# Is it just me or is the spell Rope Trick kind of absurd?



## Mort (Jan 2, 2019)

So the thread on whether Rope Trick is a heal spell is 180 replies and counting, this isn't that thread.

I actually looked at the spell for the first time in a while (none of my players took it) and, well, isn't it kind of absurd? 

1. Strictly by RAW it doesn't actually provide a short rest. A short rest requires an hour *or more* of rest. Rope trick lasts exactly an hour, presumably including the time it takes to get inside the rope trick space (the spell doesn't say). Is it just a case of short rests used to be shorter (10 minutes in the playtest) and the designers never bothered to fix it, who knows? 

- this isn't a big deal, just say the spell 1 hour duration starts when everyone gets in, handwave the extra couple of rounds etc. But the fact that it's ambiguous is annoying! Also, what happens if the wizard casts it and before the party can climb up they get into a fight (this is actually somewhat likely, you wouldn't cast the spell if the area was "safe). should we handwave it then too, or is the short rest blown? was the spell actually just intended to be a brief hidey hole and the short rest is incidental? Again very irritating.

But worse:

2. The party has to climb up to 60' of rope (regular presumably not knotted rope, and don't you even think of using a rope ladder though interestingly, rope isn't part of the material component) to get into the darned thing! If it's not near a wall, that's not easy!

That's just funny to me. Sure, the DM can be generous and just rule it's 1/2 or 1/4 automatic movement (which again eats into the 1 hour duration, probably a lot, but lets not go there?) but what if he rules it's a stressful situation and requires a DC 10 athletics check? There's a pretty good chance the party will be fumbling around for quite a while trying to get everyone up there!

And, I'm sorry, maybe it's mean - but if the party keeps using this spell - at some point, I'm having a villain be smart enough to shoot at them while their going up. Or more likely, wait for them and have archers shoot at them coming down!

Has anyone else been struck by the silliness or absurdity of this spell?


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

1. The spell provides you with a safe space for 1 hour, which is sufficient for a short rest. A short rest only requires that the character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.

2. The spell requires a length of rope *up to* 60 feet long which means it can be significantly shorter.

In my games, this spell is a good choice to avoid 6 wandering monster checks in the dungeon while resting. And that's fine by me.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 2, 2019)

It is absurd. It’s based on “The Indian Rope Trick”.  Like many of the earliest D&D stuff it was just grabbed and put in like a madman’s stew.


----------



## WhosDaDungeonMaster (Jan 2, 2019)

Mort said:


> Has anyone else been struck by the silliness or absurdity of this spell?




Why climb a rope? I am guessing it is in theme with the snake-charmer trick, but otherwise I see no justification for the methods. Why not just make the extra-dimensional space in a wall or the floor?

So, yes, to both the spell and the other thread.


----------



## thorgrit (Jan 2, 2019)

2. "up to" is the key phrase here. If your wizard pulls out the tangle of 50' rope to use for this spell, instead of a short section, you can just slap them. By reading the spell, 60' is the maximum length, there's no listed minimum, so you could theoretically hold a 1' section somewhere around waist- to chest-high, and just duck a bit to climb in, not even using the rope at all.


----------



## mortwatcher (Jan 2, 2019)

Oh don't worry, Leomund's Tiny Hut is just around the corner and that is the proper abuse material.


----------



## not-so-newguy (Jan 2, 2019)

It beats crawling into a Bag of Holding, as any fan of the Critical Failures book series can attest. I like the quirkiness FWIW


----------



## Mort (Jan 2, 2019)

iserith said:


> 1. The spell provides you with a safe space for 1 hour, which is sufficient for a short rest. A short rest only requires that the character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.




Not exactly. A short rest is *at least* an hour. This spell last *exactly* an hour, including getting into the space. Even if the rope is near non-existent, it still takes time.

But that's not even the point. the point is the spell is needlessly ambiguous, and that's always annoying. 

If a player took this spell (which is not likely in my group my group. There are a sorcerer, bard and warlock and none have it on their list) I'd let them use it for the short rest, as likely intended - but It's still just silly.



iserith said:


> 2. The spell requires a length of rope *up to* 60 feet long which means it can be significantly shorter.




Yes it can, and in a dungeon , or inside, would kind of have to be. Not disagreeing in the slightest. But the spell explicitly mentions up to 60' of rope. And that image (of adventurers frantically climbing and often failing) just struck me as hilarious and absurd.



iserith said:


> In my games, this spell is a good choice to avoid 6 wandering monster checks in the dungeon while resting. And that's fine by me.




Oh, it's fine for that (though again, needlessly ambiguous) , I jut find it somewhat silly and absurd.


----------



## Mort (Jan 2, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> It is absurd. It’s based on “The Indian Rope Trick”.  Like many of the earliest D&D stuff it was just grabbed and put in like a madman’s stew.




And because it's now been in every edition since (though I don't think it made it into 4th?) It's now achieved legacy status and here we are.

Next time I actually get to play, I'm making a buff mage with athletics - just so when asked I can say "do you have *any* idea how much they made us practice for that stupid rope trick spell!"

or maybe not.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 2, 2019)

"Needlessly" ambiguous?

It's true, they could have put in language to clarify that it's usable for a short rest, or make the duration 1 hour plus 1 round, or whatever. But if they put in such language to resolve every possible ambiguity, the PHB would be the length of an encyclopedia. I think it is reasonable to expect players to figure out that if a spell gives you a safe hidey-hole, and the duration of the spell equals the length of a short rest, you can in fact take a short-rest in the hidey-hole.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 2, 2019)

It is a good example of how the book isn't written with exacting technical precision, at least. If you assume that it's supposed to let you rest, and RAW says you can't actually use it to rest, then it should give you a better sense of how to interpret things.


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

Mort said:


> Not exactly. A short rest is *at least* an hour. This spell last *exactly* an hour, including getting into the space. Even if the rope is near non-existent, it still takes time.
> 
> But that's not even the point. the point is the spell is needlessly ambiguous, and that's always annoying.
> 
> If a player took this spell (which is not likely in my group my group. There are a sorcerer, bard and warlock and none have it on their list) I'd let them use it for the short rest, as likely intended - but It's still just silly.




What's ambiguous about it? You cast the spell to create a safe space which can be used to take a short rest.



Mort said:


> Yes it can, and in a dungeon , or inside, would kind of have to be. Not disagreeing in the slightest. But the spell explicitly mentions up to 60' of rope. And that image (of adventurers frantically climbing and often failing) just struck me as hilarious and absurd.




Why are they "frantically climbing" and "often failing?" Climbing is a factor of speed and ability checks are called for only in certain circumstances such as the climbing surface being slippery or having few handholds. I don't think a rope qualifies here on that basis.


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

Dausuul said:


> "Needlessly" ambiguous?
> 
> It's true, they could have put in language to clarify that it's usable for a short rest, or make the duration 1 hour plus 1 round, or whatever. But if they put in such language to resolve every possible ambiguity, the PHB would be the length of an encyclopedia. I think it is reasonable to expect players to figure out that if a spell gives you a safe hidey-hole, and the duration of the spell equals the length of a short rest, you can in fact take a short-rest in the hidey-hole.




