Restricting rerolls in D&D

[RHGreen]

I like the idea of a Party Roll. One person rolls a single die for the entire party (Party choice) when the action/skill is being attempted by the more than one party member. (Stealth/Search/Perception/etc)

(This may seem off topic but when one member tries to do something and fails and then another attempts the same thing it is very similar in essense to a reroll.)

Each character then adds their modifiers. Any character above the DC succeeds. This avoids the problem of an 8 Strength Wizard bending bars after the 20 Strength Fighter fails.


Perhaps a good idea for rerolls would be to have the player expend Healing Surges or action points to get that extra attempt to simulate extra durational effort and stop them rerolling till the end of time.

 

[Plane Sailing]

3e assumed unlimited rerolls, hence "take 20".

To be precise, 3e allowed unlimited rerolls when there wasn't an negative consequences from failing a roll!

(Personally, I like the idea of allowing rerolls but three failures cause negative circumstances - works well for a very large range of potential skill use, plus can ratchet up tension)

Cheers

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think this is a really interesting thread - love this sort of stuff.

Firstly, I'll state that I'm a simulationist type of guy. I'm not a fan for creating a psuedo-game out of something when it is not necessary or called for. Throwing in a skill challenge for no great purpose is a waste of everyone's time in my opinion. I much prefer the idea of skill challenges as an organic part of the action that the players perhaps don't even know that they're in.

Anyway, the boulder situation as presented seems of adventuring significance to me in only two different situations.

1) Combat Mode: Can the boulder be quickly moved so as to open an escape route, be pushed off of a ledge onto something, be used to block access to something, be done quietly/quickly enough before an enemy is alerted etc.
In this situation, you do your strength check and let the roll stand, with the obvious option provided for repeated efforts while they are able to.

2) Exploration Mode: Can the boulder be moved by the group: yes or no! Can they access this particular area at this point in the campaign? Can the party move the boulder and avoid a future draining encounter before the ultimate encounter of the scenario? In this situation, you are not looking for a maybe, just a simple yes or no. Randomizing things with a maybe does not ratchet up excitement - for such things, you are really looking at option 1. No point wasting time and making the players (or some of the players) feel like the skills they have invested in their character have not been given adequate scope.

Personally I handle this exploration mode situation with a basic check to begin with (strength with assistance or whatever the player's tell me they are doing). If this works cool, the players either feel empowered that they handled a difficult situation easily or they are made aware that this boulder is going to be pretty tough. Their character's abilities and prowess is re-inforced or they are informed a little more about the world around them. However, if they fail and want to try again, I see little point in turning it into a game that can only emphasize the randomness of rolling, over the abilities they have invested in their characters. For me, the DC of moving the boulder is set and immovable. I assume the strongest character takes 20 and highlight how many people can reasonably assist. They get the strongest character's modifier, they get the requisite number of +2's, and if they can think of something smart to lever the boulder and situation, I'll throw in a bonus (or a possible penalty if the idea won't work for whatever reason). Does this beat the DC? Yes or No. Does this take them a while? Yes. Can we now get on with the resulting action in the game? Yes please.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

I always wondered where the "take 20" rule was in 4e. Now I know, it's not there. Sigh. Honestly, I liked the take 20 rule. You can max out your check, but it takes you 20 times as long. Seems like a fair trade for trying to do something that you can keep trying to do.

Even budging the rock seems to fall into this category. Presuming that the DC is actually possible, each successive attempt simply weakens the rock (or loosens the lid of the pickle jar) and by the end of the 20x time frame, you move the rock.

Although, I do really like the 3 strikes concept now that I've seen it. Excellent way to introduce wandering monsters.

 

[pemerton]

I think it depends a lot on whether you're primarily "playing a game" or "simulating a world".

If a character tries to shift that boulder and fails, there is typically no logical reason to think they should not be able to try again.

If the character with the best attack bonus fails to hit a monster, do you let him try again? Do you let characters with lower bonuses try to hit the monster? Why is this different?

A simulatonist/non-simulationist spin can be put on this, but it doesn't have to be.

