Arm wrestling isn't something that benefits substantially from skill or technique so it doesn't make sense to use Athletics. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to use CON since arm wrestling is more a test of strength than cardio.
I'd use strength contests to determine the winner, but instead of declaring a winner with only 1 contest, I'd use first to 3 or 5 successes. That makes it more likely that the highest strength modifier will win without making it impossible for the underdog. It also adds some tension to the situation as the number of successes racks up on either side.
If Arm Wrestling is more about pure strength then how can you explain why I have won over stronger people in real life by simply tiring them out enough for me to overpower them?
Muscular endurance (how long can you hold weights) is just as much a form of strength as muscular strength (what's the heaviest thing you can lift)
If you do not think holding something long enough is about cardio then please take a 1kg weight, put your elbow to your body so the arm is in a 90 degree angle and hold the weight in your hand and maintain that weight for as long as you can. You will find it becomes VERY heavy after a while, the longer you can hold it the better cardio you got.
That's not a very good way to measure cardio performance. Strength training would help more with this than running marathons.
As for the technique thing. How exactly is there technique in climbing the mast in a ship in a storm? How exactly is it technique to climb a slippery wall? All of these are Strength Athletics checks.
Climbing difficult surfaces is absolutely a skill. Recognizing the best handholds and footholds, how far you can exert your reach without losing your grip or balance, and in some cases making short jumps to reach a hold is important for, say, rock climbing.
Techniques are more a Dexterity thing.
No, technique are a proficiency thing. Quoting the rules, "dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." Now here's the advice DMG chapter 6 gives on applying proficiency bonus: "When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies. One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice."
I substitute most pure Strength checks with athletics when stuff such as running, jumping, throwing or trying to push something really heavy. It is a way to offset the extreme usefulness Dex has in 5e and make Strength more viable. Dex is only a GOD stat if you allow it to be.
If you want to let a 10 strength bard with expertise in sports push heavy objects better than the unproficient 20 strength barbarian just so you can make DEX less useful, go right ahead. Seems to me like you're just making it easier for people to not invest in Strength since they can just apply their proficiency bonus in situations where they normally wouldn't be able to.
Also, there is technique involved in arm wrestling, it is in fact more technique then pure strength. If you don't believe me. I will show you a clip of the world strongest female vs 3 average men. Spoilers, she loses 2v1.
So unless you also want to claim women can't be as strong as men, I believe that is wrong.
You just linked to a Youtube channel called "womenareweak1", with playlists titled "The stupidity of women" and "Female driving" so I'm going to take that video with a grain of salt.
I already said I DO NOT WANT A PURE STRENGTH CONTEST! I FIND IT BORING. I pointed it out at the start.
You said letting whomever has the highest strength score automatically win is boring.
I'm with IC; there's no way around it; for an arm-wrestle, it makes most sense to have a straight up Strength contest. Sure, there's limited techniques involved: grip strength, arm positioning, wrist flexibility - but it all comes down to who is stronger, rather than more skilful. Your examples of muscle endurance (holding weights, etc), are still examples of muscle strength, more than athleticism I'm afraid.
If you want to make it more interesting, have it as a series of strength contests, requiring one player to reach 3 consecutive successes to win. Each success moves the opponents arm one stage closer to the table. So, for example, if your paladin gets 2 successes in a row, it'll take the orc 5 consecutive successes to win. That way, you can have it go back and forth organically.
If you're desperate for skill checks to be involved, get creative with a slight of hand check before the contest to see who can manoeuvre their hand into a dominant position more effectively. They then get a +1 to the following three checks, before another slight of hand check must be rolled.
It's dangerous territory to start confusing skills for ability checks though. Otherwise anything similar to an arm-wrestle that doesn't require skill, such as pulling a heavy lever, or pushing over a statue, could be argued as Athletics too.
Chequers beat me to it ( :) ) - but I'd also use the extended "skill challenge" technique - and I think his mechanics are sound.
If this is taking place in a public area - like a tavern - then I'd really play up the NPC spectator's involvement in each round - NPCs shout out comments, make side bets, etc, and allow to party to do the same. That makes it an event and a public spectacle, not just a series of die rolls.
I'd also allow for non-strength checks to influence the arm wrestling - e.g. if the half-orc is able to make a successful Intimidation check, then they might get a +1 on the roll. Maybe party members pull "dirty tricks" like trying to distract the NPC.
This allows other skills, and other people to influence the outcome - I like the idea of a contensted slight-of-hand check to get a better initial position and a potential bonus to rolls - but not take away from the fact that it's a straight up Strength-vs-Strength contest.
By allowing tactics ( or sneaky tricks ), over an extended set of rounds, it makes it a bit more tactical and interesting, and by involving the crowd reactions, you can make it a bit more inclusive.
I'd really recommend checking out how Matt Mercer handled a professional drinking contest with The Mighty Nein. Different skill rolls, but same idea.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Alternatively, if you think of arm wrestling as a sport or a pub game, it wouldn't be out of line to create an entire arm-wrestling mini-game that could be applied between players and NPC or players and other players. Now that I think about it, I could turn this into a tavern gambling game as well. I'm invested now.
You win the arm-wrestling match by getting three points, which means you've pinned your opponent's hand to the table. Both contestants start in the neutral position (0 points) and if you win a contest, you get a point. If you lose a contest, you lose a point. Every contest is a STR check, as you would expect. The longer the match goes, the bigger a role CON plays. On each contest, you can also do things like position your body for advantageous leverage (DEX) or try to distract the opponent (CHA). Contests could go as follows:
First contest is an opposed STR check. Highest result wins. If the roll is lower than your CON score (which there is a very good chance it will be) deduct a point of STR for the rest of the match to indicate fatigue.
On the subsequent contests, someone is probably winning. Another opposed STR check with the higher result winning. Someone might look for an edge by trying to get into a position for better leverage (Acrobatics) or distract the opponent (Performance) to get advantage on the STR check. The DC for the skill check would be the STR of the opponent, so tough to overcome a strong opponent, but easier as the match drags on. If the roll is lower than your CON score, deduct a point of STR for the rest of the match for fatigue.
(Optional) If someone has two points, they are very close to winning the match. They could add their CON modifier to their roll to symbolize them going all-out for the victory. This would also help get the matches over with a little more quickly.
And of course, people around could gamble on this because of course they would.
I'd do straight up contests, with the first person winning two in a row being the winner. Basically, the idea is the first success allows the person to push the other's hand off-center. If the player losing the first round wins the second, they're back to center, etc.
STR vs. STR. First to secure three successes wins. There are ways to modify this. Some examples: Rage would give advantage. Class features such as Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades would add 1/2 proficiency bonus. Cutting words used by one of the competitors during the match could reduce an opponent's result. There are also ways you could do some house rules on the fly. You might rule that feats like Tavern Brawler or Grappler could allow someone to apply their proficiency bonus, since armwrestling is something a tavern brawler or grappler may have a lot of experience with. You might let a fighter use an action surge to re-roll a failed or tied result.
The higher Strength score just wins, unless there is some mitigating circumstance. I know because I asked Jeremy Crawford at Sage Advice Live Origins 2018.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
There's no real rule for this, but I think you could make a pretty fun skill contest out of it. Here's how I would do it.
(A) One <-> Two <-> WIN <-> Two <-> One (B)
- STR check, if you win you move one closer to the centre. - CON save, if the opponent made a STR check they gain disadvantage on their check for the next round, otherwise no change. (This is you 'tiring them out'). - Intimidation check, if you win the opponent moves one back from the centre.
This allows for it to feel like a player can somewhat control the fate of who wins, while still staying pretty simple and requiring strength. You can try to 'hold' with Constitution to give your opponent disadvantage before you 'push' them, which allows for a lower Strength character to try to win more cleverly.
I would agree with MasterOfConflict where class abilities/racial features/spells could add effects, advantages, and disadvantages as well.
While more complex than the PHB, I simplified it as simply a series of Strength checks at different stages of the contest. Won, Winning, Tie, Losing, Lost; based off of the positions of the arms during the match.
From the the PC's perspective, they start off at basically the Tie position. On a successful check, they move into a Winning position. On a second successful check, they move into the Won position and the contest is over. If that first check had been a failure, they would have moved into a Losing position. If both checks had failed, they would have Lost.
As these checks represent the positions of the arm during the wrestling contest, it takes three successes to Win from a Losing position and it takes three failures to Lose from a Winning position.
I'd only done it the once, it took but half a second to think up, but the players involved got into it and enjoyed it. All depends on what works at your table, really.
There is no need to be rude. I just thought it was funny that I had actually asked the sage for the answer to this esoteric question. And made a video about it.
