D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Imaculata]

In the example scenario, that wouldn’t matter because it was established that there was no time pressure. I would consider time pressure to be a complicating factor though, and would call for a check if there was.

I agree that time pressure could indeed be a complication. I already gave an example of being fired at while climbing, which is similar in nature I think. The PC is making an extra effort to get up the rope quicker, which absolutely would demand more stamina and strength to do. How much it would require, is something I would consider an uncertain outcome. Hence the check.

 

[iserith]

How about muscle failure from the length of the climb?

As I showed upthread, a DM could make the dramatic question in the challenge "Can the PCs push themselves past their normal limits on this lengthy climb or will they be exhausted by it?" and then call for a Constitution check. Failing the check doesn't mean they fail to climb or fall. Rather it means they're just exhausted by the effort. But this is a different question than what the rules say is being tested via the Strength (Athletics) check i.e. "Will the PCs make progress, no progress, or potentially fall because of this difficult situation during the climb?"

 

[DND_Reborn]

Distance climbed, also does not affect the check. It says so in the core rules, as Iserith already pointed out to you, and you refuse to acknowledge.

LOL I never refused to acknowledge the rule, I posted a screen shot of it.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that some posters seem to feel a rule (which like most of 5E I feel is lacking and incomplete) whose examples give ideas of complications seem to think I can't determine that given enough height the stress would be a complication IMO, and it is the prerogative of the DM, given the rules, to call for a check in ANY event they deem as stressful.

You are both refusing to acknowledge that the RULES give me that right. So, if you would stop refusing to acknowledge that, we could get someplace...

 

[Imaculata]

As I showed upthread, a DM could make the dramatic question in the challenge "Can the PCs push themselves past their normal limits on this lengthy climb or will they be exhausted by it?" and then call for a Constitution check. Failing the check doesn't mean they fail to climb or fall. Rather it means they're just exhausted by the effort. But this is a different question than what the rules say is being tested via the Strength (Athletics) check i.e. "Will the PCs make progress, no progress, or potentially fall because of this difficult situation during the climb?"

I disagree a little here. I mean, yes you could ask a check for that. But the maximum movement already represents how far and quick the muscles of your character are able to carry you forward in a round. As such, I don't think you need to do a check for that, unless the PC is attempting some kind of special maneuver (such as trying to bypass an ally on the same rope, or trying to keep an ally from falling).

 

[Imaculata]

LOL I never refused to acknowledge the rule, I posted a screen shot of it.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that some posters seem to feel a rule (which like most of 5E I feel is lacking and incomplete) whose examples give ideas of complications seem to think I can't determine that given enough height the stress would be a complication IMO, and it is the prerogative of the DM, given the rules, to call for a check in ANY event they deem as stressful.

You are both refusing to acknowledge that the RULES give me that right. So, if you would stop refusing to acknowledge that, we could get someplace...

No. I think in every reply we've stated that you can house rule it any way you want. But it is not as per the rules as written. Climbing is part of movement in 5e. It is in a different chapter. How much clear can you get?

Do you add stress as a complication to every task that has a nasty failure state? Is a leap across a spike-pit made harder by the stress from the fact that there are spikes at the bottom? I think that is a pretty silly ruling, and I think it falls apart quite easily at the slightest of examination.

Also, as @Charlaquin already pointed out, it is not up to the DM to determine what the PC is thinking, and what stress they are experiencing.

 

[iserith]

I disagree a little here. I mean, yes you could ask a check for that. But the maximum movement already represents how far and quick the muscles of your character are able to carry you forward in a round. As such, I don't think you need to do a check for that, unless the PC is attempting some kind of special maneuver (such as trying to bypass an ally on the same rope).

The challenge that is being framed here in my example is on par with a forced march, essentially. Whatever your normal limits are, we're pushing past that in this climb and seeing if you get exhausted in the doing. This is the section on Constitution checks in Chapter 7.

 

[Imaculata]

The challenge that is being framed here is on par with a forced march, essentially. Whatever your normal limits are, we're pushing past that in this climb and seeing if you get exhausted in the doing. This is the section on Constitution checks in Chapter 7.

Ah yes, then we are in agreement.

 

[Charlaquin]

What I refuse to acknowledge is that some posters seem to feel a rule (which like most of 5E I feel is lacking and incomplete) whose examples give ideas of complications seem to think I can't determine that given enough height the stress would be a complication IMO, and it is the prerogative of the DM, given the rules, to call for a check in ANY event they deem as stressful.

I’ve noticed a strong correlation between folks who consider the 5e rules to be loosey-goosey guidelines and folks who consider the 5e rules to be lacking and incomplete. Perhaps if you treated the rules as rules, you might find them more complete. At any rate, you certainly can determine that the stress of a high climb would be a complicating factor and would call for a check. I just think that would be against the more specific climbing rule. Which, again, is fine if that’s how you’d prefer to run it. But the rule isn’t incomplete because you choose to disregard it. Or, if you prefer to take the “the height itself isn’t a complication, but the stress caused by the height is” tak, I would argue that this is overstepping the bounds of the DM’s role by establishing what a player’s character is thinking/feeling.

 

[iserith]

LOL I never refused to acknowledge the rule, I posted a screen shot of it.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that some posters seem to feel a rule (which like most of 5E I feel is lacking and incomplete) whose examples give ideas of complications seem to think I can't determine that given enough height the stress would be a complication IMO, and it is the prerogative of the DM, given the rules, to call for a check in ANY event they deem as stressful.

You are both refusing to acknowledge that the RULES give me that right. So, if you would stop refusing to acknowledge that, we could get someplace...

You're ignoring the specific rules in favor of the general ones and/or trying to suggest there's no difference between the difficult situations listed in the rules and the distance of the climb to justify a practice that fits better in other games rather than this one. You don't need to justify yourself though. Play however you want. But you're clearly ignoring or obfuscating specific rules even though specific beats general.

 

[Xetheral]

I don’t disagree with this in principle. Its just that that “a potentially lethal fall” isn’t just not a complication sufficiently similar to the two examples. It’s not a complication at all. It’s a consequence. Any climb carries some risk of falling. The greater the height, the more dangerous it would be to fall, which certainly makes climbs to significant heights more dangerous. But it doesn’t make them more complicated. And by the 5e rules, a climb without complications doesn’t require a check to complete successfully. Not that there’s anything wrong with asking for a check anyway if that’s what you want to do.

There aren't just two examples though. There are several in both Chapters 7 and Chapter 8 which all speak to an environmental effect that creates a difficult situation while climbing and makes a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. The distance of the climb does not sit in this category. Climbing is a factor of speed, no different than walking across an empty room if there are no complications (albeit 2 feet of speed for 1 foot of movement). It's plain as day to me that some posters are ignoring the specific and focusing only on the general to try and justify a practice they likely got from other games.

But it's not up to us to determine whether a given DM's decision on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication is sufficiently similar to the examples in the rules. If a DM rules that "because it's Tuesday" is a climbing complication, then they are following the rules when they call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Sure, it would be a silly ruling only appropriate in a slapstick campaign, but it's still following the rules.

Let me try rephrasing my argument. From my standpoint, the only time a DM is violating the climbing rules is if they (a) agree that there are no complications, and (b) call for a Strength (Athletics) check anyway. Since no one in this thread is arguing in support of doing that, I object to the claim that anyone in this thread is violating the climbing rules.

We can disagree all day long on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication, but those who disagree with us aren't breaking the rules when they identify a complication and call for a check.