# Attacking while climbing ?



## Istar (Oct 31, 2011)

How does this work,
Our Monk loves climbing walls and often in battle gets around like this.
Using bracers of brachiation which give a climb speed equal to half his movement rate.

Does climbing offer up CA ?
As something simple as running offers CA ?

And is there a penalty to attack rolls TH and damage.
As so far he seems to be able to employ the full range of ranged and melee attacks while in this position with no penaty ???


----------



## Chris Knapp (Oct 31, 2011)

You can attack while climbing with no penalties. There are no restrictions on weapon/power use either. Climbing also doesn't require anything like a free hand, only the ability to move.

If you are climbing, you grant CA and must make skill checks, unless you have a climb speed.

Only thing that might be a bit fuzzy (to me, at least) is whether a creature with a climb speed must make an athletics check if it takes damage while climbing. My thoughts are no, it doesn't need to.


----------



## Istar (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Knapp said:


> You can attack while climbing with no penalties. There are no restrictions on weapon/power use either. Climbing also doesn't require anything like a free hand, only the ability to move.
> 
> If you are climbing, you grant CA and must make skill checks, unless you have a climb speed.
> 
> Only thing that might be a bit fuzzy (to me, at least) is whether a creature with a climb speed must make an athletics check if it takes damage while climbing. My thoughts are no, it doesn't need to.




Absolutely ridiculouse !!!
So climbing doesnt require a free hand ???

With a climb speed you climb with your feet ??

Even spider man had to use a hand ??

So you can climb 10 feet up a wall with just your feet and stand there horizontal shooting bows and weilding 2 weapons in your hands like a sling and dagger.


----------



## OnlineDM (Oct 31, 2011)

Remember that this is a game. Remember also that 4e is not so big on simulating reality as earlier editions of the game.

Reading the online compendium's glossary entry on the Athletics skill, which covers climbing, reveals no penalty to attacking while climbing. You DO grant combat advantage while you're climbing, and you DO have to make another Athletics check to avoid falling if you take damage while climbing.

If you have a climb speed (as in your monk's case), then you DON'T grant combat advantage while climbing. The "climb speed" entry in the glossary is slightly unclear on the point of whether you are at risk of falling if you take damage while climbing, but I interpret it as saying that no, you don't have to make an Athletics check to keep from falling if you have a climb speed and take damage while climbing.

If you want to introduce a house rule that says a PC needs to have a free hand in order to climb or has some kind of penalty or some restriction about which powers and weapons can be used while climbing, feel free to include one at your table!

Also, if you want to keep the rules as written and try to make them SOMEWHAT realistic, picture the person vertical with their feet in niches on the wall, rather than sticking horizontally out from the wall. Still pretty crazy to think that you could attack just as well in that position as you could on solid ground, but less crazy than having your body parallel to the floor.


----------



## domino (Oct 31, 2011)

Istar said:


> Absolutely ridiculouse !!!
> So climbing doesnt require a free hand ???
> 
> With a climb speed you climb with your feet ??
> ...



Maaaaaagic.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Nov 1, 2011)

No, you are of course using your hands to climb.  Your weapon may be in a wrist sheath, or in your teeth, or pressed between your body and the stone, or being used to dig into the wall for extra purchase, it really doesn't matter.  But at the instant when you need to hit, you get it into your hand for long enough to do so.  Or maybe you actually hit with a torn-off chunk of rock wall (even though you use the same math as if you had used your weapon).  Because you're just that good.  After all, Legolas shot his bow while climbing up the side of a rampaging Oliphaunt, which has to be trickier than a wall!


----------



## S'mon (Nov 1, 2011)

I think the 4e designers assumed DMs would use a bit of common sense.

Obviously, they were horribly wrong.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Nov 1, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I think the 4e designers assumed DMs would use a bit of common sense.
> 
> Obviously, they were horribly wrong.



Yup. The DM's who care will recognize it as a problem and adjust for it. The rest of us could care less. The OP just needs to figure out which camp he's in, then act accordingly.


----------



## Istar (Nov 8, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Remember that this is a game. Remember also that 4e is not so big on simulating reality as earlier editions of the game.
> 
> Reading the online compendium's glossary entry on the Athletics skill, which covers climbing, reveals no penalty to attacking while climbing. You DO grant combat advantage while you're climbing, and you DO have to make another Athletics check to avoid falling if you take damage while climbing.
> 
> ...




Yes it is a GAME, and games have RULES.

And yes to domino there is MAGIC involved.

But there are rules for most things, such as RUNNING which has -5 TH.
I would have thought CLIMBING, might possibly be AS difficult, and incurr possibly the same penalty.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 8, 2011)

Istar said:


> Yes it is a GAME, and games have RULES.
> 
> And yes to domino there is MAGIC involved.
> 
> ...




Surprise!

Again, this is a space for a house rule if it's something you feel strongly about. I think very few people would tell you that a house rule to penalize characters who attack while climbing would be unfair, as long as it's used consistently.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 8, 2011)

Chris Knapp said:


> Climbing also doesn't require anything like a free hand, only the ability to move.



  You don't even need legs.  Heck, you don't need arms or legs to swim or run, either, because the rules don't explicitly require it!  Let's consider a PC Fighter with a superb Athletics check, call him Bob, without any arms or legs.  He swims in the ocean just fine!


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 8, 2011)

He climbs with his chin, popping from ledge to ledge. Go Bob!


----------



## Balesir (Nov 9, 2011)

It's even more extreme - every single character swims, climbs, walks, tunnels and flies without legs, arms or wings!

They are all imaginary constructs, you see, so they actually have none of these things...


----------



## Unwise (Nov 10, 2011)

All of my players know that as soon as a fight starts when they are climbing, they are deeply into "rule of cool" territory. They can be darn sure that they will be making rolls or fall and that they will be given all sorts of ridiculous ways to stop other people falling.

Our last fight that involved climbing also involved people grappling then riding harpies through the use of athletics/acrobatics/intimidate. People were pushing off the cliff diving down with a rope to save falling companions and the Eladrin even jumped off to grapple somebody that was being carried away by a harpy then used "Fey Wayfarer" to teleport them both safely to a cliff edge. To top it off, the Artificer who uses a superior crossbow spent a turn rigging up his super-light wire to a barbed bolt. He then shot a friendly NPC through the leg as the harpy was carrying him away, then reeled him in like a fish.

So yeah, rules are a mere suggestion when there is opportunity to swash and buckle. To the posters above saying to use common sense, I say pheeewy  Common sense is over rated.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 10, 2011)

Unwise said:


> All of my players know that as soon as a fight starts when they are climbing, they are deeply into "rule of cool" territory. They can be darn sure that they will be making rolls or fall and that they will be given all sorts of ridiculous ways to stop other people falling.
> 
> Our last fight that involved climbing also involved people grappling then riding harpies through the use of athletics/acrobatics/intimidate. People were pushing off the cliff diving down with a rope to save falling companions and the Eladrin even jumped off to grapple somebody that was being carried away by a harpy then used "Fey Wayfarer" to teleport them both safely to a cliff edge. To top it off, the Artificer who uses a superior crossbow spent a turn rigging up his super-light wire to a barbed bolt. He then shot a friendly NPC through the leg as the harpy was carrying him away, then reeled him in like a fish.
> 
> So yeah, rules are a mere suggestion when there is opportunity to swash and buckle. To the posters above saying to use common sense, I say pheeewy  Common sense is over rated.




I didn't mean "rigorous imposition of real-world reality" - cinematic reality is fine.  Eg I'd let a PC attack while clinging to a vertical cliff face, but they'd need to explain what they were doing, there might be a penalty and/or a climb check involved.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 10, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I didn't mean "rigorous imposition of real-world reality" - cinematic reality is fine.  Eg I'd let a PC attack while clinging to a vertical cliff face, but they'd need to explain what they were doing, there might be a penalty and/or a climb check involved.




I like the philosophy of rewarding or at least not penalizing players who try something cool-sounding. Realistically, would it be hard to leap from the cliff wall on one side of the canyon to the wall on the other side, 15 feet away, while backflipping and stabbing at a harpy as the PC flies by? Yes. Perhaps darn near impossible.

But if one of my players tries it, I'm standing up and cheering and giving them a bonus to hit for sheer awesomeness. Athletics check? What athletics check? Boom, you're across the canyon and the harpy might be dead.

Of course, I wouldn't count this as "setting a precedent" and if the next player says, "Um yeah, I do that too," then I'm requiring some skill checks. I reward creativity and coolness, not just doing what the last person did. It's not to say that it can't work a second time, but you don't get the awesomeness aura of protection the second time.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Of course, I wouldn't count this as "setting a precedent" and if the next player says, "Um yeah, I do that too," then I'm requiring some skill checks.



Well, that's just inconsistent and sucky.  A lot of groups have one player who is really creative.  So, in your view only that one player should ever be rewarded?  I just hope you don't give out extra XP for this because he should be level 20 when everyone else is level 12.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 10, 2011)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Well, that's just inconsistent and sucky.  A lot of groups have one player who is really creative.  So, in your view only that one player should ever be rewarded?  I just hope you don't give out extra XP for this because he should be level 20 when everyone else is level 12.




I don't track XP any more; the whole party levels up when it's time to level up. So no worries there.

And I respect that you disagree with my philosophy, but I have  absolutely no problem with players who constantly think of cool and  creative things getting to DO those cool and creative things while  players who don't think of cool and creative things use solely what's on  their character sheet. I encourage creativity and awesomeness by  rewarding that, and I have no qualms at all about doing so.

Keep in mind that the next player is welcome to try their own creative  and cool thing. But if they can't come up with anything, then they're  using whatever is on their character sheet - and that's okay.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 10, 2011)

I go more by 'PCs are cool within their area of expertise' - the Guardian Fighter can hold off giant crocs by shield-bashing them on the nose, the Brawler Fighter can (with luck) ram gourds of alchemist's fire down the croc's throat and make it go *boom*.  If the Athletic or Acrobatics trained PC wants to jump off the wall and engage a harpy on the way down, I'll be generous with the DCs & bonuses.  Not every PC can do that, though.  Do look at your character sheet - if you're a wizard with STR 8, DEX 10, no athletics or acrobatics, think of something else cool to do.


----------



## OnlineDM (Nov 10, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I go more by 'PCs are cool within their area of expertise' - the Guardian Fighter can hold off giant crocs by shield-bashing them on the nose, the Brawler Fighter can (with luck) ram gourds of alchemist's fire down the croc's throat and make it go *boom*.  If the Athletic or Acrobatics trained PC wants to jump off the wall and engage a harpy on the way down, I'll be generous with the DCs & bonuses.  Not every PC can do that, though.  Do look at your character sheet - if you're a wizard with STR 8, DEX 10, no athletics or acrobatics, think of something else cool to do.




Sure, I think that's fair. If it's not the kind of thing the PC would have a realistic chance to do, I'd probably demand a check (though perhaps with a bonus for chutzpah - I like chutzpah in my PCs).


----------



## Unwise (Nov 21, 2011)

With regards to the discussion on rewarding cool actions at the top of this page, what I do as a DM is simply not penalise people for adding in more cool.

What I mean is, if the player wants to charge the unsuspecting orc and push him into the fire with a kick to the butt, I let him use his normal to-hit and will make sure the fire does enough damage to be comperable to his normal sword strike. Otherwise, why would he do it? If the theif wants to backflip off over the balcony, that is the same DC as just jumping over it. The PC is gaining no mechanical advantage. 

So in the example at the top of the page, if a PC wants to jump backwards stab a harpy in mid-air and land on the other side. They are just making a normal athletics role to jump the required squares as part of a charge. If they say they want it to be a double back flip, that is fine, the dice roll indicates how impressive it looked.

I sometimes award action points for making scenes really interesting, since I don't award XP that is the easiest tangible award to give. I also allow APs to be spent to allow what is technically more than one action in game terms, but looks like one action in description/effect. For example, leap out, grab the harpy and use acrobatics to fling yourself off it again up to the ledge.

With regards to rewarding creative players more than non-creative ones, I say that is no problem in and of itself. Some people are better at some games than others, that should not be an impediment to fun. We should inspire less creative players to think outside the box, more shy players to express themselves and foster an environment that encourages that, rather than dropping interactions to the lowest common demoninator.


----------



## Incenjucar (Nov 21, 2011)

Regarding climbing, there are too many possibilities to possibly be codified in a game. There is just nothing gained in trying to codify the differences between a thri-kreen climbing monkey bars and a snake climbing a totem pole.


----------

