|
you don't know where they are starting from, you don't know if there are negative modifiers because of shoes, clothes, etc.
You can watch people go over. They're looking down, they run up to it and stop at the last second, they get to the edge chicken out and scream they behave entirely differently BECAUSE of the drop. Its the big scary drop thats causing their change in behavior... and thats how human beings work. When something is scary you mess up even usual things. (this is also the answer to many of your points below)
It doesn't matter if its a bomb that could go off or a jump over a pit: if the thing you're doing is inherently dangerous people get scared, panic, and perform inconsistently.
The problem is that allowing the mechanic also trivializes EVERY check a character might otherwise reasonably make with a little bit of skill, including the skill half of a PFS scenario and leaping over a chasm of lava... some very fantastic things.
That's demonstrably false. Take 10 trivializes nothing other than things that are meant to be trivial....for that character.
Balderdash. Something you have a 50 50 chance of failing at is NOT trivial. Something with important consequences of failure is not trivial. If the mechanic were take 5 , that would make sense, but a take 10 mechanic is something that you flub up half of the time: which is by definition NOT easy for you.
...now you're wasting time on something that wasn't mean to be a challenge to begin with.
Take 10 discussions take more time than rolling the dice.
If an author wants to forces someone to roll to jump over a pit, then it is trivial for the author to add a distraction mechanic e.g. a swarm of flies, heat from the lava, crowd noise and heckling, gail force winds, floor covered in grease. The possibilities are endless. I don't see it as my job in PFS to second guess the author.
You're assuming they're all on the same page of rules interpretation.
As a DM/Writer if you set the check at 10+ an average modifier someone can take 10 and get them all. If you set it higher then people are very likely to fail it.I fail to understand what you're getting at by stating the obvious.
What I'm getting at is that with the liberal take 10 mechanic you can either make the skill portion of the adventure
1: Have a hackneyed distraction for every check
2: Skip through it effectively with auto successes
3: Make it so hard that you frustrate the players by being unable to do it.
There's NO room for a 5% to 50% failure rate with a liberal interpretation of take 10. You either set someone up to fail 55% of the time or they auto succeed.
The question we need to ask is what is the experience we want the player to have? SKR made it clear that T10 was to be used in situations like climbing a cliff or jumping a pit, even if the rules language and real life parallels suggest otherwise.
And bothering further clarification I usually let people do that if they ask in PFS (but not for surprise round perception rolls), but what I'm trying to explain is
1) Why DMs may read the rule more strictly
2) Why SKR's explanation is far from a slam dunk for the rule.
Take 10/20 exist to facilitate a game...not mirror real life.
It seriously hurts the game IMHO.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it helps, not hinders.
In the end, it's a matter of taste.
To that, many will read the rules, to better suite their tastes.
That doesn't mean their wrong, but it makes considering another interpretation, difficult, for many.
Now, moving on...
Take 10 is not always a guaranteed success. Please stop saying this complete falsehood. For those with a high enough modifier, maybe that a Take 10 is a guaranteed success, but that is how it should be. Rewarding their investment.
|
|
Balderdash. Something you have a 50 50 chance of failing at is NOT trivial.False conclusion. Based on a faulty assumption. Where do you come up with failing 50% of the time?
Stop that. You can't call it a false conclusion if you don't know how I'm getting it.
You can take 10 if you have a +10 modifier and need a 20. That is something that you would fail half the time. That is NOT a trivial(easy) task.
Another flawed conclusion. Driving my car has important consequence of failure and it is trivial for me to do so under normal conditions.
Riding my bike down a hill has important consequence for failing and it is trivial for me to do so.
Do you have a 50 50 chance of failure at any of those options?
Trivial has two meanings: unimportant and easy.
A take 1 or take 5 mechanic would better represent something that easy. Take 10 does not.
Consequence for failing has nothing to do with the T10 mechanic and never has. The conditions under which I perform the skill check do.
There doesn't need to be a discussion because I am allowed to T10 and the GM knows it.
I think the 20 or so of these conversations proves thats not the case.
|
|
First off, the probability I might fail a task has zero bearing on whether the task is "trivial." I have less than a 1% chance of shooting a spit wad into a thimble at 10 feet. Nonetheless it's still a task "of little value or importance" and therefore "trivial."
Now you're equivocating.
