I was speaking specifically to the "Water Vehicles rolls don't have an associated ability" comment from MMC. That was a point worthy of raising. The rest of the thread is paranoia fuel and no longer worth my attention.
Nevertheless. "Dexterity" is the stat that governs fine manipulation of objects as well as full-body actions requiring coordination, reflexes, or balance. it is manual dexterity as well as agility, and while folks are permitted to feel some kinda way about those two things being considered The Same Thing (pro tip: they are super ******* not), that's how 5e works at this time. Controlling a ship involves manipulating the controls of said ship; if the check is being made to maintain control of the vessel and correctly guide it through a difficult maneuver, that is a question of whether the controls can be manipulated correctly during what one might easily presume to be adverse conditions. That is, insofar as 5e is concerned, a Dexterity check.
Most tool checks, in my own experience (and my main/oldest current character is an artificer, so I have more experience than many with tools) come down to Dexterity - "can you successfully execute the complex, skilled motions required to perform the given task?" or Intelligence - "are you sufficiently able to reason through the action/do you have the knowledge and learning required to pull this off?" Design is Intelligence, execution is Dexterity. Certain tools break the mold - Cook's Utensils are generally held to be a Wisdom check at our table, as cooking is as much about the senses and the chef's gut instinct as it is about trained knowledge. One can be a good cook without ever receiving formal instruction - one cannot be much of a cook without any Food Sense(C), and smith's tools are more often Strength or even Constitution (can you endure the exhausting conditions inside the forge long enough to complete the project?) than they are Dex or Int, but the majority of tool rolls fall under "can your hands pull this off?" or "does your brain know how to pull this off?"
Once a DM gets over trying to pick one of the eighteen rigid, inflexible, insufficient Official Skills to try and fit every check in the game under, they become much better at running the game.
To be fair, as a DM, I wouldn't generally have any ability score apply to piloting a boat—I'd just use the water vehicles proficiency. I could see why I DM would use Dex (though I disagree) or Str (though I disagree a bit less), however, so there are lots of options. It's a game-by-game thing.
Controlling a ship involves manipulating the controls of said ship; if the check is being made to maintain control of the vessel and correctly guide it through a difficult maneuver, that is a question of whether the controls can be manipulated correctly during what one might easily presume to be adverse conditions. That is, insofar as 5e is concerned, a Dexterity check.
If the check is literally to do everything yourself, then possibly? For a small sailboat or rowboat you might just need dexterity and a direction of the oar to make things go the way you want. For a larger ship, commanding the ship is likely more important as there is no way for a captain to manipulate the sails, oars, rudder, etc at the same time so they rely on others. But then again, if you don't know how the winds could actually hamper or hinder your movement at the wrong time, it doesn't matter how dexterous or strong you are, you might actually not be able to get the ship to do what you want. You could even say it's a Charisma check if the crew is being extra ornery or demoralized heading into a specifically dangerous territory (cursed waters, as it were) but weren't worried about rough waters or which way the wind was blowing.
Not all tools are about dexterity and intelligence either - I'd even say Lockpicking could actually be wisdom based, especially if you know the lock (intelligence) and have good enough hands (dexterity), but the mechanism itself requires very precise detection (wisdom) of tumblers catching to work.
I can mix two liquids just fine in chemistry and I may know the exact ratio of chemicals needed, but in what order? Maybe a Wisdom check in this case, to determine if there is a telltale smell or pattern of colors that you have to watch for while pouring them together.
No, I have not asked the DM about him installing a dice bot on the server, but I will.
THAT GUY was up to his tricks last night, but I think the DM is catching on, when THAT GUY saiI d he rolled a 30 on a Survival check, at now 5th level. The DM and I both called him out on it. It turned out to be "player error", and he had "only" rolled a 26 (19 + 7, due to Prof in Survival). The DM also commented that a Nat 20 THAT GUY had rolled using Guiding Bolt was likely the 3rd time he had done that in about 4 sessions.
I now have 50 data points (of d20's), which is more than enough to do a statistical analysis. That allows me to brush up on my skills (yeah, I find that kind of thing fun), and if the DM asks me why I am wanting a dice roller, and I feel ornery, maybe I will pull out the results.
Oh, and a question, in general: If a char has the Sailor background, what is the appropriate bonus to rolls, when operating a boat?
I believe they get proficiency with sea vehicles, the skill isn't affected by any ability score, so a +3 for a level 5 character.
Apologies, but this is blatantly incorrect.
All 'skill' checks in D&D are actually ability checks. Every check in D&D is and must be associated with an ability score, unless the DM enjoys arbitrarily ruining their players' chances for success. The check for 'operating a boat' would be dependent on what operating the boat actually means. If the check is for the physical act of helming the ship, keeping it on course during difficult maneuvers? That would be a Dexterity (Water Vehicles) check. Is the check more concerning knowledge and the correct application of one's learning to correctly operate the ship? Then it's an Intelligence (Water Vehicles) check.
This is why so many tables have no idea what to do with tools, or any proficiency that isn't one of the eighteen prebaked skills - as well as why so many tables have severe issues with doing 'off' skill checks, such as Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion). The default roll in 5e is not a skill check, it's an ability check to which a skill may or may not apply. It's honestly one of the worst mistakes on the 5e character sheet - the entire list of rigid, eternally unchangeable skills sitting there on the sheet artificially limits both character capabilities and player imaginations so much.
Thanks, I thought it was weird how they never listed associated abilities with that type of skill.
P.S., Xanathar's had a lot on tools but didn't say what the abilities were.
To be fair, as a DM, I wouldn't generally have any ability score apply to piloting a boat—I'd just use the water vehicles proficiency. I could see why I DM would use Dex (though I disagree) or Str (though I disagree a bit less), however, so there are lots of options. It's a game-by-game thing.
Everything is a game-by-game thing, if you want it to be. But not applying any ability score to the use of a skill, I really hope that's a very rare thing. Surely there must be some ability that matters to the attempt?
Personally, for making a sizeable boat (more likely a ship) go where you want it to go, I'd be more inclined to pick Int or Wis. You can't make a ship go in just any direction, no matter how hard you try - you're dependent on currents, wind and possibly manpower, and unless it's a small rowboat in very calm water turning in place is not an option (and moving sideways is not an option ever). The skill is making the ship behave in the most optimal way given those conditions, not tugging on the wheel or rigging a sail just so. Ghosts of Saltmarsh also points towards high mental faculties for positions on board having to do with steering ships.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Most tool checks, in my own experience (and my main/oldest current character is an artificer, so I have more experience than many with tools) come down to Dexterity - "can you successfully execute the complex, skilled motions required to perform the given task?" or Intelligence - "are you sufficiently able to reason through the action/do you have the knowledge and learning required to pull this off?" Design is Intelligence, execution is Dexterity. Certain tools break the mold - Cook's Utensils are generally held to be a Wisdom check at our table, as cooking is as much about the senses and the chef's gut instinct as it is about trained knowledge. One can be a good cook without ever receiving formal instruction - one cannot be much of a cook without any Food Sense(C), and smith's tools are more often Strength or even Constitution (can you endure the exhausting conditions inside the forge long enough to complete the project?) than they are Dex or Int, but the majority of tool rolls fall under "can your hands pull this off?" or "does your brain know how to pull this off?"
Disagree with Dex for steering a ship, but definitely agree with the majority of tool use being Int or Dex based. Tool proficiency also covers pretty much anything to do with the corresponding job - assessing hull damage is best done by a shipwright, which is a carpentry specialization, so proficiency with carpenter's tools should apply; similarly, especially since there's no appraisal skill, should proficiency with jeweler's tools allow you to determine a gem's worth; and so on. Xanathar's goes into this fairly well, although usually without indicating associated abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If the check is literally to do everything yourself, then possibly? For a small sailboat or rowboat you might just need dexterity and a direction of the oar to make things go the way you want. For a larger ship, commanding the ship is likely more important as there is no way for a captain to manipulate the sails, oars, rudder, etc at the same time so they rely on others. But then again, if you don't know how the winds could actually hamper or hinder your movement at the wrong time, it doesn't matter how dexterous or strong you are, you might actually not be able to get the ship to do what you want. You could even say it's a Charisma check if the crew is being extra ornery or demoralized heading into a specifically dangerous territory (cursed waters, as it were) but weren't worried about rough waters or which way the wind was blowing.
