|
Searching master of disguise on the PRD returns:
Master Disguise (Su): A ninja with this trick can take on the appearance of other creatures and individuals. Whenever the ninja uses the sudden disguise ninja trick, the duration increases to 10 minutes per level. Alternatively, the ninja can use the sudden disguise ninja trick to take on the appearance of a specific individual that the ninja has seen before for 1 minute per level. Creatures that are familiar with the individual receive a Will saving throw to see through the illusion. The DC of this saving throw is 10 + 1/2 the ninja's level + the ninja's Charisma modifier. This illusion also changes the ninja's speech, if she has heard the individual talk and can speak his language. The ninja must have the sudden disguise ninja trick before selecting this trick.Master of Disguise (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent gains a +10 bonus on a single Disguise check.
Master of Disguise (Ex): A master spy can create a disguise in half the time normally required. In addition, any penalties from assuming a disguise of a different gender, race, age, or size are reduced by 1.
Please note that none of these let you take 10 or 20. The rogue talent gives you an untyped +10 which makes up for it. The master spy ability lets you don disguises faster and reduce penalties. The ninja gets a spell.
Those are the pathfinder versions of "Master of Disguise". None of them get to take 10 or 20 like the fancy bard and his knowledge. (i.e. It is not specifically called out)
But what if you're putting a disguise on someone else? Or are a professional spy. By your logic the Disguise skill can never be used with a reasonable knowledge of success or self awareness.
Does this mean all Perform rolls should be made in secret?
Or Craft?
What about Stealth?How can I possibly know how well hidden I am until someone starts searching.
If you must make a roll it's because you only have 10-30 minutes...
The disguise skill explicitly states that the roll is made in secret. Linguistics says forgery rolls must be made in secret. Perform, craft and stealth do not require that.
I have covered someone checking a disguise previously. Basically, since you do not know your own roll you cannot know by what degree you beat your own disguise check. If the perception bonus is exactly equal to the disguise bonus and you take 20 on the perception check then you can be sure. If they are different then you can never be sure. In most cases they will be different due to the different demands of disguises. Also your check will be different than the check of someone else.
You can read my previous posts for further details.
|
|
*Off thread Topic*
This is another debated subject, but knowledge checks are a no-no on take 10, using the existing core mechanic of Lore Master with a Bard.Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.
Logic would dictate, without a doubt, that before level 5, neither a bard, nor anyone else, could not take 10 on knowledge checks.
This means the bard can take 10 even when the situation does not meet the requirements to take 10 i.e. no danger or distractions. So starting at 5th level the bard can take 10 in the middle of a fight. Anyone else can take 10 when sitting in a quiet study.
It makes it more logical and useful.
edit: The take 20 mechanic is even more useful as it writes over the limitation in the Knowledge try again and effectively lets him take 20 once per day.
There is no premise for that assumption. You just made a logic leap.
Says I can take 10 on knowledge -> ??? -> I can do it in any situation and can do it before I gain this ability.
There is no premise for your assumption. Mine has a premise.
1) Anyone can take 10 on skills if there is no danger and no distractions.
2) The knowledge skill does not allow retries which precludes taking 20 but not taking 10.
3) Anyone can take 10 on a knowledge.
4) The bard Lore Master ability is much closer to the rogue Skill Mastery talent which allows taking 10 under adverse conditions.
5) Therefore the bard Lore Master ability lets you take 10 under adverse conditions since anybody could take 10 under safe conditions.
|
|
I was not listing an official rule. I was saying that if my yes/no idea was done that would be how it worked.PS:Which skills other than perception only allowing taking 20 sometimes. For this example we will assume you have time to take 20, which is what I was assuming, since it is basic common sense to say you can't take 20 without the time to do so.
'Salright. Apologies if my post to you came off a little harsh-- it wasn't meant to be. Was intended to be just a statement that my preference is for applicable principles and game theory (perhaps with some explaining examples) than can then be applied to any situation, over rules that attempt to specifically spell out every case and that will inevitably leave gaps somewhere. I thought of the checklist for all skills, stating whether 'take 10' or 'take 20' can or cannot be used with each skill, as an example of the latter type of rule-- because we agree that circumstances will define when you can or cannot take 20 with the skills where it's usually possible to apply... but even for most skills where you normally can't take 20, I'm pretty sure I can think of an exception where you should be able to (which a principle would cover, but a specific rule probably wouldn't have been thought of, unless it happened in the game designer's campaign already).
|
|
On the secret rolls topic, I believe those are always to be literal rolls made by the GM. no take-10/20 on any of them (Disguise, Disable Device(traps), Linguistics). They have unique situational variables that change from use to use and they have no average.
