Using Skills: D&D 5e 

This is what I want from more RU-vidrs, "I'm behind, so I'm gonna do one day a week for a bit to catch up". No apologies, no promises, he's made a decision about his channel and he's letting us know and the rest of the episode flows uninterrupted. Awesome

So glad to see this getting covered. Skill checks (I mean ability checks) are such a major mechanic, and in some campaigns they define outcomes way more often than combat, yet optimizing channels often focus so little on them in comparison.

Can you do one on tools? They're really fun to use in my opinion, you should go take a look at the xanathar's options

You might want to do a video on Tool Proficiencies as well. Both because they interact with skills, but also because they are not understood by most players and evens DMs. edit: For example Carpenter`s Tool Proficiency and Investigation Proficiency when searching for a hidden door in a wooden building. Both Proficiencies would apply in that particular case. Xanathar`s suggests on page 78 that the check would then be made with advantage...

6:50 If it's impossible don't let them roll. Likewise if it's possible but doesn't matter to the narrative or gameplay goal, don't ask for a roll. Don't ask for rolls where you can't handle the consequence of either a failure or a success.

I love degrees of success! I hope the 2024 rules update doesn't introduce too many new abilities that trigger on failed checks.

For the "Degrees of Success" 7:20 - 9:08 there are some examples in 5e. Some of the Downtime Activities in Xanathar's Guide have something like it: Selling Magic Items states that depending on the total of your Charisma (Persuasion) roll the offer made to you could be 50% (1-10), 100% (11-20), or 150% (21+) of the base item's value. Doing Research has a similar system where you could find no lore (1-5), one piece of lore (6-10), two pieces of lore (11-20), or three pieces of lore (21+). As to how it interacts with features or items or spells that call for "Failed" checks, those are still a little tough. I'd say for something like research where you clearly get nothing it should work for it there, but for something like selling the item, you are getting something still but its not as much as it could be. So DM Discretion?

Your advice and the Dungeon Dudes’ has been very helpful to me regarding skill checks. I have my players use basically all their skills in appropriate ways. I make sure not to slow down play asking for ability checks to accomplish fairly basic things and also won’t let my players make an ability check for something that’s impossible. For instance, I have an eloquence bard who makes ridiculous deception rolls when appropriate, but he also tends to lie so outrageously I have to forgoe the charisma check (with deception) altogether. I feel like I do good job as a DM managing ability checks and skills even tho I struggle in other areas (like running combat) and you all helped me a lot with that, so thank you.

I love using Charisma (Investigation) checks for when players are probing a town/tavern/party for gossip and info; it IS a little harder to explain, but I think it's worth it

One thing I've been doing for a while, that seems to be in line with all this, is finding ways to use knowledge skills in combat, and combat skills out of combat. For instance, the Paladin is the first to land a hit on the new monster and I immediately ask him for a Int (Nature) check. If he rolls well, he learns something about the monster that may help the group. Out of combat, I try to include things that have a physical or magical component to their success. A continual light source suspended too far up for mage hand might require a carefully aimed arrow to disable, so that the Rogue can sneak through the hallway later.

For passive skills, I sometimes use it as a guide for calling out an ability check when players havn't prompted it. So, if a PC has a passive perception of 15, and that would beat the DC of what's hidden, that may prompt me to ask that player for the check. I mostly play with newer players, so I find it just gives them a nudge on things they may want to keep an eye out. Of course, any player could have their character be looking out for danger/clues/treasure etc, and I'd ask the check anyway, regardless of their passive score.

Absolutely love degrees of success, and failure as well. It might not technically be in the rules but there have been several things printed with degrees of failure. Some items for example have an additional effect when you fail by 5 or more etc. (Infernal Puzzel Box is one)

Skills are highly variable based on GM. I've mostly had just one GM, so I can't experientially speak to other GMs, let alone averages. So, even more than every other mechanic, I think the most important thing to consider when choosing skills and expertise is your specific GM. For instance, I'm currently playing a Tactician Rogue (the Tactician is my own Subclass, but has totally nothing to do with skills) and doing really well in the social and infiltration arenas. I chose Expertise in History. Normally, History is almost never called for at my table. But I noticed that my GM was liable to call for it in certain contexts that were very likely to arise given my Rogue's approach to that campaign's challenges. As it is, History is currently competing for my fourth-most used skill, and has helped me navigate social interactions not just successfully, but in the way I envisioned him when I crafted him.

