Ravingdork, you and your threads have a reputation.
So I've heard.
Still a bit perplexed as to how my reputation has become so "bad."
I've only ever tried to help better the game by finding cheesy loop holes that need closing.
It's not like I actually take advantage of them or anything.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's not like I actually take advantage of them or anything.
Maybe people don't know that? Or maybe people think your "loopholes" tend to be invented in your own mind rather than actually present in the rules? I dunno; I've been here long enough to know that you have a reputation, but not long enough to fully learn the details of it.
It's not like I actually take advantage of them or anything.Maybe people don't know that? Or maybe people think your "loopholes" tend to be invented in your own mind rather than actually present in the rules? I dunno; I've been here long enough to know that you have a reputation, but not long enough to fully learn the details of it.
And I think that's the crux of it. One or two haters started saying that I had a "reputation."
Nobody had any reason to disbelieve the statement, so suddenly I had a very undefined "reputation" that simply didn't exist before (at least not out loud). Leaving it up to people's wild imaginations only gave the word a rather negative connotation. So now I'm dealing with a largely undeserved stigma.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's not like I actually take advantage of them or anything.Maybe people don't know that? Or maybe people think your "loopholes" tend to be invented in your own mind rather than actually present in the rules? I dunno; I've been here long enough to know that you have a reputation, but not long enough to fully learn the details of it.And I think that's the crux of it. One or two haters started saying that I had a "reputation."
Nobody had any reason to disbelieve the statement, so suddenly I had a very undefined "reputation" that simply didn't exist before (at least not out loud). Leaving it up to people's wild imaginations only gave the word a rather negative connotation. So now I'm dealing with a largely undeserved stigma.
Welcome to humanity?
And I think that's the crux of it. One or two haters started saying that I had a "reputation."
Well, I'm not a hater. Don't sweat it man, you have a way better reputation than some posters who shall remain un-named.
More calculations
Personally, I don't think I have ever seen a guard with lower than a +4 perception, but that may just be me. My point was more that you were taking a situation where the sneaker definetely should be able to succeed the vast majority of the time and trying to compare. this can skew results when trying to argue, because it makes things look like auto-wins when they aren't. I like your calculations overall.
I agree with you on the guard routine. IMO, the guard should normally be taking 10. The rogue would normally be taking 10 as well. So option 1 would be the normal state.
The guard would have a high alert state for when they notice something unusual. There could be lots of reasons for this, but the end result is that they are rolling. The rogue would not necessarily know that the guards are on high alert, so he would likely still not roll. This brings it to option 3.
Options 2 and 4 actually start to become viable scenarios once the perciever is better than the rogue. Then the rogue will want to roll, in order to cash in on that extra .5 in averages. And who knows, you get lucky.
Not sure where this thread is at now, but I'll try to get back to the OP, don't think these points have quite been made. Generally the rules are supposed to replicated common sense and experience, and are meant to be interpreted like that. So, here's a couple scenarios.
First let me give an example using Balancing to show where I'm going:
1) Person walks across a 6 inch beam laying on the ground. Anyone can do that, it's not hard. You may technically be in immediate danger of twisting your ankle or something if you lose your balance, but practically speaking you're not going to sweat over it, and that's not going to distract you from being able to take ordinary care to do it.
2) But now say the beam is 100' in the air. Nothing else has changed, but NOW it's REALLY hard to do. Most of us wouldn't even want to try, and if we did we'd be battling our nerves to not fall. The difference is now you really are in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, not just *hypothetically* at risk.
OK so do the same thought experiment with stealth:
1) First case, you're sneaking around place which may be empty, maybe not, but you're pretty confident that whatever's there won't kill you, even if they hear you and even if it turns into a fight. Like the 6 inch beam on the ground, this is not going to make you sweat. You may hypothetically run into something you can't handle, but you expect that's not the case even if they do notice you, so that's not going to distract you from being able to take ordinary care to see that they don't.
2) Second case - you're Bilbo in the cave with Smaug. If that dragon wakes up, you're very likely dead. NOW your palms are sweating. The difference is now you really are in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, not just *hypothetically* at risk.
IMO, that illustrates the distinction between when you can take 10 and when you can't, based just on the circumstances of the check. In each case, the DC is the same, and could even be an auto success if taking 10 were possible, but the nature of the *known consequences* make all the difference.
BUT all this is subjective to the PC - there can be no bright line test for whether subjectively a PC may be distracted by dangers, because it's all about their personal perceptions, knowledge, and experience. High steel workers and circus performers take 10 on their acrobatics checks all the time (if they didn't they could never survive a week). Likewise a master thief with equivalent experience could be as nonchalant about a dragon. Also, anyone would not know to be nervous if they don't realize the danger they're in.
*That* determination is ultimately the GM's job to decide on a case by case basis.
Still a bit perplexed as to how my reputation has become so "bad."
I've only ever tried to help better the game by finding cheesy loop holes that need closing.
It's not like I actually take advantage of them or anything.
Your reputation isn't that of a cheesemonkey, so much as someone who loves to argue for the sake of arguing and/or will troll people (your words) to get a lot of responses.
All of which clashes with the reasons most other people post in the rules threads.
Not sure where this thread is at now, but I'll try to get back to the OP, don't think these points have quite been made. Generally the rules are supposed to replicated common sense and experience, and are meant to be interpreted like that. So, here's a couple scenarios.
First let me give an example using Balancing to show where I'm going:
1) Person walks across a 6 inch beam laying on the ground. Anyone can do that, it's not hard. You may technically be in immediate danger of twisting your ankle or something if you lose your balance, but practically speaking you're not going to sweat over it, and that's not going to distract you from being able to take ordinary care to do it.
2) But now say the beam is 100' in the air. Nothing else has changed, but NOW it's REALLY hard to do. Most of us wouldn't even want to try, and if we did we'd be battling our nerves to not fall. The difference is now you really are in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, not just *hypothetically* at risk.
OK so do the same thought experiment with stealth:
1) First case, you're sneaking around place which may be empty, maybe not, but you're pretty confident that whatever's there won't kill you, even if they hear you and even if it turns into a fight. Like the 6 inch beam on the ground, this is not going to make you sweat. You may hypothetically run into something you can't handle, but you expect that's not the case even if they do notice you, so that's not going to distract you from being able to take ordinary care to see that they don't.
2) Second case - you're Bilbo in the cave with Smaug. If that dragon wakes up, you're very likely dead. NOW your palms are sweating. The difference is now you really are in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, not just *hypothetically* at risk.
IMO, that illustrates the distinction between when you can take 10 and when you can't, based just on the circumstances of the check. In each case, the DC is the same, and could even be an auto success if...
You see, I think this is more a matter of people knowing the DCs to do stuff, than whether or not they can take 10. If you don't tell the players that the DC is the same for being 100 ft in the air, I bet a lot of them are likely to roll the dice when they would have taken 10 otherwise. People with skill (steel workers) would know the DC because they have done the task before, and so they would know that they can take 10. Others wouldn't know the DC. Likewise, You don't know the dragon's perception skill, so most players are less likely to take 10. Someone with high ranks may take 10 anyway, because they trust in their skill.
|
You see, I think this is more a matter of people knowing the DCs to do stuff, than whether or not they can take 10. If you don't tell the players that the DC is the same for being 100 ft in the air, I bet a lot of them are likely to roll the dice when they would have taken 10 otherwise. People with skill (steel workers) would know the DC because they have done the task before, and so they would know that they can take 10. Others wouldn't know the DC. Likewise, You don't know the dragon's perception skill, so most players are less likely to take 10. Someone with high ranks may take 10 anyway, because they trust in their skill.
Yes. This comes down to player choice, not an actual ability to take 10 or not. Whether that beam is 6" off the ground or 100' over a river, you can still take 10, because as long as you don't fail your roll, there is no danger.
In fact, if it's 100' over a river that's a more likely scenario when you WOULD want to take 10 because the penalty for failure is severe, so it becomes a safety measure:
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)
Now one example we have as to what constitutes a distraction or threat is combat:
Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible to take 10.
Is a narrow beam like combat? Is a raging river off down the valley like combat?
Now let's say you're being chased by armed guards and you need to cross a 6" beam laying on the ground. You can't take 10 because you're being chased, which is like combat. If that 6" beam is way up a cliff, you also can't take 10 - not because it's up a cliff, but because you're being chased.
I can't emphasize this enough: the "penalty for failure" wording is NOT in the take 10 mechanics. That's specifically in the take 20, but if something is only a risk if you fail the roll, it does not keep you from taking 10.
So Bilbo can and should take 10 sneaking in the cave with smaug because as long as he doesn't fail his stealth check, he is in no danger. Being in the same room with a sleeping dragon is not like combat.
Your reputation isn't that of a cheesemonkey, so much as someone who loves to argue for the sake of arguing and/or will troll people (your words) to get a lot of responses.
All of which clashes with the reasons most other people post in the rules threads.
I do like a good debate, as well as drawing lots of attention to said debates (since that is how rules often end up getting fixed), but I don't recall ever referring to myself as a troll.
If you couldn't take a 10 on Acrobatics over a precarious surface due to the danger it posed, we wouldn't have any high rise workers in real life. They'd all be dead, having fallen off their construction beams long ago due to a bad roll.
Obviously, it doesn't work that way in the game or in real life.
If you couldn't take a 10 on Acrobatics over a precarious surface due to the danger it posed, we wouldn't have any high rise workers in real life. They'd all be dead, having fallen off their construction beams long ago due to a bad roll.
Well, 1) life isn't as variable as a d20 universe and 2) if the DC is 10 anyone with a +5 modifier can take 10 because they can't fall off.
which also runs into the problem of getting more ranks without getting more levels, better BAB, more hit points...