Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:
True, but if you're using perception to find stuff hidden a drawer, presumably you have to open the drawer. Of course, it's easy enough to ask the players if their characters are handling things and opening things during their search.

If the trap is outside the drawer you should be able to notice it from a distance. If the trap is inside then it makes sense that the owner can disable it before opening it, so the mechanism is likely on the outside to disable it.

PS: I do understand that it may be plausibly difficult to check everything from range, and GM Fiat may come into play at times, but I think with the distance rules applying you can normally pull it off. I dont ask players how the characters handle it. The player is not the character, and does not have the same level of knowledge for not setting off a trap while check for one or disarming one.


wraithstrike wrote:
Reactive checks by the rules are free and ho often you see a character able to spot a hidden enemy has nothing to do with the actual rules.

It has to do with streamlining play. Spending lots of time to make many checks, when one successful check stops the extra checks, is more simply played as a single check in the first place. RAW? Maybe not. Speeding play? Yes.

If you check for traps each 5' you move in a dungeon, you need a check to see if there is a trap. You also move at a crawl, and take forever in playing time to go 100' down a hall with no traps. A GM will usually hand-wave all the checks that do not have a trap to find, and instead only roll for actual traps. When you come upon one you spotted, the GM states you found one there. When you come upon one you did not spot, he states a trap just sprung. Your character's time down the hall is the same as before. Your play time, however, is much more efficient. GMs are encouraged to do this, as it helps the game experience.

Do you want to slow down play by taking every possible reactive check? I would not want to do that. That is why the 1/round use is usually used. It follows the simulation of combat rules, and is easy to understand. Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? I think so.

Also, if you allow more checks, you make it much harder to maintain surprise, as more checks are more chances to succeed. This is the same reason you check against the worst stealth of the ambushers with the best PC perception check. Lets say the average PC chance to spot an ambusher is 50%. With 4 PCs and 4 ambushers, that would work out to 93.75% chance to detect if each PC checks once. 99.61% if each PC checks each ambusher. What ambusher would even try with those odds? Therefore that is not the way is should work.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Reactive checks by the rules are free and ho often you see a character able to spot a hidden enemy has nothing to do with the actual rules.

It has to do with streamlining play. Spending lots of time to make many checks, when one successful check stops the extra checks, is more simply played as a single check in the first place. RAW? Maybe not. Speeding play? Yes.

If you check for traps each 5' you move in a dungeon, you need a check to see if there is a trap. You also move at a crawl, and take forever in playing time to go 100' down a hall with no traps. A GM will usually hand-wave all the checks that do not have a trap to find, and instead only roll for actual traps. When you come upon one you spotted, the GM states you found one there. When you come upon one you did not spot, he states a trap just sprung. Your character's time down the hall is the same as before. Your play time, however, is much more efficient. GMs are encouraged to do this, as it helps the game experience.

Do you want to slow down play by taking every possible reactive check? I would not want to do that. That is why the 1/round use is usually used. It follows the simulation of combat rules, and is easy to understand. Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? I think so.

Also, if you allow more checks, you make it much harder to maintain surprise, as more checks are more chances to succeed. This is the same reason you check against the worst stealth of the ambushers with the best PC perception check. Lets say the average PC chance to spot an ambusher is 50%. With 4 PCs and 4 ambushers, that would work out to 93.75% chance to detect if each PC checks once. 99.61% if each PC checks each ambusher. What ambusher would even try with those odds? Therefore that is not the way is should work.

/cevah

If you want to discuss something other than the rules in the rules thread you need to be clear. I have no idea what point you are even making anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know this is one of the things (speaking of perception mostly) that I feel 4E got right. Passive perception was never overridden unless the player wanted to roll. If they entered a room them with traps or hidden creatures you checked if anyone auto-noticed them. If not then a decision to search the room could be made by the players if they wanted to scan over things before entering.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am going to quote from another thread, my favorite explanation:

If I wasn't making this check, would I be considered in "immediate danger"?

If yes, you can't Take 10. If no, you can Take 10.

