Taking 10


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I can concentrate during a storm. Loud music doesn't bother me, and neither does the wind blowing against a window. I've changed batteries and tires when it was raining.

Unless your car was floating at the time it's not applicable here.

The point is that he could concentrate during a storm. Whats not applicable is the boat. Or are you saying the rigger cant take 10 on a bright and sunny day either?

@Wraithstrike I agree. A storm doesn't bother me either. If theres no tornado or large hail, I go right on about my business. However, the storm in this situation was suppose to be really bad


jimibones83 wrote:


Unless your car was floating at the time it's not applicable here.

The point is that he could concentrate during a storm. Whats not applicable is the boat. Or are you saying the rigger cant take 10 on a bright and sunny day either?

I'm pointing out the obvious that a storm is a LITTLE more distracting when you're being tossed around in it on a boat than it is when you're standing on terra firma.

The distracted or in danger is the DM's call.


I wouldn't say it's more distracting. It's certainly more dangerous. But danger alone doesn't prevent taking 10, because you can use it to jump a pit. So we're back to the question of the difference between danger and immediate danger. Either way, his comment was still applicable.

But a GM should not be able to tell you when you're distracted. It's a lot like fear. What scares or distracts one person may not scare or distract the next. Aside from magic or special effects, he cant tell you you're afraid, so he shouldn't be able to tell you you're distracted. That's just my opinion though


I gave my take on the difference between danger and immediate danger in the first post. By those standards, the storm would be considered danger, not immediate danger. But I didn't write the rules, so it would be helpful if Paizo would clarify the difference for us. Since you can take 10 to jump a pit, there is definitely a difference.


jimibones83 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's more distracting. It's certainly more dangerous. But danger alone doesn't prevent taking 10, because you can use it to jump a pit.

1) The FAQ trumps the developers tatement on that

2) Even then it wouldn't apply, You have the option to stand on the ledge and stare at the lava and roast marshmellows near it if you wish. You do not have an option to stand there and stare at the storm, if you don't get the ship in line you're gonna sink.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
1) The FAQ trumps the developers tatement on that

What FAQ are you referring to? The NON-FAQ that tells GMs to disallow based on the needs of drama? That was not a FAQ, nor was it Errata. It was only an opinion, not in line with SKR, and contradicting the actual rules.

People play golf during bad weather. They focus on putting even with rain pouring down on them. Their focus is not ruined by lightning elsewhere, only when it is close.

People tame lions, and stick their head in the lion's mouth. Clearly, there is danger there. Yet they do it many times over the course of a circus season. It is not immediate danger until someone forgot to feed the lion or mistreats the lion. Even then, it is not immediate danger until after the surprise round.

A storm at sea that causes the ship to move about some is not a distraction. That is what "sea legs" is all about. Working on a boat that is constantly moving. Sailors are used to that. High seas, however, as mentioned in the AP, is beyond what the sailors are able to handle with their sea legs. That is why it is a distraction. It is not a danger unless they loose hold and get washed off the ship.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

and contradicting the actual rules.

Citation required.

Immediate danger and distracted are vague enough to be DM's calls and thats how it was always supposed to be.

That's what people have been telling you it's always supposed to be, you didn't listen. There's no contradiction between the not an faq and the rules, just with the rules and trying to insist that the dm is a meanie for stopping you from taking 10 when you clearly shouldn't be able to.


PRD

Taking 10 wrote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

Clearly, player choice here.

PDT

No FAQ Required 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.

Clearly, GM choice here.

Drama, Tension, and nonsensical results are not listed as things that prevent a player from Taking-10. Therefor, PDT opinion contradicts PRD RAW.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:


Clearly, player choice here.

That is utterly absurd. Nothing there hints at players choice. To call that a rules contradiction because you read tone in three words is like calling a teacher out for using a horoscope and not having it match the answers on a math test.

you ARE in immediate danger. It's a statement of fact about the situation. Not an internal frame of reference for your character. That is for the dm to decide.

If you want to have no risk of failure, at all, pump the skill high enough so that you succeed on a 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cevah wrote:


Clearly, player choice here.

That is utterly absurd. Nothing there hints at players choice. To call that a rules contradiction because you read tone in three words is like calling a teacher out for using a horoscope and not having it match the answers on a math test.

you ARE in immediate danger. It's a statement of fact about the situation. Not an internal frame of reference for your character. That is for the dm to decide.

If you want to have no risk of failure, at all, pump the skill high enough so that you succeed on a 1.

Since the same crowd that disallow taking 10 (because drama) also tend do inflate DCs (because drama), so you will never be able to succeed on a 1.


The GM gets to define distraction. Agreed.
The GM gets to define immediate danger. Agreed.

If the GM is only telling me I cannot Take-10 because of Drama, Tension, or nonsensical results, he has NOT told me I am distracted or in immediate danger. Therefore I can Take-10.

As to possibility of failure....

Taking 10 wrote:
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).
BigNorseWolf wrote:
To call that a rules contradiction because you read tone in three words is like calling a teacher out for using a horoscope and not having it match the answers on a math test.

I am not reading a tone in a few words. I am reading a rule.

A simple IF THEN rule: WHEN <condition> YOU MAY <do this>.
The "YOU" is clearly a reference to the character referred to earlier in the same sentence and not to a GM.

And don't forget... PDT said there was NO FAQ NEEDED. Therefore, there are no rules change. All that wordage spent after saying that was NOT RULES. It was only opinion, and one that contradicted the rules.

/cevah


thorin001 wrote:


Since the same crowd that disallow taking 10 (because drama) also tend do inflate DCs (because drama), so you will never be able to succeed on a 1.

Quite the contrary. The a big chunk of the reason i disliked take 10 has always been that the options were to either have 100 success chance of success or a 55+% chance of failure.


Cevah wrote:

The GM gets to define distraction. Agreed.

The GM gets to define immediate danger. Agreed.

If the GM is only telling me I cannot Take-10 because of Drama, Tension, or nonsensical results, he has NOT told me I am distracted or in immediate danger. Therefore I can Take-10.

That isn't remotely a contradiction. The possibility of failure and the dangerous consequences from that are what create drama and tension. They're the same thing.

Quote:

I am not reading a tone in a few words. I am reading a rule.

A simple IF THEN rule: WHEN <condition> YOU MAY <do this>.
The "YOU" is clearly a reference to the character referred to earlier in the same sentence and not to a GM.

WHAT?

NO. You do not get to just to randomly pick some true non sequitur fact , say that's true, and then proclaim that that proves your entire point.

You are not reading a rule. You are making stuff up.

None of what you're saying is there.

None of what you're saying follows logically.

This is not remotely logic, please do not try to call it such. The problem is not the you substitution, the problem is [you are in immediate danger] is a subjective dm's call and you want to make it the players call.

It's not.

Quote:
And don't forget... PDT said there was NO FAQ NEEDED. Therefore, there are no rules change. All that wordage spent after saying that was NOT RULES. It was only opinion, and one that contradicted the rules.

I chase my own tail and this logic is circular by comparison.

First off, FAQ's by definition are not supposed to change rules, and the rules haven't changed. It has always been a DM's call, it's still the dm's call, it wasn't player choice, it never was player's choice, and all they did was point that out.

What you're trying to say is that it was player's choice, so that there's was a rules contradiction, so that it was players choice.

You are making zero sense.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Since the same crowd that disallow taking 10 (because drama) also tend do inflate DCs (because drama), so you will never be able to succeed on a 1.
Quite the contrary. The a big chunk of the reason i disliked take 10 has always been that the options were to either have 100 success chance of success or a 55+% chance of failure.

Since the GM does not tell the player the DC, the player must determine if they think their Take-10 will succeed. Sometimes it will and sometimes it will not.

Just because you dislike a rule is not a reason to say it does not work as it states it does.

As to thorin001's comment, I have seen DCs inflated to nerf skill levels of the best player. While the best can likely make the DC, no one else can. Same as upping the BAB to hit the high AC target more means the other players are toast. The DC should be based on the difficulty and not on the ability to make the DC. If you want to make some unknown new challenge at the right DC, then compare what an average party can make, not whay your party can make. Then apply easy/medium/hard as -2/0/+2 to the DC.

/cevah


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quite the contrary. The a big chunk of the reason i disliked take 10 has always been that the options were to either have 100 success chance of success or a 55+% chance of failure.

Well, 100% success rate on plenty of tasks is kind of the point. The PC is skilled or talented enough that more and more tasks become routine and easily accomplished.


