Ability Checks and Skill Checks

[ThermalSlapShot]

Do we really need a distinction between the two?

They are essentially the same thing and many of the ability check items could straight up become their own skill. Breaking doors down may not be athletics, but you could make a skill called something like Might, Power, or Destruction.

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

But yeah anyways... Is there a reason these two are separate when they are the same exact thing? Skills are ability checks but ability checks are not skills... That seems weird to me.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

[ThermalSlapShot]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

Are you saying that an athletic person, say a football player, who knows how to lead with their shoulder and has experience in hitting others won't be better than a person who has the same strength when it comes to busting down doors?

Everything can be made better using skill and technique, even breaking stuff.

Look at people who break tons of bricks or wood planks. They don't do it on power alone, their technique helps a lot.

I think there should be an increased skill list, the current one we have is to restrictive. Give me my engineering skill, my craft skill, my destruction skill, and many others.

[Mjolnirbear]

I never feel like i have enough skill points to begin with. Now you want to give me more options to spend my limited proficiencies on? Use a tool, or alternative proficiency as listed in the DMG. As far as I'm concerned, D&D did it's players a favour by consolidating skills, suck as the thief skills or strenght skills

[Easy_Lee]

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

Actually, there's a bit of a trick to breaking down doors. Kicking in a door, for example, depends on hitting the right spot, hip flex, knowing the physics of what you're trying to do, etc. Perhaps WotC felt that it's not a something a general athlete would learn to do, something I find dubious given the setting. Or maybe they've never tried it and just made assumptions.

[Ninja_Prawn]

So there's a knack to breaking down doors. It's far too narrow to be a skill on its own, though, and whether 'Athletics' covers it can be determined by the DM on a case-by-case basis. If the player is trying to apply intelligence to the problem, make it an Intellegence (Carpenter's Tools) check. If they're using martial arts to break it with minimal force, make them roll attacks against the door's AC and HP as per the DMG (or, you know, just narrate what happens).

I'd still say that shoulder-charging a door is something that mainly depends on strength, and technique makes only a marginal difference, whereas something like the high jump is equally dependent on both.

In most games I've seen, pure ability checks are rare (excluding initiative and maybe disarming traps) - almost everything you want to do is covered by one of the skills or tools. So, I fail to see the problem.

And crafting (where it requires a check) will almost always be a tool check. If you want to be an inventor, get proficiency in Tinker's Tools, or start homebrewing a steampunk setting. Vanilla 5e is set in a world where modern engineering doesn't really exist - using masonry and carpentry to build structures is still cutting-edge.

[pwykersotz]

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

...

I think there should be an increased skill list, the current one we have is to restrictive. Give me my engineering skill, my craft skill, my destruction skill, and many others.

This is exactly the variant rule. Well, the third comes from background, but those are so open, it's pretty much player choice.

I'm confused on how the current list is too restrictive. The level of ambiguation is right in the middle of pure ability checks and 3.5's massive list. There are enough that a party will have a large amount of proficiencies, but not all of them. Basically, I get that you might want more nuance, but saying that the current list is limiting is odd.

[Vogonjeltz]

Do we really need a distinction between the two?

They are essentially the same thing and many of the ability check items could straight up become their own skill. Breaking doors down may not be athletics, but you could make a skill called something like Might, Power, or Destruction.

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

But yeah anyways... Is there a reason these two are separate when they are the same exact thing? Skills are ability checks but ability checks are not skills... That seems weird to me.

We could always start by recognizing that there's no such thing as a Skill check. There is, however, an ability check to which proficiency in a skill might be applied. (PHB pages 174-175).

Confusion here probably stems from the use of the term skill check by forum goers as shorthand

[ThermalSlapShot]

This is exactly the variant rule. Well, the third comes from background, but those are so open, it's pretty much player choice.

I'm confused on how the current list is too restrictive. The level of ambiguation is right in the middle of pure ability checks and 3.5's massive list. There are enough that a party will have a large amount of proficiencies, but not all of them. Basically, I get that you might want more nuance, but saying that the current list is limiting is odd.

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.


We could always start by recognizing that there's no such thing as a Skill check. There is, however, an ability check to which proficiency in a skill might be applied. (PHB pages 174-175).

Confusion here probably stems from the use of the term skill check by forum goers as shorthand

And those specific checks are given a name called skills.

Because saying

"Ability checks which you can't gain proficiency bonus for" and "ability checks which you can gain proficiency bonus for" is a bit too long.

Ability checks and skills is a bit easier on the eyes and hands.

Edited

Also the official WotC character sheet calls them skills... So unless wotc is wrong too...

[pwykersotz]

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.

I think that's purposeful.

My 3.5 DM who introduced me to the game went hugely into nuance. Every skill ever was available. There was a ZeroG skill for dealing with being in space, a skill for over three times the number of knowledges that were in the books like physics and deduction, a skill for forensics, and many more. It was great in theory, but in practice it meant that you could never be good at almost anything.

That said, I now understand what you're looking for. If your GM is stingy about allowing you to have proficiency on non-codified ability checks related to your background, then I can also understand the concern. I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing. It's like my old GM's skill Deduction. The only point to rolling it was to get the GM to give you a free pass to the scenario.

I suppose if you wanted, you could come out with a bigger list and simply add to the allowed proficiencies, but that makes the game more complex to play. You could ambiguate it more, but that strips away realism.

If I had a player ask me about this, I'd probably say that anyone who could make up a skill that didn't step on the toes of another and that was related to character background or class could swap it with a normal allowed proficiency to better fit their ideas. It seems like the best way for both game balance and player happiness to remain intact.

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm really considering trying that variant. Making individual skills is a bit inhibiting to the imagination, making you think you're more locked down than you really are. I might give it a try for my next campaign. :smallsmile:

[Ninja_Prawn]

I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing.

Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.


And using skill/ability pairings other than those specified is explicity encouraged in the PHB (they give Strength (Intimidate) as an example).

I never played 3.x, so I have neither nostaligia for, nor bad experiences with, super-exhaustive skill lists. To my eyes, 5e has all the skills I'd want and none that I don't, and it leaves lots of room for the DM to make rulings if/when you start thinking outside the box.

[Easy_Lee]

In theory, the skills should be comprehensive of all possible actions one can take. If one attempts an action that truly has no check, I might use a rule similar to this:
If you are proficient with all skills for a given attribute, you are proficient in any check made with that attribute regardless of whether it is covered by one of the skills.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.



And those specific checks are given a name called skills.

Because saying

"Ability checks which you can't gain proficiency bonus for" and "ability checks which you can gain proficiency bonus for" is a bit too long.

Ability checks and skills is a bit easier on the eyes and hands.

Edited

Also the official WotC character sheet calls them skills... So unless wotc is wrong too...

I said there is no such thing as skill checks.

I did not say there is no such thing as skills

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think that's purposeful.

My 3.5 DM who introduced me to the game went hugely into nuance. Every skill ever was available. There was a ZeroG skill for dealing with being in space, a skill for over three times the number of knowledges that were in the books like physics and deduction, a skill for forensics, and many more. It was great in theory, but in practice it meant that you could never be good at almost anything.

That said, I now understand what you're looking for. If your GM is stingy about allowing you to have proficiency on non-codified ability checks related to your background, then I can also understand the concern. I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing. It's like my old GM's skill Deduction. The only point to rolling it was to get the GM to give you a free pass to the scenario.

I suppose if you wanted, you could come out with a bigger list and simply add to the allowed proficiencies, but that makes the game more complex to play. You could ambiguate it more, but that strips away realism.

If I had a player ask me about this, I'd probably say that anyone who could make up a skill that didn't step on the toes of another and that was related to character background or class could swap it with a normal allowed proficiency to better fit their ideas. It seems like the best way for both game balance and player happiness to remain intact.

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm really considering trying that variant. Making individual skills is a bit inhibiting to the imagination, making you think you're more locked down than you really are. I might give it a try for my next campaign. :smallsmile:

Tactics is described below.

I just think that the system as a whole would have benefited with not making two separate groups. Things are are skills (and you can make a skill check with) and things that are not skills (and you can make an ability check with).

Either make everything a skill or make nothing a skill. Don't go half assed on stuff like this. More general skills would have been nice.


In theory, the skills should be comprehensive of all possible actions one can take. If one attempts an action that truly has no check, I might use a rule similar to this:
If you are proficient with all skills for a given attribute, you are proficient in any check made with that attribute regardless of whether it is covered by one of the skills.

That's similar to how I would like to see it done, or just give more skills and a bigger skill list. You don't have to have more specific skills but even more general skills would be nice.


Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.


