Shocking though it may be to hear this, I end up in a lot of arguments about gaming.
I know, right?!
I don’t understand why anyone would want to argue with me. It’s just dumb. See, I have this rule, this personal code that I live by. I never, ever say something that’s wrong. Never. No matter how tempting it is to say a wrong thing, no matter how easy it would be to say something dumb or incorrect, no matter how many other people are doing it, I don’t. I never say a wrong thing. I would rather say nothing at all than say something wrong. Even on the Internet.
So, if I’ve said something, it must, ipso facto, be correct. It must be right. It must be true. Or else I wouldn’t say it. And therefore, arguing with me about the correctness of anything I’ve said is really dumb. Because it’s an argument that can’t be won. You can’t win an argument if you’re wrong. That’s just a fact of life.
And yet, people keep arguing with me.
One of the arguments I find myself in a lot is about when to use the Acrobatics skill and when to use the Athletics skill. Like, a player declares their character is getting a running start and jumping across a big pit. Do you ask them to roll Acrobatics or Athletics? Now, the answer should be obvious to anyone who is smart enough to be reading this blog. And, it’s unambiguous, really. There shouldn’t be any discussion at all. From a mechanical perspective, from a role-playing perspective, and from a simulating-real-life-in-some-way-to-make-the-game-logical-and-consistent-which-we-absolutely-will-not-call-realism perspective. We’ll call that last thing verisimilitude. And yet, people still debate the answer, and they even debate how many different answers there are. People will claim that there are anywhere between one and four answers and that some subset of those answers may all be “equally valid.”
Those people are stupid. Because there are two answers: a right one and a wrong one.
Now, this article is not about when to use Acrobatics and when to use Athletics. I don’t really care about that argument. And, when I say I don’t care about it, I mean I don’t want to read any more about it. So, don’t bother sharing your view of that question in the comment section. I’m going to delete it and make fun of you. After all, there is one correct answer, and I’m going to give it. And arguing with me – for the reasons I’ve already outlined – is stupid. And therefore, you deserve to be mocked.
What this article is about is, well, it’s about how GMs make the decision about what skills to use and what ability scores to roll. So, let’s talk about…
Crap. I didn’t come up with a term for what I wanted to discuss. I know what it is. I just don’t know what to call it. It’s about flexible ability checks and why those are terrible. So, let’s call it “action flex-ability.” Yeah, that’s clever as hell. Man, I’m a genius.
There’s No Such Thing as a Skill Check
One of the things I’ve been trying to convince people of for a long time, now, is that there is no such thing as a skill check in D&D 5E. Nor is there one in the d20 system on which both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are based. Simply put, skill checks don’t exist. Even though the rules say they do. And I’ve been trying to convince people of that because it’s actually a lot easier to run games if you don’t think about skill checks at all. In fact, I’ve recently been coaching a couple of new GMs – including, not too long ago, The Tiny GM – and the hardest part was convincing them that skill checks don’t exist. But once I got them over that hurdle, they were actually a lot more confident in their ability to run games and relied a lot less on memorizing the rules.
Here’s the deal: all d20 games – including D&D 5E and Pathfinder – have this rule at their heart. It goes like this: whenever a character attempts to do something, the player rolls a d20 and adds an ability modifier to the result. Then, they add any other relevant modifiers. Then, they compare the result to a designated target number known as a DC or Difficulty Class. If the result equals the DC or exceeds it, the action succeeds. Otherwise, it does not.
Right? Easy.
The books then go on to talk about all sorts of different types of rolls: skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, and it talks about each of them as if they are a thing. “Make a Perception check,” the book will say. “Roll an attack roll,” the book says. Or, “make a Fortitude save” or “make a Constitution save.” And the game’s mechanics DO distinguish between these rolls. In D&D 5E, for example, if you get a bonus to an ABILITY CHECK, that doesn’t apply to attack rolls or saving throws. But, interestingly, it does apply to skill checks.
But, so what? That’s the rules. What good is saying there’s no such thing as saving throws or attack rolls or skill checks when the book clearly says there is. And the games’ designers are so sure that those things exist that they even refer to them in the rules.
Well, here’s the thing: the games’ designers are wrong. They screwed up. And I’m not. Because, unlike other people, I have a rule that I ALWAYS follow: I never say something that’s not correct. So clearly, the games themselves must be wrong.
Here’s the deal: a melee attack roll is just a Strength check with a bonus added for combat training. Either a Base Attack Bonus in Pathfinder or a Proficiency Bonus in D&D. A saving throw is an Ability check with a bonus for class training, a Base Save or Proficiency Bonus. And so on. Now, people never get confused about attack rolls or saving throws. You use an attack roll whenever you are physically using a weapon against another creature with the intent to injure or kill the said creature. And only a really dumb GM would use an attack roll for anything else. Like, for example, breaking down a door. Yes, I know the rules imply you can use attack rolls for that. But the rules are dumb and the GMs reading my site should be smarter. As for saving throws, you use them when the game says you use them. There’s not really any rhyme or reason to it. No good pattern. Saving throws are utterly exceptions based. You just need a list of things in your head that you use saving throws for.
But skill checks are a different matter. When you watch an uninitiated, non-Angryeon GM resolve a weird action, they always try to fit the action into a skill. Because skill checks seem to be the primary means by which the characters interact with the world. Except a skill check is just making an ability check and adding a bonus if the person has some kind of relevant training. It’s really just an ability check.
The problem is, the skill list is not versatile, it’s not well-defined, and it’s not all-inclusive. Some of the skills cast very wide nets, others cast very narrow nets, and the skills themselves don’t encompass everything the characters can do.
Let’s say you were a pretty clueless new GM and someone wanted their character to break down a door. But you were at least smart enough not to use an attack roll. Now, you have to decide how to resolve the attempt. So, you – knowing that most things are resolved using skill checks – you look down the skill list. That seems to be what the game wants you to do. Look over the skill list, pick a skill, and ask the player to make the roll. But there is no skill for breaking stuff. The closest is Athletics. Maybe. Who knows. If you decided Athletics was the closest skill to breaking stuff, well, that’s fair enough. But, what the game wants you to do is drop out of the skill list after you decide there is no good skill for the situation and use an ability check instead.
Actually, what D&D wants you to specifically is a little more convoluted based on the way the chapter on ability checks is actually laid out and explained, but that’s close enough.
So, what’s wrong with this approach? Well, there’s a couple of things wrong with it. First, it requires you to remember or consult the entire skill list every time you resolve an action. Now, that’s not so bad for an experienced GM. I can remember all of the skills in D&D easily enough. Especially now that they’ve culled down the list. But newer GMs struggle to remember all the skills. And that means they can’t make snap judgments. They need to consult lists. Second, it’s actually very hard – psychologically – for most people, especially new people, to make the decision that there isn’t a good option and to adopt a fallback position. The new GM, confronted with that door-buster, runs down the list of skills trying to fit the action into each skill and then when they get to the bottom, they rescan the list at least once to make sure they didn’t miss something. Dropping to a fallback position, going to a catch-all, it’s something we don’t want to do unless we’re sure. And it requires you to reject every option on the list. It’s a negative decision. As opposed to a positive decision like choosing one specific option from the list. That’s why all those “none of the above” questions on tests trip people up. They are practically trick questions.
And I say this as a result of actually coaching new GMs. Seriously. I watch them do this. And talk them through it. It’s fascinating to see the thought process of completely new people. I never pass up the opportunity. It helps me view things with a beginner’s mind.
The funny thing is that every skill check is just an ability check with a circumstantial bonus. And it is a lot easier to choose between six options – the six ability scores – than it is to choose amongst over a dozen skills and then decide none fit and then choose between six options. The skill bonus is just as circumstantial as any other temporary modifier.
For example, if you’re jumping over a pit, it’s easy enough to say jumping distance is a function of muscle power. It’s a strength check. But when you have two different skills, one called athletics and one called acrobatics, which both seem to apply equally, you can spend a lot of time debating it in your head. Jumping distance isn’t a matter of balance and coordination and reaction time. It’s just not. It’s muscles. So, strength check. But acrobats can jump really well. So, it COULD be acrobatics.
So, I constantly tell people: don’t use skill checks. There aren’t skill checks. Your job, as a GM, is to fit every action into one of six slots: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. After that, if a player has a useful skill to apply to the situation, let them apply it. In fact, let them ask about it. This is how it should go:
Player: “I get a running start and jump over the pit.”
GM: “Okay, make a Strength check.”
Player: “I am trained in Athletics. Does that apply?”
GM: “Sure, add your proficiency bonus to the roll.”
Done and done. And that works for literally every action. And it also makes you incredibly versatile.
Player: “Now that I have my hand on the guy’s wrist, I want to bend his wrist behind him and twist his arm until he gives us the information.”
GM: “Okay, make a Strength check.”
Player: “I am trained in Intimidation. Does that apply?”
GM: “Absolutely it does. Add the bonus.”
See? That keeps you from doing stupid things like using Charisma to resolve every circumstance of bullying.
It also means you never have to crack open the book to look up how something should be handled. Six ability scores are easy to remember. You don’t even have to look up the skills. As a GM. Because you’re just making easy, on the fly calls. “Does this skill apply to this situation? Yes or no.” That’s an easy question for most GMs to answer from their gut. Once you internalize the idea that everything is an ability check, well, the sky’s the limit.
I cleaned up your character sheet and it’s customary to tip housekeeping so click the tip jar
Beyond that, think about how much cleaner the character sheet would be without the entire list of all the skills in the game on it. Because, if everything is an ability check, you don’t need it. You just need a list of which skills the characters are trained in and what bonus they get for that training. That’s like a quarter of the front of the character sheet gone. You don’t need to know someone’s Perception modifier. You just need to know their Wisdom modifier and if they get a bonus related to Perception. Which includes the proficiency bonus or skill ranks or skill points or whatever the game has to reflect training.
Moreover, with the skill list GONE except for the skills a given character is trained in, it gets rid of the idea that if you’re not trained in a skill, you can’t do it. Most players shy away from attempting actions if their skill modifier is too low. And that’s because they have the skills and modifiers all written down and figured out. And that is not how most GMs want most players to play. We want the players to do all sorts of things. Not just the four things they are good at.
It’s a psychological trick, honestly. There is a difference between saying: “here’s a list of all the things you can do, and here’s a number that measures how good you are at each of them” and “you can do anything you want, and when you do these four particular things, you get a special bonus because of your training.” And before you start telling me how wrong I am, I want you to run your next three months of games with a character sheet designed the way I’m suggesting first. So, you can actually try it. Moreover, I want you to grab new players and train them with a character sheet like the one I’m talking about. I guarantee you’ll see a difference with most players. And if you still want to argue after that, just remember, you’re wrong and I’m right.
Anyway, the point of all of this is that there are no skill checks in D&D and Pathfinder. As a GM, you should adjudicate actions by ABILITY CHECK and treat skill bonuses as a temporary, circumstance bonus to be approved or denied on a case-by-case basis. Because it makes you a better GM. It empowers you to resolve more situations faster and more consistently.
But now, let’s talk about Action Flex-Ability.
Action Flex-Ability
Action Flex-Ability is kind of hard to define. Let me start by saying this: it’s a fallacy. It’s a way of thinking wrong. It’s a way of thinking that makes your game worse. To illustrate it, I’m going to talk about a particular example of Action Flex-Ability that comes up a lot. And, to be clear, I don’t care what your take is on the example. That’s not the point of this article. And if you try to debate the example in the comments, I’m going to nuke the comment and make fun of you. Clear? Good.
Okay, a character jumps over a pit. GM has to resolve it. Now, under the “skill check” way of resolving the action, the argument is usually one of Athletics vs. Acrobatics. Under the “ability check” method, this argument then becomes Strength vs. Dexterity.
Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, the correct answers are Strength and Athletics. And remember: I don’t care if you disagree. You just have to let me say a thing you think is wrong. You have to live with it. Ha! Because I have all the power and also I am one hundred percent totally right. And I’m not even going to tell you why. Or debate you. Or prove it. I’m saying that’s how it is.
Now, there is a growing community of GMs out there who are of the opinion that neither answer is correct. Or, rather, that both answers are equally valid and that the player should be able to use whichever score they want to. In other words, whichever score their character is best in.
That’s the argument of Action Flex-Ability. And it’s also the argument behind the utterly stupid BS that is the finesse rule. You know, where some weapons are based on Dexterity and some weapons are based on Strength that has only a minimal basis in reality but was put into place to allow poor, sad little Dexterity-based skirmishers to not have to give up a melee attack bonus just because they wanted a high AC without having to rely on armor and also a high Initiative bonus and also excellent Reflex/Dexterity saves which are drastically overrepresented in spells and special attacks. Yeah, finesse weapons are for twinks and munchkins and power gamers who have to have everything.
I said it.
Anyway, Action Flex-Ability. It’s the idea that that the ability score governing a specific action is not set in stone and that, with a good enough argument, a player should be able to switch it around. Or, worse. It’s the idea that the ability score governing an action should be flexible enough that the GM can always find an excuse to allow a PC to throw their best mechanical bonuses at the action.
Now, some of Action Flex-Ability is based on terrible movies that depict stupid things and GMs who have no idea how reality work think that a 90-pound wisp of a character can throw a 300-pound thug through a wall and then leap to a building on the other side of a fifty-foot street despite having zero visible muscle mass. And I’m not going to get into that rant. Because even though I’m right, it’s a little too much “old man yells at cloud” for my tastes.
But I am going to complain about the idea behind Action Flex-Ability and the idea that the players should negotiate with the GM as to which ability scores and skills should apply. Or that the GM should be remotely flexible on the decision. Which, by the way, isn’t me saying that a GM can’t make a mistake and players shouldn’t be allowed to say, “I think you’re wrong.” That’s okay. GMs who aren’t me CAN be wrong. And players CAN and SHOULD call them on it. But there’s a difference between “I think you’re wrong” and “I don’t think you’re wrong, but I think my answer is equally valid and I’d like to use it instead.”
Once the player declares an action, the GM should decide – based entirely on the action the player describes and the intended outcome and the GM’s understanding of the reality of the situation and the action – the GM should decide which ONE ability score governs the action. And they should do so consistently. The answer for all characters across all similar situations should be the same at all times. If jumping over a pit is a Strength check, it is always a Strength check for everyone. And it is non-negotiable. It can be corrected if it’s wrong, but it is not just “the best of several answers.” It’s the only answer. A correction replaces it.
And I promise I will explain why I am taking such a hardline stance on this.
The player can then say “hey, I have this training; can I apply it?” And the GM can decide if the situation is one that would be helped by their particular training. Just the same way the player can say “I have this tool” or “I have this spell and get a bonus from it.” Same difference.
And that’s it.
The Best Answer is the Right Answer
Now, how does the GM make that call? I admit there does appear to be room for ambiguity. I understand why the Athletics vs. Acrobatics question exists. It exists because, in most situations, you can’t just distill the situation down to one physical or mental trait that is the determining factor. When someone gets a running start and jumps, muscle power determines the distance they can propel their body through space. That’s obvious. But proper footing and balance are issues. And controlling your center of gravity in the jump is an issue. Timing is an issue. Proprioception is an issue. The landing is an issue. Power and coordination are both in play.
But, one thing has to be the most “in play.” That’s how the game works. There is one whammo factor. There is one key factor that, above all else, will make the action succeed or fail. Everything else just helps or hinders. And, when it comes to a long jump, the key factor is distance. That’s what will determine first and foremost and more than anything else whether you will clear the pit or not. All that coordination crap can help. But if you don’t have the muscle power to make the distance, it can’t save you. And if you have the muscle power to make the distance, the coordination is very unlikely to turn the success into a failure.
As a GM, that’s what you’re looking for when you adjudicate an action. You’re not trying to encompass or simulate the totality of the action with every factor playing into it. You’re trying to distill the action down to the one trait that above all others determines success or failure. Yes, you will be disregarding stuff. Of course, you will. You’re boiling a very complex action down to a single die roll. And that is your job. If you can’t do it – and do it with confidence – you can’t run games.
