|
It is NOT meant for fore ordain who gets to act in the surprise round.
That has nothing to do with taking 10 on perception. All taking 10 on perception means is the lowest you're likely to get is a 7. For most characters taking 10 on perception means that someone moderately skilled in stealth has a 50% or so chance to hide successfully.
Perception isn't a class skill for everyone, nor does everyone put ranks into perception, nor does everyone have a decent wisdom, and much fewer people take the feats, talents, and items required to propel perception into the low 20's (before lv 10).
All allowing characters to take 10 on perception does it decrease the range of possible outcomes by half.
|
|
If the ambushers have to roll their stealth check, then whether the players actually roll perception or just automatically take 10 could well be DM preference territory.
I can see the advantage of a DM rolling all the dice in this scenario, and it doesn't actually change the PC's chances of success/failure.
An attempted ambush is still an ambush. What's wrong with letting people who invested in Perception be rewarded for it?
Alternatively are YOU OK with the fact that if you now make your ambushes detectable by the party that they will never be ambushed? As a DM I'd never accept that. I'd just do away with ambushing altogether, because there's no such THING as an ambush anymore.
They ARE rewarded for it. They get a higher bonus when THEY GET TO ROLL. The whole issue here is that if they "take 10" and the DC is higher than their take ten value, THEY DON'T EVEN GET TO ROLL! What the heck benefit are they getting from their investment in that case?
|
|
The DC is set by the Stealth check of the opposing party.
The opposing party is equally likely to roll a '1' as the Perceiver is to roll a '20'.
It's just the DC system in reverse.
Making the ambushers all take 10 on their stealth check and then rolling for the PC's has the exact same effect, mathematically speaking. You just find it less offensive because the players are rolling dice and not the DM.
But there are some advantages to letting the DM make all the secret rolls.
They ARE rewarded for it. They get a higher bonus when THEY GET TO ROLL. The whole issue here is that if they "take 10" and the DC is higher than their take ten value, THEY DON'T EVEN GET TO ROLL! What the heck benefit are they getting from their investment in that case?An attempted ambush is still an ambush. What's wrong with letting people who invested in Perception be rewarded for it?
Alternatively are YOU OK with the fact that if you now make your ambushes detectable by the party that they will never be ambushed? As a DM I'd never accept that. I'd just do away with ambushing altogether, because there's no such THING as an ambush anymore.
I take it you must not care much for 4E then? There's a whole host of game developers out there who think taking 10 on Perception is perfectly fine for a roleplaying game.
I take it you must not care much for 4E then? There's a whole host of game developers out there who think taking 10 on Perception is perfectly fine for a roleplaying game.They ARE rewarded for it. They get a higher bonus when THEY GET TO ROLL. The whole issue here is that if they "take 10" and the DC is higher than their take ten value, THEY DON'T EVEN GET TO ROLL! What the heck benefit are they getting from their investment in that case?An attempted ambush is still an ambush. What's wrong with letting people who invested in Perception be rewarded for it?
Alternatively are YOU OK with the fact that if you now make your ambushes detectable by the party that they will never be ambushed? As a DM I'd never accept that. I'd just do away with ambushing altogether, because there's no such THING as an ambush anymore.
I believe if you go back a few comments you'll find that I specifically said that I don't like that aspect of 4e. There are some things I really like about 4e and some things I don't like much at all. Overall I like the game. I could give you a list of the things I think the game designers got wrong in 4e, and passive perception to detect an ambush would be one of them.
I can't believe that ANYONE who actually PLAYS a character in this game would be OK with saying "don't bother to roll a check on an ambush, I'm fine with taking an average roll and walking blindly into any ambush where my ten won't be high enough to spot it."
I mean, seriously?
The DC is set by the Stealth check of the opposing party.
The opposing party is equally likely to roll a '1' as the Perceiver is to roll a '20'.
It's just the DC system in reverse.
Making the ambushers all take 10 on their stealth check and then rolling for the PC's has the exact same effect, mathematically speaking. You just find it less offensive because the players are rolling dice and not the DM.
But there are some advantages to letting the DM make all the secret rolls.
Actually no, I don't let the players roll either. I roll for them. There are many opposed checks like this where I don't want the player to know what "they" rolled.
And yes, I prefer to think of the players roll being the one that counts, even if I roll it. That's sort of a principle with me even. Whenever possible I want the PLAYER's characters to be the deciders in the game. Not the DM or the NPCs.
|
|
brassbaboon, I believe I already addressed this.
If a stealth roll is made on the other side, a given PC is no more or less likely to succeed by rolling than by taking 10.
It only gets into the territory you describe if the ambushers are also taking 10 on their stealth. And it very much wanders into that area if the ambushers are somehow allowed to take 20.
As long as one side is rolling, then the other can take 10 without any real disadvantage. You take 10 on AC rolls all the time, for instance.
