You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Hmmm
Well then our opinion is far too different to discuss the issue. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I did not know was an issue.
What about bluff in conversations? You aren't in immediate danger then either?
It's important that I understand just how far this interpretation goes.
What?
0 Base DC to notice a creature.
+40 for being invisible and not moving.
+stealth check.
So should be around 52 or so for a hypothetical wizard at level one casting from a scroll.
The listed rules:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
So we start at DC 20.
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
OK, let's pull out the relevant ones for our wizard:
"Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20"
Let's assume the wizard has no DEX. We'll give a variance on that roll to avoid silly take 10 arguments. Our DC is already 20+20+20+1-20 = DC 61-80, much higher than the 52 you have quoted even on a 1.
But wait! Before we continue, we should also take a look at the spell invisibility, in case it gives any unique bonuses. Turns out it does!
"If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
Because our creature is stationary, we get to add an additional +40 to our stealth check. This brings us up to a DC of 101-120, depending on what our wizard rolls.
Now, you may well argue that this additional +40 is already taken into account in the initial DC... this would be a fair thing to do and honestly I would rule it this way in home games. However, due to the poor wording throughout this whole section, the RAW doesn't actually support that interpretation: the condition 'invisibility' gives a penalty to perception checks, whilst the spell itself, an entirely separate entitity, gives you a bonus to stealth checks. They interact differently so unfortunately this text isn't just 'reminder text', although it is probably intended to be: the penalty to perception applies regardless of whether the invisible creature is trying to be stealthy, whilst the bonus to stealth only applies when the creature IS trying to be stealthy. For example, if you cast a spell or made a full attack whilst invisible and stationary, if a creature tried to pinpoint you, you could not apply the +40 bonus from the spell invisibility (because you aren't making a stealth check), but could apply -20 to their perception DC for being stationary .
This said, I would never take this interpretation in-game because it is clearly a product of poor wording and a failure to cross-check the two abilities. I doubt the devs intended the DCs to be that high. I absolutely encourage you to ignore either one or the other sets of modifiers entirely.
TLDR: the stealth and invisibility rules are inconsistent, broken and don't make a whole bunch of sense. They've been this way for a long time and Paizo has acknowledge the fact... but it's way to much work to fix so they aren't going to do it.
|
You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Hmmm
Well then our opinion is far too different to discuss the issue. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I did not know was an issue.
What about bluff in conversations? You aren't in immediate danger then either?
It's important that I understand just how far this interpretation goes.
Taking 10 on Bluff is likely doable, at certain times, but it is a grey area.
Taking 10 on Bluff is likely doable, at certain times, but it is a grey area.You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Hmmm
Well then our opinion is far too different to discuss the issue. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I did not know was an issue.
What about bluff in conversations? You aren't in immediate danger then either?
It's important that I understand just how far this interpretation goes.
Why is it a grey area? From what I understand of your interpretation it doesn't seem like anything is preventing you from taking 10.
I would certainly allow taking 10 on a bluff check. Of course, you could not take 10 on a bluff check to feint someone, because the text explicitly calls out the distraction of combat.
Taking 10 is there to prevent the variance of the D20 creating nonsense situations. Without it, any prolonged activity that requires multiple checks is practically impossible because eventually you'll roll a 1 and the enemy will roll a 20. Skills like stealth and bluff end up not really working as thematically intended if you don't take 10 because they often get called upon multiple times in a short period, which increases variance. Always rolling can produce nonsense results where, for example, sneaking past the alert, actively guarding goblin is easy (only one roll) but sneaking down a corridor past distracted, partying goblins is almost impossible (multiple rolls, higher chance of a 1 or 20 coming up to offset their penalties).
*edit*
It's worth pointing out that, in combat and other high stress situations, the whole POINT of the d20 is to create variance. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the DM to force a roll instead of a take 10 whenever the situation calls narratively for increased variance: such as a single, vitally important stealth or bluff check. A lot of SKR's posts actually suggest to me he thinks take 10 is supposed to work like this (IE in the realm of DM fiat) so individual interpretation really is where it's at.
|
|
Why is it a grey area? From what I understand of your interpretation it doesn't seem like anything is preventing you from taking 10.Taking 10 on Bluff is likely doable, at certain times, but it is a grey area.You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Hmmm
Well then our opinion is far too different to discuss the issue. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I did not know was an issue.
