D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[iserith]

In a way, I am agreeing with this. I am saying that just as much as it is fine for rogue to say "I am using thieve's tools on the lock" (sotto voce, I'm not a locksmith in real life), and it's okay for the rogue to say "I am taking an action to hide using Stealth", they can say "I use sleight of hand to palm the coin". That can even be as brief as "I use sleight of hand" if the narration up to that point has made it clear what the subject must be.

Except that the players have no say in whether an ability check is called for or not, nor arguably should they even want to make an ability check since relying on a d20 isn't smart play. We should also not confuse the common use of words like "sleight of hand" with "Make a Sleight of Hand check." Those are not the same things, even if sometimes when the character engages in an act of sleight of hand, the player sometimes makes a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Understanding that players don't "use skills" or "make skill checks" but rather describe what they want to do and leave the rest to the DM is important to understanding how this game works in my view and how it is different from a game that expressly puts the ask to make "skill checks" in the hands of the player.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Except that the players have no say in whether an ability check is called for or not, nor arguably should they even want to make an ability check since relying on a d20 isn't smart play. We should also not confuse the common use of words like "sleight of hand" with "Make a Sleight of Hand check." Those are not the same things, even if sometimes when the character engages in an act of sleight of hand, the player sometimes makes a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Understanding that players don't "use skills" or "make skill checks" but rather describe what they want to do and leave the rest to the DM is important to understanding how this game works in my view and how it is different from a game that expressly puts the ask to make "skill checks" in the hands of the player.

This is exactly why I like using “seduce” rather than “intimidate”. Actions that are best described using a verb that parallels one of the skills do not get special treatment.

 

[Bolares]

I personally don't like them. I prefer the skill to be the skill and tools to either be required in order to use the skill or to provide a bonus to the skill.

I tend to treat them as the 3e proffession skills most of the time. But also use the xanathar ideas for giving advantage to skill tests that involve them, opening up new knowledge options and downtime projects using them...

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, scratch my previous response. I misunderstood.

I did as well. The way he worded it seemed to say that the one roll would just hang around and be used against anyone who comes along. So if the PC encountered a guard, the roll would apply to that guard. Then later on the PC encounters a maid and the same roll is used for her. Now I'm a bit confused as to what he really meant.

 

[iserith]

This is exactly why I like using “seduce” rather than “intimidate”. Actions that are best described using a verb that parallels one of the skills do not get special treatment.

Right, often DMs or players speak or hear the word and, because it so happens to also be the word in the skill or tool proficiency, they jump straight to the "skill check." That's ignoring an important step in the adjudication process which determines if a check is appropriate at all, even if it does sound similar.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I usually let disguises ride, somewhat like Stealth. The check can be against multiple creatures.

"Let it ride" is a good technique here. So, maybe when the disguise is applied a check is made. That check is non-specific, it just establishes the overall success of that technique. If you roll a 1, then maybe the wig is bad and nobody believes you at all. Maybe if you roll a 20 you can go through the whole day and fool everyone. Somewhere in between you'll probably do OK wandering around the market stalls, but if the lady's cousin shows up, the jig is up.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Let it ride" is a good technique here. So, maybe when the disguise is applied a check is made. That check is non-specific, it just establishes the overall success of that technique. If you roll a 1, then maybe the wig is bad and nobody believes you at all. Maybe if you roll a 20 you can go through the whole day and fool everyone. Somewhere in between you'll probably do OK wandering around the market stalls, but if the lady's cousin shows up, the jig is up.

I think their later post suggested this is not what they meant.

 

[Bolares]

Speaking of stealth, when do you ask for the roll? I used to ask for the player to roll when they said they would "become" stealthy. But just before the pandemic hit I started doing something different. I ask for the roll just when there is a possibility of someone perceiving the stealthy character. This way the player doesn't know they rolled poorly when deciding what to do while stealthy. The tension is way higher for my group, and the whole deal is more risky and more fun for us.

 

[Maxperson]

I think their later post suggested this is not what they meant.

It could be both. The later post indicated that the roll isn't made until first contact, but you can still let it ride from there.

 

[iserith]

"Let it ride" is a good technique here. So, maybe when the disguise is applied a check is made. That check is non-specific, it just establishes the overall success of that technique. If you roll a 1, then maybe the wig is bad and nobody believes you at all. Maybe if you roll a 20 you can go through the whole day and fool everyone. Somewhere in between you'll probably do OK wandering around the market stalls, but if the lady's cousin shows up, the jig is up.

Better to resolve whether the disguise is effective at the point where it matters in my view (in other words, where the meaningful consequences for failure are to be realized). Otherwise, you're in a situation where the player rolled poorly and wants to try again. The DM is now in the position of either having them do that and watching them roll repeatedly till they're happy with a particular result or saying they can't because uh something something metagaming and/or implementing some kind of "let it ride" house rule the player is expected to play along with.