Climbing a rope

[acemcjack]

This has come up several times in our campaign, and I'm wondering whether our DM is handling it right:
Last session, we had dug a hole into a cave, tied a rope on top, and wanted to climb down. Essentially, it's a 50 foot climb, where the first 30 feet are inside a 5 feet square shaft, and the last 20 feet are into a room.

Our esteemed DM declared that everyone has to role a DC10 STR(Athletics) check or you fall down the entire 50 feet. Most of our party consists of characters who focus more on DEX than on STR, except for my Halfling Barbarian who has 16 STR and proficiency in Athletics, so while I had no problem managing the climb, our cleric with 10 STR and no proficiency in Athletics fell down immediately. I will concede that since this was during battle, it should be a little more challenging, but we've also had this happen while not in battle.

I don't know, but I find DC10 to be a bit high for a simple climb down a rope. What do you guys think? How do you handle this in your campaigns?

Thanks!

[DivisibleByZero]

It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.

[Diarmuid]

The part in the shaft where you could have braced your feet against the wall would have been a DC 5 check in 3.5.

I "think" DC's in 3.5 in general are likely higher than those in 5E. In 3.5, you only would fall if you failed your roll by 5 or more.

That being said, in the PHB section on skills, DC 10 is listed as "Easy".

[JackPhoenix]

DC 10 is "easy" difficulty, that sounds about right. You can divide it to DC 5 (very easy) part in the shaft (that's really simple to do, though not sure if it's as easy in armor and full kit) and DC 15 (medium) part in the room itself, where you don't have anything to brace against, if your GM want you to make multiple rolls.

In 3.5 you would be rolling for every 1/4 of your base speed (I guess rounded up to every 10 feet) with DC -5 for using rope in a chimmey and DC 15 for the "rope only" part

EDIT: Shadow monk'd while I was checking 3.5 books

[hymer]

I agree that 10 is technically correct. But I wouldn't ask for checks to climb down a rope unless there was some compelling reason. My players' PCs are usually pretty cool people, and they can do that kind of thing reliably, even if it's only for cinematic reasons.

[acemcjack]

Ok, I suppose actually making the climb down could be DC10, though I think DC5 for climbing down the shaft and DC10 thereafter makes more sense, but what do you think should happen if you fail? You immediately fall down all the way, or would you simply fail to advance downwards?
I like the idea that failing by more than 5 would make you fall, or maybe even on a roll of 1, but I think that hanging on to the rope shouldn't be a real problem, so you should probably just have to stop, no?

[Mjolnirbear]

I thought the Climbing rules said that climbing is 1/2 your speed, 1/4 if climbing difficult terrain, athletics checks only in certain circumstances ( high wind, dodging arrows, wearing heavy armour, etc)?

[Diarmuid]

Failing by 5 or more being a fall makes sense to me, with other failures just meaning you don't make progress.

But that may just be because of the historical way 3.5 handled it.

Is "taking 10" a thing in 5E?

[hymer]

Is "taking 10" a thing in 5E?

It's mentioned as an option, but it's strictly "Mother, may I?".

Edit: PHB p. 175, 'Passive Checks'.

[napoleon_in_rag]

It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.

The problem with having players make numerous rolls for a simple task is you greatly increase the chance of rolling a 1 for an automatic fail. So if a character has a 20 strength for +5, by making him roll 5 times he has a 23% chance of rolling a one and falling regardless of the DC.

If you make four players each roll a D20 5 times, there is a 65% chance one of them rolls a 1 and falls. With 6 Players, there is an 80% chance.

This is pretty unfair for an easy to very easy task.

[Gwendol]

Skills don't fail on a "1" automatically.

[manny2510]

Couldn't the adventurers just tie knots in the rope at 4' intervals to ease climbing? I honestly think that killing a party with gravity is stupid without a pitfall. Also who would bother using rope if they are non-functioning?

[Hawkstar]

I thought the Climbing rules said that climbing is 1/2 your speed, 1/4 if climbing difficult terrain, athletics checks only in certain circumstances ( high wind, dodging arrows, wearing heavy armour, etc)?

