This is reflected in other systems, but for 5e it would be boring, especially as 5e has a strong bias against Intelligence in the first place.
Intelligence is tied for the most skill proficiencies based on it. Sure, it doesn't factor as much in combat, but neither does Charisma.
Charisma checks usually have significantly more impact than intelligence checks. "Number of proficiencies" isn't a great metric, especially when most of those proficiencies are just variations on the same theme: whether or not you know something.
Sure, but, "Charisma is slightly more important," is not the same as, "strong bias against Intelligence".
And it depends on the campaign. In campaigns with lots of political intrigue, History checks matter. In a game that's heavy on sorcery rather than swords, Arcana will be important. In a mystery campaign, Investigation rules. In a world where gods frequently answer prayers, Religion is pretty advantageous.
This is reflected in other systems, but for 5e it would be boring, especially as 5e has a strong bias against Intelligence in the first place.
Intelligence is tied for the most skill proficiencies based on it. Sure, it doesn't factor as much in combat, but neither does Charisma.
Charisma checks usually have significantly more impact than intelligence checks. "Number of proficiencies" isn't a great metric, especially when most of those proficiencies are just variations on the same theme: whether or not you know something.
while on the surface I'd agree with this, DMs have a lot of latitude that they often choose to not use with History, Religion Investigation, and Arcana checks. A lot of the "perception checks" that my DM calls for, imo would be better served with Investigation. Int would be dumped a lot less if DMs used those skills more in more critical situations I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Off topic, but worth addressing in what time I have left here.
DMs also have a distinct tendency to make knowledge-based checks either easy to circumvent or easy to brute-force. Knowledge checks are 'can the players discover all my cool worldbuilding?' No DM wants to not show off their cool worldbuilding; in many cases a check isn't even required if one has any sort of plausible source. The DM will gleefully hand out that knowledge for free, grateful the players are engaging with their world and their story, which is cool...but it also sharply devalues knowledge-centric skills. Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
This is in addition to Intelligence saving throws being almost nonexistent in 5e, and generally not being important even where they do exist. Most Intelligence-based saves are simply to reduce the damage of a very small handful of psychic-y spells, whereas there are many hundreds of Wisdom saving throws and failing any one of them usually means some manner of debuff or curse ranging from "troublesome" to "instantly fatal."
Intelligence absolutely got the shaft in 5e, which is why it's a nigh-universal dump stat for nonwizards, and now non-artificers. Even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters often try to avoid allocating Intelligence, and you basically never see someone play an intelligent bard, cleric, fighter, or any other class that doesn't flat-out require Intelligence.
Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
To be fair, every single "look for things" check probably should be Perception (if your primary action is perceiving... it's Perception; Investigation is for thinking, not perceiving). But if you're making a systematic search of an area, you're making an Intelligence (Perception) check, not a Wisdom check, which neatly brings us back to the original point.
I generally prefer to dump wisdom. My clerics in particular, have a fist full of int skills because...that's what I have to choose from. My warlocks almost all dump wis, because making a pact is generally pretty unwise. My sorcerers would be comfortable dumping int, if I didn't think I should know /something/ about arcana. In general, I rarely dump int because I have no interest in playing martial characters any more, and that's about all I would consider dumping int on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
To be fair, every single "look for things" check probably should be Perception (if your primary action is perceiving... it's Perception; Investigation is for thinking, not perceiving). But if you're making a systematic search of an area, you're making an Intelligence (Perception) check, not a Wisdom check, which neatly brings us back to the original point.
I don't agree with that. I "investigate" bodies for loot, but for some reason I roll perception. Seems wrong. Perception should be more passive things. If I am actively looking, it should be investigation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
To be fair, every single "look for things" check probably should be Perception (if your primary action is perceiving... it's Perception; Investigation is for thinking, not perceiving). But if you're making a systematic search of an area, you're making an Intelligence (Perception) check, not a Wisdom check, which neatly brings us back to the original point.
I don't agree with that. I "investigate" bodies for loot, but for some reason I roll perception. Seems wrong. Perception should be more passive things. If I am actively looking, it should be investigation.
