Taking 10


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

jimibones83 wrote:
I just find something interesting that credits his argument. Apparently PFS doesn't allow you to take 10's on day job rolls either.

Yet another interesting development. Apparently this rule has been changed. Now you can take 10 on day job rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:

@Cevah Thats a great bit of insight, however, after I thought about it for a moment, i kinda questioned. I think a pit could be very distracting. For instance, if I were working at the top of a cell tower, there would be nothing but the task at hand, but those heights would distract the s~@! right out of me, literally.

EDIT* After I realized heights make me crap my pants

OK. Being up high has triggered your fear-of-heights. You are now distracted by that fear. You cannot take-10.

Now imagine you got over your fear. You would be just like those who routinely work at heights. You are now no longer distracted and can take-10.

Ever watch those old videos of steel workers building the empire state building? They were fearless up there. Even doing acrobatic stuff. It did not matter how high they were. They could take-10.

example video
example video

/cevah


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
In response to thorin001, Cevah, and yeti1069, the reason it's harder to sneak past a dragon than a castle guard is the same reason some people fail tests even when they know all of the material: we are imperfect creatures. If you are trying to sneak past a dragon, chances are you are going to be terrified, or at least extremely nervous. This causes people to be less able to calmly carry out their task. That is a fact. It doesn't make the task impossible, it doesn't make the task more difficult per se, it makes the character distracted. If the character is distracted, they cannot take 10. That comes directly from the rules. And worrying about being eaten if you get caught is something completely different than "the task at hand" which is trying to move stealthily. In much the same way, thinking about the difficulty of climbing a wall doesn't distract you from climbing it, but thinking about the possibility of falling into lava might, because that is something other than the task at hand. Another separate factor is time constraints. These are most often not an issue, but, especially when combined with dangers resulting from failure, might be distracting because they distract the character from simply completing the task in the best manner possible. The person Cevah quoted specifically mentions being in a rush as something that could prevent someone from taking 10. And finally, yeti, a person could sneak past a guard and a polymorphed dragon in the same way because it's not about the danger. It's about the character's perception of danger, which affects their nerves and their ability to act without being distracted.

That's being needlessly inconsistent with how the rules work.

If you're scared because you're trying to sneak past a dragon...we have rules for fear; use them! Add the Shaken condition, maybe, or a circumstance penalty. Maybe activate the dragon's frightful presence and have the player roll a Will save.

What if the adventurer has killed a dragon before? Is he still too distracted to take 10? What if he's kill 5? What if he killed the last dragon he encountered in one swing? What if he's bigger than the dragon?

What if he's just the sort of person who simply isn't concerned with such things? Maybe he's got a death wish? Maybe he's a paladin and is immune to fear? Perhaps he has confidence in his friends and feels assured that if he wakes the dragon, one of them will take care of it quickly by pouring molten gold over its head?

You should never be distracted by the task you're performing. That goes against the point of the rules. Differentiating between sneaking by a dragon and sneaking by a guard is subjective. At what point do you disallow someone to take 10 sneaking past that guard?

If you alert the guard he will:
-turn and run away
-sound the alert
-which will bring more, low level guards
-Which will bring a tougher guard
-which will bring a tough enemy wizard
-which will bring a dragon
-which will cause your mission to fail (need to get in and out
without being noticed)
-which will delay your reaching someone being tortured
-which will delay your reaching someone dying that you can save
-which will delay you long enough for your soda to go flat
-turn and attack you with a dagger
-turn and attack you with a longsword
-turn and attack you with a greatsword
-turn and attack you with a pistol
-turn and attack you with a rifle
-turn and attack you with a bazooka

A simply, objective way of looking at the way take 10 works by asking yourself: What happens if I fail? That result, CANNOT BE A DISTRACTION BECAUSE IT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF YOUR USING THE SKILL.

Climbing over lava can't be a distraction, because the only way for that lava to be a danger is if you fail, therefore your whole attention is on NOT falling in the lava, such as by focusing on your task and taking 10, rather than being careless or taking unnecessary risks (rolling a d20 when you know you can scale that wall with ease).

Again, at which point is it distracting?
-10 ft off the ground?
-20?
-40?
-100?
-200?
-500?
-a mile?
-lava below?
-spikes below?
-Does your answer to the above change when the character is level 5? 10? 15? 20? Does it change if they have 10 HP? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1,000?
-monsters below?
-CR-3?
-CR-2?
-CR-1?
-CR+1?
-CR+2?
-CR+3?
-if you're scaling the wall to avoid falling into something dangerous?
-if you're scaling the wall to reach something dangerous?

What situations that involve you using Perception are distracting enough to not allow taking 10 on Perception because of what you're trying to perceive?

What situations that involve you rolling Appraise are distracting because of what you're trying to judge?

