What is the acrobatics skill actually used for?

Yeah. I tend to think of it as a tier-

• Persuasion is getting someone to do something they can see themselves doing based more or less on your character and the circumstances as they are. There's some wiggle room, but the character more or less needs to be pitching the facts.
• Deception is obviously trying to convince someone that you and/or the circumstances are such they should do something for you when they wouldn't if they had the facts. Still needs to be something they can see themselves doing. More potential, but also naturally more risk from a blown roll.
• Intimidation is getting someone to do something up to things they would straight up refuse to otherwise. Personally I'd include "do this or your superior is gonna come and rip you a new one for every step it took to get there" bluffs into it. High risk, high reward. Does take some finesse to make it applicable in circumstances where "kill the subject and move on" isn't also an option.

Quote from Wysperra >>

 For the reason that some action require more agility than strength and vice versa.

 Adequately covered by what attribute you roll against. While they aren't identical skills, in both reality and fiction the number of acrobats who aren't also athletes is pretty much zero, and being a good athlete is a very helpful start if you want to be an acrobat.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

 For the reason that some action require more agility than strength and vice versa.

 Adequately covered by what attribute you roll against. While they aren't identical skills, in both reality and fiction the number of acrobats who aren't also athletes is pretty much zero, and being a good athlete is a very helpful start if you want to be an acrobat.

 Agreed, but in the state of the game with the different skills being tied to different stats, a line has to be drawn.

Quote from Wysperra >>

 Agreed, but in the state of the game with the different skills being tied to different stats, a line has to be drawn.

Or the game could give more support to floating skills to different stats.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

 For the reason that some action require more agility than strength and vice versa.

 Adequately covered by what attribute you roll against. While they aren't identical skills, in both reality and fiction the number of acrobats who aren't also athletes is pretty much zero, and being a good athlete is a very helpful start if you want to be an acrobat.

In general terms, but I expect gymnasts have rather different workouts from competitive weightlifters and both don't have a lot in common with triathletes. "Athlete" is probably too broad a term, but when you compare STR to DEX alongside the names it's not hard to divide them up into two different categories. I'll grant that realistically someone with Acrobatics prof shouldn't dump STR, but that's about it once you apply the combination of name and associated score.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

In general terms, but I expect gymnasts have rather different workouts from competitive weightlifters and both don't have a lot in common with triathletes.

The signature uses of D&D athletics are climbing and jumping, which are pretty solidly within the training of gymnasts (in fact, there are examples of crossovers from gymnastics to track and field, particularly in events such as the long jump). The big difference is that elite track and field athletes probably average at least a foot taller than elite gymnasts, which corresponds pretty well to a difference in strength score.

Pretty sure moving heavy obstacles, kicking down doors, etc. is also commonly associated with Athletics and not something that you'd expect a typical gymnast to do.

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

If there's no explicit mechanical benefit, there's no point in a roll.  And without an explicit mechanical benefit, you're basically stuck trying to convince the DM to give you a mechanical benefit the rules don't actually give you.  At which point, there's no incentive to take acrobatics at all, unless you know you can get the DM to agree to things on the fly.

Each skill should have explicit use cases with DC guidelines and known mechanical benefits, so players can make rational choices (and DM's have appropriate guidance).

You seem to be stuck on this point of not knowing the "mechanical benefit" of the skill.  Are you familiar with the overall skill system in this game?  It's baked into that.

When a player declares that their character is attempting to do something, the DM decides if they automatically succeed or automatically fail or if it is a situation in which there is some chance for success and some chance for failure.  If there is some chance for success and some chance for failure the DM can ask for a check to determine if you succeed or fail.  If the DM decides that a particular skill applies and the character is proficient in that skill then they add the proficiency bonus to that die roll.  That's the mechanical benefit.  The bonus.  For example, if the character has a +2 proficiency bonus then they add +2 to the roll in that situation which makes them 10% more likely to succeed than a similar character that is not proficient in that skill.  So, the mechanical benefit in that case is succeeding 10% more often at the thing that's being attempted.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

7/ Jumping is explicitly controlled by Athletics, as i would imagine swinging on a rope should be or vaulting over walls.  And swinging from branch to branch is probably covered by climbing (certainly a climb speed should do it), so also Athletics.

I'm not seeing much on this list that is likely to be ruled as acrobatics, terribly likely to come up, and useable by the player for mechanical benefit.

Yes, if you define everything as belonging to other things, Acrobatics isn't very useful.

A good rule of thumb IMO is that Athletics is about power, while Acrobatics is about maneuvering. Any situation where you need to do anything complex to get from point A to point B may well require an acrobatics check.

 I didn't define these things as belonging to other things.  The game defined these things as belonging to Athletics.

 Where? 

Where, for instance, does it say that all rolls involving jumping are athletics rolls? (Indeed, at least one circumstance around it is explicitly governed by an acrobatics roll.)

 Other of your redefinitions are even less justified. For instance, climbing is described as "traversing a vertical surface". Swinging from branch to branch, a la Tarzan, is very much not that.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Acrobatics, otoh, it's completely unclear what your motivation is for taking it.  Any specific use you might have in mind is going to interact with far more mechanically rigid rules than persuasion will.  

• Player: I want to tumble to reduce my fall damage and come up on my feet when i get knocked off the horse. DM: sorry, the combat rules don't say you can do that.
• Player: I want to use acrobatics to hop up from prone quickly. DM: It's still going to cost half your movement.
• Player: I want to leap onto the back of the horse. DM: Mounting a horse costs half your movement.
• Player: I want to use acrobatics to ignore the difficult terrain.  DM: I'm sorry, what lets you do that?

Acrobatics necessarily and intimately interacts with hard rules relating to the action economy and the combat rules.  If it's not explicitly spelled out, any significant use you put it to is either going to get denied or make other people think you're getting away with murder doing something that shouldn't work.  Why would you plan your character around that unpredictability unless you knew the DM was going to agree to you breaking the rules on the fly with a skill check?

