@BigNorseWolf
It's hard to read your reply to me, you quoted yourself so it's hard to figure out where quotes end and typing begins.
However, 150 feet away is fine. 150 feet from the very obviously not tree goblins, they don't get a perception roll. In fact, your players can never ever avoid an ambush, because they don't get a perception roll until they reach the point where the ambushers plan to ambush them.
You can ruin an ambush by simply deciding to leave the road and go south, even if you are in the open. But because your players can never avoid the ambush, they can never do so.
;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.
+1, it also prevents the game from slowing down by constantly rolling.
I must be an evil DM because I have passive perception set to the base perception check of the character unless the PC's declare that they are actively making perception checks.
The reason I do this is because I assume when PC's are just travelling then they aren't actively trying to percieve their surroundings for hidden creatures/objects/traps. I treat it like going on a hike with friends, chatting and maybe looking at the scenery while focused on the trail ahead.
Now of course I do give the option that PC's can actively scout or watch for enemies/dangers and out of combat that would entitle the player to take 10 until a more immediate distraction comes up.
Personally we haven't had any problems so far with using this method and the players passive perceptions have picked up on things.
It's hard to read your reply to me, you quoted yourself so it's hard to figure out where quotes end and typing begins.
Its been prettied up for you. I don't think that will matter.
However, 150 feet away is fine. 150 feet from the very obviously not tree goblins, they don't get a perception roll.
What's throwing you is that the perception checks are not occurring at any particular point in time or at any particular place. The roll doesn't take place because the party reached 150 feet. The party reached 150 feet because of how they rolled. It puts success for failure in the hands of the player's dice roll... where it belongs.
In fact, your players can never ever avoid an ambush, because they don't get a perception roll until they reach the point where the ambushers plan to ambush them.
Ok, AGAIN... the party cannot avoid an ambush *in this scenario* because they are walking down a road with unlimited sight distance (because that's the scenario i was describing it for). Not because of my system.
If the party was stealthing it would work differently.
Goblins Decide to ambush at 30 feet. They roll 5 and 7
Goblins Roll a spot: they get a 12 and a 2.
Party heads out from Marshport, and is hiding in the woods 15 feet away from the road.
Highest perception roll in the party is 20. At 150 feet the goblins don't notice the party. The rogue whispers to his party (Dc 25 to hear a whisper, +15 for distance= no way the goblins can hear)
The party can go around the the ambush, or try to sneak up on it.
The stealth rolls don't specify how often you have to re make the check. I would probably ask for the plan, then have people make the rolls.
If the party brings sir clanks a lot, with his 0 modifier, the Goblins spot him at 120 feet - initiative is rolled, no one is surprised.
If shadow, ghost, and merlin go, they decide how close they want to try to get. If merlin wants to cast a spell at 30 feet, but has an 8, he's spotted at 40 feet by the goblins perception check of 12. He's spotted, initiative is rolled.
If Shadow and ghost With their 13 and 20 stealth rolls go alone, they get a surprise round on the malicious shrubbery.
You can ruin an ambush by simply deciding to leave the road and go south, even if you are in the open. But because your players can never avoid the ambush, they can never do so.
You could do that at 150 feet and hope the goblins don't follow.
"Immediate danger" isn't the same thing as "imminent danger"
Yes. It is.
"Immediate danger" isn't the same thing as "imminent danger"
Yes. It is.
Uh. . . no, it's not.
About to happen: "imminent danger".
Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".
(just type the words in google. . .)
What are you talking about?? Did you forget what was written?????
I think you need to be a little clearer about what you write.
It's in round 1203 that the enemy is in LOS. They are say 150 feet away.
That's the part you left out. You didn't set a range, you just said LOS.. which you can get from DAYS away under the right circumstances. Heck, you have LOS to over half the moon from earth on the right night.
That's ludicrous. I think you need to rethink your position here.
I don't care what amount of rules lawyering and convoluted scenarios you come up with. A goblin with a crossbow pointed at the PC's is an immediate danger, end of story. An ambush is an ambush.. it is by definition a danger. If you come up with a scenario where the rules get silly.. fine, it happens. That doesn't mean that the rules are broken or need to be changed. Trying to find someone that's hiding is simply too random to fall under a routine task, an every day occurrence, or simple matter that take 10 is designed for.
If that allows someone to pull a knitting old lady along in a cart with a knitting project and alert the party that it's in danger because she misses a cross stitch because you insist on treating all skills equally in regards to the take 10 rule, then perhaps you shouldn't treat all skills equally rather than try to add words to the raw AND violate the rai.
"Immediate danger" isn't the same thing as "imminent danger"
Yes. It is.
Uh. . . no, it's not.
About to happen: "imminent danger".
Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".
(just type the words in google. . .)
Immediate. Occurring at once; instant: gave me an immediate response.
2.a. Of or near the present time: in the immediate future.
b. Of or relating to the present time and place; current:
im·mi·nent (m-nnt)
adj.
About to occur; impending:
No. Functional. Difference. This is the lamest bit of hair splitting ever. EVERY word in the English language has a synonym. You can't simply drop one in for the other and argue that "oh it means something completely different now."
No. Functional. Difference. This is the lamest bit of hair splitting ever. EVERY word in the English language has a synonym. You can't simply drop one in for the other and argue that "oh it means something completely different now."
By bolding part of 2.a and claiming it is the only way to interpret what it means, you've effectively negated the definition of 2.b. So it's a question of what version of the definition is being used here.
No. Functional. Difference. This is the lamest bit of hair splitting ever. EVERY word in the English language has a synonym. You can't simply drop one in for the other and argue that "oh it means something completely different now."Actually by bolding part of 2.a and claiming it is the only way to interpret what it means, you've effectively negated the definition of 2.b. So it's a question of what version of the definition is being used here.
Try to interpret it along with danger then. You're not making a valid point in rules interpretation, you're simply rules lawyering by introducing Xeno's paradox. Its cheap, cheesey, transparent and disingenuous.
Your statement was that it DOES mean something different. Effectively you are arguing that it DOESN"T and CAN"T mean 2b... that 2b is not a valid interpretation because, for some reason, another definition is better...
|
There's a couple of thoughts I have about taking a "10" to look for an ambush:
First, I'd probably let the player do so, however since they are taking 10 to notice an ambush, I'd add a penalty (probably a -4) towards traps, haunts, finding treasure (since they are actively looking for an ambush). I'd make this very clear to the players that they are on the look out for moving.
Second, I'd cut down their walking time. Being paranoid can slow your progress.
Sure, they can be prepared for the ambush, however the bonus of not rolling 1-9 to act in the surprise round is probably not worth walking into a mechanical/magical trap, haunt or missing treasure.
Try to interpret it along with danger then. You're not making a valid point in rules interpretation, you're simply rules lawyering by introducing Xeno's paradox. Its cheap, cheesey, transparent and disingenuous.
Actually, your entire argument hinges on whether the writers of the rules used definition 2.a or 2.b of a word in the dictionary. That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. . .
|
My 2 cents on the original question:
Behind my screen I have certain skills of each member listed. I assume they're always taking 10 on certain checks like Perception while walking the trail or Acrobatics when leaping over a stream. Heck, our Monk recently jumped a 50' wide river taking a 10 because he was in no danger. It's not that they're actively paranoid or looking for trouble by taking a 10; it's just natural observation, the ability of someone to notice something out of the ordinary or that just isn't right.
If there's an ambush, I'd tell folks to roll a d20, not because of any game mechanic telling me to, but because I think players should get a roll when its something affecting the life of their characters.
I would treat an ambush as a readied action.
As soon as they see or hear you they spring into combat. I think the immediate danger rule applies. if you had an invisibility spell that could beat the ambushers perception for that 10 minutes then maybe, if you were really quiet.
You can't ready an action outside of combat.
Try to interpret it along with danger then. You're not making a valid point in rules interpretation, you're simply rules lawyering by introducing Xeno's paradox. Its cheap, cheesey, transparent and disingenuous.Actually, your entire argument hinges on whether the writers of the rules used definition 2.a or 2.b of a word in the dictionary. That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. . .
Not at all.
Of or relating to the present time and place; current:
The ambushers are presently in place and are presently a danger.
How on earth are you reading those sections?
In my dictionary it says immediate 1.Acting or happening without an intervening object, agent, or cause. So strawmen minion golems with bows and arrows 10 feet away are not immediate because there is air in the way.
You can't ready an action outside of combat.
Just to preserve the cheese of how silly that notion is, I have one of the ambushers kick his mate (though gently, and non lethal, while wearing slippers) to start a combat before they leave home, take move actions to the ambush site, and then they can all now ready actions for an ambush... each subsequent round they can just maintain their readied action until someone comes aliong to shoot at, because they decided never to end 'combat'.
Ultimately the reason I let the players CHOOSE a 'Take 10 OR Roll' comes down to the notion that some eagle eye scout with loads of Perception happened to be watching some ants crawling on a rock (rolling a 1) is some pretty poor luck and a bit rough on the player.
