D&D (2024) IF you're allowing a PC to roll, WHEN does autosuccess matter?

[Jfdlsjfd]

So, lwtsay the 6 Strength Wizard tries to qualify for the Olympics. He doesn't get a d20 roll, because he cannot succeed due to lack of proficiency. DC doesn't come into play. Of a character cannot do something, they can't roll a d20 Test. If they can roll the test, then they have a 5% minimum chabce of success.

So, basically, the only way for it to work is by accepting that a given task has a different TN for every character? I am all for it, but I didn't feel it was the expected way to do it in 5e (even with the disappearance of DCs sample for skills, in many adventure the DC is linked to the task without consideration for who is doing it, based on the assumption that a roll would be done with adventage if a character is especially suited to that (RotFM for example, does that a lot).

I am all for "Looking for notes in a library? Everyone, the TN is 30. The note could be handwritten anywhere on the books. Bob, your background as a Sage has made you familiar with exotic classification systems, for you the TN is only 20. Jack, your character doesn't know how to read draconic, err, you can't roll (the TN would be over 30 for you, which is equal to being impossible)." But deducing this is the way it will work through the reading of two sentence is a lot to assume, including the one that is in question here, that a roll is warranted when the TN is over 5 and under 30.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

There seems to be some confusion about the order of operations between the DC and the idea of "automatic failure/success".

The DM determines whether an attempted action will succeed or fail NOT by computing the DC and then figuring out if it's possible for the player to roll that high. It is determined based on the DM's judgment about the state of the fiction, possibly factoring in the character that will be making the attempt.

IF the DM concludes that it might succeed, but might not, then they set a DC and call for an ability check.

On the other hand, as rolls are warranted whenever the TN is >5 and <30, if the DM determines that a character has a chance to succeed, he must assign a DC within this range. If he knows no player can reach a TN of 30 (because he vaguely now their proficiency bonus and their main stat so he can guess even it's a few point off), then why ask for a roll? On the odd chance that one PC will randomly get a 20? (totally irrespective of skill, since none of the player would be able to roll a modified result 30, enough to meet the TN)?

And if he sets an "acheivable TN", ie, one a player can reach, then the rule becomes not useful for the PC that could meet the TN, because a 20 would have met the TN anyway. It changes things for the character that wouldn't be able to meet the TN, since they roll, and have a 5% of succeeding, while the skilled character has no special chance outside of meeting the TN. The odds that the skilled character succceed on a difficult task (that would need, as a specialist, say a 17-20 roll) are still high, compared to the odd of one of the other PC schmucks succeeding on the guaranteed 5% success are not that bad. It quite undermines skill.

 

[MarkB]

There are a number of criteria that a DM can choose to apply when determining whether or not a task qualifies as being uncertain enough in outcome to warrant a roll.

They could decide that this is a specialised task (picking an exquisitely-crafted or partially-magical lock, for instance) and only someone with proficiency in an appropriate skill or tool has any chance of success.

They might consider that specialised knowledge based upon a character's background or their past experiences in the campaign qualify them to make the check.

The player may come up with a novel approach to the task which makes enough sense that it should give them a chance.

They might just leave it open for anyone to have a go if they want to.

What I'm really not keen on is the one that seems to have come up a few times in conversations about these rules - checking the individual character's total bonus, and if it's not high enough for them to meet the DC on a natural 20, they can't roll. That one doesn't even fly in the current ruleset, because it's possible for characters to gain additional bonuses from sources such as guidance or bardic inspiration which will bring the task within their range.

 

[CubicsRube]

I don't understand why this would be difficult.

A citizen is trapped under a cart. The str 6 halfling wants to lift it. The DM determines it won't be possible, no roll. The str 16 goliath wants to try. Roll.

Do you let players roll for everything? You have to set bounds of what is possible in your world. It's part of the job.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Do you let players roll for everything? You have to set bounds of what is possible in your world. It's part of the job.

Exactly.

If you let people roll for anything anytime (or call the rolls themselves) of course that nat20 or the bard with +1 billion persuasion will succeed at charming Demogorgon!

If you dont want a thing to happen in the reality you are shaping as a DM, dont let the roll decide. Even at 5%, it will screw the world logic if you let random chance decide over you.

 

[Leatherhead]

Possibly the "outcome being in doubt" will vary depending on who is acting? Does WOTC expects every DM to have every PC's sheet memorized?

The argument that a dm should always review a character sheet aside, you literally don't need to remember any numbers at all. Thanks to bounded accuracy, you only have to know if said character has proficiency or expertise in any given skill. You can even accomplish this by taping up a grid to the back of your DM screen, so you don't even have to remember that much.

