[RPG] Re-roll a failed exploration roll

dnd-5eskills

Can you re-roll a failed check in exploration? Beginner DM here btw 🙂

For example:-

A character tries to squeeze through a gap, either rolling a strength or Dex skill check. If they fail, can they just re-roll since the aren't in combat or immediate danger? Cause surely they'd just sit there re-rolling to their hearts content until they succeed? How would you prevent this or would this be allowed?

To be more specific to my situation, our party had just cleared a room of enemies are were advancing into the next room, only to find that the ceiling of the connecting hallway had collapsed in; blocking their pathway. Though there is a gap at the top of this rubble which they could probably squeeze through, but they fail the roll. Do they re-roll or should there be a consequence?

Best Answer

If there is no time pressure, rerolling is probably OK. The penalty for failure in this case is that you spend extra time doing it. The more important question is "Was the roll even necessary?"

This actually brings us back to one of the key points in the advice for DM in the game manual. It looks like a throw away line, but it's a good guide for when to call for dice rolls and when to let something simply happen.

In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure. (Basic D&D Players p4 emph mine).

So ask yourself when you come to a situation like this "what happens if they fail" if the answer is "they try again in a few minutes" then you probably just want to let the attempt succeed (provided there is no time pressure). If the answer is "they have to go another route" then you probably call for the roll and do not allow them to reroll it. If the answer is "the creatures in the next room are aware of them" then you allow it, but instead of calling for a reroll, failure is success with the complication that they made a bunch of noise.

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 (Players Basic 58, emph mine)(HT to Okeefe for pointing this quote out)

So you have a number of options in the event of a failure that are not simply allowing your players to reroll the check:

Failure leads to another route in the adventure.
Failure means no treasure in this room (avoid this one, it's petty).
Failure means they've lost important time.
Failure means success with a complication.

The important thing here though is that you've run into a trap, you've asked for a roll where failure is meaningless. Don't do this.

When you ask for a roll, be prepared for both success and failure.

It's Up to the DM

Really, it is. Does the DM want everyone to roll every time a character opens their mouth? Or just when they're "selling an idea?" It's up to the DM.

As Often As Is Needed

This is a good rule of thumb. Roll bluff as often as it is needed. For me, whenever I DM, I only call for bluff checks whenever someone is trying to "sell an idea." Selling ideas can be just one movement, or a complex series of movements/"actions" (not game "actions," but doing things like "hand off of sword hilt, smile on my face").

So, in your situation, I would call for a bluff check when the guards entered, because you all are selling the idea that you're supposed to be here and a new guy hurt himself. If that's the only claim you're making, I would not call for any more bluff checks.

I would call for a new one if you claim to be leadership, because that's a new idea. If you went further and made a new claim, I'd call for a new bluff on that. If you claimed yet one more thing, that is another bluff check.

(This part is taken from Lucas Leblanc. Thanks Lucas!) The exception to the one-check-per-lie rule would be "fast-talking." If you a character is just spewing information at an NPC to confuse them or otherwise distract them, require one bluff check for the entire fast-talking "conversation." This really does conform with "as often as is needed," but deserves the mention here.

[RPG] How should a GM properly handle the Bluff skill when it’s used to Deceive or Lie

Offical rules and clarifications for the Bluff skill

There are many good answers with general advice already, instead, I will show you what the game rules advise on how you should be handling this since the core rulebook is vague about social conflicts in general.

This is what the developers have to say about how to use Bluff (from Ultimate Intrigue, p.182), which I will quote it nearly fully because almost everything is relevant to this discussion, as such, I apologize for the wall of text.

The book, straight away, admits that the core rulebook has short descriptions and that the following are clarifications and not new optional rules. Either way, the GM is free to ignore this text, obviously.

When skills come into conflict with each other, it can lead to extremely complex interactions, often well beyond the scope of the short skill descriptions in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. The following section offers detailed advice on the most common skill clashes that involve difficult adjudications, as well as clarifications of skills where the Core Rulebook provides little guidance.

Then, it describe many possible scenarios of characters using Bluff that could (and will) come up during play, be that on social conflicts or not:

This section includes clarifications and details on several different ways to use Bluff—and on several things that don’t work. (...)

Bluff Doesn’t Define a Response: Even the most successful lie told using Bluff doesn’t determine the course of action the deceived person takes—it just primes the target with misinformation.

This means attempts to trick a creature into a course of action might need to also include Diplomacy or Intimidate after the Bluff check. For example, suppose there was a guard with the following orders from the guard captain: “Don’t let anyone into the restricted area without clearance papers, even if it seems to be me or someone of higher rank.” After this, a sneaky rogue attempts the following ruse: “I am the king’s general on a mission of utmost importance for national security. I need you to let me in now, or you’re fired!” Assuming the rogue succeeds at her Bluff check, the guard now believes her to be the general, but this doesn’t mean he will let her through.

His orders still require him to keep everyone out without papers. The last part of the rogue’s demand is an attempt to Intimidate the guard, and the successful Bluff check was a necessary prerequisite to even attempt the Intimidate check.

Circumstances: When using Bluff to tell a lie, the Core Rulebook table on possible circumstance modifiers takes into account several levels of plausibility, targets who want to believe or are impaired, and possession of convincing proof, but there are also plenty of other circumstances that might affect the result of a Bluff check. For instance, many people strongly don’t want to believe a bluff that would lead to cognitive dissonances, such as attempting to convince a true believer that their religion is fake, and such a lie imposes a –5 penalty on the attempt (the opposite of a target who wants to believe the falsehood).

On the other hand, a target who is afraid that the deceit is actually correct might grant a +2 bonus or more on the skill check, depending on the level of anxiety about the fabrication. For instance, a bigoted assassin who is afraid that half-orcs are cannibals might be more likely to believe a half-orc’s bluff that she ate the target he was supposed to kill.

There are a variety of other circumstances, all of which might alter the odds in different directions. A character with a widespread reputation of being a compulsive liar might take a large penalty on his skill check, but a character with a reputation for always telling the truth, such as a paladin, would gain a large bonus on her skill check. Similarly, a hostile creature is much less likely to believe a deception, whereas a helpful creature is much more likely to believe one.

Tricking Someone: Bluff can be used to cleverly trip a target up and get him to reveal something or make a mistake. In these cases, he realizes his mistake soon after, but by then it is too late, and the falsehood has done its damage. This is similar to using Bluff to feint or create a distraction, but has broader applications in social situations.

For instance, suppose a swashbuckler suspected that an assassin works for the queen. The swashbuckler might be able to trick the assassin into revealing more information by pretending to be a fellow agent of the queen in an attempt to gauge the assassin’s response. Of course, if the assassin doesn’t work for the queen and sees through the ruse, he might attempt his own Bluff check to pretend that he works for the queen and fell for the trick, thus causing the swashbuckler to investigate the innocent queen.

Plausibility: The Core Rulebook mentions that some lies are implausible enough that no matter how high a character’s Bluff check, a PC can’t convince a target that they are true. However, the same page also presents a table that says that “impossible” lies impart a –20 penalty on the skill check. This table’s entry might actually be better described as “particularly implausible.” For example, an older human woman telling a very similar-looking human girl that she is herself from the future might take the –20 penalty, whereas a 10-year-old half-elf telling a 40-year-old orc the same lie would automatically fail the Bluff check.

You’re Not Lying, You’re Just Wrong: Sometimes a character is a convincing enough liar that targets can’t tell the character is lying, even when the targets possess incontrovertible proof that what the character is saying isn’t true, or the lie is otherwise too unbelievable to be possible. In this case, one way to resolve the situation is for the bluffing character to take a –20 penalty on the skill check, and if she beats the target’s Sense Motive, then the target believes that the bluffing character isn’t lying, but is simply mistaken.

This could also be the result of other situations in which the target of the Bluff attempt has strong reasons to believe that the falsehood, despite being plausible, isn’t factually correct. Even this result can be useful to the bluffing character, as it doesn’t mark her as a liar, and it allows her to gather information about what her target knows and expects.

True Lies and Implausible Truths: Bluff is the skill that convinces someone that something is true. However, there are a few potential cases when the situation isn’t as straightforward as a bluffing character telling a lie to a target.

For instance, suppose that the bluffing character makes up a believable lie to tell the target, and the lie turns out to be true, unbeknown to the bluffing character. If the Bluff check succeeded, the target is convinced, and might later verify the truth and trust the bluffing character more. However, what if the bluffing character fails? In this case, the target can tell that the bluffing character is lying, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the target is forced to conclude that the information is false.

For instance, suppose a popular king has fallen into a magical, unbreakable sleep. A charlatan, noticing the king’s lack of public appearances, makes up a story about the king being placed under a sleeping curse and spreads it around the tavern, but his Bluff check is terrible, and everyone can tell he’s making it up. If one of the king’s advisors is present in the tavern, this doesn’t mean that the advisor now thinks the king isn’t in a coma; it just means that she can tell the charlatan doesn’t believe his own story.

The reverse side of true lies is implausible truths. These are situations in which someone is telling the truth (either saying something that is actually true, or spreading a lie that they believe to be true), but that truth is extremely implausible to the listener. Though the bluffing character isn’t lying, the same skill set that makes an excellent and convincing liar could potentially help characters attempting to spread an implausible truth.

In these cases, even if the target succeeds at the Sense Motive check, he can tell that the bluffing character truly believes what she is saying, and he might simply conclude that she isn’t lying, but simply mistaken. The target might later be swayed if presented with evidence or through a verbal duel (see pages 176–181). If a bluffing character successfully convinces a target of a lie and the target attempts to spread that information, this leads to a classic example of an implausible truth.

Summary

There are many situations described on the text, but a few points to take note:

The bluffer won't control the target's reaction to that "new truth";
The bluffer may not know that he is actually wrong;
The bluffer can convince someone that a previously known "truth" is a "lie";
The bluffer may not be lying, but simply hiding important information;
Its harder to convince someone who isn't willing to be convinced of the lie;
The "lie" may actually be true, but the bluffer didn't know it.

House rules

Personally, I never roll for Bluff when GMing NPC's (unless its being used in combat), I use 10 + Bluff bonus as the DC of the PC's Sense Motive check. Those checks may be asked on demand by the players, and are rolled in secret (even if the NPC is not actually bluffing). Also be affirmative on the result: "She is speaking the truth" and not "She appears to be speaking the truth". Unless your intent is exactly to get them on the edge and suspicious of everybody they meet (which is fine for a horror game).

When discovering this bluff may be important to the history and has roleplay potential, I will do the opposite and roll all players Sense Motives against the bluffer (also in secret), using 10 + Sense Motive bonus as the DC for that check.

If one of the PCs pass on that check, I will inform that the PC(s) notice that something is not right in what they are being told, but not exactly what, they will have to roleplay their way out of it and possibly make more Sense Motive checks, along with some Bluff and Diplomacy checks. The NPC may simply be hiding something, they may be afraid of being discovered, or are afraid of their boss, or are sad or angry about something they just mentioned, and so on. They have something to hide and that something could be discovered by the players, so a Bluff/Sense Motive check is warranted.

This is similar to a Skill Challenge to those familiar with it (D&D 4e), or the Social Conflicts rules. And also similar to how these rules are been implemented on the second edition of the game (currently in beta) and work fine for me.