I'm a little curious as to why you think all instances of those checks would be DC 10? Wouldn't a rare rock or mineral have a higher DC?
Why was under the impression that it was spelled out that (normally) you can't take 10 on knowledges?
Was that true in 3.0/3.5?If it was true in 3.5, it certainly wasn't spelled out anywhere. I can see no reason why it would be true. In fact, taking 10 on knowledge checks would be a pretty common occurrence for most people in real life.
Considering you can use knowledge untrained up to DC 10, and going by the logic of taking 10 being allowed by all, every single man, woman and child in the entirety of Golarion knows the following:
All minerals, stones, metals
All dangerous construction
All accents and ethnicities
All recent historical events
All local laws rulers and popular locations
All common plants and animals
All current rules and their symbols
All names of existing planes
All common deity symbols and clergy
A basic ability or weakness of every single creature below CR1The education system in Golarion is FANTASTIC!
I don't think that all of the above are DC 10 checks for any man or woman in Golarion, but those that are yes i think that it's pretty good to assume that they are going to know them.
Why was under the impression that it was spelled out that (normally) you can't take 10 on knowledges?
Was that true in 3.0/3.5?If it was true in 3.5, it certainly wasn't spelled out anywhere. I can see no reason why it would be true. In fact, taking 10 on knowledge checks would be a pretty common occurrence for most people in real life.
Considering you can use knowledge untrained up to DC 10, and going by the logic of taking 10 being allowed by all, every single man, woman and child in the entirety of Golarion knows the following:
All minerals, stones, metals
All dangerous construction
All accents and ethnicities
All recent historical events
All local laws rulers and popular locations
All common plants and animals
All current rules and their symbols
All names of existing planes
All common deity symbols and clergy
A basic ability or weakness of every single creature below CR1The education system in Golarion is FANTASTIC!
While I'm pretty sure there is no Golarion education system, the point of DC 10 knowledge checks is to answer "really easy questions".
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
I think it's safe to say a "really easy question" should be within the mental capacity of an average human.
And for the crafting issues, taking 10 is exactly used to remedy the point you made. You know a low roll will cause you to fail but you don't need a high roll. That's *exactly* when you take 10. The whole point is to eliminate the "good day/bad day" effect.
I'm a little curious as to why you think all instances of those checks would be DC 10? Wouldn't a rare rock or mineral have a higher DC?Knowledge Checks in PRD
Huh. You're right. Pathfinder peasants are the very model of a modern major general.
But i don't think that works as an argument against a ruling. rule 1 + rule 2= insanity doesn't mean that rule 1 is broken.
|
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions).
So yeah it wouldn't be surprising that most people would now this kind of stuff.
And that is assuming that "every single man, women and child" have at least a 10 Int score. If they don't, they will fail due to their skill check penalty. So there is that. ;)
It is interesting to note that the typical "farmer" listed in the Game Mastery Guide has an Int of 10 but the "city guard" has a 9. No take 10 on Knowledge for the guard! :)
Add to that the +2/-2 rule, so that GMs are free to adjust the DC due to circumstances and the like. Using "All minerals, stones, metals" as an example. I would expect the average person to be able to tell the common metals apart (ie. gold vs silver vs copper vs brass etc) but wouldn't expect them to be able to identify rare and unusual metals with a DC 10 (ie. iron pyrite vs gold OR mithral vs adamantine).
Just some random thoughts.
Cheers
EDIT: Durn ninjas! ;)
|
The end point is that, as written, it is entirely subjective, left up to the individual DMs to flavor for their games. My list was how it works in the campaign I am running. Just giving an example of how it can be set up. Some others may run it similar, some may be the opposite. I don't foresee any hard ruling being made by the powers-that-be on this topic.
Don't mind more dice rolling : use less "take 10"s
Wants to run a more seamless, fast game: use more "take 10"s
That's pretty much what it comes down to. My game happens to have people that love rolling dice online, so that's what I gave them.
1) LOTS of things in the rules don't make any sense. A fighter with great cleave and 8 orcs around him can slice through all 8 orcs, but for some reason cannot slice through a mere 4 orcs if they are placed north south east and west.
