D&D 5E "Make a Strength (History) roll."

[CleverNickName]

Right, which I would find to be out of order. Drawing upon historical knowledge to make moving the statue easier than just brute strength should be part of what the player initially described prior to the DM asking for the check. DM then calls for the Strength check and the player declares they are adding History, based on what they already described. Otherwise you can get into situations where the player starts tacking stuff on after the call for a roll just to get a bonus. Whether or not someone finds that acceptable will be up to them, of course, but it's too little, too late in my view according to the process of play.

I don't disagree with your point, but isn't "the player declares they are adding History" the same thing as "tacking stuff on after the call for a roll just to get a bonus"? I'm not seeing a difference.

 

[Reynard]

Right, which I would find to be out of order. Drawing upon historical knowledge to make moving the statue easier than just brute strength should be part of what the player initially described prior to the DM asking for the check. DM then calls for the Strength check and the player declares they are adding History, based on what they already described. Otherwise you can get into situations where the player starts tacking stuff on after the call for a roll just to get a bonus. Whether or not someone finds that acceptable will be up to them, of course, but it's too little, too late in my view according to the process of play.

I disagree. The game is a conversation, and in this case the conversation includes talking about appropriate use of proficiencies. i do not believe that ANY GM is a good enough to feel confident enough that they explained every possible element sufficiently to demand the player get it complete and right in one go.

 

[iserith]

I don't disagree with your point, but isn't "the player declares they are adding History" the same thing as "tacking stuff on after the call for a roll just to get a bonus"? I'm not seeing a difference.

No, because you can't add the History proficiency bonus unless you've described drawing upon history in some way during your description which precedes the DM's call for a check. Compare to Reynard's example where the player gets asked for a check and only then starts talking about how they want to draw upon history for that bonus.

 

[iserith]

I disagree. The game is a conversation, and in this case the conversation includes talking about appropriate use of proficiencies. i do not believe that ANY GM is a good enough to feel confident enough that they explained every possible element sufficiently to demand the player get it complete and right in one go.

I'm not sure how this is a DM confidence thing and not the player adequately describing what they want to do prior to the DM adjudicating the action. Can you explain?

 

[Blue]

I greatly prefer mix-and-match ability and skill, this is also how 13th Age does it, but I unfortunately never get to use this rule. In my group I have a few players who exclusively use apps to make their character, and it just stops play and takes a couple of times explaining to get them to understand THIS ability score modifier, plus your PROFICIENCY if you are proficient int THAT skill. No, don't add that skill modifier to the ability, it already has a different ability modifier baked in. Your proficiency. No, I don't know where that is on your character sheet. Look, you're 7th level, it's the same for everyone. Okay, so as your as you are proficient in the skill, you can add that to this other ability. Just roll like normal.

 

[Tutara]

This is prevalent at the tables I play/DM D&D at. A lot of them get used with Charisma: Stealth for going under the radar at a soiree or in a crowd, Investigation to track down leads through questioning the locals, Religion to make a communal sacred ritual particularly impressive, and so on. Others do crop up from time to time, but not so frequently as Charisma.

Strength (History) sounds viable- could relate to muscle memory or reneacting a martial technique from the knowledge of ancient pamphlets or an oral tradition. It very much depends on the situation and what the table thinks works as a group.

 

[Yaarel]

A way to encourage this play is for the character sheet to have an empty box for skills. Then only write down the skills that the character is proficient with.

These skills in this manner tend to flavor what a character is about. They apply whenever they would apply.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I disagree. The game is a conversation, and in this case the conversation includes talking about appropriate use of proficiencies. i do not believe that ANY GM is a good enough to feel confident enough that they explained every possible element sufficiently to demand the player get it complete and right in one go.

I'm with you. The game needs flexible back-and-forth or it becomes too rigid. I think I get what @iserith is going for, ideally, but I don't believe in expecting perfection.

 

[CleverNickName]

No, because you can't add the History proficiency bonus unless you've described drawing upon history in some way during your description which precedes the DM's call for a check. Compare to Reynard's example where the player gets asked for a check and only then starts talking about how they want to draw upon history for that bonus.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. The nuance is subtle, but it's there.

 

[iserith]

I'm with you. The game needs flexible back-and-forth or it becomes too rigid. I think I get what @iserith is going for, ideally, but I don't believe in expecting perfection.

Individual DMs will have to decide what their tolerance is for this, but having had long experience with this Variant rule in my games, players will absolutely try to add bonuses to the ability check the DM already called for if allowed to do so. It's effectively a retcon because you know you're now making a check and want to add to your description to mitigate the chance of failure.

This also creates something of an interruption of the flow of the conversation and should be the exception, not the rule, in my view. Compare Description-Call for Check-Check-Narrate to Description-Call for Check-Description-Q&A-Check-Narrate. It may seem like a minor thing, but this adds up quick to real time spent on back and forth hashing out whether something applies.