# Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks



## Ibrandul

The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.

I've seen precisely one rationale for this, stated over and over, that most groups already play that way because this is already a widely misunderstood rule—_not _that groups are already playing this way as a house rule despite being aware of the official rule. Crawford says they are changing the game so that the rules work "the way people expect them to work."

But _is_ the game better this way?

If it's not—if the game is better with the current rule, not the new one—then surely a better approach would be to change the way this rule is _presented_ in the PHB so that it is easy to understand and to absorb, rather than changing the rule itself.

And I think the change is a very bad one.

Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.

It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a _+10_ has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.

What's the rationale for why this change _makes the game a better game_?


----------



## Aldarc

One of the benefits is that it opens up the need for checks. If rolling even a 20 means you won't succeed, then why are you having the players roll? If players can succeed even if they roll a 1, then why are you having the players roll? This opens up the possibility for these two ranges.


----------



## Lanefan

jeremypowell said:


> It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a _+10_ has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.
> 
> What's the rationale for why this change _makes the game a better game_?



If the DC is 30 and the best a character can get to after bonus is 22, why even bother rolling?

I do like the auto-fail on a 1, though.  And at either end, if 5% is too high a chance you can always add some sort of secondary or confirm die to lower those odds some.  Example:

"You try to pick the door lock and in so doing realize it might be completely beyond you; but that 20 tells me things might be different this time - now roll a d6 and on a 6, you get through."

EDIT to add: and to presever the variable odds, the confirm-die size could be the difference between the DC and what the '20' roll adds to; thus if the best the PC can add to is 23 and the DC is 30, then the confirm roll would be a d7 with a 7 meaning success.


----------



## Leatherhead

They didn't change the important rule: the DM does not ask for a roll unless there is a chance for failure. So there is still no such thing as pulling a 20 and passing an impossible check


----------



## Ibrandul

Leatherhead said:


> They didn't change the important rule: the DM does not ask for a roll unless there is a chance for failure. So there is still no such thing as pulling a 20 and passing an impossible check



Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules? If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

jeremypowell said:


> Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules? If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?



If you, as a DM, decide that X feat is impossible in the world you designed, you just dont call for check, no matter the +Y of a players. Rolling is for when there's both a chance of failure and success. If success is not possible, whether its mathematical or in-game logical, it does not matter, its already decided: the test is a failure.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

It makes the game a better game because the 20s and 1s are some of the most exciting and memorable moments. And many of us let them be automatic successes or failures not because we don't know the rules, but because we genuinely enjoy playing that way.

Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.

Ability checks are more problematic, but DMs simply shouldn't be calling for checks on impossible (or impossible to fail) checks. I'm not sure if published adventures actually use DC 30 checks (I've never seen or used one), but yes, under this system you should not gate things you actually want to be impossible behind DC 30 checks, you should just make them impossible. If they are possible for someone through extraordinary skill, they should be possible for anyone through even more extraordinary luck. Yes 5% is not really all that extraordinary, but sometimes the reality simulator should give way to being a fun game.

The plus 10 on a DC 30 check example you give is obviously a silly situation, but the players don't know the DC. They will send the person with the highest mod and never know how silly the math was unless you tell them.

Being a classroom teacher by profession I will also fundamentally disagree with the premise that people commonly misunderstanding something is not a reason to change it. If there is a classroom procedure that I envision and think I explain to do one way but students all routinely do it another way, and the other way is also fine, I will change it to be done the other, evidently more intuitive, way the next time 100% of the time.


----------



## Charlaquin

jeremypowell said:


> The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.
> 
> I've seen precisely one rationale for this, stated over and over, that most groups already play that way because this is already a widely misunderstood rule—_not _that groups are already playing this way as a house rule despite being aware of the official rule. Crawford says they are changing the game so that the rules work "the way people expect them to work."
> 
> But _is_ the game better this way?
> 
> If it's not—if the game is better with the current rule, not the new one—then surely a better approach would be to change the way this rule is _presented_ in the PHB so that it is easy to understand and to absorb, rather than changing the rule itself.



I don’t think the problem is the way the rule is presented. I’m pretty sure even if it was very clearly stated, front and center, bold text, the works… almost everyone who rules auto success/failure on natural 20s/1s would keep doing so anyway. Because it’s not _just_ matter of not knowing what the rule is. It’s a matter of the rule not working the way people intuitively feel like it “should” work.

Now, does this change make the game better? No, I don’t think so. Does it make the game worse? I’m not sure. Probably not  by much if it does.


jeremypowell said:


> And I think the change is a very bad one.



Fortunately, it’s easy to ignore.


jeremypowell said:


> Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.
> 
> It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a _+10_ has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.



Here’s a neat trick if this bothers you: The DM determines if a roll is needed to resolve an action. If a character with less than a +10 bonus attempts a task that has a DC of 30… You don’t have to call for a check, you can just narrate failure.


jeremypowell said:


> What's the rationale for why this change _makes the game a better game_?



I don’t think there is one. The rationale is that it has minimal impact on the game, so might as well have it work the way people intuitively think it “should.” Fighting against player intuition is always a losing battle.


----------



## Ibrandul

Benjamin Olson said:


> Being a classroom teacher by profession I will also fundamentally disagree with the premise that people commonly misunderstanding something is not a reason to change it.



People commonly misunderstanding the procedure you’re teaching them is definitely a reason to change the way you’re teaching the procedure—but it is not a reason to change the procedure you’re teaching. Having an alternative procedure that works just as well or better is—but I’m arguing this procedure _doesn't._


----------



## Charlaquin

jeremypowell said:


> Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules?



I guess, if it’s that important to you that players need +5 or better to be able to succeed at DC 25 tasks. Personally? I doubt I’ll even notice the difference.


jeremypowell said:


> If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?



It’s just to make the rules work the way people expect them to work. That probably wouldn’t be sufficient rationale if the chance had a huge impact on the gameplay experience. But I don’t think this one will.


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.



This is a good point. I was neutral on this change, but you’ve just convinced me it’s a net positive.


----------



## Nikosandros

I approve the change for saves. I'm far less convinced about ability checks, but then again I find the d20 roll to swingy for them.


----------



## Ibrandul

I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.

The new rule requires either:

(A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else

(B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.


----------



## MarkB

It's worth mentioning the new Inspiration model in this context. Players will more often come into a situation with inspiration in hand, and will also be more willing to spend it, which in turn means that they're more likely to take a punt at something they wouldn't normally be good at - and when they do, their chances of rolling a 20 are higher.

I'm largely in favour of this rule, because (a) it will be mostly good fun, and it unifies the mechanics across all three types of d20 test, and (b) it won't actually make a difference very often. But I do acknowledge that there will be edge cases where it will cause outcomes that don't sit well in the fiction.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

jeremypowell said:


> The new rule requires either:
> 
> (A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else
> 
> (B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.



I guess, but let me say as someone who has always played by this "new rule" that the scenarios you worry about are few and far between, and that the only mods a DM needs to be aware of for practical purposes are the really extraordinary ones that a DM is probably aware of anyway because players with a +11 to skill are going to use that skill every damned chance they get.


----------



## Ibrandul

MarkB said:


> I'm largely in favour of this rule, because (a) it will be mostly good fun, and it unifies the mechanics across all three types of d20 test, and (b) it won't actually make a difference very often. But I do acknowledge that there will be edge cases where it will cause outcomes that don't sit well in the fiction.



Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.

I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.

When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case _often_, not seldom, with the new rule.


----------



## Charlaquin

jeremypowell said:


> I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.
> 
> The new rule requires either:
> 
> (A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else
> 
> (B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.



Personally, I don’t expect this to come up much. I mostly use DCs in the 10-20 range, so it’s only tier-1 characters with a penalty in the relevant ability score and no applicable proficiency who will be affected positively by this change when it comes to ability checks. YMMV.


----------



## rooneg

So, on one hand I like the “just don’t let them roll if they can’t succeed” answer, but there are drawbacks to it. You have to TELL the player that they can’t succeed, and I can envision situations where that would be a problem. Are they somewhat contrived situations? Yeah, maybe, but they do exist, and they weren’t a problem before.

Not to mention, it quickly runs into questions of what qualifies as “impossible”? I can envision tasks that some characters should have a very slim chance of succeeding at (the Arcana trained Wizard might know that obscure thing), but I don’t ever want the untrained in Arcana Fighter to be able to succeed. Now maybe they’re going to solve this with VERY clear rules about how the DM should adjudicate who can make a check and so forth, but it’s not clear this is better than the old way, other than the fact that it “solves” the problem that lots of people can’t be bothered to read the rules.


----------



## MarkB

jeremypowell said:


> Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.
> 
> I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.
> 
> When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case _often_, not seldom, with the new rule.



Again, though, the DM gets to decide when a roll is called for. You can simply state that this isn't something a person could have heard about by chance - only someone who's actually studied history (i.e. has proficiency) might possibly know about it.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

jeremypowell said:


> Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.
> 
> I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.
> 
> When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case _often_, not seldom, with the new rule.



Yeah, you might want to houserule auto-success away in that case. Running with enough DCs over 20 that the mathematical oddities of auto-success 5% of the time would bother anyone seems like an outlier from most people's 5e games, so I think this rule will work fine at the vast majority of tables. But if you run a different style of game, awesome. It's the simplest possible sort of house rule to make (which is the whole reason they have to align the core rules with how most will people play the game in order for them to actually remain the standard rules).


----------



## Benjamin Olson

rooneg said:


> So, on one hand I like the “just don’t let them roll if they can’t succeed” answer, but there are drawbacks to it. You have to TELL the player that they can’t succeed, and I can envision situations where that would be a problem. Are they somewhat contrived situations? Yeah, maybe, but they do exist, and they weren’t a problem before.



Sure. But in those outlier situations you can just let them roll with a 5% chance that they will learn it was impossible. I can live with that just fine.


----------



## rooneg

Benjamin Olson said:


> Sure. But in those outlier situations you can just let them roll with a 5% chance that they will learn it was impossible. I can live with that just fine.



I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.


----------



## MarkB

rooneg said:


> I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.



Yeah, going in half-assed on this rule change is definitely not the solution.

One of my ground-rules for DMing D&D (and RPGs in general) is: Don't let the players roll unless you have a clear idea of what happens if they succeed, and what happens if they fail.


----------



## Minigiant

It's weird really. There are many things that only plausibly succeeded by people who put in enough time in an obscure or extraordinary action, actively, or procedure. 

This is easiest to see in too proficiency when an untrained individual would have no chance of success but a trained one might have a high chance.

It works for attacks as by a certain level, every PC will have enough experience in combat to luck out all aspects of a normal attack, grapple, or shove.

So an auto success/fail system on ability check would have to *defined parameters of when certain actions are unlocked with training or even expertise.*


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters. 

The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.


----------



## Ibrandul

I'm starting to think my DMing style is very unusual:

I frequently set DCs higher than 20—partly, I think, because my players routinely attempt to do things that are "hard" or harder;
only about 1/3, or in some cases less, of game time is spent on combat;
there are lots of calls for rolls outside of combat;
there's fairly even distribution of rolls across all the various skills (so that ability checks using knowledge skills are common, whereas I'm starting to think most DMs seldom call for these); and
there are lots of calls for _everyone _to roll ability checks using knowledge skills (usually followed by, for example, "Did anyone roll a 25 or higher?").
If your DMing style has very little in common with mine, then yeah, I guess this change would pose no problem.


----------



## rooneg

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters.
> 
> The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.



The character hasn’t been exposed to the fact that the task was impossible, but the player was. That’s the problem I’m concerned about.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

rooneg said:


> I feel like having to fix the “20s always succeed” problem by occasionally having 20s not succeed kind of calls into question the reasonableness of changing the rule in the first place.



Sure, but to be clear I was talking about the outlier of a rare outlier situation: The time when there is some actual metagame reason you can not reveal something is impossible, so you let them roll and they then roll a 20. I would rather apologize for letting them roll when I shouldn't have and reveal the metagame secret of the impossibility 5% of the time, than reveal it at the outset 100% of the time.

And I'd rather put up with all that once in the very bluest of blue moons than give up on auto-successes and failures to avoid this scenario that I can barely even envision an example of.



MarkB said:


> One of my ground-rules for DMing D&D (and RPGs in general) is: Don't let the players roll unless you have a clear idea of what happens if they succeed, and what happens if they fail.



An excellent rule that I always follow except on the very rare occasions that I don't.


----------



## Minigiant

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If you decide an untrained character should have no chance to succeed at a specific task (ie: the lore is too obscure, only the most wizened scholar has maybe a chance to know it) then you dont call a test for the untrained characters.
> 
> The character is actually doing something in the fiction when they make a test; if there's no way in the fiction that a character has been exposed to a lore piece, it is by definition impossible, so the DM dont ask for a roll.



It's really a change in philosophy if 5.5e goes with auto success and auto fails.

Before, a DM could say a bit of lore is a very obscure subject that few speak about and is kept secret so the DC is 22. This put the check test out of the range of the rogue with a +0 modifier but the wizard with a +6 and the fighter with a +2 have a chance.

With autosuccess you must now choose.

Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it 

Don't let the rogue roll, claim that the info is so obscure or guarded that the rogue would never learn about it nor recall it if they happen to hear or read it due to their combined lack of talent and investment.

AKA it strengths two points of DM fiat over just one.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

rooneg said:


> The character hasn’t been exposed



I think, in fiction, a character would know if the task he's attempting as even a modicum of chance of success or not. Trying to recall a piece of lore you never had the chance to be exposed to is pretty unrealistic, even if the game would let you have a 5% chance of making it. You have to come with an explanation on HOW you would know that piece of lore (maybe) in game before the DM might make you roll a die.

If I'm tracking a creature for the first time in my life (no Survival proficiency) and I have a crappy eyesight (Low Wis) and its raining and its been a week since it passed through this spot, I would know there's just no chance of success. Not even 5%: 0% chance of success. Now, a Ranger with the pertinent proficiencies might attempt such a feat even if, in his case, the test is still barely passable.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Minigiant said:


> Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it



But I dont change the fiction to justify the character rolls after I called for them: they have to explain how they would know such a thing, in fiction, before I make my choice as to whether it requires a roll or not.


----------



## MarkB

Minigiant said:


> It's really a change in philosophy if 5.5e goes with auto success and auto fails.
> 
> Before, a DM could say a bit of lore is a very obscure subject that few speak about and is kept secret so the DC is 22. This put the check test out of the range of the rogue with a +0 modifier but the wizard with a +6 and the fighter with a +2 have a chance.
> 
> With autosuccess you must now choose.
> 
> Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it
> 
> Don't let the rogue roll, claim that the info is so obscure or guarded that the rogue would never learn about it nor recall it if they happen to hear or read it due to their combined lack of talent and investment.
> 
> AKA it strengths two points of DM fiat over just one.



In that particular instance, is it really so bad that the rogue succeeds on a natural 20? The party as a whole isn't learning anything that they didn't already have the potential to know, and the rogue's player gets the thrill of succeeding at something they normally wouldn't.


----------



## Lanefan

Benjamin Olson said:


> It makes the game a better game because the 20s and 1s are some of the most exciting and memorable moments. And many of us let them be automatic successes or failures not because we don't know the rules, but because we genuinely enjoy playing that way.
> 
> Saving throws automatically succeeding or failing makes the game better, because otherwise there are times the saving throw can't possibly succeed or fail. Automatic successes serve bounded accuracy.
> 
> Ability checks are more problematic, but DMs simply shouldn't be calling for checks on impossible (or impossible to fail) checks. I'm not sure if published adventures actually use DC 30 checks (I've never seen or used one), but yes, under this system you should not gate things you actually want to be impossible behind DC 30 checks, you should just make them impossible. If they are possible for someone through extraordinary skill, they should be possible for anyone through even more extraordinary luck. Yes 5% is not really all that extraordinary, but sometimes the reality simulator should give way to being a fun game.



The answer, I think, is higher granularity at the extreme ends; and if this means rolling a second die, so what?


----------



## Minigiant

MarkB said:


> In that particular instance, is it really so bad that the rogue succeeds on a natural 20? The party as a whole isn't learning anything that they didn't already have the potential to know, and the rogue's player gets the thrill of succeeding at something they normally wouldn't.



Depends.

A single instance might not be s problem but allowing the unskilled to always have a chance alters how lore matters in the adventure. Basically nothing becomes a secret as the PCs can technically attempt anything.


----------



## MarkB

Minigiant said:


> Depends.
> 
> A single instance might not be s problem but allowing the unskilled to always have a chance alters how lore matters in the adventure. Basically nothing becomes a secret as the PCs can technically attempt anything.



That's why I said "in that particular instance". If the rogue is only two points off being able to succeed normally at the check, having him succeed as a rare instance seems reasonable.

And it's not as though it's impossible to boost a character's chances in any case. I tend not to allow _guidance_ on knowledge checks, because they don't represent the character doing anything tangible in the moment, but if we turn this around and it was the +0 Dex fighter trying his hand at a DC 22 lock, someone could cast _guidance_ on him and he'd have a chance of making the DC.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Minigiant said:


> Let the rogue roll, stating there is some random off chance they stumbled on this information via a random conversation or a pass through in a book and were mindful enough to retain it



Indeed. Impossible knowledge check successes are a great way for the DM and player to devise some new color to the character's backstory to explain why they happen to have that particular oddball piece of knowledge.

I think almost anyone with a real life specialty in any type of knowledge (be it from education, career, or hobby) has both a sense of knowledge that there is actually no chance a non-specialist would possess and the experience of encountering a non-specialist who (at least sort of) knew some specific facts within their specialty that they never expected a non-specialist to possess. It is useful for DMs to reflect on those experiences in deciding when to let non-proficient characters roll on knowledge checks specifically. I think if a fact is interesting enough to be relevant to an adventure, a five percent chance of a non-specialist happening to have picked up at least a clue or hazy hint of that fact somewhere in their decades (or for some characters, centuries) of varied life experience is not nearly as unrealistic as it seems at first blush.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I am disappointed that this could indicate that 5.5e will not adopt Pathfinder 2e's four degrees of success model, which is, in my opinion, one of the stronger parts of the system, that allows much more flexibility in effects and powers.

Granted of course you cannot add that without causing revisions of a significant amount of spells and abilities, but it was a wish I had.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.
> 
> It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a _+10_ has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.



Or else you could follow the rules and tell him no he doesn't get a roll because the outcome is not in doubt.   You can only auto succeed on a 20 if the outcome is in doubt. You decide if the outcome is in doubt, and someone with +1 and not proficient would not have a chance at success.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> Should DMs track players’ mods, then, and only allow players to roll if their mods would be able to succeed on a 20 with the current rules?



No.  You adjudicate on a case by case basis.  If you think that someone with a +3 has a shot a DC 25, because luck could be a factor in whatever is being attempted, you give him a shot at that 20.  If you don't and think that you need to be more skilled, you don't.


jeremypowell said:


> If so, then what’s the point of the new rule?



See the above.


----------



## Shiroiken

Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Shiroiken said:


> Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but *one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure*. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.



That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.
> 
> The new rule requires either:
> 
> (A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else
> 
> (B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.



False Dichotomies are false.  Those are not the only two options.  You can in fact allow PC2 a roll due to the outcome being in doubt for him, while denying PC1 the roll.  Nor do I track everyone's mods when I do so.  Sometimes I will just say, "If you are proficient, give me a roll" or "As a wizard, you might know so give me a roll."  Then I let them roll and worry about the modifiers.  You could also say something like, "If you don't have at least a +5, don't bother rolling."


----------



## Maxperson

rooneg said:


> The character hasn’t been exposed to the fact that the task was impossible, but the player was. That’s the problem I’m concerned about.



I don't see the issue.  You just narrate the failure without a roll.

DM: "You try to recall the bit of lore and fail" or "You try and move the statue and fail." 

Now the character has been exposed to the fact that it was not possible for him, and the player has also been exposed to that fact. Everyone is on the same page.


----------



## Reynard

Aldarc said:


> One of the benefits is that it opens up the need for checks. If rolling even a 20 means you won't succeed, then why are you having the players roll? If players can succeed even if they roll a 1, then why are you having the players roll? This opens up the possibility for these two ranges.



You don't call for a roll because there is a chance of success -- you call for a roll because there is a chance of failure. If the DC of a thing is 30, it's 30 no matter who is rolling. It may be true that no one in the group can make the check under any circumstances, in which case there is no need to roll. But it's better, i think, to know that number is there and call for check and let the players expend whatever resources they may have on the roll: guidance and bardic inspiration and whatever else. You may find that the chance is small but it is there.

As to the subject of the thread: I am inclined to say that auto success and failure are a bad idea, for skill checks, saves, or combat. If you are using the range of results from the dice, use those results.


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)



The issue now is that the DM had to know know all the current and potential modifiers of every PC.

Before the DM only had to think about difficulty. A DM chooses DC 25 and whoever can't make it  on a 20 didn't had the talent, skill, or magic to meet the challenge. Typically denial of a role was based of having or lack of Proficiency.

With autosuccess, the DM must know the info *beyond proficient or no proficient *to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.


----------



## Maxperson

Shiroiken said:


> Not a fan. I can see it for attacks and saving throws, where there's supposed to be an element of chance, but one of the big changes in 5E was explicitly having the DM only call for rolls when there was a chance of both success or failure. It creates a complex situation for the DM to decide when to call for a roll.



Suppose you've decided that the DC is 27, but there might be a little bit of luck factor involved.  Maybe it's a long jump past the character's strength score and you know that sometimes people can surpass their normal limits by a bit.  You can call for a roll by anyone with athletics +5 or higher.  Those with +5 or +6 might get lucky, so the outcome is still in doubt for them.  Those with +0 to +4 simply don't get to roll.  They cannot succeed.

You just have to approach it a bit differently.  You can't just call for a blind roll with the DC in your head and narrate the outcome.


----------



## MarkB

Minigiant said:


> With autosuccess, the DM must know the info *beyond proficient or no proficient *to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.



The whole point of autosuccess is that it opens up the chance that a character may succeed even if the DC is beyond them. If they meet the basic requirements for being eligible to roll - i.e. they have proficiency, or some specific experience with the subject - then it doesn't matter what their actual total bonus is. Just let them roll.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> The issue now is that the DM had to know know all the current and potential modifiers of every PC.



I always ask "are you proficient" before asking for an ability check as a DM. Is that not standard practice?


Minigiant said:


> Before the DM only had to think about difficulty. A DM chooses DC 25 and whoever can't make it  on a 20 didn't had the talent, skill, or magic to meet the challenge. Typically denial of a role was based of having or lack of Proficiency.
> 
> With autosuccess, the DM must know the info *beyond proficient or no proficient *to know of each individual could make the check and could be denied a roll.



That really doesn't seem like that much work. And the problems it solves/alleviates are way more beneficial than any minor setbacks (just needing to know their bonus).


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> You don't call for a roll because there is a chance of success -- you call for a roll because there is a chance of failure.



A chance of success = a chance of failure, and vice versa. You can't have one without the other or it's automatically success or failure and no roll is called for.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> As to the subject of the thread: I am inclined to say that auto success and failure are a bad idea, for skill checks, saves, or combat. If you are using the range of results from the dice, use those results.



Skills is debatable, and I think there's a lot of gray areas within that debate; but for saves and combat I very much like that 1 is an auto-fail/miss and 20 is an auto-save/hit.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> A chance of success = a chance of failure, and vice versa. You can't have one without the other or it's automatically success or failure and no roll is called for.



I think there's a difference,  but it's hard to articulate precisely why.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I think there's a difference,  but it's hard to articulate precisely why.



The only difference I can see deals with which one has the greatest chance of happening.  If I phrase it as, "There is a chance of failure," that implies that the PC is very likely to succeed.  If I phrase it as, "There is a chance of success," that implies that the PC will most likely fail.  There's still a chance for both success and failure with each phrasing, but there is that difference.


----------



## Cadence

So, a lot of folks will want to set the DC to 31?  (Rolls only needed in the playtest for DCs from 5 to 30, right?)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Don’t wanna open the document again, isn’t there a clause that you can only get a crit roll if the dc is between 5 and 30?


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Don’t wanna open the document again, isn’t there a clause that you can only get a crit roll if the dc is between 5 and 30?



There's a rule to never set a DC higher than 30 or lower than 5. It straight up tells the DM not to.

"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"


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> The only difference I can see deals with which one has the greatest chance of happening.  If I phrase it as, "There is a chance of failure," that implies that the PC is very likely to succeed.  If I phrase it as, "There is a chance of success," that implies that the PC will most likely fail.  There's still a chance for both success and failure with each phrasing, but there is that difference.



I don't mean so much as a statement but as a philosophy. In other words, I tend toward "saying yes" and if I ask for a roll ot means that yes isn't certain. It's more optimistic,  I guess? Like I said, it's hard to explain


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> "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"



So, the quest is to get an AC of 31...


----------



## edosan

Aside from the whole “this is a commonly misunderstood rule so instead of explaining it better, we’re just going to change the rule” mindset which irks me quite a bit, I am not a fan. I’ve never liked the “I have at least a five percent chance to do literally anything” style of play because it’s too metagamey and reduces the DMs ability to use their common sense.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> There's a rule to never set a DC higher than 30 or lower than 5. It straight up tells the DM not to.
> 
> "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"



I’d quibble that this isn’t technically “do not use DCs outside this range”, but it’s close enough. 

More importantly, seems pretty clear to me that the guy with no experience in diplomacy simply can’t convince the head of state to act against his own best interests. There is no roll.


----------



## edosan

You're right, it seems to imply that you can set a DC to fifty so that tests aren’t “warranted,” to use their language.

Hopefully a later document more about running the game will codify it better for newbies.


----------



## Shiroiken

AcererakTriple6 said:


> That hasn't changed at all. The DM still only calls for roll if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. The new auto-success complements that (because why are you even rolling if a natural 1 would still succeed or a natural 20 still fails?)



You completely missed my point, which was after the section you emphasized. The issue isn't about not having auto-success and auto-failure, it's that newer DMs are going to have a harder time decided when to have a roll. If the rules say that any roll has a 5% chance of success, players are always going to push for a roll, even if there shouldn't be one. Conversely, some newer DMs are going to think you have a 5% chance to fail at anything, since you'll fail 5% of every check. The second part already took a long time for many to adapt to in 5E, and this is simply going to confuse the matter further.

Note, I won't have any issues if this is the way it is, but I've been running 5E since the last playtest. A brand new DM, however, is limited to what they put in the rules, and WotC hasn't been particularly good at helping new DMs learn how to run a game. They're supposed to be working on this for 1D&D, but this is adding an additional obstacle that I feel is unnecessary.


----------



## edosan

Agreed, I think it makes skill resolution more prone to meta gaming while simultaneously more difficult to adjudicate.

I’m not going to change anything about how I DM (is there a chance for success, is there a chance for failure, and is there a consequence for failure?) but I see it making it more complicated for new DMs under the guise of making what they see as (a common misunderstanding of RAW/a common house rule) into a formalized rule to make things easier.


----------



## SakanaSensei

I'm fine with the change for ability checks SO LONG AS the PHB explicitly states that the DM can do things like, say, require proficiency in a skill before the die can be rolled at all. Like, in bold, so players don't give too much guff about "why won't you let me try to roll for it?"

The fact of the matter is that rolling a 20 always feels nice and exciting.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Aldarc said:


> One of the benefits is that it opens up the need for checks. If rolling even a 20 means you won't succeed, then why are you having the players roll? If players can succeed even if they roll a 1, then why are you having the players roll? This opens up the possibility for these two ranges.




I'm not sure if I buy that reasoning.  I don't really care one way or other...I don't currently use this houserule, although I don't mind using it if it's official.  

But I don't think, "Some DMs ask for pointless rolls, therefore let's make sure they always have a point" is a sound basis for game design.


----------



## edosan

SakanaSensei said:


> I'm fine with the change for ability checks SO LONG AS the PHB explicitly states that the DM can do things like, say, require proficiency in a skill before the die can be rolled at all. Like, in bold, so players don't give too much guff about "why won't you let me try to roll for it?"



This kind of “how to run the game” advice is something that the new version - a version that has brought unprecedented amounts of new players into the game - sorely needs. It’s largely intuitive to us for for a first time DM, how are they supposed to know?


----------



## Aldarc

Bill Zebub said:


> I'm not sure if I buy that reasoning.  I don't really care one way or other...I don't currently use this houserule, although I don't mind using it if it's official.



Then don't buy it. 



Bill Zebub said:


> But I don't think, "Some DMs ask for pointless rolls, therefore let's make sure they always have a point" is a sound basis for game design.



A whole bunch of indie game systems (e.g., FitD, PbtA, Fate, etc.) wanted me to tell you hello.


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I always ask "are you proficient" before asking for an ability check as a DM. Is that not standard practice?
> 
> That really doesn't seem like that much work. And the problems it solves/alleviates are way more beneficial than any minor setbacks (just needing to know their bonus).



My point is in 5e if you are proficient and have a +0 ability modifier, you can't hit a DC 25 naturally.

5e
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Sorry....

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.

Whereas if you have STR 20, you still have a chance that the proficient/nonproficient question strips away.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> My point is in 5e if you are proficient and have a +0 ability modifier, you can't hit a DC 25 naturally.
> 
> 5e
> Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
> DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
> Player: Yes
> DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
> Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
> DM: Sorry....



Or... you don't ask for that roll until after you say, "Only roll if you have +5 or better"... or you only ask for a roll if you think a bit of luck can help someone past their normal limits.


Minigiant said:


> 1D&D
> Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
> DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
> Player: Yes
> DM: Ok roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
> Player: A 20! so with my bonuses that's a 22.
> DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.
> 
> Whereas if you have STR 20, you still have a chance that the proficient/nonproficient question strips away.



1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: If you can hit a DC of 25 go ahead and roll. (Thinking: That's the world record. This action is Very Hard so DC 25)
Player: I guess I can't make it.
DM: Better luck next time.

Or...

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: Are you proficient in Athletics?
Player: Yes
DM: The DC is 25, but sometimes people can beat their old records, so if you roll a 20 you will succeed.
Player: A 20!
DM: Congratulations. You've made the jump.

Or...

1D&D
Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft.
DM: 30 feet isn't possible for you to make.  If you try it you know you will fall short.  Do you still want to make the effort and risk death?


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> Or... you don't ask for that roll until after you say, "Only roll if you have +5 or better"... or you only ask for a roll if you think a bit of luck can help someone past their normal limits.



Sure but that's my point. It adds emphasis onto another point of DM Fiat that wasn't there..

Before DCs above25 were Very Hard or Impossible and beyond the range of those who aren't extremely skilled or talented.

Now, the low skilled and untalented can attempt and success at these DC so  DM has to put more thought into whether theese PC can even attempt these DCs. This decision can drastically alter the perception of the world if any PC has a chance to success at any Peak/Olympic activity or not.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> Sure but that's my point. It adds emphasis onto another point of DM Fiat that wasn't there..



DM fiat is always there in all ways.  There's nothing about these particular rules that I did not already do.  I had auto fail on a 1.  And auto succeed on a 20 on any roll from a player that I asked for. If you could not make it, you didn't get a roll.  If I thought it was a bit beyond you, but you might get lucky, you got a roll and needed to hit that 20. 


Minigiant said:


> Before DCs above25 were Very Hard or Impossible and beyond the range of those who aren't extremely skilled or talented.



They still are unless you open them up to PCs that aren't.


Minigiant said:


> Now, the low skilled and untalented can attempt and success at these DC



Says who?  Players don't get to choose when they can roll for an ability check.  If untalented people are making these attempts, that's the DM's doing.


Minigiant said:


> so  DM has to put more thought into whether theese PC can even attempt these DCs.



He should have been doing this already.  Under current rules you only get to roll if the outcome is in doubt and failure has meaning.  The DM should be, as of this minute, putting thought into whether PCs can attempt the DCs he sets.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I don't think I've ever set a dc that someone would _need_ a 20 to be successful at _and got it_. I've certainly had people roll a 20 on a check before (and succeed). NOW they get inspiration instead of "Darn it, I critted on this ability check. Wish I'd saved that roll for an attack!" (Either way, they would succeed, I suspect).


----------



## Maxperson

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't think I've ever set a dc that someone would _need_ a 20 to be successful at _and got it_.



I have.  Lots of times over the years. Hell, in the distant past of AD&D some DM's used to say that the player would need to drop a 00 on percentile dice to succeed at some task that they thought was nearly impossible, and though very rare I've seen that happen more than once.


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> DM fiat is always there in all ways. There's nothing about these particular rules that I did not already do. I had auto fail on a 1. And auto succeed on a 20 on any roll from a player that I asked for. If you could not make it, you didn't get a roll. If I thought it was a bit beyond you, but you might get lucky, you got a roll and needed to hit that 20.



My point is it changes the dynamics of DM Fiat.
Before you could objectively decide the difficulty of an action and let the dice fall where they may. You only had to deny an attempt on the case of possibility

Or in other Terms,when a DM is potentially deciding on a check, they are thinking about 2 things: Possibility and Probability.

*Possibility* is the ability for the character to even succeed at the action.
*Probability* is how likely they can succeed at a possible action.

Usually you think about if the action is possible, usually by examining proficiency, equipment, or other parameters. Then you set a probability based on a difficulty you gauge if you deem  the action possible.

Sometimes possibilty and probability are linked. An action's scucess might be only of pure difficulty or experience. In these times you can merge Possibility and Probability and set a DC. A DC over 20 is only possible for the talanted, skill, or enhanced as you cannot roll higher than a 20 without a modifier. A DC over 20 also had a low probability of success. PCs do to their equipment and magic can high themselves up their probability of success and turn the impossible to possible.

 Automatic Success on a 20 wonks it up as i*t puts more work on the DM *by enhancing the Fiat of when an actions possibility chances via a chance of probability.

*It's more work for a DM in a game that already piles work on them.*


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> 1D&D
> Player: I wish to made a long jump of 30 ft. ...



And if the character has a Wish outstanding, say from a Luckblade, its jumping problems are henceforth solved.


----------



## Cold Iron Bound

Hmm, the rule I'd consider adding is "Only proficient characters can attempt a check that's over DC 20".


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.
> 
> I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.
> 
> When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case _often_, not seldom, with the new rule.



Why are you gatekeeping that lore behind such high DC's? DM advice in 5e is that easy = DC 5, Moderate = DC 10 and Hard = DC 15. 
Personally I have stuck to the DMG guidelines and a DC of 15 that is passed by +5 or more yields additional information. 

The way I see it, your choices are; ignore the new rule and advocate against it in the survey. Accept it and move on or change the nature of  a critical success on an "impossible" task. By that, I mean that if the task should ordinarily be impossible but they get a critical it will yield something that will allow a later attempt at better odds.

For example if it is a lore based check that should be impossible the critical success might not tell them the answer but that there may be clued in the lost library of Simon Bibleos with some clue as to where they might go to get more information.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> DM advice in 5e is that easy = DC 5, Moderate = DC 10 and Hard = DC 15.



No, it’s not.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> No, it’s not.



Ok, I mis remembered and it is a step higher at 5,10,15: easy, hard, moderate but instead of nit picking my mistake, you could have addressed my question or ignored me. Why a DC 30?
A regular ability check is at best +5 to the d20, with proficiency in a relevant skill that becomes +11 at level 17 and with expertise becomes +17 needing a 13 or better on the die. Advantage on the roll gives you a 50/50 shot but it seems pretty pointless to me to engage in this regularly.


----------



## Reynard

Cold Iron Bound said:


> Hmm, the rule I'd consider adding is "Only proficient characters can attempt a check that's over DC 20".



Why? Do you not allow guidance, bardic inspiration or magic item bonuses in your game?


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> Ok, I mis remembered and it is a step higher at 5,10,15: easy, hard, moderate but instead of nit picking my mistake, you could have addressed my question or ignored me. Why a DC 30?
> A regular ability check is at best +5 to the d20, with proficiency in a relevant skill that becomes +11 at level 17 and with expertise becomes +17 needing a 13 or better on the die. Advantage on the roll gives you a 50/50 shot but it seems pretty pointless to me to engage in this regularly.



Sorry, I didn’t intend to sound curt.

If you don’t set DCs higher than 15, then of course this rules change won’t affect you (literally—it won’t affect you, since it only exists for when a nat 20 isn’t usually good enough to succeed, which means the DC must have been above 15 even for someone with a -5 mod).

But pointing out that you use an artificially low, homebrew version of the 5e DC table—when your argument is that I shouldn’t be setting higher DCs even though RAW says DMs should do so at least occasionally—is not nitpicking.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> Sorry, I didn’t intend to sound curt.
> 
> If you don’t set DCs higher than 15, then of course this rules change won’t affect you (literally—it won’t affect you, since it only exists for when a nat 20 isn’t usually good enough to succeed, which means the DC must have been above 15 even for someone with a -5 mod).
> 
> But pointing out that you use an artificially low, homebrew version of the 5e DC table—when your argument is that I shouldn’t be setting higher DCs even though RAW says DMs should do so at least occasionally—is not nitpicking.



I am trying to understand what you are trying to achieve here and explaining where I am coming from. 
If you have information gated behind a DC 30 and you have level 10 PCs then a character with max stat and no proficiency is +5 on the roll. Then no chance of success even with Bless, may be with Bardic Inspiration if the bard is level 10 or better.
If they have proficiency in a relevant skill it is +9, still no chance though bless and Bardic Inspiration does make it possible. Even with expertise it is still pretty low odds even with bless or bardic inspiration.

Changing to autosuccess on a 20 dies not make a noticeable difference to the odds, not one that will be spotted in play. If the barbarian succeeds where the bard failed it can be narrated as "Hey (Bard) do you remember that song about....." 

You are as a DM perfectly within your rights not to allow an attempt to succeed by someone with out a relevant proficiency. 

If it is relevant to the progression of the plot, what is the point of the high DC and if it has no relevance what does it matter?


----------



## OB1

So my initial reaction to this change was that I was just going to house-rule back to the 2014 rule, but I've come up with what I think is a more elegant solution, through an easy to apply ruling.

*If the DC of a task (and possibly Saving Throw) is higher than 20, only characters with training in a relevant skill (or saving throw) have a chance at success.*

What I like here is that someone trained in Aracana, for example, could still succeed on a DC30 check at level 1 or fail a DC10 check at level 20, while putting a 'cap' on what someone untrained can do, thus making which skills you take more impactful.  

I'm back and forth on the saving throw piece.  I really like that different characters have strengths and weaknesses that push them out of the chance to succeed/fail against different things, but I also get that it's fun for players to have at least a chance.


----------



## Reynard

OB1 said:


> *If the DC of a task (and possibly Saving Throw) is higher than 20, only characters with training in a relevant skill (or saving throw) have a chance at success.*



Wait, so if it's a DC 21 and I have an 18 in the relevant ability I don't get to roll?

I think this underscores a common misconception in how 5E works: you don't make skill checks in 5E, you make ability checks and in some cases your proficiency bonus applies because you have an appropriate skill.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> If it is relevant to the progression of the plot, what is the point of the high DC and if it has no relevance what does it matter?



In my games, not every ability check is "relevant to the progression of the plot." I'd even go so far as to say that none of them are. There is no predetermined plot. There's just a world to interact with.

But I've realized that bringing up knowledge checks was a wrong turn, because (1) I'm starting to suspect most 5e DMs seldom use them; and (2) the structural problem with the new rule doesn't only apply to knowledge checks.

Again, it's clear that you run a very different kind of game than I do. You've bumped the DC tables down so that PCs failing on ability checks is much less common, and you don't ever use high DCs. That's OK! The 2014 DMG itself advises "caution" when setting high DCs because success might be impossible for low-level characters even with proficiency and a high stat mod.

