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

[Reynard]

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



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."



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.

I don't think play proceeds in as fundamentally different a way in 5E from previous editions as you are arguing. In fact, I would say it proceeds essentially no differently, even if the mechanics of task resolution are not exactly the same. The process of DM-Player-DM-Roll that has existed since the first iterations of the game is unchanged.

 

[iserith]

I don't think play proceeds in as fundamentally different a way in 5E from previous editions as you are arguing. In fact, I would say it proceeds essentially no differently, even if the mechanics of task resolution are not exactly the same. The process of DM-Player-DM-Roll that has existed since the first iterations of the game is unchanged.

For one, in D&D 4e, the Rules Compendium flat out states that players often ask to make skill checks and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is a very different expectation than is set forth in D&D 5e where there is no support for that idea. Further, in D&D 4e, skill checks come first and if there's nothing that seems to apply, then the DM goes to an ability check. In D&D 5e, it starts with an ability check which may or may not have a proficiency applied - the term "skill check" doesn't even exist. These may seem like minor things to you, particularly if you just ignore the difference, but they produce different expectations and play at the table.

 

[prabe]

For one, in D&D 4e, the Rules Compendium flat out states that players often ask to make skill checks and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is a very different expectation than is set forth in D&D 5e where there is no support for that idea. Further, in D&D 4e, skill checks come first and if there's nothing that seems to apply, then the DM goes to an ability check. In D&D 5e, it starts with an ability check which may or may not have a proficiency applied - the term "skill check" doesn't even exist. These may seem like minor things to you, particularly if you just ignore the difference, but they produce different expectations and play at the table.

Other than the fact the DM can flat decide a character succeeds or fails without an dice being rolled, the biggest difference I see, coming to 5E from 3.x (having skipped 4e, I don't have that as a basis for comparison) is that 3.x had skills that couldn't be used untrained, so the DM could call for a skill check a player legally could not roll on. In 5E, pretty much every ability check, everyone can roll on (barring the DM deciding otherwise, of course). While I agree that changes the expectations, at least around the edges (if you can roll, you have a chance), I'm not sure how or how much it does so, and I'm not convinced that thinking of (for example) WIS(Perception) as "Perception" changes play at the table--though I'll admit that using the right terms--in this case WIS(Perception)--makes it easier if the DM is going to start asking for non-standard checks, like STR(Intimidation) or INT(Mason's tools).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

What negative effects do you think this approach would have?

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.)

I disagree that D&D 5e isn’t conversational. Conversation is the primary means of interface between the players and the game world. Moreover, just because I allow the players to determine if any of their proficiencies are applicable to a check, doesn’t make the game not asymmetrical or remove my authority over adjudicating the rules or narrative outcomes. And even if it did, if it leads to a better overall play experience (which in my experience, it does), why would that be bad? I believe the way I run it is aligned with the way 5e is designed to be played.

 

[Reynard]

For one, in D&D 4e, the Rules Compendium flat out states that players often ask to make skill checks and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is a very different expectation than is set forth in D&D 5e where there is no support for that idea. Further, in D&D 4e, skill checks come first and if there's nothing that seems to apply, then the DM goes to an ability check. In D&D 5e, it starts with an ability check which may or may not have a proficiency applied - the term "skill check" doesn't even exist. These may seem like minor things to you, particularly if you just ignore the difference, but they produce different expectations and play at the table.

It's a distinction without a difference as far as I can tell.

But, it's also true that I did not start with 5E and it may be that people coming completely new to the game and by way of things like the Starter Set (and there are LOTS of those people, by all accounts) will think very differently about it. I concede that a generation of players for whom 5E is their "Red Box" probably won't think the same things about D&D as a broad thing as I do.

Luckily, 5E is extremely versatile at the table and I can run it just like I ran BECMI, 2E 3.x and Pathfinder and it works.

 

[iserith]

Other than the fact the DM can flat decide a character succeeds or fails without an dice being rolled, the biggest difference I see, coming to 5E from 3.x (having skipped 4e, I don't have that as a basis for comparison) is that 3.x had skills that couldn't be used untrained, so the DM could call for a skill check a player legally could not roll on. In 5E, pretty much every ability check, everyone can roll on (barring the DM deciding otherwise, of course). While I agree that changes the expectations, at least around the edges (if you can roll, you have a chance), I'm not sure how or how much it does so, and I'm not convinced that thinking of (for example) WIS(Perception) as "Perception" changes play at the table--though I'll admit that using the right terms--in this case WIS(Perception)--makes it easier if the DM is going to start asking for non-standard checks, like STR(Intimidation) or INT(Mason's tools).

As far as I can recall, a D&D 3.Xe DM could decide on success or failure as well, but just as in D&D 4e, nobody actually played that way in my experience. I find D&D 5e DMs who know the difference between the games or who have no experience with the previous editions rule success and failure without rolls regularly. What you can also see is that you will usually get better description out of a player if they can't ask to make "skill checks." They tend to engage with the environment more, looking for an edge that will allow them to avoid rolling or at least get advantage. Player engagement goes up and the game runs faster. I know when I turn up in games where players are asking to make "skill checks," and I don't, I am usually more successful and seen as a good roleplayer (though I don't necessarily agree with that). Imagine a table of 5 such players. My regular group, used to the D&D 5e paradigm, runs circles around every other game that I'm in.

 

[Reynard]

What negative effects do you think this approach would have?


I disagree that D&D 5e isn’t conversational. Conversation is the primary means of interface between the players and the game world. Moreover, just because I allow the players to determine if any of their proficiencies are applicable to a check, doesn’t make the game not asymmetrical or remove my authority over adjudicating the rules or narrative outcomes. And even if it did, if it leads to a better overall play experience (which in my experience, it does), why would that be bad? I believe the way I run it is aligned with the way 5e is designed to be played.

I happen to think the asymmetrical nature of D&D is one of its strongest points for successful entertainment. It's just a preference. I don't mean to sound like I am making a [EDIT: stupid autocorrect] proclamation regarding the right way to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Other than the fact the DM can flat decide a character succeeds or fails without an dice being rolled, the biggest difference I see, coming to 5E from 3.x (having skipped 4e, I don't have that as a basis for comparison) is that 3.x had skills that couldn't be used untrained, so the DM could call for a skill check a player legally could not roll on. In 5E, pretty much every ability check, everyone can roll on (barring the DM deciding otherwise, of course). While I agree that changes the expectations, at least around the edges (if you can roll, you have a chance), I'm not sure how or how much it does so, and I'm not convinced that thinking of (for example) WIS(Perception) as "Perception" changes play at the table--though I'll admit that using the right terms--in this case WIS(Perception)--makes it easier if the DM is going to start asking for non-standard checks, like STR(Intimidation) or INT(Mason's tools).

As I explained in post #88, there is a meaningful procedural difference between calling for a skill check by default with ability checks as backup if no skill is obviously applicable, and calling for an ability check, then determining (possibly with the help of the player) if any of the character’s proficiencies is applicable.

 

[iserith]

It's a distinction without a difference as far as I can tell.

If your game is not broken, then carry on. But it's worth implementing this change in my view to see what kind of game it produces after a few sessions when the players have been retrained out of their D&D 3.Xe/4e habits. You may then see how significant a difference this distinction creates.

 

[Reynard]

As I explained in post #88, there is a meaningful procedural difference between calling for a skill check by default with ability checks as backup if no skill is obviously applicable, and calling for an ability check, then determining (possibly with the help of the player) if any of the character’s proficiencies is applicable.

Out of curiosity, what about things that aren't ability checks at all but require skill? For example, what if a character got themselves into a weaving contest against a Goddess? Weaving as an action doesn't really fall under any of D&D's ability scores, but it certainly requires skill with the tool "loom." How would you approach that? Again, I am just curious and not trying to put you on the spot.