Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar? Does anyone have a rules reference or failing that, have any opinion either way? I am the GM in this situation.
I'd say yes. Taking 20, no, because there is a penalty for failure, but take 10 seems perfectly legit to me.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar?
The take 10 rules are an umbrella mechanic; if you're under its area (skill checks) then you're automatically covered unless there's a specific exception.
Does anyone have a rules reference
That'd be the take 10 rules themselves; they're not particularly ambiguous.
Here, from the Skills chapter of the Core Rulebook:"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. .... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
There you go. Unless you've got some other rule saying that the check in question is a special exception, you use the normal take 10 rules.
I am the GM in this situation.
What's that got to do with anything?
Cool. That's what I figured and I wanted to confirm. Thanks for the feedback.
Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar?The take 10 rules are an umbrella mechanic; if you're under its area (skill checks) then you're automatically covered unless there's a specific exception.
Does anyone have a rules referenceThat'd be the take 10 rules themselves; they're not particularly ambiguous.
Here, from the Skills chapter of the Core Rulebook:
"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. .... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
There you go. Unless you've got some other rule saying that the check in question is a special exception, you use the normal take 10 rules.I am the GM in this situation.What's that got to do with anything?
While I'm not disagreeing that the rules say that there are two things that I would want to also point out.
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.
Just playing devil's advocate.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.
A third-party product inventing new mechanics that move stuff around in unconventional ways is not grounds for reimagining what the Core rules mean. And no, there's no such thing in Core as a "skill roll", only "skill checks". Look it up. Any references to a "skill roll" in other products is either a new invention or an error.
Even if there WERE such a distinction, you've clearly not read the ability in question, as it explicitly references a "Spellcraft check".
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.
Not if you've actually read the take 10 rules:
"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)."(Bolding mine.)
When the mechanic explicitly offers itself as a solution for when you fear failure, the fear of failure can't keep you from using it.
And even if it didn't have that line, there's still the fact that if the possibility of failure prevented taking 10, then you could never take 10 on anything unless you were going to succeed on a 1 anyway. Then the mechanic literally does nothing, which makes it pretty obvious that that's not how it works.
Just playing devil's advocate.
No, you're not. When the issues you bring up were already covered in the first place, that's not playing devil's advocate. Playing devil's advocate is when you bring up issues that haven't been addressed yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Like the GM saying that you're always distracted because he feels the chance of failure would add drama or tension. :D
While I'm not disagreeing that the rules say that there are two things that I would want to also point out.
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.
Just playing devil's advocate.
In this case 'devil's' is probably apt as 1 is incorrect and 2 is borderline bad advice.
1) It is explicitly a spellcraft check - you are making a check against your spellcraft skill. It is inherently a skill check. Even if you are using that skill in a non=standard way (such as with path of war) it is still a skill check. As far as I can tell 'Skill roll' does not exist as a rules concept.
When you make a skill check, you roll 1d20 and then add your ranks and the appropriate ability score modifier to the result of this check.
2) As a very general rule a skill check should not of itself prevent take 10. You should be able to take 10 to jump a pit and climb a cliff. Being confident in the skill to not be swayed by fear of failure is exactly what take 10 is supposed to emulate.
To a new GM I would advise embracing take 10. It is a tool to avoid bogging down the game with needless rolls. My guideline is "unless you are in combat or attempting 2 or more skill checks at the same time".
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.A third-party product inventing new mechanics that move stuff around in unconventional ways is not grounds for reimagining what the Core rules mean. And no, there's no such thing in Core as a "skill roll", only "skill checks". Look it up. Any references to a "skill roll" in other products is either a new invention or an error.
Even if there WERE such a distinction, you've clearly not read the ability in question, as it explicitly references a "Spellcraft check".
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.Not if you've actually read the take 10 rules:
"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)."
(Bolding mine.)
When the mechanic explicitly offers itself as a solution for when you fear failure, the fear of failure can't keep you from using it.And even if it didn't have that line, there's still the fact that if the possibility of failure prevented taking 10, then you could never take 10 on anything unless you were going to succeed on a 1 anyway. Then the mechanic literally does nothing, which makes it pretty obvious that that's not how it works.
Just playing devil's advocate.No, you're not. When the issues...
"Swapping" is FAR from being that 3pp baby. Paizo has been doing it forever. Feel free to look up the X to Y thread which probably isn't even fully updated. Most pertinent being the CL+ cast mod instead of CMB. Is it a combat roll or is a caster level check? It is a combat roll that uses two different stats, which in turn makes my point and why it would be not as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Again, "swapping" stats is nothing new or restricted to 3pp. Despite my example not being core, the concept is fully realized in core.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Swapping" is FAR from being that 3pp baby.
I had given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the 3PP mechanic you were referencing actually made things muddy enough to support your point. Apparently I was wrong, judging by the rest of your post:
Paizo has been doing it forever. Feel free to look up the X to Y thread which probably isn't even fully updated.
If I recall, the bulk of that is "getting a different stat to a given skill". If you're going to argue that things like that make "maybe the explicit Spellcraft check isn't really a skill check" a valid assertion, I wish you'd just say so flat-out where everyone can see it and quote you forever.
Most pertinent being the CL+ cast mod instead of CMB. Is it a combat roll or is a caster level check?
Did you try reading the actual ability in question? My guess is no, based on what you've not-read thus far. What examples are you talking about? Pilfering hand simply uses different stats for the combat maneuver check; it never says it becomes a different kind of check. Same with hydraulic push. If (hypothetically) a spell instead said something like "make a caster level check, and if it exceeds the target's CMD then do X", then it's explicitly a caster level check and not a combat maneuver check.
Did you have any actual examples (from Paizo) that are legitimately ambiguous?
It is a combat roll that uses two different stats, which in turn makes my point and why it would be not as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Only if you can actually provide an example. I have yet to see any situation where it's not 100% clear exactly what kind of check you're making.
Again, "swapping" stats is nothing new or restricted to 3pp. Despite my example not being core, the concept is fully realized in core.
Again, need an example. Something from Paizo's core RPG line that doesn't already answer the question on its own just by reading it.