Can you take 10 on climb?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Paladin,

From what I see of the climb rules, you have no chance of failure with a DC-X climb when your climb skill is within 4 of the DC.

Quote:


A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained.

So with a +18 climb check, even if you roll a 1, you'll get 19, which is < 4 from 20 (aka > 16), and while you won't make any progress, you won't fall.

You still make it 100% of the time, you just take longer than you normally would if you didn't roll the 1.

So, you might as well subtract 4 from all the climb DCs and just make the final adjusted DC the actual "you fall and take damage" DC.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

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...

The other distinction you lose is now that character with the extra +1 can make the same climb while harpies attack him or some shoots at him. There's no mechanism left to reflect that. Unless you just randomly add to the DC.

Using Take 10 rules, the slightly less good climber can do the whole route without trouble - as long as nothing goes wrong. Once she's threatened though, she has to start rolling and is going to be in big trouble.

Note: Tweak the example as needed to make the numbers come out right. You're correct about the DC and skill. If it was a DC of 25, she'd fall on 20, which would be a roll of 2. Makes it around 1% of the time.


Quintain wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are being willfully ignorant of RAW.

You are being willfully ignorant of RAI.

You are being willfully ignorant of Developer input, noting RAI, and how it matches RAW.

Unless, you are just arguing how you believe it should be, and how you would run it in your game.

If that's the case, say so, because then, the argument is over.

No one will tell you that you cannot houserule.

I'm doing none of these things. I'm amusing myself with a discussion of the rules.

BBT, take some blood pressure meds and relax. Not everything is worth arguing until the horse is dead.

This guy is arguing for the sake of arguing not because he think the devs intend for the rules to work this way. If anyone continues to talk treat it as an though exercise because other than that you are just wasting your time.

He also avoided the quote from SKR when climbing was called out which supports my point.


In fairness to Quintain I think his argument has changed from "Falling represents an immediate danger and so you can't use take 10 on climb checks" to "I now understand that RAW/RAI you can take 10 on climb checks, but I think that's a dumb rule because climbing should be dangerous".

At least that's the vibe I'm getting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

From SKR back in 2011. Hope it helps The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.

I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?

Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

This is the SKR quote I was talking about earlier. I'm glad someone with better search-fu found it.


Kudaku wrote:

In fairness to Quintain I think his argument has changed from "Falling represents an immediate danger and so you can't use take 10 on climb checks" to "I now understand that RAW/RAI you can take 10 on climb checks, but I think that's a dumb rule because climbing should be dangerous".

At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Maybe so, but I can't really tell. I guess he will clarify that later on, but he should have already said something like "I understand the rule, but I think it's dumb". I may have missed it, but I never saw him say anything like that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not everything should be dangerous for everyone.

This, for me, is up there with houserules for critical success/failure for skills, and exploding dice for falls.

PCs, no matter how many times they succeed, or fail, will have no idea how they will fair at completing any task, no matter how mundane.

Also, no matter the circumstance, the chance for either, remains the same.

Being attacked by a dragon, or a carefree sunny day, the chances are the same.

Oh boy, now that's realism!


I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this, but the only thing that disallowing Take 10 on a climb check does is move the bar from Human to Superhuman up a few levels.

If you can't look at a wall or cliff or building and make a reasonable approximation of the difficulty (within the limits of line of sight, and spyglasses are a thing), then your DM is just trying to kill you. :(

But aside from that, determine approximate DC, add a little bit for a fudge factor, and take 10 if it's safe. If taking 10 isn't allowed, you wait a couple of levels or hunt for a few more bonuses and then you take 1.

And if you can't do that, you buy wands of levitate, because your DM hates you. :(

FWIW, even if the game was granular at the d100 level, failing on a 1 with a 40-check climb still happens something like one time in three. There's no value added in forcing people to roll all the time for all climb checks unless you hate your players and want them to just never take ranks in climb. :(


Zilvar2k11 wrote:

I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this, but the only thing that disallowing Take 10 on a climb check does is move the bar from Human to Superhuman up a few levels.

