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

[MostlyDm]

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.

I don't find it incredulous, so much as I just don't understand what you're saying. My intent is to understand what your position is.

There has been some back and forth with multiple people on this issue, some of whom explicitly said that you seemed to be speaking for them. So I've probably been extrapolating multiple users' positions onto yours whenever I run into apparent gaps in understanding. I'll stop doing that now. Let me back up a little.

Other people definitely claimed that multiple skill checks to resolve an action were a bad idea. Here, you almost seem to be saying the opposite: that resolving an action with a single check is shortchanging the give-and-take?

There's also been some mixed messages over words like "action" and "scene" and things like that. And the examples we've been playing around with involved different situations which may or may not have been full scenes, or single actions within a scene, or perhaps small clusters of actions within a scene.

Since it seems like I'm coming off as aggressive, rather than pushing you to clarify your position, I'll just try to clarify mine:

I think that any given scene will require a variable number of actions to resolve it, from 1 to infinity. A given action, stated by the player, may or may not involve uncertainty and so may or may not require dice be involved at all.

If the DM believes uncertainty/dice is involved, then he may call for one or more checks.

I think the only break down we would have so far is that you would say that at this stage he should just be asking for one check. Right? One action declared -> one check?

In theory that may be well and good, but in my experience, one action is not always really one action. This is perhaps where you would say the player needs to be more specific?

Maybe that answers it, but I'm not totally convinced. For one thing... I don't like my players to be cagey and try to approach a goal in a staccato/baby step "I do this... and also this... and then this." fashion. I'd rather they state their intent as well as their initial action.

Partly this is because I prefer to let players narrate their own stories as much as possible... so laying a sequence out, determining the failure points upfront, rolling for them, and then narrating the outcome all at once, often has a lot of appeal to my group.

So that's one reason to potentially roll several checks in quick succession.

Another reason could be, as the OP originally discussed, because two skills represent two different but complimentary approaches to a problem (e.g. autopsy.) If the PC is taking that approach, I wouldn't have any problem determining the respective success/failure effects and having them make multiple rolls.

Sorry to continue using the autopsy example, but I think it's a good one. I get that you think Medicine would have no bearing on an autopsy. I don't really know how to respond to that, except to say that I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't see how your quotes support the position, and it seems absurd to me. But if I could think of an example you would like more, I would do so.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The issue with requiring multiple successful rolls to resolve a single action is that it dramatically reduces the chance of success: as another person pointed out it's the equivalent of applying disadvantage (and potentially to a higher degree) to the check.

Combat is a different kettle of fish, because of the way that it's resolved: no single failed combat roll ends the action of "kill the monster" as a failure, nor do you require every roll to pass in order to succeed.

Given that, as long as you allow progress with each success that is not negated with the subsequent failure, then multiple rolls to resolve an action is fine. in the given example:
"For example, if you have to run along a railing an make a big jump to a balcony, you would roll independently for a dexterity (acrobatics) check to run along the railing and a strength (athletics) check to jump."

the problem is that the impression is given that you require BOTH checks to succeed in order to complete the action, and that failure in either is somewhat final.

If the actual situation is that passing one OR the other check results in you making the jump but dangling off the balcony, while making both checks results in you standing on the edge of the balcony and only failing both checks results in failure (falling down the side of the building), then you have something analogous to combat and therefore much more fair.

Keeping that in mind leads to what is my answer to the conundrum in general: if multiple skills apply to a situation, then you can either
a) apply only one based on method of approach (assuming that the methods of approach are exclusive)
b) apply and roll all of them and use the aggregate to determine degree of success (assuming that they can reasonably be applied concurrently).

 

[mrpopstar]

I don't find it incredulous, so much as I just don't understand what you're saying. My intent is to understand what your position is.

I would be so bold as to claim that most would describe my 'all RAW everything' position as being quite clear.