Further, even if the DM is a stickler for how long you're in the extradimensional space, a short rest does not require being in the space the whole time. Not sure why this is a problem.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jan 2, 2019)

iserith said:


> Further, even if the DM is a stickler for how long you're in the extradimensional space, a short rest does not require being in the space the whole time. Not sure why this is a problem.




A couple of people in that *other thread* tried to make the case that climbing the rope into the space is "more strenuous" than what is allowed for a short rest, which I just do not buy. If the climb required an Athletics check, that'd be one thing, but it doesn't, so AFAIC it's no more strenuous than walking around your campsite or house.


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> A couple of people in that *other thread* tried to make the case that climbing the rope into the space is "more strenuous" than what is allowed for a short rest, which I just do not buy. If the climb required an Athletics check, that'd be one thing, but it doesn't, so AFAIC it's no more strenuous than walking around your campsite or house.




I haven't read that thread, but while a DM is entitled to rule that something is "strenuous," that sounds like a _very_ weak argument to me. It's not even clear to me what goal is achieved by holding such a viewpoint.


----------



## Mort (Jan 2, 2019)

iserith said:


> Why are they "frantically climbing" and "often failing?" Climbing is a factor of speed and ability checks are called for only in certain circumstances such as the climbing surface being slippery or having few handholds. I don't think a rope qualifies here on that basis.




Then you're being generous - not that I disagree. I'd probably just say, ok you climb the rope - boom done.

BUT - as part of my procrastination for today, I googled it. Seems some DMs want to impose as high as a DC 15 check to climb a (the) rope. That's a relatively hard check and will lead to a lot of fumbling about (not to mention the mage that cast the spell being the one least likely able to climb the rope).


----------



## DeanP (Jan 2, 2019)

Do not diss the quirky, dimensional bunker! Great for hiding from five headed dragon gods.


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

Mort said:


> Then you're being generous - not that I disagree. I'd probably just say, ok you climb the rope - boom done.
> 
> BUT - as part of my procrastination for today, I googled it. Seems some DMs want to impose as high as a DC 15 check to climb a (the) rope. That's a relatively hard check and will lead to a lot of fumbling about (not to mention the mage that cast the spell being the one least likely able to climb the rope).




While the rules serve the DM and not the other way around, I don't see any support in the rules for an ability check to climb a rope and plenty of support for my ruling which treats it as a factor of speed with no check. That puts calling for an ability check on shaky ground in my view, barring some other circumstance that makes climbing the rope have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

But then quite a few DMs in my experience (and players too) follow a process that looks like "If climb, then Strength (Athletics) check..." regardless of how the rules say we're supposed to adjudicate actions in D&D 5e. *shrug*


----------



## Oofta (Jan 2, 2019)

As others have said, the book isn't written in a technical style.  I always just assume it's a magic climbing rope that everybody can always climb. In addition, there's nothing that says it _can't_ be a knotted rope.  Or have the person with the best climb skill goes first and pulls the others up.  

To me the clear intent is for it to provide a safe place for a short rest, so that's what it does.  Of course if the group is abusing the spell there are many ways of countering it including simply having extra patrols in the area the group was last seen for an hour or so.

I'm sure there are many other examples of how this kind of strict reading could cause issues, but I've only ever seen it come up in forums not at the table.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 2, 2019)

i think, a rope ladder would qualify as the up to 60 ft long rope. Yes, is not fully perpendicular to the ground, but nothing says, that all knots are loosened. So it is up to the DM.
As time is concerned: Everyone arguing about a few seconds of an hour in this spell or others will be dropped out of my group for sure. It would be absurd if a castng time would be given as An hour and 1 minute.

I am just reminded to the joke:

"The teacher shows a coin and tells the students, that it is 200 years old. Next day she asks how old the coin is. One student raises his hand and says: 200 years and a day."


----------



## FrogReaver (Jan 2, 2019)

UngeheuerLich said:


> i think, a rope ladder would qualify as the up to 60 ft long rope. Yes, is not fully perpendicular to the ground, but nothing says, that all knots are loosened. So it is up to the DM.
> As time is concerned: Everyone arguing about a few seconds of an hour in this spell or others will be dropped out of my group for sure. It would be absurd if a castng time would be given as An hour and 1 minute.
> 
> I am just reminded to the joke:
> ...




It also doesn’t say the rope isnt poisoned and anyone touching it doesn’t immediately dies...


----------



## iserith (Jan 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> It also doesn’t say the rope isnt poisoned and anyone touching it doesn’t immediately dies...




That must be the "trick" part of the spell.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 2, 2019)

I can assure you, it isn't just you. 

It's a legacy spell, but the legacy of the spell is different than how the spell is being used currently: In 2nd edition, it had a duration measured in turns. In 3rd edition, it was measured in hours, but you couldn't' really rest in it until you were level 8 (and presumably couldn't even then, because your party had some kind of extra-dimensional storage like a handy haversack). It was meant to be an alternate invisibility spell first and foremost. Using it to rest is iffy to begin with, and the less ambiguous safe resting spells (_Catnap_ and _Leomund’s Tiny Hut_) are an entire level above it.


----------



## Supergyro (Jan 2, 2019)

I would most caster would need to do the 1' rope thing since, well, rope climbing 60' is not a trivial task.

I remember knocking myself out ropeclimbing in elementary school, I was a spider monkey then in comparison to my current adult physique, and only 15' was enough to leave my arms nothing but painful sticks of agony rubber.


----------



## Krachek (Jan 2, 2019)

Why using theological reasoning when a DM can just banish a spell or two.
Assume your setting choice, if you don’t want short or long rest in dungeon just assume it.


----------



## Iry (Jan 2, 2019)

*IF* casting the spell counts as strenuous activity, the rest of the party can start resting before your spell is actually cast. Their short rest finishes before you depart the rope trick. Assuming you don't get attacked 6 seconds after getting out of the rope (which is possible), your short rest finishes.

If there is any contention about climbing the rope, just use 0 feet of rope. There are not many situations where you absolutely need lots of rope distance.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 2, 2019)

thorgrit said:


> 2. "up to" is the key phrase here. If your wizard pulls out the tangle of 50' rope to use for this spell, instead of a short section, you can just slap them. By reading the spell, 60' is the maximum length, there's no listed minimum, so you could theoretically hold a 1' section somewhere around waist- to chest-high, and just duck a bit to climb in, not even using the rope at all.



On the other hand, the "up to 60 feet" does give the spell a handy secondary use as a poor man's Levitate if you need to reach a spot on a high ceiling.



Mort said:


> And because it's now been in every edition since (though I don't think it made it into 4th?) It's now achieved legacy status and here we are.



4e had what I felt was a much neater solution, one that was much favoured by our group at the time. I don't recall the exact name of the item, but it was a magic dagger that allowed you to carve a doorway into a wall, then open it and step through into an extradimensional space just large enough to accommodate a reasonably-sized party. Once closed from the inside, the door was invisible, and the room would last for eight hours. The dagger was usable once per day.

Also, 4e's short rests were much shorter (10 minutes?), so there wasn't much call to make special arrangements for them - even if you were interrupted, it wouldn't take up much of your working day.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2019)

iserith said:


> Why are they "frantically climbing" and "often failing?" Climbing is a factor of speed and ability checks are called for only in certain circumstances such as the climbing surface being slippery or having few handholds. I don't think a rope qualifies here on that basis.



 I am going to assume you never had to deal with a grade school gym class then... because I can even today lift and carry 100+lbs (and have had to) but I can't climb a rope...I could not at 8 or 15, and now at more then double that still can't... anyone even with a 16 str (lets just assume the whole party doesn't have 16+str) has a hard time doing it under the best of conditions...and if someone has an 11 or less (god forbid the 8) it should be almost impossible.



Gladius Legis said:


> A couple of people in that *other thread* tried to make the case that climbing the rope into the space is "more strenuous" than what is allowed for a short rest, which I just do not buy. If the climb required an Athletics check, that'd be one thing, but it doesn't, so AFAIC it's no more strenuous than walking around your campsite or house.




LOL...omg you think climbing a rope is as easy as walking down a hall... again I ask, did you not have rope climb torture in grade and middle school???


Now I don't think I would assign a super high DC to climb it...but let me look at climb DCs in book...

and I can't find any...so I guess climbing both is and isn't an athletics check... So I will go by my own experience here and say you can't climb a rope untrained, but trained it is a DC 10ish


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2019)

MarkB said:


> On the other hand, the "up to 60 feet" does give the spell a handy secondary use as a poor man's Levitate if you need to reach a spot on a high ceiling.
> 
> 
> 4e had what I felt was a much neater solution, one that was much favoured by our group at the time. I don't recall the exact name of the item, but it was a magic dagger that allowed you to carve a doorway into a wall, then open it and step through into an extradimensional space just large enough to accommodate a reasonably-sized party. Once closed from the inside, the door was invisible, and the room would last for eight hours. The dagger was usable once per day.
> ...




exodus knife...and I think I might bring it back for 5e one day...maybe in my next newbie game.


----------



## Shiroiken (Jan 3, 2019)

Rope Trick is a fine spell that works exactly as intended. It allows a safe hiding space for 1 hour, which not coincidentally is the standard rate of a Short Rest. The time taken to climb into and out of the area is incidental, and would only count as detrimental to the Short Rest by one of two types of DMs: a sadist who wants to hurt the players at every chance, and a rules lawyer who feels the need to nitpick every possible aspect. As others have mentioned, a 1 ft section of rope is all that's needed, meaning that climbing really isn't even necessary (and if so, per the rules should not require a check, unless there is a chance and consequence of failure).

As for the concept of it, it's based on the Indian Rope Trick, a magic trick popular in India in the 19th century, where a rope rises up to nothing, and the magician (or their assistant) climbs it in order to disappear. There are old accounts dating it back to the 9th century, but the details of the trick vary.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2019)

I agree with everyone else, cut a 3 foot length of rope and cast the spell on it. The rope rises to it's length for a total of three feet off the ground.  Crouch, crawl forward, stand up, sit on interior of rope trick and stand up in it. No strenuous activity involved. When you near the end of the hour, step down out of the portal, and you're done.  

There used to be a requirement that it be a long piece of rope during the playtest but they changed it in the final rules to say it can be less than a full length rope - so we know it was an intentional change. 

There is no reason for these silly pedantic games that the duration of the spell or activity involved in climbing the rope somehow make a short rest not possible. The spell is, and always was, intended to allow for a short rest without these silly shenanigans.


----------



## iserith (Jan 3, 2019)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am going to assume you never had to deal with a grade school gym class then... because I can even today lift and carry 100+lbs (and have had to) but I can't climb a rope...I could not at 8 or 15, and now at more then double that still can't... anyone even with a 16 str (lets just assume the whole party doesn't have 16+str) has a hard time doing it under the best of conditions...and if someone has an 11 or less (god forbid the 8) it should be almost impossible.




I don't find arguments like this persuasive when we have the rules of the game explaining how to handle this situation quite clearly.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jan 3, 2019)

GMforPowergamers said:


> LOL...omg you think climbing a rope is as easy as walking down a hall... again I ask, did you not have rope climb torture in grade and middle school???
> 
> 
> Now I don't think I would assign a super high DC to climb it...but let me look at climb DCs in book...
> ...



1) We're talking about D&D and the rules of D&D. Not "real life." So your personal rope-climbing anecdotes are irrelevant.

2) Even if you wanted to base a mystical DC on "real life," this is a _*magic spell*_. Which, _*shocker*_, doesn't exist in real life. Assuming the rope is magically easy for anyone of any strength to climb isn't any more of a stretch than using the same level of spell slot to teleport 30 feet.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 3, 2019)

Mort said:


> 2. The party has to climb up to 60' of rope (regular presumably not knotted rope, and don't you even think of using a rope ladder though interestingly, rope isn't part of the material component) to get into the darned thing! If it's not near a wall, that's not easy!




The player-characters are presumably hardened adventurers, to whom climbing a simple unknotted rope is probably a piece of cake.


----------



## Yunru (Jan 3, 2019)

Who says the rope has to be straight? The only restriction i on the length of rope. Have a rope ladder.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 3, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Who says the rope has to be straight? The only restriction i on the length of rope. Have a rope ladder.




Most people should even be able to climb a simple knotted rope.  Well, assuming they aren't office monkeys who go from sitting at a desk all day to sitting on a couch.  

Or it's just a magic rope. Grab on to it and it pulls you up effortlessly.  The climb DC is effectively 0 because none is mentioned in the spell.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances like doing a rope trick during a hurricane, I've never seen anyone ask for a check.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 3, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> It is a good example of how the book isn't written with exacting technical precision, at least. If you assume that it's supposed to let you rest, and RAW says you can't actually use it to rest, then it should give you a better sense of how to interpret things.




Truth.

This is why I find that arguing RAW in 5e is what's truly absurd.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 3, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> Assuming the rope is magically easy for anyone of any strength to climb isn't any more of a stretch than using the same level of spell slot to teleport 30 feet.



No, it's not, for reasons that extend back decades.

Wizards can do anything, because magic isn't real. Fighters can only do what we imagine is plausible for a person to do, because everything a fighter does is based in reality. It may not be true, but that's how the game has been designed since the beginning, and that's what players are willing to accept. It's a major design roadblock, which continues to divide the player-base. 

An invisible magical pocket dimension can behave however we want it to behave, because it's magic. Teleportation can work however, because it's magic. A 30' rope is constrained by what it means to be a 30' rope, though.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2019)

James Grover said:


> Why climb a rope? I am guessing it is in theme with the snake-charmer trick, but otherwise I see no justification for the methods. Why not just make the extra-dimensional space in a wall or the floor?




Because if you put it on ground level, and someone sits a gelatinous cube at the entrance, you are well and truly hosed.

And of course it is absurd!  This is the game that gave you flumphs, and gun-toting space hippos!


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

Rope trick has great utility beyond the handwaved Short Rest variety.  

Need to sneak about a museum after hours?  Cast Rope Trick right before closing and you can pop out once the initial guard search is over!  