What about bluff in conversations? You aren't in immediate danger then either?
It's important that I understand just how far this interpretation goes.
Well, the "grey area" remark was more for your benefit.
Things like Feinting would not allow you to Take 10.
Why is it a grey area? From what I understand of your interpretation it doesn't seem like anything is preventing you from taking 10.Taking 10 on Bluff is likely doable, at certain times, but it is a grey area.You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Hmmm
Well then our opinion is far too different to discuss the issue. Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I did not know was an issue.
What about bluff in conversations? You aren't in immediate danger then either?
It's important that I understand just how far this interpretation goes.
Well, the "grey area" remark was more for your benefit.
Things like Feinting would not allow you to Take 10.
OK, but for telling a person a lie would not require a roll?
Does the person you are lying to have to roll their sense motive or can they take 10 too?
So like if someone tries to sneak past you, can you take 10 on the perception check too?
|
|
OK, but for telling a person a lie would not require a roll?
Does the person you are lying to have to roll their sense motive or can they take 10 too?
So like if someone tries to sneak past you, can you take 10 on the perception check too?
You say this, as everyone knows the DC.
Nobody knows if taking 10 is enough, or not. It's not a "free win".
Also, there is no "critical failure" on skill rolls. Rolling a 1, or 20, only the final result matters.
Basically, if the skill description has no "cannot take 10" caveat, then there must be a situation in which Taking 10 is possible.
If you cannot think of one, then you are likely misunderstanding the fundamental concept of "Taking 10".
OK, but for telling a person a lie would not require a roll?
Does the person you are lying to have to roll their sense motive or can they take 10 too?
So like if someone tries to sneak past you, can you take 10 on the perception check too?
You say this, as everyone knows the DC.
Nobody knows if taking 10 is enough, or not. It's not a "free win".
Also, there is no "critical failure" on skill rolls. Rolling a 1, or 20, only the final result matters.
Basically, if the skill description has no "cannot take 10" caveat, then there must be a situation in which Taking 10 is possible.
If you cannot think of one, then you are likely misunderstanding the fundamental concept of "Taking 10".
Could you please answer my questions directly or can I assume "Yes you can take 10" on all those examples.
EDIT: I'd rather understand your interpretation first before trying to understand the reasoning for it.
OK, but for telling a person a lie would not require a roll?
Does the person you are lying to have to roll their sense motive or can they take 10 too?
So like if someone tries to sneak past you, can you take 10 on the perception check too?
You say this, as everyone knows the DC.
Nobody knows if taking 10 is enough, or not. It's not a "free win".
Also, there is no "critical failure" on skill rolls. Rolling a 1, or 20, only the final result matters.
Basically, if the skill description has no "cannot take 10" caveat, then there must be a situation in which Taking 10 is possible.
If you cannot think of one, then you are likely misunderstanding the fundamental concept of "Taking 10".
Could you please answer my questions directly or can I assume "Yes you can take 10" on all those examples.
EDIT: I'd rather understand your interpretation first before trying to understand the reasoning for it.
Clearly I'm not bbt but yes you can take ten in all of those circumstances. Taking 10 is not taking 20. Taking 20 is trying over and over again until you get it right. Taking 10 is giving something your average effort.
Clearly I'm not bbt but yes you can take ten in all of those circumstances. Taking 10 is not taking 20. Taking 20 is trying over and over again until you get it right. Taking 10 is giving something your average effort.
Fascinating. So in such a game, a rogue without skill mastery could rob a bank without a single check being rolled by either him or the guards since everyone could just take 10.
I don't really like that mental picture so I will stick to my interpretation.
Clearly I'm not bbt but yes you can take ten in all of those circumstances. Taking 10 is not taking 20. Taking 20 is trying over and over again until you get it right. Taking 10 is giving something your average effort.Fascinating. So in such a game, a rogue without skill mastery could rob a bank without a single check being rolled by either him or the guards since everyone could just take 10.
