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

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really. If the former is called for by a player, they are assuming Arcana will be added to the stat check, which isn't their call.

No such checks, regardless what they are called, are called for by the player.

Also, just calling for Arcana doesn't tell you what stat to roll.

Yes it does. Every skill has a default associated ability. Using another ability is an optional rule, and even if such a rule would be in use, the default still exists.

It is perfectly understandable that in practice people say "arcana check" instead of excessively loquacious "an intelligence check and add your proficiency bonus if you are trained in arcana."

 

[Parmandur]

It’s a variant rule in the DMG.

Oh, amd just for clarity: it is not a variant rule for a DM to gate checks behind Proficiency: saying that a PC has to have Proficiency to attempt something is totally a normal rule, and the published Adventures use that all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No such checks, regardless what they are called, are called for by the player.


Yes it does. Every skill has a default associated ability. Using another ability is an optional rule, and even such rule would be in use, the default still exists.

It is perfectly understandable that in practice people say "arcana check" instead of excessively loquacious "an intelligence check and add your proficiency bonus if you are trained in arcana."

Regardless, something like that is more accurate. I don't want to use stat defaults, as they tend to cause arguments (adding Medicine to Intelligence checks comes to mind).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The complaint is about players doing something perfectly reasonable and saying they shouldn't because of something told to DMs.

I mean, at some point everyone needs to learn the game and, indeed, the way their particular table is going to parse the rules. I don't think there need be any conflict or judgement involved in doing so. It can readily be done in a spirit of cooperation to attain the goals of play: have a good time and created a memorable story.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, at some point everyone needs to learn the game and, indeed, the way their particular table is going to parse the rules. I don't think there need be any conflict or judgement involved in doing so. It can readily be done in a spirit of cooperation to attain the goals of play: have a good time and created a memorable story.

I really don't get why it's so important to some people for the DM be the one to initiate a skill check in the first place. If the players knows they're doing a thing that they end up rolling a die for, then just roll the die.

Also, it's really hilarious that the 'simple' rules made talking about skill checks juuuust a step too unnecessarily complicated. "Roll Acrobatics? No, you fool, roll Dexterity (Acrobatics)." As if you're going to be routinely rolling Acrobatics with Charisma.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I really don't get why it's so important to some people for the DM be the one to initiate a skill check in the first place. If the players knows they're doing a thing that they end up rolling a die for, then just roll the die.

Some people are just following the guidance in the PHB (p 174): 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.

Also, it's really hilarious that the 'simple' rules made talking about skill checks juuuust a step too unnecessarily complicated. "Roll Acrobatics? No, you fool, roll Dexterity (Acrobatics)." As if you're going to be routinely rolling Acrobatics with Charisma.

Ok. I don't think anyone here is calling anyone else a fool but maybe I missed something upthread.

 

[iserith]

Also, it's really hilarious that the 'simple' rules made talking about skill checks juuuust a step too unnecessarily complicated. "Roll Acrobatics? No, you fool, roll Dexterity (Acrobatics)." As if you're going to be routinely rolling Acrobatics with Charisma.

It works better in my view if the DM just asks for the ability check (e.g. "Make a Dexterity check...") and the player adds the proficiency that aligns with what the player described as wanting to do, if the character has it. D&D 3e and 4e trained people to call for the "skill check" or see tasks in terms of "skill checks". "Skill check" isn't even a thing in D&D 5e. In D&D 5e, the ability check comes first. The skill or tool proficiency is truly secondary, and often unnecessary, though it certainly helps.

It also means the DM needs only remember 6 ability checks instead of all the skills and tools. So yeah, it is simpler in my view.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It works better in my view if the DM just asks for the ability check (e.g. "Make a Dexterity check...") and the player adds the proficiency that aligns with what the player described as wanting to do, if the character has it. D&D 3e and 4e trained people to call for the "skill check" or see tasks in terms of "skill checks". "Skill check" isn't even a thing in D&D 5e. In D&D 5e, the ability check comes first. The skill or tool proficiency is truly secondary, and often unnecessary, though it certainly helps.

It also means the DM needs only remember 6 ability checks instead of all the skills and tools. So yeah, it is simpler in my view.

Is it really though?

Like is it easier to remember to roll an Intelligence check modified by being trained in History rather than just remembering 'History'?

Where is it honestly easier to remember the ability instead of the skill? In fact, I'd argue that the only place two skills can be conflated; Insight vs Perception, would make this worse, not better.

 

[iserith]

Is it really though?

Like is it easier to remember to roll an Intelligence check modified by being trained in History rather than just remembering 'History'?

Where is it honestly easier to remember the ability instead of the skill? In fact, I'd argue that the only place two skills can be conflated; Insight vs Perception, would make this worse, not better.

Seems to me remembering 6 categories of things rather than 18 skills and like 40ish tools is much simpler.

If the task with the uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure sounds like it's going to take some muscles, then call for Strength. If the wizard's thinking real hard trying to recall something or making deductions, then call for Intelligence. And so on. Easy. The player can ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies per the rules (or in my games, just declare it after I ask for the ability check).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Seems to me remembering 6 categories of things rather than 18 skills and like 40ish tools is much simpler.

But you're remembering 6 categories paired to 18 skills instead of just 18 skills is my point. We added an extra step.

As for tools; a decade in can we finally just admit no one uses them?

If the task with the uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure sounds like it's going to take some muscles, then call for Strength. If the wizard's thinking real hard trying to recall something or making deductions, then call for Intelligence. And so on. Easy. The player can ask if a skill or tool proficiency applies per the rules (or in my games, just declare it after I ask for the ability check).

Except it rarely just 'calls for muscles' or generic thinkiness. The strong guy is trying to do something Athletic and the wizard is trying to weasel his way out of spending a slot or admitting you beat him in the guessing game that is spell preparation.