Your mistress's husband comes home early? Rope Trick!

Invite a special "guy friend" to your tree house for activities, but realize you don't have one?  ROPE TRICK

The big question is...  Can you rope trick underwater:  does the extra-dimensional space fill with water or is it kept dry?


----------



## iserith (Jan 4, 2019)

MaximusArael020 said:


> The big question is...  Can you rope trick underwater:  does the extra-dimensional space fill with water or is it kept dry?




It depends. What's the DC for water to climb a rope in D&D 3e?


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

iserith said:


> It depends. What's the DC for water to climb a rope in D&D 3e?




I dunno about 3e, but 5e I think maybe... 10?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 4, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> It is absurd. It’s based on “The Indian Rope Trick”.  Like many of the earliest D&D stuff it was just grabbed and put in like a madman’s stew.




 Hell the bible played an influence as well. Walk on water, create food and water, resurrection, sticks to snakes etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 4, 2019)

iserith said:


> I don't find arguments like this persuasive when we have the rules of the game explaining how to handle this situation quite clearly.



 if you continued the quote you would see I tried to look up the DC of climbing a rope and could not find any.



Gladius Legis said:


> 1) We're talking about D&D and the rules of D&D. Not "real life." So your personal rope-climbing anecdotes are irrelevant.
> 
> 2) Even if you wanted to base a mystical DC on "real life," this is a _*magic spell*_. Which, _*shocker*_, doesn't exist in real life. Assuming the rope is magically easy for anyone of any strength to climb isn't any more of a stretch than using the same level of spell slot to teleport 30 feet.




you CAN rule that, or not, that is the power the DM.   I can't belive we are argueing over adding an effect to an already powerful spell though.


----------



## Ganders (Jan 4, 2019)

1.  If you're going to read the 5th edition rules that carefully, you really have to embrace the vagueness.  One hour never means exactly one hour.  It's actually code for 'lasts long enough to take a short rest in it'.  Have you ever noticed that there aren't ANY spell durations of 30 minutes, or 45 minutes, or 90 minutes, or 2 hours, or 3 hours, or 4 hours?  To the designer's perspective there is no difference between any of those.  One hour is just code for 'lasts quite awhile, but not past a short rest'.  The spell will wear off sometime between encounters, whenever is convenient for the DM's storytelling. (Similarly, 1 minute is code for 'cast after initiative', 10 minutes is code for 'can be cast before initiative', and so on)  Embrace the vagueness!

2. I believe this was left vague on purpose.  So that some DMs can make the players roll climbing checks and other DMs can make it a magical rope that prevents you from falling.  Just like grappling, hiding, and other such stuff, they leave it open so each DM can decide the method.

2b. I also suspect the designers could have provided more detail, but selfishly relished the idea of vicariously chuckling at message board threads debating whether climbing checks were necessary and how long the rope must be and how much falling damage would be taken and whether you can still short rest if you spend ten minutes climbing into the thing.

2c. I also suspect the designers intended that DMs would be inconsistent, requiring climbing checks whenever the characters were doing too well and letting them in quickly and easily when they might die without it.  But this falls at a very different place on the 'good vs evil' scale of design than the type of vagueness in part 1, so I'm a bit more hesitant of this claim.


----------



## iserith (Jan 4, 2019)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you continued the quote you would see I tried to look up the DC of climbing a rope and could not find any.




Likely because there's no need for one except in very specific circumstances. Climbing is otherwise a factor of speed.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jan 4, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> A 30' rope is constrained by what it means to be a 30' rope, though.




A 30' rope that becomes _*part of the spell*_, so no, it is not constrained.

But the climb doesn't even call for an ability check anyway, so ...


----------



## Charlaquin (Jan 4, 2019)

iserith said:


> I haven't read that thread, but while a DM is entitled to rule that something is "strenuous," that sounds like a _very_ weak argument to me. It's not even clear to me what goal is achieved by holding such a viewpoint.




As far as I can tell? The goal of winning an argument on the internet about whether or not wizards can heal.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jan 4, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> As far as I can tell? The goal of winning an argument on the internet about whether or not wizards can heal.




And for your entertainment!  Thank you very much


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 4, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> As far as I can tell? The goal of winning an argument on the internet about whether or not wizards can heal.




The really fun part of it is that Wizards literally have a healing spell: _Life Transference_.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> But the climb doesn't even call for an ability check anyway, so ...



The climb doesn't specifically _not_ call for an ability check, either. Whether or not it requires a check to climb a free-standing rope is one of those things that's left up to DM interpretation. There's certainly nothing in the spell description to indicate that this rope is easier to climb than other ropes.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 4, 2019)

What is absurd, is treating an "hour" as 600 rounds exactly. It reminds me of the nonsense tactic of casting a buffing spell _seconds_ before rolling a ST to resolve the outcome of a 24 hours condition (e.g. 3e energy drain and negative levels).

I suppose many gamers protest at the cinema each time a movie marketed as 2 hours long actually lasts 1 hour and 58 minutes? Insult the driver when the bus is scheduled to leave at 8:35 and leaves at 8:35 and 10 seconds? Divorce when the wife "5 minutes more" at the shopping mall becomes just a mere couple of hours more?


----------



## guachi (Jan 4, 2019)

People who have anger or control problems tend to do that. Check out the article from a few days ago written by a former cable tv technician about her various house calls.


----------



## Flamestrike (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Not exactly. A short rest is *at least* an hour. This spell last *exactly* an hour, including getting into the space. Even if the rope is near non-existent, it still takes time.
> 
> But that's not even the point. the point is the spell is needlessly ambiguous, and that's always annoying.




The spell isnt ambiguous. Its a 'safe short rest in a can without worrying about random monsters'. It's clear thats what the spell does, and is largely designed to do (plus other creative uses).


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Flamestrike said:


> The spell isnt ambiguous. Its a 'safe short rest in a can without worrying about random monsters'. It's clear thats what the spell does, and is largely designed to do (plus other creative uses).




Really? it's clear? 

The spell expressly states you have to climb a rope to get in (yes it can be a short rope but still).

It expressly states that the contents of the space are dumped out the second the spell ends.

Both of these point to time constraints that make even a short rest tricky. The fact that most DMs (me included if it comes to it) won't quibble and will allow the short rest doesn't change the fact that the spell is both ambiguous and silly.

Is a short rest _probably_ what the spell was designed for (plus other creative uses)? It seems to make the most sense. But to try and defend it as some kind of paragon of clear writing - I don't think so.


----------



## mortwatcher (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Really? it's clear?
> 
> The spell expressly states you have to climb a rope to get in (yes it can be a short rope but still).
> 
> ...




because they didn't want to make a spell duration 1hr and 12 seconds, just so extremely pedantic GMs couldn't try and GOTCHA players over 12 seconds difference and "spell ambiguity"


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

mortwatcher said:


> because they didn't want to make a spell duration 1hr and 12 seconds, just so extremely pedantic GMs couldn't try and GOTCHA players over 12 seconds difference and "spell ambiguity"




If a DM wants to play GOTCHA then he is being a jerk and there is little the rules can do about it.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

Well, this is wildly unfair!


Why is there no satyrnwatcher?


----------



## mortwatcher (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> If a DM wants to play GOTCHA then he is being a jerk and there is little the rules can do about it.




that is what the interpretation I quoted looks like to me though
all the spells in the book have nice and simple durations - either specific number of rounds or number of minutes/hours, there is no seconds hair-splitting on longer duration spells, and it wouldn't make much sense to break the mold for 2 very specific spells that on paper look like resting tools (rope trick and tiny hut), just so DMs can't rules lawyer their players into not giving them the intended benefits of those spells


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

mortwatcher said:


> that is what the interpretation I quoted looks like to me though
> all the spells in the book nice and simple durations - either specific number of rounds or number of minutes/hours, there is no seconds hair-splitting on longer duration spells, and it wouldn't make much sense to break the mold for 2 very specific spells that on paper look like resting tools (rope trick and tiny hut), just so DMs can't rules lawyer their players into not giving them the intended benefits of those spells




Your kind of making my case for me with that argument.

This spell is _extremely_ easy to gotcha with!  

much easier that Tiny Hut btw (Tiny hut doesn't require exertion to get into and doesn't expressly dump you out when it ends).


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jan 4, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> The climb doesn't specifically _not_ call for an ability check, either. Whether or not it requires a check to climb a free-standing rope is one of those things that's left up to DM interpretation. There's certainly nothing in the spell description to indicate that this rope is easier to climb than other ropes.




The Athletics entry (p. 175 PHB) makes it quite clear what climbs call for an ability check. It does not include a free-standing rope.


----------



## mortwatcher (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Your kind of making my case for me with that argument.
> 
> This spell is _extremely_ easy to gotcha with!
> 
> much easier that Tiny Hut btw (Tiny hut doesn't require exertion to get into and doesn't expressly dump you out when it ends).




I do not see it that way and nor was it my intention
but if you feel that bent on the interpretation, go for it, it's rulings over rules after all and you can do it at your table as you wish


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

mortwatcher said:


> I do not see it that way and nor was it my intention
> but if you feel that bent on the interpretation, go for it, it's rulings over rules after all and you can do it at your table as you wish




*Sigh*, you must have missed the *multiple* times I stated that if push came to shove (as in a player actually took this spell) I'd allow the short rest and not be a jerk about the climb, duration, etc.

But if I was a new DM with just the wording of the spell for guidance - I'd be scratching my head quite a bit! They could have at least mentioned "good for a short rest..." or somesuch in the spell description to make it easier.


----------



## mortwatcher (Jan 4, 2019)

I do have a fair share of experience with new DMs, and most either defer to their more experienced players or just handwave this kind of stuff, as they have enough on their plate as is. It is usually the more seasoned ones that will do this over-analysis.
I'm sorry if it came as an offense to you, just the last few posts of yours came out that way.


----------



## aco175 (Jan 4, 2019)

I thought a short rest was as long, or short, as *plot *demanded.  Typically the halfling thief in the party has enough time to start a fire, brew a cup of coffee, and warm a few biscuits.  

I feel lucky that the DM does not quibble over some of these small things and about the exactness of language.  Nobody has mentioned the other languages that 5e has been printed in and how phrases in this or that language gets converted to English and can mean something else.  This is almost like how the Bible gets reinterpreted all the time.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

mortwatcher said:


> I do have a fair share of experience with new DMs, and most either defer to their more experienced players or just handwave this kind of stuff, as they have enough on their plate as is. It is usually the more seasoned ones that will do this over-analysis.
> I'm sorry if it came as an offense to you, just the last few posts of yours came out that way.




I would never engage in over-analysis at the table - game time is short enough as it is.

But this is a message board for 5e lovers and quibblers. Plus I'm taking a lunch break - so if not now then when!


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

aco175 said:


> I thought a short rest was as long, or short, as *plot *demanded.




Since I started running my megadungeon, I've been tracking time more meticulously than I ever have in real life (apart from timing exactly when to arrive at the door to pick up a date), with tides flooding sections for hours at a time, and wandering Monster checks every ten minutes being the two obvious drivers for doing so.

So, the short rest's length is definitely determined by passage of time, and not plot. Yet there's no way I'd rule that rope trick wouldn't last long enough for a short rest. Quibbling over small things is not fun.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Really? it's clear?
> 
> The spell expressly states you have to climb a rope to get in (yes it can be a short rope but still).




It does not. It says you *CAN* climb the rope to reach it, but not that you *MUST *climb the rope to reach it. It's just telling you where the entrance is - at the top of that rope, a 3-foot-by-5- foot invisible window centered on the rope.  If you can reach it without climbing, then it's still there for you to enter. So if the entrance is at waist height and you can enter it just by standing up, you can do that and nothing in the text says or implies you cannot.


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

The obvious use of rope trick is as an invisible, impossibly sharp blade trap.

Because nothing does damage like suddenly having a massive gap between things that are supposed to be connected.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Well, this is wildly unfair!
> 
> 
> Why is there no satyrnwatcher?




You know, I honestly thought you had posted in the wrong thread!

then I took a better look at the usernames.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> The Athletics entry (p. 175 PHB) makes it quite clear what climbs call for an ability check. It does not include a free-standing rope.



The entry gives examples, which the DM can use as basis for their adjudication. I would definitely say that a free-standing rope with zero support is the equivalent of a steep cliff, since it is purely vertical and there is no wall to lean against, and there are no easy hand-holds.

The basic rule of the game is that the DM calls for a check _whenever_ the outcome is uncertain, and failure would matter. Since I can't state with 100% certainty that absolutely anyone would be able to climb a free-standing rope with 100% success rate, and since failure would cost time in a situation where individual rounds would matter, I am confident in adjudicating that a check is appropriate in this circumstance. And to be perfectly honest, I don't see how you could seriously propose otherwise.


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

I question the "it's a safe space to have a Short Rest for another reason: it's not actually a safe space. There's nothing saying enemy creatures cannot enter the space, only that it's invisible.  That might work on less intelligent enemies, but you don't think a Lich or a Dragon isn't going to fly up the possible 60' and pop their head in to do some AOE or Breath Weapon attacks? Come on!  If your intelligent enemies are more than willing to sit around and allow the party to get a Short Rest when they saw the party crawl up a rope into nothing, then I think we all need to think outside the box more.  It's not a safe space, it's a kill box!

It doesn't offer a safe space for a short rest any more than a broom closet does, except that it's better at it.  If you aren't seen entering then it's less likely to be noticed (I don't know how NPC's with True Sight or Detect Magic would change that, I suppose that's another discussion), but still not technically impossible depending on abilities.

Also potentially the infinity-thin blade thing as mentioned above.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> It does not. It says you *CAN* climb the rope to reach it, but not that you *MUST *climb the rope to reach it. It's just telling you where the entrance is - at the top of that rope, a 3-foot-by-5- foot invisible window centered on the rope.  If you can reach it without climbing, then it's still there for you to enter. So if the entrance is at waist height and you can enter it just by standing up, you can do that and nothing in the text says or implies you cannot.