EDIT: Ninja'd! Sorta.
If you're already rolling for the players, then some people just prefer to roll one number for the whole bad guy group than a half-dozen for each hero. It's the same thing.
|
|
The whole issue here is that if they "take 10" and the DC is higher than their take ten value, THEY DON'T EVEN GET TO ROLL!
You know by RAW the 'ambushers' have to roll their stealth checks too right? There's no static DC to see an 'ambush'. So you've got a d20 for the each member of the party to detect the 'ambush' and a d20 for each and every member of the 'ambushers'.
If anything allowing the party to take 10 on perception decreases the fickle luck factor in ambush situations and rewards players more for increasing their perception bonus.
Making the ambushers all take 10 on their stealth check and then rolling for the PC's has the exact same effect, mathematically speaking. You just find it less offensive because the players are rolling dice and not the DM.
But there are some advantages to letting the DM make all the secret rolls.
-The dm is CHOOSING to roll or not roll for "his" characters. (The npcs), as opposed to DM fiat being forced on the players.
If you give the players the option, the high perception characters will take 10 and almost certainly spot the ambush, while the low perception will want to roll and get lucky. this will probably result in less surprised players.
|
|
I can't believe that ANYONE who actually PLAYS a character in this game would be OK with saying "don't bother to roll a check on an ambush, I'm fine with taking an average roll and walking blindly into any ambush where my ten won't be high enough to spot it."
As someone playing a rogue with a perception of roughly 20 (depends on circumstances), and an initiative of 13 that constantly finds himself getting surprised and not acting first, I can clearly see why some people would rather take 10 than watch as the dice continually go cold in the moments the character is supposed to shine.
If my 30 (level 7 Rogue, still be improving this in the levels to come) can't detect the ambush odds are A) circumstances favored the ambushers B) someone drank a potion of invisibility, C) the scenario was written so the party is 'supposed' to be ambushed.
brassbaboon, I believe I already addressed this.
If a stealth roll is made on the other side, a given PC is no more or less likely to succeed by rolling than by taking 10.
It only gets into the territory you describe if the ambushers are also taking 10 on their stealth. And it very much wanders into that area if the ambushers are somehow allowed to take 20.
As long as one side is rolling, then the other can take 10 without any real disadvantage. You take 10 on AC rolls all the time, for instance.
I have not advocated taking 10 on EITHER side, so saying it doesn't matter which side rolls is completely beside the point.
But it does bring up an interesting mathematical question. Is there a difference in the result depending on which side takes 10?
Let's simplify this as much as possible and say that we have one PC and one ambusher, and the ambusher's stealth bonus is exactly equivalent to the PC's perception bonus.
If they both take 10 then the PC will always detect the ambush.
If the ambusher takes 10 and the PC rolls then the PC will detect the ambush 55% of the time (10 - 20 is 55%).
If the PC takes 10 and the ambusher rolls then the PC will detect the ambush 50% of the time (Ambusher wins on 11 - 20)
So they aren't the same, are they?
I can't believe that ANYONE who actually PLAYS a character in this game would be OK with saying "don't bother to roll a check on an ambush, I'm fine with taking an average roll and walking blindly into any ambush where my ten won't be high enough to spot it."
As someone playing a rogue with a perception of roughly 20 (depends on circumstances), and an initiative of 13 that constantly finds himself getting surprised and not acting first, I can clearly see why some people would rather take 10 than watch as the dice continually go cold in the moments the character is supposed to shine.
If my 30 (level 7 Rogue, still be improving this in the levels to come) can't detect the ambush odds are A) circumstances favored the ambushers B) someone drank a potion of invisibility, C) the scenario was written so the party is 'supposed' to be ambushed.
Well, I doubt there are many people so paranoid about their dice rolls that they always think they roll worse than a 10, meaning that they would be consistently rolling odds of 45%. A person who believes that their dice roll that far outside the laws of probability just needs to figure out which way the dice tilt and go to Vegas and win a fortune.
What kind of ambushes are we talking about here.
If we are talking about a few Orcs around the corner then the DC would be somewhere over 20(conservative estimation).
A passive take 10 perception check would have to have a +11 before they could even detect that.
Thats an elf cleric who maxed out his perception of 2nd level. (assuming a +4 in wisdom)
If we are talking about a few Orcs behind a door the DC would be somewhere over 25(conservative estimation).
A passive take 10 perception check would have to have a +16 before they could even detect that.
Thats an elf cleric who maxed out his perception of 5th level.
(assuming a +5 in wisdom(headband))
Although if the players are 5th level they're probably fighting Orcs with some class levels and perhaps some stealth skill.
In the end this is all pretty silly give the players there 10 if they want.
And if a stealth check is being use then give the players a perceptions check even at a -5 because there distracted from not specifically perceiving.
|
|
A person who believes that their dice roll that far outside the laws of probability just needs to figure out which way the dice tilt and go to Vegas and win a fortune.
First you didn't believe in me, now you merely doubt there are many like me. I suppose that could be considered progress.
While I have had a couple 'shining moments' (rolling a 30 initiative to prevent a combat), most often I'm hanging near the back of initiative asking the cleric what he's doing after work.
Unfortunately I don't have 'special initiative dice' that allow me to roll like crap constantly, it's more a circumstance modifier that kicks in whenever I'm asked to roll for initiative. I also don't gamble for my luck doesn't lean towards the legendary gambler lifestyle.
If a stealth roll is made on the other side, a given PC is no more or less likely to succeed by rolling than by taking 10.
If you're already rolling for the players, then some people just prefer to roll one number for the whole bad guy group than a half-dozen for each hero. It's the same thing.
I neglected to address these two points you made.
First, the idea that by taking 10 you have the same odds of success as if you rolled simply because the other side rolled is stunningly wrong.
Again we'll look at the single PC and single ambusher with identical bonuses.
If the single ambusher rolls and the PC takes 10, then the PC's odds of winning are SOLELY based on the ambusher's roll. As seen above that means the PC has a 50% chance of winning. However, there is a caveat to this. In this case the PC will lose EVERY TIME the ambusher rolls an 11 or higher. That means he is GUARANTEED TO LOSE 50% of the time.
However, if both roll then the PC has a chance to win NO MATTER WHAT THE AMBUSHER ROLLS.
Now even a pure odds calculation favors the PC if both roll, because every equal roll gives the PC the win. In other words, for every number the ambusher rolls, the PC will win every number higher PLUS the number equal that they roll. When all the permutations are added up that means that of the 400 possible combinations of rolls the PC will win 220 and lose 180. Again that means the PC wins 55% of the time in that scenario, compared to 50% of the time if they take 10. This can be demonstrated intuitively by showing that if both roll a 1, the PC wins, and if both roll a 20, the PC wins.
Also the more rolls you make for the PC party, the higher the odds of winning are. Rolling 4 chances are not remotely the same as rolling once. If you have 50% chance of winning with 1 roll, then with four rolls your chance of winning against a single roll is almost 94%. If all four took 10, their odds would be 50%. I think I prefer 94% to 50%, but that's just me.
However, if both roll then the PC has a chance to win NO MATTER WHAT THE AMBUSHER ROLLS.Not so! If the ambusher has stealth 1 higher than the perception of the victim and both roll a 20 the ambush goes off.
WTF? What part of "assume both have equal bonuses" did you not understand?
That was just to simplify the situation. If you do the math with the ambushers having a 1 bonus higher, the PCs STILL DO BETTER if they roll their checks.
I'm done with this. People can play however they like, and people can spread incorrect statistics and probabilities all they like. The reality is that it is both mathematically and intuitively better to roll the PCs perception check than to take 10.
But play how you like.
|
|
WTF? What part of "assume both have equal bonuses" did you not understand?
I refuse to accept this ridiculous assumption that that people setting up an ambush are going to have the same bonus to their rolls as their target will to perception, even for your statistics example. Especially as party sizes increase the notion that all participants will have equal bonuses defy even the 'it's magic' crowd!
You pull this bogus 94% success rate for a party to spot an ambush when they roll against some ambushers despite the fact that perception rolls are not applied to groups as a whole but each character individually!
Oh sure taking 10 means I don't get that 10.5 average a d20 is supposed to come out to, but I'm never caught looking at my fly like an idiot when some dope makes a lucky stealth roll.
So on the debate of whether or not taking 10 or rolling both checks matters I have made a simple google docs spread sheet:here
(The brown are how many out of a thousand are successes when two d20's are rolling against each other and the green are how many out of a thousand are a success when taking 10.)
Now it only does it 1000 times(anymore then that and the cloud gets cranky) but there doesn't seem to be any statistically significant findings.
Basically whether or not your rolling both or one side is taking 10 it shouldn't matter much. At least not for over 1000 sessions.
It should be noted that the average on a d20 isn't actually an number you can roll. Its a 10.5.
If your taking 10 your screwing yourself out of a whole .5.
any minor changes to the doc will roll are those d20's again if you want to see different numbers.
this is what its like when you don't roll: here
as you can see I made a little mistake and taking ten gives you 10 less successes. oops
as you can see taking 10 gives you 10 more successes then rolling does... unless I messed up somewhere?
So, does your party realize that they have agreed to walk blindly into any ambush you create with a DC one higher than their highest take 10 roll?
And if so, they are OK with this?
My players would have a frickin COW.
Alternatively are YOU OK with the fact that if you now make your ambushes detectable by the party that they will never be ambushed? As a DM I'd never accept that. I'd just do away with ambushing altogether, because there's no such THING as an ambush anymore.
