Taking 10


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, because being in combat prevents take 10, but does not in and of itself force concentration checks to cast spells.


jimibones83 wrote:
Did we ever get clarification on what exactly constitutes as immediate danger?

The DM saying you're in immediate danger.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
Did we ever get clarification on what exactly constitutes as immediate danger?
The DM saying you're in immediate danger.

And often in danger that you are not aware of, but in danger so no take 10 for you.


bbangerter wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, because being in combat prevents take 10, but does not in and of itself force concentration checks to cast spells.

If it's not due to combat, but instead due to distraction. Wouldn't that same cause also force a concentration check?


jimibones83 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, because being in combat prevents take 10, but does not in and of itself force concentration checks to cast spells.
If it's not due to combat, but instead due to distraction. Wouldn't that same cause also force a concentration check?

If you're trying to scribe a spell in the middle of combat, sure.

Otherwise you're kind of equivocating between different types of distractions.


jimibones83 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, because being in combat prevents take 10, but does not in and of itself force concentration checks to cast spells.
If it's not due to combat, but instead due to distraction. Wouldn't that same cause also force a concentration check?

By the rules, still no. A concentration check to cast a spell is simply a different mechanic in the rules than what prevents a take 10.


I just read the rules again. I guess you're right, distractions don't necessarily force a concentration check. Violent whether does though. So in the original al case, there still should have been a concentration check for the same reason the rigger couldn't take 10, but not necessarily in other cases I guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just (re)read the whole thread. Here are some thoughts on what has been said.

1) Can't Take-10 while Rigging. This is an AP specific rule that overrides the normal rules. One of several.

2) Can't Take-10 in rough water. This is an explicit statement of the swim skill. Not a GM opinion.

3) Fear won't let you Take-10. Why? Fear of failure doesn't stop you, and the fear condition (shaken) imposes a penalty to the check. It does not disallow Take-10. The stronger fear conditions (panicked, etc.) disallow the check entirely.

4) The non-FAQ. What a waste of breath. It explicitly is NOT a FAQ/Errata, so explicitly cannot change anything.
<rant>
Instead of being an answer to how a game mechanic works (i.e. a FAQ) or changing how it works (i.e. Errata), it suggests a GM disallow the mechanic whenever the GM wants. Whatever happened to the player's option to use the mechanic?
</rant>

/cevah


^I couldnt find anywhere in the AP that said you couldn't take 10. I tried. I searched the document for several key words, but didn't find anything. I wish I would have lol. Would have saved me a headache.

Still, I spoke with the author, who said it was indeed his intent that the storm prevent taking 10. I based my thoughts off the fact that the storm didn't force concentration checks on casters, so it must not have been that bad of a storm. I was wrong, it should have imposed both ways.


When not in immediate danger.

a storm is immediate danger


BigNorseWolf wrote:

When not in immediate danger.

a storm is immediate danger

Since danger alone doesn't bar taking 10, the original question was the definition of immediate. Why would a storm be considered immediate danger instead of standard danger?

I've solved the problem without an answer though. Unfortunately, without a firm definition of immediate, it will come up again.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

"Immediate Danger" - whenever taking 20 would lead to unpleasant consequences.

If you don't have time to take your time, you are probably too stressed to give your calm, average effort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:

Since danger alone doesn't bar taking 10, the original question was the definition of immediate. Why would a storm be considered immediate danger instead of standard danger?

Because the storm is here. And now. And is trying to sink your ship. Now.

Whatever is happening now, is happening, now.

If then will be now soon that is also immediate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

"Immediate Danger" - whenever taking 20 would lead to unpleasant consequences.

If you don't have time to take your time, you are probably too stressed to give your calm, average effort.

This is not correct. Taking 20 to jump a 5' wide, 2000' deep chasm would be bad, as it assumes you will fail one or more times before successfully hitting 20 - regardless of how much time you have to attempt it. Taking 10 to jump that same 5' wide, 2000' chasm is easy (assuming you aren't in combat).

It isn't a matter of time available. It is a matter of a nebulously defined GM interpretation of what constitutes immediate danger.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most general rule/way to do:

When in initiative order, you may not take 10.

When not in initiative order, yoy may take 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM determines what constitutes being in danger means if the rules do not specify.

Sheesh, it's ok to give the GM a little power.


James Risner wrote:

The most general rule/way to do:

When in initiative order, you may not take 10.

When not in initiative order, yoy may take 10.

+1

Couldn't have said it better.


James Risner wrote:

The most general rule/way to do:

When in initiative order, you may not take 10.

When not in initiative order, yoy may take 10.

I'm not going to call for an init check if your ship is heading for the massive center of a whirlpool.

Unless someone starts saying they're not in IMMEDIATE Danger because they have 4 minutes before the ship is sucked down to their watery doom. Then i'm calling for initiative AND something with tentacles is going after him first.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

If at any moment you'd rather be off back at home and also on fire, you probably can't take 10.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

"Immediate Danger" - whenever taking 20 would lead to unpleasant consequences.

If you don't have time to take your time, you are probably too stressed to give your calm, average effort.

This is not correct. Taking 20 to jump a 5' wide, 2000' deep chasm would be bad, as it assumes you will fail one or more times before successfully hitting 20 - regardless of how much time you have to attempt it. Taking 10 to jump that same 5' wide, 2000' chasm is easy (assuming you aren't in combat).

It isn't a matter of time available. It is a matter of a nebulously defined GM interpretation of what constitutes immediate danger.

... It is a matter of time available. I didn't say anything about trying over and over again like a take 20. I was demonstrating what "immediate" might mean.


KingOfAnything wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

"Immediate Danger" - whenever taking 20 would lead to unpleasant consequences.

If you don't have time to take your time, you are probably too stressed to give your calm, average effort.

This is not correct. Taking 20 to jump a 5' wide, 2000' deep chasm would be bad, as it assumes you will fail one or more times before successfully hitting 20 - regardless of how much time you have to attempt it. Taking 10 to jump that same 5' wide, 2000' chasm is easy (assuming you aren't in combat).

It isn't a matter of time available. It is a matter of a nebulously defined GM interpretation of what constitutes immediate danger.

... It is a matter of time available. I didn't say anything about trying over and over again like a take 20. I was demonstrating what "immediate" might mean.

Yes you did, you referenced taking 20.


@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.


jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the dm says you can't, then you can't. Sorry. SKR's post died with the not an FAQ. You're walking a tightrope over lava. You're in immediate danger. Pray to the polyhedral gods!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

"Immediate Danger" - whenever taking 20 would lead to unpleasant consequences.

If you don't have time to take your time, you are probably too stressed to give your calm, average effort.

This is not correct. Taking 20 to jump a 5' wide, 2000' deep chasm would be bad, as it assumes you will fail one or more times before successfully hitting 20 - regardless of how much time you have to attempt it. Taking 10 to jump that same 5' wide, 2000' chasm is easy (assuming you aren't in combat).

It isn't a matter of time available. It is a matter of a nebulously defined GM interpretation of what constitutes immediate danger.

... It is a matter of time available. I didn't say anything about trying over and over again like a take 20. I was demonstrating what "immediate" might mean.
Yes you did, you referenced taking 20.

I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.


KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes


BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the dm says you can't, then you can't. Sorry. SKR's post died with the not an FAQ. You're walking a tightrope over lava. You're in immediate danger. Pray to the polyhedral gods!

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure I've read the developers themselves use it as an example of something you could indeed take 10 on. I'll post it after work if I can find it

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

I'm not saying that you take 20. I'm saying that if you have 2 hours to shoe a horse, you aren't in immediate danger.


KingOfAnything wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

I'm not saying that you take 20. I'm saying that if you have 2 hours to shoe a horse, you aren't in immediate danger.

But if goblins are going to kick down your door in an hour, you can't pull yourself together enough to consistently make a horseshoe?

This still seems really questionable. It is far too imprecise a guideline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


But if goblins are going to kick down your door in an hour, you can't pull yourself together enough to consistently make a horseshoe?

This still seems really questionable. It is far too imprecise a guideline.

It's a pretty accurate reflection of how people act under pressure. Even something as simple as starting a car is a problem if you have a masked lunatic with a machete coming for you.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowblind wrote:


But if goblins are going to kick down your door in an hour, you can't pull yourself together enough to consistently make a horseshoe?

This still seems really questionable. It is far too imprecise a guideline.

It's a pretty accurate reflection of how people act under pressure. Even something as simple as starting a car is a problem if you have a masked lunatic with a machete coming for you.

