Developing Example Skill DCs for 5e

[Mongobear]

Spawned from a 30 page discussion starting here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...the-hate-on-5e

I have started this thread where the pro-DC Examples side can discuss this topic and develop a fitting way to measure the differences in what Easy/Medium/Hard/etc actually means, in the context of narrating why the DM chose that DC.

Hopefully, this will grow to encompass the entire skill system of 5e for those of us that actually want this sort of a guide

I foresee needing several things in order to accurately develop these tables.

1) Examples of activities from each Skill that can be empyrically shown to be more/less difficult than others.

2) A unified way to determine what to measure those DCs with, and categorize them. Whether that means sticking to the current 5/10/15/20 table, or ranking them in a new way that intuitively follows Bounded Accuracy in a way similar to AC vs Attack Modifiers.

3) Differentiating examples that, while relevant, are more in the realm of Advantage/Disadvantage than its own tier of DCs compared to the rest.

NOTE - This topic is aimed at those of us that actually want something like this. It is not asking whether it's needed, that is the purpose of the thread that spawned this. Please direct any "5e is fine, this is unneeded" discussion to the parent thread.

Suggestions are welcome to develop this into a fully formed system.

[AdAstra]

My personal preference for DC tables, when they exist, is for them to be as comprehensive as as feasible. In all but the most obscure situations, a DM should be able to look at the table, and with nothing more than basic addition/ subtraction (as well as multiplying x2, which is nearly as simple), be able to construct a DC for that scenario. IE not just suggested DCs, but a meaningful way to synthesize those dcs in a variety of situations.

What would also be critical, is describing what sort of circumstances should not require a roll at all. As an example, climbing in this edition is automatic if unless the climb is notably difficult to begin with, so talking about when a check is NOT needed will be just as important as deciding what the DC should be.

Another good idea would be to set a cohesive standard for what degree of fantasy we are going for. Do we want to make it such that a commoner represents a “normal” untrained human? Or do we want a more mythical standard.

EDIT: Okay, climbing was a very common example in the previous thread, so let me knock out a preliminary table that I think makes sense. Sorry about the formatting, currently on mobile.

Base DC

If the final DC is 0 or less, there is no reason to roll for most player characters.

DC 0- surface was specifically designed to be climbed on easily, or has large handholds and ledges to grab and comfortably stand on, or anything that you can grab the top of without jumping. Ladders, ship’s rigging, trees with large branches easily reached by the climber, book cases, a small fence, or cliff faces with many large slablike protrusions.

DC 5- The surface has densely-packed handholds or crevices to hold or stand on, large handholds, or anything you can jump, grab the top of, and pull yourself on to. Trees with widely spaced or small branches at your level, a hanging rope ladder or knotted rope, rock faces with lots of cracks, small ledges, and significant outcrops, or a surface with a rope to pull yourself up with.

DC 10- The surface has small or sparse protrusions that can be grabbed and stood on, and/or other rough surfaces to brace against or wrap around with one's arms and legs. If both apply, then use DC 5 instead. Particularly ornate buildings, large wooden fences, trees with no branches, a cliff face with a good amount of cracks and outcrops, or a hanging unknotted rope.

DC 15- The surface has sparse, small protrusions, or can be grabbed but not stood upon. If both are available, then use DC 10 instead. The sides of most houses, climbing up a pole, wrought iron fences and gates, trees with no branches and smooth bark, or a stone cliff face with occasional small cracks and outcrops.

DC 20- The surface is uneven, with surface imperfections and small divots, but few to no protrusions to grab. A massive boulder or a wall of mortared stones, or the hide of a giant creature.

DC 25- Flat, rough-textured vertical surfaces cannot normally be climbed. Only use this DC if the surface is sloped away from the bottom.

DC 30- Perfectly smooth vertical surfaces cannot normally be climbed. Only use this DC if the surface is sloped away from the bottom.

One can create handholds or crevices in a surface with the proper equipment, like ice axes and crampons.

This assumes a vertical surface, but if not, apply one of the following:

Subtract 10 if the surface slopes more than 45 degrees from vertical away from the bottom.

Subtract 5 if the surface slopes heavily away from the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Subtract 2 if the surface slopes slightly away from the bottom (15 degrees from vertical or less)

Add 2 if the surface slopes slightly over the bottom (15 degrees from vertical or less)

Add 5 if the surface slopes heavily over the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical). If the surface has no handholds, it cannot be climbed.

Add 10 if the surface is sloped more than 45 degrees from vertical over the bottom, including if they are holding on the bottom of a horizontal surface. Surfaces of this slope with no handholds at all cannot be climbed.

Use all that apply:

Add 5 if the surface is slippery.

Add 2 if the surface is swaying, rocking, or otherwise unstable, like a moving creature, a swinging mast, a shaky bookcase or ladder, or a pile of unconnected objects. Add 5 if this instability is particularly extreme.

Add 5 if the surface is painful to the touch, such as sun-baked stone or frigid ice. This penalty can be ignored if the climber has adequate protection, such as gloves or Protection from Energy. If the surface is actively damaging, instead use the Taking Damage rules below

Add 5 if the climber attempts to move further than their speed on their turn, such as by Dashing.

Subtract 5 if the climber is going down a rope or pole.

Subtract 5 if the climber moves no more than 5 feet on each of their turns, and does not move outside their turn.

Taking Damage And Forced Movement If a creature takes damage or is subjected to forced movement while climbing, they must make a check equal to the climb DC+5 or lose their grip. A creature cannot be forced to make this check more than once before the start of their next turn.

Climbing For Multiple Turns Generally, if a creature succeeds on a climb check, they can continue to climb the same surface on subsequent turns without making further checks as long as conditions do not change, such as the climber's speed or the climbing surface. More checks may be warranted for particularly long climbs, or if conditions suddenly change.

[Mongobear]

My personal preference for DC tables, when they exist, is for them to be as comprehensive as as feasible. In all but the most obscure situations, a DM should be able to look at the table, and with nothing more than basic addition/ subtraction (as well as multiplying x2, which is nearly as simple), be able to construct a DC for that scenario. IE not just suggested DCs, but a meaningful way to synthesize those dcs in a variety of situations.