Silver Crusade

What about the negative mod to perception for being distracted? If it is ruled that you cannot take 10 because of whatever then is this penalty auto apied in those instances? Sorry if this has been said or is off topic, I have not read the whole thread.


Grom Kranock wrote:
What about the negative mod to perception for being distracted? If it is ruled that you cannot take 10 because of whatever then is this penalty auto apied in those instances? Sorry if this has been said or is off topic, I have not read the whole thread.

I think that if you are distracted the penalty should apply. It certainly makes sense to apply it if you are in combat, and someone new is trying to sneak up on the party.


I would base it off the distraction honestly.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am going to quote from another thread, my favorite explanation:

If I wasn't making this check, would I be considered in "immediate danger"?

If yes, you can't Take 10. If no, you can Take 10.

It's just that easy folks.


wraithstrike wrote:
Grom Kranock wrote:
What about the negative mod to perception for being distracted? If it is ruled that you cannot take 10 because of whatever then is this penalty auto apied in those instances? Sorry if this has been said or is off topic, I have not read the whole thread.
I think that if you are distracted the penalty should apply. It certainly makes sense to apply it if you are in combat, and someone new is trying to sneak up on the party.

Absolutely. There are lots of things that are legitimate distractions. The character can be busy interrogating a prisoner through intimidation, making it more difficult to hear someone down the hall calling the character's name. Or, a character could be focused on a door to a mansion waiting for a target to exit and not be paying any attention to a different wall that holds a concealed entrance from which the target actually leaves.

Lots of things can be distracting enough to make a check more difficult without being distracting enough to make Taking 10 impossible, in my opinion, though I'm sure others would argue otherwise.

(For example, flirting with a girl at a bar probably isn't enough to not Take 10 to notice the bartender watering down your liquor, but having a screaming argument with a half dozen people in an English pub over which Premier League team is the best probably would be.)


Talonhawke wrote:

I'll try this in this thread. For those opposed to T10 either based off of the failure is distracting clause or the unknown imminent threat belief please list some skill uses that could actually come up in game where Take 10 rules could in fact be used if you were the GM.

Also to go further how bad of a consequence of failure denotes one significant enough to remove T10?

I mean in the case of falling how many average HP does it take to be distracting? Any? 10%? 50%? What if I have feather fall available does that change my ability?

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

22 people marked this as a favorite.

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

Welp, that's disappointing. This removes any guidance we had on this issue. Guess we can no longer guarantee a safe climb up a cliff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's...disappointingly unhelpful.

I think you can provide SOME context for when take 10 should apply without taking away flexibility.

Simply defining "immediate danger" as "Something is actively making this more dangerous than it should be" or "There is danger associated with this at a core level, so no Take 10" keeps a lot of flexibility while providing some guide as to when Take 10 should be allowed.


I know, like now the task at hand is no longer safe from causing danger. Can't take 10 on any jumps now since they are dangerous if you fall.

The Exchange

Chess Pwn wrote:
I know, like now the task at hand is no longer safe from causing danger. Can't take 10 on any jumps now since they are dangerous if you fall.

I like it. If you are in an underground chamber with eerie shadows and lots of 10' wide chasms I can require rolls for jumping the first chasm. By the 2nd or 3rd it's routine for you and I say "you can take 10." But if one chasm is giving off gouts of hot steam I might call for rolls again.

Drama when you need it, speed when you don't.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
For someone with a higher than average bonus expected for a level taking ten is a strait out increased chance of success. The DCs are not random: they're reasonable for your level.

That's far from certain. For example, let's say a goblin is planning to ambush you. He has a stealth skill of +10. If the goblin doesn't take 10 to hide, the DC for your Perception versus his Stealth roll is random - between +11 and +30 - with more variance added for circumstances. If your perception is +20, taking 10 to spot the goblin makes it reliable that you will succeed. If your perception skill is something like +7 (more plausible at a level where a goblin is a threat), rolling probably has a higher chance of succeeding.

In any case where the entire party is travelling together and you want at least one of them to spot the DC 25 hidden treasure, and you all have +12 Perception modifiers, then you're guaranteed to fail if you take 10, but almost certain to succeed if there are four people rolling.

