Profs as regular bonuses, or as requirements?

[Schwann145]

Just considering the best way to handle certain proficiencies.

For instance, does every character just inherently know how to pilot a ship (of any type no less; sailboat or galley, doesn't matter!), or does someone need to have Vehicle(Water) in order to not, ya know, die at the very first storm a boat comes across?
The former seems ridiculous, but the latter seems overly-punishing (with how few proficiencies 5e grants).

I realize that a strict RAW reading would be, "it's just a bonus," but in actual gameplay, how do you square the very awkward circle that this creates thematically?

[Mastikator]

I kinda 50/50 on this and make it depend on the task whether it requires training or anyone can try. Maybe 60/40 in favor of "anyone can try" for the base skills and the other way for tools

However help action always require both have proficiency in my games.

[Kane0]

Uh, i guess its contextual but generally when i DM the DC doesnt care about your bonuses, it just is what it is and you can roll it or not. I dont usually gate an attempt behind proficiency unless its pretty esoteric and only someone with training/experience would even be aware of it.
So the vast majority of the time you can try things with a basic ability check and the related tool or whatnot provides the proficiency bonus as just that, a bonus. But there are a few things where proficiency would be needed, things like oddly specific knowledge or tricks of the trade.

[MoiMagnus]

If you go toward "realism", then the PCs should be hiring specialists to do specialist work. If they want to use a boat and they're not a sailor, they need to hire one or they'll fail (or they need to take the time to train themself).

If you go toward "heroes of action movie", then it's fine for PCs to be able to do whatever they want if they're lucky enough.

The question is where on this scale do you want your campaign to be.

[Zhorn]

I know it's not the 'best solution for all scenarios' that others may say for their house rules and homebrew, but I've been fond of allowing those sorts of proficiencies just mean to bypass the checks (within reason), and lacking proficiencies will mean rolling for all the checks.

Vehicle(Water) just works
Vehicle(Land) just works
Alchemist's Tools just works
etc

The point isn't to remove things that are meant to be a challenge; just to remove the things that if someone had the training should be trivial.

If something is legitimately meant to be a challenge; it will have rolls and such. But unless the encounter was banking on the task being something the players were meant to struggle at; then those that know what they are doing can count on knowing what they are doing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see the point in over thinking this, Schwann. Kane's approach fits the game's fundamental method. Also, as a DM, learn how to apply situational advantage and disadvantage; it's in the rules (Chapter 1 and Chapter 7). That can dial the tension/challenge up or down where it makes sense to do so. Each situation has its own context.

I dont usually gate an attempt behind proficiency unless its pretty esoteric and only someone with training/experience would even be aware of it.
So the vast majority of the time you can try things with a basic ability check and the related tool or whatnot provides the proficiency bonus as just that, a bonus. But there are a few things where proficiency would be needed, things like oddly specific knowledge or tricks of the trade.
This.
It's a bonus, not a requirement. That's how this edition was written and intended.

Gating behind proficiencies is for other editions. It leans toward anti player, particularly in small parties, to gate attempts behind a proficiency BONUS since plenty of skill areas won't be covered.

[Goobahfish]

I think both Zhorn and Kane0 have it right.

I think proficiency should in some cases, simply negate the need for a check. You are proficient in carpentry. Ergo, you can build a crate without issue. Other players can try to build a crate (a check) but a fail means it came out 'all shoddy-like'. There was a thread on this a while back but basically the issue comes down to proficiency bonus (10%) doesn't adequately represent the variance in a variety of tasks.

The best example is swim. People who aren't proficient at swimming... drown. This isn't an if or but. This just happens. Someone who is physically fit and strong might be more likely to survive a 'brief dip' as they flail to grab onto something, but even if you are the most fit/strong person, ask a non-swimmer to swim 100m in deep water and that person is effectively 'dead in the water'.

So, I generally have three gatings.
#1: Do you need to check (i.e., does the proficiency grant auto-success).
#2: Is this a generally difficult thing (i.e., proficiency makes you better but it isn't a pass fail thing).
#3: Can you check at all (i.e., without Knowledge Arcana... I'm sorry you don't know how ancient magical devices work).

Of course... for #3... as a DM why are you putting such challenges into your game in the first place (other than give player X with said skill the spotlight).

So yeah... I think gating is perfectly fine, but as mentioned above, should be very rare. Likewise 'anti-gating' (auto-successes) should also be reasonably common. Doing anything else just creates weird narratives which are fine in moderation (hey, you lucked out and built a really good crate but couldn't reproduce it) but not all the time.

[Lunali]

I treat them as bonuses. This is part of my policy that all PCs have basic competency in anything I'd call for a roll on, but they aren't as good as an actual specialist, even if they have the maximum possible bonus for a PC.

[Zuras]

Uh, i guess its contextual but generally when i DM the DC doesnt care about your bonuses, it just is what it is and you can roll it or not. I dont usually gate an attempt behind proficiency unless its pretty esoteric and only someone with training/experience would even be aware of it.
So the vast majority of the time you can try things with a basic ability check and the related tool or whatnot provides the proficiency bonus as just that, a bonus. But there are a few things where proficiency would be needed, things like oddly specific knowledge or tricks of the trade.

Basically this. Remember you get to decide as the DM whether a character can attempt an action or not, so you can gate a few esoteric actions and simply set a DC for the rest. In a more complex skill system they actually have concrete rules for familiarity and default abilities, but 5e doesn’t bother with that.

