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

[Ibrandul]

The "new" nat 20 rule essentially gives everyone an equal chance to succeed regardless of their skills or proficiencies.

To be clear: this precise situation, where everyone has an exactly equal chance, will happen only on checks where the DC is exactly equal to 20 + the highest modifier in the party on that particular check.

Part of the discrepancy between my position and others' is that it seems this is very rare in most games, but fairly commonly in my games.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps, though in this case I'm not sure whether there'd really be any serious knock-on effects.

Other than hobbling guidance and bardic inspiration? I'm sure there are other "here have a bonus so we can achieve this thing" mechanical.

 

[edosan]

My first impression is that they did a really bad job of wording the rule in the playtest document.

On one hand, if rolling a 20 isn’t going to count as a success I’d say there’s no point in calling for a skill check in the first place. But that isn’t how it’s worded. It says a 20 “automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers.“ If their intent was how I choose to play, they’re not explaining themselves very well because it sounds like the “literally anything I can think of has a five percent chance of success” mode of play that doesn’t really interest me.

Maybe in a later document we’ll see them give out some better advice on when and how to administer skill checks.

 

[Ibrandul]

Other than hobbling guidance and bardic inspiration? I'm sure there are other "here have a bonus so we can achieve this thing" mechanical.

This is a total tangent, because truly wacky edge cases like this shouldn't be taken into account when evaluating a proposed rules change. But, under current rules and using only WotC-produced items and abilities, it's possible to succeed on a DC 30 check despite rolling a natural 1. (I mean without rerolling it, of course.)

But that requires a DM who has been way, way too nice to you.

(Although—come to think of it—an interesting campaign idea might be to tell the players that the whole campaign will build up a single ability check with incredibly high stakes, and then offer them an array of far-flung fetch quests to retrieve the various items or gain the various abilities necessary to boost the mod up to +29, piece by piece. And then tell them the precise in-world date and time that the check will have to be made... and start the clock.)

 

[Forester]

Playtesting….

We have never done critical success/fail with ability rolls. But, DMing today, I said we would.

PCs have been carrying around this locked metal chest since they were level 3 (they are now level 5 – and one at 6). It is DC25 to open. The only one with proficiency with thieves’ tools has it from their background – no expertise and 2x proficiency bonus – so it is impossible for them to open.

I expected them to take it to their local friendly locksmith, or to swap a spell out for a knock spell – or even just buy a knock spell scroll (such things are easy to buy in my game). But no … they just talked about the impossible-to-open chest and the wonders it might contain.

However… explaining today that a natural 20 could do it – oh, the excitement! I do have a house rule that you can try to do something like this for three times, and if you fail each time, on the third failed attempt then something will go wrong … in this case, the thieves’ tools will break. That is that particular set of thieves’ tools, only. But, as the thieving bit is in this particular PC’s background only (and sort of stepped away from), they don’t have easy access to buying more thieves’ tools….

However, after ransacking a werewolves’ lair, they now have three sets of thieves’ tools. And have decided to try each set twice over – six times in total – in that hope a nat 20 will be rolled. Nice loophole for sure – but I love their excitement and hope.

(Despite me saying a 1 will be automatic breakage of the thieves’ tools.)

We stopped before this was tried. Good thing: I need to review what is in that metal chest (so long ago, I can’t remember without reading my notes). Whatever it is would have been wonderful for level 3, but I’m not sure it is wonderful now. And after all the excitement, I would like it to be.

I was initially negative about crits and fails for ability rolls, and only introduced it for the sake of playtesting. I did not expect it to be so well-received….

 

[Ibrandul]

However… explaining today that a natural 20 could do it – oh, the excitement!

This is awesome!

But... as a matter of playtesting, I wonder whether this rule would have led to such excitement if it had been a part of the game from the beginning.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The "new" nat 20 rule essentially gives everyone an equal chance to succeed regardless of their skills or proficiencies.

While it will certainly promote the warm and fuzzies, it's just unrealistic to assume everyone has an equal chance of success.

It's a poor attempt to level the playing field, where there shouldn't be a level playing field.

No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.

And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.

Why are you assuming everyone gets to roll? The DM can just declare the attempt beyond any of them and say no. No roll, no 5%.

You seem to be assuming a problem that is only created if the DM just calls for rolls for everything. Why not assume the DM is going to follow the rules and only allow attempts where the outcome is in doubt?

 

[Maxperson]

I guess you will have to houserule? I do not have any useful suggestions.

He doesn't have to houserule. The rule about only rolling if the outcome is in doubt hasn't gone away with this change.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't intend for it to be taken as universal. I was asked for an example of why I might set a DC at 30 for the sake of world-building; I gave the example; then I was told the new rule wouldn't make a difference in that case, when it actually more than quadruples the chance of success.

The new rule does not override the old rules stating to only roll if the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful.

I don't think this is some sort of mic-drop moment. And this thread has taught me one thing: even though I try to DM RAW, and I know that each DM's style is unique in some way, I suspect that almost no one DMs D&D like I do regarding ability checks.

DMing by RAW involves just saying no to situations like you describe. No roll.