Ok so how does them being offered a choice of either ROLLING or simply accepting an average make them 'arbitrarily wander blindly into an ambush'? how does it magically make them ambush proof going into the future?
I don't se how your players would be having a cow, they have option to take 10 OR roll... do they have some third option normally available?
What it stops is the cheese of a high wisdom high percep character being caught with his thumb in his rear and rolling a 1 when he's supposed to be scouting, and allowing him to have an average.
Of course, good ambushers will set a good ambush, bad ambushers will still be caught... none of this magically changes.
In my opinion there are three ways to go about it while retaining random results:
1) you either let the ambushers take 10 on stealth and let the players roll perception
2) the players take 10 on perception and you roll for the ambushers, my preference if I do not want to alert the players and/or think it might cause them to act out off character
3) Both roll
I am not a fan of static results, so I would never allow both sides to take 10, for me it is mainly a tool to speed up play and a tool to make skills work smoothly in many instances in which they should. An ambush situation isn't one of those instances in my opinion.
Either the scout rolls and might roll a 1 or I roll and I might roll a 20.. same result, a high wis, high perception character might need a 4 on a roll to spot them, so that leaves 15 % chance not to spot them, what is wrong with that ?
On the other hand he might need an 11, and he assigns himself to autofail if he picks take 10, that seems more wrong than the 15 % chance fail option.
The problem we have is that with such a massive set of 'randoms' it bcomes improbable to impossible to ever really set an ambush. Every ambusher needs to make a stealth check with a ridiculously high potential variance... if ANY of the ambushers roll a 1 the whole thing is blown.
They can be as carefull and meticulous as they like, with the best intel, and spotters to let the ambushers know the party is coming the whole nine yards - and it wont make a lick of difference because somehow a well prepared ambush is spoilt by someone almost invariably sneezing as the party moves past. Thats just beyond my capacity to accept that just about any ambush - ever - is useless.
Similarly, the ambushee will be given a bunch of die rolls for each player (4-6) where all they have to do is roll as high as the lowest of the people managed in random land.
It becomes statistically improbable that any decent ambush (with more than 2 or 3 guys) will simply fail.
Utter cheeze.
Frankly I think you SHOULD be given a passive chance (10) when just walking about, as this means your perception skill becomes the variable and thus takes into account your wisdom etc. If the Passive is triggered, then the party would get a chance to stop and make an active check.
"Shh guys, what was that"
/party stares into the bushes.
/makes Perception roll.
/high PER guy notices something in the tree line and makes out the ambush waiting to be sprung.
So you want to say you actually need to be able to make a perception check with an average result to make a perception check at all ??
That doesn't make alot of sense.
If the randomness of numbers bothers you it seems better to just make one roll for the group, I just allow the guy with the highest perception to roll and use the number rolled for everyone in the party.
For the ambushers it is a bit of a non-issue since often most of the ambushing party will be in full cover till they get the signal of their front scout(s), who can actually see what is happening and have some skill in remaining hidden in concealment.
I think it's fine to take 10 on perception checks in general. My NPCs do it all the time, and my PC would too while not actively looking for something.
I don't get why some people are getting so worked up over the issue though.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
;TLDR
"Immediate danger" isn't the same thing as "imminent danger."
"Immediate danger" is combat--you're in the thick of it. Initiative has been rolled.
An ambush is imminent danger--you're not yet in the thick of it. As far as you know, there's no danger at all.
So if the PCs want to take 10 to detect ambushes, there's no reason to disallow that. If I am playing a PC with a very high Perception score, I will often prefer to take 10, just to avoid the possibility of blowing it with a low roll. I regularly use take 10 for NPC Perception or Stealth.
I use the 10 result as a "passive spot" when I don't want to alert the players that something is up by asking for a check. That is their average attentiveness. If for some reason they initiate a roll on their own, then that result is used, whether higher or lower
*looks for rolled up newspaper*
As the dm you are the portal for the characters senses into the world. People ALWAYS look. People always have a chance to look for something. If you are in a dungeon you are by definition on high alert for the possibility of being ambushed. Unless you want to waste the time EVERY Time you describe a room to wait for the player to say "i start looking around" ... and after the first ambush they will do so every time... you should use perception as it's supposed to be used. Roll a d20, ad the modifier, compare it to a DC or the stealth score. Players cannot look at every nook and cranny that is in the scene because the scene mostly exists in the DM's head.
What alleged problem are people trying to fix by changing the rules here? If you don't want to tell the PC when they're rolling, roll for them and peek at their character sheet (or better yet make a quick card for the party with AC HP and perception checks) Or better still, have everyone make 5 rolls at the start of the evening, write them down and laugh maniacally.
