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

RPG Superstar 2015

Armor, Equipment, and Encumbrance: How do You Play?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I think Sean may have missed where I pointed out that we aren't talking about the simple 5 to 6 foot jump (For the record, I just measured it off and I can easily make a 6 foot "step". I'm about 6 feet tall, and technically for a moment both feet were off the ground, but still that isn't a real "jump" moment.) Hell, it is functionally a 5 foot step.

No.

Jump (verb): to spring clear of the ground or other support by a sudden muscular effort; leap: to jump into the air; to jump out a window.

If both feet are off the ground, it's a jump, not a step.

If we can't agree to basic English definitions of words, we're never going to get anywhere when it comes to agreeing on the game definitions that are based on the English definitions. Especially as the game doesn't define a "jump," which means you use the English definition of the word.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


If both feet are off the ground, it's a jump, not a step.

If we can't agree to basic English definitions of words, we're never going to get anywhere when it comes to agreeing on the game definitions that are based on the English definitions. Especially as the game doesn't define a "jump," which means you use the English definition of the word.

Unfortunately, you can have both feet off the ground during a step. In fact that's the difference, in official sporting terminology, between walking (when there is always one foot on the ground) and running (both feet off the ground at the same time). But just because you are running that doesn't mean you are jumping. Note, too, that the triple jump used to be known as the "hop, step and jump", and both feet are definitely off the ground during all three parts.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're saying that a step can have both feet off the ground.

I'm saying a jump must have both feet off the ground.

Are you saying that you can make a jump where at no point are both of your feet off the ground? I don't think so. So now that we agree that to "jump" means both your feet are off the ground...

The Acrobatics skill talks about using the skill to "make jumps." It never mentions "hops" or "steps." So if you are making a "jump" with the Acrobatics skill, at some point both feet are off the ground. So it's working exactly how I described it (both feet off the ground, a jump), not how ciretose described it (only one foot off the ground, or perhaps "technically for a moment" both feet off the ground, a long step).

If you're trying to cross a 5-foot gap and you want to make sure you're not going to fall in, you're not going to step or hop, you're going to jump, and you know what I mean when I say "jump." You're not playing the "cracks in the sidewalk" game where if you're off by an inch it doesn't matter. You're going to jump, you're going to push upward with one or both legs with the intent of clearing the entire space, because if you goof up, you're gonna hit the edge and be stuck straddling a chasm; that's not Taking 10, that's rolling 1d20 and having the chance of screwing up. If you want to consistently cross that 5-foot space, you're jumping, and you can Take 10 on that jump. You can do a standing broad jump 100 times in a row and clear 5 feet each time. You can't fail as long as you're not distracted. That's Taking 10. On a jump.

And it certainly isn't a 5-foot step, as the game uses it.

And as a side note, nitpicking terminology discourages me from getting involved in discussions.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, so how about that useful thread dealing with encumbrance? Sure was helpful to me to see how people dealt with those things. I got some good ideas from them.

Oh, we're arguing semantics about the word "jump" now? Well I'm sure that will help... someone.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

i am still on the side of NOT being able take 10 on jumps.
i don't think anybody and everybody will ALWAYS jump at least 5' in a standing long jump.
for a character with no DEX modifier, having 1 rank and a Class Skill bonus means that rolling a 1 = DC5.
(enough to ALWAYS jump 5' if they have a start, but not for a standing jump)
for such a character, they need to roll a 6 or higher to make that jump.

between a +1 or +2 in DEX modifier, and 3 or 4 more ranks, you will now pass a DC10 even on a Natural 1.
that seems reasonable to me to be able to routinely deal with jumping a 5' pit.

digging a 5' wide pit is alot effort, it seems wierd to have it routinely bypassed by ANYBODY.
since it's apparently not metagaming to recognize how far you can jump on a Take 10, everybody WOULD take 10 when confronted with such a pit, meaning nobody (with 0 DEX mod or higher) will EVER fail to jump that pit... when i'm fairly certain that jumping 5' from a standing start IS definitely at the margins of do-ability for many people, particularly shorter people.

-------------------------------------------------------------

what IS the intent of the 5' step?

i'm PRETTY sure it doesn't just apply to 'stepping', but could be flying, swimming, etc. i have thought that it would apply to any movement mode which you have a given speed for. if you have a climb speed, it's OK... if you don't have a climb speed, you can't use it while climbing because your climbing movement depends on skill checks and special actions, not just generic 'movement'... similar for swimming with/without a swim speed.

i'm not sure exactly how/why to exclude jumping from 5' steps - just because it's a skill check isn't enough, or then flying vertically/at 45* would also be excluded... or SHOULD those be excluded from 5' steps?

ultimately, i don't think there's much RAW basis for excluding much movement forms from 5' steps, besides those that already require a special action to do (e.g. climbing without climb speed), unless one is ready to accept a fundamentalist reading that 5' step only is for walking/land speed.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Respectfully Sean, you keep talking about a 5 foot gap which I've already said isn't an issue.

