D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Xetheral]

According to the rules, the DM decides if a complication makes the outcome of the action in doubt. Examples of complications are given. Height of climb, or scaryness of jump are not examples and do not seem in line with designer intent.

However, the rules are but guidelines. The DM is allowed to make their own calls on the matter. But to reitterate, this is not a discussion on whether the DM is allowed to make such calls.

(Emphasis added.) This is the same type of philosophical difference I was discussing with @Charlaquin earlier in the thread. To me, the bolded passages are in conflict. In the first one you're saying the rules leave the decision up to the DM, but in the second you're using your own judgement of designer intent to say that a DM who uses height of the climb as a climbing complication isn't acting within the rules. To me, that sounds like you're saying that, to be acting within the rules, a DM must only choose complications that you believe are line with designer intent, rather than what that DM believes are in line with designer intent.

Broadly speaking, I think this comes down to fundamentally incompatible ideas of what "correctness" means. You're comfortable with the idea that the rules both give decision-making authority to identify climbing complications to the DM, and simultaneously expect that DM to "correctly" determine which complications are of a type with the examples in the book. From my perspective, "correctly" determining which complications are of a type of with the examples in the book is, in practical terms, meaningless without some standard for gauging similarity. And if that standard is anything other than "whatever that DM thinks is similar" then identifying complications was never up to the DM in the first place--instead it was up to whomever designed the standard for similarity.

Even more abstractly, I get the sense that you (and other posters arguing similar positions) are concerned with the question "What is correct?" while I am concerned with the question "Who decides what is correct?" That's probably why you're (apparently) more willing to dismiss my interpretations of the rules as incorrect, whereas I'm arguing for the validity of both interpretations and merely expressing which one I think is stronger. It's probably also why I also react negatively to posters arguing that their interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, because I'm interpreting such an argument as those posters implicitly claiming the right for themselves to decide what is and is not the correct interpretation of the text.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't understand how you're starting with the premise that climbing, swimming, and jumping use movement for the round and reaching the conclusion that climbing, swimming, and jumping are no different from normal movement. To me, your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Because climbing, swimming and jumping ARE movement?

 

[Flamestrike]

As the OP, asking my simple question about climbing a tower, my conclusion after 20 pages of arguments here is that the core 5e rules could be a LITTLE bit clearer so nerds don't argue about this stupid stuff.

There is no argument and the rules are clear. The rules expressly state that only 'climbing a slippery vertical slope' or 'one with few handholds' (or the equivalent) might require a check.

Some DMs go on to assert this somehow includes a knotted rope with a wall to brace on, even through that didnt require a check in the past few editions of the game, and was automatic for anyone who took 10, with a DC of 0.

You're left in this thread now with one or two people who got caught out early by assigning insane DC's like 8-15 to climb a rope (and requiring multiple checks in some places) defensively arguing in the face of a pretty obvious rule that proves them wrong.

It's pretty standard around here. I spent ages trying to explain to people how invisibility doesnt make you 'automatically hidden' without a Stealth check via the Hide action, or how Orcs were not 'inherently' evil, or how Genocide and baby murder are clearly evil and not something a good aligned person does, or how Hit Points are not 'meat'. or how Surprise works, or how the adventuring day is supposed to work, or a million other things.

People pick the strangest hills to die on.

 

[Coroc]

Is it though? I climbed ropes with ease when I was 10.



You are contradicting yourself. You are asking for multiple checks for one action.

If the difficulty lies in the long climb, then why not ask for only a constitution check?

I don't get this. Why do people keep stacking checks on top of checks? Is the goal here to resolve the outcome of one action, or to make the players roll lots of dice?

omg the things i could do at 10 with ease, otoh some of the things i can do now which i couldnt back then are also impressive

but pls do not let me be missunderstood by you, normally e.g. For the given example 40 ft with a knotted rope a dc 5-10 athletics or acrobatics check should be in order, every one of the group is an adventurer, and even the scholarly wizard is some one who is acustomed to medieval surroundings and conditions, so these are at least twice as tough for every physical challenge than modern men.

i had the situation where my pc had to climb up an enormous height, and the dm was of the opinion to resolve that with multiple climbing checks ithink a total of three. The problem is, that even with a moderate dc of 10 and lets say a +5 for athletics, you get a 75% chance to fail, because the three rolls are dependant from a stochastic pov.
in that case one roll for the climbing, and a second roll for your endurance aka a dc 10 constitution check would have been more fair, with the second check not necessarily having fatal consequences in case of a fail.
maybe a botched con check.would force you to make a break at half height, or force you to climb down again.

 

[Imaculata]

in that case one roll for the climbing, and a second roll for your endurance aka a dc 10 constitution check would have been more fair, with the second check not necessarily having fatal consequences in case of a fail.
maybe a botched con check.would force you to make a break at half height, or force you to climb down again.

Why not just one check? If it is an exhaustive climb, why not limit it to just a constitution check?

 

[iserith]

I agree on the simplicity and being written to allow fewer rolls. But it certainly seems to me to be set up to permit frequent rolls, if desired. As evidence I would point to DMG 236, that discuss the style of calling for lots of rolls and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of doing so in comparison to other styles. The text does not suggest that any of the discussed styles are favored or disfavored in 5e.

Two of the three approaches are said to have possible drawbacks. One of the three approaches has none. That's pretty suggestive to me of which one to use.

 

[SkidAce]

Only if there’s nothing about the scene that would make swimming across the lake challenging. Again, if the scene wouldn’t be tense without a check, the scene isn’t tense.

The warrior Valiant stood at the edge of the lake. They knew the goal they sought lay across the placid five mile stretch of water. At their back was the remaining evil hordes of the NecroKing, mere minutes away from overwhelming them.

Valiant might be able to fight off the skeletons, but they were sure they had seen a ogre magi amongst the group, which was likely certain death for the lone warrior.

Valiant had grown up on the coast, but they had never swum farther than a mile in their entire life. They gravely contemplated their decision...

a. Swimming is just movement, I'm outta here.
b. There was risk to such an extended swim, a likelihood of drowning, but if accomplished would be a feat told of at bars and taverns.
c. Fight Valiantly( tm) against the oncoming horde, an almost certain defeat, but if accomplished would be a tale told across the lands.

 

[Mannahnin]

Because climbing, swimming and jumping ARE movement?

The interpretation you seem to be advocating is that a D&D character can climb, swim, or jump for eight hours with no more difficulty (at least in any mechanically-represented sense) than walking for the same period of time. Is that right?

 

[iserith]

The warrior Valiant stood at the edge of the lake. They knew the goal they sought lay across the placid five mile stretch of water. At their back was the remaining evil hordes of the NecroKing, mere minutes away from overwhelming them.

Valiant might be able to fight off the skeletons, but they were sure they had seen a ogre magi amongst the group, which was likely certain death for the lone warrior.

Valiant had grown up on the coast, but they had never swum farther than a mile in their entire life. They gravely contemplated their decision...

a. Swimming is just movement, I'm outta here.
b. There was risk to such an extended swim, a likelihood of drowning, but if accomplished would be a feat told of at bars and taverns.
c. Fight Valiantly( tm) against the oncoming horde, an almost certain defeat, but if accomplished would be a tale told across the lands.

Insert fantastical freshwater plants into the description of the lake, known to entangle the legs of many a swimmer and pull them to a watery grave.

With that, Sir Valiant's tale gets even more epic and we have the grounds for calling for a Strength (Athletics) check to power through.

 

[iserith]

The interpretation you seem to be advocating is that a D&D character can climb, swim, or jump for eight hours with no more mechanical challenge than walking for the same period of time. Is that right?

If a climb, swim, or extended period of jumping is beyond the character's normal limits and we're testing to see if the character's approach to pushing past said limits succeeds, then we can call for a Constitution check.