| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realize in game terms, that 4 feet is a DC 5 check.
Put a piece of tape 4 feet across on the ground and people will step over it all day. Put 2 parts of a cliff 4 feet apart people freak out, freeze at the last second and fall in.
*sigh*
We're not talking about 'people', we're talking about HEROES, who regularly confront horrors without crapping their pants.
Jumping over lava and acid is nothing, so let's stop trying to compare it to what 'people' in our modern world would do.
I completely disagree with it and the not an FAQ shot it out of the water and it is nowhere to be found in the rules themselves.The rules:
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).See those words 'safety' and 'fear', and yet take 10 still applies IN THE RULES? Yeah, the rules.
Also:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.And we've already established that standing at the edge of a lava pit is not immediate danger. So, once again, the rules.
Now come on we both know that fear there means fear of getting muddy if I can't make it over the puddle in front of the Inn they never intended T10 to be stop gap to prevent the dice gods from smiting characters who want to do things like climb up a cliff or jump over dangerous things. The game would suck if the PC never had to worry about dying on the way to the actual adventure.
And we've already established that standing at the edge of a lava pit is not immediate danger. So, once again, the rules.
I am not disallowing a check to take 10 to stand next to the lava. I'm disallowing a check to take 10 to leap over it.
You're treating one like the other and they're not the same.
Your argument is not nearly as good as you think it is, and is nowhere near the rules lawyering chicanery levels of "I'm not in immediate danger i'm only jumping over lava" levels of inane contradiction.
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).
This is completely irrelevant to when you can take 10. If i was being shot by arrows while leaping it would still be a pure safety measure, an average roll would succeed and a poor roll might fail etc.
|
I could go either way on the lava pit. Most of the time, I'd say you can take 10 (much like any other gap with no time pressure). But, if you are close enough to the lava to feel the heat, such that you need Fortitude checks every now and then, that would constitute distraction/danger. Similarly, if the lava was "bubbling" or especially active, it might be distracting.
Ultimately, it is up to the GM to decide what sort of situation they have put the PCs into.
This is completely irrelevant to when you can take 10. If i was being shot by arrows while leaping it would still be a pure safety measure, an average roll would succeed and a poor roll might fail etc.
No. The rules explicitly forbid taking 10 during combat.
There is a matter of common sense here. If you disallow taking 10 whenever very bad things would happen if you roll a 1 on the check, then you have completely negated one of the main purposes of taking 10. Something outside of the check itself has to be distracting you for it to be legitimate for the GM to disallow taking 10.
There is a matter of common sense here. If you disallow taking 10 whenever very bad things would happen if you roll a 1 on the check, then you have completely negated one of the main purposes of taking 10. Something outside of the check itself has to be distracting you for it to be legitimate for the GM to disallow taking 10.
That is not common sense and that is not the purpose of take 10. This is not an argument.
Then what is the purpose of taking 10 but to eliminate the risk of rolling a 1? When you take 10, you give up the chance to roll an 11 or higher in order to avoid the risk of rolling a 9 or lower. Universally disallowing taking 10 because something bad could happen on a low roll would completely negate the option of taking 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then what is the purpose of taking 10 but to eliminate the risk of rolling a 1?
To eliminate the risk of rolling a 1 when you're not in immediate danger.
Universally disallowing taking 10 because something bad could happen on a low roll would completely negate the option of taking 10.
This point has been made and refuted multiple times.
Losing your starting materials is bad. It is not immediate danger.
Falling 10 feet into cold water is bad. It is not immediate danger.
Plenty of things are bad without being immediate danger.
|
|
That is not common sense and that is not the purpose of take 10. This is not an argument.There is a matter of common sense here. If you disallow taking 10 whenever very bad things would happen if you roll a 1 on the check, then you have completely negated one of the main purposes of taking 10. Something outside of the check itself has to be distracting you for it to be legitimate for the GM to disallow taking 10.
I think you've gone a bit too far, BNW. Taking 10 is an option for avoiding the 5% chance of failure on otherwise routine checks. That doesn't mean it is always an option, but it is the spirit of the rule.
