My DM thinks that you can't take 10 when its an opposed check. For example, If someone wants to stealth into an area. My understanding is that you can take 10 as long as you are not in a stressful situation. He says that its an opposed check so you have to roll. This was specifically with Stealth vs Perception.
Anyone want to weigh in on their interpretation?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was just discussed recently. It's one of those "up to GM discretion" areas, and depends on your definition of "immediate danger".
In the end its up to the dm what constitutes 'immediate danger'. Trying to sneak by the guards that will murder you is not an outrageous situation to say you are 'under pressure' or in 'immediate danger'. Though the simple fact that it is opposed doesnt make it dangerous ofcourse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Anyone want to weigh in on their interpretation?
I asked a long time ago, and as far as I'm concerned you just can't take 10 when in combat. One of the big reasons you take 10 is to avoid the danger in the first place. Its not really spelled out what defines an immediate threat though, so it falls under GM digression. On one end you could do it just about whenever, on the other you fail to climb a wall repeatedly because your afraid of falling down, or cook because you might burn yourself, or take 10 steps without tripping over your own two feet because gravity. Oh! And my favorite immediate danger, your just afraid of your own failure so you can never take 10 ever.
There's no rule about whether or not you can use it on opposed checks though. Its just taking the lower of your average anyway, so its not really a big deal if you do take it, imo. Its purpose is to speed up play, and that's exactly what it does when its used. It doesn't make you better at doing something.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end its up to the dm what constitutes 'immediate danger'. Trying to sneak by the guards that will murder you is not an outrageous situation to say you are 'under pressure' or in 'immediate danger'.
There's commentary from SKR that (to use his example of jumping) it doesn't matter whether you're jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a chasm full of lava; if there's not something else going on, you can still take 10. I can dig up the link if you like.
To put it another way (SKR also said this near the end of the post linked by Gauss), to prevent you from taking 10 there needs to be some distraction "other than the task at hand". In the OP's example, trying to use stealth doesn't distract you from trying to use stealth.
There's also the common sense test: the rules do not preclude T10 on stealth. Stealth is pretty much always an opposed check with significant consequences for failure. Therefore, being an opposed check with significant consequences for failure can't be enough to prevent you from taking 10.
Or to frame the common sense test in another way: if your GM says "You can't T10 in this situation", reply with "Okay, what situations can I take 10 in?" If he can't come up with a normal-gameplay circumstance where his interpretation allows T10, then he's wrong, because you're allowed to T10 sometime.
Jiggy if you have that link readily available I would appreciate it.
I actually often require take 10 in situations like this. When a party member is standing watch, they are performing their average watch, similarly if you are sneaking, but don't know particularly that anyone is watching, take 10 seems more appropriate to me.
Now, if it is a specific situation, slip by this picket line or something, I'll certainly let the players roll should they choose.
Slacker2010,
I posted the link to SKR's comment that Jiggy was referencing in my last post although SKR wasn't using lava as an example, he was using a "deep pit"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy if you have that link readily available I would appreciate it.
Gimme a minute; I've got lots of posts from SKR about T10.
Liiiike this one.
This one.
This one.
Then there's also this one.
Oh, and this one.
And finally, this one.
Though interestingly, the one of those where he says it doesn't matter whether it's a piece of tape or a deep pit, was already linked in this thread.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Slacker2010,
I posted the link to SKR's comment that Jiggy was referencing in my last post although SKR wasn't using lava as an example, he was using a "deep pit"
Thanks, I was seeing what other post I could find. The more info/evidence the better. Most likely I will show this to my GM as "how its expected to be played" and he will just hand wave it to an official house rule.
Im not complaining, he is a solid GM.
Jiggy,
In one of those links, SKR talks about taking 20 with the disguise skill vs the guard spotting it. I didnt think you could take 20 with a skill that takes 1d3x10mins.
Anyone want to weigh in?
Be aware that taking 20 ASSUMES YOU FAIL during the process. This is why you can't take 20 when disabling a trap, as it would ensure the trap goes off.
I like SKR's description of taking 10, pass a skill check that should be passable to a hero who has some training as long as they aren't meaningfully distracted.
Jiggy,
In one of those links, SKR talks about taking 20 with the disguise skill vs the guard spotting it. I didnt think you could take 20 with a skill that takes 1d3x10mins.Anyone want to weigh in?
I don't think there's any inherent limit to taking 20 based on the time it takes to make a typical check. You just have to realize that you'd be taking 20x as long to get it really right and that's 1d3x200 minutes!
