For a specific example of this happening, my players were in a forest and came across a berry bush. It was a weird looking bush with weird looking berries. It only grows in this one part of the forest, nowhere else in the world, so none of the players' characters could ever have possible seen or heard of these berries before. A player wanted to roll a nature check to see if these berries were normal, or poisonous, or if there was anything strange about them. I let them roll but even though they rolled very high (I think a 24), all I could say was "you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do. I reasoned the only way they could possibly know what these berries do would be to eat one, but they argued that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll, perhaps pulling from their knowledge of other berries they've seen. I still stand by my call that there's no way they could know, since it's a foreign object they've never seen before.
It brought up a bigger discussion about whether players should even be able to roll to know or learn something that they couldn't possibly know. Such as a one of a kind monster, or something similar. No records of it, no previous experience, maybe some passing visual similarities but otherwise, it's the first time they've ever seen this thing. Should they even be allowed to roll? I've always gone with yes, and I'll try to give them something, like the glitter in the berries above, or maybe describing the monster in more visual detail, but that usually hasn't been satisfactory, especially on the occasion when they roll a crit 20 on the check.
What would you do? Both as player and DM, what's your opinion?
The dice are to be called for and used IFF there is both a meaningful chance of failure and a meaningful chance of success. You don’t roll to see if you can tie your shoes and you can’t roll to see if an apple defies gravity when you drop it.
Theoretically, the players should not be asking to roll dice. The DM is the one that calls for an ability check when a player attempts to do something that could succeed or could fail. You generally do not call for a check that will auto-succeed or auto-fail.
Remember, the game is designed to follow this basic flow:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
The blurb about ability checks:
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 think that “You are confident that you have never seen or heard of anything resembling this bush before” would be the appropriate result for the roll.
So... There's a couple of different ways you could handle this, realistically.
1. You just don't have them roll and tell them they have no knowledge of this plant 2. You let them roll and, on a high result, they can deduce a few potential minor qualities by comparing them to other similar plants (but not the specifics that make it unique) 3. On a high enough result, they may notice whether or not the plant seems to have been disturbed by other wildlife (as wildlife eating plants often indicates they're not poisonous)
It's ultimately your call on that. This isn't an exhaustive list, just suggestions.
Do note, however: You shouldn't have your players roll for impossible tasks unless the roll may still help them learn something (such as rolling Athletics to move an object so heavy they don't stand a chance, only for them to be able to gauge how much more strength they'd need).
Even if they can’t successfully work out what the berry is, if you asked them to roll and they performed well you should look to give something IMO.
It’s entirely possible that they could work out if it’s poisonous from its colour, its smell, whether there are signs of animals eating it or not, etc.
In this situation I get the impression you wanted them to eat the poison berries.
Do note, however: You shouldn't have your players roll for impossible tasks unless the roll may still help them learn something (such as rolling Athletics to move an object so heavy they don't stand a chance, only for them to be able to gauge how much more strength they'd need).
Slight disagree on this point; sometimes when the DM needs to obfuscate meta knowledge allowing an impossible roll helps keep players from making deductions by elimination. Not super common, but it is a legitimate storytelling tool as long as the DM isn't falling into a trap of trying to "win" against the players, which itself runs a lot deeper than simply making this call.
If you're being gentle and considerate with your players, it's okay and fair to tell them that they can't roll high enough to succeed if they're attempting something impossible, for example due to a lack of knowledge or experience in a particular scenario.
It's up to DM how much information is revealed on any given knowledge check, if any. Players shouldn't call for ability check though.
In your case, you opted for an ability check even though you could have said ''no you never seen this before and can't thus know anything about it'' Going with it and facing the high Intelligence (Nature) check, you decided to give some descriptive aspect ''"you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do'' that may have releated more to Wisdom (Perception) check. So it may been a problem of expectation as well. Such Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about plants and you allowed a nature check but did not provide any lore about the plant. Your players arguing that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll is a problem as well, they expected a different outcome.
What i would have done as a DM is not ask for any check and simply describe the appearance of those berries.
What i would have don as a player is ask the DM if my character has any way to recall anything about tese berries and respect the DM's decision one way or another.
