D&D 5E When is it OK to let a player substitute one skill for another?

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what to call it, but I see this mess all the time.

• Is it OK if use Intimidate instead of Diplomacy?

Sure, but as noted, don't expect the person to be buddy buddy with you after.

• Can I use Acrobatics to initiate a grapple?

It takes an attack to grapple. However, I could see a situation where perhaps the PC has fallen off a ledge and wants to grapple an NPC on the way down. An acrobatic roll might be required to be able to make that attack.

• I worship the god of magic. Can I roll Arcana instead of Religion?

You could. I personally wouldn't because arcana to me is more the mysteries of magic and not religion, but I wouldn't think someone who did rule that way was doing anything wrong.

• If I scavenge some vines, is it OK to roll Survival instead of tool proficiency to make rope?

Yeah.

Do you just increase the DC for using an "off" skill? Do you give the player a hard "no" when it's too preposterous?

Give a hard no. Some people like to just set the DC really high, but that sort of thing is irritating to a lot of players. Setting the DC too high to make is just messing with him, as opposed to just give a straight answer of "no."

 

[Charlaquin]

But then in my example wouldn't you have still limited or directed the choice because you might have called for a charisma check?

Well, if I take your word for it that Wisdom (Religion) was more appropriate in context, then I assume I would have called for a Wisdom check, and then the player could choose to add Religion or some other proficiency they thought was appropriate.

A fair number of times I'll just call for a check (and the player can ask for alternative if they think it makes sense) other times we'll have a bit of back-and-forth almost brainstorming what makes the most sense.

My approach is tailored in part to avoid such back-and-forth, because I find that brainstorming to be wasted table time. I’ll just call for an ability check, the player can add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies is relevant, no need for anyone to ask if something applies or make a case, just a call for a check, a bonus added, and we can move on to more interesting things.

In any case I'm not challenging what you do, more just kind of thinking out loud. Typing out loud? Doing a brain dump because it's been a long week? Trying to wrap my brain around different approaches because thinking about things from different angles sometimes helps?

Oh yeah, for sure. I really enjoy discussing my approach and I don’t get the sense that you’re challenging it or anything.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think a lot of people would benefit from looking at skill checks the way I do. It is not a question of which skill to use, but a question of whether a skill applies.

When a situation arises that requires a skill check, I let the PCs tell me what they want to do and then we quickly figure out what type of ability check(s) make sense. Figuring something out? That is intelligence? Intuiting or perceiving it? Wisdom. Nimbleness? Dexterity. Sometimes the answer for which skill applies to a challenge can be determined by the approach the PC wants to take to beating the challenge. Sometimes there may be a couple alternatives that make sense - strength or dexterity. Intelligence or wisdom.

Once I know which method the PC wants to take and we've figured out the ability score, I ask if there is a reason for the PC to be proficient. Maybe they have a skill proficiency that applies to the situation. Maybe they have a tool proficiency, a background feature, or personal experience within the game that would make them proficient.

For example, if there were a famous jewel and the PCs found it, and they wanted to know if they recognized it by the description, I would allow an intelligence check. It would be proficient for anyone with Jeweler's Kit proficiency, history proficiency, or that had a background where they dealt with Jewels.

For another example, if a PC told a threatening lie to an NPC in order to encourage them to do the thing that the NPC knew they should do, but didn't want to do, I'd call for a charisma check and allow them to be proficient on the check whether they had intimidation, deception, or persuasion.

I like the thought process behind this, but do not like the time management. Looking through a bookshelf for something important or some other task can just as easily be partitioned out by the DM saying: "Give me an investigation check." This helps the game be more fluid. But the thought behind skill checks in this post is spot on.

 

[Charlaquin]

I like the thought process behind this, but do not like the time management. Looking through a bookshelf for something important or some other task can just as easily be partitioned out by the DM saying: "Give me an investigation check." This helps the game be more fluid. But the thought behind skill checks in this post is spot on.

I mean, if a player declared that their character was looking through a bookshelf for something, I’d call for a Wisdom check (because Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition). Investigation seems like a fitting proficiency to add your Prof bonus for if you have it. Perception would probably make sense too. Intimidation probably wouldn’t

 

[Krachek]

Players describe their Actions, then the DM ask for a precise check.
indeed that is time consuming, but better than players spamming I do ... check, then the Dm argue that in fact it should be another one, and spent time on debating rather then playing.
describing action first, it is also a good way to avoid the Low bonus paralysis syndrome that affect so many characters.

 

[Scott Christian]

In practice, how often do you swap? It might come up maybe once every 2-3 sessions for me, but that's just a guess. But a lot of things are just fairly straightforward, but it's also not a clean thing.

For example, a PC was trying to convince an NPC of something. Sounds like persuasion or intimidate with charisma, right? But it made sense in context to make it religion using wisdom if they wanted. So ... not charisma, not one of the standard social skills, just kind of appropriate combination that made sense at the time. Which is something I try to encourage, even if the answer is "no" or preferably "no, but" sometimes.

I've had a DM who really liked the swap. I have had two others that never swap.

I like the thought behind the swap. It gives it a sense of realism. However, I dislike what it does to the character creation process.

(Not directed at you Oofta, but in general) The character creation process houses a limited number of shiny things for players. One of those things is a skill proficiency. So you have a player that really want great sleight of hand. They spent their resources developing it. Now all of a sudden the DM says, "Well, it's sleight of hand to sneak inside her purse while you are dancing with her, but you need to use charisma instead of dex." Now, suddenly, something this player might have been great at (because they chose sleight of hand because of their high dex) is now just, meh.

Seems a bit unfair, and in truth, it slows the game down. Even with experienced players.

