Here's my question: what's with the obsession with ensuring your players fail more than they do?
Okay, that's inflammatory, but let me explain it. A player doesn't invest a bunch of limited-availability skill points into a skill so he can still suck at it. They don't spend their character's gold on skill-boosting items so that those items have less effect than stated.
No. Your players want to be good at certain things, to the detriment of other things.
So why not let them? Your sense of drama... your sense of risk and reward is diametrically opposed to your players desires. If they wanted to fail at climbing a standard knotted rope some of the time, they wouldn't max out their Climb skill and ask to take 10.
Read the room.
This isn't quite the same thing as just letting them win every fight because they want to. This is about letting their character have skill and abilities that work. Reliably. What's so wrong about that?
I could come up with a lot of examples, but will settle for just two:
Diplomacy - Reasonably competent 5th level Bard with 16 Charisma wants to convince somebody Indifferent to do him a favor. Because the player has read his Core Rulebook and knows the target is almost certainly between 15 and 20, and since he has +11 on his skill checks, he knows he can autosucceed with Take 10. If he were to roll, he would have only a 60-85% chance to succeed in this, but with Take 10 it is an autosuccess.
Climb - Reasonably competent 5th level Rogue with an 18 Dex (+12 Climb skill) wants to climb a typical dungeon wall. He knows it is DC 20 because the Core Rulebook says so, and thus by using Take 10 he can change a 35% chance of failure into 0%. Spiderman, eat your heart out - you aren't so special.
Edit - Whoops, forgot momentarily that Climb is Strength based, so give that rogue a 14 Str, which would give him +10 on his Climb Skill. Makes it worse. He is now able to convert 45% fail to autosucceed.
So where are those two examples? these cant be them.
Whats so special about succeeding on that diplomacy roll? not like it gets him gold, experience, or furthers the quest. If it did do any of those things you can't take ten. If he fails he doesn't complete the quest and the kingdom is destroyed or whatever, sounds like a stressful situation to me. I can't think of a diplomacy roll that take 10 doesn't just quicken.
and your kidding with the climb skill right? You mean the skill where if they roll low they can just try again? Take ten is just averaging their rolls, they get there either way.
My players usually have to be reminded to take 10. They like rolling dice.
I can definitely see both sides of this subject. In the vast majority of cases I think taking 10 is a great help to keeping the game moving. Long before "take 10" was an official rule, our groups followed the notion of "auto-success" on a lot of things. In fact even before there were skill check and most things were treated as attribute rolls we had the concept of "auto-success" just because it was insane to waste time on doing checks for every little detail of the game.
But there is an argument to be made that there is no such thing as "auto-success." Even the best chef on the planet occasionally burns the alfredo sauce. So it stands to reason even the most powerful witch in the world occasionally gets distracted from his/her cauldron.
But the game is an abstraction, not a recreation of our world.
One way to deal with the issue if you really dislike the taking 10 on some things is to house rule a "distraction" situation, so that an attempt to take 10 fails on a percentile dice roll of "00" or "01". The GM could make the "distraction roll" every time someone takes 10 and when the magic numbers come up, announce "you were distracted, so make an actual skill check." It isn't even necessary to say what the distraction was, just that a distraction occurred.
If the wall is more than 20' tall, then he can only take 10 on the first check. Because once he gets higher than 20', he is now "in danger" (because falling will hurt him) and he can no longer use the take 10 rules.
While I agree that "take 10" is a good (if often maligned) rule, the above statement is incorrect. A character may still "take 10" even when there are consequences to failure.
|
Huh, I wouldn't think you could take 10 on a diplomacy check. Seems like something I wouldn't allow, negotiations being a kind of verbal combat so to speak. Plus that usually should be handled through actual kind of role-playing. Suppose taking 10 on gathering information would make sense to be able to do. Hmmm.
Climb though come on, who cares if the rogue climbs a wall at quarter speed? They lose their dex bonus to AC, can't wield anything in their hands and are just being silly.
|
I appreciate Take 10, if only because it cuts down on the chances to be uncharacteristically incompetent at the things you're supposed to be good at, a la The Gamers.(even if those were just pure STR rolls)
That way expert dude doesn't have to worry so much about flubbing fixing a lock, but he does still have to roll 'em if he's trying to defuse a bomb while hanging from the bottom of a wagon that'll explode if the speed drops below 20 mph.
|
Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
I do think there are some things that are just so easy that they should automatically succeed. You don't need to make a check to jump across a three foot puddle for example (OK, maybe halflings, gnomes and feeble characters do). But in those cases, no roll should even be made and it should just be described narratively.
I also have no problem with the Take 20 rule, as use of that is not applicable to many skills and is dependent on having time to concentrate on the task.
I'm talking about the times when a character doesn't have enough skill points to succeed automatically by rolling the dice, but by using the Take 10 mechanic can eliminate any chance of failure.
I kind of think that the possibility of losing or failure is an essential part of any game, and adds spice. The Take 10 mechanic, particularly combined with known DCs, in my mind, makes it less of a game and more of a math/character building exercise.
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
Depends on the GM.
I find the Take 10 rules to be a real pace-saver. For example, in the Shackled City campaign, first adventure, the scout wanted to search for traps as they navigated the dungeon. They were going to be relatively slow and cautious. He had a reasonably good Search score (+9 at 1st level I think). The scout player, also being a DM, knows about running a well-paced game and so he was content to Take 10 so that we didn't have to have a roll constantly. It worked great. He detected any traps with a DC 19 or lower, failed on anything higher.
Lots of interesting stuff.
Nope, doesn't surprise me. It fits your game style as you;ve described it previously. Your style isn't mine, but sounds like you're having fun. Rock on.
Just one clarification. I'm not usually bothered by Take 10 removing chance of failure for things that are routine or for which the chance of failure should logically be small. I have more of an issue for things that shouldn't (in my mind at least) be routine and for whcih the chance of failure could be as much as 45% if you rolled the dice.
Have you ever seen someone 'phone in' a performance of some sort? Whether acting, teaching, or some other job?
THAT's taking 10 on it.
I would describe it more as being able to concentrate on doing something carefully and not taking any chances.
I like the take 10 rule.
But my players know that it is not an available option for Dramatically Important moments.
'Take 10' could easily be called the 'Don't Sweat the Small Stuff' rule: if a task is trivial for a given character, don't bother rolling. Only roll the dice when the task is non-trivial.
No problem with that. But that's not actually what the rules say. The rules say nothing about dramatically important or non-trivial. All they say is you can't use it in combat or other stressful situations.
Here's my question: what's with the obsession with ensuring your players fail more than they do?
Okay, that's inflammatory, but let me explain it. A player doesn't invest a bunch of limited-availability skill points into a skill so he can still suck at it. They don't spend their character's gold on skill-boosting items so that those items have less effect than stated.
No. Your players want to be good at certain things, to the detriment of other things.
So why not let them? Your sense of drama... your sense of risk and reward is diametrically opposed to your players desires. If they wanted to fail at climbing a standard knotted rope some of the time, they wouldn't max out their Climb skill and ask to take 10.
Read the room.
This isn't quite the same thing as just letting them win every fight because they want to. This is about letting their character have skill and abilities that work. Reliably. What's so wrong about that?
I have no problem with players succeeding. I'm all for it in fact. I just think autosucceeding at individual tasks as much as it is possible to do under the rules is boring. I like my game to be a little more difficult.
Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
Sadly I'm sure that you've found other people that feel likewise, just not with me.
That an 'epic' hero trips over his own two feet once in twenty times, can't add 2+2 with the regularity of a bad high school student, etc...
It just doesn't sit well with me.
Some things are automatic, it's not a bad thing. That they might not be automatic could be bad.
-James
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.
Here's my question: what's with the obsession with ensuring your players fail more than they do?
Some people have a perverse interest in playing Housecats & Commoners and wanting to make other people play it too.
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
Sadly I'm sure that you've found other people that feel likewise, just not with me.
That an 'epic' hero trips over his own two feet once in twenty times, can't add 2+2 with the regularity of a bad high school student, etc...
It just doesn't sit well with me.
Some things are automatic, it's not a bad thing. That they might not be automatic could be bad.
-James
Which is why there are limits to when you can use said mechanic. If there is no failure condition, then who cares if they take 10 when those limits are not in place? They can't fail unless you are additionally putting in place failure conditions outside those designed by the game. Which then makes this thread inapplicable to the game itself as opposed to your personal house rules.
Whats so special about succeeding on that diplomacy roll? not like it gets him gold, experience, or furthers the quest. If it did do any of those things you can't take ten. If he fails he doesn't complete the quest and the kingdom is destroyed or whatever, sounds like a stressful situation to me. I can't think of a diplomacy roll that take 10 doesn't just quicken.
Where in the Take 10 rules does it say anything about it not being usable if it gains him gold, experience or furthers the quest? Now your interpretation taht if it does any of these things it is a stressful situation might apply, but it is just that, an interpretation. And it is one I am sure many players would argue vociferously against.
As for wall climbing, of course you can try again, but it costs you time, you might fall and hurt yourself, the noise from your fall might alert someone, etc. All things that might make it a more interesting event. None of which can occur with Take 10.
As for wall climbing, of course you can try again, but it costs you time, you might fall and hurt yourself, the noise from your fall might alert someone, etc. All things that might make it a more interesting event. None of which can occur with Take 10.
Clearly when PCs are climbing and are not pressed, they do not try to be very careful and try to scale walls by running up them, a la parkour.
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.
I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +8 modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet"). But I feel the opposite about your Climb example; I think it makes perfect sense for a mountain climber to have no problem with a mildly challenging cliff under ordinary circumstances, but to have the same climb be highly risky when he's being shot at by a sniper.
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +* modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet").
Yeah, so?
Player as character: "Kind sir standing on side of road, might you direct me to the nearest inn?"Player: I take 10 on Diplomacy
DM: "No way, roll that, it's inconceivable that you could go around Diplomacying people for information or favors!"
Huh, I wouldn't think you could take 10 on a diplomacy check. Seems like something I wouldn't allow, negotiations being a kind of verbal combat so to speak. Plus that usually should be handled through actual kind of role-playing. Suppose taking 10 on gathering information would make sense to be able to do. Hmmm.
Climb though come on, who cares if the rogue climbs a wall at quarter speed? They lose their dex bonus to AC, can't wield anything in their hands and are just being silly.
I agree with your interpretation on Diplomacy, but it's not supported by the RAW, unless you say that every Diplomatic situaiton is stressful.
Climb, I guess it depends on what you are climbing toward and why. In general, such traditional thief skills have kind of been marginalized in more recent games as emphasis has moved more heavily to combat, but they are still vitally important in some groups.
I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +8 modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet").Yeah, so?
Player as character: "Kind sir standing on side of road, might you direct me to the nearest inn?"
That's a bad example; that's a DC 10 favour, so it would only fail on a 1 anyway. I don't think anyone's complaining about the ability to "take 2", only stuff where you normally have a 50/50 chance of failing.
In reality, he COULD fail, which will cost his shop thousands of dollars and likely get him fired, but if he has the time and is careful (Take 10), he can't fail.
This is a description of the Take 20 rule, not Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care being taken. I stated in the beginning I have no problem with the Take 20 rule. Take 10 is a different thing.
This is a description of the Take 20 rule, not Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care being taken. I stated in the beginning I have no problem with the Take 20 rule. Take 10 is a different thing.
In reality, he COULD fail, which will cost his shop thousands of dollars and likely get him fired, but if he has the time and is careful (Take 10), he can't fail.
Not really -- "take 20" means that you're working at the very utmost limit of your ability and it takes you 20 times longer than usual because you keep trying and failing until you finally succeed.
That's a bad example; that's a DC 10 favour, so it would only fail on a 1 anyway. I don't think anyone's complaining about the ability to "take 2", only stuff where you normally have a 50/50 chance of failing.I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +8 modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet").Yeah, so?
Player as character: "Kind sir standing on side of road, might you direct me to the nearest inn?"
That's a DC10+ check for a random Indifferent commoner on the side of the street.
It's a DC15+ to ask the same person to call for a guard in the event you have been attacked or to help you pick up books you have dropped
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +* modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet").Yeah, so?
Player as character: "Kind sir standing on side of road, might you direct me to the nearest inn?"
Player: I take 10 on Diplomacy
DM: "No way, roll that, it's inconceivable that you could go around Diplomacying people for information or favors!"
Again I ask, where in the Take 10 rules does it state that you can only use this mechanic when the task is trivial? Everyone keeps throwing these examples of trivial things at me. The rules are not confined to the trivial.
