|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would PFS Campaign Management practically issue a ruling exactly?By making the scenario author the default on Taking 10.
1. The task itself cannot bar a Take 10 unless the scenario specifically dictates otherwise.
2. GMs cannot use the environment or the setting as a way to preclude Take 10 unless authorized by the scenario.
3. GMs cannot deny Take 10 based on pacing, tension, or drama.
4 GMs are required to make an objective assessment on whether the circumstances constitutes a distraction or "immediate" danger.
For example, a player make Take 10 to clear spiked pit when not in combat or specifically distracted.
That took me 5 minutes. Did it ruin anyone's game?
That might work going forward but that doesn't address the 7 seasons of content that have been previously designed around different assumptions.
It's not practical for legacy reasons.
|
|
That being said, I'm not sure if Take 10 is such an issue that campaign management is particularly worried about. I mean, really, what prohibiting take 10 because it "trivializes encounters" says is "I know you have at least a 55% chance to succeed, but I really want to squeeze that last 0%-45% to see you fail."Note that in the case of repeated checks - climbing a cliff, for example - that chance to succeed drops rapidly.
Yeah I think that's a slightly different context, but still that's a good counterpoint and important information to consider when making a decision about allowing take 10s.
|
|
Well, Andrew had some examples. I think it's also reasonable to answer your query with "nobody knows," which is an important thing to consider because then to make your proposed (or similar) ruling work, someone is going to have to figure that out, and that's going to cost time and money.
But I think immediately I can point to a couple of things with certainty that they won't be addressed in legacy content:
1. The task itself cannot bar a Take 10 unless the scenario specifically dictates otherwise.
2. GMs cannot use the environment or the setting as a way to preclude Take 10 unless authorized by the scenario.
I can't imagine that many legacy scenarios have explicit stipulations on when to use and not use Take 10 because it's been a non-issue up until this point (in one way it still isn't an issue because of the no FAQ necessary).
4 GMs are required to make an objective assessment on whether the circumstances constitutes a distraction or "immediate" danger.
If I'm Mike Brock, and I get a complaint that a GM did not "objectively assess whether a circumstance constitutes a distraction or 'immediate' danger", how do I prove this? I mean, I understand the intention of the proposed rule and it's a good goal, but the ruling needs to be something 'measurable'.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no external danger unless there is a combat. No one is debating that combat precludes Take 10.
So a strong wind that might blow you around while hanging onto a rope you are climbing, or lava globs spitting upward at you as you jump a pit? Those wouldn't constitute some form of immediate danger that could mitigate taking 10?
If this is what you are saying, then we certainly disagree on the meaning of the rule.
|
|
Ripple effect is still unmeasurable within pratical bounds.
Previous assumption was that take 10 was within the GMs authority to dictate. The suggested rule would impact every skill check where the author considered a GM might bar take 10. Might be minor in most situations but changes like that cause unexpected problems that are often more cumbersome than the issue they were intended to solve.
|
Kevin,
I'm more concerned with changing the entire scope of encounters, or making them pedantic and boring. Scenarios are designed to take 4 to 5 hours, and if climbing a cliff ends up taking 2 hours because the character who has a -2 climb can't roll for crap and literally can't get up the knotted rope against a wall. Obstacles like that are meant to test the preparedness and creativity of a team of adventurers. Not be a severe danger or impediment to completing the scenario on time.
But if a GM determines that the chance of falling precludes taking 10 on a climb check, you have all kinds of potential repercussions that they may not have considered.
In that case what you have is a GM who needs some guidance, not a need for a hard and fast rule. This is not an adversarial game. If the GM wants to say that the full-plate wearing cleric looks fearfully at the sharp rocks and makes the player roll (and fall) a couple of times that's fine. But in fairly short order the GM should have the option to say "you're getting the hang of the sway of this particular role and can now take 10." (Assuming no combat, of course.)
Most of the time the party will come up with creative solutions. I've lost track of the number of times fighters have taken off armor or barbarians have yanked characters up a cliff by a rope tied around their left ankle. But especially with a group of new players or characters who are particularly ill-suited a GM who flat-out doesn't allow the scenario to proceed is one who needs to be given a talking to. (Note that I'm talking about stopping a scenario dead, not imposing time penalties or failing secondary conditions.)
That's what the "not-a-FAQ" says. Tailor to your group.
|
|
How would PFS Campaign Management practically issue a ruling exactly?By making the scenario author the default on Taking 10.
1. The task itself cannot bar a Take 10 unless the scenario specifically dictates otherwise.
This directly contradicts the Table Variation section of the guide that leaves it up to the GM to add environmental and other effects that are not mechanically defined within the context of the scenario but are mentioned in fluff text.
Are you suggesting that a GM couldn't use rain or a strong wind to preclude Take 10, when both of those could easily be determined to be a distraction and do so?
2. GMs cannot use the environment or the setting as a way to preclude Take 10 unless authorized by the scenario.
3. GMs cannot deny Take 10 based on pacing, tension, or drama.
4 GMs are required to make an objective assessment on whether the circumstances constitutes a distraction or "immediate" danger.
For example, a player make Take 10 to clear spiked pit when not in combat or specifically distracted.
That took me 5 minutes. Did it ruin anyone's game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the "not-a-FAQ" says. Tailor to your group.
And we both know how well that is going to work. I can't count how many times GMs can't even read the tactic blocks on badguys and just go gung-ho with severely deadly tactics. We see lots and lots of complaints about some adventure or other being too difficult, and when we hear what happened, its largely because of this.
Those same GMs aren't going to take the time to tailor Take 10 to the group. They are going to either flatly deny it regardless of the repercussions, or they aren't.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Previous assumption was that take 10 was within the GMs authority to dictate.
Not necessarily a universal truth. There is also the fact that the wording in the CRB certainly seems to be readable as saying it's the player's prerogative to choose to Take 10 to avoid a disastrously low roll.
Allowing the GM to prohibit that just because it's more dramatic to do so can be seen as a definite change to the rules.
|
|
That's what the "not-a-FAQ" says. Tailor to your group.And we both know how well that is going to work. I can't count how many times GMs can't even read the tactic blocks on badguys and just go gung-ho with severely deadly tactics. We see lots and lots of complaints about some adventure or other being too difficult, and when we hear what happened, its largely because of this.
Those same GMs aren't going to take the time to tailor Take 10 to the group. They are going to either flatly deny it regardless of the repercussions, or they aren't.
Hence my earlier post:
2) Do you really think that GM is not going to find a different way to put characters in a predicament you think is more deadly than the scenario writer intended?"
This isn't an issue with the Design Team post. It's a general GM quality issue.
Edit: I understand that you want to reduce table variation. But adding three pages of riders, disclaimers, and banned practices isn't the way to do it.
|
|
There is no external danger unless there is a combat. No one is debating that combat precludes Take 10.So a strong wind that might blow you around while hanging onto a rope you are climbing, or lava globs spitting upward at you as you jump a pit? Those wouldn't constitute some form of immediate danger that could mitigate taking 10?
If this is what you are saying, then we certainly disagree on the meaning of the rule.
Let's quote the descriptive text:
A rock overhang, ten feet above the gash, acts as a natural roof, sheltering the immediate area from the elements.You can't add stuff to the game that isn't there. There's no wind, there's no lava, there are not falling rocks.
Quest for Perfection is a scenario that is added to the list that you started.
Quest for Perfection also has a creature that is likely to attack you while you are trying to climb up the cliff. As soon as that happens, Take 10 is no longer a viable tactic. Which is why I do not consider it a good example.
And certainly, if the descriptive text doesn't give me the option to add anything, then I can't just arbitrarily add anything. That is not in dispute.
But:
So you see, there are plenty of scenarios that have descriptive text that would allow me to use the Table Variation section of the Guide. And those same descriptors that can affect your movement, vision, and other things, could certainly affect your ability to Take 10.
|
|
Edit: I understand that you want to reduce table variation. But adding three pages of riders, disclaimers, and banned practices isn't the way to do it.
You obviously haven't read my posts up to this point if you think that's what I'm advocating.
1) If the PDT non-FAQ stands as written and no further clarification is forthcoming (which I admit is probably the most likely outcome), then...
2) I am absolutely NOT advocating that PFS make any sort of ruling on Take 10.
I wish that the PDT had clarified whether the check itself constitutes immediate danger or not. They did not.
So now we need to live with that decision within PFS. Its part of the clarified rules, and PFS uses the rules.
|
|
As such I reject your notion that there is a legacy problem as a superficial treatment of the matter. There is no legacy problem because my suggestions align with what the previous and dominant perspective on the skill.
Ok. I reject your notion that this is a problem that needs to be solved with a new policy, so I suppose we just agree to disagree.
|
No, you're talking about what the PDT doesn't want to do. The PDT's treatment of GMs is a universe away from how PFS treats GMs. There is large degree of GM "hand tying" in PFS and it's 100% necessary.So am I.It's also the exact sort of "GM hand tying" that the PDT wants to avoid.We're talking about PFS where GM restrictions are extremely important.
There's also a lot of leeway given to PFS GMs, and I believe it's more necessary than what you're proposing.
|
|
1) Do you really think that player who builds characters to overcome a difficult challenge by taking 10 is not going to find another way of totally owning challenges?
The amount of resources needed to overcome a challenge on a 1 is VASTY higher than on taking 10. If they do that, more power to them.
