D&D 5e/5.5e Rules – Skills – Abilities, and Mixing and Matching!

Understanding how Abilities connect to Skills is important. Understanding how you can change that connection is priceless.

Know the Rules Part of an ongoing series of 5e (2014) Rules notes. See the end of the post for notes on 5.5e (2024) rules.

5e has a system that interestingly modular, providing for a lot of flexibility, and occasional confusion.

5e has also given terminology a big stir, so sometimes folk (especially those coming from earlier editions, homebrews, or variant systems) get a little mixed up as to what’s being referred to as what. So forgive me if I digress a bit first …

Everything starts with Abilities

Abilities are your five primary statistics (and some people still refer to them as your stats):

STRength, measuring physical power
DEXterity, measuring agility
CONstitution, measuring endurance
INTelligence, measuring reasoning and memory
WISdom, measuring perception and insight
CHArisma, measuring force of personality

Everything you as a character can do stems from or is primarily influenced by these stats. (And, just to start there, I remember back in the good old days when they were a bit more nonsensically ordered STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, and CHA — so D&D has shown a bit of rational evolution there.)

Your level as a Player Character in each of these Abilities is from 3-20, though, depending on how you build them at character creation, it’s rare you’ll start off above 18.

(And, yes, I am also old enough to remember when stats capped at 18 — or, rather, went to 18 plus a fraction. Strange days.)

Based on the level of the Ability, you get an Ability Modifier:

Score	Modifier
1	-5
2-3	-4
4-5	-3
6-7	-2
8-9	-1
10-11	+0
12-13	+1
14-15	+2
16-17	+3
18-19	+4
20-21	+5

In many ways, the actual Ability Score is meaningless; it’s the resulting Modifier that ultimately impacts the game mechanics, as modifying D20 die rolls associated with that Ability. Indeed, many character sheets emphasize the Modifier vs the Score (which begs the issue of why, aside from legacy / nostalgia reasons, we still need the Ability Score itself any more … but that’s a change for the next edition).

You could (and some systems can) run quite neatly with just these Abilities dividing up all your capability into six buckets. But since the golden days of D&D, people have wanted a bit more.

Skills!

Those Abilities are a bit broad for the level of tactical and adventuring crunchiness that D&D players consider the sweet spot. So long ago, lists of skills were developed that people could specialize in through some mechanic, influenced primarily by the Ability they are associated with.

So, for example, Sleight of Hand is a very different skill than, say, Acrobatics. Both are clearly associated with the Dexterity (“measuring agility”), but you can easily think of someone who would be mediocre at one but dazzling in the other.

The normal 5e Skill list is alphabetical, but you can also break it out by the Abilities they traditionally align with:

Strength

Athletics

Dexterity

Acrobatics
Sleight of Hand
Stealth

Intelligence

Arcana
History
Investigation
Nature
Religion

Wisdom

Animal Handling
Insight
Medicine
Perception
Survival

Charisma

Deception
Intimidation
Performance
Persuasion

(There are no Skills based on CONstitution.)

The modifier on the D20 roll for any given skill starts with the modifier for the Ability it’s associated with. You can also have special Proficiency in a given skill (usually from your Class, or from a Feat, or even from a Race), which means you add your Proficiency Bonus in.

So with the character in question, when they make an Acrobatics roll, they roll a D20, add in their DEXterity Ability Modify (+1), and then (because it’s checked off as a Proficiency), their Proficiency Bonus (+2) — 1d20+3.

Mixing and Matching Abilities and Skills

You will almost never see a Skill written in official material like this:

Athletics

Instead, it will be written as

Strength (Athletics)

But why? Doesn’t Athletics imply Strength?

Not necessarily.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. You are actually always rolling these checks on an Ability — this is a STRength check, this is a CONstitution check, this is an INTelligence check, etc. The Skills listed are only to help you narrow down which Ability you are rolling (“Oh, I’m trying Sleight of Hand, so this is going to be a DEX-based roll) or to indicate a specific proficiency in the technical aspects of what is essentially a Sub-ability, a Skill.

swimming — What is the pertinent Ability here?

But sometimes that technical training and experience of a Skill can be applied to different Ability at its base. Let’s say you have been thrown overboard from a ship by pirates, and you need to swim to an island you can barely see in the distance.

Okay, well, clearly, Athletics is going to be the technical Skill set. But what the Ability is is what actually matters. This isn’t a race across the pool where STRength is the deciding factor. This is going to be all about endurance … so you’re going to be using CONstitution as the active Ability.

So, yes, you will be rolling Constitution (Athletics).

To use the character sheet bits above, you’ll make a roll of 1d20 + 3 (CON modifier) + 2 (Proficiency Bonus for Athletics), for a 1d20 + 5.

