Take 10's page

I have actually seen several instances of "needing a back-up weapon" in the game.

Both with being disarmed (having a Judge who actually knows how to do that matters though - if the guy running the NPC doesn't know HOW to do it, it's not likely that the monster is going to do it) and with finding yourself in a grapple (or worse yet, swallowed).

anecdotes:
1) I have had a PC in the situation of being swallowed by a monster that the rest of the party killed - and then I found I had no way to cut my way out. No dagger... had to tell the Judge that my guy was going to chew his way out of the beasty... Then I got to talk strongly to my companions about leaving me in the thing while they sorted treasure... yeah - not going to do that again. Every one of my PCs get's a dagger now.

2) While running a game, I had one of the PCs in the mouth of a Ramoraz and was about to swallow this Halfling Greatsword Fighter, when he killed the monster with a dagger he had in Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath... Glorious game. The dagger melted on the blow that killed the Ice Worm...

Link to an older thread that sort of relates to this...

Painlords what to expect at a PFS Table.

"A melee characters should have a back up weapon and spellcasters have a backup spell component pouch/holy symbol in case something happens to the primary." - Painlord

"thread necro" Casting Raise Thread

just finished up a run of Carrion Crown, and am actually starting another (with different Players). Yeah - still going strong...

well, not exactly a story of "Critting" a roll...

and yeah, I know I've told the story before - but it is a funny story about dice rolls....

In a Society game, back when we were still playing in stores, and my PC moves a little ahead of the party to check out something that just screams TRAP! and what do you know - it's a trap. A Haunt actually....

Judge (knowing I go in the surprise round due to 1 level of Foresight wizard): "roll Init"
Me: (roll and add) "9, yeah I rolled a 3 +6 = 9" my worst Init roll so far in that game...
Judge describes powerful visions and then says: "Make a will save"
Me: rolling a "Nat 1". sigh, "there is a reason I always take 10 on things... Wait, I bet this is a D$%# Haunt isn't it - I hate those things... Can I use my shirt re-roll?"
Judge: "yeah, maybe you should"
Me: Another "Nat 1".
Judge: "wow... "
Me: "Yeah, it's my karma - I never roll better with re-rolls - It's a haunt isn't it? you know I have holy water in a spring wrist sheath just for these stupid things...."
2nd player handing me another die: "here, try with this one..."
Me: "oh, I can do it with this one too." roll "Nat 1."
All these are with EXTRA BIG dice.... my D6s are 1" cubes, so everyone can see the three d20s in front of me all reading "1"
I pick up my "extra special dice" that had wondered out onto the table earlier and roll it too... Yeah, "Natural 1" for the fourth time in a row.
Judge gets up from the table to walk around a second, stops to look back at the four d20s all reading "1" sitting in front of me and then asks "are you some type of warlock or something?"
Me: "Nah, my dice just hate me..."

Talk to your GM - sometimes they'll rule that you can Take 10 in those instances when you (and Diago) and even I would rule that you cannot. (A perfect example of this is Taking 10 to ID a magic item - most GMs I have played with allows this, even though technically you can't Take 10 while concentration to maintain the Detect Magic spell... ) .

By the same token, you should also check with the GM when you are SURE they would rule that it is allowed, just to be sure that this is not one of those instances of a time when "for purposes of Drama and Pacing" they are requiring a Dice Roll.

I love taking a 10, especially if the skill modifier is at least a +20;)

oh, I Take 10 (when allowed to) even when I have a negative modifier. Several times people have been shocked to discover my "9" is the highest check at the table, everyone else else having rolled...

And a "9" is so much better than a "0"...

Giantslayer is absolutely the most 1e/2e adventure path Paizo has put out. Its super nostalgic for against the giants, feels a lot like it, throws powerful magic at you the same way old 1e modules would.

The problem is people have nostalgia for dungeon crawls but really don't enjoy them in the moment as much as they seem to remember enjoying them.

I've had good experiences with the dungeon crawl style adventure and bad.

The good experiences all came in parties where everyone took advantage of the take 10 rules there was a character with the trap spotter rogue talent and some means to always take 10 on perception, and stealth and a caster who could cast status. There was a whole system where the scout would move through the dungeon, monitored by status, unlocking doors but not opening them, disabling traps and drawing a map as he goes by taking 10. The gm would stop drawing when take 10 didn't succeed or there were no other places to go without opening a door and standard play would resume with a partially drawn map tossed over the gm screen.

