Acrobatics vs Athletics

[KithanDarkmoon]

Hi everyone,

I ran a session last weekend. The players were on a row boat approaching a sail boat (not sure how to call, but an actual boat not a row boat. I placed it as a 20 foot climb). They wanted to climb on and had a rope.

Some players asked if they could use their Acrobatics skill to run up the rope, while other players used Climb.

I placed the DC at 10, since there was a rope.

Believe it or not, about 1/3 of the group had a lot of difficulty making it up.

This happened while in combat so the players had to make the rolls.

So I know Athletics is used for offensive and defensive grappling options and shoving folks etc.

Acrobatics can only be used for defensive.

After that is where the rules get a little gray to me and I wanted to know how any players or DMS used the skills to differentiate them.

Can players make the case to use "parkour" to shimmy up a wall?

Thank you in advance

*Note* I allowed the players to use acrobatics to get on the boat otherwise they would have been stuck and the party would have been divided in combat. One player nearly died! Down to their last death save before the bard was able to cast healing word.

[sophontteks]

They are climbing with rope. That is athletics. Its specifically listed as an example of the skill. They can parkour up, but that is still athletics. Its common for DMs to allow acrobatics to replace athletics, but its literally the only strength skill. This really shorthands str characters when the dex ones can "have their cake and eat it too."

DC 10 is fine for climbing without a rope, but with a rope they should at least have advantage. DC 10 has a 50% chance of failure for a commoner, and a 25% failure for a level 1 character with 16 strength and athletics profeciency.

I'm assuming low level, because after the first few levels the party likely has many more answers to this problem.

[Man_Over_Game]

There's a few things I want to clarify, which may be part of the cause for why things may have been so difficult for your players.

Notably, most climbing scenarios won't require a check. The book mentions that the only times something like Athletics would be needed to climb something is if the thing they were climbing was particularly difficult, or if there was a reason they couldn't climb effectively. Climbing a rope that's designed for climbing is the kind of scenario I'd expect to be about as easy of a climbing scenario as possible.

This is to ensure that your players can always participate in fun, adventurous scenes and aren't tied down because "the Thief Rogue, who climbs 2x faster than everyone else, didn't bother taking Athletics and fell".

Now, if there was a valid reason why the players couldn't climb (being shot at by badguys, for instance), I could see that being a valid reason for a DC (although I'd just treat it as something similar to Concentration, with them falling if it's "broken").

As for allowing people to use specific skills or attributes, it's not a terrible idea. Just consider what your plan is if someone has both Athletics AND Acrobatics.

I'd use Acrobatics if the DC was because of something that is mitigated by mobility (such as enemies shooting at you), but I'd only allow Athletics if it was something that required more power than grace (such as climbing upside-down).


In the end, ask WHY you're requiring a DC, and think about if a skill helps mitigate that problem. Many people make the mistake that climbing a 10ft wall requires a check, but it often doesn't, and I think resolving that will address most of your concerns.

[Garfunion]

When I deal with climbing, if there is a ladder or rope with support(wall/side of a ship). I do not have my players role an ability check, unless they want to move faster than half their speed or if they take damage while still climbing.
As for the use of acrobatics in the situation you described I would say no.


Also Parkour requires more strength than most people realize.

[CheddarChampion]

Now I don't think RAW is the end-all-be-all but it does say that any character can climb a surface at half speed and only difficult surfaces might require an athletics check.
I think they could have moved at half speed up the rope without requiring a check if the seas weren't rough or anything.

I don't know if this is RAW but I go with athletics as how much force you can put into a motion and acrobatics as how precise you can be with your motion. So athletics lets you jump high/far but acrobatics lets you do a flip when you're already in the air. "Parkour" is using both.

In summary don't call for an easy* jump/climb/swim check, when the conditions are perilous call for an athletics check.
*assuming the characters aren't really out of shape or something. This is usually a given.

Edit: I took too long to type this and now multiple people shadowmonk'd me.

[greenstone]

I think it becomes clearer if you stop thinking of "skill checks."

The GM doesn't call for an Athletics check; the GM calls for a Strength check. Proficiencies like acrobatics and athletics simply allow you to add your proficiency bonus to the roll. They represent aptitude in certain kinds of ability checks.

Anyone who has climbed a rope will tell you is is pretty much all down to strength. Manual dexterity, agility, flexibility, finesse, and so on don't help much - it's all about the physicality of pulling yourself up. So, a Strength check is appropriate, not a Dexterity check. The Athletics proficiency "covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming." so it would apply to climbing a rope.

So, in summary, repeat after me, "there is no such thing as a skill check". There are only ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws. :smallwink:

[KithanDarkmoon]

Hi everyone, and thank you.

A common question I'm hearing is why did I give a DC check.

I really don't know. I just threw it out there. You want to climb up, give me a skill check.

I learned something though. I think it would have made it much easiar if I just had the players move at half speed and require a skill check when attacked. I liked the concentration example someone gave. If they failed their check they fell. Though that could have caused more problems.

Thank you!

[Mordaedil]

I'm not a huge fan of single-check fail states. I do agree that allowing it to trigger when they are attacked to be a good one for this scenario, but I'd also either have a failure in such a scenario cost them one round of movement or at the very least allow them a dexterity saving throw to "catch the rope" to not hit the water again.

There's a lot of ways to do this and I get the appeal of asking them to roll dice to check if they could make it. Sometimes we just ask for a roll even if they can't fail, as DMs. It just adds suspense.

[Zhorn]

I'm not a huge fan of single-check fail states.

^ mostly agree with this.
I personally am a huge fan of the 'fail forwards' mentality.
During combat, a low roll acts as a dead-end failure because it makes sense there.
But outside of combat, I treat low rolls as limited, slow or clumsy success.

Picking a lock for example would be (on a low roll), triggering a loud sound, a tool is stuck in the lock, the action takes several minutes and the party is risked being caught during the time taken, etc.

For athletics check, the time taken element would be the go-to result, but things like temporary exhaustion (clear on short rest), pulled muscles (disadvantage on future strength checks), or lost hit dice (representing superficial damage from a reckless attempt), could also be used. Player's succeed at the task, but failing the roll imposes a cost of failure

[follacchioso]

I think you were right in asking them to roll an athletics check.

Climbing up a rope to move from a small boat to a larger boat, in motion on the sea, while at the same time being in combat, it seems more than trivial movement.

[Contrast]

I placed the DC at 10, since there was a rope.

Believe it or not, about 1/3 of the group had a lot of difficulty making it up.

I do indeed believe it.

Lets imagine a ranger. He's never focused on training strength but isn't a total wimp (strength 12, no athletics prof). He has a mighty +1 to athletics checks giving him a 40% chance to fail a DC10 check. This is true if he's level 1 or level 20 seeing as he didn't take proficiency which would help him improve as he levels and is unlikely to spend ASIs boosting strength if that isn't his thing.

Now consider many PCs who have no use for strength like our ranger will simply dump it to 8 giving them a -1 overall for a 50% chance of failure.

Unless its something they're specialised in, most PCs will like pass a DC10 check somewhere around 60% of the time just based on distribution of raw stats which is remarkably close to your 2/3 success rate (66%).

It's important to be cognisant of the chance of success when setting appropriate DCs.


