|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hello everyone. This is a question that came up in our last game. We leveled up in the last game and our bard gained the loremaster ability. It says that a bard can take 10 on any knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. This must mean that you normaly can't take 10 on knowledge checks, but we can't find it in the rules. Can anyone point us to it? Thanks in advance.
In the skills overview:
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, a character cannot normally take 10 on a Knowledge check in combat. Bards can do so once they are high enough level.
Pretty much any skill you can "take 10" with, provided you are not threatened or distracted.
I'm going to guess though, that the intent with the Lore Master ability is the ability to be able to "take 10" regardless of high stress situations (such as imminent attack or distractions).
So, any character can take 10 on a knowledge check as long as they are not in combat. The loremaster ability allows a bard to take 10 on a knowlede check even in combat? Is this right?
Yes... correct.
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many
times before succeeding, your character would automatically
incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete
the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills
that carry such penalties).
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and
thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know
something that you never learned in the f irst place.
Taking 10 means that you understand you will fail a few times before you are guaranteed success. Therefore, you cannot take 10 on a knowledge check, ever, unless you have the loremaster ability.
|
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many
times before succeeding, your character would automatically
incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete
the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills
that carry such penalties).Taking 10 means that you understand you will fail a few times before you are guaranteed success. Therefore, you cannot take 10 on a knowledge check, ever, unless you have the loremaster ability.Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and
thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know
something that you never learned in the f irst place.
Unfortunately, by the RAW, this only applies to Taking 20. Taking 10 carries no such rule that if the skill has a penalty for failure it cannot be done. In fact, this is especially not the case. Taking 10 is most definitely possible with Climb and Swim, both of which carry penalties for failure (falling and drowning respectively).
I would recommend to not allow taking 10 on Knowledge checks until this is clarified. Despite it being allowed by the RAW, my omniscience tells me this will be covered in the errata at a future date.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been nice to have provided a small notation at the end of each skill description of Yes or No to "Take 10" and "Take 20" options.
|
|
We decided during the session that we would not allow taking 10 on knowledge checks after reading this ability. Otherwise, it seems almost pointless. We just wanted to see if there was something we were missing that spelled it out for us, and the boards were my first thought. Thanks for the insight everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running the game, I don't allow players to take 10 on knowledge checks. Taking 10 is most useful if rolling high won't make a difference, but there's always more obscure or detailed knowledge to know. So I never allow it... though, I would for a bard with that special ability.
As a DC 10 represents "Answering a question within your field of study...for really easy questions" and being able to "identify [common] monsters and...a bit of useful information about that monster" I see no harm in allowing a Take 10 on Knowledge checks--this is information that characters most likely should know, and even untrained folks can try a DC 10 Knowledge check. Basically, this is Common Knowledge (for any folks that play Savage Worlds) and I find restricting access to such knowledge in anything but a "distracting" situation to be counter-productive to the game. Logically, most people are taking 10 on Knowledge checks all the time, repeating what they commonly know. Only when you put people in a stressful situation are they likely to miss such an answer. For someone actually trained in a field (i.e. having ranks in Knowledge) the bar for "common knowledge" goes up as they gain ranks. So, a historian with 5 ranks is usually going to know any DC 15 question unless he is under stress, etc.
Not saying folks are wrong if you disallow this in your own games, just offering up my perspective...
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and
thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know
something that you never learned in the first place.
I think we all agree that the above statement is crystal clear.
If someone asks me in combat what color a troll is, and am trained in Knowledge (Magic), and I fumble and fail, the wording here states I can never reroll the check unless I get some substantial hint to cue me in.
However, if I'm allowed to take 10 outside combat, then I can with certainty state that they are baby-poo green.
This is the reason why I disagree with the ability to take 10 on a Knowledge check under normal circumstances. Either you know it, or you don't.
Not everyone knows all "common" knowledge of all areas. I studied magic on the islands off the west coast of Sandpoint. What do I know about chimeric butterflies that were created by the Magic Mister Mistoffelees, even if it is common knowledge among the folk in a 500 mile spread?
Taking 10 means that you understand you will fail a few times before you are guaranteed success.
That's taking 20. It basically means you more or less you fail 19 times and then roll a 20. Not quite like rolling 1,2,3 in order, since it will take 20 times as long as usual even if a, say, 5, would have sufficed.
