D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[Charlaquin]

I happen to think the asymmetrical nature of D&D is one of its strongest points for successful entertainment. It's just a preference. I don't mean to sound like I am making a [EDIT: stupid autocorrect] proclamation regarding the right way to play.

But you haven’t demonstrated how allowing the player to make the determination of whether or not any of their proficiencies is applicable to an ability check they’ve been called on to make removes that asymmetry I would argue that it doesn’t.

 

[Reynard]

But you haven’t demonstrated how allowing the player to make the determination of whether or not any of their proficiencies is applicable to an ability check they’ve been called on to make removes that asymmetrically. I would argue that it doesn’t.

My argument was against the idea that the player could decide which proficiency was applicable and NOT TELL the DM.

 

[Fenris-77]

My argument was against the idea that the player could decide which proficiency was applicable and NOT TELL the DM.

I think we have to proceed under a general assumption of good faith play. Otherwise everything is a case of yeah, except cheating.

 

[Reynard]

I think we have to proceed under a general assumption of good faith play. Otherwise everything is a case of yeah, except cheating.

It's not even about cheating, it's about effectively adjudicating the outcome regardless of success or failure. Using a different proficiency on the check significantly changes the nature of the interaction.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not even about cheating, it's about effectively adjudicating the outcome regardless of success or failure. Using a different proficiency on the check significantly changes the nature of the interaction.

When you say use a different proficiency, can you be a little more specific? I'm not 100% sure what you're picturing and I don't want to assume.

 

[prabe]

My argument was against the idea that the player could decide which proficiency was applicable and NOT TELL the DM.

I can see the point, here. If the player thinks they're roleplaying Persuasion and the DM thinks they're roleplaying Intimidation, the results of failure, at least, will be different. It might not happen if the player and the DM know each other from of old, but I think that's the concern here--not cheating in the sense of claiming a proficiency the character doesn't have, or even in the sense of applying one the character does have too broadly.

 

[Charlaquin]

Out of curiosity, what about things that aren't ability checks at all but require skill? For example, what if a character got themselves into a weaving contest against a Goddess? Weaving as an action doesn't really fall under any of D&D's ability scores, but it certainly requires skill with the tool "loom." How would you approach that? Again, I am just curious and not trying to put you on the spot.

Why do you say it doesn’t fall under any of D&D’s ability scores? Presuming that the approach (weaving) has a reasonable chance of succeeding and reasonable chance of failing at achieving the goal (winning the contest) and a consequence for failing (presumably laid out by the terms of the contest) then an ability check ought to be called for to resolve the uncertainty. Of the six abilities, I would think dexterity would be most applicable, since weaving involves a fair amount of fine motor skills. In fact, it’s closer to the literal definition of the word dexterity than, like, sneaking is. I’d certainly say proficiency with weaver’s tools would be applicable, and furthermore I’d say it’s necessary for the action to have a possibility of success, otherwise it would fail without a roll.

But, to cut to the heart of your question - what if no ability is obviously applicable - I would generally recommend choosing the ability that seems like the closest fit. I suppose in some cases it might be appropriate to call for a check with no ability modifier, but still allow a relevant proficiency to apply. I’d struggle to think of an example of such a case, but hypocritically I don’t see any reason it couldn’t or shouldn’t exist.

 

[Charlaquin]

My argument was against the idea that the player could decide which proficiency was applicable and NOT TELL the DM.

How would that remove the asymmetry of play?

I can see the point, here. If the player thinks they're roleplaying Persuasion and the DM thinks they're roleplaying Intimidation, the results of failure, at least, will be different. It might not happen if the player and the DM know each other from of old, but I think that's the concern here--not cheating in the sense of claiming a proficiency the character doesn't have, or even in the sense of applying one the character does have too broadly.

I believe if the player’s approach has been described with a reasonable degree of specificity, there should be little room for ambiguity regarding what proficiencies might or might not be applicable. See my examples in post #85 of different approaches to the goal of convincing a guard to let the character past. If it is unclear, the player can always ask for clarification.

 

[prabe]

I believe if the player’s approach has been described with a reasonable degree of specificity, there should be little room for ambiguity regarding what proficiencies might or might not be applicable. See my examples in post #85 of different approaches to the goal of convincing a guard to let the character past. If it is unclear, the player can always ask for clarification.

I don't particularly disagree that it should be clear, I just see the possibility that it might not be--more accurately, that there might be a failure of communication. It seems reasonable to me that the DM could ask the player whether the intent was Persuasion or Intimidation--even after the roll--if only for the purposes of narrating results of failure, if the DM wasn't sure the player was on the same page. Then again, having an NPC react to one as though it were the other might be an amusing and interesting failure result.

 

[billd91]

As I explained in post #88, there is a meaningful procedural difference between calling for a skill check by default with ability checks as backup if no skill is obviously applicable, and calling for an ability check, then determining (possibly with the help of the player) if any of the character’s proficiencies is applicable.

Honestly, without really squinting at it at arms length, I don't think that's really substantive - other than maybe putting the burden on the player to fish for a proficiency bonus. If a DM told the player to "make a Stealth check" in 3e/4e, that's really no different from a 5e DM saying "make a Dex (Stealth) check". They're the same thing.

I think putting the emphasis on the ability check as the default focus is more of a mindset issue than a procedural one. It's pushing the idea that the game is based on stat rolls with occasional benefits rather than based on skill rolls with a handicap for anyone not invested in that skill. But as I said, that's more about mindset and expectations, not procedure.