That has nothing to do with taking 10 on perception. All taking 10 on perception means is the lowest you're likely to get is a 7. For most characters taking 10 on perception means that someone moderately skilled in stealth has a 50% or so chance to hide successfully.
Let's take a character with a -3 perception roll as an example. What are his chances of spotting an ambush by taking 10? Is it really the same as rolling?
I would say that most ambushes are being made with a +6 or higher modifier: even a first level rogue can manage that. When is the last time the DM tried to have an iron Golem sneak up on the party? This means that Myopia the fighter spots ZERO percent chance of spotting most ambushes if he is forced to take 10 on his spot checks. (the minimum roll is a 1, 1 is not an automatic failure, and an ambushers dex is going to be higher than Myopias wisdom) Myopia has a chance (albeit as small as 1 in 400) of spotting an ambush until the ambushers stealth hits +16.
Rolling and taking 10 do NOT give the same chances odds of success.
Perception isn't a class skill for everyone, nor does everyone put ranks into perception, nor does everyone have a decent wisdom, and much fewer people take the feats, talents, and items required to propel perception into the low 20's (before lv 10).
These are the people who need to roll. If they don't get the lucky 20 when their opponent ROLLS A FOUR they NEVER get to act in the surprise round.
All allowing characters to take 10 on perception does it decrease the range of possible outcomes by half.
Yes- often to automatic success or automatic failure.
I use the 10 result as a "passive spot" when I don't want to alert the players that something is up by asking for a check. That is their average attentiveness. If for some reason they initiate a roll on their own, then that result is used, whether higher or lower*looks for rolled up newspaper*
As the dm you are the portal for the characters senses into the world. People ALWAYS look. People always have a chance to look for something. If you are in a dungeon you are by definition on high alert for the possibility of being ambushed. Unless you want to waste the time EVERY Time you describe a room to wait for the player to say "i start looking around" ... and after the first ambush they will do so every time... you should use perception as it's supposed to be used. Roll a d20, ad the modifier, compare it to a DC or the stealth score. Players cannot look at every nook and cranny that is in the scene because the scene mostly exists in the DM's head.
What alleged problem are people trying to fix by changing the rules here? If you don't want to tell the PC when they're rolling, roll for them and peek at their character sheet (or better yet make a quick card for the party with AC HP and perception checks) Or better still, have everyone make 5 rolls at the start of the evening, write them down and laugh maniacally.
*looks for a rolled up newspaper and smacks the dog on the nose*
BAD DOG!
Seriously. The idea of taking 10 is that it is your average attentiveness over a period of time. The statement that people will always be 'on high alert' is preposterous. Ask anyone who's been in the military or a police officer or a security guard. You cannot possibly be on 'high alert' at all times for long periods. The human brain simply doesn't work like that. Taking 10 is a way of simplifying the situation.
That ambush perception check could theoretically start 120 feet before the ambush, then again at 115 feet, and again at 110 feet, and so on. If you roll every time until the ambush occurs, the ambush will never happen. If you only allow one roll, then you're already throwing the character sheet out the window, since they should have gotten a chance to spot the ambush at maximum range, and at all ranges up until the attack.
There's no change to the rules either. Take 10 is allowed. If a GM wants to say 'We'll be using Take 10 rules for passive perception checks' then that's perfectly fine, as long as the bad guys do the same thing.
Remember, if you're going to give the characters a perception roll every round to notice an ambush then the NPCs do the same thing, and get perceptions every round from the time they get in sensing range until they ambush the NPCs.
That seems like an awful lot of work, and will slog the game down. Just give NPCs a 10+Perception and the PCs 10+Perception. If you do the same rule across the board, then it's balanced and doesn't penalize the PCs or slow the game down.
You know... I thought about several of the points that have been made here and I sort of have to admit that there are some valid points being made to support the PC taking 10 and the ambush rolling stealth. My immediate reaction to that was negative because it both gives a slight statistical advantage to the NPCs and if the NPCs roll well enough, the PCs have no chance to detect the ambush. Both of those things went against my basic GM instincts.
However you can make a strong case that doing the PC take 10 approach actually models reality better in that situation. In reality a well hidden ambush is probably not going to be spotted unless one of the ambushers does something to give it away, and that is better modeled by the ambushers failing a stealth check than by the PCs somehow detecting a whisper at 200 feet.
I still don't like how it is out of the PCs control, but I no longer feel my approach is clearly better from a game mechanic approach. I will probably try it the other way next time I run an ambush and see how it feels.
|
|
Let's take a character with a -3 perception roll as an example. What are his chances of spotting an ambush by taking 10? Is it really the same as rolling?
Yes, let's take this character as an example. Odds are he's playing an Orc (as none of the core races have a negative racial modifier to wisdom) that put a 7 in Wisdom during point buy, or you rolled horribly, and you refused to put any ranks into perception. If you make such a character you're not planning on spotting an ambush.
