How many times do you limit your players to for making an ability check? In a lot of circumstances I can limit things by putting a clock on whatever they are trying to do, or a fail makes it impossible to do again because the thing broke or they got caught or the person got away, etc. But sometimes instances come up where there just isn't anything like that, but I feel like the players shouldn't be able to just keep rolling until they get the result they want. The scenario that prompted this was a lock picking check. They were at a vault in a basement, middle of the night, no patrolling guards, the residents all fast asleep, so they had hours realistically. They failed the first try, and the second, but got it on the third. It occurred to me that unless they got a nat 1 (we do crit fails on skill checks) and I say the tools broke off in the lock, there really wasn't any point in the skill check, they just keep rerolling until they succeed. This happens with investigation checks too sometimes. So what does everyone else do or do you just let it happen in those circumstances? Am I over thinking this possibly?
Only allow one roll, otherwise there’s almost no point to rolling at all. If they fail, they need to try something else. In the OP’s case, it would be something like, this lock is just completely foreign to you, no way you can open it.
This goes on a case by case basis. In version 3.5 people were allowed to take 20 -- i.e. take 20 attempts and get a guaranteed 20 - in certain circumstancces.
If there are no bad consequences for failing, often there is nothing wrong with taking multiple attempts. BUT....
where you could get heard/interrupted
where you can trigger a trap
where you can break something
then track the rounds.
In real life, lockpicking typically has multiple failed attempts before you get a win. The real reason to pick a lock is not to open the door - just break the door down. It is quicker. That is what real life thieves do.
Picking locks rather than breaking things has the following advantages in real life:
Quiet
Does not break things
Less obvious you do not have a key
Does not leave a mark, allowing you to enter and leave without anyone ever knowing you were there. Great for planting evidence, cameras, etc.
In game penalties for failing to pick locks should most likely have the following consequences: 1) Attracting bad guys/wandering monsters/warning the people on the other side of the door. 2) Triggering a trap, 3) breaking the lock making it non-working.
I do not use crit fails on skill checks, instead making it the most embarrassing (for the character) outcome possible. With a crit success being the most impressive as possible.
If there's a roll that can be failed, each subsequent check has a higher DC.
In the case of a bank vault where the player characters basically have all the time they need, I take the result of the roll and narrate how long it takes them to get through the lock. But my players enjoy role playing so I can just say "You begin to work on the lock... it's much more complicated than you expected... what are the rest of you doing during the first minute (s)he is trying to open the lock?"
I also allow players to sometime choose to "Take a 20" where they spend 20 minutes to accomplish a task and automatically succeed. An example of this would be the players looting enemies they've defeated. I see no reason to allow them to miss out on loot they've earned if there's no reason for them to hurry.
It really depends on the thing they are trying to accomplish. If it’s a simple locked door then just one, but if this is an idea that they have been working on for hours and has been a really fun role playing experience, and they roll a 2, I let them reroll it
as many times as they want, but I raise the DC every time they fail to show them becoming increasingly frustrated
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pronouns: Any/All
About Me: Godless monster in human form bent on extending their natural life to unnatural extremes /general of the goose horde /Moderator of Vinstreb School for the Gifted /holder of the evil storyteller badge of no honor /king of madness /The FBI/ The Archmage of I CAST...!
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Fun Fact: i gain more power the more you post on my forum threads. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Only allow one roll, otherwise there’s almost no point to rolling at all. If they fail, they need to try something else. In the OP’s case, it would be something like, this lock is just completely foreign to you, no way you can open it.
Adding onto this: a failure doesn't necessarily mean they don't open the door. If they have unlimited time then they should be able to open it without a roll, HOWEVER, maybe a failed roll opens the door with a negative consequence. The door clicks open and the PC's finger gets pinched in the mechanism and they yelp with pain. Sure there were no guards patrolling, but something like that would still naturally draw attention. Maybe not immediate, but now there's time pressure.
