Phrasing a Skill Check that Requires Proficiency

LordEntrails · Mar 31, 2018

Is their a standard sentence or phrasing for how to specify or indicate that a skill check requires proficiency in a specific skill?

The normal phrasing is:
"A DC 15 Intelligence (Arcana) check reveals the ward radiates faint conjuration magic."

But, if the skill check requires proficiency in Arcana, would this be the proper wording?
"A DC 15 Arcana (proficiency required) check reveals the ward radiates faint conjuration magic."

P.S. Please realize I don't wish to discuss if requiring proficiency is; RAW, good, bad or otherwise. I just would like advice regarding how to word this in a product for publication assuming it's the right use or ruling.

Hjorimir · Mar 31, 2018

I think your proposed wording would work fine.

jgsugden · Mar 31, 2018

Other than you taking out the word Intelligence, your wording seems great.

MarkB · Mar 31, 2018

I'd go with "A character who is proficient in the <skillname> skill may make a <statname> (<skillname>) check to examine the item", then discuss check DCs and results.

LordEntrails · Apr 1, 2018

Thanks all.

jgsugden said:
Other than you taking out the word Intelligence, your wording seems great.

I wanted to make clear is was not an intelligence check. To me, intelligence there would contradict the proficiency required part. Thoughts?

MarkB said:
I'd go with "A character who is proficient in the <skillname> skill may make a <statname> (<skillname>) check to examine the item", then discuss check DCs and results.

I was trying to keep as close as I could with official examples. Do you think the extra verbiage of your format add clarity? Or I guess a better question, do you think the format I did was not clear enough?

MarkB · Apr 1, 2018

LordEntrails said:
I was trying to keep as close as I could with official examples. Do you think the extra verbiage of your format add clarity? Or I guess a better question, do you think the format I did was not clear enough?

I think the format you used was clear enough, but it was a somewhat technical way of phrasing it. I tend to find that 5e often goes with a more natural, almost conversational form of phrasing.

Ristamar · Apr 1, 2018

LordEntrails said:
Thanks all.

I wanted to make clear is was not an intelligence check. To me, intelligence there would contradict the proficiency required part. Thoughts?

I don't think it would be a contradiction. In the core rules, all uses of skills are ability checks modified by skill proficiency. If anything, not calling it an Intelligence check is a contradiction of the rules.

With the above in mind, assuming proficiency is required and a basic Intelligence check reveals nothing of note, perhaps something akin to this might be more appropriate:

"A character proficient in Arcana can attempt a DC 15 Intelligence (Arcana) check to reveal <information>."

Mistwell · Apr 1, 2018

LordEntrails said:
Thanks all.

I wanted to make clear is was not an intelligence check. To me, intelligence there would contradict the proficiency required part. Thoughts?

That's not really how skills work in 5e though. It's always an ability check. The skill is part of the check. If you remove the ability part of it, a lot of stuff suddenly doesn't work because it all specifies ability checks. So it would have to be "Intelligence (Arcana)(Proficiency Required in Arcana)" or something like what Ristamar said.

Satyrn · Apr 1, 2018

Does this work for you: "A DC 15 Intelligence (Arcana; proficiency required) check reveals the ward radiates faint conjuration magic."

iserith · Apr 1, 2018

"A character proficient in [Skill] can perform [specific task] to discover [result] if he or she succeeds at an DC X [Ability (Skill)] check."

If you're going to override the DM and establish that there is uncertainty by default, I suggest tying it to a specific task. You might even want to specify why there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the task. That task in this circumstance gets this check because reasons.