Taking 10

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

stuff

LOL, serves me right for stopping my reading after just the into paragraph and the T10 rules. It's not like it had a bold heading or anything ;-)

So that being said, you should be able to take 10 on the Wisdom check to avoid a scroll mishap.

Goodness - Now I'm going to have to get that darn shirt re-printed! gaaaa! You see what happens when you go and read ALL the rules?!!

Ok, looks like I was wrong - you can take 10 on ability checks. Heck - I'll have to look closer at using scrolls - is this part of UMD?

I'm not sure how this is going to effect the Contact Other Plane FAQ - perhaps it still counts as "being in Combat"?

[Jiggy]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Hey Bob,

There is this nice little sentence just below the Take 20 rule on page 86:

Quote:

Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out. ;)

Also, someone mentioned (a few posts back - I noticed it while catching up on the last 20 posts, so I'm not sure who it was) that a caster level check was Spellcraft, and therefore casters were always taking 10 on it. But that's not correct. The spellcraft skill is entirely separate from caster level checks. (CL checks are, IIRC, just d20+CL.)

There was also mention of activating scrolls:

If you couldn't normally activate the scroll, you use UMD, which specifically disallows T10.

If all that stands between you and a flawless activation of a scroll is your caster level being too low, then you make a CL check - which, as referenced above, is not valid for T10.

If you fail that CL check, you have to make a WIS check to avoid a mishap - being an ability check, you could theoretically T10 on it, if the situation allows.

So... yeah. :)

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Hey Bob,

There is this nice little sentence just below the Take 20 rule on page 86:

Quote:

Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out. ;)

Also, someone mentioned (a few posts back - I noticed it while catching up on the last 20 posts, so I'm not sure who it was) that a caster level check was Spellcraft, and therefore casters were always taking 10 on it. But that's not correct. The spellcraft skill is entirely separate from caster level checks. (CL checks are, IIRC, just d20+CL.)

There was also mention of activating scrolls:

If you couldn't normally activate the scroll, you use UMD, which specifically disallows T10.

If all that stands between you and a flawless activation of a scroll is your caster level being too low, then you make a CL check - which, as referenced above, is not valid for T10.

If you fail that CL check, you have to make a WIS check to avoid a mishap - being an ability check, you could theoretically T10 on it, if the situation allows.

So... yeah. :)

On the CL check vs. Spellcraft check for coping a spell that was me Jiggy. What I was saying was that to copy a spell to a spell book is NOT a caster level check, it's a skill check and the skill is Spellcraft.

From the CRB, chapter 9 pg. 219 bottom of the left column under the heading "Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll" -

"Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level)."
bolding is mine.

this was in response to Bob's question:
"Can you take 10 for other ability checks?
How about caster level checks for something like copying a spell... "
I was just pointing out that copying a spell wasn't a caster level check, it's a skill check.

[TwilightKnight]

So unless you have a WIS of 1, taking ten will always succeed at avoiding a scroll mishap. While that might jive with the rules, it is clearly not the intent. I think this is one of those situations that may have some "holes" in the design that can lead to a GM making more assumptions regarding the skill system as a whole. If it was the sole occurrence of "weirdness" I would just ignore it, but adding some of the unclarity that seems to exist in the T10/20 rules, and SKR's response in the FAQ, I don't think anyone can be too surprised to find table variation.

[nosig]

from activating a scroll:
"...If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is
lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make
a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the
spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom
check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll
of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers...."

looks like this is related to UMD, with the "natural roll of 1" language. so maybe then you can't T10 here? like with UMD?

(HA!, ever think you'd find me argueing to ban someone from T10 on a roll?)

[Cheapy]

Fun. As this thread points out, you can take 10 on ability checks.

Guess which check done at the beginning of every combat is an ability check?

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

So unless you have a WIS of 1, taking ten will always succeed at avoiding a scroll mishap. While that might jive with the rules, it is clearly not the intent.

Depends what the intent IS.

If it's only supposed to be a very, very, minor chance for mishap in combat then its still there... but the odds are VERY low even in extreme situations.

The whole point of the take 10 is to guarantee success where a high roll won't further help. If a character tries to activate a higher CL scroll in the best of circumstances then they get this minor benefit.

It seems perfectly in keeping with the intent as they've written it, it's just not in keeping with your view of the take 10 rules which is more colored by play than by the books themselves.

