Can you take 10 on climb?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

We can't see anywhere in the rules PFS if you can. The DM says you can't because there is the threat of falling. Have there been any official rulings on this?

Thanks~!

Liberty's Edge

You can't take 20 due to the consequences of failure (falling), but not being able to take 10 requires being in immediate danger or distracted. If your character were afraid of heights I could totally see not being able to take 10, or if your character were being attacked or trying to out-climb someone who intends them harm. But if it's just a wall and nothing else interesting is happening then taking 10 should be totally fine.

Unfortunately, "immediate danger or distracted" is not exactly strictly defined, so some DMs will interpret it more broadly than others and count any consequence for failure that includes being hurt as an "immediate danger". I disagree with this rather vehemently, but this is all opinion.


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.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you in initiative? No? Take 10. Yes? Do not take 10.

Liberty's Edge

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.

And I take "immediate danger" to mean "something is actively hurting you or trying to hurt you with possibility to succeed". Being in initiative is assumed to count as a distraction at minimum, and immediate danger in most cases.

There is a bit of irony in your statement (with respect to the rules): 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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You can absolutely take 10 on climb checks. The only downside is that it might not be high enough and you might fail. Fail by 5 or more and you will fall.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I find Stabbity's analogy amusing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the text:
Taking 10
"Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help."

Climb is absolutely one of the areas taking 10 was designed for: higher rolls don't help you, and you know an average roll will succeed and a poor roll might fail. Unless you are in combat or otherwise distracted, you can take 10 on climb.

Look at it this way:
Every day, people get in their cars and drive to work and back. Driving is a potentially dangerous activity: there is always the threat of an accident. But people do it every day, on autopilot, without even paying that much attention. They're taking 10.

When the car in front you slams on its brakes or suddenly cuts you off, now you have to roll a drive check.


¿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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Laif, depends on the male, ;)

Shadow Lodge

Widjit wrote:

We can't see anywhere in the rules PFS if you can. The DM says you can't because there is the threat of falling. Have there been any official rulings on this?

Thanks~!

Yes you can.

Re Taking 10:

PFSRD wrote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

The Climb skill does not state that you can't take a 10, therefore you can.

The need for interpretation unfortunately comes from the statement 'When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted,' Most GMs I know interpret this as when not in combat, but certainly other factors could be considered 'distracting'

As for climbing, I do not consider the threat of falling to be 'immediate danger' or a 'distraction'. Let's not forget that falling isn't the problem, it's the rapid deceleration at the end of it that causes the harm. ;) If one starts to interpret the rules like that, it just leads to an ever increasing set of exceptions eg. I'm wearing a Ring of Featherfall, so can I take a 10 because I'm not afraid of falling then? Yes? So the ring comes comes with the a 'free' assumed ability ("You can take 10 when climbing"). Or, I grew up as a thief on the rooftops of Absalom, so I'm not afraid of heights right? I'm also so skilled at climbing (+20) that most things are trivial to me. So, that all allows me to take a 10 whilst climbing a tree? Great, so writing climbing into your background and having a high climb implies that you can take a 10 then? Where's the limit? Do you have to take a trait, or have 10+ ranks in Climb? None of these are in the RAW but you would expect them to be if there are circumstances outside of 'immediate danger or distracted' where taking a 10 is not possible.

Those are a couple of examples where interpretation can lead to complicated rules exceptions IMO

The Take 10 rule is designed to simplify and speed up play IMO. Some things are just so trivial that you shouldn't need to roll - doing so just slows the game to a crawl.

IMO if a GM wants to make climbing really difficult, they can easily do so by making it clear that it's very hard to climb (smooth wall) so that only the best of climbers can do it with ease (and they deserve to, they've invested all those points in Climb), or by adding other dangers (falling rocks, harpies, etc.)


There is, in fact, precedent that the dangers of failure, if severe enough, can serve as a distracting threat that stops people from taking 10.

It's from this FAQ.

That said, it's probably fine to pretend that that FAQ doesn't exist.


Avoron wrote:

There is, in fact, precedent that the dangers of failure, if severe enough, can serve as a distracting threat that stops people from taking 10.

It's from this FAQ.

That said, it's probably fine to pretend that that FAQ doesn't exist.

It's not OK to ignore FAQs in PFS, so thanks for pointing this one out.

Now, that FAQ references only that particular spell, and it's about an ability check not a skill check, so it doesn't automatically apply to this question. It is precedent, though, so we have to consider it.

Is this FAQ specific to this spell only?
The statement "You cannot take 10 on this check." has since been added to the text of the spell itself, without any qualifiers about distraction or threat. Also, looking at the spell, half of the DCs are under 10. I can imagine that the devs intended you couldn't take 10 just because it would avoid half of the consequences. This leads me to believe that this spell is a special circumstance and not intended as a blanket precedent, but that's my reading.

How does the int check of the spell compare to a climb check (the question at hand)?
The Int and Charisma drop is an inherent, automatic side effect of the spell. It will happen, the single Int check is the only way you can avoid it, and you have exactly one chance to make it. This Int check has much more in common with a saving throw than a skill check.

Falling is a risk, not an inherent, automatic side effect of climbing. You aren't already falling and trying to catch yourself: you're trying to climb, and you might fail. You can use tools to help you, your friends can help you, and you actually can try to catch yourself if you fall (Reflex save).

Based on this comparison, I don't think this FAQ applies to climb checks even if the devs did intend it as a precedent.

What implications would this FAQ have if it did apply?
The FAQ does say the threat must be "significant" enough to be distracting. So the question is, how significant is the threat?

This is a 5th level spell, so characters must have a minimum 15 in their casting stat to cast it. Dropping an ability score a minimum of 7 points for a minimum of 1 week is a pretty significant consequence. If it were a drain that hit 2 ability scores, it would require 2 full
Restoration
spells to cure. That's essentially the same cost of spellcasting services as 2 Cure Critical Wounds or one Raise Dead.

So if the threat is to be equally "significant" it would have to rise to that same level. So if average damage from a fall would kill the character outright, I could see that being a significant enough threat to be distracting.

At 1d6 per 10 feet, that's 3.5 points of damage per 10 feet of falling. A d6 hit die character at 1st level with an 8 Con has to take 13 hit points to go from full to dead in one shot. That's at least a 40 foot drop before the character couldn't take 10 on a climb check. Note that each character would be prevented from taking 10 at different height: a 1st level barbarian (d12 plus a 16 Con) can probably scale a 100 ft wall without feeling threatened enough to be distracted.

(Edited to remove comments about Acrobatics, which don't apply here.)


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.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Exactly why you should not be able to take 10 for climbing. There is no danger from climbing if Take 10 is viable.

That's circular. "If you could take 10 while climbing, there would be no danger, so that is why it is dangerous and you can't take 10."

Even being able to take 10 doesn't mean you can't get in trouble while climbing. The DC for the climb may not remain static, as different areas may be more or less difficult. You could get 50 feet up and suddenly realize that your take 10 isn't enough to proceed, and may even fall if the DC exceeds your take 10 by 5 at that point.


No, it's not circular. It's basic. Climbing should entail danger, take 10 by the mechanics of Pathfinder remove this danger by either a) automatic success based on 10 + climbing modifiers) or automatic failure...but automatic failure results in no damage/danger because the automatic failure will always come at a point in the climb where there is no damage from falling.

There is also this little gem:

Quote:


A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing.

This seems to imply that in order to take 10, you need a climb speed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No, it says that you must have a climb speed to take 10 when threatened. Which is referring to the caveat about combat or immediate danger.

I'm not threatened when climbing over the fence in my backyard. Nor am I threatened when climbing the rock wall at the local mall. But my take 10 score may not be enough to succeed at those depending on conditions. I can still take 10 to climb them. It's when I try to do it faster that I risk botching.

Quintain wrote:
Climbing should entail danger

It does, but a climb that you can beat with a take 10 isn't a dangerous climb for you, unless something interferes with your ability to take care while doing so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing.

This to me implies that you normally can take 10, and with a climb speed you always can.


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.