Nature: Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Theoretically, the players should not be asking to roll dice. The DM is the one that calls for an ability check when a player attempts to do something that could succeed or could fail. You generally do not call for a check that will auto-succeed or auto-fail.
Remember, the game is designed to follow this basic flow:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
The blurb about ability checks:
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.
Hopefully that helps!
Generally, this is how I play, where a player says "can I check out the berries to see if there's anything weird about them" and I say "Sure make a nature or survival check" (often I let them pick between two rolls). But sometimes, like in this case, I might say "Since you've never seen these kinds of berries before you can't really discern if there is anything weird" and they ask "Can I make a roll at least?" In my time learning D&D, a 'golden rule' I've been told is to try to never say 'no,' and to always let the players roll. Hence, I've been letting them roll even if there's no possible way they could know anything. Usually it hasn't been a problem, but this time, led to me rethinking this.
The way I had been interpreting it is "if you roll low, you are uncertain. If you roll high, then you are certain." so in this case, rolling a 20 would just be a 100% confirmation that you have never seen these berries and don't know what they do. I explained that to the players but they felt it was an unsatisfying result of the roll, and even said they'd prefer if they just didn't get to roll at all if that's the best they could learn. "Wasting" a crit 20, etc.
I think that “You are confident that you have never seen or heard of anything resembling this bush before” would be the appropriate result for the roll.
That's what I was rolling with too, but their response that that's a lame result for a high roll is what led me to rethinking.
So... There's a couple of different ways you could handle this, realistically.
1. You just don't have them roll and tell them they have no knowledge of this plant 2. You let them roll and, on a high result, they can deduce a few potential minor qualities by comparing them to other similar plants (but not the specifics that make it unique) 3. On a high enough result, they may notice whether or not the plant seems to have been disturbed by other wildlife (as wildlife eating plants often indicates they're not poisonous)
It's ultimately your call on that. This isn't an exhaustive list, just suggestions.
Do note, however: You shouldn't have your players roll for impossible tasks unless the roll may still help them learn something (such as rolling Athletics to move an object so heavy they don't stand a chance, only for them to be able to gauge how much more strength they'd need).
1 and 2 I think I answered above, but 3 is a good idea that I didn't think of in the moment. A high roll could let them see whether other berries were missing, if there were lots of animal footprints around the bush, etc.
Even if they can’t successfully work out what the berry is, if you asked them to roll and they performed well you should look to give something IMO.
It’s entirely possible that they could work out if it’s poisonous from its colour, its smell, whether there are signs of animals eating it or not, etc.
In this situation I get the impression you wanted them to eat the poison berries.
That's what I've been leaning towards, but sometimes it's hard to know what they could know from simple observation. Noticing if berries had been removed is a good example, but there's other examples where it's unclear. For example, a wrapped present. Without touching it, should a player be able to roll to try to discern what's inside? I could see the answer going both ways: if yes, they roll high and can rule out what it couldn't be based on its size and quality of wrapping, but that is often returned with "Well duh of course I know a 1 foot wide present won't have a snowmobile inside, so why did you even let me roll?" In this specific case, I couldn't think in the moment of other ways they could deduce the safety of the berries, so I considered it impossible to know information, like what's inside the present.
For the record, the berries weren't poisonous. In fact, they would have healed the players, with the side effect of having rainbow coloured feces later full of sprouts, haha.
Do note, however: You shouldn't have your players roll for impossible tasks unless the roll may still help them learn something (such as rolling Athletics to move an object so heavy they don't stand a chance, only for them to be able to gauge how much more strength they'd need).
Slight disagree on this point; sometimes when the DM needs to obfuscate meta knowledge allowing an impossible roll helps keep players from making deductions by elimination. Not super common, but it is a legitimate storytelling tool as long as the DM isn't falling into a trap of trying to "win" against the players, which itself runs a lot deeper than simply making this call.
That is a deeper conversation to be had, but yes, if I had a door which could not be broken down by any force of nature (adamantium metal or something, doesn't matter), when a player says "I kick it down" should I just say "you kick but there's no response." "Can I roll athletics?" "No, you can already know there's nothing you could possibly do." it gets a little weird. It does feel like I should let them try, otherwise it starts to feel like an invisible wall in a video game, doesn't it?
