Skill Feats: What Should Be Baked In?

[N N 959]

Stone Dog wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.

I don't follow that math.

Sounds like they are saying two classes are 1) I can take 10 and succeed or 2) I have to roll to succeed. If you know that a DC is in the first, it is 100% without a roll. If you know that the DC is in the second, then you have a 50% chance at best. If you don't know and you take ten and fail, then you know that you never had a better than 50% chance in the first place.

That still doesn't result in DMW's assertion. If I don't know the DC, then the game can absolutely have DCs between 50-95% because I can roll on something that I could have Taken 10 on to succeed because I don't know that Taking 10 would have worked. This happens all the time in PFS.

A rogue may have no idea what the DC is to disable a trap. Maybe a T10 works, maybe it doesn't.

[Mark Seifter]

NN 959 wrote:

Take 10 is easily eliminated by the GM adding a "distraction." Buzzy flies or an overpowering stench can be used to preclude a player from Taking 10. If the author or GM doesn't want a player to use Take 10, that's easily prevented. So the only time a player can autosucceed is if the scenario specifically contemplates that outcome.

You're not wrong about this option. But then we're in Ediwir's very well-considered "Case 3" that he appended to DMW's two cases. The problem here is that if you lean heavily on Case 3, the burden is on the GM to do that whenever the roll is important/interesting, rather than the reverse, where you just don't roll for things that are uninteresting or should be an autopass. That reverse is more our expected style for PF2. Using Case 3 in PF1 can lead to major drama at the table because the feel of the flow of play is totally different and designed in a way that increases conflict (the flow of "Rule typically allows this except in some situations" -> "I expect to use that" -> "GM/adventure tells me I am in that situation where I can't use it." is just made for frustration and often channels that on the GM because of how it flows). There are more than enough threads on paizo.com about major conflicts that arose because of this design choice we made, and it's kind of the design's fault here for all that frustration, not the players or the GM.

NN 959 wrote:

But PF2 doesn't eliminate "auto-win." ... What am I missing?

What you're missing is that Assurance isn't a feat for 10 + all modifiers. It gives you a solid value that is going to beat most of the basic things you'll try but not the big hard challenges, and we can do that while still making big challenges that your specialist character who stacks up bonuses has a really high chance to make when you do roll for it (we've drastically increased that chance from the playtest CRB, especially at high levels).

[Deadmanwalking]

N N 959 wrote:

That still doesn't result in DMW's assertion.

For the record, Stone Dog is quite right in his interpretation of what I meant.

It also was not precisely an assertion. I wasn't trying to say that was absolutely true under all circumstances, I was trying to say it was the problem case that made Taking 10 an issue when it came up, and made removing that mechanic useful.

Obviously, it's not a problem all the time, but it exists and it's a problem when it comes up.

[Ediwir]

Yeah, people don’t know the DC in advance, but hey kmow that if they have about a 60-70% success (which can be extrapolated from context, and is usually a healthy eroic success chance), then taking 10 bumps that up to 100%.
With Assurance, you can have variance and bump to 100% only those DCs where you’d have 70-75% at least, and roll for the rest without knowing you’ll likely fail.

[Arcaian]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

That still doesn't result in DMW's assertion.

For the record, Stone Dog is quite right in his interpretation of what I meant.

It also was not precisely an assertion. I wasn't trying to say that was absolutely true under all circumstances, I was trying to say it was the problem case that made Taking 10 an issue when it came up, and made removing that mechanic useful.

Obviously, it's not a problem all the time, but it exists and it's a problem when it comes up.

It's especially true in cases where the DC is known - Acrobatics checks to jump, Appraise checks (if anyone ever used them), Lingering Performance in the Playtest, etc. If you know you're trying to jump the 20-foot wide pit when you've got +11 acrobatics and can get a running jump, you know you can just take 10 and succeed; if the GM chooses to make it a 25-foot wide pit instead to ensure there's a chance of failure, suddenly you're at a 30% chance of success!

[Cyouni]

N N 959 wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It makes there precisely two categories of Skill DCs: Ones you have a 100% chance on, and ones you have a 50% or less chance on.

I don't follow that math.

Sounds like they are saying two classes are 1) I can take 10 and succeed or 2) I have to roll to succeed. If you know that a DC is in the first, it is 100% without a roll. If you know that the DC is in the second, then you have a 50% chance at best. If you don't know and you take ten and fail, then you know that you never had a better than 50% chance in the first place.

That still doesn't result in DMW's assertion. If I don't know the DC, then the game can absolutely have DCs between 50-95% because I can roll on something that I could have Taken 10 on to succeed because I don't know that Taking 10 would have worked. This happens all the time in PFS.

A rogue may have no idea what the DC is to disable a trap. Maybe a T10 works, maybe it doesn't.

The other thing is - if you T10 and trigger the trap, you basically had very little chance of succeeding in the first place, because you had to roll at least 15 on the die. In T10 failure scenarios where you don't trigger the trap, T10 gives you a protection from the failure range of 1-9. Therefore, it's still a better option to take 10 on every trap to find out, because there's practically no downside to it.

When the solution to something is "constantly throw up other barricades that make your standard rule unusable", then that's a problem in the standard rule itself.

[N N 959]

Again, totally appreciate your attempts to enlighten me.

Mark Seifter wrote:

That reverse is more our expected style for PF2.

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills without frustrating them by forcing them to roll for things and failing? One of the neat and necessary mechanics in PFS is to use skill challenges to give purpose to the various classes types and their skills. That's easily achieved by lots of moderate DC skill checks that the wrong class can't complete untrained, but that don't result in a lot of frustration because of poor rolls a la Take 10.

Quote:

where you just don't roll for things that are uninteresting or should be an autopass.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Paizo has said we want to simplify skill checks by creating two categories: 1) Those that are interesting and you will roll them 2) Those that are not interesting and you will not even roll them? Is that a fair assessment?

Quote:

There are more than enough threads on paizo.com about major conflicts that arose because of this design choice we made, and it's kind of the design's fault here for all that frustration, not the players or the GM.

I have to agree because you guys had a chance to fix this problem. All you had to do is say that the PC is entitled to Take 10 unless something other than the task itself is causing the distraction.

The "drama" that I've witnessed first hand comes from GMs not wanting players to Take 10 because they don't like it as a mechanic, not because there is some legitimate confusion about the rules.

NN 959 wrote:

But PF2 doesn't eliminate "auto-win." ... What am I missing?

Mark Seifert wrote:

What you're missing is that Assurance isn't a feat for 10 + all modifiers. It gives you a solid value that is going to beat most of the basic things you'll try but not the big hard challenges

**scratches head***

I think I am still not grasping something. How is that categorically different from Take 10 for the player? The only thing you've changed is what modifiers apply and thus the range of auto-wins. With Tight Math, isn't Take 10 going to let the PC beat most of the basic things but not the big things?

Quote:

... and we can do that while still making big challenges that your specialist character who stacks up bonuses has a really high chance to make when you do roll for it (we've drastically increased that chance from the playtest CRB, especially at high levels).

So what you're wanting is a player to know that Assurance won't work but still have a high chance of succeeding when Assurance won't? Again, isn't that already possible with Take 10 where the player doesn't know the DC?

