D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[Charlaquin]

That may be the case but in my experience next to no one in real life -- veteran or beginner, and I play with a lot of both at conventions -- plays it that way.

In my experience, players who have prior experience with any kind of RPG, be it tabletop or computer, don’t play this way. I have, however, seen new and/or young players do so, and I have seen players who, once exposed to this style of play, find they prefer it. I have also seen the opposite, where a player attempts to engage primarily through description and roleplay, but gets asked to make checks for every single thing they attempt without so much as advantage based on their approach, and eventually just give up and start declaring checks rather than waste the effort roleplaying.

moreover, there's really no benefit to playing it that way unless you really, really like trying to read the GMs mind or manipulate them into giving you that sweet, sweet proficiency bonus.

The goal isn’t to be granted proficiency bonus, but to succeed at your goals without requiring a roll. I find this kind of play much more common in social interactions - plenty of players would rather just act out what their character is saying and doing in a social interaction, and make rolls when asked to do so. The same concept can be applied to any challenge in game. It’s not trying to manipulate the DM, it’s just engaging with the fictional world via imagination and roleplay first, with dice mechanics as an impartial arbiter when the outcome is in doubt.

In my opinion, the game works better and is more fun when everyone at the table communicates clearly about their intents and desires.

Indeed! Open communication greatly improves the play experience.

I find it extremely frustrating when, for example, I talk to an NPC with the intent of deceiving them (because, you know, I put character generation and development resources into that thing because I wanted to be good at it and get to use it) and the GM calls for a Charisma (Persuasion) check instead because that is how they interpreted my in character role play. It is far easier to directly ask -- as an addendum to that in character role play -- to use Deception.

One of the advantages to my approach is that it’s up to you if you think Deception or Persuasion is appropriate. I’ll just ask for a Charisma check, you decide if one of your proficiencies is applicable.

 

[nomotog]

I don't roll without consequences. So if they need to find a silversmith before sundown, which is a hour away, because, IDK, werewolves, then we're probably doing some rolling. That little race against time could be whole encounter if you wanted, racing the setting sun (Fenris files that little nugget away for future use). Otherwise, great, you walk around for (time X as a factor of city size minus time Y time for area knowledge) and find one. In a city the player are familiar with I'd just say, you know a Smith X distance away, name, rank, serial number, blah blah blah.

I am Ok with rolling with low stakes, or no stakes. Just make up the consequences. Like if you fail you check to find the silversmith, maybe you get lost and have to be guided back by a funny NPC. It doesn't change the result, but it gives flavor to the play.

 

[Reynard]

In my experience, players who have prior experience with any kind of RPG, be it tabletop or computer, don’t play this way. I have, however, seen new and/or young players do so, and I have seen players who, once exposed to this style of play, find they prefer it. I have also seen the opposite, where a player attempts to engage primarily through description and roleplay, but gets asked to make checks for every single thing they attempt without so much as advantage based on their approach, and eventually just give up and start declaring checks rather than waste the effort roleplaying.


The goal isn’t to be granted proficiency bonus, but to succeed at your goals without requiring a roll. I find this kind of play much more common in social interactions - plenty of players would rather just act out what their character is saying and doing in a social interaction, and make rolls when asked to do so. The same concept can be applied to any challenge in game. It’s not trying to manipulate the DM, it’s just engaging with the fictional world via imagination and roleplay first, with dice mechanics as an impartial arbiter when the outcome is in doubt.


Indeed! Open communication greatly improves the play experience.


One of the advantages to my approach is that it’s up to you if you think Deception or Persuasion is appropriate. I’ll just ask for a Charisma check, you decide if one of your proficiencies is applicable.

I'm a little confused by what you mean. Are you suggesting that the process is something like:

DM: There is a guard at the door. What do you do?
Player: I'm going to try and talk him into letting me inside.
DM: Okay. Make a Charisma check.
Player: [rolls and adds proficiency bonus because he is proficientwithIntimidate] I got a 19.

That seems odd to me. How is the DM supposed to adjudicate and narrate the results of the roll without knowing that the PC was trying to Intimidate the guard? Success or failure could look very different between an attempt to persuade versus deceive versus intimidate.

 

[Ashrym]

The rules say the player may ask if a proficiency bonus applies to an ability check. The method Charlaquin describes assumes the DM says "Yes."

What @iserith said.

