Taking 10


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:


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 if you don't take ten instead, which completely eliminates the chance factor, and thus, the associated risk, and is explicitly stated to be usable for this very purpose

FTFY


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


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.

here's your problem, you're not wrong, the problem is I make the roll before I'm in danger. I'm only in danger while I'm in the pit. If I jump over a pit and the arch is sending me to land easily on the other side, I'm never in danger from the pit.

You have to be in IMMEDIATE danger, which is only true if you're falling into the pit.

an enemy in the next room isn't immediate danger if i never enter, i'm never in danger, just like jumping the pit, if I'm never in the pit, i'm never in danger.

Quote:


Quote:
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.

look even in the physical universe, when you start the jump, it's already determined if you're safe or not, you've already "rolled".

Your method neither simulates reality nor is clearly defined.

Also, I'd say this is highly a game that isn't narrative.

also funnily enough, you can't trip check someone getting up from prone, or basically sure you can try, but the AoO occurs before the action finishes (otherwise you're saying that I can do an unarmed melee attack and hit them before they can AoO me, or that a wizard casts a spell before the attack provokes) so what happens? you apply the prone condition to someone already prone and he continues his action since nothing happened that would stop him from continuing it. so he stands up.

I cannot find the FAQ itself (i'm really bad at that) but I found someone who quoted it. FAQ

so if anything the precedent is with us.

tl;dr; there's a FAQ directly referencing that actions have action orders, that stuff doesn't happen simulatiously.


Bandw2 wrote:


here's your problem, you're not wrong, the problem is I make the roll before I'm in danger. I'm only in danger while I'm in the pit. If I jump over a pit and the arch is sending me to land easily on the other side, I'm never in danger from the pit.

So if your house is on fire do you not tell 9 11 you're in immediate danger? They can wait a while?

So why are you not in immediate danger in the nanosecond of non time that you make the roll?

Quote:
You have to be in IMMEDIATE danger, which is only true if you're falling into the pit.

That is not immediate danger. That is borked.

Immediate danger is when there's a reasonable risk that you might become borked.

Like when you try to jump over lava.

Quote:
look even in the physical universe, when you start the jump, it's already determined if you're safe or not, you've already "rolled".

No. Its not. you can still turn the wrong way while you're in the air or land wrong and wind up letting your legs dangle below you , hit the cliff and go smack into it instead of landing on it.

Quote:
so if anything the precedent is with us.

No. Its not. You cannot take something that i cited, correctly, "correct" me on it , and then say it supports your position. I said nothing wrong and it does not support you.

Someone gets up.
They get hit while still on the ground
They lose their last 5 hitpoints
They don't get up.
What caused the AOO?

TRYING to get up. The event takes place over time, not a o point on the timeline.


Disallowing the option to take 10 is, as the not an FAQ pointed out, a highly subjective call but it is the DM's call.

If you don't like how the DM does that, get another DM.

Taking 10 allows a party to breeze through obstacles, leaving the dm with 3 options.

Just breeze through it (in which case, why area you even spending time on it rather than just hitting the indiana jones red map and line?)

or

Set the DC so you can't take 10 on it (in which case the party flails and fails unheroically at obstacles)

or

Annoys the party non stop with distractions every time you do something, like the universe is out to get you or something. You go to leap over the lava and swarms of bats are in your face. Or the earth starts shaking. You try to talk to the noble about something serious and they keep flirting with you.

Why make the DM come up with stuff just to skip over it? Have some adventure, roll some dice, take some risks. You might be in danger of having some fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Just breeze through it (in which case, why area you even spending time on it rather than just hitting the indiana jones red map and line?)

Have you ever tried telling your player

"There's no need for you to roll here, you can easily jump over that 10ft pit of lava given your level of competence; feel free to describe your succes the way you envision it"
It's refreshing and fun, and it gives the player the feel of having some actual narrative control over not only the intentions, but the outcome as well.

