Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8740655" data-attributes="member: 23751">It's not a house rule. It's a different application of RAW.&nbsp; RAW states that you roll when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance for failure.&nbsp; Gating rolls behind being proficient is RAW, because the outcome is not uncertain to me for those who are not proficient.&nbsp; So far as I know, nothing says I have to give every PC equal chances.I also don't do that for every ability check.&nbsp; For a lot of them anyone can roll, proficient or not.&nbsp; For some you would need to have gone to school(be proficient) to learn that sort of thing.As for bards, I value bardic knowledge(now Jack of all Trades) very much and give bards much more leeway to know obscure things than I do the other classes.It's not so much ambiguous as subjective, but since the DM is making the decision to call for a roll or not, it's what he thinks that matters.With lore it depends on what is at stake. If a wizard wanted to know if the magical light that is lighting up the inn was from a permanent light spell, the blessing of an angel or whatever, I'd just tell him.&nbsp; What does it matter if he fails that particular knowledge roll?&nbsp; If on the other hand he was looking at magical runes in the Death Knight's castle and wanted to see if he could figure out what they were for, he'd need to roll. Failure in that instance has meaning and it is very much in doubt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8740655, member: 23751"] It's not a house rule. It's a different application of RAW. RAW states that you roll when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance for failure. Gating rolls behind being proficient is RAW, because the outcome is not uncertain to me for those who are not proficient. So far as I know, nothing says I have to give every PC equal chances. I also don't do that for every ability check. For a lot of them anyone can roll, proficient or not. For some you would need to have gone to school(be proficient) to learn that sort of thing. As for bards, I value bardic knowledge(now Jack of all Trades) very much and give bards much more leeway to know obscure things than I do the other classes. It's not so much ambiguous as subjective, but since the DM is making the decision to call for a roll or not, it's what he thinks that matters. With lore it depends on what is at stake. If a wizard wanted to know if the magical light that is lighting up the inn was from a permanent light spell, the blessing of an angel or whatever, I'd just tell him. What does it matter if he fails that particular knowledge roll? If on the other hand he was looking at magical runes in the Death Knight's castle and wanted to see if he could figure out what they were for, he'd need to roll. Failure in that instance has meaning and it is very much in doubt. [/QUOTE]

Verification