If you're being gentle and considerate with your players, it's okay and fair to tell them that they can't roll high enough to succeed if they're attempting something impossible, for example due to a lack of knowledge or experience in a particular scenario.
Sometimes I've told them that the DC is outrageously high, but it doesn't necessarily help when they roll a crit anyways haha. Citing the present example or the unbreakable door above, if I let a player at least try and then they roll a crit, I'd have no choice but to say "despite your crit, you don't get any better insight on what's inside the present" or "the door still doesn't budge", and that feels bad to a player, especially when it's general conditioning that a crit means a success (and apparently 5.5 is codifying that)
It's up to DM how much information is revealed on any given knowledge check, if any. Players shouldn't call for ability check though.
In your case, you opted for an ability check even though you could have said ''no you never seen this before and can't thus know anything about it'' Going with it and facing the high Intelligence (Nature) check, you decided to give some descriptive aspect ''"you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do'' that may have releated more to Wisdom (Perception) check. So it may been a problem of expectation as well. Such Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about plants and you allowed a nature check but did not provide any lore about the plant. Your players arguing that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll is a problem as well, they expected a different outcome.
What i would have done as a DM is not ask for any check and simply describe the appearance of those berries.
What i would have don as a player is ask the DM if my character has any way to recall anything about tese berries and respect the DM's decision one way or another.
Nature: Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Generally I agree, though the specific roll to make (wisdom vs intelligence) is also a bit up in the air. For example, if after I described the berries' appearance, the player then said "Can I roll nature to figure out anything else?" would I then say "no, but you can make a perception check"? I suppose in this case the answer would be yes, considering there is no prior lore a character could know about these specific berries, so it would HAVE to be wisdom? and I'd just have to stand my ground against the player who pushes for nature because their nature is high.
You could swap out the specific example of berries for anything else, really. An unknown rune design on a wall, a word spoken by someone they've never heard before, a non-euclidian object found in a monster's mouth, etc. Just anything where, as DM, you know the answer is "You have no idea what this is" but a player still wants to roll. The only credence I could see being given is if a player's character has specific experience in that field, such as a historian for the rune to perhaps know if it's a positive or negative intention, linguist for the word to know if it's a noun or a verb, or a wizard for the non-euclidian object to know if it's safe to touch or not, but beyond that I'm not sure how they could figure out more.
If you're being gentle and considerate with your players, it's okay and fair to tell them that they can't roll high enough to succeed if they're attempting something impossible, for example due to a lack of knowledge or experience in a particular scenario.
Sometimes I've told them that the DC is outrageously high, but it doesn't necessarily help when they roll a crit anyways haha. Citing the present example or the unbreakable door above, if I let a player at least try and then they roll a crit, I'd have no choice but to say "despite your crit, you don't get any better insight on what's inside the present" or "the door still doesn't budge", and that feels bad to a player, especially when it's general conditioning that a crit means a success (and apparently 5.5 is codifying that)
As @The_Ace_of_Rogues corrected me here, crits will finally apply only to attacks in the 2024 PHB, just as they do under the 2014 rules.
and they ask "Can I make a roll at least?" In my time learning D&D, a 'golden rule' I've been told is to try to never say 'no,' and to always let the players roll. Hence, I've been letting them roll even if there's no possible way they could know anything.
If this is a habit that's developed within your player group over time, one way to address this issue is to set aside two minutes before the start of the next session and just explain to the group in advance that you want to change something about how you've been running the game -- that going forward the player should describe what their character is trying to do and that it will be up to the DM to determine whether that attempt requires a roll of the dice or not.
Remember, you aren't really saying "no" if you tell your player that their character can certainly try to do whatever it is that they want to try. But that doesn't mean that there's any chance for success, and dice rolls are really only meant for situations where there is some chance for success and some chance for failure. Establishing a rule-of-thumb "to always let the players roll" is probably a mistake, as you seem to be learning from what you've described in the original post. Yes, always encourage fun, but your job as the DM is to also run the game smoothly for your players. If the game only emphasizes fun and never emphasizes any sort of structure, then it could sort of deteriorate, which could lead to less fun in the long run.
