Can a 1st Level Thief Climb a tree?

[Water Bob]

The problem I have with the Climb skill--the way it is written--is that a number of checks are required to climb any distance.

You can climb at a default rate of one-fourth of your normal Speed. For an un-encumbered fellow,that's one climb check per 7.5 feet.

Let's say that you are a 1st level thief, with STR 15, wearing no armor, Climb skill is maxed out at +6 (4 skill points plus +2 STR), and you want to climb up a tree and have a look around, 30 feet up. That's a DC 15 climb. You'll need 4 climb checks.

On each check, you succeed on a roll of 9+. You make no progress on a result of 5+. And, you fall on a result of 4-.

YOU'VE GOT A 20% CHANCE TO FALL EACH CLIMB CHECK!!

THERE'S AN 80% CHANCE THAT YOU WILL FALL WHEN CLIMBING THE TREE!!



Now...I know from experience as a kid that that's just not true. And, I'm no experienced climbing thief!

A 1st level thief can't climb a tree?

[Gildedragon]

This is what the Take 10 rules are for
Alternatively one could opt for the bell-curve-rolls method of 3d6 rather than 1d20

[Water Bob]

The only answer that I can think of is that the thief must Take 10 when he climbs. If he does that, then he's up the DC 15 tree in four rounds. No problem. But, anything more difficult than the tree means that he's facing a huge chance of falling--which doesn't seem quite right.

[Water Bob]

This is what the Take 10 rules are for
Alternatively one could opt for the bell-curve-rolls method of 3d6 rather than 1d20

If a pack of wolves is chasing the thief, and he tries to scamper up a tree, then he can't Take 10, and he's toast!

That doesn't seem a little like the rule is broken to you?

[acidphoenix]

regardless of the rule being broken, if there are 4 20% chances to fail, then you actually have a 59% chance to fail to climb the tree.

[Gildedragon]

If a pack of wolves is chasing the thief, and he tries to scamper up a tree, then he can't Take 10, and he's toast!

That doesn't seem a little like the rule is broken to you?

If he's not in immediate combat I'd say he needn't be threatened (wolf's aren't adjacent) or distracted (is hyper focused on climbing that tree if anything)
Though him being liable to fail does make sense too: high stress, mind is on the wolves rather than the task at hand... And assuming a double move, they are 15' off the floor that first round: a wolf would need a 60 (30 if the climb was a single move) on their jump to get at him. Ceases to be threatened, can safely take 10 the rest of the way up.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's "Rogue" and that is what Take 10. Unless he is actually in combat, he can pretty much Take 10 all the time if he wants to. Even if there is a risk of death due to failure; as long as there is no big distraction on the scale of being in combat.

[BowStreetRunner]

If a pack of wolves is chasing the thief, and he tries to scamper up a tree, then he can't Take 10, and he's toast!

That doesn't seem a little like the rule is broken to you?

In this case he doesn't need to make all four checks to get out of the reach of the wolves. He only needs to roll until he gets beyond their reach. He can take 10 after that.

[Water Bob]

regardless of the rule being broken, if there are 4 20% chances to fail, then you actually have a 59% chance to fail to climb the tree.

Thanks. I was starting to question the math myself. It's been a long time since I took probability. I'm obviously rusty.

But,the argument holds....59% means the thief is more likely to fall than not.

[Water Bob]

It's "Rogue" and that is what Take 10. Unless he is actually in combat, he can pretty much Take 10 all the time if he wants to. Even if there is a risk of death due to failure; as long as there is no big distraction on the scale of being in combat.

In my game (d20 3.5 based Conan RPG), it's "Thief", but that's beside the point. The climb rules are the same.

And the definition of Take 10 expands past combat. It says that it cannot be taken if the character is threatened. Obviously, a character is threatened if he is running from wolves.

[BowStreetRunner]

In my game (d20 3.5 based Conan RPG), it's "Thief", but that's beside the point. The climb rules are the same.

And the definition of Take 10 expands past combat. It says that it cannot be taken if the character is threatened. Obviously, a character is threatened if he is running from wolves.

Actually, threatened in this case refers to a specific rule, not the plain-English meaning of the word. See HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares).

(Just like references to an Attack in the rules don't generally include things like 'verbally attacking' someone.)

[NorthernPhoenix]

In my game (d20 3.5 based Conan RPG), it's "Thief", but that's beside the point. The climb rules are the same.

And the definition of Take 10 expands past combat. It says that it cannot be taken if the character is threatened. Obviously, a character is threatened if he is running from wolves.

