10 on Knowledge check, allowed. How do you guys rule this on your tables?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t8o

Just checked this. I can take 10 unless I'm not threatened.

Let's say I scout and I'm seeing the enemy. As long as I'm not actively engaged in combat I can take 10, right?

This would make scouting even more important, allowing me (as wizard) to know even more about the enemy!


Yes, this has been discussed before. You can take 10 on almost all ability checks (not UMD) outside of combat.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, this has been discussed before. You can take 10 on almost all ability checks (not UMD) outside of combat.

Thanks, that is awesome!


_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, this has been discussed before. You can take 10 on almost all ability checks (not UMD) outside of combat.

Assuming your not otherwise distracted. This is the other restriction. Now what constitutes distraction is mostly in your GM's hands so check with them prior to T10.


My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.
1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GinoA wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.

1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.

Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Keep in mind that taking 10 on a Knowledge check is not a guarantee for success.


Actually, with Knowledge checks, higher numbers mean better results. If all you want is to know what it is, a low result is usually adequate so taking 10 makes sense. But if you also want details about its abilities and weaknesses (etc.) then you need a high result. Taking-10 gives you a (barely) below average result, so statistically, rolling is better when you need those high results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If lots of people in your party have knowledge skills, then everyone rolling is better than everyone taking 10.

If one person has high modifiers (> +10) they are often better off taking 10 to definitively get monster details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've also had the scout report back to the party and say, "It's a x" and the skill monkeys then roll (sometimes with a bonus, depends on the GM) to go "I know the following about x." None of that helps you if the scout was wrong.


_Ozy_ wrote:
GinoA wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.

1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.

Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

Actually the Dev pretty much said T10 is completely in the hands of your GM on when you can or cannot do it. And since they didn't FAQ it to say that, it means it is in fact written ambiguously in the rules on purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
GinoA wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.

1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.

Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

Actually the Dev pretty much said T10 is completely in the hands of your GM on when you can or cannot do it. And since they didn't FAQ it to say that, it means it is in fact written ambiguously in the rules on purpose.

Have a PDT quote

PDT wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

Actually, it's both supported by the rules and by reality. The developers' quote has already been provided, so I needn't enlarge upon that.

To demonstrate the reality aspect, pick a reasonably-but-not-too-difficult physical task that you can do (I'd suggest juggling, if you can juggle), and then try to juggle while someone is asking you to do two-digit subtraction problems. You'll find you make more errors at both the juggling (more dropped balls) and at the subtraction (more wrong answers) than you would with either task alone.

A smart climber will pause his climb rather than scramble for handholds while looking at the details of a bird's plumage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
A smart climber will pause his climb rather than scramble for handholds while looking at the details of a bird's plumage.

Exactly, and since you're not in initiative pausing for a second during your climb to identify a bird is a non-issues and makes perfect sense to allow taking 10 for both.


One quick point about disallowing because characters are in initiative: this should not apply to characters that are unaware that they are in initiative. If you're not aware of combat, you shouldn't be distracted by it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
One quick point about disallowing because characters are in initiative: this should not apply to characters that are unaware that they are in initiative. If you're not aware of combat, you shouldn't be distracted by it.

Unless it could lead to tension or drama...

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Jodokai wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
A smart climber will pause his climb rather than scramble for handholds while looking at the details of a bird's plumage.
Exactly, and since you're not in initiative pausing for a second during your climb to identify a bird is a non-issues and makes perfect sense to allow taking 10 for both.

If pausing is an option. Just because you're not in initiative doesn't mean you're not under some other time pressure. Maybe you're in a race. Maybe you're doing a climbing demonstration as part of a theatrical performance. Maybe for whatever reason it's important to keep moving.


DM_Blake wrote:
Actually, with Knowledge checks, higher numbers mean better results. If all you want is to know what it is, a low result is usually adequate so taking 10 makes sense. But if you also want details about its abilities and weaknesses (etc.) then you need a high result. Taking-10 gives you a (barely) below average result, so statistically, rolling is better when you need those high results.

If 3 or more party members have the knowledge the statistically better option is the highest to take 10 and the others aid other taking 10 also.


John Whyte wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Actually, with Knowledge checks, higher numbers mean better results. If all you want is to know what it is, a low result is usually adequate so taking 10 makes sense. But if you also want details about its abilities and weaknesses (etc.) then you need a high result. Taking-10 gives you a (barely) below average result, so statistically, rolling is better when you need those high results.
If 3 or more party members have the knowledge the statistically better option is the highest to take 10 and the others aid other taking 10 also.

You can't take ten on an an aid another check. That's explicitly forbidden by rule.

(It's also not clear that "statistically better" is actually useful here. The difference between making the target number exactly and beating the target number by 4, for example, results in no new information, as you only get additional facts for every five points. So the difference between a guaranteed 10 or a guaranteed 12 is likely to to be less valuable than the difference between a guaranteed 10 and a possible 15+ on the die.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
GinoA wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.

1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.

Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

Actually the Dev pretty much said T10 is completely in the hands of your GM on when you can or cannot do it. And since they didn't FAQ it to say that, it means it is in fact written ambiguously in the rules on purpose.

Have a PDT quote

PDT wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

FAQs that specifically contradict the rules should be summarily ignored. This is one of them. GMs are never 'forced' to do anything, so that was a complete strawman. The core rules offer pretty specific guidelines for when take 10 is permitted. The FAQ (or really no FAQ required response) says otherwise, which means it's not really a FAQ at all.

Forcing you to make a roll to tie a knot in your belt rope because the GM thinks it would 'add tension' if your pants fell down during the coronation ceremony is asinine, and yet 100 percent supported by that 'no FAQ required' response.


_Ozy_ wrote:


...

FAQs that specifically contradict the rules should be summarily ignored. This is one of them...

I can't disagree more. Paizo uses the FAQ mechanic to change the rules all the time. Two notable things that spring to mind - SLAs qualifying for prestige classes and unbreaking the sound striker bard archetype. Both made very clear changes to the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then they aren't FAQs, they are erratas regardless of how they are labelled. Furthermore, this isn't even a 'FAQ' ruling, it was a 'no FAQ required' ruling which, outside of the ever-present rule 0 ability, again contradicts the rules.

It was a bad ruling, and the reason it should be ignored is because it leads to contrived situations where routine actions are suddenly difficult because the GM thinks they should be.

It breaks verisimilitude more than just about any other ruling I've seen them make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

Then they aren't FAQs, they are erratas regardless of how they are labelled. Furthermore, this isn't even a 'FAQ' ruling, it was a 'no FAQ required' ruling which, outside of the ever-present rule 0 ability, again contradicts the rules.

It was a bad ruling, and the reason it should be ignored is because it leads to contrived situations where routine actions are suddenly difficult because the GM thinks they should be.

It breaks verisimilitude more than just about any other ruling I've seen them make.

I disagree with a lot of what you said for a number of reasons. However, I should note that most (if not all) of the disagreements you are going to get in this thread will be about the definition of FAQs used by Paizo, the position of FAQs as actual rules that supersede printed rules when contradictory, the relevance of PDT commentary when interpreting rules and the irrelevance of house-ruling when considering flaws in the ruleset.

You aren't going to find many people disagreeing that the stated position of the PDT is rather bizarre and stupid.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
If pausing is an option. Just because you're not in initiative doesn't mean you're not under some other time pressure. Maybe you're in a race. Maybe you're doing a climbing demonstration as part of a theatrical performance. Maybe for whatever reason it's important to keep moving.

Which would mean you're distracted, and can't take 10 anyway.


Jodokai wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If pausing is an option. Just because you're not in initiative doesn't mean you're not under some other time pressure. Maybe you're in a race. Maybe you're doing a climbing demonstration as part of a theatrical performance. Maybe for whatever reason it's important to keep moving.
Which would mean you're distracted, and can't take 10 anyway.

Er, yes. That's the point, If you have to climb and bird-watch at the same time, you're distracted. If you have to climb and you have to bird-watch, but you can pause climbing to watch the birds, then you should be able to take 10.

Which gets back to the rule-of-thumb proposed earlier.

GinoA wrote:


My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.
1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

The basic problem is that "distraction" is so maddeningly vague and ill-defined, it might as well be no rule at all, and it causes a lot of table variation and outright arguments. If you as a GM simply tell me "no, you can't take 10 because `you're distracted,'" that adds more heat than light.

GinoA's formulation, on the other hand, makes it clear that a) it needs to be sufficiently complex to be covered by a roll, and b) you aren't distracted by the task you're trying to accomplish in the first place, so taking 10 as a safety measure while walking a tightrope is still permitted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
The core rules offer pretty specific guidelines for when take 10 is permitted.

