Do you ever ask players to just roll an ability check without adding a skill bonus? Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo codes: MysteryBox35 for 35% off of the first month of any Mystery Dice Subscription! BFCM23 for 20% off anything in the shop! All adventures are 75% off! Visit the website every day between now and Monday to download a free 5e adventure! www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
I've ruled this a few different ways in the past, across 3.5, 4e, and 5e, but one of my favorite methods is just to add to the DC. When you're dealing with newer players or a large group, or any time you want to streamline it, I've found it easiest if you just increase the DC on the backend. If someone wants to try to apply a skill that they're proficient in to something outside what I believe fits the challenge, I still let them roll that skill but the DC on my side is going to be 5 or 10 (usually) higher for success. It also means the failure can be a little more devastating if it's a low roll since they can fail the DC by a larger gap. My goal as a DM is not to limit a player's agency or ability to do something cool, but as long as I give them a heads up that it's going to be a difficult task, I'm fine with them making the attempt. And as in standard rules, a nat 20 on a skill check does not inherently mean success, but if it does beat the modified DC, I still play it off as something spectacular, versus if they beat it by rolling a 19.
Oh, and by default I prefer to have any caster trained in arcana use their highest caster ability score as the modifier. Bards would use charisma and clerics would use wisdom, for example. This is based on their innate relationship with magic.
I think the only time I call for flat ability checks is when rolling for memory. That one is a flat Intelligence, though they really only roll to remember things that the character might have known before the campaign started. Any knowledge that they came across during the campaign, or any information that they definitely would have known they get without a roll.
I once had somebody do a wisdom (intimidation) check. it was very creepy way of using knowledge about something to scare a NPC, but I'm all for it if the player can make a good case as to what attribute is used as a basis for the check.
if a player is trying to identify what a spell being cast is (usually for counter spell purposes, but may be for any number of other things) I've let them roll arcana, but if it's a spell on their spell list and their spellcasting ability isn't int I've let them make charisma (arcana) or wisdom (arcana) checks to determine it
I greatly prefer using skills instead of flat ability checks. If I don't feel like one skill perfectly fits, I'll often allow a couple different skills as options. ie: "roll a history or religion check." This is most common with intelligence checks and sometimes charisma checks as well. I'm also, usually willing to allow my players to suggest a skill if they can make a decent case for it.
i was just gonna say similar, if a check is like 'would my character have seen this [random thing] before?' thats not REALLY a history check they are asking about something not stated directly in their backstory but maybe their backstory would have brought them into contact with this item before so they roll int to remember and if its high enough 'yeah you remember seeing [random thing] with [npc] back in[town mentioned in their backstory] [how ever long ago]' now they know this item belonged to someone they can go find and get more info about it, obv if theres no chance you dont ask for a roll and if they are a well read character and this is a historical item thats a history check :3 so theres def times basic ability checks are fine or needed, but if it can be a skill i agree they should get to roll with their skill :3
i have my players sometimes use ability checks instead of skill rolls, most often in cases for things like general memory, where I don't think being studied in history makes you any more likely to remember what the symbol you saw last week was. and in my personal experience, it isn't ever any slower than a skill check, although that's just what I've seen, so i'll definitely be thinking about this in the future
You want a real life example of a (Strength) Intimidation check FROM Critical Role? Travis. Travis one handed broke a mechanical pencil and Talisen was terrified I think it was when Vax shaved half his beard?
Which is odd and clunky because it means the difference between a novice mage with Intelligence +3 and an archmage with Intelligence +5 is a measly 2 points. The math may check out, since the DC of those attempts is between 11 and 19, but the simulation is unconvincing; it doesn't reflect realities in the fiction. 5e's refusal to scale is often defended by pointing out that, "Bounded accuracy makes the game simpler!" but that's not what bounded accuracy is. Bounded accuracy means that bonuses and DCs will always be within a certain range of each other, guaranteeing that game elements (PCs, monsters, magic items, effects, etc.) of a certain tier will always interact with each other on a level playing field. Pathfinder 2e also has bounded accuracy, but its bounds scale up much faster, and more uniformly, across the levels - and PF2e rarely, if ever, tries to pit a non-scaling bonus against a scaling DC, or vice versa. 5e does that all the time, with higher-CR enemies throwing out DC 20+ saving throws against characters that didn't (and had no way to) improve in those saves since level 1.
How in the world does the Arcana skill ("your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes") possibly not apply to recognizing how and when to Counterspell, how to Dispel a particular magical effect, or work out how to activate a scroll? That really is so strange. The entire reason that a player selects Arcana as one of their skill proficiencies is because their character is supposed to be good at working that stuff out. The real reason, I think, is a game balance matter: an untrained caster, such as a bard picking up bits of magic on the road, a sorcerer with raw magic and no skill at it, or a warlock who gets all their magic as boons, should still be able to use the Counterspell and Dispel Magic spells effectively. There's no point in selecting them otherwise. Even factoring that it, spell scrolls should still be something that as made easier with skill in Arcana (or possibly Religion for clerical spells). Would it really be so terrible if one of the proficiencies a character selected meant that scrolls were easy to use for that character?
Fascinating! I totally disagree - with almost entirely the opposite view - but it's good to see the alternative argued, because I never really understood before. I much prefer to lean on flat ability checks for a lot of basic things, while applying skills when specifically appropriate. But this is also because I lean towards much lower DCs than most DMs. A DC of 10-12 is pretty normal for me; 15 is high and 20 is very high. I want that 2-4 proficiency bonus to really count when it is actually applicable; I find that in games where skill checks default over a ility checks, the DCs are typically just inflated to compensate. Also, to go to your specific example (and while I don't remember what the PHB says for Athletics) I would *never* consider "breaking down a door" to be athletic; it is not something you can be particularly skilled in, it's just brute strength. Athletics in my games is more gross motor control and (oft combined with con) stamina. Conversely, I would consider myself IRL to have a proficiency in athletics, but not the strength to be able to break down a door in six seconds!
I'm glad someone made a video about this! I feel very strongly towards skill checks. I think it's also a form of niche protection. If I'm playing a character that's very proficient in a certain area compared to the average person, I want that proficiency to be acknowledged!
I do straight ability checks. For "I want to calculate the amount of gunpowder needed to make an explosion," there is no "make a calculation check," so it is just an intelligent check.
Interesting, and definitely a good example; that said, I might do the same, but if I happen to be thinking of the full skill list (which I’m not always able to do lol), I might rule that as an Insight check but using Intelligence instead of Wisdom.
Remembering stuff in general is one skill that doesn’t always have an equivalent on the sheet. If my players don’t remember something they’ve seen previously that I think their character might, I’ll sometimes ask for an intelligence check with an attainable DC10 or similar. That way I can tell them they do remember whatever important detail I need them to know in the moment and they also feel like they did something useful with a die roll. If they fail it can also be a prompt - “you feel like you’ve seen something useful that relates to this but you can’t quite put your finger on what it was.” But generally I try to stick to skills over abilities.
I roll directly for an ability in two cases: 1. Intelligence to see if their character remembers something the player has forgotten 2. Wisdom to give them a flash of insight when they're stuck with a mystery And in both cases I make sure that even a failure gives them some info to stimulate their brain.
This is a quote from the Lost Mine of Phandalin (part 2) for a certain area: "A locked door can be picked with thieves’ tools and a successful DC 10 Dexterity check. A door can also be broken down with a successful DC 20 Strength check." As an example of a flat ability check in a basic published set. 6:11
That's a hidden faux "skill check" though isn't it as the rogue might well have expertise in using thieves tools so they'd add their dex mod and twice their PB to the roll.
That's a really pathetic lock if you just have the tools. An ordinary NPC who's handed thieves' tools with no training could pick that 50% of the time. It's equivalent to those nearly useless locks you can still find that can be defeated by hammering a screwdriver into the keyhole. That's a hint that what Mike's talking about here is correct: the rules of D&D aren't written to block players from trying anything. A (non-Raging) barbarian can attempt to use a spell scroll, craft a disguise, or forge a document. High rolls do happen. The 5th Edition rules don't block paths, but they do provide advantages when characters face challenges they were built to overcome. Technically, every character has a little bit of Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc., technically. Everybody in Faerun has heard folk tales about the fey, about the gods, about nature spirits, about plants they shouldn't touch and people they shouldn't make deals with and what not to say in a holy temple. The proficiencies show which characters are especially good at that stuff, but everybody knows bits and pieces of lore.
There is a reason charisma is used for social checks. Sure, a goliath barbarian can perform a feat of strength that could possibly scare someone, but its charisma because its all about sense of presence. He did the feat of strength but rolled low on charisma and looked goofy doing the feat of strength. Saying that i like alternative abilities for skills.
I do often have players roll abilities checks without skills, and almost as often have them roll skills with alternate abilities. As for why: there are many situations where an ability applies but skills do not (easy example: lifting a heavy load or forcing open a door - in both cases there is no skill that applies. A tool might - like carpenter's tools for the door so you know where to hit - but no matter what, Strength applies). In such cases I treat the check as a saving throw, and so saving throw proficiency comes into play (so having strength saving throw proficiency means you know how to control your strength and use it for leverage safely). I've yet to find a situation where this doesn't work, though I'm sure some will try to bring up examples of such. Personally though, I find it rewards the players and helps keep things running smoothly without bringing up frustrating scenarios, especially when combined with passive checks as well.
I just make up skills and tell them if they are proficient if it makes sense for their character. These are usually Int checks that are not Arcana, History, Nature or Religion, such as Politics, Geography or Literature. Goes something like “ok, I’d say your proficient in politics, go ahead and roll for Int and add your proficiency bonus”. That way it feels like they are getting a free bonus for thinking outside the box instead of getting penalized for not conforming to the “allowed” options.
As a pathfinder player for the most part, I love ability checks. Skill checks in pathfinder can get so ludicrously high sometimes that I feel it can can take tension out of big moments (for example a player I know has a +36 modifier to stealth). In key moments I ask for an ability check, meaning the modifier can pretty much only be less than 10. So the roll feels stressful because they have such a 'low modifier' and the players don't know that you've already lowered the DC to accommodate this
The Immovable Rod entry in the DMG calls for a DC 30 Strength check to move it when it’s in a fixed position. This is the only WOTC published material that I know of that calls for and ability check rather than a skill one
I'll include proficiencies (tools, weapons, languages, whatever) before I ask for a straight up ability roll, but I do ask for them. I think profs are way under utilized, and they work even better with the ability score swapping. I tend to think ability scores are for raw ability, without skill, but the skills are very broad, and flat ability checks are much more rare in my games.
One of the weirdest things I've seen in a published adventure that avoids a skill check is in one of the Tales of the Yawning Portal dungeons, it has at least one "encounter" where the players can move a large stone block basically acting as a false wall. The check to push it is...not a check. Instead, you add up the strength score (NOT modifier) of everyone participating in pushing it and if their scores add up to like 40 or something, they can push the boulder. I have never seen that in any other published adventure and it is super weird. Maybe the only time I've seen the score matter outside of determining a modifier.
That's odd for sure. Tales is a collection of older modules though, so that's likely based on an older edition's mechanics, or possibly just a one-off curio from that particular dungeon's writer.
