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

[Benjamin Olson]

Not to mention all the experts who will brainfart 5% of the time on DC5 checks.

Achieving the impossible gets all the attention, but failure is the side that actually I think unwary DMs not used to auto-fail will more often undermine their games by calling for rolls when they shouldn't.

As someone whose always done auto-fails on 1s I don't really use DC 5 checks unless I want it to be a "just don't get a 1" check.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks.

Well the first step may be to train players to not “ask to roll” and instead to describe what they do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This thread is in some serious need of the @iserith hammer. People seem to think 5e is 3e or something.

 

[Smackpixi]

A DC 30 could be impossible at first. But D&D 5e is a game of modifiers and rerolls. So a party can group features, items, allies, and aid to boost a roll.

So the DC to know the name of the demon summon by the BBEG would be secret and impossible to know without being a member of a group associated with the BBEG or the magic use of magic. Straight knowing it is DC 30 or DC25. Impossible for a typical level 5 party but with contacts, books, allies, mental magic, and divination magic. Great for adventuring.

But now, all 4 members roll and someone rolls a nat 20. "Oh the barmaid I dated once told me the name of 7 demon princes"
---
Not to mention all the experts who will brainfart 5% of the time on DC5 checks.

omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.

I was going to say that if it’s impossible for them to know then it’s impossible for them to know. Who called for dice to be rolled?

But I gotta admit I kind of like your answer, too.

 

[Reynard]

But now, all 4 members roll and someone rolls a nat 20. "Oh the barmaid I dated once told me the name of 7 demon princes"

On thing: I don't let every member of the party make a separate individual check for these things. We roll once. If it is something multiple people can help with,it's a group check or possibly someone getting advantage from the Help action.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Which is neat, I guess. And maybe it gives me some further insight into why I've had so many experienced players tell me that of all the campaigns they've ever played in, mine was the only one where the world felt real.

I heartily doubt that it has anything (or at least very little) to do with how you rule on ability checks, and more to do with some other (likely narrative) skills that you possess. I would expect it to be impossible to create a "real-feeling world" through purely mechanical means.

 

[Minigiant]

omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.

Usually it's either the players asking for info they could not know or actions they could not perform. The DC doesn't change. The circumstances could.

They could learn the lore but the DC is too high for their modifiers at the moment.

 

[Ibrandul]

I heartily doubt that it has anything (or at least very little) to do with how you rule on ability checks, and more to do with some other (likely narrative) skills that you possess. I would expect it to be impossible to create a "real-feeling world" through purely mechanical means.

I guess I do think it has at least something to do with the fact that I call for knowledge checks to see whether PCs know lore; and I do so when the PCs have been exposed to something lore-related that hasn't come up yet in the campaign. Maybe call them "DM-prompted ability checks" (to avoid calling them "passive checks," which is already taken). I started calling for these because of how the PHB describes those skills—they are used "to recall lore," and I always assumed that happens whether or not the players say "I want to try to recall lore."

I think this contributes in some way to a "reality-effect" regarding the campaign setting. Maybe it's not a big way, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is far more interesting to ask why that person with no training knew that thing. Maybe they used to date a wizard who never stopped talking about that thing. Awesome -- now we know more about the PC, which is always good, and the GM has something potentially actionable (one of the villain's henchman turns out to be the old girlfriend!). I am a firm believer that weird die results are opportunities for interesting moments and details to be added to the game.

Which is why I only do it for some rolls and not others. I need to feel that it would be trained only for me to gate it that way.