Should checks be made only when the odds are unknown?

[Kemptock]

It is too often that I see DM's, including even famous ones, imposing checks for almost everything or in general allowing the dice to determine the outcome, no matter how likely or unlikely. Personally I think the much more engaging and logical style is to only request various skill or ability checks whenever the DM himself is unable to make a determination as to what happens.

If someone wants to persuade/deceive another, does he have either an highly appealing means of persuasion that based on the NPC personality I created, that NPC has no reason to refuse? No check needed. Is the deception backed with flawless evidence? No check. Is the argument catering to the NPC's motives or personality or vice versa? Then imposed advantage or disadvantage only if not entirely sure. It rarely happens that things are so balanced as to require a straight check left purely to chance.

Same goes for investigation, with these checks to find glaring items on someone's dead corpse being one of the most stupid things I've ever seen in DND. If you take a quick glance at something it's a check, if you killed a bunch of guys and strip their clothes off along with everything on them and stuff it into a bag of holding, then there isn't any check, you automatically obtain whatever they had on them. Likewise if spending an hour bashing in all the furniture in a room to find something, if that they were seeking was somewhere inside said room rather than under a floorboard or the like.

Wizards get automatic Arcana knowledge, Clerics get religion, and if it's something they couldn't have researched anywhere, then no check. Only if knowing their background, they could have theoretically learned about something, ( I.E Illusion Wizard about Illusions, Life Cleric about a health sapping curse, etc.. ) is there a check.

Final rule - Almost never will there be any Intelligence checks about something a player should be able to figure out on his own if their intelligence is around average ( 10-15 ). Low or Genius intelligence characters get a pass for roleplaying purposes.

At least that's how I as a DM think skill checks should be managed.

[BW022]

I would argue that the odds are almost always unknown. Any good GM is going to scale results based on the roll.

I might well ask for a persuasion check for a mundane request. Yes... they are perfectly fine giving you basic information -- DC 0 if you like. However, if you roll a 15+ maybe they give you some extra information and hint that maybe they know something else for a few coins. Yet, on a 20+ they'll let you know that someone else asked also without needing 5sp. The roll can also help me determine how well the NPC might now like the PC in the future.

Same with an investigate. Yes... its DC 0 to tell there is a dead body in front of you with a dagger their back or they have some odd coins in their pouch. Yet, maybe DC 10 will let you know their shirt buttons are torn off, 15 that the attacker was left handed, and 20 that the attacker was much taller than the victim.


Not rolling has some negatives also...

1. It unduly penalizes people to take non-combat skills. Players will then just roleplay past everything -- so the 8 char half-orc can function as well at the 18 charisma bard with expertise in persuasion -- simply because the player is better at roleplaying. Statistically the bard should be getting more successes than the half-orc... and rolling tends to show this.

2. It can unduly prolong encounters with excessive roleplaying since players now try to roleplay into situations where the answer is an automatic success.

3. It can unduly penalize players who aren't good roleplayers, talkers, problem solvers, etc. while their characters should be good at it.

4. It can now trigger meta-gaming when you do ask for a roll. Players now know that this isn't mundane and now try all sorts of things if they 'fail'.

5. Many players like dice rolling.

6. Allowing rolling often allows moving the plot forward if players get stuck. Statistically, in a group of four... someone will role high enough and you have a reason to toss them a bone and get them moving again.

7. Some groups are good at roleplaying rolls and it can lead to good results, fun play, funny stories, improving, etc. Maybe the dumb half-orc rolls really high and he smells something on the body - maybe dog.

8. Often there are hidden modifiers or situations. Maybe only the druid would know that symbol on the dagger, but you ask for a role from everyone. Everyone else has a DC of 20, the wizard only a 10 since he has encountered werewolves before.

This said, you can also just use passive values against low DC targets.

[Anonymouswizard]

The general advice is:

-If failure isn't interesting don't roll.

That is, if failing the roll means nothing changes then don't bother rolling, just let then succeed. The game is supposed to be fun, failing a roll and having nothing change isn't fun. At best you get the entire group trying one after another, at worst the players are in a situation with no real way out.

This is why failing forward exists, so that when failure isn't interesting you have an interesting success with a setback.

There's a second piece of advice that is less commonly followed:

-If success isn't interesting don't roll.

The idea is the same, but depending on the group forced failure doesn't go down well (because it is technically railroading). But the idea is that you should combine the two so that whenever the dice are rolled something interesting happens.

[DarkKnightJin]

I figure that a low Cha character would have a tougher time persuading someone than the Bard with Expertise.

I agree with most answers, regarding the 'fail forward' idea. A failed roll shouldn't bar something outright (some exceptions excluded), but it shouldn't be the same as not failing.

For example, picking a lock. A success means the lock gets picked. A fail could mean the lock gets picked, but it takes a bit longer.. And maybe there's some guards that hear something as yoy quietly curse under your breath at it taking so long.

The DM should use their best judgment to decide what would and what wouldn't need a roll.
And of course, having scaling successes is always good. A 10 gets you a little more info than the 5, and the 20 will get you a lot more that you might never have known about otherwise.

[Pex]

Unknown by whom? The DM determines the DC. Once that's done the odds are known to him and the player if he deigns to tell him. If it's an opposed roll those rolling have their modifiers. The odds are known to the DM if he bothers to calculate.

It's not so much the odds but the general concept of all DCs depend on who is DM that day. What one DM will say is no need to roll another will say is DC 10 while a different DM says DC 15. By 5E's choice everyone is right and if you don't like it it's up to you to lump it or don't play. The DM has to think up a DC for every single action a PC wants to take, including no need to roll. If the player chooses to play in another campaign he has to forget everything he thinks he knows about skill use and relearn how to play the game based on the new DM's whims.

Some people think that's a hip, hip, hooray feature. Others don't.