Bill Dunn wrote:


Well, 100% success rate on plenty of tasks is kind of the point. The PC is skilled or talented enough that more and more tasks become routine and easily accomplished.

It's the point for boring non consequential parts of the adventure, not where the action is.


Cevah wrote:


Just because you dislike a rule is not a reason to say it does not work as it states it does.

Post without the ad homs or don;'t bother.

You are equating a ridiculous interpretation that simply isn't there with the rules themselves and that does not work.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cevah wrote:

The GM gets to define distraction. Agreed.

The GM gets to define immediate danger. Agreed.

If the GM is only telling me I cannot Take-10 because of Drama, Tension, or nonsensical results, he has NOT told me I am distracted or in immediate danger. Therefore I can Take-10.

That isn't remotely a contradiction. The possibility of failure and the dangerous consequences from that are what create drama and tension. They're the same thing.

Read what I said again. I said the GM did NOT tell me I was distracted or in immediate danger. Therefore, I have the option to Take-10.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

I am not reading a tone in a few words. I am reading a rule.

A simple IF THEN rule: WHEN <condition> YOU MAY <do this>.
The "YOU" is clearly a reference to the character referred to earlier in the same sentence and not to a GM.

WHAT?

NO. You do not get to just to randomly pick some true non sequitur fact , say that's true, and then proclaim that that proves your entire point.

You are not reading a rule. You are making stuff up.

None of what you're saying is there.

You mean I gave a bogus link and quoted stuff that does not exist?

Tell me another one.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

None of what you're saying follows logically.

This is not remotely logic, please do not try to call it such. The problem is not the you substitution, the problem is [you are in immediate danger] is a subjective dm's call and you want to make it the players call.

It's not.

I never said I made a determination of being out of immediate danger. I said the GM did not tell me I was in immediate danger. Very big difference. Unless he tells me I am in immediate danger or am distracted, Take-10 is still my choice.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
And don't forget... PDT said there was NO FAQ NEEDED. Therefore, there are no rules change. All that wordage spent after saying that was NOT RULES. It was only opinion, and one that contradicted the rules.

I chase my own tail and this logic is circular by comparison.

First off, FAQ's by definition are not supposed to change rules,

Tell that to the PDT.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
and the rules haven't changed. It has always been a DM's call, it's still the dm's call, it wasn't player choice, it never was player's choice, and all they did was point that out.

Which "it" do you mean? The "it" that is the GM saying you are in immediate danger, or the "it" that is the player choosing to Take-10 when allowed? The former was always a GM call and the latter was always a player choice.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What you're trying to say is that it was player's choice, so that there's was a rules contradiction, so that it was players choice.

I am saying the PDT is trying to change the player's choice into GM call based on things that DO NOT PROHIBIT Take-10. That is the contradiction.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are making zero sense.

Since you are not following what I am saying, this is not too surprising.

/cevah


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Well, 100% success rate on plenty of tasks is kind of the point. The PC is skilled or talented enough that more and more tasks become routine and easily accomplished.
It's the point for boring non consequential parts of the adventure, not where the action is.

If you are that skilled, those consequential parts of the adventure are boring.

/cevah

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Well, 100% success rate on plenty of tasks is kind of the point. The PC is skilled or talented enough that more and more tasks become routine and easily accomplished.
It's the point for boring non consequential parts of the adventure, not where the action is.

If you are that skilled, those consequential parts of the adventure are boring.

/cevah

What are you trying to say here? That rolling dice is boring? The chance of failure is what makes that part fun...

Actually Cevah, I think you are tilting at windmills. The whole point of this thread is when the GM tells you that you are in immediate danger. Then you preface your argument with "The GM hasn't told me I'm in danger." Maybe figure out what is being discussed before chiming in on your crusade.


@KingOfAnything: Troll. :-)

I made a comment that the non-FAQ contradicted RAW. BigNorseWolf asked for a cite. I gave it. Disagreement followed.

All relevant posts are on this page.

/cevah
[*edited*]


KingOfAnything wrote:


You really missed my point.

Feel free to elaborate so that I can understand your point then?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I see a stormy sea as both a distraction and a danger. I would always rule the situation in the same way.

Depending on the sea force I would, in order of rising difficulty:
- apply a penalty to the skill but allow to take 10;
- not apply a modifier but require a die roll (I consider this more dangerous for the character and it should apply to a more difficult situation);
- in the most dire circumstances I would apply both a penalty and require to roll the die.