Seems similar to working out push/drag weight, but with some steps cut out. Assuming the block gets moved at 5 ft per turn/round, that number implies it weighs 3,000 pounds.
I always find it a little strange that intimidation, persuasion, and deception all typically fall under charisma, so if you're a bubbly little gnome bard you have a higher intimidation than the socially awkward 7 ft half-orc barbarian who can crush a skull like nobody's business. The fact that, RAW Scanlan would be better at intimidation than Grog is pretty funny to me.
I definitely prefer my players to use their skills. Most of the time, I try to ask them to choose between different skills (e.g. athletics or acrobatics is the most common one. At my table there are 5 high DEX PCs and only 1 with high STR, so it is funny to see how must of them are very light and have gracious movements and one of them just power through whatever is on her way) or to choose any of their proficient skills in a creative way when a problem arises. If they invested time in crafting a PC with different skills and features, I want to make sure they use them!
I often ask players for an ability check, but I also tell my players if they want to roll a skill check they can feel free to tell me they're using a specific skill. For example, I don't ask for a specific type of knowledge check, I'll either ask my players "which knowledge skill are you using?" or I'll ask them "give me an intelligent check or whichever skill you think is appropriate". I put the agency into their hands and I alter the difficulty based on how appropriate the skill they choose is to the given task.
Potentially Str vs Athletics is a holdover from previous editions where the Strength skills were more specific and did *not* have a general "push/pull/break/lift" skill attached to it. RAW, Athletics only explicitly covers what Strength skills in 3.5 did anyway (Swimming, Climbing, and Jumping), so I can also see that contributing to the decision to roll straight Strength Edit: i will say this technically makes Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete less impactful. The former isn't a big deal, Bards are powerful and JoAT is more about breadth of ability than anything, but it does make Champion just that little bit less impactful which sucks
I really wanna show this to my dm now. It has become the norm that he asks for straight strength rolls instead of athletics, so my big minotaur fighter with a +10 to athletics fails most strength checks most of the time.
When I look at the list of 18 skills and only see 4 (more for some classes obvi) bubbled in, it feels crappy to be told they don't count when you think they should. If a DM wants a harder check, describe a harder scenario and bump up the DC.
This is one of my only pet peeves about Matt's dming 😅 He uses ability checks for simple things WAY more often than I ever would be comfortable with. The chance of failure is so much worse with ability checks, regardless if a character Should be good at what they're doing or not.
I feel with a bit of a leap in logic the 5e skills can cover basically anything, with the most confusing caveat there being the swapping stats associated to skills. (Another example I use for that is if my wizard player tries to use a spell as a distraction such as minor illusion, I ask for a performance intelligence check for how convincing the illusion is). If something makes sense to not be trained for or covered by proficiency, it is by logic harder and so I'll raise the dc of the check, especially if it only applies to one player.
My table uses a flat abilty check for a specific scenario. A Charisma check when the PC is flirting and trying to get laid with a NPC. Asking for Persuasion feels strange, it gives us a feeling of violating consent to some degree (Deception or Intimidation would be worse lol). So we usually ask for a flat Charisma check to see how attractive, seductive or interesting the PC presents themselves in the eyes of the NPC. It works well for our table.
I'm blessed to not be able to relate to you saying, "It's always faster to roll a skill check than an ability check." I have one player who has a tendency to look at his saving throw bonuses instead, but everyone at my table actually knows what the things on their character sheet mean.
yeah this made no sense. it's the same thing, you're adding all the same modifiers. if your players are struggling to understand things like this they maybe should read the PHB some more lmfao
I rather ask for skills as well, but O understand the urge to do it otherwise. Recalling information, for exemple. How do you train that exactly? How being trained in athletics makes you better at breaking doors and locks? I do have a sweet spot for athletics tho, since it's the only skill for STR and it's very mean to not allow a player to apply his proficiency in that
@@MrSeals1000 Not exactly Keen Mind. That feat offers a number of benefits that aren't really related to information recall - like being a human magnetic compass and timepiece. Recall is limited to a mere month too.
As a player, I personally prefer when my GMs ask me or other players in the party for a Skill Check as opposed to Ability Check for one main reason, aside from the other valid points Mike brought up - pretty much every time we've got an ability check call, the player rolling it falls. And I know that this just sounds like some eldritch combination of metagaming, power gaming and a 'player wanting everything'...and you know what? If it is, so be it. It feels awful to have all these proficiency bonuses and modifiers from spells and abilities at my finger tips, but have them all basically get turned off by the call being for an ability rather than a skill. It feels awful to watch my fellow player be knee deep in a sticky situation or a dramatic moment, and then have pretty much all of the energy get drained because they were asked to roll an ability score and realize, even without doing any math in my head, that the chances of them actually succeeding just effectively dropped to zero.
Pretty much the only time I call for a raw ability check (Intelligence) is when I know that a player's decision isn't taking into account information that their character may recall, but could also reasonably have forgotten. If there's zero chance the character would have forgotten, though, I'll usually just remind the player without a check. I understand the argument for raw Strength checks, but Strength gets so little out-of-combat love that I feel like it's only fair to pair it with a skill. Also! I adore coming up with non-standard combos of ability score and skill. Like making a Charisma (Stealth) check to subtley communicate with someone without drawing anyone else's attention; or making a Wisdom (History) check to glean the implications of some world event. I honestly think you could make a really cool video just going through fun non-standard pairings.
I used to apply the skills to everything, but it would end up making some skills have an outsized importance that would warp the character creation metagame. In reality though, looking at the skill descriptions, they have actual very specific descriptions on what they apply to. For example, Athletics is almost only running, climbing, and jumping. Basically, sports stuff. The rest goes into Strength.
i’ll only ever call for an ability check as a DM if i’m asking my whole table to pick a skill and roll. “Everyone pick an Intelligence skill and roll” will give you some Investigators, home History rolls, etc… it gives the players a choice of how they want to approach a group roll in-character
I hate hate HATE flat ability checks. Its a dumb pet peeve of mine. I also love to ask for different modifier roles. The classic example is a (Strength) intimidation roll, bit my tables see a lot of milage out of (Intelligence) Persuasion and (Chrisma) Stealth. Its a fun way to mix things up and reward players for playing to their characters strength.
And intelligence persuasion check can be to bring up a point in his dream where something like this happened that has been passed down through the generations. A wisdom one might be the bring up a proverb or teaching of a church. A charisma stealth can be bluffing your way past a checkpoint or walking through a place like you belong there. Sam Fisher makes (Dexterity) Stealth Checks, Agent 47 makes (Charisma) Stealth Checks.
If a character is going to roll a skill check for something that I think they'd very unlikely to have proficicency in, I just make them roll with disadvantage rather than added confusion in raw ability checks, it also means that if they were proficient in that skill anyway it makes them feel more satisfied to have picked that proficiency because their character building choices are covering for the situation they're in.
When traveling through a crowd secretly I've had my players roll Charisma (Stealth) checks instead of Dexterity. The idea being that they're trying to act so casual that no one notices them. It adds a little to the frustration of the +4 Dex, +1 Cha rogue who has to rethink his process.
I'm a player not a dm, but I prefer skill checks over flat ability checks most of the time, with the exceptions already written into the rules (initiative, counterspell, etc). Like you discuss in several of the CR videos, rewarding players for wanting to use the skills they've trained their character in just...feels good. It helps provide narrative context to the math of the roll, like how someone well-studied in Arcana maybe draws upon those specific studies to form conclusions about the mysterious magical glyph they've never encountered before. Linking the mechanics of the character sheet with the in-world justification for those mechanics helps with keeping me immersed in the world of the game. My only hesitance in this regard is that it indirectly nerfs features like jack of all trades and that one champion ability, but given that those skills are ALWAYS relevant via initiative and counterspell/dispel magic, I think it's fine.
The only times I ask for straight Intelligence rolls is when 1) players are trying to remember something that happened during the game but long ago (in game time) enough for their characters could realistically forget 2) they are trying to do mental math 3) they get stuck on a puzzle or something similar and I want to give them a clue
just something interesting to note with dndbeyond. If you find it happening often that you swap out the abilty connected to a skill, you can customise the skill and change the stat override. My ranger/rouge uses wisdom for deception because if not one of the assasin features is useless
I only call for non skill rolls if a player is trying to do something that there isn't a way to place into a skill, which happens very rarely, maybe once in four or five sessions. But I more often call for a non-proficient skill roll to have proficiency or, more commonly, just with advantage if they are attempting something which either their character should be skilled in regardless of their proficiencies, or if they are attempting it in a certain way which should be more likely to succeed regardless of skill (for "free proficiency" or "with advantage" respectively. This allows players to better feel their character background and journey since starting, or to directly know that their actions at the table have given them a better chance at success.
I also feel like asking for a skill in something they aren’t proficient in can be a way to highlight the difference between their strengths and weaknesses. Like hey, your Kenku Bard tried to pull the Goliath Barbarian up from the rope bridge by themselves, this isn’t what you are good at, you probably aren’t going to succeed. But it can also open up a dialogue for players to pivot to something they are good with. Like they are trying to open a locked door, but they suck with Slight of Hand, so they say they grab a thin rock from the ground, place it in the lock, and kick to break the lock open. That seems like you could count that as Athletics instead.
Some of the reason for players preferring to roll an ability check using a skill versus a flat ability check is because many players came into 5e from 3.0, 3.5., and Pathfinder where skills were much more separate from abilities.
I saw this video around the time it was uploaded and what's funny to me is that a common issue I actually have is in the notion of Skill Checks. Mind you I play Pathfinder 2e these days where the notion of an Ability Check just does not exist. However, I actually often wish that, rules as written, it did. Now to be clear, in my stint running D&D5e I never was a stickler to the notion of calling for an ability check and then seeing if the players would ask to roll for such and such skill. However, I did see use in such a system just for the sake of being able to allow players to roll a check for something that might not necessarily have a skill we might feel accomodates the check in question. It's difficult for me to right now think of such an example just looking over the 5e list of an action a player might wish to do, but for which The only example I can think of is lockpicking, and this was actually one of my first arguments I had with the GM in my first ever 5e game when I was getting back into the hobby. On the fly, a GM might rule that lockpicking might be stealth or slgeight of hand. A logical option to choose if you're pressed for time and do not wish to check the book. Per the book though, with the Thieve's tools itself, it states such that "Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.". This ruling brings to mind thena scenario where I might call for an ability check, me and the player do not see a skill that would fit, but on thought we might both agree "Well, your guy is clearly proficient in what they are doing right now because (reason here)" I know a large argument here in this video is that the call for an ability check over skills might slow down a game for any number of reasons (players not being use to it being probably a big one), but I don't fully think it would. There'd may be a period of re-adjustment, but I don't think it's something that would take along. You would just have to tell them to roll their ability modifier and if they have proficiency add the proficiency bonus that the players see under inspiriation and above their saving throw. Unless you're using a VTT in which case I hope you're all familiar with your tools. To really cap this off, while I do think about this stuff a lot, and I have opinions on it more in favor of Ability Checks, I realize I don't think I come across the conundrum often enough. Even in PF2e where Ability Checks just outright aren't a thing, I don' think I have ever really had a situation where either a player wanted to do something and we couldn't fully pin an action to a skill check. Either my players are calling for actions where they would reasonably have a corresponding skill, or I generally am choosing to forgo a check altogether. When it comes to a lot of these games anyways, they tend to be taught to players by other players, with the GM having the last say in the matter. Even when I was running 5e for the short while I did, I know I didn't call for an ability check at all, primarily because old habits die hard and a long time of 3.5e/PF1e has ingrained into memory Skill Checks.