Also, re-reading linguistics, I found this little tidbit.
This implies you do not even make a check until it's time to oppose the roll
The Linguistics check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don't make a check until someone examines the work. Your Linguistics check is opposed by the Linguistics check of the person who examines the document to verify its authenticity. The examiner gains modifiers if any of the conditions are listed on the table above.
You don't make a check until someone examines the work.
Nice point-- it reinforces the idea that you probably shouldn't be allowed to 'take 20' if there's no one around to help you.... but it does not say that you can't have a friend/companion/fellow adventurer check your work, which means at the very least, you can keep on working at it until you've got something that your friends can't see through (if your bonuses are better than theirs), or (presuming you buy the idea that if your effort fails to overcome their check because you're not good enough to beat their 'take 20' perception, at least you'll get some idea if your effort was close or just not good at all) you'll be able to get it about as good as you can do. I don't think you have to wait until you're trying to pass it by the final target of your efforts, to have someone examine your work-- it doesn't have to be an enemy to do this.
All of this is still time-permitting, of course.
So you make a check, allow them to take 20.
If they find an error repeat until they don't find an error.
Of course that also assumes your modifier is higher than their modifier or you will never know when to stop.
20x20=400. That is a long time.
PS:Of course this is also just a tactic to get around the intent of the rule to not allow you to take 20 or 10 so the GM may not allow it anyway. Then again this is the general discussion sub-forum, and not the one for rules.
|
|
Having your helper take 20 does not work unless your helper's perception checks plus bonuses is less than your total disguise skill by exactly one point.If your friend's skill check is higher or equal then when he takes 20 you will always fail.
If his skill check is lower then when he takes 20 then it is possible that your result is still less than 20 by a difference equal to the difference in bonuses.
Examples:
You have a total +14 to your disguise check. Your friend has +9 to his perception. You put on a disguise and your friend checks. Your maximum result is 34. His maximum result is 29. So if he takes 20 then you could have rolled anywhere from 16 - 20 if you succeed.Reversing the bonuses Perception is now +14 and disguise is +9. If your friend takes 20 his result is 34. You will never beat that even with a 20 so you will always fail.
I think any DM would call doing the math on your friends' bonuses metagaming.
You may have a partial point. If your bonuses for, in this instance, disguise, are significantly better than your friend's perception bonuses-- then you can at least get it to where it's good enough that your friend cannot see through it (getting to where, in your example, you have at least a 16+ on your final disguise check). If your friend is better at perception than you are at disguise-- I'm not sure what the RAW actually says (and if it doesn't allow the next point, every group I'm currently gaming with routinely over-rules it), but although you cannot fool your friend with a disguise, he or she should be able to tell you when you've got it about as good as you possibly can (your 'take 20'-- in mechanical terms, when you came as close to his/her 'take 20' perception check as you could-- as you point out, it's 'metagaming' to presume the characters judge their skills by number rating, but the characters probably still have some idea when something is nearly good enough or not). From your second example-- your friend who takes 20 will probably be able to tell you that it's close when in mechanical terms your character was short by 5, and not so good when you're short of his take 20 by 10 or more.
In the sense of your characters having some idea of their relative talents (though not as number ratings in character) and some idea of margins of failure and success, doing/understanding the math on your fellow character's relative bonuses (as a player) is not meta-gaming if you've been adventuring together for a while. In RL, Soldiers get to know what their fellow Soldier's strengths and weaknesses are. I don't see adventurers who want to stay alive, doing any less.
|
|
My point is that you cannot use iterative testing to try and take 20 for the reasons I explained previously.
Iterative testing of your friend's disguises is not against RAW. In this case you technically need to have the DM roll and then your friend rolls. A little metagame math tells you the maximum difference so you can calculate a result range. If I was DM I would secretly apply a bonus to perception checks on subsequent disguises as your friend gets better at seeing through it from repeated exposure (similar to the increasing bonuses to perception base on familiarity). It goes along with the rule that people get more suspicious if they know there is a disguise.
