Question about taking 10.

[JacktheRabbit]

Really depends on how you read into "threatened or distracted". In some cases I would argue that if something dangerous happens on a failure, you are being distracted and therefore can't take 10.

Just have to keep it in scale. A rogue climbing the side of a 4 story building to get in through the roof should be able to take 10 all he wants. That same rogue climbing the walls of a Keep situated at the top of a cliff with a fall of hundreds of feet below him does not get to take 10 since the danger is quite real. But then be logical, if the same rogue happens to be wearing a ring of feather fall then he can take 10 no matter how high up he is, the sense of danger and the stress it creates is not there.

By the same token I would say a Mage with stoneskin on himself can take 10 on a skill in combat when he is about to be punched by Joe the city guardsman. Just isnt that scary knowing poor Joe is about to break his hand on your face while you smile.

 

[PythonPuncher]

Just have to keep it in scale. A rogue climbing the side of a 4 story building to get in through the roof should be able to take 10 all he wants. That same rogue climbing the walls of a Keep situated at the top of a cliff with a fall of hundreds of feet below him does not get to take 10 since the danger is quite real. But then be logical, if the same rogue happens to be wearing a ring of feather fall then he can take 10 no matter how high up he is, the sense of danger and the stress it creates is not there.

I agree. I think people overlook the effects of failure sometimes because they are permitted to take longer amounts of time to do something.

"When your character is not being threatened" can also relate to tension from within the group, pressure from the result of failure, etc.

Example: A thief trying to pick a lock while arguing with his accomplice cannot take a 10.
Example 2: A thief trying to disable a wire-trap that activates a 30' spike pit trap door with the confident knowledge that if he fails to pick it adequately it will result in his accomplice plummeting to his death.

I'm just saying ... Time is not the only concern.

 

[Vegepygmy]

That same rogue climbing the walls of a Keep situated at the top of a cliff with a fall of hundreds of feet below him does not get to take 10 since the danger is quite real.

No, I totally disagree. This is where people get the mistaken notion that you can't take 10 if there is some consequence for failure (e.g., "the danger is quite real").

If the character is a skilled enough climber that he can take 10 and succeed, that particular wall is not a danger to him under normal circumstances. Only if he is distracted or threatened by something beyond the task of climbing itself should he be prevented from automatically succeeding (i.e., taking 10).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

No, I totally disagree. This is where people get the mistaken notion that you can't take 10 if there is some consequence for failure (e.g., "the danger is quite real").

If the character is a skilled enough climber that he can take 10 and succeed, that particular wall is not a danger to him under normal circumstances. Only if he is distracted or threatened by something beyond the task of climbing itself should he be prevented from automatically succeeding (i.e., taking 10).

To me in this situation the danger is real enough that it is a distraction and thus no take 10. Don't you agree that being one failed roll away from certain death is a bit distracting?

 

[shadmere]

I see the roll as a spectrum of skill.

Taking 10 is something you can always do, if you are able to concentrate on the task at hand. (No one shooting at you, etc.)

Take balance, or something. Let's say there is a tightrope across a huge chasm. To successfully walk across it, it requires a DC of 20.

Most amateurs will not want to try this. It's POSSIBLE that they'll roll a 20 and make it, but it's far more likely they'll fall.

A person with 5 ranks in Balance has a much higher chance of making it. However, it's still a chance . . . they're having to stretch their skill and hope it's good enough.

A person with 10 ranks, however, can make it. They are simply good enough to walk across. They could do it 50 times a day if they needed to, and the only reason they would ever fall would be if there was a negative circumstance of some sort. (Someone shooting at them, a high wind, an earthquake, etc.)

So even though it takes 10 ranks to *definitely* be able to accomplish a task, someone less skilled might get lucky. But with 10 ranks, it's not a matter of luck anymore.

Now, if there was a task that had a Balance DC of 30, that same person would be very hard pressed to succeed. They might think it's possible, but they're pressing themselves to the limit, and they might screw up. Comparatively, an amateur wouldn't even have the slightest chance.

(Personally, I think that a high Concentration should allow someone to attempt taking 10 in battle. Like, if a rogue was trying to unlock a door, and a battle was raging around them, they should be able to attempt a Concentration check of 15 or 20 or so to take 10 on the lock. Assuming that they're not actually being attacked themselves, I mean. But that's just me. )

 

[Vegepygmy]

Don't you agree that being one failed roll away from certain death is a bit distracting?

No, I don't.

And shadmere's example of a tightrope-walker is a perfect example why. A circus acrobat working without a safety net is "one failed roll away from certain death," yet performs day after day after day without getting killed. That's what "taking 10" models. The tightrope-walker is skilled enough to walk that tightrope as a matter of routine; it really isn't dangerous for that person to walk a tightrope. (At least, no more "dangerous" than crossing a street or flying on an airplane.)