What situations that call for rolling a Knowledge check are distracting because of what you're trying to recall?

Do you see how inconsistent your viewpoint is?

If you want to disallow taking 10 to sneak past a dragon, come up with a better reason:
-maybe he also has to use Acrobatics to balance on all the shifting gold underfoot
-maybe he is also trying to look for traps at the same time

OR, just impose some modifiers: he's scared, so he gets a -2 penalty.

OR, you know, let the person take 10 if they want to, but the dragon notices him anyway, because the dragon has a very high Perception, or was just pretending to be asleep, and even though the character was focused on their task, they simply weren't good enough, without getting lucky, to avoid detection. THAT'S how taking 10 is supposed to go! You think you can accomplish a task with your tried and true level of focus and skill, so you approach the task in that fashion, but sometimes you misjudged, or something unexpected comes up, and you fail.

Take 10 doesn't mean you automatically succeed, it means that you are consistent on the tasks that aren't supposed to be challenging for you. If you're a neophyte weaponsmith, maybe you take 10 on a dagger and succeed, get cocky, and take 10 on a masterwork composite longbow and you fail. Meanwhile, the master smith is taking 10 and succeeding on that bow, but then fails when he tries to do the same with what he thinks is a piece of standard iron, but finds out is actually adamantine.

There are so many ways to deal with these situations WITHOUT neutering the take 10 rules that I can't understand why so many people want to arbitrarily deny players that option.


Yes, we have rules for fear. We also have rules for distraction, which can be a result of fear. One of those rules involves not being able to take 10.

Yes, it is simple and objective to say that none of the consequences of failure can be a distraction. It just ignores all facts of reality. People get distracted when they have more at stake. This is a fact. People can fail more because of this distraction. This is a fact. People tend to be less consistent in their results when they have more at stake. This is a fact. There have been scientific studies to this effect, and claiming that you can't be distracted by what might happen if you fail is just wrong.

And all of your "what ifs" just prove my point. If you don't claim that nothing about possible failure can distract someone, then you have to acknowledge the need for a GM to decide when someone is distracted and when they aren't. Like I've said, it depends on the circumstances, and making broad rulings can't help anything.


Avoron wrote:

Yes, we have rules for fear. We also have rules for distraction, which can be a result of fear. One of those rules involves not being able to take 10.

Yes, it is simple and objective to say that none of the consequences of failure can be a distraction. It just ignores all facts of reality. People get distracted when they have more at stake. This is a fact. People can fail more because of this distraction. This is a fact. People tend to be less consistent in their results when they have more at stake. This is a fact. There have been scientific studies to this effect, and claiming that you can't be distracted by what might happen if you fail is just wrong.

And all of your "what ifs" just prove my point. If you don't claim that nothing about possible failure can distract someone, then you have to acknowledge the need for a GM to decide when someone is distracted and when they aren't. Like I've said, it depends on the circumstances, and making broad rulings can't help anything.

Everything is for the GM to decide but SKR's quote shows that the intent is immediate danger, not the failure itself being a distraction, and I think that is what the OP was asking about. Failing any check can have a bad consequence, so by that logic almost no skill can use take 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:

Yes, we have rules for fear. We also have rules for distraction, which can be a result of fear. One of those rules involves not being able to take 10.

Yes, it is simple and objective to say that none of the consequences of failure can be a distraction. It just ignores all facts of reality. People get distracted when they have more at stake. This is a fact. People can fail more because of this distraction. This is a fact. People tend to be less consistent in their results when they have more at stake. This is a fact. There have been scientific studies to this effect, and claiming that you can't be distracted by what might happen if you fail is just wrong.

And all of your "what ifs" just prove my point. If you don't claim that nothing about possible failure can distract someone, then you have to acknowledge the need for a GM to decide when someone is distracted and when they aren't. Like I've said, it depends on the circumstances, and making broad rulings can't help anything.

Well, this IS the Rules forum, so making broad rulings is kind of the point...

How can distraction result in fear? I think you have that backwards.

Don't claim nebulous "studies" in support of a point. First, this game is necessarily an abstraction of reality, so there's some degree to which going into the psychology of things is well beyond the scope of what the game rules should be doing.

Second, you can look at tons of examples where that's simply not correct--there are people who rock climb ALL THE TIME and don't die, even when doing something incredibly difficult. The parallel here is that they're taking 10, and their 10 is high enough to succeed. Those people who fail, I'd say, didn't notice something was amiss (a loose rock), or had other challenges that pushed the DC higher (the wind picked up--might rule that as a distraction--or the rocks were icy, or their hands were getting cold), or they were distracted by something else like a bird flying nearby, or someone shouting to them, or they became fatigued or exhausted, or they were trying to rush things, and were rolling hoping to get a high roll to do something quick/more efficiently, figuring the odds of their succeeding would be good, and instead rolled poorly.