If you want a set number just take 10. I think the rules definitely support that and you know exactly your check result. It is a little below average but then you know if you need to expend resources to improve it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having someone check for you only works in narrow circumstances but even then it is metagaming of the worst kind.
Not true. Take a real life example: If I'm camouflaging myself and my gear, I'm going to have my fellow soldiers constantly checking my work (and I'm also going to be checking theirs as they camouflage themselves)-- time permitting, I'm not going to stop working on it and getting it checked until it's absolutely perfect (or as close as mere humans can get to perfect, anyway). It's done in real life and it works in real life. Disguising yourself (or someone else) is very much like applying camouflage to people (it's disguising ourselves to look like the environment, rather than to look like a different person). Having someone else (who happens to be a friend and comrade) really does work to produce much better results, especially if all of your lives are dependent on everyone getting by without being spotted (really motivates you to make sure your and your fellows' efforts are spot-on if anyone's failure, oh, say, will get artillery called in on your whole group and will get you all killed).
I do not know why you think it's metagaming to presume that characters might think the same way about disguise that Soldiers and Marines routinely think about applying camouflage. I also do not consider it metagaming, to presume that it will work, the same way it works effectively in real life. And, since adventurers are supposed to be experienced people who live a life of danger (and are usually fairly professional, calm, cool, collected, and competent at it)-- I do not expect less from my adventuring characters than I expect in RL from Soldiers.
There is also such a thing as overdoing a project. You put too much into and it goes from perfect to bad. People are notoriously bad at seeing errors in their own work. The rules do not support you and real life does not support you. Give it up.
You have a bit of point, in that sometimes people do overdo a project-- which is why it usually works much better to have someone else check your work, rather than do all the checking on it yourself... but double-checking yourself is considerably better than not checking at all. From my RL examples above-- having a mirror and using it to see if I've left any spots uncovered when I'm applying camouflage, works pretty well if I don't have a buddy to check my possible missed spots. In game terms, that should be enough to tell me when I really haven't done a good job (player rolled low) and give me the idea that maybe I'd better re-do the camouflage (for that matter, in RL when I do have buddies to double-check my work-- I'm not going to waste their time until I've checked myself in a mirror and made sure I haven't completely failed to cover some area of my face, neck, ears...).
I don't know what RAW says about that, but I do believe being able to check yourself in, say, a mirror, should at least ensure that you notice if you rolled less than, say, 10, and need to re-do the job because it just sucks. RAW may support your point. Real life does NOT support you, the way you think it does ("give it up" isn't the right phrase to use at all in presumably respectful discussions).
|
|
Having someone check for you only works in narrow circumstances but even then it is metagaming of the worst kind.Not true. Take a real life example: If I'm camouflaging myself and my gear, I'm going to have my fellow soldiers constantly checking my work (and I'm also going to be checking theirs as they camouflage themselves)-- time permitting, I'm not going to stop working on it and getting it checked until it's absolutely perfect (or as close as mere humans can get to perfect, anyway). It's done in real life and it works in real life. Disguising yourself (or someone else) is very much like applying camouflage to people (it's disguising ourselves to look like the environment, rather than to look like a different person). Having someone else (who happens to be a friend and comrade) really does work to produce much better results, especially if all of your lives are dependent on everyone getting by without being spotted (really motivates you to make sure your and your fellows' efforts are spot-on if anyone's failure, oh, say, will get artillery called in on your whole group and will get you all killed).
I do not know why you think it's metagaming to presume that characters might think the same way about disguise that Soldiers and Marines routinely think about applying camouflage. I also do not consider it metagaming, to presume that it will work, the same way it works effectively in real life. And, since adventurers are supposed to be experienced people who live a life of danger (and are usually fairly professional, calm, cool, collected, and competent at it)-- I do not expect less from my adventuring characters than I expect in RL from Soldiers.
You have a bit of point, in that sometimes...
There is also such a thing as overdoing a project. You put too much into and it goes from perfect to bad. People are notoriously bad at seeing errors in their own work. The rules do not support you and real life does not support you. Give it up.
I meant metagaming in terms of getting someone with the right perception check. Having someone check you is fine.
|
|
My point is that you cannot use iterative testing to try and take 20 for the reasons I explained previously.
Iterative testing of your friend's disguises is not against RAW. In this case you technically need to have the DM roll and then your friend rolls. A little metagame math tells you the maximum difference so you can calculate a result range. If I was DM I would secretly apply a bonus to perception checks on subsequent disguises as your friend gets better at seeing through it from repeated exposure (similar to the increasing bonuses to perception base on familiarity). It goes along with the rule that people get more suspicious if they know there is a disguise.
If you want a set number just take 10. I think the rules definitely support that and you know exactly your check result. It is a little below average but then you know if you need to expend resources to improve it.
Since your friends can, quite reasonably, 'take 20' on the perception check to beat your disguise, plus as you've noted they're going to get bonuses because they do know it's a disguise and they're trying to find any flaws in it... if you are significantly better at disguise than your buddies are at perception, I agreed already with your point that you aren't really going to be able to achieve a 'take 20' result-- the DM should figure out your range of possible results that beats your friend's take 20 perception, and determine the result from those options, or just roll until he/she gets a result above the take 20 perception check, keep it, and then tell the player it took you this long and this many uses of your disguise kits, to get it right (however many times the DM rolled for you). The principle of having your friends check your work and getting your disguise to a much better point than the 'one shot at the roll/take your chances' still applies.
If your friends are better at their perception (including familiarity bonuses) than you are at your ability to disguise yourself, you should get the 'take 20'.
|
|
You can't take a 20 by RAW. If you want to do iterative testing then knock yourself out.
Since the DM rolls in secret and does not tell the players the result then your friend can't really tell you if it was better before or not. The character might but RAW does not support that concept due to the secret roll.
I want to make certain you are seperating RAW and general game usage. No game is run by RAW. If your DM wants to allow feedback to get a 20 or just taking 20 then that is great. No one has a problem with that. Every group adjusts the game to fit their playstyle. But no one has presented a rules argument that supports that.
Having help in determining the quality of a disguise is a textbook example of Aid Another. Taking additional time to get it "just right" is certainly sufficient to warrant a circumstance bonus. "Taking 20" is a handy rule for speeding game play, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to "game the system."
|
|
Having help in determining the quality of a disguise is a textbook example of Aid Another. Taking additional time to get it "just right" is certainly sufficient to warrant a circumstance bonus. "Taking 20" is a handy rule for speeding game play, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to "game the system."
Hah! that is even better. So no iterative checks for you!
edit: I love it when someone comes in with something that no one thought about during the discussion.
I admit I have not read through this entire thread, so someone may have already pointed this out, but this very first sentence seems problematic.
As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking 20 on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon/small item on your person, so why not do this any time you have the time?
As I understand it, if there are consequences for failure, you can't take 20. Simple as that. What are the consequences of failing a skill check to conceal a weapon?
Duh, it's not concealed.
|
stuff
Suffice to say, you need only look at DC 10 results for knowledge local so see how allowing and blanket taking 10 on knowledge breaks everything, using a 10 intelligence child that lives on a remote farm. They know everything from the following group: (Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations) for every locale, every region, every continent, every planet. No matter where you send them, they just take 10 and know who is in charge. Tour Guide of the galaxy!
I admit I have not read through this entire thread, so someone may have already pointed this out, but this very first sentence seems problematic.As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking 20 on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon/small item on your person, so why not do this any time you have the time?As I understand it, if there are consequences for failure, you can't take 20. Simple as that. What are the consequences of failing a skill check to conceal a weapon?
Duh, it's not concealed.
Or it IS concealed, and you were just unlucky enough to come across an especially perceptive character.
Concealed is concealed. Disguised is disguised. A concealed item will remain hidden from some people, but not others. A disguise will fool a lot of people, while others see through it.
Someone seeing through it doesn't change its state.
I admit I have not read through this entire thread, so someone may have already pointed this out, but this very first sentence seems problematic.Or it IS concealed, and you were just unlucky enough to come across an especially perceptive character.As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking 20 on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon/small item on your person, so why not do this any time you have the time?As I understand it, if there are consequences for failure, you can't take 20. Simple as that. What are the consequences of failing a skill check to conceal a weapon?
Duh, it's not concealed.
