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

[Parmandur]

But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds

Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.

 

[Smackpixi]

It's all case by case. The DMG and PHB literally give no guidance on determining when something is possible, when it isn't and when it's automatic. The new rule in the UA gives a bit of guidance in saying that below 5 is automatic and above 30 is impossible, but doesn't go any further, leaving the DMG rules in place.

Just last night I had the players roll for an auto success on a 20 that couldn't be achieved any other way. I don't do it often, and it had nothing to do with the UA. The player rolled a 20 and the table erupted in cheers. It was great.

I still go back to my original point, they get to roll unless impossible for everyone under the new rule. that Said, I’m exhausted on this topic and, frankly, was never gonna use this New rule anyway.

 

[Parmandur]

I still go back to my original point, they get to roll unless impossible for everyone under the new rule. that Said, I’m exhausted on this topic and, frankly, was never gonna use this New rule anyway.

Give it a try, it's very simple in practice.

 

[Smackpixi]

Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.

I will pretty much disagree with this. Dm fiat is a hard wrong. The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency. DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D. It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have never argued this point. DM can do what they want. But if there’s not a mechanical reason, it’s fiat, it’s overriding the mechanical rules which now say give a roll on all theoretical possible things. Also 172 in my PHB is a picture. 173 maybe? But again nothing about lacking the ability to do a thing if not proficient.

No, I'm not one of the people claiming there's a specific rule about lack of proficiency. Then again, there doesn't need to be: since the DM decides when dice should be rolled (which the rules state several times, in both PHB and DMG) but without putting any constraints on the DM's reasoning, it follows that in some cases could be lack of proficiency.

The new rule does not override the DM's authority over when rolls are called for.

 

[Parmandur]

I will pretty much disagree with this. Dm fiat is a hard wrong. The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency. DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D. It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.

Sometimes the rules are "the DM needs to make a ruling." Which is the case for calling for checks, and following the process as laid out in the books and the example of the designers means this new rule literally changes nothing: call for a roll only when success is possible, and it will never make a difference.

 

[Smackpixi]

The new rule does not override the DM's authority over when rolls are called for.

Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.

Maybe people are using 'fiat' in different ways. I only use it when the DM is overriding a rule, which isn't the case here. It isn't "DM fiat" when the DM decides which PC a monster will attack. That's just...DMing. There isn't a rule that tells the DM how to make that choice; it's just up to their best judgment.

Same with deciding whether a roll is warranted. The DM might tell player #1 that a task has a DC of 10, and another player that they will automatically fail. Hopefully they have a good, behind-the-scenes reason for this, and aren't just being a jerk, because I agree that seems strange. But that's part of the DM's job description, and we might never know the real reason. If we suspect the DM is just being a jerk we should find a new DM.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.

No, it really doesn't. In practice, it shouldn't make any difference to whether a roll is allowed by a DM.

 

[Smackpixi]

Sometimes the rules are "the DM needs to make a ruling." Which is the case for calling for checks, and following the process as laid out in the books and the example of the designers means this new rule literally changes nothing: call for a roll only when success is possible, and it will never make a difference.

If you don’t think this rule changes anything, I think you’re not understanding it, but I’ve said my peace, go on playing as you were. If it’s actually implemented in two years, worry about it then