When the task is trivial (easy enough to take 10 on) but not trivial (important) you argue that the task is easy so its trivial and you can take 10.
When the task is trivial (not important) but hard you argue that the task is unimportant.. so you can take 10.
Third, conclusion begs the question, or to put it another way, is circular reasoning.
It does not. Rolling dice is the default for the game.
Take 10 says that there are tasks that can be routine for any given character and the fact that they might fail them 50% of the time if distracted is not relevant in the 3.5/Pathfinder skills paradigm.
That is NOT routine. Its death defying. Incredibly difficult and outright amazing. You're sucking all of the adventure out of the adventure when you just turn it into an auto success.
Uh no. You're claiming Taking 10 takes more time than rolling a die which it does not. The fact that GMs don't understand the T10 rule and therefore want to debate it is a non-sequitor.
Not agreeing with you is not a lack of understanding. Your inability to recognize that is going to cause more problems than take 10 fixes.
|
|
That is NOT routine. Its death defying. Incredibly difficult and outright amazing. You're sucking all of the adventure out of the adventure when you just turn it into an auto success.That's not a failing of Take 10, that's a failing of the skill system.
The skill system definitely IS entirely too swingy. Moving to a 3d6 method for skills would make a bit more sense. Baring that, I do like the some of the current modules methods for the party making the skill where the percentage of party members making it matters : puts the results on more of a bell curve
|
|
Balderdash. Something you have a 50 50 chance of failing at is NOT trivial.False conclusion. Based on a faulty assumption. Where do you come up with failing 50% of the time?Stop that. You can't call it a false conclusion if you don't know how I'm getting it.
You can take 10 if you have a +10 modifier and need a 20. That is something that you would fail half the time. That is NOT a trivial(easy) task.
Math failure alert:
+10 and needing a 20 is NOT a 50% failure rate on a roll.+9 and needing a 20, to +10 and needing a 21 would both be a 50% failure rate.
And, contrariwise: If you have a 50% or better chance of success, how is the task NOT trivial?
"On a normal day, I can control my car easily, even though I only have a +1 Driver skill. If the weather is bad, or there are a bunch of maniacs out there, I am distracted trying to avoid them, so I have a harder time controlling my vehicle."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
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.
Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.
Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
Obviously a heck of a lot of us are going to continue reading it they way many of us already have.A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.
So, according to your interpretation, if I am understanding it correctly, you can never take 10 while swimming? After all, you are in danger of drowning if you fail your Swim check.
** spoiler omitted **
Try reading the conversation. I said I am now inclined to agree that take 10 is allowed if the danger is only on a failed result. I will try to remember to use that in the future.
However, I am offended by the attitude that I am a rotten person for reading it and getting the exact same understanding that the vast majority of people I have met got when they read it.
When even some of the people emphasizing there is no other possible interpretation are relying on a post (which actually doesn't exactly say that) most have never seen, rather than the 'supposedly clear' text being discussed.
Read the last couple of pages. Even people that agree on the fact that immediate danger does not include results of a failed check are still arguing about how to apply the rules to a fairly simple and common situation.
Yet the rule is so simple and obvious, that the only way I could possibly have used my prior judgement was the fact that I was intentionally being mean to the players. There is no possible way I (and most of the gamers I know) could have legitimately thought we were doing it right.
That attitude really bugs me.
You are not a rotten person Elter Ago. Simply interpreting something differently is not grounds for that determination. I am, however, glad that we could change your mind.
Look at some of the early posts in this and a couple other threads I found. They are pretty damn insulting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's demonstrably false. Take 10 trivializes nothing other than things that are meant to be trivial....for that character.Balderdash. Something you have a 50 50 chance of failing at is NOT trivial. Something with important consequences of failure is not trivial. If the mechanic were take 5 , that would make sense, but a take 10 mechanic is something that you flub up half of the time: which is by definition NOT easy for you.
The Take 10 rule means that this is not something you have a 50% chance of failing at. You've misinterpreted the rules. If you had to roll, then, yes, this would be something you had a 50% chance of failing. Thanks to Take 10, this means that within the rules set, this means that this is something that you can accomplish just by doing the things you know how to do. If you want to get a more impressive achievement (which is represented in numerous skill rolls by success with a larger margin), then you have to take some risk. But, just because the DC happens to exactly match what you'd get with your skill by rolling 10, this does not mean that it's supposed to be something you'd fail 45% of the time.
