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

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it important to notes that it is a Strength (History) check -- that is, it is first and foremost a Strength check, and in this example the PC gets to apply their proficiency bonus because their proficiency in History proved useful. That is a different paradigm that the 3.x skill era, where the skill was the primary thing and ability scores were modifiers to those.

I'd also say that this distinction is the most important part of 5e skills.

The DM calls for a strength check. The players decide if there is an appropriate skill or proficiency or both to help.

This is also a reason, why I'd like passive perception to be its own thing, not dependant on wisdom or perception.
Because it runs contrary to this principle and makes perception way too powerful.

 

[Reynard]

Right, there is no rule about "continuing the conversation" after the call for a roll has been made, but there is a rule that description by the player precedes the call for a roll and a rule that the player can ask if a proficiency applies to the ability check the DM already called for. It says nothing about being able to add more description to be allowed to do so. The rules don't refer to the game as a conversation at all to my knowledge. That's a concept that comes from another game. A useful concept to be sure, but not "RAW."

I would say that if the player has been reasonably specific enough on their action declaration that there should be no need to interrogate the player on why they're using a particular proficiency on the roll. The DM hears the assertion, thinks back to what the player already described, and agrees or disagrees. (I side with agreeing by default on the assumption of good faith play by the player and to speed things along.) The ideal state in my game is DM Description - Player Description - Call For Ability Check - Player Adds Relevant Skill and Rolls - DM Narrates Result. Only if something has gone wrong will there need to be anything in between the player adding the relevant skill and the DM narrating the result.

You are asserting a rigidity that doesn't exist in the rules. Here is the relevant section from the SRD:
----------
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the GM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs. To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM.
----------
I am not near my books now, but there is more detail in the DMG and I am almost certain they use the word "conversation" or something very close to it. In either case, nothing in the wording or spirit of the rules prohibits continued clarification after the ability check has been called for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My take:

@Reynard's flexible approach may be necessary to wean players off of older styles and win them over to the 5e style.
@iserith's approach should be the end goal of all that weaning/training.

 

[Reynard]

@iserith's approach should be the end goal of all that weaning/training.

Can you articulate why you think this rigidity is superior?

 

[Charlaquin]

Now if only I could get the regular character sheet on Roll20 to query instead of default to the standard ability (Proficiency).

For roll 20 since you can make custom tool proficiencies, I’d just make a tool for “Proficient Strength check” etc.

EDIT: Well, @GMforPowergamers beat me to it by a lot.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Skills with Different Abilities is rarely used in my campaigns so it's really not the norm most of time we use default ones.. But i almost always let them be when a player come up with a clever way and a justification of some sort behind it, when i'm not myself having a check using an unusual ability and skill combo i specifically call for. Which is still quite rare to be honest.

 

[Maxperson]

You are asserting a rigidity that doesn't exist in the rules. Here is the relevant section from the SRD:
----------
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the GM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs. To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM.
----------
I am not near my books now, but there is more detail in the DMG and I am almost certain they use the word "conversation" or something very close to it. In either case, nothing in the wording or spirit of the rules prohibits continued clarification after the ability check has been called for.

This is what it says.

"Proficiency

When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies.
One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice. If the answer is no, it's fine to say that no proficiency applies. But if the answer is yes, assign an appropriate skill or tool proficiency to reflect that training and practice."

In context with the entire section, though, that bolded sentence would apply if the DM didn't state a proficiency and was just asking for a base ability check.

 

[iserith]

You are asserting a rigidity that doesn't exist in the rules. Here is the relevant section from the SRD:
----------
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the GM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs. To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM.
----------
I am not near my books now, but there is more detail in the DMG and I am almost certain they use the word "conversation" or something very close to it. In either case, nothing in the wording or spirit of the rules prohibits continued clarification after the ability check has been called for.

Again, my position is not that "continued clarification" is prohibited by the rules, and I'm not obligated to defend a position I don't take. My position is that the player's description of their action precedes the call for the roll which would mean that your example, while probably a common way to play, is not in keeping with what the rules lay out in the process of play. I add that this can lead to outcomes like the players effectively retconning their declared action to try to get a bonus to the roll the DM already called for. I called, for example, for a Strength check to move the statue because the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Now knowing this, the player is angling to add History proficiency to mitigate failure. This should have already been established in their action declaration before the call to make the check.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Hmm...I think I've seen this kind of door before. Ah yes, this ruin must have been built by the Hardenvein Clan! I remember they used to build their doors with a special center-pivot hinge that...if you apply the right amount of force right...there...yep, the whole thing will pop right off."

Yep, I could see that. If my player narrated that at the table, I would totally call for them to make a Strength (History) roll.

 

[Reynard]

Again, my position is not that "continued clarification" is prohibited by the rules, and I'm not obligated to defend a position I don't take. My position is that the player's description of their action precedes the call for the roll which would mean that your example, while probably a common way to play, is not in keeping with what the rules lay out in the process of play. I add that this can lead to outcomes like the players effectively retconning their declared action to try to get a bonus to the roll the DM already called for. I called, for example, for a Strength check to move the statue because the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Now knowing this, the player is angling to add History proficiency to mitigate failure. This should have already been established in their action declaration before the call to make the check.

The player did declare an action. He said he was going to move the statue. The GM asked for an ability check. The player asked if a proficiency applied. That is the exact order of operations as is described in the rules. In this case, the player asked for about a non-standard proficiency for a Strength check (also explicitly allowed by the rules) and the GM asked for a clarification of how it would apply. That's how the game works -- that is the explicit order of operations. You are breaking the part of the process that allows the player to ask about using a proficiency.