D&D 5E Do you ever let players stack skills?

[MostlyDm]

I believe I was tagged in with regard to your assertion that the skill list is inconsistent, unspecific, arbitrary, and unprincipled. I understood [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] to be disagreeing with that assertion and citing my contributions here as having already explored that particular tangent.

Oh... you did? I must have missed that. When did you demonstrate that the 5e list of skills is not arbitrary, with varied levels of specificity?

On the topic of tandem ability checks, imagine if the DM asked you to roll all of your attack rolls at the beginning of combat. — That's what tandem ability checks do to the exploration and interaction pillars.

I don't see the connection. Besides, how about this one: Imagine a DM asked you to roll your attack and damage at once. Or, slightly more controversial but appealing to some: Imagine you have 2 attacks, you declared you were focusing on an enemy, and the DM asked you to roll both attack rolls upfront.

I don't see how this would somehow devalue exploration or interaction at all.

 

[mrpopstar]

Oh... you did? I must have missed that. When did you demonstrate that the 5e list of skills is not arbitrary, with varied levels of specificity?

Tough crowd in here tonight.

I don't see the connection. Besides, how about this one: Imagine a DM asked you to roll your attack and damage at once. Or, slightly more controversial but appealing to some: Imagine you have 2 attacks, you declared you were focusing on an enemy, and the DM asked you to roll both attack rolls upfront.

Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. — Damage rolls don't compare, and neither does expediency in combat to expediency in the other pillars.

I don't see how this would somehow devalue exploration or interaction at all.

We see things differently.

 

[MostlyDm]

Tough crowd in here tonight.

That's not my intent. It was a genuine question. No hostility here.

Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. — Damage rolls don't compare, and neither does expediency in combat to expediency in the other pillars.

This is too abstract for me to really understand your objection. One example was damage, the other wasn't. Not sure why "expediency in combat" is unique, per se.

I gave some concrete examples earlier. If you're interested in continuing, maybe you could give an opinion on one or more of them, to help clarify what your position actually is.

We see things differently.

Clearly. My hope was to understand how you see things. If that's not interesting to you, that's cool too. No need to feel any obligation. Carry on.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I assume that in the examples above, you would allow more than one roll. In other words, would you allow

Yes, as long as the player has a new idea on what to check, he can roll again.

 

[mrpopstar]

I gave some concrete examples earlier. If you're interested in continuing, maybe you could give an opinion on one or more of them, to help clarify what your position actually is.

In your exploration example involving the medical examination, you are calling for multiple ability checks to see whether a character succeeds at the task of investigating a corpse with variable outcomes.

In your exploration example involving the rooftop escape, you are calling for multiple ability checks to see whether a character succeeds at the task of traveling to the Copper District.

In both of these examples, you are deviating from the rules. (Therein lies my objection.)

The rules are really awesome. (Therein lies my position.)

 

[Satyrn]

Let me clarify.

The clarity helps. Thank you.

 

[MostlyDm]

In your exploration example involving the medical examination, you are calling for multiple ability checks to see whether a character succeeds at the task of investigating a corpse with variable outcomes.

An oversimplification. There are multiple things that can be examined (as mentioned upthread: time of death, stomach contents, wound sites, etc.) And those things could each provide different, useful bits of information. Each one could yield a distinct clue.

Your position appears to be that allowing multiple checks to generate multiple clues would be a bad thing. Yes? No? Maybe I've misunderstood.

In your exploration example involving the rooftop escape, you are calling for multiple ability checks to see whether a character succeeds at the task of traveling to the Copper District.

More straightforward than above... but this is still an oversimplification.

They can travel to the Copper District any number of ways. Depending on context, each way could be fraught with different potential challenges.

Let's see if I understand you: You're saying that the player's declaration of "I hightail it to the Copper District" should be a single action declaration, resolved with a single check. Yes?

So...

If the player chooses to sneak there unnoticed through back alleys, he rolls a Dexterity check?

If he chooses to navigate the rooftops, he rolls a Dexterity or perhaps a Strength check? Just the one, right? Because rolling two checks for this single action is bad.

If he chooses to make some friends at a bar and carouse down the streets in plain
sight, perhaps he makes a Charisma check?

And if he chooses to confront some guards and fight his way there, then he makes... an attack roll? But just one, right, because we wouldn't want two d20 rolls to resolve a single action ("get to the Copper District.")

Clearly this last one deviates. Is it just because it is combat, and is therefore deserving of more time/rolls/failure points/etc?

In both of these examples, you are deviating from the rules. (Therein lies my objection.)

In what way am I describing deviations from the rules? I don't understand that. Can you clarify a bit more? What rule(s) do you have in mind that are being deviated from?

The rules are really awesome. (Therein lies my position.)

Agreed. I'd certainly call 5e the best edition of D&D ever printed.

 

[mrpopstar]

If he chooses to navigate the rooftops, he rolls a Dexterity or perhaps a Strength check? Just the one, right? Because rolling two checks for this single action is bad.

And if he chooses to confront some guards and fight his way there, then he makes... an attack roll? But just one, right, because we wouldn't want two d20 rolls to resolve a single action ("get to the Copper District.")

Clearly this last one deviates. Is it just because it is combat, and is therefore deserving of more time/rolls/failure points/etc?

You insist that you are asking genuine questions, that you aren't hostile, and that you want to understand how I see things, but the way you're managing yourself here leads me to question your intent.

Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result. You seem to find it incredulous that I'm of the opinion that covering an entire scene with a single adjudication shortchanges the give-and-take.

 

[pdegan2814]

I wouldn't let them stack the bonuses, but I might consider granting them advantage.

This is probably the best way to go. It's simple, and it's in keeping with the way 5e runs. The only thing you'll need to decide is if you let the player choose whichever skill modifier is higher, or if you define a "primary" skill for the check and any relevant "support" skills that would grant advantage. My gut says that except in very special cases the player would get to choose which one to roll.

 

[pukunui]

This is probably the best way to go. It's simple, and it's in keeping with the way 5e runs. The only thing you'll need to decide is if you let the player choose whichever skill modifier is higher, or if you define a "primary" skill for the check and any relevant "support" skills that would grant advantage. My gut says that except in very special cases the player would get to choose which one to roll.

Agreed. Unless a player has clearly outlined their approach in such a way that a specific skill seems most relevant, I'd most likely allow the player to choose which skill to use.