D&D 5E Skill Checks (non time sensitive) homebrew fixes

Sacrosanct · Jan 24, 2019

The issue: When not in combat or not in a time sensitive scenario, PCs can just keep trying the skill check over and over until they succeed. Which kinda strips away the dramatic tension from the game, and you might as well just narrate it.

"Solutions": in previous editions, you were only allowed one try. While that kinda fixes the issue, it ruins the verisimilitude for me because you can always keep trying. How many of us succeeded the first time on something?

Other solutions were a variant on that. One try per day. Or long rest. Or short rest.

The solution I'm leaning towards is a cumulative penalty for each try. A -2 penalty going to -4 the third try, etc. I think this is a fine balance between being able to keep trying, and eventually the task is just too hard for you. It also addresses some of the working together issues. For a real world example, I can help someone try to cook a nice meal. The first time it might go well with my instruction. But if they fail, then they start getting frustrated and more mistakes start happening. Eventually the task is just too hard and they need to stop.

Your ideas or houserules you've implemented, if any? Or do you just narrate until they get the auto success?

iserith · Jan 24, 2019

The process of adjudication in D&D 5e is as follows:

1. The DM describes the environment.

2. The players describe what they want to do.

2a. The DM decides if there is uncertainty as to outcome (not impossible and not trivial) and a meaningful consequence of failure and calls for some kind of roll only if both elements are present.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

In a scenario where there is no meaningful consequence of failure (e.g. your example of "not in combat or not in a time sensitive scenario") then there is no ability check. The DM just narrates the result. In the case of your example, provided what the players described they want to do is possible, they just succeed.

See also DMG page 237, "Multiple Ability Checks," first paragraph.

Krachek · Jan 24, 2019

Your premise is false.
The Dm allow retry if he estimate the retry possible. It is not automatic.

You try to convince a farmer to sold you its horse for 50 golds.
The Dm ask you a persuade check. You fail.
The solution is not another check.
The solution is More likely to offer 100 gold, or to threaten the farmer, or other tactics.

Sacrosanct · Jan 24, 2019

Yeah, I know what the rules say, I just don't agree with the "if there is no meaningful consequence of failure" because that to me means there wouldn't ever be a DC value to begin with. Even out of combat, with not time constraints, there is still a meaningful consequence. I think it's faulty to assume that if the PC can just check over and over again for as long as they want, then it also means there is no meaningful consequence of failure. I.e., my example I gave of not in combat or with time constraints is NOT the same as not having no meaningful consequences of failure. For example, you might have all day to try to open the locked check, or to decipher the runes, but you shouldn't be able to automatically do it just because you have the time to keep rolling until you roll a 20.

So in those situations where a player could just keep rolling until they succeed, are there houserules you use to avoid the auto success situation as described?

77IM · Jan 24, 2019

If the PC is guaranteed to get it right eventually, then the only variable is how long it takes. In the past I've used a formal rule where skill checks take longer with each attempt. 1 round -> 1 hour -> 1 day -> 1 week, etc. Nowadays I do something similar, but instead of a formal rule I just use times that make sense. E.g., "You can make 1 Arcana check to decode the puzzle-runes for free, but each additional attempt takes 8 hours." Sometimes I'll declare automatic success after a long time, and then the check result shortens the time. E.g., "You can crack that safe, but it'll take about a week. But if you can hit DC 10 you'll get done in a day, and if you hit DC 20 it'll only take a few minutes." I especially like to make the task automatic after a time, and the player can decide to make a check as a risk-vs-reward scenario. E.g., "You can ask your contacts around town for the info, and it'll take about a week. Or you can put out word get the info in a few hours, but it's risky; if you fail a DC 15 check, then there's too much heat and nobody will talk to you for like a month."

The other trick is to make success automatic, and if the check fails, there's some other cost or risk. You can see this in the latest rules for traps; often, disabling the trap doesn't take much time, but carries with it a risk of setting off the trap.

iserith · Jan 24, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Yeah, I know what the rules say, I just don't agree with the "if there is no meaningful consequence of failure" because that to me means there wouldn't ever be a DC value to begin with. Even out of combat, with not time constraints, there is still a meaningful consequence. I think it's faulty to assume that if the PC can just check over and over again for as long as they want, then it also means there is no meaningful consequence of failure. I.e., my example I gave of not in combat or with time constraints is NOT the same as not having no meaningful consequences of failure. For example, you might have all day to try to open the locked check, or to decipher the runes, but you shouldn't be able to automatically do it just because you have the time to keep rolling until you roll a 20.

So in those situations where a player could just keep rolling until they succeed, are there houserules you use to avoid the auto success situation as described?

There's no need for house rules. This is already handled by the core adjudication process and the additional information in the DMG I referenced. To paraphrase that section, if a character wants to try something and the only real cost is time (and as you said there is no time sensitive scenario) then they just succeed at 10x the normal amount of time it takes. Which, as you established, is effectively meaningless.

