Taking 10: Immediate dangers and distractions


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

77 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems that different people have different ideas on what counts as immediate dangers and distractions that would make taking 10 not possible. I understand that every possible case can not be listed, but I think the following list can be answered and if possible we would like a good rule of thumb to follow.

Do the following prevent taking 10 while not in combat?

Swimming

climbing

Perception (to locate a trap)

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

Disable device (disarm a trap)


From what the PRD says, only when not in combat or anything that requires a concentration or caster level check. There might be penalties while doing something strenuous, like non-routine climbing and swimming, but that's mostly GM discretion. Locating a trap or enemy via take 10 would make more sense as a passive activity, ie. the GM determines if you detect it when not actively searching for one.

Disable Device is probably up to you and mostly for simple traps that are not an immediate distraction themselves unless you screw it up. You'll have some idea of the DC and your skill but there may be unknown factors that reduce your skill or increase the DC without your knowledge (like magic).


We're not talking about concentration or caster level checks, but the actual skill checks.

For example-- climbing has a danger that you could fall. Does this prevent taking 10 on your Climb check? The same for swimming.


Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

My argument for no on this one is two fold.

On a practical matter, its kind of odd to say that you're not in immediate danger when the monster in the dark is drooling over you, ready to pounce, wondering if you'll go better with red wine or white.

"But I'm not in immediate danger!.

Glowing eyes and gleaming teeth begin to drool from the ceiling

"Why is it raining down here?"

From a technical standpoint

Order of combat:
1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.

3. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat.

4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).

5. When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.

You start combat, then you make the perception check. Making a perception check to spot an enemy while out of combat is technically a contradiction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jhan in other threads some have argued that you can not take 10 at all in the above situations. Potentially failing does not stop you from taking 10.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

My argument for no on this one is two fold.

On a practical matter, its kind of odd to say that you're not in immediate danger when the monster in the dark is drooling over you, ready to pounce, wondering if you'll go better with red wine or white.

"But I'm not in immediate danger!

Not all that odd. So far as the character knows, he isn't in any immediate danger. He has no stress or distraction that would prevent him from maintaining an average level of altertness.

This particular side point really boils down to whether or not "immediate danger" is from the character's point of view-- i.e., the character is intensely aware of the monster five feet away and that's a distraction to him, or is unaware of the monster so he proceeds as normal-- or if it's a meta-construct that is applicable regardless of what the character himself is aware of; that is to say if a juggling PC is no longer able to take 10 on his juggling check because there are goblins down the road that he failed to spot.


I dont think something that you dont know about is preventing anything, but we will find out when this gets answered. :)


kestral287 wrote:

Not all that odd. So far as the character knows, he isn't in any immediate danger. He has no stress or distraction that would prevent him from maintaining an average level of altertness.

This particular side point really boils down to whether or not "immediate danger" is from the character's point of view-- i.e., the character is intensely aware of the monster five feet away and that's a distraction to him, or is unaware of the monster so he proceeds as normal-- or if it's a meta-construct that is applicable regardless of what the character himself is aware of; that is to say if a juggling PC is no longer able to take 10 on his juggling check because there are goblins down the road that he failed to spot.

Yep. The character could be wrong but they wouldn't know that until after the fact.

In 3.5, concentration checks were required for skill usage that could result in an AoO. If they're caught flat-footed then the Take 10 obviously didn't happen. They would require a concentration check because of the AoO (modified by damage) and then roll the skill check (since the Take 10 was interrupted).


Because taking 10 is something the PLAYER does. Not something the character does. Whether the character knows about the teeth that climb is irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take 10 is related to the current status of the PC in a way that should make sense.

If that PC is distracted or threatened, then that PC is unable to automatically succeed at routine tasks. Why? Because the PC is distracted. This is presented to the player by not allowing a 'take 10' skill check.

To argue that a PC can't succeed at a routine task because there is an undetectable, invisible rogue following that PC, ready to strike at any moment is ludicrous.