While this was one part from the old thread that I disagreed with you on, as it is likely impossible to categorize EVERY thing a player could use a skill, I believe there is a spot somewhere between "Enough DCs for a workable example and DC'S FOR THE DC GOD!!!"

What would also be critical, is describing what sort of circumstances should not require a roll at all. As an example, climbing in this edition is automatic if unless the climb is notably difficult to begin with, so talking about when a check is NOT needed will be just as important as deciding what the DC should be.

This is important as well. From the old thread, I linked an example table from 3.5e's PHB, it actually had a listing for "Doing this sort of thing is Impossible."

At the same time, I was considering that "Don't Roll" rules for auto-success could fall under a more encompassing method of PASSIVE SKILLS. Which means, if you are not under duress and there is no consequences for failure, you auto-pass DCs equal to 10 + Your Skill modifier.

Another good idea would be to set a cohesive standard for what degree of fantasy we are going for. Do we want to make it such that a commoner represents a “normal” untrained human? Or do we want a more mythical standard.

This I big too. I think the Standard for comparison, should be a level 1 Adventurer that's skilled at the Activity, and has his stats arranged to maximise it.

Assuming standard Array, and no Feats, our "measuring stick" should be an Adventurer with a +5 to the skill (+3 Stat mod +2 Proficiency). Not only will that fit the 5 point breakpoints, it also makes every skill easily measurable.

My reasoning is as follows--The game world doesn't (usually) have NPCs making skill checks. They're a narrative device, if the DM was his Commoners climbing a tree, they Climb a tree. If he wants the same Commoner to counterfeit Gold pieces, he does it.

The DCs relative differences should represent the people actually rolling for them, Adventurers.

[Tanarii]

How about seeing if you can provide a table for one of the most commonly used examples to start, Climbing? That should establish if the concept is feasible at all, since in theory it should be one of the simplest to provide a table that isn't wildly situational and require constant DM judgement for an individual thing being climbed.

I'll pull from the d20 SRD as a possible basis, but feel free to disregard. Note "no roll" should be valid.

Climbing:
- A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against
- A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell.
- A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging.
- Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.
- An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon or ruins.
- A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.
- An overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds.
- A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface

These were modifiers in the original table, but instead could be prerequisite to roll at all or incorporated as (possibly more than one) separate entry.
- Climbing a chimney (artificial or natural) or other location where you can brace against two opposite walls
- Climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls
- Surface is slippery

[Spriteless]

Heh, maybe 2 tables, one where the PCs are specialized regular schlubs, one where PCs are mythic. Or, just make everything one category easier for mythic.

[Mongobear]

I'll pull from the d20 SRD as a possible basis, but feel free to disregard. Note "no roll" should be valid.

Climbing
*TABLE*

Lol, this is the exact example I used in the original thread.

I was planning to use it again as a base example once we got into an agreement of where to take this.

Heh, maybe 2 tables, one where the PCs are specialized regular schlubs, one where PCs are mythic. Or, just make everything one category easier for mythic.

5e PCs aren't "regular schlubs, they the limits of Human capacity.

They're Hawkeye compared to Billy Bob who enjoys Bow Hunting.

They're Black Widow compared to a Gymnast.

Similar skillset, but a measurable magnitude of difference. And the key factor, is that PCs aren't under DM control, the NPCs do things because the DM says they do, they don't roll unless it's a contest.

[AdAstra]

By the way, in case someone missed it, I added a proposed climb table in my initial response. It lacks a detailed “when not to roll” section, but I think it might be pretty good. What do you think?

[Mongobear]

By the way, in case someone missed it, I added a proposed climb table in my initial response. It lacks a detailed “when not to roll” section, but I think it might be pretty good. What do you think?

I think your examples are fine, but the base numbers might be slightly low.

Using the other table from 3.5e, I thinks a more accurate target.

For DC modifiers, assuming we don't just use Advantage/Disadvantage for this sort of thing, I propose a simple system of +/-2 and +/-5 similar to how AC is modified by Cover. This will keep Modifier bloat contained in a reasonable fashion, and not become an unreasonable task to figure out.

If a check would have multiple instances of the same direction, use the Highest and apply (Dis)Advantage.

[AdAstra]

I think your examples are fine, but the base numbers might be slightly low.

Using the other table from 3.5e, I thinks a more accurate target.

For DC modifiers, assuming we don't just use Advantage/Disadvantage for this sort of thing, I propose a simple system of +/-2 and +/-5 similar to how AC is modified by Cover. This will keep Modifier bloat contained in a reasonable fashion, and not become an unreasonable task to figure out.

If a check would have multiple instances of the same direction, use the Highest and apply (Dis)Advantage.

How so? I don't see how someone could fail to climb a ladder in the absence of difficulties.

I want most climbs to be trivial, that's kinda the point. A character with -1 Str and no proficiency (ie, a weakling), will fail while climbing a (unknotted) rope 50% of the time (I didn't differentiate between failing to make progress and falling, but they'll fail by 5 or more 25% of the time). A character with Athletics proficiency and +3 Str will still fail 20% of the time, which I already find annoyingly high. If it was any harder it would just be silly. I want players to be able to actually take advantage of verticality in the environment, not feel like the Three Stooges.

Also, I agree on the situational modifers taking the form of +2/5, so I changed that part, though I kept the -10 from the slope. +2/5/10 should be perfectly fine.

[Mongobear]

How so? I don't see how someone could fail to climb a ladder in the absence of difficulties.

I want most climbs to be trivial, that's kinda the point. A character with -1 Str and no proficiency (ie, a weakling), will fail while climbing a (unknotted) rope 50% of the time (I didn't differentiate between failing to make progress and falling, but they'll fail by 5 or more 25% of the time). A character with Athletics proficiency and +3 Str will still fail 20% of the time, which I already find annoyingly high. If it was any harder it would just be silly. I want players to be able to actually take advantage of verticality in the environment, not feel like the Three Stooges.

It comes down to my previous post, changing the baseline "measuring stick" and building DCs based on the things making the rolls (PCs), not a Narrative device that shouldn't even roll to begin with (NPCs).

Technically, I misspoke before, I don't think they're too low, at least not entirely. Just based on the previous topics standard--an Unskilled Commoner.

I think changing our basis of comparison between Easy/Medium/Hard/etc should be a Skilled Proficient Adventurer, as well as expanding the Passive Skill Checks system to everything.

My following replies assume this metric.

Base DC

DC 0- surface was specifically designed to be climbed on easily, or has large handholds and ledges to grab or stand on. Ladders, ship’s rigging, trees with large branches fairly close, book cases, or cliff faces with large slablike protrusions.

I would make the "minimum" DC 5, as our Standard at minimum passes that automatically without other modifier and/or disadvantage.

However, as not every PC with be our metric, it should still be possible to fail extremely simple climbs, just rare. Accidents happen after all.

DC 5- The surface has many small handholds or crevices to hold or stand on, or is narrow enough to reach one’s arms around. Trees with small or no branches at your level, fences, a knotted rope, cliff faces with cracks and small outcrops.

Other than bumping by +5 like I mentioned, most of these look fine.

(Fence--a short wooden fence around a pasture, or a 6ft wrought iron fence around a wealthy building/graveyard? I'd consider these different categories.)

DC 10- The surface has sparse protrusions, or parts one can grab with their hands but not stand on. The side of a house, an unknotted rope or pole, or a stone cliff face with occasional small outcrops.

Same +5 DC comment

Otherwise these seem good.

The house likely would have modifiers based on material.

Also, a few could probably bumped a category.


WHERE'S THE 15 TIER?!?!?

DC 20- The surface is uneven, with surface imperfections and small divots, but no protrusions to grab. A massive boulder or a wall of mortared stones, or the hide of a giant creature

This is where you start using somewhat accurate to my baseline changing.

A few could be lowered to 15, if it existed.

Also, climbing creatures is covered in the DMG under the "Expanded Combat Options" section, it's a contested Athletics check, so not covered by this project.

DC 30- The surface is perfectly smooth.

This should be flat out impossible, non-roll territory, assuming perfectly vertical and no modifiers.

If sloped enough like a slide, it can be modified to the nigh-impossible/very hard depending on degree of angle.

One can create handholds or crevices in a surface with the proper tools, like ice axes and crampons.

This likely falls in Tools modifying checks, or would just be Advantage.

This assumes a vertical surface, but if not apply one of the following:

Always start at DC 0 if the surface slopes more than 30 degrees from vertical away from the bottom

Subtract 10 if the surface slopes heavily away from the bottom (>30 degrees from vertical)

Subtract 5 if the surface slopes slightly away from the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Add 5 if the surface slopes slightly over the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Add 10 if the surface slopes heavily over the bottom (> 30 degrees from vertical). If the surface has easy handholds, like a ladder, then only add 5.

Add 15 if the surface is sloped more than 60 degrees from vertical over the bottom, including if they are holding on the bottom of a horizontal surface. If the surface has easy handholds, like a ladder, then only add 5. Surfaces of this slope with no handholds at all cannot be climbed.

This is a slippery slope. (Pun intended.). Massive numeric modifiers are dangerous for Bounded Accuracy, especially the +/- 10-15 ones. Most of the extremes are likely as easy as "Nigh Impossible with Disadvantage" and the only likely way to pull it off is a way to cancel the disadvantage, and have Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, AND roll as high as possible on most of the dice.

Situational modifiers- If one or more of the following apply, add a +2 to the Climb DC. If two or more of the following apply, add a +5 to the DC

-The surface is swaying, rocking, or otherwise unstable, like a rapidly moving creature, a swinging mast, a shaky bookcase or ladder, or a pile of unconnected objects.

-The surface is slippery.

-The surface is painful or harmful to touch, like sun-baked stone, or frigid ice. Do not apply this modifier if the climber has some means of preventing harm from the surface, like gloves or Protection From Energy.

-The climber is only trying to hold on to the surface, not trying to move.

The +/- 2 or 5 is as far as I would push modifiers, similar to Cover.

The rest, Advantage/Disadvantage as normal.

Hope this frames my earlier comment.

[Pex]

Knowing the abilities of a creature.

Intelligence (appropriate skill) check of DC 10 + creature's CR. Making the check lets you ask the DM one question about the creature. Some examples: you can ask what attack does it use most, what resistances does it have, what is its best saving throw - not the number just which ability score. For every 2 you exceed the DC you may ask another question. If the creature is an advanced version of itself and thus a higher CR, for example a bugbear chief instead of a bugbear, and the player makes the DC of the non-advanced creature but not the advanced creature, the information gained is for the non-advanced version but the character knows this creature is tougher.

Maybe someone can word this better.

[Mongobear]

Knowing the abilities of a creature.

Intelligence (appropriate skill) check of DC 10 + creature's CR. Making the check lets you ask the DM one question about the creature. Some examples: you can ask what attack does it use most, what resistances does it have, what is its best saving throw - not the number just which ability score. For every 2 you exceed the DC you may ask another question. If the creature is an advanced version of itself and thus a higher CR, for example a bugbear chief instead of a bugbear, and the player makes the DC of the non-advanced creature but not the advanced creature, the information gained is for the non-advanced version but the character knows this creature is tougher.

Maybe someone can word this better.

Would this be weaker, stronger, or on par with the BM Fighter's Know Your Enemy ability?

As long as this remains a fluff thing, I'm all for it, assuming the PC has prior knowledge of Bugbears existing, and wouldn't let it fly on Unique/Legendary monsters, like the Tarasque, or any of the named Devil's/Demons.

3.5w has a Feat for Knowledge skills that turned into a direct combat bonus, and was pretty broken, I don't want that again. Know special things about monsters and actually getting a benefit should be the Ranger's forte.

Also, change Favored Enemy to give Advantage on this roll if you selected it's type as a Favored Enemy option?

[AdAstra]

It comes down to my previous post, changing the baseline "measuring stick" and building DCs based on the things making the rolls (PCs), not a Narrative device that shouldn't even roll to begin with (NPCs).

