D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Xetheral]

You can answer your own question.

I thought my answer was implicit, but I'll make it explicit:

I am discussing my interpretation of the rules because I am interested in a rules-based solution.

To rephrase my question: Why do you think I would even be discussing my interpretation of the rules (flawed though you think my interpretation is due to your belief that I am engaging in motivated reasoning) if I wasn't interested in a rules-based solution?

 

[iserith]

I thought my answer was implicit, but I'll make it explicit:

I am discussing my interpretation of the rules because I am interested in a rules-based solution.

To rephrase my question: Why do you think I would even be discussing my interpretation of the rules (flawed though you think my interpretation is due to your belief that I am engaging in motivated reasoning) if I wasn't interested in a rules-based solution?

If you're interested in discussing a rules-based solution, please proceed. If I wasn't clear enough already, allow me to be very clear now: I'm not interested in answering your question.

 

[Xetheral]

If you're interested in discussing a rules-based solution, please proceed. If I wasn't clear enough already, allow me to be very clear now: I'm not interested in answering your question.

Fair enough.

To summarize my position regarding a rules-based solution: I interpret the rules as leaving it up to each DM to decide whether a particular climbing complication shares enough qualities with the example complications to make it reasonable to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Mostly my interpretation is based on the inclusion of the text "At the DM's option..." but my interpretation is also influenced by the practical observation that the DM is the only one available to make that determination. I think it is unlikely that the designers intended to further restrict the DM's discretion to compare a particular complication to the example complications without including additional text to do so.

Ultimately, I think that if that a DM has identified a climbing complication they think is sufficiently similar to the example complications, the rules say that DM can call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Ergo, even though I would personally not call for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb an 80' rope, I think the rules give the DM the option to do so if they personally identify the height of the climb as a complication sufficiently similar to the examples in the book.

I know you disagree with my interpretation, and that you instead interpret the rules as never allowing the height of a climb to be a complication sufficiently similar to the example complications as to permit the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

I assert that I do not have a stake in the resolution of the question of which rules interpretation is stronger. Therefore, I do not believe I am engaging in motivated reasoning. As I do not have perfect self-awareness, I concede that it is possible that I have a stake in the resolution of which I am unaware. However, as you have declined to discuss the evidence on which you are basing your claim of motivated reasoning, I have only my own self-awareness to go on.

Similarly, I assert that I have an interest in a rules-based solution, as evidenced by my participation in a discussion about differing interpretations of those rules. It is hard for me to fathom what possible evidence you could have that would suggest I am discussing the rules without having an interest in the topic. But again, as you don't want to discuss further, I'm left to my own understanding of my interest.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough.

To summarize my position regarding a rules-based solution: I interpret the rules as leaving it up to each DM to decide whether a particular climbing complication shares enough qualities with the example complications to make it reasonable to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Mostly my interpretation is based on the inclusion of the text "At the DM's option..." but my interpretation is also influenced by the practical observation that the DM is the only one available to make that determination. I think it is unlikely that the designers intended to further restrict the DM's discretion to compare a particular complication to the example complications without including additional text to do so.

Ultimately, I think that if that a DM has identified a climbing complication they think is sufficiently similar to the example complications, the rules say that DM can call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Ergo, even though I would personally not call for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb an 80' rope, I think the rules give the DM the option to do so if they personally identify the height of the climb as a complication sufficiently similar to the examples in the book.

I know you disagree with my interpretation, and that you instead interpret the rules as never allowing the height of a climb to be a complication sufficiently similar to the example complications as to permit the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

I agree this a restatement of the disagreement.

 

[Hriston]

It’s pretty clear to me the kind of situation the books are talking about under Athletics. Climbing itself is just movement, which is free. It’s when you climb under external circumstances that make climbing difficult, like the climbing surface itself being sheer or slippery, or the presence of hazards or creatures that oppose your climb, that you might have to make a Strength {Athletics) check to resolve your attempt to climb.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It’s pretty clear to me the kind of situation the books are talking about under Athletics. Climbing itself is just movement, which is free. It’s when you climb under external circumstances that make climbing difficult, like the climbing surface itself being sheer or slippery, or the presence of hazards or creatures that oppose your climb, that you might have to make a Strength {Athletics) check to resolve your attempt to climb.

Agreed. Exactly as it says under Special Types of Movement. Although, I'd also love to see an example of when crawling might require a Strength (Athletics) check from our heroes. I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be an excessively long, low-ceilinged tunnel.

Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling PHB p182
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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

And preventing damage from falling by succeeding in a climb... same difference IMO.

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.

Sure, take "time" out of it. Climbing a rope is also about determining your skill at doing so, without falling. You either succeed or you fail. If you fail, another attempt may not be possible, and you fall. So it is not a situation where if given all the time in the world, you automatically succeed. Failing to climb a rope often has consequences.

See what I did there?

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.

Likewise with a climb. shrug

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.

It depends on the jump. If your STR is 12 and you are trying to jump a 10-foot wide gap over boiling lava, I am going to make you roll a check for it. The distance is well within your movement rules, but the danger involved is such that the consequences of failure can be drastic! Again, this is the stress of the situation. If you made the same jump over a gentle stream and just wanted to avoid getting wet? No, unless you had something on you where the water would damage it severely, etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It’s pretty clear to me the kind of situation the books are talking about under Athletics. Climbing itself is just movement, which is free. It’s when you climb under external circumstances that make climbing difficult, like the climbing surface itself being sheer or slippery, or the presence of hazards or creatures that oppose your climb, that you might have to make a Strength {Athletics) check to resolve your attempt to climb.

Well, "climbing" covers a lot of things. The point of debate has been if the height can be enough of a circumstance due to the danger involved to make the climb difficult.

If you don't think so (which it appears you don't), that's fine. But can you understand how other DMs (such as myself) think it can be, and thus are also covered by the same rules and examples given?

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s pretty clear to me the kind of situation the books are talking about under Athletics. Climbing itself is just movement, which is free. It’s when you climb under external circumstances that make climbing difficult, like the climbing surface itself being sheer or slippery, or the presence of hazards or creatures that oppose your climb, that you might have to make a Strength {Athletics) check to resolve your attempt to climb.

Simple as that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Simple as that.

LOL, and here I thought making a check whenever the DM feels the situation and circumstances warrant it was simple...