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

[Li Shenron]

The latest couple of threads on passive checks got me thinking that there is a variant rule for ability checks in the DMG, which I never tried out...

The variant basically grants you automatic success to a skill/ability check of a certain DC if you have some minimum ability score (DC+5), or if you are proficient (in which case the bonus doesn't matter, you autosucceed at DC 10 or lower).

When you allow a passive check, you automatically succeed at DC = 10 + ab.mod + prof.bonus, so the DMG variant rule works similarly but always sets the autosuccess DC to a lower value (with a tiny exception if you're level 11-12 and you have no ability score bonus). So it could actually be an alternative for the DM who thinks the passive checks are too powerful.

If you don't use passive checks nor the automatic success variant, we can say you automatically succeed at DC = 1 + ab.mod + prof.bonus, but the books generally suggest to ignore low DCs altogether and make everyone normally autosucceed at all DC 5 checks.

If I have done my homeworks right, here's a summary of the DC at which a character automatically succeeds when allowed to use each rule, as a function of the ability score:

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
	[td][B]Ab.score[/B][/td]
	[td][B]Rolling[/B][/td]
	[td][B]Passive[/B][/td]
	[td][B]Variant[/B][/td]
	[td][B]Variant[/B]*[/td]
	[td][B]Variant[/B]**[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]10[/B][/td]
	[td]1+prof[/td]
	[td]10+prof[/td]
	[td]5[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]11[/B][/td]
	[td]1+prof[/td]
	[td]10+prof[/td]
	[td]6[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]12[/B][/td]
	[td]2+prof[/td]
	[td]11+prof[/td]
	[td]7[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]13[/B][/td]
	[td]2+prof[/td]
	[td]11+prof[/td]
	[td]8[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]14[/B][/td]
	[td]3+prof[/td]
	[td]12+prof[/td]
	[td]9[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]15[/B][/td]
	[td]3+prof[/td]
	[td]12+prof[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]10[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]16[/B][/td]
	[td]4+prof[/td]
	[td]13+prof[/td]
	[td]11[/td]
	[td]11[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]17[/B][/td]
	[td]4+prof[/td]
	[td]13+prof[/td]
	[td]12[/td]
	[td]12[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]18[/B][/td]
	[td]5+prof[/td]
	[td]14+prof[/td]
	[td]13[/td]
	[td]13[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]19[/B][/td]
	[td]5+prof[/td]
	[td]14+prof[/td]
	[td]14[/td]
	[td]14[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td][B]20[/B][/td]
	[td]6+prof[/td]
	[td]15+prof[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
	[td]15[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

*when proficient, levels 1-10
**when proficient, levels 11-20

Has anyone used this DMG variant? How did it play out? Did you also use passive checks or not?

 

[delericho]

I haven't used it, but I've been toying with something similar. I would be interested in what others have to say on this topic.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I combine the DMG rules: If you are proficient in an ability check, you automatically get a basic level of success equal to your ability score -5.

I use that extensively with the Intelligence skills as a sort of passive knowledge test, but I also use it for any non-opposed ability check.

Works great for setting a minimum bar for trained characters without turning everything into an auto success.

 

[TallIan]

I tend to focus more on the consequences of failure than the probabilities of success. Unless there is a specific and time dependent result of failure I will usually assume success and use the roll as an indicator of the degree of failure/success, even if that is purely descriptive.

eg.
Picking a lock of DC 10, without guards on the door. If the player rolls a 8, I'll just say, "You struggle with the lock for a minute, scraping your knuckles a little, but you eventually get it open." If the player rolls really low, say 2, I might have his lock picks bend and become harder to use.

Picking a lock of DC 10, with guards on the door however, becomes more dangerous and a slight failure (roll 8) might cause some noise that could alert the guards. A really low roll (like a 2) would be a failure, as the PC's now have to explore another option - like breaking down the door.

Its only if they PC's are trying to escape while in initiative, that I would really worry about the difference between rolling just below the DC and passing, since simply describing that "it takes longer" doesn't really work. I find this approach improves the flow of a session as there is nothing more irritating than spending 15 minutes trying to get through a door that has nothing on the other side worth spending 15 minutes on, because the rogue player rolled a bunch of ones in a row.

For something like knowledge checks, I would set various DC's to give progressively more information; "You see a painting of a man on a horse in front of some soldiers."; "You see a painting of the battle of Coldwater Rock."; "You see a painting of Lord Rendale after he defeated the invading armies of Grell at Coldwater Rock. He was wounded in the battle and never fully recovered, unable to fight he lived the rest of his life in solitude and declining fame contributing to his families fall from power."

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I use standard passive checks for practically every skill check. It started as a rebuttal to games where the DM had us roll constantly and I realized I was asking for too many skill checks myself. It was adding nothing to the game, it made the PCs into Keystone Kop-like idiots when the inevitably failed a bunch of checks, and frankly I was getting tired of it.

I wanted to interject player agency back into the game. A PC can either climb a wall or not. If they can, the interesting part becomes how that turn that capability into their advantage. If they can't, the interesting part becomes figuring out other avenues and options to take. Rolling for success just muddles everything and wastes time.

I do have PCs roll for opposed checks as well as actions taken that are otherwise filled with dramatic tension or fraught circumstances (such as if they were struck while climbing and I wanted to give them a chance to catch themselves before falling or if they had to pick a lock quickly with a demon about to seize them).

You'll be amazed at how much fun not rolling dice is.

 

[AndruC]

I definitely use this. My DCs are never as precise as what you have in your table there, but the rogue with Expertise in Perception? You bet he's going to be the one that notices the extra details in whatever room they enter, without a roll.

"The large chamber you've entered is mostly bare, aside from a few ramshackle crates smashed in the corner, and a desk, long since abandoned at the far back of the room, covered in refuse. <Rogue> you notice a number of pages on the desk that aren't quite as dust-covered as the rest of the desk top. A few vaguely shaped footprints have been left in the dust, near the back wall. No prints lead to the doorway you've just entered from."

This allows the rogue to feel a little extra special, and it explicitly rewards them for their decision to put Expertise into Perception. Choice is good, but it has to feel meaningful.

 

[iserith]

I don't use it because I feel it's a solution to a problem that is actually occurring with the DM's means of determining uncertainty rather than a problem with the game itself. The example it gives is the "ludicrous" result of the rogue knocking down the door the fighter couldn't. What it leaves out is the context surrounding this situation which may help determine whether the result was uncertain at all. If the party, for example, isn't concerned with time or noise or anything else - basically there's no meaningful consequence of failure - then the fighter just succeeds with no reference to mechanics in my view. The fighter might also be able to retry indefinitely in which case the rule on retries kicks in and the fighter has automatic success anyway. As well, since the DM decides whether a check is made (passive or otherwise), if I am bothered about an outcome where the rogue busts down the door the fighter could not, I can just decide the rogue's attempt fails outright.

The DMG also points out a downside: Once an ability score gets to 20, checks of DC 15 and lower become automatic successes. Smart players will then just match the appropriate character to whatever check is needed, which may cause DMs who want to include risk of failure into the equation to boost DCs which defeats the purpose of the variant in the first place.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I don't use Passive stuff other than for Perception and Insight. That said, I have my own method that differentiates the degree of success/failure for Skill checks, but not for Ability Score checks (I figure even a guy with a 20 dex messes up some times; go on YouTube and search for "pro Olympic athlete fails" or something... ).

My method relies quiet heavily on DM adjudication and trust. If you have players (or a player) who wants the RAW to trump RAI if at all possible...this probably won't work for you. Anyway...the Degree of Success/Failure is dependent on the players roll, as well as the PC's knowledge/skill. It works like this...

If the PC does NOT have a Skill (so is 'untrained'; doesn't get Prof bonus), and succeeds: his success will be minimal unless a Natural 20 pops up. In that case it's one of those "I can't believe you just pulled that off!". For example, a PC without Survival just climbs out of the river...it's 1am, he's wet, tiered and cold. The DC is 12. He rolls a 17. DM: "You pull yourself up on shore. You fumble around in the moonlight for a bit but manage to find an old log that is slightly sheltered from the wind, but their is soft moss around it. You take an hour or so, but manage to get some sort of minimal shelter where you take off some of your wet clothes to dry a bit and use branches, leaves and moss to eventually warm ever so slightly. You fall asleep, fitfully, but don't die".

If the PC DOES have a Skill (it's 'trained'; he gets Prof bonus), and succeeds: His success will be at least 'as expected for someone that knows what they are doing, possibly better based on the roll, with a Natural 20 being a "perfect success". DM: "You pull yourself up on shore. You immediately head to a bow in the river that you can make out. After about 20 minutes you have a nice lean-to by an old log, some moss to pad the ground, some dry twigs and sticks, a few decent rocks, and some nice branches with lots of pine needles on it to block out any wind. After another 10 minutes or so you've managed to get a fire going. You take off your clothes to dry and settle in for the night. You've had worse nights, so this isn't so bad".

Pretty much the opposite for failures. The guy without the Skill could very well get sick, take damage, or even die. The guy with the Skill probably gets the sniffles, might take minimum damage, but most likely will not die except in the most extreme of conditions.

This method rewards PC's that have a Skill...not ones that simply have high Ability Scores. But, as I said, it relies heavily on DM adjudication.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Satyrn]

My autosuccess rule basically boils down to "if I'm gonna set the DC below 10, I might as well just skip the check and call it success."

Edit: And when it comes to passive checks, my rule tends to be "If I'm gonna set a DC, I'm gonna call for a roll."

I will make an exception to those rules, but that's rare enough I can't recall ever doing so.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't use explicitly the system listed, but I've always felt that if you are both Proficient and your average (10+score) is higher than the DC I set, you auto-succeed. And as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] says, if the DC is less than 10, I don't bother with a check at all.