Circumstance bonus to checks: do they count for DCs?

[Unicore]

I am particularly looking at stealth here. If my character has cover and hides, they get a +2 circumstance bonus to stealth checks…so it applies to the check.

But if an enemy seeks on their turn, does the bonus not apply because it is their perception check vs my stealth DC?

Personally that feels off to me, but I can’t find anything in the rules about checks or DCs that clarify it. What am I missing? Or is the action cost of seeking just mean it deserves the offset?

[shroudb]

Can't find it ATM, but pretty sure that the rule is everything that modifies a Check also modifies the appropriate DC.

Quote:

The sum of all the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you apply to the d20 roll is called your total modifier for that statistic.

Quote:

Your DC for a given statistic is 10 + the total modifier for that statistic.

[Finoan]

If conditions and penalties - such as Clumsy - apply to both check bonuses and DC, then bonuses should as well.

And yes, as far as rules go, I would also point to the rule for calculating the DC value directly from the bonus value.

[Cordell Kintner]

Think of it this way: If you are hiding behind a bush, it's easier for you to hide. It's also harder for people to see you when actively searching for you.

[Unicore]

Finoan wrote:

If conditions and penalties - such as Clumsy - apply to both check bonuses and DC, then bonuses should as well.

And yes, as far as rules go, I would also point to the rule for calculating the DC value directly from the bonus value.

The problem here is the clumsy condition calls out checks and DCs, which would actually suggested that anything that doesn’t call out both wouldn’t apply to both.

I agree fully that circumstance bonuses to hide should apply to opponents seek actions, but it doesn’t feel like the rules back that up.

[Cordell Kintner]

Worn Items give a +1 item bonus to checks only (example, the Shadow Rune), so you're saying RAW they don't apply yo skill DCs?

[Unicore]

I am hoping there is something in the rules I have missed.

[Finoan]

Unicore wrote:

The problem here is the clumsy condition calls out checks and DCs, which would actually suggested that anything that doesn’t call out both wouldn’t apply to both.

Actually, it doesn't. Specific doesn't define general. If the general rule doesn't exist, a specific rule doesn't indicate one way or the other. The specific rule could just as easily be reminder of how things are supposed to work as it is an exception to the normal.

Granted, that applies to both sides of this. My statement that Clumsy applying to both DC and bonus indicates a general rule is not anything more than an opinion either.

My argument on the matter is that since there are things that apply to both, having it be consistent is a better idea. Otherwise there will be strange game balance problems.

But having a defined general rule would be ideal. Which is why I point to the definition of the bonus <=> DC calculation rule.

[shroudb]

Unicore wrote:

I am hoping there is something in the rules I have missed.

I just cited the Rules in the 2nd post, what do you mean?

DC is based on Total modifier of the roll.

Total modifier includes ALL bonuses and ALL penalties.

So the rules clearly say that circumstance bonuses are included.