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

[Crimson Longinus]

Lore is always the messy one, largely because in a typical party the PCs come from all over the place and from a variety of cultures. Due to this, some PCs might have a far better chance of knowing a given bit of lore than others even if all the mechanics are dead equal between them.

Example: the party contains a Dwarf, a Gnome, a faux-Roman Human and a faux-Norse Half-Orc. None have anything specific skills or abilities going for (or against) them when it comes to historical knowledge.

So, if the need to know some obscure bit of Dwarven history comes up do they all get to roll, or does just the Dwarf get to roll, or does the Dwarf get some sort of bonus to the roll? (personally I'd often handle this by giving the Dwarf a roll and if that fails, giving the rest of them a single combined roll at worse odds; and if that too fails then they're out of luck)

Yeah, whilst I think DCs should generally be objective, there are some situations where the same thing is actually a different task for different characters. "Recall a legend of a faraway culture" and "recall a legend of your own culture" are not equally easy tasks, even though the legend in question might be the same!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks. Yes, this can be avoided by the GM carefully considering who gets to roll and who autofails and who autosucceeds at every task, but this just adds completely unnecessary work for the GM.

For example in the group I'm currently running for the characters have athletics scores ranging from -1 to+10. With the old rules I can just give a physical obstacle a DC, and the game math handles things. The +10 character will autosucceed at easy tasks and is an only character in the group that has a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks. And very easy task still have purpose as the -1 character can still fail at them. With the playtest rules I have to individually decide for each character whether to have them roll, or the +10 character will start to have chance to fail at very easy and easy tasks and the -1 character a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks.

And the same for every skill in every situation. This is not an improvement.

 

[Smackpixi]

I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks. Yes, this can be avoided by the GM carefully considering who gets to roll and who autofails and who autosucceeds at every task, but this just adds completely unnecessary work for the GM.

For example in the group I'm currently running for the characters have athletics scores ranging from -1 to+10. With the old rules I can just give a physical obstacle a DC, and the game math handles things. The +10 character will autosucceed at easy tasks and is an only character in the group that has a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks. And very easy task still have purpose as the -1 character can still fail at them. With the playtest rules I have to individually decide for each character whether to have them roll, or the +10 character will start to have chance to fail at very easy and easy tasks and the -1 character a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks.

And same for every skill in every situation. This is not an improvement.

Yeah, no. New rule says if it’s possible for someone to do it, it’s possible for anyone to do it, so in your example everyone gets a roll. Like Mom lifting car off their kid in those apocryphal stories, 5% chance of anyone doing a theoretically possible thing. If it’s just plain impossible, there’s no roll for anyone. It changes the dynamic some, but the improbable rolls I think are what makes the story being played more epic.

You’re trying to make things impossible for some characters, but not others, like it used to be. Nope, can’t do that anymore. Don’t have to like it or use it, but there’s no only some get to role situation.

 

[MarkB]

The 5e DMG says that if a d20 test would be outside the range of a PCs abilities, there's no point in having them roll. The design intentions haven't changed at all. They're just changing the wording to make it more clear what they want to have happen.

It asks "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?" That's not the same as it being of a higher DC than the character can achieve.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, no. New rule says if it’s possible for someone to do it, it’s possible for anyone to do it, so in your example everyone gets a roll. Like Mom lifting car off their kid in those apocryphal stories, 5% chance of anyone doing a theoretically possible thing. If it’s just plain impossible, there’s no roll for anyone. It changes the dynamic some, but the improbable rolls I think are what makes the story being played more epic.

5% doesn't seem that improbable.

Would exploding dice of some sort give a better way to deal with those edge cases... and avoid needing to think about the borderline cases.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It asks "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?" That's not the same as it being of a higher DC than the character can achieve.

And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.

 

[Smackpixi]

5% doesn't seem that improbable.

Would exploding dice of some sort give a better way to deal with those edge cases... and avoid needing to think about the borderline cases.

I’m sure exploding dice are some statistical thing I’m not familiar with, but if their not, f-yeah, I think exploding dice would be the best solution to all rolls!

Ok I know what they are, and that would add drama, but we’re only going through this dungeon once, taking things below a 5% chance means it’s pretty much not gonna happen. I think making the improbable more probable is more fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.

Then what do you think the "autosucceed with 20" actually does? Under you're interpretation it doesn't change anything, as if you wouldn't succeed with a 20 you wouldn't get to roll in the first place.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then what do you think the "autosucceed with 20" actually does? Under you're interpretation it doesn't change anything, as if you wouldn't succeed with a 20 you wouldn't get to roll in the first place.

I think it clears up a part of 5e that was intended from the beginning, but a lot of people misunderstood. You don't roll if your bonus isn't high enough to succeed and if you would automatically succeed even if you rolled a natural 1, you didn't need to roll in the first place.

Clearly it has lead to some confusion, but it's logical to not call for a d20 Test unless there's a chance of both success and failure.

 

[Smackpixi]

And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.

It has changed. Now anything possible for someone is possible for anyone. It’s only things that are impossible for everyone that don’t get rolls. DM can decide that while forcing this door is possible for someone, it’s not possible for this party and deny the roll, sure, but new RAW, if it’s theoretically possible for someone, it’s possible for -1 strength to get precise leverage.