Caster level checks are usually for beating Spell Resistance or some spells, like Dispel Magic.
To make a caster level check, you roll 1d20 + your caster level.
To make a magical item, you roll 1d20 + your Spellcraft skill modifier.
They are different checks, so there is nothing preventing you from taking 10.
Still with the DC being + caster level?
Who would then even try to roll for this? It means creation of items without any chance of failure.
Also remember that the item's creator can rush the job, adding 5 to the DC. He can also try to do the work without all the things he needs (+5 DC for each requirement he lacks). And that all stacks.
So it is possible to get DCs high enough that rolling or taking a 10 won't succeed. But for all other cases, it is within the RAW and highly adviseable.
Yep, there is nothing in the spellcraft description, the craft item feat descriptions, the description of how to "take 10", or the actual section on crafting magic items that says you cannot "take 10" when making stuff. The part in the "take 10" decription where is says it is best used where the skill check result is a simple pass/fail and not one where the better the roll results in a better success sounds exactly like the check for crafting magic items, since it does not matter if you get the target number exactly or get 10 over the number for the finished product. So unless I am forgetting something, if you meet all the requirements and have no distractions, the DC of 5+CL means that any item crafted with a CL of 5 or less would automatically succeed when you "take 10", and that is without factoring in your skill level and other bonuses to your roll.
Looks like you should be able to, even adding the +5 for a rush job. If I were the GM I might roll behind the screen for you anyway, but only if there was a chance of creating a cursed item.
There is also a large group of people who just don't think to take 10 on a lot of skill checks, so plenty of sources for cursed items.
Me, as a DM, I don't like taking 10 when there are real and signficant consequences for failure. I know, I know, that's a limitiatin on taking 20, not taking 10. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Taking 10 can turn things that shouldn't be auto-success into auto-success.
I think the Take-10 rule is someone misnamed. It should be called "Take-Success" because nobody ever uses it when they know they will fail; they only use it when they know they will succeed. Yes, once in a while they might not know a non-static DC and they might guess wrong and try to Take-10 when the DC is too high; I might have seen this happen 2 or 3 times since 3.5 came out. All the rest of the time it is really Take-Success.
I'm just not thrilled, as a player or a DM, with Take-Success on rolls that have real consequences, or on rolls where it seems like success should not be absolutely positively guaranteed.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...nobody ever uses it when they know they will fail...
That's the whole point, though. "Taking 10" is supposed to be something you do when you're good enough at a skill that, normally, you WON'T fail. It's only if you rush or are distracted that you'll normally fail a skill that you're normally so good at that you can basically always succeed at it.
Also, taking 10 reduces die rolling. Which is a way to speed up game play. Over the course of a session, replacing numerous die rolls with taking 10 can add up.
...nobody ever uses it when they know they will fail...That's the whole point, though. "Taking 10" is supposed to be something you do when you're good enough at a skill that, normally, you WON'T fail. It's only if you rush or are distracted that you'll normally fail a skill that you're normally so good at that you can basically always succeed at it.
Also, taking 10 reduces die rolling. Which is a way to speed up game play. Over the course of a session, replacing numerous die rolls with taking 10 can add up.
Oh, yeah, I get all that.
But to me, the Taking-20 rules seem to sorta cover that. They're the rules for guaranteed success. Taking-10 sounds more risky. At leat to me. But really, neither one of them are risky, given that the only times you can use them are when they're safe to use, so both of them are basically auto-succeed.
Or look at it this way. Why don't we have a Taking-1 rule? So, when you're sure it's safe, Take a natural 1 on your skill check. Because, when you're good enough to do that, then, to quote you, THAT is "something you do when you're good enough at a skill that, normally, you WON'T fail."
But you can Take-10 when a 9 (for example) would fail. In that case, if you have to roll, and get a 9 or less, you fail. If you're making a magic item, you would fail 45% of the time and 20% of your efforts would produce a cursed item. But you can just Take-10 and now 100% of your items are perfect every time.
That's a big leap, going from 20% cursed, 25% ruined, and 55% successful, leaping all the way up to 100% successful. It's one thing if you went up a level, or took a feat, or found a magical forge, or hired a genie to help you in your work. But no, not in this case. You didn't do or learn anything different at all. You just apply a Take-10 rule and all your worries go away.
That's the part that rubs me the wrong way, and always has.
I created a thread awhile ago citing this very problem as it applies to wizards learning spells. When taking 10, a reasonably-statted wizard will always learn any spell of a level they can cast, with the possible exception of specialists' opposition schools. I find this distasteful. Compare to 2nd ed, in which a wizard of 18 Int--which was remarkable in those days--had an 85% chance to learn a spell, and if they failed they couldn't learn the spell EVER.
Oh well.
Zo
Not true DigMarx, you could still learn that spell.
