Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8192155" data-attributes="member: 6802765">For reference, I'm with you to the extent that I wouldn't call for a check for climbing an 80' knotted rope. (I would call for a check for, e.g., a 1000' rope, and the implication of a sharp cut-off at some distance X doesn't bother me, since I'm never going to have an X' and an X'+1" rope next to each other in the same game.)Where I disagree with you is your presentation of the "rules". Since the two complications listed in the book are examples, then if a particular DM considers a potentially lethal fall to be such a complication, then, by my reading, the rules encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.Sure, you and I might disagree with a DM's call that a potentially lethal 80' fall qualifies as such a complication, but the rules leave the question of what qualifies as a complication up to the DM. So if, for example, [USER=6987520]@6ENow![/USER] rules that the stress of a potentially lethal fall qualifies as such a complication, I think they're following the rules to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. After all, the rules don't say to only call for a check if [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] or [USER=6802765]@Xetheral[/USER] think a particular complication is sufficiently similar to the two printed examples.To put it plainly: my claim is that any DM who identifies a climbing complication that they consider to be comparable in kind to climbing a slippery vertical surface or a surface with few handholds is following the rules if they call for a Strength (Athletics) check.</blockquote>

Verification