Histroy - Any time your PC has a question about World Lore, creature Lore, etc. Or if they are trying to recall somthing form a previous session or conversation. Perfect for History checks.

I actually think skill checks in DND 5e are really well designed. The basic system is incredibly simple and elegant. It really lets the advantage system shine. Applying proficiency is incredibly flexible. And all the optional rules provided by the core rulebooks are actually useful and good suggestions that you can take or leave if it fits your game. I really enjoy the flow of 5e outside of combat

I like to use the variant rule for skills because it allows me to ask my players how/what they are doing more often. I feel like this lets them more role play opportunities to narrate their own actions gaining more engagement in the scene/session. Their description also helps me to decide what ability is best used for the root if not a different skill than i originally thought all together.

So glad to see you cover skills like this! I feel like (at least in any game I've ever been in) if you aren't actively in combat, skills are the vast majority of what you use. So if you want to optimize, skills are necessary to keep in mind to be optimized out of combat. Especially when skill challenges have been gaining popularity recently

Your best video in a while IMO. An important part of the game to review and reframe, even for this veteran DM.

The amount of grief I see online because DMs run Ability Checks by the rule that Players decide when/what check to use. Oh man. It’s SO important that DMs are the ones calling for checks. Second worse is DMs altering the check DC based on the character making the check. Sure DMs can do what they want - but both of these situations lead to so much headache and classically frustrating DM situations. P.S. All that said I do like the new examples of ability checks in Onednd. It *almost* looks like it’s more “player facing” now but could be wrong.

I love the guidance on ability checks. It can be hard to know when to use what. Also, when to use passive and not active. I try to use passive perception or passive investigation to give an automatic clue. Then force an active check. Also, for many of the skills, like Arcana, I require proficiency to be able to even make the check. I think it was Tasha's or Xanathar's that had some guidance on when to apply a specific skill. Like for dragons, I think it said one could use Arcana or History.

I love this video. More like this please. It’s dm focused optimization that’s less about number crunching and more about playing the game by the rules well

there's also using different skills towards the same check like substituting Nature checks with Survival so a Druid or Ranger can actually be good at knowing things about nature

Very cool ideas, Chris! I have called for an ability check to see the number to determine how confident the character is in say their knowledge about something, whether it be history or if they think they can tackle breaking the lock or to determine how long it will take them to succeed and not whether there is a chance of failure. And that’s handy if one is using a timer.

Glad to be reminded of the rules for group checks, in my last session one of my players was trying to barge into the locked room of a shop while in plain view of the merchant and another player and the merchant herself both tried to pull him back, I just had both make athletics checks and for the two pulling added together, and because the fighter had atheltics expertise he still almost beat their combined check (both players rolled nat 20s)

I sometimes use a variant of "degrees of success" where the task will succeed no matter how bad the roll, but the result the characters roll determines how much time the task takes.

Having played on a few different tables, you definitely want to check in with your DM/Table on skill use as they do not get used the same everywhere. You might float the idea of using them another way, but ultimately as a player it's not going to be your call. To spare yourself disappointment and regret don't assume, check in and ask questions so you'll know when making a character.

Regarding “Degrees of Success” Dungeon Master’s Guide, Page 242 does actually mention “Critical Success.” It works similarly to how you described it, although, it only triggers on a “natural 20” or “natural 1.” Degrees of failure are also mentioned.

From your about being a youtuber video you knew that january ad rates would be lower. So I assume you decided to spend the holidays with family and let your backed-up videos handle the holidays, and then slowdown at january as you re-fill that backup while the ad rates are low. I like it.

Every part of this video was top notch. And the +1 golf club image recurring as much as it did was simply incredible

I'll definitely miss seeing two videos a week, but it's only temporary, and I understand the reasoning. Thanks for calling this out up from, so I can better manage through my Treantmonk withdrawals. I'll just have to watch old build videos to sustain me through this time. In all seriousness, no problem, and I appreciate that you told us.