I feel like a better rule-of-thumb for running the game is that if you find yourself really routing for a certain outcome on a check that you've just asked for because the opposite outcome really doesn't make any sense and you have no backup plan for how to narrate that other outcome in a satisfying manner . . . then you probably shouldn't have asked for a check in the first place.
. . . if I had a door which could not be broken down by any force of nature (adamantium metal or something, doesn't matter), when a player says "I kick it down" should I just say "you kick but there's no response." "Can I roll athletics?" "No, you can already know there's nothing you could possibly do." it gets a little weird. It does feel like I should let them try, otherwise it starts to feel like an invisible wall in a video game, doesn't it?
No, this is a totally reasonable dialog between the DM and the player for this situation. Remember, you DID let the character try. That's not the same thing as letting the player roll the dice.
Sometimes I've told them that the DC is outrageously high, but it doesn't necessarily help when they roll a crit anyways haha. Citing the present example or the unbreakable door above, if I let a player at least try and then they roll a crit, I'd have no choice but to say "despite your crit, you don't get any better insight on what's inside the present" or "the door still doesn't budge", and that feels bad to a player, especially when it's general conditioning that a crit means a success (and apparently 5.5 is codifying that)
Although it's a common house-rule, there is actually no such thing as a "crit" on an ability check or a saving throw. The "crit" rule is only for attack rolls. As far as I can tell so far, this is still true in the new 2024 rules.
Setting a DC that no one in the party can currently reach sort of seems like it should make sense -- like, "someone" could accomplish the task, it's not technically impossible. But in practice, in my opinion, this should almost always be avoided. There could be rare exceptions where this makes sense though. Same idea for rolls that a player can pass with a natural 1.
Just anything where, as DM, you know the answer is "You have no idea what this is" but a player still wants to roll.
This is the mindset that needs to be tweaked in my opinion. The DM controls the game and runs the game for the players. A DM can choose to run their game however they want, but there are reasons why the PHB and the DMG have provided the guidance that they've provided when it comes to how this sort of thing is supposed to flow during gameplay.
For a specific example of this happening, my players were in a forest and came across a berry bush. It was a weird looking bush with weird looking berries. It only grows in this one part of the forest, nowhere else in the world, so none of the players' characters could ever have possible seen or heard of these berries before. A player wanted to roll a nature check to see if these berries were normal, or poisonous, or if there was anything strange about them. I let them roll but even though they rolled very high (I think a 24), all I could say was "you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do. I reasoned the only way they could possibly know what these berries do would be to eat one, but they argued that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll, perhaps pulling from their knowledge of other berries they've seen. I still stand by my call that there's no way they could know, since it's a foreign object they've never seen before.
It brought up a bigger discussion about whether players should even be able to roll to know or learn something that they couldn't possibly know. Such as a one of a kind monster, or something similar. No records of it, no previous experience, maybe some passing visual similarities but otherwise, it's the first time they've ever seen this thing. Should they even be allowed to roll? I've always gone with yes, and I'll try to give them something, like the glitter in the berries above, or maybe describing the monster in more visual detail, but that usually hasn't been satisfactory, especially on the occasion when they roll a crit 20 on the check.
What would you do? Both as player and DM, what's your opinion?
(1) Even if the berries live in only that forest, it is possible that the player has been to the forest before or studied a book detailing plants found in that forest. It should not have been impossible and with a 24 the player should have learned the truth about the plants. Anything else is going to come off as bad taste for the player(s) who are going to view the situation as you just trying to screw with their characters. There are few instances where the players should not be able to learn information. At least something.
(2) If a roll is impossible you don't have a player roll. Just tell the player straight up why they wouldn't know and go on. If they can give you a good reason they should know then let them know.
That's what I was rolling with too, but their response that that's a lame result for a high roll is what led me to rethinking.
Not to just pile on but IMO the above is the issue here.
If the players ask not for information but for a roll then they are responsible for what comes next. Either they accept that sometimes you won't get to roll at all or they accept that sometimes you will get a lame result from your roll. The players do not get to decide that they succeed at something without the DM having a say.
