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.
So if he's going to move up to sap the guard, at what point does combat start?
Quote:
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.
There's also the immediate danger clause. The big burly guy with the sharp pokey metal object standing there, probably taking his move action to look around every round, certainly qualifies as one of those in my book.
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.
Not only that, but with that kind of repetitive opposed check, it guarantees eventual failure: At some point, the rogue will roll a 1 and a guard will roll a 20. It's like a reverse Take 20. Unless your stealth is so much higher that they can't see you, it becomes far too risky for anything but very short times.
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.
Not at all.
You are confusing a specific situation, checking awareness at the start of a battle, with a general rule of steal vs perception to detect someone before a battle beings.
You have decided that "combat" being when people is in perceptive range. That is an arbitrary decision that has no basis on the rules.
With your interpretation practically no one would ever be caught flat footed.
This how it would work with your interpretation:
"The guard rolling a 20 can detect the party member with the worst stealth value rolling a 1 at 150', so combat start at 150', the guard roll perception vs stealth, he fail but combat at begun so next round the guard act on his initiative turn and is no more flat footed."
Instead combat begin when:
a) the guard detect some of the party member and decide to act
or
b) the party members decide to attack the guards. Notice that you have already determined awareness, as you check it before combat.
PDF wrote:
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.
Note that it say "Determine which characters are aware", not roll perception against stealth.
PRDX wrote:
Surprise
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.
Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Read it carefully. Nowhere it say that you roll perception after the battle start.
If say that you are aware or unaware "When a combat starts", i.e. who is aware or unaware is determined before the start of the battle, and one side becoming aware of the other is how the battle start.
You have decided that "combat" being when people is in perceptive range. That is an arbitrary decision that has no basis on the rules.
Its something the DM can decide. In fact they have to because there's no technical point at which combat starts.
You're assuming the system is fully thought out, crystal clear in black and white. Its not. When combat starts is entirely subjective, that means it falls to the DM.
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.
So if he's going to move up to sap the guard, at what point does combat start?
If he isn't detected, the surprise round is the sap coming down on the guard's head. If he is detected, there is no surprise round, and combat starts at the distance he is detected at.
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.
So if he's going to move up to sap the guard, at what point does combat start?
When he makes the attack. Or when the guard makes a perception check.
How would it work otherwise? In your interpretation, combat starts when the rogue first spots the guard, right? Since they're in combat and the guard isn't aware of the rogue, there's a surprise round in which only the rogue gets to act. He only gets a standard or move action.
There is no indication in the combat rules that having more than one surprise round is possible. Apparently after the surprise round all parties are aware they are in combat and can act appropriately on their initiative.
I have no idea why anyone who actually understands the Take 10 rules, would hate them so much, that they find any excuse to deny them.
Some reasoning to deny it, posted here, are so contrived, that only largest troll of a DM would use them.
The scene plays out quite hilarious in my mind though.
"No my powerless PCs, you will roll, and roll, and roll until dawn breaks, for I am DM, and therefore God. Your puny attempts to speed things along are for naught!"
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Combat begins when someone takes offensive action, not when someone is spotted.
It's entirely possible that the spotting would lead to a calling of reinforcements, or to a parley, or to any number of other things that are not immediate combat.
When he makes the attack. Or when the guard makes a perception check.
That makes the order of combat determine awareness and then start combat.
Quote:
How would it work otherwise?
There really aren't any hard and fast rules, which is really surprising for something this common.
I'd start combat with the rogue around the nearest convenient corner from the guard.
(given the problems with the stealth rules though it probably won't matter, he'll cross an area where he autofails anyway)
Quote:
In your interpretation, combat starts when the rogue first spots the guard, right?
My interpretation of raw is that raw is incredibly vague on the subject of exactly when combat starts. If something is vague then its the DMs call.
Sneaking up on the guard isn't shoeing a horse. Its not something you do to get to the adventure it IS the adventure (a stealth mission apparently)
How would you deal with the Surprise round issue I brought up? That there is only one surprise round?
I'd say combat starts when someone wants to attack. At that point, per the rules, the GM determines who is aware of their opponents and who is not. This may involve Perception checks or it may just be obvious. If someone isn't aware, then there's a surprise round and the others get an action.
But if no one is trying to attack, then there is no combat. If you spot some guards and walk up to them to chat, you're not in combat. If they spot you and just yell "Hey, get away from there.", you're still not in combat.
There is nothing in the rules that says the only time you can become aware of someone is in combat. Just that when combat starts you have to know who is aware of their opponents.
Finally, I find it kind of funny that some trivialize physical skills saying they need no concentration by pointing to real world sports when in the real world of sports we have this saying that goes, "That's why they play the game."
Finally, I find it kind of funny that some trivialize physical skills saying they need no concentration by pointing to real world sports when in the real world of sports we have this saying that goes, "That's why they play the game."
Well, in an actual sports game, the opposing team often provides the distraction.
You also are not usually trying just to do your average but risking more to excel: IOW, you're rolling not taking 10.
You also are not usually trying just to do your average but risking more to excel: IOW, you're rolling not taking 10.
I used to think T10 was about doing an average job, but that's not what the rule states. It really has nothing to do with the amount of effort. It's an OOC game mechanic to simply bypass tasks that a person with sufficient skill should be competent at doing. As Sean suggestes: jumping six feet from standing position. Without T10, you'd get silly results of an average Commoner not being able to jump two feet. In RL, you'd crash your car about once every twenty times you got on the freeway.
Take 10 is simply rolling a 10 on the die. It is not based on a level of effort.
Bardbarian is simply mocking others by suggesting that he agrees 1d4-1 should not count as distraction because it's only a few fingers (rofl). As such, I agree with him. Taking damage was meant to automatically preclude T10. While that's an unfortunate casualty for jumping, even a paper cut is sufficient to break someone's concentration.
@BBT
Quote:
I have no idea why anyone who actually understands the Take 10 rules, would hate them so much, that they find any excuse to deny them.
You're confusing the ability to do something with the mandate to do something. What I find interesting in this thread is that nearly everyone wants to hand-waive and ignore the "distraction" clause in the mechanic. Instead, people want to argue the "immediate danger" aspect and convince themselves that once they pass that hurdle, they are home free. *waves Mutumbo finger*
The point is that DM's have discretion and it is beyond obvious the authors of the rule meant for the DM's to have that discretion or they wouldn't have left the barn door open with a word like "distraction" without even bother to narrow its definition with a single example. It doesn't say physical or harmful distraction, just plain old distraction. Which means your ex-girlfriend nagging you could cause you to fall off a cliff to your death.
Clearly the lesson is that you should be careful who you bring with you on adventures. *smirk*
In practice, the real crime is not DM's denying T10, it's all the players I see who won't T10 when they can. IME, far more puppies are drowned because of that than mean DM's.
You also are not usually trying just to do your average but risking more to excel: IOW, you're rolling not taking 10.
I used to think T10 was about doing an average job, but that's not what the rule states. It really has nothing to do with the amount of effort. It's an OOC game mechanic to simply bypass tasks that a person with sufficient skill should be competent at doing. As Sean suggestes: jumping six feet from standing position. Without T10, you'd get silly results of an average Commoner not being able to jump two feet. You'd in RL, you'd crash your car about once every twenty times you got on the freeway.
Take 10 is simply rolling a 10 on the die. It is not based on a level of effort.
Well it may not be based on level of effort, but it certainly does produce an average result.
Or are you saying it's strictly a metagame thing? That the character would not be deciding to Take 10 vs rolling?
Obviously the character wouldn't think of it like that, but in my mind it would map onto something the character could decide.
It's 100% a meta game thing. But without it, the skill system is absurd. Without it, creature could not demonstrate competence at a task, which is RL thing.
Funnily enough, one of the quotes from SKR that I linked was part of a dialogue between him and a poster who believed T10 was metagamey. I would encourage you to check it out, as the guy who wrote the rule was quite adamant that T10 is *not* metagamey, because (paraphrasing him here) your PC knows what he can do on his best day, on his worst day, and on average.
It's 100% a meta game thing. But without it, the skill system is absurd. Without it, creature could not demonstrate competence at a task, which is RL thing.
I don't like that.
I don't like having to make decisions about what my character does that effect how well he does it, that are things my character can't think about. That don't trace in some way to a decision he could make.
In this case, there is a real effect. You Take 10 when you think you'll be able to succeed most of the time and you don't care about how much you succeed by. That seems like a perfectly reasonable IC thought process.
Funnily enough, one of the quotes from SKR that I linked was part of a dialogue between him and a poster who believed T10 was metagamey. I would encourage you to check it out, as the guy who wrote the rule was quite adamant that T10 is *not* metagamey, because (paraphrasing him here) your PC knows what he can do on his best day, on his worst day, and on average.
Its not metagamey on a jump check or a craft check, but how about on a knowledge check or a search check?
I'm sure it never occurred to SKR during his long and frustrated discussion on the topic that he just happened to be using the only skill or two that fit his view of a rule he wrote.
Funnily enough, one of the quotes from SKR that I linked was part of a dialogue between him and a poster who believed T10 was metagamey. I would encourage you to check it out, as the guy who wrote the rule was quite adamant that T10 is *not* metagamey, because (paraphrasing him here) your PC knows what he can do on his best day, on his worst day, and on average.
I would agree with that for T20, but the rule is written is metagame. The character is treated as having rolled a 10.
Quote:
Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.
That's as meta game as you can get. The rule says nothing about the level of effort exhibited, so the rule, as written, contradicts the idea the character is considering the level of effort exerted.
I'm sure it never occurred to SKR during his long and frustrated discussion on the topic that he just happened to be using the only skill or two that fit his view of a rule he wrote.
/sarcasm
Then why didn't he address the obvious? The jump skill is one skill that you should be able to T10 on IN combat. The obviousness of that incongruity with something like trying to pick a lock should have been addressed.
As stated, I read Sean's post as plea to GM's to not be ridiculous and make the game exceedingly tedious. More to the point, he completely ignores the distraction aspect of the rule. I agree with his philosophy, but that doesn't change how the rule is written or what is allowable.
That's silly. Any time a rule is expressed in mechanical terms it's "written as metagame"?
How about
Taking 10 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Sure it's expressed in terms of rolls, but that just makes it easier to write. You could express the same thing in character terms, but it would be more awkward. "A bad try might fail and you don't need to do an excellent one."
Compare with Power Attack:
Quote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.
Also expressed completely in mechanical terms: bonuses, penalties, rolls. Is that also a completely meta game decision? The character doesn't choose when to Power Attack?
It should also be noted thatt in the discussion you can take 10 even if you are wrong about the distance and you may actually be in danger. What that means to me is distraction is defined by if the playerr percieves something to be distracting, not if it is actually risky. You can take 10 and fall to your death.
I'm sure it never occurred to SKR during his long and frustrated discussion on the topic that he just happened to be using the only skill or two that fit his view of a rule he wrote.
/sarcasm
Then why didn't he address the obvious? The jump skill is one skill that you should be able to T10 on IN combat. The obviousness of that incongruity with something like trying to pick a lock should have been addressed.
I disagree. Jumping may not require concentration, but to do it well still requires technique. Having to duck an arrow or a sword swing just as you're setting to spring is going to ruin your jump.
It should also be noted thatt in the discussion you can take 10 even if you are wrong about the distance and you may actually be in danger. What that means to me is distraction is defined by if the playerr percieves something to be distracting, not if it is actually risky. You can take 10 and fall to your death.
Though I think you'd be a lousy GM to allow it. At least not without serious protest.
Most of the instant death cases, you should know ahead of time whether you can succeed or not.
Of course, if you tell the player "That looks like a risky jump for you" and he still says "I'll Take 10", then all bets are off.
I'm sure it never occurred to SKR during his long and frustrated discussion on the topic that he just happened to be using the only skill or two that fit his view of a rule he wrote.
/sarcasm
Not helpful Jiggy.
Spoiler:
Acrobatics- Not metagamey
Appraise= metagamey
Bluff- i don't think its metagamey
Climb- not metagamey, you can see handholds or the lack thereof, and if you have a sheer wall of
Craft- Not metagamey. I know the difference between trying something brilliant and reverting to stock.
Diplomacy- Not metgamey. Taking 10 = talking about the weather.
Disable Device- a little metagamey.
Disguise- not metagamey
Escape Artist- metagamey, not that it maters.
Fly not metagamey
Handle Animal not metagamey
Heal - only metagamey if you're trying to diagnose something.
Intimidate-not metagamey
Knowledges- VERY metagamey. How do you put an average amount of effort into remembering something?
Linguistics- metagamey. How do you put an average effort into a translation?
Perception- metagamey. Do you ever not look as hard as you can for the death trap?
Perform- not metagamey. Just stick to the sheet music.
Profession- Not metagamey. just stick to the recipee.
Ride- Not metagamey, just let the horse steer.
Sense Motive- metagamey.
Sleight of Hand- hmmmmm. I'm thinking metagamey
Spellcraft- same as knowledge.
Stealth - strikes me as metagamey.
Survival- tracking= metagamey. Just sticking to the berries you're SURE aren't poisonous= not.
Swim- not. Its immediately obvious how hard the water is.
It's 100% a meta game thing. But without it, the skill system is absurd. Without it, creature could not demonstrate competence at a task, which is RL thing.
I don't like that.
I don't like having to make decisions about what my character does that effect how well he does it, that are things my character can't think about. That don't trace in some way to a decision he could make.
In this case, there is a real effect. You Take 10 when you think you'll be able to succeed most of the time and you don't care about how much you succeed by. That seems like a perfectly reasonable IC thought process.
Let's step back and make sure we're talking about the same thing. Agreeing to trade a roll of the die for a fixed number is 100% metagame. The character has no concept of the exchange the player has made.
The way I read T10, it's a metagame agreement with the skill system that says I'm going to let a character exhibit a base level of competency at a task. The character is putting for the the same effort on every task, except in this case the rules preclude a randomized outcome.
Why is this done? Because we couldn't have skill competence without it. There is nothing in the rule that talks about "average" anything. The only reason we use that term is because 10 is (really it's 10.5) the average result of 1d20.
Now, if you want to tell yourself that your agreement to T10 is the character deciding not to try too hard. I'm fine with that. It's not supported by the rules, but there's nothing wrong with going that route.
I'm sure it never occurred to SKR during his long and frustrated discussion on the topic that he just happened to be using the only skill or two that fit his view of a rule he wrote.
/sarcasm
Then why didn't he address the obvious? The jump skill is one skill that you should be able to T10 on IN combat. The obviousness of that incongruity with something like trying to pick a lock should have been addressed.
I disagree. Jumping may not require concentration, but to do it well still requires technique. Having to duck an arrow or a sword swing just as you're setting to spring is going to ruin your jump.
I agree with you except the no-T10 rule applies even if I'm in the room with someone who is being grappled and I'm not even remotely threatened by them. But by definition, i'm "in combat" so I can't T10.
Let's take hard look at what Sean is addressing: Climb and Jump. These are two skills that routinely involve avoiding injury or death out of combat. If we allow a DM to say the circumstances under which these skill are being attempted can be a distraction, then we're going to have a lot of PC deaths for stuff that is tangential to the missions. The cliff is suppose to stress the PC's, not routinely kill them.
While I agree with Sean's goal, the rules are poorly written to support that. The idea that there is no effect on one's concentration in walking a tight rope 3" off the ground versus 10,000' off the ground is simply absurd. The environment/circumstances under which a skill is attempted can be a distraction. Which means it can make it "impossible" to Take 10. If Paizo doesn't want the DM to have that discretion, they need to change the rule.
It's 100% a meta game thing. But without it, the skill system is absurd. Without it, creature could not demonstrate competence at a task, which is RL thing.
I don't like that.
I don't like having to make decisions about what my character does that effect how well he does it, that are things my character can't think about. That don't trace in some way to a decision he could make.
In this case, there is a real effect. You Take 10 when you think you'll be able to succeed most of the time and you don't care about how much you succeed by. That seems like a perfectly reasonable IC thought process.
Let's step back and make sure we're talking about the same thing. Agreeing to trade a roll of the die for a fixed number is 100% metagame. The character has no concept of the exchange the player has made.
The way I read T10, it's a metagame agreement with the skill system that says I'm going to let a character exhibit a base level of competency at a task. The character is putting for the the same effort on every task, except in this case the rules preclude a randomized outcome.
Why is this done? Because we couldn't have skill competence without it. There is nothing in the rule that talks about "average" anything. The only reason we use that term is because 10 is (really it's 10.5) the average result of 1d20.