Let’s take another D&D example: Investigate vs. Perception. That one comes up all the time. Perception is based on Wisdom and refers to your ability to see, hear, or otherwise perceive a detail. Investigate is connected with Intelligence. It’s based on recollection and the ability to think and reason. So, now you’re at a murder scene. And the blood spatters on the wall are a weird pattern that indicates that the victim was attacked from the front instead of behind. And that information is somehow important. But the killer also dropped a matchbook and it’s partially hidden under the couch and it has the name of the club where they hang out on it. When do you use which skill?
Well, to find the matchbook, it’s a matter of simply noticing it. Either you see it’s there or you don’t. Perception is the whammo factor. It’s not a matter of recognizing the significance of it through reason and logic. It’s just a matter of knowing it’s there. When it comes to blood spatters on the wall, that’s investigation. They are pretty plainly visible. But to recognize the significance of them – to see the clue – that takes deduction and logic and reason.
It’s not about simulating an action, it’s about which ability score is going to be the limiting factor. Which one is going to stop you from succeeding if you don’t have enough of it. That’s how the decision needs to be made.
And the GM can’t be flexible here. Because he’ll ruin the game.
A Hard GM is a Good GM
I promised I’d explain why I am so opposed to Action Flex-Ability. And now I’m going to. I am opposed to Action Flex-Ability because I like my role-playing games to have some actual creative role-playing in them. And Flexible GMs remove the need for creative role-playing.
Suppose you are a weak but agile rogue. And you are confronted with a collapsed section of floor in an old castle that opens into, I don’t know, a lava lake. Or hell. Something. You need to get across this pit. So, you, being an agile rogue decide to jump across. Your GM asks for a Strength check. You ask if you can use Dexterity instead with Acrobatics because acrobats should be able to jump over hell pits. The GM agrees. You roll the dice and succeed. And a good time was had by all. You picked the most obvious way to cross an obstacle and generated a random number at it. That’s some good creative play.
Now, let’s suppose you’re the same weak but agile rogue but you are at my table. And you find yourself in the same situation. I ask for a Strength check and you say you should be able to use Dexterity and Acrobatics because acrobats can do all sorts of aerial stuff. And I say “yes, that’s because professional acrobats develop tremendous strength in addition to their excellent agility and coordination as you will know if you had ever been beaten up by a troupe of acrobats as I have. Your rogue should not have skipped all those leg days.” But then, I take pity on you, and remind you, “acrobats do other stuff too. In fact, acrobats very rarely just jump long distances. They swing. They balance on narrow beams or tight ropes. Those things play into their coordination and agility more than raw strength. Raw strength is still a factor when swinging on a rope, sure, but it’s not the limiting factor.”
And so, you take the hint. You grab an old metal torch sconce with some iron hooky bits to serve as a grappling hook, you have some rope, and you toss the rope and hook over a beam in the ceiling. Which relies on your Dexterity far more than your Strength. And then you swing across the pit, releasing at just the right time so as to have enough momentum to carry you to the far side of the pit and landing with a flourish. Which I allow is totally governed by Dexterity and Acrobatics.
My point, by the way, is not to argue my judgment call. My call is correct. My point is that players are driven to be creative when they can’t simply throw their strengths at a problem. If you allow players to negotiate the ability score they use, so that they can always use one they are strong with, you’re actually removing the need for creative problem-solving. You’re boiling the game down to an exercise in throwing dice at a problem. Moreover, you’re minimizing the actual situation. If you’re going to be flexible enough to allow players to throw any one of two or three different ability scores at a problem, you’re basically saying that the reality of the situation is less important than the players just picking the highest number on their character sheet as long as it’s close enough. And that just isn’t that exciting.
Moreover, you know what’s not exciting? Arguing about whether Strength or Dexterity is the limiting factor in a long jump or in swinging from a trapeze or whatever. That’s just boring compared to the far cooler situation of players trying to rig up a makeshift trapeze over a pit filled with lava and demons so they can use their Dexterity scores instead of the Strength scores. I know which of the two I’d rather spend my time doing. And no, it isn’t arguing.
Too much flexibility – too many Flex-Able Actions – turn the game into a rules negotiation. They take all the versatility and speed that you, as a GM, gain from thinking in terms of ability checks and throw them out the window. Because you spend all your time just letting the players throw their favorite dice at every problem instead of dealing with an actual obstacle in a creative way. Or instead of taking a big chance because they can’t come up with something creative. Or instead of having to turn around and find another way to get around a problem because the problem seems insurmountable.
Choosing which ability score to use is NOT an interesting choice. It’s based on math. Coming up with an argument that gets a GM to let you use the best ability score is not an interesting debate because it’s based on an ulterior motive. It’s not based on determining which is really the best way to resolve an action, it’s based solely on the player wanting to use their best skill to win on a technicality.
It’s Just a Shame Ability Scores Suck
Now, I have to admit something: originally, I didn’t intend to write an interesting and useful article about action resolution and the danger of flexibility. That was actually just going to be a jumping off point for a BS article in which I ranted about how even if you internalize all this crap about ability checks instead of skill checks and not being too flex-able, you still end up fighting the system because the six abilities in the d20 system and D&D have some major problems involving bright lines, overlaps, ambiguity, and vagueness. And I was going to talk about how I would do it better. But…
Well, in the end, I got so absorbed with all the other stuff that I ran out of space for the ranty part. So, I guess you guys don’t have to sit through a BS article this month full of useless, petty bitching and moaning that would also secretly reveal details about how I’d do ability scores if I were writing an RPG. And I am.
You really dodged a bullet there. Lucky you.
Meanwhile, I have to go rewrite big parts of this to remove references to the upcoming rant that I cut out. So, leave me alone. But remember, I AM watching the comments.
I could make a really bad and wrong argument here that taking the focus of problem-solving away from predictable mechanical elements and putting it on the game world makes the game harder to define and understand for players. I could argue that, in the grappling hook example, the player didn’t know for certain that there was a torch there at all, assuming the GM didn’t go into ridiculously overbearing description of the room, and thus would have had their problem solving skills hampered by the lack of concrete knowledge of the world that would hypothetically be required as a prerequisite ingredient of creative puzzle solving. Of course, I’m not making this argument, and so its fine. No need for personal insults towards me or my family.
Well, had you made that argument, the answer would probably be that D&D and other tabletop RPGs are about collaborative storytelling and the players should be able to think about asking, for example, “is there anything I could turn into a grappling hook?”. This possible counterargument supposes that D&D is not a series of problems given out by the DM for the players to solve but it rather a story being told by a group of people with different roles.
Yeah, but fortunately you didn’t make that argument. So I don’t have to explain why “RPG as collaborative storytelling” is categorically wrong and only morons who don’t know what “story” means vis a vis “game” say that. Which is good. Because I get really tired of explaining the same shit over and over to people who obstinately cling to their own ignorance despite all attempts to educate them.
*phew* Dodged that bullet.
But that would fucking wrong wouldn’t it.
Just because a player asks “is there anything I could turn into a grappling hook?” and the DM, who maybe didn’t think about including something there that could be turned into a grappling hook, decides that yes, actually there is something that could be turned into a grappling hook, doesn’t mean that this is collaborative storytelling. Since in this situation, the DM HAS given the group a problem, and the players are finding a creative solution. And the DM allows it.
Angry did an article about exposition and setting scenes a while back, where he included a hypothetical situation:
“Imagine you’re at a spooky graveyard at dusk.”
What do you imagine? Is it crypts, or old and boney trees, or fog rolling over the hills? Because the exposition didn’t technically include anything like that, did it? But you would still ASSUME that something like that was probably there, because we all know what a spooky graveyard at dusk is supposed to look like.
You imagining things that the exposition didn’t reveal isn’t collaborative storytelling, that’s the DM setting the scene using tropes and expectations.
And if the DM sets the scene for a hallway in a castle, then there being crossbeams holding up the roof and torch sconces being there can absolutely be assumed, can’t it?
But then why does the player have to ask if that’s there? Why can’t he just go like “OK I take one of the torch sconces and it’s shaped exactly like it needs to be shaped so I can make a grappling hook out of it, and I make a grappling hook out of it and use that on that one beam above the chasm that’s positioned exactly like it needs to!”
That would be collaborative storytelling.
