Proficiency Gating

[Keltest]

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.

Frankly, its the part where you let somebody else try but then exclude a less skilled character. Can a bard not attempt to pick a pocket because he only has half proficiency? Is a dex fighter not allowed to attempt to follow a rogue across a tightrope? Heck, can a cleric not make a religion check when the bard can, because he didnt take it as one of his proficiencies?

[DwarfFighter]

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).

The former takes into account your abilities once.

Str (Athletics) + 1d20 vs. DC X

The other?

Str (Athletics) + 1d20 vs. (DC X - Str (Athletics))

Which is the same as..

Str (Athletics) x 2 + 1d20 vs. DC X

Doubling the ability score and prof bonuses. Great.

[Tanarii]

Just gonna paraphrase myself from the source thread:

- Ability scores include training, and proficiency focus. There's no reason an Int 18 (+4) without prof character isn't better trained than a History mod +3 character. Ditto for steight Dex mod vs stealth total mod +3. Players choice how much of their total modifier from both sources comes from natural talent, training / picking stuff up, and even divine inspiration or luck. Same for all ability scores and modifiers.

- I wouldn't play with a DM that had a house rule of gating skill checks by proficiency. I think it's a terrible house rule that goes against the entire intent of 5 ability checks.

[Frogreaver]

Just gonna paraphrase myself from the source thread:

- Ability scores include training, and proficiency focus. There's no reason an Int 18 (+4) without prof character isn't better trained than a History mod +3 character. Ditto for steight Dex mod vs stealth total mod +3. Players choice how much of their total modifier from both sources comes from natural talent, training / picking stuff up, and even divine inspiration or luck. Same for all ability scores and modifiers.

- I wouldn't play with a DM that had a house rule of gating skill checks by proficiency. I think it's a terrible house rule that goes against the entire intent of 5 ability checks.

It’s not a house rule though. The DM solely determines when a check is called for. There’s nothing that disallows him from using proficiency in a skill to guide that decision.

That he is being transparent about his adjucation process doesn’t make it a house rule.

[RSP]

The former takes into account your abilities once.

Str (Athletics) + 1d20 vs. DC X

The other?

Str (Athletics) + 1d20 vs. (DC X - Str (Athletics))

Which is the same as..

Str (Athletics) x 2 + 1d20 vs. DC X

Doubling the ability score and prof bonuses. Great.

I think you missed my point. By physical ability/limitations I was referring to the Long Jump rules on how far a character can jump.

The Barbarian can jump 20’ with no check, RAW. The Athletics check is for if they can jump further than that.

The Wizard can jump 8’ with no check, RAW.

So you’re saying it should be equally difficult for the Barb to add 5’ to their long jump, as it is for the Wizard to add 17’ to their long jump.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

It is absolutely an artifact of 3.x. It took me over a year, nearly two, to get my brother (who DM'd in 3.5 for a number of years for my nephew and his friends) to stop doing that in 5e. And for that matter, I wonder if there isn't a bit of AD&D 2e imbedded in this what with "non weapons proficiencies" in AD&D 2e.

@Pex. Thanks for this thread, it's one of the areas you and I agree on as regards the skill system.

- I wouldn't play with a DM that had a house rule of gating skill checks by proficiency. I think it's a terrible house rule that goes against the entire intent of 5 ability checks.

I didn't have a choice, since the DM is my brother.

[Keltest]

I think you missed my point. By physical ability/limitations I was referring to the Long Jump rules on how far a character can jump.

The Barbarian can jump 20’ with no check, RAW. The Athletics check is for if they can jump further than that.

The Wizard can jump 8’ with no check, RAW.

So you’re saying it should be equally difficult for the Barb to add 5’ to their long jump, as it is for the Wizard to add 17’ to their long jump.

Dont look at it in terms of adding feet to the jump, look at it in terms of total distance. Theyre both jumping 25 feet. The barbarian, due to his substantially higher bonus, is going to have a much easier time meeting that DC than the wizard with his str penalty is.

[Christew]

Frankly, its the part where you let somebody else try but then exclude a less skilled character. Can a bard not attempt to pick a pocket because he only has half proficiency? Is a dex fighter not allowed to attempt to follow a rogue across a tightrope? Heck, can a cleric not make a religion check when the bard can, because he didnt take it as one of his proficiencies?

I think this is getting muddied as to proficiency gating vs mathematical impossibility of success. As I said upthread, I don't advocate for a blanket proficiency gate, but I do think there are times where it makes sense. None of the examples you offer are relevant to the times I mentioned. But I'll give my two cents.

Can a bard not attempt to pick a pocket because he only has half proficiency?

Sure he can. Jack of all Trades is specifically trying to evince a general aptitude, so even if I were applying a blanket gate (which again, I don't advocate for), I'd say half proficiency qualifies.

Is a dex fighter not allowed to attempt to follow a rogue across a tightrope?

I assume this is a rogue with acrobatics proficiency and a DEX fighter without. Sure he can. I think athletics/acrobatics are the least applicable skills for a proficiency gate.

Heck, can a cleric not make a religion check when the bard can, because he didnt take it as one of his proficiencies?

This one is too vague. It would depend too heavily on what the religion check is for, what the relevant character backstories were, etc for me to even hazard a guess. For example, if the roll in question were about details regarding the hierarchy of a particular urban sect and the cleric was a farmer from the sticks who underwent a conversion following a miraculous event but never studied religious history/dogma and had never been to the city while the bard was from the city and specifically studied it's various religions -- the maybe.

[RSP]

Dont look at it in terms of adding feet to the jump, look at it in terms of total distance. Theyre both jumping 25 feet. The barbarian, due to his substantially higher bonus, is going to have a much easier time meeting that DC than the wizard with his str penalty is.

Why? Why shouldn’t I look at it in terms of what the characters can already do? Why discount that the Barb can jump 20’ without breaking a sweat?

Plus, as stated before, I see no way an Athletics check can result in changing a character’s long jump distance from 8’ to 25’. So the Wizard has no chance of succeeding, while the Barb is only trying to jump a little farther, relative to their normal long jump.

Why shouldn’t those factors weigh in on skill checks?

Put another way, if the chasm is only 20’, why should the DC be based solely on that distance? The Barb can do it, RAW, no check; and the Wizard can’t dream of making it as it’s more than double their long jump distance. So why would I ever have it be the same DC for them?

[Sharur]

So I do some "Proficiency* Gating" for various skill checks, less to say "stop the Barbarian from passing an Arcana check that the Wizard fails" (because its quite possible for a given Barbarian to know a piece of Arcane lore that a given Wizard doesn't), and more to prevent "dog piling" where the entire group rolls, and someone will roll high (unless its a ). It's not a constant thing (i.e. not ""), but a situational requirement that comes up semi-frequently


*Although its not always proficiencies; sometimes I'll have a background as a pre-requisite or alternative requirement. E.g. An outlander background might qualify you to attempt a Survival check to do some tracking, even if you don't have proficiency in Survival; A Sage background or Entertainer might allow for a History check to recall an old tale (or a Soldier background if it was about a famous battle), while a Sailor background might be enough to attempt a Nature or Survival check regarding sea conditions. Note that in all of these cases, while the background allows you to perform the check if you don't have the otherwise required proficency, you don't get the bonus on your roll unless you actually have the proficiency.

[DwarfFighter]

Anyway, it's probably fair to deny a character from using a skill that requires training to complete, but drawing the line between what relies on tuition and what can be achieved through intuition, raw talent, or incidental trivia? A lot of things a PC attempts can be justified with "I've seen/heard/read/dreamed of this! "

The lack of prof bonus is usually enough to put the odds of success far behind the skilled characters, but is it enough to deny them all chance?

I can think of one instance where it would make sense for the GM to say NO, and that is when making the Help action: You gotta know what you are doing if you are going to help out, or you'll just be in the way.

[Pex]

Why? Why shouldn’t I look at it in terms of what the characters can already do? Why discount that the Barb can jump 20’ without breaking a sweat?

Plus, as stated before, I see no way an Athletics check can result in changing a character’s long jump distance from 8’ to 25’. So the Wizard has no chance of succeeding, while the Barb is only trying to jump a little farther, relative to their normal long jump.

Why shouldn’t those factors weigh in on skill checks?

Put another way, if the chasm is only 20’, why should the DC be based solely on that distance? The Barb can do it, RAW, no check; and the Wizard can’t dream of making it as it’s more than double their long jump distance. So why would I ever have it be the same DC for them?

The DC should be on the difficulty of the task not the person doing it. Given the same modifier, a person who is proficient will have more successes than one who doesn't. That's as it should be, but it doesn't mean the person without the proficiency shouldn't even try. The 20 ST barbarian can jump the 20 ft chasm because he has 20 ft, as per rules. The 10 ST wizard can't just do it. He has to roll, but he shouldn't be denied the roll because he lacks proficiency in Athletics. Is it possible to jump 10 ft more than your ST allows? If the 10 ST wizard could never jump 20 ft then the 20 ST barbarian could never jump 30 ft. However, if a DM says it's possible to jump 10 ft more than your ST, then the DC for the barbarian to jump 30 ft should be the same as the wizard to jump 20 ft. The barbarian has a better chance of making it because he has 20 ST and proficiency in Athletics. The wizard with 10 ST and no proficiency has a much harder time, but he still gets to roll. If the DM sets the DC at 25 the wizard mathematically can never make it. That's fine because it's based on the difficulty of the task. It is a distinct difference than denying the wizard a roll at all because he lacks proficiency in Athletics. If the DC is 15, the wizard gets to roll and needs Natural 15+ regardless of level. The 20 ST proficient barbarian at level 8 needs Natural 7+. That a 10 ST non-proficient wizard could never jump 30 ft is fine. That means the 20 ST proficient barbarian could never jump 40 ft, but he can still jump the 30 ft the wizard can't.

[Anymage]

and more to prevent "dog piling" where the entire group rolls, and someone will roll high (unless its a ). It's not a constant thing (i.e. not ""), but a situational requirement that comes up semi-frequently

Dogpiling checks is meant to be sidestepped by group checks. If there's a reasonable chance of failure and you aren't asking for dogpile checks specifically to practically guarantee success, the checks shouldn't be seen as a binary where passing means knowing and missing means not knowing. If a miss means getting something wrong and you're talking to five laymen and one trained doctor, you have incentive right there to not crowdsource your answer.

Put another way, if the chasm is only 20’, why should the DC be based solely on that distance? The Barb can do it, RAW, no check; and the Wizard can’t dream of making it as it’s more than double their long jump distance. So why would I ever have it be the same DC for them?

Because the jump lengths based on strength are an outlier, giving a hard number based just off of strength when training should absolutely be relevant. Also, you're running off of real world intuition where bell curves are an essential element of probability, when D&D runs off of the flat "curve" of a d20 roll.

I'm not going to be too upset if you allow such double dipping to make it easier on strength based characters. Characters facing a chasm already look for backup crossing plans, to protect against the stray 1. But the idea that the DC should be based entirely on the difficulty of the task while the character's competence is reflected by bonuses has a fair amount of precedent.

[RSP]

Is it possible to jump 10 ft more than your ST allows? If the 10 ST wizard could never jump 20 ft then the 20 ST barbarian could never jump 30 ft.

Why do I need to view it that way?

This, again, comes down to perspective: there’s nothing wrong with viewing the distances relative to what they can already do. I, in fact, think it’s a much better way to do it.

A character with a 5 Str can long jump 5’. A 10’ jump to them is doubling their normal jump distance. That is the same as the Str 20 Barb asking if they can jump 40’. Each are trying to double their long jump distance.

That’s not the same thing as the Barb trying to jump a 25’ chasm, which is only a 20% increase on their long jump distance.

If the Barb tries to jump the 25’ chasm, and I assign a DC 15 to it, that doesn’t mean the Str 5 character is also dealing with a DC 15.

The Str 5 character is trying to increase his long jump by 500%. There’s no way, in my opinion, that’s a DC 15 check.

[Mjolnirbear]

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.

Pendantic, but you get far more than that from tools and languages to weapons and armour.

Less pedantic: even excluding weapons, languages and armour (which don't use ability checks) you still get more than four because nearly every class/background combination grants at least one tool, which is also an ability check.

But even taking your argument at face value regarding only skills,... There really aren't that many, and it's easy to gain more. Rogue, bard, Skilled, another three or four feats, and what seems like at least half the game's races grant extra skills.

If you want to build for more skills, it's not actually that hard. So if your DM gates by proficiency, why not use one of those options?

To me, gating by proficiency is just like you can't attempt magic without spells.

I gate by proficiency, but only if in my judgment the task is complicated. First Aid? Anyone can. Identify time of death? Trained only or possibly some background knowledge (like if you're a Sage, maybe). Escape or initiate a grapple? Sure, anyone with hands knows how to grab things and collars or armour can make convenient handles. Try to choke someone out? That needs practice which means training. Is this rune magical? Anyone can roll. How do you disable a rune trap? With training in Arcana.

I also gatekeep in that if both à trained and untrained person roll, the trained person gets more info. "Belkar, you can see the crack in the column. It might be a weak spot. Roy, you can see that column is bearing far too much a load and if it breaks it may well bring down the entire building instead of just this part of the ceiling."

I do it this way because choices matter. Roy chose Knowledge: Architecture and Belkar picked Craft Disturbing Mental Image instead. By giving different information and restricting certain rolls I respect and reward the choices the players made by playing to their strengths and acknowledging their weaknesses.

[Tanarii]

The idea that proficiency is the sole way to represent training, and that it only represents training, is pre-5e thinking.

In 5e, your ability score mod explicitly represents both natural talent and training. Proficiency indicates some kind of focus on a subset of things that ability adds to, and it can come from any number of sources, not just training. It can be divine inspiration, or just an area of that ability where he isn't as weak as the others.

e.g an Int 8 character with Investigation may not be trained in investigation. He may just suck at anything to do with memory, but still have good deductive thinking.

[RSP]

Because the jump lengths based on strength are an outlier, giving a hard number based just off of strength when training should absolutely be relevant.

Training should be relevant, which is where proficiency in Athletics comes in. Athletics is, RAW, training in jumping.

A character trained in Athletics should be better at beating their long jump distance than a character who is untrained.

So, in the “proficiency gating” discussion, why should a character without training in jumping, be able to increase their jump distance as easily (same DC) as someone with that training?

The untrained character is simply relying on their strength to increase their jump distance, however, their strength is already taken into account by the RAW on their long jump distance. How much more juice can you squeeze out of that?

While the trained character has trained technique to aid them in jumping past their limitations only using strength.

If a DM wants to consider this in their reasoning, it’s just as okay as if they don’t.

In 5e, your ability score mod explicitly represents both natural talent and training.

RAW, it’s:

“An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability.”

However, that doesn’t mean Strength equals training in jumping. It means the score encompasses both what training a particular creatures has had, combined with their innate abilities.

My innate strength isn’t nearly as good as my strength if you factor in weightlifting and strength training. (This, to me, in 5e terms, is a character’s Str score: innate ability + strength training)

However, that strength training does not mean I have the training that an Olympic long jumper has in jumping technique. (This, to me, is Athletics proficiency, and, to the level of an Olympic athlete, probably Expertise in Athletics)

[DwarfFighter]

Why do I need to view it that way?

