As a DM, I ruled last night that perception checks for surprise had to be rolled, reasoning that surprise was a distraction.
The player said that taking 10 does not involve any intention, so he could take 10 even if he doesn't know he needs to be actively looking for something.
What do you guys think?
If you and I are standing on a street and I throw a ball to you, you try to catch it. Are you distracted by the ball?
No, of course not. The ball is the focus of your attention, not a distraction.
But when I throw that ball, if there are pretty girls (or muscled guys) in tiny swimsuits washing a car in the driveway next to us, are you distracted by them?
Definitely. The ball should be the focus of your attention but the girls take your attention away from what you should be focused on.
My point is, the thing you are trying to do is not your distraction. Other things that take your mind AWAY from what you're trying to do are the distraction.
Back to the OP, the surprise is NEVER the distraction. If you are rolling to perceive the dire tiger jumping out of the bushes, then that IS the focus of your attention. If there is something else that makes it hard for you to notice the leaping growling dire tiger, then you are distracted.
However, I don't think you can Take-10 here. Not because of the distraction, but because of the danger.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As a DM, I ruled last night that perception checks for surprise had to be rolled, reasoning that surprise was a distraction.
The player said that taking 10 does not involve any intention, so he could take 10 even if he doesn't know he needs to be actively looking for something.
What do you guys think?
Wait... so they were making a check that was going to determine whether or not they were surprised, yet surprise was going to affect how they could make the check?
I'm pretty sure that the thing a check is determining cannot be a distraction from that same check.
You can't take 10 on a reactive check. You can only take 10 on actions that you initiate, such as a perception search.As a DM, I ruled last night that perception checks for surprise had to be rolled, reasoning that surprise was a distraction.
The player said that taking 10 does not involve any intention, so he could take 10 even if he doesn't know he needs to be actively looking for something.
What do you guys think?
Where is that written?
Thanks for the input.
Seems like so many take 10s involve the PC putting in routine effort, like climbing or crafting. This involves the character knowing they are doing the activity, and using their level of skill to be on autopilot.
If you are walking down the street, not actively perceiving, can you take 10 on the perception check when someone jumps out at you?
Is there anything preventing you from taking 10 in a surprise round before your init?
If not, then I made a mistake in my ruling.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like so many take 10s involve the PC putting in routine effort, like climbing or crafting. This involves the character knowing they are doing the activity, and using their level of skill to be on autopilot.
When a character makes a Knowledge check, they're not even putting in effort; it's literally the players finding out whether or not the PC knows something. And yet, you can Take 10 on Knowledge checks.
If you are walking down the street, not actively perceiving, can you take 10 on the perception check when someone jumps out at you?
Not only can you do so, but actually makes more sense in-character than rolling, because when you're just walking down the street, you're in a constant state of just putting in average effort to knowing what's around you.
Is there anything preventing you from taking 10 in a surprise round before your init?
The rules say that threats or distractions (such as combat) prevent T10. Any time the character has no clue there's anything dangerous around, it would be hard to argue they're distracted. That said, just because someone hasn't acted yet in combat doesn't mean they've not yet become aware of combat, so the ability to T10 in the surprise round is unlikely.
However, the check to determine whether or not they're surprised in the first place happens BEFORE the surprise round; by definition, it's outside of combat.
If you are walking down the street, not actively perceiving, can you take 10 on the perception check when someone jumps out at you?
Are your eyes closed? Are your ears plugged? No? Then you get a Perception check. I think this is not in question.
Are you busy watching something ELSE that is captivating your attention so that you are actually distracted and might not notice the guy jumping out at you? Maybe there is a parade. Or maybe there is a sword fight across the street. Or maybe there is a dragon in the town square offering to roast marshmallows for the townsfolk. Whatever it is, if it is taking your focus away from your normal routine, then you are probably distracted.
Otherwise (which applies almost all the time unless you have a REASON that you're distracted, see above), you are NOT distracted.
Absolutely certainly positively the guy jumping out of the alley to attack you is not distracting you. If you're watching him, you clearly made your Perception check, and if you failed your Perception check then you don't even know he's there so how can he distract you?
Is there anything preventing you from taking 10 in a surprise round before your init?
Yes.
Here is the actual rule:
Taking 10
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
OK, assuming you're not distracted by something else, then you're not distracted at all.
