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

[Reynard]

I wouldn’t ask for a stealth check to slip past the guard. If the character was at risk of being spotted by the guard, I’d describe the guard doing something to indicate this (the equivalent of the “what was that?” type reaction many video game NPCs give when their awareness of the PC starts increasing) and ask the player what they do. Then if what they do has a chance of success and a chance of failure, I’ll ask for a check, most likely Dexterity.

I think you missed my point: the thing that happens at my table because it is easier and quicker is:

Me: You see a guard near the gate. He looks like he is half paying attention and half thinking about the pub. What do you do?
Player: Okay, I'll make a stealth check to sneak past him when he seems particularly distracted.

Rather than:
Me: You see a guard near the gate. He looks like he is half paying attention and half thinking about the pub. What do you do?
Player: I am going to sneak past him.
Me: How?
Player: I guess I will try and dash across the alley behind him and slip through the gate.
Me: Okay. That's going to be a Dexterity check.
Player: I want to use my Stealth proficiency.
Me: How?
Player: I wait until he is particularly distracted by his thoughts and go then, as quickly and quietly as I can.
Me: Okay, apply your Stealth proficiency to the roll.

Both get the same place, and the second example can be fun sometimes. But sometimes it is a distraction for what is otherwise and obvious and even tedious bit of gameplay.

Similarly, I allow the party to use Standard Operating Procedures, including skill checks, when exploring something like a dungeon. The immersion benefits aren't worth the cost in tedium to approach every door and hallway with 10 minutes of positioning and 10 foot pole tapping.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you missed my point: the thing that happens at my table because it is easier and quicker is:

Me: You see a guard near the gate. He looks like he is half paying attention and half thinking about the pub. What do you do?
Player: Okay, I'll make a stealth check to sneak past him when he seems particularly distracted.

Rather than:
Me: You see a guard near the gate. He looks like he is half paying attention and half thinking about the pub. What do you do?
Player: I am going to sneak past him.
Me: How?
Player: I guess I will try and dash across the alley behind him and slip through the gate.
Me: Okay. That's going to be a Dexterity check.
Player: I want to use my Stealth proficiency.
Me: How?
Player: I wait until he is particularly distracted by his thoughts and go then, as quickly and quietly as I can.
Me: Okay, apply your Stealth proficiency to the roll.

Both get the same place, and the second example can be fun sometimes. But sometimes it is a distraction for what is otherwise and obvious and even tedious bit of gameplay.

Similarly, I allow the party to use Standard Operating Procedures, including skill checks, when exploring something like a dungeon. The immersion benefits aren't worth the cost in tedium to approach every door and hallway with 10 minutes of positioning and 10 foot pole tapping.

Oh, I see. At my table it would generally look more like the first example. You’ve already given the player something to respond to by saying he’s only half paying attention. If the player said they “used stealth to try and sneak past him,” I’d probably just call for a Dexterity check. Yeah, “use stealth” is kind of a vague approach, but given the context I think it clears the bar of reasonable specificity. I also wouldn’t expect the player to ask to apply their stealth proficiency and then ask for an in-fiction justification. That’d just slow down play. I’d ask for the Dexterity check and if the player wanted to add proficiency bonus for stealth they could just do that. If they did ask, I’d remind them that they don’t need to ask, just add it if they have a proficiency they think is appropriate.

 

[Reynard]

Oh, I see. At my table it would generally look more like the first example. You’ve already given the player something to respond to by saying he’s only half paying attention. If the player said they “used stealth to try and sneak past him,” I’d probably just call for a Dexterity check. Yeah, “use stealth” is kind of a vague approach, but given the context I think it clears the bar of reasonable specificity. I also wouldn’t expect the player to ask to apply their stealth proficiency and then ask for an in-fiction justification. That’d just slow down play. I’d ask for the Dexterity check and if the player wanted to add proficiency bonus for stealth they could just do that. If they did ask, I’d remind them that they don’t need to ask, just add it if they have a proficiency they think is appropriate.

Okay. I just wanted to clear it up because there are folks on this board that very adamantly believe that my second example is the way the game is meant to be played and I didn't know if you agreed with that sentiment.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay. I just wanted to clear it up because there are folks on this board that very adamantly believe that my second example is the way the game is meant to be played and I didn't know if you agreed with that sentiment.

I think there are folks on this board who very adamantly believe that your second example is what people who advocate for goal and approach are suggesting, but I think that belief is a misconception.

 

[Reynard]

I think there are folks on this board who very adamantly believe that your second example is what people who advocate for goal and approach are suggesting, but I think that belief is a misconception.

