Can you take 10 on climb?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Quote:


So, where's the problem?

Requiring a roll is not based on the level of danger that the climb represents based on it's difficulty.


Quintain wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?

Avoidance of danger in an RPG by PCs by exploiting a method of meta-gaming.

It's metagaming for a character to have difficulty doing something, and then decide not to do it?

That's what people do. In real life. If it's hard, they probably won't attempt it unless there's another way. If they find it easy, they'll go on.

That's not metagaming, it's having your character know his f++!ing limits.

Quintain wrote:
That, and the inconsistency between analogous rules (see my acrobat skill analogy).

It's not an inconsistency, because it's two different scenarios. You had it explained to you in terms a 5 year old could understand, why do you insist on refusing to understand it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?

Avoidance of danger in an RPG by PCs by exploiting a method of meta-gaming.

You object to characters being able to learn of danger before actually suffering it?


Rynjin wrote:

...And if they don't have a high enough modifier they fail the check when they Take 10.

This is really, really damn simple. Take 10 is your routine effort. If you are good at a thing, you will routinely succeed at it.

That's not a "problem" as you keep stating. That's how it's SUPPOSED TO WORK.

This. Taking 10 doesn't mean there is no risk of failure and it doesn't mean you automatically succeed. All it means is that you "rolled" a 10 and all it does is save the time you would spend rolling the dice.

I think the biggest problem with taking 10 is that it is called something so similar to taking 20 and many people conflate the two actions. They are not terribly similar in practice, with quite different criteria required for their use. Paizo could have prevented a lot of headaches if taking 10 was called "nominal effort" or "easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy" or "I've done this a billion times" or some such.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Each time he rolls, he has a 45% chance of failing the climb check. He only *falls* on 25% of his checks, but that's enough to make it so that his chances of actually finishing that 300 foot climb without falling are LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, assuming I did my napkin math right. (40 successes before 1 failure with a 25% chance of failure.)

This is why not letting people take 10 on their climb checks is utterly absurd.

Your description is exactly the reason why I think allowing people to take 10 on climb checks IS absurd.

It's a 300 foot climb, not a stroll in the park.

You are literally moving contrary to pull of gravity a distance equal to 60 times your own height.

And you think that you should be able to make that climb with NO danger at all whatsoever?

When the alternative is that it is almost literally impossible for even a competent character to succeed, yes. The skill system does not allow for the kind of granularity you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ian Bell: If I fell 25% of the time I tried to climb 7 feet upwards, and made no progress 20% of the time, I wouldn't try to climb a 300 foot wall. But maybe that's just me.


Quote:


It's metagaming for a character to have difficulty doing something, and then decide not to do it?

That's what people do. In real life. If it's hard, they probably won't attempt it unless there's another way. If they find it easy, they'll go on.

That's not metagaming, it's having your character know his f*%&ing limits.

Taking 10 is pure meta-gaming. In real life, there is no way you can calculate to any sort of precision the percentage chance of success of any sort of physical action.

As Yoda says: Do or Do not, there is no try.

Quote:


You object to characters being able to learn of danger before actually suffering it?

I object to characters never attempting to do something because there is a chance of failure and there isn't some sort of monetary reward at the end (such as by killing monsters).


born_of_fire wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

...And if they don't have a high enough modifier they fail the check when they Take 10.

This is really, really damn simple. Take 10 is your routine effort. If you are good at a thing, you will routinely succeed at it.

That's not a "problem" as you keep stating. That's how it's SUPPOSED TO WORK.

This. Taking 10 doesn't mean there is no risk of failure and it doesn't mean you automatically succeed. All it means is that you "rolled" a 10 and all it does is save the time you would spend rolling the dice.

I think the biggest problem with taking 10 is that it is called something so similar to taking 20 and many people conflate the two actions. They are not terribly similar in practice, with quite different criteria required for their use. Paizo could have prevented a lot of headaches if taking 10 was called "nominal effort" or "easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy" or "I've done this a billion times" or some such.

Mutants and Masterminds calls them "Routine checks". I like that term.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
I object to characters never attempting to do something because there is a chance of failure and there isn't some sort of monetary reward at the end (such as by killing monsters).