Now, if you want to tell yourself that your agreement to T10 is the character deciding not to try too hard. I'm fine with that. It's not supported by the rules, but there's nothing wrong with going that route.
Power Attack is a 100% metagame decision to trade a -1 to attack for a +2 to damage. The character has no concept of the exchange the player has made.
Is that the same? How is it different?
I wouldn't map Take 10 directly to "How much effort", but to trying to avoid making errors rather then trying to do something exceptional.
How is metagaming to take 10? Its something you do all the time in real life without even thinking about it.
It depends on the skill. How do you put an average effort into knowing something? Why would you put anything but your best effort into disabling the death trap about to close down on your wrist? How do you do an average appraise? How do you do an average job of looking around?
You know that for a cr appropriate trap there's only so high they can reasonably set the dc. Get a decent perception score and take 10 and instead of finding 85% of traps you're finding 99% of of them.
While I agree with Sean's goal, the rules are poorly written to support that. The idea that there is no effect on one's concentration in walking a tight rope 3" off the ground versus 10,000' off the ground is simply absurd. The environment/circumstances under which a skill is attempted can be a distraction. Which means it can make it "impossible" to Take 10. If Paizo doesn't want the DM to have that discretion, they need to change the rule.
Well that much I agree with. The rules are badly written.
I think the idea that the threat or distraction needs to be distinct from the skill use goes a long way to clear them up, but I agree that it isn't in the text of the rule itself.
Power Attack is a 100% metagame decision to trade a -1 to attack for a +2 to damage. The character has no concept of the exchange the player has made. [/q]
Sure they do. When you're playing baseball with the orcs head you don't always swing for the fences, sometimes you're happy with the line drive.
Power Attack is a 100% metagame decision to trade a -1 to attack for a +2 to damage. The character has no concept of the exchange the player has made. Is that the same? How is it different?
Power attack is the character consciously trading power for accuracy.
Rulebook wrote:
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
The "you" is certainly not the player, but the character.
Now let's look at how T10 is written:
Rulebook wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
There's a clear distinction between who is making the decision. It doesn't get any more meta-game than that.
Quote:
I wouldn't map Take 10 directly to "How much effort", but to trying to avoid making errors rather then trying to do something exceptional.
That's fine. Whether T10 iss meta-game or not, is really immaterial, imo. You asked so I gave my opinion based on how the rule is written. If people want to say it's an "average" effort...<shrug>. Fine by me.
It depends on the skill. How do you put an average effort into knowing something?
"Well, I know Spain is in Europe, so I'm guessing it's right about here." Subsequently writes "SPAIN" on Belgium.
Quote:
Why would you put anything but your best effort into disabling the death trap about to close down on your wrist?
"I can see the mechanism and I'm pretty sure I know how to shut it off, so I'm not going to check for anything else like a redundant system or a tamper-proof trigger". If you're really good, it means you're confident enough in your skill that you know you won't lose that hand unless you royally screw the pooch. If you're not really good, it means you just consciously decided to become an amputee.
Quote:
How do you do an average appraise?
"Eh, I'm pretty sure I know what a ruby looks like, and how much they sell for". Congratulations, you just identified a greater augment crystal as a mundane ruby, and sold it as such.
Quote:
How do you do an average job of looking around?
Only looking for what you think you should be looking for, rather than looking for everything. And now the Shadowdancer leaning on the building taps you on the shoulder and says "hi". With her knife.
Really, coming up with ideas for how a person would do an average job of something isn't that hard. An argument from incredulity does not a conclusive argument make.
Quote:
You know that for a cr appropriate trap there's only so high they can reasonably set the dc. Get a decent perception score and take 10 and instead of finding 85% of traps you're finding 99% of of them.
And yet we nearly had a TPK because someone decided to run his hand along a mural before I could say "I'm searching the room for traps". Things like Taking 10 are there for assisting intelligent players with skilled characters who are fairly certain they won't come across any surprises as long as they're being moderately careful. If you're already finding 85% of traps when rolling (and I'm assuming triggering some portion of the remaining 15%), you're already skilled enough that taking the approach of "I'm going to be a little bit more careful and focused" only makes sense.
Things are not immediately "metagaming" just because you are using the mechanics to make decisions. The mechanics exist as a numerical representation of a situation, and any decisions you make within those mechanics is your representation of how your character responds to them. Is it prone to abuse the of IC/OOC knowledge divide? Everything in this game is prone to that. If you think players are abusing OOC knowledge, that's one thing, but what I'm mostly hearing is "someone who has invested in a skill shouldn't be able to expect that they will succeed at a CR-appropriate challenge". And that's kind of the entire point behind the taking 10 rule.
N N 959 wrote:
The idea that there is no effect on one's concentration in walking a tight rope 3" off the ground versus 10,000' off the ground is simply absurd.
And yet master acrobats train for crossing the Niagara Falls by walking tightropes just a few feet off the ground. A skilled acrobat has actually trained the issue of height out of their heads - 2 feet off the ground is the same as 6 is 40 is 200.
Funnily enough, one of the quotes from SKR that I linked was part of a dialogue between him and a poster who believed T10 was metagamey. I would encourage you to check it out, as the guy who wrote the rule was quite adamant that T10 is *not* metagamey, because (paraphrasing him here) your PC knows what he can do on his best day, on his worst day, and on average.
Take 10 is for "I know I should be able to do this on average, so rather than spending several rounds rolling for a result we know I'll get in a couple of tries, I'll just assume a roll of 10."
Notice the quotes? Sean isn't offering dialogue for the character, that's the player talking.
Later he says this, "And that's why take 10 is a convenience for the player...
As I said before, I think it's irrelevant whether it's meta-game or not.
And yet master acrobats train for crossing the Niagara Falls by walking tightropes just a few feet off the ground. A skilled acrobat has actually trained the issue of height out of their heads - 2 feet off the ground is the same as 6 is 40 is 200.
Sure. This translates to acquiring a feat that allows you to Take 10 when under duress. Probably something applicable to being a "master" acrobat.
Is there some class ability somewhere in PF that let's a character Take 10 even when they normally can't?
Really, coming up with ideas for how a person would do an average job of something isn't that hard. An argument from incredulity does not a conclusive argument make.
Then come up with a better counter argument. I didn't say they were against the rules. I said they were metagamey.
Quote:
"Well, I know Spain is in Europe, so I'm guessing it's right about here." Subsequently writes "SPAIN" on Belgium.
You're not going to get any further off by trying to ID the exact country.
Quote:
"Eh, I'm pretty sure I know what a ruby looks like, and how much they sell for". Congratulations, you just identified a greater augment crystal as a mundane ruby, and sold it as such.
which is an epic fail, the same as a 1. You're not going to get further off by being more precise.
Quote:
And yet we nearly had a TPK because someone decided to run his hand along a mural before I could say "I'm searching the room for traps".
Party members not letting the rogue get in rogue time is a separate problem.
And yet master acrobats train for crossing the Niagara Falls by walking tightropes just a few feet off the ground. A skilled acrobat has actually trained the issue of height out of their heads - 2 feet off the ground is the same as 6 is 40 is 200.
Sure. This translates to acquiring a feat that allows you to Take 10 when under duress. Probably something applicable to being a "master" acrobat.
Or does it just translate into having a high acrobatics skill?
If I could walk that tightrope as easily as a sidewalk, I might be perfectly comfortable doing it 200' up.
Do you think that master acrobat could do it as confidently while being shot at?
He's not used to that. He hasn't trained for that.
N N 959 wrote:
Is there some class ability somewhere in PF that let's a character Take 10 even when they normally can't?
There are such abilities. There are none that distinguish between risks from the tasks itself and external risks like someone trying to kill you.
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.
Actually that was an editing error on my part. Let the wizard know to have featherfall ready to save you before you jump was my intention.
But then he expected you'd take ten on all this superfluous garbage to begin with so he's got all of those slots filled with magic missile. He's so bored out of his mind with all this mundane activity he's playing cards with his ferret.
Heaven forbid you tried to jump a chasm and he jumped in after you cast featherfall on you both and did something heroic.
And yet master acrobats train for crossing the Niagara Falls by walking tightropes just a few feet off the ground. A skilled acrobat has actually trained the issue of height out of their heads - 2 feet off the ground is the same as 6 is 40 is 200.
