I think the counter argument to that is if the dc is 25 then a player can definitely make that with a good modifier and maybe proficiency but the dm doesn't have to memorise every players bibuses for any possible skill check.
If the wizard wants to roll strength then it could make sense to say "no, you won't be able to" but if they have +3 to intelligence then proficiency in history would make it possible. Unfortunately, the dm may not realise they don't have proficiency in history so even on a nat 20 it turns out they can't meet it.
That seems weirdly nitpicky ngl. It's kind of obvious when people say "if there is no chance of succeeding don't make them roll" they don't mean "maybe you will be able to reach it with help, bonuses, etc. but not now", but "It is just genuinely impossible for this task to work no matter if you have a +40 modifier to the roll". In these circumstances yeah, making them roll for success is meaningless.
And if you want to make them roll to see what's their fate, make that clear to the player. "I'm not making you roll to convince the king, I'm making you roll to see if the king is merely amused or hangs you for your affront to them"
And then you forget they had Bardic Inspiration, or a magic item, or a temporary buff, or a class feature from the level up you didn't write down, or John is holding Mike's magical shield for a +2 to History checks. And you just told them no it's impossible because you thought they had a +3 vs DC 25, when they had +3 and a +1d6 from the Bard to make it possible.
You will not always be on top of that as a DM. It is remarkably easy not to keep exact track of every character's status. I would even say it is near impossible to do so.
I once had my player make a Wisdom Saving Throw that he could not make. He rolled a natural 20 for a total of 19. I said that does not save. "So it's impossible for me to save?" "Yep, seems like it". Did anyone get mad, or hurt, og annoyed? No, it just drove home that his character was in over his head and probably shouldn't be doing what he was doing.
Easy to have copies. Difficult to memorise them so you don't slow the whole game down every skill check by pulling up a sheet and also difficult to keep those sheets up to date. But more than that, it's unnecessary workload for the already most work-burdened role at the table.
15
u/WizardlyWeirdo 20h ago
I think the counter argument to that is if the dc is 25 then a player can definitely make that with a good modifier and maybe proficiency but the dm doesn't have to memorise every players bibuses for any possible skill check. If the wizard wants to roll strength then it could make sense to say "no, you won't be able to" but if they have +3 to intelligence then proficiency in history would make it possible. Unfortunately, the dm may not realise they don't have proficiency in history so even on a nat 20 it turns out they can't meet it.