D&D 5E Skill Checks (non time sensitive) homebrew fixes

[iserith]

And what I'm saying is that I don't agree with that statement because success shouldn't be automatic, even if the only cost is time.

Do you have your players roll for every single thing they do in the game?

It seems you keep assuming that my scenario "there is no time limit to how long they can try" is the same as saying "they will automatically succeed anyway"

That is true within the bounds of the example you set forth and given what the rules say.

But I would encourage you to think about the question I ask above. Because I bet you grant auto-success to all manner of things the PCs do already as those things are trivial and without complication.

 

[Kobold Stew]

One of the issues with this question is that the characters' experience of time is different than the players' experience. If I am trying to fix something, and it doesn't come together in 5 minutes, I call a plumber.* And this is for something where it's real life, and I need ti fixed.

It's trivial for players to say "we work at it for an hour" but that's not credible to me, and that's why the one-roll makes sense. You pull together the best circumstances you can (someone helping, and so advantage, though I like to ensure that the helper is also proficient in the check), and you make the roll. My players understand that if it doesn't work, they need to try a different approach (like call a plumber, use a knock spell, or go in the window).

It requires players who are able not to "win" every encounter, but for me, that's part of the fun of the game, which is watered down with repeated re-rolling (not saying this is the only way to play; my fun isn't everyone's fun; etc.).


* Assume for the moment it's a plumbing problem. I don't always call a plumber.

 

[Krachek]

Yeah, I know what the rules say, I just don't agree with the "if there is no meaningful consequence of failure" because that to me means there wouldn't ever be a DC value to begin with. Even out of combat, with not time constraints, there is still a meaningful consequence. I think it's faulty to assume that if the PC can just check over and over again for as long as they want, then it also means there is no meaningful consequence of failure. I.e., my example I gave of not in combat or with time constraints is NOT the same as not having no meaningful consequences of failure. For example, you might have all day to try to open the locked check, or to decipher the runes, but you shouldn't be able to automatically do it just because you have the time to keep rolling until you roll a 20.

So in those situations where a player could just keep rolling until they succeed, are there houserules you use to avoid the auto success situation as described?

A example.
You are in a library to search for a clue.
The Dm ask for an investigation check.
You fail.
The Dm might decide that the clue is not in this library.
Roll check again if you want. The clue is not there.
Or the Dm might decide other things, that the clue is on a painting on the wall, not in the books,
You simply misunderstand the previous clue.
Skill check are not a pin code that you have to crack to go further.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You guys are talking past each other.

If there's literally no cost for failure, then success and failure are indistinguishable: "Sure, it's DC 20. On a success, you do it in a reasonable amount of time. On a failure, you also do it in a reasonable amount of time."

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] seems to be saying, "Don't roll in that scenario; just get on with the game." This is a pretty good way to do things.
[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] seems to be asking, "Rolling can be fun; how can we introduce a cost for failure, outside of combat?" This is also a pretty good way to do things.

Do you have your players roll for every single thing they do in the game?



That is true within the bounds of the example you set forth and given what the rules say.

But I would encourage you to think about the question I ask above. Because I bet you grant auto-success to all manner of things the PCs do already as those things are trivial and without complication.

I fully admit I might not be wording this very well. So I'll try again.

No, I do not make player roll for everything. Again, you're talking extremes here. Either/Or when it's not like that. If there is a DC, like a lock, or a riddle, then I make them roll. Even if there is no time limit. And rather than just have them keep rolling until they succeed (which will happen eventually if the initial roll was at any time possible), I impose my house rule of a progressive penalty. Why?

Because if there is just an automatic success out of combat, then why have out of combat DCs to begin with if they were possible to pass because they'd automatically pass. And that to me ruins verisimilitude. I prefer a player to have an option of success, but not have that automatic just because they have X amount of time because it still gives a sense of urgency. So it's more like "you can keep trying, but it keeps getting more difficult to try because you're getting frustrated/tired/etc." There is a cost of failure, even out of combat, because you don't succeed at that task and thus don't get the benefits if you did (like riddle success, or chest contents, etc)

So saying there is no time limit is not the same as saying they should have an automatic success. If the rules state that like you mentioned, then yes, there is in fact a need for a houserule for me to get what I want, and I'm asking other DMs how they do it who feel the same way.

