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

[GMforPowergamers]

…and yet, this new rule doesn’t really clear it up at all. Yes, a Nat 20 always succeeds on a skill check, unless there isn’t a skill check. Why isn’t there a skill check? Because I said so. But if there was a skill check, it would succeed. Yes. Can I do one in case I get a 20? No, you can’t because it’s not possible. But you said a Nat 20 always succeeds…

it’s a poorly written rule that further shows they need better writers.

funny aside. In one campaign a few years ago we made a joke about useing alchimist tools to make a potion of immortality... I looked at the Book DCs (I normally have my own DC idea)and by the book Nearly impossible is DC 30... so mostly as a joke I told the player it would be a month of work to JUST to try and the DC is 31. a few times he tried (once he got the + up to 8 and could cast guidance so in theory with a 20 he could make it... by the end of the campaign he had skill expertise in it, and a 22 int and a magic alchemical tool set... so he had a +19 to this roll... and with skill mastery (11th level rogue ability) and guidance he was guaranteed to make the potion and we ended the campaign with him becoming truly immortal.

During the campaign we had other PCs and NPCs try to make this as well... I had to find ways to get +11 or 12 and things like hiring muses (bards to give inspiration) useing these rules would lead to the weird 5% chance problem

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

this is teh step I am adverse to adding to my game

How many players do you have? Because I normally have 3-4, and it doesn't take long to check.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think the capabilities of the PC(s) in question should have any impact on the DC of the task. Opening this lock is THIS hard, regardless of who does it. It is up to the players to try and leverage their PC abilities to have an X percent chance of succeeding.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't think the capabilities of the PC(s) in question should have any impact on the DC of the task.

It doesn't impact the DC, it impacts whether or not they roll at all.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn't impact the DC, it impacts whether or not they roll at all.

Not even that. I don't know -- or care, frankly -- how many ability check boost spells, class abilities or items the PCs have. I call for a DC 23 strength check to move the statue. That's it. The players are responsible for figuring out how to get it done. I have too much to worry about to calculate their odds ahead of time.

 

[Ibrandul]

I've just pored over the relevant sections of the 5e PHB and DMG with a fine-tooth comb. Let me preface this by saying: no one is DMing the game wrong. My argument is only about RAW, and is intended to rebut the several folks who are saying that RAW forbid an ability check when a PC's stats are such that a nat 20 would fail the check.

On the contrary: When a player wants to attempt a task that is possible for a character in general but impossible for their PC because of their stats...according to 2014 RAW, the DM calls for an ability check.

Here's the PHB:

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." (PHB 174)

And here's the DMG:

"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. [Note: nothing about success here.] When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

• Is a task so easy and free of conflict that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate." (DMG 237; emphasis added)

There's a lot riding on that one, slim PHB passage for those who think DMs are never supposed to call an ability check if the PC's mods make it impossible to succeed on a nat 20. And this interpretation directly contradicts the DMG guidelines.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but if the DC is 30 or less a player is justified in getting a roll.

Not if the DM gates it another way. The DM decides when a roll happens in any given circumstance. Period. That's what the UA says.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the fundamental wellspring of disagreement here is that some DMs (myself, for one) think of ability check DCs as the difficulty that an indeterminate character would have performing the task. And it turns out that other DMs (Maxperson and UngainlyTitan, for two, if I understand them correctly) think of ability check DCs as determined relative to the particular character who wishes to perform the task.

No. If I'm going to gate a roll, it's usually going to be based around proficient or not. If you're proficient you get a roll. If you're not, it's impossible for you and you don't. I'm not really keen on different DCs for different PCs. That's too much work.

 

[Reynard]

Not if the DM gates it another way. The DM decides when a roll happens in any given circumstance. Period. That's what the UA says.

Why would you gate a roll? What sense does that make. If there is no chance of success, there's no DC and you don't waste your players' time suggesting there is.

Is seems like a solution in need of a problem and an idea that just makes GMing harder for new folks.

Here's how you GM: listen to what the players wants to do, set an abliity check and a DC, accept or deny a proficiency bonus, and roll. "Figure put how likely the playersare to succeed" is not in that process because that's not the job. You are giving a DC based on a neutral position. How hard is this thing, not how hard do I want it to be for my awesome story I wrote in my head before we played.

 

[edosan]

And here's the DMG:

"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. [Note: nothing about success here.] When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

• Is a task so easy and free of conflict that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate." (DMG 237; emphasis added)

That’s some clear wording there, they should have put that in the play test document.