Most things should be both, and usually a lower DC for the Perception. Like I can Investigate for subtle clues like dust trails that show the carpet has recently been moved, or I can just hear the telltale heart. The lower DC for Investigation is another way the game balances the weaknesses Int has in other aspects of the game, like combat. And you can further lower the DC as a player by describing in detail how you would investigate and mentioning a suitable means.
I generally prefer to dump wisdom. My clerics in particular, have a fist full of int skills because...that's what I have to choose from. My warlocks almost all dump wis, because making a pact is generally pretty unwise. My sorcerers would be comfortable dumping int, if I didn't think I should know /something/ about arcana. In general, I rarely dump int because I have no interest in playing martial characters any more, and that's about all I would consider dumping int on.
Indeed. You CAN dump Int on a sorcerer, but why wouldn't you dump Str? All your armor depends on Dex, not Str, your weapons, if any, are likely to be ranged or finesse, there are probably about as few Str save spells as Int and Cha, and you're not going to be the party member knocking down doors or leaping across pits.
Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
To be fair, every single "look for things" check probably should be Perception (if your primary action is perceiving... it's Perception; Investigation is for thinking, not perceiving). But if you're making a systematic search of an area, you're making an Intelligence (Perception) check, not a Wisdom check, which neatly brings us back to the original point.
I don't agree with that. I "investigate" bodies for loot, but for some reason I roll perception. Seems wrong. Perception should be more passive things. If I am actively looking, it should be investigation.
You can say you "investigate" bodies for loot, and I would say that if what you're doing is looking for loot, "investigate" is a bad verb just in lay language, before even beginning to talk about game rules like skill proficiencies 🤷
Investigation and Perception are skill proficiencies that have actual description provided by the game designers. There's a little bit of overlap, but "searching the bodies for loot" does not lie within it, at least by the descriptions provided by the actual rules.
Perception is what you can see, particularly the details. If you want to just inventory a body for what's on them, including finding secret pockets etc. That's perception skill.
Investigation is when your mind draws a picture of the devil from those details. I, and I'm sure other DMs, use it for a character who's player hasn't put the "who what where when why how" together themself. So with bodies, you might find coin and wounds if you didn't kill them yourself. investigation may help you determine how they died, or how they may be linked to a story shared at a tavern in a prior session, etc. Perception is immediate, investigation is synthesis of those immediate and other derived details.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Secret pockets could be Investigation, in fact I think they should usually be. Unless by secret you just mean an inside breast pocket. Finding it would involve not just feeling hidden seams, but knowing enough about tailoring to know that it's not an ordinary seam.
If there was something fairly heavy and rigid in the pocket, like a key, you could find it by pure perception. But if it's a note, it should be Investigation.
Secret pockets could be Investigation, in fact I think they should usually be. Unless by secret you just mean an inside breast pocket. Finding it would involve not just feeling hidden seams, but knowing enough about tailoring to know that it's not an ordinary seam.
If there was something fairly heavy and rigid in the pocket, like a key, you could find it by pure perception. But if it's a note, it should be Investigation.
And again, the way the respective skills are actually defined by the rules would disagree with you. Now, this is the Homebrew and House Rules forum, so, for once, it's not a not-so-subtle reprimand to point out that you're discussing a house rule. But it is a house rule contrary to RAW, and it's worth pointing that out, even here.
Perception is what you can see, particularly the details. If you want to just inventory a body for what's on them, including finding secret pockets etc. That's perception skill.
I've always typically interpreted it as Perception is about seeing/hearing etc. something that are obvious if you spot them, and investigation is for things that require some kind of deduction. To give an example, perception might let you spot that a bottle of wine was spilled in the corner of a room, which you might not otherwise notice in passing, while investigation would allow you to realise this days later by examining a stain while searching the room. A DM might also do things like perception to see a humanoid shape in a curtain, but investigation to realise an object is missing a shadow (is an illusion). It's definitely one of those cases where the distinction can be quite subtle.
When it comes to searching a corpse, you could technically argue Dexterity (Investigation) if you're already proficient, as you already know how to search for hidden pockets, it's the act of doing it (patting down the body) that may be more important, especially if you're trying to do it quickly.
