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

[Agamon]

I know that in real life, there are times I get myself locked into a viewpoint, and just can't figure out something, eventually doing the same thing over and over out of frustration. It's not til I walk away and come back that something clicks and I go AHA!

Maybe represent it with a 3 failures then a long rest mechanic?

That makes sense and is an interesting take.

 

[samursus]

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.


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

Along the lines of what I was thinking, but better. Yoink!

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

we have always played the opposite. you can only make a skill check once, then cant try again unless circumstances improve somehow - eg someone helps you, or you get new info, or whatever. otherwise yeah you get the awkward "I keep trying till I roll a 20" approach sneaking in, so every secret door always get found, etc. hopefully DMG will have suggestions covering different views on how to adjudicate skill/ability attempts.