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

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think I've ever set a dc that someone would need a 20 to be successful at and got it. I've certainly had people roll a 20 on a check before (and succeed). NOW they get inspiration instead of "Darn it, I critted on this ability check. Wish I'd saved that roll for an attack!" (Either way, they would succeed, I suspect).

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think I've ever set a dc that someone would need a 20 to be successful at and got it.

I have. Lots of times over the years. Hell, in the distant past of AD&D some DM's used to say that the player would need to drop a 00 on percentile dice to succeed at some task that they thought was nearly impossible, and though very rare I've seen that happen more than once.

 

[Minigiant]

DM fiat is always there in all ways. There's nothing about these particular rules that I did not already do. I had auto fail on a 1. And auto succeed on a 20 on any roll from a player that I asked for. If you could not make it, you didn't get a roll. If I thought it was a bit beyond you, but you might get lucky, you got a roll and needed to hit that 20.

My point is it changes the dynamics of DM Fiat.
Before you could objectively decide the difficulty of an action and let the dice fall where they may. You only had to deny an attempt on the case of possibility

Or in other Terms,when a DM is potentially deciding on a check, they are thinking about 2 things: Possibility and Probability.

Possibility is the ability for the character to even succeed at the action.
Probability is how likely they can succeed at a possible action.

Usually you think about if the action is possible, usually by examining proficiency, equipment, or other parameters. Then you set a probability based on a difficulty you gauge if you deem the action possible.

Sometimes possibilty and probability are linked. An action's scucess might be only of pure difficulty or experience. In these times you can merge Possibility and Probability and set a DC. A DC over 20 is only possible for the talanted, skill, or enhanced as you cannot roll higher than a 20 without a modifier. A DC over 20 also had a low probability of success. PCs do to their equipment and magic can high themselves up their probability of success and turn the impossible to possible.

Automatic Success on a 20 wonks it up as it puts more work on the DM by enhancing the Fiat of when an actions possibility chances via a chance of probability.

It's more work for a DM in a game that already piles work on them.

 

[Lanefan]

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft. ...

And if the character has a Wish outstanding, say from a Luckblade, its jumping problems are henceforth solved.

 

[Cold Iron Bound]

Hmm, the rule I'd consider adding is "Only proficient characters can attempt a check that's over DC 20".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.

I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.

When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case often, not seldom, with the new rule.

Why are you gatekeeping that lore behind such high DC's? DM advice in 5e is that easy = DC 5, Moderate = DC 10 and Hard = DC 15.
Personally I have stuck to the DMG guidelines and a DC of 15 that is passed by +5 or more yields additional information.

The way I see it, your choices are; ignore the new rule and advocate against it in the survey. Accept it and move on or change the nature of a critical success on an "impossible" task. By that, I mean that if the task should ordinarily be impossible but they get a critical it will yield something that will allow a later attempt at better odds.

For example if it is a lore based check that should be impossible the critical success might not tell them the answer but that there may be clued in the lost library of Simon Bibleos with some clue as to where they might go to get more information.

 

[Ibrandul]

DM advice in 5e is that easy = DC 5, Moderate = DC 10 and Hard = DC 15.

No, it’s not.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No, it’s not.

Ok, I mis remembered and it is a step higher at 5,10,15: easy, hard, moderate but instead of nit picking my mistake, you could have addressed my question or ignored me. Why a DC 30?
A regular ability check is at best +5 to the d20, with proficiency in a relevant skill that becomes +11 at level 17 and with expertise becomes +17 needing a 13 or better on the die. Advantage on the roll gives you a 50/50 shot but it seems pretty pointless to me to engage in this regularly.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm, the rule I'd consider adding is "Only proficient characters can attempt a check that's over DC 20".

Why? Do you not allow guidance, bardic inspiration or magic item bonuses in your game?

 

[Ibrandul]

Ok, I mis remembered and it is a step higher at 5,10,15: easy, hard, moderate but instead of nit picking my mistake, you could have addressed my question or ignored me. Why a DC 30?
A regular ability check is at best +5 to the d20, with proficiency in a relevant skill that becomes +11 at level 17 and with expertise becomes +17 needing a 13 or better on the die. Advantage on the roll gives you a 50/50 shot but it seems pretty pointless to me to engage in this regularly.

Sorry, I didn’t intend to sound curt.

If you don’t set DCs higher than 15, then of course this rules change won’t affect you (literally—it won’t affect you, since it only exists for when a nat 20 isn’t usually good enough to succeed, which means the DC must have been above 15 even for someone with a -5 mod).

But pointing out that you use an artificially low, homebrew version of the 5e DC table—when your argument is that I shouldn’t be setting higher DCs even though RAW says DMs should do so at least occasionally—is not nitpicking.