Hey Chris! Awesome video! I noticed you missed a hidden rule for ability checks in Tasha's book. Parleying with Monsters, p. 148, there is a guide for knowledge ability checks and skills required in the table "Monster Research", and with the following text: "Adventurers can research what a creature is likely to desire. The Monster Research table suggests which skills can be used to learn about a creature of a particular type. The DC for a relevant ability check equals 10 + the creature's challenge rating.". There, for exemple, if you want to know about dragons, you could use Arcana, History or Nature ability check. As a DM, I say to the player choose which skill they want to use from the options provided in the table.

13:41 I love using this rule. I often use Charisma(Stealth) for someone trying to act natural and unobtrusive in a crowd.

I feel like certain skills will always be better than others depending on the campaign. Anything under the Intelligence umbrella is DM dependent. Even making scrolls requires the DM giving you the resources for it. Charisma checks can usually be strongarmed out of a DM. The least useful imo is performance. Intimidation is weird because it's a dump stat for most intimidating characters. Athletics is almost always good. Dexterity skills are a mixed bag. Acrobatics is often interchangeable with athletics. Stealth is great if the dm doesn't make it like BG3 stealth. Sleight of hand is really only good if the player leans into it. Wisdom is even more of a mixed bag. Perception can range from great to mandatory. Some DMs will make things that ought to be Survival or Investigation checks into Perception. Swathes of Survival checks can be rendered obsolete by being a ranger or having the Outlander background. Medicine might as well be one of the Intelligence skills. Insight is useful if the DM knows when to call for it. Lastly, Animal Handling is highly circumstantial.

I like to pair 2 types of skill checks together. And have Class specific advantages. "The item has a magical aura to it, but its hard to discern what the nature of the magic is." Arcana or Insight skill check. Arcana success: You're knowledgeable about Magic items, you can see the tell-tail signs of a curse upon this item. Insight success: You have experience working with Magical items, and this particular item gives you a bad feeling. Class Specific Advantage: Ranger. You have advantage on tracking creatures or finding food and water. (Survival) Barbarian. You can use your strength modifier when intimidating a creature, so long as you utilize your physical strength with the Intimidation. Etc.

I only use passive Perception for one thing: to determine if you notice something you're NOT directly observing, something in your peripheral vision. If you're looking at it, I'm rolling for it, and because of this and the whole meta-gaming aspect of asking for a roll, I am doing constant Perception checks for every character in the party and not telling them the results. I don't even tell them what the roll is for, but they can take a pretty good guess since I ask for everyone's Perception bonus at the beginning of a session, and it's on them to tell me if it improves during the session. I have 24 different sets of dice, so I can generally find a d20 that approximates each player's own (even when we play on an improvised VTT we still have colors to help identify each other on the map), and I can throw them all at once. Most of the time I don't have to do any calculations, it's obvious more than half of them passed the check or it's a check where only one of them needs to succeed (like seeing a secret door) so I end up doing one, maybe two calculations. For example: The ranger has a +8 and everyone else is +4 or +6, so I'll always calculate the Ranger's score unless it's obvious it'll fail, then I'll go down the list from highest die downward until I run out or it's obvious the remainder are fails. I don't necessarily give the credit to the one who got the highest score, it might instead go to the character closest to the thing being sought who also had a successful Perception check. The other one that gets used a lot is Stealth. At the very least, it's wise to keep out of the "disadvantage on Stealth" armor types, and/or make sure you've got someone who can cast Pass Without Trace. Even if you aren't actively trying to sneak into enemy compounds, sometimes you have to duck out of the way when they just happen to walk by. So I'd say Stealth sees the most use at my table after Perception, although the players may think it's the other way around because I'm making so many silent Perception checks. After that it splits depending on where you are. You'll probably be asked for lots of Insight checks when in a city nosing around and asking questions, but few in a dungeon crawl. The Charisma skills other than Persuasion get used very little, but when they do get used, they can be quite effective. It's thematic to have a skill that aligns with a high-CHA character's style, so the player is likely going to manufacture ways to use them. But for normal-CHA characters, Persuasion is probably the only one that would be worth taking because there's either going to be someone better than you at intimidation, deception, etc. or they're just not a major element of your party's style.