I don't really like that mental picture so I will stick to my interpretation.
You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.
You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.
Personally, I think that variance is suppose to be in there and does a lot to balance the game.
This opinion you all share is fascinating, but I have never seen it before so I doubt that it is the majority opinion.
You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.Personally, I think that variance is suppose to be in there and does a lot to balance the game.
This opinion you all share is fascinating, but I have never seen it before so I doubt that it is the majority opinion.
But is the variance supposed to be there all the time? You don't think there should be a difference in doing something when you can focus or when you're distracted?
But is the variance supposed to be there all the time? You don't think there should be a difference in doing something when you can focus or when you're distracted?You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.Personally, I think that variance is suppose to be in there and does a lot to balance the game.
This opinion you all share is fascinating, but I have never seen it before so I doubt that it is the majority opinion.
I'm going to loosely apply the distracted condition.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.
For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
But is the variance supposed to be there all the time? You don't think there should be a difference in doing something when you can focus or when you're distracted?You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.Personally, I think that variance is suppose to be in there and does a lot to balance the game.
This opinion you all share is fascinating, but I have never seen it before so I doubt that it is the majority opinion.
I'm going to loosely apply the distracted condition.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.
For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
I'm not sure how a conversation you are having is distracting you from the conversation you are having and the guard isn't focused on you but should be focused on perceiving if his job is looking out for bank robbers.
I'm not sure how a conversation you are having is distracting you from the conversation you are having and the guard isn't focused on you but should be focused on perceiving if his job is looking out for bank robbers.But is the variance supposed to be there all the time? You don't think there should be a difference in doing something when you can focus or when you're distracted?You can run your games however you like but you should understand the huge level of variance you're putting in the game. Again taking 10 is average effort. Not so much as trying to succeed as trying not to mess up.Personally, I think that variance is suppose to be in there and does a lot to balance the game.
This opinion you all share is fascinating, but I have never seen it before so I doubt that it is the majority opinion.
I'm going to loosely apply the distracted condition.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.
For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
The lie isn't the only part of the conversation. Therefore distractions.
The guard isn't aware of you yet so they are not focusing on you. Also most guard are not that alert. All the possible hiding spots prevents being able to focus on just one because they distract from each other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, there is no guarantee that Taking 10 will grant you success.
So, the "Rogue" could rob a bank, or tell a lie, and Take 10 when trying to do all these things, but that does not grant automatic success.
If his modifiers are high enough, and the DCs low enough, it all may go off without a hitch.
In fact, if his modifiers are high enough, then rolling is meaningless, as rolling a 1 does not automatically mean failure.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
Your examples are becoming farcical. By this definition, name a single skill you could take 10 on. 'your surroundings' is so vague as to disallow any use of take 10. I know this is your point, but this is clearly not RAI.
If you don't like the take 10 rules you are under no obligation to use them - it's called 'houseruling'. You should keep in mind, however, that by removing the ability to take 10 you are increasing the amount of variance in skill challenges and thus reducing the power of PCs who rely on out-of-combat skill checks, such as the rogue. You may want to decrease the DC of checks you would reasonably expect them to make as a consequence.
Remember, there is no guarantee that Taking 10 will grant you success.
So, the "Rogue" could rob a bank, or tell a lie, and Take 10 when trying to do all these things, but that does not grant automatic success.
If his modifiers are high enough, and the DCs low enough, it all may go off without a hitch.
In fact, if his modifiers are high enough, then rolling is meaningless, as rolling a 1 does not automatically mean failure.
With rolls the possible spread is +19
Without rolls its +0
Considering all the rolls in the encounter and 1 failure is enough to ruin you, taking 10 is just the smarter option. Collectively the guards should roll for higher success, but individually one failure could ruin them too, so they would also take 10 if they are being RP'd.
These taking ten interpretations are a massive buff. Gratuitously so.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
Your examples are becoming farcical. By this definition, name a single skill you could take 10 on. 'your surroundings' is so vague as to disallow any use of take 10. I know this is your point, but this is clearly not RAI.
