If the rule was take 5 it might be routine. But something you've got a 45% chance to flub seems a bit hard to turn into an automatic success.
Its very easy to beat the NPCs by 10 at ones favored encounter bypassing skill.
Your 45% is based off of 10 being the exact number you need to pass. Now lets say I fail only on a 1-3 I'm down to auto succeeding on something that I only fail 15% of the time. But that I could still fail while rolling.
|
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?)
Having done a lot of work while wearing chainmail, I can guarantee that as long as you aren't distracted you could autosucceed climbing a ladder. At least for the first few hours, until you got tired from carrying all the weight.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It occurs to me that the next time someone says I can't Take 10 on a check because the check is causing immediate danger, my answer will be "Okay. I wait a round. Am I still in danger? Then I guess it wasn't very immediate, was it?"
Nope. Now you are not in danger. Take 6d6 fire from the time bomb going off.
:)
|
It occurs to me that the next time someone says I can't Take 10 on a check because the check is causing immediate danger, my answer will be "Okay. I wait a round. Am I still in danger? Then I guess it wasn't very immediate, was it?"
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.I'd also be in combat initiative and unable to Take 10 anyway, so your example is irrelevant.
Um... soo... Funny story...
Last 4th of July, we had people setting off fireworks directly over our house. We called the police, the converstion went something like this.
911: Is anyone hurt?
Me: No.
911: Is anything on fire?
Me: Not yet.
911: Call us back if either of those answers changes.
*click*
Apparently the definition of immediate danger depends on how busy the police are at that moment.
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.I'd also be in combat initiative and unable to Take 10 anyway, so your example is irrelevant.
You have combat that last 50 rounds dear lord man.
|
|
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.I'd also be in combat initiative and unable to Take 10 anyway, so your example is irrelevant.You have combat that last 50 rounds dear lord man.
He must not be interveaving his minions...
|
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.I'd also be in combat initiative and unable to Take 10 anyway, so your example is irrelevant.You have combat that last 50 rounds dear lord man.
The design team thinks we do.
See: Classes, Vigilante
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you call five minutes "immediate", you're under a very different understanding than I am.
Depends on what it is. For pathfindery rocket taggy combat? No.
If you need to shoe your horse so you can flee the zombie apocalypse 5 minutes is starting to look immediate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if I need to climb a wall with ladder in fullplate before Zombies arrive in 5mins i can Take 10.
|
|
Actively disallowing the Take 10 mechanic would be against the rules.
Claiming that certain checks will require a roll, due to the reasons outlined in the non-FAQ (I love calling it that, btw), is perfectly acceptable.
I know more than one GM who will delight upon reading this:
...that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment.I can foresee them using this line to justify actively disallowing the take 10 mechanic.
It cannot possibly be that the only two GMs in the world who will do so live in my small neck of the woods.
I have been Summoned!!!
Erm... So it seems to me that this thread has 2 views, take 10 is an auto success and unbalanced, and a more liberal interpretation. While I tend towards a more liberal allowed view, I more than occasionally have glee when my players forget it exists. However if I don't feel like dealing with it as a GM, I will frequently remind my players that they can take 10. Climb checks more than 10 ft up are normal. I like the idea of this ruling, as I believe that some scenarios should not allow take 10 on certain checks for plot reasons. My question then is: Is the PDT non-FAQ FAQ legal in PFS?
Well as far as I understand things unless the PFS team says other wise or a faq goes against current PFS rulings then their rulings stand. Also since this technically wasn't and FAQ that means this is how the rule is believed to have functioned all along. Similar to the Monk TWF debacle of a few years back.
|
Also, if you call five minutes "immediate", you're under a very different understanding than I am.
I dunno. I sometimes call a few million years "immediate".
(As in, talking about the evolution of a galaxy and why it looks the way it does. Very high-mass stars go supernova immediately after they form... at least if you're dealing with galaxy orbit time scales of 100s of millions of years. On that timescale, 1 million years is immediate.)
(Edit: do I win an off-topic award?)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Wait... Reversing this...
"..The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless..."
Can we, as a table judge, just have the PCs Take 10 when we feel the need "...to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down..." .... Wow...
Judge at the start of the game "what's everyone's Perception bonus? And Diplomacy? That way I know what the results are for all your checks, and we can just move strait to the results with out resorting to dice rolls..."
