D&D 5E Ability Score / Skill Rolls

[iserith]

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.

Player describes what he or she wants to do. DM asks for ability check. Player assigns a skill proficiency based on what he or she described and rolls.

What is slowing the game down here?

 

[Oofta]

Different players take different approaches (same player even) to let me know what their PC is attempting.

So there's a lot of variety. Personally I'd rather have the player of the half-orc describe how they're looming over the guard before picking them up by the front of their shirt and growling menacingly. Then I can ask for an intimidation using either strength or charisma player's choice.

There are simply times where I'll call for checks as I describe a scene. This is particularly for knowledge checks.

Other times the player will ask if they can use some skill and then it just depends. Are they clear on what they're doing? Is it appropriate?

Of course there are times when I won't ask for any checks at all if someone is trained or have special expertise/background.

Last, but not least, I don't think there is one true way for my players or other DMs. I encourage a descriptive style of play, but some people just don't think that way or enjoy it. Sometimes it's just easier to ask for a religion check to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Well, here’s the thing. I assess whether a check is required and if so with what ability and at what DC based on both the approach (in this case grabbing a rock and crushing it with their bare hands while looking at the NPC menacingly) and the goal (in this case, presumably getting the NPC to do something they want).

So first I’d ask myself, does this approach have a reasonable chance of succeeding in accomplishing the goal? This will depend on the specifics of what the player wants to get the NPC to do, as well as the personality and character traits of the the NPC in question, but for the sake of this example let’s assume the answer is yes. Likewise for if the approach has a reasonable chance of failing to accomplish the goal.

Once I’ve established that success and failure are both possibilities, I would ask myself if there’s a cost for the attempt or a consequence for failure. This will again depend on the personality of the NPC, as well as the circumstances under which the action is taking place. If there is no cost or consequence, I’ll just default to the action succeeding and narrate the results. Again, for the sake of this example, let’s assume there is a cost or consequence. Maybe this NPC doesn’t respond well to threats and is therefore liable to become hostile on a failure. Ok, stakes established.

If I’ve gotten this far, it’s time to decide the appropriate ability to check and the difficulty. So I go back to the goal and the approach and ask myself what ability would this approach hinge upon to be successful at achieving this goal. Does being stronger make the crushing of a rock while starring at someone more likely to get them to do what you want? Personally, I don’t think so. If the NPC is going to be cowed into doing what you ask by seeing you crush a rock, they’re going to be cowed by it no matter how big your muscles are. What this action accomplishing this goal really depends most on, if you ask me, is how convincingly you can sell the implicit “this will be your head if you don’t comply,” and that’s all in the stare. That’s a Charisma check.

Finally, I’ll decide if it’s easy, medium, or hard. Since we’ve established that this character doesn’t respond well to threats, I’m thinking hard. So I ask the player to “Make a DC 20 Charisma check. On a fail, he’ll become hostile.”

Now, the player is free to decide if any of their Proficiencies are appropriate to add to the check. Intimidation and Athletics both seem like obvious choices to me. A less obvious but still entirely appropriate proficiency to add might be mason’s tools, reasoning that knowledge of stoneworking would allow the character to know the best way to apply pressure to make the rock break more easily. A dwarf character might even use the same reasoning to apply double their proficiency bonus for Stonecunning.

 

[Scott Christian]

Player describes what he or she wants to do. DM asks for ability check. Player assigns a skill proficiency based on what he or she described and rolls.

What is slowing the game down here?

That is not what I'm reading from their replies. I could be wrong, but what I read is:
Player wants to climb, but doesn't want to use athletics as stated in the PHB. Wants to use acrobatics. The DM says, use acrobatics, but apply strength as the ability. So now, it is roll + strength bonus + (acrobatics bonus - dex bonus). Instead of roll and add your acrobatics bonus.

This slows the game down. Granted lots of players can do this in their sleep, but the decision making, math, etc. add up, especially for novice players.

 

[Krachek]

I think DM should avoid to lazy shortcut from players.
if not, performance can become a super skill usable for intimidate, deception, persuade and even some other checks...
persuade should be focus on mutual agreement
intimidation work for harsh and coerce rapid result
and deception is the silver tongue for either slight malicious gain to death trap.

