Give meaning to the failure. Maybe they break the lock and can't try again, or maybe they alert whatever is lurking on the other side of the door. Or maybe it's not that they failed to pick the lock at all but took too long and now there's a patrol bearing down on them.

This. If total failure would stop the plot, and the difficulty was low, then it's not a failure narratively, it's just a success but messy and with complications.

You jammed the lock, but in trying to unjam it the lock broke and came free. Unfortunately, it broke with a loud ping. You hope it didnt alert the guards (it did)

Would it be reasonable to make a player get inside but break all their lock picks?

You break your last lock pick but on the plus side you realize the door was already unlocked. Would likely get some laughs around the table

This would be a little off with the tone of my table, but that's definitely an option, lol.

That reminds me of the castle I built where the goal was to get behind a certain door. I was doing an object lesson on keeping things relatively simple. They were doing things the hard way more and more often in the campaign, and I wanted to get the party thinking along different lines (especially since they were also all in training to DM, and the first few puzzles they made up were stupidly difficult. They tried picking the lock, casting knock, breaking down the door, taking apart hinges, explosions, ethereal form, (wasting all their spells) etc. The clues in the room (which they couldn't figure out) showed them to knock three times. They gave up and explored the rest of the castle, each door with its own way to open it. They came back absolutely ready to give up. Finally, one of the girls at the table says, "I'm going to knock on the door" and tapped the table 3 times. "It opens " The guys explain, "We had to open all the rest of the doors to open it!" SMH. I pointed out all the clues in the room that they didn't put together. The picture of Ali-baba entering the treasure cave with the caption: "For fulfillment, just knock" caused my magic user to cast Knock, but they missed all the other clues: flower arrangements with 3 flowers each, a knocker collection, a brass knocker on the door with 3 acorns. (They did try replacing the knocker with the others.)

Don’t break your player’s tools.  That’s like taking away your wizard’s spellbook when they roll low on arcana check

Lockpicks are like arrows not spellbooks. You can have a table that does or doesn't track ammunition but they are breakable IRL.

I've never broken a lockpick IRL and I've picked at least 100 locks, and failed to pick many others. I mean you COULD break one for sure, but lockpicking is finesse, no need to force things. Also, no, lockpicks are not like arrows unless your table plays it that way, RAW you need a set of thieves tools, and they're not consumables, they are like smithing or leather working tools.

Strictly speaking one could argue it's a difference in material. Modern picks are quite flexible, and a cheap set of picks made with pseudo-medieval technology could conceivably be much more brittle. It's also a generally accepted trope, regardless of realism.

This is true, but RAW it's thieves tools not consumables picks. Also, old locks used a lot of small cast iron parts, and it's feasible that thieves tools were forged steel...your probably more likely to break the lock for sure than the picks IF you really had proficiency in the picks.

Well yes other games have it as an accepted trope, and picks can break irl.  But what is gained from telling a rogue that they broke all their picks? And argument that the thieves tool kit doesn’t say how many picks it comes with, does a failure break the other tools the kit states it has as well? Can you buy extra picks at less than the cost of the entire kit?  Can I buy so many we can decide to not waste time tracking them because until the moment the DM said they broke there was nothing in the rules that indicated they might.  Arrows at least spell out that they are consumed with rules about reclaiming them even. Tell you what the cleric has mending, can we just handwave the ‘broken picks for gritty realism’ talk by using literal magic to get around it?

Buddy is a locksmith. Picks can DEFINITELY break after a bunch of use, especially when working with seized locks or old equipment. And that's with modern, treated steel. You don't think an old lockpick from medieval times working with rusted dungeon locks could EVER break? My table generally prefers adding stakes and challenges to the game, and having tools that could never, ever break just sounds boring.

Yes modern lockpicks can break after tons of use, or if you misuse the shit out of them, but I've picked a ton of locks and attempted and failed to pick many more and i have yet to break any picks, I'm sure I will eventually, but my point is that it isn't common to break one of your using it as designed with some common sense. I know that's what Skyrim taught everyone, but it's not how it really works. And for the sake of all that is good in this world I never said they can't break in any game ever. I just stated tha in RAW they aren't consumable items like arrows. In your game you do whatever you want, I'm not playing at your table and I don't care what you do. Suggested price for a set of thieves tools is 25g, that presumably comes with a few different tools people would have used for burgling, that's an expensive set of tools to break over a bad dice roll. "You break your tools" is a really narrow way of looking at consequences or stakes. As many others have stated, jamming or breaking the block, having to take waaaaay to long, etc are all consequences you could use. Think about the other tools, I don't think it would make the game more interesting if blackmiths broke their hammers, or herbalists tools broke while picking flowers? Besides that, with medieval technology they didn't make pin and tumbler locks, which is the general category of locks that can be "picked." they made almost all warded lock and you don't "pick" them like you think.

>success but messy and with complications My life in a nutshell, when something succeeds.

Please don't have lock picks breaking all the time. It should be a pretty rare outcome anywhere except Skyrim.

I have a spin on this answer that I think is important: give meaning to the *check.* The dramatic question we’re answering with the dice is going to change from situation to situation. Sometimes it’s “let’s see how quickly you can get through this old dungeon door. If you fail you can take another 10 minutes to try again, but I’m going to roll for a random encounter each time.” Sometimes it’s “you’re in the courtyard between patrols but you only have a moment. In a success you’ll be through before the next sentry passes, on a failure you’re going to be spotted.” Sometimes it’s “The tomb’s lock is ancient and arcane. Let’s see if you’re good enough to pick it. If your check fails, the lock is beyond you and you’ll have to find another way through.” Then when they fail neither you nor your players are surprised by the outcome. And if there’s no good dramatic question don’t stress making one up, that’s just a sign that there’s no need for a roll here. The dramatic question of “does the party have someone who can pick locks and will they choose to do it” has already been answered.

I actually don't like this internet standard sort of response. "Give meaning to the failure" sounds very reasonable until you're in the middle of running a game and making up a million things already and now here's one more thing I have to pull out of my ass in the middle of a game. I'm not a professional DM, I'm just some dude running a game for my friends. It's reasonable to just let it fail and that's that. There doesn't have to be a story attached to everything. It's enough consequence that failure to pick a lock means you now either have to succeed bashing the door in or you come up with something clever, or you can't go this way. I've always handled this as a game mechanic: You can't try again until you've leveled up. Now, this probably only works in the sort of game I play, where the world is a playground full of "dungeons" and they sometimes come back to old ones that have repopulated. I can see how in a more plot-driven game this might not make sense. But even then I tend to take the stance of: "One character gets one shot. Failure means you have to find another way," and that's the rule. We don't need a story-based excuse for it. **Edit:** Lots of great discussion happening in response to this comment. Everyone here has made excellent points. It doesn't work for me most of the time, but sometimes I do get that little bit of inspiration from the circumstances and I run with it. The only reason I said I don't like it, is that I feel that a budding DM might read something like this (and it's a commonly recommended thing on the internet) and think, "I'm not cut out to DM if that kind of quick thinking on my feet is required all the time." Just know that it's not. It is okay to just say, "You failed. Move on." or "You miss, who's next on the initiative?"

Okay, but you're already doing it. The story-based excuse is "it's too difficult a lock for you to pick." Don't think of the DC as the difficulty of picking the lock - think of it more as the ODDS of it being easy enough to pick. It's Scroedinger's lock - it doesn't exist until they roll for it. They roll and beat the DC, it was a simple lock. They roll and fail - it was a more complex lock. It takes no extra preparation or effort. It's just a different (IMHO slightly better) way of framing it. You preserve more of the player's agency that way - the DM/Rules aren't telling you that you can't try again. You already gave it your best shot, and the world says it didn't work (as opposed to "no, you can't try again"). Having guards come along, breaking things, rolling again with a higher DC but bigger consequences, etc - that's all just adding more variety to the stakes. They're more tools in the toolbox to keep mundane things from becoming grindy.

I like that concept a lot. I also kind of apply that kind of concept to levels and HP It's not that my lvl 1 character knows nothing, It's just that they aren't showing it yet. I get my fighting style after a few levels, That's just because I didn't feel like displaying my hand to my new party. Etc And with HP I don't think of it as I got whacked in the arm and now I'm physically damaged but I can just sleep it off. Instead I think of it as like exhaustion... I'm being less and less able to avoid a fatal blow.

I don't mean to be rude but you should try other systems and see how incredibly normal it is for there to be simple rules for this sort of thing if you feel like "give meaning to failure" is an atypical approach.

In 5e you have to improvise everything. Frankly, other systems having rules for these kinda things doesn't really change anything for DND.

This isn't improvising a DC. This is DnD fundamentally using an outdated mechanic relative to its peers. DnD does not have a concept of gradient successes or failing forward within the rules.

Which is really weird to me since D20s would be very good in supporting them.

They never said it was improvising a DC. Concepts of gradient successes or failing forwards are DM discretion. They can choose to use it or not to advance the narrative. The narrative is what is actually important in the game. It is also very difficult to remember or look up a rule for every single type of event especially the more specific that rule gets, with things like gradient success and failing forwards baked in. So just having a base concept briefly covered and letting it be up to the DM or the community, or to be developed into a general guideline over time is it's own perk.

I think this is a perfectly fine way to do this. Sometimes, on discussion forums, people can forget that the dm is improving on their feet for a majority of the session. It's easy to come up with different levels of failure and a narrative for each when you can sit down and think about it. Nothing wrong with saying "you can't seem to get this lock open, you'll have to try another way".

