Well for Games Workshop at least; their mantra is "rolling dice is fun, tolling lots of dice is lots of fun." :)That's a crock of reasoning. Fun for who?
The cackling DM, who knows every player will eventually fail?
Does he know that it's not all about just his fun?
To a certain point, I think that's true. Who doesn't like rolling a handful of dice for a 10 die fireball in D&D or a 12d6 energy blast in Champions?
But there comes a point when it's too much and the game is served by a character's modifiers/skills alone rather than be put through a randomizer. I was in a PbP Traveller game once in which we had to use a rigged up robot to collect enough icy material to refine into fuel for our damage starship. Once we had that setup, the GM had us roll twice for every round trip the robot made - and that's over 72 rolls, making it extremely likely we would have more than one fateful result that would probably destroy the robot - to refuel the starship. He was too bogged down in minutia to pace that game well and I couldn't take it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
T10 encourages me to invest in skills.
There is no point in skill investment if a GM insists on scrapping the rule or inventing floating DCs to screw players. If the chance to do A is effectively the same as if I put one or ten points into a skill what is the point of having skills at all?
That's a crock of reasoning. Fun for who?
The cackling DM, who knows every player will eventually fail?
Does he know that it's not all about just his fun?
I agree. That's what I was talking about with GMs that think "challenging" = "fun" so everything under the sun should be challenging. It is a GM vs PC attitude where the GM is out to "win". The GM thinks it is only fun if there is always a chance for the PC to fail no matter how mundane the task. In our current PF game I don't think we have ever succeeded at anything by taking 10. We are either told we can't or the DC is set to high for us to succeed just taking 10.
|
Personally, I get no satisfaction out of rolling a bunch of dice.
That's not why I play Pathfinder.
I know there are those that go out of their way to make builds, just to roll more dice. Heck, they will even sit there, rolling dice, for no reason at all.
This "wheeeeee! DICE!!" approach, is not the only way people look at the game.
I don't.
Even when I built a big "one hit" PC, using Vital Strike etc., I chose to nab the Measured Response feat, just to do less rolling.
I love the Take 10 mechanic, and use it whenever I can.
So, this stupid "Take 10 is cheating" mentality is downright personally insulting. How often another player rolls dice shouldn't be a factor in you having fun.
There is no reason to even view it that way, at all.
Again, I say, do as you wish in your home games, but don't take this antagonistic mentality towards the Take 10 mechanic to organized play.
PFS doesn't need this kind of dickery, just because someone else isn't having fun "your way".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who only presents situations in which everyone in the party succeeds by taking 10 is failing at their job. A GM who only presents situations in which everyone fails when taking 10 is failing at their job. The sweet spot is presenting situations where (for example) the rogue can take 10 and stealth happily, but the fighter is going to need to roll. Or the fighter can take 10 and swim, but the sorcerer needs to roll.
Give everyone a chance to shine at their skills. But also create some situations where the success of just one person isn't enough to let the whole party succeed.
I agree. That's what I was talking about with GMs that think "challenging" = "fun" so everything under the sun should be challenging. It is a GM vs PC attitude where the GM is out to "win". The GM thinks it is only fun if there is always a chance for the PC to fail no matter how mundane the task. In our current PF game I don't think we have ever succeeded at anything by taking 10. We are either told we can't or the DC is set to high for us to succeed just taking 10.That's a crock of reasoning. Fun for who?
The cackling DM, who knows every player will eventually fail?
Does he know that it's not all about just his fun?
But what fun is a game where characters can tie their shoes with no chance of failure? /sarcasm
Even if it's a party of 4 rogues and they all need to roll 6+. No problem with Take 10. 75% chance for each of them to sneak by. Less than a 1% chance they'll all make it.Math error. Success is 75%, failure is 25%.
(fail)*(fail)*(fail)*(fail) = (25%)*(25%)*(25%)*(25%) -> less than 0.4%. This is the chance of all four failing.
(succeed)*(succeed)*(succeed)*(succeed) = (75%)*(75%)*(75%)*(75%) -> more than 31%. This is the chance of all four succeeding.
/cevah
And this is the chance of success each round.
Now, be in a situation where you have to sneak for a dozen rounds ? You have absolutely NO CHANCE AT ALL of success. You have 4 of the best rogues, trying to sneak past a sleeping dragon, and they just fail. 100% of the time (well, 99,999998993% of the time exactly).
By allowing to take 10, you let them win this part of the infiltration, which doesn't mean the dragon won't wake up for one thing or another (a simple silent alarm spell somewhere, or anything else).
