D&D 5E (2014) Can you retry a failed skill check? How long?

[James Gasik]

Let me start with what I said before. Each skill check is unique, and therefore, might not follow the same logic. But...

I would argue the bolded above is not true. Combat is dynamic. After missing your attack, there are other PCs attacking, there are possible NPCs attacking, there are also creatures attacking. On top of that, in most combats targets and PCs are moving. And in some combats, environments move or shift. Then there is the fact that the target might lose hp, get hurt, gain a condition, etc. All of that is very different from trying to break a door that does not move and made of the same material. (Not sure the door example is a good one, as most in here already said they allow multiple attempts.)

PC's move in your combats? In mine they just belly up to enemies and keep swinging until they die, lol. I have to actually force them to move, because they're terrified of opportunity attacks. I actually remember something that happened earlier this year. The Ranger player in my game had run up to an enemy healer thinking they could "pin them down". In response I had the healer Withdraw and move away.

"I get an opportunity attack!"

"Uh, no, he used the Withdraw action to move away so you don't get one."

"...what?! Since when can you do that?"

Plus, what about multiple attacks in the same turn? What changes between Fighter going attack action, melee attack, melee attack, bonus action attack?

Sure I know that what's supposed to be happening is all these actions in a turn are taking place at the same time, but that's not really described or supported by the rules. If I take down an opponent before his turn, he doesn't get a turn, even though "supposedly" his turn is happening simultaneously, lol.

The analogy here is this: the DM that demands a circumstance change when dealing with a shut door (such as getting an impromptu crowbar or be targeted by an Enhance Ability spell) should also be asking for a player who misses with an attack to switch weapons or something. But nobody does that (at least that I know of).

If a roll of a d20 is the "best you can do in the situation" in one circumstance, why isn't that universal? Why are ability checks held to this higher standard? Why do we gate ability checks? My Wizard can pick up a Rapier and swing it. He won't get his PB, but that's all.

But if the party Barbarian wants to make an Arcana check, a lot of DM's will demand he be proficient in Arcana, despite the fact that it's the same thing, all he gets from that proficiency is his PB on the roll.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I'm not sure I understand why there's a difference. I mean, I get that you feel that there's a difference, and that you're not alone in thinking that.

To my mind, trying to climb a cliff when there's a risk of falling isn't much different than attacking someone who can hit you back if you fail to defeat them. There's a consequence for failure.

But combat is typically resolved with many rolls, and nobody thinks anything of it that some rolls fail. You keep at it or you die.

Then suddenly, with an ability check, you do get the "no, sorry, can't try again". Back in my AD&D days, I never gave this much thought. I was told that if I failed a Thieving skill check, I couldn't do it again until I leveled up. Fail a spell learn check? Get more Int.

That's the thing though; climbing a cliff or fighting a mimic in combat, there are failure states. You take damage, you die. There are consequences for rolling low.

If you try to bust open a door and fail, but you're allowed to try again until you succeed, what are the consequences? At that point you should just take 10 or take 20.

 

[James Gasik]

That's the thing though; climbing a cliff or fighting a mimic in combat, there are failure states. You take damage, you die. There are consequences for rolling low.

If you try to bust open a door and fail, but you're allowed to try again until you succeed, what are the consequences? At that point you should just take 10 or take 20.

Well, yeah. If there's no consequences, there shouldn't be a roll. A locked door doesn't really impose a barrier to a party of PC's. It might cost them a few rounds of time. It might make noise that attracts monsters.

But saying "welp, you tried to open, so you can't try again" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Certainly, you can have a door that the party can't open. Throw an Arcane Lock on it. Now you have to use Dispel Magic, Knock, or, what my parties tend to do, attack the doorframe/wall or try and destroy the door itself.

Because this logic breaks down in other areas of the game. Last session, the Sorcerer in my game was stuck in a Web. On his turn he tried to break free, but with his 9 Strength, he failed. If the check was "one and done", he could never break free from the Web.

The problem for me is, the entire exploration tier of the game is basically "roll dice", often for things that shouldn't require die rolls in the first place, or have much higher DC's than is reasonable. Like, say you're in a forest and the DM says "alright everyone, make Survival checks to navigate the forest without getting lost, DC 15".

Right off the bat, normal people probably don't have +5 to Survival. Even if they did, like a Tier 1 PC, that's still a 50% chance to get lost in these woods. And if the check cannot be repeated, then what? You're lost in the woods forever?

A lot of people complain about D&D being not being enough of a simulation and being too much of a "game". And you know, I get that. And if you're ok with it being a game, and you want to impose "gamist" barriers like "insurmountable waist high fences" or "impassable mountains"- as long as your group is fine with that, have at it.

But too often, I run into DM's who seem to want it both ways. They want to impose "reality" on anything the PC's do that "doesn't make sense", but when it's their scenarios, they are happy to impose things that don't make sense on the PC's.

-

Having written all of that, I have a guess as to what the disconnect is. Ability checks are boring. "You enter a room". "I roll Perception." "You see a door." "I roll Investigation to see if there's a trap." "The door is locked." "I make a Thieves' Tools check to open the lock."

There's no creativity, no excitement. A savvy player might optimize a check into the stratosphere so that they just bypass any challenge involving it. Because why wouldn't they? It's not like it doesn't make sense for someone who has decided their career is to go into dangerous places filled with monsters in an attempt to find some kind of reward!

Forcing the players to cycle through options or attempt to "MacGyver" their way around making a check in the first place probably seems a lot more fun.

So maybe we're ending up in the same place- I try to avoid senseless checks so the adventure proceeds apace, others force the players to use their noggin's, instead of just rolling dice.

 

[Scott Christian]

Plus, what about multiple attacks in the same turn? What changes between Fighter going attack action, melee attack, melee attack, bonus action attack?

If a fighter swings a sword and misses, narratively it might look like this:
"You feign a swing at the goblin on the table, only to have it wait and eye you. Then you swing, catching it off guard, thinking it was just another feint."
Or
"You swing at the goblin on the table only to have it leap in the air making you miss. But as it lands you circle around and swing again, catching it before it has time to plant its feet and jump."
Or
"You swing your giant axe at the goblin on the table, missing. But the strike hits the table so hard that it cracks in the center forcing the goblin to lose its balance. And that is when your second swing hits."

In all of these situations, the attacks conditions have changed. That is how multiple attacks work, narratively speaking.

PC's move in your combats? In mine they just belly up to enemies and keep swinging until they die, lol.

Haha. I get it. But surely you have a rogue stabbing and hiding or stabbing and disengaging? Surely you have a wizard that is surrounded that needs to get out of there? Surely you have a fighter that has to reposition in order to grant advantage to another PC attacking? And, you can still move, in fact you can move 35' around a large creature, without provoking opportunity attacks.

The analogy here is this: the DM that demands a circumstance change when dealing with a shut door (such as getting an impromptu crowbar or be targeted by an Enhance Ability spell) should also be asking for a player who misses with an attack to switch weapons or something. But nobody does that (at least that I know of).

If a roll of a d20 is the "best you can do in the situation" in one circumstance, why isn't that universal? Why are ability checks held to this higher standard? Why do we gate ability checks? My Wizard can pick up a Rapier and swing it. He won't get his PB, but that's all.

Why do we gate ability checks? Again, they are all unique, so, some get gated and others don't. But there are a few core reasons why:

1. To keep the game moving. It is an expectation in D&D that combat takes quite a bit of time. (With four players and a DM, 1 round - 6 seconds, can take 15 or even 30 minutes of real time.) Exploration, the expectation is not the same. Hence, why so many rules revolve around combat, and fewer around exploration.
2. Logic dictates. Reading an ancient book, and failing your history or arcana roll, and therefore not understanding it, is kind of a done deal for that scene. Trying to remember something about a long lost, dead god, and failing on your religion roll, is kind of a done deal for that scene. (I do not know of any DM that would disallow a later roll after doing research, speaking with sages, etc.)
3. And we gate to sometimes hit a punchline or set a scene. We once had a character named Caz Creekleaper. His first attempt to cross a river, he rolled a 1. He was swept downstream and plummeted over the falls after failing a strength check to grab on to something. It was classic. It was almost destiny. That punchline was perfect for a fun laugh. (He was laughing too.) Sometimes, the failed roll just sets the scene, for serious or comedic effect.

And, I still think the door example needs to not be the only point. Everyone that has responded to the "breaking down the door" has stated they give repeated chances. And if they don't, I bet they would if you brought an axe to the door and performed the whole "Here's Johnny" bit.

 

[AlViking]

That's the thing though; climbing a cliff or fighting a mimic in combat, there are failure states. You take damage, you die. There are consequences for rolling low.

If you try to bust open a door and fail, but you're allowed to try again until you succeed, what are the consequences? At that point you should just take 10 or take 20.

