Roll the die. Its not that bad. Its not that big a deal. The game is SUPPOSED to be risky. Combat and danger are supposed to be hectic, chaotic, and prone to chance. Where is the thrill, where is the risk, where is the excitement if you KNOW you absolutely can't fail? That's boring as hell. Its not an encounter its background scenery.
How do we know that we can't fail? I don't know what the Perception modifiers of all the enemies in the room are. Nor do I know their CMDs (vs Acrobatics or Escape Artist), their HD+WIS (for Intimidate) or their BAB+Sense Motive/WIS (for Feint). I can make an educated guess to form an expectation though, which goes back to the part about taking-10 that I quoted before.
When I build a skill-oriented character, I want them to be skilled. All these special things that they can do, they don't contribute in the same flashy ways that a Wizard casts spells or a Fighter spills blood. So when I do use them, I want them to work. And frankly, by the time I've gotten to 10th level to take Skill Mastery, I expect them to work. Which makes those times when taking-10 turns out to be the wrong decision to be all that more dramatic.
In other words, different strokes for different folks. You say it's "boring as hell." I think you need to add another two words there: "for me." Because without that, you're telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong, telling them what the "game is SUPPOSED to be". No offense, but I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm supposed to like about the game.
As I see it, when stealthing you are always in immediate danger of being caught. So I'm saying no Take 10 for stealth in my campaigns.
This is an issue that is debateable. But as a long time DM, I know how stealth works in game and I know how it is supposed to work. And if the game designers want to choose to make an improper stealth because they don't want to separate combat from non-combat skills or model it on other game systems that have a simple unified stealth mechanic, that's their perogative.
I'm going to use stealth the way other game systems use it as a situational combat skill that is always opposed due to the nature of the skill. Stealth is only used in situations where there is some consequence for being caught even if it is simply failure to avoid detection while practicing. Thus the use of the skill itself means you are always in immediate danger.
So I'm on the side of the debate that stealth is one of those skills where you shouldn't be able to take 10 and shouldn't be able to use without some chance of success or failure.
A personal ruling in my games is that you cannot take a 10 or 20 on stealth because of the risk of failure in that skill.
However, the rule of the stealth skill does allow for the player to take a 10 or 20 on the check, as I understand it. I would rule that the player would have to be out of sight, with no one around that could spot the player (to include the rest of the party), and absolutely no risk to doing so. The moment that any of these factors do not apply (combat starts, a person is walking by, or they are trying to hide in the middle of the street without being a Shadowdancer) then I would make them roll the check.
|
Take 10 is done EXPRESSLY to avoid failure on very low checks, while average would be ok.
take 10 has nothing to do with chances of failure or being caught or having someone looking. As long as you're not in the middle of a fight (or in a swarm, or being tickled by invisible imps)
back to the lava pit example : 10 feet to jump or you fall into lava (and die) --> take 10 to jump over the pit. you have time enough, space enough to control your jump.
back to stealth : you have to hide from 2 guards : take 10, you have all your time, preparation and confidence.
I would not allow take 10 only if there is an emergency (guards patrolling & coming your way; then you owuld not have all the time you want)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roll the die. Its not that bad. Its not that big a deal. The game is SUPPOSED to be risky. Combat and danger are supposed to be hectic, chaotic, and prone to chance. Where is the thrill, where is the risk, where is the excitement if you KNOW you absolutely can't fail? That's boring as hell. Its not an encounter its background scenery.
I'm not concerned with risk as a player, I'm concerned with being able to judge how encounters will play out on a site without having to draw up a decision tree. If getting caught is enough to preclude taking 10 with stealth, I will have to make a LOT of rolls just to be fair to the player. If you can take ten, I can just draw a line on my map where taking ten will get the PCs noticed.
±380 feet is just not good enough for me.
Take 10 is done EXPRESSLY to avoid failure on very low checks, while average would be ok.
take 10 has nothing to do with chances of failure or being caught or having someone looking. As long as you're not in the middle of a fight (or in a swarm, or being tickled by invisible imps)
back to the lava pit example : 10 feet to jump or you fall into lava (and die) --> take 10 to jump over the pit. you have time enough, space enough to control your jump.
back to stealth : you have to hide from 2 guards : take 10, you have all your time, preparation and confidence.
I would not allow take 10 only if there is an emergency (guards patrolling & coming your way; then you owuld not have all the time you want)
I would say that is more a DM's call than anything. It was already quoted once, but here is the Taking 10 rule once more (Emphasis mine):
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Stealth wise there is a lot more room for interpretation on that one. Some may say that just trying to hide is always dangerous, and some may say that there is no danger is deliberatly hiding yourself. The same with the jump check over the lava. As a DM, because of the risk of death and pretty immediate danger of the lava, would say a rolled check is always required in that situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roll the die. Its not that bad. Its not that big a deal. The game is SUPPOSED to be risky. Combat and danger are supposed to be hectic, chaotic, and prone to chance. Where is the thrill, where is the risk, where is the excitement if you KNOW you absolutely can't fail?
Hey, why don't we make spellcasters make a roll every time they cast a spell, even if they're not casting defensively. I mark a spell off my list and it just works? Where's the thrill in that? Maybe sometimes casting mage armor should kill me!
How about whenever you draw a weapon you make a roll or you can't? Or whenever you charge? I mean, you run at the guy and you don't usually fall down? Where's the excitement in that? Maybe you could make a Fort save or die everytime you get hit so there's real risk in fighting kobolds.
Why can my wizard just cast Invisibility and be pretty well sure he's not going to be seen (e.g., even a 1 on his stealth roll is still too high) but it's overpowered for the trained master of Stealth that is (or could be) a level 7 rogue or ranger or monk to achieve the same thing through his training?
Why does the risk have to exist for some characters and not others, and why does it happen that the characters who have to take the risk are the ones that aren't generally as powerful?
Gary Gygax set a s$%@ty precedent on skills with thieves that literally could never reach a 50% success rate on finding magical traps, even if they were a millionth level. As modern players of the game, we should look at that and say "Wow, he didn't know better at the time, what a terrible idea! I'm glad we know better now.", not, "Hey, let's emulate that!"
I completely agree with Dire Mongoose on this matter.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comeon people. "Immediate danger" does NOT mean "risk of failure." Quit trying to shoehorn take-20 rules into the take-10 mechanic. They're completely different rules with completely different sets of mechanics. A take-10 can almost ALWAYS be used out of combat, regardless of the skill.
|
|
Well over fifty posts, no closer to consensus, and still only a handful of FAQ clicks on the OP?
Come on, people, this is obviously an issue. Get to clickin'.
Evidently people feel that they already have the "right" answer and fear that a Developer response could go against their vision of the game.
At least it is a double handful of clicks.
How do we know that we can't fail?
Why else would you take 10?
When I build a skill-oriented character, I want them to be skilled. All these special things that they can do, they don't contribute in the same flashy ways that a Wizard casts spells or a Fighter spills blood. So when I do use them, I want them to work. And frankly, by the time I've gotten to 10th level to take Skill Mastery, I expect them to work. Which makes those times when taking-10 turns out to be the wrong decision to be all that more dramatic.
Where are you getting this idea that they won't work if you have to roll? They certainly DO work more often for people with high skill modifiers. You have every bit as much, if not more, reason to crank out skills when you can't take 10 as when you can.
In other words, different strokes for different folks. You say it's "boring as hell." I think you need to add another two words there: "for me." Because without that, you're telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong, telling them what the "game is SUPPOSED to be". No offense, but I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm supposed to like about the game.
I'm not trying to tell you what you're supposed to like I'm telling you what the rules say is supposed to be in the system: Risk. Chance. An element of randomness and the sweet and cruel winds of fate.
Well over fifty posts, no closer to consensus, and still only a handful of FAQ clicks on the OP?
Come on, people, this is obviously an issue. Get to clickin'.
There are about 50% of the number of people who have posted in the thread that have hit the FAQ button.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There are about 50% of the number of people who have posted in the thread that have hit the FAQ button.Well over fifty posts, no closer to consensus, and still only a handful of FAQ clicks on the OP?
Come on, people, this is obviously an issue. Get to clickin'.
You counted how many people were in this thread? Nifty, thanks. :)
How do we know that we can't fail?Why else would you take 10?
When you are unsure of the DC and don't want to take the risk of rolling low because you think you are good enough. Players don't always know the DC. That doesn't mean they wont take 10 anyway.
When I build a skill-oriented character, I want them to be skilled. All these special things that they can do, they don't contribute in the same flashy ways that a Wizard casts spells or a Fighter spills blood. So when I do use them, I want them to work. And frankly, by the time I've gotten to 10th level to take Skill Mastery, I expect them to work. Which makes those times when taking-10 turns out to be the wrong decision to be all that more dramatic.Where are you getting this idea that they won't work if you have to roll? They certainly DO work more often for people with high skill modifiers. You have every bit as much, if not more, reason to crank out skills when you can't take 10 as when you can.
