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

[Charlaquin]

It's just a personal preference, what I disagree with is the tone that if people don't say it a certain way they're "doing it wrong".

I don’t think anyone has said you’re doing it wrong if you just call for the skill. You’re doing it differently than what the rules describe, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

Besides, a strength check (to me) means that no proficiency could apply.

Well that’s not what it means according to the rules.

Well, that and in the US we're incredibly lazy. Like how I just said "US" instead of "United Stated of America" or even "USA" and people will abbreviate just about anyone's name down to one syllable. Because two syllables for someone's name is just way too much work.

I live in the US and it isn’t too much work for me.

But I still thing the "strength plus" is just superfluous for a lot of people when the default is strength.

Well, yeah, it would be when the default is strength. The advantage of calling for the ability instead of a skill is that there doesn’t need to be a default.

It also seems to be telling people that they can't use any other ability score. So if I say "charisma plus intimidate check" as a DM I've just told them they can't substitute strength (or any other appropriate ability) for charisma. I'm not saying asking for a specific proficiency check is great either, just that the less specific while indicating you can use a proficiency is my preference.

That’s why I would call for a “Charisma check” rather than a “Charisma plus Intimidate check”. That’s actually less specific than “Intimidate check” because there are eighteen different options the player can substitute (or more if you include tools), compared to the 6 they can substitute if you call for an “Intimate check.”

I also don't think it's that big of a deal, and these discussions amplify what (to me) is a really minor aspect of the game. People don't need to run the game exactly the same.

People certainly don’t need to run the game the same, and if just calling for a skill check works for you (as it does for many DMs, I might even say the majority of DMs), great. I’m not telling you you can’t or shouldn’t do it that way, I’m just explaining why I do it the way I do, because people seemed confused by it and have been asking a lot of questions about it. Advocating for my preferred method is not an attack against your preferred method. They can co-exist.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think anyone has said you’re doing it wrong if you just call for the skill. You’re doing it differently than what the rules describe, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

Well that’s not what it means according to the rules.

I live in the US and it isn’t too much work for me.

Well, yeah, it would be when the default is strength. The advantage of calling for the ability instead of a skill is that there doesn’t need to be a default.

That’s why I would call for a “Charisma check” rather than a “Charisma plus Intimidate check”. That’s actually less specific than “Intimidate check” because there are eighteen different options the player can substitute (or more if you include tools), compared to the 6 they can substitute if you call for an “Intimate check.”

People certainly don’t need to run the game the same, and if just calling for a skill check works for you (as it does for many DMs, I might even say the majority of DMs), great. I’m not telling you you can’t or shouldn’t do it that way, I’m just explaining why I do it the way I do, because people seemed confused by it and have been asking a lot of questions about it. Advocating for my preferred method is not an attack against your preferred method. They can co-exist.

My post was in response to this:

Yeah. There's really no way to read the rules and arrive at that approach. It comes from elsewhere.

While it may not be the intent, to me it clearly says: "only people who played previous versions do it that way, people who actually read the rules do it the right way".

In any case, I don't think there is a "best" way. My "least favorite" way is the way it was interpreted by a lot of DM's back in 4E was that every challenges could only be resolved with a skill check and nothing could be done or said to change the required DC.

Back to the OP, I do try to encourage alternatives proficiencies mixed and matched with alternative non-default ability scores. I'm just not sure what the best way to do that is. For the most part I try to get people to describe what they're doing (even if it's just "do I know anything about" or "do I recognize", etc.) and let them know that they can propose alternatives.

 

[Charlaquin]

My post was in response to this:

While it may not be the intent, to me it clearly says: "only people who played previous versions do it that way, people who actually read the rules do it the right way".

Well, in my experience, and I think @iserith would agree, people who played previous editions and people who learned from people who played previous editions (and people who learned from people who learned from people who played previous editions, etc.) run it the way you do. Which is probably the significant majority of players and DMs, including everyone who got into the game through Critical Role, or like... any streamed game, pretty much. On the other hand, the relative minority of players who started with 5e and learned from reading the books alone, or who, like I did, tried to set aside assumptions based on their experience with past editions and to understand the intent of the 5e rules on their own terms alone, tend to run it the way I do. Now, that isn’t to say the players who run it the way you do are wrong. They’ve found a way that works for them, and that’s fine. Saying that there doesn’t seem to be a way to arrive at that way of running it from reading the rules alone isn’t a judgment, it’s just an observation.

