D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[doctorbadwolf]

The rules don’t call it a skill check though, it’s a dexterity check with proficiency bonus for stealth.

So, a stealth check. Which is a skill. A check with a skill.

A skill check.

if you wanna say that skill checks are a type of ability check in 5e, ill still find that a bit pedantic, but I won’t argue it. But it’s a skill check regardless of what the books technically call it.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, a stealth check. Which is a skill. A check with a skill.

A skill check.

if you wanna say that skill checks are a type of ability check in 5e, ill still find that a bit pedantic, but I won’t argue it. But it’s a skill check regardless of what the books technically call it.

I guess, in the same sense that a check that benefits from Jack of All Trades is a “Jack of All Trades check” or a check that benefits from Bless is a “Bless Check.”

Skills just aren’t a category of check in 5e, they’re a source of bonuses.

 

[Hriston]

Skills are just aspects of certain abilities, so I find it a bit redundant and unnecessary to call an ability check a skill check just because someone might be able to add their proficiency bonus to the check if they happen to be proficient in a skill. It's also a distinction that ends up being irrelevant if the character making the check isn't proficient in the related skill.

 

[Charlaquin]

Skills are just aspects of certain abilities, so I find it a bit redundant and unnecessary to call an ability check a skill check just because someone might be able to add their proficiency bonus to the check if they happen to be proficient in a skill. It's also a distinction that ends up being irrelevant if the character making the check isn't proficient in the related skill.

It’s irrelevant for the player, but it is relevant to the DM. Framing them as skill checks obfuscates the task resolution procedure and leads to confusion like that which lead to the creation of this thread.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

if you wanna say that skill checks are a type of ability check in 5e, ill still find that a bit pedantic, but I won’t argue it. But it’s a skill check regardless of what the books technically call it.

I don't think I'd describe it as pedantic, since there is no such thing as a skill check. The PHB doesn't use the phrase "skill check" anywhere (or the phrase "tool check").

Like Charlaquin, I don't use the phrase "skill check" because using it leads to the situation this thread is talking about - players believing that they are limited to only the things written on their character sheet. It's like they are playing a computer game, where the only choices are buttons labelled "Stealth" and "Diplomacy".

 

[Hriston]

It’s irrelevant for the player, but it is relevant to the DM. Framing them as skill checks obfuscates the task resolution procedure and leads to confusion like that which lead to the creation of this thread.

I guess my point is that the DM in that case is giving themselves something irrelevant to think about since the character making the check isn’t proficient anyway, so it doesn’t matter if proficiency in a skill would apply if they were.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess, in the same sense that a check that benefits from Jack of All Trades is a “Jack of All Trades check” or a check that benefits from Bless is a “Bless Check.”

Skills just aren’t a category of check in 5e, they’re a source of bonuses.

Lol okay, feel free to ride the pedantics train so far away from any useful point you’d need a telescope to see it, if that’s your bag.

It’s a skill check. “Correcting” people who refer to a skill check or to a specific check like a Stealth check is completely useless pedantics, at best.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think I'd describe it as pedantic, since there is no such thing as a skill check. The PHB doesn't use the phrase "skill check" anywhere (or the phrase "tool check").

Like Charlaquin, I don't use the phrase "skill check" because using it leads to the situation this thread is talking about - players believing that they are limited to only the things written on their character sheet. It's like they are playing a computer game, where the only choices are buttons labelled "Stealth" and "Diplomacy".

If you’ve seen that happen in real life, fair enough. I’ve seen hundreds of people play 5e, and never seen it actually happen.

It’s a check with a skill. That’s a skill check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Lol okay, feel free to ride the pedantics train so far away from any useful point you’d need a telescope to see it, if that’s your bag.

It’s a skill check. “Correcting” people who refer to a skill check or to a specific check like a Stealth check is completely useless pedantics, at best.

I typically don’t correct people who call them skill checks. But when someone asks a question like, “when a task doesn’t fall under any of the listed skills, do I choose a skill that’s the closest fit, or call for an ability check?” I’m inclined to point out that they’re running the process backwards compared to what the rules instruct them to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, like, the language “skill check” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 5e rules. The idea that an ability check that benefits from a character’s proficiency bonus due to their proficiency in a skill is a skill check and that the difference is merely semantic is fundamentally rooted in the language of previous editions. And I don’t think framing a system in terms of its previous editions is a good way to go about forming an understanding of the system. Are ability checks in 5e functionally similar to skill checks in 3e and 4e? Sure, but they’re not identical, and thinking of them that way is going to lead to a warped understanding of the 5e rules system.