How to fix Dex-Based Climbing easily and fairly

[Isidorios]

So people complain that their Rogue has to take STR and/or Athletics to climb skillfully, or that their Dex-based elf archer can't climb very well. Here's an easy solution that does not diminish the value of Athletics/STR, cleanly solves the issue of nimble Rogues who "can't get it up", without adding a bunch of rules to the game or altering any skills.

Climber's Kit - 25 gp is now a Tool proficiency, allowing you to move up to half of your normal movement while climbing, using your proficiency and Dexterity.

Second-Story Gear- 50 gp This specialized set of gear allows for climbing using the Thieves' Tools proficiency. Not easily concealable, this gear will arouse the attention of city guards and the like in civilized areas, as it is commonly associated with burglary.

Bam.

Now you have a Tool proficiency that can be taken with Background/paid for in-game, and specialized Thieves' Tools that allow the Rogue to scale with the best of them (think stuff like Nekode, or the custom stuff the Grey Mouser uses to scale Stardock).
And Athletics is still useful because it is still free-climbing, where you really need to get up that tower in a rush. (Think Cerebus in the Secret Sacred Wars arc, or Conan most of the time).

[Cybren]

Is this a problem? Rogues that want to be good at climbing can take athletics expertise...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Or you could just let them use Dex; Athletics has a ton already going for it.

[Isidorios]

Most rogues don't feel it's fair to spend one of their 4 expertise to do something competently that's been a core ability of their class since 1st edtion. And at that point you've spent a skill slot on Athletics, and spent one of your Expertise to have a +6-8 roll to climb a cliff.

Whereas the Barbarian has a +4 to climb for free, +6 if he wants to take proficiency in it.

This enables a Rogue to scale the wizard's tower very competently with the drawback of toting gear down Wizard Street that screams "Gonna climb some Wizard's house", and allows the Dex Ranger or Fighter a means to equip up and safely climb Dragon's Peak.
People seemed to complain about it, and I thought this was a pretty elegant solution.

[Isidorios]

Or you could just let them use Dex; Athletics has a ton already going for it.

Clearly you can just rule "Now Rogues can use Athletics as a Dex skill", but I feel that's not really representative of what Athletic based climbing IS, which is basically free-climbing on pure hand/body strength.
Climbing a basic tree or a cliff with easy handholds should be a really easy DC or no roll at all in any case; but scaling the World Tree, or the tallest mountain in the Realm is something that should have a high enough DC that characters would want to be able to use a good Stat and Proficiency in the attempt.
This gives a means to do that with either Dex OR Str, without fiddling with the Skills themselves in any way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Most rogues don't feel it's fair to spend one of their 4 expertise to do something competently that's been a core ability of their class since 1st edtion. And at that point you've spent a skill slot on Athletics, and spent one of your Expertise to have a +6-8 roll to climb a cliff.

Whereas the Barbarian has a +4 to climb for free, +6 if he wants to take proficiency in it.

This enables a Rogue to scale the wizard's tower very competently with the drawback of toting gear down Wizard Street that screams "Gonna climb some Wizard's house", and allows the Dex Ranger or Fighter a means to equip up and safely climb Dragon's Peak.
People seemed to complain about it, and I thought this was a pretty elegant solution.
It's a small facet of (what I feel) is an overall problem with 5e: Proficiency is too low relative to Ability modifiers, meaning that the most scholarly fighter is at best equal to the rough-and-tumble Wizard, and has no real hope of catching up to the scholarly Wizard. But that's another rant entirely.

[Isidorios]

I would argue that the super-genius Rogue with 20 Int should be able to recall facts about the ancient History of Highmore roughly as well as a historian of "Aliens did it" intelligence. Or that the strongest man in the moors should be nearly as much challenge to wrestle as the wily old veteran who's strength has faded with age.

And the Target DCs in 5e are set up to reflect this, not being as preposterous as 3.pleasebuythelineofsplatbooks.

[Isidorios]

It's a small facet of (what I feel) is an overall problem with 5e: Proficiency is too low relative to Ability modifiers, meaning that the most scholarly fighter is at best equal to the rough-and-tumble Wizard, and has no real hope of catching up to the scholarly Wizard. But that's another rant entirely.

Should the fighter with a scholarly bent be as scholarly as the man who's very life and profession are intrinsically linked to scholarly pursuits?
It's like saying "the scholarly fry cook with an interest in Ancient Rome should be able to rival the Professor of Western History (particularly in the pre-internet age).

Also, in my campaign, I allow for a Feat that gives you Expertise in a single skill and +1 to the Attribute associated with it, just for that Fighter who wants to be the Best Juggler in All the Land.

[Cybren]

Should the fighter with a scholarly bent be as scholarly as the man who's very life and profession are intrinsically linked to scholarly pursuits?
It's like saying "the scholarly fry cook with an interest in Ancient Rome should be able to rival the Professor of Western History (particularly in the pre-internet age).

Also, in my campaign, I allow for a Feat that gives you Expertise in a single skill and +1 to the Attribute associated with it, just for that Fighter who wants to be the Best Juggler in All the Land.

Fighters aren't fry cooks and wizards aren't scholars, though. A fighter with the sage background is more of a scholar than a wizard with the entertainer background...

[Tanarii]

You don't need Str or Athletics to climb. You can automatically climb. Per the PHB: "While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed.

You only need Str or Athletics if you expect to face a lot of "At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check."-type checks.

A Rogue is good as stuff through his skills. I don't see any problem with a Rogue needing to take Athletics, and even Expertise in Athletics, to be good at difficult (ie check required) climbing.