Or maybe a failed check opens the door after a half hour of effort only to trigger an alarm (what Vault doesn't have some kind of alarm mechanism?), also drawing attention.
Basically though I like to stick to this credo: only ask for a roll when failure has a significant outcome, and only when you're ready to enact that outcome as the DM.
Yeah, in cases like this, if they can try as many times as they like until they succeed, there's no point in rolling. If they can try numerous but not quite unlimited times, my instinct would be to represent that with a lower DC rather than repeat rolls.
Yeah, in cases like this, if they can try as many times as they like until they succeed, there's no point in rolling. If they can try numerous but not quite unlimited times, my instinct would be to represent that with a lower DC rather than repeat rolls.
Well, if you've got severe time pressure you might want to roll every interval. Usually you don't have that acute time pressure outside of combat, though.
My rule of thumb is that, if the party is capable of hitting the DC required for the check then eventually they should be able to succeed at the task if there are no consequences to the failure along the way.
In a situation like this where the party can succeed given enough time, and nothing bad can happen to prevent the success, I use the die roll to determine how long it takes them to succeed at the task. For example, if a character is picking a lock that I know they can pick then I can have them make a roll.
If they succeed on the roll then they complete the task quickly. If they fail the roll but the DC is above their passive skill (eg passive lockpicking) then they will also succeed but it will take longer, perhaps a few minutes. If they roll very low and the DC is above their passive then the task could take them quite a long time. It could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to pick the lock in this case. I'd either use the skill check or a secondary die roll to determine the time.
This approach isn't RAW though - it is just how I would run it.
RAW, a skill check that can be done repeatedly takes 10x as long to complete if it is unsuccessful.
Here are the rules from the DMG:
"Multiple Ability Checks
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.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."
For lockpicking specifically, my rule of thumb is that if a character fails to pick it three times (without been found or setting off a trap or alarm), they simply can't figure out how to pick that particular lock and they need to either find another way to get through it or let someone else try.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
Example
PC One: I attempt to pick the lock
DM: Roll against a DC of 15 to pick the lock
PC One: (rolls) I rolled a 12 with my +2. That's no good.
PC Two: I'm proficient. Can I help?
DM: Sure, I will treat that as the Help action. Roll, and whoever has the highest modifier, add that to the better roll.
PC Two: (rolls) I rolled an 11 with PC One's +2; that's no good.
PC Three: I'm not proficient, but can I help?
DM: Sure, I'll treat you as unskilled, like holding a flashlight while I change a tire on the side of the road in the dark. Make a DEX roll, and we'll add +1 for every factor of five on your roll.
PC Three: (rolls), 17, so that's +3, right?
DM: Right! That, plus PC One's 12, will hit the DC of 15 needed. The three of you feel the lock tumblers falling into place, and you hear a series of audible clicks as the lock opens up!
That's the sort of flow I'll improvise to navigate. Even if PC Three fails in step 9, PC Four can break the lock open with violence, etc. It also follows one of my core rules of style: Players like rolling dice. Let them when they ask!
I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
If the door needs to open to progress... make sure there's a way to open it without picking it.
Honestly, it's situational. This is an area where I think the best advice is to develop your own solution.
For some DMs the answer will be never, for others it'll be 'as many as seem reasonable', for yet more it'll be 'as many as it takes'. For me it's a feeling. Do they have enough time? Is there any danger? Is there a practical reason that they aren't going to be able to retry?
I run on the vibe at the time which seems loose, but I also use a technique I first saw the amazing Johnny Chiodini use - I don't announce DCs. I will have a number noted or in mind, but I want the ability to fudge if it feels right. If a player for example takes the time to scrounge a makeshift pick and tension wrench, I don't want them rolling a 14 on a DC15 check...that's underwhelming for everyone. By not announcing the DC I have some leeway in announcing success/defeat.
