Ability Checks and Skill Checks

[ThermalSlapShot]

Do we really need a distinction between the two?

They are essentially the same thing and many of the ability check items could straight up become their own skill. Breaking doors down may not be athletics, but you could make a skill called something like Might, Power, or Destruction.

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

But yeah anyways... Is there a reason these two are separate when they are the same exact thing? Skills are ability checks but ability checks are not skills... That seems weird to me.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

[ThermalSlapShot]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

Are you saying that an athletic person, say a football player, who knows how to lead with their shoulder and has experience in hitting others won't be better than a person who has the same strength when it comes to busting down doors?

Everything can be made better using skill and technique, even breaking stuff.

Look at people who break tons of bricks or wood planks. They don't do it on power alone, their technique helps a lot.

I think there should be an increased skill list, the current one we have is to restrictive. Give me my engineering skill, my craft skill, my destruction skill, and many others.

[Mjolnirbear]

I never feel like i have enough skill points to begin with. Now you want to give me more options to spend my limited proficiencies on? Use a tool, or alternative proficiency as listed in the DMG. As far as I'm concerned, D&D did it's players a favour by consolidating skills, suck as the thief skills or strenght skills

[Easy_Lee]

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

Actually, there's a bit of a trick to breaking down doors. Kicking in a door, for example, depends on hitting the right spot, hip flex, knowing the physics of what you're trying to do, etc. Perhaps WotC felt that it's not a something a general athlete would learn to do, something I find dubious given the setting. Or maybe they've never tried it and just made assumptions.

[Ninja_Prawn]

So there's a knack to breaking down doors. It's far too narrow to be a skill on its own, though, and whether 'Athletics' covers it can be determined by the DM on a case-by-case basis. If the player is trying to apply intelligence to the problem, make it an Intellegence (Carpenter's Tools) check. If they're using martial arts to break it with minimal force, make them roll attacks against the door's AC and HP as per the DMG (or, you know, just narrate what happens).

I'd still say that shoulder-charging a door is something that mainly depends on strength, and technique makes only a marginal difference, whereas something like the high jump is equally dependent on both.

In most games I've seen, pure ability checks are rare (excluding initiative and maybe disarming traps) - almost everything you want to do is covered by one of the skills or tools. So, I fail to see the problem.

And crafting (where it requires a check) will almost always be a tool check. If you want to be an inventor, get proficiency in Tinker's Tools, or start homebrewing a steampunk setting. Vanilla 5e is set in a world where modern engineering doesn't really exist - using masonry and carpentry to build structures is still cutting-edge.

[pwykersotz]

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

...

I think there should be an increased skill list, the current one we have is to restrictive. Give me my engineering skill, my craft skill, my destruction skill, and many others.

This is exactly the variant rule. Well, the third comes from background, but those are so open, it's pretty much player choice.

I'm confused on how the current list is too restrictive. The level of ambiguation is right in the middle of pure ability checks and 3.5's massive list. There are enough that a party will have a large amount of proficiencies, but not all of them. Basically, I get that you might want more nuance, but saying that the current list is limiting is odd.

[Vogonjeltz]

Do we really need a distinction between the two?

They are essentially the same thing and many of the ability check items could straight up become their own skill. Breaking doors down may not be athletics, but you could make a skill called something like Might, Power, or Destruction.

Of course you can go the other way, I think the DMG has a optional rule for this, where there are no skills and everything is an ability check.

Perhaps give proficiency in three abilities. Two come from class (same as saving throws) and the third can come from player choice?

But yeah anyways... Is there a reason these two are separate when they are the same exact thing? Skills are ability checks but ability checks are not skills... That seems weird to me.

We could always start by recognizing that there's no such thing as a Skill check. There is, however, an ability check to which proficiency in a skill might be applied. (PHB pages 174-175).

Confusion here probably stems from the use of the term skill check by forum goers as shorthand

[ThermalSlapShot]

This is exactly the variant rule. Well, the third comes from background, but those are so open, it's pretty much player choice.