I would say that most ambushes are being made with a +6 or higher modifier: even a first level rogue can manage that.
You need a +7 modifier to always beat someone with a 7 result. Oh sure, rogues can pull a 10+ in stealth at level 1, but that's what they do.
Most characters will not have a high stealth, because high stealth isn't the province of most builds.
This still avoids that you can roll perception if you like, taking 10 is just an option.
|
|
I think the real advantage is that taking 10 involves fewer rolling dice, less arithmetic, and fewer variables for the person doing the arithmetic to take into account. If your table has plenty of math-literate individuals, it's probably not necessary.
On the other hand, if your table has a lot of people who take forever to add up their bonuses, you might be better off expediting play by taking 10. Or taking 11, if that's what you prefer.
It's not give.. they HAVE the option as they are not currently in a situation that denies it to them.
If they are rolling to detect an ambush they are, by definition, in danger. If a DM wants to either houserule that they are allowed to take 10, or to... interpret the rules to ALLOW them to take 10, thats fine. If the DM is going to FORCE them to take 10, that's pure limburgher and why i was looking for the newspaper.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
Two things to note: 1) is that you are not in immediate danger, an ambush is by definition immediate danger. The second is that it's the players choice.
That's exactly the point of the take 10 rule!
None of that mentioned 1) forcing the players 2)Doing it in a dangerous situation 3) Using it to to avoid alerting the PLAYERS that something was up.
If people want to house rule a different skill system into this game, they can have fun with it (assuming everyone involved is up for it). But by the RAW, there's no reason they can't elect to take 10 on a skill check in this situation.
There is nothing remotely house rule about the idea that an ambush is an immediate danger and prevents the use of taking 10.
Seriously. The idea of taking 10 is that it is your average attentiveness over a period of time. The statement that people will always be 'on high alert' is preposterous. Ask anyone who's been in the military or a police officer or a security guard.
I've been security. Sometimes you spot something out of the corner of your eye, sometimes you miss something right in front of you.
You cannot possibly be on 'high alert' at all times for long periods. The human brain simply doesn't work like that. Taking 10 is a way of simplifying the situation.
So what would you do if the party is in their own homes and somoene shows up to kill them, force them to take 5 on the check? They are going to be LESS alert at home than they are in the dungeon.
That ambush perception check could theoretically start 120 feet before the ambush, then again at 115 feet, and again at 110 feet, and so on. If you roll every time until the ambush occurs, the ambush will never happen. If you only allow one roll, then you're already throwing the character sheet out the window, since they should have gotten a chance to spot the ambush at maximum range, and at all ranges up until the attack.
Xeno's paradox aside, yes, there is a problem but that's with the (rather prohibitive) distance rules. How i handle it is to have the ambushers figure out at what distance they want to try to spring the ambush. THEN the spot and stealth checks are rolled. If any of the Suckers beats an ambusher at a distance before the ambush is sprung, those that made the check are aware.
If someone wants to pretend not to notice the ambush, its bluff vs sense motive (with a distance bonus) The person can then try to relay the ambush is comming to his comrades covertly, or just yell "ITS A TRAP" at which point initiative is rolled.
There's no change to the rules either. Take 10 is allowed. If a GM wants to say 'We'll be using Take 10 rules for passive perception checks' then that's perfectly fine, as long as the bad guys do the same thing.
That is a change to the rules. The rules state that the player may take 10. The rules state that the take 10 rules are not for use in immediate danger.
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.
Forcing people to take 10 as an average to notice an ambush violates all of the bolded sectioins... almost half of what the book says about taking 10. Yes, it is a change to the rules, and one not fair to the players.
Remember, if you're going to give the characters a perception roll every round to notice an ambush then the NPCs do the same thing, and get perceptions every round from the time they get in sensing range until they ambush the NPCs.
False dichotomy. There's plenty of ways of handling this.
That seems like an awful lot of work, and will slog the game down. Just give NPCs a 10+Perception and the PCs 10+Perception. If you do the same rule across the board, then it's balanced and doesn't penalize the PCs or slow the game down.
I outlined above why and how you are penalizing some of the npcs
But its not an ambush until it happens.
That's blatant rules lawyering. It's also baseless equivocation. An ambush is an ambush even before it goes off. I suppose you try to have detect snares and pits not notice pits because its not a pit until you fall through the top covering it.
You are in immediate danger from the ambush. Again, if you want to rules lawyer into ALLOWING a player to take 10, fine. If you want to force it, that's cheese.
Consider this, ignoring the take 10 or not.
Alright, knock that off. I am not ignoring taking 10. I've decided that your rules lawyering definition of an ambush is something along the lines of "what is is" and have discarded it based on its own merits.
