I quite loathe the idea of automatic success or failure in ability checks. In fact, I loathe it so much that if the reasoning is to make it consistent with attack rolls, then I would rather get rid of automatic successes and failures on attack rolls.
Baldur's Gate 3 does this, and I hate it every time it happens. When you fail a DC5 check despite having +8 to your roll from stats/proficiency/Guidance, you feel cheated. When you succeed automatically, those same modifiers from your character building choices feel meaningless.
Automatic success/failure works for attack rolls because:
AC generally doesn't go extremely low
Modifiers generally don't go as high (+11 without magic items)
You are pretty much always going to be proficient with the weapon you are using
A single attack in combat is not a total win/fail condition for a fight
If you fail you can usually still take another swing at it next round
None of this is so much the case for skill checks, where:
DCs commonly go as low as 5
Modifiers can go as high as +17 without magic items
Checks will be made without proficiency
The skill check fully determines success or failure in given task
One attempt is frequently all that is afforded
The rules are different for attack rolls and ability checks because they are very different game mechanics. You do not have nearly as much riding on critical hits in combat, to the point that the rules for critical hits are also being experimented with precisely to eliminate the circumstances where they actually can.
If players are treating skill checks like attack rolls because they don't understand the rules, the solution is to write the rules more clearly, not to upend game mechanics that don't need fixing.
I apologize if I come across somewhat aggressively about this, but I have significantly stronger feelings about this than anything else that's come out so far, so thank you for bearing with me.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Fair, but in that instance if there is beer in the cellar I would just tell them there's beer. No roll needed.
But if the wizard with a +12 to it checked they'd get a roll for the hidden door down there, or if their passive was high enough they'd find it.
I couldn't make those distinctions if I didn't know the barbarian was unlikely to find the door, or that the wizard could.
Ahh see there was no beer, but there was money, and a little clue that he ended up finding, the roll also tells me how much time passes searching as well a low roll then an hour or so a high roll then it is found in 10 min
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Fair, but in that instance if there is beer in the cellar I would just tell them there's beer. No roll needed.
But if the wizard with a +12 to it checked they'd get a roll for the hidden door down there, or if their passive was high enough they'd find it.
I couldn't make those distinctions if I didn't know the barbarian was unlikely to find the door, or that the wizard could.
Ahh see there was no beer, but there was money, and a little clue that he ended up finding, the roll also tells me how much time passes searching as well a low roll then an hour or so a high roll then it is found in 10 min
And that is fine, you have other things you use your check for then. I would still at least want to have an idea of their modifier at that point too just as a "the minimum amount of time they're down there looking is <x>"
I have only skimmed the thread but my one big response to the Nat 20 auto success is that it will kill the really awesome “Yes and…” approach
If the answer is “just say No” to unlikely / impossible requests, and are constantly told no, no, no …. I feel like it loses a lot of the collaborative aspect
It also runs the risk of killing creativity.
Some of the best moments I’ve seen are when a player asks to do something unlikely, and instead of simply just refusing, saying “this will be extremely hard but you can certainly try, roll a ….”, and then if they roll a nat 20, allowing the result to be “you failed the thing you tried but by doing this this awesome thing happened” - some of the best creative moments!
eg: “I want to try to jump this ravine”. Rolls a Nat20
“well you didn’t make it across, but as you jumped the rope at your waist unraveled and caught on jagged rocky outcrop and pulled you back as you started to plummet, preventing you from falling to the ravine floor”
Really, it seems to be sacrificing RP and creativity for a cookie cutter mechanic.
I have only skimmed the thread but my one big response to the Nat 20 auto success is that it will kill the really awesome “Yes and…” approach
What you're about to describe isn't "yes, and..." It's "yes, but actually no."
If the answer is “just say No” to unlikely / impossible requests, and are constantly told no, no, no …. I feel like it loses a lot of the collaborative aspect
The counterexample usually paired with "yes, and" is "no, but." As in, the thing you want isn't possible, but here's something similar you might like. Because you actually do need to say no sometimes, and this isn't news.
Some of the best moments I’ve seen are when a player asks to do something unlikely, and instead of simply just refusing, saying “this will be extremely hard but you can certainly try, roll a ….”, and then if they roll a nat 20, allowing the result to be “you failed the thing you tried but by doing this this awesome thing happened” - some of the best creative moments!
As I said above, this isn't allowing the player anything, it's deception. You were never going to let them succeed. You just pretended you might, and then let the dice decide how much mercy you were going to have on them for their hubris. But moral judgement aside -- you don't need the d20 for this. They can always try, and you can always tell them what happens. Just because they didn't roll a die doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Next time, consider this: "I want to try to jump this ravine." "That's flat-out impossible. It's simply too wide. However, looking down into it, you can see a spot about 40 feet down where the gap narrows. If you were to climb down, you might be able to jump from one wall to the other. But this would be really hard, requiring a DC 19 Athletics check to make the jump."
You usually only tell them it's impossible when it would be obvious to the characters that it's impossible. Otherwise, you tell them they can try, and then they decide whether to try. If they do try, the only thing you NEED to do is tell them what happened. Rolling the die is not a necessary step. The die is for when failure and success are both possible.
