Picking Locks for fun and Profit

Dungeons and Dragons (Fifth Edition, but all editions, really) abstracts a lot of activities into simple dice rolls. It’s the core mechanic of the game, so that makes sense. Sometimes, though, there are common activities which have a chance for failure (generally the requirement for a die roll) that feel awkward when variance is applied because the associated cost is not clearly defined. A lot of these activities stem from the mental skills, things like Intelligence (Arcana) to translate an ancient text. If the roll to read the inscription above the door in an ancient language using a translation book fails, players tend to shrug and say, “Can I try that again?” DMs often find themselves struggling with this question because the immediate answer is often, “Why not?”

But, instinctively, DMs (and players, too) know attempting rolls again feels narratively plausible even while also understanding that the real answer to “why shouldn’t I give it another go?” is because, given sufficient attempts, any required roll becomes meaningless. Many DMs (myself included) often hand-wave this with a quick associated cost of random time. “Okay you can try again, but it will take you 30 minutes per attempt.”

In exploration mode, this in and of itself is often a boon to players rather than a penalty. If the Wizard is going to fool around with the language book for an hour, perhaps the other party members can take a short rest while he does so? And again, why not?

Nowhere is this principle more obvious than in the case of lockpicking: a common Rogue class activity that, under rules as written in D&D 5e, is abstracted into a single Dexterity skill check requiring thieves’ tools where the modifiers are calculated based on the character’s proficiency level with the tools and (optionally) whether the tools themselves were improvised or not. The associated cost here is completely undefined in RAW, leaving it to the DM to determine what it means to fail a lockpicking attempt.

This feels unsatisfactory to some, including me, so I went looking for alternatives. There are a lot of simple house rule modifications I found that revolve around failure conditions, timing restrictions, or simplified modifier formulas. However, a lot of these didn’t feel like they solved the core issue here which is that lockpicking in particular feels like it should be special. There is a reason why Elder Scrolls games include lockpicking mini-games and very few other activities in those sprawling video games have similar mechanics. Getting what you want or where you need to be is both a core element of exploration and a significant (if less common) sub-element of combat as well, with social interaction implications besides.

Other systems I found were needlessly complex, adding a ridiculous amount of extra layers to lock complexities, jamming stats, re-locking functions, strength evaluations, and so much more. I’m not looking to make lockpicking the most nuanced part of the game, just spruce it up a bit.

With those parameters in mind, I found two possibilities I thought were intriguing.

Alternative 1: Tumbler Dice

This house rule/homebrew system is based on YouTuber Bob World Builder’s Lockpicking Mini-Game video.

I’ve modified the system a bit based on some other feedback and expanded it. I’m referring to this as the Lockpicking Tumbler System, or Tumbler Dice. The version presented in the video is, essentially, the Whole Lock method described in the homebrew document and the idea behind the expansion is that there are really two approaches to picking a lock: feel your way through it one tumbler at a time, or take a little extra care and caution and evaluate the lock before trying to pick it. The various circumstances for trying each method break down to this: the Tumbler-by-Tumbler method is attemptable by any character (though they can only hope to succeed if they are quite lucky and then only on simple locks), accommodates improvised tools, and is slightly faster for simpler locks but slightly slower overall for the most challenging locks. The Whole Lock approach is attemptable only by characters who can pass a Sleight of Hand check to evaluate the lock (an argument could be made that this check should be Intelligence based, but I feel that punishes Rogues who may not have invested in INT and I don’t want Rogues to ever feel like they’re not the best at this task, even if it is more open to other characters through this system). But overall the Whole Lock approach is less prone to failure, particularly when attempted by a skilled Rogue.

In either case, characters with Thieves’ Tools proficiencies and Rogues have significant advantages but are never required to get past simple locking mechanisms (which it often feels is the case in Fifth Edition). It also specifies the associated cost in terms of time and results of failure in a way a straight skill check does not, at the expense (game-wise) of some added complexity.

It should be noted that these systems could easily be decoupled and used individually if one or the other mini-game were determined to be more enjoyable or the drawbacks/benefits of one or the other were thought to be unbalanced.

Alternative 2: Range Finder

This lockpicking mini-game is based on Black Citadel RPG’s Picking Locks in 5e article. I’ve adapted it somewhat into what I’m calling Lockpicking With Ranges, or Range Finder. This system creates a blackjack-like mini-game using dice based on the circumstances of the lockpicking (like the character’s skill and quality of the tools). It is much closer overall to the RAW lockpicking rules in that it requires some kind of tools and is repeatable (statistically) about half the time. Associated costs here are about one round (six seconds) per attempt and a failure table that has randomized outcomes. In this system, lockpicking is faster (both in game terms and in mini-game completion times) but the results are a bit more chaotic given the results table. I think also Rogues may feel a little less special regarding lockpicking with this system; given its inherent randomness the dice values play a more central role though their ability to evaluate locks for the exact range might be the edge needed to make it still “a Rogue thing.” Unfortunately, it’s impossible to test the system with hidden Target Ranges without someone else acting as DM.

Which To Use?

This would be a matter of discussion for the group. Generally speaking I think they both seem fun; Tumbler Dice strays further from 5e principles than Range Finder does, but does better at addressing some of the fiddly “keep trying until it works” circumstances that often arise. Tumbler Dice is also significantly more complex (as presented here in the combined model). I doubt lockpicking could be handled without the reference sheet for the first at least dozen tries. There is potential for using either half of the Tumbler Dice system alone (making all lockpicking checks Tumbler-by-Tumbler or Whole Lock). I combined the two rather than make them distinct as I think the choice between whether to spend time analyzing the lock and then picking it with one go or feel it out is an interesting one that gives Rogues in particular a good role to play. That said, the Whole Lock approach is significantly less error prone, especially for a Rogue with plenty of Sneak Attack dice (which translate into re-rolls) and I could definitely see a case where the Tumbler-by-Tumbler method just never gets used.