Passive perception and investigation have always been more tricky; I've seen passive perception used when a party is being followed, as it lets a DM roll stealth in secret, knowing what they need to beat to stay hidden. Same for when a character is standing watch while the others long rest and such, though often my DM's have just asked for rolls anyway. I don't think I've been asked for passive investigation that I can remember, though I think technically it's the stat you should use to notice a hidden door in passing, or maybe when you're searching an area at length, as it means the DM can just roll once for how well hidden a door/clue is, rather than having everybody roll. I think generally the passive skills are for when you (as a DM) would otherwise ask the players to roll a bunch of times, e.g- once per hour/10 minutes etc., as you can just handle all the rolling (potentially in secret).
NO ONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY READ THE RULES ON SKILLS CAN HAVE MISSED THIS. And again, this is much better than the previous editions.
Because every player has always read (and understood, and remembered) the entire rules of a game… right? D&D is a game with a DM; player's don't have to read the rules at all, and even if your DM has there's no guarantee they can remember everything. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable and experienced with the rules, but I forget things all the time, and then discover that I (and my group) have been doing something wrong for years etc.
You also do realise that you're now ranting (and multi-posting) about someone else having a bit of a rant? I'm really confused as to why it's such a big deal for you that someone levelled a criticism of how the character sheet presents a player's capabilities; do you not accept that the standard 5e sheet presents skills in a way that doesn't actually match the flexibility of the rules? It doesn't reinforce how they're calculated, or that the abilities noted are only defaults/recommendations. Not sure why it should be such a big deal for you that the sheet could be presented differently? This shouldn't be unreasonable, as for many players the character sheet is literally all they know of the game; a player's handbook is not required to play, and never has been, that's a big part of why 5e is accessible.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m a fan of using the different skills with abilities. I can see using the stealth skill with different abilities, and have. If being quiet is the main issue (which normally is within 60 feet or so, say like in a dungeon or city street), dexterity definitely stands out for me as the best pairing. But I allow wisdom stealth a lot when it is more just staying out of sight, like hiding in the wild far away, hiding in a crowded street, or avoiding being seen in a army battle. Many skill checks should, in real life, be using multiple skills at the same time. Take tumbling. That is definitely a mix of strength and dexterity. What mixing these things up is, is asking what ability score are you making the primary driver of a given attempt at a given task. Either way, we are usually talking about a difference of maybe 5-15% difference to the roll.
What I mean is that if anyone has read the rules on skills, he cannot have missed that section, so whether it's the DM or the players, the suggestion is right there in plain sight, even before the description of the various abilities/skills combinations.
The problem is that even when a person did read that section, there's no guarantee they did so recently and will remember it. If your DM asks for a check, and your sheet has that check, it's only natural to just do what it says. Besides which, not even DM's are guaranteed to have read the player's handbook or even the basic rules; plenty switch to DMing from playing so while they're aware of checks and what kinds of things they're for, may be no more aware of the alternate combinations you can ask for as a DM than they were as a player, especially as most DM's focus is on learning how to handle monsters etc. rather than checking what they think they already know. Again, I can only really speak from personal experience, but it seems to be a feature of the game that's commonly missed by people in practice.
I also play World of Darkness fairly regularly, and it structures its sheet more like D&D probably should, where attributes and skills are separate and you add them together when called to do-so. It's not without its own problems, but these are mostly related to the rulebook being a nightmare to look anything up in if you want the "correct" combinations to roll, but our GM now just has a cheat sheet for the common ones, and for anything else invites us to suggest a check we'd like to make, if we can justify it.
This works really well in general, and it's also a basic mechanism that seems to be becoming more common in simpler RPG systems; where the DM is encouraged to invite players to justify how they're performing an action, i.e- what features/attributes they want to use.
