I personally allow everyone to roll for skill checks if applicable when I ask for a roll. People a lot of times might not know a lot about a subject, but they do know bits and pieces of information here and there. My knowledge of music in general is rather poor, but I do listen to Taylor Swift a lot and I can recognize all of her songs. Similarly, a character might not be proficient in a skill, but they still have that underlying base proficiency bonus that represents their experience from adventuring and living through life in general, and I do not think it is unreasonable for people to pick up random bits of information here and there.
If anyone can roll for Athletics and Acrobatics checks involving grappling despite having no formal martial arts training, I think anyone can roll for Intelligence checks. Getting out of being grappled is not exactly easy, and while you can brute force it by overpowering your opponent or be really flexible, having knowledge and experience in techniques to avoid and getting out of grapples reduces the need for raw power and flexibility.
However, there are limits to Arcana checks, and I would definitely not allow characters to use that skill to replace Identify or a short rest. I might allow the party to identify one property of a magic item if I am feeling generous and at least one of them have proficiency, but I am generally going to stick with lore about the magic item, something along the lines of "Hmm... I remember reading a story when I young depicting a hero wearing a magic ring that looks sort of like this one. If I ask the town's wizard or magic items merchant, they might be able to tell me more about that story or even be able to identify this ring."
RAW every PC can roll for every skill, but I (and some others) don't allow rolls for some skills if you don't have proficiency.
Actually, RAW says that the DM determines who and when an ability check is performed:
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
I would certainly allow a rogue without arcana proficiency to roll when he attempts to disarm a magical trap without asking for too many details, but I would probably not allow the same rogue to roll to analyse a complex arcane mechanism and operate it.
Suppose you have two characters: rogue (if it changes anything you can also assume any rogue vs arcane trickster) and sorcerer, rogue is not proficient with arcana but has high intelligence, the sorc is proficient but has low int. Summed up lets say both have +2 to arcana. Would you treat them differently in the example I've quoted?
But it isn't either or as in either you've studied arcana (ie. proficiency way) and you know it from memory or you have not studied it but are able to deduce it by reason (the int way). The rogue might have lived in a family of scholars, or might have heard it from someone else or might have studied the "Waterdeeps school for young gentlemen" where they were taught a wide area of things without really going deep into some area (all of this would be the memory, not reasoning way). Similarly the sorcerer might have just focused his studies in the field of magical runes but has no idea about magical monsters. Treating skill proficiency as something different than just a flat bonus to skill seems really unfair to the players.
Sorcerer powers are innate rather than learned. They are not wizards. It is like saying Usain Bolt must have extensive knowledge of physiology because he is such a good runner. He may well have extensive knowledge of physiology, but if so, because he studied it, not because he is a good runner. Physicians do not need to be able to run as well as he, nor even to have functional legs at all to have that same knowledge. And one can study and learn such knowledge without ever taking any formal medicinal studies program.
Arcana is Int based, but Sorcerers are Cha based. So stat bonuses being equal, why would they have different actual knowledge levels in the same knowledge skill?
The sorcerer in your example very clearly studied Arcana. She's proficient in the skill, after all. That implies that she spent time reading books, asking questions and experimenting. You don't gain a knowledge-based skill without going out and gaining knowledge.
Meanwhile, the rogue is just really good at retaining information (high INT bonus). If there's nothing in her history to suggest she's had access to said information, how would she ever get a chance to retain said magical knowledge?
What matters is the exposure to knowledge. A rogue that's gone through a noble's education is likely to have some exposure to knowledge about magic, even if they never actually learned to cast magic. A sorcerer that never bothered to study up on anything about magic and only relies on street smarts, on the other hand, is unlikely to be allowed to roll.
And why, exactly, would a Rogue not want to study Arcana as part of being a Rogue? The Sorcerer does not need to know anything about magical theory to use their abilities. The Rogue, on the other hand, does need to know about magical theory to counter magical traps.
Rogues don't get Arcana as a class skill. Sorcerers do. This implies that many sorcerers do, indeed, want to know magical theory. It also implies that rogues do not need magical theory as part of their training.