Third, conclusion begs the question, or to put it another way, is circular reasoning.It does not. Rolling dice is the default for the game.
...and Taking 10 is part of the game, and therefore cannot be ignored. Yet, for your argument, that's what you seem to be doing.
I also think it's debatable that rolling dice really is the default for the game. For many things, yes. For skills? Probably for many (if not most) players it is. In combat it is. Outside of combat? I think an argument can be made that taking 10 is the default, or should be.
|
|
You are not a rotten person Elter Ago. Simply interpreting something differently is not grounds for that determination. I am, however, glad that we could change your mind.Look at some of the early posts in this and a couple other threads I found. They are pretty damn insulting.
Nature of the internet unfortunately. Whether its because you allowed yourself to be insulted because you heard tone or accusation where there wasn't any, or folks were outright calling you names.
|
|
The Take 10 rule means that this is not something you have a 50% chance of failing at. You've misinterpreted the rules.
I have not. You're not getting the big picture.
I am saying that something that is so hard that you need a 10 to make the DC is NOT trivial. That's a pretty hard check that you're using the mechanics to bypass. It represents something you could fail at doing half the time. (edit: or if you want to continue to insist on the description taking 10 into account , "Something only slightly less hard than something you are more likely than not to fail at") Try to think of something you can flub half the time thats trivial for you.
If the mechanic was take 5, THAT would be a state job. But the mechanic as it stands enables you to automatically succeed on some very difficult (even for your character) things. SKRs post means it can do that even on some incredibly dangerous things (like lava pits).
Having difficult, dangerous, and important die rolls taken out of the game takes out a lot of the sense of adventure and spontaneity, especially in PFS which involve a lot of investigation/traveling/adventure before you get to the bashy bashy. If people are going to just stroll through it on a take 10, why not get it out of the way like so much pre adventure boxed text?
I also think it's debatable that rolling dice really is the default for the game. For many things, yes. For skills? Probably for many (if not most) players it is. In combat it is. Outside of combat? I think an argument can be made that taking 10 is the default, or should be.
I don't think that would be a very good argument in the d20 system.
|
|
The Take 10 rule means that this is not something you have a 50% chance of failing at. You've misinterpreted the rules.I have not. You're not getting the big picture.
I am saying that something that is so hard that you need a 10 to make the DC is NOT trivial. That's a pretty hard check that you're using the mechanics to bypass. It represents something you could fail at doing half the time. (edit: or if you want to continue to insist on the description taking 10 into account , "Something only slightly less hard than something you are more likely than not to fail at") Try to think of something you can flub half the time thats trivial for you.
If the mechanic was take 5, THAT would be a state job. But the mechanic as it stands enables you to automatically succeed on some very difficult (even for your character) things. SKRs post means it can do that even on some incredibly dangerous things (like lava pits).
Having difficult, dangerous, and important die rolls taken out of the game takes out a lot of the sense of adventure and spontaneity, especially in PFS which involve a lot of investigation/traveling/adventure before you get to the bashy bashy. If people are going to just stroll through it on a take 10, why not get it out of the way like so much pre adventure boxed text?
I also think it's debatable that rolling dice really is the default for the game. For many things, yes. For skills? Probably for many (if not most) players it is. In combat it is. Outside of combat? I think an argument can be made that taking 10 is the default, or should be.I don't think that would be a very good argument in the d20 system.
Some characters, probably most, can't autopass some skill checks with take 10. And in combat you're forced to roll, so you need to jump the lava with people raining arrows on you? no take ten. But a jump with nothing else going on? you take ten and make it easy. Unfortunately you're disagreeing with the rules by saying you shouldn't take ten on checks that are ten higher than your skill when take 10 adds ten to your skill. But if you misjudged the DC by 1 and now you're guaranteed to fail since you're taking 10. Sorry you don't like the rule, but that's why Paizo created, take 10, not take 5.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having difficult, dangerous, and important die rolls taken out of the game takes out a lot of the sense of adventure and spontaneity, especially in PFS which involve a lot of investigation/traveling/adventure before you get to the bashy bashy. If people are going to just stroll through it on a take 10, why not get it out of the way like so much pre adventure boxed text?
