D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

Why not each hour of CLIMBING a PC has to make a CON 10 check or gain a level of Exhaustion? The DMG says it as far as swimming, and that's the same movement penalty as climbing, so should the penalty of DC Con 10 per hour apply too?

Returning, in a moment of ennui. I actually like a Constitution (Athletics) check here, to represent the more skilled climber spending less energy on the climb. They know how to avoid muscle strain and position themselves for rests during the climb.

Generally, I have been thinking more about passive and variant checks, which is a mild surprise because at the outset I felt quite skeptical about them. But imagine that part of why we needn't check for a straight climb under no pressure is that it is Easy / DC 5 and even the feeblest character can make a DC 5 check passively given time to retry and no likelihood of falling. Very good climbers might enable others to passively overcome a DC 10 climb, by taking disadvantage to give them advantage, or doing something that a DM felt earned a group check. Could a Strength (Stealth) check make sense to represent climbing with care not to disturb rocks or make a fuss? It feels to me like there is untapped nuance in the mechanics that could be unpacked into richer, yet still highly consistent and relatively simple, skill uses.

 

[clearstream]

It’s the same reason you run the game by-the-book before adding house rules. By understanding the rules as written, we empower ourselves to deviate from them with intention. You can interpret the rules permissively enough to allow for the way you were going to run the game anyway, but what value is gained from doing so, other than the satisfaction of being able to call your approach right? On the other hand, by taking a narrower view of the rules, trying to understand not just what they allow but what they prescribe, you can form a picture of play as the designers envisioned. You start to see what design purpose is served by rules you may not have liked, and may gain better appreciation for them, or if not, at least be better equipped to create house rules with purpose and intent, and hopefully be able to preserve the design function the removed rules had been serving.

Discussion in another thread had made me curious about something relating to this thread. I think you and I are both interested in what the RAW entails, possibly as a starting point for what a DM might then rule, but still there as a meaningful baseline.

I think you have said you see the examples in the PHB for Strength (Athletics) as categorical. If I take your position correctly, you believe there is a category - factors that justify an Athletics check to climb - and this category is delimited by the four examples in the PHB. You are aware that I put weight on the "Examples include" wording, and if you did agree that the implication were there are other examples, such examples cannot meaningfully change your category. They can't add or take anything away from it. Does that sound right? You might say - well, there can be further examples that are substantially the same, but then the degree to which they differ would seem to give wiggle room to extend the category. Therefore they must not differ, they must only populate inside the category (examples of slippery, examples of sheer, etc). I cannot see the value of such further examples myself, but they would satisfy the implication of there being further examples.

Do you have a similar position relating to the other examples? That is, do you believe there is a category - factors that justify an Athletics check to swim - that is delimited by the third bullet-point of examples, and to jump, delimited by the second bullet-point? And is it right that there cannot be applications of Athletics, beyond the three categories delimited by the examples?

 

[Charlaquin]

Discussion in another thread had made me curious about something relating to this thread. I think you and I are both interested in what the RAW entails, possibly as a starting point for what a DM might then rule, but still there as a meaningful baseline.

I think you have said you see the examples in the PHB for Strength (Athletics) as categorical. If I take your position correctly, you believe there is a category - factors that justify an Athletics check to climb - and this category is delimited by the four examples in the PHB. You are aware that I put weight on the "Examples include" wording, and if you did agree that the implication were there are other examples, such examples cannot meaningfully change your category. They can't add or take anything away from it. Does that sound right? You might say - well, there can be further examples that are substantially the same, but then the degree to which they differ would seem to give wiggle room to extend the category. Therefore they must not differ, they must only populate inside the category (examples of slippery, examples of sheer, etc). I cannot see the value of such further examples myself, but they would satisfy the implication of there being further examples.

That sounds about right.

Do you have a similar position relating to the other examples? That is, do you believe there is a category - factors that justify an Athletics check to swim - that is delimited by the third bullet-point of examples, and to jump, delimited by the second bullet-point?

I would say yes.

And is it right that there cannot be applications of Athletics, beyond the three categories delimited by the examples?

Hmm... I suppose that’s right, in the absence of a more specific rule saying otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Returning, in a moment of ennui. I actually like a Constitution (Athletics) check here, to represent the more skilled climber spending less energy on the climb. They know how to avoid muscle strain and position themselves for rests during the climb.

Generally, I have been thinking more about passive and variant checks, which is a mild surprise because at the outset I felt quite skeptical about them. But imagine that part of why we needn't check for a straight climb under no pressure is that it is Easy / DC 5 and even the feeblest character can make a DC 5 check passively given time to retry and no likelihood of falling.

That’s one way to look at it. Under this lens, a passive check is comparable to taking 10 in 3e. Personally, I tend to use passive checks when an action is performed continuously over time - keeping watch for danger or moving stealthily while traveling overland or exploring a dungeon, for example.

Very good climbers might enable others to passively overcome a DC 10 climb, by taking disadvantage to give them advantage, or doing something that a DM felt earned a group check.

The rules for Working Together should allow a strong climber to grant a weak climber advantage even without taking disadvantage, provided they came up with a reasonable approach to help. Personally, I don’t much like the RAW for group checks. I prefer, when the group could fail if anyone fails, to have only the character with the lowest modifier roll, so the party can work together to shore up their weakest point before attempting something together. If the group could succeed if anyone succeeds, I have the character with the highest modifier roll.

