D&D 5E Retrying Skill Checks (or the Little PC That Could)

[Agamon]

One thing that I found odd that the Basic rules are silent on is retrying a skill check. By default, in my games, if an action is a) not under some sort of time constraints, b) not subject to consequences any worse than, "it doesn't work/happen" when it fails, then it's assumed the PC can continue to work at the problem until he succeeds, realizes it is futile, or decides he has better things to do. In past rules, this was known as "Taking 20", the assumption that if a PC has time to roll and roll and roll, eventually he will get a 20, the best he can do. The drawback is that this takes a lot of time, and therefore some determination.

So, even though such a rule isn't in the rules, I had planed on running it this way anyway. No problem. Well, until I read the equipment section. Under this assumption, any creature that doesn't have a negative modifier to Dex can eventually escape manacles, and any creature that doesn't have a negative Str mod will eventually burst rope, manacles or chains. A common lock can be opened by anyone.

Now I can houserule these DCs to fit my assumptions, but now I'm wondering what the assumptions of the design are? Try once and never try again (or wait until you gain a level or something similarly arbitrary)? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. An expert locksmith that rolls a 1 to open a lock preceded by a novice that tries and rolls a 20, or the old joke where the half-orc barbarian tries to open the stuck door and fails, only to watch the tiny halfling wizard get lucky and do it himself is odd, to say the least.

Each of these things take an action to attempt, which is 6 seconds. So the "Try once and that's it" rule seems arbitrary to me. If a PC wants to try again, what's stopping him? All I can see is the DM and the rules in the way.

Now that said, the rules don't actually say that this is the case. And as I have preached in the past, that's good, run it like you want. But the DCs seem to infer it. That, or PCs are much more competent that I previously thought.

Thoughts?

 

[Tormyr]

While the examples you give are odd, they give good opportunities for story and humor. The barbarian doesn't free the door, but he gets it most of the way unstuck before giving up, and the gnome swings the door open.

Often, I will not allow retrying when it fits the story or the party has another way of accomplishing a task. If a door is locked and they can go another way, then if the rogue fails the lockpick they will have to go the other way.

Two Wednesdays ago the party was in a Temple of Hextor. They figured that following the retreating enemy into the arena was a trap, so they decided to try the side door. It was locked and barricaded. They managed to unlock the door (key) but could not break through the door and barricade. So they had to cautiously go through the arena.

In other cases, if they are climbing a wall and fail, they can try again. I guess in general, I like to have some sort of penalty for failure: they might take damage, lose advanatge, be detected or something else. Failing that, they don't get to try again unless there is a good reason to allow it.

 

[the Jester]

One thing that I found odd that the Basic rules are silent on is retrying a skill check. By default, in my games, if an action is a) not under some sort of time constraints, b) not subject to consequences any worse than, "it doesn't work/happen" when it fails, then it's assumed the PC can continue to work at the problem until he succeeds, realizes it is futile, or decides he has better things to do. In past rules, this was known as "Taking 20", the assumption that if a PC has time to roll and roll and roll, eventually he will get a 20, the best he can do. The drawback is that this takes a lot of time, and therefore some determination.

So, even though such a rule isn't in the rules, I had planed on running it this way anyway. No problem. Well, until I read the equipment section. Under this assumption, any creature that doesn't have a negative modifier to Dex can eventually escape manacles, and any creature that doesn't have a negative Str mod will eventually burst rope, manacles or chains. A common lock can be opened by anyone.

I've already sighted in on these kinds of skill checks as a wonderful place to import 4e's "succeed before you fail thrice" mechanic from skill challenges. Fail three times, and you can't do it until you gain a level/your bonus improves/whatever.

 

[Agamon]

I've already sighted in on these kinds of skill checks as a wonderful place to import 4e's "succeed before you fail thrice" mechanic from skill challenges. Fail three times, and you can't do it until you gain a level/your bonus improves/whatever.

Mechanics-wise this is sound. But how do you explain it in game?

PCs all suffer from ADD and can't concentrate on a single thing for longer than 20 seconds? Except that some things take a minute or 10 minutes or an hour or a day each try, so that doesn't work.

Another idea is that it turns out to be too difficult. But that doesn't explain if someone else of lesser skill tries and succeeds. Also the roll is now about figuring out the quality of the environment rather than the competency of the PC. And for some reason, we're adding a bonus due to PC competency to that roll.

Maybe PCs have low self esteem and give up at tasks easily when they don't succeed at them quickly. But then, why are they adventurers?

I know these explanations sound flip, but I seriously don't know how to explain this except, "reasons".

 

[Boarstorm]

I'm a fan of the idea that you don't get to try again unless SOMETHING changes.

That could be as simple as the villain threatening your family to give you a re-roll to bust out of your bonds or as complicated as gaining a level.

Even another character using the help action could give you another chance.

But if nothing changes... well, then all subsequent attempts are assumed to have the same die roll as the first.

In the case where a Dex 10 character slips his manacles and the Dex 18 character couldn't... well, they weren't as tight to begin with (the guards weren't paying enough attention, assuming the character was too incompetent to bust out, etc.)

In other words -- I'd resolve such situations narratively on a case-by-case basis.

 

[fba827]

It's not a matter of add, but rather they can continue to try without game mechanical effect. It is simply beyond their ability.

At least that is how my table justifies such things. Don't know if that works for you.

That said , I suspect the dmg will have info either in the form if three fails and it's simply beyond your ability, or you can take 10 ( not 20) and if it's beyond that then it's simply beyond your ability at your current level.

 

[Agamon]

In the case where a Dex 10 character slips his manacles and the Dex 18 character couldn't... well, they weren't as tight to begin with (the guards weren't paying enough attention, assuming the character was too incompetent to bust out, etc.)

As I stated above, we're using the quality of the environment to set the DC, adding a modifier to the roll according to the competency of the PC and then explaining the result of the roll as the quality of the environment. That feels counter intuitive to me.

 

[Agamon]

It's not a matter of add, but rather they can continue to try without game mechanical effect. It is simply beyond their ability.

But it's wasn't. If the DC is reachable, then it wasn't beyond their ability. Again, that's explaining how hard it is to do the task from the result of the roll when that's what the DC is supposed to be for.

 

[Boarstorm]

As I stated above, we're using the quality of the environment to set the DC, adding a modifier to the roll according to the competency of the PC and then explaining the result of the roll as the quality of the environment. That feels counter intuitive to me.

Intuitive, counter-intuitive...

Go with what works...

... for you and your group.

I'm just telling you what works for mine.

Perhaps you could hack something together using passive STR/DEX scores as thresholds for this sort of thing?

ETA: It seems like you'd run into these kinds of inconsistencies anytime you involve dice. How did you deal with it before? (I mean, aside from Taking 20)

 

[Tormyr]

As I stated above, we're using the quality of the environment to set the DC, adding a modifier to the roll according to the competency of the PC and then explaining the result of the roll as the quality of the environment. That feels counter intuitive to me.

I see it more as we have the DC set through our perceived understanding of the environment (or how things normally are) followed by the story explanation of what really happened (smaller wrists, looser manacles, etc.). The dice are just an abstraction of what is happening in game. It is up to us to as players and DMs to come up with the explanation of the die roll.