Ok, so we'll go with your +0... Yes, 4 checks.Well yes. Assume an average adult in good health with no specialised training (Str 10) with a movement of 30'.
He has a 25 percent chance of falling on a DC 10 every 15' he travels and a 50/50 chance of getting a further 15' up.
To climb 50' he needs to make 4 such checks without failing 1 or he falls. On average it takes him 8 checks to get those 4 successes and he would fall off rhe wall more often than not in getting those 4 successes.
Compound checks are a bad idea and should be avoided where possible.
A rough hewn wall like a climbing wall at a gym shouldn't be more than DC5. With ropes it shouldnt even be a check af all. An adult himan in good health (Str 10) can climb such a wall every time he tries.
As your opinion that is fine. A lot of games use compound checks and IMO they add to the suspense of the situation. So, when warranted I have no issue with them. Since you do, as I said before, I guess it is simply a good thing you don't play at our table. No issue with that, by the way, to each their own.Compound checks are a bad idea and should be avoided where possible.
So very true!That 3-5 degree inclination found in natural rock cliffs makes a world of difference...
Yeah, we bumped it up to d10s, and you could reasonably go higher if you wanted.I'm also of those who think fall damage is under-valued in D&D, if that fits in the equation.
Yes, except it actually works.Like trying to fly by throwing yourself at the ground - and failing?
I don't follow that at all. Role-playing just means you make decisions from the perspective of the character. If the character is capable of observing the consequences of their actions, then making a decision based on those observations is what role-playing is all about.Really though, if you have a prescribed outcome for whatever the dice turn up, you're wandering away from the role-playing part of RPG.
Maybe you see a 55 percent chance of a an adult human in good physical health falling off a 15m easy climb to be reasonable, but I dont.FWIW, the chance of him making 4 checks in a row is 0.55^4 which is 9.15%. That alone is higher than the 6% you claimed before. And that is making 4 checks in a row.
Overall, a person with a +0 modifier has about a 55% chance of falling at some point during this climb,
No worries. You do you.I just hate compound skill checks.
I've heard we taste like blueberries sauce over chicken... Might be one of those weird combinations that are actually tasty--like peanut butter on hot dogs. YUM!!!
How would that make any sense though? The longer a climb (or the longer you are climbing) the more likely you are to fall.If only there was a way to mathematically allow the person that is better at climbing to have their chances get better and better as they climbed, instead of multiple checks adding chances of failure.
In other words, the best climber's added failure of risk would get lower as they went, while the poor climber may have their risk stay the same or get worse on each check.
Hmmm, beat the DC by "X", auto succeed the next check?
Thanks for the math.How would that make any sense though? The longer a climb (or the longer you are climbing) the more likely you are to fall.
But if you wanted such a system you would have to do something like you can climb a distance equal to your climbing speed x your proficiency bonus.
So, with a speed 30, your climbing speed is 15.
Without proficiency, you make a check every 15 feet.
With proficiency, you make a check at 30 feet (+2), 45 feet (+3), ..., 90 feet (+6).
Thus, for a 60 feet cliff, without proficiency you would make 4 checks, but with a +4 or higher proficiency bonus, you would only make 1 check.
The above definition of role-playing includes a raucous game of Monopoly. I wasn't saying that having results on tables (or house rules) doesn't count as role-playing, but it's a step in that direction.I don't follow that at all. Role-playing just means you make decisions from the perspective of the character. If the character is capable of observing the consequences of their actions, then making a decision based on those observations is what role-playing is all about.
Just because the world is crazy, and the frail wizard routinely climbs higher than the buff barbarian because the wizard is so bad at climbing, that doesn't prevent anyone from accounting for that observation when they make their plans. If the sky is actually green and it's raining sentient cupcakes, then the in-character thing to do is to acknowledge that.
If you decide whether or not to purchase a property, based on the fact that you're a dog (or a thimble), then that absolutely counts as role-playing. Most people don't do that, though, and I'm not even convinced that it's possible to role-play as something without a human-type brain.The above definition of role-playing includes a raucous game of Monopoly. I wasn't saying that having results on tables (or house rules) doesn't count as role-playing, but it's a step in that direction.
Someone mentioned it up-thread. If the DC to climb a 50' wall is 25, and a lower roll means you fell from higher up, then the wizard who rolls with penalties will get higher up the wall than the barbarian who has many bonuses (yet fails to hit the DC). In this example, a check result of -4 would mean falling from 49 feet up, while a check result of 24 would mean barely getting off the ground.Not sure where the wizard/barbarian example was going, but if "the frail wizard routinely climbs higher than the buff barbarian because the wizard is so bad at climbing," someone has a screw loose, and accounting for observations becomes difficult at that point.