| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what the CRB gives us for these two skills:
Athletics allows you to perform deeds of physical
prowess. When you use the Escape basic action (page
470), you can use your Athletics modifier instead of your
unarmed attack modifier.
Actions:
ClimbForce Open
Grapple
High Jump
Long Jump
Shove
Swim
Trip
Disarm
Acrobatics measures your ability to perform tasks requiring
coordination and grace. When you use the Escape basic
action (page 470), you can use your Acrobatics modifier
instead of your unarmed attack modifier.
Actions:
BalanceTumble Through
Squeeze (can only be done trained?)
On the surface, this all makes sense, except for when I had a player turn into a cat and then get a -4 athletics score.
I agree that, fundamentally, jumping and climbing require a lot of strength, but only really in comparison to your own body type and weight. The pest form gives a +10 to acrobatics, but the way the skills are written, it doesn't really seem that by RAW your pest form can climb a tree or jump up to fence level.
But this issue really extends beyond just the spell pest form because the line between that is an acrobatics check, vs that is an athletics check is often pretty nebulous. Personally, as a GM, I usually let my players use either athletics or acrobatics for many actions that feel like they might be walking a line between the two.
For example if my player says:
"I want to cart wheel onto the 4ft high stone fence."
That sounds like an acrobatics check, except you can't get 4 ft into the air with a acrobatics check by the rules. Instead of requiring 2 rolls, I just say, go ahead and give me an acrobatics check, because the player is clearly framing the action as an acrobatics skill check and not a athletics one.
Do other folks allow their players the same leeway? Or do you think all acts of climbing or Jumping must require an athletics check (if they fall outside of the standard leap action)?
|
Do other folks allow their players the same leeway?
As a GM I definitely allow some leeway and will often give the players the choice.
In PFS most GMs more or less follow the rules as written but there is some leeway. That said, there are quite a few PFS scenarios where the authors seem to ignore the rules and call for a specific check OR allow a choice.
It seems that most people (including PFS authors) have decided that what we consider acrobatics in the real world (tumbling, hand springs, etc) does fall under Acrobatics :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, as GM I will often tell players "pick Acrobatics or Athletics to do this", if it makes sense than either would work. Climb? Pick. Want to carry something heavy? Must use Atheltics. Want to do some fancy jumps between handholds? Must be Acrobatics.
|
In the example of the 4 foot fence, I would call for Athletics to jump up there, and Acrobatics to balance.
If I need to explain that with a real world example, I can think of plenty of muscular people who can't balance, and plenty of dexterous people who can't perform feats of strength.
I think Pathfinder does an adequate job of simulating this.
As someone who wrestled way back in high school, I can tell you that escaping a grapple can be done either by just being slippery (Acrobatics) or through brute strength (Athletics).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably let Acrobatics be used in place of Athletics for jumping or climbing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Bestiary, this is handled by simply giving extra modifiers to thing a creature would be good at, in a way that isn't represented by their stats.
For example, a Giant Frog does not conjure an image of a creature that is especially Athletic or Acrobatic, but we all know that they can jump well.
So, they have Acrobatics +5, Athletics +6 (+10 to High Jump or Long Jump).
That seems like the most reasonable approach to me.
The issue with Pest Form is that it's an abstraction. Whether the player says he turns into a Cat, a Mouse, or a Caterpillar is irrelevant, the stats are the same. So yeah, a -4 Jump modifier seems terrible for a Cat, but it's mythical for a Snail.
I would be very careful about allowing Acrobatics checks in place of Athletics checks. You can flavor Climbing, Jumping, Swimming, etc... into Acrobatics checks, but that's a one way street. Nobody is rolling Athletics to Balance or Tumble.
Given that Athletics is the only STR based Skill, basically relegating it to Pushing, Pulling, and Lifting is a bad idea.
Everyone will quickly learn to dump it and focus even more on Acrobatics, which is already a vastly superior Skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you jump over the fence, it's Athletics.
If you flip over the fence, it's Acrobatics.
:)
I think this needs a sidebar, since I doubt one could develop rigorous rules around this. A feeble, dexterous Wizard might Fly really well, yet if they could seldom jump that fence, I doubt they'd be able to flip over it easily. On the other hand, as noted above, one wouldn't want to force two checks for one athletic exhibition of acrobatics if the Swashbuckler did want to flip over it (being all swashy like that).
Yeah, for me as a GM, I definitely want the players to choose to do bold daring things, and that is why I don't want to punish them by making them roll twice because they want to be flashy in how they get over the wall.
It is too bad that overrun is really not a thing in PF2, but until it is, I would consider letting a player use athletics to accomplish the same thing as tumbling through, although I'd make them target fortitude instead of reflex. I appreciate how formal the skills of PF2 are in what they allow and don't allow, but as a GM, I think I err to the side of being more loose with them.
As far as balance goes, it would be trickier and more environmentally dependent, but I could see myself allowing an athletic character the ability to use athletics instead of acrobatics if they have a rough wall or rope available to pull themselves along. I might boost the DC by 2 if it feels like a stretch, but I would probably do it as a circumstance penalty to the roll instead of adjusting it on my side of the screen. I give out a lot of circumstance bonuses and penalties as a GM to encourage tactical behavior.
Requiring all 4 members of the party to take athletics and acrobatics or else be stuck in place during interesting environmental encounters just feels too punishing for the style of play I want to encourage.
Interestlingly, I had almost the exact same example someone posted, with a character tightrope walking as a more difficult acrobatics check, instead of climbing on 's rope, come up in a game I ran, also.
I would be loathe to move a lot if jumping over to acrobatics, though. There's a reason that if you look at acrobats and gymnasts, it's clear that they did not dump strength.
I've never seen a player make the argument for acrobatics over athletics when their acrobatics score is lower than their athletics. They just want a better bonus to the roll. No. If you want to be good at the things athletics does, raise your athletics skill. If you want to be good at the things acrobatics does, raise your acrobatics. If you want both, well...raise both.
As a GM, when I determine what check a player needs to use to perform a maneuver they're attempting, I listen for their description and adjudicate accordingly or I evaluate the situation and tell them what skill the roll will be.
Personally, I want my players looking and feeling heroic, not like they are 5th level local heroes that can't get over a 6ft stone wall. I am happy to have them describe an acrobatic approach to get over the wall and then letting them roll with acrobatics instead of athletics. I have rarely found players to push their ideas beyond the realm of possible, even if improbable skill uses, and if it is that improbable, I just add a circumstance penalty.
Again, this is just how I do it, and I think every table should arbitrate the rules as they see fit. It is probably a good idea as the GM to be clear up front about whether you encourage players being creative with skill usage or if you think that it will disrupt your game to have a player suggest that they want to summersault up a tree. I have been thinking a lot about trying to put together a Fan-based GM guide that talks about how to establish expectations for the kind of play you want to see at the table. I fear I am just too lazy to organize it as such.
Has anyone in hear read about or actually tried to develop a vertical leap. Dexterity (and thus acrobatics) has almost nothing to do with it
It is muscle strength
As per Kasoh - people just want to use the highest number they have. It is fine taking a liberal interpretation at early levels when things are really close
But if you use Acrobatics for jumping on say a 8 strength, 22 Dex Rogue with Legendary in Acrobatics and Trained in Athletics (extreme example I know) then it breaks the balance a little bit in my view
No. If you want to be good at the things athletics does, raise your athletics skill. If you want to be good at the things acrobatics does, raise your acrobatics. If you want both, well...raise both.
I generally agree with this.
Though I can also sympathize with why this is frustrating for some people because PF2 doesn't give you a lot of top level skills. If you're raising both regularly that's eating up a lot of your increases.
|
In general I caution GMs against allowing players to use acrobatics in place of athletics unless the substitution is explicitly allowed by a feat or something similar. Dexterity is already a very strong stat with very strong skills. House rules that further increase the value of dexterity only pushes the balance of the game in the wrong direction.
It's also worth noting that PF2 is on the far end of the simulationism spectrum. As a system, this edition heavily favors relative game balance over verisimilitude. For example, we regularly have 40 lbs goblins that are as physically strong as 200 lbs half-orcs.
|
One problem with shifting so many things to Athletics to keep people from dumping STR is that it allows people to dump DEX. Why does a full plate wearing fighter need DEX? I agree that an acrobat in the real world would have strength. The issue is that for all of the items under athletics, you only need strength. And under the current rules, the Fighter is taking no penalty to jumping, climbing, or anything else as long as they have an 18 STR. Shifting things away from dex and to strength has created as many weird situations as it has solved. You shouldn’t be dumping either if you want to mirror reality.
I don’t know what the game balance fix is, but a feat to allow you to substitute acrobatics or substitute dex for STR on athletics for some things might be a place to start. I’m not sure where feats like that fall in the 2E design, though, given that we still have things like dex to damage locked behind one specific class and racket.
If you want a good example of substituting dex for str and vice-versa to accomplish the same things, watch the opening chase from Casino Royale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no athletics or acrobatics, only parkour!
|
|
As far as skills are concerned:
* Dumping strength means you struggle with climbing/swimming.
* Dumping dexterity means you struggle with balancing, sneaking, and stealing.
I'd say strong characters are already far more heavily punished for dumping dex than dexterous characters are punished for dumping strength. This doesn't account for the delta on ranged attacks, saves, and AC (outside full plate). If we're going to introduce more ways to invalidate strength, we would need even more options for replacing dexterity.
A barbarian in a loincloth is even less viable in PF2 than it was in PF1.
Yeah, for me as a GM, I definitely want the players to choose to do bold daring things, and that is why I don't want to punish them by making them roll twice because they want to be flashy in how they get over the wall.
It is too bad that overrun is really not a thing in PF2, but until it is, I would consider letting a player use athletics to accomplish the same thing as tumbling through, although I'd make them target fortitude instead of reflex. I appreciate how formal the skills of PF2 are in what they allow and don't allow, but as a GM, I think I err to the side of being more loose with them.
As far as balance goes, it would be trickier and more environmentally dependent, but I could see myself allowing an athletic character the ability to use athletics instead of acrobatics if they have a rough wall or rope available to pull themselves along. I might boost the DC by 2 if it feels like a stretch, but I would probably do it as a circumstance penalty to the roll instead of adjusting it on my side of the screen. I give out a lot of circumstance bonuses and penalties as a GM to encourage tactical behavior.
Requiring all 4 members of the party to take athletics and acrobatics or else be stuck in place during interesting environmental encounters just feels too punishing for the style of play I want to encourage.
Isn't shove basically over-run? Seems to work the same way.
I'd say strong characters are already far more heavily punished for dumping dex than dexterous characters are punished for dumping strength
I think that's sort of true, but is in large part dependent on what tools you have access to.
For a class that doesn't interact directly with physical stats at all, like a pure caster, Dex is strictly superior because it augments your defenses and you don't really care about the stuff Strength enables you to do.
On the other hand, I think I'd be more okay with completely ignoring Dex on a Champion than I would be completely ignoring Strength on a monk
|
|
Every melee character except thief rogues needs strength for damage and every character that wants to wear more than leather armor needs strength to avoid armor check penalties. Every character needs strength for bulk, unless you’re investing other feats or spells to overcome it.
Balancing is far less common than climbing, swimming, or jumping. Sneaking is pretty common, but there’s also following the expert which can help a lot in that situation.
To me, STR is far more valuable than DEX in 2E, at least in a melee build. I’ve managed a 10 STR Rogue (Thief), but even with that I’m potentially going to need to take hefty hauler at some point). And that’s currently the only martial build I can see that can do that.
Even a lot of ranged builds need STR for damage, thanks to propulsive.
|
|
I think it's important to differentiate between what a character needs and what a character benefits from.
With a few exceptions, most characters can get by with 10 strength and still carry all their necessary gear. Other than potentially bomber alchemists, I don't think carrying capacity has proven to be a problem for anyone.
An archer benefits from strength to bump their damage but the returns are minimal. I would hardly consider strength necessary to make an archer viable.
With how crits work and how punishing they are it's important that everyone maximize their AC within the bounds of their class. Almost every character that's not in fullplate needs a hefty dexterity investment in order to keep their AC at the baseline. Yes, in some cases they also need some strength in order to avoid a penalty on movement speed and skills but those penalties aren't as crippling as having AC that's below par.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost every character that's not in fullplate needs a hefty dexterity investment in order to keep their AC at the baseline.
A medium armor character can max out their AC with a 12 in Dex. I'm not sure I'd call that a 'hefty' investment. Light armor characters need more, but classes restricted to light armor are generally ones with more of a Dex lean anyways.
The problem you're describing really only exists for a handful of specific builds (Dragon Monks primarily, Animal Barbarians to a lesser extent, Demonic Sorcerers who want to actually use their focus spell and can't afford Champion dedication) rather than being systemic like you're suggesting.
|
|
I think it's important to differentiate between what a character needs and what a character benefits from.
With a few exceptions, most characters can get by with 10 strength and still carry all their necessary gear. Other than potentially bomber alchemists, I don't think carrying capacity has proven to be a problem for anyone.
At low levels, when you can't afford much gear. Once you have a bunch of worn or utility items, you can definitely get to 5 9L bulk quick and be sweating picking up anything.
At 5th level, my Rogue is at 5 bulk carrying:
Leather Armor 1
Shortbow 1
Healer's Tools 1
Repair Kit 1
plus 10L worth of other items.
He does have a backpack, which gives 2 more free bulk, but that's quickly taken up by the other items in an Adventurer's Pack and a Climbing Kit. So I've got 9L worth of bulk to play with, and I can't pick anything up that's 1 bulk or more without being encumbered.
If I wanted Medium Armor, I'd be encumbered. If I wanted a 1 bulk weapon instead of light weapons (hello, Rapier), I'd be encumbered.
I'm just at a point where I can start spending gold on things other than basic upgrades. So Healer's Gloves? That 1L. Boots of Elvenkind? 1L A wand of Longstrider to use with Trick Magic Item? 1L.I'm managing, but it's pretty quickly going to get to the point where I'm either buying a Lifting Belt or taking Hefty Hauler.
I'm not a small ancestry, but keep in mind that small ancestries in 2E don't get the benefit of half weight/bulk on their equipment. So if I was an ancestry that took a STR penalty, and I didn't buy it up, I would already be medium encumbered, just from pretty basic gear (weapons, armor, and the items necessary to adventure/use my skills).
As for Archers... you can be effective with a 10 STR, but static bonuses to damage are also much harder to come by in 2E. And if you want a static bonus, then you're boosting STR to 14 or more to even get a small benefit. Thrown weapon characters (of which I've seen a few) get more benefit from STR.
Both DEX and STR have value. I'm not saying DEX doesn't. But there is far less negative impact by having a 10 DEX than by having a 10 STR, because it is much, much easier to compensate for a 10 DEX. Especially now that you don't need it for things like jumping. Reflex saves are probably the best argument for it, but Bulwark means the heavy armor character doesn't even need it for that.
Bulwark gives 3 bonus, but only work on damage, any other effect that target reflex you will have +0, like trip, shockwave and resilient sphere.
Medium armor characters that start at 12 and don't put more Dex will sucks at reflex saves in general, I hope that you enjoy crit failing against damage spells later.
|
|
Bulwark gives 3 bonus, but only work on damage, any other effect that target reflex you will have +0, like trip, shockwave and resilient sphere.
Medium armor characters that start at 12 and don't put more Dex will sucks at reflex saves in general, I hope that you enjoy crit failing against damage spells later.
Unless you're boosting it to 16 to start, you're talking a 5%-10% difference. Not insignificant, but certainly not vital to a character's survival. And the same can be said for Con and Wisdom, so everybody needs a 16 in all of those, too? You're at least going to be trained in Reflex, so as long as you're not taking a penalty, your DC is at 10+level+2, even with a 10 Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has no one mentioned this yet? It seems like the perfect example of when to use this rule regarding skill key ability
If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC.
So if a player turns into a cat and gets a -4 to their strength modifier, but it makes sense that they would be using dexterity to climb - recalculate their athletics skill bonus using their DEX modifier in place of their STR modifier. That way they are still using athletics training for climb, but they are using their dexterity to do it with.
|
|
Has no one mentioned this yet? It seems like the perfect example of when to use this rule regarding skill key ability
If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC.So if a player turns into a cat and gets a -4 to their strength modifier, but it makes sense that they would be using dexterity to climb - recalculate their athletics skill bonus using their DEX modifier in place of their STR modifier. That way they are still using athletics training for climb, but they are using their dexterity to do it with.
In theory, you are correct. In practice, it's a whole lot of table variation. See the pages long discussions on trip with a Finesse weapon. Had they given some examples, it would have been incredibly helpful. But even then, you're going to have GMs who limit things to those specific examples.
The problem is, you don’t have a -4 str modifier. You have a -4 athletics check. Polymorph spells don’t give you the attributes, only set attack bonuses and skill bonuses.
|
|
That applies for that particular spell, but for creatures in general the other rule is supposed to make using dex easier. What we don’t have is something specific like we did in 1E, where tiny or smaller creatures automatically use dex for things like CMB, swimming, and climbing. And where CMD included both STR and DEX. (Edit: unless we do. I admit to not having gone through the Bestiary looking for something like that).