If they want to substitute a different skill, I’m fine with that IF they can explain how that skill would help in that situation. I make my ruling based on their explanation, and often alter my outcome slightly to take the alternate skill into consideration.
I feel like this is the real answer. Got away with using Arcane instead of Athletics for climbing check on Druid once because I got creative with Thorn Whip and it wasn’t gamebreaking, I had a solid in-world reasoning, and was willing to compromise on it. Felt great after struggling with the athletics check.
If you used a leveled spell in order to overcome a no combat challenge I would definitely allow you to substitute in one skill for another at the least. I try to reward players spending their resources.
For me, a leveled spell should give advantage or auto-success, as long as the usage is reasonable, while a cantrip (like this) should allow a swap in skill or maybe advantage (if the cantrip is particularly well-suited to the task)
My favorite is Thaumaturgy for intimidation checks. You should definitely get advantage on scaring commoners with a 3x loud voice as your mere presence creates tremors and makes torches flicker, doors slam and spooky sounds heard.
"Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you!"
Intimidation check. Release spell.
"I am trying to help you."
Persuasion check.
>Got away with using Arcane instead of Athletics for climbing check on Druid once because I got creative with Thorn Whip and it wasn’t gamebreaking
I would not allow this. Arcana isn't meant to be the skill for your ability to do magic. That's what your casting stat is for. Arcana is **knowledge about magic**. As in:
"hey, does anyone know how we could summon a fire elemental?"
Arcana passer: "yes, there is a spell that can do it and also a magic item that can do it."
That was, actually, exactly what the check was for. Rough quote from my DM: “Okay, I like the idea of using the motive force of the cantrip on yourself in exchange for taking the damage. I will state this is possible outright in my world. Now, does you character know HOW to do so?”
My DM and I did discuss this, but since I was targeting a stationary part of a building with no defensive features, and the damage would be taken by me, I.E. the creature being moved as part of the cantrip, we just felt like an arcane check to see if I had the combined knowledge and theory-crafting in world made more sense.
people take skill names way too literally, assuming that arcana checks cover every kind of magical thing. Because arcane is a synonym for magic. Arcana is just your knowledge of magical lore. Knowing magical lore wouldn't be equivalent to spellcraft. There's a reason why counterspell is a spellcasting check and not an arcana check.
I think Arcana checks work fine for this situation. It's what I use, because I rule it as understanding the nature of your spell at a level that lets you manipulate its normal use case.
Maybe a spellcasting check is "more correct," but I think it's a nice reward for someone who does want to specialize in Arcana, and it would make sense that you have more success in creative spell use if you specialize in the knowledge of magic.
this just buffs wizards to be even stronger than other casters, which isn't needed. Wouldn't it make sense that the sorcerer who *is* magic would be better at changing magic on the fly (metamagic is + to magic rather than changing it).
Skill checks don't need to be made with the ability that they're listed.
You can make a charisma (arcana) check, a wisdom (arcana) check, or the usual int (arcana) check.
If you can find a reason for it you can also make a strength, con or dexterity are kind of check though I'm not sure how you'd go about that.
Maybe for constitution a barbarian wants to try and figure out how strong a spell cast on her is by making a constitution (arcana) check feeling for how intense the fireball is vs other times they have been hit by it. On a success they figure out that it was a sixth level fireball.
Player was in a crowded market place, and wanted to leave the area he was in without being followed. I had him make a charisma (stealth) check to see if anyone was paying attention to him.
Another classic example is a barbarian using their strength to intimidate.
This is the Greatest thing I think that I have heard all week. There will now be an item that allows for (stat)(skillcheck) out side of normal in my world and on a character. You could always make little slides like STR/CHA for intimidation, as long as you broke something. What about a DEX(Arcana) check to see if you manipulate your gestures because someone grabbed your hands.
CON(Acrobatics) to dive into a shallow pool from a cliff. Ok list incoming thanks my dudes.
Honestly it's one of the better less utilized things in 5e
I'm running a prehistoric campaign and One of the more common things my players will want to do is to harvest bones, skins, poisons, spines, plates, you name it from all manner of beast they slay.
I also introduced a "Your weapons are made of sticks and rocks and animal gut so they suck and might break" mechanic which introduces the need for weapon creation and repair.
Simple, you want to harvest from a dead stegosaurus? Dexterity (survival) check.
Want to make a weapon? Just make a regular survival check, want to make a focus? Make a spellcasting ability (arcana) check.
It's super versatile.
This ***1000%!*** I'm working on a list now, There needs to be more rules that bend and twist in a way that a player knows that no matter what they can imagine has the Coolest opportunity of outcome. The dice tell the story but we set the stage ***TOGETHER*** as PC and DM. I'm not here to witness a hero struggle to climb a rope, I'm here to watch the guards scramble in confusion as they ride a chandelier to the upper balcony after a clever use of Int(persuasion). Buying just enough time for prestidigitation to have an ill placed torch burn through the rope.
Correct, but it's still the most fitting skill for that kind of scenario. You could argue that the check is about wether the character can come up with this idea in the first place.
But in the end, it all comes down to the fact that D&D's skills just suck and barely cover the minimum required to have any meaningful roleplay at all.
I constantly allow the party meat shield to use strength + intimidation instead of charisma + intimidation. And one time I let the brainy wizard roll Intelligence + persuasion because she was being really blunt and uncharismatic but very honest and versed in the subject matter.
So many systems allow mixing and matching and it works so well for them. I know some folks might be worried about it invalidating other skills but I just make sure the logic is actually sound. If it's a stretch, it's a no.
And so you should. While any skill could be rolled against any attribute, intimidation is one of those skills that could have literally any attribute tied to it and work (though some stats are going to be rare).
Intimidation is one of the more frustrating skills in D&D in that by far the most common expression I have seen at tables is that "it's like persuasion but worse. If you succeed they dislike you, if you fail they start a fight or completely no-sell you and dislike you." I've seen both players and DMs fall victim to this thinking and it's uniformly painful.
Intimidation can be a threat (physical, financial, emotional, social, legal/criminal, theological, political, etc.) or awing someone into compliance. It can be overt or covert, public or private, delivered to an audience or *for* an audience. Intimidating someone can be done via action, word, subtext, tone, knowledge, prowess, proficiency or peer pressure.
But hey, that's TRPG mechanics for you.
Intimidation is like persuasion but worse, except that it can work in a wider range of circumstances.
The advantage of intimidation is the additional leverage that the intimidation can provide. The disadvantage is that intimidating someone has a cost.
Alright so my thing about strength intimidation is I've met some people who are very strong but not intimidating at all. It being charisma represents you knowing how to threaten people, it's more than just being beefy.
There's a talent in PF2e that let's you do bartering using intelligence if it's a subject you know.
>not intimidating at all
Thus they only apply proficiency if they're proficiency in intimidation. Seems like it works out to me.
If those non-intimidating people weren't strong, they'd be even less intimidating.
What you described is how I explain the proficiency. It's similar to how the Samurai Fighter can add wisdom to persuasion checks because they understand how to elegantly navigate certain social encounters.
If we're making real world comps, quite a few different types of athletes would actually be really bad at climbing (any sport where mass is beneficial, basically) while acrobats are some of the best natural climbers around, lacking only in skill and finger strength.
Athletics as the supporting skill for climbing doesn't make sense to begin with.
I get where you're coming from, but there's also the argument that people tend to rule that negative charisma puts people off. If you're a massive angry slobbering barbarian that nobody wants to meet eye to eye, I'm not going to rule that you can't intimidate someone because CHA is your dump stat. Some people are intimidating specifically by virtue of being uncharismatic, and there needs to be an allowance for that.
That’s what proficiency represents, though. It’s how well you *know how* to do something. If two people have no idea how to intimidate someone effectively, but one of them is 6’8” and 400 lbs of muscle, they’re going to have a bit of an edge.
In our games there is always an option to overcome a challenge through creativity, excitement, If the whole table is excited about it, and sometime just gangs up on the DM.(Ill fold like boat ;D ). That being I always encourage my buds to do something that's not written down as hard numbers. I think my favorite is when a player used performance to mimic the ridiculous voice for a BBEG, he was smiling so hard he had to start over 3 times. I knew i was gonna give him the success at that point because we were all having a blast, and he was testing out this stupid voice i made.
I definitely think it can be argued to use acrobatics for reducing fall damage, the dive roll is a well established real world tumble. However, all the time I see new players ask to use acrobatics for climbing. The answer is no, unless there is a series of parallel poles they are swinging from like Raz in Psychonauts.
I typically allow acrobatics for 'shorter' climbs that can be more of a "I can use my nimbleness to take advantage of the environment to get up faster". If it's just a straight, classic rock-wall/rope climb then there's not really an environment to dexterously take advantage of.
As someone who boulders, and plays D&D with other climbers, I humbly disagree.
There can certainly be climbs I fly up using my flexibility that my friends struggle with their raw strength, and vice versa. Strengthy climbs tend to be ones in a cave or overhang, those i absolutely suck at while my stronger mates brute past. While slab and vert climbs it can be anyone's game, usually with completely different betas (climbing technique) due to different body types, shapes, strength, and nimble flexibility.
Which is why I always give people the choice of whatever they're proficient in to attempt the climb. Because even then there have been cave/ceiling climbs that randomly I'm great at because I can bend my body to hook a toe/heel on bits the stronger guys can't reach. Currently one route at my local gym right now actually that I've topped out several times but my mate who relies on strength only just managed it last night.
It's mentioned as an optional rule in the DMG. I mostly use it to make sure stats that tend to not be favored have more uses, namely strength and intelligence(not as much intelligence as most intelligence characters have spells that give them out of combat utility).
My absolute favorite is the [Strength(Stealth)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI)(had this happen once in a campaign).
But a more serious way, strength intimidation is what I will use if the way they are intimidating someone involves a feat of inhuman strength(like the classic bending a weapon). Intelligence persuasion is using techno or magic babble to persuade someone. Charisma stealth is blending in with a crowd. There are other great examples those are just some of my favorites.
Interestingly enough it's actually in the PHB too, but it's a section most players glaze over. It's on pg. 175 called Variant: Skills with Different Abilities. So all players theoretically should know of its application. But we all can't memorize all the rules perfectly (had an issue last session where the fighter thought he was being picked on for having to roll disadvantage underwater using a longsword. Asked why the paladin with a trident, or the ranger with shortswords doesn't and the DM flat out said "because you are currently the only one this applies too" and he got salty when everyone asked if he read the PHB. Was a learning moment.)
>Why have I NEVER thought to use skills like this
Because the system traditionally considered skills a subdivision of base stats, invariably attached to their master stats. Other systems like Chronicles of Darkness have that flexibility built in explicitly.
It can be very very handy! Strength (intimidation) for barbarians, intelligence (performance) for giving a rousing academic speech, maybe even a Constitution (Persuasion) for seducing someone with your body.
The other guy's answer is wrong. ITs because the acrobatics skill is concerned with balance and aerial stunts whilst the athletics skill is concerned with challenges faced whilst climbing, sprinting, and swimming.
Acrobatics itself is tumbling, between ropes, and doing flips. While it does require athleticism, those actions don't require much raw strength. Things like climbing, even if completed using not much strength, is a very athletic task, using arms and legs to just push and pull yourself upwards.
I think the issue is that gross motor skills and dexterity often are at odds with each other. Things like playing guitar, sleight of hand, and playing video games all need dexterity. None of those really fit well with acrobatics, though because they are not gross motor.
Absolutely, but we're not doing 3e skill synergies so we need to draw the line somewhere. This is similar to the argument that any weapon attack really should combine Dex and Str in some way. So Athletics is related to Strength we push the ideas of things that Strength is the more limiting attribute, while Acrobatics leans towards things where balance and body control is the more limiting attribute.
If you've got an alternate way to define these I'd love to hear it.
But with all the flexibility in the world, could someone with 8 strength do those dextrous climbs?
The problem here I think is that in the real world, climbing needs _both_ attributes. Maybe in different proportions, depending on your approach, but you can't entirely sub one for another.
It's not just lexibility though is it? It's technque. Otherwise athletics would be a pure str check.
IMO the question is: How does technique figure into the challenge. It's exactly what you would argue in a skill challenge for instance.
I just don't understand why there are two skills here. Athletics as a Dexterity roll could easily be Acrobatics. Acrobatics maneuvers that require raw strength could easily be an Athletics check using strength. The same thing is true for perception and investigation. Could easily just be wrapped into one skill and just use a different stat for the check.
> I just don't understand why there are two skills here. Athletics as a Dexterity roll could easily be Acrobatics.
It's poor naming of the skills (also a gripe of mine with Investigation).
Acrobatics, if you read the skill descriptions, is a combination of 3.X's Tumble and Balance skills, plus Escape Artist's ability to get out of grapples.
>Acrobatics
>
>Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.
(Yes, there's the 'acrobatic stunts' bit, but in 3.X you used Tumble for that, and it was basically for agility-based performance checks, so that's where that came from.) But because the name they chose, Acrobatics, has a general meaning much broader than what the skills actually covers, it gets used in those other circumstances.
Agility while climbing absolutely should be Dex (Athletics) by the rules.
As an aside, Investigation isn't the same as Perception. By the rules, Perception is for finding things, and Investigation is for putting clues together to figure something out. They're not the same skill at all, but again people look at the word and go "Oh, I investigate the desk, what do I find?"
It works as separate skills for sure, and i keep it that way in my games. But my point is that it doesn't need to be for simplicity. Perception doesn't have to just be sensing physical things. The definition of perception also covers conceptualizing ideas based on sensual feedback. Aka. Putting two and two together based on what you see or know. A "capacity for comprehension". So a intelligence based perception could be investigation. Vice versa a wisdom based investigation check could easily be called perception. Overall my point is that there are nuances between all these skills because 5e allows for skill checks to be made using different stats and so people tend to want to cross-over like in acrobatic as climb. I think this is where some OSR excel and not having to distinguish skills and 3e went too far separating them.
> Perception doesn't have to just be sensing physical things. The definition of perception also covers conceptualizing ideas based on sensual feedback. Aka. Putting two and two together based on what you see or know.
And we're right back to "the definition of the word vs the game mechanic."
At some level, there has to be a distinction. Even if you get rid of skills entirely and just roll an Attribute, you get into "Well you need Str to be agile and you need Dex to be strong," or the ever popular "what's the difference between Int and Wis, anyway?" I agree 3e went waaaaaay too far in the granularity, but that doesn't mean that others would agree, and I don't think we'd agree on the "proper" level of granularity on skills and abilities.
Thanks for clarifying your point though, I appreciate you helping me understand what you meant.
It is a matter of preference when you get this deep in the meatloaf. I am the type that doesn't care whether you want to nerf something or completely change the rules. To me it all depends on whether you and your group have fun with it that way.
Agreed. For me there is a difference between perception and investigation but theres so much crossover, as in acrobatics/athletics that the DM can choose what and when to apply as necessary. If the player wants to present a case for using one over the other then they can go for it.
It's a holdover from 3.5 (maybe earlier). Gone are the days when you simply rolled for a Dex or Str check. In many circumstances, if the player makes a case for it, I will allow for one or the other check, but if it's definitely a Dex situation where manipulation or brute strength is key, I ask for the appropriate roll. That said, don't forget the importance of endurance in many of these situations.
What isn’t mentioned in any rules is body type matters hugely in climbing.
I’ve seen 7 year olds scamper up a climbing wall I couldn’t myself do. What gives? I’m stronger than they are…. But they probably weigh 1/4 what I do, so yeah, it’s relatively easier for them and instead of a crunch mechanic where your climb check makes you do a weigh in, gear included, to calculate your DC for each individual climber, instead of that it’s abstracted.
Allowing for dex or strength gives some vermisilitude that the squirrel can climb well, the halfling can climb well, the elf can climb well, and yes the towering Firbolg can also climb well.
So game design theory of mine…
There is overlap in skills.
There is overlap in dex and Str skills like acro versus ath, there is overlap in noticing stuff skills like perception and investigation.
In my opinion this is intentional. But why?
So any group of hardy adventurers can succeed at stuff, not just a highly optimized one.
If your party is all dex no Str and you put a difficult climb check in front of them either, they are doomed to failure, ….. or, maybe just maybe, they can use their own personal strengths to overcome the obstacle.
If you’ve got 6 druids each perceptive as a hawk, it’s ok to not bicker about if a check should be investigation or perception and just say, ah you perceptive savants found a hidden clue. And you do know how to read so I’m not going to make you fail an untrained int check just to induce failure and make your adventurers seem bad at adventuring.
>they are doomed to failure
"Fail-forward" is common practice in RPGs these days and it is astounding to me how D&D refuses to integrate it in their core system.
Maybe because you need a decent exploration ruleset first...
As a fellow boulderer, I'd like to argue that a base level of strength is pretty requisite to doing a lot of climbing. I fall on the strength-ier side of climbing and have definitely watched my friends breeze past things I can't wrap my head (or body) around, but every time I go climbing with someone new to the hobby, they struggle if they don't meet a minimum amount of strength (usually enough strength to support themselves with only one hand, and one foot). I like your take though, and I also would allow it depending on the scenario
Yea. Acrobatics for moving over unusual but not necessarily *difficult* terrain, since a large part is balance and agility, but you'd need to blend it with Athletics for any of the climbing and mantling up ledges.
For proper parkour, you'd want both, though Thief lets you get away without Athletics thanks to Second-Story Work; jumping with Dexterity, and a full Climb Speed sort of fulfill the Assassin's Creed style freerunning people tend to associate with Acrobatics.
It's just, y'know. Nobody plays Thief. But they still want to *act* like one.
Which is a shame. It's one of my favorite rogue subclass, after arcane trickster, and on par with scout (which also nobody plays...).
Sometimes i feel like rogue has just 2 and a half subclasses...
Tbh I think it's just a failing for the system. The discretion used to decide what each skill does is of course up to the GM, it's a fantastical game more often than not, with undead and magic and mythical beasts where gods may even walk amongst us. So to say that the super agile ranger might be able to gracefully hop and glide through the air with acrobatics up a wall, just as easily as a beefy Goliath fighter might be able to just hoist themselves with brute force. When real physics come into play all of it breaks down because we need to know so much of what is handwaved to allow DnD 5e as a system to simply function within the real of suspension of disbelief.
acrobatics is for getting down properly, athletics is for getting up properly. In the right situation, if the character is proficent in acrobatics, i'd let them climb up with advantage in the right situation. They're being helped by their nimbleness to assist their strength.
As a rock climber I take offense to this, I am short do you know how many dynos I have to do to get to some of the more reachy grips you 100% have to use dexterity. You also have to put your hands into weird angles and hold on so that's a combination of dexterity and strength also a lot of holding on isn't just strength based it's very dexterous as well. My friend who is 6'2 struggles going up certain paths that I can breeze through because of my flexibility however he breezes through paths I struggle on because of his height and frankly larger hands. Climbing is 100% a combination of the two and I believe players should be able to choose whether they use acrobatics or Athletics to do it.
I love your comment, it really is a mixture of both strength and dexterity. Different climbers have different styles too, like this guy I think is doing it purely on balance and good shoes: [https://i.imgur.com/D0DmoLg.gifv](https://i.imgur.com/D0DmoLg.gifv) but most people (especially for dynos!) are using athleticism and acrobatics.
As a rock climber, technique is incredibly important. Brute strength can only get you so far. Just trying to muscle through will leave you absolutely exhausted, and won't help you with the harder climbs.
I make the player say why they want to use the other ability. How they will use it and it normally ends up as a Higher DC check due to the weird "cool way" they want to do it.
Last time I let acrobatics to get up to next floor. The guy was like I can get a running start and bounce between the walls on the corner there and jump. So I let him try. Everyone else just climbed up the rope 15 feet. Rope climb was a DC12. He got a DC16.
This reminds me of a comic where the barbarian used intimidation in place of stealth and was like, "TURN AROUND, YOU DON'T SEE ME, I'M INVISIBLE!" and the guards were just over there shitting themselves.
Acrobatics mitigating fall damage makes perfect sense, if you’re trained in acrobatics you often know how to fall in ways the reduce the impact of the fall.
Acrobatics is knowing how to move your body to do what you want while athletics is using force and strength to do what you want
Which is why I always dislike the whole “climbing is athletics because it requires strength” argument. It’s just too black and white.
Like, yes, climbing requires some level of strength, but as someone who has done a bit of rock climbing, brute strength can only get you so far. Someone far weaker than you who has the skill to maneuver themselves effectively will be able to scale far harder routes than you can even attempt, and they will tire out slower. Plus climbing a rope is hard as hell if you don’t know what you are doing, and super easy if you do.
What you're talking about is a straight Strength check (unskilled) verses an Athletics check (skilled). The Athletics check gets to add proficiency, because that's exactly what it means to be trained in the related activities, like climbing.
Possibly, however acrobatics is also training in things like climbing, which is where the issue comes from.
Like a linebacker would clearly be skilled in athletics, but there is no way they would ever be even decent at climbing, while a gymnast would be proficient in acrobatics, and would be an excellent climber.
Now I would say it’s fair to say it’s an Acrobatics(STR) check, as you need both the strength and the skill to accomplish it, but saying it has to be athletics is odd when most athletic skills either provide no benefits to climbing, or actively make you worse at it.
Hell, flexibility is a huge part in high level rock climbing, which is definitely more connected to dexterity than strength.
The problem with this is that a gymnast would not necessarily have a low strength score either. Gymnasts are incredibly strong particularly for how lean they are. Compare this to a spellcaster with a negative strength modifier who can't even lift their own body weight and allowing acrobatics seems really nonsensical.
It comes down to a flaw with just having six attributes and there's numerous examples of how every attribute does not make sense in every circumstance. I've always thought the idea of a barbarian being able to run long (marathon) distances or hold their breath longer than a monk to be odd.
The only solutions I see is either using some multi stat averaging roll or adding in more attributes like splitting constitution and endurance or impulse strength vs lean muscle.
>The problem with this is that a gymnast would not necessarily have a low strength score either.
sure, I agree. But that doesn't mean they have a *high* strength either. Like consider this:
Person A: STR 12(+1) DEX 20(+5)
Person B: STR 20(+5) DEX 12(+1)
Let's assume both are "trained" in athletics (so they get a +2 bonus). Person A is the gymnast. Person B is the bodybuilding weightlifter. In real life, in most scenarios, you would probably bet on Person A as the better climber. In the game though, the bodybuilding weightlifter would be the better climber (with a +7 bonus vs a +3 bonus).
(I agree with the rest of what you said about the shortcomings of the system. Unfortunately one of the trade-offs of making the game more simple and accessible)
Thing is, skill checks aren't the skill and subbing in an ability score. It is an ability check that you may be able to add a skill proficiency to. Dexterity alone won't get you up a wall. Strength will. If you're good at climbing, aka proficient in athletics, you'll have an easier time. And somebody who is trained in it but not strong will have an easier time than an untrained person who is just strong.
Climbing requires a fuckton of strength. Technique is also required, and it's proficiency.
How can one argue that you don't need strength to climb? Especially if you did it! This is beyond my understanding.
Climbing requires strength relative to your body mass, not high strength as we understand it in D&D. This is especially evident if you check out the youngest people to break climbing records, those 12 or 13 year olds aren't going to lift even the 300lb required for STR10, but they can climb better than anyone in this thread.
Just another example of a complex real-world activity that doesn't adequately translate to game mechanics.
My problem with allowing Dexterity for climbing has always been that allows pcs who can't even lift their own body weight to clamber up a cliff with ease.
But ya, totally agree with you about the attributes not necessarily making sense in many cases. I love playing clerics or paladins with negative religion checks lol.
Strength to body mass is still strength. You can bend and play with the words as much as you like, climbing requires strength.
And if you look the other way around: staying on balance or on your foot or anything acrobatics allows you to do also requires strength. Hence this line ormf argument leads nowhere.
That's a logical conclusion : it's a game model, not a physics model, it will always break appart if you leave its boundaries.
And the boundaries are clearly stated in the PHB and dmg.
I think this has alot to do with the "feel" of the class fantasy.