Taking 10 is not repeating it a few times.
It's just doing a mediocre job. You won't have done an exceptional job of it, but you won't play your bad game, either.
Still, I don't allow taking 10 on knowledge checks. Knowledge checks are made to see if you know something, not if you remember something. Whether you're rushed or not doesn't make a difference.
You cannot take 10, because your ability to remember it doesn't come into play. It's for the same reason that you cannot repeat the check.
If it were about remembering, you could try harder. But you can't.
The way I see it, your skill bonus represents your general level of knowledge in that particular field, while the final roll determines if you know that particular morsel of information.
It's always possible that you know relatively little about something, but you do know the very thing you need to remember. (I.e. bad bonus but rolled really well). On the other hand, you could be relatively well-versed in one area, but the information you know represents a small gap in your knowledge (good bonus but rolled really bad).
With a high enough bonus, you know more or less everything if a certain level of knowledge: A bonus of +9 or more means you know everything about a topic that is considered general knowledge, for example.
|
The key to being able to take 10 on a skill isn't whether there are consequences for failure, it's whether you can retry the check or not. If you failed at swimming, you can always try again next round. However something like Diplomacy you can't retry (Special section), therefore you shouldn't be able to take 10. Same for any knowledge check, Appraise (either you know it or you don't) or Sense Motive (You either caught the lie or didn't). The only exception to this rule is Use Magic Device. However UMD specifically states that you cannot take 10 on the check anyways.
The key to being able to take 10 on a skill isn't whether there are consequences for failure, it's whether you can retry the check or not. If you failed at swimming, you can always try again next round. However something like Diplomacy you can't retry (Special section), therefore you shouldn't be able to take 10. Same for any knowledge check, Appraise (either you know it or you don't) or Sense Motive (You either caught the lie or didn't). The only exception to this rule is Use Magic Device. However UMD specifically states that you cannot take 10 on the check anyways.
Ability for retry is not a criteria for taking 10 by the PFRPG rules. The criteria is, specifically, that the "character is not in immediate danger or distracted." That's the only requirement. Barring the Use Magic Device skill, which as noted has a specific restriction for taking 10, you can take 10 on any skill check by the core rules. Folks can obviously house-rule this as best suits a specific group's needs, but in the context of, say, a Pathfinder Society, game a GM cannot prevent a player from taking 10 on a Knowledge check. Paizo may alter this through an errata, but until such time I wanted to be sure folks are clear on what is a house rule versus what is official.
I see from other folks' posts that my take on Knowledge overall is different, e.g. I do relate it to memory as much as to body of knowledge for instance. I did want to note that in my view Knowledge checks DC's are subject to modification based on location/situation. To take the 500 miles away reference from above, in such a situation I would apply an appropriate modifier to the DC. A Varisian might, be common knowledge know what a Shoanti looks like, but an Osirian would have no idea. Setting a static DC to identify something can be convenient, but the system provides the needed flexibility for greater realism if desired.
Why not allow to take 10 (and 20) only when the proper research material is at hand (library, archives, maps, etc.)?
The bard ability would allow him to be a walking library - pretty usefull.
Edit : taking it further - why not "masterwork" libraries, getting a +2 circumstance bonus on knowledge rolls...?
Why not allow to take 10 (and 20) only when the proper research material is at hand (library, archives, maps, etc.)?
The bard ability would allow him to be a walking library - pretty usefull.
Edit : taking it further - why not "masterwork" libraries, getting a +2 circumstance bonus on knowledge rolls...?
I could see that for taking 20 on Knowledge checks, actually, as an extension of the Untrained notes already present on libraries allowing untrained checks vs. DC's higher than 10. The logic would be that the retry restriction is taken away due to having alternate sources for research. Of course, the time multiplier would put such an attempt at taking 1d4 days. I like that a lot...
I could see that for taking 20 on Knowledge checks, actually, as an extension of the Untrained notes already present on libraries allowing untrained checks vs. DC's higher than 10. The logic would be that the retry restriction is taken away due to having alternate sources for research. Of course, the time multiplier would put such an attempt at taking 1d4 days. I like that a lot...Why not allow to take 10 (and 20) only when the proper research material is at hand (library, archives, maps, etc.)?
The bard ability would allow him to be a walking library - pretty usefull.
Edit : taking it further - why not "masterwork" libraries, getting a +2 circumstance bonus on knowledge rolls...?
the problem with "Taking 10" on knowledge checks, you usually have none or little clue whether you actually passed the check ---> whether your answer is correct. If you climb you fall/slip.. if you swim, your head goes under... if you fail at riding.. etc etc... but not for knowing something.
If you don't know everything (and nobody but higher powers does have anything like omniscience) about a subject.... well you just don't know. It may come to your mind later, triggered by an outside trigger. Perhaps from research... perhaps from watching that odddly shaped rock.... But you may just not know the correct answer (or only an incomplete one). - or even know if you asked the correct question in the first place. And THAT is always the hardest part.Overall, the "taking 10" rule, while nice for "between sessions" results usually creates more problems than it actually resolves - because in inherently assumes that a mistake will not cost the character anything. Which takes out much of the tension, hence the fun out of adventure.
Another of PF-RPGs "making it simply elegant" concepts going off-track. Sometimes complexity [i]is[/is] necessary.
the problem with "Taking 10" on knowledge checks, you usually have none or little clue whether you actually passed the check ---> whether your answer is correct. If you climb you fall/slip.. if you swim, your head goes under... if you fail at riding.. etc etc... but not for knowing something.
If you don't know everything (and nobody but higher powers does have anything like omniscience) about a subject.... well you just don't know. It may come to your mind later, triggered by an outside trigger. Perhaps from research... perhaps from watching that odddly shaped rock.... But you may just not know the correct answer (or only an incomplete one). - or even know if you asked the correct question in the first place. And THAT is always the hardest part.Overall, the "taking 10" rule, while nice for "between sessions" results usually creates more problems than it actually resolves - because in inherently assumes that a mistake will not cost the character anything. Which takes out much of the tension, hence the fun out of adventure.
Another of PF-RPGs "making it simply elegant" concepts going off-track. Sometimes complexity [i]is[/is] necessary.
My assumption (because it's how I play, not because I know it to be right or that others do the same) is that the players do not know the DC of a check. If they want to know about something and roll for it, I respond based on the result. If they want to know something and take 10, I respond based on the result. In neither case do they actually know if the information is complete, correct, etc. In all situations, the player still has to ask the question (whether "right" or not) and bears the burden of what to do with the information gained. I'm not sure how the situation thus varies for taking 10 versus rolling?
the problem with "Taking 10" on knowledge checks, you usually have none or little clue whether you actually passed the check ---> whether your answer is correct. If you climb you fall/slip.. if you swim, your head goes under... if you fail at riding.. etc etc... but not for knowing something.
If you don't know everything (and nobody but higher powers does have anything like omniscience) about a subject.... well you just don't know. It may come to your mind later, triggered by an outside trigger. Perhaps from research... perhaps from watching that odddly shaped rock.... But you may just not know the correct answer (or only an incomplete one). - or even know if you asked the correct question in the first place. And THAT is always the hardest part.
I have to disagree. Having done some professionnal research myself (Ph.D student) I would say that knowledge is not as clear cut as a success/fail dichotomy.
You've failed - ok, but maybe you've learned something (let's say the name of the king's ancestor who destroyed the alliance between two kingdoms) but you missed the most important fact for dealing with the situation (he was also the ancestor of the rebel duke that is actually trying to take control of the kingdom in alliance with the historical ennemy). You have incomplete information.
Taking 10 would (probably - that's the "safe bet" you are making) give you access to relative knowledge - but you never know if a proper research would not have changed the way you'll deal with the situation.
(and as a GM, I would do the check myself for the character...)
The bard would be able to make this bet without access to a library
Another character, to make this bet in a hurry at a library.
Both would be able to taje 20 given enough time
Else, the DM throw the dice - and you don't know if he will roll a 1 (twisted - invalid - false information) or a 20 (you happen to remember reading that... and you are right!)
As I see it the description of the knowledge skill is crystal clear, and PFRPG as was the case of 3.5 is a game building upon exceptions.
There is a general rule for taking 10, but if the specific skill says something contradicting the take 10 rule, the skill takes precedence.
Further I would argue that any given situation might cause further exceptions.
Take Climb for instance:
The rules say that you can take 10 on Climb skill checks; I can accept that - at least if the climber has a rope and pitons and is able to navigate a safe path with ample time to double check the fastenings and the surcafe of the rock.
If however he is running away from someone chasing him and rapidly need sto scale a building wall, he cannot - even if the persuers are not anywhere near constituting a thread or distraction.
In the first example he might need to make a check anyway if his equipment hyappens to be faulty or if weather conditions suddenly change.
I think all should bear this in mind when thinking about allowing or disallowing to take 10 on ANY given skill.
1st refer to the general rule
2nd refer to the specific rule
3rd take the situation into account
As for any roleplaying game (allowing infinite options to players) PFRPG cannot be played RAW.
RAW is a term used by rules lawyers to argue against reason.
Out with RAW, in with reason. Any game that you would be able to play RAW would be a the size of an encyclopedia.
Any game that you would be able to play RAW would be a the size of an encyclopedia.
I take it you haven't seen the size of the real Pathfinder book, then :P
Any game that you would be able to play RAW would be a the size of an encyclopedia.I take it you haven't seen the size of the real Pathfinder book, then :P
I have a copy.
As far as I am concerned an cyclopedia is an 8 to 20 volume collection of books with anywhere from 500 to 1000 pages each.
Though extensive, I would never regar the PFRPG core rulebook an encyclopedia.
Non loremasters not being able to take 10 on knowledge checks outside of distractions means the following to me:
"Hey you there on the street, you average intelligence [10] Sandpoint 1st level commoner with no ranks in knowledge skills; Yeah you, what kind of creatures were those little green guys with swords and torches that attacked the town yesterday?" [DC 5] rolls a 1, 2, 3, or 4 (+0 modifier) "Um, I don't know, that body of knowledge is unavailable to me. Let me think about it again... nope, either I know it or I don't." 20% of the time intelligence 10 Sandpoint 1st level commoners without knowledge ranks would be unable to identify a goblin [DC 5].
"Hey you there on the street, sage type person with above average intelligence [15] and 2 class levels and 2 ranks in a class skill; Yeah you, what is the answer to this really easy question within your field of study?" [DC 10] rolls a 1, or 2 (+7 modifier) "Um, I don't know, please don't ask me a basic question within my field of study [DC 15], I might not know that one either." 10% of the time intelligence 15 2nd level sage types (non loremasters) with max ranks in the skill in question would not be able to correctly answer questions within their field of study (outside of a library). And 30% of the time would not be able to correctly answer basic questions within their field of study (outside of a library).
I would think that both of these fairly common NPCs would be taking 10 on such rolls and would therefore get the answer correct 100% of the time for the specific situations I have described.
|
|
That actually is a perfect example of why you *shouldn't* be able to take 10. The DC for a 'really easy' question in any Knowledge is DC 10, and even untrained people are allowed to make DC 10 or lower checks.
This would mean everyone in the world would know every 'really easy' question for every single Knowledge so long as they had an effective Intelligence of +0 or higher.
Seems weird. I mean I think I'm pretty smart too, I know lots of programming languages and work in that field, but there are still a few things that pop up which are *really* simple things that I just didn't know.
|
Seems weird. I mean I think I'm pretty smart too, I know lots of programming languages and work in that field, but there are still a few things that pop up which are *really* simple things that I just didn't know.
Or specific questions are phased in such a way that it takes longer than the time allotted to 'taking 10' to find/know the answer:
"Why did this crash to this line of code when doing X" (two hours later) Doh! There's a missing semi colon!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That actually is a perfect example of why you *shouldn't* be able to take 10. The DC for a 'really easy' question in any Knowledge is DC 10, and even untrained people are allowed to make DC 10 or lower checks.
This would mean everyone in the world would know every 'really easy' question for every single Knowledge so long as they had an effective Intelligence of +0 or higher.
Seems weird. I mean I think I'm pretty smart too, I know lots of programming languages and work in that field, but there are still a few things that pop up which are *really* simple things that I just didn't know.
Consider, though, that the DC 10 is not static--it represents a "really easy question" and it's the DM's job to determine when a question is really easy in relation to any given PC or NPC. From my example above, identifying a Shoanti might be a DC 10 for a Varisian and a DC 15 for an Osirian (and a DC 20 or higher for, say, a Mwangi Tribesman). Everyone knows every really easy answer that is common knowledge to that region/culture/economic group/etc.
