D&D 5E (2014) Strength is agile

[Yaarel]

Yeah, the athletes in those picture are awesome. They help visualize the D&D actions too.



This is the problem in a nutshell: ‘Acrobatics requires strength’.

Reallife acrobatics is muscular, and requires Strength. Unfortunately, what D&D calls the ‘Acrobatic skill’ fails to utilize Strength. It is therefore impossible to use this mechanic to represent reallife acrobatic actions in the D&D game. The misnomer also causes confusion about what this skill check can and cannot do. According to RAW, the Dexterity (acrobatics) check can do a ‘flip’, but it cannot do a ‘highjump’ which only Strength (athletics) can do. The inability to do a highjump, makes the name ‘acrobatics’ confused or confusing.

I find it humorous, how one of the D&D definitions of ‘acrobatics’ is to prevent oneself from slipping on ice, which has little to do with what the word ‘acrobatics’ actually means. And to do a flip without a jump is also not what the word means.

The problem might be the Acrobatics skill, precisely and only. Fixing that, might fix everything. But there might be other issues too. Constructive discussion from different points of view helps.



There is a feeling voiced by myself and others in this thread, that the D&D mechanics fails to represent human agility well. This is a problem, because the concept of agility and its implementation are important - sometimes even central - to D&D experiences.

In the past, I have wanted to better represent ‘agility’ by making Dexterity stronger sotospeak. So a player can use the Dexterity (acrobatics) check to jump and climb - without the Strength ability. But this doesnt sit right.

In this thread, I am going the other direction, by emphasizing how Strength is already more agile. This direction feels right, and seems to me, a fruitful line of inquiry.



In science there is sometimes a distinction between big body accuracy (gross motor skills) versus small hand-like precision (fine motor skills).

I am employing this reallife distinction to resolve the agility problem in D&D mechanics.

Strength = big body accuracy (gross motor skills)
Dexterity = small hand-like precision (fine motor skills)

And done.

This explains, why Strength checks already include accuracy. A person applies their Strength accurately via gross motor skills. This is what ‘agility’ is. This is why D&D uses Strength for feats of agility, such as jump.

Meanwhile, a person applies their Dexterity precisely via fine motor skills. While small ‘hand-like’ movements normally means the hands. It also applies to situations where a person is using an other part of their body like a hand, like picking up keys with ones toes, or if someone is tied up trying to knock keys off with ones chin, or whatever - any kind of ‘hand-like’ movement. So, shooting an arrow requires small precision. And so on.

The difference between big accuracy and small precision is vivid, and it is easy for a DM to adjudicate which applies best in a particular situation. Some situations seem like they could benefit from either big accuracy or small precision, and that is where Finesse (Strength or Dexterity) comes in.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

1.It helps if you think about a fight not just being an exercise in chopping wood, but attempting to kill an actively-resisting opponent. Particularly when you bear in mind that in D&D, harder does mean more accurate when it comes to the "to hit" roll if your opponent has armour/tough skin and muscle etc.

2.The control you have over a weapon is determined by the forces that you can exert on it. A stronger person can exert greater force. This means the weapon moves faster, changes direction more suddenly, and needs less of a swing to generate a damaging blow.
Skill is probably a bigger factor, and reflexes can certainly help - particularly when reacting to and avoiding your opponent's attacks. But even before we get into situations where you are directly exerting yourself against your opponent, or D&D's AC system where beating through armour can be part of the "to hit" roll, Strength is the secondary governing factor.

3.Even with smaller, lighter weapons, athleticism has a large influence on your ability to make a strike, since you will often be required to move your body quickly to move through your opponent's guard to get in reach, and then quickly move out again. (Or trying to stay within her reach as she tries to make distance between you.)

4. You can definitely still use a historical longsword/greatsword with a Str of 8: it will just move slower, you'll not be able to control your swings very well, and its more likely to bounce off even weak armour. There is no "threshold Str" however, at which you suddenly become more capable with it and above which you don't become better. As you become more athletic, and able to generate more power, your capability to hit your opponent continues to increase.

5.Balance? Realism? Personal preference? etc.

1. Two points on this one.....
a. AC does mean better armor, thicker skin, blocking attacks... but it also means reflexes, dodging, stuff that brute strength won't overcome
b. No matter how hard you swing your sword or thrust your spear, it will never penetrate a good quality plate armor. Or a helmet. You goal is to go for the gaps in the armor or grapple. Blunt weapons would be a different story....

2. There is a diminishing input of the force used to swing most weapons. There have been actual measures performed in the speed of the blade when wielded by people with different levels of strength and what came as a surprise for me, was the fact that once a certain level of athletics was reached, there was no considerable increase in it. Probably because as you mentioned, most functional weapons aren't all that heavy. So yeah, we agree, skill should probably be the leading factor, especially because....

3. What this sounds to me is like effective use of a weapon, or fighting in general. If you look at my thoughts on the agility's interconnection with strength and dexterity, i'd make this a derived value. Parts of both will contribute to it. And agility in it's own right will affect AC through the dodge mechanics. In a similar way......

4. Str will contribute to the "to hit" factor up to a point. But IMO, mostly through the minimal level of athleticism required to fight with the weapon. Any level of Str or Atl bellow this value would not prohibit you from using it, just reduce you TH bonuses (if any). While on the overall becoming more athletic will help you total fighting capability (being able to move faster in a fight - AC, fighting longer - HP, striking harder - damage, even better control of your weapon - to hit), i rather look at this as overall athleticism, which includes raw muscle power (Str), conditioning (Con) and Muscle control (Dex).

5. Why doing this? As i said, mostly because it's fun to think about and i'm trying to reflect my own rather limited personal experience in sports and martial arts and try to put it in the system..... somehow....

EDIT: Sorry for dragging it out and failing to address some points..... i wrote this from my office and got interrupted at least 3 times....

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

1. Two points on this one.....
a. AC does mean better armor, thicker skin, blocking attacks... but it also means reflexes, dodging, stuff that brute strength won't overcome

Two points:
We're not talking just "brute strength". Don't fall into the trap that some others have done of thinking that you need to be a ponderous musclebound brute to have a high strength in 5th ed. Again, think athlete, not bodybuilder.
AC does indeed include reflexes, dodging etc, but I already covered this: greater power able to be exerted on the weapon means greater speed in a swing, faster changes in angle and direction, and less of a swing needed to generate damaging force. All of which help counter an opponent's capability to react and dodge or parry in time.

b. No matter how hard you swing your sword or thrust your spear, it will never penetrate a good quality plate armor. Or a helmet. You goal is to go for the gaps in the armor or grapple. Blunt weapons would be a different story....

But even when you choke up on a spear or halfsword and start working a gap you can thrust into, you will still have to push through the chain and padding, all while your opponent is actively trying to resist and deflect you. Grappling is also covered under Str.

2. There is a diminishing input of the force used to swing most weapons. There have been actual measures performed in the speed of the blade when wielded by people with different levels of strength and what came as a surprise for me, was the fact that once a certain level of athletics was reached, there was no considerable increase in it. Probably because as you mentioned, most functional weapons aren't all that heavy. So yeah, we agree, skill should probably be the leading factor, especially because....

Interesting. The square-cube law can start to bring in diminishing returns in speed, but that generally happens only when you really bulk up, and doesn't cover overall weapon control and power, just speed in a single straight cut. Do you have a link to these studies?

4. Str will contribute to the "to hit" factor up to a point. But IMO, mostly through the minimal level of athleticism required to fight with the weapon. Any level of Str or Atl bellow this value would not prohibit you from using it, just reduce you TH bonuses (if any). While on the overall becoming more athletic will help you total fighting capability (being able to move faster in a fight - AC, fighting longer - HP, striking harder - damage, even better control of your weapon - to hit), i rather look at this as overall athleticism, which includes raw muscle power (Str), conditioning (Con) and Muscle control (Dex).

The issue I had with it was that it looked like your system had a "threshold Str" score below which you couldn't use the weapon effectively, upon hitting the required score, you suddenly become able to use it effectively, and above which makes no difference in your capability to use it.

5. Why doing this? As i said, mostly because it's fun to think about and i'm trying to reflect my own rather limited personal experience in sports and martial arts and try to put it in the system..... somehow....

EDIT: Sorry for dragging it out and failing to address some points..... i wrote this from my office and got interrupted at least 3 times....

Heh. NP. Its an interesting discussion.

Its just a question of whether 5th ed needs something as complex as this: it doesn't seem to do much for balance, it doesn't really improve realism (and as pointed out regarding finesse, realism isn't necessary), and it just limits choice a bit.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is the problem in a nutshell: ‘Acrobatics requires strength’.

Reallife acrobatics is muscular, and requires Strength. Unfortunately, what D&D calls the ‘Acrobatic skill’ fails to utilize Strength. It is therefore impossible to use this mechanic to represent reallife acrobatic actions in the D&D game. The misnomer also causes confusion about what this skill check can and cannot do. According to RAW, the Dexterity (acrobatics) check can do a ‘flip’, but it cannot do a ‘highjump’ which only Strength (athletics) can do. The inability to do a highjump, makes the name ‘acrobatics’ confused or confusing.

I find it humorous, how one of the D&D definitions of ‘acrobatics’ is to prevent oneself from slipping on ice, which has little to do with what the word ‘acrobatics’ actually means. And to do a flip without a jump is also not what the word means.

The problem might be the Acrobatics skill, precisely and only. Fixing that, might fix everything. But there might be other issues too. Constructive discussion from different points of view helps.

So use a different word for it? Balance, reflexes, rolling, flexibility, kinaesthesia are all reflections of Dexterity in 5th ed, and are useful in the actions that the Acrobatics skill is used for. If the fact that real acrobatics isn't the same as the Acrobatics skill is causing you trouble, call the skill something else that won't be a problem like Balance or Tumbling.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Two points:
We're not talking just "brute strength". Don't fall into the trap that some others have done of thinking that you need to be a ponderous musclebound brute to have a high strength in 5th ed. Again, think athlete, not bodybuilder.

True. But i also assume a given minimal level of fitness that goes with the training, so a "fighter" is by definition at least as athletic as required by his proficiency bonus and/or weapon training. I'm just adding Str requirements for effective (no penalty when using) weapon use.

AC does indeed include reflexes, dodging etc, but I already covered this: greater power able to be exerted on the weapon means greater speed in a swing, faster changes in angle and direction, and less of a swing needed to generate damaging force. All of which help counter an opponent's capability to react and dodge or parry in time.

This i'd rather put into min. req. and training section, at least for swords (as noted before).

But even when you choke up on a spear or halfsword and start working a gap you can thrust into, you will still have to push through the chain and padding, all while your opponent is actively trying to resist and deflect you. Grappling is also covered under Str.

And again, as mentioned some bonus from Str is added. Just not as much. The way things stand now (as said in the previous posts) a completely untrained character (say a farmer or dock loader) with exceptional strength hits as precise as a superbly trained warrior with average strength. I just feel training should be more important then "raw" (to avoid the term brute) strength.

Interesting. The square-cube law can start to bring in diminishing returns in speed, but that generally happens only when you really bulk up, and doesn't cover overall weapon control and power, just speed in a single straight cut. Do you have a link to these studies?

If i can find them i will (please do the same if you do). All i can recall was that it had something to do with the way swords were used, i.e. not as battering rods as lacerating weapons, so overall technique (as body positioning, slicing blade contact, leverage as a primary propulsion, circular movement of the blade) and blade/target properties (limited weight, point of balance, center of percussion, material hardness) made effective use and blade speed through the air subject of diminishing returns. As in there being a limit as to how fast a blade can be "effectively" swung.

The issue I had with it was that it looked like your system had a "threshold Str" score below which you couldn't use the weapon effectively, upon hitting the required score, you suddenly become able to use it effectively, and above which makes no difference in your capability to use it.

In this case by effectively i meant, without penalties on either to hit or damage values. After all, IMO the fitness level for using different weapons should be different. Not in excess of course (as in 15+ str for conventional weapons - single handedly stringing a ballista is a different matter), but enough for things to matter. And bigger Str modifiers would still matter (more with blunt trauma weapons then others), just not outshine experience and training....

Heh. NP. Its an interesting discussion.

I could not agree more!

Its just a question of whether 5th ed needs something as complex as this: it doesn't seem to do much for balance, it doesn't really improve realism (and as pointed out regarding finesse, realism isn't necessary), and it just limits choice a bit.

It definitely doesn't "need" it. It's just something i like pondering upon. Regardless of realism (on which we can debate endlessly) or balance (of which i care little), the system works fine as it is. Making it too robust will take us to 3.5E once again, of which i would have none.

However, allowing limited levels of specialization and/or expertise for each class to emphasize training and "mastery" might not hurt the game.....too much......
But, as said before, this will require extensive testing before implementation.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Ok. Let me just get this fish hook out of my mouth for a minute...ok, there.

Say you rule that Str is the one star that adds anything meaningful to combat. Fine. Now go and rework all the racial stat bonuses (eg elves' dex bonus is meant to reflect their archery skills rather than their ability to perform delicate handicrafts). Off you pop.

Back again so soon? Ok, so what you have now is essentially everyone has high strength. Great. A large amount of colour and individualisation has been removed from the game.

What have you gained in exchange?

How do you reflect a warrior ( it's D&D, any adventurer is essentially a warrior of one sort or another) that is slim, lithe, and an ace with a longbow? Str 17 perhaps? What about the bruiser who likes to smash things with his mace? Str 17, perhaps?

Stat emphases are arbitrary in order to provide flexibility, not realism. The stats exist and have their own purposes in order to make a game that functions as a game.

But if you want everyone to have the same stats, yay you. Not for me.

I'll just swim away now.

 

[Sacrosanct]

1. Two points on this one.....
a. AC does mean better armor, thicker skin, blocking attacks... but it also means reflexes, dodging, stuff that brute strength won't overcome
b. No matter how hard you swing your sword or thrust your spear, it will never penetrate a good quality plate armor. Or a helmet. You goal is to go for the gaps in the armor or grapple. Blunt weapons would be a different story....

Yes they will. It's called physics. If you have enough force behind the attack, you can pierce plate armor. But remember, luck is a factor too. That's why we roll a d20 instead of just narrate the attack based on modifiers. Plate armor offers a ton of protection, hence the base AC of 18. That means someone not very skilled has to roll very lucky to hit those gaps--which reflects reality pretty well IMO. Having a higher str helps you penetrate further when you do hit, which is accounted for in the melee attack bonus. I.e., an attack that wouldn't cause damage because it didn't penetrate far enough does cause damage because the person attacking has enough force behind the blow. It would be a bookkeeping nightmare to rule, "well, str helps your to hit with this attack roll, but not that one, etc", so it's all rolled up into one nice overall modifier. AD&D tried doing something very similar with that table where each weapon had a different modifier to hit based on what armor you were attacking.

No one I know used it, or liked it.

Look at it like this. Hold a shield and let a 10 year old hit it with a baseball bat. Now let a very strong adult do the same thing. You're gonna feel it in your arm a heck of a lot more, even though in both cases, the armor (shield) technically blocked the blow.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And again, as mentioned some bonus from Str is added. Just not as much. The way things stand now (as said in the previous posts) a completely untrained character (say a farmer or dock loader) with exceptional strength hits as precise as a superbly trained warrior with average strength. I just feel training should be more important then "raw" (to avoid the term brute) strength.

