Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9375502" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Interesting. IME they decide if they think a proficiency might apply, but that ultimate decision is still up to me, as DM. Consider something like Investigation and Perception. A player might think Investigation would apply when they have that skill, when in reality it doesn't-- Perception would. Acrobatics and Athletics is another pairing that can cause some dispute (although not as much!).Ok, so I think this helps a bit... I'll address it in parts:Climbing is often Strength, it is the easiest to imagine. But Strength has a lot of aspects, and only a part of that the ability to climb. The bolded part is the easiest part, if you know how to climb and have "focus" in that aspect of Strength, i.e. proficiency in Athletics.Sure, Dexterity is easy to argue and imagine. Balance, agility, flexibilty when climbing are really more important that "brute Strength". Intelligence (mental acuity and ability to reason) is a bit more of stretch, but if the player says, "I examine the climb to find the best and easiest route", Intelligence is certainly being used. I understand enough about rock formations that it helps with finding secure footing, etc. as well.Whether it is Strength, Dexterity, or Intelligence for the ability, Athletics which encompasses climbing IS the skill.Ah, but that is not the "act of the climbing, which must be done." Using rope from such a proficiency might grant advantage, or offer a flat bonus (in your case, perhaps lowering the DC), but you can't make a Strength (water vehicles) check for the actual climb IMO--I just don't see that making any sense with Athletics is what is used for climbing...Sure, but that goes back to the point I made at the start: they suggest it, but you make the choice whether it is applicable, don't you? If you do, then ultimately both ability and skill are up to you.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> Sure, but those abilities all encompass several aspects each, and you have to decide if an aspect is appropriate or not, in which case the ability is appropriate or not.Yep. It isn't the way I approach things, of course (it does seem a bit backwards to me), but just like with solving other problems in life there is nearly always more than one way to do it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It gives me enough of an idea. Thanks!Brute force? Sure... I shove the guard hard, letting them know if they don't look the other way, they'll never see anything else again: Intimidation via Strength. Even if you are just "trying to talk", cracking knuckles, flexing muscles, leaning heavily into the nearby wall so it creaks under your might, snapping a staff into two pieces, explaining you'll break the guard into two pieces just as easily--all Intimidation via Strength IMO.Of course, verbal threats, offering a bribe, telling a convincing lie about how the crime was to gain the confidence of the thieves' guild so you can infiltrate them to accomplish some noble quest-- Intimidation, Persuasion, Deception all just as applicable -- and likely Charisma. But using a logical argument that the guard will believe, brings Intelligence into it. Wisdom (perceptiveness and intution, is the guard the type this could work?) would be a valid argument for Wisdom instead of Strength, Charisma, or Intelligence.LOL in certain cases trying to persuasde someone to do something might be Constitution! You keep going on and on and on and on and on (get it? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) until they cave in: Constitution (Persuasion)!IME it is much more easy to justify different abilities for a check, than justifying a different skill. To be clear, the examples above are all different ways of attempting to influence someone, for example, HOW the PC tries to influence them determines whether Intimidation, Deception, or Persuasion might be called for. If you do a different approach, you can then apply a different skill, certainly, but now you are doing something other than what you were first doing... (that probably isn't clear... hmm... anyway).Sure, but in those cases would it still be Charisma? The precidence of a prior legal point, reasoning the argument, would seem more like Intelligence.Anyway, I definitely get your view more clearly now, so thanks for the discussion. Regardless, we both agree creative, different approaches could work with different combinations of ability/skill, and ultimately as long as the DM and players are happy with it, play on! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification