Acrobatics in combat

[Tanarii]

Do you allow players to gain mechanical advantages by making acrobatics checks in combat?

Some possible examples might be attempting to avoid difficult terrain, pass through an occupied square or otherwise move in a way that would otherwise be blocks, avoid an attack of opportunity, or gain advantage on an attack.

Secondary question: what are the consequences for failure?

I'm reviewing how I handle Acrobatics after two players complained I made it a "worthless skill". To quote one of them: "I would have been better off picking up Medicine." :smalleek:

[Dr. Cliché]

Do you allow players to gain mechanical advantages by making acrobatics checks in combat?

Some possible examples might be attempting to avoid difficult terrain, pass through an occupied square or otherwise move in a way that would otherwise be blocks, avoid an attack of opportunity, or gain advantage on an attack.

It doesn't actually come up that often, but I'd definitely be open to allowing these things, so long as it seems reasonable in context. e.g. I'm fine with someone vaulting past a giant or between his legs, but less so with someone attempting to get bast a gelatinous cube that's taking up the entire width and height of a corridor. :smallwink:

Gaining advantage on an attack would probably depend entirely on the circumstances, though I try to be as open as possible to fun/creative uses. There's a difference between 'can I make an Acrobatics check to get Advantage' and 'can I try to jump from the balcony, grab onto the chandelier with my free hand, and slash at the giant's head?'




Secondary question: what are the consequences for failure?

For me it would relate to the action they tried to take. If they're trying to avoid dangerous terrain, failure will probably result in their suffering the consequences of said terrain. Similarly, failing to avoid an attack of opportunity would simply mean the enemy getting that opportunity attack.

For more elaborate uses, I'd probably play it by ear.

[Justin Sane]

Yes on all accounts - the trick is to select a decent DC (we've been going with the attack roll to avoid an AoO, or the target's AC to get advantage on one attack), and to have consequences (our default is "your character falls prone, and has 0 movement until next turn").

[darknite]

How often does acrobatics come up in real life, unless you're in the circus? It's a nice performance skill and has its' place for second-story thieves who need excellent balance to do their work. But beyond that it's not very practical in combat, especially if the acrobat is wearing armor or carrying a weapon.

I allow it for some parkour-style actions if it seems reasonable. Drop up to 20' with a successful DC 15 Acrobatics check without taking 2d6 fall damage, bound up to 15' up a suitable surface with a successful DC 15 Acrobatics check or not make it up and drop back down (not prone) and lose rest of movement. Otherwise you really don't want to be tumbling and flipping through areas where blades and spear points are likely to catch you...

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you allow players to gain mechanical advantages by making acrobatics checks in combat?

Some possible examples might be attempting to avoid difficult terrain, pass through an occupied square or otherwise move in a way that would otherwise be blocks, avoid an attack of opportunity, or gain advantage on an attack.

Secondary question: what are the consequences for failure?

I'm reviewing how I handle Acrobatics after two players complained I made it a "worthless skill". To quote one of them: "I would have been better off picking up Medicine." :smalleek:

Yes, on all of it, but they first need to have Proficiency, otherwise it's only ever relevant as a "Saving Throw" effect (as in, "you fell off your horse, roll Acrobatics").

My general rules of thumb:

If it provides an inherent benefit, then they get that benefit. Otherwise, they get Advantage on a relevant check or attack. If Advantage isn't applicable (like they did something cool, but it doesn't tie into them "succeeding" any more), then increase the DC slightly and provide Inspiration if successful (stored Advantage for later).

A standard DC starts at 15, gets Advantage based on circumstances, and gets -5 depending on whether you spend your Action to do it.

For example, a Monk wants to jump along the corners of a wall to get Advantage on their kick. Roll Acrobatics, DC 15 with Advantage. On a fail, they fall prone. It's possible due to having 1 wall to use, but Advantage is from having 2.

That sets a strong precedent: Circumstances make it possible, but special circumstances grant you Advantage. If there isn't a circumstance that'd normally make it possible, allow your players to make up one (like spending an additional 20 feet to circle around the enemy for your spin kick).

[Trickery]

How often does acrobatics come up in real life, unless you're in the circus? It's a nice performance skill and has its' place for second-story thieves who need excellent balance to do their work.

Depends on what you consider acrobatics to be. If you have a physical profession, being able to roll instead of splat when you fall is pretty useful.

I've most commonly seen acrobatics used to avoid fall damage. Regarding avoiding attacks of opportunity and the like, the key is to ensure that trying to avoid the attack and failing should be worse than if you had just taken the attack. One option is for failure to result in you taking the attack but also falling prone. Otherwise, every player will roll to avoid every attack of opportunity.

[Nagog]

Here's a fun story for how I used acrobatics in combat: Fighting an Air Genie on an airship, our fighter was knocked off the edge of the ship due to a failed save. I, as the bard, leapt after him and managed to reunite with him in the air, and cast Dimension Door to teleport us up and towards the ship (Portal style). However, due to moving really fast, we had to roll acrobatics to land without fall damage. With a 26 (+11 due to expertise) I managed to safely land both me and the fighter wherever on the ship we wanted to be.

Acrobatics may be used for some difficult maneuvering, however AoO are an important part of combat so while those cannot be avoided unless specifically stated in an ability/spell, Acrobatics may be used to take alternate routes around the battlefield, with the DC being set appropriately high based on the difficulty of performing such a maneuver, with failure meaning such conditions as falling prone, recieving an AoO, etc.

[mephnick]

Do you allow players to gain mechanical advantages by making acrobatics checks in combat?

Some possible examples might be attempting to avoid difficult terrain, pass through an occupied square or otherwise move in a way that would otherwise be blocks, avoid an attack of opportunity, or gain advantage on an attack.

I'm reviewing how I handle Acrobatics after two players complained I made it a "worthless skill". To quote one of them: "I would have been better off picking up Medicine." :smalleek:

I've allowed it to pass through occupied squares and difficult terrain (within reason). I'd never make it strong enough to avoid AoO (that's what AC is for) or gain advantage on attack (just no).

I don't think Acrobatics should be a strong skill. It's a niche skill like many others in the game and that's OK. Other than Stealth, the Dex skills are designed to be very limited which is why I always find it odd that people treat it like a god stat. It sounds like the players came in with some unfounded expectations about how skills work.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think a lot of skill proficiencies come into play in combat and acrobatics is already one that does, being an option to escape grapples.

I'm not sure what you players are wanting out of it.

[Bjarkmundur]

Rulings like these I usually base on Positive Reinforcement. Ask yourself, do you want your players to do more of what your player just did? If yes, give advantage.

For example, if a player takes a riskier route in order to do something awesome: Give advantage
On the other hand: If a player wants to roll acrobatics checks every round to enable his sneak attack: Don't give advantage

For handling "useless skills", I have some suggestions in my houserule document.


Q: Would you allow the following as Acrobatics checks:
1: Avoid difficult terrain
2: Pass through an occupied square
3: Avoid an attack of opportunity
4: Gain advantage on an attack.

1: Yes, always
2: Yes, always
3: Yes. To avoid overuse, I'd probably rule you need a running start (doesn't work from escaping a creature, but works from moving past a creature).
4: Rarely. I'd much rather give inspiration for cool actions than giving advantage based on checks. There's a subtle difference in how the other players view the chain of events.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure what you players are wanting out of it.I talked to them more, they're specifically wanting Tumbling to avoid OAs. I told them sorry, but no.

But also told them that I'm open to allowing some cool maneuvers to bypass terrain or narrow spaces or low ledges etc, with a check to succeed but no penalty other than "choose to do something else with your movement" on failure. I pointed out there's terrain all over my battlefields, they said it doesn't feel that way, I told them I'll work on that, and encouraged them to feel free to ask questions about terrain. But to also take into account sometimes movement stuff is just an Athletics check, but a I'll try to give them flexibility on that.

[mephnick]

Are they old 3.5 players by chance?

[darknite]

Here's a fun story for how I used acrobatics in combat: Fighting an Air Genie on an airship, our fighter was knocked off the edge of the ship due to a failed save. I, as the bard, leapt after him and managed to reunite with him in the air, and cast Dimension Door to teleport us up and towards the ship (Portal style). However, due to moving really fast, we had to roll acrobatics to land without fall damage. With a 26 (+11 due to expertise) I managed to safely land both me and the fighter wherever on the ship we wanted to be.

That's cool!

[Tanarii]

Are they old 3.5 players by chance?
No but I am. I'm the one that thinks of it as "Tumbling". Or at least I think I'm the one that first used that term in the conversation.

[Misterwhisper]

No to all of that:

What action allows you to do that?

Want to avoid difficult terrain?
Take mobile, play a rogue and bonus action dash to make up the movement, play a monk and use step of the wind or cast a spell to do it.

Pass through an opponent’s square?
If you want them out of the way, then shove them or grapple and drag them. That is what it is there for.

Avoid an OA?
It is called disengage, use it.

Gain advantage?
Not a chance in hell.
Nobody even gets a class ability that good.

What you are wanting is a gameplay advantage for a skill check anyone can make most of which is already in the game.

[Bieskaon]

Yes and no.