 This seems like a fundamental misapprehension of how skills work in play. Maybe it's how your table rolls, but if so, it's rather atypical.

The normal cycle is:

• Player: I want to do X
• GM: Yes -or- No -or- Make a Y roll

Making a roll is for when there's uncertainty, and the appropriate skill is circumstantial.

• Open a window? Just happens
• Open a stuck window? Athletics roll
• Climb out an open window? OK
• Under no time pressure, climb out a partially open window, because you didn't roll well enough on athletics above? OK
• As above, but under time pressure, and there's a narrow ledge outside? Acrobatics
• Climb onto your horse? OK
• Jump from the above ledge onto your horse? Acrobatics
• And so on, and so forth

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

Persuasion: I want you to believe something is true.  (As typically applied, this something is subjective or unfalsifiable, rather than objective.)  

Deception: I want you to believe something is true, even though it isn't. 

Same thing.  Sure, one requires lying.  Getting them to do something is the consequence of them believing a certain kind of thing is true, such as 'helping me is a good thing for you'.

Quote from jl8e>>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

Quote from jl8e>>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

7/ Jumping is explicitly controlled by Athletics, as i would imagine swinging on a rope should be or vaulting over walls.  And swinging from branch to branch is probably covered by climbing (certainly a climb speed should do it), so also Athletics.

I'm not seeing much on this list that is likely to be ruled as acrobatics, terribly likely to come up, and useable by the player for mechanical benefit.

Yes, if you define everything as belonging to other things, Acrobatics isn't very useful.

A good rule of thumb IMO is that Athletics is about power, while Acrobatics is about maneuvering. Any situation where you need to do anything complex to get from point A to point B may well require an acrobatics check.

 I didn't define these things as belonging to other things.  The game defined these things as belonging to Athletics.

 Where? 

Where, for instance, does it say that all rolls involving jumping are athletics rolls? (Indeed, at least one circumstance around it is explicitly governed by an acrobatics roll.)

 Other of your redefinitions are even less justified. For instance, climbing is described as "traversing a vertical surface". Swinging from branch to branch, a la Tarzan, is very much not that.

 Jumping is covered right in the definition of Athletics: "Jump farther than normal, stay afloat in rough water, or break something."  Acrobatics, meanwhile, says nothing about jumping.  Even a Thief Rogue's Second Story Work only says you use your dexterity for determining your jump distance.  It's unclear if that means you start with a number of feet equal to your dex score, and roll Strength (Athletics), or if you instead roll Dexterity (Athletics). But it never says it makes it an acrobatics check.

Vaulting a wall is just jumping vertically with strength assistance from your arms.

Every time climbing is mentioned, it's a Strength (Athletics) check when a check is called for.  For example, Gloves of Climbing and Swimming give +5 to Strength (Athletics) checks for these tasks, and the DMG guidance on climbing is a Strength (Athletics) check for a difficult surface.

I interpret swinging from branch to branch as 'climbing', because the creatures that do that naturally (primates) have climb speeds in the game.  Closest fit.  I would ask for a roll for someone polymorphed into a monkey to brachiate, I would let them use their climb speed.

Swinging on a rope feels more like brachiating to me than anything else, but I'll agree this is the most ambiguous of these.  Climbing a rope is obviously climbing (and doesn't even require a skill check).  Just holding onto a rope while it swings feels like an even easier task, so maybe no skill check at all.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Acrobatics, otoh, it's completely unclear what your motivation is for taking it.  Any specific use you might have in mind is going to interact with far more mechanically rigid rules than persuasion will.  

• Player: I want to tumble to reduce my fall damage and come up on my feet when i get knocked off the horse. DM: sorry, the combat rules don't say you can do that.
• Player: I want to use acrobatics to hop up from prone quickly. DM: It's still going to cost half your movement.
• Player: I want to leap onto the back of the horse. DM: Mounting a horse costs half your movement.
• Player: I want to use acrobatics to ignore the difficult terrain.  DM: I'm sorry, what lets you do that?

Acrobatics necessarily and intimately interacts with hard rules relating to the action economy and the combat rules.  If it's not explicitly spelled out, any significant use you put it to is either going to get denied or make other people think you're getting away with murder doing something that shouldn't work.  Why would you plan your character around that unpredictability unless you knew the DM was going to agree to you breaking the rules on the fly with a skill check?

 This seems like a fundamental misapprehension of how skills work in play. Maybe it's how your table rolls, but if so, it's rather atypical.

The normal cycle is:

• Player: I want to do X
• GM: Yes -or- No -or- Make a Y roll

Making a roll is for when there's uncertainty, and the appropriate skill is circumstantial.

• Open a window? Just happens
• Open a stuck window? Athletics roll
• Climb out an open window? OK
• Under no time pressure, climb out a partially open window, because you didn't roll well enough on athletics above? OK
• As above, but under time pressure, and there's a narrow ledge outside? Acrobatics
• Climb onto your horse? OK
• Jump from the above ledge onto your horse? Acrobatics
• And so on, and so forth

A partially open window is just 'squeezing' in 2014 terms.  In 2024 terms that's just difficult terrain.  (If it's too small an opening for that, you're not allowed to do it).  Acrobatics never says it allows you to traverse smaller spaces than usual.

Similarly, the narrow ledge is either difficult terrain or you're not allowed to stand there.  Acrobatics doesn't change this in any way.  It's just a space that's too small or 'narrow' for you.

That it's under time pressure doesn't matter in the slightest.  These are all covered under the normal movement rules in combat, and any character can do this within a 6-second round.

