D&D 5E Anyone using the automatic success DMG variant rules for skills?

[Charlaquin]

We use it and it works just fine. If I want tension and drama from a skill check, I'll add it.

Generally, I don't need tension and drama when Muscles the Barbarian with 20 Strength wants to move a rock from in front of a cave. He's strong enough that he just does it. If it's up to Wimpy the Wizard to move the rock, that's another matter. It reduces unnecessary rolls and allows players fulfill a niche role.

If I feel I need drama in the situation, such as there's a horde of orcs firing arrows at you and breathing down your neck, then I might make Muscles roll because he's not focused, harried, and maybe his hand will slip despite his great strength.

I just feel like I don’t need that optional rule to tell me a roll isn’t needed in those situations. Muscles can move the rock. Wimpy can’t. There isn’t even a DC to compare their scores to, because there was no uncertainty in the outcome of those actions that a check would be required to resolve.

 

[abirdcall]

We use it and it works just fine. If I want tension and drama from a skill check, I'll add it.

Generally, I don't need tension and drama when Muscles the Barbarian with 20 Strength wants to move a rock from in front of a cave. He's strong enough that he just does it. If it's up to Wimpy the Wizard to move the rock, that's another matter. It reduces unnecessary rolls and allows players fulfill a niche role.

If I feel I need drama in the situation, such as there's a horde of orcs firing arrows at you and breathing down your neck, then I might make Muscles roll because he's not focused, harried, and maybe his hand will slip despite his great strength.

With the exception of having a low strength character roll for moving the boulder, that is exactly how the game works without this rule.

Just seems redundant.

In the rules either the low strength character can move the boulder, so they do, or they can't, so they just fail. If there is no consequence for failure there is no point in rolling.

 

[Rhenny]

I just feel like I don’t need that optional rule to tell me a roll isn’t needed in those situations. Muscles can move the rock. Wimpy can’t. There isn’t even a DC to compare their scores to, because there was no uncertainty in the outcome of those actions that a check would be required to resolve.

I feel the same way you do, Charlaquin. I like to take into consideration what the scores are, but for the most part, if it seems logical for the intelligent wizard to understand something or the strong fighter or barbarian to be able to move or break something, I just handwave it as done. Only when it is dramatically appropriate and usually more unusual will I call for a roll.

 

[5ekyu]

I agree 100%. If you are first assessing whether an action has a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and a meaningful cost or consequence for failure, and calling for a roll only when it has all three, the number of situations where this rule is even likely to come up is pretty low. And when it does, it’s actually removing a potential for failure that should logically exist, removing a source of dramatic tension that should rightly be there.

See here is where we may differ.

What i think the auto-success rules are doing is providing a **consistent** relation between "character abilities" and the reasonable "has a reasonable chance..." present in two of your three cases

Consider - the party needs to cross a 15' chasm over water to string a rope for the group to cross.
Consequence for failure - oh yeah.
Chance of success and failure both exist and reasonable - well... it depends.

For the fighter paragon with strength 16 - running long jump means no chance of failure exists since he has a base 16' jump. So barring some odd circumstance there is no check required.
but for the STR 8 sorcerer, there is a definite "chance of failure" and perhaps even a certainty, depending on how much leeway the Gm gives the STR(ATH) check listed ability to jump unusually long distances.

So, this is an example where it is gegerally accepted that the characrer abilities can and should be considered in whether or not there is a chance of failure/success.

it is also a case where, i think, hardly anybody would see the party saying "let the warrior do it and succeed" would not be any sort of "downside" caused by player who chose to match the appropriate character to whatever check is needed, but instead would just see it as common sense.

one can easily assume a time pressure added in - say a need to get everyone across inside say 2d6 rounds before bad guys catch up or even that every round spent something else bad happens the party wants to prevent.

The rules for this challenge seem to embrace the concept that choosing the right character with the right character traits (not just the player-to-gm narrative of approach) can lead to certainty and no roll vs uncertainty and roll. (Note that the strength may be acquired by different means so it may not be a certainty when the scene is first encountered or described or even designed.)

But, hey, guess what, there are no such "automatic" success opportunities for a great many other ability checks that have a *consistent* defined relate-to-character ability mechanic.

Take a simple case of a locked door on the other side of the chasm. Figure we have a rogue with a 16 dex (same as the fighter had his strength give him an auto-succeed-quick jump) and proficiency in tools of course. Now with a +5 vs a lock of DC 10 and with time on the line many Gms would look at that and see:
Reasonable chance of failure - 20% if we use the mechanics as presented so yeah.
Reasonable chance of failure - 80% if we use the mechanics as presented
Consequence for failure - well, yeah, each round keeps others from going thru the door to stop that round by round bad stuff. So, drama round by round - just like there was the same drama for "how long to get across the chasm if we did not have an auto-succeed-quick-option."

Now, the difference is there were no mechanics defined under pick locks and Dex and so forth for "auto-pick-locks" as opposed to the ones for jump which give you a miminum auto-success determined by CHARACTER stats and then a roll for "unusually long" in athletics.

So, i do not see the auto-success rules by ability or proficiency vs DC as anything more than providing for Gms that want them and players that want them a consistent character stat related "minimum auto-success without extra time" just like they took the time to define for JUMP.

Now, you know, maybe some Gms find the jump rules "drama killing" or some Gms increase the width of gaps because of the auto-success resulting in "gap expansion" as an attempt to beat the jump rules and maybe some groups will find it somehow a problem to match up "strong guys" to "jump tasks" but overall i do not recall seeing many threads about it and so i really doubt that the consequences of a minimal auto-success derived from character stats are necessarily that dire.

So to me, the auto-success ability/proficiency rules are variants to treat other skills and tasks in much the same way as the "jump" task is handled in the rules - as a consistent character-driven break-point between auto-success and chance of fail/succeed.

i mean, to some it might seem odd that the fighter with just 16 strength can look at the 15' gap and **know** he will make it in one try while the rogue with 16 Dex and proficiency can look at the easy lock (Dc10) and not be as confident.

For those folks the auto-success rules put them on the same playing field as far as some rather obvious tasks are concerned.

I personally have no problem with providing everyone a fairly consistent way to look at their character stats, look at an obvious task and have a good idea of what will be good for auto-success in a quick need situation.

but others might. Others might want that "auto-success" to be kept out of the player-stat realm and kept as "gm declares" some even without reference to character stats - well except for jumps that is.

 

[Charlaquin]

See here is where we may differ.

We're never going to agree with this point, because we have fundamental differences when it comes to how we approach task resolution.

What i think the auto-success rules are doing is providing a **consistent** relation between "character abilities" and the reasonable "has a reasonable chance..." present in two of your three cases

These rules aren't needed to provide a consistent relation between what a character does (which is what I care about, not "character abilities, and this is our fundamental point of disagreement) and reasonable chance. All that's needed is a rational human being acting as DM, determining chances of success and failure based on goal, approach, and logic, and applying their rulings consistently.

Consider - the party needs to cross a 15' chasm over water to string a rope for the group to cross.
Consequence for failure - oh yeah.
Chance of success and failure both exist and reasonable - well... it depends.

For the fighter paragon with strength 16 - running long jump means no chance of failure exists since he has a base 16' jump. So barring some odd circumstance there is no check required.
but for the STR 8 sorcerer, there is a definite "chance of failure" and perhaps even a certainty, depending on how much leeway the Gm gives the STR(ATH) check listed ability to jump unusually long distances.

So, this is an example where it is gegerally accepted that the characrer abilities can and should be considered in whether or not there is a chance of failure/success.

it is also a case where, i think, hardly anybody would see the party saying "let the warrior do it and succeed" would not be any sort of "downside" caused by player who chose to match the appropriate character to whatever check is needed, but instead would just see it as common sense.

one can easily assume a time pressure added in - say a need to get everyone across inside say 2d6 rounds before bad guys catch up or even that every round spent something else bad happens the party wants to prevent.

