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

[Charlaquin]

I don't care about the expectation. If they don't give it to me, I can ask until I have the information.

Well yeah, of course you can always ask for further detail. But setting the expectation that they tell you first helps insure more time is spent playing the game instead of trying to tease these details out of player.

 

[Oofta]

Well yeah, of course you can always ask for further detail. But setting the expectation that they tell you first helps insure more time is spent playing the game instead of trying to tease these details out of player.

In my experience 95% of the time or more I don't need clarification. The few times I could use clarification the addition effort and time required doesn't add up the the extra effort and time to give a description every time they want to use an ability or skill.

It's fine however you want to handle it because it's pretty minimal either way. I just don't think "time and effort saved" makes the case.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my experience 95% of the time or more I don't need clarification. The few times I could use clarification the addition effort and time required doesn't add up the the extra effort and time to give a description every time they want to use an ability or skill.

It's fine however you want to handle it because it's pretty minimal either way. I just don't think "time and effort saved" makes the case.

I thought the point was to insure you’re calling for a check with the right ability based on the player’s intended approach? Isn’t this something you’d need to do every time an action that might require a roll is declared then?

 

[iserith]

If the expectation is for the player to state a clear and reasonably specific goal and approach, there’s generally no need to probe them for how they want to do the thing - they will have already told you as part of their action declaration.

Imagine that!

 

[BookTenTiger]

If the expectation is for the player to state a clear and reasonably specific goal and approach, there’s generally no need to probe them for how they want to do the thing - they will have already told you as part of their action declaration.

It's easy to miscommunicate intentions, though. For example, I'll sometimes ask for a Persuasion when my player was trying to Intimidate or Deceive.

I think it's also okay to retcon a description. For example, a player might say:

Player: I try to convince the guard to let us through. I say, "Don't you know who we are? We're the Knights of the Golden Hart!"
DM: Make a Charisma check.
Player: Hm... Could I use Performance?
DM: Tell me how.
Player: I start telling him the story of our most famous exploit, when we slew the Wyvern of the Spire...

In this (made up) case, allowing the player to choose a skill, even when it didn't match their original narration, adds to the scene and could make for a memorable social encounter.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Be honest, did this EVER happen in your game ? Because it never happened to us and we've been playing 5e at least twice per week since it came out and it never did. And in any case, it's 5e, the DM will make a quick ruling, so how is that a problem ?

This issue came up a few times in the game I play in. For example, a dwarf fighter wanted to hammer a wedge into a door in order to prevent hobgoblins from opening it. The DM took a while searching through skills to find one appropriate, until the player recommended using their proficiency in Smithing Tools.

If I could redo that scene, I would have loved for the DM to call for a Strength Check (to knock the wedge in) or an Intelligence Check (to find the right angle and location), then allow the player to choose what proficiency, if any, worked best.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's easy to miscommunicate intentions, though. For example, I'll sometimes ask for a Persuasion when my player was trying to Intimidate or Deceive.

Well, that’s not an issue if you do as you suggest in the OP and call for an ability check and allow the player to suggest a skill or other proficiency.

I think it's also okay to retcon a description. For example, a player might say:

Player: I try to convince the guard to let us through. I say, "Don't you know who we are? We're the Knights of the Golden Hart!"
DM: Make a Charisma check.
Player: Hm... Could I use Performance?
DM: Tell me how.
Player: I start telling him the story of our most famous exploit, when we slew the Wyvern of the Spire…

In this (made up) case, allowing the player to choose a skill, even when it didn't match their original narration, adds to the scene and could make for a memorable social encounter.

My problem with this is retconning the approach could change the way I would resolve it. Maybe recounting the story of slaying the wyvern would not actually have required a check to succeed. Or maybe it would have failed without a check.

I’m all for allowing the player to decide what proficiency they think applies, but they should do so based on the action they’ve declared, not retroactively alter their action to make it fit the proficiency they want to use. If they wanted to be able to fall back on their Performance Proficiency in case they had to make a roll to succeed, they should have gone with an approach that relied on their performance skill to begin with.

 

[Mordhau]

The reality is that if players explicit have skills and tool proficiencies, then they know what they are good at and are going to describe actions to match up with what their good at.

If the GM picks a skill or tool proficieincy the player hadn't intended then there's basically been miscommunication.

Now the GM can overule what the player wants; it doesn't matter how many backflips they describe, the GM can decide that no, climbing walls is Strength and the appropriate proficiency is Athletics not acrobatics, but it's often very clear what skill a player has in mind.

In practical terms, I think, the player describing rather than just stating a skill is, more about maintaining the fiction.

In terms of tool proficiencies, you have the tools, so you just work them into what you're doing. I use carpenters tools to do X.

 

[Oofta]

I thought the point was to insure you’re calling for a check with the right ability based on the player’s intended approach? Isn’t this something you’d need to do every time an action that might require a roll is declared then?

Like I said, the vast majority of times it's obvious. Guess I'd have to see a scenario where it wasn't or maybe I just don't understand.

Most extreme example: they're at the base of a wall and someone says "20 on an athletics check" after rolling (not that I remember that happening). I'll assume they're going to climb the wall. A more common example "Insight check on this guy?" or "History check to see what I remember about this?" is enough to tell me what they want.

Works for me. Do what works for you. I just don't see there being enough of a difference in efficiency for it to have much of an impact on the game is all.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Well, that’s not an issue if you do as you suggest in the OP and call for an ability check and allow the player to suggest a skill or other proficiency.

My problem with this is retconning the approach could change the way I would resolve it. Maybe recounting the story of slaying the wyvern would not actually have required a check to succeed. Or maybe it would have failed without a check.

I’m all for allowing the player to decide what proficiency they think applies, but they should do so based on the action they’ve declared, not retroactively alter their action to make it fit the proficiency they want to use. If they wanted to be able to fall back on their Performance Proficiency in case they had to make a roll to succeed, they should have gone with an approach that relied on their performance skill to begin with.

I think this just might be a difference in play styles. In the games I run, when we are not in combat, there's a lot of narrative retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. I always figure the characters know what they're doing, even when it takes the players a little bit to figure it out.