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 to DC 25 for forcing a door?
-
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
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It's an example of gating behind proficiency, which is hard proof that it's perfectly fine for the DM to do so. The DMG rules do not tell the DM how to determine impossibility at all. Not one directive. That means it's 100% up to the DM's discretion by RAW.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The PHB rules are subordinate to the DMG on determining impossibility. The DM decides how he will determine impossibility and then if a roll is appropriate, asks the player for a roll.
Not to argue, but that seems to run contrary to what the PHB says, which is, the DM calls for a skill check, and you roll with proficiency if you have it, and without if you don't?
I mean, yes, the DM has the authority to deny the check, but it seems like that's the exception, not the rule, or the PHB would use different wording?
I mean, yes, the DM has the authority to deny the check, but it seems like that's the exception, not the rule, or the PHB would use different wording?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The PHB says "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." If it's not uncertain, there is no roll. The DMG talks to the DM about determining certainty and the DM can use whatever criteria he chooses for it.
Ok. I mean, it's perfectly fair to play however you feel is the most fun, the questions I have are more "was it really intended to gate ability checks". Now apparently the developers have said they play this way, and some adventures back this up, but having read the rules, I wouldn't have inferred that at all- even if it's not always logical, I'm an "everybody rolls" kind of DM.
Mostly because I don't trust my own judgment on what should or should not be a proficiency gated roll (other than for tools, which spell this rule out plainly).
By what I've read to date, it feels like a "rule zero" justification, since you have to go beyond what the rules say and make case by case rulings for it, which makes it difficult to discuss, especially with this new "20 always succeeds" rule on the table.
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, now we have that needing to be proficient is a fair gate. I agree with you, and sort of apologize for disagreeing, but don’t cause frustrating you got what I wanted.
however, what’s the situation for a proficient character who can’t possibly pass the DC check? In a DC 25 situation, with a proficient character who can only hit 23, shouldn’t they still get a roll to go for a 20 because “if it’s possible for someone, it’s possible for anyone (proficient)”?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
And that's perfectly fine. There really isn't a wrong way to run ability checks if people are having fun. Personally, I gate some rolls and not others.
The rules don't say anything at all about it, though. Other than only rolling when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure, nothing at all tells you when something is automatically successful or automatically a failure. No guidance is given. Even saying someone trying to jump the grand canyon automatically fails is going beyond what the rules say and making a case by case ruling.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
There are a few others(3 in total I think), also dealing with tools.
Sorry about that. I figured out later that you were replying to someone who has me blocked. It's frustrating because if you read that response I quoted without seeing what you were responding to, it reads like you were responding to me.
Not being able to see posts by those who block you is a flaw of this site, but that's what they've chosen to do.
It's all case by case. The DMG and PHB literally give no guidance on determining when something is possible, when it isn't and when it's automatic. The new rule in the UA gives a bit of guidance in saying that below 5 is automatic and above 30 is impossible, but doesn't go any further, leaving the DMG rules in place.
Just last night I had the players roll for an auto success on a 20 that couldn't be achieved any other way. I don't do it often, and it had nothing to do with the UA. The player rolled a 20 and the table erupted in cheers. It was great.
@Maxperson
for what it’s worth, I ask this question about the proficiency gate
for what it’s worth, I ask this question about the proficiency gate
Because someone more pedantic than me could say there’s a difference between tool, weapon, and armor proficiency and skill proficiency on a check. I’m not that person, your point is proven, but, you know, one could keep fighting
Similar Threads
