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

[Parmandur]

Here's another thing.

If DMs didn't read the rule before that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they going to read rules now to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?

Oh man.
This could be really disastrous.

That assumes that people using the autosuccess variant were doing so accidentally, rather than intentionally. And in practice the houserule works because people use gating.

 

[Parmandur]

I have never heard of Auto Success/Fail until I was listening to Legends of the Multiverse. I THINK and those who watch Critical Role and other you tube casts can correct me. I think most groups use it because the famous podcast use it. So it becomes standard because the cool kids are doing it. I DON'T Like the auto pass fail.

Yes, Matt Mercer uses this...but he got it from the hivemind when he picked upn5E, thought it looked like a cool houserule.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a minor point of dissent, but I would say that in a playtest it is especially important to play what you think they meant. In a way, that's part of the playtest: is the effect of the rule clear to players? How do they construe it?

They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not. Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest. You test what they write and give feedback on that. Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.

 

[Parmandur]

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?

It has been referenced in this very thread, I'mnot going tonrepeat it. Admittedly, it could be more clear in the DMG, but it is there in several places. Additionally, it is a standard part of how the designers play the game: just because a check has a DC doesn't mean that everyone can roll. That's what you are missing about this rule change: if it doesn't make sense for one character to succeed...don't let them roll. It's very simple.

 

[Parmandur]

They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not. Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest. You test what they write and give feedback on that. Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.

Crawford seemed pretty confident about this rule change: dollars to donuts this will make it into the new PHB, since it is already such a normal houserule.

 

[clearstream]

They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not. Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest. You test what they write and give feedback on that. Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.

Oh, I agree that folk should follow the rule as written to play-test. I just don't think folk all construe the rule as written in the same way. Perforce, they go with the rule as construed.

Play-test can be revealing about norms for construal.

 

[Maxperson]

The fear is they won't read it and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.

It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with so many rerolls.

Portent is three rolls for one specific type of wizard that are as likely to be low as high. Inspiration is a once in a while thing that applies advantage to one roll. Lucky also applies to three rerolls. So lets look at how it would play out.

Portent:

OOC: Portent: 1D20 = [6] = 6 1D20 = [17] = 17 1D20 = [13] = 13

so one low, one middle high and one high number.

Combine that with 3 re-rolls and one inspiration and an 8 strength and you're probably missing every hard check of 20 as it's unlikely the wizard has chosen athletics with his 8 strength. Maaaaaaybe he succeeds once. That hardly allows the wizard to "reliably be the juggernaut" and the 8 int PC isn't even a conjurer, so he doesn't even have that to help him be Einstein.

The more rolls you give, the less "reliable" these PCs get.

 

[Maxperson]

Crawford seemed pretty confident about this rule change: dollars to donuts this will make it into the new PHB, since it is already such a normal houserule.

Sure, but they seemed pretty confident about removing alignment as well. Feedback can change their confidence level.

 

[Parmandur]

Y

Sure, but they seemed pretty confident about removing alignment as well. Feedback can change their confidence level.

Yeah, we'll see. Time will tell. I think it will make it into the final Core.

 

[Branduil]

JFC is this still going on? No, this is not DM setting the rules this is DM following the rules, which is that the DM first determines whether the attempt is automatically successful or a failure, and if neither might set a DC and ask for a roll. Note that it’s not determining whether it’s “impossible” but whether success or failure is automatic. Those are two different things and the distinction is important: the task does not have to be impossible for the DM to rule it an automatic failure.

Example (with the caveat that in practice I tell players the odds and give them a chance to change their minds):

Rogue: “I will try to sneak across the room just as the guard turns his back.”
DM: “That’s gonna be tough. Give me a dexterity(stealth) roll. DC 30.”
Rogue: “I’m +11, so….30!”
Paladin: “I’ll try, too.”
DM: “The guard sees you.”
Paladin: “Hey, wait! Don’t I get to roll?”
DM: “Nope.”
Paladin: “But I have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding!”
DM: “One in four hundred, actually. IF I asked for a roll. Which I’m not.”

Now, who knows why the DM didn’t ask for a roll. Maybe the situation/environment has changed in a way the players don’t realize. Maybe the guard is some kind of fey that can’t see elves. Maybe the guard did see the rogue but is under orders to let just one person through. Maybe the DM is mad at Larry for taking the last Mountain Dew. Maybe he hates gnome paladins. Maybe he hates the new rule. IT DOESN’T MATTER.

This is not DM fiat overriding the rules. It is literally what the book says to do.

EDIT: And I’ll add that if you are correct, and the player has some kind of “right” to roll, it means the DM would have to justify the ruling, potentially giving away information the players aren’t supposed to have.

This is a good example because it also shows why I don't like the rule. Yes, it's possible to run the new rule this way, but this creates an adversarial relationship between the player and DM because now every time the DM has to explicitly disallow someone from making a roll, whereas before they could have just let the player roll (and fail).