"Ability Check Proficiency"

[2097]

We (I am the DM + there are five players) started using this variant (from DMG p 263) three sessions ago (fourth session with this rule) and I’m like why didn’t we do this as soon as the DMG came out?! It is so awesome♥

Good things about it:

1. Saves space on character sheet
2. Easier to remember & explain
3. Less differentiation between characters
4. As DM, fewer numbers to keep track off (I’ve often used Passive Knowledge, like anyone with History 20 or more recognizes this item etc; this means a lot fewer such numbers to note).
5. More nostalgic for us OSR-influenced 5e players
6. We also don’t use a lot of ability checks period so it’s ridiculous that there should be such a detailed sub system (the skill list) for something we almost never use.
7. Much easier to level up your character
8. We had houseruled away a bunch of skills (such as Persuasion & Insight) which made it weird when the XGE came out with subsystem that used these (Carousing used Charisma (Persuasion) and the Inquisitive used Wisdom (Insight)); by using the Ability Check Proficiency variant those subsystems now work properly again.

So let me address a couple of things:

“Less differentiation between characters, isn’t that a bad thing?”

The OSR answer would be that they want characters to be kinda samey (at least mechanically) and then instead have player skill and actions matter more. But my answer is a little different, I want character to be different, but competence when it comes to these things isn’t necessarily a thing where I want super-fine-grained differentiation. There’s still gonna be situations like “OK, who has the highest wis? Let’s let them roll the navigation roll in the morning when hexcrawling” and that’s fine.

“Isn’t Dex & Wis OP? Obv choices.”

Even though Strength only had one proficiency before, it’s a proficiency that’s used all the time. Grappling, climbing etc.

In our three sessions using this system….

• In the first session (around four hours) we had one Strength check and one Int check.
• In the second session (around four hours) we had two Strength checks.
• In the third session (around seven hours) we had no ability checks at all, I did look at passive Int a couple of times though to check their knowledge about stuff they found.

I know Dex is great because of hiding and Wis is great because of spotting hidden & also when navigating & foraging so I’m not worried about Dex & Wis being UP. I think it’s just right actually, we have four relevant ones (S/D/I/W) and two more niche ones (Constitution only used in chases when checking for exhaustion from dashes [it’s weird that it’s not a saving throw, which would’ve been analogous with the Forced March rules] and in the Pit Fighting downtime rolls, and Charisma only in the Carousing downtime rolls).

Choosing two out of four is still an interesting choice.

I think it’s a mistake just counting up the number of skills in each ability because, well, with this system you’re not using skills, you’re using the abilities directly and that might be more often or more seldomly than with the skill system on.

“Why not sooner”

Finally, to answer my own rhetorical question “why didn’t we do this as soon as the DMG came out?”, it’s because I misread the rule; I thought it said that you chose two and then those ability modifiers go up by your proficiency. I was like “Uh that doesn’t seem very thought through”. Instead, it’s only for ability checks; attack rolls and saves are unaffected.

Also, we still use tool proficiencies, they are awesome. I love this mix of something very general (the six abilities) in conjunction with something very niche (cook’s utensils). It’s also great that those tool profs lets you do a bunch of things without rolling, such as the extra healing on rests if you have cook’s utensils (as per XGE).

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm actually slowly but surely evolving in this direction, and I encourage others to do the same.
It does depend on the group though, how knowledgeable they are, they're experience with TTPRGs and general creativity-problemsolving mindset.

I personally have cut the skill list down from 18 to 8, and I'm sure to keep going. Choosing skill proficiencies feels much more impactful. Getting three skills that all have major uses FEELS much better choosing six skills that each apply to half as many scenarios (looking at you persuasion and deception).

The only reason why I haven't gone full skill-removal are the names.
Let me explain.
A less knowledgeable player might not intuitively know which ability applies where, and how it can be applied. Having skill names gives clear examples on the context which the skill is used. I'm still figuring these out, especially with less-than-awesome english of my country. For my Stealth+Sleight of Hand skill, calling it "Subterfuge" goes over most people's heads, while "Subtlety" seems to be easier to understand. I also haven't had one player that knew what "Insight" meant. I ended up combing Insight and Investigation into "Deduction", and it sees much more use now. I'm just glad I didn't' have to call it "Calculated Guess". Languages are weird xD

[2097]

I’m actually slowly but surely evolving in this direction, and I encourage others to do the same.

That’s great♥

It does depend on the group though, how knowledgeable they are, they’re experience with TTPRGs and general creativity-problemsolving mindset.

Isn’t it, to some extent, a case of “if you build it, they will come?” I.e. the challenge is there, and in time they’ll get good at it?

I personally have cut the skill list down from 18 to 8, and I’m sure to keep going.

I had cut it from 18 to 12:

These were removed:

• Deception
• Intimidation
• Performance
• Persuasion
• Insight
• Investigation

These were changed to be passives:

• Arcana
• History
• Nature
• Religion

These were used normally:

• Athletics
• Acrobatics
• Sleight of Hand
• Stealth
• Animal Handling
• Perception (most often used as Passive)
• Medicine
• Survival

So we already don’t use a lot of skills; Instead of rolling investigation, they have to solve the puzzle; instead of rolling for insight to see if an NPC is lying, they have to try to “read” my hammy portrayal of that NPC.

Choosing skill proficiencies feels much more impactful. Getting three skills that all have major uses FEELS much better choosing six skills that each apply to half as many scenarios (looking at you persuasion and deception).

Oh, so you charge two for every one? (You get three if you would’ve gotten six.) That’s great! I never thought to do that. So we got a lot of the same skills chosen all the time; athletics, survival (we do a lot of wilderness stuff), stealth, perception… and it never got to feel impactful because you got the same amount of skills before but you just had fewer to choose from. Selecting two out of four (or out of six if you want to count the niche choices of con and cha) has been a real choice though.

I think part of the reason why I didn’t cut down their skill choices before was that I didn’t want to do anything that, uh, “punished” the players or whatever. It was more a case of “hey, when you select skills for your character, please be aware that Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion, Insight and Investigation are never ever going to be rolled”.

The only reason why I haven’t gone full skill-removal are the names.
Let me explain.
A less knowledgeable player might not intuitively know which ability applies where, and how it can be applied.

You’re right, maybe my anecdata is misleading because my own group did use the skills for almost five years so they have some experience for where the skills are used (the twelve skills I kept, that is – I cut out the “bad six” within weeks of 5e coming out).

Having skill names gives clear examples on the context which the skill is used.

That’s true, and that was feedback I got from one of the players; he had been on sick leave for our first two sessions with the new system. He asked “can’t it be good to still have the skill list on the character sheet, as sort of a guide?” but I’m like…

it’s a double-edged sword. Limiting wis to “only” Animal Handling, Perception, Medicine, Survival (and Insight except we cut that) is maybe misleading because there might be other situations where that sorta, uh, “awareness” that Wisdom gives can be good.

Wis is your eyes & ears, dexterity is your hands & balance, int is your memory, cha is your sense of self & your presence; strength and con should be obvious. That’s what I found happening much sooner than I expected; calling it Dexterity checks is.. it’s not just “this is your one number for Stealth checks, for Acrobatics checks, and for Sleight of Hands checks, but you still need to remember what those three skills are and what they do”. It very quickly became just “acrobatics checks”.

When someone wants to grapple, I don’t think “OK, that’s Athletics, which means I should ask for a Strength roll”. I’m already thinking “Grapple? OK, strength!”.

It’s like such an ease of mind, I don’t need to remember that navigation rolls aren’t called navigation, they’re Survival, and so are forage rolls. Instead, I just have to remember that it’s Wisdom.

Wisdom for naturey foresty stuff, Int for library stuff, Dex for balancy/fingertwiddly stuff, and Strength for strong stuff.

Or for us old hippies that played Everway back in the 90s, Wisdom = water, Int = air, Dex = fire, Strength = earth.

I’m still figuring these out, especially with less-than-awesome english of my country.

Ég held að ég geti giska what country that is from your user name; I didn’t know English was bad there, I’ve never been. Our group is playing in Stockholm right now but we have some players that don’t speak Swedish so we play in English when they are there, and in Swedish when they’re not.

For my Stealth+Sleight of Hand skill, calling it “Subterfuge” goes over most people’s heads, while “Subtlety” seems to be easier to understand. I also haven’t had one player that knew what “Insight” meant. I ended up combing Insight and Investigation into “Deduction”, and it sees much more use now. I’m just glad I didn’t’ have to call it “Calculated Guess”. Languages are weird xD

These are good and simple names you’ve come up with, I have to commend you there.