I think you've gone a bit too far, BNW. Taking 10 is an option for avoiding the 5% chance of failure on otherwise routine checks. That doesn't mean it is always an option, but it is the spirit of the rule.That is not common sense and that is not the purpose of take 10. This is not an argument.There is a matter of common sense here. If you disallow taking 10 whenever very bad things would happen if you roll a 1 on the check, then you have completely negated one of the main purposes of taking 10. Something outside of the check itself has to be distracting you for it to be legitimate for the GM to disallow taking 10.
Only if the failure didn't matter anyway. Damn hyper-optimizing munchkins trying to T10 there way past all the devious lava pits and Walls over chasms. If they wanted to circumvent skill checks they should have played casters not martials.
I don't think using your real world example really applies here. Your application of it is also very general and assumes that because some people would have trouble jumping that pit because of the fear of failing [then everyone would], [while realistically] others would have absolutely no problem with it
An edit to a recent post that I edited part of a sentence, resulting in a nonsense statement.
Wow this thread is still going on.
Why.
Wow this thread is still going on.
Why.
Because you have at least 2 outspoken groups with a huge gap in the believed reading of how T10 works and never the twain shall meet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you have at least 2 outspoken groups with a huge gap in the believed reading of how T10 works and never the twain shall meet.Wow this thread is still going on.
Why.
Well, you have one group that thinks it works and another that wishes it would go away.
Id like to repost something Cevah already posted over a year ago thats seemingly gone ignored by take 10 nay sayers...
The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.
The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.
So yes, you can take 10 while jumping a pit, or lava, or whatever. Is it dangerous? Yes. Is it immediately dangerous? No. Is it distracting? Yes. Then why can you still take 10? Because the distraction is part of the task at hand.
No, no it is not. A 4' gap is a DC 4 check.
Realize in game terms, that 4 feet is a DC 5 check.
oh god, I think this may have been why i left the forum for a bit. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
that thread... got like 1000 or more posts...
And we've already established that standing at the edge of a lava pit is not immediate danger. So, once again, the rules.I am not disallowing a check to take 10 to stand next to the lava. I'm disallowing a check to take 10 to leap over it.
You're treating one like the other and they're not the same.
Your argument is not nearly as good as you think it is, and is nowhere near the rules lawyering chicanery levels of "I'm not in immediate danger i'm only jumping over lava" levels of inane contradiction.
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).This is completely irrelevant to when you can take 10. If i was being shot by arrows while leaping it would still be a pure safety measure, an average roll would succeed and a poor roll might fail etc.
So i haven't read much of the rest of this...
but aren't you only in immediate danger if you fail the check? when jumping anyway...
just a thought...
if you're being shot at at the same time, it's not the jump that's putting you in danger but the arrows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you have one group that thinks it works and another that wishes it would go away.Because you have at least 2 outspoken groups with a huge gap in the believed reading of how T10 works and never the twain shall meet.Wow this thread is still going on.
Why.
That is the kind of bigotry that turns civil discussions into heated arguments.
Maybe, just maybe, treat the person with an opinion opposed to your own with some respect and evaluate their argument based on its merit instead of fabricated ulterior motives.
Well, you have one group that thinks it works and another that wishes it would go away.Because you have at least 2 outspoken groups with a huge gap in the believed reading of how T10 works and never the twain shall meet.Wow this thread is still going on.
Why.
That is the kind of bigotry that turns civil discussions into heated arguments.
Maybe, just maybe, treat the person with an opinion opposed to your own with some respect and evaluate their argument based on its merit instead of fabricated ulterior motives.
Guilty conscience? I merely made a statement of fact. I am evaluating arguments based on merits and tone. There is a quote of someone agreeing that take 10 only works for meaningless rolls, so there is no fabrication of ulterior motives on my part.
Well ignoring the projecting going on, all you are addressing is a strawman created to devalue BigNorseWolf's argument. The strawman was created and then Wolf dismissed it immediately. So no, addressing the opposition as the strawman fabricated to represent them is not a factual representation of their argument.
There can be no discussion anymore, one side is inevitably right, and this is the reason:
Phase 1:
The character realizes that a pit of lava large 5 feet is in the way.
The character is not in immediate danger.
He can stay there all day.
Phase 2:
The character decides he would like to cross the pit with a jump, but he hasn't started moving yet! He's not doing the action at this time.
Character is not in immediate danger, he's just deciding what to do.
Phase 3:
Because character is not in immediate danger, he is asked if he wants to roll or take 10. This is the moment you choose: It's BEFORE attempting a roll.
He can choose, because he is NOT in immediate danger.
He would only be in danger IF he chose to roll instead of taking 10, but that is something that has not happened yet and, if the character chooses "take 10", never will.
Phase 4:
The character decides to take 10,
In the context of this check, he was never in danger to begin with, and never will
Character jumps over pit of lava
Phase 5:
GM realizes Pit of Lava is not that great of an idea;
GM adapts, will make better design next time;
Life goes on
There can be no discussion anymore, one side is inevitably right, and this is the reason:
He would only be in danger IF he chose to roll instead of taking 10, but that is something that has not happened yet and, if the character chooses "take 10", never will
Completely arbitrary and circular. There is nothing that says "this is the moment you choose". You are making that up entirely and then being horribly circular. Danger is a RISK. Not a certainty. This is another bad logic turducken.
This is not a lock argument.
This is not a good argument.
This isn't even a bad argument. This thing would need to significantly improve before it got to terrible.
GM realizes Pit of Lava is not that great of an idea;
GM adapts, will make better design next time;
Life goes on
What the DM has to do is increase the DC's so you can't take 10 or always have bat swarms or something in your face. The first also increases the DC's so that you're likely to fail when you roll, the second starts to seem contrived after the 5th or sixth time which are kinda twit moves.
There is a quote of someone agreeing that take 10 only works for meaningless rolls
There is not. There are important rolls that are made while players are not in immediate danger all the time. Sometimes the mission depends on getting a key piece of information or saying the right thing to the right person.
Big question for you is, When would take 10 stealth work according to you? When would you be able to and want to take 10 on stealth?sneak into a bar where the bouncer is just going to throw you out
dine and dash (assuming the habachi chef isn't a halfling thrower that likes to dip his knives in the pufferfish first...)
not be noticed around town when you wouldn't want to be seen.
sneak out of the wait staffs room the morning after
sneak in after a late night out (assuming you haven't had enough alchohol to be a distraction)
sneak past a low level challenge you don't feel like killing.
So which of these were those mission reasons? This was your list for stealth seems like a bunch of meaningless rolls to most of us BNW
EDIT: heck the only one that even comes close to a real situation
(sneaking away from something clearly illegal the dine and dash) you preface that if you might actually have a real challenge if caught you can't do it.
circular logic
The only circular logic is assuming you are in danger because you might choose not to take 10.
I repeat, you choose to take 10 to remove the chance of failure, it's a choice that is done before the check occurs, it is not arbitrary, this is a verifiable fact:
If you choose to take 10 there is no need for a check. So you never start being in danger.
Your logic is circular, mine is fine
I'll try to make it so you can understand it better:
You must go from A to B
There are two bridges, "Bridge of death and sorrow" is full of traps, toxic wastes, and it looks like it might fall apart at the slightest hint of weight, "Bridge of happiness and safety" is perfectly safe, robust, and good looking.
A law states that you can only walk on Bridge of Happiness and Safety if you aren't in immediate danger
A reasonable person will understand that unless you choose Bridge of Death, you are NOT in danger.
So you choose to walk Bridge of Happiness because you're not in immediate danger.
Done, very well! It was easy.
A person weak in logic will assume that having a choice between the bridges is a danger in and on itself, even if the character wouldn't walk on Bridge of death.
This would be circular, flawed logic!
What the DM has to do is increase the DC's so you can't take 10 or always have bat swarms or something in your face
Not all the time, no.
Players have the right to feel their PCs are getting better at things and to feel rewarded for being able to bypass what one level ago might have been a challenge.Overcoming what for a lesser character would have been a challenge via Taking 10 gives a great feel of progression, and is a positive thing that should happen, alternated with appropriate, actual challenges.
As a GM, I go out of my way to make sure the player understands this kind of thing.
"You can take 10 here. This is not a challenge for you anymore, you're that good now"
Makes people happy.
I would never allow myself to take control of the characters emotions and dictate that he feels nervous of insecure just because I'd hate to see my "challenge" trivialized. To me, that's how bad GMs give a bad name to all Gms.
The only situations where taking 10 is disallowed is if you're in a hurry or there are actual external distractions. This is also RAW, logically sound, and supported by a lead designer (!!!) so the discussion can easily end here.
Here is a flowchart
Flowchart
What if the pit of lava erupts every 10 seconds?
