Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I see a lot on here about the taking ten rule for skills.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll(a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
* Emphasis mine.
What situations, out side of combat, would you GMs constitute as "distractions or threats"? Are there any skills you would deem are only used in combat, and therefore Taking 10 would not apply? Does the chance of catastrophic failure (i.e. falling while using Acrobatics, etc.) automatically prevent the Take 10 rule? I am curious to how other GMs rule on this, and would also appreciate any designer input as well.
While I know on the surface this seems like a simple rules question, it is something that can cause a degree of variance in GMing, which we strive to keep in check in Organized Play.
And, yes, I expect Nosig will definitely make an appearance on this thread! LOL!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I see a lot on here about the taking ten rule for skills.
I think there's a lot less variance in practice than in theory. We can all come up with situations where there will be varying opinions on whether you can take 10 or not, but honestly (in PFS, at least) it's almost always obvious whether or not you're in such a situation - in fact, it's almost exclusively "combat or not" in PFS.
In fact, I can only think of one situation from a scenario I've played or run where, outside of combat, I wouldn't have let someone take 10 (if I was running it):
The other big line to keep in mind from the take 10 rules is this:
In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll(a 10).
If your interpretation of Take 10 doesn't help someone avoid failure - if it couldn't be called a "safety measure" - then you're doing it wrong.
I don't think there are many situations in PFS where - keeping the above line in mind, along with what Michael bolded - it will be that unclear.
Um, you can take 10... when you are not distracted or threatened...
Is this a trick question? You already answered it before you asked.
This will most likely get moved to the Rules forum. But in relation to PFS, I'd say you can't take 10 when the scenario or Guidebook say you can't as well.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Is a library full of books a "distraction" to a bibliophile Pathfinder trying to make a Knowledge skill while there? Or is making an Acrobatics check laden with the added pressure of being watched by fellow Pathfinders whose survival count on you making it a "distraction"?
These are areas of interpretation... and could be possible in a PFS game, depending on GM variance. Please note, I'm not saying I would do ANY of these... but the CHARACTER in those situations might feel they are "under pressure" in a situation like that, even when the PLAYER would never play it that way.
See, an interpretation! And too much of THAT leads to table variance, I've discovered.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is a library full of books a "distraction" to a bibliophile Pathfinder trying to make a Knowledge skill while there?
To my knowledge, there are no character options which include an inability to take 10 in situations where characters without that option would be able to.
Or is making an Acrobatics check laden with the added pressure of being watched by fellow Pathfinders whose survival count on you making it a "distraction"?
Theoretically, any Acrobatics check - or any check at all - that you make in a scenario could mean the difference between life and death for you or your companions. Mundane, ordinary stage fright is not something the rules care about in a game about Big Damn Heroes.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from Sean K Reynolds:
Note the "other than the task at hand" bit. Earlier in the linked post he mentions that if someone is climbing a DC 15 wall and has 5 ranks in Climb (and if you check his math, also has +0 STR and it's not a class skill) they should never ever fall due to failing by 5 or more (rolling a 1-4) unless they're trying to do something else like dodge attacks or juggle. The Take 10 mechanic is meant to represent that reliability.
In that case I default to my standard "If it's fun, then do it; if not, let it go" rule.
If someone says they think their character shouldn't be able to take 10 due to something in the personality or thinking, then I'll say 'Okay, roll it'. I'm not going to force the issue unless it is clear that they are rushed or threatened, which is almost always due to combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In that case I default to my standard "If it's fun, then do it; if not, let it go" rule.
If someone says they think their character shouldn't be able to take 10 due to something in the personality or thinking, then I'll say 'Okay, roll it'.
For that matter, they don't even need a reason - you can always opt to NOT take 10. For instance, my fighter has a +1 perception. I don't take 10 on that with him. Ever.
I'm not going to force the issue unless it is clear that they are rushed or threatened, which is almost always due to combat.
This is why I think it's reasonable that this was brought up here instead of in Rules Questions - there are plenty of gray areas that might come up in home games, but it seems like PFS scenarios are pretty black-and-white on this. Either you're in combat, or you're in a situation where take 10 makes sense. Very few exceptions.
wow - I have never seen this.
It is very, very rare to find someone that will put additional penalties on their character for the sake of roleplaying. We have two of them in my area (including myself). So it does exist. Michael wanted opinions; given myself and my players, that's my opinion. YMMV.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I think this post is not about the rule - but about how it is being enforced (or in this case prohibited.)
the major questions appeared to be...
What situations, out side of combat, would you GMs constitute as "distractions or threats"?
Are there any skills you would deem are only used in combat, and therefore Taking 10 would not apply?
Exactly so. Thanks for cutting straight to the point.
The Taking 10 rule is, in itself, rather benign... it hurts no one and, in fact, can speed up areas of play that might eat time in a scenario (i.e. Perception to search for traps, etc.), something that can really hurt a 4-hour time slot! Already, we have learned that GM variance can cause issues in an Organized Play setting, based on a GMs particular idea of how that rule works. I figure having an open discussion of this among PFS GMs might keep that from being an issue.
For example, a GM might decide that EVERYTIME a character uses Disable Device, there is a chance of failure because of the danger of being effected by the trap itself. Or that Knowledge skills represent a hard line of "know it or not" and therefore DO NOT get the benefit of Taking 10. Getting these out in the open to discuss or debate helps us find a common ground.
EDIT: Thanks for your input as well, Jiggy.
For example, a GM might decide that EVERYTIME a character uses Disable Device, there is a chance of failure because of the danger of being effected by the trap itself... and therefore DO NOT get the benefit of Taking 10.
I think right here is the main reason why so a lot of GMs say you can't take 10. They confuse its conditions with the similar-but-different take 20. (I know I'm guilty of this from time to time as well.) A chance of failure has nothing to do with taking 10, that's taking 20. Even if a player or GM knows the difference, in the grind of the game they can mix them up leading to the 'You can't take #' quote.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the other quote that goes with T10 - "you know how long that will take?"
(yeah - I hate to admit I reply to this "six seconds" way too much)
Actually, if you take into effect the idea that Taking 10 epitomizes "taking extra precautions to prevent distractions or failure", then "six seconds" is hardly accurate... as a matter of fact, I don't recall ever seeing a passage in the Core that says that a Round is 6 seconds! To me, Taking 10 means more of "taking my time", like Indiana Jones estimating the counter-weight for the trap in Raiders of the Lost Ark... not that it necessarily means an auto-success (as per the example!) Can it succeed? Yes! Does that mean the player automatically should know the DC? No... that isn't info granted by the skill itself.
Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world; there are 10 rounds in a minute of combat.
I always thought taking 10 was just not paying anymore attention to the skill use than normal.
EDIT: Poor wording. Not paying any more attention than would be used to perform the skill multiple times in a row. Nothing special, just going for an average job.
Bah! I'm taking 10 on my Linguistics. Read whatever you want from that. :P
You mean 3 seconds, since using Perception is a move action not a full-round action? :P
UMD specifically states no taking 10. But that doesn't have to do with combat. I could possibly see Fly as being distracting in the conditions you actually have to make a check, but only if flying isn't natural for you. A human, even with a fly spell, is going to be skittish when a gust of wind buffers him. Still, I don't know if I'd disallow taking 10...
where does "taking extra precautions to prevent distractions or failure" come from?
It comes from Michael's interpretation of the concept of taking 10. I don't personally agree with it, but I don't see anything that indicates it couldn't be such so I'm not going to refute it.
What situations, out side of combat, would you GMs constitute as "distractions or threats"?
It would have to be something specifically printed in the rule book or in the scenario/module.
For example, in a non-PFS game, you could say that while the rogue is walking a tight rope, a mosquito swarm comes along and buzzes around him, causing a distraction to his normal skill check that would not allow for Take 10. But if the scenario does not specifically say this will happen to a character on a tight rope, then it cannot happen. This is PFS play, and GMs cannot invent things to happen to character that would take away their rights to Take 10.
My vote is for no extra time. But then my vote is for taking 10 being just an 'average' job, not anything extra cautious.
As for the time thing, Take 20 specifically says that it takes 20 times as long to do, but Take 10 says nothing about needing extra time, but that is probably where some GMs get that it takes 10 times as long: Take 20 is 20 times, so Take 10 must be 10 times.
But I do not believe Take 10 requires any extra time, it just requires the lack of distraction or pressure. Let's say we ask you a question that you should be able to answer with a couple of seconds of thought. Now let's ask you the same question with the Jeopardy theme music playing or a 5-second countdown going. Is the second situation going to distract you? This would be Take 10 versus having to roll the dice. No difference in time needed, just added pressure or distraction to get it right.