So let's say for argument's sake that Assurance does this cool mechanical thing that Take 10 doesn't. Okay...why is Paizo not allowing that to be use for every skill for free? Why is there now a feat tax? You're still allowing the mechanic, but not letting everyone have it. I don't get that part of it.

[Stone Dog]

I'm not sold on Assurance being a fix though.

It sounds like we are going from T-10 either works or it doesn't and sometimes it might be a problem to Assurance either works or it doesn't and sometimes it might be a problem for probably the same reasons.

Either way, it represents somebody being able to reliably hit low DCs without a roll by investing enough character resources on it. There are no more skill points to be that resource, so now it sort of has to be feats, but feats sound like they are still a bit on the precious side.

I'm not saying that I want Assurance to be as good as rolling or even as good as taking ten was. I just am underwhelmed at having to spend a feat on it.

It is likely that I'd have a clearer picture once there is a blog on the topic or something.

[Mark Seifter]

N N 959 wrote:

I have to agree because you guys had a chance to fix this problem. All you had to do is say that the PC is entitled to Take 10 unless something other than the task itself is causing the distraction.

The "drama" that I've witnessed first hand comes from GMs not wanting players to Take 10 because they don't like it as a mechanic, not because there is some legitimate confusion about the rules.

Unfortunately, then we've removed even the option to use the techniques you mentioned before as ways to help fix the conundrum of low success chance or auto-success.

I think the crux of the problem, which you've correctly recognized, is that the GMs are tapping into the low success / auto-success dilemma either understanding directly through design analysis but more often from either a gut intuition that something was off that they can't quite put to words or from bad experiences with some of these issues (whether interpersonal or just resolution dissatisfaction), which then leads to dislike of the mechanic and a spiral of increasing interpersonal tension as they might start removing the option even more than necessary due to their dislike.

[Deadmanwalking]

N N 959 wrote:

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills without frustrating them by forcing them to roll for things and failing? One of the neat and necessary mechanics in PFS is to use skill challenges to give purpose to the various classes types and their skills. That's easily achieved by lots of moderate DC skill checks that the wrong class can't complete untrained, but that don't result in a lot of frustration because of poor rolls a la Take 10.

Uh...people who invest aren't gonna fail much on even decently difficult checks. The whole point of removing Taking 10 is that a lot of the time, an invested person might easily have an 70-90% chance of success. I mean, You can use DC 20 checks for people who have a +15 and have it actually feel meaningful that they have a +15 rather than a +10 (whereas, in PF1, there was no difference between a +10 and +15 on a DC 20 check, as long as you could and did Take 10).

N N 959 wrote:

**scratches head***

I think I am still not grasping something. How is that categorically different from Take 10 for the player? The only thing you've changed is what modifiers apply and thus the range of auto-wins. With Tight Math, isn't Take 10 going to let the PC beat most of the basic things but not the big things?

Uh...the problem with Taking 10 is explicitly how wide the range of auto-wins is. Narrowing that is in fact the goal and does in fact fix the problem most of the time. Being able to 'Take 5' would be vastly less of an issue.

N N 959 wrote:

So what you're wanting is a player to know that Assurance won't work but still have a high chance of succeeding when Assurance won't? Again, isn't that already possible with Take 10 where the player doesn't know the DC?

Not nearly as easily. A lot of people with high bonuses will pretty much always Take 10 just because it will succeed so much of the time. That's intentionally much less true of Assurance.

Also, as noted, you actually do know a lot of DCs just inherently (climbing, jumping, swimming, etc. are all pre-known), so this obviously doesn't work for those checks...and yet in many cases those are the checks you want this kind of effect most on (ie: if climbing doesn't have tension, you shouldn't be rolling it in the first place).

And succeeding on a roll you could have Taken 10 and auto-succeeded always feels pretty s#+!ty (and you know this whenever you roll a 9 or less and still succeed, so pretty often). It feels like you screwed up and took an unnecessary risk...because that is exactly what happened. The lower your 'auto succeed' threshold is (out of possible d20 rolls), the less often you are going to feel that particular brand of crappy.

N N 959 wrote:

So let's say for argument's sake that Assurance does this cool mechanical thing that Take 10 doesn't. Okay...why is Paizo not allowing that to be use for every skill for free? Why is there now a feat tax? You're still allowing the mechanic, but not letting everyone have it. I don't get that part of it.

This is slightly more nebulous as far as I can tell. I think the idea is that in 'no pressure' situations where you could have Taken 10 in PF1, the GM probably usually shouldn't make you roll things at all in PF2.

Which makes Assurance more like Skill Mastery in that it applies to rolls in high stress situations (which it does).

[Arcaian]

N N 959 wrote:

Again, totally appreciate your attempts to enlighten me.

Mark Seifter wrote:

That reverse is more our expected style for PF2.

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills without frustrating them by forcing them to roll for things and failing? One of the neat and necessary mechanics in PFS is to use skill challenges to give purpose to the various classes types and their skills. That's easily achieved by lots of moderate DC skill checks that the wrong class can't complete untrained, but that don't result in a lot of frustration because of poor rolls a la Take 10.

Quote:

where you just don't roll for things that are uninteresting or should be an autopass.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Paizo has said we want to simplify skill checks by creating two categories: 1) Those that are interesting and you will roll them 2) Those that are not interesting and you will not even roll them? Is that a fair assessment?

Quote:

There are more than enough threads on paizo.com about major conflicts that arose because of this design choice we made, and it's kind of the design's fault here for all that frustration, not the players or the GM.

I have to agree because you guys had a chance to fix this problem. All you had to do is say that the PC is entitled to Take 10 unless something other than the task itself is causing the distraction.

The "drama" that I've witnessed first hand comes from GMs not wanting players to Take 10 because they don't like it as a mechanic, not because there is some legitimate confusion about the rules.

NN 959 wrote:

But PF2 doesn't eliminate "auto-win." ... What am I missing?

Mark Seifert wrote:

What you're missing is that Assurance isn't a feat for 10 + all modifiers. It gives you a solid value that is going to beat most of the basic things you'll try but not the big hard challenges

**scratches head***

I think I am still not grasping something. How is that categorically...

The reverse in this case I think refers to making a system where you do can still consistently do things that are trivial for your character - the intention of the take-10 mechanic. A system where the Legendary acrobat finds the 25ft wide hole that's trivial for him, and he can just leap it - 0% chance of failure for something the character should be good at, but when he comes across something that's actually meant to be challenging, you can have success chances between 50% and 100%. Not dissimilar to a 'take 5' mechanic some people have discussed for PF1 - you don't need to feel like your character can't do what they're supposed to do, but you don't have to regularly come across situations where you have a less than 50% success chance. If you want do reward a character's investment, you can still do so - the party needs to identify a variety of magical effects in a maze, so you can make them all under 10+level+modifier from proficiency level - the person who has Assurance in Arcana can do so without issue. Then, later on, the magic gets more esoteric - the DC gradually increases till it's beyond the Assurance level, so they have to roll - but they're still rewarded for their investment with a 75% chance, not 40% like it'd have to be in PF1.

I don't think the intent is for some skill checks in adventures to be uninteresting and not intended to be rolled - it's that if someone has invested heavily in a skill and taken the Assurance feat, they can breeze past some of the easier uses to reflect their investment. For one part tracking the group of orcs, the difficulty will be tracking the group - the party with the Survival expert and Assurance will automatically succeed there, but they get to shine when one orc breaks off from the group and needs to be tracked.