Edit: Full disclosure, I'm a rock-climber. Being bulky weight-lifter strong isn't helpful because lots of added weight works against your rock-shoes. But it's definitely a strength-based skill, but also hugely about training. And climbing without modern super-grip rock shoes, it'd be almost exclusively an arm-strength skill, meaning bulky weight-lifter would be on a far more even foot... uh, arming. Not that detailed real-world knowledge should necessarily be the basis for what's ultimately abstract resolution. But it definitely biases my view of it.

[Isidorios]

Fighters aren't fry cooks and wizards aren't scholars, though. A fighter with the sage background is more of a scholar than a wizard with the entertainer background...

Even the "Party Magician" Wizard spends a lot of time in libraries honing his Art, and devotes himself to pursuits that develop his Intellect to a high enough degree to make his magics powerful. So yes, I would argue that he should be roughly as knowledgeable about historical lore as the Mercenary of undistinguished intelligence who likes to collect books on Olden Tymes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even the "Party Magician" Wizard spends a lot of time in libraries honing his Art, and devotes himself to pursuits that develop his Intellect to a high enough degree to make his magics powerful. So yes, I would argue that he should be roughly as knowledgeable about historical lore as the Mercenary of undistinguished intelligence who likes to collect books on Olden Tymes.
5e says "training~natural talent*." Some of us, myself included, disagree; you clearly feel otherwise, which is fair enough-- it's largely a subjective thing.


*Except for Rogues and Bards, who get to be better than everyone else

[Isidorios]

5e says "training~natural talent*." Some of us, myself included, disagree; you clearly feel otherwise, which is fair enough-- it's largely a subjective thing.


*Except for Rogues and Bards, who get to be better than everyone else

Oh, I'm definitely not looking for an Internet Fight, it's nice to have the conversation.
I guess part of it is deciding what the Sage Background really means; I would argue that a 1st level character, with it's low proficiency base to begin with, isn't some wizened scholar who' a master on a topic to begin with; he's more likely a novice/scribe who's decided to take up the sword, a noble who's spent his youth at a place of higher education, or even the son or daughter of a professional scholar who's picked up lore by being raised around it.

But again, I think you devalue just what an 18 intelligence is worth, compared to a 10 or 12 intelligence. As you get closer to the Human Maximum intellect, I think it's appropriate that you certainly become as adept at intellectual pursuits as the lower-tier professional of unremarkable intellect.

[Joe the Rat]

A few thoughts:

On Rogue Climbing: Everybody could always climb stuff. Not always well. The Thief had the "Climb sheer surfaces with minimal handholds like a frikkin ninja" schtick. But that's not everybody's Rogue concept. You want to be expert wall-crawler, take Expertise, and don't completely dump strength. Or do. 8str althletics expert is +3 - equal to unskilled 16str or skilled 12str. Your strength equivalency goes up with each proficiency bump.
Also, you want the Thief archetype, so you can move up walls at full speed (90' in 6 seconds fast enough?).
Climb kit proficiency should cover everything from crampons and climbing claws to full mountaineer / high rise window washer, and you can totally rule that as being dex driven.

Intelligence is not necessarily inborn talent. The way they use it, it's "knows stuff" and "eye for details." High Intelligence can just be "really well read," with Skill profs dipping into "Did you actually study?" territory. This is pretty much the case for all attributes. Natural talent, broad training... doesn't say how lucky or hard-working you were to get to 14 Dex, that's where your abilities are now.

The Sage background can make a huge difference... in the long run. High Int non-prof, decent int prof, low Int Expert all can have the same rough chance of knowing something. On a fail, you don't know, unless you are a Sage. Then it's "I don't recall, but I know I could find this in [Tome-o-Lore/Grand Library/ancient crackpot religious conspiracy section of the local Stabeles & Lords scriptorium]. Fancy a trip to town?"

[Theodoxus]

So, just curious, how do you adjudicate if the, say, Knowledge Cleric with expertise in History and a 16 Int rolls a 2 on his skill check to recall information on an ancient temple to his god that is known to be in the vicinity, while the barbarian sage (because he was going to be the tribes shaman until his village got sacked by hill giants and he went a little crazy in the head as PTSD) has a 12 Int and proficiency but rolls a 17, but has never been on this side of the world before?

This is my singular issue with 5Es skills - sometimes they don't make sense when based on something as swingy as a single die roll. Even Advantage/Disadvantage won't always overcome the problem. I've seen folks roll double 1s on Advantage rolls and have a low score of an 18 on Disadvantage...

There should be something more meaningful. Certainly something better than DM fiat of 'sorry barbi, you just don't know because overshadowing the clerics' shtick isn't cool.'

[WereRabbitz]

Plan B

Have someone who is good at climbing (normally has a high str)
toss down a rope to tie to yourself and help pull you up as you climb.

Teamwork!

[Easy_Lee]

Strength represents brute strength, like a bodybuilder, while dexterity represents wiry quickness, like a martial artist. Dexterity should be better for climbing than strength.

Just allow players to use the higher of acrobatics or athletics for climbing. Alternatively, allow players to use the higher of dexterity or strength for athletics. Edit: and before anyone says anything, remember that raw strength and raw dexterity checks still exist.

[WereRabbitz]

Strength represents brute strength, like a bodybuilder, while dexterity represents wiry quickness, like a martial artist. Dexterity should be better for climbing than strength.


I don't know I picture climbing like doing pulls ups you need to be able to pull yourself up and that seems more Athletics then Acrobatics too me.

[Tanarii]

Strength represents brute strength, like a bodybuilder, while dexterity represents wiry quickness, like a martial artist. Dexterity should be better for climbing than strength.Does it? I know that's a common visualization on various forums, but the the way the PHB has things set up is:
Str = Athletics and anything muscle related
Dex = Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and anything agility/balance related.

Furthermore, the PHB says Dexterity represents: "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." Nothing about wiry muscles there. And Acrobatics, the only Dex skill that could reasonably be thought of as remotely muscular, is actually about balance and balance-related stunts.

Climbers use muscle power. It's what we do. Yes, many of us have lean muscle instead of bulky muscle, because weight matters a lot in conjunction with modern climbing shoes. But all the best climbers are muscled to all hell and back. Go check out some videos.

Edit: Bah. Fell back on "reality" argument despite myself. But I still recommend checking out climbing videos anyway because they're cool. :smallcool:

[Easy_Lee]

Does it? I know that's a common visualization on various forums, but the the way the PHB has things set up is:
Str = Athletics and anything muscle related
Dex = Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and anything agility/balance related.

Furthermore, the PHB says Dexterity represents: "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." Nothing about wiry muscles there. And Acrobatics, the only Dex skill that could reasonably be thought of as remotely muscular, is actually about balance and balance-related stunts.

Climbers use muscle power. It's what we do. Yes, many of us have lean muscle instead of bulky muscle, because weight matters a lot in conjunction with modern climbing shoes. But all the best climbers are muscled to all hell and back. Go check out some videos.

No, they aren't. Go watch a strongman competition. There is no professional climber or acrobat with even close to as strong a back as those guys. And yet a lot of those strongman types can't even do one pull up, because they're so bulky and heavy. A 400 pound man isn't climbing a mountain no matter how strong he is.

For acrobats, martial artists, climbers, and other real life dex types, the focus is on having high strength relative to your body size. Strongmen, the overall strongest men in the world, only care about strength, and don't care about their weight. That's the difference.

Don't tell me to go watch some videos when I actually know what I'm talking about. I workout every day of the week, and my lifting is 100% bodyweight exercises. I can do things with my body now that I couldn't when I was 20 pounds heavier, even though my bench and squat and other maxes haven't changed. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Tanarii]

Edit: I BWT exclusively as well. Because that's the best way to build the muscles necessary for climbing.

Edit2: removed the stupid "I know what I'm talking about" fight from my response. That's ridiculous thing for us to be throwing at each other. I'll just say I disagree, based on my own experiences of muscle building necessary for Athletics type tasks. ie Climbing, Swimming, Running. Obviously you think your experiences say something different. That's fine. Honestly, that's why "real world" should stay out of mechanical rules interpretation.

[Joe the Rat]

So, just curious, how do you adjudicate if the, say, Knowledge Cleric with expertise in History and a 16 Int rolls a 2 on his skill check to recall information on an ancient temple to his god that is known to be in the vicinity, while the barbarian sage (because he was going to be the tribes shaman until his village got sacked by hill giants and he went a little crazy in the head as PTSD) has a 12 Int and proficiency but rolls a 17, but has never been on this side of the world before?

This is my singular issue with 5Es skills - sometimes they don't make sense when based on something as swingy as a single die roll. Even Advantage/Disadvantage won't always overcome the problem. I've seen folks roll double 1s on Advantage rolls and have a low score of an 18 on Disadvantage...

There should be something more meaningful. Certainly something better than DM fiat of 'sorry barbi, you just don't know because overshadowing the clerics' shtick isn't cool.'As opposed to overshadowing the cleric who should know something of his own religion?

Me, personally, would go with Advantage for Cleric since it's his deity. That doesn't prevent "duh" moments, but reduces likelihood. And that's if I ask him to roll at all. I use passive Int checks for "common knowledge" information, particularly if there is a connection to the character (details about home area, area of specialty, etc.). Rolls are for knowing unusual and obscure details.

Regarding your shaman, he's got History proficiency. He's well read on a wide range of Things That Happened Somewhere. This detail was something that he'd picked up while sorting through all the papers that damn Grey Wizard left scattered about the archives. If there is literally no way he could know something, then there is no roll. If this is true for most History checks in the campaign, I'd suggest retooling proficiencies to cover that.

[SharkForce]

So, just curious, how do you adjudicate if the, say, Knowledge Cleric with expertise in History and a 16 Int rolls a 2 on his skill check to recall information on an ancient temple to his god that is known to be in the vicinity, while the barbarian sage (because he was going to be the tribes shaman until his village got sacked by hill giants and he went a little crazy in the head as PTSD) has a 12 Int and proficiency but rolls a 17, but has never been on this side of the world before?

This is my singular issue with 5Es skills - sometimes they don't make sense when based on something as swingy as a single die roll. Even Advantage/Disadvantage won't always overcome the problem. I've seen folks roll double 1s on Advantage rolls and have a low score of an 18 on Disadvantage...

There should be something more meaningful. Certainly something better than DM fiat of 'sorry barbi, you just don't know because overshadowing the clerics' shtick isn't cool.'

by not rolling. you roll when there is a chance of success or failure and success or failure is meaningful. if you don't think there should be a chance of failure (the cleric should know where his temple is if it is a major part of the local history of the religion) or success (the barbarian has no reason to have ever heard of this temple, it's in a place he's literally never heard of before), you don't roll.

if you do think there should be a chance of success or failure, then you deal with the rolls as they come. but if you don't think the cleric should have a chance of failure you don't roll. just like you don't call for an acrobatics check to see if the party manages to walk along the road without tripping on level ground, nor do you call for a strength check to open the unlocked door leading into the local tavern, and you don't even roll to see how many times it takes for the fighter to bash in a stuck door in a dungeon if there is no consequences of failure (for example, if you set up a silence spell first so that the noise won't attract or warn nearby creatures and there are no enemies in the room itself).

that's actually right in the books, by the way. checks are something you use when neither success nor failure are assured, and the outcome isn't irrelevant.

[Isidorios]

For acrobats, martial artists, climbers, and other real life dex types, the focus is on having high strength relative to your body size. Strongmen, the overall strongest men in the world, only care about strength, and don't care about their weight. That's the difference.

