D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Nebulous]

Haha if we learned anything from 3e it’s that nerds will argue about this stupid stuff no matter how clearly you (try to) word the rules.

That's probably true. Endless arguments despite the edition!

 

[Xetheral]

I apologize, but I can’t make heads or tails of any of this.

I disagree. There is one circle, which contains all the things the developers intended to constitute a Strength (Athletics) check. The bounds of that circle may not be clear, but they do exist. It is the DM’s role to determine what they think lies within the circle and what doesn’t, but they could come to incorrect assessments.

Of course there might be. And one of us would be right and the other would be wrong. We might then discuss our reasons for thinking these things do or don’t call for a Strength (Athletics) check, and may or may not succeed in persuading the other.

I think you and I may be working from different definitions of the word “ambiguous.” To me it means unclear. You seem to be using it to mean undefined.

There is yet another philosophical (specifically, epistemological) difference at play here. If I am understanding correctly, then to you, it's meaningful to say something is "correct" and something else is "wrong" even if no method exists to determine which is which. To @clearstream, which is "correct" and which is "wrong" is defined by the method used to determine which is which.

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.

It's not obtuseness, just more of the differing philosophy and definitions.

To try to translate: from @clearstream's perspective a "category" is defined by the sorting rule that lets one determine what is and is not a member of that category. Under that approach, insisting that the climbing complication examples in the book are part of a meaningful category requires (by definition) that there exist a sorting rule to determine which of the proposed climbing complications belong in that category and which do not. Therefore, since you are arguing in favor of the existence of that category, and saying that there is a correct answer and a wrong answer to whether a proposed climbing complication belongs in that category, then by the definition @clearstream is using, either (1) your arguement is inconsistent or (2) you are implicitly arguing that a sorting rule exists even though there isn't one in the text (i.e. a secret rule).

By contrast, it sounds like you're perfectly comfortable with the idea that there can exist a category for which no sorting rule exists but where it is still meaningful to talk about someone being correct or incorrect when they claim that X is a member of that category.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is yet another philosophical (specifically, epistemological) difference at play here. If I am understanding correctly, then to you, it's meaningful to say something is "correct" and something else is "wrong" even if no method exists to determine which is which. To @clearstream, which is "correct" and which is "wrong" is defined by the method used to determine which is which.


It's not obtuseness, just more of the differing philosophy and definitions.

To try to translate: from @clearstream's perspective a "category" is defined by the sorting rule that lets one determine what is and is not a member of that category. Under that approach, insisting that the climbing complication examples in the book are part of a meaningful category requires (by definition) that there exist a sorting rule to determine which of the proposed climbing complications belong in that category and which do not. Therefore, since you are arguing in favor of the existence of that category, and saying that there is a correct answer and a wrong answer to whether a proposed climbing complication belongs in that category, then by the definition @clearstream is using, either (1) your arguement is inconsistent or (2) you are implicitly arguing that a sorting rule exists even though there isn't one in the text (i.e. a secret rule).

By contrast, it sounds like you're perfectly comfortable with the idea that there can exist a category for which no sorting rule exists but where it is still meaningful to talk about someone being correct or incorrect when they claim that X is a member of that category.

Oh! Ok, that was extremely helpful, thank you.

 

[Charlaquin]

By contrast, it sounds like you're perfectly comfortable with the idea that there can exist a category for which no sorting rule exists but where it is still meaningful to talk about someone being correct or incorrect when they claim that X is a member of that category.

Upon reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm comfortable with inferring the sorting rule from the given examples... and somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that the developer intent was for the DM to choose any sorting method they wanted!

I would say the rule is written "ambiguously" because the intended sorting method is not explicitly stated (though not so ambiguously that it can't be determined by inference), whereas @clearstream would say that, if an intended sorting method exists, it is a "secret rule." I object to this characterization, however, because the word "secret" suggests that the rule was intentionally obfuscated, rather than being unintentionally unclear.

