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

[5ekyu]

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.

Yeah, the 20 questions approach I have seen get annoying. Its surprisingly not rare... heck you even see it mentioned for perception on these boards.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I just call for ability checks, and ask that my players suggest to me if they have a proficiency (skill, tool, language, even weapon or armor) that they think would help. Based on the goal and approach, I either agree and tell them to add their proficiency bonus, or not.

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.

If there is historical information about a feature of the environment that the PCs might or might not know, I just tell it to anyone with Proficiency in History. If the players want to uncover more information about a thing, the are free to take further action to analyze it, study it, investigate it, and I will adjudicate those actions as per the core mechanic.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

The players at my table, all new besides me would ask something like "Should I know what this is?" "Is this important?" or something like that. They haven't really asked "Can I make a History check?" or even "Can I make a skill check?" in those scenarios.

I think "Does my character know what this is?" provides enough for the DM, to say Yes, No, or roll for-it.

Edit: and I just noticed many people made similar replies. I wan't even ninja'd just flat out rolled a 1 on my Wisdom (Perception) check.

 

[Oofta]

The players at my table, all new besides me would ask something like "Should I know what this is?" "Is this important?" or something like that. They haven't really asked "Can I make a History check?" or even "Can I make a skill check?" in those scenarios.

I think "Does my character know what this is?" provides enough for the DM, to say Yes, No, or roll for-it.

Edit: and I just noticed many people made similar replies. I wan't even ninja'd just flat out rolled a 1 on my Wisdom (Perception) check.

If I think anyone would know it, I'll just give them the info. But while I feel that proficiency should be rewarded, at the same time I don't remember what PCs have which proficiency. This is just a reminder - if someone asked me "Should I know this" I'd ask them what kind of proficiencies they have that might apply.

 

[BookBarbarian]

If I think anyone would know it, I'll just give them the info. But while I feel that proficiency should be rewarded, at the same time I don't remember what PCs have which proficiency. This is just a reminder - if someone asked me "Should I know this" I'd ask them what kind of proficiencies they have that might apply.

I think that's a very reasonable question to ask a player.

In my own skewed way of looking at things the player asking "Do I know this?" is a statement of a goal, and the DM asking "What kind of proficiencies do you have that might apply?" is kind of asking for more information about the player's approach. It's just more game term specific rather than narrative description.

Which is why I don't get to concerned about doing it the "Right way" if both routes lead to same destination.

 

[iserith]

With regard to recalling lore, I'm basically looking for a fictional justification for recalling a specific thing. Generally I'm sufficiently thorough in my description of the environment to give the players enough information to have their characters act. If at that point they're seeking some additional information, I want to know specifically what they want to do. "I want to know more about trolls..." just isn't enough for me to go on. Are you trying to recall strengths and weaknesses? Something about troll culture? What this particular troll's history is in the region, or perhaps its goals? What trolls generally eat? This is the player stating a goal.

Once I have an idea of what they actually want to know (presumably because they will then make use of it for some sort of advantage), I will want some kind of reason why they might recall it. "I've read every book in the world's greatest libraries - or I like to boast that I have," the player of the sage wizard might say. This is the player effectively stating an approach in that he or she is drawing upon that experience. Great, now I can decide if that is sufficient to just give him or her the knowledge that is sought (or not) or whether we roll for it. (And in this particular example, it sounds like the player is fishing for Inspiration using the sage background's personality trait - ding!)

If there is a check and the player blows it, I'm generally going to rule something like progress combined with a setback which in this case is typically giving you some information, just not what you specifically wanted. Maybe you can make it useful, maybe you can't. The meaningful consequence for failure here is not being able to act on the advantageous information you desired (or, rather, not acting with certainty because you might then act on an assumption). That's certainly not as "meaningful" as a trap blowing up in your face, but it works in my view.

 

[Bawylie]

You absolutely MUST say the magic words. And they are: “mechalechahimechahineyho.”

Your skill check will then be granted. Long live Jambi.

 

[robus]

Once I have an idea of what they actually want to know (presumably because they will then make use of it for some sort of advantage), I will want some kind of reason why they might recall it. "I've read every book in the world's greatest libraries - or I like to boast that I have," the player of the sage wizard might say. This is the player effectively stating an approach in that he or she is drawing upon that experience. Great, now I can decide if that is sufficient to just give him or her the knowledge that is sought (or not) or whether we roll for it. (And in this particular example, it sounds like the player is fishing for Inspiration using the sage background's personality trait - ding!)

While I don't insist upon it, I do prefer this way of dealing with those kinds of situations. Just because it brings a bit of life (and character history) into the story. It's nice when the players get a chance to contribute an interesting backstory tidbit (and who knows, perhaps the chance to bring that back again in a later adventure). So I encourage my players to think of a reason why their character might know something (if it's not obvious that they should already know) but I don't demand it if they feel put on the spot.

 

[5ekyu]

While I don't insist upon it, I do prefer this way of dealing with those kinds of situations. Just because it brings a bit of life (and character history) into the story. It's nice when the players get a chance to contribute an interesting backstory tidbit (and who knows, perhaps the chance to bring that back again in a later adventure). So I encourage my players to think of a reason why their character might know something (if it's not obvious that they should already know) but I don't demand it if they feel put on the spot.

I am sure that is good for some. We see a bit of that in the early campaign and into but to me it is like Stephen Colbert's dancing.

When he first started his CBS late night show, he danced for about 30s at the intro when he came out. Different dance each night.

I looked over at who was with me during the third ep and said "that sounded good on paper, a unique opening, but it wont last a month."

Sure enough, it was maybe 3 weeks in when he just sorta shuffled out and waved and got to the monologue.

Cuz the "another unique dance routine" gets old, runs out of ideas, or starts repeating real quick and just waiting time.

I can imagine (after now 6 levels of play over like 6 months and dont know how many times the bard of lore with all the knowledge skill has wondered "what do I know about..," ) how fun it would be to again hear a couple times a night "at the feet of so-n-so as he serenaded us with ballads of..." while one player's character is bleeding out etc.

I wonder in these discussions if there would be a discernable split if we broke it down by responders based on "length of campaign and time shared with these guys" vs say "frequent pick-ups, often with strangers, mostly short campaigns run-and-done then new stuff".

I certainly do some things different for public one-shots with strangers vs "my ongoing campaign."

 

[BookBarbarian]

While I don't insist upon it, I do prefer this way of dealing with those kinds of situations. Just because it brings a bit of life (and character history) into the story. It's nice when the players get a chance to contribute an interesting backstory tidbit (and who knows, perhaps the chance to bring that back again in a later adventure). So I encourage my players to think of a reason why their character might know something (if it's not obvious that they should already know) but I don't demand it if they feel put on the spot.

Same here.