Now if there were language in the rules saying that Take 10 could only be used for routine tasks, I'd have no problem with it, although that leaves a lot of interpretation to individual GMs as to what is and is not routine. The only limits that are there are non-combat and non-stressful, which is a much lower bar than routine or trivial.
Again I ask, where in the Take 10 rules does it state that you can only use this mechanic when the task is trivial? Everyone keeps throwing these examples of trivial things at me. The rules are not confined to the trivial.Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.I agree with you that your Diplomacy example is annoying ("I have a +* modifer to Diplomacy, so I might as well ask a favour of just about every Indifferent person I meet").Yeah, so?
Player as character: "Kind sir standing on side of road, might you direct me to the nearest inn?"
Player: I take 10 on Diplomacy
DM: "No way, roll that, it's inconceivable that you could go around Diplomacying people for information or favors!"
Trivial isn't a defined limit. "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted" is a defined limit. Therefore it can be used in any situation where the character is not threatened with bodily harm or under distraction to stop from focusing on the task.
Now if there were language in the rules saying that Take 10 could only be used for routine tasks, I'd have no problem with it, although that leaves a lot of interpretation to individual GMs as to what is and is not routine. The only limits that are there are non-combat and non-stressful, which is a much lower bar than routine or trivial.
What, exactly, is a "non-routine" task?
Not really -- "take 20" means that you're working at the very utmost limit of your ability and it takes you 20 times longer than usual because you keep trying and failing until you finally succeed.This is a description of the Take 20 rule, not Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care being taken. I stated in the beginning I have no problem with the Take 20 rule. Take 10 is a different thing.
In reality, he COULD fail, which will cost his shop thousands of dollars and likely get him fired, but if he has the time and is careful (Take 10), he can't fail.
Adam was the one who mentioned time and care, not me. The Take 10 mechanic requires no additional time or care, at least as RAW. In fact the SRD description is purely mechanical and gives no real fluff to explain how it is done.
Adam was the one who mentioned time and care, not me. The Take 10 mechanic requires no additional time or care, at least as RAW. In fact the SRD description is purely mechanical and gives no real fluff to explain how it is done.
It takes extra care, but not extra time. If you're under pressure, you can't give the task the attention it deserves. At least, that's my take on it.
This is a description of the Take 20 rule, not Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care being taken. I stated in the beginning I have no problem with the Take 20 rule. Take 10 is a different thing.
In reality, he COULD fail, which will cost his shop thousands of dollars and likely get him fired, but if he has the time and is careful (Take 10), he can't fail.
So you think every mechanic is using "Take 20" when performing a fix? And plumbers? And electricians? And ferriers? And doctors, nurses, etc?
If the DC is 20 (representing a difficult task), and anyone can Take 20 under normal conditions, why do these people get training to do their jobs? They're just gonna Take 20. The only people who would get training would be those who do things where there are distractions -- like paramedics, firefighters, etc.
Nope. The key is the taking extra time and care, which is what you said the mechanic was doing. That is what makes it a Take 20, not a Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care, per RAW.
As for your Take 20 point, the answer is that there are many task that you can't succeed at even with Taking 20. And of course, the more restrictive Take 20 rules specify that it can't be used for many skills at all.
Many of you seem to be missing my main point. I'm not arguing that there should never be anything that you don't automatically succeed at. Walking, as in your example, is clearly one of those (though adding chewing gum at the same time and some folks could be in trouble). I'm merely arguing that, since DCs for many non-routine tasks are published and knowable or at least easily guessable, that Take 10 mechanics can be used for a wide variety of non-routine skills checks, and grant autos-success for things that the character might have only a 45% chance of succeeding at without a roll. To me that is making the game considerably easier and less fun. Obviously most people disagree.Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
Sadly I'm sure that you've found other people that feel likewise, just not with me.
That an 'epic' hero trips over his own two feet once in twenty times, can't add 2+2 with the regularity of a bad high school student, etc...
It just doesn't sit well with me.
Some things are automatic, it's not a bad thing. That they might not be automatic could be bad.