Not all tools are about dexterity and intelligence either - I'd even say Lockpicking could actually be wisdom based, especially if you know the lock (intelligence) and have good enough hands (dexterity), but the mechanism itself requires very precise detection (wisdom) of tumblers catching to work.
I can mix two liquids just fine in chemistry and I may know the exact ratio of chemicals needed, but in what order? Maybe a Wisdom check in this case, to determine if there is a telltale smell or pattern of colors that you have to watch for while pouring them together.
It's not uncommon for me to give players a choice between two abilities, or to let them steer my decision of which ability to use a bit with how they describe what they want to do (particularly important when doing a skill challenge). Nonetheless, it's pretty rare for either Dex or Int not to be a valid choice for tool use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A foundational piece of DMing advice for me is actually to absolutely refuse to allow players to cajole the GM into using whatever score they feel like rolling. As Angry points out, a player will always use the largest number the DM lets them throw at a problem - an over-permissive DM that allows players to simply decide which number they use is going to see a whole lot of dodgy checks. It's better for player creativity and in-game problem solving to be strict when it comes to what ability governs which action, though a DM who refuses to budge on ability selection is one that will necessarily have to allow a player to retract an action that isn't working the way they thought it would.
This is not to say there isn't room for negotiation - folks here have made a decent argument for Strength for conning a ship, though that feels terribly off to me. Helmsmen in the blue-water past were not necessarily known for being hulking musclebound megagoliaths and I'm reasonably certain ship's rudders used mechanical linkages that allowed the helmsman to act without needing to pit his strength unaided against the hundreds of tons of vessel, crew and cargo he was tasked with steering. No amount of mortal strength will accomplish that. Nevertheless, while a player can certainly ask if a given ability score makes sense for a check, I am not even slightly inclined to allow players to dictate to me what check they want to make. Any player who does that gets exactly what I said to Vince earlier in the thread - they are reminded that they are a player and I am the DM. It is their job to describe their action and mine to select what roll is made, if any.
Of course sailors were strong. Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and all that jazz. Mostly, I was suggesting that the helm of a sailing vessel consists of one wheel, handled by one man, with two hands - even in the worst sorts of inclement weather. If there was no system of mechanical advantage working between that wheel and the rudder, the act would be absolutely and utterly impossible. One man cannot influence the movement of hundreds of tons of oceanic vessel with his two bare nekkid monkey paws. It is simply beyond the realm of feasibility.
Whether Strength, Dex, Wis, or something else is the key stat for any given shiphandling action depends on which action is being taken. That's why players need to learn - or be actively taught, if everything else fails - how to properly describe and declare actions. If a player cannot do this properly, the GM cannot game-master properly, and everything devolves into a mess. As we've seen, across...12-ish pages of this thread, so far?
A foundational piece of DMing advice for me is actually to absolutely refuse to allow players to cajole the GM into using whatever score they feel like rolling. As Angry points out, a player will always use the largest number the DM lets them throw at a problem - an over-permissive DM that allows players to simply decide which number they use is going to see a whole lot of dodgy checks. It's better for player creativity and in-game problem solving to be strict when it comes to what ability governs which action, though a DM who refuses to budge on ability selection is one that will necessarily have to allow a player to retract an action that isn't working the way they thought it would.
This is right on (and I like Angry a lot). Acrobatics for Athletics (climbing or jumping) and Perception for Investigation (searching) are two of the cheap substitutions I see most often, and I don’t allow either anymore as a DM. Frankly, I don’t care whether the DM chooses DEX, STR, WIS, or nothing as the stat for ship handling, as long as it’s consistently applied and they don’t brook argument.
No, I have not asked the DM about him installing a dice bot on the server, but I will.
