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

[iserith]

The player did declare an action. He said he was going to move the statue. The GM asked for an ability check. The player asked if a proficiency applied. That is the exact order of operations as is described in the rules. In this case, the player asked for about a non-standard proficiency for a Strength check (also explicitly allowed by the rules) and the GM asked for a clarification of how it would apply. That's how the game works -- that is the explicit order of operations. You are breaking the part of the process that allows the player to ask about using a proficiency.

History can only apply if it fits the description the player offered initially, which it does not. Your example is one in which the player is trying to get a bonus after the fact by effectively amending the description of their action. Is that an outcome you want to see more of in your games?

 

[Reynard]

History can only apply if it fits the description the player offered initially, which it does not. Your example is one in which the player is trying to get a bonus after the fact by effectively amending the description of their action. Is that an outcome you want to see more of in your games?

We have already established that I am fine with it and you aren't -- which is totally okay, it's your game. I am quibbling with your interpretation that it is against the rules, which it isn't.

 

[billd91]

This is what it says.

"Proficiency

When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies.
One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice. If the answer is no, it's fine to say that no proficiency applies. But if the answer is yes, assign an appropriate skill or tool proficiency to reflect that training and practice."

In context with the entire section, though, that bolded sentence would apply if the DM didn't state a proficiency and was just asking for a base ability check.

There's also the text, under the Skills section:

Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to a check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.

The implication here really is there's a conversation going on between the DM and player. And a further implication is that the DM has said that a particular ability check is warranted - no specification if a particular skill has already been identified as being relevant - and frankly, I think that's not necessary to know. It wouldn't have to be an unskilled ability check for a player to come back with a suggestion of how their skill proficiencies might apply.

 

[iserith]

We have already established that I am fine with it and you aren't -- which is totally okay, it's your game. I am quibbling with your interpretation that it is against the rules, which it isn't.

We'll have to disagree on that point then. I see nothing in the rules that suggests the example is the process of play.

 

[Reynard]

We'll have to disagree on that point then. I see nothing in the rules that suggests the example is the process of play.

@billd91 made a more concise argument than I in the post above this one I am quoting.

 

[Charlaquin]

@iserith and @Reynard

I think rather than focusing on what is or isn’t RAW, it may be more useful to consider the gameplay outcomes of each approach. If one or the other has outcomes one finds preferable, then I think one ought to rule that way, whether it’s RAW or not, and so the argument about what the RAW says is mostly a distraction.

Personally, I’m inclined to favor iserith’s ruling because I use the goal and approach the player describes in my assessment of whether or not to call for a check in the first place. If the player had said in the first place that they’re relying on their knowledge of the construction techniques in this, their ancestral home, to know how best to move the statue, it’s possible I might not have even called for a check. By adding that detail after the fact, they have changed the parameters of the action, and therefore I would have to re-assess whether or not a check is required.

I think, perhaps, it might be best to say that what I need the player to describe is not just goal and approach, but goal, approach, and any tools or specialized knowledge they are using to assist them. I mean, the tools and specialized knowledge should be covered as part of the approach, but I think this discussion makes it clear that isn’t obvious to everyone.

 

[iserith]

@billd91 made a more concise argument than I in the post above this one I am quoting.

I'm not able to view that post.

@iserith and @Reynard

I think rather than focusing on what is or isn’t RAW, it may be more useful to consider the gameplay outcomes of each approach. If one or the other has outcomes one finds preferable, then I think one ought to rule that way, whether it’s RAW or not, and so the argument about what the RAW says is mostly a distraction.

Personally, I’m inclined to favor iserith’s ruling because I use the goal and approach the player describes in my assessment of whether or not to call for a check in the first place. If the player had said in the first place that they’re relying on their knowledge of the construction techniques in this, their ancestral home, to know how best to move the statue, it’s possible I might not have even called for a check. By adding that detail after the fact, they have changed the parameters of the action, and therefore I would have to re-assess whether or not a check is required.

I think, perhaps, it might be best to say that what I need the player to describe is not just goal and approach, but goal, approach, and any tools or specialized knowledge they are using to assist them. I mean, the tools and specialized knowledge should be covered as part of the approach, but I think this discussion makes it clear that isn’t obvious to everyone.

I agree. The discussion on what is or isn't RAW is a separate matter from the game experience the group prefers.

 

[Charlaquin]

Consider a declaration of an attack: “I try to kill the goblin (goal) by attacking it (approach) with my sword (tool).”

For the statue we have: “I try to move the statue (goal) by lifting it (approach) using the technique I’ve learned from my ancestors (knowledge).”

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not able to view that post.

He quoted DMG 239:
“Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to a check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.”

This could certainly be read as support for providing that justification after the check has been called for. Again, I don’t think it much matters if it’s RAW or not, but I can see how one could read it that way.

 

[billd91]

Personally, I’m inclined to favor iserith’s ruling because I use the goal and approach the player describes in my assessment of whether or not to call for a check in the first place. If the player had said in the first place that they’re relying on their knowledge of the construction techniques in this, their ancestral home, to know how best to move the statue, it’s possible I might not have even called for a check. By adding that detail after the fact, they have changed the parameters of the action, and therefore I would have to re-assess whether or not a check is required.

If reassessing the adjudication of the task is the cost of the player developing their approach as part of the conversation with the DM rather than declaring it all prior, that's a very low and easy to bear one. And it's why I'm perfectly fine with a player continuing to develope their approach as we're working through the action and its adjudication