I have only skimmed the thread but my one big response to the Nat 20 auto success is that it will kill the really awesome “Yes and…” approach
What you're about to describe isn't "yes, and..." It's "yes, but actually no."
If the answer is “just say No” to unlikely / impossible requests, and are constantly told no, no, no …. I feel like it loses a lot of the collaborative aspect
The counterexample usually paired with "yes, and" is "no, but." As in, the thing you want isn't possible, but here's something similar you might like. Because you actually do need to say no sometimes, and this isn't news.
Some of the best moments I’ve seen are when a player asks to do something unlikely, and instead of simply just refusing, saying “this will be extremely hard but you can certainly try, roll a ….”, and then if they roll a nat 20, allowing the result to be “you failed the thing you tried but by doing this this awesome thing happened” - some of the best creative moments!
As I said above, this isn't allowing the player anything, it's deception. You were never going to let them succeed. You just pretended you might, and then let the dice decide how much mercy you were going to have on them for their hubris. But moral judgement aside -- you don't need the d20 for this. They can always try, and you can always tell them what happens. Just because they didn't roll a die doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Next time, consider this: "I want to try to jump this ravine." "That's flat-out impossible. It's simply too wide. However, looking down into it, you can see a spot about 40 feet down where the gap narrows. If you were to climb down, you might be able to jump from one wall to the other. But this would be really hard, requiring a DC 19 Athletics check to make the jump."
You usually only tell them it's impossible when it would be obvious to the characters that it's impossible. Otherwise, you tell them they can try, and then they decide whether to try. If they do try, the only thing you NEED to do is tell them what happened. Rolling the die is not a necessary step. The die is for when failure and success are both possible.
I tell the player that the ravine is x many feet wide, I tell the player what they see and the player has the freedom to say, well my character is going to try and jump it. If I started saying a flat no at my tables my players would hate it, but, thus new rule for me doesn’t change anything, they can still roll a d20 and a nat 20 doesn’t mean they make the jump ever, the auto success means they don’t take fall damage.
But, and I have said this before, physical rolls are not what will be really impacted by this, it is the soft roles, persuasion, intimidation, deception.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
I second this.
I'm not saying you should remember what the character modifiers are during a game. But when you're designing the encounter and setting DC's, at that time you should certainly be referencing the character's abilities so the DC's align with your plans.
I set DCs to the hardness I expect the task to be, I never refer to the player sheets to figure out how likely it is they will achieve it, partly because usually the players come up with a clever way to decrease the DC anyway lol. But I have a party of 8 so I can pull be endlessly tweaking to try and second guess who might be doing a thing.
First, let me note that I am not trying to be argumentative, I just find the way your run your game fascinating, hence the commentary.
I do the same thing, I also don't explicitly use their modifiers to see how likely it is, and I have a large group of characters who are usually clever about reducing DCs as well.
I don't think DMs should systematically know PC modifiers or necessarily refer to their sheets when designing challenges for their campaign, simply approximately knowing them is usually enought for most DCs or values such as monster AC, attack modifiers etc.. The most common thing i refer to is often asking how much HP a PC has left when things starts to get ugly and it's mainly out of curiosity☺
I can support this.
When I run I have a list of my player's pertinent stats handy, usually AC, HP, passives, etc and maybe athletics/acrobatics/stealth.
If I am running something that needs History/Nature/etc and I know in advance I'll review their sheets before running.
If it's spontaneous I know the Wizard has a +5 to INT so his religion check is gonna be decent regardless of proficiency, etc.
I don’t allow players to discuss stats when doing a thing, if player A asks to search the room, they are doing the searching they don’t get to ask who has the best investigation and game the scenario. My players don’t even really know what each other’s stats are so I certainly don’t.
I guess my players are just a bit different. Mine don't usually do things out of their wheelhouse, or if they do they understand it might not work. I agree that my players have no idea what one another's stats look like, but I think it keeps my game moving smoothly when I know the pertinent ones and can make the assessment that something will or will not require a roll.
My players aren't on for buffing up their checks for optimal rolls or anything the like and they prefer if it's not likely they'll succeed we just keep the scene moving. I suppose some people's mileage may vary.
Your Not sounding argumentative at all, there are more then one valid way to have all our funs :). There are some standard roles that start to fall out during the campaign, the stealthy characters leading the way, someone will become the usual trap and lock pick expert etc, but I never run my sessions assuming that is who will do the thing and it makes for great moments. Like a Minotaur Barbarian asking if there is any beer in the pub cellar and therefore being the one to make the investigation roll for that space. Or the player with low perception asking what something looks like and then making the roll.
I find with 8 it makes things run much smoother then every roll being by committee.
Fair, but in that instance if there is beer in the cellar I would just tell them there's beer. No roll needed.
But if the wizard with a +12 to it checked they'd get a roll for the hidden door down there, or if their passive was high enough they'd find it.
I couldn't make those distinctions if I didn't know the barbarian was unlikely to find the door, or that the wizard could.
Ahh see there was no beer, but there was money, and a little clue that he ended up finding, the roll also tells me how much time passes searching as well a low roll then an hour or so a high roll then it is found in 10 min
And that is fine, you have other things you use your check for then. I would still at least want to have an idea of their modifier at that point too just as a "the minimum amount of time they're down there looking is <x>"
With a party of 8 I can’t assume who will go lumbering down to search lol. And it ranges from the +silly rogue to the -1 Minotaur barbarian (who did the search). I guess if I had a party of 4 it would be much easier.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
I'm suggesting you ask the player why they think this has a chance of working. Maybe they'll remind you that they killed a dragon before, and can prove it. That would be a reason to have them roll. Or, maybe they simply think "I have big number, so I can do anything." That would not be a reason to have them roll. In that case, I would tell them, "You can try, but I'll tell you now because it's glaringly obvious to your character, the dragon is not scared of you." Then they have the information they need, to form a better plan.
Usually, when a player is trying to do some dumb shit, it's because there's a disconnect between the way they understand the situation and the way the DM understands the situation. Sometimes they're just... Idk, trolling? And sometimes they're well aware they'll fail, but they're playing the way their character would behave. But usually, they're just misunderstanding something.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
I'm suggesting you ask the player why they think this has a chance of working. Maybe they'll remind you that they killed a dragon before, and can prove it. That would be a reason to have them roll. Or, maybe they simply think "I have big number, so I can do anything." That would not be a reason to have them roll. In that case, I would tell them, "You can try, but I'll tell you now because it's glaringly obvious to your character, the dragon is not scared of you." Then they have the information they need, to form a better plan.
Usually, when a player is trying to do some dumb shit, it's because there's a disconnect between the way they understand the situation and the way the DM understands the situation. Sometimes they're just... Idk, trolling? And sometimes they're well aware they'll fail, but they're playing the way their character would behave. But usually, they're just misunderstanding something.
Sorry to interject, but... while your argument makes sense for those particular examples, what about insight, perception, and investigation checks? There are plenty of tables where players simply aren't allowed to know whether they succeed or fail these, let alone if they can to begin with. Some tables even go so far as to make players roll blindly, not able to even see what they roll on such checks, partly because the potential for metagaming--intentional or otherwise--is very high, and partly because they find it more interesting that way. You could even argue it's more interesting for players not to know these kinds of things for a dexterity check to, say, cross a patch of exposed earth without alerting a monster with tremorsense. It'd certainly be more suspenseful that way.
Having automatic success and failure rules in these kinds of checks is directly harmful to that experience for pretty evident reasons. And yes, running those checks in that way is not strictly by the base rules, but the current lack of automatic success and failure allows for that kind of homebrew to be gracefully added in without creating a chain reaction of homebrew rulings.
I've yet to see an argument that the new UA rules make ability checks better, only that it doesn't make them worse... but it's clear that everyone has their own approach to ability checks. Given that, the UA rule does make how checks are run less flexible, and I'd argue that does make them worse.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
I'm suggesting you ask the player why they think this has a chance of working. Maybe they'll remind you that they killed a dragon before, and can prove it. That would be a reason to have them roll. Or, maybe they simply think "I have big number, so I can do anything." That would not be a reason to have them roll. In that case, I would tell them, "You can try, but I'll tell you now because it's glaringly obvious to your character, the dragon is not scared of you." Then they have the information they need, to form a better plan.
Usually, when a player is trying to do some dumb shit, it's because there's a disconnect between the way they understand the situation and the way the DM understands the situation. Sometimes they're just... Idk, trolling? And sometimes they're well aware they'll fail, but they're playing the way their character would behave. But usually, they're just misunderstanding something.
Sorry to interject, but... while your argument makes sense for those particular examples, what about insight, perception, and investigation checks?
Let's spin some scenarios where it would ever make sense that a character could never succeed at these checks. One each where you should tell the player, and one each where you shouldn't. Remember: trying something isn't the same as rolling for it. We're not telling them they can't try. We're telling them they can't succeed. Because if they can't succeed, they shouldn't roll.
Insight - He's communicating by sliding notes under the door. "There's no way you can get a read on him. Don't even bother rolling." Or - He's actually a sphinx. You can't read a sphinx, but the character doesn't know that. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You have absolutely no idea if he's telling the truth."
Perception - The room is filled with magical silencing fog. "You can't see or hear anything in here. You will not be able to find that goblin without dealing with the fog. Don't bother rolling." Or - The goblin simply isn't here. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "The goblin isn't here." (I have a feeling this is the one you're really gonna push back on. But you already know my response, from before.)
Investigation - The PC is looking at the bookshelf through their familiar's eyes, and it's a frog. It's just unable to do any searching. "Your frog can't really investigate a bookshelf. It looks at the shelf and sees that there are many books. Don't bother rolling." Or - The clue is only detectable by color vision, and the PC is relying on darkvision. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You search thoroughly, pulling each book and skimming it. You discover nothing."
You could even argue it's more interesting for players not to know these kinds of things for a dexterity check to, say, cross a patch of exposed earth without alerting a monster with tremorsense. It'd certainly be more suspenseful that way.
They still know the results though. Just not right away. In these cases the DM simply delays the reveal of the results. The implication is that if they didn't, there would be some chance for the player to reverse course. Undo their action. But that's not true.
I've yet to see an argument that the new UA rules make ability checks better, only that it doesn't make them worse... but it's clear that everyone has their own approach to ability checks. Given that, the UA rule does make how checks are run less flexible, and I'd argue that does make them worse.