There is so much variation in that range of conditions that there can't be a general rule. The best option is to leave it to the GM decision.

The Beaufort scale has 13 values, from 0 to 12. If for stormy we mean a 10+ (the level at which we find the definition "storm"), I agree that the rigger would be unable to take 10. If we use it for the levels 6-9 probably a modifier would be more appropriate (in RL we hadn't a fall from the mast every few seconds).

The same thing applies to every other use of take 10. Sometime a penalty and allowing its use is appropriate. Sometime it is appropriate to roll the die. What is important is that the GM should made clear when one or the other option apply and to try to stay coherent. I know that sometime we feel that the guy with a +10 in a skill should have a chance to fail, but our characters are exceptional. It is a bit ridiculous to require us to roll the die when, if the character had a lower skill level, we would allow them to take 10.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's more distracting. It's certainly more dangerous. But danger alone doesn't prevent taking 10, because you can use it to jump a pit.

1) The FAQ trumps the developers tatement on that

2) Even then it wouldn't apply, You have the option to stand on the ledge and stare at the lava and roast marshmellows near it if you wish. You do not have an option to stand there and stare at the storm, if you don't get the ship in line you're gonna sink.

1) What FAQ?

2) Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't even really matter. The question was if that was the right way to rule or not.


@BigNorseWolf How does nothing there hint at player choice? It says you clear as day and refers to the reader as the player character.

PRD wrote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10

Nothing there hints at GM choice, at all. Player option, clear as day


jimibones83 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf How does nothing there hint at player choice? It says you clear as day and refers to the reader as the player character.

"PRD" When your character [b wrote:
is[/b] not in immediate danger or distracted you may choose to take 10
Nothing there hints at GM choice, at all. Player option, clear as day

If the character is in immediate danger or distracted.

Who determines immediate danger or distracted?

The dm.

You're confusing the players option to take 10 or not when not in immediate danger with their ability to decide whether to take 10 or not all the time.

No FAQ Required:

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. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. 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. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.


In that sense, the entire game is a GM option. That's also ridiculous. It's a player option when not in immediate danger or distracted. You probably like them vaguely defined so you can disallow them as often as possible. That's fine for you I guess, but there seem to be plenty of people here who would like the terms defined clearly.

It's not about tying anyone's hands, it's about consistency. Consistency is fair.

Also, our quotes seem to conflict. I'm going to have to go with the one in the rule book


BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf How does nothing there hint at player choice? It says you clear as day and refers to the reader as the player character.

"PRD" When your character [b wrote:
is[/b] not in immediate danger or distracted you may choose to take 10
Nothing there hints at GM choice, at all. Player option, clear as day

If the character is in immediate danger or distracted.

Who determines immediate danger or distracted?

The dm.

You're confusing the players option to take 10 or not when not in immediate danger with their ability to decide whether to take 10 or not all the time.

No FAQ Required:

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. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. 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. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

Saying that the task at hand does not itself count as a distraction/immanent danger would also allow for pacing and drama, but disallow much of the wholesale banning of taking 10 that the question was meant to address. With all other things being equal if you can take 10 to jump across two pieces of string 10 feet apart then you can take 10 to jump across a 10 foot chasm filled with lava. The only difference is consequences of failure, which is exactly what taking 10 was designed to alleviate.

If you want to say that there are unpredictable gusting winds that prevent taking 10 that is fine as long as you mention it before the character attempts the check. But that is something other than the task at hand interfering with the ability to take 10.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:


1) Crafting - I feel crafting is way to easy with take 10. Pushing the "safe craft" zone back 3 levels is actually a giant deal. For instance, my level 3 witch in ROW has blown past WBL cap already and she just got crafting. While she could have bypassed WBL cap even at 7 instead of 10, its unlikely that she would have as she most of what she's crafted she just barely got in for (by 2 or exactly.)

2) I take 20 the room syndrome. Don't know how many time I've been in or GM'd for the take 20 the room on perception people. Dropping it to 15 makes it much less worth it, and players will rarely(maybe never) have done that since I implemented that rule. I don't know why but take 20 the room just annoys me, even as a player.

3) Makes some of the more trivial things less trivial than they should be IMO.

Those are just my things that bug me about it. I don't think its OP or anything, just don't like how it functions and how people use them.

1 - The WBL guidelines include allowances for crafting feats. It's by design that magic items are very, very easy to obtain in Pathfinder.

2 - If there isn't a "take 20" rule, what's to stop players from just repeating the task until they roll one?
3 - These are supposed to be amazing, unworldly fantasy heroes. They should find difficult tasks to be trivial if they concentrate on being very good at them.


thorin001 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cevah wrote:


Clearly, player choice here.

That is utterly absurd. Nothing there hints at players choice. To call that a rules contradiction because you read tone in three words is like calling a teacher out for using a horoscope and not having it match the answers on a math test.

you ARE in immediate danger. It's a statement of fact about the situation. Not an internal frame of reference for your character. That is for the dm to decide.

If you want to have no risk of failure, at all, pump the skill high enough so that you succeed on a 1.

Since the same crowd that disallow taking 10 (because drama) also tend do inflate DCs (because drama), so you will never be able to succeed on a 1.

The arbitrary "inflate DCs" GMs are BY FAR the absolute worst types of GMs.


jimibones83 wrote:
In that sense, the entire game is a GM option. That's also ridiculous.

No.

This is objectively not the same thing. Pretending that it is is conceding any pretense of a rational argument.

Quote:
It's a player option when not in immediate danger or distracted. You probably like them vaguely defined so you can disallow them as often as possible.

It's a perk.

Quote:
That's fine for you I guess, but there seem to be plenty of people here who would like the terms defined clearly.

Since we're casting aspersions on motives here, it's the ones that want to always take 10.

Quote:
It's not about tying anyone's hands, it's about consistency. Consistency is fair.

No. Its not.

"Fair" is getting the answer you want. If that answer was never that would be unfair, but consistent.

Quote:
Also, our quotes seem to conflict. I'm going to have to go with the one in the rule book

I've quoted the rules directly and the player design team's not an faq. If there's a conflict between that and the notes you're wrong, sorry.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

you guys still at it? I've given up on this long ago. I don't think you are likely to convense each other of anything...so at this point you are just wasting time. My advice would be to take a deep breath, and maybe go play some games...move on. You'll be happier. Unless you really get enjoyment out of on-line arguments?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, found the s#%$storm rules thread of the month. Really didn't think it'd be over something this small, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

The GM determines being distracted/in danger. Obviously some situations are clear; combat is dangerous, walking down the road is not. But other things, like a stormy sea, is up to interpretation. It's even different between characters. Maybe the storm isn't distracting for the pirate who's been on a ship his whole life, but it's distracting for that green-eared land-lover.

Obviously the GM should not be a tyrannical dictator who changed reality at his whim because he has the power, but most judgement calls fall on them to make. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of both the GM and the players to make a fun game that works for everybody involved, and that can often play out in different ways. Some tables might discourage taking 10 while others encourage it, some tables have differences in what they consider to be distracted, and that is ok. Neither is categorically right or wrong according to RAW, they're just different interpretations of the rules. Believe it or not, sometimes the legitimate RAW answer to a rule is "Ask your GM", because despite what many people want to believe, not every single tiny detail of every possible situation is covered in the rules. It's just not realistic.

So step back, take a breath, and realize that it's ok to let the GM interpret the rules without calling on a flock of lawyers.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Wow, found the s~!%storm rules thread of the month. Really didn't think it'd be over something this small, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

The GM determines being distracted/in danger. Obviously some situations are clear; combat is dangerous, walking down the road is not. But other things, like a stormy sea, is up to interpretation. It's even different between characters. Maybe the storm isn't distracting for the pirate who's been on a ship his whole life, but it's distracting for that green-eared land-lover.

Obviously the GM should not be a tyrannical dictator who changed reality at his whim because he has the power, but most judgement calls fall on them to make. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of both the GM and the players to make a fun game that works for everybody involved, and that can often play out in different ways. Some tables might discourage taking 10 while others encourage it, some tables have differences in what they consider to be distracted, and that is ok. Neither is categorically right or wrong according to RAW, they're just different interpretations of the rules. Believe it or not, sometimes the legitimate RAW answer to a rule is "Ask your GM", because despite what many people want to believe, not every single tiny detail of every possible situation is covered in the rules. It's just not realistic.