"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.... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

Are these the guidelines you're talking about? 'Danger', 'distraction', and 'threat' are all undefined, making these guidelines pretty nonspecific. If a GM wants to rule that trying to identify a bird without slowing down your climb is distracting, I don't see anything RAW that contradicts that.

_Ozy_ wrote:
FAQs that specifically contradict the rules should be summarily ignored. This is one of them.

Since that was a 'No FAQ required' rather than an FAQ I think ignoring it is OK.

Sczarni

As a GM, I tend to remind players often that they can take 10 on given skill check and sometimes I simply shrug away with low DCs assuming that player can take 10 and pass the check automatically. It speeds up the game well enough and I use the take 10 rule as a GM myself on typical NPC Bluff or Sense Motive checks for example.

Take 10 on Knowledge checks isn't much different in reality. I used to be afraid before like other GMs out there that take 10 would negate a lot of challenges and make it unrealistic to auto-pass them, but after sensing as a player myself, failure, failure and more failure on typical small DC check which didn't matter (they weren't done in combat), I started to notice why take 10 exists. It makes climbers better, it makes acrobats better, it makes smooth-talkers better and it even makes knowledgeable wizards better. If your GM allows take 10 on Knowledge checks, it might disperse a sense of mystery, but it will make knowledgeable character a lot more fun to play.

Adam


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:

As a GM, I tend to remind players often that they can take 10 on given skill check and sometimes I simply shrug away with low DCs assuming that player can take 10 and pass the check automatically. It speeds up the game well enough and I use the take 10 rule as a GM myself on typical NPC Bluff or Sense Motive checks for example.

Take 10 on Knowledge checks isn't much different in reality. I used to be afraid before like other GMs out there that take 10 would negate a lot of challenges and make it unrealistic to auto-pass them, but after sensing as a player myself, failure, failure and more failure on typical small DC check which didn't matter (they weren't done in combat), I started to notice why take 10 exists. It makes climbers better, it makes acrobats better, it makes smooth-talkers better and it even makes knowledgeable wizards better. If your GM allows take 10 on Knowledge checks, it might disperse a sense of mystery, but it will make knowledgeable character a lot more fun to play.

Adam

I think that if a GM relies on failed knowledge checks to maintain a sense of mystery then that GM seriously needs to reevaluate how they are running a campaign.


So...

PRD wrote:
Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally...

Question: If all PCs are allowed to take 10 on Knowledge checks, then why is this ability listed as "special" for bards?

In short, we have always ruled that you cannot take 10 on Knowledge checks because otherwise that verbiage about bards wouldn't be necessary.

I have to admit, I was rather surprised when I checked the rules on taking 10 and knowledge skills and found nothing to support this. So either you nerf the bard by allowing everyone to take 10, or you let a bard's (Ex) supersede precedent. Neither way is appealing, but seems like a GM call.

EDIT: Interestingly, I searched the PRD for "Take 10" and "Knowledge" and there are several references to taking 10 on Knowledge checks that specifically imply the opposite: The mythic Archmage's Flash of Omniscience (Ex) is a good example: It's a mythic ability targeted at arcane casters that mentions taking 10. Research a Spell is another excellent one because it specifically states, "You can't take 10 here", implying you can take it elsewhere. With this additional evidence, I'd have to say, "Anyone can do it, and the bard gets a nerf."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

So...

PRD wrote:
Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally...

Question: If all PCs are allowed to take 10 on Knowledge checks, then why is this ability listed as "special" for bards?

In short, we have always ruled that you cannot take 10 on Knowledge checks because otherwise that verbiage about bards wouldn't be necessary.

I have to admit, I was rather surprised when I checked the rules on taking 10 and knowledge skills and found nothing to support this. So either you nerf the bard by allowing everyone to take 10, or you let a bard's (Ex) supersede precedent. Neither way is appealing, but seems like a GM call.

EDIT: Interestingly, I searched the PRD for "Take 10" and "Knowledge" and there are several references to taking 10 on Knowledge checks that specifically imply the opposite: The mythic Archmage's Flash of Omniscience (Ex) is the best example: It's a mythic ability targeted at arcane casters that mentions taking 10. With this additional evidence, I'd have to say, "Anyone can do it, and the bard gets a nerf."

BAM, FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Lore Master Bard Ability and Taking 10: Can I take 10 on Knowledge checks? The Knowledge skill doesn’t say I can’t, but if that's true, the first half of the lore master bard ability doesn’t do anything.

Yes, you can. The lore master bard ability should add to the end of that first sentence “even when threatened or distracted.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

BAM, FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Lore Master Bard Ability and Taking 10: Can I take 10 on Knowledge checks? The Knowledge skill doesn’t say I can’t, but if that's true, the first half of the lore master bard ability doesn’t do anything.

Yes, you can. The lore master bard ability should add to the end of that first sentence “even when threatened or distracted.”

Curse you, unsearchable FAQ!!!!! (Or at least the fact that FAQ results don't show up in PRD searches.)

Thank you, Snowblind, for the quick correction. Now things make sense...

Sczarni

@Snowblind

That's a pretty brave sentence, but a lot of GMs love mysterious monsters and tend to refluff their appearance to prevent metagaming. A lot of older D&D and Pathfinder gamers know immediately what nasty things monster carries simply by name of the monster, so it becomes both hard not to metagame for players and for GM to keep coming up with new interesting challenges.

The Exchange

For my home games, luckily my players are relaxed and don't know all the monsters and what they can do. It means even after years I can still surprise them.

For games on these boards or with players who show an uncanny knock for knowing exactly what they're fighting and how to defeat it, then I believe reskinning may be useful.

Another thing you can do to make skill checks more relevant is be deliberately vague in descriptions.

Instead of saying it's a blue dragon, just describe it as some great flying beast, swooping in from the sun.

The same with humanoid monsters, don't go all out on a description, just mention a humanoid creature swings a rusty axe at your head, its breath reeking of rotten meat.

This can make skills so much more valuable to invest in if that's an issue at the tables.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
John Whyte wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Actually, with Knowledge checks, higher numbers mean better results. If all you want is to know what it is, a low result is usually adequate so taking 10 makes sense. But if you also want details about its abilities and weaknesses (etc.) then you need a high result. Taking-10 gives you a (barely) below average result, so statistically, rolling is better when you need those high results.
If 3 or more party members have the knowledge the statistically better option is the highest to take 10 and the others aid other taking 10 also.

You can't take ten on an an aid another check. That's explicitly forbidden by rule.

(It's also not clear that "statistically better" is actually useful here. The difference between making the target number exactly and beating the target number by 4, for example, results in no new information, as you only get additional facts for every five points. So the difference between a guaranteed 10 or a guaranteed 12 is likely to to be less valuable than the difference between a guaranteed 10 and a possible 15+ on the die.)

What rule disallows Aid Another on knowledge checks?


thorin001 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
John Whyte wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Actually, with Knowledge checks, higher numbers mean better results. If all you want is to know what it is, a low result is usually adequate so taking 10 makes sense. But if you also want details about its abilities and weaknesses (etc.) then you need a high result. Taking-10 gives you a (barely) below average result, so statistically, rolling is better when you need those high results.
If 3 or more party members have the knowledge the statistically better option is the highest to take 10 and the others aid other taking 10 also.

You can't take ten on an an aid another check. That's explicitly forbidden by rule.

(It's also not clear that "statistically better" is actually useful here. The difference between making the target number exactly and beating the target number by 4, for example, results in no new information, as you only get additional facts for every five points. So the difference between a guaranteed 10 or a guaranteed 12 is likely to to be less valuable than the difference between a guaranteed 10 and a possible 15+ on the die.)

What rule disallows Aid Another on knowledge checks?

You can Aid on Knowledge checks. You can't Take 10 on Aid Another.

Grand Lodge

Letric wrote:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t8o

Just checked this. I can take 10 unless I'm not threatened.

Let's say I scout and I'm seeing the enemy. As long as I'm not actively engaged in combat I can take 10, right?

This would make scouting even more important, allowing me (as wizard) to know even more about the enemy!

LOL. To answer your question again, yes, you can take 10 on most knowledge checks, as long as you are not distracted (e.g. engaged in combat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:

@Snowblind

That's a pretty brave sentence, but a lot of GMs love mysterious monsters and tend to refluff their appearance to prevent metagaming. A lot of older D&D and Pathfinder gamers know immediately what nasty things monster carries simply by name of the monster, so it becomes both hard not to metagame for players and for GM to keep coming up with new interesting challenges.

Great, refluff your monsters. Make them completely different and keep your players on their toes. Good stuff.

