Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:

No, the rules do not say that Take 10 is GM discretion. There was no FAQ issued. So technically nothing has changed with regard to Take 10 from what is written in the PRD = "immediate danger or distraction." In this situation the scenario says there is no immediate danger or described "distraction." I am asking if the rules, as they are written, mandate that a player can Take 10.

It's a simple yes or no answer.

We just spent 5 pages trying to get an answer to that simple yes or no question. The answer we got was "It depends on what the GM thinks is best for the game."

We have subsequently spent the next two pages arguing about that.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
FLite wrote:

We just spent 5 pages trying to get an answer to that simple yes or no question. The answer we got was "It depends on what the GM thinks is best for the game."

We have subsequently spent the next two pages arguing about that.

The wording in the PRD doesn't even approach that concept/interpretation. So if the PDT said there is "No FAQ Required" then what you offered has to be completely disregarded because it represents a fundamental change to why Take 10 is in the game. I have never heard that it was mean to conform to the GMs whim on pacing, tension, or drama. None of those terms or concepts are in the rule as written.

So once again, I am asking for an official response on my stated scenario. If the scenario makes it clear that there is no immediate danger or distraction, is the player entitled to Take 10?


N N 959 wrote:


So once again, I am asking for an official response on my stated scenario. If the scenario makes it clear that there is no immediate danger or distraction, is the player entitled to Take 10?

Except that the scenario you described -- "the scenario says there is a 100' cliff with no cross wind and no combat and no external distraction, no one is injured or under any status effects" -- does not "make it clear that there is no immediate danger or distraction."

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.


N N 959 wrote:
FLite wrote:

We just spent 5 pages trying to get an answer to that simple yes or no question. The answer we got was "It depends on what the GM thinks is best for the game."

We have subsequently spent the next two pages arguing about that.

The wording in the PRD doesn't even approach that concept/interpretation. So if the PDT said there is "No FAQ Required" then what you offered has to be completely disregarded because it represents a fundamental change to why Take 10 is in the game. I have never heard that it was mean to conform to the GMs whim on pacing, tension, or drama. None of those terms or concepts are in the rule as written.

So once again, I am asking for an official response on my stated scenario. If the scenario makes it clear that there is no immediate danger or distraction, is the player entitled to Take 10?

Um, no. The player is not "entitled" to Take 10. It has been left up to the GM running the table to decide whether or not the situation warrants Taking 10.

This horse died two pages ago, breath of life isn't going to revive it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem as I see it is that the PDT said "No FAQ Needed" and then proceeded to give FAQ Guidance how to handle it.

They are giving mixed signals.

So do we count "GM drama" overrules RAW? It is not a FAQ. But it is what the guidance of that post tells us.

The previous almost-official guidance of "the task at hand does not distract", should have been the response, or should have been specifically canceled. Neither happened. Instead additional almost-official* guidance comes out leaving it in the GM's hands, causing more confusion rather than clarifying things.

/cevah

*Since it is Not a FAQ, it is not rules clarification even though it is from an official source.


Deadbeat Doom wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
FLite wrote:

We just spent 5 pages trying to get an answer to that simple yes or no question. The answer we got was "It depends on what the GM thinks is best for the game."

We have subsequently spent the next two pages arguing about that.

The wording in the PRD doesn't even approach that concept/interpretation. So if the PDT said there is "No FAQ Required" then what you offered has to be completely disregarded because it represents a fundamental change to why Take 10 is in the game. I have never heard that it was mean to conform to the GMs whim on pacing, tension, or drama. None of those terms or concepts are in the rule as written.

So once again, I am asking for an official response on my stated scenario. If the scenario makes it clear that there is no immediate danger or distraction, is the player entitled to Take 10?

Um, no. The player is not "entitled" to Take 10. It has been left up to the GM running the table to decide whether or not the situation warrants Taking 10.

This horse died two pages ago, breath of life isn't going to revive it.

There was no FAQ issued and the rule in the PRD says it is not up to the GM. The rule says a player can choose to Take 10 if there is no "immediate danger or distraction." The statement in this read by the PDT was not a FAQ and does not change the rules as written.

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

There is NOTHING in that sentence that says the GM has discretion on taking 10 if there is no "immediate danger or distraction." I'm asking the PDT am I entitled to Take 10 if there is no "immediate danger or distraction." I'm not asking for a definition of danger or distraction. There is a core/fundamental difference.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?


N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?

Ah, but the GM can decide if you are or not if it'll lead to drama. The rule is that it's a GM's permission and not a player right.