I don't DM D&D a lot, but as a player I try to do it the same way; I don't say "I intimidate the guy", I try to think about how I intimidate them (persuasively vs. presence or such) or what might work on that NPC, or instead of "I climb the wall" I think about how I do that (do I look for hand-holds and scale it, or do I look for an inside corner and parkour my way up?) etc., and I think it's a good way to approach it. This is where it's better to view a sheet as a collection of tools; in the latter example, if you have your sheet with athletics precalculated for Strength then you might look at it and dismiss it if your character has poor Strength meaning it's not a high modifier even with proficiency, but if you just look at it as "my character is dextrous, and good at athletics" then it's easier to see that you can combine the two, as in the parkour option versus the regular climb. I find this is a really good way to look at it, and to actually play, but it's not necessarily encouraged as much as it could be.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Really, the player is never supposed to say they want to roll anything. They are supposed to tell the DM what their character want to do (just as you said) and the DM determines a roll, ability, DC, etc. (Just as you said.) The DM and player can of course spend a quick moment discussing what the player wishes, but the DM makes the final decision. Either way, keeping it “RAW” in the most basic (and in my opinion, boring) way is fine. But for myself and folks I okay with, most of them anyway, these sort of thoughts, ideas, and mixups is what keeps the game creative and fun.
What I'm curious about is; how many characters with good Wisdom are likely to have poor Dexterity?
Druids, Monks and Rangers are often Dexterity based as it gives you a good mixture for skill rolls as well as tying into your defence. Clerics will depend if you're going for a frontline armoured "I cast hammer" build I guess, but in that case you're not going to be terribly stealthy anyway.
Sigh...you start fooling with Dex as part of Stealth, then you had better be prepared to re-write the entire Rogue class.
There is no need to rewrite the entire rogue class. All that is needed to to allow rogues to use the better of Wis or Dex for stealth roles.
You can know when and where to step, but can you execute it?
Yes. Taking a step requires no special amount of dexterity. Dex checks are for walking on a balance beam or across a slippery floor. But, if you are walking across an area, you need to have the wisdom to know where the squeaky boards are in the wood floor or where the twigs are that will crack and give you away no mater how gingerly you step on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Intelligence is tied for the most skill proficiencies based on it. Sure, it doesn't factor as much in combat, but neither does Charisma.
Charisma checks usually have significantly more impact than intelligence checks. "Number of proficiencies" isn't a great metric, especially when most of those proficiencies are just variations on the same theme: whether or not you know something.
Sure, but, "Charisma is slightly more important," is not the same as, "strong bias against Intelligence".
And it depends on the campaign. In campaigns with lots of political intrigue, History checks matter. In a game that's heavy on sorcery rather than swords, Arcana will be important. In a mystery campaign, Investigation rules. In a world where gods frequently answer prayers, Religion is pretty advantageous.
while on the surface I'd agree with this, DMs have a lot of latitude that they often choose to not use with History, Religion Investigation, and Arcana checks. A lot of the "perception checks" that my DM calls for, imo would be better served with Investigation. Int would be dumped a lot less if DMs used those skills more in more critical situations I think.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Off topic, but worth addressing in what time I have left here.
DMs also have a distinct tendency to make knowledge-based checks either easy to circumvent or easy to brute-force. Knowledge checks are 'can the players discover all my cool worldbuilding?' No DM wants to not show off their cool worldbuilding; in many cases a check isn't even required if one has any sort of plausible source. The DM will gleefully hand out that knowledge for free, grateful the players are engaging with their world and their story, which is cool...but it also sharply devalues knowledge-centric skills. Combine this with a strong trend towards many DMs assuming every single 'look for things' check has to be Perception, and not only does Perception become even more overbearingly important, but Investigation falls off.
This is in addition to Intelligence saving throws being almost nonexistent in 5e, and generally not being important even where they do exist. Most Intelligence-based saves are simply to reduce the damage of a very small handful of psychic-y spells, whereas there are many hundreds of Wisdom saving throws and failing any one of them usually means some manner of debuff or curse ranging from "troublesome" to "instantly fatal."
Intelligence absolutely got the shaft in 5e, which is why it's a nigh-universal dump stat for nonwizards, and now non-artificers. Even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters often try to avoid allocating Intelligence, and you basically never see someone play an intelligent bard, cleric, fighter, or any other class that doesn't flat-out require Intelligence.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be fair, every single "look for things" check probably should be Perception (if your primary action is perceiving... it's Perception; Investigation is for thinking, not perceiving). But if you're making a systematic search of an area, you're making an Intelligence (Perception) check, not a Wisdom check, which neatly brings us back to the original point.
