# Acrobatics vs. Athletics



## kristov (Feb 7, 2009)

Ok, I have read a few guides made by other people who always say that Atheltics is a far better skill than Acrobatics is and will be used far more often.

My character will have a 10 STR and a 20 DEX so and I can either take Athletics or Acrobatics at this point (not both because I took other useful skills).

So do you think it is worth me taking Athletics (w/ a 10 str) or can I take Acrobatics (w/ a 20 dex) and make it work.

Lets say for example the dm says climbing out of a pit will be a DC 20 athletics check. Could I then say instead of doing just an athletic climb, im going to use the corner of the pit and do some crazy fancy ninja "parkour" running up the wall and flipping over the edge to get out. This of course would be using my acrobatics skill. Do you think I could pull this kind of stuff often enough to make it worth while?


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Feb 7, 2009)

kristov said:


> Lets say for example the dm says climbing out of a pit will be a DC 20 athletics check. Could I then say instead of doing just an athletic climb, im going to use the corner of the pit and do some crazy fancy ninja "parkour" running up the wall and flipping over the edge to get out.




Well, that really depend on the DM.

That being said, what you suggest is basically climbing and jumping super fast...  

Athletic is for climbing and jumping.  I wouldn't allow someone to use a skill not specifically designed for climbing in order to do it better than the guy who has the right skill!

Parkour is still athletic IMO, but with a penalty to climb faster.  Parkour runners are not normally beefy fellow but I'd point out they never have skinny arms either.  It takes a lot of upper body strenght to do what they do.  

---

Acrobatic is still very useful for a would be Parkour PC.  Jumping down from great height without taking damage comes to mind.  It turned out to be very useful in a campaign I run.

All in all, athetic and acrobatic do not interesect except for the possibility to escape grab.  Even then, the difference in some monsters between Fortitude and reflex is so extreme that a a PC trained in one but not the other might direly regret it if he is ever grabbed.


----------



## Smeelbo (Feb 8, 2009)

I tend to be somewhat forgiving on creative use of abilities, but even so, the question is, what can you do with a stunt?  The PHB lists _"somersaulting over an enemies head"_ as an example of a typical stunt, but gives almost no guidelines for stunts.  I think someone trained in _Athletics_ would be justifiably miffed if _Acrobatics_ was a near-substitute for _Athletics_.

So I'd rule that if the terrain or situation favored a stunt, then it would be possible.  So for example, curtains on the wall, the heads of nearby enemies to dance upon, a little help from your friends _(alley OOP!)._  But I'd also make it more dangerous than a straightforward use of _Athletics_, and simply disallow it when there was no material at hand to support the stunt.

Because stunt resolution is so DM-dependent, _Athletics_ is far and away the safer bet.

My conclusion for my own ranger is that at first level, I trained _Athletics_, but I plan on training (or retraining for) _Acrobatics_ at a higher level, for the Epic Feat _Flanking Manuever_ if nothing else.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## nittanytbone (Feb 9, 2009)

I would advise taking hte training in Acrobatics.

I like having one skill I can use very reliably rather than two that are both marginal.  With your maxed Acrobatics, you can disregard most level-appropriate falls, pull off some acrobatic stunts.  Just avoid Athletics checks as much as possible (easy to do with gear -- carry a Floating Shield, level 1 item, for swim checks;  carry a rope and grappling hook for climb checks).


----------



## tbk409 (Feb 9, 2009)

A little off-topic, but always house ruled rogues (and only rogues) could use acrobatics to climb.  (In 3e we let them use DEX to climb checks.)  This is just to preserve the old school "rogues are good at climbing" thing.


----------



## paradox23 (Feb 9, 2009)

As a general rule of thumb I like to remember that this is a game and you are presumably playing it to have fun.  The rules keep things consistent to better facilitate having fun because you know what to expect and what you can and presumably can't do as well.  That being said let's take a common sense look at how we can use the basic framework of these rules to make it possible for players to use the skills they have to achieve their desired goals.  

Jumping and Climbing are Athletic feats.  They usually require Strength to pull off successfully.  However, you don't have to be brawny to be a good jumper or climber.  If you are quite nimble or maybe you don't have a lot of muscle, but know how to use what you've got quite well (ie. Dexterity), that can make up for it.  I usually allow a character trained in Acrobatics to do many of the same feats that normally require Athletics but at a altered DC. 

A 6' tall, strong, and athletic human fighter needs to make it over a wall.  He might be able to make a vertical jump to grab a ledge 10' up and pull himself over it.  He'd need to jump up 4' to grab it.  With a running start, this would be a DC 20 Athletics check. DC 18 if there was a rope or vines to help him climb.

A 4' halfling rogue with a high dex and acrobatic training might be able to find a much different way of traversing that wall.  Maybe there is a pole arm laying around and she uses it to vault over with a simple base DC 15 acrobatic feat + 10 to avoid falling damage on the way back down for a DC 25 check.  Perhaps she can Jackie Chan it and just run up the wall at a DC 15 + 1/foot vertically traversed for a DC 25 check to run up the wall utilizing speed and balance in place of strength.  ​
The mechanics of 4e are made to keep things as simplified as possible but that doesn't mean there isn't room for interpretation or creativity.


----------



## Smeelbo (Feb 10, 2009)

I think there are intentionally a lot of hard choices to be made when creating 4E characters, and _Acrobatics _or_ Athletics_ or both is just one of them. Rogues get a lot of skills, they can take both if they want to be good at physical things, at the cost perhaps of a not training social skill.  Multi-classing Ranger will get you either skill, and _Hunter's Prey_ once per encounter to boot.

I wouldn't allow acrobatic stunts to substitute for _Athletics_ unless there was terrain or other considerations that supported a stunt.

Smeelbo


----------



## Alan Shutko (Feb 10, 2009)

Take Athletics.  As the majority of the responses here have indicated, Acrobatics is almost always going to be considered by DMs to be more risky and less useful than athletics, because it doesn't spell out anything in the PHB and they don't like the overlap with Athletics.  I've had a hard enough time getting my DM to let me do the EXAMPLES in the PHB, and right now, I've given up using it for anything more than fall checks and balance.  

Unless you have a kind DM, you're going to see much higher DCs on anything involving acrobatics, and that'll negate the bonus you get from your stat.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Feb 10, 2009)

One of the problems that I have with the idea of substituting Acrobatics checks for actions that fall under Athletics is that you never see the reverse.  When 20 STR Fighter with Athletics wants to make a leap from a 20' ledge he shouldn't get to say "Well, because I'm so strong my legs can obviously take the brunt of the force of the fall, and so I should be able to make an Athletics check to avoid damage".  I would think that most of the Rogue players would have a problem with that.  So why should it be excepted to do the reverse?

In the case of the 20' ledge thing, both Acrobatics and Athletics can get you out of it.  A Rogue will merely step off the ledge and land rolling, stand up, dust himself off and take no damage.  The brawny Fighter is going to say "Yeah, forget that" and instead just free climb down the sheer rock face using nothing but brute strength to grip the tiny handholds.

This is why they're two different abilities, is to allow for multiple solutions for different situations.  If the Fighter and the Rogue are stuck in a pit, for example, then the Fighter will have to take the lead here.  He can climb out, drop a rope and hoist the Rogue up if need be.  When it comes time thread through a gauntlet while avoiding guillotines and fire traps, that would be the dextrous Rogue's job.  He'll be able to thread through it with twirls and somersaults in order to get to the end and hit the switch that turns the gauntlet off.

Constantly watering down Athletics by allowing Acrobatics checks just makes the Rogue the star of the show while taking away from one of the few non-combat the Defenders can do to contribute.  Rogues and Rangers tend to be the skill monkeys anyway, so they really get to shine during skill challenges and non-combat situations.  Athletics is one of the ways that a good DM can get the Defenders involved by allowing them the chance to contribute occasionally.  Throw in something something like a 30 foot pit that needs to be jumped over, and that's all about the Fighter.  Or a big wall to climb so that he can throw down a ladder rope for the rest of the party.  If you're just gonna going to make it so that the Rogue can do these things, then what's the point of the Fighter even paying attention during the non-combat portions of the game?  (And there have actually been several times in my game where I've just gone out and had a smoke during some of the non-combat stuff for exactly that reason, because there's nothing for me to do because everyone else is better at the required skills than I am.)