Thing is, you need a huge strength difference to make up for the proficiency bonus of a superbly trained warrior, and the higher the strength, the rarer it is. Remember that an ability score of 15 (a +2 modifier) is considered an acceptable level for the highest ability of an exceptional individual who makes a living in a high-risk career using that ability. A Str of 16 is quite probably the strongest person in the entire town.
So its not just any old farmer or dock loader who is on a level footing with a trained fighter. It needs to be an exceptional athlete to be equivalent to even just a fairly well-trained fighter of only average physical capability, let alone a medium or high-level one.
Its also not a case of "as precise as" but rather "as good at landing a damaging hit as". The stronger fighter isn't much better at hitting a small target area, but rather their target area is larger because they can deal damage through places the weaker fighter can't. The average strength warrior might have to raise their sword over their head to swing with the same power that the athlete can generate straight from the guard position.
They might not know techniques with the weapon, but their swings are fast, and powerful. The more skilled fighter has to brace harder or parry more carefully to stop their attacks, using their skill to anticipate the attacks that come too fast to react to.

If i can find them i will (please do the same if you do). All i can recall was that it had something to do with the way swords were used, i.e. not as battering rods as lacerating weapons, so overall technique (as body positioning, slicing blade contact, leverage as a primary propulsion, circular movement of the blade) and blade/target properties (limited weight, point of balance, center of percussion, material hardness) made effective use and blade speed through the air subject of diminishing returns. As in there being a limit as to how fast a blade can be "effectively" swung.

Hmmm. Those parameters strike me as possibly derived from kenjutsu, which isn't the best style to try to judge effectiveness in a general melee fight. There are very few parries, changes in swing or adjustment for the existence of armour. Just timing, distance and making a single powerful cut before your opponent does.

In this case by effectively i meant, without penalties on either to hit or damage values. After all, IMO the fitness level for using different weapons should be different. Not in excess of course (as in 15+ str for conventional weapons - single handedly stringing a ballista is a different matter), but enough for things to matter. And bigger Str modifiers would still matter (more with blunt trauma weapons then others), just not outshine experience and training....

Other than bows (which would be a whole new can of worms), as long as a weapon is lighter than a certain fraction of your bodyweight, there is no fitness level at which a weapon suddenly becomes effective. If you're weak and unathletic, you will have trouble using most weapons, but as your power and control improves, your capability with the weapon will continue to improve.

However, allowing limited levels of specialization and/or expertise for each class to emphasize training and "mastery" might not hurt the game.....too much......
But, as said before, this will require extensive testing before implementation.

Yep, but you can do that in other ways. Allowing a "Sword master" character concept to choose deal slashing or piercing damage for example, no matter what the damage type in the weapons table for example.

 

[deleteaccount]

Strength in swordsmanship
Skill outmatches size or strength in armed combat


^ The same applies to feats of strength like powerlifting, weightlifting, parkour, gymnastics etc. As a person who strength trains, strength is a skill. Training it improves your capacity to use it, but learning to apply strength efficiently is a skill. Strong people can be agile, and it's required for it, but it doesn't come by just training your strength.
Note that there's also difference between power, maximal strength, and strength endurance. Weightlifters train power (P=E/t), and powerlifters (confusingly named in English) train maximal output but with lower power. Strongmen train both max strength and strength endurance. There are other qualities to strength too, but strength endurance is one of the most important qualities in a prolonged combat.

All said, D&D's stats don't represent reality well, and they're just there for convenience of the game.

 

[Yaarel]

So use a different word for it? Balance, reflexes, rolling, flexibility, kinaesthesia are all reflections of Dexterity in 5th ed, and are useful in the actions that the Acrobatics skill is used for. If the fact that real acrobatics isn't the same as the Acrobatics skill is causing you trouble, call the skill something else that won't be a problem like Balance or Tumbling.

It seems the designers had the traditional Balance check in mind, but were trying to expand it to make it a more useful skill. But because it is still for not much more than slipping on ice or a moving ship deck, it still means not much more than ‘balance’. The word ‘acrobatics’ (probably referring to a tightrope walker only) is misleading, because mostly the word acrobatics refers to gymnastic stunts on a trapeze, being muscular Strength checks, least of which is pullups and lifting ones own bodyweight, but also climbing, jumping, ‘jumping with ones hands’, and so on.

What would be useful is a skill that means ‘agility’ and actually mechanically implements agility. Fortunately, the Athletics skill pretty much does mean and implement agility. The acrobatics skill is mostly a red herring.