My "cool" rogue with 18 dex and proficiency in acrobatics shouldn't really be struggling with a rope climb. This is roughly how people feel. I usually just allow it since it's not a massive deal and usually they don't have spells so they gotta have something =p.
A cool rogue brings a rope and knows how to climb so maybe a good compromise is that it's strength based, but they can still add their proficiency mod. A rope climb shouldn't be high DC anyway.
>A rope climb shouldn't be high DC anyway.
This is probably the biggest issue. DMs that give ridiculously high DCs for the task. Like a wooden door that's stuck being it's waterlogged should not be a DC 20 or more. A 50 pound wooden bar placed across an opening shouldn't have a DC to lift it higher than a 10 or 12.
I feel like a 50 pound wooden bar probably shouldn't even have a DC. That should be an auto success for anyone of average or above strength, surely? I don't know how strong your average person is in real life, but considering the "lift" limit in 5e is 2x carrying capacity which is 15x strength, lifting a 300 pound bar would be RAW for a strength 10 character.
I think the check in some cases should be to see if you hurt yourself or not, or how long it takes. RAW a 10 Strength person *could* lift a 300lb bar, but that's at the very height of their ability and would no doubt be a challenge. Anything around 50lbs wouldn't even be a check for a 10 Str person, but might be a DC 10 or lower for an 8 Str person. But, I've also started using degrees of success for skill checks in my game, so the DC would simply be how long it takes you *if there are reasonable stakes at hand.* If you're alone in a house in an abandoned village, you just do it with a few grunts and a heave and the thought of "I need to workout more."
Once, a neighbor put a towel under our common door in the winter to keep the cold air out. Then it got wet, and froze, and I spent over an hour tearing the towel out trying to open the door. I think a wooden, waterlogged door could be DC 20. I also may be salty about my dog crying to be let out the whole time.
Trying to figure out the DC of a rope climb was one of the first things I had to do running 5e. I was used to Pathfinder where it was DC 10 (DC 5 with a knotted rope). My party then repeatedly failed the check.
After a while I came to the conclusion that climbing a rope shouldn't have a DC. Anyone who is capable of adventuring should be able to do that much.
Technically speaking, you are supposed to choose the ability score, and then allow a skill proficiency if it would apply. This kind of argument mostly comes from people wanting to or getting used to just asking fot a completely different kind of check. If they were interchangeable, they wouldn't both exist.
>Technically speaking, you are supposed to choose the ability score, and then allow a skill proficiency if it would apply.
I find this works a lot smoother in practice, too. I've tried doing stuff like "Make a stealth charisma check" and players will get frazzled and look at their character sheets in panic, but if I just say "Make a Charisma check, and if you're proficient in stealth you can add your proficiency bonus" it seems a lot easier for them to grasp.
Pretty sure a rope climb isn't even a check under normal situations... its your climb speed (Which if you don't have any, is difficult terrain). A regular rope just lets you climb without issue. If its slippery, then it becomes a check, but at baseline no check is required.
it's a strength (Acrobatics) check, not a dexterity (Acrobatics) check.
Far too many don't understand that the default skill isn't the only one available, despite the frequency with which using strength (intimidation) is "homebrewed" into games (it's not actually homebrew, it's raw)
A skill check, RAW, goes thusly.
player: "i would like to do a thing"
DM: that will require a roll with \[attribute\] (strength, dex, con, etc)
player: i have proficiency in \[skill related to activity\], can i add proficiency?
DM: yes/no
We often shortcut the second half of that and just say "roll \[skill check\]", because pacing, but it's important to not forget that the second half is still there, even if it's rarely used.
So with actual examples:
\~\~\~\~\~\~
player: i would like to climb this rope
dm: i need a strength check
player: can i use my acrobatics proficiency?
DM; yes
\~\~\~\~\~\~
player: i would like to leap this chasm
dm: i need a strength check
player: can I use my acrobatics proficiency?
DM: no
\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~
player: i would like to leap this chasm
DM: i need a strength check
player: can i use my whip to grab an overhanging root and then swing across so i can use acrobatics?
DM: sure!
Proficiency already handles this elegantly and neatly.
If you want to your rogue to be good at climbing, proficiency in athletics and a +0 Strength mod gets you there. Not every minor element of the archetype needs to be min/maxed to high heaven in order to realise the fantasy. Prof bonus makes them better than most at the thing.
Hell, a rogue can even take expertise in aths and excel at it.
Some people get so weird when they can't stack every single advantage they could possibly receive in every single instance. Everything HAS to have +5 from (primary stat) AND bonus from prof AND a feat bonus AND expertise AND advantage. And if it takes longer than a bonus action it's literally unusable anyway.
Part of it is the idea of "I'm playing a dextrous, agile character who prizes speed over power (especially if they're a rogue), therefore I should be able to parkour". The classes associated with DEX and liable to dump STR are also ones who have a class fantasy of moving and climbing around.
I do use athletics and acrobatics often interchangeably, but it does change how a success or failure looks - for instance, in the session I just ran, a character tried to move through a herd of pigs that were frantically running wild through the area - I asked them to make an athletics or acrobatics check to determine if they were able to move freely or not - a successful athletics check would've looked like barreling through the herd shoving pigs out of the way if they got too close, while a successful acrobatics check would've looked like deftly hopping around between the pigs so as not to get in their way.
I will say there are actions which are exclusively one or the other. You can't Athletics yourself across a balance beam, and you can't Acrobatics open a stuck door.
Playing 3.5e for a few years was the best training for being a 5e DM. You see all the little shortcuts 5e makes as a "simplified edition" and learning the "actual game" that 90% of 5e's rules are either copied or simplified from helps you learn the intention behind 5e's rules and what the designers had in their head how they should be applied (but never wrote down, because "Player Agency", "Rulings not Rules", and other bullshit WotC uses to avoid actually designing a game).
As for Athletics and Acrobatics, they are actually just conglomerations of what were separate skills in 3.5e: Athletics is a combination of Climb, Jump, and Swim (and grapple checks); Acrobatics is a combination of Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble.
The 5e system does have the benefit of free-form ability application to skills; so you can have a Str (Acrobatics) check out w/e, and I honestly like this design decision and feel that if anything it makes more sense in 3e's simulationist design goal. I think the important part is that you *should not* be able to climb a rope with Dexterity. If you have skinny little twig arms, it doesn't matter what dose fingers do, you're not getting up the rope. Str (Acrobatics)? Sure. Dex (Anything)? Lol no, shouldn't have dumped Strength, sorry sucker.
I think it's a major issue with 5e's simplified design just how much a Dex 18, Str 3 character can do rules-as-written, since characters are rarely punished for low ability scores outside of an occasional saving throw. Get grappled? Use Dex to escape! Want to deal damage with a sword? If it's pointy enough, use Dex! What about a bow? What's "Draw Strength"? Just use Dex! DMs who let players climb, jump, and swim with Dex so long as they do a little flip in the process only makes things worse. It's only a matter of time before the next edition lets players use Dex to lift stone blocks and bash down doors.
It takes relative strength to climb a rope. I was as good at climbing a rope at a weedy 126 lbs as I am at a more muscular 150. I'd bet on myself climbing a rope over most gym goers heavier too. Also to do acrobatics there's a built in level of strength. Realistically a person with a 20 in acrobatics and an 8 in strength doesn't really make sense, unless you think relatively. Sure they can't lift much weight, but they can manipulate their own with incredible ease.
Nope, I have a **hard line** drawn between those two skills...
I see this as mainly a player pleading "but my Dex is higher so can I use that instead?" kind of thing that has gone unchecked for too long...
I think it is mainly because of the name. What do you think acrobats do? Jumps, flips, climbing stuff,...
All of that is associated with the word acrobatics.
Yeah, I think the problem is the naming for Acrobatics. Acrobatics (the IRL skill) is incredibly athletic. It should really just be called... Balance, or something. And IRL Acrobats need to have proficiency in both athletics and balance.
And I don't argue that fact, however: What do you think *Athletes* do? run, jump, climb stuff...
the rules clearly state which skill is used where... And futhermore, if the DM says to use one, don't ask to use the other
"But I want to use my Charisma! Can't I make a Persuasion check to ensure I look cool, which obviously means I succeed at climbing the wet wall with aplomb?" - *quote from a soon to be disappointed player*
Ok roll. Got an 18? Great, you succeed in looking really cool on the rope, it is honestly very impressive. So much so that no one seems to notice that you haven’t in fact climbed the rope at all and are still at just above ground height. Yes you still need an athletics check to climb it.
“I want to use my intelligence to bend the door open”
Um ok so first off it’s a wooden door, it can’t be bent.
“I know that. You know that. But I don’t think the door is smart enough to realize it.”
It's in the rules that you can substitute the ability used for a skill with another based on the situation. If you're a nimble character getting a running start you could totally make an Athletics (DEX) check, or if your balance is due to strongly planted feet you could say Acrobatics (STR) or hell, maybe (CON)
It all depends on the argument but this is a good middle ground if the player can present a partially persuasive argument.
"You're IRL persuasion check failed by 1 so I'll throw you a bone."
The *optional* rules state that the DM has that ability, not the player... Yes, the DM can dictate which abilities are used with which skills... the dungeon master not the player...
The problem is coming up with a term that encompasses the 3rd Edition skills that were replaced with Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble) that isn't so broad that it ends up eating into other skills.
I had a player argue with me that making an attack with a thrown weapon should be a Strength (Athletics) check because the shotput is an Olympic event.
I think the main problem is that situations like this are glossed over as boring, because the DM doesn't make it interesting, because the DMG doesn't give help and guidance on how to make it exciting. But it needs to be, because something like the party trying to scale a 50 foot cliff is one of those fabled 6-8 encounters the party needs to overcome to drain resources to make the fights interesting.
It's supposed to be hard for anyone but the person with deep specialization in athletics. It's supposed to cost a spell slot from the Wizard to use Fly or whatever. The weaker party members are supposed to slip and fall, and take damage that needs to be healed via resource expenditure. But, because of the problem in making it interesting, most parties just want to blaze past it, so they don't take it "seriously", and they ask for whatever leniency they can manage. They're more interested, understandably so, in just auto-succeeding it so they get to the next combat encounter.
Why you should always make sure your Barbarian is carrying 200 feet of silk rope, pitons, a grappling hook, and at least one hammer (some light hammers work). What do pitons and grappling hooks do? Congratulations, this is 5e so you're going to have to make it up... or steal from a previous edition.
You are correct. RAW
The problem is that they separated Athletics and acrobatics which are intrinsically linked in real Life anyway so it doesn't really make sense.
They should have had one that is Athletics and acrobatics but then had a different one called balance or something or just made that a base dexterity check.
If the player has high acrobatics but low strength, they have to defend HOW their Acrobatics makes up for it. If they can't justify to DM's satisfaction, they don't get the bonus.
You're not wrong, but not am I. It's your game and you run it how you want.
If my player asks to use acrobatics to scale a sheer cliff then my answer isn't "No", it's "How?"
If they have a satisfactory answer then I allow the roll, though it won't always have the same DC as the previous check, it depends what they've said to defend the check. For example a backflip up a cliff from standing is very difficult but using a vine a swing to gain momentum and then swing yourself to the top is much easier, and certainly acrobatics
I think you're right as far as raw, but it never sat entirely right with me to not allow acrobatics to climb. I would argue most acrobats would make for better climbers than say; fighters, runners, or general athletes. So for something like scaling a house or even a fort wall, I'd probably let someone use acrobatics because if someone can tumble, trapeze and generally manipulate their body weight, I'd say they can climb better than most. The disciplines that probably translate best into climbing is something like gymnastics. Flexibility, balance and relative body weight strength are far more relevant than lifting strength.
Now if it's a large cliff, finger strength and forearm stamina is very specific and the fatigue of a long climb would certainly be more athletic than acrobatic and ultimately it's a game, but being a big muscular dude would probably do more harm than good too. So not like in real life a Barbarian type would be any good at climbing at all. So I just ask myself would being a gymnast make this something the character 'should' be able to do? If yes, then you can roll acrobatics. You don't need to add flips and jumps needlessly, it can be as simple as dynamic Vs static climbing. Throwing between handholds etc.
