Taking 10

[hogarth]

Andrew Christian wrote:

The fact there are many feats out there that allow a Take 10 when otherwise it would not be available, leads me to interpret the Take 10 rule a little more strictly, in that otherwise it would make those feats and abilities useless.

Redundant-(or-are-they?) feats and abilities like that are one of my pet peeves. My least favourite is the feat Childlike, which allows you to take 10 on Bluff checks to make yourself look innocent. The feat doesn't even say "[you] may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent [you] from doing so" like the Skill Mastery rogue talent so, as far as I can tell, it allows you to take 10 in exactly the same situations where anyone else could take 10.

:-(

[Andrew Christian]

hogarth wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

The fact there are many feats out there that allow a Take 10 when otherwise it would not be available, leads me to interpret the Take 10 rule a little more strictly, in that otherwise it would make those feats and abilities useless.

Redundant-(or-are-they?) feats and abilities like that are one of my pet peeves. My least favourite is the feat Childlike, which allows you to take 10 on Bluff checks to make yourself look innocent. The feat doesn't even say "[you] may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent [you] from doing so" like the Skill Mastery rogue talent so, as far as I can tell, it allows you to take 10 in exactly the same situations where anyone else could take 10.

:-(

Well, I think it is certainly valid to use the existence of feats like this as intuitive proof that Take 10 cannot be used on every skill.

[DigitalMage]

Ninjaiguana wrote:

I think that the flipside to this approach is that it cheapens the rogue's 'skill mastery' talent. Rogues can get the ability to take 10 on a number of skills regardless of the situation, and the more restricted other characters are in when they can take 10, the better this talent becomes.

True to some degree but Skill Mastery is designed to allow Take 10 in combat or when distracted - so I guess it comes down to how often the GM will present traps to find and disable without there being any other distractions or combat. Even the howls of goblins closing in on the PCs can be distraction enough to force a roll normally.

Plus Skill Mastery gets the "Take 10 even in combat and whilst distracted" ability on 3+Int Modifier skills, so it applies to enough skills that it should not be overshadowed too often.
]

[nosig]

Michael VonHasseln wrote:

I see a lot on here about the taking ten rule for skills.

Core rules wrote:

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!

just figured I would push the thread back toword the OP.

"1) What situations, out side of combat, would you GMs constitute as "distractions or threats"?
2) Are there any skills you would deem are only used in combat, and therefore Taking 10 would not apply?
3) 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."

[nosig]

Realizing that this will not really make a difference to anyone still here - this is from the tread "Take 10, again" from last OCT which details why I had the T10 T-shirts made. At that time, Jiggy suggested that I add these quotes which Grick had dug out of other posts... boy this is getting long winded. (I am sorry, but I do not know how to link the other threads in here, would someone who knows how please do so?)

I think it's less that they feel the rules are clear in every circumstance, and more that they like leaving some things somewhat vague so that each DM can tailor it to his game.

Cut from Take 10, again, with cuts from Sean K Reynolds:

from Grick, For nosig:

Time required to take 10:
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Taking 10 requires only as much time as making one check."

Is the action I'm performing a distraction?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things."

Can I Take-10 on opposed rolls, like Stealth?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "It's really no different than being a lazy player with a +9 Stealth rogue who thinks he can take 10 on a Stealth check past a guard because he thinks the guard is just some +2 Spot loser... except he doesn't know the guard is actually an important NPC with a +10 Spot. You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences."

[Arnim Thayer]

@ Nosig:

You seem to look at the Take 10 rule as an absolute, something I know Sean K. Reynolds hates in game mechanics. Check his website for more information on that subject.

No rule in Pathfinder (or its other iterations) should be an absolute. Let me give you an example of how that would work in real life.

It is Law (rule) that speeding is illegal. If you were traveling 55 in a 35 mile per hour zone, you would get a ticket. If you were doing 55 in a 35 in an effort to get your pregnant wife to the hospital, you probably would not (table variance of RAW vs. RAI). Truly, you can't be one of those cops that would still ticket the husband, causing undue stress and presenting your profession (or ability as a player) in an unpleasent light for others (in this case the GM and other players).

Sometimes a Rule has to be interpreted with RAI instead of RAW. This is the job of the GM. Wearing the T-shirt would not get you barred; insisting you are always right about the words on it might. Not everything is black & white... rules (much as laws) need to be interpreted from time to time.

As the original poster, I was trying to see what situations might cause a GM to forgo Taking 10, in an effort to prevent table variance for players just like you. A common ground for GMs gives us the ability to present a unified front. Most of your contribution to this thread has not helped in this... it has derailed the topic with "all the time, except UMD; I am always right." Are you that absolute as a GM? If so, I would not feel comfortable at YOUR table. Sometimes I want to swashbuckle swing from the chandelier. Can you point me to the rules on that in the Core, so I can be sure to know if it is possible (and Take 10 while doing it!)? Improvisation is the best tool of a good GM; not rules lawyering.

[Arnim Thayer]

Link to Sean K. Reynolds website talking about absolutes in the rules.

HERE

(Leads me to wonder why so many of these still exist in current rules? Topic for another day!)

[nosig]

Michael VonHasseln wrote:

Link to Sean K. Reynolds website talking about absolutes in the rules.

HERE

(Leads me to wonder why so many of these still exist in current rules? Topic for another day!)

Thank you Michael - one of these days I need to learn how to do this.

[nosig]

and at this point I have been beaten into submission. I never said "all the time, except UMD; I am always right." I replied to the question of when would I allow a player to take 10 on a skill check at a PFSOP table that I am judging as follows: Outside of Combat? For every skill exept UMD and Swim in Stormy waters. That's the way I read the rule. At this point, I give up. I'll go back to lurking, and try to resist posting on the T10 threads anymore, even when addressed directly (as I was in this thread)... (I really do hate conflict - it makes me physically ill and this thread has not been fun).

[Rene Duquesnoy]

I'll let you take 10 if it doesn't derail the fun or disrupt the "feel" of the check. Hell, I'll even encourage it if we are stuck rolling 20s because there is no rogue and the only person who took disable device was a gunslinger. No one wants to sit around watching someone fail over and over again.

