New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 465
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Proficiency Gating

    Purposely spinning off from another thread. I promise this has nothing to do with nor intending to be about my personal infamous angst about the Skill System.

    In 3E some skills, especially the Knowledge Skills, required you to have at least one rank in it as permission to make a roll when using the skill. 5E did away with that. Anyone can make an ability score roll as appropriate to the given style of the DM/campaign. Being proficient in a skill only means you get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll when that particular skill is relevant. You don't officially need proficiency to make a roll, except for tool use which is specifically specified. However, there is a tendency of some DMs to insist on having proficiency in a skill to allow a roll.

    I don't think this is a legacy of 3E but of inferred logic. There's the stereotype of a DM not wanting a barbarian to make an Arcana check let alone succeed when the wizard failed. To be fair the DM wouldn't want the wizard to defeat the barbarian in wrestling using Athletics, but he still doesn't require proficiency in Athletics to let the wizard roll. There is logic in the idea the barbarian shouldn't know about Arcana stuff, but I much prefer the DM deny the barbarian player a roll than gate behind proficiency. My main reason is game mechanics. Except for the Rogue and Bard PCs only get four proficiencies, two from class and two from background. To demand proficiency for a roll is to tax a player from his already limited choices. A PC is not supposed to be limited to only making those four rolls. It's bad enough when players handicap themselves by insisting only the PC with the highest plus make a roll which is another pet peeve of mine.

    I can sympathize, as with the barbarian example, that not every PC gets to roll for everything. When I DM I try not to deny rolls but rather ask for them. I don't care about a PC's proficiency, but I will prompt for a roll based on a PC's class, background, and occasionally what the player has been doing in the campaign. I admit to bias to asking the cleric to make a Knowledge Religion check and not the fighter, but if a fighter player has shown interest on religious topics I will let him roll. I always let the player roll when the player prompts something regardless of what it is. If the barbarian PC takes a special interest in a magical effect he can make a Knowledge Arcana check. (In truth that never happened, but I would. ) More often this happens with the various CH checks. When the player has a spontaneous Persuasion or Intimidation idea I make his character make the roll, not the PC with the highest plus as they may want. If it's preplanned for a tactic, sure, the highest plus may roll because they want him to be the Face.

    As a player I get annoyed when a DM denies me a roll because of lack of proficiency. Rather, he asks the players who has proficiency and chooses one of them to make the roll. This happens most with Knowledge checks. I can have a 20 INT, but because I'm not proficient in Nature I don't get a roll when we encounter something in the forest. I only have four skill proficiencies. I can't put them in everything, but I still want to do/know stuff. I need more justification of why I can't roll than just lack of proficiency. Proficiency or lack thereof is only about whether or not I get a bonus to the roll, not making the roll itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Orc in the Playground
     
    NinjaGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    In my experience it is usually a teamwork makes the dream work sort of thing. Making someone’s skill choices let them have the spotlight for a moment. I don’t think it has anything to do with game design.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Generally speaking at our table the players state intentions and the DM calls for rolls, so it would be tough to differentiate between proficiency gatekeeping and denying rolls for other reasons unless he/she chooses to elaborate. I totally agree that a hard rule against rolling outside your proficiencies is a harsh and limiting one. That said, I think there are times when proficiency gatekeeping makes sense.
    - Help action. Since it is flat advantage instead of a roll, it is ostensibly reflecting some talent as opposed to just adding warm bodies. Not a hard and fast rule, but a tendency at our table.
    - Spotlight management. Sometimes it's not about preventing you from rolling something you didn't put proficiency in, but preserving the attempt for someone who did build their character in that direction and needs a moment to shine. Rare and subjectively applied, but happens.
    - Preventing dogpile rolls. Everybody likes to roll dice, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense and can both eat up table time and disrupt tempo. Not usually a problem at our table, but has happened.

    As usual, open discussion between DM and players about expectations, both mechanical and stylistic, is the solution to most issues.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    [SIZE=1]However, there is a tendency of some DMs to insist on having proficiency in a skill to allow a roll.

    I don't think this is a legacy of 3E but of inferred logic.
    I don't see how it could be anything but a legacy of 3.X.