Also for reference I'd personally be inclined to set the DC and then give advantage for there being a rope rather than lowering the DC because there's a rope as you appeared to do.


On topic - I do think its important to not let acrobatics encroach onto athletics territory. Dex is already 'better' than strength in many ways and athletics is the only skill associated with the stat. Don't undersell its value by letting people avoid having to use it. That said, if they can come up with other ways to achieve the goal thats fine. Others have already mentioned that climbing shouldn't always require a check as well.

[ImproperJustice]

The acrobatics/ athletics dileniation really bothers me.

As a father of six Gymnasts, none of my kiddos can bench press more than a 100lbs, but half of them can scale a pair of ropes while hanging upside down, or backflip across a balance beam. All of which requires specific muscle development.

What is Dexterity but the ability to move your body in a quick and precise fashion, which requires muscle development.

Acrobtics should totally allow for rope climbing, etc....
I think it should represent a different form of muscle development so that the Rogue/Monk who has trained their body for exceptional balance and reflexes isn’t suddenly incompetent when they need to climb something.

My two cents anyways

[Willie the Duck]

I personally am a huge fan of the 'fail forwards' mentality.
During combat, a low roll acts as a dead-end failure because it makes sense there.
But outside of combat, I treat low rolls as limited, slow or clumsy success.

Generally agree. In combat, you make lots of rolls, and expect to fail a lot --you miss with this attack, but you may well have multiple attacks per round, and either way you are looking to make multiple attacks per combat (and the consequence of failing the roll is simply that you have not yet achieved your goal of downing your opponent and must wait until you have more action economy to attempt to do so again (and are thus open to a few more attacks). This scenario makes bounded accuracy shine. In this specific situation, the same can work for attribute (skill) checks. A failed roll could be that you have not climbed to the boat yet, and will have to wait next round to get to into the fray. A bunch of other situations, checks are often pass/fail (or even pass/catastrophe), and I don't think the bounded accuracy system serves these all that well (which is why there's lots of advice about not rolling unless the outcome in uncertain, etc.).


The acrobatics/ athletics dileniation really bothers me.

As a father of six Gymnasts, none of my kiddos can bench press more than a 100lbs, but half of them can scale a pair of ropes while hanging upside down, or backflip across a balance beam. All of which requires specific muscle development.

What is Dexterity but the ability to move your body in a quick and precise fashion, which requires muscle development.

Acrobtics should totally allow for rope climbing, etc....
I think it should represent a different form of muscle development so that the Rogue/Monk who has trained their body for exceptional balance and reflexes isn’t suddenly incompetent when they need to climb something.

There's not much I disagree with here, except it seems that it is more of a complaint with the Dexterity/Strength delineation than acrobatics/athletics (and we could probably spend the rest of our lives on how attributes in general are poorly lumped/distributed accumulations of various traits, ignoring some connections and falsely imposing others).

[Contrast]

As a father of six Gymnasts, none of my kiddos can bench press more than a 100lbs, but half of them can scale a pair of ropes while hanging upside down, or backflip across a balance beam. All of which requires specific muscle development.

What is Dexterity but the ability to move your body in a quick and precise fashion, which requires muscle development.

Acrobtics should totally allow for rope climbing, etc....

5E isn't really designed to try and achieve perfect simulation. Down that way lies a rabbit hole of increasing complexity. With enough work you can get further down the hole sure but after a while you're spending your time directing excavation machinery and researching how to install support struts into a rabbit hole and find yourself wondering why you actually want to be in a rabbit hole in the first place.

Edit - for clarity my response in this case would be 'take prof in athletics and acrobatics and don't step forward when something heavy needs lifting if you don't see your character as being particularly good at lifting'. /edit

A common complaint of my brother is that he had no idea how to imagine a character with really high values in some of the physical stats but nothing in the others. My answer is usually 'its a game and we're leaning into stereotypes so roll with it'.

[MThurston]

They are climbing with rope. That is athletics. Its specifically listed as an example of the skill. They can parkour up, but that is still athletics. Its common for DMs to allow acrobatics to replace athletics, but its literally the only strength skill. This really shorthands str characters when the dex ones can "have their cake and eat it too."

DC 10 is fine for climbing without a rope, but with a rope they should at least have advantage. DC 10 has a 50% chance of failure for a commoner, and a 25% failure for a level 1 character with 16 strength and athletics profeciency.

I'm assuming low level, because after the first few levels the party likely has many more answers to this problem.

Parkour is not athletics. Not at all. It is acrobatics.

As for the side of a boat. As long as there are foot holds thry can parkour it. If not then it's athletics.

You can not run up ropes. You have to use your hands which makes it climbing.

No, it's a single line I would give them a straight roll but it's netting, I'd give them advantage.

But 100% acrobatics is used for parkour.

[sophontteks]

Parkour is not athletics. Not at all. It is acrobatics.

As for the side of a boat. As long as there are foot holds thry can parkour it. If not then it's athletics.

You can not run up ropes. You have to use your hands which makes it climbing.

No, it's a single line I would give them a straight roll but it's netting, I'd give them advantage.

But 100% acrobatics is used for parkour.

Absolute statements tend to be false and this is a great example. But feel free to provide some evidence how all forms of parkour are completely unreliant on a person's physical strength. Espesially the bit about parkouring up a wall. Meanwhile I'll be reading up on parkour strength training https://medium.com/parkouredu/parkour-strength-training-for-beginners-949e961129b9

[Benny89]

As someone who has a friend that is gymnastic and friend who is powerlifter. One we went on some "physical activities event" in our city and there was this competition where you would have to climb rope as fast as possible. Both were able to, but she (gymnastic) was faster. Obviously HUGE weight difference but point is both Acrobatics and Athletics require training, body strength and muscles. In different way.

So unless it's like kicking out doors, grappling, swimming fast, moving stones etc. I always allow Acrobatics to work instead of Athletics for things like jumping, climbing etc.

When it comes to movement I see like that: you chase someone and you want to be faster than him- that's athletics. You chase someone and you want to cut his way by moving agile through some obstacles, flipping over some wall, parkouring your way- that's acrobatics.

Catching someone while he falls- that's athletic. Catching something while you jump from one rope to another rope/place- acrobatics.

But I generally don't like how 5e distinguish them.

[ImproperJustice]

5E isn't really designed to try and achieve perfect simulation. Down that way lies a rabbit hole of increasing complexity. With enough work you can get further down the hole sure but after a while you're spending your time directing excavation machinery and researching how to install support struts into a rabbit hole and find yourself wondering why you actually want to be in a rabbit hole in the first place.

Edit - for clarity my response in this case would be 'take prof in athletics and acrobatics and don't step forward when something heavy needs lifting if you don't see your character as being particularly good at lifting'. /edit

A common complaint of my brother is that he had no idea how to imagine a character with really high values in some of the physical stats but nothing in the others. My answer is usually 'its a game and we're leaning into stereotypes so roll with it'.

Good points about the rabbit hole.
Certainly don’t want to go the route of Phoenix Command :)

I guess maybe the two proficiencies should be interchangeable for most physical tasks IMO.

[djreynolds]

Watch a baseball game.

The batter uses dexterity to hit the ball,
But he needs some strength to drive it.

So you have players like Ichiro would have a high dexterity hence a high batting average

A pure power hit would have a low batting average but more home runs

And you a small few (some "magically " augmented) who hit for average and power, triple crown types.

I might allow a player to use their dexterity to replace strength in an athletics check for climbing. That seems a reasonable compromise

Like where a barbarian uses strength for intimidation.

But if we keep this up, you'll have a character who can you their force of personality to make attacks with any weapon type.

[Max_Killjoy]

The acrobatics/ athletics dileniation really bothers me.

As a father of six Gymnasts, none of my kiddos can bench press more than a 100lbs, but half of them can scale a pair of ropes while hanging upside down, or backflip across a balance beam. All of which requires specific muscle development.

What is Dexterity but the ability to move your body in a quick and precise fashion, which requires muscle development.

Acrobtics should totally allow for rope climbing, etc....
I think it should represent a different form of muscle development so that the Rogue/Monk who has trained their body for exceptional balance and reflexes isn’t suddenly incompetent when they need to climb something.

My two cents anyways

The two could easily be rolled into one, just call it Athletics, and then call for a Strength or Dexterity check.

While it's a hard thought process to break, as mentioned above, 5e doesn't have Skill checks, it has Ability checks to which Skills are applied when applicable. Normally I would consider "skill check" reasonable shorthand for this, but it's a case where the words used perpetuate a misunderstanding of the particular rules.

[TheSchleus]

I could be wrong here, but as I understand it, a gymnast will be significantly stronger for their weight than a bodybuilder, which is very helpful on rope climbing, especially rope climbing for speed (climbing a longer distance might be different?). I'd also argue that a gymnast would have proficiency (if not expertise) in both athletics and acrobatics, making them at least decent even if you call for athletics for the rope climbing. Add to that the fact that dexterity is significantly more useful for skills and I'd think strength (athletics) is the better choice for the check.

Also keep in mind you could have a Dexterity (Athletics) or a Strength (Acrobatics) check if you wanted.

[Man_Over_Game]

I want to point out that a level 2 Monk can have the strength of a toddler and still punch you to death in 6 seconds (4 Dex + 3 attacks = 22.5. Average level 2 HP = 18 HP).

Please keep that in mind when comparing Athletics to Acrobatics.

[Aquillion]

I mean, if we're talking real-world things, having Dex and Strength as completely-unrelated attributes doesn't make a huge amount of sense. They describe different body-types more than anything else, but in reality eg. the slender, dashing master fencer or the acrobat skilled at balancing and tumbling is going to require significant strength.

Dexterity is also odd in that it combines that sort of full-body dexterity with manual dexterity with your hands, which is mostly about skill (provided you're not suffering from some sort of condition that would impair it.) ie. anyone can learn to be a master pickpocket, not anyone can learn to be a master acrobat (or at least they'd have to be healthy overall and train to the point where in D&D terms it would change their attributes.)

Beyond a certain point it's best not to think about it too much - they're not very realistic to begin with. (And let's not even get into how Wisdom combines sensory acuity, willpower, and some sort of vague folksy-wisdom needed for doing the right thing, which are all utterly unrelated.)

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, if we're talking real-world things, having Dex and Strength as completely-unrelated attributes doesn't make a huge amount of sense. They describe different body-types more than anything else, but in reality eg. the slender, dashing master fencer or the acrobat skilled at balancing and tumbling is going to require significant strength.

Dexterity is also odd in that it combines that sort of full-body dexterity with manual dexterity with your hands, which is mostly about skill (provided you're not suffering from some sort of condition that would impair it.) ie. anyone can learn to be a master pickpocket, not anyone can learn to be a master acrobat (or at least they'd have to be healthy overall and train to the point where in D&D terms it would change their attributes.)

Beyond a certain point it's best not to think about it too much - they're not very realistic to begin with. (And let's not even get into how Wisdom combines sensory acuity, willpower, and some sort of vague folksy-wisdom needed for doing the right thing, which are all utterly unrelated.)

For real-world sense, Wisdom should have been Memory and Awareness, where Intelligence should be Willpower and Intellect.

Most people I know of who have great memories are also very aware, but they often lack self-restraint. This makes sense because your ability to memorize something usually comes down to how much you're paying attention (School, for example, is generally easy but boring).

Most smart people I know are extremely oblivious, but can force themselves to do something they don't normally want to do. They can be perceptive, but it seems more like an active effort rather than a consistent one.

Unfortunately, it's hard to separate Memory from Intellect in a natural sort-of-way, so the original developers probably bunched those two together and threw everything else into Wisdom.

[Benny89]

I could be wrong here, but as I understand it, a gymnast will be significantly stronger for their weight than a bodybuilder, which is very helpful on rope climbing, especially rope climbing for speed (climbing a longer distance might be different?). I'd also argue that a gymnast would have proficiency (if not expertise) in both athletics and acrobatics, making them at least decent even if you call for athletics for the rope climbing. Add to that the fact that dexterity is significantly more useful for skills and I'd think strength (athletics) is the better choice for the check.

Also keep in mind you could have a Dexterity (Athletics) or a Strength (Acrobatics) check if you wanted.

No, no, that's not the point. The point is that you can't be a great in Acrobatics without being physically developed and without muscle strength. So if someone has Expertise in Acrobatics in DnD 5e, 20 DEX and +5 proficiency we are look at someone with +15 roll to Acrobatics.

That is easy in our world an Olympic Level. Point is you can't expect this guy to be weak physically. Doesn't matter if he has Strength 8. His acrobatic skills are on level where he could win Olympics. Hence why 5e sucks when comes to skills.

So it's stupid for me to ask him to make Athletic roll on climbing and tell him "you are too weak physically to climb on rope" while guy can make 10 flips in a row with high jumps, triple salt and jump from rope to rope using his feet (exaggeration but we are talking about someone with +15 roll) or walking on his hands jumping around.

And that guys is not strong physcially enough to climb just because 5e think Acrobatics and Athletics have nothing in common? That's just stupid. Bah, in our world I would bet that guy with high acrobatics (like from Circus) would climb rope much faster than bodybuilder or strong-man or wrestler.

Hence why if someone have +10 to Acrobatics I consider them physically as efficient as someone with +10 to Athletics.

Difference is, like in real world, one won't press 200lbs and other one won't jump from building ledges using only his hands as their strength is different.

But both are peak at body physic. Hence why I don't see a problem in many cases in calling for Acrobatics instead of Athletics.

Simillar stuff with Nature. One guy (Druid) lives whole live in Nature, knows everything from experience and have big knowledge (Wisdom)

Other guy (Wizard) was studying nature whole live, read tons of academic books about subject, performed tons of experiments in laboratory (INT).

Yet he can't roll Nature using INT, only WIS. Why? Because 5e is stupid when it comes to skills.

[Willie the Duck]

For real-world sense, Wisdom should have been Memory and Awareness, where Intelligence should be Willpower and Intellect.

Most people I know of who have great memories are also very aware, but they often lack self-restraint. This makes sense because your ability to memorize something usually comes down to how much you're paying attention (School, for example, is generally easy but boring).

Most smart people I know are extremely oblivious, but can force themselves to do something they don't normally want to do. They can be perceptive, but it seems more like an active effort rather than a consistent one.