If we get another post about this with enough FAQs do you think they'll respond with "No answer needed" again or just not answer?


N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?

I dont know if you really don't understand what the PDT team said or if you are just being stubborn.

Explanation: When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be. They trust GM's to not abuse the non-ruling and they are refusing to issue anything in an official capacity.

PS: I do not agree with how they handled it but that is what we have.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
If we get another post about this with enough FAQs do you think they'll respond with "No answer needed" again or just not answer?

Or maybe do some coding so that whenever someone means to write "Take 10" in the forums it will be changed to "bake a cake".

So can I bake a cake if I'm not distracted or in danger?


wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?

I dont know if you really don't understand what the PDT team said or if you are just being stubborn.

Explanation: When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be. They trust GM's to not abuse the non-ruling and they are refusing to issue anything in an official capacity.

PS: I do not agree with how they handled it but that is what we have.

The rules 100% do do not say that.

The PDT did not issue a FAQ. If you just said they did not issue anything official then you're contradicting yourself by claiming that they've changed the rules.

Do you not understand what it means when they don't issue a FAQ?


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?

I dont know if you really don't understand what the PDT team said or if you are just being stubborn.

Explanation: When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be. They trust GM's to not abuse the non-ruling and they are refusing to issue anything in an official capacity.

PS: I do not agree with how they handled it but that is what we have.

The rules 100% do do not say that.

The PDT did not issue a FAQ. If you just said they did not issue anything official then you're contradicting yourself by claiming that they've changed the rules.

Do you not understand what it means when they don't issue a FAQ?

They didn't change the rules. We just didn't understand that drama counts as a distraction. They clarified saying that the GM decides when you can take 10 or not, he is the arbiter of whether your character is in immediate danger or distracted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
]They didn't change the rules. We just didn't understand that drama counts as a distraction. They clarified saying that the GM decides when you can take 10 or not, he is the arbiter of whether your character is in immediate danger or distracted.

No, that's not what they said. They did not say "drama" counts as a distraction. Let me quote the opening sentence since you seem to have forgotten it,

PDT wrote:
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game***but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama...

This is completely false. Let me quote you the "point" of the Take 10 rule as written in the actual rules:

PRD on Take 10 wrote:
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.

There is absolutely nothing in the written Take 10 rules which supports or even suggests what the PDT is claiming. In the years I have seen discussion of Take 10, I've never seen anyone put forth the idea that Take 10 was to control pacing at GMs discretion. The very idea is pretty much ridiculous because the GM can always control pacing and tension. There's no reason to have a rule codify that. No other rule in the rule in the game addresses "pacing and tension" so the idea that Take 10 is the rule to do that is not believable.

Look, let's stop deluding ourselves about what has been perpetrated here. For years, it's been clear that some percentage of GMs hate it when players can Take 10 to avoid failure if possible. It would seem obvious that he controlling members of the PDT agree with that subset of GMs. But the PDT is unwilling to fundamentally change the game by rewriting the Take 10 rules, so they issuing a reinterpretation which only serves to undermines SKR's position without actually changing the rules. The PDT has stretched their credibility by suggesting that the fact that a GM decides what constitutes a "distraction" is tantamount to complete discretion on when a player can Take 10. If a person on these forums had argued that the Take 10 rule's purpose was to control pacing and tension, nobody would have agreed with that, not even the people that hate Take 10.

If the PDT is not going to issue a FAQ or an Errata, then the rules stand as written: The player can choose to Take 10 in the absence of danger or distraction. In PFS, a GM cannot change the scenario and add danger or distraction if the scenario does not provide them. Nothing the PDT has posted changes that because they have refused to give an official ruling on take 10.


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

A number of people have argued either that being 50' up a 100' cliff is distracting because if you screw up, you will fall and probably die. A number of people, some of them the same ones, have argued that being 50' up a cliff puts you in immediate danger, because if your hand slips, you will fall and probably die.

I am the author of the scenario and I wrote in that there is NO DISTRACTION on the climb and there is specifically no combat on the climb. Is the player entitled to a choice on Taking 10?

I dont know if you really don't understand what the PDT team said or if you are just being stubborn.

Explanation: When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be. They trust GM's to not abuse the non-ruling and they are refusing to issue anything in an official capacity.

PS: I do not agree with how they handled it but that is what we have.

The rules 100% do do not say that.

The PDT did not issue a FAQ. If you just said they did not issue anything official then you're contradicting yourself by claiming that they've changed the rules.

