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

[Greenstone.Walker]

For knowledge-type challenges, I often adjudicate success simply based on "is the character proficient?"

For example: Does the character recognise this heraldic symbol?
Are they proficient in History? If yes then they recognise it. If no then the player can make an Intelligence check.

 

[5ekyu]

just as an additional bit to consider...DMG Success at Cost allows for the option to turn a failed roll by 1-2 into a success by taking a hindrance or negative consequence.

While it is technically not an auto-success option it can go a ways towards solving a number of the low end failure issues without such a binary pass/fail.

Also easily adaptable for other trigger conditions.

So for example, a GM could rule that for ability checks where you have proficiency instead of a fail you get success and hindrance within certain DC ranges.

 

[Unwise]

My houserule is simply "If you would succeed by rolling a 5, then you do so automatically, in the abstinence of any hindering factors". This rule was brought into effect by the party trying to jump a tiny chasm, only requiring an 8DC. Three of them critically failed. Now they see any jump roll as being at least a 5-10% chance of death/maiming. W

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Good points.

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.

I noticed the same remark but I found it to be unconvincing... because IMHO the players group should match the appropriate character to whatever check is needed, it's the core idea of a roleplay game! Everyone has their own role and focus on that, rather than trying out everything.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

Yeah, it's a strange rule.

If there is no chance for failure (or consequence) then there is no roll.

 

[iserith]

I noticed the same remark but I found it to be unconvincing... because IMHO the players group should match the appropriate character to whatever check is needed, it's the core idea of a roleplay game! Everyone has their own role and focus on that, rather than trying out everything.

Yes, I expect players to always self-select into choosing tasks their characters are good at most of the time even without this rule. But we've surely seen posts on the forums or DMs in practice who, faced with something like a high passive Perception character (e.g. Observant feat), inflate the DCs in order to maintain what they perceive is a challenge. (A misunderstanding of what "challenge' means.) This variant may exacerbate the issue into other areas.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, it's a strange rule.

If there is no chance for failure (or consequence) then there is no roll.

I guess the intent could be to give DMs who are used to thinking of actions in terms of checks rather than in terms of what the character is doing in the fiction a way of assessing whether or not an action has a chance for failure. In that sense, I suppose this rule might be useful for the “players initiate their own checks” crowd.

 

[iserith]

I guess the intent could be to give DMs who are used to thinking of actions in terms of checks rather than in terms of what the character is doing in the fiction a way of assessing whether or not an action has a chance for failure. In that sense, I suppose this rule might be useful for the “players initiate their own checks” crowd.

I agree. It's pushing more of the DM's role of determining uncertainty to the system which may be desirable for some groups.

 

[toucanbuzz]

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.