10 guys hiding with weapons waiting for you on the road is am ambush. They are an immediate danger. This is not "ignoring a rule". It is , at worst, a dm ruling, and about the only sane one i can see making without redefining "immediate" into nothingness
Round 1 the party starts going down the road. (round 1 used for time reference here)Round 1203 the party has LOS to a hidden enemy group.
How i handle it is to have the ambushers figure out at what distance they want to try to spring the ambush. THEN the spot and stealth checks are rolled. If any of the Suckers beats an ambusher at a distance before the ambush is sprung, those that made the check are aware.
If someone wants to pretend not to notice the ambush, its bluff vs sense motive (with a distance bonus) The person can then try to relay the ambush is comming to his comrades covertly, or just yell "ITS A TRAP" at which point initiative is rolled.
I don't have ambushes on the high plains all that often for this to be a regular problem.
Now are you telling me that in rounds 1203 and 1204 that you wouldn't allow the PCs to use a take 10 on a skill check?
As a DM I would not allow someone to take 10 on this perception check.
I would not OBJECT to a dm ALLOWING someone to take 10 on a perception check.
I would object to a dm FORCING someone to take 10 on a perception check. That was the reason for the newspaper. That's a point from my post that you haven't addressed.
You need a +7 modifier to always beat someone with a 7 result. Oh sure, rogues can pull a 10+ in stealth at level 1, but that's [i]what they do
Again, you only need a +6. The minimum roll is a 1. 1 is not an automatic failure, and an ambushers dex is going to be higher than Myopias wisdom. So if you have Joe average , the rogue, has +6 and rolls a 1, they both have 7's. Its a tie, and the tie goes to the rogue because Joe's dex is higher than Myopia's wisdom.
Most characters will not have a high stealth, because high stealth isn't the province of most builds.
Monsters and builds without high stealth don't try to ambush as often as those that do.
This still avoids that you can roll perception if you like, taking 10 is just an option.
It's a bit of a trap for some players. Again, I don't mind it so much as a house ruled/ strained interpretation OPTION for players, but forcing them into it is unfair.
Xeno's paradox aside, yes, there is a problem but that's with the (rather prohibitive) distance rules. How i handle it is to have the ambushers figure out at what distance they want to try to spring the ambush. THEN the spot and stealth checks are rolled. If any of the Suckers beats an ambusher at a distance before the ambush is sprung, those that made the check are aware.If someone wants to pretend not to notice the ambush, its bluff vs sense motive (with a distance bonus) The person can then try to relay the ambush is comming to his comrades covertly, or just yell "ITS A TRAP" at which point initiative is rolled.
I'm only going to respond to this, because it's quite obvious we disagree 100% on the rest of it, so why bother arguing.
By this ruling, the following becomes possible. 2 goblins set up an ambush, they paint them selves brown so they look like tree trunks and hold up cut tree limbs. Not the brightest of goblins, but then, goblins aren't bright. They roll a total of 5, and 7 for their stealth rolls after penalties. The goblins decide they will only ambush people who are walking between them (on opposite sides of the road from each other.
Because the ambusher controls when the checks are made under your system, the following occur :
A) The PCs suddenly realize they are walking between two goblins, not two incredibly ugly trees, despite having seen the goblins for 10 minutes.
B) The PCs have no chance to avoid the ambush. They have no chance of ambushing the ambushers.
In both cases, your system breaks down.
The system I use, and which apparently a lot of people use, is, Take 10 at a reasonable distance from the ambush. This allows the PCs to avoid, circle and ambush in return, or bluff and ambush from within, assuming they make their perception roll.
wait, how did the party realize they were goblins holding tree branches and not some strange plant called a goblin-shrub or something... you made no mention of any knowledge (nature) checks happening...
But I am saying that in rounds 1203 and 1204 the party is not in any immediate danger that they know of and they should not be denied the ability to take 10.
Assuming a party moving at 40 feet per round (movement rate 40 roughly 3 hours of travel away)
1203 X 40= 48160 feet= 9 miles ()
That is an effective spot penalty of -4,816 ... so no I'm really not going to roll , consider taking 10, or even think about the ambush at that distance because that spot check is impossible to an epic level dragon wearing eyes of the eagle and using a spotting scope.
A fighter is climbing up a cliff. Falling would drop him in lava. Yet he can take 10 (it was essentially the example in the old 3e PhB for take 10. If there is a goblin firing down from the top he no longer can. But if that goblin doesn't reveal himself and instead is waiting to ambush the fighter as soon as they crest the edge of the cliff... can the fighter still take 10 to climb that last bit?
You want D&D rules to be able to handle Schrodinger cat?
Or are they in 'immediate' danger? If they can't, at what point can they no longer take 10? Never? Once the goblin is aware of the fighter climbing (say by hearing him)?
