D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[AmandaBarbarian]

The other thing that bothers me is things like history, nature, religion checks and similar. I know what a zebra looks like. I know they don't make good steeds because they're too mean, they live in Africa. How do I know this? When did I learn it? How would I describe that I just think about zebras and also get random facts and info like the fact that zebra stripes are random and can be used to identify individuals, that the stripes probably evolved to minimize biting flies?

okay i have to thank you for finding me my new rabbit hole, stripes on animal research, BUT also this is why calling for a check is important both by players and DMS

 

[Oofta]

okay i have to thank you for finding me my new rabbit hole, stripes on animal research, BUT also this is why calling for a check is important both by players and DMS

Stripes on zebras minimizing fly bites is just one hypothesis.

Identifying creatures in D&D is a bit weird because a creature may not be a natural creature. It's a bit weird. Animals? Nature is the go-to. But fiends? Religion? What about dragons or beasts? I'm always kind of flipping a coin on some of these things. It's one of those things were it's going to be the player asking "What do I know about that weird horse-like animal with stripes?" Then I have to figure out what to ask for.

 

[Oofta]

I appreciate all the responses.

I'm in the #2 camp. Pretty much the "fiction first" that @overgeeked mentions earlier in thread.

Unlike what @GMforPowergamers details above, there are no mechanical bonuses for real world knowledge or knowing the "right thing" to say to the DM at our table. All a player needs to do is describe what their character wants to accomplish in the scene and how they're going about it.

DM: "the door is locked"
Player: "my Rogue attempts to pick the lock with her lock picks"
DM: [adjudicates]


This might be a mundane lock on a door leading to an unoccupied room, in which case I'm not going to bother with asking for a roll. Auto-success.
This might be a mundane lock, but it is important that it be picked quietly so as not to alert the guard on the other side of the door. A DC is set and a roll with stakes is called for. On a success, the lock is picked quietly and the guard will be surprised when the party bursts through. On a failure, the lock is picked but the guard hears it.
This might be a particularly tricky lock to a side storage room not critical to the quest. A DC is set and a roll with stakes is called for. On a success, loot! On a failure, the lock is not able to be picked and the time is wasted resulting in... complications.

Etc...

If they know the door is locked and the rogue is going to pick the lock it seems you're just adding an extra step. I guess I don't understand why the result of that roll is going to be affected either way. It's not like the rogue is suddenly going to try to pick a lock by using a hammer and chisel.

I do something similar on a regular basis as far as degrees of success. In addition, if time is not a factor many things like opening a lock is either hand-waved or we just roll to see how long it takes.

For some checks I encourage people to be descriptive, but I honestly don't know how you can get descriptive (or what would change) for several. What could you add for description for (off the top of my head) arcana, history, insight, nature or religion?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If they know the door is locked and the rogue is going to pick the lock it seems you're just adding an extra step. I guess I don't understand why the result of that roll is going to be affected either way. It's not like the rogue is suddenly going to try to pick a lock by using a hammer and chisel.

I'm not sure I follow on the "extra step" bit. The DM describes that the door is locked (presumably among several other details in the room) and the player decides whether their rogue may or may not try to pick it. That's not my job as DM to describe what the PC wants to do. Not at our table, anyway.

Based on what the PC wants to do, a check might be called. The possible subsequent roll doesn't affect what they want to do, the roll determines the outcome of what they are trying to do. If the player describes their Rogue as trying to pick a lock with their lockpicks, and they fail a called check, I'm not going to narrate anything to do with a hammer and chisel. Ever. Is there something I've written that makes you think that could be a possibility?

I do something similar on a regular basis as far as degrees of success. In addition, if time is not a factor many things like opening a lock is either hand-waved or we just roll to see how long it takes.

Sounds good.

For some checks I encourage people to be descriptive, but I honestly don't know how you can get descriptive (or what would change) for several. What could you add for description for (off the top of my head) arcana, history, insight, nature or religion?

At our table, the player isn't asking for checks so they don't have to worry about what they would "add for description" for any particular skill. The player just describes what their character is doing in the fiction: "My character is thinking back to their training as a wizard's apprentice/smuggler/folk hero/whatever, does she recognize any of the symbology in the mural?"

If the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, "the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task" (PHB p 174) and calls for a check.

 

[el-remmen]

People have weird ideas about their dice and there's nothing I can do to prevent that.

I can't help people's superstitions.

I don't disagree. But not sure why you feel the need to argue against my guess for why folks at my table don't roll before prompted.

 

[Oofta]

I don't disagree. But not sure why you feel the need to argue against my guess for why folks at my table don't roll before prompted.

I was just trying to clarify what was meant by "wasting a roll". That's all.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure I follow on the "extra step" bit. The DM describes that the door is locked (presumably among several other details in the room) and the player decides whether their rogue may or may not try to pick it. That's not my job as DM to describe what the PC wants to do. Not at our table, anyway.

Based on what the PC wants to do, a check might be called. The possible subsequent roll doesn't affect what they want to do, the roll determines the outcome of what they are trying to do. If the player describes their Rogue as trying to pick a lock with their lockpicks, and they fail a called check, I'm not going to narrate anything to do with a hammer and chisel. Ever. Is there something I've written that makes you think that could be a possibility?

In my game it can be as simple as

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "20 to open"​

DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

instead of

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "Can I pick the lock?"​

DM: "Roll a thieve's tools check"​

Player: "20"​

DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

​

Either could happen in my game, the bolded is what I'm talking about that people add (and some people insist it must be added). It's just extra back and forth that I don't get why people require it. I know that the thief PC is doing, the player knows what their character is doing.

In most cases if a check wasn't required, it's not going to matter what they roll.

