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

[Aldarc]

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

Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.

 

[Parmandur]

Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.

That's not really on the rules, to be fair. That is probthe sort of thing behind them making Background more explicitly customizable.

 

[Reynard]

The problem with "trained only" checks in 5E is that it almost always focuses on the academic skills when the reality is that some sell sword that spends his time swapping tales is far more likely to "happen" to know troll regeneration stops with fire (an Arcana check) than he is likely to be able to successfully chat up a member of the nobility (persuasion). 5E just isn't granular enough on its own to take these things into account.

 

[Aldarc]

That's not really on the rules, to be fair. That is probthe sort of thing behind them making Background more explicitly customizable.

I agree. I kinda wish, however, that Perception was entirely passive or entirely absent from the game rather than a "skill."

 

[Parmandur]

The problem with "trained only" checks in 5E is that it almost always focuses on the academic skills when the reality is that some sell sword that spends his time swapping tales is far more likely to "happen" to know troll regeneration stops with fire (an Arcana check) than he is likely to be able to successfully chat up a member of the nobility (persuasion). 5E just isn't granular enough on its own to take these things into account.

Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.

(That’s a Nature Check, I believe, but neither here nor there)

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, that's exactly my point/question. If there's time pressure, and making an attempt will use precious time, then that's a good meaningful consequence. But otherwise why are we rolling dice?

If the players are not under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer? Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?

Because the meaningful consequence to their not fiinding it is that they don't have it; meaning that whatever "value" it might have had to the story is lost, with - possibly - future consequences knocking on from that as things develop later.

And this is something else to keep in mind - the "meaningful consequences for failure" don't have to be immediate, and IMO don't have to be guaranteed.

For example, failing to know or find some bit of lore now during their research might not matter until quite some time later at place X when having or not having that bit of lore is going to become highly relevant; but if the PCs go a different direction in the meantime and thus never reach place X, those what-would-have-been-meaningful consequences evaporate into the air.

 

[Ibrandul]

Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.

You don’t let PCs try to investigate something unless they’re proficient? Or persuade someone?

Is it just nope? Or maybe you use passive for all nonproficient? Or do you mean if someone nonproficient in Persuasion tries to persuade someone, you just call that a Charisma check?

Genuinely curious.

 

[Lanefan]

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 try - often unsuccessfully - to avoid saying things like this, as it's a red-flag metagame signal to the players that they've got me winging it.

 

[MarkB]

Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.

The trick there is to make sure you pick a background that includes a skill you've already picked from your class or race. Then you get to replace it with another of your choice.

 

[Parmandur]

You don’t let PCs try to investigate something unless they’re proficient? Or persuade someone?

Is it just nope? Or maybe you use passive for all nonproficient? Or do you mean if someone nonproficient in Persuasion tries to persuade someone, you just call that a Charisma check?

Genuinely curious.

It's a judgement call based on situation: can the Wizard make an Athletics check to jump 5 feet to make it over the closing drawbridge with the rest of thenparty? Sure. Can he roll to win a wrestling match with Hercules? No, no he cannot.

That's shynthe rules for it are scanty: it's best left to DM fiat and table choices. But it isn't hard in practice.