To be clear, I run it that way sometimes, just not during the "routine" situations of the game because, again, I don't feel like the benefit outweighs the cost in time and energy. In novel situations and scenes that are intended to be dramatic or otherwise important, I will go for the nuanced approach and goal conversation.

 

[iserith]

I think you missed my point: the thing that happens at my table because it is easier and quicker is:

Me: You see a guard near the gate. He looks like he is half paying attention and half thinking about the pub. What do you do?
Player: Okay, I'll make a stealth check to sneak past him when he seems particularly distracted.

As a player, I would never ask to make an ability check. I'd rather just succeed without a roll and will succinctly describe what my character does to try to achieve that.

 

[Reynard]

As a player, I would never ask to make an ability check. I'd rather just succeed without a roll and will succinctly describe what my character does to try to achieve that.

In my experience you are by far the exception. In most traditional RPGs, of which D&D is close to the platonic ideal, the players have a bunch of mechanical tools written on their character sheets and they use them. And are meant to, IMO.

Now, I get your desire as a player not to be beholden to a bad die roll and thus try and avoid rolling the deice at all if you can. That's a very old school way to approach it but it is hardly common.

 

[iserith]

In my experience you are by far the exception. In most traditional RPGs, of which D&D is close to the platonic ideal, the players have a bunch of mechanical tools written on their character sheets and they use them. And are meant to, IMO.

Oh, I use them, but not by choice or at my request. They are insurance for when my character's best efforts fail to achieve the intended goal outright.

Now, I get your desire as a player not to be beholden to a bad die roll and thus try and avoid rolling the deice at all if you can. That's a very old school way to approach it but it is hardly common.

It's an approach that is a response to the mechanics and adjudication process of D&D 5e. I didn't play this way in D&D 4e for sure. There is no expectation set forth in the D&D 5e rules that players should be asking to make ability checks. There is such an expectation set forth in D&D 4e. Different games, different approaches.

 

[Reynard]

There is no expectation set forth in the D&D 5e rules that players should be asking to make ability checks. There is such an expectation set forth in D&D 4e. Different games, different approaches.

That may be the case but in my experience next to no one in real life -- veteran or beginner, and I play with a lot of both at conventions -- plays it that way. moreover, there's really no benefit to playing it that way unless you really, really like trying to read the GMs mind or manipulate them into giving you that sweet, sweet proficiency bonus. In my opinion, the game works better and is more fun when everyone at the table communicates clearly about their intents and desires. I find it extremely frustrating when, for example, I talk to an NPC with the intent of deceiving them (because, you know, I put character generation and development resources into that thing because I wanted to be good at it and get to use it) and the GM calls for a Charisma (Persuasion) check instead because that is how they interpreted my in character role play. It is far easier to directly ask -- as an addendum to that in character role play -- to use Deception.

 

[iserith]

That may be the case but in my experience next to no one in real life -- veteran or beginner, and I play with a lot of both at conventions -- plays it that way.

I'm working on it. Give me some time. Over a decade of D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e has influenced the way people play and hardly anyone actually reads the books in my experience. Or they do but assume these games are all the same except for some cosmetic differences.

I also think that many DMs do not have meaningful consequences for failure in a lot of their adjudications and so, since it doesn't actually cost the character anything, then there's no meaningful risk in making checks. So they declare they are making them or ask to do so.

moreover, there's really no benefit to playing it that way unless you really, really like trying to read the GMs mind or manipulate them into giving you that sweet, sweet proficiency bonus. In my opinion, the game works better and is more fun when everyone at the table communicates clearly about their intents and desires.

You mean like everyone stating their character's goal and approach with reasonable specificity?

I find it extremely frustrating when, for example, I talk to an NPC with the intent of deceiving them (because, you know, I put character generation and development resources into that thing because I wanted to be good at it and get to use it) and the GM calls for a Charisma (Persuasion) check instead because that is how they interpreted my in character role play. It is far easier to directly ask -- as an addendum to that in character role play -- to use Deception.

Or, like @Charlaquin said above, the DM calls for a Charisma check and the player applies the proficiency that he or she was describing on the assumption that a player asking to apply said bonus will be told "Yes." Then this problem you find extremely frustrating goes away and the player didn't need to ask for an ability check.

An ability check necessarily carries with it a meaningful consequence for failure. I'm going to work to remove that (or the uncertainty of the outcome) so I don't have to roll. When I come up short in that regard, I can rely on my "character generation and development resources" and hopefully succeed.