Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8195004" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Indeed. This may be a deeper philosophical difference. You see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that all interpretations are therefore valid. I see a disputed rule with no way to determine which interpretation is accurate and conclude that there is a correct interpretation, but it is unknown, and try to arrive at an interpretation that I believe to be closest to the correct one.I think our different approaches to when we call for checks is affecting our interpretations of “at the DM’s option.” Since I try to avoid calling for checks unless they are necessary, “at the DM’s option” here suggests to me that the DM doesn’t necessarily have to call for a check when the example complications and similar occur. For example, a cliff may be slippery, but if failure on the check to climb it would only result in no progress, and there is no time constraint, it may still be unnecessary to call for a check, despite one of the example complications being present.I think this may be playing a significant role in our different interpretations. You’re reading the examples as suggesting it might be appropriate for the DM to call for a check if they want to. I’m reading the examples as suggesting when the DM might have to call for a check, if it is otherwise appropriate to do so. A DM deciding to call for a check due to a factor that seems to have little in common with the listed examples therefore seems out of place to me, in a way that it wouldn’t to you.I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that the standard of similarity is objective. I don’t know how one would measure such a thing objectively. Rather, I agree that it is subjective, and up to the DM to make the determination, but there are cases where a factor is clearly dissimilar (e.g. day of the week), cases where a factor is clearly similar (e.g. the cliff has many loose rocks, making it difficult to find stable footing), and cases where there is more ambiguity (e.g. how high the climb is). But in any given case, I believe one interpretation must be consistent with the intent of the rule and one must not be.Glad we could come to an understanding, if not necessarily an agreement <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😁" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f601.png" title="Beaming face with smiling eyes    :grin:" data-shortname=":grin:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification