How Often Do You Use Ability Checks?

[SociopathFriend]

I've been doing some Champion studying lately and something fairly crucial was pointed out to me- not every check is meant to be covered by a Skill.

For example- breaking down a door as a Strength Check instead of an Attack Roll or Athletics Check.

This is, theoretically, an area in which the Champion shines since they can add half their Proficiency rounded up (not down, suck it Bard) to any Str, Dex, or Con check that doesn't already use their Proficiency.

So how often have you used (as DM) or been asked for (as Players) checks that only use your Ability Score- no associated Skills? What was the check?



I myself have almost never encountered Ability Checks that would have Remarkable Athlete kick in and wonder how often that is the case for others.

[Psyren]

The DMG provides the guidance you're looking for here:


When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies.

One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice. If the answer is no, it’s fine to say that no proficiency applies. But if the answer is yes, assign an appropriate skill or tool proficiency to reflect that training and practice.

If the task is one you could get better at through training, it's probably a good fit for a skill or tool check; otherwise, it should be a "naked" ability check.

The DMG suggests that you should err on the side of letting a player's proficiency apply if they ask, as well:


Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character’s training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player’s creative thinking.

As for specific examples of checks proficiency doesn't apply to - the PHB has some examples at the end of each ability description in Chapter 7, such as "push through a tunnel that is too small," "hang onto a wagon while being dragged behind it," or "steer a chariot around a tight turn."

[Tanarii]

For feats of Strength and Constitution that aren't Athletics, somewhat often. Strength far more often than constitution though. Most common is opening a large/heavy dungeon door in a single try, since failing that might alert enemies on the other side.

For Dexterity, it's most commonly picking (some) locks, disabling (some) traps, or initiative. Of course, the first two get a bonus from Thieves Tools if they have that instead.

IMO the real benefit comes from being able to put your skills into something other than Athletics or Dex skills, and still be passable in all those areas.

[Skrum]

Almost never. I hate naked ability checks. The math of game falls apart.

[KorvinStarmast]

I do it with great frequency. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails, and then we play on. Works fine.

[SociopathFriend]

Almost never. I hate naked ability checks. The math of game falls apart.

Does it? How so?

[Psyren]

Does it? How so?

I don't know about "falls apart" but it's certainly annoying when a level 5 barbarian and a level 15 one with the same strength have the same odds of doing something.

There are ways around that, but they are often not as apparent in the guidance as they could be.

[SociopathFriend]

I don't know about "falls apart" but it's certainly annoying when a level 5 barbarian and a level 15 one with the same strength have the same odds of doing something.

There are ways around that, but they are often not as apparent in the guidance as they could be.

For lvl 15 perhaps. Lvl 18 Barbarian gets a feature where if he gets less than his score on a strength check- he gets to use his score as the roll.

[kazaryu]

I've been doing some Champion studying lately and something fairly crucial was pointed out to me- not every check is meant to be covered by a Skill.

For example- breaking down a door as a Strength Check instead of an Attack Roll or Athletics Check.

This is, theoretically, an area in which the Champion shines since they can add half their Proficiency rounded up (not down, suck it Bard) to any Str, Dex, or Con check that doesn't already use their Proficiency.

So how often have you used (as DM) or been asked for (as Players) checks that only use your Ability Score- no associated Skills? What was the check?



I myself have almost never encountered Ability Checks that would have Remarkable Athlete kick in and wonder how often that is the case for others.

well, don't forget, remarkable athlete also applies to 'skill' checks too if the champion isn't proficient. for example, if they didn't take proficiency in athletics/acrobatics, they'd still get half proficiency to grapple checks of any sort. so...as often as my players make skill checks that they aren't proficenct with (fairly often with my current group.). mechanically speaking there is not difference between an 'ability check' and a 'skill check'. skill checks are just ability checks that proficiency might apply to (if a character is proficient). its also entirely a colloquialism.

[Psyren]

For lvl 15 perhaps. Lvl 18 Barbarian gets a feature where if he gets less than his score on a strength check- he gets to use his score as the roll.

Oh wow, level 18, surely that'll matter to most tables...


well, don't forget, remarkable athlete also applies to 'skill' checks too if the champion isn't proficient. for example, if they didn't take proficiency in athletics/acrobatics, they'd still get half proficiency to grapple checks of any sort. so...as often as my players make skill checks that they aren't proficenct with (fairly often with my current group.). mechanically speaking there is not difference between an 'ability check' and a 'skill check'. skill checks are just ability checks that proficiency might apply to (if a character is proficient). its also entirely a colloquialism.

Indeed, at low levels a champion can choose other things to be proficient in if they're planning to get those proficiencies later - the numerical difference is fairly minimal.

[Jerrykhor]

Does it? How so?

