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

[UngainlyTitan]

So I fully agree that goal-and-approach-with-consequences-of-failure doesn't seem to work well with knowledge checks. (I believe @iserith, goal-and-approach's chief evangelist, disagrees.)

But that's why I'm asking (and was asking @Cadence...who seems to have posted while I'm typing this): what is the point of all those knowledge checks? What does it really add to the game for a player to say, "Do I know X?" and then you roll some dice and maybe yes, maybe no. Why is that interesting or fun? The player hasn't actually done anything. It feels to me like resolving combat with a single roll: "The Orc is DC 13. Give me a combat roll. 15? Ok, he's dead."

And, again, I'm not asking this as if I can't believe you would ever play RPGs in such a terrible way. I've been using knowledge checks for decades. I'm just re-thinking if they contribute to the game.

I think knowledge checks should not be binary pass/fail but a cascade of "what is widely known" = Easy DC, "what the well informed would know", and so on.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To follow up my own post but the discussion around lore checks in another indication that D&D need a non binary extended scene mechanics/framework for this kind of thing (like skill challenges from 4e). The pass/fail ability checks are ok for opening doors and engaging with traps but there is a need for a more complex mechanic.

 

[clearstream]

To follow up my own post but the discussion around lore checks in another indication that D&D need a non binary extended scene mechanics/framework for this kind of thing (like skill challenges from 4e). The pass/fail ability checks are ok for opening doors and engaging with traps but there is a need for a more complex mechanic.

DMG 242

 

[Ruin Explorer]

DMG 242

If you're referring to the 5E DMG's The Role of Dice section, perhaps particularly Multiple Ability Checks, that absolutely doesn't do what's being asked for. But I don't have page numbers so maybe it's something else?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think knowledge checks should not be binary pass/fail but a cascade of "what is widely known" = Easy DC, "what the well informed would know", and so on.

This is how I always handle knowledge checks; it is not just about whether you know it, it is about how much you know.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is how I always handle knowledge checks; it is not just about whether you know it, it is about how much you know.

It's a good way to do it, but it does require a lot of prep and potentially leaves a lot of prep on floor (if they roll poorly!).

 

[Minigiant]

Just for clarity, the way I do Lore rolls is I ask for a roll and give information based on the roll. The higher the roll, the more info and more obscure info given.


So on a topic there is a DC 5 lore bit, DC 10 lore bit, DC 15 lore bit all the way to DC 30. If you roll a 20, you get DCs' 20, 15, 10, and 5 info.

Gotta roll a 30 for a truename, baby.

 

[Reynard]

DMG 242

Like people read the DMG. They've been running games for decades. What could the DMG possibly tell them about running this specific version,using the rules as intended and utilizing the interconnected systems in play to create a better experience for everyone. Pshaw.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

DMG 242

That is more or less what I use but I would like something a bit more structured and one that can involve the whole party. That is something closer to the 4e skill challenge or Matt Mercer's extended skill checks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just for clarity, the way I do Lore rolls is I ask for a roll and give information based on the roll. The higher the roll, the more info and more obscure info given.


So on a topic there is a DC 5 lore bit, DC 10 lore bit, DC 15 lore bit all the way to DC 30. If you roll a 20, you get DCs' 20, 15, 10, and 5 info.

Gotta roll a 30 for a truename, baby.

Right. I use a degree of success a lot. Which raises a question: what autosucceeding on 20 means in such a context?