More Take 10 goodness

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

So if they use the rule wrong, there is a good chance the n00b will be using it wrong until told/shown otherwise.

And then you do tell/show them otherwise (20 years later when they venture out of their own home group and into organized play), and they say, "Well if there's still debate after THIS long, then obviously the rule's not clear enough. In my opinion, any mechanic that spawns so much debate has some disjunction between utility and applicability."

;)

[Aranna]

As far as teaching newbies... (I am sort of a PF newbie and 3.5 sensei all at the same time and it feels weird)

The best way I found to teach something is the same way I learned. Don't try to cram my head full of lifeless text... my head doesn't like lifeless text and that text will quickly be forgotten. The best way to teach is by playing through the game. And after the session is over taking out my rulebook and reviewing the rules for what we just did in game. It puts a face to the whole situation and then the rules stick better than glue.

As a GM I am fairly easy going on take 10 and fairly strict about take 20.

Oh and to wander away from my point a bit, I remember there being a published set of guidelines for taking 10 on listen/spot (it was 3e) that suggested using them in JUST the same way you guys are talking about. But it wasn't written by the developers so it holds no special weight.

[Alitan]

Jiggy wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

So if they use the rule wrong, there is a good chance the n00b will be using it wrong until told/shown otherwise.

And then you do tell/show them otherwise (20 years later when they venture out of their own home group and into organized play), and they say, "Well if there's still debate after THIS long, then obviously the rule's not clear enough. In my opinion, any mechanic that spawns so much debate has some disjunction between utility and applicability."

;)

:P back atcha, Jiggy.

The point stands; 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder... and STILL no consensus on how and why T10 works, let alone whether it should.

[Jiggy]

Aranna wrote:

The best way to teach is by playing through the game. And after the session is over taking out my rulebook and reviewing the rules for what we just did in game.

That's the way to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of people skip that second step (of reading the rules for what you just learned in-game) and therefore fail to catch errors.

Alitan wrote:

The point stands; 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder... and STILL no consensus on how and why T10 works

I think you missed my point.

People are teaching each other how to play without involving the rules, then when eventually they see conflict, they blame the rules for not being clear.

How can a lack of consensus be the rules' fault when people's positions were formed without actually involving the rules?

My point is that "still no consensus after XX years" implies not that the rule is unclear, but rather that people haven't been reading in the first place.

[Dan Luckett]

Going to have to disagree with you there Jiggy, because I know personally that on both sides of the fence in this discussion that there are very competent people. When you have competent people disagreeing with each other on a rule, the rule itself must have some level ambiguity in it's writing. If it was clear, competent players would reread the rule and come to a clear consensus. That is not happening. The only logical reason is the rule is not clear.

[Jiggy]

Dan Luckett wrote:

Going to have to disagree with you there Jiggy, because I know personally that on both sides of the fence in this discussion that there are very competent people. When you have competent people disagreeing with each other on a rule, the rule itself must have some level ambiguity in it's writing. If it was clear, competent players would reread the rule and come to a clear consensus. That is not happening. The only logical reason is the rule is not clear.

Lest you and I be talking about two different things, let me clarify:

I do know that some parts of the T10 mechanic are unclear: the definition of a threat or distraction (which I believe is intended to be unclear), and the whole Lore Master issue (which I've so far collected about 75 FAQ flags on, so hopefully it'll get addressed).

Now, I don't know how long you've been following T10 threads around here, but this isn't the first. And every time (though it's finally seen a decrease as of this particular thread) there are GMs saying that they disallow it entirely, or disallow it on opposed rolls, or disallow it on Skill X (some have excluded Perception, some Stealth, some Disguise, etc), and so forth.

Those people are very clearly and explicitly wrong.

Those people have sometimes been wrong for DECADES.

Thus, it's possible for there to be debate/disagreement for 20 years without any ambiguity in the text. Therefore, longstanding disagreement is not a valid premise from which to draw the conclusion that Rule X is unclear.

A conclusion can be true without the argument being valid. Failing to make that distinction is guaranteed to bite everyone in the butt sooner or later.

Are you and I on the same page now?

[Dan Luckett]

*in jest*

My only question in reply is...Was this rule around in 2nd edition era? I don't personally remember it then. Though, my strongest D&D memories being in 3rd edition era. If not, how is it decades?

Edit: I have further doubts on the decades thing since skills were an optional rule in AD&D.

*friendly banter aside*

Same page. Easy to get which tangent we're on confused. Apologies.

Edit: Oh, and this is the first take 10 rule debate thread I've paid attention to, and just to say in advance. I don't need to see the other threads unless it has a specific post that has strong value.

[TwilightKnight]

1E/2E was based around non-weapon proficiencies and was much less defined that the skills system of 3E. The Take10 issues go back at least as far as v3.5 in 2003 and perhaps back to the launch of 3E in 2000.

[nosig]

Dan Luckett wrote:

Going to have to disagree with you there Jiggy, because I know personally that on both sides of the fence in this discussion that there are very competent people. When you have competent people disagreeing with each other on a rule, the rule itself must have some level ambiguity in it's writing. If it was clear, competent players would reread the rule and come to a clear consensus. That is not happening. The only logical reason is the rule is not clear.

well, I need to comment on the following statement of yours, (realizing that I am sure to have been Ninga'd by the time I get this typed):

"When you have competent people disagreeing with each other on a rule, the rule itself must have some level ambiguity in it's writing. "

two real cases:
1) (on T10): a number of posters on this board have pointed out that Takeing Ten takes longer than rolling. MOST of them have bothered to go look it up (perhaps to prove me wrong... perhaps to just learn), and discoved that Taking Ten takes the SAME amount of time (be that 1 rd., or 1 week). MANY now realize that the way they learned it (and taught it, and "corrected" people on it) was wrong. SOME still feel that it should take longer and use terms like "when you are not in a hurry and CAN TAKE YOUR TIME"... And the people here are less than 10% or the community at large. So, for every one of the judges here that have learned thru one of these threads (this makes 4 I have started myself) there is something like 9 more judges still doing/using/teaching/correcting it the wrong way.

2) (personal mess up): in a game resently I told a player how the spell "web" worked. Later I checked myself. I was wrong. I had taught the Newbie a wrong rule. I looked him up later (a week), explained that I had been wrong during the game and I was very sorry. I then explained how the spell worked (ha! how I now THINK it works) and left him with this note. "Always check the rules for yourself - sometimes us old guys get it wrong".

[Jiggy]

Dan Luckett wrote:

*in jest*

My only question in reply is...Was this rule around in 2nd edition era? I don't personally remember it then. Though, my strongest D&D memories being in 3rd edition era. If not, how is it decades?

Edit: I have further doubts on the decades thing since skills were an optional rule in AD&D.

*friendly banter aside*

I don't really know the D&D timeline, as I started with Pathfinder just under a year ago. I was referencing decades based on what I remember veterans citing as why they know what they're talking about. (Hence yet another reason why I believe entrenchment plays a stronger role in rules discussions than people like to admit.)

Quote:

Edit: Oh, and this is the first take 10 rule debate thread I've paid attention to, and just to say in advance. I don't need to see the other threads unless it has a specific post that has strong value.

Heh, the previous threads had a striking deficit of posts with strong value. ;)

[Dream Daemon]

Dan Luckett wrote:

Edit: Oh, and this is the first take 10 rule debate thread I've paid attention to, and just to say in advance. I don't need to see the other threads unless it has a specific post that has strong value.

The other ones are pretty much the same as this one.

[Alitan]

Jiggy wrote:

Aranna wrote:

The best way to teach is by playing through the game. And after the session is over taking out my rulebook and reviewing the rules for what we just did in game.

That's the way to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of people skip that second step (of reading the rules for what you just learned in-game) and therefore fail to catch errors.

Alitan wrote:

The point stands; 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder... and STILL no consensus on how and why T10 works

I think you missed my point.

People are teaching each other how to play without involving the rules, then when eventually they see conflict, they blame the rules for not being clear.

How can a lack of consensus be the rules' fault when people's positions were formed without actually involving the rules?

My point is that "still no consensus after XX years" implies not that the rule is unclear, but rather that people haven't been reading in the first place.

Ah. I DID miss your point, and it's an important one.

But of COURSE it's the fault of the rules; we gamers are just too freakin' awesum (misspell intended) to be at fault for rules being written so fuzzily!

:)

[nosig]

Actually, I find this thread to be much better than most of the previous ones. I have yet to be called a "rules Lawyer" or to be advised to quit playing PFSOP (as I am plainly a disruptive person that would be banned from the posters table).

And we've made progress. Personal progress that I can see. I can be sure that when I sit at any of the Judges tables that are on this thread (or any of the others), that they will most likely recognize me and realize that I am not "trying to pull one over on them" when I ask if my rogue can T10 on perception checks to find traps. In the early threads I was advised to just never mention the rule, let along try to take it.

Like I said earlier in this thread.

How do we learn to do it the same way? Discuss, discuss, discuss....

[nosig]

nosig wrote:

trim my stuff....

And we've made progress.
... trim more of my stuff....

Progress... hmmmm.

In earlier posts in this thread and others the following were all presented as "part of the Take 10 rule".

• No T10 on opposed rolls ever
• No T10 on Skill X ever
• You can only T10 if you couldn't even fail on a 1
• No T10 on Faction Missions
• No T10 unless you can sit down and spend some extra time on it
• T10 is trained-only

I think most of us are past the above? ... except maybe the second.

and a few things you CAN'T do with take 10

- Inititive rolls
- Any skill check in combat
- Day Job rolls
- Signing up for games at a Con (lol!)
- asking for permission to go "gaming with the guys on Saturday".

I would call that LOTS of progress.

And most realize that the reason nosig is posting these threads is to try to reduce "table variation" or the dreaded YMMV.

[lastblacknight]

Wow, I never knew that Taking 10 was such a hot button topic.

In our groups we have kept it as simple as possible, we can take 10 any time"..your character is not in immediate danger or distracted..."

It's simply your average attempt and can be done any time, anywhere.

For example; you could take 10 when climbing across a rope bridge, then Ambush! and now you are down to rolling dice (as the adrenalin flows and things get hairy).

As for Knowledge Skills? - Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10.

Knowledge (Local) is the exception; and is sometimes role-played as Gather Information or at other times just general knowledge.

I think if a GM said I could not Take 10 (and I wasn't being threatened or distracted) I would have an opinion on the matter, especially if it affected a faction mission.

[Mystic Lemur]

lastblacknight wrote:

As for Knowledge Skills? - Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10.

Ah, yes. But where is that in the rules? Other than that, I'm right there with you.

[nosig]

Lastblacknight:
why do you think Knowledge skills (except for Knowledge Local) are a "Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10"?

just wondering....

But what you are saying, is to me like someone telling me...

"yah, If you roll a nat. 20 on an attack roll it's a crit threat. Every time. For simple weapons, different story. You can't crit with a simple weapon. Except daggers."

Please do not take this in a bad way. It is plainly some problem with me, as it happens at almost 30% of the tables I play at (with persons I've not played with before).

My wife runs a Wizard with a lot of knowledge skills - it's kind of the characters "shtick". So, when I'm judgeing for a table that she is at and it comes to a Knowledge roll, say in Nobility, she says "Dee will take 10 on it getting...." and she gets cut off and "corrected" by one of the other players (new to us). I have to explain that, yes, the way I read the rule you can as you say "...take 10 any time"..your character is not in immediate danger or distracted..."". The new guy then thinks I am altering the rules 'cause it's my wife asking to T10. And my wife, who is very shy, stops interacting with the group, or at least the guy how "knows how to play her character better than she does".

[Michael Foster 989]

I pretty much roll everything, but thats mostly because we finish fast enough as is, taking 10 is just to shorten stuff really (you save like 5-10 seconds every time someone takes 10) which with a slow party can actually be quite good.

Most GMs I play with get our sense motive, perception and other modifiers (trapsense etc) and make all those rolls for us unless we specifically say "we are searching this area", and then we can make rolls or take 10 as appropriate.

I disagree with taking 10 on disguise checks as you arent supposed to know what you rolled on it, but thats more of ruining the secret roll issue than a specific disagrement with the take 10 mechanic.

I dont argue if other people want to take 10 as honestly thats up to them, I would rather put my faith in my d20 on crucial rolls especially opposed checks as if you take 10 you give a rolling opponent with a equal skill modifier a 50% chance to beat you, 5% chance to tie (ties can go either way if your stealthing they only have to hit your stealth check to spot you making it 55-45, if your using perception a tie means you win making it 50-50) and only a 45% chance to lose outright.

But I rolling dice some of my characters are designed purely to allow me to roll more dice for no other reason than I like the sound. The problem with all rules is that people have their own interpretations often due to mistakes when reading initially, learning the wrong way from experienced players, learning rules from an older system and failing to switch correctly (the last one I still do from time to time I played alot of 3.5 so I get the rules mixed up sometimes).

Pretty much if im a player im not going to engage in long rules arguments at a table, if I disagree with a ruling I will check it in the book and bring it to the GMs attention if he ruled incorrectly, but after that im done with the discussion, as honestly either the GM resolves the issue or he doesnt its not a big deal either way, and taking more than 1 min out of the game to handle a rules issue is a waste of time at the table. GMs arent perfect they make mistakes roll with it and keep going its not the end of the world as in the end its just a game we play for fun, and I dont know about you but arguing about rules during a game isnt fun, I would rather just play on.

But then again I havent found a single rules issue that would take longer than 1 min to resolve yet, as 1 minute gives you 30 seconds to read the rules description to the GM, and the GM 30 seconds to go "hmm ok here is what we will do." or say "no the ruling stands atm, ill check it out later."

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

I have yet to be called a "rules Lawyer"

You're a rules laywer :-)

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

I have yet to be called a "rules Lawyer"

You're a rules laywer :-)

AH! thanks Bob! now I can go to bed and sleep soundly.

[TwilightKnight]

Quote:

why do you think Knowledge skills...are a "Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10"?

If this is just directed at the poster for his perspective, then I defer to his response.

However, if this is a general question directed to *you*, then we have covered it at length in this thread. There are some that feel there is some ambiguity regarding knowledge checks because of the language included in some feats, traits, or the lore master bard class ability. I'm not going to restate those ideas again as they have already been thoroughly covered in this thread. IMO we are all on the same page except for two particulars of the take10 rule

• knowledge checks
• what constitutes a distraction

There is no point in arguing whether or not the ambiguity of those two topics actually exist or not as everyone is firm in their opinion. As long as you follow the rest of the rules and defer to the GM for those two cases, there should be no problems.

[lastblacknight]

Mystic Lemur wrote:

lastblacknight wrote:

As for Knowledge Skills? - Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10.

Ah, yes. But where is that in the rules? Other than that, I'm right there with you.

We always considered the 'risk of failure' as being a distraction.

Let me explain;
You can Take 10 on your perception skill to find the trap, but may not be able to Take 10 on the trap if the result of the trap going off constitutes 'immediate danger' hence a distraction under the rules.

...Now that was for a physical skill.
As Knowledge (a purely mental skill) and information is is either known or it isn't - You don't get multiple rolls to 'know' something as you might say 'Climbing a knotted rope'.. There is a clear difference, one might climb a rope with enough time and assistance but if you're ignorant nothing changes.

After the adventure or after the battle I may cover off the background knowledge or information missed as 'now you remember without the pressure of the moment' or 'when you have had time to reflect' , but I may take so time to discuss this with my fellow GM's and my VC's here in OZ.

I think if I allowed the Take 10 on knowledge I would be inclined to include some circumstance negatives in some situations (which is something I haven't done before).

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

There is no point in arguing whether or not the ambiguity of those two topics actually exist or not as everyone is firm in their opinion. As long as you follow the rest of the rules and defer to the GM for those two cases, there should be no problems.

Why stop there?

There really isn't ambiguity in the rules for taking 10 on knowledge checks Bob, anymore than anything else.

Lore master doesn't say anything on what the normal without the ability would allow. You might as well conclude that one cannot make knowledge checks AT ALL without the ability.. cause after all, if anyone can make knowledge checks then the ability doesn't do anything! Right?

Lore master simply doesn't use the same wording style as the abilities that WotC wrote. Is that surprising, Paizo isn't WotC (Amen).

What it really boils down to is that take 10 at some point in time isn't 'palatable' for some people, and then they LOOK for a palatable alternative. Thus they conclude that the PC couldn't take 10 on an opposed roll, disabling a trap, a knowledge check, a bluff check, and/or a whatever check.

Can we all agree that in 3.5 that characters could take 10 on knowledges?

Personally I am curious on the other poster's direct reasoning for disallowing take 10 on knowledge checks. I'm thinking it will fall into either the 'unpalatable' camp or the 'we've always done it that way' camp.

-James

[james maissen]

lastblacknight wrote:

We always considered the 'risk of failure' as being a distraction.

The whole point for someone using the 'take 10' mechanic is:

the rules wrote:

In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10).

This contradicts your 'risk of failure' to disallow a take 10. The POINT of take 10 is SAFETY (up to your expectations of course) from those risks.

Adding a penalty is also inappropriate. If anything a slight penalty is already built in as there's no 'take 10.5' mechanic..

-James

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Quote:

why do you think Knowledge skills...are a "Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10"?

If this is just directed at the poster for his perspective, then I defer to his response.

However, if this is a general question directed to *you*, then we have covered it at length in this thread. There are some that feel there is some ambiguity regarding knowledge checks because of the language included in some feats, traits, or the lore master bard class ability. I'm not going to restate those ideas again as they have already been thoroughly covered in this thread. IMO we are all on the same page except for two particulars of the take10 rule

• knowledge checks
• what constitutes a distraction

There is no point in arguing whether or not the ambiguity of those two topics actually exist or not as everyone is firm in their opinion. As long as you follow the rest of the rules and defer to the GM for those two cases, there should be no problems.

Sorry for not being clear in who I was directing the question at. ah... how should I have addressed it? I typed:

"Lastblacknight:
why do you think Knowledge skills (except for Knowledge Local) are a "Different story - you have to go with the roll no taking 10"?
just wondering...."

I was trying to understand Lastblacknight's groups (the people he plays with regularly) reason for not allowing Take Ten on all Knowledge skill rolls EXCEPT Knowledge Local. Trying to see if he had a rule that I was unawair of, or a view point that had not been expressed here on the board before.

he had stated:
"Wow, I never knew that Taking 10 was such a hot button topic.
In our groups we have kept it as simple as possible, we can take 10 any time"..your character is not in immediate danger or distracted..."
It's simply your average attempt and can be done any time, anywhere."
so I thought he was a new face in the discussion and I was trying to get his input, and understand his view. Like I would if I sat at the table and he was my Judge. I'd say "I'm kind of fond of the T10 rule, I take it whenever I can. That's why my perception is on my table tent..." etc. and he would reply something like he said above. Which would puzzle me and I would ask what I did above "Lastblacknight:
why do you think..." etc. He'd give me his reason (even if he said "because it's Feb." that's good enough for me. He's the Judge. I'm playing for him. I now know how to use the rule at his table, and can play my character.). As hard as it seems to be for some people to beleave here, I am not trying to argue with anyone. I hate arguements, they will make me physically ill. I just want us to all play with the same rules, so I know when I sit at a table with a new Judge I know how to play for him.

[nosig]

Ok, has anyones view of how the T10 rule works changed?

off topic example:

Yestorday I was corrected on how a player can upgrade a Comp. Long bow - I thought you had to get a NEW bow to go from Str. 14 (+2) to a Str. 16 (+3). Sell the old, buy the new. A beginner that I am teaching the game to (I bring in a lot of new players) who is running a Ranger-Archer was checking on what I had told him about upgrading his bow (like I advise everyone to do - heck, I make mistakes all the time, check the rules!). And shows me where the ruling for PFS is that you just pay the differece and up-grade it.

This is a rule that I have been doing wrong and TEACHING WRONG sense 3.5 LG days. It seems silly to me. And I'll likely still do it the old way in my Home Game... but for PFSOP? that's the rule. That's the way it works.

[BigNorseWolf]

Noisig, there is a huge difference between "teaching" and "correcting" something that's black and white and clear as crystal in the raw and "correcting" someone to go along with your interpretation of the rules that relies heavily on developer comments that the other person might not be aware of. Threat and distraction are very vague, and vague things are by definition up to the DM.

By the raw that you've put on your shirt, its hard to argue that an adventurer leaping a 1,000 foot chasm is not in immediate danger, or that a rogue sitting under a Damocles sword to disarm it is not distracted by the fact that it will be crashing through his skull if he messes up his disable device roll. Those may not be what the devs MEANT , but it certainly aligns with the raw.

"I am right, you are not only wrong, you are SO wrong that you have no argument" ... is simply not the case here and will come across as arrogant and confrontational. You're basically calling the other person an idiot and an ignoramus on a topic that they probably pride themselves on their knowledge of. You are going to get peoples hackles up for that.

Its one rule, out of thousands in the book, that a DM has to keep in their head. If a rules argument takes more than 15 seconds its probably not worth getting into at the table. The DM is there to have fun too remember. Ask them to look at the argu.. discussions on the forums and see if they change their mind. If they don't just go with it. The person sitting in the DM's chair has to do a lot of work and that comes with a certain amount of authority even in a society game.

[Sarta]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its one rule, out of thousands in the book, that a DM has to keep in their head. If a rules argument takes more than 15 seconds its probably not worth getting into at the table. The DM is there to have fun too remember. Ask them to look at the argu.. discussions on the forums and see if they change their mind. If they don't just go with it. The person sitting in the DM's chair has to do a lot of work and that comes with a certain amount of authority even in a society game.

This is my complaint. Just roll the dang d20! The rule is meant to speed up play during non-cinematic moments. It is not meant to turn the game into a story-telling session.

If the GM tells you to roll, do it. Spending any time whatsoever arguing over taking 10 removes any time-saving benefit and pulls everyone out of the game.

[Jiggy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If a rules argument takes more than 15 seconds its probably not worth getting into at the table. The DM is there to have fun too remember. Ask them to look at the argu.. discussions on the forums and see if they change their mind. If they don't just go with it. The person sitting in the DM's chair has to do a lot of work and that comes with a certain amount of authority even in a society game.

BNW, I know you haven't been in all of these T10 threads, but nosig has stated again and again and again that he never tries to get into a rules argument at the table and when the GM says how they do it he accepts it and moves on, just like you suggest.

So in the meantime, let's remember that none of us is right now at the game table trying to make an on-the-fly ruling about an unfamiliar mechanic. Everyone participating in this discussion is NOT under time pressure or trying to preserve smoothness at the table. Therefore, everyone participating in this discussion should be trying their best to understand the rules and move closer and closer to a correct perspective while we have this opportunity to do so without slowing down a game.

If you're at the table and make a ruling that's a bit off, that's one thing. If someone leaves the table unaware that they might be off and never sees a discussion thread about it, that's unfortunate, but hey, not everyone has time to be a forumite.

But when someone leaves the table, joins a discussion about a given rule, and then acts as if their past on-the-fly rulings are good enough instead of making every effort to correct themselves while they have the chance? That's completely unacceptable, yet I keep seeing examples of it in threads like these.

[james maissen]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

that comes with a certain amount of authority even in a society game.

And hand in hand with authority comes responsibility.

Crossing the line from being an 'honest judge' of situation and venturing into 'coloring their vision' to suit their designs is deplorable.

It's frowned upon when a player does so (with cries of 'cheese weasel' and the like) but its far worse when a DM does so BECAUSE of the amount of authority that comes with the position.

Now I don't feel that you fall into this personally, I do think that there are some that do.

They have, indeed, left ambiguity here. They haven't in the time it takes to take 10 on a skill, prohibiting take 10 on opposed skills, prohibiting take 10 when there's a penalty of failure, whether or not you can take 10 on a knowledge check ever, etc. Yet these are put forth as 'ambiguous' when it really boils down to 'unpalatable' for a given individual DM.

As to your specific example (disabling a trap) I personally feel that if your interpretation were blanketly true then it would be a blanket restriction.

Meanwhile I see a distinction between one's ability to carefully disable a trap (think disabling a bomb) from the same person's ability to disable that bomb when the timer's ticking down 10..9...8..

In both cases failing the skill roll has negative consequences for the skill user. But I contend that the later is the situation to deny a take 10 and not the former.

-James

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Noisig, there is a huge difference between "teaching" and "correcting" something that's black and white and clear as crystal in the raw and "correcting" someone to go along with your interpretation of the rules that relies heavily on developer comments that the other person might not be aware of. Threat and distraction are very vague, and vague things are by definition up to the DM.

By the raw that you've put on your shirt, its hard to argue that an adventurer leaping a 1,000 foot chasm is not in immediate danger, or that a rogue sitting under a Damocles sword to disarm it is not distracted by the fact that it will be crashing through his skull if he messes up his disable device roll. Those may not be what the devs MEANT , but it certainly aligns with the raw.

"I am right, you are not only wrong, you are SO wrong that you have no argument" ... is simply not the case here and will come across as arrogant and confrontational. You're basically calling the other person an idiot and an ignoramus on a topic that they probably pride themselves on their knowledge of. You are going to get peoples hackles up for that.

Its one rule, out of thousands in the book, that a DM has to keep in their head. If a rules argument takes more than 15 seconds its probably not worth getting into at the table. The DM is there to have fun too remember. Ask them to look at the argu.. discussions on the forums and see if they change their mind. If they don't just go with it. The person sitting in the DM's chair has to do a lot of work and that comes with a certain amount of authority even in a society game.

After having typed a long thoughtful reply to the above... the internet ate it. Sigh.

Guess I shouldn't even try to respond to the above... but ... this has to be said.

I never said "I am right, you are not only wrong, you are SO wrong that you have no argument"

I have said "I think it works like this. I've read these rules, viewed these posts and that's the way I rule when I'm at a table. How do you rule and why do you rule like that?"

I try never to be "arrogant and confrontational". Esp. confrontational. Can you please point out where I was so that I can appoligize to anyone I was confrontational to? I hate confrontations. I avoid them. I am no longer going to Conventions because of a "confrontation" I could not avoid, with someone how yelled at me for 4 hours. I may give up this game we play and just go back to Home games because of confrontations.

[TwilightKnight]

james maissen wrote:

There really isn't ambiguity in the rules for taking 10 on knowledge checks Bob, anymore than anything else.

To those that interpret the rules as having ambiguity in this case are not deterred just by you saying, "no it doesn't." The topic has been discussed ad nauseum and positions have not changed.

james maissen wrote:

Can we all agree that in 3.5 that characters could take 10 on knowledges

No

nosig wrote:

how should I have addressed it?

No worries. It is just very hard to read a directed "you" vs. a general "you" in text. Sorry, if I misunderstood the intent of your question.

off topic example::

Actually, the player is not correct. That rule did exist at one time and I do not remember exactly when it changed, but as of the current version of the guide, you cannot directly upgrade the strength rating of a bow. It is a non-magical feature of the bow, like special materials, and must be sold/repurchased to upgrade that feature. See p.19, left column, 2nd paragraph.

[james maissen]

Will Johnson wrote:

This is my complaint. Just roll the dang d20! The rule is meant to speed up play during non-cinematic moments.

You are confusing (very naturally) the take 10 and take 20 mechanics. You're not the first person to do so.

The stated purpose of TAKE 10:

Quote:

In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10).

Meanwhile the take 20 mechanic is what is meant to speed along play as your character could roll over and over again until they finally roll a 20.

In all honesty, take 10 should be the norm while rolling the dice:

Quote:

represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction.

Sometimes the PC pushing themselves that way gets better than normal results and other times catastrophic results.

-James

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

After having typed a long thoughtful reply to the above... the internet ate it. Sigh.

I've gotten into the habit of typing "ctrl+A, ctrl+C" at the end of every post. I've saved several walls of text from the Internet Post Monster that way. ;)

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Can we all agree that in 3.5 that characters could take 10 on knowledges

No

Why not?

What in the rules supports denying the core rule mechanic to this group of skills?

It's not listed in the skill itself.

It's not listed under the mechanic.

It's not even listed anywhere (in 3e, 3.5e or even PF) that denies this.

All I've seen are inferences from some PF material that, frankly, if they were made by a player in order to gain advantage would be called 'cheese weaseling' or the like.

I'm sorry Bob, despite your insistence I don't see how this is any different from people claiming that 'take 10 takes 10 times as long' or the like.

-James

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

I try never to be "arrogant and confrontational". Esp. confrontational. Can you please point out where I was so that I can appoligize to anyone I was confrontational to? I hate confrontations. I avoid them. I am no longer going to Conventions because of a "confrontation" I could not avoid, with someone how yelled at me for 4 hours. I may give up this game we play and just go back to Home games because of confrontations.

Nosig, we have only played at the same table once, but there was no confrontation. To be honest, I tend to be cynical regarding rules lawyers and cheese-weasels, and I was afraid of that when we met, but to your credit, you did not come across that way. I think I was fairly liberal in allowing take10 at the table, except for the one encounter, and even then you did not argue with me. I am sure you disagreed with my ruling, but I thank you for moving on. And honestly, when I think back, if I could do it again, I would rule differently on the chase. I welcome you to join me at any future table.

If anyone has a harsh or negative view of Nosig being a rules-lawyery ogre, I suggest you sit at a game with him. I promise you your opinion would change, even if you do disagree on the interpretation of the actual mechanic.

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I think I was fairly liberal in allowing take10 at the table, except for the one encounter, and even then you did not argue with me. ... And honestly, when I think back, if I could do it again, I would rule differently on the chase.

Just out of my own curiosity, might I ask what scenario and encounter this was?

[TwilightKnight]

"james maissen wrote:

Why not?

Not interested in arguing over how rules working in a game I haven't even played in 3 years. I'm not taking a position either way. I'm just saying that I do not agree that your interpretation of the take10 rules, in regards to v3.5, are correct.

Nosig wrote:

off topic:

off topic:

Nope, the link directed me back to the Paizo home page. But if I understand the IP, you were going to direct me back to the old discussion, possibly from Josh Frost, that you could directly upgrade strength ratings. I am not saying it never existed, just that it is no longer the case, and I do not remember when that changed. But, for sure, as of the release of the current Guide, it is no longer allowed.

[TwilightKnight]

Jiggy wrote:

Just out of my own curiosity, might I ask what scenario and encounter this was?

Spoiler:

Midnight Mauler

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Not interested in arguing over how rules working in a game I haven't even played in 3 years. I'm not taking a position either way. I'm just saying that I do not agree that your interpretation of the take10 rules, in regards to v3.5, are correct.

Wow the more I read this the more insulting it feels.

Would you care to try again, or was that the intent?

-James

[BigNorseWolf]

James Maison wrote:

As to your specific example (disabling a trap) I personally feel that if your interpretation were blanketly true then it would be a blanket restriction

Its not a blanket example though. The trap could do a number of things that don't put you in immediate danger, such as drop a weight behind the door, or open a trap door that you're not standing on. Or you could have a disable device so high that you can't fail by 5 and set it off (or 10 if you've got the rogue talent). Any of these would keep you out of the immediate danger/threatened clause.

Also, as for finding rules all over the place, can you show me anything in a core mechanic that requires someone to spend an action to find traps and secret doors, or is that simply implied by a rogue talent?

[TwilightKnight]

james maissen wrote:

Wow the more I read this the more insulting it feels.

Would you care to try again, or was that the intent?

-James

If you read it as insulting, I am sorry, but the message is the same. I am not saying that I agree/disagree that knowledge was eligible for Take10 in v3.5, I was merely saying that I do not automatically agree that it was permitted. How the rules worked in v3.5 is not something I wish to discuss. The only reason I referenced them was to point out that the PRRPG language is not exactly the same.

You can continue to say there is no ambiguity, and others can continue to argue otherwise. At this point that issue is circular. Neither side is budging. Most seem to agree on most of the points and at this point, we will need to agree to disagree.

[james maissen]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Or you could have a disable device so high that you can't fail by 5 and set it off (or 10 if you've got the rogue talent). Any of these would keep you out of the immediate danger/threatened clause.

Two things:

1st. It's a alternate class feature not a rogue talent.

2nd. How would you know? This is the metagamy aspect of your view that is unpalatable for me.

You can take 10 therefore you can't set it off, if you can't take 10 then you could.

What does 'take 10' mean in the context of the game? From the character's perspective what is 'taking 10'?

Here's the introduction on skills:

Quote:

A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success.

-James

[Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome]

Once again I've read a long drawn out thread on the t10 issue.. the only different result is that there wasn't one; Until "upper management" is willing to give us clearer definitions and hopefully clarify this I don't see where there is going to be a different result of these threads.

I've gotten a lot of information -- so that in part is good, but what has tickled my funnybone is the fact that almost everyone who throws up a rules quote, throws up nearly the same one with a different empahsis or a different interpretation. I think people might have to settle for a bulleted clarification of these "x" items cannot have t10 taken, everything else left to judge caveat -- which will bring us right back here slamming our heads into the wall.

james maissen wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Not interested in arguing over how rules working in a game I haven't even played in 3 years. I'm not taking a position either way. I'm just saying that I do not agree that your interpretation of the take10 rules, in regards to v3.5, are correct.

Wow the more I read this the more insulting it feels.

Would you care to try again, or was that the intent?

-James

To be honest James, I'm insulted by someone that admitedly doesn't play the game throwing rules in my face and tell me how the game should be played. Tell me this, if you can, how [u]do[/u] you rule this at your table -- and I'm not interested in your application of how you would rule, I want actual decisions, for this version not past versions.

Otherwise discussing rules with someone that doesn't play the game is like discussing road construction with someone that doesn't drive. You have the concept facts of it, but not the application facts of it.

[Sniggevert]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

If anyone has a harsh or negative view of Nosig being a rules-lawyery ogre, I suggest you sit at a game with him. I promise you your opinion would change, even if you do disagree on the interpretation of the actual mechanic.

I want to give a +1 to this. I was actually kind of surprised when I realized halfway through the game it was nosig playing with his wife and son. I am generally easy on the take 10 rules, but there are times I don't allow it, that he might disagree with, but things moved very smoothly. I remember there was a spell that was cast that I wasn't familiar with, he actually had a print out of the specific spell from a PDF for me to borrow to adjudicate the effects to keep me from looking it up or just going by his interpretation (which actually matched my reading too).

Sit at a table and play the game with the man, it was actually a rather enjoyable time. His take on rules might be different than yours, but then the same is true when looking at it from his side.

[BigNorseWolf]

james maiseen wrote:

2nd. How would you know? This is the metagamy aspect of your view that is unpalatable for me.

That goes both ways.

As for how you know, presumably a trained adventurer can tell the difference between a gorgeously crafted intricate clockwork needle trap with mercury levels and a rusted spring with a dagger once they've been found.

If i had to justify that by RAW I suppose that once a trap has been found it can be appraised to discover its value and you can roughly calculate its statistics back from that. In game

"this is the most intricate trap you've ever seen in your life. You're afraid to look at it crosswise" = taking 10 will set it off

"This one looks kind of tricky"= you can take 10 but it won't open.

"this one is standard quality for the place you're in"= go ahead and take 10 on it

"your older sisters diary had a more sophisticated alarm"= take ten, hell, take 1 you looked at it it will open.

Quote:

What does 'take 10' mean in the context of the game? From the character's perspective what is 'taking 10'?

Taking 10 in context of the game is putting an average effort into something. You don't try anything fancy, you don't try anything new, you just go by the book. You won't get any amazing results , but you won't screw up too badly either.

This is why people don't like taking 10 on knowledge skill checks: its VERY metagamey. How do you put an average effort into trying to remember something?

[nosig]

my sister has a PhD in Bontany (some strange speciality dealing with Native American domestic plants I think...).

If I ask her what a Tree is she glances over and responds. "Dogwood" maybe. I figure she T10 on it.

If I ask her if she's sure she'll walk around it. examine the twigs and ever chew a piece of the bark. and maybe change her mind.

She has said that she thought at first the tree in my mothers yard was a dogwood, but later she figured out it was a (some unpronouncable by me word), which isn't normally found in that area. Does that mean you can re-do Knowledge skill rolls? - nope. Game does not always reflect reality.

[BigNorseWolf]

Nosig wrote:

If I ask her if she's sure she'll walk around it. examine the twigs and ever chew a piece of the bark. and maybe change her mind

Eating the leaves and sometimes twigs (which actually does work. They do taste different) would be more like taking 20 than taking 10, since the full work around and salad treatment takes longer than just glancing at it.

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nosig wrote:

If I ask her if she's sure she'll walk around it. examine the twigs and ever chew a piece of the bark. and maybe change her mind

Eating the leaves and sometimes twigs (which actually does work. They do taste different) would be more like taking 20 than taking 10, since the full work around and salad treatment takes longer than just glancing at it.

LOL! Except you can't T20 on a knowledge check - no retries.

[BigNorseWolf]

Nosig wrote:

LOL! Except you can't T20 on a knowledge check.

nope. Game does not always reflect reality