My perception of the problem is folks thinking every Knowledge check is a static DC, and that's simply not the case. At least from my perspective of the game. Ultimately, again for me, Knowledge checks or any skill check should be made when it adds to the fun of the game. When a player can't get basic information related to their quest/adventure/goal, that's no fun.
Personally, I think that only really applies to Knowledge (local) with regards to the area they live in.
You wouldn't expect a 10-Int commoner to be able to make a DC 10 Knowledge (arcane) check every single time, would you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would, actually. However, you again have to consider what a DC 10 arcana check involves. There is actually no DC 10 check noted for Knowledge arcana. The following are noted for other Knowledge areas:
- Identify mineral, stone, or metal (Dungeoneering)
- Identify dangerous construction (Engineering)
- Identify a creature's ethnicity or accent (Geography)
- Know recent or historically significant event (History)
- Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations (Local)
- Identify a common plant or animal (Nature)
- Know current rulers and their symbols (Nobility)
- Know the names of the planes (Planes)
- Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy (Religion)
So, our commoner taking 10 would be able to answer these questions. If he can't take 10, as often as not he will not even know the local laws or who the current ruler is...That's too much of a fail rate for my games on questions like this.
It seems to me like a valid solution is to allow taking 10 only for knowledge skills that one is trained in.
It's reasonable to expect that a commoner would have a skill rank in Knowledge (local) and probably Knowledge (history), as well as in other Knowledge skills depending on how much they used them - for example, a farmer would be likely to have a rank in Knowledge (nature), and so on.
That actually is a perfect example of why you *shouldn't* be able to take 10. The DC for a 'really easy' question in any Knowledge is DC 10, and even untrained people are allowed to make DC 10 or lower checks.
This would mean everyone in the world would know every 'really easy' question for every single Knowledge so long as they had an effective Intelligence of +0 or higher.
Seems weird. I mean I think I'm pretty smart too, I know lots of programming languages and work in that field, but there are still a few things that pop up which are *really* simple things that I just didn't know.
Exactly. One just don't know *everything*. Not even everything easy.
I'm quite intelligent, and I know a lot of stuff. But I had instances where I didn't know stuff everyone agreed was common knowledge. It happens to everyone.
And, as I said, it has nothing to do with whether you are rushed or not - either you know something or you don't. That's how knowledge is defined in PF. It's not remembering, it's knowing.
There's no mechanic for remembering things under preassure, as there is no mechanic for "remembering" things at all.
So, our commoner taking 10 would be able to answer these questions. If he can't take 10, as often as not he will not even know the local laws or who the current ruler is...That's too much of a fail rate for my games on questions like this.
It's realistic, though. Go out onto the street and start asking people who rules your country right now. The kind of answers you sometimes get is amazing.
|
It's realistic, though. Go out onto the street and start asking people who rules your country right now. The kind of answers you sometimes get is amazing.
So, our commoner taking 10 would be able to answer these questions. If he can't take 10, as often as not he will not even know the local laws or who the current ruler is...That's too much of a fail rate for my games on questions like this.
Yeah, they devote entire documentaries to roving reporters asking American citizens "who is the current President of the United States?" or "can you point to America on this map of the world?"
And don't even get me started on
American: "and where are you from?"
Australian: "Australia"
American: "Austria?"
Seriously, when I visited the US, there were people who didn't know where or what Australia was, until I mentioned Kangaroos. It seems everyone understands "Kangaroo".
It seems to me like a valid solution is to allow taking 10 only for knowledge skills that one is trained in.
It's reasonable to expect that a commoner would have a skill rank in Knowledge (local) and probably Knowledge (history), as well as in other Knowledge skills depending on how much they used them - for example, a farmer would be likely to have a rank in Knowledge (nature), and so on.
Precisely... only if you are trained and have skill points allocated to it. Untrained individuals shouldn't be able to "take 10" in this regard.
