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

[Maxperson]

Sigh.

My point is that if it turns out that most tables are playing 5e such that skills and abilities are used as actions* a la 3e and-or 4e then it's a safe bet that in 6e skills and abilities - whichever ones still exist - will by RAW be usable as actions.

* - which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Perhaps that's why they aren't used as actions in 5e

 

[HammerMan]

It seems to me that you presume that ability scores and proficiencies define how a player must play their character or how a DM must treat a character.

I mean... that IS the character.
yeah we flesh out our back stories we all have our own little flare, but yes 100% at the end of the day a Dex 8 character is below average dex, a cha 8 character is below average on force or personality and likeability...

Sure, if a player wants to invoke the fact that they have special training when describing what their PC is doing, it might earn them auto-success or it might allow them to use that proficiency for any roll that might be called. But I'm not setting DCs or declaring auto success/failure based on the character sheet. I'm doing that based on the approach the PC is taking to solving the challenge I've set before them.

the character sheet IS THE CHARACTER...

If the approach is one that is better, then yes. There are plenty of ways to describe approaches that do not require special expertise. I would caution that first player, though, that if they are not good at X they might not want to be the one to volunteer to do X as they will be worse off than the player that is good at X if a roll is called for.

ugh... wow I hate this style of DMing.... Sorry nothing personal but this seems like the worst.

I think it is also worth mentioning that, in game, the PCs can communicate to each other (most of the time). If the PC who is bad at X has a good idea, they could share it with the PC who is good at X. That way, the good X PC could give it a go. Seems like a good strategy, in some circumstances anyway.

You keep saying PC and I am a bit confused... if I have a great idea (me the player not the character) and the other player across the table is good at it can I just advise him OUT of game, or do we have pretend my CHARACTER (PC is player CHARACTER) is adviseing someone better then me?

"Fast talking", "magic words", "flowery language". No, just no. Can we avoid that language to have a productive discussion?

I don't know how else to say it but I will try.

Can a skilled player with an unskilled character have an esier time at a task then an unskilled player with a skilled character would? I think the answer is yes in your games.

Does it need to be said, just because a player described a great approach to a challenge (in 4 words or 40) does not mean that it will be granted auto-success.

but you weigh the out of game description over the in game ability...unless i am really off here.

Again, the players can roleplay their PCs however they like. Just better hope that the adjudication doesn't call for a roll because there really is no such thing as "roleplaying around the penalties" once the dice come out.

but as you and other point out if you describe it right you can avoid the die rolls.

Is that really how you envision our table?

based on how you describe it yes... now I assume you must have similar skill level of players that none have any handicap so you can do it and have it be fun for all... but I can't understand how you would introduce a less skilled or handi capped player to this.

If that truly bothers you, another approach is not to introduce puzzles that the players can solve "out of game".

or... you can make the character matter more then the player and as such they have to choose... play a character to there own strengths or realize they can not always use there own strengths.

 

[Cadence]

Yes!

If the approach to a particular challenge is exactly the same for different PCs then, if an ability check is called for, the DC would be exactly the same for each of them.

In a non-dangerous/non-stressful situation, is it common to let the pc whose taking 10 would work not roll and ask the one where it wouldn't to make a roll? Are those considered calling for an ability check even if you don't call the first one because you know they would succeed?

 

[HammerMan]

Yes!

If the approach to a particular challenge is exactly the same for different PCs then, if an ability check is called for, the DC would be exactly the same for each of them.

if the goal is to sneak past the guard and you aren't useing a skill ability spell or feature you have on your sheet in the game... you aren't getting a diffrent DC in my games.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I assume the PCs know what they are doing. If trying to get past a guard, they can of course use distractions, spells, whatever they want. Taking off your shoes? Nah. No need to add extraneous fluff.

What I was talking about was this post:


There's zero indication of the PC doing anything different, just that the player says something and waits for a response before making a check. It's the difference between "DM may I sneak past the guard" and waiting for permission and stating "I rolled a stealth of X to get past the guard."

You continue to mischaracterize the play at our table. You see that, right?

Again, no one is asking for permission to do anything at our table. The players are simply stating what their characters are doing in the fiction - and if there is any lack of clarity, the DM asks for more info. Period. If what their characters are doing has some uncertainty around success or failure, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, the DM calls for an ability check. That's it. Sound familiar?

The premise is, as I understand it, that the former would be auto success with no roll, the latter would depend on the roll.

I've already explained. Players don't just roll uncalled ability checks at our table so there is no former or latter for me to discuss.

If the DM changes their mind about the difficulty of the scenario in that specific situation, they are being a jerk.

Maybe the post wasn't clear. Maybe I misunderstood. Can we just discuss what was stated? Instead of moving the goalposts, can we address that specific, narrow scenario first?

I'm discussing what was stated. If you have more questions that would help clarify how I would handle that specific, narrow scenario., let me know.

 

[prabe]

In a non-dangerous/non-stressful situation, is it common to let the pc whose taking 10 would work not roll and ask the one where it wouldn't to make a roll? Are those considered calling for an ability check even if you don't call the first one because you know they would succeed?

How do you mean? An example would be helpful here.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In a non-dangerous/non-stressful situation, is it common to let the pc whose taking 10 would work not roll and ask the one where it wouldn't to make a roll? Are those considered calling for an ability check even if you don't call the first one because you know they would succeed?

In a non-dangerous/non-stressful situation - which I take to mean one without any stakes - I would not call for a roll as DM.

Also, there is no "taking 10" rule in 5e. At least not explicitly stated, as far as I am aware.

 

[Cadence]

How do you mean? An example would be helpful here.

Player says their character is trying to pick a lock on a door, DC is 15. Character 1 has a +6 bonus, character 2 has a -1 bonus. I would probably tell player 1 that they pick it fine with no roll, whereas I would have made character 2 roll.

And now I'm trying to think of whether stealth examples are all innately dangerous/stressful or not.

 

[prabe]

Also, there is no "taking 10" rule in 5e. At least not explicitly stated, as far as I am aware.

Closest thing is to allow anything (and everything) to be used passively.

 

[HammerMan]

Again...

You continue to mischaracterize the play at our table. You see that, right?

we really don't . I don't want to speak for others, but we are trying to peace togather your style of gaming and this is what we are getting

Again, no one is asking for permission to do anything at our table. The players are simply stating what their characters are doing in the fiction - and if there is any lack of clarity, the DM asks for more info. Period. If what their characters are doing has some uncertainty around success or failure, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, the DM calls for an ability check. That's it. Sound familiar?

and again the issue isn't any of that... its HOW your DM determines uncertainty. You said you don't take into account stat/skill , so you aren't determining IN GAME certainty/uncertainty.

a dex 24 rogue/monk with acrobatics +18 and Stealth +24 is a very diffrent character then a half orc dex 8 paladin with acrobatics -1 and stealth -1 (+disadvantage)

so when determining if something is certain for that rogue/monk it should look VERY different then for the Paladin.

I'm discussing what was stated. If you have more questions that would help clarify how I would handle that specific, narrow scenario., let me know.

I just want to understand at this point... like forget any 1 specific skill or ability, in general do you and your group look at your sheet at all for determining what your characters are capable of?