Ability checks only come into play if success isn't guaranteed. Depending on what's being climbed, the weather conditions and the DM's judgement there could be multiple ways to approach the challenge, calling for different ability checks.
This
The bigger problem I find/see in games is DMs calling for rolls when they success is either impossible or the success was always guaranteed.
To answer the question that is the title of this thread
As a player: Talk about it to the DM, explain your point of view, offers a coherent alternative and thank the DM if the DM agrees/ if the DM refuses: thank the DM for listening to you and don't argue anymore.
As a DM: Be honest, say "Well the rules says X, but that makes no sense to me. I would do Y instead. Anyone disagree ?" If you homebrew a thing once, remember it and be coherent. And if one of your player disagree with your on the spot homebrewing, depending on your group, talk to that player on the spot, or after the game to understand the reason they disagreed.
OR there is actual physics that goes into why being stronger does indeed help with climb. *shrug*
Strength to weight ratio helps with climbing, so Small races should probably have a substantial bonus to climbing. In any case, as a DM I'd make a trade: you can use Dex for climbing rolls if you use Strength for damage rolls (feel free to still use Dex to attack...).
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic rooftop art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
In my experience characters who expect to do a lot of catburglary or setting up elevated sniper's nests come prepared with grappling hooks or magical "X of Climbing" gear, or sometimes even ask for homebrew non-magical kits to give advantage on or a flat bonus to climbing. They certainly also look around for things like ivy growing against a wall or a convenient keg or wagon nearby that can make the first yard or two easy, and aren't above getting the barbarian to give them a boost. When I think of catburglars I don't think of freeclimbers, I think of professionals who have a job to do and know how to do it. Such characters usually have at least no penalty to Str checks and more likely a small bonus, and they're proficient in Athletics. Being a Dex character doesn't have to mean dumping Str and ignoring all Str-related skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic rooftop art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
In my experience characters who expect to do a lot of catburglary or setting up elevated sniper's nests come prepared with grappling hooks or magical "X of Climbing" gear, or sometimes even ask for homebrew non-magical kits to give advantage on or a flat bonus to climbing. They certainly also look around for things like ivy growing against a wall or a convenient keg or wagon nearby that can make the first yard or two easy, and aren't above getting the barbarian to give them a boost. When I think of catburglars I don't think of freeclimbers, I think of professionals who have a job to do and know how to do it. Such characters usually have at least no penalty to Str checks and more likely a small bonus, and they're proficient in Athletics. Being a Dex character doesn't have to mean dumping Str and ignoring all Str-related skills.
Your logic is sound, but in a game with non-boosted initial stats, players have to make tradeoffs. Few char builds allow for Dex and Str to be both excellent, without detriment in other key areas. And that is OK. D&D is about tradeoffs, and no char can do everything.
That being said, I started my initial stats 17 Dex, 8 Str Halfling Rogue with Athletics as a skill, and then take Acrobatics with the Squat Nimbleness Feat at 4th level. Now I have mitigated the weak Athletics early in the game, to some degree. The real question will be when I get to 6th level, and I have to decide on Expertise. One will be going to Investigation, but I will have to do some serious thinking on whether I put Expertise into Athletics.
Because Fezzik was a monster of strength, easily 20+ in the stat. And he climbed the wall with others on his back! That's the gold standard of climbing so it must be so.
Aside from that, don't associate a high strength score to bulk and physical size. You can be 18 strength arnold in conan, 18 strength bruce lee, 18 strength gymnast, and 18 strength mountain from game of thrones. Each tremendously strong but physically, quite different in look. Ruling it as rules can make sense. Does it make sense for your table? That's only for you and the DM to decide.
As someone passionate about and making living on all aspects of strength, I can chime in on the real-world application of it all but that's most likely not necessary. Two things
use what works at your table
strength and athletics ARE the best stats and skills given the list, to determine climbing ability.
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).
I get this but for one, gymnasts are the equivalent of a high strength, high dex character. But the rules currently are that climbing is an athletics (strength) check as far as I've read at least. BUt if you have a high strength, low dex character, should they be able to climb better than a high dex, low strength character, That is the question. Currently the rules say yes but I think that is unreasonable. Conan should not be able to climb a wall easier than Subotai. That's just not how it works.