 

[PythonPuncher]

No, I don't.

And shadmere's example of a tightrope-walker is a perfect example why. A circus acrobat working without a safety net is "one failed roll away from certain death," yet performs day after day after day without getting killed. That's what "taking 10" models. The tightrope-walker is skilled enough to walk that tightrope as a matter of routine; it really isn't dangerous for that person to walk a tightrope. (At least, no more "dangerous" than crossing a street or flying on an airplane.)

I will say that your argument is solid. To one side or another you are correct. The missing facet of the discussion is that if you are going to use that as an example, you have to acknowledge that sometimes even the most agile, death-defying acrobats tumble to their end. This example list could go on to describe famed rock climbers who fall to their doom, race-car drivers who die in crashes, and more plainly, computer programmers who fail to find bugs/virii and what not. Granted, you can argue the semantics of it, but its all relevant.

Never the less, I like the idea of forcing a concentration check to see if the character should be allowed to take 10 if their skill level is below a predetermined amount.

 

[shadmere]

I will say that your argument is solid. To one side or another you are correct. The missing facet of the discussion is that if you are going to use that as an example, you have to acknowledge that sometimes even the most agile, death-defying acrobats tumble to their end. This example list could go on to describe famed rock climbers who fall to their doom, race-car drivers who die in crashes, and more plainly, computer programmers who fail to find bugs/virii and what not. Granted, you can argue the semantics of it, but its all relevant.

This is a valid point, but the game mechanics simply don't exist for that kind of thing.

A highly skilled acrobat can routinely walk across a tightrope. Yes, in real life, there's always a chance he will fall to death. But that chance is nowhere NEAR 1 in 20.

I understand why people are fairly opinionated about this. There is a HUGE difference in probability, here. Take the DC 20 tightrope example.

If I'm right about taking 10, then someone with 10 ranks in Balance could walk across the tightrope a hundred times a day, every day, for years. They would always do it perfectly and never fail.

If I'm wrong, and a roll is required, then someone with 10 ranks in Balance would fall off and die 50% of the time!

This is a huge difference, and could potentially completely change how the game is played.

Personally, I think that a skilled acrobat, to which tightropes are routine, might still have a 1% chance of falling off the tightrope. Maybe slightly more, maybe less. Honestly I'm not sure.

But if I assume a 99% chance of him succeeding, I would much rather give him a 100% chance of doing it right. Especially when the alternative is a 50% chance.

If a roll is required because failing could be fatal, then there's no difference between "walking a tightrope" and "walking a tightrope while people are shooting arrows at you."

 

[Herzog]

I would like to add:

There is no critical failure for skill rolls.

Therefore, a very skilled character (lets continue the tightrope example) could walk a tightrope without ever failing. Let's say the DC is 20.
Someone with 20 ranks (disregarding ability and other bonusses for the moment) would never fail it.

Now, we all know this isn't how it works in real life. but then, this isn't real life, it's a game.

The game says you can take 10 when you aren't distracted. The task itself doesn't distract you.

In fact, the PHB itself has this as an example:

For example, Krusk the barbarian has a Climb skill modifier of +6
(4 ranks, +3 Strength modifier, –1 penalty for wearing studded
leather armor). The steep, rocky slope he’s climbing has a Climb DC
of 10. With a little care, he can take 10 and succeed automatically.
But partway up the slope, a goblin scout begins pelting him with
sling stones. Krusk needs to make a Climb check to get up to the
goblin, and this time he can’t simply take 10. If his player rolls 4 or​

higher on 1d20, he succeeds.

Edit:
Reported ridsispa's post as advertisement/spam

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I will say that your argument is solid. To one side or another you are correct. The missing facet of the discussion is that if you are going to use that as an example, you have to acknowledge that sometimes even the most agile, death-defying acrobats tumble to their end. This example list could go on to describe famed rock climbers who fall to their doom, race-car drivers who die in crashes, and more plainly, computer programmers who fail to find bugs/virii and what not. Granted, you can argue the semantics of it, but its all relevant.

Never the less, I like the idea of forcing a concentration check to see if the character should be allowed to take 10 if their skill level is below a predetermined amount.

Of course even the most skilled people in the world ocassionally fail and die. Why? Because real life does not include a DM who tells you all the DCs so you know if you can take 10 or not.

You want that in your game? Its easy. Just do not tell your characters the DC for sucess. They can chose to take 10. But if the DC is 25 and they have +10 in the skill then taking 10 will fail for while taking a roll gives a chance of sucess.

In fact, this thread has just convinced me to never ever tell a player a DC number again for a check. I will tell them if they think it will be easy, moderate, difficult, or impossible, and then they can decide to try or not and if they want to take 10.