|
PRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."/QUOTE]
Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill description
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
|
Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill descriptionPRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."
, Skills, Disable Device]The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.
Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone has a +11 to acrobatics and wants to take 10 to jump a 10 foot pit I'll let them giving them a result of 21, why slow things down. Similarly at higher levels when that same person has gone from being level 4 to level 9 and now has a +21 to acrobatics I won't even have them roll because why waste time unless they wish to jump the pit and then some.
For perception which is the one I hear people make the biggest fuss over I fully allow them to take 20. Same with taking 20 to disable device locks but not traps. I do allow people to take 10 on traps, they usually do it as a way of testing out the "strength" of the trap. If they trigger it by taking 10 then they know its tougher than they usually deal with and might need help, if they don't trigger it but don't disable either then they ask for guidance and roll for it and if taking 10 disables it then great we move on and continue with the adventure.
I guess compared to some others here I don't read the "immediate danger or threatened" as being the potential for danger or threats. I only consider that to be combat.
|
Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill descriptionPRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.
Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.
We actually discussed this yesterday (me GMing) and decided it was slightly ambiguous. I think this is FAQ worthy but is not helpful to the original topic.
Which implies that if the device is not a trap (like, say, a lock) then something else goes wrong (like it being jammed).
But that doesn't preclude taking 20...
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
In re: opening locks.
I have rethought the post I made earlier.
It doesn't matter if the lock is trapped. If the person is Taking 20 on Disable Device to open the lock, he or she can. If the lock is trapped, he or she is going to set off the trap.
If that lock is trapped, and the character is attempting to use Disable Device to disarm the trap (which isn't the same as opening the lock), then he or she cannot Take 20 because there is a penalty for failure. Now, honestly, if a character has a high enough bonus to Disable Device that, by Taking 20, he or she could not fail by more than 4, then just let them Take 20. Why? Because or he or she won't invoke the penalty for failure because, under normal circumstances, he or she won't fail by more than 4.
And, since Open Locks is specifically mentioned as something you can take 20 on, I think that specific language trumps the general statements found in the use of Take 20 and in the description of Disable Device.
I will say this and probably get blasted.
We have a couple of ways we've always ruled those types of things. I would swear it was discussed and I can remember reading it somewhere, but I sure as heck can't find it now. Any of them we couldn't find a hard rule, I'm quite sure we would have polled on the forums and gone with the group consensus.
Take 10 takes longer than rolling for a single try. I'm sure we read that somewhere.
I know in at least some of the adventures it specifically says some locks get jammed if failed by 5 or more. I can easily see someone reading that and thinking it was all locks.
Jumping over a pit where you could get hurt? Honestly, that one was a no brainer for us. If the consequence of a failure was getting injured (and there was a real chance of failure), we all agreed without any real need for discussion that you could not take 10 for that. I was honestly surprised that so many people are so vehement that you obviously can.
I now understand your reasoning, but that would never have occurred to me before reading this thread.
|
|
Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill descriptionPRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."
, Skills, Disable Device]The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.
Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.
I could quote the entirety of the skill and it wouldn't change my point. It either does jam or it doesn't. Opening a lock is a disable device check, if you fail the check by 5 or more, then something goes wrong. So what goes wrong when disabling a lock?
|
|
I could quote the entirety of the skill and it wouldn't change my point. It either does jam or it doesn't. Opening a lock is a disable device check, if you fail the check by 5 or more, then something goes wrong. So what goes wrong when disabling a lock?Right, but keep this in mind from further up in the skill descriptionPRD sections:
"You can retry checks made to open locks."
, Skills, Disable Device]The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.None of what you just quoted refers to opening locks. It is helpful to both read and quote all of a rule, and not just the part that substantiates your point.
Remember, in many cases, each skill has multiple uses that have slightly different rules.
Dunno. But opening a lock is specifically listed, in the book, as something you can take 20 on.
I find others at my tables often posing the question "can I take 10/20?" As of late, I hear myself asking the GM, too, because that's the environment I play in. More often than not, the GM simply says no--without any apparent reason other than they dislike/misunderstand the rules. Even after the results are known most of the time it becomes even more apparent that the situation didn't have anything that would have prohibited take 10/20.
