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

[Charlaquin]

. The time savings is not on players asking to make checks but in players agreeing on a plan quickly and resolving their individual turns in combat fast which requires different techniques separate from this discussion.

As an aside, this would be something I would love to hear more from you on. I’ve found myself adopting a lot of techniques you espouse, some independently and some on your recommendation and generally find them to have excellent results, but this sort of play efficiency is something I’m still working on improving. And in general, I think “techniques for speeding up play” could be a valuable discussion topic for all.

 

[iserith]

A couple things: I use LOTS of die rolls in my game because they are informative. I don't generally use binary resolution, and I rely heavily on improvisation and interpretation. As such, it is more efficient for players to lead with their mechanical intent and then follow with whatever degree of fiction making they prefer (some players don't like to talk in character, for example, and I think it is unfair to punish them for it).

I don't ask players to "talk in character." Descriptive or active roleplaying is supported in the rules and welcome at my table. I just need a goal and an approach. That's it. No flowery words or cringey accents required.

If you use "LOTS of die rolls," then you may be straying a great deal from the expectations of the game which advocates - by virtue of indicating potential drawbacks to approaches where the DM relies on rolls for almost everything and where the DM uses dice rarely - that the DM strikes a balance between calling for automatic success or failure and calling for checks.

second,efficiency during combat play is a different issue entirely and has almost no bearing on this discussion. I agree that it is important, and it is super frustrating when players take FOREVER on their turns, but it doesn't really apply here.

If your argument is that this method you advocate is more efficient than the one that Charlaquin and I use (which I don't buy for even a second), I guarantee you that any efficiency you may see here is offset greatly by time sinks in other parts of the game. So, to me, you're not gaining anything by this method and probably giving up things in some areas.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think this is true. It says that the player tells the DM what their character is doing. Those aren't the same thing.

I think you might have to elaborate, because it looks to me like you just said that the player describing what their character says or does isn’t the same thing as the player telling DM what their character is doing... That looks like two slightly different wordings of the same idea to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

(some players don't like to talk in character, for example, and I think it is unfair to punish them for it).

I’m pretty sure no one has suggested that players must talk in character or should be punished for not doing so.

 

[Charlaquin]

While I don't listen to a lot of podcast games (other than Critical Role lately while I bike) I see DMs and players alike speaking in terms of skill checks all the time.

Yep, I do too. Worth noting though, that the Critical Role cast played Pathfinder together before switching to 5e, and Matt Mercer almost certainly DMed 3e for a long time prior to that. It is very common, in my experience, for people to come to 5e via 3e or 4e, or to learn it from people who did so, especially with Critical Role being the gateway that it is for so many newcomers. Longtime players tend to bring their gameplay styles and habits over from previous editions and new players tend to learn the same styles and habits from them. There’s nothing wrong with that - if it works for you and your group, awesome! But that most folks play 5e in a very similar way to how most folks played 3e isn’t a strong case for 5e not being designed with a different style of play in mind.

It's simply "cleaner". If, as a DM, I know that intimidation will be a lower DC than a persuasion against that cowardly goblin then I need to know what the player intends.

But see, the whole idea of “knowing that intimidation will be a lower DC than persuasion against a cowardly goblin” is rooted in 3e style play procedures. Once again, if you like the results those procedures produce, more power to you! But that’s not even how I think about skills and DCs, so when someone tries to argue that the difference is merely semantic, I can’t agree with that assessment at all.

As far as treating a D20 as radioactive when it comes to this stuff I also disagree. The character build and proficiency bonuses should matter just as much or more as the player's ability to read the DM.

In my experience, this concern is unfounded. Build and proficiency bonus are still important and valuable the way I run things, and the “reading the DM” critique is overblown. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the good ole player asking to make a skill check method, but I’d appreciate not having my method misrepresented in this way.

 

[prabe]

But see, the whole idea of “knowing that intimidation will be a lower DC than persuasion against a cowardly goblin” is rooted in 3e style play procedures. Once again, if you like the results those procedures produce, more power to you! But that’s not even how I think about skills and DCs, so when someone tries to argue that the difference is merely semantic, I can’t agree with that assessment at all.

Isn't the idea there might be different DCs for different approaches explicitly mentioned in the rules? What @Oofta is suggesting here doesn't seem at all out of line with 5E. This might be a time where (at my tables) someone with proficiency in Intimidation wouldn't have to roll, while someone else might--which is a 5E not 3.x thing--as would someone trying to use Persuasion.