This. Of course... I can't see how someone can fail to safely slide down a rope if their hands and leg are protected...

[napoleon_in_rag]

I agree that 10 is technically correct. But I wouldn't ask for checks to climb down a rope unless there was some compelling reason. My players' PCs are usually pretty cool people, and they can do that kind of thing reliably, even if it's only for cinematic reasons.

I agree with no roll for going down a rope.

Elementary school gym classes have kids sliding down ropes all the time and no one falls.

I would only make a player roll if there was some sort of factor that makes it more difficult. Examples:

Being rushed or stressed.
Being in combat.
The player is exhausted.
The weight of his/her equipment is close to the max
The player wants to do something that makes it trickier, like holding a weapon in one hand.

And if the players made it easier some how, like adding knots to the rope every 2 feet, I would take away the roll.

Going UP a 50' rope, now that's another matter....

[Shining Wrath]

AFB but I believe this is actually in the PHB. To make it DC 5, tie knots in the rope.

[acemcjack]

This. Of course... I can't see how someone can fail to safely slide down a rope if their hands and leg are protected...
Can anyone direct me to where it's written in the rules?

[Shining Wrath]

It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.

The barbarian with STR and CON of 18 each can do this climb with zero fatigue. The wizard with 10's in all physical stats is at risk. If you want multiple rolls, I suggest the DC only increases in the shaft if the character fails a CON check. Why impose a fatigue penalty for someone who is not at all fatigued?

[Diarmuid]

If I were dming this scenario I would have likely made the first part DC 5, allowing for half speed movement with the second part DC 10 allowing for the same movement rate.

A knotted rope probably would have gotten it to DC 0/5 respectively.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Can anyone direct me to where it's written in the rules?

I don't have my PHB with me but its on page 64 of the free Players Basic Rules. I am on a train right now.

"At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check".

Not a perfect answer, but the intent is clear that a difficult climb requires a check, not a routine or easy one.

[acemcjack]

Thanks! I'll have a look.

[Sigreid]

I wouldn't even bother with rolls assuming that adventurers know very well how to climb a rope unless they are in a hurry (chased, whatever). I do the same with most skills, if there's no outside pressure for success I assume they take the time to do it right and get it done.

[Nifft]

Our esteemed DM declared that everyone has to role a DC10 STR(Athletics) check or you fall down the entire 50 feet. Most of our party consists of characters who focus more on DEX than on STR, except for my Halfling Barbarian who has 16 STR and proficiency in Athletics, so while I had no problem managing the climb, our cleric with 10 STR and no proficiency in Athletics fell down immediately. I will concede that since this was during battle, it should be a little more challenging, but we've also had this happen while not in battle.

I don't know, but I find DC10 to be a bit high for a simple climb down a rope. What do you guys think? How do you handle this in your campaigns?

If it's during battle, then I agree with DC 10 or fall. I'd probably roll (1d4+1) x 10 to determine how far each falling PC fell.

If it's not during battle, then I'd allow Taking 10, and I'd allow Aiding Another. When the PCs are not rushed for time, the things they do are less dangerous.

[D.U.P.A.]

I thought the Climbing rules said that climbing is 1/2 your speed, 1/4 if climbing difficult terrain, athletics checks only in certain circumstances ( high wind, dodging arrows, wearing heavy armour, etc)?

Actually is 1/3 speed. You add 1 square for each difficulty circumstance. However I would not call checks, even for combat, unless character is rushing or something and there are consequences for failure. Athletics DC 10 check is quite high, wizards with dumped Str will have to roll at least 11 to succeed and if you even use multiple checks, they will surely fail at least once. After all, I presume that all adventures are proficient with rope climbing, even if they are not the strongest.

[acemcjack]

Unfortunately, our DM doesn't see it that way. He's declared that in this universe, climbing is very difficult, and thus, even a simple climb down will require a STR(Athletics) check of DC10.

