More Take 10 goodness

[nosig]

Ok, realizing that it's just a bad idea to hit the T10 button again, I had some strange happenings at tables I was judging resently.

let me establish where I am coming from in this for those of you who don't recognize me. I like the T10 rule. I use the T10 rule. I even had a T-shirt printed with it on it, in an attempt to teach the T10 rule to people who don't know that it says.

now, at my table this last week end I had two events worth reflecting on.

1) a player asked to take 10 on a Knowledge roll (outside of combat, during a Gather Information phase of the adventure). I say sure - and one of the other players "corrects" me to say you can't T10 on a Knowledge check. We have a friendly discussion where they point out that only Bards can T10 on knowledge. I point out that this says that Bards with this ability can ALWAYS T10, even in combat. This plainly does not satisfy the player, who spends some minutes while the game progresses trying to find the spot in the rules where it says T10 can not be done for Knowledge rolls. Sigh... wish they had played more and looked things up less. But they were pleasent about it and were willing to abide by my ruling (I was the Judge after all), but they were clearly sure that I was wrong, because other judges did not do it that way. Which I think was one of the reasons they were playing a Bard - so that they could T10 on Knowledge rolls.

2) During play, the PCs needed to make a climb check. One of the players was checking to see if they thought thier PC could make the climb with a T10... when another player stated "you can't take 10 on a climb check - you might fall". I point at "the shirt" - "...when you think a low roll might fail...", and the second player is clearly not satisfied. And just to "do it right" they roll a die to climb the rope - having to roll twice (failed the first time).

(Now I will sit back and let the fireworks begin. I am fully expecting to get flamed on this again - but perhaps if I do this enough, some players will learn the rule, and more judges will read it.)

[Shar Tahl]

I am firmly in the camp of no T10 on knowledge. The bard's ability itself makes absolutely no mention of combat, so the take-10 rules for threatened situations apply to that as well, giving them no take 10 in combat, and no take 10 knowledge for anyone without the Lore Master class ability. But this is clearly up the GM interpretation and will change from GM to GM many times.

I doubt you will get flamed and there will be no fireworks. Many of the board regulars are quite generous with what is allowed for take 10. Myself, I am quite specific about what gets take-10 and take-20 based on my interpretation of every skill. I, at no point, will invalidate any classes abilities. The "in combat" thing is just manufactured wording that does not exist in the Lore Master class ability.

[nosig]

Shar Tahl wrote:

I am firmly in the camp of no T10 on knowledge. The bard's ability itself makes absolutely no mention of combat, so the take-10 rules for threatened situations apply to that as well, giving them no take 10 in combat, and no take 10 knowledge for anyone without the Lore Master class ability. But this is clearly up the GM interpretation and will change from GM to GM many times.

I doubt you will get flamed and there will be no fireworks. Many of the board regulars are quite generous with what is allowed for take 10. Myself, I am quite specific about what gets take-10 and take-20 based on my interpretation of every skill. I, at no point, will invalidate any classes abilities. The "in combat" thing is just manufactured wording that does not exist in the Lore Master class ability.

I feel you missed my point. T10 is valid for Knowledge rolls. the roll for Lore master is that they can ALWAYS T10, impling that there are times that persons other then Lore Masters can't T10. You feel that these times (that the normal PC can't T10 on Kn rolls) are all the time. I feel that these times are in combat (or under stress other than the stress of failure of the roll).

[nosig]

nosig wrote:

Shar Tahl wrote:

I am firmly in the camp of no T10 on knowledge. The bard's ability itself makes absolutely no mention of combat, so the take-10 rules for threatened situations apply to that as well, giving them no take 10 in combat, and no take 10 knowledge for anyone without the Lore Master class ability. But this is clearly up the GM interpretation and will change from GM to GM many times.

