D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[DND_Reborn]

Let's discuss the actual rules.

LOL I've been doing that. There is stress (IMO) in climbing so high due to the danger involved, and so I would require a check. The check DC would be the same for any distance as far as the use of the rope is concerned, but at a certain point as DM it is my option to exercise that a check is required. This is entirely within the actual rules.

I apologize if I sound harsh, but frankly I am tired of pointing this out to people.

FWIW, I'll add as the OP and others have added, a CON check or something to represent the fatigue involved could also be warranted.

 

[billd91]

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.

I don't think he's changing the rules at all. A fairly long climb, and an 80 foot vertical rope climb even when the rope is knotted is fairly long, seems like enough of a complication to me to warrant a check. I wouldn't require one for a 20 foot or so climb, but 80 feet is a lot more daunting, risky, and arduous. Having just anybody climb it, whether good at Strength (Athletics) checks or not, seems pretty uncertain to me.
DC 10 with advantage because the rope is knotted is quite reasonable. Someone with a decent Strength and trained in Athletics is likely to do just fine while someone who isn't will struggle - as they probably should.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Both games had 'Taking 10' for skill checks, and the DC to climb a rope was 10 or less, so as long as you were unhurried, you also just auto-pass climbing a rope in 3E and 4E.

 

[Flamestrike]

DC 10 with advantage because the rope is knotted is quite reasonable.

Aaand over 30 percent of healthy adult male humans plunge to their deaths when climbing a knotted rope, with a wall to brace on.

That is not reasonable.

If you want them to use the door, just tell them so.

 

[Horwath]

To reward players taking proficiency in skills/tools and/or expertise, I might steal rogues reliable talent and give it with reduced power to everyone.

Skill proficiency: treat any roll of 4 or lower as 5 on d20 for that skill,
Skill expertise: treat any roll of 7 or lower as 8,
Rogue's reliable talent and skill proficiency: treat any roll of 9 or lower as 10,
Rogue's reliable talent and skill expertise: treat any roll of 11 or lower as 12,

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't even consider that throwing a grappling hook 80 feet was too far. I said they failed a lot before they succeeded, no roll needed. BUT, in retrospect, maybe yes, having one person take the risk to climb up, and then everyone else succeeds automatically would have been a better option. And they had multiple ropes to knot.

Then the risk involved could have been one of the knots coming loose while climbing and the check involved could have been for that. That would have been a reasonable way to include the risk of falling, without making the climb harder than it should have been.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

For clarity, are you arguing that "climbing a slippery vertical surface" or "[a surface] with few handholds" are the only two types of complications for which a DM has the option of requiring a successful Strength (Athletics) check to climb? Or do you think the two listed types of complications are merely examples, and the rules are suggesting the DM has the option of requiring a successful Strength (Athletics) check to overcome any climbing complication?

If the former, what purpose do you think such a narrow reading serves--why is the game better if the DM only calls for checks for those two types of complications? If the latter, why do you think it isn't reasonable for a DM to consider a potentially lethal fall as a complication in line with the two examples?

 

[Imaculata]

I wish more people would take @iserith 's advice to heart, and not be so frustratingly stubborn.

I'm a 3.x player and DM. I run a 3.5 campaign almost every sunday for years now, and even I think climbing a knotted rope with a wall to brace against required no check in 3.x! It would be a DC 0 check at the most, which is almost impossible to fail (especially since players can just take 10). I certainly wouldn't bother with a check for that in 5e! Let alone 3 checks in a row.

Excuse me for going on a small tangent here, but I think DM's should never ask for 3 of the same checks in a row, in order for a player to succeed at one task. Such a matter can and SHOULD be decided with no more than one check at the very most. Asking for multiple checks means insisting the players fail, no matter how good their skill. It is unfair, and worse, it is unfun. It also drags things out.

The goal should be to resolve an uncertain outcome swiftly and with ease, not to make the players roll lots of dice for trivial matters. 5e is all about simplicity and speed of play. Just let them make 1 roll (if there is a good justification), or no roll, and move on. And no, I don't think the length of the climb is a good justification for a check. It is not the sort of complication that the 5e rules give examples of.

 

[Flamestrike]

For clarity, are you arguing that "climbing a slippery vertical surface" or "[a surface] with few handholds" are the only two types of complications for which a DM has the option of requiring a successful Strength (Athletics) check to climb?

No, he's arguing 'climbing a knotted rope with a wall to brace on' is not in the same category as 'climbing a slippery vertical surface' or 'climbing a surface with few handholds'.

Climbing (by default) does not require an ability check. It only requires a check when there is a reasonable prospect of failure (akin to trying to scale a sheer, vertical and slippery surface, or one with no handholds.

A knotted rope is neither of those things. It is not slippery, and has handholds (and footholds) the whole way up.

Secondary sources such as modules that have specific call outs for Climbing (LMoP) that give DC's for the Climb also expressly state if you have a rope, you dont need to make a check at all. Prior editions of the game (and related games like SWSE) more or less make climbing a rope with a wall to brace on automatic as well.

So far in this thread I've seen people argue for a DC from 8-15 to climb a knotted rope, including calls for checks every single round worth (15') of progress, with failure meaning falling off the wall, meaning no sane healthy adult (Commoner, Str 10, 4 HP) would ever attempt a rope climb, ladders and trees are the things of nightmares, and actual mountaineering is a death sentence.

I literally cant understand how people can even call for a check to climb a rope, let alone set such an insanely high DC.

I get that most of us are likely nerds who likely struggled in gym class as kids, but come on.

 

[Imaculata]

I literally cant understand how people can even call for a check to climb a rope, let alone set such an insanely high DC.

I get that most of us are likely nerds who likely struggled in gym class as kids, but come on.

^ this

Look, my stamina and strength never were great. But even when I was young I could easily climb an unknotted rope without a wall to brace against.

DnD generally takes place is a pseudo medieval fantasy setting, in which even commoners would be hardy folk. The player characters are not commoners, but above average; heroes with much greater strength and endurance. They are like seasoned marines.

Some of the people in this thread are proposing DC's akin to climbing a wall of ice with your bare hands, for a task as easy as walking to the other side of the room.