That sounds like your interpretation getting in the way of things. I think Guigarci's interpretation makes perfect sense, and that, taking into account all the factors involved, the "Thief" should be able to take 10 as long as he is not in range of a wolfs attack.

[Water Bob]

That sounds like your interpretation getting in the way of things. I think Guigarci's interpretation makes perfect sense, and that, taking into account all the factors involved, the "Thief" should be able to take 10 as long as he is not in range of a wolfs attack.

Yes, I think you are correct. I wasn't considering the word "threatened" to be the combat definition. My apologies to all.

That does open up Take 10 a bit, doesn't it.

So...the thief climbing the tree in the OP only needs to Take 10, and he's up.



Still....an average person, with STR 10 (let's also call him a 1st level thief), having maxed out Climb, would have a Take 10 value of 14. That's not good enough to climb a typical tree. :smallannoyed:

What am I missing here? Shouldn't an average person be able to climb a tree without such a huge chance of falling?

[The Glyphstone]

Do the rules not allow for circumstance bonuses? handholds, rough bark for better footing, climbing gear, etc?

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, I assume that children are uncoordinated little beasties. Therefore, I think the problem lies in the DC. Most children, when they climb a tree, pick the easily climbable ones or they fall down and go to the hospital where the ER nurse knows them on sight. Not a lot of kids try to climb the pine trees or the monkey puzzle trees.

The difficulty of the task should NOT be DC 10, an average difficulty, but either Easy (5) or Very Easy (0). I imagine the higher DC of 15 is because you don't got a few hours to pick out the perfect tree to climb, you're sorta stuck with what you got for whatever reason.

[Gildedragon]

Yes, I think you are correct. I wasn't considering the word "threatened" to be the combat definition. My apologies to all.

That does open up Take 10 a bit, doesn't it.

So...the thief climbing the tree in the OP only needs to Take 10, and he's up.



Still....an average person, with STR 10 (let's also call him a 1st level thief), having maxed out Climb, would have a Take 10 value of 14. That's not good enough to climb a typical tree. :smallannoyed:

What am I missing here? Shouldn't an average person be able to climb a tree without such a huge chance of falling?

Well that is a problem with rolling 1d20: the averages are as likely as the extremes.
If you want to solve this implement the bell-curve-rolls alternate rule (it is in the SRD) where the average rolls are a lot more common than the extremes.

[OldTrees1]

What am I missing here? Shouldn't an average person be able to climb a tree without such a huge chance of falling?

Which "climb a tree" DC are you using? Shuffling up the trunk? Pulling oneself onto a limb that one can barely grab from the ground? Or stepping up the makeshift ladder made of the tree limbs?

I still can't shuffle up a trunk and I have a decent chance of failing to pull myself up if threatened by a pack of wolves. Although I can easily climb carelessly once I reach the makeshift ladder section of a tree.


Also: Is 1st level the "average person"? You don't remain at 1st level for long. 1st level might have been back when I couldn't pull myself onto a branch reliably when unthreatened.

[Gildedragon]

Do the rules not allow for circumstance bonuses? handholds, rough bark for better footing, climbing gear, etc?

Yes they do. Handholds and rough surfaces are factored into the DC, climbing gear gives a +2 circumstance bonus, masterwork gear gives an additional +2 bonus; using a rope can lower the DC (handholds) and give an additional +2 if one has the ranks in use rope

[Water Bob]

Well, I assume that children are uncoordinated little beasties. Therefore, I think the problem lies in the DC. Most children, when they climb a tree, pick the easily climbable ones or they fall down and go to the hospital where the ER nurse knows them on sight. Not a lot of kids try to climb the pine trees or the monkey puzzle trees.

The difficulty of the task should NOT be DC 10, an average difficulty, but either Easy (5) or Very Easy (0). I imagine the higher DC of 15 is because you don't got a few hours to pick out the perfect tree to climb, you're sorta stuck with what you got for whatever reason.

I like your logic, but it doesn't quite jive with the skill's description. D20 3.5 CLIMB SKILL DEFINITION. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm)

A DC 10 is something like a ship's rigging. That sounds like it's a lot easier to climb that your average tree.

A DC 15 is assigned to surfaces with adequate handholds and footholds like a tree. Your average tree.

[Gavinfoxx]

A tree that is particularly good for climbing is DC 5, per the spell Climbing Tree.