In the concrete sailing example, as long as at least one character has some Vehicles (water) skill, I’d let everyone attempt appropriate checks for basic seamanship stuff. Only the actually trained characters are going to be using the astrolabe, though.

[Schwann145]

I asked specifically because of the esoteric checks, combined with how the 5e system is built.
I realize not all Proficiencies are the same in this regard, nor should they be.

I got thinking about this specifically as I was watching an episode of Dimension 20: A Crown of Candy, and Brennan (the DM) made a comment about how, because he was being a bit tighter on the rules lately, did anyone in the party have proficiency with water vehicles (as the party was, through circumstance, forced onto a ship), because if they wanted to steal a ship and no one did, it would likely mean death for the party the moment they ran into sea-related trouble, like a storm.
I immediately thought to myself, "Of course no one does, why would they? This is a party of royalty or servants-of-royalty from a rather land-locked area of this world; no one would reasonably have the Sailor background or any reason to have Vehicle: Water proficiency."
And then I further went on to think, "D&D gives you like 2 proficiencies to cover your character's entire breadth of experience (exaggerating :smalltongue: ) and even characters who are older and more worldly are limited to the same small number as any other character; a level 3 King in his late 40s isn't going to have any more skill or experience, mechanically-speaking, than his level 3 Princess daughters who are still in their teens."

So I suppose the real question I'm asking is how do you decide what is sufficiently esoteric enough to say, "having this proficiency is all you need," vs "having this proficiency is gonna give you a bonus to something anyone can otherwise be expected to do," vs "specifically not having this proficiency is detrimental?"
And, beyond that (though this may be beyond the scope of this thread), how do you reasonably showcase character abilities and/or knowledges that they very likely should know but just don't have enough Proficiency "slots" to use? (Aside from the DM just giving out profs for free, that is!)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Generally I'll have them play one session with whatever's on their character sheet, and if they're using their boat untrained during that session I'll pick the person who I think has been most proactive or creative about it and just give them proficiency in water vehicles. Same goes for a lot of tools, really. As long as what they're doing doesn't touch the combat pillar, only loosely or lightly touches the social pillar and is mostly confined to the exploration pillar, I'm happy to give them free skills to reflect their experiences.

[diplomancer]

I think before calling for a roll, the DM has to decide what sort of a task it is; is it the sort of task that requires training, but, with training, success is guaranteed? You can forego the roll completely, unless you want to have an estimation of how well the person with proficiency succeeded.
.
If it's a task that is possible for the untrained, and still not certain for the trained person, go right ahead and roll. Consider applying advantage/disadvantage as needed to get the odds closer to what they ought to be.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I think before calling for a roll, the DM has to decide what sort of a task it is; is it the sort of task that requires training, but, with training, success is guaranteed? You can forego the roll completely, unless you want to have an estimation of how well the person with proficiency succeeded.
.
If it's a task that is possible for the untrained, and still not certain for the trained person, go right ahead and roll. Consider applying advantage/disadvantage as needed to get the odds closer to what they ought to be.

This is a good point too. And there's often no point in having the roll if a failure has no meaningful consequences, though I often call for a roll anyway. The untrained pilot of the little skiff has to pole it away from the wharf and into the current, and they bump into the other side of the wharf before they can get it out of the slip. Whoops, you failed, but there's no consequence, but also maybe it should be a warning to you not to try to ride the Maw of Yossolef, the horrifying croc-o-gator infested rapids ten miles downstream, even if it's theoretically faster!

[Psyren]

I usually treat it as a bonus, but for some checks I don't mind using it as a tollgate/requirement. I'd say it can represent both - you're better than an untrained person at something everyone can theoretically do, and in some cases, even making the attempt needs training of some kind.

[Unoriginal]

Worth noting that both in real life and in fiction, it is not uncommon for trained sailors to die due to getting caught in a storm.

[MoiMagnus]

Worth noting that both in real life and in fiction, it is not uncommon for trained sailors to die due to getting caught in a storm.

Yes, but how likely is "not uncommon"?
Sure, if sailing is your job, it's "not uncommon" to eventually die in a storm. But I don't think it's actually greater than 5% per travel, even if you only count travels under bad weather.

[Zhorn]

Worth noting that both in real life and in fiction, it is not uncommon for trained sailors to die due to getting caught in a storm.Yes, but how likely is "not uncommon"?
Sure, if sailing is your job, it's "not uncommon" to eventually die in a storm. But I don't think it's actually greater than 5% per travel, even if you only count travels under bad weather.
Discussion like this is why I rule the way I do with saying proficiencies bypass checks within reason, but still roll for things that are meant to be a challenge.
A ship on average waters would be a challenge for non-proficient characters and so would make sense to have rolls, but for a proficient character it is trivial and does not warrant the rolls.
A ship in a storm is a challenge regardless of training, and so everyone rolls. The proficient characters are getting an extra bump to their totals, but the threat is ever present and can still catch them out the same as the non-proficient characters.

[RazorChain]

I think both Zhorn and Kane0 have it right.

I think proficiency should in some cases, simply negate the need for a check. You are proficient in carpentry. Ergo, you can build a crate without issue. Other players can try to build a crate (a check) but a fail means it came out 'all shoddy-like'. There was a thread on this a while back but basically the issue comes down to proficiency bonus (10%) doesn't adequately represent the variance in a variety of tasks.