On top of that... Arcana is more than magical theory. Its planar and magical creature knowledge. Given that sorcerers get their magic from said planes and magical creatures, it very much makes sense for sorcerers to want to know more about the origins of their powers.
The sorcerer in your example very clearly studied Arcana. She's proficient in the skill, after all. That implies that she spent time reading books, asking questions and experimenting. You don't gain a knowledge-based skill without going out and gaining knowledge.
Meanwhile, the rogue is just really good at retaining information (high INT bonus). If there's nothing in her history to suggest she's had access to said information, how would she ever get a chance to retain said magical knowledge?
Yes, but since both have +2 to Arcana, they both have roughly same amount of knowledge about magical stuff (and it doesnt matter how they obtained it). Why should the fact that the sorcerer has proficiency make any difference?
The sorcerer in your example very clearly studied Arcana. She's proficient in the skill, after all. That implies that she spent time reading books, asking questions and experimenting. You don't gain a knowledge-based skill without going out and gaining knowledge.
Meanwhile, the rogue is just really good at retaining information (high INT bonus). If there's nothing in her history to suggest she's had access to said information, how would she ever get a chance to retain said magical knowledge?
Yes, but since both have +2 to Arcana, they both have roughly same amount of knowledge about magical stuff (and it doesnt matter how they obtained it). Why should the fact that the sorcerer has proficiency make any difference?
But they DON'T have the same amount of knowledge about magical stuff. That's the point. INT score is memory and reasoning ability, not raw knowledge. You can't recall magical theory if you never studied it, and you can't reason your way through magical without understanding.
Its like the DM asking "Why would you know this?" and getting the answer "I'm really smart." That's not a real answer; it doesn't matter how smart you are if you never study the appropriate subject. "I went to school as a noble's servant and got a generalized education" or "I have books on magical theory I stole a while back, and I'm going to reference them since I looked through the book before" are good answers.
But magic is more or less a common thing in the DnD universe. You just happen to know some stuff regardless whether you've studied it. Hell even knowing that when the guy next to you starts waving his hands in a strange way that he is probably casting a spell is an Arcana check (with DC 0, but..). How much of that information you retain is based on you intelligence, but saying that because he has not studied he can't know it is strange.
To compare it to the real world, even someone who does not study history probably knows, that Columbus got to America, that there were 2 world wars and that there was this guy called Napoleon...
So then, typical rogues in a magical world are useless against magical traps since they never ever encounter them, nor does anyone who trains them? Not even a simple Alarm spell?
Why have default skill values if they are not usable? Sorcerer grew up in a peaceful area and never had to dodge a thing in their life. Why do they get default (non-proficient) acrobatics skill? Why do they even get a dex bonus on their AC?
Magical traps can still be spotted with a Perception check. Then, you simply go around them instead of breaking the magic trap. You don't need to analyze it to avoid it.
These are adventuring classes, meant for adventurers. Trying to compare non-adventurers to adventurers is silly and meaningless.
They have raw ability score checks for the times you can justify knowing something or doing something. Everyone can jump. Unless you are missing a leg or two, in which case... you can't jump, no matter your strength score; its a physical impossibility. Someone with high strength can pound things with a hammer. They won't be able to make weapons at a forge just by virtue of a high strength.
But magic is more or less a common thing in the DnD universe. You just happen to know some stuff regardless whether you've studied it.
That sounds like a DM call about how their setting works, not objective fact. Indeed, I usually see the opposite, with commoners more likely to be filled with misinformation and superstition than any real facts about magic.
Hell even knowing that when the guy next to you starts waving his hands in a strange way that he is probably casting a spell is an Arcana check (with DC 0, but..). How much of that information you retain is based on you intelligence, but saying that because he has not studied he can't know it is strange.
You guess he MIGHT be casting a spell. But is he bluffing or acting silly? Does he know magic? When I talk, I have a habit of expressing myself using hand gestures. Does that mean someone with the same habit in D&D is casting spells?
Spells might be natural gestures. Magic missile involves pointing fingers at the target as its somatic components. Am I casting a spell, or just pointing at you?