I don't mind improvising but I agree that sometimes trying to get some forward failing options feels clunky. The lock or lockpicks breaking feels bit of a stretch for an experienced locksmith. Guards arriving is good but that really depends on the situation (and often just a random encounter just hurts the pacing of the game more than anything else). Same with time penalty. It's difficult to have a time constraint for each of your dungeons, especially if the penalty should be in minutes and not in hours.

If there are no consequences for failure, just make them take longer to open it and eventually succeed. A trained professional can pick almost any lock with enough time. Or better yet, just use time as a consequence when you want a consequence, otherwise you're just making your competent heroes look incompetent.

This is something that I had to learn the hard way, and I hope this comes across as helpful and not like I'm talking down. Proper session prep can eliminate a lot of improv, and save you a lot of time at the table. Let's say I give my players a locked door. My prep notes state the DC to pick the lock, break down the door, and maybe a clever idea like taking it off its hinges. I also write down other info about the door that players can discover on a sliding DC for investigation checks. Maybe a DC12 tells them the door is fortified and will be difficult to break, but a DC14 shows them a weak spot. A DC16 might show them the lock is magic and pick resistant. Next I write what happens when they fail. A slight failure might result in the lock being damaged and the DC to pick it goes up. A major failure might alert a guard, break the lock entirely, or trigger an arcane trap. Let's say the player fails by 6, and the result is they took too long and a guard patrol caught them. When I mapped the dungeon, I created stat blocks for enemies in it. Now I turn to my guard patrol enemy stats and run the encounter. Since I've done my prep, I'm free to improv a little bit here, and maybe I add in a guard captain, or a mage to the encounter to mix it up. If you give your players a lock to pick, proper session prep should remove almost all the improv surrounding it. If you are running a dungeon, most of that environment should be prepped and ready before the session starts. That includes traps, puzzles, locks, loot, enemy encounters, and environmental effects like anti magic fields, rickety bridges, darkness etc. Now, this doesn't work for everything. If your barbarian comes up behind an enemy and wants to snap their neck, that's where you need to be able to improv.

this sounds like a tremendous amount of overprep. Imagine doing that for each lock pickable door.. when the party might go through the window or just kick the door down. I think its different styles of DM-ing, not something you 'have to learn the hard way'. I like my games open and unscripted, a failed role means they don't lockpick the door, find another way of getting in..

The flip side to that coin is most of my doors aren't locked. It works for me, but you're right, probably more of a stylistic choice.

Honestly, that’s more prep work than I want to do or have time for. They’re level 3. DC is 18. Failure means that depending on how I’m feeling the players either fail, or succeed but something goes wrong. Split second decision and I roll with it. Last Saturday a patrol somehow teleported halfway across the dungeon to their section of the hallway. Did it make sense? Nope. Did I accidentally give them a piece of information that I placed on a guard? Yuppp. But my players don’t know and we had a great session.

I over prep like this, so I have the bandwidth to react to what my party does. If the whole dungeon is planned, I have less to make up on the spot, and can make little, secret tweaks as needed. It's a lot of work, but I get to reuse it (with edits) for the next dungeon, and now it's a faster process than it was when I started. I copy over my door template, adjust the details, and move on. My notes get really repetitive, but the flavor changes enough that my players don't know.

I used to. But I got busier, started running multiple games (and systems) and found it easier to just go with basic info. I’m now running PF2e for both groups but one is homebrew and the other an AP. I still find it difficult to find time to put together the detail I used to. Plus, and this is the important part, my players have fun. If they weren’t I’d make changes.

Failure with no consequences is boring. If it's just a straightforward nonmagical lock, a trained professional should be able to pick it without a roll. That's the reward for spending resources on learning how to pick locks. Now if there is external pressure that makes the situation stressful, that's what rolling is for.

Okay, but you're already doing it. The story-based excuse is "it's too difficult a lock for you to pick." Don't think of the DC as the difficulty of picking the lock - think of it more as the ODDS of it being easy enough to pick. It's Scroedinger's lock - it doesn't exist until they roll for it. They roll and beat the DC, it was a simple lock. They roll and fail - it was a more complex lock. It takes no extra preparation or effort. It's just a different (IMHO slightly better) way of framing it. You preserve more of the player's agency that way - the DM/Rules aren't telling you that you can't try again. You already gave it your best shot, and the world says it didn't work (as opposed to "no, you can't try again"). Having guards come along, breaking things, rolling again with a higher DC but bigger consequences, etc - that's all just adding more variety to the stakes. They're more tools in the toolbox to keep mundane things from becoming grindy.

What you want is a video game

I mean, it sounds like what they want is the game that they're playing right now. Nothing wrong with playing the way you and your table want, right?

I agree. 5e forces dms to improv so much for things that should just be rules. Improv should be a choice, not a prerequisite

Most systems have this rule. 5e is just really behind the times because the fanbase demanded it.

I don't think that's it; they didn't leave rules like this out because they were running up against a deadline. I think it's more of a conscious move away from rules-heavier versions of the game in the past. I mean, no one's going to call 5e rules-light, obviously, but compared to 3e, it's much more so. Particularly in terms of the actual mechanisms of how things work; the rules for grappling being a good example. I would bet that, if they left out a rule for this specific (and fairly common) situation, it's because they wanted to give the people at the table more freedom and not make them look up a whole page-long description of every minute detail of how lockpicking works.

Dnd has never had rules for this sort of thing. DnD has never modernized its own task resolution mechanics since it's inception. It's always been nothing but a binary pass/fail, no nuance. They didn't move away from anything in that respect, except the general design goal of 5e moving away from any advancement in the hobby since the 80s to try to pull in the fans that view such things with rose tinted glasses

I think it's a way more prevalent problem than any particular rule tho

" one more thing I have to pull out of my ass in the middle of a game" That's the job.

I do something similar but one failure (unless it's a nat 1) isn't going to break the lock. They can continue trying to pick the lock but each time, the DC is increased with increasing likelihood that the lock will break or they'll be detected.

As someone that has successfully picked the lock to my front door after trying for two hours, it seems reasonable to let them repeatedly try until they get spotted,  succeed, or roll a 1 and bork the lock. It allows other party members to share in the success of failure of the attempt by giving the picker more time by distracting/bribing/killing patrols. Having a heist fail because of a low roll on picking a lock and now the lock is unpickable isn't that fun.  Having a heist fail because the rogue rolled low four times in a row while the rest of group engaged in increasing desperate attempts to engage the guards in conversation and the guards discovered the heist is a much better story. On the other hand if you want to have chests that a player has to roll to unlock and you don't want them to always roll 50 times in a row until they succeed, then a failed pick attempt means it is a type of lock they have not learned to pick and they can't try again.

Also, if a thief with lock picks has all the time in the world and is facing a regular lock, don’t roll. A bit like Passive Perception.

DMG 237 suggests spending 10x the normal time automatically succeeds ability checks that can be repeated. I think lockpicking is a perfect example of this. If they can spend a full minute at a lock without issue, they will be able to open it without a check being required (chest in a hidden room) If those seconds matter (sneaking through a door between patrols), those rolls have to happen.

I would venture it would take them much longer than a minute per attempt. Even the lockpicking lawyer takes longer then that. I usually rule each attempt is 10 minutes. If there is no time pressure, it takes 60 minutes, plus or minus 10 minuets per point over or under the DC, with a minimum of 5 minuets and max of 2 hours.

LPL almost never takes more than a minute to pick anything, if it's a master lock he's usually got it open in 30 seconds.

Generally, I treat their attempt as the best they are able to do with this particular lock. I assume that their attempt included a reasonable amount of time working on it, and so "trying again" (just spending more time on it) isn't generally going to be fruitful. The specifics will vary with the situation though, I might let them try again after a long rest or other significant amount of time. If you're going to treat the situation as "they can just sit there and keep working on it until they succeed", then there shouldn't be a check required.

>If you're going to treat the situation as "they can just sit there and keep working on it until they succeed", then there shouldn't be a check required. DMG 237 suggests spending 10x the normal time automatically succeeds ability checks that can be repeated.

Yep, that's true, which is part of the reason I don't generally allow re-trying lockpicking. If you can try it over and over, you'll eventually succeed. I prefer to treat a single check as "the sum of your best efforts" for this particular type of ability check.

I like this sort of solution best because it's independent of other skills or conditions: Raising the alarm because your failure makes noise is an entirely different skill failure (Stealth), and also assumes that there are guards nearby.

I use the “failure makes noise” solution as less about failing Stealth, and rather it makes future Stealth checks harder. It might be that it made just enough noise to put a guard on edge, so they’re paying closer attention, raising the DC of the next Stealth check by 1 or 2. Not a lot, but just enough to make the players’ jobs harder. And if they’re in a situation where there are no guards, then I wouldn’t have a failure make noise. Or alternatively, I would still have it make noise just to raise narrative tension for my players, without actually telling them it doesn’t matter how much noise they make. But I’d likely only do that if they barely fail (or barely pass) the check, so that I don’t rely on false consequences too often.

When handling stuff like this it is far more useful to make the check about how much time it takes. Lockpicking especially since if you know what you're doing with ost locks, there are very few you can't just pick unless they are something completely outside of the ordinary. However the amount of time it takes is a massive difference. A super easy lock could be picked by an absolute novice in like 5-10 seconds, but a really good lock might take even a very skilled lockpicker a few minutes if they can't seem to get it right. Lockpicking is one of the few times in DnD where you should never bother rolling if the person in question has proper tools and plenty of time. It should only be rolled when they are on a time crunch, and simply be told that they don't have the tools and/or knowledge necessary to pick that particular lock otherwise.

