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

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I saw the parallel. I wasn't even doubting the text was there (I thought I remembered seeing it), just irritated that I couldn't find it when I was looking for it; it still sounds more like DM advice than a player-facing rule, but YMMV.

I agree, it is. Take 20 is what you get when you try to turn this excellent piece of DMing advice (which boils down to “if failure doesn’t cost anything, assume the characters will eventually succeed and narrate that result without a roll”) into a player-facing rule.

 

[Fenris-77]

I can't imagine playing without random encounters. Different strokes I guess. I use random encounters in much the same way as @Charlaquin does. I use to emphasize time as a resource and, additionally, the need to not waste that resource in hostile environments. People have very different approaches to what a random encounter is too. For some DMs it's more of a straight wandering monster check, and for others there's a huge range of what might happen, from strange sounds, to random debris, to monsters. I favor the second approach, it's like the salt and pepper flavor text for a whole location. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can't imagine playing without random encounters. Different strokes I guess. I use random encounters in much the same way as @Charlaquin does. I use to emphasize time as a resource and, additionally, the need to not waste that resource in hostile environments. People have very different approaches to what a random encounter is too. For some DMs it's more of a straight wandering monster check, and for others there's a huge range of what might happen, from strange sounds, to random debris, to monsters. I favor the second approach, it's like the salt and pepper flavor text for a whole location. YMMV.

Yeah, I actually refer to them as complications in my own notes, and while a wandering monster is a type of complication, there are many other types. But, usually in conversation with other DMs I just say “random encounters” because they’ll understand more or less what I’m talking about.

 

[prabe]

See, to me the age of the paper sounds like a telegraph. All the notes and treasure and stuff would be found without need for a roll because with no time constraint there’s no consequence for just spending all day just combing every inch of the room. The age of the papers would be a hint that there’s something more to be found despite that thorough search - the cue to the players to try probing the environment. I wouldn’t hide that information behind a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check because that’s the fun part.

IIRC (it's been a while) they got that there was something hinky about the books, but didn't explore that further. They found all the treasure without rolling, because of course. They were a little concerned for plotty reasons about more Mooks showing up at roughly any time with little warning(so taking all day wasn't exactly on the table) but they were doing most of this parallel to at least some of the party members taking a Short Rest.

They did manage to find that secret door, and eventually resorted to brute force to blow it open, and interesting things happened thereafter.

 

[Oofta]

Do folks generally have things hidden in rooms that the players have ample time to thoroughly search? Cause, like, sure, hypothetically if there was a scenario in my game where there was no time pressure and the players said “we thoroughly search this whole room, taking as much time as we need to make sure we don’t miss anything,” then yeah, they’d find anything hidden in that room without a roll, on account of no consequences for time spent looking in parts of the room where nothing is hidden. But, like, that wouldn’t happen in my games? If I’m setting up a challenge where the players need to find a hidden thing, there’s gonna be time pressure. At least periodic random encounter checks if nothing else.

Sometimes, yes. Other times it's uncertain - they don't know if there's a time limit or not. It can also be completely uncertain, basically the chance of a random monster.

Generally speaking though there will be a trade-off. They're spending time on this lead instead of pursuing others as an example. The PCs don't always know how often the room gets checked or what kind of risk they're running.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I actually refer to them as complications in my own notes, and while a wandering monster is a type of complication, there are many other types. But, usually in conversation with other DMs I just say “random encounters” because they’ll understand more or less what I’m talking about.

I usually use a version of the time pool idea. I really like making the passing time concrete and visual. I'm not using it right out of the box, but it's similar to what's in the link. If the AngryGM and Adam Koebel had a love child it would be my random encounter method.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thanks for pointing me at that, but that seems more like a suggestion, to speed things up at the tale. I don't see anything about that that prevents the scenario I outlined.

Yeah it is a suggestion. I’m away from the book atm but I don’t think it’s even presented as an optional rule or anything, it is just straight up a suggestion to solve a potential problem of players wanting to make check after check until they win.

Not sure why it’s being presented as if it is “the rules”.

That’s fine. Plenty of folks don’t like random encounters. I find them a convenient way to make lost time a meaningful consequence without need of ticking clocks. If you don’t like them, don’t use them.
Again, that’s fine, but at that point it’s effectively flavor text. Nothing wrong with flavor text.

And yet your wording suggest that flavor text is less important than whatever you think the alternative is.

But the whole game is flavor text. “Flavor text” just means “the world”.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah it is a suggestion. I’m away from the book atm but I don’t think it’s even presented as an optional rule or anything, it is just straight up a suggestion to solve a potential problem of players wanting to make check after check until they win.

Not sure why it’s being presented as if it is “the rules”.

It's presented as the rest of 'the rules' as how to run the game. I mean, I suppose you can just treat everything as a suggestion and continue to run however you want -- this is perfectly fine -- but it seems odd to dismiss the recommendations for play as not worth listening to because you don't think they're rules.

And yet your wording suggest that flavor text is less important than whatever you think the alternative is.

But the whole game is flavor text. “Flavor text” just means “the world”.

Well, I disagree with this, strongly.

 

[iserith]

"Rules" are what people call them when they trying to prove their point.

"Suggestions" are what people call them when they're trying to disprove someone else's point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sometimes, yes. Other times it's uncertain - they don't know if there's a time limit or not. It can also be completely uncertain, basically the chance of a random monster.

The chance of a random encounter over time is a time constraint.

I usually use a version of the time pool idea. I really like making the passing time concrete and visual. I'm not using it right out of the box, but it's similar to what's in the link. If the AngryGM and Adam Koebel had a love child it would be my random encounter method.

I do too

And yet your wording suggest that flavor text is less important than whatever you think the alternative is.

The alternative would be a challenge, and I don’t think less of flavor text at all. It just doesn’t require dice rolls to resolve.