D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

More like the OP. They avoided the climb because it seemed dangerous to them. See how that works? It was dangerous because climbing that high is dangerous. You think it isn't I guess, but I thikn you wouldn't try it.

Otherwise who talks like that?

Yes, they wisely avoided it likely because there would be three checks per person which means it's nearly impossible for at least some characters to avoid a fall. But I submit there is no rules basis in this situation for one check let alone three checks. In any case, as I have shown, my game would include a difficult situation that would make the climb dangerous and possibly call for an ability check.

Who talks like what?

 

[JimmyG]

Who talks like what?

Like what you wrote.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is sort of funny. What group doesn't have two ropes and a grappling hook? We've just started and we have them for our characters. I would say that removes the challenge, all for 4 gp of gear. Nice challange ha-ha!

Maybe that is what it sounds like to you, but not to me. And I meant it would annoy me to have to deal with that stuff as a player. It would get old really fast. We don't deal with stuff like that and still look back on our games and have fun talking about them.

so in the course of three posts you’ve shifted gears from criticizing @iserith for presenting scenarios with no challenge, to criticizing them for setting up challenges that would be annoying to deal with.

 

[iserith]

Like what you wrote.

I did have the benefit of writing it in its entirety, but it's more or less how I see games go. I describe something and ask what the players do. They talk to each other and respond in first or third person. If a check is needed, I call for it, including DC and stakes. Then I narrate the result. The only thing missing is the odd inappropriate joke which wasn't necessary to include in the guide since its purpose is to show by way of rules citations and examples of play how to adjudicate actions.

How is the way you play different from this?

 

[Xetheral]

Only if there’s nothing about the scene that would make swimming across the lake challenging. Again, if the scene wouldn’t be tense without a check, the scene isn’t tense.

Hmm, in the post you're quoting I was trying to explain that, contrary to @Imaculata's portrayal, I saw @6ENow! as referring to the five-mile-wide lake as the obstacle rather than the die roll. I wasn't meaning to discuss tension or challenge.

That being said, I would say that the danger of drowning makes crossing five miles of open water tense, just like the danger falling makes a high-enough climb tense. As with the climb, the PCs might choose an approach (e.g. booking passage on a boat) that sufficiently mitigates the danger and so crossing the lake becomes an auto-success, successfully defusing the tension by avoiding the danger.

So I agree that just calling for a check doesn't add tension, but since I think the lake already has tension it's a moot point. I do think interpreting the rules such that drowning is impossible on ordinary swims of up to 8 hours in length (with armor and gear!) effectively removes the tension from crossing a five mile-wide body of water, not because of the lack of a check but because you've lessened the danger posed by large bodies of water. (And, as I was originally discussing, such a ruling also makes such bodies of water no longer an obstacle in your game world under ordinary conditions. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is entirely subjective.)

 

[Imaculata]

Hmm, in the post you're quoting I was trying to explain that, contrary to @Imaculata's portrayal, I saw @6ENow! as referring to the five-mile-wide lake as the obstacle rather than the die roll. I wasn't meaning to discuss tension or challenge.

6ENow said that if you don't ask for a check, you are handwaving the obstacle. But that is not how an exploration challenge works in 5e. The idea that obstacle == check, is a style of play belonging in older editions of D&D.

It seems to me that the real issue here is not that some posters are asking for a check, for something that by raw is not required (such as movement distance or stress). But that they don't understand how 5e exploration challenges work.

In 5e, the goal of the DM should not be to force a die roll on his players in order to present a challenge. That is putting the cart before the horse. What the DM should do, is describe a challenge, and based on the approach of the players (and following 5e rules) decide if the outcome is in doubt. A die roll is not the goal. And the idea that you are handwaving the challenge by not asking for a check, is a misunderstanding of how 5e's exploration pillar works.

In fact, 5e has been designed to eliminate a lot of die rolling, in favor of accessibility, and a faster and easier play experience. This is why several actions are now considered movement, and don't require a check. And that is one of those things that I really appreciate about 5e, even if the edition as a whole is not for me. I don't understand why several posters are so against playing 5e as intended. There are 4 whole editions you can go back to, if you like their rules more.

 

[Charlaquin]

6ENow said that if you don't ask for a check, you are handwaving the obstacle. But that is not how an exploration challenge works in 5e. The idea that obstacle == check, is a style of play belonging in older editions of D&D.

It seems to me that the real issue here is not that some posters are asking for a check, for something that by raw is not required (such as movement distance or stress). But that they don't understand how 5e exploration challenges work.