I would, actually. However, you again have to consider what a DC 10 arcana check involves. There is actually no DC 10 check noted for Knowledge arcana. The following are noted for other Knowledge areas:
- Identify mineral, stone, or metal (Dungeoneering)
- Identify dangerous construction (Engineering)
- Identify a creature's ethnicity or accent (Geography)
- Know recent or historically significant event (History)
- Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations (Local)
- Identify a common plant or animal (Nature)
- Know current rulers and their symbols (Nobility)
- Know the names of the planes (Planes)
- Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy (Religion)
So, our commoner taking 10 would be able to answer these questions. If he can't take 10, as often as not he will not even know the local laws or who the current ruler is...That's too much of a fail rate for my games on questions like this.
A lot of those are things I wouldn't want every average-intelligence person in the world to be able to answer.
Identify accents? Most Joe Blow Commoners have never left their village, how would they recognize exactly where a foreigner is from by their accent?
Identify dangerous construction? Hell, there's entire modern degree programs relating to identifying dangerous constructions!
Identifying between mineral, stone, and metal? I can't do that with any great reliability (seriously, mineral vs stone is a fairly fine line, relatively speaking) and I have a bachelor degree.
Know current rulers and their symbols? There's a reason kings employed heralds, and it isn't because everyone in the world knows the heraldry of every ruler. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Know the names of the planes? How many people do you know who could name you all the layers of the Christian Hell?
the problem with "Taking 10" on knowledge checks, you usually have none or little clue whether you actually passed the check ---> whether your answer is correct. If you climb you fall/slip.. if you swim, your head goes under... if you fail at riding.. etc etc... but not for knowing something.
If you don't know everything (and nobody but higher powers does have anything like omniscience) about a subject.... well you just don't know. It may come to your mind later, triggered by an outside trigger. Perhaps from research... perhaps from watching that odddly shaped rock.... But you may just not know the correct answer (or only an incomplete one). - or even know if you asked the correct question in the first place. And THAT is always the hardest part.I have to disagree. Having done some professionnal research myself (Ph.D student) I would say that knowledge is not as clear cut as a success/fail dichotomy.
You've failed - ok, but maybe you've learned something (let's say the name of the king's ancestor who destroyed the alliance between two kingdoms) but you missed the most important fact for dealing with the situation (he was also the ancestor of the rebel duke that is actually trying to take control of the kingdom in alliance with the historical ennemy). You have incomplete information.
Taking 10 would (probably - that's the "safe bet" you are making) give you access to relative knowledge - but you never know if a proper research would not have changed the way you'll deal with the situation.
(and as a GM, I would do the check myself for the character...)
The bard would be able to make this bet without access to a library
Another character, to make this bet in a hurry at a library.
Both would be able to taje 20 given enough time
Else, the DM throw the dice - and you don't know if he will roll a 1 (twisted - invalid - false information) or a 20 (you happen to remember reading that... and you are right!)
well anyone who has a university degree should have done some research in his/her life. Doesn't mean you remember everything you read through for it, right ? Not even all of the stuff relevant to the researched topic. But... you don't know you recollect only incompletely or if your knowledge was incomplete or faulty in the first place... or if everything worked just perfectly ? How do you do an "average" job on remembering something ? It's a sub-conscious process....
One does not, or rather very rarely have an idea whether one's memory was complete enough - or not. Or how to drag it up from the corners of one's accumulated experiences. Certainly not in combat or in the field, far from one's books....Have you ever taken an exam and couldn't drag up stuff you actually do know - and did remember perfectly after the exam was over ? Pretty basic stuff that one learned during the first year of studies ?
....and this is not a "Watchmen"-clone with every bard sort featuring weird super-mnemonic mind whiz powers with precise and absolute recall. This is Pathfinder. People still tick in recognizable ways. And the "take 10" ability is not supposed to be something magical or supernatural - just skill and perhaps talent. So it is supposed to tick analogous to normal human life, even in a fantasy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still see folks problems above as a matter of scale. As an example from the Knowledge [engineering] bit, identifying dangerous construction as a DC 10, to me, means the thing is so dangerous, anybody taking a reasonable look knows this. Yes, everybody should be able to see that. This isn't hidden construction. It's not identifying an integrity issue with the support beams. It's easily identifiable, dangerous construction. The same would go for, say, accents--a commoner can easily recognize the local accent versus somebody from up north. He's not going to have any idea what an accent is for someone from another continent, because that is not a DC 10 check. Also, consider that any commoner in this situation with an Int lower than 10 will indeed fail even when taking 10...
