Search results

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...

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...

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...

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!

Yeah, I think they’re trying to make your daughter happy as their design goal While also keeping rules and mechanics as a thing in the game. You can’t actually Provide a technical system for a million different ideas, the DM is going to have to adapt the wide ranging possibilities offered to...

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...

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...

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...

deleted

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

No, it’s easy. Everyone gets to roll. Some have normal chances of success, some need a 20.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Interesting. Where is rule about gating checks behind proficiency?