D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

Again: in the end, it's up to the DM and, of course, the examples are not exhaustive. Of course the examples are guides. You don't seem to like that answer that has been given over and over - the examples are indicative of difficulties introduced to a climb/swim that would required a Strength(Athletics) check. Length of swim/climb is NOT in the same category of difficulty. Asking the same question over and over is not going to get you a different answer on this. Do you have something specific you are trying to conclude here?

I'm trying to understand something I find paradoxical - "the examples are not exhaustive", "the examples are guides". However, it seems like some posters know exactly what those guides delimit. A DM might choose all kinds of things, but not - mark my words - climb height. Do you see what I mean? Once I agree that the examples are not exhaustive, how can I then claim to know exhaustively what they delimit? Wherever I draw the line, I must concede that another DM might validly draw it in a different place.

In your example, the PC has broken hands. Climbing with such a condition is not a matter of Strength but of grit, determination, and/or pain tolerance. I'd might rule they can't even climb at all. OR, I might rule that they'd be slower climbing AND if some external difficulty came up, they'd have disadvantage on any roll to keep making progress. AND/OR, I might require a CON check/save to overcome the physical pain involved to climb with broken hands.

Of course, there might be all kinds of ways to rule it, but would a DM also be justified by RAW in calling for Strength (Athletics) in this case? The example speaks to exactly the same argument made above.

The guidance provided in the books, however, does not encourage a DM to call for a Strength(Athletics) check just because someone is attempting to climb or swim with no other external difficulties introduced.

I agree, but I question if it is right for me to tell another DM that RAW entails they are wrong, when it seems to me that RAW entails it is up to them?

 

[iserith]

Which is ironic, considering the examples in your guide. Can you expand on how Strength (Athletics) is justified by RAW to avoid birds noticing you, but not justified by RAW for climbing a great height?

Something your guide appears to do reasonably well is make it clear that it is up to the DM to decide what checks are appropriate, and you have been imaginative in choosing consequences.

The DM in the guide describes the cliffs as sheer and slippery, which establishes the difficult situation that might make a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. The DM then establishes the stakes - what happens with a successful check and with a failed check. Respectively, that is you make it to the top no problem or you make it to the top and you're attacked by birds. Failure can be adjudicated into no progress or progress combined with a setback according to the rules for ability checks. This is an example of the latter, since the DM didn't want to include the possibility in the adjudication of not making it to the top.

I haven't read the guide in full since I wrote it almost 6 years ago, but there are probably multiple instances of progress combined with a setback in there which I think a lot of DMs do not understand well. Lacking this skill is what leads to a lot of "secret rolls" for example.

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, read the whole paragraph.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in there suggests that your interpretation of the text is table rules. All it says is, within the limits of the table rules, the DM can do whatever they want. They can remove, replace, or alter the rules in any way they see fit, so long as it doesn’t break the social contract. But, because of their understanding of rules in chapters 7 and 8, @iserith doesn’t want to call for Strength (Athletics) checks due to the length of a climb. Then they acknowledge that you have a different understanding of those rules, but they don’t find your reasoning compelling. Nothing even vaguely suggesting your ruling is table rules.

This is a very stupid hill to die on. It was just a qualification on the otherwise overly-broad statement that “the DM could do whatever they want.” Stop trying to turn it into a personal slight against you.

Nothing except, "As I said, the DM can do what they want to the limits of their table rules." which he said in direct response to my interpretation. If he isn't saying that my interpretation comes about due to table rules, then there was zero reason for that sentence to be said in response to me.

 

[iserith]

You can see the problem with that line of reasoning, right? Once there's the possibility of disagreement as to what is covered by an example, then there exists the likelihood that the meaning of the examples differs on a per DM basis. That points to the futility of claiming the examples as definitive.

This has been addressed before (i.e. it's a category of difficult situations and length of climb doesn't fit) and I don't see any value in going over it again. We're at the point in the thread that we're mostly rehashing and to what end? Nobody is changing their mind here.

 

[clearstream]

The DM in the guide describes the cliffs as sheer and slippery, which establishes the difficult situation that might make a Strength (Athletics) check appropriate. The DM then establishes the stakes - what happens with a successful check and with a failed check. Respectively, that is you make it to the top no problem or you make it to the top and you're attacked by birds. Failure can be adjudicated into no progress or progress combined with a setback according to the rules for ability checks. This is an example of the latter, since the DM didn't want to include the possibility in the adjudication of not making it to the top.

