Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Defined mechanical benefits of Athletics, as given in the glossary
Defined mechanical benefits of Acrobatics, as given in the glossary
First of all, there's a lot of overlap, which is yet more reason they should maybe be a single skill.
Secondly, the acrobatics list, while shorter, is non-zero.
Third, most uses of either skill are still up the DM. Which is no different from most skills -- good luck finding uses for history, nature, or religion that don't depend on the DM, for example.
Even those prior editions of D+D had uses of skills that you could do untrained. Just not everything.
And 5.5, at least, does have things you can only do if you're proficient, such as craft magic items (requires proficiency in Arcana). (Also requires an appropriate Tool proficiency). And indeed, any crafting task with a Tool requires proficiency in that tool.
And then there are things that you're theoretically allowed to attempt, but are numerically impossible without proficiency, so you never roll. (Example: Hide from a Beholder, for most characters without magical assistance, as it requires a 23 stealth roll to beat its passive perception.) A DC>25 is impossible for any character who isn't proficient, even if they have a 20 in the stat. (I'm aware of a handful of DC30s in published adventures).
And there are plenty of places where you do 'use a skill'. You lie to the guards - you use deception. You pick a lock - you use sleight of hand (and/or Thieves Tools). You take the Hide action - you use stealth. Most skills are used for specific, predictable, player-initiated tasks with well-defined outcomes. (They may get rolled at other times as well). IIRC, there's only ~4 proficiencies not explicitly connected to available actions.
I think this is a strawman.
Sure, the climb rules let you climb a slope at your climb speed (though maybe it requires pitons and rope?) But since it's just a slope, not a rock wall, as the DM I may rule that you could scramble up the slope at full speed with an Acrobatics check.
Really, it's very similar to traversing a horizontal rope strung across a gap: you could "climb" the rope at your climb speed, with minimal risk, or you could go full speed by tightroping across it with an Acrobatics check.
This isn't "general" (it's a DM call), and neither is it ignoring the climb rules. It's an alternative.
I would accept the above as a general rule, provided there was language about differentiating between "must climb" or "could climb or roll Acrobatics." Such language would be super vague, necessarily, and is exaclty the sort of thing D&D traditionally treats as "rulings, not rules."
Also, there are probably cases where an Acrobatics check (or maybe the Monk's Acrobatic Movement feature) would be the only way to cross --- like traversing a room by swinging from the chandeliers... I can't imagine a ruleset pre-adjucating all the cases for me, without being an unreadable and unplayable mess...so, it's up to DM rulings.
How can you assert that? It's not your example. Perhaps the slope is covered in loose rock. Or maybe it's so smooth that there's no handhold. Or maybe you can climb, but a controlled slide is faster.
The possibilities are many and varied.
Even if that's so, verisimilitude goes right out the window when you do that.
But it's not so. If the GM says there's continuous movement, then there's continuous movement. That's the rules.
"Strict RAW" is unplayable. The written rules do not answer many basic questions. They cannot address every possible situation.
Anyone who claims to be playing "strict RAW" is playing with their set of assumptions and interpretations, and claiming they're written in the rules.
(By "strict RAW", those hell motorcycles likely zoom off, leaving their riders behind. The rules don't actually say riders move with their mounts.)
Anyway, you're only talking "strict RAW" when it's convenient for you. When you try to apply climbing to things that aren't ascending a vertical surface, like a crossing a rope bridge, or brachiating, you're not doing strict RAW. These might be reasonable interpretations, but they are interpretations.
That's an interpretation.
It's not even in the sage advice collections, which are the official interpretations. Crawford did not speak ex cathedra. Which is good, because he was quite capable of contradicting himself or the actual rules.
(Frankly, several of the official sage advice rulings are sketchy or just plain wrong. But that's a topic for another day.)
No.
It's a waste of time. You'll just respond with your arguments about how that can totally be done under some strained interpretation of the rules, and acrobatics isn't necessary.
I can respond to circumstances in a manner suitable to my character. And, assuming my DM isn't being weird about it, I can get some level of situational benefit for doing so, by being able to do things I couldn't have done without using the Acrobatics skill or some other resource.
Wait, are you now arguing that the author of an officially published adventure was wrong to recommend asking for a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check in this particular scenario? That's . . . not really a thing. The author can write the adventure however he wants to write it.
This is just one example of a very particular scenario where a player might have their character attempt to do something that the DM decides (in this case, baked into the adventure) that it has some chance for success and some chance for failure. In this case, the DM also decides (according to the adventure) that being proficient in the Acrobatics skill gives you a better chance for success than not being proficient in that skill.
The adventure is explicitly declaring that this activity is more difficult than just walking through difficult terrain (auto-success) and is less difficult than it being impossible / impassable (auto-fail). Whenever circumstances are such that the outcome of success or failure is uncertain, the DM asks for an ability check.
Note that the scenario being presented is not the same as merely squeezing through a narrow space ("a narrow opening sized for a creature one size smaller than you"). In this case, there is plenty of space -- it's just that the ledge itself is narrow and awkwardly located right up against a wall. It is certainly reasonable for the DM to determine that this is also Difficult Terrain for the purposes of determining the speed of traversal, but to determine success or failure a different mechanic is used and is explicitly called for by the adventure.
