D&D 5E Using Ability Check Proficiency (DMG 263)

[DND_Reborn]

So, I was curious if anyone uses this variant in the DMG:

I know skills certainly aren't overly complex in 5E, but the more I look at this option the more I like it. It reminds me a lot of earlier editions when it was "roll under" instead. Obviously this is "roll over DC" instead of "roll under score", but I like the simplicity of it and the idea that PCs are good at a broader range of applicable things instead of just select skills.

So, anyone using this???

 

[Andvari]

A similar approach as Castles & Crusades. No skills, but you select some ability scores as “prime abilities” and you have an easier time with checks relying on those abilities. (Like Dex for sneaking or picking a lock.)

 

[Shardstone]

I use it as a core rule in my 5E published setting, Scavenger. This means I've been using it in over 3 years of campaigns, one shots, and so on. I eventually ended adding a mighty deeds-esque system to every stat that people could use as bonus actions pb times per long rest. Other than that, it made ability scores a lot looser at our games, and it opened up the playbook so to speak for what my players could do.

I've used this with experienced groups, other publishers, casual players, and complete noobs to any kind of TTRPG. However, I do miss skills a little bit, just for the flavor of a custom skill list.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m not a fan as it continues the trend of consolidating everything a character does into a single ability, making them even more SAD than they already are.

A better alternative, in my opinion, is just to make backgrounds into blanket proficiencies. If you’re a sailor, you’re proficient in… all the things sailors do. If you’re an acolyte, you’re proficient in… all the things acolytes do. This requires a bit of DM discretion, but overall I think it works really well. For expertise, just pick a specific task, like “picking locks” or “hiding”.

 

[delericho]

I've considered doing that, but am always struck that it does just feel like one simplification too far. Plus, I like the mix-and-match ability/skill approach more.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Plus, I like the mix-and-match ability/skill approach more.

See, I actually see this as the ultimate mix-and-match approach.

The player describes what they are doing ("I push the guard around, trying to intimidate him"), and the DM response, "Ok, make a Strength check" since you are physically trying to intimidate through force instead of coercion, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, I actually see this as the ultimate mix-and-match approach.

The player describes what they are doing ("I push the guard around, trying to intimidate him"), and the DM response, "Ok, make a Strength check" since you are physically trying to intimidate through force instead of coercion, etc.

You don’t need this rule to do that. I do that, and I use the standard skill list.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You don’t need this rule to do that. I do that, and I use the standard skill list.

I never said you did... In fact, it's already a variant in the PHB. I already do it with the standard skill list, too.

My point was, this is even more open because "skills" aren't a thing, just the ability to drive the action.

 

[Ondath]

I’m not a fan as it continues the trend of consolidating everything a character does into a single ability, making them even more SAD than they already are.

A better alternative, in my opinion, is just to make backgrounds into blanket proficiencies. If you’re a sailor, you’re proficient in… all the things sailors do. If you’re an acolyte, you’re proficient in… all the things acolytes do. This requires a bit of DM discretion, but overall I think it works really well. For expertise, just pick a specific task, like “picking locks” or “hiding”.

I've also considered removing the notion of skills altogether and just counting all the other character selections to be proficiencies that you can add to a situation if it's justified. If you're Wizard, your class gives you proficiency when trying to discern arcane knowledge with an Intelligence check. If you have the Soldier background, you have proficiency on the Strength check to knock a guy over. If you know Elvish, you have proficiency in the Charisma check to hail the elven king. I think it could be a nice, rules-light alternative, but it's certainly a departure from the usual rules (so I'm a bit reticient to add it to my regular games).

 

[overgeeked]

I've also considered removing the notion of skills altogether and just counting all the other character selections to be proficiencies that you can add to a situation if it's justified. If you're Wizard, your class gives you proficiency when trying to discern arcane knowledge. If you have the Soldier background, you have proficiency on the Strength check to knock a guy over. If you know Elvish, you have proficiency in the Charisma check to hail the elven king. I think it could be a nice, rules-light alternative, but it's certainly a departure from the usual rules (so I'm a bit reticient to add it to my regular games).

When going for a simpler version of D&D, this is what I do. Race, background, and class all give proficiency in whatever skills or knowledge the character should have based on those things. If you're a sailor ranger...you don't need to spend time picking athletics for swimming and survival for navigation. It's assumed you're good at those things. But sometimes players complain about the lack of customization. Which mostly comes down to not being able to pick perception when nothing in their race, background, or class would suggest they'd be particularly good at that.