D&D 5E Player angry about enemies climbing rope with Rope Trick

[James Gasik]

Snakes climb pretty easily. So do snails. The Blob from the movie climbed walls to get the drop on its prey. Oozes also typically strike with a pseudopod.

Also oozes (other than the g cube) have climb speed.

I didn't say whether I agreed with the ruling or not, just was reminded of it because of the "Air Bud rules" comment. It just goes to show that assumptions like this can be made- you may think there's no way a little ooze can climb up a ladder of magical force at any reasonable speed, nor that it should have any reason to do so, and the DM can say otherwise.

 

[James Gasik]

That is stupidly high and a poorly written rule IMO. So a 1st level 17 Int wizard has a 50/50 shot of ID'ing a 1st level spell?

Did they know they weren't writing for 3rd edition, with its bloated numbers/DC's?

Edit - That's the exact same DC as 3rd edition, with its awful system of 487 different stacking modifiers. So apparently the intent is to make magic even more inscrutable to trained mages, despite every other DC being flatter due to bounded accuracy/proficiency/reduced modifiers.

And this is my point, there is a long-standing debate on another forum I sometimes visit about the lack of good examples of what DC an action should be, and what DC you should set a task at. This results in DM's setting unrealistically high DC's for checks quite often.

The proficiency thing came up a long time ago in a discussion and stuck with me. The DM asked for an Arcana check, both the Wizard and the Barbarian rolled. Due to a lucky roll, the Barbarian rolled higher, but the DM ruled that there was no way the Barbarian, not having been trained with magic, would know any precise details about the topic. So you can't really say "well of course, X would know about Y", when in many games, it seems like even the characters casting spells don't know about Y.

Also, whether or not D&D is high or low magic is a hotly debated topic. I like to point people at the Forgotten Realms, with it's reams of higher level NPC's, and the fact you can't throw a rock without hitting a guy capable of casting 9th level spells as evidence that the default setting of 5e is high magic, and my claims are often dismissed...in fact, we had a conversation about this about a month or so back...here we go:

D&D General - Is there a D&D setting that actually works how it would with access to D&D magic?

What I mean is- humans, at the very least, are a very industrious and innovative people. Look how far we’ve developed in just the past 2000 years- or even the past 100! But most D&D settings seem to have multi-thousand-year histories where the world has existed at the “default” D&D setting; that...

www.enworld.org

 

[billd91]

And this is my point, there is a long-standing debate on another forum I sometimes visit about the lack of good examples of what DC an action should be, and what DC you should set a task at. This results in DM's setting unrealistically high DC's for checks quite often.

Agree.

The proficiency thing came up a long time ago in a discussion and stuck with me. The DM asked for an Arcana check, both the Wizard and the Barbarian rolled. Due to a lucky roll, the Barbarian rolled higher, but the DM ruled that there was no way the Barbarian, not having been trained with magic, would know any precise details about the topic. So you can't really say "well of course, X would know about Y", when in many games, it seems like even the characters casting spells don't know about Y.

At that point, why roll? For things like this, there's no point in not embracing the roll since it's entirely possible the barbarian happened to know someone who knew the magic and related tales about it. That's what the random factor in knowledge checks are for - determining if someone's life experiences so far included that tidbit of learning or not.

Also, whether or not D&D is high or low magic is a hotly debated topic. I like to point people at the Forgotten Realms, with it's reams of higher level NPC's, and the fact you can't throw a rock without hitting a guy capable of casting 9th level spells as evidence that the default setting of 5e is high magic, and my claims are often dismissed...in fact, we had a conversation about this about a month or so back...here we go:

At least the issue of recognizing a spell or other arcane thing can be adjusted by changing the base DC according to how magical you feel your environment is. If DC 15+spell level is too high, drop it to DC 10+spell level, or even 5 for campaigns where the magic is particularly ubiquitous.

 

[James Gasik]

Agree.

At that point, why roll? For things like this, there's no point in not embracing the roll since it's entirely possible the barbarian happened to know someone who knew the magic and related tales about it. That's what the random factor in knowledge checks are for - determining if someone's life experiences so far included that tidbit of learning or not.

At least the issue of recognizing a spell or other arcane thing can be adjusted by changing the base DC according to how magical you feel your environment is. If DC 15+spell level is too high, drop it to DC 10+spell level, or even 5 for campaigns where the magic is particularly ubiquitous.

The most classic DM ruling ever "it didn't make sense to the DM". /shrug

But as we all know, we're not all playing the same game. It's like how there are DM's out there who will insist that player characters have no knowledge that you can stop the regeneration of Trolls with fire- something that should be common knowledge in a world that would otherwise be overrun by them.

And without dedicated mechanics that say "roll X at Y DC to know about Trolls", it's up to the DM to decide when/if/how you can have such information.

 

[Oofta]

The official rule to identify a spell in Xanathar's is DC 15 + spell level, so 17. Hard for an orc with that -2 Int, but that DC always seemed too high to me.

Does it matter if they know what the spell is? They saw a guy cast a spell, he climbed up a rope and disappeared. Following him doesn't require knowing the details of how the spell works.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Does it matter if they know what the spell is? They saw a guy cast a spell, he climbed up a rope and disappeared. Following him doesn't require knowing the details of how the spell works.

It's more for them waiting up there for an hour and short resting, pretty risky if they don't know how it actually works.

 

[Lanefan]

Not... doing that?

If there's not some tension and occasional fear, what's the point?

 

[Vaalingrade]

If there's not some tension and occasional fear, what's the point?

~Looks at the vast breadth and millennia media and storytelling that doesn't involve 'fear' while still having narrative tension~

No idea, man.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's more for them waiting up there for an hour and short resting, pretty risky if they don't know how it actually works.

None of it matters because they were empowered by the deity of their universe to bring punishment down upon the heretic for reasons unrelated to their scope of reality.

 

[James Gasik]

Does it matter if they know what the spell is? They saw a guy cast a spell, he climbed up a rope and disappeared. Following him doesn't require knowing the details of how the spell works.

It could. I mean, a guy climbs up a rope and vanishes. To where? I could see one guy maybe having the guts (or just stubborness) to climb up the rope after the guy, but multiple people climbing a stairway to nowhere?

Again, Green Devil Face. Is it a safe place? Is it a place where the ranger has reinforcements? Is he about to meet with his Infernal Patron? Wouldn't it be better to finish off the other guys who aren't retreating?

And I just want to bring this up, I have a lot of people tell me that "well, if an encounter is going badly, just retreat!" I often point out that retreating really isn't possible a lot of times.

And hey, look here, we have a DM having monsters go out of their way to stop a player from retreating. : )