So the answer to the question I'm about to ask feels intuitive, but I just wanted to toss it out here to see what people think.
Do you DM's out there ever apply multiple Ability checks when a character is attempting to do something, or do you keep it as a simple...
Player: "I want to try X."
DM: "Make an Acrobatics check."
Player passes or fails.
But my DM applied multiple checks to the task, as seen below:
My character was attempting to climb up a 40-foot length of rope that was angled at lets say 45 degrees, in order to reach whatever platform the upper end of the rope was tied to. The DM set the DC at 15 and I passed. But he had me roll again every 10 feet; i.e. 4 checks to accomplish 1 task. With an Acrobatics modifier of +4, it was essentially a 50/50 proposition. 1-10 I miss, 11-20 I make it. But with 4 checks, instead of it being a 1 in 2 chance, it's actually 1 in 16 (if i'm doing my math right).
I did point out the math on this to him, and he took it into consideration for future tasks that he envisions with multiple DC checks. But what do you all think about this notion of multiple checks?
I'm down for multiple checks if they're different or it's in a tense moment. If you were trying to climb this rope and other things were happening to interrupt your progress, it makes sense; or if it's a skill challenge where you and the party work together to complete different checks to complete the task (you try to climb and hang on, a party member does an Investigation to work a complex mechanism, another character does Athletics to move a weight and pulley) then multiple checks are also great. But if you were just climbing the rope, and that was the whole happening (no weather effects, combat, interruption, etc.) then it really should just be one check. Seems like your DM may have agreed with you, as well, when you pointed out the probability of failure.
He agreed for the future. My character actually died from this lol after failing the 2nd check ( and the first was a natural 20!) I fell. Then failed a roll to avoid falling into the river below. Then failed a roll to avoid catching onto a branch. Then failed a throw to grab into one of my party members that tried to get me before I fell down the waterfall at the end of this river 😂😂 I kid you not. I actually survived the falling damage, and some more damage from the rocks I hit below and finally passed a roll to grab onto some other rocks. I cast 3 cure wounds on myself to heal up. Then he had me roll to see if any of my belongings survived the fall. Failed that. So now I’m holding onto a rock, no gear, in water with a less than gentle current. Swimming out was my only chance. Time to start swimming. Failed the first roll soon as I pushed off the rock. Finally made a roll to claw back to the surface. Failed a Con check to avoid exhaustion. Then failed 2 more attempts to swim and drowned. Of the 9 rolls I made after the first success, only 1 roll was higher than an 8!
I think that at this point his DM was desperately trying to get him to succeed at something so he could stay alive. :p
But yes, I agree with Mellie. Roll once to go over the rope or something. Perhaps more rolls can come into play when something changes in the effort (a strong wind, an errant sling stone, a random Fireball >.>) or when it takes a significant amount of time.
Or, you know, every round you attempt the action in combat. Trying to cross a 120 ft rope over a pit, in combat, can really mean you roll once per turn.
If your rolls are any indication, avoid 120 ft long ropes in combat... :p
I agree with adding a sense of tension by adding a roll here and there, even in passive situations like climbing a rope across a 120' chasm with no apparent obstruction. I'm sure your arms would start to burn after a while.
The issue I have with your plight is the amount of rolls added to this event. At any point in time the DM could have let you survive by giving you the win. In this situation, hence forth known as "ManyFacesManyNames Series of Unfortunate Events", there were multiple instances where narrative could have overridden a roll. That's not to say your DM was wrong, it's just not the way I would have played it out.
I agree with adding a sense of tension by adding a roll here and there, even in passive situations like climbing a rope across a 120' chasm with no apparent obstruction. I'm sure your arms would start to burn after a while.
The issue I have with your plight is the amount of rolls added to this event. At any point in time the DM could have let you survive by giving you the win. In this situation, hence forth known as "ManyFacesManyNames Series of Unfortunate Events", there were multiple instances where narrative could have overridden a roll. That's not to say your DM was wrong, it's just not the way I would have played it out.
lmao @ "ManyFacesManyNames Series of Unfortunate Events"
From his perspective, he thought he *was* saving me by letting me have all these rolls lol and he also acknowledges that he "screwed me" by not taking my initial natural 20 roll as a success to a relatively not difficult task. My character had a 20 dex, a 14 str and a 16 con. I didn't think what I was attempting was that challenging in the first place, and the nat 20 should've made it a breeze. That being said, my character also had a 19 INT (I rolled obscenely at creation, plus racial, plus an ASI, plus another member of the group had given me a Headband of Intellect) and I should've known to anchor myself to the rope before climbing it to prevent a fall. Oh well lol As it happens the new character I joined with provided the group with a MUCH needed tank in the form of a mountain dwarf EK :D
There's a few things to unpack for me here, so let's get to it:
First, I normally wouldn't have set a DC higher than 5 for that check in the first place. It's a rope, and it's not straight up. Children can achieve that task, anyone with even a modicum of physical fitness should be able to do so without trouble, unless there were mitigating circumstances, such as grease on the rope or something else going on (a strong wind, *something) to cause it to be harder. A lot of DMs will have in their mind that a "base" DC is 10 or 15, but not all locks are difficult to pick, not all things are hard to climb, etc.
Second, unless the character is under duress (in combat, or something else is going on) I wouldn't normally have the players roll at all. They can take their time, take it easy, and move along at a safe, steady pace, essentially "take a 10" to use a 3rd edition term. With such an easy task, that would result in their guaranteed success *eventually*, so again, why roll?
Third, a "failure" when the check is made for progress does not automatically mean falling, any more than a failure at breaking down a door automatically means the ceiling collapses on you. You failed to accomplish the task, but you weren't checking to see if you could hold onto the rope, you were checking to see if you could make progress. Apparently you could not. Were a player in a situation where they were making that kind of check (which again would require for me mitigating circumstances or duress of some kind, a time limit, *something), I'd call failure to progress exactly that- they're stuck there until they check again, but don't fall, unless they critically fail (in my campaign, rolling a 1, and yes, I know that's not how it works per RAW) or get a check result FAR below the threshold (like 5 under, 10 under, something like that). I'd only have them fall on a failure if something was actively trying to dislodge them (the wind, harpies, whatever), and I'd have the check to fall entirely separate from the check to progress. The exception would be if they had been engaging in strenuous activity long enough to risk exhaustion, but again I think that falls under "mitigating circumstances"
Fourth, I certainly think it's 100% fine to have multiple checks when the situation actually calls for it. As an example, if you were crossing a narrow bridge with no handrails which was coated with ice under the effects of a blizzard while harpies tried to push you to your death, you'd be making checks left and right. Checks on your turn when trying to progress, everyone making a check every turn to withstand the wind, and a check against the harpies when they execute their shove attacks against you. Mind you, that would make it *very* difficult, nearly impossible to succeed in fact, but that's irrelevant. The wind continues to blow, the harpies continue to shove, and the bridge continues to be coated with ice as you progress. Checks are still relevant, and the fact that it makes it hard, doesn't make it wrong to continue to require checks. In those circumstances the players would be very wise to figure out a better way forward, as indeed their continued success would eventually strain credulity.
As far as the checks for the circumstances you listed, all of them seem fine, as they're all new attempts to do something under what certainly (following the fall) would be considered duress! The rope climbing bit is the only part that I would really have issues with, and again, that would be appropriate if there were a blizzard or some other mitigating circumstance.
There was no duress. The only 2 "obstacles" I faced were: 1) At the top platform that the rope was anchored to there was a sentry. But it wasn't a 2x2 platform, it was big. It's quite possible that had I actually made it up there the guy would be waiting for me and shove me off, or half way up he could've shot at me with an arrow, but we'll never know ;) 2) The 2nd obstacle was my DM's opinion of how difficult the task was. He felt it was quite challenging as the rope was at an angle. I countered that any medium level Ninja Warrior competitor (or the like) would've made it easily. My character was significantly more adept than a medium level ninja warrior. While the D&D stats are essentially a guideline for understanding your characters physical and mental capabilities, I've always looked at 20's as near legendary. So someone with a 20 Str is immensely strong, a 20 Int genius level, etc. With a 20 Dex, and above average Con (16) and Str (14) stats, my character didn't look at it as much of a challenge at all (nor did I).