[Berenger]

First, your math is off. You can't just multiply the 20% chance of failure with the number of rounds. By this logic, you would end up with a 100% certainty of failure after round five, which is obviously not the case. The chance to reach the top of the tree without a single failure is 12,9% (60%*60%*60%*60% = 0,6*0,6*0,6*0,6 = 0,1296 = 12,96%). The chance not to fall is 80% for one round, 64% for two rounds, 51,2% for three rounds, 40,96% for four rounds, 32,76% for five rounds...

Also, when running from wolves, you have to make the first two climbing checks. You can take 10 on the following checks. You will be well out of the wolves reach and not in immediate danger or hurry during those subsequent checks.



The real answer, however, is this: the notion of "trees have a climb DC of 15" is sheer insanity. The rules make perfect sense if you assign a climb DC between 5 (the type of tree that is climbed by children of eight with not ranks in climb and a STR score of six) and 25 (a tree with no convenient branches or other footholds) to the tree.


I mean, really, this:

http://mikemanzi.com/Trees/Photos/Tree06.JPG

and this:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/f9/c9/1350050052_6539_treeclimbing.jpg?itok=SNQ4FB5g

is not the same...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Bracing on opposite walls reduces the DC by 10, and perpendicular walls are -5 to the DC. Looking at the way I typically climbed things (don't remember much, but some), I did prefer having multiple branches near eachother.

You could also let children climb with DEX rather than STR, which should bring up their modifier by about 2 (taking -2 str/+2 dex for typical child stats).

[Water Bob]

Also: Is 1st level the "average person"? You don't remain at 1st level for long. 1st level might have been back when I couldn't pull myself onto a branch reliably when unthreatened.

That's a fair comment--and something to think about. Higher level means more skill points.

Still....let's assume the local Baron is training up a new batch of trainees for his militia. Part of the training is an obstacle course. One of the obstacles is a rope, hanging from a branch. The 1st level novice character (and let's assume Climb is a class skill) must climb up the up the rope to reach the branch, 30' up.

Average characters have STR 10-11. Let's max out Climb, so that it is +4. Take 10 value is 14.

And...we have the same example with the same problem.

I don't think those average humans are going to fall 59% of the time.





I think the problem with the rule--at least, part of the problem--is the number of checks needed. It shouldn't be 4 checks as the rule states. It should be one check (with a DC that changes depending on speed).

[OldTrees1]

I like your logic, but it doesn't quite jive with the skill's description. D20 3.5 CLIMB SKILL DEFINITION. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm)

A DC 10 is something like a ship's rigging. That sounds like it's a lot easier to climb that your average tree.

A DC 15 is assigned to surfaces with adequate handholds and footholds like a tree. Your average tree.
Let's double check that DC 10.

Remember failing by less that 5 means nothing gained but nothing lost. So one merely needs a +5 modifier to recklessly climb a ships rigging.

I can personally attest that while I had lots of fun climbing trees as a kid, I am below average strength. So lets call that a +3 modifier (4 ranks -1 Strength). That is 2 points short (or put another way, either I overestimate my ability in my youth or the DC is set too high).

So I suggest you adjust all those DCs by -5 and call it good.

[Water Bob]

First, your math is off.

Yep. Caught it up thread.


The real answer, however, is this: the notion of "trees have a climb DC of 15" is sheer insanity. The rules make perfect sense if you assign a climb DC between 5 (the type of tree that is climbed by children of eight with not ranks in climb and a STR score of six) and 25 (a tree with no convenient branches or other footholds) to the tree.


I mean, really, this:

http://mikemanzi.com/Trees/Photos/Tree06.JPG

and this:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/f9/c9/1350050052_6539_treeclimbing.jpg?itok=SNQ4FB5g

is not the same...


Good points, all. I was going by the examples in the skill description.

[martixy]

You need to get out of the mindset that the rules should cover every situation that might ever crop up.

The rules cover the general case.
And the it is the DM's job to arbitrate deviations from that.

Case in point.

[Gavinfoxx]

So a GREAT climbing tree has a DC 5, again per the spell 'Climbing Tree' from Complete Mage. If he is in the right type of forest, and makes a Spot check while he's running, he can find one of those. He has to make the first check to succeed at climbing, after which he is no longer in combat and can then Take 10 for the next few checks.

If he fails his Spot check, he'll use an average tree, and need to make DC 10 on that first check to get past that first 1/4th of the tree, and therefore out of the reach of the Wolves, after which he can Take 10 on the rest of the tree to get to the top, being out of Combat.

[Water Bob]

I was thinking about all the tree commentary, and I was being convinced by the good arguments...then I remember what I had just written.




Still....let's assume the local Baron is training up a new batch of trainees for his militia. Part of the training is an obstacle course. One of the obstacles is a rope, hanging from a branch. The 1st level novice character (and let's assume Climb is a class skill) must climb up the up the rope to reach the branch, 30' up.

Average characters have STR 10-11. Let's max out Climb, so that it is +4. Take 10 value is 14.

And...we have the same example with the same problem.

I don't think those average humans are going to fall 59% of the time.





I think the problem with the rule--at least, part of the problem--is the number of checks needed. It shouldn't be 4 checks as the rule states. It should be one check (with a DC that changes depending on speed).



Take the "tree" out of the example. Replace it with a rope, not knotted, tied to a limb of a tree, 30 feet up. The character must climb up this rope. DC 15.



....And, I think I'm OK with that. I remember doing this in grade school gym class. Even in High School, not everyone could do it. And, as we got older (and heavier), fewer and fewer of us could do it.

So...I'm OK with the rules now.



Wow. I needed that. You guys are great. Good discussion.

You all helped me.

[Gavinfoxx]

In normal 3.5e, you can take 10 as long as you are not distracted by things like Combat or being on the deck of a ship in a terrible storm, or things of that scale.

This DOES include if there are consequences for failure, such as death, as long as there isn't something as distracting as combat happening. You CAN take 10 if failing the climb check means you plummet to your death!

Check to see if Conan has actually changed this or not. Because if it has, than it is a d20 game changing the Take 10 rules from how they normally are in 3.5e.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, kids climb trees. However, from my own experience as a child, most trees are rather difficult to climb. Where I live, any tree big enough to climb has limbs too high to reach while standing on the ground (and that's from the point of view from me as an adult), and most can't be even reached with a jump. So that Climb check is representing your ability to scale something when the only thing you have to grab onto is the little grooves in the bark. From that point, the DC actually seems pretty easy compared to real life. Trees with branches that are low enough to be reachable, but big enough to hold your weight, have a lower DC. Possibly the DC of a ladder, because as that point, that's what it is. Once you climb up to the point where the branches are, it's relatively smooth sailing. The hard part is getting up there.

[Honest Tiefling]

I grew up for a time in the Pacific Northwest. That place is not known for climbable trees, lemme tell you.

[Water Bob]

The real answer, however, is this: the notion of "trees have a climb DC of 15" is sheer insanity. The rules make perfect sense if you assign a climb DC between 5 (the type of tree that is climbed by children of eight with not ranks in climb and a STR score of six) and 25 (a tree with no convenient branches or other footholds) to the tree.


I mean, really, this:

http://mikemanzi.com/Trees/Photos/Tree06.JPG

and this:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/f9/c9/1350050052_6539_treeclimbing.jpg?itok=SNQ4FB5g

is not the same...



I'm still good with the rule now, but....

There's a chink in this thought above. If you keep reading the Climb rules, it talks about making handholds and footholds--


Making Your Own Handholds and Footholds
You can make your own handholds and footholds by pounding pitons into a wall. Doing so takes 1 minute per piton, and one piton is needed per 3 feet of distance. As with any surface that offers handholds and footholds, a wall with pitons in it has a DC of 15. In the same way, a climber with a handaxe or similar implement can cut handholds in an ice wall.


Notice, with handholds and footholds--pitons every three feet--it's still a DC 15.

We're not talking about a skinny tree here. We're talking about a normal tree with climbing points and branches every three feet or so....as a DC 15.

[Gildedragon]

I grew up for a time in the Pacific Northwest. That place is not known for climbable trees, lemme tell you.

Cedars are so easy to climb though (so ladderlike)... only tree i've ever managed to get any reasonable distance off the ground (I'm from the Mexican Northeast; the flora here doesn't lend itself for climbing: shrubberies and very nicely manicured trees that are too narrow limbed)




http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/f9/c9/1350050052_6539_treeclimbing.jpg?itok=SNQ4FB5g

is not the same...

Yeah though that tree seems more of a climb DC 0 (A slope too steep to walk up)... and probably doesn't protect against wolves...

[Water Bob]

And...while we're talking about climbing, here's another question.

The Climb rules are really about micro-details. Climbing 20, 30, even 50 feet. They're not really meant for climbing the face of a cliff, using most of the day to do it.

How would you run that?

My guess is to just check all of the character's Take 10 scores. If a character doesn't succeed with his Take 10, then he's probably not fit enough, or the climber enough, to be able to scale the cliff face. At some point, it will be almost certain that someone would brick a climb check and fall.

Of course, you will have some climbing gear to give you some bonuses with the climb, too.

Is that how you'd run it, with no dice throws? Take 10, and those that can't Take 10 with low scores cannot make the climb?

[Honest Tiefling]

Cedars are so easy to climb though (so ladderlike)... only tree i've ever managed to get any reasonable distance off the ground (I'm from the Mexican Northeast; the flora here doesn't lend itself for climbing: shrubberies and very nicely manicured trees that are too narrow limbed)


Yes, kids climb trees. However, from my own experience as a child, most trees are rather difficult to climb. Where I live, any tree big enough to climb has limbs too high to reach while standing on the ground (and that's from the point of view from me as an adult), and most can't be even reached with a jump. So that Climb check is representing your ability to scale something when the only thing you have to grab onto is the little grooves in the bark. From that point, the DC actually seems pretty easy compared to real life. Trees with branches that are low enough to be reachable, but big enough to hold your weight, have a lower DC. Possibly the DC of a ladder, because as that point, that's what it is. Once you climb up to the point where the branches are, it's relatively smooth sailing. The hard part is getting up there.

Once you get up to a certain height, as Necrotic Plague stated, yeah, it can get a lot easier. But I don't see a lot of kids getting in there on their own. If that is indeed the case I am never babysitting because apparently they have some sort of gecko powers.

Then again, I have no idea what a Mexican cedar tree is like, and a quick google image search failed me. We...Could be talking about completely different things.

[Gildedragon]

Once you get up to a certain height, as Necrotic Plague stated, yeah, it can get a lot easier. But I don't see a lot of kids getting in there on their own. If that is indeed the case I am never babysitting because apparently they have some sort of gecko powers.

Then again, I have no idea what a Mexican cedar tree is like, and a quick google image search failed me. We...Could be talking about completely different things.
I'm talking PNW cedars: Vancouver and up the coast. Lots of very thick branches. Just saying someone with 0 ranks in climb could do them with ease.
As to the height v wolves... 7 feet (one move action) and you're pretty much clear the jump DC is 28


And...while we're talking about climbing, here's another question.

The Climb rules are really about micro-details. Climbing 20, 30, even 50 feet. They're not really meant for climbing the face of a cliff, using most of the day to do it.

How would you run that?

My guess is to just check all of the character's Take 10 scores. If a character doesn't succeed with his Take 10, then he's probably not fit enough, or the climber enough, to be able to scale the cliff face. At some point, it will be almost certain that someone would brick a climb check and fall.

Of course, you will have some climbing gear to give you some bonuses with the climb, too.

Is that how you'd run it, with no dice throws? Take 10, and those that can't Take 10 with low scores cannot make the climb?

Probably, yes that sounds reasonable: hence aid another rules (climbing would be at half speed or slower (round 1: climb, round 2: aid...)

[Darth Ultron]

But,the argument holds....59% means the thief is more likely to fall than not.

I think the game works best if things have ''about'' a 50% chance. And 59% for first level sounds right.

The thing is, it's a first level character. Things should be hard. That is what 1st level means. And worse if a character can climb at 100%, there is no point in going up any levels.

So sure a 1st level character might fall climbing a 30 foot high tree, but a 3rd level one with a couple more skill points will sure have a better chance.

I would also note your example character is not optimized. You can add in the feats Athletic and/or skill focus. You can use a ''masterwork climbing tool''. The suregrip oil. And so on...

[ATHATH]

regardless of the rule being broken, if there are 4 20% chances to fail, then you actually have a 59% chance to fail to climb the tree.
It's actually worse than that, because there's a chance that you'll have to make a check again even if you don't fail it.

[OldTrees1]

It's actually worse than that, because there's a chance that you'll have to make a check again even if you don't fail it.

Huh? Climb has only 3 results:
Succeed and move
Fail and stay
Fail and fall

If you pass the N times you needed to pass to reach your destination, you are done. No more rolls. You reached your destination.

So I an expecting you meant "It's actually better than that, because there's a chance that you'll get another chance to make a check even if you failed it (provided you failed by less than 5)". This reduces the 59%.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the game works best if things have ''about'' a 50% chance. And 59% for first level sounds right.

The thing is, it's a first level character. Things should be hard. That is what 1st level means. And worse if a character can climb at 100%, there is no point in going up any levels.

I disagree. DnD assumes the cream of the crop when it comes to ability, far surpassing normal people. Level 1 has some training, so climbing a normal tree should NOT have that high of a chance of failure especially if the DM demands multiple rolls.

I don't think a child could easily climb larger pine trees until they got to the branches, but that is a CHILD. (And I assume you kinda mean 7-ish, not like 12+)

[MisterKaws]

That's a fair comment--and something to think about. Higher level means more skill points.

