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

[Reynard]

How would that remove the asymmetry of play?

The asymmetry comes from the position of the DM as the sole adjudicator of actions, including how they are accomplished, not just the results.

I believe if the player’s approach has been described with a reasonable degree of specificity, there should be little room for ambiguity regarding what proficiencies might or might not be applicable. See my examples in post #85 of different approaches to the goal of convincing a guard to let the character past. If it is unclear, the player can always ask for clarification.

This goes back to the question of efficiency. Allowing the player to simply say the words, "I want to make an Intimidation check" (regardless of whether or not the table also uses a lot of in-character dialogue) cuts immediately to the chase and creates a more efficient outcome at the table. There is no benefit to forcing a dance of expectations that can potentially result in miscommunication.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't particularly disagree that it should be clear, I just see the possibility that it might not be--more accurately, that there might be a failure of communication. It seems reasonable to me that the DM could ask the player whether the intent was Persuasion or Intimidation--even after the roll--if only for the purposes of narrating results of failure, if the DM wasn't sure the player was on the same page.

Sure, the DM could certainly do so if they felt it was unclear. Though, personally, if I felt it wasn’t clear I would be more likely to ask for a more specific approach.

Then again, having an NPC react to one as though it were the other might be an amusing and interesting failure result.

Now that you mention it, that kind of thing does happen sometimes. A person tries to be persuasive and the other person perceives a threat that wasn’t intended, leading to them reacting as they would to an intimidation attempt. Seems like a reasonable scenario for the game to model.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, without really squinting at it at arms length, I don't think that's really substantive - other than maybe putting the burden on the player to fish for a proficiency bonus. If a DM told the player to "make a Stealth check" in 3e/4e, that's really no different from a 5e DM saying "make a Dex (Stealth) check". They're the same thing.

Rather than “fish for a bonus,” I would say the player should be describing their action with the goal of removing the possibility for failure first and foremost, ideally by a means that will utilize one of their proficiencies if a possibility of failure remains. And, well, yes, I do believe the intent in 5e is for that burden to be on the player. One of the big differences I perceive in play between the 3e/4e style and the 5e style is who’s describing what the character does. In my experience with 3e and 4e, typically the DM describes the environment, the players describe their goals, the DM calls for a check, and describes the approach and the outcome based on the results. Whereas in 5e, the DM describes the environment, the players describe both their goals and the approaches they use to try and achieve them, and the DM describes the results, calling for a check if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the results.

I think putting the emphasis on the ability check as the default focus is more of a mindset issue than a procedural one. It's pushing the idea that the game is based on stat rolls with occasional benefits rather than based on skill rolls with a handicap for anyone not invested in that skill. But as I said, that's more about mindset and expectations, not procedure.

That’s another difference, I hadn’t actually considered that one.

 

[Charlaquin]

The asymmetry comes from the position of the DM as the sole adjudicator of actions, including how they are accomplished, not just the results.

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by “how they are accomplished”? It sounds to me like you might be suggesting that the DM, not the player, should be the one to describe the character’s approach to achieving the player’s stated goal? If so, I disagree that that is the way 5e is designed to be run.

This goes back to the question of efficiency. Allowing the player to simply say the words, "I want to make an Intimidation check" (regardless of whether or not the table also uses a lot of in-character dialogue) cuts immediately to the chase and creates a more efficient outcome at the table. There is no benefit to forcing a dance of expectations that can potentially result in miscommunication.

Interesting. I see removing the potential for miscommunication as one of the primary benefits of my method of adjudication. No more “but I didn’t say I was actually touching it!” arguments. If the player is reasonably specific in describing their approach, there should be little room for miscommunication about what the character is doing, and therefore little room for miscommunication about what proficiencies might apply.

 

[Reynard]

Rather than “fish for a bonus,” I would say the player should be describing their action with the goal of removing the possibility for failure first and foremost, possibly by a means that will utilize one of their proficiencies if one of their proficiencies if a possibility of failure remains. And, well, yes, I do believe the intent in 5e is for that burden to be on the player. One of the big differences I perceive in play between the 3e/4e style and the 5e style is who’s describing what the character does. In my experience with 3e and 4e, typically the DM describes the environment, the players describe their goals, the DM calls for a check, and describes the approach and the outcome based on the results. Whereas in 5e, the DM describes the environment, the players describe both their goals and the approaches they use to try and achieve them, and the player describes the results, calling for a check if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the results.

Emphasis mine. I can't recall any evidence that says 5E has moved in this direction. Can you point to the rules where is says so?

 

[Charlaquin]

Emphasis mine. I can't recall any evidence that says 5E has moved in this direction. Can you point to the rules where is says so?

Apologies, the bolded section was meant to say “the DM describes the results (etc)” I’m typing a lot of words very quickly and on my mobile, so occasionally I end up writing something incorrectly. I have edited the post.

 

[Reynard]

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by “how they are accomplished”? It sounds to me like you might be suggesting that the DM, not the player, should be the one to describe the character’s approach to achieving the player’s stated goal? If so, I disagree that that is the way 5e is designed to be run.

Interesting. I see removing the potential for miscommunication as one of the primary benefits of my method of adjudication. No more “but I didn’t say I was actually touching it!” arguments. If the player is reasonably specific in describing their approach, there should be little room for miscommunication about what the character is doing, and therefore little room for miscommunication about what proficiencies might apply.

Page 239 of the DMG clearly states that the DM decides whether and what appropriate proficiencies are involved (allowing for players to plead their case for a particular proficiency). I do not know where you are getting the idea that players make these calls as far as RAW is concerned.

 

[Reynard]

Apologies, the bolded section was meant to say “the DM describes the results (etc)” I’m typing a lot of words very quickly and on my mobile, so occasionally I end up writing something incorrectly. I have edited the post.

Well then we seem to be in agreement.

 

[prabe]

Page 239 of the DMG clearly states that the DM decides whether and what appropriate proficiencies are involved (allowing for players to plead their case for a particular proficiency). I do not know where you are getting the idea that players make these calls as far as RAW is concerned.

I believe she is deciding to trust her players to decide, which at least seems to be a reasonable decision supported by the rules. If it works for her table, it's not wrong. I think there's more clarity when proficiencies are named--by the DM or the players--but that's me and only applicable to my tables.

 

[Charlaquin]

Page 239 of the DMG clearly states that the DM decides whether and what appropriate proficiencies are involved (allowing for players to plead their case for a particular proficiency). I do not know where you are getting the idea that players make these calls as far as RAW is concerned.

Page 239 says “When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies” and also “Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character’s training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player’s creative thinking.” I am advocating for streamlining the process by allowing the player’s description of their action to suffice as providing justification for the skill (or other proficiency) they wish to apply. Again, if the player is unsure whether or not a particular proficiency applies, they are free to ask.