Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?

[johnbragg]

It's really not that hard.

Your advice is usually good, but this really wasn't useful.

[Kurald Galain]

Your advice is usually good, but this really wasn't useful.

She should have told us the DC for what Rhedyn's trying to do

[Troacctid]

Look, you're the DM. You're creating the campaign. You get to decide how hard you want things to be. There's guidance in the rules for which DCs correspond, approximately, to which difficulty levels. Use your DM powers and pick whichever you think is appropriate.

It's not like you aren't doing the same thing in 3.5, right? You decide how wide a gap is that the players might need to jump over. You decide how rough the water is that the players are swimming in. You decide how many ranks in Sense Motive the guard has when the player tries to lie to them, and what believability modifier to apply. This is something you're doing all the time. It's just part of DMing.

[johnbragg]

Look, you're the DM. You're creating the campaign. You get to decide how hard you want things to be. There's guidance in the rules for which DCs correspond, approximately, to which difficulty levels. Use your DM powers and pick whichever you think is appropriate.

It's not like you aren't doing the same thing in 3.5, right? You decide how wide a gap is that the players might need to jump over. You decide how rough the water is that the players are swimming in. You decide how many ranks in Sense Motive the guard has when the player tries to lie to them, and what believability modifier to apply. This is something you're doing all the time. It's just part of DMing.

That sounds more like Troacctid. When someone says something easy is hard, don't just say "no it's actually easy." I would have also accepted "If it's a DC 15 tree in 3rd edition, it's a DC 15 tree in 5th edition."

[Kurald Galain]

I would have also accepted "If it's a DC 15 tree in 3rd edition, it's a DC 15 tree in 5th edition."

An important difference is that in 3E, any highly agile or well-trained character will automatically make his check to climb this tree (even at first level), whereas in 5E only a high level rogue or bard can do that. Because of BA, DCs don't cross over well. And this is also why Luccan's / Grod's skill doubling is a good idea.

[Rhedyn]

That sounds more like Troacctid. When someone says something easy is hard, don't just say "no it's actually easy." I would have also accepted "If it's a DC 15 tree in 3rd edition, it's a DC 15 tree in 5th edition."

Making up a DC isn't hard.

It is antithetical to how I want to DM. I make challenges, the players surprise me in how they tackle then.

When I place a tree, it may be decorative. But a player may see climbing that tree as part of his master plan. I didn't intend climbing that tree to be easy, medium, or hard. It's just a part of the world. Me interjecting a "challenge" to climbing that tree sucks the fun out of that moment. It's not the characters abilities deciding if that plan was good, it's me the DM deciding if I want that to happen.

Not fun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Making up a DC isn't hard.

It is antithetical to how I want to DM. I make challenges, the players surprise me in how they tackle then.

When I place a tree, it may be decorative. But a player may see climbing that tree as part of his master plan. I didn't intend climbing that tree to be easy, medium, or hard. It's just a part of the world. Me interjecting a "challenge" to climbing that tree sucks the fun out of that moment. It's not the characters abilities deciding if that plan was good, it's me the DM deciding if I want that to happen.

Not fun.

That's kind of overthinking it, though? Like, you don't have to make up a DC that takes the entire plot into account. How hard is it to climb a tree? Not hard. DC 10. Boom, moving on. I'm still surprised by the player's choice.

I wonder if 5e DMs might not benefit from a default-DC rule: like, all normal checks default to DC 10, with the DM throwing in a 5-point ad-hoc modifier for exceptional circumstances. That way you get "A tree? Sure, roll for it" vs "A tree? Well, it's in the palace, so they probably cut it to make it hard to climb; DC 15, then."

(I also wonder how many 3.x DMs make extensive use of the example DCs, verses how many just make up numbers on the fly)

[johnbragg]

Making up a DC isn't hard.

It is antithetical to how I want to DM. I make challenges, the players surprise me in how they tackle then.

