D&D 5E Asking for Ability Checks, not Skills?

[Charlaquin]

Like I said, the vast majority of times it's obvious. Guess I'd have to see a scenario where it wasn't or maybe I just don't understand.

I was responding specifically to @Umbran ’s example where depending on the way the PC was trying to convince the goblin boss they should retreat, Charisma (Intimidation) or Strength (Intimidation) might have been more appropriate. I was agreeing that knowing the player’s approach is important to determining what ability to call for it a check is necessary, but suggested that expecting the player to be clear with their action declaration up front would be more efficient than asking probing questions every time.

Most extreme example: they're at the base of a wall and someone says "20 on an athletics check" after rolling (not that I remember that happening). I'll assume they're going to climb the wall. A more common example "Insight check on this guy?" or "History check to see what I remember about this?" is enough to tell me what they want.

I don’t think this is really applicable to what I was discussing with Umbran. We were talking about a case where what the character is trying to do is clear, but the way in which they go about it might affect which ability ought to be applied to the check (assuming one is necessary)

Works for me. Do what works for you. I just don't see there being enough of a difference in efficiency for it to have much of an impact on the game is all.

If you’re asking follow-up questions after every action declaration to figure out what ability to call for a check with, I imagine it would make a big difference in efficiency. If you’re not doing that (which I take it you are not), I don’t imagine it would make much difference in efficiency. But I imagine it would run into the phenomenon Umbran was pointing out, where you always end up calling for Ability (Skill) checks with the same combinations of ability and skill, even when a different ability might have been more appropriate to what the player was trying to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this just might be a difference in play styles. In the games I run, when we are not in combat, there's a lot of narrative retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. I always figure the characters know what they're doing, even when it takes the players a little bit to figure it out.

Obviously it’s a difference in play styles - you’re fine with players retconning actions and I’m not… What does this have to do with the exchange I was having with @Umbran about determining what ability to call for a check with based on their approach?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Obviously it’s a difference in play styles - you’re fine with players retconning actions and I’m not… What does this have to do with the exchange I was having with @Umbran about determining what ability to call for a check with based on their approach?

Huh? I was replying to your reply to me. Never mind then!

 

[Charlaquin]

Huh? I was replying to your reply to me. Never mind then!

Right, which was a reply to me, replying to Umbran.

 

[iserith]

I think this just might be a difference in play styles. In the games I run, when we are not in combat, there's a lot of narrative retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. I always figure the characters know what they're doing, even when it takes the players a little bit to figure it out.

The upside of having players be reasonably specific with their action declaration means no need for retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. "I try to force open the door using a hammer and wedge from my smith's tools." The DM calls for a Strength check. The player adds Smith's Tools proficiency bonus. And it's resolved.

This is part of the reason why mine and @Charlaquin's game run at such a fast clip. Anything that might cause more back and forth than necessary is mostly removed from the equation. That, plus other approaches, means the game moves quicker than others I've seen. (And Charlaquin and I don't play together. We just happen to both see this happening.)

 

[Oofta]

This is starting to sound like the old Abbot and Costello routine "Who's on first".

 

[Charlaquin]

The upside of having players be reasonably specific with their action declaration means no need for retcons, fast forwards, rewinds, etc. "I try to force open the door using a hammer and wedge from my smith's tools." The DM calls for a Strength check. The player adds Smith's Tools proficiency bonus. And it's resolved.

This is part of the reason why mine and @Charlaquin's game run at such a fast clip. Anything that might cause more back and forth than necessary is mostly removed from the equation. That, plus other approaches, means the game moves quicker than others I've seen. (And Charlaquin and I don't play together. We just happen to both see this happening.)

Yeah, though from the sound of things your game runs even faster than mine.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, though from the sound of things your game runs even faster than mine.

Likely the difference between VTT and table play. I don't think there's a lot of daylight between how we otherwise do things by the sounds of it.

 

[fba827]

I'm thinking of shifting the way I ask for Ability Checks / Skill Rolls in my 5e game.

Currently, a player will describe their character's action, and, if appropriate, I will then ask for an ability check, naming a specific skill or tool and the associated ability.

For example:

Player: Tarzarian the Barbarian wants to track where the orcs came from.
DM: Go ahead and make a Survival Check.

(In this case I don't call for an ability since Survival defaults to Wisdom.)

Player: Vogue the Rogue wants to listen for any creatures beyond the door.
DM: Go ahead and make a Perception Check.

Player: Zirwad the Wizard wants to identify this strange glowing herb.
DM: You can make a Nature Check or an Arcana Check.
Player: Could I use my Herbalist Supplies?
DM: Sure!

Player: Biter the Fighter wants to find a way to bend the mechanisms of the porticullis in order to jam in.
DM: Go ahead and make an Athletics Check, using Intelligence instead of Strength.

These have all worked fairly well, but I find myself missing skills and proficiencies players really want to use. For example, the rogue in my game noted that I rarely call for an Acrobatics check. And the Barbarian said he rarely gets to use Survival.

What I'm thinking of doing is only calling for Abilities, not Skills. I'll call for a Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma check, and then the Player will choose whatever Skill or Proficiency is appropriate.

For example, if a character wants to look for something, I call for a Wisdom check. It's up to the player if they are using, say, Perception, Investigation, Survival, or some appropriate Tool (with DM approval, of course).

Here's how this might look:

Player: Vanger the Ranger tells the goblin boss to retreat before he gets his clan killed.
DM: Go ahead and make a Charisma Check.
Player: Can I use Persuasion?
DM: Yep!

Player: What does Wornok the Warlock know about these ruins?
DM: Go ahead and make an Intelligence Check.
Player: Can I use Arcana?
DM: Eh, that wouldn't be appropriate for this roll.

Player: Bartimer the Artificer wants to help guide the wagon over the bridge without hitting any rotting boards.
DM: Go ahead and make a Dexterity check.
Player: Can I use my proficiency in Vehicles?
DM: Absolutely!

My goals with this would be:

1. Giving players more agency and control with using their skills and proficiencies.
2. Allowing the characters to be heroic and do things they are good at more often.
3. Sharing the narrative burden with players.

One thing to note is that, in general, I trust my players not to "game the system" and try to use Athletics for every single check. At the same time, if they have invested heavily in Athletics, I want to reward them for coming up with creative ways to solve problems using Athletics.

What do you think? Do you think this would work? Do you usually call for skills, abilities, or both?

this is what I already do. Works well for my style/group

 

[Charlaquin]

Likely the difference between VTT and table play. I don't think there's a lot of daylight between how we otherwise do things by the sounds of it.

There’s gotten to be less and less of it over time. I’ve experimented with my technique throughout my DMing tenure and arrived at what I do now based on what has, in my experience, produced the best results. But it is interesting how my technique has gradually gotten more similar to yours through that process.

I distinctly remember being baffled by your accounts of your games during the Next playtest, but it was your adaptation of Lost Mine of Phandelver that convinced me to give it a shot myself, and it was a night and day improvement over what I had been doing before.