
BigNorseWolf |

You have a pretty skewed definition of 'immediate'. How is the cleric in any 'immediate' danger if there is a zero chance of being attacked?
How are you determining that the cleric has zero chance of being attacked?
Just what 'immediate' threat is the cleric facing? That the cleric might 'immediately' advance 20 more feet, and the goblins might 'immediately' attack him thereafter?
3 seconds from now is pretty immediate.

_Ozy_ |
_Ozy_ wrote:How are you determining that the cleric has zero chance of being attacked?
You have a pretty skewed definition of 'immediate'. How is the cleric in any 'immediate' danger if there is a zero chance of being attacked?
Because the goblins haven't noticed him yet.
Quote:Just what 'immediate' threat is the cleric facing? That the cleric might 'immediately' advance 20 more feet, and the goblins might 'immediately' attack him thereafter?3 seconds from now is pretty immediate.
Um, no, that assumes the cleric is actually moving rather than standing still and conversing with his party members what the best method is to ambush the unperceptive goblins. 5 minutes from now is not 'immediate'.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:
Hold on we are getting ahead of ourselves for this conversation.
Now since my cleric(class does not matter) was 50 feet out and the goblins don't attack until someone is within 30 feet could the cleric have taken 10?
No.
1) 50 feet away from a goblin ambush is still immediate danger as far as I'm concerned.
2) You've hit the timey whimey ball there. You're only not getting a spear in your stomach because you're 50 feet out. And you're only 50 feet out because of the results of your perception check. You can't have the check for immediate danger be the thing that keeps you out of immediate danger.
Suppose he has no ranged weapon, and better yet supposed he has not seen the party. Is the take 10 still denied?
edit:Most GM's I have met would not count that as immediate so is the "immediate danger" the only reason that take 10 is not being allowed?

BigNorseWolf |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Because the goblins haven't noticed him yet._Ozy_ wrote:How are you determining that the cleric has zero chance of being attacked?
You have a pretty skewed definition of 'immediate'. How is the cleric in any 'immediate' danger if there is a zero chance of being attacked?
They only haven't noticed him yet because of his perception check. (and apparently his stealth check). Both of which could have gone differently, which probably amount to more than a zero percent chance to spot him. You can't roll a 7 in vegas and then declare that there was a 100% chance if it being a 7 after the fact.
Um, no, that assumes the cleric is actually moving rather than standing still and conversing with his party members what the best method is to ambush the unperceptive goblins. 5 minutes from now is not 'immediate'.
You've hit the timey whimey ball again and assumed that the results of the check happened before the check.

_Ozy_ |
_Ozy_ wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Because the goblins haven't noticed him yet._Ozy_ wrote:How are you determining that the cleric has zero chance of being attacked?
You have a pretty skewed definition of 'immediate'. How is the cleric in any 'immediate' danger if there is a zero chance of being attacked?
They only haven't noticed him yet because of his perception check. (and apparently his stealth check). Both of which could have gone differently, which probably amount to more than a zero percent chance to spot him.
You've hit the timey whimey ball again and assumed that the results of the check happened before the check.
Um, no, that assumes the cleric is actually moving rather than standing still and conversing with his party members what the best method is to ambush the unperceptive goblins. 5 minutes from now is not 'immediate'.
Dude, WTF are you talking about? I'm _giving_ you the scenario as it is happening. The goblins fail their check, the cleric makes the check. The cleric sees the goblins, the goblins do not see the party. The cleric stops moving, motions the party to stop moving, and is in no immediate danger.
There is no 'timey whimey' stuff going on, just one failed perception check and one successful perception check. Checks that occurred, btw, BEFORE any initiative roll. Sorry, man, The List (tm) is dead, long live the list.

BigNorseWolf |

There is no 'timey whimey' stuff going on, just one failed perception check and one successful perception check. Checks that occurred, btw, BEFORE any initiative roll. Sorry, man, The List (tm) is dead, long live the list.
One successful check that you wanted to be able to take 10 on that might be keeping you out of danger because it was successful because you took 10. Blue Phonebooth incoming.

