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

[Reynard]

I don't run 5e adventures really, but this is said in the DMG on page 103.

"Locked Doors. Characters who don't have the key to a locked door can pick the lock with a successful Dexterity check (doing so requires thieves' tools and proficiency in their use)."

So no proficiency = impossible. Proficiency = possibly possible.

I never noticed that before. Good catch.

 

[Maxperson]

I never noticed that before. Good catch.

Thanks. There are two other examples that I found yesterday or the day before.

 

[Reynard]

Thanks. There are two other examples that I found yesterday or the day before.

I was not convinced by the previous bolded quotes. They seemed too vague to actually support it. But then there are TWO of these active threads and they have mashed together in my head, so I kind of feel lost in the mall at the moment.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, this. So, it is possible that a DM may deem success possible, but nearly impossible, and accordingly call for a DC 30 check. If the character being asked to make the check has less than a +10 to the relevant ability/proficiency combination, they won’t be able to get a total of 30 even on a natural 20.

Now, a savvy DM might in some cases be able to anticipate that, for example, their party of 1st level characters won’t be able to hit a DC 30, even if they rolled for stats (or otherwise used a more-generous-than-standard ability score generation method) and have a 20 in the relevant ability and expertise in the relevant proficiency, and therefore decide not to call for a check if the task is nearly impossible. But with tasks that they deem only Vey Hard and/or PCs 5th level and higher, it’ll definitely come up from time to time. That said, I’m not real worried. At least at my table, such high DC checks don’t come up often, and when they do, there’s only a 5% chance of a natural 20 coming up. So I doubt I’m even going to notice the difference.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, this. So, it is possible that a DM may deem success possible, but nearly impossible, and accordingly call for a DC 30 check. If the character being asked to make the check has less than a +10 to the relevant ability/proficiency combination, they won’t be able to get a total of 30 even on a natural 20.

Now, a savvy DM might in some cases be able to anticipate that, for example, their party of 1st level characters won’t be able to hit a DC 30, even if they rolled for stats (or otherwise used a more-generous-than-standard ability score generation method) and have a 20 in the relevant ability and expertise in the relevant proficiency, and therefore decide not to call for a check if the task is nearly impossible. But with tasks that they deem only Vey Hard and/or PCs 5th level and higher, it’ll definitely come up from time to time. That said, I’m not real worried. At least at my table, such high DC checks don’t come up often, and when they do, there’s only a 5% chance of a natural 20 coming up. So I doubt I’m even going to notice the difference.

One consequence of the "the DC is too high so I will just tell them it is impossible" idea is that it might stop alternative approaches. "it's impossible" will more likely send players packing, whereas as a "close but no cigar" response might inspire them to try something different that will have a higher chance of success.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One consequence of the "the DC is too high so I will just tell them it is impossible" idea is that it might stop alternative approaches. "it's impossible" will more likely send players packing, whereas as a "close but no cigar" response might inspire them to try something different that will have a higher chance of success.

And as @iserith would surely point out, the goal of the players should be to find an approach that does not require a dice roll.

 

[MarkB]

And as @iserith would surely point out, the goal of the players should be to find an approach that does not require a dice roll.

"Here at Dungeon Innovators we'll teach you how to turn that DC 30 check into a DC 5 in just ten easy steps. Sign up today, only 19.99gp for your first lesson."

 

[HammerMan]

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?

Some players do

 

[HammerMan]

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.

So the DC is hard. Dc 24. Three characters ask if they can do it. 2 trained 1 untrained

The 2 trained have a +7 and a +3.
The untrained one though has 20 stat and a kick stone so they would have +6.

Who gets to roll?

 

[MarkB]

So the DC is hard. Dc 24. Three characters ask if they can do it. 2 trained 1 untrained

The 2 trained have a +7 and a +3.
The untrained one though has 20 stat and a kick stone so they would have +6.

Who gets to roll?

DM's call. Ability scores represent raw ability, skill proficiencies represent skill and specialised training. Which is more of a factor in this task?