D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

Published material is vetted by WotC editors and designers, so the way things are presented in such material represents intended 5e gameplay.

Not necessarily. Again, we regularly see examples of WotC published modules that are inconsistent with the rules as written, let alone the rules as intended. Published modules represent how their writers tried to communicate to the reader how they, the writer, would run the scenario. No more, no less.

But also, it is tenuous to dismiss officially published material while making unsubstantiated claims about designer intent.

Officially published modules =/= officially published rules, and the module writers are not always the same people who designed the rules. Even if they were, the need to communicate how to run the scenario further complicates the issue.

 

[Charlaquin]

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!

No, there is one category, to which the four examples belong.

 

[clearstream]

No, there is one category, to which the four examples belong.

Logically, that is even less robust.

Thank you for the conversation. I have learned some interesting things. I look forward to robust disagreements in other threads

 

[Charlaquin]

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

No. My refutation is that there are different concerns when writing modules than when writing rules, which can make modules not accurately representative of the intent of the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Logically, that is even less robust.

Would you care to elaborate on why you think that?

Thank you for the conversation. I have learned some interesting things. I look forward to robust disagreements in other threads

Likewise

 

[clearstream]

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.

All I am really saying is, here is some evidence. Where is the countervailing evidence? I find it more justified to draw conclusions from such evidence as exists, than simply speculate.

 

[Charlaquin]

All I am really saying is, here is some evidence. Where is the countervailing evidence? I find it more justified to draw conclusions from such evidence as exists, than simply speculate.

I don’t believe what you’re presenting as evidence supports the conclusion you say it supports.

 

[iserith]

All I am really saying is, here is some evidence. Where is the countervailing evidence? I find it more justified to draw conclusions from such evidence as exists, than simply speculate.

Everything I need is in the rules. Everything outside the rules, including the modules, is just how a DM might have it play out at their table. Which they are free to do, whether it's based in the rules or not.

 

[Xetheral]

Personally, when trying to decide between two different interpretations of the rules, one of which is narrower than the other, I think evidence of how the designers run their own games and the content of the official modules they approve is worth considering. That evidence isn't necessarily dispositive, but I think it can still be informative.

I mean, which is more likely? That the designers articulated a narrow standard of play, and then failed to adhere to that narrow standard in their own games and also routinely approved modules that failed to adhere to that narrow standard? Or that the designers articulated a broader standard of play, and the diversity of methods they use at their table and the modules they approve meet that broader standard?

There's room for debate, but personally I think the latter is significantly more likely. Under my interpretation of the climbing rules (that the rules leave it up to the DM to decide what qualifies as a climbing complication) it makes sense that the designers left such decisions up to the module writers.

(And yes, I suspect that the bias towards calling for checks in the modules stems from the writers of the modules being more familiar with previous editions. But since I read the rules as giving the writers discretion to identity climbing complications, I don't see the modules as rule violations even if I might question the writers' judgement on what checks to call for.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

(And yes, I suspect that the bias towards calling for checks in the modules stems from the writers of the modules being more familiar with previous editions. But since I read the rules as giving the writers discretion to identity climbing complications, I don't see the modules as rule violations even if I might question the writers' judgement on what checks to call for.)

The funny thing is for me that several of those examples are cases where I probably wouldn't bother asking for a check (unless the context, which is misses, shows more so a check could be needed).

But, to be fair, is another DM asked when I was playing, it would be fine, of course.