D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[DND_Reborn]

Anyone else mention that these rules:

have absolutely nothing in them about actually CRAWLING???

So, why is it part of the section heading?

 

[Charlaquin]

Anyone else mention that these rules:
View attachment 133018

have absolutely nothing in them about actually CRAWLING???

So, why is it part of the section heading?

It has been errata’d so the first sentence says “Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you’re climbing, swimming, or crawling.” But it is hilarious that they missed that the first time.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It has been errata’d so the first sentence says “Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you’re climbing, swimming, or crawling.” But it is hilarious that they missed that the first time.

Good to know, I must have missed it in the errata.

Still, it's pretty funny IMO--especially taken in the light of the debate over climbing and swimming for closing in on 1000 posts.

 

[clearstream]

I think this is what @iserith is getting at when they talk about whether or not rulings are “based in the rules.” Not that you’re breaking the rules if you rule a certain way, but that you’re forming the basis of your ruling on something other than a plain reading of the text.

As I believe you acknowledge, the plain reading of the text is disputed, but I do not feel that justifies either side in dismissing the others claim to correctness as "rulings not rules". I suspect that RPG rules are best understood as having normative import. Their meaning is arrived at through webs or layers of meanings - some of which might have other underpinnings - that at the site of the written rule is settled by consensus. The strongest interpretations are those that reliably meet the expectations of other players.

That allows for genuine ambiguity - where two meanings are equally sustainable and where consensus splinters. Usually along pragmatic lines: each side interested in the ruling having the import they wish it to have. Post-splintering, the two groups can each justifiably hold that their version is the truth - exactly on grounds of their local consensus as to meanings. Their local normal. Rather than there being one right version, there are two. The basis for justifying their interpretation as true becomes local to each group.

EDIT @iserith for visibility.

 

[Coroc]

Why not just one check? If it is an exhaustive climb, why not limit it to just a constitution check?

if its just some endless stair then yes, just a con check. But there are two challenges, a mildly difficult climb plus a test of endurance so in that case two checks.

 

[Imaculata]

if its just some endless stair then yes, just a con check. But there are two challenges, a mildly difficult climb plus a test of endurance so in that case two checks.

I still don't understand this mindset of challenges. Aren't you just trying to determine the uncertain outcome of 1 action? Or do you just want to make your players roll twice?

It seems to me that this is a matter that can perfectly be resolved with just 1 roll.

 

[clearstream]

I still don't understand this mindset of challenges. Aren't you just trying to determine the uncertain outcome of 1 action? Or do you just want to make your players roll twice?

It seems to me that this is a matter that can perfectly be resolved with just 1 roll.

One does have to be cautious of compounding difficulty. On the other hand, sometimes difficulty really should be compounded.

In the specific situation of a very long, easy climb, I like Constitution (Athletics) for that one check. If as DM I decide there is any difficulty to the task - perhaps the lengthy climb is also perpendicular, as many climbs are - then I might well call for two with the intent that it is extra-risky.

 

[Coroc]

I still don't understand this mindset of challenges. Aren't you just trying to determine the uncertain outcome of 1 action? Or do you just want to make your players roll twice?

It seems to me that this is a matter that can perfectly be resolved with just 1 roll.

yes i agree you could also just resolve it with 1 roll. tbh with BA you really should stick to the one roll whenever reasonably possible, because introducing more rolls basically is the same like applying disadvantage. Also most PC are weak in many of their skills, which bears the risk of very basic actions like scaling a wall with a rope possibly fatal, the more if you cannot resolve this with only one roll.
i just reconsidered by looking purely at the game mechanics and found you are right. If the players all had a skill of average 15+ in athletics the picture would be different though.

 

[Charlaquin]

As I believe you acknowledge, the plain reading of the text is disputed, but I do not feel that justifies either side in dismissing the others claim to correctness as "rulings not rules".

I’m not dismissing anyone’s interpretation of the text as “rulings not rules.” I find it difficult to imagine how one might arrive at the ruling that climbing a great distance with no other source of difficulty than the height should be resolved with a Strength (Athletics) check based on a plain reading of the text alone. Certainly I think the text is ambiguous enough that if other factors than a plain reading of the text (such as a sense of verisimilitude or a preference from other editions or games) make you want to rule that way, you can interpret the text in a way that permits that ruling. I just don’t see how that ruling could be arrived at from the text alone.

I suspect that RPG rules are best understood as having normative import. Their meaning is arrived at through webs or layers of meanings - some of which might have other underpinnings - that at the site of the written rule is settled by consensus. The strongest interpretations are those that reliably meet the expectations of other players.

Interesting. I think that’s a valid way to interpret the rules.

That allows for genuine ambiguity - where two meanings are equally sustainable and where consensus splinters. Usually along pragmatic lines: each side interested in the ruling having the import they wish it to have. Post-splintering, the two groups can each justifiably hold that their version is the truth - exactly on grounds of their local consensus as to meanings. Their local normal. Rather than there being one right version, there are two. The basis for justifying their interpretation as true becomes local to each group.

This is an interesting stance in light of your position on hiding in the other thread (which for the record, I agree with - if I understand it correctly)

 

[Xetheral]

I’m not dismissing anyone’s interpretation of the text as “rulings not rules.” I find it difficult to imagine how one might arrive at the ruling that climbing a great distance with no other source of difficulty than the height should be resolved with a Strength (Athletics) check based on a plain reading of the text alone. Certainly I think the text is ambiguous enough that if other factors than a plain reading of the text (such as a sense of verisimilitude or a preference from other editions or games) make you want to rule that way, you can interpret the text in a way that permits that ruling. I just don’t see how that ruling could be arrived at from the text alone.

(Emphasis added.) This appears to be another philosophical difference between us.

For me, if someone reads the text differently than I thought it could be, I now have evidence that it can be read more ways than I thought. Since the definition of "ambiguous" is: "that can be understood in more than one way; having different meanings" (Oxford American) the text must, by definition, be more ambiguous than I originally thought.

From the bolded section of your post, however, it sounds like, if someone reads the text differently than you thought it could be, you interpret that as evidence that they must be basing their interpretation on something other than the plain text. Is that correct?

If so, it seems to me that you're discounting the possibility of ambiguity being established by different people having different understandings of the text. Instead, you seem to require that the multiple understandings required to establish ambiguity have to be agreed upon by the same person to be valid. Personally I don't see that restriction as implied by the definition. Why do you?