More math errors.
(75%^4)^12 = 99.9998993%You had too many "9"s. :-)
Also, if the need 6+ to sneak past at the worst distance, they need 3+ at +30', and automatic at +60'. So the result is actually 13.62% success for all 4.
Table:
Distance .. roll needed .. likely .. chance .. all4 .. total
180' .. -12 .. 165% .. 100% .. 100% .. 100%
150' .. -9 .. 150% .. 100% .. 100% .. 100%
120' .. -6 .. 135% .. 100% .. 100% .. 100%
90' .. -3 .. 120% .. 100% .. 100% .. 100%
60' .. 0 .. 105% .. 100% .. 100% .. 100%
30' .. 3 .. 90% .. 90% .. 65.61% .. 65.61%
0' .. 6 .. 75% .. 75% .. 31.64% .. 20.76%
-30' .. 3 .. 90% .. 90% .. 65.61% .. 13.62%
-60' .. 0 .. 105% .. 100% .. 100% .. 13.62%
-90' .. -3 .. 120% .. 100% .. 100% .. 13.62%
-120' .. -6 .. 135% .. 100% .. 100% .. 13.62%
-150' .. -9 .. 150% .. 100% .. 100% .. 13.62%
-180' .. -12 .. 165% .. 100% .. 100% .. 13.62%
Distance -- How far from the dragon
roll needed -- Roll needed to sneak past at that distance
likely -- Roll converted to percentage
chance -- Roll limited to 100%
all4 -- All four sneaking past succeed percentage
total -- Chance to remain unnoticed at this point
Blindsense does not apply, as the stated condition was 6+ needed to sneak past. This by definition includes the blindsense.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've favourited posts along the way rather than commenting until now... but I have to ask:
Why is it considered "fun" to have a character who's amazing at something (say, for instance, a +18 modifier) fail one out of every 20 attempts (on average) to do something that's DC 20? (And the odds of hitting that 1-in-20 becomes more and more likely as additional tests are required -- so remember, castle desginers, let's always hire at least 20 guards...)
Seriously, where's the fun of builing a character who is, for instance, one of the most amazing atheletes (high Acrobatics) and then fall to your doom when you encounter a 10' jump that you can't get a run at?
The point of the take 10 mechanic is to avoid that -- so that people who are good at things are, actually *good* at them -- at least when they're able to pay attention to the task, and not split their attention between that and the repeating crossbow firing at them as they want to make the jump.
You want dramatic tension, then have something create danger (which is what makes the tension, not the leap itself).
A master rogue can take 10 on most locks and succeed -- he may lead the party deep into the castle or vault and that's fine -- but when they accidentally unleash the swarms of undead who are chasing them -- now he can't, because he's under pressure and in immediate risk...
Again, the tension (and drama) that people seem to think are lacking happen right there.
In terms of sneaking past the dragon... sure, you can take 10... but the question is "Will that be enough?" Players don't (usually) know DCs. I mean, yes, you can appraise a lock and get a good idea (assuming it wasn't made to be deceptive or arcane locked... But do you know how aware that dragon is, even asleep? And how close you need to get to it based on the other things in the lair, for that matter? As a GM, I'd be more than happy to let out an evil laugh when someone suggests they want to take 10 past the dragon -- but I'd *never* not let them do it.
Why is it considered "fun" to have a character who's amazing at something (say, for instance, a +18 modifier) fail one out of every 20 attempts (on average) to do something that's DC 20?
Mystery.
Lets say I'm doing an oceans 11 style break in to the dragons lair. option 1 is we're rolling. People roll, we wait to see what the dice come up, curse the 1s and cheer the 20s. You could have to run away from the pterodacyles the alarm bell sounded but easily bellyrub the basilisk into submission.
Everyone takes 10.... its no longer an RPG. YOu're now on a script writing a short story.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it considered "fun" to have a character who's amazing at something (say, for instance, a +18 modifier) fail one out of every 20 attempts (on average) to do something that's DC 20?Mystery.
Lets say I'm doing an oceans 11 style break in to the dragons lair. option 1 is we're rolling. People roll, we wait to see what the dice come up, curse the 1s and cheer the 20s. You could have to run away from the pterodacyles the alarm bell sounded but easily bellyrub the basilisk into submission.
Everyone takes 10.... its no longer an RPG. YOu're now on a script writing a short story.
False.
Nobody knows if Taking 10 succeeds. Also, rolling 1, or 20, does not mean automatic success/failure.
Not everybody is all about rolling the dice. It remains a roleplaying game nonetheless.
No longer an RPG? Wow, better not tell the diceless RPGs that.
Rolling dice is not a requirement for being a Role Playing Game. Role Playing is the requirement for being a Role Playing Game.
Now, if your version of RPG is Roll Playing Game, then yes, you are correct that removing dice would mean that it is no longer a Roll Playing Game.
Why is it considered "fun" to have a character who's amazing at something (say, for instance, a +18 modifier) fail one out of every 20 attempts (on average) to do something that's DC 20?Mystery.
Which comes automatically from not knowing the DC, and so, taking 10 is a judgement call that can bite you.... and should, sometimes.
What you're looking for isn't mystery, it's randomness -- and randomness will eventually *always* bite people in the rear.
I mean, lets assume a 6-member party all have a 90% chance of crossing a ledge (when being attacked!).
Your way, even when there's nothing preventing them from watching where they step, there's only a 53% chance they all make it, because of how success multiplies. If the ledge is long enough they need to make 2 checks each, they have less than 30% chance of success.... despite the fact that, again, there's nothing stopping them from paying attention to the task at hand.
And, really, all it takes to make them have to roll is a 10' length where there's a pendulum blade or a dart trap -- anything that will put them at risk and demand some of the attention they'd otherwise be dedicating to their balance.
Lets say I'm doing an oceans 11 style break in to the dragons lair. option 1 is we're rolling. People roll, we wait to see what the dice come up, curse the 1s and cheer the 20s. You could have to run away from the pterodacyles the alarm bell sounded but easily bellyrub the basilisk into submission.
Ok, let's say that.
When I adjudicate that, once again, the players don't know the sleeping dragon's perception modifier, so taking 10 is a judgement call to start with....
Which means that the players are already nervous (especially if I roll the dragon's perception rather than just assuming a take 10).
Then, of course, we add to that the perception of the other, hidden creatures also guarding the lair... (Will taking 10 beat them too? They're not sleeping!)
Also, there's the small matter of the traps in the lair.... (Will tripping any of them make noise to attract attention?)
And when they avoid those traps -- do they disarm and risk setting them off (and taking the time when there are patrolling guards) -- or do they go around them?
And, if they do go around them, how close to the dragon does that force them to get? Inside his blindsense? Close enough that the range penalties to perception don't help enough anymore?
And, of course, there's the small matter of the penalty to stealth for the elves, humans, halflings, half-elves and gnomes when they go through those patches of magical darkness and can't see where they're stepping while trying to sneak. (Which don't bother the dragon or his darkvision-equipped guards...)
That sounds like a game -- they have decisions to make with consequences and don't know whether or not they'll succeed -- and a tense situation to me.
Everyone takes 10.... its no longer an RPG. YOu're now on a script writing a short story.
Not at all - it's an RPG that reflects the fact that your *character* has improved and is actually good at some things (to a certain level)... The players still make a decision "We're taking 10", and then have to live with the consequences.
I don't consider there to be 'camps' or 'sides'. Only opinions and preferences. But irrespective of these, the one constant is in RAW. The key criteria for Taking 10 seem to be (+ my comments/opinions):
• "...a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions…"
○ Conditions for take 10 skill use need to be favorable
○ Thus unfavorable conditions appear to exclude take 10. GM determined.
• "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted…"
○ Any danger or distraction whether potential/real/not yet manifested or otherwise
○ Such a judgement is going to be made by the GM or subject to GM approval
○ Players may be unaware of 'immediate danger' so cannot make an informed judgement
• "For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful."
○ Mostly 'routine tasks' get auto-success.
○ Implication that take 10 is focused mainly on routine tasks.
○ Non-routine tasks are not usually automatically successful.
○ GM determines routine/non-routine
• "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
○ Any threatening situation (GM determined) negates take 10.
○ Any distraction negates.
○ Combat negates.
In other words, anything else seems to be:
A house rule
A GM or player preference
A desire to keep the game moving
A reduction in dice rolling
A desire for 'fun'
A play on semantics
A protection of one's cherished viewpoint
Hearty support for what works for you
A beloved character who you don't want to see fail, ever - even if 5% chance.
A tip-toe past a sleeping dragon is not a combat encounter
Awakening next to a shape-changed dragon is not a combat encounter
Anything else you can think of to fit here
Taking 10 is apparently less straightforward than at first sight. As always it's the GM's game.
Similar to how many free actions you can take in a round, I feel that you can't apply a blanket rule to Taking 10, the GM will have to judge the situation and what you're trying to do.
