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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Do people regularly use DCs of 20 and higher that many characters can't possibly hit in their 5e games? I think this rule will have little impact on actual play. In my experience, if you need a 18 or more to succeed on a roll, it already feels like a serious long-shot.

A side note; I don't go around remembering the PCs modifiers when I decide to call for a roll, so auto success/failure usually goes like this:
DM: make a DC 10 athletics check
Player: I've got +9 so 10 is the lowest I can get.
DM: Ok, you succeed, no need to roll.

in 1D&D the roll will be mandatory since failure is always possible on a 1. That's really the only difference between the old and the new rules.

 

[Maxperson]

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...

This isn't a case of opposition. It's a case of the PHB says you don't roll when something is automatically successful or unsuccessful, then leaves it to the DMG for the instructions on how to determine those things. That makes it subordinate by its nature.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't a case of opposition. It's a case of the PHB says you don't roll when something is automatically successful or unsuccessful,

Except if player-side it states that a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails then in the players' eyes there's no longer such a thing as auto-succeed or auto-fail; instead there's always a chance, leading them to quite sensibly press for rolls whenever possible and to argue with the DM if-when those rolls are denied. It puts the DM in a bad spot.

Now if the 20-and-1 rules are left strictly DM-side this goes away for the most part, but somehow I don't think that'll be the case.

then leaves it to the DMG for the instructions on how to determine those things. That makes it subordinate by its nature.

Subordinate, or just passing the buck?

 

[Maxperson]

Except if player-side it states that a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails then in the players' eyes there's no longer such a thing as auto-succeed or auto-fail; instead there's always a chance, leading them to quite sensibly press for rolls whenever possible and to argue with the DM if-when those rolls are denied. It puts the DM in a bad spot.

It doesn't say that, though. It says you auto succeed on a 20 or auto fail on a 1 IF you get a roll. If a player is feeling entitled to a roll, it's because he didn't read the rules.

Now if the 20-and-1 rules are left strictly DM-side this goes away for the most part, but somehow I don't think that'll be the case.

Unless it changes, it is strictly up to the DM when rolls happen and how those rolls are gated.

Subordinate, or just passing the buck?

Either way it has to listen to what the DMG says.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't say that, though. It says you auto succeed on a 20 or auto fail on a 1 IF you get a roll. If a player is feeling entitled to a roll, it's because he didn't read the rules.

Unless it changes, it is strictly up to the DM when rolls happen and how those rolls are gated.

Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
Player: "I don't get a roll? A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
DM: "Sorry, no roll."
<argument erupts, and so much for that session>

That exchange will happen at thousands more tables than it would have without this rule. Just watch and wait for it.

And it's so very avoidable, simply by making it that 1s and 20s succeed more often than they should but its still not guranteed.

That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits. It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.

 

[Maxperson]

Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
Player: "I don't get a roll? A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
DM: "Sorry, no roll."
<argument erupts, and so much for that session>

That was the DM's fault.

DM: "The rules state very clearly that you only succeed IF you get a roll and that the DM determines if a roll is allowed."

If after that the player is still arguing, he can play at a different table. I expect my players to be able to understand simple rules.

That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits. It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.

Or just make it that the DM decides when an auto success is possible on a 20.

 

[Lanefan]

That was the DM's fault.

DM: "The rules state very clearly that you only succeed IF you get a roll and that the DM determines if a roll is allowed."

If after that the player is still arguing, he can play at a different table. I expect my players to be able to understand simple rules.

I'd still be arguing, but now against the rule that says the DM can deny me a roll even though I-as-player feel I have a valid and not-zero in-fiction chance of success. And that argument wouldn't end.

Or just make it that the DM decides when an auto success is possible on a 20.

Or hard-code it such that a 20 in effect hits 5* DC points above its weight and a 1 hits 5* below. Thus, if you've no bonus and the DC is 23 a 20 would hit, but if the DC is 26 a 20 would still miss.

And even then, let them roll anyway! If not, you're giving away information about the difficulty of the task/situation you might not have to give away. If the roll comes up 3, for example, they've no way of knowing in-character or out whether they even had a chance or not; but if the roll is 20 and it still fails, only then do they realize the task is beyond them.

* - a number pulled out of the air which could be replaced by whatever numbers the designers come up with.

 

[Parmandur]

Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
Player: "I don't get a roll? A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
DM: "Sorry, no roll."
<argument erupts, and so much for that session>

That exchange will happen at thousands more tables than it would have without this rule. Just watch and wait for it.

And it's so very avoidable, simply by making it that 1s and 20s succeed more often than they should but its still not guranteed.

That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits. It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.

Pure theorycraft, that's not how it works now at tables who use autosuccess houserules.

 

[Lanefan]

Pure theorycraft, that's not how it works now at tables who use autosuccess houserules.

Is that because at those tables the DMs lean toward letting the players roll?

 

[Parmandur]

Is that because at those tables the DMs lean toward letting the players roll?

No, because saying"no" is a perfectly viable option. Matt Mercer, for example, says "no" when a roll doesn't make sense, as do the game's designers when they run the game.