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

[Maxperson]

That was the old way, but I’m saying the new 20 rule means that something that’s possible for one character is now at least a 20 role possible for all.

The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule that the DM decides what is impossible and to who. It explicitly says that you only get a roll if appropriate and the DM is the one that decides that via the DMG rules.

Rollable for one is a rollable check, so possible for all.

This is not RAW.

 

[Smackpixi]

The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule that the DM decides what is impossible and to who. It explicitly says that you only get a roll if appropriate and the DM is the one that decides that via the DMG rules.

This is not RAW.

Wasn’t RAW. New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all. You‘re arguing about old rules. IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on. Otherwise, rule is meaningless. Today, I don’t have players roll on things they can’t so. I will probably continue doing that forever. But a 20 is auto success means that I must now allow them to roll on rollable things they couldn’t previously succeed on.

No one can jump a 100ft chasm. Impossible. No Roll. But someone could jump a 20 ft chasm, so roll. people keep saying if it’s impossible for the particular character there is no roll, but that’s denying the new 20 success idea. If a 20 is a success on any roll, the only way that has meaning is if everyone gets a roll on possible for someone checks. If before, rolling a 20 to clear the casem still wouldn’t clear it for that character, you just say, nah, but now, for that character rolling a 20 will clear the chasam. So, you have them roll. Again, it all goes back to if it’s a rollable check. 100ft isn’t. 20ft is. So on the 20ft jump under the 20 auto success, everyone can try And everyone has 5% chance of success per nat 20 even if their individual stats say, impossible.

 

[Smackpixi]

I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule. As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
until WotC decides otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Wasn’t RAW. New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all.

This is provably false as written. The new rule does not make any such requirement, so it falls to the DMG rules which state that the DM is the one to decide when rolls are appropriate.

You‘re arguing about old rules.

The old rules currently govern the new one, since the new one does nothing to supersede the one in the DMG.

IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on.

If that's your choice as DM, you can make it. RAW does not make it for you, though. It seems like you are assuming intent, which is a mistake. This is a playtest and you should be playtesting what is written, not what you think they wanted to write.

Otherwise, rule is meaningless.

Completely untrue as I have proven multiple times in this thread alone. The DM is fully capable of giving rolls that the PC otherwise could not make. I have done so since 3e when appropriate and will continue to do so. I also gate rolls when appropriate and will continue to do so. The rule is for those times when I do the former. That is meaning.

No one can jump a 100ft chasm. Impossible. No Roll. But someone could jump a 20 ft chasm, so roll. people keep saying if it’s impossible for the particular character there is no roll, but that’s denying the new 20 success idea.

The guy with a 20 strength can, yes. The guy with the 3 strength? Impossible.

 

[clearstream]

I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule. As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
until WotC decides otherwise.

I think the interaction of the game texts can be explained as -

1. Anyone can make an omelette if they have eggs.

2. Addy has eggs in their fridge. That does not mean Anderson has eggs in theirs.

I kind of regret that analogy, even now, but perhaps it conveys the idea.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Wasn’t RAW. New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all. You‘re arguing about old rules. IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on. Otherwise, rule is meaningless. Today, I don’t have players roll on things they can’t so. I will probably continue doing that forever. But a 20 is auto success means that I must now allow them to roll on rollable things they couldn’t previously succeed on.

No. You are imagining all of that.

In the "past" (meaning 5e up until now) it was not that case that players couldn't roll because the DC was too high and therefore it was impossible for them to succeed. They didn't roll because the DM didn't ask for a roll. It's as simple as that. And that's still the case.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule. As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
until WotC decides otherwise.

It's not that your logic is hard to follow, it's that one of your premises is incorrect.

 

[SkidAce]

So what I'm hearing is;

DC 23 check for whatever. I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.

Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)

I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?

But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.

?

 

[Reynard]

So what I'm hearing is;

DC 23 check for whatever. I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.

Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)

I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?

But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.

?

Yeah, not just calling for rolls and narrating the results relative to the DCs baffles me. It sounds like far too much work to try and anticipate whether the players will burn resources, use guidance or whatever on any given thing. Just let them roll.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So what I'm hearing is;

DC 23 check for whatever. I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.

Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)

I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?

But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.

?

Why is it important for a character that cannot make the DC on a roll of 20 succeeding on a natural 20?