D&D 5E Changing the Skill Check Paradigm

[Crothian]

The key is that the variant rule does not entitle players to choose the ability but rather makes the situation call for a different ability than usual.

I think the player can in some situations decide what attribute to use for a skill but that doesn't mean that the DC for the skill check is going to be the same no matter what attribute is used. Take climbing a wall for example. A person could try to use brute strength or agile dexterity to do so but the DC could be different for those two. And the DC can be different again for someone that tries to use Charisma to climb the wall.

 

[Thank Dog]

TL;DR -- Players making decisions is interesting, and allowing them to always cherry-pick to maximize their success is boring.

Actually from my perspective you've countered your own argument. In my experience players will simply not do something if they know there's a low chance of success. On paper what you're saying expands options but in actual play I've found it limits options. By allowing a more flexible approach players tend towards trying things they wouldn't do otherwise which makes things more interesting, not less.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

And the DC can be different again for someone that tries to use Charisma to [-]climb the wall[/-] kindly ask the wall to step aside.

FIFY

 

[KarinsDad]

Yup. The way the Variant method is meant to work is that DMs should be calling for Ability Checks, not Skill Checks. A situation comes up that requires a check, the DM determines which Ability Score applies to the situation, and then asks for a check against it. Only after that determination of Ability Score does the player or the DM decide whether or not a particular Skill a PC is proficient in could apply, and if it does, the player can add the proficiency Bonus on top of it.

Maybe this is a typo on your part, but the player decides?

Also, this could make a skill check a two step process instead of a one step. If as DM I ask for a Con check, then the players involved roll and get their total. With a skill check instead of a Con check, we would be done and those who passed the DC made the roll. But with this system, it seems now like the players who missed the ability check would start making suggestions as to skills that might apply so that they might get that bonus that you are talking about.

It seems like it might often be a situation of, "Oh, I missed that roll. Could Athletics apply?" after the fact. As opposed to a situation of "Can I apply Athletics to this check?" asked by the player ahead of time.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Actually from my perspective you've countered your own argument. In my experience players will simply not do something if they know there's a low chance of success. On paper what you're saying expands options but in actual play I've found it limits options. By allowing a more flexible approach players tend towards trying things they wouldn't do otherwise which makes things more interesting, not less.

Get better players. Or learn how to challenge them better.

If you've got players that are that risk-averse, then (a) you've been overly punitive for minor failures, (b) insufficiently flexible in setting up your challenges, or (c) they're a lost cause.

Pick the skill+stat works when you let the fluff determine the crunch; let them describe what they're doing and then tell them what the mechanical results of their action are. Letting them pick the result and then retconning the fluff is Doing It Wrong, IMO.

Edit: With the caveat, however, that there's always situations where the player or the GM misunderstands the situation and what the GM thinks the players is doing isn't what the player meant. Eg, the guard tells Duane to cough up the weapons, Duane says 'Hey, I remember you, we served together in the Marsh campaign' and the GM thinks he's bluffing, when really what the player means is 'I'm using my soldier background to help persuade him...'

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the player can in some situations decide what attribute to use for a skill but that doesn't mean that the DC for the skill check is going to be the same no matter what attribute is used. Take climbing a wall for example. A person could try to use brute strength or agile dexterity to do so but the DC could be different for those two. And the DC can be different again for someone that tries to use Charisma to climb the wall.

My wizard PC does this all of the time. I kindly ask the muscle bound fighter or cleric to throw my PC over the wall. Please.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually from my perspective you've countered your own argument. In my experience players will simply not do something if they know there's a low chance of success. On paper what you're saying expands options but in actual play I've found it limits options. By allowing a more flexible approach players tend towards trying things they wouldn't do otherwise which makes things more interesting, not less.

Several examples? People sometimes post things like this, but it tends to be abstract.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Currently my biggest annoyance with 5e is the skills. In fact, it's not even the skills so much as it is how they're still tied to abilities. Moreover, abilities that I don't feel make any sense in relation to how the skills predominantly work. In the case of Survival, for instance, I feel it has been shoehorned onto Wisdom solely to suit the ranger. And clerics being perceptive has bugged me ever since the Perception skill was introduced. And Animal Handling for riding using Wisdom just feels wrong in so many ways.