The bad experiences had no autosearch for traps, a party that didn't understand take 10 and had no real plan for dungeon crawling so it would progress with the scout checking every 10 feet for traps like the rules say you should, rolling a die and comparing through the entire dungeon. The party would open one door, kill the monsters, ransack the room, move to the next room, kill the monsters search the entire room. The dungeon took forever to get through, like 4 sessions if im remembering right.

this brought a tear to my eye...

you have a someone running that doesn't throw a fit when you ask to Take 10 on things? It must be so cool...

Quixote wrote:

Jeff Morse wrote:

why not? in 6 seconds you get a chance. better than most people with technology could these days. if its important to know whether you need a breath of life or a cure spell, use status spell. or delay while a team member checks for you.

What? Better than most people could with technology?

...you just check their pulse. Took about 5 minutes to learn at my last CPR course. And with that, you have a substantially better chance than 60%. Pretty much a hundred, really. In all but the most unusual of situations.

And that's assuming you bothered to check their pulse; if a guy's been decapitated, I'm just going to assume certain things.

These characters are heroic. They know their stuff. On top of that, players who know specific information can act more strategically, and help the game run faster and smoother.

You can find a weak and thready pulse with 100% accuracy, on someone in under 6 seconds in the middle of a battle, while that person is wearing armor and covered in gore? Damn, you are good!

well, if a guy has been decapitated, I'm going to guess that I can tell if he is still alive ALMOST 100% of the time, even the middle of a battle, while that person is wearing armor and covered in gore. Maybe even faster than 6 seconds.

But it really is just a guess. I've (thankfully) never had to test that.

I would have demanded to be allowed to take 10 on attack rolls and saving throws from there on - if the take 10 rules aren't for skills, there aren't many d20 rolls they could otherwise be there for!

no need to antagonize the poor judge. They've got enough of a problem running the game in a noisy venue early on a Saturday morning.

If I were going to be playing with them on a regular basis? sure, try to correct rules errors (best done away from the table in a non-confrontational way) - and maybe even learn if I'm the one doing it wrong. That's the best way to learn the rules... are at least the most enjoyable. Many times I've had someone point out how I'm doing something wrong, I know I enjoyed it more (it hurt less) when it's not in the middle of a time sensitive game. Causing a scene at the table just leads to "bad gaming"...

If someone isn't going to DIE (loose a PC) over it, go with the flow and talk to the judge later... when there's time to reflect.

Ummm...Taking 10 is only for Skill checks, right? That judge needs to step away from the game.

Yeah, it's the only thing you actually CAN Take 10 on. But ... in the Big Picture, it really didn't matter. Only real effect was to slow things down some in the game. And among all the other little rules errors in that game, it just stood out to me because it used to be a real Hot Button for me (thus why I have the T-shirts).

I think what the judge had been told was "you can't Take 10 on Knowledge Checks" which is a common "house rule", and that mutated into "you can't Take 10 on Skill Checks".

Take 10.

But then, in my last game, when I asked about Taking 10 on a Knowledge Local check (to Gather Info early in the scenario), the Judge explained that I couldn't do that "Because it's a Skill Check, and you can't Take 10 on Skill Checks."

The funniest part of this was the faces of the other players when I just nodded and rolled my dice for the rest of the game. Several of them kept expecting me to point at my T-shirt (which has the Take 10 rule printed on it).

Ok,I looked thru this but I didn't see anyone suggest the first thing that came to my mind...

Did I miss it, or did no one else suggest Kreighton's Perusal?
I could see requiring 20 castings of the spell to give a "Take 20" result... or using multiple castings of the spell to count as a bonus to actual hours of work with the book.

Heck, crafting a wand of it would take a day, and that would give you 50 charges to burn - while someone is crafting another wand for tomorrow.

as to several persons studying it at once... copy it. Each person get's their own copy. (Scrivener's Chant to speed the coping and ensure an exact copy. Heck, someone using this could even count as having studied it, as they need "to concentrate upon the material beign duplicated" while it is copied).

Whatever you do, don't roll a 1.

and people want to know why I like Take 10...

I remember the mammoth thread a while back that lead to that FAQ, and the context was very much that you don't automatically roll Perception to spot traps. Finding a trap requires either some special ability that gives you a roll (Trap Spotter, Stonecunning), or actively searching.

It was not so much a "this is what the rules have always said" but more a "yeah the rules were always vague but we're coming down on this side" FAQ.

