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

[Yaarel]

i'd just go with the simplest solution of 'if you have the strength, you can carry it.'

That is pretty much what 2014 does now. Use Strength to determine the weight in pounds.

But no one I know bothers with the bookkeeping. Not for the smaller items, anyway.

Probably, to bother with Encumbrance would only matter when approaching about 20% or 25% of the bodymass.

 

[MNblockhead]

As much as I appreciate the though folks have put into the posts on this thread, it has only hardened my preference for digital character sheets. For example, I like how Warhammer Fantasy uses encumbrance values over just weight, as it accounts for how an unwieldy item can been more encumbering than a heavy but less unwieldy item. And it makes the math easier. But it is still bookkeeping. But with a digital character sheet, all the bookkeeping is done for you, whether you are just tallying weight or some abstracted encumbrance values.

Tallying encumbrance isn't really since I've started using a VTT or digital character sheets like DnD Beyond. The related issue I think about more these days is the practicality of accesses the stuff you are wearing and carrying. How realistic is it that you can get to and quaff a potion as an action, much less a bonus action. As a DM I err on the side of heavily abstracting issues of access and am perhaps on the generous side of what I allow as item interactions (in 5e).

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I see your point. But the skills are broken up to reflect various types of movement. The rule that the DM or player can request an alternative ability (preferably the greater one) to use for the skill involved levels things out. If you combine the skills, then why not combine religion and history? After all, they completely go together, especially in the Forgotten Realms setting. Why not combine animal handling and nature? Investigation and perception?
The character growth part of the game means using resources where you want your character to be good. If you want them to be great at acrobatics and athletics, then spend the appropriate resources.

 

[Laurefindel]

I have put a lot of thoughts in encumbrance and devised many systems with different consequences. Most however are based on a four-tier load for items: Negligible, light, medium, and heavy. This self-categorizes most armors and weapons but requires a similar four-tier division of the equipment table.

I haven’t really thought of incorporating Athletics in the calculation (and while we’re at it, Animal Handling for the encumbrance of mounts/pack animals), but I like that

 

[CapnZapp]

I see your point. But the skills are broken up to reflect various types of movement. The rule that the DM or player can request an alternative ability (preferably the greater one) to use for the skill involved levels things out. If you combine the skills, then why not combine religion and history? After all, they completely go together, especially in the Forgotten Realms setting. Why not combine animal handling and nature? Investigation and perception?
The character growth part of the game means using resources where you want your character to be good. If you want them to be great at acrobatics and athletics, then spend the appropriate resources.

You do realize that while you start out sounding reasonable and forthcoming, you end your reply ignoring everything I just said, retreating back to the unyielding position of "just get both Strength and Dexterity, and get both Athletics and Acrobatics"?


I have repeatedly answered your question "why do this but not do that?"

It's because its unreasonable to ask a character to invest in an otherwise dumpable stat just to get relatively minor movement-related abilities.

It's unreasonable to ask a Rogue to invest in Strength.

Investing in Strength when that gives you an attack bonus and a damage bonus is completely reasonable. Yes, people consider Strength being a bit lacklustre, but still - entirely reasonable. As a bonus, you gain secondary stuff like grappling, climbing, bending bars and lifting gates, and jumping abilities.

But a Rogue already has an attack bonus and a damage bonus. You're asking this character build to invest in Strength solely to complement their movement abilities with jumping and climbing specifically. The rogue doesn't care for grappling or lifting gates, the rogue just doesn't want their great movement to be stopped cold by a wall or chasm.

Everything else you need strength for in real life the Rogue has already been given. Speed, movement, acrobatics, deadly attacks, defense, dodging and weaving, ...

Asking a Rogue to get Athletics as a skill is in comparison a much smaller and less unreasonable ask. If Athletics can be used with Dexterity.

To sum up:

It's a flaw or gap in how the game rules are constructed that the swashbuckler needs a second ability to go from 90% rogue/robin hood/swashbuckler to 100% swashbuckler. But this is easily patched, simply by allowing characters to use Athletics or Acrobatics for all movement related actions. Or, at the very least, allow characters to use their choice of Strength and Dexterity for both skills.

What's harder to fix is when someone thinks it's a reasonable ask to waste points in an ability you otherwise don't need just to be able to move in the vertical, when you're already been given supernatural speed and grace moving everywhere else... :-/

 

[tetrasodium]

You do realize that while you start out sounding reasonable and forthcoming, you end your reply ignoring everything I just said, retreating back to the unyielding position of "just get both Strength and Dexterity, and get both Athletics and Acrobatics"?