If you can't look at a wall or cliff or building and make a reasonable approximation of the difficulty (within the limits of line of sight, and spyglasses are a thing), then your DM is just trying to kill you. :(

But aside from that, determine approximate DC, add a little bit for a fudge factor, and take 10 if it's safe. If taking 10 isn't allowed, you wait a couple of levels or hunt for a few more bonuses and then you take 1.

And if you can't do that, you buy wands of levitate, because your DM hates you. :(

FWIW, even if the game was granular at the d100 level, failing on a 1 with a 40-check climb still happens something like one time in three. There's no value added in forcing people to roll all the time for all climb checks unless you hate your players and want them to just never take ranks in climb. :(

Though in fairness, short climbs don't suffer from the will fail with multiple rolls problem. Of course, they also aren't a real threat, since you can effectively roll till you make it on a 10' climb, though you might take a little a damage on a 20' one.


Quintain wrote:

Paladin,

From what I see of the climb rules, you have no chance of failure with a DC-X climb when your climb skill is within 4 of the DC.

So what?


thejeff wrote:
Though in fairness, short climbs don't suffer from the will fail with multiple rolls problem. Of course, they also aren't a real threat, since you can effectively roll till you make it on a 10' climb, though you might take a little a damage on a 20' one.

If every climb DC is tailored so there's always a small chance of failure then you still fall far too often to comfortably rely on the existence of the climb skill.

Based on the OP's posts in the thread, I feel that he'd be the type of DM who would always tweak the check DC so that there's always a reason to roll and always a chance for failure, regardless of how superhuman the PC's should be, because climbing is dangerous or something.


Zilvar2k11 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Though in fairness, short climbs don't suffer from the will fail with multiple rolls problem. Of course, they also aren't a real threat, since you can effectively roll till you make it on a 10' climb, though you might take a little a damage on a 20' one.

If every climb DC is tailored so there's always a small chance of failure then you still fall far too often to comfortably rely on the existence of the climb skill.

Based on the OP's posts in the thread, I feel that he'd be the type of DM who would always tweak the check DC so that there's always a reason to roll and always a chance for failure, regardless of how superhuman the PC's should be, because climbing is dangerous or something.

Only for long climbs. You can still reliably and fairly safely get up small distances. If you're only going to need to roll a couple times, it's worth risking the chance of rolling low enough to fall. It's only with long climbs that even the chance of rolling a 1 becomes a near certainty.


Kudaku wrote:

In fairness to Quintain I think his argument has changed from "Falling represents an immediate danger and so you can't use take 10 on climb checks" to "I now understand that RAW/RAI you can take 10 on climb checks, but I think that's a dumb rule because climbing should be dangerous".

At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Pretty much.

I'm not an athlete, but I went to a in-hotel park that had a climbing wall that was maybe 30' high. Even completely unencumbered, climbing was difficult, it was fatiguing not in the overall body fatigue sense, but fatiguing in the "these specific muscles you use to hold onto the wall" sense. I thought the wall would be easymode too.. and it was if you remove fatigue from the calculus.

There is absolutely no mention of fatigue in the climbing rules. Swimming is less fatiguing than climbing for needed muscles. Without ropes, you can't just "rest" either. You can sequentially relax one arm from the other to prevent over-fatigue, but you will hit your limit, regardless.

It is this part of it that is completely absent the rules.

Right now, take 10 + climb = easy mode.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:


I'm not an athlete, but I went to a in-hotel park that had a climbing wall that was maybe 30' high. Even completely unencumbered, climbing was difficult, it was fatiguing not in the overall body fatigue sense, but fatiguing in the "these specific muscles you use to hold onto the wall" sense. I thought the wall would be easymode too..

And because you, personally, a first-level commoner, with no ranks in climb and a low strength modifier, have difficulty with a climbing wall, so must everyone?

Sweater: something to put on because your mother feels cold.


Quintain wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

In fairness to Quintain I think his argument has changed from "Falling represents an immediate danger and so you can't use take 10 on climb checks" to "I now understand that RAW/RAI you can take 10 on climb checks, but I think that's a dumb rule because climbing should be dangerous".

At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Pretty much.

I'm not an athlete, but I went to a in-hotel park that had a climbing wall that was maybe 30' high. Even completely unencumbered, climbing was difficult, it was fatiguing not in the overall body fatigue sense, but fatiguing in the "these specific muscles you use to hold onto the wall" sense. I thought the wall would be easymode too.. and it was if you remove fatigue from the calculus.

There is absolutely no mention of fatigue in the climbing rules. Swimming is less fatiguing than climbing for needed muscles. Without ropes, you can't just "rest" either. You can sequentially relax one arm from the other to prevent over-fatigue, but you will hit your limit, regardless.

It is this part of it that is completely absent the rules.

Right now, take 10 + climb = easy mode.

There's also no fatigue in combat. Or basically anything else you do in game. (Barring Rage or some specific spell mechanics. Fighting for a dozen rounds doesn't tire you noticeably.)

Also, your version doesn't reflect fatigue either. You're no more likely to fall towards the end of a long climb than at the start, even if you're rolling.

BTW, I do rock climb regularly. I'll freely admit the climbing rules, with or without Take 10, aren't a realistic climbing simulation. So what? Nothing in PF is realistic simulation.


Quintain wrote:

Right now, take 10 + climb = easy mode.

No, climb == easy mode in general. The only difference is at which point you get to pretend like you don't have to roll. Your suggested fix doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the climb skill completely unusable past, oh, 15 or so checks, and ridiculously likely to fail at 5 checks, assuming that you fail/fall on a 1.

I don't think that's a desirable output unless you hate your players. If you want to model fatigue and increasing difficulty you're going to have to propose a system that doesn't actively try to kill your players for investing in skill ranks and trying to be cool.

Something like 'you can make a number of climb checks equal to your strength + con modifiers before becoming fatigued. You can increase the DC of a climb check by 5 in order to search for an easier path. If you pass that check, the roll doesn't add to your tally of climb checks. Failing a roll by up to 4 below the DC will add two to the climb tally. Once your climb tally has reached three times your str+con mod, you are exhausted.'

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have never had a party where everyone could take 10 on a climb and succeed. The party always has to find a way to lug the weakling up.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have never had a party where everyone could take 10 on a climb and succeed. The party always has to find a way to lug the weakling up.

Tie a rope around the bard and haul him up seems to happen more than expected.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have never had a party where everyone could take 10 on a climb and succeed. The party always has to find a way to lug the weakling up.

Agreed. Quintain is complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


if you could take 10 while climbing you would never be in any danger of falling; either you would succeed and be fine, or you wouldn't and still be fine since you're still < 10ft off the ground.
Exactly why you should not be able to take 10 for climbing. There is no danger from climbing if Take 10 is viable.

Taking 10 on climbing is fine, and there is plenty of opportunity to hurt yourself. Just because you begin climbing under ideal situations doesn't mean they remain so. You need to make the check for each move action as a part of a climb.

So while you begin on say a knotted rope, when you transition to a unknotted rope, or a natural surface, or it becomes slick, all these things increase the DC, and you may face a situation where you cannot make the check on a 10. Now if you fail, but fail by less then 5 you just can't proceed, which is okay.

Moreover not all climbing situations are equal, is you take 10 to climb down a wall, and with taking 10 you fail by more then 5, then off the top of the wall you go.

Finally you may be mid-climb when something happens that makes taking 10 no longer viable, like you are being attacked, or the rope is cut and you must suddenly find purchase on the wall.

The rule for taking 10 is to expedite the game, and to not punish people for stupid stuff, they are not permitted to prognosticate if it will be successful or not, but they shouldn't be denied the option.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have never had a party where everyone could take 10 on a climb and succeed. The party always has to find a way to lug the weakling up.
Agreed. Quintain is complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

I think he's complaining BECAUSE the problem doesn't exist.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have never had a party where everyone could take 10 on a climb and succeed. The party always has to find a way to lug the weakling up.
Agreed. Quintain is complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.
I think he's complaining BECAUSE the problem doesn't exist.

