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

[SkidAce]

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

I have no idea, my question /example is geared towards understanding other's view on the new rule.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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

There really isn't anything in the 1D&D playtest material that says this. Just that there's no such thing as an impossible DC. There's nothing about the DM having to set the same DC or even allow a roll regardless of who attempts an action.

 

[clearstream]

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.

?

The DCs don't matter, it's whether it's possible, not certain, and failure has meaningful consequences.

If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )

 

[Minigiant]

Another thing is that there are too few skills in 5e for this rule.

There's only 18 skills. Everyone gets at least 4. 2 for background and class each. Then 3 classes give skills. Many races give or gave skills.

But proficiency doesn't hit +5 untill level 13. So more than half the game, and almost all the game people actually play PCs will be critting skill checks they mathematically can't hit.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )

I think this is a really important point, and suggests the opposite of needing to know everything about the PCs: the DM can say, "Yeah, it's unlikely but possible. Go ahead and try if you want. Give me a DC 25 Strength roll, with Athletics if you have it, and if you succeed you'll move it out of the way, but it consumes your action and if you fail you won't get to do anything else this turn."

"But I'm only +3! I can't roll a 25!"

"Not if you get a nat 20..."

 

[Reynard]

If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )

That's not a glitch. Assuming the GM is choosing a DC based upon the fiction, it's working as intended. If no PC can hit it then that's a player problem, not a GM problem. They need to utilize resources or try another approach. if they have that 5% chance to always succeed, they are just going to spam Help for advantage and not bother actually thinking things through and trying different approaches.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not a glitch. Assuming the GM is choosing a DC based upon the fiction, it's working as intended. If no PC can hit it then that's a player problem, not a GM problem. They need to utilize resources or try another approach. if they have that 5% chance to always succeed, they are just going to spam Help for advantage and not bother actually thinking things through and trying different approaches.

I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC.

On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible.

Or maybe I’m not following your point?

 

[Reynard]

I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC.

On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible.

Or maybe I’m not following your point?

I am saying that if the DC of climbing that wall is 23, it is 23 completely independently of who is trying. Obviously it is a function of preference, but I don't think the intent is to set difficulties relative to the PCs. The intent is to set "objective" difficulties. Some characters will be better at some things that others, so have a higher chance of succeeding at a hard challenge, while others might reliably fail an easy challenge. From this perspective, there is no such thing as an "impossible" challenge -- even if for practical purposes no PC can do it. I really dislike tier or level based DCs which make chances static as PCs gain levels (which, i realize, is related but tangential).

 

[SkidAce]

I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC.

On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible.

Or maybe I’m not following your point?

I said something similar upthread, that possible was based on the task, not the people (per se) and got shot down quick.

Basically I agree with you, but thats not what I see people saying, and was looking for clarification.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am saying that if the DC of climbing that wall is 23, it is 23 completely independently of who is trying. Obviously it is a function of preference, but I don't think the intent is to set difficulties relative to the PCs. The intent is to set "objective" difficulties. Some characters will be better at some things that others, so have a higher chance of succeeding at a hard challenge, while others might reliably fail an easy challenge. From this perspective, there is no such thing as an "impossible" challenge -- even if for practical purposes no PC can do it. I really dislike tier or level based DCs which make chances static as PCs gain levels (which, i realize, is related but tangential).

I think this is where the disconnect like. You think that the DC is 23 irrespective of whomever is attempting the climb and the next time they try it is also DC 23.
Is the wall as more like a puzzle. If Bob needs a DC 23 climb to climb the wall and makes it, he does not need to roll the next time he tries that wall. He knows the way up, no need to roll unless something has occurred to make it more difficult.