D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

If it helps, I like that 5e calls for fewer climb checks than other editions, so I really don't think I have any ulterior motive when I nevertheless read the specific climbing rule as leaving identification of climbing complications up to the DM.

Notably, I don’t think the key point of contention here is whether or not the climbing rules leave identification of climbing complications up to the DM. I think most everyone here would agree they do. What we disagree on is how much leeway they leave the DM to make that determination. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your position seems to be that the DM can identify anything at all as a complicating factor which requires a Strength (Athletics) check, even factors unrelated to the climb itself, such as the day of the week. I and others believe that the DM can only identify factors that share qualities with the given example complications as requiring a Strength (Athletics) check - at least, without going outside of RAW.

 

[clearstream]

Certainly. But there are degrees of ambiguity. Is it ambiguous whether any given factor would necessitate a Strength (Athletics) check to overcome? Yes. But it’s much more ambiguous whether the height of the climb would be such a factor than whether the price of tea in Kara-Tur would be. I believe the examples given provide enough clarity to be confident that neither are.

I agree, but again, I think the examples give us sufficient clarity to confidently rule out certain factors. I believe the height of the climb to be such a factor.

That either goes back to harbouring secret rules, or one ought to say "the examples give me sufficiently clarity to confidently rule out X".

Regarding the price of tea in Kara-Tur. We might all agree that such a fact is outside the circle of things that complicate a climb in Waterdeep, without agreeing on what is inside that same circle.

 

[Flamestrike]

I am, where a Strength (Athletics) check is concerned. If we're testing whether a character is exhausted by a 1 mile climb by pushing past their normal limits, we can call for a Constitution check if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

I'd say getting exhausted while climbing a rope nearly a mile into the sky clearly has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Climbing a rope is as simple as doing a pull up, and then locking the rope with your feet. It's just climbing a mile of rope involves literally around a thousand pull ups.

An 80' climb is literally around 25 pull-ups, and considering you can rest as you climb, it's not a big issue.

But a thousand pull ups? Clearly several orders of magnitude more difficult than 25.

 

[iserith]

(Emphasis added.) Thanks for responding! I understand that you feel many posters fail to treat different versions of D&D as entirely separate games. As that is an important part of your philosophy towards multi-edition games, I can understand why that would be frustrating.

From the bolded section, it sounds like you are concluding that because you think the rules are clear, posters who disagree with you about what the rules say are likely engaging in motivated reasoning. That's not a definition of motivated reasoning that I can support--it privileges your opinion of what the rules mean over those who disagree with you. Indeed, it sounds like you're saying that because lots of people in the past have engaged in motivated reasoning, you're willing to assume that anyone who disagrees with your reading of a clear rule is likely engaging in motivated reasoning.

Obviously I disagree with your reading of the rule. If the mere fact if my disagreement is truly enough for you to dismiss my opinion as due to motivated reasoning, there's not much I can say to try to convince you otherwise. If it helps, I like that 5e calls for fewer climb checks than other editions, so I really don't think I have any ulterior motive when I nevertheless read the specific climbing rule as leaving identification of climbing complications up to the DM.

To be clear, I'm not frustrated. We're talking about D&D rules here and that's a silly thing to get emotional over in my view. And neither do I claim that all posters who disagree with me are engaged in motivated reasoning. But for some, the evidence is in spades as I see it based on their posts in this thread and in others. It's often easy to see when DMs are viewing D&D 5e through the lens of other games.

This really isn't about preferring one method of resolution to another or one game over another for me either. I don't have a preference except to do what the game says to do so that the intended game experience is achieved. If we were playing a game that said to "make climb checks every 10 feet for no reason whatsoever," then that's what I'm going to do. If the intended game experience sucks, of course, that's a different story.

 

[Xetheral]

I don’t think we can both be correct about this. Either the height of a climb is among the factors which necessitate a Strength (Athletics) check to overcome, or it is not. I believe it is not, because it does not share the common qualities of the given examples of such factors. You may disagree with that assessment, but it can’t both be among those factors and not be among them. One of us is interpreting the rules correctly, and the other is not. Obviously I believe I am interpreting them correctly (otherwise I would take the opposite position).

I'd word it slightly differently: the dispute is over whether the height of a climb is among the types of factors that the rules permit (rather than necessitate) the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

But that aside, even if it were true that there is some objective sense in which only one of our perspectives can be correct, we have no way to determine which of our readings is the correct one. You're among the posters I most respect on this forum, and knowing that you disagree with my reading is enough for me to consider the question disputed. I still think my reading of the text is the stronger one, but I'm not going to assert that you're going outside the rules when the rules themselves are in dispute.

