D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[HammerMan]

This ... isn't a gotcha. The characters both roll and if they beat the guard's Passive Perception, they succeed.

that is what I would say too (I mean unless the guard was super inperceptive then maybe I would give the rogue an auto pass)

 

[Voadam]

We could think about narrative role: Kirk is skilled at getting kings to do things; Scotty can get the Enterprise to warp speed with nothing but the sweat of his brow and a Herbalist Kit.

Are you suggesting Scotty was on drugs?

 

[HammerMan]

It, of course, depends on what else is going on in the scene.

well I mean yeah we aren't really playing the whole night out here...

The 1st player has been very clear about their approach.

yeah, but CAN they describe there way to an auto success?

The 2nd player perhaps has not - I might ask them for clarification so I'm not making any undue assumptions about what their character is doing in the scene. Are they trying to crawl behind the guard? Are they sticking to the shadows on the opposite side? Like, be a little more specific so I have something to work with, you know?

I mean why? if they don't know what to do to be stealthy, why can't they fall back on "My character knows how to be unseen."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

yeah I get the feeling the 'magi words' crowd is okay with " the player just made a persuasion check on the DM" it just seems so weird to me that in an RPG you can just not RP your character but something not of your character and get it...

Quoting myself as a response:

Again (yes, this conversation has been had before) no one is requiring the player to say "the right thing". What is required: the player needs to say what the character wants to do and how. It needs to be reasonably specific - and no special expertise is needed. Example: "My PC sticks to the shadows on far side of the clearing to sneak past the guard." Then the DM adjudicates. That's how it works. If you still don't understand, I'm happy to answer questions for you.

 

[HammerMan]

Are you suggesting Scotty was on drugs?

you mean the whole crew wasn't?

 

[prabe]

It, of course, depends on what else is going on in the scene.

The 1st player has been very clear about their approach. The 2nd player perhaps has not - I might ask them for clarification so I'm not making any undue assumptions about what their character is doing in the scene. Are they trying to crawl behind the guard? Are they sticking to the shadows on the opposite side? Like, be a little more specific so I have something to work with, you know?

I can see wanting something from the player, to help adjudicate, but there are definitely times--though this Stealth check doesn't sound like one--where it seems reasonable to presume the character is competent in ways the player isn't, and has information the player doesn't. I generally presume the characters are competent and don't punish them unduly for clumsy or sparse declarations.

 

[HammerMan]

Quoting myself as a response:

okay so again

if you say there is not 'right or magic' words,

can someone with ANY SKILL at -1 and disadvantage to the roll describe an action that IF it needed a roll would fall under such negatives, describe better then someone with +9 and advantage IF it needed a roll would fall under such, and have the character with -1 disad auto succseed and the one with one with +9 adv auto fail?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

well I mean yeah we aren't really playing the whole night out here...

yeah, but CAN they describe there way to an auto success?

Why can't they? Did you already determine that a roll was necessary before getting input from the players in step 2 of the play loop?

I mean why? if they don't know what to do to be stealthy, why can't they fall back on "My character knows how to be unseen."

As DM, I'm describing the scene. I'm expecting the players to make some minimal effort to interact with it.

 

[HammerMan]

I can see wanting something from the player, to help adjudicate, but there are definitely times--though this Stealth check doesn't sound like one--where it seems reasonable to presume the character is competent in ways the player isn't, and has information the player doesn't. I generally presume the characters are competent and don't punish them unduly for clumsy or sparse declarations.

I mean the stealth across the room is most likely not the best example... but I have seen it with persuasion investigate and iintimidate way more then I care to admit

 

[pemerton]

The skill system in 4e and 5e are only superficially similar. People can argue otherwise and maybe even use them both in the same way in their home games, but RAW, they are nothing alike.

I can run a whole campaign in 5e without asking for ability checks while 4e has specific rules that call for skill checks every time a character jump or cast a ritual, for a example.

Doesn't 5e explicitly say that players call an action and the DM decides what check is made?

For the majority of ability checks, yes. Many game mechanics diverge from that.

From the 5e Basic PDF pp 64, 60:

Stealth​

While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in chapter 7.​

​

Hiding​

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. . . .​

​

When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score . . .​

From the 5e Basic PDF p 74:

Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. . . .

Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check, a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition (see appendix A). . . .

Escaping a Grapple. A grappled creature can use its action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.​

From the 5e Basic PDF p 97:

Maze
8th-level conjuration

You banish a creature that you can see within range into a labyrinthine demiplane. The target remains there for the duration or until it escapes the maze.

