Imagine your character is climbing down a rope into an ancient, dry well. Your character is fully geared and armored, carrying about 65 lbs in weight in total. The depth to the bottom of the well is 100 feet.
RAW, this would require an Athletics check IMO, since this scaling down a rope with all that carried weight and limited ability to move your body because of said carried or worn items would add a degree of difficulty.
I had this scenario recently with my players and I decided to have them make an Athletics check vs. DC 15 every 10 feet. Failed throws meant they lost their grip but would make an additional Athletics check vs. DC 15 where a successful roll meant they caught themselves and prevented themselves from falling off the rope entirely.
I had three characters going down the same rope at the same time, staggered 10 feet from each other. I regretted how I set this rule because it took quite some time for them all three to get down the rope, one of whom lost grip entirely at the 30-foot mark, taking significant damage from the fall (as they fell into a pile of stone and wood rubble, making their impact even more lethal). While the scene was legitimately heart-racing for everyone, and my players didn't complain about the time the scenario took (about 15 minutes), I feel that this should have been 5 minutes max.
I thought that maybe I should have just made it one roll, but I didn't want it to be too easy if they made the roll, or too devastating if they didn't (100-foot fall). I'm a DM that runs his game more towards the realistic end of the game spectrum, so I imagined that IRL, climbing down a rope with all that weight, into the darkness, needs to be somehow more heart-pounding than just a single die roll or two. My goal was to make an impactful scenario but not an overly cumbersome one.
What would any of you have done? Any suggestions to make such a scenario challenging but fair, memorable but not tedious? How would you change your rule if they were climbing back up the rope?
I get not wanting it to be easy, but that’s too many rolls. Over the course of 10 rolls, you’re all but certain to fail, just statistically. Even with the catch yourself mechanic you put in I’m pretty surprised only one of them ended up falling.
I’d have maybe done a group skill check, reasoning that they are helping each other, steadying the rope, calling out where there are good footholds, etc. have everyone roll, and if more than half of them succeed, the whole group succeeds. That can help even out one bad roll. And I’d probably only do one roll, just to move it along. I might go as high as 3, if I wanted to make it feel more serious.
At most, I'd do a single roll per turn of movement.
However, unless it was a really long climb, or particularly treacherous, I might not bother at all. If we're talking about realism, these characters *wouldn't* do this. They would take turns lowering themselves down separately from their gear. Narrating it as them climbing with their gear on is just a time saver. There is a reason that stories don't spend 1.5 hours on every meal, and pause for each bathroom break.
In the future, maybe do cascading failures and treat it like death saves. Anyone who passes the first check climbs easily, but anyone who fails has to roll again at a new DC. If the person fails 2 times in a row (or critically fails once), then something bad happens.
At most, I'd do a single roll per turn of movement.
However, unless it was a really long climb, or particularly treacherous, I might not bother at all. If we're talking about realism, these characters *wouldn't* do this. They would take turns lowering themselves down separately from their gear. Narrating it as them climbing with their gear on is just a time saver. There is a reason that stories don't spend 1.5 hours on every meal, and pause for each bathroom break.
In the future, maybe do cascading failures and treat it like death saves. Anyone who passes the first check climbs easily, but anyone who fails has to roll again at a new DC. If the person fails 2 times in a row (or critically fails once), then something bad happens.
In this particular scenario, they were attempting to hide from a small band of Frost Giants who were returning to the tower ruins they were standing in. The well was at the center of these ruins, and they decided to skedaddle down ASAP, which is why they all jumped on the rope so quickly behind one another. I like your ideology on treating it like a death save of sorts. Thanks!
Personally, I would have reduced the DC for the Athletics check to 12. Then have them roll every 20 feet (their presumed movement rate of climbing being 15 feet, rounded up 5 feet). If they fail, they automatically fall 10 feet, then roll again. That fall, if it hits the player below them, forces the person impacted to make their own Athletics check, at DC 15. It would still preserve the tenseness of the situation, and get them to think about having the heaviest, strongest person at the bottom if they ever had to attempt something like this IRL.
Personally, I would have reduced the DC for the Athletics check to 12. Then have them roll every 20 feet (their presumed movement rate of climbing being 15 feet, rounded up 5 feet). If they fail, they automatically fall 10 feet, then roll again. That fall, if it hits the player below them, forces the person impacted to make their own Athletics check, at DC 15. It would still preserve the tenseness of the situation, and get them to think about having the heaviest, strongest person at the bottom if they ever had to attempt something like this IRL.
It all depend as DM how challenging you want rope climbing to be. In a non-stressing no-time pressured environment, i wouldn't have asked for a check, especially if the climbers are secured to the rope. If not i might have required an easy Athletics (Strenght) check meaning a low DC due to rope usage. I would also not ask many rolls as too many increasing the risk of failure. If there was plateau they can reach during the descent, i might ask 1 check per plateau for exemple with failure resulting in a fall until they land.. So a 5 or 10 Athletics (Strenght) check or 2 max
The other perspective to look at it from is what is the narrative benefit and costs involved?
The characters want to go down the rope because a bunch of giants are returning to their home and they don't want to be caught. How dangerous is it if they are caught? How soon are the giant's arriving? Do the characters have 1 minute, 5 minutes or 10 minutes to hide? Each imposes different constraints on their actions.
What are the consequences of falling? If a character wearing armor and carrying 65 pounds of gear falls then they are going to make a lot of noise. If the giants are only 1 minute away they are likely to hear the noise. Does this impose any consequences? How is the rope secured at the top? Do the giants find it? Are the characters still climbing down when the giants arrive? How intelligent are the giants?
Anyway, depending on the precautions the characters have time for if any and how difficult you want to make the situation, you can decide on a range of possibilities. The easiest one is just to narrate a difficult climb with some slips and dangerous moments but in which everyone reaches the bottom more or less unscathed.
In the example you gave, DC15, rolled every 10 feet. This means 10 rolls/character. Depending on level and stats this means a 50-75% failure rate for most characters making athletics checks (a tier 1 character with proficiency and 16 strength only has a +5, a caster or dex based character could easily have a -1 - tier 2 might be +7 for a str character). This means that the odds of multiple characters plummeting to the bottom of the well are very high. The characters would know that - so they might decide NOT to do this - the DM would need to explain exactly how small the chances for a successful descent on the rope actually are. (Even a character with a +5, the odds of falling - two failed DC15 checks in a row each 10 feet, are about 25% for each 10' traversed).
So, although it is disguised as a skill challenge, these numbers mean the DM really decided that the characters should fall to the bottom of the well unless they are really lucky.
Other suggestions like DC12 roll every 20' or DC10 roll every 33', provide some tension while increasing the odds that the characters make it down safely (and need a lot fewer die rolls to resolve). You could even have a single DC10 check to climb down then roll a d10 to determine how far they would fall.If someone above you on the rope falls, increase the DC of the person below by +2. A DC10 with a +5 is about a 1/16 chance to fall every time it is rolled (assuming a check to lose the griip and a second check to see if you catch the rope before falling). Once a character with a 65 pound pack is actually falling, it is unlikely they would be able to grab the rope and stop the fall.
Anyway, if the goal is to save time then reduce the number of die rolls in the skill check and if the goal is to give the characters a reasonable chance to succeed then change the frequency and DC set. These are adventurers. They have been carrying these 65 pound packs into battle, climbing cliffs, descending ropes, training, likely for years - they aren't the players sitting around the table. What would be hard or impossible for the players might be easy for the characters, even those with an 8 strength. Which is something to keep in mind when going for a "realistic" feel to the game.
It is entirely up to you, as DM, to decide how difficult you want the rope climbing to be. I wouldn't have requested for a check in a setting that wasn't stressful and didn't have any time constraints, especially if the climbers were safely attached to the rope. If not, I might have been needed to make a simple check of my Athletics (Strength), which would have resulted in a low DC due to the use of rope. In addition, I wouldn't ask for too many rolls because doing so would increase the likelihood that we would fail.
Reading this reminds me of something I had seen in Not Another D&D Podcast, where the players would sometimes need to traverse some kind of environmental hazard. One of the ways it is often handled is with three skill checks, each one increasingly difficult. For the first third, make it just a DC 5.... most characters are safe there, but it still builds tension. Then they need to hit a DC 10. Higher chances of failure, but still very doable... anyone with low athletics scores might be sweating, but the odds are still in their favor. Finally do one more check at DC 15... odds are much higher for failure at this stage, but also they're closer to the bottom, so even though tension is high it's not as dire as it would be if they had to make this same DC check at the top.
One of the ways it is often handled is with three skill checks, each one increasingly difficult. For the first third, make it just a DC 5.... most characters are safe there, but it still builds tension. Then they need to hit a DC 10. Higher chances of failure, but still very doable... anyone with low athletics scores might be sweating, but the odds are still in their favor. Finally do one more check at DC 15... odds are much higher for failure at this stage, but also they're closer to the bottom, so even though tension is high it's not as dire as it would be if they had to make this same DC check at the top.
I think this is a fun scenario and I like the above solution.
If you wanted to add a bit more time and complexity closer to how it was done in the OP, here is my idea:
First of all, we should ask ourselves -- once a character has demonstrated his ability to be able to climb down the rope with an initial check, what actually changes every few feet? Endurance. While the seconds tick by as we continue to hang onto this rope we will be getting tired. So, during the descent I would be using Constitution checks, not Strength (Athletics) checks.
I also like the idea above of potentially calling for a new check every "round", even though we are not in combat (but we could be!). This increases the dice rolling and chances for failure, but there won't be quite as many rolls as in the OP. Assuming we are acting round by round and a character wants to take a Dash action for additional movement I think that we ask for a check at that point as well. Also, if for some reason characters have different climbing speeds then this would have to be tracked individually. So, if you had some characters with a base movement of 30 feet and others with a base movement of 25 feet, they can climb 15 feet and 12 feet respectively. Maybe some characters are Hasted or buffed or penalized in some other way.
Ok, so to start off let's require an Action and ask for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check DC 10 to initially grab onto the rope and get themselves into proper climbing position and begin the descent. Maybe even just a DC 5 check if the rope is within easy reach and there's no jump-and-grab involved. If successful, they can use their movement to descend 15 (or 12) feet. If failed, let's now require all movement to be used in an attempt to catch and stabilize and ask for the Strength (Athletics) DC 15 check. If successful, the character cannot make any downward movement progress during this round. Unfortunately, there is a significant chance of failing both checks and falling 100 feet, but this does represent the most dangerous aspect of the entire climb so I think it makes sense. Maybe this initial Dex check (or all checks) can be made with advantage or even changed to an auto-success if there is some use of tools or equipment or some other clever and creative solution to reduce or eliminate the initial risk.
On subsequent rounds we begin to check for endurance failures. A character can move 15 (or 12) feet for free a number of times equal to their Constitution modifier if positive. Once this is used up, before using any additional movement we ask for a DC 5 Constitution check. If successful, move another 15 (or 12) feet. If failed, ask for the Strength (Athletics) DC 15 check -- if successful, the character cannot make any downward movement progress during this round. Next time around, DC 6 Constitution check. Next, DC 7 Con check and so on as fatigue sets in.
One additional note about this method -- the OP seemed to be concerned about having the weight of the backpack and other gear matter somehow. My suggestion for this is to use the variant encumbrance rules just for this scenario even if they haven't been used up until now unless you know that everyone in the party would be heavily encumbered -- maybe in that case just apply the penalty for being lightly encumbered instead. The idea is that they'll have less movement between each check which would become a more dangerous climb in the aggregate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Imagine your character is climbing down a rope into an ancient, dry well. Your character is fully geared and armored, carrying about 65 lbs in weight in total. The depth to the bottom of the well is 100 feet.
RAW, this would require an Athletics check IMO, since this scaling down a rope with all that carried weight and limited ability to move your body because of said carried or worn items would add a degree of difficulty.
I had this scenario recently with my players and I decided to have them make an Athletics check vs. DC 15 every 10 feet. Failed throws meant they lost their grip but would make an additional Athletics check vs. DC 15 where a successful roll meant they caught themselves and prevented themselves from falling off the rope entirely.
I had three characters going down the same rope at the same time, staggered 10 feet from each other. I regretted how I set this rule because it took quite some time for them all three to get down the rope, one of whom lost grip entirely at the 30-foot mark, taking significant damage from the fall (as they fell into a pile of stone and wood rubble, making their impact even more lethal). While the scene was legitimately heart-racing for everyone, and my players didn't complain about the time the scenario took (about 15 minutes), I feel that this should have been 5 minutes max.
I thought that maybe I should have just made it one roll, but I didn't want it to be too easy if they made the roll, or too devastating if they didn't (100-foot fall). I'm a DM that runs his game more towards the realistic end of the game spectrum, so I imagined that IRL, climbing down a rope with all that weight, into the darkness, needs to be somehow more heart-pounding than just a single die roll or two. My goal was to make an impactful scenario but not an overly cumbersome one.
What would any of you have done? Any suggestions to make such a scenario challenging but fair, memorable but not tedious? How would you change your rule if they were climbing back up the rope?
Thanks!
I get not wanting it to be easy, but that’s too many rolls. Over the course of 10 rolls, you’re all but certain to fail, just statistically. Even with the catch yourself mechanic you put in I’m pretty surprised only one of them ended up falling.
I’d have maybe done a group skill check, reasoning that they are helping each other, steadying the rope, calling out where there are good footholds, etc. have everyone roll, and if more than half of them succeed, the whole group succeeds. That can help even out one bad roll.
And I’d probably only do one roll, just to move it along. I might go as high as 3, if I wanted to make it feel more serious.
At most, I'd do a single roll per turn of movement.
However, unless it was a really long climb, or particularly treacherous, I might not bother at all. If we're talking about realism, these characters *wouldn't* do this. They would take turns lowering themselves down separately from their gear. Narrating it as them climbing with their gear on is just a time saver. There is a reason that stories don't spend 1.5 hours on every meal, and pause for each bathroom break.
In the future, maybe do cascading failures and treat it like death saves. Anyone who passes the first check climbs easily, but anyone who fails has to roll again at a new DC. If the person fails 2 times in a row (or critically fails once), then something bad happens.
In this particular scenario, they were attempting to hide from a small band of Frost Giants who were returning to the tower ruins they were standing in. The well was at the center of these ruins, and they decided to skedaddle down ASAP, which is why they all jumped on the rope so quickly behind one another. I like your ideology on treating it like a death save of sorts. Thanks!
Personally, I would have reduced the DC for the Athletics check to 12. Then have them roll every 20 feet (their presumed movement rate of climbing being 15 feet, rounded up 5 feet). If they fail, they automatically fall 10 feet, then roll again. That fall, if it hits the player below them, forces the person impacted to make their own Athletics check, at DC 15. It would still preserve the tenseness of the situation, and get them to think about having the heaviest, strongest person at the bottom if they ever had to attempt something like this IRL.
Great idea! Thanks!!
It all depend as DM how challenging you want rope climbing to be. In a non-stressing no-time pressured environment, i wouldn't have asked for a check, especially if the climbers are secured to the rope. If not i might have required an easy Athletics (Strenght) check meaning a low DC due to rope usage. I would also not ask many rolls as too many increasing the risk of failure. If there was plateau they can reach during the descent, i might ask 1 check per plateau for exemple with failure resulting in a fall until they land.. So a 5 or 10 Athletics (Strenght) check or 2 max
The other perspective to look at it from is what is the narrative benefit and costs involved?
The characters want to go down the rope because a bunch of giants are returning to their home and they don't want to be caught. How dangerous is it if they are caught? How soon are the giant's arriving? Do the characters have 1 minute, 5 minutes or 10 minutes to hide? Each imposes different constraints on their actions.
What are the consequences of falling? If a character wearing armor and carrying 65 pounds of gear falls then they are going to make a lot of noise. If the giants are only 1 minute away they are likely to hear the noise. Does this impose any consequences? How is the rope secured at the top? Do the giants find it? Are the characters still climbing down when the giants arrive? How intelligent are the giants?
Anyway, depending on the precautions the characters have time for if any and how difficult you want to make the situation, you can decide on a range of possibilities. The easiest one is just to narrate a difficult climb with some slips and dangerous moments but in which everyone reaches the bottom more or less unscathed.
In the example you gave, DC15, rolled every 10 feet. This means 10 rolls/character. Depending on level and stats this means a 50-75% failure rate for most characters making athletics checks (a tier 1 character with proficiency and 16 strength only has a +5, a caster or dex based character could easily have a -1 - tier 2 might be +7 for a str character). This means that the odds of multiple characters plummeting to the bottom of the well are very high. The characters would know that - so they might decide NOT to do this - the DM would need to explain exactly how small the chances for a successful descent on the rope actually are. (Even a character with a +5, the odds of falling - two failed DC15 checks in a row each 10 feet, are about 25% for each 10' traversed).
So, although it is disguised as a skill challenge, these numbers mean the DM really decided that the characters should fall to the bottom of the well unless they are really lucky.
Other suggestions like DC12 roll every 20' or DC10 roll every 33', provide some tension while increasing the odds that the characters make it down safely (and need a lot fewer die rolls to resolve). You could even have a single DC10 check to climb down then roll a d10 to determine how far they would fall.If someone above you on the rope falls, increase the DC of the person below by +2. A DC10 with a +5 is about a 1/16 chance to fall every time it is rolled (assuming a check to lose the griip and a second check to see if you catch the rope before falling). Once a character with a 65 pound pack is actually falling, it is unlikely they would be able to grab the rope and stop the fall.
Anyway, if the goal is to save time then reduce the number of die rolls in the skill check and if the goal is to give the characters a reasonable chance to succeed then change the frequency and DC set. These are adventurers. They have been carrying these 65 pound packs into battle, climbing cliffs, descending ropes, training, likely for years - they aren't the players sitting around the table. What would be hard or impossible for the players might be easy for the characters, even those with an 8 strength. Which is something to keep in mind when going for a "realistic" feel to the game.
It is entirely up to you, as DM, to decide how difficult you want the rope climbing to be. I wouldn't have requested for a check in a setting that wasn't stressful and didn't have any time constraints, especially if the climbers were safely attached to the rope. If not, I might have been needed to make a simple check of my Athletics (Strength), which would have resulted in a low DC due to the use of rope. In addition, I wouldn't ask for too many rolls because doing so would increase the likelihood that we would fail.
penalty kick online
Reading this reminds me of something I had seen in Not Another D&D Podcast, where the players would sometimes need to traverse some kind of environmental hazard. One of the ways it is often handled is with three skill checks, each one increasingly difficult. For the first third, make it just a DC 5.... most characters are safe there, but it still builds tension. Then they need to hit a DC 10. Higher chances of failure, but still very doable... anyone with low athletics scores might be sweating, but the odds are still in their favor. Finally do one more check at DC 15... odds are much higher for failure at this stage, but also they're closer to the bottom, so even though tension is high it's not as dire as it would be if they had to make this same DC check at the top.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I think this is a fun scenario and I like the above solution.
If you wanted to add a bit more time and complexity closer to how it was done in the OP, here is my idea:
First of all, we should ask ourselves -- once a character has demonstrated his ability to be able to climb down the rope with an initial check, what actually changes every few feet? Endurance. While the seconds tick by as we continue to hang onto this rope we will be getting tired. So, during the descent I would be using Constitution checks, not Strength (Athletics) checks.
I also like the idea above of potentially calling for a new check every "round", even though we are not in combat (but we could be!). This increases the dice rolling and chances for failure, but there won't be quite as many rolls as in the OP. Assuming we are acting round by round and a character wants to take a Dash action for additional movement I think that we ask for a check at that point as well. Also, if for some reason characters have different climbing speeds then this would have to be tracked individually. So, if you had some characters with a base movement of 30 feet and others with a base movement of 25 feet, they can climb 15 feet and 12 feet respectively. Maybe some characters are Hasted or buffed or penalized in some other way.
Ok, so to start off let's require an Action and ask for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check DC 10 to initially grab onto the rope and get themselves into proper climbing position and begin the descent. Maybe even just a DC 5 check if the rope is within easy reach and there's no jump-and-grab involved. If successful, they can use their movement to descend 15 (or 12) feet. If failed, let's now require all movement to be used in an attempt to catch and stabilize and ask for the Strength (Athletics) DC 15 check. If successful, the character cannot make any downward movement progress during this round. Unfortunately, there is a significant chance of failing both checks and falling 100 feet, but this does represent the most dangerous aspect of the entire climb so I think it makes sense. Maybe this initial Dex check (or all checks) can be made with advantage or even changed to an auto-success if there is some use of tools or equipment or some other clever and creative solution to reduce or eliminate the initial risk.
On subsequent rounds we begin to check for endurance failures. A character can move 15 (or 12) feet for free a number of times equal to their Constitution modifier if positive. Once this is used up, before using any additional movement we ask for a DC 5 Constitution check. If successful, move another 15 (or 12) feet. If failed, ask for the Strength (Athletics) DC 15 check -- if successful, the character cannot make any downward movement progress during this round. Next time around, DC 6 Constitution check. Next, DC 7 Con check and so on as fatigue sets in.
One additional note about this method -- the OP seemed to be concerned about having the weight of the backpack and other gear matter somehow. My suggestion for this is to use the variant encumbrance rules just for this scenario even if they haven't been used up until now unless you know that everyone in the party would be heavily encumbered -- maybe in that case just apply the penalty for being lightly encumbered instead. The idea is that they'll have less movement between each check which would become a more dangerous climb in the aggregate.