D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Parmandur]

Makes sense. I didn't play 3e or 4e, so anything that might have been normalized for some people during those editions would be lost on me.

In 3E, the DCs for various actions were actually set down in the books, and it was pretty normal for people to call oit what they were rolling without the DM calling for a roll first based on their preexisting knowledge of what the DC should be. Which is what some people here are saying they want back: in 5E, the DM should request the roll, and arbitrate what the DC is with their common sense, and some people miss the metagame...

 

[overgeeked]

Makes sense. I didn't play 3e or 4e, so anything that might have been normalized for some people during those editions would be lost on me.

I skipped 2E and 3X, but played 4E for the life of the edition. It was not a thing I experienced at all during 4E.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've played a long minute and I've never been in a game where the players didn't initiate at least some of their skill checks.

If you're actively jumping and climbing, it just saves time to just rill the check instead of waiting for a prompt.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've played a long minute and I've never been in a game where the players didn't initiate at least some of their skill checks.

If you're actively jumping and climbing, it just saves time to just rill the check instead of waiting for a prompt.

In 5e, there is the concept of auto-success. Why would a player want to initiate an ability check when those rolls, per the DMG, come with a meaningful consequence of failure? Just assume auto-success to your declared actions unless the DM decides to adjudicate otherwise.

I think @Parmandur has the right of it. Some people bring playstyles/procedures/assumptions from older versions of the game into their 5e game. And, while that works well for some tables, others lay blame on 5e for those same procedures creating a... suboptimal... play experience at their table.

 

[Parmandur]

In 5e, there is the concept of auto-success. Why would a player want to initiate an ability check when those rolls, per the DMG, come with a meaningful consequence of failure? Just assume auto-success to your declared actions unless the DM decides to adjudicate otherwise.

I think @Parmandur has the right of it. Some people bring playstyles/procedures/assumptions from older versions of the game into their 5e game. And, while that works well for some tables, others lay blame on 5e for those same procedures creating a... suboptimal... play experience at their table.

Jeremy Crawford, when he was answering questions on Twitter, pointed out how often rules problems brought to his attention were people not actually applying 5E rules, but mixing in 3E or AD&D rules ad hoc and creating weird interactions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 5e, there is the concept of auto-success. Why would a player want to initiate an ability check when those rolls, per the DMG, come with a meaningful consequence of failure? Just assume auto-success to your declared actions unless the DM decides to adjudicate otherwise.

Because that's a DM-facing rule that basically no one uses unless they're arguing on a forum?

How is the non=Dm player who never DM's even supposed to know this is a thing? How will they know that the DM will use it?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because that's a DM-facing rule that basically no one uses unless they're arguing on a forum?

How is the non=Dm player who never DM's even supposed to know this is a thing? How will they know that the DM will use it?

Because, presumably, their DM has read the DMG and walks them through the procedure the first time an ability check comes up in their 5e game?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because, presumably, their DM has read the DMG and walks them through the procedure the first time an ability check comes up in their 5e game?

That is a mass of assumptions that usually don't come up.

Now if that rule was in the Skills section of the PH where it belongs, maybe we'd have something.

 

[Parmandur]

Because, presumably, their DM has read the DMG and walks them through the procedure the first time an ability check comes up in their 5e game?

Expecting the DM to read the DMG? Crazy talk.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I tend to try to teach players the "better" way (of declaring their actions in-fiction over suggesting a skill-use) but I put up with them doing that because I don't like telling people how they HAVE to play.

If I think the action is an auto-success, I'll just mentally set the DC low enough that they succeed, even if they roll poorly. I think that the idea that you want to try to avoid rolling as much as possible is a weird one - whether you roll or not should not affect your success rate. (Though, if someone rolls low, I'll probably narrate them doing something wrong that still results in success).

At any rate, it's true that a lot of the time people play the way they are most used to playing, even if the playstyle that they're using more properly belongs in another edition (and the above tendency is definitely from 3.x).