D&D (2024) Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks

[Ibrandul]

No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.

Do you really do this? Every time? Really?

Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall.

The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.)

This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where the stats make it impossible.

At this point, the DM probably says something like "It looks pretty hard." And let's say the player says, "I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it."

Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: "OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage."

Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."

I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, "OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check." And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW.

Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll requires that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above.

Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

He doesn't have to houserule. The rule about only rolling if the outcome is in doubt hasn't gone away with this change.

He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.

What it does is open up another avenue for the DM to declare that this attempt is in doubt due to the 20 auto success rule. There are times where I'm teetering on the edge of "It's impossible" and "There a really small, but viable chance." In those situations I already did say, "If you roll a 20 you succeed." This just rule just puts those situations in writing.

 

[Maxperson]

He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ibrandul]

He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.

What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.

And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?

 

[Maxperson]

What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.

Depends on what it is. Last session a PC saw Vecna in a scry sensor and asked if he ever heard of Vecna. I run the Forgotten Realms and Vecna is Greyhawk, so I told him no. There was no roll. If instead it had been Szass Tam, since he is proficient in Arcana and a bard, I would have given him a roll.

And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?

If it's something that they all see, the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful, I will just say something like, "If you are proficient in Arcana, give me a roll." Then those that are can roll. I'm not going to make them tell me, because the PCs there would just recognize/remember or not. If only one person can see it, only he is going to be able to roll or not, depending on the above criteria.

 

[Ibrandul]

If it's something that they all see, the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful, I will just say something like, "If you are proficient in Arcana, give me a roll." Then those that are can roll. I'm not going to make them tell me, because the PCs there would just recognize/remember or not. If only one person can see it, only he is going to be able to roll or not, depending on the above criteria.

Thanks. That's a very common house rule—but it is a house rule. And it nerfs the Bard's Jack of All Trades feature, among other things.

You keep saying "if failure is meaningful." I know that's language from the RAW, but I confess it has always struck me as highly ambiguous in many situations.

Sure, it's easy when someone is trying to lift a gate: no success, no lift, and that's obviously meaningful. But what about with knowledge checks? Do you think it's not meaningful to learn a piece of lore (or fail to) unless it impacts the plot you have planned for the party? There are dozens of examples throughout WotC's published adventures of lore that's gated behind a roll but isn't obviously useful. (Not that WotC always follows RAW when writing their adventures, but still...)

 

[beancounter]

No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.

Per the new rules, a nat 20 is an automatic success in every situation where it is "humanly" possible to succeed.

If it's not possible, then obviously you wouldn't roll anyway.

If the CR is 25 and you roll a 20, you succeed - which IMO devalues the various modifiers that other PCs may have "invested" in.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.

And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?

This is where our basic philosophy clashes. For lore I would call for an int check. It is ability scores that count in 5e. If they bring up arcana, history or what ever I might agree that arcana counts or history and ask if they are proficient. However, I would never gate information behind a DC 20 + or 30 check.
If they really cannot succeed then I would tell them you know nothing about it. if the Cliffs off Insanity really are impossible then I would tell them so. They would need specialist help or equipment.
I would not use the same dc either. The trained people might get a lower DC representing their greater chances of knowing something.

So to take your example: if the test is Arcana and the character is proficient and they make the Easy DC I would say that you don't know but you thing you may have seen some of those symbols relating to an ancient magical civilisation.
If they made the moderate DC then I would improve that and say that the symbols are Netherese. If they make the hard DC I would add more and more again if they make the impossible DC.
If they were not proficient I might make the information for each DC about a step or 2 steps harder.
If they have Legend Lore or some such I would give at least the Hard DC information and add where they might find out more. Or ask for a check and add in the impossible stuff as well.
I will not go around the table and let every one try. The may be able to help and give advantage or bardic inspiration or what ever,
Under the new mechanics I would reveal information on an autosuccess may be up to the Hard DC.

 

[MarkB]

Do you really do this? Every time? Really?

Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall.

The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.)

This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where the stats make it impossible.

At this point, the DM probably says something like "It looks pretty hard." And let's say the player says, "I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it."

Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: "OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage."

Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."

I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, "OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check." And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW.

Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll requires that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above.

The playtest rule is that you can auto-succeed on a natural 20, whether or not your roll meets the DC.

If your criteria for whether or not you'll allow a player to make the attempt is that they must have at least a sufficient bonus to meet the DC on a natural 20, then you are not implementing the new rule.

Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW.

Yes they are. The rule is that the DM determines whether or not a roll is warranted. What criteria the DM uses in making that determination is up to them.