D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Maxperson]

Looking at things in the DMG related to climbing we see this in the Wuxia playstyle section.

"Ability checks to climb don't involve careful searching for holds but let characters bounce up walls or from tree to tree."

It's clearly discussing ability checks for just climbing a wall, not a sheer cliffs like the non-exhaustive examples in the PHB show. This is further indication that ability checks are more broadly applicable than people here are arguing.

 

[clearstream]

Is a knotted rope with a wall to brace on either:

My comment was in the context of simply a knotted rope, per your post. If there is a wall to brace on, then a DM might count the combination as offering a non-sheer climb with a plenitude of handholds. Remember your words were "Having them comically falling to their deaths on knotted ropes is silly."

a) A slippery vertical surface (such as a wet sheer wall)
or
b) A surface with few handholds ( a rocky but still sheer cliff)

c) A perpendicular (i.e. sheer) climb, such as a knotted rope with no wall to brace against. Yes?
d) A less than sheer climb, but one lacking in handholds, such as an unknotted rope. Yes?

The answer is clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously, NO.

I feel like we have pretty thoroughly ruled out the possibility of "unequivocally" or "unambiguously". The least we might say is that the answer is contested.

I mean come on. If you're still arguing at this point you're just being obtuse.

I only recently noticed the text under Special Types of Movement. It seems highly apposite, and to overturn many previous arguments.

Climbing (generally)does not require a check unless it fits into one of the above categories. Climbing a rope with a wall to brace on (DC 0 in 3E terms) is not check worthy.

Per the narrowest and most literal RAW, a DM is justified in calling for a check when:

• a climb is sheer
• a climb is slippery
• a climb has few handholds
• a climb includes hazards to avoid
• something is trying to knock a climber off

Many climbs are sheer - as to be sheer includes simply being perpendicular - and many climbs while not sheer might offer few handholds.

You can rule differently if you want, but clearly its not.

I don't believe how I might rule is contested: I could always rule differently if I wanted. I am addressing here what is entailed by the RAW.

 

[Charlaquin]

I dont care about that.

Players should trust the DM. and the DM shouldn't abuse that trust.

As long as both of those things are happening, the game works fine.

Player: What does the wall look like?'
DM: It's slippery; water trickles down from the wall, and there is moss all over it. There are occasional handholds (takes note of the PCs Athletics skill bonus of +0), but it doesn't look easy. Dangerous even. It's about 30' to the top (mentally assigns a DC of 15 to climb, failure by 5 is a fall doing 2d6 damage)'
Player: What's the DC?
DM: You reckon you could make it, but it's dangerous. It's up to you.
Player (pauses) OK, I'll attempt to climb it.
DM: OK; you slowly make your way up. Roll me a Strength (Athletics) check.

Players dont know the DC in my games. They dont know the consequences of failure either (but they should be apparent from the task at hand).

They trust me, and I dont abuse that trust.

Something that is missing from too many tables for mine.

For me it’s not an issue of trust, it’s an issue of being able to correctly assess difficulty and make informed decisions. Failing when you don’t know the DC just feels like bad luck (assuming you trust that the DM set the DC fairly. If you don’t it feels like you were cheated. That’s not what I’m worried about though, my players trust me too.) Failing when you know the DC feels like taking a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. You feel like you have a greater degree of agency and own your successes and your failures, and that’s a feeling I want to foster at my table. It’s not to everyone’s liking of course, and that’s fine, but to me it’s very important.

 

[clearstream]

For me it’s not an issue of trust, it’s an issue of being able to correctly assess difficulty and make informed decisions. Failing when you don’t know the DC just feels like bad luck (assuming you trust that the DM set the DC fairly. If you don’t it feels like you were cheated. That’s not what I’m worried about though, my players trust me too.) Failing when you know the DC feels like taking a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. You feel like you have a greater degree of agency and own your successes and your failures, and that’s a feeling I want to foster at my table. It’s not to everyone’s liking of course, and that’s fine, but to me it’s very important.

You can use both in their place, right?

A rogue approaches a masterfully crafted trapped lock. She knows this will be tricky... but not precisely how tricky. Concealing the DC in such a scenario might add to the tension: she doesn't know if she is even capable of disarming the trap and picking the lock.

And then again, as you suggest, sometimes the greater tension is created where say a climber assesses a climb as DC 20, and knows they need an 12+ to avoid falling a thousand feet into molten lava.

This sort of decision - understanding how your players are likely to feel faced with different information regarding dice rolls - is part of what I was alluding to earlier.

 

[Maxperson]

You can use both in their place, right?

A rogue approaches a masterfully crafted trapped lock. She knows this will be tricky... but not precisely how tricky. Concealing the DC in such a scenario might add to the tension: she doesn't know if she is even capable of disarming the trap and picking the lock.

And then again, as you suggest, sometimes the greater tension is created where say a climber assesses a climb as DC 20, and knows they need an 12+ to avoid falling a thousand feet into molten lava.

This sort of decision - understanding how your players are likely to feel faced with different information regarding dice rolls - is part of what I was alluding to earlier.

This. Sometimes I tell the players the DC and sometimes I don't. It all depends on what the circumstances are.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can use both in their place, right?

You can, if that works for you. For me, the feeling of agency takes a much higher priority than the illusion of tension, so I always prefer to tell the player the DC. I don’t always tell them the consequences of failure though. I try to, whenever it’s something the character could reasonably intuit, and when it’s not I still at least tell them as much as I think they could surmise.

