D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

(Emphasis added.) I agree that they are separate, but they're definitely related. Greater understanding of how uncertainty is going to be modeled at a particular table makes it easier for the players to manage that uncertainty, which is a form of agency.

I agree they are related and do not dismiss at all the comments of other posters in this regard. I'm probably arguing something like - a useful tools in a DM's kit lies in the contrast between disclosed and concealed DCs. Mostly disclose, sometimes conceal, by intent.

That said, there are a lot of checks that go by in my game where no player is really worried about the DC - I tell them "pretty easy", "not too hard" or whatever and they are good with that. I feel like sometimes we might overstate the formality of play in these discussions: things are often more laid-back at the table.

I don't always seek to make my players happy. I don't mind if a session or two goes by where everything is dour - there is a sense of helplessness - which creates a low point against which their successes will feel more satisfying. One has to be careful - and some players will take things to heart - so you have to be alert to that also, and ensure things work for everyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree they are related and do not dismiss at all the comments of other posters in this regard. I'm probably arguing something like - a useful tools in a DM's kit lies in the contrast between disclosed and concealed DCs. Mostly disclose, sometimes conceal, by intent.

I can see that. Personally, I would prefer to keep it consistent. It wouldn’t feel right to pick and choose when to disclose the DC and when not to, and as I place a higher priority on the players feeling ownership over their successes and failures than the tension of unknown stakes, I consistently disclose the DC. But other approaches are valid.

That said, there are a lot of checks that go by in my game where no player is really worried about the DC - I tell them "pretty easy", "not too hard" or whatever and they are good with that. I feel like sometimes we might overstate the formality of play in these discussions: things are often more laid-back at the table.

I don’t think formality is really at issue here. A lot of people seem to think the style of DMing I and others employ sounds overly-formal but in actual practice it really isn’t.

I don't always seek to make my players happy. I don't mind if a session or two goes by where everything is dour - there is a sense of helplessness - which creates a low point against which their successes will feel more satisfying. One has to be careful - and some players will take things to heart - so you have to be alert to that also, and ensure things work for everyone.

Agreed! But I actually think that feeling is enhanced when the players know the odds. Again, I find that failing a check with an unknown DC (that you trust was set fairly) feels like bad luck, while failing a check you knew the DC of and decided to go through with feels like taking a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. Similarly, it’s hard to take satisfaction in succeeding at a check with an unknown DC because you have no idea if it was a long shot or a near-sure victory. But succeeding at a check you knew the DC of feels satisfying, either because you know you succeeded against the odds, or because you know you made a good risk calculation. Either way, I find that knowing the DC makes the outcomes feel more earned, and I as a DM value that feeling over the tension of uncertainty.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, I should know this by now, but it came up the other day and stumped the group. They wanted to throw a grappling hook on a knotted rope 80 feet up and snag a small window they'd broken. We were trying to figure out how much the knotted rope would help, but the best we could find was that a magic rope of climbing gives you advantage on the climb check. Fine. So I said your grappling hook knotted rope does the same thing. You climb half speed, so to get that far up would be three checks. The tricky part was setting the DC. I said 12, but maybe that was too high with the knotted rope. The fat dwarf cleric wants to climb up too and the player (my brother) wants it easy peasy it's so easy. DC 5 is he thinks is reasonable. Which, I guess back in 3.x a knotted rope does drop the DC to 5. Maybe I should have said DC 8 or 10. I wanted some difficulty of climbing up 80 feet. Failure wouldn't mean you fall, it means you don't make progress and have to make another check.

The fat dwarf had Athletics +5. The rogue only had Athletics +1. They ended up trying something else because it seemed too dangerous to climb a knotted rope that high up.

How should I have handled this better?

A summary of where the debate is now, might be

Uncontentious: a DM is justified in calling for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb where -

• failure has consequences, and
  • a climb is sheer
  • a climb is slippery
  • a climb has few handholds
  • a climb includes hazards to avoid
  • something is trying to knock a climber off

Many climbs are sheer - as to be sheer includes simply being perpendicular - and many climbs while not sheer might offer few handholds.

Contentious: a DM is justified in calling for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb where -

• failure has consequences, and
  • a climb is lengthy (i.e. high)
  • they decide there is some factor introducing difficulty, whatever that might be

Uncontentious: a Constitution or Constitution (Athletics) check can be substituted for a Strength (Athletics) check in some cases

Contentious: such substitution implies that a Strength (Athletics) check will also have been valid

Or something like that. Most agree on not calling for too many checks (the compounding checks error).

 

[iserith]

Uncontentious: a Constitution or Constitution (Athletics) check can be substituted for a Strength (Athletics) check in some cases

Contentious: such substitution implies that a Strength (Athletics) check will also have been valid

I think it's important to note that these aren't asking and answering the same question. One is to overcome a difficult situation during the climb. The other is whether a character can push past his or her normal limits. The DM is trying to figure out different things here, so it's not like they're fully interchangeable.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it's important to note that these aren't asking and answering the same question. One is to overcome a difficult situation during the climb. The other is whether a character can push past his or her normal limits. The DM is trying to figure out different things here, so it's not like they're fully interchangeable.

I think the source of contention may be a disagreement about that very point. At a guess, some people only see one question - “does the character reach the top unharmed?” which may hinge on the character’s strength or their constitution, and the DM must decide which is most appropriate. Whereas we and others see two questions - “can the character overcome [source of difficulty in the climb]?” which hinges on strength and “can the character push past their normal physical limits?” which hinges on constitution.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the source of contention may be a disagreement about that very point. At a guess, some people only see one question - “does the character reach the top unharmed?” which may hinge on the character’s strength or their constitution, and the DM must decide which is most appropriate. Whereas we and others see two questions - “can the character overcome [source of difficulty in the climb]?” which hinges on strength and “can the character push past their normal physical limits?” which hinges on constitution.

The DMG quotes I've posted show that the game itself interchanges them for both climbing and swimming.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The DMG quotes I've posted show that the game itself interchanges them for both climbing and swimming.

Nope. The Variant rule says the DM can call for a Constitution check to see if the PC has the stamina to swim a long distance and that the DM may allow the player to apply the Athletics proficiency to said check. It does not follow that Strength and Constitution are interchangeable here. Only that, under the variant rule, Athletics proficiency becomes potentially more pertinent to other abilities.

 

[clearstream]

Nope. The Variant rule says the DM can call for a Constitution check to see if the PC has the stamina to swim a long distance and that the DM may allow the player to apply the Athletics proficiency to said check. It does not follow that Strength and Constitution are interchangeable here. Only that, under the variant rule, Athletics proficiency becomes potentially more pertinent to other abilities.

The wording implies substitution - "In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check instead of a Strength (Athletics) check" - but the text isn't unambiguous hence I listed it as contentious. Accurately, I believe you will agree

 

[clearstream]

I think the source of contention may be a disagreement about that very point. At a guess, some people only see one question - “does the character reach the top unharmed?” which may hinge on the character’s strength or their constitution, and the DM must decide which is most appropriate. Whereas we and others see two questions - “can the character overcome [source of difficulty in the climb]?” which hinges on strength and “can the character push past their normal physical limits?” which hinges on constitution.

The two are not exclusive.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The wording implies substitution - "In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check instead of a Strength (Athletics) check" - but the text isn't unambiguous hence I listed it as contentious. Accurately, I believe you will agree

Read it again. I thought so at first, too, but that implication does not exist. (Sorry, it occurred to me that that may have just been a nice way to say “nuh uh”)

I do agree that it seems to be contentious!