Whenever I tried it, it was well recieved.

Of course, the paladin behind, with no ranks in acrobatics and a full plate, still has to roll.

There's no problem if one or all the players become immune to certain threats. The world is vast, there are many types of challenges.

Just because a druid has become immune to poison, it doesn't mean he's now immune to all challenges in general. He's immune to poison.
More importantly, it does not mean I have to stop using poison!
I will still use poison, he will be immune, and this will make him feel rewarded.

Same goes for the guy who can pass the 5ft wide pit of lava without breaking a sweat.
Knowing he can choose to T10 to jump over a pit of lava will make the player happy of having spent just enough ranks.

(Unfortunately some GMs believe it's their job to prevent players from ever feeling accomplished)


All heroic characters should be able to do their skills in an average manner (even in combat). I think distractions should be interpreted in the most limited ways. If a passive ten makes obstacles easily bested describe the heroics and move on to challenge obstacles.

Sorry you can't take ten to jump that pit, you're too distracted by its pittiness. Sure the wizard can just fly over it, but it's really unrealistic that you'd do an average job at a skill you're trained in.


The problem I see with the no Take 10 approach is that when you decide you can't Take 10 because the Lava Pit is too dangerous, you don't normally get a tense scene where people roll to jump the pit - you get players looking for ways to avoid jumping the pit. Now that's fine if you actually want an barrier they have to be clever to get around, but at that might you might as well bump up the DC and make it explicit.

Even if you just have 4 people making 1 roll each, someone's likely going to roll badly. And with this so scary dangerous lava pit, that probably means dying. The chances of someone dying with those multiple rolls is much higher than it looks at first glance.

Almost worse in the case where 3 of them can take 10 and paladin has to roll because her Take 10 isn't good enough - That means there's at least a 50/50 chance of falling in the lava. Ain't doing that unless something really nasty is chasing us, in which case we couldn't Take 10 anyway.


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


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.

Um, because the phrase: you MAY do something means that you aren't currently doing it, thus it takes place AFTER the check for immediate danger.

Like this:

"If your mouth is empty, you may eat this bagel"

If you eat the bagel, your mouth is not empty, therefore, according to you, they can't eat the bagel. That's the logic you are employing, and it fails rather hard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Someone gets up.
They get hit while still on the ground
They lose their last 5 hitpoints
They don't get up.
What caused the AOO?

TRYING to get up. The event takes place over time, not a o point on the timeline.

because being dead interrupts the continuation of the action, they still never got out of prone position. the character is either prone or not, the interruption comes from the declaration of the action. The action does not occur until AoO have been resolved.

Just like you make the roll for acrobatics before you can have fallen into the pit at all.

If you're ignoring this, you're merely being obstinate. You're saying things don't have an order of operations when the People who designed the game say otherwise.

Like I said, your rules don't simulate reality nor are they clearly defined.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

All heroic characters should be able to do their skills in an average manner (even in combat). I think distractions should be interpreted in the most limited ways. If a passive ten makes obstacles easily bested describe the heroics and move on to challenge obstacles.

Sorry you can't take ten to jump that pit, you're too distracted by its pittiness. Sure the wizard can just fly over it, but it's really unrealistic that you'd do an average job at a skill you're trained in.

I feel your name gives you more credibility than anyone here or mentioned when it comes to this topic.


Bandw2 wrote:


If you're ignoring this, you're merely being obstinate.

And we're done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


If you're ignoring this, you're merely being obstinate.
And we're done.

Hey guys, I think I found a bug here.

Just go ad hominem;

It won't win the argument, but it will prevent further replies

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lava leaping isn't SUPPOSED to be boring

This is your personal, debatable opinion.

It's up to the GM, so it is their opinion that matters. It's not a big deal if your character can't take 10 on every check.

Unless you're really insecure about failure.


KingOfAnything wrote:
It's up to the GM, so it is their opinion that matters.

