Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
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.
Er, or somebody understands the (new) game just fine and knows they have a right to roll.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Go read PHB 172 and DMG 236-237. Dice are rolled only when the DM calls for 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.
Okay. For at LEAST the third time this thread...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!
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.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.
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.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.