Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I don't agree. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, both with 'take 10' skill checks.

There might be some skill checks that are distracting, but it is not a general rule that all are, nor is that supported in any RAW that I've seen. For example, taking 10 with perception and taking 10 with a knowledge check of that creature I just perceived would be good examples of two 'take 10' checks that are perfectly acceptable together.

Alo this:

Quote:

You can't take 10 because you are already doing another action and taking 10 doing it.

That count as a distraction for different actions.
Doesn't apply to either passive perception or knowledge checks, those aren't actions.

You have a point. I guess you can look at it as either you are distracted or you are not. So if you are not distracted then you cane take 10.

I think DR was saying that since you are focused on climbing you can't just look around, but then again reactive checks are made all the time just to see the mountain you are climbing. Once again a different opinion of distracting is causing an issue. Also if you can take 10 while climbing it could be argued that is is not really that distracting so you are free to also take 10 on perception checks. There are really are no rules saying that climbing or swimming are a distraction.

When this is answered I will be sure to bring it up.

It is very much in the rulebook:

PRD wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

Doing something different count as a distraction.

You can't be distracted by the task you are doing, but if you are concentrating on something you are distracted when resolving unrelated skill checks.

Nowhere in the books does it say doing another skill, especially one you are taking 10 on, counts as a distraction. That is what I was saying, since I knew you were talking about the rule you just quoted. Basically the alternate idea from yours is that you are either distracted or you are not, and that it is not a relative thing with relation to a skill.

I think the walking and chewing bubble gum example was too much of an oversimplification. A better example is me fixing a computer and solving difficult math problems at the same time. Of course some might say I have the real life version of that rogue talent that lets you take 10 on a skill, even when most people can't.

PS: The "me" was general in nature, and not really about me.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
But it is not clearly defined what counts as distraction. Does climbing count? Swimming? Walking? Running? Bad weather?

It is not "X count as a distraction", it is "doing X count as a distraction when doing non-X, if X is the activity on which you are concentrating."

So if you are swimming and want to take 10 on your swim check you can't take 10 on a perception check.
If you want to take 10 on the perception check you can't take 10 on the swim check.

Special circumstances can change that (like having a natural swim speed that give you the ability to take 10 when swimming, even if distracted).

For an human walking is his normal mean of locomotion, so it don't count as a distraction.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
But it is not clearly defined what counts as distraction. Does climbing count? Swimming? Walking? Running? Bad weather?

It is not "X count as a distraction", it is "doing X count as a distraction when doing non-X, if X is the activity on which you are concentrating."

So if you are swimming and want to take 10 on your swim check you can't take 10 on a perception check.
If you want to take 10 on the perception check you can't take 10 on the swim check.

Special circumstances can change that (like having a natural swim speed that give you the ability to take 10 when swimming, even if distracted).

For an human walking is his normal mean of locomotion, so it don't count as a distraction.

I think he understands what you are saying. He is just looking for a rule that says doing X counts as being distracted. Basically he is not sure that climbing(insert other skill as needed) counts as a distraction.


wraithstrike wrote:
I am asking because other take 10 threads have stated that you can't take 10 for activies where failure would cause bad things to happen. I have seen it enough that I know it is a common mistake so I figured an FAQ might be needed.
Are you saying the pathfinder design team made a common mistake when they made this FAQ:
Quote:

Contact Other Plane: Can you Take 10 on the Intelligence check for this spell?

Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.


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

Starting combat when neither side is aware of the other is not only a fantastic waste of everyone's time, it also encourages the players to metagame (as they will inevitably begin looking for, or trying to avoid, the unseen enemy).


Diego Rossi wrote:


It is very much in the rulebook:
PRD wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

Doing something different count as a distraction.

The task you are doing wouldn't count as a distraction for itself, but it will count as a distraction for other tasks. If you are concentrating on something you are distracted when resolving unrelated skill checks.

