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

[Parmandur]

The citation is all the memes, comics, and stories about nat 20s doing miracles, people correcting it, and other people being shocked that's not the rule.

WOTC made this rule because people played that way. And people played that way because they misinterpreted the rules since 5e isn't very clearly written. It's a direct shot against "natural language".

A lot of players didn't realize thst it was a houserule, but thst doesn't mean their DM didn't know. All the instances I am aware of were adopting the change consciously. And it works with 5E as written! It doesn't even change a single thing if checks are being gated. And if people are gating properly...thst suggests they read the rules.

 

[Branduil]

If there’s an adversarial relationship…if the player thinks the DM said no for reasons other than the good of the story…the problem is the relationship, not the rules. And no rules will ever fix that.

It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.

In practice, not really. "Bob, your Barbarian doesn't know Arcana, no roll for this" is really not that big in play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.

Yeah, that’s fair. Although I think the most common reason for that would be based on the misunderstanding of the rules & spirit of 5e as expressed in this thread: people will think they have a right to roll, hoping for a 20, and might think it’s arbitrary and unfair for the DM to say no.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yeah, that’s fair. Although I think the most common reason for that would be based on the misunderstanding of the rules & spirit of 5e as expressed in this thread: people will think they have a right to roll, hoping for a 20, and might think it’s arbitrary and unfair for the DM to say no.

At some point you just need to tell players “no.” Before it was ‘you’re not entitled to success just because you rolled a 20.’

Or embrace a new paradigm and decide the modifiers only affect probability ; all pcs have the same possibility space regardless of stats.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table. A very avoidable argument 95% of the time (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again! Or something else goes wrong.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table.

Not at my table. I mean, somebody might say something to see if I or one of the other DMs made a mistake, but if the answer is, "Nope, that's what happens" everybody would shrug and keep playing, wondering what mysterious thing is going on.

Why do you think it's a legitimate argument? I can only think of two reasons it would generate an argument:
1) Somebody misunderstands how the game works and thinks they have a right to roll.
2) Somebody doesn't trust the GM to be running a fair game.

There are legitimate reasons why one player gets to roll and the other automatically fails, and if you argue with the DM you are basically saying, "I don't believe there's a legitimate reason...prove it to me."

Um....no. Go find a DM you trust.

A very avoidable argument 95% of the time (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again! Or something else goes wrong.

Yeah, I'd probably do that in the case described. But maybe one of those other in-game situations I described applies, and it really is different for the two characters? Who knows? Certainly not the players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table. A very avoidable argument 95% of the time (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again! Or something else goes wrong.

Also, it's 99.75% of the time. Pally is probably in heavy armor.

 

[Lanefan]

Not at my table. I mean, somebody might say something to see if I or one of the other DMs made a mistake, but if the answer is, "Nope, that's what happens" everybody would shrug and keep playing, wondering what mysterious thing is going on.

Why do you think it's a legitimate argument? I can only think of two reasons it would generate an argument:
1) Somebody misunderstands how the game works and thinks they have a right to roll.

Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and knows they have a right to roll. I think this new rule will lead to that, ultimately.

2) Somebody doesn't trust the GM to be running a fair game.

There are legitimate reasons why one player gets to roll and the other automatically fails, and if you argue with the DM you are basically saying, "I don't believe there's a legitimate reason...prove it to me."

Exactly. It has nothing to do with trust overall but everything to do with (perceived) fairness in the moment. Sure, I could roll a 20 and still fail, at which point the reason for said failure will almost certainly become obvious right away in any case. But hey, I might get lucky and not fail; and given that I-as-player don't know that in advance*, let me roll.

The roll also informs both me and the DM as to the degree of failure - on a 1 here, maybe the Pally trips over a cat and falls on his face with a clash of armour likely heard two floors away (and maybe provides a great distraction for the rest of the party in the process!).

* - I never tell DCs etc. and would probably not play under a DM who routinely did - my character rarely if ever knows the exact odds, so neither should I.

 

[clearstream]

Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and knows they have a right to roll. I think this new rule will lead to that, ultimately.

My guess is that DM will still be expressly empowered by the game text to decide; and that will continue to be down to their discretion ("ask yourself".) I don't see it as likely that player authority will extend to a right to decide if they will roll.

Time will tell.