The very nature of many professions requires that the professionals NOT allow fear to affect how they perform, or they simply don't acknowledge the fear, or don't think about the consequences. Have you ever gone climbing? You don't think about the two thousand foot drop below you, you think about your next handhold and your next foothold--there IS no drop below you. Haven't you ever heard of "crunch time"? That's when the stakes are high and you buckle down and kick ass. Now, perhaps you could say that's getting OFF of taking 10 and going for rolling hoping to keep rolling well, but sometimes it's simply casting aside distractions and taking the time to make sure you do something RIGHT. Maybe that's take 20, but it can't be if there is a consequence for failure. For those situations, we have take 10.

If we couldn't take 10 when there was some negative consequence for failure, why would there be take 10 rules? After all, if we want to guarantee success when there is no penalty on a failed roll, we have take 20, which we expressly cannot use in such circumstances.

Why is a GM deciding when my character is distracted? How does he know if my character's 5 ranks, and Skill Focus, and +2/+2 feat, and high ability score and +5 magic item ALL improving my capability with a skill haven't left me feeling confident even in the most dire of circumstances? Or cocky even? What if he feels like he can waltz past any hazard? Are YOU going to interject and tell me how to play my character? Tell me that he's distracted by the pit yawning below him, even though he's done that 100 times? Or that he can't take 10 to sneak by the dragon at level 10, even though he COULD sneak by the 2 orcs at level taking 10, even though they were just as likely (or even more so) to kill him?

On the one hand, we have your position, where you need to weigh every single action the character has taken, every trial they have endured, every decision they've made, AND every obvious or semi-obvious outcome of their failed check to decide whether they are permitted to take 10. Has he bested this challenge in the past? Has he done so often? Has he done something more difficult objectively (higher CR)? Has he done so subjectively (higher CR compared to the level he was at the time vs. the current CR against his current level)? Is he the sort to laugh in the face of danger (whether bravely or foolishly)? Is he immune to fear? Does he have a death wish? Does killing 2 hydras single-handedly equate to sneaking by a dragon when you have backup? Was he distracted by the sleeping hydras? That's either arduous, hard, or you're not being fair and relying on GM fiat (what you want to see happen) rather than on what makes sense for the game and characters therein.

On the other hand, you say, "Is he trying to do two things at once (2 skill checks), being attacked, rushing, or focused on something else (like a conversation)?" No? Then he isn't distracted and can take 10. Yes? Then he can't take 10. That's easy.

Is your issue with SUCCEEDING at these difficult/dangerous tasks, or with not having to roll for them?

Personally, I LOVE take 10 as a GM, because every now and then I can lull the PCs into thinking they can get by taking 10 and then they run into something with a higher DC for some reason, and they fail, sometimes spectacularly. As a player, it means that I don't have to zero out a skill in order for me to be able to do something consistently.

After all, the INTENT of take 10, is that a person should be able to make a standing jump of 5 feet every time unless there are outside mitigating factors, and it really shouldn't matter whether the intervening 5 feet is ground, water, snakes, a 10 foot pit, a 100 foot pit, a pit with spikes, or a precious mirror you don't want to step on and break.

If nothing else, just remember this: D&D and Pathfinder are about HEROES, and heroes don't fail stuff like that without good cause. Also, MAGIC! The wizard gets to skip most of these challenges by casting a spell...are you going to penalize the fighter who has invested heavily in his skills to succeed at something the wizard is doing effortlessly because somehow the fighter is distracted by the danger of failing, even after all the practice and training he has had, and all the times he has succeeded?


Cevah wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

@Cevah Thats a great bit of insight, however, after I thought about it for a moment, i kinda questioned. I think a pit could be very distracting. For instance, if I were working at the top of a cell tower, there would be nothing but the task at hand, but those heights would distract the s~@! right out of me, literally.

EDIT* After I realized heights make me crap my pants

OK. Being up high has triggered your fear-of-heights. You are now distracted by that fear. You cannot take-10.

Now imagine you got over your fear. You would be just like those who routinely work at heights. You are now no longer distracted and can take-10.

Ever watch those old videos of steel workers building the empire state building? They were fearless up there. Even doing acrobatic stuff. It did not matter how high they were. They could take-10.

example video
example video

/cevah

Yesterday I came to the conclusion that a rigger would indeed be distracted by the sway of the ship and the height at which the job takes place, but that being trained with even 1 rank in profession sailor should negate that distraction. I'm glad someone sees it the same way. Now if I can only convince my GM

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If it helps at all, in the third book of Skulls and Shackles they specifically say you can't take a ten on your climb/acrobatics checks up the mast and rigging because of the stressful nature of a competition that is going on. I would assume that would mean that unless there is an outside complication such as a storm, combat, in this case people heckling you and competing against you, you can take a ten on climbing. That would also tell me that you aren't in too much danger just because you're climbing at a dangerous height.

Grand Lodge

The way I see it Imminent danger would be while you are being threatened by attack, or the results of the check has the potential to seriously harm you. Specificly, you have to Believe that you could get hurt.

I would allow you to take 10 on a climb check only if starting from the bottom. If you take 10 and make progress then it builds enough confidence for you to continue taking 10 unless conditions change enough to make you believe the danger has increased. (Even if the danger is the same.)

I would also allow you to take 10 on a disable device check to disarm a trap IF your character truly believed that setting off the trap wouldn't hurt them (or the rest of the party if they care about that.)

On a side note, I have often told my GMs that I "Take 1" on checks when I can't fail them due to high skill.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

No.

Threat of failure is never,

never,

a reason that one cannot Take 10.

It is an outside force, and never, the task itself.


haha, why not have take 10 never work unless dominated. do you know how scary life is? thousands of things could kill you any moment. If you're alive your in danger of dying. You could have a heart attack. Also, how long can you go thinking about something before a different thought comes in? I know I can't go too long before a distraction comes.
Only when you're not thinking can you take ten. No distractions then.
Now there's no GM fiat or ruling, it's very clear of when you can or can't. So now if you need to sneak past the dragon, have your wizard mind control the sneaky guy to get through :D

Sovereign Court

Normally I agree that GMs should relax and use the Take 10 rules as they're intended to be. They represent someone being able to focus on the task at hand.

If you're driving a car on the highway and try to overtake a big truck, that's something that's usually pretty routine. You do it lots of time while commuting.

But it's also something with a huge penalty for failure. A collision at high speed has a high chance of severely injuring or killing you. Which is exactly why people aren't supposed to drive when they're not able to Take 10, due to fatigue or inebriation, and why using a handheld phone in a car is really really stupid.

In the case of the riggers, I do think the storm situation is still "business as usual". Doing the rigging is your job, and professionals do that all the time. They're still Taking 10, although the DCs are higher so you do want actual professionals.

Sometimes though you have a really nasty storm, with DCs that you can't actually make while Taking 10. That, IMO, is actually the main reason why you shouldn't always Take 10; lots of time as an adventurer you're operating beyond your comfort zone and 10 isn't high enough.

Also, if the captain is a fool, if he's drunk, ragging on his riggers, or if he just hired a lot of people who don't speak each others' languages, I'd say that's distracting and bad for the routine work of the ship. In team enterprises where people rely on each other, you don't want to disrupt the team like that.

In the case of a chase between ships I think I'd interpret the "in combat" clause broadly though, and say that you can't Take 10; chance effects are a bit more significant in those cases. Just like I wouldn't normally let people Take 10 during any other kind of chase.


Danger and Immediate danger can we thought of this. One is what COULD be and one is what IS currently.

You can take a ten on a trap as long as no combat or enemies are nearby, why? What COULD happen if you fail and activate the trap is not immediate danger. What's immediate danger is you trying to deactive the trap, with a badguy swinging a sword 20 feet away from you that could decide to jump on you at any given time during your "taking a ten" process. Taking a 10, or 20, requires more time than usual. You're not under any stress, but you take your time to make sure you don't mess up. The question to the DM at this point is basically "Is there anything here that could interfere with the player's taking a ten action in the time-span of rounds of him taking a ten." If yes, he can't take it. If no, go for it.

Edit: Just to clarify, as far as taking 20s go, I believe you can only do that with little to no threat, traps however count as threatening until disarmed.


SwiftyKun wrote:
Taking a 10, or 20, requires more time than usual. You're not under any stress, but you take your time to make sure you don't mess up.

Taking 10 requires no more time than a normal check.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
SwiftyKun wrote:
Taking a 10, or 20, requires more time than usual. You're not under any stress, but you take your time to make sure you don't mess up.

Taking 10 requires no more time than a normal check.

You are correct. I just looked and it doesn't say it takes anymore time than usual. The "relaxing comfortable work area" still applies.


Look, if you as a GM would rather always let players take 10, that's perfectly acceptable. I myself would almost always let players take 10 in the situations we're talking about, unless I had a good reason why they would be distracted. And if a player feels that their character wouldn't be distracted by a certain situation, then they can bring it up to the GM, and any good GM will take that into consideration.

In answer to your first question, my statement was that distraction can be a result of fear, not that it can result in fear.

In answer to your later question, I have no issue with characters taking 10 on dangerous or difficult tasks. The rulebook just happens to have issue with characters taking 10 while distracted, and I have an issue with the claim that fear cannot distract people. It's not a question of complicated simulations of psychology, it's just a question of whether or not fear of extreme consequences can distract someone.