Quite literally, EVERY PC could in theory have an undetectable, invisible rogue following them around, ready to strike under a particular circumstance, at any given time. If the PC is unaware of that rogue, real or not, it should have no effect on the ability to automatically succeed at routine tasks.

To argue otherwise strains the credibility of the game world.


This question could also apply to many other skills too, such as:

Acrobatics:
Balancing over a chasm of fire. If you slip, you may fall to your death!

Knowledge checks:
Your party is about to push their way through some highly poisonous undergrowth. Take 10 on knowledge(nature)?

Handle Animal:
Hey, getting kicked by a horse is no laughing matter.

Bluff:
If that mean Dragon doesn't believe you didn't steal his treasure, things may very quickly get painful!

Heal:
Yeah, you know that highly infectious and deadly disease you were trying to treat? Better hope you don't mess up.

even Appraise (although this could be a knowledge check):
Indiana Jones, are you sure that's the right cup?

------------------------

The fact is, most skill uses have consequences, and when you're an adventurer many of these consequences can easily be classified as immediately dangerous.
Thus, some clarification would really be helpful, if only a general guidance.


Ozy wrote:
Take 10 is related to the current status of the PC in a way that should make sense.

Ok, lets go with that. How does one walking through a dark dungeon take 10 as opposed to roll 1d20 for their perception checks? What does the character do differently?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Consequences of failure never have an effect on one's ability to Take 10.

That's Take 20.


The character doesn't pay as close attention to his surroundings, so noticing any particular stimulus in that case is more open to luck. He's chatting with his buddies, digging through his bag, daydreaming about that pretty half-orc waitress back at the tavern, any number of things that are personally distracting him from being aware of what's going on.

It could be a whole host of random activities that are typically not roleplayed in detail.

The characters that are 'taking 10' are spending a 'normal and routine' amount of attention to their surroundings. They are more focussed and less distracted.


You've equated rolling with doing it badly, and don't have any mechanism for why someone rolling has a 50 50 chance of doing a better job by NOT paying attention to their surroundings and dreaming about barmaids.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure never have an effect on one's ability to Take 10.

That's Take 20.

You're taking things out of context.

You can't take 20 if there's a "consequence of failure" because you need to be able to repeat the task until you succeed.

However, the question in this thread, is whether the "consequence of failure" can be enough of an immediate danger to prevent the taking of 10.

Two different things, even if they're both related to skills.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You've equated rolling with doing it badly, and don't have any mechanism for why someone rolling has a 50 50 chance of doing a better job by NOT paying attention to their surroundings and dreaming about barmaids.

Dude, not at all. I simply imposed an internal distraction instead of the external distraction that THE RULES use to impose a roll. It's the same mechanism.

The game itself says that a person who is threatened by combat or distracted by danger has a 50/50 chance of performing a skill _better_ than a routine skill check. Whatever mechanism you care to invoke to explain that also explains the effects of internal distractions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ozy wrote:
Take 10 is related to the current status of the PC in a way that should make sense.

Ok, lets go with that. How does one walking through a dark dungeon take 10 as opposed to roll 1d20 for their perception checks? What does the character do differently?

They do the task the same way. Taking 10 is a rule that saves real life time if the player thinks the check won't be difficult. It does not mean you come up with some new procedure based on how muchtiem you have. Also we are not our characters. I for one, can not pick a lock so I would have no way to tell you how my rogue/slayer/etc is doing it. Rolling the dice is forced on the player/PC when the character has some pressure on him. If you(PC) are about to be shanked by an unknown assailant the PC is still not under any pressure because he has no idea that attacker is there.

Now of course that brings us around to what counts as the type of pressure to prevent taking 10. Well you making a mistake(not rolling high enough) does not count otherwise many skills could reasonably deny taking 10, such as climbing. I would say as a general rule there has to be a known outside source threatening you or distraction that makes you not be able to take 10.