No extra time its just giving it a half-@$$ attempt and hoping for the best instead of giving it your all and trying to be exceptional.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]It comes from Michael's interpretation of the concept of taking 10. I don't personally agree with it, but I don't see anything that indicates it couldn't be such so I'm not going to refute it.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to decide this was "my interpretation" of the rules. Because pointing that out, of course, wins debates on forums! ;p
When it comes down to it, the rules are a guide line, one we GMs try to adhere to. In some way or another, ALL rules are "interpreted" by a GM.This thread was never meant to be a debate about Taking 10 or whether it should be allowed. Specifically, this thread was asking other GMs for when they would determine a "distraction" would come into play, preventing the Taking 10 rule from coming into play. So far, all I've gotten was a few people defending their right to use it anytime and all the time. If that is the case, then the NPCs on the other side of the board are always Taking 10 too... seems fair enough.
In my opinion (and that is mine, not someone else saying what is mine!), Taking 10 has the potential for abuse. I would absolutely judge that Bluff, Disable Device, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive could all fall into line with Use Magic Device as skills where Taking 10 are probably not going to work, as they involve interaction with influencing other people or (in the case of UMD) items outside of your control.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
But I do not believe Take 10 requires any extra time, it just requires the lack of distraction or pressure. Let's say we ask you a question that you should be able to answer with a couple of seconds of thought. Now let's ask you the same question with the Jeopardy theme music playing or a 5-second countdown going. Is the second situation going to distract you? This would be Take 10 versus having to roll the dice. No difference in time needed, just added pressure or distraction to get it right.
This has been the most helpful of the statements made so far. I thank you.
And, no, I agree, a GM for PFS should not invent a "distraction" to prevent Taking 10. The question then becomes, what exactly constitutes a distraction. I like you answer. By your example, a Pathfinder asked a specific Knowledge skill by an NPC will under pressure (say, time constraints of a mission that must be complete with all haste) would not be allowed to Take 10. I can agree with that.
I can think of some specific Scenarios that involve limited time to complete (Silent Tide, Rules of the Swift, etc.) where the characters know time is short. Would any skill be considered "under pressure" based on that?
I am looking for common ground from PFS GMs as to what would be a "distraction" so as to prevent table variance in Organized Play... nothing more.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to decide this was "my interpretation" of the rules. Because pointing that out, of course, wins debates on forums! ;p
Awww, we lost. :(
If that is the case, then the NPCs on the other side of the board are always Taking 10 too... seems fair enough.
Sounds good to me. I've seen a couple instances of NPCs taking 10 in scenarios. Though it seems PCs tend to specialize in skills so this would present less of a challenge. I'd have to test it to see.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
"...you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10...." it lists when you can't T10 (distractions or threats)] etc. but the basic difference is the player sets the dice on a "10" result. No extra time, no extra thought, NOTHING ELSE DIFFERENT. The character will do nothing else different.
*Emphasis Mine
In the bold it list only those two things...distractions and threats. Now threats are spelled out specifically (such as combat), while distractions is pretty vague. And I have noticed, where wording is vague, that's where the players and GMs have different points of view.
You're right, nowhere does it say it takes more time... nor does it say it takes the same amount of time either. I think in 3.5E, it actually did, but that has no bearing on a Pathfinder rule, IMO. And that rules artifact might have a lot to do with how different GMs interpret that particular rule.
EDIT: And no, not offended. Just looking for GMs examples of what constitutes a "distraction."
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I'll give a real world example.
In my job, I work in a kitchen. At a fairly regular pace, I can make an order in a timely fashion (i.e. less than 5 minutes) every time without mistake. As we head into a lunch rush though, more tickets pop up, forcing me to split my concentration over multiple tickets at the same time (a distraction). The chances of a mistake (failure) while making someone's order during that time is increased by the pressure of trying to insure quality and timeliness for all the orders currently on my screen.
That to me, represents the difference between the ability to Take 10 or not. Yes, according to that, it takes a little to no more time for Taking 10 comparatively.
So, throwing away any talk of extra time, what would prevent Taking 10 from occurring? One person suggested the idea of pressure to accomplish the task at hand; I agree.
And how do you perceive Taking 10 in game terms. Another person suggested that Taking 10 is a "half-@$$ed attempt" rather than giving your all. I'm not sure I agree with that, since the numbers involved in the mechanic seem slightly more in the favor of Taking 10. How do you view it? Not from mechanics, from character perspective... remember, Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, not a roll playing game.
Anything outside the realm or reasonable if its a non mechanical reason for instance the book guy i would talk it over with the player in a home game in PFS if i'm not told to say no and it seems like it would be an arguement I'd probably not push the issue.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
In the special section of skills it says if you can not take 10 on the skill. The only one it says this on is UMD. Now, if there was another skill, - say Concentration, that said "Special you can not take 10 n this skill", would that help?
Actually, yes, since this is a grey area for skill rules. If I were to go by RAW, a horse can climb a rope, too. Climb is always a skill for an Animal... nowhere does it say that thumbs are involved.
oh, Mike, feel free to tell me to "shut up and go away" if that helps. I'm kind of used to it by now.
And, no, that wouldn't help at all! If anything, we will have to agree to disagree, since I don't see the rules as carved in stone, with everything you can possibly do codified. If you are looking straight at the black and white, yes, you can Take 10 with any skill except UMD.
So, Nosig, being the stout defender of Take 10, what would you declare a distraction (other than the obvious, combat) for when Take 10 would not be allowed? I would really like to know. And make it a general rule that can be applied to all skill rolls equally, if you please.
EDIT: Please do not take my tone for sarcasm. I am just curious.
|
|
The take 10 thing is one of those weird disconnects between how the real world works and how the Pathfinder world works.
In real life, you don't try and convince someone to help you out and think
"I'll make a precisely average argument to get them onside, because I reckon I'm convincing enough that that'll work."
But in Pathfinder, you can do just that with your Diplomacy. Somehow.
EDIT: Though thinking about it, I suspect door-to-door salesmen and political campaigners will 'take 10' on their Diplomacy checks through most of their working day. Hmm.
The rub in the Take 10 rules is that 'or distracted' bit. Threatened is obvious; distracted less so.
I had an interesting thought about it - I would probably say that for me, taking 10 or 20 on a skill would constitute sufficient distraction to prevent taking 10 on another skill.
So if you're taking 10 on Acrobatics to walk across a narrow ledge, then no taking 10 on Perception to spot the incoming dragon. Etc.
The distraction thing is obviously where the most table variance will be noted.
|
|
Taking 10 hmmm, ever task has a time and place.
I often encourage players to take 10 when out of combat and doing routine tasks. For instance climbing a rope, also I stress taking ten on routine tasks. I probably would advise against most Wis/Cha/Int, for most part if a die needs to be rolled than a soft ten may actually hurt you. This is also the inherent curse of players trying to take a ten, dropping their guard, while a gm actually is hinting that you may want to roll.
Also in most situations like this if you have a group of players rolling would likely offer a better outcome.
For diplomacy and intimidate checks I would also advise against it. Since you could actually hurt relations.
Knowledge checks case by case.
Perception sure if you think your modifer is above +10 and the target is within 10ft.
Also you will get the occassional GM that will ask the party if they want to take 10 to climb a hill realizing that the DC is 5 and the cleric, playing turtle is in full plate wearing a tower shield, while not being proficent in either and his penalties will fail a 10.
Nosig while taking a 10 realise that about half the time taking a 10 is actually not a good option. You can ask the last party I GM'D in PFS their ability to climb a rope was good till the were 120' off the ground and combat started. Indeed 12d6 was handed out.
Also most GMS know the rules quite well. Sometimes they might have a broader insight to the mechanic of the roll. More on focus let's say the default dc of half the mechanics is set at dc 20 for level ranges 1-5 that would require a +10. Let's assume the other two quarters are +5/-5 that being dcs 15 and 25. With a stat bounus +2 and skill +4 at first. You could succeed at 1/4 of the time, but fail 3/4 of the time. Likely at 5th level you may be at +10 but that is when the tier challenges raise.
There are indead good options for taking 10, IMHO this would be a bad idea for most players unless they had a specific build. Take a look at Skill Mastery advance rogue talent.
I also believe in playing skill based classes, even then skill focus is a great way to go. IMHO if you really rely on skills (Rogue) skill focus acrobatics or stealth.