Sure, you could take 5 minutes to start the car (take 20), but taking all that time would have negative consequences (tornado approaching or something not "combat"). That's enough immediate danger to rule out taking 10, even though you could probably take (and fail) 2 or 3 checks without suffering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

I'm not saying that you take 20. I'm saying that if you have 2 hours to shoe a horse, you aren't in immediate danger.

But the horse could kick you at any moment, thus immediate danger/your distracted by watching the horse to avoid any potential kicks :P

The devs seem to want it as a "GM may I" ability, it's written more as a player's choice ability. If the GM thinks the chance of having you fall into lava when you make a 5ft jump would lead to tension, create drama, or make for a better story then take 10 is off according to the DEVs now. SKR said that the lava and chance of failure doesn't matter, if the player wants to take 10 for this task then the potential results of the task can't stop the take 10.


Chess pwn wrote:
, it's written more as a player's choice ability.

It isn't written that way. It's too short to infer that kind of meaning from it.

Quote:
ut the horse could kick you at any moment, thus immediate danger/your distracted by watching the horse to avoid any potential kicks :P

Angry horse would definitely qualify as a distraction/danger. Typical horse would not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

but I think the idea is if you could perform the task 20 times in a row and not be in danger from an outside force, then he'd allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the dm says you can't, then you can't. Sorry. SKR's post died with the not an FAQ. You're walking a tightrope over lava. You're in immediate danger. Pray to the polyhedral gods!

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure I've read the developers themselves use it as an example of something you could indeed take 10 on. I'll post it after work if I can find it

If you're on a tightrope walk some significant distance above lava such that it's not a threat any more than the ground would be, you should still be able to take 10. Now, if that lava were bubbling so fiercely that splats were reaching up to the level of the rope and it was in danger of being burned through and snapping any moment... then that really is immediate danger.

Liberty's Edge

jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the lava is burning the rope you can't, if it is 500' under you you can, for a normal person adding lava under a 500' fall don't increase the risk.

Ninjaed by Bill :)


I agree. I pretty much said the same thing in the opening post. My point to BigNorseWolf is that the now part isnt what matters, it's the fact that doing nothing causes harm.

But if that is indeed the definition of immediate danger, does a storm count? The result of harm is kind of up to chance more than whether or not one acts in such a case, or both. But harm is certainly not definite.


Bandw2 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

but I think the idea is if you could perform the task 20 times in a row and not be in danger from an outside force, then he'd allow it.

Saying you can take 10, if you can take 20 is fine. But I don't believe you could only take 10 in those same situations you could also take 20. There are times when take 10 would/should still be allowed, but take 20 would not.

For example, I know the guards will be back in 1 minute. Taking 20 to climb over the wall would take me 2 minutes. But taking 10 to climb over the wall is easily doable within less than 1 minute - e.g, if I just rolled 2-3 times I'd probably beat the 10 anyway without ever being seen by the guards.

So, option to take 20 means you could also just take 10. The option to not take 20 does not automatically exclude the option to take 10 though. They are not equivalent.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

looks in... nope, not even going to stick my nose in there. Been burned to many times... Totally not worth it.


jimibones83 wrote:


But if that is indeed the definition of immediate danger, does a storm count? The result of harm is kind of up to chance more than whether or not one acts in such a case, or both. But harm is certainly not definite.

This is a good place for GM discretion. Some rainstorms wouldn't be a distractions, more severe ones might be. The main thing I'd consider is the complication - storm, combat, other factor - needs to actively make the task difficult. It shouldn't just be a passive consequence of failure, like the ground under a cliff that would be encountered in a fall.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I did reference taking 20. As in, when taking the time to take 20 would be a bad idea. I did not suggest you should take 20, nor did I suggest that you should apply the other considerations of taking 20.

hmm... not sure i like that.

Lets say my blacksmithing score is such that I can shoe a horse, or if i roll a 1 mess up the horseshoe enough that i have to scrap it.

This is a situation where i SHOULD be able to take 10: I take it easy, i don't try to put in any fancy dodads on the horseshoe to "improve" it, i don't file off any more than i have to even if the horse might need it, and I get the job done.

