If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, how could I possibly come to the conclusion that some DMs allow players to bypass skill checks completely.

Tell me if I've got this wrong, but the snarky, sarcastic tone suggests that you think our intent is obvious and you totally understand it. And yet over and over again you seem to not understand it.

For example, I keep repeatedly hearing this dismissive thing about "describing every sword blow". Perhaps you think that if a player would "add some description" to an attack ("Feinting low to get the orc to drop his shield, I switch my stance and instead lunge for his neck!") he would get to skip the attack roll.

No. That's not it at all. That's just describing a goal and a method ("I try to kill the orc, using my sword") using more colorful language. If the DM rules that no roll is needed, it's because the outcome is a foregone conclusion (18th level Barbarian versus lone orc), not because the description was colorful.

Instead, imagine that instead of fighting the orcs, the players open the gate that floods the guard chamber, drowning all the orcs. Now, maybe the DM would still require some rolls in there (to unlock the valve, to sneak into the chamber with the mechanism, etc. etc.) or maybe not, but either way the players are not forced to make any combat attack rolls...which is a good thing because combat is so unpredictable, and even when you win it consumes resources...and instead they solve the problem creatively through describing a goal and a method.

That same approach can be used to solving other problems/tasks/challenges.

That's what we're talking about.

(And, yes, it does require that you trust your DM to adjudicate in the spirit of telling a good story, not to have a power trip or punish players or whatever. If you don't trust your DM to do this then you may want to play 5th edition as if it were 4th edition. Or find a different DM.)

 

[Yardiff]

They did something like this in 4e I think. All characters had training in all 11 skills and progressed in the skills equally as they leveled. Only difference was by stats and the few skills each character chose to specialize in.



Edit: A reply to Satyrn

​

​

 

[Oofta]

A situation where I can see a lot of mundane obstacles to overcome would be playing something like Dragon Heist. There you can imagine a lot of locked doors to get past, or guards (city and private) to evade. Now those could be resolved with dice rolls, but most of the time they should not be. Remember if there’s no penalty for taking time then the PCs will eventually succeed. (a locked door just costs 10 minutes, waiting for a patrol to pass the same.) But if you’re being chased by the city guards, then quickly getting through a locked door suddenly becomes critical. If you fail the check and take too much time the guards will catch you!

So the locked doors and guard encounters that are narrated through are foreshadowing the possibility that if you need to move fast through the city things are going to be tricky, you won’t be able to duck into a building because its door is likely to be locked and running down the street is likely to produce an encounter with another patrol.

I will sometimes have parts of the story that are more narrative and/or resolved with a handful of rolls. I haven't played dragon heist but certainly if time is not of the essence and the person doing the lockpicking is skilled enough that they don't run the risk of jamming a lock for example I'd just narrate the scenes with input from the players. In other cases I'll call for group checks or just rely on passive values. Certainly if the PCs can figure out a way past the guards by using a different route, setting up a distraction or bribery for example that works as well.

But I think there's a difference between that and a player being able to "describe what you want to do in such a way that you remove the uncertainty" to bypass skill checks and having parts of the story you fast forward through because the details are not critical to the story.

 

[Yardiff]

("Feinting low to get the orc to drop his shield, I switch my stance and instead lunge for his neck!")

This would be a really cool description if the player were describing an attack with advantage.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Some people do allow players to bypass skills with a good description...

Yeah, how could I possibly come to the conclusion that some DMs allow players to bypass skill checks completely.

I see where there is a potential source of some confusion in your back and forth with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]. You've inserted a very important word, which completely changes the meaning, in your second quote here: "checks".

No one here that I have read allows players to bypass skills. Skills are critical to the definition and success of a character.

Many people here, however, allow players to bypass skill checks (or ability checks, really). With a solid approach and goal based on the skills of the character, the player may be able to bypass a check with an auto-success granted at the discretion of the DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This would be a really cool description if the player were describing an attack with advantage.

Yes! Totally agree.

Or even narration post-roll, on a success.

 

[Satyrn]

They did something like this in 4e I think. All characters had training in all 11 skills and progressed in the skills equally as they leveled. Only difference was by stats and the few skills each character chose to specialize in.



Edit: A reply to Satyrn

​

​

I'd totally prefer the opposite. I edited my last post, saying this:

Indeed, I am constantly tempted to dump all the rules around skill proficiency entirely, and implement old school ability checks: like, if an action is at all possible, I'd just say "roll a Strength check" and the player would tell me if they succeed by rolling under their strength score.

No more skill lists, no more tools, no more DCs. No more players dirty looks. Schools been blown to pieces . . .ahem. Got a little sidetracked there.

The constantly increasing numbers in 4e made me feel like low level characters were chumps who knew nothing, and could do nothing. I'd prefer a system that suggests that low level characters are skilled adventurers, and I think not having increasing skill proficiencies and level bonuses heips accomplish that.

 

[Yardiff]

Yes! Totally agree.

Or even narration post-roll, on a success.

This I think is the better way to do a more descriptive combat. Attack rolls are made and the player then describes the attack. That is if you like a more verbose combat.

 

[Yardiff]

I'd totally prefer the opposite. I edited my last post, saying this:



The constantly increasing numbers in 4e made me feel like low level characters were chumps who knew nothing, and could do nothing. I'd prefer a system that suggests that low level characters are skilled adventurers, and I think not having increasing skill proficiencies and level bonuses heips accomplish that.

Personally I think skill proficiencies help individualize characters more.

I think its whether you like the game to be zero to hero or not. I believe most level based games are zero to hero.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This I think is the better way to do a more descriptive combat. Attack rolls are made and the player then describes the attack. That is if you like a more verbose combat.

As I think I mentioned upthread, some folks in my group like to play that whoever gets the killing blow narrates it. Otherwise we mostly just roll the dice, perhaps narrating some misses or failed saving throws along the way.