Performing an action without rolling

[TheChangelingMC]

Essentially I'm trying to work out if there's a point at which a character has to stop rolling for an action they do repeatedly. If they do the same action repeatedly over a campaign, rolling and succeeding each time, is there a point where you would go "okay, from now on you don't have to roll, you've mastered that particular activity"?

Did a bit of googling but it seems to be too specific a question (or I'm really bad at phrasing it) for google to work out what I mean, maybe you guys can help.

[Lunali]

Depends on the action, most examples I can think of would be things that you shouldn't be having them roll for in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

If there's no chance of failure (or the result of the failure isn't interesting), there's no need for roll. There are also passive checks for avoiding repeated rolling.

[RSP]

Essentially I'm trying to work out if there's a point at which a character has to stop rolling for an action they do repeatedly. If they do the same action repeatedly over a campaign, rolling and succeeding each time, is there a point where you would go "okay, from now on you don't have to roll, you've mastered that particular activity"?

Did a bit of googling but it seems to be too specific a question (or I'm really bad at phrasing it) for google to work out what I mean, maybe you guys can help.

In addition to only needing to roll if the DM thinks there’s a question of success or failure, check out the Passive Checks rule. One of the uses for Passive Checks is for when a check is required to be repeated a lot (like Perception).

[JNAProductions]

Can you give a specific example? That might help us help you.

[Crucius]

It's a tricky question. Rolling is the player interacting with their character through gameplay systems. It is a part of player agency.

However, aside from specific (sub)classes that give a high skill-check floor (for example the barbarian level 18 feature indomitable might or the rogue level 11 feature reliable talent) I would judge the character for the niche they try to occupy and give them auto-successes based on those types of skills. This naturally already happens; by setting the DC low enough, a character would always pass the skill check at a certain level.

Not a hard rule but I think I would start doing this around level 9, right when the proficiency bonus goes up again. This to me feels about right in the epicness that should be attained by the PC's at this point.

But I'm still conflicted. Especially regarding expertise or any other double proficiency bonus features. I would feel kind of robbed if a DM would let me auto-succeed a lot of checks in the skill I chose my expertise in. Even if the outcome would be always the same, I would prefer rolling anyway I think. Or do you think this won't be a problem?

[TheChangelingMC]

Can you give a specific example? That might help us help you.

So this particular example is a bit grisly, but it's basically skinning a person's head in a way that the party skeleton could wear it as a mask. Doing it initially and the couple of times after obviously needs rolling, but I can't work out if it should happen every time or if I should eventually just assume he's skilled enough through practice to do it correctly without rolling.

[JNAProductions]

So this particular example is a bit grisly, but it's basically skinning a person's head in a way that the party skeleton could wear it as a mask. Doing it initially and the couple of times after obviously needs rolling, but I can't work out if it should happen every time or if I should eventually just assume he's skilled enough through practice to do it correctly without rolling.

I'd say for that, require a check the first... Call it three successful times.

So, first time, DC 13 Dex check (with some tool proficiencies applying, if they're relevant). If they succeed, move to second time.
Second time, they get to add proficiency (or twice that if already proficient). If they succeed, move to third time.
Third time, they also get advantage.

After that, it should take time (I'd say maybe an hour-they can do it during a short rest) but no need to roll. They've got enough experience. Do require a check again if they're rushed, or if perfection is important.

But, honestly, ask yourself this: Is failure INTERESTING? Does it make the game MORE FUN? If not... Then don't call for a check even the first time. Just narrate their success. Something like...

"It takes longer than you think it will in the future-maybe about two hours-to carefully excise the face and stitch it up to work as a mask. This mask might not be as good as the next, but it'll do for now."

[Kyutaru]

I've seen this mechanic in Final Fantasy 9. You have the ability to equip gear with a certain ability or passive. When you fight in battles, you gain xp for the item until you've hit a predetermined total that "masters" the item. Once you've mastered an item, you know that ability or passive permanently.

I can totally see people giving skills or actions an experience bar and considering them mastered when they've gained enough XP. I myself would never do it purely because it's extra things to keep track of during a game that bogs down the play speed.

[Misterwhisper]

This happened when my rogue hit level 11 and up due to Reliable Talent.

I never rolled anything again because there was almost nothing I could fail at with a roll of 10.

It got very dull.

[Man_Over_Game]

One way you can do it is as a "reverse passive", which is kind of how Stealth works.

See, with Stealth, you have a static value that never changes and enemies have to roll against it. If they have no chance of rolling better than the player, then the player stays successful. It's kinda like the equivalent of attacking vs. AC.

In this case you'll use your Rogue's "passive" value of 10+Mod+Prof, and then YOU roll against that, assuming the Rogue succeeds unless your roll beats it for some reason (like if the face was particularly weird). That way, you're only rolling when YOU deem it's relevant, rather than the Rogue doing it every time. It's a good way of making a player regularly succeed without telling the player to constantly be rolling for success while also not revealing to a player that there is any hidden information (as they might become skeptical if you ask them to roll for reasons unknown).

[hboyce1]

Essentially I'm trying to work out if there's a point at which a character has to stop rolling for an action they do repeatedly. If they do the same action repeatedly over a campaign, rolling and succeeding each time, is there a point where you would go "okay, from now on you don't have to roll, you've mastered that particular activity"?

Did a bit of googling but it seems to be too specific a question (or I'm really bad at phrasing it) for google to work out what I mean, maybe you guys can help.

Hey, man! In my opinion, a high level D&D character should be capable of doing some pretty amazing things. Consequently, I think the more powerful you become the less necessary skill checks for more remedial tasks become.

For instance, a level 15 rogue with 17 dexterity and expertise in acrobatics has probably mastered DC 5 acrobatics skill checks in my mind. The game obviously doesn't actually work that way. But, I think it makes more sense and streamlines some otherwise tedious dice rolls.

[JNAProductions]

Hey, man! In my opinion, a high level D&D character should be capable of doing some pretty amazing things. Consequently, I think the more powerful you become the less necessary skill checks for more remedial tasks become.

For instance, a level 15 rogue with 17 dexterity and expertise in acrobatics has probably mastered DC 5 acrobatics skill checks in my mind. The game obviously doesn't actually work that way. But, I think it makes more sense and streamlines some otherwise tedious dice rolls.

They cannot fail a DC 14 check even before Reliable Talent.

With it, they can’t get worse than 23.

And 1s only auto fail on Attack rolls.

[honeybunch]

One way you can do it is as a "reverse passive", which is kind of how Stealth works.

See, with Stealth, you have a static value that never changes and enemies have to roll against it. If they have no chance of rolling better than the player, then the player stays successful. It's kinda like the equivalent of attacking vs. AC.

This definitely isn't how stealth works RAW in 5e.

[Man_Over_Game]

This definitely isn't how stealth works RAW in 5e.

You Hide by spending your action, making a roll against the Passive Perceptions of the creatures you're hiding from (best just to refer to the highest Passive Perception). If you succeeded, you're Hidden.

Once Hidden, enemies have to either:

Make Line of Sight with you.
Spend their Action to search for you with a successful Perception Check, which must surpass your Stealth Check roll. If they rolled too low, you're still Hidden.


If there is nothing that breaks your Hidden status (such as attacking an enemy), then you continue to be Hidden indefinitely, using your initial Stealth roll.


Stealth, in a way, is now a value that enemies have to roll against, rather than the other way around. That's the point I was trying to make.

[DMThac0]

The biggest thing to work off of is something mentioned earlier:

Is there no chance of failure? Don't roll.
Is there no chance of success? Don't roll.

Is there any notable risk to failure? If yes, roll, if no, don't roll.
--This part is tricky, sometimes failure is simply having to restart the process, that isn't really noteworthy so there's no reason to roll. If failure would expend resources, cause a worse situation, destroy/lose something, etc. then rolling is necessary.

---

The situation you're describing could be handled a different way, again as was mentioned earlier. You could take a down time activity approach to it where the character learns the "skill" through repetition. You treat X number of attempts as having a failure rate, and you'll set a DC for the player to beat. After achieving that score X number of times the "skill" is now something they're proficient in.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If there's no chance of failure (or the result of the failure isn't interesting), there's no need for roll.
This. This should be written in large friendly letters on the front of the DMG. The most neglected piece of GM advice.

If failure has no consequence, the players succeed. Period.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This. This should be written in large friendly letters on the front of the DMG. The most neglected piece of GM advice.

If failure has no consequence, the players succeed. Period.

As long as it's actually doable in the first place. But I believe that "doable" should be read with a wide latitude and large amounts of generosity. If I can find at least one even semi-plausible reason why it might work, I'll let them try.

[Puh Laden]

Rolling is the player interacting with their character through gameplay systems. It is a part of player agency.


I disagree with this fundamentally. The player doesn't choose when to roll in the first place, the DM does. However, the player and DM should have reasonably shared expectations as to what kind of checks correspond to what kind of situations; if a player picked Athletics for their character because they want to be good at jumping (because that's what the book says it's for) but the DM thinks Acrobatics is for jumping, that's a potential problem, no matter how minor.

If you're concerned about rolling not being worth it because there's no chance of failure, become familiar with the PCs' skills and add harder challenges that are appropriate to the higher DCs. For example, instead of simply having a rock wall with handholds to climb, you have a fight on a ship during a severe storm with rigging as a terrain feature. The weather adds various complications, but one could be making the rigging harder to climb by raising the DCs or granting disadvantage.

[Zakhara]

Bit late here, but the chief concern is time.

The idea of rolling based on the potential for failure exists because, when posed with time-sensitive situations, mistakes happen. Without that pressure, there is no urgency, and thus no risk. And with no risk, there is thus no roll.

There's no need to impose arbitrary rules on the "best" enforcement of when to (or not to) roll. Go with your gut; you'll note "a good time" not to more easily than you think.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've started doing is having my players choose their passive that they want to be doing out of combat, and then having a different passive for in combat.

For example, a Ranger might choose that his passive is Survival when out of combat. Doing so means he'll be looking for signs of shelter or creatures, looking for tracks and the such. In combat, he might be using Perception to look for any signs of hidden enemies.

A Wizard might use History out of combat, to either learn up on the surrounding area or apply the facts he's learned up to that point. In combat, he might choose Insight, to try and determine what his foes are planning on doing next (nullifies some enemy Advantages to attack).

A Rogue might use Investigation out of combat to piece together clues provided by the Ranger and the Wizard, but uses Medicine in combat to track everyone's combat readiness while also keeping an eye on the condition of the foes in front of him.

[dragoeniex]

One of our DMs takes a tidy approach to this question.

If it's something our characters are definitely capable of (PIs investigating a room, etc), he asks us to roll the skill and adds "--this is to see how long it takes you." Usually used during time-sensitive parts of the story, or where length could affect who's around/what's happening after.

It's not used for everything. If something is sensitive or could have very different outcomes, we still roll for skill. If it's a given and there are no time constraints, no roll necessary.