D&D 5E Strength is agile

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Plate mail isn't hardend steel plate. I can't think of a single armor of the middle ages that was better on the Rockwell scale than weapons of the same technology level of metallurgy and smithing. There are plenty of actual videos and pictures of weapons piercing plate armor. This shouldn't even be up for debate.

Actually the latter ones were hardened, even "bulletproof". And no, even if they were technically of lower hardness then the blade, you still can't generate enough force to cut through them.

http://web.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/weapons.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm#.VrvGqFIhHh4

https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=97043

 

[Yaarel]

If we have to try to place real-life into D&D terms, I would expect any olympic- or world-level athlete to basically have Expertise in Athletics and/or equivalent skill.
Actobats and Gymnasts would likely have both high strength and Dex, expertise in both Athletics and Acrobatics, and probably proficiency in Performance as well.

I need a simplification of the ‘agility’ mechanic. For me, I plan on using Strength (athletics) as the go-to agility check.

Thinking more about how inseparable they are, I will probably delete the ‘acrobatics’ skill, and have the athletics skill absorb all of it. This completes the circle, and makes athletics the agility check to represent the jock archetype. If some circumstances seem to demand a Dexterity (athletics) check, then that seems reasonable.

For those less daring. Treat athletics and acrobatics moreorless like a grappling check. Generally use Strength for agility checks, but sometimes Dexterity works too.



On a related note, the D&D mechanics make so much more sense if one thinks about weight training as a skill. Then Strength can apply to both weightlifting and athletics, but individuals can train for one over the other.

 

[Yaarel]

With regard to the physical aspects, the ‘jock’ archetype is the same as the ‘young knight’ archetype, such as the coming of age stories of Viking Sagas, King Arthur, King David, King Gilgamesh, and so on.

Stories where the ‘wizard’ archetype is the central hero (like Harry Potter, Merlin, and so on) are extremely important to me.

But historically, it is the ‘jock’ archetype and the celebration of this warriors physical prowess, is what invented the heroic epic tradition in the first place, during the Bronze Age.

It is important for D&D to do the ‘jock’ right. Mincing between Strength and Dexterity, isnt how to do it. At least, I need a better method.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ideally, I want, the Dexterity ability to clarify that specifically means:

• ‘agility of the hands’
• and ‘reflexes of the hands’
In other words, Juggling, Sleight of Hand, Crafting (carving, weaving, calligraphy, alchemy, etcetera, for magic items), and in this vein of manual mastery, other precision stunts.

In the sense of small hand-like precision, Dexterity also means:

• ‘A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move carefully’.

In other words, moving carefully and precisely especially means Stealth, which is pretty much a Dexterity-only skill.

Dexterity also covers coordination, flexibility, balance, Kinesthesia, reflexes, nimbleness and a certain sense of timing. Its used in whole-body actions, for example moving whilst not leaving any openings for attacks, avoiding blows, finding cover from an area spell and suchlike.

Then, I want to delete the Acrobatics skill, and make all of it inseparable aspects of the Athletics skill.

Athletics means:

• ‘agility of the body’
• ‘reflexes of the body’
• ‘balance’

Balance is moreso an inseparable aspect of Jumping and Climbing than of knitting.

The Athletics means: Jumping, Climbing, and especially Tumbling, in other words Gymnastics. Athletics also includes Running, Swimming, and other body stunt sports. Athletics means agility.

Not a good idea. Acrobatics might be badly-named, but as a skill it does cover things that Athletics doesn't. Athletics is already a very wide-ranging skill: I've given serious thought to splitting it into at least two subsets as it is; one for the normal athletic endeavours, and a different Str-based skill covering its more direct combat uses such as shoving people.

Balance in a very general sense is your capability to judge what your body is doing and where each part of it is relative to your senses. If you have to jump with accuracy rather than distance, or climb up loose scree where poise is more important than grip strength, asking for a Dexterity (Athletics) check would be appropriate.

There is going to be a certain amount of crossover in the physical skills. A DM would be well within the concept if they accepted proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics for some checks. Loot at it as using two different styles or methods to achieve the same result, in the same way that if a creature is grappling you, you can either choose to violently break its grip to escape, or just squirm out.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Plate mail isn't hardend steel plate. I can't think of a single armor of the middle ages that was better on the Rockwell scale than weapons of the same technology level of metallurgy and smithing. There are plenty of actual videos and pictures of weapons piercing plate armor. This shouldn't even be up for debate.