How many times do you limit your players to for making an ability check? In a lot of circumstances I can limit things by putting a clock on whatever they are trying to do, or a fail makes it impossible to do again because the thing broke or they got caught or the person got away, etc. But sometimes instances come up where there just isn't anything like that, but I feel like the players shouldn't be able to just keep rolling until they get the result they want. The scenario that prompted this was a lock picking check. They were at a vault in a basement, middle of the night, no patrolling guards, the residents all fast asleep, so they had hours realistically. They failed the first try, and the second, but got it on the third. It occurred to me that unless they got a nat 1 (we do crit fails on skill checks) and I say the tools broke off in the lock, there really wasn't any point in the skill check, they just keep rerolling until they succeed. This happens with investigation checks too sometimes. So what does everyone else do or do you just let it happen in those circumstances? Am I over thinking this possibly?
In a situation like that, where they’re under no real pressure and have all the time in the world, I would do one of theee things depending what’s in that safe:
If whatever is in that safe is mission critical for the campaign to succeed,*1 then I would grant them advantage on the roll, and they would succeed on any reasonable roll. I’m specifically leaving what constitutes as “reasonable” vague so as to allow you as the DM to determine that for yourself.
If whatever is in there is either fairly mundane, or fairly good, cool, or relatively powerful (but not super good, cool, or powerful), then I would assess their chance of success using the PC’s Passive Dex (Lock Picking) Score. What I mean is I would take the PC’s passive score and if they really do have absolutely no time or pressure constraints then I would add 5 to that passive score to account for advantage. Then I would compare it to the DC of the lock and if their adjusted score beats that DC by more than 12*2 then I would either just tell them that they succeed without even requiring a roll, or at worst tell them to roll with advantage just to rule out the off chance they roll a double 1.
I would let them roll with advantage because they’re under absolutely no pressure, and if they fail I would tell them that they’ve been at it for a couple of hours and try as they might they seem to be making absolutely no headway, and they don’t expect that’s gonna change any time soon unless they come up with something new to try.*3
*1, 2, & 3 👇
I’m personally not a fan of locking campaign progression behind a single thing, and if I were to do that I’m absolutely not gonna take that thing and give them any chance to fail at acquiring or achieving that thing. I personally believe that A) there should never be only one path to success, B) as a DM it’s not my job to figure out how the players & PCs are gonna succeed, that’s up to them, my job is to simply come up with the challenges, and C) even if they don’t succeed at whatever challenge I placed before them that the campaign still progresses, just in a different direction is all.
Now, a standard [itsm]lock[/item] has a DC of 15, so to get a passive score high enough for me to simply handwave the check means they are probably at least 9th level, and the PC has expertise in lock picking. But by the same token I would expect a 9th level (or higher) PC with expertise to be able to pick a standard lock without even trying.
That’s actually RAW. If the circumstances surrounding the check change, they not only get a new roll, a new roll is actually required.
EDIT: This is a reply to JustaFarmersuggesting that my prior post makes DCs meaningless. I didn't think to quote on my reply and the forums flow is broken - sorry! What I said in reply:
I suppose that's one perspective a person could draw from it.
I see it differently. As a DM, I want my players to feel engaged and empowered. The lock isn't about an impossible path; it's about engaging a player by rewarding their choice of abilities to invest in. So, I see this path as rewarding and engaging. It works for all kinds of non-combat events where a player wants to embrace the throw of the dice.
Further, given my statement about when the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds, I clearly think some DCs are meaningless. Providing another pathway to get around it is the equivalent. It is good to note that sometimes the door does not need to open to progress, and failed rolls leave the door unopened.
Ultimately, this approach has increased engagement and fun at the tables I run. I have no problem with you differing and taking the position that implies all DCs are meaningless... but that would mean we don't share a table. You aren't wrong, I'm not wrong, we have different sorts of fun.
I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
If the door needs to open to progress... make sure there's a way to open it without picking it.
What is the point of even locking it, if the PC's are going to open the door anyway?