So step back, take a breath, and realize that it's ok to let the GM interpret the rules without calling on a flock of lawyers.

My issue is not with the GMs who actually use judgement to decide when you can and cannot take 10. My issue is with the people who say "It is a long way down, so no take 10 for you." Or "No take 10 for sneaking past the dragon because dragons are dangerous." In other words people who use GM's discretion to effectively ban take 10 because comedy drama.


That I agree with. The extreme version in either direction is problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?

You really shouldn't be making those checks on a per round basis.


thorin001 wrote:


My issue is not with the GMs who actually use judgement to decide when you can and cannot take 10. My issue is with the people who say "It is a long way down, so no take 10 for you." Or "No take 10 for sneaking past the dragon because dragons are dangerous." In other words people who use GM's discretion to effectively ban take 10 because comedy drama.

So you have an issue with the rules then, because sneaking past a dragon is as in immediate danger as it gets.

And with the design team, because thats the exact sort of thing they called out as grounds for the DM to require rolling.

And people that listen to one or the other.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it does.


MeanMutton wrote:


The arbitrary "inflate DCs" GMs are BY FAR the absolute worst types of GMs.

One of the reasons i hate take 10 is that it doesn't really leave an option for lower DCs to be meaningful. Someone inveting in skill focus should be increasing their chances of success by about 15%*, not auto succeeding OR running the red queens race because the DC's get jacked up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thorin001 wrote:


My issue is not with the GMs who actually use judgement to decide when you can and cannot take 10. My issue is with the people who say "It is a long way down, so no take 10 for you." Or "No take 10 for sneaking past the dragon because dragons are dangerous." In other words people who use GM's discretion to effectively ban take 10 because comedy drama.

So you have an issue with the rules then, because sneaking past a dragon is as in immediate danger as it gets.

And with the design team, because thats the exact sort of thing they called out as grounds for the DM to require rolling.

And people that listen to one or the other.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it does.

Is the dragon awake or asleep? An awake dragon is definitely an immediate threat... But a sleeping one is not.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


One of the reasons i hate take 10 is that it doesn't really leave an option for lower DCs to be meaningful.

Are they supposed to be meaningful for seasoned adventurers investing in developing those skills? I don't really think so. I think the meaning here is that the PCs who can auto-succeed at them by Taking 10 are good enough that tasks a neophyte might find hard are now routine.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?
You really shouldn't be making those checks on a per round basis.

How often then? Once per storm? Once per voyage? The point holds. If you want to achieve anything approaching verisimilitude, unless it represents some sort of cumulative risk over a long span of time, you shouldn't impose checks that represent, at best, even a 5% failure chance. That's actually pretty huge.

Something tells me when the PCs encounter an NPC pirate ship, 25% of the pirate crew do not have broken bones from falling injuries.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:


The arbitrary "inflate DCs" GMs are BY FAR the absolute worst types of GMs.

One of the reasons i hate take 10 is that it doesn't really leave an option for lower DCs to be meaningful. Someone inveting in skill focus should be increasing their chances of success by about 15%*, not auto succeeding OR running the red queens race because the DC's get jacked up.

Take 10 is only auto success for rolls your character would consider routine. For all the other rolls it is 15% as you say.


Aranna wrote:


Is the dragon awake or asleep? An awake dragon is definitely an immediate threat... But a sleeping one is not.

Tell that to bilbo.

He's not batman. He doesn't take 30 minutes to get dressed and become dangerous. He wakes up, you fry. That's immediate.

From a rules sense perspective, you can't take 10 when your adrenaline is pumping and your heart is racing, which is the sensation you should be getting trying to sneak past a dragon. (of course if you're a 20th level adventurer and the dragons still got a bit of egg behind the ears that wouldn't apply)


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?
You really shouldn't be making those checks on a per round basis.
How often then? Once per storm? Once per voyage? The point holds. If you want to achieve anything approaching verisimilitude, unless it represents some sort of cumulative risk over a long span of time, you shouldn't impose checks that represent, at best, even a 5% failure chance. That's actually pretty huge.

1's are not automatic fails on skill checks. 1 missed check does not mean that your ship flounders and crashes. if i was making it as a challenge this is how i would set it up.

Survival to see the storm coming in advance: +2 to your first roll as you batten down the hatches with extra time.