The feat says so? It's a game mechanic. Whether or not a game mechanic makes sense or not with reality is a difficult question sometimes. Sometimes reality isn't balanced in the game.
The issue with unknown threats being threatening doesn't make sense in game or out of game. And yes, awareness is a core game mechanic used to determine surprise rounds.
2) That the character is not the player. The characters don't take 10 on things like perception. The players take 10. The lack of being able to take 10 is not something that tips off the character in any way shape or form.
True. It's just bad GMing. Assuming the player rolls the check and fails it (instead of being able to take 10), you've effectively informed the player that there is a threat ahead and he can't do anything about it.
What about the definition of threat precludes it from being something you don't know about?
It's common sense that you wouldn't be personally threatened by something that you don't know about. If someone walked up to you randomly and said, "you can't do that because you're being threatened". . . I guess I would feel threatened then (:
I guess you could apply the Rumsfeld concept of unknown unknowns versus known unknowns. The unknown unknown is whether a nondescript, average cave happens to have a troll inside. The known unknown is whether the obvious troll cave has a troll inside.
Should you be threatened walking into *any* cave? Probably not. Should you be threatened walking into what appears to be a troll cave? Probably so.
Either way, the GM is the final arbiter of what constitutes threatening or distracting. A good GM will make this reasonable and not railroad your character. All I'm saying is that you have to be aware of the threat or the distraction for it be threatening/distracting q:
1) LOTS of things in the rules don't make any sense. A fighter with great cleave and 8 orcs around him can slice through all 8 orcs, but for some reason cannot slice through a mere 4 orcs if they are placed north south east and west.
Why could he not? Each pair of orcs is adjacent.
Since step up is not limited by your speed for this round, A fighter facing a conga line of kobolds encircling the equator could theoretically go around the world in 6 seconds if they took a 5 foot step back from him one at at time.
No. You only get one immediate action per turn.
|
|
1) LOTS of things in the rules don't make any sense. A fighter with great cleave and 8 orcs around him can slice through all 8 orcs, but for some reason cannot slice through a mere 4 orcs if they are placed north south east and west.Why could he not? Each pair of orcs is adjacent.
Put the same orcs on the diagonals. So now the orcs are on NE, NW, SW, and SE. They are the same distance apart, but no longer adjacent.
My rule of thumb is if a character would succeed taking 10, that means it's easy for them, and the question is whether the situation is SO tense that there's as good chance they'd botch something otherwise they could do no problem. Combat where each round is 6 second long is cirtainly that tense. Judgement call as to be in situation where for example a balance beam might be easy when it's 6 inches off the ground, but when it's 60 feet, will vertigo kick in? or is the PC like an experienced high steel construction worker, calm cool and collected no matter what the height?
I know you can't take 10 on knoweldge, both since such a thing is a special bard ability, and since the check is described as just you either know it or your don't - stress or taking care doesn't factor into it (which is arguably not true at all in real life).
I know you can't take 10 on knoweldge, both since such a thing is a special bard ability, and since the check is described as just you either know it or your don't - stress or taking care doesn't factor into it (which is arguably not true at all in real life).
Actually, that's pretty interesting. 3.0 and 3.5 have nothing in the FAQs that mention knowledge checks and not being able to take 10. I'm not entirely sure where they got it from? Any ability that flat-out cannot be used with the take 10 rules is documented in the skill description (see Use Magic Device).
|
|
Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.
The fact that you can use knowledge skill untrained, yet this ability only allows taking 10 on knowledge skills you have ranks in, makes me think that the designers had the thought that you do NOT take 10 on knowledge checks normally.
The fact that you can use knowledge skill untrained, yet this ability only allows taking 10 on knowledge skills you have ranks in, makes me think that the designers had the thought that you do NOT take 10 on knowledge checks normally.
Oh I agree that's what the designers thought. The only problem is, this isn't how 3.5 worked. And no significant text changed between 3.5 and PF with regard to how taking 10 works or how knowledge checks work. If they intended taking 10 to be a Pathfinder-specific mechanic, they needed to write an exception to the rule (like Use Magic Device).
The issue with unknown threats being threatening doesn't make sense in game or out of game. And yes, awareness is a core game mechanic used to determine surprise rounds.
