Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7998359" data-attributes="member: 6704184">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.Have you seen it lead to actually incorrect understanding of how to adjudicate checks, IRL? I haven’t.</blockquote>