Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
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="iserith" data-source="post: 7796515" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's a good habit for the DM to only ask for the ability check and let the player add the skill proficiency he or she thinks applies based on the description the player offered.</p><p></p><p>While this is not, strictly speaking, in keeping with the process laid out in the rules, it is a natural extension of what is in the rules. The section on Ability Checks says players may ask if a skill proficiency applies to an ability check. I suggest just skipping the question and using an assumption that the players are acting in good faith to apply their own skill proficiency. The key thing here though is they cannot ADD description after the call for the roll just to get a skill proficiency applied. That is taking advantage of the assumption of good faith. All description must occur BEFORE the call for the roll. (Obviously, it's not good to be a hardass in all cases, but let the players know the expectation and seek their buy-in, then hold them to their agreements. They'll learn.)</p><p></p><p>This method neatly sidesteps the very common issue of the DM and players not being on the same page with the ability check. "Deception? Oh, I was actually being truthful. Can I use Persuasion?" The more of that sort of interruption that can be skipped the better in my view and just asking for the ability check and not the skill proficiency is a good way to achieve that in my experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7796515, member: 97077"] I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's a good habit for the DM to only ask for the ability check and let the player add the skill proficiency he or she thinks applies based on the description the player offered. While this is not, strictly speaking, in keeping with the process laid out in the rules, it is a natural extension of what is in the rules. The section on Ability Checks says players may ask if a skill proficiency applies to an ability check. I suggest just skipping the question and using an assumption that the players are acting in good faith to apply their own skill proficiency. The key thing here though is they cannot ADD description after the call for the roll just to get a skill proficiency applied. That is taking advantage of the assumption of good faith. All description must occur BEFORE the call for the roll. (Obviously, it's not good to be a hardass in all cases, but let the players know the expectation and seek their buy-in, then hold them to their agreements. They'll learn.) This method neatly sidesteps the very common issue of the DM and players not being on the same page with the ability check. "Deception? Oh, I was actually being truthful. Can I use Persuasion?" The more of that sort of interruption that can be skipped the better in my view and just asking for the ability check and not the skill proficiency is a good way to achieve that in my experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top