[Andrew Christian]

Rene Duquesnoy wrote:

I'll let you take 10 if it doesn't derail the fun or disrupt the "feel" of the check. Hell, I'll even encourage it if we are stuck rolling 20s because there is no rogue and the only person who took disable device was a gunslinger. No one wants to sit around watching someone fail over and over again.

I especially suggest taking 10 in climbing situations. For some odd reason, this skill seems to be one of the most underutilized that I've seen.

[Jiggy]

Michael VonHasseln wrote:

Link to Sean K. Reynolds website talking about absolutes in the rules.

HERE

(Leads me to wonder why so many of these still exist in current rules? Topic for another day!)

I find it amusingly ironic that this thread now includes references to SKR's thoughts on game design in general, when such a high percentage of posts from GMs in this thread directly contradict SKR's clarifications on this exact topic.

Not trying to accuse anyone of being shifty, though; I linked SKR's comments very early in the thread and several of the GMs who chimed in were latecomers. As such, here are some of the clarifications again (and some additional ones):

Regarding the amount of time it takes to Take 10:
"It takes the same amount of time in game whether you roll or take 10."
From a separate thread:
"Taking 10 requires only as much time as making one check."

Regarding "I wouldn't allow it with Skill X because there's a penalty for failure":
"You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences."

Regarding "I wouldn't allow it with opposed checks":
"It's really no different than being a lazy player with a +9 Stealth rogue who thinks he can take 10 on a Stealth check past a guard because he thinks the guard is just some +2 Spot loser... except he doesn't know the guard is actually an important NPC with a +10 Spot."
(Context: this was in reply to someone saying that Taking 10 on opposed checks shouldn't work/is broken. He was explaining that it's fine.)

Regarding "I wouldn't allow it with Skill X because the task itself is distracting":
"Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand."
(Note the "other than the task at hand" bit.)

Regarding "I wouldn't allow it with social skills and/or INT/WIS/CHA skills":
"Take 10 is for things like ... 'can I just take 10 on my Disguise check? I have a +4 modifier, I don't want to roll a 1 and give the guy a crappy disguise just because of a bad roll.'"

*********************

There is still some level of ambiguity as to what constitutes "threatened or distracted" for purposes of disallowing Take 10. However, a large portion of what's been tossed back and forth in this thread falls squarely into territory that's been clarified.

Again, I'm not saying "How dare you miss my links!" It's okay if you simply aren't aware of something. Thus, I'll keep referencing these clarifications from Sean K Reynolds whenever someone states a contradiction, and then trust in the integrity of PFS GMs and assume that anyone aware of designer clarifications will not knowingly overrule them.

I really really really hope that such trust is justified.

[MillerHero]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I especially suggest taking 10 in climbing situations. For some odd reason, this skill seems to be one of the most underutilized that I've seen.

Acrobatics for Jumping too. Taking 10 with no modifiers gets you 5' horizontally without a running start. {outside of combat, of course}

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I especially suggest taking 10 in climbing situations. For some odd reason, this skill seems to be one of the most underutilized that I've seen.

Oh! This reminds me of a perfect example of a Take 10 situation from the FFG Game Day yesterday! Especially in response to some of your earlier statements about abilities that let you always Take 10.

The situation (I don't think it's too much of a spoiler):

That giant statue thingie. Kid's been grabbed by a harpy and taken to a cave well over 150' feet up the canyon (yes, it's that big). My level 2 rogue has a climb speed (yes, a for-real climb speed - which includes the ability to ALWAYS take 10). I borrow someone's periscope and intend to scale the cliff face and peek into the hole all stealthy-like and assess the situation, then climb back down and discuss a plan of action.

Unfortunately, I get 150' up and two harpies fly out and see me, and begin doing fly-by attacks on me as I cling to the cliff face. I'm 150' up, and any time you take damage while climbing, you have to make a climb check against the wall's climb DC or fall. Had I not been able to always take 10 (thus, in this particular case, always succeeding in staying on the wall), I would have died.

So the ability of someone else to take 10 on the way up does not, I feel, in any way reduce the value of my ability to take 10 in all situations. Letting someone take 10 on the way up would have instead highlighted the value of being able to always take 10, not diminished it.

[Evil Ernie]

nosig wrote:

and at this point I have been beaten into submission. I never said "all the time, except UMD; I am always right." I replied to the question of when would I allow a player to take 10 on a skill check at a PFSOP table that I am judging as follows: Outside of Combat? For every skill exept UMD and Swim in Stormy waters. That's the way I read the rule. At this point, I give up. I'll go back to lurking, and try to resist posting on the T10 threads anymore, even when addressed directly (as I was in this thread)... (I really do hate conflict - it makes me physically ill and this thread has not been fun).

And at this point I must stand up for nosig. I know and game with nosig. He is a kind, friendly sort, both as a player and GM. He has an opinion and will tell you. He is not rude at the table. In fact, I have never seen nosig act rudely. He merely knows the rule and believes it should be applied correctly.

Some posted disparaging remarks about nosig. One questioned if nosig should play OP games. Of course he should! He is exactly the player and GM you want. Thoughtful, intelligent, and concerned about applying the rules objectively. He reads the books, finds rules, seeks feedback, asks questions, and urges others to adjust their gameplay.

Give the guy a break. Heck, give every one a break.

[godsDMit]

Jiggy wrote:

So the ability of someone else to take 10 on the way up does not, I feel, in any way reduce the value of my ability to take 10 in all situations. Letting someone take 10 on the way up would have instead highlighted the value of being able to always take 10, not diminished it.

Personally, if I took an ability to do something like 'always be able to take 10 on a skill' and the GM allowed everyone/anyone else to take 10 on the same skill anytime they wanted, even without the ability, id be pretty pissed.

Anyway, this thread is tl;dr.

Also, the answer to this thread is: While table variation is generally looked down upon in PFS, in this regard, I find it to be a neccessary evil. You cannot anticipate every possible action a PC would take or come up with every way in which they might handle the situation. If you dont like how the GM in your game is ruling it, dont play with them.

There you go. I solved it for you, move along.

[Arnim Thayer]

Jiggy wrote:

I find it amusingly ironic that this thread now includes references to SKR's thoughts on game design in general, when such a high percentage of posts from GMs in this thread directly contradict SKR's clarifications on this exact topic.

Not trying to accuse anyone of being shifty, though; I linked SKR's comments very early in the thread and several of the GMs who chimed in were latecomers.

I did read your links and thought them ironic based on his former firm opinion! Reading his website all those years ago, I thought them great insights into how 3.5 still needed fixing, and a solid solution to them!

Sorry, Nosig... I know you never directly "said all the time, anytime" anywhere in your posts. You have been firm in how Combat, first and foremost, prevents Taking 10. At no time have I meant to seem truly antagonistic to you... though I admit my frustration with the "this is the rule" de-rail. I just as firmly stand by my right to arbitrate what is a "distraction" outside of Combat. I was hoping to find other GMs opinions on which skills and when they would prevent Taking 10, specifically because this exact issue comes up and a players feelings (and even a GMs)get hurt. Many times you have equated not allowing Taking 10 with not having proper knowledge of the rules. This has proven no to be the case; most GMs are aware of the rule, they just adjudicate differently on what constitutes a "distraction" than you apparently do.

Despite all of this, I hope you would play at one of my tables without predisposed notions of my GMing skill, just because we disagree on this point. I think you would still have a good time.

[Jiggy]

A thought on the GM's responsibility to adjudicate:

I can't quote the Guide from here, but it says a PFS GM should adjudicate situations where the rules are unclear - we are otherwise required to follow the rules.

Sometimes a rule can have both clear parts and unclear parts. The GM must adjudicate the unclear parts, but needs to follow the clear parts.

For instance, what constitutes a "threat or distraction" is unclear. The GM must make rulings on this.

HOWEVER, there are a few specific situations that are clear. If a GM allowed a PC in combat to take 10 "because what constitutes a distraction is unclear, so I'm ruling it this way" would be in the wrong. Yes, the definition of distraction is unclear, BUT the example of combat as being such a distraction is NOT unclear. The fact that the whole rule isn't clear does not give a GM license to ignore the parts that are clear.

Similarly, any GM who is aware of SKR's clarification that the task at hand is never a distraction cannot treat that situation as "unclear" - it has been clarified. To (knowingly) disregard it because of the broader unclarity is inappropriate.

I'd elaborate further, but I have a bus to catch.

TLDR: Only "rule" on the unclear parts, please.

[Andrew Christian]

Jiggy wrote:

A thought on the GM's responsibility to adjudicate:

I can't quote the Guide from here, but it says a PFS GM should adjudicate situations where the rules are unclear - we are otherwise required to follow the rules.

Sometimes a rule can have both clear parts and unclear parts. The GM must adjudicate the unclear parts, but needs to follow the clear parts.

For instance, what constitutes a "threat or distraction" is unclear. The GM must make rulings on this.

HOWEVER, there are a few specific situations that are clear. If a GM allowed a PC in combat to take 10 "because what constitutes a distraction is unclear, so I'm ruling it this way" would be in the wrong. Yes, the definition of distraction is unclear, BUT the example of combat as being such a distraction is NOT unclear. The fact that the whole rule isn't clear does not give a GM license to ignore the parts that are clear.

Similarly, any GM who is aware of SKR's clarification that the task at hand is never a distraction cannot treat that situation as "unclear" - it has been clarified. To (knowingly) disregard it because of the broader unclarity is inappropriate.

I'd elaborate further, but I have a bus to catch.

TLDR: Only "rule" on the unclear parts, please.

I don't mean to be pedantic or argumentative here. And seeing SKR's clarifications are certainly interesting and is a clue to the RAI.

However, I don't believe his clarification is in an official FAQ or errata is it?

While I certainly respect SKR's clarification, being one of the developers behind the game itself, and it will certainly allow me to adjudicate things perhaps a bit more loosely, it after all, is just an opinion on how he'd handle that particular rule. His words certainly have more weight that most of the rest of us when discussing rules issues.

However, I still maintain my right as a GM to adjudicate distraction on a case by case, and circumstance by circumstance basis. While I will listen to a player, and have often changed my mind after listening, once I've made my ruling, I expect argument about it to stop.

[Jiggy]

I had a feeling I'd be misunderstood, yet I posted hastily while heading off to the bus anyway. ;) Let's see if I can clarify.

I'll address your last statement first, to get it out of the way:

Andrew Christian wrote:

While I will listen to a player, and have often changed my mind after listening, once I've made my ruling, I expect argument about it to stop.

Kinda long reply:

Of course. I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise.

This is a reply that comes up a lot in these types of threads, and despite being true, I think it short circuits helpful discussion. We're not at anyone's table right now. This is exactly when and where we should be challenging each other.

I too expect argument to stop once I've made my ruling as GM - until the session's over. Once we're out of the game, I want anyone who has a beef with my ruling to tell me, so that I can correct my own behavior in the future.

So answering a forum post of "I think GMs are doing X wrong" with a reply of "Players shouldn't argue with me at the table" isn't really a reply at all. It's irrelevant at best; at worst it's indicative of an unhealthy defensiveness (i.e., "someone questioning me on the forums equates to challenging my authority at the table"). Furthermore, presenting such a statement as an answer to a rules discussion implies (though perhaps unintentionally) that to continue to debate the real topic somehow inherently defies the claim of table authority.

So yes, you're right that the GM's ruling should be adhered to at the table. But we GMs all need to learn to leave behind that authority when we leave the table and become students until our next game.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't mean to be pedantic or argumentative here. And seeing SKR's clarifications are certainly interesting and is a clue to the RAI.

However, I don't believe his clarification is in an official FAQ or errata is it?

Neither is Mark Moreland's statement about needing to actively use Masterwork Tools instead of having them as passive, "always on" bonuses. What would you think about my ethics and integrity if (knowing that I was aware of Mark's post) I continued to use my MWK Tools as static bonuses anyway? Would you be okay with that?