My warlock has most of the face skills: Deception, Insight, Intimidation, & Persuasion, but my DM will frequently call for Performance in negotiations. It's not that my character is playing music, acting, dancing, or the like. No, my character is trying to convince some NPC to take some course of action, and as I understand it, that's _exactly_ what Persuasion is for. If I had known Persuasion was going to be useless, I wouldn't have wasted a skill choice on it. But I don't argue, as I'm not trying to disrupt the game, I just say I rolled a 1.
I honestly think the way mercer does it is unintentional - there have been times when he’ll do it one way and then in the same session describing the same situation ask for a skill check instead. Usually if I feel the impulse to make something an ability check instead of a skill check, I usually try to clarify the exact motivation of how the player wants to do their thing (and that can sometimes lead to using a skill check with an alternative ability mod) - or, maybe it should be a saving throw instead (in situations where they’re they’re coming up against resistance to something they’re not proficient in).
A DM once let me roll an athletics check instead of an animal handling check to try and guide our cart through a rock slide by jumping out of the driver's seat and helping the beasts pull
I prefer skills way more as it feels like they actually represent you as a character, whereas ability scores are a simplified abstract of that at best. (Coming from Pathfinder 1e actually there's way more control over skills in that system which likely helps this attitude?)
seeing a lot of people here talk about using a flat ability check for personal memory, so i thought id share my typical approach to that as a GM. i like to get my players to roll a Wisdom (History) check to remember something they recently encountered, since WIS is the ability often used to determine how a player interprets the world around them and history can be interpreted as personal history, etc. i also once had a player roll a Charisma (Stealth) check to determine whether their conversation had been overheard. honestly, the main reason i tend not to use ability checks anymore is because i have a tendancy to say 'roll a straight ___ check' to mean 'without skill proficiency' and i have one player who would, invariably, take that to mean 'just a d20 roll, no modifiers' even though i had specified the ability, no matter how many times i explained what i wanted from that. i am fully aware that this is nowhere near a universal experience, but thought id share my experience with that
I find myself always agreeing with you. Like, if it's not any problems and no extra work, then why not make it fun? It's so easy, but some are just too stuck in "doing things in the correct way", or what makes them feel smarter, or realism, or for whatever reason that makes them stuck in that mindset.
Trying to memorize a complex pattern or set of instructions or whatever? Just Int. Trying to endure pain or discomfort? Con check (as opposed to a save which would be for poison or a spell). You could also argue that skills might not apply if a character has never been trained for the specific situation, although i would clarify this in session 0. Strength for rowing a boat as fast as possible when you've never seen one before. Wisdom to handle an animal that is completely alien to you. Charisma to try and buddy up with nobels from a different culture where you don't know the etiquette.
While I do prefer asking for skill checks, I will occasionally ask for a flat ability check if I feel like the player is really reaching when asking about the skill in question, or if the check would fall between two skills.
I'm for minimizing derived stats. Skills annoy me, because they're so linked. I'd prefer areas of expertise more broadly defined. Get rid of "stealth, sleight of hand, deception," give me "burglary." Better yet, give me "guild burglary, unsupervised, flat percentage take." Wow, look at what all I can do with that. I could use it to negotiate service rates with Charisma. I could use it to find weak points in a floor plan with Intelligence. I could use it to open a safe with Dexterity, or maybe even to move a safe with Strength. And every time I use it, it reminds me and everyone else where I came from.
So there was something about this video I really really liked even though the advice was not as applicable to my game because the system I am using already uses Ability First language. But it took until I watched it a second time for me to be able to figure out what it was; This video tells us that even people who love Mat Mercer's GM style might not want to do everything like him. It's easy to feel, especially as a new or learning DM, that expert GMs always do it right. and for the most part, if you do or want to do something different that must mean you are doing it wrong. For me, that was more a subconscious thing than anything and I feel like if I said out loud "ONLY MAT DOES IT RIGHT" I would realize that's ridiculous, but it took you, someone I know admires Matt like I do, saying "hey I disagree with him on this one" for me to really remember that I am allowed to disagree with him on some things too.
My mindset is effectively the same. The only time I am tempted to roll an ability, is when recalling specific memories around their adventures. The color of something, the hidden password for a puzzle or whatever. To me , history feels more like learned and reviews knowledge, and there's no skill for wit and memory. I am most of the time using history anyway, because I rationalize it as "you own personal history". It also creates more occasions to use a skill so many characters get proficiency in, and has little actual game usage.
Intelligence is always a wonky one. Every so often, you run into some sort of knowledge that doesn't seem to make sense as an Arcana, History, or Religion check. And likewise, defaulting Nature to a Wisdom check is so weird to me because it's more often than not used as a knowledge skill with skills like Survival or Animal Handling covering the sorts of things that feel more Wisdom-based, but I guess giving Druids and Rangers access to a skill that doesn't default to their highest stat would be a feelbad (but then again, Sorcerers and Warlocks often grab Arcana...).
Most skills are meant to only apply to specific things, thus flat ability checks outside of those areas. For example athletics does not influence breaking down a door, that's strength possibly combined with intelligence or if the character is proficient with an appropriate tool kit and has it, they'd roll that. There's also instances where the lore on a specific deity is so obscure that unless you're from a culture that worships them, your religion skill proficiency bonus won't apply because you simply have not been educated about them
I prefer rolling skills over ability checks… I think it’s a hold over from 3rd edition where you bought a selection of skills and ones you weren’t proficient in just cost 2 for every point instead of one for one. It was also something the DM could give you points in to acknowledge your background before mechanical backgrounds were a thing. Or if you trained went through an ordeal a relevant point reflected your progress or growth.
The example of bashing down a door, I just don't think is athletics in any way at all. When I think athletics I thinks running, jumping, climbing, swimming, and other stuff like that. Just bashing a door off it's hinges seems like a feat of strength but not athletics
I think it's because for many people Athletics is about moving and controlling the weight and inertia of your own body. So everything that's about moving or impacting objects wouldn't be Athletics, but pure strength.@@SupergeekMike
@@JakobDrawitsch I feel like if that were the case though, breaking things would be a separate skill for Strength (Demolition maybe?) since that's basically the only other application for that ability. This whole issue exacerbated for Strength especially because it's an ability with only one skill.
@SupergeekMike I view it like how slight of hand isn't used for lock picking checks. It's just not in the scope of athletics as I understand the skill. 5e just isn't kind enough to include any alternative option. (Because it doesn't really like strength as an ability)
Instead of removing a players proficiency for a check they wouldn’t be skilled at, I’d rather just give a higher DC. Same goes with doing something like using strength for intimidation. Instead I’ll compare the strength of the player against the NPC, and if the difference is +2 or more, they’ll either have advantage or a lower DC. It’s simpler for the players and doesn’t make much of a difference at the end of the day
I do this a lot, but in a different game. In "the dark eye" the mechanics vary between ability rolls and skill rolls. Ability rolls are more random then skill checks and so i let them be rolled when something is not usually trained for, like ripping of a padlock with your bare hands or remembering a fact from a previous session that is not part of any particular field of knowledge. In D&D similarly the chances are lower or equal to a skill roll of the same ability, so if this is someting you want to model i would do it as well. But your point that D&D is a power fantasy is valid. In the dark eye the heroes at least start way more grounded and stay that way for longer.
Athletics is all about movement in its description. It has nothing to do with breaking things, lifting things, or pushing things. It's about jumping, swimming, and climbing. Having a skill for raw strength really doesn't make an ounce of sense, so... There isn't one.
Interesting point, that makes sense. I don’t personally agree, since I think there are some athletes (like American Football players or Olympians) who perform feats of strength that might be reminiscent of other tasks. Like, breaking down a door isn’t necessarily that different from a football tackle ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I also think it’s reasonable for athletic proficiency to help justify feats of strength. For example, firefighters are trained to break down doors and carry people, so while I don’t know if they’re “athletes” I’d feel comfortable allowing them to use their proficiency. But as you said, I don’t know what you’d title a skill that covers that stuff, so I can see why GMs draw the line where they do.
I personally think that, especially if you're going to have a player perform a difficult task they should have the option that's the best chance of them accomplishing that task (this does not mean they automatically succeed, or even that they're guaranteed to succeed, just relative to the other options they have the best chance of accomplishing it), if I'm playing a barb, I want to be able to use athletics for strength related stuff like prying open a trap. RAW Athletics is mainly for jumping, swimming and climbing but because strength as a stat is so underutilized relative to other stats (I don't generally have tables that track encumbrance, so strength usually only matters to the strength based martials) that I let Athletics have a wider scope than it may in the rulebook. Many people I've met don't know about the whole "skills with different attributes" which is always funny to me (I usually make jokes about how dnd players don't read) because it usually allows people to better use skills they might not be proficient in. I actually was talking to a friend about the Primeval Druid UA should have given you the ability to use wisdom for history + have proficiency in it. I think that being more flexible with whatever ability store you can use for a skill makes people less likely to have to use the same handful of skills because of how good their numbers are, and makes them more willing to think outside the box so they can justify using a different modifier. thanks for reading my essay lol.
What do you do if the check they need falls on more than one skill check? Like, say both skills are intelligence checks but they need both arcana and history checks at once? Do you do one, both, or a flat check in this scenario?
rolling skill checks instead of flat ability checks looks fine at first, till you get the rogue with reliable talent, who adds their proficiency to just about everything important in the adventure, because they are a half elf with the skilled feat who spent 10 weeks learning a 12th out of 18 skills, then spent a feat on prodigy for a 13th skill and a 5th expertise, so they can never fail any important skill or tool that isn't knowledge or animal handling. and has perception, insight, investigation, persuasion and deception as their expertises aka the 5 expertises every rogue wants.
That’s honestly fine with me. If they play a character with a lot of skill bonuses, then I want to call for skill rolls so they get a chance to do the cool thing they made their character to do.
I think asking for an ability check over a skill check can be alright as there are a lot of things that don't really fit into any particular skill. Though like you I can not think of how to differentiate between pure strength vs athletics. I can't really think of how that works, but I also can't really think of why athletics and acrobatics are different skills when skills aren't actually linked to a particular ability. Like isn't acrobatics just athletics for dexterity?
Here is the problem with pedantic use of RAW. Virtually every feat of strength can be improved by applying skill. Breaking doors requires the application of power, sure. But if you know where the lock is and how to apply leverage correctly, you will improve your chances. Breaking out of handcuffs, same thing. You can be Conan, or be Houdini. Lifting a weight is much easier if you apply technique. For example grappling. A judo master will out grapple a meathead gym jockey every day. This is why Athletics is used for grapple checks. My point is that there really are virtually no situations where raw strength cannot be improved by skill and technique. So there are very few instances where Athletics ( skilled use of power) would not apply
Straight ability checks are more difficult to succeed in on average, in relation to other checks. But usually that's not the intention, so now I have to adjust the DC to make up for that and go against my brain that tells me 10=medium, 15=hard etc. Not a big fan, personally I just use the type of skill check that's closest.
