Diseases trivial?

[Ryujin]

Well, a poison needle trap would likely make it a skill challenge or encounter, so assume instead that the locks instead are ruined if he fails his Thievery check. After all, I've already stated that if the disease is convoluted or interesting enough to be a skill challenge or encounter then you can't take 10 by RAW.

So what difference does that make, by the RAW, if the lock disintegrated if he failed the Theivery check? A chance for failure or a repercussion for failure are 3e rules for preventing taking 20 and have nothing to do with taking 10.

Except that you're making an assumption about what happens to the poison needle trap that isn't within the mechanics of the trap. Unless there are specific rules that govern what happens to a trap outside of an encounter, I would say that it's a bad assumption.

 

[keterys]

If the poison needle trap is explicitly not a skill challenge, not an encounter, and he's allowed a calm and stable environment, then yes he can definitely take 10.

There are people whose job is to deal with explosives and ordinance, and they don't explode 7 out of 20 days into the job. Now, with the clock ticking down and a hostage nearby or when hurriedly preparing things in the middle of a fire zone... sure, that's what the movies are about.

For what it's worth, _over and over_ it seems that people make the assumption that "difficult" or "has consequences" somehow prevent take 10. As the calculus example shows, that's simply not the case. For the "has consequences" excuse - I saw that confusion a lot in 3e too since it was what prevented take 20, and it doesn't follow. D&D is brimming with danger and that doesn't mean you can only take 10 on things that you don't care about, like tying your shoes. If that were the case they might as well not have the rule at all - which is one houserule option, obviously.

Passive Perception, Insight, and knowledge checks already cover most needs of take 10.

 

[Grabuto138]

If the poison needle trap is explicitly not a skill challenge, not an encounter, and he's allowed a calm and stable environment, then yes he can definitely take 10.

There are people whose job is to deal with explosives and ordinance, and they don't explode 7 out of 20 days into the job. Now, with the clock ticking down and a hostage nearby or when hurriedly preparing things in the middle of a fire zone... sure, that's what the movies are about.

For what it's worth, _over and over_ it seems that people make the assumption that "difficult" or "has consequences" somehow prevent take 10. As the calculus example shows, that's simply not the case. For the "has consequences" excuse - I saw that confusion a lot in 3e too since it was what prevented take 20, and it doesn't follow. D&D is brimming with danger and that doesn't mean you can only take 10 on things that you don't care about, like tying your shoes. If that were the case they might as well not have the rule at all - which is one houserule option, obviously.

Passive Perception, Insight, and knowledge checks already cover most needs of take 10.

Maybe I was unclear, or maybe some people are being a bit literal in order to offer corrections, but I meant "I could not take 10 because I am not trained in calculus and would have no chance of making the check unless I rolled a 20."

 

[keterys]

You _could_ take 10... it would just give you a failing result.

 

[Grabuto138]

So people are being too literal in order to have the pleasure of correcting others. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[keterys]

Maybe? I don't know if I'm correcting you or not, but I am making sure your statement is not misunderstood by others as affecting the rules for take 10.

Now, if diseases were designed in such a way that take 10 did not cure them, it really wouldn't matter all that much in the first place. Which I think is the _actual_ problem.