D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Swarmkeeper]

What do you make of "In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check"? Why say that, if you are not in effect substituting a Constitution (Athletics) check for a Strength (Athletics) check?

Because skills are subordinate to abilities. You can make a Strength check with no skill attached. But you can’t make an Athletics check without an ability. That’s why the designers call them Ability checks in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Skills can be interchanged.

There is no skill being interchanged in that example. None. Nil. Nada. Zilch.

For an endurance test of swimming, there are only con saves and 2 extra feet of movement. To do ANY ability check for that distance swim involves adding a check to swimming that isn't there. Whether you are adding a strength swimming check and then switching it to constitution, or just adding the constitution swimming check, it's an addition. And the optional rule being invoked doesn't involve additions. It only involves using alternate stats for checks.

 

[clearstream]

Because skills are subordinate to abilities. You can make a Strength check with no skill attached. But you can’t make an Athletics check without an ability. That’s why the designers call them Ability checks in 5e.

I like that line of argument. It sounds reasonable to me.

So to my mind, the remaining part that is contested is if a DM can simply decide there is some factor introducing difficulty, whatever that might be (which can therefore include distance). I don't presently see a way to reach agreement on that because one side says that "Examples include" introduces a categorically definitive set of four cases such that any further examples implied by such wording cannot add anything - resulting in a quite peculiar use of language - while the other side says that further examples are not only implied, but to be meaningfully implied they must be able to add something. Perhaps pointing to the additional case in Special Types of Movement, which everyone seems to accept as adding to the cases. I feel confident both RAW and RAI put it in the hands of the DM, but the point is contested.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where we discuss the DMG 239 RAW, to my reading thus far it contemplates two non-exclusive DM actions. In one, the DM was going to call for a Strength (Athletics) check and decides to go with Constitution (Athletics) instead. In the other, the DM was going to call for a Constitution check and decides it would be appropriate to count in Athletics proficiency, making it a Constitution (Athletics) check.

I don’t... think you’re talking about the same thing I was talking about...

 

[clearstream]

I don’t... think you’re talking about the same thing I was talking about...

At this point, it's all a blur. Refer to my last.

 

[Maxperson]

What do you make of "In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check"? Why say that, if you are not in effect substituting a Constitution (Athletics) check for a Strength (Athletics) check?

Either the page 239 example is additional ability check per the PHB ability check section that then proceeds after addition to invoke the variant alternate ability score rule, or he's arguing that there's an inherent swimming ability check involved with swimming that is then using the variant alternate ability score rule. Either way, the book is saying that the DM can call for ability checks for swimming.

 

[clearstream]

Either the page 239 example is additional ability check per the PHB ability check section that then proceeds after addition to invoke the variant alternate ability score rule, or he's arguing that there's an inherent swimming ability check involved with swimming that is then using the variant alternate ability score rule. Either way, the book is saying that the DM can call for ability checks for swimming.

I think the argument goes that the only kinds of check that can be called for are ability checks, which can be abetted with skills. Thus the DM calls for a Constitution check (envisioning a kind of forced march swim thing going on) and allows that as the Athletics skill covers swimming, it can abet the Constitution check in this case.

I'd need to do a little more research to be 100% on this. Still, it's quite a tidy line of reasoning.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the argument goes that the only kinds of check that can be called for are ability checks, which can be abetted with skills. Thus the DM calls for a Constitution check (envisioning a kind of forced march swim thing going on) and allows that as the Athletics skill covers swimming, it can abet the Constitution check in this case.

I'd need to do a little more research to be 100% on this. Still, it's quite a tidy line of reasoning.

You’ve stumbled upon why we in the “there’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e” camp are so insistent that the difference is more than just semantic.

 

[Flamestrike]

For me it’s not an issue of trust, it’s an issue of being able to correctly assess difficulty and make informed decisions. Failing when you don’t know the DC just feels like bad luck (assuming you trust that the DM set the DC fairly. If you don’t it feels like you were cheated. That’s not what I’m worried about though, my players trust me too.) Failing when you know the DC feels like taking a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. You feel like you have a greater degree of agency and own your successes and your failures, and that’s a feeling I want to foster at my table. It’s not to everyone’s liking of course, and that’s fine, but to me it’s very important.

Absolutely its about trust. Both ways.

I guess I dont want players thinking about DCs and probabilities. I want them thinking about (and mentally imagining) the scene and challenge itself.

I generally refrain from telling them rhe DC in the same way I won't tell them a monsters AC.

More than happy to describe the scene though, and then let them make decisions in character for themselves.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think the argument goes that the only kinds of check that can be called for are ability checks, which can be abetted with skills. Thus the DM calls for a Constitution check (envisioning a kind of forced march swim thing going on) and allows that as the Athletics skill covers swimming, it can abet the Constitution check in this case.

I'd need to do a little more research to be 100% on this. Still, it's quite a tidy line of reasoning.

Additionally, as DM, I might allow players to apply alternative proficiencies such as Survival or even Nature as part of the Constitution ability check, depending on the player's suggested approach and perhaps some of the described/envisioned characteristics of the water involved in this long swim.