Top tier in all things while never needing to lean on a more skilled teammmate with no opportunity cost is something very different from an "optimizer"
D&D (2024) Size, Carrying Capacity, Strength, Athletics, Mobility
Scott Christian
Hero
We will have to agree to disagree. 10% is not "huge."
I have played a rogue that was optimized near the peak of min/max in all things combat. I have played a warlock that went from 1-20 without ever taking a damage spell. I have also played in between - because it fit the character. Neither the DM, anyone at the table, nor myself ever noticed a difference. It is a group game - and by group, I truly mean group.
If it was a solo game, I might agree with you... maybe. But there are a thousand variables, and a tiny 10% in one skill means nothing. This is especially true when half the DCs are randomly set-up on the spot because the DM doesn't have the entire DC suite of athletic and acrobatic skill challenges laid out for all contingencies.
And as for 10%, if you think that is "huge," then you must think Bardic Inspiration, Bless, and Lucky are the most overpowered things in the world, especially since bardic inspiration adds on average, 17.5% at first level. Heck, Lucky adds even more than that. Lucky, on average, equals 25%!
But back to the mechanics. No one notices a 10% difference in a skill. The dice are swingy in D&D. 1-20 = swing. Swingy enough where 10% means little.
Now back to the game, the group game. The simple fact you have advantage/disadvantage, flanking, spell benefits, characters helping you, and DMs willing to work with players specifically supports how little 10% for one skill actually is during play.
If you insist that you need it all without sacrifice, I am sorry, but please re-read my last post. The game is built on making choices that both, hinder and help your character.
CapnZapp
Legend
If I didn't care that Rogues are stopped cold by a wall, I wouldn't have engaged in the thread.
Or rather, if I didn't care that the rules stupidly force martials into the hands of magic because the movement-related rules are weirdly concerned about "realism".
A fighter shouldn't feel Misty Step provides tremendous value - the rules for jumping should generously hand out what the player otherwise turns to magic to get.
A rogue shouldn't have to briefly consider (and then soundly rejecting) the idea of pumping valuable ability points into Strength just to get a decent Athletics value that you want solely because you can't jump or climb without it. Getting Misty Step (or something similar) is a much cheaper approach.
The game is set up a certain way. Good players of martial characters make sure they have great movement capabilities.
It's just that the rules for movement (climbing, jumping etc) are weirdly stuck in some old obsolete realist line of thinking.
The solution is as simple as it is obvious: allow martials to use either Strength or Dexterity, either Athletics or Acrobatics. Lighten or remove the movement restrictions to match what magic otherwise provides.
Don't argue to keep physical movement as a relic of the past in a game that offers so much more. Debating whether jump should allow you to jump 12 or 18 feet is so 1990s AD&D, where magical teleportation wasn't cheaply available.
This is 5th Edition, and martials should be able to use their skills to do stuff - there's zero reason to always have magic be the superior solution.
It seems like you are shifting to admit that 5e skills were overly condensed and that climb is one of the many examples of a skill that should have remained a distinct skill. The solution is to repair the skill system itself not grant a Mary Sue do everything at S tier with primary attribute warping of skills to the rogue specifically.
CapnZapp
Legend
I'm impressed at the way you're able to do mental contortions to avoid having to take in my simple and direct message
Allow characters to jump and balance using their choice of Strength and Dexterity, and you have improved the game with little effort
If you also dismiss all the niggly restrictions on the various modes of movement, you have improved the game even more, since now martials can do their thing without having to turn to magic. (Being forced into reliance on magic even if you're a fighter is often touted as a big flaw of D&D)
"Repair the skill system" is always a viable solution.
The question is whether individual tables / DMs can do it on their own, or if we require WotC to do it for every table / DM?
In all cases, I do not find one way to be preferable than the other. I'm fine if WotC chooses to change their rules printed in their books, and I'm also fine changing those printed rules myself at my table if I don't like what WotC came up with. And I sincerely hope that's how most other DMs feel too. Because I would hate to think a DM continually played with a bad rule they didn't like for 10 years because WotC didn't change it and they didn't fix it for themselves either.