The player may ask if a bonus applies to a check he or she is not allowed to request? ;-)

Players who can just assume a yes are still making the decision instead of the DM regardless of how it's dressed up. The chance for the DM to make that decision has been removed. It's the opposite of DM empowerment. Not that it doesn't work, of course; not all players are trying to game the system. It's just obviously a case of players making the decision instead of the DM.

As a player, I would never ask to make an ability check. I'd rather just succeed without a roll and will succinctly describe what my character does to try to achieve that.

I agree players shouldn't be asking to make an ability check UNLESS they think the DM might not be clear on the intent of the actions. Game terms simplify that intent when necessary. It's a quick and easy method to move things along. The actions can be more engaging and intended, but that doesn't prevent clear communication from being useful too.

My point was that it's irrelevant whether the DM and players are calling it an ability check, skill check, or spiff (not what a spiff is if before anyone asks). Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a DEX (stealth) check is a label that doesn't change using the mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm a little confused by what you mean. Are you suggesting that the process is something like:

DM: There is a guard at the door. What do you do?
Player: I'm going to try and talk him into letting me inside.
DM: Okay. Make a Charisma check.
Player: [rolls and adds proficiency bonus because he is proficientwithIntimidate] I got a 19.

That seems odd to me. How is the DM supposed to adjudicate and narrate the results of the roll without knowing that the PC was trying to Intimidate the guard? Success or failure could look very different between an attempt to persuade versus deceive versus intimidate.

From that example I can glean that the player’s goal is to convince the guard to let them past and their approach is to talk to the guard. Personally, I don’t think that approach passes the bar of reasonable specificity. The player might instead speak in character, saying to me what their character says to the guard (or a rough approximation thereof - I subscribe to the “clouded mirror” view of the relationship between at-table talk and in-fiction talk), which would easily clear that bar. Alternatively, they might explain in out of character terms what kind of thing their character says to the guard. For example “I threaten to beat the guard’s face in if he doesn’t let me pass,” or “I try to fast-talk the guard to trick him into letting me pass,” “I speak seductively to the guard, implying I might do him a ‘special favor’ if he lets me past,” or “I try to impress upon the guard how important our mission is so he’ll let us past,” or “I slip the guard 5 gold and ask him to let me pass.”

In any of these cases, the approach is reasonably specific that I should have no trouble determining if it can succeed and fail, and what the consequences of success or failure might be, and which ability would be most appropriate to call for a check with if necessary. as well as for the player to determine which of their proficiencies (if any) might be applicable if I do call for a check. A player who has invested in upping their Intimidation bonus, for example by playing a half-orc, using one of their class or background proficiencies on Intimidation, or even perhaps choosing it as one of their expertise skills, then it would be smart play to describe an approach more like the “threatening to beat his face in” one. That would give the player the best chance of succeeding without needing to make a check, as well as allowing them to apply that proficiency bonus for intimidation if a roll is required.

 

[Charlaquin]

The player may ask if a bonus applies to a check he or she is not allowed to request? ;-)

The player is certainly allowed to ask if a certain proficiency is applicable if they’re unsure, but I don’t require them to, and I encourage them to trust their instincts in such situations.

Players who can just assume a yes are still making the decision instead of the DM regardless of how it's dressed up.

Yes... I don’t see any problem with that?

The chance for the DM to make that decision has been removed. It's the opposite of DM empowerment.

I don’t think DM empowerment has anything to do with it. I am exercising my power as DM to say, “this is how ability checks will be resolved at my table.” I’m not disempowered because I allow the player to decide for themselves if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable.

Not that it doesn't work, of course; not all players are trying to game the system. It's just obviously a case of players making the decision instead of the DM.

In my experience, most players are not trying to game the system, and those who are will find a way to do so with or without this rule in place. And I still fail to see how the player making the decision instead of me is a bad thing in this instance.

Obviously other DMs will have their own way of doing things, not everyone would be comfortable letting the player make that decision, and that’s fine. I’m just saying what works for me and why.

My point was that it's irrelevant whether the DM and players are calling it an ability check, skill check, or spiff (not what a spiff is if before anyone asks). Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a DEX (stealth) check is a label that doesn't change using the mechanics.

Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a Dex (stealth) check doesn’t change the mechanics, but defaulting to calling for skill checks (or whatever you want to call the combination of d20 roll + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if a specific proficiency is applicable) rather than calling for an ability check and then either deciding a proficiency that applies or allowing the player to do so is a different process. The former starts and ends with selecting one ability, skill, or tool from the list of existing abilities, skills, and tools, and calling for a check with it. Because this is a very long list, in my experience most DMs narrow it down to just the 18 skills, or occasionally the 18 skills and 6 abilities, leading to the commonly-expressed problem of tool proficiencies feeling useless. Sometimes a DM might choose an ability and a skill that isn’t usually associated with it, though in my experience this is a vanishingly rare occurrence. The latter process starts with selecting an ability (a much smaller list to chose from) and calling for a check with it, and ends with determining, possibly with the help of the player, if any of the skill, tool, and maybe even weapon and armor proficiencies the character has might be applicable (or even allowing the player to make that determination themselves).

 

[Flamestrike]

I just want to point out that actually is a house rule. The game rules are clear that the DM determines when a proficiency bonus is applied and not the players.

The DM is determining when a proficiency bonus is applied though. He's letting the players put forward suggestions, and vetoing anything that doesn't make sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DM is determining when a proficiency bonus is applied though. He's letting the players put forward suggestions, and vetoing anything that doesn't make sense.

In Ashyrim’s defense, I do just let my players decide. I tried the whole “putting forward suggestions and vetoing anything that doesn’t make sense” thing, and I found that it slowed down play too much for my liking, for virtually no benefit. When actions are stated with reasonable specificity, it’s usually pretty obvious which of the character’s proficiencies would apply. If in doubt, the player can always ask, but most of the time it isn’t necessary.

 

[Reynard]

In Ashyrim’s defense, I do just let my players decide. I tried the whole “putting forward suggestions and vetoing anything that doesn’t make sense” thing, and I found that it slowed down play too much for my liking, for virtually no benefit. When actions are stated with reasonable specificity, it’s usually pretty obvious which of the character’s proficiencies would apply. If in doubt, the player can always ask, but most of the time it isn’t necessary.

If it works for you, that's great. I don't think it gels well with the overall D&D system, however. If you were playing Fate or a similar player facing narrative game, it makes more sense. D&D isn't that game, as far as my experience tells me. D&D is significantly less "conversational" than, say, PbtA games, and it's structure is designed to be asymmetrical, with the DM having significantly more authority than the players. (Note that doesn't mean that the DM is "more important" or that the players are not supposed to have input, just that the DM is the literal authority at the table as it relates to adjudicating of both rules and narrative outcomes.)

 

[iserith]

The player may ask if a bonus applies to a check he or she is not allowed to request? ;-)

Yes. It's in the rules. DM asks for ability check. Player can ask if a proficiency applies.

Players who can just assume a yes are still making the decision instead of the DM regardless of how it's dressed up. The chance for the DM to make that decision has been removed. It's the opposite of DM empowerment. Not that it doesn't work, of course; not all players are trying to game the system. It's just obviously a case of players making the decision instead of the DM.

The decision that there is an uncertain outcome to the task and a meaningful consequence for failure, the DC, and the kind of ability check are decided upon by the DM. That is the most important decision in this interaction.

The decision as to which proficiency applies is delegated to the player on the assumption that (1) the player has described, prior to the check, an approach to the goal that reasonably involves the proficiency and (2) the player is playing in good faith. The DM's approval is assumed on that basis instead of asking for approval. This neatly sidesteps common issues like the one Reynard finds "extremely frustrating."

I agree players shouldn't be asking to make an ability check UNLESS they think the DM might not be clear on the intent of the actions. Game terms simplify that intent when necessary. It's a quick and easy method to move things along. The actions can be more engaging and intended, but that doesn't prevent clear communication from being useful too.

My point was that it's irrelevant whether the DM and players are calling it an ability check, skill check, or spiff (not what a spiff is if before anyone asks). Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a DEX (stealth) check is a label that doesn't change using the mechanics.

A player shouldn't want to make an ability check. The smart play is to avoid relying on a swingy d20. There's no good reason to ask in my view. If the DM is unclear about the approach or the goal, the player can clarify without going to a check.

If someone uses the term "skill check," my experience is that they probably played D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e (or learned from someone who did) and they are likely viewing this game through that lens. They might even be getting some things wrong because of it as Charlaquin indicated upthread with regard to this topic. There are no "skill checks" in D&D 5e.