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

[nomotog]

Yep, both of these. I always try to incorporate the degree of suggest at least on narrative level and on functional level too whenever it makes sense (which is often.)

Degree of suggest was something I was picturing as a possibility. Something like a status effect or keyword system. For example you might pick up a magic lockpick that adds the untraceable affect.

 

[Oofta]

That is actually not out of the question. I think the actual check mechanic of rolling vs a dc might be limiting by itself. Like you can stack daily powers on daily powers, but if everything ends up as a single ability roll then that can act as a bottle neck of depth.

I like the level of success, which I probably stole from somebody on this forum. Miss or exceed the target DC by more than 5 and it's more than just success or failure. In addition, I allow other options. A spell or special ability will often count as a success.

I think the biggest challenge is to get away from the mechanical "X successes vs Y failures". Successes and failures should mean something, but I'm not sure straight up success is the right way of looking at it. I also allow people to help others and so on.

Hard to give much explanation without some concrete examples and this is something I continuously try to improve.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So how do they know that they can use athletics with it? If I wanted people to roll strength check with a potential proficiency bonus from athletics I'd say "roll an athletics check." As athletics defaults to strength, that is the ability used unless otherwise specified and the mention of specific skill communicates that a proficiency bonus from it may be added. Simple and clear.

That's their call, and they should follow along with their declared action. If there's a question, we can discuss it, but I think most players can handle figuring out if athletics fits the bill. Further, I don't have to do the work of picking what skill to use, I just pick the ability. I already have a huge workload as GM, so anything that simplifies my life without causing problems is golden. Only having to pick from a menu of 6 things is a lot easier than remembering the whole skill list.

And, finally, I don't structure my games so that my notes say, "Athletics check, DC x." I assign both DCs and ability checks based on what action the players describe. Given they could decide to do anything, I don't have those notes. I might write, "west wall is crumbled and climbable, plenty of handholds but quite slippery with moss and water." That way I have a good picture in my head for both describing the scene and laying out the general options but also for fairly adjudicating action declarations. Someone that says they try to scramble up the west wall quickly, for instance, might get a hard DEX check because they're focusing on speed and grace with their action but it's going to run directly into the problem of slipperiness, whereas someone that says they're going to use daggers to wedge into the cracks and provide good holds might get an easy STR check because this approach avoids the slipperiness, leverages the many crags and handholds, but focuses on pulling yourself up with tools. Either approach could benefit from Athletics. The former could also attempt Acrobatics. I'll let my players tell me which they want to use, if any.


[quote[
In some instances asking for skill check is indeed sufficient to communicate intent. It depends on the context. But that is a separate matter. I could just as easily say that in some situations asking for an ability check with a proficiency bonus from a specific skill is sufficient to communicate intent. But when I earlier said that 'skill check is fine shorthand' I mean't exactly what I said: that it is an easy way to communicate that we are referring to an ability check containing a possible proficiency bonus from a skill, completely irrespective of who is using the expression.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. A bald skill check involves the GM guessing what the player wants. I don't guess. Too many times that went wrong and I've learned my lesson here. It's trivial to expect a goal and approach, makes the game go faster because everyone's clear on both what's happening and what's at stake, and lets me hand more of the control over what happens to my players. If they describe an action that will clearly work, then it works, no need for a roll. If they ask for a skill check, well, they're betting on the dice when they don't have to. And, I'm guessing what they actually want to do, so the stakes aren't as clearly set.

I mean, I used to play exactly as you do, and I made the arguments you're making. Then I tried doing it differently, and, well, it works awesomely. Now, if I was playing a different version of D&D, then, sure, skill check asks are back on the table because that's how those games worked and how they were designed. 5e, though, is aimed slightly differently. Not enough that you can't use your method, but enough that I've found my method to be superior in outcomes -- for my table. As such, when I discuss how I play and approach 5e, I'm going to clearly state the process, which will be a bit wordier than what happens at the table. But, even in doing so here, you were confused how that play worked, so it's probably a good thing that I explain more clearly even than I have been.

 

[Ovinomancer]

According to chapter 7 in the PHB you can have an ability check, or an ability check with the addition of a skill check proficiency modifier. The latter is a mouthful so I say skill check.

I'm done arguing semantics, have a good one.

Or, you can do what the game does, and use ability check to mean "make an ability check, add proficiency if it applies." I mean, you could use 'skill check' but that's not really any different from 'ability check' except it's more narrow for no real benefit.

 

[Hriston]

[/QUOTE]

According to chapter 7 in the PHB you can have an ability check, or an ability check with the addition of a skill check proficiency modifier. The latter is a mouthful so I say skill check.

I'm done arguing semantics, have a good one.

