My monk recently attempted to climb sideways along the outside of a castle's battlements by hanging from the crenels. It was my intent to sneak past and spring up behind an enemy on the battlements while my allies confronted him more directly to keep his attention off of me.
I used a monkey pin which, with my high speed would have allowed me to climb the distance in a single Climb action.
I then proceeded to fail 6 consecutive Athletics checks, making no progress for two rounds, while my allies slew the braggard via more traditional means (arrow, axe, and badger). So much for my plan to surprise-shove him off the castle and end things quickly and efficiently.
My amazing cinematic heroism was foiled to such an extent the the GM awarded me a Hero Pity Point for my trouble. (This was the last encounter, so this was just unintentional salt in the wound.)
What do you think the DC would be to shimmy along a battlements' crenels?
The GM later told me that he set it at 25, 20 for expert difficulty, then 5 more for poor conditions (smooth, wet, crumbling old stones). Conditions that he neglected to inform me of prior to my hopping over the ledge at great risk of death.
We were 1st-level. I had an Athletics modifier of +7, the highest possible at this level.
Feeling a little cheated out of my one big moment in the last three games and wanted to get some second opinions on whether that DC was appropriate or not.
First of all, I think DC 20 for a decent castle is to be expected. So he's got you there.
As for the "smooth, wet, crumbling old stones" you would be able to see that easily, so poo-poo on them for not saying as much. The stones being "smooth" and "crumbling" contradict each other; choose one. Them being "old" would make it easier, not harder (more hand holds) unless they were "crumbling", but then not "smooth". Being "wet" does complicate things, but unless it's actively raining or has a stream pouring over it, it wouldn't be that bad.
This is what I would rule:
if it was old, crumbling, and wet: DC 17 (DC 20 for expert, -5 for old and crumbling, +2 for wet)
if it was smooth and wet: DC 25 (DC 20 expert, +5 poor conditions) though it would have been explained to be such, as - unless your character is blind - they would be able to see these things before the attempt was made.
I don't know that I would have added +5 to the DC, but the base DC of 20 definitely seems appropriate.
For modifiers I would have capped the increase to the DC at 4, but I might have only given a +2 instead.
So I think DC 22 to DC 24 would have been more appropriate, but your GM wasn't too far off either. You still would have failed 70% of the time based on my DC 22 estimate. And potentially would have critically failed 20% of the time. If Dc 24 raise those by another 10% each.
What your Gm is really guilty of is not telling you about the modifying conditions (smooth wet stone) so you could make a decision about what your chances of success were likely to be.
Hmmm. My first check was a 23. Everything after was equal or lower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a rule of cool GM so I wouldn't have made it easier, this sort of stunt isn't really a good fit for what the game expects a level 1 character to pull off easily.
Where I think the GM made a mistake was
- Not warning you how dangerous you would think the task would be
- Not giving you adequate information on altering elements
The DC is quite fitting though, and if the GM had described it as raining or the castle as old I could understand why they may have slipped up. But I still think not warning the player that they are about to do something with low chances of success is worthwhile at level 1.
Rope is a thing. I agree that this action is somewhat extreme for a 1st-level character. But hey, that's what the "grab an edge" action was made for, eh?
As a general rule of thumb, DCs for tasks without levels are based off the simple DCs found in the skills chapter:
Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface
So 20 is almost certainly the right baseline, and the GM then has the abilty to adjust this based on circumstances, with the suggested increments being 2, 5, and 10.
However, I'm pretty sure I know the scenario you were dealing with, and crumbling walls with loose stones explicitly had a DC 20 for these walls. Furthermore, it explicitly says the PCs can tell this with DC 10 Crafting check. Even if that required an action in combat, y'all should have had a chance to figure that out before you actually entered the castle.
So I'm pretty sure your GM overlooked this paragraph and made what sounded like reasonable adjustments from the CRB. Unless it happened to explicitly rain, those other factors are already accounted for. Furthermore, your GM should have given you an opportunity to identify the DC. The monk in my campaign wanted to do the exact thing you did and I warned her of the risks and difficulty.
Thanks Captain Morgan, and others, for explaining the DCs and such. I had a fair idea of how the GM came to his conclusion, and I don't fault him for it, but it's nice to have it confirmed. To his credit, he did say the castle was old and that the DC would be hard. I just didn't think it would be "need an 18" hard (I would have guessed DC 20-22 myself).