If the player decides he wants to roll, then so be it.
I know what the DC to detect the ambush is, and thus the DC of the ambush to detect at whatever the range happens to be, and I know the maximum range it can be spotted at as dictated by terrain. So once they make their roll they are stuck with it, until they get close enough for their single check to reach the required DC (IF they manage!) or walk merrily into the ambush...
The ambushers are presently in place and are presently a danger.
According to whom? The PCs who aren't aware of the danger? The PCs who are making the check? The PCs who can't make the check when *distracted* or *threatened* -- yet, there is no *distraction* or *threat* apparent to them?
The ambushers are presently in place and are presently a danger.According to whom? The PCs who aren't aware of the danger? The PCs who are making the check? The PCs who can't make the check when *distracted* or *threatened* -- yet, there is no *distraction* or *threat* apparent to them?
This is D&D. Not Existentialism. The ambush is there. There is a danger. The rules do not say "immediate danger you're aware of"
Now, would you care to tell me what you were hoping to gain by your half sketched and convoluted equivocation?
You can't ready an action outside of combat.Just to preserve the cheese of how silly that notion is, I have one of the ambushers kick his mate (though gently, and non lethal, while wearing slippers) to start a combat before they leave home, take move actions to the ambush site, and then they can all now ready actions for an ambush... each subsequent round they can just maintain their readied action until someone comes aliong to shoot at, because they decided never to end 'combat'.
How do you set your initiative count to the count on which you took the readied action if there's no initiative?
This is D&D. Not Existentialism. The ambush is there. There is a danger.The ambushers are presently in place and are presently a danger.According to whom? The PCs who aren't aware of the danger? The PCs who are making the check? The PCs who can't make the check when *distracted* or *threatened* -- yet, there is no *distraction* or *threat* apparent to them?
Actually it's common sense |: Either you're threatened or you're not.
Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
The PCs are not aware of a threat. When a PC is in combat, he's aware of a threat.
The ambush is a threat in your mind only. From the PC's perspective, it's not there. Since they make the check, they shouldn't be penalized for information they simply don't know. Otherwise, that would be metagaming.
How do you set your initiative count to the count on which you took the readied action if there's no initiative?
** spoiler omitted **
Easy, when the players hit the edge of the ambush they can roll initiative... the highest initiative score is the point in the turn at which the players would have been able to move action into the ambush site.
They have essentially 'joined combat' and needed to roll init.
Look if someone is rolling a stealth check the Players get a Perception check. Thats fair.
If there is an ambush then the players get a perception check to spot it.(If your worried about your players metagaming then roll there perception checks for them (or ahead of time even.))
Don't bother making them roll a perception check if its impossible for them to make it.
If a player wants to take 10 then he might as well roll a few times before anyway right?(because you can re-roll perception.)
If the monsters want to break there ambush early thats fine. The players try to take 10 and then they are attacked.
If the monsters want don't want to break there ambush early then the players should be able to take 10 because they are NOT in immediate danger.
Hell, If the ambushers are stubborn enough the players could take 20.
Whether or not the Monsters break there ambush is up to the GM. Whether or not a player takes 10, takes 20 or rolls is up to the Player.
If the players don't know there in Immediate danger or imminent danger then they should be given every option that is available to a character who is not in danger.
However, taking 10, taking 20 or rolling a perception check is an action and must be expressed.
Actually it's common sense |: Either you're threatened or you're not.
There's been nothing sensible about your conclusions so far.
Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
The PCs are not aware of a threat. When a PC is in combat, he's aware of a threat.
OR threats. That an unknown attacker is not a distraction does not prevent them from being a threat.
The ambush is a threat in your mind only.
No, its not. Again, this is not the philosophy of existentialism. You are not being ambushed by schrodingers orcs.
From the PC's perspective, it's not there.
The rules do not specify threats you are aware of, when you are perceived to be in danger, or any number of possible wordings that they COULD use if they wanted your house rule to be in place.
Since they make the check, they shouldn't be penalized for information they simply don't know. Otherwise, that would be metagaming.
Making a roll isn't metagaming, and there's no penalty with not being able to take 10.
How do you set your initiative count to the count on which you took the readied action if there's no initiative?
** spoiler omitted **
Easy, when the players hit the edge of the ambush they can roll initiative... the highest initiative score is the point in the turn at which the players would have been able to move action into the ambush site.
They have essentially 'joined combat' and needed to roll init.
But there's a whole system to handle this called surprise rounds. Why reinvent the wheel?
The rules do not specify threats you are aware of, when you are perceived to be in danger, or any number of possible wordings that they COULD use if they wanted your house rule to be in place.
Actually that's wrong.
Surprise
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
Determining awareness is the foundation of starting combat.
Determining awareness is the foundation of starting combat.
That is inane. By your definitions so far, if you're not aware, you're not in combat, so you can simply ignore the two handed sword the orc is putting through your head.
Since you're being pedantic, when i say "The rules do not specify threats" i mean the RELEVANT rules that are under discussion.
That is inane. By your definitions so far, if you're not aware, you're not in combat, so you can simply ignore the two handed sword the orc is putting through your head.Determining awareness is the foundation of starting combat.
You mean during the surprise round where the PCs weren't aware? Or after the orc won initiative after determining that both sides were aware of each other at the same time?
In both cases combat has begun. The PCs are typically flat-footed in the first case (but not always, pending abilities).
Ok, my strawman is walking along, guarding a caravan. As per instructions when created, he nocks an arrow in preparation to shoot attackers. He's (it's) not in combat so he can ready an action without being in combat. :)
Ok, my strawman is walking along, guarding a caravan. As per instructions when created, he nocks an arrow in preperation to shoot attackers. He's (it's) not in combat so he can ready an action without being in combat. :)
If the PCs are aware of the strawman and the strawman is aware of the PCs, it comes down to initiative. If the strawman is invisible or otherwise undetected (sneaky strawman?), it's a surprise round for the strawman. Still, there are no readied actions. . .
Determining awareness is the foundation of starting combat.
That is inane. By your definitions so far, if you're not aware, you're not in combat, so you can simply ignore the two handed sword the orc is putting through your head.
Since you're being pedantic, when i say "The rules do not specify threats" i mean the RELEVANT rules that are under discussion.
In the situation you describe, you AREN'T in combat. You're just dead.
Combat by its very definition requires two persons to be fighting. If you are stabbed to death in your sleep (or when you are otherwise unaware) there never was a combat, just an assassination.
Players should always be allowed a perception check if there is something perceivable worth perceiving.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.
Observable stimulus worth perceiving. (we don't tell players about every leaf that falls from a tree)
But if there is the slightest chance that a player could notice something it would be unfair not to give him is roll.
Whether or not the Monsters break there ambush is up to the GM.
If the Monsters don't break up there ambush the players are not in any danger.
Whether or not a player takes 10, takes 20 or rolls is up to the Player.
Determining awareness is the foundation of starting combat.
That is inane. By your definitions so far, if you're not aware, you're not in combat, so you can simply ignore the two handed sword the orc is putting through your head.
Since you're being pedantic, when i say "The rules do not specify threats" i mean the RELEVANT rules that are under discussion.
In the situation you describe, you AREN'T in combat. You're just dead.
Combat by its very definition requires two persons to be fighting. If you are stabbed to death in your sleep (or when you are otherwise unaware) there never was a combat, just an assassination.
Actually, this brings up an interesting point. To perform a coup de grâce action, you need a full-round action. But in a surprise round, you only have a standard action. So, if an assassin sneaks up to your sleeping bed to cut your throat, how can he perform a coup de grâce during his surprise round? I guess do nothing in his surprise round. . . and deliver the coup de grâce on his first full turn? That's a little strange (:
Ok, my strawman is walking along, guarding a caravan. As per instructions when created, he nocks an arrow in preperation to shoot attackers. He's (it's) not in combat so he can ready an action without being in combat. :)If the PCs are aware of the strawman and the strawman is aware of the PCs, it comes down to initiative. If the strawman is invisible or otherwise undetected (sneaky strawman?), it's a surprise round for the strawman. Still, there are no readied actions. . .
1. The strawman is guarding the caravan. Bandits are attacking the caravan.
2. If the bandit with the highest initiative doesn't hit the strawman and take out his one hit point, the strawman is going to shoot at where the arrow came from. If it's not a readied action, find another name for it.Like any strawman argument, it's partially moot because his abilities are all 3. He may not win initiative against anybody.
Ok, my strawman is walking along, guarding a caravan. As per instructions when created, he nocks an arrow in preperation to shoot attackers. He's (it's) not in combat so he can ready an action without being in combat. :)If the PCs are aware of the strawman and the strawman is aware of the PCs, it comes down to initiative. If the strawman is invisible or otherwise undetected (sneaky strawman?), it's a surprise round for the strawman. Still, there are no readied actions. . .1. The strawman is guarding the caravan. Bandits are attacking the caravan.
