¿Then what happens when a male is trying to climb and a succubus starts to wink him at the top?
¿He is distracted or more focused?
He tries to grapple?
|
You can take 10 on climbing in normal non-threatening circumstances. This represents the added time and care you take, and the focus you can give the task at hand. It's perfectly reasonable to have no risk of falling when you're not rushed.
There's always risks involved in activities regardless of type, even if the consequences may be indirect, but this doesn't stop you from taking 10.
take 10 does not need added time/care, this is take 20.
as mentioned above, take 10 is just you know you can do it, nobody attacks you so you do it like average Joe.
You can take 10 on all skills except UMD. Some skills have special circumstances in which it cannot be done and these are specifically called out in the skill description. If it is not specifically denied, you can do it. Don't like it? House rule it away.
I don't see in the climb skill description that all characters suddenly develop a fear of heights. I don't see in the swim skill description that everyone suddenly develops a fear of drowning.
I vaguely wonder -- from the point of view of "you can't take 10 because it's a risky activity" -- what skills do not involve an element of risk in their performance?
I've hurt myself rather badly practicing acrobatics, for example by slipping on an icy sidewalk when walking. I've hurt myself rather badly with Craft (woodworking) because those tools are SHARP. I've managed to cut myself slicing vegetables, been scratched by household pets, dropped bowling balls on my foot, and given myself paper cuts reading books. And, of course, trying to Bluff the wrong person is simply asking for a punch in the nose.
Why would they put in a set of rules that can literally never be used?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: It depends on how your GM runs. With that said, my opinion is that yes, under normal circumstances, you can take 10 while climbing, gravity not counting as immediate danger. There's a reason for that.
Imagine, if you will, a circus tightrope-walker. What level is a typical circus tightrope-walker in your campaign? In my campaigns, I'd say a low-level NPC. Walking a tightrope would be around DC 20, so let us just say 20.
Let us say our Tighrope-walker is a level 2 Expert with a standard NPC ability-array. He will have 14 DEX (12base+2human), will have picked acrobatics for a class-skill, and will have feats centered on its use.
For feats we chose Skill Focus(Acrobatics) for his level 1 feat and Acrobatic for his bonus feat. We could argue he'd have the acrobat trait, but let's assume NPCs don't have traits in this example.
So we have a guy with an Acrobatics score that looks like this. 2(skill ranks)+2(ability modifier)+3(class skill)+2(acrobatic)+3(skill focus), coming to a total of +12.
If gravity presents an immediate danger, this guy, hyper-specialized as he is, will fail to walk a tightrope in quiet practice, 4 out 10 times.
If it does not, and he is allowed to take 10, he will never fail, except if something goes wrong. Like a particularly hostile crowd distracting him, the rope not being properly secured, the NPC being sick yet still doing his act, and so on. He might even be able to walk a slackline, although he may wanna have a balance-pole for that.
This, to me, simulates actual circus-artists fairly well, and does not require them to be weirdly high level, in order to avoid falling often enough to be unfit for an act.
-Nearyn
This thread want to make me bang my head against a wall.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread want to make me bang my head against a wall.
Can't take 10 on that. There is a chance of injury.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This idea, that the things that the Take 10 mechanics, are specifically noted to deal with, are the exact things people are arguing are the reasons you can't Take 10, just, makes me punch my skull.
+1
I can understand the frustration of many things jumping straight from 50% failure to 0% failure with a +1 improvement due to the take-10 rules, but there's not a good way to solve that without turning the world into bumbling idiots or rewriting the way skill checks are done entirely, so I just got over it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run PFS a lot, and so I have a little spiel that I use to explain the Take 10 rules to players.
"Pretend that Taking 10 were much more common, that rolling while out of combat was unusual, and look at a Bomb Disposal agent. There are bombs she knows how to defuse, and does so all the time, and there are bombs that are above her paygrade. Then let's imagine rolling her Disable Device check. That's like saying "Let's cut the red wire. That's often a good idea. Let's see if it works here." It might allow her to defuse much more complicated bombs, or it might not. It might dispose of bombs she would disable with a methodical procedure, or it might be a really bad idea.