This is the most interesting thing you've said so far. I don't think these rules make ability checks better... Yet. I think the numbers are off. But I think there's a good idea in telling players and DMs there's a range of reasonable target DCs, and if something seems to fall outside that range, then it should be automatic. I think the range should probably be [2 - the lowest possible modifier, which I believe is 5] to [19 + the highest possible modifier, which changes every so often but it's something like 25]. Which is obviously not super useful or sensible. So I think it needs to be accompanied by further changes -- changes which I'm already in support of, to be clear. I'm not convinced this is great enough to warrant changes just for its own sake. But that's a story for another time. In essence: I agree with you here, but I draw a different conclusion than you do.
Let's spin some scenarios where it would ever make sense that a character could never succeed at these checks
I appreciate the time you've taken to describe these various scenarios; I know it takes a while to think up and type all this stuff out. I do have rebuttals in mind that I could make to them in turn, but honestly I get the impression we'd just be going in circles because at the end of the day, everyone has their own way they like to handle ability checks, which was really the point I was trying to make to begin with before leading into my final statement. I suppose I could have been a lot clearer about that, so I apologize. Allow let me try this again.
Earlier in this thread, you posted:
What I'm learning today is that the "don't roll if it's not supposed to be possible to succeed or possible to fail" method outlined in the 5e core books isn't how a lot of people play. Maybe the OneD rules should be built around that instead of trying to correct it. Thoughts?
I guess you could say my thoughts on it are: what we have now is flexible enough that nobody's day is getting ruined by it. It's easy for people to do their own variations, and they frequently do. Encoding automatic success and failure into the rules would complicate that. The same goes for changing the rules regarding when to roll an ability check. We really don't need to change any of the rules here. If there is some big problem going on with how ability checks operate right now, I'm not aware of it.
I'll also go ahead and reiterate what I said in my first post in this thread (top of Page 4): if people are confusing ability check rules with attack roll rules--as was the problem cited in the video--then writing the rules to be clearer is the answer. A simple quick reference table comparing attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks side-by-side would arguably be a far more elegant solution than uprooting gameplay rules that nobody was really having any problems with.
Its a crap rule and 99% of the arguments for it being good are the DM can fix it. Good rules don't require the DM to fix it.
This argument makes no sense. It is already a DM's responsibility to adjudicate the results of an action. This new playtest rule simply establishes that there no point to make a roll if it is impossible to succeed or to fail. As far as I know, It has always been how the game is intuitively played at most tables, if not all.
For your reference, the playtest rule states: "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30."
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
I'm suggesting you ask the player why they think this has a chance of working. Maybe they'll remind you that they killed a dragon before, and can prove it. That would be a reason to have them roll. Or, maybe they simply think "I have big number, so I can do anything." That would not be a reason to have them roll. In that case, I would tell them, "You can try, but I'll tell you now because it's glaringly obvious to your character, the dragon is not scared of you." Then they have the information they need, to form a better plan.
Usually, when a player is trying to do some dumb shit, it's because there's a disconnect between the way they understand the situation and the way the DM understands the situation. Sometimes they're just... Idk, trolling? And sometimes they're well aware they'll fail, but they're playing the way their character would behave. But usually, they're just misunderstanding something.
Sorry to interject, but... while your argument makes sense for those particular examples, what about insight, perception, and investigation checks?
Let's spin some scenarios where it would ever make sense that a character could never succeed at these checks. One each where you should tell the player, and one each where you shouldn't. Remember: trying something isn't the same as rolling for it. We're not telling them they can't try. We're telling them they can't succeed. Because if they can't succeed, they shouldn't roll.
Insight - He's communicating by sliding notes under the door. "There's no way you can get a read on him. Don't even bother rolling." Or - He's actually a sphinx. You can't read a sphinx, but the character doesn't know that. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You have absolutely no idea if he's telling the truth."
Perception - The room is filled with magical silencing fog. "You can't see or hear anything in here. You will not be able to find that goblin without dealing with the fog. Don't bother rolling." Or - The goblin simply isn't here. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "The goblin isn't here." (I have a feeling this is the one you're really gonna push back on. But you already know my response, from before.)
Investigation - The PC is looking at the bookshelf through their familiar's eyes, and it's a frog. It's just unable to do any searching. "Your frog can't really investigate a bookshelf. It looks at the shelf and sees that there are many books. Don't bother rolling." Or - The clue is only detectable by color vision, and the PC is relying on darkvision. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You search thoroughly, pulling each book and skimming it. You discover nothing."
You could even argue it's more interesting for players not to know these kinds of things for a dexterity check to, say, cross a patch of exposed earth without alerting a monster with tremorsense. It'd certainly be more suspenseful that way.
They still know the results though. Just not right away. In these cases the DM simply delays the reveal of the results. The implication is that if they didn't, there would be some chance for the player to reverse course. Undo their action. But that's not true.
I've yet to see an argument that the new UA rules make ability checks better, only that it doesn't make them worse... but it's clear that everyone has their own approach to ability checks. Given that, the UA rule does make how checks are run less flexible, and I'd argue that does make them worse.