There has been some back and forth with multiple people on this issue, some of whom explicitly said that you seemed to be speaking for them. So I've probably been extrapolating multiple users' positions onto yours whenever I run into apparent gaps in understanding. I'll stop doing that now. Let me back up a little.

Other people definitely claimed that multiple skill checks to resolve an action were a bad idea. Here, you almost seem to be saying the opposite: that resolving an action with a single check is shortchanging the give-and-take?

Adjudicating a task with multiple skill checks is a bad idea.

Adjudicating an encounter with multiple skill checks rolled at once shortchanges the give-and-take.

There's also been some mixed messages over words like "action" and "scene" and things like that. And the examples we've been playing around with involved different situations which may or may not have been full scenes, or single actions within a scene, or perhaps small clusters of actions within a scene.

The game provides us with the language task and encounter, so let's use those.

I think that any given scene will require a variable number of actions to resolve it, from 1 to infinity. A given action, stated by the player, may or may not involve uncertainty and so may or may not require dice be involved at all.

An encounter may or may not involve a multitude of tasks, yes.

If the DM believes uncertainty/dice is involved, then he may call for one or more checks.

I think the only break down we would have so far is that you would say that at this stage he should just be asking for one check. Right? One action declared -> one check?

If the outcome of an attempted task is uncertain, the DM calls for an ability check.

One task. One check.

In theory that may be well and good, but in my experience, one action is not always really one action. This is perhaps where you would say the player needs to be more specific?

It hasn't been my experience that one task is really more than one task.

Maybe that answers it, but I'm not totally convinced. For one thing... I don't like my players to be cagey and try to approach a goal in a staccato/baby step "I do this... and also this... and then this." fashion. I'd rather they state their intent as well as their initial action.

Partly this is because I prefer to let players narrate their own stories as much as possible... so laying a sequence out, determining the failure points upfront, rolling for them, and then narrating the outcome all at once, often has a lot of appeal to my group.

The rules do not provide guidance for the practice of laying the sequence out, determining the failure points upfront, rolling for them, and then narrating the outcome all at once. — I would call that a deviation from the rules.

So that's one reason to potentially roll several checks in quick succession.

I appreciate your use of terms like sometimes and potentially throughout this thread, but I recognize them to be defensive inclusions.

Another reason could be, as the OP originally discussed, because two skills represent two different but complimentary approaches to a problem (e.g. autopsy.) If the PC is taking that approach, I wouldn't have any problem determining the respective success/failure effects and having them make multiple rolls.

Sorry to continue using the autopsy example, but I think it's a good one. I get that you think Medicine would have no bearing on an autopsy. I don't really know how to respond to that, except to say that I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't see how your quotes support the position, and it seems absurd to me. But if I could think of an example you would like more, I would do so.

If I held a position and could think of only one contentious example with which to justify it, I would probably reconsider my position.

 

[MostlyDm]

I would be so bold as to claim that most would describe my 'all RAW everything' position as being quite clear.

It wasn't, actually. I definitely missed that. Since that is the case, it's clear we have a significant gulf in our approaches.

Adjudicating a task with multiple skill checks is a bad idea.

Adjudicating an encounter with multiple skill checks rolled at once shortchanges the give-and-take.

The game provides us with the language task and encounter, so let's use those.

Alrighty.

An encounter may or may not involve a multitude of tasks, yes.

If the outcome of an attempted task is uncertain, the DM calls for an ability check.

One task. One check.

It hasn't been my experience that one task is really more than one task.

Right, so our experiences in this regard differ.

The rules do not provide guidance for the practice of laying the sequence out, determining the failure points upfront, rolling for them, and then narrating the outcome all at once. — I would call that a deviation from the rules.

This is a truism. Being a deviation from the rules is not actually a meaningful criticism. Especially in 5e, where deviating from the rules is encouraged by the rules.

So... yeah. It's a deviation. Per earlier in this response, I didn't realize you believed in "all RAW everything."

