OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
lol, it's Wisdom, because that has insight! Okay, that was actually a joke. I think I agree with your point.
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
No, I am saying that torture, which is most definitely a form of Intimidation, unless one is just a sadist, requires very direct and specific SOCIAL interaction with the target if one wants to SUCCESSFULLY Intimidate the target. That is Charisma.
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
So as a rogue, it really annoys me that climbing is a strength thing. mostly because an 18 strength is a totally massive beast with the ability to hold a great axe, which is really heavy. That kind of Strength does not translate to climbing at all. Ever meet an actual climber? light and lean and agile. they are strong, yes, but not in a translatable 18 strength kind of way.
Climbers might not be big and bulky, but they are strong. Think about a gymnast using rings or parallell bars. No amount of dexterity allows you to use your fingertips to pull up your entire body weight.
Yes, Conan is very strong, but so is Batman. Also martial artists (anyone played by Bruce Lee, for example).
Hmm but isn't dex also a reflection of your physical body though? I'd argue that a high dex character also has well trained muscles, just not the ones delivering raw strength and power. Monks are martials artists and rely on dex, so do acrobatics.
Being able to expertly balance, spring into action and accurately stab with a rapier, all rely on being atleast somewhat physically fit. I've kinda always viewed dex as being the sort of muscles a typical fantasy ninja would have, to be cliche.
I'm not saying strength shouldn't be involved with climbing, but bruce lee surely had both "strength" muscles" and "dex" muscles imo.
Do you have any suggestions for buffs for strength?
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
Or it could be wisdom, as you need to be able to tell if the person is lying.
Just being charismatic, on its own, is unlikely to make you any better at intimidating someone the right way to get them to cooperate. It's not going to make you know anything about the person or their culture, to be able to recognise whether they are telling the truth, or make a threat of violence more convincing. You are just as likely to be lied to intimidating someone by your personality or acting ability as by threatening violence.
At the end of the day, most actions we roll checks for require multiple abilities to perform. Climbing a rock gave needs strength to lift your body, Dex to position yourself correctly, con for stamina, wisdom to see the hand holds and find a route, and intelligence to know about the rocks. Intimidation needs a mix of them as well. However, we generally simplify these to the main ability required, and intimidating with a display of strength, skill with weapons or knowledge of causing pain are all just as valid as intimidation by force of personality. All are just as likely to result in the person running, lying, or passing out without other skills and knowledge being applied (which I would count proficiency in intimidation to cover, at least in part).
Let’s face it, the real reason is because Dex does everything and they needed to make some stuff more Str based to make those characters more appealing by comparison.
Well let's turn it around. Why isn't initiative governed by strength? Or Intelligence? Why is it flexibility in limbs that makes one get a good initiative?
OK, I am not charismatic. I have very little "presence", I don't project confidence, I am not charming or commanding.
However, if I walked into a room where someone was tied up, I was holding a gun and I started shooting nearby the person while asking questions, I am pretty certain that most would feel incredibly intimidated. I could stammer, or even look nervous while doing so, but it is the threat of violence which is intimidating.
Again, intimidation is not the ability to scare people. It's the ability to usefully scare people. Yes, crazy guy coming in with a gun will likely get a response, particularly against an average person who doesn't exactly have high saves, but the victim fainting, screaming, begging for mercy, or telling you what they think you want to hear regardless of whether it's actually true are all failures.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
Torture isn't considered to work period. "Enhanced interrogation" is only used when/because regular interrogation doesn't produce results fast enough, and it's generally accepted that the outcome is unreliable at best - it's just that it's better than nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Yeah, but unless you're a 7 year old you're going to have to carry a full weight adult body and then it doesn't matter. It's like the whole "an ant can carry ten times its body weight" thing, doesn't mean an ant is stronger than you. They are tiny, they weigh barely anything. It's not the same ;)
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Yeah, but unless you're a 7 year old you're going to have to carry a full weight adult body and then it doesn't matter. It's like the whole "an ant can carry ten times its body weight" thing, doesn't mean an ant is stronger than you. They are tiny, they weigh barely anything. It's not the same ;)
You hit the nail on the head! The square cube law has proven things like Godzilla would collapse under his own weight. Elephants are stronger than anything else on land, but they can't really jump without breaking their knees. A human who can't jump is weak. Another real problem is that the OP doesn't get what dexterity is. He thinks a kid has a strength score of 6 because they're small and can't carry as much weight when that isn't true in 5e. The rules contradict themselves fairly regularly when it comes to creature size, how much they can carry, and what that translates to, which is why there are other weird rules like how "Small size creatures have disadvantage with heavy weapons." This means that a level 20 Halfling Barbarian with 24 strength has disadvantage with a maul, but a strength 3 human wizard doesn't. Strength Score correlates to more than your ability to deadlift, which the OP seems to ignore, because he wants to ignore whatever goes against his argument. A 7 year old can climb stuff because they have the strength to lift themselves, and unless he wall kicked his way up, it was strength and not dexterity.