Example: You spot goblins 300 feet away. That will not stop your initial take 10 check to notice them, and it will not stop your climb check to climb a nearby tree. Those goblins are not an immediate threat or danger. Now if you notice a bear is charging you, "right now", then you should not be able to take 10 while climbing that tree.
Another example would be the ground around you shaking, and you realizing an earthquake is going on. That would also call for you to not be able to take 10 on a skill.

edit: I see I missed some post. Carry on. :)


Byakko wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure never have an effect on one's ability to Take 10.

That's Take 20.

You're taking things out of context.

You can't take 20 if there's a "consequence of failure" because you need to be able to repeat the task until you succeed.

However, the question in this thread, is whether the "consequence of failure" can be enough of an immediate danger to prevent the taking of 10.

Two different things, even if they're both related to skills.

What I am really asking for are the yes or no answers to specific questions, and some guidelines for other cases so a GM will know what counts as a distraction or threat.

It just so happens that when the answer is given to some of these questions it help in any future cases where someone is denied taking 10 due to the bad things that can happen if they fail.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Byakko wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure never have an effect on one's ability to Take 10.

That's Take 20.

You're taking things out of context.

You can't take 20 if there's a "consequence of failure" because you need to be able to repeat the task until you succeed.

However, the question in this thread, is whether the "consequence of failure" can be enough of an immediate danger to prevent the taking of 10.

Two different things, even if they're both related to skills.

No. I am not taking it out of context.

Taking 10 to sneak past a mouse, or sneak past a sleeping dragon, is the thing, in regards to the rules.

Avoiding the consequences of failure is one reason one might Take 10, but Taking 10 does not guarantee it. PCs don't know the DC, or opposed roll.

So, I assert, as is within the rules, the consequences of failure never have an effect on one's ability to Take 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
How does one walking through a dark dungeon take 10 as opposed to roll 1d20 for their perception checks? What does the character do differently?

Taking 10 generally means doing something in a relaxed way, using the power of your unconscious mind.

When an experienced driver drives down a normal road, they're taking ten. They're not utterly focused on trying to drive perfectly - they're just letting their instincts take over. In game terms, they're not going to miss a DC 5 check one time in twenty when their driving skill is 3, because then crashes would happen constantly.
If there was someone in the back of the car holding a gun to your head, you'd be distracted, unable to relax, and you might fail that 'easy' drive skill check.

Rolling a d20 for perception checks when you're looking for ambushes implies a slightly paranoid attempt to search for danger in every possible hiding spot. You might see things earlier, or you might miss the guy in the bushes right in front of you because you're looking up in the trees.

Taking 10 implies a more zen approach where you just take in your surroundings and rely on your instincts to draw your attention to anything dangerous.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I need to repeat.

Take 10 is not a guaranteed success.

PCs don't know the DCs and opposed rolls.

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

Take 10, is not Take 20.

To quote:

PRD 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.

Again:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I need to repeat.

Take 10 is not a guaranteed success.

PCs don't know the DCs and opposed rolls.

If the DC is easy, taking 10 IS effectively a guaranteed success.

There are many situations where PCs have a very good idea (or near perfect knowledge) of what the DCs involved are. For example, anyone with decent knowledge of the rules is going to take 10 when climbing a knotted rope.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

Take 10, is not Take 20.

To quote:

PRD 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.

Again:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your conclusion. I also believe you can take 10 while climbing over a spiked pit and the like, barring other distractions.

However there are corner cases, such as perception checks to determine surprise in combat, which makes this a perfectly valid question to seek clarification on.


PRD 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,

A risk of failure from its own action cannot prevent you from taking 10. That is the entire point of taking 10. It might prevent you from taking 10 on another skill though.

So if you are clinging to a wall 50' up you can take 10 on your climb check, but you cannot then take 10 on that knowledge check to ID that flying thing coming towards you.
If you did take 10 on the knowledge check that's enough of a distraction that you are no longer taking 10 on your next climb check.


dragonhunterq wrote:
PRD 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,

A risk of failure from its own action cannot prevent you from taking 10. That is the entire point of taking 10. It might prevent you from taking 10 on another skill though.