Rolling introduces a huge margin for failure on skills. A DC 15 check is supposed to be an auto-success for someone with basic skill in the task who can take their time (a +5). Forcing someone to roll that check when they have that bonus introduces a 45% error rate on what is supposed to be a basic task for someone who is trained. Removing taking 10 causes people who should be auto-succeeding to fail. Even someone who is an expert in the skill (+10) has a 25% chance to fail a DC15 check. They are supposed to be good enough to auto-succeed DC20 checks. That is why rules for taking 10 exist.
In other words, different strokes for different folks. You say it's "boring as hell." I think you need to add another two words there: "for me." Because without that, you're telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong, telling them what the "game is SUPPOSED to be". No offense, but I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm supposed to like about the game.I'm not trying to tell you what you're supposed to like I'm telling you what the rules say is supposed to be in the system: Risk. Chance. An element of randomness and the sweet and cruel winds of fate.
Here we have to disagree. The rules do not say that chance has to be there. In fact, by my reading of the rules they specifically say that it is not there. Not only that, but it does not make any sense to me to not have them applicable. Why would you otherwise write them? Their whole purpose for being is to eliminate that random chance.
You counted how many people were in this thread? Nifty, thanks. :)There are about 50% of the number of people who have posted in the thread that have hit the FAQ button.Well over fifty posts, no closer to consensus, and still only a handful of FAQ clicks on the OP?
Come on, people, this is obviously an issue. Get to clickin'.
I ballparked once I got to the second page. Was close enough for government work.
Hey, why don't we make spellcasters make a roll every time they cast a spell, even if they're not casting defensively. I mark a spell off my list and it just works? Where's the thrill in that? Maybe sometimes casting mage armor should kill me!
You mean like the rolls to
-cast defensively-attack with a ray
-overcome spell resistance
-make a saving throw
Ok, why have die rolls at all? We'll just all walk around and treat every die roll as a 10. In fact, don't show up at the table at all, we can just toss the scenario and the character sheets into a computer and see what happened. It was foreordained. Why bother with attack rolls, that means i might miss!
How about whenever you draw a weapon you make a roll or you can't? Or whenever you charge? I mean, you run at the guy and you don't usually fall down? Where's the excitement in that? Maybe you could make a Fort save or die everytime you get hit so there's real risk in fighting kobolds.
Is there anything heroic or risky about drawing a sword? No. No die roll. Is there anything heroic or risky about jumping over a lava filled cliff? Yes. Break out the die.
Why can my wizard just cast Invisibility and be pretty well sure he's not going to be seen (e.g., even a 1 on his stealth roll is still too high) but it's overpowered for the trained master of Stealth that is (or could be) a level 7 rogue or ranger or monk to achieve the same thing through his training?
I've been arguing for usable stealth largely for this reason.
Why does the risk have to exist for some characters and not others, and why does it happen that the characters who have to take the risk are the ones that aren't generally as powerful?[/quot]
Its different risks for different people. The risk of a spell is having it not work on a foe and wasting your resources. You're asking to fix the caster/skill disparity on a take 10 rule and the issue is much MUCH bigger than that.
Gary Gygax set a s*%+ty precedent on skills with thieves that literally could never reach a 50% success rate on finding magical traps, even if they were a millionth level. As modern players of the game, we should look at that and say "Wow, he didn't know better at the time, what a terrible idea! I'm glad we know better now.", not, "Hey, let's emulate that!"If your stealth has a 50% success rate you're doing something wrong, and taking 10 won't help you at all.
Rolling introduces a huge margin for failure on skills. A DC 15 check is supposed to be an auto-success for someone with basic skill in the task who can take their time (a +5). Forcing someone to roll that check when they have that bonus introduces a 45% error rate on what is supposed to be a basic task for someone who is trained. Removing taking 10 causes people who should be auto-succeeding to fail. Even someone who is an expert in the skill (+10) has a 25% chance to fail a DC15 check. They are supposed to be good enough to auto-succeed DC20 checks. That is why rules for taking 10 exist.
The rules for taking 10 say you can't do it in dangerous situations.
Its supposed to be so bob the blacksmith can crank out a horse shoe without smacking his thumb or so you can handwave popping simple lock number 72 in the dungeon without another die roll. Its not supposed to take all the risk out of tip toeing past a snoring dragon.