I was a bit grumble at the time, as this was the first time in my D&D career that I had rolled a character with this amount of obscene stats, and I had already laid the groundwork in-game for multiclassing to Monk (courtesy of 20 Wis and 20 Dex). This death occurred 2 sessions before the group made 6th level. I mostly got over it, other than that I'm still talking about it in this thread lol but it's all in the hopes of avoiding stuff like this in the future.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the answer to the question I'm about to ask feels intuitive, but I just wanted to toss it out here to see what people think.
Do you DM's out there ever apply multiple Ability checks when a character is attempting to do something, or do you keep it as a simple...
Player: "I want to try X."
DM: "Make an Acrobatics check."
Player passes or fails.
But my DM applied multiple checks to the task, as seen below:
My character was attempting to climb up a 40-foot length of rope that was angled at lets say 45 degrees, in order to reach whatever platform the upper end of the rope was tied to. The DM set the DC at 15 and I passed. But he had me roll again every 10 feet; i.e. 4 checks to accomplish 1 task. With an Acrobatics modifier of +4, it was essentially a 50/50 proposition. 1-10 I miss, 11-20 I make it. But with 4 checks, instead of it being a 1 in 2 chance, it's actually 1 in 16 (if i'm doing my math right).
I did point out the math on this to him, and he took it into consideration for future tasks that he envisions with multiple DC checks. But what do you all think about this notion of multiple checks?
I'm down for multiple checks if they're different or it's in a tense moment. If you were trying to climb this rope and other things were happening to interrupt your progress, it makes sense; or if it's a skill challenge where you and the party work together to complete different checks to complete the task (you try to climb and hang on, a party member does an Investigation to work a complex mechanism, another character does Athletics to move a weight and pulley) then multiple checks are also great. But if you were just climbing the rope, and that was the whole happening (no weather effects, combat, interruption, etc.) then it really should just be one check. Seems like your DM may have agreed with you, as well, when you pointed out the probability of failure.
He agreed for the future. My character actually died from this lol after failing the 2nd check ( and the first was a natural 20!) I fell. Then failed a roll to avoid falling into the river below. Then failed a roll to avoid catching onto a branch. Then failed a throw to grab into one of my party members that tried to get me before I fell down the waterfall at the end of this river 😂😂 I kid you not. I actually survived the falling damage, and some more damage from the rocks I hit below and finally passed a roll to grab onto some other rocks. I cast 3 cure wounds on myself to heal up. Then he had me roll to see if any of my belongings survived the fall. Failed that. So now I’m holding onto a rock, no gear, in water with a less than gentle current. Swimming out was my only chance. Time to start swimming. Failed the first roll soon as I pushed off the rock. Finally made a roll to claw back to the surface. Failed a Con check to avoid exhaustion. Then failed 2 more attempts to swim and drowned. Of the 9 rolls I made after the first success, only 1 roll was higher than an 8!
Oh my gosh, that's a very silly series of events! I think your DM might be a little roll-happy!
I think that at this point his DM was desperately trying to get him to succeed at something so he could stay alive. :p
But yes, I agree with Mellie. Roll once to go over the rope or something. Perhaps more rolls can come into play when something changes in the effort (a strong wind, an errant sling stone, a random Fireball >.>) or when it takes a significant amount of time.
Or, you know, every round you attempt the action in combat. Trying to cross a 120 ft rope over a pit, in combat, can really mean you roll once per turn.
If your rolls are any indication, avoid 120 ft long ropes in combat... :p
I agree with adding a sense of tension by adding a roll here and there, even in passive situations like climbing a rope across a 120' chasm with no apparent obstruction. I'm sure your arms would start to burn after a while.
The issue I have with your plight is the amount of rolls added to this event. At any point in time the DM could have let you survive by giving you the win. In this situation, hence forth known as "ManyFacesManyNames Series of Unfortunate Events", there were multiple instances where narrative could have overridden a roll. That's not to say your DM was wrong, it's just not the way I would have played it out.
There's a few things to unpack for me here, so let's get to it:
First, I normally wouldn't have set a DC higher than 5 for that check in the first place. It's a rope, and it's not straight up. Children can achieve that task, anyone with even a modicum of physical fitness should be able to do so without trouble, unless there were mitigating circumstances, such as grease on the rope or something else going on (a strong wind, *something) to cause it to be harder. A lot of DMs will have in their mind that a "base" DC is 10 or 15, but not all locks are difficult to pick, not all things are hard to climb, etc.
Second, unless the character is under duress (in combat, or something else is going on) I wouldn't normally have the players roll at all. They can take their time, take it easy, and move along at a safe, steady pace, essentially "take a 10" to use a 3rd edition term. With such an easy task, that would result in their guaranteed success *eventually*, so again, why roll?
Third, a "failure" when the check is made for progress does not automatically mean falling, any more than a failure at breaking down a door automatically means the ceiling collapses on you. You failed to accomplish the task, but you weren't checking to see if you could hold onto the rope, you were checking to see if you could make progress. Apparently you could not. Were a player in a situation where they were making that kind of check (which again would require for me mitigating circumstances or duress of some kind, a time limit, *something), I'd call failure to progress exactly that- they're stuck there until they check again, but don't fall, unless they critically fail (in my campaign, rolling a 1, and yes, I know that's not how it works per RAW) or get a check result FAR below the threshold (like 5 under, 10 under, something like that). I'd only have them fall on a failure if something was actively trying to dislodge them (the wind, harpies, whatever), and I'd have the check to fall entirely separate from the check to progress. The exception would be if they had been engaging in strenuous activity long enough to risk exhaustion, but again I think that falls under "mitigating circumstances"
Fourth, I certainly think it's 100% fine to have multiple checks when the situation actually calls for it. As an example, if you were crossing a narrow bridge with no handrails which was coated with ice under the effects of a blizzard while harpies tried to push you to your death, you'd be making checks left and right. Checks on your turn when trying to progress, everyone making a check every turn to withstand the wind, and a check against the harpies when they execute their shove attacks against you. Mind you, that would make it *very* difficult, nearly impossible to succeed in fact, but that's irrelevant. The wind continues to blow, the harpies continue to shove, and the bridge continues to be coated with ice as you progress. Checks are still relevant, and the fact that it makes it hard, doesn't make it wrong to continue to require checks. In those circumstances the players would be very wise to figure out a better way forward, as indeed their continued success would eventually strain credulity.
As far as the checks for the circumstances you listed, all of them seem fine, as they're all new attempts to do something under what certainly (following the fall) would be considered duress! The rope climbing bit is the only part that I would really have issues with, and again, that would be appropriate if there were a blizzard or some other mitigating circumstance.
All of the above is just mho. Hope that helps.
There was no duress. The only 2 "obstacles" I faced were: 1) At the top platform that the rope was anchored to there was a sentry. But it wasn't a 2x2 platform, it was big. It's quite possible that had I actually made it up there the guy would be waiting for me and shove me off, or half way up he could've shot at me with an arrow, but we'll never know ;) 2) The 2nd obstacle was my DM's opinion of how difficult the task was. He felt it was quite challenging as the rope was at an angle. I countered that any medium level Ninja Warrior competitor (or the like) would've made it easily. My character was significantly more adept than a medium level ninja warrior. While the D&D stats are essentially a guideline for understanding your characters physical and mental capabilities, I've always looked at 20's as near legendary. So someone with a 20 Str is immensely strong, a 20 Int genius level, etc. With a 20 Dex, and above average Con (16) and Str (14) stats, my character didn't look at it as much of a challenge at all (nor did I).
I was a bit grumble at the time, as this was the first time in my D&D career that I had rolled a character with this amount of obscene stats, and I had already laid the groundwork in-game for multiclassing to Monk (courtesy of 20 Wis and 20 Dex). This death occurred 2 sessions before the group made 6th level. I mostly got over it, other than that I'm still talking about it in this thread lol but it's all in the hopes of avoiding stuff like this in the future.