GM Core and GM Screen disagree on Force Open DC for lifting locked portcullises?

[Mazmord]

When looking for a Force Open DC, GM Core pg. 93 has this to say:
"The DC to Force Open a structure uses the Thievery DC of its lock but adjusts it to be very hard (increasing the DC by 5)."
and
"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."

GM Core's Force Open DC table shows:
- Lift wooden portcullis: 20
- Lift iron portcullis: 30

The Remastered GM Screen's Force Open table shows these DCs, and footnote:
- Lift wooden portcullis: 20*
- Lift iron portcullis: 30*
* Use the Thievery DC of the locking mechanism +5 if it’s higher.

It looks like the Screen potentially makes the Force Open DC of locked portcullises 5 higher than GM Core does. The last statement from GM Core seems to make an exception to the general Thievery DC +5 it just stated, specifically in the case of lifting portcullises.

I'd guess the "exception" I'm reading from the last statement in GM Core is not the intent. But if not, why would that statement be there at all? Which makes me think the GM Screen just mixed the two statements together by mistake. But then why would that footnote only be on the portcullis rows?

So, if there's a locked iron portcullis with a Thievery DC of 27, is the Force Open DC 30 or 32?

[Finoan]

Analyzing...

Mazmord wrote:

"The DC to Force Open a structure uses the Thievery DC of its lock but adjusts it to be very hard (increasing the DC by 5)."

and
"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."

GM Core's Force Open DC table shows:
- Lift wooden portcullis: 20
- Lift iron portcullis: 30

DC to lift from the table: wooden, 20; iron, 30

DC to lift from lock DC with very hard adjustment: lock DC +5

Mazmord wrote:

The Remastered GM Screen's Force Open table shows these DCs, and footnote:

- Lift wooden portcullis: 20*
- Lift iron portcullis: 30*
* Use the Thievery DC of the locking mechanism +5 if it’s higher.

DC to lift: wooden, 20; iron, 30

DC to lift if lock is higher: lock DC +5

I'm not seeing the difference. Maybe I am not understanding the concern of the wording well enough.

-----

Mazmord wrote:

So, if there's a locked iron portcullis with a Thievery DC of 27, is the Force Open DC 30 or 32?

In either case, the lock DC with the very hard adjustment is higher: 27+5 = 32 which beats either the 20 or the 30 for either type of portcullis.

If the lock DC was 17, then the wooden portcullis would use the lock DC +5: 17+5 = 22, but the iron portcullis would use the lift DC of 30.

[Mazmord]

Finoan wrote:

In either case, the lock DC with the very hard adjustment is higher: 27+5 = 32 which beats either the 20 or the 30 for either type of portcullis.

Thanks for the reply! I'm inclined to agree with the result of 32 Force Open DC. This part is what's tripping me up the most:

"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."

It'd be unambiguous to me if it instead said:
"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC +5 or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."
(Better still would be "Thievery DC +5 or the", but space is limited in that sidebar.)

Unless "lock DC" is "Thievery DC +5"?

[Finoan]

Yes, there is some equivalent naming going on here that does make things a bit more ambiguous and harder to follow.

The equivalencies that I am seeing:

lock DC = Thievery DC since there is not a skill named 'lock'.
force open = lift since the point of lifting the portcullis manually is to forcibly open it.

With those equivalencies, I am going with the reading that the force open change to add the very hard +5 modifier to the lock DC is intended to mean the Thievery DC +5 is used when lifting the portcullis without unlocking it first. Unless the standard unlocked lift DC is still higher than the modified lock DC.

[Baarogue]

>Unless "lock DC" is "Thievery DC +5"?

As they literally just finished telling us, yes, in the context of using Athletics to Force Open a locked structure it is. As it says in the same sentence that you paraphrased before the bit about portcullises, the table is for things that are not locked. So you use the table DC (because portcullises are heavy and would require effort to lift even if they weren't locked) or the "lock DC", which is "the Thievery DC of its lock but adjusts it to be very hard (increasing the DC by 5)", whichever is higher

[Mazmord]

Finoan: Thanks again! That further helps clarify things for me.

Baarogue: "lock DC" is not explicitly defined in either of the locations I mentioned; hence my question. I wasn't sure if maybe "lock DC" was a known thing I just hadn't encountered yet in this vast game, defined in some other location. Because if it's only implied in this location, then its phrasing could be improved to make clearer whether "lock DC" is "the Thievery DC of [the structure's] lock", or that +5.
Do you get some personal benefit from bringing needless rudeness into things? Because it sure doesn't help anyone else. Least of all a new person looking to learn the hobby.

[Baarogue]

My point was that they just got done spelling out what to do when using Force Open on a locked structure so it's understandable for them to refer to that with the abbreviated phrase "lock DC" in the very same paragraph

>Do you get some personal benefit from bringing needless rudeness into things?
Wasn't going for rude. In fact a frequently edit my posts before posting to remove most of it because I trend towards acerbic in text. But I'll try to remember to pepper more uwus and :3:3:3 in next time uwu :3