Use of Skills Question

Mathew_Freeman · Jun 30, 2009

I'd like some opinions on a ruling I made last night at our game, if people wouldn't mind.

Drow Ranger (archery) wanted to run forwards, bounce of the Paladin's shield, tumble high over other people and land down on a statue, pushing it over onto an Enigma of Vecna. He said that he thought this would be an Acrobatics check.

I countered and said that it would be an Acrobatics check, followed by an Athletics check to actually push the statue over. I also stated that if he made the Acrobatics check, he'd get a +2 to his Athletics check, and the statue would do a LOT of damage as it's a large, heavy object and also a one-time move in this combat.

The Drow Ranger isn't trained in Athletics, and was upset that I was denying him his cool move. He said that he wanted to use Acrobatics to push the statue, reflecting the build-up of momentum. I countered and said that pushing things over was covered by Athletics, but I'd giving him this +2 bonus as it's a good idea and well-executed.

So - was I being reasonable by making him stick to Athletics, or would you have let him use Acrobatics to do that push? I ruled my way because I was wary of setting a precedent, whereby this character can just use Acrobatics instead of Athletics all the time, thus effectively getting two skills for the price of one.

If someone could quote the relevant "descriptions" of what you can do with an Acrobatics check and an Athletics check, that'd be helpful, too, as I don't have my books at work.

Thanks!

PS: Incidentally, he made the Acrobatics check but failed the Athletics one, so he failed in his attempt.

Baumi · Jun 30, 2009

I think you handled it quite well .. Acrobatics for his move action (get around the enemy without OA) and Athletics for his standard action (push the statue).

But of course it could be also handled differently for example with only one but HARD Acrobatics check or one Athletic check but the Enemy would get an OA, etc.

But things like that are always in the hand of the GM, but it is in the Nature of Players (including me) that they will always argue about it

Mesh Hong · Jun 30, 2009

It sounds like you made a very reasonable set of requirements for what the character described they wanted to do.

Acrobatics for highly cinematic movement, giving them an advantage over normal movement.

Athletics to topple a giant statue, with an extra +2 bonus from the stylish manoeuvre.

Actually you were probably being a little kind for the sake of doing something cool, the statue would have to be pretty unstable to be able to topple so easily. But your player obviously didn't stop to consider this. You could maybe have allowed the character whose shield he was springing from to ready an action to assist the athletics roll (another +2) to represent him pushing him off adding to his momentum.

Dan'L · Jun 30, 2009

I would have thought that pushing something was pretty much a Bull Rush: Str v. Fort. So the strength-based Athletics seems appropriate enough, and actually allows possibly a slightly better "to hit," depending on the DC you set & skill boosts from training, powers, feats, & equipment.

-Dan'L

BobTheNob · Jun 30, 2009

Absolutely correct. As dm's we need to be flexible at the same time as ensuring that we dont make the rules irrelevant. The player didnt have athletics, and that was the correct use of athletics.

Players have to understand that there characters will have limitations and things they dont do well and the dealing with this is just as much a part of play and basking in the glory of what they do well.

To be a barstard, I might also have doc'd the pally a minor or an immediate reaction for the shield use too (or even denied him shield bonus till start of next action)

Mistwell · Jun 30, 2009

I think you ruled it pretty well.

Regicide · Jun 30, 2009

If he's trying to hit something, he should be making a to-hit roll. Letting people attack with skills opens up a lot of problems.

Stalker0 · Jun 30, 2009

Actually to me it sounded like a pure athletics check.

Your jump over people (athletics) and pushing a statue (athletics).

Honestly though this is a common issue....athletics and acrobatics do overlap at times and its hard to know when to use one over the other.

Kordeth · Jun 30, 2009

Regicide said:
If he's trying to hit something, he should be making a to-hit roll. Letting people attack with skills opens up a lot of problems.

I'd have made it an Athletics trap to dislodge the statue, then had the statue make an attack against every creature it might land on, like a trap.

fba827 · Jul 1, 2009

Allow me to add to the chorus -- you ruled it fine (if not wonderfully) on the fly as you did.

Acrobatics = dexterity/balance/tumbling
Atheltics = strength/climbing/jumping/lifting/pushing

(where tumbling and jumping overlap is up for interpretation, but the other aspects are fairly seperate).

If anything the bullrush may have been used as a precedant, but really I might have opted for the same thing you did given that the player was trying to make this as skills-dependant as he could.

I'm guessing (without any actual evidence) that he/she was just miffed that it needed a skill he wasn't trained in and he was trying to get out more than he should have from the skill he was trained in.

For any single skill that would have been too much.

Also, you are absolutely right that you would have set up a precedant for some similar thing to happen again.. and again ... and again. To this day I still regret a couple early decisions I made "to be nice" because that particular player still refers back to it as "well before you let me do this..." or "well before you let so and so do that ..." So you just got to hold your ground on some things that have the chance to get used and abused again down the road.

Bottom line: You did fine, and if the player is annoyed, don't let it get to you.