Why does the player instead have to say “Is there something like a torch sconce, something I can turn into a grappling hook?”
Because D&D ISN’T collaborative storytelling.
It’s imagination-based gameplay. The story is just the result of the game, it’s not the other way around.
I thought I should notify you that I will be sharing your comment with my players. Some of them grasp this concept, while others consider it to be “cheap” and “cheating” to use anything they weren’t specifically told was there.
I foresee someone chancing their arm over this, and grabbing the shotgun from behind the bar because “the bars in xyz all have shotguns”. However, the DM can easily say something isn’t there, and it prevents boring, over explanatory narration of every environment and scenario.
Besides, I think it fits with one of the themes of the article, that restrictions breed creativity but instructions lead to repitition. If the DM mentions the sconce on the wall, the players will immediately think it’s essential and that the grappling hook was the DM’s prescribed solution, which is still fun but not as fun as thinking they invented their own idea.
I’ve found that I naturally creep towards “denial” rather than “permission” which I consider a flaw on my side. As an example, if someone were to say “is there a metal bar lying around?” historically I’d have gone with “no”, not understanding the intention of why they were asking an odd question.
To combat this, I’ve been trying very hard to make sure I clarify what the player wants to do with this question. Saying “make an improvised grappling hook” is reasonable and I’d allow it (or not, depending on how the scene is designed).
Knowing WHY a player wants an extra bit of information has made it a lot easier to adjudicate if the bit exists or not.
The idea of saying “yes”. I’ve not played 5E but I remember the concept being around in previous editions, as well as being an underlying concept in games like Fate. Though I think in all those cases the concept of saying “yes” was extremely poorly articulated. Angry does a much better job of almost talking about it here. You have to walk the line between hanging a hat on something and describing too much – its a signal to noise problem. If the characters walk into a room and if the only item you describe is the tapestry on the wall, they will interact with it. Its either a trap, a secret door, or both. Its the proverbial gun on the mantle. However you can’t describe every damn thing in the room just to hide the one you want them to “find”. I use vague descriptions where appropriate and then leave it up to the players ask questions to flesh out the room. Players are simple, most of the time, and ask leading questions. I’ll build a solution on the fly – though I suspect Angry would hang me for it – not really though, for example I’d have notes about my pit obstacle being strength based but would list one or two other solution types I’d allow to be “built” during play. My point is, after that mess of sentences, saying “yes” is about letting the player’s questions fuel what is in their world as well. Within reason, as we just read, saying “no” and having consistent boundaries is crucial.
“I’ll build a solution on the fly – though I suspect Angry would hang me for it”
Isn’t a major point of this article that the players should be making up a new solution based on their capabilities, rather than taking the existing solution with their choice of stats? How would any GM run such a solution other than building it on the fly?
Take your proposed pit traps. The natural solution is a Dex save once triggered. However, I would totally respect a player who uses strength to hold the trap-door up while the party walked across, or another who intelligently modified the mechanism or made a makeshift bridge.
I would not accept a party member making a Str save once the trap triggered, no matter how much they protested that they could grab the door and keep it shut. That would still require quick reflexes to grab the door, which is Dex.
In my experience, players are way smarter then you are giving them credit for. Even if they don’t ask “Do I see anything I could use as a grappling hook?” They have an inventory FULL of useless stuff they got from thier backgrounds and “packs”. Let them figure out how to make a zipline from arrow and rope, or use thier carpenters hammer as a hook.
The GM should NOT go into crazy details, why? Because after a general description of the room it is now up to the players to look around. If they skip everything, head straight to the hell-hole to jump it, that is their failing to understand what a TTRPG is. It is much closer to the old text adventure games on PC “you see a dark house with a gravel path” now what do you do? You could type “follow path” and get right to the story, or “look at house” and actually learn something about your environment.
Have you ever actually played one of those old text adventures? They almost always call out the nouns that you can actually interact with, to distinguish them from the random clutter of other nouns that are just providing set dressing. Like, they’ll give you a paragraph of scenery about how the house has wooden siding and a weathervane on top and a gravel path that crunches underfoot, but on a new line at the bottom, they’ll say something more direct, like “You see a mailbox here.”
And that lets you know that the mailbox is something the designers expect you to interact with, and the weathervane and siding and gravel are not. And this is good design, because nobody enjoys starting every puzzle by listing off every noun in the room and typing “EXAMINE [noun]”, just to be sure that they didn’t miss anything important. It’s the text-adventure equivalent of a pixel hunt.
While you may be right that this system takes the focus away from predictable mechanical elements, you’re incorrect that it makes the game harder to understand. People naturally understand “Hey, this is a big pit, it takes a lot of strength to jump over it;” that is the natural thought. Players only get confused in the Athletics vs Acrobatics debate because games have *taught them* that it’s a debate to be had. All this amounts to is
As for the grappling hook example, the point was that players should have a discussion with the GM about *how they want to solve the problem* rather than *what skill they can use* to solve said problem. This was just a specific example, you could make thin beams across the gap that need to be balanced on, or some other example, or nothing at all.
Amen…. It took me over a year to get my players to decouple the precalculated ability check on their character sheet from the attribute modifier and proficiency modifier that made it up in order to do things like a str intimidation check without literally stopping the game to go over the numbers
Yep, this comes up quite a bit for me as well. Things such as Angry´s example in the article (STR(Intimidation)) or something I recently used CHA(Stealth) to blend in a crowd.
Decouple is exactly the right word. It´s hardcoded into the character sheet and thus into the minds of the players
I was going to ask if the real problem with the jumping analogy is that we’re pigeon holed into strong buffoon or graceful weakling per the ability scores, but you touched on that right at the end, thanks.
I run a game where none of the characters have good strength. The problem that tends to cause is that someone might have a cool idea, but since it’s probably a strength based task, they dismiss it and take a more boring, direct approach. This article has got me thinking about how I might give them bonuses for clever ideas and trying to get them to ignore the fact none of them have high strength or the athletics skill.
Sure, kicking in the door probably won’t happen. But if they all pick up a wooden beam and ram it?
Thanks for the article, I think this will improve my game.
even unmodified RAW 5e mechanically benefits that 4 guys pick up a battering ram thing, by giving advantage on the roll (which is around +4), so a group of 8 strength people get effectively +3 on the check, which is a pretty decent bonus for an untrained skill.
There are games that do remove skills and just use ability checks; Dungeon Crawl Classics (and most OSR games, I think), Dragon Age RPG and it’s derivatives, Castles & Crusades.
There are more, I’m sure, but I think the point Angry was leading to was that since skills and attacks and saves, etc, can be boiled down to ability checks, we should ask why THOSE abilities? After all, if everything is an ability check, then we can call those checks anything we want. Why have six abilities to begin with? Why not three, or one, or ten?
I’m not smart enough (yet) to answer this question, or even if I’m thinking in the right direction. And of course, as always, Angry is right.
Boiling down attacks, saves and skills (and also Amour Class) into abilities is what Fate does. Angry has been pretty scathing about Fate, but perhaps this part isn’t the reason.
This article has got me excited about re-writing the skill system in Pathfinder so it’s all about ability checks, but I suppose in due course I could buy the Angry RPG and save myself the bother. (Just kidding – I am obviously going to buy the Angry RPG anyway.)
I believe that Dragon AGE does have skills, though the systems name them Ability Focuses.
Also, many OSR systems I have looked at tended to feature skills in one form or another.
I can’t speak for Angry, but I think there are good reasons to have skills. What form those skills take is an interesting design question.
Focuses are a flat bonus (you either have a focus or you don’t), they usually* don’t provide any “permissions” (characters with the focus can’t do anything that a character without it couldn’t do) and there is no skill “system” as such – if you don’t know what “driving” means in the context of the game then the rules won’t tell you, so you could conceivably expect the game to include motor cars and golf.
In 3rd edition terms, they are more like skill-improvement feats such as Alertness or Skill Focus, rather than actual skills.
*I wouldn’t want to swear that some adventure somewhere doesn’t have something in it along the lines of “due to the complicated nature of this lock only characters with the lock picking focus can attempt to pick it”.
