Comments on: Strength checks? We don’t need no stinkin’ strength checks!

By: Graham

Graham — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:36:09 +0000

Holes in this idea have been found. Read the next post for more.

By: Graham

Graham — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:26:52 +0000

@ChattyDM -

Thanks for the comment, man. It just sorta clicked to me, too.

@EastwoodDC -

If there is no appropriate skill, then that is definitely time for an ability check. My thought is that this is never the case.

As for a feat of strength for someone without Athletics training, you’re missing one part of how skills and ability checks in 4e work. As you don’t play the game, please allow me to explain:

A skill check in 4e is:
1d20 + 1/2 level + Ability Mod (+5 if trained)

An ability check in 4e is:
1d20 + 1/2 level + Ability Mod

The only difference is the +5 for training (and other bonuses, if your race gets +2 Athletics or something).

So an untrained skill check and an ability check are almost identical.

This is why, in the case you mention, I would still ask for a skill check.

By: EastwoodDC

EastwoodDC — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:54:57 +0000

Commenting on a game I don’t play is probably stupid, but I’ll take a whack at it anyway.
What you suggest about using Skills in place of Abilities makes sense even to me. Perhaps an Ability check is still appropriate where there is no skill to apply. Perhaps a strength check for a feat of shear physical strength, especially is the character does not have any particular training in athletics.

By: The Chatty DM

The Chatty DM — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:10:32 +0000

It’s one of those nearly self-evident things when you stop and think about it. I have been playing skill checks/challenge using the non-errata numbers and I never even knew that there was a +5 to DC to skill chellenge… I just found the math to work fine with the numbers as is.

As for converting all ability checks to skill checks, I buy it. In one year I don’t think I’ve had one ability check in my game… as you say, a skill check or an attack always seemed to be a better solution.

By: Graham

Graham — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:11:33 +0000

Thanks for the comment, greywulf.

Regarding the calming of a beast, why would it not be Diplomacy? You might take a penalty for it, for not sharing a language, but Diplomacy is not a purely vocal thing.

As far as defeating an Archlich in a chess game goes, that’s an interesting one. But I’d put it as a History check, opposed by the target’s Insight, or even just opposed Insight checks. Chess is less about raw intelligence, and more about knowing what your opponent is going to do.

If the player made a case for it, I’d also allow the substitution of a Thievery, Bluff, Intimidate or History (if using the all-Insight method) check. And all of those (even back and forth Insight) are far more interesting to me than just rolling Intelligence.

But that’s just my perspective, of course.

By: greywulf

greywulf — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:48:47 +0000

Good point about using Skill Checks instead of ability checks. The only real difference between the two is Training (and Feats & Racial abilities too, to a lesser extent), so the times you’d need an ability check would be when training doesn’t factor in, only raw talent.

For example, trying to calm a savage beast might be a straight CHA roll as Diplomacy just won’t cut it with a Dire Bear. Or defeating an archlich in a game of chess (INT vs. INT).

Those cases would be few and far between, though would crop up occasionally enough merit keeping ability checks in the game as a fallback mechanism, imho.