But if a bard/inquisitor with maxed monster knowledge skills who will ID something around 50% of monsters with DC20+CR checks that are level appropriate(i.e. incredibly rare things) is enough to destroy the mystery you have created, then I maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are attempting to create mystery.

Liberty's Edge

_Ozy_ wrote:
GinoA wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is there are two things that preclude taking 10.

1: being in initiative
2: doing something that requires a roll and is unrelated to the check in-question

Climbing a rope. Take 10 on the climb check.

Climbing a rope while simultaneously trying to identify the bird flying nearby. You can't take 10 on either.

Of course, special abilities/feats/... may change this.

Seriously? You rule that simple, non-actions like perception and knowledge checks are 'distracting' enough that climbers are going to drop like flies?

That is waaaay not supported by the rules.

I would allow the character to take 10 in one of the 2 unrelated activities.

And yes, in RL, if you get distracted while climbing following a bird with your eyes and trying to identify it you could kill yourself.

And it is waaaay supported by the rules as "distraction" isn't strictly defined.

PDT wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

Totally a GM choice what is a distraction.

Liberty's Edge

Jodokai wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If pausing is an option. Just because you're not in initiative doesn't mean you're not under some other time pressure. Maybe you're in a race. Maybe you're doing a climbing demonstration as part of a theatrical performance. Maybe for whatever reason it's important to keep moving.
Which would mean you're distracted, and can't take 10 anyway.

"You should do it in X time" isn't a distraction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If pausing is an option. Just because you're not in initiative doesn't mean you're not under some other time pressure. Maybe you're in a race. Maybe you're doing a climbing demonstration as part of a theatrical performance. Maybe for whatever reason it's important to keep moving.
Which would mean you're distracted, and can't take 10 anyway.

"You should do it in X time" isn't a distraction.

Doing things under a deadline is often a distraction. Just watch all those people make simple mistakes on gameshows. Pressure really is a distraction.

Of course having an hour to do something that normally takes five minutes is hardly pressure.


The standard mechanic for 'rushing' in pathfinder is an increase of the DC.

Liberty's Edge

A very short deadline is a distraction if the skill is something in which taking 10 don't guarantee the success.

When I did my typewriting test I was using a typewriter every day at work. Typing 200 words in 2 minutes with few mistakes was something that I could do with ease. So, even if the test had a short deadline it was easy to "take 10".

A deadline, alone, isn't a problem. A deadline where the time is barely enough can be.

@Ozy: there isn't a "standard mechanic for 'rushing' in pathfinder". There is a mechanic to make some specific activity at a higher speed, but that isn't a general rule.


Diego Rossi wrote:

A very short deadline is a distraction if the skill is something in which taking 10 don't guarantee the success.

I'd say it's a little more subtle than that. A deadline is a distraction if it's a short enough deadline that it influences your thinking. Indeed, simple performance anxiety can be a distraction -- just knowing that someone is judging your performance can cause you to make mistakes you wouldn't otherwise do.

As a simple (real-world) example, a group of researchers measured the heart rate of musical performers alone in a practice room, with a single researcher present, and with an audience and tape recorder -- heart rate and error rate both went up in the third condition. So being "on-stage" is definitely a distraction.

Similarly, knowing that you're being judged (that you have a deadline at all) can be a distraction. I suppose a judgment that is so far beneath you that it's rather insulting might not be a distraction --- "you're a sailor, huh? Tie me a bowline knot!" -- but few of us are totally immune to this effect even on easy tests.


@Diego

Every skill check that mentions doing something faster than the 'base' speed adds some number to the DC or provides a penalty to the skill check: Crafting, stealth, acrobatics, climb, disable device (unchained).

Since I've never ever seen, in the rules, any other explicit mechanism for doing something faster, especially not conversion to a 'distracted' activity, it seems quite fair to call this increase in difficulty a 'standard'.

Given this 'standard' mechanism, why would it make sense to shoehorn rushing into the 'distraction' category when it the increased difficulty check already has precedence and makes a lot more sense?


_Ozy_ wrote:


Every skill check that mentions doing something faster than the 'base' speed adds some number to the DC or provides a penalty to the skill check: Crafting, stealth, acrobatics, climb, disable device (unchained).

Doing something under a deadline doesn't necessarily mean doing it faster, though. It can also simply mean doing something with less margin for error.

