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

[Smackpixi]

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..."

I feel like this is a weird statement from you because this is exactly what I’ve been saying, and the only thing I’ve been trying to say, repeatedly, and you’ve done nothing but disagree with me.

You should let players roll on things they can’t do (can’t make the DC check) when the thing is theoretically possible (someone with a higher bonus could do it).

I’ve phrased this as, “If it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for everyone” and you’ve roundly rejected this because only the DM decides if there is a roll. Which I don’t disagree with, but the only reason to not call for a roll is if it’s absolutely impossible.

Before the new 20 auto succeeds rule, a DM could say, “nope, YOU, can’t” and deny the roll if it was just plain impossible or if it was impossible for that player (they couldn’t clear the DC). Now, they should only deny the roll if it’s just plain impossible, because a 20 succeeds on anything that is rollable (Possible for someone).

help me understand, why do you disagree with me, but say the above, what’s the difference?

 

[Smackpixi]

@Maxperson

you said”

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.”

I’m asking, are you sure?

I’m not trying to override the DMG or the DMs ability to deny rolls. But, if 20 is an auto success, the only way for this rule to have meaning is if the player should be allowed to roll for something that the player’s stats say is impossible for them. Is that not correct?

If that’s correct, That then means they should get to roll on anything that SOMEONE could do. Anything that has a DC. Yes, they can’t roll on impossible things, and a DM also can deny a roll if they want, but if a DM denies a roll on a theoretically possible thing (anything with a DC) they are overriding the 20 auto success rule, which is their prerogative sure, but is ignoring a rule.

which goes back to my point, rollable for one (possible, has a DC) is rollable for all (cause 20 will succeed).

How can a 20 auto success rule have any meaning otherwise?

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like this is a weird statement from you because this is exactly what I’ve been saying, and the only thing I’ve been trying to say, repeatedly, and you’ve done nothing but disagree with me.

You should let players roll on things they can’t do (can’t make the DC check) when the thing is theoretically possible (someone with a higher bonus could do it).

I’ve phrased this as, “If it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for everyone” and you’ve roundly rejected this because only the DM decides if there is a roll. Which I don’t disagree with, but the only reason to not call for a roll is if it’s absolutely impossible.

Before the new 20 auto succeeds rule, a DM could say, “nope, YOU, can’t” and deny the roll if it was just plain impossible or if it was impossible for that player (they couldn’t clear the DC). Now, they should only deny the roll if it’s just plain impossible, because a 20 succeeds on anything that is rollable (Possible for someone).

help me understand, why do you disagree with me, but say the above, what’s the difference?

No, because some rolls are gated by training. Not everyone can attempt a DC 20 lockpick check, only someone with Proficiency. Not everyone can roll every time. This is called gating rolls, and it is already an assumed norm in 5E, which informs the standard house rule and this proposed revision. Of you gate according to the DMG guidance and common sense, this will never cause an issue with plausibility. DC is not the only tool available.

 

[Smackpixi]

No, because some rolls are gated by training. Not everyone can attempt a DC 20 lockpick check, only someone with Proficiency. Not everyone can roll every time.

Sure, ok. But you’re just inventing new classes of checks due to the new 20 rule. Before there was impossible (no one can do), impossible for you (you can’t pass the DC check), and possible (you can pass the DC check).

I’m saying, the second one is gone, impossible for you is no longer a thing cause of 20 auto success.

you’re saying there’s now more classes of checks: impossible (impossible for anyone), impossible for you (you can’t pass DC check and DM says you can’t try to roll a 20), theoretically impossible for you but maybe possible (you can’t pass a DC check but DM will allow you to try for a 20), and the plain ole possible (can pass DC check).

All fine, but lets be clear, when it’s possible for someone to get a 20 and DM says the PC can’t try for a 20, they’re overriding the 20 success rule. Not saying doing so doesn’t make sense, and isn’t within DM prerogative, just saying, rule is being bypassed cause of the rule that DM decides everything.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, ok. But you’re just inventing new classes of checks due to the new 20 rule. Before there was impossible (no one can do), impossible for you (you can’t pass the DC check), and possible (you can pass the DC check).