We all agree the 5 foot gap isn't going to require dice. No one is arguing for the 5 foot gap.

To quote one of the greatest lines in Joe vs the Volcano, "I'm not arguing that with you."

We are talking minimum 10 feet and more reasonably around 15 feet or so. 10 feet under perfect circumstances is a running jump for an average person with no ACP they can take 10 on. If you have a 10 Strength, no armor and take 10, you can clear 10 feet.

We all agree that making someone roll for 5 feet is dumb 99% of the time. No one is arguing for that position, so I'm not trying to defend that position.

But where it becomes metagame is having a GM say "There is a gap over a bottomless cavern. It looks to be about 10 feet across." and having that average person without making any measurements or taking any other checks go "That is exactly 10 feet, therefore I take 10 and exactly end up on the other side."

And I ask, is it really 10 feet? Is it maybe 9 feet and you land easily or is it 11 feet and your making a reflex save?

Everyone sometimes thinks they can clear a distance and miss because it was farther than they thought. As a GM it is important to be fair and have the actual distance set in stone before the roll, but who can tell the difference between 9, 10 and 11 feet without measuring? And that isn't even getting into the 20 or 30 foot jumps high level characters can take 10 to make.

At 5 feet I agree, everyone knows they can make that jump, step, whatever we want to call it. But when you get literally right up to the exact point where taking 10 is going to work...grey area.

I generally don't think there is one more step when I go up and down stairs. Sometimes there is and I fall.

When you are taking 10 on the bleeding edge of your range for take 10, say with a foot or two either way, when you take 10, you can be wrong.

At that point as a GM if they ask if they can take 10, I'm asking for a check of some sort to see if they acurately measured the distance, rolling the check behind screen, and saying what the character thinks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Quandary wrote:
i am still on the side of NOT being able take 10 on jumps.

Do you mean you think you can't T10 on jumps under current rules, or do you mean you think you shouldn't be able to T10 on jumps?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

@ciretose: What does whether or not they would succeed have to do with whether or not they can T10?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
Quandary wrote:
i am still on the side of NOT being able take 10 on jumps.
Do you mean you think you can't T10 on jumps under current rules, or do you mean you think you shouldn't be able to T10 on jumps?

For the record, I'm not with him.

You can take 10 if it is 5 feet, or some distance your player can clearly and easily make that is significantly less than your take 10 distance. If you are a monk who can jump 30 feet with a take 10 and it's 20 feet, fine, take 10 and be proud of your badass jumping skills relative to the others in the party.

What bothers me is when you are literally right up to the edge of your take 10 range, over a chasm of doom, you haven't even taking a second look to make sure of the distance, and you feel entitled to making it.

And as a GM, I'm not even setting up the situation if there isn't some risk involved. If everyone in the party can take 10 over a gap, that isn't getting played out in game.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
@ciretose: What does whether or not they would succeed have to do with whether or not they can T10?

As I said, they can try and take 10 and hopefully make the reflex save when it is 11 feet and they have no bonuses.

If they don't believe they are in danger, go for it. Now if they roll an Int/Wis/Perception check that say "Um...that might actually be 11 feet" they can't take 10, because they know at that point it would be a dangerous jump, possibly beyond their 10 foot consistent jumping ability.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
@ciretose: What does whether or not they would succeed have to do with whether or not they can T10?

As I said, they can try and take 10 and hopefully make the reflex save when it is 11 feet and they have no bonuses.

If they don't believe they are in danger, go for it. Now if they roll an Int/Wis/Perception check that say "Um...that might actually be 11 feet" they can't take 10, because they know at that point it would be a dangerous jump, possibly beyond their 10 foot consistent jumping ability.

What's that got to do with anything anyone else has been saying? Now suddenly you sound like you're arguing against people saying that players should be able to tell you whether or not they're successful just by taking 10. But no one's saying that. Take 10 is just like any other skill check. The player doesn't say "I take 10 and make it", they say "I take 10 and get XX - did I make it?" Just like if they roll and say "I got XX - did I make it?"

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
@ciretose: What does whether or not they would succeed have to do with whether or not they can T10?

As I said, they can try and take 10 and hopefully make the reflex save when it is 11 feet and they have no bonuses.

If they don't believe they are in danger, go for it. Now if they roll an Int/Wis/Perception check that say "Um...that might actually be 11 feet" they can't take 10, because they know at that point it would be a dangerous jump, possibly beyond their 10 foot consistent jumping ability.

What's that got to do with anything anyone else has been saying? Now suddenly you sound like you're arguing against people saying that players should be able to tell you whether or not they're successful just by taking 10. But no one's saying that. Take 10 is just like any other skill check. The player doesn't say "I take 10 and make it", they say "I take 10 and get XX - did I make it?" Just like if they roll and say "I got XX - did I make it?"

It is the entire point.

The idea of taking 10 is looking at a problem and going "I can do that easily, let me just take a moment and do it without trying to get fancy"

But if you can't actually do it easily...

Let's say I have 0 in acrobatics, 10 strength I'm on the edge of a 20 foot gap over a ravine. Can I take 10, when reasonably I should know there is no way I can make it?

I argue no, because clearly that would be dangerous (and stupid)

You seem to be arguing yes. This is where we seem to differ.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

I'm arguing that it's a legal game action, not that it's necessarily the right choice.

And I would point out that originally you were arguing that it wasn't a legal game action (i.e., that a dangerous pit constituted a "threat or distraction" that keeps you from being able to take 10), yet now seem to be arguing something else entirely (that it's not a good idea for a player to choose to take 10 until they feel sure it will be a success).

What made you change your tune?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:

I'm arguing that it's a legal game action, not that it's necessarily the right choice.

And I would point out that originally you were arguing that it wasn't a legal game action (i.e., that a dangerous pit constituted a "threat or distraction" that keeps you from being able to take 10), yet now seem to be arguing something else entirely (that it's not a good idea for a player to choose to take 10 until they feel sure it will be a success).

What made you change your tune?

I didn't. If the player doesn't know with certainty they can't make the jump, it is dangerous and constitutes a threat.

An estimated 5 foot jump when you can clear 10 is certain. Even if you are off by a foot or two, you know you can clear it easily.

An estimated 10 foot distance when your take 10 is exactly 10 feet isn't certain. It is dangerous.

That is the line for me.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Now if the player honestly thought they could take 10 to clear the gap easily, as the result of an illusion spell for example, that is something else.

I am arguing to take 10 you have to believe the action isn't dangerous.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Ah... So uncertainty of success, when failure would bring harm, constitutes a "distraction" for purposes of determining whether a PC can take 10? Am I following you now?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
Ah... So uncertainty of success, when failure would bring harm, constitutes a "distraction" for purposes of determining whether a PC can take 10? Am I following you now?

Distraction or threat, yes.

EDIT: In a circumstance that would result in harm/death.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Thanks for finally being clear. I'll ponder your point and reply later.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:
Thanks for finally being clear. I'll ponder your point and reply later.

I am able to do that occasionally :)


I gotta say that no one will ever convince me that being able to jump 10 ft. into a 20 ft. wide pit is somehow harder or impossible to do comparatively to jumping the same 10 ft. over a 5 ft. pit. That would be extremely gamist and stupid out of game.

Of course, that level of stupidity in game should be rewarded with exactly what you get. But it is neither a distraction or active threat that I can see.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Ashiel wrote:

I gotta say that no one will ever convince me that being able to jump 10 ft. into a 20 ft. wide pit is somehow harder or impossible to do comparatively to jumping the same 10 ft. over a 5 ft. pit. That would be extremely gamist and stupid out of game.

Of course, that level of stupidity in game should be rewarded with exactly what you get. But it is neither a distraction or active threat that I can see.

If you think you can make it, you aren't distracted.

If you aren't sure, you could be.

Getting shot at, but not hit, doesn't effect your ability to jump. Your legs still work, you are still doing the same thing you would do if you weren't getting shot at.

But since you are in danger, you are distracted and can't simply relax and take 10.

I'm saying that not being sure if you can make the jump is similarly distracting.

If you fully believe you can make it, for whatever reason, you'll take your mediocre jump and chips fall where they may.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Things that someone of ciretose's position would need to reconcile:

1) SKR said that the distraction needs to be "something other than the task at hand". If the "task at hand" is jumping a pit, then jumping a pit can't be the disqualifying distraction from jumping a pit.

2) You can take 10 on every skill except UMD (or swim, in stormy water). Therefore:
2a) You can take 10 on stealth, without knowing who's around and what their perception skills are like.
2b) You can take 10 on bluff, without knowing the target's sense motive skill/result.
2c) You can take 10 on perception without even knowing you're making a check.
2d) You can take 10 on diplomacy without knowing the target's CHA mod (which is part of the DC). The list goes on.

----------------

So there's a whole laundry list of skills where you can take 10 even though by definition you won't know whether you'll be successful or not. That's awfully hard on the "I might fail, therefore I'm distracted" position. Plus the whole "other than the task at hand" thing.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Looking at those examples a few questions.

