There is no rule against taking 10 for an opposed check. You can take 10 anytime you are not in immediate danger (such as in combat) or rushed. Stealth vs Perception are both situations you can take 10 in.
Example:
I am cautiously stealthing through a forest so I take 10. In this case Take 10 is because I am taking care to not step on the odd twig etc. (Which would be the result of a low roll.)The guard is an active guard and is spending a move action every round to scan his surroundings.
He is Taking 10 on his perception checks (taking care to specifically scan the surroundings without skipping over peices but not taking extra time to do so..that would be Take 20).Both are able to take 10 and it really becomes a matter of who's skill level is greater.
Here is SKR's guidance regarding Take 10 (back when he was a Developer)
In short, he said if they are not in combat or distracted let them take 10.
As an aside, I think some GMs have a problem with take 10 because in their minds it reduces the risk of failure. Im really not sure where they get this.
Perhaps it is because Take 10 removes the element of: "you rolled badly and you are now in a situation where you could have done it carefully but you are going to be screwed, sucks to be you".
Perhaps some GMs want you to have the possibility for a "bad luck" fail while the design of the system is that if you can do something cautiously why should "bad luck" fails come into it?His post doesn't say rules dev next to it anymore. So what he says cannot be taken as from a rules dev. Some of his post still do have the "rules dev" title by them. I won't assume that isn't on purpose.
That doesn't invalidate his reasoning, but SKR quotes are not Word-of-God for RAW.
If you would pay attention rather than spouting gibberish you would notice that he has different tags after his name depending on the forum. This does not invalidate his previous written work, because he has ALWAYS had different tags after his name depending on the forum.
What this does show is that they did an incomplete job in changing the tags after his name by only changing specific forums.
He made the post while a Developer, while it is not RAW or FAQ or Errata it does clearly show intent.
Take it or leave it but, frankly, you are trolling.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the GM being a jerk and saying no.Huh. So this is that player entitlement thing I keep hearing about.
If a reasonable expectation of rules functioning as written equals "player entitlement", then there are no players, but entitled players.
Also, I think you are confusing immediate danger, with potential danger.
If a reasonable expectation of rules functioning as written equals "player entitlement", then there are no players, only entitled players.Other than the GM being a jerk and saying no.Huh. So this is that player entitlement thing I keep hearing about.
Quite right.
Wow, sometimes when I read long threads like this I have no hope for humanity. So many people trying to show examples to a few people who refuse to budge an inch. Just cause you don't like something doesn't mean you have to be opposed to it. And it's a game of fantasy, so you should base real examples very very loosely.
Wizard: I stop time, and fly and teleport, no chance of failure!
Rogue: Lucky! I can do lots of mundane things, but without my take 10 I can fail on pretty easy things still. I guess this is why Mom always wanted me to go into magic.
(Pretty easy here means DC isn't much higher than their skill rank)
|
|
Forget about the player, or the DM.
Does the PC know if he "rolled a 10" or "used the Take 10 action"?
Would it play out different?
Would the in-game process in which the skill use was performed be different.
Who "wins" when the DM says "I don't care how skilled you are, you have a minimum of 5% chance of failing"?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If a reasonable expectation of rules functioning as written equals "player entitlement", then there are no players, but entitled players.
Also, I think you are confusing immediate danger, with potential danger.
That is the thing, each table variance may have different functioning RAW. They each believe they are running as written.
For reference, before you shoot the messenger, you can take 10 at my table if we are not in initiative rounds. Others do not agree, and you can't reject their RAW with words in the book because "immediate danger" is not a game rule defined term.
For reference, before you shoot the messenger, you can take 10 at my table if we are not in initiative rounds.
Well, I certainly disagree. If you've been rendered out-of-combat, for example, at the bottom of a pit and are trying to climb out, you should be able to take 10 even if the party is still fighting somewhere 60' above your head.
|
|
If a reasonable expectation of rules functioning as written equals "player entitlement", then there are no players, but entitled players.
Also, I think you are confusing immediate danger, with potential danger.
That is the thing, each table variance may have different functioning RAW. They each believe they are running as written.
For reference, before you shoot the messenger, you can take 10 at my table if we are not in initiative rounds. Others do not agree, and you can't reject their RAW with words in the book because "immediate danger" is not a game rule defined term.
Well, that is not what is being disagreed with, at least, on my part.
Combat is listed as a circumstance, in which you cannot Take 10, without some ability of sorts.
Except no one can know those rulings were made by a dev unless someone tells them about it. There is no longer proper documentation.
All they have to do is open a Core rule book to see he was a developer. Granted, while rulings he makes after are not valid, I have a feeling he wont be trying to answer rules questions like he use to.
you can take 10 at my table if we are not in initiative rounds. Others do not agree, and you can't reject their RAW with words in the book because "immediate danger" is not a game rule defined term.
This is how I interpret it. Combat is danger, combat starts with initiative. +1 for James's Method.
You set the DC at what is should be, irregardless of any one PC's abilities and skills.
What the DC should be is a fair, level appropriate challenge. If you're first level thats an average lock. If you're 10th level thats some insanely calibrated clockworth deathtrap with mercury switches.
Someone with even slightly better than normal ability in a skill turns a fair challenge into auto success with take 10.
If you're going to tell me I'm absolutely wrong, you need to stop following that up with showing me why I'm right.
Indeed, the challenges get harder as one Advances in level .
But not as one adds a new item, adds a feat, etc.
Perfectly fair to add harder traps as the party gets higher level. But not to increase the DC just because the rogue found a IOUN stone.
I'd also add that since the GM is the one that adds in the magic items (in this case, the Ioun Stone), they should know that the possibility exists that it could be used in this way. The job of the GM is to create fun for the PCs. Sometimes it's fun for the PCs to be able to auto succeed, or wade through enemies. If you have a number of traps, locks etc, and you make a number of them take 10 passable, and a number of them not, the PCs have the choice.
To address the example of sneaking past guards, yeah, take 10 makes sense if the guards have no reason to suspect someone sneaking around their camp. If the guards are alerted that someone is planning to invade, they would be at heightened alert, which poses additional threat, and rolls should be made. In the dragon situation, if the dragon has no reason to suspect that someone is prowling about, they aren't posing much of a threat. If that same dragon knows that adventurers are coming, it's now alert and actively a threat to someone stealthing about, rolls should be made. In the jump scenario, if they're just jumping over a deep pit with lava at the bottom, then the lava really poses no immediate threat. IF, however that lava is bursting up and into the air where the person is going to jump, it's now an immediate threat. In the first case, the jump is just a jump, in the second it has immediate threat.
Usually, I rule on the side of fun, and if taking 10 isn't going to be game or story breaker, I let the PCs do it. ESPECIALLY, if they apply some sort of clever solution, or if it'd just allow a PC to really shine for a moment or two. Who cares if the rogue sneaks past the guards to scout out an area? That's what they are built to do, what the player built the character to do, and what they expect to be able to do. So, if it's not going to upset the plot or storyline, let them have their moment.
I find,when I play I tend to remember the Take 10 rule, but when I run games, I totally forget as I tend to follow the old line of "don't make them roll unless you want to risk them failing, if they can do it, they do it"...which is basically the Take 10 rule I guess...I just let them narrate it, or correct them if need be.