Stealth is not a flat DC. Its opposed by a perception check. Unless I'm supposed to make all the monsters take 10 on perception checks as well you're not getting the massive fluctuation in odds that you do vs a static dc.
Here we have to disagree. The rules do not say that chance has to be there. In fact, by my reading of the rules they specifically say that it is not there. Not only that, but it does not make any sense to me to not have them applicable. Why would you otherwise write them? Their whole purpose for being is to eliminate that random chance.
Their whole purpose is to eliminate random chance in easy, mundane situations, NOT combat. Thats what the rogue talent is for.
Rolling introduces a huge margin for failure on skills. A DC 15 check is supposed to be an auto-success for someone with basic skill in the task who can take their time (a +5). Forcing someone to roll that check when they have that bonus introduces a 45% error rate on what is supposed to be a basic task for someone who is trained. Removing taking 10 causes people who should be auto-succeeding to fail. Even someone who is an expert in the skill (+10) has a 25% chance to fail a DC15 check. They are supposed to be good enough to auto-succeed DC20 checks. That is why rules for taking 10 exist.The rules for taking 10 say you can't do it in dangerous situations.
Its supposed to be so bob the blacksmith can crank out a horse shoe without smacking his thumb or so you can handwave popping simple lock number 72 in the dungeon without another die roll. Its not supposed to take all the risk out of tip toeing past a snoring dragon.
Stealth is not a flat DC. Its opposed by a perception check. Unless I'm supposed to make all the monsters take 10 on perception checks as well you're not getting the massive fluctuation in odds that you do vs a static dc.
The rules are also dirrectly quoted from the 3.0 srd. The 3.0 core rule book has an example of CLIMBING A DEADLY CLIFF AS THE EXAMPLE FOR TAKING 10.
It doesn't matter if the check is opposed or not a set DC. The statistics do not change, since a d20 has a linear progression. You get the exact same fluctuation in success using a static DC and using an opposed roll.
The sneaker can take 10, while the perciever can roll, or the other way arround. Its an active choice on the part of the player to take 10. And nothing about sneaking arround, or having risk of failure, prevents taking 10.
Here we have to disagree. The rules do not say that chance has to be there. In fact, by my reading of the rules they specifically say that it is not there. Not only that, but it does not make any sense to me to not have them applicable. Why would you otherwise write them? Their whole purpose for being is to eliminate that random chance.Their whole purpose is to eliminate random chance in easy, mundane situations, NOT combat. Thats what the rogue talent is for.
SNEAKING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN COMBAT. In combat you cannot take 10 BECAUSE YOU ARE IN COMBAT. Sneaking may preceed combat, if you are found out, but that does not prevent you from taking 10 BEFORE combat. That dragon you want to sneak past - your not in combat with it until it notices and attacks you.
The rules are also dirrectly quoted from the 3.0 srd. The 3.0 core rule book has an example of CLIMBING A DEADLY CLIFF AS THE EXAMPLE FOR TAKING 10.
And you don't fall off said cliff unless you miss by 5.
It doesn't matter if the check is opposed or not a set DC. The statistics do not change, since a d20 has a linear progression. You get the exact same fluctuation in success using a static DC and using an opposed roll.
The statistics do change.
Sneaky the Ninja (who has a + 8 stealth) is training in front of his sensei. The flat dc (pardon the pun) not to rustle the rice paper is 15. If sneaky is taking 10 his chance for failure is 0%. If he rolls (say because his senei starts shooting curare darts at him as he crosses) his chance for failure is 30%, a 30 point swing.
If sneaky tries to go past a guard with a +5 listen by taking 10 his chance for failure is not 0. His chance for failure is 30% (assuming his dex is higher than the guards wisdom). this is what i mean when i say its not as big of a swing: you don't start with a 0 % chance of failure when the other persons roll isn't static.
The sneaker can take 10, while the perciever can roll, or the other way arround. Its an active choice on the part of the player to take 10. And nothing about sneaking arround, or having risk of failure, prevents taking 10.
The fact that he is in immediate danger prevents him from taking 10.
SNEAKING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN COMBAT. In combat you cannot take 10 BECAUSE YOU ARE IN COMBAT. Sneaking may preceed combat, if you are found out, but that does not prevent you from taking 10 BEFORE combat. That dragon you want to sneak past - your not in combat with it until it notices and attacks you.
Did someone say you could take 10 in combat? Or were you just strawmanning?
Whoops, my bad, i got sloppy with my choice of words, sorry.
I don't think you can sneak over the dragon because he's an immediate danger, even though you're not in combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, why don't we make spellcasters make a roll every time they cast a spell, even if they're not casting defensively. I mark a spell off my list and it just works? Where's the thrill in that? Maybe sometimes casting mage armor should kill me!You mean like the rolls to
-cast defensively
-attack with a ray
-overcome spell resistance
-make a saving throwOk, why have die rolls at all? We'll just all walk around and treat every die roll as a 10. In fact, don't show up at the table at all, we can just toss the scenario and the character sheets into a computer and see what happened. It was foreordained. Why bother with attack rolls, that means i might miss!
Then why we don't turn back to opposed grappled rolls?
Why we "take 10" on our defensive AC? After all our defensive capability can be changed by plenty of unforeseen circumstances.
Our AC should be armour+dex+bonuses+1d20.
What would be more heroic of not knowing if we will be capable of blocking the next attack or not? [/heavy sarcasm]
As already stated, I doubt anyone will be capable to change the position of the other party. Hit that FAQ button and get the developers to say their piece.
Stealth is not a flat DC. Its opposed by a perception check. Unless I'm supposed to make all the monsters take 10 on perception checks as well you're not getting the massive fluctuation in odds that you do vs a static dc.
Actually you get massive fluctuations. Up to 38 points of difference. (up to 19 points of difference in favour of one or the other of the subjects)
While stealth should have some risk, it should be reasonably reliable or it become useless.If you don't allow taking 10 on stealth you will start rolling from the moment there is a slim chance of success for the perceiver. That mean that you will roll large numbers of dices in sequence. And large numbers of rolls mean that failure is practically granted.
Your way to be reasonably safe you need to have something like 20 more points in stealth than the guard has in perception.
Practically you are making invisibility mandatory.
The rules are also dirrectly quoted from the 3.0 srd. The 3.0 core rule book has an example of CLIMBING A DEADLY CLIFF AS THE EXAMPLE FOR TAKING 10.And you don't fall off said cliff unless you miss by 5.
It doesn't matter if the check is opposed or not a set DC. The statistics do not change, since a d20 has a linear progression. You get the exact same fluctuation in success using a static DC and using an opposed roll.The statistics do change.
Sneaky the Ninja (who has a + 8 stealth) is training in front of his sensei. The flat dc (pardon the pun) not to rustle the rice paper is 15. If sneaky is taking 10 his chance for failure is 0%. If he rolls (say because his senei starts shooting curare darts at him as he crosses) his chance for failure is 30%, a 30 point swing.
If sneaky tries to go past a guard with a +5 listen by taking 10 his chance for failure is not 0. His chance for failure is 30% (assuming his dex is higher than the guards wisdom). this is what i mean when i say its not as big of a swing: you don't start with a 0 % chance of failure when the other persons roll isn't static.
I interpretted your statement differently, sorry. Scenario 2: The chance of him succeeding if both people take 10 is 100%. The chance of him succeeding if he takes 10 and the guard does not: 30%. If both roll though it is still 30%.
The sneaker can take 10, while the perciever can roll, or the other way arround. Its an active choice on the part of the player to take 10. And nothing about sneaking arround, or having risk of failure, prevents taking 10.The fact that he is in immediate danger prevents him from taking 10.
What is the immediate danger? Is the thread of being discovered more than the threat of falling down a cliff? There is no immediate danger.
SNEAKING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN COMBAT. In combat you cannot take 10 BECAUSE YOU ARE IN COMBAT. Sneaking may preceed combat, if you are found out, but that does not prevent you from taking 10 BEFORE combat. That dragon you want to sneak past - your not in combat with it until it notices and attacks you.
Did someone say you could take 10 in combat? Or were you just strawmanning?
Whoops, my bad, i got sloppy with my choice of words, sorry.
I don't think you can sneak over the dragon because he's an immediate danger, even though you're not in combat.
And I dissagree that the dragon constitutes immediate danger. He is only a threat if you fail, and that does not prevent taking 10 on perception or disable device checks for traps, jump checks for pits, climb checks for cliffs, swim checks for drowning, or any other type of check.
|
|
What is the immediate danger? Is the thread of being discovered more than the threat of falling down a cliff? There is no immediate danger
Yes. I'll say it one more time because people still aren't getting it.