![]() |

RedDogMT wrote:My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception ChecksYour gut is uninformed, and is unskilled as an arbiter of rules. Better to ask your head. And your head, upon reading the rules, will discover that T10 is intended for EVERY skill unless a specific exception is given (such as UMD).
Wow, Jiggy. So you intentionally misquote me and then belittle me. In fact, you were actually kind of an *** about it.
What I said was this...
Take 10 is generally used as a mechanic to simulate getting an average result for tasks in a non-oppressive environment (instead of rolling many rolls for every little detail of a task). Good examples where this works is crafting, searching a room, or climbing a wall.
The rules say that distractions or threats do not allow characters to Take 10. The reactionary nature of rolling a perception check to see if a character is surprises feels like it does not really fit into the Take 10 mechanic.
If this was my game, I would not allow Take 10. My gut tells me that Take 10 is not intended for Perception Checks for surprise rounds.
...and the bold part is what you quoted, without all the surrounding context. I actually thought better of you before this.
In any case, I stand by what I said before: the surprise round is the start of combat and it's reactionary nature does not fit the 'mold' of what Take 10 should be used for.

wraithstrike |

In any case, I stand by what I said before: the surprise round is the start of combat and it's reactionary nature does not fit the 'mold' of what Take 10 should be used for.
We all understood what you meant, assuming we had been reading the entire time. The point Jiggy was making was that the actual rules do not support your gut feeling. That is how I read his statement anyway.
I intend to make an FAQ on this after my exchange with BNW is over to try to get this cleared up, but it might actually take two of them.

BigNorseWolf |

Taking 10 on both sides would be a great way to expediently find out at what range the combat should begin. That way, you're not rolling again and again for every 10 feet of distance until someone succeeds.
I want to roll some dice dammit. The polyhedral gods demand their blood and tears sacrifice!!!!!

wraithstrike |

Wraithstrike wrote:Suppose he has no ranged weapon, and better yet supposed he has not seen the party. Is the take 10 still denied?Probably. Walking into him (the goblin) in 9 seconds isn't all that different from walking into him in 3.
edit: quote added
Well since immediate danger or "threat" which may be the book term varies by GM I will just have to say it will vary by GM, at least for now.
On to part two:
Now we travel back in time and this time our cleric failed his perception check and did not notice the ambush.
When the goblins notice him and attack at 30 feet out does he get another perception check? Why or why not since the list says he gets one after initiative is rolled?

_Ozy_ |
Ozy wrote:There is no 'timey whimey' stuff going on, just one failed perception check and one successful perception check. Checks that occurred, btw, BEFORE any initiative roll. Sorry, man, The List (tm) is dead, long live the list.One successful check that you wanted to be able to take 10 on that might be keeping you out of danger because it was successful because you took 10. Blue Phonebooth incoming.
*facepalm*
Were the goblins launching their ambush at the time of the check?
No?
Then no immediate danger, take 10 allowed. Again, initiative HAS NOT YET BEEN ROLLED at the time of the perception checks. Aren't you even going to mourn the passing of The List (tm) even a little bit? You were such a dutiful adherent...
Passive stealth and perception rolls (using take 10) for both party and NPCs makes things run sooooo much smoother and faster outside of combat. I guess if your players really want to keep rolling dice, the rules certainly allow it.

_Ozy_ |
Okay, this is clearly a grey area, so I don't feel like a complete a*$&%!! in making the ruling I did in the game.
I have learned that I am doing surprise rounds wrong. If the monsters start it, they aren't flat footed. My mistake.
Thanks for the discussion.
Not true. If the monsters start it, but the PCs make their perception check and roll higher in initiative for the surprise round, then indeed the monsters are flat-footed until they act in the surprise round.

kestral287 |
_Ozy_ wrote:Ungodly powers of any description break the game, so they're not relevant to the discussion of a game that still fits within the bounds of a reasonable Pathfinder session.
Let's take a somewhat manufactured example. One PC has, for whatever reason, an ungodly perception which enables him (even with distance penalties) to notice the goblins from 200' away. Perhaps even before the goblins notice the PCs.
A 200' range is actually not at all difficult. Level 5, 20 Wis, 5 ranks in Perception, you roll a 10 on the die-- 5+5+10=20, you detect a non-stealthed creature at 200'. Throw in a feat and you can double that.
BNW, I'd like to move a step further with this whole goblins scenario.
Let us assume that the goblins have no ranged weapons and will attack when the party reaches 30' (with no ranged weapons, they would like to use their surprise round to close the distance). The party is 75' away and is told to make a Perception roll. Can they take 10 on it?
Notes:
-There is no danger within the next six seconds; the goblins cannot hit a target 75' away (double-move with a reach weapon still only gives them 70').
-So far as the party is aware there is no danger at all.
Let's take this a step further now.
If your answer to the previous question is that the PC cannot take 10: One PC is juggling, by taking 10 on his check. Is he allowed to continue taking ten on the roll to juggle? Why or why not?

wraithstrike |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Ozy wrote:There is no 'timey whimey' stuff going on, just one failed perception check and one successful perception check. Checks that occurred, btw, BEFORE any initiative roll. Sorry, man, The List (tm) is dead, long live the list.One successful check that you wanted to be able to take 10 on that might be keeping you out of danger because it was successful because you took 10. Blue Phonebooth incoming.
*facepalm*
Were the goblins launching their ambush at the time of the check?
No?
Then no immediate danger, take 10 allowed. Again, initiative HAS NOT YET BEEN ROLLED at the time of the perception checks. Aren't you even going to mourn the passing of The List (tm) even a little bit? You were such a dutiful adherent...
Passive stealth and perception rolls (using take 10) for both party and NPCs makes things run sooooo much smoother and faster outside of combat. I guess if your players really want to keep rolling dice, the rules certainly allow it.
I have been in more than one "immediate danger" debate. I am not going to waste my time on it this time around. I am just going to start an FAQ later on. I understand it might not cover every case, but it should weaken a lot of the cases against taking 10.

BigNorseWolf |

BigNorseWolf wrote:Wraithstrike wrote:Suppose he has no ranged weapon, and better yet supposed he has not seen the party. Is the take 10 still denied?Probably. Walking into him (the goblin) in 9 seconds isn't all that different from walking into him in 3.
edit: quote added
Well since immediate danger or "threat" which may be the book term varies by GM I will just have to say it will vary by GM, at least for now.
On to part two:
Now we travel back in time and this time our cleric failed his perception check and did not notice the ambush.When the goblins notice him and attack at 30 feet out does he get another perception check? Why or why not since the list says he gets one after initiative is rolled?
Initiaive was rolled but doesn't really matter yet.
Then
The cleric failed the spot check.
Then
He got a spear in the gut.
Because of how surprise rounds work, this will happen regardless of his initiative score (baring his correspondence course as a diviner or something)
If the cleric won initiative he now goes. If he lost initiative he gets another spear in the gut.

wraithstrike |

LazarX wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:Ungodly powers of any description break the game, so they're not relevant to the discussion of a game that still fits within the bounds of a reasonable Pathfinder session.
Let's take a somewhat manufactured example. One PC has, for whatever reason, an ungodly perception which enables him (even with distance penalties) to notice the goblins from 200' away. Perhaps even before the goblins notice the PCs.
A 200' range is actually not at all difficult. Level 5, 20 Wis, 5 ranks in Perception, you roll a 10 on the die-- 5+5+10=20, you detect a non-stealthed creature at 200'. Throw in a feat and you can double that.
BNW, I'd like to move a step further with this whole goblins scenario.
Let us assume that the goblins have no ranged weapons and will attack when the party reaches 30' (with no ranged weapons, they would like to use their surprise round to close the distance). The party is 75' away and is told to make a Perception roll. Can they take 10 on it?
Notes:
-There is no danger within the next six seconds; the goblins cannot hit a target 75' away (double-move with a reach weapon still only gives them 70').
-So far as the party is aware there is no danger at all.Let's take this a step further now.
If your answer to the previous question is that the PC cannot take 10: One PC is juggling, by taking 10 on his check. Is he allowed to continue taking ten on the roll to juggle? Why or why not?
Yeah 200 feet is not evenly that hard. You get eyes of the eagle for 2500 for another +5, +3 for it being a class skill, and you have another +8.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Wraithstrike wrote:Suppose he has no ranged weapon, and better yet supposed he has not seen the party. Is the take 10 still denied?Probably. Walking into him (the goblin) in 9 seconds isn't all that different from walking into him in 3.
edit: quote added
Well since immediate danger or "threat" which may be the book term varies by GM I will just have to say it will vary by GM, at least for now.
On to part two:
Now we travel back in time and this time our cleric failed his perception check and did not notice the ambush.When the goblins notice him and attack at 30 feet out does he get another perception check? Why or why not since the list says he gets one after initiative is rolled?
Initiaive was rolled but doesn't really matter yet.
Then
The cleric failed the spot check.
Then
He got a spear in the gut.
Because of how surprise rounds work, this will happen regardless of his initiative score (baring his correspondence course as a diviner or something)
If the cleric won initiative he now goes. If he lost initiative he gets another spear in the gut.
So if two enemies are 400 feet apart you roll init first no matter what, even if the ambushing party can not see the invading party, and because of that there is no taking 10, and it makes sure there are not double perception checks?

BigNorseWolf |

No?
Were the goblins launching their ambush at the time of the check?
Not no. Maybe. Thats where you hit the timey whimey ball.
If the party doesn't notice them then yes, they're getting the ambush off.
If the party notices them then they're not.
Those two distinctly possible ifs are what create the immediate danger. You MIGHT be getting ambushed by goblins. That's the danger. You do not need absolute certainty of an event for it to be a danger, merely a certain likelyhood. (And if asked to define it I'd say its party level cr-3 or greater, anything weaker than that is scenery. If asked for immediate my answer is "soon".)
Passive stealth and perception rolls (using take 10)
Passive perception is not a rule that appears anywhere in the book. Every time I've seen it used its been to make the Players miss something or walk into the ambush.
for both party and NPCs makes things run sooooo much smoother and faster outside of combat. I guess if your players really want to keep rolling dice, the rules certainly allow it.
For players with a slightly higher than average modifier take 10 takes a small numeric advantage and turns it into an almost guaranteed success. Its very advantageous for people with high skill modifiers and one of the reasons it gets pushed to hard by some people.

BigNorseWolf |

So if two enemies are 400 feet apart you roll init first no matter what, even if the ambushing party can not see the invading party, and because of that there is no taking 10, and it makes sure there are not double perception checks?
When does line of sight go that far? If someone's hawk familiar is flying over head in the plains with that kind of perception modifier I'm not even rolling I'm just telling them there's an ambush over thataway.

wraithstrike |

_Ozy_ wrote:No?
Were the goblins launching their ambush at the time of the check?
Not no. Maybe. Thats where you hit the timey whimey ball.
If the party doesn't notice them then yes, they're getting the ambush off.
If the party notices them then they're not.
Those two distinctly possible ifs are what create the immediate danger. You MIGHT be getting ambushed by goblins. That's the danger. You do not need absolute certainty of an event for it to be a danger, merely a certain likelyhood. (And if asked to define it I'd say its party level cr-3 or greater, anything weaker than that is scenery. If asked for immediate my answer is "soon".)
Passive stealth and perception rolls (using take 10)
Passive perception is not a rule that appears anywhere in the book. Every time I've seen it used its been to make the Players miss something or walk into the ambush.
for both party and NPCs makes things run sooooo much smoother and faster outside of combat. I guess if your players really want to keep rolling dice, the rules certainly allow it.
For players with a slightly higher than average modifier take 10 takes a small numeric advantage and turns it into an almost guaranteed success. Its very advantageous for people with high skill modifiers and one of the reasons it gets pushed to hard by some people.
You can use a lesser distance. Let's just say the ambushers are noticed well outside of their range to strike backor even notice the people they are supposed to ambush.

BigNorseWolf |

.
BNW, I'd like to move a step further with this whole goblins scenario.
Let us assume that the goblins have no ranged weapons and will attack when the party reaches 30' (with no ranged weapons, they would like to use their surprise round to close the distance). The party is 75' away and is told to make a Perception roll. Can they take 10 on it?
No. Hungry and apparently broke goblins. Immediate danger.
If your answer to the previous question is that the PC cannot take 10: One PC is juggling, by taking 10 on his check. Is he allowed to continue taking ten on the roll to juggle? Why or why not?
Yes, because unlike the perception check its irrelevant to the game and I don't want to tip my hand.

BigNorseWolf |

BigNorseWolf wrote:You do not need absolute certainty of an event for it to be a danger, merely a certain likelyhood.
So you don't allow taking 10 for climbing and swimming because someone might fall or drown?
I didn't used to. And the old 3.5 Krusk climbing example made it seem like that was the case. The SKR jumping a pit board clarification made me change my mind on that.
The difference is that a 5 foot chasm over lava is only dangeous if you miss. Hungry Hungry goblins are a danger whether you see them or not.

_Ozy_ |
wraithstrike wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:You do not need absolute certainty of an event for it to be a danger, merely a certain likelyhood.
So you don't allow taking 10 for climbing and swimming because someone might fall or drown?
I didn't used to. And the old 3.5 Krusk climbing example made it seem like that was the case. The SKR jumping a pit board clarification made me change my mind on that.
The difference is that a 5 foot chasm over lava is only dangeous if you miss. Hungry Hungry goblins are a danger whether you see them or not.
Not 200' away they aren't.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:You do not need absolute certainty of an event for it to be a danger, merely a certain likelyhood.
So you don't allow taking 10 for climbing and swimming because someone might fall or drown?
I didn't used to. And the old 3.5 Krusk climbing example made it seem like that was the case. The SKR jumping a pit board clarification made me change my mind on that.
The difference is that a 5 foot chasm over lava is only dangeous if you miss. Hungry Hungry goblins are a danger whether you see them or not.
In that case those goblins are about as dangerous as the lava since you could just take another path and avoid them, but I dont think I will convince you so I moving on to writing this FAQ up, assuming I don't do one for "distractions and threats", and another one for surprise rounds, but I think the first will take care of the second one.

BigNorseWolf |

In that case those goblins are about as dangerous as the lava since you could just take another path and avoid them, but I dont think I will convince you so I moving on to writing this FAQ up, assuming I don't do one for "distractions and threats", and another one for surprise rounds, but I think the first will take care of the second one.
Another big difference is that in the usual setup, you're moving towards the goblins and they're there between you and macguffin mountain. Your own movement puts a time constraint on your perception check. (and if you decide to have your characters just stop and look around any time the dm asks for a perception check you're in immediate danger of core rulebook to the head)
And like the lava example, if the lava is rising then you ARE in immediate danger and need to jump now you can't take 10.

wraithstrike |

I am going to move this over to its own thread. I just want to see if anyone has anything to add. Do not FAQ this specific post
title --> Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions
It seems that different people have different ideas on what counts as immediate dangers and distractions that would make taking 10 not possible. I understand that every possible case can not be listed, but I think the following list can be answered and if possible we would like a good rule of thumb to follow.
Do the following prevent taking 10 while not in combat?
Swimming
climbing
Perception (to locate a trap)
Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)
Disable device (disarm a trap)

