D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Xetheral]

Right, except that it's not. If the DM can call for an ability check, he can use whatever ability he feels like using without it being either a house rule or a home brew.

There is no rule that they can show me that says that, though. There is only the general rule for calling for ability checks, which gives the DM the right to use any ability he chooses. There is no rule that says that it's okay to use con, but not strength for climbing and swimming.

Personally I agree with you, because I think that the rules leave it to the DM to decide what complications are close enough to the examples in the book to call for a check. So if a DM thinks that a given complication (such as height of climb or length of swim) is sufficiently close to the Strength examples, they can call for a Strength check, and if the DM thinks that a given complication is sufficiently close to the Constitution examples, they can call for a Constitution check, and that if the DM thinks a given complication is sufficiently close to the Strength and the Constitution examples, the DM can call for either.

But this is the same fundamental difference that has divided the thread from the beginning. @Charlaquin and @iserith instead read the examples more narrowly, and require the DM to only call for a Strength check if the complication is sufficiently similar (according to an unstated standard of correctness) to the Strength examples, and similarly for Constitution. From their standpoint, the rules do not permit the DM to call for a Strength check unless the DM correctly determines that a given complication is sufficiently similar to the examples.

 

[iserith]

No they don't. They give a non-exhaustive list of examples. It's not restrictive in any way. There is no example of using Athletics to try and push for a little more speed during a chase, but I can use Athletics for such an attempt without a homebrew or house rule.

Strength is for lifting and pulling and the DM could call for a strength check or two to see if you are strong enough to pull such weight for that distance. Your strength could give out before your endurance does.

My position on these matters has already been made clear.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

There is the exact same basis as there is for any other check. That basis is the rules that allow the DM to call for checks. None of those rules restrict which stats can or cannot be used. Period. There is no rule that you can show me that restricts the DM in this manner for climbing or swimming.

Ok, feel free to call an INT(Persuasion) check at your table for climbing then, if you really want to. No one is stopping you. Not even the rules! We like consistency at our table, though, and follow the suggestions in the books when calling for ability checks, like: "At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check." You know, since that's in the PHB and players might be expecting it.

 

[iserith]

From their standpoint, the rules do not permit the DM to call for a Strength check unless the DM correctly determines that a given complication is sufficiently similar to the examples.

The DM is permitted to do whatever he or she wants within the limit of their group's table rules. But I would not consider certain of the calls that have been suggested in this thread to be based on the specific rules for climbing. And that's fine for those DMs. Rulings over rules, right?

 

[Maxperson]

But this is the same fundamental difference that has divided the thread from the beginning. @Charlaquin and @iserith instead read the examples more narrowly, and require the DM to only call for a Strength check if the complication is sufficiently similar (according to an unstated standard of correctness) to the Strength examples, and similarly for Constitution. From their standpoint, the rules do not permit the DM to call for a Strength check unless the DM correctly determines that a given complication is sufficiently similar to the examples.

Such a view, though, is fundamentally and explicitly against RAW.

"The skills related to each ability score are shown in the following list. (No skills are related to Constitution.) See an ability's description in the later sections of this chapter for examples of how to use a skill associated with an ability."

RAW explicitly says that those are just examples. If someone is using those non-exhaustive examples as narrowly defined, then they are the ones engaging a homebrew system

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, feel free to call an INT(Persuasion) check at your table for climbing then, if you really want to.

Sure.

DM: You succeed at you int(persuasion) check to climb the wall and get Rack the Mighty to carry you up on his back.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure.

DM: You succeed at you int(persuasion) check to climb the wall and get Rack the Mighty to carry you up on his back.

If that was related to the approach and goal for the player's PC, then great! You're getting the hang of this.

 

[Xetheral]

Such a view, though, is fundamentally and explicitly against RAW.

"The skills related to each ability score are shown in the following list. (No skills are related to Constitution.) See an ability's description in the later sections of this chapter for examples of how to use a skill associated with an ability."

RAW explicitly says that those are just examples. If someone is using those non-exhaustive examples as narrowly defined, then they are the ones engaging a homebrew system

(Emphasis in original.) Personally I think our interpretation is stronger, but I wouldn't say theirs is fundamentally and explicitly against RAW (see, e.g., me droning on about no method existing to determine which interpretation is correct). But even though you do, there's still the problem that they think our view is against the RAW. We're all looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions (EDIT: and defining words differently). Absent new evidence, I doubt anything is going to change.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Can we stop throwing the term "homebrew" around like it is some sort of inferior means of playing? Seems to be a favorite buzzword of folks around here to score some mythic internet points.

 

[Maxperson]

If that was related to the approach and goal for the player's PC, then great! You're getting the hang of this.

The point is that by RAW, the DM can call for an ability check with whatever stat he deems fit. There is nothing that prevents a strength ability check to climb. Nothing. At all.