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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.

That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)

 

[Maxperson]

I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.

The new rule requires either:

(A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else

(B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.

False Dichotomies are false. Those are not the only two options. You can in fact allow PC2 a roll due to the outcome being in doubt for him, while denying PC1 the roll. Nor do I track everyone's mods when I do so. Sometimes I will just say, "If you are proficient, give me a roll" or "As a wizard, you might know so give me a roll." Then I let them roll and worry about the modifiers. You could also say something like, "If you don't have at least a +5, don't bother rolling."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't see the issue. You just narrate the failure without a roll.

DM: "You try to recall the bit of lore and fail" or "You try and move the statue and fail."

Now the character has been exposed to the fact that it was not possible for him, and the player has also been exposed to that fact. Everyone is on the same page.

 

[Reynard]

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.

You don't call for a roll because there is a chance of success -- you call for a roll because there is a chance of failure. If the DC of a thing is 30, it's 30 no matter who is rolling. It may be true that no one in the group can make the check under any circumstances, in which case there is no need to roll. But it's better, i think, to know that number is there and call for check and let the players expend whatever resources they may have on the roll: guidance and bardic inspiration and whatever else. You may find that the chance is small but it is there.

As to the subject of the thread: I am inclined to say that auto success and failure are a bad idea, for skill checks, saves, or combat. If you are using the range of results from the dice, use those results.

 

[Minigiant]

That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)

The issue now is that the DM had to know know all the current and potential modifiers of every PC.

Before the DM only had to think about difficulty. A DM chooses DC 25 and whoever can't make it on a 20 didn't had the talent, skill, or magic to meet the challenge. Typically denial of a role was based of having or lack of Proficiency.

With autosuccess, the DM must know the info beyond proficient or no proficient to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.

Suppose you've decided that the DC is 27, but there might be a little bit of luck factor involved. Maybe it's a long jump past the character's strength score and you know that sometimes people can surpass their normal limits by a bit. You can call for a roll by anyone with athletics +5 or higher. Those with +5 or +6 might get lucky, so the outcome is still in doubt for them. Those with +0 to +4 simply don't get to roll. They cannot succeed.

You just have to approach it a bit differently. You can't just call for a blind roll with the DC in your head and narrate the outcome.

 

[MarkB]

With autosuccess, the DM must know the info beyond proficient or no proficient to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.

The whole point of autosuccess is that it opens up the chance that a character may succeed even if the DC is beyond them. If they meet the basic requirements for being eligible to roll - i.e. they have proficiency, or some specific experience with the subject - then it doesn't matter what their actual total bonus is. Just let them roll.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The issue now is that the DM had to know know all the current and potential modifiers of every PC.

I always ask "are you proficient" before asking for an ability check as a DM. Is that not standard practice?

Before the DM only had to think about difficulty. A DM chooses DC 25 and whoever can't make it on a 20 didn't had the talent, skill, or magic to meet the challenge. Typically denial of a role was based of having or lack of Proficiency.

With autosuccess, the DM must know the info beyond proficient or no proficient to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.

That really doesn't seem like that much work. And the problems it solves/alleviates are way more beneficial than any minor setbacks (just needing to know their bonus).

 

[Maxperson]

You don't call for a roll because there is a chance of success -- you call for a roll because there is a chance of failure.

A chance of success = a chance of failure, and vice versa. You can't have one without the other or it's automatically success or failure and no roll is called for.

 

[Lanefan]

As to the subject of the thread: I am inclined to say that auto success and failure are a bad idea, for skill checks, saves, or combat. If you are using the range of results from the dice, use those results.

Skills is debatable, and I think there's a lot of gray areas within that debate; but for saves and combat I very much like that 1 is an auto-fail/miss and 20 is an auto-save/hit.