Take 10 with stealth


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Aureate wrote:
As for players failing a DC 10 climb check. Were they in any sort of hurry? Or in combat? If not, why did they roll rather than take 10? I would say that it is because either the GM didn't LET them take 10, or that they weren't aware that they could.

Armor check penalty can push you below a 10 on a take 10. Many GMs I've had in PFS or at homegames tell me I can't take 10 or 20 even for trivial situations becuase theres a threat of failure or a made up distraction. The main reason I've seen is that they think it trivalizes things. Can't do much at home, but in PFS I can fight with RAW.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I run it like this in my games. What you are doing can never be a distraction from what you are doing. If you are trying to sneak past a sleeping dragon, it's not a distraction because you are already focused on sneaking past it. If you are trying to sneak past it and palm a gold cup at the same time... that's a distraction.

For danger, I rule that if there is more than one d20 roll between your action and any consequences, it's not immediate. Climbing a ladder while being shot at, there's only the attack roll. Climbing a ladder while stealthing past some guards? They have to beat your stealth check, then roll initiative, then roll an attack roll... so no immediate danger.


MrSin wrote:
Aureate wrote:
As for players failing a DC 10 climb check. Were they in any sort of hurry? Or in combat? If not, why did they roll rather than take 10? I would say that it is because either the GM didn't LET them take 10, or that they weren't aware that they could.
Armor check penalty can push you below a 10 on a take 10. Many GMs I've had in PFS or at homegames tell me I can't take 10 or 20 even for trivial situations becuase theres a threat of failure or a made up distraction. The main reason I've seen is that they think it trivalizes things. Can't do much at home, but in PFS I can fight with RAW.

Well in that case if their check was less than 10 on a DC 10, of course their check would fail. They should be told it's too difficult to easily make the climb with their armor on and then they should either make the roll, or take off their armor. For events with straight DCs a character should have a pretty good idea if an average attempt will auto succeed. The GM should let them know that. Take 10 exists to speed up play and to prevent penalizing players from rolling poorly and failing an average difficulty task.

Taking 20 is a no go in situations where there is a penalty for failure. or where you can't try over and over again. (So a no go on sneak where you only get one chance to not be noticed.) Take 10 is different though. There are links up thread that SKR explains taking 10. It's really worth the read and I would go so far as to take a copy to your table.


Aureate wrote:
Well in that case if their check was less than 10 on a DC 10, of course their check would fail. They should be told it's too difficult to easily make the climb with their armor on and then they should either make the roll, or take off their armor. For events with straight DCs a character should have a pretty good idea if an average attempt will auto succeed. The GM should let them know that. Take 10 exists to speed up play and to prevent penalizing players from rolling poorly and failing an average difficulty task.

I know, I didn't say otherwise did I? I was giving an example of taking 10 failing. Thread is about taking 10 after all.

Speaking of which, taking 10 to sneak past the dragon, stealing a cup, and then going back has consequences of its own doesn't it? Being that dragons are dragons.

Shadow Lodge

They named a spell after these guys which gives you a +2 bonus to these skill checks.

+1 to the ambush argument
-1 to the routine jump argument

But really this has been argued to death. Taking ten a rule designed to speed up play has probably caused hundreds of hours of lost play time and broken up friendships. There are over 4,000+ posts here alone about it.

Take 10 hours finding me a post of someone reminiscing the time they took 10. I'll take 10 seconds digging up the thread of people reminiscing natural ones.

In project mayhem we have no names. In death, a member of project mayhem has a name. His name was Robert Paulson.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Take 10 hours finding me a post of someone reminiscing the time they took 10. I'll take 10 seconds digging up the thread of people reminiscing natural ones.

I played a game with a DM who didn't allow Take 10's. Absolutely ruined the game for me to have to roll every single trivial thing. More to the point, it robbed my character from feeling competent at something.

Before I play any Homebrew games, I makes sure the DM allows Take 10/20. If they don't. I won't play. If they take it away mid game (which I've seen them try) then I simply offer to leave.

Without T10/20, the skill system/mechanic is absurd.

