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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8503861" data-attributes="member: 16814">Oh, no, I think just claiming I'm not right and then trying to ditch the disagreement without showing your work is rather gauche.The bit you quoted is the last sentence in the first paragraph under the Using Ability Scores heading on page 237.  The bit I'm talking about is the first paragraph under the Multiple Ability Checks heading on the same page:This absolutely maps to my example of the perception check that fails with no change in the fiction.  You made the claim that this is false, based on the argument that you shouldn't call for an ability check unless there's a meaningful consequence of failure.  Yet this section clearly belies this, allowing multiple retries with the only cost being time.  This was the only cost to the example of perception checks I gave and was told I was incorrect on.  So, yes, it is right.Your words where that I was wrong and your support was a reference to the DMG.  What impression was I supposed to take from this.  Further, what impression am I to take from your opening claim that I am still wrong?  If there's not a right way, that is?This is rhetorical chaff.And chaff to cover this claim -- that there's one thing that 5e tells GMs to do.  This is the point of contention -- I can show multiple things that 5e tells GMs to do that conflict.  The better confliction from the "meaningful consequences" exists in the PHB under the heading of Ability Checks, where it says a failure results in no progress.  The exact result I presented in my perception example to which you said was incorrect due to your reference.  Which presides, here?  This latest argument is that 5e contradicts itself, sure, and doesn't say what you're supposed to do exactly, but that it's telling your to do something specific but can't stop them from doing other things.  I mean, aside from the conflicting nature of this argument, the end result is a platitude that was covered way upthread and repeated a few times (the last by [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], I believe).  No game can force you to play any particular way, and pointing this out is trivial and banal.  We're talking about what the system says, not the fact that it can't force you to follow it.And we're pretty far afield now, chasing down this new, slow motion gallop (more of a trot?) of various new objections to things that aren't about the initial claim -- that 5e does not produce a leftwards arrow from the resolution of an attack that only inflicts hp damage and doesn't kill the target.  So far, this is still standing despite the many arguments you made (and now, recently, tried to abandon for a new example you hoped was clearer, yet here we are).I don't understand the vigor of your arguments here -- so what if a left arrow doesn't exist?  This isn't a bad thing or a negative, it's just a thing.  No left arrows is perfectly fine in many cases!Huh?  I'm not defaulting to traditional modes of play, whatever you mean by this, and I don't follow how 5e gains ubiquity here as that seems a non sequitur altogether (what does the ubiquity of 5e have to offer the instant discussion?).  You're attempting to dismiss my point about the adventures by claiming that it's isolated and not covered in the core rulebooks, except I've shown how it absolutely exists in the core rulebooks and was using the adventures as more support to this cite from the core!  This is like saying someone that shows a proof for a theory and then shows that it successfully predicts various phenomenon that the theory should be discarded because examples are well and good but you should have a proof to be taken seriously.  I started there.</blockquote>

Verification