D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Flamestrike]

That’s a pretty extreme example, but people are going to have different thresholds on what is extreme.

We're talking seasoned adventurers, who routinely engage in lethal fights, forced marches, environmental hazards, getting fireballed, charmed, shot, stabbed and fried and so forth.

If we can agree that the overwhelming number of fit, healthy, adult humans can climb a knotted rope with virtually no chance of falling, then that's pretty much where it ends for me.

 

[Flamestrike]

Im somewhat reminded of this from a different forum:

Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

5 x separate checks (DC 5-15) to slide down a 50' rope inside a shaft.

Meaning an average human of Str 10 falls off that rope 99.999 percent of the time.

I've fast roped out of Helicopters carrying full combat gear at 15m (50 odd feet) and I dont remember every-one falling to their deaths.

Im just blown away that people are calling for a check to climb a rope, despite the clear guidance in the rules for only needing a check when climbing slippery surfaces or those with few handholds.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Out of curiosity, since it was mentioned, what would a check look like for a DND character in leather armor and typical gear to swim 21 miles across the English Channel?

DC 25 IMO. This would qualify as "very difficult"--IMO most people who attempted it would drown or turn back unless support was there to rescue them. It would require skill and talent and such to succeed due to the distance alone. Most people who've attempted it fail on their first try, even after training for it. In game terms, you would need at least a +5 to even attempt it, otherwise a natural 20 wouldn't even succeed.

 

[Flamestrike]

DC 25 IMO.

That makes it impossible for an adult human in reasonable health to cross the Channel. Which we know is not the case (plenty of normal Joes have swam 20 miles in open water before, or been stuck alone in open water for a long time - they're exhausted when found and require a ton of bedrest, but they make it.

I'd make Swimming the English Channel a skill challenge with a DC 10 Constitution (Athletics) check, with a failure causing a level of Exhaustion, and requiring 3 successes to make the crossing.

Each success consumes 2 and a half hours time.

Meaning your average adult human with a Con of 10 would possibly die attempting such a crossing without training (the first failed check imposes disadvantage on future checks due to exhaustion, and 6 levels of exhaustion, kills you).

You likely finish the swim (if you make it) in around 15 hours, with 3-4 levels of exhaustion. Passing all 3 checks makes the crossing in 7 and a half hours, which is the current record. The longest crossing was around 17 hours (meaning that person had to make 7 checks, and finished with 4 levels of exhaustion).

Rough waters would increase the DC by 5.

You're OK until you fail that first Athletics check, at which time you're in a world of trouble as you tire in open waters.

Using improvised flotation devices (your pants, a bit of driftwood) grant advantage.

 

[iserith]

Im just blown away that people are calling for a check to climb a rope, despite the clear guidance in the rules for only needing a check when climbing slippery surfaces or those with few handholds.

There is a strong impetus among many DMs in my experience that when they hear a task that sounds like it would fall under a particular skill, then they call for an ability check. Lie = Deception check. Look = Perception check. Climb = Athletics check. There's not a lot of thought that goes into it, leave alone reference to the rules.

To be fair, this only becomes a problem from time to time, particularly when the character fails and the DM hadn't thought through what failure would look like in context. (Success, for that matter, too sometimes.) That's typically when you see them fudge the DC or claim that the roll was just inspiration for whatever they narrated next rather than an actual check to determine success/failure/progress combined with a setback.

 

[Flamestrike]

I've found this online in a number of places (its from a DM screen or inserts, unsure if 3P or not):

Athletics
Automatic	Climb a wall with plenty of handholds or a secure, knotted rope or rope ladder; swim in relatively calm water; jump a number of feet horizontally equal to half of your Strength score, or your full Strength score with a 10 foot running start; leap into the air a number of feet equal to half of (3 + your Strength modifier), or the full amount with a 10 foot running start 2
Easy	Climb a wall lacking an adequate amount of handholds, tread water in rough conditions, jump a few feet farther than you normally could; during a long jump, clear an obstacle such as a low-lying hedge or wall of height ≤a fourth of the jump's distance
Moderate	Climb a rope dangling from a protrusion or overhang (i.e. lacking a vertical surface to brace against), swim in rough water or against a mild current
Hard	Climb a wall with very few handholds, catch yourself on a rope or other handhold in the middle or at the end of your jump, swim in violent water or against a strong current
Very Hard	Climb a slippery or sheer wall with little or no handholds, climb vertically along an overhang with adequate handholds, swim in stormy waters

 

[Imaculata]

I was never conditioned to play that way in 3x...maybe other people played that way....

So, yeah, I guess it's just my pet peeve to assume that 5e came up with some new radical way of running a game and that 3e players are dice-roll junkies.

I don't ask for rolls in 3.x if the outcome isn't in doubt. A skill check that would amount to DC 0, is something I handwave. But I don't consider that the default mode of play for 3.x. I apply modern ideas (some from 5e) to my 3.x games. It took a while to get my players out of the mindset that skill == dice roll.

The easiest way to look at it, is say that a player is trying to sit on a park bench; an action that a pc should be able to perform with ease, much like climbing a rope. If the park bench is free, they succeed (no check). If the bench is taken, but they ask to sit there, and the other person is willing, they also succeed (no check). But if the other person is unwilling, now there is an obstacle for sitting on a bench. How the player decides to deal with the obstacle, determines if a check is needed. But if there is no obstacle, the pc can sit on that bench for as long as they want until an obstacle comes up.

 

[clearstream]

Im somewhat reminded of this from a different forum:



5 x separate checks (DC 5-15) to slide down a 50' rope inside a shaft.

Meaning an average human of Str 10 falls off that rope 99.999 percent of the time.

I've fast roped out of Helicopters carrying full combat gear at 15m (50 odd feet) and I dont remember every-one falling to their deaths.

Im just blown away that people are calling for a check to climb a rope, despite the clear guidance in the rules for only needing a check when climbing slippery surfaces or those with few handholds.

The rope in the example is insecurely fastened and the wall is sheer, right?

 

[Flamestrike]

The rope in the example is insecurely fastened and the wall is sheer, right?

And both are covered in Vaseline, while a gale force wind blows several wasps into the eyes of the climbers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Im somewhat reminded of this from a different forum:



5 x separate checks (DC 5-15) to slide down a 50' rope inside a shaft.

Meaning an average human of Str 10 falls off that rope 99.999 percent of the time.

I've fast roped out of Helicopters carrying full combat gear at 15m (50 odd feet) and I dont remember every-one falling to their deaths.

Im just blown away that people are calling for a check to climb a rope, despite the clear guidance in the rules for only needing a check when climbing slippery surfaces or those with few handholds.

I was one of those kids who couldn't climb the rope as a kid - I wasn't fat, I have sort of odd hands with a weak grip. But I was the only one in a class of 30+. And even then I never fell - I simply couldn't get off the ground in the first place. And I can't see someone falling if they did fail - they would slide, acquiring rope burns for 1 hp of damage.