D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

By strict RAW, I would say this is correct. If we treat pushing past one’s limits to climb a greater distance as equivalent to a forced march, technically a Con save shouldn’t be required until the 9th hour of climbing in a day, which would be between 9 and 18 miles of climbing depending on “travel pace.” However, I think the better call here might be to disregard the specific rules for forced marches and call for a Con save based more on when it’s dramatically appropriate rather than when a certain distance has been exceeded.

Right, and for that matter, there may have been hours of walking capped off by a mile-high climb that puts them into forced march. There are a few ways to look at this. But again, that's the issue with examples in these discussions. They tend to confuse rather than illuminate.

 

[Rabulias]

So two more points: All the rope climbing and climbing walls, they have mats beneath them. Why is that? Because people may fall, even on an easy climb.

Secondly, say there are two vertical cliff walls, equally solid and similar in appearance, but one is 30 feet high and the other is 60 feet high. There is an objective at the top that a military unit wishes to flank and these two cliff faces are the only unguarded ways to do so. The unit's leader wants to send half the unit up one and half the unit up the other. Do they just divvy the ranks in half, or do they send the better climbers to the higher cliff?

 

[Rabulias]

By strict RAW, I would say this is correct. If we treat pushing past one’s limits to climb a greater distance as equivalent to a forced march, technically a Con save shouldn’t be required until the 9th hour of climbing in a day, which would be between 9 and 18 miles of climbing depending on “travel pace.” However, I think the better call here might be to disregard the specific rules for forced marches and call for a Con save based more on when it’s dramatically appropriate rather than when a certain distance has been exceeded.

Would 4 hours of climbing be considered the equivalent effort of 8 hours of walking, since climbing costs double movement? The same could be asked of a forced march over difficult terrain.

 

[clearstream]

I apologize, but I can’t make heads or tails of any of this.

Once you agree that a boundary is ambiguous, it is faulty to construct arguments that rely upon it being unambiguous.

I disagree. There is one circle, which contains all the things the developers intended to constitute a Strength (Athletics) check. The bounds of that circle may not be clear, but they do exist. It is the DM’s role to determine what they think lies within the circle and what doesn’t, but they could come to incorrect assessments.

You ascribe to the developers an intent they did not have. Or to put it another way, if you want to rely upon the developers having the intent you ascribe to them, the burden is on you to evidence it.

I think you and I may be working from different definitions of the word “ambiguous.” To me it means unclear. You seem to be using it to mean undefined.

To say that a rule is ambiguous means that it does not have a single clear meaning: no one circle that happens to be unknown. Again, you seem to be relying on secret rules.

 

[clearstream]

As far as the specific rules governing climbing go, length of the climb is not a difficult situation the rules contemplate as evidenced by the given examples.

Well, we are getting nowhere. Under your interpretation length of climb is not a factor. As others have pointed out, you seem to hope to give your interpretation the high ground. There is no such high ground because the examples of factors in difficulty are indicative, not definitive. Being indicative, they leave scope for individual DMs to interpret them to include different factors.

 

[iserith]

Well, we are getting nowhere.

Where this matter is concerned, I'm already where I need to be.

 

[clearstream]

The category of examples in the specific rules for climbing is not ambiguous. Length of climb doesn't fit in that category.

Examples include the following activities:

• You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

When a rule says that examples include A, B, and C, then the implication is that there are other activities that are not excluded, but that are not listed. Do you truly believe that a DM can only call for a check under RAW in exactly those four cases - sheer, slippery, hazards, something trying to knock you off!? If you do, then you are stepping away from the reasonable implication of the RAW. If you do not, then the list is indicative not definitive.

For example, our climber is in the throes of a tropical disease that causes their grip to be weak and uncertain. That seems to me to be a complicating factor that justifies a check, yet it isn't one of sheer, slippery, hazards, something trying to knock them off. Therefore, under your interpretation, it must be excluded.

 

[iserith]

When a rule says that examples include A, B, and C, then the implication is that there are other activities that are not excluded, but that are not listed. Do you truly believe that a DM can only call for a check under RAW in exactly those four cases - sheer, slippery, hazards, something trying to knock you off!? If you do, then you are stepping away from the reasonable implication of the RAW. If you do not, then the list is indicative not definitive.

For example, our climber is in the grip of a tropical disease that causes their grip to be weak and uncertain. That seems to me to be a complicating factor that justifies a check, yet it isn't one of sheer, slippery, hazards, something trying to knock them off. Therefore, under your interpretation, it must be excluded.

Yes, it would be excluded. If however there was a Strength (Athletics) check because they are trying to, for example, climb while being attacked by gargoyles, then perhaps they may have disadvantage on the check due to the disease.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think also what may be going on here is getting hung up on the example of "mile-high climb." In context, I'm using that as a stand-in for "a climb past the character's normal limits." Not necessarily a climb that is exactly one mile long.

So who determines the character's limits?

 

[clearstream]

Yes, it would be excluded. If however there was a Strength (Athletics) check because they are trying to, for example, climb while being attacked by gargoyles, then perhaps they may have disadvantage on the check due to the disease.

Thank you for that. It has the merit of consistency and makes your position clear. For you, a climber being in the throes of a tropical disease that causes their grip to be weak and uncertain would not be a complicating factor that justifies a Strength (Athletics) check, for the reason that it isn't one of sheer, slippery, hazards, or something trying to knock them off.

You take "examples include" to mean that everything else is excluded. That is an atypical reading of that construction.