A rogue approaches a masterfully crafted trapped lock. She knows this will be tricky... but not precisely how tricky. Concealing the DC in such a scenario might add to the tension: she doesn't know if she is even capable of disarming the trap and picking the lock.

If she isn’t capable of succeeding, I wouldn’t ask for a check, personally. I’d tell the player their character can tell it’s beyond their skill. If it is possible for them to succeed, I would much rather tell them the DC and the time an attempt will take, so they can weigh the cost of failing against the benefit of success and the odds of each. The tension comes from the scenario itself, not from lack of knowledge.

And then again, as you suggest, sometimes the greater tension is created where say a climber assesses a climb as DC 20, and knows they need an 12+ to avoid falling a thousand feet into molten lava.

This sort of decision - understanding how your players are likely to feel faced with different information regarding dice rolls - is part of what I was alluding to earlier.

Sure. I know that players are likely to feel more ownership over the outcomes of their actions - positive or negative - when they know the odds and the stakes, and that’s something I want them to feel, pretty much at all times. If there are times where you would prioritize the feeling of not knowing what will happen next over the feeling that you are in control of your own fate, more power to you. That’s just not how I like to run D&D.

 

[clearstream]

You can, if that works for you. For me, the feeling of agency takes a much higher priority than the illusion of tension, so I always prefer to tell the player the DC. I don’t always tell them the consequences of failure though. I try to, whenever it’s something the character could reasonably intuit, and when it’s not I still at least tell them as much as I think they could surmise.

I feel that "illusion" adds nothing to your argument here. Was your intent really to suggest that I'm unable to differentiate between real and illusory tension at my table?

Agreed about consequences of failure. That's sometimes the most fun part

If she isn’t capable of succeeding, I wouldn’t ask for a check, personally. I’d tell the player their character can tell it’s beyond their skill. If it is possible for them to succeed, I would much rather tell them the DC and the time an attempt will take, so they can weigh the cost of failing against the benefit of success and the odds of each. The tension comes from the scenario itself, not from lack of knowledge.

How does she know that she isn't capable of succeeding? Let's characterise the lock as fiendish. Surely a DM might well judge that a fiendish lock might be deceptive, or at least inscrutable?

Sure. I know that players are likely to feel more ownership over the outcomes of their actions - positive or negative - when they know the odds and the stakes, and that’s something I want them to feel, pretty much at all times. If there are times where you would prioritize the feeling of not knowing what will happen next over the feeling that you are in control of your own fate, more power to you. That’s just not how I like to run D&D.

I don't find that. Sometimes knowing the DC just leads to agonising roll-play over roleplay. Certainly I aim for contrast in player experience at my table. Remember here that the players are in control of their choices - they have agency - they just don't know the odds. You appear to conflate those things, but really they are separate considerations.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel that "illusion" adds nothing to your argument here. Was your intent really to suggest that I'm unable to differentiate between real and illusory tension at my table?

I used the term “illusion” only because you had earlier compared the DM’s role to that of a magician. My intent was not to downplay the feeling of tension that unknown difficulty can create.

How does she know that she isn't capable of succeeding? Let's characterise the lock as fiendish. Surely a DM might well judge that a fiendish lock might be deceptive, or at least inscrutable?

Well, the player will know because I don’t ask for checks to resolve impossible tasks. Since the player will know, I prefer to convey that information diagetically. And in general, I assume the characters have a strong (though not perfect - that’s where the dice roll comes in) awareness of their own capabilities.

I don't find that. Sometimes knowing the DC just leads to agonising roll-play over roleplay.

I mean, part of my goal is to eliminate that distinction. The mechanics should encourage players who are invested in their characters’ success to make decisions as their characters would. Knowing the DC accomplishes that, by giving the players a simulacrum of the characters’ understanding of their own capabilities, as well as smoothing over errors in assessment that come from the players having to rely on my description rather than their own senses.

Certainly I aim for contrast in player experience at my table. Remember here that the players are in control of their choices - they have agency - they just don't know the odds. You appear to conflate those things, but really they are separate considerations.

Yes, but human brains are not rational, and knowing the odds creates a greater feeling of agency, even if you in fact have exactly the same agency either way.

I suppose it would be fair to say that knowing the DC creates the illusion of greater agency

 

[Xetheral]

I don't find that. Sometimes knowing the DC just leads to agonising roll-play over roleplay. Certainly I aim for contrast in player experience at my table. Remember here that the players are in control of their choices - they have agency - they just don't know the odds. You appear to conflate those things, but really they are separate considerations.

(Emphasis added.) I agree that they are separate, but they're definitely related. Greater understanding of how uncertainty is going to be modeled at a particular table makes it easier for the players to manage that uncertainty, which is a form of agency.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For me it’s not an issue of trust, it’s an issue of being able to correctly assess difficulty and make informed decisions. Failing when you don’t know the DC just feels like bad luck (assuming you trust that the DM set the DC fairly. If you don’t it feels like you were cheated. That’s not what I’m worried about though, my players trust me too.) Failing when you know the DC feels like taking a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. You feel like you have a greater degree of agency and own your successes and your failures, and that’s a feeling I want to foster at my table. It’s not to everyone’s liking of course, and that’s fine, but to me it’s very important.

Very well said! I was trying to put this into words and now you've saved me the time. Thanks!