The question is whether individual tables / DMs can do it on their own, or if we require WotC to do it for every table / DM?
In all cases, I do not find one way to be preferable than the other. I'm fine if WotC chooses to change their rules printed in their books, and I'm also fine changing those printed rules myself at my table if I don't like what WotC came up with. And I sincerely hope that's how most other DMs feel too. Because I would hate to think a DM continually played with a bad rule they didn't like for 10 years because WotC didn't change it and they didn't fix it for themselves either.
Yaarel
He Mage
Yes. The Bless spell doesnt break the game. But it is significantly better than any other improvement spell. Considering it is a slot 1 spell, and within the Bounded Accuracy design, it is huge. It is more like a slot 4 spell, in comparison to the other spells. Besides the need to share the spell and its concept among other classes, it should probably be a class feature, since it is too big to feat within the spell design space. If it remains a spell in 2024, the other improvement spells and the assumed values of Bounded Accuracy itself need to recalibrate for consistency.
Yaarel
He Mage
@Scott Christian,
If a character opts out of the agile mobility (swashbuckling) concept, and almost never makes a mobility check during its 20 level career, then having a low Strength check wont matter for the character. It will have come up with other means obviate such challenges.
However, if the point of the character is the swashbuckling concept, and the character routinely rolls d20 Tests, frequently during a single game session, and at very high Difficulty Challenges, it becomes insanely unreasonable to invest in both Strength and finesse Dexterity, just for this.
The D&D game must never punish the player, because of the D&D game itself having a horrible design that splits up the agile mobility, illogically and unfairly between two conflictive Abilities.
Strength alone should be the only ability that conveys this agile mobility. Whoever wants this character concept knows where to invest.
If a character opts out of the agile mobility (swashbuckling) concept, and almost never makes a mobility check during its 20 level career, then having a low Strength check wont matter for the character. It will have come up with other means obviate such challenges.
However, if the point of the character is the swashbuckling concept, and the character routinely rolls d20 Tests, frequently during a single game session, and at very high Difficulty Challenges, it becomes insanely unreasonable to invest in both Strength and finesse Dexterity, just for this.
The D&D game must never punish the player, because of the D&D game itself having a horrible design that splits up the agile mobility, illogically and unfairly between two conflictive Abilities.
Strength alone should be the only ability that conveys this agile mobility. Whoever wants this character concept knows where to invest.
Yaarel
He Mage
When we are talking about the Strength Ability, the only classes that benefit are Fighter and its historically related classes Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian.
It can be Paladin emphasizes spellcasting Charisma, Ranger goes ranged Dexterity with finesse or Wisdom spellcasting, and Barbarian doubles down on Constitution toughness or Charisma primal magic.
Thematically, the Fighter class is the most likely class to invest in Strength and its Athletics concept. It is mainly this class that benefits from the agile mobility concept, because it already has the Strength investment. This is already at the opportunity cost of losing out on the strictly more optimal Dexterity Ability with its ranged, high AC, and finesse two weapon Fighter, or also losing out on especially tough Constitution or perceptive Wisdom.
There is no optimization gain by consolidating agile mobility. It is a correction of a self-harming D&D design that kills the swashbuckling concept before it is even born.
Then we very much disagree. No class deserves the Mary Sue /Gary Stu style mantle of having the already over consolidated skill system reshaped simply to grant that class the ability to use one of the most overvalued primary SAD attribs in the edition simply to avoid needing to invest in what should be a strength for a different build.I'm impressed at the way you're able to do mental contortions to avoid having to take in my simple and direct message
Just like climb, jump and balance should have remained discreet skills just as many other over consolidated skills should have been maintained.Allow characters to jump and balance using their choice of Strength and Dexterity, and you have improved the game with little effort
I'm not willing to guess the specifics of whatever this is