Sure, feel free to disengage and not reply to this post. I won't reply if you don't, but no, the two categories would be an ability check with a proficiency bonus or an ability check without a proficiency bonus. They're both ability checks, and I don't see anywhere in Chapter 7 or anywhere else in the rulebooks where they're presented as two mutually exclusive categories the way you've described them. It sounds like something you're porting in from another game.

 

[iserith]

I disagree. A bald skill check involves the GM guessing what the player wants. I don't guess. Too many times that went wrong and I've learned my lesson here. It's trivial to expect a goal and approach, makes the game go faster because everyone's clear on both what's happening and what's at stake, and lets me hand more of the control over what happens to my players. If they describe an action that will clearly work, then it works, no need for a roll. If they ask for a skill check, well, they're betting on the dice when they don't have to. And, I'm guessing what they actually want to do, so the stakes aren't as clearly set.

And here's the weird part for me: The same types of people who say they want "good RP" or "heavy RP" at their table, have a lot of opinions on how to portray ability scores, hate "metagaming," etc. are also often the same people who are fine with players just asking to make ability checks instead of requiring that they describe what their characters are doing. I have a hard time squaring these things. The approach doesn't match the goal in my opinion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And here's the weird part for me: The same types of people who say they want "good RP" or "heavy RP" at their table, have a lot of opinions on how to portray ability scores, hate "metagaming," etc. are also often the same people who are fine with players just asking to make ability checks instead of requiring that they describe what their characters are doing. I have a hard time squaring these things. The approach doesn't match the goal in my opinion.

There is time to focus on descriptions and then there is situations where it is not that important. Now I'd say that generally 'can I roll skill X' is no the best possible way to describe what your character is doing, and personally I don't see it being used often. But if someone does, and it is abundantly clear using common sense what they mean then it is not usually beneficial for the flow of the game to start quibbling over the wording.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And here's the weird part for me: The same types of people who say they want "good RP" or "heavy RP" at their table, have a lot of opinions on how to portray ability scores, hate "metagaming," etc. are also often the same people who are fine with players just asking to make ability checks instead of requiring that they describe what their characters are doing. I have a hard time squaring these things. The approach doesn't match the goal in my opinion.

Well, back when I did the same things, it's because that's how I learned the game and I hadn't spent any time exploring why. I fought against it because I thought that admitting anything would mean that I'm a bad GM. It doesn't, just like using a different screwdriver because it fits the screw better doesn't mean you're a bad carpenter. Sometimes it's worthwhile to re-examine your kit to see if it still does what you need it to. It's no reflection on you if you change tools.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is time to focus on descriptions and then there is situations where it is not that important. Now I'd say that generally 'can I roll skill X' is no the best possible way to describe what your character is doing, and personally I don't see it being used often. But if someone does, and it is abundantly clear using common sense what they mean then it is not usually beneficial for the flow of the game to start quibbling over the wording.

If the situation isn't important, why are you wasting time on it?

Secondly, I'm a little leery that there are actually "abundantly clear" moments like are often claimed. This reads like a rhetorical device where you present an argument as a fait accompli without showing how such abundantly clear moments arise and how asking if a skill roll is possible provides benefit over stating an action. For starters, asking for a roll will result in a roll more often than not, even if there's a clear way to do the thing without a roll. Stating an action both centers the player in the fiction with the PC (roleplaying!) and makes it very clear what's going on so the GM can better adjudicate. And, you might get an automatic success, which I don't think I've ever seen asking for a roll (and I played that way for years). Asking for a roll and the GM granting one is also a large part of how GM's find themselves jammed up because the PCs failed on something that was necessary for the GM's prep or doesn't really make sense. Same with succeeding -- there's a current thread about how great rolls lead to short-circuiting the planned adventure (I believe it was Dragon Heist). That never happens to me. Great actions sometimes do, but great rolls? Never.

 

[Oofta]

Or, you can do what the game does, and use ability check to mean "make an ability check, add proficiency if it applies." I mean, you could use 'skill check' but that's not really any different from 'ability check' except it's more narrow for no real benefit.

I think it's silly to say "make an ability check modified by your athletics proficiency bonus". It's wordy, overly complicated and adds no value. I have no idea why the dev team thought it was an improvement. I have yet to hear anyone on a stream or in real play say it that way*. Besides, the player doesn't get to decide if the proficiency applies, the DM does. The player may ask if a proficiency or different ability is appropriate but the DM makes the call.

Every standard character sheet I've seen has a list of all the skills with the calculated value right there. We use DndBeyond so it's right on the front page. Easy to understand for newbies, easy to explain.

But again, I'm done arguing semantics. When I run my games I will continue to say "Make an athletics check", feel free to report me to the RPG police.

*My exposure is, admittedly limited to a couple of streams and a handful of AL DMs. I'm sure someone somewhere does it.