D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[iserith]

But it's not up to us to determine whether a given DM's decision on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication is sufficiently similar to the examples in the rules. If a DM rules that "because it's Tuesday" is a climbing complication, then they are following the rules when they call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Sure, it would be a silly ruling only appropriate in a slapstick campaign, but it's still following the rules.

Let me try rephrasing my argument. From my standpoint, the only time a DM is violating the climbing rules is if they (a) agree that there are no complications, and (b) call for a Strength (Athletics) check anyway. Since no one in this thread is arguing in support of doing that, I object to the claim that anyone in this thread is violating the climbing rules.

We can disagree all day long on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication, but those who disagree with us aren't breaking the rules when they identify a complication and call for a check.

The rules lay out what types of complications qualify as difficult situations that may create uncertainty as to the outcome of a climb and thus make a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. Length of the climb isn't in the same category.

 

[jgsugden]

No, most would succeed.

From experience, we did exactly that in the Army, and every single one of us succeeded. As has every other soldier, ever
....
If you can do a single press-up, you can climb a rope. If you cant do a single press-up, you're either morbidly obese, or have a Strength of 5 or less (or both)

Again, reasonably healthy and someone that is undergoing military training to climb a 30 foot rope (not 80 foot)

Ive posted videos of children making such a climb. Reliably and with next to no chance of failure.

No, you posted them climbing 15 to 20 feet. Unencumbered. And they were listing the weight of a child. There is a huge difference between climbing 20 feet and 80 feet. And, I will not, it was not posted because it was a run of the mill occurence - it was posted as an achievement of something they did that was out of the norm.

And talking about what people undergoing military training can do, as opposed to average people, is not talking about the 10 strength commoners. It is talking about the 14 strength with proficiency in athletics PC.

Go down to the local Starbucks. Attach a knotted rope to the 80 foot wall outside. Hand the first 100 customers a drink and a 50 lbs pack of gear and tell them to climb that wall.

And your carrying capacity is only 15 times your strength - so 150 for 10 strength. When you climb, you're carrying your body weight in addition to your equipment, so....

 

[Imaculata]

We can disagree all day long on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication, but those who disagree with us aren't breaking the rules when they identify a complication and call for a check.

I don't think this is a discussion on whether DM's are 'breaking rules'.

This is more of a discussion on:

-What the climbing rules are. They are movement. No check needed, barring complications. 5e is quite clear on that. 5e states that there are no checks needed to perform simple movement, unless there is a complication. The movement itself, cannot BE the complication, so length of the climb is not a complication.

-What a complication is. It should be something that makes the task of climbing itself more difficult, and not the consequence of failing the task. Those are two separate things, but I get the impression that several posters don't understand what a complication of climbing is at all.

 

[jgsugden]

As a note: more 30% of adults can't do a pullup, apparently.

Case Study: What Percentage Of People Can Do A Pull-Up?

Can you do a single (unassisted) pull-up? Find out how many people answered YES out of the 142 people we asked!

www.calisthenics-101.co.uk

 

[Charlaquin]

But it's not up to us to determine whether a given DM's decision on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication is sufficiently similar to the examples in the rules.

Again, I’m not saying an 80 foot height isn’t sufficiently similar to the example complications in the rules. I’m saying it isn’t a complication. It’s not even an apples to oranges comparison, it’s an apples to Fallout Boy comparison. The height of a climb isn’t a factor that makes the climb more complicated. Stress might be a factor that makes a climb more complicated, but it isn’t the DM’s purview to decide for a player that their character is stressed.

If a DM rules that "because it's Tuesday" is a climbing complication, then they are following the rules when they call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Sure, it would be a silly ruling only appropriate in a slapstick campaign, but it's still following the rules.

I’m not sure I agree. If the DM determined that, like, the rough texture of the rope on the character’s hands was a complicating factor warranting a check, that would be a silly but by-the-rules ruling. But determining that the day of the week is a complicating factor? I don’t think that’s within the purview of what the rules describe, because it isn’t something that could affect the complexity of the climb.

Let me try rephrasing my argument. From my standpoint, the only time a DM is violating the climbing rules is if they (a) agree that there are no complications, and (b) call for a Strength (Athletics) check anyway. Since no one in this thread is arguing in support of doing that, I object to the claim that anyone in this thread is violating the climbing rules.

We can disagree all day long on what qualifies as a valid climbing complication, but those who disagree with us aren't breaking the rules when they identify a complication and call for a check.

I see what you’re saying, but words also mean things. Some things simply aren’t complications. If you decide the price of tea in Kara-Tur is a complicating factor in a player’s ability to climb a rope... I don’t think that’s in keeping with the rules.

 

[Imaculata]

Go down to the local Starbucks. Attach a knotted rope to the 80 foot wall outside. Hand the first 100 customers a drink and a 50 lbs pack of gear and tell them to climb that wall.

I don't think that is a fair comparison at all. How about we show people at the local Starbucks how to do the basic leg lock around a rope, like any adventurer would know how to do, and THEN see how good they climb?

Keep in mind, distance climbed and weight carried are not a factor as per the basic 5e rules. Stop bringing that into the discussion, it is irrelevant.

When you climb, you're carrying your body weight in addition to your equipment, so....

Not entirely. Climbing a rope is more like doing short pull ups. You are not constantly carrying your own body weight and equipment.

 

[Xetheral]

The rules lay out what types of complications qualify as difficult situations that may create uncertainty as to the outcome of a climb and thus make a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. Length of the climb isn't in the same category.

But that's a judgement call. And your judgement isn't privileged over the judgement call of the DM at the table. You're accusing people of breaking the rules because their interpretation of what qualifies as a complication happens to be different than yours.

Again, I’m not saying an 80 foot height isn’t sufficiently similar to the example complications in the rules. I’m saying it isn’t a complication. It’s not even an apples to oranges comparison, it’s an apples to Fallout Boy comparison. The height of a climb isn’t a factor that makes the climb more complicated. Stress might be a factor that makes a climb more complicated, but it isn’t the DM’s purview to decide for a player that their character is stressed.

I’m not sure I agree. If the DM determined that, like, the rough texture of the rope on the character’s hands was a complicating factor warranting a check, that would be a silly but by-the-rules ruling. But determining that the day of the week is a complicating factor? I don’t think that’s within the purview of what the rules describe, because it isn’t something that could affect the complexity of the climb.

I see what you’re saying, but words also mean things. Some things simply aren’t complications. If you decide the price of tea in Kara-Tur is a complicating factor in a player’s ability to climb a rope... I don’t think that’s in keeping with the rules.

There is obviously disagreement in this thread over what is and is not a complication. So even if your claim "some things simply aren't complications" is true, there plainly isn't a method to unabiguously identify which things are complications and which aren't. (If there were such a method, there wouldn't be disagreement.) So the question then becomes: whose opinion on what is and is not a complication determines whether the DM is following the rules? There, I think the answer is unambiguous: it's necessarily up to the DM at the table. Do you disagree? Are you arguing that what you personally consider to be a complication or not a complication determines whether a different DM at a different table is following the rules?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think in every reply we've stated that you can house rule it any way you want.

It isn't a "house rule", it is my ruling as DM of what a complication is. The height, and inherent danger involved, IS a complication IMO as DM. So, I am justified in requiring a check to climb a rope 80 feet. It isn't like I am setting a crazy DC 20 for the check or anything due to the height, or saying a PC will fall given a single failed check.

Asking for several successful checks or setting a DC based on the height and not the task would be more of a stretch, but I'm not doing that. DC 5 = VERY easy, DC 10 = easy, so I choose DC 8 (fairly easy) to climb a rope. Knot it and you gain advantage on the check. Even with no modifier you make that 7 out of 8 times, throw in proficiency only and it rises to 15 out of 16 times!

At any rate, I need to get ready for work. If I am not too tired when I get home, I'll revisit the thread.

 

[iserith]

But that's a judgement call. And your judgement isn't privileged over the judgement call of the DM at the table. You're accusing people of breaking the rules because their interpretation of what qualifies as a complication happens to be different than yours.

I don't claim that my judgment is privileged. I'm not accusing people of "breaking rules" because the DM can't actually break rules. But there is no justification in the rules for length of climb calling for a Strength (Athletics) check. Claims to the contrary are incorrect in my view.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't think that is a fair comparison at all. How about we show people at the local Starbucks how to do the basic leg lock around a rope, like any adventurer would know how to do, and THEN see how good they climb?

That is training. That means proficiency in athletics, right?

Keep in mind, distance climbed and weight carried are not a factor as per the basic 5e rules. Stop bringing that into the discussion, it is irrelevant.

Incorrect. DMs consider circumstances when setting a DC.

Not entirely. Climbing a rope is more like doing short pull ups. You are not constantly carrying your own body weight and equipment.

You should share that with physicists. They've been caught up on the fake news about equal and opposite reactions.