So if you are clinging to a wall 50' up you can take 10 on your climb check, but you cannot then take 10 on that knowledge check to ID that flying thing coming towards you.
If you did take 10 on the knowledge check that's enough of a distraction that you are no longer taking 10 on your next climb check.

I disagree with the knowledge check example. It could just be an eagle. Not every thing you meet in the game is trying to kill you. Even if it is identified as a normally hostile creature that does not mean it intends to make you into lunch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

It's usually the entire reason that I want to take 10 at least. If a particularly bad roll means that I fail a relatively simple task, and there's no benefit to a particularly high roll, then that is exactly the sort of roll that take 10 was intended to be used for.

But try convincing some GMs of that. I know that I sometimes want to have my characters be good enough at a skill that I can "take 1" and still succeed, just to avoid the next argument of why I should be able to take 10 to jump that 6' gap with my remotely-competent Acrobatics skill without having to accept a 5 or 10 percent chance to fall in and die.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
ZanThrax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

It's usually the entire reason that I want to take 10 at least. If a particularly bad roll means that I fail a relatively simple task, and there's no benefit to a particularly high roll, then that is exactly the sort of roll that take 10 was intended to be used for.

But try convincing some GMs of that. I know that I sometimes want to have my characters be good enough at a skill that I can "take 1" and still succeed, just to avoid the next argument of why I should be able to take 10 to jump that 6' gap with my remotely-competent Acrobatics skill without having to accept a 5 or 10 percent chance to fall in and die.

Are you, angrily agreeing with me?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

It's usually the entire reason that I want to take 10 at least. If a particularly bad roll means that I fail a relatively simple task, and there's no benefit to a particularly high roll, then that is exactly the sort of roll that take 10 was intended to be used for.

But try convincing some GMs of that. I know that I sometimes want to have my characters be good enough at a skill that I can "take 1" and still succeed, just to avoid the next argument of why I should be able to take 10 to jump that 6' gap with my remotely-competent Acrobatics skill without having to accept a 5 or 10 percent chance to fall in and die.

Are you, angrily agreeing with me?

I think he is and the things he describe are the things I am trying to stop. I will be sure to bump this tomorrow(later today) to get more FAQ's.

Some will just keep doing it the old way, but hopefully there will be less "this is the rules" to try to back it up.


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. You won't make every check but you'll make a lot more of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

It's usually the entire reason that I want to take 10 at least. If a particularly bad roll means that I fail a relatively simple task, and there's no benefit to a particularly high roll, then that is exactly the sort of roll that take 10 was intended to be used for.

But try convincing some GMs of that. I know that I sometimes want to have my characters be good enough at a skill that I can "take 1" and still succeed, just to avoid the next argument of why I should be able to take 10 to jump that 6' gap with my remotely-competent Acrobatics skill without having to accept a 5 or 10 percent chance to fall in and die.

Are you, angrily agreeing with me?

Don't worry, BBT, it surprises me as well.


Matthew Downie wrote:


That's far from certain.

No. No it is not. Making A check is far from certain. Increasing your odds of making more checks is a certainty. There's a difference between the two that you're not accounting for.

Quote:
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.

When are you ever ambushed by A goblin? Run the numbers again with 2 or more likely 4 goblins.

Quote:
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.

For someone with a higher than average bonus expected for a level...

a +7 is not higher than expected for any level.

Quote:
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.

Its not a matter of you making or failing A check. Its about how many checks you'll make. DCs are not random. They're level appropriate. There's a bell curve to them. You usually get a dc that the skill monkey can make on a 10. You rarely get one they can make on a 5, and even more rarely you get one that they need an 18+ to get. Taking 10 means you make all of the first and second but none of the third... but since the third are both rarer AND you probably wouldn't have made it anyway you pick up a net advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No most skill check DCs in fact are not level approriate. They are supposed to at least be indication how hard what ever it is that they are trying to do. I absolutely loathe the GMs who just look at what you rolled at the dice Diplomancy roll 5+97, thought process goes well the total is 102 but they just rolled 5 so I will act this out as they spit NPC in the face. Got off on a bit of tangent there but anyways only skill checks that scale acording to level are opposed ones, that is hardly all or even majority of skills.(some skills fall in both like knowledge)

