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

[Reynard]

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.

And that is what leads to potential miscommunication. Better to be clear both in the fiction and in game play.

 

[Fenris-77]

You don't need to go to the DMG, the PBH has you covered:
p174: Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill - for example, "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check." At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check.

So yeah, by RAW it needs to specified prior to rolling, either by DM fiat or player request. I don't see any issues with a veteran group managing on player good faith though, that method might have some tangible benefits as far as immersion and narrative flow goes.

 

[Reynard]

You don't need to go to the DMG, the PBH has you covered:
p174: Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill - for example, "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check." At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check.

So yeah, by RAW it needs to specified prior to rolling, either by DM fiat or player request. I don't see any issues with a veteran group managing on player good faith though, that method might have some tangible benefits as far as immersion and narrative flow goes.

I don't think it is bad or wrong. I was just arguing against the idea that 5E was fundamentally different from earlier editions in this regard.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Precisely. For quite a while I did have my players ask if they could apply proficiencies, but I found that I was basically always saying yes anyway, so the extra step of requiring the players to ask permission was just slowing play down for no real benefit. Now I just tell my players to add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable, and if they’re not sure they can always double-check with me. That does happen from time to time, but I still usually say yes, so I encourage them to trust their own instincts.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think it is bad or wrong. I was just arguing against the idea that 5E was fundamentally different from earlier editions in this regard.

Oh yeah, massively different. And I do think that, for certain players, it can be tough to train yourself out of 3E habits when it comes to the venerable 'skill check'.

 

[Reynard]

Precisely. For quite a while I did have my players ask if they could apply proficiencies, but I found that I was basically always saying yes anyway, so the extra step of requiring the players to ask permission was just slowing play down for no real benefit. Now I just tell my players to add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable, and if they’re not sure they can always double-check with me. That does happen from time to time, but I still usually say yes, so I encourage them to trust their own instincts.

I was interpreting your earlier explanations as saying your methodology was what the game was saying was the standard procedure. I apologize if I mis-characterized your point of view.

 

[iserith]

And that is what leads to potential miscommunication. Better to be clear both in the fiction and in game play.

What miscommunication do you think happens here? The player has described a goal and approach with reasonable specificity. The DM determines whether or not there is an ability check. If the DM decides there is, he or she says what the check is and the player applies a proficiency if appropriate according to what he or she already described on the assumption that the player is playing in good faith and there's no need to ask if a proficiency applies. This is faster than asking and it avoids the issue that you said you found "extremely frustrating." Where is the downside, assuming good faith play from all parties?

 

[Reynard]

Oh yeah, massively different. And I do think that, for certain players, it can be tough to train yourself out of 3E habits when it comes to the venerable 'skill check'.

Just to be clear, are you saying this IS massively different from previous editions. Because it's isn't.

 

[Fenris-77]

Just to be clear, are you saying this IS massively different from previous editions. Because it's isn't.

It is, very different. The mindset, the flexibility, the direction of the process. At least compared to 3E. I don't know about 4E, I was asleep when that happened.

 

[Reynard]

What miscommunication do you think happens here? The player has described a goal and approach with reasonable specificity. The DM determines whether or not there is an ability check. If the DM decides there is, he or she says what the check is and the player applies a proficiency if appropriate according to what he or she already described on the assumption that the player is playing in good faith and there's no need to ask if a proficiency applies. This is faster than asking and it avoids the issue that you said you found "extremely frustrating." Where is the downside, assuming good faith play from all parties?

The most efficient way to go about it, IMO, is something that looks like this:
DM: There's a guard in front of the door.
Player: I want to use my Persuasion proficiency to charm him into letting me through. (may or may not be followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction)
DM: Okay. Roll.
Player: [results of die roll]
DM: This happens.