    The "inferred logic" you mention is a 3.X/D20 system expectation. I doubt that people who read 5e without knowing about 3.X and related games will have this expectation.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    I think a better answer to proficiency gating is only allowing one or two players to roll. And if you want to help the player that roll to give them advantage both need to be proficient, so yes the barbarian can roll for arcana but the party has worse chances. And if the wizard fails then nobody is allowed a chance.

    The main drawback to allowing everyone to roll is that it is basically a super advantage, to the whole group. You shouldn't have to succeed the ability check to continue the game, just fail forward.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    RAW, ability checks (and rolls in general), are only called for (by the DM), when success or failure is not known.

    As the DM is the one who calls for rolls in the first place, what’s the difference between them “gating” something with proficiency, and knowing there’s no chance of success so not calling for a roll?

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Since I already said I did it in the other thread...

    I do it because I treat "proficiency" more like 4E's "trained". It represents that your character, as part of their class, background, or whatever have specific learning with this skill. If you have "KN: Arcana" it means you have specifically studied Arcana, as represented by your proficiency bonus. You know Arcana in a way that someone without proficiency in Arcana does not.

    It's not to limit the Barbarian for being dumb. It's to reward investment in skills. Some classes "skills" are specifically considered an element of their class, that's their THING. Some players also build skill-monkey characters, that's their THING. That's what they want to play. So I reward that investment by sometimes limiting skill checks based on proficiency. If I leave the roll open to everyone, I feel like I'm devaluing a portion of that player's investment in the game.

    If all the folks with proficiency fail, then the roll gets opened up to the rest of the table. It's not that people without proficiency don't get to roll ever, they just don't get to roll first.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    RAW, ability checks (and rolls in general), are only called for (by the DM), when success or failure is not known.

    As the DM is the one who calls for rolls in the first place, what’s the difference between them “gating” something with proficiency, and knowing there’s no chance of success so not calling for a roll?
    Looking at the set of rolls a character gains access to with proficiency, it is a subset of all rolls that the GM is calling for/allowing. This set is noteworthy for it being an early, concrete player choice that informs the GM of the player’s desire to be able to engage with this sort of content beyond the degree available to the non proficient. It has many similarities with other things that don’t have a rules definition like “you’re a respected prince” that are conceptually opening up options well before the option in question is before the player.

    Contrast this with no roll cases the player can’t affect (GM decides nobody can persuade the man not to jump off the tower), or no roll cases where nothing short of an acceptably described action will allow a roll. You know you’re not highly influential so talking this suicidal individual out of it may not be feasible, but if anyone can do it the bard has a chance. The bard knows/suspects he has a shot at this because he and the GM agreed at the start that proficiency gives opportunities such as these; it’s not a matter of finding (guessing) the right words, rather a scene coming up that shares the same promise as “oh hey fellow prince, can I secure some invitations to that ball everyone has been talking about?” It might be auto success no roll, it might just be a roll, but it’s most certainly an opportunity the player can feel is a result of their character (and by extension the player’s choices).
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    Generally speaking at our table the players state intentions and the DM calls for rolls, so it would be tough to differentiate between proficiency gatekeeping and denying rolls for other reasons unless he/she chooses to elaborate. I totally agree that a hard rule against rolling outside your proficiencies is a harsh and limiting one. That said, I think there are times when proficiency gatekeeping makes sense.
    - Help action. Since it is flat advantage instead of a roll, it is ostensibly reflecting some talent as opposed to just adding warm bodies. Not a hard and fast rule, but a tendency at our table.
    - Spotlight management. Sometimes it's not about preventing you from rolling something you didn't put proficiency in, but preserving the attempt for someone who did build their character in that direction and needs a moment to shine. Rare and subjectively applied, but happens.
    - Preventing dogpile rolls. Everybody likes to roll dice, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense and can both eat up table time and disrupt tempo. Not usually a problem at our table, but has happened.

    As usual, open discussion between DM and players about expectations, both mechanical and stylistic, is the solution to most issues.
    Agree with everything here, especially the Help thing. I don't mandate that the Helper has to also be proficient but they have to at least not have a -1 modifier to the stat.

    In regards to rolling-vs.-proficiency, I do this thing which is kind of a controversial take around here. Rather than have every character roll with the same potential results, I have two results tracks for a roll - one for if you're proficient, and one for if you're not.

