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

Charlaquin · Jan 25, 2019

On the subject of manacles, they’re kinda crap as-written. For those of us who take the “if you have no time pressure and no consequences, you succeed” method, they are trivial to escape, and even for those who use the “one approach, one check” method, it’s still a pretty low DC.

How I handle manacles (and similar stuff with fixed DCs): at my table, the listed DC assumes an approach to escaping the manacles that has a chance of success and chance of failure. And manacles are Built not to be broken or slipped out of. So, if your approach to escaping is “by slipping out” or “by breaking them with my bare hands,” that approach doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success and does not need a check to be resolved. If you come up with something that might improve your chances, like covering your hands in grease before trying to slip out, or bashing them against a rock to break them, then the listed DC is the one I will tell you to roll against, if I feel a roll is needed to resolve the action.

TaranTheWanderer · Jan 25, 2019

Blue said:
In the example, you've answered your own question - no one should make manacles that can be broken easily or quickly. Think about trying that in RL with handcuffs. Without a manufacturing defect, that shouldn't work the first time or the 20th. So it's the DC that's wrong, not that it's harder in later ones.

.....

Maybe manacles need to have a DC so they can't be popped open by 10 STR people regardless if it's their first try.

Doesn't the average person have -1 str? So, they shouldn't be able to get free even with a 20. But I don't think it's the DC that's wrong here....see below.

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]: I think 1 round (6 seconds)is too short a time span for most out of combat activities. I'd allow an attempt every 10 minutes or, maybe longer. It takes time to wriggle out of stuff. Doing a Strength check over and over will make noise. Given long enough increments, people come back and check on prisoners to make sure their bonds are secure. It shouldn't be that easy to get out of manacles.

In short: Out of combat 'turns' are not 6 seconds. 'Turns' take as long as what's reasonable for the activity. I don't know what 5e rules say on this subject but I just go with whatever feels realistic.

[MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION]: Having the players give you a different way of tackling the problem is a great justification for another roll. I like that a lot. But some things just take time and patience. A puzzle, for example, just requires you to work at it until you figure it out.

CleverNickName · Jan 25, 2019

TaranTheWanderer said:
Having the players give you a different way of tackling the problem is a great justification for another roll. I like that a lot. But some things just take time and patience. A puzzle, for example, just requires you to work at it until you figure it out.

I agree completely. I'm not as much of a hard-nose about this as I'm making it sound. I'm pretty flexible and open-minded about what is and isn't "the same way as before." The point isn't to punish the player for rolling poorly; the point is to encourage creativity and engage the others.

I think part of the disconnect here is what each of us considers a "skill challenge." Solving a puzzle, cracking a code, answering a riddle...things like that aren't skill challenges to me. I print that stuff out and hand it to the players, and we use them as fun little mini-games for them to solve over a snack break or something. I wouldn't let a player just roll a d20 to see if his character can solve a riddle for him because zzzzzz. (No need to argue here. I already know that some DMs do, and their players don't mind. I'm not going to show up and stop you.)

The Crimson Binome · Jan 25, 2019

TaranTheWanderer said:
Doesn't the average person have -1 str? So, they shouldn't be able to get free even with a 20. But I don't think it's the DC that's wrong here....see below.

According to the DMG, the rules for making an NPC are the same as for making a PC, which means the average human will have about a 12 in everything. Even if you assume 3d6, which isn't suggested anywhere in this edition, the racial bonus is likely to bring either their Strength or Dexterity to 12. And if you use the array, they're much more likely to end up with a 14 or 16 in the stat of their choice.

TaranTheWanderer said:
In short: Out of combat 'turns' are not 6 seconds. 'Turns' take as long as what's reasonable for the activity. I don't know what 5e rules say on this subject but I just go with whatever feels realistic..

A turn is six seconds, regardless of whether or not you're in combat. That's how much time passes, when you take an action that requires an action to complete. Often, when you aren't in combat, the passage of time is irrelevant and we gloss over it.

The real relevant question is, how long does it take to make this attempt? If it takes ten minutes, then that's a fair ruling, but it also would have been nice if they'd actually said that anywhere. As it's written in the book, it certainly implies that it only takes one action, because that's the default and it never suggests otherwise. Even if it takes ten minutes, though, you can still break free in a few hours.

Sacrosanct · Jan 25, 2019

CleverNickName said:
I print that stuff out and hand it to the players, and we use them as fun little mini-games for them to solve over a snack break or something. I wouldn't let a player just roll a d20 to see if his character can solve a riddle for him because zzzzzz. (No need to argue here. I already know that some DMs do, and their players don't mind. I'm not going to show up and stop you.)

I am a huge proponent of visual aids for the players to use. That megadungeon in my sig? It's full of them

So yea, that's my go to thing to do first. However, if a player can't figure something out (or if it's like a lock pick or something), then I go to a skill roll. The PC might be smarter than the player, so no point in penalizing the player because they couldn't figure out something their PC had a chance of doing.

The Crimson Binome · Jan 25, 2019

Blue said:
In the example, you've answered your own question - no one should make manacles that can be broken easily or quickly. Think about trying that in RL with handcuffs. Without a manufacturing defect, that shouldn't work the first time or the 20th. So it's the DC that's wrong, not that it's harder in later ones.