What does that have to do with the take 10 rules? Are you saying that your players never attempt something they cannot succeed on with take 10?


Quote:


Mutants and Masterminds calls them "Routine checks". I like that term.

I like it for "passive" or reactive skill checks.

Active ones, not so much.


Quintain wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?

Avoidance of danger in an RPG by PCs by exploiting a method of meta-gaming.

That, and the inconsistency between analogous rules (see my acrobat skill analogy).

And I'm brainstorming.

Your Acrobatics analogy is not a good analogy. As was stated earlier, the examples involved involve one in combat example and one out of combat example. You can't Take 10 in combat (in the absence of a particular ability letting you Take 10 while distracted). So there's no inconsistency here.

If you're not in combat, you can Take 10 on an Acrobatics check to, for instance, cross a chasm via a 10" beam. Just like with Climb.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


It's metagaming for a character to have difficulty doing something, and then decide not to do it?

That's what people do. In real life. If it's hard, they probably won't attempt it unless there's another way. If they find it easy, they'll go on.

That's not metagaming, it's having your character know his f*%&ing limits.

Taking 10 is pure meta-gaming. In real life, there is no way you can calculate to any sort of precision the percentage chance of success of any sort of physical action.

As Yoda says: Do or Do not, there is no try.

Good god man, I wish you luck.

Try to eliminate metagaming in its entirety. I have a whole list of game mechanics that simply don't work if you want to go that route.

Any immediate action ability that triggers "before the damage is rolled' or "before the results are revealed" for example.

You can't play an RPG without metagaming. Metagaming is required for teh game to function at all.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


So, where's the problem?
Requiring a roll is not based on the level of danger that the climb represents based on it's difficulty.

Requiring a role is based on the relative difficulty. If the climb is relatively difficult to the character, the character will have to roll. If the climb is not relatively difficult to a character, there's no need to make that character roll.

That's literally the entire point behind Take 10.


Quote:


As was stated earlier, the examples involved involve one in combat example and one out of combat example.

You see, I don't believe there is any practical difference when the end result of getting hit in combat and failing your skill check is damage and as we all know, too much damage = death.

The source of the damage is immaterial.

Opinions vary...obviously.

Quote:


You can't Take 10 in combat (in the absence of a particular ability letting you Take 10 while distracted). So there's no inconsistency here.

That's just because combat is "exciting"...and climbing a wall...isn't....see my reward at the end explanation above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Each time he rolls, he has a 45% chance of failing the climb check. He only *falls* on 25% of his checks, but that's enough to make it so that his chances of actually finishing that 300 foot climb without falling are LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, assuming I did my napkin math right. (40 successes before 1 failure with a 25% chance of failure.)

This is why not letting people take 10 on their climb checks is utterly absurd.

Your description is exactly the reason why I think allowing people to take 10 on climb checks IS absurd.

It's a 300 foot climb, not a stroll in the park.

You are literally moving contrary to pull of gravity a distance equal to 60 times your own height.

And you think that you should be able to make that climb with NO danger at all whatsoever?

That 300' climb? Needing 40 checks? Even if the climber only falls on a roll of 1, he's still almost certainly to fall. He's got roughly a 12% (0.95^40) chance of making the whole climb.

In other words, there's no danger because he's not going to do it.
Unless he still succeeds with a roll of 1, in which case there's no risk so why roll.
The PF system doesn't have a method of handling that kind of sustained low risk. With a 5% chance being the lowest non-zero chance, the resolution just isn't high enough to model some things.


Quote:


If the climb is relatively difficult to the character, the character will have to roll.

No, they won't. You can take 10 even when you have no skill ranks in climb.

You may fail (with no consequences), but you can still take 10. What won't happen is sucess, success, success... FAIL! Take damage.

Which is kinda more realistic.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


As was stated earlier, the examples involved involve one in combat example and one out of combat example.

You see, I don't believe there is any practical difference when the end result of getting hit in combat and failing your skill check is damage and as we all know, too much damage = death.

The source of the damage is immaterial.

Opinions vary...obviously.

Quote:


You can't Take 10 in combat (in the absence of a particular ability letting you Take 10 while distracted). So there's no inconsistency here.
That's just because combat is "exciting"...and climbing a wall...isn't....see my reward at the end explanation above.