I'm sure we could each take our own experiences, and line up associations based on how we see the world or which character traits go together best. I'm not sure I'd agree with these specific ones, but support the overall idea of re-looking at what each stat is supposed to be.


Unfortunately, it's hard to separate Memory from Intellect in a natural sort-of-way, so the original developers probably bunched those two together and threw everything else into Wisdom.

Well, originally, Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom were, to a greater or lesser degree, simply 'that stat which benefits a Fighting Man/Magic User/Cleric' -- they did nothing except give an XP bonus to each of the 3 original classes (exception: Int also gave bonus languages). Exactly how additional qualities were added (particularly to the Int/Wis division) probably died with Gary (although I'd check with people like Jon Peterson who do documentary searches on the inspiration behind various aspects of the game).

[Max_Killjoy]

For real-world sense, Wisdom should have been Memory and Awareness, where Intelligence should be Willpower and Intellect.

Most people I know of who have great memories are also very aware, but they often lack self-restraint. This makes sense because your ability to memorize something usually comes down to how much you're paying attention (School, for example, is generally easy but boring).

Most smart people I know are extremely oblivious, but can force themselves to do something they don't normally want to do. They can be perceptive, but it seems more like an active effort rather than a consistent one.

Unfortunately, it's hard to separate Memory from Intellect in a natural sort-of-way, so the original developers probably bunched those two together and threw everything else into Wisdom.

The 5e treatment of Intellect and Wisdom and perception and memory and so on... grew haphazardly out of the far older editions' treatment of those Abilities. The particular split of INT and WIS is as much legacy and inertia as it is deliberate intent.

[TheSchleus]

No, no, that's not the point. The point is that you can't be a great in Acrobatics without being physically developed and without muscle strength. So if someone has Expertise in Acrobatics in DnD 5e, 20 DEX and +5 proficiency we are look at someone with +15 roll to Acrobatics.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I see that. On the "game-y" side I don't like letting the already better for skills dexterity do more, but you're definitely not wrong here.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh, okay. Yeah, I see that. On the "game-y" side I don't like letting the already better for skills dexterity do more, but you're definitely not wrong here.

I mean, you COULD just make it a Strength (Acrobatics) or Strength (Athletics) check. There's nothing saying you HAVE to use Dexterity for every use of Acrobatics.

[LtPowers]

Yet he can't roll Nature using INT, only WIS.

This statement is untrue.



No, no, that's not the point. The point is that you can't be a great in Acrobatics without being physically developed and without muscle strength.

This statement, on the other hand, is true, but irrelevant.

The Acrobatics skill does not map perfectly onto real-world acrobatics competitions. And the Strength ability doesn't map perfectly onto all applications of strength.

The Acrobatics skill is about moving your whole body quickly, gracefully, and accurately. Does that require strength in the real world? Yes. But the physical traits required to perform that task is represented in D&D by Dexterity, not Strength. A high-Dexterity character can be assumed to have strong muscles, at least certain ones. But that doesn't mean she has a high Strength score.

The Strength ability represents displays of raw muscle power, applied specifically to adventuring tasks. That doesn't mean a low-Strength character is an 88-pound weakling; it simply means she isn't very good at swinging heavy weapons and carrying heavy loads.

There are certainly some tasks represented by the Athletics skill that a skilled acrobat should be able to perform. But I would posit that a skilled acrobat should have proficiency in both Acrobatics and Athletics. If she does not, then (prima facie) she only focused on learning skills that benefit from Dexterity and less so on skills that rely more on raw muscle power. She is good at balancing, for instance, but not at climbing. She might have good proprioception but unpracticed at the coordination and application of upper-body muscle power involved in making difficult climbs. (That doesn't mean she can't climb! She's just not practiced at it; if she was, she'd have Athletics proficiency.)



Here's how I'd assign tasks:


Strength (Athletics): Basic swimming for speed, climbing for speed, jumping for distance.
Constitution (Athletics): Long swims, climbs, and runs.
Dexterity (Athletics): Synchronized swimming, underwater gymnastics, speed climbing with closely-placed but randomly-located handholds, jumping for accuracy, sprinting.
Dexterity (Acrobatics): Basic balancing, bobbing and weaving, dancing, chandelier-swinging, tumbling.
Strength (Acrobatics): Parallel bars, rings, pommel horse.



Powers &8^]

[MThurston]

Absolute statements tend to be false and this is a great example. But feel free to provide some evidence how all forms of parkour are completely unreliant on a person's physical strength. Espesially the bit about parkouring up a wall. Meanwhile I'll be reading up on parkour strength training https://medium.com/parkouredu/parkour-strength-training-for-beginners-949e961129b9

And this guy is crazy if he thinks athletics is parkour.

First and foremost most parkour body types are lean and springy.

They are not body builders.

Let me give you an example. Take a lean pro football player. DB or WR.

Then find and acrobat.

Teach them how to parkour.

Who learns it faster?

The acrobat hands down.

[langal]

And this guy is crazy if he thinks athletics is parkour.

First and foremost most parkour body types are lean and springy.

They are not body builders.

Let me give you an example. Take a lean pro football player. DB or WR.

Then find and acrobat.

Teach them how to parkour.

Who learns it faster?

The acrobat hands down.

Acrobats are really strong too so it is also Athletics.

It should require both. Maybe the DM can just take the lowest of Str/Dex/Ath/Acro and use that as the general modifier for these types of actions. Would do a little bit to promote un-min/max too.

Imagine someone who has both above average Strength and Dexterity! Like acrobats in real life.

[MagneticKitty]

Some other things you can try:
Make it a group check, if majority pass they all pass, as they help eachother up the rope

or instead have the athletics check not represent /if/ they make it, but /when/ they make it
10+ making good time
5+ slow going, maybe 1/4 speed
crit fail starts sliding down

Just some things we do at our table, not necessarily raw

[sophontteks]

And this guy is crazy if he thinks athletics is parkour.

First and foremost most parkour body types are lean and springy.

They are not body builders.

Let me give you an example. Take a lean pro football player. DB or WR.

Then find and acrobat.

Teach them how to parkour.

Who learns it faster?

The acrobat hands down.
The skill is not called Body Building, or I'd be agreeing with you. You've chosen to exclude the majority of athletes. Though a running back would probably be more fit to learn parkour then an acrobat anyway. Most soccer players as well. Parkour is mostly running, jumping, vaulting, and climbing.

[LtPowers]

The skill is not called Body Building, or I'd be agreeing with you. You've chosen to exclude the majority of athletes. Though a running back would probably be more fit to learn parkour then an acrobat anyway. Most soccer players as well. Parkour is mostly running, jumping, vaulting, and climbing.

Parkour's skills are a mixture of those that are categorized in D&D as Acrobatics and those categorized as Athletics. Which makes sense because you probably wouldn't just say "make a check to do parkour", but rather ask for a number of Athletics and Acrobatics checks depending on which obstacles need to be bypassed and how the character chooses to do it.


Powers &8^]

[MThurston]

Acrobats are really strong too so it is also Athletics.

It should require both. Maybe the DM can just take the lowest of Str/Dex/Ath/Acro and use that as the general modifier for these types of actions. Would do a little bit to promote un-min/max too.

Imagine someone who has both above average Strength and Dexterity! Like acrobats in real life.

SMH. Acrobats are fit. They have good strength but they get it from what they do. They do not left weights like body builders.