And good rule of thumb is when the mental gymnastics start why you can't take 10 even in a minor fashion, you are able to take 10. Some people just do not like the fact that you can put in average effort so they conciously or not try to read the rules regarding that in a light that would be most acording to their view of how things should be, this is in my experience at least true for pretty much all rules, I fall into it from time to time I suppose it is somewhat part of human nature.

As to the original questions:

Quote:


Do the following prevent taking 10 while not in combat?

Swimming

climbing

Perception (to locate a trap)

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

Disable device (disarm a trap)

1) Nope, you can take 10. Though do note special rule regarding stormy water that spesifically prohibits this. Wich in itself implies that normally you can.

2) Climbing is pretty much the same excat thing as swimming just drowning versus falling. Consequences of failure are not enough to prevent taking 10.

3) Perfectly fine to take 10. It is routine operation to take 10 in dangerous areas when moving along and start making actual checks when an area that is spesially suspicious comes along.

4) Most likely yes, I suppose there might be some corner case that it is not possible. But the simplest scenario of say a guard standing and someone tryingto sneak past, it is in fact most likely that the guard is just taking 10 all the time unless something suspicious happens.

5) Yes, though some traps might be distracting in themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

Take 10, is not Take 20.

That is not true. See this example in the 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.

So of your failures have nasty consequences you can't take 10.


Rikkan wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

Take 10, is not Take 20.

That is not true. See this example in the 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.

So of your failures have nasty consequences you can't take 10.

Distracting is the key word here. You can't take 10 when distracted. The FAQ says that Contact Other Plane is distracting. The rest of it is superfluous (and should probably not have been included since it's being used to argue that Take 10 is basically useless).


Bigger Club wrote:
No most skill check DCs in fact are not level approriate. They are supposed to at least be indication how hard what ever it is that they are trying to do.

Thats not mutually exclusive. In fact they're the same thing. The level 1 rogue is picking locks from the kobold discount bin. The level 5 rogue is picking the work of a master smith, the level 10 rogue is picking picking the work of the ancients, and the level 20 rogue is picking locks on the vault of abadar. Those are the story appropriate challanges that determine the DC.

The level 5 sailor is crossing streams and the occasional rough sea. The level 20 sailor is backstroking counter clockwise in a maelstrom.

Quote:
I absolutely loathe the GMs who just look at what you rolled at the dice Diplomancy roll 5+97, thought process goes well the total is 102 but they just rolled 5 so I will act this out as they spit NPC in the face. Got off on a bit of tangent there

Complete, total, and utter non sequitur.

Quote:
And good rule of thumb is when the mental gymnastics start why you can't take 10 even in a minor fashion, you are able to take 10. Some people just do not like the fact that you can put in average effort so they conciously or not try to read the rules regarding that in a light that would be most acording to their view of how things should be, this is in my experience at least true for pretty much all rules, I fall into it from time to time I suppose it is somewhat part of human nature.

And a double secret probation ad hom.

The thing is sitting in the dark, drooling on you. How that doesn't constitute immediate danger is beyond me. When you can explain that you can accuse me of using mental gymnastics to reach a goal, and THEN you can explain why my goal is to screw over the players when I wind up with fewer surprise rounds than any DM I know.

You cannot accuse someone of mental gymnastics while cartwheeling into the next room and complaining about dms only using your die roll.


The basics of the argument seem to be, you can only be distracted by a consequence you know about.
If you don't know about it, by definition it cannot distract you because it doesn't exist in your world.

So, the monster in ambush, cannot distract you from taking 10 because until you notice it (after a successful perception check, which you could take 10 on).

Once you notice it, we are in a surprise (or not, if everyone noticed it) round. At that point, no more taking 10.

