| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's up to the GM's discretion as to what "distractions or threats such as combat" really means. That's about as clear as the rules are. There isn't any rule preventing it other that that which I'm aware of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, it's up to GM discretion.
Personally I very rarely allow taking 10 on social skills, unless you rolling to gather information or you are spending significant time trying to accomplish something (like get a significant person to like you over the course of a dinner party). But if you try to convince somebody to do something on the fly, you roll the dice.
Just my personal take.
IMHO taking 10 on social skills out of combat should work just fine, unless someone is holding a knife to your throat or something. Admittedly the GM does have discretion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, it depends on how much the GM wants the game to rely on luck vs. talent or training.
Taking 10 lets you confidently do those things you are trained to do, the things you are good at, the things you do every day. When you drive to work in the morning, you take 10. It's a routine: you do it every day, and most days, you even do it on auto-pilot, without thinking. (Assuming Drive is a class skill for Commoners and is trained only, most people will have a 4 for their Drive skill. If the DC to "drive to work without crashing your car" is 10, and if everyone has to roll every time they get behind the wheel, everyone risks crashing on a 5 or less, or 25% of the time. Eek!)
Personally, I am a huge fan of take 10 because I believe that characters should be rewarded for investing in their skills. There are plenty of times that characters are under stress or distracted and therefore forced to roll, and if I want something to be especially difficult, I just set the DC higher.
Asking someone for directions? DC 10, you can take 10. Most of us can do this on a regular basis.
Asking someone for money? DC 20. You can take 10, but most characters can't make that DC and would have to roll.
Asking someone for directions while people are chasing you? Yeah, still a DC 10, but you're going to have to roll that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider them in danger of being social failures :P
You generally cannot take 10 in combat, so it is up to the GM to decide whether a given social encounter qualifies as "social combat" (which is now a thing per Ultimate Intrigue).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a way of thinking about it that I find helpful:
It's clear that, for any given skill, there are cases where you cannot Take 10. However, it is also clear that for any given skill that does not prohibit it (such as UMD), there are also cases where you CAN Take 10.
So if your player is asking to Take 10 and you're thinking about disallowing it, don't answer with "No, because [distraction]". Instead, answer with "No, you would need [element of situation] to be [different circumstance] in order to take 10." Remember to be specific!
Then see what kind of response the player gives. If they say, "Mm, yeah, that makes sense," then you're probably fine. If they give you a weird look, or ask why you would even need a check at all in that hypothetical situation, or ask when the hell that would even come up, etc; then you've probably done something wrong and need to recalibrate your sense of when it's appropriate to Take 10.
Remember: every time a rule is saying "not in X circumstance", it's also saying "allowed in non-X circumstances". If you can't come up with examples of the latter, then you misunderstand the former.
Spending a day in a noble's court without creating an incident; definitely a take10. Asking a potential sponsor for funds; roll the dice.
I thought I remembered reading that you couldn't take 10 on opposed checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I remembered reading that you couldn't take 10 on opposed checks.
A lot of the pre-written stuff is already using Take 10 for many of those skills.
DC 25 for your Sense Motive to see if that Aspis delegate is lying.
DC 15 Diplomacy to convince Rogar One-Eye to join the Pathfinder Society.
DC 20 Perception check to notice that Rogue hiding in the corner, or he gets to sneak attack you when his place in Initiative comes up, or even a surprise round.
In a combat has started situation, no.
If in a social encounter, like schmoozing someone at a wedding, sure.
Some skills, even though Take 10 might be allowed, are hard to get that situation available. Can you Take 10 for Wild Empathy? I think it is allowable, but, since it takes a minute, and you would have to be in a situation where there is a hostile or wild animal to affect, but not be actually in combat with it, it would be a rare occurrence. Same as using Diplomacy during a combat encounter to turn it peaceful. Possible, but not easy.
I thought I remembered reading that you couldn't take 10 on opposed checks.
Not a rule I've seen. Many GMs treat opposed rolls as 'distracted' so it could be that you've picked up on that, maybe? As far as I am aware you most certainly can take 10 on opposed skill checks.
There is no real reason to disallow take 10 on social skills in most circumstances.
One of my 'take 10' guidelines is:
you cannot be distracted or in danger from the skill check itself, it needs to be something without the skill check you are attempting that distracts you (so no you can't take 10 when asking for directions when being chased, but you can take 10 when asking for directions from someone you shouldn't be asking directions from, like the mayor, even when such would put you at risk of social failure).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I remembered reading that you couldn't take 10 on opposed checks.
No such rule. In fact, there are even examples of taking 10 on opposed checks in the Core Rulebook. For instance:
Your Disguise check ... is opposed by others' Perception check results. ... it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM who doesn't let a player take a 10 on such a check without very good reason is cheating the player.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that if a player wants to take 10 then the vast majority of the time they can take 10. I personally HATE WITH A BURNING PASSION GMs that don't let you take 10 for simple easy things, let alone slightly more difficult things.
GM: there's a 10ft pit.
player: My acro is a 0, I'll take 10 to jump it.
GM: you can't cause I hate taking 10.
player: ... Okay party, have fun without me, I'm not risking this jump that I could very easily make but for some reason can't reliably do this time.
GM: You found a trap.
Player: okay, well I'm quite good at disabling, I'll take 10 to disable.
GM: You can't do that.
Player: There's nothing threatening me, no one is attacking, and we don't even have a time pressure.
GM: Nope, no take 10.
I feel a GM better have a super dang good reason and explanation for denying take 10 to a player. Otherwise I think they are just being jerks.
I would point to the Childlike feat.
Very first part of the feat is "Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to..." which would strongly indicate to me that one cannot normally take 10 on a Bluff check.
I would point to the Childlike feat.
Very first part of the feat is "Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to..." which would strongly indicate to me that one cannot normally take 10 on a Bluff check.
Feats saying "you can do X" are poor evidence that you normally can't do X. Consider pre-errata Prone Shooter.
Mistakes like that get made pretty regularly, yeah, particularly for those relatively early books. Some Feats and traits contradict specific text in other sections of the rules, or just don't make any sense because the writer either forgot a rule or never knew it (freelancers often write small bits for books).
An amusing example is a Trait that gives someone "DR 1 against electricity attacks and spells".
Negotiating the release of a hostage...no take 10.
Negotiating the price of a pastie...ok to take 10.Intimidating the captain of the guard...no take 10.
Intimidating a no name street urchin...ok to take 10.
Can you clarify exactly what about the first examples causes "distraction" that prevents taking 10? Players aren't in initiative counts, so they aren't in combat. Why are the first examples distracting when the others aren't?
If the point is that you just want the first examples to be more difficult, I think a better option is to up the DC:
The kidnapper is a professional dealing from a position of strength, so increase the DC by 5.
The captain of the guard is master of his own domain, he has the weight of the law behind him, and he himself is intimidating, so the DC increases by 10.
If you want to make sure that players can't auto-succeed on important checks, just set the DC high enough that taking 10 isn't going to work. If the players have to spend resources to get their bonus high enough that taking 10 will work, that isn't an auto-success.
The only thing that disallowing take 10 does is put the players completely at the mercy of the dice. If that's what your players want, go for it. (Personally, I find it really frustrating.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a southern, we always take ten when talking. Just speak a little slower than others.
Are there situations where you can take 10? Absolutely.
Are there situations where you cannot take 10? Absolutely.
From there it's all up to GM discretion. Expect table variance.
|
I have a PFS PC who takes 10 to bluff when he introduces himself. I have the other players at the table roll Sense Motive during character introductions.
I haven't played him enough yet to encounter table variation yet. So far, I've only run him with two GMs, neither of whom had a problem with this.
Feats saying "you can do X" are poor evidence that you normally can't do X. Consider pre-errata Prone Shooter.I would point to the Childlike feat.
Very first part of the feat is "Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to..." which would strongly indicate to me that one cannot normally take 10 on a Bluff check.
Poor evidence supporting one position is still better than no evidence supporting the other.
EDIT: Mea culpa, Snowblind and ChessPwn below are right, my examples are rubbish. Definitely need a coffee
I've already given my view above. But to give another example: a salesman is at a networking event. This is the kind of thing they do routinely so, making small talk and leaving a good impression would be a Take 10. Closing a deal, however has consequences for success or failure that can't be easily corrected so the dice has to be rolled.
Taking ChessPwn's examples above: I would make the character roll to jump the pit and the trap as there are consequences for failure. To open a lock where there is no pressure, then I would allow a Take 10. Allowing take 10 to avoid a trap is only a small step from allowing take 10 to swing a sword
Feats saying "you can do X" are poor evidence that you normally can't do X. Consider pre-errata Prone Shooter.I would point to the Childlike feat.
Very first part of the feat is "Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to..." which would strongly indicate to me that one cannot normally take 10 on a Bluff check.
Poor evidence supporting one position is still better than no evidence supporting the other.
I've already given my view above. But to give another example: a salesman is at a networking event. This is the kind of thing they do routinely so, making small talk and leaving a good impression would be a Take 10. Closing a deal, however has consequences for success or failure that can't be easily corrected so the dice has to be rolled.
Taking ChessPwn's examples above: I would make the character roll to jump the pit and the trap as there are consequences for failure. To open a lock where there is no pressure, then I would allow a Take 10. Allowing take 10 to avoid a trap is only a small step from allowing take 10 to swing a sword
*sigh*
Having consequences for failure prohibits take-20, not take-10. So long as, and I quote, "your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10." That is literally the only restriction on Take-10. So long as you aren't distracted while closing that deal or jumping that pit, and so long as you aren't in immediate danger , then you can take 10. Because them's the rules. Having a consequence for failure stops taking 10 about as much as wearing a pink sweater does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE STOPS TAKE20,
CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE IS ONE OF THE GIVEN REASONS TO DO TAKE10.
When a character or creature is not in immediate danger or distracted, it may choose to take 10 on some rolls (specifically, skill checks). Instead of rolling 1d20 for the check, calculate the result as if the die had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible 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.
So a low roll being a failure CAN'T stop the take 10 because one of reasons you'd want to take 10 is because you're afraid a low roll would fail.
Why would you take 10 on jumping a pit? Because you fear the failure of a low roll, and a high roll doesn't matter, you just need to clear the pit. Thus jumping is pit matches exactly why you'd use take 10.
EDIT: So in your salesman example. If he thinks he's so good at closing deals that an average attempt would get him the deal, and he'd rather have the deal than risking losing the deal to try for a better deal OR the deal is a yes or no and not variable, then he'd take 10 because he's fearing that "a poor roll might fail"
Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive... those are essentially social combat. It doesn't make sense to me that you can take a 10 just because a sword isn't involved. Maybe take as 10 if you are writing a a letter...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What constitutes as a distraction is up to GM interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Snowblind & ChessPwn - yep you're right on this one but there's no need to be so condescending/angry. I've edited my post above.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, what exactly is it that makes some people argue so fervently that a given rule works in a way that is so obviously not in line with the plain English sitting right in front of them?
Is it that they simply prefer it to work a different way, but they either don't place any value on playing to their own preferences (or fear that others don't value it) and therefore feel the need to justify their behavior as being in line with the rules, no matter how badly they have to contradict the rules to do so?
Is it that they first encountered the rule many years ago and took it to mean a certain thing, and didn't realize the error back when they were still new enough to not feel threatened by discovering a mistake, but now they feel like they're a veteran of the game and are threatened at an identity level by the notion that they've continued in error for years on end, compelling them to defend an obviously false notion in a desperate defense of their identity?
Is it that there are certain cognitive skills they haven't developed, such that they can't step back and re-examine a rule freshly without looking through the lens of what they already think of it, and therefore nothing short of a direct contradiction (i.e., a rule stating "X is not the case") will ever get them to change their minds, no matter how clearly the rule might say it works a completely different way that in no way implies the meaning they think is there?
Is it that they actually do recognize their error, but having already asserted a wrong idea in front of other people they desperately try to pretend that they still believe it and can defend it because they're fragile against the idea that they can actually make errors of comprehension (like maybe they think they're the only people making such errors or something)?
Watching all this play out is truly fascinating. I could just keep reading the dialogue for hours. :)
Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive... those are essentially social combat. It doesn't make sense to me that you can take a 10 just because a sword isn't involved. Maybe take as 10 if you are writing a a letter...