Sure. This translates to acquiring a feat that allows you to Take 10 when under duress. Probably something applicable to being a "master" acrobat.
Is there some class ability somewhere in PF that let's a character Take 10 even when they normally can't?
152,000 results for tightrope walker fail. Granted, I only watched one video but that guy had a harness connected to the rope.
P.S. nobody was shooting anything except for video which has not yet been proven to be lethal or harmfull unless the camera has the letters M.T.V printed on it.
Really, coming up with ideas for how a person would do an average job of something isn't that hard. An argument from incredulity does not a conclusive argument make.
Then come up with a better counter argument. I didn't say they were against the rules. I said they were metagamey.
Quote:
"Well, I know Spain is in Europe, so I'm guessing it's right about here." Subsequently writes "SPAIN" on Belgium.
You're not going to get any further off by trying to ID the exact country.
Well, it's not quite the way the rules work but: "I know Spain is in Europe, but I'm not sure exactly where." would be a Take 10.
Or does it just translate into having a high acrobatics skill?
If the character can succeed on a 1, then it obviously would.
Quote:
If I could walk that tightrope as easily as a sidewalk, I might be perfectly comfortable doing it 200' up.
I imagine there are kids who've learned to walk tight ropes in the backyard pretty routinely. I doubt they would feel as comfortable crossing Niagra Falls.
Quote:
Do you think that master acrobat could do it as confidently while being shot at?
He's not used to that. He hasn't trained for that.
***
There are such abilities. There are none that distinguish between risks from the tasks itself and external risks like someone trying to kill you.
So it sounds like PF doesn't distinguish between being in combat vs versus being distracted when creating a feat that allows one to T10 regardless. All that matters is you can Take 10. What significance (if any) does that have to the discussion?
Really, coming up with ideas for how a person would do an average job of something isn't that hard. An argument from incredulity does not a conclusive argument make.
Then come up with a better counter argument. I didn't say they were against the rules. I said they were metagamey.
Quote:
"Well, I know Spain is in Europe, so I'm guessing it's right about here." Subsequently writes "SPAIN" on Belgium.
You're not going to get any further off by trying to ID the exact country.
Well, it's not quite the way the rules work but: "I know Spain is in Europe, but I'm not sure exactly where." would be a Take 10.
The given example would be a failed roll.
I wouldn't let an American kid take ten to point out Canada or Mexico on a map of North America.
Or does it just translate into having a high acrobatics skill?
If the character can succeed on a 1, then it obviously would.
Quote:
If I could walk that tightrope as easily as a sidewalk, I might be perfectly comfortable doing it 200' up.
I imagine there are kids who've learned to walk tight ropes in the backyard pretty routinely. I doubt they would feel as comfortable crossing Niagra Falls.
You're right. They're also not professionals. Most of the ones playing in the backyard probably couldn't handle a circus tightrope either. Even with a net.
Longer ones are harder. They move more. Over the falls there's wind.
He may be able to Take 10, but if that's not enough...
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
Do you think that master acrobat could do it as confidently while being shot at?
He's not used to that. He hasn't trained for that.
***
There are such abilities. There are none that distinguish between risks from the tasks itself and external risks like someone trying to kill you.
So it sounds like PF doesn't distinguish between being in combat vs versus being distracted when creating a feat that allows one to T10 regardless. All that matters is you can Take 10. What significance (if any) does that have to the discussion?
That it supports my argument because this "A skilled acrobat has actually trained the issue of height out of their heads - 2 feet off the ground is the same as 6 is 40 is 200." is not the feat. The feat is "it doesn't matter whether you're 200' or being shot at". In the real world, I doubt professional tightrope walkers can confidently handle that kind of threat or distraction, but just being up high isn't a big deal.
Well, it's not quite the way the rules work but: "I know Spain is in Europe, but I'm not sure exactly where." would be a Take 10.
The given example would be a failed roll.
But you either know where spain is or you don't. You can't control to what degree you either know where spain is or spain isn't.
No, you can't. But you can take a stab at the precise location and maybe be wrong - Roll dice. Or Take 10 and give the general answer.
It's not a good analogy, because even if you fail you would still know it's in Europe, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that claiming more detail than you're sure of would be like rolling, while just stating what you're confident on and not trying to be more specific is like Taking 10.