But the 21–30 DC range is in the system because it's there to be used. The game is supposed to accommodate high-level play, where the difference between what one PC and another can accomplish is much greater than at low levels; and sometimes the task at hand really is harder than just "hard."


----------



## OB1

Reynard said:


> Wait, so if it's a DC 21 and I have an 18 in the relevant ability I don't get to roll?
> 
> I think this underscores a common misconception in how 5E works: you don't make skill checks in 5E, you make ability checks and in some cases your proficiency bonus applies because you have an appropriate skill.



Yes, that's correct.  I'm saying that a DC over 20 implies that it takes more than natural ability to attempt it, that you must have training in a skill that could effect the outcome for it not to be impossible for you.  If I believe a task can be done by someone without training, I wouldn't set the DC higher than 20.

Highest DC for a check that anyone could do - 20
Highest DC for a check requiring special training - 30

Like, I consider myself a pretty smart dude, but I have 0 chance to solve a differential equation (because I lack the specific training to do so).


----------



## Stalker0

One of the most iconic moments for a dnd player, is that time you are doing the crazy stunt, you can only succeed on that 20....and you nail it. Its a moment that will live on in players minds years after the plots of the campaigns fade from memory. I know, because I've DMed for over 20 years, and I know what my players still talk about to this day.

Does it create some weirdness? Yes it does. Does it mean that as a DM you might not to just throw out checks that you see absolutely no way for a player to succeed at? Yes it does. Is it 100% totally worth it? Absolutely.


That said, one way to mitigate this a bit is instead of using high DCs for certain things....use disadvantage. This will reduce your odds to 1 in 400 for that nat 20, which might be a lot more palatable.


----------



## Reynard

OB1 said:


> Yes, that's correct.  I'm saying that a DC over 20 implies that it takes more than natural ability to attempt it, that you must have training in a skill that could effect the outcome for it not to be impossible for you.  If I believe a task can be done by someone without training, I wouldn't set the DC higher than 20.
> 
> Highest DC for a check that anyone could do - 20
> Highest DC for a check requiring special training - 30
> 
> Like, I consider myself a pretty smart dude, but I have 0 chance to solve a differential equation (because I lack the specific training to do so).



I think trying to make the rules of D&D model "reality" is a losing proposition. On top of that, setting an arbitrary limit like that without examining how it interacts with all the related systems is just bad design.


----------



## OB1

Stalker0 said:


> One of the most iconic moments for a dnd player, is that time you are doing the crazy stunt, you can only succeed on that 20....and you nail it. Its a moment that will live on in players minds years after the plots of the campaigns fade from memory. I know, because I've DMed for over 20 years, and I know what my players still talk about to this day.
> 
> Does it create some weirdness? Yes it does. Does it mean that as a DM you might not to just throw out checks that you see absolutely no way for a player to succeed at? Yes it does. Is it 100% totally worth it? Absolutely.
> 
> 
> That said, one way to mitigate this a bit is instead of using high DCs for certain things....use disadvantage. This will reduce your odds to 1 in 400 for that nat 20, which might be a lot more palatable.



I get where you are going here, but the impossible stunt that only succeeds on a Nat20 still applies with my ruling, it just puts different caps on what a nearly impossible stunt is for different PCs (ie a level 1 Rogue picking a DC30 lock, or an 8Dex Paladin sneaking past a guard with a DC20 Passive Perception).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> In my games, not every ability check is "relevant to the progression of the plot." I'd even go so far as to say that none of them are. There is no predetermined plot. There's just a world to interact with.



Ok, fair enough, but what world building is served by greater than DC 20 checks. I am curious. Could you give me an example from play?


jeremypowell said:


> But I've realized that bringing up knowledge checks was a wrong turn, because (1) I'm starting to suspect most 5e DMs seldom use them; and (2) the structural problem with the new rule doesn't only apply to knowledge checks.



I do use knowledge checks but generally use rolls in a non binary fashion. That is the very easy Dc might be the fail threshold, the easy DC the common knowledge, moderate for what the learned and so on.  


jeremypowell said:


> Again, it's clear that you run a very different kind of game than I do. You've bumped the DC tables down so that PCs failing on ability checks is much less common, and you don't ever use high DCs. That's OK! The 2014 DMG itself advises "caution" when setting high DCs because success might be impossible for low-level characters even with proficiency and a high stat mod.



It is outright impossible for some of the really high numbers for low level characters. 


jeremypowell said:


> But the 21–30 DC range is in the system because it's there to be used. The game is supposed to accommodate high-level play, where the difference between what one PC and another can accomplish is much greater than at low levels; and sometimes the task at hand really is harder than just "hard."



Out of curiosity, if a character has climbed a wall successfully once, would you ask for an ability check to allow them to climb it a second time?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lanefan said:


> If the DC is 30 and the best a character can get to after bonus is 22, why even bother rolling?



becuse I MIGHT remember if a PC has an 8 in a stat, but by level 7 or 8 I most likely wont remember who has a +8, who has a +6 but I most likely will remember who has the +14. so the DC is 27 so player 1 and 3 can roll but player 2 I have to decide "do I let him roll with a 5% chance or not" but I don't remember... so I have to stop action to ask everyone for there skill mod...


Lanefan said:


> I do like the auto-fail on a 1, though.



I dislike auto fails... if I say "Roll a dex/tinker tool check" and he says "It was a 1, but with bardic inspiration of 6 and my +9 mod that is a DC 16 or  lower I beat" I like that even on that 1 he hit 16, and if the DC was 12 or 13 he made it... on a 1


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Leatherhead said:


> They didn't change the important rule: the DM does not ask for a roll unless there is a chance for failure. So there is still no such thing as pulling a 20 and passing an impossible check



yes no "I can jump the moon on a 20" but also the DM now has to know if they set a DC 20+ weather he wants to let people rolll for 5%s or not


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> Ok, fair enough, but what world building is served by greater than DC 20 checks. I am curious. Could you give me an example from play?




A party of five 16th-level characters hears a cultist raving about Tharizdun. The players have not heard of Tharizdun during play in this campaign. The party is in the Free City of Greyhawk, and none of them has ever left Greyspace. Tharizdun is a Greyhawk deity but not a widely known one among the population. I call for everyone to roll a DC 20 Int (Rel) check.
The same thing happens, but the party is in Neverwinter, and none of them has ever traveled outside of Realmspace. Tharizdun has tried to gain power in Realmspace recently, but the deity is very little known there. The DC is 25.
The same thing happens, but the party is in the Mournland and has never left Eberron. Eberron is metaphysically cordoned off from the rest of the multiverse (though not in an absolutely impenetrable way), and it is extremely strange that Tharizdun's name should be spoken there. But do any of the PCs know how strange this is? The DC is 30.
Those are all knowledge-based examples, of course, but I wanted to give a very specific sense of what world-building purpose is served by such checks.

More generally, I have players ask all the time to do things that are really difficult, whether they know it or not.

"Can I nonmagically calm this wild catoblepas that hasn't noticed me and convince it we are no threat?" "Maybe. Roll Wis (Animal Handling)." Wild catoblepases are naturally aggressive and prone to attacking adventurers on sight, but they can be domesticated. The DC is 20.
Same thing, but the PC doesn't know that she has inadvertently positioned herself between the catoblepas and its baby. DC 25.


----------



## jmartkdr2

jeremypowell said:


> I'm starting to think my DMing style is very unusual:
> 
> I frequently set DCs higher than 20—partly, I think, because my players routinely attempt to do things that are "hard" or harder;
> only about 1/3, or in some cases less, of game time is spent on combat;
> there are lots of calls for rolls outside of combat;
> there's fairly even distribution of rolls across all the various skills (so that ability checks using knowledge skills are common, whereas I'm starting to think most DMs seldom call for these); and
> there are lots of calls for _everyone _to roll ability checks using knowledge skills (usually followed by, for example, "Did anyone roll a 25 or higher?").
> If your DMing style has very little in common with mine, then yeah, I guess this change would pose no problem.



Honestly the only one that doesn't seem familiar is DC 25 knowledge checks coming up frequently. And I have no problem switching to 20-always-succeeds for my games if that's what the table wants to do.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't think I've ever set a dc that someone would _need_ a 20 to be successful at _and got it_. I've certainly had people roll a 20 on a check before (and succeed). NOW they get inspiration instead of "Darn it, I critted on this ability check. Wish I'd saved that roll for an attack!" (Either way, they would succeed, I suspect).



Only time it came up in live game for me was an opposed check: 20+2 perception vs 19+10 stealth. I ruled they didn't see the hiding character because 22 is less than 29.

Under the new rule, they would have seen the hider. I'm not convinced this is a major or important change overall.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> A party of five 16th-level characters hears a cultist raving about Tharizdun. The players have not heard of Tharizdun during play in this campaign. The party is in the Free City of Greyhawk, and none of them has ever left Greyspace. Tharizdun is a Greyhawk deity but not a widely known one among the population. I call for everyone to roll a DC 20 Int (Rel) check.
> The same thing happens, but the party is in Neverwinter, and none of them has ever traveled outside of Realmspace. Tharizdun has tried to gain power in Realmspace recently, but the deity is very little known there. The DC is 25.
> The same thing happens, but the party is in the Mournland and has never left Eberron. Eberron is metaphysically cordoned off from the rest of the multiverse (though not in an absolutely impenetrable way), and it is extremely strange that Tharizdun's name should be spoken there. But do any of the PCs know how strange this is? The DC is 30.
> Those are all knowledge-based examples, of course, but I wanted to give a very specific sense of what world-building purpose is served by such checks.
> 
> More generally, I have players ask all the time to do things that are really difficult, whether they know it or not.
> 
> "Can I nonmagically calm this wild catoblepas that hasn't noticed me and convince it we are no threat?" "Maybe. Roll Wis (Animal Handling)." Wild catoblepases are naturally aggressive and prone to attacking adventurers on sight, but they can be domesticated. The DC is 20.
> Same thing, but the PC doesn't know that she has inadvertently positioned herself between the catoblepas and its baby. DC 25.



Thanks for responding and I honestly cannot see what difference a 5% autosuccess or fail is going to make to the players or the characters  in any of the outlines circumstances.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> Thanks for responding and I honestly cannot see what difference a 5% autosuccess or fail is going to make to the players or the characters  in any of the outlines circumstances.



The party in Eberron has a 22.6% probability of someone knowing the thing that is supposed to be "nearly impossible" to know. None of their stats or skill proficiencies will raise or lower this probability (though guidance, bardic inspiration, etc., could raise their chances even higher if those are permitted, and someone has a high enough mod).

In this circumstance, it simply doesn't matter who the PCs are.

That doesn't make a difference?


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> My point is it changes the dynamics of DM Fiat.
> Before you could objectively decide the difficulty of an action and let the dice fall where they may. You only had to deny an attempt on the case of possibility
> 
> Or in other Terms,when a DM is potentially deciding on a check, they are thinking about 2 things: Possibility and Probability.
> 
> *Possibility* is the ability for the character to even succeed at the action.
> *Probability* is how likely they can succeed at a possible action.
> 
> Usually you think about if the action is possible, usually by examining proficiency, equipment, or other parameters. Then you set a probability based on a difficulty you gauge if you deem  the action possible.
> 
> Sometimes possibilty and probability are linked. An action's scucess might be only of pure difficulty or experience. In these times you can merge Possibility and Probability and set a DC. A DC over 20 is only possible for the talanted, skill, or enhanced as you cannot roll higher than a 20 without a modifier. A DC over 20 also had a low probability of success. PCs do to their equipment and magic can high themselves up their probability of success and turn the impossible to possible.
> 
> Automatic Success on a 20 wonks it up as i*t puts more work on the DM *by enhancing the Fiat of when an actions possibility chances via a chance of probability.
> 
> *It's more work for a DM in a game that already piles work on them.*



I get where you’re coming from, and on paper I agree. But in practice I don’t feel like it’s going to make a noticeable difference in gameplay at my table. I don’t think the situation where I call for a check and the DC is higher than a PC can achieve with a natural 20 ever really happens in games I run.


----------



## Charlaquin

From my perspective, it feels like auto success on a 20 and auto failure on a 1 is going to be a thing for the same reason alignment is still a thing: it’s just part of what people think of when they think of D&D. Alignment continues to persist despite having basically no mechanical function anymore because alignment chart memes are a part of how people engage with D&D. Likewise, telling the story of the time you had a crazy scheme and your DM humored you by letting you roll for it, and you got a nat 20 is part of how people engage with D&D. “You can certainly try…” is almost as iconic of a Mercerism as “How do you want to do this?”


----------



## FitzTheRuke

jmartkdr2 said:


> Only time it came up in live game for me was an opposed check: 20+2 perception vs 19+10 stealth. I ruled they didn't see the hiding character because 22 is less than 29.
> 
> Under the new rule, they would have seen the hider. I'm not convinced this is a major or important change overall.




The deja-vu that gives me makes me think that I've seen this happen, yeah.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> The party in Eberron has a 22.6% probability of someone knowing the thing that is supposed to be "nearly impossible" to know. None of their stats or skill proficiencies will raise or lower this probability (though guidance, bardic inspiration, etc., could raise their chances even higher if those are permitted, and someone has a high enough mod).
> 
> In this circumstance, it simply doesn't matter who the PCs are.
> 
> That doesn't make a difference?



What?

Now you have me completely confused. A 22.6% success chance (an awfully precise number) is 17 or better on a D20 rolling high. 
Why make them roll at all if their stats have no bearing, just roll a D20 behind the screen and tell them if you get 17 or better.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> What?
> 
> Now you have me completely confused. A 22.6% success chance (an awfully precise number) is 17 or better on a D20 rolling high.
> Why make them roll at all if their stats have no bearing, just roll a D20 behind the screen and tell them if you get 17 or better.



All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.

And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.


----------



## Li Shenron

jeremypowell said:


> The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.
> 
> I've seen precisely one rationale for this, stated over and over, that most groups already play that way because this is already a widely misunderstood rule—_not _that groups are already playing this way as a house rule despite being aware of the official rule. Crawford says they are changing the game so that the rules work "the way people expect them to work."
> 
> But _is_ the game better this way?
> 
> If it's not—if the game is better with the current rule, not the new one—then surely a better approach would be to change the way this rule is _presented_ in the PHB so that it is easy to understand and to absorb, rather than changing the rule itself.
> 
> And I think the change is a very bad one.
> 
> Imagine a DC 25 ability check. The game defines a DC 25 task as "very hard." Right now, a character with a total +5 modifier in the skill has a 5% chance of succeeding: on a roll of a 20 only. If you have a lower modifier, you just can't perform the task—you're just not acrobatic enough, or knowledgable enough about arcana, or whatever, to succeed at this very hard task. But with the new rule, the PC who has a negative modifier—even, potentially, a big one—has the same 5% chance of success as the PC who supposedly excels in this area.
> 
> It gets even worse with a DC 30 check to perform a "nearly impossible" task. The character with a _+10_ has a 5% chance of success—the same as every other PC in the game.
> 
> What's the rationale for why this change _makes the game a better game_?



You're not wrong. This rule change is oddly one of the few that I am not personally worried about, but I can see how it can ruin other DMs' gamestyle.

I base my games off "rule zero" so I already grant rolls only sometimes and to someone. Just because I granted it to PC1, it doesn't mean PC2 and PC3 have the right to roll too. This is also how I manage to cope with the excess swingyness of the d20 in ability checks. For example I often grant some checks only to those who have proficiency. 

So in effect, whether a natural 1 is an autofail and a natural 20 is an autosuccess or not, is not that important in my games. If I am granting you the roll in the first place it means I accept both success and failure as possible outcomes. If I didn't, then I'd just tell you flat-out "you succeed" or "you fail" without asking you to roll.

But I am aware that this is not how other DMs run the game. Some just feel like players are entitled to ask for a roll. Some want a game where everyone always has at least a slim chance at anything, including jumping onto the moon, and they are not going to have issues with this rule for different reasons than mine. 

I am only sorry for those DM who maybe don't want to, but cave in to the players requests, and perhaps found some consolation in the possibility of claiming the DC was too high anyway. With this new rule they can't. I could just rejoice at the fact that this will teach them a lesson to use rule zero more often as I already do, but it does carry a mild scent of badwrongfun attitude to me.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.



Why are all 5 rolling? It is not a group check. What is the narration for the barbarian to roll? What is the actual DC? 


jeremypowell said:


> And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.



Ok, now I think I get it, the DC is 30 the cleric with +10 has a 5% change on a 20. 
Aside from the fact that I would never run things this way, If I am allowing a roll then there is a chance of success or failure and I do not allow everyone to roll and I am willing to gate rolls behind proficiency or high stat mods. 
In the circumstances outlined I would only permit the cleric to attempt the check.

I guess you will have to houserule? I do not have any useful suggestions.


----------



## MarkB

jeremypowell said:


> All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.



Only if you're letting them all roll. There are criteria other than DC that you can apply when considering who's eligible to roll, proficiency being the most obvious, but far from the only one.


jeremypowell said:


> And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.



Only at that one specific DC. You're presenting an edge case as a universal.

And that sort of edge case already occurs in the game. If the party are up against a creature with AC 25 and the Fighter's +5 to hit is the highest in the party, they all have the same chance to hit - the Fighter's stats don't matter in that one instance. Has that ever bothered you in-game?


----------



## Ibrandul

MarkB said:


> Only at that one specific DC. You're presenting an edge case as a universal.



I don't intend for it to be taken as universal. I was asked for an example of why I might set a DC at 30 for the sake of world-building; I gave the example; then I was told the new rule wouldn't make a difference in that case, when it actually more than quadruples the chance of success.

I don't think this is some sort of mic-drop moment. And this thread has taught me one thing: even though I try to DM RAW, and I know that each DM's style is unique in some way, I suspect that almost no one DMs D&D like I do regarding ability checks.

Which is neat, I guess. And maybe it gives me some further insight into why I've had so many experienced players tell me that of all the campaigns they've ever played in, mine was the only one where the world felt real. (I'm not saying this to brag; I'm saying it to convey _why_ I DM the way I do.)

But there's no question in my mind: I will either have to change my DMing style, or refuse to adopt the new rule.


MarkB said:


> And that sort of edge case already occurs in the game. If the party are up against a creature with AC 25 and the Fighter's +5 to hit is the highest in the party, they all have the same chance to hit - the Fighter's stats don't matter in that one instance. Has that ever bothered you in-game?



On the contrary, I think the rule is good for attack rolls; good for saving throws (I think—though my thoughts aren't fully formed on this one, since I hadn't started thinking about it until the playtest document dropped on Thursday); and terrible for ability checks (which I started thinking about a long time ago).

That's partly because I have never seen any encounter with a party where only one PC has an attack modifier as high as +5 facing off against an AC 25 monster—or anything remotely comparable to that.

And since it sounds like very few of my fellow DMs have ever seen a DM call for an ability check with a DC higher than 20 or maybe 22, I do understand where they're coming from.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am trying to understand what you are trying to achieve here and explaining where I am coming from.
> If you have information gated behind a DC 30 and you have level 10 PCs then a character with max stat and no proficiency is +5 on the roll. Then no chance of success even with Bless, may be with Bardic Inspiration if the bard is level 10 or better.
> If they have proficiency in a relevant skill it is +9, still no chance though bless and Bardic Inspiration does make it possible. Even with expertise it is still pretty low odds even with bless or bardic inspiration.
> 
> Changing to autosuccess on a 20 dies not make a noticeable difference to the odds,



In fact it makes an infinite amount of difference, at least in mathematical terms, as the odds go from outright zero to something - anything - higher than zero.


UngainlyTitan said:


> not one that will be spotted in play.



Perhaps, though I long ago learned - sometimes the hard way - not to assume corner cases will always remain in the corner.


UngainlyTitan said:


> If it is relevant to the progression of the plot, what is the point of the high DC and if it has no relevance what does it matter?



In part because while the DM knows the lore's degree of plot (ir)relevance, the players don't.  From the player side, it's simply an attempt to access some obscure bit of information.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> I think trying to make the rules of D&D model "reality" is a losing proposition.



Maybe so, but that's not going to stop me from trying.


Reynard said:


> On top of that, setting an arbitrary limit like that without examining how it interacts with all the related systems is just bad design.



Perhaps, though in this case I'm not sure whether there'd really be any serious knock-on effects.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lanefan said:


> In fact it makes an infinite amount of difference, at least in mathematical terms, as the odds go from outright zero to something - anything - higher than zero.
> 
> Perhaps, though I long ago learned - sometimes the hard way - not to assume corner cases will always remain in the corner.
> 
> In part because while the DM knows the lore's degree of plot (ir)relevance, the players don't.  From the player side, it's simply an attempt to access some obscure bit of information.



I am, and remain of the view, if something is impossible then no roll.


----------



## beancounter

The "new" nat 20 rule essentially gives everyone an equal chance to succeed regardless of their skills or proficiencies.

While it will certainly promote the warm and fuzzies, it's just unrealistic to assume everyone has an equal chance of success.

It's a poor attempt to level the playing field, where there shouldn't be a level playing field.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am, and remain of the view, if something is impossible then no roll.



Agreed.

What is glaringly missing, however, is any real granularity between 5% possible and 0% possible; where instead there ideally would be a long trailing end of a bell curve.  Hence my idea upthread of where a 20 still doesn't beat the DC even after modifiers, a secondary die is rolled to maybe give it that little extra push.  The size of that secondary die is 1+ the difference between the modified roll total and the DC*, and only a max roll on that die gives success.

* - thus if the modified total misses the DC by 1 the confirm die is a d2; if the modified total misses by 5 it's a d6, and so forth.


----------



## Ibrandul

beancounter said:


> The "new" nat 20 rule essentially gives everyone an equal chance to succeed regardless of their skills or proficiencies.



To be clear: this precise situation, where everyone has an _exactly_ equal chance, will happen only on checks where the DC is exactly equal to 20 + the highest modifier in the party on that particular check.

Part of the discrepancy between my position and others' is that it seems this is very rare in most games, but fairly commonly in my games.


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps, though in this case I'm not sure whether there'd really be any serious knock-on effects.



Other than hobbling guidance and bardic inspiration? I'm sure there are other "here have a bonus so we can achieve this thing" mechanical.


----------



## edosan

My first impression is that they did a really bad job of wording the rule in the playtest document.

On one hand, if rolling a 20 isn’t going to count as a success I’d say there’s no point in calling for a skill check in the first place. But that isn’t how it’s worded. It says a 20 “automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers.“ If their intent was how I choose to play, they’re not explaining themselves very well because it sounds like the “literally anything I can think of has a five percent chance of success” mode of play that doesn’t really interest me.

Maybe in a later document we’ll see them give out some better advice on when and how to administer skill checks.


----------



## Ibrandul

Reynard said:


> Other than hobbling guidance and bardic inspiration? I'm sure there are other "here have a bonus so we can achieve this thing" mechanical.



This is a total tangent, because truly wacky edge cases like this shouldn't be taken into account when evaluating a proposed rules change. But, under current rules and using only WotC-produced items and abilities, it's possible to succeed on a DC 30 check despite rolling a natural 1. (I mean without rerolling it, of course.)

But that requires a DM who has been way, way too nice to you.

(Although—come to think of it—an interesting campaign idea might be to tell the players that the whole campaign will build up a single ability check with incredibly high stakes, and then offer them an array of far-flung fetch quests to retrieve the various items or gain the various abilities necessary to boost the mod up to +29, piece by piece. And then tell them the precise in-world date and time that the check will have to be made... and start the clock.)


----------



## Forester

Playtesting….

We have never done critical success/fail with ability rolls. But, DMing today, I said we would.

PCs have been carrying around this locked metal chest since they were level 3 (they are now level 5 – and one at 6). It is DC25 to open. The only one with proficiency with thieves’ tools has it from their background – no expertise and 2x proficiency bonus – so it is impossible for them to open.

I expected them to take it to their local friendly locksmith, or to swap a spell out for a knock spell – or even just buy a knock spell scroll (such things are easy to buy in my game). But no … they just talked about the impossible-to-open chest and the wonders it might contain.

However… explaining today that a natural 20 could do it – oh, the excitement! I do have a house rule that you can try to do something like this for three times, and if you fail each time, on the third failed attempt then something will go wrong … in this case, the thieves’ tools will break. That is that particular set of thieves’ tools, only. But, as the thieving bit is in this particular PC’s background only (and sort of stepped away from), they don’t have easy access to buying more thieves’ tools….

However, after ransacking a werewolves’ lair, they now have three sets of thieves’ tools. And have decided to try each set twice over – six times in total – in that hope a nat 20 will be rolled. Nice loophole for sure – but I love their excitement and hope.

(Despite me saying a 1 will be automatic breakage of the thieves’ tools.)

We stopped before this was tried. Good thing: I need to review what is in that metal chest (so long ago, I can’t remember without reading my notes). Whatever it is would have been wonderful for level 3, but I’m not sure it is wonderful now. And after all the excitement, I would like it to be.

I was initially negative about crits and fails for ability rolls, and only introduced it for the sake of playtesting. I did not expect it to be so well-received….


----------



## Ibrandul

Forester said:


> However… explaining today that a natural 20 could do it – oh, the excitement!



This is awesome!

But... as a matter of playtesting, I wonder whether this rule would have led to such excitement if it had been a part of the game from the beginning.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

beancounter said:


> The "new" nat 20 rule essentially gives everyone an equal chance to succeed regardless of their skills or proficiencies.
> 
> While it will certainly promote the warm and fuzzies, it's just unrealistic to assume everyone has an equal chance of success.
> 
> It's a poor attempt to level the playing field, where there shouldn't be a level playing field.



No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.
> 
> And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.



Why are you assuming everyone gets to roll?  The DM can just declare the attempt beyond any of them and say no.  No roll, no 5%.  

You seem to be assuming a problem that is only created if the DM just calls for rolls for everything.  Why not assume the DM is going to follow the rules and only allow attempts where the outcome is in doubt?


----------



## Maxperson

UngainlyTitan said:


> *I guess you will have to houserule? I do not have any useful suggestions.*



He doesn't have to houserule. The rule about only rolling if the outcome is in doubt hasn't gone away with this change.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> I don't intend for it to be taken as universal. I was asked for an example of why I might set a DC at 30 for the sake of world-building; I gave the example; then I was told the new rule wouldn't make a difference in that case, when it actually more than quadruples the chance of success.



The new rule does not override the old rules stating to only roll if the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful.


jeremypowell said:


> I don't think this is some sort of mic-drop moment. And this thread has taught me one thing: even though I try to DM RAW, and I know that each DM's style is unique in some way, I suspect that almost no one DMs D&D like I do regarding ability checks.



DMing by RAW involves just saying no to situations like you describe. No roll.


----------



## Ibrandul

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.



Do you really do this? Every time? Really?

Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall.

The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.)

This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where _the stats_ make it impossible.

At this point, the DM probably says something like "It looks pretty hard." And let's say the player says, "I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it."

Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: "OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage."

Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."

I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, "OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check." And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW.

Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll _requires_ that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above.

Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Maxperson said:


> He doesn't have to houserule. The rule about only rolling if the outcome is in doubt hasn't gone away with this change.



He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.



What it does is open up another avenue for the DM to declare that this attempt is in doubt due to the 20 auto success rule.  There are times where I'm teetering on the edge of "It's impossible" and "There a really small, but viable chance."  In those situations I already did say, "If you roll a 20 you succeed."  This just rule just puts those situations in writing.


----------



## Maxperson

UngainlyTitan said:


> He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.



Gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> He has already house rules that. That is what I have established. They(PCs) all roll chance to succeed or not. He does it for world building reasons.



What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.

And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.



Depends on what it is. Last session a PC saw Vecna in a scry sensor and asked if he ever heard of Vecna.  I run the Forgotten Realms and Vecna is Greyhawk, so I told him no.  There was no roll.  If instead it had been Szass Tam, since he is proficient in Arcana and a bard, I would have given him a roll.  


jeremypowell said:


> And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?



If it's something that they all see, the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful, I will just say something like, "If you are proficient in Arcana, give me a roll."  Then those that are can roll.  I'm not going to make them tell me, because the PCs there would just recognize/remember or not.  If only one person can see it, only he is going to be able to roll or not, depending on the above criteria.


----------



## Ibrandul

Maxperson said:


> If it's something that they all see, the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful, I will just say something like, "If you are proficient in Arcana, give me a roll."  Then those that are can roll.  I'm not going to make them tell me, because the PCs there would just recognize/remember or not.  If only one person can see it, only he is going to be able to roll or not, depending on the above criteria.



Thanks. That's a very common house rule—but it is a house rule. And it nerfs the Bard's Jack of All Trades feature, among other things.

You keep saying "if failure is meaningful." I know that's language from the RAW, but I confess it has always struck me as highly ambiguous in many situations.

Sure, it's easy when someone is trying to lift a gate: no success, no lift, and that's obviously meaningful. But what about with knowledge checks? Do you think it's _not _meaningful to learn a piece of lore (or fail to) unless it impacts the plot you have planned for the party? There are dozens of examples throughout WotC's published adventures of lore that's gated behind a roll but isn't obviously useful. (Not that WotC always follows RAW when writing their adventures, but still...)


----------



## beancounter

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No, it doesn't. You only roll if you have a chance of success. So, it doesn't increase your chance of success if you wouldn't be able to succeed anyway.




Per the new rules, a nat 20 is an automatic success in every situation where it is "humanly" possible to succeed.

If it's not possible, then obviously you wouldn't roll anyway.

If the CR is 25 and you roll a 20, you succeed - which IMO devalues the various modifiers that other PCs may have "invested" in.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> What would you do if the group encounters something and someone asks, "Have I heard about this before?" Would you let the player roll a knowledge ability check to determine that? Arcana, History, and Religion each "measure your ability to recall lore" about these topics. That's all they do. If you're not going to allow PCs to try to recall lore, these skills are meaningless.
> 
> And let's say the PC fails. The next PC then asks the same question. And then the next. And then the next. Does each one have to tell me what their mod is before I tell them whether they get to roll too?



This is where our basic philosophy clashes. For lore I would call for an int check. It is ability scores that count in 5e. If they bring up arcana, history or what ever I might agree that arcana counts or history and ask if they are proficient. However, I would never gate information behind a DC 20 +  or 30 check. 
If they really cannot succeed then I would tell them you know nothing about it. if the Cliffs off Insanity really are impossible then I would tell them so. They would need specialist help or equipment. 
I would not use the same dc either. The trained people might get a lower DC representing their greater chances of knowing something.

So to take your example: if the test is Arcana and the character is proficient and they make the Easy DC I would say that you don't know but you thing you may have seen some of those symbols relating to an ancient magical civilisation. 
If they made the moderate DC then I would improve that and say that the symbols are Netherese.  If they make the hard DC I would add more and more again if they make the impossible DC. 
If they were not proficient I might make the information for each DC about a step or 2 steps harder. 
If they have Legend Lore or some such I would give at least the Hard DC information and add where they might find out more. Or ask for a check and add in the impossible stuff as well. 
I will not go around the table and let every one try. The may be able to help and give advantage or bardic inspiration or what ever,
Under the new mechanics I would reveal information on an autosuccess may be up to  the Hard DC.


----------



## MarkB

jeremypowell said:


> Do you really do this? Every time? Really?
> 
> Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall.
> 
> The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.)
> 
> This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where _the stats_ make it impossible.
> 
> At this point, the DM probably says something like "It looks pretty hard." And let's say the player says, "I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it."
> 
> Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: "OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage."
> 
> Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, "OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check." And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW.
> 
> Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll _requires_ that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above.



The playtest rule is that you can auto-succeed on a natural 20, _whether or not your roll meets the DC_.

If your criteria for whether or not you'll allow a player to make the attempt is that they must have at least a sufficient bonus to meet the DC on a natural 20, then you are not implementing the new rule.


jeremypowell said:


> Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW.



Yes they are. The rule is that the DM determines whether or not a roll is warranted. What criteria the DM uses in making that determination is up to them.


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> This is where our basic philosophy clashes. For lore I would call for an int check. It is ability scores that count in 5e. If they bring up arcana, history or what ever I might agree that arcana counts or history and ask if they are proficient. However, I would never gate information behind a DC 20 +  or 30 check.
> If they really cannot succeed then I would tell them you know nothing about it. if the Cliffs off Insanity really are impossible then I would tell them so. They would need specialist help or equipment.
> I would not use the same dc either. The trained people might get a lower DC representing their greater chances of knowing something.
> 
> So to take your example: if the test is Arcana and the character is proficient and they make the Easy DC I would say that you don't know but you thing you may have seen some of those symbols relating to an ancient magical civilisation.
> If they made the moderate DC then I would improve that and say that the symbols are Netherese.  If they make the hard DC I would add more and more again if they make the impossible DC.
> If they were not proficient I might make the information for each DC about a step or 2 steps harder.
> If they have Legend Lore or some such I would give at least the Hard DC information and add where they might find out more. Or ask for a check and add in the impossible stuff as well.
> I will not go around the table and let every one try. The may be able to help and give advantage or bardic inspiration or what ever,
> Under the new mechanics I would reveal information on an autosuccess may be up to  the Hard DC.



Thanks for explaining. It’s great to get an insight into other people’s styles. You're right—our basic philosophies are on different planets! I've never even considered the idea of setting DCs based on which character is attempting the task. I wonder how many DMs operate that way?

It seems to me that at that point you may as well dispense with stats entirely. And indeed, there are indie RPGs that do so—the players and the DM come to a mutual, qualitative understanding of the PCs’ strengths and weaknesses, and then the DM simply picks a success percentage that feels right for a given character for a given task.


----------



## Ibrandul

MarkB said:


> The playtest rule is that you can auto-succeed on a natural 20, _whether or not your roll meets the DC_.
> 
> If your criteria for whether or not you'll allow a player to make the attempt is that they must have at least a sufficient bonus to meet the DC on a natural 20, then you are not implementing the new rule.



Correct. This was in response to people telling me that 2014 RAW demanded that no rolls ever be made by players unless a nat 20 would succeed. My question was, if you play that way, how do you adjudicate the situation I was describing?


MarkB said:


> Yes they are. The rule is that the DM determines whether or not a roll is warranted. What criteria the DM uses in making that determination is up to them.



That’s a good point. The 2014 rules don’t provide any substantial guidance on the matter, so DMs are mostly on their own in coming up with criteria for this.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> Thanks for explaining. It’s great to get an insight into other people’s styles. You're right—our basic philosophies are on different planets! I've never even considered the idea of setting DCs based on which character is attempting the task. I wonder how many DMs operate that way?



More than you might think.


jeremypowell said:


> It seems to me that at that point you may as well dispense with stats entirely. And indeed, there are indie RPGs that do so—the players and the DM come to a mutual, qualitative understanding of the PCs’ strengths and weaknesses, and then the DM simply picks a success percentage that feels right for a given character for a given task.



Well no that would be too much, the stats inform the chance of success. 

Imagine that you, I and Sabine Hossenfelder walk in to a room, We see a wall with arcane marking. I don't know about you but I recognise the mathematical nature of the markings. 
I make an int check, if I beat the easy DC (10) I know it is about physics. If I beat the hard I might puzzle that some of it involves the general relativity equations.  
I am not going to get more than that with out spending a couple of years with some very good math and physics books and I might still not get it.
Sabine looks at it and realises it is a derivation of the Alcubierre Warp Drive, she makes her int check and tell us that it a version that could be built using current tech.
30 years ago and closer to my maths degree I might be able to determine that it was a warp of spacetime description but I kind of doubt it. I would have gotten further but not by much. 

I have no idea what you would make of it. My view is that the difficultly of doings something is not a flat number it is informed by who ever is trying to attempt it. 
40 years ago I could struggle through a French newspaper now I could just tell you it is in French.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> Thanks. That's a very common house rule—but it is a house rule. And it nerfs the Bard's Jack of All Trades feature, among other things.



It's not a house rule. It's a different application of RAW.  RAW states that you roll when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance for failure.  Gating rolls behind being proficient is RAW, because the outcome is not uncertain to me for those who are not proficient.  So far as I know, nothing says I have to give every PC equal chances.

I also don't do that for every ability check.  For a lot of them anyone can roll, proficient or not.  For some you would need to have gone to school(be proficient) to learn that sort of thing.

As for bards, I value bardic knowledge(now Jack of all Trades) very much and give bards much more leeway to know obscure things than I do the other classes.


jeremypowell said:


> You keep saying "if failure is meaningful." I know that's language from the RAW, but I confess it has always struck me as highly ambiguous in many situations.
> 
> Sure, it's easy when someone is trying to lift a gate: no success, no lift, and that's obviously meaningful. But what about with knowledge checks? Do you think it's _not _meaningful to learn a piece of lore (or fail to) unless it impacts the plot you have planned for the party? There are dozens of examples throughout WotC's published adventures of lore that's gated behind a roll but isn't obviously useful. (Not that WotC always follows RAW when writing their adventures, but still...)



It's not so much ambiguous as subjective, but since the DM is making the decision to call for a roll or not, it's what he thinks that matters.

With lore it depends on what is at stake. If a wizard wanted to know if the magical light that is lighting up the inn was from a permanent light spell, the blessing of an angel or whatever, I'd just tell him.  What does it matter if he fails that particular knowledge roll?  If on the other hand he was looking at magical runes in the Death Knight's castle and wanted to see if he could figure out what they were for, he'd need to roll. Failure in that instance has meaning and it is very much in doubt.


----------



## Reynard

If a 20 always succeeds then the argument that there is "no chance of success" is severely weakened. I don't want to have that argument all the time with my players.

But, I already committed to the change for my Iron Gods 5E campaign so I will get to actively test it (alongside no monster crits) so we'll see.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> If a 20 always succeeds then the argument that there is "no chance of success" is severely weakened. I don't want to have that argument all the time with my players.
> 
> But, I already committed to the change for my Iron Gods 5E campaign so I will get to actively test it (alongside no monster crits) so we'll see.



The rule isn't that a 20 always succeeds.  The rule is that "If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 test automatically succeeds..."  it also says the following, "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight."  Not getting a roll due to impossibility is a limitation on the test, and the 20 won't bypass that.

Another thing is that the new rule is...

"*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."

The bolded right there says that the d20 roll isn't automatic, even with the "20 always succeeds rule."  The other part of that is that for the test to be warranted, the DC has to be 5 to 30.  Why? Because anything less is automatically a yes and anything more is automatic failure.  

So we have two different ways for the DM to deny a player a roll.  First, the DM determines if a test is warranted.  That includes gating the roll behind proficiency or any other limitation the DM wants. Second, if the DC is so high or so low as to be automatically successful or impossible, no roll is given.  

There is no "A roll of 20 can succeed at anything attempted" as some are arguing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> As for bards, I value bardic knowledge(now Jack of all Trades) very much and give bards much more leeway to know obscure things than I do the other classes



we have (mostly) settled on letting the bard count as prof in everything... so they get the rolls of 'only prof' (mostly)

we do ALSO however have a background thing were sometimes it's not "anyone can roll this" or "anyone prof" but it is "This one character can roll to know this" but we ALWAYS let bards aid/help action on those rolls if they want. (and if they have guidance they can stack that with bard inspiration and now advantage)


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> we have (mostly) settled on letting the bard count as prof in everything... so they get the rolls of 'only prof' (mostly)



Yeah.  I let bards roll(mostly) as well. 


GMforPowergamers said:


> we do ALSO however have a background thing were sometimes it's not "anyone can roll this" or "anyone prof" but it is "This one character can roll to know this" but we ALWAYS let bards aid/help action on those rolls if they want. (and if they have guidance they can stack that with bard inspiration and now advantage)



Yeah. Backgrounds matter in my game as well.  Sometimes what a player has written in his background will give him a roll, and sometimes it will just be successful based on what he has seen and done.  

In my current campaign one of the PCs rolled(we use Central Casting for backgrounds) that he had gotten access to a secret book on great evils of the planes.  He gets a roll for anything CR 10 or higher that is native to a lower plane or an outsider, even if someone proficient wouldn't be able to roll, and if those proficient can roll, he gets advantage.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> The rule isn't that a 20 always succeeds.  The rule is that "If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 test automatically succeeds..."  it also says the following, "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight."  Not getting a roll due to impossibility is a limitation on the test, and the 20 won't bypass that.
> 
> Another thing is that the new rule is...
> 
> "*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."
> 
> The bolded right there says that the d20 roll isn't automatic, even with the "20 always succeeds rule."  The other part of that is that for the test to be warranted, the DC has to be 5 to 30.  Why? Because anything less is automatically a yes and anything more is automatic failure.
> 
> So we have two different ways for the DM to deny a player a roll.  First, the DM determines if a test is warranted.  That includes gating the roll behind proficiency or any other limitation the DM wants. Second, if the DC is so high or so low as to be automatically successful or impossible, no roll is given.
> 
> There is no "A roll of 20 can succeed at anything attempted" as some are arguing.



Sure, but if the DC is 30 or less a player is justified in getting a roll.


----------



## Ibrandul

Reynard said:


> Sure, but if the DC is 30 or less a player is justified in getting a roll.



I think the fundamental wellspring of disagreement here is that some DMs (myself, for one) think of ability check DCs as the difficulty that _an indeterminate character _would have performing the task. And it turns out that other DMs (Maxperson and UngainlyTitan, for two, if I understand them correctly) think of ability check DCs as_ determined relative to the particular character_ who wishes to perform the task.

That's an enormous difference in DMing procedure, one that I hadn't realized existed until tonight. And it will affect  everything that has to do with ability checks.

With that procedure, it's not a question of whether "a player" gets to roll; it's always a question of whether _this player_ gets to roll. And moreover, it's not even a question of how hard the task "is," it's always a question of how hard the task is _for this PC_. Five party members could all climb the same rope, and they could have five different DCs for the task.

I can't imagine DMing that way, or playing that way (though if the DM were quiet enough about it, I guess I might never even suspect it, until the day when PC 2's lower roll succeeds on a task where PC 1's higher roll has failed!).

But I have to admit I can find nothing whatsoever in the 2014 rules that would prohibit it—not only because the 2014 rules give DMs practically infinite latitude for making rulings, but also because they give rather little guidance on how to set a DC for an ability check in the first place.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jeremypowell said:


> Do you really do this? Every time? Really?



Yes. Every time I ask them to roll, I ask if they're proficient and what their bonus is. End of story. It's not hard, it's not much more work than not doing that (and it's well worth the effort, in my experience). So nothing else you say matters. 

If their stats make it impossible, they can't do it, and therefore can't even roll. Period. The end.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

beancounter said:


> Per the new rules, a nat 20 is an automatic success in every situation where it is "humanly" possible to succeed.
> 
> If it's not possible, then obviously you wouldn't roll anyway.
> 
> If the CR is 25 and you roll a 20, you succeed - which IMO devalues the various modifiers that other PCs may have "invested" in.



If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. 

This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.


----------



## beancounter

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail.
> 
> This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.




That doesn't negate the fact that it's effectively devaluing the modifiers of others. If a PC has a +1 modifier, they can now succeed on a 20 or a 21. Whereas under the old rules, they could only succeed on a 21. It gives those who should have a lower chance of success (due to not investing in appropriate modifiers) a greater chance than would "naturally" occur.

I don't see what the problem is with not responding in a condescending manner. It's really isn't that hard.


----------



## beancounter

Double post


----------



## Ibrandul

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If the DC is 25, and the DM calls for a roll, then the DM has decided that their bonus to the check is high enough to give them a chance of success. If they don't have a chance of success, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail.
> 
> This really isn't that hard. If they can succeed, the DM has them roll, and thus a Natural 20 always succeeds. If they can't succeed, the DM doesn't have them roll and they automatically fail. I really don't get what the problem is.



With your procedure (assuming I understand you correctly), the DM constantly monitors all mods and, if a nat 20 wouldn't be good enough to hit the DC once mods are added or subtracted, then the roll is prohibited and does not occur.

So there would never be a situation when a nat 20 would fail under the old rule but succeed under the new rule, because such a roll would never be performed.

So there is simply no new rule at all.

And yet...there _is _a new rule.

So...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

beancounter said:


> That doesn't negate the fact that it's effectively devaluing the modifiers of others. If a PC has a +1 modifier, they can now succeed on a 20 or a 21. Whereas under the old rules, they could only succeed on a 21. It gives those who should have a lower chance of success (due to not investing in appropriate modifiers) a greater chance than would "naturally" occur.



Again, no, this hasn't changed. The DM only calls for the roll if the PC has a chance of succeeding. If the DC for the ability check is 25 and the PC only has a +1 bonus, the DM then says that the PC automatically fails without even making the ability check. So they don't "succeed on a 20 or 21", they still need to be possible of getting a 25 total in order to succeed, they just don't get to roll unless they have a chance of getting that number. 

The change in rules does not make succeeding on an ability check any easier. If a natural 20 + the PC's bonus to the check wouldn't succeed before, it still doesn't now (because the DM doesn't ask for the player to roll in that circumstance).


beancounter said:


> I don't see what the problem is with not responding in a condescending manner. It's really isn't that hard.



I was explaining it in simple terms because you seemed not to understand, not to be condescending.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jeremypowell said:


> With your procedure (assuming I understand you correctly), the DM constantly monitors all mods and, if a nat 20 wouldn't be good enough to hit the DC once mods are added or subtracted, then the roll is prohibited and does not occur.
> 
> So there would never be a situation when a nat 20 would fail under the old rules but succeed under the new rules, because such a roll would never be performed.
> 
> So there is simply no new rule at all.
> 
> And yet...there _is _a new rule.
> 
> So...



Because apparently, the way it was written before was confusing for DMs and players, because "do natural 20s automatically succeed on an ability check?" was an extremely common question on 5e forums.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

jeremypowell said:


> Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try."



I have enough on my plate when I DM... and so do my DMs


----------



## edosan

…and yet, this new rule doesn’t really clear it up at all. Yes, a Nat 20 always succeeds on a skill check, unless there isn’t a skill check. Why isn’t there a skill check? Because I said so. But if there was a skill check, it would succeed. Yes. Can I do one in case I get a 20? No, you can’t because it’s not possible. But you said a Nat 20 always succeeds…

it’s a poorly written rule that further shows they need better writers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yes. Every time I ask them to roll, I ask if they're proficient and what their bonus is. End of story. It's not hard, it's not much more work than not doing that (and it's well worth the effort, in my experience). So nothing else you say matters.



this is teh step I am adverse to adding to my game


----------



## GMforPowergamers

edosan said:


> …and yet, this new rule doesn’t really clear it up at all. Yes, a Nat 20 always succeeds on a skill check, unless there isn’t a skill check. Why isn’t there a skill check? Because I said so. But if there was a skill check, it would succeed. Yes. Can I do one in case I get a 20? No, you can’t because it’s not possible. But you said a Nat 20 always succeeds…
> 
> it’s a poorly written rule that further shows they need better writers.



funny aside.  In one campaign a few years ago we made a joke about useing alchimist tools to make a potion of immortality... I looked at the Book DCs (I normally have my own DC idea)and by the book Nearly impossible is DC 30... so mostly as a joke I told the player it would be a month of work to JUST to try and the DC is 31. a few times he tried (once he got the + up to 8 and could cast guidance so in theory with a 20 he could make it... by the end of the campaign he had skill expertise in it, and a 22 int and a magic alchemical tool set... so he had a +19 to this roll... and with skill mastery (11th level rogue ability) and guidance he was guaranteed to make the   potion and we ended the campaign with him becoming truly immortal.

During the campaign we had other PCs and NPCs try to make this as well... I had to find ways to get +11 or 12 and things like hiring muses (bards to give inspiration) useing these rules would lead to the weird 5% chance problem


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

GMforPowergamers said:


> this is teh step I am adverse to adding to my game



How many players do you have? Because I normally have 3-4, and it doesn't take long to check.


----------



## Reynard

I don't think the capabilities of the PC(s) in question should have any impact on the DC of the task. Opening this lock is THIS hard, regardless of who does it. It is up to the players to try and leverage their PC abilities to have an X percent chance of succeeding.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> I don't think the capabilities of the PC(s) in question should have any impact on the DC of the task.



It doesn't impact the DC, it impacts whether or not they roll at all.


----------



## Reynard

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It doesn't impact the DC, it impacts whether or not they roll at all.



Not even that. I don't know -- or care, frankly -- how many ability check boost spells, class abilities or items the PCs have. I call for a DC 23 strength check to move the statue. That's it. The players are responsible for figuring out how to get it done. I have too much to worry about to calculate their odds ahead of time.


----------



## Ibrandul

I've just pored over the relevant sections of the 5e PHB and DMG with a fine-tooth comb. Let me preface this by saying: _no one is DMing the game wrong_. My argument is only about RAW, and is intended to rebut the several folks who are saying that RAW forbid an ability check when a PC's stats are such that a nat 20 would fail the check.

On the contrary: When a player wants to attempt a task that is possible for a character _in general _but impossible _for their PC because of their stats_...according to 2014 RAW, the DM_* calls for an ability check.*_

Here's the PHB:

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." (PHB 174)

And here's the DMG:

"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence_ for failure_. [Note: nothing about success here.] When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

Is a task so easy and free of conflict that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can't work?
_If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate._" (DMG 237; emphasis added)

There's a lot riding on that one, slim PHB passage for those who think DMs are never supposed to call an ability check if the PC's mods make it impossible to succeed on a nat 20. And this interpretation directly contradicts the DMG guidelines.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Sure, but if the DC is 30 or less a player is justified in getting a roll.



Not if the DM gates it another way.  The DM decides when a roll happens in* any* given circumstance. Period. That's what the UA says.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> I think the fundamental wellspring of disagreement here is that some DMs (myself, for one) think of ability check DCs as the difficulty that _an indeterminate character _would have performing the task. And it turns out that other DMs (Maxperson and UngainlyTitan, for two, if I understand them correctly) think of ability check DCs as_ determined relative to the particular character_ who wishes to perform the task.



No. If I'm going to gate a roll, it's usually going to be based around proficient or not. If you're proficient you get a roll.  If you're not, it's impossible for you and you don't. I'm not really keen on different DCs for different PCs.  That's too much work.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> Not if the DM gates it another way.  The DM decides when a roll happens in* any* given circumstance. Period. That's what the UA says.



Why would you gate a roll? What sense does that make. If there is no chance of success, there's no DC and you don't waste your players' time suggesting there is.

Is seems like a solution in need of a problem and an idea that just makes GMing harder for new folks.

Here's how you GM: listen to what the players wants to do, set an abliity check and a DC, accept or deny a proficiency bonus, and roll. "Figure put how likely the playersare to succeed" is not in that process because that's not the job. You are giving a DC based on a neutral position. How hard is this thing, not how hard do I want it to be for my awesome story I wrote in my head before we played.


----------



## edosan

jeremypowell said:


> And here's the DMG:
> 
> "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence_ for failure_. [Note: nothing about success here.] When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
> 
> Is a task so easy and free of conflict that there should be no chance of failure?
> Is a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can't work?
> _If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate._" (DMG 237; emphasis added)



That’s some clear wording there, they should have put that in the play test document.


----------



## Reynard

edosan said:


> That’s some clear wording there, they should have put that in the play test document.



The playtest document specifically said refer to the 2014 rules unless note within.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Again, no, this hasn't changed. The DM only calls for the roll if the PC has a chance of succeeding. If the DC for the ability check is 25 and the PC only has a +1 bonus, the DM then says that the PC automatically fails without even making the ability check. So they don't "succeed on a 20 or 21", they still need to be possible of getting a 25 total in order to succeed, they just don't get to roll unless they have a chance of getting that number.
> 
> The change in rules does not make succeeding on an ability check any easier. If a natural 20 + the PC's bonus to the check wouldn't succeed before, it still doesn't now (because the DM doesn't ask for the player to roll in that circumstance).



The change is to the last thing you said.  It should be, (because the DM doesn't *have to* ask for the player to roll in that circumstance).  With the new rule the DM is able to decide that if the PC is capable of getting within 3 of making the DC, that he might get lucky and succeed on a natural 20.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence_ for failure_. [Note: nothing about success here.] When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
> 
> Is a task so easy and free of conflict that there should be no chance of failure?
> Is a task so inappropriate or impossible—such as hitting the moon with an arrow—that it can't work?
> _If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate._" (DMG 237; emphasis added)
> 
> *There's a lot riding on that one, slim PHB passage for those who think DMs are never supposed to call an ability check if the PC's mods make it impossible to succeed on a nat 20.* And this interpretation directly contradicts the DMG guidelines.



The bolded part is in error.  It's impossible, because we think it's impossible for that PC, not because of the modifiers.  This is backed up by RAW. The DMG rules you quoted don't change that.  If it's impossible, there is no roll by the DMG rules.  The DMG doesn't decide whether the answer to both of those questions is yes or no.  The DM does.  Even if a DM does decide that it's impossible due to the modifiers being too low.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Why would you gate a roll? What sense does that make. If there is no chance of success, there's no DC and you don't waste your players' time suggesting there is.



I don't understand.  Why would I be wasting my players' time by giving those who are proficient a roll, but no roll to those who are not proficient?


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I like this change, but it does require some work from the DM in adjucating which tasks are impossible and which are merely hard. 
No matter how intelligent or dexterous you are, you're not going to successfully perform complex surgery unless you're trained in medicine.

But IMHO this is something the DM should already be doing in 5e. The d20 roll is too swingy to rely on it to separate experts from amateurs.


----------



## Lanefan

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yes. Every time I ask them to roll, I ask if they're proficient and what their bonus is. End of story. It's not hard, it's not much more work than not doing that (and it's well worth the effort, in my experience). So nothing else you say matters.
> 
> If their stats make it impossible, they can't do it, and therefore can't even roll. Period. The end.



The question then becomes whether that non-roll means you let them try and fail in the fiction, with whatever consequences failure might entail, or whether you tell them up front they don't have a chance and thus never expose them to the consequences of failing.

Consider the difference between the following exchanges.  The PC is trying to pick a lock, the DM knows a) the lock is trapped and b) that the DC to pick it is beyond that PC's capability even at the best of times.

Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
DM: "OK, you try, but soon find it's beyond your capability.  You do get to roll that d20 though; but it'll be a saving throw against the poison from the trap you just set off."  (the DM here assumes the PC went through the motions of trying, and applied the consequences of failure)

Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
DM: "Don't bother, you have no chance of opening it." (the DM here assumes the attempt was for some reason aborted before occurring)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Lanefan said:


> The question then becomes whether that non-roll means you let them try and fail in the fiction, with whatever consequences failure might entail, or whether you tell them up front they don't have a chance and thus never expose them to the consequences of failing.
> 
> Consider the difference between the following exchanges.  The PC is trying to pick a lock, the DM knows a) the lock is trapped and b) that the DC to pick it is beyond that PC's capability even at the best of times.
> 
> Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
> DM: "OK, you try, but soon find it's beyond your capability.  You do get to roll that d20 though; but it'll be a saving throw against the poison from the trap you just set off."  (the DM here assumes the PC went through the motions of trying, and applied the consequences of failure)
> 
> Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
> DM: "Don't bother, you have no chance of opening it." (the DM here assumes the attempt was for some reason aborted before occurring)



Player: "I try to pick the lock" (their character doesn't have the required ability to so, but can at least try)
DM: "Your character quickly discovers that picking the lock is so beyond their ability that you don't even get to roll the d20. The door's traps then trigger."

The character in-world can attempt the action, but that doesn't mean the player gets to roll for it. The character can try to shoot the moon with their longbow or seduce the Mind Flayer all they want, but I'm not going to have them roll the d20 when they try to and their character will still face the consequences of their actions (losing an arrow, provoking the Mind Flayer, etc).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lanefan said:


> The question then becomes whether that non-roll means you let them try and fail in the fiction, with whatever consequences failure might entail, or whether you tell them up front they don't have a chance and thus never expose them to the consequences of failing.



Like many things, it depends.



Lanefan said:


> Consider the difference between the following exchanges.  The PC is trying to pick a lock, the DM knows a) the lock is trapped and b) that the DC to pick it is beyond that PC's capability even at the best of times.
> 
> Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
> DM: "OK, you try, but soon find it's beyond your capability.  You do get to roll that d20 though; but it'll be a saving throw against the poison from the trap you just set off."  (the DM here assumes the PC went through the motions of trying, and applied the consequences of failure)



Here I would let them roll. They might not have any chance of of opening it but they do have a chance of setting off the trap.


Lanefan said:


> Player: "I try to pick the lock." <_picks up a d20_>
> DM: "Don't bother, you have no chance of opening it." (the DM here assumes the attempt was for some reason aborted before occurring)


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If you, as a DM, decide that X feat is impossible in the world you designed, you just dont call for check, no matter the +Y of a players. Rolling is for when there's both a chance of failure and success. If success is not possible, whether its mathematical or in-game logical, it does not matter, its already decided: the test is a failure.



If the feat is "sing in key" it may be impossible for Player P but routine for Player L, conversely if the feat is "extract a square root in your head" the feat may be routine for Player P but impossible for Player L, because L has discalcula and P is (almost) tone deaf. Why wouldn't characters be the same way?


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

What if "automatically fails on a 1" was only for Untrained skills and "automatically succeeeds on a 20" was only for Trained skills?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)



jeremypowell said:


> I think the fundamental wellspring of disagreement here is that some DMs (myself, for one) think of ability check DCs as the difficulty that _an indeterminate character _would have performing the task. And it turns out that other DMs (Maxperson and UngainlyTitan, for two, if I understand them correctly) think of ability check DCs as_ determined relative to the particular character_ who wishes to perform the task.
> 
> That's an enormous difference in DMing procedure, one that I hadn't realized existed until tonight. And it will affect  everything that has to do with ability checks.
> 
> With that procedure, it's not a question of whether "a player" gets to roll; it's always a question of whether _this player_ gets to roll. And moreover, it's not even a question of how hard the task "is," it's always a question of how hard the task is _for this PC_. Five party members could all climb the same rope, and they could have five different DCs for the task.
> 
> I can't imagine DMing that way, or playing that way (though if the DM were quiet enough about it, I guess I might never even suspect it, until the day when PC 2's lower roll succeeds on a task where PC 1's higher roll has failed!).
> 
> But I have to admit I can find nothing whatsoever in the 2014 rules that would prohibit it—not only because the 2014 rules give DMs practically infinite latitude for making rulings, but also because they give rather little guidance on how to set a DC for an ability check in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)



Lore is always the messy one, largely because in a typical party the PCs come from all over the place and from a variety of cultures.  Due to this, some PCs might have a far better chance of knowing a given bit of lore than others even if all the mechanics are dead equal between them.

Example: the party contains a Dwarf, a Gnome, a faux-Roman Human and a faux-Norse Half-Orc.  None have anything specific skills or abilities going for (or against) them when it comes to historical knowledge.

So, if the need to know some obscure bit of Dwarven history comes up do they all get to roll, or does just the Dwarf get to roll, or does the Dwarf get some sort of bonus to the roll? (personally I'd often handle this by giving the Dwarf a roll and if that fails, giving the rest of them _a single combined roll _at worse odds; and if that too fails then they're out of luck)


----------



## Ibrandul

Maxperson said:


> The bolded part is in error.  It's impossible, because we think it's impossible for that PC, not because of the modifiers.  This is backed up by RAW. The DMG rules you quoted don't change that.  If it's impossible, there is no roll by the DMG rules.  The DMG doesn't decide whether the answer to both of those questions is yes or no.  The DM does.  Even if a DM does decide that it's impossible due to the modifiers being too low.



Is there something in RAW—anything, anywhere—that actually states this? Or is this just your interpretation of the passages I quoted? Sincere question; maybe I missed something.

If not, I’d like to know on what basis you think that “we think it’s impossible for that PC” is always going to line up with the mods…unless you’re looking at the mods.

I get that only the DM calls for rolls. I get that there’s no one true way to DM. What I don’t get is anything in the 2014 RAW that states or implies “there should be no check unless the check has a chance of succeeding.” The only relevant passages I can find are the passages I quoted, and one other from the DMG under “Difficulty Class” that I didn’t bother reproducing before because it seems clear to me it doesn’t mean that—but for the sake of completeness, here it is:

“If you find yourself thinking, ‘This task is especially hard,’ you can use a higher DC, but do so with caution and consider the level of the characters. A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish, but it becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so. A DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters. A 20th-level character with proficiency and a relevant ability score of 20 still needs a 19 or 20 on the die roll to succeed at a task of this difficulty.”

Is there anything else in RAW to support your interpretation? I really do want to know—I care a lot about the baseline expectations set for how to play the game (otherwise I wouldn’t spend so much time discussing a rules change I have no intention of adopting!)


----------



## Ibrandul

UngainlyTitan said:


> I just wanted to make a few comments on this one for clarity with regard to my procedures. First I would very rarely set different DC for different PC. I generally assume that PC are capable of attempting to do "adventuring things", The deviations in my game generally occur when looking for lore, trying to recall something they once knew or might have heard of, examining an exotic engine and it is less about a singular pass/fail state as it is about how high up the DC ladder you can get and what you (with your specific background might know.)



Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## beancounter

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I was explaining it in simple terms because you seemed not to understand, not to be condescending.




Maintaining the attitude that you "Having to explain it in simple terms" is condescending.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> Is there something in RAW—anything, anywhere—that actually states this? Or is this just your interpretation of the passages I quoted? Sincere question; maybe I missed something.



Other than the parts where the DM decides it all, no nothing specifically says, "The DM can gate behind proficiency."  The DM decides the answer to whether it's impossible covers it completely, though, so they didn't need to spell out all the different ways that the DM decides it all.


jeremypowell said:


> If not, I’d like to know on what basis you think that “we think it’s impossible for that PC” is always going to line up with the mods…unless you’re looking at the mods.



Because I don't have to know them.  

DM: "If you are proficient with Arcana, give me a roll."

I don't care what your modifiers are. I just excluded everyone without Arcana regardless of their modifiers.  


jeremypowell said:


> What I don’t get is anything in the 2014 RAW that states or implies “there should be no check unless the check has a chance of succeeding.”



Again, the DM gets to decide whether something is impossible or not and there are no restrictions on that, so if a DM decides that something has to have a chance of success or it's impossible for that PC, then that's what it is.

Page 237 of the DMG

"When deciding whether to use a roll, *ask yourself two questions*:"

"If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."

It's right there in black and white print.  The DM asks himself two questions and then answers them himself.  End of story. Nothing in the DMG says what the DM has to find possible or impossible, and the fact that they give a ridiculously absurd example of trying to hit the moon with an arrow shows that they aren't trying to force DMs down a path.  I don't have to have a PC trying to jump the grand canyon to rule a jump impossible.  I can in fact say no to a mere 40 feet if I want.  I can say that you have no chance to make a 25 foot jump if you aren't proficient in athletics.  

I can use any criteria I want to answer those two questions that I ask myself.


----------



## Ibrandul

Maxperson said:


> Other than the parts where the DM decides it all, no nothing specifically says, "The DM can gate behind proficiency."  The DM decides the answer to whether it's impossible covers it completely, though, so they didn't need to spell out all the different ways that the DM decides it all.
> 
> Because I don't have to know them.
> 
> DM: "If you are proficient with Arcana, give me a roll."
> 
> I don't care what your modifiers are. I just excluded everyone without Arcana regardless of their modifiers.
> 
> Again, the DM gets to decide whether something is impossible or not and there are no restrictions on that, so if a DM decides that something has to have a chance of success or it's impossible for that PC, then that's what it is.
> 
> Page 237 of the DMG
> 
> "When deciding whether to use a roll, *ask yourself two questions*:"
> 
> "If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
> 
> It's right there in black and white print.  The DM asks himself two questions and then answers them himself.  End of story. Nothing in the DMG says what the DM has to find possible or impossible, and the fact that they give a ridiculously absurd example of trying to hit the moon with an arrow shows that they aren't trying to force DMs down a path.  I don't have to have a PC trying to jump the grand canyon to rule a jump impossible.  I can in fact say no to a mere 40 feet if I want.  I can say that you have no chance to make a 25 foot jump if you aren't proficient in athletics.
> 
> I can use any criteria I want to answer those two questions that I ask myself.



I wasn't saying anything here about whether DMs are permitted to do what you're describing (that is, to choose not to call a roll on the basis of proficiency). I misunderstood you, if that's what you were talking about.

Here's what I'm talking about:

A PC wants to attempt a very hard task (DC 25). It's not _impossible_ that someone could succeed at this task; indeed, other members of the party could succeed. But the PC doesn't have a shot at it, because their modifiers can only get them to a +2 (and no one has provided bardic inspiration, etc.)

Some have argued for the following position: according to RAW, the DM_ should never call for an ability check_ in this situation, because a nat 20 would fail. In other words: if a nat 20 would fail, the task is by definition impossible for this PC and the die must not be rolled.

One implication of this position is that the new "nat 20 auto-succeeds on ability checks" playtest rule is entirely superfluous except as a pedagogical redundancy to eliminate a persistent misunderstanding, because DMs should never call for any roll that this new rule would affect in any way.

AcererakTriple6 has expressed this position very clearly multiple times. You wrote some things that made me think this was your position, too. Perhaps I misunderstood.

This is a separate issue from the question of how much latitude DMs are granted in determining what qualifies as impossible. Indeed, if the position I'm arguing against is adopted, it amounts to a _constraint _on how DMs should rule what qualifies as impossible: the position is precisely that "impossible" _must include every ability check roll in which a nat 20 would fail_.

My position is: RAW _do permit_ ability checks to _sometimes_ be made even when a nat 20 will fail.

It has nothing to do with whether DMs are also permitted to say to some players, "If I permitted your PC to make a check for this, a nat 20 would succeed; but it is impossible for X or Y reason, so I won't permit it." Clearly, they are not only allowed to do so but should do so for some X's and Y's. But there's very little guidance in the RAW on what "X or Y reason" can or should be here, and there is certainly nothing to indicate that "X or Y reason" must include "because your mods aren't good enough and a nat 20 would fail, even though the task is possible in the sense that other PCs could succeed."


----------



## Maxperson




----------



## Ibrandul

Maxperson said:


> View attachment 258588



Sorry—are you accusing me of not reading the rules?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

jeremypowell said:


> I wasn't saying anything here about whether DMs are permitted to do what you're describing (that is, to choose not to call a roll on the basis of proficiency). I misunderstood you, if that's what you were talking about.
> 
> Here's what I'm talking about:
> 
> A PC wants to attempt a very hard task (DC 25). It's not _impossible_ that someone could succeed at this task; indeed, other members of the party could succeed. But the PC doesn't have a shot at it, because their modifiers can only get them to a +2 (and no one has provided bardic inspiration, etc.)
> 
> Some have argued for the following position: according to RAW, the DM_ should never call for an ability check_ in this situation, because a nat 20 would fail. In other words: if a nat 20 would fail, the task is by definition impossible for this PC and the die must not be rolled.
> 
> One implication of this position is that the new "nat 20 auto-succeeds on ability checks" playtest rule is entirely superfluous except as a pedagogical redundancy to eliminate a persistent misunderstanding, because DMs should never call for any roll that this new rule would affect in any way.
> 
> AcererakTriple6 has expressed this position very clearly multiple times. You wrote some things that made me think this was your position, too. Perhaps I misunderstood.
> 
> This is a separate issue from the question of how much latitude DMs are granted in determining what qualifies as impossible. Indeed, if the position I'm arguing against is adopted, it amounts to a _constraint _on how DMs should rule what qualifies as impossible: the position is precisely that "impossible" _must include every ability check roll in which a nat 20 would fail_.
> 
> My position is: RAW _do permit_ ability checks to _sometimes_ be made even when a nat 20 will fail.
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether DMs are also permitted to say to some players, "If I permitted your PC to make a check for this, a nat 20 would succeed; but it is impossible for X or Y reason, so I won't permit it." Clearly, they are not only allowed to do so but should do so for some X's and Y's. But there's very little guidance in the RAW on what "X or Y reason" can or should be here, and there is certainly nothing to indicate that "X or Y reason" must include "because your mods aren't good enough and a nat 20 would fail, even though the task is possible in the sense that other PCs could succeed."



You know 1D&D already answered this whole discussion effectively by saying don't allow checks where the DC is 30 or higher right? (Also: never ask for a roll when the DC is 5 or lower). Huge numbers of people seem to have missed that entirely. This entire discussion seems to have missed that, in fact.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> Sorry—are you accusing me of not reading the rules?



Not at all.  It was just a humor post.  I do humor posts a lot.  If I were accusing you of that, I'd say it straight out.  People who have been here longer can confirm that I'm pretty straightforward and blunt.


----------



## Ibrandul

Ruin Explorer said:


> You know 1D&D already answered this whole discussion effectively by saying don't allow checks where the DC is 30 or higher right? (Also: never ask for a roll when the DC is 5 or lower). Huge numbers of people seem to have missed that entirely. This entire discussion seems to have missed that, in fact.



I do know that. I'm describing a situation where the ability check DC is (say) 25, but the PC can't get up to a 25 result with a nat 20 + mods, because their mods are +4 or less.

I think everyone agrees that in this situation, _if the DM calls for this ability check_ then under 2014 RAW it would fail no matter the roll, whereas under 1D&D it would succeed on a nat 20.

What some have argued is that, under 2014 RAW, such a check is prohibited in the first place: the DM must first determine whether a 20 _would succeed_ after mods are added, and if the answer is "No," then the check _must not be called for_.

My position is: no, 2014 RAW say nothing to prohibit the DM from calling for an ability check that would fail on a nat 20 + mods, if the DM determines that succeeding at the proposed task is _possible in general_.


----------



## Maxperson

jeremypowell said:


> A PC wants to attempt a very hard task (DC 25). It's not _impossible_ that someone could succeed at this task; indeed, other members of the party could succeed. But the PC doesn't have a shot at it, because their modifiers can only get them to a +2 (and no one has provided bardic inspiration, etc.)
> 
> Some have argued for the following position: according to RAW, *the DM should never call for an ability check in this situation*, because a nat 20 would fail. In other words: if a nat 20 would fail, the task is by definition impossible for this PC and the die must not be rolled.



Okay.  Now for my actual response to this post.

I haven't seen the bolded part at all in this thread. I have seen a few people say that they will for their game make that ruling, and that IS supported by RAW.  The same RAW that I use for gating rolls behind proficiency, also allows for DMs to gate rolls behind bonuses.  The new rule about autosuccess on a 20 only applies if an appropriate roll is called for.  If the DM is answering the two questions I posted earlier today using the criteria of bonuses and possible success via those bonuses, then it would be inappropriate to allow the PC with +2 to roll for a DC 25 check.


jeremypowell said:


> One implication of this position is that the new "nat 20 auto-succeeds on ability checks" playtest rule is entirely superfluous except as a pedagogical redundancy to eliminate a persistent misunderstanding, because DMs should never call for any roll that this new rule would affect in any way.
> 
> AcererakTriple6 has expressed this position very clearly multiple times. You wrote some things that made me think this was your position, too. Perhaps I misunderstood.



@AcererakTriple6 has only said that he would rule that way, not that RAW requires it and the DM should never call for such rolls.  While it's not my position to gate all rolls behind bonuses like that, I'm also not going allow a roll for anything I set a DC for and a character is proficient in.

What I am probably going to do is set a number between 3 and 5(I haven't decided  yet).  That will be the luck factor where an auto 20 could succeed.  If I choose 5 and a PC is 1-5 short of being able to make the roll with his bonuses, he will still get a roll to get lucky with a 20.  If I pick 3, that PC would need to be within 3 of possibly making the target DC.

There's no way in hell a commoner or even a PC with a 0 bonus is getting a roll to make a DC 30 on a natural 20.  It's not happening.

The new rule isn't superfluous, but it is subordinate to the DMG rules.  It only kicks in on rolls that the DM has deemed appropriate using whatever criteria the DM has chosen.


jeremypowell said:


> My position is: RAW _do permit_ ability checks to _sometimes_ be made even when a nat 20 will fail.



Sure, but only on those rolls the DM deems appropriate.


jeremypowell said:


> It has nothing to do with whether DMs are also permitted to say to some players, "If I permitted your PC to make a check for this, a nat 20 would succeed; but it is impossible for X or Y reason, so I won't permit it." Clearly, they are not only allowed to do so but should do so for some X's and Y's. But there's very little guidance in the RAW on what "X or Y reason" can or should be here, and there is certainly nothing to indicate that "X or Y reason" must include "because your mods aren't good enough and a nat 20 would fail, even though the task is possible in the sense that other PCs could succeed."



There is very little guidance, and I think that's intentional.  This edition was designed to be rulings over rules and the more guidance provided, the more tightly constrained DMs will feel.  They leave it wide open for the DM to determine what criteria will be used to deem a roll automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or require a roll.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> You know 1D&D already answered this whole discussion effectively by saying don't allow checks where the DC is 30 or higher right? (Also: never ask for a roll when the DC is 5 or lower). Huge numbers of people seem to have missed that entirely. This entire discussion seems to have missed that, in fact.



No, we didn't miss that and it was brought up early on. I think it's pretty much just accepted at this point.  What is being discussed right now are ways of gating rolls that fall within the 5-30 range and the appropriateness of doing so.


----------



## MarkB

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Because apparently, the way it was written before was confusing for DMs and players, because "do natural 20s automatically succeed on an ability check?" was an extremely common question on 5e forums.



It's not just a disambiguation though, it's a deliberate change to the rule. If you're gating a player's ability to roll a check behind "must be able to meet the DC on at least a 20", then you're not implementing auto-success on a natural 20.


----------



## Minigiant

Benjamin Olson said:


> Indeed. Impossible knowledge check successes are a great way for the DM and player to devise some new color to the character's backstory to explain why they happen to have that particular oddball piece of knowledge.
> 
> I think almost anyone with a real life specialty in any type of knowledge (be it from education, career, or hobby) has both a sense of knowledge that there is actually no chance a non-specialist would possess and the experience of encountering a non-specialist who (at least sort of) knew some specific facts within their specialty that they never expected a non-specialist to possess. It is useful for DMs to reflect on those experiences in deciding when to let non-proficient characters roll on knowledge checks specifically. I think if a fact is interesting enough to be relevant to an adventure, a five percent chance of a non-specialist happening to have picked up at least a clue or hazy hint of that fact somewhere in their decades (or for some characters, centuries) of varied life experience is not nearly as unrealistic as it seems at first blush.



The issue comes when the action is so specialized or lore is so secretive that the nonspecialist could not have perform the action nor happened across the info.

Therefore the fiat of the DM to determine the impossible becomes more important.

It's not a bad thing but it's a new thing to think about.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Because I don't have to know them.
> 
> DM: "If you are proficient with Arcana, give me a roll."
> 
> I don't care what your modifiers are. I just excluded everyone without Arcana regardless of their modifiers.



Which may mean you've just unfairly excluded a PC whose modifiers from sources other than Arcana would be enough to give a chance of success.  I think that's the issue here; that if someone legitimately has a chance of success then it's unfair to arbitrarily deny that chance.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Which may mean you've just unfairly excluded a PC whose modifiers from sources other than Arcana would be enough to give a chance of success.  I think that's the issue here; that if someone legitimately has a chance of success then it's unfair to arbitrarily deny that chance.



Modifiers aren't enough for everything. I'm a smart guy and have a fairly good int bonus and have an interest in history.  That doesn't compare to what someone who has a degree in history.  He will know a lot of things that I don't, even if his proficiency bonus means that he and I have the same plus.

It's not at all unfair to exclude those who are not proficient from some rolls.


----------



## Bill Zebub

jeremypowell said:


> All five PCs are rolling. Under the new rule, one PC out of five needs to roll a 20 to succeed, and everyone succeeds on a 20. There’s a 22.6% chance that at least one will do so.
> 
> And let's say that one of them has a +10 to the check— a cleric with a +5 Wis mod, plus a proficiency bonus of +5 at level 16. Everyone else's mods are lower. Under the old rule, that cleric had a 5% chance of success, and no one else had a chance (unless they boosted it with bardic inspiration, etc., if the DM permitted that). Under the new rule, the cleric has the same chance of success as everybody else. Her stats and skills do not matter.




Unless the DM rules that it’s not possible for anybody but the cleric.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

MarkB said:


> It's not just a disambiguation though, it's a deliberate change to the rule. If you're gating a player's ability to roll a check behind "must be able to meet the DC on at least a 20", then you're not implementing auto-success on a natural 20.



The 5e DMG says that if a d20 test would be outside the range of a PCs abilities, there's no point in having them roll. The design intentions haven't changed at all. They're just changing the wording to make it more clear what they want to have happen.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Lanefan said:


> Lore is always the messy one, largely because in a typical party the PCs come from all over the place and from a variety of cultures.  Due to this, some PCs might have a far better chance of knowing a given bit of lore than others even if all the mechanics are dead equal between them.
> 
> Example: the party contains a Dwarf, a Gnome, a faux-Roman Human and a faux-Norse Half-Orc.  None have anything specific skills or abilities going for (or against) them when it comes to historical knowledge.
> 
> So, if the need to know some obscure bit of Dwarven history comes up do they all get to roll, or does just the Dwarf get to roll, or does the Dwarf get some sort of bonus to the roll? (personally I'd often handle this by giving the Dwarf a roll and if that fails, giving the rest of them _a single combined roll _at worse odds; and if that too fails then they're out of luck)



Yeah, whilst I think DCs should generally be objective, there are some situations where the same thing is actually a different task for different characters. "Recall a legend of a faraway culture" and "recall a legend of your own culture" are not equally easy tasks, even though the legend in question might be the same!


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks. Yes, this can be avoided by the GM carefully considering who gets to roll and who autofails and who autosucceeds at every task, but this just adds completely unnecessary work for the GM.

For example in the group I'm currently running for the characters have athletics scores ranging from -1 to+10. With the old rules I can just give a physical obstacle a DC, and the game math handles things. The +10 character will autosucceed at easy tasks and is an only character in the group that has a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks. And very easy task still have purpose as the -1 character can still fail at them. With the playtest rules I have to individually decide for each character whether to have them roll, or the +10 character will start to have chance to fail at very easy and easy tasks and the -1 character a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks.

And the same for every skill in every situation. This is not an improvement.


----------



## Smackpixi

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks. Yes, this can be avoided by the GM carefully considering who gets to roll and who autofails and who autosucceeds at every task, but this just adds completely unnecessary work for the GM.
> 
> For example in the group I'm currently running for the characters have athletics scores ranging from -1 to+10. With the old rules I can just give a physical obstacle a DC, and the game math handles things. The +10 character will autosucceed at easy tasks and is an only character in the group that has a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks. And very easy task still have purpose as the -1 character can still fail at them. With the playtest rules I have to individually decide for each character whether to have them roll, or the +10 character will start to have chance to fail at very easy and easy tasks and the -1 character a chance to succeed at nearly impossible tasks.
> 
> And same for every skill in every situation. This is not an improvement.



Yeah, no.  New rule says if it’s possible for someone to do it, it’s possible for anyone to do it, so in your example everyone gets a roll.  Like Mom lifting car off their kid in those apocryphal stories, 5% chance of anyone doing a theoretically possible thing.  If it’s just plain impossible, there’s no roll for anyone.  It changes the dynamic some, but the improbable rolls I think are what makes the story being played more epic.

You’re trying to make things impossible for some characters, but not others, like it used to be.  Nope, can’t do that anymore.  Don’t have to like it or use it, but there’s no only some get to role situation.


----------



## MarkB

AcererakTriple6 said:


> The 5e DMG says that if a d20 test would be outside the range of a PCs abilities, there's no point in having them roll. The design intentions haven't changed at all. They're just changing the wording to make it more clear what they want to have happen.



It asks "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?" That's not the same as it being of a higher DC than the character can achieve.


----------



## Cadence

Smackpixi said:


> Yeah, no.  New rule says if it’s possible for someone to do it, it’s possible for anyone to do it, so in your example everyone gets a roll.  Like Mom lifting car off their kid in those apocryphal stories, 5% chance of anyone doing a theoretically possible thing.  If it’s just plain impossible, there’s no roll for anyone.  It changes the dynamic some, but the improbable rolls I think are what makes the story being played more epic.



5% doesn't seem that improbable.

Would exploding dice of some sort give a better way to deal with those edge cases... and avoid needing to think about the borderline cases.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

MarkB said:


> It asks "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?" That's not the same as it being of a higher DC than the character can achieve.



And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.


----------



## Smackpixi

Cadence said:


> 5% doesn't seem that improbable.
> 
> Would exploding dice of some sort give a better way to deal with those edge cases... and avoid needing to think about the borderline cases.



I’m sure exploding dice are some statistical thing I’m not familiar with, but if their not, f-yeah, I think exploding dice would be the best solution to all rolls!

Ok I know what they are, and that would add drama, but we’re only going through this dungeon once, taking things below a 5% chance means it’s pretty much not gonna happen.  I think making the improbable more probable is more fun.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.



Then what do you think the "autosucceed with 20" actually does? Under you're interpretation it doesn't change anything, as if you wouldn't succeed with a 20 you wouldn't get to roll in the first place.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> Then what do you think the "autosucceed with 20" actually does? Under you're interpretation it doesn't change anything, as if you wouldn't succeed with a 20 you wouldn't get to roll in the first place.



I think it clears up a part of 5e that was intended from the beginning, but a lot of people misunderstood. You don't roll if your bonus isn't high enough to succeed and if you would automatically succeed even if you rolled a natural 1, you didn't need to roll in the first place. 

Clearly it has lead to some confusion, but it's logical to not call for a d20 Test unless there's a chance of both success and failure.


----------



## Smackpixi

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.



It has changed.  Now anything possible for someone is possible for anyone.  It’s only things that are impossible for everyone that don’t get rolls.  DM can decide that while forcing this door is possible for someone, it’s not possible for this party and deny the roll, sure, but new RAW, if it’s theoretically possible for someone, it’s possible for -1 strength to get precise leverage.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think it clears up a part of 5e that was intended from the beginning, but a lot of people misunderstood. You don't roll if your bonus isn't high enough to succeed and if you would automatically succeed even if you rolled a natural 1, you didn't need to roll in the first place.
> 
> Clearly it has lead to some confusion, but it's logical to not call for a d20 Test unless there's a chance of both success and failure.




I wonder about the interaction with letting everyone at the table try vs. just some, and how that plays out at different tables.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think it clears up a part of 5e that was intended from the beginning, but a lot of people misunderstood. You don't roll if your bonus isn't high enough to succeed and if you would automatically succeed even if you rolled a natural 1, you didn't need to roll in the first place.
> 
> Clearly it has lead to some confusion, but it's logical to not call for a d20 Test unless there's a chance of both success and failure.



It literally doesn't say anything of the sort.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Smackpixi said:


> It has changed.  Now anything possible for someone is possible for anyone.



Not true. They don't get to roll unless their bonuses allow them to succeed. You have no chance of getting a natural 20 if you don't get to roll in the first place.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> It literally doesn't say anything of the sort.



The 5e DMG says to not allow a d20 Test unless it's within the realm of possibility for the character to succeed (i.e. no shooting the Moon with your longbow). The playtest document says that the DM determines if the d20 Test is warranted and tells the player to roll. "Warranted" means that it's possible to both succeed and fail in the circumstance. If both aren't possible, no roll is made.


----------



## Smackpixi

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Not true. They don't get to roll unless their bonuses allow them to succeed. You have no chance of getting a natural 20 if you don't get to roll in the first place.



Sure, you can play that way, but that’s not the spirit of the new rule imho.


----------



## Cadence

The conversation has me confused, so went to look up again what changed.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

AcererakTriple6 said:


> The 5e DMG says to not allow a d20 Test unless it's within the realm of possibility for the character to succeed (i.e. no shooting the Moon with your longbow). The playtest document says that the DM determines if the d20 Test is warranted and tells the player to roll. "Warranted" means that it's possible to both succeed and fail in the circumstance. If both aren't possible, no roll is made.



You think they wrote a rule that does nothing in order to confuse people? This is a change in the rules. Now 20 always succeeds, so indeed any character has a chance to succeed at any task.


----------



## Smackpixi

Crimson Longinus said:


> You think they wrote a rule that does nothing in order to confuse people? This is a change in the rules. Now 20 always succeeds, so indeed any character has a chance to succeed at any task.



No, any character has a chance to succeed at possible tasks.  Impossible things are still impossible.  Pretty big difference.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> You think they wrote a rule that does nothing in order to confuse people? This is a change in the rules. Now 20 always succeeds, so indeed any character has a chance to succeed at any task.



I think they tried to clarify a rule they thought was in the game from the beginning, but it led to a bunch of confusion because people played it differently. 

A 20 always succeeds, but you don't always get to roll when you attempt to do something. You don't roll to shoot the moon. The DM tells you you fail without calling for a roll. That hasn't changed.


----------



## Cadence

Smackpixi said:


> No, any character has a chance to succeed at possible tasks.  Impossible things are still impossible.  Pretty big difference.



Impossible for who?

If folks who couldn't succeed on 20 before don't get the roll, then the new rule is pointless, isn't it?


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And "inappropriate or impossible" applies to the character's specific capabilities. If it's impossible for a player to roll high enough to succeed, they automatically fail without making a roll. That has not changed.



It HAS changed to a degree.  The new rules opens up to the DM the ability to allow things that used to be outside of the PC's capabilities to be within them with a lucky roll.  It doesn't require you to do so, so you can still rule that it's impossible, but it's not against the new RAW to also rule that someone with a 0 modifier can succeed at a DC 30 check on a natural 20.  It's up to the DM.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> Impossible for who?
> 
> If folks who couldn't succeed on 20 before don't get the roll, then the new rule is pointless, isn't it?



Unless they're trying to clarify a rule that was supposed to be in 5e from the first place.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> It HAS changed to a degree.  The new rules opens up to the DM the ability to allow things that used to be outside of the PC's capabilities to be within them with a lucky roll.  It doesn't require you to do so, so you can still rule that it's impossible, but it's not against the new RAW to also rule that someone with a 0 modifier can succeed at a DC 30 check on a natural 20.  It's up to the DM.



The DM could always have a player roll when they shouldn't have been able to succeed.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think they tried to clarify a rule they thought was in the game from the beginning, but it led to a bunch of confusion because people played it differently.



It didn't need that sort of clarification. Under the 2014 rules, if you have +1 you need a natural 20 to succeed at a DC 21 check, a 19 to succeed at a DC 20, and cannot succeed at a DC 22.  They wouldn't have put in auto succeed if they were talking about the scenario there with the +1 and a DC 21 check.  They put it in to tell us that if we want to, we can allow that +1 to succeed on a natural 20 even if the DC is 25. Or we can continue to rule it impossible.


----------



## Smackpixi

Cadence said:


> Impossible for who?
> 
> If folks who couldn't succeed on 20 before don't get the roll, then the new rule is pointless, isn't it?



Impossible period.  Only truly impossible things are now impossible.

If you’re a weirdo and are gatekeeping things behind a DC 30 check you know full well no one in the party can pass, you’ve allowed that rolls are possible, before everyone would fail, but now everyone has a 5% chance.

Edit:  The idea that only some people can roll isn’t a thing imho, in my game.  Tasks are either rollable (possible) or not (impossible).  Certainly, before there where things PCs could roll for that they’d never succeed at so, maybe I wouldn’t bother having them roll, but now, if it’s possible for some entity, it’s possible for all.  Play it how you like.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> The DM could always have a player roll when they shouldn't have been able to succeed.



And now it's a rule. A rule that is subordinate to the impossibility rule, but a rule none the less.  Now I no longer have to house rule when I allow it.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Unless they're trying to clarify a rule that was supposed to be in 5e from the first place.



Feels like they could have updated that along the way...

... and odd that they would have so explicitly explained it for the attack (and not put it in the general space), if that was the intent.



Are there any quotes that you've run across that imply it was supposed to have been for everything?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Minigiant said:


> The issue comes when the action is so specialized or lore is so secretive that the nonspecialist could not have perform the action nor happened across the info.
> 
> Therefore the fiat of the DM to determine the impossible becomes more important.
> 
> It's not a bad thing but it's a new thing to think about.



I agree, but I still want to push back on the "impossible" idea, by saying that I've been a specialist in a few fields, and there is very little knowledge that is actually impossible for a (generally) non-proficient person to randomly know something about and very few tasks that are actually impossible for a non-proficient person to, with a lot of luck, accomplish, if they actually attempted them.

What there is, is a whole lot of things that are much more improbable than a 5% chance that a non-specialist would succeed at. So the decision DMs have to make is whether they are okay with the level of heightened reality that enables unlikely characters to succeed at unlikely things (sometimes incredibly unlikely things) 5% of the time, or whether they need more verisimilitude on this front in their magical fantasy game, in which case they will need to be more careful about allowing people to roll for things.

Basically what you have to do is, before allowing a roll by a character for whom success feels like it should be impossible, think about whether success at the particular thing by that particular character would be inconsistent with the tone of your game. 

Personally the only things that come to mind where I am uncomfortable with the "wrong character" succeeding at in my games are checks that I am only allowing to another character because of their backstory, and attempts to perform with a musical instrument by someone who has never played any related musical instrument (being a natural is okay, but you aren't going to figure out the lute on the first strum).

I think improbable checks are generally better gated behind character background than proficiency. After all the 5e skill system does not generally make much logical sense (if I have a background in religion my religion skills grow with my general proficiency from experience in non-religious studies related adventures?) and it seems like anything made possible to succeed at through a general proficiency in one of 5e's very general skills should not be completely impossible for someone who is not proficient. But if the reason you allow someone to roll is not because they have the Arcana proficiency, but because their background is that they acquired that proficiency at a mage school and it seems like they are rolling for a piece of arcane knowledge that, in your setting, virtually nobody outside of magic schools would ever know, then it makes a lot more sense to gate other characters off from that roll.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> Modifiers aren't enough for everything. I'm a smart guy and have a fairly good int bonus and have an interest in history.  That doesn't compare to what someone who has a degree in history.  He will know a lot of things that I don't, even if his proficiency bonus means that he and I have the same plus.
> 
> It's not at all unfair to exclude those who are not proficient from some rolls.



I think it is far more interesting to ask why that person with no training knew that thing. Maybe they used to date a wizard who never stopped talking about that thing. Awesome -- now we know more about the PC, which is always good, and the GM has something potentially actionable (one of the villain's henchman turns out to be the old girlfriend!). I am a firm believer that weird die results are opportunities for interesting moments and details to be added to the game.

One thing that does warrant a pause to consider, though, is how rules interact with things like niches, which a rule like "a 20 only auto succeeds is the character is proficient" protects.


----------



## Minigiant

Smackpixi said:


> Impossible period.  Only truly impossible things are now impossible.
> 
> If you’re a weirdo and are gatekeeping things behind a DC 30 check you know full well no one in the party can pass, you’ve allowed that rolls are possible, before everyone would fail, but now everyone has a 5% chance.




A DC 30 could be impossible at first. But D&D 5e is a game of modifiers and rerolls. So a party can group features, items, allies, and aid to boost a roll.

So the DC to know the name of the demon summon by the BBEG would be secret and impossible to know without being a member of a group associated with the BBEG or the magic use of magic. Straight knowing it is DC 30 or DC25. Impossible for a typical level 5 party but with contacts, books, allies, mental magic, and divination magic. Great for adventuring.

But now, all 4 members roll and someone rolls a nat 20. "Oh the barmaid I dated once told me the name of 7 demon princes"
---
Not to mention all the experts who will brainfart 5% of the time on DC5 checks.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Minigiant said:


> Not to mention all the experts who will brainfart 5% of the time on DC5 checks.



Achieving the impossible gets all the attention, but failure is the side that actually I think unwary DMs not used to auto-fail will more often undermine their games by calling for rolls when they shouldn't.

As someone whose always done auto-fails on 1s I don't really use DC 5 checks unless I want it to be a "just don't get a 1" check.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't like this rule. If not handled carefully will lead to play where players constantly ask to roll for everything and skilled masters embarrassingly fail at trivial tasks.




Well the first step may be to train players to not “ask to roll” and instead to describe what they do.


----------



## Bill Zebub

This thread is in some serious need of the @iserith hammer. People seem to think 5e is 3e or something.


----------



## Smackpixi

Minigiant said:


> A DC 30 could be impossible at first. But D&D 5e is a game of modifiers and rerolls. So a party can group features, items, allies, and aid to boost a roll.
> 
> So the DC to know the name of the demon summon by the BBEG would be secret and impossible to know without being a member of a group associated with the BBEG or the magic use of magic. Straight knowing it is DC 30 or DC25. Impossible for a typical level 5 party but with contacts, books, allies, mental magic, and divination magic. Great for adventuring.
> 
> But now, all 4 members roll and someone rolls a nat 20. "Oh the barmaid I dated once told me the name of 7 demon princes"
> ---
> Not to mention all the experts who will brainfart 5% of the time on DC5 checks.



omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.



I was going to say that if it’s impossible for them to know then it’s impossible for them to know. Who called for dice to be rolled?

But I gotta admit I kind of like your answer, too.


----------



## Reynard

Minigiant said:


> But now, all 4 members roll and someone rolls a nat 20. "Oh the barmaid I dated once told me the name of 7 demon princes"



On thing: I don't let every member of the party make a separate individual check for these things. We roll once. If it is something multiple people can help with,it's a group check or possibly someone getting advantage from the Help action.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

jeremypowell said:


> Which is neat, I guess. And maybe it gives me some further insight into why I've had so many experienced players tell me that of all the campaigns they've ever played in, mine was the only one where the world felt real.




I heartily doubt that it has anything (or at least very little) to do with how you rule on ability checks, and more to do with some other (likely narrative) skills that you possess. I would expect it to be impossible to create a "real-feeling world" through purely mechanical means.


----------



## Minigiant

Smackpixi said:


> omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore, your situation is interesting stuff you should want your players to discover regardless rules.



Usually it's either the players asking for info they could not know or actions they could not perform. The DC doesn't change. The circumstances could. 

They could learn the lore but the DC is too high for their modifiers at the moment.


----------



## Ibrandul

FitzTheRuke said:


> I heartily doubt that it has anything (or at least very little) to do with how you rule on ability checks, and more to do with some other (likely narrative) skills that you possess. I would expect it to be impossible to create a "real-feeling world" through purely mechanical means.



I guess I do think it has at least _something_ to do with the fact that I call for knowledge checks to see whether PCs know lore; and I do so when the PCs have been exposed to something lore-related that hasn't come up yet in the campaign. Maybe call them "DM-prompted ability checks" (to avoid calling them "passive checks," which is already taken). I started calling for these because of how the PHB describes those skills—they are used "to recall lore," and I always assumed that happens whether or not the players say "I want to try to recall lore."

I think this contributes in some way to a "reality-effect" regarding the campaign setting. Maybe it's not a big way, though.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I think it is far more interesting to ask why that person with no training knew that thing. Maybe they used to date a wizard who never stopped talking about that thing. Awesome -- now we know more about the PC, which is always good, and the GM has something potentially actionable (one of the villain's henchman turns out to be the old girlfriend!). I am a firm believer that weird die results are opportunities for interesting moments and details to be added to the game.



Which is why I only do it for some rolls and not others.  I need to feel that it would be trained only for me to gate it that way.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change". It's because their not thinking about whether a task is possible in a general sense, but whether it is possible for a given character to make the dc given their particular bonus. I don't think the game designers were worried about that particular gradient. I can see how sometimes it may have occurred in O5e that a DM would call for a check that was impossible for a given character to make even if they rolled a 20, and in 1D&D (assuming the rule is kept) they will now make it. 

Is this scenario common enough to be bothered by? That I am not sure. I mean, feel free to be bothered by it if you like, I'm not gonna tell you how to feel.

As far as niche protection goes, I think the PC with the highest bonus in a task is most often going to be asked to make the attempt (in a cooperative group), so they will still be the one to catch the glory most of the time (and of course, they'll hit the lower DCs much more often too!)

Personally, I was fine with the old rule (where 20's meant nothing but a high-roll for ability checks) but I can recall times that it's happened that players were disappointed by it. I guess the new way will fix that, even if it annoys some DMs.


----------



## Smackpixi

FitzTheRuke said:


> I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change".



I truly don’t.  I think people are being purposly obtuse or are functionally something.  it’s Obvious, easy to understand, and not a big deal but omg woah if any one moves the cheese of A D&D dm look out.


----------



## Maxperson

FitzTheRuke said:


> I now finally understand why some people see this as a "change". It's because their not thinking about whether a task is possible in a general sense, but whether it is possible for a given character to make the dc given their particular bonus. I don't think the game designers were worried about that particular gradient. I can see how sometimes it may have occurred in O5e that a DM would call for a check that was impossible for a given character to make even if they rolled a 20, and in 1D&D (assuming the rule is kept) they will now make it.



I've done both since 3e.  Sometimes something is possible on a longshot, even if the bonuses aren't there.  Success on a 20 was my go to. Very rarely something was still possible, but a very, very longshot.  Two 20's in a row was asked for then.  Most of the time if the bonuses aren't there, the PC is going to fail.  It's a case by case thing.


----------



## Umbran

Smackpixi said:


> omg wtf why would you like to sit alone masturbating to your secret lore



*Mod Note:*
This is supposed to be a family place.  Please clean up your language.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> I've done both since 3e.  Sometimes something is possible on a longshot, even if the bonuses aren't there.  Success on a 20 was my go to. Very rarely something was still possible, but a very, very longshot.  Two 20's in a row was asked for then.  Most of the time if the bonuses aren't there, the PC is going to fail.  It's a case by case thing.



I think that a lot of people rule it that way. According to Crawford on the interview video, they wanted to make this rule change because they found that "most" players and DMs already did it (or at least expected it to be) that way. I'm sure I have (though most of the time I don't set DCs. I ask for a roll, and then I listen to what they get and decide on degree of success based on difficulty of task, so I'm sure a NAT 20 would have always (or nearly always) resulted in me narrating a pretty great success, (most of the time even if they had a negative modifier, a NAT 20 would give them a high enough check to succeed if the player isn't trying to do something insane).


----------



## Nikosandros

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Unless they're trying to clarify a rule that was supposed to be in 5e from the first place.



In the video  interview that accompanies the UA, Crawford explicitly says that they changed the rule to match what many tables were already doing. Auto-success on a 20 for saves and ability checks is a new rule.


----------



## MarkB

Reynard said:


> On thing: I don't let every member of the party make a separate individual check for these things. We roll once. If it is something multiple people can help with,it's a group check or possibly someone getting advantage from the Help action.



Yeah, there's precedent for that in the "changing a character's attitude" rules, and I think it's a good rule to apply to most checks.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Bill Zebub said:


> Well the first step may be to train players to not “ask to roll” and instead to describe what they do.



Sure, but that doesn't really change things. The characters will attempt ludicrous things, and the GM has to make way more case-by-case adjuration to whether a roll is warranted. 

Published adventures (and most other games too, I'd wager) often have preplanned obstacles and other things that just have a static DC, and I think a lot of GMs would just let everyone roll when they attempted roughly appropriate actions towards it. With the new rule experts will embarrassingly fail at simple tasks and unskilled people will succeed at super difficult ones. 

And yes, GM assessing each situation carefully will avoid this, but considering that the whole reason for the rule change was that some people couldn't read or understand the very simple rules, what you think is the WotC's chances of properly communication to these people how to do this?


----------



## Reynard

MarkB said:


> Yeah, there's precedent for that in the "changing a character's attitude" rules, and I think it's a good rule to apply to most checks.



I just hate skill dogpiling. Colville has a good video on it if I recall. I think it is important to set the scene of a check, understand how the PCs are approaching it, discuss it back and forth and then make A roll.


----------



## OB1

All this rule does is mechanically codify the original 2014 rule that when a player describes what action they want to take, the DM asks for a roll only if there is uncertainty in the outcome.  In actual play, however, sometimes rolls would be asked for even if failure or success were impossible.

With the new rule, there is always a chance for success or failure when a roll is asked for from a character and thus the outcome is in doubt.  It puts more onus on the DM to not ask for a roll when they are certain about the outcome for that character.


----------



## Reynard

OB1 said:


> All this rule does is mechanically codify the original 2014 rule that when a player describes what action they want to take, the DM asks for a roll only if there is uncertainty in the outcome.  In actual play, however, sometimes rolls would be asked for even if failure or success were impossible.
> 
> With the new rule, there is always a chance for success or failure when a roll is asked for from a character and thus the outcome is in doubt.  It puts more onus on the DM to not ask for a roll when they are certain about the outcome for that character.



This rule is not going to adjust DM-player behavior at all, I don't think. if the core explicit play loop in both the PHB and DMG didn't do it, this won't.


----------



## OB1

Reynard said:


> This rule is not going to adjust DM-player behavior at all, I don't think. if the core explicit play loop in both the PHB and DMG didn't do it, this won't.



The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC.  In the old rules, that was possible, since a DC could be so high or low that a character would have no chance one way or the other.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Smackpixi said:


> It has changed.  Now anything possible for someone is possible for anyone.  It’s only things that are impossible for everyone that don’t get rolls.  DM can decide that while forcing this door is possible for someone, it’s not possible for this party and deny the roll, sure, but new RAW, if it’s theoretically possible for someone, it’s possible for -1 strength to get precise leverage.



That's only true if you were using high DCs to limit which characters can attempt an action, but the 5e rules do not require that. The DM is free to consider every characters attempt to do the same thing independently, deciding if it can succeed or fail, and if the outcome is in doubt set whatever DC he wants.

And while we don't have the full 1D&D rules, I don't think this is going to change. Sometimes an action that's possible for one character is impossible for another. For example, no matter how strong he is, a dwarf will never be able to lift a heavy portcullis 2 meters off the ground, since his arms do not reach that high. So the DM doesn't call for a roll. In 5e the lanky elven wizard with a STR(athletics) modifier of -1 can never succeed at the DC20 check to lift the gate, so again there's no need for a roll. But in 1D&D the wizard can possibly lift the gate on a natural 20, so the DM tells him to roll the dice! Boom!


----------



## Bill Zebub

The thing about "dog piling" on checks is that you are only supposed to call for a dice roll if there's a meaningful consequence to failure.  "No, you don't know" isn't a meaningful consequence.*  

Now, I'll admit that I do struggle with how to implement goal-and-approach-with-meaningful-consequence for knowledge checks.  What that tells me is that knowledge checks should be treated differently, or should only be applicable in narrowly defined circumstances, or maybe shouldn't even be part of the game, or something.

Up-thread (or was that a different thread) somebody gave an example of knowing a demon's true name and it why should everybody have a 1-in-20 chance to somehow know it.  Somebody else responded (vulgarly) asking what value it adds to have secret lore in the game, and I think they have a point.  It seems to me knowledge checks fall into the same two categories as secret doors:
1) The ones you discover by luck, without any real player engagement (unless they happen to search in the right spot either through luck or because they search everywhere) and if you miss them you never knew they were there, meaning they weren't really necesary.
2) The ones that are part of the plot, that players figure out must be there and take proactive measures to figure out where, and/or how to open them.

So, in the case up-thread of the demon's name, where I come out is:
1) If the players have done no work and just want to know if they know the demon's name, the answer is no. (Or, in other analogous cases maybe yes.)
2) If, before getting into the fight, they knew they would need the name, and went about searching for it, then you can use ability checks in the pursuit of that knowledge.

In other words, if the information is important to the story, then it should have been incorporated into the story in some way other than just making a dice roll at the critical moment.

I think it would be interesting to discuss scenarios that seem to exist on the boundary between these two categories.  Anybody have any good ones?

One caveat: I recognize the argument that you've "invested" in a knowledge skill, so you should get to "use" that skill by having a chance to just know things.  But I think that's getting things a little backward: it's part of the game, therefore it should be used.  The question I'm asking is whether it should even be part of the game. 

 *If anybody wants to respond, "The meaningful consequence is that you don't know, and now you can't try again" we're just going to have to disagree that that's a meaningful consequence. In my opinion, for a consequence to be meaningful it has to offer some disincentive to even try.


----------



## Reynard

OB1 said:


> The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC.  In the old rules, that was possible, since a DC could be so high or low that a character would have no chance one way or the other.



That's not a change in behavior, it is a change is outcomes.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> The thing about "dog piling" on checks is that you are only supposed to call for a dice roll if there's a meaningful consequence to failure.  "No, you don't know" isn't a meaningful consequence.*
> 
> Now, I'll admit that I do struggle with how to implement goal-and-approach-with-meaningful-consequence for knowledge checks.  *What that tells me is that knowledge checks should be treated differently,* or should only be applicable in narrowly defined circumstances, or maybe shouldn't even be part of the game, or something.




I'm fine with treating them differently.  Maybe they work by just letting them be the only ones that don't need a meaningful consequence for failure?



Bill Zebub said:


> *In other words, if the information is important to the story, then it should have been incorporated into the story in some way other than just making a dice roll at the critical moment.*




There are a lot of cases that I have no idea what the players are going to try to come up with in advance or want to know about though.  It's hard to sprinkle those in in advance.   (Wait, are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?  We could go steal whatever they were born in!).



Bill Zebub said:


> *If anybody wants to respond, "The meaningful consequence is that you don't know, and now you can't try again"* we're just going to have to disagree* that that's a meaningful consequence. In my opinion, for a consequence to be meaningful it has to offer some disincentive to even try.




 What are the meaningful consequences for failure for Investigation?  Is it spending the time, or getting something false?  What are the meaningful consequences for trying to open a lock?  The time wasted, or does it need to be the lock broken?
(I'm fine with it just being the time... which is something knowledge checks don't usually have).


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> What are the meaningful consequences for failure for Investigation?  Is it spending the time, or getting something false?  What are the meaningful consequences for trying to open a lock?  The time wasted, or does it need to be the lock broken?
> (I'm fine with it just being the time... which is something knowledge checks don't usually have).




Yeah, that's exactly my point/question.  If there's time pressure, and making an attempt will use precious time, then that's a good meaningful consequence.  But otherwise why are we rolling dice?

If the players are _not_ under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer?  Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?

That's why I asked for some examples that blur this line.  What's a scenario where somehow it just feels wrong to let them find/know the thing, but that can't easily (or at all) be designed into the story so they did some work for it beforehand?

EDIT: I'm not asking for examples so I can shoot them down and prove I'm right.  This question is honestly something I struggle with and I think it's worth exploring.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> There are a lot of cases that I have no idea what the players are going to try to come up with in advance or want to know about though.  It's hard to sprinkle those in in advance.   (Wait, are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?  We could go steal whatever they were born in!).




Forgot to answer this.

The same thing happens to me.  My question is: why does it add anything to roll dice to resolve these questions?  Why not just tell them the answer, or that they don't know.

Or, in answer to "Are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?" what are they going to do to find out?  They could go look at the tombstones, or they could ask locals.  What does it add to, effectively, flip a coin and tell them whether or not they know?


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> If the players are _not_ under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer?  Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?



How much time are they willing to spend?  (If there isn't any time pressure later in the day either and they can throw away a few hours, then I definitely agree with just letting them find it).


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> Forgot to answer this.
> 
> The same thing happens to me.  My question is: why does it add anything to roll dice to resolve these questions?  Why not just tell them the answer, or that they don't know.
> 
> Or, in answer to "Are there any old royalty buried in the local cemetery?" what are they going to do to find out?  They could go look at the tombstones, or they could ask locals.




It means I can sluff off deciding if there are any or not, and combine that with the them knowing, and putting it in a roll.



Bill Zebub said:


> What does it add to, effectively, flip a coin and tell them whether or not they know?



It lets me change the probabilities easier than shaving a coin?


----------



## CleverNickName

jeremypowell said:


> The 5.5e playtest includes just one change I really hate: a 20 automatically succeeds on an ability check, and a 1 automatically fails.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> It means I can sluff off deciding if there are any or not, and combine that with the them knowing, and putting it in a roll.




So if the magic 8 ball says “Yes” you will presumably improvise something. Why not just figure out what that something is and decide for yourself whether you like it enough to include it? Why leave that to RNG?



Cadence said:


> It lets me change the probabilities easier than shaving a coin?




But why leave it to probability? (I wasn’t referring to the 50:50 odds, just the arbitrariness of the method.)

I’m not criticizing your DMing style. I’ve done…and still do…the things you are describing. I’m just wondering why, and if it really makes the game better.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> So if the magic 8 ball says “Yes” you will presumably improvise something. Why not just figure out what that something is and decide for yourself whether you like it enough to include it? Why leave that to RNG?




It buys me a few seconds to think?
It gives me a chance of  not having to come up with anything?
It means I can never be entirely blamed for always saying yes to one player and no to another, since the dice are partially to blame?


Bill Zebub said:


> I’m not criticizing your DMing style. I’ve done…and still do…the things you are describing. I’m just wondering why, and if it really makes the game better.




Great question (that I have no answer to that I want to put in print!).


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> It buys me a few seconds to think?
> It gives me a chance of  not having to come up with anything?
> It means I can never be entirely blamed for always saying yes to one player and no to another, since the dice are partially to blame?




Ok, so maybe I'm missing something, or just having a different experience, but those don't seem like big things to me.  I don't mind saying, "I hadn't considered that.  Give me a minute to think about it."  I also don't feel any desire to "blame" things on dice.  

Are these things worth the issues introduced by using attribute(skill) checks for character knowledge?


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> I also don't feel any desire to "blame" things on dice.




I don't mind coming up with things on the fly and having most of the world decided by me.  But when a player suggests something that affects what is in the world (do I know a _____?), what should determine whether I say yes and no?   Do I always say yes to anything vaguely reasonable?  If I do, does that change how the players interact with the world (do they start coming up with things more that give an advantage because I'll say yes)?  If I tell one player yes and another no, does player two feel bad?  Will they at some point?



Bill Zebub said:


> Are these things worth the issues introduced by using attribute(skill) checks for character knowledge?




I guess I'd never thought about character knowledge checks as introducing any issues until I read it on here in the last year or two.  And so I'm not sure the things you've brought up are worth changing it...


----------



## Maxperson

OB1 said:


> The rule literally makes it impossible for a DM to ask for a check with no chance for both failure and success by the PC.



This is wrong. The DMG gives the DM 100% control over what criteria he uses to determine if something is autofailure, and defines such a ruling is making it inappropriate to call for a roll in those situations. The new rule stats very clearly that the DM determines whether a d20 test is warranted in *any given circumstance.*  That combination means that the DM never has to give a roll if the DC is too high for a PCs modifiers.  You only get auto success on tests that get a roll.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> I don't mind coming up with things on the fly and having most of the world decided by me.  But when a player suggests something that affects what is in the world (do I know a _____?), *what should determine whether I say yes and no? *





Can you think of a good answer that adds to the story? 



Cadence said:


> Do I always say yes to anything vaguely reasonable?




Sure, why not?



Cadence said:


> If I do, does that change how the players interact with the world (do they start coming up with things more that give an advantage because I'll say yes)?




I would hope so!  I love it when players think of new ways to interact with the world that gives them advantages.  I would so much rather have them do that than just ask if they can roll dice!



Cadence said:


> If I tell one player yes and another no, does player two feel bad?  Will they at some point?




Why would they?  I mean, I have trouble imagining it, but if it happened I think I'd rather talk to the player and see what their experience is, then just go back to randomly deciding things.



Cadence said:


> I guess I'd never thought about character knowledge checks as introducing any issues until I read it on here in the last year or two.  And so I'm not sure the things you've brought up are worth changing it...




Well, there's the "pile on" mentality discussed above.  And the difficulty of thinking up meaningful consequences for failure, which is supposed to be part of the 5e mechanic.

And with the new rules, fishing for 20's to get inspiration will be a thing.


----------



## OB1

Maxperson said:


> This is wrong. The DMG gives the DM 100% control over what criteria he uses to determine if something is autofailure, and defines such a ruling is making it inappropriate to call for a roll in those situations. The new rule stats very clearly that the DM determines whether a d20 test is warranted in *any given circumstance.*  That combination means that the DM never has to give a roll if the DC is too high for a PCs modifiers.  You only get auto success on tests that get a roll.



Yes exactly.  I'm saying that by asking for a roll, the rules now enforce that it is possible to both succeed and fail on it.  Before it was possible that a DM asked for a roll that did not meet one of those criteria.  IF the DM asks for a roll now, it will ALWAYS have a chance for success and failure.  The DM can still make that decision on their own before asking for the roll in response to a PCs action declaration.


----------



## Maxperson

OB1 said:


> Yes exactly.  I'm saying that by asking for a roll, the rules now enforce that it is possible to both succeed and fail on it.  Before it was possible that a DM asked for a roll that did not meet one of those criteria.  IF the DM asks for a roll now, it will ALWAYS have a chance for success and failure.  The DM can still make that decision on their own before asking for the roll in response to a PCs action declaration.



Every roll has always had a chance of success or failure or you wouldn't have been calling for a roll.  You'd have just said "You succeed" or "You fail." 

What has changed is that now the DM can ask for rolls that would have been beyond the PC's capabilities before, and there is still a chance for success.  What would have been an auto failure is something the DM now has the option to auto fail or give that 1 in 20 chance for success.


----------



## OB1

Maxperson said:


> Every roll has always had a chance of success or failure or you wouldn't have been calling for a roll.  You'd have just said "You succeed" or "You fail."
> 
> What has changed is that now the DM can ask for rolls that would have been beyond the PC's capabilities before, and there is still a chance for success.  What would have been an auto failure is something the DM now has the option to auto fail or give that 1 in 20 chance for success.



Agreed (and also how I run currently).  And I love the new option for success/failure where otherwise impossible before.

For example, say a Lv1 Rogue comes across a DC30 lock.  I could just tell her she fails, or, because the lock has a bit of magic in it, and because she's trained in Arcana as well, I ask for a roll on the 5% chance that her two trained skills together will let her pop it.


----------



## Maxperson

OB1 said:


> Agreed (and also how I run currently).  And I love the new option for success/failure where otherwise impossible before.



I've always used it to a degree.


OB1 said:


> For example, say a Lv1 Rogue comes across a DC30 lock.  I could just tell her she fails, or, because the lock has a bit of magic in it, and because she's trained in Arcana as well, I ask for a roll on the 5% chance that her two trained skills together will let her pop it.



See, I would never give that rogue a roll on that lock. Some things should be beyond the PCs, even with luck.  However, if the rogue was say level 5(had a decent amount of experience) and had a +8, I might give a roll and say you need a natural 20. That rogue is experienced and could almost get there anyway.


----------



## OB1

Maxperson said:


> I've always used it to a degree.
> 
> See, I would never give that rogue a roll on that lock. Some things should be beyond the PCs, even with luck.  However, if the rogue was say level 5(had a decent amount of experience) and had a +8, I might give a roll and say you need a natural 20. That rogue is experienced and could almost get there anyway.



And that's a legit ruling as well!  My point is the new rule encourages me to look at the character and situation as a whole to determine when to give a d20 test to an otherwise impossible task (just as you did).


----------



## Maxperson

OB1 said:


> And that's a legit ruling as well!  My point is the new rule encourages me to look at the character and situation as a whole to determine when to give a d20 test to an otherwise impossible task (just as you did).



Absolutely.  I'm glad at the possibility that it will be included as a rule.


----------



## Parmandur

jeremypowell said:


> I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.
> 
> The new rule requires either:
> 
> (A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else
> 
> (B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.



Proficiency gating, it's a standard part of the game. If the Wizard is not Proficient in Athletics, he cannot win the Olympic Triathlon. The Barbarian is not proficient in Arcana? He cannot decipher the magic inscription. Like, they cannot even try.


----------



## Parmandur

jeremypowell said:


> Everyone seems to think these edge cases will seldom happen. I guess they must call for a lot fewer rolls than I do.
> 
> I run intrigue-heavy games. And I run more than one game.
> 
> When my players hear about some new piece of lore, or learn about something that happened long ago, and they ask, “Do we recall knowing any more about this?” then I set a DC and let everybody roll. Often the DCs are 22 or higher. Yes, sometimes 30, but often 25 or so—this lore is little known, say, but maybe someone read about it once. What’s the point in putting resources into, say, History if everyone else has the same chance as you do of recalling the lore? Which, for DCs above 20, will be the case _often_, not seldom, with the new rule.



Simple, only let the Proficient characters role Histroy checks. That what the books suggest, it's the standard in the Adventure campaigns, and it's what Matt Mercer does on Critical Role (along with, hey, autocratic on 20 and auto fails on 1).


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> It's weird really. There are many things that only plausibly succeeded by people who put in enough time in an obscure or extraordinary action, actively, or procedure.
> 
> This is easiest to see in too proficiency when an untrained individual would have no chance of success but a trained one might have a high chance.
> 
> It works for attacks as by a certain level, every PC will have enough experience in combat to luck out all aspects of a normal attack, grapple, or shove.
> 
> So an auto success/fail system on ability check would have to *defined parameters of when certain actions are unlocked with training or even expertise.*



I mean, the rules, as theybwxiat now, already make the distinction, and it is a DM ruling issue. Mix to taste.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> I mean, the rules, as theybwxiat now, already make the distinction, and it is a DM ruling issue. Mix to taste.



Well my point is it is more work and more criticism for the DM in a game with heavy DM workload... just for the lolz.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Proficiency gating, it's a standard part of the game. Of the Wizard is not Proficient in Athletics, he cannot win the Olympic triathlon. The Barnarian is not proficient in Arcana? He cannot decipher the magic inscription. Like, they cannot even try.



But with now custom origins, everyone can grab Percetion and try on Perception rolls!


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Well my point is it is more work and more criticism for the DM in a game with heavy DM workload... just for the lolz.



It's not, though? It's the same as it is now. The game already expects DMs to gate checks based on what they feel is reasonable in their game. Not just allow anyone to try anything (unless that's what you like doing).


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> But with now custom origins, everyone can grab Percetion and try on Perception rolls!



You can already do thst in 2014...? Skill selection in Backgrounds was always custom.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> You can already do thst in 2014...? Skill selection in Backgrounds was always custom.



Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.



That's not really on the rules, to be fair. That is probthe sort of thing behind them making Background more explicitly customizable.


----------



## Reynard

The problem with "trained only" checks in 5E is that it almost always focuses on the academic skills when the reality is that some sell sword that spends his time swapping tales is far more likely to "happen" to know troll regeneration stops with fire (an Arcana check) than he is likely to be able to successfully chat up a member of the nobility (persuasion). 5E just isn't granular enough on its own to take these things into account.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> That's not really on the rules, to be fair. That is probthe sort of thing behind them making Background more explicitly customizable.



I agree. I kinda wish, however, that Perception was entirely passive or entirely absent from the game rather than a "skill."


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> The problem with "trained only" checks in 5E is that it almost always focuses on the academic skills when the reality is that some sell sword that spends his time swapping tales is far more likely to "happen" to know troll regeneration stops with fire (an Arcana check) than he is likely to be able to successfully chat up a member of the nobility (persuasion). 5E just isn't granular enough on its own to take these things into account.



Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.

(That’s a Nature Check, I believe, but neither here nor there)


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, that's exactly my point/question.  If there's time pressure, and making an attempt will use precious time, then that's a good meaningful consequence.  But otherwise why are we rolling dice?
> 
> If the players are _not_ under time pressure, and they are searching an office, why make them roll dice to see if they find the letter hidden in the drawer?  Presumably the letter has some value to the story, so why not just let them find it?



Because the meaningful consequence to their not fiinding it is that they don't have it; meaning that whatever "value" it might have had to the story is lost, with - possibly - future consequences knocking on from that as things develop later.

And this is something else to keep in mind - the "meaningful consequences for failure" don't have to be immediate, and IMO don't have to be guaranteed.

For example, failing to know or find some bit of lore now during their research might not matter until quite some time later at place X when having or not having that bit of lore is going to become highly relevant; but if the PCs go a different direction in the meantime and thus never reach place X, those what-would-have-been-meaningful consequences evaporate into the air.


----------



## Ibrandul

Parmandur said:


> Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.



You don’t let PCs try to investigate something unless they’re proficient? Or persuade someone?

Is it just nope? Or maybe you use passive for all nonproficient? Or do you mean if someone nonproficient in Persuasion tries to persuade someone, you just call that a Charisma check?

Genuinely curious.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Ok, so maybe I'm missing something, or just having a different experience, but those don't seem like big things to me.  I don't mind saying, "I hadn't considered that.  Give me a minute to think about it."



I try - often unsuccessfully - to avoid saying things like this, as it's a red-flag metagame signal to the players that they've got me winging it.


----------



## MarkB

Aldarc said:


> Officially, yes. I saw a number of tables, however, that saw it as power-gaming and wanted you to just pick a pre-existing Background, which led to a fair number of Sailors.



The trick there is to make sure you pick a background that includes a skill you've already picked from your class or race. Then you get to replace it with another of your choice.


----------



## Parmandur

jeremypowell said:


> You don’t let PCs try to investigate something unless they’re proficient? Or persuade someone?
> 
> Is it just nope? Or maybe you use passive for all nonproficient? Or do you mean if someone nonproficient in Persuasion tries to persuade someone, you just call that a Charisma check?
> 
> Genuinely curious.



It's a judgement call based on situation: can the Wizard make an Athletics check to jump 5 feet to make it over the closing drawbridge with the rest of thenparty? Sure. Can he roll to win a wrestling match with Hercules? No, no he cannot.

That's shynthe rules for it are scanty: it's best left to DM fiat and table choices. But it isn't hard in practice.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> It's not, though? It's the same as it is now. The game already expects DMs to gate checks based on what they feel is reasonable in their game. Not just allow anyone to try anything (unless that's what you like doing).




Before you could gate checks behind high DCs and make it PC agnostic.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Before you could gate checks behind high DCs and make it PC agnostic.



Yeah, you can do both, and the game expects both tools to be used. Expecting both isn't a rules change.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> It's a judgement call based on situation: can the Wizard make an Athletics check to jump 5 feet to make it over the closing drawbridge with the rest of thenparty? Sure. Can he roll to win a wrestling match with Hercules? No, no he cannot.



This.  Can anyone attempt to climb a mountain face with lots of hand and footholds?  Yep.  When they get to that overhang and have to climb upside down on the bottom side of it, though, you're going to be required to have Athletics to even have a chance.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Trained only checks are good for basically all Skills.
> 
> (That’s a Nature Check, I believe, but neither here nor there)



So no one can attempt anything unless they are trained in the governing skill? You would have to completely rewrite how skills and abilities are tested for that to work in actual play, and explicitly designate a number of things as not related to skills at all.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> This.  Can anyone attempt to climb a mountain face with lots of hand and footholds?  Yep.  When they get to that overhang and have to climb upside down on the bottom side of it, though, you're going to be required to have Athletics to even have a chance.



That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for. Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for.



It's already built for it.  The DMG allows the DM to declare a roll impossible for any reason, including proficiency.


Reynard said:


> Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.



I've been doing it for years and never once had an argument.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Because the meaningful consequence to their not fiinding it is that they don't have it; meaning that whatever "value" it might have had to the story is lost, with - possibly - future consequences knocking on from that as things develop later.




How is that any different from not trying in the first place? 



Lanefan said:


> And this is something else to keep in mind - the "meaningful consequences for failure" don't have to be immediate, and IMO don't have to be guaranteed.




I think the consequence should be known, or at least suspected. Otherwise the player has no information to base a decision on. 

I guess I could imagine a scenario where the player thinks there’s no downside, and later discovers there was, and forever after is wary of the DM saying. “May as well try, right? Whaddya got to lose? Throw them dice…”



Lanefan said:


> For example, failing to know or find some bit of lore now during their research might not matter until quite some time later at place X when having or not having that bit of lore is going to become highly relevant; but if the PCs go a different direction in the meantime and thus never reach place X, those what-would-have-been-meaningful consequences evaporate into the air.




Again, that is a consequence of not having the lore, which is identical whether they make an ability check and fail, or if they don’t even try. Therefore it is _not a consequence of failure_.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> So no one can attempt anything unless they are trained in the governing skill? You would have to completely rewrite how skills and abilities are tested for that to work in actual play, and explicitly designate a number of things as not related to skills at all.



If the DM rules they can't,  yes. That's how the game works now, as it is is: some checks are open, some are gated, at the DMs discretion. That's in the books.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for. Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.



...what are you talking about, we are talking  about the 2014 rules that have been in use for 8 years? Gating by proficiency at DM discretion is a normal part of the game as it is already written and played, it doesn't require anything new.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, you can do both, and the game expects both tools to be used. Expecting both isn't a rules change.



You can't gate DCs or hold open DCs because you can autosucceed on a nat 20  and autofail on a nat 1.

You can only gate the attempt of the role with this rule. Not the difficulty class itself.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> You can't gate DCs or hold open DCs because you can autosucceed on a nat 20  and autofail on a nat 1.
> 
> You can only gate the attempt of the role with this rule. Not the difficulty class itself.



The rule was already to not allow a roll of success is not possible. So, don't allow a roll if success is not possible. Not a change from what already the case.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> The rule was already to not allow a roll of success is not possible. So, don't allow a roll if success is not possible. Not a change from what already the case.



Let me explain it again.

Before you could gate an action or lore recallwith a high DC and call it Very Hard or Impossible. The PC or NPC could attemptit but most woould fail. However you as the DM left the attempt unlocked.
This allowed PCs and NPCs wot use spells, tools, magic items, and allies to increase their chances or speed up a reroll.

Now, you have to lock the attmpt and gauge everytime the circumstances change, whether or not the attempt is uplocked.

Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.

Now: You put on a magic hat, does this unlock the Lore check? You took a long rest and swapped your skill profecieny to Arcana and History,  does this unlock the Lore check? Mieky uses Help, does this unlock the Lore check? Louey cast's Enchance Ability on you, does this unlock the Lore check? You bring Gibgob the Sage, does this unlock the Lore check?


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Let me explain it again.
> 
> Before you could gate an action or lore recallwith a high DC and call it Very Hard or Impossible. The PC or NPC could attemptit but most woould fail. However you as the DM left the attempt unlocked.
> This allowed PCs and NPCs wot use spells, tools, magic items, and allies to increase their chances or speed up a reroll.
> 
> Now, you have to lock the attmpt and gauge everytime the circumstances change, whether or not the attempt is uplocked.
> 
> Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.
> 
> Now: You put on a magic hat, does this unlock the Lore check? You took a long rest and swapped your skill profecieny to Arcana and History,  does this unlock the Lore check? Mieky uses Help, does this unlock the Lore check? Louey cast's Enchance Ability on you, does this unlock the Lore check? You bring Gibgob the Sage, does this unlock the Lore check?



The rules already said not to allow a.roll if the result was not in doubt. The DC us not the only tool for that, and never was, so nothing has actually changed. That's part of whybthe common houserule has not created problems for tables. It's not complex in practice.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> The rules already said not to allow a.roll if the result was not in doubt. The DC us not the only tool for that, and never was, so nothing has actually changed. That's part of whybthe common houserule has not created problems for tables. It's not complex in practice.



The result_ is_ in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> The result_ is_ in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.



The DM decides if thar is possible, as a ruling. Only allowing a roll with Proficiency for certain actuon resolutions is normal. In addition the DMG, see every printed Adventure, and every official streamed game (unofficial streamed games aren't different, except that when rolling is allowed auto crit or fail on 20/1 is the norm).

Saying "no, that would require Arhletics Proficiency to try" as a gut reaction is usually simple and easy based on first gut unstinct, and prevents entirely the sort of scenario envisioned as a problem with allowing auto success or auto fail. If the PC cannot role without a chance of success, rhen success only on a 20 isn't a big deal. And when the result is in doubt, failure always being an option makes sense.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> The result_ is_ in doubt. *You the DM don't know what roll they might give you*. This is D&D. They can boost their mods and add more.




You seem to be describing an earlier edition of D&D.  In 5e the DM first decides whether the outcome is in doubt (and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, although it seems like a lot of people skip that) and if it is then a DM calls for a roll.


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> You seem to be describing an earlier edition of D&D.  In 5e the DM first decides whether the outcome is in doubt (and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, although it seems like a lot of people skip that) and if it is then a DM calls for a roll.



Hey, wait, that the distinctive here: this seems to be importing the 3E skill check philosophy into 5E. Which, for a given table, probably works much of the time. But for 6E, saying "No" as a ruling is part of the assumed skill check system, because Bounded Accuracy.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> The DM decides if thar is possible, as a ruling. Only allowing a roll with Proficiency for certain actuon resolutions is normal. In addition the DMG, see every printed Adventure, and every official streamed game (unofficial streamed games aren't different, except that when rolling is allowed auto crit or fail on 20/1 is the norm).
> 
> Saying "no, that would require Arhletics Proficiency to try" as a gut reaction is usually simple and easy based on first gut unstinct, and prevents entirely the sort of scenario envisioned as a problem with allowing auto success or auto fail. If the PC cannot role without a chance of success, rhen success only on a 20 isn't a big deal. And when the result is in doubt, failure always being an option makes sense.



My point is, because of Bounded Accuracy, a lot of things can give a modifier worthy of allowing a roll equal to profieciency. So there is rightfuly more to think about or can be argued.

It's easier to just pick a number and wait for their roll.


----------



## Mistwell

[Sorry an issue already long answered in this thread]


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> My point is, because of Bounded Accuracy, a lot of things can give a modifier worthy of allowing a roll equal to profieciency. So there is rightfuly more to think about or can be argued.
> 
> It's easier to just pick a number and wait for their roll.



Proficiency is a binary, and a great point for a gut check. There is nonarguing with the DM.


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> That is going to require a level of granularity 5E is just not built for.



Which is a good change they could make to 5e - give it more granularity almost across the board but particularly in a few key instances where 5% is too big of a jump between steps on the ladder.


Reynard said:


> Also, the arguments about where the line is for any given action would be endless.



No real change from current procedure, then?


----------



## SkidAce

I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).

I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"

If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.

They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> How is that any different from not trying in the first place?



In some ways it isn't.


Bill Zebub said:


> I think the consequence should be known, or at least suspected. Otherwise the player has no information to base a decision on.



That lack of information is perfectly realistic; in that if the character doesn't know what consequences they may be then neither should the player.  The character doesn't know there's a hidden letter in the drawer and will quite possibly never know - unless she a) searches the room anyway and b) succeeds on the search.


Bill Zebub said:


> I guess I could imagine a scenario where the player thinks there’s no downside, and later discovers there was, and forever after is wary of the DM saying. “May as well try, right? Whaddya got to lose? Throw them dice…”
> 
> Again, that is a consequence of not having the lore, which is identical whether they make an ability check and fail, or if they don’t even try. Therefore it is _not a consequence of failure_.



5e has this big and IMO utterly needless hangup on there having to be clear and obvious consequences for failure.  Here, you're rolling to (maybe even unknowingly) try for some significant consequences of success, with failure (or not trying at all) meaning that the status quo holds for now and other consequences may or may not arise later.

Put another way: not trying at all is no different than a self-inflicted automatic failure.


----------



## Bill Zebub

SkidAce said:


> I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).
> 
> I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"
> 
> If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.
> 
> They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).




I don't have the book in front of me but I don't believe the actual text focuses on "impossible" but rather just whether the DM judges that an attempt will be either automatically successful or automatically a failure.  In other words, it considers the character's ability to accomplish a task, not just the absolute difficulty of the task itself.

I think that's where @Minigiant is coming from: they're thinking of the absolute difficulty of a task, without factoring in the character.  But I believe that in 5e it's within RAI for the DM to ask one player to roll, and to tell another that they automatically fail.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.
> 
> Now: You put on a magic hat, does this unlock the Lore check? You took a long rest and swapped your skill profecieny to Arcana and History,  does this unlock the Lore check? Mieky uses Help, does this unlock the Lore check? Louey cast's Enchance Ability on you, does this unlock the Lore check? You bring Gibgob the Sage, does this unlock the Lore check?



There is no unlocking.

Before: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz. Work Done.

Now: The evil wizard is working with a demon lord of a secret cult. Give my an 25 an I'll tell you the demon's name is Razmaztaz, if your bonuses aren't sufficient to hit 25+, don't roll. Work Done.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> The result_ is_ in doubt. You the DM don't know what roll they might give you. This is D&D. *They can boost their mods and add more.*



Not after I've asked for the roll.


----------



## Lanefan

SkidAce said:


> I always though it meant don't roll if the "TASK" is impossible (i.e. shooting the moon with an arrow).
> 
> I look at task (not pc) and say, "could this be done, is it possible?"
> 
> If so, I set the DC, then let whoever wants to try it, or buff it, or help with it do so, without doing the math.
> 
> They make DC, they accomplish task, they miss DC, they do not (even with 20).



Which is fine for any task that has some sort of clear physical outcome in the fiction - shooting an arrow at the moon, trying to pick the unpickable lock, and so forth - the setting's internal physics say it can't be done, end of story.

Where it falls down - as the many examples here show - is when it comes to non-physical things such as snippets of information characters might or might not have learned, or know, or remember from their own pasts.  Here there's no setting-physics to provide boundaries and thus nothing to tell a DM the limits of possibility; meaning a DM either has to say no or allow at least a 5% chance of success, neither of which might be appropriate (the DM might be thinking "it's not impossible, but odds of 1-in-1000 sound about right").

It comes down to a major lack of granularity - there's no options between impossible and 5% unless the DM goes off-RAW and calls for a d% roll or something - unless a DM is willing and able to houserule.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> My point is, because of Bounded Accuracy, a lot of things can give a modifier worthy of allowing a roll equal to profieciency. So there is rightfuly more to think about or can be argued.



Stat modifier =/= proficiency, even if the numbers are equal.  Training matters more than natural talent.


----------



## SkidAce

Lanefan said:


> Which is fine for any task that has some sort of clear physical outcome in the fiction - shooting an arrow at the moon, trying to pick the unpickable lock, and so forth - the setting's internal physics say it can't be done, end of story.
> 
> Where it falls down - as the many examples here show - is when it comes to non-physical things such as snippets of information characters might or might not have learned, or know, or remember from their own pasts.  Here there's no setting-physics to provide boundaries and thus nothing to tell a DM the limits of possibility; meaning a DM either has to say no or allow at least a 5% chance of success, neither of which might be appropriate (the DM might be thinking "it's not impossible, but odds of 1-in-1000 sound about right").
> 
> It comes down to a major lack of granularity - there's no options between impossible and 5% unless the DM goes off-RAW and calls for a d% roll or something - unless a DM is willing and able to houserule.



Why can't the DM look at the information/knowledge task, decide the DC is 20 cause its "rare" info, and let the player roll?


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> Stat modifier =/= proficiency, even if the numbers are equal.  Training matters more than natural talent.



On some checks. Not all. Sometimes they are equal. Sometimes talent matters more.

Then there's _magic_.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Stat modifier =/= proficiency, even if the numbers are equal.  Training matters more than natural talent.



That's one way to look at it, and is clearly your way, but does that agree with the game's way of looking at it?

I suspect the game wants you to look only at the end-result numbers without much regard for those numbers' sources.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> In some ways it isn't.
> 
> That lack of information is perfectly realistic; in that if the character doesn't know what consequences they may be then neither should the player.



Except this is a _game_.



Lanefan said:


> The character doesn't know there's a hidden letter in the drawer and will quite possibly never know - unless she a) searches the room anyway and b) succeeds on the search.




Then if the player says they are searching the room (I might ask how much time they're going to spend doing it, to get a sense of thoroughness) I'll let them find the letter.  Why roll for something like that?



Lanefan said:


> 5e has this big and IMO utterly needless hangup on there having to be clear and obvious consequences for failure.




I mean, it's a very different game than the one you seem to enjoy (I've picked up that!). But some of us happen to think the clear and obvious consequence makes for a better game. It eliminates a lot of the board-game-like dice rolling.


----------



## Lanefan

SkidAce said:


> Why can't the DM look at the information/knowledge task, decide the DC is 20 cause its "rare" info, and let the player roll?



A DM can always do this.  That assigns a 5% probability of success for anyone and a higher probability for those who can boost their rolls somehow.

My problem is if a DM looks at it and wants to assign a maximum probability of success (or failure, I suppose) of higher than outright zero but lower than 4.9%, what can she do?


----------



## Cadence

_This gets hard to follow going back hours later.  This is in a sequence of posts about knowledge checks, and should they even be rolls since they don't have meaningful consequences.  I posited I liked them as rolls.  BZ didn't like them as rolls.  This first three quotes by BZ below are answering: how should a DM decide on the answer to a knowledge check, should the DM just say yes all the time, and won't this encourage the players to come up with new things._



Bill Zebub said:


> Can you think of a good answer that adds to the story?
> 
> --
> 
> Sure, why not?
> 
> --
> 
> I would hope so!  I love it when players think of new ways to interact with the world that gives them advantages.  I would so much rather have them do that than just ask if they can roll dice!




I guess my problem is that I don't trust myself.  I think as a player if I knew the DM would just say yes to anything vaguely reasonable that I would start to try and come up with short-cuts / big-red-buttons to push / very limited wishes that would "let me win".  Which is really not how I like to play.  I like to imagine myself as the character and try to think of what they would try.  But I think I would find myself sabotaging my own fun and stop trying to think of what my character would do.  Maybe I could train myself not to do that (but I still haven't fully trained myself not to mock the non-24 hour day structure in 13th Age). 

If I know I'm just trying things that may or may not work (just like in real life trying out new things doesn't always work) then I don't think I'd have this problem.  ("Hmmm... wonder if there is a pizza place open all night near the conference center" doesn't always produce one).

-----

_This next one is about whether a player in a game where the DM just answers knowledge checks (adding the answers to the world) might get upset if there thoughts keeps not being true, while another player at the table keeps hearing yes.  _



Bill Zebub said:


> Why would they?  I mean, I have trouble imagining it, but if it happened I think I'd rather talk to the player and see what their experience is, then just go back to randomly deciding things.




I think the why is just human nature.   But fair enough, talking to the player seems eminently reasonable.  Of course I guess my question is, should we talk to the players before moving away from the current deciding things randomly (concerns about not having consequences not withstanding)?

------

_This next one is about why would someone think of changing it from rolling._



Bill Zebub said:


> Well, there's the "pile on" mentality discussed above.  And the difficulty of thinking up meaningful consequences for failure, which is supposed to be part of the 5e mechanic.
> 
> And with the new rules, fishing for 20's to get inspiration will be a thing.




I guess I'd rather make them an exception to the needing consequences.  Maybe I should suggest for the new rule that you only get the inspiration 20 if failure on the roll they're trying has a significant consequence (and bring up that some rolls don't seem to have them in the usual sense).


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't have the book in front of me but I don't believe the actual text focuses on "impossible" but rather just whether the DM judges that an attempt will be either automatically successful or automatically a failure.  In other words, it considers the character's ability to accomplish a task, not just the absolute difficulty of the task itself.
> 
> I think that's where @Minigiant is coming from: they're thinking of the absolute difficulty of a task, without factoring in the character.  But I believe that in 5e it's within RAI for the DM to ask one player to roll, and to tell another that they automatically fail.



Not just RAI, but RAW.


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> Why can't the DM look at the information/knowledge task, decide the DC is 20 cause its "rare" info, and let the player roll?



Well, sure they can...if they are comfortable barratively with everyone succeeding.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> That's one way to look at it, and is clearly your way, but does that agree with the game's way of looking at it?
> 
> I suspect the game wants you to look only at the end-result numbers without much regard for those numbers' sources.



Proficiency gating is in the game, so...yes, that is how the game has looked it throughout 5E.


----------



## Cadence

_Lanefan says "That lack of information is perfectly realistic; in that if the character doesn't know what consequences they may be then neither should the player."_



Bill Zebub said:


> Except this is a _game_.




A game where I like to try to get in the mindset of the character who wouldn't know all the consequences.

Should a player know how deadly a trap is before they decide to search for one or disable it?

---



Bill Zebub said:


> Then if the player says they are searching the room (I might ask how much time they're going to spend doing it, to get a sense of thoroughness) I'll let them find the letter.  Why roll for something like that?




I've become a big fan of asking folks how long they're searching or doing things like that.  Want to do it really quick then make a roll to see if it works.  Have time to spend, either give me the order you search things in or make a roll to see how much of that time you needed to use.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Except this is a _game_.



A game that in major part is trying to model the fictional reality in which the characters live and function; without which modelling the whole house of cards comes down.


Bill Zebub said:


> Then if the player says they are searching the room (I might ask how much time they're going to spend doing it, to get a sense of thoroughness) I'll let them find the letter.  Why roll for something like that?



Why roll?  Because they still might not find it.  Bad luck is bad luck.

Now if they're thorough enough to specifically tell me where-what-how they're searching then sure, the dice go out the window and I'll narrate what they find and where; then post-hoc figure out how long it all took.  But that degree of thoroughness seems to be frowned upon these days.


Bill Zebub said:


> I mean, it's a very different game than the one you seem to enjoy (I've picked up that!). But some of us happen to think the clear and obvious consequence makes for a better game. It eliminates a lot of the board-game-like dice rolling.



The better IMO way to eliminate dice-rolling is to insist on thoroughness, granularity, and specificity in action declaration.  "I search the room" followed by a roll leaves a player/PC wide open to failure.  "I search [here, here, here and here] within the room using [methods x,y z] and taking as much time as it needs" allows me to simply narrate the results, no dice required unless there's other factors to consider e.g. a trap.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Where it falls down - as the many examples here show - is when it comes to non-physical things such as snippets of information characters might or might not have learned, or know, or remember from their own pasts.  Here there's no setting-physics to provide boundaries and thus nothing to tell a DM the limits of possibility; meaning a DM either has to say no or allow at least a 5% chance of success, neither of which might be appropriate (the DM might be thinking "it's not impossible, but odds of 1-in-1000 sound about right").
> 
> It comes down to a major lack of granularity - there's no options between impossible and 5% unless the DM goes off-RAW and calls for a d% roll or something - unless a DM is willing and able to houserule.




So I fully agree that goal-and-approach-with-consequences-of-failure doesn't seem to work well with knowledge checks.  (I believe @iserith, goal-and-approach's chief evangelist, disagrees.)

But that's why I'm asking (and was asking @Cadence...who seems to have posted while I'm typing this): what _is_ the point of all those knowledge checks?  What does it really add to the game for a player to say, "Do I know X?" and then you roll some dice and maybe yes, maybe no.  Why is that interesting or fun?  The player hasn't actually _done_ anything.  It feels to me like resolving combat with a single roll: "The Orc is DC 13.  Give me a combat roll.  15?  Ok, he's dead."

And, again, I'm not asking this as if I can't believe you would ever play RPGs in such a terrible way.  I've been using knowledge checks for decades.  I'm just re-thinking if they contribute to the game.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> On some checks. Not all. Sometimes they are equal. Sometimes talent matters more.



Which is why the DM decides how and when to gate the rolls and declare something impossible for someone.


Minigiant said:


> Then there's _magic_.



Magic can help, but it's pretty limited in timing. Once the roll is asked for, it's too late to use it, and you very often don't know when a roll is going to be asked for.


----------



## p_johnston

so first off really like this rule for saves. Sounds like a good change there.
In regards to ability/skill checks I'm not a fan of this rule despite the fact that (near as I can remember) I pretty much already play this way. If someone roles a one they fail/something bad happens. If they role a 20 they succeed/something good happens. I think my main problem is that this feels kinda like it's taking away some of the DM ability to say what success is.

Let me explain. Currently if a PC asks to do something that will be impossible for them, so long as it's not blatantly insane to try, I will let them roll. If they happen to get a 20 they won't succeed at what they stated they wanted but they will get something useful. Want to try know the secret true name of a demon lord with a +0 to religion? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the name but it will get you a clue. Want to try and talk the king into naming you his heir with a -1 charisma? Sure roll. A 20 won't get you the crown but will make the king like you. Etc.

I let my players roll when they ask because they like rolling dice. I give them something cool on a 20 even if they fail because 20's feel like they should be rewarded. but with this rule It feels like I'm obligated to say NO to a lot more rolls then I otherwise would because if I let them roll on the impossible thing then the expectation on a 20 is that they get what they asked for.

P.S. Also I will say that if your only ever letting players roll if they have at least modifiers to make the DC on a 20 then it just seems to me that your changing the point at which you say no instead of actually have a different style of play. In fact if that's the expected style of DMing then this rule is... frankly pointless.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> That's one way to look at it, and is clearly your way, but does that agree with the game's way of looking at it?
> 
> I suspect the game wants you to look only at the end-result numbers without much regard for those numbers' sources.



The game doesn't say, but it DOES say that the DM decides when something is automatically successful, automatically a failure, and when a roll is called for. It does not limit the DM's reasons for making that decision.

There is this, though.

"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*)."

You don't get a roll without both the tool AND proficiency.

And...

"Sight rot can be cured using a rare flower called Eyebright, which grows in some swamps. Given an hour, *a character who has proficiency with an herbalism kit* can turn the flower into one dose of ointment."

It's not common, but gating rolls behind proficiency is in RAW.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> And, again, I'm not asking this as if I can't believe you would ever play RPGs in such a terrible way.  I've been using knowledge checks for decades.  I'm just re-thinking if they contribute to the game.



In an unexpected way I've found that they do, or certainly can, over the long run; as a consistent series of made or failed rolls about related topics can inform a bit about the character's background.  "Jocantha, you're no more a Dwarf than I am but that's the third time today you've nailed it on knowing about obscure Dwarven religious lore.  Clearly you're the party expert on such things!", on which Jocantha's player might come up with a rationale as to why this is so, and that minor bit of expertise becomes part of her character henceforth.


----------



## SkidAce

Parmandur said:


> Well, sure they can...if they are comfortable barratively with everyone succeeding.



Only if we are using the new rule.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> I think that's where @Minigiant is coming from: they're thinking of the absolute difficulty of a task, without factoring in the character.  But I believe that in 5e it's within RAI for the DM to ask one player to roll, and to tell another that they automatically fail.



Sure, but the way I run it at least I try and describe the situation (and have a DC on paper or in mind) and the problem and ask the group what they are going to do. Sometimes a player jumps the gun and takes an action and fails (maybe they could have hit the DC and didn't, or maybe they didn't have a chance in hell, but they wanted to roll anyway not knowing the DC). I don't let someone else just make the same roll. That's probably not RAW and maybe not even RAI, but as we have discussed skill dog piling is bad. It happened just minutes ago in my Rappan Athuk game, actually. One player decided to brute force open a thing, failed terribly, and the rest of the part was forced to come up with a different solution even though the stronger character was not the one who made the check. Hilariously, it took 3 tries of 3 different approaches before they managed it (with a secret wandering monster roll for each one since they were making noise, but alas not monsters heard).


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> Only if we are using the new rule.



That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.



Unless you-as-DM also want the roll to inform as to the degree of failure; as in, there's no way in hell that PC's gonna make that climb but let's see just how badly this goes.

Which is why sometimes even impossible actions could get a roll, e.g. go ahead and roll to shoot an arrow at the moon; you ain't gonna hit it but on a 1 the arrow hits you or someone nearby when it comes down.....


----------



## Cadence

As an aside, just pulled up A5e Level Up  to see what it did.

For an ability check, a natural 20 is a critical success as long as it would otherwise be a success anyway, and a 1 is a critical failure as long as it would otherwise be a failure anyway.  (So, no auto success or failure).  

Each of those has a variety of extra goodness or badness that happens respectively for each skill.  (Your medicine roll was so good they get temporary hit points too, or you screw up and accidentally amputate a toe or something).


----------



## SkidAce

Parmandur said:


> That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happe






Parmandur said:


> That's...already how it works, though. In 5E. Even without autosucfess, of success isn't possible, no rolls should happen.



Not going to stop and calculate my player's chance of success every time I set a DC to find out if they are capable of it or not. 

I mean on the extreme ends I hear yah and agree, if its a DC 2 or a DC 30, then I'm pretty sure they will/won't make it, so of course, no roll. 

Otherwise, I'm choosing a DC based on the task spectrum (easy, hard, etc for example) and letting them roll.


----------



## SkidAce

Sorry about double quote, that was weird.


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> Not going to stop and calculate my player's chance of success every time I set a DC to find out if they are capable of it or not.
> 
> I mean on the extreme ends I hear yah and agree, if its a DC 2 or a DC 30, then I'm pretty sure they will/won't make it, so of course, no roll.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm choosing a DC based on the task spectrum (easy, hard, etc for example) and letting them roll.



I'm talking about stuff like a Wizard rolling for wrestling a Giant, or a Barbarian rolling for Arcana. Without Proficiency, there's not even a DC in some cases.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Unless you-as-DM also want the roll to inform as to the degree of failure; as in, there's no way in hell that PC's gonna make that climb but let's see just how badly this goes.
> 
> Which is why sometimes even impossible actions could get a roll, e.g. go ahead and roll to shoot an arrow at the moon; you ain't gonna hit it but on a 1 the arrow hits you or someone nearby when it comes down.....




So...if you make up your own rules, they may be incompatible with official rules?

Whodathunk?


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> So...if you make up your own rules, they may be incompatible with official rules?



Under 5e's official stance of "rulings, not rules", this statement cannot possibly be true.

Whatever rule I make up is my ruling, which - going by 5e standards - trumps whatever's in the book.

That said, anyone know yet whether 5.5 is going to stay with rulings-not-rules as its mantra? (I would assume yes, but at this point it's rather difficult to assume anything)


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> Under 5e's official stance of "rulings, not rules", this statement cannot possibly be true.
> 
> Whatever rule I make up is my ruling, which - going by 5e standards - trumps whatever's in the book.
> 
> That said, anyone know yet whether 5.5 is going to stay with rulings-not-rules as its mantra? (I would assume yes, but at this point it's rather difficult to assume anything)



Based on what they have put out so far, yes.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Under 5e's official stance of "rulings, not rules", this statement cannot possibly be true.
> 
> Whatever rule I make up is my ruling, which - going by 5e standards - trumps whatever's in the book.
> 
> That said, anyone know yet whether 5.5 is going to stay with rulings-not-rules as its mantra? (I would assume yes, but at this point it's rather difficult to assume anything)



Unless they plan to re-write everything, they're stuck with it.  The rules are written too vaguely and with too many holes to function otherwise.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Under 5e's official stance of "rulings, not rules", this statement cannot possibly be true.
> 
> Whatever rule I make up is my ruling, which - going by 5e standards - trumps whatever's in the book.
> 
> That said, anyone know yet whether 5.5 is going to stay with rulings-not-rules as its mantra? (I would assume yes, but at this point it's rather difficult to assume anything)




Whether you want to call it a ruling or a rule, all you have discovered is that something you do at your table, which isn't in the official rules, might sometimes conflict with those official rules.  You have every right to run your game however you want, of course, but it's not a flaw in the design if it conflicts with your houserule/ruling.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Unless they plan to re-write everything, they're stuck with it.  The rules are written too vaguely and with too many holes to function otherwise.



I don't think there is any broadbased dissatisfaction with the approach that would motivate WotC to work on a change.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I don't thinknthere is any broadvased dissatisfaction with the approach thst would motivate WotC to work on a change.



Yep.  That and there isn't time to re-write and playtest everything.  No motivation and no time = stays the same.


----------



## clearstream

jeremypowell said:


> I understand that if a task is impossible, I don’t call for a roll. But sometimes a task should be possible for PC1 but not for PC2.
> 
> The new rule requires either:
> 
> (A) that if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it; or else
> 
> (B) that the DM must always track everyone’s mods.



One solve for that is just require proficiency. Or in some cases expertise.

So a given task may be impossible for the unskilled. There'll be edge cases, but as on the whole players allocate proficiency to their strengths, most of the time it will work out.

EDIT I see numerous others suggested same


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bill Zebub said:


> So I fully agree that goal-and-approach-with-consequences-of-failure doesn't seem to work well with knowledge checks.  (I believe @iserith, goal-and-approach's chief evangelist, disagrees.)
> 
> But that's why I'm asking (and was asking @Cadence...who seems to have posted while I'm typing this): what _is_ the point of all those knowledge checks?  What does it really add to the game for a player to say, "Do I know X?" and then you roll some dice and maybe yes, maybe no.  Why is that interesting or fun?  The player hasn't actually _done_ anything.  It feels to me like resolving combat with a single roll: "The Orc is DC 13.  Give me a combat roll.  15?  Ok, he's dead."
> 
> And, again, I'm not asking this as if I can't believe you would ever play RPGs in such a terrible way.  I've been using knowledge checks for decades.  I'm just re-thinking if they contribute to the game.



I think knowledge checks should not be binary pass/fail but a cascade of "what is widely known" = Easy DC, "what the well informed would know", and so on.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

To follow up my own post but the discussion around lore checks in another indication that D&D need a non binary extended scene mechanics/framework for this kind of thing (like skill challenges from 4e). The pass/fail ability checks are ok for opening doors and engaging with traps but there is a need for a more complex mechanic.


----------



## clearstream

UngainlyTitan said:


> To follow up my own post but the discussion around lore checks in another indication that D&D need a non binary extended scene mechanics/framework for this kind of thing (like skill challenges from 4e). The pass/fail ability checks are ok for opening doors and engaging with traps but there is a need for a more complex mechanic.



DMG 242


----------



## Ruin Explorer

clearstream said:


> DMG 242



If you're referring to the 5E DMG's The Role of Dice section, perhaps particularly Multiple Ability Checks, that absolutely doesn't do what's being asked for. But I don't have page numbers so maybe it's something else?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think knowledge checks should not be binary pass/fail but a cascade of "what is widely known" = Easy DC, "what the well informed would know", and so on.



This is how I always handle knowledge checks; it is not just about whether you know it, it is about how much you know.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Crimson Longinus said:


> This is how I always handle knowledge checks; it is not just about whether you know it, it is about how much you know.



It's a good way to do it, but it does require a lot of prep and potentially leaves a lot of prep on floor (if they roll poorly!).


----------



## Minigiant

Just for clarity, the way I do Lore rolls is I ask for a roll and give information based on the roll. The higher the roll, the more info and more obscure info given.


So on a topic there is a DC 5 lore bit, DC 10 lore bit, DC 15 lore bit all the way to DC 30. If you roll a 20, you get DCs' 20, 15, 10, and 5 info. 

Gotta roll a 30 for a truename, baby.


----------



## Reynard

clearstream said:


> DMG 242



Like people read the DMG. They've been running games for decades. What could the DMG possibly tell them about running this specific version,using the rules as intended and utilizing the interconnected systems in play to create a better experience for everyone. Pshaw.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

clearstream said:


> DMG 242



That is more or less what I use but I would like something a bit more structured and one that can involve the whole party. That is something closer to the 4e skill challenge or Matt Mercer's extended skill checks.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Minigiant said:


> Just for clarity, the way I do Lore rolls is I ask for a roll and give information based on the roll. The higher the roll, the more info and more obscure info given.
> 
> 
> So on a topic there is a DC 5 lore bit, DC 10 lore bit, DC 15 lore bit all the way to DC 30. If you roll a 20, you get DCs' 20, 15, 10, and 5 info.
> 
> Gotta roll a 30 for a truename, baby.



Right. I use a degree of success a lot. Which raises a question: what autosucceeding on 20 means in such a context?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Like people read the DMG. They've been running games for decades. What could the DMG possibly tell them about running this specific version,using the rules as intended and utilizing the interconnected systems in play to create a better experience for everyone. Pshaw.



That’s because EVERYBODY KNOWS the WotC design team is just a bunch of corporate hacks who couldn’t design their way off of a blank battlemat. They couldn’t possibly have written anything useful.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think knowledge checks should not be binary pass/fail but a cascade of "what is widely known" = Easy DC, "what the well informed would know", and so on.



Or just ignore the idea of a hard-set DC and simply have it be a sliding scale: the higher you roll, the more you know, to the limit (soft-set by the DM) of what you could possibly know given the situation.

Edit: and I now see I'm only about the sixth poster to suggest this...


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> If you're referring to the 5E DMG's The Role of Dice section, perhaps particularly Multiple Ability Checks, that absolutely doesn't do what's being asked for. But I don't have page numbers so maybe it's something else?



I'm not looking at the DMG at the moment, but he might be referring to succeed at a cost if you miss by a few points.


----------



## Smackpixi

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Sometimes an action that's possible for one character is impossible for another.



That was the old way, but I’m saying the new 20 rule means that something that’s possible for one character is now at least a 20 role possible for all.  Unless they clarify, that’s what the rule means.  Rollable for one is a rollable check, so possible for all.  You don’t have to play that way, but that’s what I think they’re saying.  Maybe only one party member can lift a thing over 9ft, but all could get lucky and toss it that high.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> That was the old way, but I’m saying the new 20 rule means that something that’s possible for one character is now at least a 20 role possible for all.  Unless they clarify, that’s what the rule means.  Rollable for one is a rollable check, so possible for all.  You don’t have to play that way, but that’s what I think they’re saying.  Maybe only one party member can lift a thing over 9ft, but all could get lucky and toss it that high.



In 5e, players don’t get to choose what to roll on. They describe what their characters are doing, or trying to do, and if the DM wants a dice roll to help figure out the result, they may ask for it. 

So, no, the new rule absolutely does not mean what you say it does.


----------



## Smackpixi

Bill Zebub said:


> In 5e, players don’t get to choose what to roll on. They describe what their characters are doing, or trying to do, and if the DM wants a dice roll to help figure out the result, they may ask for it.
> 
> So, no, the new rule absolutely does not mean what you say it does.



I’m not saying that’s changed.  DM always decides what’s rollable and when rolls are needed.  But in the past, if a thing is checkable, and the DC check is 25, and the character has only a +2, you say no roll, impossible.  Now it’s a roll cause a 20 will succeed.  If you don’t wanna do that, fine, but that seems to be the rule


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> I’m not saying that’s changed.  DM always decides what’s rollable and when rolls are needed.  But in the past, if a thing is checkable, and the DC check is 25, and the character has only a +2, you say no roll, impossible.  Now it’s a roll cause a 20 will succeed.  If you don’t wanna do that, fine, but that seems to be the rule




By "in the past" do you mean in previous editions of D&D?


----------



## Smackpixi

Bill Zebub said:


> By "in the past" do you mean in previous editions of D&D?



No, I mean rules now, in the past being the present before 1DnD


----------



## Cold Iron Bound

Smackpixi said:


> I’m not saying that’s changed.  DM always decides what’s rollable and when rolls are needed.  But in the past, if a thing is checkable, and the DC check is 25, and the character has only a +2, you say no roll, impossible.  Now it’s a roll cause a 20 will succeed.  If you don’t wanna do that, fine, but that seems to be the rule



Yep, it now works the same way as combat, where a roll of 20 will hit even if your bonus isn't enough to bring it up to the AC. The effect, in conjunction with DM judgment, is to remove any instances of rolling needlessly.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> No, I mean rules now, in the past being the present before 1DnD



In 5E, if the character cannot do something in the fiction...they can't roll, no matter the DC.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> That was the old way, but I’m saying the new 20 rule means that something that’s possible for one character is now at least a 20 role possible for all.



The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule that the DM decides what is impossible and to who.  It explicitly says that you only get a roll if appropriate and the DM is the one that decides that via the DMG rules.


Smackpixi said:


> Rollable for one is a rollable check, so possible for all.



This is not RAW.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule that the DM decides what is impossible and to who.  It explicitly says that you only get a roll if appropriate and the DM is the one that decides that via the DMG rules.
> 
> This is not RAW.



Wasn’t RAW.  New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all.  You‘re arguing about old rules.  IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on.  Otherwise, rule is meaningless. Today, I don’t have players roll on things they can’t so.  I will probably continue doing that forever.  But a 20 is auto success means that I must now allow them to roll on rollable things they couldn’t previously succeed on.

No one can jump a 100ft chasm.  Impossible.  No Roll.  But someone could jump a 20 ft chasm, so roll.  people keep saying if it’s impossible for the particular character there is no roll, but that’s denying the new 20 success idea.  If a 20 is a success on any roll, the only way that has meaning is if everyone gets a roll on possible for someone checks.  If before, rolling a 20 to clear the casem still wouldn’t clear it for that character, you just say, nah, but now, for that character rolling a 20 will clear the chasam.  So, you have them roll.  Again, it all goes back to if it’s a rollable check.  100ft isn’t.  20ft is.  So on the 20ft jump under the 20 auto success, everyone can try And everyone has 5% chance of success per nat 20 even if their individual stats say, impossible.


----------



## Smackpixi

I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule.  As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
until WotC decides otherwise.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Wasn’t RAW.  New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all.



This is provably false as written.  The new rule does not make any such requirement, so it falls to the DMG rules which state that the DM is the one to decide when rolls are appropriate.


Smackpixi said:


> You‘re arguing about old rules.



The old rules currently govern the new one, since the new one does nothing to supersede the one in the DMG.


Smackpixi said:


> IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on.



If that's your choice as DM, you can make it.  RAW does not make it for you, though.  It seems like you are assuming intent, which is a mistake.  This is a playtest and you should be playtesting what is written, not what you think they wanted to write.


Smackpixi said:


> Otherwise, rule is meaningless.



Completely untrue as I have proven multiple times in this thread alone.  The DM is fully capable of giving rolls that the PC otherwise could not make.  I have done so since 3e when appropriate and will continue to do so.  I also gate rolls when appropriate and will continue to do so. The rule is for those times when I do the former.  That is meaning.


Smackpixi said:


> No one can jump a 100ft chasm.  Impossible.  No Roll.  But someone could jump a 20 ft chasm, so roll.  people keep saying if it’s impossible for the particular character there is no roll, but that’s denying the new 20 success idea.



The guy with a 20 strength can, yes.  The guy with the 3 strength? Impossible.


----------



## clearstream

Smackpixi said:


> I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule.  As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
> until WotC decides otherwise.



I think the interaction of the game texts can be explained as -

1. Anyone can make an omelette if they have eggs.

2. Addy has eggs in their fridge. That does not mean Anderson has eggs in theirs.

I kind of regret that analogy, even now, but perhaps it conveys the idea.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> Wasn’t RAW.  New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all.  You‘re arguing about old rules.  IF the new rule is that rolling a 20 on a check is a success, it must mean that players should get rolls on things their player couldn’t possibly succeed on.  Otherwise, rule is meaningless. Today, I don’t have players roll on things they can’t so.  I will probably continue doing that forever.  But a 20 is auto success means that I must now allow them to roll on rollable things they couldn’t previously succeed on.




No.  You are imagining all of that.

In the "past" (meaning 5e up until now) it was _not_ that case that players couldn't roll because the DC was too high and therefore it was impossible for them to succeed.  They didn't roll because the DM didn't ask for a roll.  It's as simple as that.  And that's still the case.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> I’m tired of explaining the obvious implications of this new rule.  As I’ve said before, you need not follow, but rule is clear…
> until WotC decides otherwise.




It's not that your logic is hard to follow, it's that one of your premises is incorrect.


----------



## SkidAce

So what I'm hearing is;

DC 23 check for whatever.  I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.

Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)

I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?

But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.

?


----------



## Reynard

SkidAce said:


> So what I'm hearing is;
> 
> DC 23 check for whatever.  I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.
> 
> Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)
> 
> I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?
> 
> But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.
> 
> ?



Yeah, not just calling for rolls and narrating the results relative to the DCs baffles me. It sounds like far too much work to try and anticipate whether the players will burn resources, use guidance or whatever on any given thing. Just let them roll.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

SkidAce said:


> So what I'm hearing is;
> 
> DC 23 check for whatever.  I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.
> 
> Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)
> 
> I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?
> 
> But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.
> 
> ?



Why is it important for a character that cannot make the DC on a roll of 20 succeeding on a natural 20?


----------



## SkidAce

UngainlyTitan said:


> Why is it important for a character that cannot make the DC on a roll of 20 succeeding on a natural 20?



I have no idea, my question /example is geared towards understanding other's view on the new rule.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Smackpixi said:


> Rollable for one is a rollable check, so possible for all.



There really isn't anything in the 1D&D playtest material that says this. Just that there's no such thing as an impossible DC. There's nothing about the DM having to set the same DC or even allow a roll regardless of who attempts an action.


----------



## clearstream

SkidAce said:


> So what I'm hearing is;
> 
> DC 23 check for whatever.  I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.
> 
> Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)
> 
> I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?
> 
> But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.
> 
> ?



The DCs don't matter, it's whether it's possible, not certain, and failure has meaningful consequences.

If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )


----------



## Minigiant

Another thing is that there are too few skills in 5e for this rule.

There's only 18 skills. Everyone gets at least 4. 2 for background and class each. Then 3 classes give skills. Many races give or gave skills.

But proficiency doesn't hit +5 untill level 13. So more than half the game, and almost all the game people actually play PCs will be critting skill checks they mathematically can't hit.


----------



## Bill Zebub

clearstream said:


> If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )




I think this is a really important point, and suggests the opposite of needing to know everything about the PCs: the DM can say, "Yeah, it's unlikely but possible.  Go ahead and try if you want.  Give me a DC 25 Strength roll, with Athletics if you have it, and if you succeed you'll move it out of the way, but it consumes your action and if you fail you won't get to do anything else this turn."

"But I'm only +3!  I can't roll a 25!"

"Not if you get a nat 20..."


----------



## Reynard

clearstream said:


> If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )



That's not a glitch. Assuming the GM is choosing a DC based upon the fiction, it's working as intended. If no PC can hit it then that's a player problem, not a GM problem. They need to utilize resources or try another approach. if they have that 5% chance to always succeed, they are just going to spam Help for advantage and not bother actually thinking things through and trying different approaches.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> That's not a glitch. Assuming the GM is choosing a DC based upon the fiction, it's working as intended. If no PC can hit it then that's a player problem, not a GM problem. They need to utilize resources or try another approach. if they have that 5% chance to always succeed, they are just going to spam Help for advantage and not bother actually thinking things through and trying different approaches.



I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC. 

On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible. 

Or maybe I’m not following your point?


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC.
> 
> On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible.
> 
> Or maybe I’m not following your point?



I am saying that if the DC of climbing that wall is 23, it is 23 completely independently of who is trying. Obviously it is a function of preference, but I don't think the intent is to set difficulties relative to the PCs. The intent is to set "objective" difficulties. Some characters will be better at some things that others, so have a higher chance of succeeding at a hard challenge, while others might reliably fail an easy challenge. From this perspective, there is no such thing as an "impossible" challenge -- even if for practical purposes no PC can do it. I really dislike tier or level based DCs which make chances static as PCs gain levels (which, i realize, is related but tangential).


----------



## SkidAce

Bill Zebub said:


> I see your point, but DCs are not a science and I don’t want to have to know all the PCs stats. I might pick a DC that I think is appropriate, but have overestimated the PC.
> 
> On the flip side, if I want to rule that the action automatically fails, I just say that. I don’t have to pick a DC that I think is impossible.
> 
> Or maybe I’m not following your point?



I said something similar upthread, that possible was based on the task, not the people (per se) and got shot down quick.

Basically I agree with you, but thats not what I see people saying, and was looking for clarification.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> I am saying that if the DC of climbing that wall is 23, it is 23 completely independently of who is trying. Obviously it is a function of preference, but I don't think the intent is to set difficulties relative to the PCs. The intent is to set "objective" difficulties. Some characters will be better at some things that others, so have a higher chance of succeeding at a hard challenge, while others might reliably fail an easy challenge. From this perspective, there is no such thing as an "impossible" challenge -- even if for practical purposes no PC can do it. I really dislike tier or level based DCs which make chances static as PCs gain levels (which, i realize, is related but tangential).



I think this is where the disconnect like. You think that the DC is 23 irrespective of whomever is attempting the climb and the next time they try it is also DC 23.
Is the wall as more like a puzzle. If Bob needs a DC 23 climb to climb the wall and makes it, he does not need to roll the next time he tries that wall. He knows the way up, no need to roll unless something has occurred to make it more difficult.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think this is where the disconnect like. You think that the DC is 23 irrespective of whomever is attempting the climb and the next time they try it is also DC 23.
> Is the wall as more like a puzzle. If Bob needs a DC 23 climb to climb the wall and makes it, he does not need to roll the next time he tries that wall. He knows the way up, no need to roll unless something has occurred to make it more difficult.



I didn't say anything about "next time." I am totally on board with "you mastered it; it is no longer an obstacle for you" until the circumstances change. How did you get the impression otherwise?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> I didn't say anything about "next time." I am totally on board with "you mastered it; it is no longer an obstacle for you" until the circumstances change. How did you get the impression otherwise?




I think they were just making the observation that DCs are not entirely independent of who attempts it, and was offering an example of why/when that would be true.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> I think they were just making the observation that DCs are not entirely independent of who attempts it, and was offering an example of why/when that would be true.



That has nothing to do with the DC though. The DC was to find the safe way up. I mean , if it wasn't, if it was just the effort and precariousness of climbing, I guess they might have to make the check again (although I would probably grant advantage for them doing so since they at least discovered a safe route).


----------



## Maxperson

SkidAce said:


> So what I'm hearing is;
> 
> DC 23 check for whatever.  I assigned this on the spot based on the situation.
> 
> Player 1 has a +1, Player 2 has a +2, Player 3 has a +3, Player 4 has a +4, Player 5 has a +5. (its just an example don't beat it up)
> 
> I should tell Player 1 and 2, they can't roll, and Player 3-5 that they can?
> 
> But wait, Player 5 gives Guidance to Player 1, so he "might" be able to make it now.
> 
> ?



A much simpler way to do it, if you opt to gate rolls behind the possibility of success via enough bonuses, is the following.  Tell the players in advance that they shouldn't roll if they can't succeed with a 20+modifiers.

DM: "The DC to jump over the gully is 23. Roll if you are making the attempt."

The guy with +1 isn't going to make the attempt or roll since he already knows it's impossible due to his +1.  Or if you didn't give the DC until mid air, he plummets to his doooooom. Muahahahaha!  If guidance is granted in advance of the attempt, the guy with +1 can make the guidance roll and if he doesn't roll a 1, he can try to make it across.

That way you as DM don't need to track anything and you can just leave it to the players to figure out.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> I didn't say anything about "next time." I am totally on board with "you mastered it; it is no longer an obstacle for you" until the circumstances change. How did you get the impression otherwise?



Ok, apologies, I got that wrong, but I have got the distinct impression that people that have a problem with the new rule have the habit of setting task DCs as an independent property of the game world.


----------



## Lanefan

clearstream said:


> The DCs don't matter, it's whether it's possible, not certain, and failure has meaningful consequences.
> 
> If anything, the new rule fixes a glitch in the old rule (DM calling for a check that the DC makes impossible... and therefore paradoxically should not have been called. )



Unless the DM either a) doesn't want the players to know it's impossible if they roll low and only have them learn it's impossible if someone rolls a 20, or b) wants to use the roll to inform the degree of failure and-or its narration, or c) wants to use this as a throwaway roll in order to disguise other more significant rolls.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think this is where the disconnect like. You think that the DC is 23 irrespective of whomever is attempting the climb and the next time they try it is also DC 23.
> Is the wall as more like a puzzle. If Bob needs a DC 23 climb to climb the wall and makes it, he does not need to roll the next time he tries that wall. He knows the way up, no need to roll unless something has occurred to make it more difficult.



No.  IMO Bob still needs to roll every time, because if it's that difficult climbing it once is no guarantee of being able to climb it again.

That said, the roll might come with a small cumulative "done this before" bonus for each time Bob has previously made it up this same wall until eventually he has it down pat after a few dozen goes at it; but the second climb would by no means be auto-succeed.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> No.  IMO Bob still needs to roll every time, because if it's that difficult climbing it once is no guarantee of being able to climb it again.
> 
> That said, the roll might come with a small cumulative "done this before" bonus for each time Bob has previously made it up this same wall *until eventually he has it down pat after a few dozen goes at it*; but the second climb would by no means be auto-succeed.




Since you are so into verisimilitude, you may want to sanity check that with an actual climber.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lanefan said:


> No.  IMO Bob still needs to roll every time, because if it's that difficult climbing it once is no guarantee of being able to climb it again.
> 
> That said, the roll might come with a small cumulative "done this before" bonus for each time Bob has previously made it up this same wall until eventually he has it down pat after a few dozen goes at it; but the second climb would by no means be auto-succeed.



@Lanefan Did you ever climb a tree when you were young, and did you ever meet a tree that you could climb one day but not another day?

Aside from that, that is the way I do it. I really do not care how you or others do it. That it your business.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> @Lanefan Did you ever climb a tree when you were young, and did you ever meet a tree that you could climb one day but not another day?



Many a time, and my knees have the scars to prove it.  (though it was more often steep banks at the beach rather than trees)


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> Ok, apologies, I got that wrong, but I have got the distinct impression that people that have a problem with the new rule have the habit of setting task DCs as an independent property of the game world.



Well, for my part anyway, the DC is a function of circumstances at the time. If the circumstances don't change, neither does the DC. But that's separate from making allowances for a character to have figured a thing out. It all depends on what the successful roll meant in the previous example: if I said success was finding a safe path, I wouldn't bother forcing the roll every time but if I said it was a perilous climb but they managed to do it without falling to their deaths, the next time would probably also require a check. The reverse is true, too: if I wanted to signal that it was a one and done check, I would describe the results in such a way that were consistent with that, and if I wanted to indicate this was a dangerous path no matter how many times they climbed it, I would do the other thing. In either case, if a new PC came across the obstacle it would have the same DC as when the others first encountered it, whether that was a 0 level peasant or a 100th level demigod.


----------



## clearstream

Reynard said:


> That's not a glitch. Assuming the GM is choosing a DC based upon the fiction, it's working as intended. If no PC can hit it then that's a player problem, not a GM problem. They need to utilize resources or try another approach. if they have that 5% chance to always succeed, they are just going to spam Help for advantage and not bother actually thinking things through and trying different approaches.



I didn't have this perspective prior to reflection on @SkidAce's examples, but here is what I'm thinking. Per PHB 174 and DMG 237, in 5e DM calls for a check only when the outcome is *uncertain*.

Say as DM, I set a DC that as it turns out, results in *certainty*? By the 5e rules, were it a certainty I shouldn't have called for a check. The outcome of calling for the check is paradoxical (the check shouldn't have been called for.)

Under the proposed 1e rules, that paradox never arises: it is always true that when DM calls for a check, success and failure are both possible. Assuming something like DMG 237 is retained (not guaranteed) then DM needs only to think about the fiction.


----------



## Reynard

clearstream said:


> I didn't have this perspective prior to reflection on @SkidAce's examples, but here is what I'm thinking. Per PHB 174 and DMG 237, in 5e DM calls for a check only when the outcome is *uncertain*.
> 
> Say as DM, I set a DC that as it turns out, results in *certainty*? By the 5e rules, were it a certainty I shouldn't have called for a check. The outcome of calling for the check is paradoxical (the check shouldn't have been called for.)
> 
> Under the proposed 1e rules, that paradox never arises: it is always true that when DM calls for a check, success and failure are both possible. Assuming something like DMG 237 is retained (not guaranteed) then DM needs only to think about the fiction.



The outcome is uncertain because there are potentially some ways that characters that can't "naturally" achieve the DC might still make the roll. Again, it's not necessary for the GM to audit the PCs prior to every setting of a DC. When the GM says "figuring out what killed...; whatever that skeleton was after so many years is really tough; DC 26 Int (Medicine) roll" isn't wrong because it turns out no one in the party can make that roll. That DC is now a part of the world. the PCs can gather up the skeleton and take it to the healer in town and the DC is still 26 Int (Medicine). The PCs are the protagonists but the world does not revolve around them alone.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> The PCs are the protagonists but the hmen/hirelings for Fighters only. That would be kinda cool does not revolve around them alone.




Ok, Gandalf.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> Ok, Gandalf.



That is a weird quote of half mine and something else, just FYI?


----------



## Minigiant

Really this is sounding like a question of *Objective DCs* vs *Subjective DCs.*

Objective DCs have difficulty based on a single immovable perspective chance toward the target of the check.

Copying a humaniod's appearance with a disguise kit is a *Hard Objective DC 20* because it is based on the chances of an *unskilled common folk*. An skilled person will fail 95% of the time attempting to copy a specific person with makeup and prop clothing.

Subjective DCs have difficulty based on the person or persons making the check.

Copying a humaniod's appearance with a disguise kit is a *Medium Subjective DC 15* because the DM deemed that only a* person proficient in Disguise Kits* can attempt the action with any success and deems that a skilled MUA would have moderate difficulty copying another beings looks with makeup and props.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> That is a weird quote of half mine and something else, just FYI?



Oh, yeah, weird. I was trying to quote your last sentence. On my phone, though.


----------



## Maxperson

UngainlyTitan said:


> Ok, apologies, I got that wrong, but I have got the distinct impression that people that have a problem with the new rule have the habit of setting task DCs as an independent property of the game world.



For the record, after a group has been through something a few times and would have a feel for it, I don't have a problem saying that they've mastered it and not requiring further rolls.


----------



## Maxperson

UngainlyTitan said:


> @Lanefan Did you ever climb a tree when you were young, and did you ever meet a tree that you could climb one day but not another day?



I climbed lots of trees when I was young.  The vast majority of the time I could re-climb the tree.  There were a few trees that I sometimes couldn't climb. Those required me to jump and grab a high branch and then pull my body up and wrap my legs around the branch upside down and then maneuver myself to the top of the branch.  Sometimes I could do it. Other days I couldn't.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Well, for my part anyway, the DC is a function of circumstances at the time. If the circumstances don't change, neither does the DC. But that's separate from making allowances for a character to have figured a thing out. It all depends on what the successful roll meant in the previous example: if I said success was finding a safe path, I wouldn't bother forcing the roll every time but if I said it was a perilous climb but they managed to do it without falling to their deaths, the next time would probably also require a check.



In my mind the PCs made it up safely and learned a lot about which spots were safe and which were unstable.  The next time they would roll with advantage.  Another time or two and since it's still perilous, I'd just tell them to roll and don't get a 1.  They've learned the safest path up.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> In my mind the PCs made it up safely and learned a lot about which spots were safe and which were unstable.  The next time they would roll with advantage.  Another time or two and since it's still perilous, I'd just tell them to roll and don't get a 1.  They've learned the safest path up.



Yeah. it just sort of depends. Like, I wouldn't make them search for a secret door every time, but I might make them roll to swim through the submerged lightless tunnels every time unless they took pains to make it easier (a rope line or whatever).


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Yeah. it just sort of depends. Like, I wouldn't make them search for a secret door every time, but I might make them roll to swim through the submerged lightless tunnels every time unless they took pains to make it easier (a rope line or whatever).



Exactly.  Once they know where the door is, they aren't going to lose it again.  It's not(usually) going anywhere.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  Once they know where the door is, they aren't going to lose it again.  It's not(usually) going anywhere.



A wizard did it.


----------



## Krachek

when a diviner roll a 20 on one of its portent dice, he will say, I see a miracle coming!


----------



## Parmandur

Krachek said:


> when a diviner roll a 20 on one of its portent dice, he will say, I see a miracle coming!



Always been an underrated Class feature, but good point. 1's, too!


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  Once they know where the door is, they aren't going to lose it again.  It's not(usually) going anywhere.



Aaaaannd thank you for the evil idea!  One-use-only, disappearing or relocating doors...notes duly taken.

If-when this ever appears in an adventure I'll make sure my players know who to blame...


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Aaaaannd thank you for the evil idea!  One-use-only, disappearing or relocating doors...notes duly taken.
> 
> If-when this ever appears in an adventure I'll make sure my players know who to blame...



I have been in a few of those dungeons/castles.  That's why I added in the "usually."


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> I have been in a few of those dungeons/castles.  That's why I added in the "usually."



As a GM there's a special kind of pleasure you get when the PCs go back through a door and they aren't anyplace they recognize. One way teleporters FTW.


----------



## Branduil

A 1 being a critical miss on a skill check makes sense to me. I think checks should be defined as an action that always has a _chance of failure_. Otherwise there is no check-- you don't roll to breathe, to walk each step in town, etc. However, I do not like 20 as an automatic success, because _chance of failure_ does not always imply _chance of success_.

For me there are two big problems with this rule:

#1) This is going to lead to annoying arguments for the DM, because there will obviously be cases where the PCs cannot succeed at something. So either the DM withholds checks, leading to arguments from players who think they should be allowed to always make Diplomacy checks etc., or the DM allows it and tries to "cheat" a player out of his well-earned 20, resulting in more arguments. But my bigger argument would be

#2) It is _actually good_ to allow players to attempt impossible checks. People attempt impossible things all the time in real life. For one thing, especially with social skills, it should not necessarily be obvious to the player they are attempting the impossible. And secondly, even if they are attempting the impossible, this can lead to some of the best and most memorable roleplaying in games. No, the Bard cannot successfully seduce the epic-level Lich... but won't it be great to watch him try? Think of the scene in Star Wars where Han attempts to bluff security about the state of the detention level over the intercom. To me, this is an example of an impossible skill check... and it's one of the funniest scenes in the film. Let players attempt impossible checks; the value of D&D is not limited to successful mechanical rolls.


----------



## clearstream

Branduil said:


> A 1 being a critical miss on a skill check makes sense to me. I think checks should be defined as an action that always has a _chance of failure_. Otherwise there is no check-- you don't roll to breathe, to walk each step in town, etc. However, I do not like 20 as an automatic success, because _chance of failure_ does not always imply _chance of success_.
> 
> For me there are two big problems with this rule:
> 
> #1) This is going to lead to annoying arguments for the DM, because there will obviously be cases where the PCs cannot succeed at something. So either the DM withholds checks, leading to arguments from players who think they should be allowed to always make Diplomacy checks etc., or the DM allows it and tries to "cheat" a player out of his well-earned 20, resulting in more arguments.



And then where DM succumbs, there might be a queue of characters who want to try their luck. Making consequences of failure important.



Branduil said:


> But my bigger argument would be
> 
> #2) It is _actually good_ to allow players to attempt impossible checks. People attempt impossible things all the time in real life. For one thing, especially with social skills, it should not necessarily be obvious to the player they are attempting the impossible. And secondly, even if they are attempting the impossible, this can lead to some of the best and most memorable roleplaying in games. No, the Bard cannot successfully seduce the epic-level Lich... but won't it be great to watch him try? Think of the scene in Star Wars where Han attempts to bluff security about the state of the detention level over the intercom. To me, this is an example of an impossible skill check... and it's one of the funniest scenes in the film. Let players attempt impossible checks; the value of D&D is not limited to successful mechanical rolls.



In my home game I already use something like the new rule. In a way, for a related reason. When they roll a 1 or a 20, players usually look for some extra narration. But my homebrew also specifies that some undertakings need tools, proficiency, or even expertise to make them possible. One flip side is that PCs with those know they can more often make a check to see how what they describe goes. So it works in their favour. If that did apply to your example with Han (for the sake of argument) exactly that narration can occur with no roll.

DM Unfortunately you don't have a clue what the protocols are!
Player I stammer something unlikely sounding into the mic: it's obvious I'm not who they'd expect!

That doesn't need a roll, but could be funnier with one ofc. One group I DMd in the past for all vividly recall a badly failed attempt at mimicking the bleat of a goat. On seeing their roll the player let out the most peculiar, almost-goat-but-defininitely-not sound.


----------



## Lanefan

One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?


----------



## Reynard

Lanefan said:


> One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?



That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lanefan said:


> One thought that just wandered by: is there any correlation between those who always tell players the DCs and those who don't like this rule change?



for what it is worth I do not tell the players the DC usually but the new rule does not bother me.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.



The main reason they are making the change is that a huge number of people already play that way, sonitnis not new, and it's probably Matt Mercer's fault. It is only "necessary" insofsr as WotC seems to feel it is absurd to pretend the rules are different frrom how people are playing the game. In practice, it doesn't lead to the strange results being bandied about in online discussions from what I have seen.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> it's probably Matt Mercer's fault.




Isn’t it always? I might make that my .sig.


----------



## clearstream

Reynard said:


> That is an interesting question. I don't generally tell players the DCs -- partly because things like knowledge checks, persuasion and such have sliding difficulties. I don't like nat 1/nat 20 because I think it is unnecessary and can lead to silly results. But I rarely set super high DCs because constant whiffing is boring.



Frankly, where they should be doing work is getting graded results working correctly (the DMG 242 mechanical design is far from ideal at the table.) And the reason is what you touch on here. In brief

"Whiffing is boring"
It's not harder to roll a "hard" check, than an "easy" one: what "hard" is, is a statement about the likelihood of indexing one result over another (and in the case where fail does nothing in particular, the likelihood of doing nothing in particular)
What we want from the check is change to our game state (fiction + system)
As I've linked elsewhere, one solution is a fixed index d20 method (as I've explained elsewhere), but whatever: it will matter far more to 1e to offer a good mechanical solve to what I will imprecisely call fail-forward (where forward doesn't necessarily mean in the direction player hoped), than to auto-succeed/fail on the roll.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> for what it is worth I do not tell the players the DC usually but the new rule does not bother me.



That's the correlation I was kind of expecting - that those who don't reveal the DCs would have less issue with this new rule than those who do.  But @Reynard doesn't like it yet he also doesn't reveal the DCs.  So, inconclusive so far, on a very (!) small sample size.


----------



## CrashFiend82

I am really enjoying this thread, when I first read the new rules I was a hard no. After reading and examining my own thoughts I am starting to change my mind, but for a reverse reasoning. When DMing I used static DCs. Like climbing a cliff would be DC 25. Success means you climb half speed so generally 15 ft (disadvantage for dash). If a character tried with +2 score they couldn't progress but sometimes people achieve the unexpected so on a 20 they succeed finding that inner strength they didn't know they had. I understand that may break immersion but in real life surprises happen. Even the best experts screw up terribly too. I think this may force me to be a better DM, stretching my thinking in game and lead to more improvisation.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Lanefan said:


> That's the correlation I was kind of expecting - that those who don't reveal the DCs would have less issue with this new rule than those who do.  But @Reynard doesn't like it yet he also doesn't reveal the DCs.  So, inconclusive so far, on a very (!) small sample size.



Another data point: I often reveal DCs and I don’t care.


----------



## Bill Zebub

CrashFiend82 said:


> I am really enjoying this thread, when I first read the new rules I was a hard no. After reading and examining my own thoughts I am starting to change my mind, but for a reverse reasoning. When DMing I used static DCs. Like climbing a cliff would be DC 25. Success means you climb half speed so generally 15 ft (disadvantage for dash). If a character tried with +2 score they couldn't progress but sometimes people achieve the unexpected so on a 20 they succeed finding that inner strength they didn't know they had. I understand that may break immersion but in real life surprises happen. Even the best experts screw up terribly too. I think this may force me to be a better DM, stretching my thinking in game and lead to more improvisation.




That's the spirit!

It doesn't mean we all have to love the new rules or decide they are awesome.  

But, man, this whole "They ruined D&D with 5e and now they're making it even worse!" gnashing of teeth and rending of garments is getting old.


----------



## Smackpixi

Bill Zebub said:


> I think this is a really important point, and suggests the opposite of needing to know everything about the PCs: the DM can say, "Yeah, it's unlikely but possible.  Go ahead and try if you want.  Give me a DC 25 Strength roll, with Athletics if you have it, and if you succeed you'll move it out of the way, but it consumes your action and if you fail you won't get to do anything else this turn."
> 
> "But I'm only +3!  I can't roll a 25!"
> 
> "Not if you get a nat 20..."



I feel like this is a weird statement from you because this is exactly what I’ve been saying, and the only thing I’ve been trying to say, repeatedly, and you’ve done nothing but disagree with me.  

You should let players roll on things they can’t do (can’t make the DC check) when the thing is theoretically possible (someone with a higher bonus could do it).

I’ve phrased this as, “If it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for everyone” and you’ve roundly rejected this because only the DM decides if there is a roll.  Which I don’t disagree with, but the only reason to not call for a roll is if it’s absolutely impossible.

Before the new 20 auto succeeds rule, a DM could say, “nope, YOU, can’t” and deny the roll if it was just plain impossible or if it was impossible for that player (they couldn’t clear the DC).  Now, they should only deny the roll if it’s just plain impossible, because a 20 succeeds on anything that is rollable (Possible for someone).

help me understand, why do you disagree with me, but say the above, what’s the difference?


----------



## Smackpixi

@Maxperson 

you said”


Smackpixi said:


> Wasn’t RAW. New RAW seems to be that rollable for one is rollable for all.



This is provably false as written. The new rule does not make any such requirement, so it falls to the DMG rules which state that the DM is the one to decide when rolls are appropriate.”

I’m asking, are you sure?

I’m not trying to override the DMG or the DMs ability to deny rolls.  But, if 20 is an auto success, the only way for this rule to have meaning is if the player should be allowed to roll for something that the player’s stats say is impossible for them.  Is that not correct?

If that’s correct, That then means they should get to roll on anything that SOMEONE could do.  Anything that has a DC.  Yes, they can’t roll on impossible things, and a DM also can deny a roll if they want, but if a DM denies a roll on a theoretically possible thing (anything with a DC) they are overriding the 20 auto success rule, which is their prerogative sure, but is ignoring a rule.

which goes back to my point, rollable for one (possible, has a DC) is rollable for all (cause 20 will succeed).  

How can a 20 auto success rule have any meaning otherwise?


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> I feel like this is a weird statement from you because this is exactly what I’ve been saying, and the only thing I’ve been trying to say, repeatedly, and you’ve done nothing but disagree with me.
> 
> You should let players roll on things they can’t do (can’t make the DC check) when the thing is theoretically possible (someone with a higher bonus could do it).
> 
> I’ve phrased this as, “If it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for everyone” and you’ve roundly rejected this because only the DM decides if there is a roll.  Which I don’t disagree with, but the only reason to not call for a roll is if it’s absolutely impossible.
> 
> Before the new 20 auto succeeds rule, a DM could say, “nope, YOU, can’t” and deny the roll if it was just plain impossible or if it was impossible for that player (they couldn’t clear the DC).  Now, they should only deny the roll if it’s just plain impossible, because a 20 succeeds on anything that is rollable (Possible for someone).
> 
> help me understand, why do you disagree with me, but say the above, what’s the difference?



No, because some rolls are gated by training. Not everyone can attempt a DC 20 lockpick check, only someone with Proficiency. Not everyone can roll every time. This is called gating rolls, and it is already an assumed norm in 5E, which informs the standard house rule and this proposed revision. Of you gate according to the DMG guidance and common sense, this will never cause an issue with plausibility. DC is not the only tool available.


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> No, because some rolls are gated by training. Not everyone can attempt a DC 20 lockpick check, only someone with Proficiency. Not everyone can roll every time.



Sure, ok.  But you’re just inventing new classes of checks due to the new 20 rule.  Before there was impossible (no one can do), impossible for you (you can’t pass the DC check), and possible (you can pass the DC check).

I’m saying, the second one is gone, impossible for you is no longer a thing cause of 20 auto success.

you’re saying there’s now more classes of checks:  impossible (impossible for anyone), impossible for you (you can’t pass DC check and DM says you can’t try to roll a 20), theoretically impossible for you but maybe possible (you can’t pass a DC check but DM will allow you to try for a 20), and the plain ole possible (can pass DC check).

All fine, but lets be clear, when it’s possible for someone to get a 20 and DM says the PC can’t try for a 20, they’re overriding the 20 success rule.  Not saying doing so doesn’t make sense, and isn’t within DM prerogative, just saying, rule is being bypassed cause of the rule that DM decides everything.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> Sure, ok.  But you’re just inventing new classes of checks due to the new 20 rule.  Before there was impossible (no one can do), impossible for you (you can’t pass the DC check), and possible (you can pass the DC check).
> 
> I’m saying, the second one is gone, impossible for you is no longer a thing cause of 20 auto success.
> 
> you’re saying there’s now more classes of checks:  impossible (impossible for anyone), impossible for you (you can’t pass DC check and DM says you can’t try to roll a 20), theoretically impossible for you but maybe possible (you can’t pass a DC check but DM will allow you to try for a 20), and the plain ole possible (can pass DC check).
> 
> All fine, but you’re just saying you’ll sometimes ignore 20 success rule.



No...that's not anything new, this is already the norm in 5E disregarding the new  autosuccess variant: some checks are gated behind proficiency to prevent them from being tried. This isn't a kludge to allow for this new rule, itt's ow the game operates already. There is already the category of "gated behind proficiency training," so you can have a DC 15 or 20 check that someone with +5 on the relevant attribute cannot attempt. Again, not new, already standard in 5E...but I can see why missing thst would make this new tule seem wonky, when it really doesn't cause any narrative disconnect if gating is applied by the DM.


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> No...that's not anything new, this is already the norm in 5E disregarding the new  autosuccess variant: some checks are gated behind proficiency to prevent them from being tried. This isn't a kludge to allow for this new rule, itt's ow the game operates already. There is already the category of "gated behind proficiency training," so you can have a DC 15 or 20 check that someone with +5 on the relevant attribute cannot attempt. Again, not new, already standard in 5E...but I can see why missing thst would make this new tule seem wonky, when it really doesn't cause any narrative disconnect if gating is applied by the DM.



Interesting.  Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> Interesting.  Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?



We've gone over this in wither this or the other ongoing thread, but it's in several places in the DMG. It's frequently used in the official Adventures,  and it how the designers run the game if you watch them. 

Does the game work if you don't do that? Yeah, sure. But it's not new, and it's precisely because of that norm that so many people already use autosuccess as a houserule without causing any issues..


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> We've gone over this in wither this or the other ongoing thread, but it's in several places in the DMG. It's frequently used in the official Adventures,  and it how the designers run the game if you watch them.
> 
> Does the game work if you don't do that? Yeah, sure. But it's not new, and it's precisely because of that norm that so many people already use autosuccess as a houserule without causing any issues..



Uh huh, there is no rule about denying checks due to lack of proficiency.  Able to admit I’m wrong, but tell me where in DMG it is.  If you can’t find, what is your reasoning for denying a check when there is a DC other than DM fiat?


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> I’m not trying to override the DMG or the DMs ability to deny rolls.  But, if 20 is an auto success, the only way for this rule to have meaning is if the player should be allowed to roll for something that the player’s stats say is impossible for them.  Is that not correct?



No, it's not correct.

The DMG says that the DM determines if a roll is impossible. It provides no limitations to that, which means that he can pick any criteria he wants, including allow rolls of 20 to succeed where otherwise the bonuses wouldn't be able to reach the target DC.  The new rule has meaning, because a lot of DMs will allow such rolls.  Some will always allow it.  Others like me will allow it sometimes when they think there's a chance.  


Smackpixi said:


> If that’s correct, That then means they should get to roll on anything that SOMEONE could do.  Anything that has a DC.  Yes, they can’t roll on impossible things, and a DM also can deny a roll if they want, but if a DM denies a roll on a theoretically possible thing (anything with a DC) they are overriding the 20 auto success rule, which is their prerogative sure, but is ignoring a rule.



The example I pointed out earlier is very applicable here.  There's a 21 foot chasm.  The strength 20 guy has to roll an easy check to make it across to the other side.  The strength 3 guy has no chance whatsoever, even with a natural 20.  He can go 3 feet and no amount of 20's is going to give him 7 times his normal jump distance.

Just because one person gets to roll, does not mean that everyone does.


----------



## clearstream

Smackpixi said:


> Interesting.  Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?



You raise a fair point. I believe one can reasonably construe text such as PHB154 to say that some checks should be gated by proficiency with *tools*, but I am not personally aware of any core game text spelling out gating by proficiency with skills.

That aside, I think what you are getting at is whether "so inappropriate or impossible" in DMG237 is delimited in any way. Unfortunately, the text offers meagre exemplification - "hitting the moon with an arrow". A group could take that with justice to imply - only undertakings impossible for anyone. As you suggest. Or they could rely on the more general text that leaves it up to the DM.

FWIW I don't believe it is the intent of the 5e rules design that the game should be played the same way at every table.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> The strength 20 guy has to roll an easy check to make it across to the other side. The strength 3 guy has no chance whatsoever, even with a natural 20.



New rule says he succeeds with a 20.  You don’t have to allow it, or allow the check cause DM can do whatever, but if you do that you’re overriding new rule.


----------



## clearstream

Smackpixi said:


> New rule says he succeeds with a 20.  You don’t have to allow it, or allow the check cause DM can do whatever, but if you do that you’re overriding new rule.



Succeeds on 20... if he rolls. So it goes round and around


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> The DMG says that the DM determines if a roll is impossible. It provides no limitations to that, which means that he can pick any criteria he wants,



yep, but can we agree that if DM denies a roll that has a DC to a character they are overriding the new 20 succeeds rule?


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> New rule says he succeeds with a 20.



This is false. It says quite a bit more than that.  One of the things is that you only get to succeed on a 20 *when you get to roll*.  End of story.  The DM is the one who determines if it's appropriate/warranted, and the DMG gives him full ability to use any criteria he feels like to determine that.


Smackpixi said:


> You don’t have to allow it, or allow the check cause DM can do whatever, but if you do that you’re overriding new rule.



Nope! Completely false.  I am using RAW.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> yep, but can we agree that if DM denies a roll that has a DC to a character they are overriding the new 20 succeeds rule?



No.  Not at all.  The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule.  It only comes into effect if the DM allows the roll.  Nothing is being overridden.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

clearstream said:


> Succeeds on 20... if he rolls. So it goes round and around



But this is exactly the annoying situation the new rule creates. The GM now has to adjudicate every bloody roll personally for every character, and there really isn't any guidance on how to do it, so the players reasonably might feel the they were denied a roll they "should" have gotten, or forced to roll on a trivial thing only to proceed to fail on natural one.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> you only get to succeed on a 20 *when you get to roll*.



Yes, but should not all things not impossible be rollable?  if a thing is possible for someone, what’s you reason for denying the roll to others?  Seems to me only DM fiat, I decided you can’t.


----------



## Smackpixi

Crimson Longinus said:


> But this is exactly the annoying situation the new rule creates. The GM now has to adjudicate every bloody roll personally for every character, and there really isn't any guidance on how to do it, so the players reasonably might feel the they were denied a roll they "should" have gotten, or forced to roll an a trivial thing only to proceed to fail on natural one.



No, it’s easy.  Everyone gets to roll.  Some have normal chances of success, some need a 20.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> No.  Not at all.  The new rule is subordinate to the DMG rule.  It only comes into effect if the DM allows the roll.  Nothing is being overridden.



What is you reasoning for denying the roll?  They could succeed with a 20.  the task is not simply impossible.  Denying the roll is overriding player abilities (roll a 20) and pure DM fiat.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Yes, but should not all things not impossible be rollable?



Sure.  But if the DM determines it impossible for one PC for whatever reason, then it's not rollable.  As an example, if the DM decides that only someone proficient in arcana can make an attempt, then the PC without arcana cannot roll since it's impossible for him.  The PC with arcana though, would get a roll.


Smackpixi said:


> if a thing is possible for someone, what’s you reason for denying the roll to others?



There are many possible reasons.  The DM rates it as impossible for that character like the jump example I gave above.  Someone with a 3 strength simply cannot ever go 21 feet no matter what the roll.  Gating behind proficiency is a valid reason not to allow every PC to roll.  Gating it behind a background.  Suppose the PC is from an area of the world where certain information is flat out unknown, he might not be able to roll.


Smackpixi said:


> Seems to me only DM fiat, I decided you can’t.



All skill rolls are DM fiat and have been since 5e started.  The DM has always decided if you get a roll or not.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> As an example, if the DM decides that only someone proficient in arcana can make an attempt, then the PC without arcana cannot roll since it's impossible for him.



This would be a DM fiat, making up a check requirement not in the rules.  Certainly a thing you can do, but infuriating to any player expecting consistency from their DM.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Denying the roll is overriding player abilities (roll a 20) and pure DM fiat.



So that's simply impossible.  The order of events does not allow for what I am saying to override the new rule.  Here's how it works.

1. The DM decides if the check is automatically successful, automatically a failure(impossible) or a roll is allowed.  He is allowed to use any criteria he wants to determine this.
2. If the DM does not allow a PC a roll, the order of events is over.  Full stop.  As we have not yet gotten to the auto success on a 20 rule, there's nothing to override.
3. If the DM allows a roll, the auto success rule now comes into play.  If the DM doesn't allow the rule to apply at this point, then and ONLY then is he overriding the rule.

"The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted* in any given circumstance*."

"If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll."

As you can see from the UA quotes above, first the DM decides if a test is warranted/appropriate, then IF you get a roll, a 20 succeeds.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> This would be a DM fiat, making up a check requirement not in the rules.



Making it up is the rules.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> The DM rates it as impossible for that character like the jump example I gave above. Someone with a 3 strength simply cannot ever go 21 feet no matter what the roll. Gating behind proficiency is a valid reason not to allow every PC to roll. Gating it behind a background. Suppose the PC is from an area of the world where certain information is flat out unknown, he might not be able to roll.



This is all fine and good, but it’s  all DM fiat deviating from the RAW in every way other than DM sets the rules.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> This is all fine and good, but it’s  all DM fiat deviating from the RAW in every way other than DM sets the rules.



Again, this is completely false. RAW is for the DM to decide by any means he chooses.  It cannot be deviating from RAW for him to make that decision.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> 1. The DM decides if the check is automatically successful, automatically a failure(impossible) or a roll is allowed. He is allowed to use any criteria he wants to determine this.



That’s simply a bizarre understanding of ability checks.  What’s the purpose of PC abilities if DM just makes up any criteria at every check?  DM sets the DC.  DC isn’t “20 plus a myriad of other stuff I made up”.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> That’s simply a bizarre understanding of ability checks.  What’s the purpose of PC abilities if DM just makes up any criteria at every check?  DM sets the DC.  DC isn’t “20 plus a myriad of other stuff I made up”.



Read the DMG.  At this point it's clear that you haven't and are going by the PHB only.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> Read the DMG.  At this point it's clear that you haven't and are going by the PHB only.



I’ve read it, where does it say that DM gets to turn D&D into a game of Mao where they just make up secret rules no one is allowed to know at every ability check?


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> I’ve read it, where does it say that DM gets to turn D&D into a game of Mao where they just make up secret rules no one is allowed to know at every ability check?



Page 237 in the using ability scores section.  The DM asks himself two questions that if he answers no, means that it's impossible for the PC to get a roll.  No criteria are listed for that decision, which means the DM determines that as well.


----------



## Smackpixi

deleted


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> Page 237 in the using ability scores section.  The DM asks himself two questions that if he answers no, means that it's impossible for the PC to get a roll.  No criteria are listed for that decision, which means the DM determines that as well.



Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not.  Too easy, succeed, no roll.  Impossible, fail, no roll.  The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds now, the answer is yes.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not.  Too easy, succeed, no roll.  Impossible, fail, no roll.



Correct.  The DM decides the criteria, since none is listed.


Smackpixi said:


> The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds not, the answer is yes.



You do realize that the *example* is obscenely ludicrous so as to not pigeonhole the DM into how to make the decisions, right?  It's not a rule.  The rule is DM asks himself two questions and then decides the answer based on anything he wants, but should be fair about it.  And yes, gating rolls  behind proficiency, too weak to make the jump, etc. are fair when they are appropriate.


----------



## clearstream

Crimson Longinus said:


> But this is exactly the annoying situation the new rule creates. The GM now has to adjudicate every bloody roll personally for every character, and there really isn't any guidance on how to do it, so the players reasonably might feel the they were denied a roll they "should" have gotten, or forced to roll an a trivial thing only to proceed to fail on natural one.



Do you mean, in the case that multiple characters are attempting something at the same DC, and for some of those characters the check would not be uncertain barring the auto-success/fail, then DM potentially needs to decide if they should even call for checks from those specific characters?

The example to hand is jumping. To me, it should focus thought on the fictional situation, not the DC. Say the pit is 20' wide? One character has Strength 16, another Strength 8. Here, I think the group should have decided the meaning of the words "an unusually long distance" in their fiction. Does it mean more than twice base distance, or maybe up to twice? Less? What do they picture?

Say they decide it's up to twice. DM calls for checks, telling players "roll if twice your strength is 20 or more". In all cases, think about what is pictured, not the individual check modifiers. For similar reasons, one DM might say "roll if you have proficiency with thieves' tools" or even "roll only if you have expertise with thieves' tools!"


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  The DM decides the criteria, since none is listed.
> 
> You do realize that the *example* is obscenely ludicrous so as to not pigeonhole the DM into how to make the decisions, right?  It's not a rule.  The rule is DM asks himself two questions and then decides the answer based on anything he wants, but should be fair about it.  And yes, gating rolls  behind proficiency, too weak to make the jump, etc. are fair when they are appropriate.



We’re disagreeing about impossible.  I agree, no rolls on impossible things.  But I say the new 20 succeeds rule changes the dynamic on personally impossible things.  That’s the point of the new rule, it eliminates the personally impossible, that’s it’s point.  If a thing has a DC, is theoretically possible, character gets a roll.

you, disagree, that much is clear to me.  But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?

Edit - I allow that some checks are specifically gated, only Dwarves can do or something, let’s focus on the standard, chasm jumping kind.


----------



## clearstream

Smackpixi said:


> Yeah, the 237 page is the question of rolling or not.  Too easy, succeed, no roll.  Impossible, fail, no roll.  The question here isn’t hitting the moon with an arrow, it’s if Bob can hit the elk with a arrow, should Joe, who’s a much worse shot be allowed to try, and since a 20 succeeds now, the answer is yes.



I think here you are giving an example that is what I will characterise (without intending anything negative) as "too mild". That is, you're giving an example where as a DM I would generally allow Attack rolls against elks (whether or not they are nibbling on elderflowers at the time.)

But just because I will call for Attack rolls (e.g. to hit the elk), and skill rolls (e.g. to sneak up on it) in mild cases, that doesn't commit me to calling for them in all cases, which is how you seem to interpret the new rule.

To put it another way, you're arguing over what is reasonable: at your table, what is reasonable is what you and your group feel is right.


----------



## clearstream

Smackpixi said:


> you, disagree, that much is clear to me.  But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?



They are changing it so that when DM calls for a check, it is _guaranteed _to have a chance of success and failure.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> We’re disagreeing about impossible.



Quite frankly, that's irrelevant.   Per RAW you get to decide what is impossible for your table and only your table, and I get to do the same with mine.  You not agreeing with me on what is or isn't impossible doesn't change the rule.


Smackpixi said:


> But I say the new 20 succeeds rule changes the dynamic on personally impossible things.



Then that's how it works in your game.


Smackpixi said:


> That’s the point of the new rule, it eliminates the personally impossible, that’s it’s point.



That is not how it's written and in a playtest, it's worthless to try and figure out what they meant to write, since you are testing new rules that could change at any time.  You test what it says, not what you think they meant.

What the new rules say is that the DM decides and only if the DM thinks it's appropriate/warranted is there a roll. And only if there is a roll is auto 20 in play.


Smackpixi said:


> If a thing has a DC, is theoretically possible, character gets a roll.



Then that's how it is in your game.


Smackpixi said:


> you, disagree, that much is clear to me.



I certainly hope so! 


Smackpixi said:


> But, let me ask you then, since there is a new rule, and by making one I presume they think it changes something, if I’m wrong, what do you think they are changing?



They are codifying that if you allow a roll, a 20 can succeed, even if the DC is beyond the bonuses + a roll of 20.  So if the DM allows someone with +2 to roll for a DC 25 check, even though the max roll is 22, a 20 still succeeds.  That's it. That's how it is written.


Smackpixi said:


> Edit - I allow that some checks are specifically gated, only Dwarves can do or something, let’s focus on the standard, chasm jumping kind.



So again, the guy with the 3 strength will never make it 21 feet.  To allow him to go 7 times the distance is to also allow someone with a 20 strength to go 147 feet with a jump.  It's absurd. It's not possible.  No roll for the guy with a 3 strength.  Yes roll for the guy with a 20 strength.


----------



## Minigiant

Here's another thing.

If DMs *didn't read the rule before* that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they *going to read rules now* to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?

Oh man.
This could be really disastrous.


----------



## clearstream

Maxperson said:


> That is not how it's written and in a playtest, it's worthless to try and figure out what they meant to write, since you are testing new rules that could change at any time.  You test what it says, not what you think they meant.



It's a minor point of dissent, but I would say that in a playtest it is especially important to play what you think they meant. In a way, that's part of the playtest: is the effect of the rule clear to players? How do they construe it?


----------



## clearstream

Minigiant said:


> If DMs *didn't read the rule before* that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they *going to read rules now* to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?



I believe the game design will continue to be intentionally vague about what DMs should count as impossible. So there is no additional rule to read here.

I would personally like it if they added game text giving examples of gating behind skill proficiency and expertise, just as they currently do for tools (PHB154).


----------



## Minigiant

clearstream said:


> I believe the game design will continue to be intentionally vague about what DMs should count as impossible. So there is no additional rule to read here.
> 
> I would personally like it if they added game text giving examples of gating behind skill proficiency and expertise, just as they currently do for tools (PHB154).



The fear is they *won't read it* and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.

It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with *so many rerolls.*


----------



## Crimson Longinus

clearstream said:


> Do you mean, in the case that multiple characters are attempting something at the same DC, and for some of those characters the check would not be uncertain barring the auto-success/fail, then DM potentially needs to decide if they should even call for checks from those specific characters?
> 
> The example to hand is jumping. To me, it should focus thought on the fictional situation, not the DC. Say the pit is 20' wide? One character has Strength 16, another Strength 8. Here, I think the group should have decided the meaning of the words "an unusually long distance" in their fiction. Does it mean more than twice base distance, or maybe up to twice? Less? What do they picture?
> 
> Say they decide it's up to twice. DM calls for checks, telling players "roll if twice your strength is 20 or more". In all cases, think about what is pictured, not the individual check modifiers. For similar reasons, one DM might say "roll if you have proficiency with thieves' tools" or even "roll only if you have expertise with thieves' tools!"



Right. And now you have to invent such roll unlocking conditions _for every bloody thing._ You also need to invent similar autopass conditions if you don't want experienced grand masters fumbling at DC 5 tasks. Yes, this can be done, but it is just unnecessary extra work that was not required under the old paradigm. This is not a huge deal and it is easy to houserule the old rule back, but I still think this is rule is not any sort of an improvement and is more trouble than it is worth.


----------



## clearstream

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. And now you have to invent such roll unlocking conditions _for every bloody thing._ You also need to invent similar autopass conditions if you don't want experienced grand masters fumbling at DC 5 tasks. Yes, this can be done, but it is just unnecessary extra work that was not required under the old paradigm. This is not a huge deal and it is easy to houserule the old rule back, but I still think this is rule is not any sort of an improvement and is more trouble than it is worth.



Why are you asking a grandmaster to roll, if it is easy? What for you motivates that call?


EDIT Just to make the implication here clear. A roll is called for when there is a chance of and consequences for failure. You seem to be describing a case where intuitively you feel there should be no chance of failure... so, why call for a roll?


----------



## clearstream

Minigiant said:


> The fear is they *won't read it* and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.



To be fair, if they are not reading all the rules then the new rule is how they already play.



Minigiant said:


> It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with *so many rerolls.*



The reports of coming disaster are greatly exaggerated. I for one am equanimous.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

clearstream said:


> Why are you asking a grandmaster to roll, if it is easy? What for you motivates that call?
> 
> EDIT Just to make the implication here clear. A roll is called for when there is a chance of and consequences for failure. You seem to be describing a case where intuitively you feel there should be no chance of failure... so, why call for a roll?



The obstacle exists. Other characters roll. And it is not just clear cut extreme examples. Now you need to always judge when roll is warranted and what should be autopass or autofail for each character individually. How much greater than the the DC the character's bonus needs to be wo warrant autopass instead of rolling? Certainly there must be situations where characters whose bonus is greater than the DC still has to roll, or "fail on natural ones" does nothing. The old rule is easy: skill+roll, beat the DC. So a character with bonus of at least 9 will autopass easy or easier checks. Simple. Now you need to case-by-case judge every situation. I get that it might not be a huge deal, but how on earth is this an _improvement?_


----------



## jasper

I have never heard of Auto Success/Fail until I was listening to Legends of the Multiverse. I THINK and those who watch Critical Role and other you tube casts can correct me. I think most groups use it because the famous podcast use it. So it becomes standard because the cool kids are doing it. I DON'T Like the auto pass fail.


----------



## Reynard

I want to collect my thoughts on this, so forgive me if I am repeating myself at all.

When do you call for a roll? When there is some uncertainty in the outcome OR you want to use the dice to inform you of something.
In the first case, the it seems on the surface that the auto fail on a 1 and auto success on a 20 is appropriate. After all, there was uncertainty. The trouble with this approach is that different PCs have can different levels of uncertainty for different tasks -- based either on their mechanical bonuses or based on their role-playing background or whatever. This puts the DM in the position of having some players roll and not others, and is muddied further when using group checks for example. Because of these variables, I think it is easier not to use the auto fail/success rules. You can just tell everyone to roll Athletics and see who hits the DC, even if some "can't" (they can always use guidance or whatever). One potential addition is to say that if a PC gets advantage on the roll, they CAN succeed on a 20 even if they don't meet the DC.

In the other case, using rolls as informative tools or with sliding difficulties is easy: these rolls aren't really about success anyway, so there's no reason to "crit" unless you think that a "crit" is more informative.

So, in the end, I don't think I will be using these rules.


----------



## Minigiant

clearstream said:


> The reports of coming disaster are greatly exaggerated. I for one am equanimous.



Will you say that when every PC rolls ability checks with Inspiration.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> This is all fine and good, but it’s  all DM fiat deviating from the RAW in every way other than DM sets the rules.




JFC is this still going on? No, this is not DM setting the rules this is DM following the rules, which is that the DM first determines whether the attempt is automatically successful or a failure, and if neither might set a DC and ask for a roll. Note that it’s not determining whether it’s “impossible” but whether success or failure is automatic. Those are two different things and the distinction is important: the task does not have to be impossible for the DM to rule it an automatic failure.

Example (with the caveat that in practice I tell players the odds and give them a chance to change their minds):

Rogue: “I will try to sneak across the room just as the guard turns his back.”
DM: “That’s gonna be tough. Give me a dexterity(stealth) roll. DC 30.”
Rogue: “I’m +11, so….30!”
Paladin: “I’ll try, too.”
DM: “The guard sees you.”
Paladin: “Hey, wait! Don’t I get to roll?”
DM: “Nope.”
Paladin: “But I have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding!”
DM: “One in four hundred, actually. IF I asked for a roll. Which I’m not.”

Now, who knows why the DM didn’t ask for a roll. Maybe the situation/environment has changed in a way the players don’t realize. Maybe the guard is some kind of fey that can’t see elves. Maybe the guard did see the rogue but is under orders to let just one person through. Maybe the DM is mad at Larry for taking the last Mountain Dew. Maybe he hates gnome paladins. Maybe he hates the new rule. IT DOESN’T MATTER.

This is not DM fiat overriding the rules. It is literally what the book says to do.

EDIT: And I’ll add that if you are correct, and the player has some kind of “right” to roll, it means the DM would have to justify the ruling, potentially giving away information the players aren’t supposed to have.


----------



## Parmandur

clearstream said:


> They are changing it so that when DM calls for a check, it is _guaranteed _to have a chance of success and failure.



Which, to be fair, isn't actually a change. This just puts teeth into the existing rule making it harder to ignore.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Here's another thing.
> 
> If DMs *didn't read the rule before* that nat 20 isn't an auto success and nat 1 isn't an auto fail on ability checks, are they *going to read rules now* to gate checks tests and how to adjudicate what should and shouldn'tbe possible at what tier?
> 
> Oh man.
> This could be really disastrous.



That assumes that people using the autosuccess variant were doing so accidentally, rather than intentionally. And in practice the houserule works because people use gating.


----------



## Parmandur

jasper said:


> I have never heard of Auto Success/Fail until I was listening to Legends of the Multiverse. I THINK and those who watch Critical Role and other you tube casts can correct me. I think most groups use it because the famous podcast use it. So it becomes standard because the cool kids are doing it. I DON'T Like the auto pass fail.



Yes, Matt Mercer uses this...but he got it from the hivemind when he picked upn5E, thought it looked like a cool houserule.


----------



## Maxperson

clearstream said:


> It's a minor point of dissent, but I would say that in a playtest it is especially important to play what you think they meant. In a way, that's part of the playtest: is the effect of the rule clear to players? How do they construe it?



They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not.  Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest.  You test what they write and give feedback on that.  Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> Uh huh, there is no rule about denying checks due to lack of proficiency.  Able to admit I’m wrong, but tell me where in DMG it is.  If you can’t find, what is your reasoning for denying a check when there is a DC other than DM fiat?



It has been referenced in this very thread, I'mnot going tonrepeat it. Admittedly, it could be more clear in the DMG, but it is there in several places. Additionally, it is a standard part of how the designers play the game: just because a check has a DC doesn't mean that everyone can roll. That's what you are missing about this rule change: if it doesn't make sense for one character to succeed...don't let them roll. It's very simple.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not.  Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest.  You test what they write and give feedback on that.  Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.



Crawford seemed pretty confident about this rule change: dollars to donuts this will make it into the new PHB, since it is already such a normal houserule.


----------



## clearstream

Maxperson said:


> They end up with a bunch of different opinions, many, if not mostly on stuff that doesn't really help them understand if you liked what they wrote or not.  Trying to anticipate is bad for a playtest.  You test what they write and give feedback on that.  Either they see how everyone liked what they said, or they realize that they wrote it badly and change it to what they really intended and then you playtest it.



Oh, I agree that folk should follow the rule as written to play-test. I just don't think folk all construe the rule as written in the same way. Perforce, they go with the rule as construed.

Play-test can be revealing about norms for construal.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> The fear is they *won't read it* and we have Portent, Lucky, and Inspiration allowing 8 STR PCs reliably be Juggernaut and 8 INT PCs be Einstein.
> 
> It's a recipe for disaster and too much work for DMs in a game with *so many rerolls.*



Portent is three rolls for one specific type of wizard that are as likely to be low as high.  Inspiration is a once in a while thing that applies advantage to one roll.  Lucky also applies to three rerolls.  So lets look at how it would play out.

Portent: 







*OOC:*


Portent: 1D20 = [6] = 6 1D20 = [17] = 17 1D20 = [13] = 13






so one low, one middle high and one high number.

Combine that with 3 re-rolls and one inspiration and an 8 strength and you're probably missing every hard check of 20 as it's unlikely the wizard has chosen athletics with his 8 strength.  Maaaaaaybe he succeeds once.  That hardly allows the wizard to "reliably be the juggernaut" and the 8 int PC isn't even a conjurer, so he doesn't even have that to help him be Einstein.

The more rolls you give, the less "reliable" these PCs get.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Crawford seemed pretty confident about this rule change: dollars to donuts this will make it into the new PHB, since it is already such a normal houserule.



Sure, but they seemed pretty confident about removing alignment as well. Feedback can change their confidence level.


----------



## Parmandur

Y


Maxperson said:


> Sure, but they seemed pretty confident about removing alignment as well. Feedback can change their confidence level.



Yeah, we'll see. Time will tell. I think it will make it into the final Core.


----------



## Branduil

Bill Zebub said:


> JFC is this still going on? No, this is not DM setting the rules this is DM following the rules, which is that the DM first determines whether the attempt is automatically successful or a failure, and if neither might set a DC and ask for a roll. Note that it’s not determining whether it’s “impossible” but whether success or failure is automatic. Those are two different things and the distinction is important: the task does not have to be impossible for the DM to rule it an automatic failure.
> 
> Example (with the caveat that in practice I tell players the odds and give them a chance to change their minds):
> 
> Rogue: “I will try to sneak across the room just as the guard turns his back.”
> DM: “That’s gonna be tough. Give me a dexterity(stealth) roll. DC 30.”
> Rogue: “I’m +11, so….30!”
> Paladin: “I’ll try, too.”
> DM: “The guard sees you.”
> Paladin: “Hey, wait! Don’t I get to roll?”
> DM: “Nope.”
> Paladin: “But I have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding!”
> DM: “One in four hundred, actually. IF I asked for a roll. Which I’m not.”
> 
> Now, who knows why the DM didn’t ask for a roll. Maybe the situation/environment has changed in a way the players don’t realize. Maybe the guard is some kind of fey that can’t see elves. Maybe the guard did see the rogue but is under orders to let just one person through. Maybe the DM is mad at Larry for taking the last Mountain Dew. Maybe he hates gnome paladins. Maybe he hates the new rule. IT DOESN’T MATTER.
> 
> This is not DM fiat overriding the rules. It is literally what the book says to do.
> 
> EDIT: And I’ll add that if you are correct, and the player has some kind of “right” to roll, it means the DM would have to justify the ruling, potentially giving away information the players aren’t supposed to have.



This is a good example because it also shows why I _don't_ like the rule. Yes, it's possible to run the new rule this way, but this creates an adversarial relationship between the player and DM because now every time the DM has to explicitly disallow someone from making a roll, whereas before they could have just let the player roll (and fail).


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> Portent is three rolls for one specific type of wizard that are as likely to be low as high.  Inspiration is a once in a while thing that applies advantage to one roll.  Lucky also applies to three rerolls.  So lets look at how it would play out.
> 
> Portent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OOC:*
> 
> 
> Portent: 1D20 = [6] = 6 1D20 = [17] = 17 1D20 = [13] = 13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so one low, one middle high and one high number.
> 
> Combine that with 3 re-rolls and one inspiration and an 8 strength and you're probably missing every hard check of 20 as it's unlikely the wizard has chosen athletics with his 8 strength.  Maaaaaaybe he succeeds once.  That hardly allows the wizard to "reliably be the juggernaut" and the 8 int PC isn't even a conjurer, so he doesn't even have that to help him be Einstein.
> 
> The more rolls you give, the less "reliable" these PCs get.



You missed my point. 

This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.

Are you confident that they will read the part to restrict rolls?

Are you confident they won't forget because of fun?


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Y
> 
> Yeah, we'll see. Time will tell. I think it will make it into the final Core.



I tend to agree.  I jut don't think it's 1) a sure thing(small chance it doesn't) and 2) it might not make it in its current form.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.
> 
> Are you confident that they will read the part to restrict rolls?



So I don't have much sympathy for folks who get things wrong because they didn't read the rules and then have a hard time of it.  

And often, they still have fun so it doesn't really matter anyway. 

Besides, if they aren't reading the restriction rules, there's a good chance that they didn't read the auto success on a 20 rule, either. 


Minigiant said:


> Are you confident they won't forget because of fun?



If they do, then it's no harm, no foul.  Fun is the goal and if you're having fun, the rules don't really matter that much.  It's when the rules(or lack of knowing them) harm the fun that issues arise.


----------



## Zaukrie

jasper said:


> I have never heard of Auto Success/Fail until I was listening to Legends of the Multiverse. I THINK and those who watch Critical Role and other you tube casts can correct me. I think most groups use it because the famous podcast use it. So it becomes standard because the cool kids are doing it. I DON'T Like the auto pass fail.



Not true at all. I've never watched CR, and I use auto fail and save. I think assuming things like this with no data likely leads to bad thoughts. I'd bet WotC has a TON of data on this.....and likely knows more about how people play, and if they watch shows, than we'll ever have.

I endorse the change.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I tend to agree.  I jut don't think it's 1) a sure thing(small chance it doesn't) and 2) it might not make it in its current form.



Sure, they could roll a 1!


----------



## Parmandur

Zaukrie said:


> Not true at all. I've never watched CR, and I use auto fail and save. I think assuming things like this with no data likely leads to bad thoughts. I'd bet WotC has a TON of data on this.....and likely knows more about how people play, and if they watch shows, than we'll ever have.
> 
> I endorse the change.



Yeah, Matt Mercer didn't make it up, he adopted an already common house rule because he liked it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Branduil said:


> This is a good example because it also shows why I _don't_ like the rule. Yes, it's possible to run the new rule this way, but this creates an adversarial relationship between the player and DM because now every time the DM has to explicitly disallow someone from making a roll, whereas before they could have just let the player roll (and fail).



If there’s an adversarial relationship…if the player thinks the DM said no for reasons other than the good of the story…the problem is the relationship, not the rules. And no rules will ever fix that.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Sure, they could roll a 1!



Interestingly enough.  Last night the party who auto failed a knowledge check because they are in the Forgotten Realms and the subject of the check was from Oerth and had not had prior contact with the Realms, contacted a sage friend(not Elminster, but another knowledgeable sage).  After describing the one eyed, one handed lich to him, I told them that he almost surely didn't know, either, being a Realms only individual, but said that if one of them rolled a 20 for the NPC, he would know.  

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I do this sometimes but not often.  They decided which among them would roll and gathered around to see the die come to a stop, which is I love to see.  Even I stood up to watch the roll.  He rolled a 20 and everyone at the table cheered and laughed.  Then one of them said, "This is what makes stories to retell."  

I wouldn't want to see that lost by making every roll success on a 20 and have those situations become commonplace.  Success on a 20 has a real place in the game, but I think that the UA rule maybe overdoes it.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> This whole rule change is due to people not reading the rules.



Citation needed: it is a common, and possibly even normative, house rule, so WotC is bringing the game intonline with actual play. That doesn't mean that anyone didn't read the rules. Indeed, it works because it fits into the existing guidance about gating checks through common sense rulings.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Citation needed: it is a common, and possibly even normative, house rule, so WotC is bringing the game intonline with actual play. That doesn't mean that anyone didn't read the rules. Indeed, it works because it fits into the existing guidance about gating checks through common sense rulings.



The citation is all the memes, comics, and stories about nat 20s doing miracles, people correcting it, and other people being shocked that's not the rule.

WOTC made this rule because people played that way. And people played that way because they misinterpreted the rules since 5e isn't very clearly written. It's a direct shot against "natural language".


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> The citation is all the memes, comics, and stories about nat 20s doing miracles, people correcting it, and other people being shocked that's not the rule.
> 
> WOTC made this rule because people played that way. And people played that way because they misinterpreted the rules since 5e isn't very clearly written. It's a direct shot against "natural language".



A lot of players didn't realize thst it was a houserule, but thst doesn't mean their DM didn't know. All the instances I am aware of were adopting the change consciously. And it works with 5E as written! It doesn't even change a single thing if checks are being gated. And if people are gating properly...thst suggests they read the rules.


----------



## Branduil

Bill Zebub said:


> If there’s an adversarial relationship…if the player thinks the DM said no for reasons other than the good of the story…the problem is the relationship, not the rules. And no rules will ever fix that.



It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.


----------



## Parmandur

Branduil said:


> It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.



In practice, not really. "Bob, your Barbarian doesn't know Arcana, no roll for this" is really not that big in play.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Branduil said:


> It's not a binary thing, relationships are affected by actions. I'm not saying this rule is going to destroy friendships or anything like that, I just think it introduces the potential for more friction and conflict than is necessary.



Yeah, that’s fair. Although I think the most common reason for that would be based on the misunderstanding of the rules & spirit of 5e as expressed in this thread: people will think they have a right to roll, hoping for a 20, and might think it’s arbitrary and unfair for the DM to say no.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, that’s fair. Although I think the most common reason for that would be based on the misunderstanding of the rules & spirit of 5e as expressed in this thread: people will think they have a right to roll, hoping for a 20, and might think it’s arbitrary and unfair for the DM to say no.



At some point you just need to tell players “no.” Before it was ‘you’re not entitled to success just because you rolled a 20.’ 

Or embrace a new paradigm and decide the modifiers only affect probability ; all pcs have the same possibility space regardless of stats.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Example (with the caveat that in practice I tell players the odds and give them a chance to change their minds):
> 
> Rogue: “I will try to sneak across the room just as the guard turns his back.”
> DM: “That’s gonna be tough. Give me a dexterity(stealth) roll. DC 30.”
> Rogue: “I’m +11, so….30!”
> Paladin: “I’ll try, too.”
> DM: “The guard sees you.”
> Paladin: “Hey, wait! Don’t I get to roll?”
> DM: “Nope.”
> Paladin: “But I have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding!”
> DM: “One in four hundred, actually. IF I asked for a roll. Which I’m not.”
> 
> Now, who knows why the DM didn’t ask for a roll. Maybe the situation/environment has changed in a way the players don’t realize. Maybe the guard is some kind of fey that can’t see elves. Maybe the guard did see the rogue but is under orders to let just one person through. Maybe the DM is mad at Larry for taking the last Mountain Dew. Maybe he hates gnome paladins. Maybe he hates the new rule. IT DOESN’T MATTER.



Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table.  A very avoidable argument 95% of the time (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again!   Or something else goes wrong.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table.




Not at my table.  I mean, somebody might say something to see if I or one of the other DMs made a mistake, but if the answer is, "Nope, that's what happens" everybody would shrug and keep playing, wondering what mysterious thing is going on.

Why do you think it's a legitimate argument?  I can only think of two reasons it would generate an argument:
1) Somebody misunderstands how the game works and thinks they have a right to roll.
2) Somebody doesn't trust the GM to be running a fair game.

There _are_ legitimate reasons why one player gets to roll and the other automatically fails, and if you argue with the DM you are basically saying, "I don't believe there's a legitimate reason...prove it to me."  

Um....no. Go find a DM you trust.



Lanefan said:


> A very avoidable argument 95% of the time (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again!   Or something else goes wrong.




Yeah, I'd _probably_ do that in the case described.  But maybe one of those other in-game situations I described applies, and it really is different for the two characters?  Who knows?  Certainly not the players.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Well, it does matter, in that if your example is typical (which I suspect it is) then all that denial of roll does is generate an (IMO quite legitimate) argument at the table.  *A very avoidable argument 95% of the time* (i.e. on any Pally-sneak roll that is not 20) if you just let the Pally roll anyway; and hey, on a 20 maybe she does somehow manage to sneak across just this once...but good luck sneaking back out again!   Or something else goes wrong.




Also, it's 99.75% of the time. Pally is probably in heavy armor.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Not at my table.  I mean, somebody might say something to see if I or one of the other DMs made a mistake, but if the answer is, "Nope, that's what happens" everybody would shrug and keep playing, wondering what mysterious thing is going on.
> 
> Why do you think it's a legitimate argument?  I can only think of two reasons it would generate an argument:
> 1) Somebody misunderstands how the game works and thinks they have a right to roll.



Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and _knows_ they have a right to roll.  I think this new rule will lead to that, ultimately.


Bill Zebub said:


> 2) Somebody doesn't trust the GM to be running a fair game.
> 
> There _are_ legitimate reasons why one player gets to roll and the other automatically fails, and if you argue with the DM you are basically saying, "I don't believe there's a legitimate reason...prove it to me."



Exactly.  It has nothing to do with trust overall but everything to do with (perceived) fairness in the moment.  Sure, I could roll a 20 and still fail, at which point the reason for said failure will almost certainly become obvious right away in any case.  But hey, I might get lucky and not fail; and given that I-as-player don't know that in advance*, let me roll.

The roll also informs both me and the DM as to the degree of failure - on a 1 here, maybe the Pally trips over a cat and falls on his face with a clash of armour likely heard two floors away (and maybe provides a great distraction for the rest of the party in the process!).

* - I never tell DCs etc. and would probably not play under a DM who routinely did - my character rarely if ever knows the exact odds, so neither should I.


----------



## clearstream

Lanefan said:


> Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and _knows_ they have a right to roll.  I think this new rule will lead to that, ultimately.



My guess is that DM will still be expressly empowered by the game text to decide; and that will continue to be down to their discretion ("ask yourself".) I don't see it as likely that player authority will extend to a right to decide if they will roll.

Time will tell.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and _knows_ they have a right to roll.




That is simply false in 5e.  It’s possible that will change with 5.5 but I highly doubt it.


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> It has been referenced in this very thread, I'mnot going tonrepeat it. Admittedly, it could be more clear in the DMG, but it is there in several places. Additionally, it is a standard part of how the designers play the game: just because a check has a DC doesn't mean that everyone can roll. That's what you are missing about this rule change: if it doesn't make sense for one character to succeed...don't let them roll. It's very simple.



Gating things behind proficiency is referenced in the thread, but it is a custom apparently.  it is not a rule or optional rule, you can’t cite it because it does not exist.  No one has cited the rule in this thread, mostly I think cause it does not exist.

”just because a check has a DC doesn’t mean that everyone can roll” is the current rule.  100% agree.  I’m saying 20 auto success changes that.  And all anyone has ever said in response is ”no it doesn’t, read the DMG”.  But no one has found anything in the DMG saying otherwise.  Everything about proficiency is about when you can add it, and options for adding it or not.

But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds.

It feels like people are saying if I can say “only Dwarves can do it” for a good reason, I can also say “only proficient people can do it” or “you can’t do it”.  Which are perfectly fine DM Fiats you can have, but are just made up reasons not supported by rules or fiction.  What’s the support for only proficient people can do a thing when all the rules around it are just about it being a bonus?

we’re talking about what the rules mean, not about you do in your game.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Gating things behind proficiency is referenced in the thread, but it is a custom apparently.  it is not a rule or optional rule, you can’t cite it because it does not exist.  No one has cited the rule in this thread, mostly I think cause it does not exist.



That's actually objectively false.  I've quoted multiple times in this thread portions in the DMG that gate rolls behind proficiency.  The rule dealing with ability checks also leaves it 100% open to DM's to choose how to determine impossibility.

What cannot be shown by you is any rule saying that what I just said is wrong.  Not one rule.


----------



## James Gasik

Gatekeeping skill checks is a tough concept to approach.  On the one hand, "everybody rolls" lets people feel like they are part of the action, and able to contribute.

On the other hand, it can create some odd moments, like when the Barbarian crits an Arcana check that the Wizard flubs.

It comes down to what is more fun for your group.  If you're willing to sit on your hands because verisimilitude matters most, then by all means, gate those skill checks!

If you want everyone to have fun, and you think bizarre results lead to roleplaying moments, as Gourry the Fighter explains how he knows about the time every month that all female spellcasters close shop, then there's no real reason to deny everyone a crack at the d20.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> That's actually objectively false.  I've quoted multiple times in this thread portions in the DMG that gate rolls behind proficiency.  The rule dealing with ability checks also leaves it 100% open to DM's to choose how to determine impossibility.
> 
> What cannot be shown by you is any rule saying that what I just said is wrong.  Not one rule.



You just have not Ever pointed a rule about gating rolls behind proficiency.  I am really interested in this rule, but no one has found it.

”if a player lacks proficiency in a skill you can say they do not make a check” or words to that effect, find them!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> Gating things behind proficiency is referenced in the thread, but it is a custom apparently.  it is not a rule or optional rule, you can’t cite it because it does not exist.  No one has cited the rule in this thread, mostly I think cause it does not exist.
> 
> ”just because a check has a DC doesn’t mean that everyone can roll” is the current rule.  100% agree.  I’m saying 20 auto success changes that.  And all anyone has ever said in response is ”no it doesn’t, read the DMG”.  But no one has found anything in the DMG saying otherwise.  Everything about proficiency is about when you can add it, and options for adding it or not.
> 
> But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds.
> 
> It feels like people are saying if I can say “only Dwarves can do it” for a good reason, I can also say “only proficient people can do it” or “you can’t do it”.  Which are perfectly fine DM Fiats you can have, but are just made up reasons not supported by rules or fiction.  What’s the support for only proficient people can do a thing when all the rules around it are just about it being a bonus?
> 
> we’re talking about what the rules mean, not about you do in your game.



Go read PHB 172 and DMG 236-237. Dice are rolled only when the DM calls for it. 

Or play however you want. It’s your game.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> You just have not Ever pointed a rule about gating rolls behind proficiency.  I am really interested in this rule, but no one has found it.
> 
> ”if a player lacks proficiency in a skill you can say they do not make a check” or words to that effect, find them!



Okay.  For at LEAST the third time this thread...

Page 103 of the 5e DMG: "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*)."

Someone with tools and no proficiency cannot pick the lock.


----------



## Smackpixi

Bill Zebub said:


> Go read PHB 172 and DMG 236-237. Dice are rolled only when the DM calls for it.
> 
> Or play however you want. It’s your game.



I have never argued this point.  DM can do what they want.  But if there’s not a mechanical reason, it’s fiat, it’s overriding the mechanical rules which now say give a roll on all theoretical possible things.  Also 172 in my PHB is a picture. 173 maybe?  But again nothing about lacking the ability to do a thing if not proficient.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> I have never argued this point.  DM can do what they want.  But if there’s not a mechanical reason, it’s fiat, it’s overriding the mechanical rules which now say give a roll on all theoretical possible things.  Also 172 in my PHB is a picture. 173 maybe?  But again nothing about lacking the ability to do a thing if not proficient.



You just won't give up will you?  I just showed you where the DMG gates via proficiency by rule and you tell me that it's fiat.  It's not. It's a hard, mechanical rule about locked doors.

At this point you just refuse to see what's plainly in front of you.  Have a good one.


----------



## James Gasik

Yes, Tools state that they "help you do something you couldn't normally do", and so a check using a Tool would require proficiency.  But page 174 of the PHB makes it seem like anyone is allowed to roll for an ability check; "In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill.  Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes an ordinary ability check."


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> Okay.  For at LEAST the third time this thread...
> 
> Page 103 of the 5e DMG: "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*)."
> 
> Someone with tools and no proficiency cannot pick the lock.



Agreed.  That’s a great example of a meaningful gate.  First example presented about gating behind proficiency presented.  However, I’m not sure how this doesn’t make my point?  Locks have rules, rules are consistent.  Not different than my only Dwarves idea, fair gate.  But how is that relevant to DC 25 for forcing a door?


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> Agreed.  That’s a great example of a meaningful gate.  First example presented about gating behind proficiency presented.  However, I’m not sure how this doesn’t make my point?  Locks have rules, rules are consistent.  Not different than my only Dwarves idea, fair gate.  But how is that relevant to DC 25 for forcing a door?



It's an example of gating behind proficiency, which is hard proof that it's perfectly fine for the DM to do so.  The DMG rules do not tell the DM how to determine impossibility at all.  Not one directive.  That means it's 100% up to the DM's discretion by RAW.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Yes, Tools state that they "help you do something you couldn't normally do", and so a check using a Tool would require proficiency.  But page 174 of the PHB makes it seem like anyone is allowed to roll for an ability check; "In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill.  Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes an ordinary ability check."



The PHB rules are subordinate to the DMG on determining impossibility.  The DM decides how he will determine impossibility and then if a roll is appropriate, asks the player for a roll.


----------



## James Gasik

Not to argue, but that seems to run contrary to what the PHB says, which is, the DM calls for a skill check, and you roll with proficiency if you have it, and without if you don't?

I mean, yes, the DM has the authority to deny the check, but it seems like that's the exception, not the rule, or the PHB would use different wording?


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Not to argue, but that seems to run contrary to what the PHB says, which is, the DM calls for a skill check, and you roll with proficiency if you have it, and without if you don't?
> 
> I mean, yes, the DM has the authority to deny the check, but it seems like that's the exception, not the rule, or the PHB would use different wording?



The PHB says "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."  If it's not uncertain, there is no roll.  The DMG talks to the DM about determining certainty and the DM can use whatever criteria he chooses for it.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> The PHB says "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."  If it's not uncertain, there is no roll.  The DMG talks to the DM about determining certainty and the DM can use whatever criteria he chooses for it.



Ok.  I mean, it's perfectly fair to play however you feel is the most fun, the questions I have are more "was it really intended to gate ability checks".  Now apparently the developers have said they play this way, and some adventures back this up, but having read the rules, I wouldn't have inferred that at all- even if it's not always logical, I'm an "everybody rolls" kind of DM.

Mostly because I don't trust my own judgment on what should or should not be a proficiency gated roll (other than for tools, which spell this rule out plainly).

By what I've read to date, it feels like a "rule zero" justification, since you have to go beyond what the rules say and make case by case rulings for it, which makes it difficult to discuss, especially with this new "20 always succeeds" rule on the table.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> It's an example of gating behind proficiency, which is hard proof that it's perfectly fine for the DM to do so.  The DMG rules do not tell the DM how to determine impossibility at all.  Not one directive.  That means it's 100% up to the DM's discretion by RAW.



yes, you are right.  Thank you.  I’m sorry if you’ve posted the citation in this thread before, I searched it for proficient and proficiency but either didn’t get the earlier post or missed it.  It’s pretty obscure, but a great find, love it.  Is that the only example or are there others?

so, now we have that needing to be proficient is a fair gate.  I agree with you, and sort of apologize for disagreeing, but don’t cause frustrating you got what I wanted.

however, what’s the situation for a proficient character who can’t possibly pass the DC check?  In a DC 25 situation, with a proficient character who can only hit 23, shouldn’t they still get a roll to go for a 20 because “if it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for anyone (proficient)”?


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Ok.  I mean, it's perfectly fair to play however you feel is the most fun, the questions I have are more "was it really intended to gate ability checks".  Now apparently the developers have said they play this way, and some adventures back this up, but having read the rules, I wouldn't have inferred that at all- even if it's not always logical, I'm an "everybody rolls" kind of DM.



And that's perfectly fine.  There really isn't a wrong way to run ability checks if people are having fun.  Personally, I gate some rolls and not others.


James Gasik said:


> By what I've read to date, it feels like a "rule zero" justification, since you have to go beyond what the rules say and make case by case rulings for it, which makes it difficult to discuss, especially with this new "20 always succeeds" rule on the table.



The rules don't say anything at all about it, though.  Other than only rolling when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure, nothing at all tells you when something is automatically successful or automatically a failure. No guidance is given.  Even saying someone trying to jump the grand canyon automatically fails is going beyond what the rules say and making a case by case ruling.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> yes, you are right.  Thank you.  I’m sorry if you’ve posted the citation in this thread before, I searched it for proficient and proficiency but either didn’t get the earlier post or missed it.  It’s pretty obscure, but a great find, love it.  Is that the only example or are there others?



There are a few others(3 in total I think), also dealing with tools.


Smackpixi said:


> so, now we have that needing to be proficient is a fair gate.  I agree with you, and sort of apologize for disagreeing, but don’t cause frustrating you got what I wanted.



Sorry about that.  I figured out later that you were replying to someone who has me blocked.  It's frustrating because if you read that response I quoted without seeing what you were responding to, it reads like you were responding to me. 

Not being able to see posts by those who block you is a flaw of this site, but that's what they've chosen to do.  


Smackpixi said:


> however, what’s the situation for a proficient character who can’t possibly pass the DC check?  In a DC 25 situation, with a proficient character who can only hit 23, shouldn’t they still get a roll to go for a 20 because “if it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for anyone (proficient)”?



It's all case by case.  The DMG and PHB literally give no guidance on determining when something is possible, when it isn't and when it's automatic.  The new rule in the UA gives a bit of guidance in saying that below 5 is automatic and above 30 is impossible, but doesn't go any further, leaving the DMG rules in place.

Just last night I had the players roll for an auto success on a 20 that couldn't be achieved any other way.  I don't do it often, and it had nothing to do with the UA.  The player rolled a 20 and the table erupted in cheers.  It was great.


----------



## Smackpixi

@Maxperson 

for what it’s worth, I ask this question about the proficiency gate


Smackpixi said:


> Is that the only example or are there others?



Because someone more pedantic than me could say there’s a difference between tool, weapon, and armor proficiency and skill proficiency on a check.  I’m not that person, your point is proven, but, you know, one could keep fighting


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds



Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> It's all case by case. The DMG and PHB literally give no guidance on determining when something is possible, when it isn't and when it's automatic. The new rule in the UA gives a bit of guidance in saying that below 5 is automatic and above 30 is impossible, but doesn't go any further, leaving the DMG rules in place.
> 
> Just last night I had the players roll for an auto success on a 20 that couldn't be achieved any other way. I don't do it often, and it had nothing to do with the UA. The player rolled a 20 and the table erupted in cheers. It was great.



I still go back to my original point, they get to roll unless impossible for everyone under the new rule.  that Said, I’m exhausted on this topic and, frankly, was never gonna use this New rule anyway.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> I still go back to my original point, they get to roll unless impossible for everyone under the new rule.  that Said, I’m exhausted on this topic and, frankly, was never gonna use this New rule anyway.



Give it a try, it's very simple in practice.


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.



I will pretty much disagree with this.  Dm fiat is a hard wrong.  The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency.  DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D.  It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> I have never argued this point.  DM can do what they want.  But if there’s not a mechanical reason, it’s fiat, it’s overriding the mechanical rules which now say give a roll on all theoretical possible things.  Also 172 in my PHB is a picture. 173 maybe?  But again nothing about lacking the ability to do a thing if not proficient.




No, I'm not one of the people claiming there's a specific rule about lack of proficiency.  Then again, there doesn't need to be: since the DM decides when dice should be rolled (which the rules state several times, in both PHB and DMG) but without putting any constraints on the DM's reasoning, it follows that in some cases could be lack of proficiency.

The new rule does not override the DM's authority over when rolls are called for.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> I will pretty much disagree with this.  Dm fiat is a hard wrong.  The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency.  DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D.  It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.



Sometimes the rules are "the DM needs to make a ruling." Which is the case for calling for checks, and following the process as laid out in the books and the example of the designers means this new rule literally changes nothing: call for a roll only when success is possible, and it will never make a difference.


----------



## Smackpixi

Bill Zebub said:


> The new rule does not override the DM's authority over when rolls are called for.



Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.




Maybe people are using 'fiat' in different ways.  I only use it when the DM is overriding a rule, which isn't the case here.  It isn't "DM fiat" when the DM decides which PC a monster will attack.  That's just...DMing. There isn't a rule that tells the DM how to make that choice; it's just up to their best judgment. 

Same with deciding whether a roll is warranted.  The DM might tell player #1 that a task has a DC of 10, and another player that they will automatically fail.  _Hopefully_ they have a good, behind-the-scenes reason for this, and aren't just being a jerk, because I agree that seems strange.  But that's part of the DM's job description, and we might never know the real reason.  If we suspect the DM is just being a jerk we should find a new DM.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.



No, it really doesn't. In practice, it shouldn't make any difference to whether a roll is allowed by a DM.


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> Sometimes the rules are "the DM needs to make a ruling." Which is the case for calling for checks, and following the process as laid out in the books and the example of the designers means this new rule literally changes nothing: call for a roll only when success is possible, and it will never make a difference.



If you don’t think this rule changes anything, I think you’re not understanding it, but I’ve said my peace, go on playing as you were.  If it’s actually implemented in two years, worry about it then


----------



## Bill Zebub

Smackpixi said:


> Sure, but it does suggest more rolls than before.




I can imagine a DM saying, "What the heck, roll if you want" more often.  But there's nothing about the new rule that grants players a _right_ to make dice rolls.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> I will pretty much disagree with this.  Dm fiat is a hard wrong.  The game has rules and adhering to them is important for consistency.  DMs have wide latitude for judgement, but just making up stuff according to their whims, Fiat, is not at all central to D&D.  It’s D&D with jerks when that’s how it’s being played.



So how does a DM determine the DC if not fiat?


----------



## Smackpixi

Parmandur said:


> No, it really doesn't. In practice, it shouldn't make any difference to whether a roll is allowed by a DM.



I get that’s an opinion, meaningless rule, but since it’s being made, maybe you might want to explore and think about why they thought it might be necessary to say and what they thought it would change.  If all you can come up with is “nothing” probably missing something.


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe people are using 'fiat' in different ways.  I only use it when the DM is overriding a rule, which isn't the case here.  It isn't "DM fiat" when the DM decides which PC a monster will attack.  That's just...DMing. There isn't a rule that tells the DM how to make that choice; it's just up to their best judgment.
> 
> Same with deciding whether a roll is warranted.  The DM might tell player #1 that a task has a DC of 10, and another player that they will automatically fail.  _Hopefully_ they have a good, behind-the-scenes reason for this, and aren't just being a jerk, because I agree that seems strange.  But that's part of the DM's job description, and we might never know the real reason.  If we suspect the DM is just being a jerk we should find a new DM.



My take is maybe colored by my Latin training, so "fiat" is just a normal word in my brain...in Latin, for doing something making something. Rulings, not takes means the DM needs to decided things a lot of the time.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> I get that’s an opinion, meaningless rule, but since it’s being made, maybe you might want to explore and think about why they thought it might be necessary to say and what they thought it would change.  If all you can come up with is “nothing” probably missing something.



Their reason is explicitly "this is how people are already playing, may as well go with the flow." So, for many tables this doesn't reflect an actual change, and if you look at actual examples (like a Critical Role stream), you will see thst it doesn'tmake much difference in practice, gating being one of the big reasons why.


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> If you don’t think this rule changes anything, I think you’re not understanding it, but I’ve said my peace, go on playing as you were.  If it’s actually implemented in two years, worry about it then



It doesn't change anything about whether to allow a roll or bot: the same logic applies. And when that logic is applied, these issues being imagined cannot occur. Because only rolls where a success or failure is possible are rolled. And autosucces or failure doesn't change what can be done, just the process after the check is called for.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> My take is maybe colored by my Latin training, so "fiat" is just a normal word in my brain...in Latin, for doing something making something. Rulings, not takes means the DM needs to decided things a lot of the time.



Yeah.  Fiat is not whim. It's just "the DM decides."  Fiat is the biggest thing in D&D.  The DM decides encounters, treasures, what NPCs say and do, and how they react, DCs, when to use traps, and on and on and on.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  Fiat is not whim. It's just "the DM decides."  Fiat is the biggest thing in D&D.  The DM decides encounters, treasures, what NPCs say and do, and how they react, DCs, when to use traps, and on and on and on.



Exactly, no DM work (which "fiat" really means), no game. No rulings, the rules can't function.


----------



## Smackpixi

Maxperson said:


> So how does a DM determine the DC if not fiat?



is a good question.  I struggle with this, especially knowing my players, and setting a DC knowing who’s coming up against it.  Why I think player passive perception is stupid too.  That said, you can probably see the difference between something set up before the players got there and you just deciding Mid battle that, how about I just send in an extra hobgoblin war party and collapse the roof on them Because battle too easy.


----------



## clearstream

James Gasik said:


> Yes, Tools state that they "help you do something you couldn't normally do", and so a check using a Tool would require proficiency.  But page 174 of the PHB makes it seem like anyone is allowed to roll for an ability check; "In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill.  Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes an ordinary ability check."



The way I parse it out is we have a general rule that DM decides when a check is called for. The hard constraints on DM are that it must be something possible, not certain, and with consequences for failure. Who judges? DM is instructed to "ask yourself".

We then have a couple of examples of what might be impossible. Hitting the moon with an arrow. Picking a lock without tools one is proficient with. It is abundantly clear that these are given (in legalese) without limitation: meaning they are not exhaustive.

The upshot to me is that each group decides what is possible at their table. Now, should they be consistent in such judgements? I believe the normal finding on that is "yes"... consistency is valued. That implies that as judgements are made, a local rubric is formed.

It is entirely reasonable if one group's rubric comes to include requiring proficiency for some undertakings. After all, one of the handful of examples does exactly that! And on the other hand, it's entirely reasonable if another group's rubric excludes it (beyond tools.)

Neither group can reasonably insist that the other is mistaken in broader cases. Again, the exemplification is meagre, and even were it not it would be necessarily incomplete. Who must the DM at each table consult? _Themselves_, per RAW.


----------



## Maxperson

Smackpixi said:


> is a good question.  I struggle with this, especially knowing my players, and setting a DC knowing who’s coming up against it.  Why I think player passive perception is stupid too.  That said, you can probably see the difference between something set up before the players got there and you just deciding Mid battle that, how about I just send in an extra hobgoblin war party and collapse the roof on them Because battle too easy.



There is a difference there.  But what's the difference between deciding on the fly to send an extra hobgoblin into battle and deciding on the fly that the DC for the knowledge question the player just asked you is a 20 and not a 15?


----------



## Maxperson

clearstream said:


> The way I parse it out is we have a general rule that DM decides when a check is called for. The hard constraints on DM are that it must be something possible, not certain, and with consequences for failure. Who judges? DM is instructed to "ask yourself".
> 
> We then have a couple of examples of what might be impossible. Hitting the moon with an arrow. Picking a lock without tools one is proficient with. It is abundantly clear that these are given (in legalese) without limitation: meaning they are not exhaustive.
> 
> *The upshot to me is that each group decides what is possible at their table. Now, should they be consistent in such judgements? I believe the normal finding on that is "yes"... consistency is valued. That implies that as judgements are made, a local rubric is formed.*
> 
> It is entirely reasonable if one group's rubric comes to include requiring proficiency for some undertakings. After all, one of the handful of examples does exactly that! And on the other hand, it's entirely reasonable if another group's rubric excludes it (beyond tools.)
> 
> Neither group can reasonably insist that the other is mistaken in broader cases. Again, the exemplification is meagre, and even were it not it would be necessarily incomplete. Who must the DM at each table consult? _Themselves_, per RAW.



This. A very well written post.

I think the part I bolded is the way the vast majority of tables end up playing.  Unless a DM is truly random and making these decisions on whim, "Hmm, well I haven't used 25 in a while, so it's a DC 25 to know the King's name!", then his thought process and knowledge he is drawing upon to make the decisions will necessarily be pretty consistent.


----------



## SkidAce

James Gasik said:


> Gatekeeping skill checks is a tough concept to approach.  On the one hand, "everybody rolls" lets people feel like they are part of the action, and able to contribute.
> 
> On the other hand, it can create some odd moments, like when the Barbarian crits an Arcana check that the Wizard flubs.
> 
> It comes down to what is more fun for your group.  If you're willing to sit on your hands because verisimilitude matters most, then by all means, gate those skill checks!
> 
> If you want everyone to have fun, and you think bizarre results lead to roleplaying moments, as Gourry the Fighter explains how he knows about the time every month that all female spellcasters close shop, then there's no real reason to deny everyone a crack at the d20.



Nice call back reference.


----------



## Bill Zebub

It would be interesting to create a group-roll mechanic where everybody, or everybody who wants to, rolls at once, with a single outcome, for things like knowledge checks or investigation, that has the right risk:reward profile to make it interesting.

The thing I’ve grown to hate is when players say (or are thinking) “Sure, I’ll roll, why not?” That’s not a sign of good game design.


----------



## MockingBird

I'll adopt the 20/1 mechanic for saving throws and attacks but not for ability checks.


----------



## Bill Zebub

MockingBird said:


> I'll adopt the 20/1 mechanic for saving throws and attacks but not for ability checks.




Not even ability checks with consequences of failure? Jumping over lava, shoving an enemy, disarming the trap, etc.?

EDIT: For tables that do dice rolls even without consequences, that requirement would address the concern about spamming for inspiration.


----------



## MockingBird

Bill Zebub said:


> Not even ability checks with consequences of failure? Jumping over lava, shoving an enemy, disarming the trap, etc.?
> 
> EDIT: For tables that do dice rolls even without consequences, that requirement would address the concern about spamming for inspiration.



It's still in the air, honestly I'm leaning toward only allowing attacks to crit/fail as we do now. If this change survives the playtest I'll definitely house rule it back. I hope this change doesn't stick.


----------



## Lanefan

Smackpixi said:


> ”just because a check has a DC doesn’t mean that everyone can roll” is the current rule.  100% agree.  I’m saying 20 auto success changes that.



In the eyes of the players, certainly; even more so if it's stated in the PH.

Whether the new DMG will agree, disagree, or waffle on this point remains unclear; and all the discussion and argument so far is - and can only be - based on what the current DMG has to say...or not say.

But it could easily lead to a big yet subtle change in dynamic.  Before, the default was no roll until-unless the DM granted permission  With this, and with players knowing they always (or at least very much more often) have a chance to succeed, it could change to the default being to roll unless the DM denies it.  This puts the DM in a much worse positon, as granting is always easier than denying.


Smackpixi said:


> But proficiency is just another made up reason for DM fiat in denying a check when there isn’t a mechanical reason to deny it If 20 succeeds.
> 
> It feels like people are saying if I can say “only Dwarves can do it” for a good reason, I can also say “only proficient people can do it” or “you can’t do it”.  Which are perfectly fine DM Fiats you can have, but are just made up reasons not supported by rules or fiction.



Not supported by the rules, sure; but I suspect in most cases the DM would be trying to say (or very strongly imply) the denial of roll is supported by the fiction.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> *The PHB rules are subordinate to the DMG *on [... stuff]



The bolded is perhaps a more controversial statement than at first it might appear.

In cases of contradiction* between the PH and the DMG, which takes precedence?  And how do you prevent the obvious and quite understandable arguments from erupting when a DM tries to say the DMG takes precedence?

* - which ideally should never occur, yet here we are...


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> No, it really doesn't. In practice, it shouldn't make any difference to whether a roll is allowed by a DM.



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".


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Do people regularly use DCs of 20 and higher that many characters can't possibly hit in their 5e games? I think this rule will have little impact on actual play. In my experience, if you need a 18 or more to succeed on a roll, it already feels like a serious long-shot.

A side note; I don't go around remembering the PCs modifiers when I decide to call for a roll, so auto success/failure usually goes like this:
DM: make a DC 10 athletics check
Player: I've got +9 so 10 is the lowest I can get.
DM: Ok, you succeed, no need to roll.

in 1D&D the roll will be mandatory since failure is always possible on a 1.  That's really the only difference between the old and the new rules.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> The bolded is perhaps a more controversial statement than at first it might appear.
> 
> In cases of contradiction* between the PH and the DMG, which takes precedence?  And how do you prevent the obvious and quite understandable arguments from erupting when a DM tries to say the DMG takes precedence?
> 
> * - which ideally should never occur, yet here we are...



This isn't a case of opposition. It's a case of the PHB says you don't roll when something is automatically successful or unsuccessful, then leaves it to the DMG for the instructions on how to determine those things.  That makes it subordinate by its nature.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> This isn't a case of opposition. It's a case of the PHB says you don't roll when something is automatically successful or unsuccessful,



Except if player-side it states that a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails then in the players' eyes there's no longer such a thing as auto-succeed or auto-fail; instead there's always a chance, leading them to quite sensibly press for rolls whenever possible and to argue with the DM if-when those rolls are denied.  It puts the DM in a bad spot.

Now if the 20-and-1 rules are left strictly DM-side this goes away for the most part, but somehow I don't think that'll be the case.


Maxperson said:


> then leaves it to the DMG for the instructions on how to determine those things.  That makes it subordinate by its nature.



Subordinate, or just passing the buck?


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Except if player-side it states that a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails then in the players' eyes there's no longer such a thing as auto-succeed or auto-fail; instead there's always a chance, leading them to quite sensibly press for rolls whenever possible and to argue with the DM if-when those rolls are denied.  It puts the DM in a bad spot.



It doesn't say that, though.  It says you auto succeed on a 20 or auto fail on a 1 *IF* you get a roll.  If a player is feeling entitled to a roll, it's because he didn't read the rules.


Lanefan said:


> Now if the 20-and-1 rules are left strictly DM-side this goes away for the most part, but somehow I don't think that'll be the case.



Unless it changes, it is strictly up to the DM when rolls happen and how those rolls are gated.


Lanefan said:


> Subordinate, or just passing the buck?



Either way it has to listen to what the DMG says.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't say that, though.  It says you auto succeed on a 20 or auto fail on a 1 *IF* you get a roll.  If a player is feeling entitled to a roll, it's because he didn't read the rules.
> 
> Unless it changes, it is strictly up to the DM when rolls happen and how those rolls are gated.



Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
Player: "I don't get a roll?  A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
DM: "Sorry, no roll."
<argument erupts, and so much for that session>

That exchange will happen at thousands more tables than it would have without this rule.  Just watch and wait for it.

And it's so very avoidable, simply by making it that 1s and 20s succeed more often than they should but its still not guranteed.

That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits.  It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
> DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
> Player: "I don't get a roll?  A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
> DM: "Sorry, no roll."
> <argument erupts, and so much for that session>



That was the DM's fault.

DM: "The rules state very clearly that you only succeed IF you get a roll and that the DM determines if a roll is allowed."

If after that the player is still arguing, he can play at a different table.  I expect my players to be able to understand simple rules.


Lanefan said:


> That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits.  It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.



Or just make it that the DM decides when an auto success is possible on a 20.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> That was the DM's fault.
> 
> DM: "The rules state very clearly that you only succeed IF you get a roll and that the DM determines if a roll is allowed."
> 
> If after that the player is still arguing, he can play at a different table.  I expect my players to be able to understand simple rules.



I'd still be arguing, but now against the rule that says the DM can deny me a roll even though I-as-player feel I have a valid and not-zero in-fiction chance of success.  And that argument wouldn't end.


Maxperson said:


> Or just make it that the DM decides when an auto success is possible on a 20.



Or hard-code it such that a 20 in effect hits 5* DC points above its weight and a 1 hits 5* below.  Thus, if you've no bonus and the DC is 23 a 20 would hit, but if the DC is 26 a 20 would still miss.

And even then, let them roll anyway!  If not, you're giving away information about the difficulty of the task/situation you might not have to give away.  If the roll comes up 3, for example, they've no way of knowing in-character or out whether they even had a chance or not; but if the roll is 20 and it still fails, only then do they realize the task is beyond them.

* - a number pulled out of the air which could be replaced by whatever numbers the designers come up with.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
> DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
> Player: "I don't get a roll?  A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
> DM: "Sorry, no roll."
> <argument erupts, and so much for that session>
> 
> That exchange will happen at thousands more tables than it would have without this rule.  Just watch and wait for it.
> 
> And it's so very avoidable, simply by making it that 1s and 20s succeed more often than they should but its still not guranteed.
> 
> That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits.  It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.



Pure theorycraft, that's not how it works now at tables who use autosuccess houserules.


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> Pure theorycraft, that's not how it works now at tables who use autosuccess houserules.



Is that because at those tables the DMs lean toward letting the players roll?


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> Is that because at those tables the DMs lean toward letting the players roll?



No, because saying"no" is a perfectly viable option. Matt Mercer, for example, says "no" when a roll doesn't make sense, as do the game's designers when they run the game.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Lanefan said:


> Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
> DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
> Player: "I don't get a roll?  A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
> DM: "Sorry, no roll."
> <argument erupts, and so much for that session>
> 
> That exchange will happen at thousands more tables than it would have without this rule.  Just watch and wait for it.
> 
> And it's so very avoidable, simply by making it that 1s and 20s succeed more often than they should but its still not guranteed.
> 
> That said, I'm all for 1s and 20s being automatic on saves and to-hits.  It's just the ability check (or "test", now) business where it breaks down, and even then only in some situations.



I mean, if it’s not ridiculous than a 5% chance should be reasonable. It’s not like people can really feel the difference between that and 3%.

If even 5% is way too high, then tell the player it’s beyond them (under current circumstances). I don’t think any reasonable-ish dm will just day “you fail” and not elaborate - that’s what would cause arguments rather than a sudden jump in player entitlement.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Player: <declares borderline-impossible but not ridiculous action>
> DM: "Sorry, you fail the attempt."
> Player: "I don't get a roll?  A 20 always succeeds - it says so right here - and <presents in-fiction case where a lucky roll could succeed>"
> DM: "Sorry, no roll."
> <argument erupts, and so much for that session>




People who don’t want to play 5e can always houserule it however they want. 

Also, I haven’t seen a table erupt in argument over rules since I was in jr high in the 80s. Except maybe in a way in which everybody is also laughing so hard that beer comes out their nose.


----------



## James Gasik

Bill Zebub said:


> People who don’t want to play 5e can always houserule it however they want.
> 
> Also, I haven’t seen a table erupt in argument over rules since I was in jr high in the 80s. Except maybe in a way in which everybody is also laughing so hard that beer comes out their nose.



Man that must be nice.  I've had moments where I really thought I'd see two nerds leaping over the table at each other, dual wielding rulebooks.


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> Man that must be nice.  I've had moments where I really thought I'd see two nerds leaping over the table at each other, dual wielding rulebooks.



If that happens, please get it on video.


----------



## James Gasik

Bill Zebub said:


> If that happens, please get it on video.



Sure thing, though unless we play PF1 again it's not likely.  I hope.


----------



## Lanefan

jmartkdr2 said:


> I mean, if it’s not ridiculous than a 5% chance should be reasonable. It’s not like people can really feel the difference between that and 3%.



Maybe not; but they very much can tell the difference between outright zero and anything not-zero, even if the not-zero is only 1%.

And that's my argument here - that if the chance is anything not-zero then there should be a roll of some sort; and if 5e doesn't have the granularity to handle this that's hardly the player's fault.

I mean, if I'm a tank Paladin trying to sneak unaided through a guarded room my odds of making it might only be 1 in 100 - or even 1 in 1000 - but as those odds are not zero I think it's unfair if you arbitrarily deny me that small chance of making it.  Sure, a 1 in 20 chance is too high; so fix the system by adding granularity rather than hose the game.

Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while.  I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life?   Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero.  Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Maybe not; but they very much can tell the difference between outright zero and anything not-zero, even if the not-zero is only 1%.
> 
> And that's my argument here - that if the chance is anything not-zero then there should be a roll of some sort; and if 5e doesn't have the granularity to handle this that's hardly the player's fault.
> 
> I mean, if I'm a tank Paladin trying to sneak unaided through a guarded room my odds of making it might only be 1 in 100 - or even 1 in 1000 - but as those odds are not zero I think it's unfair if you arbitrarily deny me that small chance of making it.  Sure, a 1 in 20 chance is too high; so fix the system by adding granularity rather than hose the game.
> 
> Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while.  I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life?   Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero.  Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.




Question: how will _you_ react? There’s all this hypothesizing about how other unnamed people might react, but what will _you_ do (assuming this becomes a rule) when a DM says, “No, sorry, no roll.”


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Question: how will _you_ react? There’s all this hypothesizing about how other unnamed people might react, but what will _you_ do (assuming this becomes a rule) when a DM says, “No, sorry, no roll.”



If I feel my character's chance of success is not zero, argue.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> If I feel my character's chance of success is not zero, argue.



Noted.


----------



## SkidAce

Lanefan said:


> ...
> Flip side: yes, sometimes the easiest of tasks goes wrong once in a while.  I mean, really - who among you here haven't whaled your own thumb with a hammer at least once or twice in your life?   Again, 1 in 20 odds of this happening are far too high, but the odds are still not zero.  Fix the system to allow for and handle these rare instances.



"1 in 20 caravan drivers suddenly had accident driving through crowded market streets....news at 6."


----------



## Lanefan

SkidAce said:


> "1 in 20 caravan drivers suddenly had accident driving through crowded market streets....news at 6."



That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen.



They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation. Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation.



But that's just my point - success is *always* in doubt.  Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't.  It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.


Parmandur said:


> Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.



I'd say no, anyone can try; but lack of proficiency would make failure much more likely.  Just the same as someone who has never driven a car (or even learned how) getting behind the wheel and giving it a go.  Odds are much higher for problems than with a trained driver, but success is still quite possible.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> But that's just my point - success is *always* in doubt.  Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't.



The D&D standard is legalese.  Beyond a reasonable doubt = impossible/no doubt.  It there a chance that I will be hit by a meteor tomorrow when I step out of my front door?  Yes.  Not getting his is technically in doubt.  No reasonable person would doubt my safety on this subject, though.


Lanefan said:


> It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.



No.  No it doesn't make all the difference.  And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> No.  No it doesn't make all the difference.  And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.



So what's the threshold?  .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.

And D&D *can* model it, if not perfectly then at least to a much better extent than now, if one is willing to step just a tiny bit outside the RAW box and use something more granular than a single d20.


----------



## OB1

I've seen statements like "The DM won't let my character try" or "I can't even attempt" come up several times over the last few pages in regards to dice rolls.  But not rolling does not equal not attempting or trying, it means you character tried, but failed.  The player declares what their character does, the DM decides the results, often times asking for a roll if the result is uncertain (PHB p1).  The DM resolves uncertainty on the basis of an individual PCs actions.

Player:  I want to jump over the 10 foot lava stream to get to the tunnel on the other side.
DM:  That distance looks impossible for you to make (given character's 8 STR), do you still jump?
Player:  Okay, let me think of another way to get around.

The way to deal with players disagreement over something being impossible for a PC is to have meaningful consequence of failure.

Player:  I want to jump over the 10 foot lava stream to get to the tunnel on the other side.
DM:  That distance looks impossible for you to make (given character's 8 STR)
Player:  But I'm full of adrenaline due to the 100 angry dwarves chasing me and this is my only chance to escape!
DM:  Fair enough, it's only nearly impossible for you in this circumstance, requiring a DC30 Strength check, so you'll need a nat20 to make it.  Failure means falling in the lava and taking 40d6 fire damage.
Player:  (Thinks about whether a 5% chance of success is the best course of action)
DM:  What do you do?
Player:  I throw down my weapons, raise my hands and face the dwarves.  I'm going to try and talk my way out of this.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> So what's the threshold?  .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.
> 
> And D&D *can* model it, if not perfectly then at least to a much better extent than now, if one is willing to step just a tiny bit outside the RAW box and use something more granular than a single d20.



DM ruling. Always has been.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Do people regularly use DCs of 20 and higher that many characters can't possibly hit in their 5e games? I think this rule will have little impact on actual play. In my experience, if you need a 18 or more to succeed on a roll, it already feels like a serious long-shot.



I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as _eleven _point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck. 



Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> in 1D&D the roll will be mandatory since failure is always possible on a 1.  That's really the only difference between the old and the new rules.



Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.


----------



## Parmandur

Crimson Longinus said:


> I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as _eleven _point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck.
> 
> 
> Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.



That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Parmandur said:


> That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.



And do you think people who didn’t understand the old rule will do that?

Furthermore, it requires constant case by case monitoring of every roll for every character. I simply don’t see how this is an improvement.


----------



## Parmandur

Crimson Longinus said:


> And do you think people who didn’t understand the old rule will do that?
> 
> Furthermore, it requires constant case by case monitoring of every roll for every character. I simply don’t see how this is an improvement.



Who didn't understand the old rule...? Just because people use house rules doesn't mean that they don't unthe rules...as evidenced by the normal use of gating from everything I've seen l, despite the rules being a mite fuzzy.


----------



## Minigiant

I watch a YT video and it more or less revealed my thoughts on this topic.

If 1DND comes with guidelines and examples of ability checks and guidelines on adjudication in the PHB and DMG, this is fine. Even better if there are variants: LOTR level tests, MCU level tests, One Piece tests.

But if it does the looser goosey style where people are not concrete on perception, this would be not great in non-long-running tables.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Yes, DM fiat is centrsl to how D&D works. The tule is that the DM uses fiat to determine if a check is warranted, and gating behind proficiency is one of the main ways this is done. Simple, common sense gating in fact eliminates any problem that is being theorycrafted in this thread, and yeah, DM fiat is how it works. That's how all of this works.



It is strange how you get from a single mention for a tool proficiency and a few examples in official adventures to "one of the main ways." It's one of the ways you do it, I expect informed by a couple decades of d20 games where it was much more hard coded into the system. It's fine that you do it, and it makes sense in some cases, but I don't understand your assertion that it's the default assumed rule despite the rules not focusing on it.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> It is strange how you get from a single mention for a tool proficiency and a few examples in official adventures to "one of the main ways." It's one of the ways you do it, I expect informed by a couple decades of d20 games where it was much more hard coded into the system. It's fine that you do it, and it makes sense in some cases, but I don't understand your assertion that it's the default assumed rule despite the rules not focusing on it.



I mean, it's how yhe designers play the game when they do so publicly, so it is definitely RAI. It is in the rulebooks, but it is very much meant to be a "mix to taste" deal...which is whybit completely fixes the issue some are worried about for the autosuccess mechanic. If gating is used, it can literally never be a narrative problem for the DM's taste thar a PC succeeds or fails on a role.

My only real longterm pre-5E experience was 3E, incidentally, which is where I learned to play, and gating was definitely not the norm there. Higher numbers would put certain rolls beyond certain characters.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> This isn't a case of opposition. It's a case of the PHB says you don't roll when something is automatically successful or unsuccessful, then leaves it to the DMG for the instructions on how to determine those things.  That makes it subordinate by its nature.



I am pretty sure the only thing the books have to say on the subject is "specific trumps general."


----------



## jmartkdr2

Speaking for myself, I feel that the existing best practices are going to keep working fine in the games I actually play. All the scenarios where this change creates a problem feel like weird edge cases to me, unless the dm is already calling for impossible rolls on the regular.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I am pretty sure the only thing the books have to say on the subject is "specific trumps general."



@Lanefan and I were discussing ability checks.  The PHB rule is that you do not roll if the outcome is doubt, and the DMG guideline adds in the requirement for failure to have meaning.  Nothing released to date(One UA) contradicts those rules, so Specific v. General does not apply.

If you get a roll a 1 is auto failure and a 20 is auto success.  If you do not get a roll, then those things don't apply.


----------



## CleverNickName

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I use dice as both a resolution mechanic and a storytelling device.  Dice add probability and randomness, sure, but I also use them to add tension and doubt in the mind of the player.

My player will say something like "I search the wall for secret doors, using a candle to check for drafts."  And even though I know that there are absolutely no secret doors anywhere in this dungeon, I am still going to call for the player to roll.  I want the player to wonder, and I want them to keep wondering long after that roll is made.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I mean, it's how yhe designers play the game when they do so publicly, so it is definitely RAI.



You have brought this up a couple times so I am going to push back a little. 1) What percentage of people who play 5e do you think watch Crawford play D&D? and 2) That doesn't say anything about RAI. For example, we know Gygax ran AD&D completely differently than it was presented in the DMG, and there are many stories of other designers running their own games "wrong."

It is just as accurate to say that in 5e "proficiency gating" is a minor, niche, specific tool in the GM's toolbox that is primarily intended for tool proficiency use.

EDIT: And yes, i know i am harping on this one point, and no,I have no idea why. It's not like it affects my game in any way. So, you know, carry on.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> You have brought this up a couple times so I am going to push back a little. 1) What percentage of people who play 5e do you think watch Crawford play D&D? and 2) That doesn't say anything about RAI. For example, we know Gygax ran AD&D completely differently than it was presented in the DMG, and there are many stories of other designers running their own games "wrong."
> 
> It is just as accurate to say that in 5e "proficiency gating" is a minor, niche, specific tool in the GM's toolbox that is primarily intended for tool proficiency use.
> 
> EDIT: And yes, i know i am harping on this one point, and no,I have no idea why. It's not like it affects my game in any way. So, you know, carry on.



I mean, a h6ge percentage watch Criticsl Role, which also uses gating, and apparently a huge number already yse autosuccess...which beeds gating to work. I am confident that it is standard.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> EDIT: And yes, i know i am harping on this one point, and no,I have no idea why. It's not like it affects my game in any way. So, you know, carry on.




Maybe because the rest of us are all watching you, cynically judging your ability to win the internet, ready to pounce with mockery and derision the moment you show any sign of weakness?

Just a theory.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe because the rest of us are all watching you, cynically judging your ability to win the internet,



Too late.  The internet has already been won by someone in a small village not far* from Reading in the UK.

The rest of us are just fighting for second, now.




* - 'not far' here means within a planet or two...


----------



## Minigiant

This is why to me, the rule only works if the descriptions of different styles of "calling for rolls" and a set of example DCs and gates for common uses of each skill and tool are in the PHB and DMG. 

Otherwise the "well you can only supposed to X when you Y" will get missed and people will run into issues.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> This is why to me, the rule only works if the descriptions of different styles of "calling for rolls" and a set of example DCs and gates for common uses of each skill and tool are in the PHB and DMG.
> 
> Otherwise the "well you can only supposed to X when you Y" will get missed and people will run into issues.



I did put that in my survey feedback, yup. Loose guidelines are great, but letting DMs know that saying "No" is fine more clearly would be helpful.


----------

