|
I find others at my tables often posing the question "can I take 10/20?" As of late, I hear myself asking the GM, too, because that's the environment I play in. More often than not, the GM simply says no--without any apparent reason other than they dislike/misunderstand the rules. Even after the results are known most of the time it becomes even more apparent that the situation didn't have anything that would have prohibited take 10/20.
In case it's not obvious, this question is specifically for PFS because of its variable GM nature.
So is this a problem in others' areas, or is it just me?
|
|
It depends on the check, locally most of us have adopted the stance that you are always taking 10 on perception unless you ask for a specific check or there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. threatened or in danger, etc.). This is to approximate how perceptive someone is naturally (you don't turn off your sense just cause you are walking down a hallway)
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
And sometimes you can and they still say no, that's the point of this discussion.Sometimes you can't take 10, or take 20.
If you can't ask the GM, how else are you supposed to find out if you can?
Can you provide some examples of where you believe you should have been able to Take 10 or Take 20, but the GM did not allow you to do so?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Locally the option isn't well known or used.
Not many people know the rules for it, and some of the rules are more than a little open to interpretation.
Whoever says "I'm not in immediate danger" is the first one the monster eats though. Law of the horror movie, sorry.
|
|
Can you provide some examples of where you believe you should have been able to Take 10 or Take 20, but the GM did not allow you to do so?And sometimes you can and they still say no, that's the point of this discussion.Sometimes you can't take 10, or take 20.
If you can't ask the GM, how else are you supposed to find out if you can?
Searching a room after we killed the guy in it (also the last guy in the entire scenario but we didn't know that at the time).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Searching a room after we killed the guy in it (also the last guy in the entire scenario but we didn't know that at the time).Can you provide some examples of where you believe you should have been able to Take 10 or Take 20, but the GM did not allow you to do so?And sometimes you can and they still say no, that's the point of this discussion.Sometimes you can't take 10, or take 20.
If you can't ask the GM, how else are you supposed to find out if you can?
Well, I can't imagine why your GM would say you couldn't Take 10. And, the only reason he could use (in that case) to say that you couldn't Take 20 would be if it carried some penalty for failure (but I think he'd better have a pretty good argument for that one) - you either see something or you don't.
So, in what you've presented, I don't see why it wasn't allowed.
|
If I ever say that one cannot take 10 or take 20, I always give a reason for it.
- Can't take 20 because it is something in the moment, not one lasting a minute.
- Can't take 10 because you can't take 10 to aid another.
- Can't take 10 because you're getting sneak attacked in the kidneys by the velociraptor rogue in the Mwangi tallgrass. *drops bucket of dice*
You know, things like that.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I think a lot of GMs do it so players don't autosucceed DC 15 to 20 challenges.
Yes. That is the primary issue. Some GMs can't stand the thought of an auto-success even if the rules say its okay. These same GMs may rule that a 1 is an auto-fail on a skill check even if the rules say it isn't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I run into is how broadly some GMs define "not in immediate danger or distracted."
GM: You come across a 10 foot gap in the corridor.
Me: I take 10 to leap across.
GM: You can't.
Me: Why not? I'm not distracted and there aren't any threats around.
GM: The pit itself is a threat. If you fall in you'll take damage.
Me: But that's just a penalty to failure, that makes it impossible to take 20. The rule is referring to external threats, like if a goblin was on the other side shooting at me. If we were in an encounter I could see not being able to take 10.
GM: The pit has a CR in the adventure, so trying to get across it is an encounter. Therefore, no taking 10.
Me: It has a CR because if we were in an encounter, it would contribute to the difficulty because an enemy could bull rush me into it or it could make it difficult to engage the enemy in melee, not that it is an encounter by itself.
GM: Nope, it's an encounter by itself because it has a CR. No taking 10.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not really. If you're good enough to routinely clear a 10' pit, you should be able to routinely clear a 10' pit. I mean, that's what the words MEAN.
|
|
A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)
When you say "the interpretation" which interpretation are you referring to?
|
|
When you say "the interpretation" which interpretation are you referring to?A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)
Sorry, thought nosig would be here already :)
_____
My counter argument to that would be...
There's a park nearby with a lot of 5 foot gaps in between the stones and 20 foot + drops. You really can just step accross them. But every year people wind up falling down da hoooole because people DON"T perform when there's danger the same way they do when there's a nice safe tape on the ground. The adrenaline kicks in and people do reaally stupid things like second guesse themselves and stop at the wrong time, or look down when they should be looking ahead. Its not rational but it IS human nature and is reality.
And without having read the post thats probably what a lot of DMs are going with, because thats what the text says and they see in their lives. its MUCH easier to perform when there's no pressure.
One way to interpret it is "not in any immediate danger from the act and one is "not in any immediate danger from anything but the act. SKR's post says the the latter. The FAQ about contacting another plane leans towards the former.
You know now i really want to set up a double dare style obstacle course with foam blocks at gen con to test this...
|
|
The trouble is, the game breaks each challenge down into a discrete event with no effect on or from other events, and real life doesn't work that way. Jumping over a 3' piece of tape is much easier than jumping over a 3' chasm, despite the physics being the same - because our abilities do not depend only on physics. SKR's suggestion is in line with his philosophy of hand-waving the non-adventurous stuff (which I agree with for everything outside PFS).
I generally don't allow taking ten on a jump check over a hazard because of this. In PFS, if an encounter has a CR, then it counts for the "complete 3 encounters to get the XP" rule. So, I feel that there should be some effort to do that, even if it is a minor check.
In other cases, I do assume all PCs are taking ten on Perception (the "passive Perception" concept was one element I really liked from 4E). However, when it's a complicated situation like enemies hiding, distance modifiers, and other things all at once, I just call for a check, and people can take ten if they want.
Taking 20 is well-defined in the CRB, and they use Perception as a specific example of what you CAN use it for, given the time.
|
|
When you say "the interpretation" which interpretation are you referring to?A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)
Sorry, thought nosig would be here already :)
_____
My counter argument to that would be...
There's a park nearby with a lot of 5 foot gaps in between the stones and 20 foot + drops. You really can just step accross them. But every year people wind up falling down da hoooole because people DON"T perform when there's danger the same way they do when there's a nice safe tape on the ground. The adrenaline kicks in and people do reaally stupid things like second guesse themselves and stop at the wrong time, or look down when they should be looking ahead. Its not rational but it IS human nature and is reality.
And without having read the post thats probably what a lot of DMs are going...
Let's Caveat this: Real life really shouldn't be used in game rule/interpretation arguments, because the rule really dont follow real world physics.the rules are largely an Abstract that roughly represents the real world, enough so in most cases, that our verisimilitude is not broken when dealing with magic and dragons.
(Yes I know SKR gave a real life example)
But to riff off both SKR and BNW using game rule jargon, I would say that folks who fall in the hole in BNWs example, largely fall because they are trying to jump across the stones quickly (and mimic American Ninja Warrior) and thus can't take 10 because they are trying to be special and awesome and get the -5 balance checks for moving normal speed instead of half speed. So they choose to roll the dice. While an average person being careful can take 10 and make it all day, because they are taking care and not pushing the limits of their capabilities.
|
|
The trouble is, the game breaks each challenge down into a discrete event with no effect on or from other events, and real life doesn't work that way. Jumping over a 3' piece of tape is much easier than jumping over a 3' chasm, despite the physics being the same - because our abilities do not depend only on physics. SKR's suggestion is in line with his philosophy of hand-waving the non-adventurous stuff (which I agree with for everything outside PFS).
I generally don't allow taking ten on a jump check over a hazard because of this. In PFS, if an encounter has a CR, then it counts for the "complete 3 encounters to get the XP" rule. So, I feel that there should be some effort to do that, even if it is a minor check.
In other cases, I do assume all PCs are taking ten on Perception (the "passive Perception" concept was one element I really liked from 4E). However, when it's a complicated situation like enemies hiding, distance modifiers, and other things all at once, I just call for a check, and people can take ten if they want.
Taking 20 is well-defined in the CRB, and they use Perception as a specific example of what you CAN use it for, given the time.
Except for, danger does not create distraction by game rule. This is where comparisons to real life breaks down with an abstract designed to loosely represent real life.
Your interpretation here strictly goes against RAW and RAI.
|
|
See, those responses made me go back and check the rule. Here is the entirety of the Take 10 rule from the PRD:
Taking 10 and Taking 20
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success.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 can see how people would interpret the first line to allow taking 10 on a jump check. ("When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. ")
Are you both saying you can't see how I can interpret "immediate danger" as "danger of falling into the pit"? I'm not surprised you rule differently, but I am surprised that neither of you can see any possibility of another interpretation.
|
|
The counter argument is that is "penalty for failure", which is additionally called out in the take 20 rules, but absent for the take 10. The penalty for failure in jumping over the pit is falling into the pit.
You have to admit its a might strange to be leaping over a 100 foot drop, over lava, with electrified magma sharks circling below and say "Nope.. no immediate danger there"...
|
|
The counter argument is that is "penalty for failure", which is additionally called out in the take 20 rules, but absent for the take 10. The penalty for failure in jumping over the pit is falling into the pit.You have to admit its a might strange to be leaping over a 100 foot drop, over lava, with electrified magma sharks circling below and say "Nope.. no immediate danger there"...
No immediate external danger. To me that is the difference. I think the rule is referring only to dangers external to the hazard itself. Otherwise "penalty for failure" in the take 20 rules is redundant.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
For example, Krusk the barbarian has a Climb skill modifier of +6 (4 ranks, +3 Strength modifier, –1 penalty for wearing studded leather armor). The steep, rocky slope he’s climbing has a Climb DC of 10. With a little care, he can take 10 and succeed automatically. But partway up the slope, a goblin scout begins pelting him with sling stones. Krusk needs to make a Climb check to get up to the
goblin, and this time he can’t simply take 10. If his player rolls 4 or
higher on 1d20, he succeeds.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Interpretation is the issue. If you try hard enough, you can apply "distraction" or "threat" onto any issue, no matter how ridiculous, and some GMs do this because the idea of auto-success in a D20 system rubs them the wrong way. So what it really comes down to is what's reasonable.
I might also note when looking at challenges, you can't just look at a single character who isn't challenged by the encounter and proclaim there was not challenge because a party is made up of more than 1 character. Just because the Barbarian and Rogue can auto-succeed by Taking 10 to jump a 10 ft. pit does not mean it isn't going to be a challenge because the Wizard and Cleric may not be able to make it on a Take 10.
|
|
See, those responses made me go back and check the rule. Here is the entirety of the Take 10 rule from the PRD:
Taking 10 and Taking 20
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success.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 can see how people would interpret the first line to allow taking 10 on a jump check. ("When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. ")
Are you both saying you can't see how I can interpret "immediate danger" as "danger of falling into the pit"? I'm not surprised you rule differently, but I am surprised that neither of you can see any possibility of another interpretation.
Let's use a 1-5 scenario, 4-19 Nightmarch of Kalkamedes as an example.
The entire point of this scenario is to test a low level party's preparation for standard mundane obstacles. Do you have rope? Just like a chase scene done by the GMG rules sucks, climbing a cliff with no other options suck. T
Paranoid adventurers won't take armor off, and often dont have time to (or put it back on) and as such need to make that climb check with a negative number. They likely won't make it if there is no rope, even if you allow take 20 (which you shouldn't). Rope against a wall is DC 5. If the rope is knotted, its DC 0. Taking ten might still by hard for heavy armor guy if the rope isn't knotted. And the cliff in thus one is 100 feet. 10d6 damage at tier 1-5 is very tough. So why make this more difficult than it needs to be?
Now let's discuss a season zero, Fingerprints of the Fiend.
My interpretation is that immediate danger or distraction must be external to the action being taken. We want the game to be fun, and if the adventure stalls at a cliff wall because of a GM not allowing take 10, then that's a fail on the GM, not the rules.
|
|
No immediate external danger. To me that is the difference. I think the rule is referring only to dangers external to the hazard itself. Otherwise "penalty for failure" in the take 20 rules is redundant.
Thats not what it says though. Might be what it means, but you can't expect DMs to read it according to words that aren't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not happy with take 20 to spot traps and disable them. There is a very real penalty for failing to do either. You take damage. I feel that this is reason enough to not allow the take 20. Some players in the area feel that taking damage is not a penalty for failure. This confuses me because what is it if not result of failing your action? Which make it a penalty for failure.
|
|
Can you provide some examples of where you believe you should have been able to Take 10 or Take 20, but the GM did not allow you to do so?Absolutely.