But I could just as easily argue that hiding your body, or moving silently (Stealth) uses some of the same skill that balancing your body, or moving quickly (Acrobatics).

And Insight is for seeing things; telling if someone’s lying for example (which is Wis), whereas Investigation is for knowledge & reason, “I know that doors work this-or-that way, which means…”

You are crossing the streams of Int and Wis. (I mean, that’s fine by me! I have an alternate character class that only has “fighing ability” and “non-fighting ability”, I don’t mind it if the games are simple in this regard.)

I’m just happy that our weird little hack accidentally swerved a little closer to the RAW by changing from a custom skill list to a variant that feels more thoroughly supported by the rest of the game.♥

[Naanomi]

How do you handle Expertise and the like? And feats like Prodigy/Skilled? Racial skills (especially those who get two, like Tabaxi)?

[MrStabby]

I may be misunderstanding this but doesn't this mean that the same players get to do stuff all the time?

"OK, who has the religion skill?"
"Who is best at Arcana?"
"Who knows most about nature?"

Skills let those players who didn't max a stat still sometimes be the best at something and get to have their time in the spotlight. I think this is a good thing.

[Man_Over_Game]

How do you handle Expertise and the like? And feats like Prodigy/Skilled? Racial skills (especially those who get two, like Tabaxi)?

I think the simplest solution would be "For every 3 Skill proficiencies you would have, you get 1 Ability proficiency". Then make it so Expertise provides Expertise on one Ability Proficiency per every 2 skills that would have Expertise.

So starting out as a Rogue would give you 2 Ability Proficiencies, with one of them having Expertise.

[Bjarkmundur]

Isn’t it, to some extent, a case of “if you build it, they will come?” I.e. the challenge is there, and in time they’ll get good at it?

Indeed, and we will likely evolve to no skills over time

These were removed:

• Deception
• Intimidation
• Performance
• Persuasion
• Insight
• Investigation

These were changed to be passives:

• Arcana
• History
• Nature
• Religion

Huh, I hadn't given passive skills a thought. I've got it down to.

• Arcana
• Athletics
• Speechcraft
• Knowledge
• Deduction (can use int or Wis)
• Nature (can use int or Wis)
• Perception
• Subtlety

Oh, so you charge two for every one? (You get three if you would’ve gotten six.) That’s great! I never thought to do that. So we got a lot of the same skills chosen all the time; athletics, survival (we do a lot of wilderness stuff), stealth, perception… and it never got to feel impactful because you got the same amount of skills before but you just had fewer to choose from. Selecting two out of four (or out of six if you want to count the niche choices of con and cha) has been a real choice though.

Note exactly, I just removed the skills from Backgrounds.
I also noticed that skills weren't fun to choose. I mean, to be an academic you used up to five or six skill proficiencies just to get Knowledge, Arcana and Nature.
I even removed Survival. It become too much of a win all skill. I'd rather hear HOW you survive, rather than just a yes or a no. Like skill challenges from 4e.

It’s like such an ease of mind, I don’t need to remember that navigation rolls aren’t called navigation, they’re Survival, and so are forage rolls. Instead, I just have to remember that it’s Wisdom.

Wisdom for naturey foresty stuff, Int for library stuff, Dex for balancy/fingertwiddly stuff, and Strength for strong stuff.

Agreed! The bigger the categories the easier it is to apply them.

[Naanomi]

What do Bards do with no social skills and no way to leverage their charisma except spellcasting?

And... rogue(Scout)3/Cleric(Knowledge)1/Bard(lore)3 proficient and Expertise in all skills?

[MoiMagnus]

We also don’t use a lot of ability checks period so it’s ridiculous that there should be such a detailed sub system (the skill list) for something we almost never use.

I think that's the main point here.
If you don't use ability checks, this variant is a big plus and a welcome simplification.

If your DM liked 4e skill challenges, and you end up doing around 5 to 10 skill checks per session (and per player), then this variant is most likely a bad idea.

[Malbrack]

How do you handle Expertise and the like? And feats like Prodigy/Skilled? Racial skills (especially those who get two, like Tabaxi)?

