When characters encounter a lock, what's required to try and open it? I'm asking because of this seeming throwaway mention in the PHB, p.175:
For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.
My gaming background is many years of first edition AD&D, transitioning directly to fifth edition; it's odd for me to think of any character being able to pick/open a lock. However, this sentence seems to imply that only a character who owns and is proficient with thieves' tools can attempt it.
EXCEPT! In the description of thieves' tools (PHB, p.154), it says:
Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.
....which seems to imply that any character can try (and potentially succeed) in opening/picking a lock, and that the tools only allow the proficiency bonus to be applied.
Long and short of it: You can't pick a lock without Thieve's Tools, but you don't need to be proficient with Thieve's Tools to use them. If you're not proficient, you cannot help another person pick a lock.
you don't need to be proficient with Thieve's Tools to use them.
To be fair: both of the original statements can be simultaneously correct without even addressing this. It still seems open to interpretation (unless maybe there are some further rules to cover this)
Long and short of it: You can't pick a lock without Thieve's Tools, but you don't need to be proficient with Thieve's Tools to use them. If you're not proficient, you cannot help another person pick a lock.
This is a technically correct reading, by parsing the statement very carefully and precisely. But it really doesn't make any sense. Why would a character who is not proficient with thieves' tools be allowed to try and pick/open a lock while only those who are proficient with them can help?
This sort of requirement isn't, as far as I know, mirrored for other instances of help. In fact, the wording is pretty wide open and inclusive:
When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.
No mention of needing to be proficient in a certain action is given in order to render help. A wizard could, in theory at least, help a fighter attack a creature despite the wizard not being proficient in martial weapons or heavy armor (presumably).
I'm a little surprised no one's really asked Crawford/Mearls/et al about this specific seeming contradiction yet.
There are multiple tweets about this Thieve's Tool conundrum, none of them really come to a consensus beyond: specific statements regarding the need for being proficient and/or having Thieve's Tools are the only definitive "rules" in regards to them. Everything else is up to the DM's discretion.
But you might need proficiency to accomplish a specific task with that tool. "Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks" does not actually indicate that proficiency is never required to open a lock.
Conversely, the first rule mentioned in the original post (with context) says: "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task". The underlined context absolutely implies that proficiency is required to open a lock alone.
Also, DMG p.103 says: "Locked Doors: Characters who don't have the key for a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)". That seems pretty conclusive.
Note though: the writers of the various sections probably didn't coordinate very well (and possibly had different ideas), so I wouldn't fault a DM for using any method she likes. I'm just providing RAW.
Why would a character who is not proficient with thieves' tools be allowed to try and pick/open a lock while only those who are proficient with them can help?
Because helping someone with something is really difficult when you don't know what you're doing yourself. But trying something physical like this yourself is different.
You don't know how to use Thieves' Tools, but you have them, and there's a lock. So you put the little flat thing in there, and you wiggle it around, and you feel a kind of...certain resistance...when you move it this one way. And so you move it that way. And then you take the round thing, and you put that in there too, and you wiggle that around, and at one point you feel something move, somewhere in there, but you're not really sure where. And then...hey, the lock opened!
But now someone else is trying it, and you're standing next to them. And you've never used Thieves' Tools before. So you say "Well...wiggle it around! Is there any tension anywhere in there? That might be important." You're actually not all that useful. Even if you're standing there and you've used the tools once before (as above), even successfully. Your advice is still going to not be all that helpful.
In short, teaching someone (which is what Help amounts to in this case) how to do something is quite often harder than doing it yourself.
Also, DMG p.103 says: "Locked Doors: Characters who don't have the key for a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)". That seems pretty conclusive.
Ah! This was a passage I was unaware of. Yes, for me, too, this seems pretty conclusive.
Also, DMG p.103 says: "Locked Doors: Characters who don't have the key for a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)". That seems pretty conclusive.
Ah! This was a passage I was unaware of. Yes, for me, too, this seems pretty conclusive.
And also perhaps unfortunate that it's included in a book that so many people tell new players isn't really necessary :)
(Sorry, just noting that PHB+DMG was the 'necessary' stuff when I started playing...still feels funny to hear people tell new players that their group doesn't need a DMG :)
I think you can still use thieves tools to disarm traps without proficiency. The tools do have more than just a lockpick (a file, scissors, pliers). They can probably be used to break certain locks (like a padlock or shackle) without proficiency too, just can't "pick" them and leave them intact.
(Sorry, just noting that PHB+DMG was the 'necessary' stuff when I started playing...still feels funny to hear people tell new players that their group doesn't need a DMG :)
Well, 5E itself basically says all the rules you need are all contained in the PHB, whereas most (if not all) of the stuff in the DMG is considered optional.
(And yes, when I started playing [waaaaay back in the day], PHB+DMG was absolutely necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the rules.)