You seem to be stuck up on the idea of a hard and fast rule. You said, "If we couldn't take 10 when there was some negative consequence for failure, why would there be take 10 rules?" I'm not saying this happens if there are negative consequences, only if fear of extreme negative consequences is too distracting for the character to take 10 in the GM's opinion. And all of your counterexamples "where that's simply not correct" do nothing to refute my point, which is that sometimes fear distracts and sometimes it doesn't.

Now, blackbloodtroll was very emphatic, and you also seem to very much like your self-made rule about two tasks at once. The trouble is, besides a lack of realistic logic, that both of you have no support for your opinions anywhere in the rules. Your entire argument is based off of one quote from a contributor's post that implies something similar to your ideas by saying, "Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand." Now, first of all, in my opinion picturing myself getting roasted alive by a dragon is something very different than the "task at hand" of trying to carefully decide where to place my feet. Maybe you guys have some secret source that you are basing your decisions off of, but I'm basing mine off of the "Taking 10" section of page 86 of the Core Rulebook. This section says nothing, implied or otherwise, about multiple tasks or the necessity of a second distracting source. It simply says, "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10." There you have it: Distractions make it impossible for a character to take 10.


Oh, I just remembered a fun little tip a DM told me once. If you could equate it to disarming a bomb, they cannot take a 10. If it's less stressful than a bomb, then they can. =D


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bees swarming around your head while you try to jump a chasm is a distraction. The chasm, no matter how deep, is not a distraction.

If you really want something like that in your games, leave it to the players to decide. A GM shouldn't arbitrarily state that a character is suddenly afraid of heights. However, if the player has played out a long history of his character being afraid of heights, then the player can choose to not take 10 because he is "afraid" and "distracted."

But normally? Never and nope.


If no negatives would come from failing a roll (i.e. they could just try again) and they aren't pressed from time, I always allow take 10.

If they are doing a task where the task itself is dangerous, climbing a wall, jumping a pit etc. I would allow them to take 10 if they are likely to succeed on the roll (say they would succeed on a 5) if 10 is the minimum they would need to clear the pit they are jumping, it seems like that is a dangerous and distracting task for the character, while if they needed a 2 to succeed it is a trivial exercise.

Additionally I might at times disallow taking 10 for dramatic reasons. Cooking dinner for the group would be an appropriate take 10 roll. Cooking meals in a contest might not allow take 10, just because I think the tension of the rolling might improve the fun.

Similarly, from the original post, while make a profession check would normally fall under taking 10 just fine, being a rigger under the authority of sadistic pirates just looking for an excuse to punish you can very well be considered distracting danger.


Dave Justus wrote:
If no negatives would come from failing a roll (i.e. they could just try again) and they aren't pressed from time, I always allow take 10.

If you actually read the take 10 rules, neither of those are relevant.

Those are the rules for allowing take 20, not take 10.

Similarly, the task itself being dangerous is not a reason to disallow taking 10, by RAW.

Only when the external situation is dangerous or distracting should you disallow taking 10.


The statements by Ravingdork and Orfamay Quest don't give any support for their opinions on the effect of dangerous and frightening consequences of failure on the distraction of a character. All they have to base them off of is the aforementioned and ambiguous quote from a thread post. Orfamay, you mentioned RAW. I showed a quote saying that distractions make it impossible for a character to take 10. Can you show me a quote from the rules saying that fear of extremely dangerous consequences of failure cannot serve as a distraction? If not, then saying they can't isn't RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How has no one posted the actual text yet?

Quote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

The only explicit example of a distraction or threat is combat. Anything other than that is GM choice.

Another thing to point out, is that you can take 10 when you fear a poor roll might fail. There are some exceptions, such as swim skill calls out that you cannot take 10 in stormy weather. However, for the most part, you can always take 10 if you are not in combat. At least, thats the rule of thumb my group uses. "Are we in initiative rounds?" No? Then take 10 away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
Can you show me a quote from the rules saying that fear of extremely dangerous consequences of failure cannot serve as a distraction?

"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 are explicitly empowered to take 10 when you fear the consequences of failure. In fact, you are explicitly empowered to do that to eliminate the chance of a failure.

That's what "purely a safety measure" (also a direct quote) means.


First of all, I agree completely with Tarantula that anything other than combat is GM choice. Also, fearing a poor roll might fail is completely different than fearing extreme consequences of failure. While I acknowledge how that might cause many GMs to make broad rulings in favor of taking 10, and wanting to avoid failure is the only reason for taking 10 in the first place, I also believe that if you are sneaking past a dragon or climbing over a pool of lava, the extreme danger and threat caused by the exceptional nature of the activity acts as a very real cause of fear and distraction, and throwing that distraction out without considering its effect on the character's performance isn't necessarily appropriate. But, like I said, it's GM choice. If all of you guys completely disagree with me and think every other reasonable GM would disagree with me too, then that's that.