It's an interesting point. If we think of the parts of the game mechanic, we have -

1. a probability of failure, represented by a d20 roll with modifiers
2. if failed, costs or consequences that are meaningful within the game
3. constraints on repeats, including due to said costs or consequences

We believe that 1. requires justification and that possible justifications are defined or indicated. But what of 2.? By RAW, is there any definition or indication about the costs of failing a climb? Or is that undefined so that - by RAW - a consequence could be a hike in the price of tea in Kara-tur?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm trying to understand something I find paradoxical - "the examples are not exhaustive", "the examples are guides". However, it seems like some posters know exactly what those guides delimit. A DM might choose all kinds of things, but not - mark my words - climb height. Do you see what I mean? Once I agree that the examples are not exhaustive, how can I then claim to know exhaustively what they delimit? Wherever I draw the line, I must concede that another DM might validly draw it in a different place.

Like @iserith said. We’ve tread this ground already. Or, if you insist, the conditions for calling for a Strength(Athletics) check in 5e are like obscenity: you’ll know it when you see it (my apologies to the late Justice Stewart for applying his words to a game of make-believe).

Of course, there might be all kinds of ways to rule it, but would a DM also be justified by RAW in calling for Strength (Athletics) in this case? The example speaks to exactly the same argument made above.

The DM can justify pretty much anything by saying “rulings not rules”. What I try to do at my table is inform my rulings with RAW and present some level of consistency so the players know generally what to expect.

I agree, but I question if it is right for me to tell another DM that RAW entails they are wrong, when it seems to me that RAW entails it is up to them?

RAW is clear enough to me on the matter. I can’t control how others feel about that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Boy, this is like a train wreck or car accident... just can't stay away... in 24 hours it exploded nearly another 100 posts or so!

Darn you, @Nebulous for driving me mad!

Speaking of driving, I'll throw this out there:

Many (if not most in the U.S. anyway) adults can drive. People have said driving long distances would not require a check to them. Fine, what about driving FAST? You are still "just driving", and "anyone can drive" right (assuming you know how...)? So, would you say you wouldn't need to make a check to drive fast since you can drive at all?

I mean, you can drive 20 mph, 50 mph, 80 mph, 150 mph, or even higher (depending on your car)? Is there not a speed at which you think being able to react, control the car, etc. would require a check? Why or why not? Because it gets harder and harder and more dangerous the faster you go. But. you are still "just driving" though, right?

FWIW, I'm not saying it should be difficult (i.e. a high DC) necessarily.

Climbing to great heights also gets harder and harder and more dangerous the higher you go.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM can justify pretty much anything by saying “rulings not rules”. What I try to do at my table is inform my rulings with RAW and present some level of consistency so the players know generally what to expect.

I don't think anyone here is saying that they do otherwise. I know that I use RAW for my decisions when possible as well.

RAW is clear enough to me on the matter. I can’t control how others feel about that.

RAW clearly indicates that anything that the DM thinks is difficult/challenging is grounds for an ability check if there is a meaningful consequence for failure and the outcome is in doubt. A high climb, whether or not you would rule that way in your game, absolutely follows that RAW.

 

[iserith]

It's an interesting point. If we think of the parts of the game mechanic, we have -

1. a probability of failure, represented by a d20 roll with modifiers
2. if failed, costs or consequences that are meaningful within the game
3. constraints on repeats, including due to said costs or consequences

We believe that 1. requires justification and that possible justifications are defined or indicated. But what of 2.? By RAW, is there any definition or indication about the costs of failing a climb? Or is that undefined so that - by RAW - a consequence could be a hike in the price of tea in Kara-tur?

I won't be combing through the rules today looking for proof that the only possible failure condition in climbing is falling. The section on ability checks says that the setback is "determined by the DM" with no further guidance if I remember correctly. Probably some folks who view the game more as a "simulation" are going to want there to be a tight connection with the check and the failure conditions. But I'm not aware of anything in the game that demands this necessarily be so. For me, the DM has established the threat of the birds. It's reasonable in the fiction for these two situations to arise (make it or make it and attacked by birds). The ability check determines what plays out next.

 

[clearstream]

I won't be combing through the rules today looking for proof that the only possible failure condition in climbing is falling. The section on ability checks says that the setback is "determined by the DM" with no further guidance if I remember correctly. Probably some folks who view the game more as a "simulation" are going to want there to be a tight connection with the check and the failure conditions. But I'm not aware of anything in the game that demands this necessarily be so. For me, the DM has established the threat of the birds. It's reasonable in the fiction for these two situations to arise (make it or make it and attacked by birds). The ability check determines what plays out next.

Agreed, I don't recollect there being anything definitive either. One implication being that whatever consequences a DM chooses, are equally well justified by RAW.

I'm going to note this for @Charlaquin as I believe it has not been widely considered. For me it sheds some light on other questions.