5e has a pretty well designed list of skills, so usually you can find an obvious skill to apply. One area of the rules that hints at more nuance though is the section on tools. When using one, you always use the ability, except when you have proficiency in the specific tool. I've seen people calling for Sleight of Hand to do lockpicking, but if that's how it would work then there would be no reason to ever get proficiency with thieves' tools. But note that the official rules also list gaming sets, and they explicitly state that each type of gaming set requires a separate proficiency. That means that rules as written, you can't cheat at cards using Sleight of Hand. Surprise! I think the idea is that tools are supposed to be more specialised, and therefore require specific proficiencies. Perhaps people who play cards would catch a cheater unless they've practiced cheating specifically with a deck of playing cards. Although I don't think it would come up often, it makes sense to me that if you ever encounter a tool not covered by the rules, it works the same way. Players won't have proficiency with a pottery kit unless they've obtained it, and you can create opportunities for them to obtain that specific proficiency, for example during downtime. I think you can do the same with skills, just invent new ones when relevant. Imagine engineering, etiquette, military strategy, etc. (I think some MCDM products introduce skills like diplomacy, harvesting and cooking) For tool proficiencies, I can imagine some good reasons to want to rule that you can use skills anyway. In that case, you might want to consider ditching tool proficiencies altogether 🙌
The only think I will ask for a a straight ability check on is whether or not a character knows something from experience. I don't know if your detective character has encountered this particular gang before. I'm not sure if your noble background wizard has heard the current aristocratic gossip relating to this quest.... make a check. Problem is there's no skill that cover this (History should be about historical events/folklore/etc and I will die on this hill), and it's something that comes fairly often. I genuinely can't think of a way to do this other than just an ability check. That said, I always do it in a way gives a player a bonus, never taking away a proficiency. The point is to make the player feel like their character's unique backstory/game experience has given them a benefit in succeeding and learning more information. Often I'll tell them they're "proficient" in this kind of knowledge and have them add that as a bonus. It can slow things down a tad... maybe 15 seconds, about as long as it takes me to say "Roll a d20 and add your Int/Wis modifier". I think it's worth it though because it better represents what we're rolling for, it can specifically highlight characters, and can give a prompt for players to improvise or develop things about their characters. Plus, I think there's something to be said for doing "weird" rolls every now and then. Maybe it's just my table, but that always seems to get everyone to perk up a bit and break them out of their muscle memory.
Something ive noticed some DMs do is asking for a flat D20 istesd os skill or sbility checks and im not a fan. Flat dice should only be use for something thats luck based, like gambling. You should use skill and sbility checks because that's honoring the player's decisions.
The language of skill checks does seem to get confusing for players, especially ones used to previous editions or other games. But I always liked dnd 5e for choosing to change it to ability checks and if you happen to have training in an area you can apply it to the check. SO I do personally attempt to use the language of DnD but I slip into old habits from 3e and 4e a lot. Sorry this got long.... partial rebuttal partial agreement in what you said Though a small counter argument for the whole athletics covering anything strength based, and of course it could be easily justified with a broader understanding of athletics, as we consider a lot of people from gymnast, to mountain climbers to body builders as athletes(technically even acrobatics can sometimes start to get conflated and smooshed into the realm of DnD athletics due to our own understanding of the term) but these people all use their bodies strength in different ways to accomplish different goals, honing different skills but we all see it in our world as athletics. This I think is one of the reasons, along with DnD creators trying to find a way to describe while combining 3 extremely related skills from previous editions (though I think this condensing of the skills into broader groups started in 4e, and these 3 skills were separated in 3e.) But I think this is the context you have to look at it in terms of the new edition of DnD. Not through our real world linguistic understanding of what it means to be athletic. Also considering the athlete feat itself is focused on athletics feats of climbing, jumping and such and does not include language to indicate that it includes bonuses to lifting and breaking. All the bonuses of the athlete feat are about using your athletics/strength to move in the world even better then someone just trained in the skill. (sure champions remarkable athlete sorta break this pattern, but part of me just thinks who ever was working on the class couldn't think of a better descriptive name and leaned more on overall understanding of athletics feats to include many physical activities. I am not even sure what a better name for the skill group that includes climbing, swimming, and jumping would be) So with this in mind from a DnD perspective the core function of athletics is to allow the application of your strength in feats that relate to climbing, jumping, swimming . These are more sustained feat, but also feats of mobility and getting the body as a whole to move through the world. While lifting, breaking and such is more about bust of strength and power, though pushing and pulling could be here too even if that does start to muddy the waters. Though the thing is lifting, pushing and pulling is already seen as being covered by strength alone in the fact that only strength affect your encumbrance and stuff. Either way when I think about it the strength applied and used by a swimmer, climber, long jumper is different then the strength used by power lifters, there may be overlapping muscle groups and such but their application of might is to accomplish different goals, so I see no issue in this context of going with lifting and break being a raw ability check instead of one with proficiency added due to athletics. Plus I find it super common for fighter to take athletics as a skill, but if athletics is broaden to include lifting and breaking door down, then that kind of steps on the toes of the champion ability to allow partial proficiency on all ability checks not already including their proficiency bonus. The Champion is a mighty warrior, who can more easily break down doors or lift things compared to other skilled heroes and of course more since also gives them partial prof in dex abiltiy check like initiative and more. Though I do also like to allow my players to be cool and have advantages, so I would consider adding another skill to the list though powerlifting does not seem like the right name since it would be used for burst of power and might to lift, push and pull as well as break doors down/open and such. Maybe simply calling it power could work, both athletics and power would be sufficiently broad and abstract to fit into the world and both have clear cut lines on how they are used plus would allow people to make characters who are more focused on the raw power of their muscles, as not everyone who is a powerlifter would or even should be equally good at other applications of strength that are covered by the athletics skill. plus some ability score (cough cough constitution) lack core skills. Though if you don't draw the line somewhere you could just end up back in 3e with like 30+ skills, each covering a very specific thing, so making the choice of where to abstract things, combine skills into one type and so on can be a personal choice and what feels right. So for me having separate skills for athletics related to climbing, swimming, jumping and those related to power lifting and other feats of strength seems like a nice middle ground between raw and what feels like over application of a particular skill outside its realm of use giving it too much power in the world. You could of course just in secret increase dc by proficiency amount or some other amount(so if dc would be 10 in base game make it 12 or for level 1 players), the math will be same but as long as you don't tell players they will feel like they applied their skill to it. Though this Idea sounds and feels wrong to me, too much like lying, so Id rather be upfront or make a new skill that allows players to see the difference between things easier and give them the choice of potentially gaining skill and also knowing why they cant just use athletics for that kind of action. Plus when comes to things base dnd decides not to cover there is no real issue adding new skill imo, but most of my new skills tend to be knowledge skills or just new tools (cant forget about tools, some skills became proficiency in tools rather then skills in of themselves) Knowledge based skills I find are typically a bit easier though I do try to be upfront in how I modify difficulty sure I can understand potential of not using knowledge history for far off land but someone skilled in history I always see as potentially having picked up a book and learned some things maybe basic maybe slightly misinformed, so I would think about how hard it is to know in a regional sense (don't forget unless you have a world that has ease of access to information like we do with internet this historical knowledge can get limited, well any knowledge really) and then modify but how out there it is for you to know, so neighboring regions/countries could be +5 difficulty and neighboring continents could be +10 difficulty while across the world could be +15 or more, or even across planes could be +20 or more. Until players put time or have real reasons to know things outside their regions they may be unlikely to have ever come across anything. Though these penalties I give, do make it more appealing to do a raw intelligence check vs base DC (cant speak for mercer but this may be one way he thinks about it). ***Side Note Slightly related but a bit of a tangent**** Plus as a gm who sometimes plays I can understand the tendency to want to get every bonus and perk and how we can easily justify our internal explanations. Its so easy to to do that and then if the GM denies you that, though you felt you had sound logic it can feel bad, unfair or any other number of things. This especially gets amplified if you fail (or at least seems to from my experience and observations), but I partially think that's because (in particular my) players have been having a hard time to rewire their ideas of fail (this too could be a language thing, just like miss in dnd attack rolls does not always mean you missed but rather you did not inflict harm; actually even a hit does not always mean blood is drawn depends of the character, monster and how you want to narrate it). As I got older and more experienced, I see the rules less and less like rules for a tatical wargame (and this could be also with how dnd has changed, though Dnd still puts far too much emphasis on combat and values combat abilities far more then utility, roleplaying and exploration, so balance get wonky to me; ranger is so strong just not the strongest combatant) to more and more a tool to help with a collaborative narrative. But sometimes the gamer win/lose mindset kicks in and clouds our judgement and enchances our fear of losing. this gamer mindset I think is also a reason people focus a lot on the combat power of classes to determine balance, since combat win lose state is so much easier to see and understand, plus connects to our experience with various board and video games easier then role playing and exploring.
@@SupergeekMike because the ability to observe your surroundings can often be used on yourself as well. Plus it makes it stand out more when I ask for a constitution roll that isn't a saving throw.
Honestly, skill checks is a large part of why I stopped playing D&D, and prefer systems like Storyteller/Storypath, where you have abilities and skills and can pair them up any which way (Computer+Stamina for a marathon hacking session, for example). Though I do understand that not everyone likes dice pool systems.
hard disagree, rolling for an ability score is a holdover from older editions having *more skills*. 5e's vast oversimplification of all the things a person can be good at is fine, but it's not ideal. I do this all the time in my games when players make requests that are "between" skills, or fall under no skill. Based on whether their character would be trained in what they're trying to do, they add proficiency or not. It's far easier to assign an ability score rather than a skill to these more ambiguous actions! Decide proficiency on a case-by-case basis.
Do you ever ask players to just roll an ability check without adding a skill bonus?
Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo codes:
MysteryBox35 for 35% off of the first month of any Mystery Dice Subscription!
BFCM23 for 20% off anything in the shop!
All adventures are 75% off!
Visit the website every day between now and Monday to download a free 5e adventure!
www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
I've ruled this a few different ways in the past, across 3.5, 4e, and 5e, but one of my favorite methods is just to add to the DC. When you're dealing with newer players or a large group, or any time you want to streamline it, I've found it easiest if you just increase the DC on the backend. If someone wants to try to apply a skill that they're proficient in to something outside what I believe fits the challenge, I still let them roll that skill but the DC on my side is going to be 5 or 10 (usually) higher for success. It also means the failure can be a little more devastating if it's a low roll since they can fail the DC by a larger gap.
My goal as a DM is not to limit a player's agency or ability to do something cool, but as long as I give them a heads up that it's going to be a difficult task, I'm fine with them making the attempt. And as in standard rules, a nat 20 on a skill check does not inherently mean success, but if it does beat the modified DC, I still play it off as something spectacular, versus if they beat it by rolling a 19.