But taking 20 would mean i'd ruin some horse shoes

but I think the idea is if you could perform the task 20 times in a row and not be in danger from an outside force, then he'd allow it.

Saying you can take 10, if you can take 20 is fine. But I don't believe you could only take 10 in those same situations you could also take 20. There are times when take 10 would/should still be allowed, but take 20 would not.

For example, I know the guards will be back in 1 minute. Taking 20 to climb over the wall would take me 2 minutes. But taking 10 to climb over the wall is easily doable within less than 1 minute - e.g, if I just rolled 2-3 times I'd probably beat the 10 anyway without ever being seen by the guards.

So, option to take 20 means you could also just take 10. The option to not take 20 does not automatically exclude the option to take 10 though. They are not equivalent.

You really missed my point.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

mmmm, you can't even take 20 on a climb check I think.

besides, 1 minute feels pretty immediate.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

mmmm, you can't even take 20 on a climb check I think.

besides, 1 minute feels pretty immediate.

You must fail by 5 to fall. If the DC is lower than 1+5+your clomb skill, you can.

But with that DC, taking 10 will work very fine.


N N 959 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
so you can't take 10 if the GM doesn't want you to. Even though take 10 seems to be a player option in the rulebook, it's actually a GM tool. So while it may be possible to take 10 on knowledge checks per the rules and FAQ, if the GM doesn't want you to, "because of tension or drama", you can't take 10 on them.

I think this response is a little misleading. Technically, the PDT did not issue a FAQ on Take 10 and explicitly declined to answer the questions of when and what prevents Take 10. Initially, many of us took this response as an actual change to the Take 10 rule, but it's not. The PDT did not change the Take 10 rule, they simply explained why they think the rule exists. None of that changes the written rules: You can Take 10 in the absence of immediate danger or distraction.

Take 10 has always been a tool of the GM because the GM decides the environment in which tasks occur. So if the GM wants to prevent Take 10, then they simply add some sort of distraction which prevents it. Where the PDT's non-FAQ and the rules bunch up is in PFS, where the GM can't arbitrarily modify the scenario. Given that the rules for Take 10 have not officially changed, players should be entitled to Take 10 if its clear from the scenario that there is nothing to prevent it per the rules.. In PFS, the GM still can't say you can't Take 10, "Because I said so..."

So to answer Jimi's question, the PDT is not going to tell us what constitutes a distraction or immediate danger because that is always up to the GM and the PDT doesn't want to take that away from the GM.

The GM being able to deny ____ because <insert condition> does not make it a tool of the GM. In that case everything is a tool of the GM, since the GM can negate any class feature, feat, and so on.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

The GM determines what constitutes being in danger means if the rules do not specify.

Sheesh, it's ok to give the GM a little power.

As a GM, who does more GM'ing than playing, I don't see how being more clear about the rules takes my power away.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess pwn wrote:
, it's written more as a player's choice ability.

It isn't written that way. It's too short to infer that kind of meaning from it.

Quote:
ut the horse could kick you at any moment, thus immediate danger/your distracted by watching the horse to avoid any potential kicks :P
Angry horse would definitely qualify as a distraction/danger. Typical horse would not.
PRD/CRB wrote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.


I most cases a storm would be pretty distracting if not dangerous. I wouldn't allow take 10 during a storm either. Can you concentrate during all that wind and pelting rain, all those cracks of lightning or peels of thunder? I think not, not even if you are safe inside. Every blast that rattles the windows would draw your immediate attention. It's human nature.

I would allow take 10 crossing above a lava pit. It's just sitting there being hot. No different than taking 10 on ANY climb check.


I can concentrate during a storm. Loud music doesn't bother me, and neither does the wind blowing against a window. I've changed batteries and tires when it was raining.

Lightning is potentially dangerous but your chances of being hit are actually very small.

Tornados with flying debris I can see as an actual problem.


wraithstrike wrote:

I can concentrate during a storm. Loud music doesn't bother me, and neither does the wind blowing against a window. I've changed batteries and tires when it was raining.

Unless your car was floating at the time it's not applicable here.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I can concentrate during a storm. Loud music doesn't bother me, and neither does the wind blowing against a window. I've changed batteries and tires when it was raining.

Unless your car was floating at the time it's not applicable here.

hey, maybe he didn't have a jack at the time.

101 to 150 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Taking 10 All Messageboards