Can we please get an FAQ on taking 10 on knowledge checks?

[rknop]

I know that the rules as written are nominally clear. However, I still run into GMs who think you can't take 10 on Knowledge checks. This means that it is a frequently asked question

Can we please have an FAQ on this so that we have a quick and unambiguous place to point those GMs to? Perhaps including the reasoning ("the skills chapters says you can take 10 on skils; only UMD is called out as a skill you can't take 10 on; therefore, you can take 10 on Knowledge checks.")

Right now, all we have to fall back on are arguments about the Skills chapter, at which point the GM points to the very unfortunate wording in the Bard class. The only other thing we have to fall back on is a post that James Jacobs made in his thread.

An actual FAQ would be really nice. That FAQ should also mention that the benefit of the Bardic ability is that you can take 10 even when under stress.

[Kazaan]

It still surprises me that a GM can manage to run a campaign without basic reading skills.

PRD wrote:

Taking 10: 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.

Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Just explain to the GM that Take 10 only requires that you not be distracted. No where under Take 10 does it say, neither explicitly nor implicitly, that you cannot Take 10 if there are penalties for failure. Take 20 simulates doing it 20 times because, statistically, you'd have gotten a natural 20 once in 20 attempts. That's why you can't do it if there are penalties to failure. Take 10 is not about doing it 20 times and assuming you get a 10. Take 10 is about just taking the average, but it takes no additional time and you are not considering penalty for failure because you are not failing at all (as you are with Take 20). And it's pretty clear that the Bardic ability is creating an exception to the only restriction imposed on Take 10 (cannot be in danger or distracted). Honestly, if your GM screws up THAT bad... you probably need a new GM because imagine what else he's going to get wrong.

[Queen Moragan]

Is your GM assuming that "taking 10" requires 10 rounds to complete, even though it does not say that it does?

Taking 20 does specify that it takes 20 rounds to complete.

Your GM could be assuming that taking 10 requires 10 rounds to complete, thus disallowing taking 10 on a Knowledge check because you don't have the time or are trying to take 10 in a round.

[Shar Tahl]

Kazaan wrote:

It still surprises me that a GM can manage to run a campaign without basic reading skills.

Great attitude. Try and see the whole picture before going on the offensive.

Problem Text:

Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.

The implication here with this specific situation is that normally it is not allowed. This ability would be 50% useless with take 10's for all. I can already see the normal responses when this comes up "I read it as take 10, even under duress", but that is not RAW. As written it is either saying something redundant and it's a 50% non-ability or knowledge was not meant to be a take 10. That is the Frequently Asked Question. My home games are in the 'no take 10 on knowledge skills' camp. To me, the knowledge skills represents the chance the character read about/encountered/heard of whatever is being checked. The bard ability represents the more worldly nature of the bard and the fact that they have heard of a great many things.

[sunderedhero]

How about this: LINK

James Jacobs wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

James, Can you take 10 on knowledge skill checks?

The take 10 rules in the skills section do not restrict it, but the lore master bardic class ability seems to suggest that you cannot normally take 10.

I am sorry if this has been answered before, but my search fu is not working. In general PFRPG, we can just rule however, but my question is important for the purposes of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and a designer's opinion would be appreciated to help end an ongoing and somewhat contentious discussion.

You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat.

[Kazaan]

"As written" and "explicit" are two different, yet often conflated terms. It does, indeed, say that you can take 10, even under duress. It may not be explicit, but it is implicit. Implicit meaning still relies on what is written. Granted, they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore; even when I went to school, it was lacking. But I made up for it with my own efforts and learned these principals with due diligence. "The bard... can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in." Rules must mean something so "it works" must be our first presumption. Using explicit meaning, this phrase does nothing; it doesn't work. Therefore, it has an implied meaning. That implied meaning is that you can take 10 on any Knowledge skill that you have ranks in... even when the rules would otherwise say you can't.