Shadow Lodge

N N 959 wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Take 10 hours finding me a post of someone reminiscing the time they took 10. I'll take 10 seconds digging up the thread of people reminiscing natural ones.

I played a game with a DM who didn't allow Take 10's. Absolutely ruined the game for me to have to roll every single trivial thing. More to the point, it robbed my character from feeling competent at something.

Before I play any Homebrew games, I makes sure the DM allows Take 10/20. If they don't. I won't play. If they take it away mid game (which I've seen them try) then I simply offer to leave.

Without T10/20, the skill system/mechanic is absurd.

Maybe it isn't the rolling that is absurd but rolling for dumb things that is. What's also absurd is 100% success over something you really only have a 55% success chance of doing.

I like the roll and a chance at failure. I think it adds to the tension of the game. If it were me and all you had to do is not roll a -10 to jump that pit i'd make you roll and if you rolled a one you'd trip during your run and your team would laugh at you. Dust off try again. Then again i'd also want to see if you rolled 2-3 ones in a row and if we maybe had to sew you back together a bit.

Want to show your competence cast featherfall before the jump, cast entangle on the ledge where your friend just fell short and is hanging for dear life, levetate a 300 lb. boulder with a rope tied onto it and shove it across the gap, how far can you swing on a rope tricked rope? ghost sound(crickets chirping) for an outdoor stealth, silence, invisibility, knowledge local the guard isn't sleeping he was drinking all day at the tavern, knowledge local the guard captain hates his job and doesn't care whether everyone sleeps on their shift, this guard works during the day too.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Maybe it isn't the rolling that is absurd but rolling for dumb things that is. What's also absurd is 100% success over something you really only have a 55% success chance of doing.

Which is exactly why the Take 10 rule exists, because in real life I have more than a 50% chance of succeeding at a whole bunch of things when not under duress. I'm like 99% to make a lay-in unguarded in a gym all by myself. If I'm getting shot at, that probably drops down to about 10%.

Now do you understand?

Shadow Lodge

N N 959 wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Maybe it isn't the rolling that is absurd but rolling for dumb things that is. What's also absurd is 100% success over something you really only have a 55% success chance of doing.

Which is exactly why the Take 10 rule exists, because in real life I have more than a 50% chance of succeeding at a whole bunch of things when not under duress. I'm like 99% to make a lay-in unguarded in a gym all by myself. If I'm getting shot at, that probably drops down to about 10%.

Now do you understand?

Yeah, if you can only make a layup 50% ungaurded in a gym. You're proving it in a bet for $100 whether anyone's shooting at you or not. I can make a layup 95% of the time unguarded. Are you just going to hand me the $100?


So... What has my thread mutated into and why are we talking about gambling? Can we get back to stealth and stuffs?


MrSin wrote:
Aureate wrote:
As for players failing a DC 10 climb check. Were they in any sort of hurry? Or in combat? If not, why did they roll rather than take 10? I would say that it is because either the GM didn't LET them take 10, or that they weren't aware that they could.
Armor check penalty can push you below a 10 on a take 10. Many GMs I've had in PFS or at homegames tell me I can't take 10 or 20 even for trivial situations becuase theres a threat of failure or a made up distraction. The main reason I've seen is that they think it trivalizes things. Can't do much at home, but in PFS I can fight with RAW.

The problem there is you need to use a message board post for clarification. Otherwise hanging off of a 500 foot cliff you could roll a 1 and fall off of can certainly be considered immediate danger.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The problem there is you need to use a message board post for clarification. Otherwise hanging off of a 500 foot cliff you could roll a 1 and fall off of can certainly be considered immediate danger.

And taking a 1d4-1 arrow when you have 100+hps would not be a threat, you've had hang nails that did more damage.

Yet, the goblin firing on you is am immediate danger, while the possible consequence for failure is not.

The main point of the take 10 rule is for skills where you could fail and want to be sure that you do not. Consider crafting an item that you've got all of your funds locked into.. this is a perfect place to take 10. Yet the penalty for failure is very high.. perhaps you could pay for the raise dead in another situation with the funds you would lose here!