I appreciate your use of terms like sometimes and potentially throughout this thread, but I recognize them to be defensive inclusions.

Not really. While hedges like that are often just weasel words, in this case I used them intentionally: sometimes I think making multiple checks is a good idea. Sometimes I don't. It's not an official policy of mine.

If I held a position and could think of only one contentious example with which to justify it, I would probably reconsider my position.

That's a helpful insight into your frame of mind.

It's not that I can't think of other examples, it's just what I said: "if I could think of an example you would like more, I would do so."

I genuinely cannot understand how you could hold the position you do on the Investigation/Medicine issue (at any level... e.g. if I was absolutely pressed to require one check and one only, I would absolutely expect Medicine to yield more useful results than Investigation). Since I don't understand why you hold your position, I have no useful information with which to try to invent an example you will find more acceptable. I'm not interested in throwing out a bunch more loose examples in the hope that you will suddenly have an epiphany from one of them. Especially since it's clear that you can't think of any example you'd accept either. You know your own mind better than I do.

I'm satisfied with the knowledge that you believe any deviation from the rules to be bad. I believe this to be a self-contradicting statement for 5e, which actively encourages DMs to deviate from the rules whenever they believe it to be appropriate. I don't think we're going to make any headway talking about skill checks when we have a fundamentally different view of how to approach the game.

 

[iserith]

I'm satisfied with the knowledge that you believe any deviation from the rules to be bad. I believe this to be a self-contradicting statement for 5e, which actively encourages DMs to deviate from the rules whenever they believe it to be appropriate. I don't think we're going to make any headway talking about skill checks when we have a fundamentally different view of how to approach the game.

I don't think 5e actively encourages deviation from the rules. My understanding of the text is that the rules are tools to be picked up and used when needed, as determined by the DM, who the rules serve. But when you do choose to use them, use them as they are while acting in good faith as a mediator. So for example, if a player describes his or her character as carefully examining the corpse to determine its cause of death, I can narrate the result of the adventurer's action however I like. It's only when I'm not sure if the character can determine that through careful examination that I call upon the rules to help resolve the uncertainty.

 

[MostlyDm]

I don't think 5e actively encourages deviation from the rules. My understanding of the text is that the rules are tools to be picked up and used when needed, as determined by the DM, who the rules serve. But when you do choose to use them, use them as they are while acting in good faith as a mediator. So for example, if a player describes his or her character as carefully examining the corpse to determine its cause of death, I can narrate the result of the adventurer's action however I like. It's only when I'm not sure if the character can determine that through careful examination that I call upon the rules to help resolve the uncertainty.

I actually didn't have in mind the game's advice to not even engage the rules unless it's needed.

I more had in mind that all of the 3 core books contain a multitude of optional rules, many of which are mutually exclusive with each other, and frequently finish rule sections with suggestions that amount to "Or, come up with something else that you think makes sense!"

Not a direct quote as I am away from my books. If you think I'm misrepresenting the spirit of the texts, I'll try to cite more concrete evidence later.

 

[iserith]

I actually didn't have in mind the game's advice to not even engage the rules unless it's needed.

I more had in mind that all of the 3 core books contain a multitude of optional rules, many of which are mutually exclusive with each other, and frequently finish rule sections with suggestions that amount to "Or, come up with something else that you think makes sense!"

Not a direct quote as I am away from my books. If you think I'm misrepresenting the spirit of the texts, I'll try to cite more concrete evidence later.

No evidence required. The Basic Rules back up my statement completely.

 

[Quickleaf]

Does anyone else do anything similar? How do you handle overlapping skill sets?

Yep, giving advantage (or practically advantage) is good if you conceive of all the potential information PCs can learn about something via a check lying on the same single-column table. What matters in this conception is not the skill selected by the value attained on the die roll.

Arcana/History/Investigation/Medicine/etc.:
DC 5...
DC 10...
DC 15...
etc.

However, I often tailor the information I give based on the type of skill used (heck, even on the background/race/backstory of PCs using the same skill). In that case it would look more like...

Arcana
DC 5...
DC 10...
DC 15....
etc.

Investigation
DC 5...
DC 10...
DC 15....
etc.

Medicine
DC 5...
DC 10...
DC 15....
etc.

And so on.

So it really depends on just how much detail and grist for the narrative mill there is in a given scene. In a simple improvised scene, I might do the first example, but in a more involved planned scene or one I'm improvising but they players have especially honed in on, I probably will do the second example.

 

[mrpopstar]

This is a truism. Being a deviation from the rules is not actually a meaningful criticism. Especially in 5e, where deviating from the rules is encouraged by the rules.

I'm not criticizing.

It's not that I can't think of other examples, it's just what I said: "if I could think of an example you would like more, I would do so."

I genuinely cannot understand how you could hold the position you do on the Investigation/Medicine issue (at any level... e.g. if I was absolutely pressed to require one check and one only, I would absolutely expect Medicine to yield more useful results than Investigation). Since I don't understand why you hold your position, I have no useful information with which to try to invent an example you will find more acceptable. I'm not interested in throwing out a bunch more loose examples in the hope that you will suddenly have an epiphany from one of them. Especially since it's clear that you can't think of any example you'd accept either. You know your own mind better than I do.

A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.

Everything else is baggage.

I'm satisfied with the knowledge that you believe any deviation from the rules to be bad. I believe this to be a self-contradicting statement for 5e, which actively encourages DMs to deviate from the rules whenever they believe it to be appropriate. I don't think we're going to make any headway talking about skill checks when we have a fundamentally different view of how to approach the game.

I don't believe that deviating from the rules is bad, I just don't believe it to be appropriate in your examples.



In your exploration example involving the rooftop escape, you are summarizing travel to the Copper District. I would simply consider the character's travel pace, the terrain he was moving over, the special types of movement the terrain might involve, and then tell him how long it took him to get there. — Rules as written, and now we're in the Copper District.

In your social interaction example involving the enemy warlord, you are resolving the party's suggestion that the warlord turn his forces around. I would simply choose the starting attitude of the warlord, let the conversation play out and run its course, and then I would call for a Charisma check. — Rules as written, and the warlord has made his decision.

Deviation in these examples appears needlessly complicating.

 

[Rune]

I genuinely cannot understand how you could hold the position you do on the Investigation/Medicine issue (at any level... e.g. if I was absolutely pressed to require one check and one only, I would absolutely expect Medicine to yield more useful results than Investigation). Since I don't understand why you hold your position, I have no useful information with which to try to invent an example you will find more acceptable. I'm not interested in throwing out a bunch more loose examples in the hope that you will suddenly have an epiphany from one of them. Especially since it's clear that you can't think of any example you'd accept either. You know your own mind better than I do.

Ooh. I think I can answer that one. I don't want to speak for [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION], but that did come up earlier. It seems to me that mrpopstar considers applying proficiency from skills to different types of ability checks (which is presented as a variant rule) to not be RAW (even though it is a rule that is written) and, therefore, assumes it is not in play.*

With those assumptions, it becomes easier to understand (but not necessarily easier to agree with): Medicine, being inextricably and exclusively linked to Wisdom, cannot confer knowledge of anatomy, biology, or anything else, nor logical analysis of said knowledge, because knowledge and reason are the providence of Intelligence. Wisdom can only offer intuition and instinct to the situation. Proficiency in medicine, then, can only represent such an approach. At least, I think that's his position.

It makes sense. I just, personally, disagree with the fundamental assumption it is built on. The variant rule exists so that people who recognize that it improves their game can use it (why write it at all if the assumption is that it won't be used?).


* Not that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, but I am curious if this hardline approach extends to optional rules, such as feats and multiclassing, as well.