This, again, comes down to perspective: there’s nothing wrong with viewing the distances relative to what they can already do. I, in fact, think it’s a much better way to do it.

A character with a 5 Str can long jump 5’. A 10’ jump to them is doubling their normal jump distance. That is the same as the Str 20 Barb asking if they can jump 40’. Each are trying to double their long jump distance.

That’s not the same thing as the Barb trying to jump a 25’ chasm, which is only a 20% increase on their long jump distance.

If the Barb tries to jump the 25’ chasm, and I assign a DC 15 to it, that doesn’t mean the Str 5 character is also dealing with a DC 15.

The Str 5 character is trying to increase his long jump by 500%. There’s no way, in my opinion, that’s a DC 15 check.

Selective math. :)

Jump with jump distance N = 5

N + 5 = 10
N x 2 = 10
N x 100 - 490 = 10
N^3 /12,5 = 10

Maybe that 20 ft jump Barbarian should be allowed to leap 640 ft with the same DC as the Str 5 Wizard jumping 10 ft...

[RSP]

Maybe that 20 ft jump Barbarian should be allowed to leap 640 ft with the same DC as the Str 5 Wizard jumping 10 ft...

Again, perspective. If that’s how you want to rule at your table, go for it.

[Pex]

Why do I need to view it that way?

This, again, comes down to perspective: there’s nothing wrong with viewing the distances relative to what they can already do. I, in fact, think it’s a much better way to do it.

A character with a 5 Str can long jump 5’. A 10’ jump to them is doubling their normal jump distance. That is the same as the Str 20 Barb asking if they can jump 40’. Each are trying to double their long jump distance.

That’s not the same thing as the Barb trying to jump a 25’ chasm, which is only a 20% increase on their long jump distance.

If the Barb tries to jump the 25’ chasm, and I assign a DC 15 to it, that doesn’t mean the Str 5 character is also dealing with a DC 15.

The Str 5 character is trying to increase his long jump by 500%. There’s no way, in my opinion, that’s a DC 15 check.

If you want to see it as multiplier instead of additive that's fine. A 10 ST character jumping 20 ft is double ST, so the comparison for the 20 ST character is 40 ft. It's absolutely fine the 10 ST character can never jump 40 ft, four times his ST, but that's based on the difficulty of the task not whether or not the character is proficient in Athletics. At the same time the 20 ST character can jump 40 ft all he wants with an Athletics check because it's only twice his ST. What he can't do is jump 80 ft which is four times his ST for the same reason the 10 ST can't jump 40 ft or the ST 5 character can't jump 20 ft. However, if it's DC X to jump twice your ST, then it should be DC X for everyone despite the fact those with lower ST aren't jumping as far as those with higher ST. If it's DC 15 for 20 ST to jump 40 ft, then it's DC 15 for 10 ST to jump 20 ft and DC 15 for 5 ST to jump 10 ft regardless that the 10 ST and 5 ST characters can never jump 40 ft even though 20 ST character can. That is all good. The gating comes in when you deny the ST 10 character the chance to jump 20 ft because he lacks proficiency in Athletics.

[RSP]

However, if it's DC X to jump twice your ST, then it should be DC X for everyone despite the fact those with lower ST aren't jumping as far as those with higher ST…The gating comes in when you deny the ST 10 character the chance to jump 20 ft because he lacks proficiency in Athletics.

Again, up to the DM what they want to use in considering when a skill check is rolled or not.

As I wrote up thread, the long jump rules already account for what a character can do untrained, just relying on their strength score. I don’t think it’s horribly inappropriate to factor that in when comparing what a trained character could do (that is, one with proficiency in Athletics, which includes training in how to jump.).

But whether a DM wants to factor that in or not, is up to each individual DM.

Edit: to expound on this, the long jump rules give a reasonable baseline for what the raw (not RAW) strength score gives characters trying to jump. That is, we know how far a character can long jump based off their strength score: length of feet equal to Str score.