In AD&D, with one minute rounds, if I miss my one good shot I don't get another go in that round. The die roll represents all my best efforts for the round. Also in AD&D, if a thief misses a find traps, open lock or read languages check, they don't get another try until they gain a level. Again, the die roll represents all the thief's best efforts, until they learn something more.

The only reason a simulationist would have to permit retries is if they think the die roll represents something other than all of the best efforts of the character in question. And the simulationist isn't obliged to think that thing (although for various reasons may wish to think it).

If we're desperately trying to escape a combat we can't win, but the only door is locked, do you allow our Rogue to retry his Thievery check every round?

If you do, you've just made it much easier to open that door while in combat than it is outside of combat!

Now once you go down this path it has become a simulationist/non-simulationist issue. Personally I'm happy to go down this sort of path, but I can see why others may not be.

I've just noticed that "take 20" isn't in my 4e PHB. Hopefully just an oversight by WotC. In any case, if time isn't a factor, and it's within the abilities of the character, the DM should just "say yes".

I think it's ommission is deliberate - because the availability of a +10 to all checks would muck up the DCs - and I think you're right that "say yes" was intended to take it's place. As I suggested in my OP, I also think that WotC just got it wrong when they alluded to taking 20 in the discussion of searching a room. I prefer: either the players take 10; or they roll; or they indicate that they're prepared to spend unlimited time on it, and I'm happy to adjudicate the consequences of that and let them find the secret door!

In my D&D, I'd not let them retry, but take that into account when setting the DC/making the skill challenge.

I think that this way of handling it is what is implicit in the "Save My Game" comment. It's my preferred way of handling it.

 

[airwalkrr]

I am of the opinion that many rolls can be retried but that penalties often exist for failures. Breaking down a door is a good example. If you are unaware that there are orcs on the other side, then a failure has alerted them to your presence, and rather than catching them by surprise with your sudden break-in.

There is another part of this discussion that depends on the edition of the game you are playing. 3rd edition has the assumption that you can take 20 in some situations and the DCs reflect that. 1st and 2nd have a much different skill system which assumes (mostly) that a single check represents your best effort.

Edit: As an aside, here is a way I think skill checks should not work. In a recent RPGA game, I had an idea for a way to use a skill in a skill challenge, but realized my character was pretty terrible at the skill. So I asked another player who had a good bonus with that skill to try and said I would aid him. But the DM said "Nope! Your idea, your roll. He can aid you." So naturally the check failed.

 

[Saeviomagy]

D&D is about adventure, and it's about the DM creating adventure.

If you're going to call for a roll, make there be a consequence.

Otherwise just use the take-20 rule or common sense to determine if the feat is possible by the party. And have plans for why it's not if it isn't.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Edit: As an aside, here is a way I think skill checks should not work. In a recent RPGA game, I had an idea for a way to use a skill in a skill challenge, but realized my character was pretty terrible at the skill. So I asked another player who had a good bonus with that skill to try and said I would aid him. But the DM said "Nope! Your idea, your roll. He can aid you." So naturally the check failed.

Ew, that's sucky.

 

[prosfilaes]

It is perfectly reasonable to insist that only the strongest character gets to make the check, with a few other characters using the aid another action to give a boost. How many characters can help depends on how many people can get their shoulders against the boulder.

That can step on screen time and character conceptions. Grothnar the Strong can never, ever, move a boulder because he only has a 22 ST and someone else has a 23? I personally like the fact that every so often, the fighter just strains a muscle and the mage manages to budge the boulder. As well as the fact that 12 people actually are better at searching a room then 4. (Though in D&D 3, at mid-levels adding more unskilled help does nothing; but it doesn't really hurt to let them roll.)

 

[Jhaelen]

If the character with the best attack bonus fails to hit a monster, do you let him try again? Do you let characters with lower bonuses try to hit the monster? Why is this different?

Well, there are rpg systems in which there is indeed no difference between attacking something and using a skill because 'combat skills' are just one group of skills among many.

It's one of the most telling signs that D&D was and is designed to be mostly about combat. Combat and spellcasting are two exceptions that are not modelled as skills. What else is not modelled using skills?