|
Nosig, arguing the rules during the game is always the wrong thing to do. But I don't have the "right" answer for you. I know what you are trying to accomplish with the shirt and I agree with 98% of your side of the argument, but the shirt is interpreted by many to be adversarial. Almost as if you are assuming they are wrong before even having the chance to rule and you are going to educate them. That may not be your intent, but perception is reality.
What you have to ask yourself, "is this sooo important to me, that I cannot enjoy the game if the GM denies take10?" If so, then I would talk to the GM prior to the game, perhaps in private, and quickly explain your position. If they rule against you, leave the table, or "table" the discussion until afterwards and see if they would be open to a discussion of how/why you feel the rule works as you interpret.
Cain: I don't see any reason you couldn't move your examples from one mechanic to the other. They seem very arbitrarily linked.
Taking 10 represents normal everyday beavior under normal situations. Rolling is when situations aren't normal for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krusk IS allowed to take 10 because there's no stress of failure in Krusk's climbing. If Krusk fails the roll krusk does not fall: Krusk stays where he is. Staying where you are is not an immediate danger. Falling is.
Oh BNW, I thought we were of like mind on this topic or maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. The take10 doesn't have anything to do with the failure inherent with the attempt. I had previously agreed with you, but the designers clarified that.
Trigger a trap, falling to your death, etc. are not considered distractions for using the skill. However, outside forces can be: combat, someone shining a light in your eyes, etc. Even if Krusk could fall with a failed checked, that does not deny him the take10 assuming that the only "distraction" to the attempt is the risk of failing the check and falling. As soon as the goblin starts attacking, it becomes a distracted attempt and rolls are required.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Krusk IS allowed to take 10 because there's no stress of failure in Krusk's climbing. If Krusk fails the roll krusk does not fall: Krusk stays where he is. Staying where you are is not an immediate danger. Falling is.Oh BNW, I thought we were of like mind on this topic or maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. The take10 doesn't have anything to do with the failure inherent with the attempt. I had previously agreed with you, but the designers clarified that.
Trigger a trap, falling to your death, etc. are not considered distractions for using the skill. However, outside forces can be: combat, someone shining a light in your eyes, etc. Even if Krusk could fall with a failed checked, that does not deny him the take10 assuming that the only "distraction" to the attempt is the risk of failing the check and falling. As soon as the goblin starts attacking, it becomes a distracted attempt and rolls are required.
(BNW: Sorry for the double-notification.)
|
|
I really don't care what way it's done - as long as we all do it the same way.
Sorry, my friend, but that is not going to happen unless the "official" rules are clarified. In lieu of such, GM's are going to rule as they believe it should be. That is not creating rules, as some have suggested, that is ruling on the ambiguity. Until there is an FAQ, you are going to see table variation. Even if everyone on this thread, or even in the forums, agreed, that does not permeate to the thousands of other GM's out there that could be in charge of your next table.
So the question remains, each of us must decide if this mechanic is so important to us that unless the GM rules in our favor, we cannot enjoy the game at all. If so, *you* can only play with GM's you know or not play. If not, then accept the GM's ruling and move on.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bob: To be fair, nosig's started multiple discussions on T10 (both here and on the rules boards), I've participated in most/all of them, and even still it wasn't until this iteration that I (since I can't speak for others) became fully aware of the Lore Master issue. I'm now more prepared to rule on that at my tables, and have accumulated 45 FAQ flags in an effort to get it clarified.
Isn't that the whole point of this part of the boards? To bring issues to light, get clarification where we can, and at the very least help each other not be blindsided by issues we weren't aware of?
On the other hand, nosig, sometimes it might be better to let a particular thread drop for a while and bring it up again in the future. For instance, the Lore Master debate obviously isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Time to (at least temporarily) accept the table variation on it.
|
|
You are both putting words in my mouth and ignoring the words I've already spokenSorry, its just that the way the Krusk comments read, it sounded different that what you intended, at least from my perspective.
Sorry, that was supposed to be you (singular) are putting words AND ignoring blah blah. (i can blah blah myself right?) Not Ya'll have been putting words in my mouth..
I'm not sure about taking 10 when failing can get you killed. The wording actually did change between 3.5 and pathfinder, leaning if anything more strongly towards a "no".
Pathfinder: Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted,
3.5 When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
The example is a slope with a dc of 10 and a modifier of +6. This seemed deliberately calculated to preclude the possibility of Krusk falling even on a roll of a 1.
I can definitely see the argument both ways here. SKR's comments about broad jumping over a chasm push it rather firmly towards yes. It just more or less negates the advanced rogue talents though.