If you don't like the take 10 rules you are under no obligation to use them - it's called 'houseruling'. You should keep in mind, however, that by removing the ability to take 10 you are increasing the amount of variance in skill challenges and thus reducing the power of PCs who rely on out-of-combat skill checks, such as the rogue. You may want to decrease the DC of checks you would reasonably expect them to make as a consequence.
I disagree with your interpretation on both the RAW and RAI. Distraction and "immediate threat" are very broad terms.
I took this to my GM, and now he considers potential falling an immediate threat. Because taking 10 on trap disabling wasn't happening.
|
|
If there is no caveat in a skill description to disallow taking 10, then a situation in which Taking 10 is possible must exist.
Do you believe Taking 10 is an actual mechanic, that exists in the game, and can be used?
You can remove it, or alter it, in your game. You cannot declare that your houserules are how the rules are truly written though.
I disagree with your interpretation on both the RAW and RAI.
You are also disagreeing with SKR's interpretation. That's fine though.
More importantly, can you please name one skill you can take 10 on with your current interpretation, as I asked before?
With rolls the possible spread is +19Without rolls its +0
Yes, that's the exact point. If you are forced to roll everything, and the result is purely success/failure, your chances of failing any activity which involves multiple rolls is extremely high.
By your interpretation, A 15th level rogue with a DEX of 20 and a stealth of 18 (total 23) can not reliably infiltrate a bank stocked by level 2 commoners with a rank in perception (total 5).
I took this to my GM, and now he considers potential falling an immediate threat. Because taking 10 on trap disabling wasn't happening.
This is explicitly against the intent.
The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.
The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.
|
Having read (and then skipped) at lot of what has become a very tedious discussion, I am failing to see the point of arguing this subject at all.
The take 10 function exists. Period.
For reference, look in the crb, go to page 86, check the second column at the very top.
Acquiring Skills Taking 10 and Taking 20.
Taking 10 .......
Taking 20 .......
The rules have been quoted repeatedly. Obviously, there is some room for interpretation. But some things, like disabling a trap are known to be tasks which can be performed under no distraction. I would personally argue that bluff is probably the only skill I feel would make less sense taking 10 with and would only allow it where I felt it was appropriate. But I am looking at the rules and recognize that they allow for taking ten as written. It is my purview as dm to adjust things in my games. So I do. You can, too. If you dislike perceptiom or some other skill being usable with taking 10, disallow it. Nobody is stopping you.
Now that we have reestablished the rule (again) can we actually talk about something else like the subject? I am asking politely because the discussion was interesting until we spent a page + dragging this out. Maybe start another thread on the topic of Taking 10.
As to the actual topic, I dunno how I feel about invisibility. It's really good but at times I feel that it is too good, if only because non-casters could use some gap closers in areas of their expertise.
*edit* infested with typos which appeared only after hitting submit. Infestation terminated.
You are also disagreeing with SKR's interpretation.That's referred to as "a good start". :P
Just because the man had some controversial (IMO bad) ideas about design philosophy doesn't mean he didn't understand how the 3.X system worked mechanically. A lot of his mechanical insight was great --- it was his views on game balance that grinded gears, mine not least of all. Let's not bring this all up again in this thread and derail things even further though.
As for invisibility: I don't think there's much more to say on the topic. Similar to Fly, it's a very strong spell that DMs and players need to consider when constructing any encounter past 3rd/5th level. Yes, it makes rogues cry. So does everything else.
I am baffled so many people here hate the people who made this game.
I am baffled so many people here hate the people who made this game.
To be fair, Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams made the game. IIRC SKR was an original playtester, and of course later adapted it into Pathfinder.
I disagree with your interpretation on both the RAW and RAI.You are also disagreeing with SKR's interpretation. That's fine though.
More importantly, can you please name one skill you can take 10 on with your current interpretation, as I asked before?
Thankfully I don't have to agree with SKR anymore. I don't see how his reasoning appeals to the RAW and I disagree with his appeal to RAI on this matter.
