Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
My point wasn't that removing take ten doesn't affect the outcome of the game. My point was that having take ten does not affect the amount of roleplaying needed to get to the point where a roll or take ten moves you forward.
Therefore saying that take ten "removes hours of roleplaying and investigation" is only truthful if you state "take ten or rolling decently removes hours of roleplay." (In which case, the problem isn't the take ten, it is allowing a roll to shortcut the plot at all... But usually if there is a roll that will short cut the plot, it is supposed to be there as a reward.)
(For clarity sake, the part I was disagreeing with was that the PDT hates take ten and were attempting a back door manuever to eliminate it. Hence my statement that I felt you were projecting your bad experiences on to them. I am a strong supporter of take ten, if you read my other posts.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the social scenarios where the GM is instructed to increase the DC, or give the PCs a penalty, when they opt to rollplay rather than roleplay.
In any given social situation, I'll usually ask what the players want their characters to say, in combination with a dice roll. That's usually where I'll hand out a discretionary +2 circumstance modifier (or even penalty) depending on what they say.
If they want to Take 10, that's fine, but if that's all they're doing, it'll be more like Take 8.
|
Nefreet: yeah, I like that. I don't do it myself -- in fact, I very rarely give a discretionary -2. But I do give discretionary +2 (or sometimes more) if they roleplay well. Flite makes an excellent point that either just rolling or taking 10 for diplomacy or other social skills undercuts a lot of the potential fun of the game.
(There's at least one scenario I've run where the scenario itself tells you to give up to a discretionary +10 based on the roleplay and approach. And, when I ran it, I felt stirred enough myself by the player's speech that I gave the full +10.)
|
|
Sure, as soon as I have more skill ranks and enough fame/money to invest in a +5 dohickey (is there even one for Diplomacy? Highest I see is +3, and most of them don't stack), I'll be OK most of the time.Mulberry pentacle ioun stone. Seeker of Secrets.
Also, Bracers of the Glib Entertainer + Versatile Performance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I know!
I had this GM once start off combat with a chain lightning and a fire snake even though the tactics clearly said that the bad guy wanted to toy with the enemies first. Fortunately he only killed two PCs.
|
But:** spoiler omitted **
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.
Regarding your spoiler, if one takes the time to read the environment chapter's wording on thunderstorms, then the author wouldn't need to put in extra words about skill checks because the CRB did it for him.
|
|
I think you get the point, the amount of roleplaying is exactly the same if TT kept saying "I roll a 13, diplomacy 33."
It isn't take ten that is the problem, it is players who want to sub in rolls for roleplay.
I've been in several scenarios where the bard with double digit modifiers insist on rolling the die, getting a sub 5 roll, and the party subsequently ends up fighting, burning resources, missing out on rewards or boons, or whatever the consequence of failure is. The DCs were set low enough that a Take 10 at that level means a highly competent person succeeds or gets the party close enough that others can Aid Another to succeed. But when the DC is in the high 20's and the roll results in a 15 on a +14 modifier, then even if everyone hit an AA, we still fail.
So no, the outcome isn't the same if Take 10 is removed from the game by the GM.
I get what FLite is trying to say.
Spoilered 'cause this so isn't an issue with take 10.
However, I respect the GM in the example, because, at the minimum the player should describe what his character is saying, if he doesn't actually RP it out. In this example, the player (TT) never said what his character was doing.
The die roll is a metagame mechanic. Unless the character himself was taking a die and rolling it, TT never described what his character was doing. Anything, like, "I go up to the bar, and start chatting up the bartender, trying to see if she has heard anything about the mission at hand.
In any case, I am very free with the use of Take 10 at my tables. From both sides of the screen. My rogue rarely rolls, when he can avoid it... taking 10 to detect traps, disable traps and doors, etc. Of course, he's got enough skill points in them now that it pretty much always works.
He also has Skill Mastery for doing this with Bluff and Acrobatics, to name a couple.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do give discretionary +2 (or sometimes more) if they roleplay well. Flite makes an excellent point that either just rolling or taking 10 for diplomacy or other social skills undercuts a lot of the potential fun of the game.