It depends on the situation inside the narrative if i let them make a check to see if their characters succeed with their goal.
For Example:
you have a big green hedge blocking the direct way.

To save some movement my rogue decides to parcour-jump over it. => acrobatics check with a dc of idk 14?
If he fails, he either hangs in it and spends his movement to get out. Or looses the "hight of the hedge doubled" of his Movement because he failed his coolnes check.

His Barbarian friend tries to skip such shenanigans and decides to run straight through the hedge. => Athletics (STR) check with a dc of 14/15 On a fail see the rogue scenario. On a crit success => the hedge has now a new archway


For mechanical benefits directly in the cotext of meele combat i am really skeptical.
Especially granting an advantaged attack just with a "successfull" acrobatics check? Mostly no.. there are enough direct mechanics for that

Are they just want to only avoid an opportunity attack or more? Then your players have either the needed class (dex-classes like rogue or monk) with its features, the needed AC to shrug it off, or the needed action free for this (disengage).
I can see too much potential for abuse in it. Restricting it to a proficiency in acrobatics seems also kind of wrong to me.

But mostly i am already picturing my whole group tumbling and diverolling and barrelrolling around the battlefield to avoid AoO like crazy while my imaginary inner DM stands beside them, facepalms and begins to apologize to his evil guys in embarrassement for his players.


But what if it comes from a narrative standpoint? Would it make a good story or a cool memorable moment, then hell sure, go for it.
Jumping at the chandelier, flying through the room to land behind the bbeg without spending 120 Feet of movement to run along the stairs down to him? Yeah, you have an acrobatics for that.
If he fails, then he is still in front of the bbeg without movement, had maybe taken falldamage and the chandelier has a chance to land on him (or the bbeg) and if you want to be gritty, then let him make a check not to fall prone next to the bbeg who is maybe also next in initiative order.

[JackPhoenix]

It depends on the situation inside the narrative if i let them make a check to see if their characters succeed with their goal.
For Example:
you have a big green hedge blocking the direct way.

To save some movement my rogue decides to parcour-jump over it. => acrobatics check with a dc of idk 14?
If he fails, he either hangs in it and spends his movement to get out. Or looses the "hight of the hedge doubled" of his Movement because he failed his coolnes check.

Jumping falls under Athletics, not Acrobatics.

[Xetheral]

Jumping falls under Athletics, not Acrobatics.

For a straight long jump or high jump, I agree. But if a player wants to use parkour I would let acrobatics proficiency apply, even if the parkour move in question involves a jump (or multiple jumps).

In general, I would set higher DCs for a player using parkour to bypass an obstacle than I would to a player using straight athletics, but if the check is passed I would be more likely to let the character end up on their feet. For example, a character high jumping beyond automatic high-jump distance to grab the lip of a ledge might only be DC 10 Strength (Athletics), but I'd require the character to then spend half their movement to pull themselves up the rest of the way and get to their feet. By contrast, if the ledge has adjacent surfaces one can use to propel themselves upwards parkour-style, it might be DC 20 Strength (Acrobatics), but if successful the character lands on their feet on top of the ledge. If they fail they land prone below the ledge.

[Nagog]

No to all of that:

What action allows you to do that?

Want to avoid difficult terrain?
Take mobile, play a rogue and bonus action dash to make up the movement, play a monk and use step of the wind or cast a spell to do it.

Pass through an opponent’s square?
If you want them out of the way, then shove them or grapple and drag them. That is what it is there for.

Avoid an OA?
It is called disengage, use it.

Gain advantage?
Not a chance in hell.
Nobody even gets a class ability that good.

What you are wanting is a gameplay advantage for a skill check anyone can make most of which is already in the game.

Agreed for the advantage and AoO, but disagreed for passing through an occupied space. While such a thing as grappling and dragging is viable if you have the stats for it and want to spend a few rounds for moving from one place to another, your teammates probably will not be too happy about you grappling and dragging them out of your way, and in tight spaces like 5 foot wide hallways, there isn't much room for dragging people around. So for quickly ducking through somebody's space to get around them, I'd 100% approve an Acrobatics check to get by. If it's an enemy you're attempting to get past, I'd rule you'd still get an attack of opportunity, but you could pass through the space with a properly rolled Acrobatics check.


Jumping falls under Athletics, not Acrobatics.

So, just to clarify, our paladin in full plate wielding a war-hammer is better at jumping over stuff than our dex-based rogue in leather armor wielding a dagger? Just checking, because that sounds like some pretty crazy BS to me, and makes me want to play a Paladin with that description and perhaps a feat for expertise in Athletics, mostly so I could yeet my 300-400lbs weight around the battlefield as a living wrecking ball.