 

[77IM]

Philosophical aside:

One thing I've noticed as I've evolved my DMing style (or "leveled up" my DMing, if you prefer) is I spend a LOT more time thinking about consequences than difficulty. I feel like new DMs often stress about DCs and penalties. "How hard should this be???" I know I used to do that. Because you want things to be easy enough to be feasible, but hard enough to introduce real risk. What is that magic number?

But now, I just toss out any old number, and instead I tell the player what will happen on success and failure. That second part's important because usually the player already has a good idea of what's happening on success -- it's the thing they're trying to do. They bring success to the negotiations, and you, the DM, the adversary, the uncaring cosmos: you bring the consequences for failure.

So a "toolbox" of bad-yet-interesting-and-not-sucky failure results is really useful for any DM to have. Wasting six seconds is a perfectly fine failure to utilize in combat, but out of combat, there's a whole host of more interesting negative outcomes. It takes way too long; you break or lose an item; you make or alert an enemy; you reach a wrong conclusion; you take damage or exhaustion; you burn spell slots; you catch a disease or a curse or get injured; you get lost; etc. The best way I've found to train this muscle is to MC Apocalypse World, but that's not everyone's cup of tea, and there are D&D-centric approaches you can take. Look at the downtime complications in Xanathar's as a great example of outcomes that can be repurposed as failure consequences.

 

[iserith]

You guys are talking past each other.

If there's literally no cost for failure, then success and failure are indistinguishable: "Sure, it's DC 20. On a success, you do it in a reasonable amount of time. On a failure, you also do it in a reasonable amount of time."

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] seems to be saying, "Don't roll in that scenario; just get on with the game." This is a pretty good way to do things.
[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] seems to be asking, "Rolling can be fun; how can we introduce a cost for failure, outside of combat?" This is also a pretty good way to do things.

The example set forth indicates there is no meaningful consequence of failure. If we want to change the example by adding a meaningful consequence of failure, we can, but that's not what was proposed so far as I can tell. And a DM can introduce that meaningful consequence of failure as an element of the challenge without house rules. It's just part of describing the environment. "This lock has a strange set of tumblers that scramble each time they are improperly positioned - fail and this task gets harder and harder until it is impossible." THAT is a meaningful consequence of failure and requires no house rules.

 

[77IM]

I would also posit this discussion is distracted from the real issue by use of the term "house rules." The DM is the arbiter of penalties and DCs, so if [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] wants to consistently apply a cumulative -2 penalty for retries, that's supported by the 5E rules, and not really a house rule any more than any other consequence for failure that the DM might apply.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The example set forth indicates there is no meaningful consequence of failure. If we want to change the example by adding a meaningful consequence of failure, we can, but that's not what was proposed so far as I can tell. And a DM can introduce that meaningful consequence of failure as an element of the challenge without house rules. It's just part of describing the environment. "This lock has a strange set of tumblers that scramble each time they are improperly positioned - fail and this task gets harder and harder until it is impossible." THAT is a meaningful consequence of failure and requires no house rules.

The meaningful consequence of failure is that you aren't able to get in the door. Or chest. Or aren't able to decipher the riddle. Those are all pretty meaningful things. Not sure why you keep ignoring that, since I've mentioned it at least three times.

Look, I want players to have a chance of success at a task outside of combat. If they fail, I want them to be able to retry, just like in real life. But I don't want it to be a "you're gonna succeed anyway automatically, so we'll just narrate your success", because that's not realistic either. Even if there is no time constraint, success is not guaranteed. That's it. Nothing more complex than that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would also posit this discussion is distracted from the real issue by use of the term "house rules." The DM is the arbiter of penalties and DCs, so if [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] wants to consistently apply a cumulative -2 penalty for retries, that's supported by the 5E rules, and not really a house rule any more than any other consequence for failure that the DM might apply.

If the rules state what iserith said, (if there is no time constraint then that means the PC will automatically succeed), then what I'm doing is in fact a house rule because it runs counter to that.

 

[77IM]

If the rules state what iserith said, (if there is no time constraint then that means the PC will automatically succeed), then what I'm doing is in fact a house rule because it runs counter to that.

1. I don't see where the rules say that -- they just say that you automatically succeed if there's no meaningful cost for failure.
2. A -2 penalty seems like a pretty meaningful cost to me.

So I wouldn't call it a house rule; I'd say it falls squarely within the DM's mandate already.