There are innumerable occasions when we find what we've learned and 'always played' at the table aren't actually the real rules or even within the intent of the rules, but instead something someone misunderstood at one point and propagated from there going table to table like a virus.

The idea that failure can be damaging or costly does not prohibit someone from taking 10. On the contrary the idea of the take 10 is to avoid that failure. One of the most reasonable places to use a take 10 would be in crafting mundane items because of the price of failure. Likewise using take 10 outside of combat to disable a trap would be perfectly acceptable. It's not to conjure the image of the time bomb being diffused but rather the WW2 marine clearing a path through the mine field. It's only when the later comes under fire does the situation grow dire (baring a better hid mine than searcher).

-James

[james maissen]

Cheapy wrote:

Fun. As this thread points out, you can take 10 on ability checks.

Guess which check done at the beginning of every combat is an ability check?

So?

You're already using the word combat there my friend.

-James

[Cheapy]

Yea, but that's done before combat has started :)

[james maissen]

Cheapy wrote:

Yea, but that's done before combat has started :)

Sorry, no.

-James

[Cheapy]

I'm too amused by this concept to give this up lightly.

1) No one has acted yet.

2) Since no one has acted, no hostile actions have been taken, so there are no threats.

3) Combat is specifically called out as a threat, which is why you can't take 10 when in combat. See point 2.

4) Since you can take 10 on Climb checks to climb a mountain wall since falling doesn't qualify as "immediate danger", nor does having a bunch of people looking angry at you qualify as immediate danger.

Alternatively (and getting into metaphysics, just what this board needs more of!), a combatant must have an initiative score. This means initiative must happen before combat can start. Which means you can take 10 on Initiative checks.

Fun scenarios to imagine:

1) Marketplace assassin. You don't know who the assassin(s) is/are, but he/they are in that crowd of people. Initiative time!

2) Rolling initiative before kicking down a door, when you suspect there are bad guys behind it. No one is being threatened, and there are no distractions. And no, that door is not threatening you, no matter how many splinters you have acquired.

3) A crossbow sniper 400 feet away. Initiative is a passive thing, and the target sure doesn't know or feel threatened.

This is going to get amusing.

[TwilightKnight]

lol...the funny part is, I already apply a take 10 effect for the party enemies much of the time. So, at least for me, there is a precedence. :-)

[james maissen]

Cheapy wrote:

I'm too amused by this concept to give this up lightly.

Suit yourself.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Rolling initiative signals the beginning of combat, therefore it is part of combat and Take 10 does not apply.

PRD wrote:

When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

[TwilightKnight]

What if you have two groups, one of which has surprise while the other doesn't. One side is flat-footed and therefore not very threatening. The ambushers would roll initiative to see what order they act in (assuming they did not pre-arrange readied actions). Perhaps they could take 10?

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Those are determined after rolling initiative. Here is the full list from the PRD:

Quote:

1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.

3. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat.

4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).

5. When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 3 and 4 repeat until combat ends.

[TwilightKnight]

Okay folks, so I spoke to SKR. A few things of note from his perspective...

Quote:

ME: "Since you can Take 10 on ability checks, would that apply to the DC5 Wisdom check to avoid a Scroll Mishap?"

SKR: "...no, because it has that special "a 1 always fails" rule, so it's not quite like a regular skill or ability check. Else you could never fail, and it would defeat the point of having the mishap possibility in the game.

ME: "Can you take 10 when disabling a trap? Would the threat of triggering the trap be considered a "threat" to block the take 10 rule?

SKR: "I would consider that a "threat," yes. Disabling a trap is different than picking a lock, in the context of that skill."

ME: "So the threat associated with failing the attempt is enough...to stop the take 10 attempt?"

SKR: "Ok...the purpose of the take10 rule is so you don't have to roll on stuff you know you'll probably auto-succeed, but the d20 mechanic means you'd still have a chance of failure."

ME: "The CRB describes Initiative as an ability check. Does it technically occur prior to or at the outset of combat...such that you can/cannot take 10?"

SKR: "Combat chapter:1 when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative. So it's part of combat, and thus you're in combat."

So, it would appear that it is not as simple as just taking 10 whenever and wherever you want. Combat is not the exclusive definition of "threat." Sounds like Climbing, Disabling Traps, Flying and sometimes Acrobatics or Survival would prevent taking 10. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that sometimes, a distraction (as determined by the GM) could block other skills as well.