Sounds like the commenters DM needs to up his Game. Good thing Treantmonk is here to the Rescue!

I do like the variant rule for using attributes, but I employ it sparingly. Usually by player creative request. It seems like a good chunk of a video could be used in that murky grey area of "Acrobatics vs Athletics."

Finally, a person read the actual rules the game was designed around! I wonder why it took almost 10 years for the ability check system to start entering public consciousness as intended.

What I found Interesting in the book 'ghost of salt marsh' for fire checks it's asked the Surgeon to do an ability intelligence (medicine) check.

Very helpful. Looking forward to the next video.

"The DM calls for the check" Shout it from the rooftop! I have a big pet peeve with players asking for checks or even declaring that they are going to make a check.

I do think it's important for players learning the game to understand that it is a "Roll for Intelligence" and not "Roll for Investigation" BECAUSE claiming the roll is for a skill over-complicates something meant to be fast. Using virtual tabletops, it's easy for new players to think that clicking "Investigation" is some hidden formula and not just "a d20, your bonus, and maybe your PB." The *most* important part is a d20 being rolled, and it requires far less thought! You might get an 18 and all of the time spent reminding yourself of bonuses is irrelevant anyway. Shaving off a few seconds of gameplay really affects the Flow state of everyone at the table Excellent content as always!

When it comes to "reroll on failed skill checks" I read that as part of the players choice, because typically they'll only choose the reroll on a failure. For a degree of success type roll, you can allow them to choose whether to roll to achieve a higher number. Whether this gets presented as advantage (i.e.: you figure out x lower success but then try to jog your memory for y harder success) or replacement (not letting them know the degree of success until after all rolls are resolved) would be DM Fiat.

The way I have always dealt with degrees of success are: I set the top DC at 30 and the bottom at 5 (less than that is an auto fail, but no critical failures), and I split the possible results in 6 groups of 5. So a shopkeeper with a top end reduction of 10% would be 0-5 0%, 5-10 2%, 10-15 4%, 15-20 6%, 20-25 8%, and 25-30 10% I keep combined lists for various things. There is a cheap/unfriendly list, an average list, and a generous/friendly list. 50% chance on the first two, the third has to be earned.

Before watching the video: my DM goes hard on lore, so whoever goes into expertise on random INT skills is uncovering all the fun dirt

I mostly use passives to set DCs for opponents - such as the example for stealth against characters' passive perception. Something do with group checks, such as the team sneaking by a guard, is allow 2 points of success offset 1 point of failure as opposed to half the team succeeding.

Super helpful and organized. Thanks for posting!

Hey i just wanted to say that your channel has invaluable to me as a combat and dungeon heavy dm.

Hi Chris! I and many others would love to see you do a video filling out the MCDM RPG playtest survey like you do for the One D&D surveys!

Something similar to the degrees of success that ties into the whole "I roll persuasion to get the shopkeeper to sell me this magic item for a copper piece" kind of player that I've seen bandied about is to let the player roll the ability check, and set the DC on what the player needs to roll to avoid negative consequences. So it's more like degrees of failure. For example: The player demands that the shopkeeper sells them a magic item for a copper piece. The DM has them roll a Persuasion check (at disadvantage if the player is particularly belligerent or aggressive about their demand). If they roll 25 or higher, the shopkeeper thinks their joke is pretty funny, and while they aren't going to sell the item for a copper, they are open to being haggled down to giving a slight discount. If they roll 20-25, the shopkeeper is willing to sell the item for the listed price and no less. If they roll 15-20, the shopkeeper is willing to sell the item, but their attitude towards the player worsens, so any further attempts to haggle will have a higher DC with further failure causing a mark-up in price or refusal to sell. If they roll 10-15, the shopkeeper will outright refuse to sell them the item and ask them to leave. If they roll under 10, the shopkeeper will have them physically thrown out by their guards. EDIT: Obviously, that example is for players who are making unreasonable demands. If a player haggles in good faith by being friendlier or starting at a more reasonable offer, the DCs can be lower, the consequences for failure milder, rolled with advantage if done well, and result in better outcomes on a success.