To allow a character the opportunity to shine and unlock it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How many times do you limit your players to for making an ability check? In a lot of circumstances I can limit things by putting a clock on whatever they are trying to do, or a fail makes it impossible to do again because the thing broke or they got caught or the person got away, etc. But sometimes instances come up where there just isn't anything like that, but I feel like the players shouldn't be able to just keep rolling until they get the result they want. The scenario that prompted this was a lock picking check. They were at a vault in a basement, middle of the night, no patrolling guards, the residents all fast asleep, so they had hours realistically. They failed the first try, and the second, but got it on the third. It occurred to me that unless they got a nat 1 (we do crit fails on skill checks) and I say the tools broke off in the lock, there really wasn't any point in the skill check, they just keep rerolling until they succeed. This happens with investigation checks too sometimes. So what does everyone else do or do you just let it happen in those circumstances? Am I over thinking this possibly?
In that kind of circumstance, I have the roll determine how long it takes. If even that's unimportant, then just let them have it.
Only allow one roll, otherwise there’s almost no point to rolling at all. If they fail, they need to try something else.
In the OP’s case, it would be something like, this lock is just completely foreign to you, no way you can open it.
This goes on a case by case basis. In version 3.5 people were allowed to take 20 -- i.e. take 20 attempts and get a guaranteed 20 - in certain circumstancces.
If there are no bad consequences for failing, often there is nothing wrong with taking multiple attempts. BUT....
then track the rounds.
In real life, lockpicking typically has multiple failed attempts before you get a win. The real reason to pick a lock is not to open the door - just break the door down. It is quicker. That is what real life thieves do.
Picking locks rather than breaking things has the following advantages in real life:
In game penalties for failing to pick locks should most likely have the following consequences: 1) Attracting bad guys/wandering monsters/warning the people on the other side of the door. 2) Triggering a trap, 3) breaking the lock making it non-working.
I do not use crit fails on skill checks, instead making it the most embarrassing (for the character) outcome possible. With a crit success being the most impressive as possible.
If there's a roll that can be failed, each subsequent check has a higher DC.
In the case of a bank vault where the player characters basically have all the time they need, I take the result of the roll and narrate how long it takes them to get through the lock. But my players enjoy role playing so I can just say "You begin to work on the lock... it's much more complicated than you expected... what are the rest of you doing during the first minute (s)he is trying to open the lock?"
I also allow players to sometime choose to "Take a 20" where they spend 20 minutes to accomplish a task and automatically succeed. An example of this would be the players looting enemies they've defeated. I see no reason to allow them to miss out on loot they've earned if there's no reason for them to hurry.
It really depends on the thing they are trying to accomplish. If it’s a simple locked door then just one, but if this is an idea that they have been working on for hours and has been a really fun role playing experience, and they roll a 2, I let them reroll it
as many times as they want, but I raise the DC every time they fail to show them becoming increasingly frustrated
Pronouns: Any/All
About Me: Godless monster in human form bent on extending their natural life to unnatural extremes /general of the goose horde /Moderator of Vinstreb School for the Gifted /holder of the evil storyteller badge of no honor /king of madness /The FBI/ The Archmage of I CAST...!
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Fun Fact: i gain more power the more you post on my forum threads. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Adding onto this: a failure doesn't necessarily mean they don't open the door. If they have unlimited time then they should be able to open it without a roll, HOWEVER, maybe a failed roll opens the door with a negative consequence. The door clicks open and the PC's finger gets pinched in the mechanism and they yelp with pain. Sure there were no guards patrolling, but something like that would still naturally draw attention. Maybe not immediate, but now there's time pressure.
Or maybe a failed check opens the door after a half hour of effort only to trigger an alarm (what Vault doesn't have some kind of alarm mechanism?), also drawing attention.
Basically though I like to stick to this credo: only ask for a roll when failure has a significant outcome, and only when you're ready to enact that outcome as the DM.
In general you should only call for a roll if failure has consequences -- either you can't retry, or there's a meaningful cost to retrying.