 

[Xetheral]

Upon reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm comfortable with inferring the sorting rule from the given examples... and somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that the developer intent was for the DM to choose any sorting method they wanted!

That's totally fair. By contrast, I'm more comfortable with the idea that since the sorting rule was left unstated, that it was deliberately left up to the DM.

I would say the rule is written "ambiguously" because the intended sorting method is not explicitly stated (though not so ambiguously that it can't be determined by inference), whereas @clearstream would say that, if an intended sorting method exists, it is a "secret rule." I object to this characterization, however, because the word "secret" suggests that the rule was intentionally obfuscated, rather than being unintentionally unclear.

There I suspect you'll get disagreement as to whether such a sorting rule can be determined by inference. To meet that bar I (and I suspect @clearstream) would say that everyone making the inference would have to infer the same sorting rule. Otherwise, the question becomes "Whose inferred sorting rule is correct?" and answering that question has all the same problems of philosophical differences related to "correctness" as the original sorting question.

Personally, I'm with you on the "secret rule" part to the extent that I doubt the developers, when they disclaimed any "secret rules" meant the phrase in the way @clearstream is using it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Twenty pages to discuss a simple task gives me once again evidence that trying to set fixed universal rule to simulate reality is a recipe for failure. The 3e/4e designers didn't get that, and tried to give DCs for everything, but it did not lead to a "reliable" simulation game at all, it only lead to endless house rules to supposedly improve things, but really going around in circles. The 5e designers have been wiser to keep it generic. The beginning of the relevant section in the DMG starts with the words "it's your job", but the job isn't to design a system, the job is to handle each case separately.

What I would do, is first of all know if my current players are interested in detailed descriptions and problem-solving or not.

1) If they are NOT interested, resolving the climbing should take a minute or so:

Ask yourself the question: "do I want the PCs to succeed"?

"Yes" -> spend a sentence or two describing how they manage to succeed
"No" -> spend a sentence or two describing how they try and fail
"I don't know/want to decide" -> eyeball the probability you want and make them roll (bonus: if they like random deaths or penalties, also set a second threshold for critical failure)

2) If they ARE interested in more details on this type of situations, SPLIT the whole scene in smaller parts, and offer multiple choices every few steps.

Then treat each part separately as in point 1). Your players will likely want to think how to deal with each part without having you call for a check at all i.e. doing something clever.

---

So the only right answer to "what the DC should be" is "whatever". And I don't think @Nebulous needed to do anything to handle it better, it was just fine. The fact that the players discussed a strategy and ended up NOT doing that but something else, was not a failure at all!

 

[Imaculata]

Any DM who doesn't want to call for a check due the stress involved and danger of such a climb, knock yourselves out. Performing a task, even climbing a rope, is influenced by the stress involved.

Not according to 5e rules, or the rules of any edition for that matter. I don't believe stress of failure, or the amount of danger involved, has ever been a factor in determining the difficulty of a task.

Take for example a leap across a pit. In 3e the difficulty of leaping across was always determined by how far the jump is (the distance in feet IS the DC), not by how deep the fall is. In 5e, this has been simplified. You jump as far as your strength score allows (no check), and each foot you jump consumes a foot of your normal movement. The only difficulty is in the landing (may require a check if difficult terrain), and possibly a check to clear an obstacle (if jumping over a low obstacle).

So your interpretation of the rules on climbing, does not seem in line with how simular actions are ruled in 5e. In 5e, any action that consumes movement, does not require a check due to stress or distance, unless it falls within the range of a forced march, or there is a complication.

 

[clearstream]

There is yet another philosophical (specifically, epistemological) difference at play here. If I am understanding correctly, then to you, it's meaningful to say something is "correct" and something else is "wrong" even if no method exists to determine which is which. To @clearstream, which is "correct" and which is "wrong" is defined by the method used to determine which is which.


It's not obtuseness, just more of the differing philosophy and definitions.

To try to translate: from @clearstream's perspective a "category" is defined by the sorting rule that lets one determine what is and is not a member of that category. Under that approach, insisting that the climbing complication examples in the book are part of a meaningful category requires (by definition) that there exist a sorting rule to determine which of the proposed climbing complications belong in that category and which do not. Therefore, since you are arguing in favor of the existence of that category, and saying that there is a correct answer and a wrong answer to whether a proposed climbing complication belongs in that category, then by the definition @clearstream is using, either (1) your arguement is inconsistent or (2) you are implicitly arguing that a sorting rule exists even though there isn't one in the text (i.e. a secret rule).

By contrast, it sounds like you're perfectly comfortable with the idea that there can exist a category for which no sorting rule exists but where it is still meaningful to talk about someone being correct or incorrect when they claim that X is a member of that category.

That is a helpful discussion, although it omits some possibly relevant nuance.

Upon reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm comfortable with inferring the sorting rule from the given examples... and somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that the developer intent was for the DM to choose any sorting method they wanted!

I would say the rule is written "ambiguously" because the intended sorting method is not explicitly stated (though not so ambiguously that it can't be determined by inference), whereas @clearstream would say that, if an intended sorting method exists, it is a "secret rule." I object to this characterization, however, because the word "secret" suggests that the rule was intentionally obfuscated, rather than being unintentionally unclear.

This is similar to arguments that I would make myself if I wanted to sustain @Charlaquin's position. I'd say a sorting rule can be inferred, and that it is not secret or hidden: it's right out there in the open. Say we were to concede that exact point? A shortfall is that the wording "Examples include" implies that there are further possible examples, not included here in the text.

The strongest thing one might say is that it is silent on further examples, but to my reading @Charlaquin is saying that the examples are categorical and exclusive. They're adding a second rule that really is secret because it has a meaning that doesn't exist in the words on the page. I'd urge those contemplating this to try drafting a few rules that properly exclude further examples, and then compare the language they come up with, with that in RAW. @Charlaquin's position relies on there being not one rule, but two. And only one of those (at most) can be defended as present on the page.

Seeing as I believe the examples are not limited to those on the page, I ask myself if I can think of any examples that fall outside them. With very little effort it turns out that I can. My climber in the throes of a tropical disease causing them to have a weak and uncertain grip. Or perhaps a climber is in a desperate rush to scramble up the rope, taking no care at all for their safety? Those aren't covered by the four examples given. That challenges narrower readings for the obvious reason. One can do as @iserith does - grasp the nettle and say all those possibilities really are excluded - but I think one ought then to have an idea of where said exclusion rule came from?

 

[DND_Reborn]

As the OP, asking my simple question about climbing a tower, my conclusion after 20 pages of arguments here is that the core 5e rules could be a LITTLE bit clearer so nerds don't argue about this stupid stuff.

Considering this thread:

D&D General - why do we have halflings and gnomes?

why do we have halflings and gnomes? I get that they are classic and all that but I can't for the life of me figure out the appeal of them or what to do with them in a setting? I know why Tolkien used hobbits but I do not see who the use them in a non-story setting (gaming settings are...

www.enworld.org

is on page 93, we have a LONG way to go still...

 

[iserith]

Seeing as I believe the examples are not limited to those on the page, I ask myself if I can think of any examples that fall outside them. With very little effort it turns out that I can. My climber in the throes of a tropical disease causing them to have a weak and uncertain grip. Or perhaps a climber is in a desperate rush to scramble up the rope, taking no care at all for their safety? Those aren't covered by the four examples given. That challenges narrower readings for the obvious reason. One can do as @iserith does - grasp the nettle and say all those possibilities really are excluded - but I think one ought then to have an idea of where said exclusion rule came from?

A helpful way to look at it in my view is that it's not so much exclusionary as it is something that would be resolved another way. I showed how to account for the PC with the disease or how to involve the length of the climb in a test of whether or not a character becomes exhausted, for example. The specific climbing rules talk about a Strength (Athletics) check for particular difficult situations. Other complications can be resolved in other ways.