In case it's not obvious, this question is specifically for PFS because of its variable GM nature.
So is this a problem in others' areas, or is it just me?
It seems to be common. It seems a lot of GM's just don't understand how it works, and that is combined with the bias of them not wanting it to work. If the GM is fair however he will either allow it to work once he knows he is wrong, or he will just make a houserule so everyone knows in advance how he runs it.
I have an open thread on the topic(taking 10). If you have not FAQ'd it then I would appreciated. Shameless plug coming.
fixed:bad coding.
|
Take 10 takes longer than rolling for a single try. I'm sure we read that somewhere.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Taking 10 does not take longer than rolling -- it takes the exact same amount of time. Taking 10 just assumes you got an average roll.
Taking 20, on the other hand, does take 20x the time of the action. The way I have seen it explained is that it is simulated by making 20 checks -- starting with a 1, then a 2, then a 3, etc. So if rolling that 1 isn't an issue -- then taking 20 is copacetic. If it does cause a problem -- then taking 20 was a very bad idea, and you suffer the results of rolling a 1.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an open thread on the topic(taking 10). If you have not FAQ'd it then I would appreciated. Shameless plug coming.[/url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sal2?Taking-10-Immediate-dangers-and-distractions#1]Click me[/url]
you have an extra backslash in there.
And now I will go FAQ it.
|
|
I could quote the entirety of the skill and it wouldn't change my point. It either does jam or it doesn't. Opening a lock is a disable device check, if you fail the check by 5 or more, then something goes wrong. So what goes wrong when disabling a lock?
Well, there's two listed outcomes that explain what something goes wrong means. In the case of a trap, it goes off. For anything else, you think you've disabled it, but it actually works normally. So in the case of a lock, you hear a click, think you've done your job, then go to open the door and find it's still firmly locked. Then you get to try to unlock it again. That's why you can take 20.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is something else to consider.
Why when a creature has a swim or climb speed does it say the creature cab take 10 in combat, if you couldn't normally take 10 without the speed and when not in combat.
Certainly implies you can normally take 10 on both climb and swim checks. And since failure in both could damage and/or kill you, it doesn't seem a far stretch that jumping and other similar skill checks be included.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have met some GMs that misunderstand the rules. I personally allow Take 10 on any skill but UMD (as it is specifically restricted) while the characters are out of combat. In combat, unless they have an ability to do so, no Take 10. Take 20 obviously only happens out of combat and only if there is no penalty for failure.
If I encounter a GM that argues against Take 10, I usually just don't bother to declare I am doing so and give my result as if I had rolled a 10. It usually prevents any arguments from taking up valuable game time.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
If I encounter a GM that argues against Take 10, I usually just don't bother to declare I am doing so and give my result as if I had rolled a 10. It usually prevents any arguments from taking up valuable game time.I know not whether to admire, or pity thy forthrightness, but you sir are welcome at my table any time. That level of craftiness deserves to be honored.
Only if you Take 10 to do it.
|
|
Take 10 takes longer than rolling for a single try. I'm sure we read that somewhere.
This is not correct, for the reasons pH unbalanced already gave. You did not read this anywhere Pathfinder; you misremember.
Jumping over a pit where you could get hurt? Honestly, that one was a no brainer for us. If the consequence of a failure was getting injured (and there was a real chance of failure), we all agreed without any real need for discussion that you could not take 10 for that. I was honestly surprised that so many people are so vehement that you obviously can.
I now understand your reasoning, but that would never have occurred to me before reading this thread.
Again, this is a misinterpretation of the rules.
The rules are not "if there is no penalty for failure, you can take 10". The rule is:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Indeed, I would argue that if there's no penalty for failure you should not be making a check at all! Just say it happens. Some RPGs like Fate are very explicit about this: only roll or consider the rules and abilities if (a) there is any doubt about success, and (b) if the doubt is interesting. If it's not interesting, then there's no need to roll, nor even any need to take 10.