Only if that's the way you want to play it. Some people just aren't all that good at role-playing (and don't want to make a fool of themselves in public); for those folks, roleplaying isn't fun.
I hardly ever give out bonuses for good roleplaying - good roleplaying should be its own reward. And I never try to force people at the table to roleplay a social encounter, any more than I ask fighters to physically act out a combat encounter.
The furthest I go is to ask a player to briefly tell me what their character is doing:
"I try and persuade the guards that we aren't the folks they are looking for; they can go about their business."
|
|
@John Francis: some people don't even try to do that.
I don't expect people to full on act out their character, use a voice, or posture and gesture, but I expect them to say something.
If they say what's to be expected, like in your example, then it'll just be a straight die roll. If they act out, voice, or give a well thought out answer, I'll award a bonus.
But if they just walk in and say "I Take 10 on Diplomacy, what do I find out?", then they're getting a penalty.
And, yes, there are players that do exactly that.
|
|
Regarding your spoiler, if one takes the time to read the environment chapter's wording on thunderstorms, then the author wouldn't need to put in extra words about skill checks because the CRB did it for him.
But:** spoiler omitted **
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.
Oh I quite agree. However the section on Table Variation in The Guide to Organized Play allows a GM to choose whether to use the environmental rules or not. Its a whole other discussion on when you should or shouldn't use their discretion in this way.
|
|
I do give discretionary +2 (or sometimes more) if they roleplay well. Flite makes an excellent point that either just rolling or taking 10 for diplomacy or other social skills undercuts a lot of the potential fun of the game.Only if that's the way you want to play it. Some people just aren't all that good at role-playing (and don't want to make a fool of themselves in public); for those folks, roleplaying isn't fun.
I hardly ever give out bonuses for good roleplaying - good roleplaying should be its own reward. And I never try to force people at the table to roleplay a social encounter, any more than I ask fighters to physically act out a combat encounter.
The furthest I go is to ask a player to briefly tell me what their character is doing:
"I try and persuade the guards that we aren't the folks they are looking for; they can go about their business." [dice=Bluff]1d20 + 11
What if the scenario specifically tells a GM they can add a modifier for good RP in the RP encounters? Seems those are specifically designed to give a mechanical benefit for good RP, and if you dont grant those, do you think it discourages good RP?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Note that I said "hardly ever" - that would be one of the cases where I would (Run-as-written :-)
Another example could be if somebody did something so amazingly good that everybody at the table (even the non role-players) was impressed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective it should be about the effort made not how "good" the RP is. What I mean is, if I have a clearly socially uncomfortable player, who gives me a general idea of what there character does, even if they don't come up with exact words that there character says, or stumble through what they do say.
In other words, I should not be required to represent my 18 Cha characters ability to smooth-talk with my 8 Cha self, any more than the Str 8 player should be required to succeed at the actions their Str 18 character performs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective it should be about the effort made not how "good" the RP is. What I mean is, if I have a clearly socially uncomfortable player, who gives me a general idea of what there character does, even if they don't come up with exact words that there character says, or stumble through what they do say.
In other words, I should not be required to represent my 18 Cha characters ability to smooth-talk with my 8 Cha self, any more than the Str 8 player should be required to succeed at the actions their Str 18 character performs.
Agreed. If I'm having trouble parsing what a player's intent is, I will ask them what they are trying to accomplish. And usually the attempt to interact and engage with me and the scenario will get at least a small bonus.
|
|
Generally if its important enough for me to bother making the check its because something is about to eat you. Therefore immediate danger, therefore no take 10.I am wondering what the GMing landscape looks like for taking 10 on Stealth checks.
So,taking 10 on Stealth, OK or not?
-Matt
"I'm sneaking forward stealthily, using available cover, take 10 stealth is 30".
Potential enemy has a perception check to make, adjusted by how well it ignores the cover, shadows, etc...
No, I find that's "as intended" for the out-of-combat stealth checks.
I want less die rolling and more story going on at my tables when the system supports it.
I think some might argue that the possibility of failure gives you more (or at least better) story.
|
|
"I'm sneaking forward stealthily, using available cover, take 10 stealth is 30".
