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

[Maxperson]

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

I've always used it to a degree.

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.

See, I would never give that rogue a roll on that lock. Some things should be beyond the PCs, even with luck. However, if the rogue was say level 5(had a decent amount of experience) and had a +8, I might give a roll and say you need a natural 20. That rogue is experienced and could almost get there anyway.

 

[OB1]

I've always used it to a degree.

See, I would never give that rogue a roll on that lock. Some things should be beyond the PCs, even with luck. However, if the rogue was say level 5(had a decent amount of experience) and had a +8, I might give a roll and say you need a natural 20. That rogue is experienced and could almost get there anyway.

And that's a legit ruling as well! My point is the new rule encourages me to look at the character and situation as a whole to determine when to give a d20 test to an otherwise impossible task (just as you did).

 

[Maxperson]

And that's a legit ruling as well! My point is the new rule encourages me to look at the character and situation as a whole to determine when to give a d20 test to an otherwise impossible task (just as you did).

Absolutely. I'm glad at the possibility that it will be included as a rule.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Proficiency gating, it's a standard part of the game. If the Wizard is not Proficient in Athletics, he cannot win the Olympic Triathlon. The Barbarian is not proficient in Arcana? He cannot decipher the magic inscription. Like, they cannot even try.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Simple, only let the Proficient characters role Histroy checks. That what the books suggest, it's the standard in the Adventure campaigns, and it's what Matt Mercer does on Critical Role (along with, hey, autocratic on 20 and auto fails on 1).

 

[Parmandur]

It's weird really. There are many things that only plausibly succeeded by people who put in enough time in an obscure or extraordinary action, actively, or procedure.

This is easiest to see in too proficiency when an untrained individual would have no chance of success but a trained one might have a high chance.

It works for attacks as by a certain level, every PC will have enough experience in combat to luck out all aspects of a normal attack, grapple, or shove.

So an auto success/fail system on ability check would have to defined parameters of when certain actions are unlocked with training or even expertise.

I mean, the rules, as theybwxiat now, already make the distinction, and it is a DM ruling issue. Mix to taste.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, the rules, as theybwxiat now, already make the distinction, and it is a DM ruling issue. Mix to taste.

Well my point is it is more work and more criticism for the DM in a game with heavy DM workload... just for the lolz.

 

[Aldarc]

Proficiency gating, it's a standard part of the game. Of the Wizard is not Proficient in Athletics, he cannot win the Olympic triathlon. The Barnarian is not proficient in Arcana? He cannot decipher the magic inscription. Like, they cannot even try.

But with now custom origins, everyone can grab Percetion and try on Perception rolls!

 

[Parmandur]

Well my point is it is more work and more criticism for the DM in a game with heavy DM workload... just for the lolz.

It's not, though? It's the same as it is now. The game already expects DMs to gate checks based on what they feel is reasonable in their game. Not just allow anyone to try anything (unless that's what you like doing).

 

[Parmandur]

But with now custom origins, everyone can grab Percetion and try on Perception rolls!

You can already do thst in 2014...? Skill selection in Backgrounds was always custom.