Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8091307" data-attributes="member: 6779196">TwoSix is correct. I, as DM, don’t call for Intimidation checks. When the player describes an action, I determine which of the six abilities its success hinges on most, and call for a check with that ability. Then the player evaluates their proficiencies and if they think any of them are relevant, they can add their proficiency bonus. So I might ask for a Strength check or a Charisma check depending on what you’re doing, and if you think Intimidation proficiency is relevant, you can add it (regardless of which ability the check is being made with).I used to have the players suggest a proficiency, which I would approve or deny. But it was more trouble than it was worth, so now I just trust my players to use their own best judgment.It takes a little getting used to, if you’ve been calling for skill checks for years. For me though, it’s much easier to pick from a list of six very broad categories instad of 18 more specific ones (or those 18 in addition to the 6, of you count straight ability checks with no skill).It also clears up a lot of the cases where it’s not entirely clear which skill applies - Athletics vs. Acrobatics and Perception vs. Investigation being the most obvious examples. When a player is trying to do some physical stunt, I only have to decide if being muscular or being coordinated is more necessary for success, instead of having to get into the weeds of what exactly constitutes athleticism or what a trained acrobat should be capable of. When a player is trying to study or find something, I only have to decide if it’s a matter of awareness or problem solving.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8091307, member: 6779196"] TwoSix is correct. I, as DM, don’t call for Intimidation checks. When the player describes an action, I determine which of the six abilities its success hinges on most, and call for a check with that ability. Then the player evaluates their proficiencies and if they think any of them are relevant, they can add their proficiency bonus. So I might ask for a Strength check or a Charisma check depending on what you’re doing, and if you think Intimidation proficiency is relevant, you can add it (regardless of which ability the check is being made with). I used to have the players suggest a proficiency, which I would approve or deny. But it was more trouble than it was worth, so now I just trust my players to use their own best judgment. It takes a little getting used to, if you’ve been calling for skill checks for years. For me though, it’s much easier to pick from a list of six very broad categories instad of 18 more specific ones (or those 18 in addition to the 6, of you count straight ability checks with no skill). It also clears up a lot of the cases where it’s not entirely clear which skill applies - Athletics vs. Acrobatics and Perception vs. Investigation being the most obvious examples. When a player is trying to do some physical stunt, I only have to decide if being muscular or being coordinated is more necessary for success, instead of having to get into the weeds of what exactly constitutes athleticism or what a trained acrobat should be capable of. When a player is trying to study or find something, I only have to decide if it’s a matter of awareness or problem solving. [/QUOTE]

Verification