Jumping from a ledge onto your horse will inflict falling damage to you and your horse if it's farther down than your jump distance (assuming the horse doesn't just move out of the way), and acrobatics doesn't change that.  Indeed, the jump distance is determined by your strength (unless you're a thief rogue).  And it still costs half your movement to 'mount' the horse, regardless of whether you have acrobatics.

In virtually every instance you might think acrobatics would apply (besides escaping a grapple), the rules already say 'yes', or 'no', or ask for a different roll (usually a dex save).

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

If there's no explicit mechanical benefit, there's no point in a roll.  And without an explicit mechanical benefit, you're basically stuck trying to convince the DM to give you a mechanical benefit the rules don't actually give you.  At which point, there's no incentive to take acrobatics at all, unless you know you can get the DM to agree to things on the fly.

Each skill should have explicit use cases with DC guidelines and known mechanical benefits, so players can make rational choices (and DM's have appropriate guidance).

 

You seem to be stuck on this point of not knowing the "mechanical benefit" of the skill.  Are you familiar with the overall skill system in this game?  It's baked into that.

When a player declares that their character is attempting to do something, the DM decides if they automatically succeed or automatically fail or if it is a situation in which there is some chance for success and some chance for failure.  If there is some chance for success and some chance for failure the DM can ask for a check to determine if you succeed or fail.  If the DM decides that a particular skill applies and the character is proficient in that skill then they add the proficiency bonus to that die roll.  That's the mechanical benefit.  The bonus.  For example, if the character has a +2 proficiency bonus then they add +2 to the roll in that situation which makes them 10% more likely to succeed than a similar character that is not proficient in that skill.  So, the mechanical benefit in that case is succeeding 10% more often at the thing that's being attempted.

See my non-exhaustive list of things that I think acrobatics should allow you to do.

Most other skills have some mechanical benefit baked into the game rules in some way.  ie, Athletics determines your jump distance, and explicitly gets used for climbing difficult surfaces.  Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation/Handle Animal explicitly get used to alter a creature's attitude (which is actually something with reasonable definition).  Arcana/History/Nature/Religion can be used with the study action to learn about a monster.  Acrobatics has none.  Every place you might expect an acrobatics check based on the acrobatics skill description, the game calls for a saving throw instead.

The only place acrobatics is ever used is escaping a grapple check, and Athletics does the same thing.

And every time you think you could give a description of using acrobatics to do something, what you're invariably asking is for the DM to break the established rules for you.

While there are obviously many circumstances where there are exceptions, I generally simplify my answer to this question as "Athletics is for going up, Acrobatics is for going down." 
For everything else, there's Mastercard. 

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

If we're talking about creative solutions to problems, we're passed skill checks even being needed.  Magic will frequently solve any problem much easier, and there are plenty of creative solutions which will never require a skill check.

 

Magic is a possible solution, but most of the time it is more expensive to use and provides an inferior solution than a high roll on a skill check.

Sure you don't need Persuasion, you can just cast Charm Person. But that guard over there is not going to be happy if he sees you going around using magic to charm people.

Sure you don't need a rope & skill checks to cross a chasm, you can just use Wall of Stone to build a bridge but you need a party of at least level 9 to do that and now you've used up one of the most powerful spell slots your party has, in order to do something you probably could have managed with: An Athletics check for the big strong boi to jump across with one end of a rope, an Sleight of Hand check to tie the rope good and snug, then some Acrobatics checks to climb across the rope as it is being held tight by the big strong boi. The weak scrawny Wizard might opt to still use a Misty Step to get themselves across if they are really bad at both Athletics and Acrobatics, but that is hardly solving the problem for the whole party. 

Sure you don't need Stealth, you can just cast Invisibility - except that Invisibility doesn't actually stop enemies from hearing you so wait... I guess you need both Invisibility and multiple castings of Silence, though that Silence is probably going to get noticed so you've just gone and blown your cover and wasted a ton of spell slots. 

.....

The long and short of it is. If you are playing a hack-and-slash game then you don't need proficiency in any skills. If you aren't playing a hack-and-slash game skills are some of the most fun the game has to offer. If you don't believe me then go play some actual games instead of just repeating the tired old arguments that people who have never played D&D at the table repeat ad nauseum online.

Just because you can't think of fun and cool ways to use skills doesn't mean other people can't. D&D is a creative improvisational  adventure game. It isn't a video game. You aren't limited to what the rule books say you can do, or what the programmer coded into the game engine. Go out and have fun thinking up new and crazy things to do in your campaign.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Most other skills have some mechanical benefit baked into the game rules in some way. 

It certainly seems like you still aren't getting how this works.  The mechanical benefit of being perficient in a skill is that you have a higher probability of succeeding in an activity where that skill is applied.  Your DM will tell you which skills apply to the activity that you are attempting.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

The only place acrobatics is ever used is escaping a grapple check, and Athletics does the same thing.

These aren't the same.  One is a Strength-based check, and one is a Dexterity-based check.  So, if your character has a higher Dexterity score then you would use the Acrobatics check since that would give you a higher probability of success.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Every place you might expect an acrobatics check based on the acrobatics skill description, the game calls for a saving throw instead.

No.  Saving Throws and skill checks are totally different D20 Tests which are used for totally different things.  These are mutually exclusive from each other:

Skill Checks:

When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure. These rolls are called D20 Tests, and they come in three kinds: ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls.

An ability check represents a creature using talent and training to try to overcome a challenge, such as forcing open a stuck door, picking a lock, entertaining a crowd, or deciphering a cipher. The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.

Add your Proficiency Bonus to an ability check when the DM determines that a skill or tool proficiency is relevant to the check and you have that proficiency.

Most ability checks involve using a skill, which represents a category of things creatures try to do with an ability check. The descriptions of the actions you take (see “Actions” later in this chapter) specify which skill applies if you make an ability check for that action, and many other rules note when a skill is relevant. The DM has the ultimate say on whether a skill is relevant in a situation.

