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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8194632" data-attributes="member: 97077">I posit that some posters are engaged in motivated reasoning because it's very common in both my personal experience and in many threads like these or watching/listening to actual plays that many DMs smuggle in their approaches and assumptions from other games, often inadvertently. D&D 3.Xe, D&D 4e, Pathfinder, etc. all handle things a bit differently (or in some cases very differently) than D&D 5e because these are different games. That doesn't seem to stop DMs from treating, say, whether or not to call for a check to resolve climbing the same in each game because they don't really give much thought to how the games treat them differently. So when faced with a challenge to a method they've likely used in multiple games that isn't supported in the game in the discussion, it is a likely outcome in my experience that the poster will do what they can to obfuscate the rules so that the method they smuggled in from other games seems like it is the rules as written.I obviously cannot prove this is the case because I can't read anyone's minds and there is very little incentive for someone to relent on their position. But this very much seems to be on display in my opinion because the specific rules are clear on the sorts of difficult situations that might call for a Strength (Athletics) check. Length of climb doesn't fall into that category. I did, however, show that if the DM wanted to test whether a character could push beyond his or her normal limits because the climb was on par with a forced march, that the DM could call for a Constitution check. This is asking and answering a different question though with a different mechanic applied.</blockquote>

Verification