I think my GM takes "immediate danger" too far. I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat. I don't consider "falling" to be immediately dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end that is dangerous.
You could take 10 to disable a lock, search a room as a move action, check for traps.
Bluff, stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate? No I don't see situations where they qualify.
If there is no caveat in a skill description to disallow taking 10, then a situation in which Taking 10 is possible must exist.
This does not follow. The general rules are allowed to limit a skill or ability.
UMD is special, because it could be used to take 10 without the caveat and that was against the intent. If other skill are prevented from taking 10 without a caveat, then there is no need for one.
You can Take 10 with Disable Device.
Sometimes me do that six times before breakfast.
Really need new kitchen cabinets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am baffled so many people here hate the people who made this game.
This is not actually new. Observe the 3.5 community for awhile; note that despite playing the game (sometimes constantly), there is absolutely no faith that WotC's design team knew what they were doing or, indeed, were not secretly pot-smoking chimps slamming their faces against various keyboards.
Likewise, Pathfinder has plenty of players who enjoy the game, or consider it a 'close-enough' setup, or who cannot play another game, who also don't have faith in Paizo's mechanical knowledge or ability to balance their own game. That's not the same as 'hate'. I might not feel that, for example, Mr. Buhlman is particularly great at what he does, but I respect him as a person/professional. We have disagreements about the game. When people have disagreements they tend to express them, especially online.
Here we have a topic in which disagreements with the designers have been ongoing for some time, in a community that is very passionate about those disagreements. They're going to be expressed, well, passionately.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am baffled so many people here hate the people who made this game.
I don't hate him. I don't know him well enough to like him or to hate him.
However, I disagree with the majority of game ruling I've seen him post about. Also, as stated above, he also didn't make the game. He helped in the general tweaking of 3.5 that became Pathfinder.
I also think that he came across as fairly abrasive at times on the message boards...much more so than you would expect from the employee of a company that's trying to sell you stuff.
Thankfully I don't have to agree with SKR anymore.
I'm pretty sure you were allowed to disagree with him even when he was working for Paizo.
Thankfully I don't have to agree with SKR anymore.I'm pretty sure you were allowed to disagree with him even when he was working for Paizo.
Not if it was a rule question. If we are talking about the PF general rules*, there is no arguing with a rules dev.
Since his post no longer have any indication that they were done by a rules dev, I don't treat them as such.
*No one plays general pathfinder. The actual rules are whatever the GM says. There is no arguing with the GM about the actual rules, not even a rules dev can override a GM, since the rules dev is only an authority on the pathfinder general rules.
OK, let's pull out the relevant ones for our wizard:
"Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20"Let's assume the wizard has no DEX. We'll give a variance on that roll to avoid silly take 10 arguments. Our DC is already 20+20+20+1-20 = DC 61-80, much higher than the 52 you have quoted even on a 1.
But wait! Before we continue, we should also take a look at the spell invisibility, in case it gives any unique bonuses. Turns out it does!
"If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
Because our creature is stationary, we get to add an additional +40 to our stealth check. This brings us up to a DC of 101-120, depending on what our wizard rolls.
You are double stacking these bonuses, the spell already takes those numbers into consideration on the description (as to not make you flip a thousand pages looking for it).
Unless a developer inserts the contents of his ruling into a FAQ, they aren't RAW. Forum posts are not FAQs.
JJ clarifies he is not making official rule claims.
SKR didn't do that. He said things as a rules dev. There would even be errata after posts by SKR to make the rules better conform to what he said.
Like dex denied and flat footed not being the same thing (which is dumb).
The invisibility perception DC is calculated as follows:
Invisible: DC 20
Using Stealth: + Stealth check (and there is no reason to not use stealth, unless he wants to move faster than full speed, otherwise always roll stealth)
Not moving: +20
Behind a door: +5
Behind a wall: +15
Moving at half speed: -5 (and loses "not moving")
Moving at full speed: -10 (and loses "not moving")
Distance: +1 per 10 feet
In combat or speaking: -20 (most likely applied when casting vocal spells aswell).