Your comment on clarifying the rules on Take 10 would certainly stop a good chunk of the debate. The difference for the solution Paizo has chosen is that you still can't take 10 for the autowin - they've essentially made a take-5 mechanic. For example:

PF1 - Ranger with 14 wis and 5 ranks in Survival has a modifier of +10. Their take 10 is 20; if the DC of the check is under 20, the ranger cannot fail. If the DC is over 20, the ranger has a less than 50% chance to succeed.

PF2 - Ranger is 5th level with 18 wisdom and Expert Survival - a modifier of +13. The Assurance feat grants them a result of 19 (10 + 5 level + 4 expert), so they can use Assurance to get those easy tracks that are DC 15, and the moderate ones at DC 18. The tricky ones at DC 21 they can't get with assurance - but they have a 60% success chance if they roll. No longer do you either suffer failure as the most likely chance or auto-success.

Edit: Ninja'd heavily! Apologies for a long post.

[N N 959]

Ediwir wrote:

Yeah, people don’t know the DC in advance, but hey kmow that if they have about a 60-70% success (which can be extrapolated from context, and is usually a healthy eroic success chance), then taking 10 bumps that up to 100%.

If you don't know the DC, then how can you bump it to 100% by Taking 10? Your assertion is based on all kinds of a priori assumptions that seem to be taken as givens. All Rogues don't have the same modifiers for every skill.

There's no way for an average player to know that Taking 10 is a 100% unless they know the DC or their modifier is more than double what it should be for that level and neither is an inherent with a Take 10 type of mechanic.

What's more, by Taking 10 and coming up short, you've opened the door for other players to Aid Another and contribute. if you don't T10, there is a low probability that you will miss it it close enough to allow others to help. Either you succeed, or you are so low, there aren't enough party aids to make up the difference.

Way too many times in PFS I've seen players with the highest modifier insist on rolling, and either succeeding so no one else was able to help, or failing miserable and also precluding help.

Quote:

With Assurance, you can have variance and bump to 100% only those DCs where you’d have 70-75% at least, and roll for the rest without knowing you’ll likely fail.

Let me rephrase my original question. Why is Assurance a feat tax? Why isn't Assurance the being available like Take 10? (This is the question I was actually asking, not why do we have Take 8 instead of Take 10, so my bad).

[Mark Seifter]

Stone Dog wrote:

I'm not sold on Assurance being a fix though.

It sounds like we are going from T-10 either works or it doesn't and sometimes it might be a problem to Assurance either works or it doesn't and sometimes it might be a problem for probably the same reasons.

Either way, it represents somebody being able to reliably hit low DCs without a roll by investing enough character resources on it. There are no more skill points to be that resource, so now it sort of has to be feats, but feats sound like they are still a bit on the precious side.

You are right on the money for Assurance reliably hitting the easier DCs. The main difference is that, assuming you're with me so far in that published adventures and GMs just don't (or very rarely) shoot for DMW's Class 2 situations where you are expected to fail, with PF1's Take 10, you could reliably hit all the DCs, not just low DCs (the same is true in PF2, in fact, especially since the math progressions are so much loosened from the playtest to provide higher success rates; even just a trained character with a good ability score, not a specialist, could do it with a hypothetical PF1-style Take 10).

[Mark Seifter]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is slightly more nebulous as far as I can tell. I think the idea is that in 'no pressure' situations where you could have Taken 10 in PF1, the GM probably usually shouldn't make you roll things at all in PF2.

Which makes Assurance more like Skill Mastery in that it applies to rolls in high stress situations (which it does).

Assurance is a lot like Skill Mastery indeed! If we didn't use the word 'master' for a proficiency rank, that would be on the list of possible names for Assurance for that reason. And just as you say, if there's not something interesting to come from rolling, we'd usually suggest to the GM (or adventure author) don't ask for a roll. In the GM chapter we also suggest fail forward rather than failing braking things to a halt.

[Deadmanwalking]

N N 959 wrote:

If you don't know the DC, then how can you bump it to 100% by Taking 10? Your assertion is based on all kinds of a priori assumptions that seem to be taken as givens. All Rogues don't have the same modifiers for every skill.

His point is that once you have an above average modifier in PF1 you know that the vast majority of checks you're gonna succeed on a 10.

So you Take 10 all the time. You do this only on your skills you know you've got good modifiers in.

This is pretty easy to do and requires only a pretty quick read of the rules.

It also ignores the fact I mentioned previously that, frankly, you do know the DC of many checks you make. Knowledge checks and most unopposed physical checks all have very set difficulties, that a player can memorize or casually look up, as do Diplomacy checks. Really, only on opposed checks do you not have a very solid idea of the DC.

The only way to have people never know DCs is to make those DCs not consistent in similar circumstances, which creates it's own, much worse, problems.

[Arcaian]

N N 959 wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Yeah, people don’t know the DC in advance, but hey kmow that if they have about a 60-70% success (which can be extrapolated from context, and is usually a healthy eroic success chance), then taking 10 bumps that up to 100%.

If you don't know the DC, then how can you bump it to 100% by Taking 10? Your assertion is based on all kinds of a priori assumptions that seem to be taken as givens. All Rogues don't have the same modifiers for every skill.

There's no way for an average player to know that Taking 10 is a 100% unless they know the DC or their modifier is more than double what it should be for that level and neither is an inherent with a Take 10 type of mechanic.

What's more, by Taking 10 and coming up short, you've opened the door for other players to Aid Another and contribute. if you don't T10, there is a low probability that you will miss it it close enough to allow others to help. Either you succeed, or you are so low, there aren't enough party aids to make up the difference.

Way too many times in PFS I've seen players with the highest modifier insist on rolling, and either succeeding so no one else was able to help, or failing miserable and also precluding help.

Quote:

With Assurance, you can have variance and bump to 100% only those DCs where you’d have 70-75% at least, and roll for the rest without knowing you’ll likely fail.

Let me rephrase my original question. Why is Assurance a feat tax? Why isn't Assurance the being available like Take 10? (This is the question I was actually asking, not why do we have Take 8 instead of Take 10, so my bad).

In many situations, you do know the DC - climbing, jumping, crafting, using a wand/scroll (not that you can take 10 on UMD by special rule, but that's kinda a good example of why it's not a great rule), training animals, riding animals, treating wounds, escaping bindings, and so on. Even for skills where you don't know the exact DC, you can get a good feeling - is the trap complicated? Are the guards looking very aware and perceptive? With take-10, if you're aware you're above a 50% shot, it's 100%, and even then as you say it's optimal to take 10 if you're not sure in many cases. The end result is a lot of the time, taking 10 leads to either sub-50% or 100% success chances.

Why is it a feat tax is a bit of a different question - I guess the logic there is that it's a fairly powerful ability, and most people can't pull off a perfectly consistent jump while being harassed by enemy fire, or climb up the cliff perfectly consistently while the cliff is crumbling around them. Thematically it makes sense to only occur for those skills that one has trained to be calm for, and mechanically it's a fairly substantial powerboost even as a take (somewhere from 11 to 1-but-not-crit-fail based on our current knowledge of the system), so a skill feat it is. I'm fine with it there - it means you're good at the areas you're meant to be good at, and it means there are some interesting choices in skill feats.

