D&D 5E How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?

[Crimson Longinus]

Why not just say “ability check”?

Because this leaves it unspecified whether the proficiency bonus from a skill can be added or not.

 

[iserith]

Out of curiosity, where does the "skill check" nomenclature come from. I don't think I've ever played that game.

D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e called them "skill checks." D&D 4e also had ability checks. I don't recall if D&D 3.Xe did or not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why not just say “ability check”?

They're not yet ready to abandon the bailey, so you get the motte argument that everyone gets what skill check means and that it's just easy shorthand. When this is nodded past, the argument that it's perfectly fine for players to ask for skill checks instead of describing what the PC does creeps back into the bailey alongside its buddy, usually taking up fieldworks that this is just easily understood shorthand for describing what the PC does.

 

[iserith]

I recently went looking on youtube for discussions on skill challenges. I run mine as you suggest here -- fiction first -- but I found a lot of the big name DM's offer advice on skill challenges that looks a lot like scripted ability checks. They suggest coming up with a list of appropriate skills to use for the challenge, for instance, and for basically scripting out the individual challenges from start to finish. Most suggest allowing some creative leeway, but, ultimately, the advice I see on youtube by the big names is still very curtailed and stodgy. I couldn't find a single video (granted, I only spent about an hour searching, so, with watching enough to get a feel for the advice, I didn't get super far) by a big name that suggested any kind of fiction first framing for skill challenges. It struck me as so, well, weird given how easy and fun the fiction first approach is. I couldn't make a skill challenge work worth a darn the structured way -- it always felt artificial. But, using fiction first framing and having every action change the fiction, it's just that much better. I've been kicking a thread on fiction first skill challenges around in the back of my head for a few days now, need to sit down and write it.

What I do is create an overarching goal in the context of the adventure and then a series of complications which I present to the players. They can solve them however they want. Sometimes it's an ability check, sometimes not as per usual. Because I'm not certain the skill challenge math presented in the D&D 4e rules compendium ports over perfectly to D&D 5e (gut says it doesn't), I generally do a three-strikes-yer-out structure and then the more complex the overall goal, the more complications I present. Generally it's no more than 6 with liberal use of "progress combined with a setback."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They're not yet ready to abandon the bailey, so you get the motte argument that everyone gets what skill check means and that it's just easy shorthand. When this is nodded past, the argument that it's perfectly fine for players to ask for skill checks instead of describing what the PC does creeps back into the bailey alongside its buddy, usually taking up fieldworks that this is just easily understood shorthand for describing what the PC does.

Generally what is meant is more important than what is said. Not that I wouldn't appreciate detailed action descriptions. But 'an ability check with a proficiency bonus if you have the skill' is not that, it is just waste of time and breath.

 

[Hriston]

Because this leaves it unspecified whether the proficiency bonus from a skill can be added or not.

Why does that matter? I mean, that isn’t what this thread’s about, is it? I thought we were just talking about ability checks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I do is create an overarching goal in the context of the adventure and then a series of complications which I present to the players. They can solve them however they want. Sometimes it's an ability check, sometimes not as per usual. Because I'm not certain the skill challenge math presented in the D&D 4e rules compendium ports over perfectly to D&D 5e (gut says it doesn't), I generally do a three-strikes-yer-out structure and then the more complex the overall goal, the more complications I present. Generally it's no more than 6 with liberal use of "progress combined with a setback."

The end of 4e's advice on skill challenges is largely this -- it's always 3 failures and out, but the number of successes was reasonably varied. I usually play fast and loose with successes, getting, as you do, a feel by way of number of obstacles. I tend to not determine the obstacles ahead of time, or, if I do, it's a short bullet list of ideas that I can mold into the fiction rather than concretely prepped challenges. That way, I can maximally let the players drive the challenge, both in approach and in outcomes, by presenting challenges that follow the fiction more tightly. I know you like location based design, so this isn't really as useful there (and, to be honest, I don't often use skill challenges in my location design, something I might want to think on). I tend to use them for things like negotiations, or intrigues, or travel. Honestly, I think skill challenges for travel, especially open ended ones, are the bomb and should be presented as at least an official option way to do travel.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why does that matter? I mean, that isn’t what this thread’s about, is it? I thought we were just talking about ability checks.

The first post specifically speaks about coming up with more complex ways to use skills. So yeah, 'skill checks' is appropriate.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Generally what is meant is more important than what is said.Not that I wouldn't appreciate detailed action descriptions. But 'an ability check with a proficiency bonus if you have the skill' is not that, it is just waste of time and breath.

Of course, what is meant is important.

However, in 5e, it is not the player’s job to announce a particular ability check roll. It’s their job to tell the DM what their PC is trying to accomplish and what action they are taking to accomplish it. The DM then adjudicates accordingly. A player announcing “I roll perception!” isn’t engaging with the fiction, they’re pressing a button on their character sheet. And doing so is preempting the DM’s decision of whether a roll is even necessary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course, what is meant is important.

However, in 5e, it is not the player’s job to announce a particular ability check roll. It’s their job to tell the DM what their PC is trying to accomplish and what action they are taking to accomplish it. The DM then adjudicates accordingly. A player announcing “I roll perception!” isn’t engaging with the fiction, they’re pressing a button on their character sheet. And doing so is preempting the DM’s decision of whether a roll is even necessary.

And this has nothing to do with whether you call it 'perception skill check' or 'wisdom ability check with a proficiency bonus added if you're proficient in perception.'