In that particular case, wouldn't three of them be doing Aid Another, instead?


Rynjin wrote:

That's...disappointingly unhelpful.

I think you can provide SOME context for when take 10 should apply without taking away flexibility.

Simply defining "immediate danger" as "Something is actively making this more dangerous than it should be" or "There is danger associated with this at a core level, so no Take 10" keeps a lot of flexibility while providing some guide as to when Take 10 should be allowed.

I was looking for something general also. I dont like randomness. I don't mean dice rolls←←←in before any strawmen are constructed.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

That's...disappointingly unhelpful.

I think you can provide SOME context for when take 10 should apply without taking away flexibility.

Simply defining "immediate danger" as "Something is actively making this more dangerous than it should be" or "There is danger associated with this at a core level, so no Take 10" keeps a lot of flexibility while providing some guide as to when Take 10 should be allowed.

I was looking for something general also. I dont like randomness. I don't mean dice rolls←←←in before any strawmen are constructed.

Me three.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

Putting the comment of 'the task at hand does not constitute a distraction' would have been useful. It would have cut down on lot of ambiguity but still left room for adjudication. Now you still leave the option of effectively banning take 10 by ruling that everything is distracting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

The point of Take 10 per the PRD is to allow players to be able to complete "routine" tasks without fear of bad rolls. Allowing GMs to call for checks when a chance of failure leads to "tension or drama" is completely contrary to the rules. If I crash my car while driving, that will lead to both tension and drama. Per this statement, you're mandating that I roll every single time I get behind the wheel.

Outside of PFS, the GM can always change the rules. The game needs guidance in this instance, especially in the case of PFS. Leaving the door open for one GM to allow Take 10's on cliff climb and another GM to refuse it is going to have dramatic impact on a scenario. How can the PDT endorse the idea of Taking 10 in a scenario on a cliff climb be the GMs decision? I'm at a loss to understand how my ability to Take 10 in a PFS scenario should be entirely dependent on the GM and not on the scenario's parameters?

This is a terrible response, imo. The skill system is entirely broken if a player can't treat a task as "routine," like jumping over a 10' pit when you have +8, regardless of lava or not.

I really hope you guys reconsider this.


thorin001 wrote:
Now you still leave the option of effectively banning take 10 by ruling that everything is distracting.

I could not agree with this more. The PDT has now allowed every single PFS GM to effectively ban Take 10.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

I hope the PDT realizes that this statement is going to screw over Take 20 as well.

Take 20 wrote:
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Take 20 is not allowed if distracted. Allowing GMs to cite "tension or drama" as a basis for disallowing Take 10 impacts Take 20. I've have already had GMs in PFS try and tell me that I could not Take 20 to find a trap for fear of setting it off. Now you've just validated their assertions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If this is not redone I will likely have to come up with a few examples for when taking 10 will or will not be allowed. I worry more for other people than anyone who games under me since I will be fairly consistent about this and not say "no taking 10" just because.


N N 959 wrote:
Take 20 is not allowed if distracted. Allowing GMs to cite "tension or drama" as a basis for disallowing Take 10 impacts Take 20. I've have already had GMs in PFS try and tell me that I could not Take 20 to find a trap for fear of setting it off. Now you've just validated their assertions.

It's really not an issue when it comes to take 20:

Just tell your GM you are spending 5 mins checking for traps, using a move action to actively perceive.

Then roll your perception check: 2*6*5=60 times.

After doing this for a few trap detections, the value and function of the take 20 rule will quickly become obvious. ;)


Since when were PDT responsible for PFS? If it's that big of an issue in PFS shouldn't you take it up with PFS management?

This just got very adversarial between players and GMs.

Things to take away from this:
1) The exact same circumstances can allow taking 10 and disallow it depending on the needs of the story.
2) A player is NOT ENTITLED to take 10. You can ask, but it is up to the GM and that is exactly where the decision should lie.

Personally I am glad to see a ruling that does not entirely neuter the GMs ability to craft a dramatic scene while still not bogging down the game when it is not required.

I appreciate that this will not be a popular opinion - I can live with that. Mind you I have never had to deal with a GM who mishandled take 10 so badly that I felt it ruined the game.


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

A player absolutely should be entitled to take 10 in certain circumstances, as outlined by the rules.

To have it any other way is to allow uncertainy into one's games, where the players are on one page, and the GM is on another. Makes smooth gaming impossible. That's why the rules exist; so that everyone is on the same level and maximum fun can be achieved.

The PDT just destroyed that notion, which is a damned shame. What they describe isn't GM adjudication. It's the GM saying you can't do something even though the rules clearly say you can. It absolutely will lead to a lot of upset.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Since when were PDT responsible for PFS? If it's that big of an issue in PFS shouldn't you take it up with PFS management?

PFS sticks as close to the Pathfinder rules as possible while attempting to present everybody with a fun and consistent experience. PFS management generally don't like changing the actual rules except where it's necessary to give everybody a reasonably level playing field.

This ruling by the PDT is going to result in considerable variation in how some scenarios are run.


Since the PDT issued their statement as "No FAQ Required", they have made no actual rule change. They gave a RAI, not RAW answer. Because this conflicts with the previous RAI concerning 'the task at hand', GMs will have a harder time deciding what counts. However the RAW still is that Players CAN choose the Take 10.

/cevah


I agree that it would have been good to get at least something saying that the actual task you are performing and making the roll for is not considered a danger or distraction in and of itself, nor is the fear of the consequences of failing the task/roll, for purposes of Take 10/Take 20. Danger and distraction should be considered as external to the task.

And some examples:
Is a nearby enemy a danger or distraction? No, unless the enemy is actively attempting actions against you, or you are in an enemy's threatened square.

If walking a tightrope over lava, is the lava a danger or distraction? No, unless there is a specific danger such as bubbles of lava bursting that require a saving throw to avoid, or that make attack rolls against you.


Manwolf wrote:

I agree that it would have been good to get at least something saying that the actual task you are performing and making the roll for is not considered a danger or distraction in and of itself, nor is the fear of the consequences of failing the task/roll, for purposes of Take 10/Take 20. Danger and distraction should be considered as external to the task.

And some examples:
Is a nearby enemy a danger or distraction? No, unless the enemy is actively attempting actions against you, or you are in an enemy's threatened square.

If walking a tightrope over lava, is the lava a danger or distraction? No, unless there is a specific danger such as bubbles of lava bursting that require a saving throw to avoid, or that make attack rolls against you.

You may want that, but that is explicitly what they decided not to say. They want the GM to be able to declare that you need to roll such checks when the GM finds it appropriate - when it "leads to tension or drama".


Manwolf wrote:
I agree that it would have been good to get at least something saying that the actual task you are performing and making the roll for is not considered a danger or distraction in and of itself, nor is the fear of the consequences of failing the task/roll, for purposes of Take 10/Take 20.

Unless the GM considers it to be more dramatic to risk falling into the lava. That's explicitly why they didn't say anything like this, because they disagree completely with this line of reasoning.

Alas,


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always seen take 10 as a players option between a known number or a gamble between a possible higher number. I've never thought of it as a GM control of pacing and tension of the game. Rolling with a +8 vs a DC 10 isn't "tension or drama" to me and as/is it's so open, it's more 'mother may I' than an actual rule... So much "flexibility" that everyone will have a different opinion on it's meaning does not a good 'rule make IMO.


@thejeff and @OQ
I understand, it's just that some of the earlier discussions in this thread brought up points that were highly contentious in this regard to GM pique completely neutering and effectively removing these options from the game. Similarly I have seen GM's posting about "here's what I'm going to do to the party, do you think it's to much", and invariably what they plan amounts to a TPK just because the GM thinks it would be cool to spring it on them. These forums are places for us to share these kinds of things and try to make things better, and that includes educating people in the benefits and consequences of random GM decisions (not that players don't have their moments, LOL). Hopefully GM's of all skill levels will read and think about these discussions before making "because I said so" rulings that don't make the game fun, which is the whole reason for it (similarly rules lawyer players can suck the life right out of a game by arguing meaningless minutae, as I'm sure you're aware, so it goes both ways, this particular thread was about GM fiat more than player decisions, but I continue to digress).

