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: 8504998" data-attributes="member: 16814">What first easy part of the climb.  I rereview everything I provided to you and there's nothing about an easy first part.  There was a DC 15 cliff, and then a cliff with goals but nothing established about the cliff.  I also don't see where you clarified the cliff description to establish this.  Further, in case 1 and 2, there's NO MENTION of the cliff difficulties at all - the results are only talking about the fiction you've created to thwart the goals.It's this kind of goalpost moving that makes discussion with you on these things a challenge.  If I shoot for goal one, you move the goalposts.  When I adjust and shoot for the new goal, you move them back.  When I cover that one, you go back to position 1 and act like it was never challenged to begin with.Why are you changing parameters?  Do you think an unstated parameter change is illuminating to a problem?Please find the quote in RAW that has these requirements.  We've already cleared up that "at stake" (by which I assume you mean "meaningful consequence") can simply be no progress towards your goal.  This isn't a stake, it's maintaining status quo.  You keep trying to spin maintaining status quo as something more by adding additional requirements, but those requirements don't actually align with "no progress" they align with "no progress AND something else."  Further, uncertainty is extremely vague in 5e -- one of the paths recommended is to assume uncertainty for any declared action (see Rolling with It, on page 236 of the DMG).  Given that all of the sections you're quoted must also be aligned with this suggestion for approach to play, you have quite a bit to reconcile that you're mostly handwaving away.Actually, this is case limited in a way you're eliding.  The "succeed with time" is only implemented if the actions declared by the PC are such that they will keep trying, or if the PCs declare a retry after a failed check.  They aren't intended to apply at all times.  For an example of this, if a PC search a given corridor for a secret door, you can't assume that they will continue to search repeatedly unless they state this.  So, you give a check, it fails, and you provide "no progress" -- ie, status quo, no change in fiction.  If the PCs do not decide to search again (and this can easily be the case if the check result was high, but the DC was higher, with the assumption by players that DCs wouldn't be that high) then they move on.  You don't, at all times, assume that the PCs are putting in the time.   And the section in the DMG discussing this makes this point clear.Every one of the examples has the same action declaration and approach to the same obstacle.  You are not calling for a check based on the approach of the action declaration or the nature of the obstacle -- you made this 100% clear when I presented the earlier example where the DC was already decided and the check already called for.  You said, at that point, that I could not assume a check is called for without a goal.  I provided those, and you decided to call for checks for each without any further detail on the action attempt (which was the same) or evaluation of the obstacle.  The latter is clear in the way you decided to describe the obstacle differently in each response.Where did Demogorgon come from?  Where did summoning come from?  These were not components of the example I gave you.  I mean, whatever, but it's part and parcel of the difficulty that you keep adding things to questions or situations to make your points and these often have the effect of altering the situation into a different one.  Here, no big deal outside of a convenient example.But lets assume your introduction of additional fiction was always present.  In example one, the result of failing to climb the cliff wasn't to be caught at the overhang and asked what to do, it was failure to achieve the goal.  In the second, the result of failure wasn't to be caught at the overhang, but that no progress was made and suddenly you notice a rope and guide.  The goal is still obtainable.  In the third, the result of failure is no progress at the obstacle and an attempt to retry!  This, according to your above, should have just been granted because there's no actual consequence to failure.  You haven't changed the situation, because you've now asserted that the overhang is present in all three cases!So, to recap, failure in 1 is failure at goal.  Failure in 2 is addition of new fiction and the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable.  Failure in three is the ability to retry, goal is still obtainable.  I see nothing that isn't arbitrary here.Exactly.  This is all that goes into resolution.  However, when I presented a similar case where this wasn't established but skipped to the part where it's being operationalized in the mechanics with a DC and no dis/advantage, you called foul and insisted that this could not be established at all without an overall goal.  When I presented the goals, you dealt only at that layer, and didn't once step into establishing a DC, whether or not dis/advantage applied, or what the inputs of climbing ability means.To be 100% clear, I'm not saying you're doing a bad thing here -- this is a fine way to approach play.  I'm saying that it's not supported by the 5e rules in the way you're claiming!  Further, you're now arguing that you're 100% 5e RAW after starting this sideboard with the statement you have a radical reinterpretation of 5e!  Which cake are you trying to keep and eat?I missed it, then.  What was the answer?  You can just link it, or tell me what page it's on.  I've scrolled back, and I don't see any recent answers from you (on the last few pages) that actually address this.</blockquote>

Verification