This is the most interesting thing you've said so far. I don't think these rules make ability checks better... Yet. I think the numbers are off. But I think there's a good idea in telling players and DMs there's a range of reasonable target DCs, and if something seems to fall outside that range, then it should be automatic. I think the range should probably be [2 - the lowest possible modifier, which I believe is 5] to [19 + the highest possible modifier, which changes every so often but it's something like 25]. Which is obviously not super useful or sensible. So I think it needs to be accompanied by further changes -- changes which I'm already in support of, to be clear. I'm not convinced this is great enough to warrant changes just for its own sake. But that's a story for another time. In essence: I agree with you here, but I draw a different conclusion than you do.
It have been thinking about this and I think a good halfway Is the player still gets inspiration for rolling a nat 20 (as per the new inspiration rules), but it is not an auto success.
I guess you could say my thoughts on it are: what we have now is flexible enough that nobody's day is getting ruined by it. It's easy for people to do their own variations, and they frequently do. Encoding automatic success and failure into the rules would complicate that. The same goes for changing the rules regarding when to roll an ability check. We really don't need to change any of the rules here. If there is some big problem going on with how ability checks operate right now, I'm not aware of it.
As a counterpoint, do you anticipate the new playtest rule of automatic success and failure to be such a problem that it will ruin anybody's day? You mentioned about people doing variations, which they can still do using the new rules (such as players rolling blind). As I have continuously pointed out in this thread, in reality, there is essentially no difference between the two rules. I know every table is different, but I honestly cannot remember the last time that a natural 20 was not a success at a table that I was a player, a DM, or a spectator.
To address your second point of why make the change if there is no difference between the two rules, it is important to remember the big picture here. This new playtest rule is a consequence of unifying the three types d20 checks (attack roll, ability check, and saving throws) into the term "D20 Test". This, presumably, makes the rules more streamlined, which has a lot of value. This new rule doesn't affects ability checks as much as people make it out to be. It didn't even come up in the past few games that I played in.
I wonder, if this playtest rule had been the original rule, would people consider it an issue? Intuitively, why make a roll if it is impossible to succeed?
I guess you could say my thoughts on it are: what we have now is flexible enough that nobody's day is getting ruined by it. It's easy for people to do their own variations, and they frequently do. Encoding automatic success and failure into the rules would complicate that. The same goes for changing the rules regarding when to roll an ability check. We really don't need to change any of the rules here. If there is some big problem going on with how ability checks operate right now, I'm not aware of it.
As a counterpoint, do you anticipate the new playtest rule of automatic success and failure to be such a problem that it will ruin anybody's day? You mentioned about people doing variations, which they can still do using the new rules (such as players rolling blind). As I have continuously pointed out in this thread, in reality, there is essentially no difference between the two rules. I know every table is different, but I honestly cannot remember the last time that a natural 20 was not a success at a table that I was a player, a DM, or a spectator.
To address your second point of why make the change if there is no difference between the two rules, it is important to remember the big picture here. This new playtest rule is a consequence of unifying the three types d20 checks (attack roll, ability check, and saving throws) into the term "D20 Test". This, presumably, makes the rules more streamlined, which has a lot of value. This new rule doesn't affects ability checks as much as people make it out to be. It didn't even come up in the past few games that I played in.
I wonder, if this playtest rule had been the original rule, would people consider it an issue? Intuitively, why make a roll if it is impossible to succeed?
3 sessions ago for me. Player with -2 Int rolled a nat 20. I had set a DC before the session for knowing about this particular symbol they had found at 22, I didn’t expect this player to be the one that asked (my table don’t get the person with the best stat to roll, it is the person that asks).
Now I handled this by deciding that the nat 20 roll necessitated a small amount of information, but, I always operate sliding scale DCs anyway for these kind of checks. But the player in no way considered it a success (which was the point he has taken a -2 modifier so he can make rolls he expects to fail on the hope that he gets one right now and again). If I had told that player, no point rolling you don’t know anything, next, he would have felt disappointed.
Now from now on when he rolls that nat 20 he is getting inspiration so he feels like he got something from it.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
Halfling character doesn't get to roll until after he roleplays, and if he doesn't come up with a rational proposal, doesn't get to roll after either.
Sorry to interject, but... while your argument makes sense for those particular examples, what about insight, perception, and investigation checks? There are plenty of tables where players simply aren't allowed to know whether they succeed or fail these, let alone if they can to begin with.
You're supposed to handle blind rolls with passive scores, which obviously cannot crit because there isn't even a roll (though usually the NPC is then rolling, and he can certainly roll a 1).
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
The new playtest rule doesn't suggest you to crush the roleplay attempt at all. Presumably, what you would have done under the current rule is 1) for the player to roleplay, then 2)tell them to make a roll, and 3) narrate that they still failed even though they rolled a natural 20 (your tone implies that avoiding a fight is out of the question) and that their roll was actually to determine how badly they failed at the attempt.
Using the new playtest rule, you would do the same: 1) Allow the player to roleplay. 2) Narrate that they failed. And 3) ask them to roll to see how much they offended the dragon. It's the same 3 steps. Except, using the new rule, players won't actually feel cheated when they rolled a natural 20 and still failed.