Technically, I misspoke before, I don't think they're too low, at least not entirely. Just based on the previous topics standard--an Unskilled Commoner.

I think changing our basis of comparison between Easy/Medium/Hard/etc should be a Skilled Proficient Adventurer, as well as expanding the Passive Skill Checks system to everything.

My following replies assume this metric.

But, why should tasks that are trivial for commoners be more difficult for PCs? If your average grandmother in real life can climb ladders more reliably than a Level 1 Ranger with 10 Str (unless you allow acrobatics to climb) can in the game, then that creates some serious immersion-breaking. I know I would balk at a DM telling me to roll a check to climb a ladder in anything but a comedy game.

I would make the "minimum" DC 5, as our Standard at minimum passes that automatically without other modifier and/or disadvantage.

However, as not every PC with be our metric, it should still be possible to fail extremely simple climbs, just rare. Accidents happen after all.

See, I don't think that metric should apply. It doesn't make sense for a level 1 character with +3 in a stat and proficiency to be merely average. A Level 1 Barbarian with a maxed-out Athletics bonus is average?

IMO, +2 should be "decent" +4 or more should mean "good", +7 or more "expert", +10 or more should be "exceptional", and + 14 or more "master-level".

These roughly correspond with:

Decent- A character with +2 in a stat (implying some degree of focus on that stat). Level 17+ Bards will have this as their floor. Will beat a DC 15 about 40% of the time

Good- A level 1 character that puts some level of resources into a skill (+2 to a stat and proficiency). A character with a 20 in a stat will be slightly better than Good at all checks using that stat. Can never fail a DC 5 check, and a DC 15 check is a 50/50 for them.

Expert- A level 1 rogue, level 3 bard, or level 5 non-expertise character's best skill. You need proficiency or Jack of All Trades to get this, and even with proficiency you need at least a +1 in the stat. Can beat a DC 15 about 2/3 of the time

Exceptional- The just barely under what a character can have without expertise, or the worst a lvl 17+ can have with it. A Rogue or Bard can have this at level 5, those merely proficient will need until 13. Can never fail a DC 10 check, has a 55% chance to succeed on a DC 20, and the tipping point at which DC 30 is possible without buffs.

Master- Even at level 17+, requires both Expertise and at least +2 in a stat. A Rogues and Bards are almost here by level 9, and can just barely surpass it by level 13.

I feel that these are far better benchmarks to build skills off of.

Other than bumping by +5 like I mentioned, most of these look fine.

(Fence--a short wooden fence around a pasture, or a 6ft wrought iron fence around a wealthy building/graveyard? I'd consider these different categories.)

I think I'll move and clarify fences, yeah

Same +5 DC comment

Otherwise these seem good.

The house likely would have modifiers based on material.

Also, a few could probably bumped a category.


WHERE'S THE 15 TIER?!?!?

Could probably change some stuff around. I can think of very few homes that would significantly differ from this standard though.

This is where you start using somewhat accurate to my baseline changing.

A few could be lowered to 15, if it existed.

Also, climbing creatures is covered in the DMG under the "Expanded Combat Options" section, it's a contested Athletics check, so not covered by this project.

This assumes that the creature is not actively attempting to throw you off. It also of course assumes it's big enough to climb in the first place.

This should be flat out impossible, non-roll territory, assuming perfectly vertical and no modifiers.

If sloped enough like a slide, it can be modified to the nigh-impossible/very hard depending on degree of angle.

Possibly. It depends on whether you want superhuman feats at high level.

This likely falls in Tools modifying checks, or would just be Advantage.

Tool proficiencies aren't necessarily needed here (crampons are pretty intuitive and aren't covered by proficiency), and the advantage mechanic isn't granular enough for this. I don't think it's too complex, and removing it only trims like two sentences.

This is a slippery slope. (Pun intended.). Massive numeric modifiers are dangerous for Bounded Accuracy, especially the +/- 10-15 ones. Most of the extremes are likely as easy as "Nigh Impossible with Disadvantage" and the only likely way to pull it off is a way to cancel the disadvantage, and have Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, AND roll as high as possible on most of the dice.

That's kinda the point? They make things really hard because they should make things really hard. I did change them though

The +/- 2 or 5 is as far as I would push modifiers, similar to Cover.

The rest, Advantage/Disadvantage as normal.

Hope this frames my earlier comment.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the skill system naturally makes people seem incompetent.

Imagine for a second that you set DC 15 as your "moderate" difficulty. A starting PC with proficiency in an appropriate skill is going to have a 45% chance of failing that roll at best. And their chance of success only goes up by 5% every four levels (assuming no ASIs are spent boosting that ability score). Those aren't good odds, especially if you want your players to seem good at that kind of thing.

So before you start setting up DC tables, you're going to have to figure out what PCs should be able to do "effortlessly".

---

Another thing to keep in mind is that the tables should preclude asking for multiple successful rolls in a row. If you have a climbing table, that check should cover the entire climb. Because requiring multiple successful checks in sequence massively increases the difficulty in a non-obvious way (+5 bonus vs. DC 10 once is an 80% chance of success. +5 bonus vs. DC 10 twice is a 64% chance, or an effective +3 to the DC.)

[Kane0]

There isn’t going to be many, if any, universally agreed upon standard but sure i’ll give it a go.

DC 0: Force open an unlatched door
DC 5: Force open a damaged door
DC 10: Force open an unbarred wooden (standard) door
DC 15: Force open an unbarred stone/metal (reinforced) door
DC 20: Force open a barred wooden (standard) door
DC 25: Force open a barred stone/metal (reinforced) door
DC 30: Force open a magically sealed door

DC 0: Cross calm waters unclothed
DC 5: Cross calm waters clothed
DC 10: Cross calm waters burdened
DC 15: Cross rough waters unclothed
DC 20: Cross rough waters clothed
DC 25: Cross rough waters burdened
DC 30: Swim up a waterfall

DC 0: Treat wound (first aid)
DC 5: Determine time/cause of death
DC 10: Treat poison/disease
DC 15: Treat madness/severe injury
DC 20: Perform simple surgery
DC 25: Perform complex surgery
DC 30: Treat magical ailment

[diplomancer]

"Accidents happen after all"

Though this is true, what you should consider is "do accidents during this activity happen at least 5% of the time?" Because if they happen, say, only 0.1% (many accidents are less than that) of the time and you put it that they will happen 20% of the time (DC 5 for unskilled characters), silly things start to happen.