That's your assertion, but again it's not in the rule books. Now, that said, I can see when you're coming from as long as you don't think that a 'task' is restricted to only one skill.

I gave the example previously of taking 10 on perception, and then the knowledge check to identify a just perceived creature.

Likewise, if I'm using take 10 on a diplomacy check to sweet-talk a cute bartender, I might also take 10 on a knowledge local to remember that married women in this area wear their rings on their right hand, take 10 on perception to notice the ring on the right hand while she's cleaning some mugs, and take 10 on appraise to note that the ring is fairly expensive.

That said, I might not be allowed to 'take 10' to notice the angry husband coming up behind me with a table leg and a bad attitude.

However, there is one other modifier to perception that maybe should be applied to all other skills as well:

Quote:
Creature making the check is distracted +5 DC

So, if you impose a roll because the creature is distracted by another task, do you also impose the modifier from the skill chart?

Should other skill checks have the same modifier, or is perception 'special' in that being distracted only makes it harder to perceive rather than perform any other task?


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am asking because other take 10 threads have stated that you can't take 10 for activies where failure would cause bad things to happen. I have seen it enough that I know it is a common mistake so I figured an FAQ might be needed.
Are you saying the pathfinder design team made a common mistake when they made this FAQ:
Quote:

Contact Other Plane: Can you Take 10 on the Intelligence check for this spell?

Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.

Yes, they did. Unless they want nobody to ever make climb checks over a certain distance.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am asking because other take 10 threads have stated that you can't take 10 for activies where failure would cause bad things to happen. I have seen it enough that I know it is a common mistake so I figured an FAQ might be needed.
Are you saying the pathfinder design team made a common mistake when they made this FAQ:
Quote:

Contact Other Plane: Can you Take 10 on the Intelligence check for this spell?

Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.

That FAQ is saying you can't take 10 because you are distracted or threatened which is already in the rules. It is not saying you can not take 10 because of a penalty for failure.

If that FAQ was a catch all case then you could never take 10 and fail a check such as climbing or swimming which might lead you to be harmed which is not true. You can very much take 10, fail, and fall 50 feet. At no point does that FAQ mention "failure and bad things happening" as the reason, as some have done on similar threads.

That spell is also an ability check, and not a skill check, and the FAQ's are said to only apply to what they are specifically asked.

I also saw it the first time you posted it earlier.


wraithstrike wrote:

That FAQ is saying you can't take 10 because you are distracted or threatened which is already in the rules. It is not saying you can not take 10 because of a penalty for failure.

If that FAQ was a catch all case then you could never take 10 and fail a check such as climbing or swimming which might lead you to be harmed which is not true. You can very much take 10, fail, and fall 50 feet. At no point does that FAQ mention "failure and bad things happening" as the reason, as some have done on similar threads.

That spell is also an ability check, and not a skill check, and the FAQ's are said to only apply to what they are specifically asked.

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I don't agree. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, both with 'take 10' skill checks.

There might be some skill checks that are distracting, but it is not a general rule that all are, nor is that supported in any RAW that I've seen. For example, taking 10 with perception and taking 10 with a knowledge check of that creature I just perceived would be good examples of two 'take 10' checks that are perfectly acceptable together.

Alo this:

Quote:

You can't take 10 because you are already doing another action and taking 10 doing it.

That count as a distraction for different actions.
Doesn't apply to either passive perception or knowledge checks, those aren't actions.

I can certainly see where fear of falling could be considered a distraction for the Perception check, and thus preclude T10. But certainly not for the Climb check.


Ravingdork wrote:
Starting combat when neither side is aware of the other is not only a fantastic waste of everyone's time, it also encourages the players to metagame (as they will inevitably begin looking for, or trying to avoid, the unseen enemy).

It is a fairly common tactic for adversarial GMs to do this so that they can also get around the 'no readying outside of combat' rule.


Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check

It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.

prd wrote:


Taking 10: 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.

