Xjyuk

Why did the person in charge of a principality not just declare themself king?

What are these arcade games in Ghostbusters 1984?

Can the product of any two aperiodic functions which are defined on the entire number line be periodic?

Can I summon an otherworldly creature with the Gate spell without knowing its true name?

What is a Centaur Thief's climbing speed?

Can I tell a prospective employee that everyone in the team is leaving?

Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while watching a movie

Why did Jon Snow do this immoral act if he is so honorable?

Is it true that cut time means "play twice as fast as written"?

Pirate democracy at its finest

Count Even Digits In Number

Is it possible to remotely hack the GPS system and disable GPS service worldwide?

What does the view outside my ship traveling at light speed look like?

Python program to take in two strings and print the larger string

Does pair production happen even when the photon is around a neutron?

Website returning plaintext password

Does COBRA make sense anymore with the ACA?

Is Jon Snow the last of his House?

Is there an online tool which supports shared writing?

How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?

Where have Brexit voters gone?

My players want to grind XP but we're using milestone advancement

Efficient Algorithm for the boundary of a set of tiles

Is the field of q-series 'dead'?

What is a Centaur Thief's climbing speed?

Is a spell with an attack roll “an attack” for the purpose of Sneak Attack?Could Eye of Gruumsh be safely interpreted as Racial Subsitution Levels?Is the UA Warforged considered to naturally be wearing armor?How do Boots of Speed affect other movement rates?Can a short rope used with Rope Trick create a “safe space” during combat?Is your movement penalized underwater if you have a swimming speed but choose not to use it?When you run out of climbing speed, can you still climb with your normal speed at a penalty?Is there a way for a PC to have a burrow speed outside of Wild Shape/Polymorph?2nd attempt: Is this homebrew race based on the Draco volans species balanced?Is there a functional difference between having a listed climb speed and being able to climb at full walking speed?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

9

$begingroup$

The Thief archetype Rogue's Second-Story Work (PHB, p. 97) feature states:

[...] you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movement.

However, the Centaur's Equine Build racial trait (GGR, p. 16) says:

In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet, instead of the normal 1 extra foot.

Both of these in my opinion are specific, in the "specific beats general" type of rulings, but does one supersede the other? Would a Centaur Thief climb 40 feet or 8 feet (1+4 extra feet) per round?

dnd-5e class-feature rogue racial-traits thief

share|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

9

$begingroup$

The Thief archetype Rogue's Second-Story Work (PHB, p. 97) feature states:

[...] you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movement.

However, the Centaur's Equine Build racial trait (GGR, p. 16) says:

In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet, instead of the normal 1 extra foot.

Both of these in my opinion are specific, in the "specific beats general" type of rulings, but does one supersede the other? Would a Centaur Thief climb 40 feet or 8 feet (1+4 extra feet) per round?

dnd-5e class-feature rogue racial-traits thief

share|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

The Thief archetype Rogue's Second-Story Work (PHB, p. 97) feature states:

[...] you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movement.

However, the Centaur's Equine Build racial trait (GGR, p. 16) says:

In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet, instead of the normal 1 extra foot.

Both of these in my opinion are specific, in the "specific beats general" type of rulings, but does one supersede the other? Would a Centaur Thief climb 40 feet or 8 feet (1+4 extra feet) per round?

dnd-5e class-feature rogue racial-traits thief

share|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

share|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

edited 7 hours ago

V2Blast

29.4k5106178

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

asked 8 hours ago

bubbajake00bubbajake00

1,56011038

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

8

$begingroup$

From logic, one would arrive at:

1. "Climbing for a thief no longer costs the thief extra movement,"


2. "Climbing for a centaur costs 4 extra feet,"


3. "4 extra feet is extra movement," (implied from "instead of the normal 1 extra foot")


4. (2&3) "Climbing for a centaur costs extra movement"
   C. (1&4) "Climbing for a centaur thief would not cost any extra movement."
   

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Welcome to RPG.SE! This is a great first answer. The tour and the help center are available if you want to know more about how we do stuff. Happy gaming!
  $endgroup$
  – Chris Starnes
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I feel that this is a perfectly acceptable reading of the rules, but potentially breaking the spirit of them. - DM and Players may benefit from a discussion to decide if adding that much power to a character is in the spirit of their campaign. ["The centaur thief climbs as well as a bipedal non-thief for example", or their penalty is reduced by 1, could be more fitting.]
  $endgroup$
  – TheLuckless
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

The way to reconcile these, IMHO, is to realise that the Thief ability is written assuming that the character is an ordinary humanoid biped. They would pay one extra foot of movement for each foot of climbing, and the ability removes that penalty.

So you could plausibly claim that a centaur Thief with Second-Story Work pays three extra feet of movement for each foot of climbing, rather than four. That gives them a climbing move of ten feet, better than a normal centaur, but worse than a biped non-Thief. That seems like a plausible outcome within the game world.