High penalty for failure is not the litmus test for taking 10. Being rushed is. Being threatened is.

People tend not to care for the rule for gamest reasons, and many then look to impose that view on their reading. Frankly at this point it would be nice if they simply changed it to just plainly say combat and ignore the possibility of running from rolling boulders, etc.

-James


James Maissen wrote:
People tend not to care for the rule for gamest reasons... People tend not to care for the rule for gamest reasons, and many then look to impose that view on their reading

Ad hom.

There are plenty of good reasons for the discrepancy between apparent designer intent and how its being read (not the least of which was picking a really bad example in 3.5- Krusk couldn't fall). Having seen SKR's post I've widened my interpretation of when it was allowed, but there's nothing you can underline in the book to tell a dm "I'm only dangling off a 500 foot cliff by my fingernails, no immediate danger here..."

Quote:
while the possible consequence for failure is not.

Which isn't spelled out or even hinted at in the rule book, or in reality. Put a 4 inch wide beam a foot off the floor and people walk over it no problem. Put a 4 inch wide plank down over a stream or, worse, in between two skyscrapers and people get nervous and fall off.

Quote:
And taking a 1d4-1 arrow when you have 100+hps would not be a threat, you've had hang nails that did more damage.

Its certainly distracting. Even if you'll be fine, the arrow is shaking you when you're trying to pick a lock or hitting your arm when you're going for a hand hold.


The way I do it is like someone already said...

You can take 10 unless something else is distracting you.

Even if the risk of failure is dangerous, you can still take ten.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Maybe it isn't the rolling that is absurd but rolling for dumb things that is. What's also absurd is 100% success over something you really only have a 55% success chance of doing.

Which is exactly why the Take 10 rule exists, because in real life I have more than a 50% chance of succeeding at a whole bunch of things when not under duress. I'm like 99% to make a lay-in unguarded in a gym all by myself. If I'm getting shot at, that probably drops down to about 10%.

Now do you understand?

Yeah, if you can only make a layup 50% ungaurded in a gym. You're proving it in a bet for $100 whether anyone's shooting at you or not. I can make a layup 95% of the time unguarded. Are you just going to hand me the $100?

I have no idea what you're talking about or how this relates to what I posted.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

You can take 10 on any skill that does not explicitly disallow it. The following are all from designer Sean K Reynolds:

SKR uses "take 10 on stealth" as an example in a related discussion. Makes it pretty obviously legal.

"It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump."

"Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand."

"Even if you don't know it's exactly 10 feet, then you can still Take 10... and risk failing if the DC was actually 11. The Take 10 rules don't say "you can only do this if there's no risk of failure." There's absolutely no game difference between Taking 10 and rolling a 10 on the d20. It's success or failure based on getting a 10 on the d20, whether you roll it or select it with the Take 10 rule. The rule is in the game to let players use it if they don't want to roll."

(Emphasis his, not mine.)

You have it straight from the horse's mouth, folks. That's both RAW and RAI. Taking 10 on out-of-combat stealth, or to jump a deep chasm, or whatever else even if failing would harm you, is exactly how T10 is supposed to work.


When do you have an out of combat stealth check?

Combat starts. Then you determine awareness (probably by rolling stealth vs perception)

I'm sure there are corner cases where you're not in combat (sneaking by the maid for example) but for what most people want to use stealth for you're in combat when you use it, even if your action is going to be using stealth to move away.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thank you Jiggy.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
When do you have an out of combat stealth check?

When you're setting up an ambush 30 minutes before the nobleman's carriage goes rolling by on the road?

Liberty's Edge

Wow, this again? Seriously?

Grick wrote:

Time required to take 10:

Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Taking 10 requires only as much time as making one check."

Is the action I'm performing a distraction?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things."

Can I Take-10 on opposed rolls, like Stealth?
Sean K Reynolds (Developer): "It's really no different than being a lazy player with a +9 Stealth rogue who thinks he can take 10 on a Stealth check past a guard because he thinks the guard is just some +2 Spot loser... except he doesn't know the guard is actually an important NPC with a +10 Spot. You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences."

