D&D 5E "Make a Strength (History) roll."

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

One of the tools available to GMs and players in 5E is non-standard combinations of ability scores and proficiencies. It doesn't come up very often in my experience, but sometimes odd pairings make for interesting moments in play -- or, rather, interesting moments in play call for the odd pairings. I remember having PCs make Charisma (Athletics) checks to entertain a crowd in the arena, and have sometimes let them make things like Intelligence (Stealth) to try and surmise how an assassin or thief infiltrated a crime scene.

Relatedly, I sometimes let players make checks with proficiency based on their backgrounds or their class (and choosing an appropriate ability score). The 5E proficiency list is narrow and specific and sometimes it is easier to lean on "secondary skills" from the AD&D days.

What are your thoughts on non-standard proficiency and ability scores?

We are pretty free to use any ability that is related to the task and we get proficiency as normal and if it relates to our background

 

[Reynard]

Instead of thinking "how does Strength help my History" think "how does History help my Strength".

This is the thing. In 5E you don't make Stealth or History checks. You say what you are doing and then (if necessary) make an Ability check, and then you determine if a proficiency applies. Doing that, it is a lot easier to figure out how a non-standard combination might come about.
"I want to move the statue of Dwarrofater aside and see if anything is hidden behind it."
"Okay, make a Strength check."
"Can I apply History?"
"To a Strength Check?"
"Yeah. I'm a dwarf and these are my ancestral halls. These massive statues we built to be moved if you knew the trick."
"Sure, that makes sense."

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

This is the thing. In 5E you don't make Stealth or History checks. You say what you are doing and then (if necessary) make an Ability check, and then you determine if a proficiency applies. Doing that, it is a lot easier to figure out how a non-standard combination might come about.
"I want to move the statue of Dwarrofater aside and see if anything is hidden behind it."
"Okay, make a Strength check."
"Can I apply History?"
"To a Strength Check?"
"Yeah. I'm a dwarf and these are my ancestral halls. These massive statues we built to be moved if you knew the trick."
"Sure, that makes sense."

I was just coming back to this thread to say, despite the fact we do this I couldn’t think of a way to apply history to a strength check. You have just broadened my horizon good person. Next stop - confounding my DM with creative applications of skills!

 

[Reynard]

I was just coming back to this thread to say, despite the fact we do this I couldn’t think of a way to apply history to a strength check. You have just broadened my horizon good person. Next stop - confounding my DM with creative applications of skills!

I just expanded the example by @Laurefindel .

 

[iserith]

This is the thing. In 5E you don't make Stealth or History checks. You say what you are doing and then (if necessary) make an Ability check, and then you determine if a proficiency applies. Doing that, it is a lot easier to figure out how a non-standard combination might come about.
"I want to move the statue of Dwarrofater aside and see if anything is hidden behind it."
"Okay, make a Strength check."
"Can I apply History?"
"To a Strength Check?"
"Yeah. I'm a dwarf and these are my ancestral halls. These massive statues we built to be moved if you knew the trick."
"Sure, that makes sense."

I would say the player's statement as to why history is applicable needs to accompany the description to move the statue and prior to the DM calling for a check. Once the check is called for, there's no adding to it since the determination of whether a check was needed at all was based on the player's initial description. Otherwise you get into these situations where players start fishing for a proficiency to apply after the roll is called for which isn't ideal in my view.

 

[Reynard]

I would say the player's statement as to why history is applicable needs to accompany the description to move the statue and prior to the DM calling for a check. Once the check is called for, there's no adding to it since the determination of whether a check was needed at all was based on the player's initial description. Otherwise you get into these situations where players start fishing for a proficiency to apply after the roll is called for which isn't ideal in my view.

That isn't how the rules work, at least. The GM calls for the ability check but the players are explicitly "allowed" to lobby for the use of proficiency to increase their chances of success.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like the idea of it, but I think that it would be better in practice if 1) the skill list was shorter (17 + tools is too much, and yet somehow also feels like it's missing some); 2) there was less focus on the "standard" ability combo; and 3) they weren't all listed on the standard character sheet.

 

[iserith]

That isn't how the rules work, at least. The GM calls for the ability check but the players are explicitly "allowed" to lobby for the use of proficiency to increase their chances of success.

Yes, per the rules, the player can ask the DM if a proficiency applies to a check, but whether it does or doesn't is based on what the player described. Players describing what they want to do precedes the call for an ability check by the DM.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, per the rules, the player can ask the DM if a proficiency applies to a check, but whether it does or doesn't is based on what the player described. Players describing what they want to do precedes the call for an ability check by the DM.

In my example the player wasn't describing what they wanted to do after the check was called for. the player was explaining why they should be allowed to use History on their Strength check.

 

[iserith]

In my example the player wasn't describing what they wanted to do after the check was called for. the player was explaining why they should be allowed to use History on their Strength check.

Right, which I would find to be out of order. Drawing upon historical knowledge to make moving the statue easier than just brute strength should be part of what the player initially described prior to the DM asking for the check. DM then calls for the Strength check and the player declares they are adding History, based on what they already described. Otherwise you can get into situations where the player starts tacking stuff on after the call for a roll just to get a bonus. Whether or not someone finds that acceptable will be up to them, of course, but it's too little, too late in my view according to the process of play.