It seems this is basically a difference in how folks approach the game, and I'm okay with that. I've never found that constraining access to basic information provides a fun experience for my games, but I acknowledge that others might take such as a challenge for some sleuthing or some such. If it should happen that Paizo does come along and change the rules such that everyone cannot take 10 on Knowledge checks, I'll likely house-rule it back to the current state to keep the fit with my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still see folks problems above as a matter of scale. As an example from the Knowledge [engineering] bit, identifying dangerous construction as a DC 10, to me, means the thing is so dangerous, anybody taking a reasonable look knows this. Yes, everybody should be able to see that.
Damn, I wish I had your faith in humanity.
What you - or most people - think is a death trap, others consider to be okay and no big deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damn, I wish I had your faith in humanity.
What you - or most people - think is a death trap, others consider to be okay and no big deal.
Ah, on the contrary I hold to the politically incorrect view that there are about the same number of people below average intelligence as above...and especially so in the bell curve distribution world that is the d20 universe. Such folks fail, even when taking 10.
So, to take an example of a ladder crazily propped up with sticks (I've actually seen scaffolding on trips to Africa built from sticks and twigs going up 3-4 stories!): (1) a certain portion of the population is truly not going to understand the inherent danger of that contraption, (2) another portion will understand the danger intellectually, but not have enough sense (i.e. low Wisdom) to act on that knowledge, and (3) another portion of the population will be motivated by an outside factor (money, fear of superior, etc.) that they'll act despite the danger.
Without the option to take 10, even the average-to-smart folks fail on too high a percentage for my tastes in-game.
This is unchanged from 3.5e. Taking 10 is simply a "you don't need to roll the die, since it's not a high stress situation." You can use it with Knowledge checks. Retries only affect Take 20s.
Now as to "how it should work..." I think retries should be allowed "up to a take 10" once stress is removed. Let me illustrate.
On average (taking 10) you know about green troll poo or whatever. But in the middle of a fight, when you step in some, your mind is racing and you might not be able to put 2 and 2 together in those 6 seconds. Once the fight ends and you are all investigating the battlefield, I think that merits a "take 10" retry as really it was the stress causing you to not immediately remember that, not a lack of knowledge.
I agree that given the way the skill system works a lot of those DCs are way too low. "Identify someone has an accent from not around here - DC10" is fine, "Identify specific country of origin of that accent" needs to be way higher.
|
I rolled up a Bard last night to better familiarize myself with the class. Have we clarified yet about the knowledge take 10s. My thought is that its for Bards for the most part, not others. Yes the rules say most skills can take 10 provided there is no thread - but that seems wonky. Sorry I have not the full time to re-read this thread.... just wondering where we landed on this point?
P.s. I tend to land on the intuitive side, where it doesn't make much sense for someone to day, "King Sassafras! I'm sure of it. No, it was Lady Aberlain. Er, no I'm positive it was Duke Richard of the Mistmarsh. No, it was... um..."
I'll stop back. Thanks.
I rolled up a Bard last night to better familiarize myself with the class. Have we clarified yet about the knowledge take 10s. My thought is that its for Bards for the most part, not others. Yes the rules say most skills can take 10 provided there is no thread - but that seems wonky. Sorry I have not the full time to re-read this thread.... just wondering where we landed on this point?
P.s. I tend to land on the intuitive side, where it doesn't make much sense for someone to day, "King Sassafras! I'm sure of it. No, it was Lady Aberlain. Er, no I'm positive it was Duke Richard of the Mistmarsh. No, it was... um..."
I'll stop back. Thanks.
Well, I'd say we haven't quite landed. I believe everyone is in agreement that by the rules, taking 10 on any skill check except for Use Magic Device is allowed. However, while some folks are okay with taking 10 on Knowledge checks for everyone, others propose various restrictions. Reading the full thread will give you insight into both sides of the issue.
As I have been mulling the rule of "take 10" over, I've been coming closer to a decision to update/house-rule it some...
To include that you need to have ranks in the skill in question also (i.e. trained).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To DarkWhite: I just want to say.....I AM SORRY! It pains me that ignorance is so prevalent in my country. Don't let that spoil it for you! Most of us LOVE Australia (and can even find it on a map!).....unreasonably so, in fact. The accent, the humor, the attitude. Hell, sometimes I wish I were Australian. G'day!