I'm confused on how the current list is too restrictive. The level of ambiguation is right in the middle of pure ability checks and 3.5's massive list. There are enough that a party will have a large amount of proficiencies, but not all of them. Basically, I get that you might want more nuance, but saying that the current list is limiting is odd.

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.

We could always start by recognizing that there's no such thing as a Skill check. There is, however, an ability check to which proficiency in a skill might be applied. (PHB pages 174-175).

Confusion here probably stems from the use of the term skill check by forum goers as shorthand

And those specific checks are given a name called skills.

Because saying

"Ability checks which you can't gain proficiency bonus for" and "ability checks which you can gain proficiency bonus for" is a bit too long.

Ability checks and skills is a bit easier on the eyes and hands.

Edited

Also the official WotC character sheet calls them skills... So unless wotc is wrong too...

[pwykersotz]

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.

I think that's purposeful.

My 3.5 DM who introduced me to the game went hugely into nuance. Every skill ever was available. There was a ZeroG skill for dealing with being in space, a skill for over three times the number of knowledges that were in the books like physics and deduction, a skill for forensics, and many more. It was great in theory, but in practice it meant that you could never be good at almost anything.

That said, I now understand what you're looking for. If your GM is stingy about allowing you to have proficiency on non-codified ability checks related to your background, then I can also understand the concern. I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing. It's like my old GM's skill Deduction. The only point to rolling it was to get the GM to give you a free pass to the scenario.

I suppose if you wanted, you could come out with a bigger list and simply add to the allowed proficiencies, but that makes the game more complex to play. You could ambiguate it more, but that strips away realism.

If I had a player ask me about this, I'd probably say that anyone who could make up a skill that didn't step on the toes of another and that was related to character background or class could swap it with a normal allowed proficiency to better fit their ideas. It seems like the best way for both game balance and player happiness to remain intact.

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm really considering trying that variant. Making individual skills is a bit inhibiting to the imagination, making you think you're more locked down than you really are. I might give it a try for my next campaign.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing.

Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.


And using skill/ability pairings other than those specified is explicity encouraged in the PHB (they give Strength (Intimidate) as an example).

I never played 3.x, so I have neither nostaligia for, nor bad experiences with, super-exhaustive skill lists. To my eyes, 5e has all the skills I'd want and none that I don't, and it leaves lots of room for the DM to make rulings if/when you start thinking outside the box.

[Easy_Lee]

In theory, the skills should be comprehensive of all possible actions one can take. If one attempts an action that truly has no check, I might use a rule similar to this:
If you are proficient with all skills for a given attribute, you are proficient in any check made with that attribute regardless of whether it is covered by one of the skills.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can have proficiency in Arcana checks but not for engineering. If I want to build a bridge I can never become proficient with my Intelligence but if I want to design a spell then I can be proficient with my Intelligence.

The current list makes a very specific list of what you can get proficiency in and its hard to design anything but the most general and basic characters.

What skill would you use for Intelligence (Tactics), Intelligence (History) just doesn't cut it as tactics are ever changing and evolving.



And those specific checks are given a name called skills.

Because saying

"Ability checks which you can't gain proficiency bonus for" and "ability checks which you can gain proficiency bonus for" is a bit too long.

Ability checks and skills is a bit easier on the eyes and hands.

Edited

Also the official WotC character sheet calls them skills... So unless wotc is wrong too...

I said there is no such thing as skill checks.

I did not say there is no such thing as skills

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think that's purposeful.

My 3.5 DM who introduced me to the game went hugely into nuance. Every skill ever was available. There was a ZeroG skill for dealing with being in space, a skill for over three times the number of knowledges that were in the books like physics and deduction, a skill for forensics, and many more. It was great in theory, but in practice it meant that you could never be good at almost anything.

