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

[James Gasik]

But if you can just pick a lock without the chance of failure, then why have a lock on the door in the first place ? You might as well leave it unlocked ?

Locks, especially ones you'd expect in an era with less than modern technology aren't a barrier, they're a deterrent at best. If there's something you really want to protect, you'll hide it or place traps.

And really, the real question here is: why would you want the PC's to fail to open a door? How does that serve the adventure?

In The Sunless Citadel, there's a locked door (DC 20) that you're meant to get the key for by dealing with the Kobolds. The door leads to what could be a tough encounter for level 1 characters (when I ran the 5e conversion, I killed my first 5e PC, a level 1 Monk in the fight).

Opening the door too early might actually be lethal to the party. I'd consider that a good reason to not want the PC's to open it. If I had to run the adventure again, I'd have the door be Arcane Locked or something to prevent it from being opened in this manner at all, rather than risk a party getting lucky (which is what happened with my group, the Urchin Barbarian rolled a 20 even as the Cleric was saying he could cast guidance).

This is what I keep tripping on- why do we want there to be insurmountable obstacles in an adventure anyways? What purpose is it serving? What happens if the party fails to scale a mountain cliff to get to the adventure? They take some bludgeoning damage and go home?

Is that the way we'd want the session to end?

 

[plecostomus]

Thanks for the response. I was unaware of the 'Taking 20' rule (I'm new to D&D). But doesn't all of this mean that you are taking the randomness out of the game ? I mean, you are constantly rolling dice at random. Which to me, means that even though the PC's stats are really good you could still fail (you have a bad day), or even tough the stats are bad you can still succeed (you got lucky) ? I kind of like that randomness if I'm honest.

In theory if the party is spending time trying to open a locked chest, the DM has things that will happen randomly.

The first module in QFtIS has the following possibilities for Level 1-3 characters:

• 1 rust monster (CR 1/2)
• 2 giant centipedes (CR 1/4)
• 1 owlbear (CR 3)
• Social(?) encounter with 1d4 hobgoblins (CR 1/2) searching for treasure - this one doesn't have a description of what the encounter is, unlike the other "social encounters"
• Social encounter with 1 commoner (CR 0)
• Social encounter with 3 priests (CR 2)
• Social encounter with 2 guards (CR 1/8) who join the party and defend one of its members from harm
• Social encounter with a number of commoners equal to the number of party members (CR 0)
• 1d4 guardians (CR 1/8) try to escort party to their leader
• 1d4 mages (CR 1/8) try to escort party to their leader
• 1d4 warriors (CR 1/8) try to escort party to their leader
• 1d6 cultists (CR 1/8) try to capture the party alive to sacrifice them later

Every hour the party spends in the module, roll a d6, on a 1 one of the above encounters occurs.

So you have exchanged the dice for the skill check with another set of dice. But "take 20" means nothing if there are no consequences for taking time to do something.

 

[billd91]

Thanks for the response. I was unaware of the 'Taking 20' rule (I'm new to D&D). But doesn't all of this mean that you are taking the randomness out of the game ? I mean, you are constantly rolling dice at random. Which to me, means that even though the PC's stats are really good you could still fail (you have a bad day), or even tough the stats are bad you can still succeed (you got lucky) ? I kind of like that randomness if I'm honest.

The idea of just saying "Yes, you succeed" without a roll is to save the rolls for when you really want it - such as when there's an actual consequence of failing other than having to try again to get it right or when the pressure is really on (like in a crisis such as combat). This is part of the recommendation for 5e - yes if they can do it, no if they can't, roll when it's unclear AND it matters in a significant way. Plus, too many GMs make players roll for too much anyway. It can get really tedious.

 

[AlViking]

But if you can just pick a lock without the chance of failure, then why have a lock on the door in the first place ? You might as well leave it unlocked ?

Most people I know lock their front door even though someone could still break in fairly easily. A locksmith can open your door in a couple of minutes, if a robber doesn't have the skill they just use a hammer to break the door or even just a brick through a window.

In the DMG how they explain it is that if success is going to happen anyway and there's no penalty for failure, don't ask for a roll unless the amount of time it takes matters. Sometimes how long it takes matters, sometimes it doesn't.

Spoiler: 2024 DMG

Trying Again​

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and the player wants to try again. In many cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to attempt the same thing again. For some tasks, however, the only consequence of failure is the time it takes to attempt the task again. For example, failing a Dexterity check to pick a lock on a treasure chest doesn’t mean the character can’t try again, but each attempt might take a minute.

If failure has no consequences and a character can try and try again, you can skip the ability check and just tell the player how long the task takes. Alternatively, you can call for a single ability check and use the result to determine how long it takes for the character to complete the task.