Do you allow Acrobatics and Athletics to be used interchangeably?

[Hjorimir]

A squirrel can jump vertically five feet and leap between objects that are over ten feet apart. Given that squirrels are less than 1/10th the size of people, if you could do this, you would be able to literally jump onto a five-story building. I saw a video of a squirrel climbing up a tree with a mostly full jar of peanut butter in its mouth. I'd say, for their size, squirrels are INCREDIBLY strong.

Also, if you believe this BBC story, a pack of squirrels killed a large dog for barking at them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4489792.stm

 

[Phazonfish]

As someone else said, squirrels have a climb speed, so their bonus to Athletics is irrelevant. In terms of which check to use when climbing, I would say that if you have a running start, you can use Acrobatics if that momentum could reasonably carry you that high, otherwise you're out of luck, gotta use Athletics.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It has occurred to me that if there was a tall tree in the game and two players wanted to get to the top of it, and one says "I start climbing to the top of the tree" and the other says "I hop nimbly from branch to branch moving toward the top of the tree" I might call for an Athletics check for one, and an Acrobatics check for another.

So that could be seen as using the two interchangeably.

Also, I wouldn't even call for a check unless there was some stakes for not getting to the top quickly.

 

[Satyrn]

No, because I removed Acrobatics from the skill list. I attach Athletics to either Strength or Dexterity checks depending on the action the character is taking.

That's now my solution if ever I care to houserule this topic.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Normally, yes. I also tend to allow multiple knowledge checks to reach the same conclusions (ie, knowledge of a famous historical mage). If someone has both skills trained, they get to roll twice, so there is a benefit to having both Athletics and Acrobatics when I would allow either to function. in general, I look for reasons to allow you to use your proficiency bonus (including tying it to a background, such as a pirate swinging from rigging), as it keeps people engaged.

 

[Yaarel]

In my campaign, there is only the Athletics skill.

It covers any athletic agility checks as well, including tumbling and falling (relating to jumping), and balancing (relating to climbing).



Strength (Athletics), Dexterity (Athletics), and Constitution (Athletics) are all possible depending on the stunt.

Even possible are Charisma (Athletics) is plausible for dance, Intelligence (Athletics) to assess someones athletic skills and fitness, and Wisdom (Athletics) such as for a perceptive stunt.



I am strongly leaning toward the separation between global bodily agility from fine manual dexterity. I like using Athletics to handle the agility.

 

[Charlaquin]

It has occurred to me that if there was a tall tree in the game and two players wanted to get to the top of it, and one says "I start climbing to the top of the tree" and the other says "I hop nimbly from branch to branch moving toward the top of the tree" I might call for an Athletics check for one, and an Acrobatics check for another.

So that could be seen as using the two interchangeably.

Also, I wouldn't even call for a check unless there was some stakes for not getting to the top quickly.

This, along with escaping from a grapple, is a case where both skills can be used to accomplish the same goal, but by different approaches. Saying that this makes them interchangeable is like saying that Persuasion and Intimidation are interchangeable because both can be used to make someone tell you information they’re trying to hide. Or that Athletics and Thieves’ Tools are interchangeable because they can both be used to open a locked door.

 

[Mistwell]

What D&D and most, if not all, rpgs have a problem simulating is that a squirrel is strong for its size.

I am taking this out of context and repeating it because it's funny. Because THAT is on the top ten list of things RPGs don't simulate well, right?

Won't someone think of the fictional squirrels?

 

[Blue]

It has occurred to me that if there was a tall tree in the game and two players wanted to get to the top of it, and one says "I start climbing to the top of the tree" and the other says "I hop nimbly from branch to branch moving toward the top of the tree" I might call for an Athletics check for one, and an Acrobatics check for another.

So that could be seen as using the two interchangeably.

Also, I wouldn't even call for a check unless there was some stakes for not getting to the top quickly.

It's already been discussed that these are different actions with the same end result. I'd like to add that they could be very different. Climb is half speed, so it might take longer. Jumping is a lot more checks (considering your max high jump per check vs. one climb check per round if not less) so has a greater chance to fail even if the DCs are the same.

But yeah, if there's no time pressure and people are being careful, I might not call for a check either.

 

[Blue]

In my campaign, there is only the Athletics skill.

It covers any athletic agility checks as well, including tumbling and falling (relating to jumping), and balancing (relating to climbing).

Strength (Athletics), Dexterity (Athletics), and Constitution (Athletics) are all possible depending on the stunt.

Even possible are Charisma (Athletics) is plausible for dance, Intelligence (Athletics) to assess someones athletic skills and fitness, and Wisdom (Athletics) such as for a perceptive stunt.

I'm a big fan of the DMG variant (and D&D Next normal option) of varying ability scores for skills. So this is right up my alley.

Though I can picture two characters, both asked to dance (or weapons drill). One wants Athletics (CHR), the other says it's Perform (DEX).

(I'd probably allow both, as different approaches tot he same challenge.)