And a GM might remove that +20 if he makes a 5-foot step if he so wishes (i would).
So an invisible wizard summoning a creature would have:
Base 20, +20 not moving, -20 speaking (not silent spell);
DC 20 Perception check;
Plus stealth if he is using it, plus 1 per 10 feet away from you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am baffled so many people here hate the people who made this game.This is not actually new. Observe the 3.5 community for awhile; note that despite playing the game (sometimes constantly), there is absolutely no faith that WotC's design team knew what they were doing or, indeed, were not secretly pot-smoking chimps slamming their faces against various keyboards.
Likewise, Pathfinder has plenty of players who enjoy the game, or consider it a 'close-enough' setup, or who cannot play another game, who also don't have faith in Paizo's mechanical knowledge or ability to balance their own game. That's not the same as 'hate'. I might not feel that, for example, Mr. Buhlman is particularly great at what he does, but I respect him as a person/professional. We have disagreements about the game. When people have disagreements they tend to express them, especially online.
Here we have a topic in which disagreements with the designers have been ongoing for some time, in a community that is very passionate about those disagreements. They're going to be expressed, well, passionately.
This is a point that seems to get lost very frequently. People can disagree with the developers without it being a matter of personal hatred. I would imagine most of the community still respects the devs on a personal level, even if they sometimes vehemently disagree with how they run the game and handle rules issues.
Do I like the Crane Wing ruling? Hell no. Does that mean I think the Paizo Devs are bad people? Also no. I just think they dropped the ball on that issue. They're only human, they can make mistakes.
I think my GM takes "immediate danger" too far. I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat. I don't consider "falling" to be immediately dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end that is dangerous.You could take 10 to disable a lock, search a room as a move action, check for traps.
Bluff, stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate? No I don't see situations where they qualify.
???
If falling isn't immediately dangerous (it's the stop at the end), then why is bluff or stealth immediately dangerous? It isn't failing that's immediately dangerous, it's the creature's reaction to the failure - which is considerably more variable than the end result of falling (and landing hard).
I just don't understand the logic of your position.
I think my GM takes "immediate danger" too far. I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat. I don't consider "falling" to be immediately dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end that is dangerous.You could take 10 to disable a lock, search a room as a move action, check for traps.
Bluff, stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate? No I don't see situations where they qualify.
???
If falling isn't immediately dangerous (it's the stop at the end), then why is bluff or stealth immediately dangerous? It isn't failing that's immediately dangerous, it's the creature's reaction to the failure - which is considerably more variable than the end result of falling (and landing hard).
I just don't understand the logic of your position.
Those other two come with distractions.
I'm not too sure about climb and acrobatics. I know that taking 10 on bluff is wrong. Having both sides of an opposed check take 10 is also wrong.
I can get a level 1 char to make the DC 20 (never failing by 5 or more), I have a theory that the upper limits of realistic feats should be doable at level one. I am undecided if the DC 25 is something people can do without fail.
You are double stacking these bonuses, the spell already takes those numbers into consideration on the description (as to not make you flip a thousand pages looking for it).OK, let's pull out the relevant ones for our wizard:
"Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20"Let's assume the wizard has no DEX. We'll give a variance on that roll to avoid silly take 10 arguments. Our DC is already 20+20+20+1-20 = DC 61-80, much higher than the 52 you have quoted even on a 1.
But wait! Before we continue, we should also take a look at the spell invisibility, in case it gives any unique bonuses. Turns out it does!
"If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
Because our creature is stationary, we get to add an additional +40 to our stealth check. This brings us up to a DC of 101-120, depending on what our wizard rolls.
That is almost certainly the intention, but the two do not give the same bonus. There is a fundamental difference between an increased skill and a DC penalty. Did you even read the rest of my post?
You've also miscalculated the DC from the wizard below even following your logic: if he does use stealth, he gets an additional 20 + the check, so the DC is on average 50. Still basically unachievable: assuming WIS of 20 and perception as a class skill, a PC stands no chance of even knowing the wizard is there until he reaches level 20 (although more realistically, whenever he gets see invisibility at will).