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

[tetrasodium]

Not to any player that trusts their DM. Might it slow play. To a slight degree, I can see that. But the rules are incredibly clear that the DM declares the skill check, the attribute associated, and the DC level.

It doesn't matter if a player trusts the gm if the player is completely certain that the gm is unfairly nerfing them. A lot of players started with 5e and have never played anything else. On top of the deliberate fogbank of expectations 5e sets for athletics vrs acrobatics it adds all of the "well you can do whatever you want in your home game, but officially it should be x" type efforts wotc has made to reinforce the video game "my GM is just the meat computer " mindset. It's nottge 79s 80s or even 90 &wotc can't keep presenting player facing murk as if it is

I am sorry, but I do not understand this statement. If the DM does the work, it doesn't matter if there are three, five, seven, or nine players. A table with a lot of players has less time to highlight individuals. That is a con to large tables. There are pros and cons to every group size.

It makes big difference how many players carry a particular poorly designed box that the GM needs to tick in order to avoid being responsible for that bad design... Your literal words here: "It is the DMs fault." If they have three group members that rely on strength, then they need to build or modify the encounters to highlight their poorly defined poorly simplified strength" more & more. That goes double for being needlessly difficult when bad simplification& niche eroding ensures that nearly everything that might be a thing str(athletics) could apply to is a thing equally happy to work just as well with dex(acrobatics).

 

[Yaarel]

ABILITY BONUS TO AC
While you are Unencumbered, you can add an Ability Bonus to your AC either from Strength mainly by agilely dodging or from Dexterity mainly by manually blocking. If you become Encumbered, you incur a disadvantage to all Athletics checks, such as to Jump, Fall, Tumble, Climb, Balance, Run, or Swim.

ARMOR ENCUMBRANCE
You can wear an amount of armor whose total AC is upto 10 + your Strength without becoming Encumbered. You must have Training in the armor. A shield doesnt count toward this total. Any special AC bonus such as from a magical enhancement to an armor doesnt count toward the total for the Armor Encumbrance, but the armor itself does.

Example. You have Strength +3 (Score 16), thus are wearing Chain Armor of AC 13 without Encumbrance. Additionally, you can add your Ability Bonus to your AC from either Strength or Dexterity. You have AC 16. You can move agilely while wearing Chain. If you use your offhand for a shield, your total is AC 18.


Notes.

Regarding the 2014 rules, the armors can no longer limit Dexterity or slow Speed. Dexterity is cautious precision and armor doesnt interfere with this. Armor can interfere with Athletics checks, including to impede a strenuous Run or Climb or Swim. Any Encumbrance, whether from armor or a heavy load can interfere with Athletics.

On the one hand, a Shield costs the use of the offhand, and conceptually benefits from either agility or manual dexterity. It would be odd if the Armor Encumbrance discourages the use of a shield. On the other hand, an AC 16 or 18 being normal at level 1 is notable within the bounded accuracy game design. Tentatively, this high AC a perk for high Strength characters. Additionally, to wear a plate suit armor that grants AC 18 or AC 20 with shield is also normal at level 1, if the character has a Background from a wealthy family or working for a patron.

With a Strength +5, normally at higher tiers benefiting from feat investments, a character can wear upto Half Plate while remaining unencumbered. Thus the total with shield is AC 22.

A character must have Strength +1 (Score 12 or 13) to remain Unencumbered while wearing a padded or leather tunic, and Strength +2 (Score 14 or 15) to wear the socalled "studded leather". (By the way, since the studded leather is nonsense, I interpret this armor as a full cured leather suit worn over a gambeson and with guards for limbs.) Note, a character with Strength +1 and Dexterity +3, can wear the padded or leather tunic without Encumberance, thus add the full Dexerity +3 on top of it, totaling AC 14 or AC 16 with a shield.

Here, the consequences of choosing to be Encumbered are mild. The character can walk around normally. The Encumberance only interferes with Athletics stunts. This Encumbrance is normal for characters wearing Heavy Armor. However, to be "Heavily Encumbered" is a different category and its impediments more severe.

A Rogue character concept that Jumps around and does gymnastics and parkour, needs a high Strength anyway.

Note, "while you are Uncumbered" you "can" add your Ability to your AC. But if both the Strength and Dexterity are negative bonuses, you dont have to. The AC is normally at least AC 10.