Grand Lodge

Gwen Smith wrote:


Is this FAQ specific to this spell only?

Yes. The dev team has stated that FAQs are only to be considered in the context of what they explicitly state, and have no meaning beyond that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Average Joe, a human with ST 10 and no training, has a +0 to Climb:

Climb wrote:

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.


Quote:


DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"

And as you know, no one has ever fallen out of ships rigging...

That's the problem. Take 10 eliminates risk.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"
And as you know, no one has ever fallen out of ships rigging...

Being able to take 10 on climb does not make characters immune to falling from rigging.

Having a 9 Str means you can't take 10 and get anywhere, so you have to roll. Plenty of other circumstance penalties can apply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Take 10 eliminates risk.

That's why taking 10 exists. When you don't need to risk anything because you're sufficiently skilled, you can just say "I do it".

Liberty's Edge

Quintain wrote:
Quote:


DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"

And as you know, no one has ever fallen out of ships rigging...

That's the problem. Take 10 eliminates risk.

I assume the vast majority of falling out of rigging is due to currents, winds, etc, rather than the rigging itself. Oh, and how often do people grow complacent in such actions and let themselves get careless (aka distracted)? Yup, that probably contributes too.

Either way, if you're of the opinion that any elimination of risk is unacceptable, then simply ban taking 10 in all cases, because there are only two things take-10 can do: Eliminate risk, or nothing.

As it stands, however, taking 10 is fine if not in immediate danger or distracted, and simply having a consequence for failure is not (on its own) considered a distraction or immediate danger.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Take 10 eliminates risk.
That's why taking 10 exists. When you don't need to risk anything because you're sufficiently skilled, you can just say "I do it".

I wouldn't have a problem with this if "Taking 10" had actual requirements other than a declaration of intent.

As it stands, however, your just below average roll shouldn't (IMO) eliminate risk, as it does with with climb, as the distance you can move in a round is 1/4 your speed..which means for the most part, you'll be making a check every 10 feet or less...and if you aren't going to be able to make it on a 10, your first check will be your only check, really. And you won't suffer any consequences.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
...and if you aren't going to be able to make it on a 10, your first check will be your only check, really. And you won't suffer any consequences.

The consequence is 'you don't get up that wall without rolling'.

Either you find another way, or you have to brave the climb and risk botching your roll at an inopportune moment.

I have an oracle who was able to take 10 in a certain adventure to climb some chains. When he got about 3/4th of the way up, the enemy blasted him with magic missiles. Suddenly, he had to make climbs checks in combat. Guess what he couldn't do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taking 10 does not equal "If you fail bad things can't happen". You can take 10 in situations where failure leads to bad results.

You can not take 10 if you are in danger or distracted.

What counts as a distraction is up to the GM but the results of a failed check are not what was intended. With that line of thinking taking 10 is almost impossible for any skill.

Knowledge check: Oh, no if I don't identify this monster it might kill us and eat us.

Swim check: If I fail this swim check in this lake with no current, I make stay for 30 seconds too long, and that might be enough for the BBEG to activate device X

craft: If I don't make this bow properly I could once again be delayed and it can end the world due to me running out of time.

The point is this--> A character knowing that something bad may happen is not a distraction because when you think about it something can always happen if you fail a check.

Climbing while someone is shooting arrows at you likely means you can not take 10. Climbing with nobody trying to kill or capture you is likely not going to be a problem.


Quintain wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Take 10 eliminates risk.
That's why taking 10 exists. When you don't need to risk anything because you're sufficiently skilled, you can just say "I do it".
I wouldn't have a problem with this if "Taking 10" had actual requirements other than a declaration of intent.

The definition of "take 10" is you declare your intent and just have to be satisfied with the result. The "requirement" is "my bonus is high enough that I can make the check if I roll a 10 or higher." And it does eliminate risk--the rule explicitly says that's what it's for.

I'm sorry you don't like that rule, but it is the rule, and this is the rules forum.

Quintain wrote:
As it stands, however, your just below average roll shouldn't (IMO) eliminate risk, as it does with with climb, as the distance you can move in a round is 1/4 your speed..which means for the most part, you'll be making a check every 10 feet or less...and if you aren't going to be able to make it on a 10, your first check will be your only check, really. And you won't suffer any consequences.

