D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts on skill checks

[The Crimson Binome]

Attempting to vary the ability score for a skill check will generally create more problems than it solves. For one, it creates uncertainty for players. They think a skill should use their high stat, but the DM says it should use some other stat, and now they have to reconsider their entire plan of action.

For two, it reduces balance between stats even further. Why would a barbarian even consider raising their Charisma, if they can just argue for Strength on any check they actually care about? And if the DM disagrees, then it makes them seem like the bad guy.

And for what benefit? Better verisimilitude regarding elephants? That's why Rule Zero exists - for ridiculously obscure corner cases.

 

[Garthanos]

The idea of breaking skills free from stats was floated in the Next Playtest (if not earlier - 4e featured a number of feats & utilities that substituted different checks or stats for eachother; STR as intimidation was one of those Gleemax discussions that wouldn't die), it didn't make it into the 5e PH standard rules, but it is an option in the DMG, as has been noted.

Alternative (mental) stats for initiative checks were on that list of things which has a nice free character design up from Dex the uber stat effect.

And in the related category of freeing up character design with Nads being based on 2 stats as well. In 5e terms Str could supplant a Con save. Int a Dex save. And Cha a Wiz save.

 

[nomotog]

Yeah, 5e beat you to this punch by 5 years. Personally, I don’t even call for skill checks any more. I call for ability checks, and let the player decide if they think one of their trained skills is applicable.

Why did this not make it to the end? Did they say why they changed it? When I saw it I loved it. It made so much sense to how to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why did this not make it to the end? Did they say why they changed it? When I saw it I loved it. It made so much sense to how to play.

IIRC, it made it through to the final playtest packet, so I was pretty surprised when it was an optional rule in the final product. My guess would be that in internal playtesting they found DMs using skills with different ability scores very rarely and players getting confused when they did.

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah using straight ability checks AND letting players define which skill they were justifiably using for a particular check was something I've been doing for a while.

If the mastermind wants to intimidate with intelligence and can say how they do it then fine go for it.

Its one of the things I like about Fate Acelerated and its converting Ability Scores to 'Approaches' so a Clever Character can even use their Int score to succeed in combat by analysing the situation and making calculated strikes

 

[Reynard]

I totally use skill rolls to tell me things about the world and the characters in it that I had not explicitly planned ahead of time. I'll even tell the players that ahead of time.

I can't make up everything ahead of time, and sometimes the question isn't so much "how hard is this" as "what's the likelihood of this." So I'll call for a Persuasion check to bribe the guard -- not because I have an idea in my head how likely this particular guard is to bribe (how would I know? I just made up a name on the spot) but because I want the dice, influenced by the PC, to tell me something about this guard. The DC isn't 15. The result of the roll tells me whether this guard takes his job seriously (rolled a 5) or is easy to corrupt (rolled a 20) which informs all the following interactions with that guard.