Even some unofficial "not so common common sense" guidance would have been nice, but I'm fine with the Dev Team's call.

[sarcasm]However, I also understand that in many cases, common sense will not be tolerated.[/sarcasm]


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Awful ruling that allows awful GM calls.

I understand wanting to provide GMs with flexibility, but that's something they have ALWAYS had. What we need here is GM guidance, and we were given the exact opposite of that.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, rules lawyer DMs exist as well.

It's not a player-only thing.


When was the last time that the DEV team made a good Errata or
FAQ? What is the percentage of even decent ones as a whole? Just ignore it when they make up stuff that makes no sense. PFS folks as usual are at the mercy of this stupidity but that is one of the drawbacks you have to accept in order to participate.

Yeah GM can always invoke fiat but that is not how rules themselves are supposed to be written. Whoever came up with that response should go stand in the corner and think what they have done.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There are many good, and decent ones.

Just a few stinkers.


I would argue that the % of the ones not meeting par is unacceptably high. My point however was more that this is not the first time that they have dropped the ball, for a good game you already have to throw out lot and that this time is no different.

Seriously if GM ever tried to use the argument that I can't take 10 because drama/tension as the only reason I would stand up walk away and never come back. Like who thinks that it would be ok to say to cleric that they can't use hold person for enemy trying to escape because drama?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a whole world of difference between taking 10 and not being able to cast a spell. Not taking 10 doesn't suddenly invalidate the whole skill.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
There's a whole world of difference between taking 10 and not being able to cast a spell. Not taking 10 doesn't suddenly invalidate the whole skill.

For skills that have severe penalties for failure it effectively amounts to a -9 outside of combat.

Take climb, for example. Unless you can take-10 or pass on a nat. 1, scaling a high cliff is an act of suicide. It's statistically infeasable.

Magic crafting is also horrendous for most classes without take 10, due to a failure resulting in lost gold (wizards are the least affected by this - they have the int, spells and skill points to be in natural 1 territory much of the time so they don't really care).

Disable Device on traps is a whole lot worse.

Knowledge skills are unreliable even for basic things unless you invest significant amounts into them, since a DC10 check is non-trivial if you only have +4. Bear in mind that DC10 is a question like "Who is the current king". Trivial stuff that should just be known unless the PC is a knowledge-less idiot (no ranks, int<10).

So while a lack of take 10 doesn't invalidate a skill, it does screw many skills over really badly.


dragonhunterq wrote:
There's a whole world of difference between taking 10 and not being able to cast a spell. Not taking 10 doesn't suddenly invalidate the whole skill.

The only difference is a matter of degree. But it is the same excat concept you are taking away a characters ability that they possess. Take 10 is universal ability to all while casting a spell is not and the latter is also more powerful(usually naturally it depends on the situation.) I chose a more extreme example on purpose to underline this fact. I am pretty sure that the majority would agree that it is not kosher for GM just to handwawe the effects of a PCs spell on NPC out of nowhere. So why is it ok to do with take 10?

Can we at least agree that it is the same thing on the most basic level? IF so then what are the facts that make treating taking 10 differently acceptable?

When I sit down at a table I am there to roleplay and play a game. If GM wants to play magical tea story time that is fine and all but why was I then invited to play a game? There is certain social contract involved when playing RPGs that social contract changes from table to table but I would say if you do not mention otherwise, rules work the way they say they do is pretty reasonable assumption to make.


This non-ruling allows a GM to go "ok, 300' cliff DC20, you can take 10 for all but the midpoint check". I think that allows a fair balance between drama and speed. A hard and fast ruling says the GM can't do that. I much prefer to retain that flexibility.


Bigger Club wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
There's a whole world of difference between taking 10 and not being able to cast a spell. Not taking 10 doesn't suddenly invalidate the whole skill.