You should make a roll on a 10 with your level in ranks, the trained mod, and a good stat bonus. To make it on a 1 you need to spend feats and or a LOT of equipment on it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Previous assumption was that take 10 was within the GMs authority to dictate.That's not accurate. The previous assumption was that the GM had to determine if there was immediate danger or a distraction. After that, it was the player's choice. SKR's post from way back when made it clear that GMs should not to stop playings from Taking 10 over a pit.
In subsequent discussion, GMs were trying to argue that a player shouldn't be able to Take 10 on a jump because they wouldn't know the distance of the pit. SKR shoots that down as well and says if a player can see it's a 5-9' pit and the player knows he can safely jump 10', then the player is allowed to Take 10.
There is no question that SKR's posts indicate that the option for Taking 10 was squarely in the hands of the player, not the GM. The GM's role is to determine if there was immediate danger or distraction.
My suggested rules do not change that assumption at all. As such I reject your notion that there is a legacy problem as a superficial treatment of the matter. There is no legacy problem because my suggestions align with what the previous and dominant perspective on the skill.
What's more, I will submit that the PDT's current position on Take 10 is what will propose a huge problem for legacy scenarios where the author was trying to reward a skilled PC for taking 10 to get past an annoying obstacle. Now, scenarios may be far more tedious and deadly than was intended.
A few points here:
1) While I definitely put a ton of weight in any post that SKR, SRM, Jason Buhlman, Logan Bonner, and Mark Siefter make on rules issues, unless the post is an FAQ, their posts are not official rules clarifications.
2) I agree with you, that the intent is that the check itself does't create immediate danger or distraction. However, the rule as written doesn't make that clear.
3) The 3.5 version of the Take 10 rule includes the following text
Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help (such as using Climb to ascend a knotted rope or using Heal to give a wounded PC long-term care.)
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 D 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 tiem eh can't simply take 10.
So its quite clear that the original rule means that the check itself (the chance of falling, the pit, etc.) does not constitute immediate danger or distraction. But Pathfinder got rid of all the examples from the text. And I feel that many of the PDT members have the understanding from 3.5 and feel it clearly works that way and doesn't need clarification. But they are out of touch with the fact that there are actually probably more people playing Pathfinder now that have zero experience with DnD 3.5, than those who converted over. So that understanding doesn't exist within the player base of Pathfinder.
4) Long story short. I agree with how you are interpreting the rule. But minus the language that clarified it in 3.5, it is not clear that this is how the rule should work. So I hope the PDT revisits this portion of the rule and clarifies that for us.
5) I aggressively and vehemently disagree with you that we should tie GM's hands from using fluff text in a scenario to change the circumstances of whether a check includes immediate danger or distraction. That is one of the few leeways GMs have to modify circumstances in a scenario, and it is one I would hate to lose.
|
|
As such I reject your notion that there is a legacy problem as a superficial treatment of the matter. There is no legacy problem because my suggestions align with what the previous and dominant perspective on the skill.Ok. I reject your notion that this is a problem that needs to be solved with a new policy, so I suppose we just agree to disagree.As there is no change to the Take 10 rules, I am inclined to agree. If, however, GMs start denying Take 10 based on "pacing, tension, or drama" then this is in contradiction to the written rules and PFS will need to offer some guidance.
But you suggested it was not feasible for PFS to offer that guidance and I did it in 5 minutes. So it's entirely possible for them to guide the players on how to treat Take 10.
You wrote a list of guidelines in 5 minutes.
But that doesn't mean your guidelines were at all appropriate for PFS.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
|
|
I aggressively and vehemently disagree with you that we should tie GM's hands from using fluff text in a scenario to change the circumstances of whether a check includes immediate danger or distraction. That is one of the few leeways GMs have to modify circumstances in a scenario, and it is one I would hate to lose.
+1
|
|
5) I aggressively and vehemently disagree with you that we should tie GM's hands from using fluff text in a scenario to change the circumstances of whether a check includes immediate danger or distraction. That is one of the few leeways GMs have to modify circumstances in a scenario, and it is one I would hate to lose.Then you've misunderstood my statement. Let me repeat it:
If the scenario says there's a thunderstorm and lightning strikes while the players are attempting a task, then I take that as the scenario authorizing the preclusion of Take 10, even if there are no circumstance modifiers.
Yes, impactful environmental conditions can be used to preclude Take 10, imo.
Now do you see why your 5 minute rules weren't good enough? That you needed to take more than 5 minutes to write them up?
Because I'm not the only one who mistook what you wrote for exactly what I said in point 5. And if I and others misread the way you wrote those rules, then others would too.
And then you'd have players whining that GM's that actually understood your intent, were running things in scenarios against the RAW of what you wrote.
So please, don't think its quite so easy to write a set of rules that does what you mean. Because you tried, and they had some ambiguity issues.
Remember, any new rules you create to obviate ambiguity, shouldn't create more ambiguity. This is why I disliked SKR's 10' circle clarification on 10' reach. It created more problems than it solved.
|
|
We have players in this thread who couldn't read the RAW for determining jump DCs.
None of those here.
What we have are people that were focusing on two different, opposing sections in the same skill description, only one of which could have been correct.
When it came time for Acrobatics, inevitably the recent FAQ came up for discussion. Nobody at the table understood the FAQ.
After trying to figure out why, in some cases, a 20ft jump was only an Acrobatics DC of 10, we unanimously agreed it was easier to pick a square to jump from, and a square to land in, and use the distance as the DC for the jump.
And, no, I'm not making this up. One of the players was even my VC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then you'd have players whining that GM's that actually understood your intent, were running things in scenarios against the RAW of what you wrote.We have players in this thread who couldn't read the RAW for determining jump DCs. Something that was so straight forward and easy to answer the PDT tacked on an extra FAQ because it was that simple.
Your argument that people will be confused by a rule is not compelling.
2. GMs cannot use the environment or the setting as a way to preclude Take 10 unless the stated environmental conditions make it logical to do so.
Ex. The characters are on the deck of a ship in a storm at sea would most likely preclude someone from taking 10.
Problem solved. Six minutes
I'd add all the time you spent arguing with people about your rules to your time. That's essentially development time you spent refining your rule.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **Obviously we need to discuss this for another several hundred posts to clarify.
Not needed. We have an FAQ, and GMs have the liberty to craft an enjoyable experience for their players. We all agreed on what we were doing and proceeded to have a great session.
That little side rant was in reply to NN959 and his assertion that "people couldn't read the RAW". That wasn't (and isn't) the issue. I have a strong feeling that people will keep trying to get those little digs in on me. For as long as that happens, I'll dig right back.
I feel the issue will come down the line when people start discussing adventures and a handful of people who had deaths, or a chunk of resources burned on a skill check that wasn't allowed T10. Then someone else simply ask why they didn't take 10 and find out there GM decided that a climbing a cliff was significantly distracting. I'm fine with a GM deciding that rain or mud that's listed might be an issue. But all people really are wondering is if simply climbing a rope on the side of cliff can keep you from T10.
|
Can anyone tell me of a specific situation where a character died or a mission was failed because the GM did not allow Take 10 under ambiguous circumstances? Because I really don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about the table variation on Take 10. It just has never been that big a deal at any table I can remember sitting at.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW the issue arises when party A uses T10 as was previously deemed normal for a risky task and does just fine, but then Party B hits the same task is told they can't and end up losing hp/death and use up resources that would not have been used otherwise.The guide to organized play allows for table variation. It allows GMs to add environmental effects that are part of the fluff descriptions of encounters.
Now we have another situation where GNs get to use their discretion. This is a good thing.
I disagree that this level of table variation is a good thing. This level of table variation can completely invalidate a character build.
I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.
Some GMs have stated directly that they hate the entire concept of take 10 and will never allow it, no matter what. Now I no longer have a rule that tells says "sorry, you have to, even if you don't like it".
Now my character is pointless, because it's all down to dice luck instead of my choices. The high-DPR, barely-any-skills guys can take over my role in the party just because they have better dice luck than I do. (There's a reason I play poker instead of slot machines: I want to have at much control over my destiny as possible. I don't like blind luck.)
Now I've wasted my 750 gp of consumables I took before I found out that this particular GM is an anti-take-10 guy. (Or worse, because this GM said he allows take 10 but then always found some reason not to allow it.)
Not knowing whether my character is an expert or an idiot from table to table is not the kind of variation I consider "good". Now I have to start quizzing GMs about their take-10 rules before the game to decide what character to play or if I think I can play at all.
|
How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?
I have a PC that failed to get over that hurdle. Fell in and couldn't get out by themselves. Dex 10, STR penalty, a shield and medium armor make for a bad time there. Heheheh. That character is now an HP battery Oradin. It's funny when you play up as the lowest level character in the party, take the most damage without being hit once, and never fall down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that this level of table variation is a good thing. This level of table variation can completely invalidate a character build.
No, it doesn't. Unless you have some ability that relies on taking 10 your skill investments are being rewarded exactly as they should be.
I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.
A skill monkey should be able to succeed at LEAST that often rolling dice. If you have sklll focus thats a 15% increase in your chance of success. If you have a +5 magical dodad thats still a 25% chance increase of success. They still provide a benefit whether or not you take 10.
What they stop doing is making it 100% auto success because the DM can't adjust the DC to provide any spontianity or drama.
Now my character is pointless, because it's all down to dice luck instead of my choices.
Its not entirely luck, that's the entire point of skill bonuses, to shift the odds in your favor.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.
You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?
At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.
Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."
Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)
In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."