As to the question at hand: I researched all of the "official" d20 core rulesets and found that, indeed, the SRD, 3.5 PH, d20Modern, and Star Wars d20 allow you to take 10 on Knowledge checks. However, both Star Wars Revised and Saga Edition added that you can't take 10 unless you are trained in the skill. Though "the GM may allow exceptions for truly routine activities".
I think this is a very reasonable and realistic rule, that addresses most peoples issues with the subject. Whether Paizo alters there own rules with errata or not, I will be using this rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, yes the RAW allow taking 10 on Knowledge checks except in stressful situations.
I just don't like how some of the DCs are set ;)
For the record: the aforementioned "can't take 10 unless you are trained in the skill" was in the definition of take 10, so it applied to ALL skills not just Knowledge (in SW Saga Ed.).
|
|
I don't allow Taking 10 on knowledge checks when I game, with the exception that I likely would allow one if someone had some kind of reference material to refer to. As I see it knowledge is something that you have or you don't and there isn't always rhyme or reason to it. There will be times where smart people can't correctly answer a simple question in their area of expertise. That makes sense to me, but allowing Taking 10 would mean people always knew every simple detail that there was.
Take me as an example. I've got a Master's degree in Statistics and get good enough grades that I ought to have a few skill ranks in the subject if I converted myself over to D&D. But, nevertheless, I couldn't give the answer offhand to every simple Statistics question that somebody could come up with.
Now, if I had a text book on hand then yes, I have the knowledge to find and understand the piece of simple Statistical knowledge. But without it? I'll know most simple pieces of Statistical information, but not all of them at any given point in time. I guess my skill modifier must not quite be a '9' yet. ;)
And I like this kind of intuitive explanation of materials or new events/information changing the conditions to allow additional attempts.
One of the table phenomena that I dislike is the GM who asks for a check, allows re-rolls, then everyone starts rolling, then everyone starts rerolling... until a big number arrives. It often feels like shooting fish in a barrel, seems kinda contrived. I also dislike it when a GM wants to tell a PC party something and just goes through some rediculous motions with knowledge checks, only to arrive at the same intended place of revealing the 411 to everyone. I do play RAW Pathfinder RPG, however, so to the extent all this taking 10 and trying again is allowed, I'll be sure to isolate it to the character the truly is involved in the story context enough to singularly make the rolls or take the 10 as needed. And... just for the record, I love the idea of the Bard being that kind of person, akin to a sage hireling, that a PC party might seek out in a town for informaiton.
I love the idea of the PCs looking for Slim Shady the wiley flutist in order to get the one shread of 411 that they need. Sure seems much more interesting than taking 10 or 20, or having a mad roll-off with every availabe d20 at teh table. Just sayin'.
well anyone who has a university degree should have done some research in his/her life. Doesn't mean you remember everything you read through for it, right ? Not even all of the stuff relevant to the researched topic. But... you don't know you recollect only incompletely or if your knowledge was incomplete or faulty in the first place... or if everything worked just perfectly ? How do you do an "average" job on remembering something ? It's a sub-conscious process....
One does not, or rather very rarely have an idea whether one's memory was complete enough - or not. Or how to drag it up from the corners of one's accumulated experiences. Certainly not in combat or in the field, far from one's books....
Have you ever taken an exam and couldn't drag up stuff you actually do know - and did remember perfectly after the exam was over ? Pretty basic stuff that one learned during the first year of studies ?
....and this is not a "Watchmen"-clone with every bard sort featuring weird super-mnemonic mind whiz powers with precise and absolute recall. This is Pathfinder. People still tick in recognizable ways. And the "take 10" ability is not supposed to be something magical or supernatural - just skill and perhaps talent. So it is supposed to tick analogous to normal human life, even in a fantasy game.
No, doesn't mean you remember everything. Only knowlege whithin the 10 + ranks scope.
You also don't know if you remembered correctly - that is why I stated the GM sould throw the dices - you'll never know if the awnser is complete.
I don't have a problem with the bard having mnemotechnical tricks - lot of stage magicians can develop those in the real world, and it goes well with the concept of the bard : "yeah, heard that in a legend/song!" We are not talking about a perfect "superhero" eideitic memory, as that would be taking 20.