On your tangent: Why should a wizard be even more gimped than he already is? For crying out low all the divines have d8 hit dice, all their spells known two good saves, free casting in armor and more class abilities to boot too. Don't give me that load of junk about having weaker spell lists either because it isn't true, they have great spells to choose from and can also add wizard spells for free in addition to getting bonus spells per day for free compared to the wizard's "I got to give up to get this" specialization. That's in addition to having to pay for his spells to go into his book too.
Not true DigMarx, you could still learn that spell.
On your tangent: Why should a wizard be even more gimped than he already is? For crying out low all the divines have d8 hit dice, all their spells known two good saves, free casting in armor and more class abilities to boot too. Don't give me that load of junk about having weaker spell lists either because it isn't true, they have great spells to choose from and can also add wizard spells for free in addition to getting bonus spells per day for free compared to the wizard's "I got to give up to get this" specialization. That's in addition to having to pay for his spells to go into his book too.
My bad, I was working off memory re: 2nd ed. Forgot about max spells per level as well. The 85% chance is right, though. Anyway, I've never heard anyone complain the 3.X wizard is gimped. Hell, the math/maxers on this board would have us believe no other class is worth playing (other than the divine casters as you mention). Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit, but the class is nicknamed "God"...
The cleric and magic-user have had different M.O.s since the beginning of the game. I don't recall ever saying that clerics/druids have weaker spell lists, can you point out where I did? Obviously my memory ain't what it used to be :)
My point wasn't to compare the classes, but that the entire point of creating the mechanic by which wizards learn spells is subverted by the take 10 rule. With take 10 the mechanic itself is relegated to corner cases (trying to learn a spell of an opposition school, or when a wizard is trying to learn a spell in circumstances that prohibit take 10, or perhaps multi-classed wizards with poor Int scores).
Zo
You haven't (to my knowledge) used the weaker spell list argument, it's simply a very common one.
I feel take 10 is the tool for "come on lets get this done and on to something else already" for players.
If I'm a player in your campaign and I'm taking 10 I'm telling you that you aren't doing it for me and get on to something else.
However at the same time if I'm taking 10 I'm usually just as happy taking 1 which I have done before with skills just to get the DM to get off the stupid skill check I can pass on a -5 on the dice and on to what is happening.
You haven't (to my knowledge) used the weaker spell list argument, it's simply a very common one.
I feel take 10 is the tool for "come on lets get this done and on to something else already" for players.
If I'm a player in your campaign and I'm taking 10 I'm telling you that you aren't doing it for me and get on to something else.
However at the same time if I'm taking 10 I'm usually just as happy taking 1 which I have done before with skills just to get the DM to get off the stupid skill check I can pass on a -5 on the dice and on to what is happening.
Well, to my mind that's the "right" reason to apply take 10, but it all depends on the type of player and DM. I allow the wizard I DM for to take 10 on his checks to learn spells because he agrees with me that it's a powerful loophole (though it's not really a loophole, is it?) and that the circumstances that permit taking 10 involve a quiet study or library and plenty of alone time. It generally can't be done during an adventure. The reason I allow it at all is basically me choosing to pick my battles since I get a lot of flack from a few of my players over rules arbitration.
Zo
Just a couple thoughts on this:
If your character is good enough to Take 10, he will be 100% successful... for routine checks only. He will fail 100% of the time for checks for which he needs 11 or better. For instance, he'll be able to make +1 weapons, but not +5 weapons (and he'll prefer making that +5 weapon rather than any number of +1 weapons).
The DM can give circumstancial modifiers to the DC just as the player rolls the dice, too. "Oh, by the way, it's raining. There are numerous children nearby, playing and shouting. Someone just bumped into you (and picked your pockets, too). Those distractions give you a -5 to the roll (or +5 to the DC). You Took 10? You fail."
To be able to Take 10, your character has to be in an environment in which he can concentrate freely, and, if you use Take 10 in an abusive manner, your GM will make sure your character will never get that environment.
if you know a cleric with the law domain you could always just take 11...
Why are you making a magic weapon in a crowded street.Just a couple thoughts on this:
If your character is good enough to Take 10, he will be 100% successful... for routine checks only. He will fail 100% of the time for checks for which he needs 11 or better. For instance, he'll be able to make +1 weapons, but not +5 weapons (and he'll prefer making that +5 weapon rather than any number of +1 weapons).
The DM can give circumstancial modifiers to the DC just as the player rolls the dice, too. "Oh, by the way, it's raining. There are numerous children nearby, playing and shouting. Someone just bumped into you (and picked your pockets, too). Those distractions give you a -5 to the roll (or +5 to the DC). You Took 10? You fail."
To be able to Take 10, your character has to be in an environment in which he can concentrate freely, and, if you use Take 10 in an abusive manner, your GM will make sure your character will never get that environment.
Why are you nitpicking? (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
It was just an example of DM Fiat reducing the usefulness of Taking 10 all the time.
The Craft rolls are made by the week (or day), and circumstances could happen to reduce that week's work efficiency.
Some kids invading your shop and breaking your display shelves.
Some weather happenstance making your roof leak on your worktable.
You name it.