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

[Minigiant]

I believe the game design will continue to be intentionally vague about what DMs should count as impossible. So there is no additional rule to read here.

I would personally like it if they added game text giving examples of gating behind skill proficiency and expertise, just as they currently do for tools (PHB154).

The fear is they won't read it and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.

It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with so many rerolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you mean, in the case that multiple characters are attempting something at the same DC, and for some of those characters the check would not be uncertain barring the auto-success/fail, then DM potentially needs to decide if they should even call for checks from those specific characters?

The example to hand is jumping. To me, it should focus thought on the fictional situation, not the DC. Say the pit is 20' wide? One character has Strength 16, another Strength 8. Here, I think the group should have decided the meaning of the words "an unusually long distance" in their fiction. Does it mean more than twice base distance, or maybe up to twice? Less? What do they picture?

Say they decide it's up to twice. DM calls for checks, telling players "roll if twice your strength is 20 or more". In all cases, think about what is pictured, not the individual check modifiers. For similar reasons, one DM might say "roll if you have proficiency with thieves' tools" or even "roll only if you have expertise with thieves' tools!"

Right. And now you have to invent such roll unlocking conditions for every bloody thing. You also need to invent similar autopass conditions if you don't want experienced grand masters fumbling at DC 5 tasks. Yes, this can be done, but it is just unnecessary extra work that was not required under the old paradigm. This is not a huge deal and it is easy to houserule the old rule back, but I still think this is rule is not any sort of an improvement and is more trouble than it is worth.

 

[clearstream]

Right. And now you have to invent such roll unlocking conditions for every bloody thing. You also need to invent similar autopass conditions if you don't want experienced grand masters fumbling at DC 5 tasks. Yes, this can be done, but it is just unnecessary extra work that was not required under the old paradigm. This is not a huge deal and it is easy to houserule the old rule back, but I still think this is rule is not any sort of an improvement and is more trouble than it is worth.

Why are you asking a grandmaster to roll, if it is easy? What for you motivates that call?


EDIT Just to make the implication here clear. A roll is called for when there is a chance of and consequences for failure. You seem to be describing a case where intuitively you feel there should be no chance of failure... so, why call for a roll?

 

[clearstream]

The fear is they won't read it and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.

To be fair, if they are not reading all the rules then the new rule is how they already play.

It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with so many rerolls.

The reports of coming disaster are greatly exaggerated. I for one am equanimous.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why are you asking a grandmaster to roll, if it is easy? What for you motivates that call?

EDIT Just to make the implication here clear. A roll is called for when there is a chance of and consequences for failure. You seem to be describing a case where intuitively you feel there should be no chance of failure... so, why call for a roll?

The obstacle exists. Other characters roll. And it is not just clear cut extreme examples. Now you need to always judge when roll is warranted and what should be autopass or autofail for each character individually. How much greater than the the DC the character's bonus needs to be wo warrant autopass instead of rolling? Certainly there must be situations where characters whose bonus is greater than the DC still has to roll, or "fail on natural ones" does nothing. The old rule is easy: skill+roll, beat the DC. So a character with bonus of at least 9 will autopass easy or easier checks. Simple. Now you need to case-by-case judge every situation. I get that it might not be a huge deal, but how on earth is this an improvement?

 

[jasper]

I have never heard of Auto Success/Fail until I was listening to Legends of the Multiverse. I THINK and those who watch Critical Role and other you tube casts can correct me. I think most groups use it because the famous podcast use it. So it becomes standard because the cool kids are doing it. I DON'T Like the auto pass fail.

 

[Reynard]

I want to collect my thoughts on this, so forgive me if I am repeating myself at all.

When do you call for a roll? When there is some uncertainty in the outcome OR you want to use the dice to inform you of something.
In the first case, the it seems on the surface that the auto fail on a 1 and auto success on a 20 is appropriate. After all, there was uncertainty. The trouble with this approach is that different PCs have can different levels of uncertainty for different tasks -- based either on their mechanical bonuses or based on their role-playing background or whatever. This puts the DM in the position of having some players roll and not others, and is muddied further when using group checks for example. Because of these variables, I think it is easier not to use the auto fail/success rules. You can just tell everyone to roll Athletics and see who hits the DC, even if some "can't" (they can always use guidance or whatever). One potential addition is to say that if a PC gets advantage on the roll, they CAN succeed on a 20 even if they don't meet the DC.

In the other case, using rolls as informative tools or with sliding difficulties is easy: these rolls aren't really about success anyway, so there's no reason to "crit" unless you think that a "crit" is more informative.

So, in the end, I don't think I will be using these rules.

 

[Minigiant]

The reports of coming disaster are greatly exaggerated. I for one am equanimous.

Will you say that when every PC rolls ability checks with Inspiration.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is all fine and good, but it’s all DM fiat deviating from the RAW in every way other than DM sets the rules.

JFC is this still going on? No, this is not DM setting the rules this is DM following the rules, which is that the DM first determines whether the attempt is automatically successful or a failure, and if neither might set a DC and ask for a roll. Note that it’s not determining whether it’s “impossible” but whether success or failure is automatic. Those are two different things and the distinction is important: the task does not have to be impossible for the DM to rule it an automatic failure.

Example (with the caveat that in practice I tell players the odds and give them a chance to change their minds):

Rogue: “I will try to sneak across the room just as the guard turns his back.”
DM: “That’s gonna be tough. Give me a dexterity(stealth) roll. DC 30.”
Rogue: “I’m +11, so….30!”
Paladin: “I’ll try, too.”
DM: “The guard sees you.”
Paladin: “Hey, wait! Don’t I get to roll?”
DM: “Nope.”
Paladin: “But I have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding!”
DM: “One in four hundred, actually. IF I asked for a roll. Which I’m not.”

Now, who knows why the DM didn’t ask for a roll. Maybe the situation/environment has changed in a way the players don’t realize. Maybe the guard is some kind of fey that can’t see elves. Maybe the guard did see the rogue but is under orders to let just one person through. Maybe the DM is mad at Larry for taking the last Mountain Dew. Maybe he hates gnome paladins. Maybe he hates the new rule. IT DOESN’T MATTER.

This is not DM fiat overriding the rules. It is literally what the book says to do.

EDIT: And I’ll add that if you are correct, and the player has some kind of “right” to roll, it means the DM would have to justify the ruling, potentially giving away information the players aren’t supposed to have.

 

[Parmandur]

They are changing it so that when DM calls for a check, it is guaranteed to have a chance of success and failure.

Which, to be fair, isn't actually a change. This just puts teeth into the existing rule making it harder to ignore.