Well, you won't get up the wall. And the entire game comes to a halt while all the players roll every 7 feet on a 40 foot, DC 10 climb when they have all the time in the world and complete climbing kits to help out.

As a player, it's just a bit frustrating to get 5 feet from the top and fail that last check, plummet to the bottom, burn three charges off a wand of cure light wounds, just so you can start the whole ordeal all over again. You can spend an entire session doing nothing but climb checks. (Been there. Done that. Never played with that GM again.)

Oh, and since the original poster was asking about a PFS game, the other consequence is that you won't have time to finish the scenario. So you lose all gold, experience, and prestige, burned a scenario that you can't replay, and wasted 5 hours of your life.

Whee?


First off, yes, you can Take 10 on Climb, just like you can on every other skill check (except UMD). The clause "even when in danger or distracted" on the bit about Climb speeds letting you Take 10 would be pointless were that not the case.

Seond off:

Avoron wrote:

There is, in fact, precedent that the dangers of failure, if severe enough, can serve as a distracting threat that stops people from taking 10.

It's from this FAQ.

That said, it's probably fine to pretend that that FAQ doesn't exist.

Wot?

What purpose does this FAQ even serve? You can't Take 10 on attribute checks anyway. Taking 10 is only for skills.

Why make a FAQ explaining why Taking 10 on an attribute check doesn't work in the first place? Much less make one that doesn't entirely consist of the words "No. You cannot Take 10 on attribute checks."?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember SKR or someone explaining that the danger of the task you are performing with the skill check doesn't count as a distraction. It's only outside danger/distraction that stops take 10. The example given was a long jump over a pit I think.

Take ten helps realism I think. Someone who can jump 5' can pretty much always jump 5'. Try to jump 10 you might trip. Try to jump 5' while an arrow whizzes past your head you might trip.

Grand Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

What purpose does this FAQ even serve? You can't Take 10 on attribute checks anyway. Taking 10 is only for skills.

Why make a FAQ explaining why Taking 10 on an attribute check doesn't work in the first place? Much less make one that doesn't entirely consist of the words "No. You cannot Take 10 on attribute checks."?

CRB, page 86 wrote:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.


Hm. I could have sworn there was something saying that Take 10 and 20 were specifically only for skills.

That's...interesting.

I'm trying to think if this has ever come up in one of my games because if I ever presented an attribute check somebody could have taken 10 on but shot it down I should apologize.


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.

If this is true then take 10 rule is obsolete and need not exist since there is always inherent danger in anything you do. And if you are a GM and want to roll that way, that is fine. Though it is a house rule and not PFS legal.

So why does take 10 exist? To make life easier for the GM and the player. When nothing else is happening and the PCs need to climb a wall, and they are skilled enough, it just happens. Why waste everyone's time with doing mundane things when the highly skilled adventures can do it with ease.

Taking 10 is a double edged sword, though. A PC might *think* he is skilled enough to climb down a cliff. Takes 10 and ... oops failed by more than 5. So this is a choice the PC has to make. (watch out for that mossy bit).

On a related note, in home games I have started using take 10 for perception checks when the PC is not actively searching (almost.. like it was a passive check...) If the player says "I am searching" they still get their roll. What does this do? It negates the "ooh I rolled badly for a perception check, there is something here" meta-gaming syndrome. Also moves that game along much faster to things that actually happen rather than spending time on things that don't happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Average Joe, a human with ST 10 and no training, has a +0 to Climb:

Climb wrote:

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sometimes it drives me to despair when I see people that have been playing this game system for 15 years now still can't get their head wrapped around rules like take 10, take 20, or the 5-foot-step.


Hmn, I wonder if you could take 10 on an arm wrestling match.

Assuming it's a simple strength check, I've always found it odd that a sickly youngster(say, 6 strength) could outdo a huge fighter with bulging muscles(26 strength) about 10% of the time. Being able to take 10 would help mitigate the silliness in situations like these.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"

And as you know, no one has ever fallen out of ships rigging...

