D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[DND_Reborn]

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.

It isn't a matter of disregarding the specific rules, though. It is simply a disagreement on what constitutes a contributing factor requiring a call for a check--in other words: the interpretation of the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

To elaborate, chapter 7 says the following about Athletics:

Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:

• You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

And chapter 8 says this:

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.

So, the examples we have of the sort of complications that might make a Strength (Athletics) check necessary to climb are: climbing a slippery or vertical surface, climbing a surface with no hand holds, climbing a sheer or slippery cliff, avoiding hazzards by scaling a wall, or clinging to a surface while someone is trying to knock you off. These examples seem to represent a certain category of obstacle: specifically, environmental factors that threaten to cause the climber to lose their grip. The height of a climb seems to be a categorically different factor, which may affect the climb in other ways. For example, a longer climb will take more time to complete, and if the climber falls, they will take more fall damage.

If a DM wishes to call for a Strength (Athletics) check in a situation that does not involve environmental factors that might cause the character to lose their grip, I fully support their right to do so. But I believe that doing so would be going outside of what the rules suggest.

 

[Charlaquin]

It isn't a matter of disregarding the specific rules, though. It is simply a disagreement on what constitutes a contributing factor requiring a call for a check--in other words: the interpretation of the rules.

Sure. In that case, I believe you are interpreting the rules incorrectly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure. In that case, I believe you are interpreting the rules incorrectly.

Which is why I wrote this:

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

Because I am interpreting them correctly.

It is a simple "agree to disagree" case as far as I am concerned.

Fortunately for me, when it comes to interpreting the rules, few things in 5E have concrete right/wrong rulings -- and this is not one of those.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

Yes, I know that your opinion is that the specific rules preclude a DM from ruling that the length of the climb is a complication. You know that I disagree, and that I think the specific rules leave determination of complications up to the DM.

What is your rhetorical purpose in restating a position you know I disagree with? It's coming across as you simply saying: "No, I'm right".

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.

I acknowledge that you think the specific rules are clear. I also happen to think that the specific rules are clear. However, we each think the rules say different things....

I'm inferring that you intend the statement "I acknowledge that DMs may wish to disregard the specific rules, and support their right to do so" to be conciliatory. If so, I'd like to point out that it isn't coming across that way. Because you're saying it to a poster who disagrees with you on what the specific rules are, it is instead coming across to me as aggressively dismissive of any opinion but your own.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, I know that your opinion is that the specific rules preclude a DM from ruling that the length of the climb is a complication. You know that I disagree, and that I think the specific rules leave determination of complications up to the DM.

What is your rhetorical purpose in restating a position you know I disagree with? It's coming across as you simply saying: "No, I'm right".


I acknowledge that you think the specific rules are clear. I also happen to think that the specific rules are clear. However, we each think the rules say different things....

I'm inferring that you intend the statement "I acknowledge that DMs may wish to disregard the specific rules, and support their right to do so" to be conciliatory. If so, I'd like to point out that it isn't coming across that way. Because you're saying it to a poster who disagrees with you on what the specific rules are, it is instead coming across to me as aggressively dismissive of any opinion but your own.

LOL, keep earning the likes... I'll keep sending them.

 

[iserith]

Yes, I know that your opinion is that the specific rules preclude a DM from ruling that the length of the climb is a complication. You know that I disagree, and that I think the specific rules leave determination of complications up to the DM.

What is your rhetorical purpose in restating a position you know I disagree with? It's coming across as you simply saying: "No, I'm right".

If you quote me in a thread, I'm going to respond. If I have nothing new to add, I'll restate my position, perhaps sometimes in a slightly different way in hopes that it is understood by you or other readers. If you don't seek a response, don't quote me.

 

[clearstream]

If a DM wishes to call for a Strength (Athletics) check in a situation that does not involve environmental factors that might cause the character to lose their grip, I fully support their right to do so. But I believe that doing so would be going outside of what the rules suggest.

Emphasis mine. I feel like you are stating a reasonable position. You believe the RAW entails X. You've stated why you feel that belief is justified.

I believe the RAW is necessarily ambiguous, in that it offers a list that is necessarily incomplete. You appear to infer from the examples a secret rule to the effect that difficulties must "involve environmental factors". The lead game designer says that 5e has no secret rules. Therefore I believe that what is crucial about the RAW is only this - a climbing check is not required just because a character is climbing, and a climbing check is required if a DM describes the situation to be difficult.

Something I emphatically do not think, is that the RAW calls for checks only if a surface is "slippery", or has "few handholds" notwithstanding that I might find your position more plausible if you did. Which is to say, in order to maintain your position, you ought to believe that the only case in which a DM may call for a check - at their option - is if a surface is slippery or has few handholds. Is that what you in fact believe?

 

[Charlaquin]

Emphasis mine. I feel like you are stating a reasonable position. You believe the RAW entails X. You've stated why you feel that belief is justified.

I believe the RAW is necessarily ambiguous, in that it offers a list that is necessarily incomplete. You appear to infer from the examples a secret rule to the effect that difficulties must "involve environmental factors". The lead game designer says that 5e has no secret rules. Therefore I believe that what is crucial about the RAW is only this - a climbing check is not required just because a character is climbing, and a climbing check is required if a DM describes the situation to be difficult.

Ah, that would certainly seem to be a point of miscommunication, then. No, I do not believe there is a “secret rule” of any sort. I agree with you that the rules are necessarily somewhat ambiguous, and require a degree of DM interpretation. It is my belief that, though the list of examples is necessarily incomplete, the examples that are given are intended to express a general category, by way of things they have in common, so that DMs have a point of comparison by which to judge whether a given obstacle falls into that category. Otherwise, there would be no need for a list of examples.

Something I emphatically do not think, is that the RAW calls for checks only if a surface is "slippery", or has "few handholds" notwithstanding that I would find your position more plausible if you did. Which is to say, in order to maintain your position, you ought to believe that the only case in which a DM may call for a check - at their option - is if a surface is slippery or has few handholds. Is that what you in fact believe?

No, it is not. As stated earlier, I do not believe the list of examples to be exhaustive, but rather, indicative of the sort of obstacle for which it is appropriate to call for a Strength (Athletics) check to overcome. The examples given are “[when] climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds” and “[when] You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.” The common factors in these examples seem to be that they are environmental, and make it more difficult for the climber to maintain their grip. Great height, in my assessment, does not seem to have enough in common with these examples to belong among them.

I acknowledge that some DMs may come to a different conclusion, but I believe such a conclusion would be incorrect (which is almost tautological - obviously if I believe my interpretation to be correct, I must necessarily believe other interpretations to be incorrect).

 

[Xetheral]

If you quote me in a thread, I'm going to respond. If I have nothing new to add, I'll restate my position, perhaps sometimes in a slightly different way in hopes that it is understood by you or other readers. If you don't seek a response, don't quote me.

I did want a response! I was trying to discuss why you were saying I was engaging in motivated reasoning and the obfuscation of rules. If that's a topic you're not interested in discussing, fine, but restating your position on the underlying disagreement over what the rules mean didn't make that clear. It seemed like you were ignoring what I'd said altogether.