No, it's because combat has decision points. You try different things. Other people do things that change the situation.

Rolling X times to climb something doesn't add any decisions.

Mind you, you can add some decisions in: Let them climb part way up Taking 10, then describe the next section as more difficult and let them decide to roll or try it taking 10, for example.


More realistic is disputable, but even if you were correct, it's not FUN.

Spending a whole session saying "I climb ome" and roling dice until you get 40 checks in a row isn't fun. At all. No reward at the end is ging to MAKE it fun.

This is a game. Not "Reality Simulator 2015".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


If the climb is relatively difficult to the character, the character will have to roll.
No, they won't. You can take 10 even when you have no skill ranks in climb.

Yes, they will have to roll, if they want to get up that wall.

If they don't want to get up that wall, what does it matter?


Avoron wrote:
Ian Bell: If I fell 25% of the time I tried to climb 7 feet upwards, and made no progress 20% of the time, I wouldn't try to climb a 300 foot wall. But maybe that's just me.

If you fell only 5% of the time, you'd virtually guaranteed to never be able to make a 300' climb.

A rough calculation shows the likelihood of rolling at least one 1 over 40 checks is 87%. 1 - .95^40.

So ... what's the point of having a climb skill if super human training and ability is still going to result in failure really often, particularly for tasks that we know humans are quite capable of doing (climbing a 300' natural rock wall). All humans? No. But certainly those who devote their time and energy at becoming proficient at it.

That seems preposterous.


fretgod99 wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Ian Bell: If I fell 25% of the time I tried to climb 7 feet upwards, and made no progress 20% of the time, I wouldn't try to climb a 300 foot wall. But maybe that's just me.

If you fell only 5% of the time, you'd virtually guaranteed to never be able to make a 300' climb.

A rough calculation shows the likelihood of rolling at least one 1 over 40 checks is 87%. 1 - .95^40.

So ... what's the point of having a climb skill if super human training and ability is still going to result in failure really often, particularly for tasks that we know humans are quite capable of doing (climbing a 300' natural rock wall). All humans? No. But certainly those who devote their time and energy at becoming proficient at it.

That seems preposterous.

Indeed. The chances of success are actually even lower than that ~13% since the average number of rolls you're going to make is over 40 (as a roll of 2-5 would be a no progress roll if you're in fall-on-a-1 territory.)


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


As was stated earlier, the examples involved involve one in combat example and one out of combat example.

You see, I don't believe there is any practical difference when the end result of getting hit in combat and failing your skill check is damage and as we all know, too much damage = death.

The source of the damage is immaterial.

Opinions vary...obviously.

Quote:


You can't Take 10 in combat (in the absence of a particular ability letting you Take 10 while distracted). So there's no inconsistency here.
That's just because combat is "exciting"...and climbing a wall...isn't....see my reward at the end explanation above.

No. That's because combat around you means you can't divert all your attention to the task at hand. Because you're distracted.

If there's no extraneous confounding factor, all of your attention is focused on the task at hand. Hence, you are not distracted.

The source of damage is immaterial. The source of distraction is. If the source of distraction isn't inherent to the task at hand, it is a distracting factor, meaning your attention is divided.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


If the climb is relatively difficult to the character, the character will have to roll.

No, they won't. You can take 10 even when you have no skill ranks in climb.

You may fail (with no consequences), but you can still take 10. What won't happen is sucess, success, success... FAIL! Take damage.

Which is kinda more realistic.

Fine. The character will have to roll or not climb.

Not climbing is the sane thing to do on anything requiring more than a couple rolls anyway.

Of course, even with your version, there's no real danger for any but the lowest level characters, unless the climb is too long to even be attempted with a 5% change of falling/move.
It's just a matter of how many times you'll have to try and how much healing you'll have to expend.


It won't solve anything, because it's already been posted. But seriously, the game is about having fun. The whole point of Taking 10 is to avoid mundane, routine tasks because your skill is beyond needing to worry about that task.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
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.

Falling while climbing definitely is part and parcel of climbing itself. Unless there's something other than climbing going on, it's difficult to justify the claim that the climber is distracted.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

With all the talk about climbing, what would the bonus be for securing yourself and using a decent climbing kit and a partner so that your fall is never more than say 9 foot?

