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

[Plaguescarred]

Whle i agree not all task can necessarily be de done repeatedly, i know we're given little insight RAW on how to handle there;

PHB175 Passive Checks:...Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

 

[Crothian]

If it is a situation that one could reroll and try as often as they like I don't even ask for a roll to begin with. I don't want to sit there waiting for a player or even all the players to roll high enough to succeed. So for us the only time one needs to make a roll is when a reroll is not going to be possible or there is a definable consequence for failure.

 

[Plaguescarred]

FWIW the Playtest had some guidance on this subject that could be found in the 5E DMG;

DM Guidelines Pg.4 Multiple Ability Checks: Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. You have a couple of options in this case. In most cases, the character can simply try again. The only real cost is the time it takes. The character keeps trying and, after enough time passes, eventually succeeds. To speed things up, you can assume that a character can automatically succeed at a task if he or she spends twenty times the normal amount of time needed to complete it. This exception does not allow a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, the first failure renders subsequent ability checks impossible. For instance, a rogue tries to trick a town guard into thinking that the group members are undercover agents of the king. The rogue loses the contest of Charisma (Deception) against Wisdom. The same lie told again clearly won’t work.

 

[Wrathamon]

I would roll for random encounters if they tried to keep attempting a task over and over again, or use the exhaustion rules

 

[BrokenEggGames]

If it is a situation that one could reroll and try as often as they like I don't even ask for a roll to begin with. I don't want to sit there waiting for a player or even all the players to roll high enough to succeed. So for us the only time one needs to make a roll is when a reroll is not going to be possible or there is a definable consequence for failure.

Yes! I also like to just move along.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I normally do this also.

I feel like the roll is the "summation" of all their attempts.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Which, as others have noted, is perhaps a reason to consider when to ask for a roll, and when to just let it succeed. If there is no time pressure, or issue from failure, then why bother rolling? Rolls are for times of risk - say, the situation around is changing about as fast as you can make the check (say, like in combat). Then, allowing multiple rolls is reasonable - the question is how much of the fight (or whatever) do you use to complete the task?

 

[Authweight]

As a rule of thumb, it's usually best to not call for a check unless there is some sort of consequence for failure. If there is no consequence for failure, it's usually best to simply allow a success if it is possible, or tell them they can't if it isn't possible.


You can give a regular roll consequences by saying their check result represents their best possible effort, and no retries are allowed. If that doesn't appeal to you, then case-by-case decide if time matters or doesn't. If it doesn't, then just let them have 20. If it does matter, instead of rolling tons of checks, scale the DC up or down based on how long they have and then have them roll the check once. Later, if they have more time they could try again, but only if the circumstance is different.

 

[dd.stevenson]

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

I might be confusing a playtest doc with the final rules...

...but I'm relatively sure that this is up to the DM. However, IIRC the DM should know what the consequences of failure are before calling for the roll; and if there really is no risk of failure then s/he should not be calling for the roll in the first place.

FWIW I would definitely roll my eyes if the DM applied some kind of arbitrary time limit as a consequence of failure.

 

[Agamon]

I started a thread concerning this when the Basic rules came out. My main issue was not letting the PC try any more after one check, that just felt silly to me. Now that I see how the passive check rule works, that's fine for me. The way I'm playing it: a single roll is your best attempt at doing what you need to do, anything beyond that is using the passive score of the skill. So, if you roll low, you might still get past the obstacle if it's not that hard and spend some extra time doing it. Otherwise, you're just not good enough.

If you allow constant rerolls, DCs for rope, manacles, locks, etc are far too low.