THAT GUY was up to his tricks last night, but I think the DM is catching on, when THAT GUY saiI d he rolled a 30 on a Survival check, at now 5th level. The DM and I both called him out on it. It turned out to be "player error", and he had "only" rolled a 26 (19 + 7, due to Prof in Survival). The DM also commented that a Nat 20 THAT GUY had rolled using Guiding Bolt was likely the 3rd time he had done that in about 4 sessions.
I now have 50 data points (of d20's), which is more than enough to do a statistical analysis. That allows me to brush up on my skills (yeah, I find that kind of thing fun), and if the DM asks me why I am wanting a dice roller, and I feel ornery, maybe I will pull out the results.
Oh, and a question, in general: If a char has the Sailor background, what is the appropriate bonus to rolls, when operating a boat?
I believe they get proficiency with sea vehicles, the skill isn't affected by any ability score, so a +3 for a level 5 character.
Apologies, but this is blatantly incorrect.
All 'skill' checks in D&D are actually ability checks. Every check in D&D is and must be associated with an ability score, unless the DM enjoys arbitrarily ruining their players' chances for success. The check for 'operating a boat' would be dependent on what operating the boat actually means. If the check is for the physical act of helming the ship, keeping it on course during difficult maneuvers? That would be a Dexterity (Water Vehicles) check. Is the check more concerning knowledge and the correct application of one's learning to correctly operate the ship? Then it's an Intelligence (Water Vehicles) check.
This is why so many tables have no idea what to do with tools, or any proficiency that isn't one of the eighteen prebaked skills - as well as why so many tables have severe issues with doing 'off' skill checks, such as Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion). The default roll in 5e is not a skill check, it's an ability check to which a skill may or may not apply. It's honestly one of the worst mistakes on the 5e character sheet - the entire list of rigid, eternally unchangeable skills sitting there on the sheet artificially limits both character capabilities and player imaginations so much.
I am going to copy paste this argument for future uses. I have probably typed this exact same thing about five or six times on this site, and it blows my mind that so many people don't actually know the rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Whether Strength, Dex, Wis, or something else is the key stat for any given shiphandling action depends on which action is being taken. That's why players need to learn - or be actively taught, if everything else fails - how to properly describe and declare actions. If a player cannot do this properly, the GM cannot game-master properly, and everything devolves into a mess. As we've seen, across...12-ish pages of this thread, so far?
To be fair, most of these 12 pages have been people trying to stop the OP from literally ripping an entire group to pieces and steer him toward a course of action with a chance of success. Only later has it moved on to anything to do with ability/skill checks, GM discipline etc.
That's not to say I disagree with you about the checks. Player describes the action, GM asks for the check based on that description. If the player suggests an alternative skill or ability to use, they need to understand that it's just a suggestion and the GM has the final say.
Yes, as I said in my post. There are multiple possibilities for this to work.
Uh huh...if you had bothered to read the past posts, you would know that none of that is the case. He is a freshly leveled up 5th level Light cleric, with a Sailor Background, Human Variant, built with the 27 point buy system, who took the Weapons Master feat at level 0, because he wanted to swing a sword, and his ASI at 4th level was used to bump his Wis to 18, and he told us his Str was 14. Oh, and when he pulled the 30 on a Survival roll, then ooops, meant a 26, he stated he had rolled a 19 + 7 due to Skill and Prof, which means he has Prof in Survival. I also know precisely what magic items he has (armour that does wonderful things protecting from dragons, but nothing else).
Anything else you want to know?
I did bother, and I gave one example out of many that would explain how the player might have done one of the things that you claimed was cheating.
Stop wasting everyone’s time, grow a pair and speak to the DM about your concerns instead of crying on the forums.
Instead of acting like a normal person and simply ask the DM to have a talk with the guy and put an end to this charade...
Don't dump your player problems on your DM.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
I don't understand why this thread is still going. Several people offered good solutions to this on page 1, and a couple more popped up over the next few pages. The OP has ignored them all and pursued his "I will prove they are cheating" model, which has very little chance of ending well. He now has enough data to prove, to a reasonable level of confidence, what he wanted to prove from the start, and still does nothing about it 10 pages later.
Given the amount of notice the OP has taken to what others have said on here (i.e. none), I have a pretty high degree of confidence that it was never intended to be a request for help or anything similar. It is just a thread for the OP to complain about a player he dislikes. Whether it is proved that he was cheating or not is irrelevant at this point.
