Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Climbing a tower rules 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8194806" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>I'd word it slightly differently: the dispute is over whether the height of a climb is among the types of factors that the rules permit (rather than necessitate) the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.</p><p></p><p>But that aside, even if it were true that there is some objective sense in which only one of our perspectives can be correct, we have no way to determine which of our readings is the correct one. You're among the posters I most respect on this forum, and knowing that you disagree with my reading is enough for me to consider the question disputed. I still think my reading of the text is the stronger one, but I'm not going to assert that you're going outside the rules when the rules themselves are in dispute.</p><p></p><p>I think that's why I'm reacting negatively when you do so: by claiming that others are going outside the rules, it sounds like you're not willing to concede even the validity of the other posters' contrary opinions, even as they are conceding the validity of your opinion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a worthwhile distinction to make. I would go even farther, however: my argument (taken to a greater level of nuance than I've previously expressed) is that it is up to each DM to decide whether a particular complication shares enough qualities with the example complications as requiring a Strength (Athletics) check. My impression is that you think the decision should instead be made in comparison to an implicit objective standard?</p><p></p><p>(For clarity, yes, I think that if a DM determines that complication X shares enough qualities with the examples, the rules explicitly permit/encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check, even if you or I think that DM is being silly. I did not mean to imply that a DM who identifies the day of the week as a climbing complication was being reasonable, only that I think they would still following the specific climbing rules when they accordingly called for a check.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8194806, member: 6802765"] I'd word it slightly differently: the dispute is over whether the height of a climb is among the types of factors that the rules permit (rather than necessitate) the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check. But that aside, even if it were true that there is some objective sense in which only one of our perspectives can be correct, we have no way to determine which of our readings is the correct one. You're among the posters I most respect on this forum, and knowing that you disagree with my reading is enough for me to consider the question disputed. I still think my reading of the text is the stronger one, but I'm not going to assert that you're going outside the rules when the rules themselves are in dispute. I think that's why I'm reacting negatively when you do so: by claiming that others are going outside the rules, it sounds like you're not willing to concede even the validity of the other posters' contrary opinions, even as they are conceding the validity of your opinion. That's a worthwhile distinction to make. I would go even farther, however: my argument (taken to a greater level of nuance than I've previously expressed) is that it is up to each DM to decide whether a particular complication shares enough qualities with the example complications as requiring a Strength (Athletics) check. My impression is that you think the decision should instead be made in comparison to an implicit objective standard? (For clarity, yes, I think that if a DM determines that complication X shares enough qualities with the examples, the rules explicitly permit/encourage that DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check, even if you or I think that DM is being silly. I did not mean to imply that a DM who identifies the day of the week as a climbing complication was being reasonable, only that I think they would still following the specific climbing rules when they accordingly called for a check.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Climbing a tower rules 5e
Top