| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the official list is "anything besides UMD".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This must be a regional thing.
I keep seeing threads where people are complaining that their GMs don't allow them to take 10, or that people are having a hard time with the take 10 rules (which is mind boggling).
I think it's just a case of GMs not reading the Core Rulebook.
The rules for taking 10 are clearly spelled out there. No outside lists should be required.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
You can take 10 with all skills unless the skill explicitly says you can't (like UMD), at least under some circumstances.
So the list you requested is the whole skill list except UMD.
I can't help it that some people have an antipathy towards it. The rules are clear enough, but some people just don't like to allow it even though they should.
This must be a regional thing.
I keep seeing threads where people are complaining that their GMs don't allow them to take 10, or that people are having a hard time with the take 10 rules (which is mind boggling).
I think it's just a case of GMs not reading the Core Rulebook.
The rules for taking 10 are clearly spelled out there. No outside lists should be required.
Some GMs definitely don't like take 10. I'm the only player at my home game that ever bothers to try to use it because our GM gets all bent out of shape by it and wastes time making us explain that yes, it's a thing that's allowed so that my character who's reasonably competent at something doesn't have to risk failing an easy task.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for things like PFS, you get such table variance, from despising Take 10, to loving Take 10.
So, I am looking to have a neat list of skills that are available for Take 10, show them, and get the whole thing out of the way, before we start.
Less disagreement/confusion, the more fun.
Heh. The list, other than including UMD, is the list of skills in Chapter 4 of the CRB.
Some skills list explicit exceptions to when they can be used to Take 10, which is UMD in general, and Swim in rough water/heavy weather, and any skill when you are threatened or distracted.
So, climbing a wall above a lava pit? You can Take 10.
Climbing the wall above a lava pit, with someone shooting a bow at you? Sorry, no take 10.
Swimming in clear, calm, tropical waters? Take 10
Swimming in muddy, storm-lashed tropical waters? Probably not going to be able to take 10.
Trying to use UMD to activate a known wand? No way of taking 10 on this, barring a few rare class features. Of course, at higher levels, this can still be a gimme, once you get your UMD modifier to +19...
Trying to use a Knowledge skill at a library? Take 10 allowed, probably with a bonus from the library.
Trying to figure out what that creature attacking you is? No take 10 there, except for a couple of Bard archetypes or some such.
|
|
Yeah, I suppose a list could be considered a silly thing.
Thing is, I have been asked for such a list.
I suppose a list of skill that are unavailable for Take 10 would be easier, but I have never been asked for that.
Although, unless I missed something, that list consists of, um, one skill?
I have been straight up told I didn't know the rules, or that I was trying to cheat, when using Take 10 with some skills.
Some people just hate the idea of taking dice rolling out of the picture for something that you could use dice for. They feel it's "cheating" to not have the chance to roll a 1 and do poorly at the skill.
|
|
Yeah, I suppose a list could be considered a silly thing.
Thing is, I have been asked for such a list.
I suppose a list of skill that are unavailable for Take 10 would be easier, but I have never been asked for that.
Although, unless I missed something, that list consists of, um, one skill?
I have been straight up told I didn't know the rules, or that I was trying to cheat, when using Take 10 with some skills.
The list for skills where you cannot take 10 consists of, usually, one skill (UMD) and some circumstances (distraction and combat, mainly)
Of course, there are a few things that could let you take 10 on UMD (for non-PFS, the Warlock class from 3.5 was given that ability explicitly as a class feature, as an example).
1) Concentration checks
2) Caster Level checks
3) Use Magic Device checks
Well...Take 10 is only for skill checks, and only #3 of that list is a skill check...
|
Well...Take 10 is only for skill checks, and only #3 of that list is a skill check...1) Concentration checks
2) Caster Level checks
3) Use Magic Device checks
Apparently you haven't actually read the rules because the first two are specifically mentioned in the rules in the Take 10/20 section. You can also take 10 for ability checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hand them a list like this:
Skills that can be used with take 10*:
Everything that isn't UMD
Skills that can't be used with take 10:
UMD**
*Assuming no distraction and not in combat, and not accounting for specific restrictions listed in some skills.
** Some class abilities may alter this
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The odd thing I've encountered is that the same GMs I've had that hate Take 10 and want the players to roll dice for every little thing are the same GMs that love to quote Gary Gygax saying "A DM only rolls dice for the noise they make".
Apparently you haven't actually read the rules because the first two are specifically mentioned in the rules in the Take 10/20 section. You can also take 10 for ability checks.Well...Take 10 is only for skill checks, and only #3 of that list is a skill check...1) Concentration checks
2) Caster Level checks
3) Use Magic Device checks
I've read the rules, and I'll quote them for you:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.
This is an addendum to the Take 10/Take 20 rules under skills. Ability Checks and the Caster Level Checks are called out specifically, because they are NOT skill checks.
I agree I omitted Ability Checks, but that still doesn't change that Concentration and Caster Level checks aren't skills which is what I was pointing out as that is what the OP was looking for...the skills that permit Take 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow missed that you can take 10/20 on ability checks. That is awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did as well. And I think I might start using it; our DM has us roll Int checks to decide if he's going to remind us of important information that he mentioned in passing one night three months ago. Especially if I wind up playing the mindchemist skill monkey I've been working on.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I have been asked for such a list.
Point at the Skills chapter, and ask them to elaborate on why that's not enough. Get them to give you their reasoning.
I have been straight up told I didn't know the rules, or that I was trying to cheat, when using Take 10 with some skills.
If a GM claims during a game that you're wrong about the T10 rules, and the situation is not serious, just go with it (so as to keep the game going) and bring it up during a break or after the game. Have the book already open to the correct page when you do so. If they respond like an adult, great! If they don't respond like an adult, report their behavior (not their wrongness about a rule, their behavior) to a Venture Officer (or if it's a Venture Officer, tell Mike Brock).
If a GM just straight-up calls you a cheater just for responding to the call for a skill check with an announcement of your T10 result, leave the table and report them to a VO (or again, if it IS a VO, to Mike Brock).
GMs are allowed to be wrong about the rules, but they're not allowed to be jerks. And refusing to look at a book presented conveniently to them outside of a time crunch, as well as calling someone a cheater without checking the rules first, both qualify as being a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is definitely some confusion as to under what circumstances players can take 10, so you hear common mistakes like "You're in danger from the lava, so you can't take 10 to jump across the pit."
As a GM, I tell players "If I ask you for a check, you can take 10. If I need you to actually roll the die, I will specifically ask for a roll."
Now, I usually have to remind players that you can't take 10 when you aid another on skill checks.
Does that mean you can take 20 to aid another instead?
No because if you fail you fail to aid, and it takes a long time. So I feel these reasons would stop you from being able to take 20 for aid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is always argument over the term "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted". I know GMs that don't allow a take 10 on climbing because there exists a chance of falling. There are also the ones don't allow taking 10 with the spellcraft check made while crafting items because there is a consequence to failure there as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consequences of failure prevents take 20, not take 10. Take 10 exists explicitly to avoid consequences of failure on semi-routine things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole argument boils down to:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted...
The definition of "distracted" is going to vary widely. For example, in my Jade Regent campaign, a PC wanted to jump off a boardwalk (DC 5 Acrobatics check) during a combat, but at a point where he was not personally in danger of being attacked by melee weapons.
Is he:
- Distracted because any one of the enemies might decide to shoot at him with their ranged weapons at any time?
- Distracted because there is a combat within 50' of him?
- Distracted because of a large burning building within 50' of him?
- Not distracted, because he is not immediately being attacked or aimed at?
I'd love a far more concrete rule, such as, "You may take 10, but you are flat-footed while doing so."
That makes "distracted" a concrete concept. "If you stop paying attention to anything around you, are you within range of enemies who may now consider you flat-footed if they decide to attack you?"
And as a GM I would accept a player's answer of, "Yes, go ahead and consider me flat-footed, and now I'm going to take 10."
That "distracted" phrase is just too vague...
EDIT: In other words, if Paizo were to ask me to rewrite the rule, I would just say, "A PC may take 10 at any time for any skill check, but they are considered flat-footed and provoke attacks of opportunity while doing so."
Makes it 100% clear when you can do it, and what the consequences of doing it are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immediate danger or distracted I count as "are you tracking time in combat rounds and initiative". It is nice and clear and concrete for us.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like the Immediate Danger or Distracted rule as is because it gives some creative leeway for the GM and doesn't create silly corner cases by having a concrete rule that can't possibly cover everything.
Also the idea of a Take 10 is to reduce dice rolling and extra number crunching at the table, adding in extra conditions and the like seems to be going away from that idea of simplifying things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immediate danger or distracted I count as "are you tracking time in combat rounds and initiative". It is nice and clear and concrete for us.
I'd agree except our whole situation was, "We're in combat rounds, but I'm nowhere near the combat, so I should be able to take 10."
So even that apparent simpleness has complexity.
Immediate danger or distracted I count as "are you tracking time in combat rounds and initiative". It is nice and clear and concrete for us.I'd agree except our whole situation was, "We're in combat rounds, but I'm nowhere near the combat, so I should be able to take 10."
So even that apparent simpleness has complexity.
For us, if you're near enough that you're in combat rounds, then you can't take 10.
If you're that far out and off the map, we usually figure out the distance to see how many rounds until they show up. Once you're on the map, you can't take 10 anymore.
Immediate danger or distracted I count as "are you tracking time in combat rounds and initiative". It is nice and clear and concrete for us.I'd agree except our whole situation was, "We're in combat rounds, but I'm nowhere near the combat, so I should be able to take 10."
So even that apparent simpleness has complexity.
If you are not near enough to the combat to be considered in immediate danger or distracted then you should not be included in the initiative count. The GM should handle the combat then get back to you. If you are close enough that you can have an impact on the battle and thus be included in the initiative count you are close enough to be under to much pressure to Take 10.
There isn't really any complexity there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know GMs that don't allow a take 10 on climbing because there exists a chance of falling.
There are also the ones don't allow taking 10 with the spellcraft check made while crafting items because there is a consequence to failure there as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Usually, I use Take 10 on things like gathering information(Diplomacy), Climb, strength check to break down doors, Knowledge checks, and Linguistics checks to decipher things.
I also have to remind DMs, that anyone, can make Knowledge checks untrained, if it's a DC 10, or lower.
And combined with take 10 and assuming you aren't a dullard means pretty much everyone knows anything of a DC 10 or less. It's almost like there is something called "common knowledge". But why would the designer make the game such that people could actually know things without being an expert in their field. This certainly sounds overpowered.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And combined with take 10 and assuming you aren't a dullard means pretty much everyone knows anything of a DC 10 or less. It's almost like there is something called "common knowledge". But why would the designer make the game such that people could actually know things without being an expert in their field. This certainly sounds overpowered.Usually, I use Take 10 on things like gathering information(Diplomacy), Climb, strength check to break down doors, Knowledge checks, and Linguistics checks to decipher things.
I also have to remind DMs, that anyone, can make Knowledge checks untrained, if it's a DC 10, or lower.
Yeah.
"Gee, I can't figure out if that is an Elf, or an Ogre."
"Hey, is that a Holy Symbol of the god I worship, because I just can't tell."
Hmm, I had never considered taking 10 on an untrained Knowledge check. To be honest, that one does seem like kind of an exploit - in that case (unless you have a negative Int mod) then taking 10 is the best you could possibly do. But, I don't think there's a rule against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I had never considered taking 10 on an untrained Knowledge check. To be honest, that one does seem like kind of an exploit - in that case (unless you have a negative Int mod) then taking 10 is the best you could possibly do.
Well, it means that DC 10 is the "everyone knows that" level, where it's actively unusual for someone not to know the fact in question.
I think it makes more sense than requiring people to roll to remember where the parish church is. ("I'm sorry, Father, but I couldn't find the church last Sunday." "You, mean, the big grey building with the tall spire you can see from anywhere within ten miles?" "Yeah, that's the one." "Not to worry, it happens all the time. You wouldn't happen to know where the village green is? Would you?" "Oh, yeah, it's <roll> right next to the church!")
Well, if something is part of someone's backstory/story they shouldn't be made to roll Knowledge at all. They just know it.
It's true that 10 is "common knowledge" but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone with at-least-average Int knows every single piece of common knowledge. And it would seem odd they have 100% recall for common knowledge, and absolutely 0% chance of knowing something that's not common knowledge.
But once again, by the rules it seems legit to take 10 on an untrained knowledge check. I have to say though it doesn't make sense to me, and I probably would not allow it.
|
|
Yes.
Many DMs houserule Take 10, into nonsensical madness, for nonsensical reasons.
PFS, does not have such liberties allowed for DMs to do such silly things.
Also, much of the, um, trouble, is from the "expert" players, who seem to always get the nod in agreement, from the Judge.
Then, they will both want a list.
At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.
I suspect you aren't normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills...
At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.I suspect you aren't normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills...
Er, no. You're not normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills when the difficulty involved is greater than DC 10. The point of that particular bardic ability is that you know obscure/difficult stuff without formal training in the relevant skill.
Er, no. You're not normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills when the difficulty involved is greater than DC 10. The point of that particular bardic ability is that you know obscure/difficult stuff without formal training in the relevant skill.At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.I suspect you aren't normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills...
Notice how it's "any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in"? Having ranks does imply special training, and if the bard of all classes needs ranks to take 10, why would anyone without ranks be intended to do so?
Edit: The thing is, nowhere does it say that you aren't allowed to take 10 on a knowledge skill no matter the DC or your skill at it, and then Lore Master pops up and specifically allows take 10 for trained knowledges only.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.I suspect you aren't normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills...
The bard can do it while threatened or distracted. That's what that means.
The bard can do it while threatened or distracted. That's what that means.At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in.I suspect you aren't normally supposed to take 10 at knowledge skills...
Is that the case? If so, it's badly formulated as the only bard ability that says anything about taking 10 while distracted is the level 19 upgrade to Jack of All Trades.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm sure I could dig up the link in my archives if you really need me to, but it's been confirmed in the past that the bard's ability really does mean "even while threatened" rather than meaning "most characters can never T10 on Knowledge but we thought it'd be funny not to mention it in the skill description".