D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[UngeheuerLich]

DC 12 with advantage is fine.
Failing by 5 and you might fall also.
Add another save to stop the fall.

If you want some kind of tension.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want some kind of tension.

If you want some kind of tension, add a source of tension to the scene. Rolling dice doesn’t add tension by itself, so if a scene wouldn’t be tense without calling for a check, it isn’t tense. Fix that first, and the need for a check will arise organically.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you want some kind of tension, add a source of tension to the scene. Rolling dice doesn’t add tension by itself, so if a scene wouldn’t be tense without calling for a check, it isn’t tense. Fix that first, and the need for a check will arise organically.

Of course it does. If the climb is a short cut to something else, at least you should give those a bit of advantage that actually trained in climbing.
Also in such situations you will find that the alchemist at level 3 can create a potion that no other person can. Also those investing in strength will have some advantage.
If you are always just waving such situations, you will find that some options are clearly better.
In this example, the cleric in heavy armor (who fortunately trained in athletics and seems to have some strength on top) should be very happy that he chose those stats, so he can climb with no meaningful risk of falling (after seeking a little bit of guidance from his god).
So even if you don't roll, you should make it clear that the choices were meaningful.

In 3.x this would be a good application of take 20 or take 10. In 5e you might just make it a passive check. So no roll involved but at least you made clear, why.

And to close the circle:
A passive check might be in order if there is no other preasure beyond not taking very long time (in which case you should assume an auto success). If there is some preasure like enemies below, heavy winds or something like that, you should go back ro rolling.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you want some kind of tension, add a source of tension to the scene. Rolling dice doesn’t add tension by itself, so if a scene wouldn’t be tense without calling for a check, it isn’t tense. Fix that first, and the need for a check will arise organically.

LOL, try climbing 80 feet up a rope with NO safety harness or line, etc. and tell me afterwards that it wasn't tense! I think you'll find it was VERY tense, but I could be mistaken. Many people like to climb IME because of the adrenaline rush they get out of it.

Add in any additional sources (weather, someone shooting at you) and I bet you would be in a very difficult spot.

Also, many people find tension in rolling dice (which is why people gamble with dice as well...) when there is risk involved, such as the danger from falling.

4 mile run without stopping is nothing to sneeze at!

Which brings up another interesting thing lacking in the rules. Nothing for any sort of distance run. The closest thing you have is the Fast Pace previously mentioned, which is fine for walking, but not for any sort of run.

Example: an enemy force is attacking a stronghold. A PC manages to sneak out and break through enemy lines to run for reinforcements. If they can't make the run in time, help won't arrive quickly enough to save the defenders. The DM knows it is 10 miles, and the PC has two hours to get there.

Normally, 5 miles an hour is a very quick walk or slow jog. Even with breaks to rest IMO many people in decent shape (at all) could do this. But, sadly, the rules don't allow it. Fast pace is 4 miles an hour and the PC fails.

You have special movement rules for climbing, jumping, and even crawling, but nothing for running. It isn't hard to come up with a rule for it, but still should have been included IMO.

 

[Hriston]

There should be some significance to distance.

I can swim across a 20 foot pool and back. I could not even begin to contemplate actually swimming even a mile (or half, etc).

The significance of distance in swimming (and climbing and crawling) is that it costs an extra foot (or two in difficult terrain) of movement for every foot traveled which limits the distance you can swim in eight hours beyond which you have to start making Constitution saves against exhaustion.

 

[Hriston]

I think the 3,000 foot ascent of El Capitan would almost certainly involve several Strength (Athletics) checks in places where the climbing surface warrants it, i.e. sheer vertical surfaces, overhangs, etc., as well as Wisdom (Survival) checks for choosing the safest route. For this reason, I think most intelligent creatures would choose a slow pace to gain a bonus on navigating the rock face, and because El Cap is most certainly difficult terrain, that would put the ascent time for such a climb in D&D at about 45 minutes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The significance of distance in swimming (and climbing and crawling) is that it costs an extra foot (or two in difficult terrain) of movement for every foot traveled which limits the distance you can swim in eight hours beyond which you have to start making Constitution saves against exhaustion.

You realize you are saying you can swim (actually moving, mind you) for over 6.8 miles (almost 11 km) before worrying about making any sort of check or CON save for exhaustion. Having made even just a 1 mile swim IRL, I can tell you, you are making checks even in relatively calm waters IMO.

I think the 3,000 foot ascent of El Capitan would almost certainly involve several Strength (Athletics) checks in places where the climbing surface warrants it, i.e. sheer vertical surfaces, overhangs, etc., as well as Wisdom (Survival) checks for choosing the safest route. For this reason, I think most intelligent creatures would choose a slow pace to gain a bonus on navigating the rock face, and because El Cap is most certainly difficult terrain, that would put the ascent time for such a climb in D&D at about 45 minutes.

I agree this would be a good way to run it as a skill challenge, but if a DM wanted to make just one success needed a single check works as well.

I think maybe that is why you climb at half speed--it is already considered difficult terrain. Maybe you can compound them if that isn't the case, but either way the 45 minutes crushes the actual record.

Look, I know D&D is not a simulation game and the design goals are for simplicity, but I would like rules more in line with actual real-world things. Unlimited climbing and swimming is pretty unrealistic, so that bugs me, and so I rule distance/height is a complicating factor. Climbing 8 feet vs 3000 and swimming 100 feet vs 6 miles are very different tasks and challenges.

 

[Hriston]

You realize you are saying you can swim (actually moving, mind you) for over 6.8 miles (almost 11 km) before worrying about making any sort of check or CON save for exhaustion. Having made even just a 1 mile swim IRL, I can tell you, you are making checks even in relatively calm waters IMO.

Actually, I think I’m saying, at a fast pace, you can swim 15 miles in ideal conditions without having to make a save against exhaustion. Now, I admit I’m not a strong swimmer myself despite having grown up in or near the ocean, and a one mile swim would certainly be an exhausting ordeal for me, but long distance swimming and Olympic marathon swimming events are regularly 10 km or more in length. The record for a 24 hour swim (set in 1976) is 83.7 km, making the D&D rate of travel quite reasonable for swimming, and I think it’s intentional in D&D that mundane feats of prowess like this are not going to be the focus of play unless the group makes them a challenge through adventure design. A PC can just do this stuff all day long because climbing, swimming, etc. are primarily a means of transportation from one place to another.

I agree this would be a good way to run it as a skill challenge, but if a DM wanted to make just one success needed a single check works as well.

Of course, or no check at all if it’s just something being skipped over in travel. I think my point was that if climbing El Capitan were being presented as a challenge in the game, there are a number of points at which the actual climbing itself could justify a Strength (Athletics) check just based on the climbing conditions, assuming those conditions aren’t being obviated in some way by the use of rope or a climber’s kit. I think if overcoming the obstacle were to be resolved with a single check, I’d probably call for Wisdom (Survival) from the party’s navigator to see if a route is found.

I think maybe that is why you climb at half speed--it is already considered difficult terrain. Maybe you can compound them if that isn't the case, but either way the 45 minutes crushes the actual record.

There’s a specific rule that climbing, swimming, and crawling cost 2 extra feet in difficult terrain. However, I think the El Cap example is too specific to draw any conclusions about whether the general rates of travel are adequate. Forty-five minutes seems like a reasonable cost in time to overcome such a barrier to travel, and it’s really left up to the group to make this more or less of a challenge for play to focus on.

Look, I know D&D is not a simulation game and the design goals are for simplicity, but I would like rules more in line with actual real-world things. Unlimited climbing and swimming is pretty unrealistic, so that bugs me, and so I rule distance/height is a complicating factor. Climbing 8 feet vs 3000 and swimming 100 feet vs 6 miles are very different tasks and challenges.

It’s not unlimited, as I’ve pointed out through the travel pace and forced march rules. It’s just that the limits are higher than you’d like them to be. Of course, you’re free to rule that lower limits on the PCs exist, and I think that @iserith’s suggestion to call for a Constitution check in situations where characters are trying to push past those limitations is a good solution.

 

[Xetheral]

If you want some kind of tension, add a source of tension to the scene. Rolling dice doesn’t add tension by itself, so if a scene wouldn’t be tense without calling for a check, it isn’t tense. Fix that first, and the need for a check will arise organically.

While I agree that, in the abstract, calling for a check does not add tension, I would note that the 80' climb in the OP is arguably already tense, with the tension created by the potential consequences of falling (pain, using up healing resources/time, death, plus the need to either face the risk again or change the plan). (I wouldn't personally call for a check for 80' because I think the use of a rope successfully reduced the difficulty of the task to auto-success: the PC chose an approach that obviated the risk, and the tension is resolved. Go PCs!) But adding an environmental factor like high wind as a justification to call for a check doesn't add tension either, because it doesn't change the stakes--it just makes it harder for the PCs to find an approach to resolve the inherent tension without a check.

While the above holds true for DM-presented obstacles, I think the decision whether or not to call for a check can add tension in a player-driven scene when the PCs are making strategic choices. For example, if the PCs are deciding between multiple routes to approach an encampment they plan to assault, if none of the routes are riskier than the others, then there is no tension in just picking whatever approach the PCs think will give them the most favorable odds in the ensuing combat. By contrast, if, say, one of the approaches would let the PCs take the high ground, but requires a risky climb with a chance of failure, there is tension in the choice of routes. The amount of tension in the choice of route isn't really affected by whether the need for a check comes from the height of the climb itself or from high wind.

 

[Charlaquin]

While I agree that, in the abstract, calling for a check does not add tension, I would note that the 80' climb in the OP is arguably already tense, with the tension created by the potential consequences of falling (pain, using up healing resources/time, death, plus the need to either face the risk again or change the plan).

I disagree. In the example the OP brought up, there was specifically no time pressure, so the only potential consequence was fall damage. I suppose you could argue that’s a potential source of tension, but at best it’s a static source, and I think the gameplay outcome of insisting on a check to avoid it is a pretty dull one. Yeah, it’s a long climb, but you’ve got a knotted rope and a wall to brace against. That doesn’t feel tense, and adding the possibility of falling and taking damage doesn’t really make it tense. It just makes it annoying.

(I wouldn't personally call for a check for 80' because I think the use of a rope successfully reduced the difficulty of the task to auto-success: the PC chose an approach that obviated the risk, and the tension is resolved. Go PCs!)

Sure, I agree with that.

But adding an environmental factor like high wind as a justification to call for a check doesn't add tension either, because it doesn't change the stakes--it just makes it harder for the PCs to find an approach to resolve the inherent tension without a check.

I think the key is not just tension but dynamic tension

No, simply adding high wind doesn’t make the scene significantly more tense. Maybe a little bit, but mostly it just makes the not-particularly-tense check feel a bit more justified in the fiction.

Instead of thinking about it in terms of the difficulty of the climb itself and whether or not a check should be required to complete it (static tension), I think it’s better to set up encounters where the situation evolves in response to the characters’ actions (dynamic tension). Add a ticking clock, or a guard patrol. Have the wind pick up as the characters are climbing. Set up a scene where things happen that the players can respond to, rather than just a static obstacle.

While the above holds true for DM-presented obstacles, I think the decision whether or not to call for a check can add tension in a player-driven scene when the PCs are making strategic choices. For example, if the PCs are deciding between multiple routes to approach an encampment they plan to assault, if none of the routes are riskier than the others, then there is no tension in just picking whatever approach the PCs think will give them the most favorable odds in the ensuing combat. By contrast, if, say, one of the approaches would let the PCs take the high ground, but requires a risky climb with a chance of failure, there is tension in the choice of routes. The amount of tension in the choice of route isn't really affected by whether the need for a check comes from the height of the climb itself or from high wind.

Sure, that seems reasonable.