| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So... According to the rules on taking 10, if you are not in immediate danger, you can make a skill check as if you had rolled a 10. This is a blanket statement for all skills. The question then, is why does it specifically call out the ability to take 10 for Knowledge checks as a bard?
At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.
Shouldn't that read: "At 5th level, a bard becomes a master of lore and can do what everyone else can do at 1st level by taking 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in."?
I like the Take 10 thing for simplification on a lot of rules, but always thought that if something special "allowed" you to do something, then the "normal" was that you couldn't.
So... According to the rules on taking 10, if you are not in immediate danger, you can make a skill check as if you had rolled a 10. This is a blanket statement for all skills. The question then, is why does it specifically call out the ability to take 10 for Knowledge checks as a bard?
You can't take 10 on a knowledge check.
bards can take a 10.
bards can take a 10.
Yes Bards can. Specifically bards with Lore Maste.
Anyone can take 10 on a knowledge check, since the knowledge skill doesn't say anything about working differently from other skills.
Either, whoever wrote the lore master ability forgot how the take 10 rules worked, or it was meant to allow the bard to take 10 even when in immediate danger or distracted.
I prefer the second option.
However, it's wise to remember that if you do take 10, and that isn't sufficient to know anything particularly useful, you can't then roll to learn more (since knowledge specifically says you can't try again).
|
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.
Knowledge (Int; Trained Only).....Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
From SRD Edited for brevity..
So as you can see for skills that can only fail once you cannot take 10.
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.
Knowledge (Int; Trained Only).....Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
From SRD Edited for brevity..
So as you can see for skills that can only fail once you cannot take 10.
You're confused, it's taking 20 that you can't do when the skill check can fail permanently. Taking 10 has no such restrictions, even in the text you quoted.
Wow, this is crazy. I've never run like this but I suppose if it's RAW that's how I'll have to play.
It still makes very little sense.
I think its the fact that bards can take a 10 or 20 in any situation while everyone else has to be in a position without immediate danger or distracted.
So a bard can take a 10 in combat while everyone else can't. Bards are combat thinkers.
Right. It's not a terribly useful class feature, but it does do something.
|
allowing take 10 on knowledge creates a huge hole in the mechanics that require house rules. The need to add house rules to justify the mechanic shows there to be a problem.
Peasant Bob, with his 10 intelligence, can be transported involuntarily to an unknown continent and identify the local plants and animals common to the region, know all the current rulers of the cities near him, know all local laws, rulers and popular locations, and know the accents of any natives her encounters to place them to a particular region.
All this would be done with no effort, no studying, no time other than a moment thinking about it, and never having needed to have been there. Every single individual with a 10 intelligence knows every common plant and animal, every ruler of every region he visits, every local law, every stone mineral and metal, every ethnicity. This is regardless of their upbringing, whether they lived on a farm all their life, spent their whole life alone on a mountain, or are a small child.
To me, a knowledge check represents a chance that somewhere, somehow you heard of something. A dice roll represents that chance. A bard, with their breadth of experience and stories they have heard, have a much higher baseline than the normal folk(often a minimum result 10+skill). That is what they do. They are not reduced to having a silly ability that is used 5 minutes a day at max.
Also, nowhere does it say they are an exception to the in-combat rule for taking 10. Adding virtual text to an ability to justify the perspective is great. That is still a house rule to a rules hole. Going all hard-core on the RAW for take-10 should go both ways for you when you look at the bard. Ban the take-10 in combat too.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've begun keeping a library of links for things like this:
James Jacobs, Creative Director: "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."
|
|
I've begun keeping a library of links for things like this:
James Jacobs, Creative Director: "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."
The thing is, he has been contradicted before by Devs.
It comes down to two things.
1: The knowledge skill is missing the Take-10 exception.
2: The bard Lore Master ability is missing "This ability can be used in combat"
Go with whatever feels right in your games. It is not something that is seen as a problem since it is a Core problem that has been here since the start
Well, we can't forget that you can't even really use Knowledge unless you have ranks in it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, he has been contradicted before by Devs.
