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

[iserith]

So, something like this has come up recently, I think, and it seems to boil down to whether the players know there's a sock drawer to mention specifically and whether the DM will treat any action description that doesn't specifically mention the sock drawer as having no chance of success (and I suppose whether the DM will treat any action description that mentions the sock drawer as having no chance of failure).

I guess I figure that reasonably competent and determined characters with adequate time are going to open every visible drawer that opens, so if they take enough time--which will depend on the size of the room and how much is in it--they'll search the sock drawer, even if the players don't specifically mention doing so. Even a quicker check might do the job--automatically if the players mention the drawers, on a die roll if they don't.

Sure, but if as a player you want to try to avoid making a check, then being reasonably specific to the standards laid out in the PHB seems like a better strategy for success than relying on a d20, however good the character's related ability score and skill proficiency may be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can stop responding at any time. But note that I didn't say your players weren't being specific, just that they might not be as specific as the example I pulled from the PHB which you said was "boring" and "lame."

So, something like this has come up recently, I think, and it seems to boil down to whether the players know there's a sock drawer to mention specifically and whether the DM will treat any action description that doesn't specifically mention the sock drawer to have no chance of success (and I suppose whether the DM will treat any action description that mentions the sock drawer as having no chance of failure).

I guess I figure that reasonably competent and determined characters with adequate time are going to open every visible drawer that opens, so if they take enough time--which will depend on the size of the room and how much is in it--they'll search the sock drawer, even if the players don't specifically mention doing so. Even a quicker check might do the job--automatically if the players mention the drawers, on a die roll if they don't.

in that precise example, I doubt I’d want to have the players spend the time describing sock drawers being opened unless they want to do that. If they just say, I thoroughly search the room, that’s also fine. Generally my players describe more than that, but sometimes doing so is pointless because it’s obvious to any reasonable person that a thorough search doesn’t leave a visible drawer unopened.

But, what I don’t enjoy at all is when the specificity regularly goes way beyond reasonable. It’s awesome when the rogue goes into detail every once in a while in a tense moment about how exactly they search the door for traps. It’s lame and boring when they describe every inch of the process in exacting detail every time because they are either a spotlight hog or learned D&D in The “player skill with a 10 foot pole” era, or read the phb and didn’t have a proper sense of context and perspective while doing so.

“I investigate the desk, checking each drawer for hidden mechanisms before opening them, and checking to too-shallow interiorsor hidden latches while being careful to avoid any pinpricks or accidentally activists any hidden triggers. Investigate check, right?” Is great, if a bit redundant. It’s fun, so the redundancy isn’t a problem. Describing the process for each drawer, describing the angle of the hand as it gently tap dances around the inside of each drawer, etc, is fun once or twice in a tense moment.

The fact they reference a skill check has no impact whatsoever on the success or failure of the check, and if the desk isn’t trapped then even the specificity isn’t really important it’s just nice.

I can’t find anything in the phb that suggests that without that specificity the check has no chance to succeed, of course.

 

[Fenris-77]

If the maguffin in the the sock drawer is an important piece of info, I'm not going to gate it behind a skill check without a really good reason. If the PCs came looking for the key, and the key is in the sock drawer, they PCs will find they key if they search the room, barring any other sort of complication, no roll required. You could hide the key in a secret compartment that requires a skill check to find, but ask yourself why you're doing that. Why add that obstacle and potential failure? I think a possible, and probably popular, answer there is that rolling imparts a sense of discovery or achievement. I'd prefer to impart that via the obstacles required to get to the room, rather than as some sort of last chance to fail once you're there.

Caveat 1: If we were talking about a treasure, or something else that isn't essential to the plot, then sure, hide it like a soccer mom hiding Christmas presents.

Caveat 2: If the roll is to represent something other than just finding the key, that's different. For example, if the PCs have a minute until the guards arrive, then I might ask them to roll. Not to find the key, but to find it before the guards arrive, which is a very different narrative decision. The consequence there is about time, not about finding the key.

 

[iserith]

in that precise example, I doubt I’d want to have the players spend the time describing sock drawers being opened unless they want to do that. If they just say, I thoroughly search the room, that’s also fine. Generally my players describe more than that, but sometimes doing so is pointless because it’s obvious to any reasonable person that a thorough search doesn’t leave a visible drawer unopened.