That's covered in the explanation on page 263 of the DMG. You get one ability (Dex, Wis, etc.) with proficiency from your class and one from your background. Instead of picking two skills for expertise, you pick 1 of those two abilities for it.

It definitely eliminates a lot of nuance. Like in this system a level 1 rogue might end up with something like proficiency to Wisdom checks, expertise to Dexterity checks, and no proficiency with Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution, or Strength checks. Compare that to how they can normally do something like put expertise into Perception and Thieves' Tools and have proficiency in Athletics to make up for having a low Strength, etc.

It seems like a good system if you don't require ability checks that often and/or if your players don't care about crafting complex combinations of skill and ability checks.

Edit: This also seems to nerf the skill flexibility of rogues and bards. Maybe let characters who start with a level in rogue or bard to have proficiency in 3 ability checks rather than 2? Or maybe make the Bard class give Charisma + one other and the Rogue class Dexterity + one other.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm mostly wondering how to handle class features that add skill proficiencies, like lore Bard, Scout, Knowledge Cleric, etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm mostly wondering how to handle class features that add skill proficiencies, like lore Bard, Scout, Knowledge Cleric, etc.

I'd just make it 1 Proficiency per feature. Some features grant 2 skill proficiencies, others grant more, so it's probably best just to change them all to a blanket "This feature gives you one Ability Proficiency".

[Tanarii]

DMG page 263:
The Expertise feature works differently than normal under this rule. At 1st level, instead of choosing two skill proficiencies, a character with the Expertise class feature chooses one of the abilities in which he or she has proficiency. Selecting an ability counts as two of the character's Expertise choices. If the character would gain an additional skill proficiency, that character instead selects another ability check in which to gain proficiency.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd just make it 1 Proficiency per feature. Some features grant 2 skill proficiencies, others grant more, so it's probably best just to change them all to a blanket "This feature gives you one Ability Proficiency".

Sounds logical. I'd probably tie them to the corresponding attribute for most of them, Elves get Wis, Scout gets Wis(E), Knowledge Cleric gets Int(E), etc.

[2097]

Oh, wow, I forgot I started this thread! I’m so sorry, time to dive into all your responses!

How do you handle Expertise and the like? And feats like Prodigy/Skilled? Racial skills (especially those who get two, like Tabaxi)?

My goal is to try to write a custom clarification for each on our group’s campaign web page, and as a guideline when cooking up these custom clarifications, I’m aiming for exactly what Man Over Game writes:

I think the simplest solution would be “For every 3 Skill proficiencies you would have, you get 1 Ability proficiency”. Then make it so Expertise provides Expertise on one Ability Proficiency per every 2 skills that would have Expertise.

Three skill proficiencies = one ability
Two expertises = one expertise

So far I’ve written up custom stuff for the Skilled feat, Jack of All Trades, Remarkable Athlete, Bard Expertise, Rogue Expertise (I houseruled that they can choose any two of these: Thieves’ tools, Disguise kit, Forgery kit, Poisoner’s kit, various game sets — as long as their background gave them that proficiency already— in lieu of one of their expertises), Natural Explorer (ranger), Survivalist (Scout). The two latter allows you to roll “as if you had expertise” if you roll related to nature stuff such as foraging, navigating. I also added a similar bonus to Second Story Work; you can roll climbing Strength checks “as if you had expertise”.

I haven’t gotten to Tabaxi yet, it’s been a while since we had Tabaxi in our party (turns out the nine lives thing…? not so much).

I may be misunderstanding this but doesn’t this mean that the same players get to do stuff all the time?

“OK, who has the religion skill?”
“Who is best at Arcana?”
“Who knows most about nature?”

Skills let those players who didn’t max a stat still sometimes be the best at something and get to have their time in the spotlight. I think this is a good thing.

It’s more that it lets those characters be the best at something; I don’t value character differentiation about knowledge stuff that highly, I’d rather the characters were differentiated in other ways such as through flaws, ideals, bonds or through class or background features such as Sneak Attack, and of course that the players themselves brought something to the table in form of their own skill & personality in how to portray their character. Maybe you as a player know that the thing you’re looking at might be a mimic; this sort of “player level” experience grown over play is something I value and don’t want overridden by a bunch of Dungeoneering or Arcana checks.

What do Bards do with no social skills and no way to leverage their charisma except spellcasting?