Best of three skill challenge at dc 18. If you make a 23 you get a +2 to your next roll as you keep the ship extra steady. 13 or worse and you get a -2 to your next roll as you take on water or get too close to the rocks or something.

Something like this is usually how i see those kinds of checks set up in adventures.

Quote:
Something tells me when the PCs encounter an NPC pirate ship, 25% of the pirate crew do not have broken bones from falling injuries.

D&D pirates have access to healing magic. RL counterparts not so much. It took a while for lime technology to be developed.

Mortality rate on sailing ships was upwards of 50%...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aranna wrote:


Is the dragon awake or asleep? An awake dragon is definitely an immediate threat... But a sleeping one is not.

Tell that to bilbo.

He's not batman. He doesn't take 30 minutes to get dressed and become dangerous. He wakes up, you fry. That's immediate.

From a rules sense perspective, you can't take 10 when your adrenaline is pumping and your heart is racing, which is the sensation you should be getting trying to sneak past a dragon. (of course if you're a 20th level adventurer and the dragons still got a bit of egg behind the ears that wouldn't apply)

But how do you determine the breakpoint whether someone should be able take 10 or not? It seems to me you're more hung up on the point when the PC should score an auto-success by taking 10.

If the PC wants to do a routine job sneaking past the dragon - why not let him? The dragon's typically well-invested in perception. The PC's stealth modifier+10 may not be enough. That'll teach him to be a bit cavalier about sneaking past the dragon!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:


If the PC wants to do a routine job sneaking past the dragon - why not let him?

Thematics wise: because a routine job of sneaking past a dragon is supposed to be an oxymoron. Its not supposed to be a routine job its supposed to be an adventure filled with danger and excitement. If your adventure is "routine" something has gone horribly wrong.

Rules wise: You are standing next to a flippin dragon that could wake up at any moment. You're in immediate danger.

Balance wise: Either I set the DC so low that your take 10 makes the check or i set it so high that you're probably going to fail. Neither of those is a good option. If the dragon's perception is high enough that take 10 won't make it, then rolling probably won't make it either and I do not like setting dc's that high.

Taking 10 in that situation is an ADVANCED rogue talent: something you need to be level 10 and burn a very powerful option to be able to do. It's not something to be handed out lightly.

The Exchange

Requiring someone to roll at a skill most of the time just means the player needs to invest MORE into ensuring the skills success. I mean, that's what I do with my Skill Monkeys.

DC is 25? then the PC needs a +24. At least, maybe +30 just to be on the save side. Disallowing Take 10 just means the PC will be assured of success on fewer things (they become more "Hyper-Specialized"), but they can then do that in ALL circumstances. Even when "distracted" by other things (until the judge starts imposing circumstance penalties. "You're plus what? Ok, you get a -2 circumstance penalty for being smug about it and another -2 for over-confidence.")


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Mortality rate on sailing ships was upwards of 50%...

Depends on the era, but 20% was more usual, and that was primarily from disease, not falls from rigging.

And while nat 1's are not auto-fails, obviously if someone is skilled enough to succeed while rolling a 1, then taking 10 or not is irrelevant. So, if you want to inject danger with a single skill roll, 5% is the lowest risk possible.

Pathfinder sailors have a +5 or +7 climb skill, rigging is a DC10. So, forcing a roll means either a 20% or 10% risk of failure per check for general crew. Add in modifiers for the storm, and obviously those risks go higher, up to 20-30% for a +2DC. That's a ludicrously high risk of dangerous failure for any actual human activity.

Have you evaluated the actual probabilities for your 3-roll 'avoid disaster' chain?


_Ozy_ wrote:

Pathfinder sailors have a +5 or +7 climb skill, rigging is a DC10. So, forcing a roll means either a 20% or 10% risk of failure per check for general crew. Add in modifiers for the storm, and obviously those risks go higher, up to 20-30% for a +2DC. That's a ludicrously high risk of dangerous failure for any actual human activity.

You don't fall if you miss a climb check by 5. you just have to stop for a second. With a +5 you can't fall on rigging. With a -2 you only fall 5% of the time, which in a d20 system is as low as your odds can get and still be real- which is why the experienced sailor should be the one up there when the storms blowing.

Also remember pathfinder is a dramatic adventure simulator, not a reality simulator. If there's a storm on an adventure you know a redshirts going overboard just to show how dangerous this is.

151 to 200 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