D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Flamestrike]

LOL, any reference to Flamestrike is wasted here--I ignored that user a while ago.

Pity.

You might actually have learnt how the rules work in the game you constantly deride on a forum populated be people who like it.

 

[Nebulous]

I think everyone has given great advice and further deepened my understanding of 5e. I do appreciate it! I don't think I ran the original scenario correctly (hence I asked for tips). I would have done it differently based on many of the ideas presented herein.

 

[Nebulous]

There is no check to climb a rope in 5E. Barring any complicating factors (a slippery rope, a particularly long climb, being rushed etc) it is automatic.

Now we are back to DM fiat. Is 80 feet a long climb? 800 feet? I think I would have been justified in asking for a single athletics check to climb up 80 feet on a crumbling tower wall with bricks falling out.

 

[Nebulous]

Anyway, I do appreciate everyone's answers. It reminds me of the vagueness of 5e in key places, and it annoys me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

it annoys me.

LOL you aren't alone.

 

[iserith]

Now we are back to DM fiat. Is 80 feet a long climb? 800 feet? I think I would have been justified in asking for a single athletics check to climb up 80 feet on a crumbling tower wall with bricks falling out.

Yes, the PCs climbing by scaling a tower wall with bricks falling out is exactly the sort of difficult situation the rules describe when there might be a Strength (Athletics) check. But these PCs were climbing a knotted rope with no difficult situation or even time pressure in evidence. So, no roll. Now, D&D 3.Xe or 4e? Yeah, you're probably going to make a "skill check." But not in this game.

Also, there is nothing in the rules that suggests the distance climbed is a difficult situation that calls for a Strength (Athletics) check. What you could be testing, however, is whether the PCs become exhausted by making a particularly long climb (for example). A Constitution check in this case can model the PCs' attempt to push beyond their normal limits. But that is answering a different dramatic question than whether the PCs can climb the rope without falling. It's "Do the PCs fall while climbing?" versus "Do they get exhausted during the climb?"

 

[Nebulous]

Yes, the PCs climbing by scaling a tower wall with bricks falling out is exactly the sort of difficult situation the rules describe when there might be a Strength (Athletics) check. But these PCs were climbing a knotted rope with no difficult situation or even time pressure in evidence. So, no roll. Now, D&D 3.Xe or 4e? Yeah, you're probably going to make a "skill check." But not in this game.

Also, there is nothing in the rules that suggests the distance climbed is a difficult situation that calls for a Strength (Athletics) check. What you could be testing, however, is whether the PCs become exhausted by making a particularly long climb (for example). A Constitution check in this case can model the PCs' attempt to push beyond their normal limits. But that is answering a different dramatic question than whether the PCs can climb the rope without falling. It's "Do the PCs fall while climbing?" versus "Do they get exhausted during the climb?"

And yes, that is an entirely different can of worms. Is it Con vs Strength? Can they get an exhaustion level by failing a check?

 

[DND_Reborn]

And yes, that is an entirely different can of worms. Is it Con vs Strength? Can they get an exhaustion level by failing a check?

Again, like most of 5E, entirely up to you. What do you feel, as DM, is warranted?

There are only examples and vague rules that support them. Of course, 5E is a much less "rules intense" version of D&D compared to the complexity of prior versions--which is also by design. shrug

Consider @iserith and my exchange: they feel no check is required with some other external problem added to it, such as your crumbling wall example. Despite what some people might think, there is very little in 5E which is right or wrong in rulings.

Even your OP is a fine ruling. I would agree with your statement perhaps the DC was a bit high, but you offered advantage so I am sure it was fine really. As I posted earlier the odds of either not making it were small enough.

For some tables, with such a small chance anyway, they question why bother rolling? My personal preference is to still roll, on the off-hand that bad fortune happens. It doesn't take long to resolve, and it makes the tower a challenge without having to impose other factors to make it a hazard (if other factors are appropriate to the story, then of course add them!).

I've played with DMs who rarely call for any checks, and I've played with games that run the other end and will require a check for a 30-foot climb up a rough cliff face with many hand-holds.

It is both the beauty and the bane of 5E IMO that it is so open to individual interpretation and rulings. Make the game your own, have fun, and don't worry about it otherwise.

 

[iserith]

Again, like most of 5E, entirely up to you. What do you feel, as DM, is warranted?

There are only examples and vague rules that support them. Of course, 5E is a much less "rules intense" version of D&D compared to the complexity of prior versions--which is also by design. shrug

Consider @iserith and my exchange: they feel no check is required with some other external problem added to it, such as your crumbling wall example. Despite what some people might think, there is very little in 5E which is right or wrong in rulings.

Where you see vagueness, I see clarity. There are specific rules that govern climbing. They're in two different places in the rules book and fit within the more general context of task resolution, but they are there. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks any given ruling is wrong - that would be a bad position to take. However, we can examine whether a ruling was based on the specific rules of this game or whether they are being influenced by, for example, other games like D&D 3.xe or 4e. And there's plenty of the latter going on in this thread in my view.

Climbing is just a factor of speed in D&D 5e. Unless the DM contrives a difficult situation as part of the climb (and I recommend they do because that's interesting!), then it's no different than walking across an empty room, only slower.

 

[Blue]

That's not it at all. The DC doesn't change.

My point is I would require the check for the element of peril with an 80-foot climb, but not with a 10-foot climb. The hazard (falling) is significant if you fail the one (80-feet), not the other (10-feet), due to the damage you'll sustain.

FWIW, if a DM even insisted on the check for a 10-foot climb, I would be fine with that....

Got it. But that's definitely a ruling, not the rules. Let's discuss the actual rules.

A check represents the difficulty, not the magnitude of the results. And is only made if trhere is uncertainty.

I understand how you are changi9ng the rules to increase tension at your table. It's pretty cool. But, within the rules there's no justification for being inconsistent and suddenly penalizing your players with increased chance of failure because the stakes are higher.