The point of take 10 is a safety measure. Sometimes you roll because you want the chance of doing better, so you accept the risk of doing worse. Sometimes you roll because you aren't sure that you're good enough to be able to do it taking 10. But if you're reasonably competent to do something, it totally undermines the heroic nature of adventurers to have them suddenly be randomly incompetent at something they shouldn't have failed at. If you can do a running 10-foot broad jump, you can do a running 10-foot broad jump; take 10 and do it. The only time you can't is if you have to worry about defending yourself at the same time because somebody might be shooting you with an arrow, or similar. The pit you're jumping over is not a distraction; it's the thing you're focusing on.
|
|
When you say "the interpretation" which interpretation are you referring to?A 10 foot pit is a bit of a stretch, but SKRs post say the interpretation isn't supposed to apply even if you're leaping over hot lava or something, which is counter intuitive as hell.
Not only are you pretty clearly in immediate danger, but things like that ARE the difference IRL between a balance beam 3 inches off the floor and one over a chasm. People will stroll over the first one no problem but freak out and fall off the second. (I did not put the hikers there as a sociology experiment I just took notes afterwards...)
Sorry, thought nosig would be here already :)
_____
My counter argument to that would be...
There's a park nearby with a lot of 5 foot gaps in between the stones and 20 foot + drops. You really can just step accross them. But every year people wind up falling down da hoooole because people DON"T perform when there's danger the same way they do when there's a nice safe tape on the ground. The adrenaline kicks in and people do reaally stupid things like second guesse themselves and stop at the wrong time, or look down when they should be looking ahead. Its not rational but it IS human nature and is reality.
See, to me, those screw ups represent people rolling the die: that's the exact kind of thing that take 10 is designed to avoid. The trained adventurers don't make those mistakes; their current side kicks/love interests/professional kidnap victims do.
Take 10 takes longer than rolling for a single try. I'm sure we read that somewhere.This is not correct, for the reasons pH unbalanced already gave. You did not read this anywhere Pathfinder; you misremember. ...
I can't find it, so I agree it is not in the book. But then I am quite sure that we came to the forums here and got that misinformation. We were learning the system and asking about things much more minor than this.
So how ever many years ago that was, that was what the majority of posters were telling us.So at least then it was a very common misunderstanding.
...
Jumping over a pit where you could get hurt? Honestly, that one was a no brainer for us. If the consequence of a failure was getting injured (and there was a real chance of failure), we all agreed without any real need for discussion that you could not take 10 for that. I was honestly surprised that so many people are so vehement that you obviously can.
I now understand your reasoning, but that would never have occurred to me before reading this thread.Again, this is a misinterpretation of the rules.
The rules are not "if there is no penalty for failure, you can take 10". The rule is:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help....
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.
|
|
If someone has a +11 to acrobatics and wants to take 10 to jump a 10 foot pit I'll let them giving them a result of 21, why slow things down. Similarly at higher levels when that same person has gone from being level 4 to level 9 and now has a +21 to acrobatics I won't even have them roll because why waste time unless they wish to jump the pit and then some.
That falls under the unofficial "I take 1 " check: where you don't bother to roll because you can't fail. Commonly used by handle animal at +11.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.
Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.
I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.
|
|
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.
I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.
But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.
This is the crux of the 2 schools of interpretation.
School 1: If I don't make the check, am I at risk? No? Then there's no immediate danger. Take 10 please.
School 2: When you make the skill check, are you in danger? Yes? No take 10.
I'm a school 1 person myself as I believe that's what the language of the text is trying to convey.
|
|
But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.
I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.
No you aren't.
Just because you roll the dice, and failure could mean damage or death, does not mean you are in immediate danger.
Because, regardless what common policy at the table may be, to speed things up, a +11 Acrobatics score will always make a 10' jump barring any mitigating circumstances. I could say, "I take 1 and jump the pit." But you are saying I can't take 10? How ridiculous is that? As a GM, if I don't know what your Acrobatics score is, I'm going to ask you to roll the dice. If you say you'd rather take 10, I'm ok with that. The choice to take 10 has no bearing on what your actual skill bonus is or what the actual difficulty of the check. The choice to take 10 comes before everything else.