The 5e rules cover that under Trying Again. That the DM either just says it happens or you roll to see how long it takes. I think that works better than taking 20 because if you roll well you get lucky and succeed right away, roll poorly and it takes a while. The penalty consequence is not whether or not you will achieve your goal it's how long it takes. With trying to bash down a door, every time you attempt to bust it down you make noise that someone might hear.

An interesting scenario related to all of this is that the characters may not know if the door can be broken down or not. If there's a cave-in on the other side of the door it doesn't really matter if you body slam it once or a hundred times, it's not giving way.

 

[abazaba]

My personal issue with 'just trying again', is that it removes any real challenge. If you allow to try again infinitely, the player can just keep rolling until they finally roll a 20. I feel that if you fail to pick a lock, you are incapable to open it that way, and you are going to have to try something else (like breaking down the door or something). But I like the fact that the 2024 DMG at least addresses this, as some people already mentioned (and quoted) here.

DISCLAIMER: I have only skimmed through the thread, but not read every post so far.

 

[Reynard]

PC's move in your combats? In mine they just belly up to enemies and keep swinging until they die, lol.

Sounds like you should run your combats like a skill check: one roll decides it. At least it would be over faster.

 

[billd91]

My personal issue with 'just trying again', is that it removes any real challenge. If you allow to try again infinitely, the player can just keep rolling until they finally roll a 20. I feel that if you fail to pick a lock, you are incapable to open it that way, and you are going to have to try something else (like breaking down the door or something). But I like the fact that the 2024 DMG at least addresses this, as some people already mentioned (and quoted) here.

I don't really get the idea that trying again removes any real challenge. It just changes the terms a bit. Using your example above, if you can't pick the lock you have to try something else - like breaking down the door. Is that really a different challenge in any significant way? In both cases, you're working on getting through the door, each takes time and risks being discovered by wandering monsters or alerting the monsters behind the door. So if the door is openable by brute force - either rolling more than once to open the lock or bashing down the door with an axe - is the real challenge actually removed or is it just that the descriptive details have changed?
The worst effect of "fail one and done" type rolls, as I see it, is the tendency for them to just throw up blocks, particularly for the skill-oriented rather than magical-oriented PC. You fail Plan A (opening the lock) with a bad roll, you fail Plan B (forcing open the door) with a bad roll, you fail Plan C (having a knock spell, but that was spent on the last door where the A and B rolls were failed). So you just hope like hell that there was nothing important behind that door because you ain't gettin' in.

 

[abazaba]

I don't really get the idea that trying again removes any real challenge. It just changes the terms a bit. Using your example above, if you can't pick the lock you have to try something else - like breaking down the door. Is that really a different challenge in any significant way? In both cases, you're working on getting through the door, each takes time and risks being discovered by wandering monsters or alerting the monsters behind the door. So if the door is openable by brute force - either rolling more than once to open the lock or bashing down the door with an axe - is the real challenge actually removed or is it just that the descriptive details have changed?
The worst effect of "fail one and done" type rolls, as I see it, is the tendency for them to just throw up blocks, particularly for the skill-oriented rather than magical-oriented PC. You fail Plan A (opening the lock) with a bad roll, you fail Plan B (forcing open the door) with a bad roll, you fail Plan C (having a knock spell, but that was spent on the last door where the A and B rolls were failed). So you just hope like hell that there was nothing important behind that door because you ain't gettin' in.

Hrm. Those are actually good points, but: if you can just retry until you succeed, wouldn't it be easier if you just let the player succeed without having to roll at all ? Part of what the roll means to me, is that it does mean you can actually fail at a task, and that that failure has meaning.

Also: if you fail to pick the lock, and can't break the door down, you could also get creative and try to set the door on fire. (I think if a player tried to burn down the door, I would just let them succeed because I would find it a creative way of solving the problem). As a last resort, and everything fails but it is crucial that the door opens, you could always let the inhabitants of the dungeon open the door themselves.

 

[billd91]

Hrm. Those are actually good points, but: if you can just retry until you succeed, wouldn't it be easier if you just let the player succeed without having to roll at all ? Part of what the roll means to me, is that it does mean you can actually fail at a task, and that that failure has meaning.

If it's within their ability (DC isn't too high to achieve) and there's no cost of failure (plenty of time, no wandering monsters, etc), then yeah, they should succeed without rolling. It's not and shouldn't be a challenge.