Do you not understand what it means when they don't issue a FAQ?

I NEVER said what the book cites. I am giving you the PDT's stance. Read my post again.


They are refusing to define what is a distraction or immediate threat intentionally so the GM can do it as he pleases. ←←←←might be easier to understand


1 person marked this as a favorite.

N N 959,

You're asking the wrong question and getting a little worked up because it gets you a different answer than you want.

It's not a question of a GM saying "I arbitrarily say you are not entitled to a Take-10". That is NOT what the PDT is suggesting in this thread.

Instead, it's a question of a GM saying "This situation is dangerous and because it's dangerous, you cannot use Take-10." That last part is explicitly stated in the PRD - you cannot use Take-10 when you're in danger. The part that is up to the GM to decide is the first part: are you in danger or not?

In your scenario with the 100' cliff and no combat, winds, or external distractions, some GMs would say "Climbing is dangerous, falling can kill you, so you are definitely in danger and cannot Take-10" while other GMs would say "There's no external danger here so go ahead and Take-10."

According to the DEV comments in this thread, both GMs are correct.

(note that in neither version did the GM take away the player's entitlement to using Take-10; he merely ruled that this is a situation where, per the PRD, Take-10 cannot be used).


From the PRD - "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."

I think a big thing here-that line about 'purely a safety measure'-maybe needs a little more attention. The rule acknowledges you could and/or would otherwise fail, but can automatically NOT fail, assuming you can give all your attention to the task at hand.


DM_Blake wrote:

N N 959,

You're asking the wrong question and getting a little worked up because it gets you a different answer than you want.

I'm asking the exact question I want to ask. You've incorrectly guessed at the reason I am asking that question.

Quote:
It's not a question of a GM saying "I arbitrarily say you are not entitled to a Take-10". That is NOT what the PDT is suggesting in this thread.

And yet, that's exactly what some people are now claiming is the rule. In fact, let's look at what wraithstrike claims the PDT said,

wraithstrike wrote:
When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be.
DM_Blake wrote:
Instead, it's a question of a GM saying "This situation is dangerous and because it's dangerous, you cannot use Take-10." **** "Climbing is dangerous, falling can kill you, so you are definitely in danger and cannot Take-10"...

The rules is "immediate danger." Do you recognize that the word "immediate" creates a qualitative and substantive distinction to "danger" in general? I am in danger when I drive my car. I am in danger walking along a street. We are always "in danger" of something. We are not always in "immediate" danger.

Quote:
(note that in neither version did the GM take away the player's entitlement to using Take-10; he merely ruled that this is a situation where, per the PRD, Take-10 cannot be used).

That depends on whether I am entitled to Take 10 if there is no immediate danger or distraction, doesn't it?


wraithstrike wrote:
They are refusing to define what is a distraction or immediate threat intentionally so the GM can do it as he pleases. ←←←←might be easier to understand

But they went further than that. The made statement that was fundamentally false by claiming the "point" of Take 10 was to control pacing of the game and then they unofficially stated a GM could deny a Take 10 on the basis of tension or drama if the person fails.

wraithstrike wrote:
When taking 10 is allowed is 100% up to when the GM. He is allowed to be as consistent or inconsistent as he wants to be.

This is not the rule. The GM has always been the one that decides whether there is immediate danger or distraction. No one contested that. What you're claiming is that the GM is now not required to even be objective about it. Now you claim the PDT says a GM can be "consistent or inconsistent"???? When has any rule in the entire game "allowed" a GM to be "inconsistent"?


wraithstrike wrote:


I NEVER said what the book cites. I am giving you the PDT's stance. Read my post again.

Nor did I say you said that. I am telling you what the rules in the book say and that it does not match what you claim the PDT is saying. You said they changed the rules but the PDT cannot do that without a FAQ or Errata and they issued neither.


Chess Pwn wrote:
The rule is that it's a GM's permission and not a player right.

That is not the rule. There is no such writing in the Take 10 rules. The GM is suppose to make an objective assessment of immediate danger or distraction. If neither exists, the rule says the player my choose Take 10.


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.

The problem is not the No FAQ required, though that is annoying.

The problem is the justification. It says that a core mechanic can be ignored for the sake of drama. It implies that saves, AC, or any other inconvenient game mechanic can be safely ignored for the sake of drama.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@thorin001: +1

They said No FAQ Required, then proceeded to give guidance as if it were actually a FAQ. That guidance goes against RAW text and against SKR's recommendation.

The "Non FAQ" causes even more confusion, and thus even more need for a FAQ.