Still....let's assume the local Baron is training up a new batch of trainees for his militia. Part of the training is an obstacle course. One of the obstacles is a rope, hanging from a branch. The 1st level novice character (and let's assume Climb is a class skill) must climb up the up the rope to reach the branch, 30' up.

Average characters have STR 10-11. Let's max out Climb, so that it is +4. Take 10 value is 14.

And...we have the same example with the same problem.

I don't think those average humans are going to fall 59% of the time.





I think the problem with the rule--at least, part of the problem--is the number of checks needed. It shouldn't be 4 checks as the rule states. It should be one check (with a DC that changes depending on speed).


The local baron would probably be looking for trainees with an STR value of at least 12, as per the Nonelite Array.

[Arbane]

That's a fair comment--and something to think about. Higher level means more skill points.

Still....let's assume the local Baron is training up a new batch of trainees for his militia. Part of the training is an obstacle course. One of the obstacles is a rope, hanging from a branch. The 1st level novice character (and let's assume Climb is a class skill) must climb up the up the rope to reach the branch, 30' up.

Average characters have STR 10-11. Let's max out Climb, so that it is +4. Take 10 value is 14.

And...we have the same example with the same problem.

I don't think those average humans are going to fall 59% of the time.



That's just crazy.

No Warrior is going to have enough skill-ranks to get through an obstacle course!

(Skill system is still completely borked, Major Image at 11.)

[Mystral]

The problem I have with the Climb skill--the way it is written--is that a number of checks are required to climb any distance.

You can climb at a default rate of one-fourth of your normal Speed. For an un-encumbered fellow,that's one climb check per 7.5 feet.

Let's say that you are a 1st level thief, with STR 15, wearing no armor, Climb skill is maxed out at +6 (4 skill points plus +2 STR), and you want to climb up a tree and have a look around, 30 feet up. That's a DC 15 climb. You'll need 4 climb checks.

On each check, you succeed on a roll of 9+. You make no progress on a result of 5+. And, you fall on a result of 4-.

YOU'VE GOT A 20% CHANCE TO FALL EACH CLIMB CHECK!!

THERE'S AN 80% CHANCE THAT YOU WILL FALL WHEN CLIMBING THE TREE!!



Now...I know from experience as a kid that that's just not true. And, I'm no experienced climbing thief!

A 1st level thief can't climb a tree?
That's not the way you calculate chances. The real chance of falling is 20% + 20% of 80% + 20% of 80% of 80% + 20% of 80% of 80% of 80%. Or in other words, 1/5 + 4/25 + 16/125 + 64/625 = 369/625.

So that's about a 60% of falling.

That being said, you can always use some appropriate tools or a rope or a friend that helps you. and even if you fall, you'll most likely take no damage thanks to tumble, and a good DM will give you reflex saves to arrest your fall on branches.

I fail to see a problem, people fall while climbing trees. It's a risk of adventuring.

[Theobod]

Lots of good points here. The DC 15 seems to indicate the rough average of a tree so kids etc would certainly look for easier targets, I certainly did as a kid.
Take ten usually is ample and there are a lot of ways to argue for circumstance bonuses, such as taking a few minutes to plan out a route, getting aid another, using a rope etc.
First lvl is a common person, most folks don't get past lvl 4-5 in their lives, and looking at the amount of kids ending up in AnE because of falling from trees it certainly seems the DC is fine (those kids bit of more than they could chew by picking a harder tree, were goaded into it by peer pressure or did not receive any help or were way below average strength).
As soon as you lvl past first lvl you are a cut above the average (even more so if you are a PC, who possibly was doing this on take ten without help in a chain shirt at lvl one if they had a good strength) these things work out nicely.

[Ashtagon]

Let's see, DC 15 Climb check and a rogue with a +6 Climb modifier.

Each check is a move action (or a standard action converted to a move action), and gets our rogue up 7.5 feet.

He can take 10 only as long as he isn't threatened. I generally take that to mean that both a) there are no melee enemies within their attack range that the character is aware of, and b) there are no ranged enemies within 30 feet that the character is aware of. As such, once he has passed the first check, he can definitely take 10 in this scenario.

So, two rounds to climb 30 feet, with one roll (1-3 means he "falls" zero feet since he's already at ground level, 4-8 means no progress; he needs a 9+ to succeed). If he is already at least 10 feet from the wolves, he can take 10 even on the first check.

Races of the Wild goes into more details about trees, offering varied DCs between 5 and 20, depending on the tree's particulars.

