So we just finished up a session in CoS where we had a random encounter out in the forests where about 20 wolves (regular, Worg, Dire) attacked the party.
My character is a Ranger using bow that happens to have winged boots and nature's mantle. So obviously I stay away and shoot from range.
The DM (I believe to try to split up attacks and probably frustrated at my staying out of range) started having the wolves climb the trees to get to me and even indicated they could jump from tree to tree using acrobatics.
So regardless of the reason, it got me wondering other than DM fiat if this would be possible. RAW/RAI, what would be the mechanics to do this? Obviously there would be the half speed for climbing...maybe an athletics check? On the surface it seems ludicrous but maybe it could happen.
RAW: In the basic rules under “Special Types of Movement” it says climbing takes twice as much movement if you don’t have a climb speed, and if the surface has few handholds you can be asked to make an athletics check. And so since wolves don’t have a climb speed, they could technically climb a tree as if it was difficult terrain. (Real wolves can get up a few levels of branches pretty handily if they start close to the ground, but can’t climb straight trunks).
RAI: In real life, you would never see wolves jumping between trees, but remember this is dnd. The wolves should be bad at climbing trees (that’s why it’s difficult terrain for them that probably requires an ability check), but if they’re hunting adult armed humanoids already to the death they probably won’t mind the risk of falling.
While wolves can jump, they are not reputed to be good climbers compared to feline, thus i would rule them out but if i were to look for RAW ways to achieve that i would say a Strenght (Athletics) check, at disadvantage.
Worgs and dire wolves probably behave differently to regular wolves.
Sounds frightening.
They're just bigger and do more damage...same tactics though. :)
Dire wolves, that does seem to be the case. Worgs are intelligent, though -- they're bilingual!
Also, these are wolves in Strahd's domain. Without revealing more than necessary, there might be a reason they behave differently to how a normal wolf would.
To me it's not so much about intellectual attributes but phisical one, wolves lack claws and paws power agility to climb like bear or feline do, this regardless of their size.
RAI - As as a DM I try to run my normal animal's closely to how they react in the 'real world'. However, wolves in a supernatural environment, who might be driven by shadow 'dread' powers... well sure... they may pursue you in ways.
RAF - Have you ever seen a cool anime where the animals do cool stuff? Hell yes that is cinematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering. Wolves don't climb trees. The DM should have made a Strahd Wolf with supernatural powers ( and then described how it grew extremely long barbed claws, or had tentacles shoot out of its mouth, or whathaveyou), used bats, werewolves, some humanoid leaders with bows or spells, or anything other than "I have a plan on rails, anything that would cause a deviation I instantly negate with DM fiat."
Why bother coming up with anything other than stand & fight when the DM will immediately "Oh, uh, the thing you just did, the bad guys do that too." whenever you show creativity?
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering.
I don't agree. Here's a little excerpt from Curse of Strahd. Spoilered because it's for the DM, not the players. OP shouldn't read it!
If an area of the adventure ends up feeling free of mystery or danger, consider using tips from the “Marks of Horror” section to increase the ominousness. If a combat encounter feels too easy, either (a) guide it to its end as quickly as possible or (b) increase the threat by raising a foe’s hit point maximum to the upper end of its hit point range, by adding monsters/traps, or both.
I think the DM here followed the spirit of this advice. Would it have been better to follow the letter, adding... Idk, some bats? Yeah, maybe. Still, they had the right idea. You can't always get it perfect when put on the spot. The only criticism I would put forward is that, evidently, one player thought it didn't feel adequately explained, so the DM should probably try to fix that in the future.
When I ran this adventure, I often felt like I was being harsh, even cheating. The DM knows way more than the players do! They have control over a lot of stuff, too. I mean, they could just say "rocks fall, everyone dies," right? When you're instructed to be mean, it's hard to know how mean you should be. I did cross the line once, and TPKed my party. I wouldn't do that again. But that's the responsibility you take on as DM -- the ability to ruin everything is in your hands. Honestly though, 5e characters can handle a lot of abuse. More now than ever before, too. You can get pretty goddamn mean. OP didn't mention anyone dying or anything.
Not really sure why we're debating with a DM who isn't even here to defend themselves, but look: OP's DM didn't do anything heinously wrong. At most, they were sloppy with their description. And the consequences don't seem to have been very serious anyway. It's fine. (But they should still talk with their DM. Communication is key to any relationship!) Describing it the way you did there, makes it sound toxic and makes it sound like OP should leave. I think that's unfair. (If OP disagrees, though, that's also fine. No point playing a game if you're not having a good time.)
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering.
I don't agree. Here's a little excerpt from Curse of Strahd. Spoilered because it's for the DM, not the players. OP shouldn't read it!