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic rooftop art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
Well the Player hand book says Str can be used for intimidation in a cases where it makes sense.
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic rooftop art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
Well the Player hand book says Str can be used for intimidation in a cases where it makes sense.
That's an example used. What the PHB really says is anything can be used for anything if it makes sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic rooftop art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
In my experience characters who expect to do a lot of catburglary or setting up elevated sniper's nests come prepared with grappling hooks or magical "X of Climbing" gear, or sometimes even ask for homebrew non-magical kits to give advantage on or a flat bonus to climbing. They certainly also look around for things like ivy growing against a wall or a convenient keg or wagon nearby that can make the first yard or two easy, and aren't above getting the barbarian to give them a boost. When I think of catburglars I don't think of freeclimbers, I think of professionals who have a job to do and know how to do it. Such characters usually have at least no penalty to Str checks and more likely a small bonus, and they're proficient in Athletics. Being a Dex character doesn't have to mean dumping Str and ignoring all Str-related skills.
Your logic is sound, but in a game with non-boosted initial stats, players have to make tradeoffs. Few char builds allow for Dex and Str to be both excellent, without detriment in other key areas. And that is OK. D&D is about tradeoffs, and no char can do everything.
I didn't suggest making both excellent. I said such characters usually don't dump strength. If you have your proficiency bonus and something like a +1 Str modifier, you'll be alright.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Intimidation does NOT give you the option to use Str. The DM might ask for a Str (Intimidation) check, but that is not a given. It has to make sense to them. And the same goes for absolutely everything. Interrogations could use any combo of Int/Cha and Persuasion/Investigation, for instance. It just depends on what you're trying to find out and how. Cha (Persuasion) is arguably the standard option, but the DM can go with something else or even give you a choice.
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma." That's from the players handbook. I think this is smart. Because it's reasonable.
Intimidation does NOT give you the option to use Str. The DM might ask for a Str (Intimidation) check, but that is not a given. It has to make sense to them. And the same goes for absolutely everything. Interrogations could use any combo of Int/Cha and Persuasion/Investigation, for instance. It just depends on what you're trying to find out and how. Cha (Persuasion) is arguably the standard option, but the DM can go with something else or even give you a choice.
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma." That's from the players handbook. I think this is smart. Because it's reasonable.
My point is that it's an option a DM may or may not use. In fact, they may opt to allow it in some situations but not in others. The PHB does not say you can use Str instead of Cha for intimidation checks. It says the DM can choose to allow you to do this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Unreasonable weakness's only. Variant skill checks should make sense. Not quite sure how a high charisma would help you blend in since a high charisma makes you stand out. But certainly people who are big and powerful, and lets say have a neutral, chaotic, or evil alignment, should be able to roll intimidation of their strength. In the mafia, both the ruthless personality and the leg breaker are used to intimidate.
I feel it's the same for Climbing, where Dex and Strength should be interchangeable based on the character class (rogue for building walls/ranger for trees and cliffs)
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
This
The bigger problem I find/see in games is DMs calling for rolls when they success is either impossible or the success was always guaranteed.
To answer the question that is the title of this thread
As a player: Talk about it to the DM, explain your point of view, offers a coherent alternative and thank the DM if the DM agrees/ if the DM refuses: thank the DM for listening to you and don't argue anymore.
As a DM: Be honest, say "Well the rules says X, but that makes no sense to me. I would do Y instead. Anyone disagree ?" If you homebrew a thing once, remember it and be coherent. And if one of your player disagree with your on the spot homebrewing, depending on your group, talk to that player on the spot, or after the game to understand the reason they disagreed.
Strength to weight ratio helps with climbing, so Small races should probably have a substantial bonus to climbing. In any case, as a DM I'd make a trade: you can use Dex for climbing rolls if you use Strength for damage rolls (feel free to still use Dex to attack...).
Dex is already the overpowered stat of the game, so some skills need to be farmed out to make some of the other stats more useful.
I believe a lot of skills involving either strength or dex are similarly simplified. I mean.. You certainly need a good amount of strength to wield a longbow, and being effective with a longsword will require some dexterity... Hell, you'll probably need a decent wisdom for any melee combat to better read your opponent... So these things are probably just decided by game balance and what's vaguely justified logically.