The effect is intentional. Normally, Heavy Armor always causes Encumbrance. Generally, lower Strength characters are better off wearing Heavy Armor, and higher Strength characters are better off being agile while wearing a chain or scale tunic, a brigandier (scale cuirass), or even a breast plate (plate cuirass). Superhuman Strength can be found agile in half-plate (solid metal cuirass with metal limb guards but without the chain reinforcment at joints).

 

[Scott Christian]

It doesn't matter if a player trusts the gm if the player is completely certain that the gm is unfairly nerfing them. A lot of players started with 5e and have never played anything else. On top of the deliberate fogbank of expectations 5e sets for athletics vrs acrobatics it adds all of the "well you can do whatever you want in your home game, but officially it should be x" type efforts wotc has made to reinforce the video game "my GM is just the meat computer " mindset. It's nottge 79s 80s or even 90 &wotc can't keep presenting player facing murk as if it is

First, it all has to do with trust.
Second, the above is not even close to true. This all goes back to if people have read the rulebook or if they read things in isolation by looking them up online. It clearly states, without any reasonable doubt, the DM (or the player) might ask for a roll using a different combination. Then it goes on to give an example of someone swimming long distances, from an offshore island to the mainland. It states constitution is the better and more logical choice to use with your athletics skill in this situation.

There is no murk if the rulebook is read and understood.

It makes big difference how many players carry a particular poorly designed box that the GM needs to tick in order to avoid being responsible for that bad design... Your literal words here: "It is the DMs fault." If they have three group members that rely on strength, then they need to build or modify the encounters to highlight their poorly defined poorly simplified strength" more & more. That goes double for being needlessly difficult when bad simplification& niche eroding ensures that nearly everything that might be a thing str(athletics) could apply to is a thing equally happy to work just as well with dex(acrobatics).

That is again, not what the books state, nor is it what I state. I proposed a DM has to modify some things to ensure each PC is able to participate. This, under no circumstance, means all the time. It also doesn't mean to change every skill check to exemplify the party's strength. Heck, as a DM (if I were not using a premade), I'd be sure to have some encounters or side quests that did just the opposite - focus on the group's weakness.
Above all else, I build encounters based on what I perceive the logic of the area dictates. This comes from reading fiction and non-fiction, experience, and understanding the rules. For example, I find pit traps in tight, heavily travelled areas like a cave entrance to a clan of 50 goblins ridiculous. I feel some kid or old goblin carrying firewood or young group of drunk goblins would inevitably fall in. Put spikes at the bottom, even more ridiculous.

 

[tetrasodium]

First, it all has to do with trust.
Second, the above is not even close to true. This all goes back to if people have read the rulebook or if they read things in isolation by looking them up online. It clearly states, without any reasonable doubt, the DM (or the player) might ask for a roll using a different combination. Then it goes on to give an example of someone swimming long distances, from an offshore island to the mainland. It states constitution is the better and more logical choice to use with your athletics skill in this situation.

There is no murk if the rulebook is read and understood.

Wotc spent many years pushing strict RAW for both rules and modules in support of AL. At one point crawford even said that bit you bolded in one of their videos*. When the rules say that you can use x or y skill nearly every time either skill is explicitly noted the GM has a much higher bar to overcome the resulting murk when that GM says "no you can only use X skill not Y" or they are making their own adventure/rencounter/etc where one is not an option. Couple the two together and wotc has gone out of their way to make it difficult for the same GM you are so eager to point the blame at.

That is again, not what the books state, nor is it what I state. I proposed a DM has to modify some things to ensure each PC is able to participate. This, under no circumstance, means all the time. It also doesn't mean to change every skill check to exemplify the party's strength. Heck, as a DM (if I were not using a premade), I'd be sure to have some encounters or side quests that did just the opposite - focus on the group's weakness.
Above all else, I build encounters based on what I perceive the logic of the area dictates. This comes from reading fiction and non-fiction, experience, and understanding the rules. For example, I find pit traps in tight, heavily travelled areas like a cave entrance to a clan of 50 goblins ridiculous. I feel some kid or old goblin carrying firewood or young group of drunk goblins would inevitably fall in. Put spikes at the bottom, even more ridiculous.

"participate" was not the bar being discussed in the post you quoted with what you wrote way back here where you were explicit about where the blame falls...

Maybe this is where we disagree. It is the DMs fault. If they have three group members that rely on strength, then they need to build or modify the encounters to highlight their strength. DMing takes time and work. (And, as I said earlier, reading the rulebooks, DMs Guide, MM, and adventures.) If you are not going to do that, don't try to bend the system to accommodate those that refuse to the bare minimum.

"highlight" is a much higher degree of involvement than merely being able to "participate".