I have repeatedly answered your question "why do this but not do that?"

It's because its unreasonable to ask a character to invest in an otherwise dumpable stat just to get relatively minor movement-related abilities.

It's unreasonable to ask a Rogue to invest in Strength.

Investing in Strength when that gives you an attack bonus and a damage bonus is completely reasonable. Yes, people consider Strength being a bit lacklustre, but still - entirely reasonable. As a bonus, you gain secondary stuff like grappling, climbing, bending bars and lifting gates, and jumping abilities.

But a Rogue already has an attack bonus and a damage bonus. You're asking this character build to invest in Strength solely to complement their movement abilities with jumping and climbing specifically. The rogue doesn't care for grappling or lifting gates, the rogue just doesn't want their great movement to be stopped cold by a wall or chasm.

Everything else you need strength for in real life the Rogue has already been given. Speed, movement, acrobatics, deadly attacks, defense, dodging and weaving, ...

Asking a Rogue to get Athletics as a skill is in comparison a much smaller and less unreasonable ask. If Athletics can be used with Dexterity.

To sum up:

It's a flaw or gap in how the game rules are constructed that the swashbuckler needs a second ability to go from 90% rogue/robin hood/swashbuckler to 100% swashbuckler. But this is easily patched, simply by allowing characters to use Athletics or Acrobatics for all movement related actions. Or, at the very least, allow characters to use their choice of Strength and Dexterity for both skills.

What's harder to fix is when someone thinks it's a reasonable ask to waste points in an ability you otherwise don't need just to be able to move in the vertical, when you're already been given supernatural speed and grace moving everywhere else... :-/

Hmm... "just to get relatively minor movement-related abilities" it sounds like by your own admission there isn't much reason to care about what is lost by only having one of the two. Id agree given that someone else in the group can almost certainly cover any gaps and enjoy the chance to feel good about their choice when a specific need comes up

 

[Yaarel]

I have put a lot of thoughts in encumbrance and devised many systems with different consequences. Most however are based on a four-tier load for items: Negligible, light, medium, and heavy. This self-categorizes most armors and weapons but requires a similar four-tier division of the equipment table.

I haven’t really thought of incorporating Athletics in the calculation (and while we’re at it, Animal Handling for the encumbrance of mounts/pack animals), but I like that

These seem equivalent.

Armors
• Negligible
• Light ≈ Tiny Size
• Medium ≈ Small Size
• Heavy ≈ Medium Size

 

[Yaarel]

You do realize that while you start out sounding reasonable and forthcoming, you end your reply ignoring everything I just said, retreating back to the unyielding position of "just get both Strength and Dexterity, and get both Athletics and Acrobatics"?


I have repeatedly answered your question "why do this but not do that?"

It's because its unreasonable to ask a character to invest in an otherwise dumpable stat just to get relatively minor movement-related abilities.

It's unreasonable to ask a Rogue to invest in Strength.

Investing in Strength when that gives you an attack bonus and a damage bonus is completely reasonable. Yes, people consider Strength being a bit lacklustre, but still - entirely reasonable. As a bonus, you gain secondary stuff like grappling, climbing, bending bars and lifting gates, and jumping abilities.

But a Rogue already has an attack bonus and a damage bonus. You're asking this character build to invest in Strength solely to complement their movement abilities with jumping and climbing specifically. The rogue doesn't care for grappling or lifting gates, the rogue just doesn't want their great movement to be stopped cold by a wall or chasm.

Everything else you need strength for in real life the Rogue has already been given. Speed, movement, acrobatics, deadly attacks, defense, dodging and weaving, ...

Asking a Rogue to get Athletics as a skill is in comparison a much smaller and less unreasonable ask. If Athletics can be used with Dexterity.

To sum up:

It's a flaw or gap in how the game rules are constructed that the swashbuckler needs a second ability to go from 90% rogue/robin hood/swashbuckler to 100% swashbuckler. But this is easily patched, simply by allowing characters to use Athletics or Acrobatics for all movement related actions. Or, at the very least, allow characters to use their choice of Strength and Dexterity for both skills.

What's harder to fix is when someone thinks it's a reasonable ask to waste points in an ability you otherwise don't need just to be able to move in the vertical, when you're already been given supernatural speed and grace moving everywhere else... :-/

I agree the agile mobility needs to consolidate into a single Ability. It is unreasonable to impose a need to invest in both Strength and Dexterity for the agility, swashbuckling theme.

I worry about making Dexterity even more powerful compared to the other Abilities.

In my eyes, the Monk class can have a class feature that substitutes Dexterity instead of Strength − because magic, deriving from the mystical aspects of the Soul and its body aura lifeforce.