When I place a tree, it may be decorative. But a player may see climbing that tree as part of his master plan. I didn't intend climbing that tree to be easy, medium, or hard. It's just a part of the world. Me interjecting a "challenge" to climbing that tree sucks the fun out of that moment. It's not the characters abilities deciding if that plan was good, it's me the DM deciding if I want that to happen.

Not fun.

Then....don't roll. Say it's an easy enough tree to climb. Or if you need a DC, make your default DC 5. That way you can roll and feel the RAW I guess

[Troacctid]

Are there adequate handholds and footholds in the tree? Is it close enough to the wall that the player can brace against it, or far enough that a Jump check would be required to clear the distance between them? Is the surface slippery from a recent rainfall? You have to make these calls in 3.5 too.

[ashmanonar]

Ummm, the whole basis of "edition wars" is exactly people stating why they like editions over others.

Seriously. Just ASKING the question is grounds for banning on some forums because of the violence of edition wars.

[Jormengand]

(I also wonder how many 3.x DMs make extensive use of the example DCs, verses how many just make up numbers on the fly)

Since people keep coming back to this point: I'm in the former camp. I even use the example DCs to work out how hard unlisted things are, which is something which seems alien to the people who also tend to cry "Well the examples aren't exhaustive in 3.5 either!" (people, incidentally, who might absolutely not include you, I'm aware). If I have to decide how hard it is to sabotage a catapult, I'm probably going to decide that it's about as hard as sabotaging a wagon wheel and not about as hard as disabling a trap, so DC 15. If for some reason I'm DMing 5e, then I'll decide that it's... uh, wait, where's my 3.5 PHB... ah, here, and let's look at my conversion formula*... DC 10!

*DCs 5 or below stay the same, higher becomes (5+OLD_DC)/2.

EDIT: To be clear, it's not that I object to the DM making things up. Yes, you have to make up whether the wall has places to put your hands. You can decide "Yes, because it's an orcish wall and their style of architecture..." or "No, because the wall is carved from the natural face..." and there's a basis for the decision. There's no basis for "20. I've decided it's 20. Now roll". You should be able to tell how hard it is to climb a wall just from the wall's description, not from a description of the DM's mood.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Weirdly, the revised TOOL rules in Xanathar's are a quite GOOD example of how 5e should have presented skills from the beginning. For each tool, there are a few points on how they interact with other skills, a table of example DCs, and a couple unique things you can do with said skill, like making traps with Thief's Tools. There's enough to give you a firm grasp on things without being overwhelming.

I would love to see the designers put something like that in a future book, but given the release schedule that'll probably be in like 2025 or something. Maybe I should write some myself...

[johnbragg]

Weirdly, the revised TOOL rules in Xanathar's are a quite GOOD example of how 5e should have presented skills from the beginning.

It's almost as if, as people gain experience doing something, they get better at it.....

[Jormengand]

Weirdly, the revised TOOL rules in Xanathar's are a quite GOOD example of how 5e should have presented skills from the beginning. For each tool, there are a few points on how they interact with other skills, a table of example DCs, and a couple unique things you can do with said skill, like making traps with Thief's Tools. There's enough to give you a firm grasp on things without being overwhelming.

I would love to see the designers put something like that in a future book, but given the release schedule that'll probably be in like 2025 or something. Maybe I should write some myself...

I'll admit to having turned off 5e long before XGtE, but this does remind me of something I tried to do with 5e skills. There's a couple that I would change if I redid it now, but it's certainly something I'd like to have seen in the core rules.

[Rhedyn]

Then....don't roll. Say it's an easy enough tree to climb. Or if you need a DC, make your default DC 5. That way you can roll and feel the RAW I guess

That is still me dictating if the plan could work not the character's abilities. Both success and failure should hinge on what the character can do, not my made up decision on "if they need to roll" or "DC pulled from ass". That feels like me controlling the players and forcing them to only do what I expect. Not Fun.

And to someone else's point, I find default DCs where I can ignore a difficulty mod rule preferable. But even in such a mythical system (Savage Worlds) such a game has a table listed mods for climbing because that is a kind of skill that actually needs tad more depth. And such mods can make such rolls auto-success/fail. I don't decide if they can climb a tree, the character's abilities do.

[Scowling Dragon]

It's almost as if, as people gain experience doing something, they get better at it.....

It's like saying your cabdriver gained experience from that time they crashed into a wall after you paid them 120 bucks.
Its been 50 bloody years worth of experience with D&D and the state that 5e was released in was near downright SHAMEFUL.
I heard theories that Monte cook simply grabbed many of his ideas he had for 5e and then just took them to Numenera and that makes sense to me and Numenera wasn't that good anyway but it was FINISHED.

Its always easier to ignore guidelines then make up your own, and every time a guideline should have been in place was a weak handed "IOU one finished product" in the core books.

[Psyren]

Then....don't roll. Say it's an easy enough tree to climb. Or if you need a DC, make your default DC 5. That way you can roll and feel the RAW I guess

What if the player is carrying an unconscious ally over one shoulder, they're poisoned and cursed, and it's raining, but also they're a monk with a prehensile tail, belt of giant strength, and a pair of magic climbing gloves? A rules-heavy game gives you the tools to figure out what they need to roll, while a rules light would just tell you to eyeball it. Neither approach is wrong, but I know which one I'd pay money for, and it isn't the latter. I can eyeball things without any real rules just fine for free.

[Quertus]

As for the specific "flavor" of D&D... hmm. The Race/Class structure. Hit points, sans death spiral. Distinct damage rolls involving lots of different die types. Vancean casting, or at least that framework. Resource management as a significant element of the challenge. Familiar names on races, classes, spells, and so on. Binary win/lose conditions. d20+X skill checks. Attacks of opportunity making for somewhat sticky combat. Lots of exotic monsters, as opposed to largely humanoid opponents. Multiple fights in short order. Traps. Demons. Dungeons. Dragons.

I strongly agree with the bolded parts. The others I could give or take. But the binary win/loss condition, in particular, is something I usually try to house rule away.

I'd argue that whether or not it's a net-gain over 3.0/3.5 is pretty subjective.

One big downside in 2E that I always used to complain about is that your aptitude in an NWP is wholly tied to your ability score. There's no way at all to represent a character using practice and experience to increase their level of skill. So if you have a 10 Intelligence, your chance to smith a weapon is always and forever going to be 50% (plus or minus the appropriate modifier). A veteran blacksmith is going to have exactly the same likelihood to succeed at the same task as his apprentice if their ability scores are the same.

On the other hand, 3rd Edition's application of skill points and feats offers a remedy to this problem, and allows you to simulate characters with natural talent vs practice and experience.

...I swear it was... but I don't have my old books within reach to check.
Although I never ran a 2E game, just played them with a group back in middle school.
Was it a common thing for tables to house-rule in their own NWP's?

Skills & Powers gave 2e the "skill improvement by practice & experience" that you're talking about.

And, no, custom NWPs were not common in my experience.

True. Well, technically you could spend a second slot to increase your skill, but since that increase was only +1 nobody ever did that;

Quertus, my signature character, for whom this account is named, did that. He was just that good at Spellcraft.

Character's with sane players did not do that. It was ridiculously suboptimal.

It's really not that hard.

Look, you're the DM. You're creating the campaign. You get to decide how hard you want things to be. There's guidance in the rules for which DCs correspond, approximately, to which difficulty levels. Use your DM powers and pick whichever you think is appropriate.

It's not like you aren't doing the same thing in 3.5, right? You decide how wide a gap is that the players might need to jump over. You decide how rough the water is that the players are swimming in. You decide how many ranks in Sense Motive the guard has when the player tries to lie to them, and what believability modifier to apply. This is something you're doing all the time. It's just part of DMing.

That's kind of overthinking it, though? Like, you don't have to make up a DC that takes the entire plot into account. How hard is it to climb a tree? Not hard. DC 10. Boom, moving on. I'm still surprised by the player's choice.

I wonder if 5e DMs might not benefit from a default-DC rule: like, all normal checks default to DC 10, with the DM throwing in a 5-point ad-hoc modifier for exceptional circumstances. That way you get "A tree? Sure, roll for it" vs "A tree? Well, it's in the palace, so they probably cut it to make it hard to climb; DC 15, then."

(I also wonder how many 3.x DMs make extensive use of the example DCs, verses how many just make up numbers on the fly)

Since people keep coming back to this point: I'm in the former camp. I even use the example DCs to work out how hard unlisted things are, which is something which seems alien to the people who also tend to cry "Well the examples aren't exhaustive in 3.5 either!" (people, incidentally, who might absolutely not include you, I'm aware). If I have to decide how hard it is to sabotage a catapult, I'm probably going to decide that it's about as hard as sabotaging a wagon wheel and not about as hard as disabling a trap, so DC 15. If for some reason I'm DMing 5e, then I'll decide that it's... uh, wait, where's my 3.5 PHB... ah, here, and let's look at my conversion formula*... DC 10!

*DCs 5 or below stay the same, higher becomes (5+OLD_DC)/2.

EDIT: To be clear, it's not that I object to the DM making things up. Yes, you have to make up whether the wall has places to put your hands. You can decide "Yes, because it's an orcish wall and their style of architecture..." or "No, because the wall is carved from the natural face..." and there's a basis for the decision. There's no basis for "20. I've decided it's 20. Now roll". You should be able to tell how hard it is to climb a wall just from the wall's description, not from a description of the DM's mood.

Here's my take on this.

When I run a game, I want the players to be able to tell me what the DC of the wall is, based on my description. And, if my description isn't adequate, for them to be able to play "20 questions" with the GM to answer that question. I, personally, don't want to have to spend my time looking up that table in the middle of the game - I want the player with the plan to climb things to be able to handle that. I just want to develop my GM skills, and learn to provide the required information without playing 20 questions.

Also, for all the many, many people I've gamed with, I would trust exactly one of them to do a good job creating DCs on the fly. That person isn't me. But I trust a lot more of those GMs to be able to answer questions about wall composition, hand holds, moisture, etc.

So, in short, IMO, it really is that hard, especially so long as it taxes the GM rather than the players, even before taking into account GM favoritism or inconsistency between GMs, or other things that can mess with the math.

[Knaight]

An important difference is that in 3E, any highly agile or well-trained character will automatically make his check to climb this tree (even at first level), whereas in 5E only a high level rogue or bard can do that. Because of BA, DCs don't cross over well. And this is also why Luccan's / Grod's skill doubling is a good idea.

The actual numerical mapping of descriptors to numbers in the 5e DC table is abject garbage. I suspect it's abject garbage precisely because of some combination of direct porting 3e difficulties (they changed the top of the scale) and building around the rogue and bard.

When I place a tree, it may be decorative. But a player may see climbing that tree as part of his master plan. I didn't intend climbing that tree to be easy, medium, or hard. It's just a part of the world. Me interjecting a "challenge" to climbing that tree sucks the fun out of that moment. It's not the characters abilities deciding if that plan was good, it's me the DM deciding if I want that to happen.

There's absolutely no reason that you picking a difficulty is you deciding if you want that to happen. You're quantifying an existing description, just do that without considering what you want to happen at all.

Its always easier to ignore guidelines then make up your own, and every time a guideline should have been in place was a weak handed "IOU one finished product" in the core books.

The more stuff there is in a book, the harder it is to find things in a book. Those easily ignored guidelines slow every single book reference. Their presence is also generally indicative of a certain style of rigid design, which communicates that rigidity to players and affects how they play.

So, in short, IMO, it really is that hard, especially so long as it taxes the GM rather than the players, even before taking into account GM favoritism or inconsistency between GMs, or other things that can mess with the math.

The difficulty of a GMing task is GM dependent for basically any GMing task. It may be that hard for you - but for a whole host of GMs (myself included), it's easy and intuitive in a way that dealing with tables just isn't.