I think the speed depends on how long it takes to use the skill. Perception is an immediate non-action. Climb is a move action.
For me it's simple. The fighter isn't in combat. He's neither rushed nor threatened. He can take 10 all the way up there. Once the goblin attacks him then the fighter can no longer do so, but not before.
Immediate danger has a different definition than "in combat" or else the text would not read "in immediate danger OR in combat"
wait, how did the party realize they were goblins holding tree branches and not some strange plant called a goblin-shrub or something... you made no mention of any knowledge (nature) checks happening...
Because their perception rolls beat the stealth rolls of the goblins. Sorry, I should have specified, they get a perception check at time of ambush. I was referring to BigNorseWolf's earlier post about allowing the trap perception at the time the trap was set off.
With those abysmal stealth rolls the two gobbys made, even first level PCs should have been able to make those perception checks without taking 10.
Immediate danger has a different definition than "in combat" or else the text would not read "in immediate danger OR in combat"
Under your deffinition, if I set up a bomb in a city with a random timer, nobody in the city can take 10, because they are in immediate danger of the bomb going off. The fact they have no knowledge of the bomb has no effect.
I think that flies in the face of logic and common sense.
Here's an example of taking 10 to show awareness is important.
High wire walker puts on blind fold and ear plugs in before walking out on the wire. He's not doing any tricks, just walking the rope. He's been doing it so long he has 8 ranks in it, and a total roll of +12. He takes 10 on each check to just walk calmly across the wire.
He is unaware the ring master is firing arrows past him into the ceiling of the tent. He's in immediate danger (arrows could hit him), but, because he is not aware of the danger (can't see or hear the arrows), he can take 10.
The old adage of 'Dont' look down' is basically, don't ruin your take 10 chances by becoming aware of the danger.
Xeno's paradox aside, yes, there is a problem but that's with the (rather prohibitive) distance rules. How i handle it is to have the ambushers figure out at what distance they want to try to spring the ambush. THEN the spot and stealth checks are rolled. If any of the Suckers beats an ambusher at a distance before the ambush is sprung, those that made the check are aware.If someone wants to pretend not to notice the ambush, its bluff vs sense motive (with a distance bonus) The person can then try to relay the ambush is comming to his comrades covertly, or just yell "ITS A TRAP" at which point initiative is rolled.
I'm only going to respond to this, because it's quite obvious we disagree 100% on the rest of it, so why bother arguing.
Can you tell me what part about my position you're still disagreeing with? It is explicitly stated that taking 10 is a player's choice, not the DM. You can argue it can be house rules, but you stated that it wasn't against the rules.
By this ruling, the following becomes possible. 2 goblins set up an ambush, they paint them selves brown so they look like tree trunks and hold up cut tree limbs. Not the brightest of goblins, but then, goblins aren't bright. They roll a total of 5, and 7 for their stealth rolls after penalties. The goblins decide they will only ambush people who are walking between them (on opposite sides of the road from each other.
Because the ambusher controls when the checks are made under your system, the following occur :
The checks don't occur when the ambushers decide to act. They occur when the ambushers plan. The reason for this is to avoid the ambushers looking at the dice, seeing "Drat.. i got a 5.. better attack with the longbows at long range"
How this would work is...
DM: The goblins are going to wait for the party to get directly between them (30 feet, -3 to perception rolls)
DM: You are leaving the villiage of Seagrass on your way to Jonathans Ferry. What's your marching order and SOP ?
Party: places miniatures, states the obvious, bickers, and puts the halfling on the mule
DM and party: I roll for the ambush and have the party roll perception. I figure out who in the party has the highest perception total and tell them that the "trees" up ahead aren't trees. I figure out at what distance this would occur and let the perceptive members act it out from there.
A) The PCs suddenly realize they are walking between two goblins, not two incredibly ugly trees, despite having seen the goblins for 10 minutes.
-By the raw, its impossible to make a spot check from 10 minutes away. A result of a 20 on perception for example, would put the party at (5-20= -15 =150 feet away)
B) The PCs have no chance to avoid the ambush. They have no chance of ambushing the ambushers.
The Pc's are, in the hypothetical example, walking down a road. They get no chance to hide because they're out in the open.
In both cases, your system breaks down.
It works fine if you understand it.
Immediate danger has a different definition than "in combat" or else the text would not read "in immediate danger OR in combat"
Under your deffinition, if I set up a bomb in a city with a random timer, nobody in the city can take 10, because they are in immediate danger of the bomb going off. The fact they have no knowledge of the bomb has no effect.
I think that flies in the face of logic and common sense.
And under your definition something that's about to happen in 3 seconds isn't "immediate". I prefer to apply common sense rather than rules layering Schrodinger's cat. The blacksmith can keep taking 10 on the horse shoes he's making, the rogue CANNOT take 10 on his roll to disable the bomb.