Saving Throws:

A saving throw—also called a save—represents an attempt to evade or resist a threat, such as a fiery explosion, a blast of poisonous gas, or a spell trying to invade your mind. You don’t normally choose to make a save; you must make one because your character or a monster (if you’re the DM) is at risk.

Some example uses for the ability and for the skill are given which can inform the DM about whether or not a specific activity being attempted during a game might fall into this category such that asking for this type of check can be appropriate:

Dexterity:  Move nimbly, quickly, or quietly

Acrobatics:  Stay on your feet in a tricky situation, or perform an acrobatic stunt.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

And every time you think you could give a description of using acrobatics to do something, what you're invariably asking is for the DM to break the established rules for you.

It's unclear what you even mean by this.  Again, this makes it seem like you are not clear on how this mechanic is supposed to work.  During game play, the player does not ask the DM if they can make a certain type of check.  They don't say:  "Ok, I'm going to use my Acrobatics" or "I'm making an Acrobatics check for that" or even "Can I make an Acrobatics check?"  Instead, the player describes what their character is trying to accomplish.  If the DM determines that there is a chance for success or failure, then they will ask for an ability check and will also determine which skills can be applied to that check based on the situation.

If you are a DM and you are trying to determine if a particular situation is an appropriate one for you to ask your player to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, as a rule of thumb if the character is attempting to do something physically (not mentally) and the activity does not seem to fit the Athletics, Sleight of Hand or Stealth skills then there is an excellent chance that the Acrobatics skill can appropriately be applied.  It should be very uncommon to ask for just a straight Dexterity check with no possibility of applying any skills to the check.  Similarly, a straight Strength check should also be very uncommon.  This can be seen from how the rules text is written.  Example uses for the Athletics skill lists "Jump farther than normal, stay afloat in rough water, or break something" and yet, within the text itself that explains how the skill proficiency mechanic works we see this:  "For example, if a character tries to climb a cliff, the DM might ask for a Strength (Athletics) check".  That doesn't match up with any of the actual examples for the Athletics skill, but it certainly fits into the category activities which those examples are describing.  Besides just rolling for initiative, I cannot think of any Dexterity-based activity where it would be best to not allow any skills to apply to the check.  In that sense, Acrobatics is sort of a catch-all for Dexterity-based activities which clearly are not Sleight of Hand or Stealth.  The reason why that works is because the example use "perform an acrobatic stunt" is intentionally extremely broad so that this can apply to just about every possible Dexterity-based activity that is not clearly Sleight of Hand or Stealth.  Plus, like Athletics, these are just examples which are used to describe a category of activities.  It is left up to the DM to decide if some other specific activity fits into that overall category even when it does not match up with any of the exact examples given for that category.

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

 Jumping is covered right in the definition of Athletics: "Jump farther than normal, stay afloat in rough water, or break something."  Acrobatics, meanwhile, says nothing about jumping.  Even a Thief Rogue's Second Story Work only says you use your dexterity for determining your jump distance.  It's unclear if that means you start with a number of feet equal to your dex score, and roll Strength (Athletics), or if you instead roll Dexterity (Athletics).

I interpret swinging from branch to branch as 'climbing', because the creatures that do that naturally (primates) have climb speeds in the game.  Closest fit.  I would ask for a roll for someone polymorphed into a monkey to brachiate, I would let them use their climb speed.

A partially open window is just 'squeezing' in 2014 terms.  In 2024 terms that's just difficult terrain.  (If it's too small an opening for that, you're not allowed to do it).  Acrobatics never says it allows you to traverse smaller spaces than usual.

Similarly, the narrow ledge is either difficult terrain or you're not allowed to stand there.  Acrobatics doesn't change this in any way.  It's just a space that's too small or 'narrow' for you.

That it's under time pressure doesn't matter in the slightest.  These are all covered under the normal movement rules in combat, and any character can do this within a 6-second round.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Most other skills have some mechanical benefit baked into the game rules in some way. 

 

It certainly seems like you still aren't getting how this works.  The mechanical benefit of being perficient in a skill is that you have a higher probability of succeeding in an activity where that skill is applied.  Your DM will tell you which skills apply to the activity that you are attempting.

 

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

The only place acrobatics is ever used is escaping a grapple check, and Athletics does the same thing.

 

These aren't the same.  One is a Strength-based check, and one is a Dexterity-based check.  So, if your character has a higher Dexterity score then you would use the Acrobatics check since that would give you a higher probability of success.

 

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Every place you might expect an acrobatics check based on the acrobatics skill description, the game calls for a saving throw instead.

 

No.  Saving Throws and skill checks are totally different D20 Tests which are used for totally different things.  These are mutually exclusive from each other:

Skill Checks:

When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure. These rolls are called D20 Tests, and they come in three kinds: ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls.

 

An ability check represents a creature using talent and training to try to overcome a challenge, such as forcing open a stuck door, picking a lock, entertaining a crowd, or deciphering a cipher. The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.

 

Add your Proficiency Bonus to an ability check when the DM determines that a skill or tool proficiency is relevant to the check and you have that proficiency.

 

Most ability checks involve using a skill, which represents a category of things creatures try to do with an ability check. The descriptions of the actions you take (see “Actions” later in this chapter) specify which skill applies if you make an ability check for that action, and many other rules note when a skill is relevant. The DM has the ultimate say on whether a skill is relevant in a situation.

 

Saving Throws:

A saving throw—also called a save—represents an attempt to evade or resist a threat, such as a fiery explosion, a blast of poisonous gas, or a spell trying to invade your mind. You don’t normally choose to make a save; you must make one because your character or a monster (if you’re the DM) is at risk.