IF:
-the pit of lava erupting every 10 seconds makes it so the DC is above your score+10THEN:
-the premise that the challenge is within your T10 abilities is now false, and thus you cannot take 10.
IF:
-The pit of lava erupting every 10 seconds requires a second skill check in and on itself
THEN:
You are being distracted in your jump, because it's not simply a jump anymore, it's two checks that you have to take simultaneously, each one is a ditraction for the other one
If none of the above is true, then the following MUST be true:
1) You are not distracted by external factors
2) Your ability to make a timed jump is enough that you can do it casually so it's not dangerous for you
The flowchart is still correct. You just failed at understanding what's what and at checking the truth value of the premises.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The starting questions for any skill check should be:
"Are there distractions or threats (such as combat) to make it impossible for a character to take 10?" = Cannot Take 10
Then it should be this:
"Does the DC appear to be 10 + your modifier, or less? Is there an insufficient bonus to you/the party for exceeding the base DC to risk a roll?" = Try Take 10.
If the Take 10 is allowed (no distractions or threats) and the DC assumption is correct (e.g. you did not underestimate the length of a long jump), you succeed.
You have the requisite skill ranks, class skill bonus, ability modifier, and miscellaneous modifiers to bypass this obstacle without having to cast a spell, and your skills actually mean something.
Note: if you underestimated the DC, then even the Take 10 with all your modifiers can fail.
The GM should tell you before character creation just what they think constitutes a distraction for skill checks. If you find it reasonable, you can invest to make a Take 10 for an average/routine DC. If you find it unreasonable (or the rules disallow it and/or Take 20, e.g. UMD), you may want to invest enough to make a "Take 1" for an average/routine DC.
And if they have a house rule that says a 1 on a skill roll is an automatic failure, and that you always have to roll, find a new game, or be sure to play a caster (since mundane skills will be very risky in that scenario, particularly with a low skill rank / low intelligence class).
You are missing the grammar of the sentence.
If you're not in immediate danger you MAY TAKE 10 means that the assessment of the danger is done PRIOR to the roll. That is, the danger encountered DURING the skill check is irrelevant to that piece of the rules.
And you get that out of the present tense because...?
No. Reading the tea leaves of "grammar" in a short sentence can't get you that answer.
A person weak in logic .
We're done here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
This pit of lava is VERY scary. I fear that a poor roll might fail! Taking ten would be a safety measure!
I can take 10.Rules. As. Written.
It's important to stress that this is true regardless of personal preference, to prevent any people from getting confused on this topic.
Please refer to the flowchart above for further reference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am focusing on the distraction line.
If the task at hand was a potential distraction in itself, you would never be allowed to T10 "as a safety measure" when "you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail"
This would make the whole statement never true, because:
if "fear of failure" and "failing means compromising own safety" is a distraction,
You can never T10 when you fear failure or failing means compromising one's safety
This is an explicit contradiction to the rule.
Q: Can "being afraid of failure" and "knowing that failure means a loss of safety" be a distraction in order to take 10?
A: No, the only possible answer is no. If it was a distraction, the rule would contradict itself.
The rule explicitly allows taking 10 as a safety measure if you're afraid of failure, so these two conditions cannot be the cause that stops you from taking 10
There can be no discussion anymore, one side is inevitably right, and this is the reason:
He would only be in danger IF he chose to roll instead of taking 10, but that is something that has not happened yet and, if the character chooses "take 10", never will
Completely arbitrary and circular. There is nothing that says "this is the moment you choose". You are making that up entirely and then being horribly circular. Danger is a RISK. Not a certainty. This is another bad logic turducken.
This is not a lock argument.
This is not a good argument.
This isn't even a bad argument. This thing would need to significantly improve before it got to terrible.
you're not in immediate danger until you're already jumping, AKA, you've already made the acrobatic roll. Hence you've probably already taken 10.
you simply cannot be in danger from the pit until after you've rolled, after you've taken the leap.
Here is a flowchart
FlowchartAnd people are disagreeing with your assertion that not being in danger because you aren't doing anything is the same as not being in danger while doing something.
What if the pit of lava erupts every 10 seconds? You still aren't in any danger if you never jump over it. But jumping definitely has a risk of fiery death.
if it erupts every second, then that is the dangerous distracting part, NOT, the chance to jump over, itself.
for instance, if you could disable device a door, but the door explodes occasionally, it's the explosion that's dangerous, not unlocking the door.
basically I don't believe whatever you're trying to negate with the roll can constitute immediate danger since you have the skills for it not to be dangerous or immediate. something else must be happening at the same time. for a simply example, a bomb ticking down would be immediate danger for anyone who doesn't know how to disable it, however someone who knows you just press the big red button again will probably just walk up and press the button.
Climbing a rock face and climbing a rock face above spikes shouldn't alter the ability to take 10. however cannot take 10 while hurricane force winds are blowing regardless of how high up the cliff you are and how many spikes there are.
if it erupts every second, then that is the dangerous distracting part, NOT, the chance to jump over, itself.
It really depends on how you're defining the eruptions in game term:
If it's all part of single check, and you are confident that you can succeed taking 10, you can still take 10
you're not in immediate danger until you're already jumping, AKA, you've already made the acrobatic roll.
You're trying to declare all things happen in zero time in non overlaping units. Nothing in the rules specifies the EXACT quantum breakdown of xeno's paradoix it would take for this to be true. The rules are not that detailed.
The acrobatics check encompasses the run, the take off, the "I believe I can fly" montage with your tongue out, and the landing. Some of that is enough time for other people to react (like getting an aoo as you pass through squares). During that time you're leaping over lava, you're in immediate danger. Lava leaping isn't SUPPOSED to be boring, and it's definitely one of the checks called out for tension and drama.
if it erupts every second, then that is the dangerous distracting part, NOT, the chance to jump over, itself.It really depends on how you're defining the eruptions in game term:
If it's all part of single check, and you are confident that you can succeed taking 10, you can still take 10
I was assuming the eruption was just splash damage around the pit. :/
maybe with a reflex save or something.
Lava leaping isn't SUPPOSED to be boring
This is your personal, debatable opinion.
I'm quoting from The Alexandrian:what frustrates some people is that D&D assumes that you’re going to move from one level of power to an extremely different level of power. So they spend a lot of time tweaking the system and trying to get it to perform at a more uniform level from 1st to 20th level
As soon as a rogue has enough acrobatics to trivialize your 5-ft lava-pit, it's become a boring, routine task.
This is intended.
Leave preconceptions about the importance of 5ft lava pits behind, embrace rules correctness.
you're not in immediate danger until you're already jumping, AKA, you've already made the acrobatic roll.
You're trying to declare all things happen in zero time in non overlaping units. Nothing in the rules specifies the EXACT quantum breakdown of xeno's paradoix it would take for this to be true. The rules are not that detailed.
The acrobatics check encompasses the run, the take off, the "I believe I can fly" montage with your tongue out, and the landing. Some of that is enough time for other people to react (like getting an aoo as you pass through squares). During that time you're leaping over lava, you're in immediate danger. Lava leaping isn't SUPPOSED to be boring, and it's definitely one of the checks called out for tension and drama.
This is a game system, there's a set order of operations for everything, nothing happens in unison.
you have 3 states, (A)before the pit, (B)after the pit and (C)in the pit.
To get from state A to B, you must make a choice, jump the pit or find another path. you can easily jump the pit so you do:
Declare action -> jump the pit
Start: action jump, requires roll == true
Roll: Take 10 (bImmidiateDanger || bDistracted == false)
Tabulate result: After the pit
Move token across pit
End: Acton jump
Now I want you to tell me how or when you'd choose to check for immediate danger. Please note, that you cannot check while transitioning from A to another option as you haven't decided if you're going to B or C yet. basically you have to make the check before he's jumped because if he's jumped it means he's already moving toward B or C something that must first be checked by a roll.
in case || symbol was unfamiliar to you, it means or, it returns true if at least one of them was true.
Declare action -> jump the pit
Start: action jump, requires roll == true
Roll: Take 10 (bImmidiateDanger || bDistracted == false)
Declaring this to be true to show that this is true doesn't work.
Danger by it's nature encompass time. Danger is the real possibility that something is ABOUT to happen.
Like you falling into lava when you try to jump over it.
Please note, that you cannot check while transitioning from A to another option as you haven't decided if you're going to B or C yet
Yes. You can. Because this is a narative game and stuff you try to do affects you all the time: You try to get up off the ground you get whacked before you get up for example.