+infinity?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ian Bell wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Ian Bell: If I fell 25% of the time I tried to climb 7 feet upwards, and made no progress 20% of the time, I wouldn't try to climb a 300 foot wall. But maybe that's just me.

If you fell only 5% of the time, you'd virtually guaranteed to never be able to make a 300' climb.

A rough calculation shows the likelihood of rolling at least one 1 over 40 checks is 87%. 1 - .95^40.

So ... what's the point of having a climb skill if super human training and ability is still going to result in failure really often, particularly for tasks that we know humans are quite capable of doing (climbing a 300' natural rock wall). All humans? No. But certainly those who devote their time and energy at becoming proficient at it.

That seems preposterous.

Indeed. The chances of success are actually even lower than that ~13% since the average number of rolls you're going to make is over 40 (as a roll of 2-5 would be a no progress roll if you're in fall-on-a-1 territory.)

Yep, it ends up being 7.5-7.6%. The math works out to (.75/.8)^40 since the 2-5 rolls come out in the wash and can be omitted from the numerator and denominator. You can do more complicated stuff with limits, but it'll work out to this.


Damanta wrote:

With all the talk about climbing, what would the bonus be for securing yourself and using a decent climbing kit and a partner so that your fall is never more than say 9 foot?

+infinity?

I'm not sure there are any rules for belays or any kind of modern climbing techniques.

Edit: Practically speaking, you would remove or minimize the chance of actually falling, but not increase the chance of making progress.
I'd probably rule it as some kind of check to catch the falling person, with a chance of pulling the belayer down as well, depending on how the belayer was anchored and how the whole thing was rigged.

Any kind of climbing kit would be primitive by today's standards. =


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


If the climb is relatively difficult to the character, the character will have to roll.

No, they won't. You can take 10 even when you have no skill ranks in climb.

You may fail (with no consequences), but you can still take 10. What won't happen is sucess, success, success... FAIL! Take damage.

Which is kinda more realistic.

That depends, are you starting your climb from the bottom of the cliff, going up, or starting from the top of the cliff, going down?

If I take 10 and fail at the bottom, I fall 5' and land on my rump, nothing hurt but my ego. If I start at the top and fail, that's a different story.

For everyone else in this thread (as Quintain is the only one I'm aware of taking the position he is), he has stated he knows its not RAW. So it's a pointless argument with him. He is arguing for his own entertainment and no amount of reasoning, RAW, dev input will change his 'view' because his view is 'He wants to be entertained'.


Are you not entertained?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Damanta wrote:

With all the talk about climbing, what would the bonus be for securing yourself and using a decent climbing kit and a partner so that your fall is never more than say 9 foot?

+infinity?

I'm not sure there are any rules for belays or any kind of modern climbing techniques.

Well, creative use of a Climber's Kit combined with a Second-story harness

1. Tie yourself to another person of equal total weight (redistribute equipment to make sure) with a 50 ft. rope, leaving 9 ft. of rope in between the two of you, testing it oft enough that you know you will not break free if you fall 9 ft. (this gives you 41 ft. rope to work with on securing the two of you, so 20,5 ft per person, methinks that should give you a decent enough amount to work with, especially if you're using the second-story harness to secure it on)
2. Climb up 4,5 ft. (keep rolling until you get that 20, don't accept anything less)
3. Anchor yourself.
4. Put pitons in place, hammers out handholds and footholds
5. Make sure the pitons can hold your weight by hanging on them. If they come loose, put them in another place and keep testing until you can hang from them.
6. Your partner climbs up 9 ft.
7. Your parner anchors himself
8. Your partner puts pitons in place and hammers out handholds and footholds
9. Your partner tests the pitons until they can hold him/her
10. You climb up 9 ft.
11. Repeat steps 3-10 until you're at the top.

Or you could take 10 with a +2 bonus from a climber's kit, 1 rank in climb, 2 points from strength to autosucceed on a DC 15 (Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial))


Quintain wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?

Avoidance of danger in an RPG by PCs by exploiting a method of meta-gaming.

That, and the inconsistency between analogous rules (see my acrobat skill analogy).

And I'm brainstorming.

