Guide to Ability Checks in DnD 5E

Author: Icebrick1

Ability Checks are a fundamental part of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, but many of specific rules, rulings, and particulars are scattered across several books, sections, and errata. This article aims to serve as a guide to consolidate all of that information in one place. 

What are they?

Ability checks are defined as follows:

Ability checks are one of the most integral parts of the rules. They are a significant portion of what determines success and failure outside of combat, and sometimes even in combat. Most players and DMs understand the basics correctly, but there are many nuances that are commonly missed or forgotten. When a creature makes an ability check, they roll a d20 and add the relevant ability score modifier decided by the DM. If a particular skill is relevant to the situation and the character is proficient in that skill (or relevant tool), they can add their proficiency modifier to the check. Finally, there can be additional modifiers (either positive or negative), like a Bard’s Bardic Inspiration or from the guidance spell. If the roll’s total is greater than or equal to the check’s Difficulty Class (DC) as determined by the DM, then the creature succeeds. Otherwise, they fail. The Player’s Handbook elaborates on what failure means as well:

Contests

A contest is a special ability check where two creatures compare their ability check totals against each other, rather than against a set DC. Contests are used when two creatures are trying to use ability checks to accomplish the same goal and only one can succeed, or when one creature is attempting to stop another creature from accomplishing a goal. The creature with the higher total succeeds, while the other creature fails. In the case of tie, the circumstances remain the same as before the contest. A common example of a contest is when a creature attempts to shove or grapple another creature, making a Strength (Athletics) check contested by a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.

Passive Checks

Passive ability checks are often misunderstood.

A creature’s passive ability check score is 10 + the relevant modifiers, with an additional +5 if they have advantage and -5 if they have disadvantage. As seen above, they can be used in a number of situations, such as for things done constantly like trying to spot threats or when a DM doesn’t want the players to roll since it would be giving them out-of-character information.

The most common passive check is Wisdom (Perception) since it is used to spot traps, hidden doors, and hiding creatures, but passive checks can be used for any check, such as passive Investigation to spot a glyph of warding, passive Insight to detect a lie, or maybe even passive Survival to find tracks.

Some comparisons can be made to “taking 10” from past editions, where you can choose to treat a roll as a 10 as long as you aren’t in immediate danger. Both can be used in some scenarios to speed past checks that would be meaningless to roll. However, unlike taking 10, which is an intentional player choice, passives are ultimately up to DM discretion on when and how they can be used, and there is no input required from the player. 

In some cases, your passive score can act as a “floor.” For example, if the DC to spot something is lower than your passive Perception, then rolling below your passive Perception doesn’t matter because you should’ve already seen it. (Jeremy Crawford on the subject, starts at 22:30) Passive checks are occasionally misunderstood and interpreted as “every check has a floor of 10,” similar to the Rogue’s Reliable Talent class feature. This is incorrect, as it only applies in cases where a passive ability score can be used, and even then it doesn’t actually prevent one from rolling lower than their passive score—it just means that it is irrelevant when they do.

Multiple Checks

If there is no cost to failing a check aside from wasted time, a character can automatically succeed on a task by taking 10 times longer than normal, unless the task is impossible (Dungeon Master’s Guide, p. 237). This is very similar to the “taking 20” rule which can be seen in other systems like D&D 3E.

Skills With Other Scores

Under certain circumstances, the DM can allow for a skill proficiency to apply to an ability check even if it isn’t typically associated with that ability. They might, for example, call for a Charisma (Stealth) check to blend into a crowd. This is listed as a variant rule in the Player’s Handbook (p. 175), but it isn’t marked as being a variant rule in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (p. 239).

Helping

A character can help another character with a check, giving the character making the check advantage. This can only be done if it is a task that can reasonably benefit from help, and if the character helping is capable of doing the task individually. In combat, this requires someone to take the Help action. We talk about the usefulness of this in regards to familiars here.

Group Checks

Under certain circumstances, the DM can call for a group check when the whole party is attempting to complete a task together. For a group check, everyone in the group makes a check, and if at least half the party succeeds, the whole group passes the check. In a situation where the whole party has to make ability checks, and any character failing means failure for the whole group, it can be almost impossible for the party to succeed, but a group check can make the odds much more reasonable.

Examples of group checks might include a group Wisdom (Survival) check to avoid hazards in a swamp. Dexterity (Stealth) checks are a case where group checks can often potentially be applied, and prevent the annoying situation where the one character who didn’t take Stealth proficiency alerts the enemy every time. However, similarly to initiative, Dexterity (Stealth) checks to take the hide action or surprise enemies don’t “succeed” or “fail,” and thus Rules as Written, group checks can’t be used in that scenario. This is probably for the best, as gaining surprise is extremely powerful and making it more accessible might make trivializing combat too easy.

We’ve explained what the Rules as Written have to say, but there are still ways to do better. These recommendations might not be entirely RAW, but they aren’t far off and we believe they will help your games run much more smoothly.

Skill Dog-piling

One common scenario which can be frustrating to a DM is the “skill dog-pile.” One player makes a check to search a wall for secret doors, or makes an Intelligence (Religion) check to see if they recognize what god a symbol represents. The player attempting the check rolls poorly, then suddenly every other player will try to jump in and try to make a check themselves. This makes it very likely the players will succeed, since just one person needs to pass. It can also be seen as a kind of “metagaming,” against the spirit of the game, or just otherwise annoying for some reason.

However, there isn’t any in-universe reason why another character couldn’t also search a room or happen to know a particular god. Maybe the player wouldn’t have asked to search the room if the first player rolled a 20, but doing that might have been metagaming, albeit to save some time, compared to asking to roll when the first player rolls a 1. Similarly, it’s not impossible for an expert to be missing knowledge that a layperson coincidentally knows.

The problem here doesn’t really lie in skill dog-piling itself, it’s the conflict of expectation between player and DM. Thankfully, it’s pretty easy to calibrate these by being more clear with the conditions of the check. Before calling for a roll where it might be unclear, state who can make a roll. In many scenarios, this can be everyone, but in some cases you can make it clear that only one person can attempt this. For example, you can state that while traveling, only the navigator can make Wisdom (Survival) checks to avoid getting lost (Dungeon Master’s Guide, p. 111), or that only characters with a relevant skill proficiency can roll (like when trying to pick a lock with thieves’ tools (Dungeon Master’s Guide, p. 175)). In some cases, you can call for a group check.

Another thing to note here that greatly decreases any issues you might run into with skill dog-piling: Many scenarios which are vulnerable to skill dog-piling are scenarios where passive scores or automatic success would apply. If every member of the party can attempt something, the same person can probably also attempt it again. For example, if the players can search the room in 5 minutes, then the characters can simply take 50 minutes to search it thoroughly and automatically succeed.

That being said, while limiting who rolls for a check can be good in some cases, you should avoid punishing players for trying to participate. Charisma checks are probably the most vulnerable to this. If any player who joins in on a conversation is forced to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check in order for the conversation to not go wrong, this does nothing but dissuade players whose characters have low Charisma from interacting with NPCs. Consequently, the party is incentivized to only let the characters with good Persuasion engage in the social pillar of the game at all. Instead, consider letting the party choose who makes Charisma (Persuasion) checks, and if another player joins in with a good point, treat it as working together and give the roll advantage or otherwise adjust the DC as you see fit. This keeps players with low Charisma engaged while allowing players who invested in Persuasion checks to use them.

Make Rolls Meaningful

Always remember: ability checks should matter.

This may seem obvious, but it is easy to accidentally violate this rule. If there aren’t consequences for both success and failure, don’t bother slowing the game down by making the players roll. We recommend using the rules for passive checks and automatic success liberally to cover this.

The consequences of failing a roll should be apparent. For that reason, avoid making rolls too far in advance as delayed consequences will make the roll less impactful and make the players feel dissatisfied if you try to make them use the roll. A common type of check that might fall prey to this is Dexterity (Stealth) checks. If you make the players roll before they enter the dungeon, conflict (or at least some dissatisfaction) might arise if a player knows they rolled poorly but have to use it anyways. Instead, have the player roll when they are actually at risk of being spotted, so the roll has clear consequences: If their Stealth check is high enough they can slip past the enemies or gain surprise; fail and combat will begin. Similarly, success should mean more than just delayed failure; don’t invalidate rolls by calling for them to be repeated again and again, as the player will inevitably eventually fail. For example, if the players make a check to disguise themselves with disguise kits, this check should be kept, without requiring the players to roll again for every sentry they pass. Even characters with high bonuses will struggle to pass multiple checks in a row. (The Alexandrian has a good article on using this concept of “Let it Ride” in general.)

Avoid Bottlenecks

Avoid creating scenarios where the players need to pass a check to continue their adventure. The next step in an adventure should never be locked behind a successful ability check, as the adventure will grind to a halt if the players fail. For example, if the players need to spot a secret door in the villain’s hideout to see where he fled for the next stage of the adventure, give the players either another explicit way to continue, or don’t have the players roll and make the door obvious. (The Alexandrian also has an excellent series on non-linear adventure design that can help a lot with this problem.)

Hopefully this article has presented you with a comprehensive overview on what the Rules as Written have to say about Ability checks. We have also discussed some of our recommended suggestions for how to make engaging with ability checks more fun for everyone at the table, players and DMs alike. 

How do you run ability checks at your table? As close to Rules As Written as possible, or do you incorporate liberal use of house rules? Let us know in the comments!

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email