Knowing enemy tactics (say how orcs tend to attack) is not something a player would know but a player character would/should. Especially a Fighter who serves as the city watch and they have been having problems with orcs.

It isn't about what a player can do with their class features, but how to go about dealing with orcs. Does the PC know that orc hordes use flanking maneuvers and need to watch out for them as they battle the first group of orcs? Does the PC know that orcs tend to use ranged and melee attacks or just melee attacks? Does the PC know that a specific fighting style is better to use than another, perhaps there is a specific sound made by orc raiders to call a retreat?

These are things that a simple Int (war tactics) check could easily cover and give the player proficiency.

But this is just an example. You can apply this to Engineering too. Since there is not skill for engineering I would really hate to live near any big structures or use any bridges...


I said there is no such thing as skill checks.

I did not say there is no such thing as skills

Again...

Skill Check is like saying "ability checks in which you use your proficiency bonus to complete a specific task". You can't say there isn't a skill check in the game or else you never use skills.

And as I've said, skill checks ARE ability checks but ability checks are not skill checks.

However it is just easier to say skill check instead of an entire sentence describing a two word phrase. You know, how we use language all the time in real life.

[SharkForce]

for engineering, you can have tools. drafting tools would probably be what i would recommend. but you could also assign it to tools that let you lay out a guide on the ground for people to follow as they build, surveyor's tools, simple math-assisting devices, books that give information about the strength of various substances, etc. just call them "engineer's tools" and you're good to go.

tactics is a bit harder. but i'd say that most of it probably boils down to intelligence(deception) and intelligence(insight), possibly with some intelligence(stealth) or even intelligence(intimidation) mixed in.

because ultimately, it all basically boils down to you trying to figure out what the other guy is trying to do while hiding what you are trying to do, except you're each doing it with an army instead of one person, and instead of your interpersonal skills or ability to perceive details in the person's body movement and expression, you're using your intelligence.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Knowing enemy tactics (say how orcs tend to attack) is not something a player would know but a player character would/should. Especially a Fighter who serves as the city watch and they have been having problems with orcs.

It isn't about what a player can do with their class features, but how to go about dealing with orcs. Does the PC know that orc hordes use flanking maneuvers and need to watch out for them as they battle the first group of orcs? Does the PC know that orcs tend to use ranged and melee attacks or just melee attacks? Does the PC know that a specific fighting style is better to use than another, perhaps there is a specific sound made by orc raiders to call a retreat?


As a general rule, these are all Intelligence (Nature) checks. Many of them can probably be made passively - that is, the DM just tells the players what their characters already know. For characters that are... intellectually challenged... but have a lot of experience dealing with orcs specifically, I might allow them to substitute in Wisdom (Nature) checks.

If it was (for example) elementals instead of orcs, they would be Intelligence (Arcana) checks. Outsiders would probably by Religion.

Note that the ranger's favoured enemy feature specifically says they get advantage on these sorts of checks. It doesn't say which skill because the skill varies depending on the enemy type, not because no skill is relevant.

If the orcs were using some kind of code or semaphore (like in that Hobbit film) and a PC was trying to decode it in-battle, I would ask for Intelligence (Investigation) checks.

Problem solved.

[djreynolds]

Good discussion.
But I think we are over-thinking it a little. I feel, and some will disagree, that intelligence is the accumulation of knowledge and critical thinking. Wisdom is common sense and composure, the ability to recognize a problem and then stop and rethink a problem. That's not always easy. Intelligent people, all the time over think things, me included.

During a medical code, it happens all the time. Intelligent People are shouting out meds and treatments, and sometimes it takes wisdom to step back, compose yourself and rethink things simply. Some people have both. Survival is a wisdom skill because you have to keep focused on what is important, intelligent people freeze to death all the time. Why? Because focus and discipline take wisdom. Nature is an intelligence check because you thinking why?

Being skilled says you have experience in something from years of training. Breaking in a door is not easy. You may know how it could be done but not have the strength to open, the dexterity to pick the lock or the wisdom to stop and try something else, or the stamina to keep at it.

The skill system represents years of training in something, whether it'd be chemistry or landscaping. It's why carpenters and doctors can charge so much money.

I may be smart and can figure something out once, but not repeatedly without schooling, or experience or training. Your class provides training. Your experience adds to that knowledge and your ability enhances that.

The system works. Fletching arrows or crafting armor or building bridges is for experts. I'd think a character could do it, but he should be adventuring and getting gold and have someone else do it.

