D&D 5E Asking for Ability Checks, not Skills?

[BookTenTiger]

I'm thinking of shifting the way I ask for Ability Checks / Skill Rolls in my 5e game.

Currently, a player will describe their character's action, and, if appropriate, I will then ask for an ability check, naming a specific skill or tool and the associated ability.

For example:

Player: Tarzarian the Barbarian wants to track where the orcs came from.
DM: Go ahead and make a Survival Check.

(In this case I don't call for an ability since Survival defaults to Wisdom.)

Player: Vogue the Rogue wants to listen for any creatures beyond the door.
DM: Go ahead and make a Perception Check.

Player: Zirwad the Wizard wants to identify this strange glowing herb.
DM: You can make a Nature Check or an Arcana Check.
Player: Could I use my Herbalist Supplies?
DM: Sure!

Player: Biter the Fighter wants to find a way to bend the mechanisms of the porticullis in order to jam in.
DM: Go ahead and make an Athletics Check, using Intelligence instead of Strength.

These have all worked fairly well, but I find myself missing skills and proficiencies players really want to use. For example, the rogue in my game noted that I rarely call for an Acrobatics check. And the Barbarian said he rarely gets to use Survival.

What I'm thinking of doing is only calling for Abilities, not Skills. I'll call for a Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma check, and then the Player will choose whatever Skill or Proficiency is appropriate.

For example, if a character wants to look for something, I call for a Wisdom check. It's up to the player if they are using, say, Perception, Investigation, Survival, or some appropriate Tool (with DM approval, of course).

Here's how this might look:

Player: Vanger the Ranger tells the goblin boss to retreat before he gets his clan killed.
DM: Go ahead and make a Charisma Check.
Player: Can I use Persuasion?
DM: Yep!

Player: What does Wornok the Warlock know about these ruins?
DM: Go ahead and make an Intelligence Check.
Player: Can I use Arcana?
DM: Eh, that wouldn't be appropriate for this roll.

Player: Bartimer the Artificer wants to help guide the wagon over the bridge without hitting any rotting boards.
DM: Go ahead and make a Dexterity check.
Player: Can I use my proficiency in Vehicles?
DM: Absolutely!

My goals with this would be:

1. Giving players more agency and control with using their skills and proficiencies.
2. Allowing the characters to be heroic and do things they are good at more often.
3. Sharing the narrative burden with players.

One thing to note is that, in general, I trust my players not to "game the system" and try to use Athletics for every single check. At the same time, if they have invested heavily in Athletics, I want to reward them for coming up with creative ways to solve problems using Athletics.

What do you think? Do you think this would work? Do you usually call for skills, abilities, or both?

 

[iserith]

This is what I do already - only ask for ability check and players assign whatever skill or tool proficiency they think applies best, given their established approach to the goal. This works well in my view because it sidesteps any disagreement that may arise related to which skill or tool either person thinks applies. (By default, I side with the player since they know their intent better than I do.) It also means I only need to remember what 6 ability checks apply to rather than all the skills and tools.

 

[payn]

Lots of RPGs work with both, like Traveller. They also are geared mathematically towards combining both. Im not sure how the math on 5E works tho. I do like getting the player involved tho. Some GMs are so strict to the skill that its basically the party has it or they dont. I like letting the players solve problems with the character's toolbox myself.

 

[Oofta]

I have everybody use DndBeyond, so I can take a gander at their character sheets at any time. What I do is have a spreadsheet that I can print out that indicates what the PCs are trained in, along with passive scores.

This reminds me to ask for checks that people have invested in. In addition, if the half-orc barbarian describes trying to intimidate someone by lifting them off the ground by grabbing the front of their shirt they can use strength instead of charisma. They can also always ask to use different ability scores if they can tell me why it would be appropriate.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Would only cause confusion with my crowd since I play on VTT and they have to know what to click on to get the dice roll.

 

[iserith]

Would only cause confusion with my crowd since I play on VTT and they have to know what to click on to get the dice roll.

I play on a VTT too and it's fine for my group - they just click the corresponding skill proficiency they think applies and, if it so happens that the ability check is not the one I called for, we do some quick math to correct it. For example, if someone is trying to harvest valuable parts from a monster in my swamp hexcrawl, that's a Dexterity check with an appropriate skill proficiency attached (frequently Nature). So the player clicks Nature, then adds a couple points to account for Dexterity. Or, alternatively, just hits Dexterity and adds proficiency bonus, if applicable.

 

[billd91]

My goals with this would be:

1. Giving players more agency and control with using their skills and proficiencies.
2. Allowing the characters to be heroic and do things they are good at more often.
3. Sharing the narrative burden with players.

One thing to note is that, in general, I trust my players not to "game the system" and try to use Athletics for every single check. At the same time, if they have invested heavily in Athletics, I want to reward them for coming up with creative ways to solve problems using Athletics.

What do you think? Do you think this would work? Do you usually call for skills, abilities, or both?

I've been trying harder to emphasize the stat aspect of the roll so that more of my players feel confident that any of them can try things that provoke checks without being proficient. But I also usually include at least one proficiency that's appropriate. So I'd say:

Player: Vogue the Rogue wants to listen for any creatures beyond the door.
DM: That's a Wisdom Check, Perception applies if you've got it.

I'm pretty flexible about players suggesting alternative proficiencies if they think of them, though.

 

[Fenris-77]

I like leaving the skills on the player side for the reasons mentioned above, but also because it sometimes results in the player venturing an explanation of why skill X applies in situation Y, which isn't a bad thing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I play on a VTT too and it's fine for my group - they just click the corresponding skill proficiency they think applies and, if it so happens that the ability check is not the one I called for, we do some quick math to correct it. For example, if someone is trying to harvest valuable parts from a monster in my swamp hexcrawl, that's a Dexterity check with an appropriate skill proficiency attached (frequently Nature). So the player clicks Nature, then adds a couple points to account for Dexterity. Or, alternatively, just hits Dexterity and adds proficiency bonus, if applicable.

Just the make sure i understand you here, let say my character has: Str:18, Dex: 14 Int:14 and Proficiency +4
and I am proficient in Nature so the die roll above would be d20+2(Dex)+6(Nature)

 

[Charlaquin]

This is exactly what I do, and I highly recommend it! Easier on the DM only having to choose between 6 types of rolls to call for instead of 18 (plus tools), and gives the players the opportunity to apply proficiencies they invested in more often.