 

[Parmandur]

So, basically, the only way for it to work is by accepting that a given task has a different TN for every character? I am all for it, but I didn't feel it was the expected way to do it in 5e (even with the disappearance of DCs sample for skills, in many adventure the DC is linked to the task without consideration for who is doing it, based on the assumption that a roll would be done with adventage if a character is especially suited to that (RotFM for example, does that a lot).

I am all for "Looking for notes in a library? Everyone, the TN is 30. The note could be handwritten anywhere on the books. Bob, your background as a Sage has made you familiar with exotic classification systems, for you the TN is only 20. Jack, your character doesn't know how to read draconic, err, you can't roll (the TN would be over 30 for you, which is equal to being impossible)." But deducing this is the way it will work through the reading of two sentence is a lot to assume, including the one that is in question here, that a roll is warranted when the TN is over 5 and under 30.

No, not different numbers for different folks...bit not everyone always gets to roll. The DC may be only 20, bit you need Religion Proficiency to try. And that is absolutely Baked inton5E as written and intended to be played.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, autowins and autofails happen during "narrative adjudication", when they make sense in the context of the scenario, before any ability rolls might be considered.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

No, not different numbers for different folks...bit not everyone always gets to roll. The DC may be only 20, bit you need Religion Proficiency to try. And that is absolutely Baked inton5E as written and intended to be played.

But as soon as you assign a TN of 20 to the Sage-background, Proficient-in-Religion cleric, the wording of the rules that say that a roll is warranted when the TN is no less than 5 and no greater than 30 would be allow the player of the Brute Barbarian to say "hey, a roll is warranted, oh, I made a 20". I think this sentence is badly written if they intended to say that a roll is warranted when the DM determines it considering the character who attempt it AND the TN is between 5 and 30. But this is an aside to the problem (which wasn't "who can roll" but "how is getting an auto-success on 20 something that change things").

Let's assume that the character is indeed proficient in Religion. IF you made that character roll, it means you estimate that he can succeed (because we all agree that DMs don't let player roll their dice for the sound of it, but only if they have a chance of succeeding, if only not to have to deal with the player saying "why one earth did you make me roll, I got a 20 and yet I fail?!?"). Then, in the 5e ruleset, you assign a DC. Why are you asking for a roll if you have determined that the DC would be unreachable for this character? And if the DC is reachable, it means that the character would have succeeded anyway on a 20 since it's the best possible score. Honestly, when I know I'll set a DC that can't be reached, for example 25 to lift a cart and the character has 15 STR and is level 1 (so max roll 24), in 5e, I just tell the player "no need to roll, it's impossible". This is the only case where the auto-succeed on 20 would change something: when the DM as said "sure, it's possible, you CAN roll for it" while having set a TN that is out of reach for the character...

Basically, I only see this rule changing anything in the odd case where the DM says "it's possible" and yet assign a TN outside of the character's ability to succeed anyway.

 

[Parmandur]

But as soon as you assign a TN of 20 to the Sage-background, Proficient-in-Religion cleric, the wording of the rules that say that a roll is warranted when the TN is no less than 5 and no greater than 30 would be allow the player of the Brute Barbarian to say "hey, a roll is warranted, oh, I made a 20". I think this sentence is badly written if they intended to say that a roll is warranted when the DM determines it considering the character who attempt it AND the TN is between 5 and 30. But this is an aside to the problem (which wasn't "who can roll" but "how is getting an auto-success on 20 something that change things").

Let's assume that the character is indeed proficient in Religion. IF you made that character roll, it means you estimate that he can succeed (because we all agree that DMs don't let player roll their dice for the sound of it, but only if they have a chance of succeeding, if only not to have to deal with the player saying "why one earth did you make me roll, I got a 20 and yet I fail?!?"). Then, in the 5e ruleset, you assign a DC. Why are you asking for a roll if you have determined that the DC would be unreachable for this character? And if the DC is reachable, it means that the character would have succeeded anyway on a 20 since it's the best possible score. Honestly, when I know I'll set a DC that can't be reached, for example 25 to lift a cart and the character has 15 STR and is level 1 (so max roll 24), in 5e, I just tell the player "no need to roll, it's impossible". This is the only case where the auto-succeed on 20 would change something: when the DM as said "sure, it's possible, you CAN roll for it" while having set a TN that is out of reach for the character...

Basically, I only see this rule changing anything in the odd case where the DM says "it's possible" and yet assign a TN outside of the character's ability to succeed anyway.

Well, yes. But the rules as written encourage gating by proficiency, that is, saying "no" to rolls for some characters and "yes" to others. The DC is not the only tool in the toolbox....and this isn't a change