Could a Strength (Stealth) check make sense to represent climbing with care not to disturb rocks or make a fuss? It feels to me like there is untapped nuance in the mechanics that could be unpacked into richer, yet still highly consistent and relatively simple, skill uses.

Certainly! One thing to keep in mind though is that the cognitive load for the DM is greater when considering all combinations of skills and abilities than when just considering the 6 abilities and each of the skills normally associated with them. For this reason, it can be beneficial to set the expectation that the DM only calls for ability checks, and the player suggests a proficiency if they think they have one that is applicable. Then as DM you can either agree and allow the proficiency to apply, or disagree and have the player make the unmodified ability check.

 

[iserith]

Certainly! One thing to keep in mind though is that the cognitive load for the DM is greater when considering all combinations of skills and abilities than when just considering the 6 abilities and each of the skills normally associated with them. For this reason, it can be beneficial to set the expectation that the DM only calls for ability checks, and the player suggests a proficiency if they think they have one that is applicable. Then as DM you can either agree and allow the proficiency to apply, or disagree and have the player make the unmodified ability check.

Yes, I have found this to be the best way to do it, provided the player's description is suitable to the proficiency they are adding prior to the call for a check. It's easier on the DM and avoids disagreement as to what proficiency applies which is a commonly reported issue.

 

[clearstream]

That’s one way to look at it. Under this lens, a passive check is comparable to taking 10 in 3e. Personally, I tend to use passive checks when an action is performed continuously over time - keeping watch for danger or moving stealthily while traveling overland or exploring a dungeon, for example.

I'm the same, currently. I use passive checks for actions performed over time... but then, isn't that what we can assume for straight climb that is under no pressure? That the character could just repeat their attempts until they succeed. Therefore, passive?

The rules for Working Together should allow a strong climber to grant a weak climber advantage even without taking disadvantage, provided they came up with a reasonable approach to help. Personally, I don’t much like the RAW for group checks. I prefer, when the group could fail if anyone fails, to have only the character with the lowest modifier roll, so the party can work together to shore up their weakest point before attempting something together. If the group could succeed if anyone succeeds, I have the character with the highest modifier roll.

I have a similar dislike for the RAW for group checks. It doesn't seem to play out in a way I find engaging. Added to which, my players manipulate it in ways that seem far too meta-gamey to me. To clarify my comment, I wasn't supposing that the better climber should necessarily take disadvantage - just thinking out loud - could it play well if it done that way? Per RAW, they could find a way to justify "help" on the check to give advantage. And then, following the concept that advantage is worth +5 on passive checks, they could both overcome a higher DC. It seemed to me mechanically questionable to give a costless +5, hence the thought that maybe the action the helper has to take ends up imposing disadvantage on that character. Often we go with just - convince me - but a mechanical trade-off could be better. Or so went my line of thought.

Certainly! One thing to keep in mind though is that the cognitive load for the DM is greater when considering all combinations of skills and abilities than when just considering the 6 abilities and each of the skills normally associated with them. For this reason, it can be beneficial to set the expectation that the DM only calls for ability checks, and the player suggests a proficiency if they think they have one that is applicable. Then as DM you can either agree and allow the proficiency to apply, or disagree and have the player make the unmodified ability check.

I felt that (cognitive load) already in contemplating Strength (Stealth) versus Dexterity (Athletics). Probably not an ideal candidate for a core rule.

 

[iserith]

I'm the same, currently. I use passive checks for actions performed over time... but then, isn't that what we can assume for straight climb that is under no pressure? That the character could just repeat their attempts until they succeed. Therefore, passive?

Not exactly. There's just no check at all, passive or otherwise. A passive check is still an ability check and the call for ability check has certain prerequisites.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, I have found this to be the best way to do it, provided the player's description is suitable to the proficiency they are adding prior to the call for a check. It's easier on the DM and avoids disagreement as to what proficiency applies which is a commonly reported issue.

I find that players have very different levels of system mastery. And there is a matter of DMing style. Players can suggest a proficiency to me, but more often I state the relevant proficiency when calling for the check. A proactive approach is easiest on the DM in my experience. I suppose that also depends on level of system mastery.

 

[Charlaquin]

I felt that (cognitive load) already in contemplating Strength (Stealth) versus Dexterity (Athletics). Probably not an ideal candidate for a core rule.

Unless, again, it’s the player’s responsibility to suggest a proficiency. This was actually explicitly the rule in a few iterations of the playtest, and though the exact wording didn’t make it to final publication, there is still the suggestion in the DMG that the DM might enlist the players’ help in determining an appropriate proficiency.

 

[iserith]

I find that players have very different levels of system mastery. And there is a matter of DMing style. Players can suggest a proficiency to me, but more often I state the relevant proficiency when calling for the check. A proactive approach is easiest on the DM in my experience. I suppose that also depends on level of system mastery.

I've run the game for a lot of new players in pickup groups and they don't seem to have an issue with it. They can see the check marks on their character sheet (or whatever) for their skill and tool proficiencies. I just explain that if I call for a Strength check, for example, and they think based on their description one of those things applies, they can add it. They don't even need to ask me. I will assume they are doing it in good faith.