It does mean that some traps that were meant to be spotted automatically in some scenarios are now rather nasty. Especially stuff like traps that you encounter off-map, for example on a forest trip to see a certain magical clock tower.

The concept of Exploration Mode tactics in P2 is clearly also an attempt to get it right from the start the next time.

And then of course there are hazards, which are sometimes hard to distinguish from traps except that most of the things that give you a chance to be forewarned of traps don't apply. The template for writing a trap at least includes a "put a perception DC here" spot. I've run into hazards that you ought to have had some chance to spot but couldn't. As in "I take 20 to search this thing because stealing it couldn't possibly be this easy" and didn't find any traps, and didn't see the hazard because there was no DC. /bitter

The threads that I remember (yeah, old guy memory...) that lead up to this "change" in how Perception worked, I actually recall fell into the category of "but you SEARCH for traps, and a SEARCH can only be done one square at a time. So to SEARCH a room it takes a long time, as you need to roll a check for each square..." and it might take more than one roll - one each for checking for Traps, Loot, Secret Doors, monsters, etc.

So we would have exchanges like:

Rogue Player: "I check the room for Traps."
Judge: "You know how long that will take? You really want to take that much time..."
Rogue Player: "Ah... It takes a move action to..."
Judge: "A search of this room is going to take more than that! It's 30' x 30', that's 36 squares!"
Rogue: "What? I just want to take a perception check! To see if I detect..."
Judge: "I read out the room description. It's a 30' by 30' natural cavern with those pointy rock things from the ceiling and floor and over in this corner is a bunch of loose rubble. Oh, and it smells of mold. And there's an exit over here."
Sorcerer Player stepping in to more things along: "I take a few minutes to go check out the rubble for treasure. I rolled a 20 so I got a 21."
Judge: "You find a magic ring."

Mostly, it seemed that there was more than one way "Perception" worked - mostly from the combining of the old "Search" mechanics and the "Spot" mechanics. With a lot of bleed-over from earlier versions of this gaim of ours. And without clear direction on how to work it, different players (and judges) would each do it the way they independently learned/interpreted it - which often was very different. And in home games it would be worked out early on, in the first few sessions... but in Organized Play? Yeah... Chaos.

I seem to recall a change (FAQ?) in the last year or two that changed it back to having Perception checks only effecting areas of 10' or so... let me see if I can find the reference to it... here it is. It came back in with Ultimate Intrigue,

see if this link to the FAQ works.

so for searching an area - "...for a given Perception check it should be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a smaller space if that area is cluttered. "

But that is back to "Searching", and I think Perception also includes "Spotting" which should NOT be limited to 10'x10' or less... (IMHO)

The only metagamey I see on occasion is when the rogue searches for traps and doesn’t find any, then suddenly when they roll a one (or other significantly low number) someone else suddenly wants to search. It’s one of the few times I will deny a player action. Of course this can be mitigated by rolling for the player behind the screen, but I like to give the player every opportunity to control their own destiny. Pregenerated rolls is probably the best way to handle it, sometimes I may forget

This is actually one of the reasons I like to Take 10 on perception checks (or actually any skill check). And when I'm running a PC with the "Trap Spotter" talent, why I like to have the judge roll my skill check out of my sight (heck, even way before the encounter). That way I don't have to second guess myself about whether my dice roll result is influencing my PC actions.

And yes, I actually do Take 10 even if my PC has a Perception skill of -2. "Perception? I got an '8'".

Just had to include this link...

OotS 35. Take 20.

Taking 20 takes 2 full minutes. That's metagamy to be searching some 10 foot area for 20 rounds. If you have no buffs running, and have already been hit by traps, and are in a suspicious area, then it could make sense.

Taking 10 takes 6 seconds, the same as the regular check. That should be the standard way of operating if you have a +15 or +20 modifier. A 25 or 30 perception total finds nearly every trap in PFS.

well.... actually, taking a perception check is a Move action. So you normally can do this twice in round (two move actions) and even get a 5' step in there too.

So Taking 20 would take one minute. (20 move actions)

But this has been covered quite a bit in older threads... I know I have started several myself over the years...

Perception-different-when-playing-for-different-judges. 417 posts, Jun 26, 2013,

Perception-is-not-search. 79 posts, Apr 20, 2014

Perception-why-do-DMs-still-use-the-3 5-search-rules.. 67 posts, Oct 24, 2011,

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I think the best way to handle this in PFS is to prepare a card with your name, perception score and "TRAP SPOTTER" on it and hand it to the GM at the beginning of the session. If there's a trap written in the scenario he can roll your check in secret and tell you if you notice something.

I do this when playing one of my trap spotters, except that I inform the GM of the ability as I put out a card tent with my character's name and "+X Perception to find traps" in large letters. It's one less piece of paper for the GM to juggle, and easy for them to spot during play. Some GMs roll secretly as needed, while others have me roll when it's an obvious place for a trap. One just had me roll a half dozen times before game, and wrote down the results to use in order as they were needed.

I actually sort of do this with all my PCs - all my Table Tents (and I use them for all PCs) have my Perception and Sense Motive skill numbers in big letters. So the judge can see what my skills are just by looking over at me, it's right next to my character portrait ... and I always Take 10, so it's easy for them to see what my check is in the middle of the game. Glance at me, add 10 to the number shown, that's my PCs result. I guess in the middle of combat it would require a roll from me - but this hasn't come up yet.

Without trap spotter, you have to actively look for traps. Trap spotter lets a rogue passively spot traps. Does this mean that if you fail the trap spotter check, you can actively try to spot said trap again (assuming you are looking in the right place).

For example:

I (a rogue) head towards a door (which is trapped) . The DM makes a secret roll (the DM naturally makes secret rolls on normal stuff, and fake things to cut down meta-gaming). Since the roll failed, the DM does not notify me of any traps. I, being a vigilant rogue, then want to inspect the door for traps.

Do I get this second chance since this is more of an active perception roll, rather than the passive perception roll from the trap spotter talent?

I think your question is perhaps not phrased as well as it could be.

"Trap spotter" will give someone a passive perception check to detect a trap (within 10'). This is independent of any other action the Rogue does.

But back to the way your question maybe should have been phrased.

(my re-phrasing) I (a rogue) head towards a door (which is trapped). Being a vigilant rogue, I want to inspect the door for traps and state that I am making an Active Perception Check (i.e. I say, "I'm checking this door for traps". (The players now resolve the Perception check in the way they commonly do. Some groups have the Judge roll the check where it can't be seen. Some Rogues Take 10. Some just roll in the open and announce the result. Every group I have every played for do this a little different. The last method is kind of prone to Meta-Gaming, as when the Rogue Player rolls low/high he knows this and will often modify his actions depending on what the die roll was). Since the roll failed to detect anything (either because there is no trap, or because the check result was to low), the DM is free to roll (concealed) and say something like "your Trap Spotter didn't detect anything either" - esp. if they want to worry me.

and phrased like this, you can see that there actually isn't a question... Yes, you would get both the Active (player called for) Perception check, and the Passive (Trap Spotter) Perception check.

With most of my Trap Spotters I normally just Take 10 on Active checks, and allow the judge to roll the Trap-Spotter rolls without even informing me that they are doing it. That way the party will find the traps either by the judge informing us that I "found a trap here" or by the judge saying "boom!" or something like that. And if the adventure just screams out "THERE'S A TRAP HERE!" - I'll say "I'm taking a minute to check this closer and Taking 20 on the Perception check...".

Some questions on the mechanics of "Replay" Options being offered...

Say I played scenario #0-01 Silent Tide long ago, and then some years later I burned a GM Star Replay to play it again...

Now we have Option (1, 2 or 3)... can I Replay it AGAIN? Can I replay it again ON THE SAME PC?

And if the answer to the first of those is a "yes", could I then set up to Replay it again?

Do these Replay Options allow multiple Replays of the same scenario? (or for Options 1 and 3, Replays across more than one year?)

not that anyone would ever consider "gaming the system" to get selected scenarios onto all their PCs...

Don't underestimate your players though, you might also want to see what your players come up with when presented with the challenge...

So, present the puzzle to the players and see what they come up with to get past it. Players (bless their little black hearts) can be very inventive and will often surprise you in strange ways...

I regularly run "Skill Monkey" PCs... and here are a few gimmicks I've come up with when I'm just a bit short of that Lock DC...

- Check to see if anyone can Aid - another PC with the Disable Device skill can add in a +2. This is a circumstance bonus - and circumstance bonuses can stack... so two people aiding would add a +4...

- Anyone have a Guidance spell handy? that would provide a +1.

