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

[Lanefan]

That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for.

Which is a good change they could make to 5e - give it more granularity almost across the board but particularly in a few key instances where 5% is too big of a jump between steps on the ladder.

Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.

No real change from current procedure, then?

 

[SkidAce]

I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).

I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"

If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.

They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).

 

[Lanefan]

How is that any different from not trying in the first place?

In some ways it isn't.

I think the consequence should be known, or at least suspected. Otherwise the player has no information to base a decision on.

That lack of information is perfectly realistic; in that if the character doesn't know what consequences they may be then neither should the player. The character doesn't know there's a hidden letter in the drawer and will quite possibly never know - unless she a) searches the room anyway and b) succeeds on the search.

I guess I could imagine a scenario where the player thinks there’s no downside, and later discovers there was, and forever after is wary of the DM saying. “May as well try, right? Whaddya got to lose? Throw them dice…”

Again, that is a consequence of not having the lore, which is identical whether they make an ability check and fail, or if they don’t even try. Therefore it is not a consequence of failure.

5e has this big and IMO utterly needless hangup on there having to be clear and obvious consequences for failure. Here, you're rolling to (maybe even unknowingly) try for some significant consequences of success, with failure (or not trying at all) meaning that the status quo holds for now and other consequences may or may not arise later.

Put another way: not trying at all is no different than a self-inflicted automatic failure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).

I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"

If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.

They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).

I don't have the book in front of me but I don't believe the actual text focuses on "impossible" but rather just whether the DM judges that an attempt will be either automatically successful or automatically a failure. In other words, it considers the character's ability to accomplish a task, not just the absolute difficulty of the task itself.

I think that's where @Minigiant is coming from: they're thinking of the absolute difficulty of a task, without factoring in the character. But I believe that in 5e it's within RAI for the DM to ask one player to roll, and to tell another that they automatically fail.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There is no unlocking.

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: 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, if your bonuses aren't sufficient to hit 25+, don't roll. Work Done.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not after I've asked for the roll.

 

[Lanefan]

I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).

I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"

If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.

They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).

Which is fine for any task that has some sort of clear physical outcome in the fiction - shooting an arrow at the moon, trying to pick the unpickable lock, and so forth - the setting's internal physics say it can't be done, end of story.

Where it falls down - as the many examples here show - is when it comes to non-physical things such as snippets of information characters might or might not have learned, or know, or remember from their own pasts. Here there's no setting-physics to provide boundaries and thus nothing to tell a DM the limits of possibility; meaning a DM either has to say no or allow at least a 5% chance of success, neither of which might be appropriate (the DM might be thinking "it's not impossible, but odds of 1-in-1000 sound about right").

It comes down to a major lack of granularity - there's no options between impossible and 5% unless the DM goes off-RAW and calls for a d% roll or something - unless a DM is willing and able to houserule.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Stat modifier =/= proficiency, even if the numbers are equal. Training matters more than natural talent.

 

[SkidAce]

Which is fine for any task that has some sort of clear physical outcome in the fiction - shooting an arrow at the moon, trying to pick the unpickable lock, and so forth - the setting's internal physics say it can't be done, end of story.

Where it falls down - as the many examples here show - is when it comes to non-physical things such as snippets of information characters might or might not have learned, or know, or remember from their own pasts. Here there's no setting-physics to provide boundaries and thus nothing to tell a DM the limits of possibility; meaning a DM either has to say no or allow at least a 5% chance of success, neither of which might be appropriate (the DM might be thinking "it's not impossible, but odds of 1-in-1000 sound about right").

It comes down to a major lack of granularity - there's no options between impossible and 5% unless the DM goes off-RAW and calls for a d% roll or something - unless a DM is willing and able to houserule.

Why can't the DM look at the information/knowledge task, decide the DC is 20 cause its "rare" info, and let the player roll?

 

[Minigiant]

Stat modifier =/= proficiency, even if the numbers are equal. Training matters more than natural talent.

On some checks. Not all. Sometimes they are equal. Sometimes talent matters more.

Then there's magic.