This was a needed series Thank you Chris 💯

Yup. As A DM I am looking for ways to make the skills relevant in the sessions. THANK YOU!!!

As a DM that does regularly use the "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities" rule... I think it has its' ups and downs. On the one hand, it definitely adds an element of power creep. Your players will work out very quickly "as long as I describe everything I do in a way that plays to by strongest ability, I'll always get that +5 modifier on everything". The flip side of this, is I find it really encourages my players to roleplay out their skills more. I get a lot less "I try to Intimidate the guard" and a lot more "I want to demonstrate a feat of strength by snapping this table in two to try and intimidate the guard". Additionally, I find that this power creep usually benefits Martial Classes over Spellcasters (with one particular exception. I'm going to come back to that later). Frequently, spellcasters will aim to use a spell to skip making a skillcheck for a more reliable result, meaning that Martial characters are much more likely to make a skill check in the first place. Probably the most requested ability score exchange I see is Monks asking "can I grapple using my Dexterity". This question is probably going to go away in the next edition, but I think it highlights the general reason that Martial Classes get the most benefit out of this rule change. The exception I wanted to talk about is the general boost that Artificers get out of this change. I've had more than one Artificer at my table realise "if I can describe my knowledge of my tools and use Flash of Genius, I can add 2XProficiency and 2XIntelligence to my checks". As a result, I've had a lot of players really learn a lot about their chosen tools just to get a little numerical boost. Again, I think this is a great thing, and it's made Artificer kind of a staple at my tables, which is something I really enjoy (a lot of my friends work in medicine, so "Medical Tools" has become a permanent addition to the tool list, and it's only a matter of time before I end up with an all Artificer party that's just a travelling hospital, and I can't wait for it). These are really just some general observations, loaded with a lot of my personal preference. Definitely consider your own preferences while considering this rule, but for me it's definitely added a really fun element to my games.

Very useful! Been needing this for a while.

I wish the skills with different abilities rule was used more, so that the skills you're good at wouldn't be so strongly tied to your class.

The best way to use passive checks is to use them with contested checks, PF2 already uses it as default with good reason. In every other d20 test in DnD you use uniform distribution. If you roll both sides for a contested check since it is an addition of 2 dice rolls, even if one of them is negative that has mathematical consequences. First of all the distribution will be a bell curve instead of uniform distribution. And second the proportionality of the skill level of the character and their luck will drastically change. The proportionality in first level characters is: the worst in that skill will have no prof bonus and -1 from their ability mod and the best will have without expertise is +2 prof and +3 ability mod = +5 total skill mod. That's a range of 7 different numbers and the d20 by definition have 20 different numbers and the mathematical addition rules say that the skill:luck proportionality will be 7:20 at first level. This shows being lucky is about 3 times as important than having the correct skills. If you handle it with 2 rolls instead of one the proportionality will be 7^2 : 20^2 = 49 : 400. That's how important luck will be compared to your picked skills, almost 9 times as important. And I'm flabbergasted that an optimiser who also DMs doesn't know this from the system. The main use-case for passive rolls is to reduce dice rolls and math so that saves time. And the official passive checks isn't the only passive rolls in the system. AC by default is a contested check handled by passive rolls. You have the correct optional rules in the DMG if you want to make it an active check. Just imagine how chaotic (chance based) and long it would be to handle a fight if you used active rolls for both AC and attack. That's exactly what passive rolls are created for and you can also apply advantage rules and extra enhancing abilities like the bless spell on top of that. I hope this was convincing for lots of people to use passive contested checks from now on.

Absolutely. Player's don't call the shots whether they roll an ability check. You roleplay and the DM considers if there's a roll. I wonder if Passive Skills will come up. Still watching the video...

How the hell did chris just do a performance check with intelligence? ( good vid, refresher even for experienced dms & good lesson for players)

Love the content. Take the time you need to catch up.

In case of group checks I sometimes complicate rules a little. Instead of "half of team succed means team succeded" I treat each succeded check as one success. And depending on number of sucess team have different thing happens. I have 6 people on team, if usually figure out different outcome if only 2 people succeded or 3 or 4 or 5. It is similar to group checks that are in rules but allows sometimes more flexible results.