As long as we're discussing playstyle, this is relatively true. I don't believe GMs should dictate playstyles. Adaptable GMs that allow themselves to grow accustomed to different and new ideas (as opposed to rejecting different ideas by saying NO) are so much better for a lot of reasons.

The real problem happens when you think your playstyle is what defines rules as written. That's the problem we have here.
Some people are incapable of accepting that the rules don't support their view that a 5ft pit of lava should always be a challenge, and misread rules through their skewed lenses.

You CAN change rules, by making house rules. Disallowing T10 on a lava pit is objectively a house rule.
It's a legit house rule, a house rule nonetheless.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Um, because the phrase: you MAY do something means that you aren't currently doing it, thus it takes place AFTER the check for immediate danger.

Absolutely not.

First off, your analysis puts "may" in the wrong place. You "may" take ten at implies that you're not taking 10 yet. Or that you haven't taken ten. You can't move it in the sentence and then say that grammar agrees with your reading. Its also a rulebook speaking about games that you're going to have. It's not differentiating time the way you think it is.

Secondly Danger means something bad has a real possibility of happening to you in the future . To an adventurer, that probably means the loss of life or limb, or to me I'd say about half your hitpoints. Immediate danger means that its happening soon. How soon? I don't know. But time best measured in Xeno's paradoxes or matrix bullet time isn't a gray area that's somewhere between soon and NOW.


thejeff wrote:


Even if you just have 4 people making 1 roll each, someone's likely going to roll badly. And with this so scary dangerous lava pit, that probably means dying. The chances of someone dying with those multiple rolls is much higher than it looks at first glance.

usually someone goes across with a rope they hammer it in and and climb on it.

Unlike (apparently) a number of scenario writers i know what happens tpo the statistics when you ask for multiple checks.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Even if you just have 4 people making 1 roll each, someone's likely going to roll badly. And with this so scary dangerous lava pit, that probably means dying. The chances of someone dying with those multiple rolls is much higher than it looks at first glance.

usually someone goes across with a rope they hammer it in and and climb on it.

And then what? Acrobatic rolls to cross the tightrope? No take 10 cause you could fall in the lava?

Besides, that's pretty much what I said:

Quote:
you don't normally get a tense scene where people roll to jump the pit - you get players looking for ways to avoid jumping the pit. Now that's fine if you actually want a barrier they have to be clever to get around, but at that might you might as well bump up the DC and make it explicit.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
It's up to the GM, so it is their opinion that matters.

As long as we're discussing playstyle, this is relatively true. I don't believe GMs should dictate playstyles. Adaptable GMs that allow themselves to grow accustomed to different and new ideas (as opposed to rejecting different ideas by saying NO) are so much better for a lot of reasons.

The real problem happens when you think your playstyle is what defines rules as written. That's the problem we have here.
Some people are incapable of accepting that the rules don't support their view that a 5ft pit of lava should always be a challenge, and misread rules through their skewed lenses.

You CAN change rules, by making house rules. Disallowing T10 on a lava pit is objectively a house rule.
It's a legit house rule, a house rule nonetheless.

This is a cooperative game. Players need to be able to compromise to tell an interesting story just as much as GMs do.

There are plenty of things about a lava pit that could be considered danger or distraction that a player may not take into account when arguing for taking 10 (Fumes, heat by proximity, splash zone, etc.). I agree with you that "Yes, but..." is the better answer, but that is the answer to a different question.

Quote:

"Can I jump over this lava pit?"

"Yes, but you can't take 10 on the check. DC 12"

Taking 10 is a mechanics question which should always defer to the GM, not a narrative question for which the GM should enable players and describe mechanics.

If the GM wants to make the lava pit a challenge for some reason (demonstrate the fire immunity a PC unwittingly acquired for instance), they should be empowered to convey that by asking the players to roll.

