D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Lanefan]

I don't have a copy of the Greyhawk supplement, nor of Holmes Basic. In Moldvay, the text is as follows (pp B8, B10; the fluctuating adjectives and capitals are original, not my transcription error):

Climb sheer Surfaces . . . A thief's training includes learning how to . . . climb steep surfaces . . .​

That wording is confusing in itself, in that there's a fairly big difference between "steep" and "sheer" yet both are referenced.

 

[clearstream]

If it is a regular stone and mortar wall with no added difficulties, adventurers are deemed capable enough to climb in 5e - they can climb at half speed (unless they otherwise have a climbing speed) with no roll needed.

As evidenced by the Strength ability check section:

Athletics.
Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:

• You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

Correct, the DM has stakes in mind for success and failure when calling for an ability check in 5e. Some DMs even share those stakes with the player before the roll to reflect that the PC is a capable adventurer at least partly aware of the possible consequences of what they are attempting.

Sheer, is enough to justify a check, providing there are consequences that matter... like falling.

Perpendicular, or nearly so.

 

[clearstream]

This gives rise to the question: to what extent can a player augment their Climb Walls check (however that is handled in a given system - in 5e it is most likely STR (Athletics) ) via a Perception, Survival, Slippery-Walls-wise or similar check?

Some systems make this very straightforward (eg Burning Wheel; HeroQuest revised; 4e D&D, provided the context is a skill challenge). Some have no provision for it at all (eg AD&D). Some have a half-baked approach (eg Rolemaster; 4e D&D outside a skill challenge context).

I'm not sure what the canonical 5e D&D approach is to this.

Canonically, an ability check cannot modify an ability check.

A DM can base challenge on player's approach: meaning an ability check could lower the DC for another check. An ability check could also give an ability check advantage, helping that check.

 

[Oofta]

This gives rise to the question: to what extent can a player augment their Climb Walls check (however that is handled in a given system - in 5e it is most likely STR (Athletics) ) via a Perception, Survival, Slippery-Walls-wise or similar check?

Some systems make this very straightforward (eg Burning Wheel; HeroQuest revised; 4e D&D, provided the context is a skill challenge). Some have no provision for it at all (eg AD&D). Some have a half-baked approach (eg Rolemaster; 4e D&D outside a skill challenge context).

I'm not sure what the canonical 5e D&D approach is to this.

In my game it depends on the situation. You might be able to pick a better route up a cliff, perception or survival may lower the DC or Grant advantage.

P.S. I don't understand the "wet walls are impossible to climb" idea. I used to do river walking - hiking up streams in northern Minnesota. Water and damp may slightly increase the difficulty, but until you start climbing you can't tell how much.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand the "wet walls are impossible to climb" idea.

I don't think anyone has said that wet walls are impossible to climb, have they?

Water and damp may slightly increase the difficulty, but until you start climbing you can't tell how much.

I could be wrong, but my assumption would be that most D&D players and GMs don't have much experience in climbing, moving silently, picking locks, bribing guards, and all the other activities that PCs find themselves involved in.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think anyone has said that wet walls are impossible to climb, have they?

I could be wrong, but my assumption would be that most D&D players and GMs don't have much experience in climbing, moving silently, picking locks, bribing guards, and all the other activities that PCs find themselves involved in.

Oh, it's early here and it was just a morning thought. I should probably wait until I've had some caffeine before posting. It's just that Swarmkeeper blocked me because I was using examples of different climbing difficulties that didn't involve wet walls. Or something. Not sure and they didn't explain.

In any case, there are times when the only way to determine how difficult it is to climb a cliff is to attempt to climb it. Same way that the only way to know if a door is locked is to attempt to open it, etc. Sometimes there's no logical reason to broadcast difficulty because there is no way to know the difficulty until you try.

 

[Hriston]

A question of clarification: suppose a player declares (speaking as their PC) I climb the wall and then you call for a STR (Athletics) check and the player fails the check, do you allow that it may turn out not to be true (in the fiction) that the PC actually climbed the wall? My feeling is that the answer is yes, but I want to check we're on the same page.

Yes, but before the check was made, clear stakes would be set, making it clear that the possible outcomes of the roll could include not climbing the wall completely if that seemed like part of an appropriate failure state. This would be in addition to any more detailed description that may have been necessary to clarify the fictional situation, so that by the time the check was made, the veracity of the player's simple action declaration would have been called into question.

And then a question about your method as GM: are you saying that you approach 5e D&D as a "no myth" game - ie there is no unrevealed backstory that is drawn on as a factor in action resolution? At the risk of stirring the pot, I'm going to mention @Ovinomancer who has strong views on the feasibility of that - I'm not trying to set up any sort of cage match, but am interested in hearing thoughtful posters talk about the range of feasible approaches with the world's most popular RPG.

I've played 5E with "myth", and I've also tried to play it in a more "indie" mode to give the players a greater degree of protagonism. This was in a campaign that lasted for over a year and is currently on hiatus. My prep for the campaign consisted mostly of random generation, and the resulting content was either revealed immediately or heavily telegraphed to the players during play. I didn't resolve action declarations with regard to any backstory that was kept secret as far as I can remember but instead followed the principle that if the players' action declarations were within genre and had fictional positioning, then I would either say "yes" or call for a check.

Some things were kept secret, although telegraphed, one of them being that the still first-level party met a rakshasa on one of the lower levels of a dungeon they were exploring, and because of the shapeshifting nature of the rakshasa, I chose to keep his identity secret and had him portray himself as a wandering merchant and philanthropist asking for food from the party, who were in the middle of having a meal. I telegraphed the predatory nature of this creature by describing the way he ate the meat he was offered as somewhat ravenous with juice dripping down his chin, and his extraplanar origin with several comments he made to a tiefling party member about her infernal ancestry being a positive quality. The players didn't really bite on any of this, and because I had determined (randomly) an indifferent attitude for the rakshasa, he eventually took his leave of the party to continue their meal. When they emerged from the dungeon and after a brief period of downtime, they learned that this NPC had newly become a person of some importance in the city that serves as the campaign's point of origin, his philanthropic activities tying in to some of the tiefling character's personality traits regarding helping poor street kids. The fact that his true goals are to secure a food source for himself and his family of rakshasas has not been disclosed.

 

[pemerton]

In any case, there are times when the only way to determine how difficult it is to climb a cliff is to attempt to climb it. Same way that the only way to know if a door is locked is to attempt to open it, etc. Sometimes there's no logical reason to broadcast difficulty because there is no way to know the difficulty until you try.

I think those who prefer "telegraphing" are not doing it because the logic of the fiction demands it. They're interested in the logic of game play.

 

[Oofta]

I think those who prefer "telegraphing" are not doing it because the logic of the fiction demands it. They're interested in the logic of game play.

I just prefer a more realistic approach. You don't automatically know everything there is to know at a glance, sometimes you have to interact. Of course this can be handwaved in certain situations or streamlined, I don't normally do detailed searches of rooms for example because to me it can be tedious and boring.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, but before the check was made, clear stakes would be set, making it clear that the possible outcomes of the roll could include not climbing the wall completely if that seemed like part of an appropriate failure state. This would be in addition to any more detailed description that may have been necessary to clarify the fictional situation, so that by the time the check was made, the veracity of the player's simple action declaration would have been called into question.

See, this is what confuses me. Let's say it's a cliff. If I've described it as a sheer wall with no handholds I doubt anyone is going to try to climb it. If they say they climb it, I'll just remind them that without magic it cannot be climbed. But maybe I just said "there's a cliff on the left". I didn't describe it any further because I didn't think anyone would want to. Players do all sorts of things I don't expect all the time.

As far as the risk, if you have to climb more than 10 feet, there's a chance of falling. It's built into the game.

Do players always know exactly how risky an activity is going to be before they make an attempt? If someone says "I climb the wall" and as a DM you state "Make an athletics check to see if you make it", what harm does it cause? It's no different than someone saying "I stab the guard" and the DM saying "Give me an attack roll". An attempt to climb or stab was made.