[N N 959]

Mark Seifter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I have to agree because you guys had a chance to fix this problem. All you had to do is say that the PC is entitled to Take 10 unless something other than the task itself is causing the distraction.

The "drama" that I've witnessed first hand comes from GMs not wanting players to Take 10 because they don't like it as a mechanic, not because there is some legitimate confusion about the rules.

Unfortunately, then we've removed even the option to use the techniques you mentioned before as ways to help fix the conundrum of low success chance or auto-success.

Mark, could you explain what you meant here? Are you saying you've removed the ability for GMs to use a distraction to prevent Assurance?

[Arcaian]

N N 959 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I have to agree because you guys had a chance to fix this problem. All you had to do is say that the PC is entitled to Take 10 unless something other than the task itself is causing the distraction.

The "drama" that I've witnessed first hand comes from GMs not wanting players to Take 10 because they don't like it as a mechanic, not because there is some legitimate confusion about the rules.

Unfortunately, then we've removed even the option to use the techniques you mentioned before as ways to help fix the conundrum of low success chance or auto-success.

Mark, could you explain what you meant here? Are you saying you've removed the ability for GMs to use a distraction to prevent Assurance?

Presuming it is similar to the playtest, then Assurance could be used in any situation - no stopping it whatsoever.

[N N 959]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

His point is that once you have an above average modifier in PF1 you know that the vast majority of checks you're gonna succeed on a 10.
So you Take 10 all the time. You do this only on your skills you know you've got good modifiers in.

This is pretty easy to do and requires only a pretty quick read of the rules.

Sure, usually take 10 with my Empiricist on all K rolls, but that doesn't "bump that up to 100%" success.

Quote:

It also ignores the fact I mentioned previously that, frankly, you do know the DC of many checks you make.

And? I fail to see the problem with universal Assurance/Take 10 when you know the DCs. Players knowing DCs is part and partial to what makes Take 10 usable/useful. Take 10 assumes the players know the DCs.

You made the point (attributing it to Mark) that Take 10 reduces all DCs into two categories and I am saying that's not accurate. It's entirely intended that it reduces known DCs into two categories. Unknown DCs still retain the full spectrum of outcomes above 50%

Quote:

The only way to have people never know DCs is to make those DCs not consistent in similar circumstances, which creates it's own, much worse, problems.

That's not accurate. Small legitimate modifiers unknowable to the players are a routine way to prevent players from zeroing in on standard DCs. Knowledge checks can run all over the spectrum when it comes to artifacts and K checks on monsters reward players for rolling high.

[Deadmanwalking]

N N 959 wrote:

Sure, usually take 10 with my Empiricist on all K rolls, but that doesn't "bump that up to 100%" success.

It does on most Knowledge checks with skills you have many ranks in.

N N 959 wrote:

And? I fail to see the problem with universal Assurance/Take 10 when you know the DCs.

The problem with Take 10 is, as stated, that it reduces the options to 'boring and impossible to fail' and 'I will probably fail this'. It makes it impossible to have a situation where the odds are in your favor but not certain, which is a pretty big conceptual space to remove.

That does not always apply with unknown DCs, it's true, but it sure does when you know the DCs precisely.

Universal Assurance, as mentioned, they seem to be making unnecessary by making people in general succeed at unimportant things, and anything like a 'Take 10' mechanic for stressful situations has always been an investment.

N N 959 wrote:

Players knowing DCs is part and partial to what makes Take 10 usable/useful. Take 10 assumes the players know the DCs.

Indeed. Which was my whole original point with why Taking 10 is an issue.

N N 959 wrote:

You made the point (attributing it to Mark) that Take 10 reduces all DCs into two categories and I am saying that's not accurate.

Again, I was not trying to say this was universal. I was trying to say that it doing so happened and was a problem when it did. That on checks Taking 10 usually applied to (which, as you note, you usually know the DC on), it did what I said.

N N 959 wrote:

It's entirely intended that it reduces known DCs into two categories. Unknown DCs still retain the full spectrum of outcomes above 50%

Right, but having most checks reduced to either 100% or 50% or less is the whole problem. You're right that it doesn't apply universally, but your point here only confirms that it's very common and it is a rather large problem when it comes to set DC checks.

Which is what I was saying in the first place.

N N 959 wrote:

That's not accurate. Small legitimate modifiers unknowable to the players are a routine way to prevent players from zeroing in on standard DCs. Knowledge checks can run all over the spectrum when it comes to artifacts and K checks on monsters reward players for rolling high.

I'm not saying everyone will know all DCs at all times, but you don't have to know all of them to know Taking 10 will succeed for you. You just need to have a rough idea that your odds are pretty good. For example, if you know the normal DC is 20 and you have a +15, almost no invisible circumstance modifiers are gonna make you fail, so you Take 10. As long as you know you're a comfortable margin above the base DC (and a comfortable margin is often more like 2 than 5, since Circumstance modifiers above 2 are vanishingly rare) you can Take 10 and feel pretty safe.

This also does, in fact, tend to create some of the problems I mention, specifically inasmuch as it's basically the GM fudging DCs on the fly rather than the system actually working in its own right. Yes, circumstance bonuses and penalties are allowed by the rules, but if you're using them regularly without describing the advantage or disadvantage in question narratively it often wears on suspension of disbelief real quick.

And if you're describing them well, we go right back to PCs being able to very accurately gauge whether they can Take 10 (since they can do basic math and figure 'Well, that's a penalty, so does Take 10 still work with a penalty?' Heck, they can usually tell whether it's a big or small penalty).

[QuidEst]

N N 959 wrote:

Quote:

It also ignores the fact I mentioned previously that, frankly, you do know the DC of many checks you make.

And? I fail to see the problem with universal Assurance/Take 10 when you know the DCs. Players knowing DCs is part and partial to what makes Take 10 usable/useful. Take 10 assumes the players know the DCs.

You made the point (attributing it to Mark) that Take 10 reduces all DCs into two categories and I am saying that's not accurate. It's entirely intended that it reduces known DCs into two categories. Unknown DCs still retain the full spectrum of outcomes above 50%

The known DCs are reduced to two categories, and that is the problem. It wasn't a problem in your view, and that's fine. I don't think there were any problems in the game that were truly a problem for everybody. But, it was a problem for enough people.

If I consider what percentage people should be able to freely consider it an automatic success, it's not 55%; that's still an interesting roll. Possibly the most interesting roll for something mundane, having just the slightest edge? 80% is still in the territory you should probably roll. 85% is where I would start to think to myself, "Ah, this is basically guaranteed" and begin to worry more about that crit-fail. So, I would consider Take 4 to a good mechanic to have.

Quote:

The only way to have people never know DCs is to make those DCs not consistent in similar circumstances, which creates it's own, much worse, problems.

That's not accurate. Small legitimate modifiers unknowable to the players are a routine way to prevent players from zeroing in on standard DCs. Knowledge checks can run all over the spectrum when it comes to artifacts and K checks on monsters reward players for rolling high.

Knowledge checks are probably one of the skills where this wasn't usually a problem. Knowledge checks rarely create tension in the roll. You can even see this in the game design; knowledge checks are the only thing in PF1 core that you can guarantee Take 10 on (I think), and also the only thing in PF1 core that there's a way to guarantee getting a natural 20 on the first try.

Needing to regularly introduce small, legitimate unknowable DC modifiers is its own much worse problem. "Small" means that you've changed the potential problem to at best the equivalent of Take 8 (an improvement, but not a complete resolution), "legitimate" means that it's a non-trivial amount of work to do, and "unknowable" means you need to strike a balance that you don't tick off your players. And, for the players who couldn't take 10 before? They're worse off, because now there are mystery +2s to DCs that were already worse than 50/50.

[dirtypool]

N N 959 wrote:

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills

How is taking 10 a "reward" that you as a GM give to players who invest in skills?

[Claxon]

dirtypool wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills

How is taking 10 a "reward" that you as a GM give to players who invest in skills?

In Pathfinder 2nd Edition where taking 10 isn't an option, it's certainly nice if the GM lets you do it.

[dirtypool]

Claxon wrote:

In Pathfinder 2nd Edition where taking 10 isn't an option, it's certainly nice if the GM lets you do it.

Certainly. But N N 959 keeps banging on about how it's a "reward" in PF1e. It's the system, not a reward.

[Deadmanwalking]

dirtypool wrote:

Claxon wrote:

In Pathfinder 2nd Edition where taking 10 isn't an option, it's certainly nice if the GM lets you do it.

Certainly. But N N 959 keeps banging on about how it's a "reward" in PF1e. It's the system, not a reward.

He seems to be arguing that it rewards/incentivizes maximized skills by allowing them to auto-succeed. And systems can absolutely reward certain behavior, indeed deciding what behavior a system rewards is a core principle of game design.

I find this particular instance dubious at best, since Taking 10 allows a lot of non-maximized skills to auto-succeed as well, thus actually devaluing any bonus you have beyond that necessary to succeed on a 10...but that still seems to be his argument, and the idea that the system itself can reward things is totally legitimate in and of itself.

[dirtypool]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I find this particular instance dubious at best, since Taking 10 allows a lot of non-maximized skills to auto-succeed as well, thus actually devaluing any bonus you have beyond that necessary to succeed on a 10...but that still seems to be his argument, and the idea that the system itself can reward things is totally legitimate in and of itself.

I agree that there are elements of systems that reward certain kinds of behavior - I'm not arguing that there aren't inherent rewards in system design. What I'm saying is Taking 10 was too ubiquitous to be considered a reward. Taking 10 and Taking 20 is a speed of play adjustment if nothing else.

[thejeff]

dirtypool wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I find this particular instance dubious at best, since Taking 10 allows a lot of non-maximized skills to auto-succeed as well, thus actually devaluing any bonus you have beyond that necessary to succeed on a 10...but that still seems to be his argument, and the idea that the system itself can reward things is totally legitimate in and of itself.

I agree that there are elements of systems that reward certain kinds of behavior - I'm not arguing that there aren't inherent rewards in system design. What I'm saying is Taking 10 was too ubiquitous to be considered a reward. Taking 10 and Taking 20 is a speed of play adjustment if nothing else.

And that's actually what concerns me most about this.

The speed of play adjustment is gone. Or hidden behind a per skill feat tax.

Is there a Take 20 equivalent? I mean, you can always roll until you get a 20 (when you could have Taken 20), so it's effectively there.

[dirtypool]

thejeff wrote:

And that's actually what concerns me most about this.

The speed of play adjustment is gone. Or hidden behind a per skill feat tax.

Is there a Take 20 equivalent? I mean, you can always roll until you get a 20 (when you could have Taken 20), so it's effectively there.

Sure, but, I think part of removing Taking 10 away from all skills is to encourage the use of the Exploration Mode of the game - which if we're honest is something that has been given short shrift over the years as 3.X systems have ground closer and closer to straight encounter based games.

Taking 10 to get past the kind of skill checks that figure into Exploration Mode stories makes them potentially less engaging. If you risk failure as you track the gnolls, or search for the forgotten road, the exploration mode becomes as engaging as the fight with the gnoll band once you find it.

[Tectorman]

So Taking 10 won't be in the initial game (obligatory boo hiss). Can we at least hold out hope that it'll be an optional system in the P2E Gamemastery Guide (along with the ABP I'm told is coming)?

[Captain Morgan]

thejeff wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I find this particular instance dubious at best, since Taking 10 allows a lot of non-maximized skills to auto-succeed as well, thus actually devaluing any bonus you have beyond that necessary to succeed on a 10...but that still seems to be his argument, and the idea that the system itself can reward things is totally legitimate in and of itself.

I agree that there are elements of systems that reward certain kinds of behavior - I'm not arguing that there aren't inherent rewards in system design. What I'm saying is Taking 10 was too ubiquitous to be considered a reward. Taking 10 and Taking 20 is a speed of play adjustment if nothing else.

And that's actually what concerns me most about this.

The speed of play adjustment is gone. Or hidden behind a per skill feat tax.

Is there a Take 20 equivalent? I mean, you can always roll until you get a 20 (when you could have Taken 20), so it's effectively there.

I imagine the fail forward mechanics Mark and Jason have referenced will fill that role. In a situation you could take 20 on (or roll repeatedly until you succeed) failing a check may just determine you take longer to complete the task. We saw this in Doomsday Dawn quite a few times actually.

[Charlie Brooks]

I feel like the take 10 rules become redundant if you have clear rules that tell you when not to roll for something.

Both the take 10 and take 20 rules existed as a way of telling people when not to roll. If it's an average task and you aren't threatened, take 10 and succeed. If you're doing something that has no downside for failure, take 20 and move on.

Both rules exist as a way of telling GMs that they don't need to bother calling for a roll. The game can preserve the spirit of those rules by emphasizing that situations where PCs attempt something mundane without any pressure or situations where there are no consequences for failure don't require a roll.

Some 1st edition abilities did allow you to take 10 while under pressure, and assurance seems to cover that well while being more accessible to those who want it.

As to only using the proficiency modifier, that makes sense to me if assurance is described as something you can basically do automatically. There are certain tasks that skilled people can perform without putting much thought into it. Ask somebody with assurance in Society about the royal family, for example, and they can rattle off information without breaking concentration on what they're doing. Ask them something more obscure and they might have to stop and think for a second, thus making a roll and adding in their Intelligence modifier.

[thejeff]

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I feel like the take 10 rules become redundant if you have clear rules that tell you when not to roll for something.

Both the take 10 and take 20 rules existed as a way of telling people when not to roll. If it's an average task and you aren't threatened, take 10 and succeed. If you're doing something that has no downside for failure, take 20 and move on.

Both rules exist as a way of telling GMs that they don't need to bother calling for a roll. The game can preserve the spirit of those rules by emphasizing that situations where PCs attempt something mundane without any pressure or situations where there are no consequences for failure don't require a roll.

Some 1st edition abilities did allow you to take 10 while under pressure, and assurance seems to cover that well while being more accessible to those who want it.

As to only using the proficiency modifier, that makes sense to me if assurance is described as something you can basically do automatically. There are certain tasks that skilled people can perform without putting much thought into it. Ask somebody with assurance in Society about the royal family, for example, and they can rattle off information without breaking concentration on what they're doing. Ask them something more obscure and they might have to stop and think for a second, thus making a roll and adding in their Intelligence modifier.

If that's the way it works out, that's not bad.

Situations where you could normally Take 10 in PF1 are automatic. Don't even roll.
Situations where you might have wanted to, but couldn't without special abilities because you were threatened or some such, you can now do with some investment - Assurance. Though the threshold is lower - you don't get your full skill.