- Reduce Person? bumps up the Dex, so would also add a +1

And there are always "creative solutions" that the players may come up with on their own... a grease spell or alchemical grease or something like those to give a circumstance bonus? Heck, they might try tunneling thru the wall itself to bypass the lock... or something else as weird...

And whatever they come up with, they will feel like they succeeded at something - they, themselves solved the challenge, the scenario didn't provide the answer, they did.

wow... so many classes people have not seen - that I have PCs of.

just ... wow...

Whatever method we use, please make it simple and above all fast. Spending 10 or 15 minutes at the table trying to decide if the players know to use a blunt weapon to fight skeletons is going to detract from the "fun" of the game for me...

GM "You see three figures in front of you, weapons drawn, they look ready for blood"
"What are they?"
GM "Knowledge local please"
"I got a 16"

vs.

GM "You see three figures in front of you, weapons drawn, they look ready for blood"
Player A: "What are they?"
GM "Anyone here encountered Grey Whosit's before?"
and papers fly while Players A thru B dig thru their CRs....
Player A "I KNOW I have seen these things before... wait, maybe it was on my Paladin..." pulling out another PC folder...
Player B peering intently at a former judges bad penmanship - "I think that's what this says - wait, no, it says 'Gravy Whatsit's'... is there really a monster called a 'gravy whosit'?"
Player C "I shot it with Cold Iron arrows! I've encountered these before and they have DR Cold Iron!"
Player D "Dude, that was the demons in the last encounter... you're getting them confused again..." rolls eyes

I can see this being great fun...

I think I need to pick up an autograph book and start collecting autographs for all the 5 star judges I meet...

Yeah, and maybe buy them a soda/adult beverage of their choice. And say thanks!

On reflection, maybe not just limit it to the 5 Stars... just get an autograph from all the judges who run games for me. And buy them a drink...

A tactic I have used to "soften" encounters sometimes can easily be reversed...

My (sometimes) tactic. When the monster has multiple identical attacks - say 4 tentacle attacks - I will roll them with 4 d20s all at once. "It speeds up the turn" - and it does. Then - depending on how I know the PC hit points are floating, that "possible crit" might just move to the front of the strike order. "Wow, good thing the Crit that dropped you was the first swing. If the other three hits had peeled off your HP and left you standing with 1 HP just in time for the Crit to do 23HP, you'd be dead." Not that I actually ever say that... Or maybe the PC was on their last legs? so the first (non-crit) hit drops them and the rest of the swings (including the Crit) either went at another target, or the attacks just didn't get taken - maybe the monster starts to drag the (bleeding out) body away, or moves to attack another PC next turn.

I guess someone could reverse this procedure to make it more "Hard Mode", taking the lowest rolls that hit in a "attack group" first, but taking them all - even after the PC is dropped... In fact, a judge could even have the "missed" attacks take place after the PC is dropped, pointing out that as the PC is "down" now, the PC is prone (+4) and has a Zero Dex... Oh! and does the monster have Sneak Dice? That would be extra damage on unconscious targets wouldn't it?

Removal of the Take 10 rule.

Please point me to a source for the following: Pregens are assumed to have a wayfinder.

My search-fu has failed me.

Thanks.

I do not believe this to be true. I can not point you at something that does not exist.

I will watch this thread though to see if someone actually DOES know of something that would say this...

From my experiences regarding conventions, people still like older editions, and the robust framework of organized play will likely draw players for years to come.

I will have to say my experience is very much the reverse of your statement.

Dustin Knight wrote:

Michael Eshleman wrote:

Dustin Knight wrote:

4. Notes: I wish the chronicle sheets had a space on the bottom to encourage note-taking. For practical purposes, players can use it to track what items they found in the scenario, what items they are purchasing, what enemies they fought or just what city the scenario took place in. It also always warms my heart when GMs write notes on my chronicle sheets, and makes them special records beyond telling me when I played a game.

There is nothing stopping people from noting this kind of information on the current chronicle sheet format.

Not all sheets have space. See: Beyond the Halflight Path.

All sheets have space: The back of the prior chronicle. :)

sometimes I actually print the scenario briefing or an outline of the scenario on the back of the chronicle. that way, years later when you check on what the PC did, it brings back some memory of the game.

I admit I'm not typical in this though...

Bill Baldwin wrote:

I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Probably because "clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given and some of us are just tired of nerfs. When I first read this thread all I thought was "great another 'please nerf this' thread" and trying to remember if "paladins must all fall in PFS" was the next thread in the cycle or if it was "I'm too lazy to read the other threads, but we need unlimited replays, yo" that was next.

nah - the next one in the cycle is a "Take 10" thread...