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:In that case those goblins are about as dangerous as the lava since you could just take another path and avoid them, but I dont think I will convince you so I moving on to writing this FAQ up, assuming I don't do one for "distractions and threats", and another one for surprise rounds, but I think the first will take care of the second one.Another big difference is that in the usual setup, you're moving towards the goblins and they're there between you and macguffin mountain. Your own movement puts a time constraint on your perception check. (and if you decide to have your characters just stop and look around any time the dm asks for a perception check you're in immediate danger of core rulebook to the head)
And like the lava example, if the lava is rising then you ARE in immediate danger and need to jump now you can't take 10.
The goblins might have to be dealt with. Assuming they do not I am going to assume you will probably still not allow taking 10.

kestral287 |
kestral287 wrote:.
BNW, I'd like to move a step further with this whole goblins scenario.
Let us assume that the goblins have no ranged weapons and will attack when the party reaches 30' (with no ranged weapons, they would like to use their surprise round to close the distance). The party is 75' away and is told to make a Perception roll. Can they take 10 on it?
No. Hungry and apparently broke goblins. Immediate danger.
Quote:If your answer to the previous question is that the PC cannot take 10: One PC is juggling, by taking 10 on his check. Is he allowed to continue taking ten on the roll to juggle? Why or why not?Yes, because unlike the perception check its irrelevant to the game and I don't want to tip my hand.
To elaborate on the first point: how "immediate" must the "immediate danger" be? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?
On the second point: Do you believe that by the rules as written the juggler (let's assume he would roll an 8, and drop his balls) would suddenly stop juggling because there were goblins nearby?

BigNorseWolf |

To elaborate on the first point: how "immediate" must the "immediate danger" be? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?
If you're asking me to define my guidelines for immediate danger? I think its relative to the time you have available and the time the task takes.
If I have 5 minutes to walk out of a room with a 5 foot pit then the acrobatics check isn't immediate. If I have 5 minutes to fix a hole in a boat before my village floods then that's definitely a carpentry rush job.
On the second point: Do you believe that by the rules as written the juggler (let's assume he would roll an 8, and drop his balls) would suddenly stop juggling because there were goblins nearby?
Yes. But I don't think that makes an argument against my position. Many of the games rules lead to silliness such as the peasant rail gun, the adventurer levitation system,infinite gold exploits, use activated true strike swords, and the worlds deadliest bag of rats.
The opposite extreme is also equally ridiculous. You need to say that you're "not in immediate danger" while a monster with teeth the size of your head is drooling over you like the last cupcake at a birthday party.

wraithstrike |

My new FAQ request thread so we might finally get an official answer.
You can debate there if you want, but most importantly press the FAQ button.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:I am going to move this over to its own thread. I just want to see if anyone has anything to add. Do not FAQ this specific post
** spoiler omitted **
One of the more technical questions is if you are supposed to be in combat because you're trying to detect an enemy.
What do you mean?
I did ask about ambushed and perception checks. If that ambush counts as being in combat as you have been arguing it should take care of itself. If you are asking something different then I am confused.
kestral287 |
kestral287 wrote:To elaborate on the first point: how "immediate" must the "immediate danger" be? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?
If you're asking me to define my guidelines for immediate danger? I think its relative to the time you have available and the time the task takes.
If I have 5 minutes to walk out of a room with a 5 foot pit then the acrobatics check isn't immediate. If I have 5 minutes to fix a hole in a boat before my village floods then that's definitely a carpentry rush job.
What if you have one minute to handle a task that takes no time at all?