A lot of spells with material and somatic components simply involve pointing your wand at something. Is he casting a spell? Or is it just a Wand of Magic Missile? Is he activating his wand, or just pointing it threateningly at you?
Working from stereotypes is a different matter than actually knowing about a subject.
To compare it to the real world, even someone who does not study history probably knows, that Columbus got to America, that there were 2 world wars and that there was this guy called Napoleon...
People in the real world also tend to have a generalized education that involves taking history lessons, plus we have the internet for ease of access to vast quantities of information. Schooling is not as common in the default D&D settings.
Meanwhile, someone in the common D&D setting would also be more likely to know what to forage from the wilderness in order to survive. Me? I'm fracking clueless. I'd probably poison myself and die. I have no clue what's okay to eat unless I stumble onto something like strawberries or an apple tree. I've never had to start a fire without a lighter. Those are all things that are probably super common in D&D settings.
According to you, the Rogue would have no clue what to look for though. They do need perception checks for subtle signs rather than glowie 'Magical Trap Here' fields that do not need any such checks.
And that they are adventurers is part of the point here. They are exceptional. They are the people far more likely to have encountered something unusual or outside their normal wheelhouse.
Nope. This is you just putting words in my mouth. You can notice general signs of magical effery lying around. You don't know if its real or not, but noticing something going on, sigils written on the floor, etc. Magic isn't subtle, but it can be faked and bluffed.
Without magical theory studies, you can't study said magic and draw conclusions about what the spell is, how to disarm it, if its a fake, etc. But you can notice something potentially magical there. Its pretty consistent that, rules-wise, that you can use Perception and Investigation to see where magic is set up, see flaws in illusions, or where to go around the magic trap. Nothing stops you from using deductive reasoning. But raw information or analysis? That's a bit more specialized.
Being an adventurer doesn't mean you know automatically know about magical theory or planar creatures; you might be exceptional in your field, but that doesn't mean anything for things outside of your field. It does means you have a high chance of seeing it repeatedly and learning from past encounters, but it doesn't mean you get anything for first time encounters.
If you run into an Alarm spell more than once, you can roll to remember what sigils to remove in what order to disarm the spell. If its the first time you've seen the spell? You're out of luck.
The sorcerer in your example very clearly studied Arcana. She's proficient in the skill, after all. That implies that she spent time reading books, asking questions and experimenting. You don't gain a knowledge-based skill without going out and gaining knowledge.
Meanwhile, the rogue is just really good at retaining information (high INT bonus). If there's nothing in her history to suggest she's had access to said information, how would she ever get a chance to retain said magical knowledge?
Yes, but since both have +2 to Arcana, they both have roughly same amount of knowledge about magical stuff (and it doesnt matter how they obtained it). Why should the fact that the sorcerer has proficiency make any difference?
But they DON'T have the same amount of knowledge about magical stuff. That's the point. INT score is memory and reasoning ability, not raw knowledge. You can't recall magical theory if you never studied it, and you can't reason your way through magical without understanding.
Its like the DM asking "Why would you know this?" and getting the answer "I'm really smart." That's not a real answer; it doesn't matter how smart you are if you never study the appropriate subject. "I went to school as a noble's servant and got a generalized education" or "I have books on magical theory I stole a while back, and I'm going to reference them since I looked through the book before" are good answers.
In my opinion, requiring actual study defeats the point of characters having the regular modifiers for skills, as a low Int wizard with proficiency in Arcana is allowed to roll to determine their success while a high Int wizard without proficiency in Arcana is not allowed to roll despite having a higher modifier. I do not think a character needs to find a specific justification for succeeding in an Arcana check despite not having proficiency in it, and simply living through life and going through adventures is enough justification to absorb bits and pieces of information to allow a character to succeed in an Arcana check.
If we are to apply that studying requirement to Athletics and Acrobatics check regarding grappling, then it would not make sense to allow characters to contest against being grappled using their Athletic and Acrobatic skills if they are not proficient in it. Even having simple training in martial arts does NOT automatically mean you know how to grapple or to get out of it. I did Taekwondo for about a year while I was in high school, and grappling is not even mentioned. Meanwhile, my friend who is also interested in martial arts took free Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu classes and the focus on grappling in that discipline was significant. If we were going all out, I was never able to get out of his pins, while he can always get out of mine. Partially, that is due to his much better strength, but more so than that, he had significant practice with using wrestling and grappling techniques, and that technique is much more important than his strength in my opinion.