I just realized I've been sucked into another Take 10 thread....

ARRRRGH! I'm taking a re-roll on that Will Save! No more posting on these thread!

Take 10 wrote:

El Luchacabra wrote:

graystone wrote:

Crafting take 10 FAQ

But that's only if the GM doesn't think that there is a risk of failure and clearly the item turning out to be cursed if you failed would be so you still have to roll.

a "risk of failure" does not prohibit someone from Taking 10.

in fact...

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.

so "risk of failure" is actually the only reason given in the rule itself...

Nosig I know this but that is what the entire non-faq was about. The GM can declare that based on the non-faq which is why I started the thread you quoted up above to at least get a PFS ruling on t10 and failing the task your taking 10 on.

ah... yeah? that's what I said.

The GM can rule the player can't Take 10. (For reasons of "Drama and Pacing"). like I said up above in this thread.

In the post of mine you are quoting I said that the Danger of Failure at the Task would not prevent someone from Taking 10 - that is actually the only reason given in the rule itself FOR taking 10...

"you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail,"

...so saying the danger of failure would prohibit it, when the ONLY reason given to use the rule is the danger of failure... is kind of strange to me.

graystone wrote:

Crafting take 10 FAQ

But that's only if the GM doesn't think that there is a risk of failure and clearly the item turning out to be cursed if you failed would be so you still have to roll.

a "risk of failure" does not prohibit someone from Taking 10.

in fact...

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.

so "risk of failure" is actually the only reason given in the rule itself...

Take 10 wrote:

I'll just leave this here...

Take 10 NonFAQ..

Perhaps - for this DM, they felt the need to "control the pacing and tension" of the game and required the player to roll.

Control the tension and pacing of going home to do an arts and crafts project over a cup of tea? This is not a scene that warrants dramatic risk. It warrants a crafting montage. Possibly with a panning shirtless scene with body oil simulating sweat.

Denying Take 10 in this case is out of line. It's denying the clearest possible case for the Take 10 rule to exist at all, and only serves to screw the player out of a spiffy hat they earned fair and square, and already did the legwork for.

Oh, I agree with everything you say... but (as I have been reminded many times on the boards and at the gaming table) the GM still has control of when a player may Take 10. It's a GM call...

and the OP did start this thread with "My dm said..."...

crud! missed post #10 by less than a minute

There are no automatic failures for skill rolls.

Also, unless you are crafting this helmet in the middle of a war zone, you are, in no uncertain terms, allowed to take 10 on that check. You should (almost) never roll the Craft skill unless you're, like... trying to fix a wagon wheel really fast in the middle of a fight or something.

I'll just leave this here...

Take 10 NonFAQ..

Perhaps - for this DM, they felt the need to "control the pacing and tension" of the game and required the player to roll.

hmm, here's a thought.

a) buy a donkey. They can carry just as much as a porter (same stats as a pony, pony is listed as light load 100 lbs, heavy load 300 lbs) (okay, -15 lbs for a pack saddle), they move at 30 ft/round when encumbered (if that matters), and they're not going to go nuts when entering a dungeon (source: UE).

b) get a squire follower to handle the donkey when I'm unmounted (which will be all the time). Plus I don't have to worry about donkey chow.

So that handles everything except for extreme environments where it might be pricey for my donkey/squire combo to follow.

That even changes the price of a porter from 5 PP to 4 PP, 8 gp. Not bad for 1 PP, eh?

And if you need a bunch of fresh meat quick to feed a hungry monster...

Reduce Person to boost Stealth skills (+4 size bonus and +1 for the DX bump).

The DX bump can also help with DX based skills (like Disable Device).

Also, a bad roll doesn't make you stupid. Dead maybe, but not stupid.

(I doubt that I would have let a player take 10 on this kind of situation in my games.)

Now stupid would be things like the Bagpiper Bard playing his pipes to support the party's Stealth rolls. Really, it happened more than once.

Oh, I'd let him Take 10. With a +14 to Bluff? I'd think he could do it in his sleep... the PC must sell used horses at Honest Abes Quality Used Mounts...

Be sure to remind them they can Take 10 on most skill checks outside of combat...??

The scenario is built to expect average rolls, and unless they all dumped the skills they need... otherwise, let the players come up with something - they always seem to.

