D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

Yes.

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.

Why Strength (Athletics) and not Constitution or Constitution (Athletics)?

 

[Maxperson]

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

That's exactly what they are. I can call for a strength ability check to lift a rock, or if I feel that a skill would be useful, I can call for the more specific strength(athletics) check.

 

[Maxperson]

Why Strength (Athletics) and not Constitution or Constitution (Athletics)?

Depends on if I feel that pulling yourself up(strength) is more critical/important than how long you can hold out(constitution). Circumstances will dictate which I use, but both are usable by me per RAW.

 

[iserith]

That's exactly what they are. I can call for a strength ability check to lift a rock, or if I feel that a skill would be useful, I can call for the more specific strength(athletics) check.

That's not what they're called though, just so you're clear on that point. There are ability checks to which a skill or tool proficiency may or may not apply. There are no "skill ability checks."

There are general rules for climbing in Chapter 8 - it's effectively half your speed to do so. Given certain difficult situations, a DM may call for a Strength (Athletics) check. That is the specific rule for climbing. The dispute is whether the length of the climb is such a difficult situation. I would say it isn't and that the general rules apply (or I would just establish a difficult situation as I've shown). Others say it does count. If I wanted to make the length of the climb relevant to the challenge, I might consider a Constitution check to see if the character can push past his or her normal limits. The Athletics proficiency might be added to this where it makes sense to do so and if the group is employing the variant rule for Skills with Different Abilities. But, again, this is asking and answering a different question.

 

[Flamestrike]

The problem I have with this is that verbal description is an imperfect method of conveying this information.

It's an imperfect world. Just like IRL we cant ever know the probabilities of success for any given task, neither should the players.

I recall a thread recently where a poster stated his LG (or N - I cant remember) PC tossed a warhammer at a fleeing child thief 'aiming for his legs to knock him to the ground'.

He performed the action because the DC was set for the task by the DM, and he was aware that the consequences did not involve a possibility of accidentally killing the child (obviously an evil act).

In my view a player should not know the DC for such a task, and furthermore should not know the precise consequences. It's up to the player to imagine the task (I am tossing a warhammer at a running child on a city street from a distance of 30'), and the likely consequences that could stem from that actions failure or success (accidentally kill the child, break his legs, miss and hit a bystander etc).

The player trusts me (as DM) to set an appropriate DC for that task, and to adjudicate consequences for success or failure accordingly.

In my view thats a far better method of resolving actions which better preserves realism, makes players imagine the action more clearly, consider all possible consequences for actions (and not just the ones pre determined by the DM and announced to the player) and not reduce everything to a question of probability.

It also heightens suspense during action resolution which is an important driver of engagement and excitement.

Not knowing the DC/ AC also drives players to use things like bardic inspiration or just normal inspiration and similar effects to push clutch rolls without gaming the DC.

It just works better I find. I dont do it all the time (sometimes it's just more convenient to announce the DC and ask for a roll) but I do do it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why Strength (Athletics) and not Constitution or Constitution (Athletics)?

Repeated pull ups (which is what a rope climb is) could be either ability score (Strength or Con). It's a judgement call based on the context. There is no line of demarcation - its a gut call by the DM.

Ditto with an athletics check to (say) run a marathon or swim 10 miles. I'd call for a Con (Athletics) check in those circumstances (penalty for failure being a level or two of exhaustion, and the task taking extra time).

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what they're called though, just so you're clear on that point. There are ability checks to which a skill or tool proficiency may or may not apply. There are no "skill ability checks."

Whatever they are called, adding in skills is a more specific rule than the general ability check.

There are general rules for climbing in Chapter 8 - it's effectively half your speed to do so.

Those are the general movement rules, yes.

Given certain difficult situations, a DM may call for a Strength (Athletics) check. That is the specific rule for climbing.

Those are not specific rules for climbing. Those are specific rules for ability checks. In this case athletics which can be used for literally any climbing situation the DM sees fit, not just for difficult ones. Nowhere in the athletics section where it gives just a few of the myriad of causes of an athletics ability check to climb, does it say that it has to be for difficult situations or prescribe what those situations are.

