Hussar
Legend
It's really not... unless everything is "subjective" since the DM is the one setting the DC's in the first place. n fact your definition of "subjective" means I would have to run an entire game without deciding a single DC since otherwise it would be subjective... do you see how absurd that is?
The number doesn't change (and thus the DC doesn't change) but your ability or inability to make a roll to achieve said DC can... it isn't that hard of a concept to grasp so I'll try one more example but beyond that I don't have enough invested in trying to get you to understand to keep going with this conversation...especially since, as you haven't addressed when you've been mistaken or wrong in our previous exchanges in this thread, I don't think this will be any different.
cliff face X is a Very Hard climb... the DC is 25. However your character has been dumped at its base with arms and legs bound and no equipment...
You state..."My character climbs the cliff face."
As DM I rule a roll to climb the cliff face is inappropriate and impossible for your character. Did the DC change...nope it's still a DC 25/Very Hard cliff face in the game world and barring some drastic change in the fiction it will always be an objective DC 25 cliff face. However, I've ruled your character cant make the roll to achieve it because his legs and arms are bound (apparently in your game irregardless of the fiction, method or whatever if you can roll a 25 you should be able to climb the cliff face.... I gues the bound character does it Fonzie style ) that's not how I run my game. The cliff face has an objective DC but your character is not guaranteed a chance to achieve said DC. They are 2 different axis
No, instead I rule that the PC has disadvantage (at least) for trying to climb with bound hands, and possibly smack in a -5 just for kicks. Ends up probably being impossible, but, then again, maybe not. Even with simple disadvantage, a DC 25 is more or less impossible, so, end of story.
I just don't pretend that it's somehow "objective" for me to rule that way.
Nor do I keep finding corner case examples in order to try to "prove" my point. My point always was, character tries to run up the wall parkour style. You've ruled that doing so requires proficiency in acrobatics, and regardless of the character's actual score when making an unskilled attempt (possibly assisted with any number of options) it is impossible for the character to do that. Instead of actually addressing my point, you've gone off and talked about bound captives, breakdancing and various other non sequiturs.
Again, your repeated claims to the contrary, the whole misunderstanding at the beginning was because you insisted on ignoring the point I was trying to make. And, all you've done since then is ignore the point I was trying to make in order to build all sorts of straw men. It's tiring and boring now. I'm done.