D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

It’s not the kind of game that’s played to win. It’s an infinite game.

 

[Maxperson]

The passage you posted only talks about distance as the reason for calling for a Constitution check as opposed to a Strength check. It doesn’t get into why the DM might have wanted to call for a Strength (Athletics) check in the first place. It’s illustrating the “Skills with Different Abilities” variant. The PHB uses a nearly identical example. That being said, a DM is well supported in calling for a Constitution check if it’s in doubt whether the character possesses the stamina to complete a swim of a given distance.

Yes, it does get into it. It says very clearly that it's distance. I'll quote it again, because you missed it.

"Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming,..."

If there were things like currents and riptides, it would still be a strength check or possible both. That paragraph is clearly talking about changing the normal strength(athletics) swim check into con due to it being a distance thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, it does get into it. It says very clearly that it's distance. I'll quote it again, because you missed it.

"Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming,..."

If there were things like currents and riptides, it would still be a strength check or possible both. That paragraph is clearly talking about changing the normal strength(athletics) swim check into con due to it being a distance thing.

Because of the distance, the character must make a Constitution check. Because they are swimming, they can add Athletics proficiency. The passage doesn’t indicate that a Strength check would “normally” be required because of the distance.

 

[Xetheral]

It’s the same reason you run the game by-the-book before adding house rules. By understanding the rules as written, we empower ourselves to deviate from them with intention. You can interpret the rules permissively enough to allow for the way you were going to run the game anyway, but what value is gained from doing so, other than the satisfaction of being able to call your approach right? On the other hand, by taking a narrower view of the rules, trying to understand not just what they allow but what they prescribe, you can form a picture of play as the designers envisioned. You start to see what design purpose is served by rules you may not have liked, and may gain better appreciation for them, or if not, at least be better equipped to create house rules with purpose and intent, and hopefully be able to preserve the design function the removed rules had been serving.

(Emphasis added.) In the bolded portion you appear to be skipping a step in your reasoning. The first part of the sentence is arguing in favor of taking a narrower view of the rules, but your justification for doing so in the latter part of the sentence is to better understand “the picture of play as the designers envisioned”. That doesn’t make any logical sense unless you also take as a premise that the designers envisioned a narrow picture of play.

That premise is what I’m calling into question in the post you quoted, so I don’t think a response that hinges on the premise I’m questioning can answer the question I asked.

I entirely agree with the portion of your post that I’ve italicized, but if the design purpose was to enable a broad scope of play, then taking a narrow interpretation of the rules necessarily conflicts with that design purpose, frustrating the goal of being better equipped to create house rules with purpose and intent.

Ultimately, our specific disagreement is over whether the rules for climbing complications should be read narrowly, directing DMs to stick to complications sufficiently similar (by some unstated measure) to the provided examples, or whether they should be read more broadly, giving the DM the authority to identify climbing complications that they personally consider sufficiently similar to the examples. Unless we can somehow resolve that disagreement, it remains unsettled between us whether the designers envisioned the rules to encompass a narrow scope or a broad scope for the rules for climbing complications.

I’ve argued in favor of the broader reading based on the specific text (e.g. “At the DM’s option…”). I’ve also argued in favor of the broader reading based on the functional observation that the narrower reading is incomplete (it doesn’t provide a standard for determining what qualifies as “sufficiently” similar to the examples) and I think it unlikely the designers would intend to limit the scope of play without including the standard necessary to do so. I’ve also argued that 5e is intended as a “big tent” edition, and thus I think there is a modest presumption in favor of readings broad enough to encompass multiple styles of play (and I’ve identified a discussion in the DMG that, in my opinion, supports the notion that the designers intended 5e to support multiple styles of play).

In the post you quoted, I additionally identified what appears to me to be an unsupported presumption on the part of several posters in this thread in favor of narrower readings over broader readings, and since your response logically hinges on such a presumption, I think that’s fair evidence that it’s a presumption you’re comfortable with making. So my question remains. To reword: why do you think a presumption in favor of narrower readings is justified? What evidence do you have supporting the idea that the designers intended to prescribe a narrow scope of play limited to a specific playstyle? (And note that since you're using a presumption in favor of a narrow reading to support your reading of the text on climbing complications, using your reading of the text on climbing complications to support a presumption in favor of a narrow reading would be circular.)

 

[Xetheral]

So, please don’t take this the wrong way, but this makes it sound like you are arguing more from a desire to have the way you run the game validated than from a desire to determine the best way to run the game (for you). When told that the way you run your game doesn’t seem consistent with the rules, but it is fine to house rule, your impression is that you’re being told you’re running the game “wrong” and your instinct is to defend your way of running the game as being “allowed” by the rules. Personally, I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with running the game in a way that isn’t consistent with the rules. I myself run the game in some ways which are inconsistent with my own understanding of the rules. But I arrived at those house rules by understanding the design purpose of the rules as written, and intentionally making changes to create specific desired outcomes. I’m not concerned with whether the way I run the game is “right” or “wrong” or even supported by the rules. I’m concerned with running the best version of the game I can, and in service of that goal, I want to understand what the rules say, why they were written that way, and what play experience they were designed to create, so that I can either follow that intended experience or deviate from it with intentionality.

(Emphasis added.) I appreciate you taking the time to explain how I’m coming across. There’s some irony involved, considering that from my standpoint your side is the one insisting that your reading is the only correct reading, and thus that your side is the one most concerned with validation (of that exclusivity). But irony aside, it’s useful to know that that perception goes both ways.

I entirely agree with the bolded section, and I likewise arrived at my house rules by understanding the design purpose of the rules as written. I just think that there is stronger evidence in favor of a broader design purpose than you do. As for the italic section, I likewise am not concerned with whether the way I run the game is “’right’ or ‘wrong’ or even supported by the rules”, and I too what to understand (the competing interpretations of) what the rules say, why different posters think they were written that way, and the intended play experience, for the same reasons you do.

