Acrobatics vs. Athletics

[Doctor Proctor]

The problem with "Acrobatic jumps and the like" is that the DO require some strength. You ever see the legs on a gymnast?

Or, here's a better example. My wife was a cheerleader back in the day, and used to constantly work on her legs to help her with all of the cheer stuff. She had a friend that was into martial arts and wanted her to do a scissor lock on him so he could try and escape it. He kept saying "Yeah, just squeeze as hard as you can. I need it to be a good lock to see if I'm doing my escape right." Well, when she squeezed harder, she broke one of his ribs. =)

The point is, while most people think of cheerleading as something that's "Acrobatic", it actually requires a LOT of strength as well. Essentially, if we look at it from a D&D perspective, she had training in Acrobatics AND Athletics...and then would use one or both skills depending on what she was doing.

 

[Obryn]

The problem with "Acrobatic jumps and the like" is that the DO require some strength. You ever see the legs on a gymnast?

Sure... in the real world. I try not to compare D&D and the real world, though - that way lies madness and thirty-page messageboard debates.

It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas. I like this, and my players do, too.

The distinction between Acrobatics and Athletics is a somewhat artificial one, having no analogue in the real world, and I'm in favor of blurring those boundaries when it makes for a more enjoyable game at my table.

-O

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Sure... in the real world. I try not to compare D&D and the real world, though - that way lies madness and thirty-page messageboard debates.

It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas. I like this, and my players do, too.

The distinction between Acrobatics and Athletics is a somewhat artificial one, having no analogue in the real world, and I'm in favor of blurring those boundaries when it makes for a more enjoyable game at my table.

-O

Not to nitpick, but those statements are mutually exclusive. I just gave you real world analogue, and you said not to compare to the real world.

You mention a more enjoyable game though...but more enjoyable for whom? As I said before, I have yet to see an argument for the reverse situation of letting Athletics checks sub for abilities that would fall under purview of Acrobatics. So now you're expanding the scope of Acrobatics, while keeping the scope of Athletics the same.

So what's the point of even taking Athletics? Sure, if you're a Fighter it makes sense, but that's about it. Even then, you probably don't have much of a choice since your DEX will likely be behind your STR stat. However, now you're getting an inferior stat. Anyone with Acrobatics can do what you do, but you can't do any of the extra stuff that they can do. So now you're taking away the one good ability from a class that has very few useful out of combat skills. How is that fun?

 

[Stalker0]

It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas. I like this, and my players do, too.

This statement actually destroyed the argument I was about to make. The bottom line is, mechanics are used to model a certain type of world.

In most of the movie-bookesque fantasy that dnd tries to model (at least loosely), the small wiry guys do make tremendous leaps and can get whereever they want.

I think I may just houserule it that jump checks can be made with either athletics or acrobatics.

 

[Obryn]

Not to nitpick, but those statements are mutually exclusive. I just gave you real world analogue, and you said not to compare to the real world.

You mention a more enjoyable game though...but more enjoyable for whom? As I said before, I have yet to see an argument for the reverse situation of letting Athletics checks sub for abilities that would fall under purview of Acrobatics. So now you're expanding the scope of Acrobatics, while keeping the scope of Athletics the same.

So what's the point of even taking Athletics? Sure, if you're a Fighter it makes sense, but that's about it. Even then, you probably don't have much of a choice since your DEX will likely be behind your STR stat. However, now you're getting an inferior stat. Anyone with Acrobatics can do what you do, but you can't do any of the extra stuff that they can do. So now you're taking away the one good ability from a class that has very few useful out of combat skills. How is that fun?

Yeah, that's what I get for posting in between reports.

Anyway, I am not saying the two skills are completely interchangeable. Clearly, there are things one can do that the other can't. I am saying that blurred boundaries never hurt anyone.

Athletics lets you swim. Acrobatics won't.

Athletics is much better for climbing really tall things; being nimble won't help you there. (But if an Acrobatic character wanted to do a quick Jackie Chan corner climb up 10', I think that'd be fine.)

Acrobatics lets you balance. Athletics doesn't.

Acrobatics can lighten your fall. Athletics can't.

But in all of the above, if a player can tell me a convincing story about how it's working, I'll let it go. I'll veto anything silly, but I think the game is more fun when I veto less and allow more.

-O

 

[Mistwell]

If a player can describe how to use acrobatics to do something that is normally an athletics check, and the description makes sense, I would allow it but apply a penalty to the check (or really an increase to the DC) that is probably equal to the trained bonus, and possibly even another -2 on top of it depending on the complexity and difficulty of the trick. But, I would allow a check, at the higher DC.

 

[nittanytbone]

Just another thought or two...

I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill. For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.

I might occasionally let a player utilize a different skill if there are special circumstances. For example, a player might utilize a trampoline (or similar terrain -- maybe the canvas roof of a bazaar stand or a springy patch of fungus) to catapult up to high altitude, using an Acrobatics check.

If a player wanted to do this regularly, I would let them spend a feat to make Jump/Climb checks with Acrobatics. This is better than taking Skill training because of hte disparity in modifiers, but seems to be a fair use of a feat.

 

[Syrsuro]

Just another thought or two...

I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill. For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.

Why not?

In many cases I allow the players to use either Acrobatics or Athletics. Sure, in some cases only one or the other will apply - but those are the cases where it is clearly a strength based or dexterity based move.

But in many cases I don't see any reason to enforce what is, essentially, an arbitrary distinction.

Just because the rules define the skill as X or Y doesn't mean that the players or DM are strictly bound by those rules.

Carl

 

[Mistwell]

Just another thought or two...

I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill. For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.

You would let someone somersault over an opponent with acrobatics, but not jump that same distance, because the athletics skill uses the word jump?

I think this is the danger of acrobatics. WOTC intentionally left it vague to give it flexibility, and it backfired. By being vague, people seem more inclined to narrow it out of instinct, and if there is any overlap between skills they seem to default to not giving any overlap to the vague skill. And yet, I do not think they give that same restriction to the non-vague skills.

 

[77IM]

I specifically allow Acrobatics to substitute for Athletics. Frankly, I can't figure out what the hell else Acrobatics is supposed to be good for -- keeping your balance and reducing falling damage are not that exciting, and the "acrobatic stunt" rules are so vague as to be useless to me.

Here's my rule:

Acrobatics can substitute for Athletics in certain situations. This is at the DM's discretion, and the DC may be slightly different than the equivalent Athletics check DC. If you're using Acrobatics to jump, you don't need a running start, and if you're using it to climb, you move at full speed rather than half speed. However, if you fail the check, you move one square and then fall prone. If you fall a distance because of this, you can't use Acrobatics to land safely.​

So, it's kind of a high-risk/high-reward version of Athletics -- you go faster, but if you fail, you fall flat.

-- 77IM