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

[Tales and Chronicles]

Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it

But I dont change the fiction to justify the character rolls after I called for them: they have to explain how they would know such a thing, in fiction, before I make my choice as to whether it requires a roll or not.

 

[MarkB]

It's really a change in philosophy if 5.5e goes with auto success and auto fails.

Before, a DM could say a bit of lore is a very obscure subject that few speak about and is kept secret so the DC is 22. This put the check test out of the range of the rogue with a +0 modifier but the wizard with a +6 and the fighter with a +2 have a chance.

With autosuccess you must now choose.

Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it

Don't let the rogue roll, claim that the info is so obscure or guarded that the rogue would never learn about it nor recall it if they happen to hear or read it due to their combined lack of talent and investment.

AKA it strengths two points of DM fiat over just one.

In that particular instance, is it really so bad that the rogue succeeds on a natural 20? The party as a whole isn't learning anything that they didn't already have the potential to know, and the rogue's player gets the thrill of succeeding at something they normally wouldn't.

 

[Lanefan]

It makes the game a better game because the 20s and 1s are some of the most exciting and memorable moments. And many of us let them be automatic successes or failures not because we don't know the rules, but because we genuinely enjoy playing that way.

Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.

Ability checks are more problematic, but DMs simply shouldn't be calling for checks on impossible (or impossible to fail) checks. I'm not sure if published adventures actually use DC 30 checks (I've never seen or used one), but yes, under this system you should not gate things you actually want to be impossible behind DC 30 checks, you should just make them impossible. If they are possible for someone through extraordinary skill, they should be possible for anyone through even more extraordinary luck. Yes 5% is not really all that extraordinary, but sometimes the reality simulator should give way to being a fun game.

The answer, I think, is higher granularity at the extreme ends; and if this means rolling a second die, so what?

 

[Minigiant]

In that particular instance, is it really so bad that the rogue succeeds on a natural 20? The party as a whole isn't learning anything that they didn't already have the potential to know, and the rogue's player gets the thrill of succeeding at something they normally wouldn't.

Depends.

A single instance might not be s problem but allowing the unskilled to always have a chance alters how lore matters in the adventure. Basically nothing becomes a secret as the PCs can technically attempt anything.

 

[MarkB]

Depends.

A single instance might not be s problem but allowing the unskilled to always have a chance alters how lore matters in the adventure. Basically nothing becomes a secret as the PCs can technically attempt anything.

That's why I said "in that particular instance". If the rogue is only two points off being able to succeed normally at the check, having him succeed as a rare instance seems reasonable.

And it's not as though it's impossible to boost a character's chances in any case. I tend not to allow guidance on knowledge checks, because they don't represent the character doing anything tangible in the moment, but if we turn this around and it was the +0 Dex fighter trying his hand at a DC 22 lock, someone could cast guidance on him and he'd have a chance of making the DC.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it

Indeed. Impossible knowledge check successes are a great way for the DM and player to devise some new color to the character's backstory to explain why they happen to have that particular oddball piece of knowledge.

I think almost anyone with a real life specialty in any type of knowledge (be it from education, career, or hobby) has both a sense of knowledge that there is actually no chance a non-specialist would possess and the experience of encountering a non-specialist who (at least sort of) knew some specific facts within their specialty that they never expected a non-specialist to possess. It is useful for DMs to reflect on those experiences in deciding when to let non-proficient characters roll on knowledge checks specifically. I think if a fact is interesting enough to be relevant to an adventure, a five percent chance of a non-specialist happening to have picked up at least a clue or hazy hint of that fact somewhere in their decades (or for some characters, centuries) of varied life experience is not nearly as unrealistic as it seems at first blush.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I am disappointed that this could indicate that 5.5e will not adopt Pathfinder 2e's four degrees of success model, which is, in my opinion, one of the stronger parts of the system, that allows much more flexibility in effects and powers.

Granted of course you cannot add that without causing revisions of a significant amount of spells and abilities, but it was a wish I had.

 

[Maxperson]

Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.

It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a +10 has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.

Or else you could follow the rules and tell him no he doesn't get a roll because the outcome is not in doubt. You can only auto succeed on a 20 if the outcome is in doubt. You decide if the outcome is in doubt, and someone with +1 and not proficient would not have a chance at success.

 

[Maxperson]

Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules?

No. You adjudicate on a case by case basis. If you think that someone with a +3 has a shot a DC 25, because luck could be a factor in whatever is being attempted, you give him a shot at that 20. If you don't and think that you need to be more skilled, you don't.

If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?

See the above.

 

[Shiroiken]

Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.