Acrobatics vs. Athletics

[Doctor Proctor]

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

The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!

I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb? He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.

I just have a problem with letting Acrobatics do things belonging to Athletics because it waters that ability down. Plus, what other skills do people do this with? Do you let History substitute for Religion or Arcana?

As for Acrobatics being vague, well, there's still room for lots of things to do without encroaching on the territory of the Athletics skill. For example, if you were in a room with a table that was essentially "rough terrain" or just "impassable" terrain, you could require an Acrobatics check for someone to hop up on it and weave through all the junk to hop down on the other side. In fact, I believe that KotS has just such an example in it. It's a "hop" up onto the table, so it's clearly not a big jump like Athletics, and it requires more dexterity than normal to navigate through all the stuff on the table. It's a perfect use for the skill.

 

[Mistwell]

The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!

I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb? He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.

I just have a problem with letting Acrobatics do things belonging to Athletics because it waters that ability down. Plus, what other skills do people do this with? Do you let History substitute for Religion or Arcana?

As for Acrobatics being vague, well, there's still room for lots of things to do without encroaching on the territory of the Athletics skill. For example, if you were in a room with a table that was essentially "rough terrain" or just "impassable" terrain, you could require an Acrobatics check for someone to hop up on it and weave through all the junk to hop down on the other side. In fact, I believe that KotS has just such an example in it. It's a "hop" up onto the table, so it's clearly not a big jump like Athletics, and it requires more dexterity than normal to navigate through all the stuff on the table. It's a perfect use for the skill.

So again, you would let someone somersault over a creature using acrobatics, but would not let them jump that same distance using this skill because it does not use the word "jump" in the description?

 

[77IM]

The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!

I'm not sure I see the problem -- a high Str character can just as easily have as good an Athletics modifier. Plus, in my house rule, Athletics and Acrobatics are NOT the same -- Acrobatics is faster, but Athletics is a lot more reliable/safer. (Actually, if you jump with a running start, Athletics is strictly superior to Acrobatics.) I did this to give Acrobatics a more "stunty" feel, while Athletics is more straightforward.

I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb? He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.

Because it requires the player to invest two whole feats in an ability that they expect to already have. As previously mentioned, it's terribly in-genre to have the nimble character bounce around the room. Many times, when a player creates an Acrobatic character, they expect to be able to be highly mobile, not doing backflips in place.

I just have a problem with letting Acrobatics do things belonging to Athletics because it waters that ability down.

I disagree that it waters down Athletics in any way, because people can still use Athletics do jump and climb. It's OK for two different character traits to achieve similar game effects, just with a different flavor. Look at all the attack powers that basically boil down to "you hit a guy in a way that really hurts." The exception here is traits important enough to warrant niche-protection (e.g. the four roles), but I claim that "moving" is not an important enough niche to protect.

Plus, what other skills do people do this with? Do you let History substitute for Religion or Arcana?

Yes, definitely. That's a really good example, in fact. If there's a question about an ancient religion or the history of magic, I would say "Make a History or Religion check, whichever is better," or "Make an Arcana or History check, whichever is better." Depending on the knowledge sought, I might give slightly different answers based on which skill is used, but I might not, if I am feeling lazy.

As for Acrobatics being vague, well, there's still room for lots of things to do without encroaching on the territory of the Athletics skill. For example, if you were in a room with a table that was essentially "rough terrain" or just "impassable" terrain, you could require an Acrobatics check for someone to hop up on it and weave through all the junk to hop down on the other side. In fact, I believe that KotS has just such an example in it. It's a "hop" up onto the table, so it's clearly not a big jump like Athletics, and it requires more dexterity than normal to navigate through all the stuff on the table. It's a perfect use for the skill.

Your example actually involves jumping, so it seems that Acrobatics can be used to jump, but only in certain situations. I agree -- in my house rule, I only allow Acrobatics to sub for Athletics if it makes sense. Climbing a tree by flipping up the branches like parallel bars? Sure. Climbing a cliff by doing handsprings up the side of the mountain? Not likely -- use Athletics for that one.

The rule for acrobatic stunt says precisely nothing to me: you can use Acrobatics to attempt to do anything "that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try."
1. Isn't that true of all skills all the time?
2. Does this imply that you CAN'T use Athletics to attempt things "that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try?"

I certainly don't see where it says, "any other acrobatic stunt that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try, provided it doesn't seem like you are jumping too far or climbing up anything."

-- 77IM

 

[Nytmare]

I'll allow acrobatics to be used to vault things, but not to cover long distances. You can hop a railing, or shoulder roll up onto a crate, but you never cover anything more than a square's distance.

I've also had people make jump checks based off of their dex instead of their strength to make jumps through things. Like leaping off of a roof and trying to make it through a window in the next building over.

A side note to those who'd use the argument that skills should not intrude on each other schticks, there are already precedents. Remember that both Athletics and Acrobatics can both be used to escape from a grab.

If there's a question about an ancient religion or the history of magic, I would say "Make a History or Religion check, whichever is better," or "Make an Arcana or History check, whichever is better." Depending on the knowledge sought, I might give slightly different answers based on which skill is used, but I might not, if I am feeling lazy.

Yeah, this is exactly how I do it.

 

[dmjalund]

I think if you are to use Acrobatics for climbing, you treat it a "vertical balancing" and have it heavily penalized by encumbrance, and even force you to roll when you are staying put on a wall or cliff face

 

[webrunner]

Here's how I'd rule it:

You can use Acrobatics to run up a wall, in sort of a combined jump-climb check (not climb as it's limited on how far you can stay on the wall, not jump as the wall is helping)

You can also use Acrobatics to wall-run across a gap.

But to straight jump or climb these things, that's Athletics.

 

[Tuft]

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?

For example, you can use both Intimidate and Diplomacy to influence an NPC - the difference is mainly your style in doing it.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Why not?

For example, you can use both Intimidate and Diplomacy to influence an NPC - the difference is mainly your style in doing it.

And how much they like you afterwards, intimidate = impending hostility.

There is a reason why they have made two different skills. If you allow any/all uses of one skill to be emulated by the other skill there is no reason for those two skills. Call it Acroletics and have it key of STR or DEX depending on player's choice. OTOH, if you only allow corner cases/stunts like:

You can use Acrobatics to run up a wall, in sort of a combined jump-climb check (not climb as it's limited on how far you can stay on the wall, not jump as the wall is helping)

You can also use Acrobatics to wall-run across a gap.

The whole two different skills scenario looks more reasonable.

Still if you allow to use the skill you like between athletics and acrobatics you should either increase the DCs if you use the wrong skill or increase the penalty for failure. Otherwise, as I said before, there is no reason for two skills.

 

[Squire James]

Interchanging Acrobatics and Athletics seems like low-level Skill Power territory to me. There's a lot of Skill Powers like that already. There are cases where just exchanging the skill is better than just training the skill, so the cost seems appropriate.

 

[knightofround]

Yeah my opinion is that Acrobatics and Athletics should be used interchangably, much like Intimidate and Diplomacy. The *situation* you use them in may be different, but the *results* are the same. Strength (Athletics) will get you up the slope more quickly and makes it easier to find purchase, but dexterity (Acrobatics) will help handle difficult surfaces and use purchases more effectively. Irregardless of which one you use, both will get you up the mountain.

It's a shame we lost the synergy bonus in the 3.5 to 4E transition, but ah well. I know many DMs will use Athletics to the exclusion of Acrobatics, much like many DMs use Diplomacy to the exclusion of Intimidate. I can't blame them when "climb" and "jump" are listed under the sole domain of Athletics in the RAW. I just try to not be one of "those guys" I guess.