I've checked to see if this has been answered and have yet to find, so apologies if you have seen it before.

Question: In a situation where a player wanted to combine two skills (or more) into a single check, how would this be handled mechanically?

Example: Player wants to climb a cliff but, wants to do so silently without being seen by guards below. The two skills would be athletics and stealth. Which would be used? Would you increase the difficulty of the check, upgrade the check, or add a setback die to the check? Would you ask the player to first roll an athletics check and then roll a separate stealth check? If the player had proficiency in both skills could they use a boost die?

I wouldn't get so complicated, it's mechanics for mechanics sake and it is just getting in the way of the narrative. I'd just leave it an opposed check the guards Perception vs. whichever. Trying to be absolutely mechanically correct with every type of action possible gets too fiddley. just ask yourself which aspect is more fun and important to the story and go with that, do you care how well he climbs mostly or how sneaky he is? Whichever lends itself more to the story and just hand-wave the other aspect of it.

Agreed, just pick one and go with it. Or better yet, if I can't decide, I let the player decide. Saves time, and lets them feel like they can bring their best abilities to bear.

A wicked GM would pick the lower of the character's skills... I do not condone wicked GMing though, so forget that you ever read that...

I've designed my own rpg system called 3D (because their are 3 dice in every dice pool) it has some similarities to cortex in that you have a die for each attribute and a die for each skill (larger i.e. d12 vs. d10 is generally better). In my system you could include the dice for two different or even 3 different skills in the same check. I once had a player include the wealth skill on a stealth check... he gave a female NPC, who thought that she had just landed a rich husband because of what they had done the night before, some gold to buy a pretty bauble as "a token of his affection" and when she went to pay the shopkeeper for it, he used the distraction to run out of the store (and back to his ship, which immediately set sale) while she wasn't looking, so yeah if you can think of narrative explanation for why a seemingly unrelated skill would be applicable in this instance then you could include it in the dice pool (but the GM gets to set one or more required skills for the check... e.g. if you are trying to sneak away you have to include the stealth skill)

Definitely just a single skill check to perform this sneaking up a cliff example. The way I would look at this is how hard is the cliff to climb? Then how much more dangerous is it because your trying to stay concealed while doing it? Perhaps it's a Hard check, but with 2 upgrades for the risks involved, throw in some setback for the equipment they are carrying and the fact the guards are particularly alert, even a third for the rain overnight. Then I just let the PC choose the skill they want to use. A PC on the ground below with binoculars and a comlink can definitely provide assistance, even skilled assistance.

perhaps use both rolls but just succeeding isnt enough but he must also produce a excess 2 total success? due to it hard to climb quick/efficiently and also being quiet? idk lol

Pick the most important skill. Roll. If the roll generates enough threat or a despair, make him roll the other one.

Example: Really tough cliff. Trying to be sneaky. Roll Athletics. 2+ Threats or a Despair means you slip, letting some gravel fall below. The guards are alerted. Make a Stealth roll to hide very still within the shadows above until they lose interest.

Example: Cliff is pretty rough and easy to climb. Roll Stealth to be quiet as you easily climb it. 2+ Threats or a Despair means you slip and are hanging on for dear life. Roll Athletics to keep from falling.

One or the other, never both. Usually there are multiple skills that can be used to make a skill check, but some are inherently more difficult then others; Streetwise might be able to get the news on a local level, but ultimately a knowledge check from a person more educated in the field will be easier; thus less purple/inherent upgrades. Any threat or dispair on either may generate false rumours that the character has a reason to believe is true.

I've checked to see if this has been answered and have yet to find, so apologies if you have seen it before.

Question: In a situation where a player wanted to combine two skills (or more) into a single check, how would this be handled mechanically?

Example: Player wants to climb a cliff but, wants to do so silently without being seen by guards below. The two skills would be athletics and stealth. Which would be used? Would you increase the difficulty of the check, upgrade the check, or add a setback die to the check? Would you ask the player to first roll an athletics check and then roll a separate stealth check? If the player had proficiency in both skills could they use a boost die?

The classic for such checks is replacing the attribute and using both skills instead for a single check. Well, or do it slowly and make to checks. You might as well just use the lower of the involved skills for the check to keep using attributes. The later I would allow IF the skills are lower than the attributes involved, the first would be my prefered mode for characters who are really, really good in stealth and athletics.

