D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[billd91]

I don't see how I could be more consistent on my position. The rules, taken as a whole, both specific and general, say what they say: The DM decides if there's an ability check to resolve any given task by establishing an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Those are the general rules. The specific rules are that, when it comes to climbing, there are only certain difficult situations that make the outcome uncertain enough to warrant a Strength (Athletics) check. These are outlined in Chapters 7 and 8. If those difficult situations are not present, then climbing is just movement.

Happy to see people reading DMG page 242 though.

Hey, you said there was no justification in the rules - I found an example, in the rules, about a climb that was described as arduous and involved a roll. Mission accomplished, right? But, I guess that example isn't good enough for you, even though I'm perfectly empowered to interpret arduous via normal idiomatic English.
Yeah, I'd say that's moving the goal posts.

 

[TwoSix]

-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.

I disagree with that. There's nothing in the rules that prevents the DM from determining anything might cause the climb to be more difficult. The height of the climb and the duration of the climb are all perfectly valid factors.

The fact that a short climb might not require a check doesn't render a mile long climb suddenly automatic. You don't need to determine an exact length where the cutoff from "no check" to "check" is to understand that a cutoff exists. That determination will primarily be made based on whether or not you think the scene requires the influx of tension.

 

[Imaculata]

I disagree with that. There's nothing in the rules that prevents the DM from determining anything might cause the climb to be more difficult. The height of the climb and the duration of the climb are all perfectly valid factors.

Do you also ask for a check to walk 80 feet?

 

[jgsugden]

I'm done with this thread. I took so many people off being blocked at the start of the year to try to give a fresh start. What a waste of time.

 

[iserith]

Hey, you said there was no justification in the rules - I found an example, in the rules, about a climb that was described as arduous and involved a roll. Mission accomplished, right? But, I guess that example isn't good enough for you, even though I'm perfectly empowered to interpret arduous via normal idiomatic English.
Yeah, I'd say that's moving the goal posts.

You have a lot more work to do to show that "arduous" in that context meant "lengthy climb" and not something more in line with the difficult situations the specific rules on climbing call out. Work that you can't actually do given the entry to which you are referring which, I might add, are general rules.

It might be worth considering why you're working so hard to find a justification within the rules at all if you're fine with how you handle it at your table. I'm just observing that one can't do it, given the specific rules involved, not that there's anything wrong with ruling it the way you prefer.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you also ask for a check to walk 80 feet?

Obviously not, because walking and climbing are different.

I generally don’t ask for checks much, especially if they’re proficient in the relevant skill, but I reserve the right to make the determination about what constitutes a complication, specific RAW be damned.

 

[iserith]

Obviously not, because walking and climbing are different.

I generally don’t ask for checks much, especially if they’re proficient in the relevant skill, but I reserve the right to make the determination about what constitutes a complication, specific RAW be damned.

Nobody refutes your right to do that.

 

[TwoSix]

Nobody refutes your right to do that.

Then that's all that matters.

To my mind, the much more interesting conflict here is how people can visualize the same situation and come to opposing conclusions as to the difficulty. Obviously, that's something we can hash out over days in a forum thread. But at the table, having a player assume climbing 80' is easy and the DM assume climbing 80' is moderately risky can cause a real clash; especially if the DM requires a check and the character suffers a penalty due to a failed check.

How to recognize those sort of visualization conflicts and assuage them before there's actual tension at the table is a tricky DM skill to master.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.



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

Having taught climbing to kids, grades kindergarten to grade 12, about 20,000 kids a year for 5 years, I can tell you that I’ve seen girls in grade 4 climb a 20foot rope in under a minute while the grade 12 football superstar couldn’t get 5 feet off the ground.

I used to be able to climb that 20 feet in about 3-5 seconds. I could hang at the top for quite a while, but not indefinitely.

saying that anyone can climb 80 feet and hang there indefinitely by putting their weight on their feet probably isn’t accurate. You are still going to tire out eventually.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say,

“you are going on a tough hike. It is a 3 mile hike in rough terrain and will, therefore, take twice as long. Also, what makes the terrain rough is that it’s entirely vertical. Fortunately, since the game dictates that climbing is a type of movement, you don’t have to worry about ever getting tired or making checks. You have a rope, after all. 2 straight hours of vertical climbing should be a breeze.”

That’s a pretty extreme example, but people are going to have different thresholds on what is extreme.

edit: misprint. 20,000. Not 60,000

 

[iserith]

Then that's all that matters.

To my mind, the much more interesting conflict here is how people can visualize the same situation and come to opposing conclusions as to the difficulty. Obviously, that's something we can hash out over days in a forum thread. But at the table, having a player assume climbing 80' is easy and the DM assume climbing 80' is moderately risky can cause a real clash; especially if the DM requires a check and the character suffers a penalty due to a failed check.

How to recognize those sort of visualization conflicts and assuage them before there's actual tension at the table is a tricky DM skill to master.

Here I think the specific rules for climbing make it easy for us to achieve this by establishing by way of describing the environment the difficult situation that is creating the uncertainty. If I tell the player they need to make a check to climb the 80' rope because the guards at the top of the tower are trying to knock you off by dropping large rocks on you, that's something I think a player can understand and is called out as one of those difficult situations that make a check appropriate in the rules.