Let me make something clear for you.

Let's say we've got someone with a +19 bonus to climb, and a 300 foot DC 25 wall they want to climb. Under normal circumstances, using the rules as they sit in the CRB, the player is allowed to take 10 and their character gets to do an awesome thing because they specialized in climbing (they are far, far better at climbing than any human that's ever existed on Earth has been).

With your house rule the climb becomes almost completely impossible, since you move a quarter of your speed with each successful climb check and they fall if they roll a 1. It's going to take 40 checks to reach the top of that cliff, meaning they have about a 12.9% of making that climb, even though they're absolutely amazing at climbing and should be able to do it routinely without any problems.

Meanwhile Gandalf McWizardpants casts Levitate out of a scroll and floats to the top without making a single check. So, I guess your rule is good if you want to make mundane characters that use skills even more crappy compared to spellcasters, and have your 'heroes' be bumbling fools that fail routine tasks with predictable regularity. But that's not exactly a common goal, and it doesn't make the game more fun or interesting.


Guys, sometimes you have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, and know when to walk away.

:)


I know, but I had to at least say something. I feel for the poor players he's inflicting this kind of torture on, y'know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I have much to add to the discussion that hasn't been said, but I've got something minor. You don't need to change the rules the make climbing exciting. You can add more difficult segments (like weaker sections of wall) or environmental factors (like rain is going to roll in soon) to mix up the climbing. If you are the GM, you have all the power to challenge your players even if they are going to take 10.


Yeah, many of us have GM's with house rule quirks.

My GM breaks bowstrings on a natural 1, so I never will play an archer in any of his games. My guess is his players will never try to climb anything significant since they will almost always fail.


It pains me to see GM being willfully ignorant of RAW and RAI just to force their players to go through needless loops.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
It pains me to see GM being willfully ignorant of RAW and RAI just to force their players to go through needless loops.

Quintain acknowledges that he's not being ignorant -- he understands the rules. He is simply trying to force players into unnecessary failures.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just let them take 10 to get up 200 of the 300 feet and then spring the harpies on them.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Can you take 10 on your Acrobatics check to cross a slippery, uneven log hanging over the chasm? Of course you can.

Can you take 10 on your Acrobatics check to cross a slippery, uneven log hanging over a chasm while King Kong is vigorously shaking one end of it? Nope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It pains me to see GM being willfully ignorant of RAW and RAI just to force their players to go through needless loops.
Quintain acknowledges that he's not being ignorant -- he understands the rules. He is simply trying to force players into unnecessary failures.

That's... even worse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be a lot of fun to play a character for 1-2 years and than have him die because he couldn't climb a cliff and wasn't smart enough to realize it.

That would be a good death.


Lemmy wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It pains me to see GM being willfully ignorant of RAW and RAI just to force their players to go through needless loops.
Quintain acknowledges that he's not being ignorant -- he understands the rules. He is simply trying to force players into unnecessary failures.
That's... even worse.

It appears that this thread reached the end of its usefulness long ago - the only person keeping the discussion alive is clearly being deliberately objectionable based solely on his desire to inflict failure upon his players' characters.

He wishes to assume that they cannot possibly know their abilities and/or limitations and that they must try everything with random chances of success and failure, even routine tasks leading to needless and extremely unlikely failure, because that is what this poster enjoys inflicting upon them.

But all sadism aside, the rules are quite clear: Taking 10 is allowed as the default option for ALL skills except when THREATENED (the game has a definition for this term which does NOT include "fear of failure") or otherwise distracted (not defined, but it's obviously the worst possible ruling of this term to assume "fear of failure" is a distraction - nearly all skill rolls in a RPG have consequences for failure that are objectionable and even frightening to the PC attempting the roll, so if "fear of failure" was a criteria for disallowing Take-10 then, arguably, it would be nearly impossible to apply the Take-10 rule at all, which is a very far thing from being the default option that it really is).

Sovereign Court

I am shocked that this thread lasted this long...sad really...


Some people feel that this game should be hard. And that things should still be hard as you level up. So the static DC things they have a big problem with because PC's that invest in it are going to do it super easy. And the people feel it should be hard feel that take 10 is cheating because you get to make it easy faster.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Quintain wrote:
I don't necessarily want failures, I want danger.