/cevah


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I NEVER said what the book cites. I am giving you the PDT's stance. Read my post again.
Nor did I say you said that. I am telling you what the rules in the book say and that it does not match what you claim the PDT is saying. [B]You said they changed the rules [/b [but the PDT cannot do that without a FAQ or Errata and they issued neither.

Citation needed


N N 959 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I NEVER said what the book cites. I am giving you the PDT's stance. Read my post again.
Nor did I say you said that. I am telling you what the rules in the book say and that it does not match what you claim the PDT is saying. You said they changed the rules but the PDT cannot do that without a FAQ or Errata and they issued neither.

Citation needed


They are not giving guidance. They are saying why they refuse to give a definite answer as to when take 10 can be used.


They didn't issue an FAQ, but they chose not to do so in a very specific way. It does seem like it should be possible to use all skills both in and out of danger. This version of take 10 would allow a GM, if she so chooses, to force you to roll anytime you climb or swim, since there is an inherent danger to either activity.

I don't like it, but in the end I am sure: 1) they wanted to maintain flexibility; and 2) realized that ANY ruling would provoke questions about one billion corner cases, so instead it is up to the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:


I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

Honestly, whatever happened to “this is your game”? No, is also an answer and when you say no a lot of people freak out. You really should sit down and contemplate on why. I think – to some part - it is the same reason why some of us has switch to 5e. PF is too complicated/bloated and “this is your game” no longer rings true.
The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

This misses the mark in such a big way.

Nothing about having clear rules prevents it from being "your game". You are free to houserule anything you like at any time.

But knowing what the rule was MEANT TO DO is NEVER a bad thing.

If you then want to use the rules as written, you can do that.

If you don't want to use the rule at all, you can do that.

If you want to change the rule, you can do that too.

Not knowing how a rule works makes it LESS your game if you're in the first category. If in your game you want to use the rules as they appear in the book...you can't, because it's unclear.

Either way it doesn't change the second two categories. It's still their game whether the rule is clarified or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

They didn't issue an FAQ, but they chose not to do so in a very specific way. It does seem like it should be possible to use all skills both in and out of danger. This version of take 10 would allow a GM, if she so chooses, to force you to roll anytime you climb or swim, since there is an inherent danger to either activity.

I don't like it, but in the end I am sure: 1) they wanted to maintain flexibility; and 2) realized that ANY ruling would provoke questions about one billion corner cases, so instead it is up to the GM.

Answering some of the questions would be better than not answering any of the questions, and all they had to do was give certain examples, and put in a blurb saying that for anything not covered it was up to the GM. As a GM it would not have entrenched on my ability to say "no you can't take 10", so I really don't buy that logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Zark wrote:


I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

Honestly, whatever happened to “this is your game”? No, is also an answer and when you say no a lot of people freak out. You really should sit down and contemplate on why. I think – to some part - it is the same reason why some of us has switch to 5e. PF is too complicated/bloated and “this is your game” no longer rings true.
The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

This misses the mark in such a big way.

Nothing about having clear rules prevents it from being "your game". You are free to houserule anything you like at any time.

But knowing what the rule was MEANT TO DO is NEVER a bad thing.

If you then want to use the rules as written, you can do that.

If you don't want to use the rule at all, you can do that.

If you want to change the rule, you can do that too.

Not knowing how a rule works makes it LESS your game if you're in the first category. If in your game you want to use the rules as they appear in the book...you can't, because it's unclear.

Either way it doesn't change the second two categories. It's still their game whether the rule is clarified or not.

I see we don’t agree and that is fine, although it’s a bit unclear if you think everything in my post “misses the mark in such a big way”.

You have received an official answer from the PDT that could easily be posted on the FAQ. Later on Stephen Radney-MacFarland has explained their stance on the matter:
“There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex […]”

They are giving the power to the GM and at the same time saying they can’t create list that covers every corner case. Would I mind a short list of examples? Perhaps not, but it would only spawn new questions. Also, I think this answer sends out an important signal when the PDT hand over more power to the GMs.

You’ve been around long enough to remember Sean K Reynold’s answer to this question when he still was a member of the PDT. He was even involved in the process of creating the 3E rules for skill checks.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.

I never said PCs automatically can eye-measure distances without error. But if you're a jumper, or an adventurer who lives his life in increments of 5 feet, you're going to develop a good sense for eye-measuring distances.

The issue we've been discussing is whether or not you can Take 10 on a jump, not whether or not a character can exactly know a distance without measuring it. As Ashiel suggested, grab a rope or a 10-foot-pole and measure it if you really need to know the exact distance.

