DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
I've heard we taste like blueberries sauce over chicken... Might be one of those weird combinations that are actually tasty--like peanut butter on hot dogs. YUM!!!
D&D 5E Climbing and falling
Climbing checks can be made either during exploration or combat.
My games don't feature all that much exploration. If they did, I'd use climbing checks to determine how long it took to climb the surface, or whether a character lost equipment or hit dice, etc. It would basically be a way of determining resource attrition.
In combat, I use climbable surfaces as an interesting terrain feature to make the encounter more cinematic. For example, in my Dragon Heist game I recently set an encounter in the Shadow Clock, which I lifted from the Skinsaw Murders adventure in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path. Inside the clock tower was a spiral staircase that rose 100 feet to the top of the tower. At two levels inside the tower I placed huge webs spun by giant spiders. PCs who fell off the stairs would land on the webs, becoming prey for the spiders. The primary foes then hacked loose the bells, which ripped huge gaps in the staircase as they plummeted to the ground. The result is that PCs were forced to jump or climb to traverse the gaps. This made the combat on the staircase much more dynamic and unpredictable. And, as I said, falling simply resulted in PCs becoming ensnared in the giant spider's web.
Short version: I don't use climbing checks to determine falling damage or to make fallen PCs feel incompetent.
My games don't feature all that much exploration. If they did, I'd use climbing checks to determine how long it took to climb the surface, or whether a character lost equipment or hit dice, etc. It would basically be a way of determining resource attrition.
In combat, I use climbable surfaces as an interesting terrain feature to make the encounter more cinematic. For example, in my Dragon Heist game I recently set an encounter in the Shadow Clock, which I lifted from the Skinsaw Murders adventure in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path. Inside the clock tower was a spiral staircase that rose 100 feet to the top of the tower. At two levels inside the tower I placed huge webs spun by giant spiders. PCs who fell off the stairs would land on the webs, becoming prey for the spiders. The primary foes then hacked loose the bells, which ripped huge gaps in the staircase as they plummeted to the ground. The result is that PCs were forced to jump or climb to traverse the gaps. This made the combat on the staircase much more dynamic and unpredictable. And, as I said, falling simply resulted in PCs becoming ensnared in the giant spider's web.
Short version: I don't use climbing checks to determine falling damage or to make fallen PCs feel incompetent.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
On failure, they fall. I'll ask for a d20 roll to give an idea how far up they'd got before things went wrong, where 10-11 is halfway, 15 is 3/4, 20 is right at the top, etc.; and a particularly low roll means they hadn't really left the ground yet.
If they want to keep trying and failing they can, but each try comes at a small but cumulative penalty. Better that they try something different entirely, such as finding another way out or using a grappling hook or whatever.
If they want to keep trying and failing they can, but each try comes at a small but cumulative penalty. Better that they try something different entirely, such as finding another way out or using a grappling hook or whatever.
If only there was a way to mathematically allow the person that is better at climbing to have their chances get better and better as they climbed, instead of multiple checks adding chances of failure.
In other words, the best climber's added failure of risk would get lower as they went, while the poor climber may have their risk stay the same or get worse on each check.
Hmmm, beat the DC by "X", auto succeed the next check?
In other words, the best climber's added failure of risk would get lower as they went, while the poor climber may have their risk stay the same or get worse on each check.
Hmmm, beat the DC by "X", auto succeed the next check?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
How would that make any sense though? The longer a climb (or the longer you are climbing) the more likely you are to fall.
But if you wanted such a system you would have to do something like you can climb a distance equal to your climbing speed x your proficiency bonus.
So, with a speed 30, your climbing speed is 15.
Without proficiency, you make a check every 15 feet.
With proficiency, you make a check at 30 feet (+2), 45 feet (+3), ..., 90 feet (+6).
Thus, for a 60 feet cliff, without proficiency you would make 4 checks, but with a +4 or higher proficiency bonus, you would only make 1 check.
Thanks for the math.
It was just an idle thought, how to retain more checks for longer climbs, but keep a "reasonable" chance of success instead of the more checks eventually you WILL fail, in place of possibly fail.
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
The above definition of role-playing includes a raucous game of Monopoly. I wasn't saying that having results on tables (or house rules) doesn't count as role-playing, but it's a step in that direction.
Not sure where the wizard/barbarian example was going, but if "the frail wizard routinely climbs higher than the buff barbarian because the wizard is so bad at climbing," someone has a screw loose, and accounting for observations becomes difficult at that point.
I generally only allow a single check to attempt anything, having the roll represent your maximum capability to perform that task. I always use the "if you fall if you fail by 5," so climbing is always a questionable task if it's difficult enough to require a roll. Note that not every climb should require a roll, and just like with jumping, I only require a roll if you don't meet a certain modifier. For example, a 0 modifier should still be able to climb a knotted rope without a roll. With a negative modifier or an unknotted rope, there would be a roll with a DC: 5 (not quite automatic, but still very probable). If you had a negative modifier and an unknotted rope, the DC would become a 10.
In the case of climbing outside of combat, a failed check means that you're stuck partway (usually about halfway). You can either return to the bottom (no check) or find someway to change the situation. The most common method would be that an ally helps you (using the help action or by providing a rope), which will allow a new roll based on the type of help. Other methods could be used, depending on the creativity and abilities of the character, but they usually provide a risk. You could attempt to jump to a new handhold, but failure would be an automatic fall. If you can teleport even a short distance, you would be at a new spot, but I'd require an Int/Athletics check to make sure you would be in a manageable position, with failure resulting in a fall.
In combat, I handling things a bit different due to the other circumstances. The DCs are generally easier, but you have to roll for every movement equivalent. For example, if you have a 30 ft movement, you'd have to make the check after every 15 ft. If you fail, you are stuck, and cannot move without jumping down (probibly leading to prone and falling damage) or spending your action to make another attempt. Admittedly, I seldom use a combat where climbing is necessary, but players like to think outside the box.
In the case of climbing outside of combat, a failed check means that you're stuck partway (usually about halfway). You can either return to the bottom (no check) or find someway to change the situation. The most common method would be that an ally helps you (using the help action or by providing a rope), which will allow a new roll based on the type of help. Other methods could be used, depending on the creativity and abilities of the character, but they usually provide a risk. You could attempt to jump to a new handhold, but failure would be an automatic fall. If you can teleport even a short distance, you would be at a new spot, but I'd require an Int/Athletics check to make sure you would be in a manageable position, with failure resulting in a fall.
In combat, I handling things a bit different due to the other circumstances. The DCs are generally easier, but you have to roll for every movement equivalent. For example, if you have a 30 ft movement, you'd have to make the check after every 15 ft. If you fail, you are stuck, and cannot move without jumping down (probibly leading to prone and falling damage) or spending your action to make another attempt. Admittedly, I seldom use a combat where climbing is necessary, but players like to think outside the box.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
If you decide whether or not to purchase a property, based on the fact that you're a dog (or a thimble), then that absolutely counts as role-playing. Most people don't do that, though, and I'm not even convinced that it's possible to role-play as something without a human-type brain.
"GM adjudication" is not a requirement for playing an RPG, but rather a symptom of a minimalist ruleset. The GM is a necessary weasel, because any number of charts would be insufficient to account for the possibilities available to the players. If it was feasible to create an entire deterministic world, while still respecting player freedom and agency, then that would be ideal.
Someone mentioned it up-thread. If the DC to climb a 50' wall is 25, and a lower roll means you fell from higher up, then the wizard who rolls with penalties will get higher up the wall than the barbarian who has many bonuses (yet fails to hit the DC). In this example, a check result of -4 would mean falling from 49 feet up, while a check result of 24 would mean barely getting off the ground.
aco175
Legend
I allow the PCs to fast climb, but this makes the check have disadvantage. This gives the option for some with higher Athletics or if you feel you need to get up the wall or such. Conversely, you can also gain advantage, but now you move at 1/4 speed instead of half. Rogues also have the fast climb ability, but that is situational.
Similar Threads
