|
. . . and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
It was just pointed out to me that this wonderfully vague bit was added to Starfinder's Take 10 rules as a deviation from what I was used to in Pathfinder.
"almost never": when do I, as a SFS GM enforce this?
"some sort of crucial effect": what is this?
"as a key part of the adventure's story": how do I know if it's a key part?
I would sorely love to have SFS overrule this and declare Take 10 is available any time that you are not in danger or distracted when in organized play, as it is described right up until that line. Otherwise, there's going to be a whole lot of table variation on Take 10.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule really hasn't changed that much. This is really just a codification of whats been there for a while.
This rule is there for a good reason.
Take 10 absolutely destroys scenarios. You only need a minimul investment in a skill to be able to take 10 and auto succeed on just about any skill check in the system.
It HAS to be that way, because the alternative is setting the failure rate above 50%
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one time where table variation in Organized Play might not really matter that much other than annoying rules purists. I can think of no character build that is invalidated or diminished by the lack of Take 10 in the SFS. Even in PFS, the only thing I can think of that would be diminished was a single trait that essentially let you Take 12 instead of Take 10. This is especially true if everyone knows there is going to be table variation on this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't have anything to do with invalidating builds. It has the potential to invalidate the Take 10 rule.
I've got +10 Perception. I'm pretty sure an 11 won't find the secret door but a fair guess 20 might. I want to Take 10 to search the room. No, you can't take 10 to search the room because finding the secret door advances the plot. You rolled a 2. Oh, sorry, you don't see or have any reason to believe there's anything hidden here. Scenario over. Here's your 1 XP and 0 Rep/Fame. (There have existed scenarios where the entire adventure is hidden behind two DC 20 Perception checks, so it's not an exaggeration).
But more to the point, thete are lots of skill check points through scenarios. Random GMs may randomly decide different check points are "key parts" and allow or deny Take 10 randomly. For Repeatables, that's going to become annoying.
PFS' The Confirmation for example: GM Bob allowed you to Take 10 to climb around the pit or climb up the knotted rope to get out. GM Fred said no Take 10 because getting past it was a key part of thr adventure.
But on the lines of builds, it's as irritating as a Rogue not being able to Take 10 on Disable Device to pick a lock at random.
|
BNW and I have been arguing this for some time now. He says there's a good reason, I say it's a dumb one.
I posed a challenge on the thread I created awhile back, one that never got answered. Reposting that now:
For those stating that taking 10 shouldn't be allowed on the examples we've given, a challenge: please provide an example on what you would consider a valid use of taking 10.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW and I have been arguing this for some time now. He says there's a good reason, I say it's a dumb one.
I posed a challenge on the thread I created awhile back, one that never got answered. Reposting that now:
For those stating that taking 10 shouldn't be allowed on the examples we've given, a challenge: please provide an example on what you would consider a valid use of taking 10.
Valid: You attempt a Computers check to search the infosphere for more information about the legendary "ghost ship."
Invalid: You attempt a Computers check to unlock the master controls of the ghost ship before it can jump towards Absalom station.
Valid: During rest days, you attempt Medicine checks to help your ally recover from a disease.
Invalid: You attempt a Bluff check to convince the Evil Overlord that he needs to flee because the rescue group is just minutes away.
I'm generally pretty lenient about Take 10 (I do it all the time myself). Jumping pits, climbing ropes, searching rooms, opening doors when there is no time pressure, whatever. Take 10. I like this rule because it allows an element of drama to exist in the critical moments of a scenario. It's a theatrical way of doing things. When the stakes are highest, that's when you really feel the pressure.
|
|
With 20-some GM sessions of SFS under my belt with a bunch of different players, I'm enjoying the looser format of Starfinder Society vs. Pathfinder Society. The players are making stuff up, I'm making stuff up, it feels a lot more like we're telling a story together.
The core strictures of Organized Play are still there: I'm not adding treasure or adding enemies. The players still need to accomplish certain goals. But how they get to those goals has been a lot more varied. If they come up with a way to overcome a non-combat encounter that the scenario writer didn't expect, nobody on either side of the screen really minds that we may not even end up rolling dice. A lot less formalized than the "A then B then C" steps PFS has in some ways crystalized into.
Seriously, I just GM'ed Ashes of Discovery last night. That entire scenario can be summed up as "Here's some plot hooks, stat blocks, and encounter locations. Now make it up!"
Why is that relevant? Because when I let the players run with their idea to use some materials they harvested earlier (which is itself completely ad-lib and nowhere in the printed material) to prop up a collapsing structure, they don't feel railroaded later when I don't allow them to Take 10 on a check even though they aren't in combat or under pressure. It's arbitrary, but arbitrary in the service of a good story.
|
|
It doesn't have anything to do with invalidating builds. It has the potential to invalidate the Take 10 rule.
So the rule is invalidating... the rules? That doesn't make any sense.
Do you mean it makes it so you can never take 10? Thats clearly not the case.
But more to the point, there are lots of skill check points through scenarios. Random GMs may randomly decide different check points are "key parts" and allow or deny Take 10 randomly.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make it random, unfounded, or nonsensical. Just because different DMs disagree on how to apply the rule and what it means doesn't make their decisions random, inane, or as you're more than hinting here, wrong or unplayable.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
And I love the flexibility that SFS has.I don't get the idea that PFS doesn't have it as well.
I know there's a lot more encouragement for plus and minus twos here and there and whatnot but thats always been allowed in the pathfinder core rules.
I think, over time, campaigns simply become more regimented.
|
|
And I love the flexibility that SFS has.I don't get the idea that PFS doesn't have it as well.
PFS does have it, it's just that by virtue of the norms that have developed over the years, the play in most lodges is somewhat formalized. There is freedom but there is a lot more expectation in PFS from both the players and the GMs that everything can (and should) be quantified.
SFS (and Starfinder in general) is a little looser. The word "about" is not a dirty word in Starfinder. There's not a "right way" and a "wrong way" to approach combats (in part because most Starfinder combats CAN'T be ended in one round). In Starfinder there's a lot more room for things to go wrong without going catastrophically wrong. So the baggage PFS has of complaints about GMs altering things (even minor things) and killing characters hasn't accumulated yet. I do expect SFS will tighten up as years past but at the moment it's pretty free-wheeling in comparison to PFS.
|
|
I feel like I inadvertently stepped in a hornet’s nest.
I implied nothing. My feelings on the issue were what I stated and nothing more. BNW, you are unfairly attributing negative assessments to my thoughts that are not there. I did not call the rule inane or anyone wrong for applying it.
Having you jump down my throat for a legitimate question I had certainly makes me no longer interested in the subject.
|
I posed a challenge on the thread I created awhile back, one that never got answered.
How is this a "challenge"? It's more like asking for opinions.
please provide an example on what you would consider a valid use of taking 10.
Valid: Taking 10 vs. an opponent of a CR equal to or lower than your Level.
Invalid: Taking 10 vs. an opponent of a CR greater than your Level.
I could easily see Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Stealth and Sleight of Hand all being handled this way.
|
|
". . . and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story."
I've said it before, but I view this clause as, at the very least, applying to checks that are directly tied to success conditions.
Yes, I do realize that this adds more swing into the success or failure of the mission, but this game has dice for a reason, and its largely to determine the success or failure of your actions.
|
|
I'd prefer not to completely hose over my players if they've made a concerted effort to invest in the skills in question
So do you do that by letting them take 10 or not letting them take 10 on everything?
If you don't, someone with a +15 could roll a 4 and miss that DC 20. Which could qualify as hosing the player.
Buf if you do, someone with a +15 and someone with a +10 are going to make the skill checks, making that extra +5 rather superfluous, thus hosing the player.
When you buy skill focus you're looking at a 15% increase in your success rate with that skill. If you to be able to use it to take 10 for a 99% success rate your expectations are unrealistic.
and if it can streamline play in some regards versus having to roll a d20 every 5', it makes EVERYONE's lives a bit easier.