[Pex]

Look, you're the DM. You're creating the campaign. You get to decide how hard you want things to be. There's guidance in the rules for which DCs correspond, approximately, to which difficulty levels. Use your DM powers and pick whichever you think is appropriate.

It's not like you aren't doing the same thing in 3.5, right? You decide how wide a gap is that the players might need to jump over. You decide how rough the water is that the players are swimming in. You decide how many ranks in Sense Motive the guard has when the player tries to lie to them, and what believability modifier to apply. This is something you're doing all the time. It's just part of DMing.

Yes, but then in 3E you are given example tables to set the DCs for the parameters you provide. You don't have to concern yourself about the numbers. You are also not required to memorize all the tables. You can have the book open to the skill section for easy reference when necessary. Sometimes the player who wants to do the task can look up the DC while you as DM go on to the next player for what he wants to do. Particular skill uses that get repeated over and over will eventually be memorized by osmosis. These will often be formulas, such as identifying a spell being cast is Spellcraft DC 15 + spell level. When the rogue likes to climb dungeon walls a lot you'll remember it's DC 20 for generic walls. If you have to make something up on the spot, the DC is right there for you.

In 5E you're continuously doing math in your head coming up with numbers. Is it easy? Is it hard? Is a roll necessary? Personal bias may come in. Even though admittedly it would be against 5E rules and not the game's fault, it can't be helped that some DMs will assign separate difficulty based on which PC is doing the task and/or is proficient. Following the rules, after 3 real world hours coming up with numbers you can become exhausted. Eventually you grow tired of thinking up numbers and base success on dumb luck. If the player rolls high he succeeds. If he rolls low he fails. If it's in the middle then you bother yourself coming up with a DC or go with your mood at the moment or consider which PC is doing the task, is the character proficient or not, etc. Then if I as a player choose to play in another campaign with a different DM, everything goes out the window because what was easy, hard, can't roll, no need to roll for his game will be different than the other game, and I'll never know what the case it until the situation comes up by which time it's too late if it mattered on which skills I chose proficiency for the bonus to that particular skill. I don't know what my character can do when creating him. In 3E, I know as long as I have a +5 modifier in climb I can climb any generic tree when not in combat, and it doesn't matter who the DM is.

[Quertus]

The difficulty of a GMing task is GM dependent for basically any GMing task. It may be that hard for you - but for a whole host of GMs (myself included), it's easy and intuitive in a way that dealing with tables just isn't.

Yes, it is GM dependent. Only one GM I've played with would I trust to create DCs on the fly successfully without it being a source of problems at the table. So, IME, that's probably less than 1% of DMs who can do so.

Thus, my statement that it really is that hard.

[Scowling Dragon]

In 5E you're continuously doing math in your head coming up with numbers. Is it easy? Is it hard? Is a roll necessary? Personal bias may come in.

I think thats a weak way of putting it despite me hating what 5e does as well.

In a sense your always doing numbers anyway and Gms always have a personal bais. But at least guidelines give good ideas what to bounce off of and what to change.

For instance when playing 5e I liked playing a huge stompy guy and I asked what the difficulty of smashing through walls would be and the GM kinda just ended up fudging it but none of us felt satisfied. I didn't because nothing I did was reliable, and the GM didn't because there wasn't even a quick guideline he could change IE:
"Oh the wood would usually be 20 but in this case its actually reinforced with iron bars so its 25"

[Luccan]

What if the player is carrying an unconscious ally over one shoulder, they're poisoned and cursed, and it's raining, but also they're a monk with a prehensile tail, belt of giant strength, and a pair of magic climbing gloves? A rules-heavy game gives you the tools to figure out what they need to roll, while a rules light would just tell you to eyeball it. Neither approach is wrong, but I know which one I'd pay money for, and it isn't the latter. I can eyeball things without any real rules just fine for free.

So, first off, you listed things that don't automatically have rules in the majority of games: A prehensile tail and how, exactly, carrying an unconscious person effects you (beyond rules of whether or not your strength is high enough). Then, you've given things that have definitive mechanical impact, even in 5e: belt of giant strength, poison, a curse. "magic climbing gloves" probably do too, though you didn't give an actual ability or benefit they give: they're just magic. You've also listed something unnecessary: In both 3.x and 5e, being a monk means nothing when you attempt to climb.

So first, the list of things a player would already know are effecting your character, so the DM shouldn't have to remind them when they make the check:

1. Their own proficiency bonus, relevant attribute bonus, and whether they have, let's say, Athletics proficiency.

2. Let's assume it's a basic poison: they took damage and have the poisoned condition: Disadvantage on ability checks (like those needed to climb)

3. Whether the curse is relevant will vary. 5e curses aren't all -2 to saves or -5 to all rolls. It could grant Disadvantage to this check, but Disadvantage doesn't stack: it essentially does nothing. Let's go with this PHB option, then: Make a Wisdom save at the start of each turn until the curse ends. If you fail, you do nothing that turn.

4. Assume a Belt of Hill Giant Strength. In 5e, that means their Strength is 21 (which also means they can almost certainly carry their buddy). No other effects

5. Magic Climbing Gloves. Hmm, I'm not super familiar with 5e magic items and this isn't really specific, so let's say it grants advantage on Athletics checks to climb and a flat bonus to those checks of +5.

6. Whether or not your tail is remotely relevant. I honestly don't know what to tell you, it is a failing of the system they don't have rules for prehensile tails.

Here's what you, as DM, need to know:

1. Your DC for climbing trees (let's say it's generally 10).

2. Whether rain and carrying someone makes the DC higher (let's say by 5 each) or grants disadvantage (which won't matter in this instance, since advantage/disadvantage doesn't stack and they cancel out)

So the player rolls a Wis save to see if they don't act this turn and if they succeed, they make a check, adding 10 (strength bonus and climbing gloves) + their proficiency bonus, if relevant, against a DC 20.

So, as the DM, all you need to know is your own DCs and whether you'll adjust the DC or give disadvantage on the check.

[death390]

~snip~

meanwhile in 3.5 land.
1. skill modifer
2. see temp attribute score modifier (as seen on most all character sheets)
3. see temp attribute score modifier
4. probably added under actual modifier (since most people do that with major items rather than temp score them), and weight limits (2nd page near gear section)
5. probably added to skill modifier under misc modifier.
6. i think that 3.5 had a rule for that somewhere in races of the wild. and if your char has a prehensile tail that adds a modifier you probably checked the rules for it ahead of time. if not RoW is best bet to look for the rules on it. EDIT: actually savage species prehensile tail feat +2 grapple/climb checks in addition to be able to wield a weapon. which would be added under misc modifiers.

3.5 land DC tables
1. base DC of 15.
2. + 5 for slippery (nothing for carrying beyond encumbrance penalty if any)
so DC 20 vs d20+ skill modifier + attribute difference between base modifier and temp modifier + encumbrance penalty + armor check penalty (or if smart added it to skills as misc modifier already)

[Luccan]

meanwhile in 3.5 land.
1. skill modifer
2. see temp attribute score modifier (as seen on most all character sheets)
3. see temp attribute score modifier
4. probably added under actual modifier (since most people do that with major items rather than temp score them), and weight limits (2nd page near gear section)
5. probably added to skill modifier under misc modifier.
6. i think that 3.5 had a rule for that somewhere in races of the wild. and if your char has a prehensile tail that adds a modifier you probably checked the rules for it ahead of time. if not RoW is best bet to look for the rules on it. EDIT: actually savage species prehensile tail feat +2 grapple/climb checks in addition to be able to wield a weapon. which would be added under misc modifiers.

