If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Charlaquin]

So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?

 

[Sadras]

So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?

I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?

I obviously can’t speak for everyone who allows players to initiate checks, but I know I’ve read from a few of them who have said that if the player makes a roll for something that they would have automatically succeeded on, they just say it succeeds. I know at least 5ekyu has said that.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?

It depends.

There are those on this thread and others who have said essentially that EVEN if its an auto-success - if a player calls for a check then they get a fail chance, added, bam, done. Their rationale (some) was that a die roll check mandates there be uncertainty and fail chance. (That said, they were not clear if it plays the same way for impossible tasks - if the player declares "i roll" the GM will now add a 20 succeeds kinda thing. My bet not - but it's not clear if they take this " player caller for uncertainty " both ways.)

Others, myself included, have said if it was an auto-success before, its an auto-success even if you ask for check. If its an auto-fail before, it is after you call for a check.

But the use case was ambiguous and morphic-ready. It was not said that it was auto-success - just that the GM wasnt gonna call for roll? It was described as easy, which is DC 10 in DnD5e terms. So that example has the default built in wiggle room rabbit hole we by now should not find surprising.

For me tho, I also recognize that a failed ski... errr... ability check is a failure which by the basic 5e definition for resolution of ability checks can be some progress ewih setback so, the possibility of not making the other side at ground level, but catching on the other side some x feet down on the ledge is possible too. Add in some damage, a need to climb up or be helped, etc and options other than dead are on the table.

But then, I d9nt know of any player who would have jumped from that description before asking "how far. So, I too assumed it was a rabbit hole pre-wiggled parody of the perception of those who dont embrace the faith of goal and approach myself and prefer the middle path.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?

In such a case, if it was an impossibly long jump, can a player declared "I roll" call turn an auto-fail into a possible succeed or does this "the result will matter. Surely?" only cancel the uncertainty if it goes against the player?

 

[Imaculata]

In such a case, if it was an impossibly long jump, can a player declared "I roll" call turn an auto-fail into a possible succeed or does this "the result will matter. Surely?" only cancel the uncertainty if it goes against the player?

If a check is an auto-fail or an auto-succeed, I always disregard the die result. If I say no roll is required, then this requirement doesn't suddenly change because a player decided to roll anyway.

 

[Hussar]

So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?

No. I wouldn’t. If there was no chance of failure then the roll is superfluous. Doesn’t matter if he scored a 0 (actually happened for an insight check last session lol ). There’s no chance of failure so there is no chance of failure.

But in the example given, an automatic success suddenly became non-automatic because the player rolled. Considering the number of accusations of misinterpretation and willful ignorance, it’s a bit funny and a lot ironic to see.

 

[Oofta]

So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?

If I wasn't going to ask for a roll because it was not necessary, it succeeds. If something can't be achieved it can't be achieved even with a nat 20.

They may have wasted a roll of a die but last time I checked those aren't a limited resource. Although every time someone rolls a 20 when no roll was necessary you would think they were.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good morning, gang!

For the record, I wasn't expecting anybody to take that post seriously. I thought I'd get a few "laugh" clicks and we'd move on. I was going for a humorous illustration of how "players initiate skill checks" and "failed rolls have consequences" don't mix well.

(I thought the flaw would be obvious: if success would have been automatic, even a low roll would still be success.)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If I wasn't going to ask for a roll because it was not necessary, it succeeds. If something can't be achieved it can't be achieved even with a nat 20.

I think another point here is that some (many?) people think it rude or at least a breach of etiquette for an experienced player to just go ahead and roll without letting the DM finish their part of the play loop. At the very least, it is potentially disruptive/time wasting for someone to roll when it was not even called for.

They may have wasted a roll of a die but last time I checked those aren't a limited resource. Although every time someone rolls a 20 when no roll was necessary you would think they were.

Yeah, it’s funny how superstitious gamers can be. As players only roll at meaningful moments in our games, the only time I’ve seen it lately is when some of them are “warming up” before we get started. I play into it, too: “oops, you just wasted a crit!”