In other words, I'm not in immediate danger until I actually fail the check. While I'm staring at the pit, calculating my chances of jumping the pit, jumping the pit, making my die roll or taking 10, and calculating the result of the die roll or adding 10 to my skill bonus, I am not in actual immediate danger. Sure, there is danger of failing, but that's not immediate danger. It is some ambiguous amount of time away from now, based on when the result of my skill check becomes known.
Immediate danger is once the check or take 10 has resulted in a fail. Now I'm falling. Now I'm in immediate danger. Because it is happening right now. The only thing that can mitigate this immediate danger, is another immediate action.
While I'm in the process of making a skill check, I can still take move and/or standard actions and a bevy of free and swift actions dependent upon what exactly my skill check entails. I'm focusing on the task at hand. I'm in full control of my faculties and physicality.
So yeah, immediate danger is not taking an action that could put me in immediate danger. Because evaluating simply what the action entails without looking at any numbers, all you have is a 10' pit with a DC 15 to jump it. And choosing to attempt the jump does not imply immediate danger. It just puts you at risk of experiencing immediate danger should you fail.
|
|
So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?
If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.
Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.
|
|
More often than not, the GM simply says no--without any apparent reason other than they dislike/misunderstand the rules.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that issue arises more often than not, but take 10 and take 20 so seem to be very commonly misunderstood rules, even among GMs.
It depends on the check, locally most of us have adopted the stance that you are always taking 10 on perception unless you ask for a specific check or there are extenuating circumstances
The fact that Dwarves are specifically called out as getting automatic Perception checks in certain circumstances sort of cuts against that position in my opinion, but I don't particularly like the notion that unless the player asks for a check the character never notices anything unusual no matter his or her Perception bonus. Automatically taking 10 may overcompensate a bit, but it's better than the alternative.
I think a lot of GMs do it so players don't autosucceed DC 15 to 20 challenges.
I'd say that falls under claudeennilol's category of disliking the rule.
You have to admit its a might strange to be leaping over a 100 foot drop, over lava, with electrified magma sharks circling below and say "Nope.. no immediate danger there"...
Perhaps the danger isn't immediate in your hypothetical because it exists only once the action in question takes place, i.e., until you try to jump over the hole the 100 foot drop, lava, and electrified magma sharks are no danger at all. Whereas if there were a giant boulder rolling toward you when it came time to make the jump, you'd be in danger regardless of how deep the hole or what lay at the bottom. That'd be my interpretation, anyway, so I'd allow a player to take 10.
I don't think that jumping across a chasm is a good candidate for taking 20, though, because while not traveling as far through the air as you intended is the result of the failure, the fall into the hole
strikes me as a penalty for failure, particularly when there are magma sharks waiting below.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems kind of pedantic, Andrew.
I have a simpler metric: is there an outside force interfering with my ability to devote my attention to a routine application of the skill check?
Am I maintaining a detect magic effect, keeping me from Taking 10 on an Identify roll?
Is there bad weather, where the unpredictable high winds are keeping me from Taking 10 on a Acrobatics check?
Are there ogre children throwing rocks down at me as I'm trying to climb out of a well?
--
That's clearly different -- at least, to me -- from Taking 10 on a Disable Device check to defuse a bomb.
|
|
So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?
There's no immediate danger until after you actually make the roll. There is plenty of danger before you make the roll. If you miscalculate and don't make the DC on Take 10, you take the consequences.
|
|
People generally don't fall down stairs unless they're distracted. (Or, if they make the mistake and roll.) People walk and run up and down stairs all the time. If we're not taking 10 on that, I don't know what we're doing.
But, also, as has been pointed out, comparisons to real life are only of limited value.
The point is that we're heroes here. Heroes who are moderately competent and unencumbered can jump across 5' wide pits without trouble if they're not otherwise distracted or in danger. Little things like that aren't supposed to be real obstacles, unless you have below average dexterity, are encumbered, or are in the middle of combat.