* I want to say it was a statement that involved druids but could have been about something else.

 

[Scott Christian]

or they are making their own adventure/rencounter/etc where one is not an option.

No one is talking about a DM option where "they didn't do the work." We are talking about an option where the DM didn't do the work.

participate" was not the bar being discussed in the post you quoted with what you wrote way back here where you were explicit about where the blame falls...

How does participation not fall on the GM? If it doesn't, then logically, the players are to blame.

 

[tetrasodium]

No one is talking about a DM option where "they didn't do the work." We are talking about an option where the DM didn't do the work.

How does participation not fall on the GM? If it doesn't, then logically, the players are to blame.

You avoided quoting the part where I pointed out your switch from "highlight" to "participate". As a result of that omission it seems clear that you recognize how there is a significant difference between how high each of those two words set the bar. Why are you continuing to post as if this disagreement over assigned blame was about mere "participation"?

 

[Scott Christian]

You avoided quoting the part where I pointed out your switch from "highlight" to "participate". As a result of that omission it seems clear that you recognize how there is a significant difference between how high each of those two words set the bar. Why are you continuing to post as if this disagreement over assigned blame was about mere "participation"?

I did avoid it because to me, as a DM, highlighting a character, letting them shine, building something they can participate in, or constructing something so they can show off, are all in the same pool.
I get what you are saying. I watched the video, and it is not always the DM's fault. We agree on that. Where we disagree (at least what you are responding to) is that the ruleset is to blame. I am saying it doesn't. It is vague enough to allow lateral design at almost any fantasy table, yet clear enough to allow any DM to point to the book and say to a player, "The rule is here if you would like to read it."
I contest that many of these problems come from the DM and players not reading the rulebook, but rather reading small, highlighted parts of it online in isolation. And since that is what I see, I deem it the DM's problem.

 

[Yaarel]

Looking thru the Monster Manual, the number of creatures that are of concern for doublechecking Strength Athletics are few.

Mainly the culprits are the statblocks that represent reallife animals, which we can objectively critique for nonmagical traits. Among these statblocks only some of the Tiny ones and even fewer among the Small ones are off.

Many of the Tiny and Small Beasts with low Strength, really do have low Strength even for their Size. They dont feature remarkable Athletics nor Weightlifting.

With regard to Strength, the Medium and larger animals are moreorless what they are. Those animals that are known for their Strength like Lion, Ox, Bear, are strong, even for their Size.


With regard to Dexterity, in reallife the most dexterous species in existence appears to be Homo sapiens. This species adapted for a unique dependence on tool usage. The capacity for object manipulation and precision is unsurpassed. Comparing the nearest related species, bonobo and chimpanzee, one can see how the freed hands, with opposing thumbs, wrapping pinkies, and pivoting wrists, and with regard to object manipulation, readily demonstrate how the sapiens is more dexterous in every way. The bonobo and the chimpanzee are agile, brachiating among trees and exhibiting superhuman climbing and jumping Strength Athletics skill. Chimpanzee are about 1.35 to 1.5 times stronger than the sapiens, depending on the task. Bonobos are remarkable at jumping. Yet even these close relatives fall out of trees and break their bones, often enough. The sapiens mastery of dexterity and precision informs every aspect of sapiens behavior, even beyond the use of the specialized limbs, involving modes of cognition.


With regard to the D&D Beast statblocks, the Dexterity and Wisdom Scores tend to be grossly inflated.

The Human has among the best eyesight among all species, including color vision, parallax distance judgment, and so on. Even so, a few other animals have features to see what Humans dont. Many animals have superior hearing and olfaction. The olfaction of the canines is extraordinary and preternatural.

The Beast statblock should often have an innate Expertise in Perception checks that rely on sound or scent or so on, but they shouldnt have high "wisdom", per se.

With regard to Dexterity inflation, the situation is hilarious.

Consider how the most dexterous reallife species on the planet, the Human, exhibits an "average" of Dexterity +0 (Score 10).

Now consider the Seahorse in the Monster Manual. This Tiny Beast with a single Hit Point is listed as if having a Dexterity +1 (Score 12) that is as if superior to the average Human. It is impossible for a Seahorse to have a Dexterity +1. It has a prehensile tail, but it mainly coils around something to anchor itself in place, and is obviously less Dexterity than a Human hand. Meanwhile with regard to Athletics, it is an extremely poor swimmer, especially for its Size. Among the slowest creatures on the planet is a species of seahorse, with a top speed of about 5 feet per hour. The Seahorse males rarely venture beyond the space of a cubic meter for their entire lives, and the females rarely beyond 100 meters. The Seahorse survives by camouflaging, staying still, and ambushing tinier things that swim by.

The Seahorse deserves Stealth Expertise, with a Camouflage trait. But its Dexterity Sleight manipulation is low and its precision is unexceptional. Generously, the Dexterity Score is about 6, at most 7. Tho its Strength (Athletics or Weightlifting) probably really is −5 (Score 1). The Seahorse might be a good example of what Strength Score 1 looks like, and not because it is Tiny.

Yet the grotesque habit of inflating low Strength creatures with stupidly high Dexterity affects most Tiny creatures, even when preposterous.


The Octopus is said to have Dexterity +2 (Score 15). At best, the Dexterity of an Octopus is equal to a Human, but the Human is better. Probably the Octopus deserves a Dexterity −1 (Score 8). An Octopus can open the lid of a jar, for example. (And is intelligent enough to learn how to do it.) At the same time, the Octopus exhibits preternatural camouflage. It needs Stealth Expertise, Stealth Advantage, and perhaps even an Invisibility ability when keeping still. But the Human is more dexterous.


Agility − swimming, jumping, climbing, running − skillfully or strenuously − is Strength Athletics. It has nothing to do with Dexterity.

 

[Yaarel]

The Pixie.

There are no Tiny Pixie bodies of matter in reallife to medically quantify. Here, it is the archetype, concepts, and associations that are of interest.

The Pixie statblock characterizes the Abilities as Strength −4, Dexterity +5, and Constitution −1.

The Constitution is probably fair. They do seem to have a reputation for being a bit more frail and vulnerable than the Human +0 is.

The Dexterity +5 is superhuman − beyond the capacity of reallife humans. It is a magical creature, so ultimately, the Dexterity can be whatever the concept is. The reputation for shooting "darts" and "arrows" and wielding needle-like "finesse" melee weapons, the archetype comes across as high Dexterity with precision and manual dexterity. Superhumanly so is fine.

There are Pixies who are clumsy and awkward and sloppy. But a Pixie culture celebrates the heroes who exhibit the extraordinary Dexterity, and these Dexterous are prominent ones that other Species have in mind when thinking about Pixies.

The Strength is unfair. Conceptually, the Pixie is more like a normal Human who proportionally is at this Tiny Size. The Pixie deserves a Strength +0 (Score 10). The individual Pixie may or may not be skilled at Athletics, in terms of running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etcetera. The individual may or may not be skilled at Weightlifting to Lift and Carry multiples of ones own lean bodymass. In any case, the Strength of a Pixie feels Human.


This leads to the point of the wings.

Normally, Strength Athletics needs to cover every form of mobility: Jumping, Landing a Jump, Catching a Fall, Climbing, Balancing, Tumbling, Running, body manuvering, etcetera. All of it is Athletics.

Athletics includes Flight, for those who have it. It is body kinesis and maneuverability.

There are various modes of Flight, telekinetic force, strong airy winds, and more exotic means of propulsion. There is also Wings, for winged Flight. Wings come with benefits and costs. They are inherently available during the lowest Tier. But wings can be injured. Perhaps strong winds continue to buffet up a Prone elemental flier, but a Prone winged flier is in a freefall.

Wings as bodyparts are limbs, like arms. It feels like manual dexterity and precision apply in the context of using ones wings. In this sense, Wings or Winged Flight can substitute Dexterity instead of Strength for Athletic Checks while airborne.

 

[Yaarel]

likewise,
3.5e did it right by reducing damage die by one step.

I feel there should be no Weapon Sizes. All longsword deal 1d8 slashing (versatile 1d10 or ideally 1d12) regardless of size.

Instead, there are features that grant a Size Bonus to Damage. This is typical for larger monster statblocks, but for player characters it would be from a Feat that had Size as the prereq.


LARGER DAMAGE
Level 4 Feat
Prerequisite: 17 Strength, Large Size or larger
While you are Large, your Melee Reach can extend upto 10 feet, and you can add a 1d6 Size Bonus to Damage to one Attack that hits that relies on Strength, once per turn.
Repeatable: You can take this feat again if you are Huge, for 15 feet and 2d6 . And then again if your are Gargantuan, for 20 feet and 3d6.


I have to check the Feat for balance, but something like that.

I am unsure what to do with Small and Tiny with regard to Size Damage, if anything. Albeit, I dont want to see Small or smaller Weapon Sizes either.