So, how would you advise I should work with that? I thought of just having a rope ladder constructed and use that instead of a normal rope (hopefully, that'll lower the DC somewhat).

Any other ideas?

[hymer]

Any other ideas?

Knots in the rope have been mentioned. Dealing with the fall, say via Feather Fall, could be another possibility. Mitigating the damage might be worth it (raging barbarian should take half damage).

And there's always player rebellion, but I guess that's not what you want. :smallwink:

[Gwendol]

Unfortunately, our DM doesn't see it that way. He's declared that in this universe, climbing is very difficult, and thus, even a simple climb down will require a STR(Athletics) check of DC10.

So, how would you advise I should work with that? I thought of just having a rope ladder constructed and use that instead of a normal rope (hopefully, that'll lower the DC somewhat).

Any other ideas?

Tie a loop around the waist of those most likely not to make the fall and lower them down.

Taking the help action to aid another grants advantage on the next ability check.

I'm sure there's a spell for that (TM): Guidance is a cantrip, and then you have Featherfall, and various other ways of flying, levitating, etc.

[EvilAnagram]

It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.
So you think that climbing down a rope, something I - a vanilla human without special training - have managed to do several times without incident, should essentially have several levels of disadvantage? Because that's what you're essentially doing. Except instead of simply having to roll well twice to accomplish a taxing, but not difficult task, they have to succeed five times. A fifth level character with Str 18 and proficiency in Athletics - the person most capable of feats of strength at that level - has more than a 40% chance of failing simply because having to succeed on every roll stacks the odds against you. Someone without much Strength or Athletics has less than a 3% chance of succeeding. You are essentially guaranteeing failure for a fairly simple task.

[Elbeyon]

This is 5e. The dm sets the dc, and that's that. If you've already had a talk with your dm, and nothings changed as a player you're screwed. Have fun dying via rope. :smallamused: Climbing rope is more deadly than fighting orcs! Run! Run far away!

[Malifice]

Is make It DC 5. A lot of the time I wouldn't even call for a check unless it was important.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is 5e. The dm sets the dc, and that's that. If you've already had a talk with your dm, and nothings changed as a player you're screwed. Have fun dying via rope. :smallamused: Climbing rope is more deadly than fighting orcs! Run! Run far away! LOL, sad but true, it seems that the DM has lost the plot.

[Christian]

Unfortunately, our DM doesn't see it that way. He's declared that in this universe, climbing is very difficult, and thus, even a simple climb down will require a STR(Athletics) check of DC10.

Well, then in this world, people don't climb down ropes except in desperate circumstances. Easy enough. The pit with the rope hanging down is effectively a trap that you can't really defuse; find another way to that lower level, and if you can't, then go find another dungeon to explore.

[obryn]

It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.
This illustrates the hazard of 5e's 'just wing it' approach to DMing rather perfectly.

I was going to crunch the numbers, because it's clear to me how unlikely it would be even for a highly capable character to succeed all 5 checks, but EvilAnagram has already done that.


A fifth level character with Str 18 and proficiency in Athletics - the person most capable of feats of strength at that level - has more than a 40% chance of failing simply because having to succeed on every roll stacks the odds against you. Someone without much Strength or Athletics has less than a 3% chance of succeeding. You are essentially guaranteeing failure for a fairly simple task.

Adding even more checks on top of this, like...

The barbarian with STR and CON of 18 each can do this climb with zero fatigue. The wizard with 10's in all physical stats is at risk. If you want multiple rolls, I suggest the DC only increases in the shaft if the character fails a CON check. Why impose a fatigue penalty for someone who is not at all fatigued?
...messes with the probability even more.


e: As a suggestion, I'd recommend the following when it comes to 5e skills...

(1) Don't roll for boring stuff like "climbing a rope down into a pit" unless it's somehow greased or something.
(2) Use DCs that are 5 lower than you would in other editions as a matter of course, given how skill/stat bonuses scale.
(3) Use single rolls whenever possible. If multiple rolls are a must, use easier DCs. The more rolls you have, the more likely it is that even a capable character will fail one.

[FightStyles]

Everyone needs to learn fly then... That's the only way to overcome that silliness it appears.

[Broken Crown]

Climbing down 50' of rope while burdened with armour and/or heavy equipment might prove challenging for a person of low strength and/or no athletic training. However, I can't imagine anyone taking much damage from sliding down 50' of rope if they're wearing a decent pair of leather gloves (and not wearing shorts).

[Ruslan]

DC 10 sounds about right, but the penalty for failure - outright falling - sounds a bit too harsh. A better penalty for failure could be:

1. You fail to make progress, just hanging in there, possibly making a lot of noise. Roll again next round.
2. You get close to falling. You, or anyone close to you, must make a DC 10 Dex save to steady yourself (to catch you, in case of an ally).
3. You burn your hands on the rope or hit the side of the cavern, taking minor damage.
etc.

Just falling 50' down (enough to kill a low-level character) seems harsh for a check a check which an average non-proficient Joe will fail 45% of the time.

[obryn]

Yeah, there's other good ways to handle this, too. "Margin of Success/Failure" is a good start.

So is a general 'fail forward' approach where a failed skill check doesn't spell death for some party members, but instead introduces complications.

I generally would stay away from 'just roll again until you get it' though; that tends to be dull and a bit pointless.

[Ruslan]

I generally would stay away from 'just roll again until you get it' though; that tends to be dull and a bit pointless.'Just roll again until you get it' can be pretty intense if there are additional complications. Like a goblin peppering your rear end with arrows while you scramble down.

[kaoskonfety]

You take 8 points of "rope burn damage", roll Athletics - your result reduces this damage, if you get 0 or less on your athletics (somehow) you fall (level appropriate) distance. At level 1, say 2d6 +1 - shouldn't kill anyone, but might drop them. If they dumped both STR and CON and are playing a wizard it can kill them (then again so can a stiff breeze), otherwise everyone SHOULD make it at various levels of unhappy.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Remember... it's not the failed climb check that kills you... it's the 1d6 damage/10 feet fallen that kills you.

Joking aside, ask your DM to treat non-threatening simple climb rope checks like jumping... Str score vs DC (instead of Str score = length of jump) this means an average score will let anyone make simple checks via rope. Swimming should be treated the same unless there are threats in the water or extreme fatigue. If you need to break it down further, than let them move up to 1/2 their speed on a climbing check using their Str score vs the DC for up to their Str bonus and then begin taking 1 away from it every round until he effectively "runs out of strength" before requiring a roll for failure.

example:

Philyn - level 1 half-elven cleric
Str:14 (+2), Dex: 8 (-1), Con:12 (+1), Int:10 (0), Wis:16 (+3), Cha:14 (+2)
Armor: Chainmail, Shield - Weapon: Mace
Speed: 30 feet, Skills not proficient with climbing

Our hero come to a place where he must climb up 50 feet of rope, and alas he is not a very efficient climber, nor trained in it. He can climb a total of 75 feet before tiring enough to require a roll a roll. Going down a rope should effectively be 2x the distance, as it is physically easier to lower your self at a controlled pace vs actively climb. So he can lower himself down 150 feet before tiring.

0 - initial 15 feet
1 - next 15 feet (30)
2 - next 15 feet (45)
1 - next 15 feet (60)
0 - next 15 feet (75)
Now require normal rolling, giving them their str bonus to their climb check.

Success, with no roll! now if he had to climb 100 feet he'd need to roll the last 2 climbing checks, but failure by less than 5 should only cause him to stall or slip a bit, resulting in no movement that round. Just like there is a climb check, so too there should be a Acrobatics/Dexterity check to catch himself. If he failed his check and did fall, maybe he was able to roll a successful acrobatics check (same DC as the climb check) to catch himself 10 feet further down the rope, minus a few hp of rope burn. If he failed the acrobatics check horribly (by more than 5) he falls the remaining distance and takes the 1d6/10 ft of damage... maybe killing him instantly, save for a possible DC 20 Constitution check for system shock, or merely knocking him completely unconscious and suffering a failed death saving throw for every -10 HP bellow 0.

If they had proficiency in athletics, use the proficiency bonus prior to calculating the their Str bonus, so if Philyn had proficiency in athletics, he'd be able to climb up 45 feet before his strength even started to give out and would be able to climb 105 feet without needing to roll.

proficiency pt 1 - initial 15 feet
proficiency pt 2 - next 15 feet (30) * proficiency is making them better at something they actually trained in, can you believe it?! *
0 - initial 15 feet - next 15 feet (45)
1 - next 15 feet (60)
2 - next 15 feet (75)
1 - next 15 feet (90)
0 - next 15 feet (105)
Now require normal rolling, giving them their str bonus to their climb check.

This is assuming no hazards and that the DC of the climb is 10 or lower, Philyn could handle anything up to a 14 DC without rolling up to the above lengths.

[Vogonjeltz]

This has come up several times in our campaign, and I'm wondering whether our DM is handling it right:
Last session, we had dug a hole into a cave, tied a rope on top, and wanted to climb down. Essentially, it's a 50 foot climb, where the first 30 feet are inside a 5 feet square shaft, and the last 20 feet are into a room.

Our esteemed DM declared that everyone has to role a DC10 STR(Athletics) check or you fall down the entire 50 feet. Most of our party consists of characters who focus more on DEX than on STR, except for my Halfling Barbarian who has 16 STR and proficiency in Athletics, so while I had no problem managing the climb, our cleric with 10 STR and no proficiency in Athletics fell down immediately. I will concede that since this was during battle, it should be a little more challenging, but we've also had this happen while not in battle.

I don't know, but I find DC10 to be a bit high for a simple climb down a rope. What do you guys think? How do you handle this in your campaigns?

Thanks!

Answer should probably be an article titled: "Climbing a rope in 5e, your DM's doing it wrong! (according to the written rules)"

A check may be required if the the character is climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds. Rope is neither slippery nor lacking in handholds. Climbing a rope with no actual hazards is simply not a check requiring situation. If your DM means to follow the rules presented in the PHB, they're doing it wrong.

[Diarmuid]

Vogon, is that a quote from a particular page somewhere?

[Temperjoke]

It's too bad the wizard doesn't have Feather Fall or Wall of Force prepared. (Wall of Force to make stairs with the panels)

[Malifice]

Why are people even calling for a check here?

Barring something extra-ordinary, people can climb ropes (particularly knotted ones) as easy as climbing a ladder. High school kids do it literally all the time, as do Soldiers on obsatcle course.

I mean who's setting the DC at 10? 50 percent of commoners cant climb a bloody rope in that case (or worse yet, fall when they do so)!

[Demonic Spoon]

So you think that climbing down a rope, something I - a vanilla human without special training - have managed to do several times without incident, should essentially have several levels of disadvantage? Because that's what you're essentially doing. Except instead of simply having to roll well twice to accomplish a taxing, but not difficult task, they have to succeed five times. A fifth level character with Str 18 and proficiency in Athletics - the person most capable of feats of strength at that level - has more than a 40% chance of failing simply because having to succeed on every roll stacks the odds against you. Someone without much Strength or Athletics has less than a 3% chance of succeeding. You are essentially guaranteeing failure for a fairly simple task.

Yup.
You need to be careful when assigning DCs for repeated tasks for which one failure results in a total failure for the whole thing.

I don't even think climbing down a rope is deserving of an athletics check. If it was, though, it'd be DC 5-8, with a dex save on failure or something similarly lenient.

[Malifice]

This illustrates the hazard of 5e's 'just wing it' approach to DMing rather perfectly.

I was going to crunch the numbers, because it's clear to me how unlikely it would be even for a highly capable character to succeed all 5 checks, but EvilAnagram has already done that.



Adding even more checks on top of this, like...

...messes with the probability even more.


e: As a suggestion, I'd recommend the following when it comes to 5e skills...