"Taking 10, people climb ropes they can climb, and there are some situation under which they can't. Rolling, in that case, is thinking "I've seen circus acrobats try to climb rope. They fling their legs out in front of them and climb hand-over-hand really fast. I'll try that." And you might succeed, and climb pretty fast and look slick doing it. Or you might roll low and fall on your butt. And your friends are calling down "Quit screwing around and climb the damn rope." But you can't take 10 if you're trying to climb out of a well and there are ogre children at the top, throwing rocks down at you."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your problem is that take 10 eliminates the risk for players (which is what its supposed to do) keep in mind it doesn't necessarily eliminate the risk for all players. Not everyone will have invested ranks in climb.
This means the competent party member must take time to place pitons or attach a knotted rope up top or some other activity. So, if the group is in a rush this may not be acceptable. While one player may succeed not everyone can. Further, if everyone can succeed then you really shouldn't think of it as a significant challenge. It's like asking a level 10 party to fight a CR 5 challenge. Do you expect it to be dangerous to them? No.
The point of skill ranks is that you are on average supposed to get good enough were certain activities aren't challenging. If you want there to be a challenge, remember you could always increase the challenge (an therefore the DC) to more than what their take 10 would yield (of course if you did this on purpose all the time I would simply think you were being dick).
As stated, take 10 is supposed to do the very thing you hate so that players who invest in skills can actually be good at doing them instead of failing at simple tasks because of a bad roll. It's not very heroic for a PC with a +18 total to climb to fall off a natural rock wall (DC 25) and fall to his death because he rolled a 2. It doesn't make for a fun game. Whoops sorry, a series of bad dice rolls killed you! Does anyone actually think that's fun? Especially on a skill check. Combat is one thing, but skill checks are a different animal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going by the logic some people are displaying here, you shouldn't be able to take 10 on any skill check at all:
* can't take 10 on Perception because you might fail to notice the truck and get run over
* can't take 10 on Perform (comedy) because someone in the audience might not like your jokes and shoot you (don't laugh, things like that happen, unfortunately)
* can't take 10 on Profession (woodcutter) because the tree might fall on you and kill you
* can't take 10 on Walking because you might trip, fall and break your neck
and so on.
Take 10 is designed to eliminate exactly the specific danger that failing the skill check could bring with it. Why is that so difficult to understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, banning take 10 just means characters find other ways to bypass the challenge so they don't have to worry about a bad dice roll.
Like the levitate spell. Oh, you want us to climb? How about I levitate thejeff up to the wall over there and he'll tie a knotted rope and the rest of us will climb up the DC 5 rope instead of taking any risk.
Do you really want to make magic even better because you don't like take 10 rules? Take 10 is the only thing that makes investing in skills have a chance at still being better than just the magical solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question to ask is this "regardless of the factors inherent to the check itself, are there any external factors that would preclude taking 10?"
Using stealth to walk past a dragon? Go for it. Using stealth is not in itself dangerous or risky or dangerous.
Climb check 10 feet off the ground? Be my guest.
Climb check 300 feet off the ground? No problem.
Jump check for 10 feet because you just feel like it? Go ahead.
Jump check for 10 feet over a mile-deep chasm? Yep, that's fine.
Only when you add external factors should taking 10 not be an option.
Using stealth to walk past a dragon while avoiding mini volcanic eruptions? Roll, dude.
Climb check 10 feet off the ground while orcs throw javelins at you? Bring out your dice.
Jump check for 10 feet in high winds that can check a medium flying creature? Nope, dice, please.
|
Average Joe, a human with ST 10 and no training, has a +0 to Climb:
DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"
DC 15 "Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands"
Using this model, Joe, taking 10, could climb an obstacle of the first kind (a typical fence) without risk of hurting himself in about a minute or so. But, unless he got some good training and equipment, couldn't climb an obstacle of the second kind (think a climbing gym) without risking a fall.
In both cases, if Joe was being hunted by a Tiger, he might stumble and fall in his scrambling.
(I bolded the part where you stated it would take a minute.)
Just a note: Take 10 does not increase the time it takes to do a task, Take 20 does.
Ah yes. Good catch.
I have seen many times where GMs get upset when their players get more powerful and skill checks become automatic. I believe this is a feature, not a bug.
During the course of the game, all opposed checks level with the characters. As such, the target roll on the die is basically the same. Without the expenditure of feats or other resources, the basic die goal seems to have about a 25%-50% success rate. As your character's BAB goes up, so does the armor class of the opponents you should be fighting. As the DC to save from your spells increases, so does the save bonus for the target. As such, nothing ever really gets easier, as you should be facing tougher challenges.
Early on in the game, skill checks are difficult. As the levels progress, unopposed checks such as these, do not appear to rise. Your character should not be facing more complicated ships rigging, it should now just be easier. This is where take 10 comes in. Once you are adequately experienced to do something, it should not be that difficult for you to complete the task at hand.
I can write a post like this without difficulty. It isn't perfect and may not be pretty, but I have enough skill in the English language to compose a simple post that gets my point across without threat of failure. But if I wanted to write a book for publication, that would be a completely different story. I might have to take 20 for that, which would indicate 19 failed books before I was published. I wish I could do that in two minutes.
Failure resulting in bad things happening isn't, by the RAW, criteria for allowing or not allowing a player to take ten.Your argument boils down to your belief that climbing is not risky because players are allowed to take ten.
By the RAW, you can take ten on climb checks (this is unequivocally true of climb checks to climb to a height of up to half your speed). Climbing is, then, not very risky in a lot of circumstances (although starting the climb high up like Neo in the Matrix or climbing while conditions are variable, conditions a rigger on a man-o-war would understand, may make it dangerous). That's just how it is....
Let's work a different scenario:
You make Skill check A which upon failure results in a check and the results of that check determine whether you take damage or not.
Next Scenario:
You make skill check B which upon failure results in a check and the results of that check determine whether you take damage or not.
Scenario A is Climb
Scenario B is Acrobatics when trying to avoid an attack of opportunity by tumbling through an opponent's threatened area.
One you can take 10 in (and yes, I'm fully aware by RAW that you can take 10 to climb).
In the other, you cannot without some verify specific rogue-like talents.
Explain to me the logical difference between the two.
Hell, the only difference that I can find is that if said opponent has already made his allotted attacks of opportunity for the round, you don't even need to make a check for Scenario B...making it even easier.
but I have enough skill in the English language to compose a simple post that gets my point across without threat of failure.
You haven't been on these boards very long, have you? :P
Explain to me the logical difference between the two.
The logical difference between the two is whether the threat is external to the intrinsic task-at-hand. In the case of climbing, a failure to climb will hurt you, but there's nothing else that will hurt you.
In the case of acrobatics, a failure to "acrobat" will not hurt you, but the person that you are trying to move around will.
In fact, if there's someone near enough to you to be a credible threat, that will also prevent you from from taking 10 on other tasks, so you can't take 10 on a climb check, either.
Combat or not, you take damage. If you did not take damage in combat, there would be no danger.
The element of danger is the threat of death. In Pathfinder, death comes from damage reducing hit points past a certain point.
Ehhh.. doesn't quite cut it.
After pausing for a moment I think what is missing is the element of fatigue...unlike say swimming, there is no element of fatigue in the use of the climb skill.
Combat or not, you take damage.
It's not the damage that is the issue, it's the source of the damage.
In the case of acrobatics, a failure to "acrobat" will not hurt you, but the person that you are trying to move around will.
While I agree there is an element of active vs. passive conditions resulting in damage, the end result is the same.
However, it is even more likely that you will take damage if you don't have a character that can mitigate gravity.
Gravity is > Monsters, after all.
Combat or not, you take damage.It's not the damage that is the issue, it's the source of the damage.
So you are saying the sudden stop after reaching terminal velocity is < a orcs battle axe?
So you are saying the sudden stop after reaching terminal velocity is < a orcs battle axe?
No. I'm saying that the orc's battle axe is not implicit in the nature of climbing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree there is an element of active vs. passive conditions resulting in damage, the end result is the same.
In the case of acrobatics, a failure to "acrobat" will not hurt you, but the person that you are trying to move around will.
Yes, but the active vs. passive conditions is exactly what causes the splitting of attention that prevents you from taking 10.
Gravity is > Monsters, after all.
Not really relevant. What is relevant is that
(Gravity AND Monsters) > Gravity
Hence when you are distracted by monsters, you can't give your full attention to gravity.
The question to ask is this "regardless of the factors inherent to the check itself, are there any external factors that would preclude taking 10?"
Using stealth to walk past a dragon? Go for it. Using stealth is not in itself dangerous or risky or dangerous.
Climb check 10 feet off the ground? Be my guest.
Climb check 300 feet off the ground? No problem.
Jump check for 10 feet because you just feel like it? Go ahead.
Jump check for 10 feet over a mile-deep chasm? Yep, that's fine.Only when you add external factors should taking 10 not be an option.
Using stealth to walk past a dragon while avoiding mini volcanic eruptions? Roll, dude.