Generally I agree, though the specific roll to make (wisdom vs intelligence) is also a bit up in the air. For example, if after I described the berries' appearance, the player then said "Can I roll nature to figure out anything else?" would I then say "no, but you can make a perception check"? I suppose in this case the answer would be yes, considering there is no prior lore a character could know about these specific berries, so it would HAVE to be wisdom? and I'd just have to stand my ground against the player who pushes for nature because their nature is high.
If after you describe the berries the player ask to make an ability check to figure anything else, you can answer the same thing' ''no you never seen this before and can't thus know anything about it''
There would be no need to ask for Wisdom (Perception) check unless i think there's a chance to fail to spot something.
You could swap out the specific example of berries for anything else, really. An unknown rune design on a wall, a word spoken by someone they've never heard before, a non-euclidian object found in a monster's mouth, etc. Just anything where, as DM, you know the answer is "You have no idea what this is" but a player still wants to roll. The only credence I could see being given is if a player's character has specific experience in that field, such as a historian for the rune to perhaps know if it's a positive or negative intention, linguist for the word to know if it's a noun or a verb, or a wizard for the non-euclidian object to know if it's safe to touch or not, but beyond that I'm not sure how they could figure out more.
The answer to similar situation is the same to me, if as DM i think the player character doesn't know anything about something in particular, then i would not have it make an ability check to recall lore about it. You can't recall knowledge you don't first know.
The Dungeon Master Guide offer guidelines on using ability scores.
Using Ability Scores
When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all,
For a specific example of this happening, my players were in a forest and came across a berry bush. It was a weird looking bush with weird looking berries. It only grows in this one part of the forest, nowhere else in the world, so none of the players' characters could ever have possible seen or heard of these berries before. A player wanted to roll a nature check to see if these berries were normal, or poisonous, or if there was anything strange about them. I let them roll but even though they rolled very high (I think a 24), all I could say was "you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do. I reasoned the only way they could possibly know what these berries do would be to eat one, but they argued that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll, perhaps pulling from their knowledge of other berries they've seen. I still stand by my call that there's no way they could know, since it's a foreign object they've never seen before.
It brought up a bigger discussion about whether players should even be able to roll to know or learn something that they couldn't possibly know. Such as a one of a kind monster, or something similar. No records of it, no previous experience, maybe some passing visual similarities but otherwise, it's the first time they've ever seen this thing. Should they even be allowed to roll? I've always gone with yes, and I'll try to give them something, like the glitter in the berries above, or maybe describing the monster in more visual detail, but that usually hasn't been satisfactory, especially on the occasion when they roll a crit 20 on the check.
What would you do? Both as player and DM, what's your opinion?
The dice are to be called for and used IFF there is both a meaningful chance of failure and a meaningful chance of success. You don’t roll to see if you can tie your shoes and you can’t roll to see if an apple defies gravity when you drop it.
Theoretically, the players should not be asking to roll dice. The DM is the one that calls for an ability check when a player attempts to do something that could succeed or could fail. You generally do not call for a check that will auto-succeed or auto-fail.
Remember, the game is designed to follow this basic flow:
The blurb about ability checks:
Hopefully that helps!
I think that “You are confident that you have never seen or heard of anything resembling this bush before” would be the appropriate result for the roll.
So... There's a couple of different ways you could handle this, realistically.
1. You just don't have them roll and tell them they have no knowledge of this plant
2. You let them roll and, on a high result, they can deduce a few potential minor qualities by comparing them to other similar plants (but not the specifics that make it unique)
3. On a high enough result, they may notice whether or not the plant seems to have been disturbed by other wildlife (as wildlife eating plants often indicates they're not poisonous)
It's ultimately your call on that. This isn't an exhaustive list, just suggestions.
Do note, however: You shouldn't have your players roll for impossible tasks unless the roll may still help them learn something (such as rolling Athletics to move an object so heavy they don't stand a chance, only for them to be able to gauge how much more strength they'd need).
Even if they can’t successfully work out what the berry is, if you asked them to roll and they performed well you should look to give something IMO.
It’s entirely possible that they could work out if it’s poisonous from its colour, its smell, whether there are signs of animals eating it or not, etc.
In this situation I get the impression you wanted them to eat the poison berries.
