Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8425182" data-attributes="member: 71699">The literal English meaning is the meaning of the descriptor of the DC. The experienced difficulty can diverge from the descriptor, as for instance a tier-3 character who could approach &quot;hard&quot; DCs with every confidence of overcoming them. That is why it I say it is unhelpful in the long run to look only from the low-level perspective represented by the descriptors.I believe that view is not correct or convenient. A DC is a fixed property of a task*. Let me preface by saying that I see this as an investigation, not a final position!First from the point of view of rules - which is what we might label correctness (while acknowledging that correct is really whatever works for you at your table.) Approaches can change the likelihood of success or even obviate the need to make a check, but they do not change the DC of the task. In published material, such as ToA, numerous DCs are given by the designers. Nowhere does it suggest these DCs are formed on a one-to-one basis with actors. A DC 20 secret door in ToA is not DC 10 to one actor and DC 30 to another, but it may be much more probable for one actor to notice it over another. For instance, a character possessed by Papazotl, or one with Dungeoneer. The hard check doesn't become &quot;easy&quot; for one actor and &quot;very hard&quot; for another - where those are fixed descriptors - it remains &quot;hard&quot; i.e. DC 20.Then there is the matter of convenience. It would be inconvenient to never know the DC until we knew the actor. It is far more convenient to know the DC of a task, and know that the actor may bring to bear an approach that changes their odds of overcoming it. As DM, I can know the DC is 20 without yet deciding the likelihood characters will have of overcoming it.*It's not clear to me what distinction you are getting at by separating &quot;obstacle&quot; from &quot;task&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8425182, member: 71699"] The literal English meaning is the meaning of the [I]descriptor [/I]of the DC. The experienced difficulty can diverge from the descriptor, as for instance a tier-3 character who could approach "hard" DCs with every confidence of overcoming them. That is why it I say it is unhelpful in the long run to look only from the low-level perspective represented by the descriptors. I believe that view is not correct or convenient. A DC is a fixed property of a task*. Let me preface by saying that I see this as an investigation, not a final position! First from the point of view of rules - which is what we might label correctness (while acknowledging that correct is really whatever works for you at your table.) Approaches can change the likelihood of success or even obviate the need to make a check, but they do not change the DC of the task. In published material, such as ToA, numerous DCs are given by the designers. Nowhere does it suggest these DCs are formed on a one-to-one basis with actors. A DC 20 secret door in ToA is not DC 10 to one actor and DC 30 to another, but it may be much more probable for one actor to notice it over another. For instance, a character possessed by Papazotl, or one with Dungeoneer. The hard check doesn't become "easy" for one actor and "very hard" for another - where those are fixed descriptors - it remains "hard" i.e. DC 20. Then there is the matter of convenience. It would be inconvenient to never know the DC until we knew the actor. It is far more convenient to know the DC of a task, and know that the actor may bring to bear an approach that changes their odds of overcoming it. As DM, I can know the DC is 20 without yet deciding the likelihood characters will have of overcoming it. *It's not clear to me what distinction you are getting at by separating "obstacle" from "task". [/QUOTE]

Verification