Skills in D&D 5e: How to make them all useful (players and DM's)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- If you like what I do and would consider supporting this channel through Patreon:
/ treantmonkstemple
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:48 Letting players switch the check
4:44 Athletics
6:25 Acrobatics
8:09 Sleight of Hand
10:38 Stealth
12:05 Arcana
14:52 History
16:32 Investigation
18:42 Nature
21:02 Religion
22:53 Animal Handling
25:28 Insight
26:56 Medicine
28:59 Perception
30:42 Survival
32:29 Deception
33:28 Intimidation
35:45 Performance
37:51 Persuasion 
Игры
The skill that will keep your character healthy and powerful is the skill of bringing good snacks that the DM likes.
good advice.
Hey! That's metagaming!
@@Notsogoodguitarguy is it really meta gaming? *offers Doritos*
@@Notsogoodguitarguy
Sounds like you should change your name to NotSoGoodSnackBringerGuy
😉
What if your DM operates from a boardgame pub where you can't bring in outside food?
Hey Chris, just wanted to say thanks for how accessible you make your visit to audio-only listeners. I often listen to your videos while walking my dog or during quiet moments at work. Cheers
Thank you!
Who else wants the "TreantMonk Podcast"?
I only listen to RUclips, so I love channels that explain verbally even if using visuals, it's top notch and most helpful 😊
@@TreantmonksTemple +1 to this! It's really great. I do *also* love your editing and visuals, but it's great that both are possible. These are such valuable resources that I will often review them. So I might listen to them while walking or doing chores, or sit down on the computer or living room to watch them with the video. I really love that you always get a snip of the actual rules texts, and all the math you do. The flavour pictures are also great: for example, that tabletop scene where the one player is silently glad they took both skills really does bring life to the topic.
Yeah I listen at work or while playing a game and get inspired to try things at my table that I didn't think to use.
Having persuasion proficiency on real life let you use the skills on even more situation. Bringing snacks let you roll with advantage.
When you talked about Persuasion and intimidation in the interrogating situation, I thought about the classic good cop/bad cop distinction. But I realized it's often the "good cop" that does the intimidating part: " Hey listen, I'm not sure I can keep him from getting really creative with your bodyparts, so maybe you should tell me.."
This would, of course, be an assited intimidation check..
My fix for insight is to rarely give a straight "they were lying" unless they blew way past the DC. Instead, insight let's them notice something about thier behavior or emotional state, like "they look nervous, but it isn't obvious why." Or "you notice the way they pause during phrases, like they're trying to remember specific wordings." Or "they're clearly too afraid of you to be thinking about much else." "They're trying to play cool, but they're clearly enjoying this interaction" etc.
Regarding moving through an enemy creatures space, mentioned in the Acrobatics portion of the video. There are already optional rules for that;
Tumble
DMG p272
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.
I have been doing a lot of research on the difference between Perception and Investigation, and I believe the best way the difference was illustrated to me was this example:
"Like if there is a secret door in a room I use to just tell the character with a high passive perception that there was a secret door. Now I tell them they see the dust on the dungeon floor is wiped away in one corner. They actually have to go investigate what could have caused it to find out if there’s a secret door in the wall, or a trap, or a path the stone statue clears when it gets up and walks around every night."
This makes sense to me, because deducing what you are seeing is what intelligence rolls are for, while wisdom rolls are for noticing something in the first place.
Not to mention that secret doors are meant to be secret. If one can tell that a secret door is there just by seeing it, it's not a very great secret.
That's superb! Perception to get "extra clues" i.e. the character notices something different, Investigation to actually find out what or why it is like that.
In regards to the acrobatics skill, check the combat options in the DMG. There's a rule for tumbling, an acrobatics vs acrobatics to walk through an enemy. There's also one for athletics.
The Tumbling/Overrun rules are fantastic additions that should've been in the core rules and I use them in my games, even suggest them to the players if it seems to be that's what they want to do, and try to remind them frequently it is an option. They are fantastic rules and fit well with the Action Economy (The Action vs Bonus Action is a such a great component as well). I really think these rules should be in the core rules. I really hope they make it in PHB24.
@@zedgathegreat9122 It also doesn't step on the toes of the other. Having Acro + Ath makes you able to be way more versitile, and being good at acro means you're amazing at evading ogres, but other roguish types, not so much, thats where the strength characters have an advantage (colloquialy, not mechanical advantage).
For other checks, a good philosophy might be to that you can do it with 2 or 3 different skills, but the enemy contests it with a similar skill. If you make it mechanically defined (in the case of overrun vs tumble) then it becomes better designed as its less arbitary (DM fiat). For social checks, "if you lay down your arms, you have lost" is easily a persuasion check as much as an intimidation one, so its difficult to mechanically justify why it would be only intimidation rather than DM fiat (which could change depending on the time of day and day of week and week of year from DM to DM). I think you could do persuasion vs investigation, and intimidation vs intimidation (because they're both social skills, and insight is already contesting deception). Doing like that means you have 3 social skills, and 3 different "defences" to contest them, allowing for strategy rather than pressing the button that's the highest or feeling fucked out of your best skill arbitarily, without making one stat the best. Of course there's already social rules based on how hostile the creature is, so you could use the difference as the DC result, but that might overcomplecate it.
yeah the exact rule is in fact :
Tumble
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.
so RaW it's Action or Bonus action cost (which I like a lot too), which make it really easy to justify when a player ask
Yeah. It's really useful, and as a potential Action OR Bonus Action it lets you do other stuff too.
Yeah I like to hand optional rules like this out as character perks.
7:58 yo, that's the Tumble action. It's in the DMG, and can be attempted as either an action or bonus action
My homebrewed solution to Rangers and Druids not having high boosts to Nature checks was to just switch Nature and Medicine.
Made more sense (to me and my group, at least) that the Medicine skill would be relying on knowledge obtained through academic study, and Nature was something where knowledge could be gained through first-hand experienced as opposed to just being learned about through books/classrooms/etc.
We've actively tried to include more skills in our games to make them relevant. It was nice hearing ways Animal Handling, Sleight of Hand, and some of the other rarely used skills could be relevant. We actually use Medicine, not Investigation, for any injury/death related checks too.
Regarding Persuasion & Intimidation, I usually set different difficulties for each when convincing certain NPCs. It may make more sense for an individual to be more easily swayed by one over the other.