That's the problem. Take 10 eliminates risk.

I assume the vast majority of falling out of rigging is due to currents, winds, etc, rather than the rigging itself. Oh, and how often do people grow complacent in such actions and let themselves get careless (aka distracted)? Yup, that probably contributes too.

That's the problem. Taking 10 means taking special care while doing something to be on the safe side. You don't take risks that could lead to being quicker or more successful but you don't risk making foolish mistakes, either.

And while I think the comment about nobody falling from the rigging was sarcastic I'm not sure about it (non-native speaker). So here some sad numbers about a German school ship:

Quote:
During the last 50 years, at least six sailors have died in accidents aboard the Gorch Fock, either by falling from the rigging or by going overboard. Recent fatalities include an 18-year-old officer-candidate who went overboard at night in the North Sea on 3 September 2008. On 7 November 2010, a female officer-candidate perished when she fell from the rigging.


Quote:


Climbing while someone is shooting arrows at you likely means you can not take 10. Climbing with nobody trying to kill or capture you is likely not going to be a problem.

Other than you know. Falling. And potentially dying from massive traumatic shock due to the sudden stop.

Quote:


As a player, it's just a bit frustrating to get 5 feet from the top and fail that last check, plummet to the bottom, burn three charges off a wand of cure light wounds, just so you can start the whole ordeal all over again. You can spend an entire session doing nothing but climb checks. (Been there. Done that. Never played with that GM again.)

"A bit frustrating"? That seems to me to be the least viable justification for allowing a take 10. But then again, maybe I'm old school. I like a challenge.

Quote:


I have an oracle who was able to take 10 in a certain adventure to climb some chains. When he got about 3/4th of the way up, the enemy blasted him with magic missiles. Suddenly, he had to make climbs checks in combat. Guess what he couldn't do?

No one is discussing the viability of taking 10 when being pelted with magic missiles.

What I'm taking about is that your character is travelling counter to the force of gravity (not natural) in a movement mode for which he/she does not have naturally, the failure of which is immediate application of damage to your person or a whole lot of "rescue" checks to mitigate said damage.

If there is any one skill (other than UMD) that shouldn't be allowed to have a take 10, climb is it.

I see climb as no different than an acrobatics check to tumble through an opponent's threatened square (just easier, given gravity and the wall you are climbing are inanimate)...if you fail, bad things happen. Yet, the only ones that can take 10 on acrobatics checks for tumbling through an opponent's threatened square are rogue-types of level 10 or higher (if memory serves) and even then, they have to choose said ability to do so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Requiring rolls just means no one climbs anything that requires multiple rolls where they need more than maybe a 2 to not fall.

That's the problem. The d20 system is swingy enough that if you roll enough times, you will screw up. If you've got a whole party that needs to climb an obstacle they just won't succeed unless it becomes automatic.

It's not about challenge. Rolling a die until you get 5 in row without a 3 or less (rerolling any that are 8 or less) isn't a challenge. It's a hassle and a waste of time.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Old school?

That is a terrible excuse for having heroes fail at hopscotch, or climbng a step ladder, 5% of the time.

Take 10, is built in, and noted, to get around this kind of nonsense.

Maybe, you can have your group boil ant hills, or whatever "old school" houserules you got in place, but Take 10 exists to do the things, you specifically don't want them to do, for specifically the reason, that you don't want them to do it.


That's why I was thinking that, regardless of the intent of the developers, it would probably be mostly harmless in home games to allow taking 10 any time outside of combat or the like. I know that many people find it tedious to roll for things like climbing over dangerous chasms when they know they can succeed by taking 10.

However, I personally believe that, when attempting a task that has a high chance of killing them or something just as threatening if they fail, individuals should not be able to know ahead of time exactly how they will perform. That's what the die rolling system is for. But I can definitely see how it depends on the preference of the GM and the players.

Someone has pointed out that the FAQ says nothing RAW about taking 10 for anything other than that check. That is correct. However, it clearly gives insight to RAI that, in certain circumstances, the possible consequences of failure can serve as a significant and distracting threat that stops individuals from taking 10. The only question is what those circumstances are.

