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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7760405" data-attributes="member: 71699">For RAW, we're working literally so pedantic is called for.Say A and B get 15, C 12, D 11. You are saying that A and B crossing the line in equal first place is remaining the same as before the contest. That's a stretch, and the approach taken requires a house rule for cross-compares.That is why I said with "approximately equal justice" above. It's no more of a stretch - no more of a house rule - to say that the generality of the DM decides the DC includes that the DM might decide the DC based on other creatures check. Pragmatically, that works equally well. @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> I find myself not disliking your approach, but not seeing it as less a house rule or more justified than the alternative approach. Certainly I think finishing a race in any place does a poor job of remaining the same, unless all finishers tied! That said, I agree with @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=37579" target="_blank">Jester David</a> who suggests this is perhaps simply poor choice of words. When looking at RAW of course, choice of words is what we have and we can't make guesses about designer foibles. For RAI, sure. In the end, I don't think it matters who claims the high-ground because the case of multiple competitors is not clearly covered by the rules at all. Just the same as how far is further than your usual jump distance.Instead, they've acknowledged diversity of needs and provided tools good enough for a DM to apply on the fly. I think that's what Mearls is getting at and why he is happy about their approach to 5th. I don't think he means ignore those tools (a possible implication), rather I think he means apply them as you need to, to resolve situations at your table.</blockquote>

Verification