Take 10 wrote:

And for scribing to spellbooks/formula books, I have run Wizards (and Alchemists) sense my PC -1 in season zero. I currently have over a dozen active PCs that have Books...(not counting Witches - who have something similar, but different).

Sense and since have very different definitions. I assume that you mean 'since'.

lol! so very true. Thanks for your help.

with my dyslexia, it's amazing that I can even type, let alone spell. If it weren't for spell checkers... but they didn't help in this case...

As for masterwork tools, as a player I don't use masterwork tools that aren't either printed or absurdly obvious (masterwork musical violin for perform strings). Also, cheat sheath. SNAG.

As a DM for PFS i am perfectly willing to accept pay 50 gp for your +2 to a skill, because some players only have the core rules and thats what the core can legitimately be read as saying.

I tend to run Skill Monkeys - and often use very flavorful Masterwork Tools... so it can add a bit of RP fun to pull out my "Jane's Guide to Magical Items of the Inner Sea" when I'm trying to Spellcraft an Item we pick up. Or my

Do you really not see any difference at all between "you are in immediate danger when leaping over a 100 foot chasm filled with boiling lava" and "take 10 never works" ? Do you ask the DM about EVERY action or do you just try to do it and live with it if they object?

I ask every time I Take 10 ... or at least I TRY to ask. I am sure that sometimes I forget. But for the majority of the time I do ask. And have sense season 0. Whenever I Take 10. Esp. sense the FAQ was posted.

And for scribing to spellbooks/formula books, I have run Wizards (and Alchemists) sense my PC -1 in season zero. I currently have over a dozen active PCs that have Books...(not counting Witches - who have something similar, but different).

edit: I will often use the Take 10 rule when crafting Alchemical items. I have been trying to mention this each time I play an Alchemist and Craft between games - I mention it going into the next game. Log it in the ITS, listing what I craft and when, and mention it to the judge at the games start. "Taking 10 to craft items before the game, do you need to see the list of what I made?"

Take 10 wrote:

can you please site this rule that you mention above? where do we get an exception for scribing spells to our books?

Drat. Looks like i was thinking of handle animal to teach tricks.

Quote:

from your comments in the thread linked above, it looks like it

would be up to the judge to decide if we can Take 10 on any skill check.

Quote:

I would assume that this use of the Take 10 rule (as all uses do) would require the OK of the judge - so you would have to ask if they allow it, right?

Theoretically anything is up to the judge, but that does not mean you ask the judge if it's okay to do anything. You don't ask about each square of movement, you don't ask about attack rolls.

Not being able to take 10 on a check to copy spells is so far outside of my reading of the rules and the opinions of any DM that I've ever run into that I wouldn't even ask about it.

Am I in immediate danger? No

Am I distracted? Maybe if i'm copying spells on a trip to mawangi that the flavor text describes as torturous.

Am I rushed? No. I have the infinite vastness of downtime.

Is copying spells a dramatic moment that needs tension? No.

Is it the point of adventuring or a bit of lifestyle maintenance that you want to skip over? The latter.

If a DM disagrees for some reason (probably a local ruling meme that got picked up) they can tell me, and I'll roll for the scrolls and spellbook I find and not donate 400 gp for library fees until I'm with a different DM.

Quote:

"Looks like its more firmly in the dms court (ie, table variation) than ever. "

"The entire reason that a non ruling was made is because circumstances vary too much for anyone but the person sitting behind the screen to make the call."

Have you ever seen a DM actually say this or are you just trying to pick a fight over take 10?

the above lines are quotes of yours - I was just agreeing with what you said in them. So I am confused at this point... I was just agreeing with you...

This is a case where not allowing Take 10 would just be dumb. Because to be able to copy spells you have to have lots of quiet time on your hands to begin with. You shouldn't be trying to write spells at a moment when there's "drama" or "tension".

I try really hard never to consider the actions of the person running a table for me to be "dumb". Perhaps they know something I don't (they are running the game after all), or perhaps I am just looking at it thru "personal goggles" and just seeing whatever the issue is from only my perspective. Sometimes I slip up and do consider what the judge did to be ... less than "good gaming", but when that happens, I like to think I keep it to myself (at least until after the game when I might discuss it with the judge to gain a better understanding).