The dispute is whether the length of the climb is such a difficult situation.

That's only your call in your game.

I would say it isn't and that the general rules apply (or I would just establish a difficult situation as I've shown). Others say it does count. If I wanted to make the length of the climb relevant to the challenge, I might consider a Constitution check to see if the character can push past his or her normal limits.

That's reasonable. What is not reasonable is saying that how we are using the rules isn't covered by the rules when it is. The rules allow what we are saying every bit as much as they allow what you are saying. This is nothing more than a DM call as to whether or not an ability check is called for, and which stat and/or skill is relevant to that check.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's an imperfect world. Just like IRL we cant ever know the probabilities of success for any given task, neither should the players.

I disagree. Knowing the difficulty helped bridge the gap between what the character should know and what the player actually knows. Again, the possibility that the character incorrectly assesses their ability to accomplish a task is covered by the dice roll.

I recall a thread recently where a poster stated his LG (or N - I cant remember) PC tossed a warhammer at a fleeing child thief 'aiming for his legs to knock him to the ground'.

He performed the action because the DC was set for the task by the DM, and he was aware that the consequences did not involve a possibility of accidentally killing the child (obviously an evil act).

I don’t see any problem with that scenario.

In my view a player should not know the DC for such a task, and furthermore should not know the precise consequences. It's up to the player to imagine the task (I am tossing a warhammer at a running child on a city street from a distance of 30'), and the likely consequences that could stem from that actions failure or success (accidentally kill the child, break his legs, miss and hit a bystander etc).

And it’s fine if that’s how you want to run the game. It isn’t how I want to run the game.

The player trusts me (as DM) to set an appropriate DC for that task, and to adjudicate consequences for success or failure accordingly.

So do my players. I still prefer to tell them the DC and potential consequences (when it’s reasonable for them to be able to surmise them). Because my preference for that sort of gameplay has nothing to do with trust or lack of trust.

In my view thats a far better method of resolving actions which better preserves realism, makes players imagine the action more clearly, consider all possible consequences for actions (and not just the ones pre determined by the DM and announced to the player) and not reduce everything to a question of probability.

It also heightens suspense during action resolution which is an important driver of engagement and excitement.

I disagree. You just do you and I’ll do me, k?

Not knowing the DC/ AC also drives players to use things like bardic inspiration or just normal inspiration and similar effects to push clutch rolls without gaming the DC.

If by “gaming the DC” you mean deciding when to use such limited resources based on the knowledge of how difficult a check is, I consider it a significant advantage of my way of doing things that it encourages players to do that.

It just works better I find. I dont do it all the time (sometimes it's just more convenient to announce the DC and ask for a roll) but I do do it.

And I find my way works better. Different strokes.

 

[iserith]

That's reasonable. What is not reasonable is saying that how we are using the rules isn't covered by the rules when it is. The rules allow what we are saying every bit as much as they allow what you are saying. This is nothing more than a DM call as to whether or not an ability check is called for, and which stat and/or skill is relevant to that check.

As I said, the DM can do what they want to the limits of their table rules. But this DM won't consider a Strength (Athletics) check due to the length of the climb to be in accordance with the specific rules for climbing in Chapters 7 and 8. It looks like you don't consider what's in Chapter 7 to be specific rules for climbing, but given that they specifically reference the conditions in which an ability check might be appropriate while climbing, I don't buy your reasoning.

And thus the dispute continues.

 

[Flamestrike]

As I said, the DM can do what they want to the limits of their table rules. But this DM won't consider a Strength (Athletics) check due to the length of the climb to be in accordance with the specific rules for climbing in Chapters 7 and 8.

The examples given in those rules are not an exhaustive list though. This is what's leading you into error.

The general rule is that 'Climbing does not require a check UNLESS there is a complicating factor (such as a slippery vertical surface, a sheer surface with few handholds or similar complications)' at which point it MAY require one (DM's call).

Those two given examples are not exhaustive. They just serve as a benchmark to assist the DM in determining when to call for a check.

Climbing a rope upside down and feet first (for example) would clearly call for a check and it's not spelled out anywhere in the text.