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

[FitzTheRuke]

I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change". It's because their not thinking about whether a task is possible in a general sense, but whether it is possible for a given character to make the dc given their particular bonus. I don't think the game designers were worried about that particular gradient. I can see how sometimes it may have occurred in O5e that a DM would call for a check that was impossible for a given character to make even if they rolled a 20, and in 1D&D (assuming the rule is kept) they will now make it.

Is this scenario common enough to be bothered by? That I am not sure. I mean, feel free to be bothered by it if you like, I'm not gonna tell you how to feel.

As far as niche protection goes, I think the PC with the highest bonus in a task is most often going to be asked to make the attempt (in a cooperative group), so they will still be the one to catch the glory most of the time (and of course, they'll hit the lower DCs much more often too!)

Personally, I was fine with the old rule (where 20's meant nothing but a high-roll for ability checks) but I can recall times that it's happened that players were disappointed by it. I guess the new way will fix that, even if it annoys some DMs.

 

[Smackpixi]

I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change".

I truly don’t. I think people are being purposly obtuse or are functionally something. it’s Obvious, easy to understand, and not a big deal but omg woah if any one moves the cheese of A D&D dm look out.

 

[Maxperson]

I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change". It's because their not thinking about whether a task is possible in a general sense, but whether it is possible for a given character to make the dc given their particular bonus. I don't think the game designers were worried about that particular gradient. I can see how sometimes it may have occurred in O5e that a DM would call for a check that was impossible for a given character to make even if they rolled a 20, and in 1D&D (assuming the rule is kept) they will now make it.

I've done both since 3e. Sometimes something is possible on a longshot, even if the bonuses aren't there. Success on a 20 was my go to. Very rarely something was still possible, but a very, very longshot. Two 20's in a row was asked for then. Most of the time if the bonuses aren't there, the PC is going to fail. It's a case by case thing.

 

[Umbran]

omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore

Mod Note:
This is supposed to be a family place. Please clean up your language.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've done both since 3e. Sometimes something is possible on a longshot, even if the bonuses aren't there. Success on a 20 was my go to. Very rarely something was still possible, but a very, very longshot. Two 20's in a row was asked for then. Most of the time if the bonuses aren't there, the PC is going to fail. It's a case by case thing.

I think that a lot of people rule it that way. According to Crawford on the interview video, they wanted to make this rule change because they found that "most" players and DMs already did it (or at least expected it to be) that way. I'm sure I have (though most of the time I don't set DCs. I ask for a roll, and then I listen to what they get and decide on degree of success based on difficulty of task, so I'm sure a NAT 20 would have always (or nearly always) resulted in me narrating a pretty great success, (most of the time even if they had a negative modifier, a NAT 20 would give them a high enough check to succeed if the player isn't trying to do something insane).

 

[Nikosandros]

Unless they're trying to clarify a rule that was supposed to be in 5e from the first place.

In the video interview that accompanies the UA, Crawford explicitly says that they changed the rule to match what many tables were already doing. Auto-success on a 20 for saves and ability checks is a new rule.

 

[MarkB]

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.

Yeah, there's precedent for that in the "changing a character's attitude" rules, and I think it's a good rule to apply to most checks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Sure, but that doesn't really change things. The characters will attempt ludicrous things, and the GM has to make way more case-by-case adjuration to whether a roll is warranted.

Published adventures (and most other games too, I'd wager) often have preplanned obstacles and other things that just have a static DC, and I think a lot of GMs would just let everyone roll when they attempted roughly appropriate actions towards it. With the new rule experts will embarrassingly fail at simple tasks and unskilled people will succeed at super difficult ones.

And yes, GM assessing each situation carefully will avoid this, but considering that the whole reason for the rule change was that some people couldn't read or understand the very simple rules, what you think is the WotC's chances of properly communication to these people how to do this?

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, there's precedent for that in the "changing a character's attitude" rules, and I think it's a good rule to apply to most checks.

I just hate skill dogpiling. Colville has a good video on it if I recall. I think it is important to set the scene of a check, understand how the PCs are approaching it, discuss it back and forth and then make A roll.

 

[OB1]

All this rule does is mechanically codify the original 2014 rule that when a player describes what action they want to take, the DM asks for a roll only if there is uncertainty in the outcome. In actual play, however, sometimes rolls would be asked for even if failure or success were impossible.

With the new rule, there is always a chance for success or failure when a roll is asked for from a character and thus the outcome is in doubt. It puts more onus on the DM to not ask for a roll when they are certain about the outcome for that character.