Yes, it would be legal. But I sure wouldn't think too highly of it.

This is the same thing. Someone who knows that SKR says (for example) that the task at hand doesn't count as a distraction but continues to knowingly run games to the contrary is exactly the same as the person who knows that Mark says MWK Tools can't be static but continues to knowingly play their character to the contrary. The only difference is that one is a player and the other a GM - that shouldn't change the ethics of it.

************

Again, lest it be missed: I am only talking about when you know that it's supposed to be a certain way and choose to do differently. I'm not going to hold it against someone if they don't follow the boards that closely and don't see the clarifications and rule the best they can. Or even if it's as simple as not wanting to slow the game down by looking something up. That's all totally fine. I'm only protesting deliberate, informed, knowing contradiction of rules/clarifications.

[TwilightKnight]

I have pondered this thread for a while and I have determined that the real issue is off-topic and perhaps needs it's own thread. But seeing as how, IMO, the take 10 issue seems to have reached its end...

Taking 10 or even 20 is not the issue. It is the magnitude of the modifier that seems to be the problem. As one poster stated, his Perception modifier was +37. This reduces all searching to an auto-success, even stealth. I have not seen any NPC's with a Stealth score high enough to conceal vs. that, even without a take 10. Scores that high can even neutralize invisibility (+20).

A well-built party could have a number of skills that auto-succeed with take 10 attempts, therefore, there is little/no risk in the scenario. The encounter outcomes become predetermined. Might as well just sign the chronicles and hand them out.

Painlord had a good example of what I am talking about HERE

Spoiler:

Painlord wrote:

Sometimes I think the best advice I can give to new players sometimes is: GET FOUND!

Get Found! Story:

(Adapted from my ale-addled mind.)

The story comes from Robert Fulghum (of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarden).

Robert was watching children in his neighborhood play a game of hide and seek. Recalling his youth, Robert remembers a kid who was *really* good at hiding, so good, no one could find him. The kid hid so well that eventually the rest of kids gave up trying to find him.

Seeing the kids playing outside, Robert saw one kid hiding in a great spot, no one would find him. In fact, it looked like the other kids were about to give up trying to find him. (yeah yeah yeah...maybe this was before the time of "olly olly oxen free free free" rules were put into the official Hide&Seek players guide v1.2)

Recalling his experience from his youth, Robert yelled to the kid to "Get Found!"

The point of PFS *isn't* about hiding so no one can ever find you or having an AC so high that no one can hit you or doing 100 DPR or casting a persistent heightened Stone to Flesh with a DC of 7 gazillion...

...it's about interactions in a social environment playing a common pastime.

In fact, PFS is more like a game of Sardines than Hide & Seek. I'd rather be hiding, laughing, giggling, and trying to keep quiet with a bunch of friends than hiding alone.

If you're not building your character to both interact, help, and rely on other players, you may be playing wrong.

Get Found, you!

-Pain

[Arnim Thayer]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Wow! Some really good STUFF!

*hands clapping*

Eloquent as always, Bob! Thanks for that insight!

[Nickademus42]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I have not seen any NPC's with a Stealth score high enough to conceal vs. that, even without a take 10.

I had a creature roll a 78 Stealth check in a tier 1 scenario. Remember invisible creatures get +40 to Stealth (+20 if moving).

[Red-Assassin]

I agree with Michael good post TK.

I recently helped a friend deal with an auto salesman.

I took a 10 on checks.

Appraise with a +2 masterwork phone with internet and google.

I failed my prof. auto check.

I failed my bluff check, does kicking tires actually matter?

I may have passed my Perception check. I didn't see anything leaking or on fire.

I failed my diplomacy, sense motive check and intimidate checks.

End result after tring talking to talk the price down and thinking we did good. The dealer added some invisble in house paperwork fees to the total.

End result paying exactly the posted sticker price...

[TwilightKnight]

Nickademus42 wrote:

I had a creature roll a 78 Stealth check in a tier 1 scenario. Remember invisible creatures get +40 to Stealth (+20 if moving).

Really?!? So, assuming it was standing still (+40) and rolled a nat '20' on the check, that still requires another +18. Where did that come from at tier 1 feel free to spoiler if necessary

A character might get that level, but would have to sink nearly everything in it in lieu of anything else.

Skill Points: 1
Class skill: +3
MW Tool: +2
Dex Mod: +4
Trait: +2 (not sure, just guessing)
Skill Focus: +3
Racial: +4 (assuming small size)
Total: 19

There will always be the extremely rare and circumstantial event where unusually high (or low) numbers can be rolled. However, in the VAST majority of the cases, a much lower skill modifier can still result in success, take 10 or otherwise.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

There will always be the extremely rare and circumstantial event where unusually high (or low) numbers can be rolled. However, in the VAST majority of the cases, a much lower skill modifier can still result in success, take 10 or otherwise.

The most common DC I've run into in lower tiers for anything important is 20: I've seen it for Diplomacy, Kn(Local), Perception, Sense Motive, and more; and multiple times for some of those skills. Anyone with a +9 or less (most characters at low tiers) will fail if they Take 10. Anyone with a +10 or higher is exactly the kind of expert that should never fail those checks under normal circumstances.

And if we're talking about lower DCs (say, 12) then it's something some random schmuck with a +0 in the relevant ability and no training whatsoever will still succeed at almost half the time - so an adventurer with a rank or two should be auto-succeeding if there's nothing interfering.

I have never ever ever seen a scenario be negatively affected by too much success in skill checks, whether due to heavy investment or utilizing Take 10. In fact, the only time I've seen the fun level drop due to a skill check is when the guy with +14 rolls a 2 and misses the DC 20 that he needed and no one else rolls the requisite 18-19 to make up for it.

Let me reiterate for emphasis:
The only time I've seen the fun level drop due to a skill check is when the guy with +14 rolls a 2 and misses the DC 20 that he needed and no one else rolls the requisite 18-19 to make up for it.

[hogarth]

Jiggy wrote:

Let me reiterate for emphasis:

The only time I've seen the fun level drop due to a skill check is when the guy with +14 rolls a 2 and misses the DC 20 that he needed and no one else rolls the requisite 18-19 to make up for it.

Again, this boils down to people who like "easy mode" vs. people who like "hard mode" (just like the argument about risk-free module play vs. risky module play, and many other debates in PFS).

In this case, either the player who likes "easy mode" (e.g. pumping up his PC's skill check and taking 10 all the time) or the GM who likes "hard mode" (e.g. having the PCs struggle with skill checks some of the time) will be disappointed.

You can't please everyone.

[Dragnmoon]

What do you guys do when a player asks you if they can take 10 but you know taking 10 will fail?

[Sir Ma'Layo]

Thod wrote:

I'm surprised nobody has here asked the crucial PFS question

Is take 10 and okay for Faction Missions.

Most of the newer season faction missions are "do this right the first time" sort of missions.

I would rule that someone could not take 10 (nor would I encourage it since they need at least 15 or higher to succeed sometimes).

As far as Taking 10 on a day job roll; I would never want to take 10 on my roll. What fantastic role playing I leave the table with Sir Ma'Layo, expert alchemist who created Smoke Sticks for everyone this week.
No really, try it out!
Wait... why does that Smokestick have a fuse...?

Spoiler:

*boom*

[hogarth]

Dragnmoon wrote:

What do you guys do when a player asks you if they can take 10 but you know taking 10 will fail?

If they're asking to do something that the PC would think was clearly impossible (e.g. jumping to the top of a 20' cliff with a +5 Acrobatics modifier), I might gently point that out.

Otherwise, knock yourself out!

[Jiggy]

Dragnmoon wrote:

What do you guys do when a player asks you if they can take 10 but you know taking 10 will fail?

The same thing you do when they say "I draw my cold iron sword" and you know it's DR/silver. You let it happen.

And you know what'll happen? People will start seeing their skill bonuses (or lack thereof) actually start to matter more than the luck of a d20 roll and consider maybe making an interesting skill specialist instead of just another combat monkey.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[godsDMit]

I know its not really right, but for me it kinda depends on who it is or what the circumstances are. Im far more likely to tell them that taking 10 is a bad idea if its a new player, or the player has had a really rough time in the scenario thus far.

Of course, if they dont tell me what their check is before the take 10, and just give me a "I take 10, so an 18", Im more likely to let them fail.

Also, in light of Bob's math, I feel the need to point out that Nickademus said a 'creature' rolled a 78. Doesnt neccessarily mean it was a character or humanoid npc.

[Jiggy]

Seth Brummond wrote:

Most of the newer season faction missions are "do this right the first time" sort of missions.

I would rule that someone could not take 10 (nor would I encourage it since they need at least 15 or higher to succeed sometimes).

Two things:

1. You can't "rule" that you can't take 10 on a faction mission because it's a faction mission. If the situation merits prohibiting take 10, fine. But you don't get to decide "I won't allow Core Rule X on faction missions".

2. Why shelter them from failure? Yesterday we've got people saying that Take 10 makes things too easy, then today we've got people saying not to let them Take 10 and fail? I guess all we really know, then, is that no one's allowed Take 10 enough to actually know how it affects games.

[nosig]

I promaced myself that I would not type again on this thread - and I KNOW I am going to regret this, as the last round of getting kicked around on this thread almost made me give up PFSOP. But here goes, (I can always go back to playing home games).

The option of T10 is 1st of all a choice of the player. He has to decide to ask if he can even do it. Some other judges will object to this statement. They feel that it is their decision on if the player can take ten. OK, I sort of agree with that, but you miss my point. The player has to ASK to T10 before we get to the part where the judge decides if this rule applies. Guys, we are all judges here. If the player doesn't ask to T10, it doesn't matter if we would let him do it or not. So, 1st, it's his decision. In order to decide to T10 OR NOT he has to know that he CAN. Before he decides that he wants to take 10 on a skill, he has to know the T10 rule even exists. If we have not taught him that he can, ever, T10, this entire thread is wasted space. There are lots of players out there who do not know the T10 rules exist. There are lots more who have a mistaken idea of what the rule says. I pay attention to this rule a lot. My estimation is about 70% (30% don't know it exists past the phrase Take 10, another 40% have learned the rule wrong - "takes 10 rounds", "Can't do it if you might fail", etc) Why is that? We are fine teaching the players that to avoid an AOO while moving in combat you can use Acrobatics, how you do it and how it works. Why is it we only interact with T10 to tell the players they can't do that?
If he wants to roll the dice for whatever reason (maybe he will do it cause it's fun?)- the Judge can not say "you have to take 10 on this skill check". Why? because the PLAYER is playing his character. The judge tells him he has to make the skill roll. Each time the judge takes the decision away from the player, the player is loosing a little more of the illusion of control over what his character can do. Are you taking this from him because you beleave he will have more fun? Or so that you can have more fun? WHY ARE THESE EVEN DIFFERENT? Can't you have fun if the player is deciding his fate, successful or not?

By taking the T10 rule away, what we are actually doing is makeing the player concentrate more on those few skills he thinks he will need. After all - he needs to push his bonus up enough so that he can do X even when he rolls a 1.

[hogarth]

Jiggy wrote:

1. You can't "rule" that you can't take 10 on a faction mission because it's a faction mission.

Of course not. But he can certainly say "you're distracted by blah blah blah". Such is life.

[nosig]

Seth Brummond wrote:

Thod wrote:

I'm surprised nobody has here asked the crucial PFS question

Is take 10 and okay for Faction Missions.

Most of the newer season faction missions are "do this right the first time" sort of missions.

I would rule that someone could not take 10 (nor would I encourage it since they need at least 15 or higher to succeed sometimes).

