D&D 5E Retrying Skill Checks (or the Little PC That Could)

[Nagol]

I REALLY like this. Seems like a great way to incorporate the 4.0 rule mentioned above in a story-driven way. Nice!

It is very similar to the method used by Hero Games. You may attempt a new check any time your bonus improves. Each extra time scale increases your bonus by +1. (1-action, 12-seconds, 1-minute, 5-minutes, 1-hour, 5-hours, 1-day, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months, 1-year...).

 

[Umbran]

That's part of my original argument. If there's no consequence other than "you didn't do it" I have trouble seeing why it can't be tried again.

We do have two different sorts of checks that get made, archtypical examples being the old "bend a bar" and "pick a lock".

For bending a bar, the real question at hand is "am I strong enough?" One check answers this question, yes or no. Successive checks don't change the answer to the question.

For picking a lock, the real question is, "can I ever do it correctly?" One check does not answer this question, and successive checks might change the answer.

The system I suggested above strikes a middle road - sort of applicable to both. Not perfect, but it does allow for drama/story to enter the question.

 

[fanboy2000]

Here's how I plan on doing it:

First, each attempt takes a certain amount of time. For escaping from manacles I'd set that at 30 minutes.

Second, taking 20 takes 20 times a long. Not necessarily true, from a statistics point of view, but I'm comfortable with that.

So, under those rules, escaping from manacles takes 10 hours. If the PC has 10 hours (for example the PC was manacled and then put somewhere while the bad guys went about their evil plan) then that's o.k.

If I think the skill check would take an action, then it takes 2 minutes (i.e., 20 rounds).

If the PC doesn't have that kind of time, then they would have the option to re-roll until they ran out of time. Or they could try something else. This seems the way that is fairest to the players, while not seeming arbitrary.

 

[Agamon]

Here's how I plan on doing it:

First, each attempt takes a certain amount of time. For escaping from manacles I'd set that at 30 minutes.

Second, taking 20 takes 20 times a long. Not necessarily true, from a statistics point of view, but I'm comfortable with that.

So, under those rules, escaping from manacles takes 10 hours. If the PC has 10 hours (for example the PC was manacled and then put somewhere while the bad guys went about their evil plan) then that's o.k.

If I think the skill check would take an action, then it takes 2 minutes (i.e., 20 rounds).

If the PC doesn't have that kind of time, then they would have the option to re-roll until they ran out of time. Or they could try something else. This seems the way that is fairest to the players, while not seeming arbitrary.

I like this. The examples I gave in the OP didn't really say how long it takes to do these things. I suppose that's an better way to go than change the DC. I like to see the PCs succeed, especially with mundane things that only barriers to further exploration and story.

 

[Agamon]

For bending a bar, the real question at hand is "am I strong enough?" One check answers this question, yes or no. Successive checks don't change the answer to the question.

What's the question become when an obviously weaker PC succeeds at what the obviously stronger one fails?

 

[Vanye]

Mechanics-wise this is sound. But how do you explain it in game?

I know that in real life, there are times I get myself locked into a viewpoint, and just can't figure out something, eventually doing the same thing over and over out of frustration. It's not til I walk away and come back that something clicks and I go AHA!

Maybe represent it with a 3 failures then a long rest mechanic?

 

[pkt77242]

What's the question become when an obviously weaker PC succeeds at what the obviously stronger one fails?

The stronger person weakened it enough enough (softened it up, stressed it, etc) so that the weaker person could open it.

 

[Nagol]

What's the question become when an obviously weaker PC succeeds at what the obviously stronger one fails?

The question then becomes "Why was I asking for an ability check roll as opposed to simply giving an ability threshold / passive check if I anted a straight comparison"

 

[Agamon]

The stronger person weakened it enough enough (softened it up, stressed it, etc) so that the weaker person could open it.

Right, so it's not "am I strong enough?" it's "how much do I need to loosen this before it opens?" So it's not so crazy letting the strong guy try again after he loosens it.

 

[Agamon]

The question then becomes "Why was I asking for an ability check roll as opposed to simply giving an ability threshold / passive check if I anted a straight comparison"

I was just going to XP you, but I must spread it around.

Why, indeed.