D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

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.

Yes, the general rules are that a DM calls for some kind of check when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The specific rules on climbing state the nature of the difficult situations which make the task uncertain. Absent those difficult situations, there is no uncertainty and it's just a hit to speed (unless the creature has a climbing speed).

 

[clearstream]

Yes, the general rules are that a DM calls for some kind of check when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The specific rules on climbing state the nature of the difficult situations which make the task uncertain. Absent those difficult situations, there is no uncertainty and it's just a hit to speed (unless the creature has a climbing speed).

I would draw your attention to the text "Examples include the following activities:"

@6ENow! makes a similar point. "Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing" for them, a lengthy climb is in itself a difficult situation. The absence of an example does not rule it out. The general rule is that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

One of the most important pieces of guidance is "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." If a group find it exciting to have a chance to fall from a lengthy climb - where the only challenge is the length of the climb itself - then I believe they are robustly supported in the RAW for deciding to do exactly that.

 

[iserith]

I would draw your attention to the text "Examples include the following activities:"

@6ENow! makes a similar point. "Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing" for them, a lengthy climb is in itself a difficult situation. The absence of an example does not rule it out. The general rule is that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

One of the most important pieces of guidance is "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." If a group find it exciting to have a chance to fall from a lengthy climb - where the only challenge is the length of the climb itself - then I believe they are robustly supported in the RAW for deciding to do exactly that.

I believe the DM can do whatever he or she wants in pursuit of the goals of play and as bounded by the group's table rules. This includes ignoring or applying any rules of the game. But such a DM can't claim in my view that ignoring the specific rules in favor of the general, when the rules state specific beats general, is following the rules as written.

 

[clearstream]

I believe the DM can do whatever he or she wants in pursuit of the goals of play and as bounded by the group's table rules. This includes ignoring or applying any rules of the game. But such a DM can't claim in my view that ignoring the specific rules in favor of the general, when the rules state specific beats general, is following the rules as written.

I would refer you then also to @Xetheral's post above.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would draw your attention to the text "Examples include the following activities:"

@6ENow! makes a similar point. "Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing" for them, a lengthy climb is in itself a difficult situation. The absence of an example does not rule it out. The general rule is that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

One of the most important pieces of guidance is "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." If a group find it exciting to have a chance to fall from a lengthy climb - where the only challenge is the length of the climb itself - then I believe they are robustly supported in the RAW for deciding to do exactly that.

Yeah, I've tried. A few posters feel that just because what I feel is significant to call for a check according to the rules and they don't, I am not following the rules.

I appreciate you taking up the cause (so to say) but I feel you are tilting at windmills (also, so to say...).

 

[iserith]

I would refer you then also to @Xetheral's post above.

Yeah, I think motivated reasoning is going on and some posters are obfuscating the specific rule to try to say they are following the rules as written. Likely someone has used a particular approach for a while, perhaps in other games too, and is suggesting the specific rule includes something of a categorically different nature when it does not. Which is not to say a DM needs to follow the rules as written, of course.

And if I was playing D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e (or PF2e which I'm trying next week), I'd be ruling differently in accordance with what those games say to do with regard to climbing. As memory serves, these games are much more in line with the "if climb, then climb check" paradigm.

 

[Xetheral]

I believe the DM can do whatever he or she wants in pursuit of the goals of play and as bounded by the group's table rules. This includes ignoring or applying any rules of the game. But such a DM can't claim in my view that ignoring the specific rules in favor of the general, when the rules state specific beats general, is following the rules as written.

To my understanding, no one is claiming that the general rules override the specific rules. Instead, there is disagreement over the specific rules.

Some posters are arguing that the specific rules leave identification of what is and is not a complication up to the DM.

Other posters are arguing that the specific rules restrict complications to a narrower definition that excludes anything (such as the length of the climb) that could also be considered a consequence of failure.

Yeah, I think motivated reasoning is going on and some posters are obfuscating the specific rule to try to say they are following the rules as written. Likely someone has used a particular approach for a while, perhaps in other games too, and is suggesting the specific rule includes something of a categorically different nature when it does not. Which is not to say a DM needs to follow the rules as written, of course.

And if I was playing D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e (or PF2e which I'm trying next week), I'd be ruling differently in accordance with what those games say to do with regard to climbing. As memory serves, these games are much more in line with the "if climb, then climb check" paradigm.

My only claim is that under my reading the specific climbing rules leave determination of what is a climbing complication up to the DM. That is what I think the text means. I understand you disagree, but I don't understand why you are attributing that disagreement to motivated reasoning on my part, or to me obfuscating the specific rules.

I've already stated that, as a DM, I wouldn't identify an 80' long rope climb as the sort of complication where I would call for a climb check. I'm only supporting the claim that the specific climbing rules allow other DMs to reach the opposite conclusion (and objecting to the implication that, in the face of a disputed rule, whether or not someone is adhering to that rule should be judged by your interpretation).

 

[DND_Reborn]

To my understanding, no one is claiming that the general rules override the specific rules. Instead, there is disagreement over the specific rules.

Yep, that's the issue, really.

I've already stated that, as a DM, I wouldn't identify an 80' long rope climb as the sort of complication where I would call for a climb check. I'm only supporting the claim that the specific climbing rules allow other DMs to reach the opposite conclusion (and objecting to the implication that, in the face of a disputed rule, whether or not someone is adhering to that rule should be judged by your interpretation).

Which is cool when you DM. If I played in your game an you said no check is needed, I would shrug my shoulders but go with it.

Given your statement (bolded part) I would think if you played in my game and I asked for a check, you would likely shrug your shoulders as well and go with it.

And FWIW I appreciate your support and understanding. I feel I am completely within the scope of the rules (general and specific) despite what others think.

 

[iserith]

My only claim is that under my reading the specific climbing rules leave determination of what is a climbing complication up to the DM. That is what I think the text means. I understand you disagree, but I don't understand why you are attributing that disagreement to motivated reasoning on my part, or to me obfuscating the specific rules.

I've already stated that, as a DM, I wouldn't identify an 80' long rope climb as the sort of complication where I would call for a climb check. I'm only supporting the claim that the specific climbing rules allow other DMs to reach the opposite conclusion (and objecting to the implication that, in the face of a disputed rule, whether or not someone is adhering to that rule should be judged by your interpretation).

The rules for climbing in Chapters 7 and 8 point to a category of difficult situations that doesn't include the length of the climb. Climbing without a complication in that category is just half speed, no roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don’t think the specific rules are unclear. I acknowledge that DMs may wish to disregard the specific rules, and support their right to do so.