RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 88 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's some disagreement on this, and I think the conflict is reasonable:
In the Skills chapter, the rules for Take 10 state that you can do so unless the situation prevents you (this is not a discussion about that, so take it elsewhere). In certain skill descriptions (UMD, and a footnote in Swim), T10 is forbidden.
One would be led to conclude, then, that all the rest of the skills are eligible for T10 unless the situation prevents it.
But then there are things like the bard's Lore Master ability, the Childlike feat, and a couple of others that say "you can take 10 on such-and-such a check" but do not include the phrase "even while threatened or distracted".
There are two interpretations of this fact:
1. Since it doesn't say "even while threatened", it doesn't allow you to do so. Therefore, it only allows you to take 10 under mundane circumstances. This in turn implies that the associated skill is normally not eligible for T10. If this is the case, then the Skills chapter needs errata to reflect that restriction, so please click "FAQ" at the top of this post if you believe this interpretation is correct.
2. The extra line ("even while threatened") that appears in some abilities is inherent to the abilities, and those places where it is spelled out is merely a courtesy. The Skills chapter is correct, and only UMD (and certain instances of Swim) is excluded from normal T10 rules. If this is the case, then having a FAQ entry clarifying this would be helpful, so please click "FAQ" at the top of this post.
If you're not sure which of these two interpretations is correct, then guess what? Please click "FAQ" at the top of this post so this can be clarified.
If you feel like debating how T10 works in general, then please take it elsewhere.
Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an ability says, without any restrictions listed, that you can take 10, why would you assume there are restrictions?
Why then is it spelled out as a bard class ability that he can take 10 on Knowledge skills from level 2 on, when anybody can do that anyway?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Cheapy and Zaister:
Congratulations, you've re-summed up the two viewpoints. Now click the FAQ button, please! :)
Remember, even if you're pretty sure which one's right, one of them needs errata and the other needs either errata or at least a clarification.
So unlike most debates, this one needs a FAQ click even if you know the answer! Please click!
My gut feeling is that it should be number 2 , allowing you to take 10 in combat situations. However, as you have said, since the abilities do not specifically give you an exception to utilize take 10 in combat the ability must still follow all the rules for taking 10. Thus, these abilities are a waste as written. You get an FAQ and a +1.
There's also maybe a couple more possibilites:
3) Some skills presume you are always or ususally using them under some kind of stress, so they and their related feats don't specify when you can't take 10 normally, since it's natually unusual that you would be able to. For example, Childlike's bluff also long as you appear innnocent. Odds are there's a threat of some danger if the bluff fails any time this comes up, because that's why you'd be doing it. If so, they should say that.
and maybe a
4) If you're not supposed to know what you rolled, you can't take 10 (wondering about this one myself...)
From a cursory glance, it looks like feats like Childlike are opposed checks and you shouldn't be able to normally Take 10 on them even though the book doesn't explicitly state this.
I don't have an aversion to Take 10. Many circumstances where opposed checks would come into play probably aren't appropriate to Taking 10.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't have an aversion to Take 10. Many circumstances where opposed checks would come into play probably aren't appropriate to Taking 10.
Can't use a skill's status as an opposed check or not as grounds for allowing/disallowing T10, and here's why:
Disguise Skill:
"If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks."
Perception versus disguise is an opposed check in which the core rules explicitly tell you to assume one side is taking 10.
There is no direct correlation between opposed checks and the ability to take 10.
So, I saw that James clarified the Lore Master ability here:
You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat.
But it would be nice to see this addressed in a FAQ since there's still such widespread disagreement about take 10 and take 20.
The Bard ability, other abilities like it, and feats that let you take 10 in their texts, I assume mean to say that you can always take ten (no restrictions attached).
I also noticed the lack of the "cannot take 10" clause from Knowledge, and the Bard ability. I'm outvoted at my table (we can't take 10 on knowledge anymore), though I'm arguing (correctly, IMO) against it.
As for your post, Jiggy, I side with opinion two. I take 10 quite often, and it frequently is helpful. I think that's the correct interpretation of the rules.
Sorry to wake this up, but the top post says, "Answered in the FAQ," but my search-fu is not turning up that answer. Can someone point me to the link? (That will probably help later searchers also.)
Thanks!
I also can't find it, can someone provide a link?
The only other one I see is Contact Other Plane: Can you Take 10 on the Intelligence check for this spell?. (If you want an exploration of whether that FAQ applies to other skills, click here.)
I used Google's advanced search to search the whole domain "http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/" with the following strings:
take and 10
"take 10"
"taking 10"
10 and skill
I could be talked into placing a bet that this question is not in the FAQ.
FAQs that were deemed to not require an answer used to be marked Answered in an FAQ. I'm not sure if this was done prior to the update to only 'Answer' questions that have been answered.
FAQs that were deemed to not require an answer used to be marked Answered in an FAQ. I'm not sure if this was done prior to the update to only 'Answer' questions that have been answered.
Doesn't those things get the "No answer needed"?
FAQs that were deemed to not require an answer used to be marked Answered in an FAQ. I'm not sure if this was done prior to the update to only 'Answer' questions that have been answered.Doesn't those things get the "No answer needed"?
These days, yes. I believe that was not the case 3 or 4 years ago.
I kind of wish that when they mark something "Answered in the FAQ" that they would include a hyperlink to that answer.
I kind of wish that when they mark something "Answered in the FAQ" that they would include a hyperlink to that answer.
If it's actually answered, they usually do.
|
|
Well, huh.
And I was looking forward to finding a ruling about this. I know JJ answered it in another forum, but I also know there are some who posit that JJ is an ideas guy, not a mechanics guy, so his rulings should be taken with some skepticism.
If anything qualifies as a Frequently Asked Question, I think this does. There are MYRIAD threads about it stretching back years.
I see this needs to be FAQ'd again.
|
|
I think the question that really needs answering is this:
In general, does a class feature, feat, or special skill that grants an ability that already exists in a more general rule serve as commentary and modification of the existing rule, or should the specific special skill be interpreted to give additional functionality without affecting the general rule it modifies?
The example here is take-10-for-knowledge-checks vs bard's lore-master. But I think there are others like it, though at the moment I haven't gone looking for them.
My concern is that there will float up examples of rulings in each direction, making a general ruling on such an interpretation difficult or impossible to issue.
I think the question that really needs answering is this:
In general, does a class feature, feat, or special skill that grants an ability that already exists in a more general rule serve as commentary and modification of the existing rule, or should the specific special skill be interpreted to give additional functionality without affecting the general rule it modifies?
The example here is take-10-for-knowledge-checks vs bard's lore-master. But I think there are others like it, though at the moment I haven't gone looking for them.
My concern is that there will float up examples of rulings in each direction, making a general ruling on such an interpretation difficult or impossible to issue.
Sometimes abilities have what I call "reminder text" which just reminds you of a general rule. Other times it does not. In this case the ability is written as if it is giving you something special, but the core rules say nothing to indicate that you can not take 10 on knowledge checks anyway.