Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 8742423" data-attributes="member: 6988941"><p>I agree, but I still want to push back on the "impossible" idea, by saying that I've been a specialist in a few fields, and there is very little knowledge that is actually impossible for a (generally) non-proficient person to randomly know something about and very few tasks that are actually impossible for a non-proficient person to, with a lot of luck, accomplish, if they actually attempted them.</p><p></p><p>What there is, is a whole lot of things that are much more improbable than a 5% chance that a non-specialist would succeed at. So the decision DMs have to make is whether they are okay with the level of heightened reality that enables unlikely characters to succeed at unlikely things (sometimes incredibly unlikely things) 5% of the time, or whether they need more verisimilitude on this front in their magical fantasy game, in which case they will need to be more careful about allowing people to roll for things.</p><p></p><p>Basically what you have to do is, before allowing a roll by a character for whom success feels like it should be impossible, think about whether success at the particular thing by that particular character would be inconsistent with the tone of your game. </p><p></p><p>Personally the only things that come to mind where I am uncomfortable with the "wrong character" succeeding at in my games are checks that I am only allowing to another character because of their backstory, and attempts to perform with a musical instrument by someone who has never played any related musical instrument (being a natural is okay, but you aren't going to figure out the lute on the first strum).</p><p></p><p>I think improbable checks are generally better gated behind character background than proficiency. After all the 5e skill system does not generally make much logical sense (if I have a background in religion my religion skills grow with my general proficiency from experience in non-religious studies related adventures?) and it seems like anything made possible to succeed at through a general proficiency in one of 5e's very general skills should not be completely impossible for someone who is not proficient. But if the reason you allow someone to roll is not because they have the Arcana proficiency, but because their background is that they acquired that proficiency at a mage school and it seems like they are rolling for a piece of arcane knowledge that, in your setting, virtually nobody outside of magic schools would ever know, then it makes a lot more sense to gate other characters off from that roll.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Benjamin Olson, post: 8742423, member: 6988941"] I agree, but I still want to push back on the "impossible" idea, by saying that I've been a specialist in a few fields, and there is very little knowledge that is actually impossible for a (generally) non-proficient person to randomly know something about and very few tasks that are actually impossible for a non-proficient person to, with a lot of luck, accomplish, if they actually attempted them. What there is, is a whole lot of things that are much more improbable than a 5% chance that a non-specialist would succeed at. So the decision DMs have to make is whether they are okay with the level of heightened reality that enables unlikely characters to succeed at unlikely things (sometimes incredibly unlikely things) 5% of the time, or whether they need more verisimilitude on this front in their magical fantasy game, in which case they will need to be more careful about allowing people to roll for things. Basically what you have to do is, before allowing a roll by a character for whom success feels like it should be impossible, think about whether success at the particular thing by that particular character would be inconsistent with the tone of your game. Personally the only things that come to mind where I am uncomfortable with the "wrong character" succeeding at in my games are checks that I am only allowing to another character because of their backstory, and attempts to perform with a musical instrument by someone who has never played any related musical instrument (being a natural is okay, but you aren't going to figure out the lute on the first strum). I think improbable checks are generally better gated behind character background than proficiency. After all the 5e skill system does not generally make much logical sense (if I have a background in religion my religion skills grow with my general proficiency from experience in non-religious studies related adventures?) and it seems like anything made possible to succeed at through a general proficiency in one of 5e's very general skills should not be completely impossible for someone who is not proficient. But if the reason you allow someone to roll is not because they have the Arcana proficiency, but because their background is that they acquired that proficiency at a mage school and it seems like they are rolling for a piece of arcane knowledge that, in your setting, virtually nobody outside of magic schools would ever know, then it makes a lot more sense to gate other characters off from that roll. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Auto-succeed/fail on ability checks
Top