One other thing that would be useful, before starting to put the DCs in, is to define what constitutes "a challenge", either on its own or due to the present conditions, because, in 5e, if it's not a challenge, there's no roll, the character just does it.

The previous 2 paragraphs are actually saying the same thing, first from a mathematics perspective, 2nd from a game rules perspective. 1st paragraph explains why you should not roll if it's not a challenge.

[Anymage]

From a quick browse through the rules, official DCs:

Spoiler

Show

DC 10 Strength(Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle when long jumping. "Low obstacle" means ~1/4 the jump's distance.

DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to successfully land on your feet while long jumping, if you land on uneven terrain.

DC 15 Constitution save to resist a level of exhaustion when you only have access to half as much water as you'd normally drink.

DC 15 Constitution save to make headway when spending downtime recuperating.

DC 10 Wisdom(Medicine) check to stabilize a creature who has fallen to 0 HP.

DC 11 Constitution save to resist Filth Fever, which does map to real-world conditions that can arise from grossly unhygienic conditions.

DC 10 Wisdom(Perception) check to notice a tripwire or pit trap. A dart trap with well concealed holes raises the DC to 15.

P. 110-112, 244-245, and 254 in the DMG all give example DCs for various wilderness tasks and dealing with various minor complications.

[Tanarii]

Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)

[Mongobear]

But, why should tasks that are trivial for commoners be more difficult for PCs? If your average grandmother in real life can climb ladders more reliably than a Level 1 Ranger with 10 Str (unless you allow acrobatics to climb) can in the game, then that creates some serious immersion-breaking. I know I would balk at a DM telling me to roll a check to climb a ladder in anything but a comedy game.

I'm not trying to simulate RL. I'm trying to reframe skills be for Bounded Accuracy intuitively.

In this system, the grandmother doesn't matter, she is an NPC, and thus a tool of the DM that does exactly what said DM planned her to do. He doesn't roll every round to see her progress up or down, it's pre-programmed, and will only fall if it was planned for her to fall. Her climbing ability has no influence on that outcome, whether it's +0, +20, or -20.

Under my proposed changes, you wouldn't be rolling for skills often. You would have a Passive Score for all of them, which dictates how difficult of a DC you auto-pass during trivial/mundane routines. For this, most DC 5s are auto-passes regardless, unless you have an 8 in the relevant stat, and disadvantage from something (Passive Score there would be a 4), but it likely means you just slip or lose your footing a skin your knee, not plummet off the top and die.

You'd only touch the d20 when you're in trouble, or threat of failure is extreme.


See, I don't think that metric should apply. It doesn't make sense for a level 1 character with +3 in a stat and proficiency to be merely average. A Level 1 Barbarian with a maxed-out Athletics bonus is average?

IMO, +2 should be "decent" +4 or more should mean "good", +7 or more "expert", +10 or more should be "exceptional", and + 14 or more "master-level".

These roughly correspond with:

Decent- A character with +2 in a stat (implying some degree of focus on that stat). Level 17+ Bards will have this as their floor. Will beat a DC 15 about 40% of the time

Good- A level 1 character that puts some level of resources into a skill (+2 to a stat and proficiency). A character with a 20 in a stat will be slightly better than Good at all checks using that stat. Can never fail a DC 5 check, and a DC 15 check is a 50/50 for them.

Expert- A level 1 rogue, level 3 bard, or level 5 non-expertise character's best skill. You need proficiency or Jack of All Trades to get this, and even with proficiency you need at least a +1 in the stat. Can beat a DC 15 about 2/3 of the time

Exceptional- The just barely under what a character can have without expertise, or the worst a lvl 17+ can have with it. A Rogue or Bard can have this at level 5, those merely proficient will need until 13. Can never fail a DC 10 check, has a 55% chance to succeed on a DC 20, and the tipping point at which DC 30 is possible without buffs.

Master- Even at level 17+, requires both Expertise and at least +2 in a stat. A Rogues and Bards are almost here by level 9, and can just barely surpass it by level 13.

I feel that these are far better benchmarks to build skills off of.

For an Adventurer, yes I consider a +5 average, since that's the lowest you're gonna have for a character who will be climbing things often for the purposes of setting these DCs.

They're the exceptional members of society, I'm willing to bet the average adventurer trying to Climb things is pretty strong and knows what he's doing, not a weakling that's scared of heights.

Alternatively, I could balance my estimates by figuring out every possible Athletics bonus possible for every level, and average those, but that will likely drive the DCs higher.


I think I'll move and clarify fences, yeah

Could probably change some stuff around. I can think of very few homes that would significantly differ from this standard though.

I only bring it up as climbing a log cabin is measurably easier than climbing smooth stone, or bricks. But this could be covered by the +/- 2/5 stuff later. Base DC of "House' is X +/- 2/5 based on material.

This assumes that the creature is not actively attempting to throw you off. It also of course assumes it's big enough to climb in the first place.

By the DMG, it only needs to be one size larger than the climber. This is a very niche situation though, so no idea where to go with it.

RAW if it doesn't care, you auto-pass though.


Possibly. It depends on whether you want superhuman feats at high level.

Like I mentioned previously, I'd consider level 20 characters the Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Batman's of Adventurers. Whiles it's likely inconceivable for regular Humans, people chucking Reality Warping magic around, or cutting dragons I half don't really need to worry about climbing ladders anymore.


Tool proficiencies aren't necessarily needed here (crampons are pretty intuitive and aren't covered by proficiency), and the advantage mechanic isn't granular enough for this. I don't think it's too complex, and removing it only trims like two sentences.

That's kinda the point? They make things really hard because they should make things really hard. I did change them though

I only bring it up because that is a HUGE jump from Bounded Accuracy, and instead of and insane modifiers, we could list list "extremely slanted wall" on at the DC 25 spot, instead of making a sub-table for slopes of angles.

