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

[Yaarel]

We are told that the GM only asks for a D20 test when the outcome is in doubt (ie, there is chance of success and a chance of failure). We are also told that a natural 1 is always a failure, and a natural 20 is always a success.

So, under what situation would a nat 20 be a success without the "autosuccess rule" AND the GM asked for a roll anyway? If say, he determines that a character needs to roll 27 on the D20 to succeed, he's supposed to not ask for a roll. So no possibility of rolling 20. If there is a possibility of success, 20 will already include a success.

Same, in reverse, with 1.




EDIT: changed the title to show that my question wasn't related to the case where the DM disallows a roll altogether (it was a side thought) but to WHEN (and in that case HOW OFTEN) does the "auto-success on 20" change the outcome of a task.

The DM determines if an effort is an autosuccess or an autofailure.

Only if the situation really might go either way, does the DM ask for a d20 roll.

Combat mechanics are the most tested − and most routine − aspect of D&D. But even during a combat, the players might try to do something innovative, which requires the DM to determine how plausible and possible it is in the current situation.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I think this is another place where jettisoning skills would make the game work better. Do you have a background, class or other element that would let you do this thing and give you your proficiency bonus? If so, great!

We’ve been thinking about going with this approach for our next campaign

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is another place where jettisoning skills would make the game work better. Do you have a background, class or other element that would let you do this thing and give you your proficiency bonus? If so, great!

That sounds a lot like the optional proficiency rule on page 264 of the 5e DMG.

"BACKGROUND PROFICIENCY

With this variant rule, characters don't have skill or tool proficiencies. Anything that would grant the character a skill or tool proficiency provides no benefit. Instead, a character can add his or her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character's prior training and
experience (reflected in the character's background) reasonably applies."

Class and other elements would reasonably be counted as background.

 

[Retros_x]

Sometimes I let the players roll for attempts that are impossible to do, just to determine how hard they fail. The famous "I try to persuade the king do crown me the new king of his kingdom" - I will let them roll, but just to see if the king laughs at the good joke of if he throws the player in jail.

 

[the Jester]

Disagree. The rule of cool is part of being a hero. It’s not a game: it’s a story. And it’s the players and the DM’s jib to make the story satisfying.

Otherwise you may as well be playing Hero Quest.

The "rule of cool" not only isn't a rule, it's also usually brought up when discussion a roleplaying game.

Some would argue that it is sometimes actually quite bad for the game, because it turns it into more of a story. But if I want to tell a story, I will write one. I play D&D because it's a game.

 

[Horwath]

This again looks like a "d20" problem.
It's great for combat as a RNG calculator, but for skills/tools it fails completely.
the spread of 19 from lowest to highest is simply too much.
If there is a chance to beat DC 30, there should not be a chance to fail at DC 12.

also, I hate the "natural 1&20" rule. if 1 on d20 with bonuses is enough then you do it, and if 20 is not, then you are too incompetent to do it in current moment.

I like the d12 die, so changing d20 to d12+4(just so you do not need to change every DC in the game works wonders).
3d6 is also OK, but bell curve might get too boring after a while.

There is a sweet spot in between randomness and reliability in D&D,
d12+4 or d10+5 are really close for me.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It seems obvious to me that some tasks will have a different DC depending on who is attempting it. Consider catching hold of something dangling from a ceiling 3 meters above the ground. The Halfling will have to jump to 3 times his own height to grab it, that's a hard Athletics check if it's even possible, while the Goliath can simply reach for it, automatic success.

 

[Larnievc]

The "rule of cool" not only isn't a rule, it's also usually brought up when discussion a roleplaying game.

Some would argue that it is sometimes actually quite bad for the game, because it turns it into more of a story. But if I want to tell a story, I will write one. I play D&D because it's a game.

Eh, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The "rule of cool" not only isn't a rule,

It's the only one that matters.

 

[Horwath]

It seems obvious to me that some tasks will have a different DC depending on who is attempting it. Consider catching hold of something dangling from a ceiling 3 meters above the ground. The Halfling will have to jump to 3 times his own height to grab it, that's a hard Athletics check if it's even possible, while the Goliath can simply reach for it, automatic success.

this is why we need complex tables in PHB for skills, and not, DM will handle it as we are too lazy to put the work ourselves in designing our game.

The amount of time I had to default to 3.5e skill table for 5e sessions is absurd.