If they take 10 at spot and stealth, and fail stealth before spot succeeds, then the ambush will happen with surprise. If a member of the party spots the ambush, and gestures the rest of the party to stop, then whispers or something that there is an ambush ahead, then the party can all prepare actions or attack. Is that it?
When the players spot the ambush and start to plan a counter attack, do the orcs suddenly have to roll for their stealth checks against the town guards that are coming up the road from the other direction?
Do the players, who couldn't take a 10 to spot the orc because of the imminent danger, have to roll for their knowledge checks to identify the orcs, or can they take a 10 now that they have successfully spotted the orc ambush? Remember, the orcs are still planning on attacking the players, the players are planning to attack the orcs, so combat is imminent.
I see what you did there. :) Have you stopped beating your wife yet? What you did there was phrase the question so there is no way to answer it without you being able to twist the answer into your preferred method. That's why I didn't respond to it. It doesn't deserve a response. I don't allow someone to take 10 in the face of immediate danger.
I wish i was that sneaky. I'm not.
The problem is, you have decided your interpretation of what is Immediate is the only correct one, and therefore challenge everyone to prove why the rules are not being followed by them. That's a fallacy of logic. Basically, you are creating your own world and then demanding everyone use your logic.
No actually, I'm arguing that words have actual meaning in English, and redefining it into a null set is not following the rules.
For the horse, for example, I would say that when the orc army is coming in an hour and you need to shoe your horse, you are under immediate threat. You would not. That is a legitimate, differing, DM opinion and interpretation on the exact meaning of "immediate danger". Deciding that an orc pointing a crossbow at the party is not an "immediate danger" imho, goes well beyond dm interpretation and into rules lawyering.
I refuse to do so. My objection is, and has been, all along that your interpretation of what is 'immediate' or 'immenent' is borked. Your inability to respond to that is why this argument has gone on.
Which you've said, but not shown. You've shown NO problem with how i'm interpreting immediate danger. You cannot simply do as you've done, tell someone "you're wrong, i don't have to explain why," and move on .
You're using "word 1" as "word 2" instead of "word 1" does NOT work when you don't define word 1, AND word 1 and 2 are synonyms.Nope, the PC can take ten on the shoeing of the horse. However, when the orcs arrive and he's only done with the first 3 shoes, he now has to make a choice. He can continue shoeing the horse, and roll, or he can stop to attack the orcs. The fact the orcs are an hour away has nothing to do with his declared action and how it's adjudicated.
You say this because my definition of immediate is borked, but you say this ruling is borked because of my definition. That's circular.
Then please go back and read your quote, you used the phrase '3 seconds' first. I can't help it if you can't keep track of your own posts. I did quote it to try to help.
You used it as well. I have no problem keeping track of my posts.
No, you are completely going 180 degrees. I am referring to the ambushees, not the ambushers. Why do I need to determine the awareness of the ambushers?
You complained when i had the PC's walking down an open road for simplicities sake.
They make their take 10 perception check to notice the ambushee's coming into their ambush. As long as they are aware of the ambushee's, they can specify their ambush to take place at any point in time they choose. As the GM, if you are running the ambushers, it is YOUR responsibility to determine when they plan to attack.
What you left off the last time is the idea of when they PLANNED to attack. You do not wait until the Suckers reach the ambush spot and then roll to see if they notice because the suckers could theoretically spot the ambushers well before reaching the point.
That could be 'When the first ambushee walks under that oak limb', or it could be 'in 10 rounds', or it could be 'when the next cloud covers the moon'. Either way you want to do it, you need to determine that. Once determined, then the players can 'take 10' on perception checks up until that point. Heck, they can take 10 on anything up until that point.
Sure they can do that... IF you think that a minute from now isn't immediate danger. Which is the entire point. I do think its immediate so i don't think they can take 10.
The reason they know they have to make the check is they got attacked for freaks sake.
Ok, players are players, characters are characters. The characters do not know that their player is rolling for them.
Not sure what you are talking about. If the player is not under attack, and won't be for longer than it takes to 'take 10' on the check, then he's allowed to. If he can't, you just nod and continue on until the situation changes, then you tell the character 'Your take 10 was interrupted by this ambush, you'll have to roll instead'.
Why on earth wouldn't i just send the character back to taking 10?
How hard is that to grasp?
Is there any need for the insults?
Not bad. I'm assuming the roll is for perception to notice the ninja about to attack? And I also assume it's on Scenario 1, not scenario 2? That's a perfectly valid and sensible rulling. I am rather surprised by it, since your posts up until now indicated you would not have allowed the take 10.
I have no problem with rolling to take 10 to find a lock or a trap. I don't like it being used to spot ninja.
My question is this, if the player had decided not to fight, but to finish the picking first, would you have had him roll his check? If so, then we're both on the same page, and we're just having an issue with communications.
Yes, i would require a roll. He is now in immediate danger from the ninja. I would probably add a circumstance bonus of +2 because he was able to calmly work on the lock for a while before having to make the roll.
The other situation is the one I think we disagree on though. By my reading of your previous posts, if the Ninja was not going to attack until and unless he finished picking the lock, or she was going to attack 3 rounds after he finishes with the lock, then you would not allow the take 10 for the rogue. That is where we differ, if that's the case.
I would have to do the rolls in a different order than you seem to be.
Rogue takes 10 on search. Grin "you don't find any traps on the lock"
Rouge takes 10 on the lock "Okay" smile evily and open the back of the book to the poison section.. where i've left the ninja character. "Roll d20" and mutter something about black lotus extract.
Roll 1: the ninjas stealth. That roll the rogue just made is his perception, not his saving throw against the non existant poison. He doesn't notice the ninja.
I consider 18 seconds from now to be "immediate danger". I would allow the take 10 on the lock, but not on the spot check for the ninja
Within game, a combat round is 6 seconds long. Anything that happens this round is immediate. Anything that happens next round or later is imminent.
The game doesn't make that distinction. Immediate action is a specific action type in the combat section. That doesn't define immediate at 6 seconds or less, particularly when the time interval between the spot check and the attempted ambush is unknown.
The distinction between immediate and imminent is not a game one. To me the difference seems to be more in tone than meaning... imminent usually means something bad whereas immediate is something neutral.
The ambushers could be waiting, taking 10 on perceptions. Where does the ambush occur? When the ambusher's highest perception + 10 - range penalties equals or exceeds the lowest stealth + 10 of the PCs.
what happens if the pc's spot the attempted ambush first?
In the real world some military train in readiness or as the Japanese call it unagi (sp). It roughly translates into never leaving the war zone. This feat makes it hard for them to retire because for them, all rounds are combat rounds. A character would probably need alertness first..
For the horse, for example, I would say that when the orc army is coming in an hour and you need to shoe your horse, you are under immediate threat. You would not. That is a legitimate, differing, DM opinion and interpretation on the exact meaning of "immediate danger". Deciding that an orc pointing a crossbow at the party is not an "immediate danger" imho, goes well beyond dm interpretation and into rules lawyering.
Here we go again. I've about done with the conversation. You keep misrepresenting what I posted. GO back and READ it again. I said, if the orc gets there before he finishes, the take 10 is not allowed, did I not?
Which you've said, but not shown. You've shown NO problem with how i'm interpreting immediate danger. You cannot simply do as you've done, tell someone "you're wrong, i don't have to explain why," and move on .
You're using "word 1" as "word 2" instead of "word 1" does NOT work when you don't define word 1, AND word 1 and 2 are synonyms.
*sigh* I have shown problems with it repeatedly. You simply do not acknowledge them.
Quote:Nope, the PC can take ten on the shoeing of the horse. However, when the orcs arrive and he's only done with the first 3 shoes, he now has to make a choice. He can continue shoeing the horse, and roll, or he can stop to attack the orcs. The fact the orcs are an hour away has nothing to do with his declared action and how it's adjudicated.
You say this because my definition of immediate is borked, but you say this ruling is borked because of my definition. That's circular.
*sigh* Again, I did not. Please reread my post.
Quote:Then please go back and read your quote, you used the phrase '3 seconds' first. I can't help it if you can't keep track of your own posts. I did quote it to try to help.
You used it as well. I have no problem keeping track of my posts.
In response to your post. You use the 3 seconds, I respond about the 3 seconds, and then you complain I used 3 seconds? Talk about circular logic and circular complaints.
Quote:No, you are completely going 180 degrees. I am referring to the ambushees, not the ambushers. Why do I need to determine the awareness of the ambushers?
You complained when i had the PC's walking down an open road for simplicities sake.
No, actually I didn't. Someone else did. Please quit confusing me with other people in the thread.
Quote:They make their take 10 perception check to notice the ambushee's coming into their ambush. As long as they are aware of the ambushee's, they can specify their ambush to take place at any point in time they choose. As the GM, if you are running the ambushers, it is YOUR responsibility to determine when they plan to attack.
What you left off the last time is the idea of when they PLANNED to attack. You do not wait until the Suckers reach the ambush spot and then roll to see if they notice because the suckers could theoretically spot the ambushers well before reaching the point.
Yes they could. :) I specifically said that earlier. What I said was that the ambushee's could take 10 right up until the time the Ambusher's actually initiated an attack. Until they actually initiate an attack, the threat is merely a nebulous possibility, it's not an immediate active threat. We're back to our disagreement over what is immediate and what is imminent. My objection is to your refusal to allow the ambushee's to take 10 prior to the ambush being initiated.
Quote:That could be 'When the first ambushee walks under that oak limb', or it could be 'in 10 rounds', or it could be 'when the next cloud covers the moon'. Either way you want to do it, you need to determine that. Once determined, then the players can 'take 10' on perception checks up until that point. Heck, they can take 10 on anything up until that point.
Sure they can do that... IF you think that a minute from now isn't immediate danger. Which is the entire point. I do think its immediate so i don't think they can take 10.
Which I disagree with, which is what I've been trying to point out to you the entire time, but we've been going down rabbit holes because you keep trying to make me prove my position based on rules. You can no more prove your interpretation by rules than I can. Why? Because the rules don't define Immediate vs Imminent. I've been trying to point out why I think your interpretation of those two is borked. You seem to be interpreting this as me telling you you are interpreting the rules incorrectly, which is not what I've said. I just said you had a borked definition of the difference between the two.
Quote:Not sure what you are talking about. If the player is not under attack, and won't be for longer than it takes to 'take 10' on the check, then he's allowed to. If he can't, you just nod and continue on until the situation changes, then you tell the character 'Your take 10 was interrupted by this ambush, you'll have to roll instead'.
Why on earth wouldn't i just send the character back to taking 10?
You could, by all means. After the immediate danger is over with. As soon as imminent danger becomes immediate his take 10 attempt is ruined. If the attempt takes 10 turns, and he completes 6, is ambushed, stops to fight, and then picks back up again, he is now no longer in immediate danger and can take 10. However, he is starting again. If the GM feels that some of his earlier work is not undone by the interruption, then he can adjust the time required down (say half the rounds he used before). But that's a GM call.
Quote:How hard is that to grasp?
Is there any need for the insults?
That's not really an insult, but, since you appear to actually read what I type more when you perceive yourself to be under immediate insult, rather than just under imminent insult, perhaps I should make more. :)
Quote:Not bad. I'm assuming the roll is for perception to notice the ninja about to attack? And I also assume it's on Scenario 1, not scenario 2? That's a perfectly valid and sensible rulling. I am rather surprised by it, since your posts up until now indicated you would not have allowed the take 10.
I have no problem with rolling to take 10 to find a lock or a trap. I don't like it being used to spot ninja.
*shrug* The PC is pick locking taking 10, he's focusing on that. He can't take 10 on the perception because he's distracted by the take 10 on the lock pick.
Quote:My question is this, if the player had decided not to fight, but to finish the picking first, would you have had him roll his check? If so, then we're both on the same page, and we're just having an issue with communications.
Yes, i would require a roll. He is now in immediate danger from the ninja. I would probably add a circumstance bonus of +2 because he was able to calmly work on the lock for a while before having to make the roll.
No issues with that.
Quote:
The other situation is the one I think we disagree on though. By my reading of your previous posts, if the Ninja was not going to attack until and unless he finished picking the lock, or she was going to attack 3 rounds after he finishes with the lock, then you would not allow the take 10 for the rogue. That is where we differ, if that's the case.
I would have to do the rolls in a different order than you seem to be.
Rogue takes 10 on search. Grin "you don't find any traps on the lock"
Rouge takes 10 on the lock "Okay" smile evily and open the back of the book to the poison section.. where i've left the ninja character. "Roll d20" and mutter something about black lotus extract.
Roll 1: the ninjas stealth. That roll the rogue just made is his perception, not his saving throw against the non existant poison. He doesn't notice the ninja.
I consider 18 seconds from now to be "immediate danger". I would allow the take 10 on the lock, but not on the spot check for the ninja
And we're back to our real disagreement. I don't consider 18 seconds in the future to be 'Immediate', just 'Imminent'. Too many things could happen in the meantime. Someone could look out a window and see the ninja on the roof and yell. Some guard could notice the rogue out of the corner of his eye while walking through a cross street. That's 3 rounds into the future, all sorts of things can disrupt both of them.
Quote:
Within game, a combat round is 6 seconds long. Anything that happens this round is immediate. Anything that happens next round or later is imminent.
The game doesn't make that distinction. Immediate action is a specific action type in the combat section. That doesn't define immediate at 6 seconds or less, particularly when the time interval between the spot check and the attempted ambush is unknown.
The distinction between immediate and imminent is not a game one. To me the difference seems to be more in tone than meaning... imminent usually means something bad whereas immediate is something neutral.
Immediate actions have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Not sure why you brought them into it.
I disagree with the last half of that as well. Imminent can be good or bad (Imminent payment from the boss, Imminent chance of the barmaid accompanying me to my room, Dinner is imminent). Imminent is just an adjective. It's context that rules good or bad. Same for Immediate.
Quote:The ambushers could be waiting, taking 10 on perceptions. Where does the ambush occur? When the ambusher's highest perception + 10 - range penalties equals or exceeds the lowest stealth + 10 of the PCs.
what happens if the pc's spot the attempted ambush first?
Then they can take stealth and try to ambush the ambushers. In which case, it reverses, the ambushers probably taking 10 on their spots (since that's easier for the GM) while they wait for someone to ambush, and the PC's stealthing (either taking 10 or rolling, they are not in combat or immediate danger) at their choice.
That's because that physicist wasn't familiar with the axiom that all bounded monotonic sequences converge.I think he was less familiar with the idea that "You have arms. Stick them out and take a slice. " Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulations.
Real situations do correspond with mathematical simulations, it's called physics. Sure we haven't figured out quantum gravity or accounted for errors in galactic rotation speeds but those are minor squabbles compared to the success of physics.
Obviously Paizo is a paragon of grammar.The words are synonymous. You're making a huge difference between the two when it doesn't exist.
Words that can be used fully interchangeably would be on the synonym list for both words. Pulling out my handy Oxford English Dictionary (the official dictionary), the synonym list for imminent is as follows: toward, at hand, short, near present, coming, hanging, instant, near, approaching, in the wind, like, threatened, sudden, ensuing, dependent, pending, incumbent, impending, proximate, due, simmering, invenient, early, forthcoming, looming, near-term, upcoming.
Now the OED definition of immediate is much more detailed. There are three groups of definitions, first is a definition that pertains to the abstract relation of things, second pertains to the temporal relation of things, and third is in context of specific phrases such as Immediate Constituent (apparently deals with morphology).
So taking the first definition of the first group:
Immediate: Of a relation or action between two things: Acting or existing without any intervening medium or agency; involving actual contact or direct relation: opposed to mediate and remote.
Synonyms: direct, multimodal, short-circuited, satisficing, very, primary, proximate.
Now taking the second definition of the second group:
Immediate: Of time: Present or next adjacent; of things: Pertaining to the time current or instant.
Synonyms: genge, present, now, presentary, unrun, modern, hodiern, actual, modernal, instant, running, this, current, nowaday, hodiernal, daily, waif, existent, existing, live, present-day, presentiated, topical, presential, still, this-worldly, today.
The two words actually share very few synonyms and even do not have each other as synonyms, therefore they cannot be synonyms.
Because the term the term immediate danger is a conjunction of immediate and danger. I can demonstrate that something is not an immediate danger by demonstrating that it is either not immediate OR a danger. I do not need to demonstrate that it is simultaneously not a danger and not immediate to demonstrate that it is not an immediate threat. Thus I can actually argue that something is not an immediate danger while fully conceding it being a danger or while fully conceding that it is immediate. [/logic]When your definition of immediate means the present you have to exclude a danger which is a mere possibility from being a danger... which you haven't done. Without doing that what you are left with defining immediate as the present, but the orc assassin on the grassy gnoll is presently a danger.. making him an immediate danger even if he isn't immediately attacking.
Nope, he's an imminent danger.
The orc is shootING at me.Ok, the orc takes half a second to aim, pulls the handle, the bolt takes a second to go through the air. This is an immediate danger. If the lava is 1 second away from our vulcanologist fighter, what's the difference?
Bring the discussion back to square one, the party isn't going to get their perception check a mere 1 second prior to the ambush. If it was merely 1 second, I wouldn't allow the take 10. But it's not merely 1 second. Now you may apply induction to my argument, but we can certainly cap it off at absurdities.
unagi (sp).
Unagi is fresh water eel - I didn't know combat was so tasty!
That said, Mushin might be something you are referring to.
Here we go again. I've about done with the conversation. You keep misrepresenting what I posted. GO back and READ it again. I said, if the orc gets there before he finishes, the take 10 is not allowed, did I not?
For the horse, for example, I would say that when the orc army is coming in an hour and you need to shoe your horse, you are under immediate threat. You would not. That is a legitimate, differing, DM opinion and interpretation on the exact meaning of "immediate danger". Deciding that an orc pointing a crossbow at the party is not an "immediate danger" imho, goes well beyond dm interpretation and into rules lawyering.
I didn't misread. I didn't misrepresent. You didn't understand my point. A little less accusations would go a LONG way.
I treat "will you finish shoeing the horse before the orcs arrive?" as an unknown. Based on the idea that is is an unknown, and my definition of what an immediate danger is, i would not allow a take 10 check.
You view horse shoeing as a job that takes 1 hour. If the orcs will arrive in 59 ,minutes, he can take 10.. until the orcs show up and then he cant (which is effectively he can't, since his first check didn't succeed). If the orcs arive in 1 hour 6 seconds he can take 10.
*sigh* I have shown problems with it repeatedly. You simply do not acknowledge them.
That the raw can be messed up does not mean that i am messed up in interpreting the raw. You need to separate those out.
No, actually I didn't. Someone else did. Please quit confusing me with other people in the thread.
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.
Yes they could. :) I specifically said that earlier. What I said was that the ambushee's could take 10 right up until the time the Ambusher's actually initiated an attack. Until they actually initiate an attack, the threat is merely a nebulous possibility, it's not an immediate active threat. We're back to our disagreement over what is immediate and what is imminent. My objection is to your refusal to allow the ambushee's to take 10 prior to the ambush being initiated.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
That could be 'When the first ambushee walks under that oak limb', or it could be 'in 10 rounds', or it could be 'when the next cloud covers the moon'. Either way you want to do it, you need to determine that. Once determined, then the players can 'take 10' on perception checks up until that point. Heck, they can take 10 on anything up until that point.
Sure they can do that... IF you think that a minute from now isn't immediate danger. Which is the entire point. I do think its immediate so i don't think they can take 10.
Which I disagree with, which is what I've been trying to point out to you the entire time, but we've been going down rabbit holes because you keep trying to make me prove my position based on rules. You can no more prove your interpretation by rules than I can. Why? Because the rules don't define Immediate vs Imminent. I've been trying to point out why I think your interpretation of those two is borked. You seem to be interpreting this as me telling you you are interpreting the rules incorrectly, which is not what I've said. I just said you had a borked definition of the difference between the two.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Not sure what you are talking about. If the player is not under attack, and won't be for longer than it takes to 'take 10' on the check, then he's allowed to. If he can't, you just nod and continue on until the situation changes, then you tell the character 'Your take 10 was interrupted by this ambush, you'll have to roll instead'.
Why on earth wouldn't i just send the character back to taking 10?
You could, by all means. After the immediate danger is over with. As soon as imminent danger becomes immediate his take 10 attempt is ruined. If the attempt takes 10 turns, and he completes 6, is ambushed, stops to fight, and then picks back up again, he is now no longer in immediate danger and can take 10. However, he is starting again. If the GM feels that some of his earlier work is not undone by the interruption, then he can adjust the time required down (say half the rounds he used before). But that's a GM call.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
How hard is that to grasp?
