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

Dausuul said:

Please stop just quoting the rules. We know those are the rules as written. There is a reason why "homebrew" is in the title of the thread.

Sacrosanct believes the written rule creates a problem. Sacrosanct is proposing a house rule to solve the perceived problem. You could argue that the problem is not really a problem, or that the solution won't work, or what have you, but it adds nothing to the discussion to keep saying "But this is what it says in the book!"

Click to expand...

I've done more than just quote the rules in this discussion and I will continue to do so to the extent it supports my argument.
[MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] is correct. What is being proposed isn't a house rule anyway. It's just the DM establishing a meaningful consequence of failure. Understanding what the actual rules are reveals that.

I don't have time to read through everyone's suggestions, so sorry if I am stepping on toes.

Here is an idea I just had:

If the player rolls an 11 or higher, but fails in the modified check result, they can try again with a +2 bonus. In other words, they are making progress. If they have a +10 bonus from repeated rolls above 10, they are considered to roll a 20 automatically and if that is not enough for the modified check to succeed, they realize they simply can't do it. They are not skilled enough. If that assumed 20 is enough, they finally succeed.

If the roll is 10 or less and the modified check fails, they are working the wrong angle and making it harder on themselves, taking a -2 penalty. If the penalty ever reaches -10, they are done and simply don't find a way to succeed.

Example: Roy the Rogue is trying to pick an extremely complex lock (DC 30!). He has expertise in thieves' tool and his total check modifier is +11 (+8 prof doubled and +3 Dex). Normally, he would need a 19 or higher. Fortunately, they are back in the inn and Roy has all the time he needs to work on this lock.

First attempt the player rolls a 12, total 23. Not a success, but he is making progress and learned something so receives a +2 bonus to his next check.
Second try: Roll 7. Not good, he took a wrong turn and loses the +2 bonus he had and is back at square with no additional modifier.
Third go: Roll 17! So close with a total of 28. He is now back to +2.
Fourth try: Roll 11. Still hasn't made it, but learned some more and has a bonus of +4 now.
Fifth attempt: Roll 16! He did it! His total is 31 (16 + 11 + 4) and picks the lock!

Granted a system like this could involve quite a bit of die rolling and might not be to one's liking for that reason. On the other hand, the rolling and checking, knowing eventual success or failure will happen, could add some nice tension.

I might try this as a house-rule and see how it works.

Sacrosanct said:

I fully admit I might not be wording this very well. So I'll try again.

No, I do not make player roll for everything. Again, you're talking extremes here. Either/Or when it's not like that. If there is a DC, like a lock, or a riddle, then I make them roll.

Click to expand...

DCs are established AFTER the DM has decided there must be a check for a given task though. The DM has a process to do before getting to a DC, that is, evaluating the approach to the goal and determining if an ability check is necessary at all.

Sacrosanct said:

Even if there is no time limit. And rather than just have them keep rolling until they succeed (which will happen eventually if the initial roll was at any time possible), I impose my house rule of a progressive penalty. Why?

Because if there is just an automatic success out of combat, then why have out of combat DCs to begin with if they were possible to pass because they'd automatically pass. And that to me ruins verisimilitude. I prefer a player to have an option of success, but not have that automatic just because they have X amount of time because it still gives a sense of urgency. So it's more like "you can keep trying, but it keeps getting more difficult to try because you're getting frustrated/tired/etc." There is a cost of failure, even out of combat, because you don't succeed at that task and thus don't get the benefits if you did (like riddle success, or chest contents, etc)

So saying there is no time limit is not the same as saying they should have an automatic success. If the rules state that like you mentioned, then yes, there is in fact a need for a houserule for me to get what I want, and I'm asking other DMs how they do it who feel the same way.

Click to expand...

Many DMs create a problem by going straight to the "skill check," without thinking about what happens if the player fails the check. If nothing happens, then the player reasonably wants to try again. Or everyone else at the table wants to take a crack at it. This is what happens when there is no meaningful consequence of failure.

So, given the problem they themselves have created, what these DMs often do is start thinking up ways to solve the skill check pig-piling when this is already solved upstream by the standard adjudication process: Don't ask for a check if there is no meaningful consequence of failure. If you got all the time in the world and there's no risk to what you're doing and it's a thing that isn't impossible for you, good on you man, you succeeded, no roll.

That said, I would say if you're running games with those rules in mind, and you sometimes want to say that retries on This Thing Right Here are always uncertain given a particular approach and that each retry with no change in approach is successively more difficult because reasons, that's cool. No house rule needed. But I would recommend that This Thing Right Here only come up sometimes, not for every task or even most tasks.

iserith said:

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.

Click to expand...

In addition to this, I’ve been adding a house rule.

If an action is High Profile (that is, noisy or noticeable), I roll on the “something happens” table.

If an action is Low Profile (relatively quiet and/or unobtrusive), I mark the passage of time.

Every hour or so of time passing also gets a roll on the “something happens” table.

If my players were to try consecutive High Profile actions, the chances of a random encounter are higher.

All that really means is that I’m systematically including consequences for rolls, in addition to whatever other stakes are involved in the roll.

I quick note on the concept of eventual automatic success:

When I was in grad school for math, there were times when I tried to solve a problem and simply didn't find the solution. Was the problem beyond my ability (i.e. my skill modifier)? No, but because I failed to see the proper way to do it, the solution simply wasn't there. Once someone showed me how to do it, it was obvious and I was irked with myself for not seeing it before.

The point is, even if given years to solve it, I might not ever have succeeded even though my prof knew I was capable enough.

So, sometimes, despite having the ability to do something, doesn't mean with limitless time we will always succeed. We might never take the correct approach and sooner or later more than likely just give up. I think that is the point the OP wants to reach. Sure, the check is within the realms of your skills, and if you rolled a 20 you could do it, but sometimes no matter how long you take you just don't get it...

Another, perhaps more common example, is a crossword puzzle. Given enough time you could literally look up and try every possible word combination, but even then you might find a solution (i.e. a word that "fits" the space and clue) but it isn't the correct one. Also, just how much time and effort are you willing to put into it. Many people give up on crossword puzzles without ever solving them even though they are familiar with every word used in the solution.

Just food for thought.

Sacrosanct said:

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

Click to expand...

My rule is that, when nobody is shooting at you, you can take 10 on the check; this represents practicing your familiar techniques. If that fails, or if somebody is shooting at you, then you can roll the d20; this represents taking a chance, and trying out techniques you aren't confident in.

If you can't get it through practicing known techniques, or through your one exploratory attempt, then it's simply beyond you. You can't try again until your modifier improves.

Sacrosanct said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Bawylie said:

In addition to this, I’ve been adding a house rule.

If an action is High Profile (that is, noisy or noticeable), I roll on the “something happens” table.

If an action is Low Profile (relatively quiet and/or unobtrusive), I mark the passage of time.

Every hour or so of time passing also gets a roll on the “something happens” table.

If my players were to try consecutive High Profile actions, the chances of a random encounter are higher.

All that really means is that I’m systematically including consequences for rolls, in addition to whatever other stakes are involved in the roll.

Click to expand...

Yep, that’s what I do too.

Charlaquin said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

Look at Jeff's response above. He explains it perfectly. I can technically have the chance of succeeding at something, but I can spend all day trying and not get it. Sometimes it takes stepping away for a while and getting a new approach, or getting new ideas, or looking how other things are done before I can retackle the task and then succeed.

Things are not either totally and always impossible, or automatic success. There's a huge middle ground. And the way the rules are and how iserith seems to describe them, it seems to take that approach of either or of those two options. I don't like that, it doesn't feel right, and thus I started this thread to see what other people did in how to handle those situations. Quite frankly, responses like iserith's are quite unhelpful to the topic because he/she seems to keep insisting there isn't a real problem and I just need to read the book again. I created this thread to ask a question for people who felt similar to how I felt. If he/she insists on not answering the question because he/she doesn't have the same problem, that's great. But it's not helping the discussion of the issues I have faced.

Sacrosanct said:

Look at Jeff's response above. He explains it perfectly. I can technically have the chance of succeeding at something, but I can spend all day trying and not get it. Sometimes it takes stepping away for a while and getting a new approach, or getting new ideas, or looking how other things are done before I can retackle the task and then succeed.

Click to expand...

Ok, so assume the character did that. If there’s no time pressure, what difference does it make whether they succeeded right away or took several days to mull it over?

Sacrosanct said:

Things are not either totally and always impossible, or automatic success. There's a huge middle ground. And the way the rules are and how iserith seems to describe them, it seems to take that approach of either or of those two options. I don't like that, it doesn't feel right, and thus I started this thread to see what other people did in how to handle those situations. Quite frankly, responses like iserith's are quite unhelpful to the topic because he/she seems to keep insisting there isn't a real problem and I just need to read the book again. I created this thread to ask a question for people who felt similar to how I felt. If he/she insists on not answering the question because he/she doesn't have the same problem, that's great. But it's not helping the discussion of the issues I have faced.

Click to expand...

I am not iserith and I would prefer to have a discussion with you than be a proxy for you to argue with someone else. If you’re not interested in discussing this with me, that’s fine, just say so.