That said, I now understand what you're looking for. If your GM is stingy about allowing you to have proficiency on non-codified ability checks related to your background, then I can also understand the concern. I think your example is poor though. Tactics is usually an out of character thing. It's like my old GM's skill Deduction. The only point to rolling it was to get the GM to give you a free pass to the scenario.

I suppose if you wanted, you could come out with a bigger list and simply add to the allowed proficiencies, but that makes the game more complex to play. You could ambiguate it more, but that strips away realism.

If I had a player ask me about this, I'd probably say that anyone who could make up a skill that didn't step on the toes of another and that was related to character background or class could swap it with a normal allowed proficiency to better fit their ideas. It seems like the best way for both game balance and player happiness to remain intact.

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm really considering trying that variant. Making individual skills is a bit inhibiting to the imagination, making you think you're more locked down than you really are. I might give it a try for my next campaign.

Tactics is described below.

I just think that the system as a whole would have benefited with not making two separate groups. Things are are skills (and you can make a skill check with) and things that are not skills (and you can make an ability check with).

Either make everything a skill or make nothing a skill. Don't go half assed on stuff like this. More general skills would have been nice.

In theory, the skills should be comprehensive of all possible actions one can take. If one attempts an action that truly has no check, I might use a rule similar to this:
If you are proficient with all skills for a given attribute, you are proficient in any check made with that attribute regardless of whether it is covered by one of the skills.

That's similar to how I would like to see it done, or just give more skills and a bigger skill list. You don't have to have more specific skills but even more general skills would be nice.

Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.

Knowing enemy tactics (say how orcs tend to attack) is not something a player would know but a player character would/should. Especially a Fighter who serves as the city watch and they have been having problems with orcs.

It isn't about what a player can do with their class features, but how to go about dealing with orcs. Does the PC know that orc hordes use flanking maneuvers and need to watch out for them as they battle the first group of orcs? Does the PC know that orcs tend to use ranged and melee attacks or just melee attacks? Does the PC know that a specific fighting style is better to use than another, perhaps there is a specific sound made by orc raiders to call a retreat?

These are things that a simple Int (war tactics) check could easily cover and give the player proficiency.

But this is just an example. You can apply this to Engineering too. Since there is not skill for engineering I would really hate to live near any big structures or use any bridges...

I said there is no such thing as skill checks.

I did not say there is no such thing as skills

Again...

Skill Check is like saying "ability checks in which you use your proficiency bonus to complete a specific task". You can't say there isn't a skill check in the game or else you never use skills.

And as I've said, skill checks ARE ability checks but ability checks are not skill checks.

However it is just easier to say skill check instead of an entire sentence describing a two word phrase. You know, how we use language all the time in real life.

[SharkForce]

for engineering, you can have tools. drafting tools would probably be what i would recommend. but you could also assign it to tools that let you lay out a guide on the ground for people to follow as they build, surveyor's tools, simple math-assisting devices, books that give information about the strength of various substances, etc. just call them "engineer's tools" and you're good to go.

tactics is a bit harder. but i'd say that most of it probably boils down to intelligence(deception) and intelligence(insight), possibly with some intelligence(stealth) or even intelligence(intimidation) mixed in.

because ultimately, it all basically boils down to you trying to figure out what the other guy is trying to do while hiding what you are trying to do, except you're each doing it with an army instead of one person, and instead of your interpersonal skills or ability to perceive details in the person's body movement and expression, you're using your intelligence.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Knowing enemy tactics (say how orcs tend to attack) is not something a player would know but a player character would/should. Especially a Fighter who serves as the city watch and they have been having problems with orcs.

It isn't about what a player can do with their class features, but how to go about dealing with orcs. Does the PC know that orc hordes use flanking maneuvers and need to watch out for them as they battle the first group of orcs? Does the PC know that orcs tend to use ranged and melee attacks or just melee attacks? Does the PC know that a specific fighting style is better to use than another, perhaps there is a specific sound made by orc raiders to call a retreat?

As a general rule, these are all Intelligence (Nature) checks. Many of them can probably be made passively - that is, the DM just tells the players what their characters already know. For characters that are... intellectually challenged... but have a lot of experience dealing with orcs specifically, I might allow them to substitute in Wisdom (Nature) checks.

If it was (for example) elementals instead of orcs, they would be Intelligence (Arcana) checks. Outsiders would probably by Religion.

Note that the ranger's favoured enemy feature specifically says they get advantage on these sorts of checks. It doesn't say which skill because the skill varies depending on the enemy type, not because no skill is relevant.

If the orcs were using some kind of code or semaphore (like in that Hobbit film) and a PC was trying to decode it in-battle, I would ask for Intelligence (Investigation) checks.

Problem solved.

[djreynolds]

Good discussion.
But I think we are over-thinking it a little. I feel, and some will disagree, that intelligence is the accumulation of knowledge and critical thinking. Wisdom is common sense and composure, the ability to recognize a problem and then stop and rethink a problem. That's not always easy. Intelligent people, all the time over think things, me included.

During a medical code, it happens all the time. Intelligent People are shouting out meds and treatments, and sometimes it takes wisdom to step back, compose yourself and rethink things simply. Some people have both. Survival is a wisdom skill because you have to keep focused on what is important, intelligent people freeze to death all the time. Why? Because focus and discipline take wisdom. Nature is an intelligence check because you thinking why?

Being skilled says you have experience in something from years of training. Breaking in a door is not easy. You may know how it could be done but not have the strength to open, the dexterity to pick the lock or the wisdom to stop and try something else, or the stamina to keep at it.

The skill system represents years of training in something, whether it'd be chemistry or landscaping. It's why carpenters and doctors can charge so much money.

I may be smart and can figure something out once, but not repeatedly without schooling, or experience or training. Your class provides training. Your experience adds to that knowledge and your ability enhances that.

The system works. Fletching arrows or crafting armor or building bridges is for experts. I'd think a character could do it, but he should be adventuring and getting gold and have someone else do it.

[coredump]

5E made a conscious effort to streamline and reduce. Fewer feats, fewer weapons, fewer skills...simpler mechanics.

If you want more skills, or more feats, or more weapons, or more whatevers.... go ahead and introduce them. But many of us don't want a long list of skills. I am perfectly capable giving someone proficiency on their Int check if they have a long experience with how Orcs fight. I surely don't need a new skill for that.

Besides, why would a general Tactics skill help with the specific tendencies of a specific tribe located in a specific area of only 1 species? The current method allows for *more* specialization by keeping it general and letting the DM adjust it as appropriate.

[Cybren]

The RAW works fine for me. Skill checks are a subset of ability checks, where specific experience or training makes you better at the task.

Breaking down a door with brute force depends on your strength. It is not a skill. Picking a lock is easier if you know how to use lockpicks, so there's a way to get a bonus on that check, if you've got the training.

What's the problem?

Breaking down a door (without directly attacking to with a weapon) certainly is a skill, and other role playing games occasionally make it one. SWAT teams and burglars are both likely to have it. Just call it crowbar proficiency or something

Yeah, I can't think of a situation where you'd roll for tactics. Tactics come from the players, not the player characters. If they're good, they work; if they're not, PCs start dying.

If the PC is supposed to be a good tactician and gets asked about battle plans or something, for one? Things like this are where player/character tend to blend together, but tactics being a skill makes some amount of sense in the abstract, but d&d players tend to not like skills that only matter if someone has them. They have this idea that every adventure, if it's long enough, must use every skill check at some point.

[djreynolds]

Excellent points.
If a player playing a fighter is really good with tactics, would it be fair to at the next level increase, he might have to take intelligence increase for a good ideas or a wisdom increase for making good choices, instead of strength.

Roleplaying has always had these hiccups, you might say. I'm a newbie to 5e, I play a fighter and charisma is an 8. Yet I often lead, because in real life I might be more charismatic than the other players.

Should I have to roleplay within my stats? If I choose to dump intelligence as barbarian, must I play reckless and headstrong and be the part?