BigNorseWolf |

BigNorseWolf wrote:What if you have one minute to handle a task that takes no time at all?kestral287 wrote:To elaborate on the first point: how "immediate" must the "immediate danger" be? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?
If you're asking me to define my guidelines for immediate danger? I think its relative to the time you have available and the time the task takes.
If I have 5 minutes to walk out of a room with a 5 foot pit then the acrobatics check isn't immediate. If I have 5 minutes to fix a hole in a boat before my village floods then that's definitely a carpentry rush job.
Then you should be taking 20. (2 move actions per round* 10 rounds= 20 actions)

kestral287 |
kestral287 wrote:Then you should be taking 20. (2 move actions per round* 10 rounds= 20 actions)BigNorseWolf wrote:What if you have one minute to handle a task that takes no time at all?kestral287 wrote:To elaborate on the first point: how "immediate" must the "immediate danger" be? Ten seconds? Twenty? A minute? Five minutes?
If you're asking me to define my guidelines for immediate danger? I think its relative to the time you have available and the time the task takes.
If I have 5 minutes to walk out of a room with a 5 foot pit then the acrobatics check isn't immediate. If I have 5 minutes to fix a hole in a boat before my village floods then that's definitely a carpentry rush job.
Interesting. Just to make sure we're totally on the same page: you're okay with a character taking 20 because they have one minute available prior to some form of danger?

BigNorseWolf |

Interesting. Just to make sure we're totally on the same page: you're okay with a character taking 20 because they have one minute available prior to some form of danger?
If they want to do that to open the dungeon door that makes perfect sense. If they've been walking through the fluffy bunny forest for three days , I ask for minis, and all of a sudden they want to do that, core rule book to the head!
I don't even mind taking 10 for looking for traps, treasure and secret doors.

kestral287 |
Your last post didn't make much sense. Perhaps you should rephrase it?
I'm trying to extrapolate just what your "guidelines" are, because they're kind of invisible things right now and that presents a moving target. So. Go back to the goblins. There's a gang of them hanging out down the trail, plotting nefariously to ambush the party when they're 30' away. Can a PC...
... Take ten when they're 75' away (minimum distance to ensure one round of security)
... Take ten when they're 75' away and the party takes a rest break (such that they are no longer moving toward the goblins)
...Take ten when they're 235' away and walking (assuming the presence of a Dwarf, Gnome, Halfing, or similar, this gives the PCs one minute for a check that takes no time at all)
...Take ten when they're 200' away and taking a break
If the answer is "none of the above", at what range would you allow the PCs to take ten on their Perception checks to notice the goblins? Assume maximum possible range to notice the goblins is 500'; within reach of a level 5 Wis-centric character or anyone who spends a tiny drop of cash.

BigNorseWolf |

Your last post didn't make much sense. Perhaps you should rephrase it?
In short, no metagaming.
I'm trying to extrapolate just what your "guidelines" are, because they're kind of invisible things right now and that presents a moving target.
And thats not going to change. Its a dm's judgment call. Its always going to be a dms judgement call. its something you're going to have to work out with your DM.
So. Go back to the goblins. There's a gang of them hanging out down the trail, plotting nefariously to ambush the party when they're 30' away. Can a PC...
... Take ten when they're 75' away (minimum distance to ensure one round of security)
... Take ten when they're 75' away and the party takes a rest break (such that they are no longer moving toward the goblins)
...Take ten when they're 235' away and walking (assuming the presence of a Dwarf, Gnome, Halfing, or similar, this gives the PCs one minute for a check that takes no time at all)
...Take ten when they're 200' away and taking a break
If the answer is "none of the above", at what range would you allow the PCs to take ten on their Perception checks to notice the goblins? Assume maximum possible range to notice the goblins is 500'; within reach of a level 5 Wis-centric character or anyone who spends a tiny drop of cash.
The answer is that distance has nothing to do with it. You make the check at "the edge of my combat map" or "around the corner from them" , not an answer in feet. You can take 10 if there's some reason you can sit all day on your side of the wall while they'll still sit on theirs. If the goblins already know you're comming (and they probably do) the answer is never.

