In book 1 there is a ton of skill checks for jobs. Are you allowed to take 10 on these checks?
That's up the the GM. The rules on taking 10 are always a little contentious. I allow it, except during certain conditions. During a storm, for example, I wouldn't allow taking 10. Some GMs would say that climbing on the rigging at all is too distracting, but I figure if that were the case, we should expect at least one rigger to fall off the rigging at least once per day, which isn't realistic.
The rules state that you can take 10 anytime your not in immediate danger, but I haven't really found a clear Pazio definition of what "immediate danger" means. To me, danger and immediate danger would be defined as this-
Danger: Any time your conditions could result in harm if immediate action is not taken, such as walking a tight rope.
Immediate Danger: Any time your conditions positively result in harm if immediate action is not taken, such as standing in a burning building.
I suppose this would be a better question for the rules section, but I posted here because the GM said not taking 10 in this knstance was a special work duty rule for this AP. I questioned because he didn't really have a clear explination, so I kinda thought he just misunderstood something.
There is no rule in the AP that states one cannot take 10 on the daily task checks. If your GM says you can't, then that's his rule, but he should understand that he's choosing that rule, it's not the written rules.
That's what I thought, and I agree. It's his right to house-rule, but I'd like him to understand when he's doing so.
Ah, you know what I just found though... PFS doesn't let you take 10 on day job rolls. We aren't playing for PFS credit, but that still credits his arguement
The rules state that you can take 10 anytime your not in immediate danger, but I haven't really found a clear Pazio definition of what "immediate danger" means.
Additionally, the rules say that you can't take 10 if you're distracted. When I started the campaign I said that my landlubber PCs were constantly distracted by the novelties of life at sea, and I made everyone roll all of their checks for the first little while. Once things became routine (another keyword of the "take 10" rules) I let them stop rolling. I would force them to roll now during combat or a big storm, but it would take something drastic.
That seems fair, but a player could still argue that perhaps they wouldn't be distracted by the sea, especially anyone trained in profession sailor. I decided that the GM is right though, based solely on the fact that it is called a day job and PFS doesn't allow you to take 10 on day job rolls.
Ah, you know what I just found though... PFS doesn't let you take 10 on day job rolls. We aren't playing for PFS credit, but that still credits his arguement
Actually, this rule has apparently been changed. Now you can take 10 on day job rolls.
Yeah, I take 10 on day jobs all the time in PFS. Besides, the two have nothing to do with one another.
I would have said no for the first few days, till it became fairly routine. However, they've only asked about climb checks when they didn't have the stats for ot, and on perception for the lookout role
But the point is to instill fear and hatred into your players. If they take 10s and Plugg and Scourge never beat them then what's the point?
With 20 out of 22 checks only requiring a DC 10 to pass, taking 10 does not look like the writers' intentions. If that was the case the players would almost never fail their jobs that they were gang pressed and forced to do.
Side note - I pre-rolled all the shipmates jobs too. The checks changed based on who they were working with. Hostile -3, unfriendly -1, friendly +1, Helpful +3.
Ooh, I wish I'd thought to do that. Good call!
Since there are consequences for failing a roll (i.e. rope bash or flogging for repeated failures) I wouldn't allow it.
Yes as the others have said no taking 10 otherwise whats the point.
This part of the taking 10 rule might help "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10".
As the players are going to be constantly on edge due to risk of lashes or worse I would count that as a threat. Also don't forget that the tasks are not easy, the ship would be be swaying about in the water, although the DC's are fairly low this does not mean that they would be as easy to do on dry land. The are also rolling for the WHOLE day so its not really just one check, its a simplified way of doing it otherwise you would be rolling a lot more each day which would be REALLY boring.
Oh and don't forget to add in those modifers for fatique (if lashed) and for failing the rum ration roll, the DC12 roll then becomes a whole lot more difficult.
Since there are consequences for failing a roll (i.e. rope bash or flogging for repeated failures) I wouldn't allow it.
Consequences for failure does not prevent taking 10. In fact, taking 10 is specifically designed to be used to prevent failure in a situation where a high roll would not do you any good, but a low roll would result in failure.
Iv'e seen this question come up a few times here for this part of the AP. Maybe Richard Pett could give us his thoughts? I would think maybe it was omitted form the text by accident?
I do find it unlikley that the writer set out to allow the use of taking 10 for the job rolls as it makes them too easy and that's not what he is going for in the whole of this part of the book. Its meant to be a real hard slog with constant threat of being flogged or worse and ready to drop at the end of the day. The players are meant to feel downtrodden and ready to give up. This is what makes them hate Plugg,Scoure and Harrigan and forces the mutiny in the first place.
Its not meant to be a pleasure cruise.
Nullpunkt wrote:
(If it's presumptuous to start this 'official' thread, please feel free to rename it)
I am reading through this chapter of the AP right now and noticed that a lot of the ship tasks and ship actions involve DCs around 10. So are players supposed to be able to take 10 on them or is the intimidating atmosphere aboard the ship enough for the PCs to be considered distracted or in danger?I could see the reasoning go both ways.
