The Crimson Binome
Hero
Does 5E have a "taking 10" rule? Because if so, then that would solve it. If not, then it depends entirely on how the DM interprets the concepts of "uncertainty" and "consequences for failure".
D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That's another issue entirely. If the skill of the player supersedes the skill of the character, then it doesn't matter which character has the higher bonus. You might as well be playing Basic, at that point.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
You see, I don't see it as "skill" of the player at all. Perhaps that's why I don't see it as a separate issue.
Declaring an approach to a goal and the DM deciding for a check is not dependent on player skill at all.
Now I've never played basic, but if that is its design too, I guess I could play that. I haven't looked into it.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Basic doesn't have a skill system, so if you want to do something, the player just has to convince the DM that their plan makes sense. In essence, the character inherits their skills from the player, so the character isn't good at finding clues unless the player is good at guessing where to look; and the character isn't good at talking their way past a guard, unless the player is good at thinking of what to say. Those are things where the well-trained character would be able to analyze the situation and thing of the best approach, but you're leaving the approach up to the player instead.
When a game has rules for the character to possess skills in that sort of thing, they're often supposed to supplant the player needing to be good at those things. Too often, the GM will let skills stand on their own for some things (such as Athletics), but not for other skills (such as Persuade). You probably don't ask the player where they want to place their hands along the wall, and then declare that they fail because they forgot to say they were checking whether a particular handhold was loose; that's usually all covered in the skill check.
Not that either method of game design is superior, of course, but the inconsistency of application between different skills can be an issue.
Satyrn
First Post
I'm intrigued by the idea that the game where player skill is more important is Basic.
I'm joking here - of course - but now I want to play D&D branded Monopoly and brag about being the most advanced roleplayer ever.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
That seems similar to the "Ignore the dice approach in the 5e DMG chapter 8. I've never tried it as I prefer "The middle Path" approach from the same chapter.
I think this thinking is too binary. There is place in between outlined in "The Middle Path" that takes what the player states in check and calls for a die roll if the DM feels it is necessary and I think that is by far the best approach in 5e.
I guess I just see it more of a best of both worlds, than an inconsistent application of two conflicting systems.
Well, i suppose a lot depends on your idea of whether class equals character vs class is a part of character.
A "wizard" character who wants more focus on arcana skill (potentially at a loss of some spellcasting) can multiclass to get expertise with rogue or bard. Obviously Arcana and spellcasting are related fields but one does not require the other.
So i see a single class wizard as someone choosing to focus on casting, while one who dips into rogue or bard and focuses an their expertise for arcana and such to be the one aiming for more scholarly.
Just like how choosing the right race-feat to get expertise arcana is specializing there instead of say taking war caster or magic initiate. Same as taking divination to let you read the signs to get the best research results (portent on arcana checks when favorable).
Lots of examples.
5e does not explicitly have the take 10 but it does have passive checks for tasks being done over and over.
Wasnt your specific example a case where the more skilled character did not get to use their skill and the lower skilled character did based on how the two players described their approach?
Serms to me that the player choosing the right way to describe their approach to use their character traits/investments and not see them ignored is a player skill thing.
Especially if to the gm this can result in often seeing the poorer communicative player not seeing his character's aptitudes play a role when they could be if it was just communicated better.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Perhaps that is not the role she wants to play. Now if she did want to play this role, and lack of ability to articulate to the DM that desire, than yes it does become a player skill thing.
There certainly no rule that states that just because the druid had the better modify that she should be stating approaches that call for Survival checks more often than anybody else.
Edit: We do have player that asks "can I make a perception check?" at least once per session and the DM always responds "What are you looking for?" but he has yet to realize that stating what he is looking for first would save us all some time.
That certainly does indicate a lack of player skill in communicating with the DM to me, but could be easily remedied.
