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

[Yaarel]

The upside of having players be reasonably specific with their action declaration means no need for retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. "I try to force open the door using a hammer and wedge from my smith's tools." The DM calls for a Strength check. The player adds Smith's Tools proficiency bonus. And it's resolved.

This is part of the reason why mine and @Charlaquin's game run at such a fast clip. Anything that might cause more back and forth than necessary is mostly removed from the equation. That, plus other approaches, means the game moves quicker than others I've seen. (And Charlaquin and I don't play together. We just happen to both see this happening.)

Also, these specific descriptions of a player character action make the story more immersive. Players are visualizing the scene and thinking about things within it that they can utilize to their benefit. The story becomes prominent.

 

[Nefermandias]

Wrong thread. Please delete.

 

[HammerMan]

IIRC, during one of the playtest packets this was suggested. I think it was dropped as the default because it does add a bit to every check, as the players try to find an acceptable proficiency. My experiences would lead to players trying to wheedle any potential proficiency for the bonus, no matter how ridiculous. I would have no issues with this at all with my current group, but I also find they don't try to limit their actions based on their proficiency either.

we had (I hope) a joke a player tried to use athletics instead of investigation by dropping and doing 10 quick push ups to get the blood flowing and clear his mind so he could think better... in short hand sometimes my group still says "Can I do a push up for insight?"

 

[Plaguescarred]

The way i do, players announce what they want to do, and i tell them what to roll. It's usually worded as an ability (skill or tool) check but we may name it as a skill check alone since most of the time, a skill has an ability associated with it. One way or another, naming a skill is for me an easy way to indicate what can apply.

Skills are not checks like in previous editions though, rather representing a specific aspect of an ability and are Proficiency bonus enabler to such check. We can even see it baked in on character sheets such as Passive Perception, which are Passive checks in the form of Wisdom (Perception) checks. They could have been called Passive Wisdom (Perception) but naming it after the Perception skills made more sense as featured in 4E.

Such way of calling for checks also stayed with many who played previous editions. I even somethimes hear dead names being called for, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Heal, Thievery or Spot check!

 

[HammerMan]

There are other cases - like a rogue can find a trap using Wisdom (Perception) or by Intelligence (Investigation). You need a bit of information to know which ability will be applicable.

my group has an ongoing debate on this...
rogue is checking for traps... is that a theives tools+ dex, an Investigation + Int, a Perception +Wis are the 3 most common answers, but I have heard and seen argued Thief Tools + Int or Wis and Investigation + dex as well.

I also had a player VERY upset when to identify a strange metal I on the fly said "Int + smith tools" because the difference between +0 int and +5 Str was huge... I told the player I didn't think str would be right but he insisted black smiths are always strong...

 

[iserith]

we had (I hope) a joke a player tried to use athletics instead of investigation by dropping and doing 10 quick push ups to get the blood flowing and clear his mind so he could think better... in short hand sometimes my group still says "Can I do a push up for insight?"

For my group, it's "I intimidate the grass" which arose for us out of players trying to wedge their best skill into D&D 4e skill challenges.

 

[iserith]

my group has an ongoing debate on this...
rogue is checking for traps... is that a theives tools+ dex, an Investigation + Int, a Perception +Wis are the 3 most common answers, but I have heard and seen argued Thief Tools + Int or Wis and Investigation + dex as well.

I also had a player VERY upset when to identify a strange metal I on the fly said "Int + smith tools" because the difference between +0 int and +5 Str was huge... I told the player I didn't think str would be right but he insisted black smiths are always strong...

The trick is getting players to be reasonably specific about their approach to a goal in my view. "I do X in hopes of achieving Y" or some version of that statement. In this case, "X" is the approach to the goal and should be reasonably specific enough for the DM to determine whether there is uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (the prerequisites for an ability check) and what ability check and skill or tool proficiency may apply.

Ultimately it's about the players holding up their end of the conversation. When players do this, it's very easy to adjudicate as DM and adds a lot to the unfolding scene in terms of description.

 

[Charlaquin]

my group has an ongoing debate on this...
rogue is checking for traps... is that a theives tools+ dex, an Investigation + Int, a Perception +Wis are the 3 most common answers, but I have heard and seen argued Thief Tools + Int or Wis and Investigation + dex as well.

I don’t want to tell you how to run your game, but you might find it useful to reverse the order you’re considering these things in. 5e renders checks as Ability (Proficiency) rather than Proficiency + Ability, and I find that thinking about them accordingly helps alleviate the ambiguity here. Which of the following is most relevant to determining whether someone successfully detects the presence of a trap?

• Agility, reflexes, and balance
• Mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason
or
• Attunement to the surrounding world, perceptiveness, and intuition

Personally, I think the first option is obviously not very relevant. Either the second or third could be relevant, depending on how the character is going about trying to find the trap, so I would call for either an Intelligence or Wisdom check depending on the approach the player described. Once that’s been established, we can start considering whether a given proficiency would be applicable. I think Investigation, Perception, and Thieves’ Tools all seem like they could be applicable (hence the ambiguity leading to the ongoing debate at your table), so I leave it up to the player to self-select an appropriate proficiency to apply, so long as it isn’t obviously irrelevant based on their stated approach.

I also had a player VERY upset when to identify a strange metal I on the fly said "Int + smith tools" because the difference between +0 int and +5 Str was huge... I told the player I didn't think str would be right but he insisted black smiths are always strong...

Int + Smith’s tools seems like a very fitting check for that. Blacksmiths are indeed strong, but that’s not really in question- the question is if bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force is relevant in determining whether or not you can successfully identify a strange metal, given your stated approach. I struggle to imagine an approach to that goal where it would be.

 

[robus]

but it was your adaptation of Lost Mine of Phandelver that convinced me to give it a shot myself

Is there a link to this?

 

[Charlaquin]

Is there a link to this?

@iserith originally posted it back on the old WotC forums, which I don’t think were archived, but maybe they still have it on an old hard drive somewhere?

EDIT: Google has revealed to me that there’s a mirror right here on ENWorld! D&D 5E - Re-Imagining of "Goblin Arrows"