It's still a function of their physical strength to jump distances or climb cliffs. Strongmen are performer/specialists who practice specific feats over and over again, they ill-represent the strong fighter or barbarian or whatever. They are basically a Carny good at chucking rocks over walls, they have poorly balanced physiques for strenuous wilderness activities.

Dex based climbing, IMO works best as a Tool skill, as it's not terribly easy to climb a sheer surface "nimbly" without the mitigating factors of equipment.

[Easy_Lee]

It's still a function of their physical strength to jump distances or climb cliffs. Strongmen are performer/specialists who practice specific feats over and over again, they ill-represent the strong fighter or barbarian or whatever. They are basically a Carny good at chucking rocks over walls, they have poorly balanced physiques for strenuous wilderness activities.

Dex based climbing, IMO works best as a Tool skill, as it's not terribly easy to climb a sheer surface "nimbly" without the mitigating factors of equipment.

I would think equipment would work best as either an added modifier or a replacement for the skill roll, depending on the equipment. But that doesn't change my opinion that someone with 20 dexterity and 14 strength would be a better climber in real life than someone with 20 strength and 8 dexterity. I don't think it makes sense to say that dexterity can't apply to climbing.

All that said, my preference is to detach skills from attributes altogether. For players to be good at skills which they practice, regardless of stats. But that's off topic.

[Dalebert]

I let people use acrobatics if parkour makes sense in the situation. If you're in a reasonably tight alleyway or if there's a tree within 5 feet of the wall or if you're at a corner. There are fairly common situations when I allow acrobatics.

Just because it's been a thing for rogues in previous editions doesn't mean it needs to. Rogues were all the same and the class attempted to encompass all potential. Now they have archetypes and many choices of expertise. I don't think it's a big deal if a rogue isn't good at climbing when they have options to do all sorts of amazing things depending on what they want to focus on. If they want to be good at climbing they can take expertise. Or maybe they'll just go Arcane Trickster and take Spider Climb at some point. Or maybe they'll carry a climbing kit. Maybe they'll carry a Bag of Holding so they can conceal all kinds of gear for every occasion.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Isidorios]

Proper gear takes a lot of the question of Strength right out of climbing, it becomes a matter of proper technique, which is why I made tool climbing Dex-statted.
If you are climbing anything like a normal tree, you are talking a really low DC, even children can pull this off regularly, it might no really even require a roll of any sort.

To me, Athletic STR based climbing represents scaling a sheer windy cliff, ice shelf, or the outside of some tower or huge tree with few branches. There's really just no way to do that sort of thing without a lot of personal strength OR proper climbing gear. People don't Parkour up the side of skyscrapers. A lot of Parkour is moving horizontally or down, with a bit of hopping up on stuff, and not actual "Climbing" at all.

[Tanarii]

If you are climbing anything like a normal tree, you are talking a really low DC, even children can pull this off regularly, it might no really even require a roll of any sort.Climbing doesn't require a check by default. The rules say it may require one at the DMs option for "climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". You definitely shouldn't have a check for climbing a tree. Or a scree slope. Or even a cliff-face / masonry wall with plenty of handholds.

[Isidorios]

Climbing doesn't require a check by default. The rules say it may require one at the DMs option for "climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". You definitely shouldn't have a check for climbing a tree. Or a scree slope. Or even a cliff-face / masonry wall with plenty of handholds.

Yes.
I simply introduced my original idea as an alternative to making YET ANOTHER skill Dex-based simply to appease Dex statted characters, in a way that makes sense for them. Because I felt that in the situation that the party is climbing up Le Huge Dangerous Cliff or the towering walls of a cliff, there's just no reasonable way for the crafty rogue to nimble his way to the top of them, without the benefit of climbing claws, ropes or some other form of tricky rogueish equipment, and even the agile Ranger-archer is going to need some sort of climbing gear to do these things.

The powerful Conan guy is the one who can exploit the tiny cracks and jutting stones to finger and toe his way to the top of the wall, as it should be.

Again, the idea is to give the Rogue some agency for classic Thief wall scaling without re-Statting Athletics or broadening Acrobatics just to appease them. "My Arcane Lore is Dex-based, due to my nimble use of flash cards". No, that is a tool proficiency.

[Cybren]

Again, the idea is to give the Rogue some agency for classic Thief wall scaling without re-Statting Athletics or broadening Acrobatics just to appease them. "My Arcane Lore is Dex-based, due to my nimble use of flash cards". No, that is a tool proficiency.

the system has a way to already accommodate rogues that want to be good at climbing. You can argue DMs are a little too reluctant to float skills to other ability scores, and based on what i've seen from other people, I may agree, but it's not like a rogue that wants to be good at climbing can't achieve that end.

[Isidorios]

the system has a way to already accommodate rogues that want to be good at climbing. You can argue DMs are a little too reluctant to float skills to other ability scores, and based on what i've seen from other people, I may agree, but it's not like a rogue that wants to be good at climbing can't achieve that end.

Burning one of your four Expertise on Athletics, a skill based on a tertiary stat 99% of Rogues have a 10 in almost by necessity, makes them a fairly poor climber for the first 4 levels, a semi-decent one for another 4, reasonably competent one for the 4 after that....

Which wouldn't be an issue for some people (it's not a huge issue for me, I don't play Rogues), but it's been a long AD&D tradition that thieves are climby gits. Which is why I came up with a balanced alternative that allows them to be climby gits without taking liberties with the Skill rules or double-statting a core skill.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, you do have a point that very traditionally, climbing was part of a Thieves Schtick. I mean, it still is. They can automatically climb most things at full speed. They just need to really focus on it to be the best at the hard stuff.

But the average rogue probably will suck at the hard stuff (ie check required)

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, you do have a point that very traditionally, climbing was part of a Thieves Schtick. I mean, it still is. They can automatically climb most things at full speed. They just need to really focus on it to be the best at the hard stuff.

But the average rogue probably will suck at the hard stuff (ie check required)

Yeah, hard stuff requiring checks. Like, you know, ropes...

[Tanarii]

Climbing a rope shouldn't require an Athletics check under normal circumstances. Not by the PHB, anyway. Edit: it might while you're being attacked though. Now that I think about it, that probably counts as "normal" for adventurers. :smallamused:

[Easy_Lee]

Climbing a rope shouldn't require an Athletics check under normal circumstances. Not by the PHB, anyway. Edit: it might while you're being attacked though. Now that I think about it, that probably counts as "normal" for adventurers. :smallamused:

Well, it was in a few published 5e adventures. I agree that it shouldn't be, but I'm just saying...

[SharkForce]

you guys must have different memories of earlier editions than i do.

a low-level thief wasn't the master of climbing in any AD&D game i played. they weren't the master of anything. eventually they certainly became quite good at climbing (and indeed, all thief skills). but first they spent several levels not really being good at anything at all. they had lousy THAC0, virtually no chance whatsoever of getting sneak attack (which could only be used on totally unaware opponents), lousy armour proficiency, their chance of succeeding at thief skills was low and only got lower if you tried to actually have remotely decent AC by wearing armour, couldn't use shields, didn't get extra attacks, didn't have good saving throws, and had low AC (and since they weren't warriors, couldn't benefit very much from high constitution for more HP).

so if the 5e rogue is perhaps not amazing at climbing at level 1, well, i'm more than happy to exchange that for actually having a decent chance to sneak, pick pockets, or do whatever it is that they decided to focus on instead of having to super-optimize just for a 30-40% chance of success.

[RickAllison]

The way I see it, Dex is important for climbers, but not for climbin vertically. When a climber is going up, they are pulling with arm muscles (Str) and pushing with leg muscles (Str). However, climbing up a surface is not the only part of climbing. I'm going to use a fictional person for an example, to avoid any Gym-isms!

Ezio Auditore. Assassin, womanizer, scholar. All very Rogue-y things. One of the most iconic things he does, however, is his climbing. If we dissect his climbing style, we can figure out some ways that this rather iconic climber addresses it.

1) He doesn't exclusively use Dex or Str. While he is primarily a Dex-user (hidden blades, daggers, rapier-style weapons), he has shown his Str ability as well through grappling, brawling, and heavy weapon use. He isn't using Dex or Str, he uses both (and Cha. Lots of Charisma).

2) Free-running uses some Str for jumps, but seems to primarily be Acrobatics, remaining balanced while converting running into vertical motion. We can really see this when Ezio runs toward a wall. He takes a few quick steps up the wall while slowing down, until he makes one last jump and reaches out to grab a ledge. This is very much a Dex thing, up until that last jump to grab the ledge. We then see a transition...

3) Ezio primarily relies on Str to ascend. Despite having great Dex, he straight pulls himself up with Strength. There is no Dex in how he pulls himself up. But...

4) He is still using Dex when he is moving laterally. While tip-toing along the ledges, he is early making an Acrobatics check to keep his balance. Even in reality rock-climbing, we see this as the primary ability when not pulling oneself up.

Even in fiction, we see that Strength is the primary measure of climbing ability. The people who do flips to climb up walls (Jak, from Jak & Daxter, this means you) aren't making Dex (Acrobatics) checks, they are making Strength (Acrobatics) checks. In contrast, free-running would be more like a Dexterity (Athletics) check.

If a Rogue truly wants to be the clambering monkey, he either needs to take Thief, invest with Expertise, or bite the bullet and realize that becoming Stronger is an integral part of better negotiating terrain.

[LordVonDerp]

Be a Thief Rogue.

[Sjappo]

Also, you want the Thief archetype, so you can move up walls at full speed (90' in 6 seconds fast enough?).
This is what 90' in 6 seconds looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4n6xfu8VDU

[unwise]

My rogue and archer also need to be able to see things really well, so how about I use Dex for perception too? Isn't it hand-eye coordination?

The dexterous people we imagine in movies and books are also strong and athletes likely have expertise in athletics. I'm more than fine with there being a consequence to dumping strength, just like any other stat.

[gkathellar]

3.pleasebuythelineofsplatbooks.

... you say this about the edition that included just about all of the core content and a large amount of non-core content in its SRD, expressing preference for the edition that doesn't even include the entire PHB in its SRD?

Right.

[Cybren]

... you say this about the edition that included just about all of the core content and a large amount of non-core content in its SRD, expressing preference for the edition that doesn't even include the entire PHB in its SRD?

Right.
Well, 5E doesn't have splatbooks whereas 3.5 had twenty million of them, so I don't get your particular brand of hostility here. (Besides, that was almost certainly a "give them a razor and sell them the blades" sort of situation)

[Spacehamster]

Simple fix is just "the climbing aspect of the skill can be managed by STR or DEX"

[jas61292]

The dexterous people we imagine in movies and books are also strong and athletes likely have expertise in athletics. I'm more than fine with there being a consequence to dumping strength, just like any other stat.

This. So much. People see cool fictional characters, and want to make their d&d characters like them. However, people also want to optimize their d&d characters. When the vast majority of the things their inspiration character does are based on one stat, people want to pump that and drop other less valuable stats, because it is optimal. But fictional inspirations are not optimized d&d characters. If said character has flaws at all, they are often in abilities that might be more optimal to take in d&d.

But d&d characters don't get to be good at everything. If you want to be like some character idea you love, sometimes it means you must make "suboptimal" choices. That's a feature, not a bug.

[Tanarii]

Well, it was in a few published 5e adventures. I agree that it shouldn't be, but I'm just saying...Nah, it's a fair point. I'm being overly defensive at this point. D&D 5e as a whole suffers quite a lot if DMs call for checks on things that should really be automatic. Climbing is clearly supposed to be automatic for any reasonable climb. If DMs and written adventures overuse calling for Athletics checks to climb when they shouldn't be, it's a problem.


you guys must have different memories of earlier editions than i do.

a low-level thief wasn't the master of climbing in any AD&D game i played. they weren't the master of anything. eventually they certainly became quite good at climbing (and indeed, all thief skills). but first they spent several levels not really being good at anything at all.You're absolutely right about how much low level thieves sucked. At everything except climbing. They started at 85% on that one. :smallwink:

But yah, good point, people often forget how much thieves sucked at their exceptional skill use, even at name levels. Which is why it was so important to realize that in AD&D 1e Thief skills were supposed to work the same way that 5e skills do for everyone: Routine tasks with no reasonable chance of failure can be done by anyone without a check. Many Thief skills were for exceptional and difficult tasks. Hiding in the very shadows. Moving completely silently. Even Climb Walls: Easy stuff like rope & walls or trees got +40%, other middling easy stuff was +20%. Non-thieves had 40% (giving them 8/10 chance against the easiest stuff), whereas thieves had 85% (automatic against easy stuff, chance of failure against hard stuff, small chance of success against things like icy & smooth walls).

[Sigreid]

But d&d characters don't get to be good at everything. If you want to be like some character idea you love, sometimes it means you must make "suboptimal" choices. That's a feature, not a bug.

Actually, a bard character that used their point buy evenly across their stats could, in fact, be pretty good at everything once they have Jack of All Trades. They just won't be the best at anything, including making their magic stick.

[jas61292]

Actually, a bard character that used their point buy evenly across their stats could, in fact, be pretty good at everything once they have Jack of All Trades. They just won't be the best at anything, including making their magic stick.

Well, yeah. Though, I was more talking about how people often want to be great at specific things, and still good at everything, such as in this case being a great finesse/ranged character in combat, and still be good at climbing. Its certainly possible to do, but you would have to sacrifice somewhere.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, a bard character that used their point buy evenly across their stats could, in fact, be pretty good at everything once they have Jack of All Trades. They just won't be the best at anything, including making their magic stick.

Skill wise, sure. But he wouldn't be the best controller, best blaster, best at dealing specific damage types such as radiant, etc.

We could probably make a thread for characters with high competence in several areas. Actually, I think I've done that before.

[JackPhoenix]

This is what 90' in 6 seconds looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4n6xfu8VDU

That's 15 meter wall, only about 50'... so level 3 thief is almost twice as fast as best real world climber. If you add two levels of fighter for action surge, or a race with increased base speed....

[Dalebert]

That's 15 meter wall, only about 50'... so level 3 thief is almost twice as fast as best real world climber. If you add two levels of fighter for action surge, or a race with increased base speed....

5e has ceased trying to accurately simulate the real world in favor of simplicity. A comparison to other in-game climbers is far more relevant. I still say rogues are no longer defined by being good climbers unless they just want to be and devote resources to it.

[Lombra]

Why is it bad for a character that dumps STR to not be a good climber? If a player wants to play a good climber he should invest in strength, I' ve never seen skinny free-climbers IRL. Alternatively one could buy potions that enhance climbing. Plus being expertise in athletics for a rogue is pretty good anyways.

[MrStabby]

Why is it bad for a character that dumps STR to not be a good climber? If a player wants to play a good climber he should invest in strength, I' ve never seen skinny free-climbers IRL. Alternatively one could buy potions that enhance climbing. Plus being expertise in athletics for a rogue is pretty good anyways.

This does seem a reasonable comment. Rogues get the ability to be good if they want, if they want to develop their character in other ways that don't involve climbing and put their resources into that then they system also caters to them.

It seems to me that there might actually be fewer complaints if rogues got expertise in athletics and one other skill of their choice.

Only monks can climb faster than rogues with cunning action, and only when they run up vertical surfaces instead of climbing. Once reliable talent kicks in rogues are the best at tough climbs that need rolls as well.

[90sMusic]

This isn't a problem that is broken and it doesn't require a fix.

If you want to be good at climbing, you take proficiency in athletics. Boom. Done. It is absolutely no different from older editions where you had to spend skill points to be good at climbing, now you spend proficiency instead.

This is how the game works and how it is supposed to work. Dexterity is already extremely powerful giving AC, hit and damage on certain weapons automatically which used to require a magical item to accomplish, in addition to stealth, sleight of hand, and so on. Climbing is one of the few advantages strength users actually get. Being dextrous doesn't magically make you better at climbing if you still aren't strong enough to lift your body up. It is clearly a strength based ability and for good reason.

If people keep homebrewing things to throw more and more and more advantages to dex-based folks, there really is no reason to go strength because you don't get anywhere near the benefits.

You want dex to give you attack, damage, stealth, sleight of hand, acrobatics, AC, second most common save in the game (or most common depending on what kind of campaign you are running), etc. You also get attack and damage on ranged attacks.

Str gets.... attack, damage... athletics... A ****ty save used for only a handful of spells or situations. That's it.

Dexterity is already the bee's knees. It does not NEED anything else.

If you think you can climb something without having strength, I would love to see you try this. I honestly would. Would be hilarious to see some noodle armed person trying to scale anything that doesn't have large, convenient handholds.

Climbing is, and always should be, an athletics check. If you want to be better at it, you get more strength or you pick athletics. You can't have everything at no cost, that defeats the purpose of balance altogether. Rogues always had to spend skillpoints to be good at climbing, I don't see why you think suddenly it should be any different.

Of course DMs can change rules all willy nilly however they want and most of them do. You can tell yourself and try to convince others that it is "fair", but it really isn't. You can't just keep pumping one attribute up until it can do literally everything. Dex based climbing is as silly as Strength based stealth. I challenge you to find a video of a single person in the entire world that does anything like climbing buildings, even parkour style, that doesn't have muscles. :P

[NecroDancer]

In my group whenever the rogue needs to climb he just piggybacks on the Barbarian

[Vogonjeltz]

Even the "Party Magician" Wizard spends a lot of time in libraries honing his Art, and devotes himself to pursuits that develop his Intellect to a high enough degree to make his magics powerful. So yes, I would argue that he should be roughly as knowledgeable about historical lore as the Mercenary of undistinguished intelligence who likes to collect books on Olden Tymes.

That simply does not follow. Expertise in one particular field has essentially no bearing on expertise in another.

A Wizard specifically studies how to cast spells, that doesn't make them a renaissance man who can expound at length on early pre-tiamatian drow love sonnets or the mating habits of bulettes.

[Dalebert]

A Wizard specifically studies how to cast spells, that doesn't make them a renaissance man who can expound at length on early pre-tiamatian drow love sonnets or the mating habits of bulettes.

It sort of does to the extent that intelligence gives you your base roll for knowledge skills. I think of it as both of them have studied a lot and expertise would represent having studied a LOT in a particular area. Intelligence represents your ability to recall information you've studied. Two approaches:
1) Study what you care about a lot and make extra effort to commit to it memory.
2) Be so intelligent that you remember it pretty well even though you only glanced over it in the process of researching that summoning spell.

[GlenSmash!]

In my group whenever the rogue needs to climb he just piggybacks on the Barbarian

Vizzini: Faster!
Fezzik: I thought I was going faster.
Vizzini: You were supposed to be this colossus! You were this great, legendary thing! And yet he gains!
Fezzik: Well, I'm carrying three people. And he's got only himself.
Vizzini: I do not accept excuses! I'm just going to have to find myself a new giant, that's all.
Fezzik: Don't say that, Vizzini. Please?

If Fezzik is Max STR and Inigo is Max DEX, and Vizzini is Max INT, the Man in Black has spread his scores out across all three.

[djreynolds]

A rogue with an 8 in strength with expertise in athletics is basically the same score as someone with a 20 in strength with a proficiency in athletics.

You skill and experience in climbing and swimming is shown in your proficiency in athletics. So just take expertise in athletics and you can leave an 8 in strength.

I get that climbing uses a lot of dexterity IRL, but I would suspect a professional climber is strong as he is dexterous. Heck he probably has a very high constitution score also.

But if you allow dexterity to be used with athletics it will open up a big can of worms.

That's your fix, just take expertise in athletics.

[MrStabby]

I get that climbing uses a lot of dexterity IRL, but I would suspect a professional climber is strong as he is dexterous. Heck he probably has a very high constitution score also.



It's been a while since i did climbing but I felt it was all strength. None of it was about speed or reactions or balance and the challenge was not with the accuracy with which i placed my grip. Maybe some perception to spot handholds and, as suggested some constitution to keep going.

[imneuromancer]

Read through the thread and saw several people suggest that you can allow using Dexterity instead of Strength for Athletics checks. I didn't see the below addressed specifically:

Remember that skills and attributes are not necessarily linked. There are general attributes used for each skill, but the DM can call for or allow a different attribute to be used with a skill.

If it makes sense to make a strength(intimidation) check, that is OK. Or an intelligence(perception).

So there is no real problem with allowing a Dexterity(Athletics) roll. As has been said in the thread, this should probably be for short climbs such as scaling a house or parkouring up a set of walls (acrobatics could be used, too). For climbing a mountain, it should almost certainly be Strength(Athletics), or even Constitution(Athletics).

[Tanarii]

Remember that skills and attributes are not necessarily linked. There are general attributes used for each skill, but the DM can call for or allow a different attribute to be used with a skill.
It's worth noting that's a variant rule. Not the standard rule. That's said, it's a good one.

(And I'll note that PB, MC and Feats are also variants, but everyone just kinda assumes they'll be in play.)

[imneuromancer]

It's worth noting that's a variant rule. Not the standard rule. That's said, it's a good one.

Good point, I had actually never even noticed that was a VARIANT rule. To me it is such an obvious one that it seemed like a core mechanic.

It is too bad that it isn't a core mechanic, actually. There are a lot of cases where a constitution(athletics) would make a lot of sense, like long distance running.

Unlike Feats and Multiclass, skills with different abilities is a variant on giving the GM options for checks, not on adding character options. Seems a pretty safe variant to play with, even if you don't use Feats and MC.

[SharkForce]

the thing is, the attribute associated with a skill proficiency probably shouldn't be changed in a typical situation.

now, if you're in a situation where, say, you have to describe to someone a specific set of motions they need to perform to lift a heavy object without injuring themselves, then that's a pretty non-typical use of the athletics skill, and i would definitely allow another attribute (probably charisma or intelligence) if i was going to call for a skill check to describe the movements in such a way that others can understand them.

but if it's just "i'm going to climb something"? uhhhh.... no. that's not something beyond the expected use of the athletics skill proficiency, and strength makes perfect sense for it.

i would allow dexterity-based climbing in a weightless environment, i suppose. controlled movements would be more important (to prevent you from pushing off of the surface) than having sufficient strength to push yourself upwards, in that case. but again, that's not a typical use.

[Tanarii]

Unlike Feats and Multiclass, skills with different abilities is a variant on giving the GM options for checks, not on adding character options. Seems a pretty safe variant to play with, even if you don't use Feats and MC.The downside is it can lead to players trying to use their best stat in combination with anything they can find to be proficient in for any given check.

