Over and over, I see threads and posts in various forums that continue talking about how you can only take 10 on a check if there is no penalty for failure.
I have no idea why people keep saying this.
According to the PHB:
"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)." (PHB, 65)
It doesn't say anything about not being able to take 10 when there's a penalty for failure.
Now, of course you can't take 20 on a check if there's a penalty for failure. Taking 20 implies you're basically trying over and over again, so if rolling a 1 might blow you up, then you can't take 20.
I routinely see Diplomacy and Craft as examples of skills you can't take 10 or 20 on. But I don't see why. I mean, of course you can't take 20 on these skills. That implies failure before success, and that would ruin any attempt at either of those things.
But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to take 10. If you're not in a stressful situation, is there a reason you shouldn't be able to?
I always assumed that taking 10 was the equivalent of just going about a task in a methodical, calm manner. Not trying to rush, not trying to do something amazing, just concentrating on an average job. An armorsmith isn't going to ruin half of his materials at least once a month--he'd go out of business. Instead, he'll probably take 10 most of the time. If he wants to do something above his normal ability, he would roll. He might succeed, but he might roll a 1 and screw up.
I've seen several forums where someone explains that you can take a 10 when failure won't hurt you, such as unlocking an un-trapped door in an empty room, when you have plenty of time. But that seems pretty crazy to me--in a situation like that, you can take *20*. That would make 10 useless.
Unless you can take 10 in non-stressful situations where failure does have a penalty. (Thus, making it different than taking 20.)
I have no idea why people keep saying this.
According to the PHB:
"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)." (PHB, 65)
It doesn't say anything about not being able to take 10 when there's a penalty for failure.
Now, of course you can't take 20 on a check if there's a penalty for failure. Taking 20 implies you're basically trying over and over again, so if rolling a 1 might blow you up, then you can't take 20.
I routinely see Diplomacy and Craft as examples of skills you can't take 10 or 20 on. But I don't see why. I mean, of course you can't take 20 on these skills. That implies failure before success, and that would ruin any attempt at either of those things.
But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to take 10. If you're not in a stressful situation, is there a reason you shouldn't be able to?
I always assumed that taking 10 was the equivalent of just going about a task in a methodical, calm manner. Not trying to rush, not trying to do something amazing, just concentrating on an average job. An armorsmith isn't going to ruin half of his materials at least once a month--he'd go out of business. Instead, he'll probably take 10 most of the time. If he wants to do something above his normal ability, he would roll. He might succeed, but he might roll a 1 and screw up.
I've seen several forums where someone explains that you can take a 10 when failure won't hurt you, such as unlocking an un-trapped door in an empty room, when you have plenty of time. But that seems pretty crazy to me--in a situation like that, you can take *20*. That would make 10 useless.
Unless you can take 10 in non-stressful situations where failure does have a penalty. (Thus, making it different than taking 20.)
)