The randomness of the dice becomes more apparent because ability score modifiers usually aren't enough to be a difference maker. A character with 10 Intelligence can beat 20 Intelligence by simply rolling high. I've had games where I would constantly beat people with higher ability scores than me in ability checks. It just feels bad.

Besides, its not like using skill checks would not make sense, or use other mechanics. For example, breaking down doors. You can call for a weapon attack roll instead of a Strength check, since its unlikely that you would be trying to break a door with your bare hands. Besides, I think its more close to RAW for the DM to assign AC and hit points to a door.

There is only one ability check that everyone uses: Initiative.

[Sandeman]

My group use it every time when we cant connect the check to an appropriate skill.
Happens quite a lot.
For example, there is no skill for warfare/tactics related checks.

[Psyren]

For example, there is no skill for warfare/tactics related checks.

I'd let a History prof apply here personally, or possibly Insight if theyre reviewing a battle plan or observing the enemys actions directly, or possibly even just allow Fighters, Paladins etc to apply their proficiency bonus without a specific skill or tool.

[stoutstien]

I almost exclusively call for ability checks and it's up to the players to determine if they have a relative skill or feature that applies. I also set the DC's for the ability checks based on this fact.

[Martin Greywolf]

If the task is one you could get better at through training, it's probably a good fit for a skill or tool check; otherwise, it should be a "naked" ability check.

This is an extremely stupid rule, and it means there are practically no ability checks, ever. Because you can get better at anything with training. Any army or SWAT team will have procedures and training to break the doors down, there are tips and tricks that let you wear heavy armor for longer (stand wrong in that thing for 30 minutes and you will get a migraine), there is a lot of technique to sprinting, running and jogging... hell, there are strategies you can learn to become better at rock-paper-scissors.

Even some really specific things, like "how do I carry my 6 meter pike through this thick undergrowth" have paragraphs in training manuals dedicated to them.

[stoutstien]

This is an extremely stupid rule, and it means there are practically no ability checks, ever. Because you can get better at anything with training. Any army or SWAT team will have procedures and training to break the doors down, there are tips and tricks that let you wear heavy armor for longer (stand wrong in that thing for 30 minutes and you will get a migraine), there is a lot of technique to sprinting, running and jogging... hell, there are strategies you can learn to become better at rock-paper-scissors.

Even some really specific things, like "how do I carry my 6 meter pike through this thick undergrowth" have paragraphs in training manuals dedicated to them.

He already quoted the rules because.....that's how it works in 5e. You are supposed to set an ability check DC regardless of the fact Prof could be added via a skill or other source. Does that mean that 90% of the time they get to add something to the check? Yes. It's attentional.

[Kurt Kurageous]

When dice need to be rolled? Always. Everything is an ability check. Sometimes they get modified by proficiency.

This is how you break the connection between ability and skill in a way that benefits the player occasionally.

Your example is clearly a STR ability. As a DM, I pick the ability most applicable to the task. As the player, you get to suggest a proficiency that might apply. Most likely thats Athletics. I get to approve or disapprove, but if you suggest nothing (roleplay or 3rd person), you get nothing but your ability MOD.

What if you don't have a brute in the party and/or Athletics? What else might apply? I might say if you took a round to examine the door, I might allow Investigation to apply, making the final math also STRMOD+Profic Bonus. And there's the recommendation the party have a crowbar.

Carry this into social skills. Flexing on a guard to intimidate using Intimidate means STRMOD + Profic Bonus (if any), making a low CHA character able to play in a certain, limited way in a social interaction. And the monk/rogue? A flurry of fists/flash of knives (DEXMOD) is intimidating.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree.

[Tanarii]

This is an extremely stupid rule, and it means there are practically no ability checks, ever. Because you can get better at anything with training.
Not only that, but it directly contradicts the core PHB concept that ability scores represent both natural talent and training.

If something can be improved by training, it's an ability check. If somebody has a focus in the subset of tasks this particular ability check is covered by a skill description, then they get to add proficiency bonus.

Ability check is the broad umbrella of tasks, Skills are a specific subset of tasks within a specific given ability check. Ability scores already include training. Proficiency isn't just training, it's any reason you're better at those sub tasks than the other tasks of the ability score. Any two PCs with the same total modifier have the same total combination of talent, training, and focus, regardless of if the source is ability score or skill.

A Lvl Str 16 Fighter without Athletics and a Str 8 Rogue with Athletics Expertise have the same training in Strength (Athletics). Conversely, a Str 8 warlock with Athletics proficiency may have no training at all, it's all pact granted power. And the Str 16 Paladin has proficiency as divinely granted grace. Using the "does training make it better" guideline, the Fighter should get to add proficiency for +6, the Rogue adds it for +3, the Warlock can't add it for -1, and the Paladin can't add it for +3.

