. The player doesn't say, "Oh I attack this orc" and the DM replies, "OK, make an attack roll".
Uhh... This happens
all the time at my table. Has nobody else played with inexperienced or unconfident players before?
The player doesn't state "I'm casting Hunter's Mark" and then wait for the DM to call for a bonus action.
This is a poor analogy. The player doesn’t say “I climb the wall” and then wait for the DM to call for an action either, action economy is a completely different thing that task resolution. What you seem to be trying to do here though is point out that spells don’t need the DM’s input to be resolved, the player just says what spell they cast and applies it’s effects. Again, though, a spell is an approach to a certain goa. You open the door
by casting knock, you kill the goblins
by casting fireball, you get to the top of the cliff
by casting Fly. It so happens that the rules for spells specifically define their exact effects, and what method to use to resolve any uncertainty there may be in the outcome of casting them. For many spells, there is never uncertainty, you cast knock and the door opens, just like you can use a key and the door opens. With some spells, particularly spells that damage a single target, there is uncertainty if the spell hits its target, and you resolve that with an attack roll. For others, particularly spells with mind-affecting properties or areas of effect, the uncertainty is resolved by the target(s) or creatures in the affected area making a saving throw. With improvised actions, the specific effects of the action are not hard-coded like they are with spells, so it falls to the DM to determine the best way to resolve the action. Any of the above methods might be appropriate, depending on the particulars of the improvised action.
This is another one of the fundamental differences in our ways of thinking. To you, casting a spell and using a skill are both actions the player can take. To me,” using a skill” is not an action, it is a means of resolving an action. Climbing a cliff is an action, which may or may not require an abiliry check to resolve, just like casting a spell is an action, which may or may not require an attack roll or saving throw to resolve. Spells are just less flexible than most non-spell actions.
Combat is the exact opposite of everything you folks have INSISTED on all the way through this thread. The player calls for checks in combat. The player states actions and doesn't even wait for DM adjudication most of the time. Heck, the player tells the DM to make a saving throw for this or that creature, essentially telling the DM to make checks.
Not so. It’s still fundamentally the same process of the player giving a goal (“attack the orc”, or “put the kobolds to sleep”) and an approach (“with my longsword” or “with the sleep spell”), and the DM determining the outcome, possibly calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain. The only difference is that most actions in combat have hard-codes effects and means of resolution, while most actions out of combat do not.
I run skill checks the same way I run combat - the players generally tell me what checks to make and whatnot. For me, it's simply applying the same standard across the game.
I run skill checks the same way I run combat too. It’s just different than the way you do it.