And proficiency means you studied the subject to the degree you are considered proficient. That does not mean that someone who did not study to the same degree knows nothing on the subject. Not being fluent in a language does not preclude knowing specific useful phrases.
This is something you need to be careful with. Proficiencies are an important balancing/limiting aspect of the game and allow the different members of the party to shine in their respective specializations.
Taking the above logic to the extreme, you can have a character that is a 300 year old elf insisting that he knows several useful phrases in every language and has studied extensively in all fields of knowledge, essentially bypassing the game concept of proficiency through 'roleplay.'
While the above is an extreme example, even less egregious application of this logic can result in your more assertive players shoehorning their way into benefits the game expressly does not grant them and potentially crowding out the others.
Obviously some tables and DMs can handle a degree of this, I just think it's something to keep in mind. I'm in the camp that believes skill rules being intentionally vague is a good thing, because it lets different groups tailor the system to their preferences.
For the discussion about rolling without proficiency, for me it's not about the logic of knowing it or not. When there's a question of knowledge, I don't want 6d20's thrown at me. Someone's going to roll high in that situation and every other one. It creates a situation where focused study isn't really important, the important thing is just having a big group because virtually every time a question comes up someone will randomly have the answer.
In my opinion, requiring actual study defeats the point of characters having the regular modifiers for skills, as a low Int wizard with proficiency in Arcana is allowed to roll to determine their success while a high Int wizard without proficiency in Arcana is not allowed to roll despite having a higher modifier.
Study is not the same thing as having proficiency. DMs asking to have in character justification for making a skill check is not the same thing as requiring proficency.
Let's say we have a high elf rogue. High elves, as part of their cultural background, generally study arcane magic. It's totally in character for this character to know basics. A human raised in the slums and became a thief to survive, and made no attempt to study? Less so.
There is absolutely nothing in the rules saying that you have to have arcana proficiency to be able to make meaningful arcana checks.
You're putting words in my mouth. Again. I specifically said its not about proficiency, its about in character justification before allowing a roll of any kind.
In my opinion, requiring actual study defeats the point of characters having the regular modifiers for skills, as a low Int wizard with proficiency in Arcana is allowed to roll to determine their success while a high Int wizard without proficiency in Arcana is not allowed to roll despite having a higher modifier.
Study is not the same thing as having proficiency. DMs asking to have in character justification for making a skill check is not the same thing as requiring proficency.
Let's say we have a high elf rogue. High elves, as part of their cultural background, generally study arcane magic. It's totally in character for this character to know basics. A human raised in the slums and became a thief to survive, and made no attempt to study? Less so.
But if we are asking for a skill check, should not we allow all PCs to roll instead of only allowing characters with proficiency to roll? For stuff like getting out of a grapple or doing an exam in magic class, I would only ask for a skill check for the one affected. But if a member found a magic item or a Sphinx presents the whole party a riddle, I would allow the whole party to roll Arcana or Investigation respectively instead of only allowing those with Arcana or Investigation to roll.
Just because a human thief made no attempt to study magic does not mean they are completely devoid of magical knowledge. They still have that Int modifier in Arcana reflecting their experiences through life, so they have rudimentary understanding of some magical lore. For example, a thief might not have magical training, but they have enough understanding of magic to be able bypass Arcane Lock's extra 10 DC without even relying on an Arcana check.
There is absolutely nothing in the rules saying that you have to have arcana proficiency to be able to make meaningful arcana checks. Fair game that any DM can add any such additional test they want, but at least acknowledge you are doing so. And I still put it to you that it is a pretty arbitrary line.
But it is in the rules that the DM gets to decide when or if a skill check is required or allowed.
If we are to apply that studying requirement to Athletics and Acrobatics check
Nobody is making that argument.
There are some skills that some GMs consider every-person skills like Athletics and Deception. Anybody can make a roll, proficiency just means you're better at it due to training.
I wouldn't let a PC make a Medicine check unless they had proficiency. Stabilizing somebody who is dying or diagnosing a poison or disease requires some form of training.
Is this RAW? No. According to the rules, anybody can make a roll for anything.
Again, some GMs feel that certain skills (NOT all) require proficiency in their games. You don't have to adopt this if you don't want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I think people are making a distinction with arcana because it only applies to magic, which doesn't exist in our world. This distinction is only fair if the characters are also from a world without magic. Even before they start adventuring, most characters will live in a world where magic is a part of their life on a fairly regular basis, even if it's only about as often as fireworks are in our lives.
An untrained character making an arcana check is as reasonable as an untrained character making a survival check to track someone. They aren't likely to succeed, but they might happen to notice just the right thing to manage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I personally allow everyone to roll for skill checks if applicable when I ask for a roll. People a lot of times might not know a lot about a subject, but they do know bits and pieces of information here and there. My knowledge of music in general is rather poor, but I do listen to Taylor Swift a lot and I can recognize all of her songs. Similarly, a character might not be proficient in a skill, but they still have that underlying base proficiency bonus that represents their experience from adventuring and living through life in general, and I do not think it is unreasonable for people to pick up random bits of information here and there.
If anyone can roll for Athletics and Acrobatics checks involving grappling despite having no formal martial arts training, I think anyone can roll for Intelligence checks. Getting out of being grappled is not exactly easy, and while you can brute force it by overpowering your opponent or be really flexible, having knowledge and experience in techniques to avoid and getting out of grapples reduces the need for raw power and flexibility.
However, there are limits to Arcana checks, and I would definitely not allow characters to use that skill to replace Identify or a short rest. I might allow the party to identify one property of a magic item if I am feeling generous and at least one of them have proficiency, but I am generally going to stick with lore about the magic item, something along the lines of "Hmm... I remember reading a story when I young depicting a hero wearing a magic ring that looks sort of like this one. If I ask the town's wizard or magic items merchant, they might be able to tell me more about that story or even be able to identify this ring."
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Actually, RAW says that the DM determines who and when an ability check is performed:
Suppose you have two characters: rogue (if it changes anything you can also assume any rogue vs arcane trickster) and sorcerer, rogue is not proficient with arcana but has high intelligence, the sorc is proficient but has low int. Summed up lets say both have +2 to arcana. Would you treat them differently in the example I've quoted?
But it isn't either or as in either you've studied arcana (ie. proficiency way) and you know it from memory or you have not studied it but are able to deduce it by reason (the int way). The rogue might have lived in a family of scholars, or might have heard it from someone else or might have studied the "Waterdeeps school for young gentlemen" where they were taught a wide area of things without really going deep into some area (all of this would be the memory, not reasoning way). Similarly the sorcerer might have just focused his studies in the field of magical runes but has no idea about magical monsters. Treating skill proficiency as something different than just a flat bonus to skill seems really unfair to the players.
The sorcerer in your example very clearly studied Arcana. She's proficient in the skill, after all. That implies that she spent time reading books, asking questions and experimenting. You don't gain a knowledge-based skill without going out and gaining knowledge.
Meanwhile, the rogue is just really good at retaining information (high INT bonus). If there's nothing in her history to suggest she's had access to said information, how would she ever get a chance to retain said magical knowledge?
What matters is the exposure to knowledge. A rogue that's gone through a noble's education is likely to have some exposure to knowledge about magic, even if they never actually learned to cast magic. A sorcerer that never bothered to study up on anything about magic and only relies on street smarts, on the other hand, is unlikely to be allowed to roll.
Rogues don't get Arcana as a class skill. Sorcerers do. This implies that many sorcerers do, indeed, want to know magical theory. It also implies that rogues do not need magical theory as part of their training.
On top of that... Arcana is more than magical theory. Its planar and magical creature knowledge. Given that sorcerers get their magic from said planes and magical creatures, it very much makes sense for sorcerers to want to know more about the origins of their powers.
Yes, but since both have +2 to Arcana, they both have roughly same amount of knowledge about magical stuff (and it doesnt matter how they obtained it). Why should the fact that the sorcerer has proficiency make any difference?