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

SKR: "I would consider that a "threat," yes. Disabling a trap is different than picking a lock, in the context of that skill."

And falling when climbing would be likewise a threat, would it not? And yet there's the example in the 3e PhB for take 10. Would the 'trap' only threaten if it did damage rather than just being say a loud noise?

Well let's see what he'll write up into a FAQ when he thinks it fully out.

Personally I disagree as I think it would be far harder to disable a trap during combat or when the timer on a bomb is counting down than when you have all day to examine and approach it, but that's just my view on things.

Regardless it'll be nice to have it listed out in a FAQ as there is far too much variation on it and it deserves the attention and thought.

-James

[TwilightKnight]

This is not 3E and since Skills received some of the larger changes from the previous edition, personally, I would not use that as a precedent.

I received no indication that SKR planned to update the FAQ after our conversation in the Paizo Chat room. Therefore, I would not expect it. However, I will flag my post for FAQ, nonetheless.

You are free to disagree, but since I got this info straight from one of the Paizo senior developers, I will afford it a bit more precedence than that of semi-anonymous forumites.

So we are back to my original understanding. There is clearly some table variation and GM discretion with the Take 10 rules. Therefore, players should not be shocked if your GM denies you a take 10 opportunity. If T10 is that important to you, I would recommend asking your GM their opinion on it prior to starting the game so you are not surprised by the ruling later. Or just ask, in the moment, and if the answer is no, just roll the dice and move on.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Climbing a 20 ft ship's rigging DC 10 climb check lets you move up to a quarter of your speed. Assuming a STR bonus of +0. Will require 4 checks.

First 5 ft - Take 10 (failure results in no danger - you don't get hurt falling less than 10 ft)
Second 5 ft - Take 10 (you aren't 10 feet high until you succeed)
Third attempt - can not take a 10 (failure by more than 5 results in a fall dealing damage Aka a threat).
Fourth attempt - can not take a 10 (see above).

Now Amiri tries (STR bonus +3, 1 rank, +3 class bonus). Amiri CAN'T fail by 5 or more. There is no risk so she can take a 10 all the way up.

Remember folks except for UMD there are no autofails on a 1.

Now let's apply that to Diplomacy:
Reducing a foe's attitude to hostile poses a risk of combat, but the DCs are known factors. If you don't have a risk of failing by 5 or more of course you can.

If you're good enough at Disable Device there's no need to fear triggering the trap so why are you rolling? Or if you're overconfident you could take a 10, and if you fail by 5 or more, trigger the trap.

[TwilightKnight]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you DM_aka_Dudemeister. This thread went on to the point of becoming useless, IMO. So I took up the cause and sought out someone who should know the answers.

Now, you can choose to ignore what SKR said. You can choose to disagree. But in the end, he is a developer of the rules system and his "opinion" should hold some value.

Until his answers to our questions appear in a legal location, I would not require anyone to follow his advice. Do what you want. But to ignore what he said is ridiculous, IMO.

I am quite sure that if his response was that you could take 10 whenever you want, the same people that will be complaining that what he said is nothing but heresay (you know who you are), would be giving the ol' "told ya so" and expect every GM to follow it.

[Andrew Christian]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Okay folks, so I spoke to SKR. A few things of note from his perspective...

Quote:

ME: "Since you can Take 10 on ability checks, would that apply to the DC5 Wisdom check to avoid a Scroll Mishap?"

SKR: "...no, because it has that special "a 1 always fails" rule, so it's not quite like a regular skill or ability check. Else you could never fail, and it would defeat the point of having the mishap possibility in the game.

ME: "Can you take 10 when disabling a trap? Would the threat of triggering the trap be considered a "threat" to block the take 10 rule?

SKR: "I would consider that a "threat," yes. Disabling a trap is different than picking a lock, in the context of that skill."

ME: "So the threat associated with failing the attempt is enough...to stop the take 10 attempt?"

SKR: "Ok...the purpose of the take10 rule is so you don't have to roll on stuff you know you'll probably auto-succeed, but the d20 mechanic means you'd still have a chance of failure."

ME: "The CRB describes Initiative as an ability check. Does it technically occur prior to or at the outset of combat...such that you can/cannot take 10?"

SKR: "Combat chapter:1 when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative. So it's part of combat, and thus you're in combat."