 

Some example uses for the ability and for the skill are given which can inform the DM about whether or not a specific activity being attempted during a game might fall into this category such that asking for this type of check can be appropriate:

Dexterity:  Move nimbly, quickly, or quietly

Acrobatics:  Stay on your feet in a tricky situation, or perform an acrobatic stunt.

Surely the Grease spell is an example of staying on your feet in a tricky situation?  Dex save.  Ball bearings? Dex save.  Topple? Con save. Can you think of any mechanically defined situation involving staying on your feet which allows a roll that isn't a saving throw?  (And some abilities just knock you prone, no check allowed, eg, a wolf's bite attack).  Meanwhile, I can't think of a single concrete example which calls for an acrobatics check.

Quote from up2ng >> 

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

And every time you think you could give a description of using acrobatics to do something, what you're invariably asking is for the DM to break the established rules for you.

 

It's unclear what you even mean by this.  Again, this makes it seem like you are not clear on how this mechanic is supposed to work.  During game play, the player does not ask the DM if they can make a certain type of check.  They don't say:  "Ok, I'm going to use my Acrobatics" or "I'm making an Acrobatics check for that" or even "Can I make an Acrobatics check?"  Instead, the player describes what their character is trying to accomplish.  If the DM determines that there is a chance for success or failure, then they will ask for an ability check and will also determine which skills can be applied to that check based on the situation.

If you are a DM and you are trying to determine if a particular situation is an appropriate one for you to ask your player to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, as a rule of thumb if the character is attempting to do something physically (not mentally) and the activity does not seem to fit the Athletics, Sleight of Hand or Stealth skills then there is an excellent chance that the Acrobatics skill can appropriately be applied.  It should be very uncommon to ask for just a straight Dexterity check with no possibility of applying any skills to the check.  Similarly, a straight Strength check should also be very uncommon.  This can be seen from how the rules text is written.  Example uses for the Athletics skill lists "Jump farther than normal, stay afloat in rough water, or break something" and yet, within the text itself that explains how the skill proficiency mechanic works we see this:  "For example, if a character tries to climb a cliff, the DM might ask for a Strength (Athletics) check".  That doesn't match up with any of the actual examples for the Athletics skill, but it certainly fits into the category activities which those examples are describing.  Besides just rolling for initiative, I cannot think of any Dexterity-based activity where it would be best to not allow any skills to apply to the check.  In that sense, Acrobatics is sort of a catch-all for Dexterity-based activities which clearly are not Sleight of Hand or Stealth.  The reason why that works is because the example use "perform an acrobatic stunt" is intentionally extremely broad so that this can apply to just about every possible Dexterity-based activity that is not clearly Sleight of Hand or Stealth.  Plus, like Athletics, these are just examples which are used to describe a category of activities.  It is left up to the DM to decide if some other specific activity fits into that overall category even when it does not match up with any of the exact examples given for that category.

 I've given several examples of things I think acrobatics should let you do, but they all involve breaking the rules in some way.  In what way are those unclear?

And no other skill works only like you say.  Let's look at some examples:

• Player: "I'm behind 3/4 cover, so I take the hide action to become hidden by rolling stealth."
• Player: "I take the study action to learn about that enemy.  It's a humanoid, so that's history, right?"
• Player: "I use the influence action with handle animal to try to make the wolf less hostile."
• Player: "I want to jump the 20' gap with a running start. I've got 18 feet from my Str score, what's the Athletics DC for an extra 2 feet?"
• Player: "I want to unlock the lock.  I get my thieves tools out to pick it with sleight of hand."

Sure, the DM can also call for a roll of a skill, but virtually every other skill has uses the player can initiate, knowing full well it will be a skill check with a particular skill.  

I fully grant acrobatics is used for 'perform an acrobatic stunt', but mechanically what does that allow you to do?  Can you ignore difficult terrain?  Can you stand from prone for free?  If it doesn't do anything mechanically, then why are you rolling.  If it does do something mechanical, where does the rules give you permission to accomplish those things that normally have costs (movement in both cases).  

Let's just consider: "I do a prone kip-up to stand from prone".  ('Prone kip-up' is the name for the typical martial arts explosive stand from prone).  Well, it's clearly an acrobatic stunt, but does it do anything?  Rules say it costs half your movement to stand from prone.  If it still costs half your movement, then it was an acrobatic stunt, but it didn't do anything.  No need to even roll, it's just style.  If it reduces the movement cost, it's breaking the explicit movement rules, and there's no rules justification for it, so the DM is allowing you to break a rule on a skill check.

Can you come up with an acrobatic stunt that actually lets you do something which doesn't require house-ruling away a rule?

Quote from Agilemind >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

If we're talking about creative solutions to problems, we're passed skill checks even being needed.  Magic will frequently solve any problem much easier, and there are plenty of creative solutions which will never require a skill check.

 

 

Sure you don't need a rope & skill checks to cross a chasm, you can just use Wall of Stone to build a bridge but you need a party of at least level 9 to do that and now you've used up one of the most powerful spell slots your party has, in order to do something you probably could have managed with: An Athletics check for the big strong boi to jump across with one end of a rope, an Sleight of Hand check to tie the rope good and snug, then some Acrobatics checks to climb across the rope as it is being held tight by the big strong boi. The weak scrawny Wizard might opt to still use a Misty Step to get themselves across if they are really bad at both Athletics and Acrobatics, but that is hardly solving the problem for the whole party. 

 

Just because you can't think of fun and cool ways to use skills doesn't mean other people can't. D&D is a creative improvisational  adventure game. It isn't a video game. You aren't limited to what the rule books say you can do, or what the programmer coded into the game engine. Go out and have fun thinking up new and crazy things to do in your campaign.

 I am unconvinced the rope requires any skill check at all.

Climbing a rope requires no skill check.  Climbing only requires a check when on a difficult surface (like it's slippery), and then its an athletics check, explicitly.  A rope is the easiest climbing surface imaginable.