What i found out about skills in dnd, is that actually the best way to optimize them is just to pick the ones that your character would truly be more proficient with, and doing so will surprisingly help you roleplay even better, because you will search more situations that fits your character well having the confidence that your skills will truly cover your back!
This is the best advice i can give to anyone about skill proficiencies.
I think there are two actions that should default to performance: create a diversion or blend in with a crowd.
I see creating a diversion as Deception, and blending in with a crowd is Stealth. To me it's only performance if you _want_ to be noticed doing it. A diversion wants to be noticed, but not as a performance. It's far better if onlookers _don't_ know the people staging the distraction are actors.
However, if someone wanted to put on a performance, I'd do a Performance check, sure. The better they do on that, the more crowd they'll draw, which means they'll be much more likely to be a successful distraction -- so a good Performance check might win them Advantage on the Deception check, but they still have to make the Deception check.
I think a performance check for "social" camouflage is a great idea.
i mean blend in a crowd is litteraly in the description on stealth checks idk
@@arun6762 true, but I think it depends on intent. Are you using the crowd as physical cover to hide behind? Stealth check. Are you blending into a crowd to move past some guards that would normally be suspicious of you? Performance. It's less about physical concealment and more about acting in a way that throws someone off.
@@arun6762 stealth or charisma stealth would be valid rules or rulings. Perform just needs a few clear use cases and I think this is a good fit.
A nice flow I've found for insight when someone asks if they want to make a check is to ask something along the lines of "What specifically are you trying to determine with this check?" and your answers rather than being "they might be lying" can be more along the lines of "You noticed that the tone of their voice changed when you asked them or mentioned X thing." which can lead to further conversation that helps the character understand whether they're being mislead or held out on more naturally.
I love playing as rogue scout. My favorite build for it has 12 strength and expertise in Athletics for climbing trees, chasing fast animals and dragging large animal carcasses for long distances. The "non spellcasting ranger" if you will XD
Your explanation for sleight of hand was superb. I have always struggled to find great uses for the skill beyond lockpicking, pickpocketing and tying knots (as is RAW), so using Penn and Teller's examples was very insightful.
Shouldn't lockpicking be Thieves' Tools rather than Sleight of Hand?
@@jgostling True, but there are cases where you could apply a tool proficiency and a conventional skill proficiency at once, such as Thieves tools and SoH for lock picking.
In Xanathar's Guide to Everything: TOOLS AND SKILLS TOGETHER
Tools have more specific applications than skills. The History skill applies to any event in the past. A tool such as a forgery kit is used to make fake objects and little else. Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?
To make tool proficiencies more attractive choices for the characters, you can use the methods outlined below.
Advantage. If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success.
Added Benefit. In addition, consider giving characters who have both a relevant skill and a relevant tool proficiency an added benefit on a successful check. This benefit might be in the form of more detailed information or could simulate the effect of a different sort of successful check. For example, a character proficient with mason's tools makes a successful Wisdom (Perception) check to find a secret door in a stone wall. Not only does the character notice the door's presence, but you decide that the tool proficiency entitles the character to an automatic success on an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how to open the door.
@@jgostling Sleight of Hand is just the Thievery skill from older D&D. Being proficient in Sleight of Hands is basically all of the highly intricate and precise hand and finger based movement things that humans do that isn't some kind of crafting a la sewing. That being said, there's a weird collision with Sleight of Hand as Thievery, because it questions what the tools are for.
1. Is the ITEM required to attempt checks? Does not having it impose disadvantage, or does having the item give advantage (think: crowbars give advantage where you apply leverage)?
2. Is the PROFICIENCY required to attempt checks (untrained in lockpicking means no lockpicking)? What if you're proficient in both skills, do you get advantage?
Personally, I'm fond of the idea that being proficient in EITHER skill allows you to pick locks, and having both gives you advantage, whilst not having the tool imposes disadvantage. It's mostly the 5e design, with a nod to the days of Thievery. It means a Rogue, Artificer, or any background (or other source) of having Thieves Tools can offload like 70% of the reason you want to use Sleight of Hand for another meaningful skill choice, without also punishing you for having both proficiencies (because it's free advantage).
@@AnaseSkyrider RAW, "Pick a lock" and "Disable a trap" fall under "Other Dexterity Checks", and are not covered under "Sleight of Hand" (PHB, p. 177). On the other hand, proficiency with thieves' tools allows you to "add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks" (PHB, p. 154).
So to answer your questions, 1. You don't need the item, but having it improves your chances of success if you are proficient with it. If you try to pick a lock or disarm a trap without tools you go at it with a plain Dex check without proficiency boinus. 2. Proficiency is not required, but it will limit how high of a DC you have any chance of success considering that in skill checks Nat 20 is not an automatic success. Double proficiency in sleight of hands and thieves' tools gives you nothing for locks and traps because the skill doesn't apply to those actions.
I understand your reasoning behind allowing both skills, but it is worth noting that it is not RAW.
@@AnaseSkyrider Use proficiency in Thieves' Tools to pick the lock. Use Sleight of Hand on top to do it unnoticed. Each skill has its place and purpose.
The way I usually distinguish between Perception and Investigation has to do with specificity:
- If you know roughly what you're looking for, i.e. how it looks or what signs it would leave, I call for Perception. It is not about figuring out anything, but about spotting something you already know about.
- If you don't know exactly what you're looking for, I ask the player to specify where they're searching (the time taken will depend on how large an area it is) and call for Investigation. Here it is about figuring out what is relevant to consider. It might be in tandem with spotting it, but it also might involve something that is openly visible but just not obviously relevant.
The way I've always looked at it, Perception is for your eyes, Investigation is for your whole body. If you are looking around the room, that's Perception. If you are crouching down, looking under beds, on top of shelves, moving things around, that's Investigation.
@@dwil0311 Its not about your position. Perception finds information, Investigation uses information - whether known or theorectical.
Perception is the ability to filter through noise to find useful information - whether that noise is visual, audiable, smelliable (definitely a word), or otherwise. A green frog sitting in a patch of green grass may be technically visible, but blends into the noise of the green around it - Perception can help here. A cricket chirping next to a loud waterfall might be drowned out by the sound - Perception can help here. A concocation of different smells might disguise a poison in the soup - Perception can help here. Technically, even seeing a clown jumping around on a clear day 40ft ahead of you on a broad road with no traffic, i.e., no effective visual noise to disguise the clown, uses Perception - its just an automatic success because the DC is effectively impossible to fail.
Investigation is the ability to put information you have together to form a greater whole. This may involve acting on things you are aware may exist but have not perceived (i.e., theorectical) to do a job that would otherwise be more dangerous without doing so - checking a chest for booby traps for example requires putting your knowledge of various booby trap designs and the physicality of the chest to careful figure out if it is trapped without being able to see the traps and without setting them off. Likewise, a murder scene may have a number of clues that have been identified already (perhaps via Perception prior!) - using Investigation your character is able to piece together what happened.
Thank you for making these videos, so important! The big takeaway imo: "The player describes what they want to do (the more detail the better), and the GM decides what check to call for, and then let the narrative play out." Do this fairly and create a great story with successes and failures - embrace the failures in the narrative as much as the successes! This makes a great game and communal storytelling experience
I think the trap people fall into for Investigation is just looking for things or details, but in my opinion the most useful part is the ability to piece clues together to learn something.
I will frequently call for an Investigation check if I want to see if my players notice that an npc is wearing clothing of a different nation or there’s an indent on their hip which might indicate they were carrying a sword earlier etc.
Also solving puzzles that have lots of clues and deduction I might call for Investigation because I think straight ability score checks are weak. A wizard with a +5 Int will regularly do worse than someone with a +0 even though the difference between a 10 and a 20 Int should be like the average human vs the smartest human alive. Allowing it to be an investigation check also allows people to invest in that skill and feel good at something. You don’t have to be the smartest around to be trained in looking for clues or solving riddles (though it does help).
I feel like a lot of characters end up with various artisans tools proficiencies that never end up being relevant to their game. Maybe another video idea in a vein similar to this one would be to go over some of the rules added in either tashas or xgte (i cant remember which) that, if i am remembering correctly, allow you to add your prof bonus to skill checks you aren't normally proficient in?
Yeah, second this!!
Agreed. I had cooking utensils proficiencies for an entire campaign and never used it
@@anthonydaquet7934 Exactly! And cook's utensil's even have a neat feature in there where you can make snacks during a short rest to give up to 5 creatures an extra 1 HP per hit die that they use. Its not at the level of the Chef feat, but it's a neat way to make use of what some people might consider a throwaway feature of their character.
As DM, I always try to make the players like to use their tools. Usually we create books or manuals that inspire into what they can do, such as The Alchemical Guide to Potions or The Cookbook of magical snacks. ...
eventhough i think that i am a DM who tries real hard to use most (if not all) of the skills and does so quite well i still took a lot out of this video. i just admire your take on so many levels of this game. chapeau! :)
ps: i really like to use skills with different abilities, for example the rules for tying a know from xgte ( int [sleight of hand]), but i am also calling for charisma (investigation) checks when my players are walking through the city and gather information from the townsfolk
My DM sometimes struggles with my Rogue's frankly broken passives, as he doesn't always know when to apply them, especially investigation.... I think this will help him figure out those other circumstances where my character can naturally solve what he sees, without needing to roll, and when an active call is needed (passive Perception 27, Investigation 26, Insight 22)
Oh no, how terrible. You play a class designed to counter secrets and traps and then you read the rules to find ways to boost those skills. How terrible.... (sarcasm)
I don't get DM issues with this. They could have dumped that ASI or feat into kicking your monsters asses more but instead, they went with thoughtful utility. Once again, is this not a thinking man's game? Is this Dungeons and traps or is this Dungeons and Dragons? No one cares about getting past a trap, it's the monsters and story that are the real show.
Players get past your traps? Aaawww shucks! Add a few more enemies at the end. Maybe all the time the adventurers took to be careful allowed the BBEG to get reinforcements. That way you can still offer a good challenge and reward players for smart play/builds.
Performance: Helps revive experiences and make people engaged in it
Insight and "I rolled well, I can trust this": This is why I wouldn't have the player roll, I'd ask "what's your Insight bonus?", make the roll myself, and deliver the result. It's critical that they _NOT KNOW_ how they rolled. That's how I get around that bit of meta-gaming. The player can ask me "would it be worth using Bardic Inspiration?" or something like that so that they're not wasting it on a roll they can't see -- but if the answer is YES then they have to do it, so they can't use the question alone to extract information.
I also do this with Perception checks (roll dice silently, without explanation) when I don't want to reveal the meta-information that there was anything to check for -- otherwise it can lead to "we keep checking this piece of corridor until we find the secret, since you stopped us to check". Passive perception only comes into play for things the characters aren't _trying_ to observe.
A follow-up video about Tool Proficiency would be great. These are often ignored by many players.
I really like the idea of using medicine checks for players to estimate how much hp a monster has. I'm definitely stealing that for my game. I've also found that as a DM you can make Survival way more important by tying Survival to random encounters. The way I run it is the party makes a group survival check for each day of travel, if they fail, they roll a random encounter.
Thanks for all of these great tips. FYI, Tumble is one of the Action Options given on p. 272 of the DMG and basically works the way you suggested for moving through a hostile creature’s square.
I found this video so useful that I know I'm going to be watching it repeatedly, and it convinced me to be a patreon member 😄
Thanks so much!
It makes me happy to hear someone give slide of hand, the shine it deserves. I played a longstride shifter monk, who had a background as an urchin, with expertise in sleight of hand; His backstory was a farmer’s son who joined a performing troupe, where he was trained by a street magician, and learned drunken fist martial arts from an acrobat. His favorite game in any town or tavern was called “find your coin, keep your coin”, where he would ask for a silver or gold piece and hide it under one of 3 small cups and have The NPC/players try to guess the right one. If they guessed wrong, he got to keep the money. He would also play a lot of Pen and Teller-like pranks on guards, townsfolk and especially enemies, in addition to being able to steal from almost anyone who he felt deserved it; friends, allies, and family always excluded 😅
I really like your additions to the performance check, especially anything involving a crowd makes a lot of sense to relate to performance since it hinges on your ability to grab the attention of and influence an audience.