Grand Lodge

SwiftyKun wrote:
Oh, I just remembered a fun little tip a DM told me once. If you could equate it to disarming a bomb, they cannot take a 10. If it's less stressful than a bomb, then they can. =D

What if disarming bombs is what the PC excels at?

What if it's his job?

What if he simply has no fear of death, or doesn't believe the bomb is all that dangerous?

Sovereign Court

If the PC is affected by the dragon's Frightful Presence? Okay, no Take 10.

If the PC made his save, isn't suffering any kind of Fear effect, but trying to sneak past the dragon? Then I'd leave it up to the PC's player. If he wants to RP being so scared that he's distracted, fine. But unless he's actually mechanically scared, I'm not gonna force that as a GM.


Avoron wrote:
First of all, I agree completely with Tarantula that anything other than combat is GM choice. Also, fearing a poor roll might fail is completely different than fearing extreme consequences of failure. While I acknowledge how that might cause many GMs to make broad rulings in favor of taking 10, and wanting to avoid failure is the only reason for taking 10 in the first place, I also believe that if you are sneaking past a dragon or climbing over a pool of lava, the extreme danger and threat caused by the exceptional nature of the activity acts as a very real cause of fear and distraction, and throwing that distraction out without considering its effect on the character's performance isn't necessarily appropriate. But, like I said, it's GM choice. If all of you guys completely disagree with me and think every other reasonable GM would disagree with me too, then that's that.

Isn't it up to a player to determine if their character is afraid or worried?

I have played reckless characters, and ones that planned out every detail. So even under your interpretation not all of them would be distracted. If you are out fighting dragons and other monsters you are likely more capable to deal with stressful situations than the average person.

Also anything can be label as "extreme fear", depending on how much someone is inclined to worry about something. The book however says nothing about extreme fear. It only mentions fear as not being a reason to not take take.

If the PDT(rules team) said they were referring to external stimulus like we have mentioned, and not the failure itself would you change how you ran your games?

As an example failing a stealth check to not wake a sleeping dragon would not be a distraction even if he can one round TPK the entire party.


Avoron wrote:
Also, fearing a poor roll might fail is completely different than fearing extreme consequences of failure.

"I'm not afraid of failing -- I'm afraid of the consequences of failing!"

Yeah, I don't buy a syllable of that.


Fear of the consequences of failure is not something the GM can assume about a character. Barring mind-affecting effects, the character's state of mind is solely the province of the player. That's why you don't use "ohgodwhatifiscrewup" as a distraction.

If the character has the shaken (or worse) condition, then by all means disallow Take 10. But if not, allow it.

Take 10 is supposed to speed up game play by skipping routine rolls, not slow it down it by requiring a complicated and expensive process for determining whether something is dangerous enough to constitute a distraction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that I think about it, I would implement the other approach as a character drawback:

blahpers's Hypothetical Drawbacks wrote:


Acrophobia

You have a problem with heights.

Effect: As long as you are within sight of a sudden drop of 30 feet or more, you have the shaken condition and cannot take 10 on skill checks. While some effects can remove or offset the shaken condition, nothing can allow you to take 10 on skill checks when affected in this fashion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
How has no one posted the actual text yet?

Try reading my post on the last page. :-)

Avoron wrote:
Also, fearing a poor roll might fail is completely different than fearing extreme consequences of failure.
Avoron wrote:
Can you show me a quote from the rules saying that fear of extremely dangerous consequences of failure cannot serve as a distraction? If not, then saying they can't isn't RAW.

Can you define "fear of extremely dangerous consequences" by RAW? What goes for others goes for you also. No? Then don't claim the difference between "fear of failure" and "fear of extremely dangerous consequences" is RAW. What goes for others goes for you also.

/cevah


Okay, I got bogged down in semantics in my previous post, but my point is that just because your reason for taking 10 is that you don't want to fail doesn't mean that nothing to do with failure can distract you. Sure, a player can usually decide their character's state of mind, but since the rules say that anything that distracts a character stops them from taking 10, the GM has to make some decisions about what distracts them and what doesn't. If a terrifying possibility happens to be something that the GM thinks would distract them too much for them to take 10, then I don't see any problem with that. I'm not saying your way is wrong, I'm just saying I think you guys might be going overboard if you think that no GM can ever decide that they think a very scary situation could possibly be a distraction for a character.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember, Taking 10, does not guarantee success.

Taking 10 is, however, a way to avoid the possible failure, of a very low roll. As noted in the description of the action.

Both of these, seem to be things some are willfully ignorant of.


