D&D 5E (2014) Climbing and falling

[DND_Reborn]

except @@dnd4vr he evil so gets 99% of the way the falls.

WHAAAAAAAA.... SPLAT!!! ☠

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Ok, so we'll go with your +0... Yes, 4 checks.

Rolls 10 or higher (DC 10) and climbs 15 feet. Rolls 5-9 and doesn't make any progress. Rolls 1-4 (only 20%) and he might fall. He then rolls a DC 10 DEX save (let's assume +0 again) and only falls on a 9 or lower (45%). So, the chance of him failing a check and a save is only 9%.

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. He can easily make a couple, fail one without falling, and then continue the climb.

Overall, a person with a +0 modifier has about a 55% chance of falling at some point during this climb, or they have roughly a 45% chance of making it to the top. Those who make the climb will average about 6-7 checks.

(Roughly 17% fall before making it to 15', roughly 17% fall between 15-29', roughly 11% fall between 30-44', and roughly 10% fall while making the last 5' from 45-49'.)

For someone with no STR mod and no proficiency in Athletics, 45% for a 50' climb seems really good to me (in fact, it is probably too high).

For a +4 modifier (maybe a little STR and/or proficiency) and the chance of making this climb leaps to 88%, without ropes, a climber's kit, or anything.

You have to realize we aren't talking about a rock wall at a gym (which people do fall from, even if they know what they're doing... hence the safety ropes, etc.), we are talking about a wall in a natural setting where a hold might not support your weight, a root could pull out, etc.

Compound checks are a bad idea and should be avoided where possible.

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.

 

[Laurefindel]

For DC, I try to keep to the DC guidelines and adjudicate what I consider medium, hard, etc. for an averaged, proficient (human-like) climber, and go from there.

Consequences depend on the context and stakes. Failure can simply means "you make it up to the top but not fast enough to pursue", or "you make no significant progress this round".

Falls are usually a result of a series of failed checks (or a natural 1 for a non-proficient climber), or when the player was warned that a failure could yield critical consequences, but damage can be a good metrics for "how much of your inner resources did you have to spend to get out" in the case of a stuck-down-a-10ft-pit situation.

My experience as a climber tells me however that vertical "roughly hewed stone walls with many handhold" aren't that easy to climb... That 3-5 degree inclination found in natural rock cliffs makes a world of difference...

I'm also of those who think fall damage is under-valued in D&D, if that fits in the equation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That 3-5 degree inclination found in natural rock cliffs makes a world of difference...

So very true!

I'm also of those who think fall damage is under-valued in D&D, if that fits in the equation.

Yeah, we bumped it up to d10s, and you could reasonably go higher if you wanted.

 

[Charlaquin]

The rules for climbing state:

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the GM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength(Athletics) check.”

So, when a module says that climbing a surface requires a DC X Strength (Athletics) check, I assume that it is meant to be slippery or to have few handholds, and that I am meant to use the option to require a successful check.

I think the most natural interpretation of a vertical surface requiring a check to climb is that no progress is made on a failure, but this carries no intrinsic cost or consequence for failure. If there is time pressure, one could always rule that each attempt costs a certain amount of time, or use progress with a setback. On a success, you complete the climb in the amount of time it would take to cover the distance spending two feet of movement per foot of the climb; on a failure, you still complete the climb but it takes significantly more time for you to do so. But what to do if there is no time pressure or other cost or consequence extrinsic to the climb itself?

One option is to rule that on a failure the character climbs some distance, falls, and takes damage, but how do you decide how far the character gets before falling? You could break the climb up into multiple rolls. For example, success might mean you climb the distance you could travel in one turn (spending 2 feet of movement per foot climbed in the turn), while failure means falling from whatever height you were at when you made the check. But that will generally only work for climbs greater than 15 feet. You could judge how far the character climbs based on the result of the roll, with a higher result equating to more distance climbed. But this has the effect of making high rolls undesirable unless they are high enough to beat the DC, since a natural 1 would mean a very short distance climbed before falling while 1 below the DC would mean nearly making it to the top before falling.

My preferred method when there is no time pressure is to have something happen during the climb that the player can respond to. For example, “you’re half way up the cliff when suddenly, a powerful gust of wind blows past. What do you do?” This better conforms to the basic pattern of play, and gives the player clear stakes and an opportunity to describe an action that plays to their character’s strengths.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like trying to fly by throwing yourself at the ground - and failing?

Yes, except it actually works.

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.

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

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,

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.

I'm not seeing it. For me climbing a rope or a tree is 'auto-pass, no appreciable chance of failure'. Climbing a rough natural stone wall with handholds similar to an indoor climbing wall is DC 5 (at best). Unless time is vital, you can assume that any reasonably fit human can climb out of a 20' pit with rough walls (enough to grab onto) without a check.

I just hate compound skill checks. Id much rather assign a single DC to the entire climb, or worst case scenario (for particularly long climbs) maybe break it down into 2 or 3 sections at worst.

 

[iserith]

Progress combined with a setback is better in these sorts of instances in my view so we don't get stuck in some kind of loop where the PC turns into an inept buffoon falling on his or her butt for several minutes. So a failed check might mean creating noise while climbing out in which case it's time for another wandering monster check. Alternatively, if the pit is very deep, some equipment or treasure might fall out of their packs and into the pit, creating a new decision point - do we go back down there to get it or just write it off?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I just hate compound skill checks.

No worries. You do you.

I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. If our system did only have a 6% chance of success in this climb as you thought, it would be unreasonable, but it is 45%. For someone with no STR mod, no skill in climbing, no gear, etc. I am perfectly happy with that.

I also know from climbing that finding "handholds similar to indoor climbing" is not likely in many places I've climbed. Granted, I am not super experienced at climbing or anything, but I've done a decent amount of outdoor climbing in natural surroundings--and it isn't easy at all IMO.

 

[jasper]

WHAAAAAAAA.... SPLAT!!! ☠

He slipped. I swear the blue thing slipped. Hides the butter behind his back. Psst Gargamel, one butter flatten smurf is ready.