Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyDm" data-source="post: 7019866" data-attributes="member: 6788973">I kind of agree with the first paragraph, but the bold part is total nonsense.  Well... not total, because you say "could."  Sure, it "could" be a sign of that... but I don't think there's much reason to think that's the most likely thing going on.This assumption presupposes that all action declarations need to be within the precise realm of specificity that the listed D&D skills represent... no less specific, and no more specific.This is wrong for several reasons.  The simplest reason is because D&D doesn't even have internal consistency about how specific their skills are.  The skill selection is just an arbitrary list that sounded good to the game designers, and works pretty well.  There's clear logical overlaps already.  So it's inconsistent and unprincipled on the face of things.It's also wrong because D&D 5e is the first time in a long while that D&D has begun to move away from pretending that the arbitrary list of skills in the rulebooks is the end-all of skills in the universe.  With the introduction of open-ended "tool" proficiencies, a generic proficiency bonus that can be justified by other things such as Background, and the explicit codification of skills as ability-checks first and foremost, they've made great strides in opening up skills.You can easily play 5e without using the provided skill list, and simply asking the players to make up the names of skills that they have.  The DM can approve the skill names to ensure the same quality of specificity enforcement that the base game has (e.g. some reasonable standard, but still arbitrary.)  The game will then play precisely the same as if you used 5e's skills, except people might feel a little more unique and engaged in their skill list.That's how arbitrary the skills are in their level of specificity.  So the idea that an action relating to multiple skills is somehow a failure on the part of the player is just baffling.Plenty of very specific actions can reasonably be interpolated to apply to multiple skills.  How to adjudicate such situations will come down to how and why the skills are overlapping, and how many actions are actually involved in what the player is attempting to do.If there is skill overlap of a single functional action, then you should probably just call for a single ability check.  e.g. A player tells the enemy warlord the story of the last time an army tried to pass through the Hot Gates, and suggests the warlord turn his forces around.  This reasonably involves History and Intimidation... if anything, the specificity of the player's action actually leads to more skills being involved, in direct contravention to your claim.  But the real key here is Intimidation.  Sure, you probably need your History to be believable and at least semi-accurate, but the point is you're trying to scare the guy.  So a single Intimidation check is likely sufficient.But other times, the action declaration could reasonably be considered to be an actual combination of actions.  A medical examination, per the OP, is a great example of this.  Investigation and Medicine are both critical.  They will provide different types of information.  A dual-check resolution makes perfect sense in such a situation; each check yields different results.But there's no failure on the part of the player to adequately declare his action.  He accurately declared he was performing a medical examination, and the skill checks logically followed from there.So, to answer the OP: If multiple skills genuinely seem involved, allow multiple skill checks.  Each should yield a different result.  Succeeding on all of them should have some meaning.  If there's really just one skill that is the linchpin to the action, just go with one check.  I wouldn't stack proficiency bonuses onto a single d20 roll in any case, however.  I agree with others that this violates BA and the spirit of 5e.</blockquote>

Verification