Climbing across a horizontal rope is still climbing (indeed, it's even easier than going up a rope), so still an athletics check if a skill check is even needed.  But unless there's something making it unusually difficult (the rope is greased?), no check required.  Even the Str 8 wizard can cross the rope without a check, RAW.  (And this is just obviously a strength-based activity for anyone who has ever done such a thing).

I mean, yeah, the acrobat can walk across it, but everyone can get across just fine.

And if someone can just jump across the ravine, well, they can jump back and forth several times and make a 3-rope bridge, which should involve no skill check to cross.  (This is something well within the capabilities of an average teenager or adult).

However, you did cause me to find something which is explicitly an acrobatics check - using a grappling hook.  I would've guessed sleight of hand.  I'm not sure the DC13 is worth a skill proficiency, but it is something which acrobatics actually lets you do.

I can think of plenty of ways I'd like to use acrobatics.  But they all break the movement or action economy rules.

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

 I've given several examples of things I think acrobatics should let you do, but they all involve breaking the rules in some way.  In what way are those unclear?

And no other skill works only like you say.  Let's look at some examples:

• Player: "I'm behind 3/4 cover, so I take the hide action to become hidden by rolling stealth."
• Player: "I take the study action to learn about that enemy.  It's a humanoid, so that's history, right?"
• Player: "I use the influence action with handle animal to try to make the wolf less hostile."
• Player: "I want to jump the 20' gap with a running start. I've got 18 feet from my Str score, what's the Athletics DC for an extra 2 feet?"
• Player: "I want to unlock the lock.  I get my thieves tools out to pick it with sleight of hand."

Sure, the DM can also call for a roll of a skill, but virtually every other skill has uses the player can initiate, knowing full well it will be a skill check with a particular skill.  

It's not that the DM can call for a roll. It's that the DM is the only one who calls for a roll. The player never says, I'm rolling this. It's more like:

Player: "I want to make the wolf less hostile."

DM who knows the wolf's babies are in the cave, and there's nothing the character could possibly do to achieve that result: "You try and make yourself seem less threatening, even maybe offering it a little food, but nothing you do seems to have an effect." (Personally, I usually add something like, "Even a Nat 20 is not going to calm this wolf down right now, so there's no roll.")

Player: "I want to make a history check to see what I know about this."

DM: "This is actually pretty common knowledge [then explains what that common knowledge is]" or "Considering your character's background, there is no way a hermit from the middle of the swamp knows which street in Sigil that shop is on."

I fully grant acrobatics is used for 'perform an acrobatic stunt', but mechanically what does that allow you to do?  Can you ignore difficult terrain?  Can you stand from prone for free?  If it doesn't do anything mechanically, then why are you rolling.  If it does do something mechanical, where does the rules give you permission to accomplish those things that normally have costs (movement in both cases).  

Let's just consider: "I do a prone kip-up to stand from prone".  ('Prone kip-up' is the name for the typical martial arts explosive stand from prone).  Well, it's clearly an acrobatic stunt, but does it do anything?  Rules say it costs half your movement to stand from prone.  If it still costs half your movement, then it was an acrobatic stunt, but it didn't do anything.  No need to even roll, it's just style.  If it reduces the movement cost, it's breaking the explicit movement rules, and there's no rules justification for it, so the DM is allowing you to break a rule on a skill check.

Can you come up with an acrobatic stunt that actually lets you do something which doesn't require house-ruling away a rule?

Quote from Agilemind>>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

If we're talking about creative solutions to problems, we're passed skill checks even being needed.  Magic will frequently solve any problem much easier, and there are plenty of creative solutions which will never require a skill check.

Sure you don't need a rope & skill checks to cross a chasm, you can just use Wall of Stone to build a bridge but you need a party of at least level 9 to do that and now you've used up one of the most powerful spell slots your party has, in order to do something you probably could have managed with: An Athletics check for the big strong boi to jump across with one end of a rope, an Sleight of Hand check to tie the rope good and snug, then some Acrobatics checks to climb across the rope as it is being held tight by the big strong boi. The weak scrawny Wizard might opt to still use a Misty Step to get themselves across if they are really bad at both Athletics and Acrobatics, but that is hardly solving the problem for the whole party. 

Just because you can't think of fun and cool ways to use skills doesn't mean other people can't. D&D is a creative improvisational  adventure game. It isn't a video game. You aren't limited to what the rule books say you can do, or what the programmer coded into the game engine. Go out and have fun thinking up new and crazy things to do in your campaign.

 I am unconvinced the rope requires any skill check at all.

Climbing a rope requires no skill check.  Climbing only requires a check when on a difficult surface (like it's slippery), and then its an athletics check, explicitly.  A rope is the easiest climbing surface imaginable.

Climbing across a horizontal rope is still climbing (indeed, it's even easier than going up a rope), so still an athletics check if a skill check is even needed.  But unless there's something making it unusually difficult (the rope is greased?), no check required.  Even the Str 8 wizard can cross the rope without a check, RAW.  (And this is just obviously a strength-based activity for anyone who has ever done such a thing).

I mean, yeah, the acrobat can walk across it, but everyone can get across just fine.

And if someone can just jump across the ravine, well, they can jump back and forth several times and make a 3-rope bridge, which should involve no skill check to cross.  (This is something well within the capabilities of an average teenager or adult).

However, you did cause me to find something which is explicitly an acrobatics check - using a grappling hook.  I would've guessed sleight of hand.  I'm not sure the DC13 is worth a skill proficiency, but it is something which acrobatics actually lets you do.

I can think of plenty of ways I'd like to use acrobatics.  But they all break the movement or action economy rules.