2. If the bandit with the highest initiative doesn't hit the strawman and take out his one hit point, the strawman is going to shoot at where the arrow came from. If it's not a readied action, find another name for it.
Uhh, winning initiative?
To ready an action is a special initiative action:
Special Initiative Actions
Here are ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order.
You can't really do anything involving readying an action unless you're in combat and have an initiative.
So if a wizard, 10th level, is exploring a dungeon with his party, and when someone opens the door, and he sends in 4 strawmen archers with orders to shoot whatever moves, the strawmen can still be ambushed?
Well if he put an illusion on them so they look like the party, it still ruined the ambush.
So if a wizard, 10th level, is exploring a dungeon with his party, and when someone opens the door, and he sends in 4 strawmen archers with orders to shoot whatever moves, the strawmen can still be ambushed?
Well if he put an illusion on them so they look like the party, it still ruined the ambush.
I don't know what side you're on but... You can't use a strawman in an argument!!!!!!!!
I think you can take ten on perception check, and it should be the default unless you are moving half speed.
I am against not being able to ready an action outside of combat.
I used to have a sorcerer who would cast haste when he got into the room when something happened. Now in pathfinder, he can't do that. I am never converting him.
If a strawman is a cheep, brittle, golem, why can't characters make a whole bunch of them and use them like crash test dummies.
People use strawman arguments on these boards all the time. I'm honest enough to call it as it is.
Not until they attack they're not.
The ambushers are presently in place and are presently a danger.
Yes. They are.
dan·ger
   /ˈdeɪndʒər/ Show Spelled[deyn-jer] Show IPA
–noun
1.
liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2.
an instance or cause of peril; menace.
3.
Obsolete . power; jurisdiction; domain.
Is an ambush exposing the party to harm? Are they a risk? Yes. peril. Yes.
Are they a cause of peril? Yes.
They are a danger before they attack.
You can say that your world allows PCs to detect 'threat' by failing skills that they wouldn't otherwise, which is patently wrong.
Its a good thing i don't subscribe to this absurd monstrosity of rules lawyering that you're ascribing to me. I do not believe granny "knitting radar works".
Or you can admit you're wrong.
Or i can wait for a shadow of an argument to demonstrate WHY an ambushing party is somehow not an "immediate danger". You make arguments from results, you straw man, you argue around the rules but you NEVER address the actual point. You run as far away from what the rules say and hide behind ridiculous scenarios without considering that there are ways to deal with those as well.
There's nothing wrong with taking 10 on a perception check outside of combat.
Except that in this case it violates roughly half of the text related to taking ten.
And until the ambushers decide to attack, there is no combat. In fact the 'ambushers' might decide not to attack the PCs at all figuring that they are too well armed.
A danger does not need to be certain to be a danger. It merely has to be likely.
People confuse the take 10 rules all the time, so you're not alone here.
People decide to try to shove the house rules into some sort of convoluted mess and then declare it wrong in order to justify their house rules. You're hardly alone here either.
Even with it being the example given many people would disallow a take 10 in that situation. They would be wrong.. kind of like you are here.
Show. Don't tell. Show me what definition of immediate danger you're using that doesn't involve omniscience that manages to exclude an ambush party.
You want D&D rules to be able to handle Schrodinger's cat?
Yes. Because that is a reasonable situation. However, the example is not an analogy to Schrodinger's cat since it is deterministic (QM is nondeterministic), the example merely violates causality (a future event changing the nature of a past event).
dan·ger
Show Spelled[deyn-jer] Show IPA
–noun
1.
liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2.
an instance or cause of peril; menace.
Actually hard-lining with this definition violates the old PHB example since exposure to a pool of lava definitely qualifies as exposure to harm or injury. Therefore we certainly know that 3.0 does not use your definition of danger. Since PF and 3.x are intimating similar, PF does not use your definition of danger.
There's nothing wrong with taking 10 on a perception check outside of combat.Except that in this case it violates roughly half of the text related to taking ten.
Say, you have a bunch of monsters around a corner prepared to attack the players as they turn around the corner. It is up to the monsters to decide when they will attack. They could attack the Adventurers as they are coming down the hall or they could wait for the adventures to turn around the corner.
If the monsters decide to only attack the adventures as they turn around the corner then the adventures are not in danger until they turn the corner. The monsters do have the option to change there mind but until the monsters have made up there minds the adventures are not in danger.