After the players tell him, ...."ok, the first encounter I a a trap, so everyone roll a reflex save for 66 HP, 33 if you make the DC 28. What? Yes you were all in the area- it's more dramatic that way! Now, in the first Diplomacy encounter ..."
I don't know. It might be a good way to deal with some of those 7 hour season 5 scenarios.
"Good news, I also prerolled all the NPCs attacks for combat. Tim, you get hit for 96 points of damage, crit power attack with a scythe... No that's drama!"
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nosig, I feel the same way when people in the GM forum complain about optomized PCs making game unfun for the other players. As one of the other players, I have a *lot* of fun watching someone else stomp the things that can kill my character into fine paste. Among other things, it means I can sit down with some of my sillier less effective characters.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agh, I waffle back and forth on that one. Sometimes it is nice to play with someone who can handle everything for you, sometimes it sucks the fun out of the table. Really, I think it is just the attitude of the player that makes or breaks it. When they are laughing with you, the table is fine. When they are laughing at you, it bites.
Repeating an old post of mine...
"I am very much in the Take 10 camp. I even "have the T-Shirt".
And I try real hard not to tell other people how to play this game of ours. When I am the judge at a table and it comes to a skill check that the players need to make - I might even say "give me a XXX check - roll or take ten, what do you get?" This is the closest I come just assuming that the PCs take 10 and telling the players the result. Even when I know that the DC is such that the PC can make it on a roll of 2 ... even when I realize that it is going to slow the game down, make it harder for the PCs, even when i KNOW it will be less fun... I let the players chose. Why do I do this? Because, you know, I'm not the player. If they want to roll the dice that's fine - perhaps they find it more fun that way.
I don't. But then, I did say "when I am the judge at a table..."
When I'm the player - and it's my choice - please don't take that away from me because you think it will be more fun. Let me play my character... the way I have fun with it.
I could try to explain why I find rolling the dice cheapens the "fun", reducing a game of imagination and skill to one of randomness and chance. But you know, if you don't see it, I don't want to force you to play it my way....
Why do people insist that I can't be having fun - when they see me doing it over and over again? Why do they insist that I "do it right - the fun way"?
sorry - this is a hot button for me, and sometimes I get carried away. I'll try to go back to lurking again..."
Looks like that doesn't apply any more.... I can just require the players to take 10 when I "want to control the pacing and tension " of the game....wow...I really CAN force people to play it my way...
Not sure if I'm up to this... I hate telling someone how to play the game "right"...
I understand the bit of satire here but lets not have people convinced we now have a camp of people trying to force players to T10.
I understand the bit of satire here but lets not have people convinced we now have a camp of people trying to force players to T10.Repeating an old post of mine...
"I am very much in the Take 10 camp. I even "have the T-Shirt".
And I try real hard not to tell other people how to play this game of ours. When I am the judge at a table and it comes to a skill check that the players need to make - I might even say "give me a XXX check - roll or take ten, what do you get?" This is the closest I come just assuming that the PCs take 10 and telling the players the result. Even when I know that the DC is such that the PC can make it on a roll of 2 ... even when I realize that it is going to slow the game down, make it harder for the PCs, even when i KNOW it will be less fun... I let the players chose. Why do I do this? Because, you know, I'm not the player. If they want to roll the dice that's fine - perhaps they find it more fun that way.
I don't. But then, I did say "when I am the judge at a table..."
When I'm the player - and it's my choice - please don't take that away from me because you think it will be more fun. Let me play my character... the way I have fun with it.
I could try to explain why I find rolling the dice cheapens the "fun", reducing a game of imagination and skill to one of randomness and chance. But you know, if you don't see it, I don't want to force you to play it my way....
Why do people insist that I can't be having fun - when they see me doing it over and over again? Why do they insist that I "do it right - the fun way"?
sorry - this is a hot button for me, and sometimes I get carried away. I'll try to go back to lurking again..."
Looks like that doesn't apply any more.... I can just require the players to take 10 when I "want to control the pacing and tension " of the game....wow...I really CAN force people to play it my way...
Not sure if I'm up to this... I hate telling someone how to play the game "right"...
Couldn't edit so extra post I was only talking about your next last line there I know the rest wasn't satire.
I'm honestly gonna bump this once after this weekend and see if there is any further discussion on it.
|
Actively disallowing the Take 10 mechanic would be against the rules.
Claiming that certain checks will require a roll, due to the reasons outlined in the non-FAQ (I love calling it that, btw), is perfectly acceptable.