Another type of distraction would be where you have, not a temporal deadline, but a materials one. Have you ever opened one of those IKEA boxes where they give you exactly enough bolts to complete the task, and if a single bolt disappears, you're not going to have enough to finish the job? That's a distraction, because you need to keep track of every single piece of equipment at all times, since if one of them rolls behind the dresser -- that's it, project's over. (IKEA itself generally packs/ships a few extras precisely because that happens too often, and they try to set a good example for customer service.)

It's a lot simpler to assemble one of those doo-dads when you don't need to be paying attention to every single wood screw.

Sczarni

Snowblind wrote:


Great, refluff your monsters. Make them completely different and keep your players on their toes. Good stuff.

But if a bard/inquisitor with maxed monster knowledge skills who will ID something around 50% of monsters with DC20+CR checks that are level appropriate(i.e. incredibly rare things) is enough to destroy the mystery you have created, then I maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are attempting to create mystery.

Maybe I didn't express myself well enough or you didn't get it, there are GMs out there who love those mysterious monsters. I am just stating the fact, nothing else really. I'v seen those GM's and explaining to them that there is something wrong with it, won't cut it. It's like talking to a wall.

But I am just ranting a bit now and going off-topic so don't misunderstand me. I realized what you were trying to say, but sometimes, good answer isn't good enough for everyone.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Every skill check that mentions doing something faster than the 'base' speed adds some number to the DC or provides a penalty to the skill check: Crafting, stealth, acrobatics, climb, disable device (unchained).

Doing something under a deadline doesn't necessarily mean doing it faster, though. It can also simply mean doing something with less margin for error.

Another type of distraction would be where you have, not a temporal deadline, but a materials one. Have you ever opened one of those IKEA boxes where they give you exactly enough bolts to complete the task, and if a single bolt disappears, you're not going to have enough to finish the job? That's a distraction, because you need to keep track of every single piece of equipment at all times, since if one of them rolls behind the dresser -- that's it, project's over. (IKEA itself generally packs/ships a few extras precisely because that happens too often, and they try to set a good example for customer service.)

It's a lot simpler to assemble one of those doo-dads when you don't need to be paying attention to every single wood screw.

Again, that's a change in difficulty (+ to DC, or penalty to skill check), not an increased chance you poke yourself in the eye with a hex wrench.

I really don't think people understand the wild variance you get from forcing skill checks for mundane activities, time pressure or no.


Snowblind wrote:

Great, refluff your monsters. Make them completely different and keep your players on their toes. Good stuff.

But if a bard/inquisitor with maxed monster knowledge skills who will ID something around 50% of monsters with DC20+CR checks that are level appropriate(i.e. incredibly rare things) is enough to destroy the mystery you have created, then I maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are attempting to create mystery.

Not sure where you're getting DC20+CR from. A unique one-in-the-world creature is DC15+CR to learn one useful thing, and there's no reason to think a homebrew monster is rare within the GM's world.

If the mystery is, "What is the best way to fight this monster?" - which I don't think is seriously wrong as an element of a Pathfinder game - and someone uses a knowledge skill that allows them to discover three or four useful pieces of information about that monster, then I think the mystery is largely gone.

There's a significant tension that goes away when you transition from "What is this strange and fearful creature?" to "I'll lock it down by targeting its weakest save, and you finish it with silver arrows."


_Ozy_ wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Every skill check that mentions doing something faster than the 'base' speed adds some number to the DC or provides a penalty to the skill check: Crafting, stealth, acrobatics, climb, disable device (unchained).

Doing something under a deadline doesn't necessarily mean doing it faster, though. It can also simply mean doing something with less margin for error.

Another type of distraction would be where you have, not a temporal deadline, but a materials one. Have you ever opened one of those IKEA boxes where they give you exactly enough bolts to complete the task, and if a single bolt disappears, you're not going to have enough to finish the job? That's a distraction, because you need to keep track of every single piece of equipment at all times, since if one of them rolls behind the dresser -- that's it, project's over. (IKEA itself generally packs/ships a few extras precisely because that happens too often, and they try to set a good example for customer service.)

It's a lot simpler to assemble one of those doo-dads when you don't need to be paying attention to every single wood screw.

Again, that's a change in difficulty (+ to DC, or penalty to skill check), not an increased chance you poke yourself in the eye with a hex wrench.

Shrug. You're wrong, and the performance literature demonstrates it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Performance literature? Sorry, man, I'm just going by what I see in the rulebooks.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 10 on Knowledge check, allowed. How do you guys rule this on your tables? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.