In what sense are you using the word threat that them being unknown makes them less threatening? An assassin hiding in the bushes with a poison tipped crossbow bolt is far more of a threat than one wearing an orange jump suit yelling "Hey you! You killed my father, i will shoot you now!"
True. It's just bad GMing. Assuming the player rolls the check and fails it (instead of being able to take 10), you've effectively informed the player that there is a threat ahead and he can't do anything about it.
I take offense to you calling my dming bad. I trust my players to keep Player and character knowledge separate. The first lesson i gave as a dm on the matter involved a 2nd edition girdle of femininity masculinity and a minotaur.
Yes. There is nothing the Player can do about it, in the length of (non time) that the immediate danger is going to present itself, the same way there is nothing the pc can do about other people acting during their turns, or if the PC had taken 10 on the dice and failed.
It's common sense that you wouldn't be personally threatened by something that you don't know about.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
It doesn't say "when your character knows they're in immediate danger" or "when your character thinks they're in immediate danger" it says when your character IS in immediate danger: Immediate danger is something dice are supposed to decide.
If someone walked up to you randomly and said, "you can't do that because you're being threatened". . . I guess I would feel threatened then (:
And you're treating it as if a little man in red robes walks up and tells the character "Look ooout! Oh.. wait.. sorry.. the jury will disregard that statement" when in fact nothing changes about the character.
I guess you could apply the Rumsfeld concept of unknown unknowns versus known unknowns. The unknown unknown is whether a nondescript, average cave happens to have a troll inside. The known unknown is whether the obvious troll cave has a troll inside. Should you be threatened walking into *any* cave? Probably not. Should you be threatened walking into what appears to be a troll cave? Probably so.
But the DM knows all. Since the DM knows if there is immediate danger or not, and the DM can tell the players whether or not they can take 10.
If the player tries to turn that mechanic into an advantage by carting around a knitting grandma and going to red alert when she misses a cross stitch , drop a meteor on his head.
Either way, the GM is the final arbiter of what constitutes threatening or distracting. A good GM will make this reasonable and not railroad your character. All I'm saying is that you have to be aware of the threat or the distraction for it be threatening/distracting q:
Is anything i listed above a bad gm call.... not something you disagree with but a bad call? You seem to be merging the ideas of Distracting and immediately dangerous. They're listed separately for a reason.
Redundant rules? From WotC? Misleading? Pshaw!
I don't think you can sensibly read the rules assuming that they've screwed something up unless the rules are screwed up. Immediate danger is subjective, but that does not make it screwed up.
Immediate danger to me is when you need to be tracking rounds. Whether or not there is combat (say the volcano is erupting, an earthquake is happening, that boulder is chasing Mr Jones, etc) they are in rounds.
And other DM's could very well say differently and still be well within the scope of the rules. The party coming upon a Red dragon putting on a bib and taking out a barrel of BBQ sauce is in immediate danger whether or not the DM wants people to roll initiative or if he wants to hear what the party is going to try first.
It is a very clear and easy litmus. And it avoids your Schrodinger's cat problems that frankly are far, far worse.
Yes its clear, easy and objective, but i don't think its what the rules say or what they intend.
Take for example the danger experienced when climbing a cliff.. from falling. It's right there, but it doesn't prevent the take 10 on the climb check. Yet this kind of presence of danger is the kind in whose presence you would disallow a player from having his PC take 10 on skill checks.
I think you're giving a lot of weight to an FAQ from an old edition of the game. Technically the character is not in immediate danger because they can stay on the cliff. The cliff is not going to throw him off, an observant guard could take a move action to try to notice him at any point.
It's very easy.
That's very condescending. If the rules are as you think they are half the paragraph wouldn't be there.
Some of your situations I think you are wrong on. I would certainly let a PC take 10 on stealth to approach an enemy quietly. There's no more immediate danger here than the PC taking 10 to climb a cliff over a river of lava.. arguably far less in fact. While the enemy isn't aware of the PC there is no rush, distraction or immediate danger. You can slice and parse things differently, but again you'll slice too much when you do.
Slippery slope argument.