If its just a matter of having a higher skill, higher DCs make sense. If, however, it can go wrong due to something the character can't [easily] predict/control, introducing the random element of a forced roll can be a good way to handle it.
Maybe the small-time merchant driven by obvious motives will be fine with a T10 diplomacy check from both sides, but the country's king might be more whimsical in terms of what he is convinced by. Especially if you haven't gathered any info on him beforehand. In such a case at least one side should roll, although it may not always be clear which side it should be.
As far as the original issue goes, I would say that you could take 10 on a sleeping dragon, or even an awake and searching dragon. However, I would have the dragon roll for perception while searching, instead of it being able to T10 as well. It might not be possible to predict which way the dragon's head might turn while they are searching, but that is something that should accounted for in their perception roll, not your stealth roll.
For those that could go to either side, I would tend towards having the player make the roll, if only because in my experience, players complain far less when they fail due to their bad roll rather than due to a GM's high roll.
Even on other skill checks, sometimes I think it would be fair to expect a roll instead of allowing T10. Perhaps in the case of an acrobatics check, the ground the player lands on isn't entirely stable, and has a chance of crumbling if they land in the wrong spot. Regardless of how well a person can jump, sometimes there's bad luck introduced by the environment (unless they make a perception check first to notice crumbling bricks, of course).
|
Can a PC take 20 on a stealth check to hide in a static location? If he is not moving and is able to set up the environment to near perfection, I see no problem with it.
It depends on the situation. There has to be no consequences for failure at the time of the roll. So, if you have two minutes to set up an ambush point, and a friend telling you "nope, I can still see you," and no one's looking for you at the moment? Then I would rule you could take 20. But if you're trying to do it while hiding from people, then no.
My question is "can you take 10" while climbing or swimming? I mean, if you fail you could fall to your death/drown, so wouldn't that always be a stressful situation?
And this is assuming you don't have a climb/swim speed
A beloved character who you don't want to see fail, ever - even if 5% chance.
I thought that skills don't adhere to the natural 1/natural 20 rule?
|
A beloved character who you don't want to see fail, ever - even if 5% chance.I thought that skills don't adhere to the natural 1/natural 20 rule?
They don't.
But, if the situation is that you have +18 on a skill, and you're doing something with a DC20, you will fail 5% of the time if forced to roll (the 1 is a failure not because of nat 1 in this case).
My question is "can you take 10" while climbing or swimming? I mean, if you fail you could fall to your death/drown, so wouldn't that always be a stressful situation?
Unless there's something like a shark attacking you or massive waves/ocean currents, there's likely nothing preventing you from swimming as well as you normally could. The average person that knows how to swim wouldn't be very stressed out about drowning while in a pond. Climbing might be a bit more stressful on average (at least in real life), but again, to someone who has likely made similar climbs before with no issue, it won't seem that bad. Climbing and swimming also happen to be (in my opinion at least) the two skills with the least amount of luck to them, therefore being the two skills that make the most sense to T10 on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is "can you take 10" while climbing or swimming? I mean, if you fail you could fall to your death/drown, so wouldn't that always be a stressful situation?
The description of the Swim skill specifies that you can't Take 10 in stormy water (DC 20), which means you CAN Take 10 in calm or rough water.
|
|
My question is "can you take 10" while climbing or swimming? I mean, if you fail you could fall to your death/drown, so wouldn't that always be a stressful situation?
I don't think the average person swimming laps at the local pool is worried about drowning. The same could be said of someone changing a light bulb.
A stressful situation would be archers firing on you while your scaling the cliff face.
A beloved character who you don't want to see fail, ever - even if 5% chance.I thought that skills don't adhere to the natural 1/natural 20 rule?They don't.
But, if the situation is that you have +18 on a skill, and you're doing something with a DC20, you will fail 5% of the time if forced to roll (the 1 is a failure not because of nat 1 in this case).
Gotcha. The implication seemed otherwise, but that works. I was mostly just checking to make sure my rules-fu was current and that I was not attempting to place other rules into PF or vice-verse. :)
EDIT: I'm not trying to say that Galinaar was implying something. Instead, the vast majority of the time on the forums to my experience when someone is talking about a 5% on the die roll, they do so referring to the chance of rolling a natural 1/auto-failure. Hence the seeming implication to me. :)
I have no problem with take 10 as it shortens alot of games where players are constantly wanting to roll every time their turn is up for perception checks and etc.
traveling through a forest to the next town over to get ur new job assignment, im gonna say ur taking 10 on perception checks.
you find a lock door in a place ur exploring and nothings gone on yet, go ahead and take a 10 on a common door lock.
Now ifu are traveling through a forest being unaware that ur chased by something u didny know u unleashed, now ur rolling.
trying to escape a horde of skeletons in a dungeon and while running down the hall ur only way out is tbrough a locked door....yep ur rolling.
Taking 10 is perfectly fine in the right circumstances because A. it speeds up the game a bit and B. its another way to showcase someones investment into a skill.
Remember take 10 is not the same as take 20 where u autosucceed, u can still easily fail with take 10.
Also not to derail, but i know in combat rolling a 1 is a automatic miss and rolling a 20 is an automatic hit, but do rolling those numbers say anywhere about skills autofailing or autosucceeding by chance? Granted i play that they do but mainly curious if its anywhere stated in the rules.
Remember take 10 is not the same as take 20 where u autosucceed, u can still easily fail with take 10.
Also not to derail, but i know in combat rolling a 1 is a automatic miss and rolling a 20 is an automatic hit, but do rolling those numbers say anywhere about skills autofailing or autosucceeding by chance? Granted i play that they do but mainly curious if its anywhere stated in the rules.
That's not how it works. Autosuccess and failure is for attack rolls and saves only.
You do not automatically succeed on a 20 or fail on a 1 when rolling a skill check. If the DC for something is 25 and you have no skill points in and you're ability modifier is less than a +5 you have no chance to ever accomplish the task. Taking a 20 will not allow you to succeed.
By the same token, if you have a +19 in a skill and the DC is 20, there is no way for you to fail. You will always succeed, unless there is some negative circumsatnce modifier (though usually that would just be part of the DC). Even if you roll a 1 your total roll is a 20, you can't fail at such a task.
If you need citation, if you look under the combat rules section of the core rule book you will find these entries:
Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
You will also note that no such line appears in reference to skill checks or anything else. Nautral 1 and 20 rules apply only within the contect of attack rolls and saves.
By the same token, if you have a +19 in a skill and the DC is 20, there is no way for you to fail. You will always succeed, unless there is some negative circumsatnce modifier (though usually that would just be part of the DC). Even if you roll a 1 your total roll is a 20, you can't fail at such a task.
In our group, we refer to such autosuccesses as "Taking 1" and the rule is "You can always take 1.". ;)
We use a house rule that allows for varying degrees of focus.
Take 10: no real stress as noted above. Take 5: like taking 10 with -5 penalty for hurrying because you don't care. Take 2: like taking 5 only you're doing it really quickly. We ad hoc how fast is fast based on the skills themselves, and there are often other penalties for hurrying that stack with taking a lower dice roll besides. It moves things along fairly quickly, and establishes what we want to do and presume we can accomplish - it's only when something says, "no, that doesn't work" that we actually bother to roll for it. This is not entirely true - knowledge checks don't work that way (you either know it or you don't, outside of potentially-arduous research), though this often helps move things along quickly. But yeah, that's house rules.
Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear.
It depends heavily on the ability.
As I said, it's a house rule, and usually one we use for things we don't expect there's any trouble from, even if there's trouble happening around us otherwise.
P1: "The orcs are firing on us."
P2: "I pick the lock - I hurry fast and take 5, it looks really easy."
GM: "Yeah, sure, you can do that. ... it doesn't succeed, though; you think it might be because you're not paying enough attention and your in too much of a hurry."
P2: "Arg, okay, well, hold them off, guys, there's something tricky about this one. Sorry, my bad. *rolls d20*"
Or
P1: "The orcs are firing on us."
P2: "I pick the lock - I take 5 and take my time, it looks really easy, but I don't want to take chances."
GM: "Yeah, sure, you can do that. ... that works."
P2: "Okay, door's open, let's duck inside, guys."
It doesn't necessarily reduce the time you take, though a GM can rule that it does in specific circumstance (usually when there's no mounting pressure, such as a lack of orcs firing at you). It's a nice way to move the game quickly, without trying to roll dice all the time.
Mostly it developed because we don't always have enough dice (depending on the players) and handing the dice around to each person can be slooooooowwwwwwwwww going.
Taking 5 means you're not entirely devoted to the task and can attempt (usually at significant penalty) other skills or try to leave your progress if you're taking your time in order to, say, keep your DEX to AC. You can choose to do this hastily to take penalties for hastily doing things.
Taking 2 means you're almost certainly multitasking and you probably don't care too much about the outcome or are supremely confident.
