Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lawolf Oct 14, 2014 17:25:34	Actobatics is one if those skills that seems neat, but is highly dependent upon your DM to be able to do anything interesting with. The PHB says you can use Acrobatics to perform acrobatic stunts, but doesn't give any examples of what those might be. So here is a list of possible acrobatic stunts that you can attempt.   Acrobatic Stunts You may only perform a single acrobatic stunt per turn, however, you may combine various acrobatic stunts together as a single stunt. Instead of making multiple rolls, simply add 5 to the highest stunt DC for each stunt you attempt beyond the first. For example if you combined Sure Step and Up the Walls, you would need to make a single DC 20 Acrobatics check.   Vault When you jump you can make a DC 15 acrobatics check. If you succed, add 5 feet to the distance of your jump. If you fail, you fall prone at the end of the jump. In order to perform this stunt, you must be be wielding a spear or Polearm, or be in arms reach of a wall or other large object.   Tumble You can move through a space occupied by an enemy by succeeding at a DC 15 acrobatics check. On a failure, you are unable to tumble past thst enemy and the enemy may make an opportunity attack against you.   Breakfall When you fall, you may use your reaction to make a DC 15 acrobatics check. On a success, you treat the fall as if it was 20 feet shorter than it really is when determining damage.   Up the Walls When you move you may make a DC 15 acrobatics check. If you succeed, you may move along vertical surfaces without falling during your movement. On failure, you fall prone. While moving along them, you treat vertical surfaces as hindering terrain.   Sure Step When you move over difficult terrain, you may make a DC 15 acrobatics check. On a success, it does not take extra movement to go over the terrain. On a failure you lose your balance and fall prone.
#2 arnwolf666 Oct 14, 2014 17:45:32	I was disappointed in Acrobatis and Athletics, I really felt many of their features should have just been part of the Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
#3 Chiisai_Usagi Oct 14, 2014 18:16:49	I was thinking about the bonuses for being Trained in something.  Really, they're not all that good.  A mere 10% starting out?  A fully trained glassblower has a 10% higher chance of succeeding at glassblowing than some guy who just picked up the hobbyist kit?   What I've been thinking about (and I have not tested this yet, so it may have a glaring hole or something) is giving both the Proficiency bonus -and- lowering the DC category by 1 for trained folks.  That nets 25+10% starting out, and the greatest in the world will get a 55% increase by the end of their careers (and even moreso with the true Skills master, the Rogue).  Because Arnwolf is right; there isn't much benefit in these skills.   I like your ideas Lawolf, but like the DC 20 one?  That just seems too high to me for someone who has invested character resources.  Without a very high DEX bonus, it's a small chance of success, at least early on (and never gets better than 50%).  Instead, make it available to anyone and then the trained get it at a lower DC (in this case 15 instead of 20) is what I would do.
#4 seti Oct 14, 2014 18:26:54	Even though it took them a while, I like how 4e gave PC's trained in skills the option to take 'skill powers' in place of class utility. Like acrobatics, for example.   With 5e, I'm happy that I guess everyone can try stuff like that, but...Again, imposing training...Hmmm.   Anyone can try anything. It's just that the 5e DMG should have a proper DC chart. Sure, even I could 'tumble' as described by the OP...But...I'd have to roll a natural 20 to be successful. A skilled athlete might be able to do it w/o rolling a natural 20. Your wizard can try to disarm someone too. Probably would only work on a natural 20 too. Letting anyone succeed at this stuff frequently takes even more things away from some classes. Classes that are already weakened by 5e.   Fighters, Rogues, Monks, Barbarians...They all need to be better than anyone with an idea and a  lucky roll at stuff like this. 99% of the time.
#5 Lawolf Oct 14, 2014 19:16:36	Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
#6 Chiisai_Usagi Oct 14, 2014 19:49:41	Lawolf wrote:
#7 lawrencehoy Oct 14, 2014 21:54:25	Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
#8 Thunaer Oct 15, 2014 0:48:39	I would sooner just allow players trained in the skill advantage over those that are not, It keeps it simple and still alows those untrained a chance to make heroic rolls in the nick of time. There are people in the world that have natural untrained raw ability which makes him better then the average Joe but he still is going to have to get lucky against someone his is trained in the same skill, Adventurers are those raw individuals. Once rules come out for adjusting DC levels you could also adjust a trained adventures DC up or down as needed
#9 strider13x Oct 15, 2014 4:52:59	C. Usagi-   Glassblowing is a poor example as it is a tool proficiency and a DM may not allow an attempt if you do not recognize the tools.   Lawolf-   While good examples of how to adjucate the above situations I would avoid codifying. Players will tend to "perform action X" rather than describe their actions. A DM loses the option to dictate which Ability Check is appropriate. Say the player wishes to perform an acrobatic stunt to distract the opponent, the DM may choose a CHA check to see if the target is distracted (the character is skilled enough to perform the stunt, but how does the target react?) The classes give X buttons for players to push, allow the DM to make calls that fit their story. Leave those"enhanced skill use" options in the DMG.
#10 Timborama Oct 15, 2014 7:31:50	Lawolf wrote:
#11 Nevvur Oct 15, 2014 8:05:45	Cool stunts. FWIW, I'd give disadvantage to someone who is non-proficient, rather than advantage to someone who is proficient. Makes it a less attractive option for non acrobats without becoming too reliable for a trained person.
#12 Lawolf Oct 15, 2014 9:23:06	Timborama wrote:
(Reply to #3) BW0222	Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
#14 bawylie Oct 15, 2014 9:30:33	I wanted "skills" to open up possibilities, not modify checks. But that's not how it shook out.    Imagine training in a skill expanded capability overall. Training in acrobatics might mean you can ignore non magical difficult terrain and can disengage as a bonus action, for instance. Or allow you to move without touching the ground so long as you can reach a wall.    What if the proficiency bonus was eliminated entirely? What might that look like?
#15 Lawolf Oct 15, 2014 9:39:45	bawylie wrote:
#16 Timborama Oct 15, 2014 10:30:07	I'll be honest, one of the things I'm going to miss from 4E? Utility powers. Ugh those were so much fun!
#17 strider13x Oct 15, 2014 13:54:19	I first I lobbied for 4e style skill utility powers. Now I accept that when you codify you discourage out-of-the-box thinking and encourage look-at-the-character-sheet acting.
#18 Lawolf Oct 15, 2014 14:40:25	strider13x wrote:
#19 strider13x Oct 15, 2014 19:03:44	I would place those examples in the DMG. Players will point to one advantageous example rather than allow the DM to narrate.
#20 arnwolf666 Oct 15, 2014 23:50:26	My problem with acrobatic is I never know how to use it, Are you using it to try to get across difficult terrain quickly.  I can't allow that, that is a class feature or spell ability, and the skill does not say it did that.  I see nothing in the area description that allows you to use it for movement purposes.  There is nothing in the room description that says their is a chandelier or big curtains or tappestries.  What the heck is the DC for that anyway.  It is a very difficult skill for me to adjudicate.
#21 Psikerlord Oct 16, 2014 1:52:44	Nevvur wrote:
#22 Uchawi Oct 16, 2014 2:16:05	I think the stunts are a good start, but they don't do enough to describe or indicate how a martial character can do them better than a non-martial characters. Not everyone should be able to break fall, vault, or similar stunts and it should describe why or what conditons are necessary to perform them. Just like gaining any spell ability through a feat has ability requirements, components, etc. I really dislike the martial system for everyone and heavy investure or specialized training thinking to learn spells. It is a double standard that should die in a fire.
(Reply to #22) arnwolf666	Uchawi wrote:
#24 Nevvur Oct 16, 2014 3:26:30	Psikerlord wrote: