D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

No one is saying it is a house rule to call for a check for climbing high or swimming far. Just that there is no rules basis for calling for a Strength(Athletics) check in those circumstances. A Constitution check is appropriate though, perhaps with Athletics proficiency applied.

There is a perfectly clear rules basis for calling for a Strength (Athletics) check in those circumstances.

EDIT Some simply resist that reading. They think the implication of further examples can be satisfied by examples that must be identical to those already there, and that the actual further example under Special Types of Movement has just accidentally fallen into the wrong part of the book.

 

[clearstream]

My position on these matters has already been made clear.

Which is ironic, considering the examples in your guide. Can you expand on how Strength (Athletics) is justified by RAW to avoid birds noticing you, but not justified by RAW for climbing a great height?

Something your guide appears to do reasonably well is make it clear that it is up to the DM to decide what checks are appropriate, and you have been imaginative in choosing consequences.

 

[clearstream]

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.

You don't feel your player whose character has broken hands might anticipate difficulty climbing? As a DM, you can't go outside the bounds of examples in the book? They're limits, not guides?

 

[clearstream]

Here come the arguments that the wind isn't trying to knock you off.

You can see the problem with that line of reasoning, right? Once there's the possibility of disagreement as to what is covered by an example, then there exists the likelihood that the meaning of the examples differs on a per DM basis. That points to the futility of claiming the examples as definitive.

 

[clearstream]

Much appreciated. This is really what it comes down to. We have different interpretations of the rules as written. Mine and others’ is narrower than yours and others’, which necessarily means it does not leave room for both to be correct.

Actually, I believe that it does leave room for both to be correct. When a rule is strictly ambiguous (a case of ambiguity where we lack means to prove which alternative is the right one, such as the interrupting long rests RAW) then each group has an equal claim to correctness. Both are correct. Not one is correct and perforce the other is incorrect.

Seeing as they are contradictory, they cannot coexist at the same table: a group has to choose one or the other.

But ultimately it doesn’t really matter who is right. We will all run our games as we see fit, as informed by our own interpretations of the rules, and our preferences regarding where to deviate from them. I don’t really see any value in belaboring the point further, so I’m gonna bow out of this discussion now. I’ll respond if addressed directly in a quote or a mention, but otherwise I think I’m done here. Thanks for an engaging discussion, everyone.

Thank you, too

 

[Flamestrike]

I guess you see that another DM might not add "excellent handholds" to their depiction of the rope, and therefore feel that it generally did require an ability check. I don't know what %age of humans can climb say 30m up a hanging rope: references?

Any human capable of single pull-up (lifting their own body weight off the ground with their arms) can climb a rope.

You lift yourself up, raise your legs, and lock your feet around the rope, and then stand up on the rope where your feet are locked in to the rope.

Once there, you rest (you can stand on the rope all day with no chance of falling) and then lift yourself up again, and lock.

So any adult human in reasonable health and of average strength who is not also morbidly obese can climb a rope.

As evidenced by whole platoons of Army recruits, from all walks of life, repeatedly making 30' rope climbs in basic training for centuries, without soldiers repeatedly comically falling off, or even just failing to get to the top.

You might have the occasional overweight and unfit recruit that cant make it during basic, but after a few weeks of 'motivation' and 'remedial PT' to help him get the pounds off, he gets up there eventually.

(In DnD terms, said recruit has a Strength of 7 and thus a lifting capacity of 210lbs, and weighs over this figure making it impossible for him to lift his own body weight off the ground. A few weeks of remedial PT gets that body weight under 210lbs so he can get up the rope).

 

[clearstream]

Any human capable of single pull-up (lifting their own body weight off the ground with their arms) can climb a rope.

You lift yourself up, raise your legs, and lock your feet around the rope, and then stand up on the rope where your feet are locked in to the rope.

Once there, you rest (you can stand on the rope all day with no chance of falling) and then lift yourself up again, and lock.

So any adult human in reasonable health and of average strength who is not also morbidly obese can climb a rope.

So a character with a low strength and no proficiency with Athletics (no training) might need to make a check?

You might have the occasional overweight and unfit recruit that cant make it during basic, but after a few weeks of 'motivation' and 'remedial PT' to help him get the pounds off, he gets up there eventually.

(In DnD terms, said recruit has a Strength of 7 and thus a lifting capacity of 210lbs, and weighs over this figure making it impossible for him to lift his own body weight off the ground. A few weeks of remedial PT gets that body weight under 210lbs so he can get up the rope).

Until they did that remedial PT (let's say that they are in a party of four, and not an army) that weak, obese character might need to make a check?

EDIT Note edits - I'm interested in what you feel would be justified by RAW.

 

[Flamestrike]

So a character with a low strength and no proficiency with Athletics (no training) might need to make a check?

No. Like I said - Any human capable of doing a pull up (lifting their own body weight off the ground) can climb a rope.

There is no training involved. You do a pull up, lock your feet on the rope and stand up. Rest. Repeat.

In the Rules a PC has a lifting capacity of Strength x 30lbs. An average Strength 10 PC thus has a lifting capacity of 300lbs.

As long as his body weight and gear carried is less than this figure he can lift his own body weight off the ground using a rope without the need for a check.

If your PC is particularly weak or is particularly fat (or carrying too much stuff) you cant climb a rope at all unless you lose some weight, work out in the gym, or both.

Until they did that remedial PT (let's say that they are in a party of four, and not an army) that weak, obese character might need to make a check?

They get flogged to lose weight and build upper body strength and conditioning. All soldiers leave basic with remarkably identical body shapes (it's amazing what 13 weeks of daily brutal PT and a regimented diet can do to a person).

A morbidly obese (300lbs+) PC with an average Strength (10) cant even do a single pull up so they simply cant climb a rope at all. As long as your lifting capacity is greater than your weight plus gear, you can climb a rope.

No check required.

 

[clearstream]

If your PC is particularly weak or is particularly fat (or carrying too much stuff) you cant climb a rope at all unless you lose some weight, work out in the gym, or both.

So in your game, a player with a weak character who asks to climb a rope just can't? It's either no check at all, or impossible?

It's never possible to be just strong enough relative to your weight to climb, but too weak that it is a certainty. No one ever falls off a rope: they either can't start, or they are guaranteed to reach the top?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You don't feel your player whose character has broken hands might anticipate difficulty climbing? As a DM, you can't go outside the bounds of examples in the book? They're limits, not guides?

Again: in the end, it's up to the DM and, of course, the examples are not exhaustive. Of course the examples are guides. You don't seem to like that answer that has been given over and over - the examples are indicative of difficulties introduced to a climb/swim that would required a Strength(Athletics) check. Length of swim/climb is NOT in the same category of difficulty. Asking the same question over and over is not going to get you a different answer on this. Do you have something specific you are trying to conclude here?

In your example, the PC has broken hands. Climbing with such a condition is not a matter of Strength but of grit, determination, and/or pain tolerance. I'd might rule they can't even climb at all. OR, I might rule that they'd be slower climbing AND if some external difficulty came up, they'd have disadvantage on any roll to keep making progress. AND/OR, I might require a CON check/save to overcome the physical pain involved to climb with broken hands.

The guidance provided in the books, however, does not encourage a DM to call for a Strength(Athletics) check just because someone is attempting to climb or swim with no other external difficulties introduced. I mean, absence of an example doesn't 100% prove anything, however, it would have been sooooo easy for the designers to say: "At the DM's option, if a climb/swim is excessively long, a Strength(Athletics) check might be called for." (Or whatever such wording that doesn't end in a preposition.) What they do say is that an excessively long swim might require a Constitution check or save. Note that they do NOT explicitly say "instead of a Strength check/save". The books is not suggesting we swap Con for Str here. A different question is being asked: does the PC have the stamina to keep going? QED, it is not supported by the specific rules in the case of a very long swim/climb to call for a Strength(Athletics) check if no external difficulties are involved. I'll repeat my caveat since some folks (not you @clearstream - I feel like you are trying to engage in thoughtful inquiry) like to harp on it and will somehow forget that I led off with it: at any given table, it's ultimately the DMs call because... rulings not rules.