Giltonio_Santos
Hero
If I believe two skills would help a player in a given situation, I just let he/she roll one of them with advantage.
D&D 5E Do you ever let players stack skills?
If I believe two skills would help a player in a given situation, I just let he/she roll one of them with advantage.
Mercule
Adventurer
When there are two (or more) skills that could make sense for something, I generally give the players the choice of which to use, then narrate appropriately. It's pretty much the same thing as whether you want to Persuade or Intimidate someone to act a certain way: either one could get you the basic result that you want, but the implicit ripples differ. So, want to know about a planar being? Either Arcana or Religion could get you the answer, but might return slightly different details. Jump on top of a table? Either Acrobatics or Athletics works.
I started doing this because some of the changes to monster resistances (e.g. changes to energy drain) gave me a chance to add back in some of the wonder that disappears after everyone at the table has played for a while. I didn't want to screw the players, though, especially when they had a smart Cleric and a smart Wizard. Unlike 3E, 5E doesn't have a tidy table that says "these skills let you know about these types of monsters". I didn't really feel like stopping play to look it up, anyway. So, I just started saying, "Roll Arcana or Religion, your call."
Eventually, I just moved to "Suggest a skill." You know what? Players are smart people and they sometimes think of interesting things. Sure, there are times I need to ask, "and... just how to you figure that helps?" But, they generally have a good hook. It's fun, which is a good trait for a game.
As far as stacking bonuses: Nope. Wouldn't do it. Letting them pick one is enough of an advantage. If some really stunning combo came up, I'd probably give a +2 (maybe advantage), but it'd have to be real corner case. More likely, the whole thing would turn into an extended research and/or info sharing "challenge" where the players would start asking about questions that each previous check opened up. That's a lot more fun than just having a target number and regurgitating a list of answers based off that.
I started doing this because some of the changes to monster resistances (e.g. changes to energy drain) gave me a chance to add back in some of the wonder that disappears after everyone at the table has played for a while. I didn't want to screw the players, though, especially when they had a smart Cleric and a smart Wizard. Unlike 3E, 5E doesn't have a tidy table that says "these skills let you know about these types of monsters". I didn't really feel like stopping play to look it up, anyway. So, I just started saying, "Roll Arcana or Religion, your call."
Eventually, I just moved to "Suggest a skill." You know what? Players are smart people and they sometimes think of interesting things. Sure, there are times I need to ask, "and... just how to you figure that helps?" But, they generally have a good hook. It's fun, which is a good trait for a game.
As far as stacking bonuses: Nope. Wouldn't do it. Letting them pick one is enough of an advantage. If some really stunning combo came up, I'd probably give a +2 (maybe advantage), but it'd have to be real corner case. More likely, the whole thing would turn into an extended research and/or info sharing "challenge" where the players would start asking about questions that each previous check opened up. That's a lot more fun than just having a target number and regurgitating a list of answers based off that.
I kind of agree with the first paragraph, but the bold part is total nonsense. Well... not total, because you say "could." Sure, it "could" be a sign of that... but I don't think there's much reason to think that's the most likely thing going on.
This assumption presupposes that all action declarations need to be within the precise realm of specificity that the listed D&D skills represent... no less specific, and no more specific.
This is wrong for several reasons. The simplest reason is because D&D doesn't even have internal consistency about how specific their skills are. The skill selection is just an arbitrary list that sounded good to the game designers, and works pretty well. There's clear logical overlaps already. So it's inconsistent and unprincipled on the face of things.
It's also wrong because D&D 5e is the first time in a long while that D&D has begun to move away from pretending that the arbitrary list of skills in the rulebooks is the end-all of skills in the universe. With the introduction of open-ended "tool" proficiencies, a generic proficiency bonus that can be justified by other things such as Background, and the explicit codification of skills as ability-checks first and foremost, they've made great strides in opening up skills.
You can easily play 5e without using the provided skill list, and simply asking the players to make up the names of skills that they have. The DM can approve the skill names to ensure the same quality of specificity enforcement that the base game has (e.g. some reasonable standard, but still arbitrary.) The game will then play precisely the same as if you used 5e's skills, except people might feel a little more unique and engaged in their skill list.
That's how arbitrary the skills are in their level of specificity. So the idea that an action relating to multiple skills is somehow a failure on the part of the player is just baffling.
Plenty of very specific actions can reasonably be interpolated to apply to multiple skills. How to adjudicate such situations will come down to how and why the skills are overlapping, and how many actions are actually involved in what the player is attempting to do.
If there is skill overlap of a single functional action, then you should probably just call for a single ability check. e.g. A player tells the enemy warlord the story of the last time an army tried to pass through the Hot Gates, and suggests the warlord turn his forces around. This reasonably involves History and Intimidation... if anything, the specificity of the player's action actually leads to more skills being involved, in direct contravention to your claim. But the real key here is Intimidation. Sure, you probably need your History to be believable and at least semi-accurate, but the point is you're trying to scare the guy. So a single Intimidation check is likely sufficient.
