Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Anyone using the automatic success DMG variant rules for skills?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7333047" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>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... </p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>[CODE][table="width: 500"]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]Ab.score[/B][/td]</p><p> [td][B]Rolling[/B][/td]</p><p> [td][B]Passive[/B][/td]</p><p> [td][B]Variant[/B][/td]</p><p> [td][B]Variant[/B]*[/td]</p><p> [td][B]Variant[/B]**[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]10[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]1+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]10+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]5[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]11[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]1+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]10+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]6[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]12[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]2+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]11+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]7[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]13[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]2+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]11+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]8[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]14[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]3+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]12+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]9[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]15[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]3+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]12+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]10[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]16[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]4+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]13+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]11[/td]</p><p> [td]11[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]17[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]4+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]13+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]12[/td]</p><p> [td]12[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]18[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]5+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]14+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]13[/td]</p><p> [td]13[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]19[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]5+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]14+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]14[/td]</p><p> [td]14[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[tr]</p><p> [td][B]20[/B][/td]</p><p> [td]6+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]15+prof[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p> [td]15[/td]</p><p>[/tr]</p><p>[/table]</p><p></p><p>*when proficient, levels 1-10</p><p>**when proficient, levels 11-20</p><p>[/CODE]</p><p></p><p>Has anyone used this DMG variant? How did it play out? Did you also use passive checks or not?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7333047, member: 1465"] 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: [CODE][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 [/CODE] Has anyone used this DMG variant? How did it play out? Did you also use passive checks or not? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Anyone using the automatic success DMG variant rules for skills?
Top