----------



## Obryn (Feb 10, 2009)

I know, I'm a heathen, but I allow them to be used almost interchangably, if I can imagine how it'd work.

I might set different DCs depending on the circumstances, but skills are vague as it is, and I don't mind a little more vagueness.  I just think of Athletics as "Moving around with Strength" and Acrobatics as "Moving around with Dexterity."  There aren't many good ways to swim nimbly, or to break a fall with strength, but I can certainly imagine acrobatic jumps and the like.

With that said, it _is_ very DM-dependent.  If your DM isn't flexible, Acrobatics will be far less useful.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Feb 10, 2009)

The problem with "Acrobatic jumps and the like" is that the DO require some strength.  You ever see the legs on a gymnast?

Or, here's a better example.  My wife was a cheerleader back in the day, and used to constantly work on her legs to help her with all of the cheer stuff.  She had a friend that was into martial arts and wanted her to do a scissor lock on him so he could try and escape it.  He kept saying "Yeah, just squeeze as hard as you can.  I need it to be a good lock to see if I'm doing my escape right."  Well, when she squeezed harder, she broke one of his ribs.  =)

The point is, while most people think of cheerleading as something that's "Acrobatic", it actually requires a LOT of strength as well.  Essentially, if we look at it from a D&D perspective, she had training in Acrobatics AND Athletics...and then would use one or both skills depending on what she was doing.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 10, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> The problem with "Acrobatic jumps and the like" is that the DO require some strength.  You ever see the legs on a gymnast?



Sure... in the real world.  I try not to compare D&D and the real world, though - that way lies madness and thirty-page messageboard debates.

It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas.  I like this, and my players do, too.

The distinction between Acrobatics and Athletics is a somewhat artificial one, having no analogue in the real world, and I'm in favor of blurring those boundaries when it makes for a more enjoyable game at my table.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Feb 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> *Sure... in the real world.  I try not to compare D&D and the real world, though - that way lies madness and thirty-page messageboard debates.*
> 
> It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas.  I like this, and my players do, too.
> 
> ...




Not to nitpick, but those statements are mutually exclusive.  I just gave you real world analogue, and you said not to compare to the real world.  

You mention a more enjoyable game though...but more enjoyable for whom?  As I said before, I have yet to see an argument for the reverse situation of letting Athletics checks sub for abilities that would fall under purview of Acrobatics.  So now you're expanding the scope of Acrobatics, while keeping the scope of Athletics the same.  

So what's the point of even taking Athletics?  Sure, if you're a Fighter it makes sense, but that's about it.  Even then, you probably don't have much of a choice since your DEX will likely be behind your STR stat.  However, now you're getting an inferior stat.  Anyone with Acrobatics can do what you do, but you can't do any of the extra stuff that they can do.  So now you're taking away the one good ability from a class that has very few useful out of combat skills.  How is that fun?


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> It's pretty much a trope of D&D fantasy that wiry little guys can jump around like wee ninjas.  I like this, and my players do, too.




This statement actually destroyed the argument I was about to make. The bottom line is, mechanics are used to model a certain type of world.

In most of the movie-bookesque fantasy that dnd tries to model (at least loosely), the small wiry guys do make tremendous leaps and can get whereever they want.

I think I may just houserule it that jump checks can be made with either athletics or acrobatics.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 10, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Not to nitpick, but those statements are mutually exclusive.  I just gave you real world analogue, and you said not to compare to the real world.
> 
> You mention a more enjoyable game though...but more enjoyable for whom?  As I said before, I have yet to see an argument for the reverse situation of letting Athletics checks sub for abilities that would fall under purview of Acrobatics.  So now you're expanding the scope of Acrobatics, while keeping the scope of Athletics the same.
> 
> So what's the point of even taking Athletics?  Sure, if you're a Fighter it makes sense, but that's about it.  Even then, you probably don't have much of a choice since your DEX will likely be behind your STR stat.  However, now you're getting an inferior stat.  Anyone with Acrobatics can do what you do, but you can't do any of the extra stuff that they can do.  So now you're taking away the one good ability from a class that has very few useful out of combat skills.  How is that fun?



Yeah, that's what I get for posting in between reports. 

Anyway, I am not saying the two skills are completely interchangeable.  Clearly, there are things one can do that the other can't.  I am saying that blurred boundaries never hurt anyone.

Athletics lets you swim.  Acrobatics won't.  

Athletics is much better for climbing really tall things; being nimble won't help you there.  (But if an Acrobatic character wanted to do a quick Jackie Chan corner climb up 10', I think that'd be fine.)

Acrobatics lets you balance.  Athletics doesn't.

Acrobatics can lighten your fall.  Athletics can't.

But in all of the above, if a player can tell me a convincing story about how it's working, I'll let it go.  I'll veto anything silly, but I think the game is more fun when I veto less and allow more.

-O


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 10, 2009)

If a player can describe how to use acrobatics to do something that is normally an athletics check, and the description makes sense, I would allow it but apply a penalty to the check (or really an increase to the DC) that is probably equal to the trained bonus, and possibly even another -2 on top of it depending on the complexity and difficulty of the trick.  But, I would allow a check, at the higher DC.


----------



## nittanytbone (Feb 12, 2009)

Just another thought or two...

I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill.  For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.

I might occasionally let a player utilize a different skill if there are special circumstances.  For example, a player might utilize a trampoline (or similar terrain -- maybe the canvas roof of a bazaar stand or a springy patch of fungus) to catapult up to high altitude, using an Acrobatics check.

If a player wanted to do this regularly, I would let them spend a feat to make Jump/Climb checks with Acrobatics.  This is better than taking Skill training because of hte disparity in modifiers, but seems to be a fair use of a feat.


----------



## Syrsuro (Feb 13, 2009)

nittanytbone said:


> Just another thought or two...
> 
> I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill. For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.




Why not?

In many cases I allow the players to use either Acrobatics or Athletics.  Sure, in some cases only one or the other will apply - but those are the cases where it is clearly a strength based or dexterity based move.

But in many cases I don't see any reason to enforce what is, essentially, an arbitrary distinction.  

Just because the rules define the skill as X or Y doesn't mean that the players or DM are strictly bound by those rules.

Carl


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 13, 2009)

nittanytbone said:


> Just another thought or two...
> 
> I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill.  For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.




You would let someone somersault over an opponent with acrobatics, but not jump that same distance, because the athletics skill uses the word jump?

I think this is the danger of acrobatics.  WOTC intentionally left it vague to give it flexibility, and it backfired.  By being vague, people seem more inclined to narrow it out of instinct, and if there is any overlap between skills they seem to default to not giving any overlap to the vague skill.  And yet, I do not think they give that same restriction to the non-vague skills.


----------



## 77IM (Feb 13, 2009)

I specifically allow Acrobatics to substitute for Athletics.  Frankly, I can't figure out what the hell else Acrobatics is supposed to be good for -- keeping your balance and reducing falling damage are not that exciting, and the "acrobatic stunt" rules are so vague as to be useless to me.

Here's my rule:

*Acrobatics *can substitute for Athletics in certain situations. This is at the DM's discretion, and the DC may be slightly different than the equivalent Athletics check DC. If you're using Acrobatics to jump, you don't need a running start, and if you're using it to climb, you move at full speed rather than half speed. However, if you fail the check, you move one square and then fall prone. If you fall a distance because of this, you can't use Acrobatics to land safely.​
So, it's kind of a high-risk/high-reward version of Athletics -- you go faster, but if you fail, you fall flat.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Feb 13, 2009)

77IM said:


> I specifically allow Acrobatics to substitute for Athletics.  Frankly, I can't figure out what the hell else Acrobatics is supposed to be good for -- keeping your balance and reducing falling damage are not that exciting, and the "acrobatic stunt" rules are so vague as to be useless to me.
> 
> Here's my rule:
> *Acrobatics *can substitute for Athletics in certain situations. This is at the DM's discretion, and the DC may be slightly different than the equivalent Athletics check DC. If you're using Acrobatics to jump, you don't need a running start, and if you're using it to climb, you move at full speed rather than half speed. However, if you fail the check, you move one square and then fall prone. If you fall a distance because of this, you can't use Acrobatics to land safely.​So, it's kind of a high-risk/high-reward version of Athletics -- you go faster, but if you fail, you fall flat.
> ...




The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!

I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb?  He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.

I just have a problem with letting Acrobatics do things belonging to Athletics because it waters that ability down.  Plus, what other skills do people do this with?  Do you let History substitute for Religion or Arcana?

As for Acrobatics being vague, well, there's still room for lots of things to do without encroaching on the territory of the Athletics skill.  For example, if you were in a room with a table that was essentially "rough terrain" or just "impassable" terrain, you could require an Acrobatics check for someone to hop up on it and weave through all the junk to hop down on the other side.  In fact, I believe that KotS has just such an example in it.  It's a "hop" up onto the table, so it's clearly not a big jump like Athletics, and it requires more dexterity than normal to navigate through all the stuff on the table.  It's a perfect use for the skill.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!
> 
> I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb?  He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.
> 
> ...




So again, you would let someone somersault over a creature using acrobatics, but would not let them jump that same distance using this skill because it does not use the word "jump" in the description?


----------



## 77IM (Feb 14, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> The problem with that is that when you a very high Dex character like a Rogue or Ranger, it's very easy for them (especially with skill focus and possibly some Utilities) to regularly outdo the Athletics user at the two things that are core parts of that skill!



I'm not sure I see the problem -- a high Str character can just as easily have as good an Athletics modifier.  Plus, in my house rule, Athletics and Acrobatics are NOT the same -- Acrobatics is faster, but Athletics is a lot more reliable/safer.  (Actually, if you jump with a running start, Athletics is strictly superior to Acrobatics.)  I did this to give Acrobatics a more "stunty" feel, while Athletics is more straightforward.



Doctor Proctor said:


> I mean, why not just have the guy train in Athletics if he needs to jump or climb?  He can pick up skill focus if STR isn't a very high ability.



Because it requires the player to invest two whole feats in an ability that they expect to already have.  As previously mentioned, it's terribly in-genre to have the nimble character bounce around the room.  Many times, when a player creates an Acrobatic character, they expect to be able to be highly mobile, not doing backflips in place.



Doctor Proctor said:


> I just have a problem with letting Acrobatics do things belonging to Athletics because it waters that ability down.



I disagree that it waters down Athletics in any way, because people can still use Athletics do jump and climb.  It's OK for two different character traits to achieve similar game effects, just with a different flavor.  Look at all the attack powers that basically boil down to "you hit a guy in a way that really hurts."  The exception here is traits important enough to warrant niche-protection (e.g. the four roles), but I claim that "moving" is not an important enough niche to protect.



Doctor Proctor said:


> Plus, what other skills do people do this with?  Do you let History substitute for Religion or Arcana?



Yes, definitely.  That's a really good example, in fact.  If there's a question about an ancient religion or the history of magic, I would say "Make a History or Religion check, whichever is better," or "Make an Arcana or History check, whichever is better."  Depending on the knowledge sought, I might give slightly different answers based on which skill is used, but I might not, if I am feeling lazy.



Doctor Proctor said:


> As for Acrobatics being vague, well, there's still room for lots of things to do without encroaching on the territory of the Athletics skill.  For example, if you were in a room with a table that was essentially "rough terrain" or just "impassable" terrain, you could require an Acrobatics check for someone to hop up on it and weave through all the junk to hop down on the other side.  In fact, I believe that KotS has just such an example in it.  It's a "hop" up onto the table, so it's clearly not a big jump like Athletics, and it requires more dexterity than normal to navigate through all the stuff on the table.  It's a perfect use for the skill.



Your example actually involves jumping, so it seems that Acrobatics can be used to jump, but only in certain situations.  I agree -- in my house rule, I only allow Acrobatics to sub for Athletics if it makes sense.  Climbing a tree by flipping up the branches like parallel bars?  Sure.  Climbing a cliff by doing handsprings up the side of the mountain?  Not likely -- use Athletics for that one.

The rule for acrobatic stunt says precisely nothing to me:  you can use Acrobatics to attempt to do anything "that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try."
*1.*  Isn't that true of all skills all the time?
*2.*  Does this imply that you CAN'T use Athletics to attempt things "that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try?"  

I certainly don't see where it says, "any other acrobatic stunt that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try, provided it doesn't seem like you are jumping too far or climbing up anything."

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 14, 2009)

I'll allow acrobatics to be used to vault things, but not to cover long distances. You can hop a railing, or shoulder roll up onto a crate, but you never cover anything more than a square's distance. 

I've also had people make jump checks based off of their dex instead of their strength to make jumps _through_ things. Like leaping off of a roof and trying to make it through a window in the next building over.

A side note to those who'd use the argument that skills should not intrude on each other schticks, there are already precedents. Remember that both Athletics and Acrobatics can both be used to escape from a grab. 



			
				77IM said:
			
		

> If there's a question about an ancient religion or the history of magic, I would say "Make a History or Religion check, whichever is better," or "Make an Arcana or History check, whichever is better." Depending on the knowledge sought, I might give slightly different answers based on which skill is used, but I might not, if I am feeling lazy.




Yeah, this is exactly how I do it.


----------



## dmjalund (Jul 5, 2010)

I think if you are to use Acrobatics for climbing, you treat it a "vertical balancing" and have it heavily penalized by encumbrance, and even force you to roll when you are staying put on a wall or cliff face


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

Here's how I'd rule it:

You can use Acrobatics to run up a wall, in sort of a combined jump-climb check (not climb as it's limited on how far you can stay on the wall, not jump as the wall is helping)

You can also use Acrobatics to wall-run across a gap.

But to straight jump or climb these things, that's Athletics.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 5, 2010)

nittanytbone said:


> Just another thought or two...
> 
> I would not let a player use one skill to do something that is explicitly defined as being the province of another skill.  For example, Jumping is explicitly something you do with Athletics.




Why not?

For example, you can use both Intimidate and Diplomacy to influence an NPC - the difference is mainly your style in doing it.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 5, 2010)

Tuft said:


> Why not?
> 
> For example, you can use both Intimidate and Diplomacy to influence an NPC - the difference is mainly your style in doing it.




And how much they like you afterwards, intimidate = impending hostility.

There is a reason why they have made two different skills. If you allow any/all uses of one skill to be emulated by the other skill there is no reason for those two skills. Call it Acroletics and have it key of STR or DEX depending on player's choice. OTOH, if you only allow corner cases/stunts like:


> You can use Acrobatics to run up a wall, in sort of a combined  jump-climb check (not climb as it's limited on how far you can stay on  the wall, not jump as the wall is helping)
> 
> You can also use Acrobatics to wall-run across a gap.



 The whole two different skills scenario looks more reasonable.

Still if you allow to use the skill you like between athletics and acrobatics you should either increase the DCs if you use the wrong skill or increase the penalty for failure. Otherwise, as I said before, there is no reason for two skills.


----------



## Squire James (Jul 5, 2010)

Interchanging Acrobatics and Athletics seems like low-level Skill Power territory to me.  There's a lot of Skill Powers like that already.  There are cases where just exchanging the skill is better than just training the skill, so the cost seems appropriate.


----------



## knightofround (Jul 6, 2010)

Yeah my opinion is that Acrobatics and Athletics should be used interchangably, much like Intimidate and Diplomacy. The *situation* you use them in may be different, but the *results* are the same. Strength (Athletics) will get you up the slope more quickly and makes it easier to find purchase, but dexterity (Acrobatics) will help handle difficult surfaces and use purchases more effectively. Irregardless of which one you use, both will get you up the mountain.