(Yes, yes, the character in question has the same STRength and CONstitution, which means the die roll is the same in this one particular case, but I hope you see the point.)

So, yeah, sure, STRength normally powers Athletics, and WISdom makes sense with Perception … but it doesn’t have to be that way. The rules treat those as the default. If you can make a cogent argument for it to the DM, you can use any ability to power a skill, such that the skill roll becomes:

1d20 + (the chosen Ability modifier) + (your Skill Proficiency Bonus)

(If you are not using a VTT like Roll20, you’ll have to calculate this manually, but it’s pretty easy.)

This is both good story-tellilng — using the appropriate Ability for a given test — but it’s also something the the Players can use to their advantage (leaning into their stronger Abilities) or the DM can use to mix things up a bit.

Tear phone book in half — Using Strength for Intimidation

As another example, from the PHB, you usually use CHArisma as the basis for your Intimidation rolls — bringing your force of personality to play in beating down their resistance. But if you’re some savagely-strong looking barbarian, maybe you just show your target how you can snap them in half as easily as this thick log waiting to go into the fireplace, with a Strength (Intimidation) roll.

Your intent here is still to intimidate, but rather through word and body language (CHArisma), you’re using force of sinew (STRength). But Intimidation as a skill has its own goals and techniques; if you have proficiency in them, you should be able to use them different ways.

Indeed, I can easily imagine other types of intimidation —

Intelligence (Intimidation): showing off your vast knowledge to cow a sage
Constitution (Intimidation): demonstrating how nonchalant you are standing in a bed of coals to make your torturers quail
Dexterity (Intimidation): plucking flies out of the air to daunt some fellow thieves

Yes, you could argue in that last case what you are really doing is Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) — but it’s not, because your purpose in the scene is not actually to catch flies, but to completely unnerve the person you are engaged with, to break their will and intent: thus Intimidation.

This Reddit thread has some other fun examples. If you’ve got a high CONstitution, you could argue for using it with a variety of non-CON-associated Skills:

Constitution (Deception): You jump into near-freezing water, but want to convince the others to Come on in, it’s fine, no, no, not cold at all, do you see me shivering?
Constitution (Sleight of Hand): You have the duke’s large signet ring hidden in your mouth, but the guards are checking everyone. Can you swallow it without anyone noticing?
Constitution (Animal Handling): Wrangling … that damned … cat … who is very liberal … with use of … teeth and claws …

Not all combinations are easy to think of examples for (Strength (History) … maybe something about how you were the only person back at the monastery strong enough to get Abbot Shang’s Book of Exceedingly Great Dimensions down from the shelf to study from it). But figuring out a way to lean a higher Ability into a Skill roll can give you a real boost … if you can talk the DM into it.

So does 5.5e change any of this?

The new 5.5e (2024) release includes some changes, but they are mostly cosmetic.

Unlike 5e, the default 5.5e character sheet [PHB 34] now lists skills under the abilities they are usually associated with. I think that’s a nice improvement.

In combat, the skills associated with some of the abilities get their own named Action types:

Search – for usually WISdom-based skills
Study – for usually INTelligence-based skills
Influence – for usually CHArisma-based skills (plus WISdom (Animal Handling).)

Mixing and matching Abilities and Skills is still included in the rules, in a sidebar on PHB 14.

Each skill proficiency is associated with an ability check. For example, the Intimidation skill is associated with Charisma. In some situations, the DM might allow you to apply your skill proficiency to a different ability check. For example, if a character tries to intimidate someone through a show of physical strength, the DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check rather than a Charisma (Intimidation) check. That character would make a Strength check and add their Proficiency Bonus if they have Intimidation proficiency.

One thing that strikes me is that, in a lot of areas, 5.5e has pivoted from rolling against Ability (Skill) to just rolling Ability checks, while at the same time really focusing on Proficiency as what reflects greater skills (this was mechanically true in 5e, as well, but not quite as prominently).

It’s also moved from a lot of contests (a character and opponent both roll their skill, the one with the highest final number wins) to checks of Skills and Abilities against a fixed DC. If that seems weird, though, consider that that is exactly what normal combat is (rolling a check of your weapon skill against a fixed AC, rather than a contest where the defending character gets to roll to dodge or deflect the blow).

D&D 5e Rules – Skills – Retrying!

If at first you don’t succeed … can you try, try again?

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Rolling skills to get something done can be a tense moment. The whole campaign might depend on how well you can sneak, or spot someone sneaking, or open that lock, or disarm that trap.

And, since a D20 provides a linear distribution of results, it’s quite possible to fail that roll.

Then what?

