D&D 5E (2014) When is it OK to let a player substitute one skill for another?

[Charlaquin]

One random example ... I know they're called ability checks. But on my character sheet from DndBeyond my players see something like

View attachment 131703

I think it's a heck of a lot easier to ask for a "Deception check" or a "Deception Skill Check" than a "Charisma ability check adding your Deception proficiency bonus" or even "Charisma (deception) check". The list isn't sorted by ability, it's sorted by skill. I don't want to explain to my newbie players every time that I really mean is look down the skill list to find the appropriate skill. Saying "Give me a deception check" is just a common sense straightforward way of saying it.

This is very true! I find that the official 5e character sheets are rather poorly designed for ease of use with the rules of 5e as-written. From what I remember, this was a result of feedback during the D&D Next playtest. The original playtest character sheets didn’t have a skill list or blank spaces to fill in ability + skill calculations. But a lot of players complained, so they were redesigned.

 

[Oofta]

Ok. I don't know what you're arguing with here - but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

You made it sound like the only reason people don't follow the rules to the letter is because they've never read the rules. I've read them. I still do what makes sense to me and my players which is why I gave a concrete example instead of vague philosophical ramblings.

 

[Don Durito]

Redundant.

 

[Don Durito]

You made it sound like the only reason people don't follow the rules to the letter is because they've never read the rules. I've read them. I still do what makes sense to me and my players which is why I gave a concrete example instead of vague philosophical ramblings.

No I just said that many people don't know what the rules are.

 

[Oofta]

Sorry dude. Back up and see my response to my last post.

I don't know what you think I'm arguing, or how you leapt to that conclusion but you're way off base.

Okay, you're right. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Don Durito]

This is very true! I find that the official 5e character sheets are rather poorly designed for ease of use with the rules of 5e as-written. From what I remember, this was a result of feedback during the D&D Next playtest. The original playtest character sheets didn’t have a skill list or blank spaces to fill in ability + skill calculations. But a lot of players complained, so they were redesigned.

It's not just the official ones. I went through lots of character sheets on the web, before finally realising that if I wanted one without the complete skill list I needed to use a PDF editor to remove it myself.

 

[Oofta]

This is very true! I find that the official 5e character sheets are rather poorly designed for ease of use with the rules of 5e as-written. From what I remember, this was a result of feedback during the D&D Next playtest. The original playtest character sheets didn’t have a skill list or blank spaces to fill in ability + skill calculations. But a lot of players complained, so they were redesigned.

I think I understand what they were trying to do. Seems like they were trying to emphasize that skill proficiency isn't directly tied to one ability. Which, in theory, I agree with. It just always feels clumsy and difficult to explain to phrase it the way the book suggests. Then again, the skill level of my players varies dramatically and I regularly have to apply the KISS method of DMing (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you really utter the phrase "Give me a charisma ability check and add in your deception bonus if you're proficient" instead of "Give me a deception check"?

I can’t speak for @Don Durito , but I did do this for a while. I mean, my phrasing was usually closer to “Make a Charisma check, plus Deception if you have it.” After a while I decided to just allow the players to determine if any of their proficiencies are applicable, so now I just say “make a Charisma check.”

Because if I did the former, I'd have to have a discussion for a couple of minutes with my newbie players for what the heck I was talking about. With "Give me a deception check" it's a quick reminder to look at their character sheet and use the number to the right of deception.

That, I think, is a problem caused by the inconsistent application of proper 5e terminology by DMs, and the poor design of the character sheet. That’s actually a big part of the reason I advocate so hard for referring to ability checks as ability checks, because you folks who call them skill checks are making my job harder than it needs to be by giving newbies the wrong idea about how checks are supposed to work. Now get off my lawn

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is very true! I find that the official 5e character sheets are rather poorly designed for ease of use with the rules of 5e as-written. From what I remember, this was a result of feedback during the D&D Next playtest. The original playtest character sheets didn’t have a skill list or blank spaces to fill in ability + skill calculations. But a lot of players complained, so they were redesigned.

It's not just the official ones. I went through lots of character sheets on the web, before finally realising that if I wanted one without the complete skill list I needed to use a PDF editor to remove it myself.

I’ve seen a character sheet out somewhere out there that grouped the skills under each ability. Makes a lot more sense. If I can track it down again I’ll post a link.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not just the official ones. I went through lots of character sheets on the web, before finally realising that if I wanted one without the complete skill list I needed to use a PDF editor to remove it myself.

It’s maddening. Of the two bajillion custom 5e character sheets floating around the internet, I’ve found all of two that excise the skill list and leave blank space to write proficiencies. And I had to dig to find those!