[JackPhoenix]

So, just to clarify, our paladin in full plate wielding a war-hammer is better at jumping over stuff than our dex-based rogue in leather armor wielding a dagger? Just checking, because that sounds like some pretty crazy BS to me, and makes me want to play a Paladin with that description and perhaps a feat for expertise in Athletics, mostly so I could yeet my 300-400lbs weight around the battlefield as a living wrecking ball.

Maybe? It's not like I know what your paladin's or your rogue's stats look like. But yes, stronger, more athletic people are better at jumping than untrained weaklings. There's nothing crazy about that.

[Man_Over_Game]

At my table:

Athletics = Muscle
Acrobatics = Agility
Jumping straight up = Muscle
Jumping out of the way = Agility
Jumping off a wall = Muscle + Agility

So...why not both? Add +5 to the DC and allow them their pick of Athletics or Acrobatics (and Strength or Dexterity).

[GlenSmash!]

So, just to clarify, our paladin in full plate wielding a war-hammer is better at jumping over stuff than our dex-based rogue in leather armor wielding a dagger? Just checking, because that sounds like some pretty crazy BS to me, and makes me want to play a Paladin with that description and perhaps a feat for expertise in Athletics, mostly so I could yeet my 300-400lbs weight around the battlefield as a living wrecking ball.

A straight jump is pretty much a function of strength and technique.

A series of rapid jumps would require far more agility however and I would solidly put in the Acrobatics arena.

[Demonslayer666]

Through difficult terrain or an occupied square, I would allow it on occasion, but not set a standard rule. It would have to be situational.
I would not allow it to avoid OAs.

[Tanarii]

A series of rapid jumps would require far more agility however and I would solidly put in the Acrobatics arena.I've yet to have a player want to parkour, as in jump a large gap and use their hands ricochet off a 6" wide wall top and pull a stunt flip at the end. :smallamused: Off the cuff, I'd probably make that a Strength (Acrobatics) check.

I'd also be open to someone who wanted to twist mid-air to clear a jump height more than 1/3 of the length using Strength (Acrobatics). And would probably be open to an counter-request of just making it straight Dex (Acrobatics).

[Steel Mirror]

YFor example, a Monk wants to jump along the corners of a wall to get Advantage on their kick. Roll Acrobatics, DC 15 with Advantage. On a fail, they fall prone. It's possible due to having 1 wall to use, but Advantage is from having 2.

That sets a strong precedent: Circumstances make it possible, but special circumstances grant you Advantage. If there isn't a circumstance that'd normally make it possible, allow your players to make up one (like spending an additional 20 feet to circle around the enemy for your spin kick).Really like this as a rule of thumb, not just for Acrobatics but for creative maneuvers in combat in general. I usually don't have as punishing consequences for failure, e.g. in that case I'd probably give disadvantage on the attack instead of advantage so as to not invalidate the attack completely, but it's a quick and easy way to let my players know what kind of combat maneuvers I am looking for from them. Making it heavily context dependent is key, because if I screw up a ruling and let them do something that is too powerful, at least it's not something they can spam for every combat forever and whine about when I try to remove as an option in the future.

I don't limit the benefits to just advantage on the attack, either. Sometimes I let them apply some forced movement, or inflict a brief status effect. Very rarely I'll let them score an automatic crit (if the attack hits) if they are doing something that is hitting a weak point (for massive damage!) and it's a good moment for a climactic conclusion to the fight.

But then, as you can probably tell, I aim more on the side of rule of cool and excitement at my table over simulation or realism.

[Man_Over_Game]

But then, as you can probably tell, I aim more on the side of rule of cool and excitement at my table over simulation or realism.

Good!

I think that treating maneuvers like Sneak Attack (that is, not applicable 100% of the time, but maybe 50% of the time) is a good estimate, since they inherently bring risk upon failure. Additionally, most people who'd use maneuvers are the kind to not regularly use magic or do other cool tricks in combat.


From a game design standpoint, I'd say you'd want to balance the value/risk of the action against how common of a circumstance it could be. For example:

-20% likeliness: Failure does not incur a penalty.
-20% likeliness: Advantage on your roll.
-20% likeliness: The boon you get on success is amplified.

So you start with 50%, meaning that you guess the circumstance is roughly available 50% of the time (or once every 2 encounters). The rarer the circumstance, the more you modify the roll. Jumping off of one wall is definitely a 50% chance. Jumping off of 2 walls is 30% (once every 3 encounters, gets one of the three bullets), jumping off of 3 walls is 10% (once every 10 encounters, gets two of the three bullets). The more circumstantial the scenario is, the greater the benefits, with 50% being the baseline of what's "circumstantial" (so if it's something that you'd reliably do in more than half of all encounters, you can't do it)

It could be applied to a lot of things. Throw a boulder? 50% chance. Throw a boulder while sprinting? 30% chance. Throw a boulder that you just caught from a successful save? 10% chance.

