Can you take 10 to jump?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

So my wizard needed to roll a 9 or better to jump a gap so I've opted to take 10 because failing would result in a drop of hundreds of feet down. However my DM at the time for PFS said I couldn't take 10 because failure would result death (well not really because of feather fall), and keep in mind this was out of combat and weren't being rushed.

Is taking possible with or without access to feather fall?


basically no, if the attempt has consequences on failure (like falling down)you can't just take 10 not even outside combat.

Liberty's Edge

Remco Sommeling wrote:
basically no, if the attempt has consequences on failure (like falling down)you can't just take 10 not even outside combat.

Umm where is that written? Because according to the PSRD I'm right.

Quote:

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.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

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

Basically that. It's up to your GM what constitutes a "distraction or threat".


I know for sure it was a rule in 3.5, and still makes sense according to this to me, in PFS your DM was right for sure (in my opinion)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Remco Sommeling wrote:
I know for sure it was a rule in 3.5, and still makes sense according to this to me, in PFS your DM was right for sure (in my opinion)

No, it wasn't a clear rule in 3.5, either.

Relevant 3.5 rules wrote:
When your character is not being threatened 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.

You may be thinking of taking 20, where you can't take 20 if there are consequences for failure.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
basically no, if the attempt has consequences on failure (like falling down)you can't just take 10 not even outside combat.

You're thinking of the take 20 rules, not take 10. Even in d20, the take 10 rules do not have this restriction, while take 20 states: "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."

EDIT: As noted by AMiB as well...

If a character is not in "immediate danger" (PRPG)/"threatened" (d20) and the character is not distracted, he can take 10 on the roll. In PRPG, this applies to every skill except Use Magic Device. In the scenario noted by the OP, I believe the GM made an incorrect call. The character was in no immediate danger, and so could have readily made the jump.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

erian_7 wrote:
If a character is not in "immediate danger" (PRPG)/"threatened" (d20) and the character is not distracted, he can take 10 on the roll. In PRPG, this applies to every skill except Use Magic Device. In the scenario noted by the OP, I believe the GM made an incorrect call. The character was in no immediate danger, and so could have readily made the jump.

A non-dangerous situation where jump is useful is vaulting a hedge. A failed check merely tangles you in shrubbery.

Now, it's up to your GM whether any danger at all is the same as "distractions or threats (such as combat)" but it's not an unreasonable interpretation to call it either way. It's just another wart of 3e's skill system.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Not if your character is a caucasian male!


basically you could take 10 regarding routine tasks and such, I am not sure I'd let a character take 10 in this instance, DM could consider this an encounter of sorts, estimating a jump that might be a close call is not really a routine jump I think.

I think it was ok for the DM to rule either way, I rather would have rolled a wisdom check for the character to estimate the distance, maybe allowing to take 10 after you made the jump twice.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Suzaku wrote:

So my wizard needed to roll a 9 or better to jump a gap so I've opted to take 10 because failing would result in a drop of hundreds of feet down. However my DM at the time for PFS said I couldn't take 10 because failure would result death (well not really because of feather fall), and keep in mind this was out of combat and weren't being rushed.

Is taking possible with or without access to feather fall?

You can always take 10 if you are not threatened or distracted.

You can always take 20 if you have the time and there are no consequences for failure.

You can take 10 to make the jump that you described. Now, if the gap was over an opening to an active volcano which was spewing chunks of rock and lava in your way, then you could NOT take 10 as that constitutes a distraction (and quite possibly a threat as well).


where as a 200 foot drop is not a distraction ?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Remco Sommeling wrote:
where as a 200 foot drop is not a distraction ?

Maybe, if you have a long duration Feather Fall spell running?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:
where as a 200 foot drop is not a distraction ?

No, it's not a distraction. For something to be a distraction it would have to interfere with what you are doing in some way. The depth of the potential drop is inconsequential. You are as able to jump a 5 ft. gap over a 1 ft. pit just as easily as you can jump a 5 ft. gap over a 1,000 ft. pit.

Examples of a distraction:

- A swarm of harmless creatures (like hummingbirds) swarm around your head annoyingly as you make the jump.

- You make the jump during an earth quake (this may also add circumstance penalties as well as prevent taking 10).


I disagree, I could say something for one way or another, but ultimately it is a DM's call I think both sides have merrit.

generally I do not think the DM should have told the player what roll he needed but rather give him an estimation. I would let the character make a jump check unless it is obviously cleared with ease.


So can you Take 10 or Take 20 to set up an ambush 'hide'? If you had some buddies (so not a threat) able to supervise and let you know if you were well concealed or not? There's no threat taking my time to set up against them... :p


potentially you could take 10 to hide at least, 20 maybe, it is a DM judgement again who is to say you have successfully hidden, taking 20 is about retrying till it works basically. your buddies would be able to aid you in hiding at least so you get a bonus, + 2 if they make a DC 10 check I believe..


Remember that when you take a 20, it basically takes 20 times longer because it emulates you rolling every single result from 1 to 20.

Just something to chew on if someone asks you if they can take 20 on things like setting up an ambush or sneaking across the palace grounds. "Sure-- they get there on round 6. What's a six plus your stealth?" or "You jump the fence surrounding the grounds. What do you get for a 1 plus your stealth?"


yea, taking 20 on a hide check means automatic failure to be spotted in many cases, I don't think that ought to be so.

You will really know how well you are hidden, when it is tie to ambush I suppose.
Usually it is assumed creatures take 10 when waiting in ambush, seems fair enough for me.

Liberty's Edge

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I disagree, I could say something for one way or another, but ultimately it is a DM's call I think both sides have merrit.

generally I do not think the DM should have told the player what roll he needed but rather give him an estimation. I would let the character make a jump check unless it is obviously cleared with ease.

The only possible way a pit is distracting is that the character in question is afraid of heights. It's not doing anything, could you memorize new spells for the day next to the cliff? If so what changes between the jump and memorizing spells?


Suzaku wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

I disagree, I could say something for one way or another, but ultimately it is a DM's call I think both sides have merrit.

generally I do not think the DM should have told the player what roll he needed but rather give him an estimation. I would let the character make a jump check unless it is obviously cleared with ease.

The only possible way a pit is distracting is that the character in question is afraid of heights. It's not doing anything, could you memorize new spells for the day next to the cliff? If so what changes between the jump and memorizing spells?

There is a difference between sitting beside a cliff, and jumping over it. Jumping over a pit that is two feet deep has no true repercussions if you fail. 200 feet? serious repercussions. Who's to say that thought of falling wouldn't get into the character's head.

Think of it like this, sinking a five foot putt in golf isn't too hard. Sinking a five foot putt to win the Masters with Tiger woods standing on the green waiting would be serious pressure. It's the same act, just a different amount of pressure.

Contributor

I think the real question is: was the question of whether or not you could jump over the gap critical to the adventure? Or was it merely an obstacle on the way to the REAL adventure? If it's not critical, let the wizard take 10 and succeed so you can get on with the ADVENTURE.


The DM should start throwing dispel magic traps in their pits.

Then they'll have no problems with suggesting that players shouldn't be distracted.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shifty wrote:
So can you Take 10 or Take 20 to set up an ambush 'hide'? If you had some buddies (so not a threat) able to supervise and let you know if you were well concealed or not? There's no threat taking my time to set up against them... :p

Yes, you can take 20 on a Stealth check to set up an ambush. Just make sure you have plenty of time and patience for it.

As for the pit example, it's not a threat. You can take 10 under most circumstances.


taking 20 takes 2 minutes, my players would grumble if I allowed every road bandit to take 20, too easy for my liking. stealth generally has consequences to failure, I'd not allow a take 20 not for either side of the screen.

on the pit, I did not find the DM call unreasonable, It could go both ways. It doesn't seem a big deal either way, no need to analyze every tiny detail a DM does, unless it is grossly unfair.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:

taking 20 takes 2 minutes, my players would grumble if I allowed every road bandit to take 20, too easy for my liking. stealth generally has consequences to failure, I'd not allow a take 20 not for either side of the screen.

on the pit, I did not find the DM call unreasonable, It could go both ways. It doesn't seem a big deal either way, no need to analyze every tiny detail a DM does, unless it is grossly unfair.

I like to think of taking 20 to ambush as actually spending time not just setting yourself up, but setting up the area as well (such as adding more places for cover, distracting objects, and camouflage).

It's debatable as to whether "penalty for failure" applies in this instance. I personally believe it has to be more personally threatening to qualify (such as falling when climbing). Following your interpretation, you'd never be able to take 20 on common sense stuff like disable device checks to open a lock or on escape artist checks to escape bindings since pretty much every skill check you'll ever make has "consequences for failure." (In the examples, the consequences for failing are not getting past the locked door and failing to escape one's bonds.)

Remember, it's not "consequences." Every action has a consequence of some kind. It's when there is a "penalty" for failure that you can't take 20.

If a GM told me I couldn't take 20 on Stealth checks to ambush someone (even though I had plenty of time to set positions and the scene) I would disagree with his interpretation (and let him know it), but otherwise abide by his ruling (it does have a small amount of reasonable merit).


Ravingdork wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

taking 20 takes 2 minutes, my players would grumble if I allowed every road bandit to take 20, too easy for my liking. stealth generally has consequences to failure, I'd not allow a take 20 not for either side of the screen.

on the pit, I did not find the DM call unreasonable, It could go both ways. It doesn't seem a big deal either way, no need to analyze every tiny detail a DM does, unless it is grossly unfair.

I like to think of taking 20 to ambush as actually spending time not just setting yourself up, but setting up the area as well (such as adding more places for cover, distracting objects, and camouflage).

It's debatable as to whether "penalty for failure" applies in this instance. I personally believe it has to be more personally threatening to qualify (such as falling when climbing). Following your interpretation, you'd never be able to take 20 on common sense stuff like disable device checks to open a lock or on escape artist checks to escape bindings since pretty much every skill check you'll ever make has "consequences for failure." (In the examples, the consequences for failing are not getting past the locked door and failing to escape one's bonds.)

Remember, it's not "consequences." Every action has a consequence of some kind. It's when there is a "penalty" for failure that you can't take 20.

If a GM told me I couldn't take 20 on Stealth checks to ambush someone (even though I had plenty of time to set positions and the scene) I would disagree with his interpretation (and let him know it), but otherwise abide by his ruling (it does have a small amount of reasonable merit).

Well in this case you cant try keep hiding till they dont spot you, that is the penalty or consequence. you might aid another or maybe think of something else to make hiding easier, but I'd not allow to take 20 in that case.

If the only consequence is having to spend more time it is ok. you can throw the dice 20 times to open a lock or try disable device provided you can not accidentally spring a trap with a bad roll, escape artist is fine too, unless you have to hurry.

basically take 20 in cases where it is nonsensical to have a player roll 20 or more times to succeed, since he can do so with impunity anyway.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think the real question is: was the question of whether or not you could jump over the gap critical to the adventure? Or was it merely an obstacle on the way to the REAL adventure? If it's not critical, let the wizard take 10 and succeed so you can get on with the ADVENTURE.

I sincerely think this is the crux of it. If the DM says no the pit is too distracting and you have to roll, well then you roll and hope for the best. Or if you're really nervous you set up some kind of jury rigged rope bridge or pulley system or something even more absurd and elaborate and make your DM wish he'd just let you jump across the danged crevasse. :)


Also, as to the other concurrent conversation regarding taking 10 or 20 on hide checks to set up an ambush, I don't believe you can take 10 or 20 on opposed rolls. Maybe this changed in PF, idk, but in 3.5 you couldn't take 20 on Bluff or Sense Motive, or Hide/Spot or Move Silently/Listen or Forgery/Spot etc.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Setting up an ambush should be adding a circumstance bonus to your stealth roll. You have cover/camo/masked your scent whatever. If you have time, and a can select the location, etc. Getting a +10 (effectively taking your average roll to a 20,) is probably reasonable given sufficent time and effort.