Avoron wrote:
Okay, I got bogged down in semantics in my previous post, but my point is that just because your reason for taking 10 is that you don't want to fail doesn't mean that nothing to do with failure can distract you. Sure, a player can usually decide their character's state of mind, but since the rules say that anything that distracts a character stops them from taking 10, the GM has to make some decisions about what distracts them and what doesn't. If a terrifying possibility happens to be something that the GM thinks would distract them too much for them to take 10, then I don't see any problem with that. I'm not saying your way is wrong, I'm just saying I think you guys might be going overboard if you think that no GM can ever decide that they think a very scary situation could possibly be a distraction for a character.

The GM can do whatever he wants, but he can still be wrong while doing it.


Avoron wrote:
Your entire argument is based off of one quote from a contributor's post that implies something similar to your ideas by saying, "Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand."

I'm not basing my argument JUST on that post by SKR, but it's certainly relevant.

And classifying SKR as simply "a contributor" is selling him short: (from his wikipedia entry) "Paizo hired Reynolds as a developer on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Jason Bulmahn has described him as a "critical part of the design team"

Your assertion that the magnitude of the consequences of failure is somehow a distinction from simply failing and suffering consequences of any sort is overly complicated, highly subjective, and has no support anywhere in Pathfinder. It depends upon numerous tiny variations of perspective and interpretation, and all to do what? Dictate how a player's character should feel and act?

If you think something should be scary, have the player roll a Will save against fear, otherwise, use the rules we have. Or, do whatever you like at your table, but don't make an claim that your way fits the RAW when discussing the rules in the Rules forum.


Avoron wrote:
but my point is that just because your reason for taking 10 is that you don't want to fail doesn't mean that nothing to do with failure can distract you.

And do you have any rule text or designer notes that support this interpretation?

You were asking for RAW upthread supporting the interpretation offered, and it was provided. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I mean, yes, a GM can make a ruling that a 5th level barbarian has a +0 BAB. But that's clearly contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the rules text.

Grand Lodge

The consequences of failure are only important when determining if you can Take 20.

Consequences of failure, are completely irrelevant to determining if you can Take 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
If a terrifying possibility happens to be something that the GM thinks would distract them too much for them to take 10, then I don't see any problem with that.

So, here's the issue for a standard Pathfinder game:

The GM does not have the right to tell the players that their PCs are afraid.*

Unless there's magic or some other specifically fear-inducing effect in play, the GM absolutely should not do this. PC emotions and thoughts are the purview of the player. Overriding them without a grossly compelling reason takes away the player's only tool--their control over their own character's personality and decisions. It's no different than saying "you feel happy"--a dour-to-a-fault PC's player would feel like the GM took away his autonomy.

*We're all aware of Rule 0, but at some point you have to recognize practices that break the social contract egregiously enough that players become very likely to invoke Rule -1.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Remember, Taking 10, does not guarantee success.

Taking 10 is, however, a way to avoid the possible failure, of a very low roll. As noted in the description of the action.

Both of these, seem to be things some are willfully ignorant of.

No, they are not ignorant, they just dislike the opportunity to avoid failure. And especially avoiding catastrophic failure. After all where is the fun in knowing that you won't set off the trap even if you fail to disarm it.


thorin001 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Remember, Taking 10, does not guarantee success.

Taking 10 is, however, a way to avoid the possible failure, of a very low roll. As noted in the description of the action.

Both of these, seem to be things some are willfully ignorant of.

No, they are not ignorant, they just dislike the opportunity to avoid failure. And especially avoiding catastrophic failure. After all where is the fun in knowing that you won't set off the trap even if you fail to disarm it.

How would they know? I certainly don't tell my players the DCs of traps they encounter.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, in regards to the Bomb example:

From the Technology Guide:

Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Technology Guide wrote:

With the Technologist feat, a rogue can use Disable Device to interact safely with explosive devices and disable technological devices and traps.

Arm Explosive: If you possess a detonator, you can arm an explosive weapon as a trap. Connecting a detonator to an explosive requires a successful DC 10 Disable Device check. Failure means that the attempt fails, but you can attempt to arm the explosive again. Failure by 5 or more means the explosive is triggered as the detonator is installed. You can attempt to make an explosive difficult to disarm. To do so, choose a target disarm DC of 15 or higher, with a DC increment of 5. This becomes your target DC to set the explosive as well as the DC to disarm the explosive.
Disable Electronic Device: Disabling an electronically controlled trap or unlocking an electronically locked door is easier if you use an e-pick. Without an e-pick, you take a –5 penalty on any attempt to use Disable Device on an electronic device.
Disarm Explosive: Disarming an explosive requires the character to succeed at a Disable Device check as if disarming a trap. The DC is usually 10, unless the person who set the explosive successfully did so with a higher disarm DC. A failure to disarm an explosive by 5 or more immediately triggers the explosive.

Special: A character can take 10 when using Disable Device to arm or disarm explosives, but cannot take 20.

Time: Arming an explosive device takes 1 minute or more, depending on the scope of the job. Disarming an explosive is treated as if the explosive were a complex trap, and takes 2d4 rounds to attempt.


thorin001 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Remember, Taking 10, does not guarantee success.

Taking 10 is, however, a way to avoid the possible failure, of a very low roll. As noted in the description of the action.

Both of these, seem to be things some are willfully ignorant of.

No, they are not ignorant, they just dislike the opportunity to avoid failure. And especially avoiding catastrophic failure. After all where is the fun in knowing that you won't set off the trap even if you fail to disarm it.

Fun is subjective. I would ask where is the fun in knowing that you might set it off.

Grand Lodge

thorin001 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Remember, Taking 10, does not guarantee success.

Taking 10 is, however, a way to avoid the possible failure, of a very low roll. As noted in the description of the action.

Both of these, seem to be things some are willfully ignorant of.

No, they are not ignorant, they just dislike the opportunity to avoid failure. And especially avoiding catastrophic failure. After all where is the fun in knowing that you won't set off the trap even if you fail to disarm it.

If the DC is high enough, then this can still happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I question the motives of GMs who refuse to allow take 10. Why disallow it at all? Clearly it is a mechanic for bypassing low DC skill checks in order to speed play, and allow PCs a bit of a consistent level of competence during non-combat / non-critical event based activities. Isn't take 10 a good thing for the GM? I guess the real question is why do certain GMs feel the need to make everything even routine things into opportunities for critical failures? Is adding stress over things like walking up a staircase (opps a 1, sorry you fall down the stairs) fun for players? No it isn't. That must mean it's fun for the GM. I suspect these are the anti-player GMs. For whatever reason they think any little thing a player can do to make his or her life easier is going to send their game down in flames. So they stomp all of it out completely, and take glee in doing so... as if somehow they seem superior by laying low the poor cleric in his plate armor who just wanted to walk up the silly stairs. As if for some reason he feels the cleric was plotting to ruin his game and he is getting what he deserves! How dare he head up a staircase! Ha! Take that you conspiring <censored> player! Lets see how awesome your plate armor is when I make you roll every little maneuver however trivial!

And I know the last bit looks very much like a straw GM. And I suppose it is. But I put it there to illustrate how it feels to the player.


Did we ever get clarification on what exactly constitutes as immediate danger?


jimibones83 wrote:
Did we ever get clarification on what exactly constitutes as immediate danger?
PDT wrote:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result.

The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game.

so you can't take 10 if the GM doesn't want you to. Even though take 10 seems to be a player option in the rulebook, it's actually a GM tool. So while it may be possible to take 10 on knowledge checks per the rules and FAQ, if the GM doesn't want you to, "because of tension or drama", you can't take 10 on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
so you can't take 10 if the GM doesn't want you to. Even though take 10 seems to be a player option in the rulebook, it's actually a GM tool. So while it may be possible to take 10 on knowledge checks per the rules and FAQ, if the GM doesn't want you to, "because of tension or drama", you can't take 10 on them.

I think this response is a little misleading. Technically, the PDT did not issue a FAQ on Take 10 and explicitly declined to answer the questions of when and what prevents Take 10. Initially, many of us took this response as an actual change to the Take 10 rule, but it's not. The PDT did not change the Take 10 rule, they simply explained why they think the rule exists. None of that changes the written rules: You can Take 10 in the absence of immediate danger or distraction.

Take 10 has always been a tool of the GM because the GM decides the environment in which tasks occur. So if the GM wants to prevent Take 10, then they simply add some sort of distraction which prevents it. Where the PDT's non-FAQ and the rules bunch up is in PFS, where the GM can't arbitrarily modify the scenario. Given that the rules for Take 10 have not officially changed, players should be entitled to Take 10 if its clear from the scenario that there is nothing to prevent it per the rules.. In PFS, the GM still can't say you can't Take 10, "Because I said so..."

So to answer Jimi's question, the PDT is not going to tell us what constitutes a distraction or immediate danger because that is always up to the GM and the PDT doesn't want to take that away from the GM.


Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?


jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, apparently.

There is an option in the Mythic rules that lets casters take 10 on spellcraft checks while using detect magic. IIRC, when asked what was up with this, Jason implied that concentrating on a spell prohibited taking 10 when doing so (at least when the skill isn't solely related to maintaining the spell).

Actually, extrapolating that gives a pretty good general rule.

Take 10 cannot be done in situations where a character's focus or attention is split.

51 to 100 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Taking 10 All Messageboards