That said, I wouldn't allow anyone to take 20 on disguise or any opposed check. Taking 20 presupposes you fail in your attempts before you succeed and that means you'd fail the disguise check before achieving your maximum success - and by then your ruse has been discovered.
What I would allow is someone spending extra time or investing extra resources to get a circumstance bonus on their check.
@ Bill Dunn: Taking 20 assumes you roll till you get a 20. Couldn't this be said of the Disguise skill? Keep redoing the makeup until you get it right? This would expend charges of your kit. No real reason to do this. IF you don't roll well (i.e. messed up your disguise) you could start over.
But how do you really determine if you messed up your disguise? By someone penetrating it with their perception check.
Make your own perceptions check!
Be aware that taking 20 ASSUMES YOU FAIL during the process. This is why you can't take 20 when disabling a trap, as it would ensure the trap goes off.
The RAI is that it assumes that you roll a 1, which is not a auto-failure. ymmv
But how do you really determine if you messed up your disguise? By someone penetrating it with their perception check.
Or to come at it from a different perspective...
You are sitting in front of a mirror with a huge makeup kit(20 charges of a normal kit).
You have a picture of the guy you are trying to look like.
You have several hours to work on the disguise.
You are making multiple attempts to disguise yourself.
After each attempt, you take a 20 on a perception check to double check your work.
After each failed attempt, you would get a little better at disguising yourself as that specific person(hmm, the chin is a little off, the ears are just not right, that hair color is off, etc.)
In that specific situation, why wouldn't you be able to take a 20 on disguise?
Make your own perceptions check!
Think about that with respect to other opposed checks. Taking 20 on stealth - does my perception check succeed in finding me? Yes - it can't avoid doing so. It's a question of perspective - the PC making the disguise, stealth, or whatever check lacks an outside perspective and can't make a valid check.
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't allow you to take 20 on a disguise check.
Think of it this way, the character doesn't know what he rolls when he performs an action. So, let's pretend the GM rolls for you behind a screen and you don't get to know the result.
How do you determine if your disguise is adequate? The best you could do is have a friend look at you and see if their perception roll beats your disguise check. They could take 10 with perception (just as you could've with disguise) or you could roll. Based on whether or not your friend percieves you, you could be satisified with your disguise.
But! There is a lot of uncertainity here. If your friend roll perception they could roll incredibly poorly, after you roll poorly for your disguise, and then think it's adequate. Or you both could roll well, and think that your disguise is no good despite having rolled an 18 (too bad your friend's perception was just 1 higher).
Point is that you have no way of knowing when you've reached your target.
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't allow you to take 20 on a disguise check.
Think of it this way, the character doesn't know what he rolls when he performs an action. So, let's pretend the GM rolls for you behind a screen and you don't get to know the result.
How do you determine if your disguise is adequate? The best you could do is have a friend look at you and see if their perception roll beats your disguise check. They could take 10 with perception (just as you could've with disguise) or you could roll. Based on whether or not your friend percieves you, you could be satisified with your disguise.
But! There is a lot of uncertainity here. If your friend roll perception they could roll incredibly poorly, after you roll poorly for your disguise, and then think it's adequate. Or you both could roll well, and think that your disguise is no good despite having rolled an 18 (too bad your friend's perception was just 1 higher).
Point is that you have no way of knowing when you've reached your target.
There is no reason the friend couldn't take a 20 on the perception check. If you have a mirror, then you could also take a 20. At the very least you could be sure that your disguise was better than 20+your perception. If you wanted to be gamist, you could limit them to 20 + perception, but at that point, there really isn't a good reason to not just let them take 20 on the disguise check.
If someone spends 1d3x10x20 minutes, between 3 hours, 20 minutes and 10 hours, perfecting their disguise...yeah, I'm willing to let them take a 20.
If the target they're trying to fool watches them while doing it, they'd absolutely get to see through when the disguiser "rolls a 1" but at that point, if you can't figure out that the person putting on a disguise for 10 hours isn't who he appears to be...you've got other problems.
In-game, you're not trying to "reach a target" when you take 20, you're making sure that you take enough time to do the job to the best of your ability. There is no penalty for failing a disguise check, so you can take your time adjusting your disguise until it's just right. If you roll a 1 on your disguise check, the makeup doesn't melt off of your face, your wig doesn't fall apart, and your imitation clothes don't suddenly tear at the seams.
If someone spends 1d3x10x20 minutes, between 3 hours, 20 minutes and 10 hours, perfecting their disguise...yeah, I'm willing to let them take a 20.
If the target they're trying to fool watches them while doing it, they'd absolutely get to see through when the disguiser "rolls a 1" but at that point, if you can't figure out that the person putting on a disguise for 10 hours isn't who he appears to be...you've got other problems.
In-game, you're not trying to "reach a target" when you take 20, you're making sure that you take enough time to do the job to the best of your ability. There is no penalty for failing a disguise check, so you can take your time adjusting your disguise until it's just right. If you roll a 1 on your disguise check, the makeup doesn't melt off of your face, your wig doesn't fall apart, and your imitation clothes don't suddenly tear at the seams.
Also, you would spend 100 gold as you would have to burn 2 full disguise kits.
Charender is correct, if you have a mirror or a buddy examining your disguise you should be able to take 20.
Can your buddy take 20 when performing a perception check to examine your disguise in detail? Yes.
Is there a rule preventing you from re-applying your disguise? No.
Can you just keep trying over and over until your buddy says it is good enough? Yes.
If you can keep trying over and over until your buddy says it is good enough then yes, you can take 20. Taking 20 is repeating the same task over and over until you are satisfied with the results (roll a 20).
The time it would take is 1d3x200minutes +20minutes. Minimum is 220minutes (just under 4hrs) while maximum is 620minutes (just over 10hrs).
It is not like someone is going to be using this method regularly.
There is no reason the friend couldn't take a 20 on the perception check. If you have a mirror, then you could also take a 20. At the very least you could be sure that your disguise was better than 20+your perception. If you wanted to be gamist, you could limit them to 20 + perception, but at that point, there really isn't a good reason to not just let them take 20 on the disguise check.Yeah, I definitely wouldn't allow you to take 20 on a disguise check.
Think of it this way, the character doesn't know what he rolls when he performs an action. So, let's pretend the GM rolls for you behind a screen and you don't get to know the result.
How do you determine if your disguise is adequate? The best you could do is have a friend look at you and see if their perception roll beats your disguise check. They could take 10 with perception (just as you could've with disguise) or you could roll. Based on whether or not your friend percieves you, you could be satisified with your disguise.
But! There is a lot of uncertainity here. If your friend roll perception they could roll incredibly poorly, after you roll poorly for your disguise, and then think it's adequate. Or you both could roll well, and think that your disguise is no good despite having rolled an 18 (too bad your friend's perception was just 1 higher).
Point is that you have no way of knowing when you've reached your target.
I would accept this only under the conditions you laid out about having several hours (1.5*10min*20=300min=5 hours required) to create the disguise and limit you to 20+perception of whomever was observing.
3-10 hours and 100 gp to basically get the results of a level 2 spell that can be cast as a standard action for free...yep, still seems pretty reasonable.
And no, I don't see any reason to limit the disguise to 20+perception of yourself or an ally. Has the Disguise skill every really broken someone's game so badly that it needs to be restricted this harshly?
And no, I don't see any reason to limit the disguise to 20+perception of yourself or an ally. Has the Disguise skill every really broken someone's game so badly that it needs to be restricted this harshly?
Not being able to take 20 on a disguise check is a harsh restriction?
And no, I don't see any reason to limit the disguise to 20+perception of yourself or an ally. Has the Disguise skill every really broken someone's game so badly that it needs to be restricted this harshly?
No, but I don't see it as particularly harsh. Also, how do you know to keep going if you're beating your own perception or your friends? You don't, so you would stop.
Also, there could be really annoying consequences for how this scheme works out.
Lets take a situation where the friend or yourself has a very high bonus to perception but a you have a low bonus to disguse self. Let's assume that the perception bonus is higher than your disguise bonus (including any masterwork tool or other bonuses). Now you're in a situation where your friend or yourself is so perceptive you can never be satisfied with the work as it will always be seen through.
Making up entirely new rules (you can take a 20, but only up to a maximum of you or your ally's perception+20) just for the Disguise skill alone seems unusually harsh, yes.
To me, this seems as ridiculous as suggesting that you can only Bluff up to a maximum of your Sense Motive+20, otherwise you would start believing your own lies. While I think that would make for a hilarious house rule for my game full of deceitful illusionists, prevaricating bards, and lying-very-poorly fighters, I would never suggest that be a logical way to interpret the rules.
|
|
I see no reason why one could not take 20 on a disguise check. Heck, I would only charge them two uses of the kit. The time penalty itself is huge enough to make this a very rare occasion. But if my disguise expert wants to impersonate someone and really puts the effort into it, why the heck not let him do what his character is built to do? Heck, there are simple spells that a person can use to make themselves look exactly like a person, investing lots of time and skill points into something should at least give a non-caster a chance to do stuff.