These choices will always cause dilemmas for ability driven games. A wizard on paper may have great stats but he's an inexperienced player, but Dave the Monk keeps telling him what to cast. How would the monk know?

Good players and DM's will surely fix this. Perhaps I should play, or roleplay my attributes as the are on paper. Fighter with low charisma may always complain or second guess others.

But the new guy really wants to play a wizard. Should no one tell him that this spell is better than other, perhaps not doing so cause the group to die.

Experienced players, like yourselves, thankfully guide other players, like me, along.

An intelligent wizard knows a lot of spells, but a wise one knows what to cast by being a good judge.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Breaking down a door (without directly attacking to with a weapon) certainly is a skill, and other role playing games occasionally make it one. SWAT teams and burglars are both likely to have it. Just call it crowbar proficiency or something

I hate getting sidetracked like this, but you still haven't convinced me that 'door-breaking' or 'crowbar' is something you can be proficient in, in the way that you can be proficient in history, carpentry or the banjo.

It just doesn't chime with my lived experience. See, I work in construction, but in an office-based role. I've never done any work or training with manual tools. But a couple of times, I've picked up a crowbar and helped the labourers disassemble things - and seen that I'm no better or worse at it than they are. If there's a skill to it, it's trivially easy to learn.

On the other hand, I spent the summer of 2011 learning to pick locks. It took me two books and three weeks before I got into a bedside cabinet I'd lost the key to. And that was a cheap old wafer lock! Proficiency with the tools makes a huge difference there, much more than with the crowbar.

[djreynolds]

Breaking down a door is a good idea to go with. First off it requires no skill, because it is an attack. Second the door is a real thing and if forced must be damaged. Whether you kick it, or chop it, the door will need repair.
The use of a crowbar is a simple item anyone can use. But you may not have the strength to use the crowbar. The crowbar is damaging the door as a whole.

Swat Teams practice quick entry breaches with either a shot gun, hand held battering RAM, or even explosives or sledgehammers. Those are damaging the door. The shot gun takes training, the explosives take training, the RAM takes strength to use to attack with. And a maul is a sledge hammer. The door needs replacing after this. You know SWAT was there.

Picking a lock doesn't damage a door, it is skillfully done. You don't know the thief was there.

Breaking a door requires an attack role, ability check and proficiency with said weapons.

Picking a lock is a skill based in the use of specialized tools that requires whatever ability check the DM sees fit. But it is not a skill based on just one ability score. You may need dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom to open a lock or safe and to know and avoid the trap. A disguise kit needs a steady hand to apply and knowledge of anatomy and a "good eye" to know if you look the part of not.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Because breaking stuff doesn't take skill

https://youtu.be/UZOq5aO4B3I

[Ninja_Prawn]

Because breaking stuff doesn't take skill

https://youtu.be/UZOq5aO4B3I

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute).

...hand held battering RAM...

I wonder if I could get some of that installed in my netbook? It's awfully slow at the moment...

[ThermalSlapShot]

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute).
[/COLOR]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

[djreynolds]

I maintain that those are attack rolls and damage rolls (which involve both proficiency and raw attribute).



I wonder if I could get some of that installed in my netbook? It's awfully slow at the moment...

I'm actually touched you read my whole post thank you. And I appreciate well placed sarcasm. Well done.

[djreynolds]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

Correct, but you would need a tool to break open a door. Firefighters make new doors all the time.
There was a show on Discovery where special forces types had to complete challenges and one was breaking a door down quickly. No tools. They were kicking and smashing. Now these guys I would say are martial types. And yes they looked to take a beating doing it. Some of them though trained in using a front kick in fight couldn't put it to use efficiently and size was an asset.
Perhaps a DM would allow in the case of quick breach you could use your athletic skil set to batter down a door but you would take damage as well as the door and perhaps now suffer a movement penalty until healed with long rest or spell.
But I'm not sure if it is a skill. The wizard could always fix it with a fireball.
Now discipline could be a skill learned and trained in. It use to be. Having the fortitude and resolve to break down a door without tools if needed or suffer a forced March might require a skill check such as discipline. Or just add several ability modifers together, negatives and positives. Perhaps breaking down a door requires strength and constitution.
Some problems require many ability scores to solve. Team work. The wizard tells the fighter where to hit the door and the cleric tells him stop before he gets hurt.

Good discussions.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The issue is that they aren't just attacking, if you notice that they don't just punch thebbricks but use specific parts of their hands/arms/whatever to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

Same thing with doors. Just running into a door wont be effective and will probably get yourself hurt. However applying force in the right spot and with the right body part will get better results.

You want to break the object without breaking yourself.

Yes, yes, they're using specific parts of their bodies so they don't hurt themselves. Kind of like how you use specific parts of the sword - when you attack with it - so you don't hurt yourself. That's what the proficiency bonus in the attack roll represents (the 'hurting yourself' part could be represented by a critical miss houserule).

I suppose when you think about it, attacking things is a kind of skill. So in the cases where you're using carefully-controlled force to break a door open, you could justify using the word 'skill' to describe that. I'll accept that. But when I'm DMing D&D, I'll still abstract it into attack rolls (or just narrate the success if there's no time pressure).

Edit:

Perhaps a DM would allow in the case of quick breach you could use your athletic skil set to batter down a door

I'm fine with this approach. Sometimes, Athletics will be relevant. Sometimes it's a pure STR check. Let the DM decide.

The wizard could always fix it with a fireball.

As the radius of the explosion increases, the number of problems it cannot solve approaches zero. [/MANGLED, HALF-REMEMBERED QUOTATION]

Now discipline could be a skill learned and trained in. It use to be. Having the fortitude and resolve to break down a door without tools if needed or suffer a forced March might require a skill check such as discipline. Or just add several ability modifers together, negatives and positives. Perhaps breaking down a door requires strength and constitution.

Yeah, per the books, forced marches trigger CON saves, but if that was going to be a big feature of a campaign, it might be worth adding a Discipline skill, or similar.

Team work. The wizard tells the fighter where to hit the door and the cleric tells him stop before he gets hurt.

Damn clerics, always thinking they know best... I've got like 60 hitpoints! Who cares about a few splinters? *shoulder-charges solid iron portcullis* What do you mean, "stunned for one round"?

[djreynolds]

Yes, yes, they're using specific parts of their bodies so they don't hurt themselves. Kind of like how you use specific parts of the sword - when you attack with it - so you don't hurt yourself. That's what the proficiency bonus in the attack roll represents (the 'hurting yourself' part could be represented by a critical miss houserule).

I suppose when you think about it, attacking things is a kind of skill. So in the cases where you're using carefully-controlled force to break a door open, you could justify using the word 'skill' to describe that. I'll accept that. But when I'm DMing D&D, I'll still abstract it into attack rolls (or just narrate the success if there's no time pressure).

Agreed. I'm not sure if this a good debate point for ability vs skill. As for tactics, it isn't easy to force people to role play stats. But fighters should take history as a skill. These guys are trained by the previous failures and successes of those that came before. Good history check by a fighter might be needed to know if he recalls the battle of so and so where orcs used a particular flanking maneuver. A battle master should want intelligence as an ability and history as a skill.
Perhaps not tactics roll, but a history check. Soldiers are always trained and retrained because the enemy learns his tactics and uses that.
So if your fighter didn't take history as a skill he can't add his proficiency bonus to the check to see if remembers x battle or y battle and what tactic was used.

[Thrudd]

This is very simple. Everything is an ability check. A skill gives you proficiency bonus on specific ability checks. How they arrived at the list of skills is probably based on what sorts of activities will regularly be performed by adventurers. If a player and DM really want to, just make a new skill and decide what scenarios it applies to.

The book would be a thousand pages long if they listed a skill for every possible thing any person might know or be able to do.