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

[Maxperson]

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

Which is why the DM decides how and when to gate the rolls and declare something impossible for someone.

Then there's magic.

Magic can help, but it's pretty limited in timing. Once the roll is asked for, it's too late to use it, and you very often don't know when a roll is going to be asked for.

 

[p_johnston]

so first off really like this rule for saves. Sounds like a good change there.
In regards to ability/skill checks I'm not a fan of this rule despite the fact that (near as I can remember) I pretty much already play this way. If someone roles a one they fail/something bad happens. If they role a 20 they succeed/something good happens. I think my main problem is that this feels kinda like it's taking away some of the DM ability to say what success is.

Let me explain. Currently if a PC asks to do something that will be impossible for them, so long as it's not blatantly insane to try, I will let them roll. If they happen to get a 20 they won't succeed at what they stated they wanted but they will get something useful. Want to try know the secret true name of a demon lord with a +0 to religion? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the name but it will get you a clue. Want to try and talk the king into naming you his heir with a -1 charisma? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the crown but will make the king like you. Etc.

I let my players roll when they ask because they like rolling dice. I give them something cool on a 20 even if they fail because 20's feel like they should be rewarded. but with this rule It feels like I'm obligated to say NO to a lot more rolls then I otherwise would because if I let them roll on the impossible thing then the expectation on a 20 is that they get what they asked for.

P.S. Also I will say that if your only ever letting players roll if they have at least modifiers to make the DC on a 20 then it just seems to me that your changing the point at which you say no instead of actually have a different style of play. In fact if that's the expected style of DMing then this rule is... frankly pointless.

 

[Maxperson]

That's one way to look at it, and is clearly your way, but does that agree with the game's way of looking at it?

I suspect the game wants you to look only at the end-result numbers without much regard for those numbers' sources.

The game doesn't say, but it DOES say that the DM decides when something is automatically successful, automatically a failure, and when a roll is called for. It does not limit the DM's reasons for making that decision.

There is this, though.

"Locked Doors. Characters who don't have the key to a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)."

You don't get a roll without both the tool AND proficiency.

And...

"Sight rot can be cured using a rare flower called Eyebright, which grows in some swamps. Given an hour, a character who has proficiency with an herbalism kit can turn the flower into one dose of ointment."

It's not common, but gating rolls behind proficiency is in RAW.

 

[Lanefan]

And, again, I'm not asking this as if I can't believe you would ever play RPGs in such a terrible way. I've been using knowledge checks for decades. I'm just re-thinking if they contribute to the game.

In an unexpected way I've found that they do, or certainly can, over the long run; as a consistent series of made or failed rolls about related topics can inform a bit about the character's background. "Jocantha, you're no more a Dwarf than I am but that's the third time today you've nailed it on knowing about obscure Dwarven religious lore. Clearly you're the party expert on such things!", on which Jocantha's player might come up with a rationale as to why this is so, and that minor bit of expertise becomes part of her character henceforth.

 

[SkidAce]

Well, sure they can...if they are comfortable barratively with everyone succeeding.

Only if we are using the new rule.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Sure, but the way I run it at least I try and describe the situation (and have a DC on paper or in mind) and the problem and ask the group what they are going to do. Sometimes a player jumps the gun and takes an action and fails (maybe they could have hit the DC and didn't, or maybe they didn't have a chance in hell, but they wanted to roll anyway not knowing the DC). I don't let someone else just make the same roll. That's probably not RAW and maybe not even RAI, but as we have discussed skill dog piling is bad. It happened just minutes ago in my Rappan Athuk game, actually. One player decided to brute force open a thing, failed terribly, and the rest of the part was forced to come up with a different solution even though the stronger character was not the one who made the check. Hilariously, it took 3 tries of 3 different approaches before they managed it (with a secret wandering monster roll for each one since they were making noise, but alas not monsters heard).

 

[Parmandur]

Only if we are using the new rule.

That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.

 

[Lanefan]

That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.

Unless you-as-DM also want the roll to inform as to the degree of failure; as in, there's no way in hell that PC's gonna make that climb but let's see just how badly this goes.

Which is why sometimes even impossible actions could get a roll, e.g. go ahead and roll to shoot an arrow at the moon; you ain't gonna hit it but on a 1 the arrow hits you or someone nearby when it comes down.....

 

[Cadence]

As an aside, just pulled up A5e Level Up to see what it did.

For an ability check, a natural 20 is a critical success as long as it would otherwise be a success anyway, and a 1 is a critical failure as long as it would otherwise be a failure anyway. (So, no auto success or failure).

Each of those has a variety of extra goodness or badness that happens respectively for each skill. (Your medicine roll was so good they get temporary hit points too, or you screw up and accidentally amputate a toe or something).

 

[SkidAce]

That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happe

That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.

Not going to stop and calculate my player's chance of success every time I set a DC to find out if they are capable of it or not.

I mean on the extreme ends I hear yah and agree, if its a DC 2 or a DC 30, then I'm pretty sure they will/won't make it, so of course, no roll.

Otherwise, I'm choosing a DC based on the task spectrum (easy, hard, etc for example) and letting them roll.