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

[Oofta]

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.

I simply find "Make a dexterity ability check with your proficiency modifier and any other possible modifications to stealth" to be just a tad wordy. Because it's not just the ability modifier, it's the proficiency, possible expertise, magic items, spells and magical effects that could also come into play. On the other hand if I say "make a stealth check" people know what I'm asking for.

It's much, much easier to tell a newbie to roll a D20 and add their skill bonus. I don't really care if the book ever calls it out, I'm running the game in a fashion that I think makes the most sense and is easiest to understand for my players.

But this horse was dead a long time ago. Have a good one!

 

[Ashrym]

The basis is everything is an ability check. If the DM believes extra training and focus might help then the applicable proficiency gets applied.

There are several examples checks with no proficiency in the PHB.

It''s correct that the term "skill check" isn't used but that"s just semantics. I would also call a check that applies a skill proficiency a skill check. I tell players to make a stealth check. I don"t tell them the make a dexterity check and apply stealth proficiency if they have it. Players know what proficiency to apply with straight forward conversation. The dexterity check goes without saying because the players know the ability score to apply.

I think you're "supposed" to do that with backgrounds. If you have a background related to "I grew up here" Then "you know a silversmith". But, yeah, it should be more explicitly stated somewhere in the rules.

It bothers me that there is no streetwise skill. Survival is not the same thing. And aside from Arcana and related skills, there are no knowledge skills for stuff like heraldry, etc.

Heraldry is a part of INT (history). It's recalling a family's historical coat of arms.

Streetwise is generally INT, WIS, and CHA checks that may or may not include skill proficiency. It's played out recalling information, not getting lost, persuading individuals etc. The issue I have with a streetwise proficiency is that it replaces that roleplaying and subsequent checks with a redundant more abstract check.

It's not exactly hard in a lot of places. I've personally just come back from backpacking Central America for several months, and within 5 minutes of arriving at any Hostel, bar or club and I could locate the guy holding, and score if I wanted to.

I was walked into a bar in Vancouver and was approached multiple times by different individuals trying to sell me drugs. A PC finding a place like that doesn't seem challenging in the slightest.

See my post above. You need to find a silversmith before the sun sets and the werewolves come out to play. That may be an edge case, and certainly doesn't apply to shopping for cloaks, which as I'm given to understand can be quite complicated.

Running the clock is a reason not to rest. I still wouldn't use a generic roll for success. I might use social encounters and related checks instead.

 

[Fenris-77]

Running the clock is a reason not to rest. I still wouldn't use a generic roll for success. I might use social encounters and related checks instead.

Did I suggest using a generic success roll? I didn't think that I had. You certainly could, but I think you'd miss a lot of good tension and drama that way.

 

[Ashrym]

Did I suggest using a generic success roll? I didn't think that I had. You certainly could, but I think you'd miss a lot of good tension and drama that way.

It might be how I read it. Happens to the best of us and I don't set that bar high, lol.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

But there is no misunderstanding, just wording that you don’t prefer.

The OP asked a perfectly valid question, and many ppl are hung up on the terminology instead of the point.

the Question is, are actions with no obvious proficiency best left to non-proficient ability checks, or to the closest possible skill [or tool or other widget] check. The fact they use “ability check” and “skill check” instead of “ability check wherein one applies their proficiency bonus due to having gained proficiency in a relevant skill” is immaterial, and “correcting” it is purely pedantic. One is natural short hand for the other. Correcting natural short hand is...extremely pedantic.

And “skill check” is absolutely what every new player I’ve ever encountered in 5e calls them, even when they first read the books and are asking for clarification on something while making their first ever character.

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.

Have you seen it lead to actually incorrect understanding of how to adjudicate checks, IRL? I haven’t.

 

[SkidAce]

Have you seen it lead to actually incorrect understanding of how to adjudicate checks, IRL? I haven’t.

Yes, they scan the list of "skills" to see what they can do, and dont even consider that Str(Intimidate) could be a thing.

I get your point about being pedantic, but we dont want the pendulum to swing all the other way either.

Its a middle of the road thing, the road still gets you there.