Oh, and by default I prefer to have any caster trained in arcana use their highest caster ability score as the modifier. Bards would use charisma and clerics would use wisdom, for example. This is based on their innate relationship with magic.
I think the only time I call for flat ability checks is when rolling for memory. That one is a flat Intelligence, though they really only roll to remember things that the character might have known before the campaign started. Any knowledge that they came across during the campaign, or any information that they definitely would have known they get without a roll.
I once had somebody do a wisdom (intimidation) check. it was very creepy way of using knowledge about something to scare a NPC, but I'm all for it if the player can make a good case as to what attribute is used as a basis for the check.
if a player is trying to identify what a spell being cast is (usually for counter spell purposes, but may be for any number of other things) I've let them roll arcana, but if it's a spell on their spell list and their spellcasting ability isn't int I've let them make charisma (arcana) or wisdom (arcana) checks to determine it
I greatly prefer using skills instead of flat ability checks. If I don't feel like one skill perfectly fits, I'll often allow a couple different skills as options. ie: "roll a history or religion check." This is most common with intelligence checks and sometimes charisma checks as well. I'm also, usually willing to allow my players to suggest a skill if they can make a decent case for it.
i was just gonna say similar, if a check is like 'would my character have seen this [random thing] before?' thats not REALLY a history check they are asking about something not stated directly in their backstory but maybe their backstory would have brought them into contact with this item before so they roll int to remember and if its high enough 'yeah you remember seeing [random thing] with [npc] back in[town mentioned in their backstory] [how ever long ago]' now they know this item belonged to someone they can go find and get more info about it, obv if theres no chance you dont ask for a roll and if they are a well read character and this is a historical item thats a history check :3 so theres def times basic ability checks are fine or needed, but if it can be a skill i agree they should get to roll with their skill :3
Ditto
Two videos two days in a row? You’re spoiling us, Mike!
i have my players sometimes use ability checks instead of skill rolls, most often in cases for things like general memory, where I don't think being studied in history makes you any more likely to remember what the symbol you saw last week was. and in my personal experience, it isn't ever any slower than a skill check, although that's just what I've seen, so i'll definitely be thinking about this in the future
You want a real life example of a (Strength) Intimidation check FROM Critical Role?
Travis.
Travis one handed broke a mechanical pencil and Talisen was terrified
I think it was when Vax shaved half his beard?
Some spells call for ability checks, notably Counterspell and Dispel Magic.
Also attempting to cast a spell from a spell scroll that's a higher level than you can cast normally
Which is odd and clunky because it means the difference between a novice mage with Intelligence +3 and an archmage with Intelligence +5 is a measly 2 points. The math may check out, since the DC of those attempts is between 11 and 19, but the simulation is unconvincing; it doesn't reflect realities in the fiction. 5e's refusal to scale is often defended by pointing out that, "Bounded accuracy makes the game simpler!" but that's not what bounded accuracy is. Bounded accuracy means that bonuses and DCs will always be within a certain range of each other, guaranteeing that game elements (PCs, monsters, magic items, effects, etc.) of a certain tier will always interact with each other on a level playing field. Pathfinder 2e also has bounded accuracy, but its bounds scale up much faster, and more uniformly, across the levels - and PF2e rarely, if ever, tries to pit a non-scaling bonus against a scaling DC, or vice versa. 5e does that all the time, with higher-CR enemies throwing out DC 20+ saving throws against characters that didn't (and had no way to) improve in those saves since level 1.
How in the world does the Arcana skill ("your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes") possibly not apply to recognizing how and when to Counterspell, how to Dispel a particular magical effect, or work out how to activate a scroll? That really is so strange. The entire reason that a player selects Arcana as one of their skill proficiencies is because their character is supposed to be good at working that stuff out.
The real reason, I think, is a game balance matter: an untrained caster, such as a bard picking up bits of magic on the road, a sorcerer with raw magic and no skill at it, or a warlock who gets all their magic as boons, should still be able to use the Counterspell and Dispel Magic spells effectively. There's no point in selecting them otherwise. Even factoring that it, spell scrolls should still be something that as made easier with skill in Arcana (or possibly Religion for clerical spells). Would it really be so terrible if one of the proficiencies a character selected meant that scrolls were easy to use for that character?
Fascinating! I totally disagree - with almost entirely the opposite view - but it's good to see the alternative argued, because I never really understood before.
I much prefer to lean on flat ability checks for a lot of basic things, while applying skills when specifically appropriate.
But this is also because I lean towards much lower DCs than most DMs. A DC of 10-12 is pretty normal for me; 15 is high and 20 is very high. I want that 2-4 proficiency bonus to really count when it is actually applicable; I find that in games where skill checks default over a ility checks, the DCs are typically just inflated to compensate.
Also, to go to your specific example (and while I don't remember what the PHB says for Athletics) I would *never* consider "breaking down a door" to be athletic; it is not something you can be particularly skilled in, it's just brute strength. Athletics in my games is more gross motor control and (oft combined with con) stamina. Conversely, I would consider myself IRL to have a proficiency in athletics, but not the strength to be able to break down a door in six seconds!
I'm glad someone made a video about this! I feel very strongly towards skill checks. I think it's also a form of niche protection. If I'm playing a character that's very proficient in a certain area compared to the average person, I want that proficiency to be acknowledged!
I do straight ability checks. For "I want to calculate the amount of gunpowder needed to make an explosion," there is no "make a calculation check," so it is just an intelligent check.
Interesting, and definitely a good example; that said, I might do the same, but if I happen to be thinking of the full skill list (which I’m not always able to do lol), I might rule that as an Insight check but using Intelligence instead of Wisdom.
Remembering stuff in general is one skill that doesn’t always have an equivalent on the sheet. If my players don’t remember something they’ve seen previously that I think their character might, I’ll sometimes ask for an intelligence check with an attainable DC10 or similar. That way I can tell them they do remember whatever important detail I need them to know in the moment and they also feel like they did something useful with a die roll. If they fail it can also be a prompt - “you feel like you’ve seen something useful that relates to this but you can’t quite put your finger on what it was.” But generally I try to stick to skills over abilities.
I roll directly for an ability in two cases:
1. Intelligence to see if their character remembers something the player has forgotten
2. Wisdom to give them a flash of insight when they're stuck with a mystery
And in both cases I make sure that even a failure gives them some info to stimulate their brain.
This is a quote from the Lost Mine of Phandalin (part 2) for a certain area: "A locked door can be picked with thieves’ tools and a successful DC 10 Dexterity check. A door can also be broken down with a successful DC 20 Strength check." As an example of a flat ability check in a basic published set. 6:11
That's a hidden faux "skill check" though isn't it as the rogue might well have expertise in using thieves tools so they'd add their dex mod and twice their PB to the roll.
That's a really pathetic lock if you just have the tools. An ordinary NPC who's handed thieves' tools with no training could pick that 50% of the time. It's equivalent to those nearly useless locks you can still find that can be defeated by hammering a screwdriver into the keyhole.
That's a hint that what Mike's talking about here is correct: the rules of D&D aren't written to block players from trying anything. A (non-Raging) barbarian can attempt to use a spell scroll, craft a disguise, or forge a document. High rolls do happen. The 5th Edition rules don't block paths, but they do provide advantages when characters face challenges they were built to overcome. Technically, every character has a little bit of Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc., technically. Everybody in Faerun has heard folk tales about the fey, about the gods, about nature spirits, about plants they shouldn't touch and people they shouldn't make deals with and what not to say in a holy temple. The proficiencies show which characters are especially good at that stuff, but everybody knows bits and pieces of lore.
One can also argue that Initiative is a flat Ability Check.
There is a reason charisma is used for social checks.
Sure, a goliath barbarian can perform a feat of strength that could possibly scare someone, but its charisma because its all about sense of presence. He did the feat of strength but rolled low on charisma and looked goofy doing the feat of strength.
Saying that i like alternative abilities for skills.
I do often have players roll abilities checks without skills, and almost as often have them roll skills with alternate abilities.
As for why: there are many situations where an ability applies but skills do not (easy example: lifting a heavy load or forcing open a door - in both cases there is no skill that applies. A tool might - like carpenter's tools for the door so you know where to hit - but no matter what, Strength applies). In such cases I treat the check as a saving throw, and so saving throw proficiency comes into play (so having strength saving throw proficiency means you know how to control your strength and use it for leverage safely).
I've yet to find a situation where this doesn't work, though I'm sure some will try to bring up examples of such. Personally though, I find it rewards the players and helps keep things running smoothly without bringing up frustrating scenarios, especially when combined with passive checks as well.
I just make up skills and tell them if they are proficient if it makes sense for their character. These are usually Int checks that are not Arcana, History, Nature or Religion, such as Politics, Geography or Literature. Goes something like “ok, I’d say your proficient in politics, go ahead and roll for Int and add your proficiency bonus”. That way it feels like they are getting a free bonus for thinking outside the box instead of getting penalized for not conforming to the “allowed” options.
As a pathfinder player for the most part, I love ability checks. Skill checks in pathfinder can get so ludicrously high sometimes that I feel it can can take tension out of big moments (for example a player I know has a +36 modifier to stealth). In key moments I ask for an ability check, meaning the modifier can pretty much only be less than 10. So the roll feels stressful because they have such a 'low modifier' and the players don't know that you've already lowered the DC to accommodate this
The Immovable Rod entry in the DMG calls for a DC 30 Strength check to move it when it’s in a fixed position. This is the only WOTC published material that I know of that calls for and ability check rather than a skill one
I'll include proficiencies (tools, weapons, languages, whatever) before I ask for a straight up ability roll, but I do ask for them. I think profs are way under utilized, and they work even better with the ability score swapping. I tend to think ability scores are for raw ability, without skill, but the skills are very broad, and flat ability checks are much more rare in my games.
One of the weirdest things I've seen in a published adventure that avoids a skill check is in one of the Tales of the Yawning Portal dungeons, it has at least one "encounter" where the players can move a large stone block basically acting as a false wall. The check to push it is...not a check. Instead, you add up the strength score (NOT modifier) of everyone participating in pushing it and if their scores add up to like 40 or something, they can push the boulder. I have never seen that in any other published adventure and it is super weird. Maybe the only time I've seen the score matter outside of determining a modifier.
That's odd for sure. Tales is a collection of older modules though, so that's likely based on an older edition's mechanics, or possibly just a one-off curio from that particular dungeon's writer.
Seems similar to working out push/drag weight, but with some steps cut out. Assuming the block gets moved at 5 ft per turn/round, that number implies it weighs 3,000 pounds.
@@TwilitbeingReboot That seems likely.
I remember an old dark sun module doing the exact thing. Adding up strength to break the cage.
I always find it a little strange that intimidation, persuasion, and deception all typically fall under charisma, so if you're a bubbly little gnome bard you have a higher intimidation than the socially awkward 7 ft half-orc barbarian who can crush a skull like nobody's business. The fact that, RAW Scanlan would be better at intimidation than Grog is pretty funny to me.
I definitely prefer my players to use their skills. Most of the time, I try to ask them to choose between different skills (e.g. athletics or acrobatics is the most common one. At my table there are 5 high DEX PCs and only 1 with high STR, so it is funny to see how must of them are very light and have gracious movements and one of them just power through whatever is on her way) or to choose any of their proficient skills in a creative way when a problem arises. If they invested time in crafting a PC with different skills and features, I want to make sure they use them!