Most of the skill checks represent a day's worth of work, rather than a single skill check. As a result, in the Skull & Shackles game I'm running, I haven't told the players the DCs, and as a result, haven't asked to take 10. I probably wouldn't allow it, because of the penalties for failure aboard the Wormwood. That said, if you want to make to easier on your players, you could certainly allow them to take 10 if they have the correct skills.
Iv'e seen this question come up a few times here for this part of the AP. Maybe Richard Pett could give us his thoughts? I would think maybe it was omitted form the text by accident?
I do find it unlikley that the writer set out to allow the use of taking 10 for the job rolls as it makes them too easy and that's not what he is going for in the whole of this part of the book. Its meant to be a real hard slog with constant threat of being flogged or worse and ready to drop at the end of the day. The players are meant to feel downtrodden and ready to give up. This is what makes them hate Plugg,Scoure and Harrigan and forces the mutiny in the first place.
Its not meant to be a pleasure cruise.
Aha!
The intention with these checks was always to add a little danger to learning the jobs the PCs are destined to take on and potentially master in the future, so yes exactly right. Remember the whole start of the adventure is really meant as a shock but allows some PCs to potentially shine whilst, as you rightly say, others will become downtrodden and quickly come to loathe their 'masters'.
However.
One option I wish I'd used, and which I've mentioned at conventions is that some groups don't like the skill checks and find too many too much. In that case I'd suggest that you ask the players what their PCs are doing each day, but that only random PCs come under the gaze of the senior crewmen, so that only those characters who are watched have to make checks, it's an option worth considering using.
Rich
Thanks Richard :)
There's also the potential for a lot of ability damage. Between rum rations, filth fever from rats in the bilge, strength damage from reef claws and fatigue/exhaustion and the sweatbox, those "easy" DCs can become much more challenging.
I also didn't allow Take 10s pre-mutiny. Between a hostile crew and a hostile officer group, there was never a stress-free, distraction-free atmosphere present over the day represented by the roll.
I found that gave weight to the "work diligently" option. My fatigued PCs often took that route to prevent the spiral to perpetual failure.
There's the rogue talent that allows the rogue to take 10 on skills when not normally able to do so. Just to give that talent any meaning whatsoever, I tend to crack down a little harder on the Take 10 option. The poor cook's assistant. So many lashes. So much abuse.
Now that they're large and in charge, post-mutiny, they can take 10 much more often. Just another reward for their derring do which helps add to the night/day difference between being a press-ganged pirate and a free-roaming pirate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the great ideas here.
I'm going to begin running this AP soon and I was thinking of the same issue Heroshi mentioned. Taking 10 kind of makes a lot of the first stages pointless.
I think I'm going to let the players discover the possibility of Take 10 on their own, but Plugg and Scourge will consider it sandbagging and express their disapproval promptly.
Maybe some perception checks on their part to notice and an escalating percentage chance to punish the PCs? A smart PC might roll an accompanying Stealth or Bluff check to disguise their shenanigans from the rest of the crew.
Maybe they will just choose to beat some motivation into the PCs at random for this...
As the AP goes on, Profession checks are more background, with a few point being important sometimes (ship combat etc). Never like at the beggining, make them SWEAT those rolls. Even if it's not that much fun failing a Prof Sail check to climb the rigging it adds a lot of value to the game later on.
When they are full fledged captains scourging the Shackles they'll remember damn well how they had troubles climbing the rigging that one time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having GMed this twice, the job rolls take a lot of time and are a drag. Anything that speeds them up is a good thing.
|
I agree with PaladinOBW; if something has to be skipped it's this. However, the drudgery of it *did* make the PCs *want* to escape the tyranny of Plugg and Scourge BADLY. So it's not useless. Time-consuming yes, but not useless. If I'd run this part of the AP again (I became DM at the beginning of Chapter 2 - our Chapter 1 DM had to move due to work, alas) I wouldn't do anything much different than he did, but I would speed all this up but printing a blank calendar and passing it around the table so that all the players do ALL their d20 rolls up front. Then I'd just announce results at the end i.e. you made the following NPCs friendly: etc. etc. etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of all of this is that their characters learn these jobs and what it means to be a pirate. I did not allow taking 10 because it would have completely defeated the point. Now that the characters are level 7, yes they do appreciate the skills they learned on the Wormwood.
Also the daily jobs create opportunities for PCs to make friends or enemies with NPCs (in either working diligently or slacking off to socialize), learn more about the ship and its crew and get into mischief. PCs fouling up the job gives you a chance to make Scourge and Plugg bigger villains. If you're not role playing these and skip them, I think you're cutting out a large part of the drama of the first book. In my game up until the battle with the Man's Promise, the tension this created was palpable and the PCs felt they were backed into a corner for sure. It was one of the best scenes of the first book.