D&D 5E Escaping from (rope) bonds... What is your ruling?

[Reynard]

They have been watered down in many ways, but IME they actually can cover every thing, if properly and broadly defined, comprised of multiple elements.

Dexterity, for example, throughout the editions includes these elements:

In 1E: hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, precision, balance, speed of movement

Except no human ever has had equal capabilities in all of those areas. By putting them all in one bucket, it means they don't successfully model anything real. As such, it doesn't make sense to try. Rather, what Dexterity models in D&D are exactly those things it modifies. That's it.

 

[ezo]

Except no human ever has had equal capabilities in all of those areas.

First, you don't know that. And by equal, they have to be equal enough to qualify for the same modifiers for each element, that's all.

Someone who as "has a +1" to Agility, Reflexes, and Balance would have a Dexterity modifier +1. I can easily imagine a person who is "good" at all three elements, without being too different to have a different bonus.

By putting them all in one bucket, it means they don't successfully model anything real. As such, it doesn't make sense to try. Rather, what Dexterity models in D&D are exactly those things it modifies. That's it.

Dexterity models anything dexterity-related. When you add in the d20 roll, the modifier gives you an edge to any of those elements over those without them.

Give me an example of something you can't model with those six ability scores, and I'll show you how it does.

 

[Reynard]

Dexterity models anything dexterity-related. When you add in the d20 roll, the modifier gives you an edge to any of those elements over those without them.

That is literally just what I said.

Give me an example of something you can't model with those six ability scores, and I'll show you how it does.

That wasn't my claim. My claim was you cannot model how a person who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a .22 but who can conduct precise fine manipulation using Dexterity in D&D, because in the game both receive their modifiers from the same stat.

Different editions are more granular than others, but they all ultimately suffer from this flaw to some extent. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is just let attributes serve their game mechanic functions and don't overly worry about what they model.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Do you allow Acrobatics or Sleight of Hand to help with escaping from ropes when bound?

Sure. If you're a rogue of 5th level or higher you just get out. Unless the ropes were tied by a rogue of similar level, then the check would be necessary.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. If you're a rogue of 5th level or higher you just get out. Unless the ropes were tied by a rogue of similar level, then the check would be necessary.

What if the person who tied you up wasn't a rogue, and neither are you?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Then the skills apply.

 

[Quartz]

so how do you determine if ropes are properly tied in the first place? is it DM fiat?

Pretty much DM fiat: "Sorry, you'll have to think of another way to escape those bonds." This is also the opportunity for a hint: "Sorry, those bonds are properly tied you'll need to cut the rope."

 

[tetrasodium]

Pretty much DM fiat: "Sorry, you'll have to think of another way to escape those bonds." This is also the opportunity for a hint: "Sorry, those bonds are properly tied you'll need to cut the rope."

While technically true, It's kinda like hitting the water when jumping from a boat if you want to restrain someone with rope and aren't trying to use the smallest length possible.

I think that the matter of tying someone up "properly" with rope is less a matter of successfully keeping them bound and more a matter of doing it without injuring them by straining joints or cutting off blood flow.

 

[Quartz]

No matter if the GM considers it an impossible thing the next step is for the GM to call for an ability check. This is done because the results are uncertain and it allows the dice to decide

You have a contradiction here. If it's impossible, there is no check.

 

[tetrasodium]

You have a contradiction here. If it's impossible, there is no check.

No just a different scenario and perhaps a particular mechanical point of relevance that needs illumination.

AFAIK, every edition of d&d has listed rope prices in 50 foot increments... As such it should be impossible to have less than 50 feet if rope unless the rope has been damaged or is also being used to restrain other individuals. That right there clears away the TV/movie scenario of several inches of rope tied around the wrists to be slipped out of unless some additional thing is done and that's critically important. There is no problem created if Bob can't untie himself because Alice can untie Bob and Bob can untie Cindy.


With that out of the way and hypothetically codified in house rule or RAW where 50ft of rope can over N uninterrupted minutes perfectly tie up one helpless medium sized creature or two tied together with combined DC ## to escape you have a scenario where any restraint needs an interesting interaction with others rather than a straight action & die roll. It also has the benefit of giving value to the party carrying more than one rope. It also avoids the obnoxious back and forth where Alice wants to quickly tie up someone with trivial time and cooperation/risk as a single action while gaining the results of heavy duty shinbari while Bob (or the bbeg/local guards want to invest the time it takes going for heavy duty shinbari type restraint because he knows his oc has no skill in rope yet has other skills that stacked the deck many times over in his favor but all of that gets tossed aside by a single action die roll.