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

[Reynard]

Ok, apologies, I got that wrong, but I have got the distinct impression that people that have a problem with the new rule have the habit of setting task DCs as an independent property of the game world.

Well, for my part anyway, the DC is a function of circumstances at the time. If the circumstances don't change, neither does the DC. But that's separate from making allowances for a character to have figured a thing out. It all depends on what the successful roll meant in the previous example: if I said success was finding a safe path, I wouldn't bother forcing the roll every time but if I said it was a perilous climb but they managed to do it without falling to their deaths, the next time would probably also require a check. The reverse is true, too: if I wanted to signal that it was a one and done check, I would describe the results in such a way that were consistent with that, and if I wanted to indicate this was a dangerous path no matter how many times they climbed it, I would do the other thing. In either case, if a new PC came across the obstacle it would have the same DC as when the others first encountered it, whether that was a 0 level peasant or a 100th level demigod.

 

[clearstream]

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 didn't have this perspective prior to reflection on @SkidAce's examples, but here is what I'm thinking. Per PHB 174 and DMG 237, in 5e DM calls for a check only when the outcome is uncertain.

Say as DM, I set a DC that as it turns out, results in certainty? By the 5e rules, were it a certainty I shouldn't have called for a check. The outcome of calling for the check is paradoxical (the check shouldn't have been called for.)

Under the proposed 1e rules, that paradox never arises: it is always true that when DM calls for a check, success and failure are both possible. Assuming something like DMG 237 is retained (not guaranteed) then DM needs only to think about the fiction.

 

[Reynard]

I didn't have this perspective prior to reflection on @SkidAce's examples, but here is what I'm thinking. Per PHB 174 and DMG 237, in 5e DM calls for a check only when the outcome is uncertain.

Say as DM, I set a DC that as it turns out, results in certainty? By the 5e rules, were it a certainty I shouldn't have called for a check. The outcome of calling for the check is paradoxical (the check shouldn't have been called for.)

Under the proposed 1e rules, that paradox never arises: it is always true that when DM calls for a check, success and failure are both possible. Assuming something like DMG 237 is retained (not guaranteed) then DM needs only to think about the fiction.

The outcome is uncertain because there are potentially some ways that characters that can't "naturally" achieve the DC might still make the roll. Again, it's not necessary for the GM to audit the PCs prior to every setting of a DC. When the GM says "figuring out what killed...; whatever that skeleton was after so many years is really tough; DC 26 Int (Medicine) roll" isn't wrong because it turns out no one in the party can make that roll. That DC is now a part of the world. the PCs can gather up the skeleton and take it to the healer in town and the DC is still 26 Int (Medicine). The PCs are the protagonists but the world does not revolve around them alone.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The PCs are the protagonists but the hmen/hirelings for Fighters only. That would be kinda cool does not revolve around them alone.

Ok, Gandalf.

 

[Reynard]

Ok, Gandalf.

That is a weird quote of half mine and something else, just FYI?

 

[Minigiant]

Really this is sounding like a question of Objective DCs vs Subjective DCs.

Objective DCs have difficulty based on a single immovable perspective chance toward the target of the check.

Copying a humaniod's appearance with a disguise kit is a Hard Objective DC 20 because it is based on the chances of an unskilled common folk. An skilled person will fail 95% of the time attempting to copy a specific person with makeup and prop clothing.

Subjective DCs have difficulty based on the person or persons making the check.

Copying a humaniod's appearance with a disguise kit is a Medium Subjective DC 15 because the DM deemed that only a person proficient in Disguise Kits can attempt the action with any success and deems that a skilled MUA would have moderate difficulty copying another beings looks with makeup and props.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That is a weird quote of half mine and something else, just FYI?

Oh, yeah, weird. I was trying to quote your last sentence. On my phone, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, apologies, I got that wrong, but I have got the distinct impression that people that have a problem with the new rule have the habit of setting task DCs as an independent property of the game world.

For the record, after a group has been through something a few times and would have a feel for it, I don't have a problem saying that they've mastered it and not requiring further rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

@Lanefan Did you ever climb a tree when you were young, and did you ever meet a tree that you could climb one day but not another day?

I climbed lots of trees when I was young. The vast majority of the time I could re-climb the tree. There were a few trees that I sometimes couldn't climb. Those required me to jump and grab a high branch and then pull my body up and wrap my legs around the branch upside down and then maneuver myself to the top of the branch. Sometimes I could do it. Other days I couldn't.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, for my part anyway, the DC is a function of circumstances at the time. If the circumstances don't change, neither does the DC. But that's separate from making allowances for a character to have figured a thing out. It all depends on what the successful roll meant in the previous example: if I said success was finding a safe path, I wouldn't bother forcing the roll every time but if I said it was a perilous climb but they managed to do it without falling to their deaths, the next time would probably also require a check.

In my mind the PCs made it up safely and learned a lot about which spots were safe and which were unstable. The next time they would roll with advantage. Another time or two and since it's still perilous, I'd just tell them to roll and don't get a 1. They've learned the safest path up.