Climb check 10 feet off the ground while orcs throw javelins at you? Bring out your dice.
Jump check for 10 feet in high winds that can check a medium flying creature? Nope, dice, please.
This.
Explain to me the logical difference between the two.One is in combat, and the other is not. Combat is resolved by dice rolls, while out of combat often isn't.
And this.
/scene
Really, you can't see the logical difference of walking across a 6" wide board over chasm vs walking across a 6" wide board over a chasm with a 300 lbs. Orc swinging a battle axe at you?
There is a clear, logical difference. Avoiding the Orc is clearly going to affect your ability to cross. Not avoiding the Orc is also clearly going to affect your ability to cross.
I imagine you drive a car without too much difficulty. Try doing it when someone is trying to kill you, from the passenger seat, with an axe. I think you will see it is more difficult. Rather than raising the DC, it is now just impossible to "take 10".
|
|
Quintain, regardless of how you feel on the issue, the RAW is clear: Combat is a distraction, risk because of a failed check is not. If it contains risk *and* combat, the risk is actually irrelevant, it's the combat that prevents take-10. Completely without-risk checks (if such a thing were to exist) would still be barred from taking 10.
You're free to house-rule this in your own games, of course, but be aware that you're essentially erasing the take-10 rule altogether. Skill DCs for many tasks are based on the assumption that you can normally take-10, so this may have unintended consequences.
As for the FAQ that was linked about contact other plane.. well.. Paizo has a bad habit of avoiding rules changes even when it's necessary. The spell should just say that take-10 is not allowed. As others have mentioned, FAQs are not supposed to be used as evidence for anything other than what the FAQs say, so it's dangerous to expand that ruling to everything with any risk because (as I noted before) this would effectively kill the take-10 rule. That FAQ is actually rather old anyway, and it appears that the rules text of Contact Other Plane *has* been updated on the PRD to disallow taking 10 explicitly.
Zaister has the right of it.
You absolutely can take 10 to climb in many cases.
Trying to climb a wall or steep slope? Take 10.
Trying to climb a volcano as it is erupting around you? Gotta' roll.
Remember, as a GM, if you ever want a climb to be risky and scary, you just have to say, "You're distracted by turbulent winds so you can't take 10 in this case."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey, you know what I just realized? Out of the dozens of threads I've seen where someone doesn't like how Take 10 removes the risk of rolling, I can't think of a single time when anyone's popped in to defend it by reciting the old "ROLEplay/ROLLplay" line.
I mean, there are enough Take 10 threads and enough posters who like that line that the two must meet occasionally, so why the silence? Make a thread showing a PC's awesome dice and the mantra immediately pops up to tell everyone that this isn't a dice game. But when dicelessness is in the PC's favor via T10 and someone tries to essentially argue "But this is a dice game!" (I've even seen it in those words more than once), those ROLE/ROLL posters are suddenly nowhere to be found.
Going by the logic some people are displaying here, you shouldn't be able to take 10 on any skill check at all:
* can't take 10 on Perception because you might fail to notice the truck and get run over
* can't take 10 on Perform (comedy) because someone in the audience might not like your jokes and shoot you (don't laugh, things like that happen, unfortunately)
* can't take 10 on Profession (woodcutter) because the tree might fall on you and kill you
* can't take 10 on Walking because you might trip, fall and break your neck
and so on.
Take 10 is designed to eliminate exactly the specific danger that failing the skill check could bring with it. Why is that so difficult to understand.
You fail to see the logic.
You can't take 10 on perception because then you'd NEVER fail to notice the truck and get run over.
It's not a failure of understanding of the logic behind the Take 10 rule. It's a rule of convenience and not much more. Players typically want to claim convenience when it's beneficial to them, naturally.
The point is you should get a roll, regardless.
Either: The GM calls out for players to roll
or
The GM rolls secretly for the players using their modifiers he wrote down earlier
or
GM just assumes everyone is taking 10 and has pre-calculated the result.
(Saw this post and had to grab it from the other thread.
If the GM says the players had to take 10 and were ambushed as a result, you know damn well that the players would demand to actually make an active roll to try to not be ambushed.
|
|
You fail to see the logic.
You can't take 10 on perception because then you'd NEVER fail to notice the truck and get run over.
Of course you would. There would be different circumstances at each encounter that would change the DC. You'd be out in the rain in reduced visibility with your jacket up, or have your headphones in, or talking on your cell phone as your girlfriend broke up with you. None of these situations are immediate danger, but they apply penalties to your check or up the DC to where your take 10 fails.
|
|
Going by the logic some people are displaying here, you shouldn't be able to take 10 on any skill check at all:
* can't take 10 on Perception because you might fail to notice the truck and get run over
* can't take 10 on Perform (comedy) because someone in the audience might not like your jokes and shoot you (don't laugh, things like that happen, unfortunately)
* can't take 10 on Profession (woodcutter) because the tree might fall on you and kill you
* can't take 10 on Walking because you might trip, fall and break your neck
and so on.
Take 10 is designed to eliminate exactly the specific danger that failing the skill check could bring with it. Why is that so difficult to understand.
You fail to see the logic.
You can't take 10 on perception because then you'd NEVER fail to notice the truck and get run over.
It's not a failure of understanding of the logic behind the Take 10 rule. It's a rule of convenience and not much more. Players typically want to claim convenience when it's beneficial to them, naturally.
Of course you can fail to notice the truck. Ever been tired and stressed about work? Maybe cross the street while looking at your phone? Boom, distracted, no take-10, roll a 1. Thanks to the further -5 distracted penalty for perception, BOOM: Hit by truck.
Not every single possibility must be because take-10 can't happen on that check. Humans are surprisingly easily distracted when they get complacent.
Of course you would. There would be different circumstances at each encounter that would change the DC. You'd be out in the rain in reduced visibility with your jacket up, or have your headphones in, or talking on your cell phone as your girlfriend broke up with you. None of these situations are immediate danger, but they apply penalties to your check or up the DC to where your take 10 fails.You fail to see the logic.
You can't take 10 on perception because then you'd NEVER fail to notice the truck and get run over.
And all of these conditional modifiers add up to that thing they call "distraction".
Toz: It's called a generalization. The thing about generalizations is that they either do or do not apply. And typically someone who is offended by a negative generalization reveals much.
And all of these conditional modifiers add up to that thing they call "distraction".So, you're willing to admit that if none of these things are in play, then you can take 10 and avoid the truck?
No, because there are circumstances where none of these things are in play and people have been hit by a truck.
However, the rules completely omit this possibility.
|
|
No, because there are circumstances where none of these things are in play and people have been hit by a truck.And all of these conditional modifiers add up to that thing they call "distraction".So, you're willing to admit that if none of these things are in play, then you can take 10 and avoid the truck?
Yeah. The times they did not choose to take 10.
However, the rules completely omit this possibility.
The only one omitting that possibility is you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And all of these conditional modifiers add up to that thing they call "distraction".So, you're willing to admit that if none of these things are in play, then you can take 10 and avoid the truck?No, because there are circumstances where none of these things are in play and people have been hit by a truck.
This system doesn't model the one-in-a-million for mundane things. If you think it's fun to have your players roll crazy shit-chances for getting hit by trucks as they walk around a city, have at it, but I am perfectly happy without such mundanity being forced into the game.
Even then, I know plenty of people who are so easily distracted they might count as such even under clear conditions. PCs are not such people, but some NPCs might be.
And all of these conditional modifiers add up to that thing they call "distraction".So, you're willing to admit that if none of these things are in play, then you can take 10 and avoid the truck?No, because there are circumstances where none of these things are in play and people have been hit by a truck.
However, the rules completely omit this possibility.
Gee, I wonder if it's because it's a GAME, not a flawless simulation of reality.
No, that couldn't be it. That'd be crazy talk.
Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.
...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.
Oh, wait.. maybe in cases of being hit by a truck, there should be an initiative roll and then a perception check to see if he notices the truck and gets out of the way in time.
That would be a bit more realistic.
Hmm....
If you are going to be hit by a truck, doesn't that constitute combat?
|
|
Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.
...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.
Or you could just not be obtuse about the whole thing and decide whether take-10 applies based on relevant conditions on a case-by-case basis instead of declaring the entire basis of the take-10 ruleset invalid using niche examples of things that *have* happend and therefor inexplicably *must* happen a minimum of 5% of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.
...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.
Oh, wait.. maybe in cases of being hit by a truck, there should be an initiative roll and then a perception check to see if he notices the truck and gets out of the way in time.
That would be a bit more realistic.
Hmm....
If you are going to be hit by a truck, doesn't that constitute combat?
Keep doing this. It's gold.
*munches popcorn*