[coredump]

5E made a conscious effort to streamline and reduce. Fewer feats, fewer weapons, fewer skills...simpler mechanics.

If you want more skills, or more feats, or more weapons, or more whatevers.... go ahead and introduce them. But many of us don't want a long list of skills. I am perfectly capable giving someone proficiency on their Int check if they have a long experience with how Orcs fight. I surely don't need a new skill for that.

Besides, why would a general Tactics skill help with the specific tendencies of a specific tribe located in a specific area of only 1 species? The current method allows for *more* specialization by keeping it general and letting the DM adjust it as appropriate.

[Cybren]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

Breaking down a door (without directly attacking to with a weapon) certainly is a skill, and other role playing games occasionally make it one. SWAT teams and burglars are both likely to have it. Just call it crowbar proficiency or something



Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.
If the PC is supposed to be a good tactician and gets asked about battle plans or something, for one? Things like this are where player/character tend to blend together, but tactics being a skill makes some amount of sense in the abstract, but d&d players tend to not like skills that only matter if someone has them. They have this idea that every adventure, if it's long enough, must use every skill check at some point.

[djreynolds]

Excellent points.
If a player playing a fighter is really good with tactics, would it be fair to at the next level increase, he might have to take intelligence increase for a good ideas or a wisdom increase for making good choices, instead of strength.

Roleplaying has always had these hiccups, you might say. I'm a newbie to 5e, I play a fighter and charisma is an 8. Yet I often lead, because in real life I might be more charismatic than the other players.

Should I have to roleplay within my stats? If I choose to dump intelligence as barbarian, must I play reckless and headstrong and be the part?

These choices will always cause dilemmas for ability driven games. A wizard on paper may have great stats but he's an inexperienced player, but Dave the Monk keeps telling him what to cast. How would the monk know?

Good players and DM's will surely fix this. Perhaps I should play, or roleplay my attributes as the are on paper. Fighter with low charisma may always complain or second guess others.

But the new guy really wants to play a wizard. Should no one tell him that this spell is better than other, perhaps not doing so cause the group to die.

Experienced players, like yourselves, thankfully guide other players, like me, along.

An intelligent wizard knows a lot of spells, but a wise one knows what to cast by being a good judge.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Breaking down a door (without directly attacking to with a weapon) certainly is a skill, and other role playing games occasionally make it one. SWAT teams and burglars are both likely to have it. Just call it crowbar proficiency or something


I hate getting sidetracked like this, but you still haven't convinced me that 'door-breaking' or 'crowbar' is something you can be proficient in, in the way that you can be proficient in history, carpentry or the banjo.

It just doesn't chime with my lived experience. See, I work in construction, but in an office-based role. I've never done any work or training with manual tools. But a couple of times, I've picked up a crowbar and helped the labourers disassemble things - and seen that I'm no better or worse at it than they are. If there's a skill to it, it's trivially easy to learn.

On the other hand, I spent the summer of 2011 learning to pick locks. It took me two books and three weeks before I got into a bedside cabinet I'd lost the key to. And that was a cheap old wafer lock! Proficiency with the tools makes a huge difference there, much more than with the crowbar.

[djreynolds]

Breaking down a door is a good idea to go with. First off it requires no skill, because it is an attack. Second the door is a real thing and if forced must be damaged. Whether you kick it, or chop it, the door will need repair.
The use of a crowbar is a simple item anyone can use. But you may not have the strength to use the crowbar. The crowbar is damaging the door as a whole.

Swat Teams practice quick entry breaches with either a shot gun, hand held battering RAM, or even explosives or sledgehammers. Those are damaging the door. The shot gun takes training, the explosives take training, the RAM takes strength to use to attack with. And a maul is a sledge hammer. The door needs replacing after this. You know SWAT was there.

Picking a lock doesn't damage a door, it is skillfully done. You don't know the thief was there.

Breaking a door requires an attack role, ability check and proficiency with said weapons.

Picking a lock is a skill based in the use of specialized tools that requires whatever ability check the DM sees fit. But it is not a skill based on just one ability score. You may need dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom to open a lock or safe and to know and avoid the trap. A disguise kit needs a steady hand to apply and knowledge of anatomy and a "good eye" to know if you look the part of not.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Because breaking stuff doesn't take skill :smallsigh:

https://youtu.be/UZOq5aO4B3I

[Ninja_Prawn]

Because breaking stuff doesn't take skill :smallsigh:

https://youtu.be/UZOq5aO4B3I

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute). :smalltongue:


...hand held battering RAM...

I wonder if I could get some of that installed in my netbook? It's awfully slow at the moment...

[ThermalSlapShot]

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute). :smalltongue:
[/COLOR]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

[djreynolds]

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute). :smalltongue:



I wonder if I could get some of that installed in my netbook? It's awfully slow at the moment...

I'm actually touched you read my whole post thank you. And I appreciate well placed sarcasm. Well done.

[djreynolds]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

Correct, but you would need a tool to break open a door. Firefighters make new doors all the time.
There was a show on Discovery where special forces types had to complete challenges and one was breaking a door down quickly. No tools. They were kicking and smashing. Now these guys I would say are martial types. And yes they looked to take a beating doing it. Some of them though trained in using a front kick in fight couldn't put it to use efficiently and size was an asset.
Perhaps a DM would allow in the case of quick breach you could use your athletic skil set to batter down a door but you would take damage as well as the door and perhaps now suffer a movement penalty until healed with long rest or spell.
But I'm not sure if it is a skill. The wizard could always fix it with a fireball.
Now discipline could be a skill learned and trained in. It use to be. Having the fortitude and resolve to break down a door without tools if needed or suffer a forced March might require a skill check such as discipline. Or just add several ability modifers together, negatives and positives. Perhaps breaking down a door requires strength and constitution.
Some problems require many ability scores to solve. Team work. The wizard tells the fighter where to hit the door and the cleric tells him stop before he gets hurt.

Good discussions.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

Yes, yes, they're using specific parts of their bodies so they don't hurt themselves. Kind of like how you use specific parts of the sword - when you attack with it - so you don't hurt yourself. That's what the proficiency bonus in the attack roll represents (the 'hurting yourself' part could be represented by a critical miss houserule).

I suppose when you think about it, attacking things is a kind of skill. So in the cases where you're using carefully-controlled force to break a door open, you could justify using the word 'skill' to describe that. I'll accept that. But when I'm DMing D&D, I'll still abstract it into attack rolls (or just narrate the success if there's no time pressure).

Edit:


Perhaps a DM would allow in the case of quick breach you could use your athletic skil set to batter down a door

I'm fine with this approach. Sometimes, Athletics will be relevant. Sometimes it's a pure STR check. Let the DM decide.


The wizard could always fix it with a fireball.

As the radius of the explosion increases, the number of problems it cannot solve approaches zero. [/MANGLED, HALF-REMEMBERED QUOTATION]


Now discipline could be a skill learned and trained in. It use to be. Having the fortitude and resolve to break down a door without tools if needed or suffer a forced March might require a skill check such as discipline. Or just add several ability modifers together, negatives and positives. Perhaps breaking down a door requires strength and constitution.

Yeah, per the books, forced marches trigger CON saves, but if that was going to be a big feature of a campaign, it might be worth adding a Discipline skill, or similar.


Team work. The wizard tells the fighter where to hit the door and the cleric tells him stop before he gets hurt.

Damn clerics, always thinking they know best... I've got like 60 hitpoints! Who cares about a few splinters? *shoulder-charges solid iron portcullis* What do you mean, "stunned for one round"?

[djreynolds]

Yes, yes, they're using specific parts of their bodies so they don't hurt themselves. Kind of like how you use specific parts of the sword - when you attack with it - so you don't hurt yourself. That's what the proficiency bonus in the attack roll represents (the 'hurting yourself' part could be represented by a critical miss houserule).

I suppose when you think about it, attacking things is a kind of skill. So in the cases where you're using carefully-controlled force to break a door open, you could justify using the word 'skill' to describe that. I'll accept that. But when I'm DMing D&D, I'll still abstract it into attack rolls (or just narrate the success if there's no time pressure).

Agreed. I'm not sure if this a good debate point for ability vs skill. As for tactics, it isn't easy to force people to role play stats. But fighters should take history as a skill. These guys are trained by the previous failures and successes of those that came before. Good history check by a fighter might be needed to know if he recalls the battle of so and so where orcs used a particular flanking maneuver. A battle master should want intelligence as an ability and history as a skill.
Perhaps not tactics roll, but a history check. Soldiers are always trained and retrained because the enemy learns his tactics and uses that.
So if your fighter didn't take history as a skill he can't add his proficiency bonus to the check to see if remembers x battle or y battle and what tactic was used.

[Thrudd]

This is very simple. Everything is an ability check. A skill gives you proficiency bonus on specific ability checks. How they arrived at the list of skills is probably based on what sorts of activities will regularly be performed by adventurers. If a player and DM really want to, just make a new skill and decide what scenarios it applies to.

The book would be a thousand pages long if they listed a skill for every possible thing any person might know or be able to do.

[Ninja_Prawn]

But fighters should take history as a skill... A battle master should want intelligence as an ability and history as a skill.


I admire your conviction!

Also, I am under the impression that modern-day soldiers have to pass written tests before they can join up and they get taught a bit of history in their training, so there's clearly some wisdom in the above advice.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I admire your conviction!

Also, I am under the impression that modern-day soldiers have to pass written tests before they can join up and they get taught a bit of history in their training, so there's clearly some wisdom in the above advice.

I say this as a person who has tons of family members, friends, and knows people who went into different parts of the armed forces...

It will scare you how... Ignorant outside of their specific field a lot of those soldiers are.

Also modern day has no basis when talking about a fantasy game.

[pwykersotz]

I say this as a person who has tons of family members, friends, and knows people who went into different parts of the armed forces...

It will scare you how... Ignorant outside of their specific field a lot of those soldiers are.

Also modern day has no basis when talking about a fantasy game.

Are you trying to make a point with this? Do you think no fighter should have wisdom or int based skills? Or that few should? Or...what? :smallconfused:

[PoeticDwarf]

Do we really need a distinction between the two?

They are essentially the same thing and many of the ability check items could straight up become their own skill. Breaking doors down may not be athletics, but you could make a skill called something like Might, Power, or Destruction.

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

But yeah anyways... Is there a reason these two are separate when they are the same exact thing? Skills are ability checks but ability checks are not skills... That seems weird to me.

initiative is an ability check not a skill check.

It sometimes happens the DM lets us just make a charisma or strenght check.

[djreynolds]

The art of war and even red badge of courage are required reading in the infantry. Really. And the military is always evolving as conflicts change. How to utilize new technology is just as important as remembering how to perform land navigation. You may gain a degree in military history, but its different seeing it through the eyes of past generals and seeing through the eyes of the common soldier. I think it is why the developers included history as a fighter skill, and allow the battle master the ability to size up the enemy. But the wizard and bard have obtained that knowledge as well as they seek out more and more lore.

[djreynolds]

This is a great thread because half the adventure is just getting into combat. We never seem to have a balanced party and someone else has to pick up the slack. We have no cleric, no wizard, and no bard. I don't know why. We're always asking the DM if we can do this, and none of us has the skill. So it's a very relevant thread. We had to pay a merchant to open a lock for us. We have to by healer kits and potions. We can't always make friends with NPC's because we lack a face or language or a caster to read a scroll. We use a lot of ability checks but can't add the helpful proficiency bonus.

Great points

[Ninja_Prawn]

This is a great thread because half the adventure is just getting into combat. We never seem to have a balanced party and someone else has to pick up the slack. We have no cleric, no wizard, and no bard. I don't know why. We're always asking the DM if we can do this, and none of us has the skill. So it's a very relevant thread. We had to pay a merchant to open a lock for us. We have to by healer kits and potions. We can't always make friends with NPC's because we lack a face or language or a caster to read a scroll. We use a lot of ability checks but can't add the helpful proficiency bonus.

Great points

Wow, what do you have in your party? Maybe you should hire an NPC with some skills...

[djreynolds]

Two monks, two beast masters ( one has an owl and on has a monkey), two monks, thief ( my kid, her sorcerer died), myself a champion, and an eldritch knight who never shows. A parade of idiots. Cannon fodder. If you played NWN2. You remember those dumb adventures you couldn't get rid of as the knight captain, that's us, only worse. I've told them all to log on here and read all the posts and learn from expert gamers...... Our DM is at least having fun. Dave the monk is a real person and character.

[Vogonjeltz]

Again...

Skill Check is like saying "ability checks in which you use your proficiency bonus to complete a specific task". You can't say there isn't a skill check in the game or else you never use skills.

And as I've said, skill checks ARE ability checks but ability checks are not skill checks.

However it is just easier to say skill check instead of an entire sentence describing a two word phrase. You know, how we use language all the time in real life.

Yeah, I said it's a colloquial term used by forum goers, and it's more like: "ability checks for skills you have proficiency in". I definitely can say there isn't a skill check because it's not a thing.

If you disagree, feel free to prove it by quoting me the page and verse in the PHB saying something like: "skill checks are...X". This seems especially important when you are attempting to create a distinction between one thing that actually exists and another thing that doesn't.

If you are asking: Why is there a distinction between checks that apply skill proficiency and checks that do not....you've answered your own question. Because not everyone will be proficient at everything an ability can be used for. Skills help to make that distinction.


This is a great thread because half the adventure is just getting into combat. We never seem to have a balanced party and someone else has to pick up the slack. We have no cleric, no wizard, and no bard. I don't know why. We're always asking the DM if we can do this, and none of us has the skill. So it's a very relevant thread. We had to pay a merchant to open a lock for us. We have to by healer kits and potions. We can't always make friends with NPC's because we lack a face or language or a caster to read a scroll. We use a lot of ability checks but can't add the helpful proficiency bonus.

Great points

Proficiency isn't required to attempt a check, and it's (at best) a +6 bonus, in the early game it's a mere +2. Nice, but by no means so important that a non-proficient character can't do the exact same thing (and do it just as well).

Making friends with NPCs isn't skill-related. There are skills for deceiving, scaring, and influencing, but not one for making friends. For that you could just roleplay being nice to them.

And, lastly, I note you seem to be having problems regarding languages...everyone speaks common, and one other language, at a minimum. The chances of having an enemy who doesn't speak common (or one of the other common languages) is remarkably slim. So slim, I'm inclined to remark on it as most remarkable.

Despite the implausibility of all the characters in a group having only two languages and yet still routinely encountering others who are incapable of understanding them, it's also possible to learn languages in game by training, or via the Linguist Feat. If it's that big a deal of course.

Also, I'd note that of the three classes you mentioned, only Cleric has the possibility of getting bonus languages via Knowledge Domain. Interestingly enough, Wizards and Bards do not. Classes that do gain extra languages: Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue


Two monks, two beast masters ( one has an owl and on has a monkey), two monks, thief ( my kid, her sorcerer died), myself a champion, and an eldritch knight who never shows

If you have 2 rangers that's going to be between 2-4 bonus languages on top of the racial languages they should speak. As a group you could potentially speak up to 13 languages, if you were all acolytes we can knock that up to 27, and if you each took linguist we'd have a potential 48 languages spoken by the group.

[Naanomi]

For clarification proficiency can be up to +14.... +6, +1 for Ion Stone of Mastery, and doubled for expertise (or similar doubling abilities)

[Ninja_Prawn]

If you have 2 rangers that's going to be between 2-4 bonus languages on top of the racial languages they should speak. As a group you could potentially speak up to 13 languages, if you were all acolytes we can knock that up to 27, and if you each took linguist we'd have a potential 48 languages spoken by the group.

I'm pretty sure you'd need to go into local dialects of common to find 48 unique languages...

Edit: the language list in my houserules has 50 entries, 8 of which are dialects. So djreynolds' party could conceivably speak every language I might throw at them. Which would, of course, become completely redundant when the monks hit level 13.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm pretty sure you'd need to go into local dialects of common to find 48 unique languages...

There are 18 languages (standard, exotic, and class specific) in the PHB, which also specifies that if you speak one dialect of a language (i.e. Auran is a dialect of Primordial) then you can communicate with someone speaking another (i.e. Terran).

So, given the potential number of languages it's pretty remarkable that they're actually having alot of trouble speaking to the things they meet.

[Naanomi]

There are 20 more in the Monster Manual...

Bullywug, Gith, Gnoll, Grell, Hook Horror, Modron, Otyugh, Sahaugin, Slaad, Sphinx, Thri-Kreen, Troglodyte, Umberhulk, Yeti, Blink Dog, Giant Elk, Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Winter Wolf, Worg

[DemonSlayer6]

RAW, you will only roll 1d20 for these three instances:

An Attack roll.
A Saving throw.
An Ability Check.


Any other roll you make will be a subset or subclass of one of these three. "Concentration" checks and "Death Saves" are both subsets of the "saving throw" roll. Initiative, ability checks to reach some nondescript or general goal, and skill checks are all subsets of the "ability check" roll.

The primary reason for a colloquial distinction between "pure" "ability check" and specialized "skill check", then, is to specify the possibility of proficiency. A character with a negative Charisma modifier might have a +4 on "Persuasion (CHA)" skill checks because they are proficient in "Persuasion". Also note that most kits work similarly. If a character is proficient in a kit, they can use the kit to make an ability check with the kit and in doing so can add their proficiency bonus to the base ability check; this demonstrates their skill with the kit on top of their natural ability.

[DanyBallon]

At my table I call for an ability check to overcome certain challenge, and the player can suggest which ability score to use and add his skill modifier instead of the ability modifier if it make sense. Sometimes it's pretty forward, as doing a strength + athletic to jump over a crevasse, sometimes player's are more creative and may ask for ability and skills that are not usually related, but it that particular situation, makes perfect sense.

[djreynolds]

In defense of the original question, sort of devil's advocate. Just an idea. But what if no skills existed, but each character could choose expertise at level 1 for an ability score. A wizard could choose intelligence and for any intelligence check they would add ability and proficiency. A rogue or bard would choose two and a ranger would get expertise to any skill pertaining to his chosen terrains including the initial expertise. Not bad? And instead of the skilled feat you could pick another ability for expertise.

[Naanomi]

RAW, you will only roll 1d20 for these three instances:

An Attack roll.
A Saving throw.
An Ability Check.


Any other roll you make will be a subset or subclass of one of these
A few exceptions exist (Wild Magic roll isn't any of these) but more or less true

[Ninja_Prawn]

In defense of the original question, sort of devil's advocate. Just an idea. But what if no skills existed, but each character could choose expertise at level 1 for an ability score. A wizard could choose intelligence and for any intelligence check they would add ability and proficiency. A rogue or bard would choose two and a ranger would get expertise to any skill pertaining to his chosen terrains including the initial expertise. Not bad? And instead of the skilled feat you could pick another ability for expertise.

Personally, the lack of granularity doesn't appeal; I want to be able to play (and represent numerically) characters such as:


A noble rogue, who excels in Acrobatics and lock-picking (Dex skills), but also knows a lot about noble families and is adept at small-talk (History and Persuasion; Int and Cha) and doesn't really know much about Stealth (Dex again... I guess they're kind of wedded to gaudy, foppish clothing).
A half-mad wizard who is obsessed with Nature (Int), to the extent that they've forgotten whatever Arcane knowledge (also Int) they once had.
A straightforward fighter who's fit, good with animals and comfortable in the wilderness (Str and Wis skills), but hopeless at reading people (also a Wis skill).


You system would work well if you were running a game that didn't really focus on social interaction or general adventuring, which is fine, but not my style.

[Vogonjeltz]

There are 20 more in the Monster Manual...

Bullywug, Gith, Gnoll, Grell, Hook Horror, Modron, Otyugh, Sahaugin, Slaad, Sphinx, Thri-Kreen, Troglodyte, Umberhulk, Yeti, Blink Dog, Giant Elk, Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Winter Wolf, Worg

So their potential number of languages spoken only exceeds the actual number of delineated languages by 10? *cough*.


In defense of the original question, sort of devil's advocate. Just an idea. But what if no skills existed, but each character could choose expertise at level 1 for an ability score. A wizard could choose intelligence and for any intelligence check they would add ability and proficiency. A rogue or bard would choose two and a ranger would get expertise to any skill pertaining to his chosen terrains including the initial expertise. Not bad? And instead of the skilled feat you could pick another ability for expertise.

Well, if that were the case, it would horribly devalue Jack of All Trades, Remarkable Athlete, and Expertise.

Also, do we have numbers available for the kinds of things each ability check corresponds to? I mean, are there more activities that involve Wisdom than Intelligence or Constitution? It seems like this would be pushing towards everyone picking the broadest and most applicable ability check. This sounds bland.

[djreynolds]

So their potential number of languages spoken only exceeds the actual number of delineated languages by 10? *cough*.



Well, if that were the case, it would horribly devalue Jack of All Trades, Remarkable Athlete, and Expertise.

Also, do we have numbers available for the kinds of things each ability check corresponds to? I mean, are there more activities that involve Wisdom than Intelligence or Constitution? It seems like this would be pushing towards everyone picking the broadest and most applicable ability check. This sounds bland.

Agreed, I was just trying to see other options. I would think a character might be more inclined to take ability expertise in their class stat, such as charisma for a bard. But even now any player is gonna lead towards skills like perception or stealth so than can participate more in the adventure. And yes skills do add flavor to a character.