D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Imaculata]

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.

So 2 checks? Why not no checks? The pc's are perfectly able to climb a rope. Why are they making a check to begin with?

 

[Imaculata]

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?

The point of having rules in the first place, is to eliminate a guessing game of what the correct approach is.

While 5e may not be as wordy in its rules as 3rd edition, it seems perfectly clear to me. And I'm not even a 5e player or DM. But just by reading the rules as written, I come to the same conclusion as Iserith and Charlaquin.

It is however important to point out that none of us say that a DM can't ask for an extra check. The 5e rules empower the DM to do however he likes, and ignore the rules in favor of his own ideas of running a campaign. This is merely a discussion of what the rules actually say on the matter, and they seem quite clear.

 

[Coroc]

So 2 checks? Why not no checks? The pc's are perfectly able to climb a rope. Why are they making a check to begin with?

if it is a rope ladder then no check at all might be in order. Climbing a rope is im fact more difficult then it might look.
the second check should only be made if it is an especially long climb. What is not ok is multiple checks for the same thing since this is like super disadvantage for a basic task

 

[Imaculata]

if it is a rope ladder then no check at all might be in order. Climbing a rope is in fact more difficult then it might look.

Is it though? I climbed ropes with ease when I was 10.

The second check should only be made if it is an especially long climb. What is not ok is multiple checks for the same thing since this is like super disadvantage for a basic task

You are contradicting yourself. You are asking for multiple checks for one action.

If the difficulty lies in the long climb, then why not ask for only a constitution check?

I don't get this. Why do people keep stacking checks on top of checks? Is the goal here to resolve the outcome of one action, or to make the players roll lots of dice?

 

[Xetheral]

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.

I definitely think that we can all agree that the DM is not required to call for a check. The disagreement is on whether the DM can choose to call for a check if they identify a climbing complication, or whether only certain types of climbing complications are allowed.

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

I agree on the simplicity and being written to allow fewer rolls. But it certainly seems to me to be set up to permit frequent rolls, if desired. As evidence I would point to DMG 236, that discuss the style of calling for lots of rolls and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of doing so in comparison to other styles. The text does not suggest that any of the discussed styles are favored or disfavored in 5e.

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.

I entirely agree that your interpretation is in line with the design philosophy of 5e. I just also think that other interpretations are equally in line with the design philosophies of 5e.

On your final claim, however, I have a quibble: the rules state how much movement climbing, swimming, and jumping consume. They don't say you can use those ratios to convert daily land travel distances into daily climbing, swimming, and jumping distances. Merely providing a ratio does not otherwise suggest an equivalency between movement types.

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.

From my standpoint, one of 5e's largest strengths is its ability to support play in multiple playstyles. I wish it was even better at doing so, but by my reading the purpose of the simplicity is to give DM's flexibility, not to try to imply a specific, restricted "mindset" of play.

 

[Imaculata]

Perhaps another way to look at it is this:

Climbing is movement. So are swimming, jumping, walking and running.

The DMG already has the forced march rule to deal with exhaustion from prolonged movement.

So why add an extra mechanic on top of that, when there already is a rule for it?

 

[Xetheral]

The point of having rules in the first place, is to eliminate a guessing game of what the correct approach is.

While 5e may not be as wordy in its rules as 3rd edition, it seems perfectly clear to me. And I'm not even a 5e player or DM. But just by reading the rules as written, I come to the same conclusion as Iserith and Charlaquin.

Ok, here we have a major philosophical disagreement. To me, the purpose of rules in a TTRPG is not to tell people how to play the game "correctly". (What does that even mean?) To me, the purpose of having rules in a TTRPG is to give the DM and players tools for running their game.

It is however important to point out that none of us say that a DM can't ask for an extra check. The 5e rules empower the DM to do however he likes, and ignore the rules in favor of his own ideas of running a campaign. This is merely a discussion of what the rules actually say on the matter, and they seem quite clear.

To clarify, are you saying that under the rules the DM can ask for an extra check? Or are you saying that if the DM changes the rules, then they can ask for an extra check? Because when combined with the advocacy of a narrow reading of 5e's supported playstyle, the latter claim comes across as "you're doing it wrong", no matter how many times the disclaimer ("you can just houserule") is added. (Actually the disclaimer comes across as reinforcing the connotation of opprobrium, rather than ameliorating it.)

 

[Imaculata]

On your final claim, however, I have a quibble: the rules state how much movement climbing, swimming, and jumping consume. They don't say you can use those ratios to convert daily land travel distances into daily climbing, swimming, and jumping distances. Merely providing a ratio does not otherwise suggest an equivalency between movement types.

I disagree. Don't the rules explicitly say that when you perform any of those actions, they consume part of your movement for that round? So by the rules, they are part of the same movement that every player has each round. It is simply a matter of choosing how to spend that movement.

 

[Imaculata]

To clarify, are you saying that under the rules the DM can ask for an extra check? Or are you saying that if the DM changes the rules, then they can ask for an extra check?

According to the rules, the DM decides if a complication makes the outcome of the action in doubt. Examples of complications are given. Height of climb, or scaryness of jump are not examples and do not seem in line with designer intent.

However, the rules are but guidelines. The DM is allowed to make their own calls on the matter. But to reitterate, this is not a discussion on whether the DM is allowed to make such calls.

 

[Xetheral]

Perhaps another way to look at it is this:

Climbing is movement. So are swimming, jumping, walking and running.

The DMG already has the forced march rule to deal with exhaustion from prolonged movement.

So why add an extra mechanic on top of that, when there already is a rule for it?

Climbing, swimming, and jumping use movement. That doesn't necessarily mean the limits on time spent climbing, swimming, and jumping are the same as the limits on time spent moving.

Personally I'm not going to allow a character to freely climb or swim for 8 hours straight at will, particularly not in armor and with full gear. Partially that's because I prefer more realism in my games, and partly it's because I want large bodies of water and major terrain features like half-mile high escarpments to be meaningful obstacles to travel and trade.

I disagree. Don't the rules explicitly say that when you perform any of those actions, they consume part of your movement for that round? So by the rules, they are part of the same movement that every player has each round. It is simply a matter of choosing how to spend that movement.

I don't understand how you're starting with the premise that climbing, swimming, and jumping use movement for the round and reaching the conclusion that climbing, swimming, and jumping are no different from normal movement. To me, your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.