Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8750745" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>I suspect the intent is that more rolls are to be allowed; or put another way, that the "window" between auto-fail and auto-succeed is to be widened so as to expand into what previously would have been auto-xxx territory.</p><p></p><p>An analogy might be the 1e combat matrix, where rolling a 20 vs a 19 was far more significant than rolling a 19 vs an 18 but could still miss if the opponent's AC was good enough. I won't go into great detail but the to-hit needed went something like 18-19-20-20-20-20-20-20-21 with all those extra 20s being what I'm calling here the widened "window". So, maybe instead of a 20 auto-succeeding have it that a 20 in effect knocks 5 (or whatever number) off the DC.</p><p></p><p>The problem is, on the player side it's very easy to interpret a rule like this as "the idea of auto-succeed and auto-fail no longer exists at all; the DM has to let us roll for anything, no matter how crazy, because the rules say a 20 always succeeds". Flip side, the DM can say "now you always have to roll for trivialities as a 1 always fails".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8750745, member: 29398"] I suspect the intent is that more rolls are to be allowed; or put another way, that the "window" between auto-fail and auto-succeed is to be widened so as to expand into what previously would have been auto-xxx territory. An analogy might be the 1e combat matrix, where rolling a 20 vs a 19 was far more significant than rolling a 19 vs an 18 but could still miss if the opponent's AC was good enough. I won't go into great detail but the to-hit needed went something like 18-19-20-20-20-20-20-20-21 with all those extra 20s being what I'm calling here the widened "window". So, maybe instead of a 20 auto-succeeding have it that a 20 in effect knocks 5 (or whatever number) off the DC. The problem is, on the player side it's very easy to interpret a rule like this as "the idea of auto-succeed and auto-fail no longer exists at all; the DM has to let us roll for anything, no matter how crazy, because the rules say a 20 always succeeds". Flip side, the DM can say "now you always have to roll for trivialities as a 1 always fails". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
Top