 When a rope is horizontal, you are not climbing it. I think the obvious thing here would be to say if you are trying to walk across it using your balance. Which would 100 percent be an acrobatics check. The mechanical thing it lets you do is cross the rope without falling. That's just one of the multiple examples others have explained throughout the thread. I guess if being prone and having difficult terrain are the only obstacles you ever deal with, then the skill would seem pretty useless. I'll grant you that. But that's not a failing of the rules.

The examples you cite are things you want to be able to do are things you can do if you take a feat. (Get up using only 5 feet of movement, athlete. Ignore difficult terrain sometimes, speedy) You don't want to give away the benefits of a feat for the cost of a skill check.

If it helps, as a rule of thumb, I usually think of a dex save as trying to avoid something being done to you, while an acrobatics check is you choosing to do something. So, the floor drops out from under you, and you want to jump to safety, dex save. But then the dust settles, and you see the floor actually became a steep ramp. You want to try and slide down it and get to the bottom, all while remaining standing, that's when I, as the DM, call for you to make an acrobatics check. 

Player: "I want to make a history check to see what I know about this."

DM: "This is actually pretty common knowledge [then explains what that common knowledge is]" or "Considering your character's background, there is no way a hermit from the middle of the swamp knows which street in Sigil that shop is on."

Even this I would say is not quite right. Except in combat, the players never get to decide what they roll and should never be asking directly to use a specific skill. In this example it should go as follows:

Player: "Would my character know anything about this?"
DM: "Yes, because of you were once a criminal yourself you are very familiar with the criminal organization that uses this symbol" or "Possibly, roll a History check." or "No, you're not from around here, you wouldn't know anything about this symbol"

On the "No" answer, the player could follow up with:
Player: "I sketch it down in my spellbook, and I go to the library to see if I can learn anything about it."
DM: "Sure, roll and Investigation check."

Quote from Xalthu >>

The examples you cite are things you want to be able to do are things you can do if you take a feat. (Get up using only 5 feet of movement, athlete. Ignore difficult terrain sometimes, speedy) You don't want to give away the benefits of a feat for the cost of a skill check. 

I just want to mention this isn't necessarily true. A feat can make such a thing reliable, while requiring a skill check can be a way to enable something on a case by case basis with a little luck.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

 I've given several examples of things I think acrobatics should let you do, but they all involve breaking the rules in some way.  In what way are those unclear?

And no other skill works only like you say.  Let's look at some examples:

• Player: "I'm behind 3/4 cover, so I take the hide action to become hidden by rolling stealth."
• Player: "I take the study action to learn about that enemy.  It's a humanoid, so that's history, right?"
• Player: "I use the influence action with handle animal to try to make the wolf less hostile."
• Player: "I want to jump the 20' gap with a running start. I've got 18 feet from my Str score, what's the Athletics DC for an extra 2 feet?"
• Player: "I want to unlock the lock.  I get my thieves tools out to pick it with sleight of hand."

Sure, the DM can also call for a roll of a skill, but virtually every other skill has uses the player can initiate, knowing full well it will be a skill check with a particular skill.  

It's not that the DM can call for a roll. It's that the DM is the only one who calls for a roll. The player never says, I'm rolling this. It's more like:

Player: "I want to make the wolf less hostile."

DM who knows the wolf's babies are in the cave, and there's nothing the character could possibly do to achieve that result: "You try and make yourself seem less threatening, even maybe offering it a little food, but nothing you do seems to have an effect." (Personally, I usually add something like, "Even a Nat 20 is not going to calm this wolf down right now, so there's no roll.")

Player: "I want to make a history check to see what I know about this."

DM: "This is actually pretty common knowledge [then explains what that common knowledge is]" or "Considering your character's background, there is no way a hermit from the middle of the swamp knows which street in Sigil that shop is on."

Nonsense on the handle animal example.  At the very least, the player should learn that trying to approach the cave makes the wolf more agitated, but if they don't try to approach the cave, they should be able to influence it.  The wolf has clear goals, as long as the player isn't actively disrupting those goals, its attitude should be malleable.

That wolf doesn't want to get into a fight any more than the player making the 'handle animal' check does.  It's warning the player away from the cave, and someone good with handling animals should be able to figure that out without even rolling.  But the wolf also isn't about to start a fight unless its a last resort, because what it cares about is protecting its cubs.  And frankly, a player with a good handle animal check should be able to convince the wolf there's no threat to the cubs at all.

And I wasn't talking about a general knowledge check (which is just arbitrary DM fiat at any point in time).  I was talking about the study action.  You're looking at a creature.  You're watching it closely.  It covers deducing things from what you can observe.  Maybe you can figure out that it's immune to poison just by looking at it.  You always get an appropriate check (although the DM decides exactly what you learn, you should learn something, you spent an action on it, and learn more for a good check).  There's no asking permission with the study action, it's an action you affirmatively take, and then roll the check.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from Squirrelloid> 

I fully grant acrobatics is used for 'perform an acrobatic stunt', but mechanically what does that allow you to do?  Can you ignore difficult terrain?  Can you stand from prone for free?  If it doesn't do anything mechanically, then why are you rolling.  If it does do something mechanical, where does the rules give you permission to accomplish those things that normally have costs (movement in both cases).  

Let's just consider: "I do a prone kip-up to stand from prone".  ('Prone kip-up' is the name for the typical martial arts explosive stand from prone).  Well, it's clearly an acrobatic stunt, but does it do anything?  Rules say it costs half your movement to stand from prone.  If it still costs half your movement, then it was an acrobatic stunt, but it didn't do anything.  No need to even roll, it's just style.  If it reduces the movement cost, it's breaking the explicit movement rules, and there's no rules justification for it, so the DM is allowing you to break a rule on a skill check.

Can you come up with an acrobatic stunt that actually lets you do something which doesn't require house-ruling away a rule?