Not on this topic. The only Paizo staff commentary on this subject says you can T10 on knowledge checks and that lore masters can do so in combat.
It comes down to two things.
1: The knowledge skill is missing the Take-10 exception.
2: The bard Lore Master ability is missing "This ability can be used in combat"
Correct. So either Lore Master does nothing, or there's a wording error in one of the two rules. And we have a Paizo staff memeber telling us which one is the intent.
|
|
I disagree. Any skill that has negative result of a failed roll should be rolled stress situation or not. I know in 4th ed there is something like this for certain skills like perception I think its called passive roll, if you want to take dice rolling out of your game go right ahead, I'll keep rolling dem bones it makes for a more exciting game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
allowing take 10 on knowledge creates a huge hole in the mechanics that require house rules. The need to add house rules to justify the mechanic shows there to be a problem.
Peasant Bob, with his 10 intelligence, can be transported involuntarily to an unknown continent and identify the local plants and animals common to the region, know all the current rulers of the cities near him, know all local laws, rulers and popular locations, and know the accents of any natives her encounters to place them to a particular region.
All this would be done with no effort, no studying, no time other than a moment thinking about it, and never having needed to have been there. Every single individual with a 10 intelligence knows every common plant and animal, every ruler of every region he visits, every local law, every stone mineral and metal, every ethnicity. This is regardless of their upbringing, whether they lived on a farm all their life, spent their whole life alone on a mountain, or are a small child.
To me, a knowledge check represents a chance that somewhere, somehow you heard of something. A dice roll represents that chance. A bard, with their breadth of experience and stories they have heard, have a much higher baseline than the normal folk(often a minimum result 10+skill). That is what they do. They are not reduced to having a silly ability that is used 5 minutes a day at max.
Also, nowhere does it say they are an exception to the in-combat rule for taking 10. Adding virtual text to an ability to justify the perspective is great. That is still a house rule to a rules hole. Going all hard-core on the RAW for take-10 should go both ways for you when you look at the bard. Ban the take-10 in combat too.
Actually Peasant Bob can't used untrained skills. So no, the problem you describe does not exist.
[EDIT] Although having said that, I always house rule away taking 10 on Knowldge checks.
I see taking 10 on knowledge checks like this:
When I am stressed and rushed whatever comes to my mind is relatively random bits.
However, when I am calm and have time to think about things I can usually remember more information.
Note: that is how I am in real life. I see no reason for it to work differently in PF.
How does that translate? Well, I have to roll when I am stressed and I can 'take 10' when I am not. Viola! makes sense to me. :)
- Gauss
I've begun keeping a library of links for things like this:
James Jacobs, Creative Director: "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."
These sorts of things should be in a stickied thread.
Here's an interesting question.
lets say there is a piece of info you can know for a DC of 12.
You can only roll knowledge checks once.
Taking 10 is in lieu of rolling.
So you can't roll and then take 10 or take 10 and then roll.
So depending on what you choose changes the possible out come.
So before you make that decision the state of that piece of knowledge is simultaneously known and unknown to your player.
How does that make any sense.
It's like schrodinger's cat paradox but for Skills.
Here's an interesting question.
lets say there is a piece of info you can know for a DC of 12.
You can only roll knowledge checks once.
Taking 10 is in lieu of rolling.
So you can't roll and then take 10 or take 10 and then roll.
So depending on what you choose changes the possible out come.
So before you make that decision the state of that piece of knowledge is simultaneously known and unknown to your player.
How does that make any sense.
It's like schrodinger's cat paradox but for Skills.
Actually, the character might or might not know that piece of information, not does and does not. Yes, whether a character knows a piece of information isn't revealed to the player until after the check, but the character knows or doesn't know that information and (if he does know it) knows he knows that information.
