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

[Lanefan]

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

That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen.

 

[Parmandur]

That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen.

They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation. Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.

 

[Lanefan]

They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation.

But that's just my point - success is always in doubt. Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't. It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.

Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.

I'd say no, anyone can try; but lack of proficiency would make failure much more likely. Just the same as someone who has never driven a car (or even learned how) getting behind the wheel and giving it a go. Odds are much higher for problems than with a trained driver, but success is still quite possible.

 

[Maxperson]

But that's just my point - success is always in doubt. Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't.

The D&D standard is legalese. Beyond a reasonable doubt = impossible/no doubt. It there a chance that I will be hit by a meteor tomorrow when I step out of my front door? Yes. Not getting his is technically in doubt. No reasonable person would doubt my safety on this subject, though.

It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.

No. No it doesn't make all the difference. And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.

 

[Lanefan]

No. No it doesn't make all the difference. And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.

So what's the threshold? .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.

And D&D can model it, if not perfectly then at least to a much better extent than now, if one is willing to step just a tiny bit outside the RAW box and use something more granular than a single d20.

 

[OB1]

I've seen statements like "The DM won't let my character try" or "I can't even attempt" come up several times over the last few pages in regards to dice rolls. But not rolling does not equal not attempting or trying, it means you character tried, but failed. The player declares what their character does, the DM decides the results, often times asking for a roll if the result is uncertain (PHB p1). The DM resolves uncertainty on the basis of an individual PCs actions.

Player: I want to jump over the 10 foot lava stream to get to the tunnel on the other side.
DM: That distance looks impossible for you to make (given character's 8 STR), do you still jump?
Player: Okay, let me think of another way to get around.

The way to deal with players disagreement over something being impossible for a PC is to have meaningful consequence of failure.

Player: I want to jump over the 10 foot lava stream to get to the tunnel on the other side.
DM: That distance looks impossible for you to make (given character's 8 STR)
Player: But I'm full of adrenaline due to the 100 angry dwarves chasing me and this is my only chance to escape!
DM: Fair enough, it's only nearly impossible for you in this circumstance, requiring a DC30 Strength check, so you'll need a nat20 to make it. Failure means falling in the lava and taking 40d6 fire damage.
Player: (Thinks about whether a 5% chance of success is the best course of action)
DM: What do you do?
Player: I throw down my weapons, raise my hands and face the dwarves. I'm going to try and talk my way out of this.

 

[Parmandur]

So what's the threshold? .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.

And D&D can model it, if not perfectly then at least to a much better extent than now, if one is willing to step just a tiny bit outside the RAW box and use something more granular than a single d20.

DM ruling. Always has been.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as eleven point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck.

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.

Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.

 

[Parmandur]

I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as eleven point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck.


Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.

That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.

And do you think people who didn’t understand the old rule will do that?

Furthermore, it requires constant case by case monitoring of every roll for every character. I simply don’t see how this is an improvement.