Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Nominrath Nov 10, 2014 15:58:49	I've just started running my D&D 5e game and I had an interesting situation come up. Well, not really interesting more as argumentative.   In the session my group came across a statue they wanted to push. I asked for Strength checks. Fairly simple, straight forward. One of my players asked if he could add his Athletics skill to the roll. After thinking about it, I decided not to let him because the act was purely brute strength and 'athletic' training wouldn't necessarily make him 'stronger' than what his Strength already allowed. The player argued that I should have allowed it.   Was this a bad call on my part?   Thanks all!
#2 Nevvur Nov 10, 2014 16:02:57	Nominrath wrote:
#3 Dooflegna Nov 10, 2014 16:20:25	Nominrath wrote:
#4 Varden_Khol Nov 11, 2014 19:03:59	Dooflegna wrote:
(Reply to #4) Nominrath	Varden_Khol wrote:
#6 iserith Nov 12, 2014 5:57:25	Unless there is some additional context I'm missing, I don't think it should have been a check at all. If they have the time and resources and no drawback to failing at their action, then they should just be able to move the statue (if it is possible to be moved), no roll. What was preventing them from making the check over and over again until they succeeded?   Also, "tip over a statue" is specifically listed as an "Other Use for Strength Checks." If I actually had a reason to call for the roll (say, they're trying to topple the statue to block a doorway before the pack of gnolls arrive and attack) and a player asked if they could apply Athletics, then I'd ask them how they are applying that skill in the fiction. Once they added an appropriate description, they can take the bonus.
#7 slumgum Nov 12, 2014 6:09:01	I would have let him.  An athletic person would know how to apply their strength better than a non-athletic person.  You shot your player down over adding proficiency to the roll.  You took away something that sets him apart from other characters at the table (who chose something other than athletics for their proficiency).   As a player it never feels good to have to argue for something, especially for something as reasonable as this.  The fact that you've made a post asking about it probably means you don't feel great about your answer either.  Next time try to say "Yes" whenever possible and "No" whenever necessary and not the reverse.
#8 mellored Nov 12, 2014 6:11:26	I allow skills in any reasonable situation.
#9 GilbertMDH Nov 12, 2014 7:37:06	The math of the game is actually relativley forgiving. Letting a character add their prof bous to an ability check is not game breaking. As a DM, you should feel free to allow it whenever it seems reasonable, and disallow if it does not. Don't worry about it too much. My approach has been a default to "yes" in gray areas, but as long as you are making consistent calls in good faith, you should be fine.
#10 mellored Nov 12, 2014 8:11:24	Well... i guess it depends on what the goal is.   Do you want everyone to have a chance?  Pick a lower DC and don't add proficency. Do you only want trained people to have a chance? Pick a higher DC and add proficency.
#11 Smashpunk Nov 12, 2014 9:09:04	iserith wrote:
#12 iserith Nov 12, 2014 14:36:53	Smashpunk wrote:
#13 ChrisCarlson Nov 13, 2014 7:34:09	iserith wrote:
#14 iserith Nov 13, 2014 7:40:22	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#15 Danny_Montanny Nov 13, 2014 13:49:52	Any Fighter worth his salt has been deadlifting statues for years.
#16 iserith Nov 13, 2014 14:01:05	I tend not to train Athletics for Strength-based characters. Instead, I plug a hole somewhere else or shoot for a broader range of skills, figuring that I'll get by with my Strength mod. In many cases, I've found I can get a Help action from another character when it comes to Strength checks anyway.
#17 Gnarl Nov 13, 2014 19:00:51	@OP: I don't think you were wrong. If your DC isn't inflated and you gave your players a fair chance of succeeding, that's really all that matters. Did you and you friend have a heated argument? Those are usually not worth it. Sometimes it's better to say yes just to avoid a dispute. Worst case scenario, you add his proficiency bonus to the DC of the check and your player has the same probability of success without ever knowing it.
#18 El_Condoro Nov 14, 2014 1:56:50	@OP: For what it's worth, I think you made the right choice on the intended use of the ability; "climbing, jumping, or swimming" was not involved in toppling that statue. Some might say, any argument is not worth the +2 or 3 that the prof bonus normally affords but I don't like making them meaningless by giving them for anything, even if the player can describe what they want to do really well. As with many things, it's a situation by situation call. If giving a +2 or 3 bonus is not worth an argument then conversely it shouldn't be that important to the player to not get it, either. The DM has the final say, so the player must be willing to defer to him or her if agreement is not possible and not pout about not getting their way.
#19 MasterVelles Nov 18, 2014 12:36:25	When something like this comes up, I always always always just ask, "describe to me how you're doing it," and as long as it's reasonable, I allow it. I don't accept answer like, "I athleticly life with my legs".    Also though, normally this wouldn't even require a check unless they were doing it under time constraints or it was going to bypass some other danger.
#20 Ahglock Nov 18, 2014 13:05:30	slumgum wrote:
(Reply to #13) Rhenny	[quote="ChrisCarlson As I've been running this new campaign for the last two weeks, I've noticed my players are quick to pick up their d20s as they are describing what they want to do. Probably half the time, or more, I'm describing the result (often success) before they even get around to rolling it. I'm hoping they start picking up on my cues and stop reaching for the die before its needed... [/quote]   After playing Star Wars d6 and using the "wild die" I grew to like throwing down random complications, so now, I let players roll even when it seems likely they'll succeed.  The threat of a "1" even for likely successes spices   up the game for me and my players.
(Reply to #12) Ganymede425	iserith wrote:
#23 iserith Nov 19, 2014 18:58:23	Ganymede425 wrote:
(Reply to #23) Timborama	iserith wrote: