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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A total of a 10 or more above the DC is a nice round number to work with. That is a great mechanic to work with and easy for 5e to employ. Probably all crits should work work tis way.

Is there any "reward" for a natural 20?

Yes, should have mentioned that, a nat 20 is a crit if it would be a success. In the rare corner case where a 20+ mod would not be a success (peasants attacking the tarrasque) it is a success otherwise. I think it has only worked to the PC's benefit thus far, and avoided a weird case where "all hits are crits" against a high AC paladin fighting weenies.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What if your Strength was your Size?

As in (using 5E terms) Tiny creatures default to having a Strength of 1, Small have 2, Medium have 3, etc.

Adjust granularity to suit the genre/subgenre, or tone.

Creatures that are unusual strong for their size might have a Strength that's their size +1.

while greater size does provide some correlation to resulting in greater strength the opposite is far from as pronounced a correlation, connecting the two separate mechanics it's not a connection that i'd like to see implemented

 

[Horwath]

A total of a 10 or more above the DC is a friendly round number to work with. That is a great mechanic and easy for 5e to employ. Probably all crits should work this way.

Is there any "reward" for a natural 20?

I like gradual increase of damage:

5 over AC; +50% damage
10 over AC; +50% damage
15 over AC; +150% damage
20 over AC; +200% damage

miss by 5 or less: 50% damage and cannot trigger any on-hit effect

if you really want to reward nat 20, it can be additional +50% damage

 

[Horwath]

Explain how a "crit" might work in a 5e skill check?

if you beat climb DC by 10 you can climb at full speed, same for swim.

survival has that with finding foods for certain amount of people.
overland speed penalty could be negated by high enough check.
advantage/immunity to weather effects depending on check.

knowledge checks give special information.

perception can negate invisibility concealment.

 

[Yaarel]

if you beat climb DC by 10 you can climb at full speed, same for swim.

survival has that with finding foods for certain amount of people.
overland speed penalty could be negated by high enough check.
advantage/immunity to weather effects depending on check.

knowledge checks give special information.

perception can negate invisibility concealment.

The D&D tradition goes something like:

• "Crit" (critical success): success with a benefit, a success that alters the narrative situation in a beneficial way
• "Hit" (success)
• "Miss" (failure)
• "Fumble" (critical failure): failure with a setback, a failure that alters the narrative situation in a frustrating way

In this arrangement, there is still no category to "fail forward", a failure with a benefit. A DM is advised to avoid shutting down a story because of a poor d20 Test outcome. But this isnt the same thing as routinely awarding a benefit when failing. Perhaps a fumble can shut down a story, except the DM should have some alternate story to offer as a work-around to bypass the setback.


With regard to the fumble, I prefer the fumbling player choose and narrate how the story goes wrong. If the setback is sufficiently frustrating, humbling, and entertaining, the DM can reward the player with Inspiration or similar. The DM can also suggest if the player has gone too far or not far enough.

I like gradual increase of damage:

5 over AC; +50% damage
10 over AC; +50% damage
15 over AC; +150% damage
20 over AC; +200% damage

miss by 5 or less: 50% damage and cannot trigger any on-hit effect

if you really want to reward nat 20, it can be additional +50% damage

The reason why I like the the number "10", for 10 above the DC, is a 10 requires virtually no math. If the DC is 25, the crit is 35. If the DC 14, the crit is 24. The addition is narratively painless, so math is less likely to take a player out of narrative immersion.

 

[Yaarel]

What if your Strength was your Size?

As in (using 5E terms) Tiny creatures default to having a Strength of 1, Small have 2, Medium have 3, etc.

Adjust granularity to suit the genre/subgenre, or tone.

Creatures that are unusual strong for their size might have a Strength that's their size +1.

while greater size does provide some correlation to resulting in greater strength the opposite is far from as pronounced a correlation, connecting the two separate mechanics it's not a connection that i'd like to see implemented

There is a clear correlation between Size and Carrying. At the same time, two individuals of the same Size can have Carrying that differs significantly.

In this thread, ones own body mass or Size is the base, while the Strength score can Carry beyond ones own base body mass.


In the past I have worked with models that made Strength and Constitution a prerequisite to be a certain Size, such as at least a Score 9 in both in order to be Medium, a Score 13 in both to have Powerful Build, and a Score of 17 in both in order to be Large. (Huge requires at least 21 in both. Small requires at least a 5 in both. The prereqs are odd numbers at multiples of 4.)

However, the model in this thread feels more accurate. Any Size can be any Strength. Some creatures are unusually Athletic even if they dont Weightlift an unusually high amount. Strength represents either possibility. A weak creature tends to be stronger than a smaller weak creature, when both are Weightlifting ones own lean bodymass, respectively. But both might be equally Athletic. It is possible for the smaller creature with Expertise in the Weightlifting skill to lift significantly more than the larger creature, while the larger creature is much more Athletic. A "lumbering" Huge creature can be remarkably nonathletic.


When choosing how to build a character, a player might have the following archetypes in mind. A player can also build and play against the archetype:

Elf Strength: Athletics Skill
Orc Strength: Athletics and Weightlifting Skills
Dwarf Strength: Weightlifting Skill

 

[Scott Christian]

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%)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you needed a DC 20, and one character had a +9 and the other a +7, and you did this, say 100 times over the course of the campaign. The +9 would succeed 35% of the time, the +7 would succeed 12% of the time. I think that is the same as your math, right?
(PS - Thanks for taking the time to answer.)

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.

Explained like this, I see more of an issue than previously thought. I still can't call it broken, as there are just too many other ways that a group game with a biased DM has to thwart pure numbers. But, I do see the problem as slightly larger than I had before. Thanks.

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.

I agree with this. A 3d6 would slow the game down, but definitely restrain the swinginess of the d20.

 

[Scott Christian]

Each Ability needs to represent a clear, useful, and discrete gaming concept.

Charisma needs to be the go-to for every social skill, and emotional intelligence. Charisma does better to include Empathy/Insight, being inseparable from understanding and influencing people.

Wisdom is an artificial mess without a coherent concept. As-is, it means something like a "sense of self" including sanity, plus the ability to "pay attention".

Intelligence needs to include all "intuition" checks, especially to represent scientific intuition with its protoscientific speculations. Emotional relationship intuitions are Charisma.

The current confusion between Strength and Dexterity is a glaring mess, because of how it mechanically sabotages the swashbuckling archetype that is vital for the fantasy genre.

My suggestion is to find a game without abilities, just skills. The abilities for D&D are not going anywhere. They are a foundation to the game, whether we think they are messy or not.

Obviously if someone is falling and grabbing on to a cliff edge, Strength matters. This is a Climb check to see if the person can hold on.


To land a jump (or a fall) with little or no injury is a skillful Jump check.

Grabbing the cliff edge or rock could also use dexterity. The ability to quickly manipulate that grip. I always let the player decide in those cases. That is what the rules say I should do, so I follow those. By doing so, I have never had a complaint when I make things harder on the PCs either. For example, telling them they can only attempt to read the stars if they were trained in religion or using their charisma for a sleight of hand maneuver because they are flirting with the person as they hide that shiny orb down into their pouch because they don't want the NPC to see.

 

[Yaarel]

My suggestion is to find a game without abilities, just skills.

Heh, the gatekeeping is unappreciated.

The abilities for D&D are not going anywhere. They are a foundation to the game, whether we think they are messy or not.

Anyway, every edition of D&D changes the definitions of the six Abilities. Example, 3e changed the definition of Wisdom by adding Perception to it. 5e changed the use of Abilities for saves.

Clarifying and consolidating what each Ability is responsible for, helps.

Grabbing the cliff edge or rock could also use dexterity. The ability to quickly manipulate that grip. I always let the player decide in those cases. That is what the rules say I should do, so I follow those. By doing so, I have never had a complaint when I make things harder on the PCs either. For example, telling them they can only attempt to read the stars if they were trained in religion or using their charisma for a sleight of hand maneuver because they are flirting with the person as they hide that shiny orb down into their pouch because they don't want the NPC to see.

It doesnt matter how dexterously one can catch a bar or a branch or a ledge while falling, if one is lacks the Strength to pull oneself up. Think of the very many movie scenes where a character dangles helplessly during dramatic dialogue − before plummeting to ones death.

Catching a fall is completely and exclusively a Strength Climb check.

 

[Scott Christian]

Heh, the gatekeeping is unappreciated.

Anyway, every edition of D&D changes the definitions of the six Abilities. Example, 3e changed the definition of Wisdom by adding Perception to it. 5e changed the use of Abilities for saves.

Clarifying and consolidating what the Abilities are responsible for, helps.

I apologize if you took that as gatekeeping. That is not how it was meant. What I meant was to go and try a game that doesn't use abilities. I was thinking you might find you really like it, or vice-a-versa (maybe it will make you like D&D system even more). Who knows?

It doesnt matter how dexterously one can catch a bar or a branch or a ledge while falling, if one is lacks the Strength to pull oneself up. Think of the very many movie scenes where a character dangles helplessly during dramatic dialogue − before plummeting to ones death.

Catching a fall is completely and exclusively a Strength Climb check.

But that is the point I keep making over and over, the skills do not reflect reality - in any way shape or form. Doing a backflip and landing on a small chair when you are 300 pounds requires way more strength than it does balance. Doing the same trick when you are 120 pounds probably requires more balance than strength. Both of them require strength and dexterity, and one could argue constitution if being done during a fight. But that is not what the skill system for D&D is set up to be.

It is set up to be a general and non-specific (hence, the swapping of abilities) skill set that gives the greatest number of characters "a chance" at most attempts. But more importantly, it is built to be a give and take. A way, during character creation, to be able to do this at the expense of that.