D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[DND_Reborn]

It feels like there's a lot of legacy thinking going on here i.e. climb = "climb check." That's not how it works in this game. Climbing is just a matter of a hit to a character's speed unless there's a difficult situation that complicates the climb. As laid out by the OP, there were no such difficult situations in play.

Personally, I disagree. Climbing 80 feet of rope, even knotted, is a difficult situation. Most people could not, or would not, even do it. It would require quite a bit of strength and endurance. And most people, I would argue even heroes, wouldn't be able to move 30 feet up in just 6 seconds, especially when most PCs carry 40-80 lbs of gear.

But hey, you run your game your way. I'll have the PCs make a check, because up to an average of 70 points of damage is significant.

And FWIW, your thinking would almost be a kin to saying: "Well, the monster can only hit the PC with a 20, so I won't bother rolling for it."

Now, I am not arguing your point of the intent of how 5E works. As others have said, if you are just swimming, but the waters are calm, no real risk of drowning, and the distance is not great, then no check. But if the PCs have to swim a mile or something, yeah, so sort of check is required, even if it is easy, because drowning is definitely possible.

Maybe you are the type of player who doesn't consider such mundane threats as worthy of the time in a fantasy game? No problem, that's cool if true, but again I'll be requiring a check because otherwise I am just removing a source of tension in my game. Just my preference. shrug

 

[iserith]

Personally, I disagree. Climbing 80 feet of rope, even knotted, is a difficult situation. Most people could not, or would not, even do it. It would require quite a bit of strength and endurance. And most people, I would argue even heroes, wouldn't be able to move 30 feet up in just 6 seconds, especially when most PCs carry 40-80 lbs of gear.

But hey, you run your game your way. I'll have the PCs make a check, because up to an average of 70 points of damage is significant.

And FWIW, your thinking would almost be a kin to saying: "Well, the monster can only hit the PC with a 20, so I won't bother rolling for it."

Now, I am not arguing your point of the intent of how 5E works. As others have said, if you are just swimming, but the waters are calm, no real risk of drowning, and the distance is not great, then no check. But if the PCs have to swim a mile or something, yeah, so sort of check is required, even if it is easy, because drowning is definitely possible.

Maybe you are the type of player who doesn't consider such mundane threats as worthy of the time in a fantasy game? No problem, that's cool if true, but again I'll be requiring a check because otherwise I am just removing a source of tension in my game. Just my preference. shrug

First, you're not disagreeing with me per se - you're disagreeing with the rules. Of course it's up to you to decide whether you care about that. You also reference movement in 6 seconds, but the PCs were not in combat in the situation the OP describes. Time didn't matter.

As for my thinking being akin to your example, this could not be further from the truth. The game's rules would tell me to call for a roll in your example. They don't tell the DM to call for a roll in the situation the OP describes.

With regard to tension, all the rules say is to establish a complication and you can create the tension that may cause there to be an ability check (depending on what the players describe their characters as doing) - slick walls, few handholds, strong winds, alert guards, attackers, razorvine, etc. So rather than think "climb = climb check" the thinking is instead "climb up the crumbling wall with few handholds = climb check" (again, depending on what the PCs do).

 

[DND_Reborn]

First, you're not disagreeing with me per se - you're disagreeing with the rules. Of course it's up to you to decide whether you care about that. You also reference movement in 6 seconds, but the PCs were not in combat in the situation the OP describes. Time didn't matter.

As for my thinking being akin to your example, this could not be further from the truth. The game's rules would tell me to call for a roll in your example. They don't tell the DM to call for a roll in the situation the OP describes.

With regard to tension, all the rules say is to establish a complication and you can create the tension that may cause there to be an ability check (depending on what the players describe their characters as doing) - slick walls, few handholds, strong winds, alert guards, attackers, razorvine, etc. So rather than think "climb = climb check" the thinking is instead "climb up the crumbling wall with few handholds = climb check" (again, depending on what the PCs do).

I'm not disagreeing with the rules--I am disagreeing with your interpretation of the rules.

In fact, the rules say:

You are basically saying you feel the outcome is certain---they can climb an 80-ft rope and not fall. Which is fine.

I am saying it is far from certain. A climb that far requires strength and endurance beyond what many people have IMO. Fatigue, fear of death, etc. all make this uncertain. I don't need to add any additional element to make it harder.

As to my comparison, it is a kin to it. You are ignoring a potential source of damage to the PC (via the fall if they fail), so it is similar to ignoring damage from an attack with is unlikely to hit.

Now, if the DC is so low that with modifiers, the PC can't fail (we house-rule a 1 still fails, so I would still roll, but that is a house-rule...) then there is no need to roll. In combat, this would be like having a creature immune to fire damage not save against a fireball.

 

[iserith]

I'm not disagreeing with the rules--I am disagreeing with your interpretation of the rules.

In fact, the rules say:
View attachment 132365
You are basically saying you feel the outcome is certain---they can climb an 80-ft rope and not fall. Which is fine.

I am saying it is far from certain. A climb that far requires strength and endurance beyond what many people have IMO. Fatigue, fear of death, etc. all make this uncertain. I don't need to add any additional element to make it harder.

As to my comparison, it is a kin to it. You are ignoring a potential source of damage to the PC (via the fall if they fail), so it is similar to ignoring damage from an attack with is unlikely to hit.

Now, if the DC is so low that with modifiers, the PC can't fail (we house-rule a 1 still fails, so I would still roll, but that is a house-rule...) then there is no need to roll. In combat, this would be like having a creature immune to fire damage not save against a fireball.

Keep on reading. There are rules specifically for climbing (see Ch. 7 & 8 as I mentioned way upthread) and, as you know, specific beats general. No difficult situation related to climbing, no roll, because there is no uncertainty. It's just a factor of speed like walking across a room with no traps - you just succeed (but slower).

Your doubling down on your example still doesn't hold true as I've already shown in my last post.

 

[Flamestrike]

As a point of comparison, I recently ran Lost Mine of Phandelver again. In Wave Echo Cave, there's a 20-foot-deep ravine with ropes hanging down one side. The difficulty for an Athetics check to climb up or down without using a rope is 10. A creature falls, takes damage, and lands prone if the check is failed by 5 or more. (No guidance is given on what you're supposed to do if someone fails the check by less than 5. I might just have them land prone without taking the damage.) No check is required for climbing with a rope.

In 3.5 the DC (rope with wall to brace on) was DC 0.

Meaning that in 99.99999 percent of cases you didn't need to bother with a check either. To fail to climb a rope with a wall to brace on, you needed a Str of less than 8, to be rushed and unable to 'take 10', have no ranks in Climb, AND to roll a natural 1.

Even then you don't fall. You just don't make any forward progress.

Specific to 5E, the rules are:

While climbing or Swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or Swimming speed. At the GM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

Roll20

Only a 'slippery vertical surface', or 'one with few handholds' requires a Str (Athletics) check. Climbing a knotted rope with a wall to brace on is neither of those things, and does not require a check.

If the rope was slippery (it's raining) or the PCs were in a hurry, I might require a DC 5 Check (same DC as 3.5, with failure by 5 or more indicating a fall). If they took damage while Climbing, I might also require a Strength save (DC 10) to stay on the wall as well.

But as a general rule, climbing (unless a slippery vertical surface, or one with few handholds) does not require a check at all.

Requiring 3 x DC 12 checks to climb a rope? Eeek.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think climbing an 80 foot rope would be tiring. Maybe making a con roll would be more in line with the challenge. Then, if they fail, they can choose to take falling damage and have to start over or take a level of exhaustion to continue.

but that assumes you want it to be the focused challenge of the adventure and that those lost hit points or exhaustion will have some kind effect on the situation. Like, if they’re just going to take a long rest after they get to the top, then why bother.

Remember that scene from Princess Bride where they are climbing the cliff? Like, The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing the (non-knotted ) rope without his feet. The risk of death of a fall is real but the focus of the story is the epic duel that takes place when he reaches the top.

So, I think it’s fair to hand-waive an 80 foot climb if there’s better things to focus on, especially if they had a plan, in advance, to make the climb easy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Keep on reading. There are rules specifically for climbing (see Ch. 7 & 8 as I mentioned way upthread) and, as you know, specific beats general. No difficult situation related to climbing, no roll, because there is no uncertainty. It's just a factor of speed like walking across a room with no traps - you just succeed.

LOL, you think you've shown.... And yeah, I know exactly what you are talking of. You should read some more yourself.

Is the task so easy, free of conflict and stress that there is no chance of failure? (You = Yes, Me = No)
Is it impossible? (No, I think we both agree this is possible.)

As I said, you feel there is no risk or danger in such a climb, so you require no check. As a DM, that is your choice. You are answering "Yes" to the first question.

The rules fully support my supposition (as a DM) that a check is required because I see falling and a potential of 70 damage as stressful-- it would kill most creatures who can't fly, etc. So, my answer to that first question is most definitely "No" --it isn't free of stress.

If you feel some other element needs to be added to make it stressful, that is your opinion. Depending on your view, it supports both options.

Your doubling down on your example still doesn't hold true as I've already shown in my last post.

You ignoring other rules in the game doesn't help yours, either.

 

[Flamestrike]

Agreed with this. IMO, the 80-foot distance is easy with the torque from spinning the rope

You're getting a maximum spin radius of 3-4' on a 2lb grappling hook. Launching that into a 6 storey high window seems improbable to say the least.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Remember that scene from Princess Bride where they are climbing the cliff? Like, The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing the (non-knotted ) rope without his feet. The risk of death of a fall is real but the focus of the story is the epic duel that takes place when he reaches the top.

Oh, LOVE the reference!

IMO this is an example of PCs (or NPCs) with modifiers high enough that making the DC is automatic (even a 1 would succeed). So, no roll is required.

So, I think it’s fair to hand-waive an 80 foot climb if there’s better things to focus on, especially if they had a plan, in advance, to make the climb easy.

Absolutely! There are plenty of ways to handle it depending on what the focus is. @iserith and myself are both correct in our interpretation of the situation and apparent risk, and your own suggestion would work just as well.

 

[iserith]

LOL, you think you've shown.... And yeah, I know exactly what you are talking of. You should read some more yourself.

View attachment 132367
Is the task so easy, free of conflict and stress that there is no chance of failure? (You = Yes, Me = No)
Is it impossible? (No, I think we both agree this is possible.)

As I said, you feel there is no risk or danger in such a climb, so you require no check. As a DM, that is your choice. You are answering "Yes" to the first question.

The rules fully support my supposition (as a DM) that a check is required because I see falling and a potential of 70 damage as stressful-- it would kill most creatures who can't fly, etc. So, my answer to that first question is most definitely "No" --it isn't free of stress.

If you feel some other element needs to be added to make it stressful, that is your opinion. Depending on your view, it supports both options.


You ignoring other rules in the game doesn't help yours, either.

I commend you on your use of DMG page 237 which too few people read. However, you're ignoring the section on Strength (Athletics) checks in PHB Ch. 7 and Climbing rules in PHB Ch. 8 (the latter of which Flamestrike just quoted). Specific beats general and you've quoted nothing but general. Please go take a look at those other sections.

What's also kind of amusing is that the rules are basically telling the DM, "Hey, if you want to have a roll here, just use your imagination to add something interesting to the environment that makes climbing a difficult situation." And it looks like you just refuse to do that.