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

[Ibrandul]

The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.

I've seen precisely one rationale for this, stated over and over, that most groups already play that way because this is already a widely misunderstood rule—not that groups are already playing this way as a house rule despite being aware of the official rule. Crawford says they are changing the game so that the rules work "the way people expect them to work."

But is the game better this way?

If it's not—if the game is better with the current rule, not the new one—then surely a better approach would be to change the way this rule is presented in the PHB so that it is easy to understand and to absorb, rather than changing the rule itself.

And I think the change is a very bad one.

Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.

It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a +10 has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.

What's the rationale for why this change makes the game a better game?

 

[Aldarc]

One of the benefits is that it opens up the need for checks. If rolling even a 20 means you won't succeed, then why are you having the players roll? If players can succeed even if they roll a 1, then why are you having the players roll? This opens up the possibility for these two ranges.

 

[Lanefan]

It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a +10 has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.

What's the rationale for why this change makes the game a better game?

If the DC is 30 and the best a character can get to after bonus is 22, why even bother rolling?

I do like the auto-fail on a 1, though. And at either end, if 5% is too high a chance you can always add some sort of secondary or confirm die to lower those odds some. Example:

"You try to pick the door lock and in so doing realize it might be completely beyond you; but that 20 tells me things might be different this time - now roll a d6 and on a 6, you get through."

EDIT to add: and to presever the variable odds, the confirm-die size could be the difference between the DC and what the '20' roll adds to; thus if the best the PC can add to is 23 and the DC is 30, then the confirm roll would be a d7 with a 7 meaning success.

 

[Leatherhead]

They didn't change the important rule: the DM does not ask for a roll unless there is a chance for failure. So there is still no such thing as pulling a 20 and passing an impossible check

 

[Ibrandul]

They didn't change the important rule: the DM does not ask for a roll unless there is a chance for failure. So there is still no such thing as pulling a 20 and passing an impossible check

Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules? If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules? If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?

If you, as a DM, decide that X feat is impossible in the world you designed, you just dont call for check, no matter the +Y of a players. Rolling is for when there's both a chance of failure and success. If success is not possible, whether its mathematical or in-game logical, it does not matter, its already decided: the test is a failure.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

It makes the game a better game because the 20s and 1s are some of the most exciting and memorable moments. And many of us let them be automatic successes or failures not because we don't know the rules, but because we genuinely enjoy playing that way.

Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.

Ability checks are more problematic, but DMs simply shouldn't be calling for checks on impossible (or impossible to fail) checks. I'm not sure if published adventures actually use DC 30 checks (I've never seen or used one), but yes, under this system you should not gate things you actually want to be impossible behind DC 30 checks, you should just make them impossible. If they are possible for someone through extraordinary skill, they should be possible for anyone through even more extraordinary luck. Yes 5% is not really all that extraordinary, but sometimes the reality simulator should give way to being a fun game.

The plus 10 on a DC 30 check example you give is obviously a silly situation, but the players don't know the DC. They will send the person with the highest mod and never know how silly the math was unless you tell them.

Being a classroom teacher by profession I will also fundamentally disagree with the premise that people commonly misunderstanding something is not a reason to change it. If there is a classroom procedure that I envision and think I explain to do one way but students all routinely do it another way, and the other way is also fine, I will change it to be done the other, evidently more intuitive, way the next time 100% of the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.

I've seen precisely one rationale for this, stated over and over, that most groups already play that way because this is already a widely misunderstood rule—not that groups are already playing this way as a house rule despite being aware of the official rule. Crawford says they are changing the game so that the rules work "the way people expect them to work."

But is the game better this way?

If it's not—if the game is better with the current rule, not the new one—then surely a better approach would be to change the way this rule is presented in the PHB so that it is easy to understand and to absorb, rather than changing the rule itself.

I don’t think the problem is the way the rule is presented. I’m pretty sure even if it was very clearly stated, front and center, bold text, the works… almost everyone who rules auto success/failure on natural 20s/1s would keep doing so anyway. Because it’s not just matter of not knowing what the rule is. It’s a matter of the rule not working the way people intuitively feel like it “should” work.

Now, does this change make the game better? No, I don’t think so. Does it make the game worse? I’m not sure. Probably not by much if it does.

And I think the change is a very bad one.

Fortunately, it’s easy to ignore.

Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.

It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a +10 has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.

Here’s a neat trick if this bothers you: The DM determines if a roll is needed to resolve an action. If a character with less than a +10 bonus attempts a task that has a DC of 30… You don’t have to call for a check, you can just narrate failure.

What's the rationale for why this change makes the game a better game?

I don’t think there is one. The rationale is that it has minimal impact on the game, so might as well have it work the way people intuitively think it “should.” Fighting against player intuition is always a losing battle.

 

[Ibrandul]

Being a classroom teacher by profession I will also fundamentally disagree with the premise that people commonly misunderstanding something is not a reason to change it.

People commonly misunderstanding the procedure you’re teaching them is definitely a reason to change the way you’re teaching the procedure—but it is not a reason to change the procedure you’re teaching. Having an alternative procedure that works just as well or better is—but I’m arguing this procedure doesn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules?

I guess, if it’s that important to you that players need +5 or better to be able to succeed at DC 25 tasks. Personally? I doubt I’ll even notice the difference.

If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?

It’s just to make the rules work the way people expect them to work. That probably wouldn’t be sufficient rationale if the chance had a huge impact on the gameplay experience. But I don’t think this one will.