Risk of failure =/= immediate danger.
Quit applying take 20 rules to the take 10 mechanic. If the only danger is something that might happen IF you fail, it is NOT immediate danger.
And I disagree that the dragon constitutes immediate danger. He is only a threat if you fail, and that does not prevent taking 10 on perception or disable device checks for traps, jump checks for pits, climb checks for cliffs, swim checks for drowning, or any other type of check.
I consider the length of time it would take the dragon to wake up and eat the rogue short enough to be considered immediate. (its certainly dangerous)
Other than combat I'm not sure when you wouldn't allow taking 10.
|
|
And I disagree that the dragon constitutes immediate danger. He is only a threat if you fail, and that does not prevent taking 10 on perception or disable device checks for traps, jump checks for pits, climb checks for cliffs, swim checks for drowning, or any other type of check.I consider the length of time it would take the dragon to wake up and eat the rogue short enough to be considered immediate. (its certainly dangerous)
Other than combat I'm not sure when you wouldn't allow taking 10.
Again, you're missing the part that there is only danger IF HE FAILS. Since that hasn't happened yet, it is NOT immediate danger and he can take 10.
The whole point of the take 10 mechanic is to give you a safe option in situations exactly like this - when there is only a significant danger if you fail the roll.
Risk of failure =/= immediate danger.
Is anyone saying this?
Jumping accross a mud puddle. There is a risk of failure, there is no immediate danger.
|
|
Risk of failure =/= immediate danger.Is anyone saying this?
Jumping accross a mud puddle. There is a risk of failure, there is no immediate danger.
Go back to the example I gave earlier in the thread - jumping across a 2' chasm. There is risk of failure, but there is no immediate danger because if you don't jump across at that exact moment, you are still alive.
Also, by risk of failure I mean risk of damage or other penalty on a failure.
Again, you're missing the part that there is only danger IF HE FAILS. Since that hasn't happened yet, it is NOT immediate danger and he can take 10.
I'm not missing anything. Danger includes risk, and there certainly IS the RISK of waking the dragon up and being eaten.
Risk of failure =/= immediate danger.Is anyone saying this?
Jumping accross a mud puddle. There is a risk of failure, there is no immediate danger.
1. jumping over a lava pit. There is a risk of failure, there is no immediate danger.
2. Sneaking past a dragon. There is a risk of failure, there is not immediate danger.
I consider the length of time it would take the dragon to wake up and eat the rogue short enough to be considered immediate. (its certainly dangerous)
And the time it takes to die from drowning, falling down a cliff, or choke to death from a poison gas trap aren't similar?
|
|
Again, you're missing the part that there is only danger IF HE FAILS. Since that hasn't happened yet, it is NOT immediate danger and he can take 10.I'm not missing anything. Danger includes risk, and there certainly IS the RISK of waking the dragon up and being eaten.
Yes, but that danger isn't immediate, because as long as he doesn't fail he's not getting eaten. You're still missing the complete point of the take 10 mechanic.
|
|
The only difference in the limitations between taking 10 and taking 20 is that "the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure" phrase. The dragon waking up and killing you is a "penalty for failure" that prevents taking 20. It's not a distraction or current threat that prevents taking 10.
Count, disagreeing with you isn't missing it. Is there any reason you couldn't take 10 on a contact outer plane intelligence check?
|
|
The only difference in the limitations between taking 10 and taking 20 is that "the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure" phrase. The dragon waking up and killing you is a "penalty for failure" that prevents taking 20. It's not a distraction or current threat that prevents taking 10.
Thank you, "penalty for failure" is the exact wording I was looking for from the take 20 rule, not risk of failure.
And again, go back to what these actions actually mean. Taking 20 means you're actually making the attempt 20 times. If you fail 1/20 of those tries, you get eaten by the dragon, so you can't take 20 to sneak past him.
A take 10 on the other hand is taking the action once, and doing it carefully because you're able to concentrate on it without other distractions.
If you're fleeing from lava coming down the hallway surging after you, you can't take 10 to sneak past the dragon in the side passageway because that lava is really distracting and constitutes an immediate danger.
If that lava isn't there and you're alone in the hallway? Sure, take 10 to sneak past the dragon. Nothing else is distracting you, and there is no other immediate danger.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is there any reason you couldn't take 10 on a contact outer plane intelligence check?
Perhaps because by the time you're making that check, you're already directly engaging the "threat"? That would be like taking 10 on an Acrobatics check to avoid an AoO - you're already directly involved.
|
|
Count, disagreeing with you isn't missing it. Is there any reason you couldn't take 10 on a contact outer plane intelligence check?
Already replied to that.
You aren't subject to an attack if you miss the check. You are already subjected to an attack, you check to avoid the damage.You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma.
|
|
Count, disagreeing with you isn't missing it. Is there any reason you couldn't take 10 on a contact outer plane intelligence check?Already replied to that.
You aren't subject to an attack if you miss the check. You are already subjected to an attack, you check to avoid the damage.You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma.
Full post in case you missed it the first time:
Contact Other Plane: Can you Take 10 on the Intelligence check for this spell?
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/04/11
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9nsy
Ick. That sets a bad precedent, IMO, and one that brings the game to a screeching halt. That suggests there's no more taking 10 Jumping, or Riding, or Acrobatics, or... dang near anything that isnt cerebral (and some that are, seeing as how this was an Int check)Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.There are two things you must consider:
1)"You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round." So a distracting thing you are doing while the spell last.
2) "Avoid Int/Cha Decrease: You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma." So you aren't in potential danger if you fail the check, you are under a direct attack, even if involuntary, by that intellect vastly more powerful than your that you have contacted.
So SKR ruling is not problematic. He is recognizing that you are under a direct attack and so you can't take 10.
The SKR entry for this specific action is a FAQ specifically because it's an irregularity - it's not as cut and dry as how the take 10 mechanic usually works.
There are two things you must consider:
Any chance you could drop the imperative? You're doing it frequently and its starting to grate.
1)"You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round." So a distracting thing you are doing while the spell last.
Not making any noise requires a level of concentration as well, with or without a mechanic for it.
2) "Avoid Int/Cha Decrease: You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma." So you aren't in potential danger if you fail the check, you are under a direct attack, even if involuntary, by that intellect vastly more powerful than your that you have contacted.
So SKR ruling is not problematic. He is recognizing that you are under a direct attack and so you can't take 10.
But you're only hurt if you fail the check, just like you're only eaten if you fail the stealth check. Either way if you make the check there are no consequences. Its like you're assuming there's no danger as long as you assume success and you can succeed as long as you assume there's no danger.
|
|
There are two things you must consider:
Any chance you could drop the imperative? You're doing it frequently and its starting to grate.
1)"You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round." So a distracting thing you are doing while the spell last.Not making any noise requires a level of concentration as well, with or without a mechanic for it.
The mechanic for concentrating on being stealthy is the stealth skill. Period.
2) "Avoid Int/Cha Decrease: You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma." So you aren't in potential danger if you fail the check, you are under a direct attack, even if involuntary, by that intellect vastly more powerful than your that you have contacted.
So SKR ruling is not problematic. He is recognizing that you are under a direct attack and so you can't take 10.
But you're only hurt if you fail the check, just like you're only eaten if you fail the stealth check. Either way if you make the check there are no consequences. Its like you're assuming there's no danger as long as you assume success and you can succeed as long as you assume there's no danger.
I really wish you would stop ignoring Diego's replies:
Already replied to that.
You aren't subject to an attack if you miss the check. You are already subjected to an attack, you check to avoid the damage.
Due to the attack being made at you, you're in combat, which means you can't take 10. When sneaking past the dragon, you're not in combat, so you can take 10.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But you're only hurt if you fail the check, just like you're only eaten if you fail the stealth check. Either way if you make the check there are no consequences.
This is an erroneous comparison. In the spell, the damaging force is already right there, bearing down on you. The check represents you withstanding it. In the sneak-past-dragon example, there's an extra degree (or two, or three, or whatever) of separation between "fail check" and "get eaten" - the dragon has to wake up, make a decision to eat you instead of doing anything else first, make attack rolls/force saves, etc. The likely eventual result is getting eaten. But that's different from him already being on your heels. If the dragon was awake and coming after you, then a check to get away (Acro to avoid an AoO as you leave, for example) would be comparable to Contact Other Plane. But sneaking by while it's sleeping? That's a different story.
Not saying I agree that you should be able to take 10 in front of a dragon's snout, but your comparison is pretty flawed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So SKR ruling is not problematic. He is recognizing that you are under a direct attack and so you can't take 10.But you're only hurt if you fail the check, just like you're only eaten if you fail the stealth check. Either way if you make the check there are no consequences. Its like you're assuming there's no danger as long as you assume success and you can succeed as long as you assume there's no danger.