But the opposed rolls should be happening at the given moment in time to represt the potential sneeze or metal reflection giving you away.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Taking 10 helps to speed up game play (removing the step of adding a die roll to a number), and helps to make characters feel like their increasing ranks in skills actually do something. As in; if you couldn't take 10 to jump over a pit at level 1, but at level 7 you can, that's HARD PROOF your character got more powerful. That's good for the game.


A good rule of thumb is simply, if i fail an attemt, can i keep trying till i succeed? for example, lets say you are trying to jump a chasm, where failure means falling down a large crag to either your death or a long arse trip back up, can you take 10? no, because failure requires considerable effort to try again. now lets say you are trying to jump up to a ledge 8 feet above you. can you easily keep trying over and over again till you get the ledge? sure you can. If its withing your ability, and you are able to spend time and keep trying till you get it, you can take ten or 20 or whatever, however if attempts mean a catastrophic failure( like falling down a deep hole or maybe picking a trapped lock) then no you shouldnt be able to keep trying. regardless your dm said no, and thus trumps all other rules anyway.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:

Well in this case you cant try keep hiding till they dont spot you, that is the penalty or consequence. you might aid another or maybe think of something else to make hiding easier, but I'd not allow to take 20 in that case.

If the only consequence is having to spend more time it is ok. you can throw the dice 20 times to open a lock or try disable...

If I was trying to take a 20 on a Stealth check and the "spotter" was "right over there" I would agree with you. Since I am talking about advanced setup potentially hours before any potential spotter(s) even arrive, however, there is absolutely no penalty for failure (since there is no one around to make the opposed Perception check).

Maezer wrote:

Setting up an ambush should be adding a circumstance bonus to your stealth roll. You have cover/camo/masked your scent whatever. If you have time, and a can select the location, etc. Getting a +10 (effectively taking your average roll to a 20,) is probably reasonable given sufficent time and effort.

But the opposed rolls should be happening at the given moment in time to represt the potential sneeze or metal reflection giving you away.

I could totally abide with that interpretation. Wouldn't that be nearly the same thing though? Taking 10 with a +10 circumstance bonus from all the setup is basically like having taken 20 in the first place. Though we went about handling it in different ways, it seems we are in agreement on the basic idea.

Chia_Pet wrote:
A good rule of thumb is simply, if i fail an attempt, can i keep trying till i succeed? for example, lets say you are trying to jump a chasm, where failure means falling down a large crag to either your death or a long arse trip back up, can you take 20? no, because failure requires considerable effort to try again. now lets say you are trying to jump up to a ledge 8 feet above you. can you easily keep trying over and over again till you get the ledge? sure you can. If its withing your ability, and you are able to spend time and keep trying till you get it, you can take ten or 20 or whatever, however if attempts mean a catastrophic failure( like falling down a deep hole or maybe picking a trapped lock) then no you shouldnt be able to keep trying. regardless your dm said no, and thus trumps all other rules anyway.

Fixed it for you.

Also, you could attempt to take 20 to pick even a trapped lock, though I don't imagine you will get very far before the trap goes off. Now, had you said "to disable the trap" there is no way you could take 20. :P


Feather fall has nothing to do with taking 10. If you're not rushed/hurried -- and there's nothing in particular distracting you -- no booming voice through the air, no extremely fast wind, no enemies ploinking arrows at you, no thick snow lowering visibility -- then you're free to take ten. Possibility of failure is the whole point; you want an average roll so you don't roll too low and fail. That's why you can take 10 in the first place.

What's missing here is the gamble of taking 10. It seems awfully risky for a wizard to be jumping over something. How did you (the player) know you only needed a 9 -- how did your character know he needed only a moderate effort? Did the DM imply that the jump was just a small one? Or was it a large one that you used a jump spell on?

Something just sounds out of order in the story.


meatrace wrote:
Also, as to the other concurrent conversation regarding taking 10 or 20 on hide checks to set up an ambush, I don't believe you can take 10 or 20 on opposed rolls. Maybe this changed in PF, idk, but in 3.5 you couldn't take 20 on Bluff or Sense Motive, or Hide/Spot or Move Silently/Listen or Forgery/Spot etc.