[Quertus]

It's actually worse than that, because there's a chance that you'll have to make a check again even if you don't fail it.


Huh? Climb has only 3 results:
Succeed and move
Fail and stay
Fail and fall

If you pass the N times you needed to pass to reach your destination, you are done. No more rolls. You reached your destination.

So I an expecting you meant "It's actually better than that, because there's a chance that you'll get another chance to make a check even if you failed it (provided you failed by less than 5)". This reduces the 59%.

OK. 25% of the time, the roll did nothing. So we really have, what, 4 failure results and 11 success results.

So we fall before we make progress 4/15 times, and succeed 11/15 times.

Which gives us about a 29% chance of climbing this tree, or a 79% chance of falling before we reach the top.

[OldTrees1]

OK. 25% of the time, the roll did nothing. So we really have, what, 4 failure results and 11 success results.

So we fall before we make progress 4/15 times, and succeed 11/15 times.

Which gives us about a 29% chance of climbing this tree, or a 79% chance of falling before we reach the top.

Let's break it down (since we can be more precise than that).
We have (20-4-A)/20 chance of falling, 4/20 chance of nothing(Failing by 1-4 is only 4 possibilities not 5), and A/20 chance of progressing.
We have decided the Tree has a height of 4 successes. We are also treating the tree as uniform in difficulty(so more of a rope than an actual tree).

The first length has no penalty for failure(no progress made = no distance to fall). So the first success is granted for free given time (provided A > 0).
The second, third, and fourth lengths are where the danger comes in. No neutral results matter after the last success so we are looking at the following as an approximation:
Infinite sum(given i, j, k start at 0) of ( (4/20)^i * (A/20) ) * ( (4/20) ^ j * (A/20) ) * ( (4/20) ^ k * (A/20) )
Of course every 2 terms is (A/20) * the infinite sum of (1/5)^k given k starts at 0. This collapses down to 5/4 * A/20 = A/16.
So the probability of climbing a tree of N lengths is (A/16)^(N-1)

If we have a +4 modifier and are shooting for a DC 15, then A = 10 (rolling 11-20 on a d20 is 10 possibilities not 11)
Thus we have (10/16)^(4-1) = (5/8)^3 = roughly 24% chance of climbing this tree.

If this were a DC 9 or less tree, then there would be a 100% chance
A DC 10 tree would be A = 15 so 82% of climbing a 4 length tree.

[Darth Ultron]

I disagree. DnD assumes the cream of the crop when it comes to ability, far surpassing normal people. Level 1 has some training, so climbing a normal tree should NOT have that high of a chance of failure especially if the DM demands multiple rolls.



I'm not sure the rules of D&D ever say the characters are so ''special''.

But it's more about playing the game. If everything a character does automatically succeeds, then why even roll or play the game at all? Even up in the ''75% of the time they will do the action'' is way too much. When your automatically doing any action, and just rolling to see how well you did as you automatically did it, the game becomes really pointless.

I'd also note that the ''average thief training'' might not have a intensive ''tree climbing 101'' class. Though I'd also note that if a player wanted an ''expert tree climber'' that trier are things like regional feats, traits and so forth they could take to make the character that way. Sure, they would have to give up ''improved initiative'' or ''born tree climber'', but they could do it.

[acidphoenix]

I'm not sure the rules of D&D ever say the characters are so ''special''.

But it's more about playing the game. If everything a character does automatically succeeds, then why even roll or play the game at all? Even up in the ''75% of the time they will do the action'' is way too much. When your automatically doing any action, and just rolling to see how well you did as you automatically did it, the game becomes really pointless.

I'd also note that the ''average thief training'' might not have a intensive ''tree climbing 101'' class. Though I'd also note that if a player wanted an ''expert tree climber'' that trier are things like regional feats, traits and so forth they could take to make the character that way. Sure, they would have to give up ''improved initiative'' or ''born tree climber'', but they could do it.

The characters are special because they don't have an NPC class.
Seriously. Just look at Commoner/Warrior.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm not sure the rules of D&D ever say the characters are so ''special''.

Well...They have multiple stats at or above 14. The Player's Handbook also describes them as heroes going on an epic journey, so I'd lean to the idea that DnD was definitely crafted for epic heroes, not Bob the Sickly Peasant.


But it's more about playing the game. If everything a character does automatically succeeds, then why even roll or play the game at all? Even up in the ''75% of the time they will do the action'' is way too much. When your automatically doing any action, and just rolling to see how well you did as you automatically did it, the game becomes really pointless.