I would disagree, there is usually someone in the party who has a negative climb skill either the cleric because of ACP, or the wizard who dumped strength. Meaning that without a knotted rope, or rope against a wall the DC is at least 10, and taking 10 would fail. "Climbing things" is a low level problem. By level 3 if scaling vertical surfaces is a challenge the wizard would learn levitate, by level 5 they almost surely can fly. Even then at levels 1-3 the person who can climb scales the wall and sets a piton and rope, and then the rest of the party follows.

Climbing situations in combat can be used to great effect at those levels, where you have an ambuscade, and the foes are unreachable. Relying on the climber to make an assault on them, or ranged attacks. Where clearly taking 10 is not an option, and falling is a real threat. (because falling out of combat is rarely lethal, unless it also involves a bunch of spikes at the bottom.)

So it is an appropriate challenge at an appropriate level which actually remains viable for a while in the combat scenario as the wizard can't dimension door or cast fly everyone up to the rock throwing giants.


I can imagine a system that qualified a "distraction" in at least two ways:

1) danger from immediate combat
2) danger from attempting any risky activity

For those that want to draw a line in the sand between these two "distractions" in their interpretation of the rules, you retain the ability to set appropriately high DCs for appropriately risky situations.

For those who exercise non-differentiation between the two "distraction" types, you introduce an element of danger into relatively low risk (low DC) situations, infusing your game with a "gritty realism" or "anti-heroism" theme.

Morale of the thread: live each day to it's fullest as if it were your last!

Spoiler:

On my way back from my work break, I hope I don't roll a "1" looking both ways to cross the street because OMG TRUCK (5d6)


Quintain wrote:
Well, due to the omni-presence of gravity, I would say that falling qualifies as "immediate danger" due to the damage you take when you make the sudden stop at the end of your fall.

Perhaps not if falling poses no chance of taking damage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is really no way to incorporate the risk of failure into the DC of the attempt.

Imagine two identical basic castle walls. Let's call them DC 20 - they're well-made but old and the mortar has crumbled leaving plenty of good hand and foot holds. There are two scenarios:

1. The PC is climbing a seaside castle wall. Below him is just water, deep enough to cushion his fall. He's a good swimmer and has no fear of falling - in fact, it's his castle and he regularly jumps off the castle wall into the sea as recreational cliff-diving. He just did that, and now he's climbing the wall to get back into his castle.

What is the DC? 20. He is clearly not distracted by fear of failure - if he fails, he goes for another swim and climbs the wall later.

2. The PC is climbing a castle built above a cliff. Below is a long fall into a rocky ravine. Certain death.

What is the DC? 20. He is clearly not distracted by fear of failure - if he falls he will surely die but this is not changing the DC.

Why does the DC not change in the second scenario? Because there is nothing in the description of the Climb skill that suggests changing the DC due to fear of failure.

OK, so we have two castle scenarios. The two castle walls are IDENTICAL but what is below them is clearly different. The OP suggests that, in scenario 1, the climber can simply Take-10 all the way to the top with no risk at all, simply because he's not afraid of falling into the ocean, but in scenario 2 he cannot Take-10 at all and must risk rolling dice (with a 45% chance of falling to his death each time he rolls).

But there is no reason that a trained, experienced climber can look at two identical castle walls and have 0 chance of falling off of one of them and a 45% chance of falling off of the other one - they are IDENTICAL. The chance of falling must also be identical. Furthermore, if anything, the risk in scenario 2 should make the climber extra careful, extra sure of every toe-hold, extra certain that he survives the dangerous climb. But Pathfinder has no mechanic to apply "extra careful" to any skill roll - it assumes you always try your hardest, do your best, most careful work, every time.

I'll say that again: Pathfinder assumes you always try your hardest, do your best, most careful work, every time.

That is exactly what the Take-10 rule is for: trying your hardest, doing your best, and being extra careful to eliminate all chance of failure when you have mastered your skill to the point that the task you're attempting is easy for you."

Shadow Lodge

rainzax wrote:

I can imagine a system that qualified a "distraction" in at least two ways:

1) danger from immediate combat
2) danger from attempting any risky activity

For those that want to draw a line in the sand between these two "distractions" in their interpretation of the rules, you retain the ability to set appropriately high DCs for appropriately risky situations.