The beauty of this system is its flexibility in this sort of situations. But I wouldn't change things so that two skills were combined into a single check, too.

Taking the example, climbing a cliffside stealthily, I think I would handle this as two separate checks. First off, have the player make an Athletics skill check to see if the character can climb that cliff anywhere near safely.

The next step would be for me (as the game master) to roll a Perception skill check for the guards. As this becomes an opposed check, the player character's Stealth still comes into play, but this time as the difficulty for the NPC's check. Also, if I feel like it (depending on the rule of cool, and that sort of thing) I would probably also add a setback die to the NPC's skill check, if the guards never had a reason to suspect somebody would be climbing that cliff, or an additional setback die if the character wears clothing that could camouflage him when sticking to the side of that cliff.

This way the player only makes one skill check, and the other skill is still factored into the overall narrative situation.

I'm surprised with how much the overall consensus is not to do two checks. I'm a less experienced GM, so this is fun to read and see what people think.

Isn't there some fun narrative value in making them do the two checks separately? Success on both athletics and stealth? Boom, climbs the cliff and isn't seen. Maybe 5 bonus XP after the session for pulling off some James Bond level stuff. Success on athletics but fails stealth? Makes the climb but is seen, and has to deal with the consequences. Success on stealth but fails athletics? Maybe the PC finds he can't make the climb but doesn't alert the guards. If enough threat is rolled or a despair perhaps they even fall but manage to stay under the radar. I know in my group if someone managed to "stealthily fall" we'd have a good laugh about that.

I can see the logic to just making them do an athletics check and then if enough threat is rolled maybe they cause some rocks to fall or something and then have to do a stealth check.

Combining the two checks into one feels like homebrew to me. There is nothing wrong with that, I just don't think the system is lacking enough in this scenario to need that sort of "fix".

Another reason I like using both checks is it will likely require the character be reasonably good at both athletics and stealth, which makes sense. If I had a PC who was terrible at athletics but great at stealth say they wanted to climb a cliff without being seen, I think the fact they are a terrible climber should come into play, no matter how stealthy they are. The reverse situation should also be true, a great brawny climber who is a subtle as an ox saying they want to "stealthily climb" should be allowed to climb well and still most likely suck at stealth.

Now, if you as the GM want to step in and make this attempt more likely, you are the one controlling the purple dice. Perhaps the stealth check is a single purple, because the guards are facing away from the cliff face, or its foggy, or there is flora growing on the side of the cliff that lends cover.

Inversely, if the PC is stealthy but not a strong climber, perhaps the cliff face is exposed and the guards stand a good chance of seeing the PC, but the cliff is craggy and has lots of good foot and hand holds, making the climb less difficult than a more sheer cliff face.

I still like the idea of both checks being used. It creates more possible outcomes. If it seems harsh to require two checks, make one of the checks easy. Go with whatever you think is best.

Isn't there some fun narrative value in making them do the two checks separately?

That's really the only question. You have to weigh the narrative value vs the cost of failure, because every check you add is a potential bottleneck or extra complication. It's like the opposite of having everyone make Perception checks: the more people making them, the more the whole exercise becomes a waste because statistically somebody will find "it"...you might as well just give "it" to them.

So let's say everybody else is waiting on the Spy to scale the cliff and take out the guard so they can start the assault on the enemy base. Basically the players made a plan with a built-in bottleneck. Narratively you don't want to tie up the entire group waiting for all the little nuances to be resolved. The fewer rolls you ask for, the more smoothly it's likely to go. Failures or threats can still be resolved fairly quickly, but more importantly, everybody else can start participating sooner.

But let's say the entire group is assaulting the base in different ways: the Spy is scaling the cliff and taking out the guard; the Diplomat is at the front gates pretending to be lost; the Slicer is hacking into the power generators to bring the lights down. In that case you can make each moment as detailed as you like, because everybody is busy.

It really comes down to pacing.

Taking the example, climbing a cliffside stealthily, I think I would handle this as two separate checks. First off, have the player make an Athletics skill check to see if the character can climb that cliff anywhere near safely.

