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

[Maxperson]

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.

There is a difference there. But what's the difference between deciding on the fly to send an extra hobgoblin into battle and deciding on the fly that the DC for the knowledge question the player just asked you is a 20 and not a 15?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This. A very well written post.

I think the part I bolded is the way the vast majority of tables end up playing. Unless a DM is truly random and making these decisions on whim, "Hmm, well I haven't used 25 in a while, so it's a DC 25 to know the King's name!", then his thought process and knowledge he is drawing upon to make the decisions will necessarily be pretty consistent.

 

[SkidAce]

Gatekeeping skill checks is a tough concept to approach. On the one hand, "everybody rolls" lets people feel like they are part of the action, and able to contribute.

On the other hand, it can create some odd moments, like when the Barbarian crits an Arcana check that the Wizard flubs.

It comes down to what is more fun for your group. If you're willing to sit on your hands because verisimilitude matters most, then by all means, gate those skill checks!

If you want everyone to have fun, and you think bizarre results lead to roleplaying moments, as Gourry the Fighter explains how he knows about the time every month that all female spellcasters close shop, then there's no real reason to deny everyone a crack at the d20.

Nice call back reference.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It would be interesting to create a group-roll mechanic where everybody, or everybody who wants to, rolls at once, with a single outcome, for things like knowledge checks or investigation, that has the right risk:reward profile to make it interesting.

The thing I’ve grown to hate is when players say (or are thinking) “Sure, I’ll roll, why not?” That’s not a sign of good game design.

 

[MockingBird]

I'll adopt the 20/1 mechanic for saving throws and attacks but not for ability checks.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'll adopt the 20/1 mechanic for saving throws and attacks but not for ability checks.

Not even ability checks with consequences of failure? Jumping over lava, shoving an enemy, disarming the trap, etc.?

EDIT: For tables that do dice rolls even without consequences, that requirement would address the concern about spamming for inspiration.

 

[MockingBird]

Not even ability checks with consequences of failure? Jumping over lava, shoving an enemy, disarming the trap, etc.?

EDIT: For tables that do dice rolls even without consequences, that requirement would address the concern about spamming for inspiration.

It's still in the air, honestly I'm leaning toward only allowing attacks to crit/fail as we do now. If this change survives the playtest I'll definitely house rule it back. I hope this change doesn't stick.

 

[Lanefan]

”just because a check has a DC doesn’t mean that everyone can roll” is the current rule. 100% agree. I’m saying 20 auto success changes that.

In the eyes of the players, certainly; even more so if it's stated in the PH.

Whether the new DMG will agree, disagree, or waffle on this point remains unclear; and all the discussion and argument so far is - and can only be - based on what the current DMG has to say...or not say.

But it could easily lead to a big yet subtle change in dynamic. Before, the default was no roll until-unless the DM granted permission With this, and with players knowing they always (or at least very much more often) have a chance to succeed, it could change to the default being to roll unless the DM denies it. This puts the DM in a much worse positon, as granting is always easier than denying.

But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds.

It feels like people are saying if I can say “only Dwarves can do it” for a good reason, I can also say “only proficient people can do it” or “you can’t do it”. Which are perfectly fine DM Fiats you can have, but are just made up reasons not supported by rules or fiction.

Not supported by the rules, sure; but I suspect in most cases the DM would be trying to say (or very strongly imply) the denial of roll is supported by the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

The PHB rules are subordinate to the DMG on [... stuff]

The bolded is perhaps a more controversial statement than at first it might appear.

In cases of contradiction* between the PH and the DMG, which takes precedence? And how do you prevent the obvious and quite understandable arguments from erupting when a DM tries to say the DMG takes precedence?

* - which ideally should never occur, yet here we are...

 

[Lanefan]

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

I suspect the intent is that more rolls are to be allowed; or put another way, that the "window" between auto-fail and auto-succeed is to be widened so as to expand into what previously would have been auto-xxx territory.

An analogy might be the 1e combat matrix, where rolling a 20 vs a 19 was far more significant than rolling a 19 vs an 18 but could still miss if the opponent's AC was good enough. I won't go into great detail but the to-hit needed went something like 18-19-20-20-20-20-20-20-21 with all those extra 20s being what I'm calling here the widened "window". So, maybe instead of a 20 auto-succeeding have it that a 20 in effect knocks 5 (or whatever number) off the DC.

The problem is, on the player side it's very easy to interpret a rule like this as "the idea of auto-succeed and auto-fail no longer exists at all; the DM has to let us roll for anything, no matter how crazy, because the rules say a 20 always succeeds". Flip side, the DM can say "now you always have to roll for trivialities as a 1 always fails".