D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

Good point about my reading being more inclusive. To clarify, I would consider the question disputed even if our readings were equally preclusive of the other. I trust you to accurately convey your reading of the rules, and if it differs from mine that's enough for me to consider a question disputed.

Sure, maybe one of us has to be right and the other wrong, but since we have no way to determine which is which (other than arriving at consensus) all I have to go on is that there's more than one valid reading. That's true no matter how clearly I think the text supports my reading.

Indeed. This may be a deeper philosophical difference. You see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that all interpretations are therefore valid. I see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that there is a correct interpretation, but it is unknown, and try to arrive at an interpretation that I believe to be closest to the correct one.

Yeah, I read the text as giving more discretion to the DM than you do to determine what is sufficiently similar to the example complications to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Mostly that's based on the literal text, which includes the key phrase "At the DM's option...".

I think our different approaches to when we call for checks is affecting our interpretations of “at the DM’s option.” Since I try to avoid calling for checks unless they are necessary, “at the DM’s option” here suggests to me that the DM doesn’t necessarily have to call for a check when the example complications and similar occur. For example, a cliff may be slippery, but if failure on the check to climb it would only result in no progress, and there is no time constraint, it may still be unnecessary to call for a check, despite one of the example complications being present.

I think this may be playing a significant role in our different interpretations. You’re reading the examples as suggesting it might be appropriate for the DM to call for a check if they want to. I’m reading the examples as suggesting when the DM might have to call for a check, if it is otherwise appropriate to do so. A DM deciding to call for a check due to a factor that seems to have little in common with the listed examples therefore seems out of place to me, in a way that it wouldn’t to you.

But it's also partially informed by necessity: who else is there to make the determination? You seem more comfortable than I am with interpreting the rule as requiring the DM to adhere to an objective (but unstated) standard of similiarity to the printed examples.

I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that the standard of similarity is objective. I don’t know how one would measure such a thing objectively. Rather, I agree that it is subjective, and up to the DM to make the determination, but there are cases where a factor is clearly dissimilar (e.g. day of the week), cases where a factor is clearly similar (e.g. the cliff has many loose rocks, making it difficult to find stable footing), and cases where there is more ambiguity (e.g. how high the climb is). But in any given case, I believe one interpretation must be consistent with the intent of the rule and one must not be.

In any case, I appreciate your acknowledgement that you "can see how someone might come to the conclusion that [height of a climb] is in the same category as the examples". Thanks! That makes me feel much better about the discussion. Knowing that, I can totally live with the fact that you think it's still clearly wrong.

Glad we could come to an understanding, if not necessarily an agreement

 

[Mannahnin]

The specific rules for climbing say overcoming a difficult situation while climbing (for which it provides examples) may call for a Strength (Athletics) check. For example, "Can the PC climb the wall without being knocked off by gargoyles?"

The general rules for ability checks also say that a Constitution check may be called for when a character is pushing past his or her normal limits. For example, "Can the PC make this climb the distance of which is past his or her normal limits?"

Under what ability check are you putting the distance/length of a climb? If it's the former, I would disagree because distance/length isn't the same as the category of examples offered by the rules. If it's the latter, then sure, if it needs to be tested. These are asking and answering different questions though.

I could see either, depending on the exact context.

If we're talking about PCs hastily hoisting themselves up a hundred foot hempen rope hoping to have no habitants happen upon them, I think it would be Strength (Athletics).

If we're talking about a slow, cautious ascent up the Cliffs of Insanity I'd probably lean more toward Constitution.

 

[Charlaquin]

I could see either, depending on the exact context.

If we're talking about PCs hastily hoisting themselves up a hundred foot hempen rope hoping to have no habitants happen upon them, I think it would be Strength (Athletics).

It seems to me that in this case the complicating factor is time, not distance.

 

[Mannahnin]

It seems to me that in this case the complicating factor is time, not distance.

Perhaps you're right for these two; I wasn't reiterating all the other factors from my last (lengthy) post.

 

[iserith]

Perhaps you're right for these two; I wasn't reiterating all the other factors from my last (lengthy) post.

You can see where I'm going with that though, right? "If climb = 80 ft., then Strength (Athletics) check" doesn't really work with the specific rules for climbing. There's no difficult situation here in the same vane as the examples given in Chapters 7 and 8. "If climb = 80 ft. and also gargoyles are trying to knock the PC off, then Strength (Athletics) check" does work with the specific rules for climbing (but really the 80 ft. is irrelevant). "If climb = 80 ft. and is past the character's normal limits, then Constitution check" also works, but only to the extent 80 feet is really past the character's normal limits (for which there is not really any guidance in the D&D 5e rules). This latter one doesn't take into account the specific climbing rules, however, because it is resolving a different dramatic question related to the task.

 

[Xetheral]

Indeed. This may be a deeper philosophical difference. You see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that all interpretations are therefore valid. I see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that there is a correct interpretation, but it is unknown, and try to arrive at an interpretation that I believe to be closest to the correct one.

Well said. And although I think you understand, just to be certain I want to emphasize that my thinking each of the interpretations is valid does not mean I think all inteprepretations are equally strong.

I think our different approaches to when we call for checks is affecting our interpretations of “at the DM’s option.” Since I try to avoid calling for checks unless they are necessary, “at the DM’s option” here suggests to me that the DM doesn’t necessarily have to call for a check when the example complications and similar occur. For example, a cliff may be slippery, but if failure on the check to climb it would only result in no progress, and there is no time constraint, it may still be unnecessary to call for a check, despite one of the example complications being present.

I think this may be playing a significant role in our different interpretations. You’re reading the examples as suggesting it might be appropriate for the DM to call for a check if they want to. I’m reading the examples as suggesting when the DM might have to call for a check, if it is otherwise appropriate to do so. A DM deciding to call for a check due to a factor that seems to have little in common with the listed examples therefore seems out of place to me, in a way that it wouldn’t to you.

That seems like an excellent summary both of your narrower reading of the phrase "At the DM's option" and how that leads us to different results.

However, I'm not sure I'm comfortable ascribing the difference in how we read "At the DM's option..." to an overall difference in our proclivity to call for checks. Even if there is such a difference, I think it's more likely we're just taking different approaches to textual interpretation.

I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that the standard of similarity is objective. I don’t know how one would measure such a thing objectively. Rather, I agree that it is subjective, and up to the DM to make the determination, but there are cases where a factor is clearly dissimilar (e.g. day of the week), cases where a factor is clearly similar (e.g. the cliff has many loose rocks, making it difficult to find stable footing), and cases where there is more ambiguity (e.g. how high the climb is). But in any given case, I believe one interpretation must be consistent with the intent of the rule and one must not be.

Thanks for clarifying. I see a bit of conflict between identifying climbing conditions as subjective and leaving them up to the DM, while simultaneously saying that both ends of the similarity scale are clear. The latter requires yet another decision about who gets to decide how broad the clear ends of the scale are.

If the DM gets to make that call, then there being clarity at either end doesn't mean anything, because the DM can still rule however they want--the whole scale is subjective. If the DM is instead constrained to only make calls in the subjective middle portion of the similarity scale, then who decides where the subjectivity ends and the clarity begins?

Maybe objective wasn't the right world, but it still seems to me that you're applying an external rubric to determine what climbing complications are clearly similar to the examples and what climbing complications are clearly not similar/not complications. I'm not sure where that external rubric is coming from, other than that it appears to be based on your best judgement of what is and is not clearly similar. And while that definitely works at your table, I'm not sure it's a practical solution at other tables when you aren't around.

Glad we could come to an understanding, if not necessarily an agreement

Likewise!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, I am glad to see it has been a productive day of discussion while I was at work. Seems like everyone is happy now, so I guess this is finally settled.

 

[Rabulias]

I think every DM can rule this as they and their players care to. I would note that in rating the difficulty of real-world climbs, the length of the climb/stamina required is one factor considered (Grade (climbing) - Wikipedia) though it seems they get to heights well beyond 80 feet before it is considered.

I think some short, "no-check" climbs do include failures -- even falls -- but they are not narratively impactful, so we don't mention them at the table. As climb height gets significant, the justification for a check increases, but where that threshold is will vary by DM.

 

[clearstream]

I disagree. There must necessarily be an intended line somewhere. It is obviously not “secret,” but it is somewhat ambiguous. We may disagree on where it lies, but it must lie somewhere, and therefore people can be right or wrong in their assessment of where it lies.

Absolutely! But some things are inside that circle and some things are not. We may disagree about what lies where, but some of us are right in our assessments and some of us are wrong,

Given we agree there is ambiguity, those arguments are logically false. I'll try and illustrate it below.

(C((ABC')A')B')X

That is not a perfect illustration. Because we said there is ambiguity, we cannot delimit the contents of the set. The fact that X is outside the set on all accounts doesn't prevent there being multiple equally valid lists of what is inside the set. Inside C's circle are CABC'. Inside A's circle are ABC'A. Inside B's are ABC'A'B. All exclude X.

That example worked better in my head but hopefully you can see that to say the circle is ambiguous, logically entails that there is not one authoritative list of contents. There are multiple, equally valid (unable to be chosen between) ways to draw the circle. And that doesn't change just because there are things that on all accounts are put outside. The language is deceptive. We casually spoke of a circle, but seeing that circle is ambiguous we must hold in mind that it comprises multiple overlapping circles, all equally valid - no definitive way to choose between them.

I hope that you can see that - even though we haven't stumbled across them yet - there might be circumstances that you would call difficult that @6ENow! would not. The certainty of the arguments you put - and the reliance on there being a single definitive circle - are logically not supportable once you agree upon there being ambiguity.

 

[clearstream]

You can see where I'm going with that though, right? "If climb = 80 ft., then Strength (Athletics) check" doesn't really work with the specific rules for climbing. There's no difficult situation here in the same vane as the examples given in Chapters 7 and 8. "If climb = 80 ft. and also gargoyles are trying to knock the PC off, then Strength (Athletics) check" does work with the specific rules for climbing (but really the 80 ft. is irrelevant). "If climb = 80 ft. and is past the character's normal limits, then Constitution check" also works, but only to the extent 80 feet is really past the character's normal limits (for which there is not really any guidance in the D&D 5e rules). This latter one doesn't take into account the specific climbing rules, however, because it is resolving a different dramatic question related to the task.

Constitution (Athletics) - a climb check using a different ability score.