Quote from Agilemind>>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

If we're talking about creative solutions to problems, we're passed skill checks even being needed.  Magic will frequently solve any problem much easier, and there are plenty of creative solutions which will never require a skill check.

Sure you don't need a rope & skill checks to cross a chasm, you can just use Wall of Stone to build a bridge but you need a party of at least level 9 to do that and now you've used up one of the most powerful spell slots your party has, in order to do something you probably could have managed with: An Athletics check for the big strong boi to jump across with one end of a rope, an Sleight of Hand check to tie the rope good and snug, then some Acrobatics checks to climb across the rope as it is being held tight by the big strong boi. The weak scrawny Wizard might opt to still use a Misty Step to get themselves across if they are really bad at both Athletics and Acrobatics, but that is hardly solving the problem for the whole party. 

Just because you can't think of fun and cool ways to use skills doesn't mean other people can't. D&D is a creative improvisational  adventure game. It isn't a video game. You aren't limited to what the rule books say you can do, or what the programmer coded into the game engine. Go out and have fun thinking up new and crazy things to do in your campaign.

 I am unconvinced the rope requires any skill check at all.

Climbing a rope requires no skill check.  Climbing only requires a check when on a difficult surface (like it's slippery), and then its an athletics check, explicitly.  A rope is the easiest climbing surface imaginable.

Climbing across a horizontal rope is still climbing (indeed, it's even easier than going up a rope), so still an athletics check if a skill check is even needed.  But unless there's something making it unusually difficult (the rope is greased?), no check required.  Even the Str 8 wizard can cross the rope without a check, RAW.  (And this is just obviously a strength-based activity for anyone who has ever done such a thing).

I mean, yeah, the acrobat can walk across it, but everyone can get across just fine.

And if someone can just jump across the ravine, well, they can jump back and forth several times and make a 3-rope bridge, which should involve no skill check to cross.  (This is something well within the capabilities of an average teenager or adult).

However, you did cause me to find something which is explicitly an acrobatics check - using a grappling hook.  I would've guessed sleight of hand.  I'm not sure the DC13 is worth a skill proficiency, but it is something which acrobatics actually lets you do.

I can think of plenty of ways I'd like to use acrobatics.  But they all break the movement or action economy rules.

 When a rope is horizontal, you are not climbing it. I think the obvious thing here would be to say if you are trying to walk across it using your balance. Which would 100 percent be an acrobatics check. The mechanical thing it lets you do is cross the rope without falling. That's just one of the multiple examples others have explained throughout the thread. I guess if being prone and having difficult terrain are the only obstacles you ever deal with, then the skill would seem pretty useless. I'll grant you that. But that's not a failing of the rules.

You can absolutely climb a horizontal rope.  Grab it with both hands.  Swing your legs up around the rope.  Climb 'upwards' (horizontal to the ground).  Congrats, you're climbing a rope horizontally.

If you imagine you're moving hand-over-hand while your legs dangle, that's still a strength-based activity.  Pretty equivalent to climbing i'd say, i wouldn't ask for a check unless it was particularly long (and then I'd probably ask for Athletics (Constitution)).

Walking on it would be the last method the average person would try.

Quote from Xalthu >>

The examples you cite are things you want to be able to do are things you can do if you take a feat. (Get up using only 5 feet of movement, athlete. Ignore difficult terrain sometimes, speedy) You don't want to give away the benefits of a feat for the cost of a skill check.

If it helps, as a rule of thumb, I usually think of a dex save as trying to avoid something being done to you, while an acrobatics check is you choosing to do something. So, the floor drops out from under you, and you want to jump to safety, dex save. But then the dust settles, and you see the floor actually became a steep ramp. You want to try and slide down it and get to the bottom, all while remaining standing, that's when I, as the DM, call for you to make an acrobatics check. 

The examples i use are fairly basic acrobatic maneuvers that you should be able to accomplish solely based on acrobatic skill.  They shouldn't require a feat to do something basic involving acrobatics, otherwise why have the skill?  (And in fact, at least one previous edition did include many such things under 'acrobatics' = Tumble in 3.x).  What's the point of an acrobatic stunt if the stunt doesn't mechanically do anything?

An acrobatic stunt is something the player chooses to do.  The player has agency in deciding when they (potentially) roll acrobatics, not the DM.  The player should know what kinds of stunts they can accomplish, and what the results of performing such a stunt would be, and if the skill is to be meaningful, those results need to have mechanical consequences that are worth doing.  Otherwise its just style, and style doesn't require a roll or a skill proficiency.

And the save/action dichotomy doesn't make much sense.  Keeping your feet in a tricky situation is definitionally reactive, otherwise its not tricky.  A rocking ship in a storm is a hazard because its unpredictable.  It's no different in principle to an area of grease or a square with ball bearings.

And your own standards would mean that if a Grease spell is cast under you, it's a save, but if you want to walk across it, it's an acrobatics check.  Except its not, it's a save no matter what.  (Similarly, entering a square with ball bearings is you choosing to do something, not something being done to you).  And would a patch of slick ice be a dex save or an acrobatics check?  If the latter, in what way is it materially different than a Grease spell?

But in your example... why would it take an acrobatics check to descend the tilted stone?  Either you can move on it or you can't.  If it's difficult terrain, anyone can move on it with double cost, and you yourself says acrobatics doesn't allow you to ignore difficult terrain.  If you would fall prone at the bottom, then you're falling down it?  I don't think you've considered this example very well.  How do the normal movement rules handle it, and why can acrobatics change that?

You're basically saying that acrobatics is useless until the DM puts a hazard in that they arbitrarily decide calls for an acrobatics check.  But it's unclear what those would be, when all the defined examples, even of the class of things acrobatics says it covers, are all given dex saves.   And since most of the party is not going to have acrobatics, whatever that thing would be can almost certainly be avoided entirely.  The skill is effectively useless to take proficiency in.