Have been refused a take 20 for both searching for traps and for opening locks.
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Yeah, I have GM's who won't allow 'take 20' on these, either. *Shrug*
I am not happy with take 20 to spot traps and disable them. There is a very real penalty for failing to do either. You take damage. I feel that this is reason enough to not allow the take 20. Some players in the area feel that taking damage is not a penalty for failure. This confuses me because what is it if not result of failing your action? Which make it a penalty for failure.Perception on finding traps is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED in the CRB, so there should be no table variation on this subject, and yet there is.
That is why I stated that "I am not happy" not I do not allow.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Can you provide some examples of where you believe you should have been able to Take 10 or Take 20, but the GM did not allow you to do so?Absolutely.
Have been refused a take 20 for both searching for traps and for opening locks.
Well, Disable Device does carry a penalty for failing by 5 or more, in that it sets off the trap. Now, if the lock isn't trapped, and thus, failing doesn't carry a penalty, sure, Take 20 all day.
But if it IS trapped, then failing does carry with it a penalty.
However, I'll presume that wasn't the case here - if it wasn't trapped, there was no reason (from what you have posted) to deny using Take 20.
|
|
For example, Krusk the barbarian has a Climb skill modifier of +6 (4 ranks, +3 Strength modifier, –1 penalty for wearing studded leather armor). The steep, rocky slope he’s climbing has a Climb DC of 10. With a little care, he can take 10 and succeed automatically. But partway up the slope, a goblin scout begins pelting him with sling stones. Krusk needs to make a Climb check to get up to the
goblin, and this time he can’t simply take 10. If his player rolls 4 or
higher on 1d20, he succeeds.
That example is actually part of the problem. Note that krusks minimum climb check 1+ 6=7 vs a dc of 10 means that krusk can't fall: He's never in danger of falling. Failing a climb check by less than 5 means you don't make progress.
|
|
I am not happy with take 20 to spot traps and disable them. There is a very real penalty for failing to do either. You take damage. I feel that this is reason enough to not allow the take 20. Some players in the area feel that taking damage is not a penalty for failure. This confuses me because what is it if not result of failing your action? Which make it a penalty for failure.
In most cases, failing to find a trap is in and if itself not dangerous. There may be a few traps, though, based on either location or construction, where failing perception might set it off. But because Perception no longer requires a square by square inspection, you can stand at the door and try to perceive the trap, and that will 99% of the time have zero way to set it off. So take 20 for Perception should only be denied in the most exceptional of situations.
Take 10 is available anytime take 20 is.
Unless a trap is involved and directly related to picking a lock, taking 20 on a lock should always be allowed. It takes 2 minutes though. Because disable device can be retried without consequence, taking 20 has no repercussions here.
Disabling a trap, however, us completely different. I'd not recommend at lower levels, though, as the base disable device up through level three may not be good enough to ensure success on a trap. But you can do it if you want. Take 20, no. Because the rules assume you roll every possible result for take 20, and some will be a failure, and failure may set off the trap.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who don't allow taking 10 are about evenly split among the ones I have met.
50% Don't understand the take 10 rules and won't change their rulings mid-game even if you point at the reference.
Me: "That's not how take 10 works. If you want to say it takes me a minute or two to look over the statue - depending on how complicated it is - that's fine, but it shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds to take 10 on the rest of this bare room."
GM: "No it's 10 minutes a square." "Let me show you the rule..." "No, you can't take 10."
50% Don't like seeing something bypassed "easily" (without a roll) and so they refuse to allow it.
Neither one is correct but the latter is far more damaging to Organized Play. In the first case, try to talk to them after the game. In the second case, send an e-mail to a local Venture Officer.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
That's exactly like one time we were trying to kill something with 100hp and fast healing 5 that couldn't attack/move/defend (basically just a mound). And after a couple rounds the GM just said "it takes you an hour to kill it". Even though I was doing ~15 damage per round (not including the rest of the party) so it would've been dead in 10 rounds--a.k.a. one minute.
|
|
Absolutely.Have been refused a take 20 for both searching for traps and for opening locks.
The GM is clearly OFF on taking 20 for opening locks when there's no distractions and plenty of time.
PRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."
"Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."
Plus who wants to sit there while the player rolls a bunch of times until they get a natural 20.
Just my two coppers...
Mike