[N N 959]

First, let me again thank those who are responding to my questions. I am trying to understand the the paradigm shift behind removing Take 10 and using Assurance.

Let me also take this moment to clarify that my question about why Take 10 was removed was about why the mechanic was removed as a default option. A decent amount of this discussion seems to be rationalizing the player experience on having to roll when the chance of success is X vs Y. That doesn't address my question and I want to avoid going down the rabbit hole so I'm going to set aside that discussion unless I think it ties in with the decision to make Assurance unavailable outside of a feat tax.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It does on most Knowledge checks with skills you have many ranks in.

In PFS, it does not. The start of a PFS module, you are given a number of K checks that provide ratcheted rewards. In PbP games, GMs will frequently post the DCs needed to gain the information so players know exactly what DCs are needed. Hardly anyone Takes 10. The overwhelming majority of players roll the die in hopes of getting the high number.

So the assertion that Take 10 had reduced K checks into two categories is isn't accurate when it comes to K checks in PFS. Monster checks out of combat are always rolled because the mechanic rewards players for higher rolls.

Random K checks throughout the mission often have nested results so players routinely roll these as well.

Quote:

The problem with Take 10 is, as stated, that it reduces the options to 'boring and impossible to fail' and 'I will probably fail this'.

That's a subjective assessment of the outcome. It also is not accurate based on my six years of playing PFS. I've never seen or heard anyone in an actual game claim that the fact that they have the option of Taking 10 and succeeding has rendered the skill challenge "boring" or any other similar pejorative. I love Taking 10 and find that when the scenario allows me to know that Taking 10 will succeed, it comes across as the author validating my build choices.

Quote:

It makes it impossible to have a situation where the odds are in your favor but not certain, which is a pretty big conceptual space to remove.

If you know the DC and you know that you'll succeed, you still have the option of rolling the die. And you know what? It's my experience that the vast majority of playings in PFS roll the die, regardless of whether they know the DC or not. So players are not at all denied the opportunity to have a high chance of success when opting to not use Take 10.

Go look at any of the thousands of PbP PFS games and see how many times players Take 10 despite knowing the DCs. In my experience there is an order of magnitude more players who insist on rolling the die rather than Taking 10. I had a GM a local game store ask me why would I Take 10 in a "dice game," and he was heavily implying that I was doing it wrong.

Quote:

Universal Assurance, as mentioned, they seem to be making unnecessary by making people in general succeed at unimportant things,

Where have they "made" people do this? Mark's exact words are:

Mark Seifert wrote:

if there's not something interesting to come from rolling, we'd usually suggest to the GM (or adventure author) don't ask for a roll.

Emphasis mine. I don't see anything in the rules that compels or requires the GM hand wave rolls that would have been beaten with a Take 10.

Quote:

Indeed. Which was my whole original point with why Taking 10 is an issue.

Saying Take 10 is an issue doesn't make it an issue. I assume you are paraphrasing posts from Paizo? Do you/can you link to where Paizo discusses this?

Quote:

Again, I was not trying to say this was universal. I was trying to say that it doing so happened and was a problem when it did.

Once again, claiming something is a problem isn't proof that it is. What facts support this assertion?

Quote:

That on checks Taking 10 usually applied to (which, as you note, you usually know the DC on), it did what I said.

It doesn't do what you said because in PFS, the overwhelming majority of people still roll the die even when the know Take 10 will succeed. The only notable exceptions are things like climbing a rope.

Quote:

Right, but having most checks reduced to either 100% or 50% or less is the whole problem

Even if we assume that assertion is correct, based on what set of facts is it a problem?

Quote:

[i]and it is a rather large problem when it comes to set DC checks.

You keep saying that, how does the layperson see this problem manifest?

Quote:

I'm not saying everyone will know all DCs at all times, but you don't have to know all of them to know Taking 10 will succeed for you. You just need to have a rough idea that your odds are pretty good.

My experience in PFS would directly contradict this assertion. The vast majority of players do not have a rough idea of whether Take 10 will work. The vast majority players don't know if it will work and seemingly want to roll the die anyway. Even when I've flat out told them that there is no need to roll the die, they still want to roll the die.

A lot of your argument is based on the theory of what is possible, but in actual game play with lots of random people, the theory does not describe the reality. More to the point, when people do use Take 10, I perceive nothing negative in that choic, and a whole lot of positive from having that option. The only group who I consistently see pushback on Take 10 from is GMs and only a minority of those

Quote:

Yes, circumstance bonuses and penalties are allowed by the rules, but if you're using them regularly without describing the advantage or disadvantage in question narratively it often wears on suspension of disbelief real quick.

Except that doesn't happen. PFS scenarios frequently and routinely have modifiers on rolls and it doesn't strain credibility, it adds to it. Every Simple lock should not have exactly the same DC. Every wall you climb should not have the exact same DC. But I should know exactly what I need to jump 10' and Take 10 doesn't make that "boring." It takes the stress out of the game for me as a player. If I've got a +1 modifier, I should be able to make the jump routinely with a running star when my best jump could be twice that distance. That adds to the verisimilitude of the game.

Removing a universal Assurance/Take X has all kinds of problems for nominal game play. Mark's response is that Paizo has "suggested" the player not have to roll, but how does that work when some PCs have a -2 modifier. The GM makes some roll and some do not? That would mean Take 10 is still in the game, but now it's entirely up to the GM's discretion whether any individual player can use it? I can't believe that's an improvement.

QuidEst wrote:

Needing to regularly introduce small, legitimate unknowable DC modifiers is its own much worse problem. "Small" means that you've changed the potential problem to at best the equivalent of Take 8 (an improvement, but not a complete resolution)

Now you've got me confused. DMW spent several paragraphs telling me that the problem with Take 10 is the dichotomy it forced on skill checks. He repeated that concept here:

DMW wrote:

Right, but having most checks reduced to either 100% or 50% or less is the whole problem.

Emphasis mine.

As unknowable modifiers open up the spectrum, you're telling me it's not a resolution? And you're admitting that it helps the situation, so how is that a "much worse problem"?

QuidEst wrote:

"legitimate" means that it's a non-trivial amount of work to do

??? "legitimate" in this context means that the modifiers are justified given the circumstances e.g. intense cold making the lock brittle; recent rains washing off the dirt and grime, well-oiled hinges making the door easier to open, etc.

Quote:

"unknowable" means you need to strike a balance that you don't tick off your players

That's not a legitimate complaint. PFS is filled with monsters having modified ACs, Saves, To Hits, Damage. There are tons of modified traps, etc. No one gets ticked off that things aren't the same as what is put in the bestiary or the Core rulebook.

Quote:

And, for the players who couldn't take 10 before? They're worse off, because now there are mystery +2s to DCs that were already worse than 50/50.

While that sounds like a valid complaint, it's not relevant to the discussion, nor is it accurate. 1) Since we are talking about DCs a that are not, by rule, known to the players, then no player knows whether Take 10 would have succeeded.

2) unknowable "modifiers" can work for and against players. PFS often makes things easier than they might otherwise be on account of not wanting stale mate the progress. So no one is any worse or better as a group.