"Psht, yeah, I got this. I take 2 on the lock, but I'm really keeping an eye out for those orc ninja's. I roll a perception."
That sort of thing.
It helps that we don't tend to have abusive players. :)
So it's not much doing it faster, as doing it while multitasking or distracted. Got it. That works.
Yes. By "doing it faster" I didn't mean "it takes less in-game time" - my apologies for being so unclear!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now ifu are traveling through a forest being unaware that ur chased by something u didny know u unleashed, now ur rolling.
Now if you are traveling through a forest being unaware that you're chased by something you didn't know you unleashed, now you're rolling.
Please don't use chat speak. Us old fogies have a hard time, as do those for whom English is a second language.
On to the response:
The Taking-10 rules (CRB p86) say: "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
Distractions: if I don't know something is out there, how am I distracted?
Threats (such as combat): I don't know of the threat, because I am not in combat (initiative).
Neither clause applies, so there is no reason to forbid Taking-10.
I mean, if you fail you could fall to your death/drown, so wouldn't that always be a stressful situation?
The Taking-10 rules (CRB p86) say: "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)."
You may fear the result of failing, but that is not enough to prevent Taking-10.
/cevah
Distractions: if I don't know something is out there, how am I distracted?
An interesting point. The key factor is whether its the GM or the player who is assessing the distraction/threat. Also if the GM disallows a Take 10 he may give away the fact that there is a threat.
The 'realism' approach may let you take 10 anyway and suffer any consequences. The 'rulebook' approach may consider it a combat encounter and thus all take 10's are off the menu. [Whisper: It seems very much like a chaotic or lawful choice.]
Threats (such as combat): I don't know of the threat, because I am not in combat (initiative).
If you have already rolled for initiative, it would appear that the combat round has begun.
You may fear the result of failing, but that is not enough to prevent Taking-10.
Absolutely. And as usual, subject to the RAW requirements. And as long as the character understands there may be consequences - such as still falling.
[PS: Yes! To full English]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Galinaar, not quoting you to prevent a uber long post, but responses in order.
"favorable" compared to what? If you read the description, "more favorable" refers to the previous sentence describing being distracted or in combat. So it only has to be "more favorable" than someone swinging an ax at your head, or the room filling up with water.
Potential and not yet manifested dangers are not dangers. I could trip walking to the fridge and break my neck. Such potential, however, is meaningless to me performing actions I have done many times in the past. Now the question of PC awareness is a fair one, which I don't think either side has an edge on.
What is "routine" for someone with a +5 skill modifier is not the same as what is "routine" for someone with a +19 skill modifier. How can we judge what is routine, well strangely enough if you can take 10 and always make the DC, it should probably be considered routine for you.
What is threatening or distracting isn't defined. I mean someone said in this thread that you can't take 10 to making a Bluff check while speaking because you are distracted by the conversation which I think most of us find patently ridiculous.
And lastly, I hate when people say things like "its the GM's game." No, it isn't. It is the group's game. The players and GM each have duties and responsibilities to each other, no one person owns the game.
Galinaar, not quoting you to prevent a uber long post, but responses in order.
"favorable" compared to what? If you read the description, "more favorable" refers to the previous sentence describing being distracted or in combat. So it only has to be "more favorable" than someone swinging an ax at your head, or the room filling up with water.
Potential and not yet manifested dangers are not dangers. I could trip walking to the fridge and break my neck. Such potential, however, is meaningless to me performing actions I have done many times in the past. Now the question of PC awareness is a fair one, which I don't think either side has an edge on.
What is "routine" for someone with a +5 skill modifier is not the same as what is "routine" for someone with a +19 skill modifier. How can we judge what is routine, well strangely enough if you can take 10 and always make the DC, it should probably be considered routine for you.
What is threatening or distracting isn't defined. I mean someone said in this thread that you can't take 10 to making a Bluff check while speaking because you are distracted by the conversation which I think most of us find patently ridiculous.
And lastly, I hate when people say things like "its the GM's game." No, it isn't. It is the group's game. The players and GM each have duties and responsibilities to each other, no one person owns the game.
(emphasis mine, for what I consider the most important things in the post)
I totally agree with you.
"favorable" compared to what?..."
Exactly, as you have just outlined. Compared to the unfavorable circumstance - whatever that may be. The judgement is highly likely going to be the GM's, probably with discussion with his/her group. I don't make the rules, I interpret them, like every GM in this thread and beyond. As expected, there are variances according to what people prefer.