For those who exercise non-differentiation between the two "distraction" types, you introduce an element of danger into relatively low risk (low DC) situations, infusing your game with a "gritty realism" or "anti-heroism" theme.

Morale of the thread: live each day to it's fullest as if it were your last!
** spoiler omitted **

200 feet below: Guys! You haven't been rolling your climb check all this time. The wall is an illusion. Distraction 1d20 + 18 ⇒ (3) + 18 = 21


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

DM_Blake has the right of it.


Quote:


I'll say that again: Pathfinder assumes you always try your hardest, do your best, most careful work, every time.

That is exactly what the Take-10 rule is for: trying your hardest, doing your best, and being extra careful to eliminate all chance of failure when you have mastered your skill to the point that the task you're attempting is easy for you."

The problem is: there is no 45% chance of falling off the other one.

There might be a 45% chance of making no progress at some point, but even on a roll of 1, you have to miss the DC by 5 or more in order to fall.

Other than that:

Quote:


Why does the DC not change in the second scenario? Because there is nothing in the description of the Climb skill that suggests changing the DC due to fear of failure.

That is the hole in the rules. And I'm not talking about changing the DC, I'm talking about not allowing take 10 due to the potential consequences of failure. Just like you try to assess whether the monster you are about to fight is going to curb stomp you or not.

In the second scenario there would definitely would be a fear of failure -- because the consequences of failure are certain death. So, the approach to the task would be wholly different barring the confidence level of a sociopath. You would bring gear that prevents falling (piton, spider harness) or change your tactic somehow that ensured success outside of your own skill.

Because, there is a Law. It's owned by Murphy.

Except in Pathfinder...a game designed for player success.


¡Damn! ¿Now I can't go up a stair taking 10?
¡¡That's some bad news!!


Quintain wrote:
Except in Pathfinder...a game designed for player success.

Yes actually.

D&D and Pathfinder are both slanted in favor of the players. If it weren't we'd have heroes dying for idiotic reasons like falling from cliffs they should be able to handle easily since they're superhuman.

A good story failure does not make.

Characters in Pathfinder are capable of things far far beyond the ken of us normal human beings. Climbing cliffs is pretty damn mundane.


Quote:


A good story failure does not make.

That kinda depends :P


Quintain wrote:
Quote:

I'll say that again: Pathfinder assumes you always try your hardest, do your best, most careful work, every time.

That is exactly what the Take-10 rule is for: trying your hardest, doing your best, and being extra careful to eliminate all chance of failure when you have mastered your skill to the point that the task you're attempting is easy for you."

The problem is: there is no 45% chance of falling off the other one.

There might be a 45% chance of making no progress at some point, but even on a roll of 1, you have to miss the DC by 5 or more in order to fall.

Other than that:

Quote:
Why does the DC not change in the second scenario? Because there is nothing in the description of the Climb skill that suggests changing the DC due to fear of failure.
That is the hole in the rules. And I'm not talking about changing the DC, I'm talking about not allowing take 10 due to the potential consequences of failure. Just like you try to assess whether the monster you are about to fight is going to curb stomp you or not.

If you fail to proceed on a 6, you fall on a 1 and you will nearly certainly fall in any extended climb, unless you can Take 10. If you're a slightly better climber and you only fail to proceed on a 5, you won't fall on a 1 and you will always finish that extended climb without risk.


Quintain wrote:

The problem is: there is no 45% chance of falling off the other one.

There might be a 45% chance of making no progress at some point, but even on a roll of 1, you have to miss the DC by 5 or more in order to fall.

Good catch.

I should have said 45% chance of failure with a 20% chance of falling off.

For each increment of 15'. (assuming a normal 30' movement rate)

Which of course means that if the wall is taller than 15' the chance of falling increases to about 45% (43.75%) and if the wall is taller than 30' the chance increases to about 60% (57.8%). And so on.

The rest of my post still stands: Given that the two walls are identical and it's the same climber with an unchanged skill, the chance of success should be the same (DC 20) and the risk he takes should be the same (either 20% fall chance on BOTH walls or he Takes-10 for a 0% fall chance on BOTH walls). And since Take-10 is clearly allowed on the safe wall where we can apply no distraction, then it makes no sense to disallow it on the other, IDENTICAL, wall.