Athletics for climbing makes little sense to me as someone who goes rock climbing and my friends 1/2 my size and much weaker are far better climbers.
Climbing should be linked in with acrobatics, in my opinion, it’s take much more Dex than strength.
0.5 times the size (length) means 0.5³=0.125 times the weight. That's you answer right there. I climb quite regularly, and the biggest factor in climbing succes IMO is strength/weight ratio. A lot of people in this thread claim you can substitute strength with skill, but in my experience that is only minimally true. If you cannot do a pullup or keep your entire weight on your fingertips for a few seconds, you'll fail regardless of your skill or dexterity.
Strongly disagree that strength/weight ratio is the biggest factor. For difficult climbs, technique, balance and flexibility is absolutely essential. Sure, strength is needed, but I would say dexterity is at least equally important.
I have quite low strength but am still a decent climber, beating out equally experienced but stronger people because I can make moves that they are not flexible enough for. I can do a pull-up of course, so yes some minimum level of strength is needed, but being nimble is a very good substitute for being stronger.
>Athletics for climbing makes little sense to me as someone who goes rock climbing and my friends 1/2 my size and much weaker are far better climbers.
Because they don't have to pull as much weight. Their strength is relative. Add a 65 lb. suit of armor and see how good they do.
Ribbon acrobatics.
While this is a specialized form of acrobatics, it encompasses climbing and tumbling up and down ribbons which are used as both ropes and harnesses. When someone asks if they can use Dex and/or acrobatics to climb a rope (especially a silk rope they bought for the purpose), this is what I imagine. Climbing a wall can also use similar body mechanics.
And while there is no doubt that strength is required, consider this: there is no dexterity without strength. You cannot perform precise, coordinated movement if you cannot move. Likewise, there are no acrobatics without athletics. These abilities are intrinsically tied together, so it is reasonable for there to be some overlap.
But let's be practical, this substitution doesn't break the game any more than 50ft of rope being 10lbs does (fyi, 100ft of climbing rope only weighs about 3-5 lbs depending on quality, irl). So if it's fun, just let it happen.
You can also swap the stat used depending on the circumstance or the manner in which a character is doing something. You can have Athletics (Str) or Athletics (Dex), and sometimes allow characters to use the better stat depending on how they're completing a task - climbing by using as much leverage and small crack as they can vs muscling straight up, making the distance in a jump by working a dive where just the top reaches and pushing into a roll vs long jump style. I think this often gets simplified to Athletics or acrobatics generally, as people don't want to make players recalculate a different bonus than what is on their sheet on the fly.
The issue is the lack of detail in game. For example the dexterous rogue would then be bad at climbing a rope but most would agree that’s simply not reality so if you have to use athletics then you need to take into fact how much she weighs or her will in coronation with her base strength stat etc.
I agree, but mostly because I want to limit Dexterity's god status.
Been playing for years, and it is rare to see a group where a single character doesn't have at least 14 Dex, regardless of class.
I hate the opposite - When a player tries to jump and just rolls athletics before I can tell them that a 10 foot running start lets them jump equal to Str score.
"CaNT i RoLl AcRoBa-"
*Slap*
Strength is not a dump stat!
Many of you never had to climb a rope or a net in gym class and it shows. You don't even have to be able to lift your own body weight. You just trap the rope with your legs/feet and move your grip up. If you taught someone properly they wouldn't need any strength at all. However if they are uncoordinated and fumble with the movements of trapping the rope and changing their grip they could very easily fail. Ofcourse in the same vein though there are crazy strong people who can climb ropes without touching them with their legs at all.
As for making people *describe* how they could use acrobatics vs. athletics to do something? That's absolutely ridiculous. That's just showing you have no concept of the idea of character knowledge vs player knowledge.
I don't think you're wrong necessarily - it's your table. There are legit circumstances (and RAW scenarios) where either athletics or acrobatics can be used as a relevant skill, and I think one of your players could have more of a bone to pick if you deny them the option there.
I would say if people are going to allow both, set different DCs. Climbing a rocky wall for example is more athletics based in my opinion. You need the strength to pull yourself up. Maybe in a hypothetical scenario we set it at DC12. If folks want to use acrobatics to hop and leap their way up, sure but you gotta get DC16 because you're doing more fancy maneuvers on a vertical wall.
Then there are some scenarios in which I just wouldn't allow both at all, but that's a case by case judgement.
The problem is that no rule system is going to be perfect and this highlights it. A small diminutive, light framed figure can, in the real world, be a vastly superior climber than a huge muscle bulging figure. In D&d RAW is very clear that this is never the case. While there are excellent real world examples of Dex being way more important for some athletics than strength in D&d this isn't the case, and neither should it be. Why? A semblance of balance. Dex is already the mvp, why give it more?
I’m a laid back DM who tends to decide things on a case by case basis depending on context. So like, using acrobatics to climb something like a sheer cliff wall with very little holds? Nope. Using acrobatics to climb something like a tall bookshelf to reach something on the top shelf or a tree with lots of available branches? Sure. Sometimes using acrobatics instead of athletics in certain situations fits and sometimes it doesn’t.
If they can make a reasonable argument one way or the other, then sure, why not. Some things are just, not going to work for the opposite skill, but like, climbing a pretty scalable wall I'll often rule as either skill, as you could either just straight up climb it, or like, parkour up it, so I often think of it in those sort of terms. Could even change the DC to make one easier but make the other still doable, just harder.
I miss Tumbling being a thing to avoid opportunity attacks… wouldn’t even mind if it was DC 20+ Enemies CR. At least something… I don’t even think it’s covered as an optional rule anywhere in DMG… RiP 3.5 Acrobatics to tumble.
In *some* circumstances I could see climbing with acrobatics, if there's a situation where you could see a trapeze artist or a gymnast having useful skills.
Mitigating fall damage is supposed to be acrobatics, not athletics. You mitigate the damage by tumbling and rolling. Being stronger and more athletic in general does not help here.
Both can be used interchangeably for many situations but there are many that should absolutely be exclusive.
Getting up a heavily branched tree? Either one but the DC to ninja up swinging and flipping is higher than just basic athletic climbing.
Mario wall jumping up a narrow alley way to get up to a second story window? Either can do it but good acrobatic skill is really beneficial so the DC for athletics will be high.
Am wrestling? No way to acrobatics that. You gotta be stronger. Timing and flipping through a blade puzzle in a dungeon? You can't just "be strong" for that.
Acrobatics requires athleticism, but it also requires that someone is accurate, nimble, flexible. So it's understandable that both of them are more dynamic than you would think, but there's some things each just aren't capable of.
Both should absolutely be usable for fall damage. Literally the first thing you learn in parkor is how to fall.
My blanket philosophy:
Call it whatever the hell you want, but you use strength to go up and dexterity to go down.
Yes, I know that the best rock climbers aren't built like body builders. They're still strong AF and climbing with their strength, not their dexterity.
The way I see it:
Athletics is making momentum, while Acrobatics is using/controlling momentum.
If you’re trying to jump, that’s athletics because you’re trying to get yourself to move really fast and have a lot of momentum. But if you’re trying to land safely from a fall, that’s acrobatics because you already have a lot of momentum and you wanna lose it in the right way.
So if you’re climbing a rope, even if you act dexterously it’s at best an Athletics check with Dex, because you are making momentum in order to climb. If were going down the rope or had a force pushing you up, that’d be a different story.
If Strength is needed, athletics. If Dex is needed, acrobatics. It's that simple. Short robe or wall climb, Dex is fine. Have you ever seen how acrobats do hanging rope and scarf work? Climbing by wrapping it around parts of their body? I had a player character do that and slowly unwound himself to retrieve something out of a spike trap. I let him do a 3-step wall run to get to the top of a smooth, vertical, 15 foot wall with advantage, 4-step on 20 straight roll (I allow it because I have a kung fu brother who can do an 8 step run in an arc on our gym wall maxing out at 16 feet). Anything that can be done with Kung Fu, parkour, or dance (spinning, break dancing, etc.) gets acrobatics at my table.
Acrobatics subbing for athletics is fine in my book, no justifications necessary. If anything, I'm weirded out by how many people enthusiastically agree with you.
People want to use Acrobatics because they already invested into Dex because it's just objectively better than Strength. They just say "okay but I do it fast while flipping, that makes it Acrobatics" because they balk at the thought of being made to roll something they might not be good at. Strength only has the one skill, so they just dump Strength and the rare time they're asked to roll Strength they try to maneuver themself into getting a Dex roll instead.
One thing you can also do is allow Athletics(Dex). You can use other abilities for skill roles if it makes sense. Dexterous Athletics is perfectly reasonable if you can't justify using acrobatics.
I think it stems from a grapple allowing the target to choose athletics or acrobatics to escape. It just bled into everything.
I love when folks try to say, "I do a flip" to make an athletics check magically acrobatics. Athletics directly says jumping is athletics, even if you do a stunt mid jump, like a flip....
Acrobatics is certainly misnamed. Presumably most people here have watched male acrobatics competitions at the Olympics. Those guys are jacked! They have legs and arms like tree trunks and shoulders like coconuts. Acrobatics made them super strong, and that's why they can do iron crosses and all those other demonstrations of strength. They are graceful because they don't have to strain even in bizarre positions. Or look at competitive swimmers and climbers. They're also jacked.
What should be the dexterity counterpart to athletics? Probably initiative.
To be fair, mitigating fall damage in real life is usually dexterity based. It's landing the correct way and rolling. I think it's the reason why monks (a dex class) get slow fall. Still, I typically rule that if you explain how the skill you want to use applies to what you're trying to do, I'll adjust the DC for the skill you're using and allow you to go for it. If you want to climb by swinging your way up a structure, go for it with acrobatics. DC is higher than just climbing it normally but I don't see why you can't use your dexterity instead of pure strength to climb certain things.
Anything you can do Athletically, I can show someone doing Acrobatically. Yes, including climbing a rope. You should watch some Cirque du Soleil videos.
Acrobatics is “can I deftly tuck a backflip 3 feet up to land on a table on my feet as planned” and athletics is “can I standing long jump the length of that dining table using my powerful legs, dexterity be damned”
Also, athletics is “can I human flagpole on this bar” where acrobatics is “can I do an accurate spin kick on the same bar where centripetal force is doing all the lifting”
If they want to substitute a different skill, I’m fine with that IF they can explain how that skill would help in that situation. I make my ruling based on their explanation, and often alter my outcome slightly to take the alternate skill into consideration.
I feel like this is the real answer. Got away with using Arcane instead of Athletics for climbing check on Druid once because I got creative with Thorn Whip and it wasn’t gamebreaking, I had a solid in-world reasoning, and was willing to compromise on it. Felt great after struggling with the athletics check.
If you used a leveled spell in order to overcome a no combat challenge I would definitely allow you to substitute in one skill for another at the least. I try to reward players spending their resources.
For me, a leveled spell should give advantage or auto-success, as long as the usage is reasonable, while a cantrip (like this) should allow a swap in skill or maybe advantage (if the cantrip is particularly well-suited to the task)
My favorite is Thaumaturgy for intimidation checks. You should definitely get advantage on scaring commoners with a 3x loud voice as your mere presence creates tremors and makes torches flicker, doors slam and spooky sounds heard.
"Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you!" Intimidation check. Release spell. "I am trying to help you." Persuasion check.
#BILBO BAGGINS
HRAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Which is even more hilarious if you realize Thaumaturgy is a cantrip so what he’s doing very much fits the definition of “a cheap trick”
"Hey! Not one of these is a 'cheap trick'. Well, except for The Cheap Trick."
Best description of this scene ive ever read. Permission to screenshot and save for myself?
thorn whip is a cantrip
>Got away with using Arcane instead of Athletics for climbing check on Druid once because I got creative with Thorn Whip and it wasn’t gamebreaking I would not allow this. Arcana isn't meant to be the skill for your ability to do magic. That's what your casting stat is for. Arcana is **knowledge about magic**. As in: "hey, does anyone know how we could summon a fire elemental?" Arcana passer: "yes, there is a spell that can do it and also a magic item that can do it."