The rules for this challenge seem to embrace the concept that choosing the right character with the right character traits (not just the player-to-gm narrative of approach) can lead to certainty and no roll vs uncertainty and roll. (Note that the strength may be acquired by different means so it may not be a certainty when the scene is first encountered or described or even designed.)

But, hey, guess what, there are no such "automatic" success opportunities for a great many other ability checks that have a *consistent* defined relate-to-character ability mechanic.

Sure, but I would argue that actions that don't have such an auto-success mechanic built in don't need them. I mean, jumping probably doesn't need it either, but jumping is kind of one of those things that people expect there to be a rule for in D&D. Probably because unlike almost everything else in D&D, it involves varying degrees of success. Ability checks just give you a simple pass/fail, but jumping has a metric - how far did you get, so people desire a system to tell them how many feet they make it.

Take a simple case of a locked door on the other side of the chasm. Figure we have a rogue with a 16 dex (same as the fighter had his strength give him an auto-succeed-quick jump) and proficiency in tools of course. Now with a +5 vs a lock of DC 10 and with time on the line many Gms would look at that and see:
Reasonable chance of failure - 20% if we use the mechanics as presented so yeah.
Reasonable chance of failure - 80% if we use the mechanics as presented
Consequence for failure - well, yeah, each round keeps others from going thru the door to stop that round by round bad stuff. So, drama round by round - just like there was the same drama for "how long to get across the chasm if we did not have an auto-succeed-quick-option."

Cool, sounds like we've got ourselves an action (open the door by picking the lock) with an uncertain outcome (80% chance of success, 20% chance of failure, and a limited number of attempts). Time to make a check to resolve that uncertainty.

Now, the difference is there were no mechanics defined under pick locks and Dex and so forth for "auto-pick-locks" as opposed to the ones for jump which give you a miminum auto-success determined by CHARACTER stats and then a roll for "unusually long" in athletics.

Nor should there be. Unlike with jumping, there's no way to partially open a door by picking the lock. You can partially clear a gap by jumping across it, so some mechanic might be desirable to determine how many feet a jumping character does make it. 5e just happens to handle that by saying "you make it X distance based on your Strength score."

So, i do not see the auto-success rules by ability or proficiency vs DC as anything more than providing for Gms that want them and players that want them a consistent character stat related "minimum auto-success without extra time" just like they took the time to define for JUMP.

Now, you know, maybe some Gms find the jump rules "drama killing" or some Gms increase the width of gaps because of the auto-success resulting in "gap expansion" as an attempt to beat the jump rules and maybe some groups will find it somehow a problem to match up "strong guys" to "jump tasks" but overall i do not recall seeing many threads about it and so i really doubt that the consequences of a minimal auto-success derived from character stats are necessarily that dire.

So to me, the auto-success ability/proficiency rules are variants to treat other skills and tasks in much the same way as the "jump" task is handled in the rules - as a consistent character-driven break-point between auto-success and chance of fail/succeed.

i mean, to some it might seem odd that the fighter with just 16 strength can look at the 15' gap and **know** he will make it in one try while the rogue with 16 Dex and proficiency can look at the easy lock (Dc10) and not be as confident.

For those folks the auto-success rules put them on the same playing field as far as some rather obvious tasks are concerned.

I personally have no problem with providing everyone a fairly consistent way to look at their character stats, look at an obvious task and have a good idea of what will be good for auto-success in a quick need situation.

but others might. Others might want that "auto-success" to be kept out of the player-stat realm and kept as "gm declares" some even without reference to character stats - well except for jumps that is.

I don't see a problem with it, I just don't see it as necessary. Frankly, I don't see it as necessary for jumping either, but it's there in the rules, and not as a variant rule, so I leave it in.

 

[5ekyu]

Charlaquin

I believe the following is where we agree...

1 - What a character does matters for determining between auto-success, auto-fail and chance/roll. (other constraints like risk associated with fail etc may also play a role.)
1a - For jump an auto-success case exists for what basically is a DC defined by distance = DC running for long jump and ability = DC+ auto-success.
2 - The character abilities (usually or always) matter when resolving the latter of those three - the chance roll.