There is no justification for any other interpretation. Except malice or misunderstanding. I think everyone here has given plenty of responses to clear u the misunderstanding, so all you have left is malice. I assume you have no malicious intent, so then you have nothing left.

Right?


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


A good story failure does not make.
That kinda depends :P

I don't really think so.

Most people want to play Epics like the Odyssey or the Aeneid. The high fantasy Pathfinder is modeled after.

Did those heroes fall from a cliff 20 times before succeeding? No because that's f*%~ing boring.

I can see Aragorn looking at a 200 foot cliff wall and saying screw that over him trying 50 times and never making it.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:


That kinda depends :P

I read through this thread, and it was quite entertaining, but I'm a little confused by something.

You are aware that even if you Take 10, there is a chance of failure, correct? I realize people have said this a few times in the thread, but you seem to still think failure is impossible.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

I'll say that again: Pathfinder assumes you always try your hardest, do your best, most careful work, every time.

That is exactly what the Take-10 rule is for: trying your hardest, doing your best, and being extra careful to eliminate all chance of failure when you have mastered your skill to the point that the task you're attempting is easy for you."

I like your climbing situation comparison, but I think you're not characterizing the Take 10 approach with this bit you emphasized. It really isn't trying your hardest and that's easily shown by recognizing that it comes pretty far short of your best possible attempt.

What I think it reflects is doing a more risk-averse, routine effort. You're avoiding doing a bad job but not exactly setting out to impress either. As such, it's good at certain tasks (ones within your 10+skill modifier) but not at tougher ones (once above that limit but still achievable).

I think a good model for this is Taking 10 while searching for traps while exploring a dungeon. Taking 10 can indicate running over a mental checklist of common search techniques-looking for tripwires, looking for pressure plates, and so on, but not necessarily going beyond the checklist. It's good for catching the relatively low hanging fruit reliably and quickly (hence no extra time as with Take 20), but really complex stuff won't be on the checklist.

Importantly, the Pathfinder looks at those tasks that you can achieve by Taking 10 as being ultimately unimportant to the action pacing of the game. So it is better for the table to not have to roll those tasks and say, "Yep, you've got the skills for it-you're over the wall" and move on.


Quintain wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

In fairness to Quintain I think his argument has changed from "Falling represents an immediate danger and so you can't use take 10 on climb checks" to "I now understand that RAW/RAI you can take 10 on climb checks, but I think that's a dumb rule because climbing should be dangerous".

At least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Pretty much.

I'm not an athlete, but I went to a in-hotel park that had a climbing wall that was maybe 30' high. Even completely unencumbered, climbing was difficult, it was fatiguing not in the overall body fatigue sense, but fatiguing in the "these specific muscles you use to hold onto the wall" sense. I thought the wall would be easymode too.. and it was if you remove fatigue from the calculus.

There is absolutely no mention of fatigue in the climbing rules. Swimming is less fatiguing than climbing for needed muscles. Without ropes, you can't just "rest" either. You can sequentially relax one arm from the other to prevent over-fatigue, but you will hit your limit, regardless.

It is this part of it that is completely absent the rules.

Right now, take 10 + climb = easy mode.

Thanks, but next time you should state this directly. In real life we can read people easily, but online if you don't type it often translates to "you didn't say it", because it is harder to read the shift in conversation. That means you will be argueing for X, and people will think you are saying something else.

Dark Archive

Quintain wrote:
I'm not an athlete, but I went to a in-hotel park that had a climbing wall

When I first read that, I thought you wrote "I'm not an athlete but I stayed at a Holiday Inn". It would have made your argument more persuasive if you did.


Wraithstrike,

I guess it comes down to a difference in approach when it comes to the game rules and the rules forum.

I'm not here to specifically state (unless I specifically state) that one way is better than the other -- that RAI is purer than RAW or argue what is right and what is wrong, but get more of a (and I've said this before in other threads) holistic result from the rules.

Being a bit old as well as "old school", the lack of realism or challenge with Pathfinder sometimes gets to me, so I look for a brainstorming session on how to "improve" things.

As it stands, YMMV.

Quote:


I don't really think so.

Most people want to play Epics like the Odyssey or the Aeneid. The high fantasy Pathfinder is modeled after.

...

I'm talking more about the epic failure being a good story that you repeat to your friends. Most of the awesome stories that we (my gaming group) remember are those where things went wholly and totally wrong on all levels, and somehow, someway a couple of us survived to tell the tail.

-CSB-
Like that time after being forcibly ejected from Undermountain into a garbage heap in Waterdeep: I had a drow necromancer with a staff of thunder and lightening and our party psionicist tried to use id insinuation on me (2nd edition complete psionics rules) and got a power score, turning me (an ally) who was chatting with him at the time, into an enemy. Due to this epic 5% chance of Murphy's law applying, I loaded 4 charges and hit him with everything I had (2x - stunning him the first round), and destroyed every piece of equipment, magic items. While all his gold and gems he had on him were embedded into the out-house behind him. All except for his broom and dust pan.

Which started and epic all out PvP battle between PCs that ultimately left my character in the garbage heap and others beheaded, fireballed and otherwise scorched. The psionicist was ulimately resurrected.

It was one of the most fun nights of my gaming life
[/CSB]

All because of a 5% chance of failure. It was a 5% chance, and the results were EPIC. And the mechanics involved were nearly identical to a skill check.

Quote:


The rest of my post still stands: Given that the two walls are identical and it's the same climber with an unchanged skill, the chance of success should be the same (DC 20) and the risk he takes should be the same (either 20% fall chance on BOTH walls or he Takes-10 for a 0% fall chance on BOTH walls). And since Take-10 is clearly allowed on the safe wall where we can apply no distraction, then it makes no sense to disallow it on the other, IDENTICAL, wall.

I hadn't thought of this at the time, so I skipped it...but one thing you are probably missing is the familiarity of the wall in the first case and the lack of familiarity with the wall in the 2nd.

Had the jumper/swimmer wall been there, I would say that take 10 is allowed due to having done it multiple times before.

Given an identical wall, but only coming upon it on an adventure to a land he has never been to? Nah...identical or not, I just don't see the rationale working. He may say: "Holy crap, this looks like a wall I climb back home all the time", but then look down and see his imminent doom at the bottom of the cliff and have a wholly different perspective.


aptinuviel wrote:
Quintain wrote:


That kinda depends :P

I read through this thread, and it was quite entertaining, but I'm a little confused by something.

You are aware that even if you Take 10, there is a chance of failure, correct? I realize people have said this a few times in the thread, but you seem to still think failure is impossible.

Yes, on a take 10 failure is possible, but not really failure with consequences.

Standing at the bottom of a 300' cliff, you'll need 20 checks to get to the top with a movement rate of 30.

Take 10: Can't get up 15'. No consequences, they look for a way around that is "safe".

But when fighting the BBEG against whom a 5% chance of failure is much more likely, you won't see players hesitate, they are all in from the rolling of initiative.


DM_Blake wrote:
Quintain wrote:

The problem is: there is no 45% chance of falling off the other one.

There might be a 45% chance of making no progress at some point, but even on a roll of 1, you have to miss the DC by 5 or more in order to fall.

Good catch.

I should have said 45% chance of failure with a 20% chance of falling off.

For each increment of 15'. (assuming a normal 30' movement rate)

Right?

It's even worse than that - for each 7.5 feet; climbing is at quarter-speed and you check for every individual move action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wish that some people could take 10 on GM checks.


Quintain wrote:


Quote:


I don't really think so.

Most people want to play Epics like the Odyssey or the Aeneid. The high fantasy Pathfinder is modeled after.

...

I'm talking more about the epic failure being a good story that you repeat to your friends. Most of the awesome stories that we (my gaming group) remember are those where things went wholly and totally wrong on all levels, and somehow, someway a couple of us survived to tell the tail.

because falling from a wall is such an epic death. definitely one i'll remember with fondness...


Quintain wrote:
aptinuviel wrote:
Quintain wrote:


That kinda depends :P

I read through this thread, and it was quite entertaining, but I'm a little confused by something.

You are aware that even if you Take 10, there is a chance of failure, correct? I realize people have said this a few times in the thread, but you seem to still think failure is impossible.

Yes, on a take 10 failure is possible, but not really failure with consequences.

Standing at the bottom of a 300' cliff, you'll need 20 checks to get to the top with a movement rate of 30.

Take 10: Can't get up 15'. No consequences, they look for a way around that is "safe".

But when fighting the BBEG against whom a 5% chance of failure is much more likely, you won't see players hesitate, they are all in from the rolling of initiative.

Because you don't understand the probability that's been explained again and again. Fighting the BBEG is far more complex and interesting. There are decisions to be made at each action that will change how the fight goes. Many dice will be rolled, many of those individual attempts will fail, but you don't lose the whole fight if you ever fail one of those checks.

Standing at the bottom of that 300' cliff, you'll need 20 (apparently actually 40) checks to reach the top - Which means you won't try. You'll look for a way around that is "safe". Because even if you only fall on a "1", you'll fall ~90% of the time. And there's nothing interesting about it - You just have to roll X times without failing by 5. One bad roll and you take some damage and start over. No decisions. No planning.


Quintain wrote:
aptinuviel wrote:
Quintain wrote:


That kinda depends :P

I read through this thread, and it was quite entertaining, but I'm a little confused by something.

You are aware that even if you Take 10, there is a chance of failure, correct? I realize people have said this a few times in the thread, but you seem to still think failure is impossible.

Yes, on a take 10 failure is possible, but not really failure with consequences.

Standing at the bottom of a 300' cliff, you'll need 20 checks to get to the top with a movement rate of 30.

Take 10: Can't get up 15'. No consequences, they look for a way around that is "safe".

But when fighting the BBEG against whom a 5% chance of failure is much more likely, you won't see players hesitate, they are all in from the rolling of initiative.

Because the BBEG probably can't be dealt with any other way. Can I walk around him to the Mcguffin? Can we just levitate over his head. No we have to fight him and unless that 300' cliff is 100% impassable without just climb checks we won't waste hours trying to climb it.

Also most BBEG do look for ways to safely and easily end them at low levels we color spray or sleep at high levels we greater bestow curse and finger of death. It's usually never an attack roll slug fest to the last hp.


Gaming at Quintain's table sounds irredeemably tedious if he expects people to make checks like this. If he expected my character to make 20 checks to climb something he could take-10 on, I'd never come back to another session. All the required dice rolling is a boring waste of time for the party as a whole.

I wonder how many other people posting in this thread would come back?


Saldiven wrote:

Gaming at Quintain's table sounds irredeemably tedious if he expects people to make checks like this. If he expected my character to make 20 checks to climb something he could take-10 on, I'd never come back to another session. All the required dice rolling is a boring waste of time for the party as a whole.

I wonder how many other people posting in this thread would come back?

I guess challenges are too much for you unless you have the instant gratification of taking down the BBEG.

For me, the fun is in the journey, not the destination.

Shadow Lodge

Enough with the dick waving, guys.


Quintain wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

Gaming at Quintain's table sounds irredeemably tedious if he expects people to make checks like this. If he expected my character to make 20 checks to climb something he could take-10 on, I'd never come back to another session. All the required dice rolling is a boring waste of time for the party as a whole.

I wonder how many other people posting in this thread would come back?

I guess challenges are too much for you unless you have the instant gratification of taking down the BBEG.

For me, the fun is in the journey, not the destination.

Nah. Rolling a bunch of dice with no tactics or decisions isn't fun.

If the fight was "Roll X d20 without rolling below a 3", that would be boring, even if we got to take down a BBEG.

You could probably make an interesting climbing game, but it wouldn't just be the PF climbing rules - with or without Take 10.


Quote:


Nah. Rolling a bunch of dice with no tactics or decisions isn't fun.

You assume that there is nothing to find while climbing said cliff. It's just an obstacle that exists between you and your BBEG.

As a BBEG, the perfect place to hide my mcguffin is in a small cave half way up a 300' cliff.

You guys would never find it...because it is "too tedious" to get to if you actually had to roll dice.

201 to 250 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.