D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

No, I’m not. Im arguing that a category can be inferred from the (incomplete) list of examples, and that it is not appropriate to call for a Strength (Athletics) check due to factors that don’t fit into that implied category.

Don't match those categories then. If the examples are categories, and the list of categories that the examples constitute is incomplete, then there are further categories.

But really this is splitting hairs.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

May, but it's extremely unlikely. I dont recall seeing anyone fall in Gym class at school (a few fatties couldnt get up the rope though) and I never saw it in the Army when climbing ropes either.

Im sure someone falls off a rope every now and then, but people fall of ladders or off chairs as well, and Im not requiring a check for that either.

To any DM that wanted me to make a check to climb a rope, I'd simply rig up some rope locks, and attach them to a carabiner attached to myself. It'snow literally impossible to fall.

As long as my lifting capacity exceeds my weight plus my carried gear (and I can this lift my own weight off the ground) then there is no need for a check at all.

If he still called for a check, I'd just find a convenient excuse to ignore his adventure and go back to town and purchase a rope ladder (two can play at that game).

 

[iserith]

I don't present them as rules, but @Charlaquin did make a claim about the designers' intent. One might anticipate seeing the designers' intent represented in officially published material.

(BTW @Charlaquin, I don't at all mean to specifically pick on you! It just happens you clearly stated arguments I am aiming to refute.)

I've watched the designers run games. Many of them do what I've said many DMs do - drag approaches and assumptions from one game into another. Watch a video of them running or playing D&D 5e and see how often the players ask to make ability checks, for example - which is straight out of D&D 4e. They are not immune from doing this by virtue of having written the rules and, since calling for a Strength (Athletics) check to resolve climbing without a difficult situation in play is very common for DMs to do, too, I'm not surprised to see them in modules either. (Of course, here I'm taking that list as including at least one such case as being true. I have not verified any of them because I won't be spending my weekend combing through modules.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't present them as rules, but @Charlaquin did make a claim about the designers' intent. One might anticipate seeing the designers' intent represented in officially published material.

I don’t think checks that appear in modules accurately represent the design intent of the rules. Rather, they represent the module writers’ attempt at communicating to an audience how they would run the scenario the module presents at the table. They are, in my opinion, equivalent to an individual DM’s ruling, not an indication of the intended function of the rules (again, see the skill challenges discussion for another example of a system presented in modules in a way that is not consistent with how the rule books describe that system).

(BTW @Charlaquin, I don't at all mean to specifically pick on you! It just happens you clearly stated arguments I am aiming to refute.)

No worries

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't match those categories then. If the examples are categories, and the list of categories that the examples constitute is incomplete, then there are further categories.

But really this is splitting hairs.

What?

No, the examples listed are of factors which belong to one category. The list is not exhaustive - other factors which are not listed may fit into that category. The length of a climb does not, however.

 

[clearstream]

I don’t think checks that appear in modules accurately represent the design intent of the rules. Rather, they represent the module writers’ attempt at communicating to an audience how they would run the scenario the module presents at the table. They are, in my opinion, equivalent to an individual DM’s ruling, not an indication of the intended function of the rules (again, see the skill challenges discussion for another example of a system presented in modules in a way that is not consistent with how the rule books describe that system).

Published material is vetted by WotC editors and designers, so the way things are presented in such material represents intended 5e gameplay. But also, it is tenuous to dismiss officially published material while making unsubstantiated claims about designer intent.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've watched the designers run games. Many of them do what I've said many DMs do - drag approaches and assumptions from one game into another. Watch a video of them running or playing D&D 5e and see how often the players ask to make ability checks, for example - which is straight out of D&D 4e. They are not immune from doing this by virtue of having written the rules and, since calling for a Strength (Athletics) check to resolve climbing without a difficult situation in play is very common for DMs to do, too, I'm not surprised to see them in modules either.

And to be fair to the designers, how many of us always rule exactly as we ideally would do? Everyone occasionally makes rulings that they later look back on and think they could have made a better call. I think the rules represent the idealized version of how the designers imagine the game “should” be run, but I doubt any of them consistently run the game exactly as the rules describe. Sometimes out of personal preference (the rules are designed collaboratively after all; an individual designer may not agree with or like the solution the team as a whole came up with), some times out of misremembering (they have a lot of rules systems floating around their heads, it’s no surprise they might get mixed up on occasion).

 

[clearstream]

No, the examples listed are of factors which belong to one category. The list is not exhaustive - other factors which are not listed may fit into that category. The length of a climb does not, however.

Is it right then to state your position as being - there are exactly four categories for what can count as a difficulty or complication justifying a climb check? That applies the torturous logic that where the RAW strongly implies that there may be other examples, and the four examples given are categories, such further examples are in fact not categories!

 

[clearstream]

And to be fair to the designers, how many of us always rule exactly as we ideally would do? Everyone occasionally makes rulings that they later look back on and think they could have made a better call. I think the rules represent the idealized version of how the designers imagine the game “should” be run, but I doubt any of them consistently run the game exactly as the rules describe. Sometimes out of personal preference (the rules are designed collaboratively after all; an individual designer may not agree with or like the solution the team as a whole came up with), some times out of misremembering (they have a lot of rules systems floating around their heads, it’s no surprise they might get mixed up on occasion).

So your refutation is essentially, the WotC editors and designers failed to do their job properly, when reviewing and approving works for publication?

 

[iserith]

So your refutation is essentially, the WotC editors and designers failed to do their job properly, when reviewing and approving works for publication?

One only needs to point to errata to show that to be true. Or any of Crawford's strange rulings on Twitter. They aren't infallible.