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "20 to open"​

DM: "It was a cheap lock, you could have done it in your sleep. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

instead of

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "Can I pick the lock?"​

DM: "It's a simple lock, no roll required. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

​

Of course if the roll is required for other reasons than opening the lock then the first example is what happens anyway.

If in either style the player ends up having to roll a D20, the only thing that is added is the player basically asking "may I get a skill check I know you're going to ask for anyway".

Sounds good.


At our table, the player isn't asking for checks so they don't have to worry about what they would "add for description" for any particular skill. The player just describes what their character is doing in the fiction: "My character is thinking back to their training as a wizard's apprentice/smuggler/folk hero/whatever, does she recognize any of the symbology in the mural?"

Whereas in mine it would be "Arcana to know what these symbols mean?" or whatever. Knowledge checks are a bit different, usually the player will have to ask for applicable skill. I never require them to explain why they have arcana, history or whatever, because the answer is always going to be some variation of "Because of my training and background". I can't think of any way I'd describe a knowledge check in more ways than that one explanation so why bother? If someone is a sailor they may remind me of that when trying to remember something about the history of a ship, but that's adding additional qualifier to the check I may not remember.

If the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, "the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task" (PHB p 174) and calls for a check.

I just shortcut it because I don't care and my players know how to play the game. Knowledge checks are the exception to the general rule.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In my game it can be as simple as

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "20 to open"​

DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

instead of

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "Can I pick the lock?"​

DM: "Roll a thieve's tools check"​

Player: "20"​

DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

Not exactly. Players generally make statements rather than asking questions at our table. So instead of "Can I pick the lock?" it's "My rogue attempts to pick the lock (with her thieves' tools)". The DM then adjudicates based on the situation.

Either could happen in my game, the bolded is what I'm talking about that people add (and some people insist it must be added). It's just extra back and forth that I don't get why people require it. I know that the thief PC is doing, the player knows what their character is doing.

In most cases if a check wasn't required, it's not going to matter what they roll.

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "20 to open"​

DM: "It was a cheap lock, you could have done it in your sleep. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

instead of

DM: "... the door is locked"​

Player: "Can I pick the lock?"​

DM: "It's a simple lock, no roll required. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"​

​

Of course if the roll is required for other reasons than opening the lock then the first example is what happens anyway.

If in either style the player ends up having to roll a D20, the only thing that is added is the player basically asking "may I get a skill check I know you're going to ask for anyway".

This last bit is incorrect. The player does not necessarily end up having to roll a d20 at our table. Sometimes it is an auto-success. Sometimes it is an auto-failure. No roll is asked for by the DM at our table for those situations. And so, it follows, that the players don't know that the DM is "going to ask for [it] anyway". I mean, it is possible a roll might be required, but it is not a given.

Whereas in mine it would be "Arcana to know what these symbols mean?" or whatever. Knowledge checks are a bit different, usually the player will have to ask for applicable skill. I never require them to explain why they have arcana, history or whatever, because the answer is always going to be some variation of "Because of my training and background". I can't think of any way I'd describe a knowledge check in more ways than that one explanation so why bother? If someone is a sailor they may remind me of that when trying to remember something about the history of a ship, but that's adding additional qualifier to the check I may not remember.

And, at our table, we don't require them to explain why they have arcana, history, or whatever either. A PC does not necessarily need to have proficiency in a skill to be able to roll a check at our table. But if their character is proficient in the skill mentioned in the requested check, then they can add their proficiency bonus to the roll. If they feel something about their character's background, class/racial abilities, training, etc is pertinent to the situation, it's helpful to mention it so the DM can adjudicate with that in mind.

I just shortcut it because I don't care and my players know how to play the game. Knowledge checks are the exception to the general rule.

To be clear, players at our table know how to the play the game, too. We just prefer not to "shortcut it".

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

I mean, it is possible a roll might be required, but it is not a given.

I think this is really a group dynamic thing. I am new and have to ask still if a skill can or can't be used, but I know people who were playing with the same DM they are now before I was born. They could semi reliable to tell you what the DM is going to order for dinner, or what the dungeon will be like before we leave town... those guys have a pretty good idea of when and if a roll will be called for.

Also it seems that people who DM in general are better at making that assumption, and being in the "more right then wrong" then those of us that don't DM often.

 

[Oofta]

Not exactly. Players generally make statements rather than asking questions at our table. So instead of "Can I pick the lock?" it's "My rogue attempts to pick the lock (with her thieves' tools)". The DM then adjudicates based on the situation.

Being that specific in declaration wasn't my point. It's saying the same thing. But having to state everything following a prescribed pattern? It would drive me a little crazy.

This last bit is incorrect. The player does not necessarily end up having to roll a d20 at our table. Sometimes it is an auto-success. Sometimes it is an auto-failure. No roll is asked for by the DM at our table for those situations. And so, it follows, that the players don't know that the DM is "going to ask for [it] anyway". I mean, it is possible a roll might be required, but it is not a given.

I just didn't include that example because you were discussing degrees of success.

And, at our table, we don't require them to explain why they have arcana, history, or whatever either. A PC does not necessarily need to have proficiency in a skill to be able to roll a check at our table. But if their character is proficient in the skill mentioned in the requested check, then they can add their proficiency bonus to the roll. If they feel something about their character's background, class/racial abilities, training, etc is pertinent to the situation, it's helpful to mention it so the DM can adjudicate with that in mind.


To be clear, players at our table know how to the play the game, too. We just prefer not to "shortcut it".

It doesn't matter to me, I've just never had a DM that cared and I don't get why it matters. As far as being expedient in parts of the game that don't add a little of value, I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.