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

[Parmandur]

I tend to try to teach players the "better" way (of declaring their actions in-fiction over suggesting a skill-use) but I put up with them doing that because I don't like telling people how they HAVE to play.

If I think the action is an auto-success, I'll just mentally set the DC low enough that they succeed, even if they roll poorly. I think that the idea that you want to try to avoid rolling as much as possible is a weird one - whether you roll or not should not affect your success rate. (Though, if someone rolls low, I'll probably narrate them doing something wrong that still results in success).

At any rate, it's true that a lot of the time people play the way they are most used to playing, even if the playstyle that they're using more properly belongs in another edition (and the above tendency is definitely from 3.x).

For sure, 5E works fine if it's houseruled...even accidental houserules! What's weird is when people suggest a way to fix the 5E Skill system...by doing what the 5E system already does by the book.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I mean, that's in the rules, in the DMG. The published Adventures call out trained only Skill checks. That's not something "a lot of DMs do anyway," that is standard 5E.

It’s a variant rule in the DMG. In the PHB, skill checks don’t exist. Only ability checks do. You can only add your proficiency modifier if you have relevant training.

Under the PHB, it doesn’t make sense to call for an Arcana check. You call for an Intelligence check and add your proficiency bonus if you are trained in Arcana.

 

[Parmandur]

It’s a variant rule in the DMG. In the PHB, skill checks don’t exist. Only ability checks do. You can only add your proficiency modifier if you have relevant training.

Under the PHB, it doesn’t make sense to call for an Arcana check. You call for an Intelligence check and add your proficiency bonus if you are trained in Arcana.

If the DM calls for they roll, sure.

 

[Oofta]

I tend to try to teach players the "better" way (of declaring their actions in-fiction over suggesting a skill-use) but I put up with them doing that because I don't like telling people how they HAVE to play.

If I think the action is an auto-success, I'll just mentally set the DC low enough that they succeed, even if they roll poorly. I think that the idea that you want to try to avoid rolling as much as possible is a weird one - whether you roll or not should not affect your success rate. (Though, if someone rolls low, I'll probably narrate them doing something wrong that still results in success).

At any rate, it's true that a lot of the time people play the way they are most used to playing, even if the playstyle that they're using more properly belongs in another edition (and the above tendency is definitely from 3.x).

If I think something is automatic, I'll just let the player know the roll wasn't needed. I'm never going to penalize someone for not declaring what their doing "right".

 

[Umbran]

I have. Quite a lot.

It sounds like your experience was unpleasant. That's unfortunate, and we can give you some sympathy for that.

But your experience is also far from a universal truth.

I know lots of people feel they shouldn't have to attach "in my experience" to things, but failing to include it makes statements look like they are intended as being universal truths.

We cannot argue that your experience is what it was. Folks will argue that your personal experience should not be taken as broader truth. They will argue it every time.

 

[Umbran]

If I think something is automatic, I'll just let the player know the roll wasn't needed. I'm never going to penalize someone for not declaring what their doing "right".

Yeah. At the RPG table, I've not yet found being a stickler for exact process to be an aid to play. OPMMV (Other People's Mileage May Vary).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That is a mass of assumptions that usually don't come up.

Now if that rule was in the Skills section of the PH where it belongs, maybe we'd have something.

Oh, I agree that the organization of the 5e rules is often far from ideal.

But it is weird to me to suggest that just because a rule is only mentioned or clarified in the DMG that it doesn’t… exist? Apply? Mean anything? TBH, I’m not sure if you are saying one of those things or maybe trying to say something else - maybe you could clarify.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh, I agree that the organization of the 5e rules is often far from ideal.

But it is weird to me to suggest that just because a rule is only mentioned or clarified in the DMG that it doesn’t… exist? Apply? Mean anything? TBH, I’m not sure if you are saying one of those things or maybe trying to say something else - maybe you could clarify.

The complaint is about players doing something perfectly reasonable and saying they shouldn't because of something told to DMs.

This is like blaming drivers for parking manually and not using the 'automatic parking' feature of their car only mechanics are told about. Especially when they don't even know if the dealership turned it on in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Under the PHB, it doesn’t make sense to call for an Arcana check. You call for an Intelligence check and add your proficiency bonus if you are trained in Arcana.

The former is merely an easier way to say the latter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The former is merely an easier way to say the latter.

Not really. If the former is called for by a player, they are assuming Arcana will be added to the stat check, which isn't their call. Also, just calling for Arcana doesn't tell you what stat to roll.