D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

The two are not exclusive.

I presented multiple dichotomies, so I’m not clear which one you’re referring to.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. The Variant rule says the DM can call for a Constitution check to see if the PC has the stamina to swim a long distance and that the DM may allow the player to apply the Athletics proficiency to said check. It does not follow that Strength and Constitution are interchangeable here. Only that, under the variant rule, Athletics proficiency becomes potentially more pertinent to other abilities.

Yep! To engage that variant rule, the game designers had to determine an ability check for distance was necessary in the first place. That interchanges with the saves for distance rule. THEN the variant comes into play.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yep! To engage that variant rule, the game designers had to determine an ability check for distance was necessary in the first place. That interchanges with the saves for distance rule. THEN the variant comes into play.

And that ability is...

you can do this, I know you can Max

 

[Maxperson]

And that ability is...

you can do this, I know you can Max

Strength. That's the ability for Athletics. So the game designer decided that a swim from the island to the mainland, regarding distance only, needed an ability check. That swaps with or runs concurrently with the con save for distance. After he determined the ability check, he then decided to engage the variant rule to alter the check from strength to con. He didn't have to. He could have left it strength.

The point is that neither the general movement rules for swimming, nor the con save for distance rules mention swapping for an ability check. That means that the RAW ability check rules allow the DM to determine without a home brew that movement(climb, swim, walk, etc.) can require an ability check.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Strength. That's the ability for Athletics. So the game designer decided that a swim from the island to the mainland, regarding distance only, needed an ability check. That swaps with or runs concurrently with the con save for distance. After he determined the ability check, he then decided to engage the variant rule to alter the check from strength to con. He didn't have to. He could have left it strength.

The point is that neither the general movement rules for swimming, nor the con save for distance rules mention swapping for an ability check. That means that the RAW ability check rules allow the DM to determine without a home brew that movement(climb, swim, walk, etc.) can require an ability check.

No! The example is CON. A CON check is asked for when swimming a long distance (stamina) or a CON save is asked for when swimming more than an hour. Under the Variant rule, the DM might also allow Athletics proficiency to apply. Read it again. I believe in you. You can do this (even if you’ll never admit it here).

 

[Maxperson]

No! The example is CON. A CON check is asked for when swimming a long distance (stamina) or a CON save is asked for when swimming more than an hour. Under the Variant rule, the DM might also allow Athletics proficiency to apply. Read it again. I believe in you. You can do this (even if you’ll never admit it here).

You're engaging a Red Herring here. Regardless of whether it's strength or constitution, the point, the ENTIRE POINT, is that the game designers think that an ability check can be used or interchanged for other rules for movement types. Period. That's the point.

 

[clearstream]

I presented multiple dichotomies, so I’m not clear which one you’re referring to.

Where we discuss the DMG 239 RAW, to my reading thus far it contemplates two non-exclusive DM actions. In one, the DM was going to call for a Strength (Athletics) check and decides to go with Constitution (Athletics) instead. In the other, the DM was going to call for a Constitution check and decides it would be appropriate to count in Athletics proficiency, making it a Constitution (Athletics) check.

 

[clearstream]

Read it again. I thought so at first, too, but that implication does not exist. (Sorry, it occurred to me that that may have just been a nice way to say “nuh uh”)

I do agree that it seems to be contentious!

To say that you thought so at first, too, is rather suggestive of ambiguity, don't you think?! That said, the implication does exist.

We can agree it is contentious.

 

[clearstream]

No! The example is CON. A CON check is asked for when swimming a long distance (stamina) or a CON save is asked for when swimming more than an hour. Under the Variant rule, the DM might also allow Athletics proficiency to apply. Read it again. I believe in you. You can do this (even if you’ll never admit it here).

What do you make of "In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check"? Why say that, if you are not in effect substituting a Constitution (Athletics) check for a Strength (Athletics) check?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You're engaging a Red Herring here. Regardless of whether it's strength or constitution, the point, the ENTIRE POINT, is that the game designers think that an ability check can be used or interchanged for other rules for movement types. Period. That's the point.

No. Skills can be interchanged. That’s the point of the variant rules. Con and Strength are the abilities here. You don’t make a Strength check for stamina. And you don’t make a Con check to climb, jump, or swim under difficult circumstances. Swapping abilities is not what the Variant rules are about, they are about using skills under different abilities. A DM could let you add a non-typical proficiency under a different ability.

And whether the swimmer catches a herring or any other fish is immaterial.