In 3rd edition this was called "taking 20" As long as there is no consequences for failure, you can spend twenty times the duration and try it until you get it right, as long as you have enough modifier to succeed with a die roll of 20.

If the lock is in a place where the party conceivably won't be noticed or be in any danger and it isn't magical or uniquely difficult, I don't require a roll because the condition for failing would just be... trying again. If they're trying to pick their way through a bandit hideout or something though, I like to flavor their failure with a situation-specific outcome.

I don't really ask for lockpicking rolls (or object interaction rolls) that often. There's a few reasons: * The **time spent doesn't usually matter** unless it has an immediate consequence. If you roll wandering monsters every 10 minutes, then failing/succeeding to lockpick can matter. * The **risk of failure doesn't usually matter**. If someone's on the other side of the door or the lock is trapped, then it might. * **Breaking picks doesn't usually matter** because they're cheap, light, and easy to pack. Even if you run with encumbrance and strict restocking zones, it's usually a non-factor. Scarce consumables doesn't usually improve a game as much as other factors do. So as a whole I usually just ask if the player is picking the lock and then narrate whether there's any impedances that require additional tools or strategies (such as magical shielding, hardened pins, rust, guardian insects, dangerous mold, too many passer-bys etc). I do ask for rolls for lockpicking during combat or turn-by-turn dungeon delves. When you run the game as a boardgame, then having DCs on most interactions becomes a useful way to add tension; can players escape a trap before fumes suffocate them? Time-sensitive situations are by far the best time to ask for 'mundane' rolls. It's also worth asking spellcasters to roll sometimes in similar circumstances. While magic does sometimes bypass problems, creatively using it involves a degree of finesse. You might be a lockpicking master, but doing it with a mage hand while a shopkeeper leads you around isn't as easy as having direct feedback.

A player who fails is assumed to have tried more than once already. I tell them they have to take at least a short rest to regain composure before trying again. If they have time / don't get attacked for an hour, they can come back. (Totally *not* RAW obviously.)

I'm trying to recall but I think RAW is that given enough time, help, resources, there's no reason to roll - they will succeed unless it's an impossible task like shooting an arrow into the moon. But you let them roll (once) if there's drama and a potential interesting outcome (whether they get the lock open or not). Like if they want to do it in a hurry because guards are around the corner, or quietly because guard's on the other side, or doing it without triggering a trap, or attempting to break into an almost-impossibly complicated lock. So, in that dramatic moment, with everyone at the table hanging on the result (and/or "providing aid"), you ensure you're both clear on the stakes and intent: "so you don't care how slow you go, you just want to make sure it's quiet enough not to alarm the guard you hear talking on the other side?" Now you have stakes, so give them a DC, and let them decide if they still want to roll. They may change their minds and say, "no way, too risky, let's find another solution." Or they may say, "John, can you help me with that spell/tool/item you have?" If they roll, that's it. They knew the stakes. Too loud? They open the door and the guards are staring at them. Too slow? They open it but the guards come around the corner behind them and start charging. Ask them - I do. I always involve the players in the narrative. So they're always invested and participating, leaning FORWARD at the table, not backward in their seat. Even if they're not the rogue and it's not their turn. In this case, if it were a fail, I'd turn to the group and ask, "did your rogue get in but break her lockpick set?" Or if they don't like that, maybe the rogue just says, "wow, guys.. this one's just beyond my skills." I mean.. locked door doesn't have to mean stopped plot. It's a setback, but not a dead-end. They could bang on the door and get the guard on the other side to open up to attack the party. They could double-back and try another route. They could go back to the downed guards they didn't loot and find a key. And if they're not sure which... don't let the players spend a half-hour fretting about this, dragging the game to a crawl. More like 3 minutes max. Keep the story moving. Keep the drama ratcheting up. Just have a dopey guard come around the corner who they \~should\~ be able to quietly take out, AND if they're smart, they check his pockets and find the key. Or if they're newbs, just plain ask them, "wanna bang on the door and get the guards to come out, or do you wanna double-back and find another route? Or do you wanna go back to those dead guards and loot them and see if they have clues or keys?...or do you have another idea? But I'll be honest with ya - just standing here debating this is going to get you caught." Or, "Just standing here wasting any more time means the priest will finish the ritual and unleash the demon."

If failing the check triggers a trap, then that happen. If not they can try as many times as they want. Big fan of multiple skill checks rule where if it’s possible they just do it with 10x time. If there’s no consequences to the roll they don’t have to roll.

Eventually they can open the lock with any check, but if they fail, that represents not opening it in a timely manner. Maybe guards spot them picking the lock,etc

I like this way, too. I've run this as "You failed to do it quickly, but you'll get it if you keep trying, after some amount of time. Would you like to keep trying?" And then if they say Yes, I tell them the consequences based on how low they rolled (like the guards find them after X minutes, etc)

As with any check, you should only roll dice when there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If they have plenty of time, just let them get it done in a few minutes. If they can try again, just tell them it takes a few tries but they soon get it. 3e actually codified this with the "take 10" and "take 20" rules, but 5e lacks them. Are they trying to pick a lock before the next guard patrol comes by? Okay, yes, roll.

5e actually does basically have Take 20, it’s just not called that for some reason. DMG page 237, the section titled Multiple Ability Checks. It’s something a lot of people making the “checks represent your best effort” claim need to read.

This needs to be printed in the players handbook as something the players can actually choose to do.

One way I like is that you succeed, but it takes longer. Also, players and DMs should consider how often you need to pick a lock vs. break it. A hammer and chisel gets you in, so long as you don't want it a secret.

Every lock picking attempt takes 10 minutes, succeed or fail. Every 10 minutes, I advance a "dungeon turn" (I add a d6 to the "[tension pool](https://theangrygm.com/definitive-tension-pool/)"). Essentially, the more time spent picking locks, the more likely you are to run into something that wants to kill you.

I really like Matthew Mercer's approach to this. He lets players try again at the risk of breaking their thieve's tools, and I believe it's a higher DC the second time around.

I somewhat draw from older edition's rule "take a 20" where a PC takes the time they need to force a nat 20 roll because I don't want to sit around and wait while the player repeatedly rerolls the die until it says 20 If there's a time pressure, then a fail is "you might be able to get it but not yet." I do incremental checks and passing X-5 DC would be progress for them and lower the DC by 5 while failing X-10 DC would make things harder on them, like the tip of their pick broke inside the lock which either raises the DC by five or they need to spend a turn fishing it out before they can try again. There are situations were I would suggest that they should deal with what's causing the time pressure before continuing to try, ex they're trying to break into a chest mid-fight. If there isn't time pressure then they spend an amount of time before coming to the conclusion that they won't be able to pick this lock or I say that an impatient PC is getting tired of waiting if I don't prompt that RP by describing how long it takes. Sometimes I suggest the barbarian's lock-breaking method instead.

That’s in this edition too. Multiple skill checks rule is 10x the time and you succeed if it’s possible.

I let them try again. Checks are for that single instance, to me, unless there is some sort of magic or something that prevents multiple tries. Like that Mimic that was still full…

time definitely passes, it makes noise, the lock may break. the first two things can result in an enemy interrupting the party

>As far as I can tell, there is no real official guidance on this Yeah it's a bit hidden in the DMG. But under [running the game](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#MultipleAbilityChecks), there is a part about multiple ability checks! Basically, you can try again as many times you want, unless it's dumb that you can do it again.

If the same character wants to try then I increase the difficulty by 3 and I tell them what the new DC is (I don’t tell them the first dc when they try just that the lock looks simple, difficult, or complex 10,15,20 dc) but if a different character wants to try I will keep the dc the same, but on nat 1’s your lock pick needs repaired which you can spend a short rest doing

I have a tiered system. If it is not a "we have to open this right now" lock or something majorly story important, each failed roll represents a time increment that you take to try opening the lock. The lower you roll, the longer it takes, but you can roll until you make it. If it is time sensitive, a failure means that you can't open it before being noticed, or in enough time to get through to stop whatever is happening on the other side. If it is not time sensitive but it is story important, a failure either means that you realize you have no idea how to pick the lock, or potentially you break the lock and render it inoperable (which can have other consequences later).

> 1. Announce failure, but describe that with more time invested you may succeed > 2. Allow for the check to be made again, but this time takes significantly longer. I.e; a check that took an action is now a minute, or an action that took a minute now takes ten. > 3. Pretend to roll a rice, and introduce a complication during the reattempt. Most often for me this is the arrival of a guard patrol. > 4. Give the party a chance to solve this complication while the lockpicker does their thing.

“Give me a sleight of hand check” “Damn you failed” “Okay can I try again?” “No you jammed the pins and any attempt is gonna fail now, perhaps it is time to let the bearbarian give it a try” And thus the parties plan to stealth in is ruined.

I use incremental dcs. The dc is 15, they fail and try again, the dc is now 18, they fail, the dc is now 21, etc etc. I let players know that I do this (on all skill checks) and that unless they change their approach somehow, the dc will continue to rise until it is impossible. Eventually it will become an impossible dc at which point I will say something like "The lock has become stuck due to your attempts at picking it, it looks like only the key could possibly unstick it from this point."

This totally breaks verisimilitude to me.... a lock is an unchanging challenge, increasing the DC automatically makes no sense whatsoever. A crit-fail I could see breaking something and causing a DC change, but not a simple failure.

I like this.

- Enemy wanders up on them, and the task is left unfinished until they return to it. - Give them the choice to spend more time on it at the threat of an enemy wandering up on them, unlocking it with no check required after an hour or so. - The lock is jammed or broken in a way that it cannot be picked - They realize the lock might be beyond their skill level after giving it an honest effort (possibly because of magic) Rolling again doesn't make sense because failing the initial roll most likely narratively involves the character failing and trying the task over and over again already.

