D&D 5E Ability Score / Skill Rolls

[Charlaquin]

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.

This is a pretty common sentiment, and I think it’s a perfectly valid way to handle things. Personally, I’m not particularly bothered by players getting information in this way. Although I also don’t think the old “insight check to see if the shop keeper is lying” thing is the best example because it really doesn’t resemble the way social interactions look in my games. But, yeah, I understand and empathize the whole “the players will know there’s nothing to be found if you don’t call for a Perception check when they search for something” concern, but for me the gameplay experience only improved when I decided to just stop worrying about it and be ok with giving the players information. YMMV, there is no one true way, etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

• When a PC is pretending to be someone else, should they use a performance check for acting or a deception check?

Deception.

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?

When the DM says it does.

It's pretty obvious in real life when your buddy stops trying to convince you of something, and when he's bullying you into accepting it.

A PC wants to do some parkour moves. Is the proper skill athletics or acrobatics?

Climbing and jumping? Athletics.

 

[Harzel]

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.

This is an interesting example because it brings up something that frequently bothers me about examples that people give of ability check situations. To me, in this scenario, there are two sources of uncertainty. There is, as you've mentioned, the possible uncertainty of whether the NPC will be compliant. But first - crush a rock with your hand? Um, maybe? I don't see why a PC should get a pass on succeeding on an uncertain task just because they use it as the 'approach' to accomplish something else. I'd be asking for a STR check to determine how the first step went first (the possible negative consequences include injury and looking foolish). (Or maybe you were just ignoring this for the sake getting to your main point for the example?)

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an interesting example because it brings up something that frequently bothers me about examples that people give of ability check situations. To me, in this scenario, there are two sources of uncertainty. There is, as you've mentioned, the possible uncertainty of whether the NPC will be compliant. But first - crush a rock with your hand? Um, maybe? I don't see why a PC should get a pass on succeeding on an uncertain task just because they use it as the 'approach' to accomplish something else. I'd be asking for a STR check to determine how the first step went first (the possible negative consequences include injury and looking foolish). (Or maybe you were just ignoring this for the sake getting to your main point for the example?)

I was brushing over that aspect for the sake of the example, yeah. Examples like this are generally lacking sufficient context for me to make a solid ruling on, so a lot of unspoken assumptions go into them. I assume any character using “crush a rock with my bare hands” as an approach is probably one who can do so reliably. If the scrawny wizard suggested it or whatever, I’d probably rule it doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. In general though, I try to avoid having to use multiple consecutive checks to resolve an action.

 

[NotAYakk]

I was brushing over that aspect for the sake of the example, yeah. Examples like this are generally lacking sufficient context for me to make a solid ruling on, so a lot of unspoken assumptions go into them. I assume any character using “crush a rock with my bare hands” as an approach is probably one who can do so reliably. If the scrawny wizard suggested it or whatever, I’d probably rule it doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. In general though, I try to avoid having to use multiple consecutive checks to resolve an action.

The kind of rock you can crush is a function of strength, snd how impressive that is a function of the rock.

So a Strength check, modified by intimidation, rather than a Charisma(Athletics) check.

Or, a strength check for the rock crushing, followed by a charisma check at advantage if the crush succeeded.

 

[Horwath]

I would say that this could be worked like tools synergy described in XGE with tool proficiency:

Parkour: Athletics check, but if you have proficiency in acrobatics, roll with advantage

Same for intimidate, if you demonstrate your strength you might get an advantage on your intimidation roll,

Or for performance and History, it's easier to entertain and audience if you play to their ear.

 

[Charlaquin]

The kind of rock you can crush is a function of strength, snd how impressive that is a function of the rock.

So a Strength check, modified by intimidation, rather than a Charisma(Athletics) check.

Or, a strength check for the rock crushing, followed by a charisma check at advantage if the crush succeeded.

That’s a fine ruling. It’s not the one I would make.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

...

I think the way you are doing is actually more in line with what 5e designers had in mind.

Probably, the other way i.e. thinking what skill first and ability as a consequence is a habit developed in 3e-4e, so many DMs and players who come from the previous 2 editions might be strongly used to that habit.

Either approach has its merits and drawbacks:

1) "Ability first, then skill as a bonus" is grounded on the idea that PCs should be encouraged to try anything. Everyone has all the 6 ability scores, therefore if trying anything is about putting one ability to use, everyone can try anything.

2) "Skill first, then ability as a bonus" focuses on a PC's set of proficiencies to determine (or at least suggest) what they can and cannot do. Most DMs then require a specific ability, but as a variant you can keep it flexible or even let the player choose as long is reasonable.

Note that the game doesn't say that if you are not proficient you cannot try. But it also doesn't say that if you are proficient you can try. It just says that DM determines if you can try or not.

Therefore, approach 1) and 2) are mostly about players perception, not really changing how things work.

On the other hand, approach 2) can be more easily taken further by a DM who actually wants only proficient PCs to be able to do certain things, and this is why I still prefer this approach.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

• "I am this person" - Cha (Performance) or maybe (Deception).
• "I am this person and therefore you should do this" - Probably Deception.

• 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?

  Both are Charisma checks. I'd probably listen to how the player is phrasing it, or let them pick either.

• A PC wants to do some parkour moves. Is the proper skill athletics or acrobatics?

Parkour is not a single skill. Parkour is something that you can do with skills.
Climbing, jumping, or moving across the city rapidly? Athletics.
Dropping down to the ground, or moving along a narrow or slippery surface? Acrobatics.
Showing off to impress people? Cha(Acrobatics) or Dex(Performance) maybe?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the way you are doing is actually more in line with what 5e designers had in mind.

Probably, the other way i.e. thinking what skill first and ability as a consequence is a habit developed in 3e-4e, so many DMs and players who come from the previous 2 editions might be strongly used to that habit.

Either approach has its merits and drawbacks:

1) "Ability first, then skill as a bonus" is grounded on the idea that PCs should be encouraged to try anything. Everyone has all the 6 ability scores, therefore if trying anything is about putting one ability to use, everyone can try anything.

2) "Skill first, then ability as a bonus" focuses on a PC's set of proficiencies to determine (or at least suggest) what they can and cannot do. Most DMs then require a specific ability, but as a variant you can keep it flexible or even let the player choose as long is reasonable.

Note that the game doesn't say that if you are not proficient you cannot try. But it also doesn't say that if you are proficient you can try. It just says that DM determines if you can try or not.

Therefore, approach 1) and 2) are mostly about players perception, not really changing how things work.

On the other hand, approach 2) can be more easily taken further by a DM who actually wants only proficient PCs to be able to do certain things, and this is why I still prefer this approach.

Solid analysis. I would add that an advantage of ability first then skill is that when determining what kind of check to call for, the DM only has to weigh between 6 types optioms instead of 18 (or 24 if you include unmodified ability checks). That’s a third to a quarter of the cognitive load for the DM to bare, and relieves them of the burden of determining if this or that physical stunt should fall under Acrobatics or Athletics, or this or that particular falsehood should fall under Performance or Deception.