 

[Oofta]

I've had a DM who really liked the swap. I have had two others that never swap.

I like the thought behind the swap. It gives it a sense of realism. However, I dislike what it does to the character creation process.

(Not directed at you Oofta, but in general) The character creation process houses a limited number of shiny things for players. One of those things is a skill proficiency. So you have a player that really want great sleight of hand. They spent their resources developing it. Now all of a sudden the DM says, "Well, it's sleight of hand to sneak inside her purse while you are dancing with her, but you need to use charisma instead of dex." Now, suddenly, something this player might have been great at (because they chose sleight of hand because of their high dex) is now just, meh.

Seems a bit unfair, and in truth, it slows the game down. Even with experienced players.

Which is why I would generally still allow dex.

But it also doesn't come up all that often.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've had a DM who really liked the swap. I have had two others that never swap.

I like the thought behind the swap. It gives it a sense of realism. However, I dislike what it does to the character creation process.

(Not directed at you Oofta, but in general) The character creation process houses a limited number of shiny things for players. One of those things is a skill proficiency. So you have a player that really want great sleight of hand. They spent their resources developing it. Now all of a sudden the DM says, "Well, it's sleight of hand to sneak inside her purse while you are dancing with her, but you need to use charisma instead of dex." Now, suddenly, something this player might have been great at (because they chose sleight of hand because of their high dex) is now just, meh.

Seems a bit unfair, and in truth, it slows the game down. Even with experienced players.

The DM in the example is going about the process backwards. They should first determine the appropriate ability, and then determine the appropriate skill. And the appropriate ability is informed by the action the character described. Sure, combining skill at Sleight of Hand with Charisma might make sense for an attempt to acquire something from an NPC’s purse by slipping your hand in while they’re distracted by dancing. But only if both Charisma and Sleight of hand are involved. Charisma by itself doesn’t seem appropriate for the task, and so I don’t believe it would be the most appropriate ability for the DM to call for a check with.

The Using Ability Scores section says that “Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.” To me, that doesn’t sound like it’s the most fitting ability with which to determine whether a character succeeds in the goal of getting an object from another character’s purse by the approach of slipping their hand in while they’re dancing. Like, maybe the confidence part might be helpful? But really the primary thing being tested is how quickly and subtly they can get their hand in and back out. Since “a Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing,” it seems like the most appropriate ability to check.

In my view, only after the appropriate ability has been determined should it be considered if a proficiency is applicable. So, would Sleight of Hand be appropriate to add to a Dexterity check to steal something from your dance partner’s purse? Absolutely! Might Performance also be applicable? Performance “...determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment,” so it seems reasonable to me that the character might be able to distract the mark with their dancing.

If you do it this way, it actually gives the players more opportunities to apply proficiencies they’ve spent character building resources on, because you’re not limited to certain proficiencies only applying to checks with certain abilities.

 

[Don Durito]

Some skills don't make much sense to swap, or should be swapped only when used to add extra functionality.

Sleight of Hand and an action is specifically Dex. I might ask for (Int Sleight of Hand) to figure out a how a street magic trick was performed based on someone's description, or a Wis (Sleight of Hand) to spot someone else pocketing something with sleight of han (assuming the character is not trained in Perception).

And there's thing that don't fit any skills, because there's big holes in the skills. So maybe the Fighter with the Soldier background gets a proficient roll to know something about the Crimson Fist mercenary company.

(If you follow the intended procedure of player describing their action and GM detailing the ability score this becomes a somewhat natural result).


And intimidating someone by flourishing a weapon could be Charisma (Martial Weapon Proficiency).

But 5e kind of wants to have it both way. It links things like Medicine to Wisdom because healing classes are traditionally wisdom based, but then it says that ability scores should govern everything.

 

[Scott Christian]

The DM in the example is going about the process backwards. They should first determine the appropriate ability, and then determine the appropriate skill. And the appropriate ability is informed by the action the character described. Sure, combining skill at Sleight of Hand with Charisma might make sense for an attempt to acquire something from an NPC’s purse by slipping your hand in while they’re distracted by dancing. But only if both Charisma and Sleight of hand are involved. Charisma by itself doesn’t seem appropriate for the task, and so I don’t believe it would be the most appropriate ability for the DM to call for a check with.

The Using Ability Scores section says that “Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.” To me, that doesn’t sound like it’s the most fitting ability with which to determine whether a character succeeds in the goal of getting an object from another character’s purse by the approach of slipping their hand in while they’re dancing. Like, maybe the confidence part might be helpful? But really the primary thing being tested is how quickly and subtly they can get their hand in and back out. Since “a Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing,” it seems like the most appropriate ability to check.

In my view, only after the appropriate ability has been determined should it be considered if a proficiency is applicable. So, would Sleight of Hand be appropriate to add to a Dexterity check to steal something from your dance partner’s purse? Absolutely! Might Performance also be applicable? Performance “...determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment,” so it seems reasonable to me that the character might be able to distract the mark with their dancing.

If you do it this way, it actually gives the players more opportunities to apply proficiencies they’ve spent character building resources on, because you’re not limited to certain proficiencies only applying to checks with certain abilities.

I hear ya. The example I gave, the character was flirting with the NPC. They were trying to be charming, basically trying to distract the NPC so they could slip inside the purse and steal a note. I personally wouldn't care which way the DM called it. That's not anything I (nor any player I know) really argues. There are several times we'll ask; "Can I use a history check to see if I remember this book title?" But there are other times we roleplay, describe, and the DM hands out the check they seem appropriate.
On a personal note, I like the latter better. It makes the game flow more smoothly and encourages players to pay attention to their word choice when describing their actions.