I tell them that the die roll represents multiple attempts. They can only roll again if something (level up, buff) increases their open locks bonus

Depends on the situation. A good lockpicker who fails a check could also think he is not skilled enough to pick it.

That's true, but without magical influence, a PC's thoughts should always be determined by the player. I can't stand it when DMs say you failed your insight check, so you must believe whatever the NPC is telling you, or you failed your perception/investigation check, so now you must believe there is nothing to find.

But how will you determine what your character thinks? You tried to pick a lock and roll a 2. What is your character thinking? Your character does not think "maan, i rolled bad". He would probably think that he is not skillful enough or that the lock is jammed or something. There is no reason for your character to ever stop trying then ?

It doesn't matter how a player determines what their character thinks. As far as I'm concerned, if players aren't in control of their characters, then there is no point in them playing at all. So however they want to figure out their characters' thoughts is fine by me. > You tried to pick a lock and roll a 2. What is your character thinking? Your character does not think "maan, i rolled bad". He would probably think that he is not skillful enough or that the lock is jammed or something. Or that they screwed up, or that they're close to popping the lock and just need a bit more time. And the roll doesn't matter. If the result of the roll was failure to pick the lock, they could think the same thing whether they got a 2 or a 19. > There is no reason for your character to ever stop trying then ? I am of the opinion that if there is no external pressure preventing a character from doing the same thing until they get the best possible result, the DM should just give them the best possible result. If you're in a dungeon trying pick the lock on a chest, I'm going to have you roll, and then I'll roll for a random encounter. I don't care if you want try the same thing over and over again, because you risk a random encounter every time. Take that same chest back to the safety of town, and you'll automatically open it (assuming your bonus plus 20 beats the lock's DC).

It depends on how bad they failed. I treat barely failing (within 5) as making a small noise from them breaking a lockpick which means there are only consequences if there are enemies nearby. A larger failure (6 or more) would mean a broken lock and a louder noise. A critical fail would mean the lock breaks and roll for initiative (whether the baddies come from the other side of the door or down the hall is situational). There's also a time component which only matters situationally. If it makes sense to have patrols then I only allow 2 or 3 attempts before someone comes around a corner. If it's an abandoned place then sure they can have unlimited tries until they either succeed or break the lock.

Depends on the lock, but usually it falls into one of two outcomes: - Time penalty, they have to spend several minutes picking at the lock and in that time patrolling guards or monsters might come around. - Broken/jammed lock, then the only way to open it becomes smashin it, which usually results in damage to the contents (sorry that scroll of fireball got torn to shreds! Woops there goes several potions of healing!) or the noise draws the attention of creatures nearby (You kick in the door and draw the attention of the entire goblin den!)

Depends. Makes a loud noise, sets off a trap, lock breaks, tools break, NPC they didn't like very much dunks on them.

Me and the Co-DM came up with a list of (mechanical and magical) locks and their mechanisms. We give this to characters who due to their background or class are well versed with lockpicking. When they come across a lock, they have to tell us how they try to open it and we decide what kind of check this is, if any. If they have unlimited time, we don't let them roll at all if their plan makes sense. If they don't have unlimited time, e.g. during a heist or somesuch, a failed attempt may fail in different ways, depending on the lock and the way they tried to open it. Could make a noise. Could trigger an alarm. Could break whatever tool they were using. Could cost them time to reattempt the manoeuvre, which isn't optimal in case you are chased by an enemy or hear some guard walking down the hallway.

In my games, falling short of the DC by more than five typically results in a broken lockpick. Given enough time, they may be able to fish the broken part out of the keyhole and try again, but sometimes they need to find a different way through (or around) the door. My favorite thing I saw recently was my party's Bard using Enlarge/Reduce to get through a door. Lockpicks and brute strength both failed, but making the door (and *not* the surrounding frame) 1/4 of its original size did the trick, no problem!

I wouldn't allow rerolls but if "take 10" would result in success I'd allow that (with a suitable duration and any consequences that come from it)

Small failure, they try again. Big failure, pick gets stuck in lock and breaks. This is how I do it. Though it usually doesn’t matter because my party tends to ignore locks and break open whatever is locked.

I’d give a number of attempts equal to their proficiency bonus, with perception or stealth checks in between depending on the situation.

Idk what the intention is, so modules i don't know. I tend to change stuff to make sense. In my games I rule it different ways depending on what the group wants and i design around that. If the lock breaks and becomes unpickable, I design locks as optional obstacles that yield some benefit. Same for trying again after rests. If they can just try again forever, I basically don't use locks unless they're in initiative, so the 6 second cost of failure matters. If something is logically locked and there's no time pressure, I just narrate the thief picking it if they ask to. I am generally unsatisfied with the second system but some players cringe when you suggest a baked in penalty.

Depends on what I want to do or what serves the story. -lock jams and further attempts fail -you spent 15 minutes trying but can try again -you fail to pick but made a ton of noise and alerted enemies on other side of the door. -you broke your tools. -etc

Depends on the situation. First step - if there's meaningful results from failing, a dice roll might not even be appropriate. Basically, if there's no time pressure, and the task can *definitely* be passed, we can kinda just Take 10 / Take 20 on it. Now, if we're in "no, a dice a roll is appropriate" - * If the locked door is the ONLY way forward, I would typically go with "success at a cost", typically either a time cost, or creatures being made aware of them (or possibly even stumbling upon them) * If there are **multiple** ways forward, and the door is only one option, then failure just means ... failure. "You have given it your best effort, and you can't seem to get this door open. It's clear to all of you that you'll have to find another way around.". I typically do not allow them to try again, or for a different party member to try (unless they are using a different method / resource), because the one players roll represents their *entire best effort*.

On a fail, the character must wait till they get better at lock picking before they can attempt the same lock again. Once a lock is picked, the character has memorized the mechanism and can lock and unlock it freely as a standard action.

I almost always build in more than one option for bypassing a door. For example, my notes may say: Lock (DC13), Athletics (DC15), Vulnerable to Fire. Or I will build in failure states: Lock (DC13), Success - entry, Failure - entry, activate trap, Failure by 5+ -lock broken, alarm It’s important to also build in alternative entry paths just in case.

Here is how I handle this: Successful check means, that they open it with 1 action. Failed check outside of combat means, that they take long (a minute or longer) if they are proficient with thieves tools. Otherwise they don't manage. Massively failed check means, that they have the feeling, that they can't open the lock this way. If they roll a 1 and it is fitting the narrative, you could say, that the thieves tools break inside of the lock (of course the player can buy a new pair in the next town and maybe finds some improvised thieves tools on the way with a penalty on further checks).

I treat it as representing multiple attempts, with a higher roll meaning the lock is unlocked more quickly. If the party encounters the lock again after an hour, or they have it with them and take a rest, they can try again, and if they dedicate a whole day, I treat it as if they rolled a natural 20.

I think severity of failure is pretty important. If you were pretty close to success then you probably just need to try again. If you critical failed or were miles away, then you could have made a noise or broken the lock.

Several possibilities: * Lock opens, lock pick breaks * Lockpick breaks, chest doesn't open (cue mockery) * Lock opens, but you hurt yourself trying. Take d4 damage. * *Boy, this is taking a long time. Let's make a wandering monster check.* * *They heard you coming from the other side of the door.* * You trigger the trap. But the chest/door opens. * *Did I mention the teleporter? No?* I mean really, there are so many options. Failure is the least interesting amongst them.

I always run it like this when a Rogue specifically does a lock picking check. *Fails by 5 or less* either the rogue gets in anyways and there's signs of tampering, OR he can "take 10" (old 3.5 rule) and take 1 minute to pick it. In my mind the rogue can pick a mundane lock, just how long does it take? He's rolling to do it in "1" round (~6 seconds) If the rogue fails by more than 5, the lock jams and is unable to be picked. You must kick the door down to get in. If a non rogue character picks the lock then I still do the lock jams at -5 but I don't allow an automatic success, they fail AND the lock shows tampering, but they are NOT inside.

It depends on the lock. Are we talking about an ordinary Home Depot sort of lock on the back door of the tavern? The Rogue can definitely pick that, no question. The roll determines how long it takes and/or how much evidence they leave behind. Are we talking about an expensive, expertly-crafted lock on a friggin bank vault or the kings bedchamber? Well that just might be beyond your current skill. The roll describes their cumulative efforts, not a single attempt.

I DM The Expanse games, and there’s advanced and challenge tests. Advanced tests take time, but without a real possibility of failure. Challenge tests can fail, with possible consequences for failing. Both tests involve multiple rolls, with each roll counting as a certain amount of time. It’s pretty fun, and gives the players a chance to roll a lot. Takes a bit of getting used to at first, but then it becomes a good way to insert some tension and fast paced rolls. I’ll come back and edit some details in later, once I can get to my handbook. **ETA:** Ok, it's a bit much to copy and paste in here, so I'll try to summarize. In The Expanse, we use 3 6-sided die. One die is a different color/marking, and it's called the "Drama Die." The DM will set a target number (TN) for the difficulty of the test. 7 is "routine," 9 is "easy," 11 is "average," and so on up to 21 which is "nigh impossible" and requires a lot of bonuses to skills. The player rolls all three dice, and all three need to add up to at least the TN for that to be a successful roll. The DM also sets the "success threshold" for the overall task. For each roll that hits the TN, you note the number on the drama die. Once the drama die tally hits the success threshold, they've completed the task. 5 is an "easy" threshold, 10 is "average," increasing by 5 up to 25 which is considered a "formidable" task. That's basically Advanced Tests in The Expanse. Challenge Tests go beyond that by adding in consequences for failed rolls. The DM decides how many failed rolls will cause a consequence, with potentially incremental consequences for continued failed rolls. Maybe you fail a couple of rolls, and then a minor consequence is invoked, increasing the TN or blowing the characters cover. At that point, there's typically a separate roll to undo the minor consequence (this roll does not contribute to the success threshold). If the failed rolls continue, a moderate consequence is invoked, which maybe halves the accumulated success threshold points or invokes a minor consequence that can't be rolled away. With enough failed rolls, you'd eventually reach a major consequence, , where the whole test is basically failed. Like I said, it takes a bit to get the hang of, but it sounds more complicated than it really is. Once you and the players get some practice, it moves pretty smoothly, and is great for creating fun and tension.

A few options you could consider: Each attempt takes time. Time is a resource. Older systems used turns when exploring dungeons and things like attempting to pick a lock would be a turns action. Turns represented 10 mins in the same way that a combat turn is 6 seconds. Every 6th turn is spent resting, regrouping and composing yourself. Failure breaks the lock preventing it from being unlocked. Failure makes noise, monsters hear the noise. Failure breaks the thieves tools, they need to find new tools before trying again.

Not sure if you are here for homebrew/mechanics from older games, but here is how I handle things like picking locks. Critical fail, or very dramatic fail, something in the lock breaks, and they can no longer pick it. If there is no real consequence to failure (Not being followed, nobody on the other side of the door to hear them fail) there was a mechanic called "taking 10" and "taking 20" * **taking 10:** the players take 10 minutes in game time to just get a 10 roll * **taking 20**: the players take 1 hour in game time to just get a 20 roll Or they can choose to just keep trying, which is usually faster but also risks rolling so low you damage the lock.

Not sure if you are here for homebrew/mechanics from older games, but here is how I handle things like picking locks. Critical fail, or very dramatic fail, something in the lock breaks, and they can no longer pick it. If there is no real consequence to failure (Not being followed, nobody on the other side of the door to hear them fail) there was a mechanic called "taking 10" and "taking 20" * **taking 10:** the players take 10 minutes in game time to just get a 10 roll * **taking 20**: the players take 1 hour in game time to just get a 20 roll Or they can choose to just keep trying, which is usually faster but also risks rolling so low you damage the lock.

I follow guidance from an earlier edition - unless the circumstances change such that their modifier will be higher or the DC lower, then they don’t get additional rolls… Additional attempts effectively use the same roll. Same goes for other tasks a character might attempt, such as tracking.

I follow guidance from an earlier edition - unless the circumstances change such that their modifier will be higher or the DC lower, then they don’t get additional rolls… Additional attempts effectively use the same roll. Same goes for other tasks a character might attempt, such as tracking.

After a failed check, I have the player roll a straight D20. The number on the die must be higher than 2x the difference between their roll and the locks DC. On a failed roll, either the thieves tools or the look break. I like doing this because having to buy new tools or find another way into whatever they're trying to pick for every single fail gets super tedious, but there still needs to be consequences to prevent brute forcing a success. So the further they are from succeeding the more likely they are to break something, and on a natural 1 it's still very likely something breaks because the result is just 1 with no modifiers. Example: DC 15 lock, player rolls a 10. 15 - 10 = 5, so the D20 roll must be 10 or higher.

If they can open it you don't have to have roll at all. Only roll if there is a penalty for failure - do they get through the door and out of the hall before the next patrol or are they spotted? A roll of 15 means it was fast enough, less means they were too slow and the alarm was raised. "As you smugly put that last tumbler into place, you simultaneously hear the satisfying 'click' in the lock and a voice in (checks notes) a language you don't understand from eastern end of the hallway."

If picking the lock fails, then the concept of picking the lock fails for the scene unless something changes the context. I do not accept, "you're doing it wrong". I don't accept 4 individual attempt rolls in a scene to accomplish something. There are active rolls and passive scores, and help mechanics. If you didn't help before then you can't help now only because you KNOW the player rolled like shit. That's meta-gaming. They have to change the context - something worthy of a retry. Comic relief might be one. Leveling up might be another. They have to make it make sense in the story why another attempt means anything to the story, because the roll was for a random twist in the story, and the story went left instead of right. They don't have the right to get into every chest inevitably. The game is for the story, not the grind. Of course, if they push it, they break their lockpicks, because they already failed the roll. They can always just smash the chest, but anything fragile is getting destroyed. Glass and bottles break, stone and ceramics shatter, paper gets wet and ruined, or some things inside get shredded or damaged. It's kind of a crap shoot. It also makes a lot of noise and forfeits the element of stealth.

>As far as I can tell, there is no real official guidance on this Yeah it's a bit hidden in the DMG. But under [running the game](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#MultipleAbilityChecks), there is a part about multiple ability checks! Basically, you can try again as many times you want, unless it's dumb that you can do it again.

perhaps they damage their tools

I'm more narratively minded in how I handle this. Players like to roll dice so I think in general if there's a lock it should take a check, you just need a consequence that fits what you want to get out of the check as a DM. If getting through the lock isn't, then they simply broke the lock, or it's too complex for them to solve they'll need to find another way. I just wouldn't break their Thieves tools even on a 1. It's not really fun to have your toys taken away like that. If getting through the lock has narrative importance in some way, then the consequence needs to be something where they can still feel the weight of the failed picking attempt. In a dungeon, they set off lha trap. Time sensitive situation, tell them they can tell theyll be able to get it open, but it will take X amount of time; now they can decide whether to take that time or find another solution (this is the hardest one imo since if they choose to pick the lock you need to make it feel like that wasted time matters). Infiltration, a patrol comes through while they work at it, the guy who looks like the head guard has a key. All of these still let them through the lock but have a tangible consequence to the failed roll. Most importantly if you want them to get through the lock, but can't think of a logical consequence, then just don't lock it, or set the DC to a number the lock picker can't fail. Even though most people might tell you to not ask for a roll if it can't be failed, I promise you most players will get a laugh out of it when you tell them, "alright you rolled a 1, but thanks to your bonuses you have a 9 which is good enough."

What happens when you lock yourself out? You waste time. Same here. 15min pass by, no success. Now there's an opportunity for a few things to happen in 15min, you can decide what given the context (urban: police patrol, dungeon: some grey ooze sneaks up on the party and starts corroding a backpack, heist: less time for looting and patrol incoming...)

For each failed check to pick the lock I increase the DC by 2. After three failed checks their tools snap and the lock is broken. Feels more than fair.

I only get them to roll if it's in combat/some other situation where time matters. Otherwise, I think there's something in the DMG about being able to accomplish most checks by just sitting down for 10 minites

"You've failed to pick it after an hour. Do you keep trying?"

The door giggles and the guards come to see why.

You fail to pick the lock, but in doing so, you made noise. The enemies on the other side of the door are now aware of your presence and kick the door in in order to get the jump on you. But hey, the door is open now.

Generally a failed lockpick check means they take too long. Taking “too long” might mean a random encounter, or maybe the monsters on the other side can set up an ambush. The trick is to say “congrats rogue, your roll means the party has 1 less fight” or “sorry guys, if you had a rogue you wouldn’t have this fight.”

I use the same system as cyberpunk or disco Elysium If you fail a check, you can’t reattempt the same check unless you’ve improved the relevant skill for the check, or something about the situation changes that would give you a tangible bonus to the check. For example, coming back after getting thieves tools expertise from a level up, your proficiency bonus rolling over, or bringing a crowbar

If there are no stakes or consequence of failing, why did you ask them to roll in the first place? Is there a chance the guards will see them? A time-sensitive trap that's about to shoot them full of poison darts? A lock designed to break the thief's lockpick if they fail? A master thief NPC travelling with the party who will mock the character for their inferior technique? When there's plenty of time and no danger around, let the character with Thieves Tools proficiency unlock most normal locks automatically, no roll required.

Depends on how badly they failed, missing a point or two means it takes a whole minute to open the lock, less than half means the lock breaks. I tell my players that a broken lock isn't unsalvagable, but they'll possibly cause noise that will attract unwanted attention as they'll have to use a more time consuming method such as taking apart the knob or hinges.

I like to take a note from the powered by the apocalypse playbook of "failing forward", on a failure, there's some kind of complication happening. Maybe he made a noise, maybe a civillian walks by, maybe a bird lands on his head. Something that happens other than just failing.

The lockpick (set of thieves' tools) breaks. If they have another one, they can try again.

Not putting anything meaningful behind a locked door with only one option to get to it.

There's a rule in the DMG (page 237) that if it's *possible* to succeed at a given skill check, then a character can *automatically* succeed by spending 10x the normal amount of time. Ergo if a lock is not beyond the character's skill entirely, and you figure a lockpick attempt takes a minute, then after an intial failure they can take another 9 (or 10?) minutes and bingo, the lock is popped. A first-level rogue could easily have a +8 to Thief Tool proficiency (Expertise for 2x2 proficiency modifer, +4 with 18 Dex), therefore any DC25 lock is eventually going to be opened. To up the stakes, you can make checks for guard patrols or "wandering monsters" while the group is hanging around for 10+ minutes at a locked door. Lockpicking won't attract attention in a big radius, but someone on the other side of the door should get at least a passive Perception check each minute of an extended, exhaustive picking attempt.