3.5 land DC tables
1. base DC of 15.
2. + 5 for slippery (nothing for carrying beyond encumbrance penalty if any)
so DC 20 vs d20+ skill modifier + attribute difference between base modifier and temp modifier + encumbrance penalty + armor check penalty (or if smart added it to skills as misc modifier already)

To be clear, I have little against how 3.5 does skills (no more than how 5e does it). I was just illustrating that, at worst, you need a tree climbing DC and to decide how those effects without rules apply, if at all. The implication was that the factors listed somehow throw weird modifiers on the DC, which shouldn't be the case for most of them. Although I can't think of a 3.5 game I've played where carrying a person while climbing wouldn't rate some kind of penalty for anyone with only two arms.

Actually, my biggest problem with 5e skills (all 5e rolls, really) is the advantage/disadvantage system. The common example is a fight between two blind men, which as far as the rules are concerned, works the same as a fight between two men that can see (they both have disadvantage on attack rolls, but since the opponent is blind, they have advantage against them. The effects cancel out). On top of that, there's the fact that carrying a full-grown person one-handed up a tree in the rain rates no more penalty than just climbing it in the rain (assuming you use disadvantage rather than raising the DC).

[death390]

To be clear, I have little against how 3.5 does skills (no more than how 5e does it). I was just illustrating that, at worst, you need a tree climbing DC and to decide how those effects without rules apply, if at all. The implication was that the factors listed somehow throw weird modifiers on the DC, which shouldn't be the case for most of them. Although I can't think of a 3.5 game I've played where carrying a person while climbing wouldn't rate some kind of penalty for anyone with only two arms.

Actually, my biggest problem with 5e skills (all 5e rolls, really) is the advantage/disadvantage system. The common example is a fight between two blind men, which as far as the rules are concerned, works the same as a fight between two men that can see (they both have disadvantage on attack rolls, but since the opponent is blind, they have advantage against them. The effects cancel out). On top of that, there's the fact that carrying a full-grown person one-handed up a tree in the rain rates no more penalty than just climbing it in the rain (assuming you use disadvantage rather than raising the DC).

ah my mistake i misread your intent. i mean yeah like you said in the attempt to simplify everything they went too far. advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, ect. the thing about the modifiers is the fact that 3.5 has a more comprehensive listing of bonuses/ demerits for skills than 5e which enable you to more accurately asses the DC as intended. that doesn't mean that it couldn't be easier/harder than listed.

balancing on ice is hard and all but if the ice isn't smooth because the dragon has left gouges and groves in it that help with footing it would be slightly easier. i will also admit that there are conflicting things within the books. like Identifying magic items; MIC p 217 states that when identifying an items aura with detect magic rolling 10+ above the check identifies the item (25+spell level basically), but epic spellcraft checks put that at DC 50.


also for the carrying while climbing bit it depends on how you are climbing/carrying. if you have a climb speed its no different than walking, more than 2 arms use 1 to carry the person (technically prehensile tail could carry for them?), don't carry them lash them to your back, ect.

[Pex]

So, first off, you listed things that don't automatically have rules in the majority of games: A prehensile tail and how, exactly, carrying an unconscious person effects you (beyond rules of whether or not your strength is high enough). Then, you've given things that have definitive mechanical impact, even in 5e: belt of giant strength, poison, a curse. "magic climbing gloves" probably do too, though you didn't give an actual ability or benefit they give: they're just magic. You've also listed something unnecessary: In both 3.x and 5e, being a monk means nothing when you attempt to climb.

So first, the list of things a player would already know are effecting your character, so the DM shouldn't have to remind them when they make the check:

1. Their own proficiency bonus, relevant attribute bonus, and whether they have, let's say, Athletics proficiency.

2. Let's assume it's a basic poison: they took damage and have the poisoned condition: Disadvantage on ability checks (like those needed to climb)

3. Whether the curse is relevant will vary. 5e curses aren't all -2 to saves or -5 to all rolls. It could grant Disadvantage to this check, but Disadvantage doesn't stack: it essentially does nothing. Let's go with this PHB option, then: Make a Wisdom save at the start of each turn until the curse ends. If you fail, you do nothing that turn.