1) Can you take 10 on swim when you are drowning? Rough water is enough to distract you, so I would say suffocation would be as well. What if aren't sure if 10 will cut it and a failed swim check means you are trapped and will drown?
2) Can you take 10 on stealth if you know someone armed is around looking for you AND you aren't sure if 10 will cut it?
3) Can you take 10 on bluff if you know the outcome of a failed bluff would be death AND you aren't sure if 10 will cut it?
4) Can you take 10 on diplomacy if you know the outcome of a failed bluff would be death AND you aren't sure if 10 will cut it?

If you know 10 is good enough, and/or the outcome isn't death (but rather say, cake...) no worries.

But if you don't know the password, the thugs are about to kill you for a bad roll, and you don't know if 10 will cut it...

Similarly, if you aren't sure taking 10 will get you across, and not getting across means...well, not cake.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically you're saying that if the following two conditions are true, you can't take 10:
1) Don't know if you'll succeed
2) Failure could be deadly (or otherwise serious)

Well, we know that #1 is not a factor. Why? Because there are skills where you never know if you'll succeed or not (like stealth), but you can still take 10 on them. If knowing whether or not you would succeed was even a part of the equation at all, then stealth (and probably some other skills) would have to completely disallow take 10 regardless of the situation. But that's not the case.

It's therefore crystal clear that it doesn't matter whether you know if you'll succeed or not. This is not debatable.

------------------------------------

With that out of the way, all that's left of your position is this:

Does the consequence of failure being deadly prevent you from taking 10?

Sean has already answered this: to prevent taking 10, you have to be distracted by something other than the task at hand. So far, your only response to this has been to ignore it. Why?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

ciretose, by your rules no one can ever do free climbing.
a) There is no safety anchorage, so a fall can kill you
b) That mean that you can't take 10
c) if you can't take 10 what for most free climber is a easy climb become a death trap

"DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands."

That is a easy climb for any free climbers. If you can take 10 you only need a total of +5 for the skill check. If you are forced to roll the dices you need a minimum of +14 to be safe in any long climb.

Heck, a guy with limited skills would risk to die using a knotted rope, DC 5 isn't a joke if you have to roll every time.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Whoa! Sean K Reynolds favorited my post! That sure boosts the ol' ego! :D

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Diego Rossi wrote:

ciretose, by your rules no one can ever do free climbing.

a) There is no safety anchorage, so a fall can kill you
b) That mean that you can't take 10
c) if you can't take 10 what for most free climber is a easy climb become a death trap

"DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands."

That is a easy climb for any free climbers. If you can take 10 you only need a total of +5 for the skill check. If you are forced to roll the dices you need a minimum of +14 to be safe in any long climb.

Heck, a guy with limited skills would risk to die using a knotted rope, DC 5 isn't a joke if you have to roll every time.

Not at all.

Free climbing a wall you feel comfortable climbing is taking 10. I look at the wall, I think it is well within my abilities, I am not concerned in the least, even if there is a danger of falling, because that climb for me is no more challenging to me as than going up a set of stairs.

But to feel that way, to be able to take a 10 on a 15 DC that means I have to have at least a +5 to climb, meaning I either am world class strong or have some training in climbing.

And I may still think it is dangerous, as it is right on the edge of my skill to do it easily, but I can do it. Now If I have a +10, I have significant training and would look at the wall and thing "I can do that in my sleep." even w ithout an additional check.

Now if I didn't have any training, if my strength was 10, that DC 15 check is a very different animal. Maybe I think it will be easy, I take 10 and fall. Or maybe I realize it won't be easy and adjust my actions.

It isn't the risk of falling, it is the perceived risk of if taking 10 will work.

If you aren't sure you can do it by just taking 10 AND the action is dangerous, the action is dangerous.

Similarly if I am average with no bonuses or training I know I can jump about 10 feet consistently. So when I look at a gap that is "about" 10 feet, I may not be sure if it is 10, 9 or 11. I'm not sure if I can make it with and average amount of effort (take 10) or not.

But when I look at 5 or 6 feet...I got that.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jiggy wrote:

So basically you're saying that if the following two conditions are true, you can't take 10:

1) Don't know if you'll succeed
2) Failure could be deadly (or otherwise serious)

Well, we know that #1 is not a factor. Why? Because there are skills where you never know if you'll succeed or not (like stealth), but you can still take 10 on them. If knowing whether or not you would succeed was even a part of the equation at all, then stealth (and probably some other skills) would have to completely disallow take 10 regardless of the situation. But that's not the case.

It's therefore crystal clear that it doesn't matter whether you know if you'll succeed or not. This is not debatable.

------------------------------------

With that out of the way, all that's left of your position is this:

Does the consequence of failure being deadly prevent you from taking 10?