(Sorry, just noting that PHB+DMG was the 'necessary' stuff when I started playing...still feels funny to hear people tell new players that their group doesn't need a DMG :)
Well, 5E itself basically says all the rules you need are all contained in the PHB, whereas most (if not all) of the stuff in the DMG is considered optional.
(And yes, when I started playing [waaaaay back in the day], PHB+DMG was absolutely necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the rules.)
It's all the rules you need to be able to make things happen. But if the DMG is laying down the law about something like this, then clearly it's not all the rules you need. What I mean is that XGE doesn't change how any of the rules in the PHB work. But the DMG does here. If a group has been playing without the DMG, and a player has been using lock picks without Prof, and suddenly they buy the DMG--that player will need to stop using those picks if they want to keep with RAW. Not a huge deal in the end, but still an over-writing (by addition, of a 'new' restriction, not by actual alteration) of how to play the game.
Agreed! My prior post was meant as a comment/observation, not an argument. Apologies if it reads as the latter.
No worries, I took it the way you meant it, I was just commenting more :) My point is that the 'rules you need' seemingly means more than one thing. It's right to say you only 'need' the PHB. But it also turns out that the DMG has some other 'necessary' rules. :/ (Of course, what I really think the truth is, is that you use the rules you want, and even if the DMG suddenly says "No, you can't do that", you just do it anyway if you want to :)
The DMG says that the character can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check, but if it requires proficiency with Thieves' Tools, does the character also add her proficiency bonus to the Dexterity check?
The DMG says that the character can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check, but if it requires proficiency with Thieves' Tools, does the character also add her proficiency bonus to the Dexterity check?
Or to put it another way, it's arbitrary. Which is why we have an arbitrator at the table (we call them a "DM" or "GM" or "referee" or something else depending on game system).
In the case of tools, the tool is almost always required. You can't cook a meal without pots. You can't shape wood without a chisel and hammer. You can't navigate without a compass or sextant. You can't pick a lock without a lockpick.
A few tasks might allow improvised tools (for example, using a flat rock to cook a pancake).
Sometimes proficiency is required (the "sometimes" being a GM's call). Anyone can atttempt to cook a meal (and will probably succeed). Anyone can attempt to carve a wooden spoon. However, only trained people can navigate at sea or pick a lock or disarm a trap.
Allowing anyone to try anything sounds like a good idea, but it can lead to spotlight stealing. A player might wonder why they even bothered putting proficiency in thief's tools when the bard opens all the locks using jack of all trades (or similar, I know this isn't a great example).
My ruling is that proficiency involves formal learning, so anything involving terms or theory or background can only be attempted by someone with proficiency. For example, anyone can attempt to use woodworkers tools to make a chair, but only those with proficiency will know a particular joint is called a dovetail joint, and how a dovetail compares to other types of joints. For example, anyone can run for a distance, but only those with Athletics proficiency will be comptetitive in a race (where pacing, breath control, and the mind game are all far more important than raw physical attributes).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When characters encounter a lock, what's required to try and open it? I'm asking because of this seeming throwaway mention in the PHB, p.175:
My gaming background is many years of first edition AD&D, transitioning directly to fifth edition; it's odd for me to think of any character being able to pick/open a lock. However, this sentence seems to imply that only a character who owns and is proficient with thieves' tools can attempt it.
EXCEPT! In the description of thieves' tools (PHB, p.154), it says:
....which seems to imply that any character can try (and potentially succeed) in opening/picking a lock, and that the tools only allow the proficiency bonus to be applied.
So which is it?
It's both, and it's confusing.
Long and short of it: You can't pick a lock without Thieve's Tools, but you don't need to be proficient with Thieve's Tools to use them. If you're not proficient, you cannot help another person pick a lock.
To be fair: both of the original statements can be simultaneously correct without even addressing this. It still seems open to interpretation (unless maybe there are some further rules to cover this)
Doing some skimming on SA tweets, and SA Compendium, as well as the PHB....there seems to be a general though process:
This is a technically correct reading, by parsing the statement very carefully and precisely. But it really doesn't make any sense. Why would a character who is not proficient with thieves' tools be allowed to try and pick/open a lock while only those who are proficient with them can help?
This sort of requirement isn't, as far as I know, mirrored for other instances of help. In fact, the wording is pretty wide open and inclusive:
No mention of needing to be proficient in a certain action is given in order to render help. A wizard could, in theory at least, help a fighter attack a creature despite the wizard not being proficient in martial weapons or heavy armor (presumably).
I'm a little surprised no one's really asked Crawford/Mearls/et al about this specific seeming contradiction yet.
There are multiple tweets about this Thieve's Tool conundrum, none of them really come to a consensus beyond: specific statements regarding the need for being proficient and/or having Thieve's Tools are the only definitive "rules" in regards to them. Everything else is up to the DM's discretion.