It does mean however that if you are 5'7" and 135lbs of lean muscle you will have a much easier time of climbing that if you are 5'7" and 200lbs. If both can climb at the same rate to the same hieghts, The 200lb is strong and dextrous. The 145 pounder is less strong but dextrous. Again. It's all physics.
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Yeah, but unless you're a 7 year old you're going to have to carry a full weight adult body and then it doesn't matter. It's like the whole "an ant can carry ten times its body weight" thing, doesn't mean an ant is stronger than you. They are tiny, they weigh barely anything. It's not the same ;)
You hit the nail on the head! The square cube law has proven things like Godzilla would collapse under his own weight. Elephants are stronger than anything else on land, but they can't really jump without breaking their knees. A human who can't jump is weak. Another real problem is that the OP doesn't get what dexterity is. He thinks a kid has a strength score of 6 because they're small and can't carry as much weight when that isn't true in 5e. The rules contradict themselves fairly regularly when it comes to creature size, how much they can carry, and what that translates to, which is why there are other weird rules like how "Small size creatures have disadvantage with heavy weapons." This means that a level 20 Halfling Barbarian with 24 strength has disadvantage with a maul, but a strength 3 human wizard doesn't. Strength Score correlates to more than your ability to deadlift, which the OP seems to ignore, because he wants to ignore whatever goes against his argument. A 7 year old can climb stuff because they have the strength to lift themselves, and unless he wall kicked his way up, it was strength and not dexterity.
You are also ignoring physics and strength. Again. all being 5'7", one at 125lbs, one at 150lbs, and one at 200lbs, that can all climb the same distance at the same rate, all have different strengths but the same dexterity. it's physics and biology.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't weight more so dependent on race and constitution in Dnd? Is that a thing or did I make that up?
The only thing it really depends on is what the player wants. Some previous editions had guidelines per race, 5E doesn't even have that (unless I missed something).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't weight more so dependent on race and constitution in Dnd? Is that a thing or did I make that up?
The only thing it really depends on is what the player wants. Some previous editions had guidelines per race, 5E doesn't even have that (unless I missed something).
There are rules for weight based on race alone, not constitution. You can find it at the start of Chapter 4 in the PHB. In general, most DM's don't care and they'll let you decide their height and weight, but on the off cases that they do care, there are written rules for it.
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow. And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Yeah, but unless you're a 7 year old you're going to have to carry a full weight adult body and then it doesn't matter. It's like the whole "an ant can carry ten times its body weight" thing, doesn't mean an ant is stronger than you. They are tiny, they weigh barely anything. It's not the same ;)
You hit the nail on the head! The square cube law has proven things like Godzilla would collapse under his own weight. Elephants are stronger than anything else on land, but they can't really jump without breaking their knees. A human who can't jump is weak. Another real problem is that the OP doesn't get what dexterity is. He thinks a kid has a strength score of 6 because they're small and can't carry as much weight when that isn't true in 5e. The rules contradict themselves fairly regularly when it comes to creature size, how much they can carry, and what that translates to, which is why there are other weird rules like how "Small size creatures have disadvantage with heavy weapons." This means that a level 20 Halfling Barbarian with 24 strength has disadvantage with a maul, but a strength 3 human wizard doesn't. Strength Score correlates to more than your ability to deadlift, which the OP seems to ignore, because he wants to ignore whatever goes against his argument. A 7 year old can climb stuff because they have the strength to lift themselves, and unless he wall kicked his way up, it was strength and not dexterity.
You are also ignoring physics and strength. Again. all being 5'7", one at 125lbs, one at 150lbs, and one at 200lbs, that can all climb the same distance at the same rate, all have different strengths but the same dexterity. it's physics and biology.
In the end it makes sense to have strength on athletics, if you want to be good at climbing without a high strength score it's possible in so many many ways... Things that grant you a bigger climb speed, the rogue thief ability, feats, spells, even the actual skill itself.... The real issue here is someone wants to have 20 dexterity and being good at everything because elves are dexterious and good at everything. Or thieves maybe. Idk, the point is that you can houserule what you want but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Get expertise in athletics and there's your reason for being good at climbing. Even IF climbing was ALL "dexterity" it wouldn't make for a good game. It's bad enough that dexterity is the superiour stat already in everything it does, at least in previous editions it didn't add damage so there was some incentive to get some strength anyways, now there's not much point really.