No quantum state. Just probability on the meta-game side.
allowing take 10 on knowledge creates a huge hole in the mechanics that require house rules. The need to add house rules to justify the mechanic shows there to be a problem.
Peasant Bob, with his 10 intelligence, can be transported involuntarily to an unknown continent and identify the local plants and animals common to the region, know all the current rulers of the cities near him, know all local laws, rulers and popular locations, and know the accents of any natives her encounters to place them to a particular region.
.
You get little detail or depth for that with a DC 10 check. Nor is Bob trained, which means he gets nothing past DC 10. And of course the DM can & should apply a circumstance modifier, those are right there in the rules.
I don't know why some people get all worked up about Take 10 and Take 20. Dems the rules.
Knowledge DC 10 and lower can be made untrained, as per the knowledge skill.
Actually Peasant Bob can't used untrained skills. So no, the problem you describe does not exist.
[EDIT] Although having said that, I always house rule away taking 10 on Knowldge checks.
Right you are. I must admit I rarely require rolls for DC<10 on Knowledges, and forgot about that :)
Knowledge DC 10 and lower can be made untrained, as per the knowledge skill.
Yup. DC 10 (i.e. unless you dumped Int, you will know it by taking 10) is called common knowledge for a reason.
Now that I think upon it, I think Bob the peasant's GM (yes yes, I know it is an example) is not assigning the proper DC for Bob being very far out of his element. Assigning the DC of a knowledge check is the GMs job.
Knowing who the King of a territory is when you are 1000leagues from your home should have a DC of 15 or 20. That puts it out of reach for Bob the peasant.
- Gauss
Knowing who the King of a territory is when you are 1000leagues from your home should have a DC of 15 or 20. That puts it out of reach for Bob the peasant.
Yup. Remember that Knowledge (whatever) (especially Local), is specific for the area where you come from, or at least spent a considerable amount of time.
If in unfamiliar environments, upping the DC for knowing the local important figures, verifying which of these fungi you never saw before are edible, or discerning the portfolio of a deity whose shrine you are visiting is something the GM should do.Yeah, I know. Arbitrary assigning of DCs by GM fiat. Oh, the horror!
It's all about the unknown knowns and the known unknowns.
Yeah, I know. Arbitrary assigning of DCs by GM fiat. Oh, the horror!
You've noticed that too? It seems if someone suggests that a GM use common sense to rules, or to a situation not express covered by rules, it scares the bejebus out of most of the people on these boards
Taking 10 is lame. I'm more than happy that I as GM have houseruled otherwise in my game.
Ruyan.
I find this funny because the take 10 rule comes up so rarely in my game. I have encouraged my players on multiple occasions to take 10 if they feel that their characters are proficient enough to succeed, and especially if they want to speed up making multiple climb or swim checks or what have you.
Unfortunately I DM/GM for a pretty paranoid group so they very rarely go for the take 10. Apparently since the GM is playing the bad guys, then that must mean he is the bad guy, and therefor would only suggest taking 10 so that the player would fail. Really?
Keep in mind, just because you don't know whether your character knows that bit of info doesn't mean that your character doesn't know. He knows what he knows and he doesn't know what he doesn't know. The roll of the dice just tells you (the player) how reality has played out for the character. When you roll the dice, and it comes up 12, it was always true that it would come up 12 since the beginning of time; you just didn't know that until the event came to pass. But the character already had the knowledge since the time that he learned it in his fictional background. Questions of quantum state are easily figured out if you consider them from the point of abstract soft determinism.
But this isn't true. My mechanical choice (not the characters) lead to the probability that lead to my characters knowledge. Deus ex machina
My character didn't always know it because my choice wasn't solely dependent on ether taking 10 or rolling.
Taking 10 isn't taking average. Average for 1d20 is 10.5 or 10-11.
So if I'm taking 10 I would be missing out on 2.5% probability increase.
Also Taking 10 isn't probabilistic just unknown.