Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
That is simply false in 5e. It’s possible that will change with 5.5 but I highly doubt it.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
- Thread starter Ibrandul
- Start date
That is simply false in 5e. It’s possible that will change with 5.5 but I highly doubt it.
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
Morkus from Orkus
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.
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.
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.
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
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
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
Morkus from Orkus
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.
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
Morkus from Orkus
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.
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."
Similar Threads