I know more than one GM who will delight upon reading this:
...that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment.I can foresee them using this line to justify actively disallowing the take 10 mechanic.
It cannot possibly be that the only two GMs in the world who will do so live in my small neck of the woods.
I have been Summoned!!!
Nope, I wasn't talking about you. :)
I don't sit at tables GMed by either of the GMs I was thinking of.
...But it was only half in jest.
This non-FAQ would allow me (for example) to convert the easy/mundane skill challanges into dramatic story telling.Rather then have players roll a bunch of survival rolls while everyone repeatedly checks ITS etc., I can check to ensure someone can T-10 and get the party past the "lost in the woods" section of the scenario. Much more "dramatic" and "in story"... Much less braking the fourth wall.
The story will be much more like a story, and less like a board game. We'll play more "the right way". More like in my home game. I can "control the pacing and tension".
I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.
I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.
This entire discussion originated because people are being forced (by their GM) into not taking 10, via the GM disallowing it. Your hope seems.... misplaced.
I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.This entire discussion originated because people are being forced (by their GM) into not taking 10, via the GM disallowing it. Your hope seems.... misplaced.
I know but I'll keep up hope for the time being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disallow taking 10 all the time when I GM. Players seem to think they can take 10 on things that are quite clearly things they can't, like knowledge rolls in combat. OTOH players roll when they could take 10 just as much on things like disable device without even asking but I will not tell players how to play their characters.I know but I'll keep up hope for the time being.
I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.This entire discussion originated because people are being forced (by their GM) into not taking 10, via the GM disallowing it. Your hope seems.... misplaced.
Understand that this isn't about disallowing T10 when it couldn't be done by the rules. This is about T10 being disallowed when the only reason is the GM feels that either A) the task being attempted is a distraction therefore no T10 or B) The GM decides that the party bypassing the chance of failure would reduce the feel of the game.
|
|
If 'Take 10' were about removing "pointless checks" then the rule would be 'Take 1'... Which, frankly, ought to be an official thing anyway. If the character's total skill bonus plus the lowest possible roll at least equals the DC then the only reason to roll would be if there was some benefit for exceeding the DC. Ergo, it should always be possible for a player to 'Take 1'.
However, 'Take 10' does NOT just remove checks... it allows the player to achieve a specific result which will be higher than a roll 45% of the time. The entire writeup on 'Take 10' in the rules is about avoiding low rolls and getting an automatic success... not a word about streamlining gameplay by reducing rolls. It's about routine actions. Maybe you roll 1 and drop your car keys when the killer is coming to get you, but in routine circumstances you take 10 to automatically unlock the car and drive away.
|
|
Here is the danger of real life examples. Earlier this summer I walked home. For unknown reasons I was holding my car keys in my hands (2 mile walk) instead of my pockets.
Somehow I did a catastrophic failure on my hundreds check after walking around a mile with my key in the hands. I dropped them - straight into the gutter leading down to the sewer.
This isn't made up. Maybe the gutter nearby was immediate danger - I didn't drop the keys all the way up to that point. I didn't even notice the gutter. With hindsight I would only have a <50% chance to hit the sewer even if I tried to throw the keys in deliberately.
No - I wouldn't disallow a T10 on holding car keys. But I would be careful in using real life examples to exemplify T10. You will always find a counter example.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
No - I wouldn't disallow a T10 on holding car keys. But I would be careful in using real life examples to exemplify T10. You will always find a counter example.
In this case someone could argue you were not taking ten. If you had sticked to your regular routine you would have put the keys in your pocket. Instead you held them in your hand which could have saved you a few seconds.
|
|
No - I wouldn't disallow a T10 on holding car keys. But I would be careful in using real life examples to exemplify T10. You will always find a counter example.In this case someone could argue you were not taking ten. If you had sticked to your regular routine you would have put the keys in your pocket. Instead you held them in your hand which could have saved you a few seconds.
I would argue my skills are high enough for a 1 being enough not to drop them. And there shouldn't be a critical failure. Still I certainly managed a criticle fumble in this case.
Oh and T20 also didn't work to fish them out again. It took us well above 2 minutes to fish the key out again - and this was adding a bonus for a net on stick normally used by kits.
|
|
At least you got to meet some nice young Kitsune. Well worth the hassle of getting your keys back.adding a bonus for a net on stick normally used by kits.
Clearly they are the reason he dropped them in the first place. Tricksy little creatures...they think such pranks r fun!
Got the keys back when they tired of the game...