But they DON'T have the same amount of knowledge about magical stuff. That's the point. INT score is memory and reasoning ability, not raw knowledge. You can't recall magical theory if you never studied it, and you can't reason your way through magical without understanding.
Its like the DM asking "Why would you know this?" and getting the answer "I'm really smart." That's not a real answer; it doesn't matter how smart you are if you never study the appropriate subject. "I went to school as a noble's servant and got a generalized education" or "I have books on magical theory I stole a while back, and I'm going to reference them since I looked through the book before" are good answers.
But magic is more or less a common thing in the DnD universe. You just happen to know some stuff regardless whether you've studied it. Hell even knowing that when the guy next to you starts waving his hands in a strange way that he is probably casting a spell is an Arcana check (with DC 0, but..). How much of that information you retain is based on you intelligence, but saying that because he has not studied he can't know it is strange.
To compare it to the real world, even someone who does not study history probably knows, that Columbus got to America, that there were 2 world wars and that there was this guy called Napoleon...
Magical traps can still be spotted with a Perception check. Then, you simply go around them instead of breaking the magic trap. You don't need to analyze it to avoid it.
These are adventuring classes, meant for adventurers. Trying to compare non-adventurers to adventurers is silly and meaningless.
They have raw ability score checks for the times you can justify knowing something or doing something. Everyone can jump. Unless you are missing a leg or two, in which case... you can't jump, no matter your strength score; its a physical impossibility. Someone with high strength can pound things with a hammer. They won't be able to make weapons at a forge just by virtue of a high strength.
That sounds like a DM call about how their setting works, not objective fact. Indeed, I usually see the opposite, with commoners more likely to be filled with misinformation and superstition than any real facts about magic.
You guess he MIGHT be casting a spell. But is he bluffing or acting silly? Does he know magic? When I talk, I have a habit of expressing myself using hand gestures. Does that mean someone with the same habit in D&D is casting spells?
Spells might be natural gestures. Magic missile involves pointing fingers at the target as its somatic components. Am I casting a spell, or just pointing at you?
A lot of spells with material and somatic components simply involve pointing your wand at something. Is he casting a spell? Or is it just a Wand of Magic Missile? Is he activating his wand, or just pointing it threateningly at you?
Working from stereotypes is a different matter than actually knowing about a subject.
People in the real world also tend to have a generalized education that involves taking history lessons, plus we have the internet for ease of access to vast quantities of information. Schooling is not as common in the default D&D settings.
Meanwhile, someone in the common D&D setting would also be more likely to know what to forage from the wilderness in order to survive. Me? I'm fracking clueless. I'd probably poison myself and die. I have no clue what's okay to eat unless I stumble onto something like strawberries or an apple tree. I've never had to start a fire without a lighter. Those are all things that are probably super common in D&D settings.
Nope. This is you just putting words in my mouth. You can notice general signs of magical effery lying around. You don't know if its real or not, but noticing something going on, sigils written on the floor, etc. Magic isn't subtle, but it can be faked and bluffed.
Without magical theory studies, you can't study said magic and draw conclusions about what the spell is, how to disarm it, if its a fake, etc. But you can notice something potentially magical there. Its pretty consistent that, rules-wise, that you can use Perception and Investigation to see where magic is set up, see flaws in illusions, or where to go around the magic trap. Nothing stops you from using deductive reasoning. But raw information or analysis? That's a bit more specialized.
Being an adventurer doesn't mean you know automatically know about magical theory or planar creatures; you might be exceptional in your field, but that doesn't mean anything for things outside of your field. It does means you have a high chance of seeing it repeatedly and learning from past encounters, but it doesn't mean you get anything for first time encounters.
If you run into an Alarm spell more than once, you can roll to remember what sigils to remove in what order to disarm the spell. If its the first time you've seen the spell? You're out of luck.
In my opinion, requiring actual study defeats the point of characters having the regular modifiers for skills, as a low Int wizard with proficiency in Arcana is allowed to roll to determine their success while a high Int wizard without proficiency in Arcana is not allowed to roll despite having a higher modifier. I do not think a character needs to find a specific justification for succeeding in an Arcana check despite not having proficiency in it, and simply living through life and going through adventures is enough justification to absorb bits and pieces of information to allow a character to succeed in an Arcana check.
