D&D 5E Ability Score / Skill Rolls

[muppetmuppet]

Clearly you need a 4e style skill challenge

 

[Scott Christian]

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)

You are correct. There is any extra step of cognition in yours: the player knowing they are trained in the skill. There have been so many players, I can't even count how many, that look at their character sheet. The sheet is not fluid with the steps you describe. The sheet say O +7 Acrobatics. So they look at the sheet, see if their little bubble is filled in, then add their strength plus proficiency. Or, for the ones that skip that step, they look at their ability score bonus, then deduce whether they've added their proficiency, then make the final calculation.

I know what many are thinking, players only do this at level one or very novice players. I can assure, that is not true. If you have a group of eight, and they all know their bonuses inside and out - great! But, in my experience, that is not the case.

 

[Oofta]

I know in theory we're "supposed to" ask for a Strength (Athletics) skill or whatever. But honestly, it's always felt clumsy and unintuitive. I mean, if I really want an athletics check then the fact that we add strength modifier to the final number isn't particularly relevant. All that matters is adding all modifiers together from whatever source for the final number.

Especially with new players, it's just easier to say "Give me an athletics check - it's on the list of skills on the left hand side of your sheet."

In addition once in a blue moon I'll ask for a straight check when I don't think any specific training or proficiency would help.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I know in theory we're "supposed to" ask for a Strength (Athletics) skill or whatever. But honestly, it's always felt clumsy and unintuitive. I mean, if I really want an athletics check then the fact that we add strength modifier to the final number isn't particularly relevant. All that matters is adding all modifiers together from whatever source for the final number.

Especially with new players, it's just easier to say "Give me an athletics check - it's on the list of skills on the left hand side of your sheet."

In addition once in a blue moon I'll ask for a straight check when I don't think any specific training or proficiency would help.

With my group, it's assumed that if you ask for a skill check and don't specify the attribute, that it should use the default attribute.

To climb a tree you might call for an Athletics check, which is assumed to be a Strength Athletics check.

To climb a mountain under grueling conditions that would test your endurance, a Constitution Athletics check might be called for.

 

[Oofta]

With my group, it's assumed that if you ask for a skill check and don't specify the attribute, that it should use the default attribute.

To climb a tree you might call for an Athletics check, which is assumed to be a Strength Athletics check.

To climb a mountain under grueling conditions that would test your endurance, a Constitution Athletics check might be called for.

If I think some other ability score would apply I'll specify that as well.

There are times when I'll ask for X but say they can apply ability A or B. So that wizard can use charisma or intelligence on their persuasion check in certain situations.

But the vast majority of times the base ability applies.

 

[iserith]

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.

Right, plus it sidesteps the issue of the DM hearing an approach to a goal and thinking "Persuasion" and the player is thinking "Deception" then having to hash all that out. All I have to do is think, ah, character is trying to influence an NPC, the approach to the goal makes this uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, so Charisma check with a DC of X.

Ultimately, as long as the players are reasonably specific with their goal and approach, adjudication in this manner is very easy.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are correct. There is any extra step of cognition in yours: the player knowing they are trained in the skill. There have been so many players, I can't even count how many, that look at their character sheet. The sheet is not fluid with the steps you describe. The sheet say O +7 Acrobatics. So they look at the sheet, see if their little bubble is filled in, then add their strength plus proficiency. Or, for the ones that skip that step, they look at their ability score bonus, then deduce whether they've added their proficiency, then make the final calculation.

I know what many are thinking, players only do this at level one or very novice players. I can assure, that is not true. If you have a group of eight, and they all know their bonuses inside and out - great! But, in my experience, that is not the case.

Oh, absolutely, the official character sheet is poorly laid out for ability-first checks. So don’t use the official character sheet.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know in theory we're "supposed to" ask for a Strength (Athletics) skill or whatever. But honestly, it's always felt clumsy and unintuitive. I mean, if I really want an athletics check then the fact that we add strength modifier to the final number isn't particularly relevant. All that matters is adding all modifiers together from whatever source for the final number.

Especially with new players, it's just easier to say "Give me an athletics check - it's on the list of skills on the left hand side of your sheet."

In addition once in a blue moon I'll ask for a straight check when I don't think any specific training or proficiency would help.

That is indeed easier if you are asking for both the ability and the skill being checked. I only ask for the ability, and I allow the player to decide if they have a relevant proficiency.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That is indeed easier if you are asking for both the ability and the skill being checked. I only ask for the ability, and I allow the player to decide if they have a relevant proficiency.

Out of curiosity, how do you handle it if the player lacks the information to make that determination?

For example, the character comes across a name in a dusty journal. The DM knows that this is the name of an obscure saint (or whatever) from long ago, but the character/player doesn't necessarily know that. Do you still ask for an Intelligence check or do you handle it some other way?

 

[iserith]

Out of curiosity, how do you handle it if the player lacks the information to make that determination?

For example, the character comes across a name in a dusty journal. The DM knows that this is the name of an obscure saint (or whatever) from long ago, but the character/player doesn't necessarily know that. Do you still ask for an Intelligence check or do you handle it some other way?

For my part, the player has to describe what he or she wants to do (e.g. recall the significance of the name based on their studies at the world's greatest libraries) before the DM can call for an Intelligence ability check, provided that there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Once the player does that, it should be fairly obvious which skill proficiency may apply (i.e. History or Religion).