Some of you people think to extremes. Only a Sith thinks this way.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sadly, the name "Acrobatics" has people fixated on actual acrobats... WOTC really needed a different name for that skill, or to just make Athletics either/or STR/DEX depending on the situation or task.

[langal]

SMH. Acrobats are fit. They have good strength but they get it from what they do. They do not left weights like body builders.

Some of you people think to extremes. Only a Sith thinks this way.

Acrobats have more than 8 strength.

I would not allow a character with 8 strength to just "acrobat" his or her way through feats that obviously require a certain degree of strength.

If 8 strength is typical of a sedentary person, it is arguable that person could even do a pull up.

If is more "extreme" to cater to the min-maxers IMO who roll put 8 str, 20 dex characters who want their cake and eat it it too. Your allusion to "body builders" is extreme.

Some earlier poster suggests using strength based acrobatics - which makes a lot of sense.

And I would love to be a Sith.

[MThurston]

Acrobats have more than 8 strength.

I would not allow a character with 8 strength to just "acrobat" his or her way through feats that obviously require a certain degree of strength.

If 8 strength is typical of a sedentary person, it is arguable that person could even do a pull up.

If is more "extreme" to cater to the min-maxers IMO who roll put 8 str, 20 dex characters who want their cake and eat it it too. Your allusion to "body builders" is extreme.

Some earlier poster suggests using strength based acrobatics - which makes a lot of sense.

And I would love to be a Sith.

10 is average, 6 or less would be weak.

[LtPowers]

If 8 strength is typical of a sedentary person, it is arguable that person could even do a pull up.

This is an adventure game. The game does not model sedentary people; it models people at the peak of their capabilities. Your character's physical ability scores don't go down if she stops exercising.


Powers &8^]

[Unoriginal]

If you want to attribute a skill proficiency to a check involving bodybuilding, it would be Performance, not Athletics.

They build muscles to be big and showy, so that they can show their body and look impressive. Not to be the strongest.

[langal]

This is an adventure game. The game does not model sedentary people; it models people at the peak of their capabilities. Your character's physical ability scores don't go down if she stops exercising.


Powers &8^]

I would have to disagree. Someone with 8 strength is obviously not at their physical peak.

I must admit I have a bias against the 8 Str, 20 Dex builds so it shades my opinion. Anything to encourage more balanced physical scores is a positive for me. I think we all have to admit the 8 str, 20 dex warrior builds we see are all for squeezing numerical advantage in combat. I just want those builds to have downsides too. I wish the game rules encouraged balanced scores more. A "real" athlete parkour type would probably have at least enough strength to lift a decent percentage of their body weight. 8 strength does not do that (maybe it does for gnomes and such).

Parkour is probably just too generic a term. Running some obstacle course would actually involve multiple skill checks of multiple types.

[langal]

Sadly, the name "Acrobatics" has people fixated on actual acrobats... WOTC really needed a different name for that skill, or to just make Athletics either/or STR/DEX depending on the situation or task.

Great point. It's like Athletes and Acrobats are two distinct things. IRL - all acrobats are great athletes. And great athletes would have an easier go at being an acrobat.

[stoutstien]

I would have to disagree. Someone with 8 strength is obviously not at their physical peak.

I must admit I have a bias against the 8 Str, 20 Dex builds so it shades my opinion. Anything to encourage more balanced physical scores is a positive for me. I think we all have to admit the 8 str, 20 dex warrior builds we see are all for squeezing numerical advantage in combat. I just want those builds to have downsides too. I wish the game rules encouraged balanced scores more. A "real" athlete parkour type would probably have at least enough strength to lift a decent percentage of their body weight. 8 strength does not do that (maybe it does for gnomes and such).

Parkour is probably just too generic a term. Running some obstacle course would actually involve multiple skill checks of multiple types.
Could use both. Take the difference from str and Dex score so if they have +4 dex mod but -1 str it gives +3 to the check.

[hymer]

Sadly, the name "Acrobatics" has people fixated on actual acrobats... WOTC really needed a different name for that skill
Agreed. Not that 'athletics' is all that much better. Athletics in sports is running, jumping, and throwing. In D&D it's climbing, swimming, and jumping. That's not really the amount of overlap you'd hope for.

[Malifice]

Hi everyone,

I ran a session last weekend. The players were on a row boat approaching a sail boat (not sure how to call, but an actual boat not a row boat. I placed it as a 20 foot climb). They wanted to climb on and had a rope.

Some players asked if they could use their Acrobatics skill to run up the rope, while other players used Climb.

I placed the DC at 10, since there was a rope.

Believe it or not, about 1/3 of the group had a lot of difficulty making it up.

This happened while in combat so the players had to make the rolls.

So I know Athletics is used for offensive and defensive grappling options and shoving folks etc.

Acrobatics can only be used for defensive.

After that is where the rules get a little gray to me and I wanted to know how any players or DMS used the skills to differentiate them.

Can players make the case to use "parkour" to shimmy up a wall?

Thank you in advance

*Note* I allowed the players to use acrobatics to get on the boat otherwise they would have been stuck and the party would have been divided in combat. One player nearly died! Down to their last death save before the bard was able to cast healing word.

You set a DC to climb a rope?

Why?

Any non disabled or non obese person can climb a rope with zero chance of failure.

[Max_Killjoy]

You set a DC to climb a rope?

Why?

Any non disabled or non obese person can climb a rope with zero chance of failure.

I'm neither obese nor disabled, and I have no idea whether I could climb a basic unknotted rope.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm neither obese nor disabled, and I have no idea whether I could climb a basic unknotted rope.

At the same time, though, a Barbarian could fall from a skyscraper and be relatively fine and patch himself up after an hour. A level 20 Rogue could throw a dart at a dragon and deal more damage than a level 5 Flame Strike (castable as a level 9 Wizard).

It might not always be "magic", but there's always a level of being "superhuman" that needs to be considered.

[LtPowers]

I would have to disagree. Someone with 8 strength is obviously not at their physical peak.

Why is that obvious? D&D characters are adventurers. Even wizards' muscles will be honed close to their maximum potential due to hiking and traveling and general adventuring. An ability score of 8 represents a potential somewhat below that of the average human.

Now, that said, there is limited room for improvement via ASIs, but those can only be gained through adventuring, and they come with all sorts of other exceptional abilities that regular people can't access. Even the most experienced humans in the real world would get one, maybe two ASIs in their lifetimes.

The point is that adventurers have 8 strength because they are inherently weak, not because they don't exercise.


Powers &8^]

[MThurston]

I would have to disagree. Someone with 8 strength is obviously not at their physical peak.

I must admit I have a bias against the 8 Str, 20 Dex builds so it shades my opinion. Anything to encourage more balanced physical scores is a positive for me. I think we all have to admit the 8 str, 20 dex warrior builds we see are all for squeezing numerical advantage in combat. I just want those builds to have downsides too. I wish the game rules encouraged balanced scores more. A "real" athlete parkour type would probably have at least enough strength to lift a decent percentage of their body weight. 8 strength does not do that (maybe it does for gnomes and such).

Parkour is probably just too generic a term. Running some obstacle course would actually involve multiple skill checks of multiple types.

An 8 str would be fine to parkour with if you weighed 100 lbs. 300 lbs, not so much.