So, it would appear that it is not as simple as just taking 10 whenever and wherever you want. Combat is not the exclusive definition of "threat." Sounds like Climbing, Disabling Traps, Flying and sometimes Acrobatics or Survival would prevent taking 10. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that sometimes, a distraction (as determined by the GM) could block other skills as well.

I think the key point here, is if the character would nearly auto-succeed except on a very low roll, they can Take 10.

So a Climb DC of 5 for a Rope on a Wall would be a candidate for Take 10, whereas a DC 20 for a wall with minimum of hand holds would not.

A Trap with a DC of 7 might be, especially for the Rogue, but a Trap with a DC 30 at APL 3 will probably not be.

Seems the answers above really open things up to table variation.

[Cheapy]

I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling SKR and that golem!

Shakefist

[nosig]

why did he reference T20?

from Bob's post:
(ME: "So the threat associated with failing the attempt is enough...to stop the take 10 attempt?"

SKR: "Ok...the purpose of the take10 rule is so you don't have to roll on stuff you know you'll probably auto-succeed, but the d20 mechanic means you'd still have a chance of failure.")

bold is mine.

[nosig]

so... it would appear that the only time you can take 10 is when you can take 20? (when the "the threat associated with failing" is not present) Am I reading this correctly?

So we are back to the original question - what skills CAN you take 10 on, and what skills CAN'T you take 10 on?

[Andrew Christian]

nosig wrote:

so... it would appear that the only time you can take 10 is when you can take 20? (when the "the threat associated with failing" is not present) Am I reading this correctly?

So we are back to the original question - what skills CAN you take 10 on, and what skills CAN'T you take 10 on?

No. I think it is more clear cut now than it was previously. However, I think that many of us who changed our minds (Bob and myself) were actually more correct previously, than what we changed our mind to.

If there is reasonable chance of failure, and failing is dangerous, then you cannot Take 10.

If there is maybe a 10% or 15% chance of failure (roll 1, 2, or 3), regardless if failing is dangerous, you can take 10.

What is considered reasonable chance of failure is of course ambiguous and up to table variation.

[james maissen]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Remember folks except for UMD there are no autofails on a 1.

And there aren't autofails there either. It's just WHEN you fail AND roll a 1 that even worse occurs.

-James

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

This is not 3E and since Skills received some of the larger changes from the previous edition, personally, I would not use that as a precedent.

If you'll look at the printed take 10 rules and that section it's found in... now compare it to 3.5E and 3E PhBs/SRDs.

Care to tell me exactly how much changed there?

The idea that we're in a new edition (that's made to be backwards compatable) but now everything is automatically up for grabs is disingenuous.

The Take10 and Take20 rules have never changed.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I received no indication that SKR planned to update the FAQ after our conversation in the Paizo Chat room. Therefore, I would not expect it. However, I will flag my post for FAQ, nonetheless.

You are free to disagree, but since I got this info straight from one of the Paizo senior developers, I will afford it a bit more precedence than that of semi-anonymous forumites.

That's a shame, cause here's something that we actually agree upon (and that's rare as hen's teeth)- there is too much confusion on this issue.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I would recommend asking your GM their opinion on it prior to starting the game so you are not surprised by the ruling later.

That's good advice.

But as a DM, what should/would your criteria be?

A. I want them to roll.
B. I know a 10 will succeed/fail and I don't want that.
C. There is a penalty for failure.
D. That penalty for failure is not trivial.
E. None of the above, fill in the blank: _____________________

-James

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

why did he reference T20?

from Bob's post:
(ME: "So the threat associated with failing the attempt is enough...to stop the take 10 attempt?"

SKR: "Ok...the purpose of the take10 rule is so you don't have to roll on stuff you know you'll probably auto-succeed, but the d20 mechanic means you'd still have a chance of failure.")

bold is mine.

Er, I think you misread, nosig. The part you bolded is a "d", not a "T". He's comparing T10 to rolling, with no mention of T20.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Now, you can choose to ignore what SKR said. You can choose to disagree. But in the end, he is a developer of the rules system and his "opinion" should hold some value.

Until his answers to our questions appear in a legal location, I would not require anyone to follow his advice. Do what you want. But to ignore what he said is ridiculous, IMO.

(Emphasis mine.)

Funny, no one had this response the first time SKR was quoted. Why the difference in reception?

