D&D (2024) Size, Carrying Capacity, Strength, Athletics, Mobility

[Yaarel]

There is no need for a separate "balance" check, per se.

Walking or running across one or more tree branches is a Strength Athletics Climb check.

In reallife, maintaining balance and dealing with slippery, crumbly, of flimsy surfaces is a normal part of climbing.

Walking across a sheet of ice is a Climb check.

Generally, navigating and overcoming various mobility obstacles and challenges is a Climb check.

Any challenge that parkour engages is an Athletics Check, whether Jump (including landing a jump down) or Climb (including balance).

Bounding back and forth opposing alleyway walls to ascend upward to a roof, is a blend of skillful Climb and Jump, but in any case involves the Strength Athletics check.

 

[Horwath]

I feel there should be no Weapon Sizes. All longsword deal 1d8 slashing (versatile 1d10 or ideally 1d12) regardless of size.

Instead, there are features that grant a Size Bonus to Damage. This is typical for larger monster statblocks, but for player characters it would be from a Feat that had Size as the prereq.

So Large creatures should have more damage than Medium, but Medium creatures should not have more damage than Small creatures?
Where is consistency in that?

 

[CapnZapp]

Most players want their super-buff PC to be great at "physical" things. They sacrificed intelligence, wisdom, charisma, and either con or dex to be good at "physical things." Physical things can be climbing, like the silly Fezik (Andre the Giant) scene in The Princess Bride.

Most players want their super-nimble PC to be great at "physical things." They sacrificed They sacrificed intelligence, wisdom, charisma, and either con or strength to be good at "physical things." Physical things can be climbing, like the silly Wesley scene in The Princess Bride.

The easiest way for this to happen is to teach DMs to actually read the rulebook; you can call for a dex or strength climb check. It does not matter.

In real life, balance, jumping, lifting, etc. is all intertwined. There is no need to separate all of it into smaller categories because its returns in realism doesn't outweigh its limitations to characterization.

Ackchyually, every player want their PC to be great at "physical things"

The preference nowadays is that you should not require muscles or heavy body mass just to be an ass-kicking hero. In movies as in ttrpgs. The idea you need to look like Schwarzenegger in order to physically overpower your foes is pretty much dead these days.

Personally I draw the line between martial characters and spellcasters.

I want a game where fighters and rogues can easily swing in ropes and climb terraces, without having to double dip in both Strength and Dexterity, without having to double dip in both Athletics and Acrobatics.

The key difference between these abilities and "lift gates" and "bend bars" is that they focus on relocating yourself.


I am completely onboard with the game requiring you to focus on Strength if you want to change the environment - kick in doors or hurl monsters.

But anything related to repositioning yourself, any martial should be able to do with just one ability score and just one skill.

 

[CapnZapp]

So Large creatures should have more damage than Medium, but Medium creatures should not have more damage than Small creatures?
Where is consistency in that?

My guess is that you know the answer, you're just pretending you don't?

 

[CapnZapp]

That is why I advocate to clearly give all of Athletics (including Balance, Fall, and Tumble) to Strength Athletics. It makes Strength more par with other abilities. Likewise delete socalled "Acrobatics". So in terms of general rules, Dexterity no longer involves mobility. Strength Athletics is the clear design space and go-to for the concept of agility, mobility and stunts.

So you're saying Rogues are too strong a class, and now need to put points in Strength just to do the baseline of what's expected of the class, that is moving around?

If you do think Rogues need this considerable nerf, then fair enough.

 

[Yaarel]

So you're saying Rogues are too strong a class, and now need to put points in Strength just to do the baseline of what's expected of the class, that is moving around?

If you do think Rogues need this considerable nerf, then fair enough.

For the Monk class, it is clear to me, the flavor of class can as a feature substitute Dexterity instead of Strength for Athletics Checks. Because magic. (It does a precise application of ones "soul" force, ki, psionic, with "discipline" for the fantastical mago-physical laws.)


I am less sure what to do with the Rogue class. In concept, there are many Rogue individuals who have zero competence in gymnastics. Some of these rely on the Mental Abilities, like calculating (and ideally forgery-creating!) Intelligence, perceptive Wisdom, and persuasive Charisma. High Strength Rogues are a reasonably popular concept. These tend to associate the "thug" flavor, but here Strength Rogues include the gymnasts who parkour their way thru an urban setting.

Keep in mind, even a low Strength Rogue can conveniently obtain Athletics Expertise.

