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

[tetrasodium]

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.

Not mentioning it while talking about acrobatics doesn't mean that I don't think that athletics should also be split more like it once was. Those two skills are not alone in their need to be redivided. Once the over consolidated skills are split and mechanics are built around the existence of that split it allows quite a few classes to invest in areas they would not normally under the current pick any* 4 skill system

*The bar to picking beyond the explicitly allowed options and any skill is so low that players sometimes need to work at being limited to skills they don't want on their pc

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

When magic comes quick, easy, risk-free and does everything, I'm not sure splintering the abilities of martials and now requiring 3 skills rather than one is a good idea. Unless we say, triple the skills given to non-casters and reduce casters skills further.

 

[tetrasodium]

When magic comes quick, easy, risk-free and does everything, I'm not sure splintering the abilities of martials and now requiring 3 skills rather than one is a good idea. Unless we say, triple the skills given to non-casters and reduce casters skills further.

Why do you assume undoing the over condensed skills would be a martial exclusive thing? I feel that over condensed non-martial skills like arcana stealth & so on also deserve the same split

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why do you assume undoing the over condensed skills would be a martial exclusive thing? I feel that over condensed non-martial skills like arcana stealth & so on also deserve the same split

Because magic is still the prime solution to literally every problem in D&D. So unless we limit casters to 2 schools and make them spend a feat on each school/sphere, kneecapping skills really only impacts one group. Bear in mind, I'm all for gutting casters, but there's no way that would fly.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because magic is still the prime solution to literally every problem in D&D. So unless we limit casters to 2 schools and make them spend a feat on each school/sphere, kneecapping skills really only impacts one group. Bear in mind, I'm all for gutting casters, but there's no way that would fly.

You are talking about class abilities & the isolated comparative isolated weight of individual class abilities. That's a completely different topic than the skill system. With 5e they built the skill system around most every PC having the same number of do everything overcondensed skills. Splitting those combined skills in a way that actually impacts play is an extremely nontrivial adjustment for a GM to make because it needs to one by one review each class most every subclass & quite a few abilities to work out any one off rulings. Going the other way would be easy because PCs almost always work out at least as good & any gains are part of the goal in the skill consolidation rather than a thing that is likely to need one off exceptions.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

So something the PC wants, and will use often, but they shouldn't have to invest? In fact, it is "insanely unreasonable" for them to invest in this skill they're going to use over and over?

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.

I guess we just disagree. I do not see it as unfair or illogical. The entire game is about choices; being good at some things at the expense of others. Aside from still not understanding how the 10% lower skill is actually a broken mechanic, I also don't understand the need to always have the better option, or more so, the willingness to always argue in favor of power creep.

Strength alone should be the only ability that conveys this agile mobility. Whoever wants this character concept knows where to invest.

Why? You could say the same thing about any of the abilities regarding multiple categories, not just movement. The game splits all sorts of skills up into niche categories, and then assigns the ability they think covers it most of the time. And then they write a rule saying you can change the ability of it makes sense. How is this not the most efficient and dynamic way for a table to create the broadest amount of tropes?

 

[Scott Christian]

For the record, the last mini-campaign I ran (nine sessions), I tried to highlight skills. There were many rolls, including climbing rolls, where the only person that could attempt it had to be trained. Same thing with history, arcana, nature, etc. Of course, sometimes you can't do that, like a time when someone is falling and grabbing a cliff edge. But if someone was trying a first ascent of a large, rocky cliff, they needed to be proficient. Then they could throw a rope down or teach others how to do it.
(The entire campaign was housed inside a fantasy version of Joshua Tree National Park, which is a haven for climbers.) I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I thought I would throw it out there. Food for thought.

 

[Horwath]

We will have to agree to disagree. 10% is not "huge."

10% is relative in what it means. It's 10% only in absolute numbers.

if you have +9 vs DC20 you have 50% chance to succeed
if you have +7 you have 40% chance.
you succeed in 25% more instances with +9 vs +7 ((50/40)*100%)

if DC is 25 then success goes from 25% to 15%, an 67% relative increase to your chance. ((25/15)*100%)

the higher the DC, the more every single +1 is worth.
that is why +1 AC bonus to AC 11 in not a great addition, but +1 AC to 20 AC is a huge bonus.

another problem with skills is that they are rolled rather rarely, and then the d20 is horrible die for skills. 3d6 is much more realistic for something that should be "relatively" reliable.

d20 is good for attack/saves as they are rolled in dozens every fight so d20 tends to even out. But when you only have one roll to decide an entire encounter or exploration d20 is not that good.

 

[tetrasodium]

10% is relative in what it means. It's 10% only in absolute numbers.

if you have +9 vs DC20 you have 50% chance to succeed
if you have +7 you have 40% chance.
you succeed in 25% more instances with +9 vs +7 ((50/40)*100%)

if DC is 25 then success goes from 25% to 15%, an 67% relative increase to your chance. ((25/15)*100%)

the higher the DC, the more every single +1 is worth.
that is why +1 AC bonus to AC 11 in not a great addition, but +1 AC to 20 AC is a huge bonus.

another problem with skills is that they are rolled rather rarely, and then the d20 is horrible die for skills. 3d6 is much more realistic for something that should be "relatively" reliable.

d20 is good for attack/saves as they are rolled in dozens every fight so d20 tends to even out. But when you only have one roll to decide an entire encounter or exploration d20 is not that good.

Alice:"oh I help Bob by doing xxx"
Cindy: "ohh yea I cast guidance"
That roll just got much harder to fail and the party is contributing a significant amount towarfs the success of Bob's check.

 

[Yaarel]

So something the PC wants, and will use often, but they shouldn't have to invest? In fact, it is "insanely unreasonable" for them to invest in this skill they're going to use over and over?

I guess we just disagree. I do not see it as unfair or illogical. The entire game is about choices; being good at some things at the expense of others. Aside from still not understanding how the 10% lower skill is actually a broken mechanic, I also don't understand the need to always have the better option, or more so, the willingness to always argue in favor of power creep.

Why? You could say the same thing about any of the abilities regarding multiple categories, not just movement. The game splits all sorts of skills up into niche categories, and then assigns the ability they think covers it most of the time. And then they write a rule saying you can change the ability of it makes sense. How is this not the most efficient and dynamic way for a table to create the broadest amount of tropes?

It is insane to invest in two mutually negating Abilities, for little more than a "balance" check.

Completely insane.

Horrific game design.