisimilitude for the players; and if their chance to fail really is statistically that low, then I say just reward them with their metaphorical cookie and move on with the story. I mean, if their passive score really is that high, and they really do have tones of time and no pressure, then why waste time rolling? I mean, as an example….
IRL I have spent more time preparing food than I could even possibly even begin to calculate. Between my personal life and my former career, we’re talking about a lot of time spent working in kitchens. If the general rule of thumb really is 10,000 hours as they say to be an expert at somethin, if that really is the “gold standard,” then I’ve hit double or maybe even triple gold at least, possibly more. (I won’t say platinum, I’m no Bobby Flay or Anne Burrell, or Gordon Ramsay or anything. They’re multi-platinum stars, they’re absolute masters of the craft, I’m just a competent journeyman.) If one were to apply 5e skills and DCs to real life, my passive scores with cook's utensils is sufficiently high enough that I don’t roll checks for doing lots of stuff in the kitchen. Basic food prep? No roll required. Heck, I all but automatically succeed at basic holiday dinners or basic dinner parties for up to 13 most of the time, I probably only need to roll a 2+ to 4+ to succeed most of the time. Now, if I’m doing something that’s particularly challenging, or absolutely unfamiliar to me, or I’m under pressure or in a time crunch or something, the DC goes up, absolutely. But on average the DM of IRL is just looking at my passive score and either handwaving me on or having me roll just in case I roll a 1 and flub something. So I treat checks in D&D like that too.
Besides, it’s RAW that if there’s no chance of failure then there’s no need for a DM to even call for a check.
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
With enough raw ability and degree of proficiency at any given task, then sooner or later the minimum threshold for success inevitably must go up. What was once a moderate challenge when first starting out will eventually become effortless, just as what was once completely impossible becomes nothing more than a significant challenge.
How many times do you limit your players to for making an ability check? In a lot of circumstances I can limit things by putting a clock on whatever they are trying to do, or a fail makes it impossible to do again because the thing broke or they got caught or the person got away, etc. But sometimes instances come up where there just isn't anything like that, but I feel like the players shouldn't be able to just keep rolling until they get the result they want. The scenario that prompted this was a lock picking check. They were at a vault in a basement, middle of the night, no patrolling guards, the residents all fast asleep, so they had hours realistically. They failed the first try, and the second, but got it on the third. It occurred to me that unless they got a nat 1 (we do crit fails on skill checks) and I say the tools broke off in the lock, there really wasn't any point in the skill check, they just keep rerolling until they succeed. This happens with investigation checks too sometimes. So what does everyone else do or do you just let it happen in those circumstances? Am I over thinking this possibly?
In a situation like that, where they’re under no real pressure and have all the time in the world, I would do one of theee things depending what’s in that safe:
If whatever is in that safe is mission critical for the campaign to succeed,*1 then I would grant them advantage on the roll, and they would succeed on any reasonable roll. I’m specifically leaving what constitutes as “reasonable” vague so as to allow you as the DM to determine that for yourself.
If whatever is in there is either fairly mundane, or fairly good, cool, or relatively powerful (but not super good, cool, or powerful), then I would assess their chance of success using the PC’s Passive Dex (Lock Picking) Score. What I mean is I would take the PC’s passive score and if they really do have absolutely no time or pressure constraints then I would add 5 to that passive score to account for advantage. Then I would compare it to the DC of the lock and if their adjusted score beats that DC by more than 12*2 then I would either just tell them that they succeed without even requiring a roll, or at worst tell them to roll with advantage just to rule out the off chance they roll a double 1.
I would let them roll with advantage because they’re under absolutely no pressure, and if they fail I would tell them that they’ve been at it for a couple of hours and try as they might they seem to be making absolutely no headway, and they don’t expect that’s gonna change any time soon unless they come up with something new to try.*3
*1, 2, & 3 👇
I’m personally not a fan of locking campaign progression behind a single thing, and if I were to do that I’m absolutely not gonna take that thing and give them any chance to fail at acquiring or achieving that thing. I personally believe that A) there should never be only one path to success, B) as a DM it’s not my job to figure out how the players & PCs are gonna succeed, that’s up to them, my job is to simply come up with the challenges, and C) even if they don’t succeed at whatever challenge I placed before them that the campaign still progresses, just in a different direction is all.
Now, a standard [Tooltip Not Found] has a DC of 15, so to get a passive score high enough for me to simply handwave the check means they are probably at least 9th level, and the PC has expertise in lock picking. But by the same token I would expect a 9th level (or higher) PC with expertise to be able to pick a standard lock without even trying.
That’s actually RAW. If the circumstances surrounding the check change, they not only get a new roll, a new roll is actually required.
In this case there was nothing in the vault that was campaign progression critical. There was some gold, a couple of nice items as a reward for success, and the documents specific to the side mission they were doing, and a clue to the main campaign mission, but not a critical one or one that would prevent them from progressing with out.
In retrospect, this whole scenario is really on me. I wanted it set up that they could fail this side mission, too few of my side missions to date have been truly "failable" so there has been a real lack of the spector of failure to up the suspense, specifically because it was not campaign progression critical, but I shouldn't have hinged it all on that one dice roll with out better set up for time pressure or other factors that would preclude, or at least make more problematic, just trying over and over on the lock pick check. I should have had the lock booby trapped or something that if they failed the check it became jammed and unable to be picked at all making them have to try a different approach. I did have in mind that they could try and batter the door down, or use some of the acid they have with them, plus whatever other crazy thing they thought of, so they still wouldn't have been with out options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also: pacing, verisimilitude, making them look for alternate paths, and many other reasons.
