D&D 5E Climbing and fighting on a mountain side

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
First off 30 feet of rope is nothing, that is the length of rope you tie down a wain of hay with. You want 20 feet or so between each climber so that they can react to one or more falling and have enough people to hold them if they fall. So why are they not all roped together?

If you fall 200 meters you have build up enough momentum that you are not stopping until you hit something that is not sloping down. terminal velocity for free fall in air (according to a quick google is 450 meters (about 12 seconds).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tommybahama

Adventurer
I’d drop the d100 roll for the guy in plate. That’s just punishing the warrior. Let the fighter have nice things.

Just thought I'd throw in this link of a guy rock climbing in full plate (well, without a helm). He doesn't even look like he has strength above 14.

1629996915161.png


 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
If what you're looking for realism/verisimilitude in climbing, here's some info:

The purpose of a rope is, of course, to allow one climber to save another if they slip. How you do that depends on the kind of climbing:

If you're on steep ice and snow, you can (maybe?) save your partner by throwing yourself flat and digging axe and crampons into the ice. The most legendary real life episode of this occurred on K2 in 1953, when Peter Schoening saved his 5 teammates: The Miracle Belay - Gripped Magazine.

In glacier travel the danger isn't slipping and falling off the mountain, but falling into a crevasse covered with snow. In this case it is desirable to put multiple people on the rope so that if one person falls in there is a lot of mass to catch their fall.

If you're actually climbing on near-vertical rock it's basically impossible to catch somebody else with your own strength, especially if they are above you and fall past you. Thus usually one person moves at a time, with the other finding a stance where they can brace themselves against rock if the other one falls.

When the lead climber is climbing above the follower, this takes two forms:
1. The belay is useless. If the lead climber falls they both die. End of story. Thus the old adage "the leader must never fall".
2. If that seems undesirable, the lead climber periodically attaches the rope to the rock (or to a convenient tree), so that the rope can run freely but securely. That way if the leader falls they fall onto this attachment point, and the force of the fall tries to pull the belayer upward, instead of just yanking them off the cliff. (When it's the follower's turn to climb they remove whatever hardware the leader used as they encounter it.)

When the follower is climbing, the leader finds a good stance (or uses hardware to anchor themselves), wraps the rope around their waist for friction (or, in more modern climbing, through a "belay device") and pulls the rope in while the follower follows. In modern climbing you would leave the rope loose so that the follower is really doing their own climbing, but a 19th century guide who is just braced behind a rock, with a static rope (no stretch), belaying around their waist, with the other end is just tied in a loop around the follower's waist, would keep full tension on the rope so that if the client slips there wouldn't be a jolt.

The bit about dynamic vs. static ropes cannot be overemphasized: modern ropes have a lot of stretch so that the force of a fall is distributed. Even a 3 foot fall on a static rope generates HUGE forces (try imagine jumping off a table and landing with your knees locked out instead of absorbing the impact), and would break spines (especially with a loop around your waist instead of a proper harness), yank out hardware, and certainly pull unanchored partners off cliffs.
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I just realized that link I shared doesn't tell the whole story. What happened is that there were 3 pairs of 2 climbers. One of them slipped and pulled his partner off. They got their rope tangled in the second pair (including the guy who told me this story) and pulled them off. They got their rope tangled in the third pair, including Pete Schoening. But Pete saw what was unfolding, and by the time the force hit him he was braced for it, and held them all. What a god.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
@Bill Zebub, another reason to rope people together would be weather conditions, thick fog: You all get lost together and if the lead walker falls in to a ravine the rest can stop them falling to the bottom and crossing boggy or swampy terrain.
In Ireland and Scotland there is a lot of boggy mountaintop.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
@Bill Zebub, another reason to rope people together would be weather conditions, thick fog: You all get lost together and if the lead walker falls in to a ravine the rest can stop them falling to the bottom and crossing boggy or swampy terrain.
In Ireland and Scotland there is a lot of boggy mountaintop.

And, as the old saying goes, it prevents the sensible ones from going home.
 


Rather than risking outright death, unless you're party enjoys a high lethality playstyle, I'd say just say they tumble down the mountainside however many feet, taking a certain amount of damage (I generally do d6x10 feet, with 2d10 or so points of damage, but if they're roped together, the most they could fall is 30 feet). That's going to slow them down and make the coming battle more tense.

While it might make for a funny story later, I'm not sure I'd want my campaign to potentially end with "And we were TPK'ed by a mountain."

If not they all will fall/tumble down say 200 meter and need a CON save (15) to avoid dying (with death saves). The other team can climb down and help them but this event will set them all back some hours, risking getting caught on the mountain side by nightfall.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Rather than risking outright death, unless you're party enjoys a high lethality playstyle, I'd say just say they tumble down the mountainside however many feet, taking a certain amount of damage (I generally do d6x10 feet, with 2d10 or so points of damage, but if they're roped together, the most they could fall is 30 feet). That's going to slow them down and make the coming battle more tense.

While it might make for a funny story later, I'm not sure I'd want my campaign to potentially end with "And we were TPK'ed by a mountain."

I would never do that on a single roll, but you can make it a series of rolls, with ever increasing consequences. It works especially well if there are options, and the player(s) can weigh risk:reward of various approaches.

Of course, the cruelest is the "Touching the Void" option:

"You manage to hold on, saving your partner from certain death, but their weight is dragging you inexorably toward the edge of the abyss. What do you do? Oh, and if you want to you can let go with one hand long enough to get your dagger out. Just saying..."
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
I don't think any new rules are needed to pull this off and, as others have stated, the random chance for the armored PC to fall isn't good because it doesn't allow for any meaningful choice except wear armor or take it off (or perhaps use a climber's kit to reduce falling distance).
Wear armor or take it off sounds like a meaningful choice to me! These PCs should consider every pound of gear they want to take with them, because walking up stairs with a 10 pound grocery bag is rough. Climbing a mountain with 50 (or more) pounds of gear is a nightmare. Further, fighting on the mountainside sounds disastrous, so adding weight-planning entertainment could make up for a reduction in combat entertainment.

I wouldn't add any rules here that weren't critical, and as @Laurefindel points out, a check fail does not equal falling.

Why are the PCs climbing the mountain, anyway? Because they heard fighting rock-goblins is good sport?
 

Remove ads

Top