Take 10

[wlmartin]

I had an interesting quandary in a recent game.
My DM was asked the question by another player "Can I take 10?"
The DM replied by saying "You don't feel you could have 10 interrupted minutes in here, so no"

I always understood the task of taking 10 to be that providing there were no distractions you were assumed to be "taking 10" where the "10" refereed to was a score of 10 on a D20, not 10 minutes.

I may be wrong, I didn't say anything then and until I need to use it myself I won't argue with the reasoning of the DM if it comes up again as I think that can be rude.

But am I right?

He thinks it means to take 10 minutes
I think it means taking an average score of 10 on a D20

Who is right in this instance?

 

[FireLance]

Bear in mind that "take 10" originated as a 3E term which was not strongly emphasized in the 4E rules. It can be found on page 179 of the PH or page 127 of the Essentials Rules Compendium.

If your DM is not familiar with the 3E rules, he may not even be aware of the term. If your DM is familiar with the 3E rules, there may be another, more subtle problem.

In the 3E rules, you could also "take 20" on a task which had no penalty for failure (typically, searching for something). You took 20 times as long, but you were assumed to have rolled a 20 for your check. However, because "taking 20" took 20 times as much time, many people assumed (incorrectly) that "taking 10" required 10 times as much time. It does not. It simply requires that you are not threatened or distracted, and it takes only as much time as the base check.

Either of these might explain your DM's reply.

 

[Spatula]

You are correct, but this was always a common source of confusion in my group when playing 3e.

 

[wlmartin]

You are correct, but this was always a common source of confusion in my group when playing 3e.

Thanks to you and all who responded.

I was sure I was right... but it was one of those things.
Like if someone pronounces Arcana as either Are-Cane-Ah or Are-Can-A or Are-Carn-Ar - it doesnt really matter and I would never bring it up to the DM unless his misunderstanding unbalanced the game...

Like a guy in my group was convinced you take 1D6 for falling damage, I heard him keep on repeating it and didnt say a word so that when the DM asked people to roll D10s, he was surprised but I wasnt the goody-2-shoes that showed him up.

thanks again

 

[blalien]

Like a guy in my group was convinced you take 1D6 for falling damage, I heard him keep on repeating it and didnt say a word so that when the DM asked people to roll D10s, he was surprised but I wasnt the goody-2-shoes that showed him up.

Falling damage was 1d6 in 3rd edition and 1d10 in 4th edition. That was probably the source of the confusion.

 

[wlmartin]

Falling damage was 1d6 in 3rd edition and 1d10 in 4th edition. That was probably the source of the confusion.

The player in question is an old 3e fan so that makes sense.
... Even if the DM had agreed with him that the falling dmg would be D6, I would have left it as DM rule 0 and left it alone... If he had said it was 2D12 then I may have had to say something I suppose

I am one of those Rules Lawyers that would rather just get on with the game than point out every flaw during a session... unless it breaks the game that is and even if it does, if the session is going well and everyone is having fun, that is more important

 

[Kannon]

The player in question is an old 3e fan so that makes sense.
... Even if the DM had agreed with him that the falling dmg would be D6, I would have left it as DM rule 0 and left it alone... If he had said it was 2D12 then I may have had to say something I suppose

I am one of those Rules Lawyers that would rather just get on with the game than point out every flaw during a session... unless it breaks the game that is and even if it does, if the session is going well and everyone is having fun, that is more important

Brief aside, you're the kind of player I love to have. I can ask you about rules crap I'm not sure how to read, but when I say to hell with it, I get no complaints.

 

[BobTheNob]

I like to think of it this way...why even have a Rule like Take 10?

Well, really, the answer presented itself to me one night while playing. The party were prisoners escaping and had to get out of the city. The rogue had to scout around and tried to disguise to do so. He had a high enough skill (I was willing to take streetwise or bluff, he was good either way).

Then he said "Can I take 10?". "Course you can" I replied, and then something magical happened. The situation became
a) Easily resolved
b) Rewarded the players investment in skill
I just let him walk around town and observe. To me, take 10 isnt about "Did you have 10 minutes?" or "Are you under pressure" or "Is there a coconut on your head?". To me its about letting the game progress at a reasonable pace when making skill rolls would just slow it down. Its a tool of the DM, not the player.

Rolling the dice for everything isnt the solution to every situation.

 

[Zaran]

I had an interesting quandary in a recent game.
My DM was asked the question by another player "Can I take 10?"
The DM replied by saying "You don't feel you could have 10 interrupted minutes in here, so no"

I think your GM thought the player was wanting to take 2 short rests which are 5 minutes a piece. This is done to get optimize healing by having the healer cast heals to get surge + bonus healing and then taking another rest to recharge those abilities.

This is a bit lame to do because a short rest doesn't always have to be 5 minutes. It's just a short amount of time to recover the parties breath. So the GM was trying to combat that form of optimizing group resources.