Is there any need for the insults?
That's not really an insult but, since you appear to actually read what I type more when you perceive yourself to be under immediate insult, rather than just under imminent insult, perhaps I should make more. :)
Its backhanded insult and unnecessary.
Before you accuse me of erasing stuff, i am just trying to wade through the periphery to the meat of the matter.
And we're back to our real disagreement. I don't consider 18 seconds in the future to be 'Immediate', just 'Imminent'. Too many things could happen in the meantime. Someone could look out a window and see the ninja on the roof and yell. Some guard could notice the rogue out of the corner of his eye while walking through a cross street. That's 3 rounds into the future, all sorts of things can disrupt both of them.
The problem there is that the word "Imminent" doesn't appear anywhere in the rules about taking 10. You are making a disctinction between the two as if they had specific, distinct, technical meanings in pathfinder and they do not. There is no such thing as an "imminent danger" to consider, especially in some imagined opposition to a threat that is merely "immediate". In fact, i cannot find the word imminent anywhere in pathfinder.
The Grammarian english major of the group tells me that as the rules are written the word should be "imminant". Since they're synoonyms i see no reason not to read it that way.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Immediate actions have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Not sure why you brought them into it.
I am trying to figure out why else you would say
" Within game, a combat round is 6 seconds long. Anything that happens this round is immediate. Anything that happens next round or later is imminent."
This statement appears to be entirely baseless. This is not raw. This is something you're making up.
@bignorsewolf
We are just going around in circles now. You have your interpretation. I think it's borked. Apparently, quite a few other people think it's borked.
You think it's better than cream cheese on a bagel. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you.
you know what? It doesn't matter. Run your game however you want. I wouldn't play in your games, it seems, and you would yank your hair out in mine.
unagi (sp).Unagi is fresh water eel - I didn't know combat was so tasty!
That said, Mushin might be something you are referring to.
Yes it is.
That episode of Friends was an in joke by a writer or something.
I think he was less familiar with the idea that "You have arms. Stick them out and take a slice. " Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulations.That's because that physicist wasn't familiar with the axiom that all bounded monotonic sequences converge.
Real situations do correspond with mathematical simulations, it's called physics.
Strawman. Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulations
Sure we haven't figured out quantum gravity or accounted for errors in galactic rotation speeds but those are minor squabbles compared to the success of physics.
and that whole division by zero thing.
Obviously Paizo is a paragon of grammar.The two words actually share very few synonyms and even do not have each other as synonyms, therefore they cannot be synonyms.
One word was used to define the other. One appears on the other's list of synonyms in two separate thesauruses that everyone can access,and if you want to be conan the grammarian the word immediate doesn't make any sense in the sentence. I don't know what you're trying with a plainly disproven argument but unless you have some genuine reason for this line of inquiry I'm done with it.
You keep knocking down my interpretation of the phrase. What do you think belongs in its place?
Bring the discussion back to square one
Why, because you can't answer the questions from where its gone? An orc shooting at you who MAY damage you in 1.5 seconds is am immediate danger A pool of lava that WILL damage you in 1.5 seconds unless you make the jump is not because.....?
the party isn't going to get their perception check a mere 1 second prior to the ambush. If it was merely 1 second, I wouldn't allow the take 10. But it's not merely 1 second.
The amount of time between the parties check and the planned ambush is an unknown. The check does not exist in the game universe. It is not tied to any one moment in time.
There is no reason to read immediate danger here... however the hell you're trying to read it. 20 times asking, no one except mdt seems to be willing to give a definition.
My strawmen are cheep golems. The GM rolls dice for them and they can get very lucky or very unlucky.
The strawman you are referring to,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
So he refuted something you did not say. right?
Strawman. Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulations
First off, that's not a strawman. Second, yes they do. Unlike you, I actually know something about physics. If they did not corresponding to reality, then the model is corrected or thrown out. Now there are situations where we don't have a complete model, but that's because people are still working on it. Some areas of physics are indeed complete though, one of these is linear classical mechanics (been complete since early 1800's with the application of Euler-Lagrange equations to classical mechanics and formalized into Hamiltonian mechanics). But even in chaotic nonlinear classical mechanics, we still simply use Hamiltonian mechanics, it simply that for we lose practical predictivity, although we still retain theoretical predictivity (it's still deterministic). This is a result of chaotic motion means that at time T, it being a position X will result in it being at position Y at time T + dt, while it starting at position X + dx will result in position Z at time T + dt, where there is no obvious correlation between Y and Z.
I think he was less familiar with the idea that "You have arms. Stick them out and take a slice. "
That has nothing to do with what's going on here. So Red Herring.
and that whole division by zero thing.
This has absolutely nothing to do with physics actually, dividing by zero creates logical contradictions inside an otherwise consistent framework. So the reason why we haven't dealt with dividing by zero is that it is logically impossible to deal with (there's half a dozen 1=2 "proofs" that demonstrate this).
One word was used to define the other. One appears on the other's list of synonyms in two separate thesauruses that everyone can access,and if you want to be conan the grammarian the word immediate doesn't make any sense in the sentence. I don't know what you're trying with a plainly disproven argument but unless you have some genuine reason for this line of inquiry I'm done with it.
You keep knocking down my interpretation of the phrase. What do you think belongs in its place?
Everyone can access the OED, they just have to go to their local library or university. I can access it off-hand because I'm on a university. Since you would like, I will carry out a similar analysis on the Merriam Webster dictionary, which, while not the official dictionary, is a quality dictionary.
Synonyms of immediate (first line is definition, second is associated synonyms):
1) done or occurring without any noticeable lapse in time
1) Immediate, instant, split-second, straightaway
2) done or working without something else coming in between
2) firsthand, immediate, primary, unmediated
3) done, carried out, or given without delay
3) immediate, punctual, speedy, timely
4) not being distant in time, space, or significance
4) close-up, immediate, near, nearby, neighboring, next-door, nigh, proximate
5) existing or in progress right now
5) current, extant, immediate, instant, ongoing, present-day
Imminent is not even on the list of related words.
Now for imminent:
1) giving signs of immediate occurrence
1) impending, looming, pending, threatening
2) being soon to appear or take place
2) approaching, coming, imminent, impending, nearing, oncoming, pending, proximate, upcoming
Something actually caught my eye when I was looking at the related words for imminent. Looking the near antonyms list for definition 5 of immediate I get the following entries: coming, future. Now when I look at the related words for the first definition of imminent I get the following: coming, future. Also when I look at the second definition for imminent this one also stands out: future. In order to be unbiased, I will point out the fact that the following show up in the related words for only the fourth definition of immediate: coming, forthcoming, upcoming. It seems that there a three semi-matches for immediate and imminent while there are three opposing matches for immediate and imminent. It looks like a wash. I hardly believe that a wash in a such a similarity test is indicative of them being synonyms. It is more like they are unrelated words.
Since I have demonstrated that imminent and immediate are unrelated words, your contention that I am making pointless distinction is conclusively false.
Why, because you can't answer the questions from where its gone?
Since you seem so apt to try and dismiss people by citing fallacies, I'll take the opportunity to do so here. Ad hominem.
But to answer the question, I bring it back to square one because 1 second is an immeasurable amount of time in PF since there is no way to measure 1/6th of a round. Also context is relevant. Dangers as when discussing contact other plane must be discussed very differently from dangers resulting from an ambush; which must be discussed very differently from jumping over something. The proof I gave in the contact other plane thread holds there and when dealing with ambushes, but it does not hold for jumping over stuff (and I did bring up the fact that it is not a universal, but merely an existence argument).
The amount of time between the parties check and the planned ambush is an unknown. The check does not exist in the game universe. It is not tied to any one moment in time.
Actually, when you think about it, it must relate to one specific moment in time. What if someone passes the check? They must be some distance away from the ambush when it is noticed (they are not schrodinger's cat), since they are moving with a nonzero velocity, it must occur at some point in time prior to the ambush.
There is no reason to read immediate danger here... however the hell you're trying to read it
Did you just flip on the issue?
20 times asking, no one except mdt seems to be willing to give a definition.
Fine I'll give a nice technical definition. An immediate danger is a known source of potential interference that can occur before the next round.
Strawman. Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulationsFirst off, that's not a strawman.
You refuted the idea that real situations don't always correspond with mathematical situations by refuting the idea that real situations don't correspond with mathematical simulations. There is a huge difference.
Now for imminent :
1) giving signs of immediate occurrence
... and they're not synonyms?
I'll take the opportunity to do so here. Ad hominem.
An ad hom would require that i used a statement about you as a basis for my argument. My basis for rejecting your argument was the different result you got with apparently similar circumstances. A crossbow bolt 1 second away from potential impact was a danger but lava was not.
But to answer the question, I bring it back to square one because 1 second is an immeasurable amount of time in PF since there is no way to measure 1/6th of a round. Also context is relevant. Dangers as when discussing contact other plane must be discussed very differently from dangers resulting from an ambush; which must be discussed very differently from jumping over something. The proof I gave in the contact other plane thread
I don't know why you think i'm keeping up with all your posts, but I'm not.
Actually, when you think about it, it must relate to one specific moment in time. What if someone passes the check? They must be some distance away from the ambush when it is noticed (they are not schrodinger's cat), since they are moving with a nonzero velocity, it must occur at some point in time prior to the ambush.
And how does that square with your assertion that "1 second is an immeasurable amount of time in PF since there is no way to measure 1/6th of a round."
Did you just flip on the issue?
Not even close.
Fine I'll give a nice technical definition. An immediate danger is a known source of potential interference that can occur before the next round.
And how do you decide if its known? Isn't that what the spot check is for?
How are you deriving "known" from your definition?
... and they're not synonyms?
Yup, as I demonstrated by the block of text that you cleverly avoided.
You refuted the idea that real situations don't always correspond with mathematical situations by refuting the idea that real situations don't correspond with mathematical simulations. There is a huge difference.
That's effectively an axiom of physics. Metaphysically there's no good reason to believe that physics is accurate, yet it turns out that way. Thus we take it as a metaphysical axiom (other common axioms are the axiom of choice, Euclid's 4 postulates (5th isn't always valid), the speed of light is the same in a vacuum in all inertial reference frames, and however you choose to solve zeno's paradox).
A crossbow bolt 1 second away from potential impact was a danger but lava was not.
Because I presumed it was more than 1 second away.
I don't know why you think i'm keeping up with all your posts, but I'm not.
Because I believe you posted in that thread.
And how does that square with your assertion that "1 second is an immeasurable amount of time in PF since there is no way to measure 1/6th of a round."
Simple, quantization of time and space; not that hard.
And how do you decide if its known?
There really aren't any rules of what your characters know and do not know. You don't have to make a knowledge check to tie your shoes, yet presumably your characters know how to do that. What your characters know and do not know should be obvious, if it's not then try applying less metaphysics.
Isn't that what the spot check is for?
Since they do not know about it before they make the check, they can take 10 on the check to know about it.
Yup, as I demonstrated by the block of text that you cleverly avoided.
Yes. Your own "analysis" that proved your point for you in spite of the text clearly demonstrating what i said. However i can see that even your own source defined one alleged "non synonym" with the other. If you're doing that, no textual argument or additional information is going to convince you of the patently obvious.
As i said, i already responded to the same thing today. If you want to see my response to you, scroll up and see my response to the last person who tried that. You use bigger words, but the underlying structure is still the same.
That's effectively an axiom of physics. Metaphysically there's no good reason to believe that physics is accurate
Metaphysically a philosophers can't prove the existence of their own hand. So i tend not to listen to them. Physics is usually "accurate enough for all intents and purposes" but it doesn't work when you're trying to shoehorn a mathematically perfect , crystalline understanding of the universe in regular English.
Because I presumed it was more than 1 second away.
You do realize that that hurts your case when it gets further away right?
Because I believe you posted in that thread.
Doesn't mean i read what you said. Or remembered your point.
Simple, quantization of time and space; not that hard.
It is that hard. You don't know at what round/ second/part of the round the spot check can be made, so you have no frame of reference from which to say the party is X amount of time away from an ambush.
There really aren't any rules of what your characters know and do not know. You don't have to make a knowledge check to tie your shoes, yet presumably your characters know how to do that. What your characters know and do not know should be obvious, if it's not then try applying less metaphysics.
Its not obvious if they know that there is an orc sniper waiting on the grassy gnoll. That's why you're making the perception checks.
Since they do not know about it before they make the check, they can take 10 on the check to know about it.
By your definition, which you have yet to prove is either the games definition or that of the English language.
Obama Talks Tough Over Immediate Budget Cuts
These budget cuts, obviously, will not be occurring in less than a month.
Grammys Give Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber Immediate iTunes Bump
Less than 24 hours after the show , the iTunes singles and albums charts were flooded with songs that were either performed on the show or which won awards during the program.
Wisconsin faces an economic and fiscal crisis that demands clear thinking and immediate action. Past budgeting practices under the leadership of both political parties created this mess.
In a bid to strengthen the backbone of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probing the 2G, Commonwealth Games and Adarsh housing scams, the Supreme Court has directed immediate filling up of vacancies in the top ranks of the premier investigating agency and has asked for an action taken report within four weeks.
All uses of immediate in line with my interpretation, taken right out of the news off google. An immediate law.. takes MUCH longer to resolve than an immediate threat of an animal attack
The word is vague. It's open to a lot of DM interpretation and isn't going to subject itself to mathematics all that well.
Yes. Your own "analysis" that proved your point for you in spite of the text clearly demonstrating what i said. However i can see that even your own source defined one alleged "non synonym" with the other. If you're doing that, no textual argument or additional information is going to convince you of the patently obvious.
As i said, i already responded to the same thing today. If you want to see my response to you, scroll up and see my response to the last person who tried that. You use bigger words, but the underlying structure is still the same.
Containment of a word in a definition does not imply synonymy. Because I doubt that "of" is a synonym of imminent. Also try this on for size:
Proposed definition of immediate:Given sign of imminent occurrence.
Nope does not connect with other definitions. Synonymy implies interchangeability of the terms. When you look at all the meanings of immediate and imminent, then it is quite clear that they are not readily interchangeable.
Physics is usually "accurate enough for all intents and purposes" but it doesn't work when you're trying to shoehorn a mathematically perfect , crystalline understanding of the universe in regular English.
That's physicists don't restrict themselves to using English, they also use math to describe it. Which is why I'm skeptical of papers that are light in the equations department.
You do realize that that hurts your case when it gets further away right?
Nope, once it passes a particular point it goes from immediate to imminent. The exact point is subject to the problem of induction which is merely an artifact of the imprecision of common language when dealing quantized groups (how many atoms constitute a gas?). Consider the following problem: let us suppose that 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand. Now you remove 1 grain of sand, it remains a heap of sand. Now I repeat this 999,998 times. I have 1 grain of sand remaining that is constituting my heap of sand. However, heaps of sand are bigger than 1 grain. That is the problem of induction. We are forced to make arbitrary distinctions in our language. My argument is merely that there exists some point at which the threat is no longer immediate, but rather it becomes imminent.
It is that hard. You don't know at what round/ second/part of the round the spot check can be made, so you have no frame of reference from which to say the party is X amount of time away from an ambush.
The fact is that things move in 5 ft. squares, and time elapses in 6 second increments. So time and space are quantized and see problem of induction to determine when the check is made. In PF though, we do only have a finite number of options to arbitrarily choose from, the problem of induction is only partially alleviated, but not entirely.
Its not obvious if they know that there is an orc sniper waiting on the grassy gnoll. That's why you're making the perception checks.
Yes but it is clear that they do not know before the perceive them.
By your definition, which you have yet to prove is either the games definition or that of the English language.
The game doesn't have a definition. It does coincide with the English language because less than 1 round is not a noticeable lapse in time, therefore less than one round is immediate.
That's physicists don't restrict themselves to using English, they also use math to describe it. Which is why I'm skeptical of papers that are light in the equations department.
which is problematic because you're examining things that are non existant in the equations department.
You do realize that that hurts your case when it gets further away right?Nope, once it passes a particular point it goes from immediate to imminent. My argument is merely that there exists some point at which the threat is no longer immediate, but rather it becomes imminent.
This is completely unsubstantiated by either the English language or the game.
The exact point is subject to the problem of induction which is merely an artifact of the imprecision of common language when dealing quantized groups (how many atoms constitute a gas?). Consider the following problem: let us suppose that 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand. Now you remove 1 grain of sand, it remains a heap of sand. Now I repeat this 999,998 times. I have 1 grain of sand remaining that is constituting my heap of sand.
Taking off the top 3/4s of loki's head works just fine.
The game doesn't have a definition. It does coincide with the English language because less than 1 round is not a noticeable lapse in time, therefore less than one round is immediate.
Find your usage in the English language. I've already provided examples of mine.
which is problematic because you're examining things that are non existant in the equations department.
I thought this was a side discussion about physics.
This is completely unsubstantiated by either the English language or the game.
Except for the game that the game doesn't define either and English has two very different definitions of the two words with only minimal overlap.
Taking off the top 3/4s of loki's head works just fine.
And I state things outside of 1 round are no immediate.
Find your usage in the English language. I've already provided examples of mine.
Yes, examples that are not in a world with quantized time. But I'll provide some of mine anyways.
After I hit him for 37 damage, I immediately use my move action to cheese it out of there.
I thought this was a side discussion about physics.
I was making a point about the absurdity of your definition of immediate requiring the absolute present.
Except for the game that the game doesn't define either and English has two very different definitions of the two words with only minimal overlap.
The game doesn't define an imminent danger or make a distinction between an imminent danger and an immediate one.
And I state things outside of 1 round are no immediate.
Hey! that's almost a concrete definition.
So the round the ambush is going to occur or go bust you can't take 10?
Find your usage in the English language. I've already provided examples of mine.
Yes, examples that are not in a world with quantized time. But I'll provide some of mine anyways.
After I hit him for 37 damage, I immediately use my move action to cheese it out of there.
Except that you have temporality there, even if it is loose. YOu have one action, and then another. This also doesn't support your idea that an immediate threat MUST be within a timeframe of zero, only that it CAN be. My interpretation has no problems with zero time frame dangers. You need to disprove 12, 18, and 24 second timeframes for the word immediate. Considering that your definitions don't do that and I've quoted usages of the word that are clearly referring to events hours, days, and weeks off I have no reason to buy your completely arbitrary distinction between immediate and imminent.
The game doesn't define an imminent danger or make a distinction between an imminent danger and an immediate one.
The game doesn't define a lot of stuff. Hell, it doesn't define what combat is. It tells you what you can and cannot do during this thing called "combat".
So the round the ambush is going to occur or go bust you can't take 10?
Are you already aware of the ambush? If so then no, if not then you can take 10 (I'm making this apply to things other than the perception check as well).
Except that you have temporality there, even if it is loose. YOu have one action, and then another. This also doesn't support your idea that an immediate threat MUST be within a timeframe of zero, only that it CAN be. My interpretation has no problems with zero time frame dangers. You need to disprove 12, 18, and 24 second timeframes for the word immediate. Considering that your definitions don't do that and I've quoted usages of the word that are clearly referring to events hours, days, and weeks off I have no reason to buy your completely arbitrary distinction between immediate and imminent.
Nope, in PF, my idea of immediate is not within a zero timeframe, but rather within a timeframe of 6 seconds. IRL, I require the infinitesimal timeframe.
Nope, in PF, my idea of immediate is not within a zero timeframe, but rather within a timeframe of 6 seconds. IRL, I require the infinitesimal timeframe.
Then you're not reading the rules according to english, you're reading them as if they were a physics text.
Nope, in PF, my idea of immediate is not within a zero timeframe, but rather within a timeframe of 6 seconds. IRL, I require the infinitesimal timeframe.Then you're not reading the rules according to english, you're reading them as if they were a physics text.
Physics texts are in English. :P
Is there something wrong with taking advantage of my knowledge of physics, aside from completely making unseen servant immensely overpowered?
Physics texts are in English. :P
Nope, in PF, my idea of immediate is not within a zero timeframe, but rather within a timeframe of 6 seconds. IRL, I require the infinitesimal timeframe.Then you're not reading the rules according to english, you're reading them as if they were a physics text.
But english texts, like the rule book, aren't written in physics. Wands other than grasping hand and lightning bolt can have a charge. AN action is not energy X time. Dimensional anchor does not prevent you from moving in 3 directions. A mole is a small burrowing animal.