But you are in danger. Immediate danger. This should be the reason to not use Take-10 here. "Threats make it impossible for a character to take 10." A guy jumping out of an alley to attack you is a threat; it's impossible to take-10.
As a DM, I ruled last night that perception checks for surprise had to be rolled, reasoning that surprise was a distraction.
[....]
What do you guys think?
Why are you hostile to the idea that a game should run smoothly and quickly?
That's all that the take 10 rules do; they reduce the number of unnecessary dice. If a player doesn't want to roll dice, then let him not roll dice.
|
Take 10 is generally used as a mechanic to simulate getting an average result for tasks in a non-oppressive environment (instead of rolling many rolls for every little detail of a task). Good examples where this works is crafting, searching a room, or climbing a wall.
The rules say that distractions or threats do not allow characters to Take 10. The reactionary nature of rolling a perception check to see if a character is surprises feels like it does not really fit into the Take 10 mechanic.
If this was my game, I would not allow Take 10. My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception Checks for surprise rounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception Checks
Your gut is uninformed, and is unskilled as an arbiter of rules. Better to ask your head. And your head, upon reading the rules, will discover that T10 is intended for EVERY skill unless a specific exception is given (such as UMD).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So the question is, does being ambushed count as "immediate danger"?
The rules are not making a bulleted list in which "in immediate danger" and "distracted" are separate, discreet, unrelated points. Rather, "in immediate danger or distracted" is a single phrase (using the syntax of a sentence, not a list) which, as a whole, is trying to describe a single notion of when you can't take 10.
Danger that you're not remotely aware of does not prohibit T10.
Practically speaking, I'd actually rather not have everyone Take 10 for surprise checks all the time. Not because I don't want the game to run smoothly and quickly, but because it means the same people are always going to be surprised - or not surprised depending on how you look at it.
Rather than it just tending to go that way due to better skills - the low perception PC will never be the one to spot the ambush. If he sees it, everyone else will too.
But that's his -- the player of the low perception PC's -- choice. When he gets tired of being the butt-monkey for every ambusher from Cheliax to Qadira, he may decide to roll for perception instead, so that he only probably misses everything.
SRD: 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
That describes perception checks to spot things perfectly.
Danger that you're not remotely aware of does not prohibit T10.
Think of what a marvelous early-warning system that would be. My high-Dexterity character starts juggling, taking 10 to do so. When he drops a ball, that means that he is no longer able to take 10, so he must be in danger.
Still listening. Thanks for all the input!
So, by that argument, you could Take 10 on reactive perception checks other than surprise round checks - to notice the guy sneaking towards your camp, but not openly attacking, for example.Taking 10When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.OK, assuming you're not distracted by something else, then you're not distracted at all.
But you are in danger. Immediate danger. This should be the reason to not use Take-10 here. "Threats make it impossible for a character to take 10." A guy jumping out of an alley to attack you is a threat; it's impossible to take-10.
Stealth checks specifically call out that they require an opposed perception check, so they would be a specific exception to the general rule.
Stealth checks specifically call out that they require an opposed perception check, so they would be a specific exception to the general rule.
Nothing in the phrase "opposed perception check" says anything about whether you can or cannot take 10 on that opposed perception check.
A lot of APs have a Tactics section for the NPCs and creatures the characters face. In many of them they list "Assume the guards are taking 10 on their Perception checks so the DC for Stealth checks to catch them unaware..." etc. or something similar.
If they can take a 10 on Perception to see if they are surprised or not, I don't see why a PC couldn't.
If a guard's job is guarding, he would be doing it on purpose, so that's what taking 10 is about.
If a PC is walking down a road, he might not be on guard when something jumps out at him.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If a guard's job is guarding, he would be doing it on purpose, so that's what taking 10 is about.
How did you come to that conclusion? Where did you find a connection between T10 and "on purpose"? Didn't I already point out that Knowledge checks, which are very clearly NOT something you "do on purpose", are still valid for T10?
If a PC is walking down a road, he might not be on guard when something jumps out at him.
Where do you get the idea that you have to be on guard to T10? Where did that thought originate?
If a guard's job is guarding, he would be doing it on purpose, so that's what taking 10 is about.
If a PC is walking down a road, he might not be on guard when something jumps out at him.