Admittedly, all of this is hypothetical. Disallowing a T10 should be in service to a story element, promote a diversity of abilities, or otherwise serve some purpose other than just rolling dice.

But, the entitled attitude that argues players should always be able to take 10 if they can't think of a reason their character would be distracted hampers a GM's ability to create interesting games.


KingOfAnything wrote:


Quote:

"Can I jump over this lava pit?"

"Yes, but you can't take 10 on the check. DC 12"

Taking 10 is a mechanics question which should always defer to the GM, not a narrative question for which the GM should enable players and describe mechanics.

If the GM wants to make the lava pit a challenge for some reason (demonstrate the fire immunity a PC unwittingly acquired for instance), they should be empowered to convey that by asking the players to roll.

Admittedly, all of this is hypothetical. Disallowing a T10 should be in service to a story element, promote a diversity of abilities, or otherwise serve some purpose other than just rolling dice.

But, the entitled attitude that argues players should always be able to take 10 if they can't think of a reason their character would be distracted hampers a GM's ability to create interesting games.

I might try the jump if I had an Acrobatics of 10. Probably not with a 9. Not unless I was really damn desperate. Even a 10% chance of dying on one roll isn't something to do very often.

So, most often "No you can't Take 10 on this because it's dangerous" is "Don't use your skill on this. Find another approach."


thejeff wrote:
And then what? Acrobatic rolls to cross the tightrope? No take 10 cause you could fall in the lava?

And then DC 5 climb checks for a pair of horizontal ropes that you probably can't fail by 5. Especially if a party member NOT wearing 40 pounds of metal gives you a hand.

Quote:
Besides, that's pretty much what I said:
Quote:
you don't normally get a tense scene where people roll to jump the pit - you get players looking for ways to avoid jumping the pit. Now that's fine if you actually want a barrier they have to be clever to get around, but at that might you might as well bump up the DC and make it explicit.

I'm looking for a tense scene where ONE person gets to jump the pit and shows off their skills.

And may land and catch the sides.
And may wind up on a ledge down below taking consistent damage.

If they fall in the lava after THAT then the dice gods were calling them home.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
But, the entitled attitude that argues players should always be able to take 10 if they can't think of a reason their character would be distracted hampers a GM's ability to create interesting games.

This is a common misconception, that "interesting" means necessarily "prohibitionary".

As I said a couple posts ago, when a druid becomes immune to poisons, poisons do not cease to be interesting.

The druid will probably be happy to see that his immunity is in fact doing something and being valuable, whenever a poison is encountered.
This is an interesting development from the druid POV, he'll feel rewarded for not switching that ability with something eles when choosing archetypes.

In the meanwhile, poison still poses a threat to other players. What will the druid do? What will players do?

If all the characters are immune, perhaps they can all laugh together at how useless the trap of the ancient pharaoh was against them. It can become an inside joke, a memorable event.
This is interesting.

You can always challenge them with something else, whenever challenge time comes.

The problem is when you want to enforce something that shouldn't be a challenge on a character that shouldn't be challenged by said thing.

This is the wrong attitude that leads to "teleport does not work, must go by horse in the Valley of Predictable Ambush", "your weapon was stolen when you were sleeping by a god of stealth", "the towns guard are 20th level and all knowing" "you lose paladin powers" and "you can't take 10" every five minutes.

Instead of adapting your challenges to PCs, you negate PCs abilities to re-habilitate old challenges that have long become obsolete*

Superman does not have the same problems as Spiderman. Spiderman does not have the same problems as your averager Joe. Do not treat Superman as if he was Spiderman, do not put kryptonite in every corner so you can treat Superman as your average Joe; design challenges for Superman instead. Spawn Doomsday.

You can be a great GM if you learn to understand what's a legit challenge and what should not be treated as such anmymore.

So what if that specific challenge doesn't work on that PC? Are you afraid of your players feeling accomplished? That should be your goal.
The challenges will come, if they don't come it will be the player who will look for a deeper, larger pit of lava. Let them T10 on the small one, and risk their life on the large one, if so they fancy!