It does not say that you can't take 10 or 20 on an opposed check, but it seems like that SHOULD be the rule, at least for taking 20 (the penalty being that you lose the opposed check, though I admit that's kind of a nebulous situation).


Michael Johnson 66 wrote:
It does not say that you can't take 10 or 20 on an opposed check, but it seems like that SHOULD be the rule, at least for taking 20 (the penalty being that you lose the opposed check, though I admit that's kind of a nebulous situation).

You can't take 20 if you can fail -- typically on an opposed roll you can fail. Also, opposed rolls apply immediately, so you can't wait for an opposed roll to happen 20 times.

Taking 10 with opposed rolls is fine. . . as long as you aren't in combat, aren't under time constraints, and aren't being distracted by something external to what you're doing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well first it gives control of the bonus to GM.

There should be a difference between someone who set up the perfect hiding place and someone who used the curvature of the earth as cover to hide behind while sitting (perfectly still and silently) in the middle of the road. Especially once the potential opposer's line of sight is no longer blocked by the curvature.

Next it would nix adding a circumstance bonus on top of taking 20.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
meabolex wrote:
How did you (the player) know you only needed a 9 -- how did your character know he needed only a moderate effort? Did the DM imply that the jump was just a small one? Or was it a large one that you used a jump spell on?

It's as easy as saying the character "eyeballed it." Lord knows I can get a general idea of whether or not I can make a jump simply by looking at the distance involved. This is a perfect example of me "taking 10." Under most normal circumstances, I can make the jump. Even though I can traditionally make the jump with ease, if a friend snuck up behind me and went "BOO!" just as I went to make the jump I might not make a successful leap at all--and understandably so, the shock of the distraction might totally throw me off balance.

Maezer wrote:

Well first it gives control of the bonus to GM.

There should be a difference between someone who set up the perfect hiding place and someone who used the curvature of the earth as cover to hide behind while sitting (perfectly still and silently) in the middle of the road. Especially once the potential opposer's line of sight is no longer blocked by the curvature.

Next it would nix adding a circumstance bonus on top of taking 20.

More likely it's a curvature of a hill or something. If you are talking about the curvature of the planet then you are either (1) on an extremely tiny planetoid, or (2) using extremely long range sights/weapons.


meabolex wrote:


What's missing here is the gamble of taking 10. It seems awfully risky for a wizard to be jumping over something. How did you (the player) know you only needed a 9 -- how did your character know he needed only a moderate effort? Did the DM imply that the jump was just a small one? Or was it a large one that you used a jump spell on?

Something just sounds out of order in the story.

The DC of jumping, per the skill description, is the feet covered. So, if it's a 9 foot gap, the DC is 9. The character has ranks in jump, he can estimate if he can do it. Since a take 10 does it, easily, then that's good enough logic.

I know I can jump a four foot gap. Even if it's 50 feet deep, I know I can do it without any issue at all.


Take 10 should be allowed in most out of combat situations. It speeds play and prevents nonsensical failures.

Take 20 should not be allowed for opposed rolls. If a player takes extra time to hide or prepare a forgery, they should receive a circumstance bonus. There is already a mechanic in place for having additional help, i.e. aid another.

Perception is an exception. If a character has the time to burn two minutes per 5' square, and an ambusher is willing to wait, then taking 20 is perfectly acceptable.

Any situation where both sides are taking 10 or both sides taking 20, removes all instances of probability from the game, and should be avoided in my opinion.


mdt wrote:
The DC of jumping, per the skill description, is the feet covered. So, if it's a 9 foot gap, the DC is 9. The character has ranks in jump, he can estimate if he can do it. Since a take 10 does it, easily, then that's good enough logic.

Ahh, I always forget that jump DCs are tied directly to distance (: There's no reason not to take 10.

Liberty's Edge

After purchasing the scenario to it appeared to be just a 30 foot drop no mention of winds other distractions.

Sovereign Court

There isn't much reason to disallow the Take 10 rule outside of combat. It keeps things moving along more quickly, after all who wants to check the climb DC for every ladder in the game?

