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

[Shiroiken]

That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)

You completely missed my point, which was after the section you emphasized. The issue isn't about not having auto-success and auto-failure, it's that newer DMs are going to have a harder time decided when to have a roll. If the rules say that any roll has a 5% chance of success, players are always going to push for a roll, even if there shouldn't be one. Conversely, some newer DMs are going to think you have a 5% chance to fail at anything, since you'll fail 5% of every check. The second part already took a long time for many to adapt to in 5E, and this is simply going to confuse the matter further.

Note, I won't have any issues if this is the way it is, but I've been running 5E since the last playtest. A brand new DM, however, is limited to what they put in the rules, and WotC hasn't been particularly good at helping new DMs learn how to run a game. They're supposed to be working on this for 1D&D, but this is adding an additional obstacle that I feel is unnecessary.

 

[edosan]

Agreed, I think it makes skill resolution more prone to meta gaming while simultaneously more difficult to adjudicate.

I’m not going to change anything about how I DM (is there a chance for success, is there a chance for failure, and is there a consequence for failure?) but I see it making it more complicated for new DMs under the guise of making what they see as (a common misunderstanding of RAW/a common house rule) into a formalized rule to make things easier.

 

[SakanaSensei]

I'm fine with the change for ability checks SO LONG AS the PHB explicitly states that the DM can do things like, say, require proficiency in a skill before the die can be rolled at all. Like, in bold, so players don't give too much guff about "why won't you let me try to roll for it?"

The fact of the matter is that rolling a 20 always feels nice and exciting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One of the benefits is that it opens up the need for checks. If rolling even a 20 means you won't succeed, then why are you having the players roll? If players can succeed even if they roll a 1, then why are you having the players roll? This opens up the possibility for these two ranges.

I'm not sure if I buy that reasoning. I don't really care one way or other...I don't currently use this houserule, although I don't mind using it if it's official.

But I don't think, "Some DMs ask for pointless rolls, therefore let's make sure they always have a point" is a sound basis for game design.

 

[edosan]

I'm fine with the change for ability checks SO LONG AS the PHB explicitly states that the DM can do things like, say, require proficiency in a skill before the die can be rolled at all. Like, in bold, so players don't give too much guff about "why won't you let me try to roll for it?"

This kind of “how to run the game” advice is something that the new version - a version that has brought unprecedented amounts of new players into the game - sorely needs. It’s largely intuitive to us for for a first time DM, how are they supposed to know?

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure if I buy that reasoning. I don't really care one way or other...I don't currently use this houserule, although I don't mind using it if it's official.

Then don't buy it.

But I don't think, "Some DMs ask for pointless rolls, therefore let's make sure they always have a point" is a sound basis for game design.

A whole bunch of indie game systems (e.g., FitD, PbtA, Fate, etc.) wanted me to tell you hello.

 

[Minigiant]

I always ask "are you proficient" before asking for an ability check as a DM. Is that not standard practice?

That really doesn't seem like that much work. And the problems it solves/alleviates are way more beneficial than any minor setbacks (just needing to know their bonus).

My point is in 5e if you are proficient and have a +0 ability modifier, you can't hit a DC 25 naturally.

5e
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Sorry....

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.

Whereas if you have STR 20, you still have a chance that the proficient/nonproficient question strips away.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is in 5e if you are proficient and have a +0 ability modifier, you can't hit a DC 25 naturally.

5e
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Sorry....

Or... you don't ask for that roll until after you say, "Only roll if you have +5 or better"... or you only ask for a roll if you think a bit of luck can help someone past their normal limits.

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.

Whereas if you have STR 20, you still have a chance that the proficient/nonproficient question strips away.

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: If you can hit a DC of 25 go ahead and roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: I guess I can't make it.
DM: Better luck next time.

Or...

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: The DC is 25, but sometimes people can beat their old records, so if you roll a 20 you will succeed.
Player: A 20!
DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.

Or...

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: 30 feet isn't possible for you to make. If you try it you know you will fall short. Do you still want to make the effort and risk death?

 

[Minigiant]

Or... you don't ask for that roll until after you say, "Only roll if you have +5 or better"... or you only ask for a roll if you think a bit of luck can help someone past their normal limits.

Sure but that's my point. It adds emphasis onto another point of DM Fiat that wasn't there..

Before DCs above25 were Very Hard or Impossible and beyond the range of those who aren't extremely skilled or talented.

Now, the low skilled and untalented can attempt and success at these DC so DM has to put more thought into whether theese PC can even attempt these DCs. This decision can drastically alter the perception of the world if any PC has a chance to success at any Peak/Olympic activity or not.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure but that's my point. It adds emphasis onto another point of DM Fiat that wasn't there..

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.

Before DCs above25 were Very Hard or Impossible and beyond the range of those who aren't extremely skilled or talented.

They still are unless you open them up to PCs that aren't.

Now, the low skilled and untalented can attempt and success at these DC

Says who? Players don't get to choose when they can roll for an ability check. If untalented people are making these attempts, that's the DM's doing.

so DM has to put more thought into whether theese PC can even attempt these DCs.

He should have been doing this already. Under current rules you only get to roll if the outcome is in doubt and failure has meaning. The DM should be, as of this minute, putting thought into whether PCs can attempt the DCs he sets.