D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[DND_Reborn]

I’m saying, if you want a climb to be a challenge, it should include challenging factors.

But do you understand that to some DM's the height of such a climb IS the challenge?

I spoke to a group member at work tonight and he has DMed before in his own game and ours. I presented the scenario and asked him what he would do. When I told him the height, his reaction was easy to see--IT IS HIGH and dangerous--in other words, stressful. He would ask for a check as well.

(And before you (or anyone) comments that I presented it to lead him to favor my side, I didn't, I actually told him at first I wouldn't call for a check to see if he would agree with it--he didn't. Yes, many other people would favor no check, which is fine of course, but many others would IMO. I've said repeatedly both are correct within the scope of the rules (even the specific movement rules) because the DM has to decide what constitutes a challenging factor.)

*I always find it weird when people present example scenarios that involve no time pressure. Do people’s worlds not have wandering monsters? Do their torches burn for ever? Are the adventurers afforded as much time as they want to complete tasks they’ve been hired for? I don’t get it.

FWIW, I often do have other things happening (time IS a key one most of the time IME), I simply think they aren't necessary in order to ask for a check when other factors are enough (which is entirely at the DM's discretion).

And in my games, torches run out a lot, players stumble in the dark, PCs have had to struggle for pay after completing a quest when it wasn't done fast enough for the client (often not getting full pay ), etc.

 

[iserith]

But do you understand that to some DM's the height of such a climb IS the challenge?

I spoke to a group member at work tonight and he has DMed before in his own game and ours. I presented the scenario and asked him what he would do. When I told him the height, his reaction was easy to see--IT IS HIGH and dangerous--in other words, stressful. He would ask for a check as well.

(And before you (or anyone) comments that I presented it to lead him to favor my side, I didn't, I actually told him at first I wouldn't call for a check to see if he would agree with it--he didn't. Yes, many other people would favor no check, which is fine of course, but many others would IMO. I've said repeatedly both are correct within the scope of the rules (even the specific movement rules) because the DM has to decide what constitutes a challenging factor.)


FWIW, I often do have other things happening (time IS a key one most of the time IME), I simply think they aren't necessary in order to ask for a check when other factors are enough (which is entirely at the DM's discretion).

And in my games, torches run out a lot, players stumble in the dark, PCs have had to struggle for pay after completing a quest when it wasn't done fast enough for the client (often not getting full pay ), etc.

So you asked a member of your group who is probably used to seeing "if climb, then climb check" at your table whether a climb had a climb check. And he agreed! Cool. No need to even look at what the rules say now.

 

[Charlaquin]

But do you understand that to some DM's the height of such a climb IS the challenge?

I do, and they have every right to run it that way if they want to. I just don’t think that doing so is supported by the rules as written. Which is perfectly fine - I do lots of things that aren’t supported by the rules as written. The ability to change the rules to suit your preferences is one of the things that makes D&D great.

I spoke to a group member at work tonight and he has DMed before in his own game and ours. I presented the scenario and asked him what he would do. When I told him the height, his reaction was easy to see--IT IS HIGH and dangerous--in other words, stressful. He would ask for a check as well.

(And before you (or anyone) comments that I presented it to lead him to favor my side, I didn't, I actually told him at first I wouldn't call for a check to see if he would agree with it--he didn't. Yes, many other people would favor no check, which is fine of course, but many others would IMO. I've said repeatedly both are correct within the scope of the rules (even the specific movement rules) because the DM has to decide what constitutes a challenging factor.)

I don’t really see how that’s relevant. I’m not arguing no one would ever independently come to the same conclusions you have. And if I was that would have already been disproven by the fact that you aren’t the only person arguing that position.

FWIW, I often do have other things happening (time IS a key one most of the time IME), I simply think they aren't necessary in order to ask for a check when other factors are enough (which is entirely at the DM's discretion).

Under the general rule, yes, I agree. But, there is a more specific rule that covers the effect that the factor in question - significant height - has on the task. You can certainly choose to disregard that more specific rule and make a ruling based on the general rule if you want to.

And in my games, torches run out a lot, players stumble in the dark, PCs have had to struggle for pay after completing a quest when it wasn't done fast enough for the client (often not getting full pay ), etc.

Cool. Same here.

 

[Imaculata]

(Yes, many other people would favor no check, which is fine of course, but many others would IMO. I've said repeatedly both are correct within the scope of the rules (even the specific movement rules) because the DM has to decide what constitutes a challenging factor.)

No, both are not correct within the scope of the rules. The rules say one thing, and you are ruling otherwise.

The 5e rules, much like any edition of D&D, always empower the DM to change the rules. Further more, it is at the discretion of the DM to decide when the outcome of an action is in doubt, and requires a check. But this is not a discussion on whether you have the right to do that. We all agree that you can.

No, this is a discussion on what the rules actually say on climbing. And the rules say that climbing is part of your movement, and doesn't require any check, unless there is a complication. They even give examples of complications.

You are ruling that distance climbed, and the height are complications. They are not. You don't roll a check to walk a certain distance either, nor does the check DC of a jump increase relative to what scary thing is at the bottom.

Here is an important point I want to get across:

"The consequences of failure to perform a task, do not determine the difficulty of succeeding at said task. They are two seperate things."

Picking a lock is not more difficult, if the door explodes when I fail my check. Leaping across a pit does not become more difficult, because the DM replaces the spikes at the bottom with deadly cobras. That is not how complications generally work. Further more, I feel a DM is overstepping their bounds when deciding what my character thinks.

The rules are quite specific on how movement and climbing work, and on what constitutes a complication. You are choosing to make climbing harder than the rules intend, which is fine. But don't claim then that the rules support your position.

 

[clearstream]

"The consequences of failure to perform a task, do not determine the difficulty of succeeding at said task. They are two separate things."

You'd agree though that a DM would not call for a check unless there were consequences for failure, right. Thus the consequences do determine if there is a check to make.

 

[Imaculata]

You'd agree though that a DM would not call for a check unless there were consequences for failure, right. Thus the consequences do determine if there is a check to make.

I agree that a DM should not ask for a check, unless there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and meaningful consequences for both. I don't think the consequences "determine" if there is a check to make. But a DM should in my view consider that:

There is no point in asking for a check that is impossible to succeed at or fail at. And there is no point in asking for a check, if failure means that nothing happens, and you can just try again. As a side note, there is also no point in asking for a check, if you've already decided the outcome.

5e is all about simplicity and speed of play. As per the rules, players don't have to make any rolls to climb any length of rope, unless some factor interferes with the climbing. And that is good. It means less rolling for trivial things, and a faster pace of play than older editions. I don't understand why you would want to insert an arbitrary roll into that, when the rules say it is not needed. Less rolls is good! Keep things moving.

 

[clearstream]

I agree that a DM should not ask for a check, unless there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and meaningful consequences for both. I don't think the consequences "determine" if there is a check to make. But a DM should in my view consider that:

Given some of the discussion up thread, I thought it was unnecessary to state the additional riders, so long as they were not ruled out But yes, that was my meaning. Consequences determines if there should be a check, given there is a chance of failure.

 

[Xetheral]

I do, and they have every right to run it that way if they want to. I just don’t think that doing so is supported by the rules as written. Which is perfectly fine - I do lots of things that aren’t supported by the rules as written. The ability to change the rules to suit your preferences is one of the things that makes D&D great.

I don’t really see how that’s relevant. I’m not arguing no one would ever independently come to the same conclusions you have. And if I was that would have already been disproven by the fact that you aren’t the only person arguing that position.

Under the general rule, yes, I agree. But, there is a more specific rule that covers the effect that the factor in question - significant height - has on the task. You can certainly choose to disregard that more specific rule and make a ruling based on the general rule if you want to.

Cool. Same here.

Question: since you've acknowledged that the specific rule is disputed, what are you trying to communicate when you say: "You can certainly choose to disregard that more specific rule and make a ruling based on the general rule if you want to."?