In 5e, the goal of the DM should not be to force a die roll on his players in order to present a challenge. That is putting the cart before the horse. What the DM should do, is describe a challenge, and based on the approach of the players (and following 5e rules) decide if the outcome is in doubt. A die roll is not the goal. And the idea that you are handwaving the challenge by not asking for a check, is a misunderstanding of how 5e's exploration pillar works.

In fact, 5e has been designed to eliminate a lot of die rolling, in favor of accessibility, and a faster and easier play experience. This is why several actions are now considered movement, and don't require a check. And that is one of those things that I really appreciate about 5e, even if the edition as a whole is not for me.

Let me start by saying I agree and think this is a well-articulated point.

I don't understand why several posters are so against playing 5e as intended. There are 4 whole editions you can go back to, if you like their rules more.

To be fair, my understanding is that the main point of contention is that others don’t agree that our interpretation of the 5e rules is how it’s intended. That probably isn’t a point we’re going to be able to reconcile on, unfortunately.

 

[Imaculata]

To be fair, my understanding is that the main point of contention is that others don’t agree that our interpretation of the 5e rules is how it’s intended. That probably isn’t a point we’re going to be able to reconcile on, unfortunately.

Fair enough. Be that as it may, I think we can all agree that by raw, a check is not enforced for something like climbing a tall rope, or a stressful drop.

And I presume we can also agree that 5e design philosophy is in favor of simplicity and a lot less rolls.

So our interpretation of the rules is at the very least in line with that design philosophy. And that is something I've been trying to get at the last few pages. There's not just the rules as written, but also 5e design intent that supports our position. After all, climbing, swimming and jumping were made into movement for a reason.

There simply seems to be a lot of resistance to 5e's style of play. Its simplicity, its handwaving of rolls, and its focus on expediance. But these are the strength of the system in my view. They are what make 5e different from older editions. 5e is more than just a rules-light version of 3rd edition. There is a different mindset in 5e in regards to how D&D is to be played. And it has honestly changed how I run older editions as well.

It is to be embraced, not resisted. And I know that may sound odd coming from someone who prefers 3.5. But I do get it, and I appreciate what 5e is trying to do. We shouldn't look back all the time. We should also look forward, and recognize that a lot of this handwaving is an improvement, and the new way of playing D&D.

 

[Coroc]

multiple checks are a no no imho.
why? Because many pcs will not have high proficiency in athletics or acrobatics.
that way if they try to climb anything with even a low dc they are destined to fail.
so the only correct way to go is fix an appropriate dc, give advantage if something like a rope ladder or your knotted rope or so eases the task.
if it is a long climb add one constitution check to the mix.

 

[Xetheral]

6ENow said that if you don't ask for a check, you are handwaving the obstacle. But that is not how an exploration challenge works in 5e. The idea that obstacle == check, is a style of play belonging in older editions of D&D.

It seems to me that the real issue here is not that some posters are asking for a check, for something that by raw is not required (such as movement distance or stress). But that they don't understand how 5e exploration challenges work.

In 5e, the goal of the DM should not be to force a die roll on his players in order to present a challenge. That is putting the cart before the horse. What the DM should do, is describe a challenge, and based on the approach of the players (and following 5e rules) decide if the outcome is in doubt. A die roll is not the goal. And the idea that you are handwaving the challenge by not asking for a check, is a misunderstanding of how 5e's exploration pillar works.

In fact, 5e has been designed to eliminate a lot of die rolling, in favor of accessibility, and a faster and easier play experience. This is why several actions are now considered movement, and don't require a check. And that is one of those things that I really appreciate about 5e, even if the edition as a whole is not for me.

Let me start by saying I agree and think this is a well-articulated point.

I agree with it too, but I can understand why it doesn't seem like I would based on what I've said so far. I want to try to explain my thoughts differently, but I'm tired and sleepy at the moment, so I'll revisit this topic when I'm more awake and more likely to be articulate.

I don't understand why several posters are so against playing 5e as intended. There are 4 whole editions you can go back to, if you like their rules more.

To be fair, my understanding is that the main point of contention is that others don’t agree that our interpretation of the 5e rules is how it’s intended. That probably isn’t a point we’re going to be able to reconcile on, unfortunately.

Agreed. Although this is another one of those cases where it's not two mutually exclusive competing theories as to what was intended, but rather a case where one theory is much broader than the other.

Many of the readings of the 5e rules in this thread seem to me to be very narrow and prescriptive, both for the general rules on checks, and for the specific rules on climbing/swimming complications. Sure, the rules can plausibly be read as narrow and prescriptive, but what is the purpose of favoring a narrow reading when a broader one is available? What makes one think that the designers were trying to support only a single approach to ability checks, when the rules can instead be read to support multiple approaches?