Read through the description of the Knowledge skill. Where does it say, either explicitly or implicitly, that you cannot take 10 on a Knowledge check? The only skill that states you cannot take 10 is UMD. If you're going to cry, "RAW," be aware of what the RAW is. Take 10 outlines what situations you cannot take 10 and only one skill states that you cannot take 10 on that skill. Making a Knowledge check has no prohibition like UMD so, unless you are distracted or in danger, by RAW, you can take 10 on Knowledge. Lore Master, by a very narrow interpretation that only considers explicit meaning and denies both implied meaning and the principal that meaningless rules are not written for the purpose of using up surplus book space, can be parsed in such a way such that it is, "the exception that proves the rule". The same argument was made about Prone Shooter and we see how that panned out. Implicit meaning is important and shouldn't be discounted, especially when the alternatives are either the rule does nothing, or a minor rules element "retcons" a penalty that was never indicated beforehand.

[HangarFlying]

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it. If you do have at least 1 rank, then take 10 to your heart's content...for that one time on that one knowledge check.

[wraithstrike]

I was just planning to do this later today. Thanks. I pressed the FAQ button. :)

[rainzax]

If the PC can take 10 on a knowledge check so long as they are outside of combat, can they do so any number of times per day?

For example, say the PCs do some reconnaissance and figure out that the next fight they will face will have three different creatures A, B, and C.

If their Bard (or whoever) has at least a +5 in the appropriate Knowledge skills, and creature A, B, and C's DC is 15, can the PCs therefor ask as many questions that they want before meeting the creatures head on?

[wraithstrike]

rainzax wrote:

If the PC can take 10 on a knowledge check so long as they are outside of combat, can they do so any number of times per day?

For example, say the PCs do some reconnaissance and figure out that the next fight they will face will have three different creatures A, B, and C.

If their Bard (or whoever) has at least a +5 in the appropriate Knowledge skills, and creature A, B, and C's DC is 15, can the PCs therefor ask as many questions that they want before meeting the creatures head on?

You can take 10 all day long outside of combat, but only use a knowledge check once per target/subject per day.

[Samy]

wraithstrike wrote:

only use a knowledge check once per target/subject per day.

Where does the "per day" come from? The PRD says

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

That to me implies you don't get to try again every day.

[wraithstrike]

Samy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

only use a knowledge check once per target/subject per day.

Where does the "per day" come from? The PRD says

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

That to me implies you don't get to try again every day.

Bah. I was thinking about spellcraft.

I see I will houserule knowledge checks to be until you get another rank in that knowledge skill.

[JohnF]

HangarFlying wrote:

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

[Diego Rossi]

wraithstrike wrote:

Samy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

only use a knowledge check once per target/subject per day.

Where does the "per day" come from? The PRD says

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

That to me implies you don't get to try again every day.

Bah. I was thinking about spellcraft.

I see I will houserule knowledge checks to be until you get another rank in that knowledge skill.

Increasing your skill is learning more about the subject.

[wraithstrike]

JohnF wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

I think it is to reduce your max roll for something you have never trained it.

[wraithstrike]

Diego Rossi wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Samy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

only use a knowledge check once per target/subject per day.

Where does the "per day" come from? The PRD says

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

That to me implies you don't get to try again every day.

Bah. I was thinking about spellcraft.

I see I will houserule knowledge checks to be until you get another rank in that knowledge skill.

Increasing your skill is learning more about the subject.

I agree that is the point of my houserule, but I dont see any rule saying that learning more allows a retry.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

I'll FAQ it, in the hopes that the Bard ability is clarified.

[JohnF]

wraithstrike wrote:

JohnF wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

I think it is to reduce your max roll for something you have never trained it.

Oops - I thought we talking about skill checks in general, not just knowledge checks (where that limitation does indeed exist). I guess I failed my perception check on the title of the thread.

(Hey, it's late at night; I think I'll go to bed, and stop posting!)

[Ascalaphus]

This does sound like a legitimate frequently asked question. Most of us know the correct answer, but the question gets asked frequently.

[rknop]

sunderedhero wrote:

How about this: LINK

Yes, I know about that link, and that's what I point people to.

Two problems.

(1) It's buried in a thread of 1000s of posts.

(2) Elsewhere in that thread, you can find James saying that his rules pronouncements are not official, and that indeed he no longer makes them because the Dev team asked him not to. This weakens the argument of the link.

Yet, at the moment, it's the best thing we have to fall back on.

