Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 7989467" data-attributes="member: 2629">I noticed a difference between how I approach ability score roles and how most DMs talk about them on these boards.  I thought it might be useful for some people to hear the difference between the two approaches.On these boards I often see arguments about which skill should apply.  For example: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When a PC is pretending to be someone else, should they use a performance check for acting or a deception check?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When a PC is trying to be a bit heavy handed in persuading someone to do something, where does it cross from persuasion to intimidation?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A PC wants to do some parkour moves.  Is the proper skill athletics or acrobatics?</li> </ul>These approaches look for the proper skill to assign to a check.When I look at these situations, I determine what ability score should be used and whether or not the character has a skill, tool proficiency, or background trait that would indicate they'd be proficient in it.  This, generally speaking, makes the "is it a or b that applies" approach into a "if a or b applies" approach.So, if a PC wants to pretend to be someone else, it would be a charisma check and they could add their proficiency bonus if trained in performance, deception or had a background trait that assisted with the deception (such as if they were pretending to be a sailor and had the sailor background). When a PC wants to be heavy handed with someone to get them to do what they want, it might be intimidation or persuasion.  I might grant them a proficiency bonus if they have neither skill if there is something in their background that would give them benefits in their current situation (such as the target knowing they have carried through on similar heavy handed persuasion in the past).When a PC wants to do some parkour moves, I look at whether they are more finesse or muscle.  If they require precision - it is a dexterity roll.  If it is mostly about muscle, strength.  Then, they might be able to add proficiency if they have either athletics or acrobatics. And I get a bit fancier than that in practice.  Parkour is a key example.  I set high DCs and then allow a PC to add their proficiency if they have either athletics or acrobatics, but double their proficiency if they have both (similar to expertise). Do other DMs think like I do here? While you can theorycraft problems with this approach all day, in practice it has not been problematic at all.  For example, people may think there is no point to having intimidation exist as persuasion usually can be argued to apply.  While there is overlap, there are also a lot of situations where I decide you're not being diplomatic, and persuasion is really about diplomacy per the PHB description.  It often boils down to - are you asking them to give you something with you not giving them reasonably fair value in return (intimidation) or is it you trying to convince them of something good for you and others (usually them).    There is a hazy ground in the middle where what you're giving them may not be quite fair value - and I'd allow either skill to give you proficiency for the role there.</blockquote>

Verification