D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin would say that the broken collarbone is not justification for a check per RAW, right? I would rule as you do. Broken hands would seem like another good candidate to me.

Right, though it would likely impose disadvantage if a check was otherwise necessary. Broken hands I would probably say make it impossible to climb,

 

[Maxperson]

Right, though it would likely impose disadvantage if a check was otherwise necessary. Broken hands I would probably say make it impossible to climb,

Have you ever had a broken collarbone? I have and I can attest that what they say is true. It is one of the most painful bones to break. That and you cannot lift your arm past about the midpoint of your body, nor put any kind of weight on the arm. Climbing would also be impossible. I would allow climbing with broken hands in limited circumstances before I would allow climbing with a collarbone. At least with broken hands you could get your wrist on outcroppings and lean your weight on it, to allow a climb with disadvantage.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success--the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

I don’t think any reasonable person would consider a hike in the price of tea in Kara-Tur to be no progress or progress combined with a setback in the task of climbing a rope.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Let’s note that in this thread we’re not debating that it is RAW that a DM can rule however they see fit at any time.

We are pointedly discerning what is RAW concerning climbing and swimming.

Otherwise we end up in a vortex of silly where someone says it’s RAW that the DM can do what they want and therefore home brew is RAW and everything is home brew and... how DARE you!

 

[Charlaquin]

Have you ever had a broken collarbone? I have and I can attest that what they say is true. It is one of the most painful bones to break. That and you cannot lift your arm past about the midpoint of your body, nor put any kind of weight on the arm. Climbing would also be impossible. I would allow climbing with broken hands in limited circumstances before I would allow climbing with a collarbone. At least with broken hands you could get your wrist on outcroppings and lean your weight on it, to allow a climb with disadvantage.

I haven’t. That makes sense though, so yeah, that making it impossible to climb makes more sense.

I don’t use the lingering injury rules, so broken bones aren’t a thing that comes up much in my games.

 

[Maxperson]

Let’s note that in this thread we’re not debating that it is RAW that a DM can rule however they see fit at any time.

We are pointedly discerning what is RAW concerning climbing and swimming.

Otherwise we end up in a vortex of silly where someone says it’s RAW that the DM can do what they want and therefore home brew is RAW and everything is home brew and... how DARE you!

Correct. The Strength(Athletics) - climb examples show that if there is difficulty/challenge, the DM is justified in using those rules as written. What constitutes difficulty/challenge is a DM decision and a very high climb absolutely falls under those rules as written. Even if you personally wouldn't decide the same way.

Nobody here has been arguing that the DM can make the decision, because DM.

 

[clearstream]

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success--the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

I don’t think any reasonable person would consider a hike in the price of tea in Kara-Tur to be no progress or progress combined with a setback in the task of climbing a rope.

We're focused on the RAW though, right? It's not defined what a setback might be. It doesn't say "a setback in the task attempted" even if we decide those words should be added sotto voce.

You have spoken in the past of focusing narrowly on what the words prescribe. How are the cases different to your mind? Why for deciding on an ability check are we cleaving closely to the words on the page, while for the consequences of that check we're relying on what a reasonable person would consider?

 

[Charlaquin]

We're focused on the RAW though, right? It's not defined what a setback might be. It doesn't say "a setback in the task attempted" even if we decide those words should be added sotto voce.

You have spoken in the past of focusing narrowly on what the words prescribe. How are the cases different to your mind? Why for deciding on an ability check are we cleaving closely to the words on the page, while for the consequences of that check we're relying on what a reasonable person would consider?

So you’re asking if the rules as written place any restrictions on what can be considered a setback? Then no, not as far as I’m aware.

 

[Maxperson]

We're focused on the RAW though, right? It's not defined what a setback might be. It doesn't say "a setback in the task attempted" even if we decide those words should be added sotto voce.

You have spoken in the past of focusing narrowly on what the words prescribe. How are the cases different to your mind? Why for deciding on an ability check are we cleaving closely to the words on the page, while for the consequences of that check we're relying on what a reasonable person would consider?

Yep. The next time they go to buy a rope, they can't get one due to no rope shipments from Kara Tur, caused by a rather sudden tea leaf price fluctuation that is disrupting trade.

 

[iserith]

We're focused on the RAW though, right? It's not defined what a setback might be. It doesn't say "a setback in the task attempted" even if we decide those words should be added sotto voce.

You have spoken in the past of focusing narrowly on what the words prescribe. How are the cases different to your mind? Why for deciding on an ability check are we cleaving closely to the words on the page, while for the consequences of that check we're relying on what a reasonable person would consider?

It's almost like these general rules could benefit by specific rules that contain examples of a particular category.