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

[Parmandur]

You can't gate DCs or hold open DCs because you can autosucceed on a nat 20 and autofail on a nat 1.

You can only gate the attempt of the role with this rule. Not the difficulty class itself.

The rule was already to not allow a roll of success is not possible. So, don't allow a roll if success is not possible. Not a change from what already the case.

 

[Minigiant]

The rule was already to not allow a roll of success is not possible. So, don't allow a roll if success is not possible. Not a change from what already the case.

Let me explain it again.

Before you could gate an action or lore recallwith a high DC and call it Very Hard or Impossible. The PC or NPC could attemptit but most woould fail. However you as the DM left the attempt unlocked.
This allowed PCs and NPCs wot use spells, tools, magic items, and allies to increase their chances or speed up a reroll.

Now, you have to lock the attmpt and gauge everytime the circumstances change, whether or not the attempt is uplocked.

Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.

Now: You put on a magic hat, does this unlock the Lore check? You took a long rest and swapped your skill profecieny to Arcana and History, does this unlock the Lore check? Mieky uses Help, does this unlock the Lore check? Louey cast's Enchance Ability on you, does this unlock the Lore check? You bring Gibgob the Sage, does this unlock the Lore check?

 

[Parmandur]

Let me explain it again.

Before you could gate an action or lore recallwith a high DC and call it Very Hard or Impossible. The PC or NPC could attemptit but most woould fail. However you as the DM left the attempt unlocked.
This allowed PCs and NPCs wot use spells, tools, magic items, and allies to increase their chances or speed up a reroll.

Now, you have to lock the attmpt and gauge everytime the circumstances change, whether or not the attempt is uplocked.

Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.

Now: You put on a magic hat, does this unlock the Lore check? You took a long rest and swapped your skill profecieny to Arcana and History, does this unlock the Lore check? Mieky uses Help, does this unlock the Lore check? Louey cast's Enchance Ability on you, does this unlock the Lore check? You bring Gibgob the Sage, does this unlock the Lore check?

The rules already said not to allow a.roll if the result was not in doubt. The DC us not the only tool for that, and never was, so nothing has actually changed. That's part of whybthe common houserule has not created problems for tables. It's not complex in practice.

 

[Minigiant]

The rules already said not to allow a.roll if the result was not in doubt. The DC us not the only tool for that, and never was, so nothing has actually changed. That's part of whybthe common houserule has not created problems for tables. It's not complex in practice.

The result is in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.

 

[Parmandur]

The result is in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.

The DM decides if thar is possible, as a ruling. Only allowing a roll with Proficiency for certain actuon resolutions is normal. In addition the DMG, see every printed Adventure, and every official streamed game (unofficial streamed games aren't different, except that when rolling is allowed auto crit or fail on 20/1 is the norm).

Saying "no, that would require Arhletics Proficiency to try" as a gut reaction is usually simple and easy based on first gut unstinct, and prevents entirely the sort of scenario envisioned as a problem with allowing auto success or auto fail. If the PC cannot role without a chance of success, rhen success only on a 20 isn't a big deal. And when the result is in doubt, failure always being an option makes sense.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The result is in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.

You seem to be describing an earlier edition of D&D. In 5e the DM first decides whether the outcome is in doubt (and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, although it seems like a lot of people skip that) and if it is then a DM calls for a roll.

 

[Parmandur]

You seem to be describing an earlier edition of D&D. In 5e the DM first decides whether the outcome is in doubt (and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, although it seems like a lot of people skip that) and if it is then a DM calls for a roll.

Hey, wait, that the distinctive here: this seems to be importing the 3E skill check philosophy into 5E. Which, for a given table, probably works much of the time. But for 6E, saying "No" as a ruling is part of the assumed skill check system, because Bounded Accuracy.

 

[Minigiant]

The DM decides if thar is possible, as a ruling. Only allowing a roll with Proficiency for certain actuon resolutions is normal. In addition the DMG, see every printed Adventure, and every official streamed game (unofficial streamed games aren't different, except that when rolling is allowed auto crit or fail on 20/1 is the norm).

Saying "no, that would require Arhletics Proficiency to try" as a gut reaction is usually simple and easy based on first gut unstinct, and prevents entirely the sort of scenario envisioned as a problem with allowing auto success or auto fail. If the PC cannot role without a chance of success, rhen success only on a 20 isn't a big deal. And when the result is in doubt, failure always being an option makes sense.

My point is, because of Bounded Accuracy, a lot of things can give a modifier worthy of allowing a roll equal to profieciency. So there is rightfuly more to think about or can be argued.

It's easier to just pick a number and wait for their roll.

 

[Mistwell]

[Sorry an issue already long answered in this thread]

 

[Parmandur]

My point is, because of Bounded Accuracy, a lot of things can give a modifier worthy of allowing a roll equal to profieciency. So there is rightfuly more to think about or can be argued.

It's easier to just pick a number and wait for their roll.

Proficiency is a binary, and a great point for a gut check. There is nonarguing with the DM.