 

[Reynard]

But see, the whole idea of “knowing that intimidation will be a lower DC than persuasion against a cowardly goblin” is rooted in 3e style play procedures. Once again, if you like the results those procedures produce, more power to you! But that’s not even how I think about skills and DCs, so when someone tries to argue that the difference is merely semantic, I can’t agree with that assessment at all.

I don't think you are anyone else in this thread has adequately shown that the play procedures between 3E and 5E (just by way of example) are significantly different. I don't have a 3.x DMG near at hand, but I do not think the description of those procedures is notably different than the ones in 5E.
1. DM describes the situation and asks "what do you do?"
2. Player answers.
3. repeat steps 1 and 2 until a die roll is called for by the DM.
4. Player rolls and reports the results to the DM.
5. DM describes the outcome.
6. goto 1

 

[Charlaquin]

Isn't the idea there might be different DCs for different approaches explicitly mentioned in the rules? What @Oofta is suggesting here doesn't seem at all out of line with 5E. This might be a time where (at my tables) someone with proficiency in Intimidation wouldn't have to roll, while someone else might--which is a 5E not 3.x thing--as would someone trying to use Persuasion.

That’s not what I was identifying as the difference between our ways of thinking. “Knowing that intimidation will be a lower DC than persuasion” first of all presupposes the necessity of a check to execute an action, and second of all implies that it is the proficiency employed, rather than the goal and the action taken to try and achieve it, that determines the DC.

 

[prabe]

That’s not what I was identifying as the difference between our ways of thinking. “Knowing that intimidation will be a lower DC than persuasion” first of all presupposes the necessity of a check to execute an action, and second of all implies that it is the proficiency employed, rather than the goal and the action taken to try and achieve it, that determines the DC.

I was thinking more broadly--along the lines of "goblins are more susceptible to Intimidation than Persuasion," and I tend to treat the social manipulation skills (Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion) as all being about getting someone to behave how you want, with the difference being whether you're using lies, threats of force, or good faith. So, you end up roughly where I said above: You're going to have better luck intimidating a goblin than trying to reason with it; this can mean different DCs if a check is needed, or it can mean someone with the proficiency doesn't need to check (but someone with does), or it can mean no one needs to check (you just killed his boss and his squad and he figures his life expectancy is measured in femtoseconds, so anyone can intimidate him). It's different in the rules, and in what you do at the table, but it doesn't feel like a radically different thought process to me than deciding (in 3.x) on a DC and giving a Circumstance Bonus (or maybe lowering the DC--both are mentioned in the rules) to Intimidate. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think you are anyone else in this thread has adequately shown that the play procedures between 3E and 5E (just by way of example) are significantly different. I don't have a 3.x DMG near at hand, but I do not think the description of those procedures is notably different than the ones in 5E.
1. DM describes the situation and asks "what do you do?"
2. Player answers.
3. repeat steps 1 and 2 until a die roll is called for by the DM.
4. Player rolls and reports the results to the DM.
5. DM describes the outcome.
6. goto 1

Again, the difference I perceive is in the specifics of who is saying what in steps 2 and 5, and in how the DM determines whether or not to call for a roll in step 3. In what I view as the 3e and 4e style, generally the player simply states what they want to accomplish and maybe a proficiency they want to employ in step 2 (e.g. “I use persuasion to try and get the guard to let me past”). In step 3, the DM might call for a roll if the player asked to make one in step 2, or if they feel the character might conceivably fail to achieve the stated goal. in step 5 the DM determines the specifics of what the character did to achieve whatever degree of success or failure the result of the roll indicates, in addition to how the guard responds.

In what I perceive as the 5e style, the player states both what they want to accomplish and how the character goes about trying to accomplish it in step 2 (e.g. “I explain to the guard the importance of our mission to try to convince him to let me through). In step 3, the DM assesses whether the stated action could reasonably succeed at achieving the stated goal, fail to do so, and what the consequences of failure might be, calling for a roll if success, failure, and consequences are all reasonable possibilities. In step 5, the DM determines based on the result of the roll whether the stated goal was successfully achieved or the consequences of failure were suffered, and describes those results.

The difference may seem subtle, but there are many consequences of these different methods that may not be obvious to one who has not tried both. For example, in the former method, rolls are often called for that have no consequences, or trivial consequences, for failure. In the latter method, many more actions succeed or fail without a roll being called for. The methods demand different levels of engagement with the fiction from the players and from the DM. There are many ways these techniques affect the play experience, despite seeming at a glance to be more or less the same.