Bards best class! Best spell list + bardic inspo! The party is mostly level nines and they have a level 6 bard (getting half XP since she’s a hireling) who consistently outshines everyone else with her amazing utility; lesser resto, tiny hut, magic weapon (through magical secrets) etc. We also rule that you get ONE TRY at ability checks (such as trying to budge open a door with strength checks) so spamming bardic inspo & guidance is super valuable.

This is also sort of a side topic to the idea of Ability Check Proficiency. Even if you do use charisma checks, this rule is as good as any (maybe better since it gets rid of confusion beteen persuation, intimidation, deception etc). So the question is rather, what do Bards do if you don’t make charisma checks and well, they are still good!

And… rogue(Scout)3/Cleric(Knowledge)1/Bard(lore)3 proficient and Expertise in all skills?

Don’t forget Jack of All trades! They’re just really good at ability checks. Which isn’t as good as being good at saves but it’s still nothing to sneeze at since there are plenty of stuff we do use that use ability checks (foraging & navigation for example).

I think that’s the main point here.
If you don’t use ability checks, this variant is a big plus and a welcome simplification.

If your DM liked 4e skill challenges, and you end up doing around 5 to 10 skill checks per session (and per player), then this variant is most likely a bad idea.

Yeah, I agree. This variant is great for us coming from 0e and B/X, and not so great for those coming from the Advanced (including 4e) branch.

Btw, as a sort of side question about skill challenges, have you tried doing them with the group check math (everyone makes one check and you can have no more than [half of party size] failures) instead of the 4e skill challenge math (everyone makes a bunch of checks and you need X successes before you get three failures)? It seems to be a bit more robust under the hood…? I use neither so I don’t have any experience of my own there.

It definitely eliminates a lot of nuance. Like in this system a level 1 rogue might end up with something like proficiency to Wisdom checks, expertise to Dexterity checks, and no proficiency with Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution, or Strength checks. Compare that to how they can normally do something like put expertise into Perception and Thieves’ Tools and have proficiency in Athletics to make up for having a low Strength, etc.

Yes, it definitely makes the characters more samey. But compared to games I was playing before 5e came out like Searchers of the Unknown (no abilities, to do things you roll under AC + level) or Lamentations of the Flame Princess (only the thief/“specialist” has skills… and those skills are weak af, and come at the expense of your sneak attack bonus if you take them), D&D 5e even with this variant is still a world of nuance & wonder. It’s the perfect compromise for me.

It seems like a good system if you don’t require ability checks that often and/or if your players don’t care about crafting complex combinations of skill and ability checks.

Edit: This also seems to nerf the skill flexibility of rogues and bards. Maybe let characters who start with a level in rogue or bard to have proficiency in 3 ability checks rather than 2? Or maybe make the Bard class give Charisma + one other and the Rogue class Dexterity + one other.

Yes! Bards get Jack of all Trades and Lore bards get an additional (third) proficiency at level three.

When we switched to this system, I (the DM) was lucky because every single current character happened to get buffed by the change (or stay the same) so the players were pretty happy about it. Our bard’s perception was massively boosted.

I’d just make it 1 Proficiency per feature. Some features grant 2 skill proficiencies, others grant more, so it’s probably best just to change them all to a blanket “This feature gives you one Ability Proficiency”.

I like it

[2097]

Sounds logical. I'd probably tie them to the corresponding attribute for most of them, Elves get Wis, Scout gets Wis(E), Knowledge Cleric gets Int(E), etc.

You're right, this is better than what I had, the whole "roll as if you had expertise" thing is kinda fuzzy! Maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board for me wrt Survivalist, Natural Explorer and Second-Story Work.

[2097]

Strength is easily the best one so far♥. Seven sessions in. There's so much more grappling & shoving than there is of any kind of wisdoming or dexing.

Both of those still obv better than con or cha.

We don't really use cha (carousing downtime only) or con (dash check in chases only—this should really have been a save to match up with exhaustion from forced march, but enh let's do it raw) but with the new boat rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh there are more charisma checks upcoming.

As for int checks most of the time I've been using a "no you can't" DC. Like "can I know if these magically summoned locusts can see creatures who use this weird & unusual way to become invisible?" Just experiment a bit. I know you're druid but these ain't no normal locusts and this ain't your normal Invisibility spell. So you don't know.