[stoutstien]

An 8 str would be fine to parkour with if you weighed 100 lbs. 300 lbs, not so much.
The DND system isn't a physics simulation and I don't recommend trying to make it one.

Example
A 3 foot tall gnome with a str score of 10 can make a long jump about 10 feet wide with equipment weighing 100 pounds.

[Malifice]

I'm neither obese nor disabled, and I have no idea whether I could climb a basic unknotted rope.

Youve never climbed a rope?

It's something that everyone who has ever enlisted in the Army does during basic training. And every single person climbs it.

Not 50 percent of them. Not 1 in 3 of them. All of them.

I've literally never seen anyone with even a rudimentary level of fitness fail to climb a rope. You would have to be carrying an injury, be morbidly obese, or disabled to fail. If you're able to do a single chin up or pull your own body weight up and over a wall or up out of a pit, you cant fail.

You literally pull your body weight up, loop your feet around the bottom of the rope to lock off, and then repeat.

It used to be pretty darn common in High school as well.

Mechanically, in 5E you can Push, Drag, or Lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). That means a person with a lowly Strength of 8 can lift their own body weight (presuming they weigh 240lbs or less) off the ground with no check required.

You then lock the rope off with your feet (one foot over and one foot under), and repeat.

You would have to have absolute custard arms (very low Strength) and/or a morbidly obese PC or one that is carrying a ton of gear to fail. Something in the realms of Strength of 8 or lower and weighing 100+ kgs (which would place you in the realms of 'morbidly obese').

Climbing a rope or a tree isnt a check. It's just something that happens. A child can do either, and a seasoned adventurer should be expected to be able to do the same.

[Max_Killjoy]

Youve never climbed a rope?

It's something that everyone who has ever enlisted in the Army does during basic training. And every single person climbs it.

Not 50 percent of them. Not 1 in 3 of them. All of them.

I've literally never seen anyone with even a rudimentary level of fitness fail to climb a rope. You would have to be carrying an injury, be morbidly obese, or disabled to fail. If you're able to do a single chin up or pull your own body weight up and over a wall or up out of a pit, you cant fail.

You literally pull your body weight up, loop your feet around the bottom of the rope to lock off, and then repeat.

It used to be pretty darn common in High school as well.

Mechanically, in 5E you can Push, Drag, or Lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). That means a person with a lowly Strength of 8 can lift their own body weight (presuming they weigh 240lbs or less) off the ground with no check required.

You then lock the rope off with your feet (one foot over and one foot under), and repeat.

You would have to have absolute custard arms (very low Strength) and/or a morbidly obese PC or one that is carrying a ton of gear to fail. A Strength of 8 or lower and weighing 100+ kgs (which would place you in the realms of 'morbidly obese').

I've never been in the Army.

I haven't tried to climb a rope since I was in elementary school.

So I literally have no idea.

[Malifice]

I've never been in the Army.

I haven't tried to climb a rope since I was in elementary school.

So I literally have no idea.

You lift your body weight up a foot or two with your arms. You then loop the rope over one foot, and under the other (locking the rope and freeing your hands) in an 'S' shape. Once the rope is locked you can literally just hang there 'standing' on the rope, using the friction around your feet to support your weight.

If a PC wants to climb out of a pit where they can reach the edge, or hoik their body weight up a rope, the pertinent question is 'whats your Strength and how much do you weigh with gear'.

A PC with Strength 10 can lift up to 300lbs off the ground (135kgs) without a check (including their own body weight). Unless they're morbidly obese or heavily encumbered, it just happens.

In 3.5 climbing a rope was DC 10 (or 5 if it was knotted, or you had a wall to brace on). Meaning a commoner of reasonable health (Strength 10) and no skill could do it with zero chance of failure taking 10, and a disabled elderly person with a Strength of 1 could do the same with knots or a wall to brace on.

If a person was trying to scale a rope in a hurry (at full speed) and/or were being peppered by arrows, I might call for a check, but even then it's like DC 5 or (in the case of at full speed and while getting shot at) DC 10.

I recall an early thread on the topic:


It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.


Using the above compound check, your average commoner (in good health) falls from a 50' climb down a shaft using a rope in 99.999 percent of cases, which is ridiculous. Your average commoner virtually always succeeds in a climb down a 50' shaft with a rope. You're literally just abseiling down a shaft, walking on the sides, holding a rope. If a commoner would only have a minuscule chance of failure, it shouldnt even be a check.

[Malifice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8euRsnemNRI

I mean seriously. It's that easy.

If a bunch of seasoned adventurers of reasonable to excellent Strength (8-18) cant climb a 20' rope, something is going wrong with your choice of action resolution.

[djreynolds]

Players have an 8 in a stat because for some reason 5E said 15/14/13/12/10/8 are the your stats and it is only logical for a dex based warrior to dump strength.

Now for character purposes we go ahead and try to justify having a 8 in a stat with some reason in their background, but you have an 8 in strength because with point buy or standard array you are forced to have an 8 in something

And with skills, unlike 3.5E, their is no synergy between skills. Why doesn't having a high acrobatics score make you a better athlete? Perhaps a higher nature score can affect your animal handling?

And so in 5E, their is no reason for a PC with an 8 strength to take athletics over acrobatics

And so we are left with the dilemma of using athletics or acrobatics for climbing, because it really silly for a PC with an 8 strength to select athletics a skill.

Do I as the DM just hand wave this? Is this climb that important? Can't I just cast levitate? Can I use water breathing instead of swimming? Can I use a fireball to open a door? Can I use acrobatics versus athletics?

I will allow players to use an athletics check with dexterity instead of strength, because we tired of arguing over stuff

This really 5Es weakness, specificity. Especially with weapons and skills, and for me its okay, because it allows the table to come together and come up with a reasonable house rule

[PhoenixPhyre]

And so in 5E, their is no reason for a PC with an 8 strength to take athletics over acrobatics



Circular reasoning. There's no reason because you let them always use their high stat for things. If you don't allow that, taking proficiency is a way of shoring up weaknesses, instead of pumping strengths to ludicrous levels.

Ability check DCs are supposed to be low, specifically because you're supposed to make people make checks they're not super good at. If you always let them throw their high score at things, of course they'll succeed and have no reason to branch out.

I find that DMs forget that they're the ones assigning checks, not the players. A player doesn't get to decide that they're using Dexterity (Acrobatics) unless the DM says they can. And things like INT and STR are only useless because DMs let players get away with things for free (in one case metagaming by using their player knowledge, in the other case by substituting for DEX 90% of the time).

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. As a DM, I would never have a STR (Athletics) check substituted by a DEX (Acrobatics) check, if they're attempting a task that requires a STR ( Athletics) check.

Maybe they can come up with a different task that uses DEX, though.


Honestly, I feel like people act as if the rule wasn't clear or as if it was a weakness of 5e because they prefer DEX and don't want to invest in other things.

[djreynolds]

I don't expect a wizard to use or select athletics or acrobatics, they have a spell book. Perhaps they will take one to deal with being grappled.

But in 5E, most tables use standard array or point buy, and thus someone ends up with an 8 in a stat.