I generally prefer to dump wisdom. My clerics in particular, have a fist full of int skills because...that's what I have to choose from. My warlocks almost all dump wis, because making a pact is generally pretty unwise. My sorcerers would be comfortable dumping int, if I didn't think I should know /something/ about arcana. In general, I rarely dump int because I have no interest in playing martial characters any more, and that's about all I would consider dumping int on.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't agree with that. I "investigate" bodies for loot, but for some reason I roll perception. Seems wrong. Perception should be more passive things. If I am actively looking, it should be investigation.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Most things should be both, and usually a lower DC for the Perception. Like I can Investigate for subtle clues like dust trails that show the carpet has recently been moved, or I can just hear the telltale heart. The lower DC for Investigation is another way the game balances the weaknesses Int has in other aspects of the game, like combat. And you can further lower the DC as a player by describing in detail how you would investigate and mentioning a suitable means.
Indeed. You CAN dump Int on a sorcerer, but why wouldn't you dump Str? All your armor depends on Dex, not Str, your weapons, if any, are likely to be ranged or finesse, there are probably about as few Str save spells as Int and Cha, and you're not going to be the party member knocking down doors or leaping across pits.
You can say you "investigate" bodies for loot, and I would say that if what you're doing is looking for loot, "investigate" is a bad verb just in lay language, before even beginning to talk about game rules like skill proficiencies 🤷
Investigation and Perception are skill proficiencies that have actual description provided by the game designers. There's a little bit of overlap, but "searching the bodies for loot" does not lie within it, at least by the descriptions provided by the actual rules.
Perception is what you can see, particularly the details. If you want to just inventory a body for what's on them, including finding secret pockets etc. That's perception skill.
Investigation is when your mind draws a picture of the devil from those details. I, and I'm sure other DMs, use it for a character who's player hasn't put the "who what where when why how" together themself. So with bodies, you might find coin and wounds if you didn't kill them yourself. investigation may help you determine how they died, or how they may be linked to a story shared at a tavern in a prior session, etc. Perception is immediate, investigation is synthesis of those immediate and other derived details.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Secret pockets could be Investigation, in fact I think they should usually be. Unless by secret you just mean an inside breast pocket. Finding it would involve not just feeling hidden seams, but knowing enough about tailoring to know that it's not an ordinary seam.
If there was something fairly heavy and rigid in the pocket, like a key, you could find it by pure perception. But if it's a note, it should be Investigation.
And again, the way the respective skills are actually defined by the rules would disagree with you. Now, this is the Homebrew and House Rules forum, so, for once, it's not a not-so-subtle reprimand to point out that you're discussing a house rule. But it is a house rule contrary to RAW, and it's worth pointing that out, even here.
I've always typically interpreted it as Perception is about seeing/hearing etc. something that are obvious if you spot them, and investigation is for things that require some kind of deduction. To give an example, perception might let you spot that a bottle of wine was spilled in the corner of a room, which you might not otherwise notice in passing, while investigation would allow you to realise this days later by examining a stain while searching the room. A DM might also do things like perception to see a humanoid shape in a curtain, but investigation to realise an object is missing a shadow (is an illusion). It's definitely one of those cases where the distinction can be quite subtle.
When it comes to searching a corpse, you could technically argue Dexterity (Investigation) if you're already proficient, as you already know how to search for hidden pockets, it's the act of doing it (patting down the body) that may be more important, especially if you're trying to do it quickly.
Passive perception and investigation have always been more tricky; I've seen passive perception used when a party is being followed, as it lets a DM roll stealth in secret, knowing what they need to beat to stay hidden. Same for when a character is standing watch while the others long rest and such, though often my DM's have just asked for rolls anyway. I don't think I've been asked for passive investigation that I can remember, though I think technically it's the stat you should use to notice a hidden door in passing, or maybe when you're searching an area at length, as it means the DM can just roll once for how well hidden a door/clue is, rather than having everybody roll. I think generally the passive skills are for when you (as a DM) would otherwise ask the players to roll a bunch of times, e.g- once per hour/10 minutes etc., as you can just handle all the rolling (potentially in secret).
Because every player has always read (and understood, and remembered) the entire rules of a game… right? D&D is a game with a DM; player's don't have to read the rules at all, and even if your DM has there's no guarantee they can remember everything. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable and experienced with the rules, but I forget things all the time, and then discover that I (and my group) have been doing something wrong for years etc.