Slight disagree on this point; sometimes when the DM needs to obfuscate meta knowledge allowing an impossible roll helps keep players from making deductions by elimination. Not super common, but it is a legitimate storytelling tool as long as the DM isn't falling into a trap of trying to "win" against the players, which itself runs a lot deeper than simply making this call.
If you're being gentle and considerate with your players, it's okay and fair to tell them that they can't roll high enough to succeed if they're attempting something impossible, for example due to a lack of knowledge or experience in a particular scenario.
It's up to DM how much information is revealed on any given knowledge check, if any. Players shouldn't call for ability check though.
In your case, you opted for an ability check even though you could have said ''no you never seen this before and can't thus know anything about it'' Going with it and facing the high Intelligence (Nature) check, you decided to give some descriptive aspect ''"you notice they are very juicy and have almost what looks like swirling glitter inside, but otherwise have no idea what they could be or do'' that may have releated more to Wisdom (Perception) check. So it may been a problem of expectation as well. Such Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about plants and you allowed a nature check but did not provide any lore about the plant. Your players arguing that they should be able to discern something from such a high roll is a problem as well, they expected a different outcome.
What i would have done as a DM is not ask for any check and simply describe the appearance of those berries.
What i would have don as a player is ask the DM if my character has any way to recall anything about tese berries and respect the DM's decision one way or another.
Generally, this is how I play, where a player says "can I check out the berries to see if there's anything weird about them" and I say "Sure make a nature or survival check" (often I let them pick between two rolls). But sometimes, like in this case, I might say "Since you've never seen these kinds of berries before you can't really discern if there is anything weird" and they ask "Can I make a roll at least?" In my time learning D&D, a 'golden rule' I've been told is to try to never say 'no,' and to always let the players roll. Hence, I've been letting them roll even if there's no possible way they could know anything. Usually it hasn't been a problem, but this time, led to me rethinking this.
The way I had been interpreting it is "if you roll low, you are uncertain. If you roll high, then you are certain." so in this case, rolling a 20 would just be a 100% confirmation that you have never seen these berries and don't know what they do. I explained that to the players but they felt it was an unsatisfying result of the roll, and even said they'd prefer if they just didn't get to roll at all if that's the best they could learn. "Wasting" a crit 20, etc.
That's what I was rolling with too, but their response that that's a lame result for a high roll is what led me to rethinking.
1 and 2 I think I answered above, but 3 is a good idea that I didn't think of in the moment. A high roll could let them see whether other berries were missing, if there were lots of animal footprints around the bush, etc.
That's what I've been leaning towards, but sometimes it's hard to know what they could know from simple observation. Noticing if berries had been removed is a good example, but there's other examples where it's unclear. For example, a wrapped present. Without touching it, should a player be able to roll to try to discern what's inside? I could see the answer going both ways: if yes, they roll high and can rule out what it couldn't be based on its size and quality of wrapping, but that is often returned with "Well duh of course I know a 1 foot wide present won't have a snowmobile inside, so why did you even let me roll?" In this specific case, I couldn't think in the moment of other ways they could deduce the safety of the berries, so I considered it impossible to know information, like what's inside the present.
For the record, the berries weren't poisonous. In fact, they would have healed the players, with the side effect of having rainbow coloured feces later full of sprouts, haha.
That is a deeper conversation to be had, but yes, if I had a door which could not be broken down by any force of nature (adamantium metal or something, doesn't matter), when a player says "I kick it down" should I just say "you kick but there's no response." "Can I roll athletics?" "No, you can already know there's nothing you could possibly do." it gets a little weird. It does feel like I should let them try, otherwise it starts to feel like an invisible wall in a video game, doesn't it?
Sometimes I've told them that the DC is outrageously high, but it doesn't necessarily help when they roll a crit anyways haha. Citing the present example or the unbreakable door above, if I let a player at least try and then they roll a crit, I'd have no choice but to say "despite your crit, you don't get any better insight on what's inside the present" or "the door still doesn't budge", and that feels bad to a player, especially when it's general conditioning that a crit means a success (and apparently 5.5 is codifying that)
Generally I agree, though the specific roll to make (wisdom vs intelligence) is also a bit up in the air. For example, if after I described the berries' appearance, the player then said "Can I roll nature to figure out anything else?" would I then say "no, but you can make a perception check"? I suppose in this case the answer would be yes, considering there is no prior lore a character could know about these specific berries, so it would HAVE to be wisdom? and I'd just have to stand my ground against the player who pushes for nature because their nature is high.
