Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7999328" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>The player is certainly <em>allowed</em> to ask if a certain proficiency is applicable if they’re unsure, but I don’t require them to, and I encourage them to trust their instincts in such situations.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes... I don’t see any problem with that?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t think DM empowerment has anything to do with it. I am exercising my power as DM to say, “this is how ability checks will be resolved at my table.” I’m not disempowered because I allow the player to decide for themselves if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my experience, most players are not trying to game the system, and those who are will find a way to do so with or without this rule in place. And I still fail to see how the player making the decision instead of me is a bad thing in this instance.</p><p></p><p>Obviously other DMs will have their own way of doing things, not everyone would be comfortable letting the player make that decision, and that’s fine. I’m just saying what works for me and why.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a Dex (stealth) check doesn’t change the mechanics, but defaulting to calling for skill checks (or whatever you want to call the combination of d20 roll + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if a specific proficiency is applicable) rather than calling for an ability check and then either deciding a proficiency that applies or allowing the player to do so is a different process. The former starts and ends with selecting one ability, skill, or tool from the list of existing abilities, skills, and tools, and calling for a check with it. Because this is a very long list, in my experience most DMs narrow it down to just the 18 skills, or occasionally the 18 skills and 6 abilities, leading to the commonly-expressed problem of tool proficiencies feeling useless. Sometimes a DM might choose an ability <em>and</em> a skill that isn’t usually associated with it, though in my experience this is a vanishingly rare occurrence. The latter process starts with selecting an ability (a <em>much</em> smaller list to chose from) and calling for a check with it, and ends with determining, possibly with the help of the player, if any of the skill, tool, and maybe even weapon and armor proficiencies the character has might be applicable (or even allowing the player to make that determination themselves).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7999328, member: 6779196"] The player is certainly [I]allowed[/I] to ask if a certain proficiency is applicable if they’re unsure, but I don’t require them to, and I encourage them to trust their instincts in such situations. Yes... I don’t see any problem with that? I don’t think DM empowerment has anything to do with it. I am exercising my power as DM to say, “this is how ability checks will be resolved at my table.” I’m not disempowered because I allow the player to decide for themselves if they think one of their proficiencies is applicable. In my experience, most players are not trying to game the system, and those who are will find a way to do so with or without this rule in place. And I still fail to see how the player making the decision instead of me is a bad thing in this instance. Obviously other DMs will have their own way of doing things, not everyone would be comfortable letting the player make that decision, and that’s fine. I’m just saying what works for me and why. Calling it a stealth skill check instead of a Dex (stealth) check doesn’t change the mechanics, but defaulting to calling for skill checks (or whatever you want to call the combination of d20 roll + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if a specific proficiency is applicable) rather than calling for an ability check and then either deciding a proficiency that applies or allowing the player to do so is a different process. The former starts and ends with selecting one ability, skill, or tool from the list of existing abilities, skills, and tools, and calling for a check with it. Because this is a very long list, in my experience most DMs narrow it down to just the 18 skills, or occasionally the 18 skills and 6 abilities, leading to the commonly-expressed problem of tool proficiencies feeling useless. Sometimes a DM might choose an ability [I]and[/I] a skill that isn’t usually associated with it, though in my experience this is a vanishingly rare occurrence. The latter process starts with selecting an ability (a [I]much[/I] smaller list to chose from) and calling for a check with it, and ends with determining, possibly with the help of the player, if any of the skill, tool, and maybe even weapon and armor proficiencies the character has might be applicable (or even allowing the player to make that determination themselves). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
Top