And for those of us trying our best to run things right, this newest set of quotes presents an uncomfortable quandary:

On the one hand, we have SKR saying first that disallowing T10 should be for when they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. He has also specifically said that you can take 10 on checks that you think you'd succeed at but are wrong about. ("You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences.")

On the other hand, we now have SKR saying that disabling a trap is itself sufficiently distracting to prevent T10 on its own check.

So we GMs now need to figure out a way to adjudicate the T10 rule in such a way as to satisfy all of the above statements (or else find a metric by which to selectively dismiss individual quotations from SKR, but that strikes me as a bad idea).

So the risk of a trap going off counts as a threat/distraction when disabling it, but in general the task at hand shouldn't be counted as a "distraction" from itself, and the presence of consequences doesn't prevent taking 10.

Now's the time to start brainstorming reconciliations of these guidelines, folks.

[Cheapy]

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

[Andrew Christian]

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

Especially considering 3.5 let alone Pathfinder didn't exist in 2002. Now I know here is where James Maissen will kick in, "but the language hasn't changed".

Still, I'd go with the December 2011 quote over the 2002 quote in a heartbeat.

[james maissen]

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

Except the printed rules for take 10.

Consider this situation:

Can you take 10 when not rushed to make a jump check to jump over a section of floor?

Wait, now the floor is covered with something you don't know what it is. You might not want to fail and land in it.

The way people are reading this right now seems to think that it would depend on whether or not that something was dangerous (an acid) or not dangerous (spilled milk).

Personally I'll go with the way its been and is printed and run it the way I've done since 3e came out. If you're not in rounds and there isn't something going on where it would force the old concentration checks (eg a hurricane) then you can take 10. It's simple, addresses the printed rules and desires, and seems to avoid meta-rulings like the jump situation above.

-James

[Thea Peters]

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

The quoted conversation TK had with SKR was last night (12/27/11). From what I've been reading in this thread, it doesn't appear that his opinion has changed much if at all in the last 9 years.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

Especially considering 3.5 let alone Pathfinder didn't exist in 2002. Now I know here is where James Maissen will kick in, "but the language hasn't changed".

Still, I'd go with the December 2011 quote over the 2002 quote in a heartbeat.

What post are you guys looking at? The stuff I linked ranges from 2009 to 2011.

For instance, the "other than the task at hand" bit is from May of THIS YEAR. That hardly seems like throwaway material.

Let's check things before throwing them out, alright?

[Andrew Christian]

james maissen wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

Except the printed rules for take 10.

Consider this situation:

Can you take 10 when not rushed to make a jump check to jump over a section of floor?

Wait, now the floor is covered with something you don't know what it is. You might not want to fail and land in it.

The way people are reading this right now seems to think that it would depend on whether or not that something was dangerous (an acid) or not dangerous (spilled milk).

Personally I'll go with the way its been and is printed and run it the way I've done since 3e came out. If you're not in rounds and there isn't something going on where it would force the old concentration checks (eg a hurricane) then you can take 10. It's simple, addresses the printed rules and desires, and seems to avoid meta-rulings like the jump situation above.

-James

And on Que...

You can of course run it however you like in a home game. And until this becomes part of an official FAQ, you can run it however you like in a PFS game.

But I personally think it would be silly (to put it succinctly like Jiggy put it up thread) to ignore what a senior developer had to say on the topic.

[james maissen]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

The linked SKR post is from 2002.

A lot can change in nine years.

Especially considering 3.5 let alone Pathfinder didn't exist in 2002. Now I know here is where James Maissen will kick in, "but the language hasn't changed".

Still, I'd go with the December 2011 quote over the 2002 quote in a heartbeat.

Actually it was the post right after yours, but very close! And more to the point, true.

And honestly I'd rather go with either of the following:

A) A well thought out FAQ response or rules errata that've been gone over and vetted.
B) The printed rules and the printed intention for those rules in the core rule book.

over

1) A message board post.
2) A message board post saying a dev told me.
3) A message board post directly from a dev.

Now we don't have A, but we have both B & 3 going one way, and then we have 2 going the other with 1 on both sides. That we have 2 & 3 quoting the same dev is interesting as things haven't changed here. Neither the take 10 rules themselves or the skill and ability checks we're talking about trying to take 10.

And if as you say, there's been a change, I'll ask you is it reflected in the rules for take 10? Certainly not, the exact wording hasn't changed! Not one word.

That much we can agree upon (perhaps after going back and reading the actual rules). So *if* the rules have changed, then there needs to be something more concrete than 'I heard a dev answer this in a chat room'. Don't you think?

The cry of 'it's a new edition' all bets are off is simply wrong as a blanket statement. The pathfinder rules use the d20 SRD verbatim in far too many places to say that. Rather if there is a place for change then it should be in what Paizo changed and not just an opportunity to disagree again with a rule that you might not have liked in 3e or 3.5 where nothing's changed from one to the next.

-James

[james maissen]

Andrew Christian wrote:

But I personally think it would be silly (to put it succinctly like Jiggy put it up thread) to ignore what a senior developer had to say on the topic.

When someone says that they said that in a chat room and you want to hear it.

But not when they post it on the message boards themselves.

That right?

As for me, I'm not ignoring it. But it doesn't mesh with what he himself has said in the past on the written rules that haven't changed.

So for me, I think it is deserving of a FAQ or errata. If nothing else because if SKR is changing his view point on a rule that hasn't changed since the original 3e game came out then it needs some official change to go with it.

Is take 10 just for skills that have no penalty for failure? No, that's take 20. They have that language clearly there and didn't use it in take 10.

Is take 10 for skills that would succeed on a 4? Where would you possibly get that? Change 4 to another number and it doesn't change the arbitrary nature of it.

Is take 10 for skills that failure will not cause hp damage? Goes against the example in the original 3e PhB as well as being very meta-ruly (can take 10 to jump over an illusionary floor only if what's below isn't going to deal damage.

Is take 10 just a DM fiat to speed up the game? If so, then change the wording in the core rules to reflect this new fact.

-James

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

why did he reference T20?

Actually, he didn't. He referenced the d20 mechanic. That is the general concept of the randomness inherent in the game. Most actions were intended to be resolved with some level of success/failure.

[TwilightKnight]

Look folks, I just do not understand the obsession for this topic. The designers have stated time and time again that some of the rules were intentionally written with some ambiguity. It is left up to the GM to adjudicate in real time.

No one is taking an action away from you. We're just saying that sometimes, you will not be able to Take 10. GM discretion. There is some expectation in the GM-player contract that you will trust your GM to make decisions that will provide the maximum amount of enjoyment. No one is stopping you from making the roll. And some have pointed out you have a greater chance of success, on average, by rolling anyway since the average roll is 10.5 - above the take 10 value. I would understand this a bit more if you were being denied the opportunity to perform the action at all, or your odds of success were diminished.

Sometimes, developers may change their mind on how rules are interpreted. Often, that leads to new rules being published that overrule or change existing ones, but that takes time. This might be one of those cases. Dunno. But, using the idea that newer material supersedes prior, I am okay with taking what SKR said to help me decide how to adjudicate this in my game.

The consistent request in this thread was for more info from the designers. So, rather than continue to argue, ad nauseum, I took the time to try and get some more info. You may not like the answers we got, but at least it provides more insight into what he thinks about the subject. Take it for what it's worth or ignore it entirely.

Bottom line...getting this resolved, black and white, down to the nuance of the rule is unnecessary and takes some options away from the GM. If your GM denies you a Take10, plead your case, quickly, calmly, and without attitude. If they still deny it, roll the d20 and move on. If it's so important and your enjoyment of the game is directly tied to the Take10 rule, then find out prior to playing if this GM is right for you.

I think I've contributed everything I can to this discussion. I welcome anyone to play at my table. Am I going to allow you free-reign to take10, no. Am I going to deny you outright because of some twisted logic and hatred for it, no. Take it when you can and roll the dice otherwise. I'm a reasonable guy, as I expect the vast majority of GM's are. I'm confident you will enjoy the game either way. And having the occasional failed skill check, just might open up some interesting role-playing opportunities, that a success would not. YMMV

Explore, Report, Cooperate!

[nosig]

Guys, I actually don't care one way or the other. I just want it to be the same when I sit at a table as the Judge or as a player.
I have to know how to rule this at my table. It's a rule. I do not feel real comfortable with "rule it on a whim, however you feel about it today".
I want to know how it works at the table when I sit down. The tread I started in OCT this year about this (called "Take 10, again") had several judges suggesting that they would target my PC for JUST ASKING how they delt with this rule before the game started. I was repeatedly told that they would wonder "what the player was trying to pull" and they would "watch the player closely". When I asked for a suggestion on what I could give the judge in a writen form before the game, I was told I would be asked to leave thier table if I "gave them a such a questionarie". The act of asking "what can my PC not take 10 on at your table?" was considered directly confruntational to the Judge. This is why I had T-Shirts printed with the T10 rule on them, so that I was being as non-confruntational as possible.

Now judges are saying I have to ask how they will rule on the T10 rules - we appear to have gone full circle.

What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?

Sarcasm alert:

(Let's see if anyone replies "my monsters will develop a taste for Elven Rogue", like last time I asked this.)

[nosig]

linking in the other post - just hopeing not to cover the same ground again - (yeah, I know, silly hope ;)
A Link to "TAKE 10, AGAIN"!

[Thea Peters]

nosig wrote:

What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?

** spoiler omitted **

*preface... I have been reading this thread.. and been avoiding comment up to this point...

However, seeing as how Nosig is asking this again... I will give him the answer I would give if he were at my table.

being allowed to take 10 depends on the specifics of the scenario at the time you ask if you can take 10. I would not give a blanket answer at the beginning of the scenario as I wouldn't know what would be going on at the time the question was asked.

For example:

Before the scenario *question asked* and answered with sure you can take 10.. player is disabling a trap in the middle of combat. I'm going to take 10, judge no really you should roll, player, before the scenario you said i could take 10 so i'm going to take 10 and there is nothing you can do about it.

Sometimes answering a quetion with a blanket answer isn't good and honestly at my table I won't give you a blanket answer on some times as there are too many variables.

[nosig]

Thea Peters wrote:

nosig wrote:

What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?

** spoiler omitted **

*preface... I have been reading this thread.. and been avoiding comment up to this point...

However, seeing as how Nosig is asking this again... I will give him the answer I would give if he were at my table.

being allowed to take 10 depends on the specifics of the scenario at the time you ask if you can take 10. I would not give a blanket answer at the beginning of the scenario as I wouldn't know what would be going on at the time the question was asked.

For example:

Before the scenario *question asked* and answered with sure you can take 10.. player is disabling a trap in the middle of combat. I'm going to take 10, judge no really you should roll, player, before the scenario you said i could take 10 so i'm going to take 10 and there is nothing you can do about it.

Sometimes answering a quetion with a blanket answer isn't good and honestly at my table I won't give you a blanket answer on some times as there are too many variables.

you actually answered perhaps the best of anyone who has taken the time Thea. Thank you.

I now know that if I ask in the game with you for a judge, I will not be ridiculed, threatened, or accused of "trying to pull something". I ask, normally like this "If I take 10 I have a 26" or "I take ten on perception to check out the room - I've got a 26 from here, -1 for each 10 foot away. Do I think I need to move to any other position to perceive other areas of the room?" I would expect from your answer that you would respond something like "You need to roll this one." or "room cleared - zip other than the discription already given". Fast, easy, simple, mechanics over, and we get on with the improtant part of the game, the Role Playing! whee!

[Thea Peters]

nosig wrote:

Thea Peters wrote:

nosig wrote:

What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?

** spoiler omitted **

*preface... I have been reading this thread.. and been avoiding comment up to this point...

However, seeing as how Nosig is asking this again... I will give him the answer I would give if he were at my table.

being allowed to take 10 depends on the specifics of the scenario at the time you ask if you can take 10. I would not give a blanket answer at the beginning of the scenario as I wouldn't know what would be going on at the time the question was asked.

For example:

Before the scenario *question asked* and answered with sure you can take 10.. player is disabling a trap in the middle of combat. I'm going to take 10, judge no really you should roll, player, before the scenario you said i could take 10 so i'm going to take 10 and there is nothing you can do about it.

Sometimes answering a quetion with a blanket answer isn't good and honestly at my table I won't give you a blanket answer on some times as there are too many variables.

you actually answered perhaps the best of anyone who has taken the time Thea. Thank you.

I now know that if I ask in the game with you for a judge, I will not be ridiculed, threatened, or accused of "trying to pull something". I ask, normally like this "If I take 10 I have a 26" or "I take ten on perception to check out the room - I've got a 26 from here, -1 for each 10 foot away. Do I think I need to move to any other position to perceive other areas of the room?" I would expect from your answer that you would respond something like "You need to roll this one." or "room cleared - zip other than the discription already given". Fast, easy, simple, mechanics over, and we get on with the improtant part of the game, the Role Playing! whee!

One thing I've observed as being a habit of gamers is the tendancy to overthink and over analyze things trying to find the "why" sometimes you have to just let something "be". In this case, for me and my little world, I view take 10 as more of a sentient part of the game that will creep in from time to time; be dealt with in the moment and then go away until the next time it creeps in.

[TwilightKnight]

Okay, after re-reading my previous post, perhaps it came across as confrontational. That was not my intention, so I apologize if that is how it was received. I am just a bit frustrated with this topic.

nosig wrote:

several judges suggesting that they would target my PC for JUST ASKING how they delt with this rule before the game started

If the GM is targeting you for asking a simple question, then the problem is with the GM not you. And any GM who would respond that way is a jerk.

nosig wrote:

What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?

My answer would be yes, you cannot take 10 on UMD checks. Anything beyond that depends on the circumstances and will have to be evaluated case-by-case. And I'll be honest, if the player gives me the indication that they are asking because they have something "up their sleeve" that may ruin the game, then I will deny the T10. Or if they are trying to build a player vs. GM environment, I might recommend they try a different table. I may also rule against taking 10 if it would marginalize an entire encounter.

But, that being said, I will likely allow a relatively liberal taking 10. I do it with Climb checks all the time.

You may not like my method, but it has served me pretty well both in private games and OP.

[Andrew Christian]

Unless I’m having a bad day, which sometimes can happen, I will try to handle this as non-confrontationally as I can. But like Thea, I will not now, and cannot give a blanket answer. The best I could say is, I use the rules as written in the core rule book. There is some ambiguity within the rules, so I try to make rulings at the table using my best common sense judgment.

But just asking the question, in and of itself, comes off as confrontational, because it makes me think you are asking me a trap question. Or if you don’t like the answer you will create drama and maybe huff off to a different table. I’d do my best to not take it that way, but most GM’s are human and will respond to something like that like most humans would… defensively.

Why worry about it before hand, and just trust that the GM’s are more than likely going to do one of two things. Already know the rule and rule reasonably with common sense, or not know the rule well and defer to the players.

Basically you gotta accept that there will be table variation on this, because that’s the way the rule was written.

[Arnim Thayer]

nosig wrote:

so... it would appear that the only time you can take 10 is when you can take 20? (when the "the threat associated with failing" is not present) Am I reading this correctly?

So we are back to the original question - what skills CAN you take 10 on, and what skills CAN'T you take 10 on?

:)

I was good... stayed away from this thread for almost a week!

Now everyone sing with me... "this is the thread that never ends; it just goes on and on my friends..." :)

Thanks, Bob, for checking with SKR. I will be using that in conjecture with the rather well thought out responses here from Nosig and others to determine when I will disallow Take 10 for skills at my tables. Just not with Initiative! :p

Obviously, this will be a point of table variance, regardless of my attempt to simplify it by discussion here.

[Arnim Thayer]

My answer would be similar to Thea and those VOs who have answered so far.
The only skill right off-hand you cannot use Take 10 with is UMD; that is straight out of the Core rules. Everything else is subjective. I hope you would trust my judgement on whether or not you can use Take 10. I am far more open to it now then I was when this discussion started... but I would never have targeted a character for trying it either. Respect has to be a two-way street in a social game such as an RPG, especially with Organized Play.

[Andrew Christian]

I have an interesting question:

Why would you feel the need to ask the question of your GM in the first place? Why is taking 10 so incredibly important that you either need to know beforehand or that you need to wear a shirt?

Keep in mind (and I’m sure you already know this and don’t do this), that you can’t use the take 10 mechanic to gauge your odds of success. If you take 10 all the time, then that is a bit of an abuse of the rule, in my opinion. It allows you to know if you have worse than essentially a 50/50. It takes the mystery out of the game, and that isn’t good for the game, even if it speeds it up some.

If I find a player trying to take 10 every skill check, it will make me think they are just trying to see if they need to roll or not. And I guarantee if they choose not to do the skill because they have to roll, I’ll start to think, “hmmm….” To myself. If this happens repeatedly, then I won’t allow them to reneg on the skill check.