*Note: It can be refreshing from time to time, but it should be the exception, not the norm; otherwise, it's just negating the whole point of character progression


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
It's up to the GM, so it is their opinion that matters.

As long as we're discussing playstyle, this is relatively true. I don't believe GMs should dictate playstyles. Adaptable GMs that allow themselves to grow accustomed to different and new ideas (as opposed to rejecting different ideas by saying NO) are so much better for a lot of reasons.

The real problem happens when you think your playstyle is what defines rules as written. That's the problem we have here.
Some people are incapable of accepting that the rules don't support their view that a 5ft pit of lava should always be a challenge, and misread rules through their skewed lenses.

You CAN change rules, by making house rules. Disallowing T10 on a lava pit is objectively a house rule.
It's a legit house rule, a house rule nonetheless.

This is a cooperative game. Players need to be able to compromise to tell an interesting story just as much as GMs do.

There are plenty of things about a lava pit that could be considered danger or distraction that a player may not take into account when arguing for taking 10 (Fumes, heat by proximity, splash zone, etc.). I agree with you that "Yes, but..." is the better answer, but that is the answer to a different question.

Quote:

"Can I jump over this lava pit?"

"Yes, but you can't take 10 on the check. DC 12"

Taking 10 is a mechanics question which should always defer to the GM, not a narrative question for which the GM should enable players and describe mechanics.

If the GM wants to make the lava pit a challenge for some reason (demonstrate the fire immunity a PC unwittingly acquired for instance), they should be empowered to convey that by asking the players to roll.

Admittedly, all of this is hypothetical. Disallowing a T10 should be in service to a story element, promote a diversity of abilities, or otherwise serve some purpose other than just rolling dice.

But, the entitled attitude that argues players...

I'm the GM in 95% of the time i play pathfinder, and all I know is the reasoning Bignorsewolf is coming up with isn't a strict reading of the rules. In fact his reading seems to make taking 10 a wholly useless mechanic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Besides, that's pretty much what I said:
Quote:
you don't normally get a tense scene where people roll to jump the pit - you get players looking for ways to avoid jumping the pit. Now that's fine if you actually want a barrier they have to be clever to get around, but at that might you might as well bump up the DC and make it explicit.

I'm looking for a tense scene where ONE person gets to jump the pit and shows off their skills.

And may land and catch the sides.
And may wind up on a ledge down below taking consistent damage.

If they fall in the lava after THAT then the dice gods were calling them home.

so here's the thing, I don't use pits. why? they're boring. why? it'd a dice off, if what you just described is tense to your players, i'm shocked, because honestly, either nothing happens or someone dies and can't even be resurrected. basically A. waste time or B. kill someone. which is why I'll opt for C. take 10.

to explain further, me as the player, am throwing dice til either nothing happens or I die. is great fun, wow.

now, to stop this tangent.

NONE OF THIS MATTERS, you can't emotion the rules into place. You can't Appeal to Emotion(more than anything wishful thinking fallacy, really...).

now if you could apply actual evidence, from the rules, that show that the pit exudes danger into the acrobatics roll to jump over it, we can actually argue the point.

to be clear, are we arguing what SHOULD be the rules or what the rules are? Are we making a case for the de jure ruling(authors intent) or the de facto ruling(Rules as written).


Bandw2 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Are we making a case for the de jure ruling(authors intent) or the de facto ruling(Rules as written).

Even if it was a RAI argument, we have evidence of SKR supporting T10 on lava pits


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I think your quotes are out of place. :P


Bandw2 wrote:
I think your quotes are out of place. :P

Why? I'm saying that it doesn't really matter if we're discussing RAW or RAI, you can take 10 to jump across a 5ft pit in both cases.

RAW is supported by logical, sound arguments. RAI is supported by an authour's opinion.

It doesn't really make any difference wether we're talking RAW or RAI, the answer is the same in the end.

You are right about everything, I'm just clarifying this little thing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
I think your quotes are out of place. :P

Why? I'm saying that it doesn't really matter if we're discussing RAW or RAI, you can take 10 to jump across a 5ft pit in both cases.

RAW is supported by logical, sound arguments. RAI is supported by an authour's opinion.

It doesn't really make any difference wether we're talking RAW or RAI, the answer is the same in the end.

You are right about everything, I'm just clarifying this little thing.

because i'm the one who wrote what is currently listed as BNW, and I think you wrote the part it says I wrote...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Um, because the phrase: you MAY do something means that you aren't currently doing it, thus it takes place AFTER the check for immediate danger.

Absolutely not.

First off, your analysis puts "may" in the wrong place. You "may" take ten at implies that you're not taking 10 yet. Or that you haven't taken ten. You can't move it in the sentence and then say that grammar agrees with your reading. Its also a rulebook speaking about games that you're going to have. It's not differentiating time the way you think it is.

Secondly Danger means something bad has a real possibility of happening to you in the future . To an adventurer, that probably means the loss of life or limb, or to me I'd say about half your hitpoints. Immediate danger means that its happening soon. How soon? I don't know. But time best measured in Xeno's paradoxes or matrix bullet time isn't a gray area that's somewhere between soon and NOW.

Dude, when you omit the word 'immediate' in front of danger, which of course negates your entire argument, you are being disingenuous.

Don't cry about other's peoples 'ad homs' when you're arguing in bad faith.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm looking for a tense scene where ONE person gets to jump the pit and shows off their skills.
And may land and catch the sides.
And may wind up on a ledge down below taking consistent damage.

If they fall in the lava after THAT then the dice gods were calling them home.

99% of the time you won't get that. The PCs will either find another way around, or deplete resources so that they can't actually fail the check.

Where's the 'tension' in that?


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Um, because the phrase: you MAY do something means that you aren't currently doing it, thus it takes place AFTER the check for immediate danger.

Absolutely not.

First off, your analysis puts "may" in the wrong place. You "may" take ten at implies that you're not taking 10 yet. Or that you haven't taken ten. You can't move it in the sentence and then say that grammar agrees with your reading. Its also a rulebook speaking about games that you're going to have. It's not differentiating time the way you think it is.

Secondly Danger means something bad has a real possibility of happening to you in the future . To an adventurer, that probably means the loss of life or limb, or to me I'd say about half your hitpoints. Immediate danger means that its happening soon. How soon? I don't know. But time best measured in Xeno's paradoxes or matrix bullet time isn't a gray area that's somewhere between soon and NOW.

Dude, when you omit the word 'immediate' in front of danger, which of course negates your entire argument, you are being disingenuous.

Don't cry about other's peoples 'ad homs' when you're arguing in bad faith.

How the bloody hell is that omitted?


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm looking for a tense scene where ONE person gets to jump the pit and shows off their skills.
And may land and catch the sides.
And may wind up on a ledge down below taking consistent damage.

If they fall in the lava after THAT then the dice gods were calling them home.

99% of the time you won't get that. The PCs will either find another way around, or deplete resources so that they can't actually fail the check.

Where's the 'tension' in that?

Then they get to be creative , or the wizard has a few less options for one rounding the fight. It's a consolation prize but i'll take it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


Um, because the phrase: you MAY do something means that you aren't currently doing it, thus it takes place AFTER the check for immediate danger.

Absolutely not.

First off, your analysis puts "may" in the wrong place. You "may" take ten at implies that you're not taking 10 yet. Or that you haven't taken ten. You can't move it in the sentence and then say that grammar agrees with your reading. Its also a rulebook speaking about games that you're going to have. It's not differentiating time the way you think it is.