On the flip side: having a character you've built to be super-competent at something failing even 25% of the time on checks that should be routine takes a lot of the sense of adventure and heroism out of the game for the players.
Things that everybody could pass shouldn't even be checks in the first place.
Take 10 allows those who are very competent to just be competent, without having to give in to the whims of the dice. If you're a +10 singer, you should be able to sing a song that's worth a roll of 20 without too much effort. If you want to to better, you take risks, and risk missing the mark. Being forced to roll and having a ~25% chance of bringing in a song that's worth 15 or less is disheartening to players who want to play competent characters. That's why the rule is there.
And it doesn't take out the adventure from the game. The check DCs are there not because everybody should have to roll and have a chance of failure. They're there just as much because it indicates the level of competence required. Not everybody is going to have it, so taking 10 isn't going to work for everybody. Indeed, not every adventuring party will have somebody who can do it. But when somebody is competent at it, let them be competent at it! This is the reason it's not just box text narration-- this and the fact that it lets the players narrate for their characters, instead of just the GM telling a story. Only some players will be able to auto-succeed. And, it's not a bad thing that they can auto-succeed, where others couldn't. So, let them!
I can tell that you've got a different philosophy of what makes a good game than I do. I want the players who are competent to just be competent; you want the uncertainty and tension of the random factors always being able to throw a wrench into the works. Both are valid. However, within the rules set that PFS has to abide by, the former is closer to the philosophy of the rules. Taking 10 is there, and just because you don't like that it's there doesn't mean that it's not a part of the rules set that you need to abide by when running PFS. That is the game that we're playing right here.
I have not. You're not getting the big picture.I am saying that something that is so hard that you need a 10 to make the DC is NOT trivial. That's a pretty hard check that you're using the mechanics to bypass. It represents something you could fail at doing half the time. (edit: or if you want to continue to insist on the description taking 10 into account , "Something only slightly less hard than something you are more likely than not to fail at") Try to think of something you can flub half the time thats trivial for you.
If the mechanic was take 5, THAT would be a state job. But the mechanic as it stands enables you to automatically succeed on some very difficult (even for your character) things. SKRs post means it can do that even on some incredibly dangerous things (like lava pits).
Having difficult, dangerous, and important die rolls taken out of the game takes out a lot of the sense of adventure and spontaneity, especially in PFS which involve a lot of investigation/traveling/adventure before you get to the bashy bashy. If people are going to just stroll through it on a take 10, why not get it out of the way like so much pre adventure boxed text?
I'm going to agree with rknop on this one and I think it's you who is missing an important perspective on the big picture. DC 20s are pretty hard to make, yet the PC with a +10 on his check has invested a lot of skill and makes the difficult look easy... when not pressured with immediate, external distraction. Think of the amazing things that circus performers do that are far beyond the ability of normal people without the investment in training and physical development. They perform their acts routinely with no mishap. That's something akin to a DC 20 check with a +10 or so in ability. If even 1 in 20 performances were a failure, it would be disastrous - and surely the casualty rates of circus acrobats is lower than 1 in 20 performances.
I think it's no real loss for the game to miss most of these rolls. Rather, it's a way to validate the awesome investment a character has made in their skills and abilities. Plus, it's a chance for a player to make the choice of taking the middling-roll of 10 or shoot for better. When they don't know the target DC, that can be a pretty interesting question - and no, I don't routinely tell my players what the target DC is.
|
|
Some characters, probably most, can't autopass some skill checks with take 10. And in combat you're forced to roll, so you need to jump the lava with people raining arrows on you? no take ten. But a jump with nothing else going on? you take ten and make it easy. Unfortunately you're disagreeing with the rules by saying you shouldn't take ten on checks that are ten higher than your skill when take 10 adds ten to your skill. But if you misjudged the DC by 1 and now you're guaranteed to fail since you're taking 10. Sorry you don't like the rule, but that's why Paizo created, take 10, not take 5.
My point is that DMs that rule you can't take 10 to jump over a lava pit
are going to be pretty common (because not everyone reads the boards, and you HAVE to to get that ruling out of there)
aren't disagreeing with RAW
Aren't going to be convinced with raw (because leaping over lava not being immediate danger is silly)
have some legitimate gripes with the idea
have some legitimate gripes about what it does to pfs scenarios in particular
can (and probably will) take some pretty wide latitude as to what constitutes a distraction anyway.
