D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Xetheral]

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.

Thank you for clarifying! I don't know if you consider me amongst those engaging in motivated reasoning based on past posts. If you do, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the evidence you refer to, even if only to learn where I am coming across as engaging in motivated reasoning. (Edit for clarity: by which I mean I'm happy to listen, and won't quibble, if that's your preference.)

 

[Flamestrike]

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?

Within.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Well yeah of course. But leaving aside those variables and everything else being equal, climbing a mile of rope is an order of magnitude harder than climbing a few stories of rope.

 

[iserith]

Well yeah of course. But leaving aside those variables and everything else being equal, climbing a mile of rope is an order of magnitude harder than climbing a few stories of rope.

Sure. It just calls for something other than a Strength (Athletics) check as I see it since we're talking about pushing past normal limits which is a Constitution check (if there's a check at all).

 

[iserith]

Thank you for clarifying! I don't know if you consider me amongst those engaging in motivated reasoning based on past posts. If you do, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the evidence you refer to, even if only to learn where I am coming across as engaging in motivated reasoning. (Edit for clarity: by which I mean I'm happy to listen, and won't quibble, if that's your preference.)

I don't think there's any need to get into this here. I put the idea out there that this is going on in some quarters and leave it to others to judge whether they agree on their own given how common the practice of bringing approaches and assumptions from other games into this game is.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

That’s fair. I tend to go with “necessitate” over “allow” because my preference is generally to avoid calling for checks except where they’re necessary, but I think either is an appropriate summary of the disagreement.

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.

I see where you’re coming from. It’s tricky because, as your interpretation of the rules is more inclusive than mine, it’s natural that your reading leaves room for mine to be valid, whereas my more exclusive interpretation does not leave room for yours. I am certainly open to the possibility that my interpretation could be wrong. I just don’t think it is (otherwise I would have a different interpretation). So, yeah, if you think the height of a climb is a factor that might... err... allow the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check, I acknowledge that that might be the case, if I am misinterpreting the rules. I just don’t think that I am, and I don’t think that it is.

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?

I think I can get behind that more nuanced rendering of your position. That’s quite a reasonable take.

(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.)

Ok, so I think this may be where we differ. To you, a DM who arrives at the conclusion that a given factor would open the door for them to call for a Strength (Athletics) check may be silly, but is still within the scope of the specific rules. To me, if the interpretation is far enough outside the examples to come across as “silly,” then it is clearly beyond the scope of the rule as written, or at the very least, the rule as intended. The height of a climb is certainly a less extreme case, and I can see how someone might come to the conclusion that it is in the same category as the examples. I just don’t think that it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Yes, I understand that. I just disagree with those people. I think that they have come to an interpretation that is inconsistent with the intent behind the rule. I may be wrong about that. But it is what I think.

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 don’t assume my list is absolute. I believe my interpretation of the list is the most consistent with the intent of the rules. I acknowledge that I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe that I am. If I were to be convinced that the assessment I currently support was incorrect, I would change my opinion to support whatever interpretation I had been convinced was more consistent with the intent of the rule.

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.

I acknowledge that too. Plenty of people interpret the rules differently than I do. I believe my interpretation to be more consistent with the intent - if I didn’t, it wouldn’t be my interpretation.

 

[Mannahnin]

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?

Within.

Ok, I'm more on the same page here.

I agree with (I think it was Charlequin) that JUST the stakes would not normally be enough to force a check (height above the ground* compared to leaping over a pit with vipers in it).

But I do think that the LENGTH of the climb could certainly factor in. Even with the ability to rest on the knots, this is a method of locomotion which most humans aren't accustomed to performing for any real length of time, and which can tire out the arms pretty quickly depending on technique used.

I think a number of the disagreements here seem to be predicated on differing assumptions about the climb.

Are there indeed lots of hands/footholds on the wall of this ruined tower? What constitutes "sheer"? Earlier in the thread someone seemed to assume that sheer means glass-like. To my mind, "sheer" when we're talking about walls normally just means "there aren't lots of handholds". Your usual masonry wall won't have a bunch of handholds unless the mortar is in terrible disrepair, and even then, those little fingerholds aren't going to suffice for anyone but a good freeclimber/Thief with minimal gear on. Free-climbers don't wear a suit of armor or a backpack; you want to snuggle your belly up to that wall and get as much of your weight against it as you can. Fortification walls are generally built with the intent that people not be able to scale them, after all.

Do most adventurers know good rope climbing technique? Do they routinely know how to properly lock their feet/legs around a rope so as to take the continual strain off their arms? Some of us might assume "yes, of course, all adventurers have a basic level of athletic competence". But I've certainly seen players envision characters (especially wizards) who are unathletic academics, who might have no experience at all with that sort of thing. Even an adventurer who's reasonably athletic might be fine climbing a rope 30' but not have good technique and start to tire after 80', or 200', or some other distance shorter than a mile.

Is time really not a factor AT ALL? Does the Ranger or Fighter have all the time in the world to coach and correct the unathletic character's technique to ensure that he won't screw up the ascent and discover halfway up a long climb that he actually isn't doing the leg lock properly? If time is a factor and the party is trying to avoid possible guard patrols or something, I think hurrying up the rope can be a complicating factor.

*A caveat on my earlier statement, opining that simple height above the ground shouldn't constitute a complication. I am mildly acrophobic. I have good balance and can walk a narrow balance beam at ground level with no difficulty and blindfolded if I need to. Put that same beam 20' in the air and it's suddenly more difficult. Whether there's actually any sway from the trees, or it's just wind, or it's entirely psychological is not always clear in the moment. I certainly wouldn't impose or assume fear of heights in a PC, but the player may have defined their character that way, and if I wasn't specifically accounting for it, my knee-jerk reaction might have been to think that naturally, being 80' up WOULD make climbing more difficult. So I can understand if that's a factor for some DMs.

All told I'm generally of the mind that "distance/length of a climb can be a sufficient factor to necessitate a check".

That being said, I agree with Flamestrike and others who've opined that making the difficulty too high or requiring multiple checks is usually a terrible idea. And that certain in-fiction realities (being a skilled climber, use of a sliding hitch and/or sizable knots to rest your body weight on and relieve arm strain, having functionally unlimited time) can and should obviate a check entirely.

 

[Xetheral]

That’s fair. I tend to go with “necessitate” over “allow” because my preference is generally to avoid calling for checks except where they’re necessary, but I think either is an appropriate summary of the disagreement.

I see where you’re coming from. It’s tricky because, as your interpretation of the rules is more inclusive than mine, it’s natural that your reading leaves room for mine to be valid, whereas my more exclusive interpretation does not leave room for yours. I am certainly open to the possibility that my interpretation could be wrong. I just don’t think it is (otherwise I would have a different interpretation). So, yeah, if you think the height of a climb is a factor that might... err... allow the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check, I acknowledge that that might be the case, if I am misinterpreting the rules. I just don’t think that I am, and I don’t think that it is.

Good point about my reading being more inclusive. To clarify, I would consider the question disputed even if our readings were equally preclusive of the other. I trust you to accurately convey your reading of the rules, and if it differs from mine that's enough for me to consider a question disputed.

Sure, maybe one of us has to be right and the other wrong, but since we have no way to determine which is which (other than arriving at consensus) all I have to go on is that there's more than one valid reading. That's true no matter how clearly I think the text supports my reading.

I think I can get behind that more nuanced rendering of your position. That’s quite a reasonable take.

Ok, so I think this may be where we differ. To you, a DM who arrives at the conclusion that a given factor would open the door for them to call for a Strength (Athletics) check may be silly, but is still within the scope of the specific rules. To me, if the interpretation is far enough outside the examples to come across as “silly,” then it is clearly beyond the scope of the rule as written, or at the very least, the rule as intended. The height of a climb is certainly a less extreme case, and I can see how someone might come to the conclusion that it is in the same category as the examples. I just don’t think that it is.

Yeah, I read the text as giving more discretion to the DM than you do to determine what is sufficiently similar to the example complications to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Mostly that's based on the literal text, which includes the key phrase "At the DM's option...". But it's also partially informed by necessity: who else is there to make the determination? You seem more comfortable than I am with interpreting the rule as requiring the DM to adhere to an objective (but unstated) standard of similiarity to the printed examples.

In any case, I appreciate your acknowledgement that you "can see how someone might come to the conclusion that [height of a climb] is in the same category as the examples". Thanks! That makes me feel much better about the discussion. Knowing that, I can totally live with the fact that you think it's still clearly wrong.

 

[iserith]

All told I'm generally of the mind that "distance/length of a climb can be a sufficient factor to necessitate a check".

The specific rules for climbing say overcoming a difficult situation while climbing (for which it provides examples) may call for a Strength (Athletics) check. For example, "Can the PC climb the wall without being knocked off by gargoyles?"

The general rules for ability checks also say that a Constitution check may be called for when a character is pushing past his or her normal limits. For example, "Can the PC make this climb the distance of which is past his or her normal limits?"

Under what ability check are you putting the distance/length of a climb? If it's the former, I would disagree because distance/length isn't the same as the category of examples offered by the rules. If it's the latter, then sure, if it needs to be tested. These are asking and answering different questions though.