 

[jmucchiello]

Yeah, but just how often does time sensitive shopping come up in a campaign?

Why are you fixated on shopping? Looking for a silversmith doesn't necessarily mean you are shopping. He might have info you need about something.

 

[Charlaquin]

I simply find "Make a dexterity ability check with your proficiency modifier and any other possible modifications to stealth" to be just a tad wordy. Because it's not just the ability modifier, it's the proficiency, possible expertise, magic items, spells and magical effects that could also come into play. On the other hand if I say "make a stealth check" people know what I'm asking for.

Right, and that’s perfectly reasonable, and precisely why I don’t typically bother correcting people when they call ability checks to which a skill proficiency is applicable a skill check.

It's much, much easier to tell a newbie to roll a D20 and add their skill bonus. I don't really care if the book ever calls it out, I'm running the game in a fashion that I think makes the most sense and is easiest to understand for my players.

Personally I find it easier to ask for an ability check and to allow the player to add their proficiency bonus if they have an applicable proficiency. To each their own, no big deal.

 

[Charlaquin]

But there is no misunderstanding, just wording that you don’t prefer.

No, there absolutely is a misunderstanding. If a DM is confused as to what roll to call for to resolve a task to which no skill is obviously applicable, clearly they have misunderstood the task resolution procedure. I believe this misunderstanding stems from conceptualizing skills rather than abilities as the most fundamental category of check. I don’t care what words they use to describe it, I am pointing out a tangible incongruity between the way they have conceptualized the task resolution system and the way it is designed to function.

The OP asked a perfectly valid question, and many ppl are hung up on the terminology instead of the point.

the Question is, are actions with no obvious proficiency best left to non-proficient ability checks, or to the closest possible skill [or tool or other widget] check. The fact they use “ability check” and “skill check” instead of “ability check wherein one applies their proficiency bonus due to having gained proficiency in a relevant skill” is immaterial, and “correcting” it is purely pedantic. One is natural short hand for the other. Correcting natural short hand is...extremely pedantic.

You’re the one who’s hung up on terminology here. I’m trying to tell you it’s not the fact that the OP called it a skill check I’m correcting, it’s the fact that their instinct is to call for a skill check first and an ability check only as a backup, rather than to call for an ability check first or a skill check if one seems appropriate (or better yet to just call for an ability check and let the player determine if they have an applicable proficiency, be it skill, tool, or other.) You seem to be so hung up on the fact that I am using the same language the book uses to express it that you are overlooking the actual content of my argument.

And “skill check” is absolutely what every new player I’ve ever encountered in 5e calls them, even when they first read the books and are asking for clarification on something while making their first ever character.

That has not been my experience at all.

Have you seen it lead to actually incorrect understanding of how to adjudicate checks, IRL? I haven’t.

That’s literally what is happening in this thread. I have also seen many, many players who are used to DMs calling for “skill checks” be confused as to how to apply their proficiency bonus to a check with an ability other than the one it is most typically tied to, which should not be a difficult concept to understand.

 

[Committed Hero]

I've never really known why 'Finding a silversmith in town' would even require a check.

If there is one to be found, you would assume a person would find one in a matter of minutes of asking at most.

It should just be this:

Player: 'I head to a silversmith'.
DM: 'OK; after asking a few people you locate the silversmith in the merchants quarters of town. A short 5 minute stroll later, you enter a small building, guarded by a gruff Dwarf at the entrance. A small wizened Gnome looks up from behind a counter and politely enquires what it is that you want?'

And not:

Player: 'I head to a silversmith'.
DM: 'Make a DC 15 Intelligence City lore check to find one first!

I would avoid bright-line rules. If the party was trying to avoid attracting notice in the town, and didn't want to interact with everyday citizens, a roll might be called for - and failure could mean notice by the town watch as opposed to the inability to find the shop.

A DM could even use the check as a shorthand to decide if a silversmith was present (although I would expect her to indicate with certainty that this is what the check determined, so players wouldn't waste time looking further).

For me, the ultimate question is not whether shopping can be interesting, but whether failure can be.