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

[CleverNickName]

The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It means I can sluff off deciding if there are any or not, and combine that with the them knowing, and putting it in a roll.

So if the magic 8 ball says “Yes” you will presumably improvise something. Why not just figure out what that something is and decide for yourself whether you like it enough to include it? Why leave that to RNG?

It lets me change the probabilities easier than shaving a coin?

But why leave it to probability? (I wasn’t referring to the 50:50 odds, just the arbitrariness of the method.)

I’m not criticizing your DMing style. I’ve done…and still do…the things you are describing. I’m just wondering why, and if it really makes the game better.

 

[Cadence]

So if the magic 8 ball says “Yes” you will presumably improvise something. Why not just figure out what that something is and decide for yourself whether you like it enough to include it? Why leave that to RNG?

It buys me a few seconds to think?
It gives me a chance of not having to come up with anything?
It means I can never be entirely blamed for always saying yes to one player and no to another, since the dice are partially to blame?

I’m not criticizing your DMing style. I’ve done…and still do…the things you are describing. I’m just wondering why, and if it really makes the game better.

Great question (that I have no answer to that I want to put in print!).

 

[Bill Zebub]

It buys me a few seconds to think?
It gives me a chance of not having to come up with anything?
It means I can never be entirely blamed for always saying yes to one player and no to another, since the dice are partially to blame?

Ok, so maybe I'm missing something, or just having a different experience, but those don't seem like big things to me. I don't mind saying, "I hadn't considered that. Give me a minute to think about it." I also don't feel any desire to "blame" things on dice.

Are these things worth the issues introduced by using attribute(skill) checks for character knowledge?

 

[Cadence]

I also don't feel any desire to "blame" things on dice.

I don't mind coming up with things on the fly and having most of the world decided by me. But when a player suggests something that affects what is in the world (do I know a _____?), what should determine whether I say yes and no? Do I always say yes to anything vaguely reasonable? If I do, does that change how the players interact with the world (do they start coming up with things more that give an advantage because I'll say yes)? If I tell one player yes and another no, does player two feel bad? Will they at some point?

Are these things worth the issues introduced by using attribute(skill) checks for character knowledge?

I guess I'd never thought about character knowledge checks as introducing any issues until I read it on here in the last year or two. And so I'm not sure the things you've brought up are worth changing it...

 

[Maxperson]

The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC.

This is wrong. The DMG gives the DM 100% control over what criteria he uses to determine if something is autofailure, and defines such a ruling is making it inappropriate to call for a roll in those situations. The new rule stats very clearly that the DM determines whether a d20 test is warranted in any given circumstance. That combination means that the DM never has to give a roll if the DC is too high for a PCs modifiers. You only get auto success on tests that get a roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't mind coming up with things on the fly and having most of the world decided by me. But when a player suggests something that affects what is in the world (do I know a _____?), what should determine whether I say yes and no?

Can you think of a good answer that adds to the story?

Do I always say yes to anything vaguely reasonable?

Sure, why not?

If I do, does that change how the players interact with the world (do they start coming up with things more that give an advantage because I'll say yes)?

I would hope so! I love it when players think of new ways to interact with the world that gives them advantages. I would so much rather have them do that than just ask if they can roll dice!

If I tell one player yes and another no, does player two feel bad? Will they at some point?

Why would they? I mean, I have trouble imagining it, but if it happened I think I'd rather talk to the player and see what their experience is, then just go back to randomly deciding things.

I guess I'd never thought about character knowledge checks as introducing any issues until I read it on here in the last year or two. And so I'm not sure the things you've brought up are worth changing it...

Well, there's the "pile on" mentality discussed above. And the difficulty of thinking up meaningful consequences for failure, which is supposed to be part of the 5e mechanic.

And with the new rules, fishing for 20's to get inspiration will be a thing.

 

[OB1]

This is wrong. The DMG gives the DM 100% control over what criteria he uses to determine if something is autofailure, and defines such a ruling is making it inappropriate to call for a roll in those situations. The new rule stats very clearly that the DM determines whether a d20 test is warranted in any given circumstance. That combination means that the DM never has to give a roll if the DC is too high for a PCs modifiers. You only get auto success on tests that get a roll.

Yes exactly. I'm saying that by asking for a roll, the rules now enforce that it is possible to both succeed and fail on it. Before it was possible that a DM asked for a roll that did not meet one of those criteria. IF the DM asks for a roll now, it will ALWAYS have a chance for success and failure. The DM can still make that decision on their own before asking for the roll in response to a PCs action declaration.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes exactly. I'm saying that by asking for a roll, the rules now enforce that it is possible to both succeed and fail on it. Before it was possible that a DM asked for a roll that did not meet one of those criteria. IF the DM asks for a roll now, it will ALWAYS have a chance for success and failure. The DM can still make that decision on their own before asking for the roll in response to a PCs action declaration.

Every roll has always had a chance of success or failure or you wouldn't have been calling for a roll. You'd have just said "You succeed" or "You fail."

What has changed is that now the DM can ask for rolls that would have been beyond the PC's capabilities before, and there is still a chance for success. What would have been an auto failure is something the DM now has the option to auto fail or give that 1 in 20 chance for success.

 

[OB1]

Every roll has always had a chance of success or failure or you wouldn't have been calling for a roll. You'd have just said "You succeed" or "You fail."

What has changed is that now the DM can ask for rolls that would have been beyond the PC's capabilities before, and there is still a chance for success. What would have been an auto failure is something the DM now has the option to auto fail or give that 1 in 20 chance for success.

Agreed (and also how I run currently). And I love the new option for success/failure where otherwise impossible before.

For example, say a Lv1 Rogue comes across a DC30 lock. I could just tell her she fails, or, because the lock has a bit of magic in it, and because she's trained in Arcana as well, I ask for a roll on the 5% chance that her two trained skills together will let her pop it.