Count Buggula wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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:

Core Rulebook wrote:
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:

Core Rulebook wrote:
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.


Xaratherus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
When do you have an out of combat stealth check?
When you're setting up an ambush 30 minutes before the nobleman's carriage goes rolling by on the road?

I'd buy that.

But normally the bad guys seem to have that info about the PCs, the PCs rarely have that sort of info (time and place) about the badguys.


But if they ARE looking for you, then rolling a d20 for Perception might result in a worse result. Moreover, there are consequences for failing a Perception check, so you can't really take your time with it, since taking 10 assumes you are doing multiple attempts and some of them fail.

Liberty's Edge

Piccolo wrote:
But if they ARE looking for you, then rolling a d20 for Perception might result in a worse result. Moreover, there are no consequences for failing a Perception check, so you can really take your time with it, since taking 20 assumes you are doing multiple attempts and some of them fail.

Corrected.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
But if they ARE looking for you, then rolling a d20 for Perception might result in a worse result. Moreover, there are consequences for failing a Perception check, so you can't really take your time with it, since taking 10 assumes you are doing multiple attempts and some of them fail.

No. No no no no no no no no no no. NO.

No.


Piccolo,

To put extrapolate on Oladons objections, that's the take 20 rules. The take 10 rules don't require any extra time.


Let's note that taking 10 on a stealth check does not automatically assure success.

In the example stated - sneaking up toward a sleeping guard - I would allow the guard a perception check. Why? He's a guard; it's his job to pay attention for things, and that can rub off on you, even when you're asleep. If he were a non-combat NPC class, maybe not - or I might increase the DC (see below).

See here. The DC of a perception check made by a sleeping character automatically goes up by +10 - it's the second-to-last entry on the chart.

This means that to hear a rogue who "takes 10" on a stealth check would be 20 - 10 for the rogue's skill, and 10 for the fact that the guard was sleeping. If the guard's perception is a +8, and he rolls a 12, then Sneaky McRoguerson would have still woken him up, no matter how slowly he was moving.


Xaratherus wrote:

Let's note that taking 10 on a stealth check does not automatically assure success.

In the example stated - sneaking up toward a sleeping guard - I would allow the guard a perception check. Why? He's a guard; it's his job to pay attention for things, and that can rub off on you, even when you're asleep. If he were a non-combat NPC class, maybe not - or I might increase the DC (see below).

See here. The DC of a perception check made by a sleeping character automatically goes up by +10 - it's the second-to-last entry on the chart.

This means that to hear a rogue who "takes 10" on a stealth check would be 20 - 10 for the rogue's skill, and 10 for the fact that the guard was sleeping. If the guard's perception is a +8, and he rolls a 12, then Sneaky McRoguerson would have still woken him up, no matter how slowly he was moving.

Wouldn't it still be an opposed roll: Rogue's Stealth + 10(Take 10) + 10 (sleeping) vs Guard's Perception + Guard's Roll?

He'd only make it with Perception 8 and a roll of 12 if the Rogue had a 0 Stealth.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

When do you have an out of combat stealth check?

Combat starts. Then you determine awareness (probably by rolling stealth vs perception)

I'm sure there are corner cases where you're not in combat (sneaking by the maid for example) but for what most people want to use stealth for you're in combat when you use it, even if your action is going to be using stealth to move away.

Not everything is combat. If I'm a thief trying to sneak into the palace, do I enter "combat" as soon as I come within perception range of a guard?

Exactly what is perception range anyway? Line of Sight? Greatest distance they could possibly hear me? Are you ever out of combat?


thejeff wrote:


Not everything is combat.

Blasphemy! roll initiative! *readies trout*

Quote:
If I'm a thief trying to sneak into the palace, do I enter "combat" as soon as I come within perception range of a guard?

Quite possibly.

Quote:
Exactly what is perception range anyway? Line of Sight? Greatest distance they could possibly hear me? Are you ever out of combat?

Technically i suppose it would be the greatest distance at which you could conceivably be heard but in all practicality its probably the edge of the game map.


thejeff wrote:

Wouldn't it still be an opposed roll: Rogue's Stealth + 10(Take 10) + 10 (sleeping) vs Guard's Perception + Guard's Roll?

He'd only make it with Perception 8 and a roll of 12 if the Rogue had a 0 Stealth.

You're correct, yes.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Not everything is combat.

Blasphemy! roll initiative! *readies trout*

Quote:
If I'm a thief trying to sneak into the palace, do I enter "combat" as soon as I come within perception range of a guard?

Quite possibly.

Quote:
Exactly what is perception range anyway? Line of Sight? Greatest distance they could possibly hear me? Are you ever out of combat?
Technically i suppose it would be the greatest distance at which you could conceivably be heard but in all practicality its probably the edge of the game map.

And if there is no game map? :)

More seriously, for these purposes, I'd consider combat to be when people actually start attacking. A non-technical use of the term, if you will. People standing around talking is not combat. Sneaking past the guard is not combat. Climbing the wall is not combat, unless someone is trying to kill you while you're doing it.


Thejeff wrote:
Sneaking past the guard is not combat

I could see a DM ruling that way, but that seems a little Schrodinger's cat to me. It will be combat if they're spotted but if you're determining awareness then you're already in combat.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
Sneaking past the guard is not combat

I could see a DM ruling that way, but that seems a little Schrodinger's cat to me. It will be combat if they're spotted but if you're determining awareness then you're already in combat.

Except that SKR has EXPLICITLY listed this as an instance where you want to take 10. If a success on the skill check means that there's still no threat and still no combat, then you can take 10. Sneaking past the guard has been stated over and over again as one of the prime examples of when you ARE able to take ten.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
Sneaking past the guard is not combat
I could see a DM ruling that way, but that seems a little Schrodinger's cat to me. It will be combat if they're spotted but if you're determining awareness then you're already in combat.

I disagree with that. I don't buy the idea that every interaction between people in PF is combat. Combat is when you start trying to beat each other up.

At least for these purposes. Remember we're talking about being distracted from my attempt at sneaking by the combat. If nobody's shooting at me or casting spells or any of the other fighty type things, I'm not being distracted by it.

That's the point of this, not the technical PF definition of when combat starts.
Especially since the very example SKR gives is sneaking past a guard.


not being able to take 10 because something's dangerous is absolutely ridiculous.

That's like saying you can't take 10 to step over a 0.5' pressure plate because it's dangerous. It has nothing to do with how dangerous something is, but how pressured you are on time and freedom.

If a PC is in combat with something (that threatens them), there's 2 things that PC doesn't have that they normally do have:
1. time
2. freedom of doing any action or moving anywhere.

That is why a PC cannot take 10 in combat or imminent threats. sleeping guards and pools of lava are not imminent threats limiting one's time or freedom AT ALL. If you want to say that a character has a phobia of heights or lava, then make them do a will check in order to take 10 or to not have a penalty to the roll, but don't just paint with a wide brush that no one can take 10 to jump over a simple gap.

One should consider taking-10 as taking 10-150% more time to be diligent in what they're about to do, such as aligning their jump, assessing the distance and heights, moving back far enough for a running start, taking extra time not to do anything that might make sound, testing a foothold before they put all their weight on it, thinking everything through, or even just simply doing some stretching or special breathing or meditation before


Count Buggula wrote:


Caineach wrote:
"Core rulebook wrote:
"Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible to Take 10.

There's a word that starts off the sentence: distractions. The qualifier "such as combat" refers to "threats," it does not refer to "distractions."

A raging river of lava may very well be a distraction. The height of the beam above the ground may be a distraction. How often do you hear the phrase in a movie, "Don't look down"? It doesn't qualify as a "threat" it qualifies as a "distraction." If Paizo wants to make it unequivocal that the thing being crossed over can never constitute a distraction to the person crossing, then that needs to be explicit.

Sorry, but what constitutes a "distraction" is up to the DM to decide. Sean's post doesn't contradict that. A single distraction can make it impossible to Take 10.

I'm not saying I like it, but that's how it's written.

