D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Oofta]

I want to experiment with me as dm being the one to ask for a particular roll. We do a mixture but deep down believe it would be more fun if we said what we did and the dm calls for it. We may try when it my turn. My kids are green and would not even know what roll to call for.

That said we played yesterday with standard D&D. Regular dungeon. Some fomorian giants…some wraiths etc. and it was so fun.

I'm probably the one calling for the roll 80% of the time or more when I DM although I don't really keep track. I just don't see why it has to be that way 100% of the time. I've thought about doing more things where I roll for the players, but that would require the option to roll without a player seeing the result which is difficult since I don't use a DM screen.

 

[Oofta]

But a hidden roll is for a PC Action is ... I think it would be harder to take away a rollt hat is supposed to be done by the Player than to change this skills to passive scores.

But "I use skill" is not an action declaration. Like, "I use acrobatics to get over the chasm" is like - no. What are you trying to do? Jumping over it? Lasso yourself over it? Ride on a horse that jumps and then you jump from the horse?
In some cases, yes, using a skill as an action declaration can work. But in most cases it is not even vague. It is a Non-Declaration. Also the DM decides what Skill is applicable. Not the player.

But how are the Sneaking past him? Like, that us the whole point that defined the difficulty. Are they trying to speak trough a completely empty corridors, hoping that the Guards will not turn around or are they hurrying from shadow to shadow using a special ability to get invisible in the shadows?
The players need to declare clearly what they are trying to do and the DM decides, what Skill is used, if any.

I don't ask how the PC is swinging their sword, I assume that they know how because they're proficient in using that weapon. If they're trained in stealth, I assume they know what they're doing. Besides, there are many things where there just is no real "how do you do it". How do you make a history check other than thinking about it. How does it add value to state "I'm thinking about what I know of the history of this" instead of "History check?"

Put players shouting "Insight!" Is not an action declaration. That is the problem with insight and perception. That should be Completly passive skills sets.

I disagree. There are times when I'm paying close attention and really focusing on what someone is saying and how.

So for example a character is interrogating a Npc. He is focused on the NPC. After a minute the player declare "Insight, I think he is lying".
The player wants to roll the Insight Skill.
But the Character hasn't changed a thing. He is still concentarting on the NPC
Their is not suddenly concentraiting harder on the NPC.
The fiction of the story does not support an Insight Check at all. The same with perception.
That's why they should be completely passive skills that NPCs roll against. Like spell saving throw dcs of player characters.
Because in the fiction of the story, the NPC is trying to deceive the player character. He is doing something trying to overcome the DC of the player character.

Sometimes I use passive skills sometimes, I call for a check, other times the players do.

I just don't believe in one true way.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Enhh. I think in most conversations people are just listening to what people are saying and taking it at face value unless they have reason not to trust the other person.

Asking for the insight check seems like it'd be an attempt to look beyond the words. What is the body language, what could they be getting out of the situation, or how could they be harmed by it, etc.

In my experience, this can very much be an "active" effort. I don't really see it being a problem for ot to be so for PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Enhh. I think in most conversations people are just listening to what people are saying and taking it at face value unless they have reason not to trust the other person.

Asking for the insight check seems like it'd be an attempt to look beyond the words. What is the body language, what could they be getting out of the situation, or how could they be harmed by it, etc.

In my experience, this can very much be an "active" effort. I don't really see it being a problem for ot to be so for PCs.

There's a difference between talking with someone and really paying attention. There are probably times when a DM could safely assume the latter (and I do now and then, probably more so with new players) but I also generally want to avoid telling people what their characters are doing.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

There's a difference between talking with someone and really paying attention. There are probably times when a DM could safely assume the latter (and I do now and then, probably more so with new players) but I also generally want to avoid telling people what their characters are doing.

I use insight if I really want to drop a vague hint or if the player is suspicious, rewarding their deduction.

I have had the ostensibly “good Mentor” be anything but. And if a player puts some inconsistency together I like to use an insight roll as a reward. They might get some additional information because they have been suspicious.

Someone suspicious does study the target more closely. I think that is reasonable.

My pal him I adore sometimes says “you feel X” etc. and at times it veers into telling me what my character thinks. I am good with you have a sense of unease or something vague but don’t like exposition about how my character feels in general.

This is more art than science. The only way to have friends and fellow players is some level of grace.

I had so much damn fun this weekend with a game I am sure some posters here would pick apart.

I am just wanting to get closer to ideal as a DM but am fine ignoring the bumps on the road along the way. Otherwise years of playing would have been wasted instead of enjoyed…

 

[mamba]

But a hidden roll is for a PC Action is ... I think it would be harder to take away a rollt hat is supposed to be done by the Player than to change this skills to passive scores.

I disagree, I rather have the player be able to say 'I am getting suspicious and want a perception / insight check' than them not even having that option. The roll has to be hidden to avoid them learning something from it even if it fails.

But "I use skill" is not an action declaration. Like, "I use acrobatics to get over the chasm" is like - no. What are you trying to do?

It is a declaration, the action just is not physical but mental. I am trying to pick up on subtle signs that indicate / tell me something about the situation I am in.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

The gold issue: While many of us might argue what gold should be used for....I think we can all agree that 5e provides a lot of treasure that ultimately has no purpose in the game. What is the use of a reward that has no value? Whether the edition should remove gold in favor of other rewards, or reward gold more....I hope we can agree that the current middle state is not a good design space.

Use gold for xp for the first 4 levels. 2:1 ratio. Watch how important gold becomes. Also downtime activities and lifestyle expenses are a fun, off camera way to use gold.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Use gold for xp for the first 4 levels. 2:1 ratio. Watch how important gold becomes. Also downtime activities and lifestyle expenses are a fun, off camera way to use gold.

I like this…

I really like it. Could be a fun experiment. This edition goes so fast compacted to 1e. I don’t want insta- advance.

Any idea how much faster would get to level 5 or 6? Or would you just try to drop treasure at a rate they would go about the same. It start to live gold again?

I already give xp for “overcoming” vs . Just killing…

Would love to see people light up like the old days when they find gold…

For that matter does anyone have experience with gold for xp in 5e?

 

[Maxperson]

So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here.
Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players.
Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary.

The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring "I roll stealth" "I roll sleight of hand" "I roll nature ..." - which already is bad and shouldn't been done.

The DM just needs to ask for what the PC is doing, rather than accepting requests for rolls like that.

What does an active insight or perception check actually look like?

"I watch the Duke closely, looking for any tells that could indicate that he is lying." - active insight.

"While we are standing in the room waiting for the Duke to see us, I will look around the room carefully taking in each object." - active perception.

Those are player initiated active insight and perception checks. Alternatively, every time the DM asks the players to roll insight or perception, those are also active checks. Active = roll the dice. Passive = use the passive number without rolling. It doesn't necessarily mean that the players are asking for the roll or initiating the check.

I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation.

I wouldn't. When I talk to people sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.

So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not.

Again, this conflates active with the players doing something to get a check. All it takes is the DM asking for a roll for it to be active. Even if you assume that the PC is going to be observant during the whole conversation, you don't have to rely on passive numbers. You can ask the player for a roll to see if the PC notices something.

Because insight is used like a Liedetector. "Do I believe him?" is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player.

That's actually a misuse of the skill. It just plain doesn't function that way. If a player asked me that I'd reply, "That's up to you." Insight will only reveal if the NPC is nervous or something else that the player will have to interpret himself.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess I just don't think of these things as true issues, it's more a preference. I don't care how people declare actions any more than I care how they declare an attack or spell in combat encounters. At a certain point it's just a short hand and as long as people are being clear, I don't care. If someone is being vague, intentionally or not, I'll ask for details. In all my years of DMing I've never seen significant issues with this.

Why shouldn't "I roll stealth" ever be said?

Because it doesn't tell me enough to adjudicate anything. Is the PC going to try and sneak past? Is he going to try and sneak away? Is he going to try and sneak up to them and stick a banana in the tailpipe? Is it something other than those three things?

I'm not going to assume what I think is most likely, because I could be wrong. Especially when it comes to players. They try some crazy things sometimes. Give me a declaration of what the PC is doing, especially since once I have that I can determine if a roll is even needed. It could be auto success or failure.