D&D 5E Can you retry a failed skill check? How long?

[jamesmanhattan]

So this has come up in the last few 5E games I've played.

A Rogue tries to pick a lock, or a fighter tries to climb a wet wall. They fail. Then they immediately ask "Can I try again?" and most DM's are like "umm I don't know..." "Sure"

Is it in the rules anywhere? Or is it up to the DM?


What about each additional try takes a cumulative -2 penalty or -5 to the attempt?


How about this? The first attempt takes an "Action".
To try again takes 1 minute.
To try after that takes 5 minutes.
To try after that takes an hour.
To try after that takes 5 hours.

 

[DMZ2112]

So this has come up in the last few 5E games I've played.

A Rogue tries to pick a lock, or a fighter tries to climb a wet wall. They fail. Then they immediately ask "Can I try again?" and most DM's are like "umm I don't know..." "Sure"

Is it in the rules anywhere? Or is it up to the DM?

Speaking logically, failing at a task does not make it harder or make it take longer, in most cases. The only penalty for failure is time lost in the attempt. Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think the game needs rules to punish failed skill checks.

Now, if a PC critically fails a check, I could see a dungeon master stripping the bolts on a door hinge or breaking a lockpick inside a mechanism, but generally speaking failure just means you didn't pull off the attempt.

Just try again.

 

[keterys]

It depends on the task, is the only real answer. You can't necessarily "re-talk" someone, as an easy example. Almost any check to determine if you possess requisite knowledge should also not logically allow a retry. One could argue that even physical skills, like picking locks, fall into that same area.

That said, there's no particular reason to expect that you can "take 20" the roundabout way to climb a wall or pick a lock. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's supposed to be special when a "Very Hard" or "Nearly Impossible" DC is passed, representing a lucky 19 or 20 or whatever, not simply perseverance.

It's one reason I wished they'd encoded the concept of "Let it Ride" and/or "Failing Forward" into the ruleset. Some of the most dreary parts of D&D I've experienced have been when people roll skill checks over and over to overcome some obstacle like a cliff or whatever.

 

[Paraxis]

The RAW answer is they don't mention it, so yes you can try as many times as you want.

Now, the question you have to ask yourself as a DM is what is the penalty for failure?

Before I ask a player to roll a check I know two things, what interesting thing happens if the check is successful, and what interesting thing happens if it is a failure?

Why are they checking to pick the lock on the door? If there is no time pressure, trap, alarm, or combat going on just don't have them roll.

Also just want to say something as often as I can because it drives me nuts. There is no crit fail system in D&D, not this edition, not any edition, except as optional rules in one DMG sidebar and a very old Dragon Magazine article. In fact, in 5e like most editions a '1' on the d20 is only an auto miss in combat, with a skill check if the DC is low enough and your modifier is high enough a '1' can succeed but again in that case why bother asking for a check, just tell the expert he does his thing and move the story forward.

 

[Wrathamon]

The RAW answer is they don't mention it, so yes you can try as many times as you want.

you could easily say the opposite is RAW since they don't mention it.



It's up to the DM to allow you to re-try.

 

[drjones]

For a climb, a failure is a fall which if you were high up and did not take significant precautions can be dangerous but feel free to get back on the wall immediately.

But for a door I am not so sure. If you just reroll every lock pick then you might as well not roll at all. I will usually make them wait a bit before retrying unless they come up with a new idea to bypass the obstacle. It's one reason that a good dungeon should not be blocked by an obstacle with only one solution, or if it is put some threat on the players side that makes them want to get through quickly. Monsters coming! You triggered the alarm! The floor is made of piranhas!

Traps, I make some hurt the disarmer if they don't get it right. Others might jam on a failure (so the flames blast continuously now) or they can just keep retrying. Not knowing makes it a little exciting at least. But in the design I try to assume the most likely outcomes and prep something for them.

But none of that is official, I assume the DMG will have some advice on it.

 

[jace]

If it's something that the player has virtually unlimited time to work on and they are skilled enough to have a reasonable chance at success, I typically won't require a roll. Because if they failed, they could just keep trying again and again anyway. So if they want to spend some time to properly open a lock they could realistically open, I just let them.

Now, if they are under a time constraint or in difficult circumstances (like in the middle of a fight), then the roll is important because they can't reasonably just keep trying over and over again until they get it right.

 

[Paraxis]

Another issue and another reason you want to only call for a check on like a door if there is something interesting happening at the moment or will happen on a failure, is that anyone can try. The base system in 5e is anyone can try any skill check or attempt to do anything, so in the case of the locked door if the rogue fails, then the mage can try, then the cleric can, then the barbarian and so on and so on.

So let one character try as often as they like, but only call for a check when failure leads to something interesting or there is a rush.

 

[Shiroiken]

It is not currently addressed, but I suspect will be be eventually. Judging by the playtest information for the DM, they suggested that a character that had (more or less) infinite time could automatically succeed on any task they could reasonably achieve (i.e. taking the 20). This might change in the final version, but I seriously doubt it.

What I do is allow a single roll to determine success or failure. If you fail, you cannot achieve success unless something changes. You just can't figure out how to climb the wall, unlock the door, break out of your manacles, etc. Sometimes the situation can change, and then I'll allow another roll. I like this because it keeps everything simple and doesn't require super high DCs on everything that can be attempted over time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I never let them try again. I always go under the assumption that whatever number they rolled was the best they were going to do under that specific set of circumstances. Circumstances have to change in the situation before I allow another attempt.

If they roll poorly on like a lock, to me it just means that this particular lock they just can't get open (for whatever in-game reason we want to come up with.) Even if they could potentially open another, more difficult lock (one with a higher DC), that doesn't change that this one they just can't get. Not until circumstances have changed-- they've gained a level, they've done something to the lock to make it easier to open, the environment has changed to warrant a second try (like if they were in the dark the first time and now someone's introduced a light source.)

But just re-rolling for the sake of re-rolling I never allow. There's no point in having a check in the first place if you're going to do that.