D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[jgsugden]

Why have any emotions about this thread at all? We're discussing rules in an RPG.

Because the mental gymnastics going on here to justify arguments is ridiculous. And, we see the same self entitled behavior our in the 'real world' and it ends up escalating to people doing very stupid and destructive stuff. It is depressing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, but it’s also not something I have the slightest interest in simulating in my fantasy roleplay. Just like we don’t narrate every time our characters use the bathroom, we don’t roll to see if they trip every time they go up or down stairs. It’s not an interesting part of the narrative, and in fact it can ruin the tone of an otherwise dramatic adventure.

Does it really though? I don’t feel like a very small chance for something stupid to happen adds tension. It might, at best, add humor. At worst, it just adds a random chance to create an uncomfortable tonal clash.

I usually don’t bother with DCs lower than 10. But, the cases where I feel that a very low DC is appropriate, it’s because the stakes are sufficiently high that even that small chance of failure is worth rolling to try and avoid. When there is significant, meaningful, and dramatic risk.

That's all great--for your game. shrug

But it begs the question: if you don't have obstacles, such as the 80-foot climb, have a chance of failure, why bother including it other than narrative?

I often read about how people complain about the lack of the exploration and social pillars. Those pillars are fully satisfied in my games without the need for "other" factors. No one at the tables I run question the way we play and my right to ask for checks when I feel risk is present so I am happy to continue running it my way.

 

[Imaculata]

That's all great--for your game. shrug

But it begs the question: if you don't have obstacles, such as the 80-foot climb, have a chance of failure, why bother including it other than narrative?

Well first of all, I think "for the narrative" is a very good reason to include it. Suspense is not only created by die rolls, but also by narration. But it can also empower the pc's.

But I would probably add a complication to make it actually difficult.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well first of all, I think "for the narrative" is a very good reason to include it. Suspense is not only created by die rolls, but also by narration. But it can also empower the pc's.

Sure, I never said it wasn't. Sorry if my tone implied it was.

But I would probably add a complication to make it actually difficult.

Your choice. I'm sure your table is probably just as happy with how you run it, as well.

 

[cmad1977]

Well first of all, I think "for the narrative" is a very good reason to include it. Suspense is not only created by die rolls, but also by narration. But it can also empower the pc's.

But I would probably add a complication to make it actually difficult.

Basically, if you don’t add a complication or reason for the check the character simply fails because.... they suck? Unsatisfying.

Failing because the archers in the walls are complicating things and plummeting towards my teammates when my hand slips? Oh yeah. I’m down.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's all great--for your game. shrug

But it begs the question: if you don't have obstacles, such as the 80-foot climb, have a chance of failure, why bother including it other than narrative?

I mean... I wouldn’t. If I was designing an adventure and wanted to include a challenge that involved scaling a tower, I would include a source of dynamic conflict. At the very least I would include time pressure,* and potentially other factors as well.

Again, I’m not saying “never call for checks to climb.” I’m saying, if you want a climb to be a challenge, it should include challenging factors.

I often read about how people complain about the lack of the exploration and social pillars. Those pillars are fully satisfied in my games without the need for "other" factors.

Yeah, I think 5e supports DMs in running social challenges and exploration challenges plenty well. I think people who complain about the social and exploration pillars lacking are often (though I’m sure not always) failing to include dynamic conflict in their social and exploration challenges and think more complex systems will make those challenges more engaging.

*I always find it weird when people present example scenarios that involve no time pressure. Do people’s worlds not have wandering monsters? Do their torches burn for ever? Are the adventurers afforded as much time as they want to complete tasks they’ve been hired for? I don’t get it.

 

[iserith]

Because the mental gymnastics going on here to justify arguments is ridiculous. And, we see the same self entitled behavior our in the 'real world' and it ends up escalating to people doing very stupid and destructive stuff. It is depressing.

There really are no gymnastics going on. The rules say what they say about climbing. DMs can use them or not at their discretion.

 

[jgsugden]

There really are no gymnastics going on. The rules say what they say about climbing. DMs can use them or not at their discretion.

That is not what is going on. People are more interested in maintaining they were right than they are in learning what was right. That is what makes me sad.

Done.

 

[Imaculata]

That is not what is going on. People are more interested in maintaining they were right than they are in learning what was right. That is what makes me sad.

But... they were right. That IS what the rules say. I don't understand why that is so upsetting to you.

Look, it is not the end of the world to find out that you were wrong about what the rules say. I've been wrong and corrected on this forum plenty of times. It is not that bad. It's a learning experience. Truth be told, I've probably learned more about D&D from @iserith on this forum than from everyone else combined. And I'm thankful for it. It is one of the joys of being on this forum, to find out that there are still things to learn about D&D, and to be inspired by.

 

[iserith]

That is not what is going on. People are more interested in maintaining they were right than they are in learning what was right. That is what makes me sad.

Done.

To be clear, I'm not actually interested in maintaining that I am right. Anyone is free to play how they want regardless of what anyone else says. As for "learning what was right," the rules are right in the places I've said to look several times and they are written very plainly. Jeremy Crawford's tweets aren't rules, but even if we did take them with the same weight, he didn't actually say what you claim as several of us have shown. Further, his comments sit neatly within the rules that have been quoted in this discussion. There's simply no need for acrimony or conflating this discussion with wider problems in the world. That's really just taking things a bit too far in my view. We're talking about D&D here. Let's not lose our sense of perspective.