But the Rogue? How do you feel the Rogue class should go about the flavor? Is it magic? Is it a pretend-science, the physics to apply the precision to somehow leverage a Jump of a significant distance? Can the entire Rogue class use this feature, or just an especially agile subclass?

Is it satisfying enough to grant the Rogue class Athletics Expertise for free, rather than high Strength or finesse Strength?

 

[Scott Christian]

You do realize that while you start out sounding reasonable and forthcoming, you end your reply ignoring everything I just said, retreating back to the unyielding position of "just get both Strength and Dexterity, and get both Athletics and Acrobatics"?


I have repeatedly answered your question "why do this but not do that?"

It's because its unreasonable to ask a character to invest in an otherwise dumpable stat just to get relatively minor movement-related abilities.

We disagree on a dumpable stat. But I will take the minority position here, since most players on this forum seem to only care about an extra +1 in their primary stats, and can't seem to comprehend roleplaying a character that isn't min/maxed in their abilities. But, for the record, I don't think it is a dumpable stat.

It's unreasonable to ask a Rogue to invest in Strength.

Investing in Strength when that gives you an attack bonus and a damage bonus is completely reasonable. Yes, people consider Strength being a bit lacklustre, but still - entirely reasonable. As a bonus, you gain secondary stuff like grappling, climbing, bending bars and lifting gates, and jumping abilities.

But a Rogue already has an attack bonus and a damage bonus. You're asking this character build to invest in Strength solely to complement their movement abilities with jumping and climbing specifically. The rogue doesn't care for grappling or lifting gates, the rogue just doesn't want their great movement to be stopped cold by a wall or chasm.

Everything else you need strength for in real life the Rogue has already been given. Speed, movement, acrobatics, deadly attacks, defense, dodging and weaving, ...

The rogue is a highest example of it being non-rewarding you can give. And I agree, it does seem slightly unreasonable. Not incredibly unreasonable or insanely unreasonable, but slightly unreasonable. Until you look at the rules...

Asking a Rogue to get Athletics as a skill is in comparison a much smaller and less unreasonable ask. If Athletics can be used with Dexterity.

The rules specifically state that you can ask for checks using alternate abilities. I have pointed this out many times. That is why it is only slightly unreasonable. If I have a character, and I sit down at session zero because I know the campaign is going to last over a year, and I ask the DM to work with me because I really want to be able to use animal handling and nature, but can't afford the intelligence stat - my guess is the DM would work with me. I have yet to meet a DM that probably wouldn't just say, use your wisdom for nature.

But let's say they didn't. The mean, old DM that refused.

I take both skills using background, class or feat. I now have my proficiency bonus. I also use the standard array and put the 14 in wisdom and 12 in intelligence. So the difference at level one between my nature and animal handling is 5%. And the way most DMs handle these checks, that 5% means very little.

Now let's take your rogue, which is the strongest example of disparity in this scenario. You place a 12 in strength and your 15 in dexterity. After ASI, your dexterity is at 16 and your strength stays a 12. But you are trained in both skills. This is very easy to do with a rogue as athletics and acrobatics is in their starting class features skill list. You don't even have to sacrifice your choice of a background. And after character creation, what is your difference - 10%. That's it! That is all. You see, your rogue is good at athletics. It's just they are 10% better at acrobatics. That mean DM still didn't get one over on you.

10%.

To sum up:

It's a flaw or gap in how the game rules are constructed that the swashbuckler needs a second ability to go from 90% rogue/robin hood/swashbuckler to 100% swashbuckler. But this is easily patched, simply by allowing characters to use Athletics or Acrobatics for all movement related actions. Or, at the very least, allow characters to use their choice of Strength and Dexterity for both skills.

What's harder to fix is when someone thinks it's a reasonable ask to waste points in an ability you otherwise don't need just to be able to move in the vertical, when you're already been given supernatural speed and grace moving everywhere else... :-/

It is not a gap or flaw in the game rules. It is a choice you make during character creation. There are pros and cons to all the choices. If you insist that your rogue also has to be charismatic instead of strong, then you can make that choice. And guess what, the difference is still only 15%. But the short answer is, you can't have everything. But you can have the thing you're asking for, an athletic and acrobatic rogue, under the present rules system.

 

[Yaarel]

10%.

10% is huge.

Nevermind the mobility challenges with very high, Hard and Very Hard, DCs. Nevermind the opportunity cost.

Heh, clearly you arent an optimizer.

Requiring investment in both Strength and finesse Dexterity for only agile mobility, is insanely unreasonable.