I doubt you will get flamed and there will be no fireworks. Many of the board regulars are quite generous with what is allowed for take 10. Myself, I am quite specific about what gets take-10 and take-20 based on my interpretation of every skill. I, at no point, will invalidate any classes abilities. The "in combat" thing is just manufactured wording that does not exist in the Lore Master class ability.

I feel you missed my point. T10 is valid for Knowledge rolls. the roll for Lore master is that they can ALWAYS T10, impling that there are times that persons other then Lore Masters can't T10. You feel that these times (that the normal PC can't T10 on Kn rolls) are all the time. I feel that these times are in combat (or under stress other than the stress of failure of the roll).

(and the prediction of getting flamed is just from thinking of past posts on this subject. Twice burned and all that.)

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I thought the Core Book said that you could only take 10 on knowledge checks if the skill was trained, and only untrained if it was a very simple question.

[nosig]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

I thought the Core Book said that you could only take 10 on knowledge checks if the skill was trained, and only untrained if it was a very simple question.

actually, the rule says something like you can't make a skill check on any "trained only" skill unless you have a rank in it. Then in each skill it will "Clearify" this. So it says you can make a skill check for Knowledge if the DC is 10 or less. Also, you can make a Handle Animal check untrained as a Charasma roll (or something like that). which puts into question any command for Animal Companions if the PC has no ranks in handle animal - they might not get the bonus (+4 I think?) for commanding thier AC, 'cause it's not a Handle Animal check then, it's just a Cha check.

[Jiggy]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

I thought the Core Book said that you could only take 10 on knowledge checks if the skill was trained, and only untrained if it was a very simple question.

The Knowledge skill description says nothing one way or another about taking 10. The unique thing about Knowledge skills that involves the number 10 is that unlike other "trained only" skills, you can make a Knowledge check if the DC is 10 or less.

[TwilightKnight]

IMO, the rules covering Take10 contain just enough ambiguity (when coupled with things like the Lore Master ability) that there will be some table variation. To say you are right and everyone else is wrong, is itself, wrong.

For my interpretation, taking 10 is akin to an action. So, I tend not to allow Take10 when the skill is a passive one. For instance, you can take10 to search, but not to notice something. You can take 10 to Gather Information, but not on Knowledge(local). My logic (like it or not), if you are actively doing something else and the check is the result of happenstance, then you are distracted by the something else. YMMV.

For me, the primary factor for the take rules is your interpretation how they function from a player vs. character perspective. Do you feel that the character is actively trying to perform the skills in such a way that it simulates the take10 scenario, or is it just an OOC (player) game mechanic to speed up play (in theory), make skill check results more consistent, etc.?

[Jiggy]

So regarding the whole "But the bard's Lore Master ability says..." thing:

The ability does not say "even while threatened", the way other similar abilities do. On the other hand, the Knowledge skill description doesn't tell you that you can't take 10 on it, the way some other skills do.

So if a non-bard can T10 on Knowledge outside of combat (and the Lore Master ability functions as nosig says), then the ability is written wrong. But if a non-bard cannot T10 outside of combat, then the Knowledge skill is written wrong by failing to state this.

So either way, something's wrong. We therefore have to make our best guesses on how to run it. Expect table variation on this.

[james maissen]

nosig wrote:

(Now I will sit back and let the fireworks begin. I am fully expecting to get flamed on this again - but perhaps if I do this enough, some players will learn the rule, and...

You basically summed it up.. people really learn the game through play at the table.

When a DM makes an error it propagates and spreads like a virus. I cannot count the number of times people have said 'of course it's way X, we've always played it that way' only to look up the rules and find that 'X' is not correct.

Personally I applaud your tilting at windmills. Its like trying to fight the spread of a plague though hand sanitizers...

-James
PS: You certainly can take 10 on knowledge checks when neither rushed nor threatened like any other skill barring UMD.

Here's another note.. there are places in the rules where they expound on exceptions and state the normal rules (feats are nice examples of this) but they are not required to do so nor do they do so consistently.

This does not mean, for example, that an enemy cleric can hit you with a harm spell without rolling a tohit against your touch AC.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

For my interpretation, taking 10 is akin to an action. So, I tend not to allow Take10 when the skill is a passive one. For instance, you can take10 to search, but not to notice something. You can take 10 to Gather Information, but not on Knowledge(local). My logic (like it or not), if you are actively doing something else and the check is the result of happenstance, then you are distracted by the something else. YMMV.

Hm, that's an interesting rule of thumb to go by. I'll have to mull that one over. (Though you scared me with that first line - I thought we were going back to the "Take 10 takes ten times as long, right?" thing. *shudder*)

Quote:

Do you feel that the character is actively trying to perform the skills in such a way that it simulates the take10 scenario, or is it just an OOC (player) game mechanic to speed up play (in theory), make skill check results more consistent, etc.?

You know, SKR has stated that the whole point of T10 is to speed up play and make skill check results more consistent. In fact, as I recall, you've even quoted him saying as much.

[TwilightKnight]

james maissen wrote:

You certainly can take 10 on knowledge checks when neither rushed nor threatened like any other skill barring UMD

That is your opinion and are entitled to it. Should anyone play at a table you are GM'ing, they will know how you will handle it. Others interpret the text differently.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

james maissen wrote:

You certainly can take 10 on knowledge checks when neither rushed nor threatened like any other skill barring UMD

That is your opinion and are entitled to it. Should anyone play at a table you are GM'ing, they will know how you will handle it. Others interpret the text differently.

*coughcoughhackcough*

Phew, 'scuse me! ;)

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Knowledge is a tricky one and will definitely see table variation. I suspect the intent of lore master is under the assumption one can't take 10 or 20 on knowledge checks normally. So in order to protect the bard's niche, no take 10 on knowledge. Unless the lore master ability receives further clarification to indicate rules similar to "skill mastery" that the rogue has.

I definitely allow t10 for climb. The DC to climb a knotted rope is 5. Mandating a roll is silly. Particularly if the climb is less than 10 ft. since there is no "threat of danger", or if you can't fail even on a 1 (since t10 also exists to speed up play).

[TwilightKnight]

Jiggy wrote:

You know, SKR has stated that the whole point of T10 is to speed up play and make skill check results more consistent. In fact, as I recall, you've even quoted him saying as much.

Yes, I did, but unfortunately, others have pointed out that his position on the Take10 rules seems to have changed multiple times or a short period of time, often conflicting with prior/post comments. So, I still feel there is a level of ambiguity that has to be recognized.

[Jiggy]

To move back toward the OP a bit and away from just another "let's talk about T10 again!" thread (though I'm sure we'll go there), kudos for the player in #1 for accepting the GM's ruling and not holding up the game while he tries to find the rule. In #2, the player is certainly entitled to roll instead of taking 10 - just as long as he wasn't snide about it or anything (comments about "doing it right" or whatever), but it doesn't sound like he was a problem.

So I guess we have two examples of well-handled player/GM disagreements, yes?

[TwilightKnight]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The DC to climb a knotted rope is 5

Not to be a nudge, by where do I find knotted rope for sale? Personally, I always buy two ropes and list one as pre-knotted just to be sure. But perhaps that is re-skinning. I just hate that everytime I have to knot a rope, the GM charges me 10ft of length to make the knots. Why not just buy it that way? I'd even pay an extra 10-20% premium for the knots and to account for the extra length required to make the rope 50ft AND knotted. [/rant]

I know return you to your regularly scheduled flame-war :-)

[hogarth]

Jiggy wrote:

So if a non-bard can T10 on Knowledge outside of combat (and the Lore Master ability functions as nosig says), then the ability is written wrong.

See also:

the feat Childlike (can take 10 on some Bluff checks)

the feat Pass for Human (can take 10 on some Disguise checks)

the feat Combat Medic (can take 10 on some Heal checks)

With regards to the Knowledge skill, I admit that it's a little odd to allow a "take 10" for a skill that never, ever allows a retry; then you end up with the odd situation where your PC would have certainly known some fact if he had tried to recall it outside of combat, but since he tried to recall it inside combat it turns out that he never knew that fact in the first place...

