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

[EzekielRaiden]

I prefer things done this way, but always expect the player to sell me on it. This usually isn't super hard, I am very motivated by the Rule of Cool and/or the Rule of Interesting.* History+Strength is obviously hyperbolic, so that one seems unlikely barring a truly impressive explanation, but even relatively out-there ideas like Constitution+Investigation or Intelligence+Athletics can make sense.

*"Interesting" does not strictly need to be "cool," just something that gets my mental wheels turning.

 

[Tonguez]

My pre-3e homebrew system allowed freeform Skills and Knacks, everything was an ability check (including combat) with players able to define their own skills or knacks (feats) to add a bonus.

So the idea of Str+dwarfish+history to allow a Dwarf to open a sealed vault in an old dwarf mine was perfectly valid.

Str+ dwarf+architect* gives architecture advantage to the roll

 

[Charlaquin]

Except in 5e there is an explicitly allowed, possible additional step: the player making the case for a proficiency after the ability check has been called for. It isn't an optional rule and while whether the proficiency applies is up to the GM, the asking is NOT up to the GM.

Again, I don’t think there’s really any value in arguing whether it’s RAW or not. Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s a house rule, I still think it’s one that there’s good reason to consider using, which I have provided previously in this thread.

 

[cbwjm]

One of the tools available to GMs and players in 5E is non-standard combinations of ability scores and proficiencies. It doesn't come up very often in my experience, but sometimes odd pairings make for interesting moments in play -- or, rather, interesting moments in play call for the odd pairings. I remember having PCs make Charisma (Athletics) checks to entertain a crowd in the arena, and have sometimes let them make things like Intelligence (Stealth) to try and surmise how an assassin or thief infiltrated a crime scene.

Relatedly, I sometimes let players make checks with proficiency based on their backgrounds or their class (and choosing an appropriate ability score). The 5E proficiency list is narrow and specific and sometimes it is easier to lean on "secondary skills" from the AD&D days.

What are your thoughts on non-standard proficiency and ability scores?

I definitely use them, Charisma (Investigation) to represent a "streetwise" skill. I did start a thread asking for ideas on different ability/skill usage a while back (apparently all the way back in september 2020) people had a lot of ideas for intelligence.

 

[Reynard]

Again, I don’t think there’s really any value in arguing whether it’s RAW or not. Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s a house rule, I still think it’s one that there’s good reason to consider using, which I have provided previously in this thread.

I respect that but disagree. The benefits in creativity outweigh any costs in time, imo.

 

[Larnievc]

I really like them. I’ve had players make a history constitution check to do a bit of archeological digging and then an intelligence history check to date the bracers he found then a charisma history check to sell them to a collector.

I think of it like the Story Teller system’s abilities + attributes (or what ever it’s called).

One of the tools available to GMs and players in 5E is non-standard combinations of ability scores and proficiencies. It doesn't come up very often in my experience, but sometimes odd pairings make for interesting moments in play -- or, rather, interesting moments in play call for the odd pairings. I remember having PCs make Charisma (Athletics) checks to entertain a crowd in the arena, and have sometimes let them make things like Intelligence (Stealth) to try and surmise how an assassin or thief infiltrated a crime scene.

Relatedly, I sometimes let players make checks with proficiency based on their backgrounds or their class (and choosing an appropriate ability score). The 5E proficiency list is narrow and specific and sometimes it is easier to lean on "secondary skills" from the AD&D days.

What are your thoughts on non-standard proficiency and ability scores?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Again, I disagree. In my experience it’s pretty common.

Which part is common in your experience? Players coming up with non-standard Ability-proficiency combinations or players trying to game the system?

I think both @Reynard and @FitzTheRuke would feel the former is the system working as intended, and consider the latter rare.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The benefits creativity outweigh any costs in time, imo.

Oh…that’s an interesting twist. So far the position I’ve understood is “both paths get you there so I like the one where you talk more.” I didn’t realize (maybe from reading on my phone) that you thought the iterative one results in more creativity.

I feel the opposite (of course!). One version is “here is this problem your character faces; using all the tools in your toolbox, come up with a plan at which your character is most likely to succeed.”

The other is (at least in my experience) “throw something out there and see how the DM reacts. If it looks like they may let you do it, add some more detail to improve your odds. Repeat until success seems likely.”

So, yeah, I guess either gets you there but IMO those are two different "there's", and I just prefer the storytelling and problem solving of the first one. It feels more intentional, and less of a fishing expedition with the DM. YMMV: you may imagine/experience a very different dynamic.

 

[Reynard]

Oh…that’s an interesting twist. So far the position I’ve understood is “both paths get you there so I like the one where you talk more.” I didn’t realize (maybe from reading on my phone) that you thought the iterative one results in more creativity.

I feel the opposite (of course!). One version is “here is this problem your character faces; using all the tools in your toolbox, come up with a plan at which your character is most likely to succeed.”

The other is (at least in my experience) “throw something out there and see how the DM reacts. If it looks like they may let you do it, add some more detail to improve your odds. Repeat until success seems likely.”

So, yeah, I guess either gets you there but IMO those are two different "there's", and I just prefer the storytelling and problem solving of the first one. It feels more intentional, and less of a fishing expedition with the DM. YMMV: you may imagine/experience a very different dynamic.

As usual, I don't think that binary choices really cover the breadth of possibilities and there is so much missing context in these things, the fact is it really isn't a choice between "all information before" or "always make post declaration adjustments." Real play almost never works out so cleanly. As such i am just speaking in generalities and preferences, and that comes down to this: by leaving the door open for the player to make some request or argument after I call for a Strength check, there is the potential for creativity in that space of action resolution as well. That isn't to say there isn't creativity prior to that, or even that i don't see the value in clear communications between and by players and GM so that a post declaration negotiation isn't necessary. And obviously, in most cases, it won't even be necessary since everyone knows what the circumstances and stakes are. My argument is very narrowly limited to this: I don't shut the door on continuing the conversation just because I called for the check.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As usual, I don't think that binary choices really cover the breadth of possibilities and there is so much missing context in these things, the fact is it really isn't a choice between "all information before" or "always make post declaration adjustments." Real play almost never works out so cleanly.

Agreed; I’m only describing the tilt of the scale to the side I prefer.