Actually the latter ones were hardened, even "bulletproof". And no, even if they were technically of lower hardness then the blade, you still can't generate enough force to cut through them.

Just intervening before you start to annoy each other: Sacrosanct isn't just talking about swords. I think TLR is. So you're both right. Mostly. Sort of.

Even plate armour could be penetrated, and most certainly could be buckled to damage the wearer. Its why picks, warhammers, maces and poleaxes were around. It still wasn't easy: plate was designed to deflect force, so actually landing a solid blow was difficult (hence the reason why many blunt weapons had spikes or flanges; to reduce the chance of a deflection).
Most swords weren't stiff or heavy enough to go through plate. Generally the swordsman would halfsword and try to get the point into a a joint or similar gap. However the mordhau, where the blade was gripped in the gauntlets to swing the sharp crossguard like a pick was specifically used to deal with plate wearers, generally after you had knocked them down.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Acknowledging that stats are fundamentally arbitrary, I still like using STR for "parkour", because DEX is already a very over-valued stat. The more things I can do outside of DEX and WIS, the better.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Just intervening before you start to annoy each other: Sacrosanct isn't just talking about swords. I think TLR is. So you're both right. Mostly. Sort of.

Even plate armour could be penetrated, and most certainly could be buckled to damage the wearer. Its why picks, warhammers, maces and poleaxes were around. It still wasn't easy: plate was designed to deflect force, so actually landing a solid blow was difficult (hence the reason why many blunt weapons had spikes or flanges; to reduce the chance of a deflection).
Most swords weren't stiff or heavy enough to go through plate. Generally the swordsman would halfsword and try to get the point into a a joint or similar gap. However the mordhau, where the blade was gripped in the gauntlets to swing the sharp crossguard like a pick was specifically used to deal with plate wearers, generally after you had knocked them down.

Ah, then we have no quarrel at all

In fact we are at a more of an agreement. When i DM i like ruling the use of the sword as an improvised blunt weapon (pommel or cross guard in the face) against thingies with slashing resistance with proficiency bonus on to hit values (1d4 for one handed swords, 2d4 for two handed ones).

EDIT: originally i wanted to add proficiency bonus to damage as well, but it quickly dawned to me that at higher levels this would make them better as blunt weapons then slashing ones...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

When i DM i like ruling the use of the sword as an improvised blunt weapon (pommel or cross guard in the face) against thingies with slashing resistance with proficiency bonus on to hit values (1d4 for one handed swords, 2d4 for two handed ones).

If its just against Slashing resistance, wouldn't stabbing be more natural? Despite what the weapon table says, all the swords in it would be capable of both slashing and stabbing. Just drop to the next dice down if you feel that it would be less optimal.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

If its just against Slashing resistance, wouldn't stabbing be more natural? Despite what the weapon table says, all the swords in it would be capable of both slashing and stabbing. Just drop to the next dice down if you feel that it would be less optimal.

Depends on the weapon used and the way the player likes to role play it. Yeah, even great swords can be used as short spears (improvised weapon), i just like the idea of whacking things on the head with a blunt object. If we'd go for a conventional use of the sword to stab however (holding it by the handle), then i'd favor long swords over great swords for shear practicality. I don't know what alternative damage would i give to the great sword if used this way though.....

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Depends on the weapon used and the way the player likes to role play it. Yeah, even great swords can be used as short spears (improvised weapon), i just like the idea of whacking things on the head with a blunt object. If we'd go for a conventional use of the sword to stab however (holding it by the handle),

Nothing improvised about it. Stabbing, either as a straight thrust with hands on the handle, or shortened up with a hand holding the lower blade is a standard technique for a two-handed sword.

then i'd favor long swords over great swords for shear practicality.

I'd favour great swords over long swords for shearing practicality though.

I don't know what alternative damage would i give to the great sword if used this way though.....

If dropping the damage down to 2d4 is still too powerful due to Great Weapon style, you can go down to d10 instead.