I had the idea of allowing the use of a Healer’s Kit and a medicine check to let players shorten short rests. A good check means making a short rest a minimum of 5 minutes per player spending hit dice. I remember everyone saying the BG3 short rest system was a great idea, so I feel like this is a nice halfway point
Making this video required content for all my players.
Regarding Insight and lie detecting--my DM started making Insight checks our characters do secret rolls. When we call for one, he will roll both the insight and deception checks behind his screen, ask us what our modifier is, and then give us an answer.
It *is* a little bit slower, but everyone at the table admits they like the tension and it limits some meta-gaming.
In regards to swapping skills I think it comes from a misunderstanding or simplification of a optional rule in the PHB where a physically strong character can intimidate a foe but instead of using their charisma score they use their strength score. While one could argue that jumping is a feat of strength therefore Strength (athletics) one could argue by using several smaller platforms to skillfully jump up would use Dexterity so it becomes a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead.
It's also because if the DM won't allow switching the ability score for certain skills, like you say, it can be tough to make certain concepts work. Like when we think of the archetypical rogue vs the archetypical fighter, it seems like the rogue should be quite adept at climbing and jumping around - but if the DM insists on keeping STR for athletics, they're suddenly not going to be very good at that with the limited number of ability points we have. So people end up shorthanding to asking for a change in skill to something that might feel thematic for their character because they don't know or think that the DM will allow for switching ability score (and for online games it can sometimes be a pain to do that in the first place)
Yeah, but that rogue you want to be a climbing jumping archetype can get BOTH expertise and the thief's second story feature, which enhances both climb (you can climb at full speed and dash as a bonus action for 60 ft of climbing in one round) and you can add your Dex modifer to your running jumps. All without changing the ability behind the Athletics skill. 5e did a big disservice to the Strength ability. Previous editions gave Str the ability to bend bars, break doors. Now, it seems that the only thing it's good for is grappling and making great weapon attacks. Being fast and agile does not allow to lift more or jump higher, unless you're a thief.😂
@@ericpeterson8732 STR is still used for breaking things, or unsticking stuck doors, which happen a lot in dungeon crawls. The party can destroy the door instead (it has HP for a reason) but that's going to attract more attention than slowly prying a door open with a crowbar. Also, if they move a stuck door, they have the option of closing it again to conceal their passage while a broken door will remain broken.
Charisma Jumping anyone? I look so good and have such a strong presence that I can jump a tall building in a single bound.😅
@@007ohboy I can actually see charisma being used for jumping just not athletics, but acrobatics, you could use your knowledge of what entices people make stunts that draws the eye, things like this would normally be performance but could also be an Charisma (Acrobatics) check.
Great content! regarding Medicine, i've seen it called for when trying to harvest organs or venom sacs or something from a slain creature to use for poisons, spell components, etc, and i think that's plausible.
Indeed. Especially for humanoids, giants, beasts, and monstrosities. Unfortunately, harvesting isn't a core mechanic in 5e so It doesn't come up as much as it could be (if DMs had better support for it).
The suggestions for charisma skills at the end (would it be more effective to deceive, intimidate, or persuade) also sets up a good use for insight! A player may ask during the interrogation if they are picking up vibes about what their target would respond to better--do they seem like they are spiteful and would turn based on a lie like their friend already gave information, or do they seem fearful and jumpy, or do they come off as someone who feels over their head? The DM can call for an insight check, basing the DC on the creature and its skills (such as deception) to see if the interrogator can glean which skill would work best (have the lowest DC) to increase their chances of getting the information they want.
Because of a series of coincidences and misunderstandings, with me running for a group of new/newish players, lead to me house ruling that you HAVE to stabilise someone before you can heal them from zero. In the first short campaign I ran the cleric player saw the spare the dying cantrip and mistakenly assumed she needed to do that first before she could heal someone up, even when I tried to says she could heal from zero. Then in the next campaign we had no healer but I was giving out more potions to compensate, and they didnt try to feed potions they went straight to stabilise checks, so now we house rule that you have to stabilise before you can be healed up, makes going down be much scarier so it avoids 0hp bouncing up and down mechanics.
I have always used perception to notice/find traps or secret doors. Then investigate to figure out how to open, operate or disable them.
25:29 just gotta say… mounted rules and mounts from Arcadia are really dope. 3 articles of mounts and rules for using them. Really awesome. Really really really awesome.
My (seldomly respected) rule of thumb:
- Perception: I'm looking for this thing, is it around here? -> You know what you're looking for.
- Investigation: Is there anything like that around here? -> You are faced with a puzzle and look for something that can solve it, though you don't know what it is yet.
Easy way to distinguish investigation vs perception: investigation is examining up close, while perception is examining from afar.
So scanning a room for treasure that stands out? Perception. Searching a specific pile of treasure? Investigation.
Examining from afar also includes nearby targets that are unknown/vague (hidden door you aren't looking for, voice in another room you can't see).
For persuasion vs deception: Does your character believe their own statement? Persuasion. Do they not? Deception. Doesn't matter if the player knows it to be a lie or not.
Potential solution to the "I know I rolled high on my Insight" problem: use passive insight, have the PC's passive insights in your notes, and roll for the liar instead. Player no longer sees the dice roll.
Potential problem: any meta stuff that can affect the dice roll, like lucky, guidance, bards, etc.
This reminds me of the dungeon coaches system you went over. I think combining wisdom an intellegence into overall mental accuity is a much cleaner system.
If I remember correctly from the module in the Starter pack for 5e, Athletics may also be called while climbing if they end their turn still climbing.
For the Nature vs. Survival thing, here's how I view it. If you're charting out a path to travel and you need to know what things are in the area, such as plants, monsters, other things to look out for, that's a nature check. If you're already there and you're trying to spot signs of monsters or other things to look out for, that's survival.
RAW, spotting tracks is Perception (though Investigation could apply).
Wis (Survival) could be used to identify a footprint after you've spotted it with Perception (the PHB example for Survival is to "identify signs that owlbears live nearby"), but your DM wouldn't be wrong in calling for a Int (Nature) check instead, since it's about your knowledge.
Using the variant rule, I would call for an Int check and let the player apply proficiency bonus from either Nature or Survival if I knew they had only one of the skills, since it's arbitrary. Having both should feel useful when you do have both, not when you only have one and feel that it could just as well have applied.
