D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

Then it's a big Red Herring. Nothing more than a distraction since table rules don't have anything to do with making rulings at all. Table rules are metarules that exist outside the game.

You took what I was saying out of context, assumed a definition that wasn't correct, and argued against something that wasn't intended. @Charlaquin spotted it right away. Please move on.

 

[Xetheral]

Yep. None of that applies here. Those are for rules that exist outside of the game. Metagaming, table talk, how we will go about rules discussions, etc. They are NOT for actual game rules as written. My use of the rules as written to call for a strength check for climbing is not a table rule at all. It's simply RAW.

(Emphasis added.) There's still no objective method to demonstrate that your interpretation is correct/stronger. So even if you're right, there's no way to prove it. @iserith's and @Charlaquin's opinion of the best/strongest of the rules is just as valid as yours or mine, no matter how strongly you think they're wrong.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Nebulous

You thought it was just a simple post, right?

No, not at all...

What have you unleased!?!

 

[Charlaquin]

(Emphasis added.) There's still no objective method to demonstrate that your interpretation is correct/stronger. So even if you're right, there's no way to prove it. @iserith's and @Charlaquin's opinion of the best/strongest of the rules is just as valid as yours or mine, no matter how strongly you think they're wrong.

Much appreciated. This is really what it comes down to. We have different interpretations of the rules as written. Mine and others’ is narrower than yours and others’, which necessarily means it does not leave room for both to be correct. But ultimately it doesn’t really matter who is right. We will all run our games as we see fit, as informed by our own interpretations of the rules, and our preferences regarding where to deviate from them. I don’t really see any value in belaboring the point further, so I’m gonna bow out of this discussion now. I’ll respond if addressed directly in a quote or a mention, but otherwise I think I’m done here. Thanks for an engaging discussion, everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

(Emphasis added.) There's still no objective method to demonstrate that your interpretation is correct/stronger. So even if you're right, there's no way to prove it. @iserith's and @Charlaquin's opinion of the best/strongest of the rules is just as valid as yours or mine, no matter how strongly you think they're wrong.

I'm not trying to prove that they are wrong. At least not with regard to which stats are used and when an ability check is called for. They are provably wrong with regard to their over narrow interpretation of which things require strength climb checks, as the game explicitly says that the examples listed are just examples, which means that there absolutely are other circumstances not listed. I'm objecting to their misclassification of my interpretation as a table rule, which it objectively is not. Table rules, as shown in the DMG, are metarules not game play rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm objecting to their misclassification of my interpretation as a table rule,

That just isn’t what @iserith said. At all.

which it objectively is not.

Obviously. But again, no one is saying it is.

Table rules, as shown in the DMG, are metarules not game play rules.

Exactly.

 

[Maxperson]

That just isn’t what @iserith said. At all.

He said "table rule" and he stated DMG pages 235 and 236. Those are exclusively metarules. There's no other way to take it.

Exactly.

Then there was no reason for him to bring up those rules other than as a Red Herring. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

He said "table rule" and he stated DMG pages 235 and 236. Those are exclusively metarules. There's no other way to take it.

Dude, read the whole paragraph.

As I said, the DM can do what they want to the limits of their table rules. But this DM won't consider a Strength (Athletics) check due to the length of the climb to be in accordance with the specific rules for climbing in Chapters 7 and 8. It looks like you don't consider what's in Chapter 7 to be specific rules for climbing, but given that they specifically reference the conditions in which an ability check might be appropriate while climbing, I don't buy your reasoning.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in there suggests that your interpretation of the text is table rules. All it says is, within the limits of the table rules, the DM can do whatever they want. They can remove, replace, or alter the rules in any way they see fit, so long as it doesn’t break the social contract. But, because of their understanding of rules in chapters 7 and 8, @iserith doesn’t want to call for Strength (Athletics) checks due to the length of a climb. Then they acknowledge that you have a different understanding of those rules, but they don’t find your reasoning compelling. Nothing even vaguely suggesting your ruling is table rules.

Then there was no reason for him to bring up those rules other than as a Red Herring. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

This is a very stupid hill to die on. It was just a qualification on the otherwise overly-broad statement that “the DM could do whatever they want.” Stop trying to turn it into a personal slight against you.

 

[clearstream]

As a DM you determine when an ability check is required and if so what the DC is.
You also determine if a players skill proficiency applies to the check.

Agreed

The guidance in the rules makes it pretty clear that climbing a rope (excellent handholds) generally does not require an ability check to do, as its the sort of thing that any adult human in reasonable physical condition can reliably do close to 100 percent of the time.

I guess you see that another DM might not add "excellent handholds" to their depiction of the rope, and therefore feel that it generally did require an ability check. I don't know what %age of humans can climb say 30m up a hanging rope: references?

Doing it in a rainstorm, or with a broken collarbone, or in a hurry while under enemy fire from archers or similar circumstances might be sufficient complicating factors that might require a check.

@Charlaquin would say that the broken collarbone is not justification for a check per RAW, right? I would rule as you do. Broken hands would seem like another good candidate to me.

Im not seeing the height of the climb at 6 stories being such a complicating factor because really, youre not pressed for time and can rest on the rope at will and recover your upper body strength.

I'm not sure I see where you are going with this. A DM determines if a check is required, but you want to prohibit DMs from deciding one is required to climb a rope when they feel it should be?

The DC would be something like 0 (which is what it was in 3E) so unless were dealing with a particularly weak or frail PC, its not check worthy.

Say the climber actually is a particularly frail or weak PC?

 

[clearstream]

I get that. My point is that the other side of this debate has been calling it a house rule to call for an ability check to climb really high or swim really far, since the rules say extra 2 feet or con SAVE. A save is not an ability check. If the DMG is using ability checks for simple distance swims, then their claim of house rule/home brew is false. RAW allows DMs to call for an ability check for things like climbing high and swimming distance.

Oh right. To my reading, the section either supports the check being a replacement, or its silent on a Strength check due to height or distance. It doesn't say anything to rule it out.