Also, just for the record, this 7 year old that could climb everywhere clearly has both the skill athletics AND maybe even expertise in it, because not every 7 year old is able to climb like this... Just saying.
I'm still amazed at how people keep looking at completely overpowered things and abilities and still aren't satisfied... "+55 Vorpal instant kill on hit sword? wtf man, why doesn't it have reach, this sucks it should have reach..."
Oh no, you're... what... 3 points lower on climbing than you would be on dexterity? Yeah, game ruined, character useless, might as well just never play again, worthless game. Come on.
If you want to be better at climbing, either houserule it or actually take the skill (proficiency bonus added!) and even take expertise, it's easy and possible. Or take the rogue thief that gets it, or take the athlete feat, it doubles your climbing speed! now, isn't this a good climber? There's so many ways, easy ways, to actually be a good climber, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever to put yet another skill on it even IF it was based on dexterity.
Now, just waiting for a post about how perception should be based on dexterity because thieves are agile and they are usually good at noticing things
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a reason that torture is considered not to work unless in the hands of someone highly trained in psychology......
Climbing IS more strength than dexterity, much more. That's just a fact. Just because your imagine of something is different doesn't mean it's right. A lot of people probably imagine a wizard having a long beard but I'm pretty sure that's not mandatory. While it would make for a fun situation, especially if the wizard starting equipment actually had a long fake beard, it's not really part of it.
Climbing up something easy probably works decent with some agility, it sure helps a bit, but doing any REAL climbing and it's a mix of technique and strength. The technique might SEEM like "dexterity" but it's not the same thing. Being able to hold your whole body weight with just the tip of your fingers while you're grabing on to the next... whatever you're climbing on.. and doing it for longer than just a few seconds or a minute is so much strength.
Now, I'm agile as feck and I can use this to my advantage in certain situations, like going up a tree or over a 10' wall or similar, but I couldn't do a proper 30' wall climb.
Agile people, or dexterious people, aren't good at climbing. They're more fast enough to get up before they fall down. There's a difference :p
That said, remember that the general stats aren't all that realistic. At all. And that dexterity in general means being good at using your hands, it's pretty much sleight of hand with another word.. Though it has other uses as well, like for instance it could be used in a social situation as well... So...
And let's face it, if you really wanna go there and climb using dexterity because climbing "is supposed to be dexterity" then you might want to throw away all the bows you ever planned on using because the archers were the strongest people in the army ;D If anything, Conan was probably a brittish longbowman more than a barbarian. Those bows require a shitload of strength to use effectively. Legolas wouldn't be able to pull the bowstring half the way he would need in reality. I mean, if anything should require 18 strength is the longbow.
And don't even try to get started on loading a crossbow without the same amount of strength, coming with some bullshit "crossbow master feat" that eliminates the loading time. That would NOT happen mate.
So, maybe it's best to just let the skills be what they are before someone adds other "realistic" things (that actually ARE realistic instead of just seem cool).
So then what you’re saying here is that intimidation is actually an intelligence check since education is in no way represented by charisma in 5e.
lol, it's Wisdom, because that has insight! Okay, that was actually a joke. I think I agree with your point.
No, I am saying that torture, which is most definitely a form of Intimidation, unless one is just a sadist, requires very direct and specific SOCIAL interaction with the target if one wants to SUCCESSFULLY Intimidate the target. That is Charisma.
There is a big difference between :
Bond: So you expect me to talk.
Goldfinger: No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.
And:
"We have ways of making you talk".
Do you have any suggestions for buffs for strength?
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Or it could be wisdom, as you need to be able to tell if the person is lying.
Just being charismatic, on its own, is unlikely to make you any better at intimidating someone the right way to get them to cooperate. It's not going to make you know anything about the person or their culture, to be able to recognise whether they are telling the truth, or make a threat of violence more convincing. You are just as likely to be lied to intimidating someone by your personality or acting ability as by threatening violence.
At the end of the day, most actions we roll checks for require multiple abilities to perform. Climbing a rock gave needs strength to lift your body, Dex to position yourself correctly, con for stamina, wisdom to see the hand holds and find a route, and intelligence to know about the rocks. Intimidation needs a mix of them as well. However, we generally simplify these to the main ability required, and intimidating with a display of strength, skill with weapons or knowledge of causing pain are all just as valid as intimidation by force of personality. All are just as likely to result in the person running, lying, or passing out without other skills and knowledge being applied (which I would count proficiency in intimidation to cover, at least in part).
Well let's turn it around. Why isn't initiative governed by strength? Or Intelligence? Why is it flexibility in limbs that makes one get a good initiative?
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Torture isn't considered to work period. "Enhanced interrogation" is only used when/because regular interrogation doesn't produce results fast enough, and it's generally accepted that the outcome is unreliable at best - it's just that it's better than nothing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I climbed up to between the second and third floor of my 5 story brick building by grabbing on to the bricks that protruded about half an inch in some lame design every other brick layer. I was not strong, but I was dextrous. Whats the basis for my claim? I was 7 years old. I climbed everything. Top of trees. Buildings. You name it. Got the cops called on me a couple of times. That one time I spoke of? I could have made it to the top probably but I made the mistake of looking down. Again. I was 7. Climbing has nothing to do with strength unless you are carrying too much weight. The amount of strength you need to climb is directly correlated with your weight. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you have to be to climb. The lighter, the less strong. it's physics.
Yeah, but unless you're a 7 year old you're going to have to carry a full weight adult body and then it doesn't matter. It's like the whole "an ant can carry ten times its body weight" thing, doesn't mean an ant is stronger than you. They are tiny, they weigh barely anything. It's not the same ;)
You hit the nail on the head! The square cube law has proven things like Godzilla would collapse under his own weight. Elephants are stronger than anything else on land, but they can't really jump without breaking their knees. A human who can't jump is weak. Another real problem is that the OP doesn't get what dexterity is. He thinks a kid has a strength score of 6 because they're small and can't carry as much weight when that isn't true in 5e. The rules contradict themselves fairly regularly when it comes to creature size, how much they can carry, and what that translates to, which is why there are other weird rules like how "Small size creatures have disadvantage with heavy weapons." This means that a level 20 Halfling Barbarian with 24 strength has disadvantage with a maul, but a strength 3 human wizard doesn't. Strength Score correlates to more than your ability to deadlift, which the OP seems to ignore, because he wants to ignore whatever goes against his argument. A 7 year old can climb stuff because they have the strength to lift themselves, and unless he wall kicked his way up, it was strength and not dexterity.
It does mean however that if you are 5'7" and 135lbs of lean muscle you will have a much easier time of climbing that if you are 5'7" and 200lbs. If both can climb at the same rate to the same hieghts, The 200lb is strong and dextrous. The 145 pounder is less strong but dextrous. Again. It's all physics.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't weight more so dependent on race and constitution in Dnd? Is that a thing or did I make that up?
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
You are also ignoring physics and strength. Again. all being 5'7", one at 125lbs, one at 150lbs, and one at 200lbs, that can all climb the same distance at the same rate, all have different strengths but the same dexterity. it's physics and biology.
So, where are you getting that bit about dexterity? Not an extrapolation, but from the game.
The only thing it really depends on is what the player wants. Some previous editions had guidelines per race, 5E doesn't even have that (unless I missed something).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are rules for weight based on race alone, not constitution. You can find it at the start of Chapter 4 in the PHB. In general, most DM's don't care and they'll let you decide their height and weight, but on the off cases that they do care, there are written rules for it.
In the end it makes sense to have strength on athletics, if you want to be good at climbing without a high strength score it's possible in so many many ways... Things that grant you a bigger climb speed, the rogue thief ability, feats, spells, even the actual skill itself.... The real issue here is someone wants to have 20 dexterity and being good at everything because elves are dexterious and good at everything. Or thieves maybe. Idk, the point is that you can houserule what you want but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Get expertise in athletics and there's your reason for being good at climbing. Even IF climbing was ALL "dexterity" it wouldn't make for a good game. It's bad enough that dexterity is the superiour stat already in everything it does, at least in previous editions it didn't add damage so there was some incentive to get some strength anyways, now there's not much point really.
Also, just for the record, this 7 year old that could climb everywhere clearly has both the skill athletics AND maybe even expertise in it, because not every 7 year old is able to climb like this... Just saying.
I'm still amazed at how people keep looking at completely overpowered things and abilities and still aren't satisfied... "+55 Vorpal instant kill on hit sword? wtf man, why doesn't it have reach, this sucks it should have reach..."
Oh no, you're... what... 3 points lower on climbing than you would be on dexterity? Yeah, game ruined, character useless, might as well just never play again, worthless game. Come on.
If you want to be better at climbing, either houserule it or actually take the skill (proficiency bonus added!) and even take expertise, it's easy and possible. Or take the rogue thief that gets it, or take the athlete feat, it doubles your climbing speed! now, isn't this a good climber? There's so many ways, easy ways, to actually be a good climber, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever to put yet another skill on it even IF it was based on dexterity.
Now, just waiting for a post about how perception should be based on dexterity because thieves are agile and they are usually good at noticing things