    Let's say the party has to pick a lock while the guards are on their way, right. If the lock was simple enough and there was no rush, I would say the rogue who's proficient with thieves' tools would pop it right open, and the rest of the party (if attempting) would have to pass a DC 12 check to get it open. But since time is of the essence, even the Lockmaster has to roll.

    If the rogue tries it, they can certainly fail, but if they do, nothing really disastrous happens. In fact, as long as they roll above an 8, I say they get advantage on the next round. They got some of the tumblers down, or whatever. And if they smash through the DC by 5 or more, they discover that with a little effort, they can rig the lock just right so it re-locks behind them, making the guards' lives more difficult.

    If the non-rogue tries it, and fails by 5 or more, NOW something sucky/silly happens, like the pick breaking off in the lock, etc. And they don't get that nice progress bump that the prof. character does, nor do they get the cool pick-me-up for succeeding with a high roll.

    In other words, anyone can try any task, but the team is incentivized to let proficient people do it - the bonuses are larger and the failures won't sting as hard. The non-proficient person can certainly try it, and potentially succeed, but now you're running the risk of something bad happening. Not to mention there are some situations where the proficient character will auto-succeed.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    This set is noteworthy for it being an early, concrete player choice that informs the GM of the player’s desire to be able to engage with this sort of content beyond the degree available to the non proficient.
    Sure, but I’m not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted.

    I’m not saying the Player’s choices shouldn’t matter, I’m asking the OP what the difference is if the DM decides to gate rolls behind proficiency or not, as it’s their choice whether something can succeed or not.

    For instance, what’s the difference between the DM saying “Bill, your Wizard, with proficiency in Arcana, can roll to see what they know about a Raksasha. DC is 26. Steve, your Barb, with 8 Int and no proficiency in Arcana, doesn’t need to roll.” And “Bill and Steve, you can roll to see what you know about Raksashas if you have proficiency in Arcana.”
    Last edited by RSP; 2021-09-24 at 09:07 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    Sure, but I’m not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted.

    I’m not saying the Player’s choices shouldn’t matter, I’m asking the OP what the difference is if the DM decides to gate rolls behind proficiency or not, as it’s their choice whether something can succeed or not.

    For instance, what’s the difference between the DM saying “Bill, your Wizard, with proficiency in Arcana, can roll to see what they know about a Raksasha. DC is 26. Steve, your Barb, with 8 Int and no proficiency in Arcana, doesn’t need to roll.” And “Bill and Steve, you can roll to see what you know about Raksashas if you have proficiency in Arcana.”
    I would say its bad conduct to single out the barbarian like that. His player already knows he cant meet that DC without a good roll and some outside magical help, he doesnt need to be called out on it.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    I think it's largely a philosophy difference. I think a lot of people see attributes as just raw natural ability. Perhaps because I played and loved the WEG Star Wars D6 game I see them a combination of natural ability and general training in a wide range of of tasks/knowledge and the skill proficiency represents a special focus on an area.

    Edit: And there's no reason a barbarian has to be an uneducated lout. He may have spent time talking to the tribe shaman or accompanying his parents as they traded with passing merchants etc.
    Last edited by Sigreid; 2021-09-24 at 09:24 AM.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    Sure, but I’m not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted.

    I’m not saying the Player’s shouldn’t matter, I’m asking the OP what the difference is if the DM decides to gate rolls behind proficiency or not, as it’s their choice whether something can succeed or not.

    For instance, what’s the difference between the DM saying “Bill, your Wizard, with proficiency in Arcana, can roll to see what they know about a Raksasha. DC is 26. Steve, your Barb, with 8 Int and no proficiency in Arcana, doesn’t need to roll.” And “Bill and Steve, you can roll to see what you know about Raksashas if you have proficiency in Arcana.”
    Just double checking the arrangement of quotes there... am I reading it correctly with case 1 having proficient wizard swinging at DC 26 while Barb gets info automatically? This appears nonsensical with the current context, I’ll even go so far as to label it bad GMing. Either the wizard player is being punished, the GM is playing favorites with the Barb, or the GM learned D&D by reading something like SUE files. Again, this is absent any other context. Add “Barb learned from a Rakshasa hunter” along with “Rakshasas are super rare” and the scenario makes sense. The Barb will understand why he gets what he gets. A few moments of explanation can convince the wizard that the DC is serving verisimilitude. Note how this discrepancy in difficulty and access resolves to understanding only with additional information.

    In the case of “roll if you have proficiency” the explanation for such discrepancies has been abstracted into the game system. It becomes a common shorthand explanation that everyone roughly understands; it’s a suitable stand in for time lost to elaborating on, debating, or griping over particulars and errors in communication.
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    In the case of “roll if you have proficiency” the explanation for such discrepancies has been abstracted into the game system. It becomes a common shorthand explanation that everyone roughly understands; it’s a suitable stand in for time lost to elaborating on, debating, or griping over particulars and errors in communication.
    Agreed; it's basically shorthand for "you have a reason you could know the thing or be able to do the thing, so you get to roll". It's essentially verisimilitude plugged into mechanical terms, and then you fix edge cases based on backgrounds and the like. (There are also cases where people adapt the DC based on background, proficiency and the like to basically have the roll reflect how likely you would actually be in-world to know the thing or be able to do the thing, e.g., when proficiency isn't on the right scale. But that's kind of a separate question than whether you gate mechanically and/or by verisimilitude, even if the "only roll if the outcome is uncertain" aspect effectively combines them at the extremes.)

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    I would say its bad conduct to single out the barbarian like that. His player already knows he cant meet that DC without a good roll and some outside magical help, he doesnt need to be called out on it.
    If the Player of the Barb asks if they can roll, and the answer is “no, there’s no chance your character would know this”, why is stating that wrong? I don’t see that as singling out the Barb Player (there may be five other Players at that table with characters that would similarly have no chance at knowing the issue - the Wizard may even need a 20 on the die roll to know it), but simply an explanation as to why there’s no need to roll.

    The flip side is, if you just allow the roll, and the Barb rolls a 20, looking up expectedly to hear what they know of Raksashas, and the DM just responds “you don’t know anything” (because 20-1 doesn’t meet the DC of 25), the Players going to be like “you just wasted a 20. Why’d you make me roll if there’s no chance of me succeeding?”

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    If the Player of the Barb asks if they can roll, and the answer is “no, there’s no chance your character would know this”, why is stating that wrong? I don’t see that as singling out the Barb Player (there may be five other Players at that table with characters that would similarly have no chance at knowing the issue - the Wizard may even need a 20 on the die roll to know it), but simply an explanation as to why there’s no need to roll.

    The flip side is, if you just allow the roll, and the Barb rolls a 20, looking up expectedly to hear what they know of Raksashas, and the DM just responds “you don’t know anything” (because 20-1 doesn’t meet the DC of 25), the Players going to be like “you just wasted a 20. Why’d you make me roll if there’s no chance of me succeeding?”
    Well, besides emphasizing that a 19 is not enough to beat the DC, its needlessly adversarial to tell somebody that they cant even try because they cant succeed. Presumably the barbarian's player isnt an idiot and knows with their int penalty they cant make a DC of 20, let alone 26, and theres no need to call attention to that fact. Telling them that they arent allowed to roll is just calling them out on having a bad skill, and theres no call for that sort of behavior.
    Last edited by Keltest; 2021-09-24 at 09:58 AM.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Well, besides emphasizing that a 19 is not enough to beat the DC, its needlessly adversarial to tell somebody that they cant even try because they cant succeed. Presumably the barbarian's player isnt an idiot and knows with their int penalty they cant make a DC of 20, let alone 26, and theres no need to call attention to that fact. Telling them that they arent allowed to roll is just calling them out on having a bad skill, and theres no call for that sort of behavior.
    Telling them they can roll and telling them they still fail regardless of that roll seems worse.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomSoul View Post
    Telling them they can roll and telling them they still fail regardless of that roll seems worse.
    At that point, its up to the player whether they want to attempt a hopeless task or just skip to the part where the wizard tells them what they learned from their check. If they want to roll anyway, knowing they cant succeed, its weird but theres no harm to it.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    It's the difference between knowing what someone did, how they did it, and why they did it.

