D&D 5E When is it OK to let a player substitute one skill for another?

[Stoutstien]

If someone asks for an ability check and I'm not sure it's needed I'll clarify what they are trying to accomplish and depending on the answer tell them whether or not it's not needed. I'm not going to be a dick DM just because of the verbiage they used when they stated how their PC is interacting with the world.

If someone rolls a dice and tells me "I made a 19 stealth check to sneak up on the guard" I'll let them know if a check was not necessary at all and why. It's not like I'm going to change the scene just because they made a stealth check, I can't imagine why any DM would. If I don't think a stealth check is appropriate I'll tell them why it's not (from their PC's perspective) because maybe I wasn't clear on the scene description. Then I'll ask what they're trying to accomplish.

In general people get away from ability/skill check first mentality, but it's not a hard and fast rule at my table. I'm certainly not going to punish someone for not following proper protocol.

I mostly agree with you here other than players rolling and declaring the application of it before it's required. It just doesn't work for my games. Dice are basically used a randomizer and tension mechanic which only works if the steaks are in place before the roll occurs.

When I say I dislike players asking for skill checks I mean stuff like

"I roll persuasion"
"I roll slight of hand"
"Can I roll for intimation?"

As the DM I never want to assume what the intent of the player's decisions are and asking for a skill checks doesn't really help much.

 

[Oofta]

You can only choose not to follow the rules if you know what they actually are.

I know what the rules are. I also know when, in my opinion, it's just a suggestion and one example of how to play. The D&D police aren't going to come knocking down my door if I do it "wrong".

One random example ... I know they're called ability checks. But on my character sheet from DndBeyond my players see something like

I think it's a heck of a lot easier to ask for a "Deception check" or a "Deception Skill Check" than a "Charisma ability check adding your Deception proficiency bonus" or even "Charisma (deception) check". The list isn't sorted by ability, it's sorted by skill. I don't want to explain to my newbie players every time that I really mean is look down the skill list to find the appropriate skill. Saying "Give me a deception check" is just a common sense straightforward way of saying it.

If someone is describing intimidating someone by picking them up by the front of their shirt I'll clarify (or they can ask) that they can use their strength mod instead of charisma. On the other hand, that's a rare occurrence.

Each table, each DM needs to figure out what works for them, regardless of what the fluff text says.

 

[Charlaquin]

If someone asks for an ability check and I'm not sure it's needed I'll clarify what they are trying to accomplish and depending on the answer tell them whether or not it's not needed. I'm not going to be a dick DM just because of the verbiage they used when they stated how their PC is interacting with the world.

If someone rolls a dice and tells me "I made a 19 stealth check to sneak up on the guard" I'll let them know if a check was not necessary at all and why. It's not like I'm going to change the scene just because they made a stealth check, I can't imagine why any DM would. If I don't think a stealth check is appropriate I'll tell them why it's not (from their PC's perspective) because maybe I wasn't clear on the scene description. Then I'll ask what they're trying to accomplish.

This is a pretty common sentiment, and a perfectly valid one. For me, I wouldn’t feel confident in any assessment of whether or not a Dexterity (Stealth) check was appropriate or what the DC might be in the absence of a description of the player’s goal and the character’s approach. Certainly I could make a guess at what they might be trying to accomplish that they think Stealth would be useful for, and maybe even how, but I don’t want to make such assumptions. So I would always ask for clarification, as you sometimes do.

In general people get away from ability/skill check first mentality, but it's not a hard and fast rule at my table. I'm certainly not going to punish someone for not following proper protocol.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for punishing players for not following proper protocol. Rather, I think we are all advocating for a protocol that makes the basic pattern of play run as smoothly as possible. For you, that means sometimes making simple assumptions about what a player is trying to accomplish with their skill and how, whereas for me it means encouraging the players to be explicit with that information up front. Different approaches will work better for different groups.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or people just don't take the suggestions and examples as gospel that must be followed and instead do what makes sense to them and their group.

Everyone does what makes sense to them and their group. For some people, what makes sense to them is to closely follow the suggestions and examples in the book.

 

[iserith]

I don’t think anyone is advocating for punishing players for not following proper protocol. Rather, I think we are all advocating for a protocol that makes the basic pattern of play run as smoothly as possible. For you, that means sometimes making simple assumptions about what a player is trying to accomplish with their skill and how, whereas for me it means encouraging the players to be explicit with that information up front. Different approaches will work better for different groups.