(1) Don't roll for boring stuff like "climbing a rope down into a pit" unless it's somehow greased or something.
(2) Use DCs that are 5 lower than you would in other editions as a matter of course, given how skill/stat bonuses scale.
(3) Use single rolls whenever possible. If multiple rolls are a must, use easier DCs. The more rolls you have, the more likely it is that even a capable character will fail one.

This. A million times this.

5 checks ranging from DC5 to DC 15 to shimmy down 50' of rope? WTF? 99 percent of people (Commoner, stats 10) fail that check. 95 percent of 20th level athletes fail that check.

Which is odd because 99.9 recurring percent of people could shimmy down 15m of rope without a problem, and every time I've sat near (or ran through) an obstacle course, done rope climbing at high school, etc ive never seen everyone fall off the ropes continously like lemmings.

I could understand a check if the person was in armor, enumbered, wounded, getting chased by a pack of wolves etc. Even then the DC 5-10 range sounds about right.

I do see alot of DC's in 5e that are outrageous. My rule of thumb is allow the action without a check if it's reasonable and there is no reason for a check. If there is some complication or hazard, I pick a a 3e number and then drop 5 from it.

Even a lowly DC '10' is a moderately hard task that a whopping 50 percent of average people fail.

[NNescio]

I generally rule it to be an automatic success if done out of combat, unless there's some hazards involved (windy conditions). Even if the check fails I'll just rule that the player makes no progress, unless further hazards or other circumstances warrant making him fall, in which case I'll give him an Acrobatics check to potentially avoid that.

In combat I generally still let them climb without checks, but attackers get advantage against them while they are on the rope. I might allow the player to attempt an Acrobatics or Athletics check to negate this effect if they are the only person on the rope (so they can swing their bodies around while on the rope).

The above applies to unencumbered characters. As Malifice said, people in real life climb ropes all the time and they rarely fall off, even children. But generally only if they are unencumbered. If a character is wearing heavy armor and/or carrying a decent chunk of stuff then yes, I'll probably make him roll athletics to climb all ropes, and he can choose to move slower (at 1/4 speed vs the normal 1/2 when climbing) to gain advantage on that check.

Sliding down ropes should be far, far easier than climbing one, and probably wouldn't even incur the usual 1/2 speed penalty.


It's arbitrary.
Personally, if I were DM of that game, a 50 foot rope climb down a shaft, with a wall to guide/balance, I'd make 5 checks. One for each 10 feet.
The first 2 would be at DC 5. It's very easy to climb down a rope that's hanging against a wall.
But then you start to get more tired as you go. The next 2 checks would be DC 10. Not very easy any longer, but still easy.
After 40 feet you're getting even more tired, and the last check would be DC 15.

This is utterly ridiculous. When you compound probabilities, the chance of failure goes way, way up to go down 50 feet using your ruling. Assuming a Commoner with no modifiers (Str 10 and no proficiency), the chance of success is a mere 5.8% (80%*80%*55%*55%*30%, compounded), giving an effective DC of 20 (technically slightly lesser than 20, but far higher than 19). For shimmying down a rope. Which, as Malafice says, people in real life do almost all the time with almost no chance of failure, and they don't have to be professional atheletes/soldiers/etc. (with proficiency in athletics) either.

You are essentially choosing to grant 'quadruple disadvantage' (roll five dice and take the lowest) but worse because the DC also goes up.

And the Monk or Rogue with no Athletics proficiency and Str 10 (because they took Acrobatics and don't feel like grappling) make the check with the exact same chance of success/failure as the Commoner.



Or maybe the first 3 checks at DC 5, for your full movement.
The last 2 checks at DC 10.
You can use the Dash action and get down this round, but raise the DCs by two to 7 and 12.

This is slightly more reasonable (80%3*55%2 = 15.5%), with an effective DC of 17, but still ridiculous.

Here's what I rule: Automatic success while out of combat (assuming no other hazards like spikes along the walls or windy conditions). You are effective making a 'passive check'.

DC 5 (easy), Athletics in combat or otherwise distracted. I believe climbing a knotted rope is explicitly noted as DC 5 anyway in the PHB, IIRC.