Because people have taken the post way off topic and are discussing whether skills / tool proficiency should have ability scores added and if so which.
Nobody is addressing the initial post which was just another annoying whinge by Vince about something or someone he thinks is playing DnD ‘wrong’. He knew the solution before he posted, he has been told the solution multiple times and ignored it. This entire post is just a ‘pick me’ post because he wants attention.
Instead of acting like a normal person and simply ask the DM to have a talk with the guy and put an end to this charade...
Don't dump your player problems on your DM.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
No, it isn't. It involves the DM since they are part of the group, but it's an issue for the group. The DM is in charge of the game, that's all - they're not the kindergarten teacher wrangling a bunch of unruly kids or worse, your mom you run to when someone isn't being nice to you at your birthday party. If you have a problem with another player, act like a grownup and talk to that player. If it's a problem that affects the entire group, it's ok to table that problem for the entire group to have a say in. The DM's job is to run a good campaign, not to handle your personal hangups for you so you don't have to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't understand why this thread is still going. Several people offered good solutions to this on page 1, and a couple more popped up over the next few pages. The OP has ignored them all and pursued his "I will prove they are cheating" model, which has very little chance of ending well. He now has enough data to prove, to a reasonable level of confidence, what he wanted to prove from the start, and still does nothing about it 10 pages later.
Given the amount of notice the OP has taken to what others have said on here (i.e. none), I have a pretty high degree of confidence that it was never intended to be a request for help or anything similar. It is just a thread for the OP to complain about a player he dislikes. Whether it is proved that he was cheating or not is irrelevant at this point.
Because people have taken the post way off topic and are discussing whether skills / tool proficiency should have ability scores added and if so which.
Nobody is addressing the initial post which was just another annoying whinge by Vince about something or someone he thinks is playing DnD ‘wrong’. He knew the solution before he posted, he has been told the solution multiple times and ignored it. This entire post is just a ‘pick me’ post because he wants attention.
At the point I posted this (2 pages ago?), the discussions were still around the high rolls of the player, statistical analysis to prove cheating and whether this was a good or bad idea. I would agree it has gone way off track since then, but it hadn't at the time.
I cannot disagree with your second point, though: It's pretty much what I said in the post you quoted :)
Instead of acting like a normal person and simply ask the DM to have a talk with the guy and put an end to this charade...
Don't dump your player problems on your DM.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
Actually every single stat, ability, and skill level I have stated I know with 100% confidence. He and I have been playing since session 0. He TOLD us he has a 14 Str and 18 Wis, and he used the 4th level ASI for the 18 in Wis. The DM TOLD us he took Weapon Master, which only a Human Variant can do at level 0. And yes, he is a human. Everything I have stated is based on fact.
So stop with this silliness about "educated guesses". You have a problem with me personally. I get that. Many here do. But I don't lie. So yeah, I do know his char well enough to take a modified number that he states, and calculate the raw value.
Oh, and just to give more background, which I did not bother with, but maybe should have, this happened last session: The rule of cool player with the amazing rolls states he wants to cast Fireball (remember, 5th level Light Cleric), but UNDER a huge sea monster that is attacking our boat, so the termination point is 40 feet underwater. Three of us, including the DM, remind him, again, that he has to have line of sight of the termination point.
Some will call that "creative". I call it something else.
Instead of acting like a normal person and simply ask the DM to have a talk with the guy and put an end to this charade...
Don't dump your player problems on your DM.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
Actually every single stat, ability, and skill level I have stated I know with 100% confidence. He and I have been playing since session 0. He TOLD us he has a 14 Str and 18 Wis, and he used the 4th level ASI for the 18 in Wis. The DM TOLD us he took Weapon Master, which only a Human Variant can do at level 0. And yes, he is a human. Everything I have stated is based on fact.
So stop with this silliness about "educated guesses". You have a problem with me personally. I get that. Many here do. But I don't lie. So yeah, I do know his char well enough to take a modified number that he states, and calculate the raw value.