I think with Ultimate Intrigue we now have actual rules on social combat. I'm not sure since I don't have the book yet, but that's what I feel I've heard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Joggy: I know, right?! People are awesome~!
Negotiating the release of a hostage...no take 10.
Negotiating the price of a pastie...ok to take 10.Intimidating the captain of the guard...no take 10.
Intimidating a no name street urchin...ok to take 10.Can you clarify exactly what about the first examples causes "distraction" that prevents taking 10? Players aren't in initiative counts, so they aren't in combat. Why are the first examples distracting when the others aren't?
It's not just distraction - it's also immediate danger. The case of trying to intimidate the captain of the guard could easily constitute a case of being in immediate danger should the attempt fail. For negotiating the release of hostages, I'd consider trying to talk down an agitated person holding a dagger to a hostage's neck pretty stressful with lots of immediate danger (if not directly for the PC, then definitely for the hostage). Longer term, lower stress negotiations for the release of hostages (like the US negotiating for the release of the US Embassy staff) wouldn't necessarily interfere with taking 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Joggy
wat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support take ten in almost all social instances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just distraction - it's also immediate danger. The case of trying to intimidate the captain of the guard could easily constitute a case of being in immediate danger should the attempt fail. For negotiating the release of hostages, I'd consider trying to talk down an agitated person holding a dagger to a hostage's neck pretty stressful with lots of immediate danger (if not directly for the PC, then definitely for the hostage). Longer term, lower stress negotiations for the release of hostages (like the US negotiating for the release of the US Embassy staff) wouldn't necessarily interfere with taking 10.Negotiating the release of a hostage...no take 10.
Negotiating the price of a pastie...ok to take 10.Intimidating the captain of the guard...no take 10.
Intimidating a no name street urchin...ok to take 10.Can you clarify exactly what about the first examples causes "distraction" that prevents taking 10? Players aren't in initiative counts, so they aren't in combat. Why are the first examples distracting when the others aren't?
For the captain you're saying that they AREN'T in IMMEDIATE danger, but that there's consequences of failure or potential future danger.
So looking at the rules for take 10 this an example of WHEN you'd USE take 10, because you fear a poor roll would fail, but trust that an average roll (a 10) would succeed.Now your hostage case, I could see you calling distracted, that I'm watching the baddie to see if he starts to kill the hostage and not just focused on talking. But for sure as you say, the PC is not in any immediate danger to prevent a take 10.
Joggywat
AM FAVORITE AM THINKING TALKY MAN RELY ON PHONE SMARTS TOO MUCH.
OR MAYBE AM PURPOSEFUL TO MAKE FUNNY.
AM THINKING YOU MAY NEED GET JYGGI WITH IT FOR GOOD HAPPY TIME.
HAHA FUNNY SUBTLE PUN MAKE TIME.
AM DON'T KNOW PROPER 'AM' GRAMMAR RULES. SORRY.
10/10 WOULD FAVORITE AGAIN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...
A lot of very valid observations there though in some cases I suspect they just like to maintain an argumemt for the sake of it. It's just how they like t'roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Supplying some links to a handful of older threads...
Aug 2011 - 64 posts
Taking 10 and taking 20.Oct 2011 - 156 posts
Take 10 again.Dec 2011 - 315 posts
Taking 10.Feb 2012 - 387 posts
More Take 10 goodness.Sept 2013 - 25 posts
Take 10 on a Knowledge Skill check.Edit-Edit - sorry almost forgot this one - the one that retracts all the others - sort of...
June 2015 - 265 posts
Take 10 NonFAQ
Link to start of Take 10 NonFAQ thread.
Link to Non-FAQ
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game...
Huh? PDT got that one wrong.
The point should be to simplify things, not to control pacing.----
Total derail of a psychology nerd:[show]
Nice way to shrink it.
/cevah
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For social skills, my rulings would be:
Low charisma characters can never take 10 on a charisma based skill checks. Regardless of their training, their low charisma indicates that they find social situations awkward, distracting or otherwise stressful. Maybe they're shy and have to really force themselves to interact at all. They can still take 20 if there are no consequences for failure and they have the time.
This is the Rules subforum. The rules aren't different for characters with different charisma modifiers. That just reflects how effective they are when they take 10, not whether or not they can do it.