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

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.

I can imagine a DM saying, "What the heck, roll if you want" more often. But there's nothing about the new rule that grants players a right to make dice rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

I will pretty much disagree with this. Dm fiat is a hard wrong. The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency. DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D. It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.

So how does a DM determine the DC if not fiat?

 

[Smackpixi]

No, it really doesn't. In practice, it shouldn't make any difference to whether a roll is allowed by a DM.

I get that’s an opinion, meaningless rule, but since it’s being made, maybe you might want to explore and think about why they thought it might be necessary to say and what they thought it would change. If all you can come up with is “nothing” probably missing something.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe people are using 'fiat' in different ways. I only use it when the DM is overriding a rule, which isn't the case here. It isn't "DM fiat" when the DM decides which PC a monster will attack. That's just...DMing. There isn't a rule that tells the DM how to make that choice; it's just up to their best judgment.

Same with deciding whether a roll is warranted. The DM might tell player #1 that a task has a DC of 10, and another player that they will automatically fail. Hopefully they have a good, behind-the-scenes reason for this, and aren't just being a jerk, because I agree that seems strange. But that's part of the DM's job description, and we might never know the real reason. If we suspect the DM is just being a jerk we should find a new DM.

My take is maybe colored by my Latin training, so "fiat" is just a normal word in my brain...in Latin, for doing something making something. Rulings, not takes means the DM needs to decided things a lot of the time.

 

[Parmandur]

I get that’s an opinion, meaningless rule, but since it’s being made, maybe you might want to explore and think about why they thought it might be necessary to say and what they thought it would change. If all you can come up with is “nothing” probably missing something.

Their reason is explicitly "this is how people are already playing, may as well go with the flow." So, for many tables this doesn't reflect an actual change, and if you look at actual examples (like a Critical Role stream), you will see thst it doesn'tmake much difference in practice, gating being one of the big reasons why.

 

[Parmandur]

If you don’t think this rule changes anything, I think you’re not understanding it, but I’ve said my peace, go on playing as you were. If it’s actually implemented in two years, worry about it then

It doesn't change anything about whether to allow a roll or bot: the same logic applies. And when that logic is applied, these issues being imagined cannot occur. Because only rolls where a success or failure is possible are rolled. And autosucces or failure doesn't change what can be done, just the process after the check is called for.

 

[Maxperson]

My take is maybe colored by my Latin training, so "fiat" is just a normal word in my brain...in Latin, for doing something making something. Rulings, not takes means the DM needs to decided things a lot of the time.

Yeah. Fiat is not whim. It's just "the DM decides." Fiat is the biggest thing in D&D. The DM decides encounters, treasures, what NPCs say and do, and how they react, DCs, when to use traps, and on and on and on.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah. Fiat is not whim. It's just "the DM decides." Fiat is the biggest thing in D&D. The DM decides encounters, treasures, what NPCs say and do, and how they react, DCs, when to use traps, and on and on and on.

Exactly, no DM work (which "fiat" really means), no game. No rulings, the rules can't function.

 

[Smackpixi]

So how does a DM determine the DC if not fiat?

is a good question. I struggle with this, especially knowing my players, and setting a DC knowing who’s coming up against it. Why I think player passive perception is stupid too. That said, you can probably see the difference between something set up before the players got there and you just deciding Mid battle that, how about I just send in an extra hobgoblin war party and collapse the roof on them Because battle too easy.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, Tools state that they "help you do something you couldn't normally do", and so a check using a Tool would require proficiency. But page 174 of the PHB makes it seem like anyone is allowed to roll for an ability check; "In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes an ordinary ability check."

The way I parse it out is we have a general rule that DM decides when a check is called for. The hard constraints on DM are that it must be something possible, not certain, and with consequences for failure. Who judges? DM is instructed to "ask yourself".

We then have a couple of examples of what might be impossible. Hitting the moon with an arrow. Picking a lock without tools one is proficient with. It is abundantly clear that these are given (in legalese) without limitation: meaning they are not exhaustive.

The upshot to me is that each group decides what is possible at their table. Now, should they be consistent in such judgements? I believe the normal finding on that is "yes"... consistency is valued. That implies that as judgements are made, a local rubric is formed.

It is entirely reasonable if one group's rubric comes to include requiring proficiency for some undertakings. After all, one of the handful of examples does exactly that! And on the other hand, it's entirely reasonable if another group's rubric excludes it (beyond tools.)

Neither group can reasonably insist that the other is mistaken in broader cases. Again, the exemplification is meagre, and even were it not it would be necessarily incomplete. Who must the DM at each table consult? Themselves, per RAW.