You also do realise that you're now ranting (and multi-posting) about someone else having a bit of a rant? I'm really confused as to why it's such a big deal for you that someone levelled a criticism of how the character sheet presents a player's capabilities; do you not accept that the standard 5e sheet presents skills in a way that doesn't actually match the flexibility of the rules? It doesn't reinforce how they're calculated, or that the abilities noted are only defaults/recommendations. Not sure why it should be such a big deal for you that the sheet could be presented differently? This shouldn't be unreasonable, as for many players the character sheet is literally all they know of the game; a player's handbook is not required to play, and never has been, that's a big part of why 5e is accessible.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m a fan of using the different skills with abilities. I can see using the stealth skill with different abilities, and have. If being quiet is the main issue (which normally is within 60 feet or so, say like in a dungeon or city street), dexterity definitely stands out for me as the best pairing. But I allow wisdom stealth a lot when it is more just staying out of sight, like hiding in the wild far away, hiding in a crowded street, or avoiding being seen in a army battle. Many skill checks should, in real life, be using multiple skills at the same time. Take tumbling. That is definitely a mix of strength and dexterity. What mixing these things up is, is asking what ability score are you making the primary driver of a given attempt at a given task. Either way, we are usually talking about a difference of maybe 5-15% difference to the roll.
The problem is that even when a person did read that section, there's no guarantee they did so recently and will remember it. If your DM asks for a check, and your sheet has that check, it's only natural to just do what it says. Besides which, not even DM's are guaranteed to have read the player's handbook or even the basic rules; plenty switch to DMing from playing so while they're aware of checks and what kinds of things they're for, may be no more aware of the alternate combinations you can ask for as a DM than they were as a player, especially as most DM's focus is on learning how to handle monsters etc. rather than checking what they think they already know. Again, I can only really speak from personal experience, but it seems to be a feature of the game that's commonly missed by people in practice.
I also play World of Darkness fairly regularly, and it structures its sheet more like D&D probably should, where attributes and skills are separate and you add them together when called to do-so. It's not without its own problems, but these are mostly related to the rulebook being a nightmare to look anything up in if you want the "correct" combinations to roll, but our GM now just has a cheat sheet for the common ones, and for anything else invites us to suggest a check we'd like to make, if we can justify it.
This works really well in general, and it's also a basic mechanism that seems to be becoming more common in simpler RPG systems; where the DM is encouraged to invite players to justify how they're performing an action, i.e- what features/attributes they want to use.
I don't DM D&D a lot, but as a player I try to do it the same way; I don't say "I intimidate the guy", I try to think about how I intimidate them (persuasively vs. presence or such) or what might work on that NPC, or instead of "I climb the wall" I think about how I do that (do I look for hand-holds and scale it, or do I look for an inside corner and parkour my way up?) etc., and I think it's a good way to approach it. This is where it's better to view a sheet as a collection of tools; in the latter example, if you have your sheet with athletics precalculated for Strength then you might look at it and dismiss it if your character has poor Strength meaning it's not a high modifier even with proficiency, but if you just look at it as "my character is dextrous, and good at athletics" then it's easier to see that you can combine the two, as in the parkour option versus the regular climb. I find this is a really good way to look at it, and to actually play, but it's not necessarily encouraged as much as it could be.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well said!
Really, the player is never supposed to say they want to roll anything. They are supposed to tell the DM what their character want to do (just as you said) and the DM determines a roll, ability, DC, etc. (Just as you said.) The DM and player can of course spend a quick moment discussing what the player wishes, but the DM makes the final decision. Either way, keeping it “RAW” in the most basic (and in my opinion, boring) way is fine. But for myself and folks I okay with, most of them anyway, these sort of thoughts, ideas, and mixups is what keeps the game creative and fun.
There is no need to rewrite the entire rogue class. All that is needed to to allow rogues to use the better of Wis or Dex for stealth roles.
Yes. Taking a step requires no special amount of dexterity. Dex checks are for walking on a balance beam or across a slippery floor. But, if you are walking across an area, you need to have the wisdom to know where the squeaky boards are in the wood floor or where the twigs are that will crack and give you away no mater how gingerly you step on them.