NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8198705" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I definitely think that we can all agree that the DM is not required to call for a check. The disagreement is on whether the DM can choose to call for a check if they identify a climbing complication, or whether only certain types of climbing complications are allowed.I agree on the simplicity and being written to allow fewer rolls. But it certainly seems to me to be set up to permit frequent rolls, if desired. As evidence I would point to DMG 236, that discuss the style of calling for lots of rolls and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of doing so in comparison to other styles. The text does not suggest that any of the discussed styles are favored or disfavored in 5e.I entirely agree that your interpretation is in line with the design philosophy of 5e. I just also think that other interpretations are equally in line with the design philosophies of 5e.On your final claim, however, I have a quibble: the rules state how much movement climbing, swimming, and jumping consume. They don't say you can use those ratios to convert daily land travel distances into daily climbing, swimming, and jumping distances. Merely providing a ratio does not otherwise suggest an equivalency between movement types.From my standpoint, one of 5e's largest strengths is its ability to support play in multiple playstyles. I wish it was even better at doing so, but by my reading the purpose of the simplicity is to give DM's flexibility, not to try to imply a specific, restricted "mindset" of play.</blockquote>

Verification