3:45 I often give players a choice, especially with tool proficiency. There may be 3 or 4 kinds of tool that could work on a challenge. I want to reward having a tool proficiency more often than punishing choosing the wrong one. I'd allow Smiths, tinkers, or Jewelers tools to work on a comstruct
I find it hilarious that you'd have to use two "skill points" to be proficient both at cards AND dice games, yet a single "skill point" will give you perception or stealth. Tool proficiencies require extra effort in order for everyone to not just forget about them completely and integrate them in the game, when appropriate.
This is fantastic content! About the Wisdom (Insight) check thing, I've never been much of a fan of "You think (...)" answers. It feels like taking agency from the characters' beliefs and trains of thought in the situation. IMO, better approaches are "This person is hard to read" or "They seem to mean what they say" for bad rolls and "Something feels off in the discourse" or "Maybe it's the eyes or the subtle tremble in their voice. They're lying." for them 20s. I think that way the info serves well for both character and player.
As a DM I like using Charisma (Investigation) checks for canvassing an area, asking people for clues to a mystery. "Have you seen this man?" Charisma + Investigation.
Would you consider also doing a video using Tools and other proficiencies?? It might fit into this series nicely.
For the insight problem: when I dm and the players want to know if someone is lying I ask for an insight roll, but behind my dm screen. That way the players don't know if they rolled high or low.
our last session started with a series of deception checks from paladin, warlock, and myself bard
For the Insight check to determine lies: PF2 does such things by secret checks, which the dm rolls for the player, so that the player doesn't know the result of the check. You could also expand upon this by for example rolling a d6 at the same time as the d20 and if the check fails then the d6 determines what info the player gets: 1-2 You think it's a lie, 3-4 You are not sure, 5-6 You think it's the truth or something like that.
I have found myself as the DM not even making players roll for minor skill success', I might say 'anyone proficient with insight knows that (NPC) are hiding something. I'll use this tactic when I want to move the story along but still have the players builds feel impactful. I have also been rewarding backgrounds and classes' much more, such as 'because there is a ranger in the party you notice faint tracks' or 'with very little time needed the artificer is able to make sense of the gear and pully system', 'being a Smith you know that this weapon would have taken years to make by the hands of a master craftsmen' Little things like this show the players that I as the DM is paying attention to their character builds and make the world so much more immersive for everyone :)
Yeah, letting the players just succeed without rolling can be a great tool. I also quite like only letting people proficient in a skill even attempt the check or help another character, since otherwise that can end up feeling a bit too easy at low levels for everyone to just roll. For the background stuff I also do something similar, though I don't do it with the actual background and more the backstories they give me (I find that fits the characters better than the generic background)
Thanks Treantmonk! Great video ❤
I'm a changeling sorcerer with the illusion-at-will feat so I love the sleight of hand part
Great video as always, thanks for all the work you do for the community!
As a DM, I do often give players options for skill checks, it comes up a lot during knowledge based checks. I ask the players, you can roll Nature, Arcana or investigation. They give different information and the DCs are different.
If the monster in question is a Drake, an Arcana might reveal it's magical resistances, nature might reveal the way their scales are arranged that the creature looks like it is amphibious, investigation might tell them the creatures size or weight.
Not all information is useful at that moment, but I don't wanna punish a player for not knowing a skill, especially if their character has other knowledge. Lots of useful information.
I do the same exact thing for investigation and perception. They walk into a cool new room, I ask for both. Each player gets to pick one of those two. Different roles give different types of information with different DCs.
Does it create more work for me to come up with this stuff? Sure, but it's not as hard as you think. Practice practice practice, and then ask your friends for feedback.
If anyone has any specific questions, I'm happy to offer my methods.
I think the keyword for deciding between perception and investigation is “clues”. You see a chair that clearly has a puzzle inscribed in it? Investigation because you look for clues as to how the puzzle works. If the chair had a secret button behind I would call for perception.
For insight, my favorite trick is prompting the player to followup.
Player fails the check?
"Your check gives you no further information. Use your best judgement."
The check passes?
"You get the sense this person is being dishonest and withholding information from you."
I'm specifically not telling them exactly how the other character was lying or what they lied about. Rather I focus on revealing the other character's motives behind their behavior.
I have always used Animal Handling like Persuade, Intimidate, and Insight for animals or beast-like monstrosities, fey, celestials, and fiends. Want to Intimidate the Hellhound? Animal Handling. Convince the giant goose that you're not a threat? Animal Handling. Try to figure out if the owlbear is going to eat you? Animal Handling. This makes a skill that rarely sees use into a very useful tool for Druids and Rangers.
For Insight and Perception you can make that as rolls the DM makes to avoid the metagame aspect. Just ask for their mod.
With Perception vs. Investigation, the version that I've herd that I like is Perception to spot the secret door or trap and then investigation to deduce how to open it (in the way you use thieves' tools to disarm the trap). I don't like using passive perception as anything but a DC for stealth; however I'll allow for those who take the observant feat (w/o the +5, and they'll also often have a disadvantage -5 if they don't also take skulker). I know that 2 feats sounds expensive, but your getting excellent pro-active stealth (hide in dim light is also great combat utility, try a high-elf rogue skulker w/ booming blade and warcaster), no time or effort threat detection (no forgetting to search, excellent damage reduction from traps and ambushes, fewer wandering monster checks), and great extra loot finding (secret doors and hidden compartments in furniture/chests). I could make a case that simply being trained in a skill is good enough for passive checks (I installed burglar alarms for a couple of years and I'm all the time noticing cameras and sensors (door, window, motion) w/o even trying; or the way a doctor or nurse might casually glance at a stranger and realize 'oh shit, he's got cancer'); but as a DM it feels like thats too much extra work on my part for simple skill training, I want you to have to spend the feat to make me go that extra mile.
Skills with Languages known
Joined a table playing Descent into Avernus and my Tiefling came across some winged imps and a fly looking monstrosity.
He was able to identify them as Infernal and Aberrant creatures and yelled at them both in their respective languages that his party was _his,_ a captured group of citizens.
It worked pretty well, only had to fight 3 imps as a result of that. Deadly encounter turned into manageable ^^
I largely agree on your points and might just add a bit to them. For example, I came to similar conclusions as you did about having Performance generally include any form of acted-out mimicry and most forms of commanding attention, especially of a group. I've even considered allowing an action in combat to try to provoke attacks from groups of enemies or distract them enough to put them off guard for an ally's next attack (with degrees of success and variability based on the creature and situation of course - and either of these maneuvers would probably only work at most once per encounter on reasonably intelligent enemies). Some scenarios involving winning a neutral third party over to the party's side might involve Performance instead of Persuasion as well, in order to have your appeal heard over the enemy side's in the confusion of battle, or to portray your side as either the likely winner or as victims, etc.
One thing that I would almost certainly do, however, is offer a Performance check when trying the 'misdirection' move you spoke of under Sleight of Hand. If the player is trying to disguise what one hand is doing while keeping someone's eyes focused on their other hand, that could be either Sleight of Hand or Performance, but if they are shouting: "Look behind you, it's the tarrasque!" so that they can make someone look and get a head start in running away, I'd probably call for Performance over either Deception or Sleight of Hand. Successfully getting a whole tavern involved in a brawl you've incited in order to create chaos so that they party can slip out the back door would likely be Performance, as might be convincing the local street corner guard to hurry down an alleyway to stop a crime in progress while the party breaks into a nearby residence, or theatrically convincing a group of goblins that their hideout is under attack by marauding orcs.
I also agree on your separation between Perception and Investigation, though the way I draw the distinction mentally is: Because Investigation is an Intelligence skill, and all the Intelligence skills have to do with knowledge, Investigation is 'searching' based on reasoning derived from prior knowledge, not from simple attention to detail, intuition, or raw perceptual acuity (which is where Perception comes in). Investigation makes sense when searching for hidden doors and traps because your character is familiar with a variety of common models of those things, how they operate, and what the telling signs of their presence is, as well as how they are usually disarmed or avoided. If the player says "I search the floor for traps", a successful check means that their prior knowledge of how pressure plates operate tells them that uneven or discolored flagstones might conceal one, and those signs are what the character is looking for. In another case, the character is reasoning: "If there were a hidden door in this wall, I might feel a draft right about here, or find a concealed button right about here...". When trying to find an inn in a large city using Investigation, your character is reasoning about where such an establishment is likely to be based on foot traffic, the proximity of major thoroughfares, or based on the directions of some locals. When trying to find a specific piece of information in a large library shelf or volume, they are reasoning based on book titles, tables of contents, etc.
Perception, in contrast, is just about how good you are at noticing intuitively (hence Wisdom) that something is amiss or stands out as unusual or different, including in some cases when it is necessary to strain your senses to discern fine detail. Perception will help you notice that something near your feet is glinting in the darkness, but Investigation will tell you that upon closer inspection it is the moonlight illuminating a trip wire trap set to raise an alarm if you trip it. Put another way, Perception is for when you don't know exactly what you're looking for but think there is something to be noticed, whereas Investigation is for when you wouldn't notice something if you didn't know what to look for in advance. Both are very important for these reasons.
Incidentally, I somewhat understood why Druids weren't especially good at Nature in the PHB. D&D Druids are good at communing with nature spirits but not necessarily knowledgable about the 'factual' workings of nature. They can read portents in the stars, but they may not know the mathematical formulae of their orbits - i.e., they are astrologers, not astronomers. They can intuit the signs that a storm is brewing, but you don't need to know about atmospheric pressure systems (or whatever the medieval equivalent model was) for that. And they can tell you which trees house dryads or which types of woods or barks are useful for making staves or medicines, but they may not otherwise know an elm from an oak. Of course, I agree that it helps for them to have an optional class feature which enables them to be the kind of character which does know those things, since many people will expect it.
Issues I see so far.
1. Moving through an enemy space is an action or bonus action according to the DMG (Combat Options, Action Options) You can Overrun using Athletics and Tumble using Acrobatics. Still makes halflings special since they dont need an action or bonus action not a skill check. A full action is a little harsh.
2. Perception is to see a secret door. Investigation is to figure out how to open the secret door.
Check out the tumble rule. It will use dexterity / acrobatics to move through a enemies space using extra movement.
Something probably worth considering is the idea that if multiple skills can be applied to solve a given problem, having the immediate outcome or consequences be different per skill tends to help differentiate. Say there is some kind of gap underground and there is a raised bridge and castle on the other side. Forget that teleportation exists for the sake of example. Athletics can reasonably push a large rock or column down making a makeshift bridge, but it causes those in the nearby castle to immediately ready up and investigate. However, there are some handholds that someone who is acrobatic and swing across, maybe using a lower DC athletics to help supplement them, (or they jump easily but there is a terrible forcefield that you must twist and turn midair to not die. If you want to be spicy), where upon they can reach to the other side and lower the bridge. This can still cause the occupants to investigate but maybe with less numbers or the ability to be fooled. Stuff like that is helpful not just in D&D but in tabletop in general.
This can easily be applied with Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception like maybe intimidation is perhaps not going to make someone a long lasting helper of sorts but persuasion will. On the other hand, maybe sometimes intimidation can make someone not think to betray you long term. All depends on what the NPC is, really.
This is something the blades in the dark system handles really well.
You can use almost any skill in any situation, but the DM sets the level of risk and the degree of effectiveness.
For example, you can choose to use your demolition skill in place of your close combat skill, but the DM might rule that a blast can only kill some of the guards due to them being spread out while close combat could take them all with a success.
I've seen DMs employ communication descriptors as a reward for insight checks to pretty good effect.
Something like the following.
Merchant: I don't know of any scrolls.
*Dm rolls for him*
Player: Can I tell if he's lying?
Dm: Give me a wisdom insight roll.
*Player rolls higher than NPC*
Dm: You notice the merchant's eyes shifting around as he swallows seemingly nervously. You also noticed how he avoided eye contact during his statement; contrary to what he's been doing so far.
Now the player has learned information that presents strong evidence but still requires a bit of thought.
I have to admit to asking about using a different skill than was asked for, but very rarely and only when it seemed like it could make sense. I'm specifically talking about using Religion (which I have expertise in) instead of History (which I don't even have proficiency in) when it somehow involved a religiously important figure. Actual examples being knowing about an ancient war because one faction involved was trying to free Tharizdun, knowing about Karsuss and what he did, knowing that Tiamat used to run Avernis, and knowing that the elves and drow were once one unified people.
