Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8000006" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>So, been just watching the discussion because I’ve been too busy to engage. </p><p></p><p>I largely just agree with [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] , but I do think a couple points are worth making.</p><p></p><p>I think that the difference of focus in the written rules changes how a lot of DMs run the game, but I don’t think there is an <em>actual difference of mechanics</em>, just one of focus.</p><p></p><p>IME, very few DMs need to be told not to worry about a roll for things that they don’t think have a chance of failure or success or don’t have any real stakes.</p><p></p><p>Using mixed success and failure depending on the die roll isn’t a houserule or even a variant rule, it’s just following a piece of advice in the DMG when acting out the “the DM adjudicates and narrates the result” step of action resolution. Using “unnecessary” rolls to determine things about the situation isn’t a houserule or variant rule, it’s just a difference in view wrt when a roll is needed, and a particular approach to narrating results.</p><p></p><p>ability and skill checks aren’t actually different than before, the rules just go harder on making it clear that an ability check covers everything that doesn’t have its own special rule (like saves and attacks), while skills and other proficiencies just modify an ability check when it falls under that proficiency. Again, it’s just a different focus. I’ve run games “5e style” for as long as I’ve run games.</p><p></p><p>My players declare actions in terms of PC abilities (including skills) because it’s commonly understood shorthand.</p><p>The situation described (By [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] ?) where they avoid the chance of failure by describing actions in character in hopes that they will just succeed without a roll doesn’t seem any different to me than boosting a few skills and angling to use them. It’s just gaming the rules to mitigate failure chance, either way, which is fine, but not something that really bears fruit at my table. If you say “I want to stealth past the guard” and roll stealth, and I wouldn’t have asked for a roll bc I don’t see your approach failing, I’m not gonna make it fail because you rolled low. That...would be absurd? I’ll either just ignore the roll or use it to determine something about your action other than success or failure in sneaking past the guard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8000006, member: 6704184"] So, been just watching the discussion because I’ve been too busy to engage. I largely just agree with [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] , but I do think a couple points are worth making. I think that the difference of focus in the written rules changes how a lot of DMs run the game, but I don’t think there is an [I]actual difference of mechanics[/I], just one of focus. IME, very few DMs need to be told not to worry about a roll for things that they don’t think have a chance of failure or success or don’t have any real stakes. Using mixed success and failure depending on the die roll isn’t a houserule or even a variant rule, it’s just following a piece of advice in the DMG when acting out the “the DM adjudicates and narrates the result” step of action resolution. Using “unnecessary” rolls to determine things about the situation isn’t a houserule or variant rule, it’s just a difference in view wrt when a roll is needed, and a particular approach to narrating results. ability and skill checks aren’t actually different than before, the rules just go harder on making it clear that an ability check covers everything that doesn’t have its own special rule (like saves and attacks), while skills and other proficiencies just modify an ability check when it falls under that proficiency. Again, it’s just a different focus. I’ve run games “5e style” for as long as I’ve run games. My players declare actions in terms of PC abilities (including skills) because it’s commonly understood shorthand. The situation described (By [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] ?) where they avoid the chance of failure by describing actions in character in hopes that they will just succeed without a roll doesn’t seem any different to me than boosting a few skills and angling to use them. It’s just gaming the rules to mitigate failure chance, either way, which is fine, but not something that really bears fruit at my table. If you say “I want to stealth past the guard” and roll stealth, and I wouldn’t have asked for a roll bc I don’t see your approach failing, I’m not gonna make it fail because you rolled low. That...would be absurd? I’ll either just ignore the roll or use it to determine something about your action other than success or failure in sneaking past the guard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
Top