D&D (2024) They need to bring back Gather Information in One DnD.

[DarkCrisis]

Yes, but from what I can tell, the premise of the thread is that a PC can't do something without first having a skill to roll. And it must be unambiguously tied to one ability score.

Which makes me wonder if ODD is the appropriate forum for this.

Right. Though, do you really need a check? Could just RP it…

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not unreasonable at all. It's right there in the PH, and in fact, using a Cha (Investigation) check for this is basically already what's in the rules: use Cha to find people to talk to, use Investigation to, well, investigate. Cha (Investigation). Many groups use "odd ability/skill" checks all the time.

I'm not saying the rule is unreasonably hard to find, or that the idea to mix and match skills and abilities is unreasonable to use in special cases.

I mean that you want clarity as a player.

If there is a Gather Information skill or Gossip skill clearly labeled as a Charisma based skill, then this is simple; this is clear.

Having a rule that basically only says you need to use Intelligence and Investigation unless the DM thinks otherwise is the opposite of clear and simple.

It is obscure and potentially confusing, and needlessly so. That's what I mean by "unreasonable":

It is unreasonable to turn something that could be exceedingly clear and simple and turn it into something potentially as confusing as this.

The mix and match rule is intended for corner cases when the general rules might not apply or be a bad fit.

But finding out rumors and info is not something unusual or obscure.

Almost EVERY adventure that is more than just combat features sections of information gathering. It is unreasonable we should have to have a long discussion over something that should have been crystal clear in the most basic of rules, dammit!

 

[CapnZapp]

So, do you not believe in flat ability checks at all? Does every ability check needs to be tied to a proficiency bonus via skills or tools?

I thought I was clear.

Flat rolls are fine. Unless you wish them to be harder, don't forget to adjust the DC to take into account the lack of skill (proficiency bonus).

 

[CapnZapp]

I still prefer the name 'Streetwise'.

Yes.

It's easy to forget that the skill name itself makes it more or less natural which ability to associate it with.

A skill named Investigation "sounds like" an Intelligence skill.

But that name was a CHOICE.

Rename it Gossip or Streetwise and associating it with Charisma or Wisdom becomes equally "natural".

(Investigation is meant to also cover searching a room, but that is also a CHOICE. Other games separate Gather Information from Search, and that approach is equally reasonable if not moreso)

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not saying the rule is unreasonably hard to find, or that the idea to mix and match skills and abilities is unreasonable to use in special cases.

I mean that you want clarity as a player.

If there is a Gather Information skill or Gossip skill clearly labeled as a Charisma based skill, then this is simple; this is clear.

Having a rule that basically only says you need to use Intelligence and Investigation unless the DM thinks otherwise is the opposite of clear and simple.

It is obscure and potentially confusing, and needlessly so. That's what I mean by "unreasonable":

It is unreasonable to turn something that could be exceedingly clear and simple and turn it into something potentially as confusing as this.

The mix and match rule is intended for corner cases when the general rules might not apply or be a bad fit.

But finding out rumors and info is not something unusual or obscure.

Almost EVERY adventure that is more than just combat features sections of information gathering. It is unreasonable we should have to have a long discussion over something that should have been crystal clear in the most basic of rules, dammit!

Or instead of charisma it's wisdom needed to know where to go asking questions& what to offer for answers. Or it's intelligence needed to intuit the links in the investigation. Or heck, maybe it's even constitution needed to endure those hours & hours of investigative work watching for your investigative target to show in some activity.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, if you have poor ability scores you should just forfeit your proficiency bonus? A player would rather have -2 to a check than 0?


How does one normally suck at a skill? Even if that's possible, the reason to take the skill would be to...drum roll... stop sucking at it.

A PC isn't going to "convince" me to use Persuasion. The character must have an intent that leads to a check - it's not the check determining what the course of action is.


This is harsh. WotC did its darndest to make a game that runs smoother than 3e. But I believe it used 3e designers to accomplish this (maybe not the best call). We should applaud their efforts, even if they failed.


I think this is saying, "because there's no Gather Information skill which would apply a proficiency bonus, gathering information is more difficult." Except the DM sets the difficulty, so why would the DM raise the difficulty upon discovering that the PC doesn't get a proficiency bonus?

This is interpreting me so backwards I don't know where to begin

 

[CapnZapp]

Or instead of charisma it's wisdom needed to know where to go asking questions& what to offer for answers. Or it's intelligence needed to intuit the links in the investigation. Or heck, maybe it's even constitution needed to endure those hours & hours of investigative work watching for your investigative target to show in some activity.

Yes different games and different GMs can make different but valid choices.

If the game is heavily focused on this aspect maybe even all of them are used.

But for the typical game of D&D just pick one and make sure to tell me before I build my character.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes different games and different GMs can make different but valid choices.

If the game is heavily focused on this aspect maybe even all of them are used.

But for the typical game of D&D just pick one and make sure to tell me before I build my character.

We are not talking about "different GMs". Charisma really doesn't need to also become the go to way of doing investigation & research

 

[the Jester]

I'm not saying the rule is unreasonably hard to find, or that the idea to mix and match skills and abilities is unreasonable to use in special cases.

I mean that you want clarity as a player.

I agree that a DM should be forthcoming on how strongly they view the tie between a given ability and a given skill, but I really don't think it's an obscure or unclear concept. I guess we just disagree here. I've been running "most relevant ability + most relevant skill" checks since day one, and none of my players have ever mentioned any confusion about it or ever expressed that they felt like they weren't getting fair results.

It is unreasonable to turn something that could be exceedingly clear and simple and turn it into something potentially as confusing as this.

The mix and match rule is intended for corner cases when the general rules might not apply or be a bad fit.

But finding out rumors and info is not something unusual or obscure.

Almost EVERY adventure that is more than just combat features sections of information gathering. It is unreasonable we should have to have a long discussion over something that should have been crystal clear in the most basic of rules, dammit!

But it is crystal clear. The dm calls for a check based on the most relevant ability score, and if you have an applicable proficiency, you get to add your proficiency bonus. I just don't see this as an issue. Clearly, though, some people/groups do, so I don't mean to sound dismissive of your concerns. I simply don't share them and haven't seen them come up in play. In fact, my players sometimes even suggest alternate ability + skill combos that might apply to things. "Can I make an Int (Acrobatics) check to assess the difficulty of tightrope walking across that ledge?"

 

[GMMichael]

Almost EVERY adventure that is more than just combat features sections of information gathering. It is unreasonable we should have to have a long discussion over something that should have been crystal clear in the most basic of rules, dammit!

Here are the RAW that @the Jester is probably referring to:

Ability Checks . . . 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 . . .

Variant: Skills with Different Abilities . . . In such cases, the GM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your GM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check.

Other Charisma Checks. The GM might call for a Charisma check when you try to . . . find the best person to talk to for news . . .

Is it crystal clear? Not really - the effect of 3.5-bleed is present in the editing ("variant," "other Charisma checks"). But it's there, and it makes sense.

When it becomes convoluted is when a player/DM approaches it with a 3.5 mindset: thinking that skills trump abilities, that PCs call for their own checks, and that checks must perpetually get more bonuses. 5e pushes (nudges?) against these ideas.

Edit: the 3.5 mindset might also be closely related to the Mercer Effect...