Yes, if you take the rope out of the equation, the spell becomes noticeably less absurd.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> The obvious use of rope trick is as an invisible, impossibly sharp blade trap.
> 
> Because nothing does damage like suddenly having a massive gap between things that are supposed to be connected.




You know, you got me thinking. Since stuff is ejected and falls when the spell ends, I see this scenario: Sneak into a throne room 45 minutes prior to the King holding court when it's empty. Cast rope trick above the throne, sticking a big anvil up there centered above the throne (and the rope, of course). Jump down and leave. When the spell ends in an hour, smack, anvil on head of king.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Yes, if you take the rope out of the equation, the spell becomes noticeably less absurd.




For those who think you must climb the rope, are you guys arguing the spell is intelligent and knows if you accessed the portal by climbing the rope as opposed to simply putting your hand on the rope before you enter? What's the mechanics here that people are imagining is happening with the "you must climb the rope to enter the invisible portal centered on the rope?"


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> You know, you got me thinking. Since stuff is ejected and falls when the spell ends, I see this scenario: Sneak into a throne room 45 minutes prior to the King holding court when it's empty. Cast rope trick above the throne, sticking a big anvil up there centered above the throne (and the rope, of course). Jump down and leave. When the spell ends in an hour, smack, anvil on head of king.



Hello Nurse! Hello? Nurse? Where's the nurse? The king needs a nurse!


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> For those who think you must climb the rope, are you guys arguing the spell is intelligent and knows if you accessed the portal by climbing the rope as opposed to simply putting your hand on the rope before you enter? What's the mechanics here that people are imagining is happening with the "you must climb the rope to enter the invisible portal centered on the rope?"




Well, if you're talking to me - I don't actually think climbing the rope is an absolute must (I suppose a prior comment might imply that, but there have been a lot of comments and I'll admit my attention to detail on this thread is quite likely lacking).

That said,assuming the space is not reachable easily (waist or head high or whatever), it would seem that expending additional resources (other than the rope) to get into the space is just more trouble than it's worth - and would just add to the absurdity for me.


----------



## generic (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> You know, you got me thinking. Since stuff is ejected and falls when the spell ends, I see this scenario: Sneak into a throne room 45 minutes prior to the King holding court when it's empty. Cast rope trick above the throne, sticking a big anvil up there centered above the throne (and the rope, of course). Jump down and leave. When the spell ends in an hour, smack, anvil on head of king.




Oh Lolth, I've found my next Wizard character.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Yes, if you take the rope out of the equation, the spell becomes noticeably less absurd.



It also stops being a "rope trick" in any capacity. At that point, it's just a temporary  pocket dimension.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jan 4, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> The entry gives examples, which the DM can use as basis for their adjudication. I would definitely say that a free-standing rope with zero support is the equivalent of a steep cliff, since it is purely vertical and there is no wall to lean against, and there are no easy hand-holds.



The only reason the rope is free standing _*in the first place*_ is because of the _*magic spell*_. Ropes don't free-stand in real life. So yes, there is support, it's the very spell in question and the extradimensional pocket it creates.

And it's absolutely absurd to compare ANY climbing of a rope to a cliff, regardless of how hard you think it should be to climb a rope.

No, you want to nerf the spell for no reason, eliminate the obvious purpose of the spell and add rules that aren't there.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> The only reason the rope is free standing _*in the first place*_ is because of the _*magic spell*_. Ropes don't free-stand in real life.



See the earlier example, regarding gym class. Climbing a vertical rope is _hard_. _Most_ people can't do it. It shouldn't be taken as a given that _everyone_ would automatically succeed.


Gladius Legis said:


> And it's absolutely absurd to compare ANY climbing of a rope to a cliff, regardless of how hard you think it should be to climb a rope.



Maybe that gets into your definition of "cliff", but a shallow enough surface that's covered in foot-holds would be trivially climbable by most people. A vertical rope with no adjacent surface would be substantially more difficult.


Gladius Legis said:


> No, you want to nerf the spell for no reason, eliminate the obvious purpose of the spell and add rules that aren't there.



I'm not talking about how long the rope needs to be, or the duration of a short rest. I'm talking about certainty vs uncertainty, DM adjudication in task resolution, and the difficulty of climbing a rope without support.

At your table, your DM may choose to handwave the difficulty of climbing a rope. That doesn't mean any other DM is adjudicating incorrectly by requiring a DC 10 Athletics check to do so.


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> See the earlier example, regarding gym class. Climbing a vertical rope is _hard_. _Most_ people can't do it. It shouldn't be taken as a given that _everyone_ would automatically succeed.
> Maybe that gets into your definition of "cliff", but a shallow enough surface that's covered in foot-holds would be trivially climbable by most people. A vertical rope with no adjacent surface would be substantially more difficult.
> I'm not talking about how long the rope needs to be, or the duration of a short rest. I'm talking about certainty vs uncertainty, DM adjudication in task resolution, and the difficulty of climbing a rope without support.
> 
> At your table, your DM may choose to handwave the difficulty of climbing a rope. That doesn't mean any other DM is adjudicating incorrectly by requiring a DC 10 Athletics check to do so.



Yes because climbing an immobile rope ladder is sooo hard.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Yes because climbing an immobile rope ladder is sooo hard.




Isn't that moving the goalposts though?

Of course climbing a stationary rope ladder is fairly easy - anyone in any reasonable shape should be able to do it.

Climbing a stationary rope, especially one without knots - totally different story.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Isn't that moving the goalposts though?



It's not even that. It's simply not responding to what the other person actually said.

- What are you up to today?

- I'm driving up to Whistler for some skiing

- But it's summer in Australia! You can't ski in summer.



(Whistler's in Canada, eh?)


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Isn't that moving the goalposts though?
> 
> Of course climbing a stationary rope ladder is fairly easy - anyone in any reasonable shape should be able to do it.
> 
> Climbing a stationary rope, especially one without knots - totally different story.






Satyrn said:


> It's not even that. It's simply not responding to what the other person actually said.
> 
> - What are you up to today?
> 
> ...




Not at all, to both of you.
There are only to restrictions and one limitation on the rope:
It has a maximum length of 60'
It has to be a single piece
It will hang from one end to the other

None of those prevent you from using a rope ladder.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Not at all, to both of you.
> There are only to restrictions and one limitation on the rope:
> It has a maximum length of 60'
> It has to be a single piece
> ...




Doesn't change the fact that he was talking about a rope not a rope ladder.


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Doesn't change the fact that he was talking about a rope not a rope ladder.




They're the same thing.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

I'm out.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 4, 2019)

Actually I'm really tempted to start a thread asking if a rope ladder is a rope spell.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jan 4, 2019)

I haven't included this spell in any of my campaigns going back to the 2e era, primarily for absurdity reasons. The 5e version has not given me any reason to include it. I believe it is, RAI, designed to facilitate short rests yet the ambiguous writing doesn't mention short rests once. Instead we're left with legacy crud about lengths of rope and climbing and extradimensional spaces that aren't particularly illuminating. They could have just replaced it with something like the following and been done with it:

CONJURE SHORT REST
2nd-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 10 feet
Components: V, S, M (a copy of the 5e PH)
Duration: 1 hour

You send yourself and up to seven other willing creatures within 10 feet of you to an extradimensional space wherein you each gain the effects of a short rest. In one hour, you reappear the same location from which you left.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> They're the same thing.




I don't even know how to respond to that.

No point in a "yes it is," "no it isn't" back and forth.

Is this a subtle (maybe not so subtle) attempt at humor by saying a rope is a rope ladder just like a rope trick is a healing spell?


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Actually I'm really tempted to start a thread asking if a rope ladder is a rope spell.




I thought about letting the craziness, spin into another thread! But thought it would just be too much!


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> I don't even know how to respond to that.
> 
> No point in a "yes it is," "no it isn't" back and forth.
> 
> Is this a subtle (maybe not so subtle) attempt at humor by saying a rope is a rope ladder just like a rope trick is a healing spell?




Not at all. If you make the rope ladder out of a single rope, it is still a valid component for Rope Trick.
Thus any argument about needing a check needs to assume the easiest possible situation that the players can use, because that's what they'll use.

So yes, it's the same. Because it's a rope, of at most 60'.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Rod Staffwand said:


> I believe it is, RAI, designed to facilitate short rests yet the ambiguous writing doesn't mention short rests once..



One hour is the default length of a short rest, but the rest of the book goes out of its way to avoid making that assumption. I don't think that the intent of the spell is for its duration to scale with the length of your short rests.


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Not at all. If you make the rope ladder out of a single rope, it is still a valid component for Rope Trick.
> Thus any argument about needing a check needs to assume the easiest possible situation that the players can use, because that's what they'll use.
> 
> So yes, it's the same. Because it's a rope, of at most 60'.




Is making a rope ladder from one continuous piece of rope even a thing? I've never seen a rope ladder made from one continuous piece of rope.

Do you get to cut the rope? Otherwise, you're losing A LOT of length.

You could knot the rope, that would make climbing quite a bit easier, but that's not a ladder.

If it is a single piece of rope, turning into a rope ladder (assuming you even can) does what? cut the size by at least half? So if we're going by semantics - I don't think you could use a rope ladder to get to 60' - you'd violate the length requirement.

The fact that this is even a discussion points to the absurdity, no?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Actually I'm really tempted to start a thread asking if a rope ladder is a rope spell.




Don't do it. Please.


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Is making a rope ladder from one continuous piece of rope even a thing? I've never seen a rope ladder made from one continuous piece of rope.



You form a loop, tie a knot. Repeat with excess.



> Do you get to cut the rope? Otherwise, you're losing A LOT of length.
> [...]
> If it is a single piece of rope, turning into a rope ladder (assuming you even can) does what? cut the size by at least half?



Why would you want a lot of length?



> The fact that this is even a discussion points to the absurdity, no?



Not at all.


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

But seriously, what if you cast Rope Trick underwater (with the opening to the extra-dimensional space being underwater as well)?  Save air pocket or space full of water?  What happens when the water is expelled if it fills the space at the end of the hour?  Can it be used to cut off people's legs if they walk in to the event horizon at knee level??  These are the important questions.  Your fascination with the rope aspect is very limiting.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> I don't even know how to respond to that.
> 
> No point in a "yes it is," "no it isn't" back and forth.
> 
> Is this a subtle (maybe not so subtle) attempt at humor by saying a rope is a rope ladder just like a rope trick is a healing spell?




I cast Rope Trick on this. Are we done now?


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Yunru said:


> You form a loop, tie a knot. Repeat with excess.




As I said, you're losing a lot of length.

Also as per the spell "..Holding one end of a 60-foot or shorter rope causes the other end to rise up until the rope is *fully* perpendicular to the ground."

Kinda sounds like all your work looping the rope gets undone as the rope uncurls and rises to its fully perpendicular length! Darn tricky magic spells! Do I really believe this? Who knows, it's magic - and a bit absurd.



Yunru said:


> Why would you want a lot of length?




Because the gnolls are chasing you, and if you don't get up high enough they're going to catch you?

Because the princess is 60' up and instead of levitate you decided on rope trick?


----------



## Yunru (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> Also as per the spell "..Holding one end of a 60-foot or shorter rope causes the other end to rise up until the rope is *fully* perpendicular to the ground."
> 
> Kinda sounds like all your work looping the rope gets undone as the rope uncurls and rises to its fully perpendicular length! Darn tricky magic spells! Do I really believe this? Who knows, it's magic - and a bit absurd.



What? Not at all. space is three dimensional. If you hold any rope in any shape up so that it hangs free, it is always perpendicular to the ground along at least one axis.





> Because the gnolls are chasing you, and if you don't get up high enough they're going to catch you?
> 
> Because the princess is 60' up and instead of levitate you decided on rope trick?



In which case you're not using it to short rest, and so is irrelevant to "you can't use it to short rest because climbing the rope is so strenuous."


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2019)

What does it even matter if the rope ladder is a single piece of rope? Pick one of the ropes that make up the sides of the rope ladder. Cast _rope trick_ on that. The rest of the ladder is just along for the ride.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

Mort said:


> As I said, you're losing a lot of length.
> 
> Also as per the spell "..Holding one end of a 60-foot or shorter rope causes the other end to rise up until the rope is *fully* perpendicular to the ground."




Uh, what are you reading?

This is the text from the spell. "You touch a length of rope that is up to 60 feet long. One end of the rope then rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground."


----------



## Mort (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Uh, what are you reading?
> 
> This is the text from the spell. "You touch a length of rope that is up to 60 feet long. One end of the rope then rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground."




Hmm. don't have the books with me so looked at the 5e wikia. Looks like they added the word fully into the description- never trust stuff transcribed onto the internet!


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

Is the extra-dimensional space already filled with breathable air? If so, could you use it to escape a room filled with poisonous gas?  If it's empty at the beginning and fills with air from the room, then the poisonous air would get sucked in to the extra-dimensional space (as it would be a vacuum upon creation).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> This is the text from the spell. "You touch a length of rope that is up to 60 feet long. One end of the rope then rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground."



A literal reading of that would imply that casting it on a rope ladder or knotted rope would cause it to glitch out, forever rising as gravity is insufficient to force the rope into a straight line.

It's probably best to not over-think this.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Jan 4, 2019)

I was a climbing instructor and saw 8 year olds climb a 20 foot knotted  rope pretty handily.  In fact, anyone who isn’t totally overweight and in reasonable shape can climb a knotted rope at least 15 feet.  A rope with no knots requires more hand and upper body strength...dc 10? 12? Depends how thick the rope is.  Most adventurers of strength 8 and higher should be able to climb a knotted rope without much of a problem.    I’d give it a dc if 5 which, incidentally, is the dc of the climbing a knotted rope in 3.5.  I think, in 3.5, your rope lost half it’s length when it was knotted.   Silk rope would probably lose less length because it’s probably more fine. 

In that edition we used rope trick for lots of things because it lasted 1hr/level.  By 4th, you could sleep half the night without fear of an encounter.  It got used constantly for many many levels because we found ourselves in enemy territory quite a bit. 

The 60 feet is handy if you want to access someplace high out of the way.  Like scaling a 40 foot cliff is now a lot easier because you have a perfect anchor at the top of the cliff.  No need to worry about grappling hooks or shoddy knots.  