We don’t have such a baseline for Int checks. There is no “Int 10=X amount of knowledge of trolls.” It’s all subjective to the DM and characters. So without a baseline, there’s a lot less known about what qualifies as base Int vs what’s learned with training (Arcana or Nature, whatever). A die roll seems a decent way to solve that question, if the DM deems straight Int 10 with no corresponding proficiency has a chance of knowing what’s in question.

But again, there isn’t the same unknown with jumping: we know exactly how much the Str score alone, without proficiency, impacts long jumps.

The Athletics proficiency covers trying “to jump an unusually long distance.” So if we assume jumping a usually long distance is what’s covered by the “Str score=distance in feet” rule, then I’d say it’s fair to assume that special training in jumping covered by Athletics, is what allows a character to jump an unusually long distance (anything greater than their Str score in feet).

Certainly not the only way a DM can handle it, but not a horrible way to use what we know about the rules to determine what DC and when to roll.

[Pex]

Again, up to the DM what they want to use in considering when a skill check is rolled or not.

As I wrote up thread, the long jump rules already account for what a character can do untrained, just relying on their strength score. I don’t think it’s horribly inappropriate to factor that in when comparing what a trained character could do (that is, one with proficiency in Athletics, which includes training in how to jump.).

But whether a DM wants to factor that in or not, is up to each individual DM.

Edit: to expound on this, the long jump rules give a reasonable baseline for what the raw (not RAW) strength score gives characters trying to jump. That is, we know how far a character can long jump based off their strength score: length of feet equal to Str score.

We don’t have such a baseline for Int checks. There is no “Int 10=X amount of knowledge of trolls.” It’s all subjective to the DM and characters. So without a baseline, there’s a lot less known about what qualifies as base Int vs what’s learned with training (Arcana or Nature, whatever). A die roll seems a decent way to solve that question, if the DM deems straight Int 10 with no corresponding proficiency has a chance of knowing what’s in question.

But again, there isn’t the same unknown with jumping: we know exactly how much the Str score alone, without proficiency, impacts long jumps.

The Athletics proficiency covers trying “to jump an unusually long distance.” So if we assume jumping a usually long distance is what’s covered by the “Str score=distance in feet” rule, then I’d say it’s fair to assume that special training in jumping covered by Athletics, is what allows a character to jump an unusually long distance (anything greater than their Str score in feet).

Certainly not the only way a DM can handle it, but not a horrible way to use what we know about the rules to determine what DC and when to roll.

Of course the DM can do what he wants. I'm saying I don't like it when a DM does Proficiency gating because he condemns PCs to only ever getting to roll for four things, 5 if bard (unless Jack of all trades counts), 6 if rogue. It is better for the DM just to set the DC and let the dice fall where they may. The proficient character will have an easier time of it as he should.

[False God]

Of course the DM can do what he wants. I'm saying I don't like it when a DM does Proficiency gating because he condemns PCs to only ever getting to roll for four things, 5 if bard (unless Jack of all trades counts), 6 if rogue. It is better for the DM just to set the DC and let the dice fall where they may. The proficient character will have an easier time of it as he should.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that a character will be limited to only 4 things.

I mean, I suppose if the DM doesn't allow feats. Or Multiclassing. Or Backgrounds. Or races that give skills. Or ya know, like any mechanical customization at all.

[DwarfFighter]

How about the Fighter that gains Remarkable Athlete. Is this good enough to open the gate?

[RSP]

It is better for the DM just to set the DC and let the dice fall where they may. The proficient character will have an easier time of it as he should.

Are you arguing for “every character has a chance to succeed in anything the Player wants them to do”? Because otherwise, what’s the difference between “DC is set too high for non-proficient characters to achieve” and “don’t bother rolling if you’re not proficient”?

Or are you assuming that gating some things behind proficiency means everything is gated behind proficiency (which I don’t see anyone here arguing for - rather it’s selective gating and only certain things are gated behind proficiency. Though if anyone is arguing for full gating behind proficiency, I’d be interested in hearing their arguments.)?