The real problem here is the DM telling the players the DC! Keep that under wraps, it spoils the game when you remove the DM screen and just tell players, "You need a 9." Find out whose jumping, ask for their die roles and then tell them who makes it and doesn't. If someone wants to take 10, you let them and let them sweat a little bit. Obviously for something like a acrobatics check they'd be able to figure out the DC if you gave them exact numbers, but most adventurer's I've seen don't care around a tape measurer. :D

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Suzaku wrote:
After purchasing the scenario to it appeared to be just a 30 foot drop no mention of winds other distractions.

So the GM added flavor to the adventure. I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless your PC a) failed the check and b)suffered dire consequences as a result, is it really that big a deal beyond prompting a rules clarification? The benefit of playing a published adventure is not so you can check up on the GM and make sure they ran the adventure correctly; doing so can discourage people from running games in an organized play environment.

Morgen wrote:
The real problem here is the DM telling the players the DC!

The issue is that if PCs can judge the distance they need to jump, most players would be hard pressed not to metagame something like that. Even without a tape measure, a person can tell if a distance is roughly five feet as opposed to fifteen. Whether it's actually 9 feet or 11 feet doesn't matter that much if you know the DC is going to be roughly 10.


It does feel a bit weird mechanically, say the wizard has no ranks or no str modifier, if it is DC 10 it will always make it, DC 11 it will have 50 % chance failure.

It seems the character making the jump won't actually try less hard not to fall jumping 10 feet, wouldn't it just be better to assume you automatically succeed a certain DC ?

Taking 10 feels a bit too artificial to me..

Sovereign Court

yoda8myhead wrote:
The issue is that if PCs can judge the distance they need to jump, most players would be hard pressed not to metagame something like that. Even without a tape measure, a person can tell if a distance is roughly five feet as opposed to fifteen. Whether it's actually 9 feet or 11 feet doesn't matter that much if you know the DC is going to be roughly 10.

Actually in this case it seems like it'd be quite important. A foot +/- can easily be the difference between success and failure. I can understand that as a player it is hard not to meta game, which is why I think that a lot of information should stay behind the DM screen. Even little stuff like this can add a bit of tension to a game. :)

Obviously though, it won't fit every group's playstyle.


Morgen wrote:
yoda8myhead wrote:
The issue is that if PCs can judge the distance they need to jump, most players would be hard pressed not to metagame something like that. Even without a tape measure, a person can tell if a distance is roughly five feet as opposed to fifteen. Whether it's actually 9 feet or 11 feet doesn't matter that much if you know the DC is going to be roughly 10.

Actually in this case it seems like it'd be quite important. A foot +/- can easily be the difference between success and failure. I can understand that as a player it is hard not to meta game, which is why I think that a lot of information should stay behind the DM screen. Even little stuff like this can add a bit of tension to a game. :)

Obviously though, it won't fit every group's playstyle.

I would question whether it's metagaming or not. If you have ranks in the acrobatics skill, then you are trained in using that skill, even if your dex adds nothing to it. You have put time and effort as a character knowing when you can balance, when you can jump, and how far.

And estimating the distance as about 10 feet, plus or minus a foot, is perfectly valid. At that point, the player is taking a chance, he thinks he can make it on a take 10, just as the character thinks he can hop across easily. So it' snot metagaming, it's your character using his skills and knowing what he can do.

Now, if he had no ranks in acrobatics, then he can't take 10. Taking 10 should only be allowed in a skill you have ranks in.


mdt wrote:
Taking 10 should only be allowed in a skill you have ranks in.

That's not what the PRD says. . .

PRD wrote:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

If you have no ranks in acrobatics, you can still take 10 on the Dexterity ability check.

Now if the skill is trained only -- then you typically can't roll a check anyway q: Or it's a DC you can accomplish with a take 10. . . DC 10 usually. . .


Suzaku wrote:
However my DM at the time for PFS said I couldn't take 10 because failure would result death

Whether the outcome has any negative consequences is irrelevant. All that matters is whether you are rushed (by things like a hungry monster that wants to eat you) or can take your time.

Doesn't sound like you were in a tight spot or anything, so you can idly take 10 on your jump check.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take 10 to jump? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.