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

[Maxperson]

There's also the text, under the Skills section:


The implication here really is there's a conversation going on between the DM and player. And a further implication is that the DM has said that a particular ability check is warranted - no specification if a particular skill has already been identified as being relevant - and frankly, I think that's not necessary to know. It wouldn't have to be an unskilled ability check for a player to come back with a suggestion of how their skill proficiencies might apply.

"Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to a check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking."

That doesn't say anything different than what I said in the post you quoted. If the DM does not provide a proficiency to an ability check, the player can suggest one.

 

[billd91]

"Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to a check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking."

That doesn't say anything different than what I said in the post you quoted. If the DM does not provide a proficiency to an ability check, the player can suggest one.

I'm saying there's no reason to think a proficiency has to be unspecified for a player to suggest an alternate one.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm saying there's no reason to think a proficiency has to be unspecified for a player to suggest an alternate one.

The context of the Proficiency section on that page is a reason to think that. I can see where you might think otherwise, though. It doesn't say it straight out, which leaves room for confusion and/or alternate interpretations. Par for the course in 5e!

 

[iserith]

They are free to seek it, and you are free to say "No." I honestly don't see the problem.

You mentioned earlier to @Maxperson :

Try saying "Yes" once. I bet it improves your game.

In my games, the answer is "Yes," all the time, because the player has already justified their use of the skill or tool proficiency bonus when they initially described what they wanted to do. We're both on the same page at the point at which I call for the check. There's no need of hashing it out further after the fact.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, I guess, but since we know that the call for the ability check isn't the end of the conversation,

That point seems to be in contention, but is also ultimately a matter of how we each interpret the rules, which I don’t think is particularly productive to get into.

it seems silly to force it to be. Why are we drawing a hard line at "Make a strength check"?

For the same reason we draw that line when it comes to specifying the approach. Fundamentally we’re looking at two different play processes here:

1. The player provides all of the relevant details of their action, then the DM applies their best judgment and understanding of the rules to decide how that action ought to be resolved, then the player or DM performs whatever that resolution process is, then the DM narrates the results,

or 2. The player provides some of the relevant details of their action, then the DM applies their best judgment and understanding of the rules to decide how that action ought to be resolved, then the player provides more details, the DM revises their assessment of how it ought to be resolved, repeat as necessary until a final resolution method is settled upon, then the player or DM performs whatever that resolution process is, then the DM narrates the results.

Personally, I prefer the former because it is far cleaner and flows better. It front-loads determining all of the details of the action so we can move seamlessly from description to resolution and back to description. The latter allows the player to revise their description partway through the process, which may certainly be seen as beneficial, but in doing so it requires the DM to also revise their assessment of how to resolve the action partway through the process. The result is that each action is now a negotiation.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Consider a declaration of an attack: “I try to kill the goblin (goal) by attacking it (approach) with my sword (tool).”

For the statue we have: “I try to move the statue (goal) by lifting it (approach) using the technique I’ve learned from my ancestors (knowledge).”

That's a pretty good way of explaining it to players who might be reluctant. They should come on board quickly, as it is a concise way of clearly expressing their goals and methods to get their intended result. I can't think of any reason NOT to like it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But, ultimately, the latter does the same thing too - it's just less parsimonious.

I'm confused. Are people arguing that it's preferable to have a back and forth clearing up misunderstandings, than it is to learn to communicate in a way that achieves understanding the first time?

 

[billd91]

I'm confused. Are people arguing that it's preferable to have a back and forth clearing up misunderstandings, than it is to learn to communicate in a way that achieves understanding the first time?

I'm arguing that in the context of a role playing game, the difference is pretty much so insignificant that it's not worth fussing over. I'm not billing my players for my time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The question then becomes: Do I want players to amend their descriptions so they can get a bonus after I call for a check? Or would it be better to have them do that up front so we don't have to hash anything out? The former is a big advantage to the player who can start vague, wait for the DM to rule, then try to justify a bonus.

That kind of reminds me of how I speak German. I slur all my verb/adjective endings so that they all sound the same, and fluent listeners hear what they think they should hear. I had a German professor in college who called me out on it, while begrudgingly acknowledging that I was quite good at it.

Keep it vague; claim specificity later.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's a pretty good way of explaining it to players who might be reluctant. They should come on board quickly, as it is a concise way of clearly expressing their goals and methods to get their intended result. I can't think of any reason NOT to like it.

Thanks! You know, in a way you can think of that format as a way to “ask to make a check” using in-character framing. The goal tells the DM what you want to make a check to do. The approach tells the DM what ability you want to make the check with. The tools/knowledge tells the DM what proficiency bonus you want to apply to the check. And it’s all done through a reasonably specific description of your in-character activity.