I, personally, would gate somethings behind proficiency but not everything.

[Keltest]

Are you arguing for “every character has a chance to succeed in anything the Player wants them to do”? Because otherwise, what’s the difference between “DC is set too high for non-proficient characters to achieve” and “don’t bother rolling if you’re not proficient”?

Or are you assuming that gating some things behind proficiency means everything is gated behind proficiency (which I don’t see anyone here arguing for - rather it’s selective gating and only certain things are gated behind proficiency. Though if anyone is arguing for full gating behind proficiency, I’d be interested in hearing their arguments.)?

I, personally, would gate somethings behind proficiency but not everything.

Why cant the argument just be that its rude to not allow players to attempt something even if they cant do it. Its a roleplaying game, let them attempt something they cant succeed at if they want. If theyre willing to live (or die) with the consequences, then so be it.

[RSP]

Why cant the argument just be that its rude to not allow players to attempt something even if they cant do it. Its a roleplaying game, let them attempt something they cant succeed at if they want. If theyre willing to live (or die) with the consequences, then so be it.

For one, it’s not rude to tell them something isn’t allowed (or possible). It’s literally in the job description of the DM to determine that.

And, again, I find it rude to waste everyone at the table’s time “pretending” somethings possible that isn’t. When that nat 20 comes up and the Player expects a success, what do you tell them “I was just letting you roll because I was pitying you and didn’t think you could maturely handle that what you wanted to try isn’t possible”?

[Tanarii]

Of course the DM can do what he wants. I'm saying I don't like it when a DM does Proficiency gating because he condemns PCs to only ever getting to roll for four things, 5 if bard (unless Jack of all trades counts), 6 if rogue. It is better for the DM just to set the DC and let the dice fall where they may. The proficient character will have an easier time of it as he should.

Yup. This house rule limits ability checks in a way entirely unintended by 5e. It doesn't line up with what ability scores and proficiencies are intended to be, and it massively limits what players can choose to have their PCs attempt to do.

I get that it's a shortcut for determining character knowledge and capabilities, to rule on automatic success or failure or DC. Just like using a characters class or background or race is. But it's not fair to the player for a DM to make such assumption about the character with such shortcuts.

This is just a variant argument of Wizards should always be the ones to succeed at Arcana, or Clerics at Religion, or Druids at Nature.

[Keltest]

For one, it’s not rude to tell them something isn’t allowed (or possible). It’s literally in the job description of the DM to determine that.

And, again, I find it rude to waste everyone at the table’s time “pretending” somethings possible that isn’t. When that nat 20 comes up and the Player expects a success, what do you tell them “I was just letting you roll because I was pitying you and didn’t think you could maturely handle that what you wanted to try isn’t possible”?

So you think allowing people to play the game the way they want to is wasting time now? By allowing the barbarian (or whoever) to roll, youve established that it IS possible. They have every right to want to attempt the task even if they realistically cant succeed.

[Mjolnirbear]

So you think allowing people to play the game the way they want to is wasting time now? By allowing the barbarian (or whoever) to roll, youve established that it IS possible. They have every right to want to attempt the task even if they realistically cant succeed.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It's their job description. If the players want to dictate how the rules work, they have three options:

* discuss it at session zero
* play at a different table
* DM it themselves


Also, really? Let them try the task even if they cannot succeed?
I try to persuade the king to give me his kingdom.
Okay but you cannot succeed. The king will never give you his kingdom.
I want to try anyways.
Go ahead.
*rolls Nat 20* Yay!
Congrats. You still don't get a kingdom.
But Nat 20!
But I already told you it cannot happen, it is impossible. There was literally no point to you rolling.
Then why did you let me roll??

I mean, if you like jackass-type games where the point is to see what kind of stupid stuff you can get up to or get away with, more power to you. But you need to find a table where that is appropriate, not impose it on everyone else.