D&D 5E Dealing with stupidly high rolls.

[BookBarbarian]

I’m also not a big fan of a player rolling a d20 before they even declare an action, and then telling me “With a 27 persuasion check, I tell the king that I am the rightful heir.”

Yeah that doesn't fly for me either.

The DM calls for a check when necessary while not Rule 0 is among the foremost of rules in this edition.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I have no problem with it. In my stealth model a direct line of sight breaks the ability to hide (ie, you can't hide in the open) so it matters not if there's a stupidly high Stealth roll if there's nothing to hide behind. If there is something to hide behind and the character is just that good, then CELEBRATE it.

As others have said, you as the DM get to establish what is possible with an attribute check, when to call for one and what DC to set for it. Nothing keeps you from deciding that an attribute check will be unsuccessful no matter what but still allow one to be rolled and simply stating, "That doesn't work." to keep players from discerning the bounds of possibility in some cases.

However there is nothing wrong or broken about a character having a very high bonus to a given skill. D&D is not an exercise in mediocrity, it's one in heroic exceptionalism. So let them have that. With this in mind you may want to adjust some monsters to have better abilities to pose credible foils for your hyper-capable players. One of my favorite sounds while DMing is a player complaining that, "...that's not how <that creature> works!". Guess this version of that monster didn't read the MM, Sunshine.

 

[Lanefan]

"19 or 20 on the die" is 10% and seems to ignore the character... Just turn it to luck.

Was this your intent?

Sometimes you need luck as well as skill in order to succeed, no matter how good you are.

Here, an unskilled character wouldn't have a chance; being possessed of a high skill is what gives this particular character any chance of success at all.

 

[iserith]

Yeah that doesn't fly for me either.

The DM calls for a check when necessary while not Rule 0 is among the foremost of rules in this edition.

I mean, it's only on page 3 of the Basic Rules under the section entitled "How to Play." Not that anyone apparently reads that section.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Sort-of. I don’t do this often, but for one-in-a-million type of scenarios. For something just shy of impossible.

"19 or 20 on the die" is 10% and seems to ignore the character... Just turn it to luck.

Was this your intent?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I thought that "bounded accuracy" would help us to eliminate stupidly high numbers. Things like pass without trace and the rogue's expertise seems to undermine that idea. How do you deal with the difference between "you do the thing" and "you do the thing spectacularly well" when spectacular is suddenly commonplace?

The major thing to remember is that the outcome of the check doesn't necessarily correspond to the degree of success.

If someone throws a ball to you, then you can either catch it or not, but catching it with a result of 15 is not necessarily more impressive than catching it with a result of 27. Maybe rolling a 1 or 2 means that you aren't even close, and it's embarrassing because of how badly you fail, but if you catch it then you catch it and there's not much more exciting that could possibly come of that. We know that you didn't do a cool spinny flip thing and then catch it with your foot, because you never attempted to do such a thing; you attempted to catch a ball, and you succeeded in the greatest way possible, which is virtually indistinguishable from just catching it normally.

Likewise, even if you roll a 72 on your Knowledge check, that is only as good as rolling 15 (or 20, or whatever) in telling you that there is no such thing as Plane of Elemental Fighting. If the DM feels compelled to invent new details whenever the dice give an unexpected result, then the game turns into a farce.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

While I understand that either way, chances are they’re making a roll, 90% of the time I’ll also see these same players make a roll, pull a face, and then keep quiet.

Sometimes I will counter with asking for another roll on a different skill. “Okay, you’ve got a 27 on your persuasion check. Give me a history roll.”

Yeah that doesn't fly for me either.

The DM calls for a check when necessary while not Rule 0 is among the foremost of rules in this edition.

 

[BookBarbarian]

While I understand that either way, chances are they’re making a roll, 90% of the time I’ll also see these same players make a roll, pull a face, and then keep quiet.

Sometimes I will counter with asking for another roll on a different skill. “Okay, you’ve got a 27 on your persuasion check. Give me a history roll.”

I like that strategy.

 

[Fauchard1520]

...If you roll a 72 on your Knowledge check, that is only as good as rolling 15 (or 20, or whatever) in telling you that there is no such thing as Plane of Elemental Fighting. If the DM feels compelled to invent new details whenever the dice give an unexpected result, then the game turns into a farce.

Excellent points! Let's take it a step further though. If a DC 40 is an "impossible" check in the system, then characters capable of rolling that 40 can achieve more dramatic results than their less-skilled peers. This ought to feel exceptional. When you push the system to the extremes though (examples over here), your master pick-pocket should be capable of feats that a DC 40 couldn't achieve either. Shouldn't they? Or are you arguing that pushing checks past DC 40 should not continue to yield better results?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

If they succeed at the second roll, I might tell them something like “you recall that the king’s lands had a problem with a chimera rampaging a few years back. It was never slain, and offering to take care of the problem might make the king more amenable.”

I like that strategy.