The drawback mentioned most frequently in this thread appears to be: players attempting something that the DM considers to be impossible and potentially pointing to this new rule as ammunition to argue for a success. Wouldn't the best practice in this case be to tell the players upfront that they are attempting the impossible? Wouldn't these players argue anyways under the current rules as they clearly thought what they are attempting to do is possible (that is why they are attempting it).
I guess you could say my thoughts on it are: what we have now is flexible enough that nobody's day is getting ruined by it. It's easy for people to do their own variations, and they frequently do. Encoding automatic success and failure into the rules would complicate that. The same goes for changing the rules regarding when to roll an ability check. We really don't need to change any of the rules here. If there is some big problem going on with how ability checks operate right now, I'm not aware of it.
As a counterpoint, do you anticipate the new playtest rule of automatic success and failure to be such a problem that it will ruin anybody's day? You mentioned about people doing variations, which they can still do using the new rules (such as players rolling blind). As I have continuously pointed out in this thread, in reality, there is essentially no difference between the two rules. I know every table is different, but I honestly cannot remember the last time that a natural 20 was not a success at a table that I was a player, a DM, or a spectator.
To address your second point of why make the change if there is no difference between the two rules, it is important to remember the big picture here. This new playtest rule is a consequence of unifying the three types d20 checks (attack roll, ability check, and saving throws) into the term "D20 Test". This, presumably, makes the rules more streamlined, which has a lot of value. This new rule doesn't affects ability checks as much as people make it out to be. It didn't even come up in the past few games that I played in.
I wonder, if this playtest rule had been the original rule, would people consider it an issue? Intuitively, why make a roll if it is impossible to succeed?
3 sessions ago for me. Player with -2 Int rolled a nat 20. I had set a DC before the session for knowing about this particular symbol they had found at 22, I didn’t expect this player to be the one that asked (my table don’t get the person with the best stat to roll, it is the person that asks).
Now I handled this by deciding that the nat 20 roll necessitated a small amount of information, but, I always operate sliding scale DCs anyway for these kind of checks. But the player in no way considered it a success (which was the point he has taken a -2 modifier so he can make rolls he expects to fail on the hope that he gets one right now and again). If I had told that player, no point rolling you don’t know anything, next, he would have felt disappointed.
Now from now on when he rolls that nat 20 he is getting inspiration so he feels like he got something from it.
It sounds like the actual issue here is a misalignment of expectation between that player and yourself. Your player was awarded with some information, but he is not happy with the amount that he got to consider it a success. The issue in question is actually about the difference in expectation regarding a successful outcome. It seems like the player would have been disappointed regardless of which rule you use as the player is, presumably, expecting a spectacular outcome from rolling a natural 20.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I quite loathe the idea of automatic success or failure in ability checks. In fact, I loathe it so much that if the reasoning is to make it consistent with attack rolls, then I would rather get rid of automatic successes and failures on attack rolls.
Baldur's Gate 3 does this, and I hate it every time it happens. When you fail a DC5 check despite having +8 to your roll from stats/proficiency/Guidance, you feel cheated. When you succeed automatically, those same modifiers from your character building choices feel meaningless.
Automatic success/failure works for attack rolls because:
None of this is so much the case for skill checks, where:
The rules are different for attack rolls and ability checks because they are very different game mechanics. You do not have nearly as much riding on critical hits in combat, to the point that the rules for critical hits are also being experimented with precisely to eliminate the circumstances where they actually can.
If players are treating skill checks like attack rolls because they don't understand the rules, the solution is to write the rules more clearly, not to upend game mechanics that don't need fixing.
I apologize if I come across somewhat aggressively about this, but I have significantly stronger feelings about this than anything else that's come out so far, so thank you for bearing with me.
Ahh see there was no beer, but there was money, and a little clue that he ended up finding, the roll also tells me how much time passes searching as well a low roll then an hour or so a high roll then it is found in 10 min
And that is fine, you have other things you use your check for then. I would still at least want to have an idea of their modifier at that point too just as a "the minimum amount of time they're down there looking is <x>"
I have only skimmed the thread but my one big response to the Nat 20 auto success is that it will kill the really awesome “Yes and…” approach
If the answer is “just say No” to unlikely / impossible requests, and are constantly told no, no, no …. I feel like it loses a lot of the collaborative aspect
It also runs the risk of killing creativity.
Some of the best moments I’ve seen are when a player asks to do something unlikely, and instead of simply just refusing, saying “this will be extremely hard but you can certainly try, roll a ….”, and then if they roll a nat 20, allowing the result to be “you failed the thing you tried but by doing this this awesome thing happened” - some of the best creative moments!
eg: “I want to try to jump this ravine”. Rolls a Nat20
“well you didn’t make it across, but as you jumped the rope at your waist unraveled and caught on jagged rocky outcrop and pulled you back as you started to plummet, preventing you from falling to the ravine floor”
Really, it seems to be sacrificing RP and creativity for a cookie cutter mechanic.
What you're about to describe isn't "yes, and..." It's "yes, but actually no."
The counterexample usually paired with "yes, and" is "no, but." As in, the thing you want isn't possible, but here's something similar you might like. Because you actually do need to say no sometimes, and this isn't news.
As I said above, this isn't allowing the player anything, it's deception. You were never going to let them succeed. You just pretended you might, and then let the dice decide how much mercy you were going to have on them for their hubris. But moral judgement aside -- you don't need the d20 for this. They can always try, and you can always tell them what happens. Just because they didn't roll a die doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Next time, consider this: "I want to try to jump this ravine." "That's flat-out impossible. It's simply too wide. However, looking down into it, you can see a spot about 40 feet down where the gap narrows. If you were to climb down, you might be able to jump from one wall to the other. But this would be really hard, requiring a DC 19 Athletics check to make the jump."
You usually only tell them it's impossible when it would be obvious to the characters that it's impossible. Otherwise, you tell them they can try, and then they decide whether to try. If they do try, the only thing you NEED to do is tell them what happened. Rolling the die is not a necessary step. The die is for when failure and success are both possible.
I tell the player that the ravine is x many feet wide, I tell the player what they see and the player has the freedom to say, well my character is going to try and jump it. If I started saying a flat no at my tables my players would hate it, but, thus new rule for me doesn’t change anything, they can still roll a d20 and a nat 20 doesn’t mean they make the jump ever, the auto success means they don’t take fall damage.
But, and I have said this before, physical rolls are not what will be really impacted by this, it is the soft roles, persuasion, intimidation, deception.
Halfling character says they want to intimidate the dragon into giving them treasure. Are you suggesting I crush the roleplay attempt, or, let them get away with avoiding a major fight because they rolled a nat20?
With a party of 8 I can’t assume who will go lumbering down to search lol. And it ranges from the +silly rogue to the -1 Minotaur barbarian (who did the search). I guess if I had a party of 4 it would be much easier.
I'm suggesting you ask the player why they think this has a chance of working. Maybe they'll remind you that they killed a dragon before, and can prove it. That would be a reason to have them roll. Or, maybe they simply think "I have big number, so I can do anything." That would not be a reason to have them roll. In that case, I would tell them, "You can try, but I'll tell you now because it's glaringly obvious to your character, the dragon is not scared of you." Then they have the information they need, to form a better plan.
Usually, when a player is trying to do some dumb shit, it's because there's a disconnect between the way they understand the situation and the way the DM understands the situation. Sometimes they're just... Idk, trolling? And sometimes they're well aware they'll fail, but they're playing the way their character would behave. But usually, they're just misunderstanding something.
Sorry to interject, but... while your argument makes sense for those particular examples, what about insight, perception, and investigation checks? There are plenty of tables where players simply aren't allowed to know whether they succeed or fail these, let alone if they can to begin with. Some tables even go so far as to make players roll blindly, not able to even see what they roll on such checks, partly because the potential for metagaming--intentional or otherwise--is very high, and partly because they find it more interesting that way. You could even argue it's more interesting for players not to know these kinds of things for a dexterity check to, say, cross a patch of exposed earth without alerting a monster with tremorsense. It'd certainly be more suspenseful that way.
Having automatic success and failure rules in these kinds of checks is directly harmful to that experience for pretty evident reasons. And yes, running those checks in that way is not strictly by the base rules, but the current lack of automatic success and failure allows for that kind of homebrew to be gracefully added in without creating a chain reaction of homebrew rulings.
I've yet to see an argument that the new UA rules make ability checks better, only that it doesn't make them worse... but it's clear that everyone has their own approach to ability checks. Given that, the UA rule does make how checks are run less flexible, and I'd argue that does make them worse.
Let's spin some scenarios where it would ever make sense that a character could never succeed at these checks. One each where you should tell the player, and one each where you shouldn't. Remember: trying something isn't the same as rolling for it. We're not telling them they can't try. We're telling them they can't succeed. Because if they can't succeed, they shouldn't roll.
Insight - He's communicating by sliding notes under the door. "There's no way you can get a read on him. Don't even bother rolling." Or - He's actually a sphinx. You can't read a sphinx, but the character doesn't know that. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You have absolutely no idea if he's telling the truth."
Perception - The room is filled with magical silencing fog. "You can't see or hear anything in here. You will not be able to find that goblin without dealing with the fog. Don't bother rolling." Or - The goblin simply isn't here. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "The goblin isn't here." (I have a feeling this is the one you're really gonna push back on. But you already know my response, from before.)
Investigation - The PC is looking at the bookshelf through their familiar's eyes, and it's a frog. It's just unable to do any searching. "Your frog can't really investigate a bookshelf. It looks at the shelf and sees that there are many books. Don't bother rolling." Or - The clue is only detectable by color vision, and the PC is relying on darkvision. "You can try." They try. No dice are rolled. "You search thoroughly, pulling each book and skimming it. You discover nothing."
They still know the results though. Just not right away. In these cases the DM simply delays the reveal of the results. The implication is that if they didn't, there would be some chance for the player to reverse course. Undo their action. But that's not true.
This is the most interesting thing you've said so far. I don't think these rules make ability checks better... Yet. I think the numbers are off. But I think there's a good idea in telling players and DMs there's a range of reasonable target DCs, and if something seems to fall outside that range, then it should be automatic. I think the range should probably be [2 - the lowest possible modifier, which I believe is 5] to [19 + the highest possible modifier, which changes every so often but it's something like 25]. Which is obviously not super useful or sensible. So I think it needs to be accompanied by further changes -- changes which I'm already in support of, to be clear. I'm not convinced this is great enough to warrant changes just for its own sake. But that's a story for another time. In essence: I agree with you here, but I draw a different conclusion than you do.
I appreciate the time you've taken to describe these various scenarios; I know it takes a while to think up and type all this stuff out. I do have rebuttals in mind that I could make to them in turn, but honestly I get the impression we'd just be going in circles because at the end of the day, everyone has their own way they like to handle ability checks, which was really the point I was trying to make to begin with before leading into my final statement. I suppose I could have been a lot clearer about that, so I apologize. Allow let me try this again.
Earlier in this thread, you posted:
I guess you could say my thoughts on it are: what we have now is flexible enough that nobody's day is getting ruined by it. It's easy for people to do their own variations, and they frequently do. Encoding automatic success and failure into the rules would complicate that. The same goes for changing the rules regarding when to roll an ability check. We really don't need to change any of the rules here. If there is some big problem going on with how ability checks operate right now, I'm not aware of it.
I'll also go ahead and reiterate what I said in my first post in this thread (top of Page 4): if people are confusing ability check rules with attack roll rules--as was the problem cited in the video--then writing the rules to be clearer is the answer. A simple quick reference table comparing attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks side-by-side would arguably be a far more elegant solution than uprooting gameplay rules that nobody was really having any problems with.
:)
Its a crap rule and 99% of the arguments for it being good are the DM can fix it. Good rules don't require the DM to fix it.
This argument makes no sense. It is already a DM's responsibility to adjudicate the results of an action. This new playtest rule simply establishes that there no point to make a roll if it is impossible to succeed or to fail. As far as I know, It has always been how the game is intuitively played at most tables, if not all.
For your reference, the playtest rule states: "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30."
It have been thinking about this and I think a good halfway Is the player still gets inspiration for rolling a nat 20 (as per the new inspiration rules), but it is not an auto success.
As a counterpoint, do you anticipate the new playtest rule of automatic success and failure to be such a problem that it will ruin anybody's day? You mentioned about people doing variations, which they can still do using the new rules (such as players rolling blind). As I have continuously pointed out in this thread, in reality, there is essentially no difference between the two rules. I know every table is different, but I honestly cannot remember the last time that a natural 20 was not a success at a table that I was a player, a DM, or a spectator.
To address your second point of why make the change if there is no difference between the two rules, it is important to remember the big picture here. This new playtest rule is a consequence of unifying the three types d20 checks (attack roll, ability check, and saving throws) into the term "D20 Test". This, presumably, makes the rules more streamlined, which has a lot of value. This new rule doesn't affects ability checks as much as people make it out to be. It didn't even come up in the past few games that I played in.
I wonder, if this playtest rule had been the original rule, would people consider it an issue? Intuitively, why make a roll if it is impossible to succeed?
3 sessions ago for me. Player with -2 Int rolled a nat 20. I had set a DC before the session for knowing about this particular symbol they had found at 22, I didn’t expect this player to be the one that asked (my table don’t get the person with the best stat to roll, it is the person that asks).
Now I handled this by deciding that the nat 20 roll necessitated a small amount of information, but, I always operate sliding scale DCs anyway for these kind of checks. But the player in no way considered it a success (which was the point he has taken a -2 modifier so he can make rolls he expects to fail on the hope that he gets one right now and again). If I had told that player, no point rolling you don’t know anything, next, he would have felt disappointed.
Now from now on when he rolls that nat 20 he is getting inspiration so he feels like he got something from it.
Halfling character doesn't get to roll until after he roleplays, and if he doesn't come up with a rational proposal, doesn't get to roll after either.
You're supposed to handle blind rolls with passive scores, which obviously cannot crit because there isn't even a roll (though usually the NPC is then rolling, and he can certainly roll a 1).
The new playtest rule doesn't suggest you to crush the roleplay attempt at all. Presumably, what you would have done under the current rule is 1) for the player to roleplay, then 2)tell them to make a roll, and 3) narrate that they still failed even though they rolled a natural 20 (your tone implies that avoiding a fight is out of the question) and that their roll was actually to determine how badly they failed at the attempt.
Using the new playtest rule, you would do the same: 1) Allow the player to roleplay. 2) Narrate that they failed. And 3) ask them to roll to see how much they offended the dragon. It's the same 3 steps. Except, using the new rule, players won't actually feel cheated when they rolled a natural 20 and still failed.
The drawback mentioned most frequently in this thread appears to be: players attempting something that the DM considers to be impossible and potentially pointing to this new rule as ammunition to argue for a success. Wouldn't the best practice in this case be to tell the players upfront that they are attempting the impossible? Wouldn't these players argue anyways under the current rules as they clearly thought what they are attempting to do is possible (that is why they are attempting it).
It sounds like the actual issue here is a misalignment of expectation between that player and yourself. Your player was awarded with some information, but he is not happy with the amount that he got to consider it a success. The issue in question is actually about the difference in expectation regarding a successful outcome. It seems like the player would have been disappointed regardless of which rule you use as the player is, presumably, expecting a spectacular outcome from rolling a natural 20.