What does bother me about this particular choice is that I think being able to climbing far more often is part of a dex character fantasy that it is a strength character fantasy. In 5e, strength is generally skilled warriors and brutes, where as dex are thieves, assassins and archers... I don't think someone playing a paladin or barbarian will miss the ability to get onto rooftops ect nearly as much as the rogue or the archer does, because it's not such an obvious part of those archetypes.
This is obviously subjective, but I feel like I've seen enough dramatic art of hooded assassins on rooftops to know it can be a pretty big part of what people imagine when they think dex character... Where as I don't think I ever imagine my polearm master fighter in full plate going all assassins creed.
That's not to say I wouldn't want strength to be more generally useful.. For example intimidation should probably often be usable with strength.. but that's of course depending on the DM.
In my experience characters who expect to do a lot of catburglary or setting up elevated sniper's nests come prepared with grappling hooks or magical "X of Climbing" gear, or sometimes even ask for homebrew non-magical kits to give advantage on or a flat bonus to climbing. They certainly also look around for things like ivy growing against a wall or a convenient keg or wagon nearby that can make the first yard or two easy, and aren't above getting the barbarian to give them a boost. When I think of catburglars I don't think of freeclimbers, I think of professionals who have a job to do and know how to do it. Such characters usually have at least no penalty to Str checks and more likely a small bonus, and they're proficient in Athletics. Being a Dex character doesn't have to mean dumping Str and ignoring all Str-related skills.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Your logic is sound, but in a game with non-boosted initial stats, players have to make tradeoffs. Few char builds allow for Dex and Str to be both excellent, without detriment in other key areas. And that is OK. D&D is about tradeoffs, and no char can do everything.
That being said, I started my initial stats 17 Dex, 8 Str Halfling Rogue with Athletics as a skill, and then take Acrobatics with the Squat Nimbleness Feat at 4th level. Now I have mitigated the weak Athletics early in the game, to some degree. The real question will be when I get to 6th level, and I have to decide on Expertise. One will be going to Investigation, but I will have to do some serious thinking on whether I put Expertise into Athletics.
Because Fezzik was a monster of strength, easily 20+ in the stat. And he climbed the wall with others on his back! That's the gold standard of climbing so it must be so.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
But to answer the question
Talk to your DM.
Aside from that, don't associate a high strength score to bulk and physical size. You can be 18 strength arnold in conan, 18 strength bruce lee, 18 strength gymnast, and 18 strength mountain from game of thrones. Each tremendously strong but physically, quite different in look. Ruling it as rules can make sense. Does it make sense for your table? That's only for you and the DM to decide.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
As someone passionate about and making living on all aspects of strength, I can chime in on the real-world application of it all but that's most likely not necessary. Two things
use what works at your table
strength and athletics ARE the best stats and skills given the list, to determine climbing ability.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I get this but for one, gymnasts are the equivalent of a high strength, high dex character. But the rules currently are that climbing is an athletics (strength) check as far as I've read at least. BUt if you have a high strength, low dex character, should they be able to climb better than a high dex, low strength character, That is the question. Currently the rules say yes but I think that is unreasonable. Conan should not be able to climb a wall easier than Subotai. That's just not how it works.
Well the Player hand book says Str can be used for intimidation in a cases where it makes sense.
That's an example used. What the PHB really says is anything can be used for anything if it makes sense.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I didn't suggest making both excellent. I said such characters usually don't dump strength. If you have your proficiency bonus and something like a +1 Str modifier, you'll be alright.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma." That's from the players handbook. I think this is smart. Because it's reasonable.
My point is that it's an option a DM may or may not use. In fact, they may opt to allow it in some situations but not in others. The PHB does not say you can use Str instead of Cha for intimidation checks. It says the DM can choose to allow you to do this.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Unreasonable weakness's only. Variant skill checks should make sense. Not quite sure how a high charisma would help you blend in since a high charisma makes you stand out. But certainly people who are big and powerful, and lets say have a neutral, chaotic, or evil alignment, should be able to roll intimidation of their strength. In the mafia, both the ruthless personality and the leg breaker are used to intimidate.
I feel it's the same for Climbing, where Dex and Strength should be interchangeable based on the character class (rogue for building walls/ranger for trees and cliffs)
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
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."