Potential enemy has a perception check to make, adjusted by how well it ignores the cover, shadows, etc...
No, I find that's "as intended" for the out-of-combat stealth checks.
I want less die rolling and more story going on at my tables when the system supports it.
Its only one die roll if you only roll when it matters. You don't need to know someones stealth check at every point in the dungeon, just the part where something is about to try to eat you.
Its way to easy to go beyond possible to detect for many PFS critters on a roll of a 10.
Of course its also very hard to avoid every means of being auto spotted but thats a stealth problem.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, and that possibility of failure is still there. The guards could roll high, or might have an ability that makes their take ten higher than yours, in which case, rolling would have given you a better chance. But I never here people say "if you roll you might get a twenty, and that will ruin the story, so you need to take ten."
What you are really saying is that failure makes for a better story. So does losing in combat. You get taken prisoner, have to be rescued, have a desperate mission to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. So I think it would be more dramatic and better for the story if the terrain was all difficult terrain for you. It will lead to better role play.
If you don't want high rolls to shortcut a piece of story line, don't write your story line such that high rolls can short cut it. Don't just arbitrarily take thing away from players so that you can make the story come out the way you want it. That is called railroading.
|
|
Take 10 does not stop failure. Its just a tool for the players to try and mitigate it.
However, not sure I'd allow take 10 in an opposed situation. Or rather, the unknown to the PCs might mean immediate danger, and I'd gave to determine on a case by case basis.
I'm pretty sure opposed rolls were not part of the original intent of Take 10. But I could be mistaken.
|
|
Yup, and that possibility of failure is still there. The guards could roll high, or might have an ability that makes their take ten higher than yours, in which case, rolling would have given you a better chance. But I never here people say "if you roll you might get a twenty, and that will ruin the story, so you need to take ten."
What you are really saying is that failure makes for a better story. So does losing in combat. You get taken prisoner, have to be rescued, have a desperate mission to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. So I think it would be more dramatic and better for the story if the terrain was all difficult terrain for you. It will lead to better role play.
If you don't want high rolls to shortcut a piece of story line, don't write your story line such that high rolls can short cut it. Don't just arbitrarily take thing away from players so that you can make the story come out the way you want it. That is called railroading.
No, I am saying the possibility of failure can create dramatic tension and makes one's sense of victory all the sweeter when they succeed. Both of which can improve the story. Mind you I am not necessarily saying this is a good reason to ignore or undercut the Take 10 rules. Simply that if you want to make this an issue of 'story' then the other side has some valid considerations.
|
|
Take 10 does not stop failure. Its just a tool for the players to try and mitigate it.
However, not sure I'd allow take 10 in an opposed situation. Or rather, the unknown to the PCs might mean immediate danger, and I'd gave to determine on a case by case basis.
I'm pretty sure opposed rolls were not part of the original intent of Take 10. But I could be mistaken.
One of the things I always thought 4E did right was the addition of passive perception checks. This essentially treated everyone as Taking 10 on their Perception checks unless they spent an action to actively perceive something. It made things much easier on GMs.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'm just not sure Take 10 was ever intended for opposed rolls.Here's one piece of why that's what I won't do: "No, you can't take 10 on that stealth check because of the risk of failure"... to tell them there's a combat about to erupt.
I don't know. I worked somewhere for a while, where we found out that someone had been stealing from the company for years. Her take ten was just a little bit higher than everyone else's. She basically got caught because she got greedy one night and rolled, and luck bit her.
|
|
I've noticed that in several scenarios the Perception DC to avoid an ambush is equal to the opponents taking 10 on their Stealth. It's not a common occurrence, and is probably just the product of a few authors, but I've started having the monsters just Take 10 on their Stealth checks all the time.
Same thing for Bluff. I find that if the players don't see me rolling, they don't suspect anything's going on. But I'll still roll a d20 for show when they're trying to Sense Motive on an honest NPC, too ;-).
"Yup! (rolls dice) You sure think he's telling the truth!"
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'm just not sure Take 10 was ever intended for opposed rolls.Here's one piece of why that's what I won't do: "No, you can't take 10 on that stealth check because of the risk of failure"... to tell them there's a combat about to erupt.
