D&D 5E Ability Score / Skill Rolls

[jgsugden]

I noticed a difference between how I approach ability score roles and how most DMs talk about them on these boards. I thought it might be useful for some people to hear the difference between the two approaches.

On these boards I often see arguments about which skill should apply. For example:

• When a PC is pretending to be someone else, should they use a performance check for acting or a deception check?
• When a PC is trying to be a bit heavy handed in persuading someone to do something, where does it cross from persuasion to intimidation?
• A PC wants to do some parkour moves. Is the proper skill athletics or acrobatics?

These approaches look for the proper skill to assign to a check.

When I look at these situations, I determine what ability score should be used and whether or not the character has a skill, tool proficiency, or background trait that would indicate they'd be proficient in it. This, generally speaking, makes the "is it a or b that applies" approach into a "if a or b applies" approach.

So, if a PC wants to pretend to be someone else, it would be a charisma check and they could add their proficiency bonus if trained in performance, deception or had a background trait that assisted with the deception (such as if they were pretending to be a sailor and had the sailor background).

When a PC wants to be heavy handed with someone to get them to do what they want, it might be intimidation or persuasion. I might grant them a proficiency bonus if they have neither skill if there is something in their background that would give them benefits in their current situation (such as the target knowing they have carried through on similar heavy handed persuasion in the past).

When a PC wants to do some parkour moves, I look at whether they are more finesse or muscle. If they require precision - it is a dexterity roll. If it is mostly about muscle, strength. Then, they might be able to add proficiency if they have either athletics or acrobatics.

And I get a bit fancier than that in practice. Parkour is a key example. I set high DCs and then allow a PC to add their proficiency if they have either athletics or acrobatics, but double their proficiency if they have both (similar to expertise).

Do other DMs think like I do here?

While you can theorycraft problems with this approach all day, in practice it has not been problematic at all. For example, people may think there is no point to having intimidation exist as persuasion usually can be argued to apply. While there is overlap, there are also a lot of situations where I decide you're not being diplomatic, and persuasion is really about diplomacy per the PHB description. It often boils down to - are you asking them to give you something with you not giving them reasonably fair value in return (intimidation) or is it you trying to convince them of something good for you and others (usually them). There is a hazy ground in the middle where what you're giving them may not be quite fair value - and I'd allow either skill to give you proficiency for the role there.

 

[Charlaquin]

For a long time I did exactly as you describe - ask for an ability check and suggest proficiencies that might be applicable. Gradually I moved from that to telling my players to ask if they can add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable. Now, I just tell them to add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable, they don’t need to double-check with me. They can if they’re unsure, but I don’t make that an expectation. I figure, worst case scenario, a player might take advantage to get an extra few points on a roll, but that’s not really any different than a player announcing a higher number than they actually rolled on the die, and I don’t take any special precautions against that. In my experience, the honor system is perfectly sufficient because most players want to play fair.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I usually just ask for the ability check and the players add the proficiency they think applies based on their stated approach to the goal. The key is not to ask for an ability check until you're clear on the player's goal and approach. Then it's fairly obvious what proficiency may apply to the check.

 

[Umbran]

On these boards I often see arguments about which skill should apply. For example:

• When a PC is pretending to be someone else, should they use a performance check for acting or a deception check?
• When a PC is trying to be a bit heavy handed in persuading someone to do something, where does it cross from persuasion to intimidation?
• A PC wants to do some parkour moves. Is the proper skill athletics or acrobatics?

These approaches look for the proper skill to assign to a check.

If it is unclear, I ask the player some variation of, "What are you trying to accomplish, and how are you going about it?"

In the end, if the thing is a bit ambiguous, I don't really care which of a variety of skills they try to apply - I'll just adjust the results accordingly.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is pretty much what I've done. If I'm not sure which skill is applicable (or even ability), I'll offer a choice to the player. I've done this frequently with Int/Investigation and Wis/Perception, because it can just be different methods of doing the same thing (although there are some uses that are specifically one or the other).

 

[Oofta]

I'm pretty lenient and once I know what the player is trying to do ask for X or Y. Sometimes they'll ask if they can use Z.

The skills don't even have to be all that related. For example, if there are historical records of some magical events then it could be either a history or arcana. If someone wants to use a different skill they can always ask.

I also let people use different skills, so that half-orc might flex their muscles or pick someone up by the front of their shirt to do an intimidate check with strength.

I do sometimes limit things though. If I think there are enough things to bounce or swing off of I may allow an acrobatics to "parkour" up instead of an athletics to climb. But a solid wall over 10 ft high or so it still going to be an athletics check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm pretty lenient and once I know what the player is trying to do ask for X or Y. Sometimes they'll ask if they can use Z.

The skills don't even have to be all that related. For example, if there are historical records of some magical events then it could be either a history or arcana. If someone wants to use a different skill they can always ask.

I also let people use different skills, so that half-orc might flex their muscles or pick someone up by the front of their shirt to do an intimidate check with strength.

I do sometimes limit things though. If I think there are enough things to bounce or swing off of I may allow an acrobatics to "parkour" up instead of an athletics to climb. But a solid wall over 10 ft high or so it still going to be an athletics check.

This is why I prefer to pick the ability and let the player pick the skill. Sure, you can add your acrobatics proficiency to the check to climb if you think that makes sense for the way you incision your character moving. But either way it’s a strength check. Trying to get someone to do what you want via implied or direct threat is Charisma in my book, but it’s your call if you think Intimidation or Athletics is more appropriate given the way you’re going about it. Doing research? Make an Intelligence check. If you’re proficient in History or Arcana and you think that’ll help, feel free to add your proficiency bonus.

Just my personal preference.

 

[NotAYakk]

This is why I prefer to pick the ability and let the player pick the skill. Sure, you can add your acrobatics proficiency to the check to climb if you think that makes sense for the way you incision your character moving. But either way it’s a strength check. Trying to get someone to do what you want via implied or direct threat is Charisma in my book, but it’s your call if you think Intimidation or Athletics is more appropriate given the way you’re going about it. Doing research? Make an Intelligence check. If you’re proficient in History or Arcana and you think that’ll help, feel free to add your proficiency bonus.

Just my personal preference.

So the player says "I grab a rock and crush it with my bare hands while looking at him menacingly".

They are trying to intimidate, but they are using their muscles to do it.

I suppose you'd ask for a Strength check. Would it be Strength(Intimidate) or Strength(Athletics), or let the PC pick?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'll generally just leave it to the players to decide which skill to use, if more than one applies. Just last session they came across a crevice and a log that had fallen across it. I let them choose between athletics and acrobatics.

Sometimes I'll also give them a choice, but indicate that one skill is more appropriate than the other (meaning the DC is lower).

 

[Scott Christian]

I like and have played all the above. But, one thing I do find with DM's assigning ability plus players pick a skill is that it slows the game down. If the skill roll is going to stop the game rather than cause an inconvenience or a resource drain, then it seems acceptable. But, from a fluidity standpoint, I go under the assumption that players picked the skills they want to shine in. Therefore, use that skill as is without changing the ability score attached. It may add realism, but it seems unnecessary at times.