If your chosen career path is to constantly live in danger, slaughter hordes of monsters, destroy armies of scheming evil dudes, and make enemies at every moment - you better not be walking down the road without paying attention.
If a GM told me something happened while my PC wasn't paying attention, or wasn't on-guard, I would ask that GM if he's lost his mind - my character is deliberately living the most dangerous life on the entire planet and he knows it, he doesn't just walk down the road day-dreaming of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...
I am just saying that Canthin's example is of a guard doing guard duty.
A guard should be guarding, so that's taking 10.
If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.
I am just saying that Canthin's example is of a guard doing guard duty.
A guard should be guarding, so that's taking 10.
Not necessarily. Maybe he's actively looking around, scanning the area for trouble. That's not taking-10, that's rolling. He could be doing either one. It's up to him.
If you're going to deny a PC (or any other character/monster) the opportunity to use a rule, then support it. Don't just say "Well, you weren't paying enough attention." - that will be a problem.
Was there a legitimate distraction? Is the tavern across the street on fire? Then sure, don't let the PC take-10 when the bad guy jumps out of the alley. Is it danger? Obviously there is a difference of opinion even right here on this thread about whether being ambushed is dangerous or not, but if you think it is, then there's your support for denying the PC who wants to take-10.
But don't just arbitrarily rule that he can't follow a rule in the book because, well, just because so there. (I know you weren't doing that, but I disagree with your initial ruling that the surprise was distracting so he had to roll, not take-10, and suggest you find a better reason for denying the take-10 or you should allow it).
A guard should be guarding, so that's taking 10.According to what? Why do you believe this? What originally gave you the idea that T10 has anything at all to do with something you're deliberate about?
That is why I asked the question. I am not sure. The guard example is not mine. It just seems to me that take 10 is mostly for people doing a routine task, like a craft check or guard duty. It just means you are doing the job, but not exerting yourself, doing an average job.
A cop walking the beat for 8 hours would be taking 10 most of the time, seems to me. If his take 10 shows something, the cop might look again, and/or even take 20.
Think of what a marvelous early-warning system that would be. My high-Dexterity character starts juggling, taking 10 to do so. When he drops a ball, that means that he is no longer able to take 10, so he must be in danger.
Danger that you're not remotely aware of does not prohibit T10.Not really an early warning system. He drops the ball the same time he gets the reactive perception check for the surprise round. If he fails the check, by the time he realizes what the dropping ball means, the surprise round is over and he's rolling initiative for his first action.
More seriously - Take 10 is a metagame call. You can't base actions on whether you can do it or not without cheating.
Players act on game rules, which is by definition meta. Thus almost every decision metagaming, and hence cheating; according to your definition.
Deciding whether or no to provoke an AOO is meta.
Deciding to grapple the enemy wizard is meta on many levels.
Dropping an AOE spell on the perfect grid intersection is meta.
Deciding whether or not to use Stunning Fist on any given attack is meta.
Are all of these cheating?
If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.I am fond of the "Let the PCs roll" approach.
Though if the PCs are in the habit of relying on Take 10, I'd probably roll for the bad guys. :)
And by your own standards cheating. It doesn't get any more meta than that.
And by your own standards cheating. It doesn't get any more meta than that.If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.I am fond of the "Let the PCs roll" approach.
Though if the PCs are in the habit of relying on Take 10, I'd probably roll for the bad guys. :)
GM follows different rules :)
Nearly everything the GM does is metagaming.Big difference between that and having characters react to out of game information.
Not in this instance. This is having all the NPCs in the world react to out of game knowledge. It is exactly what you have described as cheating.
If the perception check is asked to be made in order to detect someone the character should be able to take 10. He is not in combat yet. That perception check happens before combat starts. It might even make combat not happen, if he can talk the other person down.
If the perception check is asked to be made in order to detect someone the character should be able to take 10. He is not in combat yet. That perception check happens before combat starts. It might even make combat not happen, if he can talk the other person down.Making the check on an ambush isn't a standard action, or a move, it's an immediate reactive check to determine if you act on the suprirse round, which is not a complete turn. Since you don't have a complete turn to do your check, you can't take 10 on it.
Where is the rule saying you need a complete turn to take 10? I am not being sarcastic/snarkish. I have only heard(and read) of taking 20 requiring a certain amount of time.