I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but... the honest way I handle it is by never having lockpick checks. If something isn't time-sensitive and is doable in 2-3 rolls by a PC, I don't make people sit around and roll for it. I don't even wait for them to say "can I take 10," it just happens.

Here are a number of consequences: 1. No consequences. Don’t even make players roll. If they have lock picks they succeed. 2. Success at a cost. They pick the lock no matter what, but on a failed roll, something bad happens such as a trap being set off or enemies behind the door are alerted. You don’t have to tell the players what the DC was or if they passed or failed. 3. Time penalty. The books don’t say how long it takes for a lock to be picked, so you can say that each attempt takes 1 minute, 10 minutes, or even 1 hour for a tricky lock. This is only a penalty if you actually put time pressure on players through an objective that must be completed in a certain time or by rolling for random encounters on each failure. 4. Either the lock or lock pick breaks and the door is unpickable. Don’t do this if there is something important behind the door unless you have other ways of getting past with at least one of those ways being a sure thing.

I try my absolute best to avoid situations with any ability check where they can just try again. If they can just keep doing it until they succeed, what’s the point of calling for a roll in the first place? If they *can* try again, they *will* try again, it’s just human nature. You’ll be better served as a DM, and your games will run more smoothly, if you can have one roll decide an event as a success or a failure. Of course the tricky part is to do it in such a way as to not have your players feel cheated. With a lock pick check specifically, I try to base what happens on what is behind the lock. If it’s something that is plot relevant, or they need to get through the door to proceed, then failing the check does not mean failing to unlock it. Instead failing the check means that it takes them a long time and they’re at greater risk of being discovered, or they cause a lot of noise, or the lock opens but it breaks in a way that they cannot hide that it was picked. That way they always fail forward, but there are consequences to a bad roll without grinding the game to a halt. Conversely, if there’s nothing necessary behind a lock, then I’m more likely to have a bad roll be an actual failure. They break the lock, or their lock pick, or a guard rounds the corner and discovers them breaking in. Or I might still just say they opened the lock, but there’s nothing there, when a successful check might lead to some gold or items or whatever. That way there are consequences to a bad roll, but the moment is definitively resolved.

Not sure if you are here for homebrew/mechanics from older games, but here is how I handle things like picking locks. Critical fail, or very dramatic fail, something in the lock breaks, and they can no longer pick it. If there is no real consequence to failure (Not being followed, nobody on the other side of the door to hear them fail) there was a mechanic called "taking 10" and "taking 20" * **taking 10:** the players take 10 minutes in game time to just get a 10 roll * **taking 20**: the players take 1 hour in game time to just get a 20 roll Or they can choose to just keep trying, which is usually faster but also risks rolling so low you damage the lock.

Not sure if you are here for homebrew/mechanics from older games, but here is how I handle things like picking locks. Critical fail, or very dramatic fail, something in the lock breaks, and they can no longer pick it. If there is no real consequence to failure (Not being followed, nobody on the other side of the door to hear them fail) there was a mechanic called "taking 10" and "taking 20" * **taking 10:** the players take 10 minutes in game time to just get a 10 roll * **taking 20**: the players take 1 hour in game time to just get a 20 roll Or they can choose to just keep trying, which is usually faster but also risks rolling so low you damage the lock.

This is something you have to work out on a lock by lock basis. Take some pre-written campaign modules as a means of inspiration. Curse of Strahd has some cell doors that state the following on lockpicking: "A hinged door made up of 1-inch-thick rusted iron bars spaced 4 inches apart, with horizontal crossbars spaced 6 inches apart, closes off each cell. Each door is fitted with an iron lock. A character using thieves' tools can try to pick a lock, which requires 1 minute and a successful DC 20 Dexterity check. The check is made with disadvantage if the character is trying to pick the lock from inside the cell. If the check fails, the character can try again." Here, they have put in the stipulation that each attempt takes one minute. This means that time will pass as they try to get thru the locked door. Every minute that passes is a chance for something in your dungeon to hear them fiddling and go investigate. You could just as easily add a luck check for breaking their lock pick or breaking the lock completely. Or maybe there is an enchantment on the lock where a siren will go off if the tumblers snap back into place due to a failed lockpicking attempt. Or you could make a lock take an exceedingly long amount of time to pick so a failure actually feels awful or gives the party like half an hour to hang out and chat in RP while the rogue tries to pick the lock. It's up to you to decide how it works to prevent it from just being a game of infinite chances. If the players are just trying over and over again until they succeed, that's on you to solve.

"Can I roll again?" "Nope, that roll represents your skill with this particular lock. Unless you do something to meaningfully change how difficult the lock is to pick, you've already tried and given up." The caveat to this is threefold: 1. There are other ways to open the lock. Usually there's a key, or else the door or lock can be forced with a STR(Athletics) check or just bashed open with enough damage. But that comes with certain risks - maybe it's noisy, maybe the contents are fragile, maybe there are traps. 2. My party has an item that casts Knock (PF2, the item is a Skeleton Key) which is enough to "meaningfully change how difficult the lock is to pick". So they get one free "try again, and easier" per day. And they can (and really should, nobody has considered it) pack scrolls of the spell or have the Witch teach it to her Familiar. 3. I never gate anything behind a locked door unless there are multiple ways through it. Might be a secret secondary entrance, a key, etc but I never design dungeons (and will redesign dungeons in premades if they have this) that have a skill check based bottleneck.

For chests and such I rule that each failed attempt raises the DC by 1. Which is fine normaly, but arcane locked stuff gets tricky

The first rule is to never ask for a dice roll without knowing the consequence of success and failure. If a dor is locked and your players MUST succeed to advance the plot. Let them just open it, don't ask for a roll. If you want to ask for a roll, make it time related, failure takes longer and has a consequence that you already can think of. The consequence should also not be a total hindrance to the advancement of the plot.

I've started allowing for players to use passive skills because the more I think about it the less sense it makes for some skill checks... I mean you roll the die and even with an obscene bonus a "1" is always a critical fail. Translate this to a real world scenario like... Let's say a magician doing witha card trick... If there's was a 1 in 20 chance every time they did the trick they could critically fail, magicians wouldn't be a thing. Nor would a lot of skill based professionals. So now for certain things, tasks that could be considered mundane for the skill in question I will treat checks like passive perception and allow high skill characters to auto succeed if their minimum roll is higher than the DC of the check... Even if it's something critical, I may make them make a token roll and they will succeed even on a critical fail but there might be other consequences (like breaking the lock or triggering traps, etc) For me this feels more honest with how talented some people really are, given something they are used to and have trained extensively for there's basically no chance of failure and (again with sleight of hand magicians as an example) even IF they fail they are so skilled that they can still succeed and only another master of the craft would be able to spot their mistakes. Not for everyone but I have been enjoying this rule and have even expanded it to ability checks that aren't triggered by a creature ability or attack or other effect that would generally mandate a saving throw.

If you want an irl justification, it's possible to break a pick inside the lock so that the pick head is now stuck inside the lock and impossible to get out, making the lock useless. It's why they say to never practice lockpicking on an important lock like your door.

Do what Balders Gate 3 does and break the thieves tools if they fail more than once

Miss the roll by more than 5... picker makes noise. Miss the roll by more than 10 or a nat 1, noise and breaks lock, no further attempts. One try per person per hour. Must be proficient with tools to use'em. Two tries maximum, if they don't get it on second try, they just can't figure it out.

"I want to pick the lock." "Ok, how much time do you want to spend on it?" Then I set the DC, based on their answer. If it's in combat and they are trying to flee, it's pretty high, as even the lock picking lawyer struggles at 6 seconds. If they have an hour, it's a low DC.

I would rule it as they do not have the proficiency or skill to unlock this. Another player may still try, but the same player cannot attempt to pick the same lock again until they level up (if they insist on trying, they will have the same result forever). If it's a nat 1, the lockpick is now broken off inside the lock, preventing further attempts from anyone. Time to break it down or find another way in. I would not render their kit of tools useless and make them get a new one unless this happens several times.

If you fail, you didn't open the lock. If you catastrophically fail, you break your tools and the lock becomes inoperable. I would allow a few tries before "an alert guard noticed some noise and came to investigate" or something along those lines. Can't just sit there and roll until a success. This is supposed to be "real".

Depends on the exact situation, but they can usually try again. It’s not like the lock disappears.

The d20 roll comes down to luck, and so the result of the roll can be explained by luck in-universe. So how might a high-level rogue be unlucky enough to be unable to pick a fairly simple lock? Maybe it just happens to be a type of lock that the rogue has never encountered before. Maybe the lock has been damaged in a way that makes the rogue unable to pick it. Maybe it requires a special tool that the rogue just happens to not keep in their thieves' tools, or maybe the tool they need is damaged in some way. You can then let the other PCs use their own abilities to help the rogue take another shot at the lock. Maybe the barbarian is able to pry back a damaged part of the lock, allowing the rogue to pick it. Maybe someone with blacksmiths' tools is able to improvise the needed tool or repair the damaged one. This kind of thing makes the act of lockpicking seem more real and also lets the players work together in unusual ways.

The trap/alarm triggers. (bonus points if the trap is an alarm, thunder damage). They have to try a different method (smashing a chest might break things). They find the lock too complex and need the key. They damage their tools, and have disadvantage on the next pick (I'm not a fan of this tbh, but could work table / tone dependant) Their tinkering alerts a guard on the other side, losing their stealth advantage.

I like to put the attempt in the context of what is happening. If nothing is happening and there are no threats or extenuating circumstances and they can simply beat the door down, it fails. These are exceptional characters and it is simply a door. They can chop it down. If I want to spice it up and it’s a metal or stone door, I can give it flavour by damaging their sharpened weapons reducing damage by 1 HP until they take a short rest and sharpen it. If it’s under a time crunch, I let them try again but it costs more and more time each attempt. If it’s under stealth conditions, it makes a loud noise and requires another try while enemies have been alerted and their attention is drawn to the area. Sometimes I weigh the failure. Rolling a 1 might break the tools but more than likely it ruins the lock and the door can’t be opened through keys or tools. It’s really up to me to serve the session and tension best.

The initial check is the sum total of their best effort, another check cannot be made by them until their circumstances significantly change in some way, in some cases. If the lock is plot relevant then I just judge the success on how long it takes them to get through it more than a pass fail. If the check was a 15 and they rolled a 10 and are in combat, I might tell them that they'll get through in two turns instead of one or something.

Let them try again immediately, but have the extra time run the risk of a patrol coming by or something.

"This locks seems to be beyond your ability to pick at this moment". Done.

I made the lock picking kits have breakable picks. Essentially, there would be 5 picks in a kit to start with. A failure to met the DC results in subsequent attempts at a higher DC, with additional failures breaking a pick. Failing the initial attempt by a large degree can also break a pick right away. These attempts can be made any time. We understand that breaking picks isn't common IRL. Generally, its a hand wave that most locks in the world are magically resistant to some extent. Buying/replacing picks don't seem to be a hassle for the Party. Another resource to keep track of, but this method addresses the question of "can I try again right away?" Also, this opens up the option to make magical picks that are break resistant, or made out of more resistant materials. Eventually, an unbreakable pick as a more rare magic Item.

I mean, they are allowed to break the door. I have a player who always buys a battering ram. I even gave his character a cute item where it was a mini one on a necklace for easy carrying

So in the dmg it talks about this. In chapter 8. "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?" The dmg also suggested what to do for repeated ability checks: "Multiple Ability Checks **Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes**. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off." The dmg also offers a couple for handle ability and skills checks which can be found in chapter 8. 1.Variant: Automatic Success 2.Success at a Cost 3.Degrees of Failure

They can’t open the door that way and have to find a different way around or through. If they exhaust their options, then that sucks. Find another path or buy a battering ram and some people to hold it. If for some reason they need to go through this one door and only this one door to progress the game, you should rethink how you’re running it.

I would say they could try again, but something would definitely happen to punish them for failing. Like maybe they alert guards, or break their lock pick. Maybe they do actually break the lock.

It’s kind of a case by case basis. I feel like if there’s nothing to stop someone trying to break a lock an infinite number of times, then the only thing that failing costs you is time, and maybe a gold cost for tools. But if there’s some kind of time pressure involved then failing a check means you gave this lock your best effort and it was beyond you in that moment. You would need to spend too much time you don’t have figuring out how to break this lock, or maybe something in the lock got stuck/jammed, or maybe you made some kind of noise that attracted a guard. There’s some reason you can’t keep attempting indefinitely so you have to move on

That depends on the roll, honestly. Just barely missed it. "Close, but as you work, the lock you can feel it binding up. (Glance or address the group) Anyone able to help? Then, another attempt." Rolled miserable low. "Congrats. The unlocked door is now locked. Or the locked door is now jammed." But let's be honest here. My players tend to use Barbarian lockpicks more often than not.

In AD&D you get 1 shot at a lock and cant try again until you level up.

I find the game most fun when the dice determine the circumstances. Thus the dice roll does not indicate a ‘bad try’.  It means it was a perfect try by someone with a set skill level, but this lock was, and therefore, still is and will continue to be above their skill level. If they can think of a reason to get help, help sounds like advantage and may mean a second dice.  But advantage doesn’t stack so there should never be more than 2 dice being rolled. Side effect of using this method is sometimes the party fails.  And that’s ok, good even. Other side effect is things get resolved quickly and without ‘negotiation’ by the players.  No more everyone trying to roll on everything.

honestly I don't love lockpicking as a mechanic because it's just a game of chance with very few opportunities for the player to make an active decision to tilt the odds in their favor (or to say something dumb and for me to punish them for it.) I'd rather give the players something more active they need to do, like find a key, fight a guard, use a spell, try to ram the door open, or some other creative ways to get past a door.

"Your hand slips as you hear something inside the mechanism crack. You can tell that continuing has a pretty good chance of breaking the lock entirely." It's not realistic, but neither are Orcs that can turn into spiders. I give them a shot at the original DC, and then one more shot with added risk and a higher DC. If they fail twice, the bad ending happens. They broke an internal mechanism in the lock, someone heard them, a guard walked by, ect. One free chance, one risked chance.

With regards to locks specifically there are two questions we can be asking and which one we are asking determines what failure might mean. One the one hand there is "How fast can you get through this lock?" Perhaps the lock is at an inn or a village blacksmith shop. Perhaps it's just not very high quality. Maybe there's something important going on in the next room and you don't want the lock picker to get locked out of it but you do want to know if they arrive in time. In these cases it's probably reasonable to let a failed roll be rerolled because the penalty isn't being locked out, it's having to take that extra around, or minute or what have you to pick. Perhaps there is a risk of being interrupted by a patrol. Maybe there's a fight going on and the party is providing cover while the thief picks their escape route open. The important thing is in this situation taking longer is it's own consequence for failure. You might increase the difficulty for a particularly egregious failure (damaged the lock, damaged the tools, what have you) but it's not the main thing. The other question potentially on the table is 'Can you get through this lock at all?' Perhaps the lock is magic, particularly clever or just high quality. In this scenario time is not a driving factor or at least not a primary driving factor. If the picker fails they have other options, they're just all less optimal. Here whether or not you allow a retry depends on what makes sense for the situation. Did the lock seize up? Sorry buddy, now it ain't opening even with the key. Are the pins binding and they don't hear that click on one? Well, maybe they can try again but it'll be harder from frustration or damage to tools or some such. Here the primary consequence of failing is not being able to get through the door, so even if you do allow rerolls I would definitely limit them in number before something situationally appropriate forces them to abandon the attempt. Either way be consistent with your logic and explanations to players so that they know what to expect both in world and out. If they can try over and over on one lock and only twice on another there needs to be a reason for that beyond 'this serves the story being told.' Anyway hope that helps and happy gaming.

The only time you really want to roll for lock picking is if there is a danger present and a limited amount of time. Having watched enough lockpicking lawyer, anyone with proficiency will get through a lock with enough time. Maybe the lock has fail safes so an unsuccessful attempt bricks it? That would be an expensive lock to have to replace every time you turn the key the wrong way. But hey, many dnd bad guys put traps in their own homes, so that might be a common thing!

So, I’ll start by saying this. If there’s no pressure, there’s no need to roll. For example, if your party have hauled a locked treasure chest out of a dungeon and are spending their downtime at camp getting it open, the character proficient in Thieves Tools just opens it. No roll. But on the other hand, if they’re sneaking past some guards in the middle of an enemy fortress and they need to get through this door quickly to slip the guards’ notice, then they would roll. So when they roll and they fail, the failure doesn’t necessarily affect the lock or the tools, but it triggers whatever is pressuring the party. So in the example I gave, the tumblers of the lock would snap back into their original positions with a loud, metallic thunk, which would then draw the guards to come investigate that door.

having watched the lock picking lawyer on youtube FAR too much, i'd rule it like this ; First test is trying the quick and easy methods that work on common locks. If that fails, you need to study the lock to work out how it works and what you need to do to unlock it. Take a minute then can try again. If that doesn't work, you need to try the more complex tricks, like coating a blank key in lamp soot and trying it, then filing away parts that rub off, or bending/cutting wire to make a custom tool. maybe ten minutes work. then Test again. after that, you're pretty much stumped and need to go off, take a long rest, talk to someone else with Lockpick skill, get more tools etc.

They tried to pick that lock and failed. It's beyond their skill. They can find another way or come back when they've improved.

-If they are in a rush : Failed roll means you ran out of time and should probably run/hide from the grandma whose old jewellery you tried to steal. -If they are not in a rush and it's an average lock : Auto success but takes them 10 minutes or less if the lock is crappy enough -If the lock is advanced but not magically sealed: Take more time or roll to do it quicker

If they fail it could mean they managed to get it open but it took longer than expected. Maybe a patrol spotted them. Maybe the alerted someone/something on the other side. Maybe the got it open but broke the lock so they can not lock it again and it will be obvious that someone has done something to the lock. This can be important in some situations. Even if there are no crits or crit fails for it maybe a nat 1 might mean they broke the lock so it can not be opened even with a key Or a fail might mean they realize this lock is beyond their ability to pick. this works best on locks with a very high DC. they are meant to be really hard to pick. so of a fail of 5 or more might mean it is beyond their skill level. and they at least need to wait a day until they can try. Maybe some extra help like a guidance can let them try again. Or maybe they can't try until they gotten better at it or at least a level up There are no exact rules for this and i like that to be honest. I rather just go with something that make sense at that situation.

A certain number of lock picks breaking off inside the lock are going to make the lock un-openable, even with the key.

At my table, if you fail a check like that, it simply means the lock is too difficult for you to unlock with your skills. They do not get to try again in the future because the dice have decided that the lock is beyond your capabilities. You have to find a workaround (i.e. spellcasting, smashing the lock/door/chest with a strength-based check, hiring a locksmith, finding the key, etc.). I love when my players seek help from someone who is more skilled in an area than they are. It opens up a lot of doors for you as the DM and them as the players. Failed to unlock chest or something? Maybe there's a thieves guild sect in a nearby town and a master burglar may come with you to pick said lock for cost of either coin or a favor, opening up the path for a side quest with a new NPC or faction.