_____
For the ambush I don't see the other side of it. You are definitely in danger, you are being threatened, it isn't an inconsequential roll. Go polyhedral fate.
|
|
Please do not take this in a bad way, but I would like to ask for some explaination of the terms:
"Cult of Take Ten" and "the Church of Righteous Impartial Tetrahedron" though.)
Cult of take ten: You can take 10 any time unless initiative has been rolled.
Church of the Rightous Impartial Tetrahedron: Taking 10 must die in a fire!
Both names are meant as a joke. I realize that there are people who don't know/interpret the take 10 rules to be more limited than I do.
|
|
can my PC take 10 before the ambush? before he has gotten to it?
so... if he can detect the ambush some distance away, say 50' away, can he do that taking 10? At which point can he no longer take 10?
I suppose the danger would be immediate at the maximum encounter distance based on terrain.
for me that would be when Init. is rolled, in the surprize round. when the threat is there. when is it for you? The point at which he can no longer taking 10 on a perception roll (checking for traps) and must roll the dice.
1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.
2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.
3. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat.
4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).
5. When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 3 and 4 repeat until combat ends.
Huh. Technically you roll init and then make the perception rolls, which is kind of wonky because if everyone misses the perception rolls then there's no encounter at all...
So in the above example, init's rolled, Scout and the rest of the party make perception checks (and even by your reading have to roll because they're in initiative) vs the creatures stealth , those that make the roll and the creature get to act in the surprise round. (Scout is carrying a torch, so there's no chance of the monster missing him)
|
|
Oh, and I guess there was no chance of my character getting a Perception roll before he was within charge reach of the monster? Was this because the PC wasn't checking for ambushes, just searching for traps when he was taking 10 on perception rolls? (No snark intended, this is a real question. This is the usual response I get when my "scout" with a +28 perception is attacked by the large monster that was placed on the map 15 feet away)
No, it would be because the torch only goes out 30', or the monster is hiding up a conveniently placed shaft and you need to be close before spotting it is even possible, or you need to open the door before you can spot it, or you need to get everyone on the battlemat so you can figure out the perception modifiers...
I do NOT like "the monsters surprise the PC's begin combat" I absolutely hate making the players sit around for a few minutes getting pwned without them being able to react to it, or at least get a perception/sense motive check for it.
other than the Perception roll that my PC didn't get to take
You DO get to take it. Its just a roll of a d20, not a flat 10, because you're in immediate danger. If you make it you go in the surprise round. (if everyone makes it there is no surprise round)
The sad fact is that the terrain is often there for the monsters to take advantage of it. Its what makes sneaking around such a pain for the PC's but great for the monsters.
|
|
Ok, let's address each of these one at the time.
Being an elf, the torch goes out to 60 for my PC. and another 60 of dim light (giving concealment to hide in.
Ok, keep in mind that for the above scenario it wasn't written for your PC. It was mostly written for a dramatic cutaway.
Do you consider out of line of sight Undetectable? or just give the monster a bonus to stealth?
See, this is the problem with a split Spot/Listen Hide/move silently.
Line of sight no. Line of effect... almost.
Either way it doesn't matter for the purposes of this conversation. By the order pointed out in the combat section, you declare initiative and then determine awareness: so whether I'm checking for initiative at 60 feet in a dense forest or 15 feet because you're coming into a dark room by raw you roll initiative is rolled and then you roll perception.
I prefer to roll perception and then roll initiative.
Can a monster be detected thru a door?
If you stop and put your ear to the door yes.
I just assume that if the party is going through a door, everyone is holding actions to do something once they burst in. If the monsters are on the other side of the door they get a listen check to hear the party. If they hear you coming they hold actions. You're holding actions, they're holding actions, its a mulligan, roll init and begin the brawl. If they don't hear you its a miricle and the PC's are the ones who've earned a surprise round.
I consider the note "you need to get everyone on the battlemat so you can figure out the perception modifiers..." to not apply - thou I encounter it alot. (Judge draws an 3 square by 3 square box and says "place your figures in...
Thats probably almost as much the modules fault as the dms..
|
|
Being an elf, the torch goes out to 60 for my PC. and another 60 of dim light
Um, no it doesn't. Elves "see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light." That means the normal light from the torch, which is only 20ft BTW, is the same. A human gets 20ft of dim light beyond that, while an elf gets 40ft of dim light vision.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
"Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light."
*emphasis mine*
The text seems clear in this case. Normal light vision functions normally, but their dim light vision only is twice as far.And now that I think about it, it could be argued that traveling in a an unlit dungeon, elves would gain no benefit at all since the light beyond the dim light produced by the light source is darkness, not dim light, so they wouldn't gain any benefit.
|
|
Yeah, the rules on the light/dim light/low-light stuff exist in three different places and some of the text is incomplete. My spoiler was only in regards to what was in the back of the book under low-light vision.
Wait, the rules exist in more than one place?...this sounds a lot like the take10 rules...hrmmmmm
|
Huh. Technically you roll init and then make the perception rolls, which is kind of wonky because if everyone misses the perception rolls then there's no encounter at all...
This was actually very clear in 3.0 (but gawd it was clunky), got a little muddied in 3.5, and then somehow got completely turned around in the change to Pathfinder. From the 3.0 SRD:
ENCOUNTERS
When an encounter between the PCs and an NPC or creature is imminent, follow these steps:
1. Determine vision conditions and terrain. Choose from the choices on Table: Spotting Distance.
2. If line of sight or illumination defines the distance at which the encounter occurs (as often happens indoors), start the encounter there. Otherwise, roll for spotting distance on Table: Spotting Distance.
3. All creatures involved make Spot checks. Success means that creature sees the other creature or group. See Table: Spotting Difficulty for modifiers on these checks.
4. If neither side succeeds, all creatures spot each other at one-half the rolled range.
Personally, I consider this to be RAI and still use it (without all the rolling-for-distance clunkiness).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No... The Temple of the Blessed "Take 10" Sacrament vs the Cult of the Randomly Impartial Tetrahedron. That better describes the sides.
I can hear their words even now:
Blessed: "Have faith that the take 10 sacrament will deliver you from minor hardships!"
Random: "NO! The strong must fail and the weak must prevail at the whims of the almighty d20!"
"All for T10 and T10 for all!"
"There can be only 1(d20)."
|
|
do you tell them they can T10?
I rarely tell players what rules/mechanics to use and when. If it is clear to me I am dealing with a n00b, I will take efforts to help them understand what their character can do, but for experienced players, I cannot assume they know/don't the rules until they reveal the fact to me. Honestly, it is not my place to tell players how to play their character.
|
|
I am trying to see HOW the players are learning the T10 rule. We all know it's by word-of-mouth
Exactly right. I would guess that most GM's don't even reference the material in the books, they just tell the player what they can do based on their memory and experience. So if they use the rule wrong, there is a good chance the n00b will be using it wrong until told/shown otherwise.
** spoiler omitted **
Or maybe the fish-slapper in question is nursing a feud with you, particularly, so we got away unscathed?
I don't know... I didn't find your mild sarcasm offensive, personally. But then, here at Casa Del Alitan, sarcasm is just another service we offer.
But about that T10 goodness...
Reviewing the thread, and checking my book, no, there aren't exceptions listed for knowledge skills. Which kinda blows, just because I'm prejudiced against the idea of knowledge T10s.
I'm torn on the whole T10 issue, really; getting into PFSOP, I really can see the need for streamlining (our In Service To Lore ran something like an hour and a half longer than we'd scheduled).
Maybe what's needed -- to replace the T10 mechanic ENTIRELY (!) -- is a notation of "trivial tests," where it can be noted that "A character with (x) ranks [RANKS, not total bonuses] may be assumed to succeed at (y) attempt." Still lets people make untrained tests to succeed (assuming a skill that can be used untrained), still lets those with "less-than-(x)" skill levels make the attempt. Streamlines the check for those who have built their (whatever the skill in question is) up for regular use. And with the proviso, like T10, that being threatened/pressured/etc. disallows the autosuccess for (x) ranks.
I don't know. The T10 rule has almost never seen use in the groups I've played with in the past; much of my ill-feeling for it is likely rooted in "change is bad/we fear change" knee-jerk reaction.
But it obviously causes a lot of problems: in my opinion, any mechanic that spawns so much debate has some disjunction between utility and applicability.
|
If you're going to "call" someone out. It's far better in taste to use the PM system. Hiding it behind a spoiler seems like a veiled attempt to be rude at a perceived slight, since I don't know of a spoiler I don't open.Sorry Dan - I'll try to be better in the future. Until recently I didn't even know about the Private Message (PM?) system... so I'm still a bit of a Newbie on it too.
I understand, and I understand that tempers, and patience has been wearing thin. I only skim these threads when they get that way in the event that something significant occurs like a Paizo hand down, but I feel necessary pipe in when I think there may be a better...more civil way to broadcast to each other. Especially since a lot of tone is easily lost in the text.
I especially would like us to keep civil since there is a good chance for all of us to meet in person and would likely all be great friends. So, would hate for anything to be soured over a imperfect communication medium.