How do you guys handle Snese Motive?

[irdeggman]

I still think your interpretation is way off. There's no particular need for concentration and the character is actually not taking their time at all since no time increase is involved. You'd figure that "extra" concentration would help them with the task and gain a benefit rather than just achieve a routine level of success, but it doesn't because there is no extra concentration. Taking 10 is pretty much just a reflection of a character doing the basics necessary to do a routine task with a routine level of success - nothing extraordinary at all.
The presence of an actual threat renders routine tasks exceptional, thus a real roll is required and not just the mechanic of taking average results to speed up resolution time.

And if the skill pretty much requires interacting with someone, then interacting with them really can't be considered a distraction.

By taking their time - I mean they are being "careful" and the benefit is that you have increased the result by roughly 50% (or isn't that how a roll of 10 on a d20 is translated?) I mean you have eliminated a roll of 1 through 9

You are correct in the fact that no extra time is taken but concentration is required - which is precisly why you can't take 10 when distracted or threatened.

I guess we may have a difference of opinion on how to translate "concentration". I picture someone actively paying attention or focusing their attention on the task at hand. To me when someone is talking to you and you don't answer because you are actively paying attention to what they are saying then you defeat the pupose of interacting becasue all you are doing is listening. The "target" should then either do things to "get your attention" because you are ignoring them or give up and cut the conversation short thus rendering the interaction moot.

 

[aboyd]

I still think your interpretation is way off. There's no particular need for concentration and the character is actually not taking their time at all since no time increase is involved.

His interpretation is a little off -- there are some mechanics from "taking 20" getting mixed in with comments about "taking 10." But he's not entirely wrong. You've gone too far toward "taking 10 is a lame-assed attempt that can be used a lot." So, OK. Let's clarify.

1. Taking 10 can be done without investing extra time into the task, but there must be no distractions, no combat, no stressful circumstances. You are being careful. Maybe you're not being awesome but you are keeping your eyes on the prize. This is a king calmly climbing onto a table to address the crowd. Contrast that with a condition where you would need to roll -- the king has assassins in his court, and he leaps onto the table to escape the swing of a blade. He's under a little pressure there. It's different. Such a scenario needs a roll. And in contrasting those two scenarios, we can see that taking 10 does involve less distraction and a more deliberate, careful process. Even if it takes the same amount of time. And this is probably why you've got people disagreeing with your assessment that taking 10 is doing a "half-assed" job. It's not. Again, it may not be awesome, but it is conscientious.
2. Taking 20 requires extra time. It technically is similar to taking 10, in that you are not distracted, stressed, or in danger. You are also "keeping your eyes on the prize." But you are doing the task over and over again until you're certain that you've got it right. This is devotion, this is caution, this is maybe obsessive behavior. But it has its rewards. And it can't be done with something that carries a failure penalty. For example, you can't take 20 to disarm a trap, usually, because taking 20 assumes you fail before you get it right, which means the trap goes off.

And if the skill pretty much requires interacting with someone, then interacting with them really can't be considered a distraction.

Unless it carries a failure penalty or a stress point. I'd have to consider situations where you're Sense Motive-ing someone to be slightly stressful -- you're not sure if you're being lied to, the person may not be trustworthy, and bad things might come of it (whether the character knows it or not, they have to be assumed to at least think it at some level, otherwise they'd be completely comfortable with the person and not be using SM on them).

Same for your comments about Spot. I mean, if you're Spotting, it would seem to be inherently stressful or dangerous -- you're trying to see hidden people, or see through a disguise, etc. That implies Bad Things. It might imply a failure penalty -- you don't Spot, you're dead. Ouch.

I could see taking 10 on a "fun" Spot check -- kids might do it all the time in hide & seek, where it's all in fun and the only "failure" is you miss someone and have to play the game again (oh darn). I guess I could see a take 10 in a quiet room where people have your back and you feel protected. And I could see taking 10 on Spot checks that involve a small benefit with no downside -- perhaps the king notices that his adviser has a new hand-carved staff, and he compliments the adviser on his carving skills. That's useful flattery that could bring the king up in esteem, and yet if he doesn't do it, it's not like someone would get angry or turn disloyal or whatever. It has no downside (much -- maybe if you mistakenly notice something and mistakenly compliment wrongly).

Back to Sense Motive, I'd say that taking 10 is possible. I just think you're a bad advocate for the cause. Your wording is poor, making irdeggman's position look more reasonable. And he does have points worth considering.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I guess we may have a difference of opinion on how to translate "concentration". I picture someone actively paying attention or focusing their attention on the task at hand. To me when someone is talking to you and you don't answer because you are actively paying attention to what they are saying then you defeat the pupose of interacting becasue all you are doing is listening. The "target" should then either do things to "get your attention" because you are ignoring them or give up and cut the conversation short thus rendering the interaction moot.

I don't agree with your interpretation of being distracted and how to translate concentration. From the skill description:

"Special

You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn’t apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity.

The DC of the check is 15 (plus the spell’s level, if casting a spell or using a spell-like ability defensively). If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. A successful Concentration check still doesn’t allow you to take 10 on another check if you are in a stressful situation; you must make the check normally. If the Concentration check fails, the related action also automatically fails (with any appropriate ramifications), and the action is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction"

Interesting parts bolded. The way you describe it, it sounds like a DC 15 Concentration check should be allowed to take 10 if distracted. But the rules explicitly say this doesn't work (I suppose it could be houseruled). If you did allow concentration DC 15 to take 10 on a skill, then the distraction would automatically result in the action's failure if you did not make the concentration check (as per the final bold portion), as opposed to the normal restriction of simply not being able to take 10 at all. Which, if you had a serious chance of failing the concentration check, would never be opted for, so it'd just become a binary "do you have concentration +x? Yes? Ok, you can take 10." or not get used at all.

