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.
I completely agree with this, sort of. I think one success is all that should be required, but that
might need more than one check if the first roll fails...
I would ask for
one check, to succeed. I would set the DC at 8 for climbing a rope, with advantage for it being knotted. With no modifier at all, the PC would only fail the check about 12% of the time. But, as (hopefully) we all know, failure doesn't necessarily mean "falling", it just means a lack of progress (e.g. the PC gets stuck, tangled in the rope, has to hang and rest a moment, etc.). At which point, I would require a second check, again only failing 12% of the time with
NO modifier at all. A second failure, which works out to just 1.5% over all, I would require a DEX save to avoid falling (e.g. you have slipped and need to catch yourself before you fall). If you
actually rolled badly enough to require a third check, then you proceed until the PC has a success (finally) or falls (failing the DEX save) or gives up and climbs back down. If the PC falls, I would randomly determine their height (2d4 x10) to determine damage.
I think another thing people aren't really considering is the fact this is an 80' climb! Falling anywhere near the top would likely be lethal for most people. I know PCs are "heroes" and get plot armor, but HP attrition is part of the game and falling and the resulting damage is part of it IMO.
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.
Which is perfectly fine for your game, but if you joined another game and the DM asked for an ability check, would you say "No, I am not doing it."??? As I have stated for myself, an 80-foot climb
IS risky and involves and element of danger and stress---so I would call for a check.
Now, if the first PC made it up, and dropped a second rope so secure other climbers to, further reducing the risk, etc. then I wouldn't bother with checks
unless other circumstances made it necessary. Use of a climber's kit would also make the need for a check unnecessary IMO, but if another DM still required a check I wouldn't question it.
Likewise, if I joined a game and the DM hand-waved the challenge away because the party had enough rope and a grappling hook, I'd be fine (as a player) with that, too.
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.
Great, so you learned the technique to climb a rope. I was decently strong and had great endurance from running, but it took me several attempts to learn to climb ropes like that.
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.
No, I'm sorry but with this I must disagree. All of that depends entirely on your ability scores. A PC with a STR 10 is only as strong as a commoner with a STR 10, and many PCs are not "seasoned marines" whose physical scores would be above normal. Are physical-oriented PCs that way, sure, but a lot of clerics, druids, other casters and even rogues, archer-types, etc. don't typically have "greater strength" because many such builds have STR 8-12, rarely higher.
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.
Maybe I missed their posts, but no one is doing that. The DCs people have suggested for the OP that I've seen range from 8-12. Climbing a wall of ice with bare hands would be a DC 25 in my book, anyway--hardly as easy as walking across a room.