The combination of those two statements comes across to me as saying: "I acknowledge that you disagree, but, since my interpretation is correct you have to disregard the rule to play the way you want to." Is that what you're trying to communicate?

More broadly, I'm having a hard time understanding what the purpose is of making declarative statements of what the rules are to someone whom you acknowledge disagrees with you about what the rules are. It's neither informative (the disagreement has already been established) nor persuasive (restating an established position never is), so what's the goal?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Under the general rule, yes, I agree. But, there is a more specific rule that covers the effect that the factor in question - significant height - has on the task. You can certainly choose to disregard that more specific rule and make a ruling based on the general rule if you want to.

This is the point apparently this discussion we'll never come to a meeting on...

Even under the specific rules for special movement, I am justified:

Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling​

Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you’re climbing, swimming, or crawling. You ignore this extra cost if you have a climbing speed and use it to climb, or a swimming speed and use it to swim. At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

The italicized part is two specific examples of times when the DM can call for a check. Are those the ONLY situations when you think the DM can ask for a check? Of course not!

But then you say, "Well, if you throw in other factors, like a time constraint, then you can call for a check." Why? That isn't in those examples. Such a ruling is part of the general rules and the specific rules don't include them so by the logic, since time constraint isn't part of the specific ruling, you should be able to call for a check.

Anyway, in the specific ruling, condition examples are only "slippery vertical surface", "one with few handholds", "rough water". That's it. Nothing else. Not "time limit", "arrows shooting at you", "storm and high winds", or anything else. I guess that means a slippery "non-vertical" surface, like an icy mountain, won't require a check, huh? I guess that means a crumbling wall won't call for a check, either?

My point is, as it has always been, that everything after "At the DM's option" are just examples of conditions when the DM can ask for a check. Nothing says extreme height (as defined by the DM) isn't a similar example of those conditions. You might not think so, but I do, and that makes it part of the specific rule IMO.

So, I am not "disregarding" the specific rule as you say. I am implementing it. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but then there is no point in continuing the conversation.

I agree that a DM should not ask for a check, unless there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and meaningful consequences for both. I don't think the consequences "determine" if there is a check to make. But a DM should in my view consider that:

There is no point in asking for a check that is impossible to succeed at or fail at. And there is no point in asking for a check, if failure means that nothing happens, and you can just try again. As a side note, there is also no point in asking for a check, if you've already decided the outcome.

The funny thing is we mostly agree on this. Those are the rules. We just read them differently.

IMO making an 80-foot climb does have a chance for success, it does have a chance for failure, and it does have a meaningful consequence in both cases (you either make the climb and get into the tower or you don't, possibly falling and taking damage, maybe even dying!--pretty meaningful in the normal sense...).

Where we disagree is that climbing any length of rope shouldn't require a check. For you, the outcome is already decided so no need for a check. But you can fail at it and people do. Maybe in your game PCs never should, maybe no one ever should. After all, according to you:

As per the rules, players don't have to make any rolls to climb any length of rope, unless some factor interferes with the climbing.

But really, I as stated above, only those two factors can interfere with a climb, unless you read them as examples... Which is what I am doing, and another example is an extreme climb.

Unfortunately, like with others, we will never agree on this. What bothers me is that posters seem to feel their interpretation of the rules must be the correct one, while it is only theirs--even if shared. I've never said that you or others are wrong for not calling for a check, just that I would call for one. But you seem to think I am not following the rules by asking for one... too bad, since it is my option as DM if I deem the height a complicating factor (doesn't matter how it complicates it -- fear, endurance, whatever).

So, gentlepeople, I am done. I can't express myself any more effectively and if you insist I am "not following the specific rule", that's on you.

See you around the forum... maybe we'll agree elsewhere.

 

[iserith]

The italicized part is two specific examples of times when the DM can call for a check. Are those the ONLY situations when you think the DM can ask for a check? Of course not!

It still looks like you haven't read the section in Chapter 7 which includes other examples of when a Strength (Athletics) check may resolve an attempt to climb in the face of a difficult situation. Taken together, these represent a category of complications that do not include the distance of a climb particularly as climbing is just a factor of speed.