But the roll to see if you spot the ambush has to be made before the distractions, since the only distraction you are using to justify NOT taking ten is the ambush itself.

Before the monster jumps out, yes you can take 10, even if it is 5ft from you. The monster jumping out is it's first action in the surprise round, after you have failed to see it. Now, most people let the monster jump out for free, then roll initiative, which is why this argument is going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either that, or people can use juggling as a perfect ambush detector.

I dropped the ball! Careful guys, we are in immediate danger.


By the logic of any who thinks you cannot take 10 in a reactive perception check to determine member of a surprise round, if a meteor were heading towards the planet that would lead to the inevitable destruction of the populace; no one on said planet would be able to Take 10 ever whether they know about the meteor or not, because they a threatened.

You are not threatened or distracted under you can see or hear the threat; the way to determine whether you hear or see such a threat is perception checks. Thus, until after the perception checks take place, taking 10 seems pretty unambiguously okay, to the point where I doubt we'll get an FAQ, but it'd be nice to see to end such silly discussions.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Either that, or people can use juggling as a perfect ambush detector.

I dropped the ball! Careful guys, we are in immediate danger.

Or you can beat the player over the head with the core rulebook for meta-gaming.

Its exactly like your character saying "I think there's an ambush ahead!"

"Whys that?"

"I have a sudden firmness about my position in reality! My mini has just been placed on the map!"

Even the best juggler if juggling for 8 hours is going to drop the ball sometime. The character can't read anything into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I need to repeat.

Take 10 is not a guaranteed success.

PCs don't know the DCs and opposed rolls.

If the DC is easy, taking 10 IS effectively a guaranteed success.

There are many situations where PCs have a very good idea (or near perfect knowledge) of what the DCs involved are. For example, anyone with decent knowledge of the rules is going to take 10 when climbing a knotted rope.

But characters don't know about DCs and don't have "decent knowledge of the rules". Players do. Also, characters don't decide to take 10. Players do. It's a rule made to save time to players, and also to avoid stupidity, like doctors killing 5% of their patients with the wrong drug because they roll 1 once each 20 rolls


Even conceding the silly idea, it still wouldn't help. In play it would just go:
GM: Roll your juggle this round. Also, roll a Perception check.
Juggling Player: I fail the juggle roll, dropping a ball, and I fail the perception check. Still I know we're in danger because otherwise I wouldn't have had to roll.
Other player: Made the perception check!
GM: You see the dozen goblins hidden in the bushes as they leap to attack! You can act in the surprise round. Sorry juggler, as you realize something's up and are looking around to see what it is, they attack.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

My argument for no on this one is two fold.

On a practical matter, its kind of odd to say that you're not in immediate danger when the monster in the dark is drooling over you, ready to pounce, wondering if you'll go better with red wine or white.

"But I'm not in immediate danger!.

Glowing eyes and gleaming teeth begin to drool from the ceiling

"Why is it raining down here?"

From a technical standpoint

** spoiler omitted **

You start combat, then you make the perception check. Making a perception check to spot an enemy while out of combat is technically a contradiction.

About your spoiler tag:

You roll perception long before the combat starts. In fact, if you are perceptive enough, you could locate the hiding dude even before you are in range of combat (you could hear him hiding in the next room, if you beat the hide roll high enough to overcome the penalty for distance and the wall). You could even decide to take a different approach, instead of initiating combat

The opposed roll for surprise is before combat. In fact, it's the outcome of that roll what initiates combat. For example, you are sneaking in the forest. Some spider is hiding in the trees, trying to ambush you. Is PERFECTLY possible that you miss your perception roll, AND the spider miss his perception roll too, so no combat is started. IF one of you makes the roll, there's a surprise round, and IF both of you make the roll, there's a normal round.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Either that, or people can use juggling as a perfect ambush detector.

I dropped the ball! Careful guys, we are in immediate danger.

Or you can beat the player over the head with the core rulebook for meta-gaming.

Its exactly like your character saying "I think there's an ambush ahead!"

"Whys that?"

