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

[iserith]

Look at Jeff's response above. He explains it perfectly. I can technically have the chance of succeeding at something, but I can spend all day trying and not get it. Sometimes it takes stepping away for a while and getting a new approach, or getting new ideas, or looking how other things are done before I can retackle the task and then succeed.

So yeah, the rules cover this. Attempts to achieve the goal via the same approach are only possible if the DM says so. The section I helpfully quoted for you covers this and even discusses (later on) exactly what you want: "But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult." Sounds an awful lot like adding 2 to subsequent DCs, doesn't it?

Things are not either totally and always impossible, or automatic success. There's a huge middle ground.

Which is why we call for ability checks sometimes. That's the middle ground between trivial and impossible.

Quite frankly, responses like iserith's are quite unhelpful to the topic because he/she seems to keep insisting there isn't a real problem and I just need to read the book again.

It sounds like it couldn't hurt.

 

[5ekyu]

One thing I keep in mind is the actual PHB definition of failing a skill check.

"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

The other of course is that time required for anything but simple tasks is set by the GM.

So, you want to make a knowledge check - sure. You fail? Ok maybe you get some right info and some wrong info but not the whole answer- more of a lead to another place or person... but your setback is disadvantage or no chance on future checks of the same type used here.

COften that means your research here is dried up but you have a lead to follow from that guy you knew in that other town.

There is zero reason the "combined with a setback" can not be a dead end or blind alley... or if one wants a cumulative -2 to futurecrolls... by the book. I prefer to use less codified setbacks myself keyed to the scene.


That said...

On the bigger picture...

I notice the OP did not give examples in his original post of these infinite repeatable checks with no time pressure but where apparently there is uncertainty in success.

I think it's best to actually discuss specifics not so much abstracts. In actual play, I tend to not hit too many cases where this infinite repeater until 20 idea actually seems to fit what's happening. Cant think of a setup where in-game that would be how I see the scene playing out.

Aside - for tasks which take more than a turn or a minute ooc, I use a "race to three" like death saves with each roll being about 1/4 of the expected effort, cost and time. That way, good results can get you under budget and ahead of time while bad results can cost more or take longer or fail. I also use setbacks for those failures - narratively described in ways that can lead to alternatives.

5e gives you in its base PHB rules far more leeway than the premise of never-ending re-rolls assumes.

 

[Satyrn]

It sounds like it couldn't hurt.

I don't know, man. I felt like I suffered 3d6 psychic damage every time I tried to decipher the 1e DMG, and now I'm wary of even touching 5e's.


Can you honestly promise me it's not the Necronomicon?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ok, so assume the character did that. If there’s no time pressure, what difference does it make whether they succeeded right away or took several days to mull it over?

.

Maybe they don't have several days? Maybe they want to do something else after the first day? Who knows. There are lots of reasons that don't have a set time constraint like a combat round or immediate urgency that also don't give the PC forever to keep trying.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Why not?

See my post #35. Sometimes, even if you are capable of doing something, and even if you have all the time in the world... you simply just don't get it or can't do it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe they don't have several days? Maybe they want to do something else after the first day? Who knows. There are lots of reasons that don't have a set time constraint like a combat round or immediate urgency that also don't give the PC forever to keep trying.

Well then they’re not really acting without time constraints, are they?

That’s my solution to this problem: there are always time constraints, the key is to identify what the constraints are - what the cost or consequence is for the attempt - and make that clear to the players. Are there wandering monsters? Make a tick mark every time they roll to pick that lock and tell the players there will be a check for a random encounter after X ticks. Are the characters far from civilization? Tell them “this is going to take you all day if you just sit here doing nothing else. Do you all want to mark off a ration and try again, or do you want to do other stuff and come back later?” Set the interval for the attempt, tell the players the cost they’ll have to pay at each interval, and let them decide if they want to pay that cost or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

See my post #35. Sometimes, even if you are capable of doing something, and even if you have all the time in the world... you simply just don't get it or can't do it.

There’s also the possibility for any given (finite) number of rolls of a D20, you can roll that many times and never hit the target number.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

There’s also the possibility for any given (finite) number of rolls of a D20, you can roll that many times and never hit the target number.

Aha! So you are acknowledging that my option is also a possibility!

 

[Charlaquin]

Aha! So you are acknowledging that my option is also a possibility!

Is your option to let the players roll over and over again until they get it? Cause if so I’ve never denied that it was a possibility. I’ve just argued that it’s boring if there’s no cost or consequence for the attempt, and that it is better to either assign a cost or consequence, or narrate eventual success.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Is your option to let the players roll over and over again until they get it? Cause if so I’ve never denied that it was a possibility. I’ve just argued that it’s boring if there’s no cost or consequence for the attempt, and that it is better to either assign a cost or consequence, or narrate eventual success.

Nope. Jeez, that would be boring!

In general, unless circumstances change, you get one shot to do something. There are no automatic successes unless a passive check (10 + skill mod) would make it. Then I will let them succeed by taking 10 times the normal time without rolling if they are not pressed for time, etc.

If a Rogue is +11 to open locks and facing a DC 20 lock with all the time he needs, he will eventually figure it out. But if the DC is 25, he gets to roll once and needs the 14 or higher to make the check, otherwise he doesn't figure out how to open it. If he takes it to another Rogue, a locksmith, etc. and gets assistance, he can try again with advantage given the knowledge he has learned from his conspirator. Failing that, he would have to wait until he levels, finds someone who is better to do it for him, etc.

Of course, I might try the idea I had earlier in the thread and see how that goes...