Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ibrandul" data-source="post: 8740327" data-attributes="member: 6871736">Do you really do this? Every time? Really?Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall.The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.)This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where the stats make it impossible.At this point, the DM probably says something like &quot;It looks pretty hard.&quot; And let's say the player says, &quot;I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it.&quot;Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: &quot;OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage.&quot;Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? &quot;I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try.&quot;I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, &quot;OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check.&quot; And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW.Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll requires that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above.Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ibrandul, post: 8740327, member: 6871736"] Do you really do this? Every time? Really? Let's say a PC says she wants to climb a 100-foot-tall, dangerous wall. The DM determines that a DC 22 Strength (Athletics) check is required to successfully climb the wall. The PC's modifier for this check is +0. (The DM may not know this, by the way. Adventurer's League DMs, for example, rarely know their PCs' stats.) This simply is not a situation where the task is obviously impossible for this character. It's a situation where [I]the stats[/I] make it impossible. At this point, the DM probably says something like "It looks pretty hard." And let's say the player says, "I don't think I have any other way to get up there. I'll have to try it." Is the DM really expected to look at the PC's modifier, and then just narrate failure? No roll, just: "OK, you get partway up the wall and then fall. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage." Or is the DM expected to look at the mod, and then take over the PC's free will and forbid the player from trying? "I'm sorry, you can't. You realize the task is too hard, and you decide not to try." I don't think I've ever seen a DM do either of those things in this situation. Every one instead says, "OK, make a Strength (Athletics) check." And then, even if a nat 20 is rolled, resulting in a total of 19 on the check, the PC fails, and the DM narrates the failure. Or—they treat the nat 20 as a success because they're already not playing 2014 RAW. Note that any option other than allowing the player to roll [I]requires[/I] that the DM must look at PCs' stats before every roll with a DC of, say, 18 or above. Other options have been proposed. Options like: telling players the DC before high-DC rolls and only allowing players who could hit the DC to roll (which breaks all sorts of PC abilities); allowing only players with proficiency to roll (which breaks other PC abilities); or never setting DCs higher than 20. These options are open to DMs—but they are definitely not RAW. [/QUOTE]

Verification