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

[UngainlyTitan]

I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)

I think the fundamental wellspring of disagreement here is that some DMs (myself, for one) think of ability check DCs as the difficulty that an indeterminate character would have performing the task. And it turns out that other DMs (Maxperson and UngainlyTitan, for two, if I understand them correctly) think of ability check DCs as determined relative to the particular character who wishes to perform the task.

That's an enormous difference in DMing procedure, one that I hadn't realized existed until tonight. And it will affect everything that has to do with ability checks.

With that procedure, it's not a question of whether "a player" gets to roll; it's always a question of whether this player gets to roll. And moreover, it's not even a question of how hard the task "is," it's always a question of how hard the task is for this PC. Five party members could all climb the same rope, and they could have five different DCs for the task.

I can't imagine DMing that way, or playing that way (though if the DM were quiet enough about it, I guess I might never even suspect it, until the day when PC 2's lower roll succeeds on a task where PC 1's higher roll has failed!).

But I have to admit I can find nothing whatsoever in the 2014 rules that would prohibit it—not only because the 2014 rules give DMs practically infinite latitude for making rulings, but also because they give rather little guidance on how to set a DC for an ability check in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)

Lore is always the messy one, largely because in a typical party the PCs come from all over the place and from a variety of cultures. Due to this, some PCs might have a far better chance of knowing a given bit of lore than others even if all the mechanics are dead equal between them.

Example: the party contains a Dwarf, a Gnome, a faux-Roman Human and a faux-Norse Half-Orc. None have anything specific skills or abilities going for (or against) them when it comes to historical knowledge.

So, if the need to know some obscure bit of Dwarven history comes up do they all get to roll, or does just the Dwarf get to roll, or does the Dwarf get some sort of bonus to the roll? (personally I'd often handle this by giving the Dwarf a roll and if that fails, giving the rest of them a single combined roll at worse odds; and if that too fails then they're out of luck)

 

[Ibrandul]

The bolded part is in error. It's impossible, because we think it's impossible for that PC, not because of the modifiers. This is backed up by RAW. The DMG rules you quoted don't change that. If it's impossible, there is no roll by the DMG rules. The DMG doesn't decide whether the answer to both of those questions is yes or no. The DM does. Even if a DM does decide that it's impossible due to the modifiers being too low.

Is there something in RAW—anything, anywhere—that actually states this? Or is this just your interpretation of the passages I quoted? Sincere question; maybe I missed something.

If not, I’d like to know on what basis you think that “we think it’s impossible for that PC” is always going to line up with the mods…unless you’re looking at the mods.

I get that only the DM calls for rolls. I get that there’s no one true way to DM. What I don’t get is anything in the 2014 RAW that states or implies “there should be no check unless the check has a chance of succeeding.” The only relevant passages I can find are the passages I quoted, and one other from the DMG under “Difficulty Class” that I didn’t bother reproducing before because it seems clear to me it doesn’t mean that—but for the sake of completeness, here it is:

“If you find yourself thinking, ‘This task is especially hard,’ you can use a higher DC, but do so with caution and consider the level of the characters. A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish, but it becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so. A DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters. A 20th-level character with proficiency and a relevant ability score of 20 still needs a 19 or 20 on the die roll to succeed at a task of this difficulty.”

Is there anything else in RAW to support your interpretation? I really do want to know—I care a lot about the baseline expectations set for how to play the game (otherwise I wouldn’t spend so much time discussing a rules change I have no intention of adopting!)

 

[Ibrandul]

I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[beancounter]

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

Maintaining the attitude that you "Having to explain it in simple terms" is condescending.

 

[Maxperson]

Is there something in RAW—anything, anywhere—that actually states this? Or is this just your interpretation of the passages I quoted? Sincere question; maybe I missed something.

Other than the parts where the DM decides it all, no nothing specifically says, "The DM can gate behind proficiency." The DM decides the answer to whether it's impossible covers it completely, though, so they didn't need to spell out all the different ways that the DM decides it all.

If not, I’d like to know on what basis you think that “we think it’s impossible for that PC” is always going to line up with the mods…unless you’re looking at the mods.

Because I don't have to know them.

DM: "If you are proficient with Arcana, give me a roll."

I don't care what your modifiers are. I just excluded everyone without Arcana regardless of their modifiers.

What I don’t get is anything in the 2014 RAW that states or implies “there should be no check unless the check has a chance of succeeding.”

Again, the DM gets to decide whether something is impossible or not and there are no restrictions on that, so if a DM decides that something has to have a chance of success or it's impossible for that PC, then that's what it is.

Page 237 of the DMG

"When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:"

"If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."

It's right there in black and white print. The DM asks himself two questions and then answers them himself. End of story. Nothing in the DMG says what the DM has to find possible or impossible, and the fact that they give a ridiculously absurd example of trying to hit the moon with an arrow shows that they aren't trying to force DMs down a path. I don't have to have a PC trying to jump the grand canyon to rule a jump impossible. I can in fact say no to a mere 40 feet if I want. I can say that you have no chance to make a 25 foot jump if you aren't proficient in athletics.

I can use any criteria I want to answer those two questions that I ask myself.

 

[Ibrandul]

Other than the parts where the DM decides it all, no nothing specifically says, "The DM can gate behind proficiency." The DM decides the answer to whether it's impossible covers it completely, though, so they didn't need to spell out all the different ways that the DM decides it all.

Because I don't have to know them.

DM: "If you are proficient with Arcana, give me a roll."

I don't care what your modifiers are. I just excluded everyone without Arcana regardless of their modifiers.

Again, the DM gets to decide whether something is impossible or not and there are no restrictions on that, so if a DM decides that something has to have a chance of success or it's impossible for that PC, then that's what it is.

Page 237 of the DMG

"When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:"

"If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."

It's right there in black and white print. The DM asks himself two questions and then answers them himself. End of story. Nothing in the DMG says what the DM has to find possible or impossible, and the fact that they give a ridiculously absurd example of trying to hit the moon with an arrow shows that they aren't trying to force DMs down a path. I don't have to have a PC trying to jump the grand canyon to rule a jump impossible. I can in fact say no to a mere 40 feet if I want. I can say that you have no chance to make a 25 foot jump if you aren't proficient in athletics.

I can use any criteria I want to answer those two questions that I ask myself.

I wasn't saying anything here about whether DMs are permitted to do what you're describing (that is, to choose not to call a roll on the basis of proficiency). I misunderstood you, if that's what you were talking about.

Here's what I'm talking about:

A PC wants to attempt a very hard task (DC 25). It's not impossible that someone could succeed at this task; indeed, other members of the party could succeed. But the PC doesn't have a shot at it, because their modifiers can only get them to a +2 (and no one has provided bardic inspiration, etc.)

Some have argued for the following position: according to RAW, the DM should never call for an ability check in this situation, because a nat 20 would fail. In other words: if a nat 20 would fail, the task is by definition impossible for this PC and the die must not be rolled.

One implication of this position is that the new "nat 20 auto-succeeds on ability checks" playtest rule is entirely superfluous except as a pedagogical redundancy to eliminate a persistent misunderstanding, because DMs should never call for any roll that this new rule would affect in any way.

AcererakTriple6 has expressed this position very clearly multiple times. You wrote some things that made me think this was your position, too. Perhaps I misunderstood.

This is a separate issue from the question of how much latitude DMs are granted in determining what qualifies as impossible. Indeed, if the position I'm arguing against is adopted, it amounts to a constraint on how DMs should rule what qualifies as impossible: the position is precisely that "impossible" must include every ability check roll in which a nat 20 would fail.

My position is: RAW do permit ability checks to sometimes be made even when a nat 20 will fail.

It has nothing to do with whether DMs are also permitted to say to some players, "If I permitted your PC to make a check for this, a nat 20 would succeed; but it is impossible for X or Y reason, so I won't permit it." Clearly, they are not only allowed to do so but should do so for some X's and Y's. But there's very little guidance in the RAW on what "X or Y reason" can or should be here, and there is certainly nothing to indicate that "X or Y reason" must include "because your mods aren't good enough and a nat 20 would fail, even though the task is possible in the sense that other PCs could succeed."

 

[Maxperson]

 

[Ibrandul]

View attachment 258588

Sorry—are you accusing me of not reading the rules?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wasn't saying anything here about whether DMs are permitted to do what you're describing (that is, to choose not to call a roll on the basis of proficiency). I misunderstood you, if that's what you were talking about.

Here's what I'm talking about:

A PC wants to attempt a very hard task (DC 25). It's not impossible that someone could succeed at this task; indeed, other members of the party could succeed. But the PC doesn't have a shot at it, because their modifiers can only get them to a +2 (and no one has provided bardic inspiration, etc.)

Some have argued for the following position: according to RAW, the DM should never call for an ability check in this situation, because a nat 20 would fail. In other words: if a nat 20 would fail, the task is by definition impossible for this PC and the die must not be rolled.

One implication of this position is that the new "nat 20 auto-succeeds on ability checks" playtest rule is entirely superfluous except as a pedagogical redundancy to eliminate a persistent misunderstanding, because DMs should never call for any roll that this new rule would affect in any way.

AcererakTriple6 has expressed this position very clearly multiple times. You wrote some things that made me think this was your position, too. Perhaps I misunderstood.

This is a separate issue from the question of how much latitude DMs are granted in determining what qualifies as impossible. Indeed, if the position I'm arguing against is adopted, it amounts to a constraint on how DMs should rule what qualifies as impossible: the position is precisely that "impossible" must include every ability check roll in which a nat 20 would fail.

My position is: RAW do permit ability checks to sometimes be made even when a nat 20 will fail.

It has nothing to do with whether DMs are also permitted to say to some players, "If I permitted your PC to make a check for this, a nat 20 would succeed; but it is impossible for X or Y reason, so I won't permit it." Clearly, they are not only allowed to do so but should do so for some X's and Y's. But there's very little guidance in the RAW on what "X or Y reason" can or should be here, and there is certainly nothing to indicate that "X or Y reason" must include "because your mods aren't good enough and a nat 20 would fail, even though the task is possible in the sense that other PCs could succeed."

You know 1D&D already answered this whole discussion effectively by saying don't allow checks where the DC is 30 or higher right? (Also: never ask for a roll when the DC is 5 or lower). Huge numbers of people seem to have missed that entirely. This entire discussion seems to have missed that, in fact.