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

[Pielorinho]

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.

It's always been that way -- it never took more time to take 10.

And how does reacting to something imply distraction? If I'm looking for somebody, and they're hiding, how does my reacting to their hiding imply that I'm distracted from looking for them? I don't get it at all.

Taking 10 on spot and listen checks is a common use of the mechanic in our games. We make very liberal use of both take 10 and take 20 rules and don't find them problematic at all.

Daniel

 

[Bagpuss]

Which is not a good rule of thumb, IME. Do you think mages should be able to take 10 on spellcraft checks to learn new spells? I don't, even though it is obviously not something you are ever doing in a stressful sitation.

Surely they can take 20 on that?

 

[Dimwhit]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dimwhit
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.

And I don't know if "reactive" is the right word. But if you have to make a spot check while walking through the forest to see if you spot the bear coming up from the side of you, you're not really distracted yet. But it's still sort of "reactive" at least compared to search, where you specifically start hunting around for something.

My Rogue has a +23 or so on his spot and listen. I'm just getting tired of rolling all the spot and listen checks, so I wanted to starting taking 10 for them. I was told no, and I don't agree with that ruling. Can't do much about it, since he's the DM, but I can at least take comfort in knowing that I'm right!

As for taking 10 on Knowledge and Spellcraft checks, I'm with Pielorinho. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

 

[Lamoni]

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.

I guess that reacting to something would often involve distraction. Reacting to someone trying to grapple you would definitely be a distraction... but that is also in combat. I don't understand how spot and listen would imply distraction. The only way that they would be distracting is if you actually did spot or hear something. Using the argument of being distracting on a successful check doesn't really make much sense either because by that time, you already succeeded and the distraction wouldn't prevent you from succeeding at something you already did.

Normally, you are just walking somewhere. looking around and listening wherever you go. If someone is moving silently behind you and another person is hiding up in front of you that shouldn't affect the party in any way to prevent them from taking a 10 IMO.

To respond to the original poster:
I believe that the rules aren't too vague. The problem is that several skill checks that you believe should be exceptions to the rule, don't have anything in the skill description saying that they are. That doesn't make it vague, that makes it different from what you wanted/expected. You do have a valid point on possibly being too generous (I don't think it is, but that is fine if you do.) Could they have been even more clear by specifically stating it in each skill description? Yes. Should they have done so? IMO, no. If they had done that people would feel like they would have to look up each individual skill description to see if taking a 10 was allowed. As it is now, you can read the basic rule and do it when it makes sense.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

So instead you make it a gamble on what the dice might roll? Surely the chance a character knowing something in a field they have knowledge of is not based on random chance but more on how much they have studied. Thus the higher their ranks in the skill the better.

By making it a dice roll and not take 10 or 20, you end up with someone with 5 ranks in the skill (5 ranks is ment to be pretty competent, it gives a synergy bonus after all) would be out smarted by someone with no ranks on a fair number of occasions. With take 10 on knowledge skills you automatically reward the person who has invested ranks in those skills as if anyone is going to know they answer they will.

A random roll an the person who has put ranks in the skill is going to think he's wasted his skill points when the guy next to him on a base INT check beats him due to a lucky roll.

 

[Psion]

Again, I disagree -- surprising, eh?

No. But it doesn't matter since I am right.

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.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me as vehemently as you think you are. Read my statement above about knowledge that would be considered basic facts for a subject. That is what you seem to be talking about here, and I would be okay with allowing "take ten" on those situations.

But here's the rub: a lot of knowledge is random, but anyone who has a little exposue in an area has a chance of knowing it. Who said "god does not play dice?" Someone with one or more ranks of knowledge history or physics might know that, but it would not surprise me if someone with lots of knowledge of history or physics does not know this. It's not basic knowledge.

And here's the other sticking point for me. Usually, the player decides whether or not to take 10, by deciding to "take it easy" or whatever. How much sense does this make for a no-retry task like knowledge rolls? It doesn't make any sense. You either know the result or you don't. The odds of success should not be based on the player's gamble that his DC is high enough to make it by taking ten.

If the DM wants to decide that something is basic knowledge and falls under take ten, but that's another matter. But I do not think that taking 10 makes sense with the player making the call with no-retry knowledge skills.

 

[Pielorinho]

But here's the rub: a lot of knowledge is random, but anyone who has a little exposue in an area has a chance of knowing it. Who said "god does not play dice?" Someone with one or more ranks of knowledge history or physics might know that, but it would not surprise me if someone with lots of knowledge of history or physics does not know this. It's not basic knowledge.

So how do you decide what constitutes "basic knowledge"? Surely, for example, genus and species of the Hedgehog mushroom isn't common knowledge -- I'd set that as between a DC 15 or 20 check. At the same time, someone with knowledge (mycology) who has seven ranks and a decent intelligence is going to know the genus and species of hundreds of mushrooms; Hedgehog mushrooms are amongst the fifty most well-known mushrooms out there, I'd say, and so that person really ought to get it right.

What you're suggesting -- dividing things into "basic knowledge" and "uncommon knowledge" is far more arbitrary than just allowing the check would be.

That said, if you want to remove the take-ten dynamics from knowledge checks, just use the model for bardic knowledge, which really is a gleaned-trivia kind of knowledge that deals with uncommon factoids. I just don't see how the rules suffer from not including that exception (and complication) in the core rules-set, and how the lack of that specific house-rule is a criticism of 3.0 or 3.5.

Hydnum repandum, incidentally. I didn't have enough ranks in mycology to remember.

Daniel

 

[buzz]

Given the discussion on this thread, it seems pretty obvious to me that, while clearer, the take 10/20 rules in 3.5e are not clear enough.

Let me whip out my d20 Modern rules...

Concentration: d20M specifically states that you cannot take 10 or 20 with this skill, since it is only called for in stressful situations. 3.5e makes no mention of this. It actually says "yes" under its Try Again entry, which might lead you to believe the exact opposite.

Craft: d20M says that you can take 10, but not 20. 3.5e says that you can indeed try again, but missing by 5 or more ruins half the raw materials, which I suppose implies that you can't take 20, but it's still vague.

Gather Information: d20M says no take 20 on this one. 3.5e says "yes" under Try Again, which mght lead one to believe othewise. Strangely, SW RCR says you can. So which one is right?

I could go on... but I think that there's enough wiggle room in the interpretation of the skills in 3.5e that simply stating yes or no for Take 10/20 in each skill description would have been really helpful.

For those people who don't see the confusion, well, bully for you.

 

[Pielorinho]

For those people who don't see the confusion, well, bully for you.

I don't think Psion is confused: I think he just disagrees with the unambiguous rules. (Sorry if I'm wrong, Psion -- I just don't get much confusion from you over what the rules actually state). And have you poked your head into the rules forum lately? This is hardly a subject that comes up a lot, confusing lots of people; if you reread the rules on taking 10 and taking 20, they're short and sweet and very clear.

Daniel

 

[reiella]

You can most certainly take 10 on Spot rolls. In fact, most Spot rolls outside of dungeons are going to be Taking 10 unless you're paranoid (see Hide's description, you're assumed to be taking 10 on a Spot check against the Stealthy Hider most of the time).