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

[Benjamin Olson]

So, on one hand I like the “just don’t let them roll if they can’t succeed” answer, but there are drawbacks to it. You have to TELL the player that they can’t succeed, and I can envision situations where that would be a problem. Are they somewhat contrived situations? Yeah, maybe, but they do exist, and they weren’t a problem before.

Sure. But in those outlier situations you can just let them roll with a 5% chance that they will learn it was impossible. I can live with that just fine.

 

[rooneg]

Sure. But in those outlier situations you can just let them roll with a 5% chance that they will learn it was impossible. I can live with that just fine.

I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.

 

[MarkB]

I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.

Yeah, going in half-assed on this rule change is definitely not the solution.

One of my ground-rules for DMing D&D (and RPGs in general) is: Don't let the players roll unless you have a clear idea of what happens if they succeed, and what happens if they fail.

 

[Minigiant]

It's weird really. There are many things that only plausibly succeeded by people who put in enough time in an obscure or extraordinary action, actively, or procedure.

This is easiest to see in too proficiency when an untrained individual would have no chance of success but a trained one might have a high chance.

It works for attacks as by a certain level, every PC will have enough experience in combat to luck out all aspects of a normal attack, grapple, or shove.

So an auto success/fail system on ability check would have to defined parameters of when certain actions are unlocked with training or even expertise.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters.

The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.

 

[Ibrandul]

I'm starting to think my DMing style is very unusual:

• I frequently set DCs higher than 20—partly, I think, because my players routinely attempt to do things that are "hard" or harder;
• only about 1/3, or in some cases less, of game time is spent on combat;
• there are lots of calls for rolls outside of combat;
• there's fairly even distribution of rolls across all the various skills (so that ability checks using knowledge skills are common, whereas I'm starting to think most DMs seldom call for these); and
• there are lots of calls for everyone to roll ability checks using knowledge skills (usually followed by, for example, "Did anyone roll a 25 or higher?").

If your DMing style has very little in common with mine, then yeah, I guess this change would pose no problem.

 

[rooneg]

If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters.

The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.

The character hasn’t been exposed to the fact that the task was impossible, but the player was. That’s the problem I’m concerned about.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.

Sure, but to be clear I was talking about the outlier of a rare outlier situation: The time when there is some actual metagame reason you can not reveal something is impossible, so you let them roll and they then roll a 20. I would rather apologize for letting them roll when I shouldn't have and reveal the metagame secret of the impossibility 5% of the time, than reveal it at the outset 100% of the time.

And I'd rather put up with all that once in the very bluest of blue moons than give up on auto-successes and failures to avoid this scenario that I can barely even envision an example of.

One of my ground-rules for DMing D&D (and RPGs in general) is: Don't let the players roll unless you have a clear idea of what happens if they succeed, and what happens if they fail.

An excellent rule that I always follow except on the very rare occasions that I don't.

 

[Minigiant]

If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters.

The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.

It's really a change in philosophy if 5.5e goes with auto success and auto fails.

Before, a DM could say a bit of lore is a very obscure subject that few speak about and is kept secret so the DC is 22. This put the check test out of the range of the rogue with a +0 modifier but the wizard with a +6 and the fighter with a +2 have a chance.

With autosuccess you must now choose.

Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it

Don't let the rogue roll, claim that the info is so obscure or guarded that the rogue would never learn about it nor recall it if they happen to hear or read it due to their combined lack of talent and investment.

AKA it strengths two points of DM fiat over just one.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The character hasn’t been exposed

I think, in fiction, a character would know if the task he's attempting as even a modicum of chance of success or not. Trying to recall a piece of lore you never had the chance to be exposed to is pretty unrealistic, even if the game would let you have a 5% chance of making it. You have to come with an explanation on HOW you would know that piece of lore (maybe) in game before the DM might make you roll a die.

If I'm tracking a creature for the first time in my life (no Survival proficiency) and I have a crappy eyesight (Low Wis) and its raining and its been a week since it passed through this spot, I would know there's just no chance of success. Not even 5%: 0% chance of success. Now, a Ranger with the pertinent proficiencies might attempt such a feat even if, in his case, the test is still barely passable.