Players can't "roll" unless the DM tells them they can. And the DM only tells them they can when the DM figures that there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. If it costs the PCs nothing to just retry and the task is one that is achievable, then they just succeed because there is no meaningful consequence of failure. If the task is impossible for them, then they just fail.

Sacrosanct · Jan 24, 2019

iserith said:
There's no need for house rules. This is already handled by the core adjudication process and the additional information in the DMG I referenced. To paraphrase that section, if a character wants to try something and the only real cost is time (and as you said there is no time sensitive scenario) then they just succeed at 10x the normal amount of time it takes. Which, as you established, is effectively meaningless.

Players can't "roll" unless the DM tells them they can. And the DM only tells them they can when the DM figures that there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. If it costs the PCs nothing to just retry and the task is one that is achievable, then they just succeed because there is no meaningful consequence of failure. If the task is impossible for them, then they just fail.

Let me try this one more time.

You're saying there is no need for a houserule because the rules already cover that, specifically:

"...if a character wants to try something and the only real cost is time (and as you said there is no time sensitive scenario) then they just succeed at 10x the normal amount of time it takes."

And what I'm saying is that I don't agree with that statement because success shouldn't be automatic, even if the only cost is time. Therefore, there is a need to houserule (the rule I gave in my OP). It's also flawed to say take the position that a task is either impossible, or they will automatically succeed after X time. You're missing a whole middle ground there.

It seems you keep assuming that my scenario "there is no time limit to how long they can try" is the same as saying "they will automatically succeed anyway" when my entire point is that they shouldn't automatically succeed (which is counter to what the rules say and therefore needing a houserule), and I'm asking other DMs how they handle it in their games who feel the same way. Look at 77IM's response as an example.

77IM · Jan 24, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Yeah, I know what the rules say, I just don't agree with the "if there is no meaningful consequence of failure" because that to me means there wouldn't ever be a DC value to begin with. Even out of combat, with not time constraints, there is still a meaningful consequence. I think it's faulty to assume that if the PC can just check over and over again for as long as they want, then it also means there is no meaningful consequence of failure. I.e., my example I gave of not in combat or with time constraints is NOT the same as not having no meaningful consequences of failure. For example, you might have all day to try to open the locked check, or to decipher the runes, but you shouldn't be able to automatically do it just because you have the time to keep rolling until you roll a 20.

But what are the meaningful consequences in these cases? It sounds to me like you're describing situations where there's a meaningful consequence in combat, because the loss of a single round of actions is pretty serious. But out of combat, losing 6 seconds of time is really definitely not meaningful.

If it helps, use a lower DC outside of combat. E.g.,

In combat, picking the lock is DC 18, and takes 1 round.
Out of combat, the DC is only 8, each try takes 5 minutes. And you only have 10 minutes until the next guard patrol comes around... And no, you can't just try the DC 18 check over and over again, because that's annoying and unfun.
If there's no guard patrols any more (the place is now a crime scene; police suspect murder hobos) then anyone proficient can pick the lock in about 15 minutes.

Your imposition of a -2 penalty on future checks is a perfectly fine meaningful consequence, if that's what works for you and your group. Rationalize it this way: Each time you roll, you are attempting a slightly different technique. You try the most hopeful technique first (no penalty) and then try increasingly desperate techniques (-2, -4, -6, etc.). E.g., in climbing a wall, you try to go up one set of handholds, but it's not working, so you adjust slightly (-2), then some more (-4), etc. This is how I often rationalize my increasing time penalty: you first attempt the quickest thing, then the next attempt you try a not-so-quick thing, etc.

Sacrosanct · Jan 24, 2019

77IM said:
But what are the meaningful consequences in these cases? It sounds to me like you're describing situations where there's a meaningful consequence in combat, because the loss of a single round of actions is pretty serious. But out of combat, losing 6 seconds of time is really definitely not meaningful..

The meaningful consequences are more than just in combat. For example, while the task isn't impossible, the PC just can't manage to unlock that chest and get it's contents. Or they just can't figure out the riddle and have to find another way to solve it. The scenarios are near endless.

77IM · Jan 24, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
And what I'm saying is that I don't agree with that statement because success shouldn't be automatic, even if the only cost is time.

You guys are talking past each other.

If there's literally no cost for failure, then success and failure are indistinguishable: "Sure, it's DC 20. On a success, you do it in a reasonable amount of time. On a failure, you also do it in a reasonable amount of time."

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] seems to be saying, "Don't roll in that scenario; just get on with the game." This is a pretty good way to do things.
[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] seems to be asking, "Rolling can be fun; how can we introduce a cost for failure, outside of combat?" This is also a pretty good way to do things.