|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This a thousand times over. It pains me when I go to check the news on the internet and can only find maybe 10% of the news stories in text, the rest seeming all to be in video now. In the time it takes me to watch one 5 min clip I could be through 2-3 articles of text. Or to actually have to look up info on a video game these days. It's all lets plays and youtube tutorials. I miss text.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I know but I'll keep up hope for the time being.
I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.
Couldn't edit so extra post I was only talking about your next last line there I know the rest wasn't satire.
I understand the bit of satire here but lets not have people convinced we now have a camp of people trying to force players to T10.
Well as far as I understand things unless the PFS team says other wise or a faq goes against current PFS rulings then their rulings stand. Also since this technically wasn't and FAQ that means this is how the rule is believed to have functioned all along. Similar to the Monk TWF debacle of a few years back.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You have combat that last 50 rounds dear lord man.
Your 45% is based off of 10 being the exact number you need to pass. Now lets say I fail only on a 1-3 I'm down to auto succeeding on something that I only fail 15% of the time. But that I could still fail while rolling.
What if I am stealthing through the Jungle and don't know that a beastie is also stalking me? Can i take 10 on my check in that circumstance?
Edit: do to don't
Prior to the non-faq I don't believe (and i could be wrong) that anyone would have though nonsenical or immersion breaking results were a reason to Deny T10, so skill mastery has never been up against this ruling before.
In response to Berinor
Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowingit. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?
I feel the issue will come down the line when people start discussing adventures and a handful of people who had deaths, or a chunk of resources burned on a skill check that wasn't allowed T10. Then someone else simply ask why they didn't take 10 and find out there GM decided that a climbing a cliff was significantly distracting. I'm fine with a GM deciding that rain or mud that's listed might be an issue. But all people really are wondering is if simply climbing a rope on the side of cliff can keep you from T10.
I don't the actual question asked was that big of an issue. Does the task being preformed count as a distraction to preforming it. Period that's all people wanted to know. Without knowing that you can't accurately judge when you might be able to T10 at all from a players perspective.
And honestly I would have thought it was a no since one of the reasons listed to use T10 was to avoid failure. But if failure is an a show stopper then whats the point in having it? If its the direct consequences of failure then we still have a wide variance when it comes to if and when so much so that once again players simply by merit of their GM could have 2 drastically different experiences with the same scenario.
Posting the relevant text below and then asking a question in the hopes of reduced table variation.
With this sorta of clarification could we possibly see a PFS specific ruling regarding whether or not the task being preformed is counted as distracting enough to prevent the character from taking 10 on a check.
Table variation in PFS is one of the problems of rules being a GM choice? Right now In PFS if 3 mostly identical partys with 3 GMs run the same scenario the players could reasonably have a talk about how it went with fairly no real changes in story.
Now lets add in a 80ft cliff DC 20 with no winds or enemies and a 3rd level party.
GM 1 runs take 10 as the task can't be the distraction. Guy with the highest climb can easily make it up and tie off a rope for everyone else everyone makes it even the 9 str wizard.
GM 2 decides that the fall would distract a climber after 60 feet so climb guy only has to make one check and is fairly confident he can do so party climbs the Dc 5 rope fairly easily since they only need one roll to succeed.
Gm 3 decides its too risky for anyone to T10. Climb guy probably makes it the other party members should make it but the wizard has a 25% of not moving each check and a 5% chance of falling and if its on the last check dieing.
So bring this question back around "What percentage of my health constitutes being to scared of a fall to T10?"
50% 75% 80% Some other number.
Do we look at Min damage or max or average?
Do i have to be a certain height?
What if that first level character has a good acrobatics and can reasonably land without damage?
Does having Feather fall prepped or known allow me to T10 when climbing?
I'll See if i can dig up some post but over the years i have seen DM's complain about how T10 is too easy and that they wish that they could decide that more tension was needed. I n PFS especially that could go from a DC 12 climb that with gear everyone could have taken 10 on to possibly a character death because of failure at the top.
And that's the issue I don't believe for a second the Dev team meant for GM's to have blanket T10 Immunity. If that was the point then just say it. As is we went from having some kind of breakdown on what allows it to now anytime for any reason a GM can just say nope.