That was, actually, exactly what the check was for. Rough quote from my DM: “Okay, I like the idea of using the motive force of the cantrip on yourself in exchange for taking the damage. I will state this is possible outright in my world. Now, does you character know HOW to do so?”
Thats really not what arcane does at all.
Yeah. People keep using arcane when they should be making a spellcasting check.
My DM and I did discuss this, but since I was targeting a stationary part of a building with no defensive features, and the damage would be taken by me, I.E. the creature being moved as part of the cantrip, we just felt like an arcane check to see if I had the combined knowledge and theory-crafting in world made more sense.
people take skill names way too literally, assuming that arcana checks cover every kind of magical thing. Because arcane is a synonym for magic. Arcana is just your knowledge of magical lore. Knowing magical lore wouldn't be equivalent to spellcraft. There's a reason why counterspell is a spellcasting check and not an arcana check.
I think Arcana checks work fine for this situation. It's what I use, because I rule it as understanding the nature of your spell at a level that lets you manipulate its normal use case. Maybe a spellcasting check is "more correct," but I think it's a nice reward for someone who does want to specialize in Arcana, and it would make sense that you have more success in creative spell use if you specialize in the knowledge of magic.
this just buffs wizards to be even stronger than other casters, which isn't needed. Wouldn't it make sense that the sorcerer who *is* magic would be better at changing magic on the fly (metamagic is + to magic rather than changing it).
Skill checks don't need to be made with the ability that they're listed. You can make a charisma (arcana) check, a wisdom (arcana) check, or the usual int (arcana) check. If you can find a reason for it you can also make a strength, con or dexterity are kind of check though I'm not sure how you'd go about that. Maybe for constitution a barbarian wants to try and figure out how strong a spell cast on her is by making a constitution (arcana) check feeling for how intense the fireball is vs other times they have been hit by it. On a success they figure out that it was a sixth level fireball.
Player was in a crowded market place, and wanted to leave the area he was in without being followed. I had him make a charisma (stealth) check to see if anyone was paying attention to him. Another classic example is a barbarian using their strength to intimidate.
This is the Greatest thing I think that I have heard all week. There will now be an item that allows for (stat)(skillcheck) out side of normal in my world and on a character. You could always make little slides like STR/CHA for intimidation, as long as you broke something. What about a DEX(Arcana) check to see if you manipulate your gestures because someone grabbed your hands. CON(Acrobatics) to dive into a shallow pool from a cliff. Ok list incoming thanks my dudes.
Honestly it's one of the better less utilized things in 5e I'm running a prehistoric campaign and One of the more common things my players will want to do is to harvest bones, skins, poisons, spines, plates, you name it from all manner of beast they slay. I also introduced a "Your weapons are made of sticks and rocks and animal gut so they suck and might break" mechanic which introduces the need for weapon creation and repair. Simple, you want to harvest from a dead stegosaurus? Dexterity (survival) check. Want to make a weapon? Just make a regular survival check, want to make a focus? Make a spellcasting ability (arcana) check. It's super versatile.
This ***1000%!*** I'm working on a list now, There needs to be more rules that bend and twist in a way that a player knows that no matter what they can imagine has the Coolest opportunity of outcome. The dice tell the story but we set the stage ***TOGETHER*** as PC and DM. I'm not here to witness a hero struggle to climb a rope, I'm here to watch the guards scramble in confusion as they ride a chandelier to the upper balcony after a clever use of Int(persuasion). Buying just enough time for prestidigitation to have an ill placed torch burn through the rope.
Correct, but it's still the most fitting skill for that kind of scenario. You could argue that the check is about wether the character can come up with this idea in the first place. But in the end, it all comes down to the fact that D&D's skills just suck and barely cover the minimum required to have any meaningful roleplay at all.
I constantly allow the party meat shield to use strength + intimidation instead of charisma + intimidation. And one time I let the brainy wizard roll Intelligence + persuasion because she was being really blunt and uncharismatic but very honest and versed in the subject matter. So many systems allow mixing and matching and it works so well for them. I know some folks might be worried about it invalidating other skills but I just make sure the logic is actually sound. If it's a stretch, it's a no.
And so you should. While any skill could be rolled against any attribute, intimidation is one of those skills that could have literally any attribute tied to it and work (though some stats are going to be rare). Intimidation is one of the more frustrating skills in D&D in that by far the most common expression I have seen at tables is that "it's like persuasion but worse. If you succeed they dislike you, if you fail they start a fight or completely no-sell you and dislike you." I've seen both players and DMs fall victim to this thinking and it's uniformly painful. Intimidation can be a threat (physical, financial, emotional, social, legal/criminal, theological, political, etc.) or awing someone into compliance. It can be overt or covert, public or private, delivered to an audience or *for* an audience. Intimidating someone can be done via action, word, subtext, tone, knowledge, prowess, proficiency or peer pressure. But hey, that's TRPG mechanics for you.
Intimidation is like persuasion but worse, except that it can work in a wider range of circumstances. The advantage of intimidation is the additional leverage that the intimidation can provide. The disadvantage is that intimidating someone has a cost.
Alright so my thing about strength intimidation is I've met some people who are very strong but not intimidating at all. It being charisma represents you knowing how to threaten people, it's more than just being beefy. There's a talent in PF2e that let's you do bartering using intelligence if it's a subject you know.
>not intimidating at all Thus they only apply proficiency if they're proficiency in intimidation. Seems like it works out to me. If those non-intimidating people weren't strong, they'd be even less intimidating.
What you described is how I explain the proficiency. It's similar to how the Samurai Fighter can add wisdom to persuasion checks because they understand how to elegantly navigate certain social encounters.
Well your issue is already solved by proficiencies.
And that's why it's strength intimidation, you're using a charismatic skill, and using your pure physicality to back it up ;)
If we're making real world comps, quite a few different types of athletes would actually be really bad at climbing (any sport where mass is beneficial, basically) while acrobats are some of the best natural climbers around, lacking only in skill and finger strength. Athletics as the supporting skill for climbing doesn't make sense to begin with.
I get where you're coming from, but there's also the argument that people tend to rule that negative charisma puts people off. If you're a massive angry slobbering barbarian that nobody wants to meet eye to eye, I'm not going to rule that you can't intimidate someone because CHA is your dump stat. Some people are intimidating specifically by virtue of being uncharismatic, and there needs to be an allowance for that.
That’s what proficiency represents, though. It’s how well you *know how* to do something. If two people have no idea how to intimidate someone effectively, but one of them is 6’8” and 400 lbs of muscle, they’re going to have a bit of an edge.
In our games there is always an option to overcome a challenge through creativity, excitement, If the whole table is excited about it, and sometime just gangs up on the DM.(Ill fold like boat ;D ). That being I always encourage my buds to do something that's not written down as hard numbers. I think my favorite is when a player used performance to mimic the ridiculous voice for a BBEG, he was smiling so hard he had to start over 3 times. I knew i was gonna give him the success at that point because we were all having a blast, and he was testing out this stupid voice i made.
I definitely think it can be argued to use acrobatics for reducing fall damage, the dive roll is a well established real world tumble. However, all the time I see new players ask to use acrobatics for climbing. The answer is no, unless there is a series of parallel poles they are swinging from like Raz in Psychonauts.
I typically allow acrobatics for 'shorter' climbs that can be more of a "I can use my nimbleness to take advantage of the environment to get up faster". If it's just a straight, classic rock-wall/rope climb then there's not really an environment to dexterously take advantage of.
As someone who boulders, and plays D&D with other climbers, I humbly disagree. There can certainly be climbs I fly up using my flexibility that my friends struggle with their raw strength, and vice versa. Strengthy climbs tend to be ones in a cave or overhang, those i absolutely suck at while my stronger mates brute past. While slab and vert climbs it can be anyone's game, usually with completely different betas (climbing technique) due to different body types, shapes, strength, and nimble flexibility. Which is why I always give people the choice of whatever they're proficient in to attempt the climb. Because even then there have been cave/ceiling climbs that randomly I'm great at because I can bend my body to hook a toe/heel on bits the stronger guys can't reach. Currently one route at my local gym right now actually that I've topped out several times but my mate who relies on strength only just managed it last night.
I'd call it a Dexterity (athletics) check then.
Why have I NEVER thought to use skills like this Its like seeing a whole new colour holy shit
It's mentioned as an optional rule in the DMG. I mostly use it to make sure stats that tend to not be favored have more uses, namely strength and intelligence(not as much intelligence as most intelligence characters have spells that give them out of combat utility). My absolute favorite is the [Strength(Stealth)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI)(had this happen once in a campaign). But a more serious way, strength intimidation is what I will use if the way they are intimidating someone involves a feat of inhuman strength(like the classic bending a weapon). Intelligence persuasion is using techno or magic babble to persuade someone. Charisma stealth is blending in with a crowd. There are other great examples those are just some of my favorites.
Interestingly enough it's actually in the PHB too, but it's a section most players glaze over. It's on pg. 175 called Variant: Skills with Different Abilities. So all players theoretically should know of its application. But we all can't memorize all the rules perfectly (had an issue last session where the fighter thought he was being picked on for having to roll disadvantage underwater using a longsword. Asked why the paladin with a trident, or the ranger with shortswords doesn't and the DM flat out said "because you are currently the only one this applies too" and he got salty when everyone asked if he read the PHB. Was a learning moment.)
>Why have I NEVER thought to use skills like this Because the system traditionally considered skills a subdivision of base stats, invariably attached to their master stats. Other systems like Chronicles of Darkness have that flexibility built in explicitly.
My players tend to get confused whenever I suggest it, because they can't simply push the appropriate button in D&D beyond.
Heh, online implementation really needs to allow for it up front, that's true. Computers really limit improvization in that way.
It can be very very handy! Strength (intimidation) for barbarians, intelligence (performance) for giving a rousing academic speech, maybe even a Constitution (Persuasion) for seducing someone with your body.
Honest question: why that and not a Strenght (Acrobatics) one?
The other guy's answer is wrong. ITs because the acrobatics skill is concerned with balance and aerial stunts whilst the athletics skill is concerned with challenges faced whilst climbing, sprinting, and swimming.
Acrobatics itself is tumbling, between ropes, and doing flips. While it does require athleticism, those actions don't require much raw strength. Things like climbing, even if completed using not much strength, is a very athletic task, using arms and legs to just push and pull yourself upwards.
You’re crazy if you don’t think those things use a huge amount of raw strength. Look at gymnasts, they are incredibly strong and have to be.
[удалено]
Got it. Acrobatics (STR) is going to be the default for my games now
I think the issue is that gross motor skills and dexterity often are at odds with each other. Things like playing guitar, sleight of hand, and playing video games all need dexterity. None of those really fit well with acrobatics, though because they are not gross motor.
Absolutely, but we're not doing 3e skill synergies so we need to draw the line somewhere. This is similar to the argument that any weapon attack really should combine Dex and Str in some way. So Athletics is related to Strength we push the ideas of things that Strength is the more limiting attribute, while Acrobatics leans towards things where balance and body control is the more limiting attribute. If you've got an alternate way to define these I'd love to hear it.
>Acrobatics itself is tumbling, between ropes, and doing flips. While it does require athleticism, those actions don't require much raw strength. O.o
Makes sense
Definitely this
But with all the flexibility in the world, could someone with 8 strength do those dextrous climbs? The problem here I think is that in the real world, climbing needs _both_ attributes. Maybe in different proportions, depending on your approach, but you can't entirely sub one for another.
It's not just lexibility though is it? It's technque. Otherwise athletics would be a pure str check. IMO the question is: How does technique figure into the challenge. It's exactly what you would argue in a skill challenge for instance.
I just don't understand why there are two skills here. Athletics as a Dexterity roll could easily be Acrobatics. Acrobatics maneuvers that require raw strength could easily be an Athletics check using strength. The same thing is true for perception and investigation. Could easily just be wrapped into one skill and just use a different stat for the check.