Fine, rule 0 an additional 10 to all Skill DC's. Let them take the Take 10 rule.


Quote:


So it's a pointless argument with him. He is arguing for his own entertainment and no amount of reasoning, RAW, dev input will change his 'view' because his view is 'He wants to be entertained'.

I just want to say... I love you all from...you guys give me that special feeling in the cockles of our hearts, maybe below the cockles

Maybe in the sub-cockle area, maybe in the liver Maybe in the kidneys, maybe even in the colon, we don't know.

:D

Entertainment is only part of it. I do like the brainstorming the comes with these sort of threads, though.


Damanta wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Damanta wrote:

With all the talk about climbing, what would the bonus be for securing yourself and using a decent climbing kit and a partner so that your fall is never more than say 9 foot?

+infinity?

I'm not sure there are any rules for belays or any kind of modern climbing techniques.

Well, creative use of a Climber's Kit combined with a Second-story harness

1. Tie yourself to another person of equal total weight (redistribute equipment to make sure) with a 50 ft. rope, leaving 9 ft. of rope in between the two of you, testing it oft enough that you know you will not break free if you fall 9 ft. (this gives you 41 ft. rope to work with on securing the two of you, so 20,5 ft per person, methinks that should give you a decent enough amount to work with, especially if you're using the second-story harness to secure it on)
2. Climb up 4,5 ft. (keep rolling until you get that 20, don't accept anything less)
3. Anchor yourself.
4. Put pitons in place, hammers out handholds and footholds
5. Make sure the pitons can hold your weight by hanging on them. If they come loose, put them in another place and keep testing until you can hang from them.
6. Your partner climbs up 9 ft.
7. Your parner anchors himself
8. Your partner puts pitons in place and hammers out handholds and footholds
9. Your partner tests the pitons until they can hold him/her
10. You climb up 9 ft.
11. Repeat steps 3-10 until you're at the top.

Or you could take 10 with a +2 bonus from a climber's kit, 1 rank in climb, 2 points from strength to autosucceed on a DC 15 (Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial))

^ This is awesome.


Komoda wrote:

I think it would be a lot of fun to play a character for 1-2 years and than have him die because he couldn't climb a cliff and wasn't smart enough to realize it.

That would be a good death.

Conan, what is best in life?

Conan:

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh! Thud.


So, go ahead and make a new thread. This is no longer a Rules Question.


Here's a thing: Not all cliffs and walls and such are equally difficult the whole way up. Assuming that this is so is something that we abstract away in order to make the game easier, and it's a good idea if your game isn't about climbing. If you want to make your game, in part, about climbing, you could map out a route or multiple routes on a cliff to allow decisions about how to get up a cliff and what risks to take, and have some parts that are easier, and some that are harder.

The example I was using was, specifically, a 5th level character with a +18 in climb trying to ascend a DC 20 wall. Said character is a really really good climber. Better than the vast majority of 5th level characters. Very likely, the only 5th level characters who are better, are those who have dedicated themselves wholeheartedly to being good at climbing and very little else (i.e. Skill focus and Athletic feats and things like that).

However, that character, even though he is almost as good as he could be at climbing, can't climb that wall with anything resembling reliability.

As someone upthread noted, a 300ft DC20 climb with a +18 in climb results in a 12% chance of making it to the top. That doesn't make sense. What makes even less sense is that if that character works hard and gets just a little bit better at climbing, just about 6% better than he is currently -- he makes that climb 100% of the time.

Now, you can argue that this happens when he gets to a +10 modifier if you allow take 10, and that's true, except that a +10 climber isn't the best climber in the world except for a select few. He's a good, competent climber, who if he applies himself can get up a climb without a whole lot of trouble. He also can make a reasonable judgement about whether he can climb a particular wall or not, and if it's difficult, he'll stop, or slow down, or use some equipment.

Speaking as a player, if I had focused on being good at climbing to the point where I had a +18 at level 5, and you made me roll rather than take 10 all the way up a cliff, and the character fell and died halfway up, I'd be hellaciously pissed off. One of the primary things I made my character to be able to do, and you used the law of averages to make it nearly impossible.

151 to 200 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take 10 on climb? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.