D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[clearstream]

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

Of they are consistent in leaving it up to the DM

 

[iserith]

Of they are consistent in leaving it up to the DM

That's true of every single rule in the game - DM can do as he or she likes including ignoring the specific rules for climbing. If there were specific rules for progress combined with a setback, I'd be basing my rulings on that. But there aren't as far as I know, so I don't.

 

[Xetheral]

(Edited to remove a draft that wasn't intended to be posted.)

That's true of every single rule in the game - DM can do as he or she likes including ignoring the specific rules for climbing. If there were specific rules for progress combined with a setback, I'd be basing my rulings on that. But there aren't as far as I know, so I don't.

But it's not equally true of every rule in the game. Some parts of the rules were left to the DM's discretion by design, such as determining success/failure/roll for resolving player actions. Other parts of the rules are more codifed, such as the mechanics for attack rolls, even though the DM can still opt to change them.

Since the root disagreement in this thread appears to be whether climbing complications were designed to be left to DM discretion (with illustrative examples) or instead were designed to be codified (with prescriptive, non-exclusive examples), the difference seems highly relevant.

 

[iserith]

(Edited to remove a draft that wasn't intended to be posted.)

But it's not equally true of every rule in the game. Some parts of the rules were left to the DM's discretion by design, such as determining success/failure/roll for resolving player actions. Other parts of the rules are more codifed, such as the mechanics for attack rolls, even though the DM can still opt to change them.

Since the root disagreement in this thread appears to be whether climbing complications were designed to be left to DM discretion (with illustrative examples) or instead were designed to be codified (with prescriptive, non-exclusive examples), the difference seems highly relevant.

Relevant to what though? We're all of us dug into our positions at this point. So it doesn't really matter.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. If someone wants to make their game more like D&D 3.Xe, for example, they can do that.

 

[Xetheral]

Relevant to what though? We're all of us dug into our positions at this point. So it doesn't really matter.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. If someone wants to make their game more like D&D 3.Xe, for example, they can do that.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were dismissing @clearstream's question on the grounds that the DM can change any rule they want.

My response was intended to point out that, while it is true that the DM can change anything they want, that isn't a rebuttal to @clearstream, because the debate has instead hinged on a difference in opinion of how much DM discretion was designed into the climbing rules.

Personally I agree with you, however, that further debate is not likely to lead to more consensus on the interpretation of the text. The differences in philosophy that underlie the debate appear to be fundamental.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were dismissing @clearstream's question on the grounds that the DM can change any rule they want.

My response was intended to point out that, while it is true that the DM can change anything they want, that isn't a rebuttal to @clearstream, because the debate has instead hinged on a difference in opinion of how much DM discretion was designed into the climbing rules.

So, I definitely think the designers intended for the DM to have total discretion in all matters. The rules themselves say you can change any of the rules you want to. But, if one is looking to the rules to inform their rulings, they will draw different conclusions than if they are forming their rulings based on some other criteria, such as preferences based on experiences with other games, or adherence to some sense of verisimilitude.

I think this is what @iserith is getting at when they talk about whether or not rulings are “based in the rules.” Not that you’re breaking the rules if you rule a certain way, but that you’re forming the basis of your ruling on something other than a plain reading of the text.

 

[Xetheral]

So, I definitely think the designers intended for the DM to have total discretion in all matters. The rules themselves say you can change any of the rules you want to. But, if one is looking to the rules to inform their rulings, they will draw different conclusions than if they are forming their rulings based on some other criteria, such as preferences based on experiences with other games, or adherence to some sense of verisimilitude.

I think this is what @iserith is getting at when they talk about whether or not rulings are “based in the rules.” Not that you’re breaking the rules if you rule a certain way, but that you’re forming the basis of your ruling on something other than a plain reading of the text.

Right. And then the debate is over what is the correct and/or strongest plain reading of the text.

 

[iserith]

So, I definitely think the designers intended for the DM to have total discretion in all matters. The rules themselves say you can change any of the rules you want to. But, if one is looking to the rules to inform their rulings, they will draw different conclusions than if they are forming their rulings based on some other criteria, such as preferences based on experiences with other games, or adherence to some sense of verisimilitude.

I think this is what @iserith is getting at when they talk about whether or not rulings are “based in the rules.” Not that you’re breaking the rules if you rule a certain way, but that you’re forming the basis of your ruling on something other than a plain reading of the text.

Right, and woe unto someone who says this even though everyone says they agree it's rulings over rules!

 

[clearstream]

Right, and woe unto someone who says this even though everyone says they agree it's rulings over rules!

I don't.

 

[Xetheral]

Right, and woe unto someone who says this even though everyone says they agree it's rulings over rules!

This statement makes me fear I've failed to adequately explain my objection. To clarify, I have no problem with the idea of ruling over rules. I have no problem, in general, with stating that 5e favors rulings over rules.

My objection is to addressing a declarative statement about whether a ruling is supported by the plain reading of the text to a poster who disagrees about the plain reading of the text. Such a statement pretends the disagreement doesn't exist, implying that the other poster's opinion has no value or doesn't count. In my opinion, appending a "but, rulings over rules" to the end of such a statement adds a note of condescension on top of the implicit dismissal, rather than coming across as conciliatory (which is how I hope it is intended).

Does that make sense? I not trying to jump down anyone's throat, I'm only trying to point out that what may be intended as a conciliatory disclaimer can, in certain (very common) circumstances, instead be inflammatory. Admittedly I'd also be thrilled if fewer conversations devolved into both sides making declarative statements that refuse to acknowledge the existence of any contrary opinions, but I don't think I'm likely to make much headway there.

Xetheral finishes singing "Kumbaya" and puts away his lute.