If we are to apply that studying requirement to Athletics and Acrobatics check regarding grappling, then it would not make sense to allow characters to contest against being grappled using their Athletic and Acrobatic skills if they are not proficient in it. Even having simple training in martial arts does NOT automatically mean you know how to grapple or to get out of it. I did Taekwondo for about a year while I was in high school, and grappling is not even mentioned. Meanwhile, my friend who is also interested in martial arts took free Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu classes and the focus on grappling in that discipline was significant. If we were going all out, I was never able to get out of his pins, while he can always get out of mine. Partially, that is due to his much better strength, but more so than that, he had significant practice with using wrestling and grappling techniques, and that technique is much more important than his strength in my opinion.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
This is something you need to be careful with. Proficiencies are an important balancing/limiting aspect of the game and allow the different members of the party to shine in their respective specializations.
Taking the above logic to the extreme, you can have a character that is a 300 year old elf insisting that he knows several useful phrases in every language and has studied extensively in all fields of knowledge, essentially bypassing the game concept of proficiency through 'roleplay.'
While the above is an extreme example, even less egregious application of this logic can result in your more assertive players shoehorning their way into benefits the game expressly does not grant them and potentially crowding out the others.
Obviously some tables and DMs can handle a degree of this, I just think it's something to keep in mind. I'm in the camp that believes skill rules being intentionally vague is a good thing, because it lets different groups tailor the system to their preferences.
For the discussion about rolling without proficiency, for me it's not about the logic of knowing it or not. When there's a question of knowledge, I don't want 6d20's thrown at me. Someone's going to roll high in that situation and every other one. It creates a situation where focused study isn't really important, the important thing is just having a big group because virtually every time a question comes up someone will randomly have the answer.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Study is not the same thing as having proficiency. DMs asking to have in character justification for making a skill check is not the same thing as requiring proficency.
Let's say we have a high elf rogue. High elves, as part of their cultural background, generally study arcane magic. It's totally in character for this character to know basics. A human raised in the slums and became a thief to survive, and made no attempt to study? Less so.
You're putting words in my mouth. Again. I specifically said its not about proficiency, its about in character justification before allowing a roll of any kind.
But if we are asking for a skill check, should not we allow all PCs to roll instead of only allowing characters with proficiency to roll? For stuff like getting out of a grapple or doing an exam in magic class, I would only ask for a skill check for the one affected. But if a member found a magic item or a Sphinx presents the whole party a riddle, I would allow the whole party to roll Arcana or Investigation respectively instead of only allowing those with Arcana or Investigation to roll.
Just because a human thief made no attempt to study magic does not mean they are completely devoid of magical knowledge. They still have that Int modifier in Arcana reflecting their experiences through life, so they have rudimentary understanding of some magical lore. For example, a thief might not have magical training, but they have enough understanding of magic to be able bypass Arcane Lock's extra 10 DC without even relying on an Arcana check.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
But it is in the rules that the DM gets to decide when or if a skill check is required or allowed.
Nobody is making that argument.
There are some skills that some GMs consider every-person skills like Athletics and Deception. Anybody can make a roll, proficiency just means you're better at it due to training.
I wouldn't let a PC make a Medicine check unless they had proficiency. Stabilizing somebody who is dying or diagnosing a poison or disease requires some form of training.
Is this RAW? No. According to the rules, anybody can make a roll for anything.
Again, some GMs feel that certain skills (NOT all) require proficiency in their games. You don't have to adopt this if you don't want to.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think people are making a distinction with arcana because it only applies to magic, which doesn't exist in our world. This distinction is only fair if the characters are also from a world without magic. Even before they start adventuring, most characters will live in a world where magic is a part of their life on a fairly regular basis, even if it's only about as often as fireworks are in our lives.
An untrained character making an arcana check is as reasonable as an untrained character making a survival check to track someone. They aren't likely to succeed, but they might happen to notice just the right thing to manage.