Ok just to set the scene:
PC 1 has climbed up 20 feet. They have a rope but can’t find anywhere to anchor it.
PC 1 holds onto one end of the rope while setting the other end down. With the intent of them using their sheer strength to hold onto the rope as they party climbs up it. PC 2 climbs up the rope
I am aware of the Bulk rules. Now if the total weight for PC 2 doesn't push past PC 1's bulk limit. Then no check is needed. But if it pushes them to being encumbered. I was thinking of an athletics check, maybe DC 15 or 20?
Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?
The sass isn't needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?The sass isn't needed.
I don't know Evilgm well enough to analyze if that's sass, but they are echoing a GMing principle albeit via questions. It's a principle I believe that PF2 advises too. That is if success/failure are not interesting to the narrative then don't make players roll; save rolls for when it matters, trivial rolls dampen pacing (even if realistic), etc.
Which is to say, as with the scene you've set, if there are no other pressures, simply describe the heroic exertion required and move past that (non-)obstacle. But, say if a monster's chasing the party or maybe the fall's treacherous enough, then sure, a basic Athletics check might fit in except "being encumbered" seems far too low a bar IMO. That merely slows a PC down, it doesn't threaten to topple them nor risk dropping what they're carrying.
So in answer to your question: neither DC. No check without extenuating circumstances, and never a check for just becoming encumbered from holding a rope.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that was sass.
It seems a fair question to me. What is the intent? How do you want this to play out?
Having two characters roll a check with a 50% chance of failure - where both characters need to succeed at the roll in order for the event to happen - means that the probability drops to 25% chance of the entire event succeeding.
So if that is your intent - to make this scene of climbing the cliff by having one character holding the rope for the others be a super hard, really thematic, pinnacle of the adventure type of thing... Then that is certainly one way of doing it. Maybe add a third check to drop the probability to 12.5%. And adding a fourth (easiest by making the climb take two checks each from both characters) would drop the probability of overall success to 6.25%. Which is approximately equal to a DC 20 flat check.
So if the intent of your scene isn't to be 'nat-20 or you fail', then maybe we could suggest something more along the lines of a Victory Point skill encounter if you want to go with a full scene, or just a -2 penalty on the climbing character's roll if you want to just handle it with a simple roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd treat it as dragging. That is, apply half the climber's bulk against your limit. If it doesn't exceed your limit, then no checks are necessary. If desired, you can raise or lower your companion at the dragging speed (about 50 feet per minute, or 5 feet per round).
If it exceeds your limits, then I'd call for an Athletics check (Expert Simple DC 20 fits I think) the moment you begin to contend with the weight to avoid dropping the load. If the load is excessive (say, over twice your bulk limit all by itself), you would just automatically fail. Even a success would be short lived, making long drops exceedingly more difficult for the foolhardy. In any case, I'd ensure the players understand the mechanics of what their characters are doing prior to their deciding to put their characters at risk of falling.
In general though, I agree with other posters that the above is probably more complicated than it needs to be for most situations.
I'd treat it as dragging. That is, apply half the climber's bulk against your limit. If it doesn't exceed your limit, then no checks are necessary. If desired, you can raise or lower your companion at the dragging speed (about 50 feet per minute, or 5 feet per round).
If it exceeds your limits, then I'd call for an Athletics check (Expert Simple DC 20 fits I think) the moment you begin to contend with the weight to avoid dropping the load. If the load is excessive (say, over twice your bulk limit all by itself), you would just automatically fail. Even a success would be short lived, making long drops exceedingly more difficult for the foolhardy. In any case, I'd ensure the players understand the mechanics of what their characters are doing prior to their deciding to put their characters at risk of falling.
In general though, I agree with other posters that the above is probably more complicated than it needs to be for most situations.
I'd vote this one but changing the DC depending how much it exceeds. If you are close to drag it automatically with your Str I think is not something for "expert" training.
It really depends on the rope friction on various surfaces. If there's no friction (the rope is vertical, you are literally carrying the PC) then there should be a check. If there's a lot of friction, like the rope is around some tree or whatever, then no check is needed. If there's low friction, like the rope having an angle at the top of the cliff, then a low DC check (DC 10) may work.