4. Assume a Belt of Hill Giant Strength. In 5e, that means their Strength is 21 (which also means they can almost certainly carry their buddy). No other effects

5. Magic Climbing Gloves. Hmm, I'm not super familiar with 5e magic items and this isn't really specific, so let's say it grants advantage on Athletics checks to climb and a flat bonus to those checks of +5.

6. Whether or not your tail is remotely relevant. I honestly don't know what to tell you, it is a failing of the system they don't have rules for prehensile tails.

Here's what you, as DM, need to know:

1. Your DC for climbing trees (let's say it's generally 10).

2. Whether rain and carrying someone makes the DC higher (let's say by 5 each) or grants disadvantage (which won't matter in this instance, since advantage/disadvantage doesn't stack and they cancel out)

So the player rolls a Wis save to see if they don't act this turn and if they succeed, they make a check, adding 10 (strength bonus and climbing gloves) + their proficiency bonus, if relevant, against a DC 20.

So, as the DM, all you need to know is your own DCs and whether you'll adjust the DC or give disadvantage on the check.

That's the problem, right there. You're saying "let's say". Why is it "let's say"? It's "let's say" because you are making it up. What makes it DC 10? Why not DC 15? Why not DC 5? Why not you never have to roll to climb a tree under normal circumstances? The DC is depending on who is DM that day.

Does the rain increase the DC or impose disadvantage? If it increase the DC why was it +5? Why not +2? It depends on who is DM that day.

If it was 3E the DC would be 15 by the table. Player references his climb skill modifier to start. Then the fiddly bits come into play. The effect of the poison and curse would specifically say what penalty to the roll they apply. The magic items specifically say what bonus to the roll they apply. Rain makes the tree slippery, +5 DC. For carrying someone that's where DM adjudication can come in. I'm not intending to advocate a DM should never use his judgment. The rules cannot account for every possible instance of anything, but that's no excuse for not having anything it at all and leave it up to DM fiat for everything. In this case the DM may say carrying someone on their back doesn't matter or apply the "DM's best friend" rule and apply a -2 circumstance penalty to the roll.

[Luccan]

That's the problem, right there. You're saying "let's say". Why is it "let's say"? It's "let's say" because you are making it up. What makes it DC 10? Why not DC 15? Why not DC 5? Why not you never have to roll to climb a tree under normal circumstances? The DC is depending on who is DM that day.

Does the rain increase the DC or impose disadvantage? If it increase the DC why was it +5? Why not +2? It depends on who is DM that day.

If it was 3E the DC would be 15 by the table. Player references his climb skill modifier to start. Then the fiddly bits come into play. The effect of the poison and curse would specifically say what penalty to the roll they apply. The magic items specifically say what bonus to the roll they apply. Rain makes the tree slippery, +5 DC. For carrying someone that's where DM adjudication can come in. I'm not intending to advocate a DM should never use his judgment. The rules cannot account for every possible instance of anything, but that's no excuse for not having anything it at all and leave it up to DM fiat for everything. In this case the DM may say carrying someone on their back doesn't matter or apply the "DM's best friend" rule and apply a -2 circumstance penalty to the roll.

See, this is the thing, you're caught up in this imaginary table where not only does the DM switch every session, it isn't even from the same group of people. This is why you have a problem with made up DCs. If you had a DM in 3.5 who made the DCs up but was consistent, would you even notice? Would you just assume there were factors at play you weren't aware of? Yes you have to make up a DC. We all know that. It just doesn't bother some of us.

[Knaight]

Yes, it is GM dependent. Only one GM I've played with would I trust to create DCs on the fly successfully without it being a source of problems at the table. So, IME, that's probably less than 1% of DMs who can do so.

Thus, my statement that it really is that hard.

I'd trust almost every GM I've ever met with the task. I think this says more about your preferences than the difficulty.

[Jormengand]

I'm just imagining trying to play a truenamer-equivalent with the 5e skill system.

"Speed of the Zephyr? That sounds like a hard utterance to me."