Every time I bring this subject up as a separate gripe about a particular skill, however, one of the common factors in retorts is, "You can just use a different ability for different situations." This, I already know. The problem stems from the assumption that a skill will always use the default ability score. Moreover, this assumption is intrinsically supported by the character sheet and the ability descriptions in the PHB. Due to these factors, breaking away from that paradigm is problematic in anything but a home game where I am the DM and even then, players gripe that their expectations are not met.

5e, however, does offer a possible "out" that could one day result in a turn-around of this paradigm. The default assumption for 5e isn't making a skill check, but rather an ability check and adding proficiency to it if you have a skill that relates to the task. This subtle alteration to the way in which skills work has, so far and in my experience, been overshadowed by player and DM assumptions as to how the system works, based on knowledge of previous system mechanics.

So I'm hoping that I can encourage players and DM's to divorce skills from default abilities. To do so I encourage players and DM's to make character sheets with only those skills with which the character has proficiency being listed and not associated in any way with ability scores. DM's asking players to make Ability Checks rather than skill checks and adding in that a player with proficiency in a certain skill can add it to the check. For instance, if a DM feels that Constitution makes more sense for a Perception (after all, eyes, ears, taste, touch & smell are all related to the healthy functioning of the body and nervous system) check, ask the players to make a Constitution Check and tell them to add their proficiency bonus if they're proficient in Perception. Or if they need to control a horse, a Dexterity Check and add their proficiency bonus if they're proficient in Animal Handling, etc.

Now, you might not agree with my above examples but that's actually something that I feel speaks in favour of this method. Your group does it their way instead of falling back on the default assumptions. Maybe Intelligence makes more sense to you for Perception checks. Maybe Strength makes more sense for Intimidate checks. Whatever the DM determines is appropriate in a particular situation and what players agree to is what it should be, not what everyone assumes it is because the character sheet has it written down and automatically calculated for them. In this way, this method also makes the skill system far more flexible and interesting.

To me, making an Ability Check with an ability that is appropriate to the situation, and adding proficiency with a skill that is appropriate to the situation, makes far more sense than the default assumptions that tie certain abilities to certain skills. It's also a very simple change to make but one that I feel will have a profound effect, for the positive, on people's games and experiences with the 5e system. But it is also a change that will require a certain amount of effort on a majority of people's parts in order for it to become the new paradigm. Breaking away from established methodologies is difficult at first but I think is worth the effort in the long run.

I agree in part - in 5e I like to say, make a wisdom check, if you have perception you can add it. Or make an intelligence check, if you have investigation or perception you can add it... kind of approach. Trying to highlight the 6 ability scores, but then either suggesting, or letting players suggest, what skill (or background) might assist with what they're attempting to do. It is hard to break the habit of just saying - perception check! or intimidate check! etc. I do think it is an important and reasonably subtle change from 4e to 5e, and I think it encourages player to try anything - esp at lower levels - because it's abilities first, skills second. Bounded accuracy, and perhaps flexible DCs depending on which skill a player wants to use, also help a DM be more flexible in their approach, which will trickle down to players and open up more options.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I agree in part - in 5e I like to say, make a wisdom check, if you have perception you can add it. Or make an intelligence check, if you have investigation or perception you can add it... kind of approach. Trying to highlight the 6 ability scores, but then either suggesting, or letting players suggest, what skill (or background) might assist with what they're attempting to do. It is hard to break the habit of just saying - perception check! or intimidate check! etc

To me, this is backwards. Tell me what you're doing, and I'll tell you what to roll. About the only time I say 'give me an X check' is when I'm trying to nudge them along because they're missing something I think is obvious, or they've gotten stuck in a rut and fixated on a red herring.

As an aside, I think Investigation is a stupid skill. Investigation is a what, not a how. You don't find a dead body with an arrow in the back and say 'I use Investigation to find something out.'

You investigate things by using History to recognize the type of arrowhead,or Nature to figure out what kind of bird the fletching comes from, or Medicine to note that the wound wouldn't have been immediately fatal and so he must have been shot elsewhere.

 

[the Jester]

To me, making an Ability Check with an ability that is appropriate to the situation, and adding proficiency with a skill that is appropriate to the situation, makes far more sense than the default assumptions that tie certain abilities to certain skills.

I agree, and was really fond of this when it was more heavily emphasized in the playtest.

That said, I do think it's pretty easy to use the "Ability Check + prof bonus if you have one" approach. You just have to break players of the habit of just glancing down at the number on the sheet.