What I am concerned with is that as posters we respect each other as people. We lack an objective standard to objectively determine which interpretations are “correct” and which are “wrong” (or, alternatively, to objectively determine which interpretations are best supported by the available evidence), so we’re all in the same boat, trying to persuade others of the merits of our opinions, or at least to explain those opinions to those who disagree. In such an environment, declarative statements that one particular opinion is correct, and that anything else is houseruling, come across as implicitly denying the existence of a disagreement, refusing to grant those who disagree the respect of acknowledging that their opinion exists. Some posters have gone even farther, explicitly denying the existence of an argument using language such as “there is no argument and the rules are clear” addressed directly to someone who is actively arguing, in effect telling someone “you don’t count”.

I recognize (or at least hope!) that no such disrespect is intended, so my intent is to explain why implicitly or explicitly denying the existence of a disagreement to someone whom you know disagrees with you comes across to me as disrespectful.

 

[Xetheral]

Correct, but the rules for swimming are more specific, and specific rules always supersede general rules in 5e.

Quibble: specific rules supersede general rules only when the rules conflict. Here, the narrower interpretation of climbing complications does indeed conflict with the general rules on ability checks because it would limit the ability of the DM to call for an ability check when the DM determined that there was a chance of failure. Importantly, however, the broader interpretation of climbing complications does not conflict with the general rules on ability checks, so there is no need to invoke the specific-beats-general rule, meaning that discussing how the general rules interacts with the specific rule is still relevant to the broader interpretation.

Obviously, opinions differ on whether the fact that the broader interpretation does not conflict with the general ability check rules counts as evidence in favor of the broader interpretation.

 

[Flamestrike]

Swimming 5 miles doesn’t have a chance of failure according to the specific rules for swimming.

Thta's not true. The rules expressly call for a check when you're attempting something (climbing and swimming) particularly challenging.

While swimming a long distance doesnt expressly have a check requirement attached, it's clearly more difficult task than swimming across a relatively mild river etc.

You're in open water for several hours swimming 5 miles, so almost certainly in the ocean or a huge lake.

At an eyeball off the top of my head, I'd be more than happy to call it a Constitution [Athletics] check at DC 15, with each full 5 points of failure simply adding an hour to the task (if time is important) and imposing a level of exhaustion.

Notably I wouldn't make 'drowning' a consequence for failure (not that I would tell the player that). Setbacks are always preferable. Death as a consequence for failure should be used sparingly for mine.

We're talking about heroes who can literally beat a Great White Shark to death with their bare hands from 3rd level onwards during the Swim here, or who can go toe to toe with Balrogs and win at later levels.

Having them comically falling to their deaths on knotted ropes is silly.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thta's not true. The rules expressly call for a check when you're attempting something (climbing and swimming) particularly challenging.

While swimming a long distance doesnt expressly have a check requirement attached, it's clearly more difficult task than swimming across a relatively mild river etc.

You're in open water for several hours swimming 5 miles, so almost certainly in the ocean or a huge lake.

At an eyeball off the top of my head, I'd be more than happy to call it a Constitution [Athletics] check at DC 15, with each full 5 points of failure simply adding an hour to the task (if time is important) and imposing a level of exhaustion.

Yeah, in the time since I wrote the post you quoted, @Maxperson pointed out DMG 116, which states swimming for an hour or more (which would be at most 4 miles if swimming at a fast pace) incurs a DC 10 Con save to avoid gaining a level of exhaustion, unless the creature has a swim speed, in which case they use the normal rules for traveling and forced marches when swimming. I concede that I was mistaken about the RAW there.

There’s also sort of two discussions going on here: “what does the RAW say?” and “how would you rule it?” Personally, I would have the con save DC increase by 5 per hour of swimming, as per a normal forced march, and I would probably apply a similar ruling to climbing.

Notably I wouldn't make 'drowning' a consequence for failure (not that I would tell the player that). Setbacks are always preferable. Death as a consequence for failure should be used sparingly for mine.

Agreed. I think the RAW consequence of a level of exhaustion is appropriate here. Though I would absolutely tell the player the consequence, as well as the DC. I don’t think that’s required in the rules by any means, but it’s very important to me as a DM that my players feel confident in their knowledge of the stakes and can make informed decisions about what to do in light of those stakes.

We're talking about heroes who can literally beat a Great White Shark to death with their bare hands from 3rd level onwards during the Swim here, or who can go toe to toe with Balrogs and win at later levels.

Having them comically falling to their deaths on knotted ropes is silly.

Agreed!

 

[clearstream]

We're talking about heroes who can literally beat a Great White Shark to death with their bare hands from 3rd level onwards during the Swim here, or who can go toe to toe with Balrogs and win at later levels.

Having them comically falling to their deaths on knotted ropes is silly.

A rope will typically be perpendicular and that is a meaning of "sheer", so all arguments thus far ought to have settled on it being a candidate for a Strength (Athletics) ability check.

Also gravity v. shark? Exploration v. combat: both have their perils. A long fall can do more damage than a fireball.

 

[clearstream]

Because of the distance, the character must make a Constitution check. Because they are swimming, they can add Athletics proficiency. The passage doesn’t indicate that a Strength check would “normally” be required because of the distance.

The wording "might decide" can have the implication that where a Strength (Athletics) was going to be required, the DM might decide to change that to Constitution (Athletics) instead. Thus the passage as written in DMG 239 endorses a Strength (Athletics) check prompted by distance.

EDIT Noting too the use of "instead" further on. In the stead of: in its place.