Yeah. it just sort of depends. Like, I wouldn't make them search for a secret door every time, but I might make them roll to swim through the submerged lightless tunnels every time unless they took pains to make it easier (a rope line or whatever).
D&D (2024) Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
- Thread starter Ibrandul
- Start date
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Exactly. Once they know where the door is, they aren't going to lose it again. It's not(usually) going anywhere.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
A wizard did it.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Always been an underrated Class feature, but good point. 1's, too!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Aaaaannd thank you for the evil idea! One-use-only, disappearing or relocating doors...notes duly taken.
If-when this ever appears in an adventure I'll make sure my players know who to blame...
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I have been in a few of those dungeons/castles. That's why I added in the "usually."Aaaaannd thank you for the evil idea! One-use-only, disappearing or relocating doors...notes duly taken.
If-when this ever appears in an adventure I'll make sure my players know who to blame...
As a GM there's a special kind of pleasure you get when the PCs go back through a door and they aren't anyplace they recognize. One way teleporters FTW.I have been in a few of those dungeons/castles. That's why I added in the "usually."
Branduil
Hero
A 1 being a critical miss on a skill check makes sense to me. I think checks should be defined as an action that always has a chance of failure. Otherwise there is no check-- you don't roll to breathe, to walk each step in town, etc. However, I do not like 20 as an automatic success, because chance of failure does not always imply chance of success.
For me there are two big problems with this rule:
#1) This is going to lead to annoying arguments for the DM, because there will obviously be cases where the PCs cannot succeed at something. So either the DM withholds checks, leading to arguments from players who think they should be allowed to always make Diplomacy checks etc., or the DM allows it and tries to "cheat" a player out of his well-earned 20, resulting in more arguments. But my bigger argument would be
#2) It is actually good to allow players to attempt impossible checks. People attempt impossible things all the time in real life. For one thing, especially with social skills, it should not necessarily be obvious to the player they are attempting the impossible. And secondly, even if they are attempting the impossible, this can lead to some of the best and most memorable roleplaying in games. No, the Bard cannot successfully seduce the epic-level Lich... but won't it be great to watch him try? Think of the scene in Star Wars where Han attempts to bluff security about the state of the detention level over the intercom. To me, this is an example of an impossible skill check... and it's one of the funniest scenes in the film. Let players attempt impossible checks; the value of D&D is not limited to successful mechanical rolls.
For me there are two big problems with this rule:
#1) This is going to lead to annoying arguments for the DM, because there will obviously be cases where the PCs cannot succeed at something. So either the DM withholds checks, leading to arguments from players who think they should be allowed to always make Diplomacy checks etc., or the DM allows it and tries to "cheat" a player out of his well-earned 20, resulting in more arguments. But my bigger argument would be
#2) It is actually good to allow players to attempt impossible checks. People attempt impossible things all the time in real life. For one thing, especially with social skills, it should not necessarily be obvious to the player they are attempting the impossible. And secondly, even if they are attempting the impossible, this can lead to some of the best and most memorable roleplaying in games. No, the Bard cannot successfully seduce the epic-level Lich... but won't it be great to watch him try? Think of the scene in Star Wars where Han attempts to bluff security about the state of the detention level over the intercom. To me, this is an example of an impossible skill check... and it's one of the funniest scenes in the film. Let players attempt impossible checks; the value of D&D is not limited to successful mechanical rolls.
clearstream
(He, Him)
And then where DM succumbs, there might be a queue of characters who want to try their luck. Making consequences of failure important.
In my home game I already use something like the new rule. In a way, for a related reason. When they roll a 1 or a 20, players usually look for some extra narration. But my homebrew also specifies that some undertakings need tools, proficiency, or even expertise to make them possible. One flip side is that PCs with those know they can more often make a check to see how what they describe goes. So it works in their favour. If that did apply to your example with Han (for the sake of argument) exactly that narration can occur with no roll.
DM Unfortunately you don't have a clue what the protocols are!
Player I stammer something unlikely sounding into the mic: it's obvious I'm not who they'd expect!
That doesn't need a roll, but could be funnier with one ofc. One group I DMd in the past for all vividly recall a badly failed attempt at mimicking the bleat of a goat. On seeing their roll the player let out the most peculiar, almost-goat-but-defininitely-not sound.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