This is great. Thank you Chris!
One thing I really miss from 4e and thought they did well was give the DC and relevant knowledge skill for each monster in the monster manual. That way both the DM and the player are very clear on what skills are needed and what information they'd get on both anatomy and historical background for any monster they'd find. It'd be amazing if they brought that back, even if it's just noted as recommended lore or a springboard for DMs.
From my experience, when you are wanting a certain skill check it’s fine to ask but be prepared to hear a no. If you want to make a certain kind of check, make preparations in how you are rollplaying. If you take out a sword and yell “give me a better discount or else”and the dm says make and intimidation check and you don’t have proficiency while you do have proficiency in persuasion then that’s your fault as a player. I’ve played characters like they’re a doctor and I was using medicine checks all the time with the way I roleplayed.
I like to offer both investigation and perception checks but my DC for investigation is usually lower but adds time to the activity, such as searching a drawer for a specific letter; could use either skill but taking the time to investigate makes the task easier.
I also use performance as an adjacent skill to persuasion or, most notably, deception. Like trying to convince an NPC that your injured by pretending to have a broken leg is more of a performance check situation than a deception check.
Thank you. I feel it's almost a hot take in the dnd community (?) Dex is so OP letting it be used instead of strength for athletics is damageable for the game imo. In the contrary, I usually let intimidation use strength because a lot of barbarians and fighters are almost skill-less. In tiny groups, I understand being more flexible because the party struggle doing some things. But even then, it encourages everybody dumping strength, even fighters. Ironic, for a set of rules centred around combat.
As a DM, I think it's a thing to keep in mind, making skills and tools proficiencies useful, not only stealth and perception...
I think letting players choose different skills for a roll is a good thing. As for balance I simply change how good the outcome is or what the consequences for failure are. For example if you want to do acrobatics instead of athletics to climb a wall ( DEX ranger tries to run up the wall using momentum) on a fail you fall half way and takes the fall damage while failed athletics check means you got only part of the way and need to catch your breath. For 'Study' action regarding monsters, PC who studied ancient religious scripts will recall different info than one who read through reports on anatomical studies.
The way I deal with the clunkiness of Insight being a lie detector is describing how the target is actually reacting instead of what conclusion the PC would draw from that.
So instead of "you can tell this NPC is probably lying", it's "you can tell this NPC seems nervous" or "this NPC looks away whenever they say [X]".
Animal handling (Wis) when you're calming it down and understanding it's intentions, (Cha) Negotiation and you know what they're saying
It's been a hot second since I've actually run a game, but usually, I only ever ask for an attribute check based on the approach of a character doing something. I leave it up to them to suggest the relevance of a particular skill. If it makes sense with their approach in the narrative, I say yes to adding the proficiency bonus onto the stat I asked for. If it doesn't and it's what they really want to do, I give them an opportunity to change how they are approaching a situation with their characters actions so they can actually do what they are mechanically wanting to do. But ultimately, the story has to line up with the mechanic that they are requesting. Otherwise it's just the ability check.
I usually imagine Intimidation as less of threatening NPC and more like asserting authority and looking like leaders. If a town catches on fire and all the villagers are panicking I would ask for an Intimidation check instead of a persuasion check to take charge of and organize the evacuation and firefighting
One major issue I've noticed that you didn't touch upon is DMs and even modules treating the Intimidation Skill as a "Roll for Initiative" button regardless of how high or low a player rolls in any situation where the target has any type of way to defend themselves with force.
Another issue is Acrobatics and Dex Saves stepping on each other's toes. Sometimes even the same written adventure will call for only one or the other in two places where the same action is being simulated by the result.
It's worth noting that in 2024 playtests, Perception seems to be used to find WHERE something is, while Investigation is used to figure out HOW it works. That is backed up in the fact Perception is part of the SEARCH action, while Investigation is part of the STUDY action.
Investigation being used to determine what kind of weapon caused a wound makes sense rather than medicine, because a detective knows what kind of weapons cause what kind of wounds but likely doesn't know how to properly fix said wounds, while a doctor knows how to properly fix said wounds but not identify what kind of weapon caused it, while a medical examiner (the guy who examines the dead bodies found at crime scenes) would know both, so a detective has proficiency in investigation, a doctor proficiency in medicine, and a medical examiner would have both, as well proficiency in poisoner's kit and possibly alchemist's tools
I liked this video, thanks for the help!
When I encounter a player asking if they can use a different skill, eg acrobatics instead of athletics, and it makes sense, I handle it by still requiring the original ability modifier. So I would end up with strength (acrobatics). It's led to some interesting uses, such as charisma (religion) instead of (deception) to outwit a devil. But your point that it takes away from other characters that had the skill is something I will want to consider.
I will sometimes require a intimidation and persuasion check in fact I would do that a lot, some of the best Rederick uses multiple methods.
I'll use history as kind of general skill to remember any kind of contemporary cultural info, such as local laws, traditions, trade relations between countries and important people and rulers.
One thing about the social skills is the way the game is often played, there's no "skill" for simply telling the truth.
For example your party questions a servant who finds the murdered Duke, you are told "I came in and found the Duke dead in the middle of the room and called to the guards". Immediately your party's highest WIS member calls for an Insight Check with dice in hand.
But what if the servant is simply telling the truth? There's no persuasion, no deception, just a scared person telling the truth. A contested roll makes no sense in this case, because the servant doesn't want anything and what does "losing" that kind of contest mean? A flat insight check makes no sense since a low roll (because of meta gaming) will actually throw doubt on the servant even though they are telling the truth. The DM can't even just tell the party that you can trust the servant's account because what if there are others in the castle with sneaky motives.
I think it's kind of funny that there's literally no rule for just being honest in the game
For insight, instead of telling them whether or not they believe what they're being told, give them things that they see. For example, they keep avoiding eye contact, or they scratch their head every time they speak. These are things that could be a "tell", but also could just be a tick of the person they're interacting with
I had a player roll a 42 on his stealth check and at that point I just let him sneak wherever he wanted because with that high of a stealth check you could say it borders on magical.
Hey, quick correction on movement at ~8:00. PHB 190 states “The space of another creature, whether hostile or not, also counts as difficult terrain”. Would be nice to have halflings ignore this for larger creatures and acrobatic ones always on a check, but we’ll have to wait and see. (Just don’t wanna spread misinformation)
Keep up the good work, as always.
