Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

More Take 10 goodness


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

101 to 150 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

hogarth wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Pass for Human specifically allows you to take 10 on a check that the rules assume the DM rolls for you.
Nowhere does it say that you can't take 10 on Disguise checks; it just says that the roll is secret. Personally, I would single out Disguise as a good example of a skill that would be reasonable to take 10 on.

And I would disagree. The rules are, once again, pretty clear.

PRD wrote:
You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people make Perception checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can't be sure how good the result is.

So sure. I agree with you that the DM could take 10 on your behalf, but he couldn't tell you he did.

Even with Childlike it's a pretty clear case of "Specific trumps General". In general, you can't take 10 on Bluff when threatened or distracted. But if you have Childlike, or some other relevant ability, you can take 10 (with the implied even when/if you normally couldn't).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way the RAW is, there is nothing that says you can't take 10 on a skill check except in UMD (always) and Siwm (for stormy water, it clarifies this as a specific condition that shouldn't be up for GM determination). As written, there is nothing in the take 10 rules or in any of the other skill check rules that limit anyone from taking 10 on their checks.

So, if you rule otherwise, you are house ruling.

As for the fuzzy part, where SKR and others are trying to determine what is "easy" or what is "dangerous or distracting", you can try to make yourself feel better by arbitrarily calling something "too hard or dangerous for a take 10" when it really shouldn't be, and say you are following RAW, but it's really just a "cleverly" disguised house ruling. Just because you don't want something to be easy doesn't mean it isn't actually easy. If it causes that much trouble, perhaps the skill check was poorly conceived for that part of the adventure and so much shouldn't be riding on a check that can be overcome by taking 10...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thod, why would they make it take 10 if you were only supposed to use it when you only needed a 4 (or 2), but if you needed a 5+ you should have to roll? They made it 10 for a reason. Because they believed that when you weren't rushed, you should be able to consistently perform just below average.

Take 10 should be able to be used for almost any skill at almost any time. The thing is, players shouldn't know their target DCs most of the time. How do they know that a with their +5 they only need a 10? Only fairly mundane tasks are ever given set DCs. Players shouldn't be given their target numbers before they roll. Right there most players stop liking take 10, IME.

As far as some of the examples above, like bluffing Dracula, I have to say you can take 10. He isn't immediately pressuring you. The real question is, is 10 enough? That is something the players need to decide. If it is, the player gets an awesome feeling. He is smooth enough to lie to Dracula's face and he can't tell. But how does he know that Dracula isn't just bluffing him back, lulling them into a false sense of security? The player better hope hes got the sense motive to feel out Dracula too.

The same with a father with a shotgun and you in bed with his daughter. If you are confident enough that you can pass the diplomacy check with the unknown negative modifiers with a roll of just 10, why shouldn't the player be able to just smooth talk, have the game move on, and gloat about it later?

Out of combat, rolling is a player's choice for when they feel like average results will be enough. The mechanic works great. The only problem I ever see with it is when DCs are set too low, like with Climb.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thod, why would they make it take 10 if you were only supposed to use it when you only needed a 4 (or 2), but if you needed a 5+ you should have to roll? They made it 10 for a reason. Because they believed that when you weren't rushed, you should be able to consistently perform just below average.

Take 10 should be able to be used for almost any skill at almost any time. The thing is, players shouldn't know their target DCs most of the time. How do they know that a with their +5 they only need a 10? Only fairly mundane tasks are ever given set DCs. Players shouldn't be given their target numbers before they roll. Right there most players stop liking take 10, IME.

As far as some of the examples above, like bluffing Dracula, I have to say you can take 10. He isn't immediately pressuring you. The real question is, is 10 enough? That is something the players need to decide. If it is, the player gets an awesome feeling. He is smooth enough to lie to Dracula's face and he can't tell. But how does he know that Dracula isn't just bluffing him back, lulling them into a false sense of security? The player better hope hes got the sense motive to feel out Dracula too.

The same with a father with a shotgun and you in bed with his daughter. If you are confident enough that you can pass the diplomacy check with the unknown negative modifiers with a roll of just 10, why shouldn't the player be able to just smooth talk, have the game move on, and gloat about it later?

Out of combat, rolling is a player's choice for when they feel like average results will be enough. The mechanic works great. The only problem I ever see with it is when DCs are set too low, like with Climb.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Caineach wrote:
Players shouldn't be given their target numbers before they roll. Right there most players stop liking take 10, IME.

Bingo. Until recently, my fighter had a +1 Perception. I always rolled. Then at level 7 I took Cosmopolitan (made it a class skill) and got an INT headband (to max it out), and jumped to a +11. Now I take 10 whenever possible.


Mystic Lemur wrote:
And I would disagree. The rules are, once again, pretty clear.

Funny -- I agree that the rules are clear, and I get the opposite result. :-)

Shadow Lodge **

Hogarth wrote:
Nowhere does it say that you can't take 10 on Disguise checks; it just says that the roll is secret. Personally, I would single out Disguise as a good example of a skill that would be reasonable to take 10 on.

-If there is a roll in secret , then there is a roll. If there is a roll, 10 is not being taken.