It's a shame we lost the synergy bonus in the 3.5 to 4E transition, but ah well. I know many DMs will use Athletics to the exclusion of Acrobatics, much like many DMs use Diplomacy to the exclusion of Intimidate. I can't blame them when "climb" and "jump" are listed under the sole domain of Athletics in the RAW. I just try to not be one of "those guys" I guess.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

knightofround said:


> *Yeah my opinion is that Acrobatics and Athletics should be used interchangably, much like Intimidate and Diplomacy. The *situation* you use them in may be different, but the *results* are the same.* Strength (Athletics) will get you up the slope more quickly and makes it easier to find purchase, but dexterity (Acrobatics) will help handle difficult surfaces and use purchases more effectively. Irregardless of which one you use, both will get you up the mountain.
> 
> It's a shame we lost the synergy bonus in the 3.5 to 4E transition, but ah well. I know many DMs will use Athletics to the exclusion of Acrobatics, much like many DMs use Diplomacy to the exclusion of Intimidate. I can't blame them when "climb" and "jump" are listed under the sole domain of Athletics in the RAW. I just try to not be one of "those guys" I guess.




How can you say that you can use them interchangeably by saying the results are the same when intimidate states that the target becomes hostile afterwards. This is not the same result. If you never care for the ensueing hostility and don't add consequences, you are right diplomacy and intimidate produce the same result.

If you think those skills do the same why do you have 4 skills instead of 2?


----------



## Herschel (Jul 6, 2010)

Intimidate and Diplomacy are also based on the same ability score, just _differ in how they're applied. _As BNI said, the result of getting the info may be the same, but the result _socially_ is quite different and should be meaningful in a RPG situation.


----------



## knightofround (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> How can you say that you can use them interchangeably by saying the results are the same when intimidate states that the target becomes hostile afterwards. This is not the same result. If you never care for the ensueing hostility and don't add consequences, you are right diplomacy and intimidate produce the same result.
> 
> If you think those skills do the same why do you have 4 skills instead of 2?



They are both social skills used to influence an NPC's actions. If you want an NPC to walk away and the NPC doesn't want to, you can either use Intimidate or Diplomacy. It's the difference between convincing someone to leave and intimidating someone to leave. Same result, different way to achieve it. Much like using Athletics or Acrobatics to climb a mountain.

And the rules do not say that the target becomes immediately hostile afterwords. Only that it "usually" does. And nothing in diplomacy says that it *doesn't* make people hostile, it's just more difficult to convince people who *are* hostile.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

knightofround said:


> They are both social skills used to influence an NPC's actions. If you want an NPC to walk away and the NPC doesn't want to, you can either use Intimidate or Diplomacy. It's the difference between convincing someone to leave and intimidating someone to leave. Same result, different way to achieve it. Much like using Athletics or Acrobatics to climb a mountain.
> 
> And the rules do not say that the target becomes immediately hostile afterwords. Only that it "usually" does. And nothing in diplomacy says that it *doesn't* make people hostile, it's just more difficult to convince people who *are* hostile.




The mentioning of the target of intimidate becoming usually hostile regardless of success should indicate that the outcome of diplomacy and intimidate are usually not the same. Inserting assumptions like diplomacy can turn targets hostile as well doesn't change the fact that by RAW it doesn't but intimidate usually makes them hostile.

Same for your athletics vs acrobatics to climb a mountain. Nowhere in the acrobatics skill description is mentioned that you can climb a mountain, yet you assume that this skill enables you to do it as well as someone with athletics. The only overlap those two skills have by RAW  is that you can use them to escape from a grab.

You allow acrobatics users to "steal" from the athletics user, e.g. climb, what can the athletics users "steal" to compensate them?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 7, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> The mentioning of the target of intimidate becoming usually hostile regardless of success should indicate that the outcome of diplomacy and intimidate are usually not the same. Inserting assumptions like diplomacy can turn targets hostile as well doesn't change the fact that by RAW it doesn't but intimidate usually makes them hostile.




Which doesn't really alter much except how the DM roleplays them.

That said, I don't think acrobatics and athletics should be used interchangeably, but I DO think that acrobatics desperately needs clarification on what it CAN be used for. Making jumps assisted by trapeze-style devices (ie swinging on a rope or chain etc), running up and along walls, and some hard mechanics for moving through opponent's squares (provoking, of course) would do for a start.


----------