Secondly Danger means something bad has a real possibility of happening to you in the future . To an adventurer, that probably means the loss of life or limb, or to me I'd say about half your hitpoints. Immediate danger means that its happening soon. How soon? I don't know. But time best measured in Xeno's paradoxes or matrix bullet time isn't a gray area that's somewhere between soon and NOW.

Dude, when you omit the word 'immediate' in front of danger, which of course negates your entire argument, you are being disingenuous.

Don't cry about other's peoples 'ad homs' when you're arguing in bad faith.

How the bloody hell is that omitted?

well, I mean you talk about immediate danger and then IMMEDIATELY start talking about danger that persist over a time.


im·me·di·ate
iˈmēdēət/
adjective
adjective: immediate

1.
occurring or done at once; instant.
"the authorities took no immediate action"
synonyms: instant, instantaneous, swift, prompt, fast, speedy, rapid, brisk, quick, expeditious; More
antonyms: delayed, gradual

relating to or existing at the present time.
"the immediate concern was how to avoid taxes"
synonyms: current, present, existing, actual; More
antonyms: past, future

2.
nearest in time, relationship, or rank.
"a funeral with only the immediate family in attendance"
synonyms: recent, not long past, just gone, latest
"the immediate past"
antonyms: remote

nearest or next to in space.
"roads in the immediate vicinity of the port"
synonyms: nearest, near, close, closest, next-door; More
antonyms: distant

(of a relation or action) without an intervening medium or agency; direct.
"coronary thrombosis was the immediate cause of death"
synonyms: direct, primary
"the immediate cause of death"
antonyms: indirect

3.
PHILOSOPHY
(of knowledge or reaction) gained or shown without reasoning; intuitive.

Now, in no way can I see how the time before the check is less immediate that the time after the check given Any reasonable reading of the word.


It seems like time would be irrelevant to me. Immediate danger uses the "without an intervening medium or agency" definition.

Immediate Danger- Any situation that, without action, has a 100% chance of physical harm.

Action's the intervening medium.


^If that's the case, it still leaves distraction too loosely defined. I don't think a GM should be able to tell a player he's distracted whenever he wants. But, you can't leave it up to the player either, cuz then they're never distracted. Perhaps, pertaining to distracted, the guideline should be as it is, vague, but instead call for a will save.


jimibones83 wrote:
It seems like time would be irrelevant to me. Immediate danger uses the "without an intervening medium or agency" definition.

Random boldings do not make statements the rules.

Quote:

Immediate Danger- Any situation that, without action, has a 100% chance of physical harm.

Definition from where? That definition is... more than a little problematic. Being shot at by 100 archers doesn't have a 100% chance of physical harm. (or 100 crossbow traps if you want to avoid combat...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

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.

Oh? You gonna make the AC on the BBEG higher so they can't hit it?

If you up the DC for no reason but to make things harder for the PCs who spent resources to be good at it, then you are guilty of denying the PC the use of their abilities.

That pit has a fixed DC, known to the GM and not the players. If all players Take-10 on that and succeed, then they have spent resources to do this. If the GM decides a later DC, for the same thing, must be higher to force rolling then they are robbing the PCs of their investment. If the GM goes too far, then the PCs will stop bothering to invest anything since it has zero impact on their chance of success.

This really shows up when one PC has invested considerably. If you make it challenging for that PC, then no other PC can succeed. With a pit, that one PC could then aid from the far side, except whatever made it so hard probably prevents this also. If this is AC, then the only one that can hit becomes the only who can hit anything. Again, this removes the fun from the game.

DCs should be based on the challenge they represent, not the challenge they give a particular player.

/cevah

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've really tried to stay away from this thread... but sometimes we miss our will saves (likely because we can't Take 10 on Saving throws)

Repeating an old post of mine...

"I am very much in the Take 10 camp. I even "have the T-Shirt".

And I try real hard not to tell other people how to play this game of ours. When I am the judge at a table and it comes to a skill check that the players need to make - I might even say "give me a XXX check - roll or take ten, what do you get?" This is the closest I come just assuming that the PCs take 10 and narrating/telling the players the result. Even when I know that the DC is such that the PC can make it on a roll of 2 ... even when I realize that it is going to slow the game down, make it harder for the PCs, even when I KNOW it will be less fun... I let the players chose. Why do I do this? Because, you know, I'm not the player. If they want to roll the dice that's fine - perhaps they find it more fun that way.

I don't. But then, I did say "when I am the judge at a table..."

When I'm the player - and it's my choice - please don't take that away from me because you think it will be more fun. Let me play my character... the way I have fun with it.

I could try to explain why I find rolling the dice cheapens the "fun", reducing a game of imagination and skill to one of randomness and chance. But you know, if you don't see it, I don't want to force you to play it my way....

Why do people insist that I can't be having fun - when they see me doing it over and over again? Why do they insist that I "do it right - the fun way"?

sorry - this is a hot button for me, and sometimes I get carried away. I'll try to go back to lurking again..."

sarcasm alert!
But with the Non-FAQ post, it looks like that doesn't apply any more....

As the DM, now I can just require the players to take 10 when I "want to control the pacing and tension" of the game. Outside of combat, when the PCs aren't threatened by anything I personally would consider dangerous...I really CAN force people to play it my way... Knowledge skill check? Just ask them what their bonus is and add 10 - that's what they know. No need to have everyone roll dice and wait while they all shout different numbers at me, only to have the guy who always rolls 17+ on his "special" dice no one else can read get the high roll again. "Which of you has the best Knowledge Nobility? And what's the bonus? +4? To bad, a 15 would have gotten you more info..." yeah, I can feel the drama now, can't you?
sarcasm off

Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm up to doing that though... I hate telling someone else how to play the game "right"...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based off the other post all over the forum today I have to ask.....

Can I t10 to milk a cow?
What about breeding them?
Can the cow T10 on producing the milk?


Talonhawke wrote:

Based off the other post all over the forum today I have to ask.....

Can I t10 to milk a cow?

Probably not. There is an immediate danger that if you fail your 'milk cow' check that you will get kicked.


bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Based off the other post all over the forum today I have to ask.....

Can I t10 to milk a cow?

Probably not. There is an immediate danger that if you fail your 'milk cow' check that you will get kicked.

You're also distracted by the smell.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

since i'm pretty sure you can't make a milk cow check untrained the DC is probably above 10...

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
since i'm pretty sure you can't make a milk cow check untrained the DC is probably above 10...

?? this wouldn't matter for the ability to Take 10 would it?

wait... I'm confused now...

Was this just part of the "Randomness of Confusion" inherent in the Cow threads?

slipping into the spirit of the discussion then...

Wait! as a 3rd level Master Farmer (Commoner Archtype in Ultimate Rural, pg 121), I can always Take 10 on Barnyard Tasks (which include Milking domestic animals) even when threatened or distracted. And with my Masterwork Tools (Sure Grip Milkers Gloves) (+2), a guidance spell (+1), and a circumstance bonus of (+2) for Familiar Animal all added into my (+2) for an INT of 14 nets me a +7 total so I should be ok even untrained! Taking 10 gives me a 17 final score - even untrained!


That may be enough for your standard CR2 cow, but this one has the 'ornery' template.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I was simpyl supplying info that the DC to milk cow may be higher than we think and thus taking 10 might not be advisable unless your specalize.

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
I was simpyl supplying info that the DC to milk cow may be higher than we think and thus taking 10 might not be advisable unless your specalize.

But I might want to Take 10 just to be sure I don't fail by more than 5 - roll low enough and that Cow is going to give new meaning to the the Battle Cattle term "Berserk Bovine"!

Community & Digital Content Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Abusive commentary towards Paizo staff is uncalled for. If you have actual feedback about our moderation policies, take it to Website Feedback or community@paizo.com.

351 to 400 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