Maybe I am just misinterpreting what you were trying to argue.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Since it is a conscious action to take 10 (that is the character must take their time and be careful this would , IMO, make a reflexive Spot or Listen check impossible.

I completely disagree that it is a conscious action for the character to take 10 on a skill check, or that it is impossible to take 10 on a "reflexive" Spot or Listen check.

As far as taking 10, it may take the conscious decision of the player to do it, but for the PC, it's just a routine half-assed skill check.

I also completely disagree that taking 10 reflects a "half-assed" effort. As aboyd correctly summarized, taking 10 reflects an ordinary but conscientious effort. (Unfortunately, I can't agree with him that there is anything "inherently stressful" about making Spot checks.)

 

[irdeggman]

I completely disagree that it is a conscious action for the character to take 10 on a skill check, or that it is impossible to take 10 on a "reflexive" Spot or Listen check.

I also completely disagree that taking 10 reflects a "half-assed" effort. As aboyd correctly summarized, taking 10 reflects an ordinary but conscientious effort. (Unfortunately, I can't agree with him that there is anything "inherently stressful" about making Spot checks.)

How can it be a "conscientious" effort and not be a "conscious" action?

 

[Animal]

i actually think that the concept of taking 10 is a very good tool for both DM and players. rolling checks is exciting when it matters: for example tumbling across the battlefield, hanging from the cliff, talking to an important npc (to put it short - in stressful situations). but if you're doing something time-consuming and not-so-exciting like when you're climbing a fairly steep cliff, each player would just have to roll climb checks a dozen of times bogging down the game - not fun. if you just assume that they rolled average (taking 10) it will speed up the game without hurting it in any way. it's not a half-ass effort, its their average performance. you don't have to roll in any situation, constant dicerolling gets old pretty soon. leave the random factor for the situations where rolls REALLY matter.

 

[Vegepygmy]

How can it be a "conscientious" effort and not be a "conscious" action?

It's not a "conscious action" for the character because the character doesn't say to himself: "I'm taking 10 on my Spot check." He doesn't even (necessarily) say to himself: "I'm being careful and taking my time to look around." He's simply being as observant as any normal person is when they aren't particularly distracted.

For example, being as attentive as I am when I'm just driving around in my car. I'd call myself a normally "conscientious" driver, and it doesn't require any conscious effort for me to be so. It's automatic. I'm simply taking 10 on my Spot checks for other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Now, if a huge semi truck crosses the center line and comes barreling head-on straight for me...that's going to threaten me so that I can't take 10 anymore. But just because I'm keeping my eyes open for the possibility of that semi doesn't mean I'm under any stress that would prevent me from taking 10.

 

[javcs]

I wouldn't consider taking 10 to be either "half-assed" or more deliberate/attentive than usual - it's an average result, you're not doing anything special about how you're making the check or your performance in taking the check.
"Half-assed" would either be rolling poorly, or, if I had to put a number on it, 'taking 5'. More deliberate/attentive than usual would either be taking 20, rolling well, or if we're looking for something not as good as taking 20, it'd be around taking 15.
Yes, I know that normally you can neither take 5 nor take 15 (though some abilities will allow you to take 15 on some things).

 

[irdeggman]

It's not a "conscious action" for the character because the character doesn't say to himself: "I'm taking 10 on my Spot check." He doesn't even (necessarily) say to himself: "I'm being careful and taking my time to look around." He's simply being as observant as any normal person is when they aren't particularly distracted.

I have to disagree totally with this line of reasoning.


He is not being as observant as a normal person who is not distracted is. The game rules do not account for that condition at all. There is a always a roll, unless the character (via player decisions) decides to do something different.

For some background on this see the sidebar (actually on the bottom of the page) on pg 31 of the Rules Compendium.

Chris talks about his "house-rule" that is similar to the way you appear to handle things. But it is a specified as a house-rule, which means it is not RAW.

Also check pg 62 of the PHB

Circumstances can affect your check. A character who is free to work without distractions can make a careful attempt and avoid simple mistakes. A character who has lots of time can try over and over again, thereby assuring the best outcomes.

The first one refers to taking 10 and the second one refers to taking 20.

This is a broad explanation, but it does not conflict with the specific rules written in the subsequent section on Checks Without Rolls. So I use it for supporting evidence of the "intent" of taking 10 and taking 20.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I have to disagree totally with this line of reasoning.

Yes, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement as to what "taking 10" means, so we are unlikely to agree in its application.

He is not being as observant as a normal person who is not distracted is. The game rules do not account for that condition at all. There is a always a roll, unless the character (via player decisions) decides to do something different.

I'm not sure if this is a point of disagreement between us or not. IMO, the character doesn't make any decision about how to use his skills; that occurs purely at the player level. The character has no awareness that he can "take 10," or that there is a "Spot skill," so he doesn't make any conscious decision to take 10 or roll, or make an active Spot check; he is simply looking around -- either normally (passively) or taking a little extra time (actively).

For some background on this see the sidebar (actually on the bottom of the page) on pg 31 of the Rules Compendium.

Chris talks about his "house-rule" that is similar to the way you appear to handle things. But it is a specified as a house-rule, which means it is not RAW.

The "house rule" part is Chris deciding for his players that their characters will take 10, not that the characters are allowed to take 10 in the first place.

Also check pg 62 of the PHB...

Yeah, that just brings us back to how much effort it takes to make a "careful attempt" at something. To use my driving analogy again, I'm an ordinarily "careful" driver (in that when I'm not distracted, I can avoid making simple mistakes), but that doesn't mean I'm making any special effort to be so.