EDIT:
The categorical problem with Sean's example of jumping is that the distance one can jump is largely unaffected by anything except the weight you're carrying. Compare that with crossing a tightrope which relies heavily on concentration. I can guarantee you that if you put a beam up high over flowing lava, with intense heating come off it, a LOT more people are going to lose their balance than if you put it 3" off the ground.

In reality, there are some skills (like jumping) that you would be able to Take 10 on even in combat.

Liberty's Edge

Ok, read the quote again. SKR made it quite clear.

Is the action I'm performing a distraction?

Sean K Reynolds (Developer) wrote:
"Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things."

If there's something OTHER than that big boiling pit of lava that you're trying to jump over that's distracting you, then you can't take 10. But if the distraction is the subject of your skill check, you can take 10.


The task at hand is walking a 6" beam. Walking a beam is not a distraction. The task at hand is moving quietly. To say it doesn't matter what you're trying to avoid or cross is simply nonsensical. Sorry. The idea that if I make noise while sneaking I will set off a nuclear bomb has no affect on my ability to concentrate vs waking my sleeping cat, is once gain, absurd

Sean's post reads like a plea. One which I generally agree with, but he needs to rewrite the Take 10 rules because otherwise a GM is completely justified in saying the heat from the lava is causing you to sweat and you can't take 10.

When a word as ambiguous and broad as "distraction" is allowed to preclude a T10 (and has not been removed), than there's some specific intent on the author's part to give the GM full discretion in the use of T10.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your whole argument here is based off the assumption that "like combat" is only modifying the word "threat" and not also "distractions". The problem is that the English language could allow both interpretations, and SKR has provided multiple examples of when you should be able to take 10, such as jumping over a pit, whether filled with lava or a bottomless chasm, sneaking past guards, etc.

There's plenty of distractions other than the task at hand that I could think of that would play into reasons not to take 10, such as trying to climb a cliff in the middle of a thunderstorm (because the thunderstorm has nothing to do with climbing the cliff).

Now you mentioned something in your lava example that I could agree with. If you're trying to cross a pit of lava on a 6" beam, normally I'd say go ahead and take 10. But if you're really close enough to the lava that the heat is dangerous, requiring a fortitude save or something, then I completely agree that the heat constitutes a distraction and you can't take 10.

But if the only "distracting" thing about your task is that it looks scary or dangerous, you can still take 10.


Jumping is not analogous to other skills which require concentration. Sure, we can all lump them into the same boat, but Sean is using a real world example and then ignoring the fact that in the real world, jumping involves almost zero concentration while many of the other skills require tons of concentration. That's big deal when you're talking about what constitutes a distraction.


Count Buggula wrote:
Your whole argument here is based off the assumption that "like combat" is only modifying the word "threat" and not also "distractions". The problem is that the English language could allow both interpretations...

Not really. It's pretty basic reading comprehension that "like combat" can only be referring to a "threat."

Trying to argue that "like combat" should modify "distractions" is grasping at straws. It would be nonsensical for the author to write what they wrote and have meant" distractions (like combat) or threats (like combat)..."

I get what Sean is trying to say and what he is trying to do. Like me, he believes in T10 being used to let skilled players do things consistently. But the rule was specifically written to allow a simple distraction. The plain English translation is something that can break your concentration.

The "task at hand" is putting one foot in front of the other on a 6" beam. The raging river, lava pit, or snapping crocodiles are external to whether you can maintain your balance on a 6" beam. Their existence can prove to be a "distraction" to what you're trying to focus on: putting one foot in front of the other without falling off. The task at hand is not crossing lava. The skill doesn't let you cross lava, it lets you walk a narrow beam.

Shadow Lodge

james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The problem there is you need to use a message board post for clarification. Otherwise hanging off of a 500 foot cliff you could roll a 1 and fall off of can certainly be considered immediate danger.

And taking a 1d4-1 arrow when you have 100+hps would not be a threat, you've had hang nails that did more damage.

Yet, the goblin firing on you is am immediate danger, while the possible consequence for failure is not.

-James

I agree in this situation 1d4-1 is trivial. What's that one two fingers maybe?