I'm trying to keep this within preconceived mechanics and modifiers of the system, unless you want to also add a "+30 to X Skill" spell? Or alter Spider Climb to just give +30 to Athletics when Climbing things.

Honestly, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the skill system naturally makes people seem incompetent.

Imagine for a second that you set DC 15 as your "moderate" difficulty. A starting PC with proficiency in an appropriate skill is going to have a 45% chance of failing that roll at best. And their chance of success only goes up by 5% every four levels (assuming no ASIs are spent boosting that ability score). Those aren't good odds, especially if you want your players to seem good at that kind of thing.

So before you start setting up DC tables, you're going to have to figure out what PCs should be able to do "effortlessly".

That's a good point, as under a d20 system, the odds jump by 5% increments, so the likelihood of any given outcome is vastly skewed. It's a symptom of the game that we will have to live with.

---

Another thing to keep in mind is that the tables should preclude asking for multiple successful rolls in a row. If you have a climbing table, that check should cover the entire climb. Because requiring multiple successful checks in sequence massively increases the difficulty in a non-obvious way (+5 bonus vs. DC 10 once is an 80% chance of success. +5 bonus vs. DC 10 twice is a 64% chance, or an effective +3 to the DC.)

I wouldn't/don't ask for rechecks unless the situation changes. If you start climbing a 500ft cliff, you're fine with one roll, (assuming proper effort and prep, itd be Passive anyways) but if a storm blows in suddenly, I'm asking for a new roll.

"Accidents happen after all"

Though this is true, what you should consider is "do accidents during this activity happen at least 5% of the time?" Because if they happen, say, only 0.1% (many accidents are less than that) of the time and you put it that they will happen 20% of the time (DC 5 for unskilled characters), silly things start to happen.

This is part of the problem of d20 stuff like i said earlier. We will never get rid of this, but hopefully with my proposed Passive alteration, it'll happen much less often, in all but the most extreme circumstances.

One other thing that would be useful, before starting to put the DCs in, is to define what constitutes "a challenge", either on its own or due to the present conditions, because, in 5e, if it's not a challenge, there's no roll, the character just does it.

This is a good point. As you will only need to make a Roll when the situation is actually Challenging. You'd use a Passive check if it is trivial/routine.

I would say a Challenge would be "Any attempt to complete a task which isn't normal, trivial, or routine while under pressure and the threat of failure poses real a real consequence."

How does that sound?

The previous 2 paragraphs are actually saying the same thing, first from a mathematics perspective, 2nd from a game rules perspective. 1st paragraph explains why you should not roll if it's not a challenge.

I agree with no challenge = no roll

Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Technically they do start at 0, in that ourmeasuring stick cannot go below that number, short of extreme circumstances, using the idea I'm proposing. Everything will be "DC 0" technically, if it is trivia/routine.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)

In a way, you'd be similar to our benchmark. A Skilled and we'll trained 'adventurer'.

In your climbing, if you were taking your time, and planned your route at every step, what's the chances you'd lose your footing and slip? What about a catastrophic failure where you'd completely come off the Rock and be dangling by your safety ropes?

I think we will also eventually need a Degree of Failure table as well, as failing a Climb check by 1 is a lot worse than failing by 12.

[Spiritchaser]

Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)

Out of curiosity:

Would you modify climbing DC based on weight carried?

I don’t... Though I suppose I would in extreme cases, because it slows things down and the players don’t consider it a terribly interesting story element.

[AdAstra]

If you’re trying to make adventurers feel competent and heroic, it’s probably not a good idea to make them more likely to fail things that NPCs can do easily. If your level 1 fighter who invested into Athletics fails to climb the equivalent of a children’s rock wall, chances are they’re going to think “guess climbing’s just arbitrarily hard in this game, better not do it”. At that point the players might be better off hiring random people off the street to do the climbing for them, like having them climb the cliff and throw down a knotted rope. Will the hirelings have to make checks now that the PCs are telling them what to do? Will they just autofail? Either way it’s going to just raise further questions. Overall this just feels like making things harder on the PCs for the sake of making things difficult, not for any in-fiction reason. Why shouldn’t the people with Athletics be good at climbing? Why should people without it be absolutely terrible at it? Even from a gameplay perspective it just seems unfun.

Also climbing isn’t something that only people good at climbing will need to attempt. It’s not Arcana or History. If the party’s running away from goblins and comes across a climbable wall, anyone without spider climb or whatever is going to have to make the check, not just one. Climbing is useful for any character, so making it so that you have to actively invest in it to not suck basically removes it from the toolkit for a lot of them.

The whole point of the DC 0 table is to illustrate when a roll is not needed. Even if there are wolves baying at their feet, you can sure bet most people can still climb a ladder. The question at that point becomes one of speed or additional challenges presented, such as a storm or the wolves jostling the ladder.

[stoutstien]

First off, i like the premise of this, I had a thread a while back talking about a similar idea:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-tricks-for-5E

The idea was to have a list of ability/skill modifiers criteria that a player could reference to know what they could do without a role as they progressed.

An other thing I started doing is talking to each table before campaign starts to get a general idea of what a lv 1 character represents. using pop culture references, is a lv 1 character behaving at a Captain America or Batman status or is that reserved for higher tiers? The DCs should reflect this overall question if it's going to be congruent. This is more important than writing out a bunch of individual DC charts.


Since then I've come to realize that mathematically, ability checks don't follow bounded accuracy. The static bonuses are to varied so a DM is stuck between making DC scale with the party (booo!) Or Having a scale start with higher thresholds which means characters without access to double proficiency and/or other miscellaneous static bonuses are unable from succeeding at checks from upper part of the scale.(also boo!)

A sliding scale of degrees of success and failure vs a flat pass/fail helps alleviate some of the issue but I'm working on a way to get the checks to work with the idea of bounded accuracy. Probably going to be a long process.

[Tanarii]

Moonbear, your post is too long to quote to answer just the last part, but the answer is:

I've only ever climbed a wet or slippery climb with huge ledges and handholds, which I've done a few time, and they were harrowing experiences moving at a lot less than half speed. I suffered 0 catastrophic failures.

When I climb something with "few" handholds my catastrophic failure rate is 100%. In my case, that's currently a v3 bouldering problem or a 5.10c top rope climb. One step down from those (v2 or 5.10b) is probably 50%, and two steps down (v1 or 5.10a) is 0% unless I'm really tired.

The problem is it doesn't really translate well into a game mechanic. Just a small difference in practice, and more importantly body strength to body weight ratio, makes a huge difference in climbing capability. So real world guidelines aren't necessarily helpful, other than 'when would you start making a check'.

And the answer for that for most people is you start making a catastrophic failure check at v0 (bouldering) or 5.9 (top rope route). Those might be about DC 5 unless you're very over weight. Of possibly DC 0 for first 15ft, increasing by as much as 5 every 15ft, would also be appropriate.

Out of curiosity:

Would you modify climbing DC based on weight carried?

Good point. Yes, absolutely it should. I mostly sport climb top rope, so harness with light gear attached, so everything above is based off that. I rappel with a heavy pack all the time (second rope, webbing, water, personal stuff) and that's resulted slipping and hurting myself superficially (usually shins) several times as I went over the lip. Although I've never let go of the rope as a result.

But I've also done a full day mountain climbing with a rucksack, and it is considerably different and more difficult. OTOH I don't usually do anything hard enough to risk catastrophic failure when carrying a pack, just unable to proceed and find a different route.

I've never done ice climbing, but my father and brother have, and they wear heavy gear and bigger packs, crampons, and ice axes. Again a different situation.

Edit: I suffer from a common problem for abstracting a rule in the case of climbing. If I were to try and design a rule or table, it would almost certainly be massively over-engineered and attempting to simulate far too much. Just as folks who have done archery or martial arts or weapon fighting tend to do with combat.

I recognize that and my overall feedback is probably: for an adventurer in gear, start making checks for catastrophic failure at DC 5 for a vertical surface with plentiful & large handholds, with a check every turn of movement, and skip the check unless it's high stress per the DMG advice. Make it DC 10 (easy) if handholds are not very large and abundant for the entire turns worth of climbing. That's your 'start point'. That's basically what the PHB says anyway.

[Mongobear]

*bunch of rock-climbing jargon i don't understand*

See, this is why tables for DC suggestions are needed, imo. Short of "Rope" I have literally no idea what anything you just said means. To me, it's all impossible.

This whole time, when I pictured rock-climbing, I thought you were talking about the indoor walls with the colored nubbs like on American Gladiators.

Speaking of which, American Gladiators is a good example of "climbing under duress". I'm sure all of those contestants would have no trouble scaling the wall given sufficient time, but when a prize is on the line for the fastest speed, AND you have BLADE chasing after you trying to throw you off the Wall, you're rolling checks the whole time and there's a real consequence of failure. The wall didn't get harder to Climb, the situation changes.

[Mongobear]

Here's a basic idea of what I'm thinking.

1) Keep the current v.easy/easy/medium/etc table breakdowns for each step.

2) 5 becomes the "auto-pass/no roll" DC, as our measuring stick cannot fail without extreme penalties/disadvantage.

3) Non-Contested skill checks become an expansion of the Passive Skills. ALL skills made without immediate threat of danger/consequence or that are considered Routine can use your Passive Score, if it's high enough.

4) There will be a small number of variables to modify DCs, similar to how Cover works for AC, except that it can work as a bonus or penalty.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

EDIT - Also, I feel people misunderstood something about what I said earlier. NPC skill modifiers become largely irrelevant, outside of ones used for contests, which aren't affected by this.

As stated, NPCs are a narrative device, they don't need to roll routine checks because they do exactly what the DM wants they do. (Could you imagine entering a busy city for the first time, asking what the citizens are up to, and sitting there for 30 minutes as the DM rolls every skill being performed by every NPC? No, they're just doing it.)

[Spiritchaser]

Moonbear, your post is too long to quote to answer just the last part, but the answer is:

I've only ever climbed a wet or slippery climb with huge ledges and handholds, which I've done a few time, and they were harrowing experiences moving at a lot less than half speed. I suffered 0 catastrophic failures.

When I climb something with "few" handholds my catastrophic failure rate is 100%. In my case, that's currently a v3 bouldering problem or a 5.10c top rope climb. One step down from those (v2 or 5.10b) is probably 50%, and two steps down (v1 or 5.10a) is 0% unless I'm really tired.

The problem is it doesn't really translate well into a game mechanic. Just a small difference in practice, and more importantly body strength to body weight ratio, makes a huge difference in climbing capability. So real world guidelines aren't necessarily helpful, other than 'when would you start making a check'.

And the answer for that for most people is you start making a catastrophic failure check at v0 (bouldering) or 5.9 (top rope route). Those might be about DC 5 unless you're very over weight. Of possibly DC 0 for first 15ft, increasing by as much as 5 every 15ft, would also be appropriate.


Good point. Yes, absolutely it should. I mostly sport climb top rope, so harness with light gear attached, so everything above is based off that. I rappel with a heavy pack all the time (second rope, webbing, water, personal stuff) and that's resulted slipping and hurting myself superficially (usually shins) several times as I went over the lip. Although I've never let go of the rope as a result.

But I've also done a full day mountain climbing with a rucksack, and it is considerably different and more difficult. OTOH I don't usually do anything hard enough to risk catastrophic failure when carrying a pack, just unable to proceed and find a different route.

I've never done ice climbing, but my father and brother have, and they wear heavy gear and bigger packs, crampons, and ice axes. Again a different situation.

Edit: I suffer from a common problem for abstracting a rule in the case of climbing. If I were to try and design a rule or table, it would almost certainly be massively over-engineered and attempting to simulate far too much. Just as folks who have done archery or martial arts or weapon fighting tend to do with combat.