But other times, the action declaration could reasonably be considered to be an actual combination of actions. A medical examination, per the OP, is a great example of this. Investigation and Medicine are both critical. They will provide different types of information. A dual-check resolution makes perfect sense in such a situation; each check yields different results.
But there's no failure on the part of the player to adequately declare his action. He accurately declared he was performing a medical examination, and the skill checks logically followed from there.
So, to answer the OP: If multiple skills genuinely seem involved, allow multiple skill checks. Each should yield a different result. Succeeding on all of them should have some meaning. If there's really just one skill that is the linchpin to the action, just go with one check.
I wouldn't stack proficiency bonuses onto a single d20 roll in any case, however. I agree with others that this violates BA and the spirit of 5e.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
For me I do the exact opposite. This feels like "I try to read the letter in elvish. Now I try to read the letter in goblin. Okay, how about in giant?"
A character knows everything their character knows all at the same time - they don't wall off most of their knowledge because how the game system separates skills mechanically.
And these checks are often orthogonal to each other. History might tell you that the style was ancient Elven, religion might tell you that the symbols on it are associated with demons and demon hunters, arcana may tell you that the runes on it aren't arcane in nature, and investigation shows soot in the deep crevices as if it survived a fire but that was long ago.
Skills shouldn't be used to penalize the players because while something should be obvious to the character with their knowledge, but the player didn't ask to use the right skill.
Rune
Once A Fool
That's one way to get to distinction, but not the only way.
It reads as if you are assuming that variant rules are not in play, which is very different than not assuming that they are. And it's especially strange, given that the entire premise of the OP is that rules variants are being solicited.
No it isn't. The OP advocates using the best of two rolls for knowledge checks, which does not break bounded accuracy. Stacking bonuses does, especially if expertise gets involved.
Plus your interpretation of them. For which, thanks, I guess? I mean, the OP pretty clearly wasn't satisfied with the implementation of those rules, but, okay. I guess providing them here means no one has to look them up.
I will concede the point IF one assumes that the rules define the setting, rather than (incompletely) describe (or, really, just resolve uncertainties within) it. I really don't think that assumption is implied in the RAW (one could argue that they are deliberately ambiguous on the point) and I certainly wouldn't want to run it that way, but it's certainly not going to hurt anything if others do.
Last edited:
mrpopstar
Sparkly Dude
They are synonymous terms.
Call me strange.
I said, "Combining bonuses actually gives you fewer rolls." I understood the OP to be exploring options and moved to offer a word of caution.
Just wishing to be helpful.
It is not my intention to be argumentative, and I have no wish for you to concede anything.
With minor exception, I find the rules to be succinct, clear, and usefully simplistic. Perhaps I misunderstood something along the way, but my contributions here have been an effort to drive understanding of the basic rules before we proceed with variants, home rules, and alternate approaches.
Rune
Once A Fool
In the context of overlapping skills, not necessarily. To use a simplistic example, let's say two characters both have proficiency in history and want to determine what they know about the history of a particular city. The first character also has proficiency in religion and the second character has proficiency in athletics. While they both may know about significant recent events, only the first would know about a schism in the local church and only the second would know the outcome of recent sporting events. One Intelligence (history) "check" (automatic in my games, but that's irrelevant to this example). Two distinct successful outcomes.
Okay. I think I probably wouldn't have misread the tone of your posts as a categorical assertion of One True Way if you had prefaced your initial post with that intent. I doubt I'm the only one to read them that way, but still, ultimately, my bad.
At least I know who to turn to if I'm looking for a detail-oriented reading of the RAW and a clear-headed interpretation of its implications.
mrpopstar
Sparkly Dude
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I disagree. The skills are quite specific in what they cover. [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION] makes a good case for this, so I invite you to argue with him about that as I won't be getting into that line of argument due to lack of time. Less specific are what the abilities cover. That is why I recommend DMs do NOT ask for "skill checks." You ask instead for ability checks (broad by definition) and let the player ask if they can apply one of their skill or tool proficiencies. The rules say this is a way to do it, though I skip the asking because I hate questions and go straight to the player just declaring it on the assumption they are acting in good faith.
Here is another issue that arises: When a player is not reasonably specific as to goal and approach, a lot of space is left for the DM to assume. A common approach that I see in many games including certain very popular actual play videos (and it annoys me) is that the DM then declares what the character is doing because the player was not specific enough. This can often be avoided, as can the the skills overlap issue raised by the OP, by making sure that adjudication happens only after the player has been reasonably specific as to goal and approach. Once that is established clearly, it's easy for the DM to then choose an ability check that applies to resolve uncertainty, and to narrate the result without encroaching upon the player's role of declaring what the character does.
As a DM, if I feel multiple skills will be relevant, I'll pick one (usually the one I feel is least relevant), and have the player make a skill roll at a higher DC. If they make it, they have advantage on the main skill roll at the normal DC.
For me it's partially self serving - I've created my own campaign world, and if the players make their knowledge/history/investigate checks I get to share more lore of the world with them. If they fail them, I don't.
For me it's partially self serving - I've created my own campaign world, and if the players make their knowledge/history/investigate checks I get to share more lore of the world with them. If they fail them, I don't.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll