Failing climb = fall?

[Dalebert]

I was attempting a climb 15 feet up to a ledge and rolled a total of 8 with athletics. DM called that I fell in the attempt and "took a tumble" and a small amount of damage. I didn't roll a natural 1. I wasn't halfway up a really high wall. Other DMs have treated a non-critical fail as simply not making progress up the wall. How do you handle it? I'm going to assume the 5e books fail to address the details as if often the case, and leave this primarily up to DM fiat.

[unwise]

I think it would be really dull to just roll again and again until you climbed something. If failure does not mean falling, then what is the point of rolling? Why not just say "you get up eventually"? Outside of extremely pressing time constaints, how does it matter if you spend another 5 rounds to climb a wall?

I would mix it up a bit depending on how much they failed by. They could drop something, smash a potion they had on their belt, fall and catch themselves on a rope but almost dislocate their shoulder doing some HP damage, or just fall and make an acrobatics roll for half damage. Sometimes I have their failure affect somebody else, so they destroy a handhold, making the DC harder for others, or they bump somebody else.

[GiantOctopodes]

In most situations where there is a chance of a negative event happening, I've normally seen it happen on a failure of 5 or more, or possibly 10 or more. Failing to pick the lock is one thing, failing by 5 or more might jam the lock. Failing to disarm the trap is one thing, failing by 5 or more might set it off. Failing to climb any further is one thing, failing by 5 or more might make you take a fall, that kind of thing. If it is something that bothers you, or something you're unclear on what the DM's thought process is regarding it, though, I'd just talk with the DM about it. In that case, my expectation is that the DC was 15 or higher, and I see no issue with what occurred, unless you were using a climbing kit and using actions to set pitons, and fell further than the distance between yourself and the closest anchored piton (presumably with one planted every time you make forward progress, so an action back at most). Otherwise, virtually any DC wall could be climbed by anyone, with no risk of falling ever, as long as they had sufficient time.

[unwise]

I have, for most of my life, DMd like Octo is saying, however I have recently moved towards a harsher approach. I now don't make PCs roll for as much as stuff as I once did. If they have time I don't make them roll climb to get up on a roof for instance.

On the flip side, I now try to never use the "you fail, but can try again" route of resolution. If the lockpick is difficulty 15 and you roll 11-14, then you simply don't know how to pick it, it is beyond you. If spending a little bit more time on it would help, then that would have been included in the initial DC. If you fail by 5 or more, you have set off the trap, broken your lockpick or something similar.

If you want another roll at something, there has to be some outside impetus to change the way you look at it or the facts of the case. The wall that was too steep to climb now has a rope lowered down, your thief compared notes with the ranger who is also good with traps, you have slept on the investigation problem, you have talked it over with the cleric who is really wise, those sort of things.

My general thought is, if the roll does not really matter, then why roll it? In the above example, if the lockpick difficulty is DC15 but you have time to spend and only a roll of less than 10 will hurt you, then why not just set the DC as 11 if they have time? It is less stuffing around and more nailbiting than rerolling.

[PinkysBrain]

I now don't make PCs roll for as much as stuff as I once did.

This is basically how 5e skill seems expected to work (without houserules). The DM arbitrarily deciding to wave the rolls.

Personally I'd just rule that in non-stressed situations you can take 10 and know when taking 10 will allow you to succeed at a task ... removes a bit of the arbitrariness from the equation.

[Dalebert]

I would expect to fall and take damage or some other negative impact of just trying to do something on a critical fail, i.e. if I rolled a natural 1. This felt like a fairly mild failure. The odds of something detrimental happening just due to my attempting something are quite high, i.e. in this case it was at least 30% (I rolled a 6 and added 2 for athletics). Failing by just 5 or more means something is critical failure? Ouch! I'm just saying, it's making skills feel fairly worthless. If I have a high risk of falling and injuring myself every time I attempt even a moderate climbing task, I'm not going to even try unless I desperately need to.

FWIW, maybe not much, in PF picking locks and most skills could actually be attempted over and over unless there was some clear negative consequence, like if there was a chance of triggering a poisoned needle trap. IRL, picking locks is very challenging and tedious and usually takes a long time, particularly for someone not as practiced, but it's nigh impossible to break or jam the lock. I always got the idea the roll was mainly for time-sensitive situations which is why you can take 10 or 20 on many out-of-combat things. Your skill level said whether you were capable of it, and if so, how quickly, i.e. how many tries on average will it take to succeed.

If you fall and hurt yourself on a critical failure of climbing, that means the risk is fairly low for a short climb but that it goes up the higher you climb, e.g. the ice wall in GoT. The real effect of his extremely strict interpretation of climbing means that my character will be falling a LOT even for someone proficient in it and even for climbs of not much distance.

This is quite a "screw you" to skills-based characters in particular.

[Once a Fool]

Huh. Falling on a failed check to climb used to be default for decades. I wonder when that changed; I remember we were still doing it during 3e and 3.5.

Note, this meant that low-level thieves (in pre-3e) fell a lot, because thief skills sucked at low levels!

Personally, I'm inclined give the falling character a chance to catch themselves with a successful DEX save (DC 10, adjusted by however much the check failed by). But definitely keep the sense of risk that falling represents.


This is basically how 5e skill seems expected to work (without houserules). The DM arbitrarily deciding to wave the rolls.

OR the DM is expected to wave rolls on a case-by-case basis based on internally established criteria that are in no way arbitrary. 5e is a system designed to trust DMs.

[Ghost Nappa]

The only time a skill check should be made is when failure carries a penalty.

There's absolutely no reason for you to be making a skill check while you're on stable ground, with no one chasing you, with no danger, etc.


When is it acceptable then to make a climbing check?

At High Elevations. Failure and Critical Failure are two different things. Critical Failure should be falling. Normal Failure shouldn't kill you, but should force a difficult choice on the player.


Suppose our party is climbing up the side of a mountain and that we have told the players beforehand that the mountain is haunted by the ghosts of who have failed to successfully climb it. There's four players in one group of 4 tied together in series. The party is not under attack and has taken proper preparations to secure themselves appropriately. We are using a DC of 10 for the climbing check.

Let's say that the second highest player fails the climbing check. Let's take this to mean that they have hit some sort of unstable crevice and have lost balance. One side is is dangling and the other is about to lose its grip. We give the player several choices to handle this dilemma:

1) Succeed at a second climbing check to stabilize, but warn that the check is a stage or two higher (+5 or +10) than it was before and failing will jeopardize the group somehow (we'll keep the idea that the stress on the rope might break the connection between the two highest players to ourselves).

2) Dangle helplessly and wait for the rest of the group. The group as a whole must now succeed at a group climbing check in order to help our straggler.

3) This is going to be a more elusive "puzzle" option and rests in the idea that the failure is not due to personal failure but being spooked. Suppose we mention when they fail the first check that they hear a ghostly wail and ask them to make a perception check. We idly roll a die (to imply to the player that there's something else going on). Unless the character has 20 Passive Perception (a rather high check), the character will not notice the source of the wail and will freak out. If the spooked individual speaks about the ghostly wail, the party will then be told to make their own active perception checks to find the source of the wail and
...on success will spy a hidden alcove on the mountain where the party can easily climb to (no check required) and rest for a short while the player who failed the check in the first place regains their composure.
...on failure the group will have to try another means of saving themselves.

4) A magical character will be told that as they struggle to continue the climb, they recall an old charm meant for situations like this that grant a short hovering effect. On a successful Arcana Check (say 10), the character correctly recalls the words and is able to make the victim hover in the air long enough to re-position themselves and their gear to get around the issue before resuming the climb.

5) This is Gandalf's Eagle Solution. A nature character can whistle for help from an intelligent animal (animal handling/nature 15), but will be warned that the party will be expected to return the favor to the creature later on. Failure to do so will provoke a combat encounter at some point in the future. The combat will be removed if they are already friends with such a creature nearby, but will stain the friendship should they refuse.

6) This is the "Player says they have a great idea" option. This one is less hard to predict. If it's sensible enough to help the players climb somehow, let them recover from the failed roll: the players will feel super smart and happy with their role-playing and you don't have to come up with hackneyed attempt to save them.


Edit:

The main thing I want to point out is that, if there is risk of negative consequences associated with failure, be proactive! The climbing kit exists, and pitons exist, for a reason. Use the tools provided to you. Why bother to include the climber's kit at all if you can't ever fall?

I would rule that unless the party explicitly tells me otherwise, does not have the time (scrambling up during a fight), or does not have the equipment, they have already set-up and donned the necessary equip from the climber's kit. If they don't have one, give them red glowing neon letters in real life telling them to run to a store and get a climber's kit.

[Jeraa]

Huh. Falling on a failed check to climb used to be default for decades. I wonder when that changed; I remember we were still doing it during 3e and 3.5.

In 3,x, you only fell if you failed by 5 or more. Failing by 4 or less just means you make no progress.

[GiantOctopodes]

The main thing I want to point out is that, if there is risk of negative consequences associated with failure, be proactive! The climbing kit exists, and pitons exist, for a reason. Use the tools provided to you. Why bother to include the climber's kit at all if you can't ever fall?

[Dalebert]

Having a margin of "safe" failure, i.e. no progress but no negatives, seems much more reasonable than failure = you fall, but even a margin of 5 seems a little strict to me. It's just not in line with the idea of fantasy characters being able to do epic things (without magic). I'm going to start asking for a DC from the DM and some idea of the repercussions of failing. My best guess is this would have been a very standard climb (DC 10) and a fairly short distance--15 ft. and I got an 8 and fell and took damage. I'm assuing a check needs to be made every round and climbing speed is going to be maybe half of ground speed.

IRL, expert climbers climb really high and challenging steep cliffs without safety gear. I guess they get off on the challenge and the adrenaline rush, but they do it on a regular basis after developing a great deal of confidence in their skills. What would be equivalent in the game? +11 for 20 STR (far more than most expert climbers) and max level prof? You're still going to fail by 5 or more on a DC 20 cliff 20% of the time, i.e. every 15 feet! Try to climb more than 75ft of that, and your odds of falling before you reach the top are extremely high.

Just doing the math, the climb over the ice wall in Game of Thrones would have been nigh impossible even for the most expert climbers in the world. You'd be relying on the spikes and ropes to save you from certain death almost every round if you have 5 people climbing and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is epic level, maxxed in STR, and proficient in athletics.

This doesn't just defy common sense. It kicks the Rule of Cool out of the game and slams the door in its butt.

Just for reference, I played in a game where we had to seek help from giant eagles. To even have a chance to speak to them, we had to prove ourselves by climbing a very challenging cliff up to their lair, with no gear, and NAKED. We were around 4th or 5th level and no one had climbing as a skill. We did come close to some people falling and barely managed to save them (We climbed close together and my extremely strong character was able to grab someone when she slipped and help cling to the wall again). The climb would have been impossible under such a strict interpretation of what failure means.

[GiantOctopodes]

Having a margin of "safe" failure, i.e. no progress but no negatives, seems much more reasonable than failure = you fall, but even a margin of 5 seems a little strict to me. It's just not in line with the idea of fantasy characters being able to do epic things (without magic). I'm going to start asking for a DC from the DM and some idea of the repercussions of failing. My best guess is this would have been a very standard climb (DC 10) and a fairly short distance--15 ft. and I got an 8 and fell and took damage. I'm assuing a check needs to be made every round and climbing speed is going to be maybe half of ground speed.

IRL, expert climbers climb really high and challenging steep cliffs without safety gear. I guess they get off on the challenge and the adrenaline rush, but they do it on a regular basis after developing a great deal of confidence in their skills. What would be equivalent in the game? +11 for 20 STR (far more than most expert climbers) and max level prof? You're still going to fail by 5 or more on a DC 20 cliff 20% of the time, i.e. every 15 feet!

Just doing the math, the climb over the ice wall in Game of Thrones would have been nigh impossible even for the most expert climbers in the world. You'd be relying on the spikes and ropes to save you from certain death almost every round if you have 5 people climbing and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is epic level, maxxed in STR, and proficient in athletics.

This doesn't just defy common sense. It kicks the Rule of Cool out of the game and slams the door in its butt.

Yeah, the big thing with that is there is no reason to believe a climbing check should be required every round. If I was doing "margin of 5 = danger happens" it would not be coupled with a check every round, but that's largely because I dislike the check every round principle anyway- given a sufficiently high wall, after 14 checks *anyone* is likely to roll a nat 1, so climbing anything becomes a matter of blind luck and desperation. Rather, I'd personally do one check for the whole thing, and call it at that. Multiple people helping each other (tethered together) give advantage on the roll, naturally, so in that scenario the expert climbers you indicate with their +11 have a 97.75 chance of not falling, and a 84% chance of success, which seems fair to me.

[Dalebert]

Yeah, the big thing with that is there is no reason to believe a climbing check should be required every round.

So you roll the distance they have to climb into the DC of the wall? And you're saying the wall in my spoiler-ed example would be DC 20 in your game? How do you decide when they fall if they fail? Was it 10 ft from the ground? 100ft? 500ft? And why would tethering together give advantage? That doesn't help you climb. It just (maybe) saves you from falling (or maybe drags others with you).

And a climber's kit only limits your fall to 25 ft so it's no use for climbs of a shorter distance.

[Feldarove]

Most players probably hate this, but I change how I rule climbing (and other skills) based on context.

In 5e, I do a lot of hand waving away checks when it doesn't matter. If the players are out of combat trying to climb over a castle wall in the night, I don't make them roll. They have time and can figure it out. If its a high wall, like 50 ft, maybe I would probably let anyone proficient in athletics make it with no roll, anyone not proficient make a roll for a low DC.

Once the chance of failure becomes obvious, or the task most be done quickly, then I do rolls. For climbing I use the miss the DC by 5 or more equals a fail, less than 5 nothing happens, meet DC or above, make progress.

[Myzz]

does a climbing Kit give you advantage?

AND if you still had your reaction, you should get a chance to save yourself right as you slip, even with a 1.

Climbing out of combat should be only made at really nasty parts, like sheer verticals. The roll would show if you advance or not and that determines how long it takes to get there. If time is not an issue then playing safe should slow you down, but give you either a +X, or advantage.

Climbing in combat, roll each time an attack targets you wether it hits or not and add dmg as a -DC mod.

What is falling speed listed as? I would rule 2xnormal speed... so next round you still might have a chance to catch yourself at -0, then up that for each round you fall, maybe +fall speed by normal movement each round to cover increasing speed until 10x movespeed. The ground itself does not do a whole lot of dmg, its not even the hight of the fall per se, its the speed your mass is traveling when you hit the ground that is the important part.

Also... Ring of feather fall, and or boots of spider climbing FTW.

[Dalebert]

does a climbing Kit give you advantage?

It does what I said--keeps you from falling more than 25ft from your last anchor point. That's all.


AND if you still had your reaction, you should get a chance to save yourself right as you slip, even with a 1.

If you did that, it's not as bad. It's still mathematically extremely discouraging though if a failure by 5 triggers it.


Climbing out of combat should be only made at really nasty parts, like sheer verticals. The roll would show if you advance or not and that determines how long it takes to get there. If time is not an issue then playing safe should slow you down, but give you either a +X, or advantage.


This also makes it a lot more reasonable. FWIW, I was in a non-stressful situation, i.e. climbing up to a ledge in a castle that we had already cleared and were searching.