 

[iserith]

That is not what I'm reading from their replies. I could be wrong, but what I read is:
Player wants to climb, but doesn't want to use athletics as stated in the PHB. Wants to use acrobatics. The DM says, use acrobatics, but apply strength as the ability. So now, it is roll + strength bonus + (acrobatics bonus - dex bonus). Instead of roll and add your acrobatics bonus.

This slows the game down. Granted lots of players can do this in their sleep, but the decision making, math, etc. add up, especially for novice players.

That indeed sounds like a mess, but not how I do it. I'm calling for the Strength check and then the player can add the appropriate skill proficiency bonus, if any. No back and forth and no misunderstandings as to which skill proficiency applies.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is not what I'm reading from their replies. I could be wrong, but what I read is:
Player wants to climb, but doesn't want to use athletics as stated in the PHB. Wants to use acrobatics. The DM says, use acrobatics, but apply strength as the ability. So now, it is roll + strength bonus + (acrobatics bonus - dex bonus). Instead of roll and add your acrobatics bonus.

This slows the game down. Granted lots of players can do this in their sleep, but the decision making, math, etc. add up, especially for novice players.

You’re adding an unnecessary calculation in there. Instead of Strength Modifier + [Dexterity (Acrobatics) bonus - Dexterity Modifier], you can simply do Strength Modifier + Proficiency bonus (or double proficiency bonus if you have expertise in acrobatics, or half proficiency bonus if you lack expertise in acrobatics but have jack of all trades)

 

[Oofta]

Not to start an unrelated war (because I don't think there's any one true way) but ...

There are times when I will allow for a check when I know there is no chance of success or failure because if I don't I am effectively giving information I may not want to give out.

If the players suspect that a shop keeper is lying but is actually telling the truth, I'm not going to stop them from getting an insight check if they want one.

If I give them one and they get a low roll they are still uncertain. If they roll high they think he's probably telling the truth - but then again insight isn't lie detection.

The only way they'll know for certain the shopkeeper is telling the truth is if I don't allow an insight check or don't ask for one when I normally would.

So that's my logic and reasoning for having players roll a check when I know what the result will be.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

You’re adding an unnecessary calculation in there. Instead of Strength Modifier + [Dexterity (Acrobatics) bonus - Dexterity Modifier], you can simply do Strength Modifier + Proficiency bonus (or double proficiency bonus if you have expertise in acrobatics, or half proficiency bonus if you lack expertise in acrobatics but have jack of all trades)

I have done exactly this more and more recently. If you want an unusual ability check just saying "roll X ability and add your proficiency bonus" causes way less confusion than "d Y skill check with X ability bonus", which tends to really confuse people who are either less familiar with mechanics or just not great at math. It also great when there is something like a "persuasion, performance, or deception situation" to just say "you can add your proficiency bonus", rather than actually decide on assigning what they are doing to a particular skill. It sets a much narrower precedent for the little rules lawyer inside everyone.

And once you are in the "roll X ability and add your proficiency bonus" habit it is a game mechanic you can use for all sorts of "situational proficiencies" rather than advantage. Goliath doesn't have Survival proficiency but we're searching for trails in high mountains like the ones they grew up in: roll with proficiency. Doing some unclassifiable thing it seems like their character, taken holistically, would probably be experienced in: roll with proficiency.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have done exactly this more and more recently. If you want an unusual ability check just saying "roll X ability and add your proficiency bonus" causes way less confusion than "d Y skill check with X ability bonus", which tends to really confuse people who are either less familiar with mechanics or just not great at math. It also great when there is something like a "persuasion, performance, or deception situation" to just say "you can add your proficiency bonus", rather than actually decide on assigning what they are doing to a particular skill. It sets a much narrower precedent for the little rules lawyer inside everyone.

And once you are in the "roll X ability and add your proficiency bonus" habit it is a game mechanic you can use for all sorts of "situational proficiencies" rather than advantage. Goliath doesn't have Survival proficiency but we're searching for trails in high mountains like the ones they grew up in: roll with proficiency. Doing some unclassifiable thing it seems like their character, taken holistically, would probably be experienced in: roll with proficiency.

Yeah, it’s an oft-overlooked advantage of proficiency bonuses being unified. Myself, I don’t even say “roll X with proficiency bonus if you have Y” any more. I just tell my players ahead of time that I’ll ask for ability checks and they can add their proficiency bonus if they think any of their proficiencies would be relevant.