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

[Minigiant]

It's not, though? It's the same as it is now. The game already expects DMs to gate checks based on what they feel is reasonable in their game. Not just allow anyone to try anything (unless that's what you like doing).

Before you could gate checks behind high DCs and make it PC agnostic.

 

[Parmandur]

Before you could gate checks behind high DCs and make it PC agnostic.

Yeah, you can do both, and the game expects both tools to be used. Expecting both isn't a rules change.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a judgement call based on situation: can the Wizard make an Athletics check to jump 5 feet to make it over the closing drawbridge with the rest of thenparty? Sure. Can he roll to win a wrestling match with Hercules? No, no he cannot.

This. Can anyone attempt to climb a mountain face with lots of hand and footholds? Yep. When they get to that overhang and have to climb upside down on the bottom side of it, though, you're going to be required to have Athletics to even have a chance.

 

[Reynard]

Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.

(That’s a Nature Check, I believe, but neither here nor there)

So no one can attempt anything unless they are trained in the governing skill? You would have to completely rewrite how skills and abilities are tested for that to work in actual play, and explicitly designate a number of things as not related to skills at all.

 

[Reynard]

This. Can anyone attempt to climb a mountain face with lots of hand and footholds? Yep. When they get to that overhang and have to climb upside down on the bottom side of it, though, you're going to be required to have Athletics to even have a chance.

That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for. Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.

 

[Maxperson]

That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for.

It's already built for it. The DMG allows the DM to declare a roll impossible for any reason, including proficiency.

Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.

I've been doing it for years and never once had an argument.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because the meaningful consequence to their not fiinding it is that they don't have it; meaning that whatever "value" it might have had to the story is lost, with - possibly - future consequences knocking on from that as things develop later.

How is that any different from not trying in the first place?

And this is something else to keep in mind - the "meaningful consequences for failure" don't have to be immediate, and IMO don't have to be guaranteed.

I think the consequence should be known, or at least suspected. Otherwise the player has no information to base a decision on.

I guess I could imagine a scenario where the player thinks there’s no downside, and later discovers there was, and forever after is wary of the DM saying. “May as well try, right? Whaddya got to lose? Throw them dice…”

For example, failing to know or find some bit of lore now during their research might not matter until quite some time later at place X when having or not having that bit of lore is going to become highly relevant; but if the PCs go a different direction in the meantime and thus never reach place X, those what-would-have-been-meaningful consequences evaporate into the air.

Again, that is a consequence of not having the lore, which is identical whether they make an ability check and fail, or if they don’t even try. Therefore it is not a consequence of failure.

 

[Parmandur]

So no one can attempt anything unless they are trained in the governing skill? You would have to completely rewrite how skills and abilities are tested for that to work in actual play, and explicitly designate a number of things as not related to skills at all.

If the DM rules they can't, yes. That's how the game works now, as it is is: some checks are open, some are gated, at the DMs discretion. That's in the books.

 

[Parmandur]

That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for. Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.

...what are you talking about, we are talking about the 2014 rules that have been in use for 8 years? Gating by proficiency at DM discretion is a normal part of the game as it is already written and played, it doesn't require anything new.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, you can do both, and the game expects both tools to be used. Expecting both isn't a rules change.

You can't gate DCs or hold open DCs because you can autosucceed on a nat 20 and autofail on a nat 1.

You can only gate the attempt of the role with this rule. Not the difficulty class itself.