D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Imaculata]

For reference, I'm with you to the extent that I wouldn't call for a check for climbing an 80' knotted rope. (I would call for a check for, e.g., a 1000' rope, and the implication of a sharp cut-off at some distance X doesn't bother me, since I'm never going to have an X' and an X'+1" rope next to each other in the same game.)

That seems incredibly arbitrary to me. 5e is pretty clear that climbing is just a fraction of your movement, and not a complication in and of itself. It's right there in the rules. I know 5e isn't as wordy on the rules as 3.x, but this seems like basic reading comprehension to me.

Now you can houserule it all you like of course, but the discussion is about the rules provided.

then if a particular DM considers a potentially lethal fall to be such a complication, then, by my reading, the rules encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

A potentially lethal fall is a failure state, not a complication. A complication is something that 'complicates' the climbing (makes it harder to climb the rope).

but the rules leave the question of what qualifies as a complication up to the DM.

Yes and no. Yes, the DM can decide what is enough of a complication to affect the climbing, but no, the fact that you could fall is not a complication, nor is distance climbed.

So if, for example, @6ENow! rules that the stress of a potentially lethal fall qualifies as such a complication, I think they're following the rules to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

Unless the PC is specifically afraid of heights, I don't think it does. Heck, you could have PC's make checks for the stress of swimming across a pond because they might get bitten by a crocodile. I don't think that is how checks work. Fear of failing a task should not contribute to the difficulty of the task, unless the character has some kind of phobia.

 

[SkidAce]

Good replies...

To wit however, using D&D 5E rules, people are saying those falls would never have happened (no check required).

Now I'm not going that far in left field to require a check for everything (everyone would die riding horse over time statistically), but I do feel at a certain point in an otherwise "simple knotted rope" climb or other type of activity, that a check may be called for.

And like most things, this will be a dm/group dynamic situation.

 

[SkidAce]

Unless the PC is specifically afraid of heights, I don't think it does. Heck, you could have PC's make checks for the stress of swimming across a pond because they might get bitten by a crocodile. I don't think that is how checks work. Fear of failing a task should not contribute to the difficulty of the task, unless the character has some kind of phobia.

How about muscle failure from the length of the climb?

 

[Imaculata]

but I do feel at a certain point in an otherwise "simple knotted rope" climb or other type of activity, that a check may be called for.

Absolutely. For example, my players once had to climb an unknotted rope, to scale the slippery walls of a tower during a storm, at night. One end of the rope was attached to the iron bars of a tower, the other to a moving ship. Multiple people were hanging from the same rope, the walls were steep and wet, and guards started firing muskets at them too. Now THAT is what I would call a complication. I don't remember what the DC was, but it was just one check (in 3.x).

How about muscle failure from the length of the climb?

Distance climbed, as per the 5e rules, is not a factor. That would include fatique from said climb. Also note that if the rope is knotted, you can just pause for a moment, and then continue. You can rest your full body weight on those knots. If you want, you can rule that the climb takes a little longer.

 

[Charlaquin]

For reference, I'm with you to the extent that I wouldn't call for a check for climbing an 80' knotted rope. (I would call for a check for, e.g., a 1000' rope, and the implication of a sharp cut-off at some distance X doesn't bother me, since I'm never going to have an X' and an X'+1" rope next to each other in the same game.)

Where I disagree with you is your presentation of the "rules". Since the two complications listed in the book are examples, then if a particular DM considers a potentially lethal fall to be such a complication, then, by my reading, the rules encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

Sure, you and I might disagree with a DM's call that a potentially lethal 80' fall qualifies as such a complication, but the rules leave the question of what qualifies as a complication up to the DM. So if, for example, @6ENow! rules that the stress of a potentially lethal fall qualifies as such a complication, I think they're following the rules to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. After all, the rules don't say to only call for a check if @iserith or @Xetheral think a particular complication is sufficiently similar to the two printed examples.

To put it plainly: my claim is that any DM who identifies a climbing complication that they consider to be comparable in kind to climbing a slippery vertical surface or a surface with few handholds is following the rules if they call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

I don’t disagree with this in principle. Its just that that “a potentially lethal fall” isn’t just not a complication sufficiently similar to the two examples. It’s not a complication at all. It’s a consequence. Any climb carries some risk of falling. The greater the height, the more dangerous it would be to fall, which certainly makes climbs to significant heights more dangerous. But it doesn’t make them more complicated. And by the 5e rules, a climb without complications doesn’t require a check to complete successfully. Not that there’s anything wrong with asking for a check anyway if that’s what you want to do.

 

[Flamestrike]

It is very reasonable. If I lowered a knotted rope down an 80 foot height and asked 100 randomly selected adults between the age of 18 and 55 to pick up 50 lbs of equipment and make that climb - MOST would fail.

No, most would succeed.

From experience, we did exactly that in the Army, and every single one of us succeeded. As has every other soldier, ever.

We were all reasonably healthy adult males (it was a male only platoon) aged 18-30.

And our rope didnt have knots.

The out of shape fatties struggled of course. But presuming an average health and strength, all you are doing is doing a single press-up, locking the rope over your feet (where you can rest without tiring yourself) and repeat.

If you can do a single press-up, you can climb a rope. If you cant do a single press-up, you're either morbidly obese, or have a Strength of 5 or less (or both)

 

[Charlaquin]

I would consider sufficiently dire consequences (or, more precisely, the pressure caused by sufficiently dire consequences) to be a complication for success in addition to being a consequence of failure. But in any case, what you or I think is a moot point, because the rules leave the identification of complications up to each individual DM.

Sure. The stress that the height of the climb might induce could represent a complicating factor. But I don’t think it’s the DM’s role to determine if a player character is experiencing such stress. If the player wants to establish that their character is stressed, perhaps invoking a personality trait or flaw to gain Inspiration, that’s up to them.

 

[iserith]

For reference, I'm with you to the extent that I wouldn't call for a check for climbing an 80' knotted rope. (I would call for a check for, e.g., a 1000' rope, and the implication of a sharp cut-off at some distance X doesn't bother me, since I'm never going to have an X' and an X'+1" rope next to each other in the same game.)

Where I disagree with you is your presentation of the "rules". Since the two complications listed in the book are examples, then if a particular DM considers a potentially lethal fall to be such a complication, then, by my reading, the rules encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

Sure, you and I might disagree with a DM's call that a potentially lethal 80' fall qualifies as such a complication, but the rules leave the question of what qualifies as a complication up to the DM. So if, for example, @6ENow! rules that the stress of a potentially lethal fall qualifies as such a complication, I think they're following the rules to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. After all, the rules don't say to only call for a check if @iserith or @Xetheral think a particular complication is sufficiently similar to the two printed examples.

To put it plainly: my claim is that any DM who identifies a climbing complication that they consider to be comparable in kind to climbing a slippery vertical surface or a surface with few handholds is following the rules if they call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

There aren't just two examples though. There are several in both Chapters 7 and Chapter 8 which all speak to an environmental effect that creates a difficult situation while climbing and makes a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. The distance of the climb does not sit in this category. Climbing is a factor of speed, no different than walking across an empty room if there are no complications (albeit 2 feet of speed for 1 foot of movement). It's plain as day to me that some posters are ignoring the specific and focusing only on the general to try and justify a practice they likely got from other games.

 

[Flamestrike]

Please send a video of you making this climb i

Ive posted videos of children making such a climb. Reliably and with next to no chance of failure.

Google it. There are videos of soliders doing it in full kit - the Royal Marine Commandos do rope climbs with fully kit and body armor.

A Strength 10 PC can lift 300lbs. Presuming he (and his kit) weighs less than this weight, he can do a press-up, then simply stand on a knot off the rope, and then repeat (pausing as he goes, as he is not pressured by any time limit).

I assume a Strength 10 PC can easily manage 25 press ups over the space of a few minutes, to get himself up a knotted rope.

I mean this is madness. Im no athlete and I can do a few dozen press-ups, 60 or so push-ups and climb a rope with ease.

 

[Charlaquin]

Distance climbed, as per the 5e rules, is not a factor. That would include fatique from said climb. Also note that if the rope is knotted, you can just pause for a moment, and then continue. You can rest your full body weight on those knots. If you want, you can rule that the climb takes a little longer.

In the example scenario, that wouldn’t matter because it was established that there was no time pressure. I would consider time pressure to be a complicating factor though, and would call for a check if there was.