The next step would be for me (as the game master) to roll a Perception skill check for the guards. As this becomes an opposed check, the player character's Stealth still comes into play, but this time as the difficulty for the NPC's check. Also, if I feel like it (depending on the rule of cool, and that sort of thing) I would probably also add a setback die to the NPC's skill check, if the guards never had a reason to suspect somebody would be climbing that cliff, or an additional setback die if the character wears clothing that could camouflage him when sticking to the side of that cliff.

This way the player only makes one skill check, and the other skill is still factored into the overall narrative situation.

I think this is a great option.

I agree with the above, but just to add another option, you could crib the two-weapon fighting rules: take the lower skill rank and the lower attribute, and the higher difficulty, increase the difficulty by one if the two skills use the same characteristic, or by two if they use different ones. Bing-Bang-Boom, easy convinced check.

Not my favorite of the options presented here so far, but a quick and easy portion for when your GMing and your players do something unexpected.

The beauty of this system is its flexibility in this sort of situations. But I wouldn't change things so that two skills were combined into a single check, too.

Taking the example, climbing a cliffside stealthily, I think I would handle this as two separate checks. First off, have the player make an Athletics skill check to see if the character can climb that cliff anywhere near safely.

The next step would be for me (as the game master) to roll a Perception skill check for the guards. As this becomes an opposed check, the player character's Stealth still comes into play, but this time as the difficulty for the NPC's check. Also, if I feel like it (depending on the rule of cool, and that sort of thing) I would probably also add a setback die to the NPC's skill check, if the guards never had a reason to suspect somebody would be climbing that cliff, or an additional setback die if the character wears clothing that could camouflage him when sticking to the side of that cliff.

This way the player only makes one skill check, and the other skill is still factored into the overall narrative situation.

Excellent read and awesome suggestions! This is a fun and helpful community. I really did like Xcapobl's idea though as it really does utilize both skills effectively. I'm getting ideas on how to more effectively GM but I'm also a player with a fairly good stealth-like character and I sometimes feel gimped when the GM simply doesn't modify the difficulty of the check to factor in my stealth (if you don't do anything with my stealth skill, I may as not have it...) I put points into that skill for a reason and it's always fun when you succeed on a more difficult check using those skills. And also sometimes humorous when you fail... I would welcome a more difficult check to factor in my characters stealth skill.

I also like Nrin's suggestion about taking note and rewarding the player with some bonus experience for thinking of the idea in the first place.

I'll run some of these ideas by my players and see what they think since the goal is to make the game better and not bog it down with countless checks (remember the old D6 system anyone??). Thanks again for all the suggestions!

I'd probably do it a climb roll with a couple of black dice. Failure means he falls, threat means that he makes noise or drops some rocks or finds a flock of nesting birds that flutter away. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Personally to me it depends. Does the person have climbing gear or otherwise has some means of making this particular climb more trivial than challenging? Honestly, I'd have two checks. 1 for the Athletics, and 1 for the stealth. I don't think it bogs anything down nor does it do anything except add to the narrative, because generally I'd imagine the climb would take some time, and so, why shouldn't it take a couple checks? If the wall they are climbing is tall enough, I'd probably make them do more athletics checks for climbing, especially if it's a plastoid wall or if they don't have any proper gear. I'd forgo the athletics by the time they reach the area that the guards would begin to take notice of, and add setbacks or a potential boost depending on how well they climbed against a Perception of the guard's if the climb or even protocol called for an active awareness or Vigilance if the guards are standing guard, but aren't exactly looking around or even if they haven't been prompted. Considering the intent and the obvious threat here for the guards probably being unaware, threat on the athletics check could definitely call for added noise, which may prompt the guards to search.

I would ask the player for an athletic check but I will put some setback dices or increase the difficulty to account the fact the character will climb with extra difficulty of trying to do it silently,

i would have them climb with an athletics check possibly talking longer or having setback dice and then if there where guards then an opposed perception vs players stealth to see if they are spotted when it would be appropriate. if there are no guards no need to roll. if its important that the guards get a chance to spot the player/players then they get the chance to do so but only if its important to whats happening

Also, in this situation you could also logically call for both rolls. 1) to see if they successfully climb what every they were attempting to climb and 2) to see if they do so unnoticed.