Disguise is really tricky on this. There's an element to it where you should be able to take 20: making the disguise. The problem is that the LOOK is only half the disguise. You have to sound and ACT like the person you're supposed to be. You can look like a perfect Klingon with the ridgiest forhead ridge in history, but if your posture doesn't say "Where is the glorious batttle!" no one is going to buy the act based on appearance alone. There's a lot of subtle things that you have to adjust on the fly.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

setzer9999 wrote:
Just because the take 10 part of Lore Master sucks and/or is poorly worded, this doesn't mean that you should rewrite or reinterpret the rules for the rest of the game...

Using that logic, you can also conclude that the wording for Lore Master is in fact correct, and it is the language in the Take10 section that is worked poorly. That doesn't change the rest of the game.

The existence of Lore Master seems to suggest that Take10 does not apply to Knowledge checks. To what degree the text is accurate or poorly written is in the eyes of the reader. Some of us interpret it to be a sub-section of the general Take10 rules that prevents it, otherwise it marginalized a class ability. That position has as much merit as other's feeling it is merely poorly written.

The other aspect that is ambiguous is what defines a distraction. Some seem to indicate that combat is the sole definable distraction. However, you could also make an argument for other things. For example, your scout is sneaking forward, Taking10 on perception as he goes. Suddenly, someone flashes a bullseye lantern in his face. Is that a distraction? Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am comfortable leaving the decision to the GM to adjudicate.

Most of the excuses to deny take10 are not valid, however, there are a few that can be valid depending on your point of view. What is strange to is that these rules have been in play for 10+ years and yet their function is still being debated by large groups on both sides. That would seem to indicate that the rules are not as clearly written as some would like to believe.

Would I like to see an official FAQ or errata to put this discussion to rest, absolutely. But until that time, there will be some level of table variation that we all have to accept. *You/we* are not going to change anyone's mind at this point, so we have to agree to disagree.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Would I like to see an official FAQ or errata to put this discussion to rest, absolutely.

*ahem*

33 and counting. Let's make it happen!

Aside:

Quote:
Most of the excuses to deny take10 are not valid, however, there are a few that can be valid depending on your point of view. What is strange to is that these rules have been in play for 10+ years and yet their function is still being debated by large groups on both sides.

Watch what happens if I switch the order of a couple of parts:

Bob, reordered wrote:
What is strange to is that these rules have been in play for 10+ years and yet... Most of the excuses to deny take10 are not valid

It's hard to consider "there's still debate after 10+ years" as evidence of unclarity when some of the obviously and unequivocally wrong ideas have also been around for 10+ years.

Although I agree with you that there are unclear parts to T10, the "there's still debate, therefore it's unclear" argument really doesn't hold water.

Shadow Lodge **

This should be a scene in the next gamers.

(players around the table)

Dm: Roll perception

Player: I take 10.

Dm: Youuuuu can't.

Player: Why not? I can take 10 whenever I'm not in immediate danger or distracted

DM: About that....

(flash to the characters in game)

The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear slowly out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers...

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Jiggy wrote:
Although I agree with you that there are unclear parts to T10, the "there's still debate, therefore it's unclear" argument really doesn't hold water.

Fine, whatever. I'm not a linguist nor an English teacher/student, so I am not going to argue over the nuances of words I use vs. someone who appears to be more fluent than I.

But, by your own admission, there are a few parts of the rules that are unclear. Those are the parts, I hope, are the ones we are discussing and disagree on their interpretation. Most of the issues are clear and we seem to agree on them.


The rules are clear on take 10... You can take 10 out of combat even on trained knowledge checks. It can't be read any other way. Relying on "Implied" rules is a quick road to insanity. And in every case I can think of if the only support for a rule is "Implied" then that interpretation is wrong in some way. I can't see any need to clarify take 10 with a FAQ... BUT I do see a need for the Bard ability to be cleared up with answers from the developers. They either gave you an ability everyone already has... or they failed to clarify that it works even in combat.

The simulationist argument "You either know something or you don't" is unrealistic as well. Just look to real life for example: How many of you have heard of the saying (or used) "That is on the tip of my tongue"? I will paint the picture for you. I am driving to the mall with my friend and a song I love comes up on the radio. While I am singing along my friend asks me the name of the song and who sings it. I know I know the answer... but at that moment I can't recall the information. "Sorry it's just on the tip of my tongue" I respond. Maybe the distractions were too many and I had to roll. I obviously failed that knowledge check... even though it was an easy check. Three days later I was doing laundry and the song came on again... I instantly knew the answers to who sings it and the name of the song. Did I take 10 the second time because of the relaxed environment? It sure seems like it.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

*sigh*

Qadira ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This should be a scene in the next gamers.

(players around the table)

Dm: Roll perception

Player: I take 10.

Dm: Youuuuu can't.

Player: Why not? I can take 10 whenever I'm not in immediate danger or distracted

DM: About that....

(flash to the characters in game)

The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear slowly out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers...

yep - got it. so it goes like this -

(players settling into their seats around the table)

Player: I take 10 for Perception checks whenever I can, my perception skill is listed on my table tent and I have Trapspotter that I'd like you to roll and not tell me about when you do.

Dm: Youuuuu can't.

Player: Why not? I can take 10 whenever I'm not in immediate danger or distracted

DM: About that.... ah... ok.

(flash to the characters an hour later in game)

DM: discribing encounter "The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers... with a Perception of 28 he missed the creature hiding invisible in the webs above the door and it attacks from surprize leaping at the elven rogue, who rolls despr.... wait... where the heck did my dice go again?"

what's the problem with this?

(edit to add comments below)

My PCs fail at skill checks often. Take 10 DOES NOT MEAN AUTO SUCCESS. The above picture (something very like it) happened the last time I played my rogue - and he ran screaming (acrobatics) like a little girl to hide behind the big armored fighter lady (got to love Uncanny dodge). And yes, I rolled the Acrobatics skill check - I was in combat after all.

Funny, the Judge felt he needed to say that the monster had rolled 19 on it's stealth check to beat my (really high) perception. But, you know, it was ok - I was having fun role-playing my character, not rolling dice.

Qadira ***

Aranna wrote:

The rules are clear on take 10... You can take 10 out of combat even on trained knowledge checks. It can't be read any other way. Relying on "Implied" rules is a quick road to insanity. And in every case I can think of if the only support for a rule is "Implied" then that interpretation is wrong in some way. I can't see any need to clarify take 10 with a FAQ... BUT I do see a need for the Bard ability to be cleared up with answers from the developers. They either gave you an ability everyone already has... or they failed to clarify that it works even in combat.

The simulationist argument "You either know something or you don't" is unrealistic as well. Just look to real life for example: How many of you have heard of the saying (or used) "That is on the tip of my tongue"? I will paint the picture for you. I am driving to the mall with my friend and a song I love comes up on the radio. While I am singing along my friend asks me the name of the song and who sings it. I know I know the answer... but at that moment I can't recall the information. "Sorry it's just on the tip of my tongue" I respond. Maybe the distractions were too many and I had to roll. I obviously failed that knowledge check... even though it was an easy check. Three days later I was doing laundry and the song came on again... I instantly knew the answers to who sings it and the name of the song. Did I take 10 the second time because of the relaxed environment? It sure seems like it.

wait-wait, I got this one. You leveled! yeah, and added a rank in knowledge local (or was it a perform: sing skill check?)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Although I agree with you that there are unclear parts to T10, the "there's still debate, therefore it's unclear" argument really doesn't hold water.
Fine, whatever. I'm not a linguist nor an English teacher/student, so I am not going to argue over the nuances of words I use vs. someone who appears to be more fluent than I.

Not so much English as logic: B does not follow from A, even though A and B are both true. (In this case, A is "10+ years of debate" and B is "parts of T10 are unclear".)

Not trying to nitpick, just trying to keep your reasoning clean. You're already pretty sharp - a little more polish on your logic and you'll be one heckuva force to be reckoned with. :)

Quote:
But, by your own admission, there are a few parts of the rules that are unclear.

Absolutely.

Quote:
Those are the parts, I hope, are the ones we are discussing and disagree on their interpretation.

Let's find out:

There are two parts that I think are unclear; the definition of "distraction/threat" (which I don't think should be clarified - it's for the GM to decide), and the relationship between T10 and Lore Master & Friends (which I'm trying to get FAQ'd, because either interpretation could benefit from additional support in the text).

That match what you think is unclear?

Quote:
Most of the issues are clear and we seem to agree on them.

Looks that way. :)


Bob Jonquet wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
Just because the take 10 part of Lore Master sucks and/or is poorly worded, this doesn't mean that you should rewrite or reinterpret the rules for the rest of the game...

Using that logic, you can also conclude that the wording for Lore Master is in fact correct, and it is the language in the Take10 section that is worked poorly. That doesn't change the rest of the game.

The existence of Lore Master seems to suggest that Take10 does not apply to Knowledge checks. To what degree the text is accurate or poorly written is in the eyes of the reader. Some of us interpret it to be a sub-section of the general Take10 rules that prevents it, otherwise it marginalized a class ability. That position has as much merit as other's feeling it is merely poorly written.

...

This is flawed reasoning. The specific overrules the general only where the specific rule applies. Therefore, taking it the way you are saying it, it is only Bards who CAN'T take 10 on Knowledge skill checks until they reach level 5! I don't propose this is the case, its just where the logic leads. The rules for the core mechanics of the game apply for all classes and all conditions. The rules for the Bard class apply only to the Bard. The rules for one particular Bard ability apply only to that ability. Rules for how a core game mechanic work are defined in the rules for that core game mechanic. They aren't defined in the specific mechanics of a class feature. The class feature is an example of a specific rule overruling a general one, but it only applies when that feature is present, not to situations where it isn't. If this wasn't the case, then all classes and races get all abilities of all classes and races and all feats are applied to everyone universally and the game is just full of omnipotent gods...

Specific rules overriding general ones only apply to the isolated case where the specific rule applies... not to the whole game.

By trying to interpret the presence of text in a specific ability that duplicates the abilities already allowed by core game mechanics, and thus deciding that this means the core game mechanics are wrong, you are inventing your own rules where there are no such rules written.

The rules for take 10 and skill checks allow you to take them unless in danger or distracted. Period. Other than swimming in stormy water or using UMD, the ONLY language that states you can't take 10 is if it is dangerous or distracting. If you rule otherwise, it is a house rule. You are welcome to house rule it, but it isn't the real rules.

Shadow Lodge **

nosig wrote:
DM: discribing encounter "The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers... with a Perception of 28 he missed the creature hiding invisible in the webs above the door and it attacks from surprise leaping at the elven rogue, who rolls despr.... wait... where the heck did my dice go again?"

what's the problem with this?

Well from a rules standpoint the character is taking 10 while in immediate danger. (I will not even consider arguments about the situation above not qualifying as immediate danger) Which is clearly not allowed.

As a DM it takes all the spontaneity out of the game. If I'm designing traps and encounters I know fully ahead of time which ones you'll find and which ones you'll fall into head first. It takes all the randomness out of it.

Its also fairly easy to pump a skill so high that the DM has to make it absolutely impossible for any other party member to make the roll in order to even have a chance of beating your 10+ skill mod. With everyone rolling there's at least a chance of Scout there getting a 1 and missing with his 17 and Sir Clanksalot getting a 20 and making it with his 19.

Rolling dice is part of the fun. You have the anticipation as polyhedral fate bounces across the table, the agony of a 1 and the joy of a 20.

Also you don't have backup dice!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Setzer, the dialogue on that topic obviously isn't going anywhere. Instead of reiterating existing lines of debate, try going HERE and flagging the topic for FAQ treatment. That's liable to be much more productive. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a DM it takes all the spontaneity out of the game. If I'm designing traps and encounters I know fully ahead of time which ones you'll find and which ones you'll fall into head first. It takes all the randomness out of it.

Its also fairly easy to pump a skill so high that the DM has to make it absolutely impossible for any other party member to make the roll in order to even have a chance of beating your 10+ skill mod. With everyone rolling there's at least a chance of Scout there getting a 1 and missing with his 17 and Sir Clanksalot getting a 20 and making it with his 19.

Rolling dice is part of the fun. You have the anticipation as polyhedral fate bounces across the table, the agony of a 1 and the joy of a 20.

This is preference not rule. In fact, the CRB even lists searching for traps as something you should take 20 on!

If you're designing an encounter and want extra tension, then add a circumstance that prevents taking 10. Instead of a hall full of traps with arbitrarily inflated DCs, have a hall full of traps that the PCs have to get through to escape a lava flow! Add excitement, remove T10, and still be totally by the book! :D

Shadow Lodge **

Quote:
If you're designing an encounter and want extra tension, then add a circumstance that prevents taking 10. Instead of a hall full of traps with arbitrarily inflated DCs, have a hall full of traps that the PCs have to get through to escape a lava flow! Add excitement, remove T10, and still be totally by the book! :D

For traps I just accept it as a rule and move on. Or just stop using traps altogether.

For monster ambushes I'm fully within the rules to consider big sharp pointy teeth descending for the scouts soft delicious flesh an "immediate danger" and call for a die roll.

Also adding to the above list: It seems to be a disassociated mechanic. That is I have no idea how a person would go about putting an average amount of effort into spotting an ambush or making a knowledge roll.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
For monster ambushes I'm fully within the rules to consider big sharp pointy teeth descending for the scouts soft delicious flesh an "immediate danger" and call for a die roll.

Naturally. Wasn't meaning to imply otherwise.

Quote:
I have no idea how a person would go about putting an average amount of effort into spotting an ambush

...really? You can't imagine the rear guard putting an average amount of effort into scanning the local foliage for danger?

Quote:
or making a knowledge roll.

Gotta give you that one. But that might be more of an issue with the knowledge skills. :P

Qadira ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
DM: discribing encounter "The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers... with a Perception of 28 he missed the creature hiding invisible in the webs above the door and it attacks from surprise leaping at the elven rogue, who rolls despr.... wait... where the heck did my dice go again?"

what's the problem with this?

Well from a rules standpoint the character is taking 10 while in immediate danger. (I will not even consider arguments about the situation above not qualifying as immediate danger) Which is clearly not allowed.

As a DM it takes all the spontaneity out of the game. If I'm designing traps and encounters I know fully ahead of time which ones you'll find and which ones you'll fall into head first. It takes all the randomness out of it.

Its also fairly easy to pump a skill so high that the DM has to make it absolutely impossible for any other party member to make the roll in order to even have a chance of beating your 10+ skill mod. With everyone rolling there's at least a chance of Scout there getting a 1 and missing with his 17 and Sir Clanksalot getting a 20 and making it with his 19.

Rolling dice is part of the fun. You have the anticipation as polyhedral fate bounces across the table, the agony of a 1 and the joy of a 20.

Also you don't have backup dice!

(this is in a nice voice, so do not mis-understand please)

so... I need to play your way or I'm not having fun?

but let's take your reply one part at a time.
1) "Well from a rules standpoint the character is taking 10 while in immediate danger. " In the part leading up to the encounter, my character was un-awair of the danger. SO.... I guess the judge could say, "we have entered inititive, please roll your perception." and as a Foresight wizard (always go in the surprise round) I would - without even a second thought as to why, roll a perception. When the Judge did not give me that option I guess it is ok... I mean, he has a lot of things on his mind and I really didn't mind that he shorted me a perception roll. I didn't detect the monster BEFORE the distraction - and after it attacked I didn't need to.

2) "As a DM it takes all the spontaneity out of the game. If I'm designing traps and encounters I know fully ahead of time which ones you'll find and which ones you'll fall into head first. It takes all the randomness out of it."
Goodness, how to reply to this. The writers do not have my character in mind when they are designing traps and encounters, if they did there would be less traps and more monster. The first I handle very well, the second I rely on my party to handle (that's why the fighter is there). Oh, and you are almost right, it does reduce the randomness of the game. But that's one of the reasons I like role play games and I don't play Candyland. ("Roll a die. You got an ODD number? you win! yah!... wanna play again? Random).

3) "Its also fairly easy to pump a skill so high that the DM has to make it absolutely impossible for any other party member to make the roll in order to even have a chance of beating your 10+ skill mod. With everyone rolling there's at least a chance of Scout there getting a 1 and missing with his 17 and Sir Clanksalot getting a 20 and making it with his 19."
So... I have no skill in Diplomacy. In fact, my character has a -4 most of the time (Drugs and poor Cha). So... please keep all Diplomacy skill checks below 17 as I can not pass them otherwise. And be sure no one else has a skill better than +15, otherwise it willl deprive me of my chance to outshine them.
Sherlock Holms searchs a room and states "it's got no other exits". Sir Clanksalot enters and says "Sherlock, you missed the trap door in the middle of the room". Makes Sherlock look great - in fact I've heard the phrase "why the heck did we bring the rogue along again?" too many times.

and lastly
4) "Rolling dice is part of the fun. You have the anticipation as polyhedral fate bounces across the table, the agony of a 1 and the joy of a 20. "
and I say again "I need to play your way or I'm not having fun?"

(by the way, a 1 is not an auto fail and a 20 is not an auto success in skill checks. I'm sure you know this, but the tone of your post implied otherwise.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
DM: discribing encounter "The scout waves his torch back and forth, while above him gleaming white fangs appear out of the darkness, followed by eyes the color of burning embers... with a Perception of 28 he missed the creature hiding invisible in the webs above the door and it attacks from surprise leaping at the elven rogue, who rolls despr.... wait... where the heck did my dice go again?"

what's the problem with this?

Well from a rules standpoint the character is taking 10 while in immediate danger. (I will not even consider arguments about the situation above not qualifying as immediate danger) Which is clearly not allowed.

As a DM it takes all the spontaneity out of the game. If I'm designing traps and encounters I know fully ahead of time which ones you'll find and which ones you'll fall into head first. It takes all the randomness out of it.

Its also fairly easy to pump a skill so high that the DM has to make it absolutely impossible for any other party member to make the roll in order to even have a chance of beating your 10+ skill mod. With everyone rolling there's at least a chance of Scout there getting a 1 and missing with his 17 and Sir Clanksalot getting a 20 and making it with his 19.

Rolling dice is part of the fun. You have the anticipation as polyhedral fate bounces across the table, the agony of a 1 and the joy of a 20.

Also you don't have backup dice!

I think I disagree with every statement you make here.

1. You do not know you are in danger. You can take 10. You can't be pressured by what you don't know.

2. Yes, it takes sponteneaty out of the game. The rule is designed to do exactly that. Characters max their skills to do exactly that. If you don't want someone bypassing a trap that is easy for them to notice, or picking a lock they can easily pick, you have to put a pressure on them. Thats not that different then real life.

3. If a player maxes a skill where others don't, its often because he doesn't want to be beaten by someone who barely touches it. It does not make any sense for the guy who is good at it to be beaten while the guy who has no idea what he is doing to fail when neither is stressed. When I'm a play and it happens, it pisses me off, regardless of whether I'm the Scout or Sir Clanksalot.

4. I prefer not to roll dice when I don't have to. It actually reduces my enjoyment of the game.

Qadira ***

wow... I did a big reply and the internet ate it. But Caineach pretty much covered it.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

setzer9999 wrote:
This is flawed reasoning

I disagree. The Take10 rules are a nearly exact copy of the v3.5/OGL rules. Lore Master, however, is new to the bard class. It can be reasoned, that the author of that class ability knew what the RAI are for taking take10 and applied it to the language of the class ability. There is a lot of text that has been transferred, sometimes verbatim, and the designers have admitted that some of them should have received some additional clarifications. I believe that this is one of those cases.

Regardless, the take10 rules are not the only incidence of rules that exist in multiple locations and can only be fully understood when combining all the text together to garner the RAI.

Shadow Lodge **

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
For monster ambushes I'm fully within the rules to consider big sharp pointy teeth descending for the scouts soft delicious flesh an "immediate danger" and call for a die roll.
Naturally. Wasn't meaning to imply otherwise.

Some of the Cult of Take Ten think otherwise. We of the Church of Righteous Impartial Tetrahedron disagree :)

Quote:
I have no idea how a person would go about putting an average amount of effort into spotting an ambush
...really? You can't imagine the rear guard putting an average amount of effort into scanning the local foliage for danger?

Not really. It does seem to be one of those things that's more driven by chance than effort. Do you catch a flicker of motion out of the corner of your eye? Does a twig snap under foot? Do you turn your head at the right time to see them coming?

If someone could put more effort into spotting an ambush in D&D they would.

Quote:
or making a knowledge roll.
Gotta give you that one. But that might be more of an issue with the knowledge skills. :P

And its probably the bigger reason to read the knowledge skill that way.

You'll note that I do allow take 10 on MOST things where your neck isn't on the line.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Example of taking 10 on knowledge skill checks:
I play Go.
Speed Go is often 5-15 seconds on the timer. Playing speed Go, players often make mistakes they regret. The timer acts as a distraction, and they can't take 10.
When I have 1 minute on the timer, I still usually play like I'm playing speed Go. My average move takes less than 10 seconds, and often my longest move isn't over 10 seconds. I play better and more consistent than when I am playing speed go though. My good moves are about the same, but I am much less likely to make a bad move feeling rushed.
In one case, I am rolling. In the other, I am taking 10.

You can see the same thing at math competitions. Put a time limit on a series of questions, and suddenly people start failing at addition. They misread addition and multiplication. They make stupid mistakes. Remove the timer, and all of them will ace it. The timer removes their ability to take 10 on what they normally consider a simple task, and so they make mistakes.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
It does seem to be one of those things that's more driven by chance than effort.

Given that (outside the game) there are entire methodologies of standardized observation in which a person can be trained, I'd have to disagree.

Quote:
Do you catch a flicker of motion out of the corner of your eye? Does a twig snap under foot?

Those sound more like failed stealth checks than successful perception checks. I.e., the guard is sitting around taking 10, and the ambush party (under more pressure) is rolling stealth, then they roll below the guard's T10 perception and a twig snaps.

Quote:
If someone could put more effort into spotting an ambush in D&D they would.

They can: it's called adding a rank. ;)

Shadow Lodge **

Caineach wrote:

1. You do not know you are in danger. You can take 10. You can't be pressured by what you don't know.

The rule does not state anything about the character knowing. Scout IS in immediate danger. The DM knows this and prevents the player from taking 10.

I don't know how one would go about putting in an average amount of effort looking for an ambush anyway. A trap? Yes. An ambush no.

Quote:
2. Yes, it takes spontaneity out of the game. The rule is designed to do exactly that. Characters max their skills to do exactly that. If you don't want someone bypassing a trap that is easy for them to notice, or picking a lock they can easily pick, you have to put a pressure on them. That's not that different then real life.

I don't like the take 10 rules for things like this but that doesn't mean that I don't abide by them. I can separate my preference from the rules.

Quote:
3. If a player maxes a skill where others don't, its often because he doesn't want to be beaten by someone who barely touches it. It does not make any sense for the guy who is good at it to be beaten while the guy who has no idea what he is doing to fail when neither is stressed. When I'm a play and it happens, it pisses me off, regardless of whether I'm the Scout or Sir Clanksalot.

Beginners luck happens. Sometimes its funny when someone with no search leans against the wall to rest and falls through the secret door/illusion or the lord thinks that the fighter using his salad fork to poke the guest next to him is most entertainment he's had in months.

It goes the other way too. Every once in a while Stabby the min maxed Fighter has that fight where everything's turning up 1's and the healbot is smashing things with crits left and right.

Quote:
4. I prefer not to roll dice when I don't have to. It actually reduces my enjoyment of the game.

Weird...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

The more a GM disallows Take 10 the less the game resembles Pathfinder and more resembles the three stooges. When I play an RPG I want to be good at my niche. if my niche is knowledge then I pump up my knowledge skill and take 10s. If my niche is scouting, I pump up perception and take 10s. It means I can succeed like 75% of the time on stuff I'm good at. The things that are not in my niche I roll for, reinforcing my role in the game.

If I'm an urban explorer and I can't take 10 on climb instead of traversing the city parkour style roughly half the time I'm clumsily scrambling up the wall looking like an idiot.

In combat, or while stressed or distracted (as determined by the GM) I'll roll. But removing randomness from the game gives players more control over their destinies. Let players take that control and run with it, I guarantee a more immersive RP experience.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Caineach wrote:

Example of taking 10 on knowledge skill checks:

I play Go.
Speed Go is often 5-15 seconds on the timer. Playing speed Go, players often make mistakes they regret. The timer acts as a distraction, and they can't take 10.
When I have 1 minute on the timer, I still usually play like I'm playing speed Go. My average move takes less than 10 seconds, and often my longest move isn't over 10 seconds. I play better and more consistent than when I am playing speed go though. My good moves are about the same, but I am much less likely to make a bad move feeling rushed.
In one case, I am rolling. In the other, I am taking 10.

You can see the same thing at math competitions. Put a time limit on a series of questions, and suddenly people start failing at addition. They misread addition and multiplication. They make stupid mistakes. Remove the timer, and all of them will ace it. The timer removes their ability to take 10 on what they normally consider a simple task, and so they make mistakes.

Although this is a perfect example of T10 versus rolling in a noncombat situation, there's one element you missed which demonstrates how weird Knowledge skills can be.

The check doesn't represent whether or not you're able to call the info to mind at the moment, it represents whether or not you ever knew it in the first place.

So in your math test example, if in two parallel realities the same kid takes the same test, but one is timed and the other is not, then the T10 kid will know the answer while his clone's check result will determine whether or not he ever knew it in the first place.

But again, that's an issue with Knowledge, not the T10 rules.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
This is flawed reasoning

I disagree. The Take10 rules are a nearly exact copy of the v3.5/OGL rules. Lore Master, however, is new to the bard class. It can be reasoned, that the author of that class ability knew what the RAI are for taking take10 and applied it to the language of the class ability. There is a lot of text that has been transferred, sometimes verbatim, and the designers have admitted that some of them should have received some additional clarifications. I believe that this is one of those cases.

Regardless, the take10 rules are not the only incidence of rules that exist in multiple locations and can only be fully understood when combining all the text together to garner the RAI.

I have never played 3.5. I can only learn the rules as they are written for the current game in question. If outside supporting evidence for your position exists, it is still outside the RAW of PF. You can't adjudicate rules that are not actually written into the rulebook for the game you are playing by citing other games, even if they are "compatible" without it being "home ruling". I'm not saying you are "wrong" for running your games that way, I'm just saying that given what is in the RAW for the rulebooks for Pathfinder, ruling it your way is a house rule. I'm going to drop out of this thread though, since there are two separate arguments going on in here, one about the rules (which I'm taking more part in), and one about what the rules should be (which I'm not as interested in because for that... home rule whatever the hell you want, that's the point of home games).

Qadira ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
This is flawed reasoning

I disagree. The Take10 rules are a nearly exact copy of the v3.5/OGL rules. Lore Master, however, is new to the bard class. It can be reasoned, that the author of that class ability knew what the RAI are for taking take10 and applied it to the language of the class ability. There is a lot of text that has been transferred, sometimes verbatim, and the designers have admitted that some of them should have received some additional clarifications. I believe that this is one of those cases.

Regardless, the take10 rules are not the only incidence of rules that exist in multiple locations and can only be fully understood when combining all the text together to garner the RAI.

My bolding. May I have this please. It would make this entire debate null.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How do I take 10 to spot an ambush:
I am walking down the street, minding my own buisness. I may check over my shoulder every once in a while, but not doing anything really special.

I walk down the road. I do nothing special. Taking 10 is my default level of awareness when not distracted by other things.

When I roll:
I check over my shoulder routinely to check to see if I'm being followed. I take a couple looks at the guy who just rounded the corner to see if his pocket is hanging low or his hand is protecting his side, looking for tells if he is carrying. I look behinds cars to see if someone is crouching. I pause and listen as I approach an interesection to see if I hear anything.

In a fantasy setting, I pay attention to the dirt tracks to see if any look like they are going into the woods. Perhaps someone left a footprint in the grass and it reflects differently. I look to see if the cave wall looks disturbed. I make sure I check the ceiling (when was the last time you did that just walking arround?). I intentionally look behind the door when I enter a room.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Example of taking 10 on knowledge skill checks:

I play Go.
Speed Go is often 5-15 seconds on the timer. Playing speed Go, players often make mistakes they regret. The timer acts as a distraction, and they can't take 10.
When I have 1 minute on the timer, I still usually play like I'm playing speed Go. My average move takes less than 10 seconds, and often my longest move isn't over 10 seconds. I play better and more consistent than when I am playing speed go though. My good moves are about the same, but I am much less likely to make a bad move feeling rushed.
In one case, I am rolling. In the other, I am taking 10.

You can see the same thing at math competitions. Put a time limit on a series of questions, and suddenly people start failing at addition. They misread addition and multiplication. They make stupid mistakes. Remove the timer, and all of them will ace it. The timer removes their ability to take 10 on what they normally consider a simple task, and so they make mistakes.

Although this is a perfect example of T10 versus rolling in a noncombat situation, there's one element you missed which demonstrates how weird Knowledge skills can be.

The check doesn't represent whether or not you're able to call the info to mind at the moment, it represents whether or not you ever knew it in the first place.

So in your math test example, if in two parallel realities the same kid takes the same test, but one is timed and the other is not, then the T10 kid will know the answer while his clone's check result will determine whether or not he ever knew it in the first place.

But again, that's an issue with Knowledge, not the T10 rules.

Yeah, but that is just a stupid rule about being unable to retry knowledge rolls. I have never seen DM not override that when it made sense.

Shadow Lodge **

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It does seem to be one of those things that's more driven by chance than effort.
Given that (outside the game) there are entire methodologies of standardized observation in which a person can be trained, I'd have to disagree.

And learning those would be the equivalent of putting ranks into the skill.

Taking the dice away seems to imply something that's completely under your control. If i have a forge, a hammer, and a peice of iron I select the temperature, I decide how often i strike, I decide what shape i want it in. I control the vertical, i control the horizontal, I AM GOD HERE... ahem...

If you're looking for say, a concealed weapon in a crowd, sometimes you're on the side of the person with the weapon, sometimes you're on the wrong side to see it. It just happens. Chance affects the observer as much as it affects the person trying to hide.

Quote:
If someone could put more effort into spotting an ambush in D&D they would.
They can: it's called adding a rank. ;)

No, that's getting better at it, not putting in more effort.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

setzer9999 wrote:
You can't adjudicate rules that are not actually written into the rulebook

There are many examples of conflicting rules within the game. IMO, to ignore the existance of the language that exists in the feats, traits, and class abilities that suggest there might be some ambiguity in the rules is narrow-minded. The same could be said for those who blindly refuse to admit the position of the Cult of Take Ten (i'm still chuckling at that one) might be right.

What I am trying to get across is that there is sufficient logic to support both positions. If you cannot see that, no one can even attempt to convey their interpretation because you will just dismiss it outright.

I accept that fact that my position may be wrong. I hope everyone is open-minded enough for the same. What is abundantly clear is that the two sides are not going to agree on how the take10 rules actually work until there is errata or FAQ. The beauty is that it doesn't really matter. Assuming that DC are reasonable for APL, you are probably going to succeed/fail as often when rolling as you will when taking 10. There will be times when take10 would result in a failure and by rolling you succeed. Just like there will be times when take10 would succeed and by rolling you fail. Granting/denying take10 is not affecting your ability to attempt the actions you want to take. In the end, if the skill check is essential for the plot, the GM should adapt to the characters so they can continue regardless.

Qadira ***

setzer9999 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
setzer9999 wrote:
This is flawed reasoning

I disagree. The Take10 rules are a nearly exact copy of the v3.5/OGL rules. Lore Master, however, is new to the bard class. It can be reasoned, that the author of that class ability knew what the RAI are for taking take10 and applied it to the language of the class ability. There is a lot of text that has been transferred, sometimes verbatim, and the designers have admitted that some of them should have received some additional clarifications. I believe that this is one of those cases.

Regardless, the take10 rules are not the only incidence of rules that exist in multiple locations and can only be fully understood when combining all the text together to garner the RAI.

I have never played 3.5. I can only learn the rules as they are written for the current game in question. If outside supporting evidence for your position exists, it is still outside the RAW of PF. You can't adjudicate rules that are not actually written into the rulebook for the game you are playing by citing other games, even if they are "compatible" without it being "home ruling". I'm not saying you are "wrong" for running your games that way, I'm just saying that given what is in the RAW for the rulebooks for Pathfinder, ruling it your way is a house rule. I'm going to drop out of this thread though, since there are two separate arguments going on in here, one about the rules (which I'm taking more part in), and one about what the rules should be (which I'm not as interested in because for that... home rule whatever the hell you want, that's the point of home games).

Actually setzer, the rules have not changed one word from 3.5 to PF. they were carried strait over. The only thing lost (that I know of) was the example of taking ten on a climb check - (that it is allowed) - which was dropped due to IP (I think). and even that example showed that you could T10 when under the stress of failure (though not in combat) - which is being dis-allowed by some judges in BNWolf's "Church of Righteous Impartial Tetrahedron".

Oh, and I rolled an "8" for this message - does that mean I win? (got to keep the random element! LOL)

Shadow Lodge **

Cain: I don't see any reason you couldn't move your examples from one mechanic to the other. They seem very arbitrarily linked.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Caineach wrote:
Yeah, but that is just a stupid rule about being unable to retry knowledge rolls. I have never seen DM not override that when it made sense.
Caineach wrote:
there are two separate arguments going on in here, one about the rules (which I'm taking more part in), and one about what the rules should be (which I'm not as interested in because for that... home rule whatever the hell you want, that's the point of home games

Hmmm...

Shadow Lodge **

NoSig wrote:
even that example showed that you could T10 when under the stress of failure

Actually, it did not. Krusk had a +4 climb modifier and couldn't fall. The worst he could do would be to fail to make progress.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
What is abundantly clear is that the two sides are not going to agree on how the take10 rules actually work until there is errata or FAQ.

And if you'd like to see that happen, then go HERE and click the "FAQ" link at the top of the post! We can make a difference, people! Wooo!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Jiggy wrote:
click the "FAQ" link

Unfortunately, this is at least the third time I have FAQ'd this very topic and yet to get an official response. There's only so many times that I'm going to beat my head against this wall before I give up.

Qadira ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
NoSig wrote:
even that example showed that you could T10 when under the stress of failure

Actually, it did not. Krusk had a +4 climb modifier and couldn't fall. The worst he could do would be to fail to make progress.

so... it is your contention that in the Take Ten example - he was not allowed to Take Ten?

You've lost me here....

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Nosig, I admit that back in the day, I would have ruled against take10 because there was a "distraction." That of falling to your death. However, more recent designer comments indicate that was not sufficient to deny the take10 and did not qualify as a distraction. (note this was a change from what I was told by a designer prior). I think the climb example in the PHB v3.5 is still valid.

Qadira ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
click the "FAQ" link
Unfortunately, this is at least the third time I have FAQ'd this very topic and yet to get an official response. There's only so many times that I'm going to beat my head against this wall before I give up.

actually, while I feel much the same way, I know it will be worst when I next sit down with a Judge new to me and encounter one or more of the following:

No T10 on opposed rolls ever
• No T10 on Skill X ever
• Can only T10 if the PC couldn't even fail on a 1
• No T10 at all
• No T10 unless the PC can sit down and spend some extra time on it
• T10 is trained-only

which of these (if any) do I question when I encounter them? Before the game, after the game? Which do I let slide when someone is "teaching the right way" to the Newbie at the table, to be sure he "has fun the right way"?

Shadow Lodge **

Nosig wrote:

so... it is your contention that in the Take Ten example - he was not allowed to Take Ten?

You've lost me here....

Krusk IS allowed to take 10 because there's no stress of failure in Krusk's climbing. If Krusk fails the roll krusk does not fall: Krusk stays where he is. Staying where you are is not an immediate danger. Falling is.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
click the "FAQ" link
Unfortunately, this is at least the third time I have FAQ'd this very topic and yet to get an official response. There's only so many times that I'm going to beat my head against this wall before I give up.

If it helps, I once started a thread that led to errata. Take heart! We've already got over double the clicks that that one had!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nosig wrote:

so... it is your contention that in the Take Ten example - he was not allowed to Take Ten?

You've lost me here....

Krusk IS allowed to take 10 because there's no stress of failure in Krusk's climbing. If Krusk fails the roll krusk does not fall: Krusk stays where he is. Staying where you are is not an immediate danger. Falling is.

Speaking of climbing and Take 10...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Note that he said "fall", not "fail".

He gives an example where a climber would succeed on a 10 (check result 15), and would fall on a 1-4, and says that person should Take 10 because they should "never, ever" fall when not distracted.

101 to 150 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / More Take 10 goodness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.