D&D 5E (2014) Skill Checks (non time sensitive) homebrew fixes

[5ekyu]

5e doesn't have a take 20 rule because the whole endeavour was uninteresting to start with.

You just succeed and move on with the game.

That is because 5e is written narrative first while 3e is written simulation first.

Think of 5e like watching an action movie. Anything that would be uninteresting to watch in an action movie is skipped over because it is also uninteresting to play through.

Arguably 5e does have take 20.
A die roll would not be required if a 20 roll fails.
So take 20 means success.
5e says with time and opportunity and so on just succeed with 10× time (instead of 3e 20x) and go.

So, the results are take extra time and move on...just 10x vs 20x and less math.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

5e doesn't have a take 20 rule because the whole endeavour was uninteresting to start with.

I suppose how interesting something is varies from person to person.

That is because 5e is written narrative first while 3e is written simulation first.

Uh, it wasn't really a simulation at all. In fact there are lots of things in 3rd that didn't reflect real-life at all. Certainly was more crunchy, though. Every RPG I've ever played was Narrative first, regardless of the mechanics that support it.

In any case, I used take 20 to determine whether something was possible at all:
- was it within your skill-set? Given a 20, can you succeed
I used take 20 to determine how long an activity will take, given unlimited time:
- A roll done as 1 action, one minute, one hour.
Determine whether there will be an interesting outcome to a roll:

Using that framework, you Narrate the results.


If the DM decides that a PC can succeed at something and it won't add to the game, you just narrate the result. "How long do you spend on it? This is what happens."

If there's actually a consequence for failure or if time would be a factor, taking 20 could actually lead to interesting results because the players are saying: "I choose to fail over and over again, regardless of the consequences AND I am ok with it taking a very long time, regardless of the consequences of taking that time."

Then you narrate it the consequences of their actions. The consequences should be interesting, otherwise, why call for a roll in the first place?

If there's no consequences, there's no need to roll and therefore, no need to use any specific rules. That's like the training montage in a movie. You just hand-waive it and time passes and now the Karate Kid knows how to do the Crane Stance.

In most situations, in the games I was in or running, taking twenty wasn't done lightly. There's an argument to be said that taking 10 is much more boring.

The story-telling between 3e and 5e hasn't changed. Only the the mechanics that lead you to the results.

 

[abirdcall]

The story-telling between 3e and 5e hasn't changed. Only the the mechanics that lead you to the results.

Well when you houserule in 3e rules that is going to happen...

I am glad 3e is behind us and most players will never need to worry about its mess. Most of the problems I see on the internet involve 3e players twisting 5e around to fit into its paradigm.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Well when you houserule in 3e rules that is going to happen...

Can you point out the houserule you're talking about?

 

[abirdcall]

Can you point out the houserule you're talking about?

Take 20 is not a rule in 5e.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The OP asked for home brew solutions, and that's what I was talking about.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.)

I really don’t want to come across as confrontational here, just sharing my perspective: personally, I would find this method very dissatisfying. If it works for you, that’s awesome, but for me it really, really doesn’t.

 

[CleverNickName]

I really don’t want to come across as confrontational here, just sharing my perspective: personally, I would find this method very dissatisfying. If it works for you, that’s awesome, but for me it really, really doesn’t.

Nah, I don't think you're being confrontational. It doesn't work for you, and that's totally cool. I present it as an option for others to try out, that's all. It works for us, maybe it'll work for others.

 

[Blue]

In many cases, there are no meaningful consequences for the action. If you fail to open a lock, then you've wasted a minute (?), and nothing else has changed. Most locks are there in order to guard property while nobody is there to watch it, so it's unlikely that anyone will show up before you get to make ten more attempts.

For me, personally, the biggest offender here is with manacles. Standard manacles can be slipped with a Dexterity check or broken with a Strength check, each against DC 20. 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. Why would they even bother to craft such a device, if it was only effective on the sub-set of the population which had below-average Strength and Dexterity?

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.