Sean has already answered this: to prevent taking 10, you have to be distracted by something other than the task at hand. So far, your only response to this has been to ignore it. Why?

I know SKR favorited you, and I respect SKR as a far higher authority on the rules than I am or ever will be, but being able to tell if you are able to be stealthy relative to someone observing you and being able to tell if a distance is one you can jump over with ease aren't the same thing.

I can't know with certainty what the opposed check of a stranger (or even strangers I am not aware of...) will be. I can know with certainty what a distance is.

If I am standing in front of a 20 foot chasm and I know on an average roll I can only go 15, I know that jump is a risk. I should know taking 10 will fail. I think it is metagaming to instantly know the exact moment you are in take 10 range. If it is obvious (5 foot gap) sure, but when it is right at the edge...

Taking your stealth example, if I am standing behind a tree and need to walk 100 feet across an open field to another tree roughly 20 feet in front of of 100 guards who I know are going to fire on sight, have spotlights, and keen eyesight, I would think baring amazing stealth skills or a spell or two that I'm not going to succeed on taking 10 and that when I fail I will be hurt.

The question is, how do you know if you can take 10 to go 15 feet the difference between 14 and 16 feet without a check? And if you are unsure of the distance, and failing can result in death or dismemberment...


I imagine that most people can simply look at most gaps at tell if they can jump over them without trying hard. We don't even have to know what a "foot" is in measurement. We just have to know how we jump vs how big it looks to be. I guess if you were really anal about it, "you're not sure how far it is" could be said, but then we just toss a rope across to use as a measurement or some ten foot poles lashed together. Congratulations, now you have slowed down gameplay for what could have been...

"Does it look like I can jump across easily?"
"What's your take 10?"
"It'd be 17."
"Yeah, that's enough." / "You're not sure you can jump across it. It's a bit too long. Wanna roll it?"

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
The question is, how do you know if you can take 10 to go 15 feet the difference between 14 and 16 feet without a check?

By making practice jumps, and practice checks. You did a test "step" of a 5-foot-gap, right? You didn't know you could do that until you tried it, right? Then you answered your own question: you didn't know, so you tried it out in a way that wouldn't kill you so you could see how far you could step, and now you know how far... so in the future, if you find a 5-foot-gap and you have to jump it or you'll die, you'll know that you easily can make that jump and don't have to worry about it.

Just as you don't specify when your characters are answering nature's call, you don't have to specify what they're doing in their non-adventuring time. Someone putting ranks in Acrobatics is practicing acrobatics. They're doing jumps, flips, and so on. So the guy who's trained to jump really well has a really good idea of how far he can clear when making a broad jump or a running jump. It's not like he comes to a chasm and thinks, "wow, even though I have 10 ranks in Acrobatics and a 16 Dex, I have never tried to jump anything before and I have no idea if I have any chance of making this jump, let alone any idea if I can routinely make this jump." No, he's been practicing his jumping and he has a really good idea of exactly how far he can jump on his worst day, on his best day, and on an average day.

This sort of example is exactly why the Take 10 rule is in the game.

PRD:
"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)."

Anyone who's put at least 1 rank in Acrobatics knows how well long their average jump is (and even someone who has 0 ranks can quickly figure it out by doing a few test jumps). If you know on average you can jump 10 feet, and you find a chasm that's 5-9 feet across, then you know you can jump across the cavern. And you don't have to make a roll to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I look at like this: all those action movies you see? Where there are chase scenes across the roof and the characters are leaping across the gaps? Most of the time, that isn't combat . . . no one is shooting or anything. Yet, the dramatic resolution of the danger posed by jumping isn't just something the director hand-waves away. The hero might make it . . . he might not, and wind up clinging to the side of the building.

What's heroic about saying "I take 10" in a situation where if you misjudge you are going down? I would rather see my players have to make the hard choice and know there is a CHANCE of failure because it heightens that dramatic tension.

At least in my games.

MA


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:

I look at like this: all those action movies you see? Where there are chase scenes across the roof and the characters are leaping across the gaps? Most of the time, that isn't combat . . . no one is shooting or anything. Yet, the dramatic resolution of the danger posed by jumping isn't just something the director hand-waves away. The hero might make it . . . he might not, and wind up clinging to the side of the building.

What's heroic about saying "I take 10" in a situation where if you misjudge you are going down? I would rather see my players have to make the hard choice and know there is a CHANCE of failure because it heightens that dramatic tension.

At least in my games.

MA

A fine house rule.


Ravingdork wrote:
master arminas wrote:

I look at like this: all those action movies you see? Where there are chase scenes across the roof and the characters are leaping across the gaps? Most of the time, that isn't combat . . . no one is shooting or anything. Yet, the dramatic resolution of the danger posed by jumping isn't just something the director hand-waves away. The hero might make it . . . he might not, and wind up clinging to the side of the building.

What's heroic about saying "I take 10" in a situation where if you misjudge you are going down? I would rather see my players have to make the hard choice and know there is a CHANCE of failure because it heightens that dramatic tension.

At least in my games.

MA

A fine house rule.

Which is how this whole thing started . . . jumping I mean. I said when I posted it, this was how I did things in MY game. Not whether or not the rules as written allowed it, or pushing for folks to take up my own house-rules, but just saying this is how I do it. And it blew up from there.

MA

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

master arminas wrote:

I look at like this: all those action movies you see? Where there are chase scenes across the roof and the characters are leaping across the gaps? Most of the time, that isn't combat . . . no one is shooting or anything. Yet, the dramatic resolution of the danger posed by jumping isn't just something the director hand-waves away. The hero might make it . . . he might not, and wind up clinging to the side of the building.

What's heroic about saying "I take 10" in a situation where if you misjudge you are going down? I would rather see my players have to make the hard choice and know there is a CHANCE of failure because it heightens that dramatic tension.

At least in my games.

MA

But that's a textbook example of a situation where a character would be too distracted to take a 10. They're either chasing someone or being chased! That's distracting! They're jumping haphazardly, trying to catch/lose their opponent.


master arminas wrote:

I look at like this: all those action movies you see? Where there are chase scenes across the roof and the characters are leaping across the gaps? Most of the time, that isn't combat . . . no one is shooting or anything. Yet, the dramatic resolution of the danger posed by jumping isn't just something the director hand-waves away. The hero might make it . . . he might not, and wind up clinging to the side of the building.

What's heroic about saying "I take 10" in a situation where if you misjudge you are going down? I would rather see my players have to make the hard choice and know there is a CHANCE of failure because it heightens that dramatic tension.

At least in my games.

MA

A chase scene essentially is combat though, so I would count that as not allowing taking 10.

Taking 10 is when you have time to walk up to the edge, look at it for a moment, think about it... think about past jumps that might be similar... consider when you might stop for lunch today... shift your pack on your back, deciding if you want to throw it across ahead of you or not... then take your jump.

If it's "OMG, the gelatinous cube is eating through the door, go!", that's a roll.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The discussion is about using the encumbrance rules and calculating the weight of what you are transporting.
There are plenty of threads about taking 10, please move your discussions to those thread.

About the thread question:
there are plenty of rules, spells, skills and other effects that work differently depending on how encumbered you are.
Ballparking the weight you are carrying within a 10% can be sufficient for most characters but for low carrying capacity characters even a couple of lbs can make a huge difference. Neglecting that part of the rules will benefit small characters and people with low strength. Personally I don't see any reason to gift people that have dumped strength with a free exemption from the consequences of their choice.


+1
regardless of your STR/gear, it's easy enough to 'group' your possessions in such a way that when you don't want to be Encumbered, you can ditch the pack containing XYZ, while still having ABC with you. Same goes for Mount encumbrance. Of course, sometime you will have to leave behind the pack, or will otherwise 'miss' having easy access to that stuff you just ditched, or you will merely have to pay an 'action cost' to grab it again before moving, etc... That seems to add depth and believability to the game, while being a realistic challenge for those with low STR, as Diego says.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Anyone who's put at least 1 rank in Acrobatics knows how well long their average jump is (and even someone who has 0 ranks can quickly figure it out by doing a few test jumps). If you know on average you can jump 10 feet, and you find a chasm that's 5-9 feet across, then you know you can jump across the cavern. And you don't have to make a roll to do it.

And I am agreeing with you right up to 8 feet, as you can probably look at between 0 and 8 feet and say "I got that"

I am quibbling on 9 feet, but fair enough that it may be a short enough distance that I still feel comfortable, given my knowledge of my jumping ability is in excess of the distance I am looking at.

But I am saying it is metagaming to be able to take 10 on 10 feet if my average distance jumped is 10 feet, as since this the exact distance I believe I can jump on average and if I'm off by a foot in my estimations, I will fall.

And I'm saying that as distance grows, it becomes harder to estimate distance.

Like I said, if I'm a monk who can take 10 and still jump 30 feet, the 25 foot gap seems as easy to me as a 5 foot gap. I know I can far surpass that distance with an average jump. If I'm off and it is 23 or 27 feet, I still got it.

But if I can only jump 25 feet when I take 10 and the gap is exactly 25 feet, it seems meta to assume that I know it is the exact distance I go when I take 10. I don't know that I can surpass that distance with an average jump, as an average jump is that exact distance.

The earliest I would even consider having this come into play is 10 feet, and more reasonably we are talking 15 to 20 feet before I bother stopping a game to set up such a situation. And again, it only becomes an issue when the take 10 number is right up to the line with the distance.

The fact you said "5-9" rather than saying "10" kind of makes me think we aren't far off from each other on this. But I could be wrong.


*facepalm
Ciretose, Sean just got done quoting and explained all of this. If your estimation is short, then you may fall. If it is long then you had some room to spare. Whether or not your estimation is correct has absolutely no bearing on whether you can take 10 or not. EDIT: This is why I said if you want to be really anal about this sort of thing we could just chuck a rope or some lashed poles across the distance.

I could take 10 to jump my normal jump off a building if I wanted, even knowing that I can't reach the building 20 ft. from my position. I can still take 10 (and fall) if I want to.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Ashiel wrote:

*facepalm

Ciretose, Sean just got done quoting and explained all of this. If your estimation is short, then you may fall. If it is long then you had some room to spare. Whether or not your estimation is correct has absolutely no bearing on whether you can take 10 or not. EDIT: This is why I said if you want to be really anal about this sort of thing we could just chuck a rope or some lashed poles across the distance.

I could take 10 to jump my normal jump off a building if I wanted, even knowing that I can't reach the building 20 ft. from my position. I can still take 10 (and fall) if I want to.

If your estimation is "Maybe" is where I think we have the gray area.

You "know" you can make it up to, for the purposes of argument, 9 feet by the eyeball test than you know you can make it.

If you think you can make it up to 11 feet by taking 10 and you fall, you are wrong.

If you measure and say "This is exactly 10 feet, and when I take 10 I can jump exactly 10 feet" you are metagaming.

In game, you character looks at a distance and they either know they can clear it because it is below what they can clear easily or they don't.

If I can take 10 and go 10 feet and the GM says "It looks about 10 feet" you are in a gray area. About 10 feet could be more, it could be less, it could be exactly 10 feet. But you don't "know" you can make it because you aren't sure if it is actually more or less than 10 feet.

If I look at a distance and I'm not sure if I can take 10 or not, because the distance is borderline, that is when I am saying it would be dangerous.

In a situation where the outcome of the roll could be dangerous.

Obviously can make it with a 10 = Take 10.
Confident I can make it (even if I am wrong) with a 10 = Take 10
Unsure if I can or can not make it with a 10 = This is where I say no on take 10.
Know I can't make it = You seem to disagree, but the consensus seems to be you can't take 10.


Do you have an explanation why I cannot simply jump 10 feet off a cliff? I know I can jump 10 ft. It might be dangerous, but my task at hand is jumping 10 ft. out into the distance. Whether or not there is anything there to catch me has 0% to do with my being able to jump 10 ft. out into the distance.


This whole derail reminds me of the time a player tried to jump his 2nd edition 3rd level character across a 40 yard wide chasm. DM tried to explain how far 40 yards is...I'm sorry to say, the rest of us made way for his attempt. I seem to recall making a motion, as though I was dusting the point of departure free of any dirt that might hinder his progress.

Contributor

14 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
If you measure and say "This is exactly 10 feet, and when I take 10 I can jump exactly 10 feet" you are metagaming.

No, it's not.

I assure you that professional jumpers know their jumping distance on their best day, on their worst day, and on an average day. They practice, and measure, and practice, and measure. They go to competitions knowing what they're expected jump is, which jumps are easy enough that they don't have to put extra effort into it (such as the early qualifiers), and which jumps require special effort (the competition for first place). It's their job to know these things.

I'm not a professional jumper. How do I know I can reliably do a standing broad jump of 6 feet? Because I had a discussion with Jonathan Tweet in the Wizards of the Coast office, we measured out 5 feet, and I jumped it. Over and over again. With an average Str (3E used Str for Jump checks) and no ranks in Jump, I got 5+ feet every time. Jumping 5 feet horizontally is DC 5, doubled to 10 because I didn't have a running start. Taking 10, I got it every time. That's why those values are in the 3E Player's Handbook: I demonstrated to Jonathan Tweet that an average person can reliably jump 5 feet as a standing broad jump. We measured and tested this. It's scientifically verified: Sean K Reynolds can reliably do a standing broad jump of 5 feet. If I were a D&D character, character-me would know that he can do a standing broad jump of 5 feet. And player-me would know that my character, character-me, can do that. And me knowing that isn't metagaming.

So if a regular guy like me can measure how far he can jump when Taking 10 and determine exactly how far that is, so can an adventurer--especially when it's his job to know his average physical abilities and his extreme physical limits. He's going to test it out in his free time, measure how far he can broad jump and running jump, and remember his average and best distances. Why? So when he sees a 10ish-foot chasm, he'll know he can clear that on an average running jump, and when he sees a 20ish-foot chasm, he'll know there's no way he can make that jump even with a running start.

