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

[The Crimson Binome]

Why not use the natural consequences of the action?

In many cases, there are no meaningful consequences for the action. If you fail to open a lock, then you've wasted a minute (?), and nothing else has changed. Most locks are there in order to guard property while nobody is there to watch it, so it's unlikely that anyone will show up before you get to make ten more attempts.

For me, personally, the biggest offender here is with manacles. Standard manacles can be slipped with a Dexterity check or broken with a Strength check, each against DC 20. If it only takes six seconds to make an attempt, and there's no worse penalty for failure, then the average nondescript human will break free in about a minute. Why would they even bother to craft such a device, if it was only effective on the sub-set of the population which had below-average Strength and Dexterity?

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't think it strips away the tension because there is no tension to begin with.

The only exception is for downtime activities. 1 roll to simulate a work week's worth of effort for something.

Otherwise just narrate away until there is an important scene and there are stakes and consequences.

Ability check rolls should be special with high stakes associated to succeeding or failing.

 

[Li Shenron]

The issue: When not in combat or not in a time sensitive scenario, PCs can just keep trying the skill check over and over until they succeed. Which kinda strips away the dramatic tension from the game, and you might as well just narrate it.

"Solutions": in previous editions, you were only allowed one try. While that kinda fixes the issue, it ruins the verisimilitude for me because you can always keep trying. How many of us succeeded the first time on something?

I do not endorse this idea of "verisimilitude" at all.

If you think about it, what is not realistic is the fact that there is a dice roll in the first place.

If you try IRL to pick a lock or climb a tree, it's not really random whether you succeed or not... if you fail your first attempt is because you do something wrong, and when you retry, you simply have learned something from your previous failure, and that can either (a) make you succeed or (b) make you realize you cannot succeed.

The dice in a RPG is an abstraction of the whole process, not a realistic representation of it! For me, the skill check does not represent the "small-scale randomness" of trying casually until it works (which doesn't exist IRL) but the "large-scale randomness" on whether you encountered a lock/tree that you can manage or one that you cannot. The minutia of how many times you have to turn the lockpicking tool into the lock before it works, or how many times you have to backtrack your way a little bit down the tree because you're stuck, are hidden because they are uninteresting.

If you can embrace this view, you don't have problems accepting when you get one chance only, and also you don't have problems accepting that sometimes only one character is allowed to try to pick that lock. And if you go this way, you'll spare yourself from more problems down the road, no matter how much time you invest tinkering with house rules to increase "verisimilitude".

 

[5ekyu]

I do not endorse this idea of "verisimilitude" at all.

If you think about it, what is not realistic is the fact that there is a dice roll in the first place.

If you try IRL to pick a lock or climb a tree, it's not really random whether you succeed or not... if you fail your first attempt is because you do something wrong, and when you retry, you simply have learned something from your previous failure, and that can either (a) make you succeed or (b) make you realize you cannot succeed.

The dice in a RPG is an abstraction of the whole process, not a realistic representation of it! For me, the skill check does not represent the "small-scale randomness" of trying casually until it works (which doesn't exist IRL) but the "large-scale randomness" on whether you encountered a lock/tree that you can manage or one that you cannot. The minutia of how many times you have to turn the lockpicking tool into the lock before it works, or how many times you have to backtrack your way a little bit down the tree because you're stuck, are hidden because they are uninteresting.

If you can embrace this view, you don't have problems accepting when you get one chance only, and also you don't have problems accepting that sometimes only one character is allowed to try to pick that lock. And if you go this way, you'll spare yourself from more problems down the road, no matter how much time you invest tinkering with house rules to increase "verisimilitude".

That perception of what a die roll in an rpg *can* represent is fine but the mechanics of a system should also reflect that and the 5e mechanics seem to not at all enforce that.

Advantage and disadvantage represent circumstances, they can change. But if the first failure or first success means it is forever the same result... that breaks the notions.

Many other factors can provide temporary adjustments up or down.

To me the notion of things being defined and locked by the die roll is very suited to a system that is far more narrative and story creative on the fly (and less crunchy - more resource and screen time driven) and runs in part into conflict the more a system pushes towards circumstantial modifiers, crunchy bits and DC for resolution.

Iirc ScreenTime, OtE and others built the mechanics around "results define scenery" and for those the "fail means lock you cannot unlock" is a seamless part of the game... but even then it can be countered by another trait being leveraged.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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?

I really skimmed the first page but just ignore if this has already been mentioned. 3e had a 'Take 20' rule. Similar but different to Passive skills (where you assume 10 on a roll).


Given unlimited time, you may take 20. It takes 20 times longer and it assumes you roll a 1, then a 2, then a 3, then a 4...etc until you get a 20. In effect, it means you fail over and over. So, if there are consequences like a GP cost, you would pay 20X the amount of gold (like trying to cook that perfect meal requires lots of ingredients). If it's looking for or dismantling a trap, it means the trap will trigger.

In the case of a puzzle-lock, if they get 1 check/hour, it would take 20 hours. Assume they can only work on it when they have the time to put an hour aside (like a short rest, or 3 or 4 hours during a long rest) it could take days.

If there are no consequences, then you might as well hand-waive the check and say they succeed. Sometimes, if there's no risk of being interrupted, I tell them they succeed but make them do a roll to see *how long* it takes because that, in itself may have unforeseen consequences.