I just smile and roll for the bad guys instead.
Don't they often put in flat DCs for things the NPCs would NJ normally roll - stealth, perception and the like? Isn't that really just the NPC taking 10 on an opposed check?
In cases where it's extended rolling runs into the same problem as long climbs. A single failure trumps a string of successes. Sneaking by a number of guards, for example.
I have a vague recollection that there is a scenario where if the PCs haven't let the badguys know they are coming, the bad guys take ten on their perception, but if the badguys get a clue the PCs are coming they start rolling actively.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It isn't an automatic success. First not all skills bypass all encounters. Stealth won't help you get information from someone, diplomacy won't help if the other person will not talk to you for 1 minute before fighting.
It isn't so much the skill has a 45% chance of failure, it is that the skill has a 45% chance of failure if used while distracted or if you are trying to do it better than normal.
For example, I can make excellent mochas all day long, every day, without difficulty.
On the other hand, if I am trying to make my morning mocha while my daughter is harrassing me trying to get me to play with her, there is a good chance that I will over froth my milk. Alternately, if I am trying to get super fine foam to make fancy mocha art, I have a 45% chance of blowing it and getting foam that is worse that what I normally make.
Heh. parallelism for the win.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
I.E. taking ten is using a skill so routine that you can succeed on it 55% of the time *while distracted*
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.
Take ten is *supposed* to make success automatic.
Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
You can't perform routinely if people are jogging your elbow.
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).
It is there to prevent failure due to unlucky rolls.
Everything you are saying about failure being important to the game is directly against the spirit of the rules in the CRB. There are games where failure is important. I am trying to remember the name, but there is one where the GM or other players can make your job harder or even make you fail at a check in order to drive the story in a particular direction, in exchange for giving you drama points you can redeem to make other checks easier or even auto succeed. That tends to be a characteristic of narrativist systems. Pathfinder is a heavily gamist system, rewarding players for "optimising" characters by giving them areas of excelence that simply succeed 99% of the time.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the worst pieces of scenario writing I have ever seen is in a season 5 scenario.
the PCs (level 1-5) must get past some guards. The guards are in a foul mood, and so it takes a DC 34 diplomacy check. In addition, the PC must ignore the advice of the NPC who is nominally in charge of the mission. (If they take his advice they autofail, and a fight occurs.) They then must make the correct series of binary choices.
If they do all that, one of the NPCs in charge of the mission they are on commits a monumentally stupid blunder and gives the whole thing away, resulting in an instant fight.
All of this is because the story line requires the PCs to lose face so the NPC in question can b#!$% them out.
Good roleplaying isn't it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the worst pieces of scenario writing I have ever seen is in a season 5 scenario.
the PCs (level 1-5) must get past some guards. The guards are in a foul mood, and so it takes a DC 34 diplomacy check. In addition, the PC must ignore the advice of the NPC who is nominally in charge of the mission. They then must make the correct series of binary choices.
If they do all that, one of the NPCs in charge of the mission they are on commits a monumentally stupid blunder and gives the whole thing away, resulting in an instant fight.
All of this is because the story line requires the PCs to lose face so the NPC in question can b$### them out.
Good roleplaying isn't it?
And people wonder why characters go murderhobo.
|
|
Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
Well, DC 0 he should fail 25%.
Anyone got some chainmail I can borrow? I estimate I am probably about str 8 (Used to be more but I am badly out of shape.) We could have some fun seeing how often I fall off. (It should be about 1 in 20 times, right? -6 to my check on a dc 0 and I have to fail by 5 to fall off?)
Here's one piece of why that's what I won't do: "No, you can't take 10 on that stealth check because of the risk of failure"... to tell them there's a combat about to erupt.
Well, you shouldn't anyway since risk of failure isn't what prevents someone from taking 10. If he's not distracted by anything at the moment, I don't see why he can't take 10 on the tealth roll. I'm not just sure it's advantageous unless the PC has really maxed it out.
|
|
For those who seem to think Take 10 table variation is not a big issue in PFS, there have been people who have had Take 10 tee shirts made to wear to conventions.