I've previously quoted the difference between a saving throw and an ability check directly from the rules. But more informally, a saving throw is a mechanic which represents an immediate self-preservation reflex which occurs when something undesirable happens to you. In contrast, a DM can call for an ability check when a creature attempts to do something.
Keep in mind that you can also set up scenarios where both mechanics could be applied consecutively. As DM, for this exact scenario I certainly might consider that -- especially if falling into the rapids is likely to be particularly devastating. If doing it that way, first, I would call for the Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if the character can do the thing without slipping. Next, if he does slip (as determined by the failed ability check) then I might ask for a Dexterity Saving throw to see if he can reflexively re-catch his balance before falling into the river. Heck, even after that if he DOES fall into the river a DM could then ask for Strength Saving throw to see if he can hang onto the rock with his arms and/or stand firmly on the bottom of the river without being swept away by the rapids. If THAT is successful then maybe a DM might ask for a Strength (Athletics) check if the character attempts to pull himself back up onto the rock or attempts to swim to the opposite bank amidst the strong current, and so on. The DM determines all of these things on the fly depending on exactly what is happening in the moment.
Ok, so we can now compare my above scenario to the Grease spell. The first answer to this question is: because that's how the author write the Grease spell and spells do what they say.
But how might we interpret this? Well, that's actually pretty straightforward. When I, as the DM, created my above scenario for landing on this particular wet rock I have determined that it is possible to do this without slipping. In contrast, the author of the Grease spell has determined that the surface containing this grease is NOT possible to land on without slipping. In other words, an attempt to do so is an auto-fail which means there is no ability check for attempting this. The obvious conclusion is that the greasy surface is more slippery than my particular wet rock. So now, once you are already slipping, a Dexterity Saving Throw determines the outcome for that.
To extend this example, it gets even more interesting. Maybe I've decided that my particular wet rock is slippery enough to warrant a DC 10 on the Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. But, in a parallel scenario where the character attempts to land on a different rock that is just ever so slightly more slippery or more sloped or is slightly smaller, etc., then perhaps I might set the DC for landing on that particular rock at DC 11. Some other rock might require a DC 12. And so on until finally the attempt to do this becomes so difficult that it's just an auto-fail. At which point it would be similar to the Grease spell.
Now this point I completely agree with. In my opinion, DMs should really try harder to avoid doing this. Characters should be failing all sorts of activities on Level 1 and succeeding on lots of these same activities at a much higher rate at high levels. But what you are pointing out here is not really baked into the system as written. It's just what a lot of people tend to do. The other way that people get lazy about setting DCs is that they tend to set it up so that every check is approximately 50/50. But there really should be all sorts of situations where the character should succeed like 90 - 95% of the time. If you ever see a player react with like an "aw, really?" when asked to make a check it's because they feel like their character should pretty much always succeed but they know that as soon as the dice get involved that there is a much higher than reasonable chance that they will be told that the character has failed. Totally agree with this gripe.
These sorts of statements still make it seem like you are not thinking about the 5e/5.5e skill system in the way that it is designed.
For example, in some older versions of D&D a Thief might decide to try to climb up a wall and to do that they would make a "Climb Walls check". A particular Thief might be quite skilled at climbing walls which would help for this check.
But that's not really what the concept of a Skill is in 5e/5.5e. A skill is not a specific activity. It is more of a general talent which is applied to a very broad category of activities. To help inspire a DM to determine for themselves which activities fall into which categories, a few examples are given in the text as well as a brief general description of what sorts of things the skill might apply to in general. But when something specific comes up during a game from among an infinite number of possibilities, by rule, it is up to the DM to determine which skills apply to a particular task that is being attempted.
Yeah, Acrobatics should just be Dexterity (Athletics). The rules already let you switch abilities on skill checks when it's appropriate, making Acrobatics a completely redundant skill.
The only times I've ever been asked to roll an Acrobatics check was for Rule of Cool stuff, like "I Misty Step on top of the flying monster and start stabbing" or "I slide down the rope upside down by crossing my legs, and then shoot at the monsters with my dual-wielded hand crossbows".
These cases aren't really covered by the rules. It's kinda weird to have a skill being only relevant when thinking outside the box, and even then, Dexterity (Athletics) would have worked just as well.
Not at all. Until 2024 rules, almost none of the skills had explicit actions attached to them. The normal way to use skills in RPGs is for creatively overcoming challenges, and that mechanic is by far the most widespread among TTRPGs. It's honestly so baffling to me that so many people on this forum seem to not know the basics of how to play not just D&D but any TTRPG. Two of the "Three Pillars of Adventure" rely exclusively on skill checks and require creativity to be successful at, so I honestly have no clue how any of the people arguing that Acrobatics is unusable could be actually playing the game at all. It would be an absolute disaster, if they actually played anything close to how they are claiming as how the game "works RAW".
And Animal Handling should just be Insight but applied to an animal, Sleight of Hand could just be Stealth, Medicine could be replaced by Intelligence (Survival), Intimidation be replaced with Strength (Deception), Religion could be Wisdom (Investigation) or Wisdom (Arcana), Nature could be Intelligence (Animal Handling), etc.. etc... etc...
The number of skills is pretty arbitrary, they are that number for historical reasons to provide consistency across editions. They are also that way to make it harder for any character to be good at everything as that would be very boring.