The target can use its action to attempt to escape. When it does so, it makes a DC 20 Intelligence check. If it succeeds, it escapes . . .​

None of the above strikes me as very different from 4e's jumping or ritual-type subsystems.

---

The 4e Rules Compendium chapter on skills opens with this (p 123):

Has a wizard studied ancient tomes that describe the nature of magic and the structure of the universe? Does a rogue have a golden tongue that can pass off the most outrageous lies as truth? Does a fighter have a knack for getting information out of people? In the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, questions such as these are answered by the skills a character possesses.​

The 5e Basic PDF has a heading "Skills" on p 58, which opens with this:

Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.​

The 4e passage is more colourful, but the actual content of each passage is pretty similar: the skills a character has represents their focus on, or ability in, some particular "knack" - the 5e text goes on to describe the various "knacks" under each ability score.

---

Page 125 of the 4e RC has a heading "Using Skills". It opens with this:

The Dungeon Master determines if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation and directs a player to make a check if circumstances call for one. A player often initiates a skill check by asking the DM if he or she can make one. Almost always, the DM says yes.​

The first sentence is not very different from this on p 58 of the 5e Basic PDF:

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.​

So, for instance, suppose that the PCs have just fought a combat in a cave, and it is already established that there are large boulders in the cave, and a player declares (as their PC), I want to roll one of the boulders so as to block the mouth of the cave. Resolution of this is not fundamentally different between 4e and 5e. In both, either the GM says No, the boulder is too heavy for that (perhaps using the lifting/carrying/dragging rules to help make the judgement call) or says OK, yep, fine, or calls for a check - in either system most likely STR. This is an example of what the 4e RC calls "Exploration". From p 15:

The Dungeon Master decides whether something the adventurers try actually works. Some actions automatically succeed (characters can usually move around without trouble); some actions require one or more checks (breaking down a locked door, for example); and some actions simply can’t succeed. Adventurers are capable of any deeds a strong, smart, agile, and well-armed human action hero can pull off.​

The 4e DMG (p 20) sets out a 3-step process for the GM to run "exploration" in this sense. It is almost identical to the 3-step play loop set out on pp 3 and 63 of the 5e Basic PDF.

---

So why is there that second sentence on p 125 of the 4e rulebook, about players often initiating checks? The real difference between 5e and 4e, as I see it, is not that 4e has subsystems that require skill checks and 5e doesn't (both do); nor that 4e might involve checks during (what it calls) exploration (so might 5e). It's that 4e has a systematic framework for resolving non-combat encounters - skill challenges - which require that players make checks and which create a context in which the GM says "yes" to player-initiated skill checks. (The 4e DMG p 75 says "In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no.") This is why players ask to make checks (and the GM says "yes"): because succeeding at checks is how the players achieve success in these non-combat challenges

This feature of 4e is reinforced by pp 179 and 259 of the 4e PHB:

A skill challenge is an encounter in which your skills, rather than your combat abilities, take center stage. In contrast to an obstacle that requires one successful skill check, a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter. . . . It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . . .

In a skill challenge, your goal is to accumulate a certain number of successful skill checks before rolling too many failures. . . . Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.​

Of course declared actions still have to map onto desired skills, as the DMG explains (p 75):

If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

But the basic premise of a skill challenge is that the players will be making checks; and it is expected that, everything else in the fiction being equal, the players will be attempting to overcome the challenge using skills in which their PCs are capable.

Whereas 5e does not have a general non-combat resolution framework in which player success is conditional upon making and succeeding . Eg consider the rules for travel, Basic PDF p 65:

Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission.​

​

Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.) . . .​

Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for tracking.)​

Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for foraging.)​

Rather than a skill challenge-type framework for resolving wilderness travel successfully, the framework is based around the GM calling for checks. The rules for social interaction are similar. From p 67 of the Basic PDF:

Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC’s attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC’s reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM’s discretion.​

​

Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills. If the group needs to trick a guard into letting them into a castle, the rogue who is proficient in Deception is the best bet to lead the discussion. When negotiating for a hostage’s release, the cleric with Persuasion should do most of the talking.​

As I said, to me this is where 5e and 4e are fundamentally different in respect of the role of skill checks. 4e has skill challenges which are resolved quite differently from (what it calls exploration. 5e does not. All non-combat resolution in 5e takes place via the approach that 4e calls exploration. Hence why in 5e players don't initiate skill checks in the same way that they do in 4e play.