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

[machineelf]

I am not sure I understand the mentality between not allowing retries.

There might be a negative effect for a bad roll, but think about this...
A skill check is generally the result of 6 seconds of attempt.

How often do you call a Locksmith and he comes to your house, tries to unlock the lock for you and they try for all of 6 seconds and then come back to you and say "Sorry, I failed my first attempt. The lock is not impossible for me to ever unlock. We should bring someone else in here to try."

What even is that mentality?

You can't do it for Persuasion checks? You've really never had the experience of someone asking you or telling you do something and resisting the first time but after they constantly pester you about it or their reaction to you saying "no" is enough to break down your resistance?

Sorry to say, like it or not, there are retries in real life.

If you read my post above you will see my reasons for not allowing "retries." I explain that the roll is simply the mechanic that conceptually encompasses all the tries characters make storywise. So from that perspective, the characters may be trying over and over again, but the one roll (if they fail) is the abstracted result of however many tries they make.

This prevents ridiculous results like having level 1 rogues able to pick just about any lock they come across (because eventually they will roll a 20, right? So unless the DC is above 20, they can pick it). As a matter of fact, even a lvl 1 wizard that is not proficient in lock picks will get every DC20 door picked, given enough retries.

Allowing those rerolls will also prevent other interesting roleplay alternatives, like having the fighter bash down the door because the rogue can't pick the lock, or having the wizard cast a knock spell, or just finding a different way into the room if there is one.

 

[GreenTengu]

If you read my post above you will see my reasons for not allowing "retries." I explain that the roll is simply the mechanic that conceptually encompasses all the tries characters make storywise. So from that perspective, the characters may be trying over and over again, but the one roll (if they fail) is the abstracted result of however many tries they make.

This prevents ridiculous results like having level 1 rogues able to pick just about any lock they come across (because eventually they will roll a 20, right? So unless the DC is above 20, they can pick it). As a matter of fact, even a lvl 1 wizard that is not proficient in lock picks will get every DC20 door picked, given enough retries.

Allowing those rerolls will also prevent other interesting roleplay alternatives, like having the fighter bash down the door because the rogue can't pick the lock, or having the wizard cast a knock spell, or just finding a different way into the room if there is one.

Again, you are still creating a functional system where "if at first you don't succeed, just totally give up on doing it ever and never try again because no matter what you'll never be able to succeed at this no matter how long you practice or try." Your system doesn't allow for the concept of someone trying again and again. You have set it up so that the immediately succeed in the first 6 seconds or they simply can never succeed at all.

Is that how you live your life? Do you think a world that exists by such a notion really make an interesting story?

Similar, do you think if I gave you a challenge-- say, riding a unicycle, if the very first time you try you cannot do it, even if you can do similar or more difficult challenges, then regardless of how much time you spend on the act you will never be able to accomplish it?

Is this how you live your life? Everything you come across in life, any time you try something-- if you don't succeed the first time, you immediately give up and never try again?

 

[LostSoul]

Again, you are still creating a functional system where "if at first you don't succeed, just totally give up on doing it ever and never try again because no matter what you'll never be able to succeed at this no matter how long you practice or try." Your system doesn't allow for the concept of someone trying again and again. You have set it up so that the immediately succeed in the first 6 seconds or they simply can never succeed at all.

I think it'd be more appropriate to say that the system is "If you don't succeed, give up on doing it until you get better tools or improve your skill." In such a system, the die roll resolves "trying to open the lock", not "spending 6 seconds trying to open the lock". If, however, the die roll was resolving "trying to open the lock in 6 seconds", I'd probably apply Disadvantage and have the lock jam on a failure.

It is nice that the system allows different DMs to rule in different ways.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that for physical repeatable skills that are within the capability of the PC, an ok houserule is to state that it just takes longer. How long? A number of "original time units" * how much the original DC was missed by.

For example, if it takes one round to pick a lock and the PC misses the DC by 3, then it takes 4 rounds. The PC is still successful, but it avoids that whole constantly re-roll the dice problem.

If it takes a minute to get up the cliff and the PC has a rope that prevents him from falling, it might just take 6 minutes to get up that cliff.

A slick wall but one which is climbable would fall into this same category.

Finding tracks in an area. If the tracks are there but hard to spot, the Survival DC already takes that into account and it's just a matter of persistence.

But, if it is not time critical and within the capabilities of the PCs, I would just describe it with no dice rolls:

DM: "It's a real slick wall that you all have difficulty getting over, but eventually you all manage."


Now if the PCs are in combat, I would have the PC roll each round to pick the lock or climb the wall or whatever.


And I would not allow it for knowledge checks, persuasion, or anything similar.

 

[GreenTengu]

I think it'd be more appropriate to say that the system is "If you don't succeed, give up on doing it until you get better tools or improve your skill." In such a system, the die roll resolves "trying to open the lock", not "spending 6 seconds trying to open the lock". If, however, the die roll was resolving "trying to open the lock in 6 seconds", I'd probably apply Disadvantage and have the lock jam on a failure.

It is nice that the system allows different DMs to rule in different ways.

The reason I use the unit of time of 6 seconds is because that is how long a round is. If 10 rounds equal a 1 minute, 1 round equals 6 seconds and unlocking a lock is defined as an action that takes a round.

This means that either one is only spending 6 seconds of trying within their first roll of a failure.
The only way to raise one's skill is to go out and kill monsters. So... "I can't unlock this now even though I have unlocked similar locks in the past. Let me go murder a hundred people and come back to try again."?
Come on. That makes no sense.

There really needs to be something in between "you succeed instantly" and "you are incapable of ever succeeding at this task ever.. unless you murder enough people to raise your level."

Why not have a roll of 1 equate to the true fail state in which the action simply cannot be tried again-- you broke it, the person you were trying to pester into something attacks you, you sprain your angle falling from the wall this time.
Repeated rolls need only mean the character is taking up more and more time trying to perform the task.

I can't tell you how many countless times I have done something where, had I done it right the first time, it really would have taken only seconds. But I failed... and I could spend several minutes trying over and over and over and over again... and you know what?... I manage to eventually do it.

That possibility ought to exist within a game. The system of "one roll ever, either instantly succeed without issue or fail and know that it is impossible for you to ever succeed at this no matter how long you spend"... that just doesn't strike me as workable.

Yes, there are plenty of skill rolls where there are nasty consequences of failing and one should be aware of this. But other times it is just a matter of how much time and emotional stamina you need to spend before completing the task.

 

[Galendril]

This means that either one is only spending 6 seconds of trying within their first roll of a failure.
The only way to raise one's skill is to go out and kill monsters. So... "I can't unlock this now even though I have unlocked similar locks in the past. Let me go murder a hundred people and come back to try again."?
Come on. That makes no sense.

In the PHB, there are rules for downtime actions. One use of downtime is to learn a skill. So, if you are not proficient in thieves tools, you could spend some gold and time to become proficient and thereby raise your skill without killing anything.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that for physical repeatable skills that are within the capability of the PC, an ok houserule is to state that it just takes longer. How long? A number of "original time units" * how much the original DC was missed by.

For example, if it takes one round to pick a lock and the PC misses the DC by 3, then it takes 4 rounds. The PC is still successful, but it avoids that whole constantly re-roll the dice problem.

If it takes a minute to get up the cliff and the PC has a rope that prevents him from falling, it might just take 6 minutes to get up that cliff.

That sounds like a nice, workable solution.

The reason I use the unit of time of 6 seconds is because that is how long a round is. If 10 rounds equal a 1 minute, 1 round equals 6 seconds and unlocking a lock is defined as an action that takes a round.

This means that either one is only spending 6 seconds of trying within their first roll of a failure.
The only way to raise one's skill is to go out and kill monsters. So... "I can't unlock this now even though I have unlocked similar locks in the past. Let me go murder a hundred people and come back to try again."?
Come on. That makes no sense.

Two things:

1. I think trying to pick a lock in combat and trying to pick a lock out of combat are two different tasks. In combat you're basically jamming your picks in there and hoping it pops open. Out of combat you can take more time. Just because picking a lock is an action you can take in combat doesn't mean that it's the same action that you take when you try to pick a lock outside of combat.

Of course it's up to the DM to determine such things.

2. You can look at XP for killing monsters (or overcoming challenges, or whatever) as a proxy for adventuring. It's a simple way of tracking how much adventuring you're doing, one that doesn't rely on the DM to make difficult and/or arbitrary judgement calls (e.g. "10 XP per level for good roleplaying"). If you're killing monsters, you're probably picking locks, searching for traps/secret doors, praying to your god, mastering spells, etc. You may not be doing those things, but it would be a lot of bookkeeping to keep track of every lock picked and all the rest.

Not that I'm that fond of XP for killing monsters, but it has its merits.

There really needs to be something in between "you succeed instantly" and "you are incapable of ever succeeding at this task ever.. unless you murder enough people to raise your level."

Why not have a roll of 1 equate to the true fail state in which the action simply cannot be tried again-- you broke it, the person you were trying to pester into something attacks you, you sprain your angle falling from the wall this time.
Repeated rolls need only mean the character is taking up more and more time trying to perform the task.

You could, and that would work. I don't like the extra dice rolling. I find that it takes up too much time and reduces the tension of a single die roll.

I can't tell you how many countless times I have done something where, had I done it right the first time, it really would have taken only seconds. But I failed... and I could spend several minutes trying over and over and over and over again... and you know what?... I manage to eventually do it.

That possibility ought to exist within a game. The system of "one roll ever, either instantly succeed without issue or fail and know that it is impossible for you to ever succeed at this no matter how long you spend"... that just doesn't strike me as workable.

Yes, there are plenty of skill rolls where there are nasty consequences of failing and one should be aware of this. But other times it is just a matter of how much time and emotional stamina you need to spend before completing the task.

I agree with what you're saying. I think I'm just approaching the issue from a different point of view.

I'd say that picking a lock takes 5-10 minutes (a good old fashioned Turn) and the single die roll represents all your progress and setbacks. If you fail then the lock has proven too tricky for you. I'd probably allow another attempt but this one would take up the rest of the hour (so no Short Rest for you), or whatever amount of time wandering monster checks work on.

That way you incorporate the game's use of time as a resource into the player's decision making. I like that sort of thing: "Well, you can try again, but I'm going to make a wandering monster check/you won't get a Short Rest."

Anyway, I hope you can see why someone might want to go with a "one roll, no retries" (or close to it) system.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think that for physical repeatable skills that are within the capability of the PC, an ok houserule is to state that it just takes longer. How long? A number of "original time units" * how much the original DC was missed by.

For example, if it takes one round to pick a lock and the PC misses the DC by 3, then it takes 4 rounds. The PC is still successful, but it avoids that whole constantly re-roll the dice problem.

If it takes a minute to get up the cliff and the PC has a rope that prevents him from falling, it might just take 6 minutes to get up that cliff.

A slick wall but one which is climbable would fall into this same category.

Finding tracks in an area. If the tracks are there but hard to spot, the Survival DC already takes that into account and it's just a matter of persistence.

But, if it is not time critical and within the capabilities of the PCs, I would just describe it with no dice rolls:

DM: "It's a real slick wall that you all have difficulty getting over, but eventually you all manage."


Now if the PCs are in combat, I would have the PC roll each round to pick the lock or climb the wall or whatever.


And I would not allow it for knowledge checks, persuasion, or anything similar.

Exactly. This is how I do it as well, provided the character's modifier + 20 is high enough to succeed. And if a second character has the same skill and is helping, the check is with advantage.

Ilbranteloth