In a home game, it is what it is. The problem I have is that in PFS, I really want to know what I can do, and want the GMs to actually follow the rules. The rules are not clear, as Shar Tahl explains succinctly in this post.

Hence, we need the FAQ, so there's an easy-to-find thing to which we can point GMs who misinterpret this.

[HangarFlying]

JohnF wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

Because knowledge checks are trained, if you don't have any ranks in it, if the DC is greater than 10, you can't make the check in the first place.

A crafty GM would still allow a character to take 10 in order to not give away the DC, but it would be an auto fail.

[OilHorse]

You can make the check if the DC was over 10 but you would receive no information. Characters with no ranks can still succeed on DC 10 or less knowledge checks.

[Kazaan]

Why exactly is an untrained, DC 10 knowledge check autofail if you take 10? You still get your Interest bonus, you know. 12 Int let's you succeed at a DC 10 check if you take 10.

Regarding the prohibition on trying again, knowledge checks kind of represent Schrödinger's Knowledge. If you succeed at the check, the character didn't learn the info on the spot; he had known it for a long time, possibly for years. You, the player didn't know that he knew, but the character did. Metagaming works both ways. That's why additional skill ranks doesn't increase your actual knowledge on the subject; it only increases the chances that you have already learned about it in the past. But if a creature spits fire at you, no additional knowledge check is necessary to know that it breaths fire.

[Buri Reborn]

You can take 10. However, you can't retry a knowledge check RAW. So, over the course of a character's career, those checks should be tracked (your question and your result). Interestingly, here's everything a 10 intelligence (average) creature knows with a take 10:

• Identify mineral, stone, or metal
  
• Identify dangerous construction
  
• Identify a creature's ethnicity or accent
  
• Know recent or historically significant event
  
• Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations
  
• Identify a common plant or animal
  
• Know current rulers and their symbols
  
• Know the names of the planes
  
• Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy

That's a pretty well-rounded set of information basically gifted by the game to pretty much everyone.

[BigNorseWolf]

Uhm... most people irl CAN do most of those things. Minerals are a no, stones are a little iffy , but most folks know the difference between our shiny friend alluminum and steel, tin and iron, and copper (bronze and brass i can never keep strait though), that ww2 happened, The USA flag, a few other countries flags, what a russian accent sounds like, the difference between a black guy and a white guy, that you're not allowed to stab people, what a dog is, most of the planets (uranus joke here), and what a cross means and what a buddah statue looks like.

The only really weird things are knowledge local and religion working the same no matter how exotic it is . Should be some sort of distance modifier in there.

[thejeff]

Kazaan wrote:

Why exactly is an untrained, DC 10 knowledge check autofail if you take 10? You still get your Interest bonus, you know. 12 Int let's you succeed at a DC 10 check if you take 10.

It isn't. In fact, since you only need to hit the DC, you don't even need the 12 Int. I don't think anyone has said an untrained, DC 10 knowledge check autofails if you take 10. If they have, they're wrong.

They have said an untrained greater than a DC 10 is an autofail if you take 10. Or if you don't.

Because:

Quote:

Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

A DC 10 one isn't. DC 11 is.

Without a skill rank you autofail any DC11+ knowledge check, whether you Take 10 or roll and get a 20.

[Buri Reborn]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Uhm... most people irl CAN do most of those things. Minerals are a no, stones are a little iffy , but most folks know the difference between our shiny friend alluminum and steel, tin and iron, and copper (bronze and brass i can never keep strait though), that ww2 happened, The USA flag, a few other countries flags, what a russian accent sounds like, the difference between a black guy and a white guy, that you're not allowed to stab people, what a dog is, most of the planets (uranus joke here), and what a cross means and what a buddah statue looks like.

The only really weird things are knowledge local and religion working the same no matter how exotic it is . Should be some sort of distance modifier in there.

Right. So, in game terms, a GM saying you can't do that implies you don't know those things, consistently, at least. For such basic stuff, saying the average denizen can't know those things with some level of consistency is kind of head scratching. It helps give meaning to what, precisely, is average.