[Yakk]

At the start of every fight, you make a naked ability check (Dex) for initiative.

So there is that.

[Psyren]

He already quoted the rules because.....that's how it works in 5e. You are supposed to set an ability check DC regardless of the fact Prof could be added via a skill or other source. Does that mean that 90% of the time they get to add something to the check? Yes. It's attentional.

Bingo.


This is an extremely stupid rule, and it means there are practically no ability checks, ever. Because you can get better at anything with training.

Congratulations, you've arrived at the point. The idea is that very few tasks should be impossible to have training applicable to them. Rather, the idea is that the character may not have the necessary training. It's a system that encourages the player to be as creative with their descriptions as possible, and that rewards builds that invest in as many skills as possible.


At the start of every fight, you make a naked ability check (Dex) for initiative.

So there is that.

Even this can get proficiency via various means (e.g. Harengon.)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not only that, but it directly contradicts the core PHB concept that ability scores represent both natural talent and training

I do not believe that is at all contradictory.

A PC could increase their Strength Ability Score with an ASI.
This would represent general healthy living and a focus on exercise.

A PC that hired a trainer during downtime, to train them in Athletics, could be learning and working on deadlifting techniques, specifically.

Part of the issue is that Ability Scores, cover broad topics, and skills themselves are often as equally broad…which can lead to confusion.

Strength and Athletics, essentially overlap, in almost all things.

Intelligence and Knowledge History have far less overlap.
A person might be able to infer what a particular book is about, without having read it, but at some point some Knowledge based tasks could have Gatekeeping barriers.

Rolling a 20 on an Intelligence Ability check, might still not garner someone any useful information on reading a scroll written in ancient Draconic, if the PC in question, doesn’t know Draconic as a language.

[Tanarii]

Strength and Athletics, essentially overlap, in almost all things.

Intelligence and Knowledge History have far less overlap.


Strength includes everything in Athletics, plus more.
Intelligence covers everything in History (which is Lore btw, not Knowledge), plus more.
Skills are a subset of the ability score.


I do not believe that is at all contradictory.It is contradictory because going by the guideline of "does training allow you to apply proficiency bonus", you could get the bonus based on the starting (No ASI) ability score, which may include training per the PHB definitions of what ability scores are, even if you do not have proficiency in a related skill. And you might not get the bonus despite having proficiency in the skill, because proficiency in a skill doesn't have to be from training per the PHB definition of what proficiency in a skill is.

[Psyren]

I'm totally fine with 99.9% of a player's Strength checks getting Athletics proficiency to apply. Not only is that a buff to Strength-based martials, it means the dex-based ones have a painless way to be decent at swimming and jumping and climbing even with 8-10 Str. A master thief or monk who can't attain/traverse rooftops quickly is silly.

[stoutstien]

At the start of every fight, you make a naked ability check (Dex) for initiative.

So there is that.

Honestly initiative is a dex contest which is a subset of ability checks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Congratulations, you've arrived at the point. The idea is that very few tasks should be impossible to have training applicable to them. Rather, the idea is that the character may not have the necessary training. It's a system that encourages the player to be as creative with their descriptions as possible, and that rewards builds that invest in as many skills as possible.


Right. DCs should be set with the assumption that no proficiency applies. So that if you do have proficiency from some source (which may be tools, weapons, languages OR skills), you get a bonus. Having proficiency should never (or rarely) be a baseline. Just like magic items that give +X to various things (and most magic items in general, modulo some basic "can overcome resistance/immunity" weapons)--they should be bonuses, not system expectations.

Hot take--so should uses for your bonus action. Having something you can do with your bonus action should be a "hey look I'm special" and not the baseline so that you'd say "oh, I don't have a bonus action. Poor me, I'm falling behind."

[Tanarii]

I'm totally fine with 99.9% of a player's Strength checks getting Athletics proficiency to apply. Not only is that a buff to Strength-based martials, it means the dex-based ones have a painless way to be decent at swimming and jumping and climbing even with 8-10 Str. A master thief or monk who can't attain/traverse rooftops quickly is silly.
Athletics "covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming", so I'd sure hope it applies.
It also (explicitly) is used in grappling.

But it doesn't cover everything related to "bodily power" nor "extent to which you can exert raw physical force", outside of that subset of things covered by Athletics.

IMO mostly that's breaking, lifting or forcing things. Manacles & Doors are explicit DCs in the PHB and DMG. The PHB gives a couple of other examples. And of course, there's always the AD&D tradition of Bend Bars/Lift Gates. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

I'm perfectly happy letting the player use Athletics on manacles, bars and doors. I'd even let them use tool proficiencies (smith, smith, carpenter respectively) to exploit structural weaknesses in the construction of these barriers. And if they have both, they get advantage. or even automatically succeed.