If the player asks "how far is it?," and the GM says "about 10 feet," and the player uses Take 10 because he knows his Take 10 result gets him 11 feet, that's fine.

And if the gap was actually 12 feet and he fails to clear the gap, that's within the margin for error of eyeballing it, and that's fair.

And if the gap was actually 15 feet, the GM is being a jerk for estimating it at 10 feet; if the player knew it was closer to 15 feet, he'd know that was beyond his Take 10 result and would have to decide if he wanted to chance a roll on it.

In any case, he's still allowed to use the Take 10 rule on his jump, which is what we've been talking about. It doesn't matter if the chasm is one inch wide, 5 feet, 10 feet, 50 feet, or a million miles... if the player wants to use Take 10 on the jump, he can, even if he doesn't know that means he'll fail to span the gap, and even if he does know he'll fail to span the gap. Maybe he's trying to get into range of his wizard ally on the other side of the gap who's ready to cast feather fall on him as soon as he's in range. Maybe he's hoping to land on some spikes at the bottom of the chasm so he can have a dramatic death scene. It doesn't matter... he can use the Take 10 rule, whether rolling a 10 would save him or kill him, and whether he knows how far the distance is.

There has been an answer around from one of the PDT members since October 2012 and some people still go on about it. The answer from SKR should be enough for any GM. (In my experience, most people that scream for FAQ answers, when they already have been given a direct answer from a Dev, are players.)

Some questions are easy to answer with a yes or know, some are almost impossible, and some answers seem to create even more confusion. I guess take 10 is one of those questions where the PDT fear a FAQ will generate even more questions and confusion. Again, I’m not saying a small list has to be a bad idea, but the PDT has given us an answer and sent out a signal and it is: It’s up to the GM.

As for Paizo not giving people what they want? I still claim they don’t. So many people are still waiting for a vanilla rogue and vanilla monk that doesn’t suck; a full BAB holy warrior of any alignment; a generic dex to attack and damage feat that cuts it; killing iterative attacks or making martial classes more flexible; not forcing full casters to use crossbows when they run out of spells, etc. So no, I don’t think I miss the mark in such a big way. I don’t think Paizo lives up to “this is your game”.

I like a PF 2.0 where they have made the game more intuitive, flexible and easier to understand. A PF 2.0 where playing the game and having fun is more important that spending hours creating a new character or arguing with Devs over rulings. This is why this ruling appeals to me.


So this leads me back to my off asked question of when your allowed to actually take 10 without having to worry about variation. Since we now know "Drama" is a thing that could stop it are their any situations where one would bother even asking if you could take 10?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly. If you want to know if your gamemaster believes in player autonomy, or if he's simply a frustrated film director who believes that Art and Drama trump playability and fun, ask away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
So this leads me back to my off asked question of when your allowed to actually take 10 without having to worry about variation. Since we now know "Drama" is a thing that could stop it are their any situations where one would bother even asking if you could take 10?

Why wouldn't you ask?

What the FAQ does is clarify the lack of cases where you don't have to ask. It certainly doesn't prevent GMs from letting you Take 10.


Name some situations where T10 would be useful to use that might not have a fear of chance of failure = DRAMA might not come up.

Climb check: Depends on how high but eventually DRAMA.

Balance check: Sure if you not balancing over anything dangerous.

Swim Check: nah chance of drowning might come up.

Acrobatics: Might be the only one and thats only if the gm doesn't decide a pit trap = DRAMA

Diplomacy: Nah having a chance of pissing off the king sounds better.

Bluff: nope getting caught in a lie would be bad so its a distraction.

Perception: no go actually having to roll means you might miss something and thus DRAMA.

This choice of wording basically allows a GM to ban T10 for any reason they want with Dev team backing. I mean I guess I could take ten to jump over a pit of fluffy pillows since there is no worries about failure hurting me but not much else.

EDIT: and yes I'm taking this to an extreme. But I have seen people complain about not being able to take 10 on most skills on these boards over all kinds of "check related" reasons.


Yes, it does allow the GM to do so. It does not require the GM to do so. That's why you ask.
Preferably up front, so you know how your GM will be handling it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.


Talonhawke wrote:
What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.

True, but only relevant if all or most GMs do so.


thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.
True, but only relevant if all or most GMs do so.

Really it would be most GM's that player games with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.
True, but only relevant if all or most GMs do so.
Really it would be most GM's that player games with.

Fair enough. Players who play exclusively or almost so with GMs who don't let them use Take 10 will probably stop asking.

Until they play with another GM and see other players using it.

I don't see how that really relates to the oft asked question of are there any situations where one would even bother asking. Unless the real question is "Are there situations where it matters and you can rules lawyer the GM into letting you even though he doesn't want to?"

Which is different than just asking.


It's not about rules lawyering, its about taking a from the book skill where its stated that you want to avoid failure by using and then based on failure now being a distraction or now because the GM thinks the game doesn't have the right feel without having people fail at non-heroic task.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
It's not about rules lawyering, its about taking a from the book skill where its stated that you want to avoid failure by using and then based on failure now being a distraction or now because the GM thinks the game doesn't have the right feel without having people fail at non-heroic task.

Fine. Rules lawyering was a bad phrase.

You are talking about making the GM let you Take 10 rather than asking the GM if you can though. This FAQ makes the former a little harder but doesn't affect the latter.


The issue is that there are GM's who will take this as the DEV team saying the only take 10 is allowed by GMs at their whimsical choices about pacing and drama.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
...I mean I guess I could take ten to jump over a pit of fluffy pillows since there is no worries about failure hurting me but not much else....

But there are people who are allergic to downy pillows. These may be downy pillows. I know I am not allergic to these but my cousin breaks out something fierce. Doh, I think I am distracted yet again. DRAMA!

Talonhawke wrote:
... "why can't i T10" conversation.

All I kept thinking was I d 10T error.

-Doomn


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Forum monster ate my long post. :-( Guess I'll make a new one with slightly different content!

Long story short, it's possible that the same story can be tense or not depending on how familiar we are with the general shape. I allow taking 10 pretty broadly as a matter of consistency/predictability or the players, but there are reasonable arguments that until the characters have "similar" scenarios that they wouldn't have the confidence to take 10.

For example, when I started driving I was super nervous even driving in an empty parking lot. The DC wasn't high enough that I couldn't take 10, but I felt like I was in danger (more to the car than me, but my dad would have been mad ;-)). Now I can navigate that routinely with ease.

Likewise for highway driving. I normally do it without really thinking. But if I were to try on a highway without a seatbelt I wouldn't be able to do it calmly at first. Based on the fact that there are people who go ahead and do that all the time, I assume I'd eventually get used to it, though.

Those are situations that cause DRAMA as Talonhawke entertainingly points out. Similarly, when you encounter the 5 foot wide pit in your very first dungeon, I'd imagine it'd be scary. Unless you're wearing heavy armor, though, it's not beyond take 10 DCs. I wouldn't have a problem with the GM denying it then. On the other hand, the same dungeon with a hopping puzzle should allow taking 10 because eventually it's no longer novel. Or if it were in a place they have to go through a lot of times they could take 10 on subsequent crossings.

Similarly that cliff might be scary but not so much if you know the wizard has feather fall prepared. Or if you have a rope around your waist. Or if you think (wrongly or rightly) that it's easy enough that you couldn't fall even if you rolled a 1.

Big idea - there are reasons why even a situation that's broadly the same might be handled routinely or not and therefore get different take 10-ability.


Talonhawke wrote:
The issue is that there are GM's who will take this as the DEV team saying the only take 10 is allowed by GMs at their whimsical choices about pacing and drama.

Isn't that exactly what the DEV team said? That take 10 is completely controlled by the GM of whether you can do it or not?


Not precisly they don't mean a GM can say no to taking 10 to jump over a 5ft rug in your house that you playfully leap over everyday. Without anything changint that is a T10 Issue.


Talonhawke wrote:
Not precisly they don't mean a GM can say no to taking 10 to jump over a 5ft rug in your house that you playfully leap over everyday. Without anything changint that is a T10 Issue.

I'm pretty sure that the GM can say you can't take 10 on that with this DEV statement. If the GM felt it would be better for you to roll then he can stop allowing you to take 10.


And that's the issue I don't believe for a second the Dev team meant for GM's to have blanket T10 Immunity. If that was the point then just say it. As is we went from having some kind of breakdown on what allows it to now anytime for any reason a GM can just say nope.

It might be that the party is progressing to fast, or maybe he feels that failing is to big of a distraction.

The only silver lining from this is at least Rogues with Skill mastery should be safe and can now shine on those skills. Wait no now we have a new question.

New question will start a new thread if needed. "Does skill mastery allow the character to Take 10 regardless or Can a GM still claim DRAMA and prevent the usage?"

351 to 400 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