You can house rule that breaking free is DC 25, sure, but that really flies in the face of Bounded Accuracy. Nothing in the game is supposed to be so difficult that only the party specialist has any chance to succeed at all. That's one of the major selling points for this edition, over 3E.

Yet, regardless of what you choose for the DC, any given character will either have no chance whatsoever or succeed with 100% certainty after a little time. That's the fundamental flaw with Bounded Accuracy, which is the topic of this thread.

(Personally, I see no problem with limiting attempts to those who are actually trained in something, and I've made extensive changes to the underlying system math which incorporate that approach. That's just me, though; and I still have separate rules to limit repeat attempts.)

5ekyu · Jan 25, 2019

CleverNickName said:
I said this in an earlier thread, but it is more relevant here.

I allow retries on skill challenges, but with an important caveat. If a character does the same thing he just did, in the same way that he did it before, he will get the same result he already got. I won't ask for another roll on the check unless the player can describe how he is somehow changing his method. Maybe someone else helps, or maybe he borrows someone else's tools, or maybe he decides to use a crowbar instead of a hammer, whatever--I'm pretty flexible on what "different" can mean.

"Crud, I rolled a 2. Can I try again?"
"Maybe, what are you going to do differently this time?"
"Um...nothing?"
"Well that's easy, you fail again."
"Okay fine, I won't ask the cleric for guidance this time."
"Fair enough."

It kind of spun out of control in the other thread, with people saying "what if" a hundred times, and basically complaining about how wrong this was. This is the Internet, after all. But there it is. This is how I handle repeat actions at my table. It's not a house rule; it's more of an understanding between my players and I.

Same action by the same person in the same way? You automatically get the same result, no re-roll allowed. I find it keeps the story moving forward, helps everyone stay engaged, encourages creativity, and makes bad rolls matter more. (That last one is very important in 5th Edition, with all the re-rolling that is baked into the system already.)

Let me ask you this then... Do you as GM provide barratively that player with "what the 2 was" and thus give that player some element in the scene they can adjust or change to sufficiently fix the problem for a retrExample - Search rolked a 2 because so much debris and unstable section that everytime you dig in more starts falling so... Now the character has a couple angles or apptoaches to (literally) clean up the trouble and get a thorough search.

In my experience, if the GM does not represent or manifest that 2 into some aspect of scenery or circumstance - asking the player to inuit some new approach that is better is going to lead to very uneven results.

5ekyu · Jan 25, 2019

Blue said:
In the example, you've answered your own question - no one should make manacles that can be broken easily or quickly. Think about trying that in RL with handcuffs. Without a manufacturing defect, that shouldn't work the first time or the 20th. So it's the DC that's wrong, not that it's harder in later ones.

On the other hand, yes, you can retry a lock. Heck, back in college I knew people who would open up the combination doors locks by exactly the method you mentioned - it just took time. So it sounds like that's properly simulating skill usage in the real world.

It sounds like things are acting as they should, but it doesn't fit the results you want in game. If you don't want spending time to overcome when spending time to overcome makes sense, the solution isn't to impose penalties that don't have a real world basis, but to change the situation. Maybe the locked box is bolted to the floor (from the inside) so it needs to be unlocked on location. Maybe the meal to be cooked needs to be served in an hour so there's only one try. Maybe manacles need to have a DC so they can't be popped open by 10 STR people regardless if it's their first try.

Nah... The biggest error imo was in this line "If it only takes six seconds to make an attempt, and there's no worse penalty for failure, then the average nondescript human will break free in about a minute."

5e basic rules allow for setback on a failure. So first time maybe second time, retry is ok but by the third the manacles start cutting in, pain begins affecting success, etc and it gets harder.

Now maybe the "some progress" is loosening a securing bolt but you need to wait til tommorrow after a rest to resume. Or maybe the some progress is breaking your hand to maybe let it slip thru, something most would not do.

But the idea that its "rule" that there is no worse penalty for failure is a misrepresentation of the 5e rules on ability checks.

Blue · Jan 25, 2019

Saelorn said:
You can house rule that breaking free is DC 25, sure, but that really flies in the face of Bounded Accuracy.

Do you believe that with handcuffs that anyone of sverage (+0) strength can give them six seconds of pull and have a realistic chance to break them? (Baring a manufacturing defect.)

And moreso, that 1 of 20 times this happens?

I don't. Therefore the DC is greater than 0+20.

Part of the issue is that in D&D, the possible variation in much bigger then the ability score modifier. A 6th level character with a 18 STR and training in athletics would have a +10 to the roll, which means could be as low as 1/3 of the result. Things like FATE with 4dF which are -1/0/+1 dice will cluster around the skill, the variation is small.

The Crimson Binome · Jan 25, 2019

Blue said:
Do you believe that with handcuffs that anyone of average (+0) strength can give them six seconds of pull and have a realistic chance to break them? (Baring a manufacturing defect.)

No, I don't. I think Bounded Accuracy is kind of a silly premise. But it's a core tenet of 5E, so I'm not comfortable with circumventing it in order to solve the problem at hand.