Insight = emotions in their face Now, some times people try to show happiness when they're nervous, so high insight = you know he is not happy, but nervous
One solution for Insight checks is that the DM rolls on behalf of the player character behind the screen
Same with Perception checks when a party is searching. I don't want to expose the meta-information of when there's something worth rolling for, so I do the rolls myself and don't explain what they're for. Sometimes they're not for anything, they're just red herrings for the meta-gamers to bite on.
Generally, in the groups I have gamed within, if a Insight check is called for, the DM responds with, "You believe that the individual talking to you is telling you what they believe to be true." I am guessing the thought process is many people have been wrong about their understanding of the world or have listened to a parent who just gave them an answer without thinking about the ramifications of that way of thinking. Similar to those individuals who say "everything is relative" are making an objective statement of truth that is either right or wrong there by proving their statement false.
First off, big fan of your work and I love this episode. I noticed you are a little vague about the difference between Investigation and Perception. As former military and law enforcement, I like to put it to the K-9 test. A trained canine would have a good perception, but a poor investigation. Could it find a secret door or a pit trap, absolutely. Could it open a secret door or disable a pit trap, probably not. I know this calls for two checks and different skills, but it does help with making Investigation relevant. Now, the cleric senses there is something off about that section of floor or wall. Then the wizard finds how to open the door or disable the trap.
Good stuff Chris!
Personally I think we as DMs should be making much greater use of the optional rule about using alternative ability scores with skill checks. Lying to someone's face is Charisma (Deception), for sure, and concealing an object is usually Dexterity (Sleight of Hand), but hiding a cipher in an innocuous-seeming message should probably be one of those skills used with Intelligence. Hiding by blending into a crowd, rather than by being particularly sneaky, seems like a great opportunity for a Charisma (Stealth) check. Some things that seem like they fall into needing both Strength (Athletics) _and_ Dexterity (Acrobatics), such as making a high jump to land balancing atop a wall, could be well represented by a Strength (Acrobatics) check on the logic that the raw ability you need is the strength to make the jump but the skill involved in final success is the acrobatic balance to land it. You get the idea.
…And as players, we can make that happen by suggesting such things to our DMs when they seem like they might be relevant, _especially_ when it disadvantages us but feels more "correct" (as this will plant the idea as more than just a way for us to argue for more advantageous checks).
Returning to the DM perspective, one way to make this happen is to make a habit of only calling for an ability check, and calling on the players to make a case for their skill and tool proficiencies to apply in the situation. We can still refuse if they try to misapply Acrobatics for Athletics tasks, but by calling for them to suggest skills or tools, we can get combinations we might not have thought of (and, as a bonus, we can do more to put tools as first-class sources of proficiency on rolls).
Your differentiation of Investigation and Perception does come into a conundrum of both Passive Perception and Passive Investigation, if Perception is something you do passively Passive perception/Investigation then become redundant and so is the Observant feat.
Possibly something for a revised video when the Official rules come out, but for the UA Influence Action, and the Animal Handling, Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion skills, possibly Performance as well. Like I was looking at those UA rules compared to the "Suggestion", and "Mass Suggestion" spells, and it seems like there should be some overlap in what those things should accomplish, but like there might need to be some clarification on what the skills could, or could not accomplish.
Like with the UA6 Rogue, or the 2014 Eloquence Bard being able to roll a minimum of 10 on skill checks in the first two tiers of play, it seems like it should be possible to create a character who can use Ability checks to get something equivalent to at "will castings of Suggestion (a 2nd level spell), or even Mass Suggestion (a 6th level spell) that do not let the target make a saving throw" - under the current UA rules for Influence, you are rolling an ability check against the highest between 15, the target's Intelligence score, and the target's Wisdom Score, so with the Eloquence Bard's Silver Tongue, or Rogue's Reliable Talent features, when you have a Skill modifier of +5 if the DM lets you use Influence at all, you automatically Influence anything with a Wisdom, and Intelligence of 15, or less, and the higher your Skill modifier the more things you can automatically Influence...
Taking inspiration from the "horny bard" stereotype for an extreme example, under the UA RAW a level 3 Eloquence Bard with Expertise in Persuasion/Deception should be able to have a +7 modifier, which would be enough to automatically meet the DC 16 needed to Influence the 2014 versions of a CR 17 "Adult Gold Dragon" (INT 16), or a CR 20 "Ancient Brass Dragon (INT 16)... The fallout from succeeding an Influence check against a CR 17+ creature could be an interesting character backstory/plot-hook for a campaign that starts with level 3 characters.
Some skill do overlap, depending on HOW the player use it.
Their is a 30ft wall in front of us: The DM ask for an athletic check to climb it. But my rogue do not want to climb it he want to do "free run" and do a wall jump or an other cool acrobatic stunt to reach the top.
But if we need to lift the porticulis, and the rogue ask to do acrobatic to lift it, then obviously the answer would be no.
Sam with persuasion VS deception VS intimidation: Of course if I TREATHEN the enemies to lower their arm or they'll die it's intimidation. But if I OFFER him to surrender and we'll spare his life it would be persuasion (if we actually intent to spare their life) or deception (if we actually intent to kill them anyway
If you come across a plant and the party want to know if it's dangerous. Well both Nature and Survival should be able to answer, from a different point of view. A survival expert need to know what plant and animal are good to eat and where to find them and capture them in order to gather rations and also train in putting that knowledge into action. The Nature expert on the other hand will know every properties of all plants and animals where to find them what kind of poison/venom they have which plant counteract which poison/venom etc.. he will have more knowledge then just "good to eat or do not touch that" about more plant and animals. But even if he knows that protein rich larvea live in dead wood. He doesn't know how to gather them and prepare them to make a good meal out of them.
So about switching the check it depend on how much effort the player put into it IMHO. If you ask for an athletic to climb the wall and he ask for acrobatic instead, no sorry climbing is athletic. But if he take time to describe that he will do his gymnastic routine, jump on the barbarian back grab the ledge and use that momentum to fling himself over the wall, sure that is acrobatic justified properly.
I played a lot as a charismatic cleric in 3rd Edition. To this day, I still call Persuasion as "Diplomacy" like we had in 3rd....