Those are not the only options. You can just have the party roll when it matters or roll in secret for them. (there are abilities that make me not like the second one, so i'll fo the first and risk a metagaming party)
|
|
@Shaudius:
With regards to 1-06 and 1-13, the DCs on those are particularly high, so much so that I'm not certain that taking 10 with a character would actually succeed. I just took a look at the level 4 pregens, and the highest Diplomacy amongst them is Navasi with a +9. Her numbers are a bit low, so I recognize that using the pregens as a yardstick is fraught with danger. Let's take a closer look at both scenarios. To keep things simple, I'm only going to look at the 3-4 subtier, but I suspect my findings will be able to be extrapolated to whatever subtier we wish to discuss.
So, here, the PCs need to make six DC 21 checks. In order to have a chance of succeeding here on a take 10, the PCs need to have a +11 bonus. Class bonus gives us +3, and assuming they're 4th level and have max ranks in the skill, that's another +4. That leaves another +4 from somewhere, which would require either an 18 in the skill, or something special somewhere else to bump that up. 18s aren't incredibly common at 4th level, but if the check is on someone's prime stat and they bought an upgrade, they could do it. More likely, the PCs will have a few skills they can take 10 on, and they'll have to chance it on the others. Alternatively, they could take 10 on those, get close, and pay off the drow.
With regards to 1-13, do you let players take 10 on checks earlier in the mod?
@Belafon: I'd be OK with disallowing taking 10 on the first one, but less so on the second one. The introduction of a timed challenge suggests rounds are in play, which means that taking 10 wouldn't be an option. With regards to the second, if the PCs come up with this ruse during battle, then no, you can't take 10, but if they decided to do so before battle began, I'd probably allow it. Of course, that roll would be modified by how confident the Evil Overlord is, how capable the PCs seem, how close he is to success, etc.
@Nefreet: I don't even understand that. So, for example, my envoy is trying to lie to a space pirate who is several CR above her level. Let's say he only has a +4 to Sense Motive, and I have a +9 Bluff. Why can't I take 10? And why can I take 10 with his cronies, who are lower CR than her but weirdly have a higher Sense Motive?
|
|
@Nefreet: I don't even understand that. So, for example, my envoy is trying to lie to a space pirate who is several CR above her level. Let's say he only has a +4 to Sense Motive, and I have a +9 Bluff. Why can't I take 10? And why can I take 10 with his cronies, who are lower CR than her but weirdly have a higher Sense Motive?
I don't understand why you don't understand it.
It's super simple. GM asks for a Sense Motive, Player asks if they can Take 10, GM says "No, their CR is higher than your Level".
Asking to Take 10 is entirely out-of-character, and responding with an idea of CR is equally out-of-character, so there's no loss of verisimilitude.
The alternative you're proposing is not reasonable. What benchmark would you establish for a player's ability to Take 10? Would that benchmark change for every player at the table?
Much easier to make it a blanket CR vs. Level and call it a day.
|
|
@Shaudius:
With regards to 1-06 and 1-13, the DCs on those are particularly high, so much so that I'm not certain that taking 10 with a character would actually succeed. I just took a look at the level 4 pregens, and the highest Diplomacy amongst them is Navasi with a +9. Her numbers are a bit low, so I recognize that using the pregens as a yardstick is fraught with danger. Let's take a closer look at both scenarios. To keep things simple, I'm only going to look at the 3-4 subtier, but I suspect my findings will be able to be extrapolated to whatever subtier we wish to discuss.
You're forgetting a bunch of things, Operative's Edge, for one, so an operative with a 16 in a stat, trained at level 4 has, +3(stat)+4(ranks)+3(trained)+1(operative's edge), same for envoys in at least a couple of those still checks, same for some versions of mystics, same for solarians (more MAD but doable.)
There's also some very cheap augments that give you things on stuff like Intimidate that are fairly common.
And also there's the fact that at level 4 you should easily have a Mk2 personal upgrade so your primary stat should pretty much always be 18 at that level.
We could equally apply this discussion to another scenario 1-05, all of those checks are trivially easy even at level 1 if you allow Take 10 and they are all tied into the success condition. DC is 17, I'm a 1st level operative with a 14 stat, a class skill and a rank, I am +7 so I auto succeed at every normal check. Same is true for every class where they get their class bonus.
|
|
And also there's the fact that at level 4 you should easily have a Mk2 personal upgrade so your primary stat should pretty much always be 18 at that level.
Pardon the quick derail, but I thought equipment purchases were limited by character level. A Mk 2 Personal Upgrade is Level 7 and wouldn't be available for purchase until Level 6, unless one was listed on the character's Chronicle sheets (making it available at Level 5). Am I misunderstanding how equipment purchases work in SFS? Did I overlook or misread a rule somewhere?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
High enough level operatives can take 10 just about all the time on skills they have skill focus in.
At 7th level, Skill Focus becomes irrelevant to Operatives as both Skill Focus and Operative's Edge provide Insight bonuses, so they would not stack.
Edit: Never mind. You are referring to the Operative's ability to Take 10 under any circumstances for skills they have Skill Focus in at 7th level.
Of course, that is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion as this specific exception to the rule would override any GM decision to say, "you can't Take 10 under these circumstances because..."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
And also there's the fact that at level 4 you should easily have a Mk2 personal upgrade so your primary stat should pretty much always be 18 at that level.Pardon the quick derail, but I thought equipment purchases were limited by character level. A Mk 2 Personal Upgrade is Level 7 and wouldn't be available for purchase until Level 6, unless one was listed on the character's Chronicle sheets (making it available at Level 5). Am I misunderstanding how equipment purchases work in SFS? Did I overlook or misread a rule somewhere?
It is also not very cost effective to do this at 4th level. At 5th, when you get 4 free stat bumps, you can add a +2 to a 16 to make it an 18 and then get the MK1 personal upgrade to make it a 20. If you get it at 4th, then you have an 18 in your stat and you can only bump it up to 19.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I meant mk1 for the +2 for some reason in my brain they are mk2,4, and 6.
It is also not very cost effective to do this at 4th level. At 5th, when you get 4 free stat bumps, you can add a +2 to a 16 to make it an 18 and then get the MK1 personal upgrade to make it a 20. If you get it at 4th, then you have an 18 in your stat and you can only bump it up to 19.
Personal upgrades are excluded from the calculation as to whether a stat bump is 1 or 2 points. Pg. 21:
"Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades—see page 212)..."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Yes I meant mk1 for the +2 for some reason in my brain they are mk2,4, and 6.
It is also not very cost effective to do this at 4th level. At 5th, when you get 4 free stat bumps, you can add a +2 to a 16 to make it an 18 and then get the MK1 personal upgrade to make it a 20. If you get it at 4th, then you have an 18 in your stat and you can only bump it up to 19.Personal upgrades are excluded from the calculation as to whether a stat bump is 1 or 2 points. Pg. 21:
"Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades—see page 212)..."
Thanks! Still learning the rules.
|
|
@Nefreet: My alternative is to remove the completely arbitrary nature of a check "that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story." That's incredibly nebulous, and I feel is a way for grognardian GMs to punish players for choosing to be good at a skill.
Honestly, my takeaway from all of these conversations is that there is a portion of the GM base that really dislikes how capable PCs are. If you don't want players taking 10 with their characters, then roll initiative. If initiative isn't appropriate, then they should be allowed to take 10 - full stop.
|
|
Wouldn't my solution remove the "completely arbitrary nature of a check"?
I don't understand why you're bringing up Initiative. You can't Take 10 on Initiative.
Whichever the case, Starfinder thought it prudent to include a clause that makes Taking 10 different from Pathfinder. I don't see anything "grognardian" about using the system as presented.
|
|
The clause isn't even different, just differently worded
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 checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't the Starfinder limitations on Take 10 very similar to those in the non-FAQ FAQ about it in Pathfinder? I'm having some trouble digging up the original post but here's a requote.