I will concede that failure rates are probably a thing of taste. For me, if every task comes with a 50% chance of failure, the chances of getting to second level are pretty minimal. This is not the type of game I enjoy in the slightest. If this works for your group, good for you, but I sincerely doubt most DnD players are going to fond of this. I'm more fond of above average antics of competent, skilled people.


I'd also note that the ''average thief training'' might not have a intensive ''tree climbing 101'' class. Though I'd also note that if a player wanted an ''expert tree climber'' that trier are things like regional feats, traits and so forth they could take to make the character that way. Sure, they would have to give up ''improved initiative'' or ''born tree climber'', but they could do it.

Firstly, if climbing isn't a common rogue skill, why is it a class skill? And if they don't want to RP their character having undergone that training, then they don't put skill points into it. If they point skill points into it, then they did indeed complete Climbing 101.

They have to give up a vital combat feat to climb A TREE. Yeah, I don't think our styles are compatible, nor do I think this is a good idea. You're reducing the utility of a rogue for crying out loud, so this doesn't seem particularly balanced given how rogues and other mundanes are often overshadowed.

[Gallowglass]

Darth Ultron is right, if you have a high chance of winning every roll, why are you playing the game?

But in this example, I think the pertinent point has been missed. Why are you making the thief roll to climb the tree in the first place? There is no point in making characters roll for things that don't matter, things that don't really have consequence or can affect the plot.

You don't make them roll a knowledge local check to find the post office. You don't make them roll a strength check to go to the bathroom. You don't make them make a will saving throw to manage to fall asleep at night. You want to eat the pie? Roll an attack against that pie!

If the narrative is this: "You have been lost in the woods for the last several hours, there is no sign of the road". And the thief says "I'm going to climb a tree and see if I can get a better vantage point", IMO, the response should be something like "Okay, as you scramble up the tree you see a wisp of smoke rising to the west. It might be a farmhouse", not "Okay roll to climb. You rolled a 2? Okay you fall and take 5 dmg. Want to try again?" I mean, come on. Doesn't combat and trapfinding slow down the game enough you feel the need to make them roll for things like this? What's the DC you set for them to climb up the stairs in their house? They going to fail that 5% of the time on a 1?

Its different if the thief is being chased up the tree by wolves, or is trying to elude the posse by climbing stealthily. Then the thief is using a skill as part of a game challenge. That's when you should be rolling IMO. And in those cases, a 1st level character with about a 50/50 chance of succeeding in the skill part of the challenge is fine.

[Honest Tiefling]

Because characters have different strengths. If everyone has a 50/50 chance at everything, including the weak mage and the burly fighter, what is the difference between the two? The fighter's chances of swinging a weapon should be higher, the mage's should be lower.

Secondly, because of the narrative. Conan the barbarian succeeded way more then he failed. Sherlock Holmes could be tricked and could be mislead. Most characters in such literature can do things within their realm of competency quite well.

And given the number of rolls a session, even a 75% success rate leads to failure occasionally. If the failures stack up too much, it begs the question of why these people even try in the first place, and can be frustrating for players.

[Gallowglass]

First: I very explicitly did not say everyone should have a 50/50 chance at everything. Stop strawmanning. Its the weakest possible way to uphold an argument. I said in this case, for a 1st level thief climbing a tree for some skill challenge part of an adventure, I'm fine with a 50/50. Because its a first level thief.

Second: If you believe failure at a single task means complete failure, then you have a very poor ability to perceive narrative possiblity.

The thief fails to climb the tree to escape the wolf. So what? Now he has to fight his way free? Now he has to find a different solution to the problem?
The thief fails to climb the tree stealthily to fool the posse. So what? Now he's in the tree, but the posse have seen him and surround the tree. Now he has to deal with THAT problem instead of what he would have dealt with had he succeeded.

If I was a player and I succeeded at EVERY roll in the game better than 75% of the time, I'd feel like I was being handwalked through the damn story. I don't mind failing because those failures quite often lead to more interesting outcomes.

If I was a 1st level thief who specialized in climbing trees, ahd the best climbing equipment, had traits and feats to help me I'd expect to succeed 95% of the time. Because I worked toward trivializing that particular type of challenge. If I was joe-generic 1st level thief I wouldn't balk at about a 50/50 change to climb that tree.

[Gildedragon]

Looking for the perfect tree to climb ought be taken as taking 20 to climb A tree in general; the first attempt, after all, carries no consequence for failure (you fall 0ft); focusing on a particular tree would be different. Also, I will repeat: if the linear result distribution is a problem, then change to 3d6. One could limit that to skills if one wanted.