D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Nebulous]

So, what would be a fair DC for someone to climb an old, crumbling tower wall with loose bricks and few handholds? 80 feet.

 

[iserith]

Except, that as some pointed out, tossing it 80 feet up might have been too far in the first place, and would need someone to risk climbing, no knotted rope, and hook it first.

Some people might say that, yes. It's the DM's call to say if the task (throw a grappling hook up 80 feet to catch the sill of a broken window) is possible or impossible or whether the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain, the DM then needs to decide if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If you can just keep retrying if you fail, then there's no meaningful consequence for failure and thus no roll. You just succeed if you spend the time on it.

 

[Nebulous]

Some people might say that, yes. It's the DM's call to say if the task (throw a grappling hook up 80 feet to catch the sill of a broken window) is possible or impossible or whether the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain, the DM then needs to decide if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If you can just keep retrying if you fail, then there's no meaningful consequence for failure and thus no roll. You just succeed if you spend the time on it.

But yes I agree, if there is no meaningful consequence they just succeed.

 

[iserith]

So, what would be a fair DC for someone to climb an old, crumbling tower wall with loose bricks and few handholds? 80 feet.

DMG, page 238, "Difficulty Class" offers guidance here. The main takeaway is that if the only DCs you ever use in your game 10, 15, or 20, the game will run just fine. It's up to you to decide if this climb with loose bricks and few handholds is easy, moderate, or hard based on how the PCs undertake the climb (the approach). They should be reasonably specific about how they do it so it's easier for you to decide. A given approach might make the climb easier - and thus have a lower DC - than another approach.

 

[Quickleaf]

Because my brother kept bringing it and his insistence on 3.x rules, which was only complicating stuff in my brain. I wanted a CHANCE of falling, that's all. Not instant success but enough to make you think twice. They had no time constraints and no immediate guards.

That's key information. There was no time pressure. And, as I'm reading "no immediate guards", there was no threat of being discovered while breaking in.

So I think the question to ask is: What was at risk? What was at stake? What was unknown?

From your description of the "old, crumbling 80-foot tower wall with loose bricks and few handholds", my impression is that what you wanted to have at risk was the actual physical climbing ability of the person doing the unassisted solo free climb and potential for falling as a consequence. If they succeed, they attach the anchor, and everyone else can climb up without needing a check.

The DC is going to be somewhere >15 (free hanging rope with no handholds/footholds) but <20 (vertical freeclimb of natural rock with few handholds, climbing a rockfall with a rope in terrible weather or under fire). DC 17 or 18 feels about right.

Then, I'd look for ways to add more nuance to a failed check. So fail by 5+ would be outright falling somewhere mid-climb (20 feet + 1d4x 10 feet worth of fall damage). But a fail by 1-4 would indicate an interrupted climb with some kind of complication. For example, falling to a lower balcony for 1d6 or 2d6 damage and smashing through a window as they roll. Or someone opening up a window and emptying a night soil bucket. Or falling bricks creating a hazard for allies below, and making the climb for allies harder. Basically, failing by 1-4 is any sort of complication short of "you fall and fail." But failing by 5+ is the "big fall."

EDIT: Oh! If they went the "I want to throw the grappling hook up 80 feet" (and assuming they had long enough rope), I'd consider using either an improvised ranged attack roll (AC 9), a Sleight of Hand check, or a Strength (climber's/mountaineer's tools) check... with disadvantage for long range. A failed check by 1-4 would mean the grapple gets hooked on the wrong thing, and now they have to figure out how to extricate it, while a failed check by 5+ might indicate the rope gets cut on some architectural protrusion and they lose the grappling hook on a balcony or neighboring rooftop.

 

[Nebulous]

DMG, page 238, "Difficulty Class" offers guidance here. The main takeaway is that if the only DCs you ever use in your game 10, 15, or 20, the game will run just fine. It's up to you to decide if this climb with loose bricks and few handholds is easy, moderate, or hard based on how the PCs undertake the climb (the approach). They should be reasonably specific about how they do it so it's easier for you to decide. A given approach might make the climb easier - and thus have a lower DC - than another approach.

We were going under the assumption of "climb at half speed" rule. Which would have been 3 checks for that particular distance. I said DC 12 which was moderate difficulty. It could just as easily have been 10 or 8 though.

 

[iserith]

We were going under the assumption of "climb at half speed" rule. Which would have been 3 checks for that particular distance. I said DC 12 which was moderate difficulty. It could just as easily have been 10 or 8 though.

There's nothing in the D&D 5e rules that suggest the players need to make ability checks for every given increment of movement. This can be resolved with a single check, if an ability check is needed at all.

 

[Nebulous]

There's nothing in the D&D 5e rules that suggest the players need to make ability checks for every given increment of movement. This can be resolved with a single check, if an ability check is needed at all.

I do think an ability check is need if a single PC wanted to climb the old tower. I WANT a penalty and fear of falling. But you've guys helped answer lots of questions

 

[Charlaquin]

We were going under the assumption of "climb at half speed" rule. Which would have been 3 checks for that particular distance. I said DC 12 which was moderate difficulty. It could just as easily have been 10 or 8 though.

I recommend never using multiple checks when one check will do. Speed just tells you how long it will take to climb, which if there’s no time pressure is irrelevant. Just establish the stakes of the roll (you’ll fall, taking Xd6 damage and land prone at the bottom) and call for the check. If you want, you can tie the amount of fall damage to the result on the roll, or just use the median, which on an 80 ft. climb would be 4d6.

 

[iserith]

I do think an ability check is need if a single PC wanted to climb the old tower. I WANT a penalty and fear of falling. But you've guys helped answer lots of questions

Sure. I get it. If you ask for three checks though, you should expect the players to do exactly what they did - avoid climbing - since the chance of failure goes up with each additional check. In the face of the DM's ruling, that is the right course of action in my view.