[necromental]

I see this debate as a problem of communicating between two editions. In PF1 skill were a lot of times not crucial to anything, especially in combat. Also, other than a subset of classes, most characters didn't have all, or even many skills. Now in PF2 importance of skills is increased (that's nice) and playtest assumed you're gonna have ALL skills. Also PF1 didn't have crit failures in (most) skills, while playtest did in all of them. The paradigm shift is that you're supposed to get bigger reward and bigger risk for using skills in PF2. In such context, take 10 is a bit offending the sensibilities PF2 is trying for.

I like success rates and reliability better than PF2 playtest, but not necessarily those of PF1. If I end up using PF2, I'm removing natural 1&20 for crits in skills (only +/-10 of the DC), and giving Assurance to all Experts in a skill.

[N N 959]

dirtypool wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

But then how do I, as the GM, reward players for investing in skills

How is taking 10 a "reward" that you as a GM give to players who invest in skills?

Because of Take 10, an author or GM can put in tasks that are low level threat, but are easily overcome by those with proficiency. One of the most basic of these is the discovered 10' pit. In one of the introductory PFS level 1 scenarios, there is a pit which the players have to cross. Any of PC who has Acro as a class skill and put 1 Rank init, can Take 10 and cross the pit. Everyone else is forced to roll. This immediately and effortlessly validates the players that went with athletic builds. Everyone who has medium armor or whose class doesn't have Acro as a class skill, now appreciates those who can cross and do things like secure a rope or stabilize the board from the other end.

Without Take 10, everyone has to roll. This means that some of the players who do have Acro as a class skill and are proficient in it, can fail the crossing while those who don't can get lucky and make the cross. This is contrary to what I want to have happen as a GM or scenario writer. Take 10, thus, gives purpose to skills choices.

Paizo's response seem to be to tell the GM to do what? Not have anyone roll? Or have only some people roll? I don't understand what Paizo is expecting to happen in these types of situations, hence my question to Mark. How is PF2 providing this same type of experience without Take 10?

I would argue that Assurance seems to address a different problem. As Mark says, it's about system mastery, not necessarily competence. Assurance can't be denied, which I see as a potentially bigger problem than any of Take 10's. As GM, I am no longer able to stop someone from auto-succeeding, so I have to start making the DCs high so that those with Assurance don't' get a free pass. As a GM, I can no longer have a low DC that a player still has to roll because the circumstances are stressful, which means I can't dial-in low level tension. The only proof against it is that Assurance is a feat Tax and a PC might not have it.

[QuidEst]

Everyone would roll for the pit. Having invested in it would mean a better chance of success. That’s how generally people would expect the game to work, not “12 Dex means you clear it, 11 Dex means you have a 50% chance of failure”.

My personal experience was arguing with the GM about whether the danger of the pit meant you couldn’t take 10 and slowing down the game. Also my bad, but it didn’t make for a good experience.

[N N 959]

necromental wrote:

I see this debate as a problem of communicating between two editions. In PF1 skill were a lot of times not crucial to anything, especially in combat.

As I play PFS, I would say skills are extremely important in PFS. But, I do think there is a translation problem.

I am trying to understand why/if Piazo sees the value of Take 10 and how it works with build validation. There's a mindset with these design choices that I"m not groking, hence my question. Does no one at Paizo agree that Take 10 provides build validation? Is it as DMW says, Paizo wants people to roll the die when the have a 65% chance of succeeding instead Taking 10?

Quote:

If I end up using PF2, I'm removing natural 1&20 for crits in skills (only +/-10 of the DC), and giving Assurance to all Experts in a skill.

I don't like Natural Crits on 1's because it totally discourages Aid Another. If you want to see drama at the table, Just wait until PC Joe wants to help and turns a success into a failure with a natural 1.

I do like giving all Experts Assurance, but I wouldn't want it to be undeniable. I can see why it's a feat tax if the GM can't stop it, but I don't understand why Paizo would go in that direction here, when they would not be definitive about Take 10 in PF1.

I am still trying to get my head around how this is suppose to work.

[N N 959]

QuidEst wrote:

Everyone would roll for the pit. Having invested in it would mean a better chance of success. That’s how generally people would expect the game to work...

yes, generally people expect to roll dice...up to a point. Then, at certain level, players expect not to have to roll dice when they are highly skilled an others are not. There is a huge psychological payoff when I can routinely do something that the average PC cannot. Most players still like to roll, but for things like jumping pits and picking locks, that game becomes a lot less silly with Take 10.

Quote:

not “12 Dex means you clear it, 11 Dex means you have a 50% chance of failure”.

That's a theory crafting argument. I've never seen any player sit there and opine about 50% failure because of 1 skill point. This is a contrived issue that doesn't reflect any real world way in which people play the game. It's like claiming people don't like the automobile because now they don't get to take long walks to the store and carry their groceries by hand. Look at all that exercise I'm not getting!

Quote:

My personal experience was arguing with the GM about whether the danger of the pit meant you couldn’t take 10...

And that is exactly the problem Paizo could have fixed. I've never understood why they didn't, especially when one of the devs basically said this unofficially.

In PF2, there are other dynamics at work so I'm trying to understand what those are from a player perspective or GM perspective.

[thejeff]

QuidEst wrote:

Everyone would roll for the pit. Having invested in it would mean a better chance of success. That’s how generally people would expect the game to work, not “12 Dex means you clear it, 11 Dex means you have a 50% chance of failure”.

My personal experience was arguing with the GM about whether the danger of the pit meant you couldn’t take 10 and slowing down the game. Also my bad, but it didn’t make for a good experience.

Or no one rolls for the pit because it's too risky and it's not worthy the chance of falling. Instead you use up spells or find some other way to get across. (Well, let's call it a 15' pit because anyone with 30' movement can Leap a 10' gap.)

Part of the problem is that d20 is way too swingy for this kind of thing. For jumping it's not even unlikely for the high Athletics character to fall to their death while the low one clears the gap.

[N N 959]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

He seems to be arguing that it rewards/incentivizes maximized skills by allowing them to auto-succeed.

Emphasis mine.

No, I'm not arguing that it rewards or incentivizes "maximized" skills, even if it might. I view it as rewarding basic skill choices. It rewards choosing Barbarian over Fighter. Maximized skill choices can get to a point where they don't even need to roll without Take 10.

Quote:

I find this particular instance dubious at best, since Taking 10 allows a lot of non-maximized skills to auto-succeed as well

That's an odd argument because I didn't say it was about maximized skill choices. In fact, I think it is more useful for non-maximized skill choices, I would say it works better for rewarding basic proficiency.

[dirtypool]

N N 959 wrote:

Any of PC who has Acro as a class skill and put 1 Rank init, can Take 10 and cross the pit. Everyone else is forced to roll. This immediately and effortlessly validates the players that went with athletic builds. Everyone who has medium armor or whose class doesn't have Acro as a class skill, now appreciates those who can cross and do things like secure a rope or stabilize the board from the other end.

Does the player really need to be validated for the choice to put one rank in acrobatics? Is it really a "low level threat" if someone with one rank can just take 10 carry and stabilize the board on the other side? A one rank expenditure made that "challenge" nonexistent. So what's the point of the challenge?

Quote:

Without Take 10, everyone has to roll. This means that some of the players who do have Acro as a class skill and are proficient in it, can fail the crossing while those who don't can get lucky and make the cross.

Right, that random element of chance wherein you roll a die and maybe the outcome shifts as a result - is the whole point of the game.

