D&D 5E Do you ever let players stack skills?

[mrpopstar]

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.

Thank you for the props!



I definitely think it's important to reinforce that the DM calls for an ability check and then considers whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply.

 

[MostlyDm]

Thank you for the props!



I definitely think it's important to reinforce that the DM calls for an ability check and then considers whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply.

That's not really at issue, though... at least not in what I said. Of course you call for an ability check.

And if you call for an ability check, and a PC has two relevant proficient skills, and a reasonable person might think that both of those skills could yield useful results, especially if used in tandem... why would you not adjudicate a solution that accounts for that?

I don't understand the objection Iserith seems to have to this... and, by his extension, what objection you have.

 

[iserith]

That's not really at issue, though... at least not in what I said. Of course you call for an ability check.

And if you call for an ability check, and a PC has two relevant proficient skills, and a reasonable person might think that both of those skills could yield useful results, especially if used in tandem... why would you not adjudicate a solution that accounts for that?

I think that if you're looking at a situation where both skills could provide useful results, then it's likely the results you're trying to achieve or the approach by which you propose to achieve them aren't specific enough. The player is being vague which is a pretty common thing in my experience. So the solution in my view is to ask for more details before going to the mechanic.

 

[MostlyDm]

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.

Maybe this is contributing to the confusion.

If a player makes a more general statement, about e.g. examining a corpse for example, then there's room for the DM to interpret the precise details of the examination.

Perhaps in your preferred level of specificity, a player would not make a statement like "I examine the corpse" but rather... "I examine the lividity of the corpse to determine the approximate time of death" or "I examine the contents of the corpse's stomach."

If that's the case, I can more easily see a specific skill taking prominence. But that's just because you've drilled past the level where two skills made sense... and you'll come right back to it, anyway.

At broad, imprecise levels of specificity, a single skill often makes sense as a rough approximation of the action. At more precise levels of specificity, multiple skills may apply. But if you keep drilling down to a single moment of action ("I cut open the corpse's stomach") then you come in a circle back to a single skill.

But at that level of specificity, you could easily need 5, 10, or 20 discrete actions to describe a single procedure... and thus end up with as many skill checks. (Check lividity. Examine stomach contents. Examine fingernails. Examine wound site. Look for hidden wounds, injection sites, etc. And so on.)

So then you're just back to my statement of "sometimes, call for multiple skill checks" except you're calling for them one by one at each step of the way, as the PC provides a highly specific, discrete chunk of action.

Sometimes, that's an exciting series of rolls, I'm sure. But sometimes you want to cover an entire scene with a single adjudication. I think that adjudication could reasonably include 1 or more skill checks.

It's the difference between:
PC: I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll run across the rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
PC: Can I include Acrobatics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I jump to the next building.
DM: Make a Str check, DC 14. Failure and you fall short.
PC: Can I include Athletics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I run across the next rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
PC: Can I include Acrobatics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I jump to the next building.
DM: Make a Str check, DC 14. Failure and you fall short.
PC: *rolls* Success! I run across the next rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
... and it goes on like that.

Versus:
PC: I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll take to the rooftops, running as fast as possible, jumping from roof to roof, until I've reached the Copper District.
DM: There are some steep rooftops and big gaps along the way. Make a Dex check, DC 13, and a Str check, DC 14. Failing either will result in you falling to the street below.
PC: Can I use Acrobatics and Athletics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Passed both of them! I'm free and clear!
End Action.

Sometimes, an adjudication covering multiple instances of action is a good idea. Sometimes, the best way to do that is by calling for more than a single check.

 

[iserith]

Maybe this is contributing to the confusion.

If a player makes a more general statement, about e.g. examining a corpse for example, then there's room for the DM to interpret the precise details of the examination.

Perhaps in your preferred level of specificity, a player would not make a statement like "I examine the corpse" but rather... "I examine the lividity of the corpse to determine the approximate time of death" or "I examine the contents of the corpse's stomach."

If that's the case, I can more easily see a specific skill taking prominence. But that's just because you've drilled past the level where two skills made sense... and you'll come right back to it, anyway.

At broad, imprecise levels of specificity, a single skill often makes sense as a rough approximation of the action. At more precise levels of specificity, multiple skills may apply. But if you keep drilling down to a single moment of action ("I cut open the corpse's stomach") then you come in a circle back to a single skill.

But at that level of specificity, you could easily need 5, 10, or 20 discrete actions to describe a single procedure... and thus end up with as many skill checks. (Check lividity. Examine stomach contents. Examine fingernails. Examine wound site. Look for hidden wounds, injection sites, etc. And so on.)...

As I see it, a player is required to clearly state a goal and approach, that is, what the character wants to accomplish and how he or she goes about it. From there, the DM decides whether that calls for an ability check at all because it might be automatic success or automatic failure. A fictional action declaration does not automatically call for a check and thus a reasonably specific statement as to goal and approach does not necessarily translate into multiple checks - just the ones for which there is uncertainty as to outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's the difference between:
PC: I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll run across the rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
PC: Can I include Acrobatics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I jump to the next building.
DM: Make a Str check, DC 14. Failure and you fall short.
PC: Can I include Athletics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I run across the next rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
PC: Can I include Acrobatics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Success! I jump to the next building.
DM: Make a Str check, DC 14. Failure and you fall short.
PC: *rolls* Success! I run across the next rooftop.
DM: Make a Dex check, DC 13. Failure will result in you taking a tumble down the steep roof.
... and it goes on like that.

Versus:
PC: I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll take to the rooftops, running as fast as possible, jumping from roof to roof, until I've reached the Copper District.
DM: There are some steep rooftops and big gaps along the way. Make a Dex check, DC 13, and a Str check, DC 14. Failing either will result in you falling to the street below.
PC: Can I use Acrobatics and Athletics?
DM: Sure.
PC: *rolls* Passed both of them! I'm free and clear!
End Action.

Sometimes, an adjudication covering multiple instances of action is a good idea. Sometimes, the best way to do that is by calling for more than a single check.

Here's how I'd handle the scenario in question:

PC: "I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll take to the rooftops, running as fast as possible, jumping from roof to roof, until I've reached the Copper District."
DM: "The angle and construction of the roofs here makes moving full-speed without slipping difficult. Make a DC 13 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Success means you can go full speed, while failure will mean every foot of movement costs you 2 feet of movement."
PC: *rolls* "Passed. Will I need to check again?"
DM: "No, your initial sprint away will get you out of direct sight by the time the scene is noticed, so how fast you are going isn't particular important after that. However, there are some wide alleys you are going to have to leap over if you aren't wanting to get back into crowded streets. What's your character's strength score?"
PC: *checks sheet* "Twelve."
DM: "Okay, you won't need to make any checks for jumping. A few minutes later, you arrive in the Copper District. What do you do?"

 

[MostlyDm]

Here's how I'd handle the scenario in question:

PC: "I need to put some distance between me and this crime scene. I'll take to the rooftops, running as fast as possible, jumping from roof to roof, until I've reached the Copper District."
DM: "The angle and construction of the roofs here makes moving full-speed without slipping difficult. Make a DC 13 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Success means you can go full speed, while failure will mean every foot of movement costs you 2 feet of movement."
PC: *rolls* "Passed. Will I need to check again?"
DM: "No, your initial sprint away will get you out of direct sight by the time the scene is noticed, so how fast you are going isn't particular important after that. However, there are some wide alleys you are going to have to leap over if you aren't wanting to get back into crowded streets. What's your character's strength score?"
PC: *checks sheet* "Twelve."
DM: "Okay, you won't need to make any checks for jumping. A few minutes later, you arrive in the Copper District. What do you do?"

Looks great to me.

Do you categorically think that involving a second check in this scenario would be automatically objectionable?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Do you categorically think that involving a second check in this scenario would be automatically objectionable?

Unless the check to be added is resolving an entirely different uncertainty (meaning it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can successfully traverse roofs and the gaps between them to arrive at your desired destination), I would find it objectionable.

For example, if it were determined that there was a witness to the crime and that it is uncertain whether the character wanting to flee the scene noticed them, I would be fine with adding a Perception check to resolve that uncertainty.

 

[mrpopstar]

That's not really at issue, though... at least not in what I said. Of course you call for an ability check.

And if you call for an ability check, and a PC has two relevant proficient skills, and a reasonable person might think that both of those skills could yield useful results, especially if used in tandem... why would you not adjudicate a solution that accounts for that?

I don't understand the objection Iserith seems to have to this... and, by his extension, what objection you have.

I believe I was tagged in with regard to your assertion that the skill list is inconsistent, unspecific, arbitrary, and unprincipled. I understood [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] to be disagreeing with that assertion and citing my contributions here as having already explored that particular tangent.



On the topic of tandem ability checks, imagine if the DM asked you to roll all of your attack rolls at the beginning of combat. — That's what tandem ability checks do to the exploration and interaction pillars.

It's just something I personally wouldn't do.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'd never allow stacking like that.

If something is related to various skills, what the players says he wants to do determines what roll is used.

Magic relic example:

A)
DM: "Your find a weird object, seems like a relic."
Player: "I wanna check if I have read about that object before."
DM: "Roll History."

B)
DM: "Your find a weird object, seems like a relic."
Player: "I want to take a closer look at it, trying to figure out its function."
DM: "Roll Investigation."

C)
DM: "Your find a weird object, seems like a relic."
Player: "I want to check if it's magical."
DM: "Roll Arcana."

The result will also strongly depend on what roll was used. A successful history check will let me tell the player a bit on the history of the item and where he heard for. A successful investigation does reveal nothing about the items history, but will still disclose its function. A successful arcana check will probably just make me tell the player whether he thinks it's magical or not (whatever the truth is).

I assume that in the examples above, you would allow more than one roll. In other words, would you allow:

D)
DM: "You find a weird object, seems like a relic."
Player: "I wanna check if I have read about that object before."
DM: "Roll History."

Player: "I want to take a closer look at it, trying to figure out its function."
DM: "Roll Investigation."

Player: "I want to check if it's magical."
DM: "Roll Arcana."

Player: "I want to know if it could have been what killed Colonel Mustard in the study."
DM: "Roll Medicine."

Player: "Okay, this 'relic' seems to have a boring history, functions as a paper weight, is not magical, and is not the murder weapon. How far can I throw it?"
DM: "Roll Athletics."