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

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

That would depend on how the PCs decided they wanted to try and influence the NPC. The DC might be different depending on if a character is more or less easily intimidated.

• Can I use Acrobatics to initiate a grapple?

Not per core rules.

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

It depends on what type of information your character is trying to recall. The type of god you have is irrelevant. If it's unclear, then players get to use whichever is best.

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

Yes. I don't think "rope maker's tools" exist.

Do you just increase the DC for using an "off" skill?

No, it depends on how appropriate the proposed solution is to the challenge.

Do you give the player a hard "no" when it's too preposterous?

Or set the DC to 35. It's up to the player to make the proposed solution sound plausible.

How do you go about adjudicating these sort of questions?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Judgment.

 

[prabe]

What it suggests to me is that the player has two different approaches to the same goal. For example, Influence NPC (Charisma) via threats (Intimidation) or social graces (Persuasion).

In that particular case, the player is almost certainly describing the character's actions to rule out one or the other.

I'm thinking something more like a know-whats check, where several categories might apply, and having proficiencies in, say, Arcana and History, might give Advantage on a check to answer a specific question where the answer lies where the fields intersect. Or, if someone is lying to someone and making a Performance out of it.

I don't disagree with @Charlaquin that allowing Advantage on an ability check because the PC has multiple applicable proficiencies should probably be the DM's call.

 

[Shiroiken]

The player describes what they are attempting. I determine what (if any) ability check and proficiency applies. If a player has a suggestion I'll consider it, but very rarely accept it. If I do, it's because I screwed up in the first place or it's a tool I didn't consider.

• Is it OK if use Intimidate instead of Diplomacy?

No. If you weren't trying to intimidate them during the roleplay leading up to it, then you can't roll intimidate.

• Can I use Acrobatics to initiate a grapple?

No. Being agile helps you escape a grapple, not hold someone.

Bonus argument starter! - Parkour is NOT Dex nor Acrobatics! (it's actually a way of viewing the area in order to approach the challenge differently, still using your own strength and athletic ability).

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

For what? Knowledge of the arcane is probably really important to your faith. However, it doesn't mean you know jack about other faiths, nor does someone trained in magic understand the rites and prayers of the god of magic.

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

I honestly probably wouldn't have even though of the tool proficiency, having gone straight to survival. In this case, I would accept my error and allow Wis/Survival.

 

[iserith]

In that particular case, the player is almost certainly describing the character's actions to rule out one or the other.

I'm thinking something more like a know-whats check, where several categories might apply, and having proficiencies in, say, Arcana and History, might give Advantage on a check to answer a specific question where the answer lies where the fields intersect. Or, if someone is lying to someone and making a Performance out of it.

I don't disagree with @Charlaquin that allowing Advantage on an ability check because the PC has multiple applicable proficiencies should probably be the DM's call.

I certainly wouldn't complain as a player if the DM gave me advantage for this, but I would also be describing my approach to the goal, for example, as drawing upon my knowledge of spells and magical traditions to recall lore related to the matter at hand which would be different from what I would describe when recalling lore about historical events. I see it as a big enough benefit to get the answers I seek by having multiple approaches to the same goal without also needing advantage. But I'll take advantage if the DM's handing it out!

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't disagree with @Charlaquin that allowing Advantage on an ability check because the PC has multiple applicable proficiencies should probably be the DM's call.

Though for the DM to make that call, they’d need to know what proficiencies the players have, and that’s not something I personally keep track of.

 

[prabe]

Though for the DM to make that call, they’d need to know what proficiencies the players have, and that’s not something I personally keep track of.

I don't, either. I list the proficiencies that (I think) apply, and if I think overlap would grant Advantage, I say so. So, I do trust the players to be honest about the modifiers (and also about the dice rolls, since we're on Discord chat but people are using physical dice in their homes). I'm just making the decision about Advantage as the DM.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I tend to be pretty lenient with skill check choices. If a player thinks another skill is applicable, I let them make the case for it. Most of the time, I'll allow it, as long as it doesn't directly contradict the rules and the argument doesn't boil down to just "well I'm better at the other skill."

 

[iserith]

I tend to be pretty lenient with skill check choices. If a player thinks another skill is applicable, I let them make the case for it. Most of the time, I'll allow it, as long as it doesn't directly contradict the rules and the argument doesn't boil down to just "well I'm better at the other skill."

That's the weird part though, right? If they are good in a particular area, then they are incentivized to describe their actions in those terms so that, if they have to roll, it will be a roll they have a better chance at which to succeed.

If they're trying to do it after the ability check is called for, it's just too late. The DM has already determined the need for a check, the DC, and what happens on a failure based on what the player has already described relative to the fictional situation. So when I see stuff like this, it's almost always a sign that the player is not performing his or her role adequately. And possibly the DM jumping the gun on calling for a check without making sure everyone is on the same page.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Tell me what you’re doing. Tell me how you’re doing it. Feel free to suggest a skill. If you don’t I generally have several ideas.

As a DM, I will try to make your suggestion work, though the DC may be higher or lower depending on whether one approach is more likely to be successful than another.

 

[Stormonu]

My rule usually is "Tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what skill and ability that will fall under". I don't generally change the DC, unless it's a method/path that would be noticably easier/harder (between -5/-2 to +2/+5), and in such a case usually just use Advantage/Disadvantage to represent it.

Trying to insinuate to the noble that if he doesn't act, his house will be burned down by the invading goblins? - Intimidate (Chr) please
Trying to talk the noble into helping because it's the right thing to do? - Persuasion (Chr) please
Trying to talk the noble into helping because he'll get the king's attention for saving the city? - Deception (Chr) sounds right
Appeal to the noble's mood to get him to go along with setting up a defense? - Try Insight (Chr)
Dredge up some blackmail to force the noble to help? Investigate (Chr) seems applicable here
The Barbarian gets in the noble's face and tells him to deploy his army or else? - Intimidate (Str) seems right