In any event, the ability to use the Take 10 rule is in the control of the judge running the table. That's one thing the FAQ makes clear. Whenever we (as players) wish to "Take 10" we have to ok it with the person running the table we are at. "Can I Take 10 on that?" or even "When I Take 10 I get...". That's all it takes. That way the judge knows what we're doing and can rule on wither the rule applies or not. Kind of like when we do a skill check using a Masterwork Tool - we need to mention this when we are using the rule, as the judge controls that aspect of the game. ...

...at least, IMHO...

KingOfAnything wrote:

Quote:

but we as the players still have to ask.

You don't actually have to ask.

You can inform the GM of your assumption that taking 10 is allowed. If they disagree, they can tell you to roll instead. Not that anyone will in this case.

If I was trying to do it during the actual adventure, I'd ask or at least mention I was taking 10.

If I was copying from another caster's book, it would be mentioned.

If I was buying spells from NPCs during down time, it would be listed among the gold spent for the GM to sign off on, but I wouldn't explicitly say anything about Take 10.

thanks!

I once had a player ask me what happened if they failed the spellcraft check. I told them I didn't know because I always just took 10.

after a week of waiting, the PC spends GP to gain library access again (1/2 the scribing cost) and tries to make the check again.

If this is happening before or during an adventure, the PC is likely to have to wait until the next chronicle - and if the access was thru a scroll captured during the current adventure, then they would loose that access and need to pay Library costs...

Take 10 wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You re specifically allowed to take ten on these

can you please site this rule that you mention above? where do we get an exception for scribing spells to our books?

Take 10 NonFAQ thread.

from your comments in the thread linked above, it looks like it would be up to the judge to decide if we can Take 10 on any skill check.

"Looks like its more firmly in the dms court (ie, table variation) than ever. "

"The entire reason that a non ruling was made is because circumstances vary too much for anyone but the person sitting behind the screen to make the call."

I would assume that this use of the Take 10 rule (as all uses do) would require the OK of the judge - so you would have to ask if they allow it, right?

I'm not even going to go into that NonFAQ for a fair number of reasons.

With that said:
*Does Spellcraft to use your class feature "lead to tension or drama"?
*Does asking for rolls avoid "having the game bog down"?
*Is it nonsensical to have the learn-through-study type get exactly the same result after an hours worth of work?
*Will the PC ever be "in immediate danger or distracted", but still be willing and able to spend an hour to study and one hour per spell level to copy?

I think a GM would be very hard-pressed to answer any of those questions "yes."

but we as the players still have to ask. As the FAQ implies (and BNW states Here in the tread linked to) "Yes, its in the DMS discretion for when you CAN take 10." and earlier "The entire reason that a non ruling was made is because circumstances vary too much for anyone but the person sitting behind the screen to make the call."

so... Is everyone actually asking the judge at the table if they can Take 10 on the Spellcraft check?

...snipping to save space...
I'm surprised there exist wizards out there without at least a point or two in Spellcraft. What, did they take Divination as an opposed school or something? I have to admit, I hadn't really paid attention to the Spellcraft checks when scribing for a while, because the DC is just so low. With taking 10, all you usually need is 2 ranks and enough Intelligence to be able to cast the spell (take10 + 2rank + 3classSkill + intMod). If you need to scribe from an opposition school, add 5 to that. Numbers like that should be trivial at anything past maybe 2nd or 3rd level with even a token investment.

the DC for adding a spell to a Spellbook is...

Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level).

so, if the Wizard has a 15 INT and one rank in spell craft, he has a 2+1+3 or a +6 in Spellcraft.

If the judge allowed him to Take 10, he could only copy 1st level spells, and fail the check needed to copy 2nd level spells (DC17).

A 16 or 17 INT only pushes this up to 2nd level spells... so if a Player does not know this rule (and many never even check it, it doesn't come up in their games and they haven't read (or understood) that part of the CRB), they may not know the importance of Spellcraft to a wizard (or other book using class).

Kind of like Druids with no ranks in Handle Animal

You re specifically allowed to take ten on these

can you please site this rule that you mention above? where do we get an exception for scribing spells to our books?

Take 10 NonFAQ thread.

from your comments in the thread linked above, it looks like it would be up to the judge to decide if we can Take 10 on any skill check.

"Looks like its more firmly in the dms court (ie, table variation) than ever. "

"The entire reason that a non ruling was made is because circumstances vary too much for anyone but the person sitting behind the screen to make the call."

I would assume that this use of the Take 10 rule (as all uses do) would require the OK of the judge - so you would have to ask if they allow it, right?