We gained entry to a place by having a pc distract some guards long enough for the rest to climb in to it. We came out later when the place was unguarded.  

The short duration really limits its usefulness.  You can use it to spy on a secret meeting, I suppose.  If you can work out a way to cast it in the room ahead of time.  And as long as the meeting is brief.   The way they created Leomands Tiny Hut, rope trick is much more situational. 

As an aside, instead of a rope ladder, just add loops tied with Prussik knots to the rope and use them as hand holds.  You don’t lose any length to your rope and it is as effective as a ladder.   For weak characters who might fail a dc 5 check in an emergency, add a foot loop at the end and have strong characters pull you up.


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 4, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I was a climbing instructor and saw 8 year olds climb a 20 foot knotted  rope pretty handily.  In fact, anyone who isn’t totally overweight and in reasonable shape can climb a knotted rope at least 15 feet.




I agree with your post and enjoy your thinking, except for the part where you say "8 year old can climb it easy, so adventurers should be able to, as well.". (At least that's what it seems like you are saying)

As if kids aren't ALREADY way better at climbing than your average adult.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Jan 4, 2019)

MaximusArael020 said:


> I agree with your post and enjoy your thinking, except for the part where you say "8 year old can climb it easy, so adventurers should be able to, as well.". (At least that's what it seems like you are saying)
> 
> As if kids aren't ALREADY was better at climbing than your average adult.




Well, not all kids and adults are built alike.  The chubby kids with no muscle couldn’t climb it.  It’s about strength to weight.  The large football players had the most muscle mass struggled because they also had lots of extra weight.  But they still succeeded on the first try.   It took them about 10- 15 seconds when we raced.  So at 1/4 movement that’s 2 rounds for 15-20 feet.  In retrospect, I probably had a climb speed by that point because I could do it much faster.  Or just high athletics...idk. 

My point is this: in my experience, (10s of thousands of people per year) an average adult can climb a knotted rope with some to little difficulty.  The average human is strength 9.  Unless you have a (trait) flaw on your character sheet that might keep your strength 8 character from succeeding, they should still make it up.    Adventurers, even the weak ones, are probably- on average- more in shape than the average person.  Or, at least, not totally out of shape(barring a specific flaw or rp reason). The weaker ones might fail the occasional check but should still succeed. 

Dc 15 is far too high.   I mean this is a huge digress from the main topic.  To get back on topic, climbing the rope should be handwaived except for the most dire of circumstances and a roll should only be used for the ones with the lowest athletic scores.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2019)

So let's dive deeper on this.

If I tie a rope to a very heavy object, like a heavy golden statue, and the rope is 60' or less...does this spell lift the golden statue into the air for an hour if I cast rope trick on the rope (assuming for this example the object is not so heavy that it would break the rope)?

If someone is pinned beneath a small boulder (not so heave it would break a rope, but heavy enough to pin someone), and I can get a 60' rope around the boulder and tie it well, can I cast rope trick on that rope and lift the boulder off the person?

I think for both of these, the answer is the loose end of the rope above the statue/boulder would rise, but it wouldn't pull anything up. It just extends whatever the free length of rope might be, and that's it.


----------



## Mort (Jan 5, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> ...
> I think for both of these, the answer is the loose end of the rope above the statue/boulder would rise, but it wouldn't pull anything up. It just extends whatever the free length of rope might be, and that's it.




I think that's fine. Or the DM could rule that a rope that can't become perpendicular automatically causes the spell to fail.

I'm not big on "creative" spell use. Spells already have so much utility that allowing spell casters to get creative with them is just gilding the lily.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 5, 2019)

Mort said:


> But this is a message board for 5e lovers and quibblers. Plus I'm taking a lunch break - so if not now then when!



Are you taking your lunch break in a pocket dimension?


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Jan 5, 2019)

The 3 e version let the rope hold 16000lbs before the spell would break.   I imagine you could tie something to the end of the rope and create a trap or the anchor for a swinging log or something.  If you think it’s going to be triggered within the hour and you have a way to haul it up.  I don’t think the spell would haul anything up though.  Tying one end to the ground would make it easier to climb though.

Edit.   It would let you create a trap with a one hour trigger with one end tied to something.  Maybe you put it 30 feet in the air then tie it to the end of a plank that is balancing precariously over a pool with the other end on the edge of the pool.  The pool is infested with laser toting sharks.  James Bond is tied up on the plank and only has one hour before the rope lets loose and plunges him to his death.  After you tell him your plan, you leave him to his demise.


----------



## Harzel (Jan 5, 2019)

This is a bit of a tangent, but someone earlier mentioned a dragon poking its head into the extradimensional space and discharging its breath weapon.  That made me look back at the spell description again and it looked like there was a potentially interesting question that could arise.  Suppose the ancient red dragon just saunters over to the bottom of the rope and discharges its breath weapon (which extends 90 ft.) toward the top of the rope.  Assuming the entrance to the space is oriented at least somewhat downward, does the breath weapon pass into the space?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 5, 2019)

One other thing to consider about the spell is that it gives you a window of vision straight down, but you can't see all around you. Its completely possible to come out of the hole and suddenly have bad guys around you, you didn't know were there.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 5, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> So let's dive deeper on this.
> 
> If I tie a rope to a very heavy object, like a heavy golden statue, and the rope is 60' or less...does this spell lift the golden statue into the air for an hour if I cast rope trick on the rope (assuming for this example the object is not so heavy that it would break the rope)?
> 
> ...




Take a simpler example. What if one member of the party holds onto the end of the rope when the spell is cast? Will it carry them with it as it rises into the air, allowing them to then enter the dimensional space without significant effort and let down a rope ladder for their allies?

The spell doesn't say that the rope must be unattended, and it can't realistically be argued that it lacks the strength to carry a person into the air, because if that were the case it would collapse the moment anyone tried to climb it.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2019)

Harzel said:


> This is a bit of a tangent, but someone earlier mentioned a dragon poking its head into the extradimensional space and discharging its breath weapon.  That made me look back at the spell description again and it looked like there was a potentially interesting question that could arise.  Suppose the ancient red dragon just saunters over to the bottom of the rope and discharges its breath weapon (which extends 90 ft.) toward the top of the rope.  Assuming the entrance to the space is oriented at least somewhat downward, does the breath weapon pass into the space?




"Attacks and spells can't cross through the entrance into or out of the extradimensional space."

Technically a breath weapon is neither an attack (no attack roll) nor a spell, but I think the intent of the spell to block such things is clear. I would rule that the dragon must physically reach through the window before it can blast.


----------



## MaximusArael020 (Jan 5, 2019)

Dausuul said:


> "Attacks and spells can't cross through the entrance into or out of the extradimensional space."
> 
> Technically a breath weapon is neither an attack (no attack roll) nor a spell, but I think the intent of the spell to block such things is clear. I would rule that the dragon must physically reach through the window before it can blast.




Good point, and I would probably agree with your ruling. Another question that arises from this is can I drop a lit keg of powder out of the space?  It's not technically an attack, I'm just dropping it.


----------