I don’t think the point is to not use skills. It’s to use the core mechanic correctly. And to let the players ask questions. And to let the players face hard things. And to not make those hard things easy by being inconsistent with how the ability scores are used in relation to the core mechanic. And to tease us about the game structure he is crafting.
You kinda left out the system that this resembles the most. World of Darkness.
They broke everything down to Physical, Mental, and Social abilities and gave each category (essentially) an attack stat, a resilience stat, and a finesse stat. Normally 9 stats would be a little much to have off the top of your head but since you only need to remember the 3 categories and the 3 types of actions it worked out pretty well.
I may never run WoD again but I am definitely glad I read it.
For reference:
* Physical Power – Strength
* Physical Resilience – Stamina
* Physical Finesse – Dexterity
* Mental Power – Intelligence
* Mental Resilience – Resolve
* Mental Finesse – Wits
* Social Power – Presence
* Social Resilience – Composure
* Social Finesse – Manipulation
Okay, but what is the difference between power and resilience. And why would you want a resilience stat anyway? It’s only use is passive. It can’t resolve actions because it’s entirely resisting actions. And social stats don’t make sense next to physical and mental stats.
95% of the time the difference between Power and Resilience is that one is an ability to affect change in the world and the other is your resistance to the world affecting you (there are corner cases for each stat and Finesse is roughly a 50/50 split between active and reactionary).
Why would you want it as a stat? Well because being able to resist the world affecting is a popular type of action all on it’s own. The example which springs immediately to mind is Sephiroth walking through the flames of Nibelheim. While the attribute is passive you can actively choose to use it by taking actions which the world would normally not allow.
Social stats next to physical and mental stats make sense when you are running social as combat. A concept which this system tends to use, although the discussion of if it SHOULD use it is far longer than I can put in here.
Is it a perfect system? No, otherwise I’d still be using it. But I would view it as leaps and bounds beyond D&D’s muddled attribute system, both in terms of concept and, perhaps more importantly, in terms of conveying that concept.
My big question is this: If the ability to resist the world affecting you doesn’t belong in the character’s attributes, where does it belong?
When I make my own character sheets, I only put my proficiencient skills and tools down (and I put them in the same area). I’ve also began to think that if you want to keep the value of jewels and valuables hidden from the players, An Intelligence (Relevant Artisan’s Tools Here) check is the way to go to allow players to discover their value (no tool required).
Why would you want to keep the value of jewels hidden though? Maybe I’m missing some important aspect that makes the players having or not having that information an important distinction, but that extra roll just seems like a waste of time, to be perfectly frank.
The existence of the appraisal skill in 3.5 made people think that it was somehow a good idea for people to not know the value of the things they found or had on them, and that thinking has stuck to a lot of the older players, and passed on like a genetic disease to some of their spawn.
Considering 3.5/PF was still when you could justify D&D as a Dungeon Engine and had a big magic item economy (and money based progression), they at least had AN argument for obfuscating item prices, but the sell price being half the value should’ve always been enough in that regard.
Of course, we can always have a very exciting argument about medieval bargaining/negotiation and why PCs should spend multiple rolls and minutes of their game time talking to faceless NPCs about how much a potion of glitter is worth. /s
When I play as a player, I prefer not knowing. Maybe it’s because my first game was 3.5 (though for not more than 6 months), but it breaks my immersion when I automatically know the value of all jewels and art objects I find. It makes it feel less like a real thing that exists in the world, and more like just a gamey blob of GP condensed into a carriable form. I have a preference for playing grittily in general (keeping track of ammo, rations, and carrying capacity, and using every mundane item to its fullest). It probably comes down to a certain kind of fantasy-preference (from the “8 kinds of fun” articles). I just wish the rules for those things were easier to use. Doesn’t help that the default character sheet doesn’t even spot for carrying capacity.
When I DM, sometimes I don’t bother hiding the value depending on the campaign and the players, but I often like to just to give Intelligence another use (which the 5e PHB says it can be used for). I usually try to make things somewhat easier on me by saying all jewels or art objects of the same type are all generally worth the same amount per adventure/dungeon. (I don’t have the DMG and even if I did I’m not sure I’d roll for treasure.)
You don’t have to act out the haggling by the way, it can just be a single Charisma (Persuasion or Relevant Artisan’s Tools) check.
I usually take the approach of dodgy salespeople. Nobody will buy things at full price, but some salesmen will pay much more for things than others.
For instance, a jeweler will willingly pay more for rare or high quality gems, but less for poor quality common gems compared to a common shopkeeper.
It’s up to the party to evaluate their items (intelligence check) and the NPC, as well as their own morals when potentially ripping someone off.
Keeping the value of items hidden is useful if, and only if, doing so has an in-game purpose. The only decent example I can think of relate to the games where the disposition of said items is part of the adventure.
In that case creating uncertainty as to the value of the treasure can add to your game. I’m not advocating haggling with every jeweler they come across, which can be deadly boring. I am thinking of situations where, for example, you have an art object signed by the artist, or that has historical value to the right collector (some of whom are willing to kill to get it).
Try this for example. Give the PCs an ancient goblet stamped with a trademark they don’t recognize. When they try to sell it, the jeweler they deal with says he can give them 250 gp for it based on the material and workmanship, but he thinks it might have historical value if they can find the right collector. He will ask around, he knows some antiquities dealers he can talk to; they should come back tomorrow. When the PCs return they find him tortured to death; back at the Inn and they find out someone has been circulating their descriptions, along with a description of the goblet. You can take it from there.
None of that happens if the players just write “goblet, 250 gp” on their character sheet, and just treat it as cash. It also requires the PCs to at least notionally have an NPC they interact with when they are unloading their loot.
In my opinion, verisimilitude is NOT sufficient reason to hide the value of most items. Even if they weren’t trained by adventurers, PCs who make their living selling gems and jewelry will quickly be able to get a sense of their relative value. Even if they don’t know the exact value, they will know the ballpark. And they write the exact value on their character sheets for the same reason you tell them the DCs for actions: so that the PLAYERS are able to make an assessment of what the CHARACTERS instinctively know.
As for haggling, if you use it (and I restrict it to special cases because I find it gets old for the whole table fast) you should remember that it is and InterACTION! and should be treated as one. Using a charisma check IN PLACE of an InterACTION! merely adds a random element to the value of treasure (which may have already been determined randomly) without adding any actual gameplay.
Awesome article! I do wish I could’ve read about how to do ability scores better. Yet another reason why I eagerly await my opportunity to buy a copy of the Angry RPG.
In the meantime, I’ll think about the things you listed at the end about the problems with D&D’s six ability scores and how I’d address them.
I’d love to know if anyone has (or knows where to get) a 5e character sheet that doesn’t have the default skill list doled out, and would be good for new players to use in this very way proposed.
The D&D official website has several PDF character sheets all within a single zip file that you down load at once. One of them (titled ‘Character Sheet Alternative 2’) just has a spot for you to write in your proficiencies – no skill list.
Bah – I should have included the link in my first post: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/character_sheets
Scroll down to 5th edition character sheets. You will find Character Sheet Alternative 2 there.
The problem with that one is that everything else is pretty poorly organized. There’s not enough room for class features (especially for those who haven’t memorized them). There’s too much wasted space for spells on the main part of the sheet, when spellcasting things should be on their own sheet so only spellcasters deal with them. (Though admittedly, in 5e most classes get spellcasting). The central circle is also just sort of weirdly organized with lots of wasted space (experience points gets the longest line).
I think the best designed character sheet for a new player would, generally, have the information in the order they’ll most likely need it. Name, race-name, class-name, background-name, and maybe XP needed to level up at the top to give a sense of orientation, but all of that should be no more than one line. Besides those, Ability scores and proficiencies go at the top (I like to make the ability scores horizontal in orientation). You can save more space if you mark what saves you’re proficient in by just circling the ability names to mark you’re proficient in the save. Next, “combat information and special abilities” including AC, HP, Hit Dice, attacks and class features, then finally equipment at the bottom (potentially with carrying capacity). Depending on how many spells the class gets, you might be able to put them in the class features section if you’re only making it for a 1st-level character and assume that as the characters level up the players will modify and add to or replace the sheet themselves.
as well as the sheet that Rightbackatchya mentioned, one of them (i think it’s alt1 but i’m too lazy to check) has the skills sorted by ability instead of alphabetically, which is a good first step, and the rest of the sheet has a much better design.