It might be that the party is progressing to fast, or maybe he feels that failing is to big of a distraction.
The only silver lining from this is at least Rogues with Skill mastery should be safe and can now shine on those skills. Wait no now we have a new question.
New question will start a new thread if needed. "Does skill mastery allow the character to Take 10 regardless or Can a GM still claim DRAMA and prevent the usage?"
Name some situations where T10 would be useful to use that might not have a fear of chance of failure = DRAMA might not come up.
Climb check: Depends on how high but eventually DRAMA.
Balance check: Sure if you not balancing over anything dangerous.
Swim Check: nah chance of drowning might come up.
Acrobatics: Might be the only one and thats only if the gm doesn't decide a pit trap = DRAMA
Diplomacy: Nah having a chance of pissing off the king sounds better.
Bluff: nope getting caught in a lie would be bad so its a distraction.
Perception: no go actually having to roll means you might miss something and thus DRAMA.
This choice of wording basically allows a GM to ban T10 for any reason they want with Dev team backing. I mean I guess I could take ten to jump over a pit of fluffy pillows since there is no worries about failure hurting me but not much else.
EDIT: and yes I'm taking this to an extreme. But I have seen people complain about not being able to take 10 on most skills on these boards over all kinds of "check related" reasons.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
If the roleplay was good and reflected the characters stats sure. Especially if there was a low/no DC to get the info. Now if Jillian were hesitant or unwilling to hand over the papers lets say dc25 then Heff should have rolled possibly with bonuses based on what was said or other information he might have had. If you simply ignore his stats based how a good conversation then expect that a guy picking a lock who knows how to do it will want to auto succeed based on his in-depth player ability/knowledge.
To bring in an example from a popular game.
DM: To recap last session the party has just escaped execution and a dragon attack in the village of Helgen. You spoke at length with Alvor the blacksmith and he has asked you to bring news of the dragon to the Jarl of Riverwood. We stopped just short of the city last time as you approach the gate a Guard steps forward hand on his Sword "Hold there," he says "the city is closed due to rumors of dragon attacks."
Which of these examples would you accept and why not the others?
EX 1) I explain to the guard about what transpired at Helgan and our conversation with Alvor to try to get him to let us pass.
EX 2) I tell the guard that Helgan was attacked by a dragon and that it was seen flying this way from Riverwood. I press upon him the importance of speaking to the Jarl about this matter as some of his hold's citizens are worried.
EX 3) I approach the guard hands up speaking calmly and concisly "Sir we have seen the dragon these rumors are about. I attacked the town of Helgan and flew off this direction. Alvor the blacksmith of the town of Riverwood has asked us to come and speak with Jarl Balgruf about the danger it may present.
EDIT: Do understand that I purposefully left out examples such as "I roll Diplomacy to get in the gate.
I wouldn't expect them to accomodate the player if thats how the group plays. But I would expect them to let someone know. If I'm going to play a bard and I let the group know that I'll handle social skills someone should say "hey heads up we really like those to be played out more than just a roll", just as much as if I said I was going to play a spell caster and the group uses a rule that casting in combat is considered distracting and requires a concentration check accordingly.
Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.
And fun should be had by everyone at the table. I don't know the OP's specific situation so I can't give a deep example here but did the GM inform players up front that Cha based skills were to be roleplayed and that dice wouldn't effect the outcome? Does he allow an example like my post or would he ask for specifics such as "Well that's fine but what do you say to convince him? At the end of the day it is about a logical argument why follow the rules at all with skill checks if those checks are useless? I'm not advocating for a simple "I roll Diplomacy" But if those skills have no purpose for the person making the check then why even have them on the sheet?
If I were to go play at a PFS table I would expect that my bard would be able to succed on a Bluff/diplomacy/perform check even if I was incapable of comprehending the "how" of my wording as long as the "what" of the wording and goal were clear and I rolled high enough.
For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?
Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?
Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.
This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.
Nope a good pulled pork spread over a tomato heavy BBQ sauce covered in high quality Colby Longhorn Cheddar and Monterrey Jack cheeses on a rustic wheat crust and then grilled and smoked over hickory chips is nowhere near blasphemy.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Wait so since it wasn't typed its untyped as well as being untyped since it has no type.......I honestly just noticed that.