The best example is swim. People who aren't proficient at swimming... drown. This isn't an if or but. This just happens. Someone who is physically fit and strong might be more likely to survive a 'brief dip' as they flail to grab onto something, but even if you are the most fit/strong person, ask a non-swimmer to swim 100m in deep water and that person is effectively 'dead in the water'.

So, I generally have three gatings.
#1: Do you need to check (i.e., does the proficiency grant auto-success).
#2: Is this a generally difficult thing (i.e., proficiency makes you better but it isn't a pass fail thing).
#3: Can you check at all (i.e., without Knowledge Arcana... I'm sorry you don't know how ancient magical devices work).

Of course... for #3... as a DM why are you putting such challenges into your game in the first place (other than give player X with said skill the spotlight).

So yeah... I think gating is perfectly fine, but as mentioned above, should be very rare. Likewise 'anti-gating' (auto-successes) should also be reasonably common. Doing anything else just creates weird narratives which are fine in moderation (hey, you lucked out and built a really good crate but couldn't reproduce it) but not all the time.


I agree on most parts, I have auto success relative common if you have proficiency. As for #3 is also relatively common, not because I'm trying to gatekeep information but because the players might be asking questions that require skill checks like history, religion, arcana etc. I have one PC in my campaign who is playing a half orc that lived with a orcish tribe until he was captured by humans as a teen and made a slave gladiator, he does not have the history skill so he doesn't get to roll when trying to glean some obscure historical knowledge.

It's the same with me when I'm playing my fisherman from a small village turned adventurer/fighter, he doesn't have the arcana skill.....he just doesn't know anything relevant about magic. But fishing....goddammit he can tell you all about that

The other thing I also bring into play is character background, if you have a background as a soldier then you should know a lot about war, weapons, tactics etc. If your background is noble then you probably know who's who of the nobility, their heraldry, how to behave in high society etc. and I allow those players stat+proficiency when attempting anything relevant to their background as the skill list in 5e is ****e.

[RazorChain]

I asked specifically because of the esoteric checks, combined with how the 5e system is built.
I realize not all Proficiencies are the same in this regard, nor should they be.

I got thinking about this specifically as I was watching an episode of Dimension 20: A Crown of Candy, and Brennan (the DM) made a comment about how, because he was being a bit tighter on the rules lately, did anyone in the party have proficiency with water vehicles (as the party was, through circumstance, forced onto a ship), because if they wanted to steal a ship and no one did, it would likely mean death for the party the moment they ran into sea-related trouble, like a storm.
I immediately thought to myself, "Of course no one does, why would they? This is a party of royalty or servants-of-royalty from a rather land-locked area of this world; no one would reasonably have the Sailor background or any reason to have Vehicle: Water proficiency."
And then I further went on to think, "D&D gives you like 2 proficiencies to cover your character's entire breadth of experience (exaggerating :smalltongue: ) and even characters who are older and more worldly are limited to the same small number as any other character; a level 3 King in his late 40s isn't going to have any more skill or experience, mechanically-speaking, than his level 3 Princess daughters who are still in their teens."

So I suppose the real question I'm asking is how do you decide what is sufficiently esoteric enough to say, "having this proficiency is all you need," vs "having this proficiency is gonna give you a bonus to something anyone can otherwise be expected to do," vs "specifically not having this proficiency is detrimental?"
And, beyond that (though this may be beyond the scope of this thread), how do you reasonably showcase character abilities and/or knowledges that they very likely should know but just don't have enough Proficiency "slots" to use? (Aside from the DM just giving out profs for free, that is!)


I use backgrounds, race, class/archetypes a lot combined with the PC's backstories a lot. Often I also just ask the player "has your character any experience or knowledge about this?"

I mean most of them don't have animal handling but we just assume that they can ride a horse without problem or drive a cart to some extent. You have the land vehicle proficiency, then you know everything about it from repair, maintenance, driving to knowledge about the caravan routes and the best way to get from a to b with a wagon.

For example in my recent game the group were going through some ledgers to find a clue. One PC is a 40 year old tavern owner who's been running a small business for the last 15 years. Hell yeah, roll Int+Prof with an advantage. The others might roll a investigation, except the slave gladiator PC who can't read.

[Kane0]

Actually the boat thing is rather relevant to me too, my current party is on a keelboat heading down a wide river and the one guy with water vee prof skipped on us. As long as the waters are calm our rolls are just to determine how fast and smoothly we move rather than moving at all or damaging anything. If we fell under attack and had to do anything under pressure or needing fancy maneuvers we would be able to roll but there wouldnt be snowball chance in hell we'd make it

[Sigreid]

Perhaps because I've been corrupted by WEG Star Wars, I view the attributes representing talent and training in broad fields of skills, while the skills you're proficient in are ones you've put some extra effort into. So, the ship question for example if you've not got proficiency, your attributes cover your general background dealing with knots and their uses, familiarity with how water and wind move and ability to figure out how to use all the little things you do in your life to make the right things happen.

If you think about yourself, for example; I'm sure you have dozens more skills than you realize you have because rhey are just part of your past experiences and daily life, a smaller number of skills you've devoted time and attention to developing to a higher level, and an uncountable number of activities that you've not really dealt with before, but you can puzzle out based on the other bits listed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Perhaps because I've been corrupted by WEG Star Wars, I view the attributes representing talent and training in broad fields of skills, while the skills you're proficient in are ones you've put some extra effort into. So, the ship question for example if you've not got proficiency, your attributes cover your general background dealing with knots and their uses, familiarity with how water and wind move and ability to figure out how to use all the little things you do in your life to make the right things happen.

If you think about yourself, for example; I'm sure you have dozens more skills than you realize you have because rhey are just part of your past experiences and daily life, a smaller number of skills you've devoted time and attention to developing to a higher level, and an uncountable number of activities that you've not really dealt with before, but you can puzzle out based on the other bits listed.

I agree with this.

[Hiro Quester]

I generally have three gatings.
#1: Do you need to check (i.e., does the proficiency grant auto-success).
#2: Is this a generally difficult thing (i.e., proficiency makes you better but it isn't a pass fail thing).
#3: Can you check at all (i.e., without Knowledge Arcana... I'm sorry you don't know how ancient magical devices work).


This always seemed sensible to me.

Importantly it should also apply to the Help action.

that is, you can auto success by helping someone attempt (1), even if they don't have proficiency. You coach them through it, and your proficiency makes sure the result is good enough. e.g. an investigation check. "See, look at that surface there. Notice the hollow sound when you knock here. That's a sign that there's a secret compartment here. See that catch? it probably opens it. But on't touch it yet! We should check this for traps."

You give advantage by helping in (2) situations. e.g. Between us, even though we don't have proficiency, I can help my friend make perception checks while on watch, even when I have a negative wisdom modifier.

You don't have the knowledge required to help in (3) situations, and might even make things more difficult by trying to help. E.g. a specialized knowledge check. "Stop trying to help. You are making it harder. Just let me think! I read a book about this once."

And it's the DM's call which situation applies.

[Sigreid]

This always seemed sensible to me.

Importantly it should also apply to the Help action.

that is, you can auto success by helping someone attempt (1), even if they don't have proficiency. You coach them through it, and your proficiency makes sure the result is good enough. e.g. an investigation check. "See, look at that surface there. Notice the hollow sound when you knock here. That's a sign that there's a secret compartment here. See that catch? it probably opens it. But on't touch it yet! We should check this for traps."

You give advantage by helping in (2) situations. e.g. Between us, even though we don't have proficiency, I can help my friend make perception checks while on watch, even when I have a negative wisdom modifier.

You don't have the knowledge required to help in (3) situations, and might even make things more difficult by trying to help. E.g. a specialized knowledge check. "Stop trying to help. You are making it harder. Just let me think! I read a book about this once."

And it's the DM's call which situation applies.
Frequently in real life, I find an insightful question from someone unfamiliar with the topic as I talk through it is more helpful than the input from another expert.

[Psyren]

#1: Do you need to check (i.e., does the proficiency grant auto-success).
#2: Is this a generally difficult thing (i.e., proficiency makes you better but it isn't a pass fail thing).
#3: Can you check at all (i.e., without Knowledge Arcana... I'm sorry you don't know how ancient magical devices work).

Of course... for #3... as a DM why are you putting such challenges into your game in the first place (other than give player X with said skill the spotlight).

I use these too. However for #3, (which i agree should be fairly rare) I'll usually have multiple proficiencies or other qualities that can clear the "gate." So for ancient magical devices, Arcana is the easiest way to operate them, but History might work too, or even Investigation if their form and surroundings could yield some hint as to their function. And maybe being an artificer or a bard or a cleric of the deity of magic gives you the chance to try a naked attribute check even if you lack the right proficiency. And even if the party fails all of these, there are potentially other options they can rely on, such as divinations, or finding an NPC that's studied these things. Each route will have its own advantages and drawbacks.

[Tanarii]

Nothing says you can't have one DC for someone that knows how to do something and another for someone trying to figure it out, assuming the latter is even possible. Or one for someone to recall something they once knew under pressure from a Lore skill vs No roll at all for someone that never knew it.

But a lack of proficiency doesn't determine that. Because proficiency isn't training in 5e. It's just a focus on a subset of things ability scores cover already. Someone may know how to do something with just their Ability score and no proficiency.

If you've got a question about it, ask the player: would your character reasonably be familiar with (thing they want to do)?

If not, maybe they face a harder DC to figure it out for the first time under pressure.

I wouldn't recommend overusing it though. The general 5e assumption is the adventurers are doing adventuring things they're generally familiar with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't recommend overusing it though. The general 5e assumption is the adventurers are doing adventuring things they're generally familiar with.
Or at least things close enough that they can apply some of the learning.

A key point about 5e is that every character is a generalist. Sure, you can specialize. But that's only relative specialization. Adventurers are, by default, competent at most things adventuring. But in nothing are they presumed to be world class experts except adventuring. Even the most learned scholar character, with expertise in all the int skills, is still a broad generalist. Really good at that stuff, but not as deep or narrow as a true subject matter expert. The flip side is that even without proficiency, the default is that you've at least heard enough legends, tales, and seen enough crap to be able to attempt most things. Not succeed, at least not easily, but try certainly. And proficiency is narrower focus... But still not incredibly narrow.

I prefer to gate checks (when I do) based on characters and background. And mostly in the form of granting auto success, not disallowing checks. The Rune Knight is going to know things about runic inscriptions that others won't, not even the more generic scholars. The guy from the landlocked area isn't going to know much about boats or sea legends. Maybe some, but not the really obscure stuff. And no, you don't know that info about what happened on another continent last week unless you have some in fiction communication route.

[Zhorn]

If you've got a question about it, ask the player: would your character reasonably be familiar with (thing they want to do)?
This.
Something I've always tried to train my players on is "Talk through and describe how you are going about something and what character aspects you are relying on"
A character that wants to tie a secure knot on a load bearing rope is more likely to have a low DC or auto success if they say "I've had extensive experience fastening and tying off lines from my sailor background" vs someone just saying "I tie a knot"
Variable DCs based on the level of relevant narrative input from players, and generally being cognizant about bringing their character's skills and features into play rather than the DM tracking it for them and doing ALL the narrative lifting on their own.

This would mostly stem from me trying to break players out of video game style mindsets of "I just press button to do same thing"

Story Tangent: Had a little frustration a couple weeks back. Cleric was wanting to cast Guidance on a skill check. Me as DM thinking this would be also an opportunity to lower the DC based on what guiding advice was given, being the spell has a verbal component which we've previously referenced as actual guiding words.
Cleric: I'd like the cast guidance
DM: Cool, as you cast the spell, what guiding words and advice to you give?
Cleric: I play for my god to guide me
DM: The spells going to work for the d4, I mean for how it could potentially lower the DC. You are offering guidance, not your god. What is the verbal component of casting guidance? You are giving advice.
Cleric: I place my hand on their shoulder and say "I'll guide you"
DM: ...

The roll total ended up being an 8 total on a DC15, but if the cleric had given me something to work with as a "this makes sense to just work" it could have been treated as a success anyway. Instead they were just stuck on repeating the 'guide' word as that was the start and end of the thought process.

[Schwann145]

If we're being honest, that feels like it's stepping a bit into the "player skill vs character skill" territory. The player who is naturally quick to be clever is rewarded for it, and the player(s) who aren't will be stuck with higher DCs.

[Mastikator]

If we're being honest, that feels like it's stepping a bit into the "player skill vs character skill" territory. The player who is naturally quick to be clever is rewarded for it, and the player(s) who aren't will be stuck with higher DCs.

Yeah but it means the players are more closely engaging with the setting, it's basically a form of roleplay, moreso than "I press the skill button". I think it should be rewarded.

[Zhorn]

If we're being honest, that feels like it's stepping a bit into the "player skill vs character skill" territory. The player who is naturally quick to be clever is rewarded for it, and the player(s) who aren't will be stuck with higher DCs.Yeah but it means the players are more closely engaging with the setting, it's basically a form of roleplay, moreso than "I press the skill button". I think it should be rewarded.
To Schwann's concern; it should be emphasized that this isn't a case of INCREASING the DC for players that are not giving narrative input or drawing on relevant features. The point is to steer the checks towards success in instances where success sounds like it should be a given once additional details come into the picture.

DM: This bookshelf has a important piece of information stored somewhere in on of its books. Searching for it will call for an Investigation check.
Player: Since I have the Sage background; I have a feature that makes me especially effecting at research and finding information books and libraries and such. I'll look for if this bookshelf is in an organized layout so we can jump to the relevant book for our inquiry.
DM: That makes sense, the DC has been reduced/removed.

Agreeing with Mastikator's comment; Yes this isn't punishing players from lack of effort. It's rewarding players who are putting in effort.
In tying this back into the thread's overall topic; this is also about making sure that players are the ones bringing their skills and proficiencies into relevancy, rather than the DM having to track it all for them.
A challenge arises, the DM has a DC in mind, the players describe their actions and reference their abilities, the DC is adjusted to suit the narrative being attempted.
The DM sets the challenge related to boats, a player has proficiency with water vehicles, unless the challenge is in excess of what should be trivial for a character who knows how to sail, the check is no longer relevant.

[Silly Name]

One thing to keep in mind is that performing certain actions doesn't necessarily call for a check. The DMG has a section detailing how dice influence the game, and when it's appropriate to call for a roll:


Using Ability Scores
When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

- Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
- Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.

For vehicles, for example, calling for a check would make sense during a chase, or if there is adverse weather making navigation particularly difficult. Maybe the check is also useful for repairing and mantaining the vehicle!

But if the PCs have bought a cart and donkey to haul their stuff around, and none of them has Proficiency in Vehicles (Land), I wouldn't call for a check for simply walking along the road: maybe they fumble around a bit before getting the hang of it, but it's not a particularly complex task, nor one where failure is interesting (unless they're on some very strict time limits).

Obviously, a proficient character is even better at this sort of stuff: maybe they can just repair the cart's broken wheel as long as they have the tools, and at most a check would be made to see how fast they manage to do it, as opposed to "can you repair it in the first place". The same goes for most tools: as long as you have time, the right materials and a comfortable and appropriate space in which to use the tools, you should succeed automatically if you're proficient and the task is mundane enough.

[kazaryu]

Just considering the best way to handle certain proficiencies.

For instance, does every character just inherently know how to pilot a ship (of any type no less; sailboat or galley, doesn't matter!), or does someone need to have Vehicle(Water) in order to not, ya know, die at the very first storm a boat comes across?
The former seems ridiculous, but the latter seems overly-punishing (with how few proficiencies 5e grants).

