D&D 3.x [3.5] No Take 10/20 specifics?

[Dimwhit]

This is as good a place as any to ask this question. Can you take 10 on a spot or listen check? My group insists that you can't take 10 on a "reactive" roll, only when you're actively doing something (like searching, opening locks, etc.).

 

[bret]

This is as good a place as any to ask this question. Can you take 10 on a spot or listen check? My group insists that you can't take 10 on a "reactive" roll, only when you're actively doing something (like searching, opening locks, etc.).

Yes, you can. There aren't exceptions for opposed rolls in the Take 10 rules.

 

[Pielorinho]

It's Take 10 that I really think needs further guidance on when it can be applied that the "if you aren't in a stressful situation" rule of thumb. It is insufficient and IMO too generous in many cases.

I disagree with the only example you've given. When you say it's "insufficient," do you mean that it's too vague? Because I've never had any disagreement, either as a player or a DM, on whether a situation allowed for taking 10.

As for too generous, what examples do you have beyond spellcraft checks? I don't think it's too generous at all, but maybe you're thinking of a case that I'm not thinking of.

Daniel

 

[Rune]

This is as good a place as any to ask this question. Can you take 10 on a spot or listen check? My group insists that you can't take 10 on a "reactive" roll, only when you're actively doing something (like searching, opening locks, etc.).

Take 10 requires spending extra time. Generally, you can't do that if you're reacting to something.

 

[Pielorinho]

Take 10 requires spending extra time. Generally, you can't do that if you're reacting to something.

No it doesn't: taking 20 requires extra time, but taking 10 requires the same amount of time as the normal task. It represents doing a routine, everyday, by-the-book version of the task. You can easily take 10 on spot and listen checks, and in fact I generally have guards in my game do so.

edit: so we're all on the same page, here's the relevant text from the SRD.

Checks without Rolls
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor.
Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened 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 (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), 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, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.
Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

Daniel

 

[Davelozzi]

I could not agree with Buzz (the thread starter) more. This was one of the main things I was looking forward to with the new books. Not including the specifics was a very poor decision in my opinion.

 

[Psion]

I disagree with the only example you've given. When you say it's "insufficient," do you mean that it's too vague? Because I've never had any disagreement, either as a player or a DM, on whether a situation allowed for taking 10.

As for too generous, what examples do you have beyond spellcraft checks? I don't think it's too generous at all, but maybe you're thinking of a case that I'm not thinking of.

The most immediate thing that occurs to me is knowledge related checks. It seems to me that these types of checks would always fall into the "non stressful" situation, so take 10 would generally always be applicable. But as a GM, sometimes I figure that unless a peice of knowledge is basic to a topic, that a character knowing a specific peice of trivia would always be random, not subject to take 10. It doesn't make sense to me to boil these types of rolls down to a gamble by the player on what the DC of the test might be.

 

[Rune]

No it doesn't: taking 20 requires extra time, but taking 10 requires the same amount of time as the normal task. It represents doing a routine, everyday, by-the-book version of the task. You can easily take 10 on spot and listen checks, and in fact I generally have guards in my game do so.

Well, crap. When did that change? With 3.5, or when we finally got to see 3.0?

Let me revise my comment, then.

Take 10 requires that your character not be distracted. Generally reacting to something implies distraction. At the very least, I would require a Concentration check.

 

[Lamoni]

Can you take 10 on a spot or listen check? My group insists that you can't take 10 on a "reactive" roll,

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to... the problem is that with "reactive" rolls, you never know if taking a 10 is going to be good enough. I still might take a 10 if I had maximum ranks in spot or listen, but otherwise I would take my chances and try for something better.

As for the rules being unclear, they seem to be pretty clear to me. At the beginning of the skills chapter they state the general rule for taking a 10 or 20. Then in the skill descriptions it mentions if there is an exception to this rule. I guess adding a table with all the skills and a yes or no for taking 10 and taking 20 would have been helpful. They would have had to put a footnote saying that you can't take a 10 on anything done in combat. And no taking a 20 on anything where you have consequences for a bad roll (falling or springing a trap for example) or the skill description states that you can't retry (bluffing for example). Wait, all that was explained pretty well at the beginning of the chapter.

 

[Pielorinho]

The most immediate thing that occurs to me is knowledge related checks. It seems to me that these types of checks would always fall into the "non stressful" situation, so take 10 would generally always be applicable. But as a GM, sometimes I figure that unless a peice of knowledge is basic to a topic, that a character knowing a specific peice of trivia would always be random, not subject to take 10. It doesn't make sense to me to boil these types of rolls down to a gamble by the player on what the DC of the test might be.

Again, I disagree -- surprising, eh?

Quick -- tell me the following years:

When Columbus arrived in the United States
When the Declaration of Independence was signed
When the Civil War began and ended
When the Civil Rights Act was signed
When the Normans invaded England

I consider these all to be DC 5-15 Knowledge (History) checks. Nobody from the US with a single rank in Knowledge (history) ought to get the first two incorrect; nobody with two ranks ought to get the third one incorrect; and nobody with three or four ranks ought to get the fourth and fifth ones incorrect.

If you roll, however, someone with five ranks in history and an Int of 15 will still miss DC 15 checks about a third of the time. I don't like that at all. A lot of facts about subjects are really core knowledge for scholars in that field, and shouldn't be forgotten by them a third of the time.

Daniel