[Bill Dunn]

I actually do allow retries on knowledge checks... As long as the situation has changed enough that the PCs has new inroads into the information. That also usually comes with a new DC too. For example, a PC tries to use know (the planes) to identify a demon based on limited observation (like a glimpse or seeing the effects of his powers), he can retry when he has better and more direct observation, and I even let him retry if they capture the wizard who called it and interrogation reveals it to be a glabrezu.

[rknop]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...that you're not allowed to stab people...

What, what?

[Malag]

You don't need a FAQ for this. You need an person who is willing to learn and compromise. If your GM thinks that you can't take 10 on Knowledge checks, no FAQ will fix it. He will simply houserule it if he desires so, unless it's a PFS game.

FAQ on side, I always mention players "you can take 10 if you want" but only 20% of them actually do so. They prefer to roll their dices.

Adam

[wraithstrike]

Malag wrote:

You don't need a FAQ for this. You need an person who is willing to learn and compromise. If your GM thinks that you can't take 10 on Knowledge checks, no FAQ will fix it. He will simply houserule it if he desires so, unless it's a PFS game.

FAQ on side, I always mention players "you can take 10 if you want" but only 20% of them actually do so. They prefer to roll their dices.

Adam

"You" do not need an FAQ. Many of the rest of us like to play the game by the way it was intended to be played so we need one for clarification. Most GM's don't go against FAQ's and houserule unless they think it is an extreme case, so the FAQ will fix it. There have been times when I have shown FAQ's to GM's and they went with the FAQ. You are assuming the GM wants the rule to be a certain way, instead of him just misreading it. Now if the GM is saying there is no "taking 10" because he does not like the idea, then it that case the FAQ might not matter, but that is likely to not be the majority.

So saying "no FAQ will fix it" is patently false.

Also in my experience many players do take 10 unless they just forget to do so, or they think it will fail.

[Buri Reborn]

This is the kind of thing that FAQs are made for: clarifications.

[Malag]

@wrath

What I am saying is, there is no need for FAQ because the rule is already written. You can take 10 on anything besides UMD. If the person can't see it, he is either unaware or deliberately ignoring it. FAQ might help in clarifying, but I doubt it will help that much. There is so many other things out there worth FAQ-ing instead. If you really believe that Knowledge skill requires special FAQ, then all other skills might require it also. It's as difficult to convince person that you can take 10 on social skills in the same way. Perhaps a general FAQ on take 10 should take place, not about Knowledge skill.

[Buri Reborn]

Malag, I think you discount how the PDT tends to address these requests. Yes, they of course answer the question, but I've seen more generic aspects to specific FAQ requests as well as they don't like to have many FAQs on facets of the same thing. I'd wager this would be such a case.

[wraithstrike]

Malag wrote:

@wrath

What I am saying is, there is no need for FAQ because the rule is already written. You can take 10 on anything besides UMD. If the person can't see it, he is either unaware or deliberately ignoring it. FAQ might help in clarifying, but I doubt it will help that much. There is so many other things out there worth FAQ-ing instead. If you really believe that Knowledge skill requires special FAQ, then all other skills might require it also. It's as difficult to convince person that you can take 10 on social skills in the same way. Perhaps a general FAQ on take 10 should take place, not about Knowledge skill.

The rule from bard class is also suggesting that the knowledge rule was supposed to be different. That is why a clarification is needed.

You are assuming the person actually wants the rule to be a certain. There are quiet a few GM's doing this because they just don't know any better. I know of at least 3 personally that would change it(their current ruling), if there was an FAQ.

All other skills do not have a class feature suggesting otherwise. Just to be clear this FAQ is not about explaining taking 10 in general. It is just like how there was a contradiction in the 1st printing of the CRB with regard to whether or not you could counterspell SLA's, depending on where you looked in the book.

People often get taking 10 and taking 20 mixed up, but they do not get confused with whether or not you can take 10 with other skills. The exception being the rogue class and its class ability vs UMD.

[wraithstrike]

You might be saying there are more important FAQ's, but that is a different argument than "GM's as a whole will likely ignore the ruling", which you strongly hinted towards earlier.

[Malag]

@wrath

The rule from bard class suggests that bard can always choose to take 10 even if distracted which normally character can't do, but I am pretty sure that we both know this already. To be honest, most of the GMs in my area dislike the take 10 rule in general. I believe that this same "dislike" is just resurfacing in another skill and nothing more.