If you really want to push it you have to dig out the board post and you are going to annoy your dm, and they might just declare you distracted anyway. Its the sort of in depth rules wrangling you do after the session, if at all.
|
|
I actually think that taking a 10 (and the even less used Taking a 20) aren't used enough by both GMs AND players.
I ran some games at UK Expo last weekend and had to remind people that they can take a 10 (outside of combat etc).
It speeds up the game and keeps the dice rolling for when the pressures on.
|
|
Some characters, probably most, can't autopass some skill checks with take 10. And in combat you're forced to roll, so you need to jump the lava with people raining arrows on you? no take ten. But a jump with nothing else going on? you take ten and make it easy. Unfortunately you're disagreeing with the rules by saying you shouldn't take ten on checks that are ten higher than your skill when take 10 adds ten to your skill. But if you misjudged the DC by 1 and now you're guaranteed to fail since you're taking 10. Sorry you don't like the rule, but that's why Paizo created, take 10, not take 5.My point is that DMs that rule you can't take 10 to jump over a lava pit
are going to be pretty common (because not everyone reads the boards, and you HAVE to to get that ruling out of there)
aren't disagreeing with RAW
Aren't going to be convinced with raw (because leaping over lava not being immediate danger is silly)
have some legitimate gripes with the idea
have some legitimate gripes about what it does to pfs scenarios in particular
can (and probably will) take some pretty wide latitude as to what constitutes a distraction anyway.If you really want to push it you have to dig out the board post and you are going to annoy your dm, and they might just declare you distracted anyway. Its the sort of in depth rules wrangling you do after the session, if at all.
What danger are you in when you make the jump? NONE! Being in danger if you fail the jump is not immediate danger, it is potential danger. Potential danger is not listed as something that stops take 10.
Gripes about the idea of Take 10 aren't legitimate. You can have them but the system doesn't legitimize gripes on this.Not every session of a PFS scenario has someone that can beat the DC's with take 10. And if since take 10 is in the core rulebook I'll assume that writers are aware of it as it's just part of the game. You have a rogue with +10 disable device? you can easily pass a dc20 lock. Have a rogue with a +9? sorry you can't pass. So again the gripes are not legitimate. Now if it was something introduced in Unchained and adopted then you'd have legitimate reasons, things were designed when it didn't exist and now take 10 is new, but as they are the rules and system don't legitimize gripes about it.
|
|
I'm going to agree with rknop on this one and I think it's you who is missing an important perspective on the big picture. DC 20s are pretty hard to make, yet the PC with a +10 on his check has invested a lot of skill and makes the difficult look easy... when not pressured with immediate, external distraction. Think of the amazing things that circus performers do that are far beyond the ability of normal people without the investment in training and physical development. They perform their acts routinely with no mishap. That's something akin to a DC 20 check with a +10 or so in ability. If even 1 in 20 performances were a failure, it would be disastrous - and surely the casualty rates of circus acrobats is lower than 1 in 20 performances.
There's two responses.
1 is that we don't live in a d20 world
2: The rules of the game only exist for when the "camera" is on. When is part of the story. What the amazing acrobatic Amiglios did for the past two years isn't something that was rolled, its backstory. You don't need to worry about random probabilities for someones entire life because adventure isn't happening for their entire lives.
With that in mind, try to picture every time you've seen an acrobat on tv or in a story.. I bet they fall a lot MORE than 1 time in 20. Rule of drama, Sorry Robin.
I think it's no real loss for the game to miss most of these rolls.
Try to imagine your next party taking 10 on everything for the first half of the next social/skilly/investigativey scenario, or just have them do it.
Things like that miss some very fun story moments when the unlikely happens: when the dwarf manages to make a drinking buddy or outsmart the brilliant tactician at chess.
Rather, it's a way to validate the awesome investment a character has made in their skills and abilities.
Look at it the other way: it really, really invalidates a real skill monkey if there's almost no difference in the success rates between +10 and +15 or 20: you simply take 10 and make everything, as oppposed to the guy who will only fail on a 1.
Plus, it's a chance for a player to make the choice of taking the middling-roll of 10 or shoot for better. When they don't know the target DC, that can be a pretty interesting question - and no, I don't routinely tell my players what the target DC is.