Oh, and just to give more background, which I did not bother with, but maybe should have, this happened last session: The rule of cool player with the amazing rolls states he wants to cast Fireball (remember, 5th level Light Cleric), but UNDER a huge sea monster that is attacking our boat, so the termination point is 40 feet underwater. Three of us, including the DM, remind him, again, that he has to have line of sight of the termination point.
Some will call that "creative". I call it something else.
Why do you need to remind another player of how to play his character? As a DM, I would rather you let me do it, unless i ask for an assist on RAW or specific text.
Instead of acting like a normal person and simply ask the DM to have a talk with the guy and put an end to this charade...
Don't dump your player problems on your DM.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
Actually every single stat, ability, and skill level I have stated I know with 100% confidence. He and I have been playing since session 0. He TOLD us he has a 14 Str and 18 Wis, and he used the 4th level ASI for the 18 in Wis. The DM TOLD us he took Weapon Master, which only a Human Variant can do at level 0. And yes, he is a human. Everything I have stated is based on fact.
So stop with this silliness about "educated guesses". You have a problem with me personally. I get that. Many here do. But I don't lie. So yeah, I do know his char well enough to take a modified number that he states, and calculate the raw value.
Oh, and just to give more background, which I did not bother with, but maybe should have, this happened last session: The rule of cool player with the amazing rolls states he wants to cast Fireball (remember, 5th level Light Cleric), but UNDER a huge sea monster that is attacking our boat, so the termination point is 40 feet underwater. Three of us, including the DM, remind him, again, that he has to have line of sight of the termination point.
Some will call that "creative". I call it something else.
Why do you need to remind another player of how to play his character? As a DM, I would rather you let me do it, unless i ask for an assist on RAW or specific text.
Because he was about to cheat, again. Or do reinforce an incorrect use of game mechanics. Call it what you will. And keep in mind, the DM, and ANOTHER player, spoke up as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was speaking specifically to the "Water Vehicles rolls don't have an associated ability" comment from MMC. That was a point worthy of raising. The rest of the thread is paranoia fuel and no longer worth my attention.
Nevertheless. "Dexterity" is the stat that governs fine manipulation of objects as well as full-body actions requiring coordination, reflexes, or balance. it is manual dexterity as well as agility, and while folks are permitted to feel some kinda way about those two things being considered The Same Thing (pro tip: they are super ******* not), that's how 5e works at this time. Controlling a ship involves manipulating the controls of said ship; if the check is being made to maintain control of the vessel and correctly guide it through a difficult maneuver, that is a question of whether the controls can be manipulated correctly during what one might easily presume to be adverse conditions. That is, insofar as 5e is concerned, a Dexterity check.
Most tool checks, in my own experience (and my main/oldest current character is an artificer, so I have more experience than many with tools) come down to Dexterity - "can you successfully execute the complex, skilled motions required to perform the given task?" or Intelligence - "are you sufficiently able to reason through the action/do you have the knowledge and learning required to pull this off?" Design is Intelligence, execution is Dexterity. Certain tools break the mold - Cook's Utensils are generally held to be a Wisdom check at our table, as cooking is as much about the senses and the chef's gut instinct as it is about trained knowledge. One can be a good cook without ever receiving formal instruction - one cannot be much of a cook without any Food Sense(C), and smith's tools are more often Strength or even Constitution (can you endure the exhausting conditions inside the forge long enough to complete the project?) than they are Dex or Int, but the majority of tool rolls fall under "can your hands pull this off?" or "does your brain know how to pull this off?"
Once a DM gets over trying to pick one of the eighteen rigid, inflexible, insufficient Official Skills to try and fit every check in the game under, they become much better at running the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be fair, as a DM, I wouldn't generally have any ability score apply to piloting a boat—I'd just use the water vehicles proficiency. I could see why I DM would use Dex (though I disagree) or Str (though I disagree a bit less), however, so there are lots of options. It's a game-by-game thing.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
If the check is literally to do everything yourself, then possibly? For a small sailboat or rowboat you might just need dexterity and a direction of the oar to make things go the way you want. For a larger ship, commanding the ship is likely more important as there is no way for a captain to manipulate the sails, oars, rudder, etc at the same time so they rely on others. But then again, if you don't know how the winds could actually hamper or hinder your movement at the wrong time, it doesn't matter how dexterous or strong you are, you might actually not be able to get the ship to do what you want. You could even say it's a Charisma check if the crew is being extra ornery or demoralized heading into a specifically dangerous territory (cursed waters, as it were) but weren't worried about rough waters or which way the wind was blowing.