This house rule of running everything through ability checks is better than RAW.
And this house rule is a huge boon to the DM when adjudicating with dice. Just add profic bonus to the skill bonus and go. Mental? Choose from 3. Physical? Choose from 3.
It’s not being a hard DM as much as being a consistent DM to insist on STR. But if the player insists:
Your low level DEX16(+3) but weak STR8(-1) rogue could still attempt to use acrobatics to jump the gap, but that would only net them a +2. The rogue would be much smarter to rig a way to swing across, as that would net them a +5.
I’ve been thinking about this all morning now. Boiling it down to the limiting factor is good advice … until it isn’t. Angry pointed out the problems with skills and mentioned there is problem with the 6 ability scores. I think I found one of those problem areas. What is the limiting factor for a foot race? A marathon is constitution, that seems obvious to me. However, what about a sprint? Muscle is heavy. Large strong people are slow – probably faster then my fat ass, but slower then a well conditioned lean person. Seems like a hole to me.
Big strong Football players are very fast. Even the linebackers(the biggest and strongest) can out-sprint an average person. Power lifters are slow, but they dont train to climb, jump or run, so that would probably be a strong character without athletics proficiency.
Good point. Thank you.
Have you seen sprinters? They’re huuuugely muscular.
Yeah, no. The kind of GM who would declare an acrobatic rogue is bad at jumping is the same kind of GM who, in the moment, would also demand a difficult strength check to pull a torch sconce off the wall, and then declare that they don’t have time to fashion a makeshift grappling hook, which results in players not trying creative new things, because they assume you’ll just continually f#ck with them. Because that’s what you’re doing.
But then again, you do break your own rules constantly.
Not giving someone a bonus for the wrong ability score isn’t the same as declaring someone bad at jumping. This is the same stupidity that leads gamers to take an 8 out of 10 as a bad score. Holy shit. Also, I assure you I am the type of GM who will both NOT allow a rogue to substitute Strength for Dexterity and also NOT demand a Strength check to pull a torch off the wall. That disproves your stupid thesis. And I’m utterly consistent within the practical bounds of consistency. Work on your reading comprehension. Don’t bother replying. Thread closed. Go sit in the corner and be quiet.
The high school club I sponsor has benefited a lot from this system of adjudication. This is the sort of thing that I teach them early in the year. The kids’ GMing has improved, and they are confident in their abilities to improvise based on reason. You broke it down really well, and I think the kids will enjoy reading this. Thanks a lot, Angry.
“So, I guess you guys don’t have to sit through a BS article this month full of useless, petty bitching and moaning that would also secretly reveal details about how I’d do ability scores if I were writing an RPG.”
What if we wanted one? It’s been a long time since you talked about your interpretation of ability scores. Have you made a decision for the Angry TTRPG?
IIRC he stated somewhere that he is at least thinking about how it would look like, and that he’s going to write it sometime in the future.
I like this way of doing things. I wonder if it makes proficiency too powerful though? At the very least it lets you use your proficiency bonus almost all the time, and in conjunction with your strongest ability score (using STR to Intimidate means you don’t need to put points into CHA). But I guess it’s an organic way to incentivize players to role-play.
Proficiency scales by level so it will never be too powerful.
This house rule won’t let you always use your skills, but at least gets the player thinking about an approach that uses the skill. That gets them role playing, I suppose. My goal is “engagement.” This gets the players engaged with their sheets and the situation I’m presenting.
The fact that people keep calling this a house rule and think I made up some crazy different way of running the game shows just how badly the designers presented their game. This is literally how the core mechanic of the game works.
Or that a lot of people didn’t read the PHB, or weren’t thinking while they read the PHB.
There is one good thing I can say about the designers, they never in the book say something is an “athletics check, it’s always a “Strength (Athletics) check”, which means they probably at least knew what it was they were trying and failing to say.
Actually, I think this is holdover from earlier playtests where the DEFAULT position was “abilities are for checks, skills give bonuses to certain checks” and the connection between abilities and skills was decoupled. If I recall correctly, that’s when the Ability (Skill) format entered the text. And it stuck even after they decided not to go that route as the default because it also helped clarify, for the GM, which skills and which stats connected up. In the past, GMs had to memorize the key abilities of all skills or have a list handy.
I think I’m the “people” calling this a house rule, but I don’t think you “made up some crazy different way of running the game…” It is actually how the core mechanic works. It’s just not spelled out consistently and clearly. This shows, “just how badly the designers presented their game.”
You’ve said it with regard to AC (8 + profic bonus + value of armor) in the swimming in armor series. It’s the same idea behind “everything’s a saving throw.”
I’m calling it a house rule only because its not 5e RAW.
Being able to mix-and-match skill (and tool?) proficiencies with different abilities is in the 5e PHB. But it’s listed as a variant rule (the same way how the PHB has a default rule for encumbrance and a variant rule. Or how the ability score array and point-buy are variant rules. Or how feats and multiclassing are optional rules). I honestly would prefer it to be the default rule but oh well.
If you’re referring to the concept “attack rolls and saving throws are just ability checks,” I think that’s less a house-rule and more just another way of looking at it (and a possible hint at how Angry may design his system). I can’t speak for Angry, but I don’t think he is suggesting you make it so that spells, abilities, and conditions (such as exhaustion level 1) that are supposed to only affect ability checks in 5e should also affect attack rolls and saving throws.
Amen brother! It’s actually written reasonably well in the PBH – Chapter 7, “Using Ability Scores” (nb: not using skill checks!) It’s just that us old-timers never read the book properly, we assume we know it from prior editions and old habits die hard. And yes, it’s a bit murky, and inconsistent elsewhere in the PBH and DMG, but Chapter 7 is, IMO, about 90% on the money. And Mr Crawford himself has, again about 80% clearly, articulated the intent of the rules is basically as you say here Angry.
Personally, I’ve spent years running 5e, and playing it, all hopeless at actually using the advice given here. All of us players, can’t help but think in terms of skills; “I try and persuade the guard”, “I intimidate the wizard”, “I investigate the rumours in town”.
As you rightly point out, the game will run much better once we can re-train ourselves to describe our actions, the DM then decides / confirms the primary Ability Score, then where relevant some sort of proficiency or other specific rule can be applied. e.g. “I talk nicely to the guard, trying to insinuate that I find men in uniform attractive, using that to see if I can get him to tell me how I might get in without the documentation” (Cha, maybe persuasion, maybe deception), “I twist the wizard’s arm behind his back, near to breaking point, and yell at him to tell me who his boss is!” (Str, intimidate), “I visit all the seedy bars I know of in town, skulking around in the shadows trying to overhear any juicy gossip” (Int, maybe stealth given the way it’s described).
Last thought – it’s interesting how hard-wired our old D&D brains actually are – I found myself thinking about simple Str-based check examples, like jumping a distance, sprinting etc – as you say, clearly Str checks. Then I thought, “what about the guy who’s over 100kg, he’s strong, but really fat too”, and it dawned on me – that guy isn’t proficient in Athletics, so his Str only gets him so far. Think pro-wrestlers too, Arnie, etc – all very high Str, none if any have proficiency in Athletics, most wrestlers would at least have mild proficiency in Acrobatics, then many have Performance, Deception, etc.
I don’t think they mean the ability check thing, I think they mean the “Strength, Intimidation” thing, that’s labeled as a Rules Variant in 5e.
Remember that a key component of this is to set consistent boundaries, and to feel empowered as a GM to say no.
Bending a prisoner’s body forcefully? Strength. Doing so in a way that’s intimidating, and not fumbling or weak, or give off an unintended vibe? Being good at intimidation will definitely help.
Standing your ground in front of an enemy force and trying to get them to stop by sheer force of will? Sounds like Charisma to me. Also sounds like being good at intimidation might help here too.
The idea Angry (and the actual PHB, PS) is trying to convey is that you SHOULDN’T be letting players “use your proficiency bonus almost all the time and in conjunction with your strongest ability score”. Sometimes, they’ll have to use a weak ability score, but still be able to apply proficiency. Other times, they’ll be able to use their best ability score, but not their proficiency. Almost as if…it were designed…this way??
