Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7876801" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Exactly! A 5E character with +6 to Athletics is (supposedly) pretty good at climbing. They're either very talented and somewhat trained, or very experienced. They should be able to get over an easy wall with no problem, but the rules say that an easy check is DC 10, so they'll actually fail on 15% of attempts. That is why (you suggest), the DM should not have them roll; because if they did, then something unreasonable may very well happen.To contrast, a 3E character with +6 to Climb is a talented novice. They have a little talent, and some training, but very little experience. They should still be able to do easy stuff with no problem, but the rules of 3E actually show this to be true: an Easy check in 3E is DC 5. They are still a novice, so you wouldn't expect them to pull off the DC 35 stuff that high-level characters often do; and the math also shows this to be true, since they can't score higher than 26.On the other end of the difficult spectrum, we wouldn't expect someone who routinely fails an easy climb to have much chance at all of making a hard one, but Bounded Accuracy in 5E says that they can. The same individual with +6 to checks, who would fail an Easy climb 15% of the time (if we actually had them roll), has a 35% chance of making a Hard check. Everyone has a chance at making a Hard check. The average, non-proficient Human has a 15% chance of making a Hard check.In  3E, you need a minimum of +5 in order to attempt a DC 25 check, and most people have +0 as a baseline. You never have to worry about an untrained character succeeding at a Formidable (DC 25) or harder task, where a trained one fails, because untrained characters have no chance by the math; rather than requiring DM fiat to say they have no chance.</blockquote>

Verification