I recognize that and my overall feedback is probably: for an adventurer in gear, start making checks for catastrophic failure at DC 5 for a vertical surface with plentiful & large handholds, with a check every turn of movement, and skip the check unless it's high stress per the DMG advice. Make it DC 10 (easy) if handholds are not very large and abundant for the entire turns worth of climbing. That's your 'start point'. That's basically what the PHB says anyway.

I think there also has to be the question of fun.

One campaign I DM contains a friend who I’ve climbed with on and off for 20 years, his wife who is perfectly comfortable on a 5.10a in the gym with a fighting chance at a 5.10c on an inspired day and their son who is starting in to competitive climbing and will pass me in ability rather soon, if he has not done so already. He’s certainly better at lunatic fringe dynos and deadpoints... though he might be easing off those after a tendon injury.

Even in that crowd, I do not feel it would benefit the game to spend TOO much time dwelling on the details.

I have broken climbs down into different sections and thrown in the odd Dex and con check, but I’m not sure how much it really added. I think that was very nearly a failed experiment.

I think it’s more important to tell a compelling story about the climb, as long as the DC is within a few points, that’s probably ok.

So TLDR, the simpler the climbing chart can be, the better.

Also: I’m not sure that you’re missing much not ice climbing.

High objective hazard, lots more to buy, and if you freeze your hands... DC 30 wis check to not scream and DC 20 con check to not throw up when they Thaw out.

[Tanarii]

See, this is why tables for DC suggestions are needed, imo. Short of "Rope" I have literally no idea what anything you just said means. To me, it's all impossible.

5.9 is large handholds and footholds, well spaced for a person who of average height to use, no overhang and possibly slightly leaning away from you. An average strength climber with no previous experience who isn't very scared of heights can climb a 20ft-ish climb like that at least 80% of the time, so DC5 feels right, with waiving the checks when no stress and plenty of time. Rope is there just in case. V0 is the same-ish but less than 10ft of height, because you don't have a rope.

So basically, I'd advocate starting at DC10 for a character climbing with gear for anything harder than that, especially with a lack of rock shoes. Brick and mortar wall with mortar set back enough you can jam fingers and shoes (barely) into, with a pack on? Yeah that'd be DC 10 to climb 15ft in a round IMO.

This whole time, when I pictured rock-climbing, I thought you were talking about the indoor walls with the colored nubbs like on American Gladiators.

Both indoor and outdoor. Outdoor we build anchors at the top of the climb and rappel down, then climb a bunch of times.

Speaking of which, American Gladiators is a good example of "climbing under duress". I'm sure all of those contestants would have no trouble scaling the wall given sufficient time, but when a prize is on the line for the fastest speed, AND you have BLADE chasing after you trying to throw you off the Wall, you're rolling checks the whole time and there's a real consequence of failure. The wall didn't get harder to Climb, the situation changes.

Absolutely, and a check under those circumstances is well within PHB guidelines even with plentiful hand and foot holds.

[AdAstra]

Tanarii I’m not sure if you have already done so, but I would love your feedback on my proposed climb DC table at the top of the thread. It assumes a slightly more fantastical perspective of climbing, but still meant to be fairly grounded in reality at least at the lower end. It’s been revised a bunch, so even if you’ve looked through it I’d appreciate it immensely if you checked it again.

[Tanarii]

Missed you had edited to add all that. It looks pretty good to me. I'd make a few changes myself:
- change DC 0 to "no check".
- add a qualifier to DC 5: only check if in combat or falling risks significant harm / death
- a loose unknotted hemp rope with no wall to brace against should probably be DC 10, and DC 5 with a wall to brace against. More for 'fun' purposes than any other.
- an overhang of 30+ degrees should be +5 even with plentiful handholds. Of 60+ degrees should be +10.
- situational modifier: disadvantage if you're being attacked. Defining that would be problematic in a turn based system.

Possible alternative: make an immediate check at disadvantage or +5 DC if you take any HP damage. Personally I'd go with +5 DC instead of disadvantage. It should make it possible to fall when previously there was no check.

[Mongobear]

5.9 is large handholds and footholds, well spaced for a person who of average height to use, no overhang and possibly slightly leaning away from you. An average strength climber with no previous experience who isn't very scared of heights can climb a 20ft-ish climb like that at least 80% of the time, so DC5 feels right, with waiving the checks when no stress and plenty of time. Rope is there just in case. V0 is the same-ish but less than 10ft of height, because you don't have a rope.

How often do people that have no idea what they're doing and no physical ability/out of shape try climbing?

What do you think of changing the baseline measuring stick to a "skilled professional" at their lowest level. Someone who has been trained and built for the task, but at the earliest level of ability?

(I assume rock climbing has a student/teacher dichotomy, sorta like learning to fly a plane?)

So basically, I'd advocate starting at DC10 for a character climbing with gear for anything harder than that, especially with a lack of rock shoes. Brick and mortar wall with mortar set back enough you can jam fingers and shoes (barely) into, with a pack on? Yeah that'd be DC 10 to climb 15ft in a round IMO.

Do you mean DC 15 for the brick? In my eyes, I could reasonably assume an actual "rock climbing wall" like on Gladiators to be easier than climbing a brick wall.

Both indoor and outdoor. Outdoor we build anchors at the top of the climb and rappel down, then climb a bunch of times.

I assume there's no natural walls with the perfect hand/foot holds like a gym wall? Do you happen to have a picture of these sorts of walls, preferably of the outdoor/natural variety?

(Again, I'm making an assumption that rock climbers have a system to rate a surface, like Rapids for kayakers/rafters.)

Absolutely, and a check under those circumstances is well within PHB guidelines even with plentiful hand and foot holds.

Well within the guidelines I don't doubt. What I'm questioning here is how are we (the unskilled/unknowing DN that has never climbed these sorts of surfaces) supposed to know what DC to assign?

Having a frame of reference for this via an experienced Climber is very useful, but also shows why Examples are needed.

EDIT - In a previous statement, you mentioned a kid of a friend, or your son (don't recall atm) who was naturally skilled at this, and in certain areas, better than you. Likely bypassing your ability within a year or two.

Would you say this relationship is a good example of a level 1 Adventurer(the Kid) showing signs of skill that you (a level 5 adventurer) can already tell will bypass your ability given time?