D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

So who determines the character's limits?

As I said upthread already, the rules don't offer much in the way of guidance here except perhaps in the areas of rules for forced march, starvation, and dehydration, or stuff like that. The DM will have to decide.

 

[iserith]

Thank you for that. It has the merit of consistency and makes your position clear. For you, a climber being in the grip of a tropical disease that causes their grip to be weak and uncertain would not be a complicating factor that justifies a Strength (Athletics) check, for the reason that it isn't one of sheer, slippery, hazards, or something trying to knock them off.

Thanks. Consistency is one of my DM principles so that the players can make informed decisions.

It's probably worth noting that you're likely never going to have a climb in my game that doesn't feature one of those difficult situations. Because otherwise it's not interesting or worth playing out in my view. There is no "if climb, then climb check" in my D&D 5e games. A situation like the one described in the OP would just never appear in my games.

 

[iserith]

You take "examples include" to mean that everything else is excluded. That is an atypical reading of that construction.

Replying to your edit: As I've said, there's a category there. "Length of climb" falls in the camp of "one of these things is not like the other." But, as I said, it could be used as a challenge to see if a character can push past his or her normal limits wherein a Constituion check may be appropriate. It's been a few years now, but as I recall, I did this in my D&D 5e Planescape campaign when the PCs were climbing the mountains of Othrys on Carceri to find a way off the plane. I don't think I've presented such a challenge since.

 

[clearstream]

Thanks. Consistency is one of my DM principles so that the players can make informed decisions.

It's probably worth noting that you're likely never going to have a climb in my game that doesn't feature one of those difficult situations. Because otherwise it's not interesting or worth playing out in my view. There is no "if climb, then climb check" in my D&D 5e games. A situation like the one described in the OP would just never appear in my games.

Honestly, your view seems reasonable to me. If I understood the examples to have the weight you give them I would think the same.

Obviously I do not, however

 

[clearstream]

Replying to your edit: As I've said, there's a category there. "Length of climb" falls in the camp of "one of these things is not like the other."

To say there are categories is to infer secret rules, which the designers have insisted don't exist in 5e.

 

[iserith]

To say there are categories is to infer secret rules, which the designers have insisted don't exist in 5e.

I'm inferring no secret rules. Length of climb isn't in the list or even like the things in the list. Further, a Strength (Athletics) check for length of climb really just belongs in other games. It's "if climb, then climb check." As you know, I think trying to jam it into D&D 5e and claiming the DM is playing RAW is just trying to justify legacy approaches that haven't been examined in the current edition. It's quite common for DMs to do that. There's no shame in it per se because the DM can do as he or she likes, but I'll not be convinced otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Once you agree that a boundary is ambiguous, it is faulty to construct arguments that rely upon it being unambiguous.

It certainly would be. However, my argument does not rely on it being unambigous.

You ascribe to the developers an intent they did not have. Or to put it another way, if you want to rely upon the developers having the intent you ascribe to them, the burden is on you to evidence it.

The developers had some intent when designing the rules. Just because we don't know what it was doesn't mean it didn't exist.

To say that a rule is ambiguous means that it does not have a single clear meaning: no one circle that happens to be unknown. Again, you seem to be relying on secret rules.

There is a difference between secret rules and unclear rules. Secret implies intentionally hidden. Unclear simply means it was not expressed with perfect clarity.

I also, frankly, don't think the rules are particularly unclear. It's pretty clear to me. I acknowledge, however, that others have different perspectives and the fact that the intent of the rule is not 100% explicit leaves room for misinterpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

To say there are categories is to infer secret rules, which the designers have insisted don't exist in 5e.

That's absurd. Just because the rule lists examples of a certain type of complication and the list is not exhaustive doesn't mean any complications that fall under the same type but are not listed are "secret." It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse here.

 

[Hriston]

I think the forced march rules are fine for this and would consider a rope difficult terrain, so a creature without a climb speed could theoretically climb 4.5 to 7.5 miles of rope (depending on travel pace) in 8 hours before having to begin making Constitution saves against exhaustion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the forced march rules are fine for this and would consider a rope difficult terrain, so a creature without a climb speed could theoretically climb 4.5 to 7.5 miles of rope (depending on travel pace) in 8 hours before having to begin making Constitution saves against exhaustion.

Wouldn't it be 8 to 16 miles (assuming they did no traveling besides climbing that day)? A slow pace is 2 miles per hour, halved to 1 mile for the "difficult terrain" and a fast pace is 4, halved to 2.