Nevertheless, I allow taking 10 on Knowledge checks.

[nosig]

here's a related one - just another thing to think on. Though maybe this one is about T20 rules.

from the Street Performer (type of bard) ability:
Quick Change (Ex): At 5th level, a street performer can don
a disguise as a standard action by taking a –5 penalty on his
check. He can take 10 on Bluff and Disguise checks and use
Bluff to create a diversion to hide as a swift action. He can take
20 on a Bluff or Disguise check once per day, plus one time
per six levels beyond 5th. This ability replaces lore master.

from the retry of Bluff in the CRB -
Try Again: If you fail to deceive someone, further
attempts to deceive them are at a –10 penalty and may be
impossible (GM discretion).
You can attempt to feint against someone again if you
fail. Secret messages can be relayed again if the first
attempt fails.

how does someone Take 20 on a bluff? I get an image of Maxwell Smart saying "Right now we have the house surrounded by the 10th Mountain Division.... Would you beleave a Company of M.P.s and guard dogs?.... A platoon of Marines?.... A troop of Boy Scouts and their rabbit mascot?"
Or does this mean that the Bard just can say "I get a 20 on this roll"?

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

You know, SKR has stated that the whole point of T10 is to speed up play and make skill check results more consistent. In fact, as I recall, you've even quoted him saying as much.

Yes, I did, but unfortunately, others have pointed out that his position on the Take10 rules seems to have changed multiple times or a short period of time, often conflicting with prior/post comments. So, I still feel there is a level of ambiguity that has to be recognized.

His stance on a couple of specific situations has changed, but the bit we're talking about (speed it up/avoid the swinginess of the d20) has remained the same.

On May 25, 2011 he said that "The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you... Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4... The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances."

On December 28, 2011 he says once again that "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."

So unless there's an older or newer statement I'm not aware of, the consistent statement of intent for T10 is to allow you to "auto-succeed" things that you should be succeeding at but could fail if you rolled really low.

There is some ambiguity involved in T10, but not in the intent.

[TwilightKnight]

Jiggy wrote:

"in completing a task that should be easy for you"

So this stance would seem to indicate that "easy" is the key trigger. So, as a GM, can I state that "easy" means a DC of 10 or less?

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

To move back toward the OP a bit and away from just another "let's talk about T10 again!" thread (though I'm sure we'll go there), kudos for the player in #1 for accepting the GM's ruling and not holding up the game while he tries to find the rule. In #2, the player is certainly entitled to roll instead of taking 10 - just as long as he wasn't snide about it or anything (comments about "doing it right" or whatever), but it doesn't sound like he was a problem.

So I guess we have two examples of well-handled player/GM disagreements, yes?

You know what Jiggy? You're right. Thank you. I had missed that. Guess I'm just to close to the trees to see the forrest.

HA! and I know I can't take ten to climb a rope, knotted or otherwise. Or rather, that if I do T10, I won't make progress. Guess I have a climb of -6 or something (old, fat and out of shape).

[Jiggy]

hogarth wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

So if a non-bard can T10 on Knowledge outside of combat (and the Lore Master ability functions as nosig says), then the ability is written wrong.

See also:

the feat Childlike (can take 10 on some Bluff checks)

the feat Pass for Human (can take 10 on some Disguise checks)

the feat Combat Medic (can take 10 on some Heal checks)

Blech. That certainly doesn't help clarify anything, does it? So we have multiple feats/abilities allowing you to T10 on Skill X (with no mention of "even while threatened"), implying that those skills wouldn't normally allow it. Yet none of those skills exempt themselves in their definitions, despite precedent in UMD and Swim (if in stormy water).

