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

[Benjamin Olson]

I would assert that the inconvenience of having to walk the player through this process is a major contributing factor to it only happening 1-3 times per session.

Interesting hypothesis and one I've considered. If I detached myself more from the character sheet's skills paradigm I'm sure I would see more occasions when I could use checks outside of that paradigm. I don't think I'd really be getting much value out of that though for the complication thinking through each check in detail represents. While I do really enjoy creative use of proficiencies I'm basically satisfied with the existing skill/ability pairings the overwhelming majority of the time.

As is, I only look for an atypical check when the typical ones don't seem satisfying, because that is when I feel that applying the full robustness of the system adds value rather than just complication. When this results in a way to construct a check that I think better models what is being done than the existing ones I apply it. Because it tends to only be rare I find it easier to walk the player through it than to rely on them understanding it. Eventually I think most players do understand the theory once it's all been modeled a few times, but it really doesn't cost much to just be explicit, and I don't want to put anyone on the spot for things that just aren't intuitive for some people.

If the character sheet was set up in such a way as to make the ability check plus proficiency bonus process more intuitive, more DMs would call for ability checks with unorthodox proficiencies more often, and players would ask to apply different proficiencies more often.

Sure. And when some visionary creates a version of the character sheet that somehow does that without slowing down game-play and while being equally as intuitive to the average player as the existing character sheet I'll happily adopt it and sing their praises. But I don't think it's really possible.

I find the existing skills with typical abilities paradigm is satisfying to me for somewhere north of 95% of ability checks. I can't think of the way to set up a character sheet that makes atypical checks more intuitive without either forcing people to reinvent the wheel the other 95% of the time or becoming substantially more cluttered. If you find one then kudos; may your praises be sung throughout the ages.

I’d likewise wager a lot of players and a smaller but non-zero number of DMs don’t even realize they have that option.

Pretty safe wager. I certainly do think it is unfortunate that there are DMs without a solid theoretical grasp on the ability check system, as they are bound to get tripped up by atypical checks or make unsatisfying rulings on them, not knowing that creative application of the proficiency bonus is the recommended solution from the toolbox the designers tried to provide them. But this is part of the tradeoff we make in encouraging people to not stress over mastering a whole book of rules before they start rolling some dice and playing the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Gotcha. I would probably still call for a Dex check there, since the key thing being tested is whether or not they can get their hand in and out quickly and stealthily. Let me put it another way: if the seduction fails, the character could still succeed in their goal of stealing the note if they move nimbly enough to avoid notice - it’ll just be harder. But if their hand movements are too clumsy, they’ll get caught even if they do an excellent job seducing the mark. So, Dexterity is the core thing being tested, and the seductiveness is a bonus. Dexterity + Performance or maybe Persuasion is probably most fitting, though I would certainly allow Dex + Sleight of Hand.

An argument could be made that this should be two checks: Charisma to seduce the target, and Dexterity to pick their purse, with advantage if the seduction was successful or disadvantage if it failed. But I generally prefer not to break tasks up into multiple checks in most cases.

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.

Lore checks are a tricky beast. In the past I’ve made them entirely passive, gating certain lore behind certain passive Int (Skill) scores. These days, I ask that players describe an action. For example: “I think back to my time as a scholar at Candlekeep to try and remember if I’ve seen this book title before.” This leaves room for me to call for a check or declare success or failure without a check, and it allows the player to reveal (or perhaps discover) background details about their character through play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting hypothesis and one I've considered. If I detached myself more from the character sheet's skills paradigm I'm sure I would see more occasions when I could use checks outside of that paradigm. I don't think I'd really be getting much value out of that though for the complication thinking through each check in detail represents.

You don’t have to think about it in great detail. On the contrary, calling for ability checks instead of skill checks reduces the number of basic options for you as DM to consider from 18 (or 24 if you count ability checks with no proficiency, or a lot more if you count checks with tool proficiencies instead of skills) down to 6. It’s actually much quicker and easier to identify which check is most appropriate to call for.

