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

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I mean, if it’s not ridiculous than a 5% chance should be reasonable. It’s not like people can really feel the difference between that and 3%.

If even 5% is way too high, then tell the player it’s beyond them (under current circumstances). I don’t think any reasonable-ish dm will just day “you fail” and not elaborate - that’s what would cause arguments rather than a sudden jump in player entitlement.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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>

People who don’t want to play 5e can always houserule it however they want.

Also, I haven’t seen a table erupt in argument over rules since I was in jr high in the 80s. Except maybe in a way in which everybody is also laughing so hard that beer comes out their nose.

 

[James Gasik]

People who don’t want to play 5e can always houserule it however they want.

Also, I haven’t seen a table erupt in argument over rules since I was in jr high in the 80s. Except maybe in a way in which everybody is also laughing so hard that beer comes out their nose.

Man that must be nice. I've had moments where I really thought I'd see two nerds leaping over the table at each other, dual wielding rulebooks.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Man that must be nice. I've had moments where I really thought I'd see two nerds leaping over the table at each other, dual wielding rulebooks.

If that happens, please get it on video.

 

[James Gasik]

If that happens, please get it on video.

Sure thing, though unless we play PF1 again it's not likely. I hope.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, if it’s not ridiculous than a 5% chance should be reasonable. It’s not like people can really feel the difference between that and 3%.

Maybe not; but they very much can tell the difference between outright zero and anything not-zero, even if the not-zero is only 1%.

And that's my argument here - that if the chance is anything not-zero then there should be a roll of some sort; and if 5e doesn't have the granularity to handle this that's hardly the player's fault.

I mean, if I'm a tank Paladin trying to sneak unaided through a guarded room my odds of making it might only be 1 in 100 - or even 1 in 1000 - but as those odds are not zero I think it's unfair if you arbitrarily deny me that small chance of making it. Sure, a 1 in 20 chance is too high; so fix the system by adding granularity rather than hose the game.

Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while. I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life? Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero. Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe not; but they very much can tell the difference between outright zero and anything not-zero, even if the not-zero is only 1%.

And that's my argument here - that if the chance is anything not-zero then there should be a roll of some sort; and if 5e doesn't have the granularity to handle this that's hardly the player's fault.

I mean, if I'm a tank Paladin trying to sneak unaided through a guarded room my odds of making it might only be 1 in 100 - or even 1 in 1000 - but as those odds are not zero I think it's unfair if you arbitrarily deny me that small chance of making it. Sure, a 1 in 20 chance is too high; so fix the system by adding granularity rather than hose the game.

Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while. I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life? Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero. Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.

Question: how will you react? There’s all this hypothesizing about how other unnamed people might react, but what will you do (assuming this becomes a rule) when a DM says, “No, sorry, no roll.”

 

[Lanefan]

Question: how will you react? There’s all this hypothesizing about how other unnamed people might react, but what will you do (assuming this becomes a rule) when a DM says, “No, sorry, no roll.”

If I feel my character's chance of success is not zero, argue.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If I feel my character's chance of success is not zero, argue.

Noted.

 

[SkidAce]

...
Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while. I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life? Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero. Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.

"1 in 20 caravan drivers suddenly had accident driving through crowded market streets....news at 6."