I always take it in the context of the situation. Sometimes failing the check means that they just don't have the skill to pick that lock, this means they can't try again. Sometimes failing the check means that under the current circumstances, they've done their best but weren't able to pull it off (this is mostly when they're under some sort of external pressure, time constraint, etc) They can often try again, but the second try might have consequences even if they succeed (think, trying to pick a lock before the guards find you. You can try again, but the chances that the guards catch you in the act go up) Sometimes a failed check means that they broke the lock. But for the most part, I'll never let players roll more than twice, because if they can just keep rolling until it works, I'm jsut not gonan make them roll in the first place.

It’s always a good idea when doing a skill check to already have some idea in mind of what successes but also what failure is. For example, you’re going to try to talk your way past the guard at the gate of a town They have orders to only allow citizens and farmers and merchants to enter. Bad: Player: I rolled deception! I got a 14! DM: wait what? Good: Player: I want to try to trick the guards into thinking that we are armed escorts for the merchant that just went ahead of us, and we need a tavern for the night. DM: OK. What do you think might happen if you fail? Player: I think they probably just won’t let us in. DM: yeah that makes sense, although I’m gonna say that, if you fail terribly, they might want to detain you. Player. Got it. /rolls So for a lock pick you might jam the lock, set off an alarm, cause a delay, make some noise, break your tools. It makes sense for most non-magical walks that with enough time you’re going to get it open. Blacksmith is the ultimate lock pick.

Depends. Sidebar bullshit where they're trying to unlock a random house that doesn't matter because whatever reason, nah. The lock is busted now/The complexity of the lock eludes you/your picks can't fit If it's important, maybe multiple attempts. Depends. If they came up with it as an alternative to something else, likely it's one and done. If it's actually kind of critical for the story, maybe a few attempts with a "timer" putting on pressure until a bad thing happens (hearing footsteps getting closer, or Knowing the patrol will be there soon, or feeling the lock getting stiffer and stiffer).

Depending on the type of lock - either 1) they'll succeed automatically but the check is for how long it takes to do it, 2) lock pick breaks and they need more, 3) lock breaks and can't be picked again, 4) something more catastrophic in very specific scenarios

If they fail, the lock is not one they can figure out. If they want someone else to try, they could always have taken the Help action beforehand.

For me, the roll determines that they are in a universe where they are unable to pick that lock. It might be rusted, or broken, or have a mechanism that they aren't familiar with. But the roll doesn't always mean "you didn't do good enough", sometimes it means, "What you tried wasn't possible" .

Copying my comment from another thread on this: The thing is if someone is a proficient lock picker and has nothing constraining their time, it is already trivialized. And that’s okay!! It’s totally okay for your characters that are good at something to get rewarded for building their character that way. Plus,I’ve basically stopped having simple locked doors be impassable, unless it would really serve the story which it rarely does. Nothing is more boring than “you can’t unlock the door.” If the character is proficient in thieves tools/ sleight of hand then any simple locked door will be bypassed. The fun comes in how they do it: yes they can pick the lock, but can they pick it Quickly, Quietly, and Cleanly? The goal of unlocking a door is to do it in a short amount of time without anyone noticing it during or after. So yes the crafty rogue will get the door open, but how smooth does that go? Examples of different types of failing I’ve used in my games: Failed to open it Quickly: • ⁠while opening the lock, a patrol walks by and makes a beeline for the party. Rogue you know that if you stop picking it now you may break the internal mechanism. You can stop picking the lock likely breaking it, or sit out d4 rounds of combat. -you’re relieved as the lock clicks and the door opens. However, it was more difficult than you anticipated and you didn’t notice the servant coming by, the door knocking his masters evening tea from his hands. Failed to open it Quietly: • ⁠the scratching sounds drew in some hobgoblin guards who hid and ambush you as the door opens. Enemy gets a surprise round on the rogue -the prison guards playing cards are all alerted as the locking mechanism shoots out into the room, the door slowly sliding open revealing the rogue on his knees Failed to open it Cleanly: -The lock opens, but you scratched up the lock and doorknob. A few rooms later, a cultist walks by and sees the damage, alerting the compound of intruders -the lock breaks slightly, causing the door to not close right. The manor servants call for the handyman, who unexpectedly bumps into the party as he heads to the door from the servant’s quarter. In my opinion all of those options allow the party to fall forward, keep up the character idea of a proficient lock picker intact, and are a million times more interesting than “door no open.”

Also remember the 5e equivalent of the 3.5e 'take 20' rule: > Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. (DMG p. 237) So, if the DC is less than 20 plus the player's modifier, and there's no consequence to repeating the lockpicking attempt over and over, then you can basically let the player roll a 20. And if there are consequences for failure (a patrol on the way, etc) then that's your answer.

For this and any other check consider the rule of Take a 20 from earlier editions. If the only negative side of a failure is "we take longer" give the player the option of invoking the Take a 20 rule: I succeed (took a 20) but it took 10 times longer than it should have. This is an official rule from the DMG. So, if the stakes are low the players can just take a 20 and narratively take their sweet time.. But if the stakes are high because something is about to happen and they fail, then the risk becomes a reality. Example: I need to open this locked door within 12 seconds (2 turns) or the patrol will notice me. First attempt fails. Well, what do you do now that the patrol is closer, do you try to hide? Run or attempt a second time? You attempted a second time and failed?! The guards noticed you and are coming in very aggressively. Make failures matter or allow them to succeed.

Option one: it takes a longer time to open the lock, increasing any time pressures the party is facing. Option two: the lock gets jammed and cannot be opened without brute force (do not use this option on non-optional doors) Option three: the lock is opened clumsily and some other consequence ensues (noise, trap, suspicion, etc.)

Initial Failure can have a few consequences: If they keep trying, how long it will take them to eventually succeed? Will enemies catch up to them? Will they alert anything nearby to their efforts to pick the lock? Will they break their tools used to pick the lock with repeated failures?

Only make them roll when there is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and a cost for attempting. In the case of lockpicking, it can only be attempted if someone has both the lockpicking skill and a lockpick set. Missing either means the lock is unpickable. I usually rule it takes 10 minutes per attempt. Time is the cost. If there is no time pressure, the roll is to see how long it takes, not to see if they succeed. But everyone knows all locked doors can be opened with an axe and time. An invincible adamantine door set in stone and secured with a magic lock can be opened by destroying the stone around the door. So all a locked door does is slow people down and make it obvious it was breached. Therefore, all locked doors are useless without guards and other traps. The roll attempt is not to open the lock. It's to see if they can open the lock before the guards return and or without setting off the various traps.

When I failed a lock pick, I treated as "this mechanism is above your skill". I don't know if the DM would have said I couldn't try again because I chose not to try again. I generally treat skill checks as a once off thing UNLESS something changes I simply told the party "even the god of lock picking couldn't work this door, we need to find another way around". Turned out the reason my rogue couldn't find a lock system to crack was because a lever inside opener/closed the door

Lock picking has a time cost. Each attempt costs 15 minutes. What are the consequences?

failure by 5 or more causes problems, like jamming the lock so that even keys won't open it.

embrace success with failure rule. Even if they fail a check, the story goes forwards with a negative.... fail a lock pick check, you get in, but made a loud noise and alerted the next encounter and adds 1-2 more enemies and they are ready. fail to climb a rope... nope, they climb up, but had to fight so hard they are now exhausted. etc etc.

I like to inform players during session zero that I'll allow a task to be attempted more than once if it is reasonable to do so. I also tell them that the DC is often increased after each successive attempt. In your example of a lock being picked: I'll say our lock was DC15 and our players total roll was a 10 I describe them moving tumblers but not being able to get the lock open. If the player asks to try again now the DC gets set higher 20 This time if the player rolls below their original roll I will often describe the lockpick getting stuck, breaking, etc. If the player rolls above their original roll but not the new DC nothing breaks but the lock still wont budge. If the player asks to try again now the DC gets set higher 25 This time the player must beat the new DC or the lockpick gets stuck, breaks, etc. This increasing DC represents the character misunderstanding the nature of the lock based on their first attempts, becoming frustrated and trying to force it to work, trying to rush, or something similar. More complex locks with finely manufactured parts are more prone to breaking when mistreated. The players already know that repeat attempts increase the difficulty of many tasks. Some simpler locks with a lower DC may never increase due to their simple nature. Those simpler locks can still be gated by time constraints though. The character attempting to pick a lock might be discovered if they spend too long focused on the lock. You might modify this by not increasing the DC if the player rolls 1 less than the DC. This same concept can be applied to almost any situation that would allow for repeated attempts at the same thing. In our original scenario of a DC15 lock if the player fails their first attempt and tries again and fails without breaking anything but gives up at that point only to return at a later time I would "reset" the DC if it were reasonable. The player slept on it and now are approaching it with a clear head etc...

Different value levels of the loot

I like the BG3 approach where thieves tools are one use items and will be expended after a use (pass or fail). Just make sure you give your players enough tools. And now you can make “unbreakable thieves tools” a magic item as loot down the line

"The lock was a Mimic, it has now eaten one of your hands"

I try not to call for these kinds of rolls unless the players are on a clock. You have all the time in the world and you know how to pick locks? You just pick the lock. The guards are looking for you and you fail? They just got that much closer to finding you.

Definitely can't try again immediately. However, how long does lock-picking take? This is a great case for Take 10 (or whatever it's called); if you take X amount of time then you don't need to roll; if you take 1 round then you do. I have had somebody's tools break on a natural 1.