While I do really enjoy creative use of proficiencies I'm basically satisfied with the existing skill/ability pairings the overwhelming majority of the time.

As is, I only look for an atypical check when the typical ones don't seem satisfying, because that is when I feel that applying the full robustness of the system adds value rather than just complication. When this results in a way to construct a check that I think better models what is being done than the existing ones I apply it. Because it tends to only be rare I find it easier to walk the player through it than to rely on them understanding it. Eventually I think most players do understand the theory once it's all been modeled a few times, but it really doesn't cost much to just be explicit, and I don't want to put anyone on the spot for things that just aren't intuitive for some people.

Yeah, that’s fine. Do what works for you.

Sure. And when some visionary creates a version of the character sheet that somehow does that without slowing down game-play and while being equally as intuitive to the average player as the existing character sheet I'll happily adopt it and sing their praises. But I don't think it's really possible.

I find the existing skills with typical abilities paradigm is satisfying to me for somewhere north of 95% of ability checks. I can't think of the way to set up a character sheet that makes atypical checks more intuitive without either forcing people to reinvent the wheel the other 95% of the time or becoming substantially more cluttered. If you find one then kudos; may your praises be sung throughout the ages.

Here you go. No wheel reinvention required, just a field for players to write their proficiencies in.

Pretty safe wager. I certainly do think it is unfortunate that there are DMs without a solid theoretical grasp on the ability check system, as they are bound to get tripped up by atypical checks or make unsatisfying rulings on them, not knowing that creative application of the proficiency bonus is the recommended solution from the toolbox the designers tried to provide them. But this is part of the tradeoff we make in encouraging people to not stress over mastering a whole book of rules before they start rolling some dice and playing the game.

No mastery required. I’d settle for encouraging people to just read the rules, and try to assess them on their own terms, rather than through the filter of their experience with past editions.

 

[nomotog]

So I am mostly OK with using different skills to accomplish the same goal. I am less OK with the idea of trying to push everything to use the skill your best at.

 

[Simonb1]

There is no diplomacy skill in 5e. Intimidate and persuasion have different uses and consequences, and thinking about those might help answer your question.

A player might accomplish the ends of bypassing a guard using either skill. However, to intimidate they likely need to make threats that the guard would find plausible, whereas to persuade they likely need to offer benefits the guard finds tempting. Successful or not, after the interaction the guard is going to feel differently about them. Ashamed and afraid perhaps if intimidated. Hopeful of future favours perhaps if persuaded.

So one answer is that sometimes more than one skill applies, but the requirements and consequences might differ.

Against that, as the comic author points out, it's also common to consider overshadowing. Religion and Arcana both use Intelligence, so while it's better to place Religion squarely in the center of questions about gods, if entry to a temple of a god of magic had some kind of knowledge test making Arcana relevant to it is falling not far from the tree. Acrobatics for grapple on the other hand is egregious, because it switches the ability modifier to Dexterity - already the uber-ability of 5e - and letting players use it for everything including grapples is more problematic.

Unless you make it a Strength (Acrobatics) test.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wow, I didn't realize that was hard ruled in 5e like that. I have only been a player (not DM) in 5e, and we definitely haven't been playing like that.

Yeah you’re more the norm than what others have described, IME.

 

[Rune]

Yeah you’re more the norm than what others have described, IME.

In my experience, it’s only the norm amongst folk who spent a lot of time with d20 systems (and I mean that in the branded sense) and/or 4e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my experience, it’s only the norm amongst folk who spent a lot of time with d20 systems (and I mean that in the branded sense) and/or 4e.

Not my experience at all. Most people I meet and talk to about D&D or Play with in public spaces never played d20 or 4e.

 

[Rune]

Not my experience at all. Most people I meet and talk to about D&D or Play with in public spaces never played d20 or 4e.

To be clear, I’m including 3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder in the category of d20.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my experience, it’s only the norm amongst folk who spent a lot of time with d20 systems (and I mean that in the branded sense) and/or 4e.

In my experience, it’s the norm amongst those people, and amongst people who learned from those people. Which is most players.