D&D 5E skill failure: where is it discussed?

[Kobold Stew]

The best way to prevent that meta-game is to simply not allow a second check.

This is the heart of my earlier proposal, more clearly expressed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Assuming a lack of time pressure, why wouldn't you keep trying to find a trap? I just presume, again assuming a lack of time pressure, that why wouldn't you take 20? Yes, I know they don't technically have "Take 20" with 5e, but, there's nothing stopping a player from rolling five or six times in a row.

Sure there is. The DM.

A skill check represents the best efforts under the current circumstances. If they gain higher skill then they can try again. Just rolling endlessly until they get a 20 is a waste of time. Why bother with skills? At that point just say X time goes by and they find whatever.

 

[iserith]

Depending on how you emphasis the words, "you don't think it's trapped," actually works better. It means that they didn't find anything, but cannot EVER be sure. I use this every single time, even with high rolls with no trap, just to keep player's on their toes.

I disagree. The DM is still telling the player what his character thinks with the response you suggest. I try to avoid doing that. I only try to narrate the results of the adventurer's actions as per the basic conversation of the game outlined on page 2 of the Basic Rules e.g. "You find no traps" or "You find the trap but in the doing you nudge it the wrong way and now you can hear a click-click-click sound that is speeding up - what do you do?"

The best way to prevent that meta-game is to simply not allow a second check. If they search again, there is no roll and receive the same information (unless something has significantly changed). As you've pointed out in the past, player's don't call for rolls, only the DM does.

Yes, that's one way of curtailing "metagaming." But of course I don't care about metagaming. I only suggest that the approach I use obviates such concerns as well as moves the scene forward in an interesting way.

 

[iserith]

Assuming a lack of time pressure, why wouldn't you keep trying to find a trap? I just presume, again assuming a lack of time pressure, that why wouldn't you take 20? Yes, I know they don't technically have "Take 20" with 5e, but, there's nothing stopping a player from rolling five or six times in a row.

See DMG page 237:

"Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one."

But sometimes, time isn't the thing at stake. It might be more dramatically appropriate for something else to be at stake. In a recent game of mine, for example, time wasn't much of a factor at that stage of the adventurers' exploration of a dungeon. The rogue went to work on a very complex door that actually operated by pouring blood into channels that would feed the door. So because of its complexity and nature, the task was already going to take a long time; however, the stakes were that on a successful Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check, he'd unlock the door. With a failed check, he'd unlock the door, but the locking mechanism would eat his lock picks, imparting disadvantage on all checks made to open doors until he replaced his tools. As it turned out, the check failed. They were able to continue into the dungeon, short one set of lock picks which complicates things...

 

[Sunseeker]

Assuming a lack of time pressure, why wouldn't you keep trying to find a trap? I just presume, again assuming a lack of time pressure, that why wouldn't you take 20? Yes, I know they don't technically have "Take 20" with 5e, but, there's nothing stopping a player from rolling five or six times in a row.

Aside from table boredom. If I set up a situation wherein the players can essentially "take a 20" I'm not even going to bother having them roll, but I will expect them to role it. Take 20 situations shouldn't even exist. Either the situation needs to be rolled for, or it can be skipped and covered in exposition. There's no point in using dice if you're not going to roll them.

 

[Hussar]

Sure there is. The DM.

A skill check represents the best efforts under the current circumstances. If they gain higher skill then they can try again. Just rolling endlessly until they get a 20 is a waste of time. Why bother with skills? At that point just say X time goes by and they find whatever.

Aside from table boredom. If I set up a situation wherein the players can essentially "take a 20" I'm not even going to bother having them roll, but I will expect them to role it. Take 20 situations shouldn't even exist. Either the situation needs to be rolled for, or it can be skipped and covered in exposition. There's no point in using dice if you're not going to roll them.

Well, exactly. This is the way I'd deal with it. If you have no time pressure, checks pretty much automatically succeed. Why bother rolling the dice? Just let them, as the DMG dictates, take ten times the time and auto succeed.

Then again, I'd much rather they find the trap anyway. That's a lot more fun for me. Note, you can't disarm the trap that way, so, now you have a real decision point.