Then it's not concealed from THAT CHARACTER, which is what I meant RD.
|
|
stuffSuffice to say, you need only look at DC 10 results for knowledge local so see how allowing and blanket taking 10 on knowledge breaks everything, using a 10 intelligence child that lives on a remote farm. They know everything from the following group: (Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations) for every locale, every region, every continent, every planet. No matter where you send them, they just take 10 and know who is in charge. Tour Guide of the galaxy!
That is more of a flaw in the knowledge local than the take 10. You do need to have at least 1 point in a knowledge skill to even roll on it. So if this 10 in child has a point in know local you would expect him to know those things for his local area.
|
|
I meant metagaming in terms of getting someone with the right perception check. Having someone check you is fine.
It would be metagaming to check for someone with a total effective perception bonus exactly 1 less than your total effective disguise bonus. I don't think it's metagaming to let the most perceptive character in the group do the checks (2nd most perceptive character will have to do for checking the most perceptive one).
Follows from the other examples I've used... In character, they're not going to have a number for everyone's perception (the way the players do on their sheets), but if they've been working together for much time at all, the characters probably will know which of them has the sharpest eyes, who's the next best at spotting things, and so on through the entire party's abilities relative to one another.
|
|
You can't take a 20 by RAW. If you want to do iterative testing then knock yourself out.
Since the DM rolls in secret and does not tell the players the result then your friend can't really tell you if it was better before or not. The character might but RAW does not support that concept due to the secret roll.
I want to make certain you are seperating RAW and general game usage. No game is run by RAW. If your DM wants to allow feedback to get a 20 or just taking 20 then that is great. No one has a problem with that. Every group adjusts the game to fit their playstyle. But no one has presented a rules argument that supports that.
I am separating general game usage (which is what I'm discussing here) from the RAW (I thought that would already have been obvious, since it was already brought up that if you strictly follow RAW, looks like you can't do anything like a 'take 20' on Disguise checks). To be blunt-- I go with RAI and/or what makes sense, modified by "rule of cool" and "does it fit the story", over RAW whenever there's a conflict between RAI, common sense applications of character ideas, and the RAW. I suppose I want to make sure you understand my point of view on this as well-- I've been playing RPGs for a long time, I do know pretty well what I'm doing with and in them, and I've played a lot of different games-- I'm quite comfortable with house-rules and adjusting RAW as needed.
Back to the immediate point-- as a general game usage, I'd treat it more or less like a 'take 20' (or the alternative figure out a number that's in the success range beyond anyone's ability to double-check) because if I'm running the game, I'm not going to waste everyone else's time while I sit behind the DM screen and see how many throws it takes to either get a '20' (if the perception check is high enough to measure the best possible success on the character whose work is being checked) or to get a roll that results in a success that's higher than the checking character's 'take 20' perception. I short-hand that as 'take 20', since that's also essentially what that rule gives a mechanism for-- saving time, rather than actually making someone roll until they get a 20, and then add up how many attempts that was.
Regarding the 'what makes sense' part-- what my part in this discussion is really about-- I've already explained why I think your buddies should be able to tell you approximately how well you did, and what your best attempt was (so you can try to repeat that), presuming that they can ultimately beat your best disguise check-- or that they can tell you when you've finally got the disguise tight enough that they cannot see through it.
Neither you nor anyone else here has so far been able to satisfactorily give a reason why it shouldn't work that way. Yes, strict reading of the RAW does support your handling it, and if you want to follow strict RAW whether it makes sense or not-- more power to you, but if the RAW is all that concerns you, this discussion is pointless, because we're talking about different issues. Let me know if that's the case, and I'll ignore your posts on this thread as a strict RAW discussion I'm not following and you can ignore mine as a discussion of possible house rules that you're not interested in (nothing wrong with different views and discussions of different points-- this is not intended as an insult/attack-- it'd just be good to know so we don't waste time making unnecessary fights out of easily fixed misunderstandings).
Now, I am occasionally interested in discussions of interpretations of RAW, for purposes of knowing how something's likely to work out when I am playing in a PFS or other 'official/tournament type' game. I will usually come right out and explicitly say it at or near my first post in a thread if I'm entering the thread to discuss RAW and its strict (or not-so-strict but still "as written") interpretation.
Here, I am following my usual interest in most discussions of game rules, situations, what happens when a character does "x", etc., that I involve myself in: how it should work in the game (how the GM and players should handle it), given what the characters are trying to do and how they are trying to do it. If there's a reason why RAW makes perfect sense and shouldn't be changed by house-rule for this (or any other) instance, great-- let's hear it. If you (or anyone else) thinks RAW doesn't have it right, but there's a better way than my suggestion, great-- let's hear it. If you think that maybe the way I'm presenting works out really well and makes sense for the situation-- let me know.
|
|
Having help in determining the quality of a disguise is a textbook example of Aid Another. Taking additional time to get it "just right" is certainly sufficient to warrant a circumstance bonus. "Taking 20" is a handy rule for speeding game play, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to "game the system."Hah! that is even better. So no iterative checks for you!
edit: I love it when someone comes in with something that no one thought about during the discussion.
Nope, I don't see it that way (I'd make a joke about not getting that particular example in my Pathfinder 101 course, but I know what he, and you, mean by this). Aid Another would help you put the disguise on in the first place, especially if you're in a hurry so you're just taking one (or maybe two) stabs at it; but it doesn't replace the much more potent benefit of having someone do a careful examination of your work after you've finished putting on the disguise.
YMMV-- that may work for you, but it doesn't make as much sense as the iterative checks until you get it as close to right as you can, given both your limitations and the limitations of the people checking your work, along with the time limits you have available (I'm not looking at the 'take 20' as "gaming the system", I'm still looking at it as the quick way to handle iterative checks until you get it right, which is the best way to represent working as a team, inspecting each other's disguises, and keeping re-doing it until you get it right-- same thing I described with Soldiers and the application of camouflage, time permitting).
Spinning off-topic...
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.
So, if the DC is 10 or lower, anyone can make untrained Knowledge checks. Which leads, mathematically, to the conclusion that Take 10 on Knowledge checks allows any being with an Int of 10+ to automatically know pretty much everything on every topic (unless the person in question cannot Take 10 due to being threatened or the like).
I see two possibilities:
- You exclaim: "This ain't the way it's supposed to be! Blargle! I won't allow anyone to take 10 on knowledges / won't allow to make Knowledge checks if untrained, no matter the DC / allow taking 10 only when trained in a skill!" No problem, it's your game, after all.
- You state "DC 10 is so-called common knowledge, and it's called comon knowledge for a reason." Which, of course, might mean, that depending on where you live and where you come from, the DC for the same Knowledge check might be different.
|
|
- You state "DC 10 is so-called common knowledge, and it's called common knowledge for a reason." Which, of course, might mean, that depending on where you live and where you come from, the DC for the same Knowledge check might be different.
I like it. "It's called common knowledge for a reason..." :)
|
|
Spinning off-topic...
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.So, if the DC is 10 or lower, anyone can make untrained Knowledge checks. Which leads, mathematically, to the conclusion that Take 10 on Knowledge checks allows any being with an Int of 10+ to automatically know pretty much everything on every topic (unless the person in question cannot Take 10 due to being threatened or the like).
I see two possibilities:
- You exclaim: "This ain't the way it's supposed to be! Blargle! I won't allow anyone to take 10 on knowledges / won't allow to make Knowledge checks if untrained, no matter the DC / allow taking 10 only when trained in a skill!" No problem, it's your game, after all.
- You state "DC 10 is so-called common knowledge, and it's called comon knowledge for a reason." Which, of course, might mean, that depending on where you live and where you come from, the DC for the same Knowledge check might be different.
But to have to bend and shape the wording that much and have so many extra premises in the rules that aren't there just to make it match a viewpoint, then something is wrong with the interpretation. That's why I don't see taking 10 on knowledge as a viable truth.
Here are the DC 10's:
Identify mineral, stone, or metal Dungeoneering
Identify dangerous construction Engineering
Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent Geography
Know recent or historically significant event History
Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations Local
Identify a common plant or animal Nature
Know current rulers and their symbol Nobility
Know the names of the planes Planes
Recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy Religion
Said child knows ALL of this with take-10. No where in the knowledge check wording does it says only stuff near where they live. So if this child goes to the planet Castrovel, he/she knows all this by default.
|
|
@Finn K: If we are not talking RAW then everything is just personal preference in the game. As I said before no game is run by RAW. I have 4 pages of house rules cleaning up things I don't like in PF.
