D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

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.

That is an egregious misstating of the argument. For the last few pages we have been agreeing that climbing does not necessitate a check, while debating what counts as a difficulty that would make one - at a DM's option - justified per RAW.

 

[iserith]

That is an egregious misstating of the argument. For the last few pages we have been agreeing that climbing does not necessitate a check, while debating what counts as a difficulty that would make one - at a DM's option - justified per RAW.

My point is that, yes, some folks might love to include length of climb as a difficult situation that the specific rules for climbing contemplate as appropriate for a Strength (Athletics) check, but here's a way to do it within the scope of the rules that would give them the check they very much seem to want. And yet that is not enough. It seems there is no interest in an actual rules-based solution. I mean, someone even tried to suggest that it was appropriate because something something horse jumping a chasm therefore Strength (Athletics) check to climb? C'mon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is an egregious misstating of the argument. For the last few pages we have been agreeing that climbing does not necessitate a check, while debating what counts as a difficulty that would make one - at a DM's option - justified per RAW.

Yeah, that's been the crux of the issue really: the debate of what constitutes difficulty and the need for a check.

I don't get why some posters feel that their interpretation is the correct version and refuse to acknowledge the other position is perfectly valid as well. shrug

I mean, there are plenty of climbs where I am not going to ask for a climb check, like using a rope to pull yourself up over a 10' wall, for example. Sure, IRL there are a lot of people who probably couldn't do it, but with enough time and such I'll give PCs the benefit of the doubt, after all, a fall would only be 1d6 damage, insufficient to kill ANY PC except a sorcerer or wizard with CON 8 or lower... (assuming standard array). Now, if the PC had just 1 HP left... maybe, because a failure could lead to interesting complications since the damage would be enough to knock them out if they fell.

But 80 feet? Yeah, I am certainly asking for a check then, because it is basically saying how well can you avoid significant damage when facing this challenge.

Think of it like a trap. If the PC needs to make a check to disarm a trap, it is to avoid the damage (or whatever) the traps causes. Even given enough time without any other factors, I will still call for a check to avoid damage (if they failed by 5 or something?).

If the PC has plenty of time, other DMs might not bother with a check and just say "After a few minutes you disarm the trap" and move the story along.

Both work fine in my book depending on what type of game the DM is running.

 

[Imaculata]

Think of it like a trap. If the PC needs to make a check to disarm a trap, it is to avoid the damage (or whatever) the traps causes.

If the PC has plenty of time, other DMs might not bother with a check and just say "After a few minutes you disarm the trap" and move the story along.

Few points.

First of all, you don't roll to avoid the damage. You roll to see if your disarm succeeds, there by preventing it from activating.

Second, it doesn't matter (generally speaking) how long you take to disarm the trap. Disarming a trap is a check to determine your skill at doing so, without triggering it. You either succeed or fail. If you fail, another attempt may not be possible, and the trap may activate. So it is not a situation where if given all of the time in the world, you automatically succeed. Failing to disarm a trap often has consequences.

A DM may decide to rule it differently, since every trap is different. But most of the time, disarming a trap is an action for which the DM asks for a roll. That is, if a check is needed at all. Some actions may disable the trap with no rolls needed.

But why not compare it to a jump instead? A jump also uses movement, and the height of the fall is also not a factor in determining the difficulty.

 

[Xetheral]

My point is that, yes, some folks might love to include length of climb as a difficult situation that the specific rules for climbing contemplate as appropriate for a Strength (Athletics) check, but here's a way to do it within the scope of the rules that would give them the check they very much seem to want. And yet that is not enough. It seems there is no interest in an actual rules-based solution. I mean, someone even tried to suggest that it was appropriate because something something horse jumping a chasm therefore Strength (Athletics) check to climb? C'mon.

(Emphasis added.) I'm perplexed. Several posters, including me, have explained how we think calling for a Strength (Athletics) check for a sufficiently long climb is a rules-based solution. How does our disagreement with you specifically over what constitutes an actual rules-based solution lead you to think that we have "no interest in an actual rules-based solution"?

 

[iserith]

(Emphasis added.) I'm perplexed. Several posters, including me, have explained how we think calling for a Strength (Athletics) check for a sufficiently long climb is a rules-based solution. How does our disagreement with you specifically over what constitutes an actual rules-based solution lead you to think that we have "no interest in an actual rules-based solution"?

I'm aware of our disagreement. I'm offering a resolution to it. Take it or leave it.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm aware of our disagreement. I'm offering a resolution to it. Take it or leave it.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm curious about what your basis is for thinking I (among others) have "no interest in an actual rules-based solution". From my standpoint I think my interest in such a rules-based solution has been extensively established by the discussion in this thread. You obviously see things very differently, and I'd like to understand why if you are willing to share.

 

[iserith]

That doesn't answer my question. I'm curious about what your basis is for thinking I (among others) have "no interest in an actual rules-based solution". From my standpoint I think my interest in such a rules-based solution has been extensively established by the discussion in this thread. You obviously see things very differently, and I'd like to understand why if you are willing to share.

I believe I more or less addressed this in a previous exchange. I think there is motivated reasoning going on with some posters and a lot of flailing to try to prove that a ruling is based in the specific rules for climbing.

 

[Xetheral]

I believe I more or less addressed this in a previous exchange. I think there is motivated reasoning going on with some posters and a lot of flailing to try to prove that a ruling is based in the specific rules for climbing.

Thanks for answering. Acknowledging that you think my rules interpretation is weakened because you believe I am engaging in motivated reasoning, I still don't see how that could justify the further conclusion that I'm not interested in a rules-based solution in the first place.

Why would I even be discussing my interpretation of the rules if I wasn't interested in a rules-based solution?

 

[iserith]

Thanks for answering. Acknowledging that you think my rules interpretation is weakened because you believe I am engaging in motivated reasoning, I still don't see how that could justify the further conclusion that I'm not interested in a rules-based solution in the first place.

Why would I even be discussing my interpretation of the rules if I wasn't interested in a rules-based solution?

You can answer your own question.