If the "Crap Happens" part of the game is supposed to be represented by rolls in this situation, then there should never be an opportunity to take 10. Why is falling any different from not knowing something, or not seeing something (that could potentially be dangerous)? By your justification, taking 10 just shouldn't be part of the rules system. And, yet, it is. So, "crap happens" is not a justification for forcing a roll. I can see you wanting to play in that system, and houseruling it for your home game is fine, but that's not the rules set we're playing with. The rules set explicitly has rules, i.e. taking 10, that says crap won't happen to you if you are able to focus, and if the task you're facing is minor compared to your competence.
|
|
It has been pointed out a time or two, but Taking 10 doesn't mean you can't fail. You can certainly fail AND it doesn't preclude there being penalties from failure. It shows your trust that you can do average work and succeed. Take 10...oh, you didn't realize there was a -5 because the other side was slick? Oh well, you fail, you fall into the 100' pit, lava and all that jazz...sorry. No slick floor on the other side? Oh, well, I guess you made it, congrats.
As a skill monkey player, I have use the crap out of take 10, to the point that GMs often get annoyed by me... The key is, I'm willing to eat my failures (of which there have been a couple in the last couple of years) because I don't know the DCs, I just assume I got this...and roll with it.
As far as immediate danger goes: I would say...Are we in combat or are there weather conditions that mean I am in danger? If not...I would argue that there isn't immediate danger and I can take 10. Falling into a pit if I fail? That qualifies as a problem for failure and means I can't take 20...but I don't think we are arguing that at all...that part is clear.
|
|
So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?
If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.
Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.
Most people, when they fall down the stairs, are either: under extreme encumbrance, distracted, or are feeling threatened.
Here's a question for you.
Character X, Acrobatics of +9
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him roll, even if he cannot fail it, even on a 1?
Character Y, Acrobatics of +5, Ring of Feather Falling
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him make a roll, even though the ring would prevent him from being in danger of taking damage from the fall?
How about if he has Boots of the Cat, which reduces fall damage to the minimum possible?
1: 3 hp
2: 4 hp
3: 5 hp
4: 6 hp
5: 7 hp (stay out of Fireball formation!)
.
.
.
14: 16 hp (will survive the fall, if stabilized immediately)
That, however, is a worst case scenario, considering it means an Elf with Con dumped...
For a more "normal" caster, assuming d6 and a 10 Con, no FCB, no Toughness:
1: 6 hp
2: 10 hp
3: 14 hp (will survive the fall, has 3 rounds to stabilize)
3: 18 hp (will even be awake after the fall)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that explanation...
If I wasn't making this check, would I be considered in "immediate danger"?
If yes, you can't Take 10. If no, you can Take 10.
I also like it.
But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.
I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.
No you aren't.
Just because you roll the dice, and failure could mean damage or death, does not mean you are in immediate danger. ...
A significant number of people apparently see it differently.
As I said, I can see your reasoning and I may actually be starting to agree with you. But that was not what occurred to us when we read it. I don't remember anyone else seeing it that way in discussion at PFS over the years. Everyone who thought it was different and then actually looked at the rule said, 'Oh yeah, there is danger so I have to roll.'
If your interpretation is actually what the designers meant, they did a really poor job of specifying it and not fixing it over the last how ever many years.
I would say it pretty clearly is not quite so obvious and definite as you seem to feel it is.
On the other hand, even when I felt a roll was actually needed, I have often let them take 10 or even just hand waved the thing completely if they described taking care. As others have said, it it's not a major plot point and failure is unlikely/uninteresting let's just get it over with so we can get back to the story.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?
If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.
Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.
Most people, when they fall down the stairs, are either: under extreme encumbrance, distracted, or are feeling threatened.
Here's a question for you.
Character X, Acrobatics of +9
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him roll, even if he cannot fail it, even on a 1?Character Y, Acrobatics of +5, Ring of Feather Falling
10' pit, room to make a running jump.
Do you have him make a roll, even though the ring would prevent him from being in danger of taking damage from the fall?How about if he has Boots of the Cat, which reduces fall damage to the minimum possible?
** spoiler omitted **
I make the guy with the ring roll. Because even if he takes no damage, he might not make it back out of the pit. Horrible climb skill, no rope in the party. He might have been boasting about how competent he is and if he falls down the party can RP that they are standing on the edge, lauging at him, ect.
|
|
So you're saying that there is only danger after you make the roll, and so therefore there is no danger when you actually make the roll?