But overall it's not that hard to maintain a rope for someone who climbs unless you are not really strong and the one who climbs is (but in general it goes the other way around).
lets look at it another way:
has the one holding the rope enough bulk free to carry the other character (+however much bulk is on them)? if yes, no check needed
since every character can carry 10+str bulk and a medium character weighs 8 (small characters 4) this would in many cases say 'no check needed' or 'sort your equipment, the character and backpack take turns
(i.e. tie the backpack to the rope, climb up, then pull up the backpack)
makes it more narrative and logistics management then adding unneccessary rolls
theres also the possibility of adding artificial anchor points (knock two pinions in the ground, pull the rope around them and boom, easy anchor point)
otherwise I like Raven Blacks idea of letting it count as aid check
Personally, I wouldn't require a Strength or Climb check unless you're trying to hold the rope for Andre the Giant or heaving/hauling up a grand piano or something. It bogs down the session with unneeded, easily fail-able checks, and if you fail, it leads to more nonsense and further derailing my sesh away from the important/fun stuff I have planned.
That being said, if you're still wanting to make your players do a check for this, I would only require a climb check for the player who is climbing the rope (PC 2); the player who is holding the rope (PC 1) will be "Aiding" the climber, so PC1 would also make a climb check to Aid Another for a +1 circumstance bonus to PC2's Climb Check, or a +2, +3, or +4 circumstance bonus depending on the Athletics Proficiency of PC1 and if the Aid roll is a critical success.
As far as setting a DC, if it's a flat wall with no grab-points or footholds (like a castle wall or a guard shack), that's probably a 30-35DC on a 20ft wall. If it's a wall with grab-points and footholds (like an unworked cavern wall), I would consider a 20ft climb as "Average", so I'd set the climb check at 15-20DC.
Climb
[one-action]
Move
Source Core Rulebook pg. 241 4.0
Requirements You have both hands free.
You move up, down, or across an incline. Unless it’s particularly easy, you must attempt an Athletics check. The GM determines the DC based on the nature of the incline and environmental circumstances. You’re flat-footed unless you have a climb Speed.Critical Success You move up, across, or safely down the incline for 5 feet plus 5 feet per 20 feet of your land Speed (a total of 10 feet for most PCs).
Success You move up, across, or safely down the incline for 5 feet per 20 feet of your land Speed (a total of 5 feet for most PCs, minimum 5 feet if your Speed is below 20 feet).
Critical Failure You fall. If you began the climb on stable ground, you fall and land prone.
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
TLDR: GM sets the Climb DC at whatever his lil heart desires
...since every character can carry 10+str bulk and a medium character weighs 8 (small characters 4...
Isn't it 6 and 3, respectively?
...since every character can carry 10+str bulk and a medium character weighs 8 (small characters 4...Isn't it 6 and 3, respectively?
Yes...
plus the equipment that they are wearing.
One note, while carrying bulk is considered with your whole body, in the case of holding (or lifting) a rope could be different as your arms could (usually) be the weaker link of the chain.
Got the numbers wrong but since it's even less I think it supports my Point :P
One note, while carrying bulk is considered with your whole body, in the case of holding (or lifting) a rope could be different as your arms could (usually) be the weaker link of the chain.
Except a rope centralizes the weight distribution, something which typically lowers Bulk (which factors in size as well as mass). Also, stepping on the rope or wrapping it around oneself would be viable choices too while "holding" it. The rope could as easily be hooked on to one's vest, using no hands, and the Bulk rules would work the same. Yet "how it's held" has long been moot too since we're dealing with abstractions, PF2 already having ditched detail with the rules change from weight to Bulk. Heck, it's so abstract one could just as easily say one carries all their unworn Bulk in their forearm-pack if they desire. While there's a tendency toward realism, or at least verisimilitude, the PF2 system is just as viable with fantastic, even cartoonish, interpretations.
But IMO narrative takes priority. If one wishes to haggle & wrangle with every hiccup of an obstacle, that's a choice, yet how much adventuring will that ultimately represent? PF2 advice suggests GMing otherwise, to only focus on the pivotal or consequential ones.