"Potential and not yet manifested dangers are not dangers..."
Quite. Though in pathfinder, and in relation to taking 10 or not, we are often discussing whether something is a combat encounter or not. We're not usually discussing picking daisies and the probability of there being a bee. The GM will know the likelihood of a potential danger becoming manifest in the not too distant future, and so will apply his 'game overview' to the situation.
What is "routine" for someone with a +5 skill modifier is not the same as what is "routine" for someone with a +19 skill modifier.
A very valid point. 'Routine' being different depending on the perspective. Which is why I mentioned that the decision/judgement was, to me, apparently in the GM's hands. However, one could query the idea that skill modifiers are the determinant of 'routineness'.
What is threatening or distracting isn't defined.
There's a lot that isn't (strictly?) defined within the take 10/20 rules, and given the huge variation in usage as expressed in this thread, it's likely a difficult if not impossible task.
Different skills seem to lend themselves more easily to a take 10 than others. Your 'Bluff' example is one of those, unless the person they are bluffing has a greatsword at your neck. Climb gets me, because there's going to be that chance of falling and consequent damage - unless their skill level is pretty high.
Whatever we say, it all seems to point to the GM (and his group) being the arbiter of what's appropriate given the circumstances.
"...I hate when people say things like "its the GM's game." No, it isn't. It is the group's game.
Ah! Hatred. A wonderfully evil tendency... (oops! that's for another discussion).
I'm sorry if you thought I meant it was a GM exclusive game I was referring to. Not my intention. Of course the players (most of them willingly) would be involved in discussions. Though the GM is often the final arbiter in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We use a house rule that allows for varying degrees of focus.
Take 10: no real stress as noted above. Take 5: like taking 10 with -5 penalty for hurrying because you don't care. Take 2: like taking 5 only you're doing it really quickly. We ad hoc how fast is fast based on the skills themselves, and there are often other penalties for hurrying that stack with taking a lower dice roll besides. It moves things along fairly quickly, and establishes what we want to do and presume we can accomplish - it's only when something says, "no, that doesn't work" that we actually bother to roll for it. This is not entirely true - knowledge checks don't work that way (you either know it or you don't, outside of potentially-arduous research), though this often helps move things along quickly. But yeah, that's house rules.
On a similar note, I have a house rule for taking 15. It has the same requirements as taking 20(you will be considered to roll a 1 first, then roll a 15), but only take 3 times longer than normal instead of 20. It comes from the fact that if you roll a d20 3 times and take the highest, the average result is a 15. It gives players a middle ground between taking 10 and taking 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but I absolutely vehemently dislike and disagree with the taking 10/20 rules.
The general idea and execution of them seems absurd to me.
So, I try really hard to do my best, and have a range of 1-20. But if I just give it average effort I get 10?
The take 20 falls into the same category. I can do the absolute best I am capable of doing, it just takes me 20 times as long?
It's purely a metagame shortcut measure to bypass smaller obstacles. If they are so minimalist that the only thing needed to overcome them is saying "I take 10", then why even bother including them? You are wasting just as much time as making someone roll for it in the first place.
I had the discussion with my group before, and part of my issue is not the opposed DC's, as much as the predetermined static ones.
The following is a list of the things the average untrained commoner (10 ability score, no ranks) can succeed at without risk of failure by taking 10. Or a PC with a 10 ability score, and no ranks, regardless of level.
•Balance across a 7-11” surface at half speed
•Balance across a 1-3’ surface that is either severely slippery (icy), severely obstructed (cavern, rubble), severely sloped (>45 degrees), moderately unsteady (boat in a storm), or at full speed. If they are an elven commoner (or just have 12 dex), they can do this even if the surface is slightly obstructed (gravel), slightly slippery (wet), and slightly sloped (anything <45 degrees) all together.
•Long Jump 10’ with a running start, or 5’ as a standing long jump
•Vertical leap of 2’ (with a run), or 1’ (without)
•A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging. The surface can be slippery if it is in a corner.
•A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell when the surface is slippery.
•A corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls of any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.
•A chimney (artificial or natural) or other location where you can brace against two opposite walls of an uneven surface with narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon.
(Climb I take specific issue with, because it is regardless of distance. Any 7 Str, Level 1 wizard can climb 200' of rope with a wall to brace against without a single die roll simply by taking 10.)
•Either a very simple item (wooden spoon) or a typical item (iron pot), of up to 10 gp value, in one week.
•(Dungeoneering) Identify mineral, stone, or metal
•(Engineering) Identify dangerous construction.
•(Geography) Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent.
•(History) Know recent or historically significant event.
•(Local) Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations.
•(Nature) Identify a common plant or animal.
•(Nobility) Know current rulers and their symbols.
•(Planes) Know the names of the planes.
•(Religion) Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy.
Either while sleeping, or through a 1’ wall.
•Hear the sound of battle or notice the stench of rotting garbage from 100’ away.
•Detect the smell of smoke, hear the details of a conversation, or notice a visible creature.
Either while distracted, under terrible conditions, or through a door.
•Hear the sound of battle or notice the stench of rotting garbage from 150’ away
•Detect the smell of smoke, hear the details of a conversation, or notice a visible creature 50’ away.
•Determine if food is spoiled.
Under normal conditions
•Hear the sound of battle or notice the stench of rotting garbage from 200’ away
•Detect the smell of smoke, hear the details of a conversation, or notice a visible creature 100’ away.
•Determine if food is spoiled from 50’ away.
•Hear the sound of a creature walking within 10’
•Perform a routine performance. Trying to earn money by playing in public is akin to begging. You can earn 1d10 cp/day.
•Guide with your knees a creature ill-suited as a mount.
•Guide a mount with your knees while riding bareback.
•Get along in the wild. Move up to half your overland speed while hunting and foraging (no food or water supplies needed).
Follow tracks across very soft ground, up to some conditions
•while moving at normal speed or
•if the tracked party moved at half speed to hide the trail or
•of a diminutive creature, either 24 hours after they passed or after an hour of rain or
•of a tiny creature in either fog or moonlight or
•of three medium creatures on an overcast or moonless night
Follow tracks across soft ground, up to some conditions
•of three small creatures or
•of three medium creatures, either 24 hours after they passed or after an hour of rain or
•of a large creature, either 24 hours after they passed or after an hour of rain or
•of a huge creature, either 48 hours after they passed or after 2 hours of rain or
•of a gargantuan creature, in either fog/precipitation or moonlight, either 24 hours after they passed or after an hour of rain or
•of a colossal creature, on an overcast or moonless night, either 48 hours after they passed or after 2 hours of rain.
•in calm water for almost an hour without risk of going under
All the above conditions can be met by the untrained, unskilled, 10 stat PC/NPC with a take 10. If the PC/NPC in question had a 12 stat, and 1 rank as a class skill, they would all be able to go up to the next tier of difficulty (up to DC 5 higher). Really take a long look at that stuff, and see what an average stat, low level PC can do without even having to try. All just to skip out on making a die roll.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are any of those things an issue?
The few examples where it may seem a bit much (Climb 200', Swim for an hour) is a problem of the specific skill, or that there is no rule for becoming fatigued over time, way more than with Take 10.
How are any of those things an issue?
The few examples where it may seem a bit much (Climb 200', Swim for an hour) is a problem of the specific skill, or that there is no rule for becoming fatigued over time, way more than with Take 10.
That's largely my take on it as well -- to be fair, maybe the -10 for a battle or rotting garbage are a bit powerful, but just that's an issue with the Perception rules (just like the lack of fatigue from exhertion is the issue with the swim and climb examples).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of those things are great examples of why take 10 should be allowed.
Some of those examples might be a little "larger than life" but only the swimming and climbing examples are extreme, and then it's not because you can take 10. Rather it is because there is no mechanicsm built in to become exhausted while climbing or swimming. *Though, it would be reasonable for a GM to impose a fair one.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yeah I'm not seeing how any of those are a problem. Maybe the long term movement skills should run into the hustling rules to trigger fatigue, but getting tired doing something is more a factor of Con than your skill rank anyway. No one has an issue with the 7 Str wizard climbing a 10 foot wall with a rope - being able to go 20 times as far is more a matter of endurance than strength or skill.
Taking 20 is meant to represent "I roll over and over until I get a 20" without having to actually do that thing. That's it. It's not some magic auto-win button.
I've seen real life children do most of the things on your list on a consistent basis.
So none of you have a problem with the fact that a lvl 1 untrained commoner barmaid, with all 10's in ability scores (or a real life child) can:
Feed themselves daily in the wild,
Long jump 10' with a running start,
Follow tracks of a tiny creature in either fog or moonlight across very soft ground,
Guide a mount with her knees while riding bareback,
Determine if food is spoiled from 50’ away,
or earn between 1d10 cp/day or 1d10 gp/week of either performing or crafting?
All with no experience or ability whatsoever.