Is there something wrong with taking advantage of my knowledge of physics, aside from completely making unseen servant immensely overpowered?
Yes. It interferes with interpreting something that was not written in physics jargon if you assume that it is. The point of a written work is to transfer intent from the author to the reader. The author uses a certain form of English rather than technical jargon. If you read it as if it were meant to be technical jargon you miss the authors point.
In order for an immediate danger to be restricted to the present, NEITHER word can cross time or probability. Danger does both. Danger implies that it is something that MIGHT harm you. Since it isn't harming you now, it has to be possibly harming you in the future. Immediate danger simply means it has to be the near future, but doesn't specify HOW near.
Immediate does not mean "at this very moment" by either any definition you posted, its usage in every day english, or in game terms. Even as you used it, your character would move, in order, from one 5 foot space to the other as he moved away the thing he hit for 37 points of damage: meaning that his non game use of "immediate" would occur in the future.
So the original question was:
Lets say the party is exploring a dungeon. The DM decides to spring an ambush on the party. Can they take 10 on the perception check to notice the ambush?
and it was answered immediately with:
Up to the GM, that said, taking 10 is unlikely to catch a good Ambush.
Probably, the most accurate answer given.
Lets say the party is exploring a dungeon. The DM decides to spring an ambush on the party. Can they take 10 on the perception check to notice the ambush?
Yes. The party is not not under stressed conditions. Some people prefer taking 10 because it's simple. Essentially saying that you'll be taking 10 on your Perception checks is neither unfair, nor against the rules. It actually makes a GMs job much, much easier as you have fairly simple numbers to deal with; rather than having to make a ton of opposed checks.
When I myself GM, I find that taking 10 on Perception checks is actually amazingly useful as a method to speed up gameplay among NPCs. It effectively turns the DC to sneak up on an NPC into 10 + the NPC's Perception modifier; so a rogue who wants to sneak up on an orc scout with a +5 Perception must make a DC 15 Stealth check to go unnoticed.
But english texts, like the rule book, aren't written in physics. Wands other than grasping hand and lightning bolt can have a charge. AN action is not energy X time. Dimensional anchor does not prevent you from moving in 3 directions. A mole is a small burrowing animal.
So we're completely incapable of discerning the half a dozen uses of the word level in the SRD?
In order for an immediate danger to be restricted to the present, NEITHER word can cross time or probability. Danger does both. Danger implies that it is something that MIGHT harm you. Since it isn't harming you now, it has to be possibly harming you in the future. Immediate danger simply means it has to be the near future, but doesn't specify HOW near.
Immediate does not mean "at this very moment" by either any definition you posted, its usage in every day english, or in game terms. Even as you used it, your character would move, in order, from one 5 foot space to the other as he moved away the thing he hit for 37 points of damage: meaning that his non game use of "immediate" would occur in the future.
I have explicitly said that I use two different definitions for immediate. One for real life and the other for PF. Stop conflating them.
So we're completely incapable of discerning the half a dozen uses of the word level in the SRD?
People that are delibrately trying to twist the rules are.
I have explicitly said that I use two different definitions for immediate. One for real life and the other for PF. Stop conflating them.
What makes you think the pathfinder definition should be any different from the real life one that includes things happening over hours days and weeks?
So we're completely incapable of discerning the half a dozen uses of the word level in the SRD?People that are delibrately trying to twist the rules are.
I have explicitly said that I use two different definitions for immediate. One for real life and the other for PF. Stop conflating them.What makes you think the pathfinder definition should be any different from the real life one that includes things happening over hours days and weeks?
Real life doesn't have quantized time.
Real life doesn't have quantized time.So we're completely incapable of discerning the half a dozen uses of the word level in the SRD?People that are delibrately trying to twist the rules are.
I have explicitly said that I use two different definitions for immediate. One for real life and the other for PF. Stop conflating them.What makes you think the pathfinder definition should be any different from the real life one that includes things happening over hours days and weeks?
The real life that the rest of is live in does. Hours, days, minutes and seconds. You need at least two definitions of immediate: regular life and physics. Then you need to decide why pathfinder is supposed to have a different definition than regular life.
The real life that the rest of is live in does. Hours, days, minutes and seconds. You need at least two definitions of immediate: regular life and physics. Then you need to decide why pathfinder is supposed to have a different definition than regular life.Real life doesn't have quantized time.So we're completely incapable of discerning the half a dozen uses of the word level in the SRD?People that are delibrately trying to twist the rules are.
I have explicitly said that I use two different definitions for immediate. One for real life and the other for PF. Stop conflating them.What makes you think the pathfinder definition should be any different from the real life one that includes things happening over hours days and weeks?
Tah-tah-tah real life still is not quantized. If real life were quantized in seconds, then it would be impossible to measure an amount of time less than one second (i.e. the concept of half a second would not exist). Just because we use standards of measurement for something does not mean something is quantized. I believe you are conflating quantizing with quantifying.
Say you have a Babau Demon with invisibility cast on it made permanent with Permanency.
The babau is an assassin, a murderer, and a sadist—certainly not traits unusual in the demons, yet the babau's penchant for stealth and surprise sets it apart from its generally less-subtle kin. With no need to eat (although most babaus relish the flavor of mortal meat on their thin, raspy tongues), a babau can wait in ambush for years or decades—their inhuman patience in anticipating a well-conceived murder also setting them apart from the other denizens of the Abyss.
If a Babau demon is sent to assassinate a member of a party of adventures but not anyone else in the party(Who together have no problem dispatching him anyway) the demon could spend years stalking the party.
The party is always in danger. You could even say the party is always in immediate danger because the Babau could attack immediately.
The party would certainly get perception checks against it so long as its possible for them to pass those checks (no point in making them roll checks that they can't pass.)(Although I can see giving them hints that something is up) Were talking a DC of 42 when the Babau Damon is moving and a DC of 62 when he's standing still.
The players can take 10 or take 20 on checks even though they are in danger.
The players get a letter in common(a language the Babau does not speak) informing a member of the party that they are being stalked by a Babau.
How has this change this situation?
I feel the players can still take 10 or take 20 on checks even tho they know they are in this kind of danger.
Say you have a Babau Demon with invisibility cast on it made permanent with Permanency.
Nitpick: you can't do permanent invisibility with permanency. But you can give him a ring of invis.
Say you have a Babau Demon with invisibility cast on it made permanent with Permanency.Nitpick: you can't do permanent invisibility with permanency. But you can give him a ring of invis.
Un ya ya thats thats what I meant... a acid proof ring of invisibility.
Nothing made up there.
Say you have a Babau Demon with invisibility cast on it made permanent with Permanency.Nitpick: you can't do permanent invisibility with permanency. But you can give him a ring of invis.Un ya ya thats thats what I meant... a acid proof ring of invisibility.
Nothing made up there.