The approach I think to consider is:
Player wants to do a thing that requires a roll. GM declares it as ONE ability modifier. Player asks if a relevant skill is relevant. GM declares yes/no.
If the player is unhappy with the combination, they can try a *different approach* to get a different answer. It’s almost as if the GM is saying “No, but…”
And what is creative problem solving if not coming up with an idea, testing the idea, and either going with it if you like the outcome or trying something different if you don’t?
Definitely not a houserule (PHB p. 175, “Variant: Skill with Different Abilities”).
As a matter of fact, that small paragraph made me abandon the “this Ability governs this skill” approach entirely; now my PCs just have a list of their skill proficiencies (and/or expertise if needed) in addition to their ability score modifiers.
I even went one step further, since this allowed me to also use the proficiency bonus when an ability check is tied to a character background. For example, if a PC had a sailor background and had to make an INT check to untie a knot on a ship, I’d allow them to add their proficiency bonus to that check. I’m still experimenting on this, since I’m afraid to make the entire skill system redundant.
We are all suckers! Note that even the freakin’ examples from PHB 175 match what he wrote. Not a house rule, certainly.
So thank you Feather! I’ve read PHB cover to cover 2x already, and forgot where I saw this. I was looking for it earlier in the DMG and coming up empty.
Yes. This was also the default position in playtests of D&D 5E. They didn’t abandon the idea so much as bury it and call it a variant even though the game plays, effectively, as if it were still the default position.
I’ve tried to have players decouple Ability Modifiers and Proficiencies before, but I think the crucial step I was missing was to have a completely separate character sheet. We use Roll 20 to play most of the time, and so a lot of that was me being lazy in trying to find a better character sheet than the one that’s built in.
Next time we play, I’ll definitely be doing something different / custom to try to get this to work out better. I think it’s hard sometimes as a merely mortal GM to remember that my players aren’t reading all these websites trying to get better as players, and instead, it’s mostly just me thinking about this stuff in my head and then trying (mostly poorly) to explain to people how I want them to play now.
The character sheet I’ll have them play with will just be the 6 ability modifiers across the top, a big spot for proficiency bonus, then a list of the things they are proficient in. I’ll start with that and see if it evokes the type of play I’m hoping for.
Worth noting that in 5e is actually written in exactly the way you describe. Skill checks aren’t actually a thing written in to the rules. The rules talk about attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks. The latter of which can sometimes have your proficiency bonus applied if you are proficient in a particular skill or tool.
Sadly, most players and DMs (who either learnt on older editions, or learnt from people who did) don’t seem to notice this, and thus this article is sadly necessary. It’s one of many cases where if people would actually read the rules of the game they’re playing, a lot of annoyance would be solved.
Look forward to that rant about the blurry lines between the ability scores
Yes. That was precisely my point. 5E WORKS this way, but OBFUSCATES it.
I really enjoy your articles about action resolution, and they’ve given me a lot to think about how game design can affect communication between GMs and players. I especially agree with the feeling of fighting the system and getting bogged down in the minutia of which stats allow a player to accomplish something.
I’ve been thinking about some changes to improve clarity, but I haven’t had a chance to test it out at the table yet. Typically, players state their intent and the action they are taking to accomplish it. Then the GM must work backwards and make it compatible with an attribute, which involves a lot of interpretation of how the character is doing something. I think we can prevent the need for that by using distinct types of ACTIONS as our attributes instead of physical or mental descriptors. I’m actually toying with changing the available skills/proficiencies and using the following for attributes: Attack, Exert, Evade, Endure, Attune, Influence.
If skills are tied to specific sorts of tasks, which in turn could come from any ability score, why does there have to be a list of skills at all? Why not let players make up whatever random word they want and call that a skill (assuming they’re prevented from being total idiots about it)? Does it really matter if instead of proficiency in Arcana they have proficiency with Alchemy, which overlaps with certain parts of Arcana, Nature, and maybe even Medicine but doesn’t really eclipse any of them? Or the person who really desperately Inigo Montoya can take Savoir-Faire, which sort of overlaps with but doesn’t quite eclipse all the uses of Bluff, Diplomacy, and maybe Acrobatics.
I’m afraid that would be far too cool of an idea for the DnD designers to include. You’ll have to make it a house-rule instead.
(Go for it! It’ll be awesome!)
Kind of like the Aspects in Fate, without the metacurrency.
If you completely misunderstand Aspects in Fate, yep. They are basically the same idea.
That’s how skills work in 13th Age (which was, actually, made by a couple of D&D designers). Players get five points to put into backgrounds defined however they wish, then they can add them when the GM agrees they are applicable.
[[ Angry Edit: It’s eight points. And frankly, I don’t think it’s enough of a point to be worth nitpicking. But I keep seeing comments come through correcting it and I’m sick of unapproving them for adding nothing to the discussion. So I’m correcting it. Now all of you can stop. Sorry Randy. I know it was a simple mistake, but people on the Internet are assholes who can’t let a simple, tangential mistake go ignored because correcting people makes them feel smart even though it adds nothing useful or intelligent to the discussion. – Angry ]]
It’s not a crazy idea. Before skill systems were a thing, characters may have one or two “secondary skills”, which were more like trades or professions. They had no numeric values attached: one assumed a PC with the “sailor” skills could do the ordinary things a sailor could do.
It would be easy to apply the same reasoning to games with skill systems based on backgrounds, or even backstory. Assuming the system has a standard bonus for being good at a thing, you just apply that bonus whenever the PC attempts that thing.
Is it not standard practice to award advantage for things relating to background? If a character was a fisherman, I’ll happily give them advantage on identifying hazards at sea, or maintaining course through a storm.
This is balanced with occasional disadvantage. For instance, the ranger who was born in the depths of the jungle is unlikely to know the history of a kingdom, while the aristocrat is unlikely to know how to scavenge for food.
These are much less common than these examples would imply, and I reckon I’d give advantage at least twice as often as disadvantage, as it’s more fun for a player to realise their decision paid off than to know it hindered them. Disadvantage is normally kept to acknowledge the ridiculousness of certain characters doing certain things, where failure is expected and success is either comical or would provide serious character growth.
Is it good practice? Yes. Well, maybe. Sort of. Kind of.
Is it standard practice? No.
Interesting. On looking for the source material that led me to this practice, I couldn’t find it. Maybe it just seemed like a logical thing to do.
Can you expand on why you don’t seem convinced that it’s a good idea? Your opinion is clearly respected, and it’s infuriating knowing you have thought this through and not knowing your conclusion.
Adam, you think “yes, well maybe, sort of, kind of” is an indication that I’ve thought things through rather than an indication that I’m not sure? Really? Because it’s basically screaming ‘this needs way more thought to hit a firm conclusion.’ At least, I thought it was.
This is an interesting article, and I’m going to try this. I’ve thought about it like this before, but this helped me get across the gap I had in my though process.
Although I’m curious why it took until now for this article to show up on the front page for me…
Do you think it is a positive or negative Aspect that D&D, after having you make this important Decision between the six Abilities, proceeds to only dole out a meager Modifier (maybe a -2 here and a +3 there) as a Result? At first Glance it seems like either a stupid or a ball-less design Decision. But maybe there’s more to it? In Fact, now that I think about it, it makes perfect Sense. The Players have these hugely differing Stats (ranging from 8 – 17), which makes them think that their Characters are wildly different and unique while secretly the Modifiers don’t cause the actual Probabilities to change too much.
This, to me, is a huge design flaw. The idea that a weak character (STR 8: -1) can out-muscle the world’s strongest warrior (STR 20: +5) more than 20% of the time is immersion breakingly difficult to explain away at the table.
If you look only at racial and class bonuses, they amount to nearly nothing. There’s a very real chance that your halfling rogue will be stronger than a mountain dwarven barbarian.
Merely a suggestion, but if I were redesigning the ability scores, I would be inclined to give every race a different base stat block, modifiable in character generation, though I think this would equate to including stronger positive and negative stat bonuses for all races.
I would also make more depend on the actual stat score rather than rolls. A STR of 16 means you can take 16 for an arbitrary STR check like smashing a door, reducing the likelihood of being outperformed by a weaker character.
Sounds like Reliable Talent.
I completely agree about the compressed range of the modifiers values, and this is one of the things that most bother me in D&D and Pathfinder. Beginning players always ask me about this disconnect between expectation and math in the 2nd or 3rd session.
In Shadow of the Daemon Lord (one quite successful heartbreaker), the modifiers range from -10 to +10 (Strength 17 is +7), and it compensates the math by doing away with level-progression modifiers like proficiency and +1/2 LVL bonuses.
Instead, you progress by increasing your attributes as you level up. First level characters start with only 14-15 as their maximum attribute, and reach 19-20 at higher levels, which also gives a very nice sense of progression and badassery.
Garbage in, garbage out. All these games rely on the GM to first figure if there is any uncertainty. There is no uncertainty that weakling can out strong arm a muscle builder. So no it’s not immersion breaking at all.
What is immersion breaking is GMs allowing stupid rolls.
Agreed. A Strength check to break down a door is not a roll to determine how much physical force a character applies to it, it’s a roll to determine how strong the door is. If a 16 Strength fighter fails to bust it down it means the door can’t be broken by anyone with a Strength of 16 or lower through brute force.
So does that mean the actual environment depends on the actions of the PCs? What if the fighter tries to break another door in the same castle and succeeds? Am I to pretend the doors were designed differently?
A strength check is an attempt to push something. Sometimes you’ll hit the weakness, sometimes you’ll hit it where it’s strong. Everything I’ve ever read tells me to set a DC and let a player try to hit it. If the game mechanics don’t work logically, that’s not on the DM.
Umm, no.
I’m afraid you’ve lost me. Do you not agree that a character’s roll is to determine how well they do, and not to determine how difficult it is? The latter seems to line up with what you have said in the past, as well as with the explicit descriptions in the book.
So do you just rule that the fighter always hits his target and the bard always misses too?
If a contest of strength is called for, such as grappling, then there’s always a minimum chance either side succeeds. I think the mechanical differences between a professional athlete and a scrawny wizard are too small to account for the logical difference.
Strawman, party of one. I think this thread is over now. Stop being a dick.
But don’t you think, that it might also be a Case of People preferring to drink a Coffee that is labled a “rich, dark Roast” while in Fact preferring the Taste of a “weak, thin Coffee”? If the System indeed would lean more towards the deterministic Side, you could never beat that Dragon. Or you could beat it everytime. And you would know exactly which Tasks your Character can always succeed at and which Tasks they always fail at. Maybe Players would openly preferr a System like the one you suggest, but I think the actual Game Experience needs to be open to suprising Results.
That is what the proficiency bonus is for. The modifiers differ far more than -2 to +3. The minus range does not go very far down, but the plus range is modified in various ways.
During character creation we already have skill proficiencies, which push the range to +5 on a first level guy, and some classes and feats grant Expertise, widening this to +7
Then in the game you have things like Bless or Guidance, which provide relevant choices (e.g. do I have the time / spell slots?)
The base stats alone do not make too much of a difference, but the added things like skills have large impact.
In the PHB, skills are just “specialized” ability checks. The nomenclature in official products is even “Ability(skill)”. Also, the PHB says that you can use a skill with another Ability at the DM’s discretion (in XGE there is even an example of it – I think it’s for tying knots). So by that logic, you could call for a Strength check, but let the player apply their Acrobatics proficiency for a long jump.
Again… kind of my point.
I’m a gluten for punishment, so here goes. (Waiting for the Angry slapdown 3, 2, 1…and#$&$&$)
I prefer a skill to be the determinant factor (in terms of physical violence, attacks are preferred), rather than raw “ability” aka stat. Instead of looking at skills as a mass; divide and conquer by type. I like very broad skills as primary costs for development, and narrower scope skills as a secondary tier; thus every level grants a dichotomous skill progression chart. In terms of raw math, proficiency and ability value are about even, but the range is narrow: +1-+6. I like a broader range and more pitiful arythmatics. Nerd stuff, ughh! And I’m wrong, so anyhoo…
Lets go for those hypothetical scenarios. Someone wants a door kicked in: make an object strike, damage as if a critical (since the door is not evading) vs. break value, and if the damage exceeds it, the door crumbles off its hinges/frame collapses in.
A suicidal mad/hero-person decides to jump off of a rise over the flight path of a Dragon flapping and maneuvering at 60mph; roll Athletics as a very hard difficulty (Dnd 3rd-4th: DC 30; 5th DC 20). Combine a move action maneuver to successfully hop on an airborne reptile, and an attack action to thrust a Dragonslaying Super Magik spear ™ with hopefully enough damage to send said scaly lizard monstrosity, falling a 1000 feat into to the sodden bosom of loving mother earth.
Skills can act instead of abilities in some instances; more than 6. So Angry is filtering the right way, a larger sieve, I like a finer more backing-up prone, narrow funnel approach. I will endeavor on the wrong way.
I would agree that Jumping is Strength based, so is swimming; Climbing and balancing would be Dexterity/Agility based. Sound Angry logic after all.
Angry’s sound logic would never call climbing Dexterity based. Climbing is Strength based. Don’t drag me into this.
For Pathfinder, would you recommend you can use different stats for skills than the ones in the rules and ignore the trained and untrained use of skills rules?
I personally like to for Starfinder (which is basically the same thing, don’t @ me). I often let them use a different ability score added to their training/racial/circumstantial bonus for a particular skill. The idea of “skill checks” rather than “ability checks” is more baked into Pathfinder/Starfinder, but you can definitely disentangle it without breaking anything in my experience.
After reading this article earlier this week (Patreon perk–shameless plug), I tried this out yesterday with six players new to D&D. I even did the simplified character sheets that include only the character’s trained proficiencies. It went swimmingly, exactly as Angry described it would.
But all that is secondary. The most important part of this article is where finesse characters finally get a long-overdue public denouncement.
We mentally map ability score of 3 and 18 as extreme examples of the attribute when they boil down to a -3 and +3, making a 30% difference on a D20 roll.
D20 games don’t really try to simulate the extreme power lifter that can’t run and the super smart guy that’s in a wheelchair because he is so weak.
Damn, my reply was too long, so here´s the short version. (Not trying to be aggressive, only saving space ^^)
18 is a +4 mod, 3 is a -4 mod, so the difference is 40%.
However, 40% sometimes is more than 40%:
Example: Lift a wooden gate, DC 10 STR check. (An “easy” task, see 5E DMG p238)
STR 16 beats this 75% percent of the time
STR 3 beats this only 35% of the time
What does this mean? The STR 16 guy has almost double the chance to do it, not “40% more”
More realistic example, with proficiencies and a reasonable STR 8 (-1) mod for the wizard, and a fighter character with 18 STR and the DM rules that his Athletics proficiency is relevant here:
STR 8 (no proficiency) beats this 40% of the time
STR 18 (+2 proficiency) beats this 80% of the time
And here comes the real example, a “hard” check of DC 20, they want to lift a door made of iron, and they are now level 5:
STR 18 (+3 proficiency) beats this 40% of the time
STR 8 (no proficienty) beats this.. never. The wizard can not do it. He sweats and grunts, but the gate does not move.
In this case the difference of 7 between the modifiers means that the trained character is infinitely more likely to succeed at the task.
This gap widens as the ASI´s come in and the proficiency bonus increases.
Minor correction, the difference is 8 (-1 vs. +7)
An issue I have with the whole Str vs Dex for jumping, climbing, etc. is that these actions rely on a high strength in proportion to body mass. Acrobats do have high strength – for their slight builds. A sumo wrestler is much stronger but would find a long jump harder than the average person!
The question is whether this is enough to justify trying to account for it mechanically. I think not, but it is something to keep in mind when someone complains about the disconnect, especially when the clumsy dwarf barbarian can jump further than the wiry elf ranger…
If you were designing your own game you could have an attribute called Agility that would include an element of power to weight ratio so those who had high Agility scores could jump around well. But this is just my preference because my culture has a tradition of low weight, high power legendary figures who are very acrobatic. (Jackie Chan is an Australian citizen.)