[Skrum]

My main complaint is the degree to which the dice roll matters with ability checks. A character with a 10 in the relevant ability has a decent shot at beating out the character with an 18, and that's just nonsense. Strength is the most obviously ridiculous example, but since all of the ability scores are tracked the same, we can assume the others similarly represent a large spread of aptitude.

An average person can't "get lucky" and lift a heavy gate. That's absurd.

[PhoenixPhyre]

An average person can't "get lucky" and lift a heavy gate. That's absurd.

An average mom can't get lucky and lift a car off her toddler. That's absurd. Despite having happened enough to be a trope.

[Skrum]

An average mom can't get lucky and lift a car off her toddler. That's absurd. Despite having happened enough to be a trope.

Ehhh I'm skeptical. These accounts are always sketchy and hard/impossible to verify. Yes it's a trope, but is it an average person literally lifting even part of a car like we're imagining? I doubt it.

And anyway, it's certainly not the context of a party of adventures trying to bypass some obstacle and all of them giving it a shot because why the heck not.

[Psyren]

Also, "lift car off a toddler" can be anywhere from a few inches to a few feet of clearance. In game terms, even "failing" a Str check to "lift" something can feasibly do that much, because you haven't actually displaced the thing from its square.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ehhh I'm skeptical. These accounts are always sketchy and hard/impossible to verify. Yes it's a trope, but is it an average person literally lifting even part of a car like we're imagining? I doubt it.

And anyway, it's certainly not the context of a party of adventures trying to bypass some obstacle and all of them giving it a shot because why the heck not.

Actually, adventurers are based in the trope, not in the reality. It doesn't matter if people really do that (and yes, there are verified examples of such things, of people pushing themselves way beyond their normal limits). It's enough that it's archetypally possible. And "average person pushes themselves beyond their limit under stress[1]" is such a massive trope that denying it is what is unreasonable.


Also, "lift car off a toddler" can be anywhere from a few inches to a few feet of clearance. In game terms, even "failing" a Str check to "lift" something can feasibly do that much, because you haven't actually displaced the thing from its square.

objects don't have squares. The fiction isn't snapped to a grid--grids are an optional thing that has iffy support, not some fact of the universe.

[1] and by definition you're under stress, otherwise you're not making an ability check. Because ability checks only happen when there are meaningful consequences for failure, which imply stress.

[Psyren]

objects don't have squares. The fiction isn't snapped to a grid--grids are an optional thing that has iffy support, not some fact of the universe.

The fiction is not a binary between "thing cannot be budged even a centimeter" and "thing can be thrown in the air like you're Goku" either. Whatever those mothers were able to do, the DC of the task fit their capabilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The fiction is not a binary between "thing cannot be budged even a centimeter" and "thing can be thrown in the air like you're Goku" either. Whatever those mothers were able to do, the DC of the task fit their capabilities.

...no one said it was? "Lifting a heavy gate" isn't a well-defined thing in the abstract. All you need to do to allow someone to slip under is raise it a foot or two. Which fits very well with "lift a car off a toddler" as a trope.

[Psyren]

...no one said it was? "Lifting a heavy gate" isn't a well-defined thing in the abstract. All you need to do to allow someone to slip under is raise it a foot or two. Which fits very well with "lift a car off a toddler" as a trope.

My point is that your analogy is a non sequitur. "Lift car off toddler happens IRL" is quite compatible with "lift heavy gate high enough for party to get through via random chance is absurd." Both can be true without breaking the fiction.

[stoutstien]

My main complaint is the degree to which the dice roll matters with ability checks. A character with a 10 in the relevant ability has a decent shot at beating out the character with an 18, and that's just nonsense. Strength is the most obviously ridiculous example, but since all of the ability scores are tracked the same, we can assume the others similarly represent a large spread of aptitude.

An average person can't "get lucky" and lift a heavy gate. That's absurd.

That's always been an issue with the singe die action resolution. Ability checks are the most jarring because unlike attacks and saves you don't always have the ability to repeatedly attempt until you succeed.
That's one of the primary reasons DMs shouldn't inflate DCs by adding Prof bonuses into the base math. It adds weight to the D20 for anyone not specialized in the task.

If you want a quick and dirty for ability checks you could go for either 2D10 To normalize the curve or make most major ability checks a series of lower DCs with progression until success.

[Hytheter]

Ability checks are the most jarring because unlike attacks and saves you don't always have the ability to repeatedly attempt until you succeed.

Another important difference between attacks and ability checks is that attacks have a secondary form of scaling - the damage roll - that emphasises the differences between characters even if the modifiers on the d20 are similar. I don't know how it could be done, but using this philosophy for ability checks somehow might alleviate the problem. Alternately you could just ditch bounded accuracy for ability checks; it works great for combat but less so for skills and such, I'd say.