First of all, you probably don't want to make game progression dependent on opening a door. However, just because the door is going to wind up open in the end does not mean all ways for it to become open are equally convenient.
Before calling for the roll, the first question to ask yourself is "Can the players fail this roll and the story still proceed?" In the scenario you present, if the access to the vault is essential to proceed with the story then this should not left to a skill check. One can't control the dice, so there needs to be a set of consequences that will allow for the story to proceed regardless of what the roll turns out to be. Just remember, there is a fine line between failing Investigation or Perception checks and missing out on discovering a jewel worth 1500Gp and not being able to bribe a guard so that jail break adventure can begin. With the latter, relying on a player making a successful roll could result in wasted real world time as the game drags to a halt; instead have the guard approach them with a reasonable deal (and a note to players: If the DM is giving us a reasonable offer then just take it. Let's not waste time haggling over a deal when we really have no leverage). Another good practice is to have multiple options for the success. This way if the players fail on attempt they are doing more than just repeating it. The options could be an alternative plan or modifying the conditions so that a new attempt is warranted with a easier targeted difficulty value. Now the players can fail an attempt but can attempt to discover a different or modified solution. But ultimately, if you don't have a path for the story and the players after a failed roll then you shouldn't call for the dice.
So two other optons you can explore for scenarios like the one you have:
1) Have everyone in the party make an ability check. You have established the party must succeed here so all you are doing is seeing who comes up with the successful role and they rewarded for cracking the safe. Based on the character who wins; narrate the success that fits their design. The low INT muscle player can manage a brute force to pry open or break the leaver. Another crafty player with good INT might notice a flaw in the design. If the Rouge wins, then just say how the manufacturer of this lock was no match for your skills and knowledge. This gives the players the roll and excitement of a success v. failure.
2) The roll will always result in the lock being picked; but the success or failure still has consequences. Maybe the lock is tough to pick and in doing so the tools get stuck or snap. The door unlatches but the character triggers a trap. The gate immediately swings open, catching the player off guard, and causing 7 (2d6) bludgeoning damage. This still makes the roll mean something but it doesn't prevent the story from progressing.
If you read the footnotes of my post you’ll have seen that I’m not a huge fan of the party automatically succeeding at something just because it’s critical to campaign progress either. I really don’t like it in fact. Hence why, as you yourself endorsed, I prefer giving them multiple pathways to success so that they can fail at some stuff and still succeed overall.
But if all that’s in the safe is some moderately cool swag, or some extra superfluous clues, or some fluff stuff that embellishes the world and increases verisimilitude for the players; and if their chance to fail really is statistically that low, then I say just reward them with their metaphorical cookie and move on with the story. I mean, if their passive score really is that high, and they really do have tones of time and no pressure, then why waste time rolling? I mean, as an example….
IRL I have spent more time preparing food than I could even possibly even begin to calculate. Between my personal life and my former career, we’re talking about a lot of time spent working in kitchens. If the general rule of thumb really is 10,000 hours as they say to be an expert at somethin, if that really is the “gold standard,” then I’ve hit double or maybe even triple gold at least, possibly more. (I won’t say platinum, I’m no Bobby Flay or Anne Burrell, or Gordon Ramsay or anything. They’re multi-platinum stars, they’re absolute masters of the craft, I’m just a competent journeyman.) If one were to apply 5e skills and DCs to real life, my passive scores with cook's utensils is sufficiently high enough that I don’t roll checks for doing lots of stuff in the kitchen. Basic food prep? No roll required. Heck, I all but automatically succeed at basic holiday dinners or basic dinner parties for up to 13 most of the time, I probably only need to roll a 2+ to 4+ to succeed most of the time. Now, if I’m doing something that’s particularly challenging, or absolutely unfamiliar to me, or I’m under pressure or in a time crunch or something, the DC goes up, absolutely. But on average the DM of IRL is just looking at my passive score and either handwaving me on or having me roll just in case I roll a 1 and flub something. So I treat checks in D&D like that too.
Besides, it’s RAW that if there’s no chance of failure then there’s no need for a DM to even call for a check.
With enough raw ability and degree of proficiency at any given task, then sooner or later the minimum threshold for success inevitably must go up. What was once a moderate challenge when first starting out will eventually become effortless, just as what was once completely impossible becomes nothing more than a significant challenge.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nobody in the party was capable of casting Knock?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In this case there was nothing in the vault that was campaign progression critical. There was some gold, a couple of nice items as a reward for success, and the documents specific to the side mission they were doing, and a clue to the main campaign mission, but not a critical one or one that would prevent them from progressing with out.
In retrospect, this whole scenario is really on me. I wanted it set up that they could fail this side mission, too few of my side missions to date have been truly "failable" so there has been a real lack of the spector of failure to up the suspense, specifically because it was not campaign progression critical, but I shouldn't have hinged it all on that one dice roll with out better set up for time pressure or other factors that would preclude, or at least make more problematic, just trying over and over on the lock pick check. I should have had the lock booby trapped or something that if they failed the check it became jammed and unable to be picked at all making them have to try a different approach. I did have in mind that they could try and batter the door down, or use some of the acid they have with them, plus whatever other crazy thing they thought of, so they still wouldn't have been with out options.