Also, as a side note, If I were citing Matt Mercer or Matt Colville it would be an appeal to authority. With Jeremy Crawford it's different, because he gets to say what the rules actually are. Similar to how a Harvard Law professor's interpretation of the law is different that the Supreme Court saying what the law actually is.
No, he doesn't. He gets to decide what the rules are in the books. We get to decide whether or not to ignore him. He doesn't get to decide what the rules are in my game.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I just came across a request to do this in my campaign last night. I did't have anything handy (and didn't search for this) but the players and I came up with this quick skill contest:
Wisdom/Insight - Determine strategy for the match
Strength/Athletics - Raw physical challenge
Constitution Save - Endurance check
Obviously getting 2-1 results in a win. Going 3-0 is a decisive win.
Arm wrestling isn't something that benefits substantially from skill or technique so it doesn't make sense to use Athletics. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to use CON since arm wrestling is more a test of strength than cardio.
I'd use strength contests to determine the winner, but instead of declaring a winner with only 1 contest, I'd use first to 3 or 5 successes. That makes it more likely that the highest strength modifier will win without making it impossible for the underdog. It also adds some tension to the situation as the number of successes racks up on either side.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Muscular endurance (how long can you hold weights) is just as much a form of strength as muscular strength (what's the heaviest thing you can lift)
That's not a very good way to measure cardio performance. Strength training would help more with this than running marathons.
Climbing difficult surfaces is absolutely a skill. Recognizing the best handholds and footholds, how far you can exert your reach without losing your grip or balance, and in some cases making short jumps to reach a hold is important for, say, rock climbing.
No, technique are a proficiency thing. Quoting the rules, "dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." Now here's the advice DMG chapter 6 gives on applying proficiency bonus: "When you ask a player to make an ability check, consider whether a skill or tool proficiency might apply to it. The player might also ask you if a particular proficiency applies. One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice."
If you want to let a 10 strength bard with expertise in sports push heavy objects better than the unproficient 20 strength barbarian just so you can make DEX less useful, go right ahead. Seems to me like you're just making it easier for people to not invest in Strength since they can just apply their proficiency bonus in situations where they normally wouldn't be able to.
You just linked to a Youtube channel called "womenareweak1", with playlists titled "The stupidity of women" and "Female driving" so I'm going to take that video with a grain of salt.
You said letting whomever has the highest strength score automatically win is boring.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm with IC; there's no way around it; for an arm-wrestle, it makes most sense to have a straight up Strength contest. Sure, there's limited techniques involved: grip strength, arm positioning, wrist flexibility - but it all comes down to who is stronger, rather than more skilful. Your examples of muscle endurance (holding weights, etc), are still examples of muscle strength, more than athleticism I'm afraid.
If you want to make it more interesting, have it as a series of strength contests, requiring one player to reach 3 consecutive successes to win. Each success moves the opponents arm one stage closer to the table. So, for example, if your paladin gets 2 successes in a row, it'll take the orc 5 consecutive successes to win. That way, you can have it go back and forth organically.
If you're desperate for skill checks to be involved, get creative with a slight of hand check before the contest to see who can manoeuvre their hand into a dominant position more effectively. They then get a +1 to the following three checks, before another slight of hand check must be rolled.
It's dangerous territory to start confusing skills for ability checks though. Otherwise anything similar to an arm-wrestle that doesn't require skill, such as pulling a heavy lever, or pushing over a statue, could be argued as Athletics too.
Chequers beat me to it ( :) ) - but I'd also use the extended "skill challenge" technique - and I think his mechanics are sound.
If this is taking place in a public area - like a tavern - then I'd really play up the NPC spectator's involvement in each round - NPCs shout out comments, make side bets, etc, and allow to party to do the same. That makes it an event and a public spectacle, not just a series of die rolls.
I'd also allow for non-strength checks to influence the arm wrestling - e.g. if the half-orc is able to make a successful Intimidation check, then they might get a +1 on the roll. Maybe party members pull "dirty tricks" like trying to distract the NPC.
This allows other skills, and other people to influence the outcome - I like the idea of a contensted slight-of-hand check to get a better initial position and a potential bonus to rolls - but not take away from the fact that it's a straight up Strength-vs-Strength contest.
By allowing tactics ( or sneaky tricks ), over an extended set of rounds, it makes it a bit more tactical and interesting, and by involving the crowd reactions, you can make it a bit more inclusive.
I'd really recommend checking out how Matt Mercer handled a professional drinking contest with The Mighty Nein. Different skill rolls, but same idea.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Alternatively, if you think of arm wrestling as a sport or a pub game, it wouldn't be out of line to create an entire arm-wrestling mini-game that could be applied between players and NPC or players and other players. Now that I think about it, I could turn this into a tavern gambling game as well. I'm invested now.
You win the arm-wrestling match by getting three points, which means you've pinned your opponent's hand to the table. Both contestants start in the neutral position (0 points) and if you win a contest, you get a point. If you lose a contest, you lose a point. Every contest is a STR check, as you would expect. The longer the match goes, the bigger a role CON plays. On each contest, you can also do things like position your body for advantageous leverage (DEX) or try to distract the opponent (CHA). Contests could go as follows:
And of course, people around could gamble on this because of course they would.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd do straight up contests, with the first person winning two in a row being the winner. Basically, the idea is the first success allows the person to push the other's hand off-center. If the player losing the first round wins the second, they're back to center, etc.
Idk why people ask for advice, then go completely off the rails when someone offers advice that they don't want to hear
STR vs. STR. First to secure three successes wins. There are ways to modify this. Some examples: Rage would give advantage. Class features such as Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades would add 1/2 proficiency bonus. Cutting words used by one of the competitors during the match could reduce an opponent's result. There are also ways you could do some house rules on the fly. You might rule that feats like Tavern Brawler or Grappler could allow someone to apply their proficiency bonus, since armwrestling is something a tavern brawler or grappler may have a lot of experience with. You might let a fighter use an action surge to re-roll a failed or tied result.
The higher Strength score just wins, unless there is some mitigating circumstance. I know because I asked Jeremy Crawford at Sage Advice Live Origins 2018.
Hey - when Jeremy Crawford is DM'ing, and I'm a player, he gets to decide - otherwise he's a non-issue in my game.
Or do you run a completely vanilla game with absolutely zero house rules, or DM rule interpretations?
My game; my rules - and same with yours ( although technically you can decide to slavishly fallow what Jeremy Crawford thinks. if you like ).
There's a reason appeal to authority arguments are listed under logical fallacies.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
There's no real rule for this, but I think you could make a pretty fun skill contest out of it. Here's how I would do it.
(A) One <-> Two <-> WIN <-> Two <-> One (B)
- STR check, if you win you move one closer to the centre.
- CON save, if the opponent made a STR check they gain disadvantage on their check for the next round, otherwise no change. (This is you 'tiring them out').
- Intimidation check, if you win the opponent moves one back from the centre.
This allows for it to feel like a player can somewhat control the fate of who wins, while still staying pretty simple and requiring strength. You can try to 'hold' with Constitution to give your opponent disadvantage before you 'push' them, which allows for a lower Strength character to try to win more cleverly.
I would agree with MasterOfConflict where class abilities/racial features/spells could add effects, advantages, and disadvantages as well.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWhile more complex than the PHB, I simplified it as simply a series of Strength checks at different stages of the contest. Won, Winning, Tie, Losing, Lost; based off of the positions of the arms during the match.
From the the PC's perspective, they start off at basically the Tie position. On a successful check, they move into a Winning position. On a second successful check, they move into the Won position and the contest is over. If that first check had been a failure, they would have moved into a Losing position. If both checks had failed, they would have Lost.
As these checks represent the positions of the arm during the wrestling contest, it takes three successes to Win from a Losing position and it takes three failures to Lose from a Winning position.
I'd only done it the once, it took but half a second to think up, but the players involved got into it and enjoyed it. All depends on what works at your table, really.
I would do similar, but you need 3 more saves than your opponent. Since if I lose two, I need to win two to get back to the middle, then 3 to win.
Try this:
If they both fail or both succeed it was a stalemate that round, can keep it dramatic that way.
There is no need to be rude. I just thought it was funny that I had actually asked the sage for the answer to this esoteric question. And made a video about it.
Also, as a side note, If I were citing Matt Mercer or Matt Colville it would be an appeal to authority. With Jeremy Crawford it's different, because he gets to say what the rules actually are. Similar to how a Harvard Law professor's interpretation of the law is different that the Supreme Court saying what the law actually is.
Wow - a month late, but OK...
No, he doesn't. He gets to decide what the rules are in the books. We get to decide whether or not to ignore him. He doesn't get to decide what the rules are in my game.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I just came across a request to do this in my campaign last night. I did't have anything handy (and didn't search for this) but the players and I came up with this quick skill contest:
Obviously getting 2-1 results in a win. Going 3-0 is a decisive win.
THANK YOU