I realize that a strict RAW reading would be, "it's just a bonus," but in actual gameplay, how do you square the very awkward circle that this creates thematically?

to my memory the only time i've invoked proficiencies as a requirement is for knowledge checks, and then only for extra bonus or peripheral information, not for stuff my party needs for the adventure itself. So like...recently my party saw a strange castle floating way up in the sky. But since none of them were proficient in history, i didn't let anyone roll to know more.

although admittedly, part of that is that IMO knowledge thats so esoteric that you'd need to be especially trained in order to know it would have such a high DC that you probably need the bonus from proficiency to even have a chance of succeeding anyway.

as far as how i square that with things like vehicle proficiency. well...if they do get in a jam (like a storm while sailing), and i intend to have them roll against it, then they're going to have a lower bonus to reflect their relative lack of proficiency. they're more likely to fail

[Tanarii]

Obviously, a proficient character is even better at this sort of stuff: maybe they can just repair the cart's broken wheel as long as they have the tools, and at most a check would be made to see how fast they manage to do it, as opposed to "can you repair it in the first place". The same goes for most tools: as long as you have time, the right materials and a comfortable and appropriate space in which to use the tools, you should succeed automatically if you're proficient and the task is mundane enough.
But that's the thing, proficiency doesn't give you more experience automatically. Nor does it automatically even mean training. It's just something you get a bigger bonus at compared to your generic ability score check when it comes into play.

A character may have better skill once bonus comes into play without proficiency, if their total bonus from ability score alone is higher. It's reasonable to assume someone with a Tool proficiency has had experience. For skill proficiency it may or may not be reasonable*. For for those lacking proficiency, it's character specific, the relevant question becomes "does this character lack training in (thing)?" If the answer is No, they have more 'training' by virtue of their higher ability score.

A clearer example of this is an EK with Int 16 vs a Cleric with Int 10 and Religion +2. The EK can be assumed to be better trained in everything Int: mnemonics (Int checks to recall in general), deductive thinking (Investigation), as well as all 4 Lores including Religion. So denying them a check and allowing the Cleric one due to proficiency isn't using the system as intended.

Conversely, if they are trying to remember a fact about the Clerics esoteric faith from another continent under pressure, the Cleric might get to make that check or automatically succeed, whereas the EK player might say "no I never studied his faith I couldn't even know that". It's not being determined by proficiency, it's determined by character specific details.

-----

*for example a character with Int 8 and Investigation may be a country bumpkin with poor education but perfectly fine at deductive thinking. They aren't "trained" in investigation/deductive thinking. It's the thing they are normal at, whereas they are below even normal training at all other Int checks (including related skill areas). This kind of logic can apply to most skills.

[Goobahfish]

It's the same with me when I'm playing my fisherman from a small village turned adventurer/fighter, he doesn't have the arcana skill.....he just doesn't know anything relevant about magic. But fishing....goddammit he can tell you all about that

A very good example of a 'gated check'.



You don't have the knowledge required to help in (3) situations, and might even make things more difficult by trying to help. E.g. a specialized knowledge check. "Stop trying to help. You are making it harder. Just let me think! I read a book about this once."

This made me laugh because it happens so often with some players.
PC: Can I help?
DM: But how can you help?
PC: ... I hold a torch up... maybe... scribe I dunno... fine.


I use these too. However for #3, (which i agree should be fairly rare) I'll usually have multiple proficiencies or other qualities that can clear the "gate." So for ancient magical devices, Arcana is the easiest way to operate them, but History might work too, or even Investigation if their form and surroundings could yield some hint as to their function. And maybe being an artificer or a bard or a cleric of the deity of magic gives you the chance to try a naked attribute check even if you lack the right proficiency. And even if the party fails all of these, there are potentially other options they can rely on, such as divinations, or finding an NPC that's studied these things. Each route will have its own advantages and drawbacks.

Yeah, I usually use this when the players start asking questions I hadn't prepared for. I am a fan of multi-skill DCs where an Arcana check is a mere 15, but a History might be a 20.


If we're being honest, that feels like it's stepping a bit into the "player skill vs character skill" territory. The player who is naturally quick to be clever is rewarded for it, and the player(s) who aren't will be stuck with higher DCs.

This is a natural concern. The 'red mage' (for those familiar with 8-bit theatre) is the epitome of this 'contorting background into bonus checks'. Clearly, it can go too far. As kind of alluded to earlier, I generally only put in gated checks (i.e., #3) to draw particular players more directly into the narrative. Kind of like underwater challenges for Aquaman. Otherwise it will likely feel more like what Psyren suggests where there are many roads to Rome, just some easier than others.

[Zhorn]

If we're being honest, that feels like it's stepping a bit into the "player skill vs character skill" territory. The player who is naturally quick to be clever is rewarded for it, and the player(s) who aren't will be stuck with higher DCs.This is a natural concern. The 'red mage' (for those familiar with 8-bit theatre) is the epitome of this 'contorting background into bonus checks'. Clearly, it can go too far.
I can understand the concern of folks pushing things too far as in the Red Mage example; but I'd argue that type of player is going to be pushing for bonuses on everything, not just in trying to link backstory to abilities to.
More topic specific though; it really depends on how 'precise' you are about proficiencies as to how much of a problem this is going to be (Red Mage outliers put aside).
For example; if you gate checks behind must having the specified proficiency AND you do no allow for narrative association (eg: Vehicles(Water) infers nothing on ones aptitude for tying ropes and securing load bearing lines), then you also have to be very strict on not allowing thing to exist within your campaign that themselves do not have means of obtaining proficiencies for. Example: you can get Vehicle(Land) and Vehicles(Water) through backgrounds, but there are no Vehicle(Air) proficiencies despite the existence of Airships.
From there you either allow all characters to make the checks with zero gating, with there just being no possible bonuses for Airship related checks, OR no player can make checks for Airships, not without homebrewing such a feature into your games.

The more permissive stance of allowing everyone to make checks, and removing checks for when proficiency is provided (specifically on the subject of vehicles) at the very least does not run into the issue of "no proficiency exists for this hence no one can ever roll" problem. And potentially scaling down the DC based on narrative input and methodology on the players end is just bridging the gaps between "always check" and "never check" binary, with options for "it's not 1-to-1 training, but it's close enough that it should make things easier" without only relying on the ability check in isolation; which doesn't encourage/reward RP.

[Silly Name]

A clearer example of this is an EK with Int 16 vs a Cleric with Int 10 and Religion +2. The EK can be assumed to be better trained in everything Int: mnemonics (Int checks to recall in general), deductive thinking (Investigation), as well as all 4 Lores including Religion. So denying them a check and allowing the Cleric one due to proficiency isn't using the system as intended.

Indeed - which is why I never tell a player they can't roll on a skill if a skill check is being called. The only two reasons I may tell a player to not roll that ability check is a) if failure is impossible, or b) failure is automatic.

Likewise, I would allow anyone to try and repair the cart's broken wheel, but if they don't have the proper tool proficiency they don't add their Prof bonus to the check.

My comment was detailing how I handle Tool proficiencies and when and how I let proficient characters get away with an automatic success (essentially, following the DMG advice of not rolling if time isn't a factor, nor is there the chance for a meaningful failure).

[LibraryOgre]

I lean towards "Anyone can try", but I also consider that "Really gonna help to be proficient" in setting DCs.

Anyone can try to use lockpicks, but most DCs should be about 2 higher than normal to account for proficiency being required. Mixing something with Alchemical tools? Yeah, you can try, but unless you've got a good Int, you're gonna run into problems that even the moderately proficient won't.

On the other hand, anyone can try Athletics, and the DC doesn't need to account for proficiency... proficiency makes you good, not competent.

Another option? Proficiency also helps insulate you from REAL mistakes. A proficient player misses by 10, oops, that's too bad. A non-proficient character misses by 10? Well, somehow, you've managed to set the house on fire. How you did that with calligraphy tools we leave as an exercise for the reader.

[Psyren]

For something anyone can try, like "repair the broken wheel on the cart," I have no problem letting everyone roll on that. But for something like "decipher the Ancient Thassilonian runes", someone with neither any relevant training nor any other connection to Ancient Thassilonia would be SOL.

[Goobahfish]

I can understand the concern of folks pushing things too far as in the Red Mage example; but I'd argue that type of player is going to be pushing for bonuses on everything, not just in trying to link backstory to abilities to.
More topic specific though; it really depends on how 'precise' you are about proficiencies as to how much of a problem this is going to be (Red Mage outliers put aside).
For example; if you gate checks behind must having the specified proficiency AND you do no allow for narrative association (eg: Vehicles(Water) infers nothing on ones aptitude for tying ropes and securing load bearing lines), then you also have to be very strict on not allowing thing to exist within your campaign that themselves do not have means of obtaining proficiencies for. Example: you can get Vehicle(Land) and Vehicles(Water) through backgrounds, but there are no Vehicle(Air) proficiencies despite the existence of Airships.
From there you either allow all characters to make the checks with zero gating, with there just being no possible bonuses for Airship related checks, OR no player can make checks for Airships, not without homebrewing such a feature into your games.

The more permissive stance of allowing everyone to make checks, and removing checks for when proficiency is provided (specifically on the subject of vehicles) at the very least does not run into the issue of "no proficiency exists for this hence no one can ever roll" problem. And potentially scaling down the DC based on narrative input and methodology on the players end is just bridging the gaps between "always check" and "never check" binary, with options for "it's not 1-to-1 training, but it's close enough that it should make things easier" without only relying on the ability check in isolation; which doesn't encourage/reward RP.

So one issue D&D 5e has had from the outset is that proficiency is a binary. You either have it, or you don't. This leads to a few mechanical oddities where you are either really good at something or you aren't. In 3/3.5 there were 'trained skills' where 1 rank in said skill was enough to roll, and zero ranks was the 'gate'. Then you could also have 10 ranks in a skill. Now, this system was fraught with problems, but one small advantage was that giving out 1 skill point in a gated skill wasn't a bit issue. As a DM you could say, you train with these sailors for two days and now you can 'sorta sail'. 1 bonus skill point for you for 'water vehicles'.

In 5e, you are basically either good or bad. So giving out 'good' is a highly problematic reward which is probably why proficiencies are level 1-only affairs outside the expert classes which are basically gaining extra skills at fixed levels because you can't frontload them too much.