@Shar Tahl: Talking RAW you are correct that allowing take 10 on knowledge would have that result. Even if you don't let them take 10 then 50% of the time the kid would be able to guess all that by rolling. So really this reflects a flaw in the knowledge system rather than the take 10 system. The rules have little quirks like that sometimes. That is why people adjust them to suit their own tastes.
Here are the DC 10's:
Identify mineral, stone, or metal Dungeoneering
Identify dangerous construction Engineering
Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent Geography
Know recent or historically significant event History
Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations Local
Identify a common plant or animal Nature
Know current rulers and their symbol Nobility
Know the names of the planes Planes
Recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy ReligionSaid child knows ALL of this with take-10. No where in the knowledge check wording does it says only stuff near where they live. So if this child goes to the planet Castrovel, he/she knows all this by default.
I view this less as a problem with taking 10 (it's not that unreasonable for a child to have a handle on some of these things in his own world), than as a problem with applying the skills, particularly when going to Castrovel. If the DM didn't increase the DCs to know at least some of these things on Castrovel for a character who was actually skilled in them, much less someone without ranks invested, I'd be giving him a weird look. I think it would be perfectly fair to raise the DC 5 or 10 on any of these in a place as far removed from normal Golarion reality as Castrovel.
My understanding of taking a 20 in general and with respect to disguise:
1. Take 20 states that you may treat your roll as a 20 if you spend enough time to make 20 rolls. It does not say to treat it as if you just rolled high enough to "pass" a DC. It doesn't even say you have to succeed. You just treat your roll as a 20.
2. It has a stipulation that there must not be any penalties for failure that might stop you from making further checks. For most skills this is cut and dry.
2a. It is my opinion that the previous stipulation requires for a rubric of success or failure (ie. a DC to beat).
3. A disguise check normally does not have a DC to beat until you come across the opponent that you are trying to hide your identity from. Therefore, taking a 20 would normally be impossible (since you don't have an opponent just watching you dress yourself).
3a. You cannot provide your own DC to beat, because you never have the opportunity to not recognize yourself as yourself (using a mirror, etc). An ally could provide a DC by taking a 10, as long as he doesn't watch you disguise yourself (otherwise he already knew it was you).
4. It gets hairy here. Because of the special penalty applied to disguise checks, there is presumably a certain point where your ally's perception check cannot be defeated by your disguise because of your repeated failures. However, that does not stop you from making further checks in pursuit of 'take 20'.
IMO, RAW allows for taking a 20 on checks that normally require opposed rolls as long as you have someone (other than yourself) to oppose your roll, regardless of their actual ability to beat your check.
Spinning off-topic...
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.So, if the DC is 10 or lower, anyone can make untrained Knowledge checks. Which leads, mathematically, to the conclusion that Take 10 on Knowledge checks allows any being with an Int of 10+ to automatically know pretty much everything on every topic (unless the person in question cannot Take 10 due to being threatened or the like).
I see two possibilities:
- You exclaim: "This ain't the way it's supposed to be! Blargle! I won't allow anyone to take 10 on knowledges / won't allow to make Knowledge checks if untrained, no matter the DC / allow taking 10 only when trained in a skill!" No problem, it's your game, after all.
- You state "DC 10 is so-called common knowledge, and it's called comon knowledge for a reason." Which, of course, might mean, that depending on where you live and where you come from, the DC for the same Knowledge check might be different.
But to have to bend and shape the wording that much and have so many extra premises in the rules that aren't there just to make it match a viewpoint, then something is wrong with the interpretation. That's why I don't see taking 10 on knowledge as a viable truth.
Here are the DC 10's:
Identify mineral, stone, or metal Dungeoneering
Identify dangerous construction Engineering
Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent Geography
Know recent or historically significant event History
Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations Local
Identify a common plant or animal Nature
Know current rulers and their symbol Nobility
Know the names of the planes Planes
Recognize a common deity’s symbol or...
But if they have an Int of 9, they don't know any of this with a take 10. So this commoner child in question just might not know this. Also, circumstance modifiers as described upthread would change things, too.
EDIT: and remember, 10 as a result on knowledge doesn't grant much info except things basically anybody should know in the first place. I was never hesitant to give the results of a knowledge dc 10 at a table ever. So as far as taking 10 on knowledge checks when not threatened, I don't mind it.
For taking 20 on disguise or sleight of hand, I see some RAW problems here, but I don't mind if the players have the time and use it for things like this.