"I have a sudden firmness about my position in reality! My mini has just been placed on the map!"

Even the best juggler if juggling for 8 hours is going to drop the ball sometime. The character can't read anything into it.

The player isn't metagaming, the DM is by enforcing the 'no take 10' even when the PC has no idea it is being threatened.

The only thing you need to do to avoid such ridiculous situations is apply the extremely common sense idea that you can't take 10 when you are in 'knowingly threatening' situations.

Let's say that an illusionary dragon is swooping down at my PC. An illusion that offers ZERO threat to the PC, maybe he accidentally stumbled into an illusionists exhibition. Should the PC be able to take 10 because he's not being actually threatened, or is he prevented because he THINKS he is being threatened?

If my PC is hiking through a jungle, can he never take 10 because some of the mosquitoes might be carrying a deadly disease? If he's unknowingly walking down the road next to an ill-tempered horse, can he not take 10 because the horse might, at any moment, lash out and kick him? Even if he's not aware of the animal's disposition?

There are all sorts of crazy situations that develop if you adjudicate the rules as you suggest. All of these crazy situations disappear if you allow take 10s when the PC does not perceive any threat or distraction.


gustavo iglesias wrote:


You roll perception long before the combat starts.

Citation required.


thejeff wrote:

Even conceding the silly idea, it still wouldn't help. In play it would just go:

GM: Roll your juggle this round. Also, roll a Perception check.
Juggling Player: I fail the juggle roll, dropping a ball, and I fail the perception check. Still I know we're in danger because otherwise I wouldn't have had to roll.
Other player: Made the perception check!
GM: You see the dozen goblins hidden in the bushes as they leap to attack! You can act in the surprise round. Sorry juggler, as you realize something's up and are looking around to see what it is, they attack.

Except why weren't those perception rolls made 100' away, or 200' away?

That's what really bugs me about these situations, it's always 'roll your perception' as the ambush occurs.

If my players has a perception bonus that is 10 higher than everyone else in the party, then I should, on average, perceive an ambush 100' before anyone else.

And yet, the way everyone seems to play it is to ignore distance, and not allow perception rolls until the ambush is actually sprung, i.e. 'roll for surprise'.

Since the DC changes every 10 feet, people who insist that perception must be rolled should allow rolls 200' away, 190' away, 180' away, 170' away, and so on as the difficulty changes each time.


I have some other examples I'd like to ask for a FAQ too.

Lockpicking a box.
Lockpicking a box that has an invisible trap, unknown to you.
Lockpicking a box that happen to be Pandora's box, but you don't know it.
Lockpicking a box in front of the king's court
Lockpicking a box in front of the king's court, being executed if you fail-
Lockpicking a box in front of the king's court, unknowing that you'll be executed if you fail.
Lockpicking a box in front of the king's court, with a bunch of ninjas ambusing in the ceiling, ready to strike you as soon as you open it, but you haven't realized yet.

Should the player be able to take 10 in those situations?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ozy wrote:
The player isn't metagaming, the DM is by enforcing the 'no take 10' even when the PC has no idea it is being threatened.

Taking 10 is the players choice. The player is being prevented from taking 10. The character has no idea he's being threatened. the character is not being prevented from taking 10. Nothing has crossed the player character boundary. There is no meta-gaming.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


You roll perception long before the combat starts.
Citation required.

Perception DC is -1 per 10'.

If I get to roll perception 30' away to see the hidden goblins, then I get to make that same check 130' away at -10, or 230' away at -20

The citation is the text of the perception skill. Distance modifiers exist for a reason.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ozy wrote:
The player isn't metagaming, the DM is by enforcing the 'no take 10' even when the PC has no idea it is being threatened.
Taking 10 is the players choice. The player is being prevented from taking 10. The character has no idea he's being threatened. the character is not being prevented from taking 10. Nothing has crossed the player character boundary. There is no meta-gaming.

The DM is metagaming the rules. Actually, I take that back. The DM is just incorrect about the rules.

1 to 50 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