But, what I don’t enjoy at all is when the specificity regularly goes way beyond reasonable. It’s awesome when the rogue goes into detail every once in a while in a tense moment about how exactly they search the door for traps. It’s lame and boring when they describe every inch of the process in exacting detail every time because they are either a spotlight hog or learned D&D in The “player skill with a 10 foot pole” era, or read the phb and didn’t have a proper sense of context and perspective while doing so.

“I investigate the desk, checking each drawer for hidden mechanisms before opening them, and checking to too-shallow interiorsor hidden latches while being careful to avoid any pinpricks or accidentally activists any hidden triggers. Investigate check, right?” Is great, if a bit redundant. It’s fun, so the redundancy isn’t a problem. Describing the process for each drawer, describing the angle of the hand as it gently tap dances around the inside of each drawer, etc, is fun once or twice in a tense moment.

The fact they reference a skill check has no impact whatsoever on the success or failure of the check, and if the desk isn’t trapped then even the specificity isn’t really important it’s just nice.

Some people do play games that take the standard of reasonable specificity into unreasonable territory, relative to what the game suggests. (It might not be unreasonable to those people.) I don't think you're talking to any of those people right now, however much some posters may want to imply that it is the case.

I can’t find anything in the phb that suggests that without that specificity the check has no chance to succeed, of course.

It's in the sidebar for finding hidden objects in the chapter on using ability scores. I paraphrased that section in the example upthread. The lame and boring one, according to what you said. PHB: "You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

 

[prabe]

Caveat 2: If the roll is to represent something other than just finding the key, that's different. For example, if the PCs have a minute until the guards arrive, then I might ask them to roll. Not to find the key, but to find it before the guards arrive, which is a very different narrative decision. The consequence there is about time, not about finding the key.

My thought about the "quick check" above was mostly related to Caveat the Second. Time constraints can be a thing. I might put something important behind a check, if the characters will inevitably find that another way--let them shortcut something, in other words.

 

[iserith]

Caveat 2: If the roll is to represent something other than just finding the key, that's different. For example, if the PCs have a minute until the guards arrive, then I might ask them to roll. Not to find the key, but to find it before the guards arrive, which is a very different narrative decision. The consequence there is about time, not about finding the key.

That is effectively "progress combined with a setback," which the rules say is a potential failure condition after a failed check (PHB, p. 174). In other words, "you find the key, but it took long enough for guards to show up."

 

[prabe]

Some people do play games that take the standard of reasonable specificity into unreasonable territory, relative to what the game suggests. (It might not be unreasonable to those people.) I don't think you're talking to any of those people right now, however much some posters may want to imply that it is the case.

I haven't seen anything in this thread that implies that anyone is DMing unreasonably. I've seen some differences in preferences--and probably some misunderstandings--but nothing more than that.

PHB: "You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

I guess I worry a little that the players aren't as clear as the characters about what's in the room. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could/should have been, or maybe they just didn't process something--I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt. In a way, that's what calling for a check is about, if they fail to mention any of the magic words (bureau, drawer/s).

 

[iserith]

I guess I worry a little that the players aren't as clear as the characters about what's in the room. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could/should have been, or maybe they just didn't process something--I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt. In a way, that's what calling for a check is about, if they fail to mention any of the magic words (bureau, drawer/s).

That may be what you make the checks about, but that's not what checks are about according to the rules. However much you care about that is up to you, of course.

 

[Fenris-77]

That is effectively "progress combined with a setback," which the rules say is a potential failure condition after a failed check (PHB, p. 174). In other words, "you find the key, but it took long enough for guards to show up."

It is indeed , but I imagine I'm applying it a little differently than some DMs. I'm only rolling in the first place because of the guards, whereas I think some folks are calling for the roll, and then figuring out what the failure state is once the roll fails. That approach works, I just don't care for it as a core approach to adjudicating actions. Even in that case, I'm probably more likely to just have them find the key, and then announce You hear running footsteps and the clanking of mail in the hall, coming toward the Chancellor's study, what do you do? I'd more likely call for a roll if they heard the running footsteps before they started looking for the key. In the second case the need for a roll, and the consequences of failure, are already established in the fiction.

 

[prabe]

That may be what you make the checks about, but that's not what checks are about according to the rules.

What do you think the rules say checks are about?