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
james maissen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The problem there is you need to use a message board post for clarification. Otherwise hanging off of a 500 foot cliff you could roll a 1 and fall off of can certainly be considered immediate danger.

And taking a 1d4-1 arrow when you have 100+hps would not be a threat, you've had hang nails that did more damage.

Yet, the goblin firing on you is am immediate danger, while the possible consequence for failure is not.

-James

I agree in this situation 1d4-1 is trivial. What's that one two fingers maybe?

if he rolls a 1 on that d4, it's just a bruise

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:

While I am a big fan of Taking 10 and Taking 20, Sean's example is a disanalogy. There's difference between climbing a wall at REI and climbing over a 60ft chasm with sharp rocks below.

The problem is how the T10 rule is written. Falling to your death if you lose your grip is a distraction. Sorry, there's no way around that. NBA players miss lay-ups with nobody guarding them, but they are distracted by the fact that someone could be coming to block their shot. I've seen pitchers in MLB overthrow the 1st baseman and they aren't in immediate danger or threatened. It's the game time environment that causes the distraction.

That having been said, I would allow T10's on climb checks and probably on the sleeping guard. :)

But Sean's post reads more like a plea to be reasonable. Unfortuantely, RAW has a gaping hole that any DM could use to preclude a lot of T10's.

Your interpretation has just killed all free climbers in the world.

The second you decide that using the skill and the goal you are trying to achieve using it are distracting activities you always disallow taking 10. It is not how it work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MrSin wrote:
Aureate wrote:
As for players failing a DC 10 climb check. Were they in any sort of hurry? Or in combat? If not, why did they roll rather than take 10? I would say that it is because either the GM didn't LET them take 10, or that they weren't aware that they could.
Armor check penalty can push you below a 10 on a take 10. Many GMs I've had in PFS or at homegames tell me I can't take 10 or 20 even for trivial situations becuase theres a threat of failure or a made up distraction. The main reason I've seen is that they think it trivalizes things. Can't do much at home, but in PFS I can fight with RAW.

The point of Taking 10 is exactly that. Trivializing a skill check that is trivial for that character.

You avoid rolling an needless number of dices.

My master thief want to move stealthy through the castle until he get tot the treasure room. With his +20 skill bonus he can take 10 and move around with a automatic result of 30, this way we avoid rolling a skill check every time a guard has the chance to succeed at a perception skill check with a 20 if the rogue roll a 1.

Same thing on the guard part: they are doing a routine task, they don't roll against every stimulus, they take 10 on the perception roll.
Again it trivialize the guard actions.

Do it this way and the master thief will get to the core of the adventure in 2 minutes of game time.
Roll every guard, in every room, every round against the rogue stealthy movement and you will spend a evening doing nothing beside rolling.
The worse way to spend a gaming day, especially at PFS where people has come to play, not to look two guys rolling dices.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:


Want to show your competence cast featherfall before the jump,

Not a great show of competence as the target line of the spell say:

Targets one Medium or smaller freefalling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart

A creature that isn't freefalling isn't a valid target, so you have just burned a spell without any benefit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

When do you have an out of combat stealth check?

Combat starts. Then you determine awareness (probably by rolling stealth vs perception)

I'm sure there are corner cases where you're not in combat (sneaking by the maid for example) but for what most people want to use stealth for you're in combat when you use it, even if your action is going to be using stealth to move away.

You use stealth to avoid combat, not during it. BNW. Combat start when you are noticed, not the other way.


Diego Rossi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

When do you have an out of combat stealth check?

Combat starts. Then you determine awareness (probably by rolling stealth vs perception)

I'm sure there are corner cases where you're not in combat (sneaking by the maid for example) but for what most people want to use stealth for you're in combat when you use it, even if your action is going to be using stealth to move away.

You use stealth to avoid combat, not during it. BNW. Combat start when you are noticed, not the other way.

Scroll up. This is objectively wrong.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:

I agree in this situation 1d4-1 is trivial. What's that one two fingers maybe?

Normally not a big deal. When you're trying to pick a lock or worse, hang off the side of the cliff those fingers might be important...

51 to 100 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Take 10 with stealth All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.