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

[Azzy]

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.

 

[Tessarael]

Ok, but a part of my point is that the ability to perform a task as a bonus action should imply that it takes a very short amount of time to make the check, even outside of combat, right? So if, as in the original post (so long, long ago), the DM wants to say "ok, the check takes 1 minute, a retry takes 5 minutes" and so on, what does that mean for a Thief?

Because it doesn't really make sense that a Thief can do something in combat along with a normal action and movement inside of 6 seconds, but out of combat, suddenly it takes 10x that amount of time or longer.

I would impose disadvantage or a higher difficulty on the roll for trying to do something in a rushed manner. I think that it is reasonable that disarming a trap or picking a lock would take a minute to attempt as a normal action. Heroic skill level or specific Rogue (or other) features could allow it to be done faster than that.

 

[evilbob]

I wonder if anything has changed over the last 11 years for anyone?

Interestingly, I posted in this thread 11 years ago, and when I went back and read it, I was like: I don't even recognize this person.

11 years later, I just tell people who are good at their jobs that they do the thing - no roll required. It goes back to the whole: unless there's a consequence for failure, don't roll.

 

[Reynard]

We should also remember to say no. Rather than letting the player roll with disadvantage versus a DC 30, just say "No, your character can't do that."

 

[Eubani]

I generally only allow rerolls on ability checks if something within the game world has changed. It could be that new info is discovered or a new tool or item is available etc. allowing constant rerolls basically removes failure and there must always be a chance for failure if a roll is required.

 

[Algorithmancer]

For things like picking a lock or climbing, if there's no immediate pressure or consequence for failure (like guards approaching) I usually allow retries, but with the understanding that continuous failure means it's probably too difficult for them right now.

For knowledge checks, a failed roll usually means the character simply doesn't know that information, and no amount of re-rolling will change that.

That said I might be a bit too lenient - Adding cumulative penalties can be a good way to represent increasing difficulty or fatigue

 

[AlViking]

For things like picking a lock or climbing, if there's no immediate pressure or consequence for failure (like guards approaching) I usually allow retries, but with the understanding that continuous failure means it's probably too difficult for them right now.

For knowledge checks, a failed roll usually means the character simply doesn't know that information, and no amount of re-rolling will change that.

That said I might be a bit too lenient - Adding cumulative penalties can be a good way to represent increasing difficulty or fatigue

With knowledge checks I largely agree - either you know something or you don't. If more information comes to light that pertains to the same knowledge I'll typically allow a second roll because that new information may provide more context or a different perspective that jogs a person's memory.

 

[James Gasik]

The thing with knowledge checks is that it's possible to forget something in the moment and recall it later when you're not really thinking about it- something that I'm sure happens to many of us all the time. Heck, as you get older, you may find yourself forgetting something that you shouldn't even have a chance of forgetting, yet it happens anyways.

Like any check, a knowledge check should only be made if there's a real issue if you fail recalling something right now this very instant- otherwise, I would just tell my players (but again, they love rolling dice so I just set the DC very low and just smile and nod when they announce a string of high numbers).

The thing you really have to consider is if a failed check results in a "dead end" for the adventure or not. Because you really shouldn't have those, like a door that, if you fail to open it, welp, you can't complete the adventure. Skill checks are so variable as it is that often even characters who are supposedly experts will roll low and fail, which is a problem I have with the DC system. A lot of adventures will have checks of DC 15 and up, which can easily be worse than a coin flip, especially in Tier 1.

As I warn a lot of first time DM's, "don't put a possibility on the table you're not prepared for". If not figuring out a puzzle stops the adventure, don't make your players roll- that's when suddenly their dice will go cold, leaving you saying "now what?".

The reverse is also true. I've dealt with many DM's who, thinking they were being clever, rather than say no, will just set some very high DC for a check. And then are left grasping at straws when someone nat 20's the roll.

Of course, sometimes the DM still says no, like the bastard who programmed that DC 99 check in Baldur's Gate 3, lol.

 

[Enrahim]

Interestingly, I posted in this thread 11 years ago, and when I went back and read it, I was like: I don't even recognize this person.

11 years later, I just tell people who are good at their jobs that they do the thing - no roll required. It goes back to the whole: unless there's a consequence for failure, don't roll.

But, but - what about that menachled halfling child? :O

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Usually I say it requires increasing time intervals to reroll the same failed check. So trying to pick a lock might be 1 action, then 1 minute, then 1 hour, 1 day, then you can't try again unless something changes, for example.

An alternative that could accomplish something similar could just be the degree of failure determines how long it takes them. Success is the normal 1 action, failure by 5 or less is 1 minute, etc. This is useful when they have all the time in the world and are just going to keep going until they accomplish it. It's not so useful if you are in the dungeon under a time crunch.

If you couldn't hit the DC even with a 20, then you just can't do it at all without raising your skill or getting some sort of applicable bonus.

The old official guidance that if it's not impossible they basically can automatically succeed it just takes time is too vague to be useful I think. How much time? What do they mean by impossible? They really needed another sentence or two there to give more guidance.