If an area of the adventure ends up feeling free of mystery or danger, consider using tips from the “Marks of Horror” section to increase the ominousness. If a combat encounter feels too easy, either (a) guide it to its end as quickly as possible or (b) increase the threat by raising a foe’s hit point maximum to the upper end of its hit point range, by adding monsters/traps, or both.
I think the DM here followed the spirit of this advice. Would it have been better to follow the letter, adding... Idk, some bats? Yeah, maybe. Still, they had the right idea. You can't always get it perfect when put on the spot. The only criticism I would put forward is that, evidently, one player thought it didn't feel adequately explained, so the DM should probably try to fix that in the future.
When I ran this adventure, I often felt like I was being harsh, even cheating. The DM knows way more than the players do! They have control over a lot of stuff, too. I mean, they could just say "rocks fall, everyone dies," right? When you're instructed to be mean, it's hard to know how mean you should be. I did cross the line once, and TPKed my party. I wouldn't do that again. But that's the responsibility you take on as DM -- the ability to ruin everything is in your hands. Honestly though, 5e characters can handle a lot of abuse. More now than ever before, too. You can get pretty goddamn mean. OP didn't mention anyone dying or anything.
Not really sure why we're debating with a DM who isn't even here to defend themselves, but look: OP's DM didn't do anything heinously wrong. At most, they were sloppy with their description. And the consequences don't seem to have been very serious anyway. It's fine. (But they should still talk with their DM. Communication is key to any relationship!) Describing it the way you did there, makes it sound toxic and makes it sound like OP should leave. I think that's unfair. (If OP disagrees, though, that's also fine. No point playing a game if you're not having a good time.)
I chalk it up to this "and probably frustrated at my staying out of range". If the player finds a way to stay safer or uses tactics, that's absolutely fine. The wolves do what they can, and when everyone climbs a tree, the wolves retreat. Tomorrow night, they return, & have some way of handling last night's tactics (within reason & Strahd's abilities). What Nimbus describes is a GM playing Calvinball under cover of Dungeons & Dragons.
But either way, I also agree that talking to the GM is the first & best choice. New GMs often unintentionally leave off the collaborative part of collaborative storytelling.
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering.
I don't agree. Here's a little excerpt from Curse of Strahd. Spoilered because it's for the DM, not the players. OP shouldn't read it!
If an area of the adventure ends up feeling free of mystery or danger, consider using tips from the “Marks of Horror” section to increase the ominousness. If a combat encounter feels too easy, either (a) guide it to its end as quickly as possible or (b) increase the threat by raising a foe’s hit point maximum to the upper end of its hit point range, by adding monsters/traps, or both.
I think the DM here followed the spirit of this advice. Would it have been better to follow the letter, adding... Idk, some bats? Yeah, maybe. Still, they had the right idea. You can't always get it perfect when put on the spot. The only criticism I would put forward is that, evidently, one player thought it didn't feel adequately explained, so the DM should probably try to fix that in the future.
When I ran this adventure, I often felt like I was being harsh, even cheating. The DM knows way more than the players do! They have control over a lot of stuff, too. I mean, they could just say "rocks fall, everyone dies," right? When you're instructed to be mean, it's hard to know how mean you should be. I did cross the line once, and TPKed my party. I wouldn't do that again. But that's the responsibility you take on as DM -- the ability to ruin everything is in your hands. Honestly though, 5e characters can handle a lot of abuse. More now than ever before, too. You can get pretty goddamn mean. OP didn't mention anyone dying or anything.
Not really sure why we're debating with a DM who isn't even here to defend themselves, but look: OP's DM didn't do anything heinously wrong. At most, they were sloppy with their description. And the consequences don't seem to have been very serious anyway. It's fine. (But they should still talk with their DM. Communication is key to any relationship!) Describing it the way you did there, makes it sound toxic and makes it sound like OP should leave. I think that's unfair. (If OP disagrees, though, that's also fine. No point playing a game if you're not having a good time.)
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering.
I don't agree. Here's a little excerpt from Curse of Strahd. Spoilered because it's for the DM, not the players. OP shouldn't read it!
If an area of the adventure ends up feeling free of mystery or danger, consider using tips from the “Marks of Horror” section to increase the ominousness. If a combat encounter feels too easy, either (a) guide it to its end as quickly as possible or (b) increase the threat by raising a foe’s hit point maximum to the upper end of its hit point range, by adding monsters/traps, or both.
I think the DM here followed the spirit of this advice. Would it have been better to follow the letter, adding... Idk, some bats? Yeah, maybe. Still, they had the right idea. You can't always get it perfect when put on the spot. The only criticism I would put forward is that, evidently, one player thought it didn't feel adequately explained, so the DM should probably try to fix that in the future.
When I ran this adventure, I often felt like I was being harsh, even cheating. The DM knows way more than the players do! They have control over a lot of stuff, too. I mean, they could just say "rocks fall, everyone dies," right? When you're instructed to be mean, it's hard to know how mean you should be. I did cross the line once, and TPKed my party. I wouldn't do that again. But that's the responsibility you take on as DM -- the ability to ruin everything is in your hands. Honestly though, 5e characters can handle a lot of abuse. More now than ever before, too. You can get pretty goddamn mean. OP didn't mention anyone dying or anything.
Not really sure why we're debating with a DM who isn't even here to defend themselves, but look: OP's DM didn't do anything heinously wrong. At most, they were sloppy with their description. And the consequences don't seem to have been very serious anyway. It's fine. (But they should still talk with their DM. Communication is key to any relationship!) Describing it the way you did there, makes it sound toxic and makes it sound like OP should leave. I think that's unfair. (If OP disagrees, though, that's also fine. No point playing a game if you're not having a good time.)
I chalk it up to this "and probably frustrated at my staying out of range". If the player finds a way to stay safer or uses tactics, that's absolutely fine. The wolves do what they can, and when everyone climbs a tree, the wolves retreat. Tomorrow night, they return, & have some way of handling last night's tactics (within reason & Strahd's abilities). What Nimbus describes is a GM playing Calvinball under cover of Dungeons & Dragons.
But either way, I also agree that talking to the GM is the first & best choice. New GMs often unintentionally leave off the collaborative part of collaborative storytelling.
Please keep in mind that this post is really about the mechanics of wolves climbing trees. The background was to give the setting. CoS breaks a lot of the normal rules in regards to how creatures might act which makes sense.
Mechanically speaking, wolves, wether normal, dire or worg, don't have any climb speed or feature per se, nor do i think Curse of Strahd grant any specifically, so it's pretty much DM's adjudication.
Humans also have opposable thumbs that let them grip limbs and climb that way, wolves don’t. They also don’t have the sort of talons required for real tree climbing. They can reach up into lower level limbs and jump up into them or climb up things like steep but non vertical cliffs and jump into the limbs of a tree so the idea of them jumping from limb to limb and tree to tree is just barely within the realm of possibility but … wolves can reach nearly 6’ in length with dire wolves and works being even larger so “lower limbs is fairly subjective.
The reality is that humans actually should have a climbing speed, not a fast one but we should have one, just as some backgrounds should give us at least the option for a swim speed or perhaps be able to take a swim speed instead of a skill or tool proficiency.
I didn't say wolves cannot climb trees, just like humans they can if small enought to hug its trunk or low enought to jump through branches. They're like humans, they can't climb surface without sufficient grip or handles to hold onto, and the DM will determine that.
So we just finished up a session in CoS where we had a random encounter out in the forests where about 20 wolves (regular, Worg, Dire) attacked the party.
My character is a Ranger using bow that happens to have winged boots and nature's mantle. So obviously I stay away and shoot from range.
The DM (I believe to try to split up attacks and probably frustrated at my staying out of range) started having the wolves climb the trees to get to me and even indicated they could jump from tree to tree using acrobatics.
So regardless of the reason, it got me wondering other than DM fiat if this would be possible. RAW/RAI, what would be the mechanics to do this? Obviously there would be the half speed for climbing...maybe an athletics check? On the surface it seems ludicrous but maybe it could happen.
Curious on the responses. Thanks!
RAW: In the basic rules under “Special Types of Movement” it says climbing takes twice as much movement if you don’t have a climb speed, and if the surface has few handholds you can be asked to make an athletics check. And so since wolves don’t have a climb speed, they could technically climb a tree as if it was difficult terrain. (Real wolves can get up a few levels of branches pretty handily if they start close to the ground, but can’t climb straight trunks).
RAI: In real life, you would never see wolves jumping between trees, but remember this is dnd. The wolves should be bad at climbing trees (that’s why it’s difficult terrain for them that probably requires an ability check), but if they’re hunting adult armed humanoids already to the death they probably won’t mind the risk of falling.
While wolves can jump, they are not reputed to be good climbers compared to feline, thus i would rule them out but if i were to look for RAW ways to achieve that i would say a Strenght (Athletics) check, at disadvantage.
Worgs and dire wolves probably behave differently to regular wolves.
Sounds frightening.
They're just bigger and do more damage...same tactics though. :)
Dire wolves, that does seem to be the case. Worgs are intelligent, though -- they're bilingual!
Also, these are wolves in Strahd's domain. Without revealing more than necessary, there might be a reason they behave differently to how a normal wolf would.