Not all tools are about dexterity and intelligence either - I'd even say Lockpicking could actually be wisdom based, especially if you know the lock (intelligence) and have good enough hands (dexterity), but the mechanism itself requires very precise detection (wisdom) of tumblers catching to work.
I can mix two liquids just fine in chemistry and I may know the exact ratio of chemicals needed, but in what order? Maybe a Wisdom check in this case, to determine if there is a telltale smell or pattern of colors that you have to watch for while pouring them together.
Thanks, I thought it was weird how they never listed associated abilities with that type of skill.
P.S., Xanathar's had a lot on tools but didn't say what the abilities were.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Everything is a game-by-game thing, if you want it to be. But not applying any ability score to the use of a skill, I really hope that's a very rare thing. Surely there must be some ability that matters to the attempt?
Personally, for making a sizeable boat (more likely a ship) go where you want it to go, I'd be more inclined to pick Int or Wis. You can't make a ship go in just any direction, no matter how hard you try - you're dependent on currents, wind and possibly manpower, and unless it's a small rowboat in very calm water turning in place is not an option (and moving sideways is not an option ever). The skill is making the ship behave in the most optimal way given those conditions, not tugging on the wheel or rigging a sail just so. Ghosts of Saltmarsh also points towards high mental faculties for positions on board having to do with steering ships.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Disagree with Dex for steering a ship, but definitely agree with the majority of tool use being Int or Dex based. Tool proficiency also covers pretty much anything to do with the corresponding job - assessing hull damage is best done by a shipwright, which is a carpentry specialization, so proficiency with carpenter's tools should apply; similarly, especially since there's no appraisal skill, should proficiency with jeweler's tools allow you to determine a gem's worth; and so on. Xanathar's goes into this fairly well, although usually without indicating associated abilities.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's not uncommon for me to give players a choice between two abilities, or to let them steer my decision of which ability to use a bit with how they describe what they want to do (particularly important when doing a skill challenge). Nonetheless, it's pretty rare for either Dex or Int not to be a valid choice for tool use.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A foundational piece of DMing advice for me is actually to absolutely refuse to allow players to cajole the GM into using whatever score they feel like rolling. As Angry points out, a player will always use the largest number the DM lets them throw at a problem - an over-permissive DM that allows players to simply decide which number they use is going to see a whole lot of dodgy checks. It's better for player creativity and in-game problem solving to be strict when it comes to what ability governs which action, though a DM who refuses to budge on ability selection is one that will necessarily have to allow a player to retract an action that isn't working the way they thought it would.
This is not to say there isn't room for negotiation - folks here have made a decent argument for Strength for conning a ship, though that feels terribly off to me. Helmsmen in the blue-water past were not necessarily known for being hulking musclebound megagoliaths and I'm reasonably certain ship's rudders used mechanical linkages that allowed the helmsman to act without needing to pit his strength unaided against the hundreds of tons of vessel, crew and cargo he was tasked with steering. No amount of mortal strength will accomplish that. Nevertheless, while a player can certainly ask if a given ability score makes sense for a check, I am not even slightly inclined to allow players to dictate to me what check they want to make. Any player who does that gets exactly what I said to Vince earlier in the thread - they are reminded that they are a player and I am the DM. It is their job to describe their action and mine to select what roll is made, if any.
Please do not contact or message me.
Of course sailors were strong. Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and all that jazz. Mostly, I was suggesting that the helm of a sailing vessel consists of one wheel, handled by one man, with two hands - even in the worst sorts of inclement weather. If there was no system of mechanical advantage working between that wheel and the rudder, the act would be absolutely and utterly impossible. One man cannot influence the movement of hundreds of tons of oceanic vessel with his two bare nekkid monkey paws. It is simply beyond the realm of feasibility.