As far as Taking 10 on a day job roll; I would never want to take 10 on my roll. What fantastic role playing I leave the table with Sir Ma'Layo, expert alchemist who created Smoke Sticks for everyone this week.
No really, try it out!
Wait... why does that Smokestick have a fuse...?
** spoiler omitted **

You can't T10 on a day job roll. You don't have that option, no player does. (yeah-yeah, I know, flame me if you feel the need. But that's the rule.)

Please sir, reconsider your stance on Faction Missions. You feel the Factions Missions are too important to fail - so you need to leave them to a roll of the dice, rather than letting the players prepare as best they can? I do not understand this. I have seen faction missions that require a DC20 on a Knowledge check (no roll untrained) - at Tier 1-2. My wife has a 2nd level Wizard that made that check, taking 10. if she had rolled it instead, there was a 45% chance of failure (she was +11), failure that would result in 4 players failing the faction mission. She was prepared, having picked a faction that she felt MIGHT require that skill, so she put points in it. The high fives went around the table, each team member of FedEx (our team name) feeling good cause we each planned ahead as to what skills we brought to the team. The fighter had Disable Device, the Bard all the face skills, the Cleric Heal, etc. We were rewarded for careful planning and foresight. Would it be more fun to leave it to a dice roll?

[Jiggy]

hogarth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

1. You can't "rule" that you can't take 10 on a faction mission because it's a faction mission.

Of course not. But he can certainly say "you're distracted by blah blah blah". Such is life.

Sure, and I said as much. His post sounded more like regardless of distraction (or the absence thereof) he'd disallow T10 on faction missions just because they're faction missions.

...Or were you suggesting that he could disallow it due to being a faction mission and just say that there was a distraction when there really wasn't? If so, I'm just going to trust him to have more integrity than that. He is a VC, after all. :)

[Sir_Wulf]

I've always felt that "Taking 10" represented unhurried, organized, routine use of an ability. In my opinion, if a character didn't have a routine approach, they can't "take 10" on that ability.

A car salesman could take 10 when selling a car: He has an established routine to follow ("I'll need to talk to the manager to see if we can do anything to help you.") Someone who has never sold a car couldn't: He has no routine to fall back on.

A politican could take 10 when giving a speech: He plans that speech ahead of time and has a standard approach to adopt. If thrown into a debate with no prior idea what would be asked, he couldn't take ten, since there is no standard method to rely on.

An adventurer can take 10 when looting a room, since he has a system. He can't take ten when searching for information in an unfamiliar library, as he may not know the library.

A veteran horseman could take 10 when riding. Some guy on a borrowed camel couldn't: He doesn't yet know what he doesn't know.

[Jiggy]

Sir_Wulf wrote:

In my opinion, if a character didn't have a routine approach, they can't "take 10" on that ability.

With all due respect, this is wrong. You do not get to go through the Core Rules and decide how you personally would flavor it, and then disallow any use of a rule that doesn't match your flavor preference. The only grounds for disallowing Take 10 are if a rule forbids it (Day Job, UMD, etc) or if the situation qualifies as threatened/distracted in your judgment.

To disallow it for any other reason is outside your power as an Organized Play GM.

Quote:

An adventurer can take 10 when looting a room, since he has a system. He can't take ten when searching for information in an unfamiliar library, as he may not know the library.

Interestingly, you've described two situations where the adventurer could (in all likelihood, anyway) take 20. But that's a discussion for another time and place. :)

Quote:

A veteran horseman could take 10 when riding. Some guy on a borrowed camel couldn't: He doesn't yet know what he doesn't know.

You are right to believe there should be difference between Rider and Camel-Borrower. The error is to think that the difference has to do with Take 10.

The difference is in their bonuses - Rider has (at level 1) probably a +5 or something to his ride checks, so taking 10 is a success for basic stuff that he should have down pat. Exactly as it should be. Meanwhile, Camel Guy has a +0 and possibly higher DCs (due to the borrowed mount) and will succeed on only the most basic of tasks even while taking 10. Again, exactly as it should be.

And then when something crazy happens (bandits arrive, a disaster needs to be averted, whatever), they both have to roll - but the Rider has a minimum check of 6 and therefore won't fail the really basic stuff even under these conditions, and Camel Guy will be failing checks left and right. Once again, exactly as it should be.

Take 10 makes things go how they should - skilled people succeed and unskilled people fail. Why so many GMs seem to think this is a bad thing is beyond me.

[hogarth]

Jiggy wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

1. You can't "rule" that you can't take 10 on a faction mission because it's a faction mission.

Of course not. But he can certainly say "you're distracted by blah blah blah". Such is life.

Sure, and I said as much. His post sounded more like regardless of distraction (or the absence thereof) he'd disallow T10 on faction missions just because they're faction missions.

...Or were you suggesting that he could disallow it due to being a faction mission and just say that there was a distraction when there really wasn't? If so, I'm just going to trust him to have more integrity than that. He is a VC, after all. :)

I'm saying that there's enough fuzziness in the rules for a GM to almost always claim that there's a "distraction" of some kind in any situation.

I don't think it shows a lack of integrity (given the looseness of the rules) to say "my gut tells me that the PC shouldn't be able to take 10" and then pinpoint the precise distraction afterwards, rather than vice versa. It's just a different GMing style.

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

Why is that? We are fine teaching the players that to avoid an AOO while moving in combat you can use Acrobatics, how you do it and how it works. Why is it we only interact with T10 to tell the players they can't do that?

For me, I only actively teach new players. If you are experienced, I assume you know the rules. Or at least the ones that impact your character. If you tell me your are doing something that is wrong, either by rule or my interpretation, I will let you know. But I do not make it a habit of telling players what actions they can take. If tumbling would allow you to avoid AoO, but you fail to consider that, not my problem.

That being said, I have reconsidered my position on Take 10. I am going to accept Nosig's position and let anyone take 10 whenever they want (except for cases specifically called out in the CRB). I won't go as far as to encourage it, but I won't arbitrarily deny it either.

As I said in my previous post, T10 is not the issue. IMO, it is uber-optomized characters that can auto-succeed on anything they do. Consider this, most have complained that scenarios are largely too easy. IMO, it is not because the challenges are written too easy, it is because we are optimizing our characters to such an extend that there is little to no risk of failure. Sometimes it feels like a video game with the 'god' code turned on. (read: "up up down down left right left right B A start").

I will continue to shout, "GET FOUND!"

[Darius Silverbolt]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

IMO, it is not because the challenges are written too easy, it is because we are optimizing our characters to such an extend that there is little to no risk of failure.

This will always be true to some extend as people play they way they wish to play. Power Gamers, optimizers, Heavy Roleplayers, etc... there is no right answer to fix this as this is the nature of Tabletop RPG's. The game is complex and there is no RIGHT way to play.

The idea of organized play is that we all share similar experiences as players (and show case Paizo products) but no game is truly the same. There is always going to be table variation.

That is 100% acceptable to me. I for one didn't like the T10 and T20 rules when 3.0 first came out but over time I saw the use of them. To me they get rid of tedious dice rolling.

To me PFSOP and RPG's in general is about getting together and having fun with friends, meeting new people and tell people the drunken adventures of my Dwarf Fighter BullMahn the Tankard tosser and passing some time.

[nosig]

hogarth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

1. You can't "rule" that you can't take 10 on a faction mission because it's a faction mission.

Of course not. But he can certainly say "you're distracted by blah blah blah". Such is life.

Sure, and I said as much. His post sounded more like regardless of distraction (or the absence thereof) he'd disallow T10 on faction missions just because they're faction missions.

...Or were you suggesting that he could disallow it due to being a faction mission and just say that there was a distraction when there really wasn't? If so, I'm just going to trust him to have more integrity than that. He is a VC, after all. :)

I'm saying that there's enough fuzziness in the rules for a GM to almost always claim that there's a "distraction" of some kind in any situation.

I don't think it shows a lack of integrity (given the looseness of the rules) to say "my gut tells me that the PC shouldn't be able to take 10" and then pinpoint the precise distraction afterwards, rather than vice versa. It's just a different GMing style.

From the OP, so these are not my words - but this is what the tread was about.

"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."

[Andrew Christian]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

Why is that? We are fine teaching the players that to avoid an AOO while moving in combat you can use Acrobatics, how you do it and how it works. Why is it we only interact with T10 to tell the players they can't do that?

For me, I only actively teach new players. If you are experienced, I assume you know the rules. Or at least the ones that impact your character. If you tell me your are doing something that is wrong, either by rule or my interpretation, I will let you know. But I do not make it a habit of telling players what actions they can take. If tumbling would allow you to avoid AoO, but you fail to consider that, not my problem.

That being said, I have reconsidered my position on Take 10. I am going to accept Nosig's position and let anyone take 10 whenever they want (except for cases specifically called out in the CRB). I won't go as far as to encourage it, but I won't arbitrarily deny it either.

As I said in my previous post, T10 is not the issue. IMO, it is uber-optomized characters that can auto-succeed on anything they do. Consider this, most have complained that scenarios are largely too easy. IMO, it is not because the challenges are written too easy, it is because we are optimizing our characters to such an extend that there is little to no risk of failure. Sometimes it feels like a video game with the 'god' code turned on. (read: "up up down down left right left right B A start").

I will continue to shout, "GET FOUND!"

Like Bob, after letting this thread go for a day or so and contemplating, I have been dealing with Take 10 rather inconsistently. I allow it for climb (when failure can allow damage) but not disable device? Doesn't make sense.

So I will loosen my stance and allow it in almost any circumstance. If taking 10 fails the check, so be it, consequences arise.

But, like Bob, I'm not sure the issue is actually the Take 10 rule, or how various GM's interpret or misinterpret it. The issue at hand is how the players present themselves and the GM's allowing themselves to get defensive and autocratic at the sign of a player who's choosing to try and bully the GM.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I have reconsidered my position on Take 10. I am going to accept Nosig's position and let anyone take 10 whenever they want (except for cases specifically called out in the CRB). I won't go as far as to encourage it, but I won't arbitrarily deny it either.

You know, I seriously considered issuing a "challenge" of sorts to PFS GMs - to do as you state and allow T10 any time not expressly forbidden (combat, UMD, etc) and then report back regarding whether or not it broke the game or brought about any of the negative things that some GMs seem to fear. I would be very interested to hear the results of your new stance later on. :)

Quote:

As I said in my previous post, T10 is not the issue. IMO, it is uber-optomized characters that can auto-succeed on anything they do. Consider this, most have complained that scenarios are largely too easy. IMO, it is not because the challenges are written too easy, it is because we are optimizing our characters to such an extend that there is little to no risk of failure.

I submit that GMs being less afraid of letting players Take 10 on skills (and maybe spread awareness of the rule) would actually start to push people back towards more challenging experiences.

Here's why:
In my experience, whenever there's a skill check that really matters to the scenario, one of two things happens:
1. Everyone at the table can make the check and you only need one success (gathering info via Diplomacy, for instance).
2. One person makes the check.
Suppose you're really good at a certain skill; say a +10 modifier. Assume the skill check in question is DC 20 (seems common in PFS).

In situation 1 above, you roll and have a near-coin flip chance of failing despite being an expert at that skill. Meanwhile, 3-5 other PCs are rolling as well. If you fail and everyone else does too, fine. If you fail and someone else succeeds, your character's specialty feels pointless. If you succeed but someone else does too, then your character's specialty again feels pointless. And since that might be the only time you use that skill for the whole scenario (or even longer - not every scenario includes Diplomacy, for instance), you're going to wonder why you even bothered to make a skilled character when you'll be foiled by bad rolls or overshadowed by good rolls of your less-invested teammates. Really, what's the point?

In situation 2, the whole party is counting on you doing what you do best. If you roll and fail (45% chance of doing so), then your expertise amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, the combat monkey will get to roll so many more dice that it's near impossible for him to completely fail - he'll always contribute. So if you can fail at your specialty due to a single bad roll, while Max Damage would need several bad rolls in a row in order to fail to contribute, which type of character are you going to want to play?

Taking 10 lets the skill specialist avoid the swinginess of the d20 in his chosen field. So when he gets his One Big Chance to make a difference, he succeeds or fails based on his expertise rather than chance.

Without Take 10, the only way to contribute consistently is to be combat-optimized; skills are a crapshoot. But with Take 10, a skill-based character can plan on being a worthwhile part of the team.

If that starts happening, more people might start investing in skills instead of focusing on combat.

And if more people are invested in skills instead of combat, then combat encounters might become less of a cakewalk. Not to mention we'd see a little more variety of characters at the table!

So although it certainly won't "solve" the issue, I think there's real potential for the proper use of T10 to help alleviate the "Easy Combat" problem in the longrun.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I have reconsidered my position on Take 10. I am going to accept Nosig's position and let anyone take 10 whenever they want (except for cases specifically called out in the CRB).

Like Bob, after letting this thread go for a day or so and contemplating, ... I will loosen my stance and allow it in almost any circumstance. If taking 10 fails the check, so be it, consequences arise.

*hugs Bob and Andy*

You guys are why I know PFS can succeed. :)

[Andrew Christian]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I have pondered this thread for a while and I have determined that the real issue is off-topic and perhaps needs it's own thread. But seeing as how, IMO, the take 10 issue seems to have reached its end...

Taking 10 or even 20 is not the issue. It is the magnitude of the modifier that seems to be the problem. As one poster stated, his Perception modifier was +37. This reduces all searching to an auto-success, even stealth. I have not seen any NPC's with a Stealth score high enough to conceal vs. that, even without a take 10. Scores that high can even neutralize invisibility (+20).

A well-built party could have a number of skills that auto-succeed with take 10 attempts, therefore, there is little/no risk in the scenario. The encounter outcomes become predetermined. Might as well just sign the chronicles and hand them out.

Painlord had a good example of what I am talking about HERE
** spoiler omitted **

...

I love this story!

[TwilightKnight]

Related question. Do you allow a take 10 only for those with at least one point spent on the skill or anytime, period? Would you allow an untrained character make a knowledge check with a take 10 vs. a DC 10?

EDIT--honestly, I am not necessarily embracing that Take 10 should be allowed all the time. I am just acknowledging that it could increase player enjoyment by allowing it. Hence, my position change.

I still think there are plenty of cases where, thematically, taking 10 does not make sense, and I am not one to blindly follow rules black and white. I do not subscribe to "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can."

[Sir_Wulf]

Jiggy wrote:

With all due respect, this is wrong. You do not get to go through the Core Rules and decide how you personally would flavor it, and then disallow any use of a rule that doesn't match your flavor preference. The only grounds for disallowing Take 10 are if a rule forbids it (Day Job, UMD, etc) or if the situation qualifies as threatened/distracted in your judgment.

Reviewing the comments here (and a few other places) has convinced me to give your view more credence. My view was that taking 10 represented the character following a routine, standard approach to routine, standard tasks. In the future, I'll try to keep in mind that the rule allows broader application than that.

My issue with the rules as written is that I'm using the skill check to simulate a bit of dumb luck. Let's take 'Dorkus', our novice camel wrangler. He has a Dex 14, -1 armor penalty, and no ranks in ride. Even with a hefty penalty for his unfamiliarity with camels and how they are trained or ridden, by taking ten, Dorkus will still never fail during routine riding tasks. This is reasonable: What mistakes he makes aren't dramatically significant. He may have some problems, but he'll eventually get where he's going.

Now put him under some pressure: Dorkus has to show the al'Kazam tribesmen that he's worthy to ride their chief's favorite camel, Sandbiscuit. He must competently saddle and ride the ill-tempered beast to convince the skeptical nomads to let him have the camel.

If he's allowed to take 10, there's no real chance of failure. There's no drama. If I arbitrarily penalized the rolls (Perhaps it's a meaner beast than supposed), the player would want to know why the roll was so high. He'd be convinced that there was little chance to succeed.

There are many tasks at which a hero should not fail (e.g.: It's dumb to suppose that the masterful rider falls off his horse during routine rides. The skilled rogue shouldn't fall 20% of the time he ascends a rugged cliff).

There are other tasks that should involve some randomness. Who knows if the adventurers will find the right book in the Great Library of the God of Disorder? Will they succeed in finding information in Hostilvolkford? These things should not be foregone conclusions that they can evade with a quick "Take 10".

I could avoid this by randomly tweaking the DCs of various tasks to make things more random ("The people of Hostilvolkford need a 22 to convince them to accept strangers." "Sandbiscuit requires a DC 18 Ride check due to his ill-temper when his owner is away." "That cliff is surprisingly easy to climb: DC 8."), but I'd rather keep some randomness via the skill roll than secretly tweak the numbers.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Related question. Do you allow a take 10 only for those with at least one point spent on the skill or anytime, period? Would you allow an untrained character make a knowledge check with a take 10 vs. a DC 10?

There's nothing in the Skill rules about needing a rank to be able to Take 10. So unless I missed something, lack of a rank does not prohibit taking 10.

Quote:

I still think there are plenty of cases where, thematically, taking 10 does not make sense, and I am not one to blindly follow rules black and white. I do not subscribe to "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can."

For comparison, I personally don't like the idea of taking 10 on Knowledge checks. It seems weird to me.* But the rules allow it, and I'm supposed to be following the rules.

So when I'm the GM, I'll let someone T10 on knowledge, trained or not. I feel that, since I know better, disallowing it would be dishonest of me.

But when I'm playing, I always elect to roll on my knowledge checks.

*Well, it sort of seems weird. But on the other hand, the CRB calls DC 10 a "really easy question", while "basic questions" are DC 15. A character with 16 INT (way above average), formal training in the field (a skill rank and class skill) should be able to answer every "really easy" or "basic" question in that field. Take 10 lets him do just that - he gets a 17 and answers those questions. If he rolls, there's more than a 1-in-3 chance of an exceptionally smart and formally trained person not being able to answer a basic question in his chosen field. You know, after writing all that, I've got to change my mind - knowledge skills are exactly what Take 10 is for... unless the "question" is about to eat your face.