All Rogues by definition excel at Dexterity, because of the cautious precision of Stealth, and the manual dexterity of Sleight, such as Pick Lock, Disarm/Create Trap, Pick Pocket, etcetera. Using Dexterity to Sneak Attack by sniping from Range is also common.

Rogues are a balanced class. How the class features organize the Athletics thematics depends on deciding the flavor.

 

[CapnZapp]

For the Monk class, it is clear to me, the flavor of class can as a feature substitute Dexterity instead of Strength for Athletics Checks. Because magic. (It does a precise application of ones "soul" force, ki, psionic, with "discipline" for the fantastical mago-physical laws.)


I am less sure what to do with the Rogue class. In concept, there are many Rogue individuals who have zero competence in gymnastics. Some of these rely on the Mental Abilities, like calculating (and ideally forgery-creating!) Intelligence, perceptive Wisdom, and persuasive Charisma. High Strength Rogues are a reasonably popular concept. These tend to associate the "thug" flavor, but here Strength Rogues include the gymnasts who parkour their way thru an urban setting.

Keep in mind, even a low Strength Rogue can conveniently obtain Athletics Expertise.

All Rogues by definition excel at Dexterity, because of the cautious precision of Stealth, and the manual dexterity of Sleight, such as Pick Lock, Disarm/Create Trap, Pick Pocket, etcetera. Using Dexterity to Sneak Attack by sniping from Range is also common.

Rogues are a balanced class. How the class features organize the Athletics Themes depend on deciding the flavor.

Sounds reasonable.

I'm just worried people think "monks should be the movement guys" and use that to justify rogues not being able to move around.

A much better solution is to allow rogue great mobility, and then use houserules to allow monks fantastic mobility.

 

[Yaarel]

So Large creatures should have more damage than Medium, but Medium creatures should not have more damage than Small creatures?
Where is consistency in that?

I agree with the problem.

But to try solve it by forcing Small player characters to incur penalties to damage, is by far too unpopular.

It is also unfair, because with regard to game balance, there is no problem if a Small character wields a Heavy weapon. Creating a mechanical punishment feels like the wrong solution to a flavor awkwardness.

I think players are ok with Tiny characters having limitations to damage. But this is mainly because Tiny player characters are infrequent and there is less personal investment in the concept. Meanwhile Tiny options, like the Pixie, are fully a magical concept. Saying they can wield a Heavy weapon, because magic, is a coherent flavor.

 

[Horwath]

I agree with the problem.

But to try solve it by forcing Small player character to incur penalties to damage, is by far too unpopular.

It is also unfair, because with regard to game balance, there is no problem if a Small character wields a Heavy weapon. Creating a mechanical punishment feels like the wrong solution to a flavor awkwardness.

few options:

1. Play small spellcasters.
2. Accept penalties for martial small characters
3. Hope for bonuses for being small are enough to somewhat balance out martial damage penalties(+1 AC, stealth bonuses, pack tactics)

 

[Yaarel]

few options:

1. Play small spellcasters.
2. Accept penalties for martial small characters
3. Hope for bonuses for being small are enough to somewhat balance out martial damage penalties(+1 AC, stealth bonuses, pack tactics)

Those are how earlier editions approached the flavor awkardness.

Very tentatively, I am leaning toward creating a Halfling cultural background, that unlocks the use of Heavy weapons. This is a military tradition that specializes in the use of polearms and greatswords, for the purpose of fending off larger hostiles.

Gaining the mechanic to use a Heavy weapon has nothing to do balance. It is to contain and silo the flavor. Even when most Small Halfling dont use Heavy weapons, there are some who are known to. Hence the background.

Relatedly, there are Halfling multispecies characters. Remarkably, even the core 2014 Halfling mentions that the Stout Halfling ethnicity has "dwarven blood" − effectively, the Stouts are Half Dwarf Half Halfling. Even if only one distant ancestor, a Dwarf trait might show up atavistically. Presumably the Tallfellow ethnicity who mixes with Human cultures and tends taller is likewise effectively Half Human Half Halfling.

Some of these "bigger" Halfling ethnicities might include individuals who are functionally Medium Size.

Note, I feel there should be Gnomes who can wield Heavy weapons because of being magically strong.

In any case, the Halfling with oversized weapons is an awkwardness in flavor. The most popular way to address the awkwardness is less clear. Whether to tolerate it, embrace it, silo it, punish it, or prevent it. I lean against mechanical punishment.