How to Succeed at Skill Rolls while Trying A Whole Bunch

So, what is a Skill (Ability) Check? Well, per PHB 174:

To make an Ability Check, roll a d20 and add the relevant Ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the GM..

What happens when you fail a Skill / Ability roll? Can you try again? How many times?

Can you try, try again?

Interestingly enough, there’s no easy answer there. I’ve read DMs assert that they only let a single roll happen; if you fail, that shows it’s just not doable (by you, at least). I’ve read others say you can only retry if the circumstances or your approach explicitly changes.

(I’ve also seen guidance that rolls should only be asked for if the results of failure are significant or interesting. So there’s that, too.)

To my mind, a lot depends on what it is you are trying to do (duh). As much as D&D tries to make all skills identical in their structure and use, they really aren’t. Some skills, in their application or in the circumstances at hand, lend themselves more or less to retries.

“I search the room.” Okay, you blew your Perception roll. Can you search it again, search it harder, search it in a way you didn’t before? Sure. Tell me what you’re doing differently.
“I try to convince the guard to let us pass.” Okay, you blew your Persuasion roll. Can you try again? Well, certainly not the same way or with the same line of argument. I mean, if she didn’t believe the Captain sent you when you said it once, she’s not going to believe it a second time.
“I try to remember my History to see if I know of the dread Egnarts.” If you fail, chances are you’re not going to succeed in “remembering” again, without explaining a very different approach.

In some cases, letting an attempt be retried is just fine. In other cases, retrying at a Disadvantage seems to make sense (“Oh, did I say the Captain? I meant the Duke, my uncle …”).

What does “failure” mean?

We tend to think of “failure” as “What I asked for didn’t happen.”

The lock didn’t pop open.
The guard wasn’t convinced.
The mule refuses to move.

But look at that definition of an Ability Check again, particularly on the “failure” part:

Otherwise, it’s a failure which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective …

Okay, that’s what we usually think of failure like.

… or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

Which is very modern “failing forward” game design for something like D&D, and, frankly, is something I never thought of for this system — and it’s something that makes sense, esp. if (a) the DM wants to move things along, and/or (b) you just barely missed your roll.

You hear a couple of tumblers in the lock move, but it doesn’t open; your next attempt will be at Advantage … but that will take more time.
You got the lock open … and the door opens wide, to reveal the room full of guards.
You got the lock open, but broke your favorite lockpick, putting you at Disadvantage in picking locks until you can get it replaced.
The guard grudgingly lets you pass, but sends a runner to check with the Captain, just in case.
The mule moves, but quite intentionally steps on your foot in doing so.

Those are all legitimate things for me as the DM to do (or you as the player to suggest).

Can’t I just “Take 10” or “Take 20”?

So those are D&D 3.5e rules, but 5.0 kinda-sorta has them. Kinda-sorta.

Taking 10 in 3.5e usually just meant “Act like I rolled a 10” so as to avoid the chance of a low roll (when a high roll wouldn’t really be needed).

This is mathematically the equivalent of using a Passive Skill in 5e. Which seems a little weird (“I’m searching the room … passively”).

Taking 20 was the interesting one in 3.5e:

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

5e doesn’t have this … precisely. But on DMG 237, “Multiple Ability Checks,” there’s a “Take 20”-like mechanism:

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.

So in cases where failure doesn’t incur a penalty (except burning time), you can spend ten times the normal amount of time (ask your DM for a SWAG) and just assume a success if the task is possible (which I read to mean, if rolling a 20 on the skill would allow it to succeed). This is a bit looser and more cinematic than 3.5’s rule, but there you go.

It does mean that, if the party is willing to take the time, the DM can dispense with Perception rolls in each room and just say, “After about an hour, you find the hidden compartment under the book case. And, no, that doesn’t count as a Short Rest.”

Is that a good thing? That’s up to you to decide.

Is there any change or clarification in 5.5e?

A bit. The intent is still there, it’s just made a little looser.

On DMG 28, “Trying Again”

Sometimes a character fails an Ability check and wants to try again. In many cases, failing an Ability check makes it impossible to attempt the same thing again. For some tasks, however, the only consequence of failure is the time it takes to attempt the task again. For example, failing a Dexterity check to pick a lock on a treasure chest doesn’t mean the character can’t try again, but each attempt might take a minute.

If failure has no consequences and a character can try and try again, you can skip the Ability check and just tell the player how long the task takes. Alternatively, you can call for a single Ability check and use the result to determine how long it takes for the character to complete the task.

The language is similar; the biggest difference (besides leaning on how it might not work) is that in 5e you could just assume “ten times the normal amount of time” would succeed, and in 5.5e, the DM gets to make the duration up.