Its an unfortunate aspect of 5E, in other versions even with the old weapon finesse, your damage bonus was always based on strength, even archery or rogues or monks needed strength for damage bonuses

In 5E that is no longer the case, there is no bonus for having a high dex and strength. So they only reason a rogue with an 8 strength is taking athletics is because of climbing.

And as many have argued, I'm not sure what is used for climbing. A squirrel has an awesome climbing ability but cannot cleave someone in half with a greatsword

Swimming is strength? Because some babies can swim, and a bass is really good at swimming but cannot wield a maul

So, for me, I cannot let this bog down my table with an hour's worth of arguments about parkour, pullups, and what have you

2nd addition had a variant on ability scores which was interesting

But as I said 5E's greatness is its ease of play and weakness is specificity, and when specificity shows up... I push through and tell players to work as a team and help each other

[Coffee_Dragon]

Problems with details are often rooted in ignoring the game's chosen level(s) of abstraction and expecting it to work as a simulation. It's perfectly fine for squirrels to climb by fiat, and if a baby ends up in a situation where an ability check is called for, it's perfectly fine for it to go down. In fact, I'm pretty sure it should. Stupid baby.

[stoutstien]

Problems with details are often rooted in ignoring the game's chosen level(s) of abstraction and expecting it to work as a simulation. It's perfectly fine for squirrels to climb by fiat, and if a baby ends up in a situation where an ability check is called for, it's perfectly fine for it to go down. In fact, I'm pretty sure it should. Stupid baby.

Nothing brings more joy to the heart than the pitter-patter of little baby feet while they are giggling. Unless you hear it home....
. alone...
.. and you don't have a baby.

Back on the topic at hand there's been a few Post in the past discussing what is a reasonable level of expectation of physical tasks in the d&d universe. which will vary from table to table but should be brought up at the beginning of the game not the first time the situation arrives.
Player should know the risk
/ reward of dumping strength or dexterity.

[Aquillion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8euRsnemNRI

I mean seriously. It's that easy.

If a bunch of seasoned adventurers of reasonable to excellent Strength (8-18) cant climb a 20' rope, something is going wrong with your choice of action resolution.I wouldn't call for a check to climb a rope in a safe, secure situation where stopping or falling or having to jump down has no consequences. (Generally speaking, you shouldn't call for rolls when there are no consequences to failure.)

But doing it in combat time or over a pit of lava or to highs where falling will injure you is different.

[djreynolds]

Problems with details are often rooted in ignoring the game's chosen level(s) of abstraction and expecting it to work as a simulation. It's perfectly fine for squirrels to climb by fiat, and if a baby ends up in a situation where an ability check is called for, it's perfectly fine for it to go down. In fact, I'm pretty sure it should. Stupid baby.

LOL, too funny

I honestly do not know who is better at what, and what skill is what

I honestly just press on with the game.

And as wimpy as it sounds, if your wizard can explain a successful nature check helping her up a rock face, I'll give her advantage on her strength check to climb it....

And if a player has athletics and acrobatics as skills, I will give them advantage to climb... why not

[Unoriginal]

And as many have argued, I'm not sure what is used for climbing. A squirrel has an awesome climbing ability but cannot cleave someone in half with a greatsword

Swimming is strength? Because some babies can swim, and a bass is really good at swimming but cannot wield a maul

Wielding humanoid weapons requires opposable thumbs and not having the weapon be three time the size of your body, it's not a question of those animals lacking strength.


Also, fishes have a swim speed, and a squirrel would have a climb speed.

[djreynolds]

Wielding humanoid weapons requires opposable thumbs and not having the weapon be three time the size of your body, it's not a question of those animals lacking strength.


Also, fishes have a swim speed, and a squirrel would have a climb speed.

Exactly, a squirrel or even a tabaxi has a climb speed, strength is no requirement here.

I think climbing requires more than we can quantify in game, there is experience, knowledge, fitness level combining multiple attributes. I know its easier to just say its strength and athletics.

I honestly just push on with the story. Because what exactly is dexterity, it is tough to determine. You can do a hand stand with acrobatics but cannot climb a wall.

I'm uncertain. And it is an enjoyable discussion.

For me, dexterity is hitting a baseball and strength is driving the baseball.
A home run hitter might have a low dexterity and a high strength
Or you have a guy with a high batting average but not many homeruns, high dex and low strength
Mickey Mantle has both in a baseball world.

There is pound for pound strength, and then brute force. What does a pound for pound strong adventure look like, what is his strength and dex?

If I could make a sweeping change to 5E, I would make dexterity to hit and strength for damage. And certain weapons would have strength or dex requirements to wield efficiently.

But in game, I just press on. "Your teammates helped you up the rope"

[Tanarii]

I climb regularly at the gym and outdoors.

It requires a lot of forearm strength (for grip) and shoulder strength (for lifting), some balance ... and not being excessively heavy compared to your strength or foothold size/shoe grip.

Otoh I don't try to do it in a combat situation or under particularly stressful time sensitive situations, so I'm not sure it really maps. For that matter, neither Str in particular muscle groups, nor Str to weight ratio, is something that 5e handles really well.

For 5e I'd definitely put it as a Str and Athletics thing as a general rule, but I don't particular subscribe to Dex as wiry strength. If you do, Dex is probably fine as a substitute in some situations.

[Malifice]

I wouldn't call for a check to climb a rope in a safe, secure situation where stopping or falling or having to jump down has no consequences. (Generally speaking, you shouldn't call for rolls when there are no consequences to failure.)

But doing it in combat time or over a pit of lava or to highs where falling will injure you is different.

Adrenaline actually makes it more likely you succeed, not less.

Climbing a rope simply shouldnt be a check. The only people I've ever seen fail have been morbidly obese people or people who are disabled or an equivalent outlier.

Your average high school kid or Army rookie can do it every single time.

Seriously. Once you've pulled your own body weight up and off the ground, the rest of the climb is basically you locking off with your feet, straightening your legs and standing up, holding your own body weight, lifting your legs and locking off with your feet again, and repeating.

It's no more difficult that a single chin up, followed by a couple of squats.

Unless the PC has written 240lbs or more on his character sheet for what he weighs (or is carrying a ton of gear) and has a Strength of 8 or less, it should just happen.

[langal]

I'm no physicist. But there is something about mass increasing at a higher rate than strength. So a human sized squirrel (or cat) would not be able to climb with such ease. Tabaxi aren't real creatures so it doesn't matter. Nor is DnD a real life simulation.

But claiming that strength is not important to climbing is just not true. Wear a 40 pound weight vest or something and I am sure you would find it more taxing on your muscles.

[djreynolds]

I'm no physicist. But there is something about mass increasing at a higher rate than strength. So a human sized squirrel (or cat) would not be able to climb with such ease. Tabaxi aren't real creatures so it doesn't matter. Nor is DnD a real life simulation.

But claiming that strength is not important to climbing is just not true. Wear a 40 pound weight vest or something and I am sure you would find it more taxing on your muscles.

But rock climbers are not bodybuilders, they are lean and muscular.

I would just like to see, what the designers see the strength and dex score of rock climber is? I'm seeing 14/16

[stoutstien]

But rock climbers are not bodybuilders, they are lean and muscular.

I would just like to see, what the designers see the strength and dex score of rock climber is? I'm seeing 14/16

They would just give it a climb speed and been done with it.