So as I said earlier, the book is wrong somewhere (either in leaving out "even while threatened" in the abilities or leaving out "you can't take 10" in the skills), but we have no way of knowing which one it is!

This is one of the parts of T10 that is fuzzy, and requires GM adjudication.

Quote:

With regards to the Knowledge skill, I admit that it's a little odd to allow a "take 10" for a skill that never, ever allows a retry; then you end up with the odd situation where your PC would have certainly known some fact if he had tried to recall it outside of combat, but since he tried to recall it inside combat it turns out that he never knew that fact in the first place...

Yeah, I find that weird too. On the other hand, some of the DC 10 Knowledge checks are things anyone with 10 INT should know, so forcing rolling causes a so-called average person to not know half of these really simple things!

So either way is weird. Again, table variation on this one.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

"in completing a task that should be easy for you"

So this stance would seem to indicate that "easy" is the key trigger. So, as a GM, can I state that "easy" means a DC of 10 or less?

I would think that even Taking 10 you can still fail. So... I'll still fail the climb DC of 10 when I take 10. Wait, the climb DC10 would be hard for me right?

But ... if a PC has a +20 in climb, wouldn't a Climb DC of 20 or even 25 be easy for him?

or are you saying a PC can only T10 if he is sure of succeeding? (which is what some Judges rule on T10).

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

"in completing a task that should be easy for you"

So this stance would seem to indicate that "easy" is the key trigger. So, as a GM, can I state that "easy" means a DC of 10 or less?

I think it would depend on the character.

I recently had to go through an underwater maze, with DC 10 swim checks. I couldn't fail even if I rolled (+10 swim). The wizard would sit and drown if he tried to take 10 (-2 swim).

Also, one of SKR's posts that I linked includes an example of a guy with 5 ranks in Climb on a DC 15 wall taking 10 to avoid the swingy d20.

Again, the whole point is to speed up play and avoid low-roll-only failures. If you say "make a DC XX check" and the player is able to say "I take 10 and succeed", then the mechanic is doing its job. If you respond with "Nope, roll it" and they roll a 2 and fail at something that's either trivially easy or their area of expertise, then you've undermined the mechanic.

T10 really doesn't need to be a very nitpicky issue.

[hogarth]

Jiggy wrote:

So if a non-bard can T10 on Knowledge outside of combat (and the Lore Master ability functions as nosig says), then the ability is written wrong.

I should also point out the Kirin Path feat from Ultimate Combat:

Quote:

Benefit: Whenever you make a Knowledge check to identify a creature, even when using Kirin Style, you can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent you from doing so. While using Kirin Style against a creature you have identified using that feat, if the creature ends its turn within your threatened area, you can spend a use of your attacks of opportunity that round to move up to 5 feet times your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1). You must end your move in a square threatened by the creature. This move does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

(Emphasis mine.) So there's at least one place in the rules that thinks you can usually take 10 on a Knowledge check.

[nosig]

Let's go back to the Street performer above and his ability:
Quick Change (Ex): At 5th level, a street performer can don
a disguise as a standard action by taking a –5 penalty on his
check. He can take 10 on Bluff and Disguise checks and use
Bluff to create a diversion to hide as a swift action....

Does this imply that he can T10 on Bluff... meaning that normally a PC can't T10 on bluff... ok got that. SO... realizing that T10 rules say a PC cannot take 10 in combat, then the Street Performer can T10 on Bluff - but not in combat, because NO ONE can take ten in combat, the rule says it can't be used in combat for any skill. Is that correct?

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Others interpret the text differently.

Seems most do out of a sense of wanting the rules to be different than how they are. I can understand that, there are rules that I'd like to be different than how they are.

Perhaps I can interpret guns not to work in PFS when I GM? Cool, cause I don't think that guns have a place in fantasy games. I know that there are a number of people that share this. We can call it 'table variation' when someone brings a gunslinger to our tables...

You easily cross that line from misunderstanding the rules to willfully disregarding them under a pretext of 'it's unclear'.

Your PC is neither rushed nor threatened. Then they can take 10 on ANY skill unless there is an exception. Those are the rules for take 10. You can try to muddle them and misinterpret them.. but assuming that criteria is met then the PC can take 10 on EVERY skill that they have unless there is something that expressly forbids it.

And we look through ALL of the skills and we find the sole exception is UMD.

Now You wish to infer that by adding a new rule to bards that's written poorly that they had meant to change the take 10 rules but never got around to it. That's fine.. and likewise I will pretend that they never intended gunslingers for fantasy games and just for modern settings. Seems along the same lines.

-James

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

Let's go back to the Street performer above and his ability:

Quick Change (Ex): At 5th level, a street performer can don
a disguise as a standard action by taking a –5 penalty on his
check. He can take 10 on Bluff and Disguise checks and use
Bluff to create a diversion to hide as a swift action....

Does this imply that he can T10 on Bluff... meaning that normally a PC can't T10 on bluff... ok got that. SO... realizing that T10 rules say a PC cannot take 10 in combat, then the Street Performer can T10 on Bluff - but not in combat, because NO ONE can take ten in combat, the rule says it can't be used in combat for any skill. Is that correct?

Hm... on the other hand, while the ability doesn't say "even while threatened", it also doesn't say "except while threatened".

Internal dialogue:

Jiggy1: "But it shouldn't have to, because that's part of the definition of T10. So no-go while threatened."

Jiggy2: "Unless this is a 'specific beats general' thing, and other abilities that spell out 'even while threatened' only do so as a courtesy. In that case, then any specific ability saying you can take 10 on Skill X would automatically mean even while threatened."

Jiggy3: "...Which would then mean that the lack of that phrase no longer implies the inability of other characters to take 10 on those skills under mundane circumstances."

Jiggy2: "Right, which also means that the lack of exception clauses in various skill descriptions isn't an error, and also means that the lack of 'even while threatened' in some abilities isn't wrong, it's just using inconsistent wording."

Jiggy1: "Which means that we've gone from 'at least one part of the rules is wrong' to 'a few things are inconsistently worded but nothing's actually in error'..."

Jiggy2: "...Which means this is the strongest answer!"

I guess right now I'm going to have to go with "You can take 10 on those skills as normal, but those abilities let you do so while threatened."

[nosig]

and Swim when in stormy water. Can't take 10 there either.

[Shar Tahl]

Jiggy wrote:

Yeah, I find that weird too. On the other hand, some of the DC 10 Knowledge checks are things anyone with 10 INT should know, so forcing rolling causes a so-called average person to not know half of these really simple things!

So either way is weird. Again, table variation on this one.

The problem comes, with these "common knowledge" things is when a PC heads to, say, a continent they have never visited. Frank the Fighters says, " I shall take 10 on my knowledge local and know all the major people here immediately in this city I have never visited."

It is just too... off to work

[hogarth]

Shar Tahl wrote:

The problem comes, with these "common knowledge" things is when a PC heads to, say, a continent they have never visited. Frank the Fighters says, " I shall take 10 on my knowledge local and know all the major people here immediately in this city I have never visited."

IMO, that's more a criticism of Knowledge (local) than taking 10.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Maybe Frank read about them. Or heard bawdy jokes told about those public figures. If Frank's player wants Frank to be worldly why punish him?

[nosig]

Shar Tahl wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Yeah, I find that weird too. On the other hand, some of the DC 10 Knowledge checks are things anyone with 10 INT should know, so forcing rolling causes a so-called average person to not know half of these really simple things!

So either way is weird. Again, table variation on this one.

The problem comes, with these "common knowledge" things is when a PC heads to, say, a continent they have never visited. Frank the Fighters says, " I shall take 10 on my knowledge local and know all the major people here immediately in this city I have never visited."

It is just too... off to work

I think this is where Judges can drop on Circumstane penelties.... say "-5" for being from a different continent, a "-3" for different language, perhaps a "-3" for "looking like a foriegn devil" and another "-5" cause I think you are a cheese weasle. and as circumstance pen. stack that gives you a -16 to the Common Knowledge roll to know the name of the PM of Singapore.

(Edit to add the following comment): and realize that some PCs will get it "easily" - so I guess they can take 10?

[TwilightKnight]

james maissen wrote:

More Stuff

What you seem to fail to accept is that there are some poorly worded and/or seemingly conflictory language regarding take10 throughout the text. This is not *my* position, but one supported by many forum posters and well as hundreds, if not thousands, of players both within the OP community and not.

To try and indicate your interpretation, taking all text not just what is written in the Take10 section of the skills chapter, is the only correct one, is fallacy. There is no "smoking gun" for this mechanic. If there was, it wouldn't be such a contested rule for oh, the last ten years.

[TwilightKnight]

Jiggy wrote:

I think it would depend on the character.

Does it need to be?

If we call "easy" a static DC, say 10, then some will make it all the time (trained) while some will fail occasionally (untrained).
If we view it from the perspective of the character, it's "easy" because I am skilled, then it doesn't really matter if we restrict the untrained from taking10 since they will fail anyway.
Seems an unnecessary distinction.

[nosig]

there are still players and judges that think T10 takes longer than a "normal skill check". The standard quoted times are: 10 times as long, 3 times as long, and twice as long. These positions are not supported by current rules (or by any older version). They are still there. Are they valid also?

[nosig]

I resently had a player tell me that the only time he would T10, was when the Judge was telling him to.
He even understood the rule! So, when I asked what he disliked about T10, he explained he LIKED the rule, it's just that many judges "come down on you harder if you use it" and he didn't like getting targeted by the bad guys.

anyone else seeing this?

comments?

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

there are still players and judges that think T10 takes longer than a "normal skill check". The standard quoted times are: 10 times as long, 3 times as long, and twice as long. These positions are not supported by current rules (or by any older version). They are still there. Are they valid also?

Not from what I can tell. I have not found any language that would support additional time for Take10. I think that is mostly due to "that's what we always do" or "that's what the last GM said."

As James said, there is a difference between ignoring the RAW and interpreting the RAI.

[bdk86]

Just my 2 Coppers: If the player has access to a large repository of knowledge (the Grand Lodge, another library, etc.) and is willing to take all day; sure, they can take 10. Otherwise, it very much is a case of "you know it or you don't, taking your time isn't going to change this".

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

I resently had a player tell me that the only time he would T10, was when the Judge was telling him to.

That "feels" like an arbitrary GM ruling with nothing to back up the decision. The GM probably just hates the take10 rules and doesn't want anyone using them at all.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I think it would depend on the character.

Does it need to be?

If we call "easy" a static DC, say 10, then some will make it all the time (trained) while some will fail occasionally (untrained).
If we view it from the perspective of the character, it's "easy" because I am skilled, then it doesn't really matter if we restrict the untrained from taking10 since they will fail anyway.
Seems an unnecessary distinction.

I have a fighter that can make a DC 15 acrobatics roll by T10 - untrained.

I have played with a fighter that could not make a diplomacy roll by T10 - Trained.

different skill levels with or without training.

[TwilightKnight]

bdk86 wrote:

and is willing to take all day

Why is it dependent on the time spent?

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

I resently had a player tell me that the only time he would T10, was when the Judge was telling him to.

That "feels" like an arbitrary GM ruling with nothing to back up the decision. The GM probably just hates the take10 rules and doesn't want anyone using them at all.

actually it was a player - not a judge. He was playing in a game with me and saw my shirt. He played for more than one judge, and found it less "problem" to only use the rule when the judge suggested it.

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

different skill levels with or without training.

Exactly. Which would seem to indicate that "easy" is not a factor of how well you perform with respect to the task, but rather the chances of anyone to succeed. That feels like a static DC to me. So the question becomes, what is "easy?" DC5, 10, 15, something else?

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I think it would depend on the character.

Does it need to be?

If we call "easy" a static DC, say 10, then some will make it all the time (trained) while some will fail occasionally (untrained).
If we view it from the perspective of the character, it's "easy" because I am skilled, then it doesn't really matter if we restrict the untrained from taking10 since they will fail anyway.

Hence the rest of my post, where I went on to say:

"Again, the whole point is to speed up play and avoid low-roll-only failures. If you say "make a DC XX check" and the player is able to say "I take 10 and succeed", then the mechanic is doing its job. If you respond with "Nope, roll it" and they roll a 2 and fail at something that's either trivially easy or their area of expertise, then you've undermined the mechanic."

The point is that it's not so much about the numbers and what exactly the threshold for "easy" is. The point is getting on with the game instead of getting hung up by things you only fail if you roll really low.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Seems an unnecessary distinction.

Hence the final line of my post:

"T10 really doesn't need to be a very nitpicky issue."

Honestly, this last post of yours feels like you just read my first line or two and then assumed what came after it.

Here's the point:
The whole reason that the T10 mechanic even exists - stated both in the far-too-seldom-actually-read T10 rules themselves, as well as consistently repeated by SKR - is to let you auto-succeed on checks for which a low roll would fail.

And before someone jumps in and says that the purpose can't be to allow auto-successes, everyone please note that the T10 rules themselves use the phrase "automatically successful".

The whole point is to auto-succeed and get on to the juicy bits.

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

He played for more than one judge, and found it less "problem" to only use the rule when the judge suggested it.

That might be an easy way to avoid conflict, I guess, but a slippery slope. As a GM, I rarely, if ever suggest take10. As you have said prior, it is the player's choice when to try. Although, IMO, it is the GM's decision under what conditions it can be applied (using the ambiguous rules as a guide of course).

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

bdk86 wrote:

and is willing to take all day

Why is it dependent on the time spent?

You've already discussed the answer to your own question:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

there are still players and judges that think T10 takes longer than a "normal skill check". The standard quoted times are: 10 times as long, 3 times as long, and twice as long. These positions are not supported by current rules (or by any older version). They are still there. Are they valid also?

Not from what I can tell. I have not found any language that would support additional time for Take10. I think that is mostly due to "that's what we always do" or "that's what the last GM said."

As James said, there is a difference between ignoring the RAW and interpreting the RAI.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

there are still players and judges that think T10 takes longer than a "normal skill check". The standard quoted times are: 10 times as long, 3 times as long, and twice as long. These positions are not supported by current rules (or by any older version). They are still there. Are they valid also?

Not from what I can tell. I have not found any language that would support additional time for Take10. I think that is mostly due to "that's what we always do" or "that's what the last GM said."

As James said, there is a difference between ignoring the RAW and interpreting the RAI.

sorry bob, and i mean this in the nicest way, but I find your stance here odd. you use the same argument above "supported by many forum posters and well as hundreds, if not thousands, of players both within the OP community " to support your possition that the rule is unclear.

I find it very clear. I am trying to understand other peoples view that it is not. I have been trying to understand it for some time (I do not like being the guy "tilting at windmills" as a poster above called me). I carefully look for ANY time when the rules say "you can't take 10 on this skill". I have found only 2. To say, X means Y is not clear to me. Sorry - I'm slow sometimes. I didn't understand perception rules at first either. and so I read the rules and asked questions. Now I think I have it. The same goes for T10.

I'm willing to listen, but later - now I'm off to a game.

[TwilightKnight]

okay Jiggy, you're starting to lose me. I asked the question of bdk86, because HE seemed to indicate there was a time factor. I know there isn't.

Jiggy wrote:

The whole reason...is to let you auto-succeed on checks for which a low roll would fail"

That is fine, but then why not just make taking10 automatic and only require rolls when there is a chance of failure at 11+ on the die?