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

[Fenris-77]

Player 1: I search the Kobold's body, I rolled a ... 20 for investigation. Yes!

DM 1: Well, the Kobold has a rusty shortsword, a crooked dagger and a pouch with 6cp. You also find a gold watch, you'll never guess where it was hidden....

 

[Charlaquin]

That First part makes no sense, to me.

Could you be more specific? It doesn’t make sense to you that I differentiate between content that presents a challenge and content that exists primarily to enrich the setting and story?

The rest, I get but just strongly disagree in terms of creating good gameplay. I think the game loses soemthing extremely good and important when only those things which “challenge” the PCs have any chance of failure, or of meaningful differentiation as to warrant mechanical resolution. The world and people and things in it matters more than how many HP the kobold shaman has. Who the Duke of Vagarsal is as a person is more important than how many of his guards we have to knock out without getting caught in order to find the needed clues as to what he was up to before he disappeared.

You seem here to be conflating “challenge” with “combat.” Many things can be challenging. Also, content does not need to be challenging to be valuable, and I don’t know what I said that gave you the impression that I think otherwise.

The “flavor text” is quite often the most important thing by an immense margin.

I don’t disagree.

 

[Charlaquin]

Worth pointing out that LMoP seems to be written specifically with this approach in mind.

And it’s often held up as one of the best published adventures for 5th edition to date. Correlation is not causation, but in this instance I think the adventure being designed this way is directly responsible for its perceived quality.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let me suggest a 2nd example where the different styles described would yield different results.

Scene: the battle has ended, the heroes having victoriously prevailed over 5 kobolds.

Style 1:

Player 1: I search the bodies. I rolled a 16 Investigation.
DM 1 (improvising): Well, in addition to a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor, one the the kobolds has a secret compartment in its boot. It holds a small agate wirth 20 gp.

Style 2:
Player 2: I search the kobolds’ bodies.
DM2: They each have a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor.

On the plus side, on a high roll, Player 1 could find something that the DM1 improvised. Conversely, on a low roll, Player 1 could miss something that DM2 would have let Player2 find automatically.

Solid analysis.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Could you be more specific? It doesn’t make sense to you that I differentiate between content that presents a challenge and content that exists to enrich the setting and story?


You seem here to be conflating “challenge” with “combat.” Many things can be challenging. Also, content does not need to be challenging to be valuable, and I don’t know what I said that gave you the impression that I think otherwise.


I don’t disagree.

I seem to be what now? I didn't mention combat, or allude to it in any way. Its possible we draw the line between "challenge" and "flavor" differently, but so far as I can tell it isn't at combat.

edit: Okay, my examples both involved the threat of combat, but general in the type of example we have all been using, guards coming upon the room and attacking is the most likely random encounter or challenge oriented time constraint.

A challenge is just something that either threatens the players in some meaningful way, or something which they must overcome and which has some potential meaningful cost to overcome it.

What I disagree with is the idea that such things are the only things that ever (or even just generally) need or benefit from mechanical resolution, particularly in reference to dice rolls. I mean, don't roll for stuff your group won't enjoy rolling for, by all means. But there certainly isn't anything wrong with resolving "flavor" elements with dice and other mechanics.

The books advise using checks when the stakes matter. Doesn't need to be a challenge for the stakes to matter. But beyond that, the specifics of when a roll is worth calling for is down to "does it matter to you and the players and have multiple possible outcomes?"

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Let me suggest a 2nd example where the different styles described would yield different results.

Scene: the battle has ended, the heroes having victoriously prevailed over 5 kobolds.

Style 1:

Player 1: I search the bodies. I rolled a 16 Investigation.
DM 1 (improvising): Well, in addition to a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor, one the the kobolds has a secret compartment in its boot. It holds a small agate wirth 20 gp.

Style 2:
Player 2: I search the kobolds’ bodies.
DM2: They each have a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor.

On the plus side, on a high roll, Player 1 could find something that the DM1 improvised. Conversely, on a low roll, Player 1 could miss something that DM2 would have let Player2 find automatically.

If the DM had already decided that one of the kobolds had the gem in the secret compartment, I can see a definite issue with style 2. - It would seem to require that the player specify that their character is searching the kobold's boots.
If they specify searching boots of the kobolds, then presumably the compartment is obvious and they will automatically see it and get the gem.
If the player does not specify searching boots on the kobolds, then the character will not find the gem, despite having access to knowledge that the player does not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Smart play in my view is opening the bureau and rifling through the folded clothes to find the key. There might be no roll here at all - you just succeed because the key is, in fact, hidden beneath a set of folded clothes. Less smart play is doing none of that and just saying "Can I make a Perception check to pace around the room and search the walls and furniture for clues?" The PHB suggests that, in this example, you don't even get a check. You just fail due to a lack of reasonable specificity in engaging with the environment.

I'm fairly confident that this claim is false, or at least strongly open to interpretation, and I have time tonight and tomorrow to dig into this. Do you think that you could provide what passages in the PHB seem to suggest this to you?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let me suggest a 2nd example where the different styles described would yield different results.

Scene: the battle has ended, the heroes having victoriously prevailed over 5 kobolds.

Style 1:

Player 1: I search the bodies. I rolled a 16 Investigation.
DM 1 (improvising): Well, in addition to a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor, one the the kobolds has a secret compartment in its boot. It holds a small agate wirth 20 gp.

Style 2:
Player 2: I search the kobolds’ bodies.
DM2: They each have a short sword, light crossbow and leather armor.

On the plus side, on a high roll, Player 1 could find something that the DM1 improvised. Conversely, on a low roll, Player 1 could miss something that DM2 would have let Player2 find automatically.

What is missing here is Style 3, which is the style I use and most GMs I know use.

Player 3: I search the kobolds bodies. <rolls> 18 Investigate.
DM3: They each have a short sword, light crossbow, and leather armor. No particular effort is required to find that, but [because you were so thorough and focused on the examination, you also notice some things about the kobolds themselves][you complete the search in a few quick moments, and are alert and ready. I'll let that roll ride for the Perception check you need to make now.][some other insight or opportunity that either moves things forward, adds character to the world in some way, or makes something about what comes next easier, or gives the players an opportunity to just decide something about the world in a quick no time for deep thought improv moment]

Style 3 takes dramatically less time and effort to actually do than it does to describe, of course.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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”.

I think that looking for something that the characters don't know is there is a situation where it isn't obvious whether the multiple ability checks are applicable or not. If the characters spend 10 minutes searching a room on the offchance that there might be a secret door, but don't find one (fail the roll), would they automatically find it if they look for another hour and a half?

The book talks about how sometimes taking extra time will automatically succeed, and sometimes it won't, but I believe that the decision as to which category a specific situation falls into is a DM decision.

 

[iserith]

I'm fairly confident that this claim is false, or at least strongly open to interpretation, and I have time tonight and tomorrow to dig into this. Do you think that you could provide what passages in the PHB seem to suggest this to you?

As I mentioned upthread, it's in the section on Using Ability Scores in the PHB in the sidebar on Finding a Hidden Object, p. 178. "In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success... [hidden key in the bureau example]... You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success." If you don't, you have no chance of finding the key. What's also notable is that in the example, the player doesn't ask to make an ability check. The player just describes what he or she wants to do.

The only objection that could be made in my view is that "my game isn't 'most cases.'" And that would be hilarious.