Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7020023" data-attributes="member: 97077">I disagree. The skills are quite specific in what they cover. [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION] makes a good case for this, so I invite you to argue with him about that as I won't be getting into that line of argument due to lack of time. Less specific are what the abilities cover. That is why I recommend DMs do NOT ask for &quot;skill checks.&quot; You ask instead for ability checks (broad by definition) and let the player ask if they can apply one of their skill or tool proficiencies. The rules say this is a way to do it, though I skip the asking because I hate questions and go straight to the player just declaring it on the assumption they are acting in good faith.Here is another issue that arises: When a player is not reasonably specific as to goal and approach, a lot of space is left for the DM to assume. A common approach that I see in many games including certain very popular actual play videos (and it annoys me) is that the DM then declares what the character is doing because the player was not specific enough. This can often be avoided, as can the the skills overlap issue raised by the OP, by making sure that adjudication happens only after the player has been reasonably specific as to goal and approach. Once that is established clearly, it's easy for the DM to then choose an ability check that applies to resolve uncertainty, and to narrate the result without encroaching upon the player's role of declaring what the character does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7020023, member: 97077"] I disagree. The skills are quite specific in what they cover. [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION] makes a good case for this, so I invite you to argue with him about that as I won't be getting into that line of argument due to lack of time. Less specific are what the abilities cover. That is why I recommend DMs do NOT ask for "skill checks." You ask instead for [I]ability [/I]checks (broad by definition) and let the player ask if they can apply one of their skill or tool proficiencies. The rules say this is a way to do it, though I skip the asking because I hate questions and go straight to the player just declaring it on the assumption they are acting in good faith. Here is another issue that arises: When a player is not reasonably specific as to goal and approach, a lot of space is left for the DM to assume. A common approach that I see in many games including certain very popular actual play videos (and it annoys me) is that the DM then declares what the character is doing because the player was not specific enough. This can often be avoided, as can the the skills overlap issue raised by the OP, by making sure that adjudication happens only after the player has been reasonably specific as to goal and approach. Once that is established clearly, it's easy for the DM to then choose an ability check that applies to resolve uncertainty, and to narrate the result without encroaching upon the player's role of declaring what the character does. [/QUOTE]

Verification