Within 1, we may disagree on the thresholds and such for what we choose to go into each of the three categories but we each use all three and likely with a lot of variants in and amongst the three.

One place we clearly disagree is for me i dislike having one task within one skill "jumping within athletics" get some auto-mins and i like to have that "link Dc to abilities" apply to other skills which do not seem any more of an uncertainty than a long jump would be.


As for the concept that a reason for jump to have auto-success or results tied to abilities is that somehow it is not pass fail and the other are that is basically very limited or very selective perception.

Just like "did not make it the full distance but got partly across" can matter, so can many if not most other tasks.

just looking at strength lists

force open door - failure that got close could result in a slightly ajar door that you cannot move thru but which may allow spells or items passed thru, just like getting close to the egde of the chasm might get the gm to let you try to catch a branch lower down on that side - then climb up.

break free of bonds - might not break free fully but get a hand loose enough to get to a pocket or pouch or slide pick to friend.

Hang onto wagon while being pulled behind - is there ever a clearer case where "how long you hold on" pretty much matches up to "how far did you jump"? its literally "how far was i dragged before".

keep a boulder from rolling - slow it long enough for others to get out of path or maybe at least get time for advantage on save to avoid.

that is just a few - but the point is that many skills for i think many Gms have just as much "range for failure adjudication" as jump does and yet only jump gets the "look at ability for a minimum success" treatment.

IMO, frankly, they could have taken the jump auto-distance thing, replaced that with a sentence relating DC to distance for an athletics check and used the space for a standard minimum-success statement for all skills (with Gm exception disclaimer if needed) and established a consistent character-to-success link for minimal cases and been just fine. Then the basic ability check system would apply for the cases in doubt of course.

But to me, as a GM, i would feel myself being very much *inconsistent* if i told my players that for jump only the auto-success rules would include your ability and approach but that for other cases your ability would not factor in there but only once we reached the doubt stage.

But thats me.

i think lots of Gms would fall between you and i and others on outside of us as far as this is concerned.

But i find it very consistent if more skills than jump have auto-success tied to ability mechanics that the players know ahead of time and can even build for.

YMMV

 

[Charlaquin]

Charlaquin

I believe the following is where we agree...

1 - What a character does matters for determining between auto-success, auto-fail and chance/roll. (other constraints like risk associated with fail etc may also play a role.)
1a - For jump an auto-success case exists for what basically is a DC defined by distance = DC running for long jump and ability = DC+ auto-success.
2 - The character abilities (usually or always) matter when resolving the latter of those three - the chance roll.

Within 1, we may disagree on the thresholds and such for what we choose to go into each of the three categories but we each use all three and likely with a lot of variants in and amongst the three.

Sounds about right.

One place we clearly disagree is for me i dislike having one task within one skill "jumping within athletics" get some auto-mins and i like to have that "link Dc to abilities" apply to other skills which do not seem any more of an uncertainty than a long jump would be.

This sentence is a little difficult for me to parse, but if I’m interpreting it correctly, I don’t think we actually disagree on this point.

As for the concept that a reason for jump to have auto-success or results tied to abilities is that somehow it is not pass fail and the other are that is basically very limited or very selective perception.

Just like "did not make it the full distance but got partly across" can matter, so can many if not most other tasks.

just looking at strength lists

force open door - failure that got close could result in a slightly ajar door that you cannot move thru but which may allow spells or items passed thru, just like getting close to the egde of the chasm might get the gm to let you try to catch a branch lower down on that side - then climb up.

break free of bonds - might not break free fully but get a hand loose enough to get to a pocket or pouch or slide pick to friend.

Hang onto wagon while being pulled behind - is there ever a clearer case where "how long you hold on" pretty much matches up to "how far did you jump"? its literally "how far was i dragged before".

keep a boulder from rolling - slow it long enough for others to get out of path or maybe at least get time for advantage on save to avoid.

