D&D 5E 5e Skills whats your opinion

[Kite474]

[MENTION=6803572]Kite474[/MENTION]: In games you run or in which you play, do players ask to make ability checks? Or do they state what they want to do in fictional terms and the DM calls for a check of some kind (if necessary)?

The later. Though sometimes players may ask "Can I accomplish X with Y? ".

 

[iserith]

The later. Though sometimes players may ask "Can I accomplish X with Y? ".

It hasn't been my experience that people that play this way find the ability check system to be inadequate. Those that tend to ask to make ability checks, however, often seem to find fault in the system as written (thought not everyone does, naturally). It does seem like the DMs under which you play are subject to pressure from the players to allow skills to apply to ability checks that I find inapplicable. I certainly wouldn't go in for Sleight of Hand applying to building a clock, for example. Perhaps this aspect is what informs your opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see it as something that really wants to be fate but isn't quite there. You see as something to hearken back to the days of 2e. Both equally valid opinions.

Aside from the tacked-on-feeling system of Personality & Inspiration, what about 5e is at all suggestive of FATE? I mean, I see how that one sub-system is a bit like Aspects & Fate Points, but that's it.

 

[Kite474]

Aside from the tacked-on-feeling system of Personality & Inspiration, what about 5e is at all suggestive of FATE? I mean, I see how that one sub-system is a bit like Aspects & Fate Points, but that's it.

The general flow of "Let the GM/DM figure it out" is what at least to me feels like fate. It always feels like outside of combat, which is actually covered very well, 5e just feels like it just wants to be free form which FATE isnt by its nature but its often compared to be 2 steps away. So I will apologize to FATE fans by essentially using its stereotype
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]
Maybe your right. On the scale of Entertainer - Technician he definitely leans to the former. If it helps you paint the picture we decided on Slight of Hand was because we figured it worked with the idea of steady hands needed to handle small cogs.

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]
Maybe your right. On the scale of Entertainer - Technician he definitely leans to the former. If it helps you paint the picture we decided on Slight of Hand was because we figured it worked with the idea of steady hands needed to handle small cogs.

I guess I'd be somewhere in the middle of that scale. For the clock, presuming I found the outcome of the fictional action uncertain, I would probably call for a Dexterity check. If the player then asked if his or her Tinker's Tools proficiency applied, I would say that it did. But Sleight of Hand would not.

Does your DM call for a check for just about every fictional action taken that sounds like an ability check could apply or does he or she balance ruling outright success (or failure) with calling for ability checks?

 

[Kite474]

I guess I'd be somewhere in the middle of that scale. For the clock, presuming I found the outcome of the fictional action uncertain, I would probably call for a Dexterity check. If the player then asked if his or her Tinker's Tools proficiency applied, I would say that it did. But Sleight of Hand would not.


Does your DM call for a check for just about every fictional action taken that sounds like an ability check could apply or does he or she balance ruling outright success (or failure) with calling for ability checks?

If it sounds like it could use a check it will have a check...... Honestly it gets pretty grating especially since hes big on the whole "If you role a 1 something deadly and/or stupid happens" shtick. One of my tablemates actually named this phenomenon "Adventurers Going Grocery Shopping"

 

[iserith]

If it sounds like it could use a check it will have a check...

So like if you tell a lie to an NPC, it will always be a Charisma (Deception) check. Or if you do anything acrobatic, it will always be a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check?

Honestly it gets pretty grating especially since hes big on the whole "If you role a 1 something deadly and/or stupid happens" shtick.

Yikes!

 

[Kite474]

So like if you tell a lie to an NPC, it will always be a Charisma (Deception) check. Or if you do anything acrobatic, it will always be a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check?

Yes. Unless you can sufficiently convince him otherwise. Sometimes this is simple, other times it is not.

 

[iserith]

Yes. Unless you can sufficiently convince him otherwise. Sometimes this is simple, other times it is not.

Yeah, makes sense. I've seen that kind of approach before in play and probably did a fair amount of it myself at one point.

Thanks for indulging my questions!

 

[MechaPilot]

The DM and player in me agrees with you, so most of me. I have a small vein of simulationist in me that dislikes that someone can't be "a little good" in something. The only point of that in 3E was fishing for synergy bonuses, which were pretty cool. But half ranks in spot/listen didn't help you notice the assassin hide/movesilently upon you past the very early levels.

If I had a player who wanted to be "a little good" at something in 5e, I'd let her split a single proficiency into two half-proficiencies (getting half the usual proficiency modifier to each of those two skills).

I'm also willing to be accommodating in other regards to players who want to create interesting characters. If your character is proficient in athletics, but you don't want the character to be able to swim, that's cool. I might even give you a kind of specialization in one other aspect of the skill (perhaps the ability to get advantage on a non-swimming use of that skill once per day), or I might award inspiration to your character when a swimming challenge comes up. Likewise, if a player wants her character to be hard of hearing but is trained in perception.