Different Abilities and (Skills)

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I often make my players roll different Ability(Skill) checks. Players always seem surprised by this. Some examples:
Charisma(History) checks for gossip they may have heard.
Strength(Intimidation) for physical threats.
Dexterity(Performance) for dancing.
Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!
Intelligence(Medicine) because it should be anyway.
Intelligence(any tool or instrument)

You get it. Anyway, do you do this as a DM? Do you see this as players?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I often make my players roll different Ability(Skill) checks. Players always seem surprised by this. Some examples:
Charisma(History) checks for gossip they may have heard.
Strength(Intimidation) for physical threats.
Dexterity(Performance) for dancing.
Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!
Intelligence(Medicine) because it should be anyway.
Intelligence(any tool or instrument)

You get it. Anyway, do you do this as a DM? Do you see this as players?

I use this variant rule a lot, it's one of my favorite things in the PHB.

Charisma (History) would be if you're trying to entertain someone with a history lesson. Telling someone gossip would be a Int check, maybe a Int (History) if it was ancient gossip?

Strength (Intimidation) is on point.

Dexterity (Performance) makes sense.

Wisdom or Intelligence (Nature) both makes sense for farming. Depends on how you got the info.

Int (Medicine) is to know about medicine, Dex (Medicine) is for surgery, Wis (Medicine) is to gauge how well your treatment is working on a creature. Cha (Medicine) is to sell snake oil (Cha Deception works too).

[Trask]

I haven't used this yet but I want to. It opens up a lot of possibilities.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I haven't used this yet but I want to. It opens up a lot of possibilities.

Strength (Handle Animal) for grappling animals.

Literal skills for the win!

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Charisma (History) would be if you're trying to entertain someone with a history lesson. Telling someone gossip would be a Int check, maybe a Int (History) if it was ancient

My player was a Bard Noble who wanted to know more about a local Aristocrat. I had him roll Charisma(History) to see what he would have learned through steering conversations to gather information.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My player was a Bard Noble who wanted to know more about a local Aristocrat. I had him roll Charisma(History) to see what he would have learned through steering conversations to gather information.

I feel like Charisma (History) could work, though, a straight Charisma (Persuasion) or (Deception) check would work for steering a conversation in a specific way that is counter to what the other wants it to go.

Though, depending on the situations, no check may be required.

Int checks should be about discovery, not what you already know, as you already know it. So, searching and deciphering a time should be a check, but someone asking your character if they know something about nature (what type of tree is that) shouldn't be a check if it falls under your character's knowledge.

If that makes sense.

[Sigreid]

My player was a Bard Noble who wanted to know more about a local Aristocrat. I had him roll Charisma(History) to see what he would have learned through steering conversations to gather information.

Fair enough, I probably would have gone with Charisma+Investigation myself.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Fair enough, I probably would have gone with Charisma+Investigation myself.

I feel like Investigation is ignored way to much.

Though, I guess Insight is just Wisdom (Investigation).

I don't think I care for the skill system in 5e.

[Dienekes]

Yup, not too much. But I do. Here's some I've used not on your list

Charisma (Stealth): for blending into a crowd
Constitution (Athletics): for tests of endurance
Dexterity (Handle Animal): for ride checks

[Anymage]

I'm a little torn.

On the one hand, it encourages player creativity and alternate builds. You can be good at certain tasks due to your innate strengths instead of because those tasks line up with your classes primary attribute.

On the other hand, you know that players will use it to try and argue that all skill checks should default to their primary stat and/or insist that they can ignore the drawbacks of their dump stats. Strength (Intimidate) being the most popular example, where people will argue that their strength score means that they're good at just standing there looking large and menacing. Sometimes your innate strengths just aren't applicable, and sometimes you do want to make it clear that you can't dump a stat and then entirely ignore the drawbacks,

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm a little torn.

On the one hand, it encourages player creativity and alternate builds. You can be good at certain tasks due to your innate strengths instead of because those tasks line up with your classes primary attribute.

On the other hand, you know that players will use it to try and argue that all skill checks should default to their primary stat and/or insist that they can ignore the drawbacks of their dump stats. Strength (Intimidate) being the most popular example, where people will argue that their strength score means that they're good at just standing there looking large and menacing. Sometimes your innate strengths just aren't applicable, and sometimes you do want to make it clear that you can't dump a stat and then entirely ignore the drawbacks,



You could also allow players to roll a different ability scores with different skills but adjust the DC. If you find that the player's idea is cool or would work better, lower the DC by 5, if it's crazy and makes it harder then raise the DC by 5.

No arguments.

[Tanarii]

I stopped doing it as much as time passed. It caused too much confusion and could really break tension/pacing.

OTOH I had many players get confused by calling for a Wisdom (Perception) or Strength (Athletics) check. "You mean a Perception check?" Many players just don't get that they are ability checks possibly modified by proficiency, not skill checks.

The standard layout of character sheets, with a separate skills bonuses pre-calculated in their own section, doesn't help. My (handwritten) character sheets always have ability scores, their modifiers next to each one, my proficiency bonus, then a list of skill proficiencies by name with no numbers next to them below that. It helps to stop me from thinking "I use the Persuasion skill". Which is a double trap, because I should also be thinking what I want to do and how anyway.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I stopped doing it as much as time passed. It caused too much confusion and could really break tension/pacing.

OTOH I had many players get confused by calling for a Wisdom (Perception) or Strength (Athletics) check. "You mean a Perception check?" Many players just don't get that they are ability checks possibly modified by proficiency, not skill checks.

The standard layout of character sheets, with a separate skills bonuses pre-calculated in their own section, doesn't help. My (handwritten) character sheets always have ability scores, their modifiers next to each one, my proficiency bonus, then a list of skill proficiencies by name with no numbers next to them below that. It helps to stop me from thinking "I use the Persuasion skill". Which is a double trap, because I should also be thinking what I want to do and how anyway.

I didn't notice it break pacing. But I did explain a lot of dtuff to my players at session 0.

[LudicSavant]

I've always seen the Strength (Intimidation) thing as taking a rather narrow view of what it means to be intimidating. It's reacting to the problem "I think my musclebound giant should be scary," but not the more generalized problem "I think the guy who is demonstrably threatening should be scary." And being demonstrably threatening can and should take an awful lot more forms than Strength.

The way I run it is that demonstrating who's more powerful than who (whether it's by being a towering musclebound giant, or a little old woman who just demonstrated that yes, she can in fact turn all of your friends into undead abominations with a snap of her fingers) affects the DC of the Intimidate check, similar to how (per DMG guidelines) the DC of a Persuasion check is impacted by things like appealing to their traits that you learned with Insight, or by having a pre-existing relationship, or doing them favors, etc.

If you appear to have the upper hand, the Intimidation check is easy. If on the other hand you're a little human who hasn't demonstrated any special abilities trying to intimidate a dragon, the Intimidation check is hard... regardless of how buff you are (for a dragon, identifying a buff human is like if you tried to identify a particularly buff mouse). But something significantly stronger than you may still be intimidated by a sufficient Charisma check (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KujmrcF0ZxU).

Anyways, my players love this route. The end result is that this makes it so that everyone can do something to help with the party being intimidating. It's not a one man show, it's an entire social pillar (as it should be) and every class can potentially think of something scary to do with their abilities. Being a strong guy is just one form of that, and frankly one of the less scary ones I've seen.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Strength (Intimidation) is reacting to the problem "I think my musclebound giant should be scary," but not the more generalized problem "I think the guy who is demonstrably threatening should be scary." And being demonstrably threatening can and should take an awful lot more forms than Strength.

The way I run it is that demonstrating who's more powerful than who (whether it's by being a towering musclebound giant, or a little old woman who just demonstrated that yes, she can in fact turn all of your friends into undead abominations with a snap of her fingers) affects the DC of the Intimidate check, similar to how (per DMG guidelines) the DC of a Persuasion check is impacted by things like appealing to their traits that you learned with Insight, or by having a pre-existing relationship, or doing them favors, etc.

If you appear to have the upper hand, the Intimidation check is easy. If on the other hand you're a little human who hasn't demonstrated any special abilities trying to intimidate a dragon, the Intimidation check is hard... regardless of how buff you are (for a dragon, identifying a buff human is like if you tried to identify a particularly buff mouse). But something significantly stronger than you may still be intimidated by a sufficient Charisma check (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KujmrcF0ZxU).

Anyways, my players love this route. The end result is that this makes it so that everyone can do something to help with the party being intimidating. It's not a one man show, it's an entire social pillar (as it should be) and every class can potentially think of something scary to do with their abilities. Being a strong guy is just one form of that, and frankly one of the less scary ones I've seen.


Sounds like a lot of work when Ability Score (Intimidation) works.

[LudicSavant]

Sounds like a lot of work when Ability Score (Intimidation) works.

It's no more work than setting the DC of the Ability Score (Intimidation) check according to circumstance. You know, that thing the DMG says you're supposed to be doing anyways :smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's no more work than setting the DC of the Ability Score (Intimidation) check according to circumstance. You know, that thing the DMG says you're supposed to be doing anyways :smalltongue:

Sure on the NPC side, but if a player wants to use intimidation you have to discuss with them and determine who the biggest threat is and why...

Just have them roll Ability Score (Intimidation) and describe how they are being intimidating.

It skips a lot of stuff that is going to drag the game to a hault. The player's also get to decide how their characters are acting.

[LudicSavant]

Sure on the NPC side, but if a player wants to use intimidation you have to discuss with them and determine who the biggest threat is and why... No, I most certainly don't. In fact I'd advise against that.

It doesn't really matter who the biggest threat is or why, only whether or not the target has been given reason to think the party is especially threatening to it. If they have, I set a lower DC. If they haven't, I set a higher one. Very simple.

Basically, the Charisma check is to convince people they should be afraid of whatever's going on. If whatever's going on is already scary, then you're going to have an easier time convincing them (if you even have to roll a check at all).


Just have them roll Ability Score (Intimidation) and describe how they are being intimidating.

That's... what I just described. The players describe what they're doing, the DM sets a DC, a player makes a check against that DC.

Something seems to have been lost in translation somewhere.

[BurgerBeast]

I’m fine with the alternate rule of using nonstandard ability checks with skills (or any other proficiency), however that does not mean that I support this approach in all cases, nor even in many of them.

I’m paraphrasing things I learned from the Angry GM here:

1. Every check is an ability check, and this should be your starting point. For an untrained person, which ability is relevant?
2. Determine the character’s intention and approach when deciding which ability to use
3. Decide if you can narrate this as auto-success or auto-failure. If not, a check is required.
4. The relevant ability is the one that would first cause you to fail
5. Now that you know what the character’s approach is, and which ability is connected to failure, consider whether any proficiencies make sense

Notably, I think the intimidation is egregiously misunderstood. Often, people think someone is “intimidating” when he isn’t - he’s just a credible threat. Flexing muscles of throwing tables is no different than brandishing a knife of a gun. Afraid or not, you have a logical reason to do follow directions.

Another way to think about it is the classic mafia-movie scene where a finger gets cut off in a cigar cutter. The victim is not intimidated. The victim is aware of a real threat.

Intimidation is ones ability to persuade someone that they should be afraid, which is why it is essentially always a charisma check, and why I think it is a poor example.

The second situation is the interchanging of acrobatics and athletics. There is usually a clearly better answer, and it is found by asking which ability is most likely to be the reason for failure. If it’s strength, then it’s probably an athletic task. If it’s dexterity, then it’s probably an acrobatic task.

[MrStabby]

I often make my players roll different Ability(Skill) checks. Players always seem surprised by this. Some examples:
Charisma(History) checks for gossip they may have heard.
Strength(Intimidation) for physical threats.
Dexterity(Performance) for dancing.
Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!
Intelligence(Medicine) because it should be anyway.
Intelligence(any tool or instrument)

You get it. Anyway, do you do this as a DM? Do you see this as players?

Yeah, I do this a lot.

Some other examples I have used:

Thieves tools/strength - using a crowbar to open a door
Persuasion/intelligence - to make an argument based on logic rather than emotive appeals

Hmm. I used to have a few more of these... a lot more. I cant remember them but I had a thread on this topic a few years back I think.

[LudicSavant]

Notably, I think the intimidation is egregiously misunderstood. Often, people think someone is “intimidating” when he isn’t - he’s just a credible threat. Flexing muscles of throwing tables is no different than brandishing a knife of a gun. Afraid or not, you have a logical reason to do follow directions.

Another way to think about it is the classic mafia-movie scene where a finger gets cut off in a cigar cutter. The victim is not intimidated. The victim is aware of a real threat.

Intimidation is ones ability to persuade someone that they should be afraid, which is why it is essentially always a charisma check, and why I think it is a poor example.

Yeah, this is more or less how I see it.

Intimidation is basically your ability to upsell the scariness of the existing situation.

You don't need to roll any check at all to present a credible threat by brandishing a Wand of Fireballs or your Barbarian physique. You need to roll an Intimidate check to make people react more than they normally would to said threat.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

"I want to snap this spear to scare the guy".
That is a Strength(Intimidation) check.

"I want to try and bend the bars to scare them into letting me out."
That is a Strength(Intimidation) check.

"I want to tell them all the nasty things I'll do to them if they don't do what I say."
THAT is a Charisma(Intimidation) check.

Even persuasion can use other abilities: Pathos, Logos, and Ethos = Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

I'd even let a player make a case for Wisdom(Deception) "I want to see if I can figure out what he wants to hear and say that" or Intelligence(Deception) "I'll use lots of jargon to confuse them and make myself look like an expert."

I let my players make a case to use their preferred abilities, but I have final say. This has never turned into and argument and has actually helped Roleplaying. Players now like to describe things in a way that utilizes their primary stats. If it really bothers you, raise the DC by 2 if they are crazy-quilting Abilities and Skills.

*p.s.* The fighter failed his Strength(Intimidation) check to snap the spear. It led to a funny scene where his face turned red with strain, failing to snap the spear.

[prabe]

I use this mechanic from time to time, as seems appropriate. I agree with the poster upthread who complained about the character sheets with skills slotted in with their most-common abilities, but it's pretty easy to reverse-engineer to the right bonuses. I also occasionally allow or encourage or call for what's almost a backward roll--use Stealth to give away your position when/where you want; use Deception to tell the truth and convince someone it's a lie; use Persuasion to make an insult stick (I miss the 3.x Diplomacy here) or maybe to encourage someone to be more set in his ways.

[Man_Over_Game]

I used to do this, but I feel like it's just too much work, too much bookkeeping, too many questions.

I'm far too lazy to try and decide what the difference between a Charisma (History) and an Intelligence (History) check is.

Rather, I just tell my players what Attribute they have to use for the action they're trying to do, and then they tell me what proficiencies they have that can apply. If they apply two or more that sound applicable, do it with Advantage.

----------------

So if you want to scout the enemy warband for any information as to how they might fight, that's a Wisdom check. If a player told me they wanted to do it with History, Investigation, or Perception, or something else they could justify, they add their Proficiency.

So now Medicine and Nature are as relevant as the player wants them to be. It's no longer "Medicine does this", but "here's a problem that can be solved with Medicine". So skills each have their own sphere of influence, rather than a specific niche.

[BurgerBeast]

"I want to snap this spear to scare the guy".
That is a Strength(Intimidation) check.

"I want to try and bend the bars to scare them into letting me out."
That is a Strength(Intimidation) check.

"I want to tell them all the nasty things I'll do to them if they don't do what I say."
THAT is a Charisma(Intimidation) check.

Even persuasion can use other abilities: Pathos, Logos, and Ethos = Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

As you can imagine based on my last post, I disagree. Persuasion is the use of rhetoric. Argumentation is the use of dialectic.

Persuasion is the use of rhetoric, concerned with changing another’s mind independent of the truth. This matches up with ethos (argument from authority - a logical fallacy) and pathos (argument from emotion - a logical fallacy). It is designed to circumvent the truth by causing the listener to focus on something oblique to the truth (the speaker’s authority, or emotion, in these cases).

When you succeed in persuasion, you get the other person to do what you want, and what they want is not considered at best, or actively discouraged at worst.

A logical argument is the use of dialectic, and is concerned with the truth of matters. This matches up with the logos. It is decidedly different than persuasion and, in fact, is usually designed to try to counter-act persuasive techniques (logical fallacies).

When you succeed in a logical argument, you find out what the other person thinks is true, and what you want them to think is not considered, or even actively avoided by the speaker.

[jas61292]

Not that I want this conversation to even further focus on only Intimidation, but I think the big issue with Strength based intimidation (which is also the big issue with a lot of other "different ability skill checks") is that in order to justify it, you tend to think of it as Intimidation (Strength), not Strength (Intimidation). Skills modify ability checks. Abilities do not modify skill checks. In fact, there is no such thing as a skill check.

When looking at a situation as a DM, the first thing you should be doing is figuring out what ability applies to the situation. Not what skill. Then once you have that ability, you may determine if any skills are relevant. The problem with a number of off ability skill uses, most notably Strength (Intimidation) is that it tends to work backwards in order to rationalize something that doesn't make a ton of sense.

Just think for a second about a situation where you are trying to scare someone with your strength. What is the player doing? That should always be the first question. You don't select abilities and skills based on a desired result, but based on the actions taking place. As has been suggested in some posts above, what someone might do in a situation like this is snap something in half to show your power. OK, so what you are doing is trying to break something. Lets say trying to snap a spear in half, to be more specific. That's a strength check. Are any skills relevant to trying to break a spear in half? Some DMs might say Athletics, but I personally believe that this is just a simple test of strength an no skill really applies. So then you make your check, and if you succeed, you snap the spear. Nothing there says anything about someone else's reaction to your action. Intimidation never comes into it at all.

Now if you want to scare someone into doing what you want, you are going to have to do more than simply snap a spear. You are not simply going to comply with everything someone says just because they snapped a spear. What if that person was just a harmless oaf, too strong for their own good, who snapped it by accident. No, if you are obeying them, it is because you feel threatened. And while someone might snap a spear as part of trying to make you feel threatened, there is more to it than that. Tone of voice, the words you say, your body language as you snap that spear.

In other words, snapping a spear is a Strength check. Making someone act in a particular way because they know you can snap a spear is a Charisma check. As a DM I might let someone incorporate spear snapping into their intimidation routine, and doing so might effect their Charisma (Intimidation) check DC, but it is not going to suddenly make it a Strength check.

This ultimately is a problem with a lot of different ability checks, in my opinion. Too often I find that you are trying to find a way to justify how this could possibly work, rather than actually following the steps for determining what check should actually be used. Some certainly do work, don't get me wrong. One of my favorite examples is actually one of the other examples given in the PHB: Constitution (Athletics). Swimming is often associated with Strength (Athletics), and that is what is often used with difficult swimming situations. High waves, fast running water, etc. And that makes sense. But if the challenge is not difficult swimming, but excessive amounts of it, and avoiding exhaustion, Constitution would be the relevant ability, while Athletics remains the relevant skill. I also really like Intelligence (Medicine), though that is largely because I think that should have been the default. Most situations where the medicine skill comes up involves knowing or reasoning out information regarding the medical field, which is firmly in the realm of Intelligence.

On the other hand, I am not a fan of things like Wisdom (Nature) or using Intelligence with most tools, as again I think those are situations where you are trying to retroactively justify the ability, rather than analyzing the actual action being attempted and determining first what ability it is associated with. Trying to recall (or check if you ever knew) any piece of information is always going to be Intelligence. The subject matter or reason for knowing is irrelevant. Similarly, when using a tool, what you are doing is using the tool. Your proficiency (or lack thereof) determines how well you know how to use it. The check itself is not a measure of knowledge, but of performance. As such, most tools should likely be Dexterity or Strength checks, depending on the nature of the tool. Though there are certainly bound to be exceptions.

[Sam113097]

I use this mechanic from time to time, as seems appropriate.

I think that that's the best way to handle this optional rule. I use the default ability/skill combinations unless I see a specific opportunity for something else to apply based on the situation (for example, an Int-based Persuasion check in a court setting) and offer the option to the player.



Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!


FARM WISDOM!

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I used to do this, but I feel like it's just too much work, too much bookkeeping, too many questions.

I feel this lol, but my old system was worse. I'd have a different DC for each player based on their background. Like a farmer Folk Hero may have a DC 10 INT(Nature) to identify this plant, but a city-slicker Urchin may have a DC 15. Now I think of the skill that would be applicable, and how that skill would be used. Basically I've made it a Skill(Ability) check.

I realize that's backwards but I love it, my players love it, it encourages roleplay, and makes proficiency choices made at creation have a larger impact on the character.

One last thing before we all just agree to disagree on Intimidation. As written, the Half-Orc Frenzy Barbarian who dumped Charisma (but is proficient in intimidation) is less scary than the Bard who didn't even take proficiency in intimidation. That just doesn't jive with me. I'm not saying Loki isn't Intimidating, I'm just saying that the Hulk is just as intimidating if not more so.

[Man_Over_Game]

I feel this lol, but my old system was worse. I'd have a different DC for each player based on their background. Like a farmer Folk Hero may have a DC 10 INT(Nature) to identify this plant, but a city-slicker Urchin may have a DC 15. Now I think of the skill that would be applicable, and how that skill would be used. Basically I've made it a Skill(Ability) check.

I realize that's backwards but I love it, my players love it, it encourages roleplay, and makes proficiency choices made at creation have a larger impact on the character.

That's kinda what the proficiencies from backgrounds are already supposed to represent. If the proficiencies from a background weren't enough, would Expertise do the same?

Additionally, outside of feats, there aren't many ways of getting proficiencies beyond level 1. The overall goal of nerfing/buffing content is to trim the player's options to play the way of your choosing (usually to create diversity, but sometimes to make a particular gameplay style more rewarding). If a player did decide to invest into a feat for skills, would they get less value out of it? Are you wanting your players to invest more into combat feats or combat classes?

Not saying it doesn't work for you, but I want to understand how and why it does work for you.

[Anymage]

I feel this lol, but my old system was worse. I'd have a different DC for each player based on their background. Like a farmer Folk Hero may have a DC 10 INT(Nature) to identify this plant, but a city-slicker Urchin may have a DC 15. Now I think of the skill that would be applicable, and how that skill would be used. Basically I've made it a Skill(Ability) check.

Isn't there a variant rule in the DMG saying that instead of skill proficiencies, to just let players be able to apply their proficiency bonus to any task where they can reasonably argue their background relevantly prepared them for? It's even more freeform and even more liable to see players reaching for justifications, but if that freeform nature is what you're going for just lean into that.


One last thing before we all just agree to disagree on Intimidation. As written, the Half-Orc Frenzy Barbarian who dumped Charisma (but is proficient in intimidation) is less scary than the Bard who didn't even take proficiency in intimidation. That just doesn't jive with me. I'm not saying Loki isn't Intimidating, I'm just saying that the Hulk is just as intimidating if not more so.

At low levels, that's because stat mod often outweighs proficiency bonus. That's intrinsic to the system, and you'll need a pretty hefty overhaul to change that.

At 20th level, an untrained person with peak human stat in the relevant area vs. a trained person at pointbuy minimum stat have the same total modifier. Rolled stats and supernatural effects that push you above 20 can both widen that gap, but the former is already known for exacerbating inequalities while the latter is justifiable through being explicitly supernatural. Nobody's saying it's perfect, but it's acceptable given the tradeoffs we're making for simplicity and bounded accuracy.

[47Ace]

I happen dislike the results of you whole system. Your system is probably RAW so in may ways you are right but the end effect of applying that to the game is what I dislike. The end result of if you aren't playing a charisma based class you might as well go grab a drink and go to the bathroom during social situations (nominally 1/3rd of the game) because your bumbling attempts to interact with people are not likely to be helpful. The fact that skill efficacy depends stats really annoys me because the (in my opinion) primary mechanical representation of my characters fluff (skills) are half dependent on something I have effectively no control over after I choice my class (stats).


I also really like Intelligence (Medicine), though that is largely because I think that should have been the default. Most situations where the medicine skill comes up involves knowing or reasoning out information regarding the medical field, which is firmly in the realm of Intelligence.

I may respectfully disagree with, but understand, the rest of your post but, this is just confusing. Sure now medicine has lots to do with intelligence and formal training but, most D&D settings take place in sudo-medieval ages. Where most healing knowledge that works is going to be old wives tales, memories and stories of what did and didn't work and other wisdom things. For example the wisdom of sailor had know for ages that fruit and lemons in particular prevented scurvy but the intelligence of intellectuals and formally trained doctors said that was wrong and the wort (not the things on your skin) would stop scurvy (it doesn't.) Sure in the off chance that the medicine user was formally trained Intelligence (Medicine) may make sense, but it should also come with a 75% chance of on a success getting the wrong result. For normal healers without formal training Wisdom make so much more sense.

[greenstone]

The way I'm doing it (after reading lots of advice on the web) is:

I ask for an Ability Check. For example, Strength.

Players can then argue for whatever skill proficiency they think might help.

It sorts out a lot of arguments.

Apart from the semi-regular "but climbing requires DEX not STR"…

[Tanarii]

Apart from the semi-regular "but climbing requires DEX not STR"…
The quickest way to nip that in the bud is to make the next session a visit to a climbing gym.

[furby076]

I often make my players roll different Ability(Skill) checks. Players always seem surprised by this. Some examples:
Charisma(History) checks for gossip they may have heard.
Strength(Intimidation) for physical threats.
Dexterity(Performance) for dancing.
Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!
Intelligence(Medicine) because it should be anyway.
Intelligence(any tool or instrument)

You get it. Anyway, do you do this as a DM? Do you see this as players?

I like it, but I would allow a player to use this or the regular score, or give them advantage if they have proficiency in the regular skill. For example, the Bard may do well on Charisma (history), but he may not be able to put the information together. If the Bard was proficient in history, id give him advantage.

If the bard had terrible dex, id let them use performance as-is as their choice. Otherwise characters would need to be MAD.

[Man_Over_Game]

Apart from the semi-regular "but climbing requires DEX not STR"…

Anyone who makes that argument can start shooting their longbows with STR

[Lvl45DM!]

Wisdom(Nature) for FAAAARM WISDOM!

Pepperidge Farm rolls a Nat 20

[jas61292]

I may respectfully disagree with, but understand, the rest of your post but, this is just confusing. Sure now medicine has lots to do with intelligence and formal training but, most D&D settings take place in sudo-medieval ages. Where most healing knowledge that works is going to be old wives tales, memories and stories of what did and didn't work and other wisdom things. For example the wisdom of sailor had know for ages that fruit and lemons in particular prevented scurvy but the intelligence of intellectuals and formally trained doctors said that was wrong and the wort (not the things on your skin) would stop scurvy (it doesn't.) Sure in the off chance that the medicine user was formally trained Intelligence (Medicine) may make sense, but it should also come with a 75% chance of on a success getting the wrong result. For normal healers without formal training Wisdom make so much more sense.

With regard to this part, I think this is just a misunderstanding of what the stats actually represent. Yes, as you say, most healing knowledge may be from old wives tales and stories and whatnot, but that still falls under the umbrella of Intelligence. Intelligence is the ability for knowing things. Doesn't matter if it is book smarts, common knowledge or old tales. If there is a question about knowing something, that is what Intelligence is there for. As per the PHB itself, Intelligence is for "...accuracy of recall and the ability to reason," among other things. Wisdom on the other hand is about "perceptiveness and intuition."

I think this is actually a core problem with D&D going back a long time. Wisdom means something that is crucial to the game, but it does not mean what people expect it to based on the word "wisdom." Pretty much any time you would think to describe someone as "wise" using normal English, what you probably mean in in-game terms that they have a good Intelligence. Someone with good Wisdom is someone who is perceptive and able to read people, not someone filled with old tales and special wisdom.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I had to wager a guess, it probably happened something like this:


Wisdom is an information-gathering stat for its generic purpose, as this is a distinct niche from Intelligence (which is mostly about using already-gathered information)
This is reflected with Investigation vs. Perception, or History vs. Insight. Illusions appear perfect, but are removed when you realize they behave incorrectly, and so are removed with an Intelligence check.
Divine Casters have always used Wisdom, so they must continue to do so.
Divine Casters revolve around Nature and Healing as tropes, so those skills must also use Wisdom to support those ideals.
Wisdom would be loaded with too many skills without intervention. Shift some onto Intelligence so that players don't feel obligated to only use a single attribute for skills.
This is likely what happened with the Nature skill, as it parallels with History and Religion, while Medicine has its closest parallel with Animal Handling.


That's it. Just some guys in an office trying to cover their asses from the previous design choices of a board game, making sure to keep things same-y enough to not p*** off their dedicated fanbase (the 4e problem) while trying to hammer out all of the ways the game could lose diversity (the 3.5e problem).

It's cynical, but that's part of the charm.

[JackPhoenix]

Pepperidge Farm rolls a Nat 20

But remembering things falls under Intelligence, not Wisdom!

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Not saying it doesn't work for you, but I want to understand how and why it does work for you.

Well first of all, the old system I used of sliding DCs was ****ed, don't do that.

Second, for important context, what I'm doing is trying to reign in some of the randomness. I know that is antithesis to alot of play styles. The consequence for failure in my game a normally VERY sever. That's because I don't have my players roll unless something bad can happen if they fail. I don't want to kill a character or arrest them because of a bad roll of something they SHOULD be good at.

Further, this is how I see the abilities (arguing about what abilities mean is like arguingabout religion, this is for context not debate):

Strength is physical, anything that requires muscle to achieve.

Dexterity is physical, anything that requires coordination or balance.

Constitution is physical and...spiritual? It's endurance, be it physical or determination.

Intelligence is mental, it's what you've been given focused training in or is logic based.

Wisdom is mental and physical. Physical because it represents your senses, and mental because it represents both experience and empathy. I know that's alot but I didn't write 5e.

Charisma is mental and spiritual. It's your force of personality and your ability to influence people.

PLAYERS WHO USE INTELLIGENCE(NATURE) AND WISDOM(NATURE) DO NOT GET THE SAME INFORMATION.

Sorry I wanted scrollers to catch that^.

An Intelligence(Nature) check might tell you what it's scientific name is, what it can be used for, and where it comes from. A Wisdom(Nature) check tells you what your folks called it, what they used it for, and in what kind of areas it grows.
A Wisdom(Medicine) check tells you how to treat the symptoms, an Intelligence(Medicine) check tells you the cause.

[Tanarii]

But remembering things falls under Intelligence, not Wisdom!
So does figuring things out ... using reason.

But not figuring things out ... by paying attention or by intuitive guessing.

Reasoning things out vs making intuitive leaps to figure things out, lots of people believe they are not related things. "Trust your gut" is a thing. Literally in the case of 5e Wisdom, since you can make checks to:

• Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow

(I don't personally agree with that separation, but that's either here nor there.)

[47Ace]

With regard to this part, I think this is just a misunderstanding of what the stats actually represent. Yes, as you say, most healing knowledge may be from old wives tales and stories and whatnot, but that still falls under the umbrella of Intelligence. Intelligence is the ability for knowing things. Doesn't matter if it is book smarts, common knowledge or old tales. If there is a question about knowing something, that is what Intelligence is there for. As per the PHB itself, Intelligence is for "...accuracy of recall and the ability to reason," among other things. Wisdom on the other hand is about "perceptiveness and intuition."

I think this is actually a core problem with D&D going back a long time. Wisdom means something that is crucial to the game, but it does not mean what people expect it to based on the word "wisdom." Pretty much any time you would think to describe someone as "wise" using normal English, what you probably mean in in-game terms that they have a good Intelligence. Someone with good Wisdom is someone who is perceptive and able to read people, not someone filled with old tales and special wisdom.

Fair enough it probably just goes back to me disliking how stats and skills in 5e work. In my opinion the easiest thing to do with the smallest number of changes is to just stop pretending that the stats are anything other then the wizard stat, the cleric stat, the hitting things with swords and axes stat. As a result I tend to come at skill discussions or or I hate people dumping intelligence and then making plans deductions from that point of view. Like sure make people have the bard/sorcerer/warlock stat to participate in social encounters surly the charisma classes and multiclasses suffer so much in the combat pillar that they must be given exclusive access to the social one. Or with the intelligence argument I hear things like how dare you power game by playing a martial class and dumping intelligence you should have to pay a wizard that'll teach you not to power game. I need to keep in mind that some people are just taking the stats at face value and voicing opinions accordingly. Alternatively, I wouldn't be apposed to a AD&D like system where you have stat minimums and if you have a high enough stat you get one +1 to your class features.