Yeah, in cases like this, if they can try as many times as they like until they succeed, there's no point in rolling. If they can try numerous but not quite unlimited times, my instinct would be to represent that with a lower DC rather than repeat rolls.
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
Well, if you've got severe time pressure you might want to roll every interval. Usually you don't have that acute time pressure outside of combat, though.
My rule of thumb is that, if the party is capable of hitting the DC required for the check then eventually they should be able to succeed at the task if there are no consequences to the failure along the way.
In a situation like this where the party can succeed given enough time, and nothing bad can happen to prevent the success, I use the die roll to determine how long it takes them to succeed at the task. For example, if a character is picking a lock that I know they can pick then I can have them make a roll.
If they succeed on the roll then they complete the task quickly. If they fail the roll but the DC is above their passive skill (eg passive lockpicking) then they will also succeed but it will take longer, perhaps a few minutes. If they roll very low and the DC is above their passive then the task could take them quite a long time. It could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to pick the lock in this case. I'd either use the skill check or a secondary die roll to determine the time.
This approach isn't RAW though - it is just how I would run it.
RAW, a skill check that can be done repeatedly takes 10x as long to complete if it is unsuccessful.
Here are the rules from the DMG:
"Multiple Ability Checks
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.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."
For lockpicking specifically, my rule of thumb is that if a character fails to pick it three times (without been found or setting off a trap or alarm), they simply can't figure out how to pick that particular lock and they need to either find another way to get through it or let someone else try.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I focus on rewarding more characters for getting involved, developing new ideas for attempts, and always respecting the rule that if the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds!
Example
That's the sort of flow I'll improvise to navigate. Even if PC Three fails in step 9, PC Four can break the lock open with violence, etc. It also follows one of my core rules of style: Players like rolling dice. Let them when they ask!
I may or may not allow retry on ability checks depending on the nature of the task or if something has changed between attemps.
If the door needs to open to progress... make sure there's a way to open it without picking it.
Honestly, it's situational. This is an area where I think the best advice is to develop your own solution.
For some DMs the answer will be never, for others it'll be 'as many as seem reasonable', for yet more it'll be 'as many as it takes'. For me it's a feeling. Do they have enough time? Is there any danger? Is there a practical reason that they aren't going to be able to retry?
I run on the vibe at the time which seems loose, but I also use a technique I first saw the amazing Johnny Chiodini use - I don't announce DCs. I will have a number noted or in mind, but I want the ability to fudge if it feels right. If a player for example takes the time to scrounge a makeshift pick and tension wrench, I don't want them rolling a 14 on a DC15 check...that's underwhelming for everyone. By not announcing the DC I have some leeway in announcing success/defeat.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
In a situation like that, where they’re under no real pressure and have all the time in the world, I would do one of theee things depending what’s in that safe:
*1, 2, & 3 👇
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
EDIT: This is a reply to JustaFarmersuggesting that my prior post makes DCs meaningless. I didn't think to quote on my reply and the forums flow is broken - sorry! What I said in reply:
I suppose that's one perspective a person could draw from it.
I see it differently. As a DM, I want my players to feel engaged and empowered. The lock isn't about an impossible path; it's about engaging a player by rewarding their choice of abilities to invest in. So, I see this path as rewarding and engaging. It works for all kinds of non-combat events where a player wants to embrace the throw of the dice.
Further, given my statement about when the Door Needs to Open to Progress, the Attempt Succeeds, I clearly think some DCs are meaningless. Providing another pathway to get around it is the equivalent. It is good to note that sometimes the door does not need to open to progress, and failed rolls leave the door unopened.
Ultimately, this approach has increased engagement and fun at the tables I run. I have no problem with you differing and taking the position that implies all DCs are meaningless... but that would mean we don't share a table. You aren't wrong, I'm not wrong, we have different sorts of fun.
To allow a character the opportunity to shine and unlock it.