Being a centaur who climbs buildings isn't a very sensible idea, and should not be made plausible by over-literal rules interpretation.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  +1 for that last sentence especially, realism is important too
  $endgroup$
  – NathanS
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148558%2fwhat-is-a-centaur-thiefs-climbing-speed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

8

$begingroup$

From logic, one would arrive at:

1. "Climbing for a thief no longer costs the thief extra movement,"


2. "Climbing for a centaur costs 4 extra feet,"


3. "4 extra feet is extra movement," (implied from "instead of the normal 1 extra foot")


4. (2&3) "Climbing for a centaur costs extra movement"
   C. (1&4) "Climbing for a centaur thief would not cost any extra movement."
   

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Welcome to RPG.SE! This is a great first answer. The tour and the help center are available if you want to know more about how we do stuff. Happy gaming!
  $endgroup$
  – Chris Starnes
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I feel that this is a perfectly acceptable reading of the rules, but potentially breaking the spirit of them. - DM and Players may benefit from a discussion to decide if adding that much power to a character is in the spirit of their campaign. ["The centaur thief climbs as well as a bipedal non-thief for example", or their penalty is reduced by 1, could be more fitting.]
  $endgroup$
  – TheLuckless
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

$begingroup$

From logic, one would arrive at:

1. "Climbing for a thief no longer costs the thief extra movement,"


2. "Climbing for a centaur costs 4 extra feet,"


3. "4 extra feet is extra movement," (implied from "instead of the normal 1 extra foot")


4. (2&3) "Climbing for a centaur costs extra movement"
   C. (1&4) "Climbing for a centaur thief would not cost any extra movement."
   

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Welcome to RPG.SE! This is a great first answer. The tour and the help center are available if you want to know more about how we do stuff. Happy gaming!
  $endgroup$
  – Chris Starnes
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I feel that this is a perfectly acceptable reading of the rules, but potentially breaking the spirit of them. - DM and Players may benefit from a discussion to decide if adding that much power to a character is in the spirit of their campaign. ["The centaur thief climbs as well as a bipedal non-thief for example", or their penalty is reduced by 1, could be more fitting.]
  $endgroup$
  – TheLuckless
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

From logic, one would arrive at:

1. "Climbing for a thief no longer costs the thief extra movement,"


2. "Climbing for a centaur costs 4 extra feet,"


3. "4 extra feet is extra movement," (implied from "instead of the normal 1 extra foot")


4. (2&3) "Climbing for a centaur costs extra movement"
   C. (1&4) "Climbing for a centaur thief would not cost any extra movement."
   

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

New contributor

Cab Zx is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 8 hours ago

Cab ZxCab Zx

891

4

$begingroup$

The way to reconcile these, IMHO, is to realise that the Thief ability is written assuming that the character is an ordinary humanoid biped. They would pay one extra foot of movement for each foot of climbing, and the ability removes that penalty.

So you could plausibly claim that a centaur Thief with Second-Story Work pays three extra feet of movement for each foot of climbing, rather than four. That gives them a climbing move of ten feet, better than a normal centaur, but worse than a biped non-Thief. That seems like a plausible outcome within the game world.

Being a centaur who climbs buildings isn't a very sensible idea, and should not be made plausible by over-literal rules interpretation.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  +1 for that last sentence especially, realism is important too
  $endgroup$
  – NathanS
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

The way to reconcile these, IMHO, is to realise that the Thief ability is written assuming that the character is an ordinary humanoid biped. They would pay one extra foot of movement for each foot of climbing, and the ability removes that penalty.

So you could plausibly claim that a centaur Thief with Second-Story Work pays three extra feet of movement for each foot of climbing, rather than four. That gives them a climbing move of ten feet, better than a normal centaur, but worse than a biped non-Thief. That seems like a plausible outcome within the game world.

Being a centaur who climbs buildings isn't a very sensible idea, and should not be made plausible by over-literal rules interpretation.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  +1 for that last sentence especially, realism is important too
  $endgroup$
  – NathanS
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

The way to reconcile these, IMHO, is to realise that the Thief ability is written assuming that the character is an ordinary humanoid biped. They would pay one extra foot of movement for each foot of climbing, and the ability removes that penalty.

So you could plausibly claim that a centaur Thief with Second-Story Work pays three extra feet of movement for each foot of climbing, rather than four. That gives them a climbing move of ten feet, better than a normal centaur, but worse than a biped non-Thief. That seems like a plausible outcome within the game world.

Being a centaur who climbs buildings isn't a very sensible idea, and should not be made plausible by over-literal rules interpretation.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364

answered 8 hours ago

John DallmanJohn Dallman

11.9k23364