D&D 5E (2014) Ability Check origins at your table

[el-remmen]

First and second.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. I’m pretty casual about this. “I attempt to climb x, athletics 17. Do I climb?” Is perfectly fine. “I sneak. Stealth X” is fine AFAIC. Even “I search the room, investigate Y” is okay.

I’ve never understood dms who are, in my mind anyway, endlessly picky about this stuff.

To the point where I actually do start getting frustrated with the whole “tell me what you do schtick.” You want that level of description, you tell me what you want me to say and I’ll say that. Stop wasting everyone’s time with the fifteenth description of how we search a room.
/edit to add

I'm playing in a Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign right now and we're in a scenario where there's a bunch of magical puzzles. Fair enough. Not really my bag, but, I'll live with it. In one of the puzzles, you have to throw a rock further than a certain point. Now, there's lots of rocks sitting in the pile. So, I turn to the DM, and I say, "Ok, I keep throwing rocks until I throw if further than that point. There's no real limit to rocks is there?"

The Dm then forced me to keep rerolling over and over again, until he finally got fed up and had the NPC push the furthest rock we threw over the line all the while giving me the side eye about how stupid we were being.

It's that kind of thing that just drives me around the twist. DM's who completely ignore the actual advice in the DMG (if there's no consequence for failure DON'T ROLL) and then get annoyed when the players then do what we're supposed to do - roll.

There are far, far larger problems with the skill system than a player rolling when the roll is really, really obvious. I dunno how much clearer they can be in the DMG, but, apparently, there are more than a few DM's out there who never got the memo.

 

[CleverNickName]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I ask the player to describe what their character is doing. Then I'll ask the player to roll an ability check that I think best matches the described action. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I ask the player to describe what their character is doing. Then I'll ask the player to roll an ability check that I think best matches the described action. Pretty straightforward.

It's not wrong if it works for you. Not really my style in many cases, but then again it just depends on focus of the game and what you and your group find rewarding.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I ask the player to describe what their character is doing. Then I'll ask the player to roll an ability check that I think best matches the described action. Pretty straightforward.

To be fair, that's probably the most common thing that happens at my tables too. OTOH, I've got no problems with, "Can I do X with a Y check?" Or, even, when it's pretty obvious, "I try to do X. Check Y. Do I succeed?" As in, "I look around the room, Perception 17, what do I see?"

Like I said, I'm not sure why that last one is such a tripping point for people. My players have all gamed for a considerable amount of time. They can predict what I'm going to ask for pretty accurately. So, why bother trying to hide the sausage here? "I look around" is going to trigger a Perception check. If there is something really obvious, the roll doesn't change that the player sees it or not. But, the roll also makes it possible that they might see more.

I just don't get the hard line position that some people seem to be taking here that players MUST NOT EVER just roll without the DM asking for it.

 

[CleverNickName]

To be fair, that's probably the most common thing that happens at my tables too. OTOH, I've got no problems with, "Can I do X with a Y check?" Or, even, when it's pretty obvious, "I try to do X. Check Y. Do I succeed?" As in, "I look around the room, Perception 17, what do I see?"

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. If the player says something like "Well, can I roll for Investigation?" I'll usually respond with "Maybe, what does that 'investigation' look like?" and let them narrate. I don't mind being flexible so long as it's not too farfetched and the player can really sell it.

"Um, well, my character is going to sort through the rubble at the edges of the room, looking for anything out of the ordinary." Sure Bob, normally I'd call that Perception but close enough, roll Investigation.

"Um, well, my character is going to stare at the sheer cliff so hard that they see all the hidden handholds and cracks that will let them scale the cliff with ease." You can't observe your way up a sheer cliff, Bob...you still gotta roll Athletics, but I'll let you use your Wisdom mod instead of Strength.

"Um, well, my character is going to perform an elaborate dance and follow some measured steps to follow the enemy's trail." No Bob, you're not dancing and that' not a Perform check. Roll a Wisdom, Survival check to see if you find the enemy's trail.

 

[el-remmen]

I think my players just don't want to "waste" a roll and wait for me to ask for one because it is possible I will not require a roll depending on what, how, and under which conditions the task is being attempted.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think my players just don't want to "waste" a roll and wait for me to ask for one because it is possible I will not require a roll depending on what, how, and under which conditions the task is being attempted.

There's also that. I've actually had players throw their dice at me when I tell them I didn't really need them to roll to dismount their horse (or whatever).

"@$#@%$#@# man, I rolled a nat-20 and everything!"

"Nobody asked you to roll, Bob."

"That...that's beside the point!"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Count me in as someone who does all three. I mean, I by FAR prefer a nice narrative over "I look around. Perception 16." IF they do that, I'll probably narrate more colourfully myself.

I have my preferences, but I don't really enforce them. I also don't really sweat the details, so if a player narrates something themselves, I'll work it into the story as best I can, even if I didn't intend for a detail to be there.

There's also that. I've actually had players throw their dice at me when I tell them I didn't really need them to roll to dismount their horse (or whatever).

"@$#@%$#@# man, I rolled a nat-20 and everything!"

"Nobody asked you to roll, Bob."

"That...that's beside the point!"

I'd probably just give them a nice narration on how beautifully they "dismount their horse" and move on. But I agree that it's funny!

As an aside - I never quite understand the idea that an uncalled for roll will somehow result in a character doing worse if they roll bad. If you're not asking for a roll, why wouldn't they just succeed no matter how low they roll? I mean, I'd probably narrate some kind of setback on their way to success (if they roll low, kind of the opposite of the horse-scenario above), but they'd still fundamentally succeed.

I'm not afraid of extra rolls.

 

[overgeeked]

There's also that. I've actually had players throw their dice at me when I tell them I didn't really need them to roll to dismount their horse (or whatever).

"@$#@%$#@# man, I rolled a nat-20 and everything!"

"Nobody asked you to roll, Bob."

"That...that's beside the point!"

Unnecessary nat 20:

P1: "I totally succeeded. A nat 20 is an auto success. Ha."

DM: "I didn't ask for a roll because it's impossible."

P1: "That's not fair! I rolled a nat 20. That's an auto success!"

Unnecessary nat 1:

P1: "Oh, crap. I rolled a nat 1. No way am I going to try that now."

DM: "I didn't ask for a roll, besides you already declared your action."

P1: "That's not fair! You didn't ask for a roll. Ask me for a roll and then I'll roll again."

Either way, le sigh.

I'm not afraid of extra rolls.

Neither am I. I simply have no interest in wasting all that time they eat up during a game session.