D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

I'm not familiar with that episode. That is indeed funny.

Admittedly, I find the opposite end of the spectrum just as amusing, such as (in previous editions) the infamous "the rules don't say I can't take actions when I'm dead, so a DM who refuses to let me act while dead is violating the rules."

“The rules don’t say I can’t” is only a compelling argument when it’s being used to allow a dog to play sports.

 

[Xetheral]

For my part, the rules are quite clear - you may call for a Strength (Athletics) check when climbing or swimming given certain conditions. Otherwise, don't. It doesn't matter to me how fast anyone in the real world can climb El Capitan or swim the English Channel.

I agree at the conceptual level with the first part, I just think the rules leave it up to the DM to decide what meets those conditions. Where I think the relevance of real-world comparisons comes into play is when trying to weigh the relative strength of two possible rules interpretations. If one rules interpretation would trivially allow climbing/swimming rates or durations that would be out of place in the real world, and the competing rules interpretation does not have that inconsistency, then personally I'm going to consider that as evidence weighing in favor of the latter interpretation. As expressed above, I'm fine if other people want to weigh the evidentiary value of the real world comparison differently than I do, in either direction.

“The rules don’t say I can’t” is only a compelling argument when it’s being used to allow a dog to play sports.

I totally agree.

I think we'd disagree on whether the argument in favor of swimming or climbing for up to 8 hours, (in armor and with a normal load) with no check qualifies as such an argument.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, I just want to thank everyone for their civil debates about the rules (and rulings) in the situations of special movement.

I will conclude (yes, I really am done this time LOL ) with the following:

Following the RAW allows for the DM to ask for check under special circumstances, which IMO includes height and distance for certain movements. The DCs would likely be low in most cases, but they would be there. To not ask for those checks reduces those "challenges" to narration, which removes them pretty much IMO. In the case of the OP, simply having two lengths of rope and a grappling hook is all you need to overcome the challenge--no check required according to some here. Which means no challenge unless you want to add another factor. There is nothing wrong with just making such things narratives, but it isn't for me, personally.

Also, many posters complain about the lack of exploration challenges in 5E. You are basically shooting yourselves in the foot if you don't call for checks due to more mundane complications like height or distance. Consider a party who reaches a lake 5 miles wide but 100 miles long. It will take them days to go around, but according to the RAW they can all just swim across in a long day of leisurely swimming without the need for a check.

Yes, I KNOW I can add elements to make this more "exciting", etc.; that is not the point. The point is the lake should be an obstacle IMO. Crafting a boat or raft, etc., finding some way to cross because realistically your STR 8 gnome sorcerer without athletics proficiency would likely drown otherwise, is the challenge.

So, if the PCs insist on swimming, I will call for a check because of the grueling ordeal they are attempting and drowning is a real risk to them.

If you just let them cross or handwave it away, you are removing the obstacle for them. Yes, you can throw in something more, but I don't want every encounter of such obstacles to need tension in addition to the tension and challenge that those obstacles already present IMO.

A PC with sufficient skill/modifier would auto-succeed, sure. Now, we do house-rule a 1 always fails ability checks and a 20 always succeeds (and the same for saves). THAT is a house-rule and I get it. But choosing to accept that height or distance can fall within the realm of presenting significant challenge in a manner similar to the examples provided is part of "At the DM's option" and also falls within the RAW.

If you don't agree with that, fine, but don't tell me I am "wrong" or "not following the rules", because I am not wrong and I am following the rules as our groups interpret them.

If you want to more strictly judge those conditions that would call for a check, that is your choice and I will never say you are wrong for choosing to run your game your way.

At any rate, thank you again, and I am praying this thread does not come to rival why "we have gnomes and halflings". Cheers.

 

[Imaculata]

Also, many posters complain about the lack of exploration challenges in 5E. You are basically shooting yourselves in the foot if you don't call for checks due to more mundane complications like height or distance. ( -snip- ) If you just let them cross or handwave it away, you are removing the obstacle for them.

The dice roll is not the obstacle. The obstacle is the obstacle. How the players choose to overcome it, decides if the outcome is in doubt, and if a check is needed to determine the outcome.

 

[iserith]

Ok, I just want to thank everyone for their civil debates about the rules (and rulings) in the situations of special movement.

I will conclude (yes, I really am done this time LOL ) with the following:

Following the RAW allows for the DM to ask for check under special circumstances, which IMO includes height and distance for certain movements. The DCs would likely be low in most cases, but they would be there. To not ask for those checks reduces those "challenges" to narration, which removes them pretty much IMO. In the case of the OP, simply having two lengths of rope and a grappling hook is all you need to overcome the challenge--no check required according to some here. Which means no challenge unless you want to add another factor. There is nothing wrong with just making such things narratives, but it isn't for me, personally.

Also, many posters complain about the lack of exploration challenges in 5E. You are basically shooting yourselves in the foot if you don't call for checks due to more mundane complications like height or distance. Consider a party who reaches a lake 5 miles wide but 100 miles long. It will take them days to go around, but according to the RAW they can all just swim across in a long day of leisurely swimming without the need for a check.

Yes, I KNOW I can add elements to make this more "exciting", etc.; that is not the point. The point is the lake should be an obstacle IMO. Crafting a boat or raft, etc., finding some way to cross because realistically your STR 8 gnome sorcerer without athletics proficiency would likely drown otherwise, is the challenge.

So, if the PCs insist on swimming, I will call for a check because of the grueling ordeal they are attempting and drowning is a real risk to them.

If you just let them cross or handwave it away, you are removing the obstacle for them. Yes, you can throw in something more, but I don't want every encounter of such obstacles to need tension in addition to the tension and challenge that those obstacles already present IMO.

A PC with sufficient skill/modifier would auto-succeed, sure. Now, we do house-rule a 1 always fails ability checks and a 20 always succeeds (and the same for saves). THAT is a house-rule and I get it. But choosing to accept that height or distance can fall within the realm of presenting significant challenge in a manner similar to the examples provided is part of "At the DM's option" and also falls within the RAW.

If you don't agree with that, fine, but don't tell me I am "wrong" or "not following the rules", because I am not wrong and I am following the rules as our groups interpret them.

If you want to more strictly judge those conditions that would call for a check, that is your choice and I will never say you are wrong for choosing to run your game your way.

At any rate, thank you again, and I am praying this thread does not come to rival why "we have gnomes and halflings". Cheers.

You have more than once conflated challenge and rolling dice in this thread and in others. The challenge was getting from the ground into the tower's window 80 feet up. A challenge is something that a player can win or lose based on their choices. In this case, they chose to overcome the challenge with a grappling hook and a knotted rope. That some of us look at the rules of the game and determine that, given the total context of the scene, there is no roll needed does not mean there was no challenge! It just means the players solved it by virtue of employing resources. You don't need to have checks in order for there to be a challenge.

 

[Xetheral]

The dice roll is not the obstacle. The obstacle is the obstacle. How the players choose to overcome it, decides if the outcome is in doubt, and if a check is needed to determine the outcome.

I think the point is that if the five mile wide lake can be swum across by anyone, at will, just as easily as anyone can walk ten miles, then the lake ceases to be an obstacle that the players need to chose how to overcome.

If instead there is a danger of drowning, then the lake is an obstacle even if the DM ultimately decides that the player's approach to overcoming that obstacle succeeds without requiring a check.

 

[JimmyG]

You have more than once conflated challenge and rolling dice in this thread and in others. The challenge was getting from the ground into the tower's window 80 feet up. A challenge is something that a player can win or lose based on their choices. In this case, they chose to overcome the challenge with a grappling hook and a knotted rope. That some of us look at the rules of the game and determine that, given the total context of the scene, there is no roll needed does not mean there was no challenge! It just means the players solved it by virtue of employing resources. You don't need to have checks in order for there to be a challenge.

This is sort of funny. What group doesn't have two ropes and a grappling hook? We've just started and we have them for our characters. I would say that removes the challenge, all for 4 gp of gear. Nice challange ha-ha!

 

[iserith]

This is sort of funny. What group doesn't have two ropes and a grappling hook? We've just started and we have them for our characters. I would say that removes the challenge, all for 4 gp of gear. Nice challange ha-ha!

What's funny about it? It doesn't remove the challenge - it resolves it. It just means the challenge has a low difficulty for a prepared group. The players win! Move on to the next challenge.

Understanding the difference between challenge and difficulty is pretty important in my view.

 

[JimmyG]

It just means the challenge has a low difficulty for a prepared group.

Nah, it means it has no difficulty (and also no challenge).

I can see it now. Here is a series of challenges, and with 37 gp worth of gear I will just describe them all to you. Do you guys have the following itmes on your characters? Good, on with teh story.

Why bother?

 

[iserith]

Nah, it means it has no difficulty (and also no challenge).

I can see it now. Here is a series of challenges, and with 37 gp worth of gear I will just describe them all to you. Do you guys have the following itmes on your characters? Good, on with teh story.

Why bother?

You're conflating challenge and difficulty here. Getting from the ground through the tower's window is the challenge. The difficulty is low for a group that has at least 2 ropes and a grappling hook. It may be more difficult for a group that doesn't have these resources. And maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps they used them in previous challenges and don't have them available anymore. In this case, the players prepared ahead of time, still had access to the resources, and then employed them - good for them! Will they leave this rope in place so they have a way back down from the tower window in a pinch? If so, that's two fewer ropes and a grappling hook to use for solutions to subsequent challenges. Play to find out if it matters.

Now, if you're playing in my game, gargoyles are likely going to come out and try to knock you off that rope. Or guards will be throwing down pots of boiling water from the top of the tower. Or something like that. This increases the difficulty of the challenge. But it still doesn't mean there's a roll, provided the players can come up with a means of overcoming these difficult situations while climbing with certainty. If their solution, however, has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, then they will make a Strength (Athletics) check to accomplish the task of climbing while encountering a difficult situation as the rules state.