Game doesn't work that way. Failing a stealth check does not EVER result in being eaten. Failing a stealth check results in a dragon waking up, which resolves as either an Initiative check, a Bluff check to fool the rogue, or an RP encounter as the wily old dragon decides to talk to this burglar in his home.
After that, it requires an attack roll. There are several steps between the dragon succeeding at his perception check and the rogue being eaten. Thus, it's not immediate.
Plus, take 10 just means that you dedicate reasonable effort to a task, hoping it succeeds. You can still fail, and that is even MORE of a surprise than rolling.
|
|
There are two things you must consider:
Any chance you could drop the imperative? You're doing it frequently and its starting to grate.
con·sid·er (kn-sdr)
v. con·sid·ered, con·sid·er·ing, con·sid·ersv.tr.
1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as1.
3. To form an opinion about; judge: considers waste to be criminal.
4. To take into account; bear in mind: Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.
5. To show consideration for: failed to consider the feelings of others.
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.
What is the problem? If it was "accept" I would accept the rebuff, but "consider"?
And, BTW, if someone has the right to protest is Varthanna , not you.
1)"You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round." So a distracting thing you are doing while the spell last.Not making any noise requires a level of concentration as well, with or without a mechanic for it.
If you consider concentrating on the task a hand a distracting activity no one will be capable to take 10 in any activity.
2) "Avoid Int/Cha Decrease: You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma." So you aren't in potential danger if you fail the check, you are under a direct attack, even if involuntary, by that intellect vastly more powerful than your that you have contacted.So SKR ruling is not problematic. He is recognizing that you are under a direct attack and so you can't take 10.
But you're only hurt if you fail the check, just like you're only eaten if you fail the stealth check. Either way if you make the check there are no consequences. Its like you're assuming there's no danger as long as you assume success and you can succeed as long as you assume there's no danger.
If I have to make a reflex ST and I am a rogue. I take damage only if I fail my ST. I am not under attack?
Don't try to mud the difference of being under a direct attack and being in a dangerous situation.
The mechanic for concentrating on being stealthy is the stealth skill. Period.
It also requires that you move at half speed. Its taking some degree of effort not to make noise as you move.
Yes, but due to the attack being made at you, you're in combat, which means you can't take 10. When sneaking past the dragon, you're not in combat, so you can take 10.
The spell does not place you in combat. You do not track initiative, you don't track actions. What it does is place you in a stressful situation where you could be hurt.
I really wish you would stop ignoring Diego's replies:
That's not going to change.
Game doesn't work that way. Failing a stealth check does not EVER result in being eaten.
And failing a climb check doesn't technically result in damage. You have the intermediary rounds of falling.
|
|
It also requires that you move at half speed. Its taking some degree of effort not to make noise as you move.
So what? Acrobatics makes you move slower if balancing on a thin beam. Crafting requires you to take hours at a time that you can't do anything else. All you're saying is a skill requires you to do that skill while you're doing it. What part of that keeps you from taking 10?
The spell does not place you in combat. You do not track initiative, you don't track actions. What it does is place you in a stressful situation where you could be hurt.
So you're claiming that an attack does not mean combat?
I really wish you would stop ignoring Diego's replies:
That's not going to change.
Are you admitting you're a troll then?
And failing a climb check doesn't technically result in damage. You have the intermediary rounds of falling.
Which is precisely why you can take 10 in a climb check and in sneaking past a dragon. Thank you for proving my point.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Game doesn't work that way. Failing a stealth check does not EVER result in being eaten.And failing a climb check doesn't technically result in damage. You have the intermediary rounds of falling.
And this fact will fail to convince most people that you can't take 10 climbing a cliff, because of that 3.0/3.5 (I forget which) ruling that you can take 10 while climbing a cliff.
So by correlating the cliff climb and the dragon sneak, you've managed to (for most listeners) argue in favor of taking 10.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
So by correlating the cliff climb and the dragon sneak, you've managed to (for most listeners) argue in favor of taking 10.
You want to do better, have at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, and climb is one that you can take 10 on. Unless a goblin is stabbing at you with a spear, or the rock wall is shifting, or the ladder is on fire.
You can take 10 on stealth, because you do not take damage as a direct result of failure, so you are not in immediate danger.
Plus you can consider that nobody ever fails a stealth check. Instead others make their perception checks. Stealth is more setting a DC for perception than anything, since there are no set stealth DCs.