Can't find the rule for repeated action attempts

[jayoungr]

I'm a fan of the "let it ride" approach: the check made represents the PC's best effort under the current conditions. If he/she wants to try again, something must be done to alter the circumstances before another attempt roll can be made (and of course, the DC may also change to reflect the new circumstances).

 

[iserith]

The important thing to remember here is that we only call for ability checks when there's:

1. An uncertain outcome to the task and
2. A meaningful consequence for failure.

That must be true in every instance of a repeated ability check since the task must fall into those criteria. Which probably means that repeated ability checks are quite rare unless you are somehow accruing (and surviving) a meaningful consequence for every failed check!

 

[Li Shenron]

The DMG rule is one of the worst possible rules. It doesn't even mention whether a penalty for failure should matter. Multiplying the time x10 is essentially a no-cost for all skill checks that take an action (1 minute is not a relevant cost in the adventuring phase). If this rule is to be taken as "default", then it just means that for a very large number of tasks the DM should not really ask for a check but directly compare a PC's score with the DC. Instead the PHB sets rolling dice as default, and this rule is carefully hidden in the last of the 3 core books.

Considering that the PHB already says that the DM can grant automatic success at a task, what does this DMG rule achieve? It sets a default extra cost, but it's rarely going to matter, and it's irritating for a DM who might have another cost in mind and has to make the player feel they are cheated if a RAW is not applied.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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".

Lets be clear here. Taking 20 doesn' mean you just get a 20 and it took 20 times as long. It meant that you rolled a 1, then a 2 then a 3 etc... until you make the DC.

how does this relate to the OP? Taking 20 meant suffering the consequences for failure if there was any and would be the equivalent of trying again and again in 5e.

It usually played out like this:
Player: "I want to take 20 to search the room"
DM: "that will take 2 hours. Do you want to spend that much time?"
Player: "yes"

Now, If failure means there will be a consequence for rolling a 1 (like breaking the object you are searching for, or triggering a trap) then you suffer the consequences and play it out.

DM: "after 5 minutes of ransacking the room, a priceless statuette falls to the floor and shatters into a million pieces"

If not, they just spend 2 hours and you narrate what they found.

In 5e, if there is no consequence for failure, you just narrate the 2 hours. Sometimes a player will say, "2 hours? screw that, I just want to search"


Taking 10 in 3.5 means you are being careful but not thorough. The closest thing to taking 10 is your Passive Score in 5e.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Lets be clear here. Taking 20 doesn' mean you just get a 20 and it took 20 times as long. It meant that you rolled a 1, then a 2 then a 3 etc... until you make the DC.

Uh, no, no it doesn't. It means you are taking enough time to produce your best results.

It doesn't represent 19 attempts and failures.

It's exactly the same as how taking a 10 works. You're taking more time than usual to produce better but still average results.

 

[Jonathan Tweet]

I'm happy to see that, if the 3E system isn't perfect, at least no one else has found a perfect solution, either. For my latest system design work (Over the Edge), I went with a much less detailed, more free-form system that doesn't formalize individual or repeated attempts this way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Uh, no, no it doesn't. It means you are taking enough time to produce your best results.

It doesn't represent 19 attempts and failures.

The d20 SRD is fairly clear on this point.

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Yeah

The d20 SRD is fairly clear on this point.

Yeah, your quote proves what I said. You do it over and over and fail multiple times until you get what you need, up to a 20. Under the crafting rules, you can take 20 and it uses 20 times the resources. When you fail a crafting roll, you use up the resources.

I’m not going to argue 3e on a 5e forum though. If you don’t believe me, then I’ll be content to disagree. My point still stands: if there’s a risk of consequence, it should be played out

Edit: I quoted the wrong person. Sorry

 

[Immortal Sun]

The d20 SRD is fairly clear on this point.

Well color me wrong then.

Makes no sense at all to write the rule that way though.

If there's a penalty for failure, it needs to be played out. If there's no penalty for failure and no time limit (or enough time to 'take a 20') why bother with dice rolling?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If there's a penalty for failure, it needs to be played out. If there's no penalty for failure and no time limit (or enough time to 'take a 20') why bother with dice rolling?

That is exactly what the rules say. You can't take 20 if there's a penalty for failure (first paragraph), because if you did, then you would be subject to all of those penalties (third paragraph). But penalties need to be played out, which is why there's a hard rule that you can't take 20 in those circumstances.

It is kind of weird that they explicitly tell you that you can't do something, and then speculate on what would happen if you could, but I think they just wanted to be extra clear on what's going on.