D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

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.

Just about everyone is strongly in favor of rulings over rules.

Until someone suggests a ruling isn't based in the rules.

Then it's personal.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm not. I'm just responding to the false claims that asking for a strength check to climb would be a homebrew/house rule.

Here are the facts. The game allows the DM to call for an ability check for literally any action in which he thinks that the outcome is uncertain and for which there is a consequence that has meaning. He can do so for any stat he feels is appropriate, whether strength, con or int.

If the wall is unstable and the climber needs to carefully select handholds, an int athletics check is warranted to choose correctly, a dex athletics check would be warranted to be able to grab the precise handholds that are solid, a strength athletics check would be warranted to lift/pull yourself up, and so on. Nothing limits which stats can be chosen. RAW allows them all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The point is that by RAW, the DM can call for an ability check with whatever stat he deems fit.

Agreed, that is the general rule under the premise that: there is uncertainty in the outcome and a meaningful consequence to failure.

There is nothing that prevents a strength ability check to climb. Nothing. At all.

Then there are the specific rules that deal with climbing. You've quoted them.

I'm getting off this merry-go-round. Think I'll go check out the giant slide... oooh... that's big ladder to get up! Ah... fried dough stand!

 

[iserith]

There are specific rules governing climbing. Specific beats general.

As well, it requires the adoption of a variant rule to use something like a Constitution (Athletics) check. I think it's a good idea, but it should be noted that not all groups adopt this.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed, that is the general rule under the premise that: there is uncertainty in the outcome and a meaningful consequence to failure.


Then there are the specific rules that deal with climbing. You've quoted them.

The general rules you mean. Those are general movement rules, not specific climbing rules. Or we can go with movement rules are general, and climbing rules are specific. But then we also end up with, ability check rules are general, specific skills used are specific, granting the athletics skill equal specificity as the climb rules. Since both go from two tiers from the top(movement to climb and ability check to skill), either both are general, or both are specific. Take your pick.

 

[Maxperson]

There are specific rules governing climbing. Specific beats general.

Skill ability checks are also specific, and specific does not beat specific.

 

[iserith]

Skill ability checks are also specific, and specific does not beat specific.

What is a "skill ability check?"

 

[Maxperson]

What is a "skill ability check?"

There is the general ability check section. Then there are the SPECIFIC skills within it that are the more specific rules.

 

[iserith]

There is the general ability check section. Then there are the SPECIFIC skills within it that are the more specific rules.

Are you trying to say that a Strength check is an ability check and a Strength (Athletics) check is a "skill ability check?"

 

[Flamestrike]

To clarify, do you consider climbing a 1-mile-high rope to be a "sufficient complicating factor" so that the rules permit the DM to call for STR (Athletics) check?

Yes.

Or do you think that the rules would only permit calling for a CON check to climb a 1-mile-high rope? Or do you think that height of a rope climb is never a "sufficient complicating factor" to call for an ability check at all?

No, I do think distance is a complicating factor in the task of climbing a rope.

Climbing a rope involves lifting your body weight up using your arms, locking the rope with your feet, and repeating. It's basically the same mechanics as doing a pull up (however you can rest at any time).

Presuming a fit, healthy adult human, with time to rest on the climb and not rushed or any other complicating factors, a 6 storey climb is not worth a check (you can easily climb 30' with nothing other than an insignificant chance of failure as demonstrated on a gazillion videos). Climbing 80 feet isnt any more difficult (you'll just need to rest a few more times, and your arms will be a bit sorer when you finish).

Climbing a mile high rope involves literally hundreds of pull ups to achieve, and your arms will be custard at the end of it, requiring dozens of lengthy stops along the way. Wind speeds will vary at such a height as well.

For mine, such a climb is difficult enough to warrant a check.