The key difference is you know your lies are lies. You don't get to know how well your disguise is made.
You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people make Perception checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can't be sure how good the result is.
You also know your disguise is a disguise. But my point is not that the scenarios are identical, just that I find them equally ridiculous.
Not being able to take 20 on a disguise check is a harsh restriction?
And no, I don't see any reason to limit the disguise to 20+perception of yourself or an ally. Has the Disguise skill every really broken someone's game so badly that it needs to be restricted this harshly?
The whole point of take 20 is to allow you as the DM to quickly handwave someone putting 20 times the normal effort into something.
So you could force your players to..
Player 1: I make a disguise check *Rolls*.
Player 2(or Player 1 with a mirror): I check the disguise taking a 20.
Repeat until the disguise is as good as possible.
OR
Player 1: I take a 20 on my disguise check.
In most cases, best perception skill in group >= best disguise skill in group so why waste time?
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.
Because its largely true. DCs are not average or random.
If I'm setting a DC for the players I want it to be reasonable and doable. I don't want a disable device check of 25 at first level because the rogue is probably not going to make it. Setting a failure rate of over 50% as a dm or adventure designer is kind of a twit move, so setting the dc lower to give the pcs a good chance at the roll is standard practice. No problem, the rogue succeeds 75%ish of the time.
But then you add in the idea that you can take 10 on anything. All of a sudden my choices are to either set the failure rate so high you've pretty much wasted your investment in the skills, or i make it a 100% success rate because you're taking 10.
BigNorseWolf, in that case the GM needs to houserule away the Take 10 option rather than stealth houseruling it as 'not possible' in situations where it is intended to be possible.
BigNorseWolf, in that case the GM needs to houserule away the Take 10 option rather than stealth houseruling it as 'not possible' in situations where it is intended to be possible.
Its not a stealth house rule. Its a very vague area of the rules that's open to a lot of dm interpretation.
If it is at the level of "the Dwarf next to you has bad gas, so you can't take 10" then maybe you are pushing it a bit far.
Just saying.
More like trying to sneak past the sleeping pack of wolves/dragon is a mite dangerous, or disable the trap that will shoot a fireball into your face.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More like trying to sneak past the sleeping pack of wolves/dragon is a mite dangerous, or disable the trap that will shoot a fireball into your face.If it is at the level of "the Dwarf next to you has bad gas, so you can't take 10" then maybe you are pushing it a bit far.
Just saying.
You have to choose to alter the mindset of the PC to make such a ruling.
The PC could be unafraid, and calm, due to experience, meditation, etc.
You have stop, and say to a player, "no, I choose how your character feels, and how they respond to the world".
You are at a point, where you choose if the PC prefers Red, or White wine.
Not the player.
If the player cannot choose how their PC sees, feels, and responds to the world, then it becomes something else.
It is a NPC.
I don't get why so many DMs are resistant to Take 10. I really like it for one simple reason.
Despite being a game involving a good bit of math, many players I have encountered have difficulty with rapid mental arithmetic.
So you can wait a minute for someone to roll, and add the number to their skill modifier;
Or
just have them note their Take 10 result beside common skills for reference.
Its not a lot of time for one check, but it adds up across multiple players and encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why so many DMs are resistant to Take 10. I really like it for one simple reason.
Despite being a game involving a good bit of math, many players I have encountered have difficulty with rapid mental arithmetic.
So you can wait a minute for someone to roll, and add the number to their skill modifier;
Or
just have them note their Take 10 result beside common skills for reference.
Its not a lot of time for one check, but it adds up across multiple players and encounters.
The GM of the game I am in now has a huge problem with equating "challenging" to "fun" in the game. Every encounter has to push us to the brink. Every obstacle has to require superhuman effort to overcome. Every puzzle has to take an hour to figure out. I think that type of thinking is in part responsible for GMs not liking their players taking 10. Taking 10 isn't challenging so it can't be fun!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More like trying to sneak past the sleeping pack of wolves/dragon is a mite dangerous, or disable the trap that will shoot a fireball into your face.
Okay, let's go with this for a second. So if you can't T10 to sneak past the dragon, when can you T10 on Stealth? If you can't T10 to disable the fireball trap, what can you T10 to disable?
Remember, the only skill where you can never T10 is UMD. So for every other skill in the game, you need to be able to name a situation (and one that would be expected to come up in a normal game) in which you can T10. If you can't come up with such a situation for a given skill, then your understanding of T10 is wrong. If you can come up with such situations for each skill, then your idea of the restrictions is probably close enough. :)