To me it's not so much about intellectual attributes but phisical one, wolves lack claws and paws power agility to climb like bear or feline do, this regardless of their size.
RAW - Yes, anything can technically climb.
RAI - As as a DM I try to run my normal animal's closely to how they react in the 'real world'. However, wolves in a supernatural environment, who might be driven by shadow 'dread' powers... well sure... they may pursue you in ways.
RAF - Have you ever seen a cool anime where the animals do cool stuff? Hell yes that is cinematic.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Wolves climbing trees seems very on brand for Curse of Strahd.
This feels a lot like a DM who just declares "I win" & flips the board when you have a idea they don't want to actually put thought into countering. Wolves don't climb trees. The DM should have made a Strahd Wolf with supernatural powers ( and then described how it grew extremely long barbed claws, or had tentacles shoot out of its mouth, or whathaveyou), used bats, werewolves, some humanoid leaders with bows or spells, or anything other than "I have a plan on rails, anything that would cause a deviation I instantly negate with DM fiat."
Why bother coming up with anything other than stand & fight when the DM will immediately "Oh, uh, the thing you just did, the bad guys do that too." whenever you show creativity?
I don't agree. Here's a little excerpt from Curse of Strahd. Spoilered because it's for the DM, not the players. OP shouldn't read it!
I think the DM here followed the spirit of this advice. Would it have been better to follow the letter, adding... Idk, some bats? Yeah, maybe. Still, they had the right idea. You can't always get it perfect when put on the spot. The only criticism I would put forward is that, evidently, one player thought it didn't feel adequately explained, so the DM should probably try to fix that in the future.
When I ran this adventure, I often felt like I was being harsh, even cheating. The DM knows way more than the players do! They have control over a lot of stuff, too. I mean, they could just say "rocks fall, everyone dies," right? When you're instructed to be mean, it's hard to know how mean you should be. I did cross the line once, and TPKed my party. I wouldn't do that again. But that's the responsibility you take on as DM -- the ability to ruin everything is in your hands. Honestly though, 5e characters can handle a lot of abuse. More now than ever before, too. You can get pretty goddamn mean. OP didn't mention anyone dying or anything.
Not really sure why we're debating with a DM who isn't even here to defend themselves, but look: OP's DM didn't do anything heinously wrong. At most, they were sloppy with their description. And the consequences don't seem to have been very serious anyway. It's fine. (But they should still talk with their DM. Communication is key to any relationship!) Describing it the way you did there, makes it sound toxic and makes it sound like OP should leave. I think that's unfair. (If OP disagrees, though, that's also fine. No point playing a game if you're not having a good time.)
I chalk it up to this "and probably frustrated at my staying out of range". If the player finds a way to stay safer or uses tactics, that's absolutely fine. The wolves do what they can, and when everyone climbs a tree, the wolves retreat. Tomorrow night, they return, & have some way of handling last night's tactics (within reason & Strahd's abilities). What Nimbus describes is a GM playing Calvinball under cover of Dungeons & Dragons.
But either way, I also agree that talking to the GM is the first & best choice. New GMs often unintentionally leave off the collaborative part of collaborative storytelling.
Please keep in mind that this post is really about the mechanics of wolves climbing trees. The background was to give the setting. CoS breaks a lot of the normal rules in regards to how creatures might act which makes sense.
Mechanically speaking, wolves, wether normal, dire or worg, don't have any climb speed or feature per se, nor do i think Curse of Strahd grant any specifically, so it's pretty much DM's adjudication.
Wolves can climb trees. Look for pictures online, it's pretty weird. I wouldn't have thought it possible.
Something doesn't have to have a climbing speed to climb. Humans don't, and they climb stuff all the time in D&D.
Humans also have opposable thumbs that let them grip limbs and climb that way, wolves don’t. They also don’t have the sort of talons required for real tree climbing. They can reach up into lower level limbs and jump up into them or climb up things like steep but non vertical cliffs and jump into the limbs of a tree so the idea of them jumping from limb to limb and tree to tree is just barely within the realm of possibility but … wolves can reach nearly 6’ in length with dire wolves and works being even larger so “lower limbs is fairly subjective.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The reality is that humans actually should have a climbing speed, not a fast one but we should have one, just as some backgrounds should give us at least the option for a swim speed or perhaps be able to take a swim speed instead of a skill or tool proficiency.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I didn't say wolves cannot climb trees, just like humans they can if small enought to hug its trunk or low enought to jump through branches. They're like humans, they can't climb surface without sufficient grip or handles to hold onto, and the DM will determine that.
Fair enough
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
We do have a climb speed, half our walking speed.