Skills give new players the opportunity to get used to roll +stat +something out of combat when there's nothing else to worry about and its easier to give a concrete explanation of what the result means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What danger are you in when you make the jump? NONE!
Gravity, that harsh mistress, and Mag, MA. Dangerous. Mag MA.
Being in danger if you fail the jump is not immediate danger, it is potential danger. Potential danger is not listed as something that stops take 10.
First off, potential danger is like wet water. The entire meaning of the word Danger is that something bad MIGHT happen. Its redundant.
Secondly you can't just say its not immediate because its ___ another adjective here. Its not an either or thing.
You have a rogue with +10 disable device? you can easily pass a dc20 lock.
Never had a problem with that use.
Have a rogue with a +9?
Rogue takes 10. Doesn't work. Tries again.
sorry you can't pass. So again the gripes are not legitimate. Now if it was something introduced in Unchained and adopted then you'd have legitimate reasons, things were designed when it didn't exist and now take 10 is new, but as they are the rules and system don't legitimize gripes about it.
It was something introduced with a board post, after a decade of being read the other way with an example in the players handbook to support it.
|
|
Are you assuming all DCs are 20? Cause if there are some DC 21+, the guy with +10 will fail them. If there are some over 30, even the one with +20 will fail. Or have to roll, if they can be retried.
I'm assuming that the vast, vast majority of skill checks are equal to what an appropriate leveled skill monkey can get without a heck of a lot of investment in that skill. Actually thats not an assumption I think i can qualify for a representative sample at this point for pfs.
|
|
Try to imagine your next party taking 10 on everything for the first half of the next social/skilly/investigativey scenario, or just have them do it.
Things like that miss some very fun story moments when the unlikely happens: when the dwarf manages to make a drinking buddy or outsmart the brilliant tactician at chess.
If there's someone that is capable of passing on a take 10 then they pass, if the dwarf is there he's just as likely to make a drinking buddy or outsmart the brilliant tactician at chess, nothing is different for the dwarf.
You have a rogue with +10 acrobatics? you can easily pass a dc20 jump. Have a rogue with a +9? sorry you can't pass.
Gravity is not danger. The possibility of getting hurt if you fail is not immediate danger. Immediate danger is something that is going to hurt you right now if you do nothings. A hazard is not doing anything, and never will, unless you fail. And when do you take 10?
In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
So I have a jump that I expect an average roll will succeed, but a poor roll will result in damage and failure, jumping over a pit of lava is exactly what take 10 is for. Doing something you can succeed with rolling a 10 on guaranteed when not in danger.
Your argument continues to be that you think it shouldn't work because a poor roll could cause you to fail, and that a roll of 10 lets you pass a check that's 10 higher than your skill, when in the very description of take 10 it says it's to lets you do things that you expect a roll of a 10 would let you do without having a chance of failure of a low roll.
|
|
Chess:
You are making arguments from a board post that not every PFS DM is going to be familiar with. Without that board post your arguments that you're jumping over lava but there's no immediate danger would sound like the worst parody of a rules lawyer imaginable.
I'm familiar with the post. I will let the take 10 advocate do it when playing PFS. I am trying to warn you how silly that argument is going to sound at the table.
|
|
Chess:
You are making arguments from a board post that not every PFS DM is going to be familiar with. Without that board post your arguments that you're jumping over lava but there's no immediate danger would sound like the worst parody of a rules lawyer imaginable.
I'm familiar with the post. I will let the take 10 advocate do it when playing PFS. I am trying to warn you how silly that argument is going to sound at the table.
I have not quoted, referenced or intentionally alluded to anything from some board post. Any references to material in there is only what you have in your posts for me to respond to. I'm only using what is in the core rulebook description of take 10, if there's something I think a 10 would pass and a lower roll wouldn't and I'm not unable to take 10 then I take 10.
And for immediate danger:
As I prep to jump over lava what danger am I in? If it wasn't lava and was solid ground what danger am I in? The danger level is the same in both, the lava isn't doing anything dangerous to me when I make the jump. If I wait 5 minutes before the jump no "immediate danger" has done anything to me, thus there was and is no immediate danger to stop a take 10 on the jump.
|
|
You're not making the roll as you prep you're making the roll as you jump.