[Damon_Tor]

I use acrobatics as a part of a move action to either apply disadvantage to an attack against you (including but not limited to opportunity attacks) or to apply advantage to one of your own melee attacks that turn. The DC is 10+ the target's dex modifier (and proficiency if they're proficient in acrobatics themselves). Failure means you get the opposite result, disadvantage on your attack or the other guy gets advantage against you. The maneuver also eats 5 feet of movement. You can do this multiple times per round as long as you have movement to spare.

[Mjolnirbear]

Do you allow players to gain mechanical advantages by making acrobatics checks in combat?

Some possible examples might be attempting to avoid difficult terrain, pass through an occupied square or otherwise move in a way that would otherwise be blocks, avoid an attack of opportunity, or gain advantage on an attack.

Secondary question: what are the consequences for failure?

I'm reviewing how I handle Acrobatics after two players complained I made it a "worthless skill". To quote one of them: "I would have been better off picking up Medicine." :smalleek:

It's hardly your fault they think the skill should be like 3e Tumble.

It's good for for balance checks and escaping grapples. That's it. If they want a combat skill, they can pick Athletics, which is the only skill that really applies to offensive combat. Don't weaken the only Strength skill and make Dex even stronger in the process. Invite them to replace it with medicine, then send them against ropers or giant octopi and ask if medicine is still better.

/rant

OK. Didn't realise I had that much annoyance built up. To better address the actual post, I've expanded grapple with things like chokes and throws, Deception with bluffs, and Medicine with evaluating injuries and looking for weak spots. I would not at all expand acrobatics in combat. It's for balancing, escaping grapples, and occasional performance art or daring acts of risk. Because Dex is already the strongest and most relied upon stat.

[Tanarii]

So I went back and read the PHB blurb on acrobatics. It does seem to be focused on balance and acrobatic stunts. Although I'll note that a midjump stunt is specifically called out under Athletics.

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.

Then I went to the DMG optional Combat Options. Dexterity Acobatics is used defensively and optionally offensively for Clmibing onto a Bigger Creature, and defensively vs Disarms. It's also used in Tumble.

TUMBLE
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

I'm going to consider if I want to allow this version of tumble. It does infringe somewhat on a halfling racial though. It doesn't negate Opportunity Attacks, it instead allows movement through an occupied space.

---------

I thought it was interesting the players chose Medicine as their comparative skill. Because by far the most useless skill IMC is Performance. Stabilizing checks are more common than attempts to influence by entertaining by far, due to the nature of the campaign,

[Lunali]

So I went back and read the PHB blurb on acrobatics. It does seem to be focused on balance and acrobatic stunts. Although I'll note that a midjump stunt is specifically called out under Athletics.

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.

Then I went to the DMG optional Combat Options. Dexterity Acobatics is used defensively and optionally offensively for Clmibing onto a Bigger Creature, and defensively vs Disarms. It's also used in Tumble.

TUMBLE
A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As an action or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

I'm going to consider if I want to allow this version of tumble. It does infringe somewhat on a halfling racial though. It doesn't negate Opportunity Attacks, it instead allows movement through an occupied space.

---------

I thought it was interesting the players chose Medicine as their comparative skill. Because by far the most useless skill IMC is Performance. Stabilizing checks are more common than attempts to influence by entertaining by far, due to the nature of the campaign,

It doesn't really infringe on hafling racial too badly since it requires an action or bonus action for each creature you want to get through.

As for medicine vs performance, you might use medicine more, but the DC is 10 and repeated attempts, though inconvenient, are allowed. Also, most characters will have some form of access to magical healing for most of their adventuring life, rendering the check irrelevant.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't really infringe on hafling racial too badly since it requires an action or bonus action for each creature you want to get through.Oops, I totally didn't absorb that part. This perfect, because the folks most like to have good Dex (Acrobatics) checks will typically have to think the most bout if it's worth their bonus action.


As for medicine vs performance, you might use medicine more, but the DC is 10 and repeated attempts, though inconvenient, are allowed. Also, most characters will have some form of access to magical healing for most of their adventuring life, rendering the check irrelevant.Goind off what you just said above, a stabilize check is something you really want to pass if you have to make one, since it's an action in combat.

And it seeme like my players tend to be lowest on resources just about the same time they suddenly need to start needing to think about stabilizing folks. Funny how that happens. /evilgrin.