 

[Dausuul]

I really skimmed the first page but just ignore if this has already been mentioned. 3e had a 'Take 20' rule. Similar but different to Passive skills (where you assume 10 on a roll).

5E is functionally the same. That is what Sacrosanct's house rule proposes to change.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you try IRL to pick a lock or climb a tree, it's not really random whether you succeed or not... if you fail your first attempt is because you do something wrong, and when you retry, you simply have learned something from your previous failure, and that can either (a) make you succeed or (b) make you realize you cannot succeed.

No, this is not true at all. You're doing the same thing as iserith did. You're taking a polarizing approach of only an either/or of two extremes. People don't always learn what they did wrong in a previous attempt, and that doesn't mean they realize they cannot succeed if they didn't learn. Many times people do the exact same process they did before and might succeed because of something else that may have happened. Or they keep failing over and over again when they have the capability to succeed. There's a limitless middle ground you're not taking into account.

Like shooting a free throw. You can fail 10 times in a row and do the exact same thing every time, then make it the 11th time. Even the pros, who use the exact same technique and process, never succeed every time. They certainly don't learn what they did wrong when they missed, they do the exact same thing on the next attempt. And by missing, it certainly doesn't mean they realize they can't succeed. That's nonsense. They try again, using the same process.

Or the example I keep giving re: picking a lock. By your argument, if you fail the first time and learn, then you should get a bonus the second time (because that's what learning does). Or if you didn't learn, then that means you realize it's impossible. Needless to say, I don't agree with that. I would argue most tasks people do they keep trying after the first failed attempt without "learning from the previous attempt" or thinking they can never accomplish it. So I'm sorry, you are quite incorrect when you say that trying casually until it works doesn't exist in real life. Not only does it exist, it's one of the most common things that happens when someone doesn't succeed in the first try.

And I know dice rolls are abstract. Like how in a combat attack, one roll represents several attacks and parries. But we all put limits around that. One attack roll doesn't represent every attack you make in the day, so why are you willing to accept that one skill check roll represents all skill checks at that particular task for the entire day? In every case, one die roll represents your attempt in a time period that equals the time it would take a person to try in real life. Picking a lock may be 1 minute, while deciphering a riddle may be an hour, and an attack is a few seconds. And when that time period is done and the resolution of that check is resolved, and further attempts are made by attempting another dice roll.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And I know dice rolls are abstract. Like how in a combat attack, one roll represents several attacks and parries. But we all put limits around that. One attack roll doesn't represent every attack you make in the day, so why are you willing to accept that one skill check roll represents all skill checks at that particular task for the entire day? In every case, one die roll represents your attempt in a time period that equals the time it would take a person to try in real life. Picking a lock may be 1 minute, while deciphering a riddle may be an hour, and an attack is a few seconds. And when that time period is done and the resolution of that check is resolved, and further attempts are made by attempting another dice roll.

Speaking personally, as I mentioned above... its not that I treat the single die roll as representing every attempt at a task made for an entire day or length of time... but rather, its every attempt at a particular task with a singular set of circumstances. It doesn't matter how long the attempts took, or how many times the attempts were taken... its just that the number rolled was the best the person could do under the circumstances they took the check. And if they want to try again, they have to change their circumstances for the better first. That's the easiest and most logical way I have come up with to not use essentially the 'Take 20' rule (which I don't like.)

Obviously though, for those DMs who think PCs should always get a chance to keep trying to roll high on a d20 for a particular check... my reasoning and methodology won't do. Which is fine. But I just know that for me... if you WANT to give PCs a chance to roll high, but at the same time want the odds of it happening to go down each time (by giving them penalties on subsequent tries for example)... I see it almost as cutting off your nose to spite your face. You want them to have a chance so you give them many attempts to roll, but you don't want them to have a legitimate chance so you make the odds of them doing it worse and worse. Seems like going the long way around to arrive at the same place if you ask me. Multiple die rolls to accomplish the same results you could get with just a singular one.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

It's amazing how advanced lock technology is in a D&D world, that if you try to pick a lock it reacts by getting harder and harder to pick. I know that in the real world, I have never heard of a lock that gets harder to pick the longer you work at it, or that is within the skill where a particular locksmith might open it but randomly just can't and never can try again.

 

[ad_hoc]

I really skimmed the first page but just ignore if this has already been mentioned. 3e had a 'Take 20' rule. Similar but different to Passive skills (where you assume 10 on a roll).


Given unlimited time, you may take 20. It takes 20 times longer and it assumes you roll a 1, then a 2, then a 3, then a 4...etc until you get a 20. In effect, it means you fail over and over. So, if there are consequences like a GP cost, you would pay 20X the amount of gold (like trying to cook that perfect meal requires lots of ingredients). If it's looking for or dismantling a trap, it means the trap will trigger.

In the case of a puzzle-lock, if they get 1 check/hour, it would take 20 hours. Assume they can only work on it when they have the time to put an hour aside (like a short rest, or 3 or 4 hours during a long rest) it could take days.

If there are no consequences, then you might as well hand-waive the check and say they succeed. Sometimes, if there's no risk of being interrupted, I tell them they succeed but make them do a roll to see *how long* it takes because that, in itself may have unforeseen consequences.

5e doesn't have a take 20 rule because the whole endeavour was uninteresting to start with.

You just succeed and move on with the game.

That is because 5e is written narrative first while 3e is written simulation first.

Think of 5e like watching an action movie. Anything that would be uninteresting to watch in an action movie is skipped over because it is also uninteresting to play through.