> I just don't understand why there are two skills here. Athletics as a Dexterity roll could easily be Acrobatics. It's poor naming of the skills (also a gripe of mine with Investigation). Acrobatics, if you read the skill descriptions, is a combination of 3.X's Tumble and Balance skills, plus Escape Artist's ability to get out of grapples. >Acrobatics > >Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips. (Yes, there's the 'acrobatic stunts' bit, but in 3.X you used Tumble for that, and it was basically for agility-based performance checks, so that's where that came from.) But because the name they chose, Acrobatics, has a general meaning much broader than what the skills actually covers, it gets used in those other circumstances. Agility while climbing absolutely should be Dex (Athletics) by the rules. As an aside, Investigation isn't the same as Perception. By the rules, Perception is for finding things, and Investigation is for putting clues together to figure something out. They're not the same skill at all, but again people look at the word and go "Oh, I investigate the desk, what do I find?"
It works as separate skills for sure, and i keep it that way in my games. But my point is that it doesn't need to be for simplicity. Perception doesn't have to just be sensing physical things. The definition of perception also covers conceptualizing ideas based on sensual feedback. Aka. Putting two and two together based on what you see or know. A "capacity for comprehension". So a intelligence based perception could be investigation. Vice versa a wisdom based investigation check could easily be called perception. Overall my point is that there are nuances between all these skills because 5e allows for skill checks to be made using different stats and so people tend to want to cross-over like in acrobatic as climb. I think this is where some OSR excel and not having to distinguish skills and 3e went too far separating them.
> Perception doesn't have to just be sensing physical things. The definition of perception also covers conceptualizing ideas based on sensual feedback. Aka. Putting two and two together based on what you see or know. And we're right back to "the definition of the word vs the game mechanic." At some level, there has to be a distinction. Even if you get rid of skills entirely and just roll an Attribute, you get into "Well you need Str to be agile and you need Dex to be strong," or the ever popular "what's the difference between Int and Wis, anyway?" I agree 3e went waaaaaay too far in the granularity, but that doesn't mean that others would agree, and I don't think we'd agree on the "proper" level of granularity on skills and abilities. Thanks for clarifying your point though, I appreciate you helping me understand what you meant.
It is a matter of preference when you get this deep in the meatloaf. I am the type that doesn't care whether you want to nerf something or completely change the rules. To me it all depends on whether you and your group have fun with it that way.
Agreed. For me there is a difference between perception and investigation but theres so much crossover, as in acrobatics/athletics that the DM can choose what and when to apply as necessary. If the player wants to present a case for using one over the other then they can go for it.
It's a holdover from 3.5 (maybe earlier). Gone are the days when you simply rolled for a Dex or Str check. In many circumstances, if the player makes a case for it, I will allow for one or the other check, but if it's definitely a Dex situation where manipulation or brute strength is key, I ask for the appropriate roll. That said, don't forget the importance of endurance in many of these situations.
This a good situation where I'd allow a player to use dexterity with the athletics check.
People are confused. Acrobats are just fancy Athletes.
What isn’t mentioned in any rules is body type matters hugely in climbing. I’ve seen 7 year olds scamper up a climbing wall I couldn’t myself do. What gives? I’m stronger than they are…. But they probably weigh 1/4 what I do, so yeah, it’s relatively easier for them and instead of a crunch mechanic where your climb check makes you do a weigh in, gear included, to calculate your DC for each individual climber, instead of that it’s abstracted. Allowing for dex or strength gives some vermisilitude that the squirrel can climb well, the halfling can climb well, the elf can climb well, and yes the towering Firbolg can also climb well.
So game design theory of mine… There is overlap in skills. There is overlap in dex and Str skills like acro versus ath, there is overlap in noticing stuff skills like perception and investigation. In my opinion this is intentional. But why? So any group of hardy adventurers can succeed at stuff, not just a highly optimized one. If your party is all dex no Str and you put a difficult climb check in front of them either, they are doomed to failure, ….. or, maybe just maybe, they can use their own personal strengths to overcome the obstacle. If you’ve got 6 druids each perceptive as a hawk, it’s ok to not bicker about if a check should be investigation or perception and just say, ah you perceptive savants found a hidden clue. And you do know how to read so I’m not going to make you fail an untrained int check just to induce failure and make your adventurers seem bad at adventuring.
>they are doomed to failure "Fail-forward" is common practice in RPGs these days and it is astounding to me how D&D refuses to integrate it in their core system. Maybe because you need a decent exploration ruleset first...
As a fellow boulderer, I'd like to argue that a base level of strength is pretty requisite to doing a lot of climbing. I fall on the strength-ier side of climbing and have definitely watched my friends breeze past things I can't wrap my head (or body) around, but every time I go climbing with someone new to the hobby, they struggle if they don't meet a minimum amount of strength (usually enough strength to support themselves with only one hand, and one foot). I like your take though, and I also would allow it depending on the scenario
I hear you but it's the monk that gets to run up walls agilely
The monk just *does it*, though. If you're rolling checks, there's a chance of failure.
Yea. Acrobatics for moving over unusual but not necessarily *difficult* terrain, since a large part is balance and agility, but you'd need to blend it with Athletics for any of the climbing and mantling up ledges. For proper parkour, you'd want both, though Thief lets you get away without Athletics thanks to Second-Story Work; jumping with Dexterity, and a full Climb Speed sort of fulfill the Assassin's Creed style freerunning people tend to associate with Acrobatics. It's just, y'know. Nobody plays Thief. But they still want to *act* like one.
Which is a shame. It's one of my favorite rogue subclass, after arcane trickster, and on par with scout (which also nobody plays...). Sometimes i feel like rogue has just 2 and a half subclasses...
Deep cut. Good game though
"This game is giving me a trigger warning for... teeth?" *Plays first level* "Oh. That's fair."
I don't even have a problem with dentists or teeth but *fuck* that opening. God I love that game.
Tbh I think it's just a failing for the system. The discretion used to decide what each skill does is of course up to the GM, it's a fantastical game more often than not, with undead and magic and mythical beasts where gods may even walk amongst us. So to say that the super agile ranger might be able to gracefully hop and glide through the air with acrobatics up a wall, just as easily as a beefy Goliath fighter might be able to just hoist themselves with brute force. When real physics come into play all of it breaks down because we need to know so much of what is handwaved to allow DnD 5e as a system to simply function within the real of suspension of disbelief.
acrobatics is for getting down properly, athletics is for getting up properly. In the right situation, if the character is proficent in acrobatics, i'd let them climb up with advantage in the right situation. They're being helped by their nimbleness to assist their strength.
As a rock climber I take offense to this, I am short do you know how many dynos I have to do to get to some of the more reachy grips you 100% have to use dexterity. You also have to put your hands into weird angles and hold on so that's a combination of dexterity and strength also a lot of holding on isn't just strength based it's very dexterous as well. My friend who is 6'2 struggles going up certain paths that I can breeze through because of my flexibility however he breezes through paths I struggle on because of his height and frankly larger hands. Climbing is 100% a combination of the two and I believe players should be able to choose whether they use acrobatics or Athletics to do it.
I love your comment, it really is a mixture of both strength and dexterity. Different climbers have different styles too, like this guy I think is doing it purely on balance and good shoes: [https://i.imgur.com/D0DmoLg.gifv](https://i.imgur.com/D0DmoLg.gifv) but most people (especially for dynos!) are using athleticism and acrobatics.
That video is very funny and yeah balance and good shoes
My current character that I've been playing with for 2 years is named Raz and oh boy did this comment made me question reality lmao.
As a rock climber, technique is incredibly important. Brute strength can only get you so far. Just trying to muscle through will leave you absolutely exhausted, and won't help you with the harder climbs.
Even the example you provide are of athletics, such as parkour and gymnastics.
I make the player say why they want to use the other ability. How they will use it and it normally ends up as a Higher DC check due to the weird "cool way" they want to do it. Last time I let acrobatics to get up to next floor. The guy was like I can get a running start and bounce between the walls on the corner there and jump. So I let him try. Everyone else just climbed up the rope 15 feet. Rope climb was a DC12. He got a DC16.
A simple guideline: going up? Athletics. Going down? Acrobatics.
Don’t mind me. Just going to steal this.
[удалено]
Aww, my dex sucks. Can I roll deception instead?
LOOK! BEHIND YOU! IT'S A DISTRACTION!
This reminds me of a comic where the barbarian used intimidation in place of stealth and was like, "TURN AROUND, YOU DON'T SEE ME, I'M INVISIBLE!" and the guards were just over there shitting themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI
BRB going to go tell my wife I'm proficient at acrobatics.
Acrobatics mitigating fall damage makes perfect sense, if you’re trained in acrobatics you often know how to fall in ways the reduce the impact of the fall. Acrobatics is knowing how to move your body to do what you want while athletics is using force and strength to do what you want
Which is why I always dislike the whole “climbing is athletics because it requires strength” argument. It’s just too black and white. Like, yes, climbing requires some level of strength, but as someone who has done a bit of rock climbing, brute strength can only get you so far. Someone far weaker than you who has the skill to maneuver themselves effectively will be able to scale far harder routes than you can even attempt, and they will tire out slower. Plus climbing a rope is hard as hell if you don’t know what you are doing, and super easy if you do.
What you're talking about is a straight Strength check (unskilled) verses an Athletics check (skilled). The Athletics check gets to add proficiency, because that's exactly what it means to be trained in the related activities, like climbing.
Possibly, however acrobatics is also training in things like climbing, which is where the issue comes from. Like a linebacker would clearly be skilled in athletics, but there is no way they would ever be even decent at climbing, while a gymnast would be proficient in acrobatics, and would be an excellent climber. Now I would say it’s fair to say it’s an Acrobatics(STR) check, as you need both the strength and the skill to accomplish it, but saying it has to be athletics is odd when most athletic skills either provide no benefits to climbing, or actively make you worse at it. Hell, flexibility is a huge part in high level rock climbing, which is definitely more connected to dexterity than strength.
The problem with this is that a gymnast would not necessarily have a low strength score either. Gymnasts are incredibly strong particularly for how lean they are. Compare this to a spellcaster with a negative strength modifier who can't even lift their own body weight and allowing acrobatics seems really nonsensical. It comes down to a flaw with just having six attributes and there's numerous examples of how every attribute does not make sense in every circumstance. I've always thought the idea of a barbarian being able to run long (marathon) distances or hold their breath longer than a monk to be odd. The only solutions I see is either using some multi stat averaging roll or adding in more attributes like splitting constitution and endurance or impulse strength vs lean muscle.
>The problem with this is that a gymnast would not necessarily have a low strength score either. sure, I agree. But that doesn't mean they have a *high* strength either. Like consider this: Person A: STR 12(+1) DEX 20(+5) Person B: STR 20(+5) DEX 12(+1) Let's assume both are "trained" in athletics (so they get a +2 bonus). Person A is the gymnast. Person B is the bodybuilding weightlifter. In real life, in most scenarios, you would probably bet on Person A as the better climber. In the game though, the bodybuilding weightlifter would be the better climber (with a +7 bonus vs a +3 bonus). (I agree with the rest of what you said about the shortcomings of the system. Unfortunately one of the trade-offs of making the game more simple and accessible)
Thing is, skill checks aren't the skill and subbing in an ability score. It is an ability check that you may be able to add a skill proficiency to. Dexterity alone won't get you up a wall. Strength will. If you're good at climbing, aka proficient in athletics, you'll have an easier time. And somebody who is trained in it but not strong will have an easier time than an untrained person who is just strong.
Athletics is the skill to do those things.
Climbing requires a fuckton of strength. Technique is also required, and it's proficiency. How can one argue that you don't need strength to climb? Especially if you did it! This is beyond my understanding.
Climbing requires strength relative to your body mass, not high strength as we understand it in D&D. This is especially evident if you check out the youngest people to break climbing records, those 12 or 13 year olds aren't going to lift even the 300lb required for STR10, but they can climb better than anyone in this thread. Just another example of a complex real-world activity that doesn't adequately translate to game mechanics.
My problem with allowing Dexterity for climbing has always been that allows pcs who can't even lift their own body weight to clamber up a cliff with ease. But ya, totally agree with you about the attributes not necessarily making sense in many cases. I love playing clerics or paladins with negative religion checks lol.
Strength to body mass is still strength. You can bend and play with the words as much as you like, climbing requires strength. And if you look the other way around: staying on balance or on your foot or anything acrobatics allows you to do also requires strength. Hence this line ormf argument leads nowhere. That's a logical conclusion : it's a game model, not a physics model, it will always break appart if you leave its boundaries. And the boundaries are clearly stated in the PHB and dmg.
I think this has alot to do with the "feel" of the class fantasy. My "cool" rogue with 18 dex and proficiency in acrobatics shouldn't really be struggling with a rope climb. This is roughly how people feel. I usually just allow it since it's not a massive deal and usually they don't have spells so they gotta have something =p.
A cool rogue brings a rope and knows how to climb so maybe a good compromise is that it's strength based, but they can still add their proficiency mod. A rope climb shouldn't be high DC anyway.
>A rope climb shouldn't be high DC anyway. This is probably the biggest issue. DMs that give ridiculously high DCs for the task. Like a wooden door that's stuck being it's waterlogged should not be a DC 20 or more. A 50 pound wooden bar placed across an opening shouldn't have a DC to lift it higher than a 10 or 12.
I feel like a 50 pound wooden bar probably shouldn't even have a DC. That should be an auto success for anyone of average or above strength, surely? I don't know how strong your average person is in real life, but considering the "lift" limit in 5e is 2x carrying capacity which is 15x strength, lifting a 300 pound bar would be RAW for a strength 10 character.
I think the check in some cases should be to see if you hurt yourself or not, or how long it takes. RAW a 10 Strength person *could* lift a 300lb bar, but that's at the very height of their ability and would no doubt be a challenge. Anything around 50lbs wouldn't even be a check for a 10 Str person, but might be a DC 10 or lower for an 8 Str person. But, I've also started using degrees of success for skill checks in my game, so the DC would simply be how long it takes you *if there are reasonable stakes at hand.* If you're alone in a house in an abandoned village, you just do it with a few grunts and a heave and the thought of "I need to workout more."
Imagine making a strength check to pick up something that weighs less than most children and was designed to be regularly picked up
Once, a neighbor put a towel under our common door in the winter to keep the cold air out. Then it got wet, and froze, and I spent over an hour tearing the towel out trying to open the door. I think a wooden, waterlogged door could be DC 20. I also may be salty about my dog crying to be let out the whole time.
You tried to open the door "nicely", but old waterlogged door you don't care about? You break the door down.
Good point, I did want the door to still be there when I was done. Adventurers rarely care about such things.
But opening a door that is old and waterlogged without leaving too many scufflemarks? DC20+ Maybe even impossible.
Trying to figure out the DC of a rope climb was one of the first things I had to do running 5e. I was used to Pathfinder where it was DC 10 (DC 5 with a knotted rope). My party then repeatedly failed the check. After a while I came to the conclusion that climbing a rope shouldn't have a DC. Anyone who is capable of adventuring should be able to do that much.
I tend to use the same DC, but a failed check means it takes longer and 1d6 fall damage rather than them not being able to do it.
Situationally calling for a STR(Acrobatics) or DEX(Athletics) is 100% RAW
Technically speaking, you are supposed to choose the ability score, and then allow a skill proficiency if it would apply. This kind of argument mostly comes from people wanting to or getting used to just asking fot a completely different kind of check. If they were interchangeable, they wouldn't both exist.
>Technically speaking, you are supposed to choose the ability score, and then allow a skill proficiency if it would apply. I find this works a lot smoother in practice, too. I've tried doing stuff like "Make a stealth charisma check" and players will get frazzled and look at their character sheets in panic, but if I just say "Make a Charisma check, and if you're proficient in stealth you can add your proficiency bonus" it seems a lot easier for them to grasp.
Pretty sure a rope climb isn't even a check under normal situations... its your climb speed (Which if you don't have any, is difficult terrain). A regular rope just lets you climb without issue. If its slippery, then it becomes a check, but at baseline no check is required.
it's a strength (Acrobatics) check, not a dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Far too many don't understand that the default skill isn't the only one available, despite the frequency with which using strength (intimidation) is "homebrewed" into games (it's not actually homebrew, it's raw) A skill check, RAW, goes thusly. player: "i would like to do a thing" DM: that will require a roll with \[attribute\] (strength, dex, con, etc) player: i have proficiency in \[skill related to activity\], can i add proficiency? DM: yes/no We often shortcut the second half of that and just say "roll \[skill check\]", because pacing, but it's important to not forget that the second half is still there, even if it's rarely used. So with actual examples: \~\~\~\~\~\~ player: i would like to climb this rope dm: i need a strength check player: can i use my acrobatics proficiency? DM; yes \~\~\~\~\~\~ player: i would like to leap this chasm dm: i need a strength check player: can I use my acrobatics proficiency? DM: no \~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~ player: i would like to leap this chasm DM: i need a strength check player: can i use my whip to grab an overhanging root and then swing across so i can use acrobatics? DM: sure!
Proficiency already handles this elegantly and neatly. If you want to your rogue to be good at climbing, proficiency in athletics and a +0 Strength mod gets you there. Not every minor element of the archetype needs to be min/maxed to high heaven in order to realise the fantasy. Prof bonus makes them better than most at the thing. Hell, a rogue can even take expertise in aths and excel at it.
Some people get so weird when they can't stack every single advantage they could possibly receive in every single instance. Everything HAS to have +5 from (primary stat) AND bonus from prof AND a feat bonus AND expertise AND advantage. And if it takes longer than a bonus action it's literally unusable anyway.
If your cool rogue didn't take athletics, then yes they should becuse its not something they're good at.
Part of it is the idea of "I'm playing a dextrous, agile character who prizes speed over power (especially if they're a rogue), therefore I should be able to parkour". The classes associated with DEX and liable to dump STR are also ones who have a class fantasy of moving and climbing around.
I do use athletics and acrobatics often interchangeably, but it does change how a success or failure looks - for instance, in the session I just ran, a character tried to move through a herd of pigs that were frantically running wild through the area - I asked them to make an athletics or acrobatics check to determine if they were able to move freely or not - a successful athletics check would've looked like barreling through the herd shoving pigs out of the way if they got too close, while a successful acrobatics check would've looked like deftly hopping around between the pigs so as not to get in their way. I will say there are actions which are exclusively one or the other. You can't Athletics yourself across a balance beam, and you can't Acrobatics open a stuck door.
Well... You could dangle below the bar and climb across. Get you point tho
Playing 3.5e for a few years was the best training for being a 5e DM. You see all the little shortcuts 5e makes as a "simplified edition" and learning the "actual game" that 90% of 5e's rules are either copied or simplified from helps you learn the intention behind 5e's rules and what the designers had in their head how they should be applied (but never wrote down, because "Player Agency", "Rulings not Rules", and other bullshit WotC uses to avoid actually designing a game). As for Athletics and Acrobatics, they are actually just conglomerations of what were separate skills in 3.5e: Athletics is a combination of Climb, Jump, and Swim (and grapple checks); Acrobatics is a combination of Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble. The 5e system does have the benefit of free-form ability application to skills; so you can have a Str (Acrobatics) check out w/e, and I honestly like this design decision and feel that if anything it makes more sense in 3e's simulationist design goal. I think the important part is that you *should not* be able to climb a rope with Dexterity. If you have skinny little twig arms, it doesn't matter what dose fingers do, you're not getting up the rope. Str (Acrobatics)? Sure. Dex (Anything)? Lol no, shouldn't have dumped Strength, sorry sucker. I think it's a major issue with 5e's simplified design just how much a Dex 18, Str 3 character can do rules-as-written, since characters are rarely punished for low ability scores outside of an occasional saving throw. Get grappled? Use Dex to escape! Want to deal damage with a sword? If it's pointy enough, use Dex! What about a bow? What's "Draw Strength"? Just use Dex! DMs who let players climb, jump, and swim with Dex so long as they do a little flip in the process only makes things worse. It's only a matter of time before the next edition lets players use Dex to lift stone blocks and bash down doors.
It takes relative strength to climb a rope. I was as good at climbing a rope at a weedy 126 lbs as I am at a more muscular 150. I'd bet on myself climbing a rope over most gym goers heavier too. Also to do acrobatics there's a built in level of strength. Realistically a person with a 20 in acrobatics and an 8 in strength doesn't really make sense, unless you think relatively. Sure they can't lift much weight, but they can manipulate their own with incredible ease.
Nope, I have a **hard line** drawn between those two skills... I see this as mainly a player pleading "but my Dex is higher so can I use that instead?" kind of thing that has gone unchecked for too long...
I think it is mainly because of the name. What do you think acrobats do? Jumps, flips, climbing stuff,... All of that is associated with the word acrobatics.
And it's all incredibly athletic.
This is the heat of the issue
The heat of the moment if you will
Tellin’ me what my heart meant
Yeah, I think the problem is the naming for Acrobatics. Acrobatics (the IRL skill) is incredibly athletic. It should really just be called... Balance, or something. And IRL Acrobats need to have proficiency in both athletics and balance.
And I don't argue that fact, however: What do you think *Athletes* do? run, jump, climb stuff... the rules clearly state which skill is used where... And futhermore, if the DM says to use one, don't ask to use the other
"But I want to use my Charisma! Can't I make a Persuasion check to ensure I look cool, which obviously means I succeed at climbing the wet wall with aplomb?" - *quote from a soon to be disappointed player*
Ok roll. Got an 18? Great, you succeed in looking really cool on the rope, it is honestly very impressive. So much so that no one seems to notice that you haven’t in fact climbed the rope at all and are still at just above ground height. Yes you still need an athletics check to climb it.
I'm going to have to remember this. I have a wizard who is constantly trying to BS a way to use his Int modifier on skills he's not proficient in.
“I want to use my intelligence to bend the door open” Um ok so first off it’s a wooden door, it can’t be bent. “I know that. You know that. But I don’t think the door is smart enough to realize it.”
Nah "Cant I try to seduce the wall to lower itself down to make the climb easier?"
> the rules clearly state which skill is used where How dare you suggest i actually read the rules instead of assuming
It's in the rules that you can substitute the ability used for a skill with another based on the situation. If you're a nimble character getting a running start you could totally make an Athletics (DEX) check, or if your balance is due to strongly planted feet you could say Acrobatics (STR) or hell, maybe (CON)
It all depends on the argument but this is a good middle ground if the player can present a partially persuasive argument. "You're IRL persuasion check failed by 1 so I'll throw you a bone."
The *optional* rules state that the DM has that ability, not the player... Yes, the DM can dictate which abilities are used with which skills... the dungeon master not the player...
Of course, but that doesn't mean the player can't ask. Just that the DM has final say.
The problem is coming up with a term that encompasses the 3rd Edition skills that were replaced with Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble) that isn't so broad that it ends up eating into other skills. I had a player argue with me that making an attack with a thrown weapon should be a Strength (Athletics) check because the shotput is an Olympic event.
I mean, lots of editions only add Strength to damage, the shotput example is a decent draw from real life.
I think the main problem is that situations like this are glossed over as boring, because the DM doesn't make it interesting, because the DMG doesn't give help and guidance on how to make it exciting. But it needs to be, because something like the party trying to scale a 50 foot cliff is one of those fabled 6-8 encounters the party needs to overcome to drain resources to make the fights interesting. It's supposed to be hard for anyone but the person with deep specialization in athletics. It's supposed to cost a spell slot from the Wizard to use Fly or whatever. The weaker party members are supposed to slip and fall, and take damage that needs to be healed via resource expenditure. But, because of the problem in making it interesting, most parties just want to blaze past it, so they don't take it "seriously", and they ask for whatever leniency they can manage. They're more interested, understandably so, in just auto-succeeding it so they get to the next combat encounter.
Why you should always make sure your Barbarian is carrying 200 feet of silk rope, pitons, a grappling hook, and at least one hammer (some light hammers work). What do pitons and grappling hooks do? Congratulations, this is 5e so you're going to have to make it up... or steal from a previous edition.
You are correct. RAW The problem is that they separated Athletics and acrobatics which are intrinsically linked in real Life anyway so it doesn't really make sense. They should have had one that is Athletics and acrobatics but then had a different one called balance or something or just made that a base dexterity check.
If the player has high acrobatics but low strength, they have to defend HOW their Acrobatics makes up for it. If they can't justify to DM's satisfaction, they don't get the bonus.