Byakko |
My new FAQ request thread so we might finally get an official answer.
You can debate there if you want, but most importantly press the FAQ button.
FAQing for you.
However, I believe the chances of them answering it are rather slim, as this is one of those things that really needs to be decided on a case by case basis by the GM.
I also find it amusing how things I noted and gave recommended solutions for last page are now being discussed this page as if novel. :)

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:My new FAQ request thread so we might finally get an official answer.
You can debate there if you want, but most importantly press the FAQ button.FAQing for you.
However, I believe the chances of them answering it are rather slim, as this is one of those things that really needs to be decided on a case by case basis by the GM.
I also find it amusing how things I noted and gave recommended solutions for last page are now being discussed this page as if novel. :)
I understand some things will be judgement calls, but I also think there is some basic idea of what is or is not intended to restrict taking 10 on. As an example climbing was called out by a dev as not restricting taking 10. The potential falling damage is not counted as an immediate danger. However without the dev post many did not know it, so I figure I might as well get it added to the FAQ along with other things that come up.

kestral287 |
And what you're arguing is an actual logical fallacy
The Wager and pinning down a moving target are different things. In point of fact, the purpose of pinning down a moving target is to prevent the Wager in as many cases as possible.
Right now, you've created a meta-contruct with these guidelines. The problem is that they don't exist, so they can't be attacked, and if they are attacked you can shift the goalposts with extreme ease, since nobody knows where they are to begin with.
For example: your point is now, as I understand it, "the moment the goblins know you're there, you are in immediate danger".
Okay. Take those same distance scenarios. Assume that the goblins are there to ambush somebody else entirely, and will detect the PCs at a range of 30', at which point they will immediately attack (the goblins are blind as well as poor, they had to sell an eye apiece for their dogcutters).
By my reading of your argument, then, I should be good to take 10 in any of those scenarios right? What about a Perception roll when the party and the goblins are exactly thirty feet away?
It would seem that I'm good to take ten on all of those from my interpretation of your guidelines, but I don't know because they're undefined. And the problem is that being undefined, you can very easily shift the location of where the head ends and the neck begins.
You solve Loki's Wager by clearly delineating where the head ends and the neck begins, or by explaining why it doesn't matter exactly where the head ends and the neck begins. It's only a fallacy in instances where we say that because something cannot be defined it can't be discussed (I've watched people walk into that one most often in religious arguments), not where we say that something has not been defined so it cannot be discussed. Asking for a definition on something that can be defined is not fallacious.
Unless you actually have something preventing you from defining your guidelines, in which case feel free to explain what that is.

wraithstrike |

BigNorseWolf wrote:And what you're arguing is an actual logical fallacyThe Wager and pinning down a moving target are different things. In point of fact, the purpose of pinning down a moving target is to prevent the Wager in as many cases as possible.
Right now, you've created a meta-contruct with these guidelines. The problem is that they don't exist, so they can't be attacked, and if they are attacked you can shift the goalposts with extreme ease, since nobody knows where they are to begin with.
For example: your point is now, as I understand it, "the moment the goblins know you're there, you are in immediate danger".
Okay. Take those same distance scenarios. Assume that the goblins are there to ambush somebody else entirely, and will detect the PCs at a range of 30', at which point they will immediately attack (the goblins are blind as well as poor, they had to sell an eye apiece for their dogcutters).
By my reading of your argument, then, I should be good to take 10 in any of those scenarios right? What about a Perception roll when the party and the goblins are exactly thirty feet away?
It would seem that I'm good to take ten on all of those from my interpretation of your guidelines, but I don't know because they're undefined. And the problem is that being undefined, you can very easily shift the location of where the head ends and the neck begins.
You solve Loki's Wager by clearly delineating where the head ends and the neck begins, or by explaining why it doesn't matter exactly where the head ends and the neck begins. It's only a fallacy in instances where we say that because something cannot be defined it can't be discussed (I've watched people walk into that one most often in religious arguments), not where we say that something has not been defined so it cannot be discussed. Asking for a definition on something that can be defined is not fallacious.
Unless you actually have something...
I dont think he has any hard rules. It comes down to judgement calls, which are going to default to initiative being rolled no matter what so you are in combat. Therefore you can't take 10 due to some magic whammy ball that nobody has details on except him.