Can't find the rule for repeated action attempts

I'm an old school guy, so I don't like the standard rule on repeated checks. It tends to make some tasks meaningless, since you can just always succeed against a DC of 20 or less (assuming you don't have a negative modifier), such as getting out of manacles or picking locks. 3E tried to solve this by making the DCs very high (usually above 20), but this had the negative effect of making a single attempt very unlikely to succeed. Given that in 5E, DC 20 is supposed to be a "hard" task, and that bounded accuracy keeps the DCs lower (manacles are DC 20 and locks are DC15 standard), this makes them pointless unless the DM has set an arbitrary time limit.

Instead, I consider the roll to be the character's best effort at succeeding any any given task under those conditions, making rechecks impossible. For example, you attempt to break free of the manacles and fail, then you just can't do it unless something changes the situation. If the manacles are damaged in someway (such as you taking fire, cold, acid, etc. damage), then another check would be allowed, because the manacles might have been weakened. If something might give you a massive adrenaline surge (such as the BBEG holding you prisoner threatens a loved one), I might allow another check.

Sometimes there are things that may look like rechecks, but are not. For example, if you try to force a stuck door open but fail, you can still break it down over time by hitting it with weapons (item HP & AC), and I may not bother making the attacks because you'll eventually succeed. These usually have other consequences however, such as the door now being destroyed, rather than just open (plus you probably made a lot of noise). Basically, if you fail the check, there may be another way to do what you need to do, but with consequences.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I'm an old school guy, so I don't like the standard rule on repeated checks. It tends to make some tasks meaningless, since you can just always succeed against a DC of 20 or less (assuming you don't have a negative modifier), such as getting out of manacles or picking locks. 3E tried to solve this by making the DCs very high (usually above 20), but this had the negative effect of making a single attempt very unlikely to succeed. Given that in 5E, DC 20 is supposed to be a "hard" task, and that bounded accuracy keeps the DCs lower (manacles are DC 20 and locks are DC15 standard), this makes them pointless unless the DM has set an arbitrary time limit.
Personally, my solution to “the manacle problem” is that the DC is only for when a check is actually possible, and that’s going to depend on the approach. Simply trying to break out of manacles with your own raw strength or slip out of them, there’s no check because there isn’t a reasonable chance of success. If you try something that does have a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, and cost or consequence for failure, then the listed DC is the one used for the check.

Instead, I consider the roll to be the character's best effort at succeeding any any given task under those conditions, making rechecks impossible. For example, you attempt to break free of the manacles and fail, then you just can't do it unless something changes the situation. If the manacles are damaged in someway (such as you taking fire, cold, acid, etc. damage), then another check would be allowed, because the manacles might have been weakened. If something might give you a massive adrenaline surge (such as the BBEG holding you prisoner threatens a loved one), I might allow another check.
Personally, as a player, I hate when DMs do this. Just really bothers me to be told a roll that came up a 2 on the die was my character’s “best effort.” Of course, I know this method works just fine for plenty of groups, and I’m not looking to criticize your preferred method. Just pointing out that there may be players, like me, who don’t care for this method, (likewise, there may be players who don’t care for my method either) so it’s always good to make sure everyone is on the same page with their expectations.

Sometimes there are things that may look like rechecks, but are not. For example, if you try to force a stuck door open but fail, you can still break it down over time by hitting it with weapons (item HP & AC), and I may not bother making the attacks because you'll eventually succeed. These usually have other consequences however, such as the door now being destroyed, rather than just open (plus you probably made a lot of noise). Basically, if you fail the check, there may be another way to do what you need to do, but with consequences.
I agree. After you failed to break the door down on your first try, the consequence was the noise it made, potentially alerting nearby enemies. Attempting to break it down again won’t make the situation any worse, any enemies are already aware of your presence. So there’s no need to roll any more, you just eventually (if noisily) break the door down.
 



Personally, my solution to “the manacle problem” is that the DC is only for when a check is actually possible, and that’s going to depend on the approach. Simply trying to break out of manacles with your own raw strength or slip out of them, there’s no check because there isn’t a reasonable chance of success. If you try something that does have a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, and cost or consequence for failure, then the listed DC is the one used for the check.
Manacles have a DC: 20 to break out of or slip free from; standard locks have a DC: 15. So by rules of the game, they have a "reasonable chance of success" by anyone without a negative modifier (locks requiring thieves tools and proficiency) given enough time, therefore they can always be bypassed. That's the disconnect, because in 3E (where check retries were first codified IIRC) had manacles and locks with DC: 25+, because they assumed you would always "take the 20." Since 5E has much lower DCs due to bounded accuracy, this makes these items fairly meaningless.
 

Manacles have a DC: 20 to break out of or slip free from; standard locks have a DC: 15. So by rules of the game, they have a "reasonable chance of success" by anyone without a negative modifier (locks requiring thieves tools and proficiency).

Sorry, I may not have been clear enough. DCs are something checks have. A reasonable chance of success is something actions have. In my way of running the game, action =/= check. A check is a means of resolving an action that has an uncertain outcome. You don’t get to make a Dexterity check against the standard DC 15 for picking a lock if you don’t have thieves’ tools, because the action does not have a reasonable chance of success (generally; I could see an argument for rolling to pick a lock with improvised tools, probably with Disadvantage on the check.) Likewise, you don’t get to make a check against the standard DC of 20 to break or slip from the manacles unless your approach to trying to break or slip from them has a reasonable chance of success, and in my opinion flexing real hard or wriggling your wrist around a lot don’t have that. That’s like trying to pick a lock with your fingers - preventing you from doing that is literally the primary function of the device. Now, bash the manacles against a rock or get your hands all greased up, and we’re in “reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure” territory, and we can start considering whether or not there is a cost for the attempt or a consequence for failure. If it has one of those things, then the DC is 20. Care to spend Inspiration?
 
Last edited:


Instead, I consider the roll to be the character's best effort at succeeding any any given task under those conditions, making rechecks impossible.

I generally go with the roll being the character's first effort, and if repeated effort is possible, then use the Passive score for 'doing it over and over again'. This deals with issues where strong PC rolls a 2 on Athletics while weakling rolls a 20.

If the task is something that the PCs will inevitably succeed at eventually, like using a battering ram vs a door, then I'll typically follow the DMG advice and say "after a minute or so you break the door down/get the chest open" etc.
 

Remove ads

Top