D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

Agreed!

Might I suggest just not describing the action comically? I mean, a character falling to their death is a grave occasion.

When characters fight with sharks, on the other hand, it will behoove a DM to rack the table with obscure (yet funny) Sharknado or The Meg references. The risibility of such a sequence should be lost on no one. @Flamestrike

 

[clearstream]

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.

Agreed!

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.

On the other hand, by taking a literal 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.

As @Xetheral points out, there is a lack of justification for "narrower" in this context. A broader view might in cases be more accurate, so conflating "narrower" with "more accurate" is problematic. Possibly "literal" is better. The sense is that we do not want to add or take away from what is there before us. Right?

I believe it also worth looking at rules both from the point of view of design intent, and the point of view of what is there on the page. One can say - let us imagine, there is no living designer and anything they might have said about intent is lost - what is it we in fact see before us? So we can read design intent and use that to resolve ambiguities, but we can also take the words themselves as authoritative. The picture emerges from a balance of such views.

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.

Agreed. I have that exact goal. Gaining a better appreciation is a good way to put it. Often one is surprised to discover the rules doing an important job that one overlooked until properly taking them on face value.

 

[Flamestrike]

Agreed. I think the RAW consequence of a level of exhaustion is appropriate here. Though I would absolutely tell the player the consequence,

Not me. I'd just grin at them (evilly) when they announced the action, and ask for a roll.

Its better that way. As far as the player knows, they just narrowly escaped death (they were never in any danger) and that helps build better tension.

You're a showman as DM and a magician. You have to keep your tricks secret, or else they lose their impact.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Sheer surface with no handolds. Quote the whole rule please. You need both elements of (sheer) and (no handholds) before you MIGHT call for a check.

A rope (especially knotted) is a handhold. It's a fantastic handhold that you can literally wrap your entire hand and opposable thumb around, and hold onto, and hang there like that (not using any other part of your body) for literally several minutes.

Sheer - CHECK. Lack of Handholds - NO. No check required as a general rule.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not me. I'd just grin at them (evilly) when they announced the action, and ask for a roll.

Its better that way. As far as the player knows, they just narrowly escaped death (they were never in any danger) and that helps build better tension.

You're a showman as DM and a magician. You have to keep your tricks secret, or else they lose their impact.

In your experience, that may be true. However, I've found hiding the mechanics from the players leads to frustration as the pass/fail threshold and the subsequent consequences can seem rather arbitrary in the moment. Players can feel "Gotcha'd" by consequences sprung on them after a roll. That type of "hidden" gameplay can result in overly cautious proceedings where the party "getting things done" grinds to a snail's pace. The game world I've created as a DM is already filled with many mysteries - the details behind why I'm asking them to roll need not be another.

My take is that the PCs are competent adventurers who have a general sense of the level of danger and consequences of their actions. Providing the player with a DC and what might happen on a failure generates the appropriate level of tension for the situation at hand. The competent adventurer could analyze the situation and, realizing it is too risky, come up with another strategy. Or, they might brazenly go for it anyway, perhaps earning inspiration by playing up a personality trait or flaw. The key, IME, is to give the players meaningful choices. The tension already exists in the risk laid out before them - and the dice can serve to compound that tension. Dice alone don't do it for our table, though. So, I disagree when you say "It's better that way." Maybe for your table, but certainly not better for others.

 

[clearstream]

Sheer surface with no handolds. Quote the whole rule please. You need both elements of (sheer) and (no handholds) before you MIGHT call for a check.

A rope (especially knotted) is a handhold. It's a fantastic handhold that you can literally wrap your entire hand and opposable thumb around, and hold onto, and hang there like that (not using any other part of your body) for literally several minutes.

Sheer - CHECK. Lack of Handholds - NO. No check required as a general rule.

You missed an "or" there. This is from the section about Special Types of Movement.

EDIT Here is the line "climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". Adds to the wording in the Using Ability Scores section.
EDIT And here is that other wording "You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off." Where did you come by your text snippet?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is wrong. Remember the rule I quoted? It said a constitution SAVE was required for distance. Therefore, the portion I quoted above talking about an ability check for distance means that my first supposition, that the general ability check rules and the general movement rules are equal and the DM can choose either one if he wishes.

 

[Flamestrike]

EDIT Here is the line "climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds".

Is a knotted rope with a wall to brace on either:

a) A slippery vertical surface (such as a wet sheer wall)
or
b) A surface with few handholds ( a rocky but still sheer cliff)

??

The answer is clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously, NO.

I mean come on. If you're still arguing at this point you're just being obtuse.

Climbing (generally)does not require a check unless it fits into one of the above categories. Climbing a rope with a wall to brace on (DC 0 in 3E terms) is not check worthy.

You can rule differently if you want, but clearly its not.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Right. The movement rules are general, not specific. They are the general rules on movement(which includes swimming and climbing), and teleport would be an example of specific rule that supersedes them. The general rules on ability checks are also general. Neither one commands authority over the other. There is a more specific rule on swimming long distance that affects the general movement rules, but neither the movement and swimming distance rules conflict with or prevent the DM from requiring an ability check if he thinks one is called for.

If a PC comes to a pond, the DM can say that the PC gets across using the swimming rules and it just takes longer than walking. If the same PC comes across a 2 mile lake and tries to swim across, the DM can use those swimming rules combined with the con save for distance OR the swimming rules, con save and a strength athletics check for swimming OR the swimming rules, the con save and a con athletics check. All of those are acceptable within the rules as written. It just depends on how the particular DM views the challenge, consequences for failure, etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

In your experience, that may be true. However, I've found hiding the mechanics from the players leads to frustration as the pass/fail threshold and the subsequent consequences can seem rather arbitrary in the moment.

I dont care about that.

Players should trust the DM. and the DM shouldn't abuse that trust.

As long as both of those things are happening, the game works fine.

Player: What does the wall look like?'
DM: It's slippery; water trickles down from the wall, and there is moss all over it. There are occasional handholds (takes note of the PCs Athletics skill bonus of +0), but it doesn't look easy. Dangerous even. It's about 30' to the top (mentally assigns a DC of 15 to climb, failure by 5 is a fall doing 2d6 damage)'
Player: What's the DC?
DM: You reckon you could make it, but it's dangerous. It's up to you.
Player (pauses) OK, I'll attempt to climb it.
DM: OK; you slowly make your way up. Roll me a Strength (Athletics) check.

Players dont know the DC in my games. They dont know the consequences of failure either (but they should be apparent from the task at hand).

They trust me, and I dont abuse that trust.

Something that is missing from too many tables for mine.