This thread Makes me feel that there is major issue on this. I feel that a lot of people who commented said they'd like to never allow Take 10 if they could help it.
|
|
But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.
That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.
|
|
But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.
That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.
And those people who have similar views to BigNorseWolf will not allow you the take 10 to climb up the ladder with care because then it's an autosuccess at something you'd have a pretty good chance of failing if you rolled for it. Even his take 5 that he'd maybe allow can't make any progress on this climb.
|
|
And those people who have similar views to BigNorseWolf will not allow you the take 10 to climb up the ladder with care because then it's an autosuccess at something you'd have a pretty good chance of failing if you rolled for it. Even his take 5 that he'd maybe allow can't make any progress on this climb.But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.
That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.
Then they aren't following the word or intent of the rule.
|
|
Then they aren't following the word or intent of the rule.And those people who have similar views to BigNorseWolf will not allow you the take 10 to climb up the ladder with care because then it's an autosuccess at something you'd have a pretty good chance of failing if you rolled for it. Even his take 5 that he'd maybe allow can't make any progress on this climb.But the 10 Str cleric in chainmail fails 50% of the time without Take 10.Everyone but the most infirm or disabled, can climb a ladder without fail with a bit of care. A ladder is essentially DC zero.
So in almost every case, bar the guy with a -11, or other outside influences, climbing the ladder should be an auto success.
Because he's not taking care. Trying to go to fast, climbing while texting, being shot at, etc... That's when its appropriate to fail.
That's what Take 10 does. It is the abstract for being careful to ensure success on a task you are pretty sure you can succeed on automatically, by being careful.
Why not? They feel it is more dramatic or increases tension and makes for a better story if they players have to roll and have the chance for failure. As falling off a ladder is a dangerous thing if you fall. And without a PFS ruling to clarify how take 10 works in PFS then they are not going against the intent of the rule put forward by the PDT in their non-FAQ.
|
|
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.
Spoiler:I just ran a Module last night with lava pits all over the flipmat. No straight lines whatsoever.
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.
Oh damnation, failed my Will save.
I pulled my 3.5 PHB off the shelf (the shiny reprinted one with all the errata) and looked up the Jump skill that Acrobatics is based off of.
Distance moved by jumping is counted against your normal maximum movement in a round. For example, Krusk has a speed of 40 feet. If he moves 30 feet, then jumps across a 10-foot-wide chasm, then he's moved 40 feet total, so that's his move action.
If you have ranks in Jump and you succeed on the Jump check, you land on your feet (when appropriate). If you attempt a Jump check untrained, you land prone unless you beat the DC by 5 or more.
Long Jump: A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream. At the midpoint of the jump, you attain a vertical height equal to one-quarter of the horizontal distance. The DC for the jump is equal to the distance jumped (in feet). For example, a 10-foot-wide pit requires a DC 10 Jump check to cross.
If your check succeeds, you land on your feet at the far end. If you fail the check by less than 5, you don't clear the distance, but you can make a DC 15 Reflex save to grab the far edge of the gap. You end your movement grasping the far edge. If that leaves you dangling over a chasm or gap, getting up requires a move action and a DC 15 Climb check.
Well, glad we no longer have to be trained in Acrobatics to avoid falling prone! Now, I understand that you have never claimed that the DC includes the squares leading up to the jump, so the example about Krusk having moved 40ft probably makes sense to you. The removed text about falling prone at the end of your jump probably would have addressed your whole complaint that people were subtracting 5 from the DC. But now we see specifically that a 10-foot-wide pit is DC 10.
As I recall, you base your position on the fact that "the base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed". I wonder if it makes more sense to you considering that the original text was "the DC for the jump is equal to the distance jumped (in feet)) and that the wording was changed thanks to Jump no longer being a skill.
|
|
I've noticed that in several scenarios the Perception DC to avoid an ambush is equal to the opponents taking 10 on their Stealth. It's not a common occurrence, and is probably just the product of a few authors, but I've started having the monsters just Take 10 on their Stealth checks all the time."
I've seen this in more than one scenario that I have GM'd in the past several monthis, including at least one Season 6. In fact, I believed they called out that Perception DC was due to the opponent Taking 10 on Stealth.