Out of politeness, I will click on FAQ, mostly for general explanations about take 10 rule, rather then Knowledge skill.

[Weirdo]

Buri Reborn wrote:

Right. So, in game terms, a GM saying you can't do that implies you don't know those things, consistently, at least. For such basic stuff, saying the average denizen can't know those things with some level of consistency is kind of head scratching. It helps give meaning to what, precisely, is average.

On the other hand, it's a little odd that an untrained person of average or better intelligence automatically knows everything with a knowledge DC 10 or less (because they can take 10) but has no chance of knowing anything with a DC of 11 or higher.

IRL there's a grey area in between "almost everyone knows it" and "only those specifically educated in the topic know it."

• The names of the planets.
  
• The names of mars' moons.
  
• The names of the five extraterrestrial bodies of greatest scientific interest, and why.

• That it's illegal to stab people.
  
• The difference between first and second degree murder.
  
• The general principles of self defense as a legal justification for assault or murder.
  
• Key laws and precedent-setting cases in the area of self-defense.

• That WW2 happened.
  
• Which country suffered the greatest casualties in WW2.
  
• Which groups of people were persecuted in WW2, in which ways, by which countries.
  
• The impact of WW2 on India, including key dates and players.
  

These represent knowledge checks of increasing DC, with the middle questions representing facts that aren't obviously common knowledge but which ordinary people might pick up from current events, fiction, or as pieces of trivia, while the last questions represent things that only those that have specifically sought out knowledge on the topic should be able to answer.

Of course I could see certain areas having a sharper distinction between common and specialist knowledge - for example in Medieval Europe Christianity and its basic teachings were everywhere but since the priests were the gatekeepers of theology much of the specific religious philosophy would only be available to priests.

However in most cases I'd expect to see some variation in what people know, which suggests either that people generally aren't assumed to take 10 on Knowledge checks (whether or not it's allowed) or else there should be an adjustment to how we handle untrained knowledge checks.

[wraithstrike]

Malag wrote:

@wrath

The rule from bard class suggests that bard can always choose to take 10 even if distracted which normally character can't do, but I am pretty sure that we both know this already. To be honest, most of the GMs in my area dislike the take 10 rule in general. I believe that this same "dislike" is just resurfacing in another skill and nothing more.

Out of politeness, I will click on FAQ, mostly for general explanations about take 10 rule, rather then Knowledge skill.

Thanks. I guess the dislike of taking 10 is just something I have experienced yet.

[thejeff]

Weirdo wrote:

These represent knowledge checks of increasing DC, with the middle questions representing facts that aren't obviously common knowledge but which ordinary people might pick up from current events, fiction, or as pieces of trivia, while the last questions represent things that only those that have specifically sought out knowledge on the topic should be able to answer.

Of course I could see certain areas having a sharper distinction between common and specialist knowledge - for example in Medieval Europe Christianity and its basic teachings were everywhere but since the priests were the gatekeepers of theology much of the specific religious philosophy would only be available to priests.

However in most cases I'd expect to see some variation in what people know, which suggests either that people generally aren't assumed to take 10 on Knowledge checks (whether or not it's allowed) or else there should be an adjustment to how we handle untrained knowledge checks.

Or that, like many things in the game and especially the skill system, it's an abstraction to simplify play rather than intended as a strict model of how the world really works.

[Buri Reborn]

Weirdo wrote:

On the other hand, it's a little odd that an untrained person of average or better intelligence automatically knows everything with a knowledge DC 10 or less (because they can take 10) but has no chance of knowing anything with a DC of 11 or higher.

Not really. The game allows for libraries. Our library is the Internet. People Google things left and right often times for relatively trivial stuff. Just today I Googled for how hot to brew coffee and how long to cook a steak on the grill as I've been used to broilers these last few months since it's spring. Yet, I'd consider myself a fairly intelligent person. So... there are limits on "innate" knowledge which I think the game handles well. It also creates situations where commoners can have a useful amount of information about their surroundings. BTW, what the game lists as DC 10 is a far cry from everything. ;) Just the practical stuff out of those example DCs listed.

Weirdo wrote:

IRL there's a grey area in between "almost everyone knows it" and "only those specifically educated in the topic know it."

Well, sure. The game isn't meant to model real life, just enough to be like "ok, sure." There are many, many cases where the rules don't match up to IRL expectations even if they come close, and I'm not even talking about magic.

Weirdo wrote:

However in most cases I'd expect to see some variation in what people know, which suggests either that people generally aren't assumed to take 10 on Knowledge checks (whether or not it's allowed) or else there should be an adjustment to how we handle untrained knowledge checks.

This is why 10 intelligence is just an average. There are roughly just as many 8 intelligence commoners as there are 12 intelligence ones. The instant you go below 10, just a 9, you no longer auto qualify for those DC 10 things. It doesn't make them dumb. Their knowledge is simply more spotty than others.

[Weirdo]

Yes it's an abstraction, but if you want to say that taking 10 leads to a good representation of common knowledge you should consider the limits of that representation and in context of the current discussion why that limitation leads some people to believe that you shouldn't take 10 on Knowledge checks.

With a -1 or -2 penalty you make a DC 10 check about half of the time (on an 11 or 12). The jump from 100% grasp of common knowledge to 50% grasp with a point or two of intelligence difference seems more than "a little spotty" to me, but it's possible that a lot of common knowledge is actually lower than DC 10 so that's not too bad.

Looking at the population at large, about 1/3 of humans are intelligence 9 or 8 (assume average array of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), a little fewer after the racial +2 or age adjustments. That means about 10-15% of people will fail to know each "common knowledge" DC 10 fact. Overall that sounds plausible for me.

The issue is the DC 11 fact, which only those who specifically study the field know. There are a lot of things that are known by between 1% and 85% of the untrained population and information in that category is poorly represented by the current rules.

Access to libraries doesn't account for this because you only get the benefit of the library when actually referencing it. If I'm sitting around on the beach without an internet connection and we started talking about WW2 I can tell you that Hitler rounded up gays and communists in addition to Jews and that the USA put Japanese-Americans into camps, and it's not because I consciously made a decision to research those facts. I just picked them up over time - which is what a Knowledge check is expected to represent. And I'm pretty sure I don't have ranks in Knowledge (History) given how many basic questions in that field I can't answer.

To some extent knowledge of these things is random. That provides a reason why a GM might not feel it makes sense to take 10 on a Knowledge check, even if we're not immediately stressed - even if it means that some of the population is ignorant about things that we should really expect them to know.

If I felt like houseruling the system to be more realistic, I might allow untrained Knowledge checks up to DC 10+Int bonus, but an untrained person can't take 10 if the DC is over 10. That would mean that DC 10 or under is known to most people, DC 11-12 would represent things that an intelligent person has a good chance to pick up, while DC 13-15 would be things that are considered easy for a trained person, which a very intelligent person might also know, but an average person wouldn't.

[thejeff]

Weirdo wrote:

Yes it's an abstraction, but if you want to say that taking 10 leads to a good representation of common knowledge you should consider the limits of that representation and in context of the current discussion why that limitation leads some people to believe that you shouldn't take 10 on Knowledge checks.

I wouldn't say it leads to a good representation of common knowledge. I'd say it leads to a useful abstraction for letting players know what their characters know when it comes up in game.

[Byakko]

Weirdo: well said

I also believe some of the confusion is the result of other editions of D&D prohibiting taking 10 on knowledge checks, if memory serves and I didn't just fail my knowledge(D&D) check.

[Steve Geddes]

Is there the same controversy over taking 20?

[_Ozy_]

You can't take 20 because you can't retry a knowledge check.

[Buri Reborn]

Which, some classes have features (as quoted earlier), can. But, those are special cases.

[wraithstrike]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is there the same controversy over taking 20?

No, this is different.

[blackbloodtroll]

Taking 10, is not Taking 20.

That misconception, is where most of the confusion lies.

[Steve Geddes]

Just to be clear, I was curious whether the controversy carried over - it was a query about the community, not the rules (we don't really use the rules around knowledge checks anyhow). Thanks for the quick answers though.