D&D 5E Escaping from (rope) bonds... What is your ruling?

[Stormonu]

On the Acrobatics check, the only thing that come to mind is Harry Houdini'ing it out of the bonds.

As for the rope bindings, I'm not sure what I'd set the DC - I'm thinking 21, so the average person wouldn't have a chance (you'd need either proficiency or natural talent). Possibly maybe setting it lower but require you have proficiency to make an attempt to break/cut/slip/untie your way out.

I want it to be something in the heroic range but not having to have to get into making sure prisoners are hogtied to keep from getting free, shutting down scenarios where the PCs are captured because they can escape far too easily. It should feel like an accomplishment, not playing yatzee with skill checks until you get the number you want.

 

[Horwath]

Eww.

why?


maybe you need info from a prisoner in some gulag and there is no chance that said prisoner can be set free and you just do not want to burn entire prison with all the guards to free the prisoner.

maybe you need to free that prisoner and most likely course of action is to do it from inside as a captive yourself.

maybe you just rolled badly and got TPKed and DM didn't want to end the group/campaign.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't think 5E is really built to support DC 40 checks or nigh impossible standards, and so you end up making the players feel railroaded or punished when you employ that stuff. YMMV of course.

You seem to be suggesting that if the PCs are not guaranteed success that they are being subjected to "railroading".

This isn't the first time I've noticed it, but I think there might be a translation issue here:
Reynard is not suggesting that railroading is when the PCs are not guaranteed success, they are saying it is when the PCs are guaranteed to fail. - Such as when an impossible DC like 40 is set.

PCs not being guaranteed success would be if any DC above their skill modifier was set. The phrase in English means has a chance to fail rather than guaranteed fail.

 

[Reynard]

why?


maybe you need info from a prisoner in some gulag and there is no chance that said prisoner can be set free and you just do not want to burn entire prison with all the guards to free the prisoner.

maybe you need to free that prisoner and most likely course of action is to do it from inside as a captive yourself.

maybe you just rolled badly and got TPKed and DM didn't want to end the group/campaign.

I replied with the image of the GM tying up the PCs for "narrative reasons." I don't think the PCs tying up an NPC is "narrative" in any meaningful sense, and the GM using capture rather than a TPK is fine but just skip the part where the PCs have no agency and move to the next time they do, IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I voted "Yes. Other.

"A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of] Strength checks.

Other Strength Checks. The DM might also call fora Strength check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:

• Break free of bonds"

Dexterity similarly allows escaping from bonds.

Strength doesn't have enough skills, so I would probably allow athletics to be added to the roll for strong characters. Acrobatics doesn't fit, though, being for larger agility movements like balancing on a tightrope or flipping through a crowd. Sleight of hand, though, is about nimble hand and finger movements and THAT would fit aid to a PC trying to escape the bonds by nimbleness and not brute force, so I'd allow that to help as well.

So Yes(Sleight of Hand) and Other(Athletics).

 

[tetrasodium]

Eww.

What do you mean? It says right in your quote that the GM calls for a roll if the outcome is uncertain, not that the GM is required to allow a roll.

Yes it does say that, but it says it as part of a larger section describing a process. That process is one where:

1. Player declares they attempt a thing to overcome a challenge
2. No matter if the GM considers it an impossible thing the next step is for the GM to call for an ability check. This is done because the results are uncertain and it allows the dice to decide
3. When calling for that ability check the GM decides A:which of the 6 ability scores apply & B: The DC of that task with an implied pick from the list below.
4. The player then rolls a d20 & adds the ability mod
5. Possible results are success or some setback.

This is pants on head style logic flow for a process if it is accepted to ever have step1 simply declared " impossible" because declaring that prior to starting step2 would skip steps two through five. Worse is the fact that after going all the way to step 5 the logic flow of the process still does not account for step1 being an impossible action & only outlines success or setback as the options.

Yes most normal humans could figure it out, but (deliberate or not) the logic fail does serve a purpose with mechanical function That function is to provide ammunition for protest & a rules lawyering vehicle for a player to claim they are being "railroaded" or "punished" if the GM decides that step1 was an impossible task.

I said "feel railroaded or punished" for a reason.

I don't see that as a meaningful distinction when the RAW wording encourages a player to "feel" that way and provides them with ammunition to push back after attempting an impossible task or suffering a step5 setback that feels like they are being "punished".

I can't think of a situation in actual play at a table that would benefit from tying the PCs up and throwing them in a cell and then letting the players fail at trying to get out for and hour or two before them just giving up. If you must (for the "narrative") tie them up, just move on to the next time they have agency.

Coleville has a great video☆ about catastropic failure that is super relevant because the party winds up in prison as a result of a chain forged from "pfft whatever... hold my beer" over & over again. At some point daring the GM to react logically goes too far & the GM needs to call the bluff by having the world act logically.

☆ maybe two I think but not sure if that's the one.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I’d use the safe word we established before beginning the session.

 

[tetrasodium]

This isn't the first time I've noticed it, but I think there might be a translation issue here:
Reynard is not suggesting that railroading is when the PCs are not guaranteed success, they are saying it is when the PCs are guaranteed to fail. - Such as when an impossible DC like 40 is set.

PCs not being guaranteed success would be if any DC above their skill modifier was set. The phrase in English means has a chance to fail rather than guaranteed fail.

Yes but the problems seep in through the cracks of the RAW wording once you accept that it's possible for a task to simply be impossible due to scenario elements that are ignored or currently unknown even if it seemed like a plausible task to the player

 

[Reynard]

At some point daring the GM to react logically goes too far & the GM needs to call the bluff by having the world act logically.

That's fine, but I still say skip (by way of narration) to the part where the PCs have agency.

"Six weeks ago, you woke in Lord Terrible's dungeons, and despite all your efforts you have not been able to escape. For the first time since your imprisonment, Lord Terrible has come to oversee your torture himself." And then play, or whatever. There is no need to play out those 6 weeks. If the PCs have no agency, they aren't relevant to play.

 

[Reynard]

I’d use the safe word we established before beginning the session.

Arugula!