The game works really hard at emulating basic human physical abilities so the player's expectation of what the dice can produce matches the character's expectation of those physical abilities. The 6 Str wizard knows he can't punch through stone because it's common sense (and verifiable with experimentation); the wizard's player knows his character can't punch through stone because the wizard's unarmed strike damage and Str penalty mean he can't get through the stone's hardness. That's not metagaming, that's using knowledge your character does know--which is the opposite of metagaming. Just because the player knows it in terms of damage rolls, Str penalties, and hardness doesn't mean it's any less valid than the actual wizard's first-hand knowledge of his capabilities, nor is it cheating in any way for the player to know this without making experimental die rolls. In the same way, if a fighter hits a monster as hard as he can, but the blow does no damage, the fighter knows that his best effort isn't enough to defeat the monster; if the fighter's player rolls max damage on an attack and the monster's DR ignores all of that damage, the player knows his fighter can't defeat the monster. That's not metagaming; metagaming is using awareness of the rules to know something your character wouldn't know. Your character would know how far he can jump on average, and on his best effort. A player using that same knowledge (derived from d20 + bonus math) isn't metagaming. Character-Sean knows he can jump 5 feet because he's tested it; player-Sean knows character-Sean can jump 5 feet by Taking 10 because the character sheet says "Str 10, 0 ranks in Jump."

ciretose wrote:
If I can take 10 and go 10 feet and the GM says "It looks about 10 feet" you are in a gray area. About 10 feet could be more, it could be less, it could be exactly 10 feet. But you don't "know" you can make it because you aren't sure if it is actually more or less than 10 feet.

Even if you don't know it's exactly 10 feet, then you can still Take 10... and risk failing if the DC was actually 11. The Take 10 rules don't say "you can only do this if there's no risk of failure." There's absolutely no game difference between Taking 10 and rolling a 10 on the d20. It's success or failure based on getting a 10 on the d20, whether you roll it or select it with the Take 10 rule. The rule is in the game to let players use it if they don't want to roll.

I've explained to you the RAW. I've explained to you the RAI. I've explained to you the actual anecdote that led to the rule as presented in the D&D Player's Handbook. I worked with the PH designer on this rule for 3E D&D. I work on the PFRPG, which is based on the 3E D&D rules. I know what I'm talking about. This is how it works. If that still doesn't convince you, you're just being stubborn and there is no point in trying to talk to you about anything because you're just going to disagree with me despite any evidence.


Depends on the game type. If you're going 'cinematic' or 'kick in the door' style, sometimes you can put mechanics on the wayside. Kinda like stuff like 'food/drink'. Flexibility in whether you make it 'matter' or not. This isn't battletech :) We're not trying to squeek as much tonnage as we can (well, maybe we are).

I figure to work on the principles of "What works for the game" and "Is this not unfairly screwing the players".

Depends alot on your players though. Some LIKE having spreadsheets of their gear and can give you exact weights including fractionals :P

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Even if you don't know it's exactly 10 feet, then you can still Take 10... and risk failing if the DC was actually 11. The Take 10 rules don't say "you can only do this if there's no risk of failure."

QFT. Okay, more like QTMIHFCTI. That is, "quoted to make it harder for ciretose to ignore".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because I had a discussion with Jonathan Tweet in the Wizards of the Coast office, we measured out 5 feet, and I jumped it. Over and over again.

I reckon your answers to "what did you do at work today?" are much better than mine.

Silver Crusade

Basically, if a player asks you how far the distance is of a gap then you can say "Unless you have a tape measure you don't exactly know."

They can take a risk and try to take 10 but they may end of failing.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.

If I don't like it I can house rule.

I thought there was a gray area based on if the player could "know" the distance and if there was doubt and it was dangerous that would matter.

Sean is saying that the player would have no doubt.

So apparently I'm wrong.

Not the first time, not the last.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

shallowsoul wrote:

Basically, if a player asks you how far the distance is of a gap then you can say "Unless you have a tape measure you don't exactly know."

They can take a risk and try to take 10 but they may end of failing.

My concern was that it seemed meta that someone could "know" exactly what distance they would travel if they took 10 and therefore could go exactly that distance.

It appears that was intended to be taken into the calculus of taking 10.

Learn something new every day.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:

If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.

If I don't like it I can house rule.

I thought there was a gray area based on if the player could "know" the distance and if there was doubt and it was dangerous that would matter.

Sean is saying that the player would have no doubt.

So apparently I'm wrong.

Not the first time, not the last.

I don't see anywhere where it says that a PC is going to know the exact distance of something. I see that they can take 10 but I don't see where it gives them exact measurement decisions.

I think DM's have always accommodated player's with that information for free when they didn't have to.

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Armor, Equipment, and Encumbrance: How do You Play? 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.