He never said anything about rain or damp slippery stone until after the fact, but the map made it clear that the whole castle was crumbly, what with several collapsed walls and the like.
I'm feeling a little less special now knowing there were other monks who've considered similar tactics, but at least I'm happy knowing the GM just innocently overlooked or forgot the rule. Now I can rest easy knowing that, in my own head canon at least, my monk made it across and helped save the day.
As a general lesson for your GM, APs USUALLY have somewhere at the beginning of a dungeon where they list factors like ceiling heights, wall DCs, and lighting. Usually it is within the first couple of pages on said dungeon. Always worth checking for stuff like this.
As a general lesson for your GM, APs USUALLY have somewhere at the beginning of a dungeon where they list factors like ceiling heights, wall DCs, and lighting. Usually it is within the first couple of pages on said dungeon. Always worth checking for stuff like this.
I'm sure he went over it in the first game. I recall him telling us about the ceiling height and other details. But that was two games ago (this one being our third), so I'm guessing he probably just forgot about it.
|
Alternate route. Perhaps less "realistic" but more "cinematic":
There are two tables for base DCs. Your DM used Simple DCs.
Knowing the system math, and wanting his PCs to feel challenged but have a reasonable chance of success (especially at the expenditure of resources), he could have used Level-Based DCs, perhaps with the "Hard" or "Very Hard" DC Adjustment, resulting in a Climb DC of 17 or 20.
And deciding how "nice" he wants to be based on that algorithm ("Hard" or "Very Hard").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternate route. Perhaps less "realistic" but more "cinematic":
There are two tables for base DCs. Your DM used Simple DCs.
Knowing the system math, and wanting his PCs to feel challenged but have a reasonable chance of success (especially at the expenditure of resources), he could have used Level-Based DCs, perhaps with the "Hard" or "Very Hard" DC Adjustment, resulting in a Climb DC of 17 or 20.
And deciding how "nice" he wants to be based on that algorithm ("Hard" or "Very Hard").
This is a really bad approach for this specific scenario. Not only does it create the same sort of "why does climbing this tree scale with my level" controversy that plagued the Playtest (and still is a little bit in effect for AoA, I've been told) but that check being impractical is very much intended. If the DC to climb the walls was lower, Ravingdork might have been able to pull his shimmy off, but he also could have scaled the walls from the outside and bypassed an entire dungeon, and would probably wind up having to fight an APL+1 enemy on his own before he could drop a rope down for his friends to follow.
Level based DCs are meant to be used when there is a level attached to the opposition. Static DCs are the better solution when there isn't. And some DCs simply aren't meant to be doable.
|
|
Alternate route. Perhaps less "realistic" but more "cinematic":
There are two tables for base DCs. Your DM used Simple DCs.
Knowing the system math, and wanting his PCs to feel challenged but have a reasonable chance of success (especially at the expenditure of resources), he could have used Level-Based DCs, perhaps with the "Hard" or "Very Hard" DC Adjustment, resulting in a Climb DC of 17 or 20.
And deciding how "nice" he wants to be based on that algorithm ("Hard" or "Very Hard").
This is a really bad approach for this specific scenario. Not only does it create the same sort of "why does climbing this tree scale with my level" controversy that plagued the Playtest (and still is a little bit in effect for AoA, I've been told) but that check being impractical is very much intended. If the DC to climb the walls was lower, Ravingdork might have been able to pull his shimmy off, but he also could have scaled the walls from the outside and bypassed an entire dungeon, and would probably wind up having to fight an APL+1 enemy on his own before he could drop a rope down for his friends to follow.
Level based DCs are meant to be used when there is a level attached to the opposition. Static DCs are the better solution when there isn't. And some DCs simply aren't meant to be doable.
Are you implying that creating encounters that appropriately challenge the PCs of a certain level is the "wrong" way to do it?
How is a "Level 1 Castle" any different from a "Level 1 Villian"?
To be clear, I'm not proposing this as the only alternative. Just an alternative.
Cheers!
Are you implying that creating encounters that appropriately challenge the PCs of a certain level is the "wrong" way to do it?
To an extent, this is sound encounter design. If taken too far, it can make the world feel extremely sterile and robs players of their progression.
I'll use the following scenario as an example to illustrate what I mean: The players are tasked with getting into contact with a jailed individual within King's Castle. The individual has an item the players will receive, which was hidden from the guards.
At level 1, players generally can't climb the walls of a castle and would have to find some other way in. Perhaps one of them can enlist as kitchen staff if they're a good liar? If they get caught they'll have little chance of escape so they'll have to plan this out well.
At level 5, the rogue is able to scale the walls stealthily and take out lone guard with ease assuming they aren't spotted. When part of the ramparts has been secured, they can lower a rope or ladder for their compatriots. They might be able to rescue the contact from the jail cell rather than just getting the item.
At level 9, if the players are able to scout out the castle, the Wizard can cast Passwall in the right places and stage the rescue operation at night. Even if they get caught, the players are able to put up a fight and escape easily.
Notice that this was all the same encounter, but was approachable by parties of wildly differing levels. Letting players run into these kinds of encounters really sell the progression of leveling up, far more than level 1-9 castles where players are always able to scale the walls without question.
And again, the castle walls here isn't meant to be level 1. Making it an "appropriate challenge" means the book's entire second chapter is shot if the players actually overcome it.
In a vacuum, using a level based obstacle can work, but in this particular castle in this particular AP it would be really awful.
Keep in mind that I'm maxed out for climbing, have invested feats and abilities into climbing, and even used a magical item to enhance my climbing. And even then I'd still need a good roll or risk instant death (the height was such that the resulting damage would have more than doubled my total hit points) based on the conservative posters' numbers in this thread.
Even after all of that, being told "no" is like encountering a forever-locked door in a video game. It's disheartening and frustrating, especially since I came to roleplaying to get away from that lack of player agency.
I'm fine with their being different "levels of castles." Perhaps one is old and roughened and easier to climb whereas another is made of magical ice, which is slippery, smooth, and nearly impossible to climb.
What I wouldn't be fine with, is if the same castle's DCs changed for no other reason than we leveled up. Again, that destroys verisimilitude, immersion, and player agency. Just don't do it.
The crumbly old castle should not be just as hard to climb at 20th-level as it is at 1st.
Keep in mind that I'm maxed out for climbing, have invested feats and abilities into climbing, and even used a magical item to enhance my climbing. And even then I'd still need a good roll or risk instant death (the height was such that the resulting damage would have more than doubled my total hit points) based on the conservative posters' numbers in this thread.
Even after all of that, being told "no" is like encountering a forever-locked door in a video game. It's disheartening and frustrating, especially since I came to roleplaying to get away from that lack of player agency.
I'm fine with their being different "levels of castles." Perhaps one is old and roughened and easier to climb whereas another is made of magical ice, which is slippery, smooth, and nearly impossible to climb.
What I wouldn't be fine with, is if the same castle's DCs changed for no other reason than we leveled up. Again, that destroys verisimilitude, immersion, and player agency. Just don't do it.
The crumbly old castle should not be just as hard to climb at 20th-level as it is at 1st.
Indeed, that DC really shouldn't go up. At level 1 though, it was appropriately difficult as written (but not how your GM ran it.) The big issue with a lower DC wasn't what you tried to do, but if you'd successfully scaled it from the ground. You'd probably have died from something you had no way of seeing coming. Instead, you should be told how dangerous what you were attempting was.
Indeed, that DC really shouldn't go up. At level 1 though, it was appropriately difficult as written (but not how your GM ran it.) The big issue with a lower DC wasn't what you tried to do, but if you'd successfully scaled it from the ground. You'd probably have died from something you had no way of seeing coming. Instead, you should be told how dangerous what you were attempting was.
It wouldn't be the first time. I once had a ranger scale an abandoned, overgrown tower to get a better view of the surroundings for the party below.
A trio of assassin vines nesting at the top made short work of him.
If it is the order of the nail citadel, it isn't that tall. A fall from the battlements would be ~35-40 feet.
Substancial for a human, not too far for a pf2e character (given that you would need ~60 ft. fall to kill a character with 15hp outright, ignoring grab edge reactions and other benefits.
Not that falling and going into dying is something you want either :)...
GM told me it was 60 feet from the battlements to the roof below for our castle.