And wraithstrike, hopscotch and step ladders are poor examples for 2 reasons:
1. Most heroes will succeed at those tasks on a 1, so I'm not sure where you got "5% of the time" from.
2. Those tasks have no consequences for failure, so there is nothing to distract.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
I see climb as no different than an acrobatics check to tumble through an opponent's threatened square (just easier, given gravity and the wall you are climbing are inanimate)...if you fail, bad things happen. Yet, the only ones that can take 10 on acrobatics checks for tumbling through an opponent's threatened square are rogue-types of level 10 or higher (if memory serves) and even then, they have to choose said ability to do so.

Yes, because being in combat is being in immediate danger.

A person climbing a rope is not in immediate danger. He is in potential danger. Barring muscle failure he can cling to the wall all day and nothing will happen to him. He has all the time in the world to make that check with no distractions. The focus of your check cannot be the distraction that prevents you from taking 10, nor can the possibility of failure be the threat that prevents you from taking 10.

What you are saying is that you always have to roll to shave your face, because you could always roll a one and slit your own throat.


"The focus of your check cannot be the distraction that prevents you from taking 10, nor can the possibility of failure be the threat that prevents you from taking 10."
Apparently nobody told that to the people who wrote the Contact Other Plane FAQ.

Also, why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that rolling a 1 on a skill check is not an automatic failure?


Quote:


That is a terrible excuse for having heroes fail at hopscotch, or climbng a step ladder, 5% of the time.

BBT,

You don't necessarily fail skill checks on a 1, they aren't auto-failures like combat rolls.

Quote:


I know that many people find it tedious to roll for things like climbing over dangerous chasms when they know they can succeed by taking 10.

Oh, I agree, it is in most players best interest to avoid danger that doesn't have an immediate reward (aka combat).

But where is the element of danger?

Quote:


Yes, because being in combat is being in immediate danger.

And somehow falling off a cliff is not in "immediate danger"?

I find that to be...irrational.

Now, if there were some nuance between a blanket take 10...say you can do so when you are guaranteed to not take damage from a fall, countered by not being able to take 10 when you reach a certain point of average damage vs your HD or something else.

That I could see. A blanket get out of danger free card by take 10 is a different story.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


As a player, it's just a bit frustrating to get 5 feet from the top and fail that last check, plummet to the bottom, burn three charges off a wand of cure light wounds, just so you can start the whole ordeal all over again. You can spend an entire session doing nothing but climb checks. (Been there. Done that. Never played with that GM again.)

"A bit frustrating"? That seems to me to be the least viable justification for allowing a take 10. But then again, maybe I'm old school. I like a challenge.

What I'm taking about is that your character is travelling counter to the force of gravity (not natural) in a movement mode for which he/she does not have naturally, the failure of which is immediate application of damage to your person or a whole lot of "rescue" checks to mitigate said damage.

If there is any one skill (other than UMD) that shouldn't be allowed to have a take 10, climb is it.

I see climb as no different than an acrobatics check to tumble through an opponent's threatened square (just easier, given gravity and the wall you are climbing are inanimate)...if you fail, bad things happen. Yet, the only ones that can take 10 on acrobatics checks for tumbling through an opponent's threatened square are rogue-types of level 10 or higher (if memory serves) and even then, they have to choose said ability to do so.

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.

If you want to house rule it, more power to you, but you should clarify that you are running it differently for this reason or another, rather than arguing your version as if it were default.

If your position is good and your reasoning is sound, people will adopt your system. If you present your position as if it were the default, they will get bogged down trying to parse out what's currently true, and won't get to evaluate your idea on its own merit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Potential danger, is not immediate danger.


But apparently it can be "a significant and distracting threat."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
And somehow falling off a cliff is not in "immediate danger"?

If you hang on to the cliff all day, will you ever be harmed?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Take 10 eliminates risk.

YES.

THAT IS WHAT IT IS DESIGNED TO DO.
The actual Take 10 rules wrote:
taking 10 is purely a safety measure

1 to 50 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.