See, I think those things should be determined by the action. Ability checks, by the rules of D&D, are binary. Either you accomplish your goal or you don’t. Loosening the bonds on your wrists enough to wriggle the rest of the way free isn’t a matter of failing your Strength (Athletics) check by a narrow enough margin. It’s a matter of saying “I try to loosen the bonds enough to wriggle free” instead of “I try to break the bonds,” which might have a lower DC and/or a different check. I, for example, would set the DC on that 5 lower, and call for Dex (Athletics) instead of Strength (Athletics). Other DMs might rule differently on that, but as long as they apply their rulings consistently, the players can still count on the world responding to their actions in internally consistent ways.

Now, personally, I think the same logic could be applied to jumping. You don’t really need a “You can jump X feet automatically with Y Strength” rule for jumping. Frankly, you don’t even need a “jumping X feet requires a DC Y Strength (Athletics) check,” although the latter would make it much easier for DMs to set consistent DCs for checks to jump. But, the game has rules for how far you can jump automatically based on your Strength, so I use them.

that is just a few - but the point is that many skills for i think many Gms have just as much "range for failure adjudication" as jump does and yet only jump gets the "look at ability for a minimum success" treatment.

IMO, frankly, they could have taken the jump auto-distance thing, replaced that with a sentence relating DC to distance for an athletics check and used the space for a standard minimum-success statement for all skills (with Gm exception disclaimer if needed) and established a consistent character-to-success link for minimal cases and been just fine. Then the basic ability check system would apply for the cases in doubt of course.

I agree, as I stated above. I wasn’t saying that I think jumping needs an auto success threshold because of the more granular nature of success when it comes to jumping. I was saying that said granularity is probably the reason that many players and DMs desire a mechanic besides simple skill checks to determine jump distance, and D&D just happens to use an auto success threshold for that purpose. It would be more elegant design to handle jumping with ability checks just like everything else, but D&D has never been elegantly designed, and 5e in particular prioritized giving the customers what they wanted first and foremost, regardless of elegance or inelegance of what they wanted.

But to me, as a GM, i would feel myself being very much *inconsistent* if i told my players that for jump only the auto-success rules would include your ability and approach but that for other cases your ability would not factor in there but only once we reached the doubt stage.

But thats me.

It definitely is inconsistent, though I think the better solution would be to remove the auto-success threshold from jumping than to add one to everything else. And as the jumping auto success threshold is a core rule in the PHB, I’m not going to take it away from my players without very good reason, and “it would be more consistent with how other tasks work” isn’t a good enough reason for me.

 

[iserith]

Notably, jumping is part of the speed and movement rules, not the rules for ability checks. Ability checks come into play when trying to jump higher (not longer) than normal in some circumstances, over a low obstacle, or into difficult terrain, but those are related to those particular tasks, not to jumping in general.

 

[5ekyu]

Thanks Charlaquin.

Since jumping is one caae where they edtablish in the PHB distance for auto-success (in movement) and also jumping longer distances than that ( with ability checks) and that pretty much matches up well with the way they treat several of the ability based auto-success i see it as a simple normalization/standardization with really no downside that puts forward a fairly common approach. But i can see why some would not want that.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Sunseeker]

I feel the same way you do, Charlaquin. I like to take into consideration what the scores are, but for the most part, if it seems logical for the intelligent wizard to understand something or the strong fighter or barbarian to be able to move or break something, I just handwave it as done. Only when it is dramatically appropriate and usually more unusual will I call for a roll.

Besides, Bob made his character Stronk for a reason. If we force rolls upon Bob the Stronk even when whatever measure we're using (his average+score, his score, etc..) is well beyond the DC, all we're doing is setting up Bob to look not stronk, worse we're setting up Jill the Smart to use magic to solve the problem (or some other alternate resolution that makes Bob question why he bothers). And we don't want Bob to start asking that question. So if there's no gain in making Bob look not stronk, lets just let him look stronk. That's what he built his character to be good at. ***


***obviously the above is applicable to when Bob's "auto success" number is higher than the DC.