I’m saying, the second one is gone, impossible for you is no longer a thing cause of 20 auto success.

you’re saying there’s now more classes of checks: impossible (impossible for anyone), impossible for you (you can’t pass DC check and DM says you can’t try to roll a 20), theoretically impossible for you but maybe possible (you can’t pass a DC check but DM will allow you to try for a 20), and the plain ole possible (can pass DC check).

All fine, but you’re just saying you’ll sometimes ignore 20 success rule.

No...that's not anything new, this is already the norm in 5E disregarding the new autosuccess variant: some checks are gated behind proficiency to prevent them from being tried. This isn't a kludge to allow for this new rule, itt's ow the game operates already. There is already the category of "gated behind proficiency training," so you can have a DC 15 or 20 check that someone with +5 on the relevant attribute cannot attempt. Again, not new, already standard in 5E...but I can see why missing thst would make this new tule seem wonky, when it really doesn't cause any narrative disconnect if gating is applied by the DM.

 

[Smackpixi]

No...that's not anything new, this is already the norm in 5E disregarding the new autosuccess variant: some checks are gated behind proficiency to prevent them from being tried. This isn't a kludge to allow for this new rule, itt's ow the game operates already. There is already the category of "gated behind proficiency training," so you can have a DC 15 or 20 check that someone with +5 on the relevant attribute cannot attempt. Again, not new, already standard in 5E...but I can see why missing thst would make this new tule seem wonky, when it really doesn't cause any narrative disconnect if gating is applied by the DM.

Interesting. Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?

We've gone over this in wither this or the other ongoing thread, but it's in several places in the DMG. It's frequently used in the official Adventures, and it how the designers run the game if you watch them.

Does the game work if you don't do that? Yeah, sure. But it's not new, and it's precisely because of that norm that so many people already use autosuccess as a houserule without causing any issues..

 

[Smackpixi]

We've gone over this in wither this or the other ongoing thread, but it's in several places in the DMG. It's frequently used in the official Adventures, and it how the designers run the game if you watch them.

Does the game work if you don't do that? Yeah, sure. But it's not new, and it's precisely because of that norm that so many people already use autosuccess as a houserule without causing any issues..

Uh huh, there is no rule about denying checks due to lack of proficiency. Able to admit I’m wrong, but tell me where in DMG it is. If you can’t find, what is your reasoning for denying a check when there is a DC other than DM fiat?

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not trying to override the DMG or the DMs ability to deny rolls. But, if 20 is an auto success, the only way for this rule to have meaning is if the player should be allowed to roll for something that the player’s stats say is impossible for them. Is that not correct?

No, it's not correct.

The DMG says that the DM determines if a roll is impossible. It provides no limitations to that, which means that he can pick any criteria he wants, including allow rolls of 20 to succeed where otherwise the bonuses wouldn't be able to reach the target DC. The new rule has meaning, because a lot of DMs will allow such rolls. Some will always allow it. Others like me will allow it sometimes when they think there's a chance.

If that’s correct, That then means they should get to roll on anything that SOMEONE could do. Anything that has a DC. Yes, they can’t roll on impossible things, and a DM also can deny a roll if they want, but if a DM denies a roll on a theoretically possible thing (anything with a DC) they are overriding the 20 auto success rule, which is their prerogative sure, but is ignoring a rule.

The example I pointed out earlier is very applicable here. There's a 21 foot chasm. The strength 20 guy has to roll an easy check to make it across to the other side. The strength 3 guy has no chance whatsoever, even with a natural 20. He can go 3 feet and no amount of 20's is going to give him 7 times his normal jump distance.

Just because one person gets to roll, does not mean that everyone does.

 

[clearstream]

Interesting. Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?

You raise a fair point. I believe one can reasonably construe text such as PHB154 to say that some checks should be gated by proficiency with tools, but I am not personally aware of any core game text spelling out gating by proficiency with skills.

That aside, I think what you are getting at is whether "so inappropriate or impossible" in DMG237 is delimited in any way. Unfortunately, the text offers meagre exemplification - "hitting the moon with an arrow". A group could take that with justice to imply - only undertakings impossible for anyone. As you suggest. Or they could rely on the more general text that leaves it up to the DM.

FWIW I don't believe it is the intent of the 5e rules design that the game should be played the same way at every table.