I was at work so my ability to elaborate with limited.
Ahh... fair enough. I'll admit the brevity of your replies surprised me a bit.
Although athletics is a big feature in combat and also good and exploration it is also one of the few skills that actually has direct rules for and thus direct limitations.
Especially in 2014 the uses of athletics to grapple or shove or push people had limitations on size and action and effect. All of these could only be bypassed by the Fiat of the DM. If your character is not built to use the effects your character will not be reliably good enough to do them. A larger creature can easily block your ability to use athletics on them and even larger creatures are immune.
But if you plan to use them, your character will be built to make them effective. Just like if you plan to be ranged, you want to build your character to be effective at that.
So if they make their characters strength bass they run into limitations and due to the fact that there are mostly only using abilities checks, a strength-based character has little ability to use the other five ability scores.
Well, I would argue a Strength-based PC will still likely want a good CON and WIS and decent DEX. INT and CHA are not as useful unless you want your character to be decent in those checks.
This is in contrast to a skilled or magic-based character who has the ability to tap into more avenues of action and this is the main issue that pushes people into multiclassing in order to either get additional skill strength or give magic which allows them to get the direct effects that they want. This is add on to the fact that most skill-based classes and most magic bass classes have multiple effects that they get from these areas of specialty.
A rogue has four skills from their class that they add on from their background to have six total. Six total skills which any of which can be buffed again with expertise. And with the fact that roads are dexterity based and thus have three base skills that match their prime abilities score.
And then you get into Magic characters who get into the eight schools of magic which allows eight different avenues of interacting with the world before you even get into the subcategories of what the various spells within each magic school can do.
And that's the crux of it If you make a warrior class character You literally do not have as many options as other classes and the few options you have have them more limitations than the other other ability scores.
And that is all before you get into power...
Again, those classes trade their abilities to fall behind fighters (and barbarian) in weapon combat--which is where they excel.
It goes back to my question: what more do you want them to be able to do?
With Athletics they are good at exploration, choose a single social skill and give them CHA 12 or better (easy enough IMO) and they are good at social. They don't have to be great, and certainly NOT the best, since that isn't what those classes are
meant to be great at. Within combat, they fight, and fight well...
Which has everything to do with it because in 5E desire to have more modifiers they did not also choose to have small DC.
Well, I disagree. Look at most published adventures and creatures, the vast majority of DCs are under 15, with many around 12 or 13. A Fighter with CHA 12 and Indimidation will have a +3 at 1st level, making most checks 50% of the time or so.
So a character who put a 14 in a secondary ability score and does not have a corresponding skill to it only has a plus two versus DC's that can be 10 15 20 and 25 which is very limiting in your ability to succeed. They're technically are DC's of 5 But these are very rarely cold because of the general rule of not calling for DC's which have no chance of failure
Well, a +2 (whether from proficiency or ability) is not meant to be very good against higher DCs. In a game where you are +5 or so at 1st level in the things you
are good at, +2 is relatively low. And if you are at higher levels and facing those higher 15+ DCs then you will find them challenging if all you have is +2; which they should be.
DC's at 5:00 are considered easy and thus typically seen as something that if a person has somewhat competence or talent in that action would automatically succeed.
Perhaps not automatically, but very likely certainly. And remember, in 5E failing to hit the DC doesn't necessarily mean failure---it could be success at a price or simply lack of progress and you can try again. As the book says, the vast majority of DCs range from 10-20. Few games bother rolling at DC 5.
Also, in terms of competence, a +2 "proficiency" represents the baseline IMO. If you think of tools, for example, a blacksmith would be +5 or better, not just +2. An apprentice might be +2 or 3, a journeyman 4 or 5, a master 6 or 7, etc.
Which which comes to the court problem once things stop being easy and you have to roll against them if you do not have the mechanical strength to beat that DC you will constantly fail and no you constantly fail at these actions. Which creates an option that you technically can make but is foolhardy attempt unless free and without consequence.
Considering most games run to level 10, a PC will likely be +3 proficiency, maybe +4, and also +4 or so in ability, giving a conservative total of +7 maybe. Against DC 20, which is very high and not likely encountered, you still have a 40% to outright succeed on a check. I would hardly call that foolhardy...
Now, consider the PC at that point who just has the lowly +2. Sure, now you would need an 18 against DC 20, so just 15%. Not likely at all, but then that isn't something your PC was designed to be good at.
This is specifically why Tactical Mind Primal Knowledge and Deft explorer were created in 2024 all gives strength to abilities checks and skill checks.
If you say so... I am not concerned with 2024 really.
My point is simple: unless you have a strong Rogue with expertise in Athletics, a Fighter with a high STR and proficiency will be as good or better at exploration tasks like climbing and swimming, etc. But just because another PC might have a +1 or 2 higher bonus because they were outright designed to excel in those things, Fighters and Barbarians can do most things well enough to "not suck" as you say.
), and didn't like feats in 3e (and since) due to all the complexity they add for limited return.