I often ask players for an ability check, but I also tell my players if they want to roll a skill check they can feel free to tell me they're using a specific skill.
For example, I don't ask for a specific type of knowledge check, I'll either ask my players "which knowledge skill are you using?" or I'll ask them "give me an intelligent check or whichever skill you think is appropriate". I put the agency into their hands and I alter the difficulty based on how appropriate the skill they choose is to the given task.
Potentially Str vs Athletics is a holdover from previous editions where the Strength skills were more specific and did *not* have a general "push/pull/break/lift" skill attached to it. RAW, Athletics only explicitly covers what Strength skills in 3.5 did anyway (Swimming, Climbing, and Jumping), so I can also see that contributing to the decision to roll straight Strength
Edit: i will say this technically makes Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete less impactful. The former isn't a big deal, Bards are powerful and JoAT is more about breadth of ability than anything, but it does make Champion just that little bit less impactful which sucks
I really wanna show this to my dm now. It has become the norm that he asks for straight strength rolls instead of athletics, so my big minotaur fighter with a +10 to athletics fails most strength checks most of the time.
I saw the update and audibly exclaimed "oooh! Mike!"
I've seen a couple of cases of "Are you proficient in
When I look at the list of 18 skills and only see 4 (more for some classes obvi) bubbled in, it feels crappy to be told they don't count when you think they should. If a DM wants a harder check, describe a harder scenario and bump up the DC.
This is one of my only pet peeves about Matt's dming 😅
He uses ability checks for simple things WAY more often than I ever would be comfortable with. The chance of failure is so much worse with ability checks, regardless if a character Should be good at what they're doing or not.
I feel with a bit of a leap in logic the 5e skills can cover basically anything, with the most confusing caveat there being the swapping stats associated to skills. (Another example I use for that is if my wizard player tries to use a spell as a distraction such as minor illusion, I ask for a performance intelligence check for how convincing the illusion is). If something makes sense to not be trained for or covered by proficiency, it is by logic harder and so I'll raise the dc of the check, especially if it only applies to one player.
My table uses a flat abilty check for a specific scenario. A Charisma check when the PC is flirting and trying to get laid with a NPC. Asking for Persuasion feels strange, it gives us a feeling of violating consent to some degree (Deception or Intimidation would be worse lol). So we usually ask for a flat Charisma check to see how attractive, seductive or interesting the PC presents themselves in the eyes of the NPC. It works well for our table.
I'm blessed to not be able to relate to you saying, "It's always faster to roll a skill check than an ability check." I have one player who has a tendency to look at his saving throw bonuses instead, but everyone at my table actually knows what the things on their character sheet mean.
yeah this made no sense. it's the same thing, you're adding all the same modifiers. if your players are struggling to understand things like this they maybe should read the PHB some more lmfao
I rather ask for skills as well, but O understand the urge to do it otherwise. Recalling information, for exemple. How do you train that exactly? How being trained in athletics makes you better at breaking doors and locks? I do have a sweet spot for athletics tho, since it's the only skill for STR and it's very mean to not allow a player to apply his proficiency in that
You can train memory recall to some extent - mnemonists do this using various techniques.
@@FrostSpikeliterally the keen mind feat 😂
@@MrSeals1000 Not exactly Keen Mind. That feat offers a number of benefits that aren't really related to information recall - like being a human magnetic compass and timepiece. Recall is limited to a mere month too.
As a player, I personally prefer when my GMs ask me or other players in the party for a Skill Check as opposed to Ability Check for one main reason, aside from the other valid points Mike brought up - pretty much every time we've got an ability check call, the player rolling it falls. And I know that this just sounds like some eldritch combination of metagaming, power gaming and a 'player wanting everything'...and you know what? If it is, so be it. It feels awful to have all these proficiency bonuses and modifiers from spells and abilities at my finger tips, but have them all basically get turned off by the call being for an ability rather than a skill. It feels awful to watch my fellow player be knee deep in a sticky situation or a dramatic moment, and then have pretty much all of the energy get drained because they were asked to roll an ability score and realize, even without doing any math in my head, that the chances of them actually succeeding just effectively dropped to zero.
Pretty much the only time I call for a raw ability check (Intelligence) is when I know that a player's decision isn't taking into account information that their character may recall, but could also reasonably have forgotten. If there's zero chance the character would have forgotten, though, I'll usually just remind the player without a check.
I understand the argument for raw Strength checks, but Strength gets so little out-of-combat love that I feel like it's only fair to pair it with a skill.
Also! I adore coming up with non-standard combos of ability score and skill. Like making a Charisma (Stealth) check to subtley communicate with someone without drawing anyone else's attention; or making a Wisdom (History) check to glean the implications of some world event. I honestly think you could make a really cool video just going through fun non-standard pairings.
I used to apply the skills to everything, but it would end up making some skills have an outsized importance that would warp the character creation metagame. In reality though, looking at the skill descriptions, they have actual very specific descriptions on what they apply to. For example, Athletics is almost only running, climbing, and jumping. Basically, sports stuff. The rest goes into Strength.
i’ll only ever call for an ability check as a DM if i’m asking my whole table to pick a skill and roll. “Everyone pick an Intelligence skill and roll” will give you some Investigators, home History rolls, etc… it gives the players a choice of how they want to approach a group roll in-character
I'd really love to see more examples of non-standard skill checks. :) Clearly, people get creative with them!
I hate hate HATE flat ability checks.
Its a dumb pet peeve of mine.
I also love to ask for different modifier roles. The classic example is a (Strength) intimidation roll, bit my tables see a lot of milage out of (Intelligence) Persuasion and (Chrisma) Stealth. Its a fun way to mix things up and reward players for playing to their characters strength.
And intelligence persuasion check can be to bring up a point in his dream where something like this happened that has been passed down through the generations. A wisdom one might be the bring up a proverb or teaching of a church.
A charisma stealth can be bluffing your way past a checkpoint or walking through a place like you belong there. Sam Fisher makes (Dexterity) Stealth Checks, Agent 47 makes (Charisma) Stealth Checks.
If a character is going to roll a skill check for something that I think they'd very unlikely to have proficicency in, I just make them roll with disadvantage rather than added confusion in raw ability checks, it also means that if they were proficient in that skill anyway it makes them feel more satisfied to have picked that proficiency because their character building choices are covering for the situation they're in.
When traveling through a crowd secretly I've had my players roll Charisma (Stealth) checks instead of Dexterity. The idea being that they're trying to act so casual that no one notices them. It adds a little to the frustration of the +4 Dex, +1 Cha rogue who has to rethink his process.
I'm a player not a dm, but I prefer skill checks over flat ability checks most of the time, with the exceptions already written into the rules (initiative, counterspell, etc). Like you discuss in several of the CR videos, rewarding players for wanting to use the skills they've trained their character in just...feels good. It helps provide narrative context to the math of the roll, like how someone well-studied in Arcana maybe draws upon those specific studies to form conclusions about the mysterious magical glyph they've never encountered before. Linking the mechanics of the character sheet with the in-world justification for those mechanics helps with keeping me immersed in the world of the game.
My only hesitance in this regard is that it indirectly nerfs features like jack of all trades and that one champion ability, but given that those skills are ALWAYS relevant via initiative and counterspell/dispel magic, I think it's fine.
The only times I ask for straight Intelligence rolls is when
1) players are trying to remember something that happened during the game but long ago (in game time) enough for their characters could realistically forget
2) they are trying to do mental math
3) they get stuck on a puzzle or something similar and I want to give them a clue
just something interesting to note with dndbeyond. If you find it happening often that you swap out the abilty connected to a skill, you can customise the skill and change the stat override. My ranger/rouge uses wisdom for deception because if not one of the assasin features is useless
I only call for non skill rolls if a player is trying to do something that there isn't a way to place into a skill, which happens very rarely, maybe once in four or five sessions. But I more often call for a non-proficient skill roll to have proficiency or, more commonly, just with advantage if they are attempting something which either their character should be skilled in regardless of their proficiencies, or if they are attempting it in a certain way which should be more likely to succeed regardless of skill (for "free proficiency" or "with advantage" respectively.
This allows players to better feel their character background and journey since starting, or to directly know that their actions at the table have given them a better chance at success.
I also feel like asking for a skill in something they aren’t proficient in can be a way to highlight the difference between their strengths and weaknesses. Like hey, your Kenku Bard tried to pull the Goliath Barbarian up from the rope bridge by themselves, this isn’t what you are good at, you probably aren’t going to succeed. But it can also open up a dialogue for players to pivot to something they are good with. Like they are trying to open a locked door, but they suck with Slight of Hand, so they say they grab a thin rock from the ground, place it in the lock, and kick to break the lock open. That seems like you could count that as Athletics instead.
Some of the reason for players preferring to roll an ability check using a skill versus a flat ability check is because many players came into 5e from 3.0, 3.5., and Pathfinder where skills were much more separate from abilities.
I sometimes have intelligence rolls when a player is about to do something profoundly stupid
I saw this video around the time it was uploaded and what's funny to me is that a common issue I actually have is in the notion of Skill Checks. Mind you I play Pathfinder 2e these days where the notion of an Ability Check just does not exist. However, I actually often wish that, rules as written, it did.
Now to be clear, in my stint running D&D5e I never was a stickler to the notion of calling for an ability check and then seeing if the players would ask to roll for such and such skill.
However, I did see use in such a system just for the sake of being able to allow players to roll a check for something that might not necessarily have a skill we might feel accomodates the check in question. It's difficult for me to right now think of such an example just looking over the 5e list of an action a player might wish to do, but for which
The only example I can think of is lockpicking, and this was actually one of my first arguments I had with the GM in my first ever 5e game when I was getting back into the hobby. On the fly, a GM might rule that lockpicking might be stealth or slgeight of hand. A logical option to choose if you're pressed for time and do not wish to check the book.
Per the book though, with the Thieve's tools itself, it states such that "Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.". This ruling brings to mind thena scenario where I might call for an ability check, me and the player do not see a skill that would fit, but on thought we might both agree "Well, your guy is clearly proficient in what they are doing right now because (reason here)"
I know a large argument here in this video is that the call for an ability check over skills might slow down a game for any number of reasons (players not being use to it being probably a big one), but I don't fully think it would. There'd may be a period of re-adjustment, but I don't think it's something that would take along. You would just have to tell them to roll their ability modifier and if they have proficiency add the proficiency bonus that the players see under inspiriation and above their saving throw. Unless you're using a VTT in which case I hope you're all familiar with your tools.
To really cap this off, while I do think about this stuff a lot, and I have opinions on it more in favor of Ability Checks, I realize I don't think I come across the conundrum often enough. Even in PF2e where Ability Checks just outright aren't a thing, I don' think I have ever really had a situation where either a player wanted to do something and we couldn't fully pin an action to a skill check. Either my players are calling for actions where they would reasonably have a corresponding skill, or I generally am choosing to forgo a check altogether.
