Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8506510" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>The fundamental problem I see with your claims is that you 1) say that "no progress" alone is insufficient to call for an ability check and 2) you 100% embrace no progress alone as acceptable in your stated adjudications! </p><p></p><p>We get to 2) in case 3, where you have a 100' climb and state that the only cost for failing a check to climb a 100' cliff is loss of time. This means that the only consequence on the table for you is making no progress from the foot of the cliff, and spending 10 seconds each time you try to start and fail. You do not countenance any other consequence besides this -- there's no chance to fall from 10', 20', 90'. There's no risk to equipment. There's no risk of attracting attention. In your evaluation of this cliff, the only risk to the first 100' of climb is the time it takes. And yet, you contemplate that you can fail to climb this portion of cliff -- because you've shown that it can be failed in case 1!</p><p></p><p>This is incoherent. You cannot claim that no progress alone is insufficient to call for a check and then use that as the basis for determining that a climb can both be failed and that the result is no progress so that you can invoke the <em>multiple </em>checks section. Emphasis on <em>multiple</em>. That section, and the rule you quote, only applies for <em>retried </em>actions.</p><p></p><p>The entire basis for your claims and approach to adjudication is that "meaningful consequences" must obtain if any check is to be called for. You've further stated that "no progress" is insufficient alone -- that not making progress must be combined with something else meaningful to require a check. And, yet, here we are with no progress, and using that no progress to invoke the multiple ability checks rule for allowing a character to declare taking time sufficient so that there's no need to roll until success happens -- a table time saving construct, not a narrative one or one that determines consequence. You invoke this rule only AFTER determining a check is needed but that the consequence is just time to retry and that there's sufficient time to make that moot. It's still an ability check, though!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8506510, member: 16814"] The fundamental problem I see with your claims is that you 1) say that "no progress" alone is insufficient to call for an ability check and 2) you 100% embrace no progress alone as acceptable in your stated adjudications! We get to 2) in case 3, where you have a 100' climb and state that the only cost for failing a check to climb a 100' cliff is loss of time. This means that the only consequence on the table for you is making no progress from the foot of the cliff, and spending 10 seconds each time you try to start and fail. You do not countenance any other consequence besides this -- there's no chance to fall from 10', 20', 90'. There's no risk to equipment. There's no risk of attracting attention. In your evaluation of this cliff, the only risk to the first 100' of climb is the time it takes. And yet, you contemplate that you can fail to climb this portion of cliff -- because you've shown that it can be failed in case 1! This is incoherent. You cannot claim that no progress alone is insufficient to call for a check and then use that as the basis for determining that a climb can both be failed and that the result is no progress so that you can invoke the [I]multiple [/I]checks section. Emphasis on [I]multiple[/I]. That section, and the rule you quote, only applies for [I]retried [/I]actions. The entire basis for your claims and approach to adjudication is that "meaningful consequences" must obtain if any check is to be called for. You've further stated that "no progress" is insufficient alone -- that not making progress must be combined with something else meaningful to require a check. And, yet, here we are with no progress, and using that no progress to invoke the multiple ability checks rule for allowing a character to declare taking time sufficient so that there's no need to roll until success happens -- a table time saving construct, not a narrative one or one that determines consequence. You invoke this rule only AFTER determining a check is needed but that the consequence is just time to retry and that there's sufficient time to make that moot. It's still an ability check, though! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
Top