Very handy overview! Nice!

3:12. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I’ve spent a long time retraining my players to _not ask for ability checks_ and instead _describe what their character is doing_ . Players who are accustomed to asking for ability checks are always pleasantly surprised when they say something like “I look around the room,” and I simply tell them what they see, or “I look behind the painting,” and I just tell them what they find. It really encourages interactivity, immersion, and creative thinking.

Your content is awesome! You should have 300k subs by now

In terms of using different ability scores for some checks, I think there's two that are worth using regularly as a DM. One is that you should be able to use a strength intimidation check, at least in some situations. The second is that you should probably allow your monk to grapple with DEX. Now, if you are not the DM, I absolutely wouldn't rely on these when making builds. But these are two that I will usually allow at my table, and would encourage other DMs to allow. (Also, I'm pretty sure they received a lot of feedback about both of these, since these are explicitly spelled out in the OneDnD playtests).

I thought about this for a while and realized I've been DMing off and on, with rare bouts of getting to be a player, for almost 30 years. With ability checks, I usually like to define the skills as broadly as possible, so and flavor my responses according to the skill used. So for the Wand example, I might call for the group to make an Intelligence check and allow the characters to apply either History or Arcana. I'll let them choose which skill to use. Either skill on the tree might be able to get all of the information, but the DCs might be different depending on the skill used. They way that I describe how the character knows the information, and the flavor of the description will be different depending on which skill is used. (e.g. for Arcana-- the construction and magical runes on the wand indicate that... or for History-- You recall the story of ______, the king, who had a wand fitting this description. According to your recollection of the story....) The reason for this is that I want skills to be important, and I want the characters to be able to use them as often as possible, and I want to be sure to include as many different skills as possible so that each member of the team feels useful, and so that the information they provide fits their character and helps them roleplay. Then I can play this out either requiring more successes to provide more information, or to use the help action and to describe how exactly the character providing help provides that help. (e.g. for the help action, the Wizard interpreted the runes and determined the effects and the Bard recalled the lore and suggested things to look out for, which helped to correctly interpret the writing. With separate checks, the Wizard determined the spell effect and the Bard remembered the command word). Another advantage of thinking this way is that I rarely wonder which skill or proficiency to call for. Instead, all I have to do is worry about thinking of AT LEAST one skill that applies. Playing this way often leads my players to ask, "hey, could I use this skill to..." and that's always welcome at my table. Also, when a character asks to use a skill to do something that is stupid, or impossible, I ask them if they are sure they want to do that, and if they persist, their skill role determines how painfully they fail. Like for example, if a character is trying to use persuasion to buy a magic item for 1cp, if they roll really high, the merchant will assume they were joking, and if they rolled really really high, maybe offer to sell it for a price they might have reasonably bartered her down to. If they roll really low, the merchant will decide they were trying to intimidate her or swindle her and will refuse to serve them or maybe call the guards.

Thanks Treantmonk!

I might suggest also mentioning the more detailed method of resolving social interactions mentioned on page 244 of the DMG; instead of just calling for a Charisma check, it takes roleplaying into account too (without making players do all the heavy lifting by themselves) and gives a use for Insight as more than just a lie detector: 1. A creature is friendly, indifferent or hostile. 2. The characters talk with the creature. This can temporarily shift the creature's attitude by one step - both positively and negatively. A Wisdom (Insight) check can help determine the creature's ideal, bond or flaw, which is more effective in achieving a positive attitude shift, but failing the check might give false information that makes the creature less friendly. 3. The characters make a Charisma check. Different DCs are set depending on what you want the creature to do and its attitude. (Not mentioned in the rules, but you could also easily treat this like a check with degrees of success.)

Great video topic!

Important skills in Base D&D (at least for combat) - Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception. Everything else provides marginal utility and is HEAVILY dependent on DM fiat. In my games I've started taking a page out of PF2e and making skills more useful in and out of combat. And, most importantly, I've stripped some of the usefulness out of Perception, because, if you look at how it's described, it covers like 50% of things that should probably be covered by other skills.

I have a wizard in my party who absolutely loves to blackmail and manipulate NPC's. Depending on how he goes about it, sometimes I let him do Intimidation, persuasion, or (more rarely) deception with his intelligence. Often he does this with less of a conversational approach, but by presenting accurate information he's collected and then twisting it applying it to that individual. It gives him a sense that his skill at gathering and knowing things is valuable in achieving his goal. I also love strength acrobatics checks or dexterity athletics checks, like rock climbing, regardless of if you're pulling yourself up in a straight line, or reaching or making small accurate jumps from small foothold or handhold, you still need a lot of strength, but gone about differently.

I'm curious how you like to handle a couple situations: 1. Repeated attempts. Take the secret door example. Suppose the player says, "I'm going to spend an entire minute checking each section of this hall." Would you allow them to make ten rolls? 2. Large parties: Again with the secret door example. Would every member of a party of six get to make their own roll, essentially getting six times advantage on this roll? Personally, I (and DMs I have played with) do not allow repeated rolls, and typically allow only two party members to attempt a given check. Doing otherwise cheapens the benefit of proficiency, not to mention features like Expertise and Reliable Talent. Why bother building a skill monkey when the only consequence of failure on a check is that you have to roll again?

History used to be a dead skill for my RPG circle, but I was inspired by Adventures in Middle Earth 5e, and began using cultural knowledge into it. Now my players see it as an essential skill for social and investigative encounters! :)

I use a more passive form of passive checks. 8+modifiers. This is for when they aren’t actively attempting to check there surroundings or whatever but I need a number to check against like in an ambush. If they’re actively going to do something I use the single roll like you do

What a fantastic video

That's quite a useful video, thanks to the person who asked you the question, and thank you for making it! Weren't degrees of success a think in older editions? I could have sworn the 4e bestiary has degrees of success for knowledge checks on the creatures for instance... I wonder why Wizards did away with it.

The newer rules mention using Nature for the Study check for Dragons, but advise History for studying Humanoids and Giants. Personally, I think Dragons fit more into History than Nature in D&D (the older ones, at least).

I didn't know how the help rule worked tbh. SO I guess you gave the help action to me ;)

For passive checks, I like to use the passive as a DC, and the creature that would hide themselves, a secret door, or some information, I would have that creature roll a check against that passive DC.

I am reminded of Vampire: the Masquerade. Abilities were scored 0-5, because unlike attributes, there's probably plenty that a character has no experience doing. As I recall, if you had a 4 in an ability, you knew enough to specialise, so you would get a bonus if you're trying to do a particular thing with that particular ability. I suppose expertise covers this to an extent, but... say you're proficient with thieves tools, but you really shine when it comes to lockpicking. Flat bonus like expertise, or advantage?

I'm not a DM, but for the passive check example, if they announce they will be alert for secret doors, I'd ask for a roll before they start (like you mentioned). If their passive would have found the door by default, but they rolled poorly, I would say their active search is distracted (maybe building off a prior goofy RP moment that's still "affecting them", or something about the current environment is disorienting to them). But when they reach the area of the door, I would say their instincts are giving them some kind of vibe, even though they're too distracted to actually pinpoint it. They'd get another roll, and might even tell the party to look around that spot for advantage or something. Basically they were trying too hard to focus on it, that they missed what their instincts would have easily spotted. Also, for the helping for advantage, if one player is making a distraction, I'd probably ask them to roll a check on top of the other player getting advantage. Basically seeing what degree of distracted the guard would be for additional RP details or general bonus points. Not only did the other player succeed with their advantage, but the distraction allowed some other benefits (even if just flavor).

Its somewhat humorous how many DMs get skills wrong. The first copuple of minutes you read out fix most skill issues in tables.

I feel like they should use the Take 10 and 20 on the checks like investigation or knowledge. I remember those being a thing in Pathfinder 1e. I miss those.

Personally, I would rule being a loud and obvious distraction as imposing disadvantage on the Guards' Perception checks. You aren't helping one person hide, you're actively drawing attention to yourself, which could let _anyone_ hide.