I think that's why I'm reacting negatively when you do so: by claiming that others are going outside the rules, it sounds like you're not willing to concede even the validity of the other posters' contrary opinions, even as they are conceding the validity of your opinion.

Notably, I don’t think the key point of contention here is whether or not the climbing rules leave identification of climbing complications up to the DM. I think most everyone here would agree they do. What we disagree on is how much leeway they leave the DM to make that determination. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your position seems to be that the DM can identify anything at all as a complicating factor which requires a Strength (Athletics) check, even factors unrelated to the climb itself, such as the day of the week. I and others believe that the DM can only identify factors that share qualities with the given example complications as requiring a Strength (Athletics) check - at least, without going outside of RAW.

That's a worthwhile distinction to make. I would go even farther, however: my argument (taken to a greater level of nuance than I've previously expressed) is that it is up to each DM to decide whether a particular complication shares enough qualities with the example complications as requiring a Strength (Athletics) check. My impression is that you think the decision should instead be made in comparison to an implicit objective standard?

(For clarity, yes, I think that if a DM determines that complication X shares enough qualities with the examples, the rules explicitly permit/encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check, even if you or I think that DM is being silly. I did not mean to imply that a DM who identifies the day of the week as a climbing complication was being reasonable, only that I think they would still following the specific climbing rules when they accordingly called for a check.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don’t think we can both be correct about this. Either the height of a climb is among the factors which necessitate a Strength (Athletics) check to overcome, or it is not. I believe it is not, because it does not share the common qualities of the given examples of such factors. You may disagree with that assessment, but it can’t both be among those factors and not be among them. One of us is interpreting the rules correctly, and the other is not. Obviously I believe I am interpreting them correctly (otherwise I would take the opposite position).

LOL, of course you don't...

Do you understand, that given the examples, there will be a host of other factors (such as height) that some people would believe warrants a check and others won't? Apparently, you don't. Your "hard and fast" list of possible factors is all there is and no one else's factors belong...

Your list isn't the absolute list in the world of D&D and DMs and tables, you know. That is pretty offensive and arrogant to assume it is, IMO.

I can at least acknowledge that other players can interpret the rules and be correct in their own fashion where DMs can make judgement calls, which is ALL this is.

 

[iserith]

I'd say getting exhausted while climbing a rope nearly a mile into the sky clearly has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Climbing a rope is as simple as doing a pull up, and then locking the rope with your feet. It's just climbing a mile of rope involves literally around a thousand pull ups.

An 80' climb is literally around 25 pull-ups, and considering you can rest as you climb, it's not a big issue.

But a thousand pull ups? Clearly several orders of magnitude more difficult than 25.

Right, I'm just paraphrasing the rules for adjudication there. We have to leave open the possibility that if a PC is presented with a mile-high climb with the risk of exhaustion that they pull out some kind of plan, feature, item, boon, etc. that will allow them to ignore the risk of exhaustion - removing the meaningful consequence for failure - and thus make the climb without a Constitution check.

 

[Xetheral]

I'd say getting exhausted while climbing a rope nearly a mile into the sky clearly has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Climbing a rope is as simple as doing a pull up, and then locking the rope with your feet. It's just climbing a mile of rope involves literally around a thousand pull ups.

An 80' climb is literally around 25 pull-ups, and considering you can rest as you climb, it's not a big issue.

But a thousand pull ups? Clearly several orders of magnitude more difficult than 25.

To clarify, are you saying that you think a DM who called for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb a mile-high rope would be acting within the bounds of the specific climbing rules? Or would they be going outside those rules?

 

[Imaculata]

For those of you who think an 80' climb should have an athletics check DC 8, does this mean your DC increases by 1 for every 10' of rope that needs to be climbed? Is it an increasing scale, or does a check only come into play beyond a certain distance?

 

[Charlaquin]

That either goes back to harbouring secret rules, or one ought to say "the examples give me sufficiently clarity to confidently rule out X".

I disagree. There must necessarily be an intended line somewhere. It is obviously not “secret,” but it is somewhat ambiguous. We may disagree on where it lies, but it must lie somewhere, and therefore people can be right or wrong in their assessment of where it lies.

Regarding the price of tea in Kara-Tur. We might all agree that such a fact is outside the circle of things that complicate a climb in Waterdeep, without agreeing on what is inside that same circle.

Absolutely! But some things are inside that circle and some things are not. We may disagree about what lies where, but some of us are right in our assessments and some of us are wrong,