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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do you really do this? Every time? Really?

Yes. Every time I ask them to roll, I ask if they're proficient and what their bonus is. End of story. It's not hard, it's not much more work than not doing that (and it's well worth the effort, in my experience). So nothing else you say matters.

If their stats make it impossible, they can't do it, and therefore can't even roll. Period. The end.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Per the new rules, a nat 20 is an automatic success in every situation where it is "humanly" possible to succeed.

If it's not possible, then obviously you wouldn't roll anyway.

If the CR is 25 and you roll a 20, you succeed - which IMO devalues the various modifiers that other PCs may have "invested" in.

If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail.

This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.

 

[beancounter]

If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail.

This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.

That doesn't negate the fact that it's effectively devaluing the modifiers of others. If a PC has a +1 modifier, they can now succeed on a 20 or a 21. Whereas under the old rules, they could only succeed on a 21. It gives those who should have a lower chance of success (due to not investing in appropriate modifiers) a greater chance than would "naturally" occur.

I don't see what the problem is with not responding in a condescending manner. It's really isn't that hard.

 

[beancounter]

Double post

 

[Ibrandul]

If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail.

This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.

With your procedure (assuming I understand you correctly), the DM constantly monitors all mods and, if a nat 20 wouldn't be good enough to hit the DC once mods are added or subtracted, then the roll is prohibited and does not occur.

So there would never be a situation when a nat 20 would fail under the old rule but succeed under the new rule, because such a roll would never be performed.

So there is simply no new rule at all.

And yet...there is a new rule.

So...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That doesn't negate the fact that it's effectively devaluing the modifiers of others. If a PC has a +1 modifier, they can now succeed on a 20 or a 21. Whereas under the old rules, they could only succeed on a 21. It gives those who should have a lower chance of success (due to not investing in appropriate modifiers) a greater chance than would "naturally" occur.

Again, no, this hasn't changed. The DM only calls for the roll if the PC has a chance of succeeding. If the DC for the ability check is 25 and the PC only has a +1 bonus, the DM then says that the PC automatically fails without even making the ability check. So they don't "succeed on a 20 or 21", they still need to be possible of getting a 25 total in order to succeed, they just don't get to roll unless they have a chance of getting that number.

The change in rules does not make succeeding on an ability check any easier. If a natural 20 + the PC's bonus to the check wouldn't succeed before, it still doesn't now (because the DM doesn't ask for the player to roll in that circumstance).

I don't see what the problem is with not responding in a condescending manner. It's really isn't that hard.

I was explaining it in simple terms because you seemed not to understand, not to be condescending.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

With your procedure (assuming I understand you correctly), the DM constantly monitors all mods and, if a nat 20 wouldn't be good enough to hit the DC once mods are added or subtracted, then the roll is prohibited and does not occur.

So there would never be a situation when a nat 20 would fail under the old rules but succeed under the new rules, because such a roll would never be performed.

So there is simply no new rule at all.

And yet...there is a new rule.

So...

Because apparently, the way it was written before was confusing for DMs and players, because "do natural 20s automatically succeed on an ability check?" was an extremely common question on 5e forums.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."

I have enough on my plate when I DM... and so do my DMs

 

[edosan]

…and yet, this new rule doesn’t really clear it up at all. Yes, a Nat 20 always succeeds on a skill check, unless there isn’t a skill check. Why isn’t there a skill check? Because I said so. But if there was a skill check, it would succeed. Yes. Can I do one in case I get a 20? No, you can’t because it’s not possible. But you said a Nat 20 always succeeds…

it’s a poorly written rule that further shows they need better writers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes. Every time I ask them to roll, I ask if they're proficient and what their bonus is. End of story. It's not hard, it's not much more work than not doing that (and it's well worth the effort, in my experience). So nothing else you say matters.

this is teh step I am adverse to adding to my game