Interesting. Appreciate the discussion and responses.
But you might need proficiency to accomplish a specific task with that tool. "Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks" does not actually indicate that proficiency is never required to open a lock.
Conversely, the first rule mentioned in the original post (with context) says: "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task". The underlined context absolutely implies that proficiency is required to open a lock alone.
Also, DMG p.103 says: "Locked Doors: Characters who don't have the key for a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)". That seems pretty conclusive.
Note though: the writers of the various sections probably didn't coordinate very well (and possibly had different ideas), so I wouldn't fault a DM for using any method she likes. I'm just providing RAW.
Because helping someone with something is really difficult when you don't know what you're doing yourself. But trying something physical like this yourself is different.
You don't know how to use Thieves' Tools, but you have them, and there's a lock. So you put the little flat thing in there, and you wiggle it around, and you feel a kind of...certain resistance...when you move it this one way. And so you move it that way. And then you take the round thing, and you put that in there too, and you wiggle that around, and at one point you feel something move, somewhere in there, but you're not really sure where. And then...hey, the lock opened!
But now someone else is trying it, and you're standing next to them. And you've never used Thieves' Tools before. So you say "Well...wiggle it around! Is there any tension anywhere in there? That might be important." You're actually not all that useful. Even if you're standing there and you've used the tools once before (as above), even successfully. Your advice is still going to not be all that helpful.
In short, teaching someone (which is what Help amounts to in this case) how to do something is quite often harder than doing it yourself.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Ah! This was a passage I was unaware of. Yes, for me, too, this seems pretty conclusive.
And also perhaps unfortunate that it's included in a book that so many people tell new players isn't really necessary :)
(Sorry, just noting that PHB+DMG was the 'necessary' stuff when I started playing...still feels funny to hear people tell new players that their group doesn't need a DMG :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I think you can still use thieves tools to disarm traps without proficiency. The tools do have more than just a lockpick (a file, scissors, pliers). They can probably be used to break certain locks (like a padlock or shackle) without proficiency too, just can't "pick" them and leave them intact.
Well, 5E itself basically says all the rules you need are all contained in the PHB, whereas most (if not all) of the stuff in the DMG is considered optional.
(And yes, when I started playing [waaaaay back in the day], PHB+DMG was absolutely necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the rules.)
It's all the rules you need to be able to make things happen. But if the DMG is laying down the law about something like this, then clearly it's not all the rules you need. What I mean is that XGE doesn't change how any of the rules in the PHB work. But the DMG does here. If a group has been playing without the DMG, and a player has been using lock picks without Prof, and suddenly they buy the DMG--that player will need to stop using those picks if they want to keep with RAW. Not a huge deal in the end, but still an over-writing (by addition, of a 'new' restriction, not by actual alteration) of how to play the game.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Agreed! My prior post was meant as a comment/observation, not an argument. Apologies if it reads as the latter.
No worries, I took it the way you meant it, I was just commenting more :) My point is that the 'rules you need' seemingly means more than one thing. It's right to say you only 'need' the PHB. But it also turns out that the DMG has some other 'necessary' rules. :/ (Of course, what I really think the truth is, is that you use the rules you want, and even if the DMG suddenly says "No, you can't do that", you just do it anyway if you want to :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I believe that was unintentional, and more a case of imperfect coordination (and I never expect perfection anyway).
The DMG says that the character can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check, but if it requires proficiency with Thieves' Tools, does the character also add her proficiency bonus to the Dexterity check?
Usually, yes.
Or to put it another way, it's arbitrary. Which is why we have an arbitrator at the table (we call them a "DM" or "GM" or "referee" or something else depending on game system).
In the case of tools, the tool is almost always required. You can't cook a meal without pots. You can't shape wood without a chisel and hammer. You can't navigate without a compass or sextant. You can't pick a lock without a lockpick.
A few tasks might allow improvised tools (for example, using a flat rock to cook a pancake).
Sometimes proficiency is required (the "sometimes" being a GM's call). Anyone can atttempt to cook a meal (and will probably succeed). Anyone can attempt to carve a wooden spoon. However, only trained people can navigate at sea or pick a lock or disarm a trap.
Allowing anyone to try anything sounds like a good idea, but it can lead to spotlight stealing. A player might wonder why they even bothered putting proficiency in thief's tools when the bard opens all the locks using jack of all trades (or similar, I know this isn't a great example).
My ruling is that proficiency involves formal learning, so anything involving terms or theory or background can only be attempted by someone with proficiency. For example, anyone can attempt to use woodworkers tools to make a chair, but only those with proficiency will know a particular joint is called a dovetail joint, and how a dovetail compares to other types of joints. For example, anyone can run for a distance, but only those with Athletics proficiency will be comptetitive in a race (where pacing, breath control, and the mind game are all far more important than raw physical attributes).