-James
The problem is that you are assuming that those 45% chance of success are not routine for a person of the skill level the player has reached. The fact is that those tasks have become routine because the players have gotten good enough at them. It is what makes skill points not quite linear. Once you reach a certain skill level, you can do a task with regularity. Before then, you have a chance of failure. I think the problem you have is that somehting that someone will fail at 50% of the time suddenly goes to something that they will only fail at when being pressed with the addition of a +1 bonus. The way I look at this is that there is a skill gap at that level, and suddenly I became good enough and found the trick to doing it right, and the process just snapped into place. Now, unless I am pressed or distracted, I will be able to utalize the trick every time.
Take 10 requires no additional time or care, per RAW.
So what's your explanation for being unable to "take 10" under pressure, if it doesn't relate to the character's attention/care?
Now if there were language in the rules saying that Take 10 could only be used for routine tasks, I'd have no problem with it, although that leaves a lot of interpretation to individual GMs as to what is and is not routine. The only limits that are there are non-combat and non-stressful, which is a much lower bar than routine or trivial.The rules don't mention stress. d20PFSRD.com states "Take 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10."
Now, there's still a ton of room for interpreation there, and some people ARE distracted by stress. But I don't think that was the intent of the rule. I'm pretty sure it's there to model someone putting forth a moderate amount of effort in using their skill. For the extremely skilled, they can do amazing things while making it look easy. Isn't that what how we want our heroes to be perceived?
You're right. I automatically equated distracted with stressful.
Actually, I don't usually think of people who can do things easily as heroes or heroic. My heroes are people who sacrifics and struggle and still emerge victorious. Gifted people, are not, by their mere existence, heroic. Michael Vick isn't a hero. Now, the single mother working two jobs and raising four kids, all of whom go to college and none of whom go to jail, that's a hero. I realize that is kind of radical and counter-cultural, but that's me.
Will someone please tell me what is qualifying as "routine" or "non-routine" or "trivial" or "non-trivial" task here?
Take 10 requires no additional time or care, per RAW.So what's your explanation for being unable to "take 10" under pressure, if it doesn't relate to the character's attention/care?
There isn't one in the RAW. It's purely mechnical.
And I apologize, the word routine is actually in the RAW. I missed it in my earlier review, so the GM is given some discretion to say something is not routine.
Take 10 requires no additional time or care, per RAW.So what's your explanation for being unable to "take 10" under pressure, if it doesn't relate to the character's attention/care?There isn't one in the RAW. It's purely mechnical.
And I apologize, the word routine is actually in the RAW. I missed it in my earlier review, so the GM is given some discretion to say something is not routine.
It does say "many routine tasks" but fails to differentiate that from any skill you can just use when you could qualify to take 10. Is lockpicking a routine task? Jumping? Smithing? Asking for directions? Asking for directions is probably the LEAST routine of these tasks yet makes the most sense to just take 10 on if you can.
Now as far as 'knowing the DCs' that is a question of gamestyle with the players at your table. Some of it is reasonable within the game 'I know that if I'm careful I never need worry about a 10' running jump.. I've trained and done it thousands of times' while others are far less so 'he wouldn't throw a monster at us with a knowledge DC over X so I'll take 10'. And honestly doesn't have a place here. That's an issue for you with the rest of the gamers at your table.
-James
Except the DCs are right there in the Core Rulebook. Sure, they can be modified situationally (although some players have argued passionately on these boards before against use of situaitonal modifiers), but just a quick glance at the book is going to give you an idea what you need. Is it metagaming? Of course. Will a lot of players do it? Of course.
This isn't about my table. It's not really a problem at my table. Most of my folks are old school and don't even usually think to use this mechanic unless I remind them of it. This is more sparked by just reaidng the rules and thinking about their consequences.
Nope. The key is the taking extra time and care, which is what you said the mechanic was doing. That is what makes it a Take 20, not a Take 10. Take 10 requires no additional time or care, per RAW.
Yes. I never said "extra" or "additional". You did.
My apologies for putting words in your mouth. I am at a loss though to understand what you mean by "time and care" if it isn't more time and care than would be taken during a normal skill check. Please enlighten me.
Will someone please tell me what is qualifying as "routine" or "non-routine" or "trivial" or "non-trivial" task here?
Good question and even more relevant since I was mistaken and the word "rotuine" is, in fact in the RAW, undefined. Leaves it as GM's discretion, which is actually better.