    There isn't a fair system to use unfortunately. Or fortunately. I enjoy the arbitration/adjudication as the DM. So have that wriggle room is nice.


    Our Dwarf isn't trained in Arcana. If he came across a ritual that caused crops to grow he might be able to identify with a roll that it's a standard crop growing magic circle. But he couldn't figure out how they did it, or why they did it in the way they did it. Where as a trained individual can.
    I am BoutsofInsanity and my name isn't a metaphor.


  20. - Top - End - #20
    Troll in the Playground
     
    strangebloke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    While this is a legacy of 3.5x, what I find interesting is that its much more punishing in the context of 5e.

    In 5e, anyone has decent chances of hitting any DC except DCs that are 20+. In 3.5 that wasn't nearly as likely to be the case given how difficulty scaled. So while in 3.5 this rule would have made most character's lives little different (you weren't scaling that wall without ranks in climb anyway) in 5e it effectively locks out large numbers of options that you would (if not for this ruling) have had.

    And while its fair to say that the DM should control when checks like this are made, its worth pointing out that there are cases where the rules force a check. For example, if you're trying to escape a grapple. Obviously its terrible DMing to say "you don't have proficiency in Acrobatics or Athletics so you're just stuck" and that highlights why this ruling is bad imo.

    TBH, the whole skill system is just a bleeping mess, easily the worst part of the game and the thing that's caused me the most headaches as a DM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    At that point, its up to the player whether they want to attempt a hopeless task or just skip to the part where the wizard tells them what they learned from their check. If they want to roll anyway, knowing they cant succeed, its weird but theres no harm to it.
    They can roll redundantly anyway, but the DM telling them they can't succeed at least sets the correct expectations. (Plus it implicitly gives worldbuilding to the extent a thing not being common knowledge counts.) At that point, they're probably rolling for RP not for success on the check, which players can easily do all the time.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Well, besides emphasizing that a 19 is not enough to beat the DC, its needlessly adversarial to tell somebody that they cant even try because they cant succeed.
    I disagree with it being in anyway adversarial.

    If a player asks me if they can try something, and the answer is no, that’s not adversarial; it’s literally in the description of what the DM’s job is.

    If the 20 Str, proficient in Athletics, Barb wants to try and long jump a 25 foot chasm, I’ll let them attempt the roll.

    If the Str-dumped Wizard (let’s say Str 8), without proficiency in Athletics, asks if they can try the same thing, I’ll certainly let their character jump, if that’s what they decide, but I’ll warn the Player there’s no chance their character can succeed on increasing their long jump from 8’ to 25’, regardless of any roll.

    To me it’s insulting to the Players who made the choices to be able to do those things, to just allow any character to accomplish those same tasks that they dedicated choices and resources to.

    I don’t see it as insulting or adversarial to make those choices meaningful.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoutsofInsanity View Post
    There isn't a fair system to use unfortunately.
    It’s a fair system if it applies to everyone equally.

    There’s a better chance of everyone perceiving it as a fair system if everyone understands the system, and expectations of how it’ll be enforced align with the practice of how it’s enforced.

    This really comes down to the DM appropriately explaining how they’re using skills before the skills are needed during play, particularly if there are differences of opinion in this regard amongst different players.
    Last edited by RSP; 2021-09-24 at 10:38 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    I find that it depends on the nature of the skill check. As DM, I interpret proficiency to mean that the character has spent time and effort in study of a particular skill or subject. They then get to add their proficiency when resolving an attempt. However, it is up to the DM to determine whether attempts are even possible without the specialized knowledge or skill.

    For example, I might gate a difficult lock behind having proficiency in thieves tools. Without the tool proficiency, a character could poke tools into the lock all day and not be able to open it.

    Similarly, if it is a knowledge check dealing with some obscure piece of arcana, I might rule that having the arcana skill is a pre-requisite for that particular roll since without it the odds of the character having ever encountered the relevant piece of information previously are insignificant.

    I don't apply this approach to every roll. There are some checks that training will make possible and others that they will just make easier and which circumstance is involved is always situation dependent.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2014

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    I do it the other way around - in low-stakes situations, the proficient character gets an automatic success while the untrained character needs to roll. The 20-INT Wizard might or might not know if those berries are edible or poisonous, but the 8-INT Barbarian has practical experience.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I don't see how it could be anything but a legacy of 3.X.