In other words: Players, do your job so that my job is not necessarily harder than it needs to be.

 

[Don Durito]

If a rule is printed in a book, and nobody ever reads it, is it a rule?

Hmmm...it's not a philosophical point

In the case of 5e - it's significant I think because there exists the perception that skills work differently than they do. If you read the book you discover a few things.

1) There's almost no rules for how individual skills work. There's a few rules for specific functions like for hiding - which generally maps onto stealth (but doesn't need to) and there's a few things that call out specific skills like grappling - but if you pick up the 3rd editio Players Handbook or most games really you'll find that each skill has a specific entry detailing exactly what it does or does not cover. 5e doesn't have this. If you're assuming skills work like in previous editions this seems like an omission.

2) The closest you'll find to a specific demarcation of where things are covered is in the DMG on page 237 and it refers to Ability Scores not skills.

3) There is no such thing as a skill check. There are only ability scores and the option to add proficiency. If you understand this, then you can realise that the system gives you a lot more freedom to play with than you would realise if you just assumed they worked like in previous editions.

 

[Oofta]

I mostly agree with you here other than players rolling and declaring the application of it before it's required. It just doesn't work for my games. Dice are basically used a randomizer and tension mechanic which only works if the steaks are in place before the roll occurs.

When I say I dislike players asking for skill checks I mean stuff like

"I roll persuasion"
"I roll slight of hand"
"Can I roll for intimation?"

As the DM I never want to assume what the intent of the player's decisions are and asking for a skill checks doesn't really help much.

It depends. Let's say someone asks if they can make a history check about the McGuffin. The intent is clear and they've also communicated how they're doing it. I'm honestly not sure how or why stating it differently would matter.

I do ask people not to just roll unless it's incredibly clear what's going on (and I don't remember when that last happened). Just saying that if they did, I wouldn't change the scene so if the check would have been appropriate had I called for it then it's still appropriate.

 

[Oofta]

Everyone does what makes sense to them and their group. For some people, what makes sense to them is to closely follow the suggestions and examples in the book.

Of course.

 

[Don Durito]

I know what the rules are. I also know when, in my opinion, it's just a suggestion and one example of how to play. The D&D police aren't going to come knocking down my door if I do it "wrong".

One random example ... I know they're called ability checks. But on my character sheet from DndBeyond my players see something like

View attachment 131703

I think it's a heck of a lot easier to ask for a "Deception check" or a "Deception Skill Check" than a "Charisma ability check adding your Deception proficiency bonus" or even "Charisma (deception) check". The list isn't sorted by ability, it's sorted by skill. I don't want to explain to my newbie players every time that I really mean is look down the skill list to find the appropriate skill. Saying "Give me a deception check" is just a common sense straightforward way of saying it.

If someone is describing intimidating someone by picking them up by the front of their shirt I'll clarify (or they can ask) that they can use their strength mod instead of charisma. On the other hand, that's a rare occurrence.

Each table, each DM needs to figure out what works for them, regardless of what the fluff text says.

Ok. I don't know what you're arguing with here - but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

 

[Oofta]

Hmmm...it's not a philosophical point

In the case of 5e - it's significant I think because there exists the perception that skills work differently than they do. If you read the book you discover a few things.

1) There's almost no rules for how individual skills work. There's a few rules for for specific functions like for hiding - which generally maps onto stealth (but doesn't need to) and there's a few things that call out specific skills like grappling - but if you pick up the 3rd editio Players Handbook or most games really you'll find that each skill has a specific entry detailing exactly what it does or does not cover. 5e doesn't have this. If you're assuming skills work like in previous editions this seems like an omission.

2) The closest you'll find to a specific demarcation of where things are covered is in the DMG on page 237 and it refers to Ability Scores not skills.

View attachment 131704

3) There is no such thing as a skill check. There are only ability scores and the option to add proficiency.

Do you really utter the phrase "Give me a charisma ability check and add in your deception bonus if you're proficient" instead of "Give me a deception check"?

Because if I did the former, I'd have to have a discussion for a couple of minutes with my newbie players for what the heck I was talking about. With "Give me a deception check" it's a quick reminder to look at their character sheet and use the number to the right of deception.