1) LOTS of things in the rules don't make any sense. A fighter with great cleave and 8 orcs around him can slice through all 8 orcs, but for some reason cannot slice through a mere 4 orcs if they are placed north south east and west.Why could he not? Each pair of orcs is adjacent.
Drat. i was ninjad on my own correction. NE NW SE SW
Cleave
*O*
OFO
*O*
No cleave
O*O
*F*
O*O
actually this makes the rules even MORE abdsurd, because it depends on where the fighter is with respect to magnetic (or geographic) north.
Since step up is not limited by your speed for this round, A fighter facing a conga line of kobolds encircling the equator could theoretically go around the world in 6 seconds if they took a 5 foot step back from him one at at time.No. You only get one immediate action per turn.
Oh drat. I thought i had a fighter rail gun there for a second.
The fact that you can use knowledge skill untrained, yet this ability only allows taking 10 on knowledge skills you have ranks in, makes me think that the designers had the thought that you do NOT take 10 on knowledge checks normally.Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.
A lot of Knowledge skill checks happen in combat. "What do I know about big green flying lizards?", for instance, or "What can a purple thing with 4 tentacles on its head do?"
I take the Lore Master ability to mean that a Bard with ranks in a knowledge skill can take 10 even in combat.
|
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).
so yes, you can take 10 jumping over a cliff.
for monster knowledge, it for monsters with CR<=1 (as check DC is 10+CR) and, as said already, could have a circumstance modifier of 2 due to the monster being rare...
so I don't think it's a big deal that commoners can differentiate common items/gods/animals/monsters, as long as they're not stupid.
|
|
I guess the question I find relevant to my game is, does allowing taking 10 somehow break my game? In most cases the answer is no.
Also, if you don't allow take 10 for most checks, you can run into some fairly silly scenarios.
Climb: Take a shipmate from the GMG. He will fall out of the ships rigging 20% of the time when attempting to climb into and out of the crows nest. (No wonder they need press gangs!) :)
Knowledge: Take a mayor from the GMG (10 levels!). They will be unable to identify common animals (pigs? elk?) & plants (thistle? wheat?), or recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy, 40% of the time if required to roll!
Etc etc...
|
|
for monster knowledge, it for monsters with CR<=1 (as check DC is 10+CR) and, as said already, could have a circumstance modifier of 2 due to the monster being rare...
Rare creatures have a DC of 15+CR, while common creatures have a DC of 5+DR. Now in theory you could add an additional modifier for being 'exceptionally rare', but the rules allow for a higher DC than you're implying.
|
|
for monster knowledge, it for monsters with CR<=1 (as check DC is 10+CR) and, as said already, could have a circumstance modifier of 2 due to the monster being rare...Rare creatures have a DC of 15+CR, while common creatures have a DC of 5+DR. Now in theory you could add an additional modifier for being 'exceptionally rare', but the rules allow for a higher DC than you're implying.
Also remember that "common", "rare", and such do not have to be based on world knowledge, but could be based off of regional knowledge.
For example, for people living in Area "a":
- Area has a Plethora of Kobolds. Kobolds are common DC=5+CR.
- Area has not seen Kobolds for 2 generations. Kobolds are rare, DC=10+CR.
- Area has not seen kobolds for centuries. Kobolds are Very Rare, DC=15+CR.
Or adjust as needed.
I guess the question I find relevant to my game is, does allowing taking 10 somehow break my game? In most cases the answer is no.
Heh. In one adventure, I abused the "Take 10" rule with about as blatant a rule violation as you can make with "Take 10."
By letting my players take 10 on SAVING THROWS!!!
Some people will have a heart attack reading that. :) But it didn't "break my game."
It happened when I was running "Green Lady's Sorrow" from Dungeon magazine, issue 35, (which was written for 2E,) in a 3.0 campaign. The PCs had to explore hot caves, and encountered...
So I cheated. I said "You've become so accustomed to the heat of the caves and tunnels, that the creatures' fiery aura doesn't hurt you." So the PCs never took damage from the magmins, and as I had hoped, they DID trade with the magmins for what they needed.
To this day, I wonder if I could have found some solution without breaking the rules that way.
To this day, I wonder if I could have found some solution without breaking the rules that way.
Resist Energy?