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

[Reynard]

All this rule does is mechanically codify the original 2014 rule that when a player describes what action they want to take, the DM asks for a roll only if there is uncertainty in the outcome. In actual play, however, sometimes rolls would be asked for even if failure or success were impossible.

With the new rule, there is always a chance for success or failure when a roll is asked for from a character and thus the outcome is in doubt. It puts more onus on the DM to not ask for a roll when they are certain about the outcome for that character.

This rule is not going to adjust DM-player behavior at all, I don't think. if the core explicit play loop in both the PHB and DMG didn't do it, this won't.

 

[OB1]

This rule is not going to adjust DM-player behavior at all, I don't think. if the core explicit play loop in both the PHB and DMG didn't do it, this won't.

The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC. In the old rules, that was possible, since a DC could be so high or low that a character would have no chance one way or the other.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

That's only true if you were using high DCs to limit which characters can attempt an action, but the 5e rules do not require that. The DM is free to consider every characters attempt to do the same thing independently, deciding if it can succeed or fail, and if the outcome is in doubt set whatever DC he wants.

And while we don't have the full 1D&D rules, I don't think this is going to change. Sometimes an action that's possible for one character is impossible for another. For example, no matter how strong he is, a dwarf will never be able to lift a heavy portcullis 2 meters off the ground, since his arms do not reach that high. So the DM doesn't call for a roll. In 5e the lanky elven wizard with a STR(athletics) modifier of -1 can never succeed at the DC20 check to lift the gate, so again there's no need for a roll. But in 1D&D the wizard can possibly lift the gate on a natural 20, so the DM tells him to roll the dice! Boom!

 

[Bill Zebub]

The thing about "dog piling" on checks is that you are only supposed to call for a dice roll if there's a meaningful consequence to failure. "No, you don't know" isn't a meaningful consequence.*

Now, I'll admit that I do struggle with how to implement goal-and-approach-with-meaningful-consequence for knowledge checks. What that tells me is that knowledge checks should be treated differently, or should only be applicable in narrowly defined circumstances, or maybe shouldn't even be part of the game, or something.

Up-thread (or was that a different thread) somebody gave an example of knowing a demon's true name and it why should everybody have a 1-in-20 chance to somehow know it. Somebody else responded (vulgarly) asking what value it adds to have secret lore in the game, and I think they have a point. It seems to me knowledge checks fall into the same two categories as secret doors:
1) The ones you discover by luck, without any real player engagement (unless they happen to search in the right spot either through luck or because they search everywhere) and if you miss them you never knew they were there, meaning they weren't really necesary.
2) The ones that are part of the plot, that players figure out must be there and take proactive measures to figure out where, and/or how to open them.

So, in the case up-thread of the demon's name, where I come out is:
1) If the players have done no work and just want to know if they know the demon's name, the answer is no. (Or, in other analogous cases maybe yes.)
2) If, before getting into the fight, they knew they would need the name, and went about searching for it, then you can use ability checks in the pursuit of that knowledge.

In other words, if the information is important to the story, then it should have been incorporated into the story in some way other than just making a dice roll at the critical moment.

I think it would be interesting to discuss scenarios that seem to exist on the boundary between these two categories. Anybody have any good ones?

One caveat: I recognize the argument that you've "invested" in a knowledge skill, so you should get to "use" that skill by having a chance to just know things. But I think that's getting things a little backward: it's part of the game, therefore it should be used. The question I'm asking is whether it should even be part of the game.

*If anybody wants to respond, "The meaningful consequence is that you don't know, and now you can't try again" we're just going to have to disagree that that's a meaningful consequence. In my opinion, for a consequence to be meaningful it has to offer some disincentive to even try.

 

[Reynard]

The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC. In the old rules, that was possible, since a DC could be so high or low that a character would have no chance one way or the other.

That's not a change in behavior, it is a change is outcomes.

 

[Cadence]

The thing about "dog piling" on checks is that you are only supposed to call for a dice roll if there's a meaningful consequence to failure. "No, you don't know" isn't a meaningful consequence.*

Now, I'll admit that I do struggle with how to implement goal-and-approach-with-meaningful-consequence for knowledge checks. What that tells me is that knowledge checks should be treated differently, or should only be applicable in narrowly defined circumstances, or maybe shouldn't even be part of the game, or something.

I'm fine with treating them differently. Maybe they work by just letting them be the only ones that don't need a meaningful consequence for failure?

In other words, if the information is important to the story, then it should have been incorporated into the story in some way other than just making a dice roll at the critical moment.

There are a lot of cases that I have no idea what the players are going to try to come up with in advance or want to know about though. It's hard to sprinkle those in in advance. (Wait, are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery? We could go steal whatever they were born in!).

*If anybody wants to respond, "The meaningful consequence is that you don't know, and now you can't try again" we're just going to have to disagree that that's a meaningful consequence. In my opinion, for a consequence to be meaningful it has to offer some disincentive to even try.

What are the meaningful consequences for failure for Investigation? Is it spending the time, or getting something false? What are the meaningful consequences for trying to open a lock? The time wasted, or does it need to be the lock broken?
(I'm fine with it just being the time... which is something knowledge checks don't usually have).

 

[Bill Zebub]

What are the meaningful consequences for failure for Investigation? Is it spending the time, or getting something false? What are the meaningful consequences for trying to open a lock? The time wasted, or does it need to be the lock broken?
(I'm fine with it just being the time... which is something knowledge checks don't usually have).

Yeah, that's exactly my point/question. If there's time pressure, and making an attempt will use precious time, then that's a good meaningful consequence. But otherwise why are we rolling dice?

If the players are not under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer? Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?

That's why I asked for some examples that blur this line. What's a scenario where somehow it just feels wrong to let them find/know the thing, but that can't easily (or at all) be designed into the story so they did some work for it beforehand?

EDIT: I'm not asking for examples so I can shoot them down and prove I'm right. This question is honestly something I struggle with and I think it's worth exploring.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are a lot of cases that I have no idea what the players are going to try to come up with in advance or want to know about though. It's hard to sprinkle those in in advance. (Wait, are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery? We could go steal whatever they were born in!).

Forgot to answer this.

The same thing happens to me. My question is: why does it add anything to roll dice to resolve these questions? Why not just tell them the answer, or that they don't know.

Or, in answer to "Are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?" what are they going to do to find out? They could go look at the tombstones, or they could ask locals. What does it add to, effectively, flip a coin and tell them whether or not they know?

 

[Cadence]

If the players are not under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer? Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?

How much time are they willing to spend? (If there isn't any time pressure later in the day either and they can throw away a few hours, then I definitely agree with just letting them find it).

 

[Cadence]

Forgot to answer this.

The same thing happens to me. My question is: why does it add anything to roll dice to resolve these questions? Why not just tell them the answer, or that they don't know.

Or, in answer to "Are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?" what are they going to do to find out? They could go look at the tombstones, or they could ask locals.

It means I can sluff off deciding if there are any or not, and combine that with the them knowing, and putting it in a roll.

What does it add to, effectively, flip a coin and tell them whether or not they know?

It lets me change the probabilities easier than shaving a coin?