When it comes to a lot of these games anyways, they tend to be taught to players by other players, with the GM having the last say in the matter. Even when I was running 5e for the short while I did, I know I didn't call for an ability check at all, primarily because old habits die hard and a long time of 3.5e/PF1e has ingrained into memory Skill Checks.
Good food for thought. I do what feels right in the moment.
Ok, you want to push open the heavy door, give me a strength animal handling check
My warlock has most of the face skills: Deception, Insight, Intimidation, & Persuasion, but my DM will frequently call for Performance in negotiations. It's not that my character is playing music, acting, dancing, or the like. No, my character is trying to convince some NPC to take some course of action, and as I understand it, that's _exactly_ what Persuasion is for. If I had known Persuasion was going to be useless, I wouldn't have wasted a skill choice on it.
But I don't argue, as I'm not trying to disrupt the game, I just say I rolled a 1.
I honestly think the way mercer does it is unintentional - there have been times when he’ll do it one way and then in the same session describing the same situation ask for a skill check instead. Usually if I feel the impulse to make something an ability check instead of a skill check, I usually try to clarify the exact motivation of how the player wants to do their thing (and that can sometimes lead to using a skill check with an alternative ability mod) - or, maybe it should be a saving throw instead (in situations where they’re they’re coming up against resistance to something they’re not proficient in).
A DM once let me roll an athletics check instead of an animal handling check to try and guide our cart through a rock slide by jumping out of the driver's seat and helping the beasts pull
The confusion between checks and saving throws in CR drives me nuts everytime ^^
I prefer skills way more as it feels like they actually represent you as a character, whereas ability scores are a simplified abstract of that at best.
(Coming from Pathfinder 1e actually there's way more control over skills in that system which likely helps this attitude?)
seeing a lot of people here talk about using a flat ability check for personal memory, so i thought id share my typical approach to that as a GM. i like to get my players to roll a Wisdom (History) check to remember something they recently encountered, since WIS is the ability often used to determine how a player interprets the world around them and history can be interpreted as personal history, etc. i also once had a player roll a Charisma (Stealth) check to determine whether their conversation had been overheard.
honestly, the main reason i tend not to use ability checks anymore is because i have a tendancy to say 'roll a straight ___ check' to mean 'without skill proficiency' and i have one player who would, invariably, take that to mean 'just a d20 roll, no modifiers' even though i had specified the ability, no matter how many times i explained what i wanted from that. i am fully aware that this is nowhere near a universal experience, but thought id share my experience with that
I find myself always agreeing with you. Like, if it's not any problems and no extra work, then why not make it fun? It's so easy, but some are just too stuck in "doing things in the correct way", or what makes them feel smarter, or realism, or for whatever reason that makes them stuck in that mindset.
Trying to memorize a complex pattern or set of instructions or whatever? Just Int. Trying to endure pain or discomfort? Con check (as opposed to a save which would be for poison or a spell).
You could also argue that skills might not apply if a character has never been trained for the specific situation, although i would clarify this in session 0. Strength for rowing a boat as fast as possible when you've never seen one before. Wisdom to handle an animal that is completely alien to you. Charisma to try and buddy up with nobels from a different culture where you don't know the etiquette.
While I do prefer asking for skill checks, I will occasionally ask for a flat ability check if I feel like the player is really reaching when asking about the skill in question, or if the check would fall between two skills.
I'm for minimizing derived stats. Skills annoy me, because they're so linked. I'd prefer areas of expertise more broadly defined. Get rid of "stealth, sleight of hand, deception," give me "burglary."
Better yet, give me "guild burglary, unsupervised, flat percentage take." Wow, look at what all I can do with that. I could use it to negotiate service rates with Charisma. I could use it to find weak points in a floor plan with Intelligence. I could use it to open a safe with Dexterity, or maybe even to move a safe with Strength. And every time I use it, it reminds me and everyone else where I came from.
So there was something about this video I really really liked even though the advice was not as applicable to my game because the system I am using already uses Ability First language. But it took until I watched it a second time for me to be able to figure out what it was;
This video tells us that even people who love Mat Mercer's GM style might not want to do everything like him. It's easy to feel, especially as a new or learning DM, that expert GMs always do it right. and for the most part, if you do or want to do something different that must mean you are doing it wrong. For me, that was more a subconscious thing than anything and I feel like if I said out loud "ONLY MAT DOES IT RIGHT" I would realize that's ridiculous, but it took you, someone I know admires Matt like I do, saying "hey I disagree with him on this one" for me to really remember that I am allowed to disagree with him on some things too.
My mindset is effectively the same. The only time I am tempted to roll an ability, is when recalling specific memories around their adventures. The color of something, the hidden password for a puzzle or whatever. To me , history feels more like learned and reviews knowledge, and there's no skill for wit and memory.
I am most of the time using history anyway, because I rationalize it as "you own personal history". It also creates more occasions to use a skill so many characters get proficiency in, and has little actual game usage.
Intelligence is always a wonky one. Every so often, you run into some sort of knowledge that doesn't seem to make sense as an Arcana, History, or Religion check. And likewise, defaulting Nature to a Wisdom check is so weird to me because it's more often than not used as a knowledge skill with skills like Survival or Animal Handling covering the sorts of things that feel more Wisdom-based, but I guess giving Druids and Rangers access to a skill that doesn't default to their highest stat would be a feelbad (but then again, Sorcerers and Warlocks often grab Arcana...).
Most skills are meant to only apply to specific things, thus flat ability checks outside of those areas. For example athletics does not influence breaking down a door, that's strength possibly combined with intelligence or if the character is proficient with an appropriate tool kit and has it, they'd roll that. There's also instances where the lore on a specific deity is so obscure that unless you're from a culture that worships them, your religion skill proficiency bonus won't apply because you simply have not been educated about them
I prefer rolling skills over ability checks… I think it’s a hold over from 3rd edition where you bought a selection of skills and ones you weren’t proficient in just cost 2 for every point instead of one for one. It was also something the DM could give you points in to acknowledge your background before mechanical backgrounds were a thing. Or if you trained went through an ordeal a relevant point reflected your progress or growth.
The example of bashing down a door, I just don't think is athletics in any way at all. When I think athletics I thinks running, jumping, climbing, swimming, and other stuff like that. Just bashing a door off it's hinges seems like a feat of strength but not athletics
That’s often the argument I hear, I just don’t really understand it lol
I think it's because for many people Athletics is about moving and controlling the weight and inertia of your own body. So everything that's about moving or impacting objects wouldn't be Athletics, but pure strength.@@SupergeekMike
@@JakobDrawitsch I feel like if that were the case though, breaking things would be a separate skill for Strength (Demolition maybe?) since that's basically the only other application for that ability. This whole issue exacerbated for Strength especially because it's an ability with only one skill.
@SupergeekMike I view it like how slight of hand isn't used for lock picking checks. It's just not in the scope of athletics as I understand the skill. 5e just isn't kind enough to include any alternative option. (Because it doesn't really like strength as an ability)
Instead of removing a players proficiency for a check they wouldn’t be skilled at, I’d rather just give a higher DC.
Same goes with doing something like using strength for intimidation. Instead I’ll compare the strength of the player against the NPC, and if the difference is +2 or more, they’ll either have advantage or a lower DC. It’s simpler for the players and doesn’t make much of a difference at the end of the day
I do this a lot, but in a different game. In "the dark eye" the mechanics vary between ability rolls and skill rolls. Ability rolls are more random then skill checks and so i let them be rolled when something is not usually trained for, like ripping of a padlock with your bare hands or remembering a fact from a previous session that is not part of any particular field of knowledge. In D&D similarly the chances are lower or equal to a skill roll of the same ability, so if this is someting you want to model i would do it as well. But your point that D&D is a power fantasy is valid. In the dark eye the heroes at least start way more grounded and stay that way for longer.
DSA is a different beast than DnD. Just look at the list of skills.
Athletics is all about movement in its description. It has nothing to do with breaking things, lifting things, or pushing things. It's about jumping, swimming, and climbing.
Having a skill for raw strength really doesn't make an ounce of sense, so... There isn't one.
Interesting point, that makes sense. I don’t personally agree, since I think there are some athletes (like American Football players or Olympians) who perform feats of strength that might be reminiscent of other tasks. Like, breaking down a door isn’t necessarily that different from a football tackle ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But I also think it’s reasonable for athletic proficiency to help justify feats of strength. For example, firefighters are trained to break down doors and carry people, so while I don’t know if they’re “athletes” I’d feel comfortable allowing them to use their proficiency.
But as you said, I don’t know what you’d title a skill that covers that stuff, so I can see why GMs draw the line where they do.
I prefer skills less for the efficiency and more for the other reason you said: honoring the skill that the players have learned to be good at
I personally think that, especially if you're going to have a player perform a difficult task they should have the option that's the best chance of them accomplishing that task (this does not mean they automatically succeed, or even that they're guaranteed to succeed, just relative to the other options they have the best chance of accomplishing it), if I'm playing a barb, I want to be able to use athletics for strength related stuff like prying open a trap.
RAW Athletics is mainly for jumping, swimming and climbing but because strength as a stat is so underutilized relative to other stats (I don't generally have tables that track encumbrance, so strength usually only matters to the strength based martials) that I let Athletics have a wider scope than it may in the rulebook.
Many people I've met don't know about the whole "skills with different attributes" which is always funny to me (I usually make jokes about how dnd players don't read) because it usually allows people to better use skills they might not be proficient in. I actually was talking to a friend about the Primeval Druid UA should have given you the ability to use wisdom for history + have proficiency in it. I think that being more flexible with whatever ability store you can use for a skill makes people less likely to have to use the same handful of skills because of how good their numbers are, and makes them more willing to think outside the box so they can justify using a different modifier.
thanks for reading my essay lol.
What do you do if the check they need falls on more than one skill check? Like, say both skills are intelligence checks but they need both arcana and history checks at once? Do you do one, both, or a flat check in this scenario?
Could you do skull saving throws?
I don’t think that would make as much sense to do, those are very much separate mechanics in 5e.
rolling skill checks instead of flat ability checks looks fine at first, till you get the rogue with reliable talent, who adds their proficiency to just about everything important in the adventure, because they are a half elf with the skilled feat who spent 10 weeks learning a 12th out of 18 skills, then spent a feat on prodigy for a 13th skill and a 5th expertise, so they can never fail any important skill or tool that isn't knowledge or animal handling. and has perception, insight, investigation, persuasion and deception as their expertises aka the 5 expertises every rogue wants.
That’s honestly fine with me. If they play a character with a lot of skill bonuses, then I want to call for skill rolls so they get a chance to do the cool thing they made their character to do.
I think asking for an ability check over a skill check can be alright as there are a lot of things that don't really fit into any particular skill. Though like you I can not think of how to differentiate between pure strength vs athletics. I can't really think of how that works, but I also can't really think of why athletics and acrobatics are different skills when skills aren't actually linked to a particular ability. Like isn't acrobatics just athletics for dexterity?