The upside is it's awesome flexibility and totally is a great variant rule. :smallwink:

I especially like Con (Athletics) for endurance tasks like long distance running and swimming, if time / fatigue sensitive for some reason.

[Cybren]

The downside is it can lead to players trying to use their best stat in combination with anything they can find to be proficient in for any given check.

The upside is it's awesome flexibility and totally is a great variant rule. :smallwink:

I especially like Con (Athletics) for endurance tasks like long distance running and swimming, if time / fatigue sensitive for some reason.

The solution to your perceived downside is that the DM should be the one determining if an alternate ability score applies, based on how the fictional positioning. "I'm climbing but like, really agile like" isn't sufficient positioning for a dex based athletics check, but climbing up and jumping between swinging ropes might be

[Tanarii]

The solution to your perceived downside is that the DM should be the one determining if an alternate ability score applies, based on how the fictional positioning. "I'm climbing but like, really agile like" isn't sufficient positioning for a dex based athletics check, but climbing up and jumping between swinging ropes might beDMs may decide, but it still gets old awfully fast when you have a player wording every action they take with the obvious intent to try and use their highest ability score in combination with something they're proficient with. Although I saw this far more commonly in 4e when (IIRC) the rule was first introduced. It seems to have died off as players and DMs have gotten used to the intent behind the rule.

[djreynolds]

Exactly. If I let you use dexterity for athletics checks, then you will try to use it for everything else.

In a game where many people use the standard array/27 point buy in and now dexterity is allowed to be used for the attack and damage modifier, people will look to dump a stat such as strength. Now with dexterity you can use a bow and a rapier, so what do you need strength for?

So its not about what you use to actually climb a cliff. Its what D&D says your character uses to climb a cliff or wall, and it is a athletics check which uses your strength modifier.

And rogues have been given a free pass with expertise, which allows you to basically leave strength at an 8-12 range yet compete with a much stronger fighter or barbarian in terms of athletics.

We all know real climbing takes a multitude of skills, and muscle, reflexes, etc., that's not really the issue. The issue is letting players totally dump stats. Next the bard will want to use athletics with charisma.

So athletics is a skill which uses strength as its modifier.

[MrStabby]

Next the bard will want to use athletics with charisma.



Why not let the bard try and persuade the cliff to be climbed? :smallsmile:

[Vestreet]

So people complain that their Rogue has to take STR and/or Athletics to climb skillfully, or that their Dex-based elf archer can't climb very well. Here's an easy solution that does not diminish the value of Athletics/STR, cleanly solves the issue of nimble Rogues who "can't get it up", without adding a bunch of rules to the game or altering any skills.

Climber's Kit - 25 gp is now a Tool proficiency, allowing you to move up to half of your normal movement while climbing, using your proficiency and Dexterity.

Second-Story Gear- 50 gp This specialized set of gear allows for climbing using the Thieves' Tools proficiency. Not easily concealable, this gear will arouse the attention of city guards and the like in civilized areas, as it is commonly associated with burglary.

Bam.

Now you have a Tool proficiency that can be taken with Background/paid for in-game, and specialized Thieves' Tools that allow the Rogue to scale with the best of them (think stuff like Nekode, or the custom stuff the Grey Mouser uses to scale Stardock).
And Athletics is still useful because it is still free-climbing, where you really need to get up that tower in a rush. (Think Cerebus in the Secret Sacred Wars arc, or Conan most of the time).


Im sorry i know this post is fairly old but i was starting to argue with my DM about this lately and i told him ill try to find a way to climb using my Dex (since im a rouge with -2 STR, he called me a munchkin and now im trying to find fair mechanic ways to use, so i found this "Second-Story-Gear" post and iv'e never heard about it, what book is it from, why cant i find it in any D&D websites and is it even a D&D 5E equip....?

[Unoriginal]

Im sorry i know this post is fairly old but i was starting to argue with my DM about this lately and i told him ill try to find a way to climb using my Dex (since im a rouge with -2 STR, he called me a munchkin and now im trying to find fair mechanic ways to use, so i found this "Second-Story-Gear" post and iv'e never heard about it, what book is it from, why cant i find it in any D&D websites and is it even a D&D 5E equip....?

Necroing a thread is against the forum's rules.

OP was talking about an homebrew they make, no official rules.


There is no way to climb using DEX, for good reasons.

[stoutstien]

Strength represents brute strength, like a bodybuilder, while dexterity represents wiry quickness, like a martial artist. Dexterity should be better for climbing than strength.



This is slightly off topic but I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what strength means. Not all but most bodybuilders are actually weaker if you're using strength/size ratios. I'm not saying they're weak I'm saying they're weak in comparison to how heavy they are. What strength is in a nut shell is actually power, the ability to apply Force to effect an objects velocity or prevent something from effecting yours.
In real life climbing is having maximum strength while having low weight.
Obviously we don't overcomplicate a skill system so is simple just to put under strength.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from "the dead." If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, don't reply to it. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss the subject (you are welcome to link to the old thread).


don't reply to necro'd thread. please start a new one.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Edit: Full disclosure, I'm a rock-climber. Being bulky weight-lifter strong isn't helpful because lots of added weight works against your rock-shoes. But it's definitely a strength-based skill, but also hugely about training. And climbing without modern super-grip rock shoes, it'd be almost exclusively an arm-strength skill, meaning bulky weight-lifter would be on a far more even foot... uh, arming. Not that detailed real-world knowledge should necessarily be the basis for what's ultimately abstract resolution. But it definitely biases my view of it.

Cool! I am also a climber. If D&D was to accurately model climbing it would take:

Strength for cranking
Dexterity for flexibility and balance
Constitution for muscle endurance
Wisdom to judge rock condition and gear placement

Which would be way too fiddly.

[Tanarii]

stuff
Please don't quote posts I made two years ago.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please don't thread necro.