D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

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.

That evades the argument to hand, which is that they are excluded from being resolved as Strength (Athletics) climbing checks, etc.

 

[iserith]

That evades the argument to hand, which is that they are excluded from being resolved as Strength (Athletics) climbing checks, etc.

If they get resolved or accounted for by some other satisfactory means within the scope of the rules, what difference does it make that they don't fall into the specific rules for Strength (Athletics) checks related to climbing?

 

[clearstream]

If they get resolved or accounted for by some other satisfactory means within the scope of the rules, what difference does it make that they don't fall into the specific rules for Strength (Athletics) checks related to climbing?

So you're comfortable then that by RAW it is right to call for a check because of height as a factor in difficulty?

EDITED

 

[cmad1977]

So you're comfortable then that by RAW it is right to call for a check because of height as a factor in difficulty?

EDITED

You don’t roll for difficult things. You roll for consequential things.
What are the stakes of this climb?

 

[iserith]

So you're comfortable then that by RAW it is right to call for a check because of height as a factor in difficulty?

EDITED

Not for a Strength (Athletics) check the specific rules for climbing state, no. But I've already shown how length of climb can be framed as a challenge to the character's ability to push past normal limits using a Constitution check.

 

[clearstream]

You don’t roll for difficult things. You roll for consequential things.
What are the stakes of this climb?

We already determined up-thread that the stakes were 6d6 or so damage. We're focusing now on difficulty and complications.

 

[clearstream]

Not for a Strength (Athletics) check the specific rules for climbing state, no. But I've already shown how length of climb can be framed as a challenge to the character's ability to push past normal limits using a Constitution check.

That may be true, but it is not salient.

 

[iserith]

That may be true, but it is not salient.

It's interesting that this rules-based solution is ignored because some folks really want there to be "if climb, then climb check" in D&D 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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.

Oh, well here’s the problem then. Your reading of my position is wrong. I am not saying the examples are exclusive.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, well he’s the problem then. Your reading of my position is wrong. I am not saying the examples are exclusive.

Great!