Quote:

This is contrary to what I want to have happen as a GM or scenario writer. Take 10, thus, gives purpose to skills choices.

So you want the outcome to be *Player X checks sheet and says * "I take 10" *Player X crosses successfully and allows all other players to do the same*

Quote:

Paizo's response seem to be to tell the GM to do what? Not have anyone roll? Or have only some people roll? I don't understand what Paizo is expecting to happen in these types of situations, hence my question to Mark. How is PF2 providing this same type of experience without Take 10?

I think they're providing an experience where more often than not your players should actively play the game with a die roll than simply doing math. I think in that scenario they want players to make the skill check and see what happens.

[Stone Dog]

I'm starting to think that Assurance is going to start making more sense once we start seeing final DC numbers. While I am clearly not familiar with the play test environment there are some things I'm picking up. The following may be wrong, but here goes.

Take picking a lock. Before it was one roll and x minutes of work, but now it looks like x successes instead with critical results counting double.

So with take ten a skill specialist could reliably accomplish a task, but with Assurance a skill specialist can not only reliably accomplish a task, but eventually reliably critically succeed.

I think taking out a lock in half the time was worth a feat before, so that lends weight to Assurance being worth a feat now.

Some version of Take Ten is still a good idea though. I'm not sure if it needs to be mechanical or just very clear GM advice, but the idea of automatic success under certain circumstances is appealing. Something where there is no real conflict and/or no real penalty for failure.

[N N 959]

dirtypool wrote:

Does the player really need to be validated for the choice to put one rank in acrobatics?

Absolutely. While any individual has different needs, the cornerstone of an RPG is that your character has purpose. You have skills therefore the game has to have challenges that use those skills.

Quote:

Right, that random element of chance wherein you roll a die and maybe the outcome shifts as a result - is the whole point of the game.

No, it's not. An RPG is fundamentally about decision making and choices. That's why people can play D&D on computers or Forums where they don't actually roll any dice at all and it is still rewarding.

Now, maybe you want to roll dice and that's what is the pay-off for you. I agree that lots of people like to roll that d20. I agree that rolling dice is a fun part of the game. But so is putting yourself in a position where you aren't subject to the laws of chance. YMMV.

In my experience, most people want to roll dice. But, I've also seen players extremely happy when they learn they can Take 10 and not have to roll a skill check. Take 10 gives them that choice, it doesn't take it away.

Quote:

So you want the outcome to be *Player X checks sheet and says * "I take 10" *Player X crosses successfully and allows all other players to do the same*

I want the outcome to be the player is rewarded for going with Rogue versus Wizard. The player is rewarded for choosing Investigator over Fighter. That is realized when a player can succeed at a task without having to roll a die and fail. Even if the success rate is 95%, players don't conceptualize it that way. Its' one roll, not a 1000 rolls. As soon as they fail, it undermines that choice to go with Rogue and what makes it worse is the Wizard crosses safely because of dumb luck.

There's a tremendous amount of value in a player feeling like X type of tasks are not an issue for their PC and that only happens if other PCs are challenged by those same tasks. Rolling the die , even with high sucess rate, doesn't realize that in the reliable way that Take 10 does. We've all seen those Natural 1's come up at the worse times.

Quote:

I think they're providing an experience where more often than not your players should actively play the game with a die roll than simply doing math.

So this is a badwrongfun argument against my preferred style of play.

Quote:

I think in that scenario they want players to make the skill check and see what happens.

Except that's wrong. Mark said that they don't even want the GM to require a roll. So this contradicts your assertion that you have to roll a die to "actively play the game."

Look, you clearly dislike Take 10. That's fine. I'm not going to try and convince you that you should like it or use it.

[Meraki]

Mainly I liked take 10 (in PF1) because of speed of play. I guess "just don't roll for this" can serve the same function, but that seems like it would be pretty heavily up to GM discretion, and that's going to vary among tables. Personally, there are things I wouldn't call for a roll for at all, but there are also things I might or might not call for a roll for depending on a PC's chance at succeeding, and take 10 did that calculation for me.

[dirtypool]

N N 959 wrote:

Absolutely. While any individual has different needs, the cornerstone of an RPG is that your character has purpose. You have skills therefore the game has to have challenges that use those skills.

Your player does NOT need individual validation for placing one rank in one skill. The game isn't called Sheetbuilder. The game has challenges for you to use your skills and if all you ever do is Take 10, you're not using the skill you're using the shortcut.

Quote:

No, it's not. An RPG is fundamentally about decision making and choices.

No an RPG is fundamentally about Playing a Role in a Game.

Quote:

I agree that rolling dice is a fun part of the game. But so is putting yourself in a position where you aren't subject to the laws of chance. YMMV.

Rolling dice isn't a "fun part of the game" it's THE CORE MECHANIC. Taking 10 isn't about "putting yourself in a position where you aren't subject to the laws of chance" It's about avoiding failure on a routine check. In your example with the guy getting across the pit on his one rank in acrobatics, crossing the pit isn't a routine check and by the rules as written he shouldn't be allowed to take 10 because the pit puts him in immediate danger.

[thejeff]

dirtypool wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Absolutely. While any individual has different needs, the cornerstone of an RPG is that your character has purpose. You have skills therefore the game has to have challenges that use those skills.

Your player does NOT need individual validation for placing one rank in one skill. The game isn't called Sheetbuilder. The game has challenges for you to use your skills and if all you ever do is Take 10, you're not using the skill you're using the shortcut.

Quote:

No, it's not. An RPG is fundamentally about decision making and choices.

No an RPG is fundamentally about Playing a Role in a Game.

Quote:

I agree that rolling dice is a fun part of the game. But so is putting yourself in a position where you aren't subject to the laws of chance. YMMV.

Rolling dice isn't a "fun part of the game" it's THE CORE MECHANIC. Taking 10 isn't about "putting yourself in a position where you aren't subject to the laws of chance" It's about avoiding failure on a routine check. In your example with the guy getting across the pit on his one rank in acrobatics, crossing the pit isn't a routine check and by the rules as written he shouldn't be allowed to take 10 because the pit puts him in immediate danger.

Oh god, back to the "You can never take 10 on anything dangerous because it's dangerous argument". Please don't. That's for the old edition. :) Let's just say it's disputed and let it lie.

For the rest: I like the way you emphasize "Playing a Role in a Game" right next to "rolling dice is THE CORE MECHANIC". I mean, I guess, but I'm not sure what the point is. I can Play a Role in the Game without rolling dice. Not every bit of the game needs to be handled by the CORE MECHANIC. Taking 10 is still using the skill, it's just not rolling dice. It's still playing a role. It's still making decisions and choices.

[ChibiNyan]

Personally, I've never allowed Take10 and I never will.
My players feel rewarded enough when they roll high and get insane totals.

In PF2 with the critical system, it's clear this behaviour is encouraged more, to try and get that +10 for the hype.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

Part of the problem is that d20 is way too swingy for this kind of thing. For jumping it's not even unlikely for the high Athletics character to fall to their death while the low one clears the gap.

For me, this is a huge factor affecting the verisimilitude of the game. There are many tasks where a 5% failure rate is unrealistically higher. Take 10 eliminated that inherent silliness that results from rolling 1.

I'm trying to understand how PF2 addresses this problem, but I'm not quite understanding it yet.

[Cyouni]

Take 10 also eliminated that inherent silliness from rolling 2-9.