Nowhere in the FAQ or the rules on taking 10 is the word penalty even listed.

However taking 20, which is often confused with taking 10 would not be allowed since it does mention penalties.

Quote:
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties).

Do you have a similar quote for taking 10 that calls out penalties?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

That FAQ is saying you can't take 10 because you are distracted or threatened which is already in the rules. It is not saying you can not take 10 because of a penalty for failure.

If that FAQ was a catch all case then you could never take 10 and fail a check such as climbing or swimming which might lead you to be harmed which is not true. You can very much take 10, fail, and fall 50 feet. At no point does that FAQ mention "failure and bad things happening" as the reason, as some have done on similar threads.

That spell is also an ability check, and not a skill check, and the FAQ's are said to only apply to what they are specifically asked.

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

The devs themselves said an FAQ only answers what they say it answers. Take that up with them not me, not that it matters, because per my last post you still have yet to show me where it is attaching a penalty to taking 10. I keep seeing words such as "distracting threat". You have to show the word "penalty", and I don't think you will find it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Consequences of failure, and their prevention of doing so, apply to the rules of Take 20.

Take 20, is not Take 10, and consequences of failure, do not unable one from Taking 10.

How can I make this more clear?

Take 20 is not Take 10.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check

It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.

The problem is, falling 300' to your doom is at least as distracting a threat as some temporary stat drain. In fact, one could argue that death from falling damage is far more of a threat than a condition where you merely have to wait a few weeks to be completely recovered. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to look at the reasoning provided by that FAQ answer and conclude that the reasoning is universal even if the specific application is not.

This is why that FAQ was answered badly.


Until you hit the level where you can dust yourself off and walk away from a 300' fall (and it's only 20D6 damage so... level 10 for the squishier ones, which are also the ones least likely to actually care about a fall).

Which sort of raises the question of what actually constitutes a 'threat'. For example, if we contend that the Wizard can't take 10 on his Climb checks because he's distracted by the threat of falling 300', does that change if he has Feather Fall prepared?

Heck-- could an Int 7/Cha 7 Empyreal Sorcerer cast Contact Other Plane and take 10? Not only is having his Int and Cha adjusted to 8 not a threat, it's actively beneficial to him.


kestral287 wrote:

Until you hit the level where you can dust yourself off and walk away from a 300' fall (and it's only 20D6 damage so... level 10 for the squishier ones, which are also the ones least likely to actually care about a fall).

Which sort of raises the question of what actually constitutes a 'threat'. For example, if we contend that the Wizard can't take 10 on his Climb checks because he's distracted by the threat of falling 300', does that change if he has Feather Fall prepared?

Heck-- could an Int 7/Cha 7 Empyreal Sorcerer cast Contact Other Plane and take 10? Not only is having his Int and Cha adjusted to 8 not a threat, it's actively beneficial to him.

The spell prevents arcane casting independent of ability score. The caster would still be threatened.


Yup, the last thing we need, made firmly evident by certain posters in this thread, is to base a fundamental game mechanic on an ill-defined and arbitrary judgement as to what constitutes a distracting threat, outside of combat.

Another reason why that FAQ was so awful.


Snowblind wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Until you hit the level where you can dust yourself off and walk away from a 300' fall (and it's only 20D6 damage so... level 10 for the squishier ones, which are also the ones least likely to actually care about a fall).

Which sort of raises the question of what actually constitutes a 'threat'. For example, if we contend that the Wizard can't take 10 on his Climb checks because he's distracted by the threat of falling 300', does that change if he has Feather Fall prepared?

Heck-- could an Int 7/Cha 7 Empyreal Sorcerer cast Contact Other Plane and take 10? Not only is having his Int and Cha adjusted to 8 not a threat, it's actively beneficial to him.

The spell prevents arcane casting independent of ability score. The caster would still be threatened.

Non-spell casting rogue using a scroll with UMD. Is he threatened too?

A sorcerer/wizard who was looking at taking a few weeks off from spellcasting/adventuring anyways, how threatened is he? More or less threatened than when climbing a sheer, 300' cliff?

Stupid ruling leads to stupid results.


Snowblind wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Until you hit the level where you can dust yourself off and walk away from a 300' fall (and it's only 20D6 damage so... level 10 for the squishier ones, which are also the ones least likely to actually care about a fall).

Which sort of raises the question of what actually constitutes a 'threat'. For example, if we contend that the Wizard can't take 10 on his Climb checks because he's distracted by the threat of falling 300', does that change if he has Feather Fall prepared?

Heck-- could an Int 7/Cha 7 Empyreal Sorcerer cast Contact Other Plane and take 10? Not only is having his Int and Cha adjusted to 8 not a threat, it's actively beneficial to him.

The spell prevents arcane casting independent of ability score. The caster would still be threatened.

Fair.

A Barbarian with Int 7/Cha 7 finds the scroll and (somehow) UMDs it. Is he threatened?

And the Feather Fall question stands.


Yup, the whole idea takes agency away from the PCs and the players that run them. The very thing you're not supposed to be doing with games like these.

Maybe after the gm tells me what my character finds threatening, he can tell me what makes him happy, sad, and angry too. ;)


wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check
It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.
The FAQ:
Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
At the time the FAQ was made, the spell in question:
Quote:
You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma. If the check fails, your Intelligence and Charisma scores each fall to 8 for the stated duration, and you become unable to cast arcane spells.

So you are threatened and distracted because if you fail you are penalized, because the threat of being penalized is a significant and distracting threat.


I'd argue that it's the extraplanar entity that's distracting, not the penalizing. Climbing while under threat of falling to your death - can take 10. Climbing while a potentially hostile demon flies past - can't take 10.


_Ozy_ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check

It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.

The problem is, falling 300' to your doom is at least as distracting a threat as some temporary stat drain. In fact, one could argue that death from falling damage is far more of a threat than a condition where you merely have to wait a few weeks to be completely recovered. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to look at the reasoning provided by that FAQ answer and conclude that the reasoning is universal even if the specific application is not.

This is why that FAQ was answered badly.

One could argue that, but falling is not a threat nor is swimming unless SKR had no idea what he was talking about. A threat is a present danger, not a possible danger. Now if something was trying to push the player off of the mountain that is a threat/distraction.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check
It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.
The FAQ:
Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
At the time the FAQ was made, the spell in question:
Quote:
You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma. If the check fails, your Intelligence and Charisma scores each fall to 8 for the stated duration, and you become unable to cast arcane spells.
So you are threatened and distracted because if you fail you are penalized, because the threat of being penalized is a significant and distracting threat.

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
...

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.

Here is a fun question. What is the difference in the logic between the following two assertions?

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Quote:
Falling to your death from 300ft up is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.

Since it isn't unreasonable to say that there is no difference in the logic between those two, then it would be reasonable to draw a a parallel and say that you can't take 10 on checks like climb, swim and fly when failing the check is life threatening, unless you seriously want to argue that getting killed is clearly less of a significant and distracting threat than becoming stupid and losing your spellcasting for a few days. Hence why the Contact Other Planes FAQ is dodgy - It is perfectly reasonable to justify ruling out take-10 on a wide swath of skills based on the same reasoning the FAQ uses.


wraithstrike wrote:
The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

I'm not adding that, the faq states that.

Quote:
PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops...

You are misunderstanding me. The penalty is what is distracting/the threat that prevents you from taking 10. That is what the FAQ states.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
...

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.

Here is a fun question. What is the difference in the logic between the following two assertions?