[Max_Killjoy]

They would just give it a climb speed and been done with it.

"It"?

An odd way to refer to people who climb rocks as a hobby or sport...

[stoutstien]

"It"?

An odd way to refer to people who climb rocks as a hobby or sport...
Referring to an NPC that they wanted to represent a rock climber. 😀

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's nothing wrong with having two "strong" (meaning 11+) physical or mental ability scores. I see too many forum posters thinking that all you need is one, but that's not a very rounded person. That kind of min-maxing often, in my experience, leads to flat or unreal characters, or to metagaming (trying to twist the ability scores to do something else so you can hammer your one good ability on everything). There should be opportunity cost for dumping one ability (no, 8 is not very low).

A real-world gymnast would probably have both STR and DEX pretty high. Same with most athletes in fact.

I tend to think of the ability scores as follows:
STR: physical power
DEX: quickness and reflexes
CON: resilience and endurance
INT: memory and deduction
WIS: perception and awareness
CHA: confidence and charm

You can't "quickness" your way up a wall, so climbing (if it needs a check at all) is STR. I might let someone use STR (acrobatics) if it's a situation that involves lots of precision maneuvers while climbing.

Remember that the default is a straight ability check; adding proficiency is a bonus, not a prerequisite.

[Tanarii]

But rock climbers are not bodybuilders, they are lean and muscular.
Yes. Exactly. And in 5e, muscular is strength. But I said above, 5e doesn't map very well for specific muscle groups being strong, or more important high Str to body weight ratios. Which are what is relevant IRL. Of course IRL straight body weight also matters because it means climbing shoes stick better, so smaller / lighter climbers have a huge advantage even before strength ratio.

Also there's no way your average rock climber has a 16 Dex. That's saying they are in the top 5% in the world.

[stoutstien]

Yes. Exactly. And in 5e, muscular is strength. But I said above, 5e doesn't map very well for specific muscle groups being strong, or more important high Str to body weight ratios. Which are what is relevant IRL. Of course IRL straight body weight also matters because it means climbing shoes stick better, so smaller / lighter climbers have a huge advantage even before strength ratio.

Also there's no way your average rock climber has a 16 Dex. That's saying they are in the top 5% in the world.

A while back there was actually really good thread about the discrepancy of viewpoints of what each ability score Value represents. Is 8 average or is 10? Is 16 demi-human and 20 godlike? Is it possible for a creature with lower than three intelligent to have self-awareness? Let's say you have 20 strength and Dex are you Batman or spider Man.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing wrong with having two "strong" (meaning 11+) physical or mental ability scores. I see too many forum posters thinking that all you need is one, but that's not a very rounded person. That kind of min-maxing often, in my experience, leads to flat or unreal characters, or to metagaming (trying to twist the ability scores to do something else so you can hammer your one good ability on everything). There should be opportunity cost for dumping one ability (no, 8 is not very low).

A real-world gymnast would probably have both STR and DEX pretty high. Same with most athletes in fact.

I tend to think of the ability scores as follows:
STR: physical power
DEX: quickness and reflexes
CON: resilience and endurance
INT: memory and deduction
WIS: perception and awareness
CHA: confidence and charm

You can't "quickness" your way up a wall, so climbing (if it needs a check at all) is STR. I might let someone use STR (acrobatics) if it's a situation that involves lots of precision maneuvers while climbing.

Remember that the default is a straight ability check; adding proficiency is a bonus, not a prerequisite.

IMO, the two Abilities, STR and DEX, make sense... it's the two Skills, Athletics and Acrobatics, that seem redundant and oddly specific in contrast to other pasts of 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, the two Abilities, STR and DEX, make sense... it's the two Skills, Athletics and Acrobatics, that seem redundant and oddly specific in contrast to other pasts of 5e.

In my mind, Acrobatics is about tumbling, soft landings from falling, or aerial tricks like swinging off a vine/chandelier.

Athletics is more straightforward: climbing really hard surfaces, swimming in rough waters, jumping far/high (but not necessarily gracefully, just covering distance).

Do a twisting jump over someone? Acrobatics. Jump and catch something just out of your normal range? Athletics. Gymnastics would be lots of STR/dex (acrobatics) checks, while track and field would be mostly STR/dex (Athletics) checks

[Tanarii]

A while back there was actually really good thread about the discrepancy of viewpoints of what each ability score Value represents. Is 8 average or is 10? Is 16 demi-human and 20 godlike? Is it possible for a creature with lower than three intelligent to have self-awareness? Let's say you have 20 strength and Dex are you Batman or spider Man.
Good point. I'm a grognard, so I still view the 3d6 bell curve as roughly the distribution among the general population. That makes 4d6 x6 PCs far off the right end of the curve, but since I view adventurers as about one in 1000 of the general pop, that works for me.

Edit: also I worked off 3d6, ignoriby a +1 for humans. Thatd shift the bell curve over by one, so 16 eould be more like 9% ;)

[djreynolds]

I know I have ranted this, but the reality is strength and dexterity have a connection.

I see Ichiro, baseball player, has a high dexterity hence a high batting average

A power hit who has lots of home runs has a high strength and low dexterity

Some players like Barry Bonds has a high dex and high strength (perhaps magically augmented), hence high batting average and lots of homeruns

In previous editions, even with weapon finesse you ability damage was still strength. 5E has streamlined this, which is fine, but the two stats are connected

Aiming a bow is dexterity and strength for additional damage.

[Unoriginal]

But rock climbers are not bodybuilders, they are lean and muscular.

I would just like to see, what the designers see the strength and dex score of rock climber is? I'm seeing 14/16

Rock climbers are muscular.

Bodybuilders have big muscles, it doesn't mean they're stronger than other athletes. It's just that other athletes focus on efficiently-sized muscles, so that the extra size bodybuilders seek doesn't hinder them.

Bodybuilding muscles are deliberately trained to be bigger for show. Most sports prefer compact muscles.

[greenstone]

IMO … it's the two Skills, Athletics and Acrobatics, that seem redundant and oddly specific in contrast to other pasts of 5e.
I see Athletics and Acrobatics (and all the others) as simply "training".

If Conan has a high strength ability score then he is naturally strong. If he has a proficiency in Athletics, that indicates that he has had some sort of training to enable him to make better use of his strength ("better" meaning better than someone without such training).

At 13th level, a trained character with 10 strength is just as good as an untrained character with 20 strength. At 17th level, the trained character is better than the untrained character can ever be. Someone with both natural strength and the training to use it is, of course, better than both.

It's not perfect (here we can repeat the "no a reality simulator" line :-) but it's what we have. Personally, I favour the scores that FFG's Star Wars games uses, but when playing D&D we sort of have to stick to the D&D rules.

[Tanarii]

I see Athletics and Acrobatics (and all the others) as simply "training".

The PHB is explicit that Ability Scores themselves include training. Proficiency is a skill is referred to as a "focus"

[langal]

But rock climbers are not bodybuilders, they are lean and muscular.

I would just like to see, what the designers see the strength and dex score of rock climber is? I'm seeing 14/16

Who said anything about body builders? I'm just saying rock climbers are stronger than average so have strength as a component of climbing seems valid.

I just don't like 8 str/20 dex min-maxed types saying "i can use dex for climbing and swimming because...well...squirrels and fish..."