If this were how it worked in real life, no one would ever fall down the stairs.
Your skill modifier represents your training and skill, but the dice roll represents the "crap happens" part of the world that isn't explicitly modeled in the game.
I didn't say there was no danger. Danger can be found everywhere.
I said there was no immediate danger. There is a difference.
You can choose to interact with danger, and that's your voice to attempt to jump the pit. It doesn't become immediate until you fail and experience the result of failure.
|
|
But if you're standing there looking at it you're not making the roll. When you're making the roll you are in immediate danger.
I asked around a bit. Everyone of us assumed the risk of falling and breaking your neck would count as immediate danger.Not much is immediate about a pit. I can stand there all day and stare at it and my neck never breaks.
I tend to classify immediate as "If I just do nothing, I am likely to take damage in the next round or so." A lot of GMs I know define it by the initiation of combat rounds.
No you aren't.
Just because you roll the dice, and failure could mean damage or death, does not mean you are in immediate danger. ...
A significant number of people apparently see it differently.
As I said, I can see your reasoning and I may actually be starting to agree with you. But that was not what occurred to us when we read it. I don't remember anyone else seeing it that way in discussion at PFS over the years. Everyone who thought it was different and then actually looked at the rule said, 'Oh yeah, there is danger so I have to roll.'
If your interpretation is actually what the designers meant, they did a really poor job of specifying it and not fixing it over the last how ever many years.
I would say it pretty clearly is not quite so obvious and definite as you seem to feel it is.
On the other hand, even when I felt a roll was actually needed, I have often let them take 10 or even just hand waved the thing completely if they described taking care. As others have said, it it's not a major plot point and failure is unlikely/uninteresting let's just get it over with so we can get back to the story.
I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.
It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.
|
Taking ten on a jump, out of combat:
1. Are my shoelaces tied? Good.
2. Take a second to stretch.
3. Make sure any equipment is where it needs to be. I don't want my scabbard to swing around and trip up my legs as I'm leaping.
4. And I've made it past the Pit with Pointy Things at the Bottom.
Rolling my Acrobatics check to make a jump. In combat, or with the giant bowling ball headed towards me, or with the ledge I'm on falling apart underneath me, or something else distracting, keeping me from spending a few seconds to prepare:
1. I jump.
2. Enough goes right that I make it, or not.
My reading of the rules is that if I have time to do it reasonably carefully, I can take ten. If I can try and try again, I can take twenty. (With a few exceptions called out in the rules, like UMD.)
Since it came up in another thread, I will ask for opinions here. This happened way in the past so it has no immediate effect, I'm just curious.
Hypothetical approximation of the situation as I vaguely remember it.
The whole party has invested heavily in the stealth skill. They are trying to sneak into the castle. There are patrolling guards on the wall, in the tower, at the gate, and some dogs in the courtyard.
If you say there is no danger because no one is fighting yet, so the guards take 10 on their perception and the party takes 10 on climb and stealth checks.
The party will absolutely never fail at almost any concentration of guards. Standard NPC and even guard dogs have a much lower perception modifier than the PC's have stealth modifier. They will always be able to sneak into anyplace no matter how heavily guarded. So some posters were saying things like Stealth Synergy or even a heavy focus on the Stealth skill is completely unnecessary. You just take 10 and succeed all the time.
If you say there is danger because they could be discovered and shot at, so the guards roll perception and the party rolls stealth every round on their infiltration. Some dog/guard is going to roll a 19 when someone in the party rolls a 2.
Now the party will almost always fail the infiltration without something like Stealth Synergy or really astronomical stealth skills so they literally can't be detected even with a very low roll. {This is what our group went with and to be honest, I can't remember for sure if take 10 was ever even brought up as a possibility. I guarantee we would have said that was 'immediate danger.' It was nearly impossible to ever sneak into anyplace with significant guards no matter how good we were at it.}
One seems too ridiculously easy the other seems too horrifically difficult. Yes, in real life teams of trained people can sneak past guards. It does happen. But it also isn't so stupidly easy that almost anyone can do it. How would you guys rule this?