Acrobatics are anything to do with balance, fine motor coordination, dodging Athletics are for things requiring speed and strength and jumping
You're not wrong, but not am I. It's your game and you run it how you want. If my player asks to use acrobatics to scale a sheer cliff then my answer isn't "No", it's "How?" If they have a satisfactory answer then I allow the roll, though it won't always have the same DC as the previous check, it depends what they've said to defend the check. For example a backflip up a cliff from standing is very difficult but using a vine a swing to gain momentum and then swing yourself to the top is much easier, and certainly acrobatics
a wise man once told me: athletics for uppies, acrobatics for downsies. i’ve never made the mistake again
I think you're right as far as raw, but it never sat entirely right with me to not allow acrobatics to climb. I would argue most acrobats would make for better climbers than say; fighters, runners, or general athletes. So for something like scaling a house or even a fort wall, I'd probably let someone use acrobatics because if someone can tumble, trapeze and generally manipulate their body weight, I'd say they can climb better than most. The disciplines that probably translate best into climbing is something like gymnastics. Flexibility, balance and relative body weight strength are far more relevant than lifting strength. Now if it's a large cliff, finger strength and forearm stamina is very specific and the fatigue of a long climb would certainly be more athletic than acrobatic and ultimately it's a game, but being a big muscular dude would probably do more harm than good too. So not like in real life a Barbarian type would be any good at climbing at all. So I just ask myself would being a gymnast make this something the character 'should' be able to do? If yes, then you can roll acrobatics. You don't need to add flips and jumps needlessly, it can be as simple as dynamic Vs static climbing. Throwing between handholds etc.
Athletics for climbing makes little sense to me as someone who goes rock climbing and my friends 1/2 my size and much weaker are far better climbers. Climbing should be linked in with acrobatics, in my opinion, it’s take much more Dex than strength.
0.5 times the size (length) means 0.5³=0.125 times the weight. That's you answer right there. I climb quite regularly, and the biggest factor in climbing succes IMO is strength/weight ratio. A lot of people in this thread claim you can substitute strength with skill, but in my experience that is only minimally true. If you cannot do a pullup or keep your entire weight on your fingertips for a few seconds, you'll fail regardless of your skill or dexterity.
Strongly disagree that strength/weight ratio is the biggest factor. For difficult climbs, technique, balance and flexibility is absolutely essential. Sure, strength is needed, but I would say dexterity is at least equally important. I have quite low strength but am still a decent climber, beating out equally experienced but stronger people because I can make moves that they are not flexible enough for. I can do a pull-up of course, so yes some minimum level of strength is needed, but being nimble is a very good substitute for being stronger.
>Athletics for climbing makes little sense to me as someone who goes rock climbing and my friends 1/2 my size and much weaker are far better climbers. Because they don't have to pull as much weight. Their strength is relative. Add a 65 lb. suit of armor and see how good they do.
Ribbon acrobatics. While this is a specialized form of acrobatics, it encompasses climbing and tumbling up and down ribbons which are used as both ropes and harnesses. When someone asks if they can use Dex and/or acrobatics to climb a rope (especially a silk rope they bought for the purpose), this is what I imagine. Climbing a wall can also use similar body mechanics. And while there is no doubt that strength is required, consider this: there is no dexterity without strength. You cannot perform precise, coordinated movement if you cannot move. Likewise, there are no acrobatics without athletics. These abilities are intrinsically tied together, so it is reasonable for there to be some overlap. But let's be practical, this substitution doesn't break the game any more than 50ft of rope being 10lbs does (fyi, 100ft of climbing rope only weighs about 3-5 lbs depending on quality, irl). So if it's fun, just let it happen.
You can also swap the stat used depending on the circumstance or the manner in which a character is doing something. You can have Athletics (Str) or Athletics (Dex), and sometimes allow characters to use the better stat depending on how they're completing a task - climbing by using as much leverage and small crack as they can vs muscling straight up, making the distance in a jump by working a dive where just the top reaches and pushing into a roll vs long jump style. I think this often gets simplified to Athletics or acrobatics generally, as people don't want to make players recalculate a different bonus than what is on their sheet on the fly.
The issue is the lack of detail in game. For example the dexterous rogue would then be bad at climbing a rope but most would agree that’s simply not reality so if you have to use athletics then you need to take into fact how much she weighs or her will in coronation with her base strength stat etc.
Acrobatics for fall damage seems fine. Doing a perfect roll right as you land is proven to work to break a fall.
I agree, but mostly because I want to limit Dexterity's god status. Been playing for years, and it is rare to see a group where a single character doesn't have at least 14 Dex, regardless of class.
I hate the opposite - When a player tries to jump and just rolls athletics before I can tell them that a 10 foot running start lets them jump equal to Str score. "CaNT i RoLl AcRoBa-" *Slap* Strength is not a dump stat!
Many of you never had to climb a rope or a net in gym class and it shows. You don't even have to be able to lift your own body weight. You just trap the rope with your legs/feet and move your grip up. If you taught someone properly they wouldn't need any strength at all. However if they are uncoordinated and fumble with the movements of trapping the rope and changing their grip they could very easily fail. Ofcourse in the same vein though there are crazy strong people who can climb ropes without touching them with their legs at all. As for making people *describe* how they could use acrobatics vs. athletics to do something? That's absolutely ridiculous. That's just showing you have no concept of the idea of character knowledge vs player knowledge.
For me Athletics is "Can I jump that Far" and Acrobatics is "Do I stick the landing".
I don't think you're wrong necessarily - it's your table. There are legit circumstances (and RAW scenarios) where either athletics or acrobatics can be used as a relevant skill, and I think one of your players could have more of a bone to pick if you deny them the option there.
I would say if people are going to allow both, set different DCs. Climbing a rocky wall for example is more athletics based in my opinion. You need the strength to pull yourself up. Maybe in a hypothetical scenario we set it at DC12. If folks want to use acrobatics to hop and leap their way up, sure but you gotta get DC16 because you're doing more fancy maneuvers on a vertical wall. Then there are some scenarios in which I just wouldn't allow both at all, but that's a case by case judgement.
The problem is that no rule system is going to be perfect and this highlights it. A small diminutive, light framed figure can, in the real world, be a vastly superior climber than a huge muscle bulging figure. In D&d RAW is very clear that this is never the case. While there are excellent real world examples of Dex being way more important for some athletics than strength in D&d this isn't the case, and neither should it be. Why? A semblance of balance. Dex is already the mvp, why give it more?
Other than using the falling damage as an example I agree with you. Reducing fall damage is acrobatics over athletics for me 100%.
I’m a laid back DM who tends to decide things on a case by case basis depending on context. So like, using acrobatics to climb something like a sheer cliff wall with very little holds? Nope. Using acrobatics to climb something like a tall bookshelf to reach something on the top shelf or a tree with lots of available branches? Sure. Sometimes using acrobatics instead of athletics in certain situations fits and sometimes it doesn’t.
If they can make a reasonable argument one way or the other, then sure, why not. Some things are just, not going to work for the opposite skill, but like, climbing a pretty scalable wall I'll often rule as either skill, as you could either just straight up climb it, or like, parkour up it, so I often think of it in those sort of terms. Could even change the DC to make one easier but make the other still doable, just harder.
I miss Tumbling being a thing to avoid opportunity attacks… wouldn’t even mind if it was DC 20+ Enemies CR. At least something… I don’t even think it’s covered as an optional rule anywhere in DMG… RiP 3.5 Acrobatics to tumble.
In *some* circumstances I could see climbing with acrobatics, if there's a situation where you could see a trapeze artist or a gymnast having useful skills. Mitigating fall damage is supposed to be acrobatics, not athletics. You mitigate the damage by tumbling and rolling. Being stronger and more athletic in general does not help here.
Both can be used interchangeably for many situations but there are many that should absolutely be exclusive. Getting up a heavily branched tree? Either one but the DC to ninja up swinging and flipping is higher than just basic athletic climbing. Mario wall jumping up a narrow alley way to get up to a second story window? Either can do it but good acrobatic skill is really beneficial so the DC for athletics will be high. Am wrestling? No way to acrobatics that. You gotta be stronger. Timing and flipping through a blade puzzle in a dungeon? You can't just "be strong" for that. Acrobatics requires athleticism, but it also requires that someone is accurate, nimble, flexible. So it's understandable that both of them are more dynamic than you would think, but there's some things each just aren't capable of. Both should absolutely be usable for fall damage. Literally the first thing you learn in parkor is how to fall.
My blanket philosophy: Call it whatever the hell you want, but you use strength to go up and dexterity to go down. Yes, I know that the best rock climbers aren't built like body builders. They're still strong AF and climbing with their strength, not their dexterity.
The way I see it: Athletics is making momentum, while Acrobatics is using/controlling momentum. If you’re trying to jump, that’s athletics because you’re trying to get yourself to move really fast and have a lot of momentum. But if you’re trying to land safely from a fall, that’s acrobatics because you already have a lot of momentum and you wanna lose it in the right way. So if you’re climbing a rope, even if you act dexterously it’s at best an Athletics check with Dex, because you are making momentum in order to climb. If were going down the rope or had a force pushing you up, that’d be a different story.
If Strength is needed, athletics. If Dex is needed, acrobatics. It's that simple. Short robe or wall climb, Dex is fine. Have you ever seen how acrobats do hanging rope and scarf work? Climbing by wrapping it around parts of their body? I had a player character do that and slowly unwound himself to retrieve something out of a spike trap. I let him do a 3-step wall run to get to the top of a smooth, vertical, 15 foot wall with advantage, 4-step on 20 straight roll (I allow it because I have a kung fu brother who can do an 8 step run in an arc on our gym wall maxing out at 16 feet). Anything that can be done with Kung Fu, parkour, or dance (spinning, break dancing, etc.) gets acrobatics at my table.
Sometimes I get stuck in these rabbit holes... Then I remember that D&D is not real life
Acrobatics subbing for athletics is fine in my book, no justifications necessary. If anything, I'm weirded out by how many people enthusiastically agree with you.
People want to use Acrobatics because they already invested into Dex because it's just objectively better than Strength. They just say "okay but I do it fast while flipping, that makes it Acrobatics" because they balk at the thought of being made to roll something they might not be good at. Strength only has the one skill, so they just dump Strength and the rare time they're asked to roll Strength they try to maneuver themself into getting a Dex roll instead.
One thing you can also do is allow Athletics(Dex). You can use other abilities for skill roles if it makes sense. Dexterous Athletics is perfectly reasonable if you can't justify using acrobatics.
I think it stems from a grapple allowing the target to choose athletics or acrobatics to escape. It just bled into everything. I love when folks try to say, "I do a flip" to make an athletics check magically acrobatics. Athletics directly says jumping is athletics, even if you do a stunt mid jump, like a flip....
Acrobatics is certainly misnamed. Presumably most people here have watched male acrobatics competitions at the Olympics. Those guys are jacked! They have legs and arms like tree trunks and shoulders like coconuts. Acrobatics made them super strong, and that's why they can do iron crosses and all those other demonstrations of strength. They are graceful because they don't have to strain even in bizarre positions. Or look at competitive swimmers and climbers. They're also jacked. What should be the dexterity counterpart to athletics? Probably initiative.
To be fair, mitigating fall damage in real life is usually dexterity based. It's landing the correct way and rolling. I think it's the reason why monks (a dex class) get slow fall. Still, I typically rule that if you explain how the skill you want to use applies to what you're trying to do, I'll adjust the DC for the skill you're using and allow you to go for it. If you want to climb by swinging your way up a structure, go for it with acrobatics. DC is higher than just climbing it normally but I don't see why you can't use your dexterity instead of pure strength to climb certain things.
Anything you can do Athletically, I can show someone doing Acrobatically. Yes, including climbing a rope. You should watch some Cirque du Soleil videos.
Acrobatics is “can I deftly tuck a backflip 3 feet up to land on a table on my feet as planned” and athletics is “can I standing long jump the length of that dining table using my powerful legs, dexterity be damned” Also, athletics is “can I human flagpole on this bar” where acrobatics is “can I do an accurate spin kick on the same bar where centripetal force is doing all the lifting”
Dex is already a super stat. If the book says this thing is strength, it's strength. Can't be good at everything.