D&D 5E How do you handle a skill check if needed.

[Mistwell]

I voted, then read some of the thread, agreed it was a crappy poll, and unvoted.

There is just too much here to fix to make it a decent poll. Start by talking about ability checks. Talk about the things you apparently meant by "magic words" instead of phrasing it as a "mother may I" scenario and instead use language in the books as your guidelines for how to describe it if your own words fail you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some of you in other threads have heavy hinted you require your players to be very detail in describing actions outside of combat.

Actually we’ve explicitly stated that we don’t require a lot of detail, and you’ve ignored that and read what you wanted to read instead.

 

[Oofta]

How do people handle other skill ... umm ... ability checks with proficiency bonus such as arcana, history or religion? BTW: the reason I and my table still refer to skill checks is simple. Ability check modified by proficiency just doesn't roll off the tongue. If there's a better way to refer to an ability check modified by a proficiency feel free to chime in.

But take an example. The group is looking at a McGuffin. In my game someone could ask for a history check to see if it had any historical significance. Maybe it should and I didn't think to ask the players for it or forgot that anyone was proficient in history, so I go ahead and let them a roll.

It's obvious what they are doing (wracking their brains for information related to the McGuffin. How? Approach? I'm not sure how anyone would phrase that.

 

[5ekyu]

Spot on. Those who think the difference is pedantic, or is about being too uptight about slight differences in language, seem to be missing the point entirely.

Similarly, frequently in these threads some people argue that "I'll make a [Skill] check" is just time-saving shorthand for some more elaborate description. "Magic words", et al.

Sure: if that's how someone is using the skills then, yes, it's a convenient shorthand. And in that case to insist that the player phrases it differently, so that the DM can ask for a skill check, is indeed kind of silly.

But what those posters seem to not understand (despite how many threads on this topic?) is that some of us are not using the skill system that way. And anybody who thinks it's simply about the phrasing must (again, still) not comprehend that difference.

If a group needs to insist on not using "skill check" because that leads to some bad game experience or confusion at the table on what game they are playing, or for whatever reason they choose - if it's good for them, great.

For me, as I said, it's not a problem, never caused a problem in spite or or because of the fact that we have all played different games over time and dont have a problem like that. Nobody gets any bad experience or confusion when we say skill check and it's much like the terminology we have seen over and over.

That said, when in forum discussions the habit of correcting folks ehen they say "skill checks" starts being kinda like a jab at kinda implying "you may not know how to play 5e" it starts to get annoying. When using the rather common parlance is taken as an opportunity to raise a question about the other poster's acumen, its annoying.

 

[coolAlias]

How do people handle other skill ... umm ... ability checks with proficiency bonus such as arcana, history or religion? BTW: the reason I and my table still refer to skill checks is simple. Ability check modified by proficiency just doesn't roll off the tongue. If there's a better way to refer to an ability check modified by a proficiency feel free to chime in.

But take an example. The group is looking at a McGuffin. In my game someone could ask for a history check to see if it had any historical significance. Maybe it should and I didn't think to ask the players for it or forgot that anyone was proficient in history, so I go ahead and let them a roll.

It's obvious what they are doing (wracking their brains for information related to the McGuffin. How? Approach? I'm not sure how anyone would phrase that.

When the goal and approach are pretty self-evident, I have no problem with a player asking for a {whatever} check, whether directly or as "Do I know anything [history | arcana | religion]-related about this item?"

I may be wrong, but I think that in actual play, most of our approaches to skill / ability resolution would look more similar than not, despite any of our stated differences in an online forum.

 

[5ekyu]

How do people handle other skill ... umm ... ability checks with proficiency bonus such as arcana, history or religion? BTW: the reason I and my table still refer to skill checks is simple. Ability check modified by proficiency just doesn't roll off the tongue. If there's a better way to refer to an ability check modified by a proficiency feel free to chime in.

But take an example. The group is looking at a McGuffin. In my game someone could ask for a history check to see if it had any historical significance. Maybe it should and I didn't think to ask the players for it or forgot that anyone was proficient in history, so I go ahead and let them a roll.

It's obvious what they are doing (wracking their brains for information related to the McGuffin. How? Approach? I'm not sure how anyone would phrase that.

At my table these are often done by the player asking a question like "do I know anything about... " or "do I recognize anything..." and a reference to a check - but just as likely its something like "can I tell anything with arcana" etc.

Sometimes if there are specific bits they are curious about then they will zero in with more detail "those purple snd yellow Rose's, are they like anything specific in the Chauntean lore - roses are big there" That is after in the fiction the Chauntean Rose's has been introduced of course.

So, for like general "what does this mean to me, given my expertise" very little is asked - kinda like just asking for more detailed description. But if there are particular clues they are honing in on, they identify more precisely.

That's the vast majority of our play cases, not just from 5e. I mean, it's not like skills for knowledge, hunting, spotting, investigations etc hsvdnt bedn implemented snd used alongside "abikity" or "atttibutes" for decades in countless games, right? 5e does not have dome magical new thing as far as skills go that deserves scripture status.

I did have an experience where at one table - not sure if it was just one player or a GM thing - where a player would take time to always wrap these in a backstory wrapper - "I will think back to my days studying at the blah blah mountain library and lectures from old msn blah blah about monsters of the south hills and see what I recall about trolls."

I also have had players who went really heavy the other way- giving a lot of out of character explanation of the reasoning as to what he thought and why it made sense and what he was expecting at many many many cases of tryingbyobuse his skills for knowledge. At times, I did have to stop that, interrupt and get on because it was becoming an issue and was unnecessary. To be fair, I think he had issues with fear of failure and getting "gotcha" etc ftom som prior gaming experience, so it was a thing we had to work thru.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

How do people handle other skill ... umm ... ability checks with proficiency bonus such as arcana, history or religion? BTW: the reason I and my table still refer to skill checks is simple. Ability check modified by proficiency just doesn't roll off the tongue. If there's a better way to refer to an ability check modified by a proficiency feel free to chime in.

But take an example. The group is looking at a McGuffin. In my game someone could ask for a history check to see if it had any historical significance. Maybe it should and I didn't think to ask the players for it or forgot that anyone was proficient in history, so I go ahead and let them a roll.

It's obvious what they are doing (wracking their brains for information related to the McGuffin. How? Approach? I'm not sure how anyone would phrase that.

In games I run (which is not D&D 5e), this will be handled either immediately upon encountering the thing, like so...

DM: "Behind it, is revealed the mighty Hucka Pucka Valve. Sammy the Sage recalls that this ancient device was invented by Hammforce, the Gnome Paladin during the Age of Things Being Quite Sticky as a way to separate things that were quite sticky."

This information would be based off of a "take 10" value for something like History or Arcana.

Or it will be triggered by the player asking a question, like so...

Scott: Does Leo Frogman know if the Hucka Pucka Valve is dangerous?
DM: Possibly. Make me a History or Arcana roll.
Scott: I got one million on history!
DM: Makes up or reveals notes about history of Hucka Pucka Valve

Or it will be revealed by the player declaring a check.

Jason: I Arcana it, 28.
DM: Invents or reveals notes about magical technobabble about the Hucka Pucka Valve.

 

[Campbell]

Part of the reason for insisting on specificity of action and wanting to know more about what a player is trying to accomplish is to make certain success and failure are meaningful. If a player wants to know how strong is a troll in comparison to us a successful Nature check will reveal how potent a creature it is. If they want to know about weaknesses a successful check will let them know that it is weak to fire. I want to avoid the scenario where a successful check results in a massive info dump that does not meaningfully answer the player's question.

 

[Oofta]

Part of the reason for insisting on specificity of action and wanting to know more about what a player is trying to accomplish is to make certain success and failure are meaningful. If a player wants to know how strong is a troll in comparison to us a successful Nature check will reveal how potent a creature it is. If they want to know about weaknesses a successful check will let them know that it is weak to fire. I want to avoid the scenario where a successful check results in a massive info dump that does not meaningfully answer the player's question.

That would drive me a little bit nuts. If I know about trolls, I know about trolls. I may know additional information based on how high a result I get. But if I want to know how strong they are because that's what I specifically ask for but don't remember that they regen? No thanks.

 

[5ekyu]

Part of the reason for insisting on specificity of action and wanting to know more about what a player is trying to accomplish is to make certain success and failure are meaningful. If a player wants to know how strong is a troll in comparison to us a successful Nature check will reveal how potent a creature it is. If they want to know about weaknesses a successful check will let them know that it is weak to fire. I want to avoid the scenario where a successful check results in a massive info dump that does not meaningfully answer the player's question.

Most of the times, it's like "what do I know about trolls?" At our table that may get a 30 second high spots "bullet list" then any more specific questions come out in discussion. We dont require a 20 questions type thing.

so the troll answer would be like
Big hungry not too bright giant
Huge claws- RIP you apart - usually no weapons
Regeneration a lot if you dont use fire

Tho often that info is given frankly for common creatures by simply giving them stat blocks as "commonly known" for cases where that is reasonable. Its understood there are frequent variations for specific individuals that will come out in description.