The only difference is a matter of degree. But it is the same excat concept you are taking away a characters ability that they possess. Take 10 is universal ability to all while casting a spell is not and the latter is also more powerful(usually naturally it depends on the situation.) I chose a more extreme example on purpose to underline this fact. I am pretty sure that the majority would agree that it is not kosher for GM just to handwawe the effects of a PCs spell on NPC out of nowhere. So why is it ok to do with take 10?

Can we at least agree that it is the same thing on the most basic level? IF so then what are the facts that make treating taking 10 differently acceptable?

When I sit down at a table I am there to roleplay and play a game. If GM wants to play magical tea story time that is fine and all but why was I then invited to play a game? There is certain social contract involved when playing RPGs that social contract changes from table to table but I would say if you do not mention otherwise, rules work the way they say they do is pretty reasonable assumption to make.

Except it's pretty clear from the interminable discussions on this that there's no single accepted "rules work the way they say they do" on this topic.

This ruling doesn't change that.


dragonhunterq wrote:
This non-ruling allows a GM to go "ok, 300' cliff DC20, you can take 10 for all but the midpoint check". I think that allows a fair balance between drama and speed. A hard and fast ruling says the GM can't do that. I much prefer to retain that flexibility.

It also allows him to make you roll for all of them. Which means you will fall if you can.

And honestly, unless everyone really is only falling on a 1 (or maybe 2), you're not going to risk a 150' fall. 4 people falling on a 2 have something like a 2 in 3 chance of all making up.
So it's a barrier - unless you can reduce that. Add rope or use magic.


Have to chime in to disagree with this answer - it would have been better to just say 'NO FAQ needed' than add wording to a non-answer that makes the rule in question 100% worse than it already is. I'm a GM and a player - and as both I find the wording to this response shudder inducing.

And yes - I have played in a game where *no one* would climb *anything* because checks were called - no take 10. The result was we'd abandon the adventure if we had to climb something. That's what this ruling will do to PFS (I really feel for them) and will ruin many players experiences at tables due to GM's who don't understand the difference between 'drama' and 'boring bogged down dice rolling'.

Case in point - look at the search area discussions about making players roll 300 times to search a room. *groan*


Like I said upthread I have never experienced a GM who would pull a godawful move like those mentioned (not sure how long they would stay my GM if they did).

That said I would have liked to see a guiding statement indicating something like 'taking 10 should be encouraged by GMs except where the needs of the story require otherwise' or 'outside of combat taking 10 should be usable more often than not'. I'm sure some more eloquent than I can find something that works. Take 10 isn't really supposed to be used in every single situation, it's just a way to get the mundane technically required rolls out of the way so you can get to the meat of the encounter.

Actually, maybe everyone here should put their personal guideline at the end of their post, get a pool of thoughts on the subject?


Bigger Club wrote:

I would argue that the % of the ones not meeting par is unacceptably high. My point however was more that this is not the first time that they have dropped the ball, for a good game you already have to throw out lot and that this time is no different.

Seriously if GM ever tried to use the argument that I can't take 10 because drama/tension as the only reason I would stand up walk away and never come back. Like who thinks that it would be ok to say to cleric that they can't use hold person for enemy trying to escape because drama?

People already do disallow Hold Person because drama, they just have the subject automatically make the save. Now they have a FAQ to justify that.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Like I said upthread I have never experienced a GM who would pull a godawful move like those mentioned (not sure how long they would stay my GM if they did).

That said I would have liked to see a guiding statement indicating something like 'taking 10 should be encouraged by GMs except where the needs of the story require otherwise' or 'outside of combat taking 10 should be usable more often than not'. I'm sure some more eloquent than I can find something that works. Take 10 isn't really supposed to be used in every single situation, it's just a way to get the mundane technically required rolls out of the way so you can get to the meat of the encounter.

Actually, maybe everyone here should put their personal guideline at the end of their post, get a pool of thoughts on the subject?

Take 10 is expected to be used in any situation outside of combat. There are a few there situations, but they are still supposed to be stressful situations.

But some GMs like people to fail at tying their shoes, because comedy drama.


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

Thorin's right. Nothing good can come from the PDT's recent statement. It basically gives crappy GMs carte blanche to walk all over their players. As if some of them needed even more of a power trip for their overinflated egos.

251 to 300 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