D&D 5E When is it OK to let a player substitute one skill for another?

[Oofta]

Wow, I didn't realize that was hard ruled in 5e like that. I have only been a player (not DM) in 5e, and we definitely haven't been playing like that.

A lot of people don't play it that way and whether it's a "hard rule" is ... well let's just say I disagree. It's certainly one way.

Personally, I accept that different players are comfortable with different ways of expressing their character actions. I prefer that a player at least tell me what their PC is saying. Heck, I really enjoy doing the back-and-forth in-world dialog. But I don't expect a player to have an eloquent argument any more than I'd expect the person playing the barbarian to bench press the couch.

There are times when I'll clarify what the PC is saying, other times it's such a minor interaction I don't make a big deal out of it.

Do what makes sense for you and your group.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

They are, but the case they make has to be strong enough (and concise enough - if you need more than a two sentences to tell me why you should be able to use intimidation instead of athletics, no one is going to enjoy that) on its own. I'm fine with someone making a case after I've called for a specific roll. I might still tell them no, but as a DM, I am always open to being wrong. We're telling this story together, and if it makes more sense that a character would respond using a different skill or tool, I'm flexible enough to roll with it.

That's the weird part though, right? If they are good in a particular area, then they are incentivized to describe their actions in those terms so that, if they have to roll, it will be a roll they have a better chance at which to succeed.

If they're trying to do it after the ability check is called for, it's just too late. The DM has already determined the need for a check, the DC, and what happens on a failure based on what the player has already described relative to the fictional situation. So when I see stuff like this, it's almost always a sign that the player is not performing his or her role adequately. And possibly the DM jumping the gun on calling for a check without making sure everyone is on the same page.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot of people don't play it that way and whether it's a "hard rule" is ... well let's just say I disagree. It's certainly one way.

It is consistent with the text under the How To Play header in the PHB. Whether or not you consider that section “hard rules” is indeed debatable. And even if you interpret it as “hard rules” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with playing differently if you enjoy doing so.

Personally, I accept that different players are comfortable with different ways of expressing their character actions. I prefer that a player at least tell me what their PC is saying. Heck, I really enjoy doing the back-and-forth in-world dialog. But I don't expect a player to have an eloquent argument any more than I'd expect the person playing the barbarian to bench press the couch.

Worth noting, those of us who closely observe the basic pattern of play described in the How To Play section don’t expect a player to have an eloquent argument either. This is a common misapprehension of the playstyle.

There are times when I'll clarify what the PC is saying, other times it's such a minor interaction I don't make a big deal out of it.

Do what makes sense for you and your group.

“Do what makes sense for you and your group” is good advice.

 

[Oofta]

It is consistent with the text under the How To Play header in the PHB. Whether or not you consider that section “hard rules” is indeed debatable. And even if you interpret it as “hard rules” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with playing differently if you enjoy doing so.

Worth noting, those of us who closely observe the basic pattern of play described in the How To Play section don’t expect a player to have an eloquent argument either. This is a common misapprehension of the playstyle.

“Do what makes sense for you and your group” is good advice.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone requires an eloquent argument if that wasn't clear. It is something I juggle a bit myself though. If a player makes an eloquent argument, how much should it affect the game? I tend to adjust the DC (potentially to the point where no roll is needed) . But then is it just the player playing the DM because they know me? On the other hand I want PC actions and what they say to matter, I dislike games where what you do and say has no impact and it always goes back to a die roll with the exact same DC.

I also think every DM and every table needs to find their "voice" is all I wanted to emphasize.

 

[Deset Gled]

The way you're playing is certainly more in line with D&D 3.Xe and 4e so it's possible that approach carried over if some or all of your group plays or played those games. It's pretty common and the game doesn't break if you do it, but it does produce a different experience than what is probably intended by the rules as written.

You are dead on that my current group is mostly ex-3.X players, including the DM.

 

[iserith]

It is consistent with the text under the How To Play header in the PHB. Whether or not you consider that section “hard rules” is indeed debatable. And even if you interpret it as “hard rules” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with playing differently if you enjoy doing so.

See also PHB, page 174-175, "Ability Checks" including the section on skills which is what I paraphrased upthread.

 

[iserith]

They are, but the case they make has to be strong enough (and concise enough - if you need more than a two sentences to tell me why you should be able to use intimidation instead of athletics, no one is going to enjoy that) on its own. I'm fine with someone making a case after I've called for a specific roll. I might still tell them no, but as a DM, I am always open to being wrong. We're telling this story together, and if it makes more sense that a character would respond using a different skill or tool, I'm flexible enough to roll with it.

Yeah, I don't even have them make a case because my method sidesteps any disagreements short of the player clearly acting in bad faith. I would just find it weird that the player makes a case for A then tries to apply skill proficiency B. Just describe your actions in the context of skill proficiency B in the first place!

 

[Stormonu]

Now if a player asks “Can I use skill such-and-such to do so-and-so”, I don’t have a problem with that (usually), but one of the two of us needs to come up with how that pans out/looks - and I’m not always the one who’s going to have that answer (my players are a great bunch, and usually someone between the five or so of us can think up the associated narrative).

I do prefer, however, when players tell me what/how they’re trying to do something, and I can relay the mechanics how to accomplish it.

 

[Blue]

Generally when I run, I try to fit the fiction. If you are threatening someone to change their mind, it's going to be intimidation, not persuasion.

With one veteran group I play with, they are the ones coming to me. And if they convince me that their attempt to calm the beast is CHR (Survival), I go with it.

With other groups I need to be more guided. I often will give choice of multiple skills. Such as last night the ranger was scouting several minutes ahead and hiding, so was leaving signs for the group to follow. No roll for that. But then they needed to catch up in a hurry, so I gave the character that was racing ahead either a WIS (perception) or WIS (survival) roll, whichever was better. Because you could notice the marks or track and get there.

Sometimes players want to change the skill but doing so requires a change to the action. I explain the consequences of that (maybe different DC, maybe something else) and let them make an informed decision. For example recently I got asked about acrobatics to jump down a distance instead of climbing it. I told them that as an intentional jump down I'd reduce the fall distance by their acrobatic roll, but unless they got it to zero they'd end up prone even if they took no damage. Two of the PCs ended up doing that. The rogue with expertise got down perfectly safely, the sorceress ended prone but without damage. And the rogue now felt pretty heroic, which is always a win for the DM to make the players feel.

 

[Charlaquin]

Now if a player asks “Can I use skill such-and-such to do so-and-so”, I don’t have a problem with that (usually), but one of the two of us needs to come up with how that pans out/looks - and I’m not always the one who’s going to have that answer (my players are a great bunch, and usually someone between the five or so of us can think up the associated narrative).

I think in practice this looks similar to how I would handle being asked to use a skill. I would say that I’m hearing the player’s goal is so-and-so, and they think skill such-and-such will help them accomplish it, but that I still need to know what their character is doing to try and accomplish so-and-so. And if other players wanted to chime in with suggestions for what course of action the character might take to try and achieve that goal, that’s fine. But I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to make such suggestions, as in my assessment that’s the player’s role, not the DM’s.