What is falling speed listed as? I would rule 2xnormal speed...

It's 60 ft a round WITH Feather Fall, and you don't take damage at that speed (10 ft per second) so presumably a whole lot faster than that w/out FF. Terminal velocity is I believe in the realm of 80 mph. IRL, you wouldn't reach that speed instantly. It would take about 3 seconds, I think (Speed increases at roughly a rate of 9.8 meters per second), but the game simplifies falling and just gives damage for distance, I believe (that's how it did in 3.5. I don't know about 5e yet).


so next round you still might have a chance to catch yourself at -0

6 seconds later? You'd be trying to grab something going 80 mph. So no. You'd be lucky if you just pulled your arm out of the socket attempting it.


Also... Ring of feather fall, and or boots of spider climbing FTW.

I'm not talking about a high level character optimized specifically for climbing. I'm talking about basic climbing tasks that characters might try. If they have access to those things, there's a good chance they can just fly or something for a climb of any real challenge.

The funny part is this was my druid who can turn into things with climb speeds, but he was out of wild shapes and it seemed like a trivial task at the time.

[Vogonjeltz]

I was attempting a climb 15 feet up to a ledge and rolled a total of 8 with athletics. DM called that I fell in the attempt and "took a tumble" and a small amount of damage. I didn't roll a natural 1. I wasn't halfway up a really high wall. Other DMs have treated a non-critical fail as simply not making progress up the wall. How do you handle it? I'm going to assume the 5e books fail to address the details as if often the case, and leave this primarily up to DM fiat.

Unless the wall is slippery or has no handholds the DM shouldn't make you roll at all, according to the PHB, you just do it. Presumably failure to climb means you slip off.
I also doubt your character would be able to make any progress up the wall (thus falling means just hopping back off the wall) if you fail the check in the first place. If, on the other hand, you were going high enough that you succeeded on one check, then failed another (the next turn), then yes, I'd probably have you fall (and/or make a reaction athletics/acrobatics to catch yourself if you weren't secured by climbing equipment).

[Mellack]

Our campaign also uses the rule that you only fall if you fail by 5+. It means most skilled characters only fall on a 1 or 2 most of the time. If it is a really hard climb they can find another way, such as spider climb or even tossing a grapnel. Climbing a rope is an easy check (DC 5 I believe) so no falling possible.

[Slipperychicken]

I was attempting a climb 15 feet up to a ledge and rolled a total of 8 with athletics. DM called that I fell in the attempt and "took a tumble" and a small amount of damage. I didn't roll a natural 1. I wasn't halfway up a really high wall.

Falling damage is 1d6 bludgeoning per 10ft fallen, capped at 20d6. If you fell from 10ft, you still should have taken 1d6 damage.


Also, I'd ask to use my passive score. Basically, the idea is to say "This character is well-trained and competent at climbing. Being careful and taking his time, he wouldn't have a 35% chance to fall from such a wall".

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, the big thing with that is there is no reason to believe a climbing check should be required every round. If I was doing "margin of 5 = danger happens" it would not be coupled with a check every round, but that's largely because I dislike the check every round principle anyway- given a sufficiently high wall, after 14 checks *anyone* is likely to roll a nat 1,

And what exactly does a natural 1 do on an ability check that means that someone able to make the check on a 1 still fails?

[Dalebert]

Falling damage is 1d6 bludgeoning per 10ft fallen, capped at 20d6. If you fell from 10ft, you still should have taken 1d6 damage.

Right, but I was on the ground when I failed. The presumption seems to be that I made it 2/3 of the way and THEN failed, and not by a lot, but I immediately failed and took damage--no save--the presumption that I fell from high enough to take damage--no chance to land on my feet--from barely not succeeding.

I'm assuming I didn't fail by a lot. He didn't say anything about the wall. It was the inside of a damaged and crumbling tower. I would expect it to have a lot of holes, handholds, etc. if anything. If it was harder than 10 DC, I would have expected him to proactively say so. So presumably I missed it by 2.

[PinkysBrain]

A lot of DMs here seem to quickly houserule some of 3e/4e skill system features back in :p

PS. if you don't have a grappling hook and lots of knotted rope (you'll always end up not having enough) you're doing it wrong.

[Vogonjeltz]

A lot of DMs here seem to quickly houserule some of 3e/4e skill system features back in :p

PS. if you don't have a grappling hook and lots of knotted rope (you'll always end up not having enough) you're doing it wrong.

Struggling to unlearn the older systems is a pretty standard problem

[PinkysBrain]

I doubt I'll be able to ever look at the variant automatic success rules and not cringe.

[BurgerBeast]

I apologize for not answering you directly but I think it's important to point out that the real problem here is unforeseen consequences. The point of a role playing game is for decisions to matter. In order for this to be the case, players must be aware of the risks involved in their decisions.

Climbing and stealth are my two biggest pet peeves in terms of how other DMs handle them. How often is a skilled climber unaware of the difficulty and risks involved in a climb? Almost never. If your character is a skilled climber, you as a player shouldn't have to be surprised by a fall off of a 20 foot climb up a relatively easy wall. It is the DMs job to give you all the information your character would have before you make a decision. For anyone who has ever rock climbed, it is pretty apparent that the difficult spots are exceedingly obvious. You are well aware that you can't do it. The chances of actually falling are not even close to the chances of reaching a spot and realizing you can't continue.

If you're trying to climb a typical wall, as a DM I'm likely to just let them climb it with no risk. If there is a particularly treacherous situation, I will explain it that way: "the wall is slick with ice and 60 feet high, and there's a fierce wind. If you try to climb, it will be difficult, and there's a chance you could fall and be injured." I might also give a second warning before I ask for a check. "You reach a point about 40 feet up the wall. From below, you had estimated that this would be the hardest point to climb. Now that you're here, you realize it's a little easier than you thought it would be. It's moderate difficulty, but the risk of falling is serious. If you fail this check, you will possibly fall. What do you want to do?" At this point, if the player attempts to climb and fails, they will accept the consequence without feeling cheated.

Unless I had some decision points pre-planned, it's one wall so I'd call for one check. Alternatively you could spice things up with a decision point or two, but only if they serve a purpose by providing an opportunity for meaningful decisions. (I should mention that most of these ideas are hijacked from the Angry DM, and are not [edit: originally] mine.)

[GiantOctopodes]

And what exactly does a natural 1 do on an ability check that means that someone able to make the check on a 1 still fails?

By default, nothing at all. But my group plays that a nat 1 is critical failure (if trying to sneak, you knock over some pots creating a loud noise, if trying to climb you fall, etc) and in an opposed roll means you automatically lose regardless of the result of the other person (unless it's also a natural 1), while conversely a natural 20 is an automatic and critical success regardless of the DC, and insurmountable victory in any opposed rolls (unless they also rolled a natural 20) and always with whatever dramatic flair the player wants. It's actually not my favorite rule, since it means the more attacks you make (as an example) the more opportunities you have to completely whiff in spectacular fashion, and I always prefer the whole "confirming" a nat 1 method. In that setup, if you roll a nat 1, you roll a second d20. If the result of the second D20 would have succeeded, you just failed in the attempt, if it would have failed, something bad happens, and if it is a second natural 1, something *very* bad happens.

However, the rest of my group prefers it more fast and loose, and is totally fine with their heroes emulating slapstick comedy every now and again, so yeah, in my group a nat 1 on an ability check, attack roll, or whatever else, means you failed, and you failed *hard*.

[Dalebert]

PS. if you don't have a grappling hook and lots of knotted rope (you'll always end up not having enough) you're doing it wrong.

I just looked it up and noticed that a grappling hook with a silk rope tied to it weighs 9 lbs, i.e. within the limit of mage hand. :smallbiggrin:


I apologize for not answering you directly but I think it's important to point out that the real problem here is unforeseen consequences. The point of a role playing game is for decisions to matter. In order for this to be the case, players must be aware of the risks involved in their decisions.

I shorted it for quoting, but I agree with this entire post.


And what exactly does a natural 1 do on an ability check that means that someone able to make the check on a 1 still fails?

Not sure it means anything by default in skill checks unless people choose to play it that way. Even in 3.5, it didn't mean automatic failure like it does for attacks. I'm not sure, but I don't recall it meaning anything in 5e either.

[Vogonjeltz]

I doubt I'll be able to ever look at the variant automatic success rules and not cringe.

You mean climbing automatically working unless there are bad circumstances? That's not a variant, it's the norm.

[Knaight]

I was attempting a climb 15 feet up to a ledge and rolled a total of 8 with athletics. DM called that I fell in the attempt and "took a tumble" and a small amount of damage. I didn't roll a natural 1. I wasn't halfway up a really high wall. Other DMs have treated a non-critical fail as simply not making progress up the wall. How do you handle it? I'm going to assume the 5e books fail to address the details as if often the case, and leave this primarily up to DM fiat.

Falling generally seems like the natural result of failing, though it's a bit binary. With that said, it's also a 15 foot wall. By the time your feet are 10 feet off the ground, you can already grab the top and presumably pull yourself up. Dropping from a distance below that isn't a big deal at all. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would generally be worth a roll, unless you needed to be up that wall right now (e.g. because there's a dangerous creature headed over that can't climb) or a modicum of stealth is needed (falling and landing while hauling around the gear adventurers routinely do isn't necessarily the quietest endeavor). Alternately, if it's just a really hard climb, it might be worth a roll to see if it can be climbed at all.

Also, rolling every round for climbing is just counter productive to my mind (it changes the probabilities in a screwy way, it eats game time, I generally dislike it), so as a general matter one roll is all that would really be needed, with another only coming up if there's something in particular part way up the wall that complicates things. On a 15 foot wall, that's not going to be the case.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Page 242 of the Dungeon Master's Guide describes certain checks having degrees of success or failure. "For example," the book states, "a character who fails to disarm a trapped chest might accidentally spring the trap if the check fails by 5 or more, whereas a lesser failure means that the trap wasn't triggered during the botched disarm attempt."

It is also worth noting that front-loading your failed check to the beginning of the climb isn't necessarily the way the DM might have seen it. You rolled the dice and attempted to scale the 15 feet, and at some point in that check, your failure resulted in the fall. It sounded like the DM decided that some point was near the top (grabbing a loose stone at the top of the wall, or something of that sort, which I myself have done).

TL;DR: If your DM decided the check for that wall was 15 ("moderate difficulty"), and that failure by more than 5 resulted in a fall, then you might have fell a little bit upon failing.

If you are not satisfied with this, use your passive Athletics score next time. Page 175 of the Player's Handbook has the exact rules for it: your passive score in a given check is 10 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency bonus (if any) + miscellaneous modifiers (like the 1d4 bonus from Guidance or Bless). You add 5 for advantage (climbing with the deliberate use of equipment which makes it easier, such as a knotted rope or climber's kit) and subtract 5 for disadvantage (climbing while being attacked, or carrying something heavy and unwieldy). Using this score, you should be able to do things your character finds easy with a certain degree of reliability when they have the opportunity to do so deliberately, which negates most of the issues I see later in the thread about master climbers failing 20% of the time (their passive score is high enough to simply make most climbs, or realize via failure by 4 or less that their progress forward is unreliable and find a better path). If you are physically weak (< 10 STR) and not proficient in Athletics, your passive score will likely have failed the check, and will continue to do so without advantage or just rolling it out, but if that's the case, any complaints about "adventurers doing epic things" should be thrown out the window, because weak people should be bad at athletic things by default, even in fantasy, but these weak people have other ways of doing them (such as the Spider Climb spell or a Potion of Climbing).