In any case, I don't think there is a "best" way. My "least favorite" way is the way it was interpreted by a lot of DM's back in 4E was that every challenges could only be resolved with a skill check and nothing could be done or said to change the required DC.

I don’t think there is a best way either. I think different ways may be better or worse suited to different goals and different tastes. The way I run it works “best” for what I want out of the game, from what I have found. Your way might work “best” for what you want out of the game, and if so, great!

Back to the OP, I do try to encourage alternatives proficiencies mixed and matched with alternative non-default ability scores. I'm just not sure what the best way to do that is.

Whereas the way I’m advocating for is, in my evaluation, the best way I’ve found to do what you’re describing here. Maybe you’ve tried it and found it not to be the best for you, and that’s fine. But just offering it as a suggestion for those who might be looking for a better way to do what you describe.

For the most part I try to get people to describe what they're doing (even if it's just "do I know anything about" or "do I recognize", etc.) and let them know that they can propose alternatives.

Yep. Seems like a solid approach.

 

[nomotog]

Well, in my experience, and I think @iserith would agree, people who played previous editions and people who learned from people who played previous editions (and people who learned from people who learned from people who played previous editions, etc.) run it the way you do. Which is probably the significant majority of players and DMs, including everyone who got into the game through Critical Role, or like... any streamed game, pretty much. On the other hand, the relative minority of players who started with 5e and learned from reading the books alone, or who, like I did, tried to set aside assumptions based on their experience with past editions and to understand the intent of the 5e rules on their own terms alone, tend to run it the way I do. Now, that isn’t to say the players who run it the way you do are wrong. They’ve found a way that works for them, and that’s fine. Saying that there doesn’t seem to be a way to arrive at that way of running it from reading the rules alone isn’t a judgment, it’s just an observation.

I think they could have easily addressed that by just not using the word skill.

 

[iserith]

Saying that there doesn’t seem to be a way to arrive at that way of running it from reading the rules alone isn’t a judgment, it’s just an observation.

Right. In the rules of some games, like D&D 4e, the expectation is that players will ask to make or say they are making a "skill check" and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is not the case in D&D 5e where it explicitly says players describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether an ability check is called for and what proficiency may apply. It's not a controversial statement to say that people using an approach like D&D 4e in a D&D 5e game isn't getting it from the D&D 5e rules.

 

[nomotog]

Right. In the rules of some games, like D&D 4e, the expectation is that players will ask to make or say they are making a "skill check" and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is not the case in D&D 5e where it explicitly says players describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether an ability check is called for and what proficiency may apply. It's not a controversial statement to say that people using an approach like D&D 4e in a D&D 5e game isn't getting it from the D&D 5e rules.

I think that was also the approach in 3 and 3.5. 5 is the odd one out here.

 

[iserith]

I think that was also the approach in 3 and 3.5. 5 is the odd one out here.

Yes, it's certainly how I saw most people play it back when my group played it. I just don't have my books anymore to be able to see if that's explicitly stated in the rules.

 

[nomotog]

Yes, it's certainly how I saw most people play it back when my group played it. I just don't have my books anymore to be able to see if that's explicitly stated in the rules.

I know the divided between skills and ability checks was much more explicitly and guarded because there were a lot of systems pushing and pulling on skills. You even had explicit you can't use this skill unless you have points into it type things. Also you just hated making an ability check because your bonus would be crazy low in comparison to any skill check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. In the rules of some games, like D&D 4e, the expectation is that players will ask to make or say they are making a "skill check" and the DM almost always says "Yes." That is not the case in D&D 5e where it explicitly says players describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether an ability check is called for and what proficiency may apply. It's not a controversial statement to say that people using an approach like D&D 4e in a D&D 5e game isn't getting it from the D&D 5e rules.

This is also true. There’s really two parts to this though. One is whether or not the players ask to make (or say they’re making) checks, and the other is whether those are skill checks modified by an ability, or ability checks modified by a skill.

 

[nomotog]

This is also true. There’s really two parts to this though. One is whether or not the players ask to make (or say they’re making) checks, and the other is whether those are skill checks modified by an ability, or ability checks modified by a skill.

Technically there is also the unmodified check, but no one uses them. (Not even sure if they are official.)