Can't find the rule for repeated action attempts

[Sword of Spirit]

There is a 5e rule that says to assume that a task succeeds (if it's not impossible for you) if you aren't under time constraints and there is no meaningful consequence for failure. Basically 3e's 'take 20' in less codified terms.

Where is it? I can't seem to find it in the Basic Rules/PHB or my DMG (which I can't do a text search on, due to it not being digital).

I'm almost wondering if it was in the Playtest and didn't make it to publication, but I don't think that's right.

 

[Oofta]

Page 237 of your DMG.

 

[S'mon]

Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again

Page 175 of the PHB, and in the SRD - https://www.5esrd.com/using-ability-scores/

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I prefer the unwritten method of the backhanded approach:

 

[5ekyu]

Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again

Page 175 of the PHB, and in the SRD - https://www.5esrd.com/using-ability-scores/

But additionally, DMG Using Ability Checks - Multiple Ability Checksbin Chaoter 8 goes further saying a task should just succeed if repeated attempts are possible, the only loss is time and they can keep trying... they give the rule of ten times the normal task times gets auto-success.

Everything of course prefaced by use of the word "some" and leaving it up to the GM.

Of course, since the PHB allows any failure to meet the DC on an ability check to be resolved as "some progress with setback" it all boils down to "what does the GM choose as resolution."

So it's not a player choice or player option just a tool or guideline the GM can apply if they choose.

 

[Immortal Sun]

If the party has unlimited time and there's no penalty for failure, why is there a check?

If there's time, but a penalty for failure: check.
If there's limited time, but no penalty: check.

But if there's time and no penalty, why is there is a check?

Also: 3.5's "take 20" rule isn't "take a nat 20" because you can't critically succeed on a skill check in 3.5. The rule there is basically "take the highest possible result for this check" not "you automatically succeed".

 

[Oofta]

If the party has unlimited time and there's no penalty for failure, why is there a check?

If something is just going to happen, I may still ask for a check if I think it adds to the game. A difference between "the chest's hinges are rusty but you open it with a burst of strength" vs "it takes a while but you eventually get it open".

It also depends if time is an issue, if failing by a large enough amount could cause a setback, etc. But yeah, if they're in no rush "some of the doors are swollen because of the moisture or because of settling and you have to force your way through or break them down."

 

[5ekyu]

If the party has unlimited time and there's no penalty for failure, why is there a check?

If there's time, but a penalty for failure: check.
If there's limited time, but no penalty: check.

But if there's time and no penalty, why is there is a check?

Also: 3.5's "take 20" rule isn't "take a nat 20" because you can't critically succeed on a skill check in 3.5. The rule there is basically "take the highest possible result for this check" not "you automatically succeed".

having unlimited time and being willing to spend unlimited time are two different things. I mean, people looking for theit lost unicorn statue do not spend unlimited time searching in every closet and under every bed repeatedly until it is found because *they do not know* they have a chance at success or not. They obviously assume it is there, somewhere but while they are "pretty sure" its in the curio cabinet, what if their 10 yo moved it and took it to school? Or maybe it fell off and is pinned behind it in a spot they cannot see without moving the whole thing and they are not will to risk that so...

likely, after a while, they stop unsatisfied and move on.

of course, the notion of "no penalty for failure" at all is kinda odd in a system where any failed skill cehck can be read as "some progress with setback." So the case is usually quite moot in my games.

"You fail a third time in your search of the curio cabinet, and this time you hear a sound of something hitting the floor and breaking crystal. It had been pushed off the shelf andf pinned between the shelf and the wall but the moving things around again and again let it slip out and fall to the floor. so, progress -you found it - but setback - it is broken."

Whenever i get the "we all search independently" going on, instead of help with advantage - i always start with "OK so whol failed the checks" and resolve those "setbacks" first.

 

[aco175]

I sometimes let a 2nd check but make the DC higher or at disadvantage. Say you have an open locks check that the PCs fail. The group does not usually have each PCs try to open locks and if the thief fails they usually try another route. I may let another check but add 5 to the DC since I tend to think the thief tried his best the first time and a 2nd time takes more time to go over what he may have missed. I tend to not allow another check for social skills like persuasion or performance.

 

[iserith]

There is a 5e rule that says to assume that a task succeeds (if it's not impossible for you) if you aren't under time constraints and there is no meaningful consequence for failure. Basically 3e's 'take 20' in less codified terms.

Where is it? I can't seem to find it in the Basic Rules/PHB or my DMG (which I can't do a text search on, due to it not being digital).

I'm almost wondering if it was in the Playtest and didn't make it to publication, but I don't think that's right.

You may be looking for DMG page 237 - "Multiple Ability Checks."