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

[Charlaquin]

Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.

This is a good point. I was neutral on this change, but you’ve just convinced me it’s a net positive.

 

[Nikosandros]

I approve the change for saves. I'm far less convinced about ability checks, but then again I find the d20 roll to swingy for them.

 

[Ibrandul]

I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.

The new rule requires either:

(A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else

(B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.

 

[MarkB]

It's worth mentioning the new Inspiration model in this context. Players will more often come into a situation with inspiration in hand, and will also be more willing to spend it, which in turn means that they're more likely to take a punt at something they wouldn't normally be good at - and when they do, their chances of rolling a 20 are higher.

I'm largely in favour of this rule, because (a) it will be mostly good fun, and it unifies the mechanics across all three types of d20 test, and (b) it won't actually make a difference very often. But I do acknowledge that there will be edge cases where it will cause outcomes that don't sit well in the fiction.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The new rule requires either:

(A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else

(B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.

I guess, but let me say as someone who has always played by this "new rule" that the scenarios you worry about are few and far between, and that the only mods a DM needs to be aware of for practical purposes are the really extraordinary ones that a DM is probably aware of anyway because players with a +11 to skill are going to use that skill every damned chance they get.

 

[Ibrandul]

I'm largely in favour of this rule, because (a) it will be mostly good fun, and it unifies the mechanics across all three types of d20 test, and (b) it won't actually make a difference very often. But I do acknowledge that there will be edge cases where it will cause outcomes that don't sit well in the fiction.

Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.

I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.

When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case often, not seldom, with the new rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.

The new rule requires either:

(A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else

(B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.

Personally, I don’t expect this to come up much. I mostly use DCs in the 10-20 range, so it’s only tier-1 characters with a penalty in the relevant ability score and no applicable proficiency who will be affected positively by this change when it comes to ability checks. YMMV.

 

[rooneg]

So, on one hand I like the “just don’t let them roll if they can’t succeed” answer, but there are drawbacks to it. You have to TELL the player that they can’t succeed, and I can envision situations where that would be a problem. Are they somewhat contrived situations? Yeah, maybe, but they do exist, and they weren’t a problem before.

Not to mention, it quickly runs into questions of what qualifies as “impossible”? I can envision tasks that some characters should have a very slim chance of succeeding at (the Arcana trained Wizard might know that obscure thing), but I don’t ever want the untrained in Arcana Fighter to be able to succeed. Now maybe they’re going to solve this with VERY clear rules about how the DM should adjudicate who can make a check and so forth, but it’s not clear this is better than the old way, other than the fact that it “solves” the problem that lots of people can’t be bothered to read the rules.

 

[MarkB]

Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.

I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.

When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case often, not seldom, with the new rule.

Again, though, the DM gets to decide when a roll is called for. You can simply state that this isn't something a person could have heard about by chance - only someone who's actually studied history (i.e. has proficiency) might possibly know about it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.

I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.

When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case often, not seldom, with the new rule.

Yeah, you might want to houserule auto-success away in that case. Running with enough DCs over 20 that the mathematical oddities of auto-success 5% of the time would bother anyone seems like an outlier from most people's 5e games, so I think this rule will work fine at the vast majority of tables. But if you run a different style of game, awesome. It's the simplest possible sort of house rule to make (which is the whole reason they have to align the core rules with how most will people play the game in order for them to actually remain the standard rules).