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

[Smackpixi]

Page 237 in the using ability scores section. The DM asks himself two questions that if he answers no, means that it's impossible for the PC to get a roll. No criteria are listed for that decision, which means the DM determines that as well.

Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not. Too easy, succeed, no roll. Impossible, fail, no roll. The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds now, the answer is yes.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not. Too easy, succeed, no roll. Impossible, fail, no roll.

Correct. The DM decides the criteria, since none is listed.

The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds not, the answer is yes.

You do realize that the example is obscenely ludicrous so as to not pigeonhole the DM into how to make the decisions, right? It's not a rule. The rule is DM asks himself two questions and then decides the answer based on anything he wants, but should be fair about it. And yes, gating rolls behind proficiency, too weak to make the jump, etc. are fair when they are appropriate.

 

[clearstream]

But this is exactly the annoying situation the new rule creates. The GM now has to adjudicate every bloody roll personally for every character, and there really isn't any guidance on how to do it, so the players reasonably might feel the they were denied a roll they "should" have gotten, or forced to roll an a trivial thing only to proceed to fail on natural one.

Do you mean, in the case that multiple characters are attempting something at the same DC, and for some of those characters the check would not be uncertain barring the auto-success/fail, then DM potentially needs to decide if they should even call for checks from those specific characters?

The example to hand is jumping. To me, it should focus thought on the fictional situation, not the DC. Say the pit is 20' wide? One character has Strength 16, another Strength 8. Here, I think the group should have decided the meaning of the words "an unusually long distance" in their fiction. Does it mean more than twice base distance, or maybe up to twice? Less? What do they picture?

Say they decide it's up to twice. DM calls for checks, telling players "roll if twice your strength is 20 or more". In all cases, think about what is pictured, not the individual check modifiers. For similar reasons, one DM might say "roll if you have proficiency with thieves' tools" or even "roll only if you have expertise with thieves' tools!"

 

[Smackpixi]

Correct. The DM decides the criteria, since none is listed.

You do realize that the example is obscenely ludicrous so as to not pigeonhole the DM into how to make the decisions, right? It's not a rule. The rule is DM asks himself two questions and then decides the answer based on anything he wants, but should be fair about it. And yes, gating rolls behind proficiency, too weak to make the jump, etc. are fair when they are appropriate.

We’re disagreeing about impossible. I agree, no rolls on impossible things. But I say the new 20 succeeds rule changes the dynamic on personally impossible things. That’s the point of the new rule, it eliminates the personally impossible, that’s it’s point. If a thing has a DC, is theoretically possible, character gets a roll.

you, disagree, that much is clear to me. But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?

Edit - I allow that some checks are specifically gated, only Dwarves can do or something, let’s focus on the standard, chasm jumping kind.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not. Too easy, succeed, no roll. Impossible, fail, no roll. The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds now, the answer is yes.

I think here you are giving an example that is what I will characterise (without intending anything negative) as "too mild". That is, you're giving an example where as a DM I would generally allow Attack rolls against elks (whether or not they are nibbling on elderflowers at the time.)

But just because I will call for Attack rolls (e.g. to hit the elk), and skill rolls (e.g. to sneak up on it) in mild cases, that doesn't commit me to calling for them in all cases, which is how you seem to interpret the new rule.

To put it another way, you're arguing over what is reasonable: at your table, what is reasonable is what you and your group feel is right.

 

[clearstream]

you, disagree, that much is clear to me. But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?

They are changing it so that when DM calls for a check, it is guaranteed to have a chance of success and failure.

 

[Maxperson]

We’re disagreeing about impossible.

Quite frankly, that's irrelevant. Per RAW you get to decide what is impossible for your table and only your table, and I get to do the same with mine. You not agreeing with me on what is or isn't impossible doesn't change the rule.

But I say the new 20 succeeds rule changes the dynamic on personally impossible things.

Then that's how it works in your game.

That’s the point of the new rule, it eliminates the personally impossible, that’s it’s point.

That is not how it's written and in a playtest, it's worthless to try and figure out what they meant to write, since you are testing new rules that could change at any time. You test what it says, not what you think they meant.

What the new rules say is that the DM decides and only if the DM thinks it's appropriate/warranted is there a roll. And only if there is a roll is auto 20 in play.

If a thing has a DC, is theoretically possible, character gets a roll.

Then that's how it is in your game.

you, disagree, that much is clear to me.

I certainly hope so!

But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?

They are codifying that if you allow a roll, a 20 can succeed, even if the DC is beyond the bonuses + a roll of 20. So if the DM allows someone with +2 to roll for a DC 25 check, even though the max roll is 22, a 20 still succeeds. That's it. That's how it is written.

Edit - I allow that some checks are specifically gated, only Dwarves can do or something, let’s focus on the standard, chasm jumping kind.

So again, the guy with the 3 strength will never make it 21 feet. To allow him to go 7 times the distance is to also allow someone with a 20 strength to go 147 feet with a jump. It's absurd. It's not possible. No roll for the guy with a 3 strength. Yes roll for the guy with a 20 strength.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's another thing.

If DMs didn't read the rule before that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they going to read rules now to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?

Oh man.
This could be really disastrous.

 

[clearstream]

That is not how it's written and in a playtest, it's worthless to try and figure out what they meant to write, since you are testing new rules that could change at any time. You test what it says, not what you think they meant.

It's a minor point of dissent, but I would say that in a playtest it is especially important to play what you think they meant. In a way, that's part of the playtest: is the effect of the rule clear to players? How do they construe it?

 

[clearstream]

If DMs didn't read the rule before that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they going to read rules now to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?

I believe the game design will continue to be intentionally vague about what DMs should count as impossible. So there is no additional rule to read here.

I would personally like it if they added game text giving examples of gating behind skill proficiency and expertise, just as they currently do for tools (PHB154).