Now technically it's protective slime only applies to weapons. :P
Now technically it's protective slime only applies to weapons. :PSay you have a Babau Demon with invisibility cast on it made permanent with Permanency.Nitpick: you can't do permanent invisibility with permanency. But you can give him a ring of invis.Un ya ya thats thats what I meant... a acid proof ring of invisibility.
Nothing made up there.
Except the one it's holding.
Tah-tah-tah real life still is not quantized. If real life were quantized in seconds, then it would be impossible to measure an amount of time less than one second (i.e. the concept of half a second would not exist). Just because we use standards of measurement for something does not mean something is quantized. I believe you are conflating quantizing with quantifying.
Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values (such as the real numbers) to a discrete set (such as the integers). -wiki
A day is a quantized set of time. An hour is a quantized set of time. A second is a quantized set of time.
You still have to read immediate in pathfinder according to this bizarre conception about how time works in every day life. That is neither what the word means in every day usage and i'm pretty sure its NOT what the author had in mind (because on the offhand chance they are a physics geek, they have enough literary prowess to understand that that's not how everyone thinks)
Your argument is, effectively, that everyone has to read the rules according to your specialization rather than according to the english language. That is inane, and i doubt this is the only rules interpretation you're going to have difficulty with if you persist in reading it that way.
Someone's probably mentioned this, but - Making an active perception check is a move action (which you can take 10 on), and it's repeatable. Taking 20 generally takes 2 minutes for any action that takes less than a round and is repeatable(like perception).
So a party can take 10 on perception moving at a walk (not taking double moves, taking one move action and a standard to take 10 on a perception). That's moving slowly and cautiously. Likwise a party could (and sometimes should!) move, spend 2 minutes to take 20, move again, etc. That's creeping *very* slowly using utmost care, or the classic "I listen at the door".
They'd also get their reactive check to determine suprise (DM's call if that'd be their take 10, if they're doing that, but by RAW a guard taking 10 on watch could get two bites at the apple, one for their active check, the other for their reactive check, essentially meaning that the benefit of being "on guard", standing or walking at attention and not doing anything else, is you can't botch and roll less than 10, but could get lucky and roll higher).
They'd also get their reactive check to determine suprise (DM's call if that'd be their take 10, if they're doing that, but by RAW a guard taking 10 on watch could get two bites at the apple, one for their active check, the other for their reactive check, essentially meaning that the benefit of being "on guard", standing or walking at attention and not doing anything else, is you can't botch and roll less than 10, but could get lucky and roll higher).
Potentially three bites. reactive when the rogue sneaks, His move action to see him behind the boxes, and his other move action to try to see him behind the boxes.
*gets newspaper for self for pointing out inane rules exploits*
Someone please mark this for a FAQ!
You cannot create combat from over a round away. It is only when an attack will happen that combat begins. Any other interpretation makes the game impossible. You fire an arrow or charge an opponent and combat has begun.
Someone's probably mentioned this, but - Making an active perception check is a move action (which you can take 10 on), and it's repeatable. Taking 20 generally takes 2 minutes for any action that takes less than a round and is repeatable(like perception).
So a party can take 10 on perception moving at a walk (not taking double moves, taking one move action and a standard to take 10 on a perception). That's moving slowly and cautiously. Likwise a party could (and sometimes should!) move, spend 2 minutes to take 20, move again, etc. That's creeping *very* slowly using utmost care, or the classic "I listen at the door".
They'd also get their reactive check to determine suprise (DM's call if that'd be their take 10, if they're doing that, but by RAW a guard taking 10 on watch could get two bites at the apple, one for their active check, the other for their reactive check, essentially meaning that the benefit of being "on guard", standing or walking at attention and not doing anything else, is you can't botch and roll less than 10, but could get lucky and roll higher).
FYI, taking a 20 on perception takes 1 minute.
You can convert you standard action to a move action, and thus you can take 2 move action per round. 20 move actions is 10 rounds which is 1 minute.
Just being nitpicky.
Potentially three bites. reactive when the rogue sneaks, His move action to see him behind the boxes, and his other move action to try to see him behind the boxes.
*gets newspaper for self for pointing out inane rules exploits*
Yea, totally -- but that's a guard using all his actions specifically to remain at attention (like those guys outside Buckinham Pallace) flip side is the GM should also be using the modifiers for distraction and conditions and distance, etc. So the rogue *should* be getting the +1/10 feet the boxes are distant from the guard, +2 to +5 for the poor lighting, noise of the feasting in the hall, masking stench of garbage etc. etc.
And if he's not a such a well disciplined guard, maybe he's day dreaming or gossiping, or dozing, or cleaning his nails, from being board to death looking for nothing for hours on end, meaning he's just taking 10, and at a 5 point penalty for distraction.
DM's got TONs of lattitude when it comes to sneaking up on someone.
FYI, taking a 20 on perception takes 1 minute.You can convert you standard action to a move action, and thus you can take 2 move action per round. 20 move actions is 10 rounds which is 1 minute.
Just being nitpicky.
Yea, the Take 20 rule specifies that "under a round usually means 2 minutes". I think it's a judgement call if that's intended to trump pure math. I think it is.
Someone please mark this for a FAQ!
You cannot create combat from over a round away. It is only when an attack will happen that combat begins. Any other interpretation makes the game impossible. You fire an arrow or charge an opponant and combat has begun.
No, it makes the game impossible if someone is trying metagame cheese Like granny knitting radar.
Your CHARACTERS do not know that they can take 10. They know that they can take their time, do an average job, and they won't mess up. Even IF the character were to fail at a routine task like basketweaving because of an unseen scorpion, that wouldn't impart any particular knowledge to the character.
The take 10 rules are a short paragraph. They (rightly) dump a lot of the decision on the DM. They can't possibly be expected to deal with every attempt at player cheese, nor does the fact that any ruling results in potential player cheese mean the rules need to be twisted into something that doesn't allow player cheese.
Untill the attack happens it's still possible that the attack will not happen. No amount of stinking maybes will disrupt taking 10. If you let maybes disrupt taking ten, then blacken out taking 10 in your rule book and play that way in your home game. Change readying an action to at any time because all things in that game world are in the war zone.
Untill the attack happens it's still possible that the attack will not happen.
Which is irrelevant. There is a danger in every round that the party is within rolling range for an ambush.
No amount of stinking maybes will disrupt taking 10. If you let maybes disrupt taking ten, then blacken out taking 10 in your rule book and play that way in your home game.
No. I think i'll play the raw on this one, and allow taking 10 where it's supposed to be used: when you have plenty of time, are out of combat and are not in immediate danger.
Change readying an action to at any time because all things in that game world are in the war zone.
Now you're being silly.
I removed a post. Semantics can be an important underlying part of an argument, but they are not an excuse to insult other members of the community.
Also, this thread doesn't appear to be reaching a conclusion anytime soon. Rather than further muddy the issue and allowing people to grind their figurative axes, it is locked. If you feel the topic needs an Official response, please FAQ it. If you feel it needs further discussion, please create a new thread in Advice or Homebrew about how you handle it at your table.