Here is the problem with pedantic use of RAW. Virtually every feat of strength can be improved by applying skill. Breaking doors requires the application of power, sure. But if you know where the lock is and how to apply leverage correctly, you will improve your chances. Breaking out of handcuffs, same thing. You can be Conan, or be Houdini. Lifting a weight is much easier if you apply technique. For example grappling. A judo master will out grapple a meathead gym jockey every day. This is why Athletics is used for grapple checks. My point is that there really are virtually no situations where raw strength cannot be improved by skill and technique. So there are very few instances where Athletics ( skilled use of power) would not apply
Straight ability checks are more difficult to succeed in on average, in relation to other checks. But usually that's not the intention, so now I have to adjust the DC to make up for that and go against my brain that tells me 10=medium, 15=hard etc. Not a big fan, personally I just use the type of skill check that's closest.
5e has a pretty well designed list of skills, so usually you can find an obvious skill to apply. One area of the rules that hints at more nuance though is the section on tools. When using one, you always use the ability, except when you have proficiency in the specific tool. I've seen people calling for Sleight of Hand to do lockpicking, but if that's how it would work then there would be no reason to ever get proficiency with thieves' tools.
But note that the official rules also list gaming sets, and they explicitly state that each type of gaming set requires a separate proficiency. That means that rules as written, you can't cheat at cards using Sleight of Hand. Surprise!
I think the idea is that tools are supposed to be more specialised, and therefore require specific proficiencies. Perhaps people who play cards would catch a cheater unless they've practiced cheating specifically with a deck of playing cards.
Although I don't think it would come up often, it makes sense to me that if you ever encounter a tool not covered by the rules, it works the same way. Players won't have proficiency with a pottery kit unless they've obtained it, and you can create opportunities for them to obtain that specific proficiency, for example during downtime. I think you can do the same with skills, just invent new ones when relevant. Imagine engineering, etiquette, military strategy, etc. (I think some MCDM products introduce skills like diplomacy, harvesting and cooking)
For tool proficiencies, I can imagine some good reasons to want to rule that you can use skills anyway. In that case, you might want to consider ditching tool proficiencies altogether 🙌
I prefer using skill checks but sometimes something doesnt exactly fit.
The only think I will ask for a a straight ability check on is whether or not a character knows something from experience. I don't know if your detective character has encountered this particular gang before. I'm not sure if your noble background wizard has heard the current aristocratic gossip relating to this quest.... make a check. Problem is there's no skill that cover this (History should be about historical events/folklore/etc and I will die on this hill), and it's something that comes fairly often. I genuinely can't think of a way to do this other than just an ability check. That said, I always do it in a way gives a player a bonus, never taking away a proficiency. The point is to make the player feel like their character's unique backstory/game experience has given them a benefit in succeeding and learning more information. Often I'll tell them they're "proficient" in this kind of knowledge and have them add that as a bonus.
It can slow things down a tad... maybe 15 seconds, about as long as it takes me to say "Roll a d20 and add your Int/Wis modifier". I think it's worth it though because it better represents what we're rolling for, it can specifically highlight characters, and can give a prompt for players to improvise or develop things about their characters. Plus, I think there's something to be said for doing "weird" rolls every now and then. Maybe it's just my table, but that always seems to get everyone to perk up a bit and break them out of their muscle memory.
Something ive noticed some DMs do is asking for a flat D20 istesd os skill or sbility checks and im not a fan.
Flat dice should only be use for something thats luck based, like gambling.
You should use skill and sbility checks because that's honoring the player's decisions.
3:50- that was either a puppy reaction, or you rolled a d20 for something... maybe rolling a performance check for the rest of the video?
Or… was it a puppy rolling a d20?
The language of skill checks does seem to get confusing for players, especially ones used to previous editions or other games. But I always liked dnd 5e for choosing to change it to ability checks and if you happen to have training in an area you can apply it to the check. SO I do personally attempt to use the language of DnD but I slip into old habits from 3e and 4e a lot.
Sorry this got long.... partial rebuttal partial agreement in what you said
Though a small counter argument for the whole athletics covering anything strength based, and of course it could be easily justified with a broader understanding of athletics, as we consider a lot of people from gymnast, to mountain climbers to body builders as athletes(technically even acrobatics can sometimes start to get conflated and smooshed into the realm of DnD athletics due to our own understanding of the term) but these people all use their bodies strength in different ways to accomplish different goals, honing different skills but we all see it in our world as athletics. This I think is one of the reasons, along with DnD creators trying to find a way to describe while combining 3 extremely related skills from previous editions (though I think this condensing of the skills into broader groups started in 4e, and these 3 skills were separated in 3e.) But I think this is the context you have to look at it in terms of the new edition of DnD. Not through our real world linguistic understanding of what it means to be athletic. Also considering the athlete feat itself is focused on athletics feats of climbing, jumping and such and does not include language to indicate that it includes bonuses to lifting and breaking. All the bonuses of the athlete feat are about using your athletics/strength to move in the world even better then someone just trained in the skill. (sure champions remarkable athlete sorta break this pattern, but part of me just thinks who ever was working on the class couldn't think of a better descriptive name and leaned more on overall understanding of athletics feats to include many physical activities. I am not even sure what a better name for the skill group that includes climbing, swimming, and jumping would be)
So with this in mind from a DnD perspective the core function of athletics is to allow the application of your strength in feats that relate to climbing, jumping, swimming . These are more sustained feat, but also feats of mobility and getting the body as a whole to move through the world. While lifting, breaking and such is more about bust of strength and power, though pushing and pulling could be here too even if that does start to muddy the waters. Though the thing is lifting, pushing and pulling is already seen as being covered by strength alone in the fact that only strength affect your encumbrance and stuff. Either way when I think about it the strength applied and used by a swimmer, climber, long jumper is different then the strength used by power lifters, there may be overlapping muscle groups and such but their application of might is to accomplish different goals, so I see no issue in this context of going with lifting and break being a raw ability check instead of one with proficiency added due to athletics. Plus I find it super common for fighter to take athletics as a skill, but if athletics is broaden to include lifting and breaking door down, then that kind of steps on the toes of the champion ability to allow partial proficiency on all ability checks not already including their proficiency bonus. The Champion is a mighty warrior, who can more easily break down doors or lift things compared to other skilled heroes and of course more since also gives them partial prof in dex abiltiy check like initiative and more.
Though I do also like to allow my players to be cool and have advantages, so I would consider adding another skill to the list though powerlifting
does not seem like the right name since it would be used for burst of power and might to lift, push and pull as well as break doors down/open and such. Maybe simply calling it power could work, both athletics and power would be sufficiently broad and abstract to fit into the world and both have clear cut lines on how they are used plus would allow people to make characters who are more focused on the raw power of their muscles, as not everyone who is a powerlifter would or even should be equally good at other applications of strength that are covered by the athletics skill. plus some ability score (cough cough constitution) lack core skills.
Though if you don't draw the line somewhere you could just end up back in 3e with like 30+ skills, each covering a very specific thing, so making the choice of where to abstract things, combine skills into one type and so on can be a personal choice and what feels right. So for me having separate skills for athletics related to climbing, swimming, jumping and those related to power lifting and other feats of strength seems like a nice middle ground between raw and what feels like over application of a particular skill outside its realm of use giving it too much power in the world.
You could of course just in secret increase dc by proficiency amount or some other amount(so if dc would be 10 in base game make it 12 or for level 1 players), the math will be same but as long as you don't tell players they will feel like they applied their skill to it. Though this Idea sounds and feels wrong to me, too much like lying, so Id rather be upfront or make a new skill that allows players to see the difference between things easier and give them the choice of potentially gaining skill and also knowing why they cant just use athletics for that kind of action. Plus when comes to things base dnd decides not to cover there is no real issue adding new skill imo, but most of my new skills tend to be knowledge skills or just new tools (cant forget about tools, some skills became proficiency in tools rather then skills in of themselves)
Knowledge based skills I find are typically a bit easier though I do try to be upfront in how I modify difficulty sure I can understand potential of not using knowledge history for far off land but someone skilled in history I always see as potentially having picked up a book and learned some things maybe basic maybe slightly misinformed, so I would think about how hard it is to know in a regional sense (don't forget unless you have a world that has ease of access to information like we do with internet this historical knowledge can get limited, well any knowledge really) and then modify but how out there it is for you to know, so neighboring regions/countries could be +5 difficulty and neighboring continents could be +10 difficulty while across the world could be +15 or more, or even across planes could be +20 or more. Until players put time or have real reasons to know things outside their regions they may be unlikely to have ever come across anything. Though these penalties I give, do make it more appealing to do a raw intelligence check vs base DC (cant speak for mercer but this may be one way he thinks about it).
***Side Note Slightly related but a bit of a tangent****
Plus as a gm who sometimes plays I can understand the tendency to want to get every bonus and perk and how we can easily justify our internal explanations. Its so easy to to do that and then if the GM denies you that, though you felt you had sound logic it can feel bad, unfair or any other number of things. This especially gets amplified if you fail (or at least seems to from my experience and observations), but I partially think that's because (in particular my) players have been having a hard time to rewire their ideas of fail (this too could be a language thing, just like miss in dnd attack rolls does not always mean you missed but rather you did not inflict harm; actually even a hit does not always mean blood is drawn depends of the character, monster and how you want to narrate it). As I got older and more experienced, I see the rules less and less like rules for a tatical wargame (and this could be also with how dnd has changed, though Dnd still puts far too much emphasis on combat and values combat abilities far more then utility, roleplaying and exploration, so balance get wonky to me; ranger is so strong just not the strongest combatant) to more and more a tool to help with a collaborative narrative. But sometimes the gamer win/lose mindset kicks in and clouds our judgement and enchances our fear of losing. this gamer mindset I think is also a reason people focus a lot on the combat power of classes to determine balance, since combat win lose state is so much easier to see and understand, plus connects to our experience with various board and video games easier then role playing and exploring.
Players invest time in choosing skills so they want to use them. It easier to say one or the are going to atgue to use one anyway
I use Constitution (perception) checks for players to see if their character has a disease and how bad it is.
Interesting! Why perception, out of curiosity?
@@SupergeekMike because the ability to observe your surroundings can often be used on yourself as well. Plus it makes it stand out more when I ask for a constitution roll that isn't a saving throw.
Well, I have mostly played Rolemaster; a strictly skill-based game, so...
Meh, sometimes a niche situation doesn't quite fit a particular skill. In cases like that, the DM just needs to make a call. It's fine.
Nothing clever to say just here for the algorithm
Honestly, skill checks is a large part of why I stopped playing D&D, and prefer systems like Storyteller/Storypath, where you have abilities and skills and can pair them up any which way (Computer+Stamina for a marathon hacking session, for example). Though I do understand that not everyone likes dice pool systems.
I disagree, but hey, who cares. I always ask for an ability check based on the action, and then add possible skills that fit the approach.
hard disagree, rolling for an ability score is a holdover from older editions having *more skills*. 5e's vast oversimplification of all the things a person can be good at is fine, but it's not ideal. I do this all the time in my games when players make requests that are "between" skills, or fall under no skill. Based on whether their character would be trained in what they're trying to do, they add proficiency or not.
It's far easier to assign an ability score rather than a skill to these more ambiguous actions! Decide proficiency on a case-by-case basis.
I always use a skill, sometimes with a nonstandard ability. I want to see less use of acrobatics instead of athletics for climbing.