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

[amerigoV]

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".

I would just say that knowledge and ability are not uniform in people (ie two people with +5 in a skill do not know the exact same things). Look at the person next to you that has the same qualifications (on paper) and job title. Can they to EXACTLY the same thing at the level of proficiency and in the same timeframe as you? While their might be a good number of things that one of you can do as well as the other, something that might take you 20 minutes might take them two days to figure out, and vice versa. For example in football both the Right Tackle and the Left Tackle both might be very good overall, but the Right Tackle (in the NFL/College) tends to be a better run blocker and the Left tackle a better pass blocker.

To make up a D&D example. Bob the human thief might be very good at locks, but he may never have worked on a Gnomish Lock. Wiggletoes the Gnomish Thief might just be starting out in his career but he started on Gnomish Locks. So perhaps the lock that Wiggletoes got but Bob failed has a bit of Gnome in it (cuz the Ogre stuffed a Gnome in there ). Now the DM may not have thought of this when making the adventure, but they can use something like that to explain stuff if they want.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Hold on there. Assumption alert: Using a skill takes a combat round.

Is that actually supported by the text? "Use a skill" is not listed in the combat actions, and a quick skim doesn't tell me anywhere how long it takes to make a skill (or ability) check. Elsewhere in Basic (pg 36: Time) it talks about using timescales as appropriate. So, one could rule that you get one combat timescale check, then one minutes-timescale check, then one hours-timescale check. After that, you're using your passive check, and if that doesn't do it, you're just stuck until something notably changes the scenario.

If they slap you in irons while the fight is going on, you get a chance to break free and rejoin the fight. Next scene, they carry you around for a few minutes to the jail - maybe you break free in transit to make an escape. Then, they leave you in a cell all day - you may break free before the guards show up with your bread and water. If not, you're in it for the long haul.

Except that some things take a minute or 10 minutes or an hour or a day each try, so that doesn't work.

Which speaks to the variable timescale of skill checks - they don't all just take one combat round.

 

[Agamon]

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.

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

Honestly, I'm certainly not trying to point out right and wrong ways to play. Nor am I asking for advice (as I stated in the OP, it's easy to fix the DCs in the equipment section and go about my merry way). Just trying to understand the "roll once" philosophy and also wondering why there isn't a blurb in the Basic rules concerning this.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Hold on there. Assumption alert: Using a skill takes a combat round.

Is that actually supported by the text? "Use a skill" is not listed in the combat actions, and a quick skim doesn't tell me anywhere how long it takes to make a skill (or ability) check. Elsewhere in Basic (pg 36: Time) it talks about using timescales as appropriate. So, one could rule that you get one combat timescale check, then one minutes-timescale check, then one hours-timescale check. After that, you're using your passive check, and if that doesn't do it, you're just stuck until something notably changes the scenario.

I like this.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Agamon]

Which speaks to the variable timescale of skill checks - they don't all just take one combat round.

That was my point. I appreciate your extrapolation of it, though.

 

[Li Shenron]

When a challenge comes up, just ask yourself: do you want the outcome to be random or not?

If you want it random, ask for a dice roll, but don't allow retries until a significant time delay.

If you don't want it random, just directly compare the PC stats relevant to the task with the DC.

The problem is mostly when people want it both random and non-random at the same time.

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.

Meh, I don't see the improvement in a triple roll over a single roll. It just increases the probability of success, but that's not the point.

 

[Bawylie]

Actions that can be repeated indefinitely without cost or consequence cannot fail or will succeed eventually.

But where there IS a cost or consequence, you only get one attempt, whose outcome is governed by the ability check.

You're in manacles (DC 20 I guess) to slip out. The cost is time and effort. The consequence is that if you fail the check, you fail to escape.

So you make your dexterity check and fail. You don't get out. What stops you trying again? The costs, sometimes. But really, the outcome has already been determined. No matter how much you try, you failed to slip out.

Now what?

Let's try breaking them. (DC 20 again). Same costs and consequences.

Or let's retry slipping out UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. You break or dislocate both your thumbs. The DC is now 15. You roll and make it. Good work.

Point is, don't check for every single action and attempt. Only check for actions where the outcome isn't a foregone conclusion and there's some cost or consequence for success & failure.

 

[Agamon]

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)

Not really. When you roll attack you hit or you miss. A save, you succeed or you fail. With a skill or ability check, a PC fails or succeeds because of something they did. They slipped while trying to jimmy the lock, they didn't give the door a good enough shove, they didn't deliver their speech quite as eloquently as they wanted, etc. At least that's how I like to explain it.

If a rogue gets a good look at the lock he wants to pick, recognizes it as something he's practised on before and then the roll tells him that no, that lock is actually something so difficult you can no longer even try to open it...I'm just not that good of a b.s.'er, I guess. Not only would my players call me on it, I'd shamefully agree.

 

[evilbob]

So, one could rule that you get one combat timescale check, then one minutes-timescale check, then one hours-timescale check. After that, you're using your passive check, and if that doesn't do it, you're just stuck until something notably changes the scenario.

If they slap you in irons while the fight is going on, you get a chance to break free and rejoin the fight. Next scene, they carry you around for a few minutes to the jail - maybe you break free in transit to make an escape. Then, they leave you in a cell all day - you may break free before the guards show up with your bread and water. If not, you're in it for the long haul.

I REALLY like this. Seems like a great way to incorporate the 4.0 rule mentioned above in a story-driven way. Nice!

 

[Agamon]

Point is, don't check for every single action and attempt. Only check for actions where the outcome isn't a foregone conclusion and there's some cost or consequence for success & failure.

Yep, this is my mantra. Not a big fan of skills, really. Rolling for every little thing isn't my idea of fun (others may consider it a blast, not arguing that).

That's part of my original argument. If there's no consequence other than "you didn't do it" I have trouble seeing why it can't be tried again. Just say it takes awhile but it gets done and move on (of course, it taking longer might mean something happens in the meantime whether the players think they can take their time or not). Maybe it's my own pig-headedness. I'll only give up on something once it becomes obvious it's outside my ability.

I guess what it really comes down to is what one sees the die roll representing. I like to think the die roll represents random elements getting in the way of the PC and his skill at the task. The more skilled he is, the less likely these random elements will come into play.

Others say the roll is determining something about the environment the player may not have noticed before. These environmental effects make accomplishing said task impossible where it once wasn't (or may have been perceived as possible). That sound right?