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

[DEFCON 1]

This works well too. The main reason I don’t do this myself is that I know I’ll tend to offer skills in favor of tools or other proficiencies, and I figure if I suggest a skill up front they’ll be more likely to just say yes they have it or no they don’t than to suggest an alternative, especially a tool.

Heh... my way to get around this is to basically always use an amended skill list for each campaign that includes new skills that supercede Tools altogether. I really don't like Tool or Musical Instrument proficiencies and ignore them as often as I can.

 

[Mordhau]

It depends. I'm not saying it's forbidden, and for sure some checks required are ability, but when looking at the rules and the section about ability check, they are fairly well categorised and the skill is almost always mentioned in the core books as well as in the published adventures.

Don't get me wrong, I like the principle of being free to chose, but let's face it:

• At least 90% of the time, the ability used with a given skill (and vice versa) will be the standard one.
• 5e was designed to be "newbie friendly" which means a simple game where the link ability-skill is fixed.

And this has proven beneficial for the game, while still not preventing people to play the way you like it by expanding the game just a little bit.

Well yes. Once you have fixed skills it all becomes kind of pointless. Of course you would add stealth when you're sneaking up on things.

But in 13th Age or Shadow of a Demon Lord which work in a way 5e seems to have been intended, it's different because the game doesn't have a fixed list of skills and the GM doesn't have to remember what the player has written on their character sheet.

 

[Yaarel]

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?

Asking for an ability check: I think this is the way we are "supposed" to do it in 5e.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh... my way to get around this is to basically always use an amended skill list for each campaign that includes new skills that supercede Tools altogether. I really don't like Tool or Musical Instrument proficiencies and ignore them as often as I can.

I love 5e tool proficiencies. It represents narrow applied knowledge, rather than broad theoretical knowledge. A character can know anything relating to the tool use itself, including creating the tool and crafting items with the tool, using the tool in surprising ways, and so on, but nothing beyond it.

I treat Instrument as a tool proficiency. The instrumentalist can do a Performance masterfully, but not necessarily know how to sing.

 

[Yaarel]

When asking for ability checks probably add:

• Strength
• Constitution

• Dexterity
• Athletics (run, jump, fall, climb, balance, tumble, dive, and other mobilities)

• Intelligence
• Perception

• Charisma
• Wisdom

 

[GMMichael]

For what it's worth, the Basic Rules present checks in this order:
" . . . The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure . . . "
" . . . the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand . . . "
" . . . Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill—for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check."
So yeah, if you've been asking for "Perception" checks, you've been doing the badwrongfun.

Interestingly, they suggest that attack rolls don't follow the same rules as ability checks. But the attack roll uses a relevant ability and adds your proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the weapon...so I'm not quite sure what that attack disclaimer was about.

. . . the skill is almost always mentioned in the core books as well as in the published adventures.

Leave it to the people who played 3e and 4e for years and years.

Don't get me wrong, I like the principle of being free to chose, but let's face it:

• At least 90% of the time, the ability used with a given skill (and vice versa) will be the standard one.
• 5e was designed to be "newbie friendly" which means a simple game where the link ability-skill is fixed.

And somewhat less than 90% of the time, the PC will actually have the proficiency the DM is asking for. Which of these thought processes are easier?

• The DM called for a Wisdom check. I'll roll it. I wish I had proficiency in Perception.
• The DM called for a Perception check. I don't have proficiency in Perception. Its relevant ability is Wisdom. I'll roll that instead.

Linking all skills and abilities may be simple, but it creates a problem: what happens when the action you're attempting isn't related to a skill? Or worse, when it's not related to an ability?

 

[BookTenTiger]

All this is making me realize that there are times when a specific skill is called for, like a Stealth check in order to hide, or a Perception Check in order to see someone hidden.

But otherwise I should really be letting my players pick what proficiencies to use (within boundaries)!

 

[iserith]

All this is making me realize that there are times when a specific skill is called for, like a Stealth check in order to hide, or a Perception Check in order to see someone hidden.

But otherwise I should really be letting my players pick what proficiencies to use (within boundaries)!

Yes, and those boundaries are that the proficiency they choose to apply must be in line with the description of what they wanted to do that they stated before you asked for the ability check. None of this, "Oh, I have to roll? Okay, I also do X so I can now apply Y proficiency." Sorry, the time for that has already passed.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes, and those boundaries are that the proficiency they choose to apply must be in line with the description of what they wanted to do that they stated before you asked for the ability check. None of this, "Oh, I have to roll? Okay, I also do X so I can now apply Y proficiency." Sorry, the time for that has already passed.

I don't think that'll be a problem with my group.

 

[Yaarel]

All this is making me realize that there are times when a specific skill is called for, like a Stealth check in order to hide, or a Perception Check in order to see someone hidden.

But otherwise I should really be letting my players pick what proficiencies to use (within boundaries)!

Yeah. Treat Perception (and Athletics) as if abilities for an ability check.

Wisdom is more about willpower and empathy.

Strength is more about Strength tests - like breaking down doors, throwing encumbering weights, and so on.