Re: Passive Checks So, one of the things with passive checks that muddies the waters is that, at some point in the past, Crawford said that your passive perception was the lowest you could get on a perception check. Like the rule says, passive checks are most useful for averaging out checks made repeatedly, or to set a DC for the monsters to breach while trying to sneak up on the players. So like, if you say, "I want to search the walls of the room for secret doors", or "I want to make sure I've cleared that door of traps", or "I'd like to take my time carefully scaling this cliff", then I'd tell the player how long it takes them and to use their passive score for that ability check. But the thing is, like... no matter how good you are at something, there's always a chance you just flub it in the moment, which is why I strongly disagree with Crawford's ruling. We've all just flat-out missed something obvious before, so why can I not get less than a 10 on a perception check, but there's a chance I roll a 4 on my strength (athletics) check and just totally fail to scrabble up this cliff face?

Something Iwould add to the no reason to do an ability check section. If there is no way of failure based on the characters' skills, than no roll. If the level 17 rogue with expertise in stealth, 20 dex, and elven boots ask to stealth past the sleeping gaurd, there is no reason to ask for a check.

Thanks Chris

personally i would swap monstrocities and oozes in the study check from arcane and nature. and have both dragons and elementals be nature and arcana. they are both natural and magical forces through the world.

Hey Monk! Thank you for your work! Can you explain why you roll a intelligence/investigation check to find hidden doors and not a wisdom/perception roll?

I feel like skills are more important than most people think, downtimes are usually defined by skill checks, and that can make huge differences.

I find that which skills come up more often varies widely between campaigns

I’ve use the variant skill check rule CHA acrobatics for gladiators entertainers and bards

17:20 I actually think making a player give specific way to help isn't all that great. A character with a +12 bonus in an ability check will know how to help in ways that a regular person roleplaying that character will never know. You just got to let the dice provide the justification for something, rather than a person's real life knowledge. Especially in a high-magic world.

I use the variant ability check rules all the time (of course where it makes sense). I usually say something like "make a Strength-based [Insert Skill] check". Group checks as well, though depending on the situation, I usually allow different proficiencies to be applied. So say the group is trying to survey the area, I would make it a group check, but the players can use either Perception, Investigation, or Survival, with each giving their own type of information.

I often only allow players to take the help action with a knowledge check if they are proficient in that particular skill. If I am not training in history, there is no way I could help you bring up knowledge about an ancient unknown king. But I could see how having an extra set of hands might be helpful in a first aid (medicine) type situation, even if that individual is untrained.

9:50 I use these checks for a find trap roll later in the session.

for the persuasion to get the magic items for 1 copper, i'd call for a persuasion check to see if the shopkeep thinks you're joking or gets offended and raises the price of the items

Two mechanics I often use to place more importance on proficiency in skills are: 1. If the task is relatively easy (< DC 15), and the player is proficient or expert in the skill, I give it to them automatically. 2. Some tasks may REQUIRE proficiency or expertise to even attempt a check. Want to perform brain surgery? Better have expertise in Medicine.

17:09 Why did I get jumpscared by this lmao I actually jumped.

I would use Constitution checks rather than saving throws to determine recovery, after all recovery is over time not instantaneous. (Any/all)

Because skills are completely up to the dm and there are feats and spells that kind of undercuts the skill system. If your dm is lenient, you might never have to make a survival check because your ranger should be able to forage for food without problems, but a lawful evil dm might require you to make int (arcana) checks to cast a spell because RAW, it is required for any situation the dm thinks the action is uncertain and a spell with a save is an uncertain outcome. I have seen knowledge skills be used to avoid metagaming; ie the player knows flaming skulls revive after killed if not doused with holy water, but the barbarian with int 3 might not. I do not think the mix and match ability with skill thing is a variant rule in the same way flanking or mana points are. It is more like rolling 4d6 versus point buy to make attributes are a variant; both are meant to be acceptable default rules. Jeremy Crawford talked about it in his "rules that are easy to miss" series. The topic of skills is even more muddled by the dmg as it states a common style of play is not only roll dice in combat and leave everything else to role play, which it presents as a a style of play and correct interpretation of the rules as the gm is ruling that ability checks outside of combat is not nessicary at all.