If a player decides to roll a perception check to hear the monsters around the corner and he fails he can always roll again and, again and, again until he rolls a 20 or the monsters decide to attack.
If the player is allowed to reroll until he gets a 20 he should be allowed to take 20. If the monsters don't want to wait two minutes they can attack. But for that to happen they have to make up there mind.
Players who are not perceivably in danger should be provided with all the options that are available to a character who isn't in danger. This doesn't mean the options have to be successful it just means that they have them.
It is important to note that combat limits options. Any action you can preform in combat you can preform out of combat.
You want D&D rules to be able to handle Schrodinger's cat?Yes.
Yes.
Too bad. D&D can break down when you have peasants handing off a quarterstaff. (see peasant rail gun)
Because that is a reasonable situation. However, the example is not an analogy to Schrodinger's cat since it is deterministic (QM is nondeterministic), the example merely violates causality (a future event changing the nature of a past event)
It is not deterministic. As the pro take 10 crowd is arguing the danger is not immediate until the ambushers fire. Of course at that point it's too late for perception checks.
dan·ger
Show Spelled[deyn-jer] Show IPA
–noun
1.
liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2.
an instance or cause of peril; menace.
Actually hard-lining with this definition violates the old PHB example since exposure to a pool of lava definitely qualifies as exposure to harm or injury.
You're going to need to provide a LOT more context and explanation than that. As it is this is gibberish.
Therefore we certainly know that 3.0 does not use your definition of danger. Since PF and 3.x are intimating similar, PF does not use your definition of danger.
Yeah, your strained logic aside this is a dictionary definition, not mine.
Yeah, your strained logic aside this is a dictionary definition, not mine.
adj
\i-ˈmē-dē-ət, British often -ˈmē-jit\
Definition of IMMEDIATE
1
a : acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency : direct <the immediate cause of death> b : present to the mind independently of other states or factors <immediate awareness> c : involving or derived from a single premise <an immediate inference>
2
: being next in line or relation <the immediate family>
3
a : existing without intervening space or substance <brought into immediate contact> b : being near at hand <the immediate neighborhood>
4
a : occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time : instant <an immediate need> b (1) : near to or related to the present <the immediate past> (2) : of or relating to the here and now : current <too busy with immediate concerns to worry about the future>
5
: directly touching or concerning a person or thing <the child's immediate world is the classroom>
By the dictionary definition of immediate, unless you are in danger at that instant, then you are not in immediate danger. Danger in the near future, IE after some finite interval of time, is not immediate danger.
Say, you have a bunch of monsters around a corner prepared to attack the players as they turn around the corner.
Even without LOS the party gets a perception check. Perception also includes hearing, which goes around corners.(if you want to decide that the rules don't say hearing goes around corners, don't bother responding)
It is up to the monsters to decide when they will attack. They could attack the Adventurers as they are coming down the hall or they could wait for the adventures to turn around the corner.
The monsters can PLAN when they would like to attack.
If the monsters decide to only attack the adventures as they turn around the corner then the adventures are not in danger until they turn the corner. The monsters do have the option to change there mind but until the monsters have made up there minds the adventures are not in danger.
Ok. For the umpteenth time, danger does NOT. I repeat, NOT mean the certainty of immanent harm.If you don't like the definition from dictionary.com i suggest you look for a definition to use that agrees with you but you'll have a hell of a time finding one.
I have seen this argument used by people who don't think self defense ever exists because you can't be certain about another person's actions. Its complete and total bunk.
If a player decides to roll a perception check to hear the monsters around the corner and he fails he can always roll again and, again and, again until he rolls a 20 or the monsters decide to attack.
False dichotomy. Either it's 1) take 10 or 2) allow multiple rerolls. This is a choice that simply doesn't exist.
The party is nearing an ambush. They make perception rolls, the ambushers make stealth rolls. Figure out the bonus for the stealthers being around a corner and have at it.
It's metagaming on the players part to say "oh, the dm asked for a roll, i'm going to stop here and keep rolling" The DM doesn't have to allow that, and shouldnt.
Players who are not perceivably in danger should be provided with all the options that are available to a character who isn't in danger. This doesn't mean the options have to be successful it just means that they have them.
At no point do the rules specify percievably, known, suspected or ANY indication that the character's knowledge has anything to do with their ability to take 10 or not. In other words, you are adding that condition to the rules whole cloth. It is a house rule.
If someone wants to try to metagame by hauling granny around in a cart and getting ready for an ambush when she misses a cross stitch, smack them in the head, it doesn't work like that.