You could swap out the specific example of berries for anything else, really. An unknown rune design on a wall, a word spoken by someone they've never heard before, a non-euclidian object found in a monster's mouth, etc. Just anything where, as DM, you know the answer is "You have no idea what this is" but a player still wants to roll. The only credence I could see being given is if a player's character has specific experience in that field, such as a historian for the rune to perhaps know if it's a positive or negative intention, linguist for the word to know if it's a noun or a verb, or a wizard for the non-euclidian object to know if it's safe to touch or not, but beyond that I'm not sure how they could figure out more.
As @The_Ace_of_Rogues corrected me here, crits will finally apply only to attacks in the 2024 PHB, just as they do under the 2014 rules.
More info in the new 2024 rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/rules-glossary#CriticalHit
If this is a habit that's developed within your player group over time, one way to address this issue is to set aside two minutes before the start of the next session and just explain to the group in advance that you want to change something about how you've been running the game -- that going forward the player should describe what their character is trying to do and that it will be up to the DM to determine whether that attempt requires a roll of the dice or not.
Remember, you aren't really saying "no" if you tell your player that their character can certainly try to do whatever it is that they want to try. But that doesn't mean that there's any chance for success, and dice rolls are really only meant for situations where there is some chance for success and some chance for failure. Establishing a rule-of-thumb "to always let the players roll" is probably a mistake, as you seem to be learning from what you've described in the original post. Yes, always encourage fun, but your job as the DM is to also run the game smoothly for your players. If the game only emphasizes fun and never emphasizes any sort of structure, then it could sort of deteriorate, which could lead to less fun in the long run.
I feel like a better rule-of-thumb for running the game is that if you find yourself really routing for a certain outcome on a check that you've just asked for because the opposite outcome really doesn't make any sense and you have no backup plan for how to narrate that other outcome in a satisfying manner . . . then you probably shouldn't have asked for a check in the first place.
No, this is a totally reasonable dialog between the DM and the player for this situation. Remember, you DID let the character try. That's not the same thing as letting the player roll the dice.
Although it's a common house-rule, there is actually no such thing as a "crit" on an ability check or a saving throw. The "crit" rule is only for attack rolls. As far as I can tell so far, this is still true in the new 2024 rules.
Setting a DC that no one in the party can currently reach sort of seems like it should make sense -- like, "someone" could accomplish the task, it's not technically impossible. But in practice, in my opinion, this should almost always be avoided. There could be rare exceptions where this makes sense though. Same idea for rolls that a player can pass with a natural 1.
This is the mindset that needs to be tweaked in my opinion. The DM controls the game and runs the game for the players. A DM can choose to run their game however they want, but there are reasons why the PHB and the DMG have provided the guidance that they've provided when it comes to how this sort of thing is supposed to flow during gameplay.
(1) Even if the berries live in only that forest, it is possible that the player has been to the forest before or studied a book detailing plants found in that forest. It should not have been impossible and with a 24 the player should have learned the truth about the plants. Anything else is going to come off as bad taste for the player(s) who are going to view the situation as you just trying to screw with their characters. There are few instances where the players should not be able to learn information. At least something.
(2) If a roll is impossible you don't have a player roll. Just tell the player straight up why they wouldn't know and go on. If they can give you a good reason they should know then let them know.
Not to just pile on but IMO the above is the issue here.
If the players ask not for information but for a roll then they are responsible for what comes next. Either they accept that sometimes you won't get to roll at all or they accept that sometimes you will get a lame result from your roll. The players do not get to decide that they succeed at something without the DM having a say.
If after you describe the berries the player ask to make an ability check to figure anything else, you can answer the same thing' ''no you never seen this before and can't thus know anything about it''
The answer to similar situation is the same to me, if as DM i think the player character doesn't know anything about something in particular, then i would not have it make an ability check to recall lore about it. You can't recall knowledge you don't first know.
The Dungeon Master Guide offer guidelines on using ability scores.