If D&D had a concept of 'familiar' which means you could make checks but got no bonus, it would be a nice addition. Having a player gain 'familiarity' with something would be an ok (spend 2 days training) kind of reward without just handing out new proficiencies. That said, it is totally against 5e's design philosophy which I think is 'you can make checks on anything'. You could also imagine 'apprentice' which adds half your proficiency bonus or some-such. Too much math for 5e sadly.

[diplomancer]

The one big mistake to be aware of: thinking "people can only succeed at this task if they have proficiency"="DC must be set very high". Do this, and people with proficiency, who should succeed somewhat frequently, will very often fail.

[Slipjig]

Perhaps because I've been corrupted by WEG Star Wars, I view the attributes representing talent and training in broad fields of skills, while the skills you're proficient in are ones you've put some extra effort into. So, the ship question for example if you've not got proficiency, your attributes cover your general background dealing with knots and their uses, familiarity with how water and wind move and ability to figure out how to use all the little things you do in your life to make the right things happen.

If you think about yourself, for example; I'm sure you have dozens more skills than you realize you have because rhey are just part of your past experiences and daily life, a smaller number of skills you've devoted time and attention to developing to a higher level, and an uncountable number of activities that you've not really dealt with before, but you can puzzle out based on the other bits listed.

I think that's somewhat reasonable, most characters can probably figure out how to pole a skiff or row a boat, even without proficiency (though they'll probably be noisy and slow). But if we're about operating anything with multiple sails, that's one of the most technically complicated skills of that era. I wouldn't expect a standard PC to be able to sail a brig successfully any more than I would expect somebody on this board to be able to pilot a space shuttle. It'll probably take them a significant amount of time just to figure out how to raise the anchor, let alone a sail.

Now if your story requires that they do so, sure, whatever, handwave it and pretend that expertise doesn't matter. But I also think that's a prime opportunity to introduce a fun NPC specialist and a few crew members to do the actual running of the ship.

[Sigreid]

I think that's somewhat reasonable, most characters can probably figure out how to pole a skiff or row a boat, even without proficiency (though they'll probably be noisy and slow). But if we're about operating anything with multiple sails, that's one of the most technically complicated skills of that era. I wouldn't expect a standard PC to be able to sail a brig successfully any more than I would expect somebody on this board to be able to pilot a space shuttle. It'll probably take them a significant amount of time just to figure out how to raise the anchor, let alone a sail.

Now if your story requires that they do so, sure, whatever, handwave it and pretend that expertise doesn't matter. But I also think that's a prime opportunity to introduce a fun NPC specialist and a few crew members to do the actual running of the ship.

To be fair, many, many ships have been crewed largely by drunks essentially kidnapped from the local bar or opium den.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, many, many ships have been crewed largely by drunks essentially kidnapped from the local bar or opium den.

But generally *trained* drunks.

[Zhorn]

So one issue D&D 5e has had from the outset is that proficiency is a binary. You either have it, or you don't. This leads to a few mechanical oddities where you are either really good at something or you aren't.Sure, but now we're just circling back to the general thrust of Schwann145's opening post.
What varies from table to table will be how important of a upwards of a swing they are treating that proficiency.
Keeping our discussion on just water/land vehicles, as a strict numerical bonus that proficiency is only ever supplying a +2 at low levels to a +6 at high levels, a range which is relatively achievable through ability scores alone, so it's the combination of proficiency + ability score that either leads to a high bonus, or compensates from a lower attribute on the relevant check.
That's where your:

In 3/3.5 there were 'trained skills' where 1 rank in said skill was enough to roll, and zero ranks was the 'gate'. Then you could also have 10 ranks in a skill. Now, this system was fraught with problems, but one small advantage was that giving out 1 skill point in a gated skill wasn't a bit issue. As a DM you could say, you train with these sailors for two days and now you can 'sorta sail'. 1 bonus skill point for you for 'water vehicles'.can fit in as a 5e equivalent. Like others have been saying; treating general ability scores as the catchall for the adventurers general aptitude for picking up or puzzling out things that do not have explicit training in.
In this respect; it is less of a binary since there is a more substantial range of possible values such checks could have as modifiers. -5 to +5 (theoretically up to +10 with magical enhancements) from attributes, and 0 or +2 to +6 (theoretically +1 up to +12 if Jack of All Trades or Expertise ever comes into the mix).
That is a very broad range and could hardly a called binary any more.
It's perfectly reasonable to have a 14 STR (+2) proficient (+3) sailor working alongside a STR 20 (+5) non proficient Barbarian both performing equally well on Vehicle(Water) related Strength Check, with there being no clear 'good'/'bad' version between the two.

Moving away from just the numbers and taking a more DM's style approach is where the fundamental topic of the thread is revolving around;
- When to call for rolls
- Who can make rolls
- Who can bypass the rolls

When rolls are being called for; is that something that a level of training matters for or not?

When everyone can make rolls, where do you have proficiency counting for more than just a numerical bonus that may get lost in dice rolls?

If rolls can be bypassed at all, is that a strict function of matching exact proficiency, or is similarly adjacent skill sets relevant and to what degree?

The earlier stuff can be easily answered for every table, the later stuff will be VERY table and DMing style specific.

[Sigreid]

But generally *trained* drunks.

As I understand it, (wasn't there) they were often trained after they were kidnapped and had no where to go. But also, someone had to do it first.

Edit: I'm also thinking that depending on the situation, the definition of success could differ based on the background/experience/specific training in a given skill or tool use.