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Quote:
Falling to your death from 300ft up is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Since it isn't unreasonable to say that there is no difference in the logic between those two, then it would be reasonable to draw a a parallel and say that you can't take 10 on checks like climb, swim and fly when failing the check is life threatening, unless you seriously want to argue that getting killed is clearly less of a significant and distracting threat than becoming stupid and losing your spellcasting for a few days. Hence why the Contact Other Planes FAQ is dodgy - It is perfectly reasonable to justify ruling out take-10 on a wide swath of skills based on the same reasoning the FAQ uses.

I have seen many rules debates have two reasonable interpretations, but only one of them is correct. I understand his point. I just don't agree since there is no rules support for a penalty stopping "taking 10". The only rules supports says that penalties stop taking 20. If they want it to apply to taking 10 also, then it needs to be rewritten.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

I'm not adding that, the faq states that.

Quote:
PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops...
You are misunderstanding me. The penalty is what is distracting/the threat that prevents you from taking 10. That is what the FAQ states.

I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10. I am saying the distraction/threat is the factor not the potential damage, just like the potential damage from falling does not stop you from taking 10 while climbing. There would need to be an external force to stop "taking 10" on a climb check. In the FAQ there is an external force stopping "taking 10".

PS: If you are not saying the penalty is the factor then I would not see why you keep mentioning it.


wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.

I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.

Scarab Sages

If your take 10 succeeds on a climb check, then there is no danger of falling.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.

I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.


Ferious Thune wrote:
If your take 10 succeeds on a climb check, then there is no danger of falling.

But it may not succeed and you may not always know the DC on a check, so you could take 10 and fail.


I thank all of you for pressing the FAQ button. Hopefully this one does not take to long to get resolved. I also hope it is short enough to not need a blog.


I think this has been discussed many times.

Jiggy wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:
Jiggy if you have that link readily available I would appreciate it.

Gimme a minute; I've got lots of posts from SKR about T10.

Liiiike this one.
This one.
This one.

Then there's also this one.
Oh, and this one.

And finally, this one.

Though interestingly, the one of those where he says it doesn't matter whether it's a piece of tape or a deep pit, was already linked in this thread.


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

That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolves, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why would the Take 10 rules specifically mention it's use to avoid failure, if possible failure made Taking 10 impossible.

PRD wrote:
Taking 10: 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.

Relevant text bolded above.

PRD link here..

Please note, that not only does it mention it as a safety measure, but you take the measure because you fear you may fail otherwise.


Being unaware of a threat should not disallow taking ten on the skill check in question.

As stated in earlier in the thread taking 10 signifies being able to devote a level of attention to a task that threats and distractions would prevent.

Going back to the example on the first page, if there was an undetectable invisible ninja following someone around, that person should still be able to take 10 on skills.

It's patently absurd to think that a PC is somehow cosmically aware of things he is not aware of and that such a threat would cause him to not be able to devote the effort to taking 10 in an undistracted and unthreatened way.

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
If your take 10 succeeds on a climb check, then there is no danger of falling.
But it may not succeed and you may not always know the DC on a check, so you could take 10 and fail.

You could. But I think it's fair to say climbing a knotted rope against a wall is a DC 5 under normal circumstances. Someone with a take 10 of 10 would normally auto succeed. So would they really be distracted/in danger if it's something they normally auto succeed on? They could be wrong and there might be something they don't know about that is raising the DC, in which case they might fail or even fall if the DC is much higher, but their expected result is that they will succeed. So is the chance of failure in a situation where you (think you) never fail a distraction worthy of creating the possibility that you will fail? Fear of failure would then be creating the possibility of failure where it didn't previously exist.

I know many people view take 10 as being able to take your time with a task, but the rules never say that. I think of it more as taking a task for granted. You've climbed a hundred knotted ropes, so you don't think twice about climbing another one. If that rope happens to be over a 300 foot drop and you don't take the time to check for anything unexpected, the you might fail if the DC is actually higher than you thought it was.

Take 10 is also a mechanic created to save time and keep the game from bogging down with dice rolls that don't really matter. Forcing a roll every 10 feet of rope when someone would auto succeed by taking 10 and there's no combat or real external distraction is just drawing things out unnecessarily.


wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

Ravingdork wrote:
That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolved, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.

The FAQ is basically unneeded now - the rules text of Contact Other Plane in the CRB now includes a "Can't take 10" clause. It should definitely go.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I need to address the entry I posted above, as it shows quite clear, that fear of failure does not prevent one from Taking 10.

In fact, it notes that one might Take 10, because they fear failure.

Fear of failure as a distraction, preventing one from Taking 10, is in direct opposition as to one of the reasons why Take 10 exists, and is explicitly stated as such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

The other reasonable interpretation involves the actual words of the FAQ:
Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat

According to the FAQ, the stat loss is caused by enemy action, thus making it far more like combat than climbing a wall is.


Snowblind wrote:
Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

I still suggest the difference is that this 'ability score nuking' is explicitly mentioned as being at the hands of a third party, while with climbing you're dealing a static environmental hazard. Similarly, you couldn't take 10 to move through an enemy's threatened area safely with Acrobatics, but could take 10 to walk along a narrow wobbly bridge.

This is the only explanation I can think of that is consistent with past clarifications.


Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

Ravingdork wrote:
That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolved, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.
The FAQ is basically unneeded now - the rules text of Contact Other Plane in the CRB now includes a "Can't take 10" clause. It should definitely go.

What constitutes a severe penalty? At what point does a 'standard penalty' (that can be circumvented by a take 10) become a severe penalty? The taking ten text clearly says it's there for when you know there is a risk of failure. Whether or not there are penalties for failing is irrelevant in the text of take 10.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Has no one read the CRB quoted text I provided?

Fear of a "penalty", or otherwise bad income, from a failed check, does not prevent one's ability to Take 10.

It explicitly states that is one of the reasons one would Take 10.

Can one not see how ruling otherwise, is in direct opposition to the stated rules?


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, that FAQ does not.


Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

Ravingdork wrote:
That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolved, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.
The FAQ is basically unneeded now - the rules text of Contact Other Plane in the CRB now includes a "Can't take 10" clause. It should definitely go.

I already gave the reason. You are worried that your interaction with deity level beings who might do bad things to you. You are focused on the penalty. I am focused on the external force that is going to do the damage. Basically it is just like trying to climb a mountain while invisible stalkers are trying to push you off the edge. It is not the falling damage, but the stalkers(outside force) which is the issue. You take away the deity, and you just have another situation where you suffer for failing, just like taking away the invisible stalkers means you just deal with the falling damage, not something trying to push you off.


I see others agree with my idea that the outside forces are the issue. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, that FAQ does not.

If a FAQ causes an entire part of the rules, to simply no longer function, than it is a bad FAQ.

Saying that Take 10 is only an option, if nothing bad would happen if you rolled low, than the entire mechanic is pointless.

You might as well Take 20, or roll a d20, without purpose, as any roll is sufficient.

You would not even need to look at the dice.

No reasonable person would run it this way.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Has no one read the CRB quoted text I provided?

Fear of a "penalty", or otherwise bad income, from a failed check, does not prevent one's ability to Take 10.

It explicitly states that is one of the reasons one would Take 10.

Can one not see how ruling otherwise, is in direct opposition to the stated rules?

Fear of failure doesn't prevent taking 10, but from that quote, immediate danger does, irrespective of if you're afraid of it, unaware of it, or anything else. The idea that you can take 10 while climbing a dangerous cliff-face is based on developer explanation of RAI, not the rulebook, as far as I can tell.

Edit:
Also, this refers to the player fearing failure, not the character fearing danger:
"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)."
A GM might reasonably conclude from this text that the purpose of take 10 is for non-life-or-death skill checks - for Knowledge: History rolls and so on. Which is one of the reasons this debate has been going on for several years. (The other being that some GMs just like randomness.)

101 to 150 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions All Messageboards