Disadvantage or higher DC depending on other hazards or circumstances.

Half speed up the rope. Full speed down the rope (houserule). Characters can choose to take a 'controlled' fall all the way down (again, houserule), for half falling damage (since they are slowed down by the rope). Characters can choose to make an Acrobatics check to reduce falling damage (houserule again) by the results of the roll (minimum 0 damage). If they take damage from the fall, they fall prone.

There, done.

So, without any hazards, anyone with proficiency and/or high enough Strength can automatically succeed past a certain level (as low as level 1 with both proficiency and Str 14), even if they roll a 1. As it should be, you guys are adventurers.

Multiple checks were reasonable in 3.5, even for mundane tasks out of combat, because you can raise skill modifiers high enough to automatically succeed, and you can explicitly Take 10 while not in combat or otherwise distracted. Not so for in 5e, where Bounded Accuracy is in play and almost everything has a soft cap.

[Bulldog Psion]

Honestly, if the GM started saying that you need to make checks to climb down a frickin' rope, I'd say something along the lines of "my character picks their nose, do I need to make a DC 15 dexterity check or take 1d4 damage?" Then I'd probably have my character jump into every hole they encountered until they died, and walk out.

Really, the game is supposed to be excitement and high adventure. Not fumbling around on a rope for half an hour to see if your bold adventurer is unable to do what most middle school kids can do while scarcely breaking a sweat.

[Forum Explorer]

Unless there was some pressure in climbing the rope (like being under attack, you are running from the destruction of the dungeon, you had been hit with a fear spell), then I wouldn't ask for a roll at all. If the party didn't have a rope, then sure, okay. But I'd see it as this;

problem: need to get to the bottom of a pit.

Solution 1: make a climb check to transverse the wall

Solution 2: cast a spell (such as featherfall) that solves the problem

Solution 3: use a rope.

[Vogonjeltz]

Vogon, is that a quote from a particular page somewhere?

Yes the bolded slippery vertical surface part is from the PHB in the chapter on ability checks and how climbing is a possible example on an Athletics check.

Afb, I'll provide some page numbers later

*page 175 in the PHB. Even if this is in combat no check should be necessary unless one of the enemy actually tries to knock a player off.

[JoeJ]

Being lazy, I'd just call the rope difficult terrain that requires the use of both hands to traverse. If you're knocked unconscious, paralyzed, or fall prone for some reason while climbing, you take falling damage.

[pwykersotz]

Why are people even calling for a check here?

Barring something extra-ordinary, people can climb ropes (particularly knotted ones) as easy as climbing a ladder. High school kids do it literally all the time, as do Soldiers on obsatcle course.

I mean who's setting the DC at 10? 50 percent of commoners cant climb a bloody rope in that case (or worse yet, fall when they do so)!

It was mentioned in the OP that at least one instance of this was during a combat. I too would call for checks to climb a rope while under threat of weapon attacks.

It was also mentioned it has happened at least once when there was no combat. I would not call for a check in that case.

[Nifft]

It was mentioned in the OP that at least one instance of this was during a combat. I too would call for checks to climb a rope while under threat of weapon attacks.

It was also mentioned it has happened at least once when there was no combat. I would not call for a check in that case.

Agree entirely.

[Coidzor]

Why are people even calling for a check here?

Barring something extra-ordinary, people can climb ropes (particularly knotted ones) as easy as climbing a ladder. High school kids do it literally all the time, as do Soldiers on obsatcle course.

I mean who's setting the DC at 10? 50 percent of commoners cant climb a bloody rope in that case (or worse yet, fall when they do so)!

Cussedness, desire to be a killer DM, blatant misunderstanding. All of the above, even.

[hiiamtom]

5e isn't 3.5, you don't call for athletics checks for tasks that are simple to any character in a novel or movie. Any skill or ability check should only be done when there needs to be a chance of failure. Just moving across terrain is. It one of those times, and it needlessly breaks the flow of the narration and game.