    The "inferred logic" you mention is a 3.X/D20 system expectation. I doubt that people who read 5e without knowing about 3.X and related games will have this expectation.
    DMs who have never played 3E are doing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    I think a better answer to proficiency gating is only allowing one or two players to roll. And if you want to help the player that roll to give them advantage both need to be proficient, so yes the barbarian can roll for arcana but the party has worse chances. And if the wizard fails then nobody is allowed a chance.

    The main drawback to allowing everyone to roll is that it is basically a super advantage, to the whole group. You shouldn't have to succeed the ability check to continue the game, just fail forward.
    Piggybacking is a different issue. I don't object to denying rolls just because another PC failed. It's not a hard rule. Sometimes a player can be inspired by another player's idea. It's not always fair to deny a player a roll just because another player thought of the idea first. There is merit to the idea another PC can try something after seeing a party member try and fail. It's subjective. As DM depending on the situation I may allow one piggyback roll, and I'm more lenient when the players only ask for it sparingly because what ever the situation is it's really important for them. However, when someone searches for traps and rolls a Natural 3 that doesn't mean someone else gets to try.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post

    If the 20 Str, proficient in Athletics, Barb wants to try and long jump a 25 foot chasm, I’ll let them attempt the roll.

    If the Str-dumped Wizard (let’s say Str 8), without proficiency in Athletics, asks if they can try the same thing, I’ll certainly let their character jump, if that’s what they decide, but I’ll warn the Player there’s no chance their character can succeed on increasing their long jump from 8’ to 25’, regardless of any roll.

    To me it’s insulting to the Players who made the choices to be able to do those things, to just allow any character to accomplish those same tasks that they dedicated choices and resources to.

    I don’t see it as insulting or adversarial to make those choices meaningful.
    Those characters roll at +7 (very probably more), vs. -1. You didn't say what DC you set for the task, but...

    If it's DC 20, the wizard can't make it. You don't even need to be snippy about it.

    If you set it lower, so as to give the Barbarian a good chance of success, e.g. DC 15, and deny the Wizard a chance of success, you are effectively inflating the value of the prof bonus, or just being a d2k.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    RAW, ability checks (and rolls in general), are only called for (by the DM), when success or failure is not known.

    As the DM is the one who calls for rolls in the first place, what’s the difference between them “gating” something with proficiency, and knowing there’s no chance of success so not calling for a roll?
    Because it's a game mechanics tax. You only get 4 proficiencies. The DM is basing success on whether you spent a game resource on it rather than the difficulty of the task itself. It's also selective. I can't say it never happens on other checks, but gating usually happens on Knowledge checks. DMs do not deny a PC searching a room for lack of proficiency in Perception or Investigation.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Quote Originally Posted by DwarfFighter View Post
    Those characters roll at +7 (very probably more), vs. -1. You didn't say what DC you set for the task, but...

    If it's DC 20, the wizard can't make it. You don't even need to be snippy about it.

    If you set it lower, so as to give the Barbarian a good chance of success, e.g. DC 15, and deny the Wizard a chance of success, you are effectively inflating the value of the prof bonus, or just being a d2k.
    The task is a matter of perspective. Is it “the task of jumping a 25’ chasm”, or is it “the task of extending your long jump by 20%” (Or by over 200% for the Wizard)?

    The former doesn’t take into account the physical abilities (or limitations) of the characters. I prefer to view it as the latter, particularly since if we’re talking about a 20’ chasm, the Barb can just do it, RAW, no roll; while I’d say the Wizard still is unable to make it (increasing their long jump from 8’ to 20’ is still outside the bounds of what I believe to be possible with an Athletics check in that situation).

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    Proficiency gating is a tool to set the tone of a game. If you proficiency gate your PCs come away looking much more specialized. If you don’t then they are more generalists.

    Personally I like a hybrid system where some checks you let anyone roll and others require proficiency.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Proficiency Gating

    I find it odd to read tone (adversarial, snippy) into a theoretical DM saying no. Sometimes no is just the answer. Obviously don't be a jerk about it, but also don't feel like you can't say no.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •