More Take 10 goodness


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

Sniggevert wrote:
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.

wow... what was the game Sniggevert? and what was the spell? was my wife casting Murderous Command again?

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nosig wrote:
LOL! Except you can't T20 on a knowledge check.

nope. Game does not always reflect reality

this is very true. No way I'll EVER be able to climb that darn rope... DC 5 and T10 or even T20. Unless I've got a -16 to my climb... let me see Strength 8... or maybe 7, gives a -2. Then -4 for fat. another -2 for old... maybe -3 for out of shape... wait all those should be in my STR rating. Heck, I have no idea.

5/5

nosig wrote:


wow... what was the game Sniggevert? and what was the spell? was my wife casting Murderous Command again?

Spoiler:
Hostile Waters at WinterWar...and I do believe that was the spell ;)
The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
"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:
** spoiler omitted **

Off topic on Str upgrades to Bows:

actually, I figured the Frost post was old, so I did a little more research for my newbie and ran into this where you were replying to someone who asked:"You don't have to buy a whole new bow?"

Bob Jonquet - May 13, 2011, 09:14 AM
Correct. The most recent ruling, by Josh, is still the current one.

Upgrading the strength rating of a bow is treated, in PFS, the same as adding magical enhancements. You pay the difference between the current version and what you want it to be.

This may be the only exception to the standard policy where the physical quality of an item can be upgraded rather than having to be sold and repurchased as in the case of adding special materials, or upgrading to masterwork quality.

I do not see much of an outcry against the current rule, so I do not expect Hyrum/Mark to make a change to it in the upcoming v4.0 of the Guide.

and I had gone with that. I had missed the following note in the Guide (PG19)
"A mundane itemcan not be upgraded to masterwork, nor can non-magical
aspects of equipment be upgraded (such as the strength rating on a composite bow)."

when unable to find a rule (my failing) I generally go with opinions I trust.

I'll go back and re-correct what I told the newbie.... oh, and thanks!

Just goes to show, just cause I think I know something....

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Just goes to show that making "campaign rules" that deviate from the core and then reversing them later is a dangerous activity.

The Exchange 5/5

Sniggevert wrote:
nosig wrote:


wow... what was the game Sniggevert? and what was the spell? was my wife casting Murderous Command again?
** spoiler omitted **

for Sniggvert:
Kevin! Hay - you were a great Judge! best I had at the CON I think. And I would like to apoligize for my son (also a Kevin), for his off topic chatter with the other player. He should have shown better manners. Most rude. I did mention it to him - though he is an adult, fathers still feel the need sometimes.

Anyway! if you get down St. Louis way, email me and I'll return the favor and Judge something for you (or con someone into judging for us and we can play)


BigNorseWolf wrote:


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?

I don't see it as 'an average effort' but rather the normal situation.

Under normal conditions I assume that everyone takes 10. I consider this the default.

When put in very bad conditions, or when pushing oneself even under normal conditions more erratic results can occur. But these are the outliers.

As to knowledge skills in particular I honestly think that the most problems people have with taking 10 on knowledges is in reality problems that they have with the knowledge skills themselves.

Regardless it's clear that the only skill that one cannot ever take 10 on is UMD. Others have situations where you can or can't. These may be subjective and even vary from person to person, game to game.

However blanket statements like:

1. You cannot take 10 if there is a penalty for failure.
2. You cannot take 10 on opposed skills.
3. You cannot take 10 on any knowledge check.
4. You cannot take 10 in the same amount of time as a normal check.

Are all clearly wrong and don't fall under that ambiguity.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of the problems are propagated from thinking that take 20 is just a scaled up form of take 10.

The Exchange 5/5

wow... I just had an image of making this a personality trait for a PC. you know, if the PC is just super confindent in his abilities he always Takes 10 - even when he has already failed once on the attempt.

and, of course the reverse -
The PC that always rolls, even when there is no chance of failure. "the DC is zero dude..." "Yeah, but I'm not sure if I can pull this off guys! Might need some help here!" roll "1" +6 skill "whew, barely! Thanks be to Desna!"

The Exchange 5/5

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I think a lot of the problems are propagated from thinking that take 20 is just a scaled up form of take 10.

yeah, that and then to them T10 means "auto success", not realizing that you fail an average of 2.5% more often when you T10.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

james maissen wrote:

Regardless it's clear that the only skill that one cannot ever take 10 on is UMD.

Are all clearly wrong and don't fall under that ambiguity.

*sigh* As I said before, to some, there clearly IS ambiguity and they have stated the reason why. You can continue to disagree, but it is what it is. There are also many who agree with your opinion but still acknowledge that it could be interpreted the other way.

Considering that the designers have largely decided not to chime in on this topic even in the non-PFS forums, seems to me at least, that there is no clear answer. If it was clear, there would be no reason for them not to respond. Little to no fear of a backlash. There are many rules in the game with intentional ambiguity and this seems like one of them.

It is getting a bit ridiculous and distasteful that you continue to tell players that their opinion is wrong. It may be clear to YOU, but there is enough support to the contrary to make it, at least, possible, that you are wrong. In the end, you might be right. I am reasonable enough to admit that I might be wrong, but you refuse to accept that and therefore come off as arrogant.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James maissen wrote:
When put in very bad conditions, or when pushing oneself even under normal conditions more erratic results can occur. But these are the outliers

Hanging upside down from a rope tied to a barbarian of questionable intelligence and trying to pick a lock inside the mouth of a statue of a brass jaguar what will bite your hand off if you mess up is not an outlier for an adventurer. Its Tuesday. If you're bothering to play something out it should be part of the adventure and shouldn't be routine for a normal person.

1. You cannot take 10 if there is a penalty for failure.

-If that penalty for failure is you dying I can see why people would think that. The post from SKR seems to indicate that that doesn't matter. Otherwise they're mixing up the take 10 and take 20 rules.

2. You cannot take 10 on opposed skills.

-Realistically that would make sense. Interacting with someone/something requires acting on the fly and is hard to conceive of an "average" job done in such a setting.

3. You cannot take 10 on any knowledge check.

Well, let me ask you. If this is such a black and white issue, why did someone that they let write material for the core rule book screw it up by assuming that you can't take 10 on knowledge checks?

My 2nd level PFS character is a Roguey druid. Outside of the fact that a rogue talent exists, what is the in game evidence that i need to stop to look for traps as opposed to getting a reactive perception check to see them as I'm walking along?

4. You cannot take 10 in the same amount of time as a normal check.

Probably messing it up with the take 20 rules. The line plenty of time isn't helping.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:

2. You cannot take 10 on opposed skills.

-Realistically that would make sense. Interacting with someone/something requires acting on the fly and is hard to conceive of an "average" job done in such a setting.

Actually, the CRB gives an example of taking 10 on an opposed check (Perception versus Disguise):

Disguise wrote:
If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.

So being an opposed check or not has zero bearing on whether or not you can Take 10.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James maissen wrote:
...snipped to shorten post...

...Snipped colorful discription to shorten post...

1. ...snipped

2. You cannot take 10 on opposed skills.

-Realistically that would make sense. Interacting with someone/something requires acting on the fly and is hard to conceive of an "average" job done in such a setting.

Actually, I interact everyday with people just doing their job. Pass the same panhandler on the same street with the same line as I head home from work each day. He does his T10, I do mine. same result.

Salesmen give the same standard "opposed rolls" each day.

In fact, I would think MOST interactions with people are just T10.

This is just my opinion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


3. You cannot take 10 on any knowledge check.

Well, let me ask you. If this is such a black and white issue, why did someone that they let write material for the core rule book screw it up by assuming that you can't take 10 on knowledge checks?

where in the core rule book does it assume that you can't take 10 for knowledge checks?

(a side note on conflicting write ups.- have you never encountered conflicting rules? the feat that removes the penilties for fireing a Crossbow while prone - even thou there are NO penilities for fireing prone comes to mind.)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

My 2nd level PFS character is a Roguey druid. Outside of the fact that a rogue talent exists, what is the in game evidence that i need to stop to look for traps as opposed to getting a reactive perception check to see them as I'm walking along?

this is an interesting view. I would like to hear more about this use of Passive Perception checks. Why limit it to Rogues? Can't anyone have a chance of percieving things? Can I T10 on them?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

4. ...snipped....

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
I would like to hear more about this use of Passive Perception checks. Why limit it to Rogues? Can't anyone have a chance of percieving things? Can I T10 on them?

This one's kind of interesting. Consider some text from the Perception skill:

Perception wrote:

Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Try Again: Yes. You can try to sense something you missed the first time, so long as the stimulus is still present.

For the most part, the way I interpret this is that if something happens at a discreet point in time (someone sneaks by, there's a sudden noise, you open the door to see the room inside, etc), then you get a freebie Perception check.

Meanwhile, if something is ongoing (like a constant humming noise coming from somewhere, a lingering smell, a hidden object that's not moving, etc) then you can spend as many move actions as you can afford to make additional checks to detect them.

So how does/should this differ from Trap Spotter? As I see it, the presence of a trap is an "ongoing" stimulus (it doesn't appear for a second and then go away), and therefore falls under the second category of checks, where you need to spend a move action.

So I'd run it like that even without knowing about Trap Spotter.

How about the rest of you?

The Exchange 5/5

must be the end of the day Jiggy.... you lost me.

Picture this:
Guy inters room pulls out a chair sits at a table and begins reading. There is a hidden compartment in the table.

Does he have to take a move action to find it? if he is there for a few minutes does he get extra checks? eventurally does this count as taking 20?

How does trap spotter work in this case? (say a trap on the floor beside the table).

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:

must be the end of the day Jiggy.... you lost me.

Picture this:
Guy inters room

You open the door/enter the room, and I'd call that a fresh stimulus to which you can react with a freebie Perception check. Typically, though, a hidden compartment/trap/whatever won't be detectable from the doorway unless you have a good bonus and choose to roll and roll high.

Quote:
pulls out a chair sits at a table and begins reading. There is a hidden compartment in the table.

The continued existence of the hidden compartment is an ongoing stimulus. He can spend move actions searching for it if he likes, but no freebies unless he has Trap Spotter.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay folks, warm up the Crow, because there are some of us that will be eating some. To help eliminate some of the issues we've had settling this topic, I went to the source. From the Ask JJ thread...

TwilightKnight wrote:
James, Can you take 10 on knowledge skill checks?
James Jacobs wrote:
You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat.

So, there you go. This should leave us with what constitutes a distraction as the only point of discussion left to GM adjudication.

NOTE--Please do not call him out for using "as with all checks." I expect that is just the general rule, subject to the specifics of a specific skill barring it.


People are confused about perception?

Observable Stimulus is probably an arcane term...

Think of it this way. Did something just happen they might have noticed? (like a rogue sneaking past - or a muffled cry from the next room) Then the check is free.

If everything seems normal until you go looking for something unusual, then the check is a declared move action. (like a secret compartment or hidden trap)

So NO the person sitting at the table reading gets no perception check to see the trap or compartment until he actually takes the time to look for it. Now the rogue sneaking up behind him with nefarious intent is something he gets a free check for.


Thanks Bob I feel vindicated.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Aranna wrote:
So NO the person sitting at the table reading gets no perception check to see the trap or compartment until he actually takes the time to look for it

Unless, of course, it is a rogue with trap spotter, or a dwarf and the trap includes stonework, or an elf and there is a secret panel involved :-)

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
So, there you go. This should leave us with what constitutes a distraction as the only point of discussion left to GM adjudication.

Emphasis mine. We'll see, won't we? ;)

For real though, thanks Bob. I feel a little thunder-stolen regarding my FAQ-collecting thread, but oh well. :)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Having it in the FAQ would still be nice for the benefit of all the players/GM's out there doing it wrong, but at least we have an answer and can continue to spread the word of the Orthodox Church of Take Ten. :-)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Well, let me ask you. If this is such a black and white issue, why did someone that they let write material for the core rule book screw it up by assuming that you can't take 10 on knowledge checks?

People make rules' mistakes all the time, writers or non-writers, designers and non-designers.

Those mistakes can be on clear rules just as often as unclear ones.

By the way, where did they make this mistake? I haven't seen anything in the core rule book that states you cannot do so, what did I miss?

-James

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
For the most part, the way I interpret this is that if something happens at a discreet point in time (someone sneaks by, there's a sudden noise, you open the door to see the room inside, etc), then you get a freebie Perception check.

The trap is the stimulus for the perception check. Its still present.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The trap is the stimulus for the perception check. Its still present

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you get a passive perception check if you are near the trap? Or just that you can continue to search for it until you find it?

The Exchange 5/5

I actually never want anyone to "eat crow". I just want us all to do judging as close as possible the same. No one wins or loses in RPGs, that's one of the things that appeal to me about them. We all just play. And hopefully have fun doing it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I think a lot of the problems are propagated from thinking that take 20 is just a scaled up form of take 10.
yeah, that and then to them T10 means "auto success", not realizing that you fail an average of 2.5% more often when you T10.

It can easily be auto success. No, this isn't in the book, it simply drops out of the conventions for a game.

You do not put something in a game that's unfair to your players: especially in PFS or a mod. You don't drop in a party level +6 encounter, and you don't drop in a challenge that the pc's shouldn't be able to deal with. You don't put a dc 30 check in a level one mod unless you're reaaaaly trying to steer the PC's to a different solution. The DC's have to be tough but fair.

Once you start maxing out a skill and then taking 10 your total is higher than any DC you can reasonably expect to find.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The trap is the stimulus for the perception check. Its still present
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you get a passive perception check if you are near the trap? Or just that you can continue to search for it until you find it?

let's replace 'trap' with 'invisible zombie'... do you get a passive perception check now?

another case of YMMV I think....

5/5 5/55/55/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The trap is the stimulus for the perception check. Its still present
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you get a passive perception check if you are near the trap? Or just that you can continue to search for it until you find it?

Its sort of a moot point now given what JJ said about what the bard ability is supposed to do.

I'm suggesting that absent a rogue talent that allows you a passive perception check for being near a trap, reading the perception skill alone would indicate that you get a passive perception check for being near a trap.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm suggesting that absent a rogue talent that allows you a passive perception check for being near a trap, reading the perception skill alone would indicate that you get a passive perception check for being near a trap.

I'm guessing you would get a significant amount of objection to that.


OK, this has been bothering me for a few days now...

YMMV? Means what, for those of us late to the acronym table?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
let's replace 'trap' with 'invisible zombie'... do you get a passive perception check now?

From my understanding, trap=no passive check (short of a specific ability), invisible=passive check

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Alitan wrote:
YMMV?

You Mileage May Vary

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I think a lot of the problems are propagated from thinking that take 20 is just a scaled up form of take 10.
yeah, that and then to them T10 means "auto success", not realizing that you fail an average of 2.5% more often when you T10.

It can easily be auto success. No, this isn't in the book, it simply drops out of the conventions for a game.

You do not put something in a game that's unfair to your players: especially in PFS or a mod. You don't drop in a party level +6 encounter, and you don't drop in a challenge that the pc's shouldn't be able to deal with. You don't put a dc 30 check in a level one mod unless you're reaaaaly trying to steer the PC's to a different solution. The DC's have to be tough but fair.

Once you start maxing out a skill and then taking 10 your total is higher than any DC you can reasonably expect to find.

what are reasonable DCs? In PF locks are DC 20 (simple), DC 25 (average), DC 30 (Good), DC 40 (superior). Writers seldom make Lock DCs Tier dependent.

The same is true of Faction missions. the same Faction Mission can require a Diplomacy DC 20 check at Tier 1-2 and 6-7.
Taking it back into the realm of T10, the 7th level Bard will T10 where the 2nd level Barbarian has no chance. Pick your PCs skills, play to his strengths and ... pick the PCs he adventures with. If you have no skills at "Face" adventure with someone who does. Just like you pick your equipment.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm suggesting that absent a rogue talent that allows you a passive perception check for being near a trap, reading the perception skill alone would indicate that you get a passive perception check for being near a trap.
I'm guessing you would get a significant amount of objection to that.

Right, because it goes completely against the rules as intended, intent being made clear by the rogue talent. But if you only read the perception skill there's very little difference between a trap and anything else in terms of finding it.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
let's replace 'trap' with 'invisible zombie'... do you get a passive perception check now?
From my understanding, trap=no passive check (short of a specific ability), invisible=passive check

first let me say - I got no care either way on this.

Now - why is it different? Is there a rule on this, or is it just left over from LG days when one was a Spot (passive) and the other a Search (active)?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Right, because it goes completely against the rules as intended, intent being made clear by the rogue talent. But if you only read the perception skill there's very little difference between a trap and anything else in terms of finding it.

Unfortunately, some rules require referencing multiple locations to find the full picture. IMO, it is a poor design, but the layout of the book is what it is.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Alitan wrote:
YMMV?
You Mileage May Vary

Ahh...

Thanx.

Edit: and thanx to Mr. Brock, too.

The Exchange 5/5

The Perception skill wording does list

"Find a Trap" vs. "Notice a creature using Stealth".

I guess you could say Find is active, Notice is passive?

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
let's replace 'trap' with 'invisible zombie'... do you get a passive perception check now?
From my understanding, trap=no passive check (short of a specific ability), invisible=passive check

first let me say - I got no care either way on this.

Now - why is it different? Is there a rule on this, or is it just left over from LG days when one was a Spot (passive) and the other a Search (active)?

It was overlooked in the search/perception merger. The existence of trap spotter points at the rai still being that you need to stop and look for traps, but raw in the perception skill itself is pretty much non existent to conclude that.

The point being that you can't just get the rules from one place.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Aranna wrote:
So NO the person sitting at the table reading gets no perception check to see the trap or compartment until he actually takes the time to look for it
Unless, of course, it is a rogue with trap spotter, or a dwarf and the trap includes stonework, or an elf and there is a secret panel involved :-)

actually Elves don't notice secret doors any more - at least not any better than Halflings (both have keen senses +2 to perception).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
Now - why is it different? Is there a rule on this, or is it just left over from LG days when one was a Spot (passive) and the other a Search (active)?

First, and perhaps foremost, if you allow passive perception of traps, it completely negates the rogue talent. That would suggest it is not generally permitted.

Second, and this could just be my interpretation, there seems to be two types of perception, passive ("reactive, made in response to observable stimulus) and active ("intentionally searching for stimulus"). Traps seem to be things that are not normally apparent to the eye, thus you have to actively search for them. Although, I suppose you could treat them like a non-moving invisible target and make it something like a DC 50 to passively detect one.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
let's replace 'trap' with 'invisible zombie'... do you get a passive perception check now?
From my understanding, trap=no passive check (short of a specific ability), invisible=passive check

first let me say - I got no care either way on this.

Now - why is it different? Is there a rule on this, or is it just left over from LG days when one was a Spot (passive) and the other a Search (active)?

It was overlooked in the search/perception merger. The existence of trap spotter points at the rai still being that you need to stop and look for traps, but raw in the perception skill itself is pretty much non existent to conclude that.

The point being that you can't just get the rules from one place.

I still stand by the word "Find" requireing an action to look, and "Notice" as being a passive check.

In fact, I would rule that Passive checks are made by the Judge, active by the player. so ... if you don't notice it, the judge never mentions it.

The Exchange 5/5

WoW! I'd missed this! you can ID a potion with perception?! DC is 15 + the potions caster level! COOL!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
actually Elves don't notice secret doors any more - at least not any better than Halflings (both have keen senses +2 to perception).

Actually they do, its just not where you expect to find it. Check CRB, p414 under Secret Doors.

"Elves have a chance to detect a secret door just by casually looking at an area."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:

I still stand by the word "Find" requiring an action to look, and "Notice" as being a passive check.

In fact, I would rule that Passive checks are made by the Judge, active by the player. so ... if you don't notice it, the judge never mentions it.

I think I can follow this logic

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
Now - why is it different? Is there a rule on this, or is it just left over from LG days when one was a Spot (passive) and the other a Search (active)?

First, and perhaps foremost, if you allow passive perception of traps, it completely negates the rogue talent. That would suggest it is not generally permitted.

Second, and this could just be my interpretation, there seems to be two types of perception, passive ("reactive, made in response to observable stimulus) and active ("intentionally searching for stimulus"). Traps seem to be things that are not normally apparent to the eye, thus you have to actively search for them. Although, I suppose you could treat them like a non-moving invisible target and make it something like a DC 50 to passively detect one.

sounds good to me. I see nothing in the rules to change this, and the Find vs. Notice wording seems to support it.

Works for me.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
actually Elves don't notice secret doors any more - at least not any better than Halflings (both have keen senses +2 to perception).

Actually they do, its just not where you expect to find it. Check CRB, p414 under Secret Doors.

"Elves have a chance to detect a secret door just by casually looking at an area."

I have the note in my CRB saying that line was struck out with the errete... we should check a current copy to conferm it one way or another.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
I have the note in my CRB saying that line was struck out with the errete... we should check a current copy to conferm it one way or another.

Damn you errata *shakes fist*

251 to 300 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / More Take 10 goodness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.