You have to realize that just because you can make an argument to read a rule one way does not mean that the dm has to or even should agree with that argument. RAW is not something with a singular objective meaning. Its open to interpretation and gamers in general and PFS players specifically have a not entirely undeserved reputation for pushing the interpretation that favors them.
|
|
That's an interesting take. How would it apply to the next check when you're halfway up a 100' wall? Are you in danger at that point and thus can't take 10, even though you could on the first stage of the climb?Chess:
You are making arguments from a board post that not every PFS DM is going to be familiar with. Without that board post your arguments that you're jumping over lava but there's no immediate danger would sound like the worst parody of a rules lawyer imaginable.
I'm familiar with the post. I will let the take 10 advocate do it when playing PFS. I am trying to warn you how silly that argument is going to sound at the table.
I have not quoted, referenced or intentionally alluded to anything from some board post. Any references to material in there is only what you have in your posts for me to respond to. I'm only using what is in the core rulebook description of take 10, if there's something I think a 10 would pass and a lower roll wouldn't and I'm not unable to take 10 then I take 10.
And for immediate danger:
As I prep to jump over lava what danger am I in? If it wasn't lava and was solid ground what danger am I in? The danger level is the same in both, the lava isn't doing anything dangerous to me when I make the jump. If I wait 5 minutes before the jump no "immediate danger" has done anything to me, thus there was and is no immediate danger to stop a take 10 on the jump.
If no condition has changed besides the height then the danger level is the same as the first 10ft. The fact that something dangerous could happen depending on what I do is not immediate danger. If I were to sit there and have nothing bad happen to me then there was no danger to begin with. (Now for the climb you ignore needing to make checks to stay there for this check, as you're not actually needing to calculate you sitting there.)
|
|
You're not making the roll as you prep you're making the roll as you jump.
You have to realize that just because you can make an argument to read a rule one way does not mean that the dm has to or even should agree with that argument. RAW is not something with a singular objective meaning. Its open to interpretation and gamers in general and PFS players specifically have a not entirely undeserved reputation for pushing the interpretation that favors them.
And my "am I in immediate danger?" doesn't change from preping to making the jump. My "being in immediate danger" doesn't change just because I'm leaving the ground, otherwise all jumps would be danger. An infinite drop to the abyss or a 1ft deep hole are the same jump. I'm still needing to make the same distance. Nothing about jumping in pathfinder is inherently dangerous. Fear of failure on a low roll doesn't stop take 10, Fear of failure on a low roll is what the core rulebook gives as the reason you'd use the take 10 mechanic.
Can you give an example of immediate danger in your lava pit jump? What is the immediate danger you feel is there stopping me from jumping?
|
|
I can tell that you've got a different philosophy of what makes a good game than I do. I want the players who are competent to just be competent; you want the uncertainty and tension of the random factors always being able to throw a wrench into the works.
If I wanted to have the characters be in competent I'd be one of those unfortunately ubiquitous dms that
-don't even give you a roll because you didn't say your eyes were open
-gives a bad description of the area and won't let you take back what you were trying to do because something got left out
-doesn't remind the player of something their character sees
-doesn't prod the player for a check they can make (You never asked to make a knowledge nature check on that verdigris!)
I just hate having an adventure reduced to a script. I am not driving 40 minutes or taking a Family Circus esque trip on public transport to see something happen that i could have figured out from home. I live for the cruve balls, the ups and downs , the unexpected and the "wth did you just do"
Someone is not incompetent because they have a possibility of failure.
|
|
Chess, dude, you really, really need to read the stuff I link you.
I've read SKR's post you linked to, and I read it again just now. He's saying the same thing the core rulebook says. That if you fear failure from a low roll to take 10 on the check. That if you're in combat or distracted then you can't take 10.
1) What were you hoping that the linked post would do? It's far FAR better to not assume I haven't done something and instead explain what you expect/expected the action to have done. Since I did read the post you linked to, so you I really, really did read it, dude.
2) You've still not shared what immediate danger you believe one would be in for jumping.
|
|
I've read SKR's post you linked to, and I read it again just now. He's saying the same thing the core rulebook says.
His interpretation of immediate danger, that you're using extensively, isn't in the core rulebook. Many DMS, based just on those rules, are going to tell you that you're in immediate danger and look at you like you're trying to pull something if you try that argument without a citation.
1) What were you hoping that the linked post would do?
You seem to have not picked up on the fact that I'm not personally arguing against leaping the lavapit. I'm telling you why PFS dms are likely to rule the other way and even giving you the means to correct them if you want to persue it. Why on earth would I link the post telling you you can leap the lava pit if i was trying to argue that you couldn't?
When you're reading and paraphrasing raw you keep adding bits and pieces from the board post: bits and pices that the DM is going to think you're adding if you don't show them that post.
.
2) You've still not shared what immediate danger you believe one would be in for jumping.
This is untrue. Look up. Mag ma. gravity is a harsh mistress. Yes, according to the board post thats not immediate danger but ONLY according to the board post. The CRB doesn't define immediate danger and the arguments for that interpretation are... less than airtight on their own. They need to come to an authority because they won't stand on their own
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One rule I enforce in PFS is that a shirt or Character Folio is only good for a re-roll. It's a fine technical line, but I don't allow players to use the re-roll to reverse their decision to Take 10.
GM: You see before you a gorge, perhaps 15 feet across.
Jumping George: I leap across. I take 10, for a 19.
GM: You're in chain mail. Are you taking the -5 armor penalty into account?
Jumping George: Ah, no. So, it's a 14. I suppose I will have to roll for it.
GM: Good thing to remember next time. Now, you scramble to make the last foot of the jump, but your fingers can't gain purchase. ...
|
|
One rule I enforce in PFS is that a shirt or Character Folio is only good for a re-roll. It's a fine technical line, but I don't allow players to use the re-roll to reverse their decision to Take 10.
GM: You see before you a gorge, perhaps 15 feet across.
Jumping George: I leap across. I take 10, for a 19.
GM: You're in chain mail. Are you taking the -5 armor penalty into account?
Jumping George: Ah, no. So, it's a 14. I suppose I will have to roll for it.
GM: Good thing to remember next time. Now, you scramble to make the last foot of the jump, but your fingers can't gain purchase. ...
I'm not quite sure what you're saying with your example. Is it that you force them to take 10 after they've given you a wrong number when they already said they were taking 10?
|
|
His interpretation of immediate danger, that you're using extensively, isn't in the core rulebook. Many DMS, based just on those rules, are going to tell you that you're in immediate danger and look at you like you're trying to pull something if you try that argument without a citation.
I've read SKR's post you linked to, and I read it again just now. He's saying the same thing the core rulebook says.
I'm using the interpretation of immediate danger that makes sense. I don't care what SKR says. If I'm not in danger for sitting there for a few turns then I wasn't in danger at the start, thus I can make the take 10. What danger do I acquire for a jump? (I know you answered below so I'll respond to it there)
What am I adding that isn't in the rules?
When you're reading and paraphrasing raw you keep adding bits and pieces from the board post: bits and pices that the DM is going to think you're adding if you don't show them that post.
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
If there's no danger I'm immediately in I'm good to go.
2) You've still not shared what immediate danger you believe one would be in for jumping.This is untrue. Look up. Mag ma. gravity is a harsh mistress. Yes, according to the board post thats not immediate danger but ONLY according to the board post. The CRB doesn't define immediate danger and the arguments for that interpretation are... less than airtight on their own. They need to come to an authority because they won't stand on their own
If gravity was immediate danger then you could never take 10 on any skill check since gravity is always present. At the very least you'd never be able to take 10 on a jump since gravity is always there. I doubt you're meaning that you can't take ten on any jump checks, thus gravity isn't immediate danger.
If I'm not in danger to make the check then I can, danger for a failed check isn't immediate danger, as it never happens if I succeed, it's actually the reason why I'd take 10 per the core rulebook avoiding the danger of a poor roll.
|
One rule I enforce in PFS is that a shirt or Character Folio is only good for a re-roll. It's a fine technical line, but I don't allow players to use the re-roll to reverse their decision to Take 10.I'm not quite sure what you're saying with your example. Is it that you force them to take 10 after they've given you a wrong number when they already said they were taking 10?
Chris means that re-rolls allow for a re-roll.
If you didn't roll initially, there's nothing to re-.
|
|
If you want an answer to your questions, reread the previous replies. Your interpretation is in the board post. Not in the raw. There is more than one way to read raw that makes sense (and the other way makes a LOT more sense) If you want to take 10, print the post. If you want to try those arguments without it... good luck.