Whether Strength, Dex, Wis, or something else is the key stat for any given shiphandling action depends on which action is being taken. That's why players need to learn - or be actively taught, if everything else fails - how to properly describe and declare actions. If a player cannot do this properly, the GM cannot game-master properly, and everything devolves into a mess. As we've seen, across...12-ish pages of this thread, so far?
Please do not contact or message me.
This is right on (and I like Angry a lot). Acrobatics for Athletics (climbing or jumping) and Perception for Investigation (searching) are two of the cheap substitutions I see most often, and I don’t allow either anymore as a DM. Frankly, I don’t care whether the DM chooses DEX, STR, WIS, or nothing as the stat for ship handling, as long as it’s consistently applied and they don’t brook argument.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I am going to copy paste this argument for future uses. I have probably typed this exact same thing about five or six times on this site, and it blows my mind that so many people don't actually know the rules.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
To be fair, most of these 12 pages have been people trying to stop the OP from literally ripping an entire group to pieces and steer him toward a course of action with a chance of success. Only later has it moved on to anything to do with ability/skill checks, GM discipline etc.
That's not to say I disagree with you about the checks. Player describes the action, GM asks for the check based on that description. If the player suggests an alternative skill or ability to use, they need to understand that it's just a suggestion and the GM has the final say.
I did bother, and I gave one example out of many that would explain how the player might have done one of the things that you claimed was cheating.
Stop wasting everyone’s time, grow a pair and speak to the DM about your concerns instead of crying on the forums.
Cheating IS a DM issue. It’s not for players to start fights at tables by accusing other players of cheating. As much as Vince thinks otherwise, he only knows what said player has let on about the character, and he is making ‘educated guesses’ about stats and skill levels.
Because people have taken the post way off topic and are discussing whether skills / tool proficiency should have ability scores added and if so which.
Nobody is addressing the initial post which was just another annoying whinge by Vince about something or someone he thinks is playing DnD ‘wrong’. He knew the solution before he posted, he has been told the solution multiple times and ignored it. This entire post is just a ‘pick me’ post because he wants attention.
No, it isn't. It involves the DM since they are part of the group, but it's an issue for the group. The DM is in charge of the game, that's all - they're not the kindergarten teacher wrangling a bunch of unruly kids or worse, your mom you run to when someone isn't being nice to you at your birthday party. If you have a problem with another player, act like a grownup and talk to that player. If it's a problem that affects the entire group, it's ok to table that problem for the entire group to have a say in. The DM's job is to run a good campaign, not to handle your personal hangups for you so you don't have to.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At the point I posted this (2 pages ago?), the discussions were still around the high rolls of the player, statistical analysis to prove cheating and whether this was a good or bad idea. I would agree it has gone way off track since then, but it hadn't at the time.
I cannot disagree with your second point, though: It's pretty much what I said in the post you quoted :)
Actually every single stat, ability, and skill level I have stated I know with 100% confidence. He and I have been playing since session 0. He TOLD us he has a 14 Str and 18 Wis, and he used the 4th level ASI for the 18 in Wis. The DM TOLD us he took Weapon Master, which only a Human Variant can do at level 0. And yes, he is a human. Everything I have stated is based on fact.
So stop with this silliness about "educated guesses". You have a problem with me personally. I get that. Many here do. But I don't lie. So yeah, I do know his char well enough to take a modified number that he states, and calculate the raw value.
Oh, and just to give more background, which I did not bother with, but maybe should have, this happened last session: The rule of cool player with the amazing rolls states he wants to cast Fireball (remember, 5th level Light Cleric), but UNDER a huge sea monster that is attacking our boat, so the termination point is 40 feet underwater. Three of us, including the DM, remind him, again, that he has to have line of sight of the termination point.
Some will call that "creative". I call it something else.
Why do you need to remind another player of how to play his character? As a DM, I would rather you let me do it, unless i ask for an assist on RAW or specific text.
Because he was about to cheat, again. Or do reinforce an incorrect use of game mechanics. Call it what you will. And keep in mind, the DM, and ANOTHER player, spoke up as well.