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

[Minigiant]

Portent is three rolls for one specific type of wizard that are as likely to be low as high. Inspiration is a once in a while thing that applies advantage to one roll. Lucky also applies to three rerolls. So lets look at how it would play out.

Portent:

OOC: Portent: 1D20 = [6] = 6 1D20 = [17] = 17 1D20 = [13] = 13

so one low, one middle high and one high number.

Combine that with 3 re-rolls and one inspiration and an 8 strength and you're probably missing every hard check of 20 as it's unlikely the wizard has chosen athletics with his 8 strength. Maaaaaaybe he succeeds once. That hardly allows the wizard to "reliably be the juggernaut" and the 8 int PC isn't even a conjurer, so he doesn't even have that to help him be Einstein.

The more rolls you give, the less "reliable" these PCs get.

You missed my point.

This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.

Are you confident that they will read the part to restrict rolls?

Are you confident they won't forget because of fun?

 

[Maxperson]

Y

Yeah, we'll see. Time will tell. I think it will make it into the final Core.

I tend to agree. I jut don't think it's 1) a sure thing(small chance it doesn't) and 2) it might not make it in its current form.

 

[Maxperson]

This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.

Are you confident that they will read the part to restrict rolls?

So I don't have much sympathy for folks who get things wrong because they didn't read the rules and then have a hard time of it.

And often, they still have fun so it doesn't really matter anyway.

Besides, if they aren't reading the restriction rules, there's a good chance that they didn't read the auto success on a 20 rule, either.

Are you confident they won't forget because of fun?

If they do, then it's no harm, no foul. Fun is the goal and if you're having fun, the rules don't really matter that much. It's when the rules(or lack of knowing them) harm the fun that issues arise.

 

[Zaukrie]

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.

Not true at all. I've never watched CR, and I use auto fail and save. I think assuming things like this with no data likely leads to bad thoughts. I'd bet WotC has a TON of data on this.....and likely knows more about how people play, and if they watch shows, than we'll ever have.

I endorse the change.

 

[Parmandur]

I tend to agree. I jut don't think it's 1) a sure thing(small chance it doesn't) and 2) it might not make it in its current form.

Sure, they could roll a 1!

 

[Parmandur]

Not true at all. I've never watched CR, and I use auto fail and save. I think assuming things like this with no data likely leads to bad thoughts. I'd bet WotC has a TON of data on this.....and likely knows more about how people play, and if they watch shows, than we'll ever have.

I endorse the change.

Yeah, Matt Mercer didn't make it up, he adopted an already common house rule because he liked it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is a good example because it also shows why I don't like the rule. Yes, it's possible to run the new rule this way, but this creates an adversarial relationship between the player and DM because now every time the DM has to explicitly disallow someone from making a roll, whereas before they could have just let the player roll (and fail).

If there’s an adversarial relationship…if the player thinks the DM said no for reasons other than the good of the story…the problem is the relationship, not the rules. And no rules will ever fix that.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, they could roll a 1!

Interestingly enough. Last night the party who auto failed a knowledge check because they are in the Forgotten Realms and the subject of the check was from Oerth and had not had prior contact with the Realms, contacted a sage friend(not Elminster, but another knowledgeable sage). After describing the one eyed, one handed lich to him, I told them that he almost surely didn't know, either, being a Realms only individual, but said that if one of them rolled a 20 for the NPC, he would know.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I do this sometimes but not often. They decided which among them would roll and gathered around to see the die come to a stop, which is I love to see. Even I stood up to watch the roll. He rolled a 20 and everyone at the table cheered and laughed. Then one of them said, "This is what makes stories to retell."

I wouldn't want to see that lost by making every roll success on a 20 and have those situations become commonplace. Success on a 20 has a real place in the game, but I think that the UA rule maybe overdoes it.

 

[Parmandur]

This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.

Citation needed: it is a common, and possibly even normative, house rule, so WotC is bringing the game intonline with actual play. That doesn't mean that anyone didn't read the rules. Indeed, it works because it fits into the existing guidance about gating checks through common sense rulings.

 

[Minigiant]

Citation needed: it is a common, and possibly even normative, house rule, so WotC is bringing the game intonline with actual play. That doesn't mean that anyone didn't read the rules. Indeed, it works because it fits into the existing guidance about gating checks through common sense rulings.

The citation is all the memes, comics, and stories about nat 20s doing miracles, people correcting it, and other people being shocked that's not the rule.

WOTC made this rule because people played that way. And people played that way because they misinterpreted the rules since 5e isn't very clearly written. It's a direct shot against "natural language".