D&D 5E Ability Checks in 5e- How often do you use them?

[Sword of Spirit]

So what I've ended up doing is sort of an ad hoc style-
-Most things that are interactions (PC/NPC) are resolved through role playing. If there is doubt, it is rolled.
-Most things that are "mechanical" (sleight of hand, for example) are rolled, with advantage or disadvantage given depending on how it is described if necessary, and certain things being automatic.

What are other people doing?

Pretty much what you've described.

My most common rolls are Intelligence checks to see what your character knows. I often just give them certain things if it would make sense, and I'm working on coming up with an automatic success system that I like better than 3e's take 10 or the one in the 5e DMG.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

"When it feels right".



Seriously. I've been thinking about how to describe my style of DM'ing and am coming up all nebulous and wishy-washy.

Basically, if it's an "obvious mechanical game thing" (Saving throw, To Hit roll, Damage roll, etc), 9/10 we just roll as the rules indicate. I do use rolls on my end when I can think of multiple likely/possible events, assigning various chances, and rolling a die. For example, if the PC's have semi-successfully made some rolls to hide/evade a pursuit by a crazed owlbear, I may think about how determined the owlbear is at getting them, if it is used to the area it or the PC's are in, the weather, time of day, if the PC's are injured, and anything else that comes to mind that I think would influence its decision. I may end up with "1d8; 1-3, keeps following them correctly down the left path; 4 - 6, incorrectly follows them, going down the right path; 7 - 8, gives up and goes home".

As for "Ability checks"...all the time, but it's up to the Player to tell me if he thinks he can use a skill in it's place. In other words, if the PC has Survival with a +6 (with only +2 of that being from his Ability Score), it's up to him to say "I have Survival...?" so I can say "Yup, use that", or "Nope, not in this situation". Even if the situation seems "obvious" from the players perspective, they accept my Yes/No because they generally trust me to know more about what's going on. (e.g., maybe the owlbear is actually possessed by a demon spirit and has some extra-sensory perception thing.... 'detect life' or 'sixth sense' or something). I rarely get arguments, and it's usually enough to smile and say something like "Well, if it was a normal owlbear, sure...". Yes, it gives some stuff away, but at the same time it definitely peaks my players interest.

Anyway... as for "when" to roll? I can't figure out how to articulate it. It's mostly a "gut feeling" (experience kicking in, is my guess). I use it a lot for pacing and tension. Making lots of rolls in succession is a balancing game; it both builds tension, but too much of it can destroy the pacing. Having a roll made by a player once ever 15 minutes slows down the pacing. If I also focus on description and role-play, it can build tension really well. Then, a series of quick dice rolls in succession, with quick descriptions and "using the players imaginations against them" (so to speak), changes the pace and tension. As I said... wishy-washy and hard to describe. *shrug* It's just experience as to when/how much to use it all I guess.

So, "mostly never, except when it's all the time".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Li Shenron]

Other: ability checks simply whenever the situation feels uncertain enough. Bypassed when the decision taken is unlikely enough to fail or succeed. DM's call obviously.

 

[Azurewraith]

I tend to let the Role flow up until we get to something that is uncertain or has a chance of failure so intimidating the random mook no problem role play intimidating that 8ft 500lbs Goliath with a missing eye "you feeling lucky punk?".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So, here's what I was struggling a little with. Most of the replies seem on par with what I am doing (maybe a little more rolling). But here's the genesis of my question-

Does my approach "penalize" soft skills (proficiencies)? If I try to avoid rolling in NPC-speaking encounters, why should players bother having proficiencies in those areas? Admittedly, it's come up a (very) few times, and the players do role play their proficiencies (for example, the 1/2 orc barbarian is the one doing the intimidating talks, whereas the elf bard is more the charmer if you know what I mean)... but I'm curious if anyone else has thought this out.

When you are making NPC reaction decisions, just take into account the modifiers to the PCs skills. Use it to guide the role-playing, and only roll when it isn't clear which way it would go.

For instance, if the half-orc has a +8 to Intimidate and is trying to strongarm a halfling merchant, you'd probably just let him succeed unless the halfling merchant has a particularly good reason to risk the wrath of tusks and muscles, in which case you would have him roll. On the other hand, if the gnome with the +3 to Intimidate tries the same thing on a human merchant who has a strong reason to resist, you might just say that the merchant refuses to back down unless the gnome's player does a really good job role-playing (or describing) his attempt at intimidation--in which case you would have him roll.

In other words, just go with your gut on how effective the passive skill check would be, and only roll when you are thinking, "hmm...I'm not sure how the NPC would react."

The best way to handle this is to have all of your PCs' skill ranks written down in front of you at all times so you can see at a glance how high they all are. If your players know you know exactly how skilled each of them is, they will probably be perfectly fine with that type of adjudication.

 

[dd.stevenson]

If the PC is proficient, and they're not in combat, I usually assume they auto-succeed.

A typical session will see only one or two ability checks rolled (outside of combat.)

 

[Sunseeker]

So, here's what I was struggling a little with. Most of the replies seem on par with what I am doing (maybe a little more rolling). But here's the genesis of my question-

Does my approach "penalize" soft skills (proficiencies)? If I try to avoid rolling in NPC-speaking encounters, why should players bother having proficiencies in those areas? Admittedly, it's come up a (very) few times, and the players do role play their proficiencies (for example, the 1/2 orc barbarian is the one doing the intimidating talks, whereas the elf bard is more the charmer if you know what I mean)... but I'm curious if anyone else has thought this out.

My solution is to usually think about these things in reverse.

If Bob isn't proficient with his tongue, how does that limit what he can do? And it usually comes out as something like this: Certain NPCs simply won't react to non-proficient players. They've got "the eye" for the skill. A lumberjack will look at a player who is not proficient in atheltics and begin teasing them mercilessly before the log-rolling contest. A diplomat will simply cock and eye and ask why your serving boy is answering his questions about international diplomacy.

Similar to dd.stevenson's thoughts about people being proficient auto-succeeding, people who are not proficient can find themselves in situations where they auto-fail.

I tend to find though that people will take proficiences in, and role/roll-play what they enjoy. So even if you let players role their way through situations that their characters would have to roll-through, I find that people who are inclined to play Bards and other charismatic-styled characters will be the ones to take the lead in such situations anyway. Personally, I often roll a fighter because I don't want to be front-and-center when the talking starts up.

 

[Gnashtooth]

I don't know. I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of Persuasion. Call me old school or a grognard or what have you, but the system has some pretty good skills that let you get the information you need without resorting to a die roll on the player side to determine if your words have the desired effect. If anything, it should be like a spell save DC where it's passive, but even that is stretching it. Just because you aren't good at roleplaying a diplomat when you start doesn't mean you won't improve. D&D is a great (and fun) way to improve your debate skills. hearing the whole dialog go on also builds a believable scene for the other characters to witness or interact with.

 

[MechaPilot]

I voted other.

In social situations, I go with roleplaying as a modifier to the check. I do this because it helps to more accurately reflect situations where a PC has a much higher or lower Charisma than the player I'm actually speaking to.

In non-social, non-opposed check situations when there is no particular risk of failure, I simply allow a PC to do something if her ability score equals or exceeds the DC of the attempted task. Want to break down that DC 15 score with your 16 Str? You do it. Don't bother rolling. Want to break down that DC 15 score with a 10 Str? You've got to roll.

For opposed checks I often just set the adversary's roll as being equal to their score. Want to shove that Str 18 barbarian? You need an 18 or better to do it.