Take ten...

[Tatsukun]

OK, so I was talked into something IMC which still seems odd to me.

The idea is that you can always take 10, as long as you are not in direct combat. This makes a huge percentage of skill checks eligible for taking ten. It just seems odd to me that it applies to things like move silently, hide, spot, listen, open lock, disable device, craft, etc.

Is there some aspect of this I am missing? Can you take ten for opposed checks? What about checks like disable device (ones with a ‘fail by more than five and …’ rules).

How do other people read this rule?

Thanks

-Tatsu

 

[James McMurray]

By the RAW you can always take ten on a skill when you're not under pressure. There are a few skills thatspecifically prohibi it though (UMD is one).

 

[BSF]

I probably wing it a little loosely based on the rules. Basically, anytime there is a bad consequence to the skill, you cannot take 10 (or 20). But, for a lot of basic skills, I allow a take 10 action. Especially for NPC's. The guard's at the gate looking for anythign suspicious are usually taking 10 for Spot and possibly Sense Motive. If they are bored guards they might be taking 5 or taking 0.

If PC's are on guard while everyone else is asleep, in the wilderness, I would certainly allow them to take 10, if they want. If they are that confident in their bonuses, that's great.

For something like disable device on a trap, I am not sure I would allow a take 10. It would probably depend on the situation, but in rare circumstances, I might award bonuses for a clever plan and a great deal of care. Still, you might biff it and that trap goes off as soon as you open the door.

I would allow taking 10 for oppossed checks, if you want.

Basically, I use the taking 10 (or 20 or even 0) rules to help streamline the game. If a high-level thief wants to take 10 while slinking through town avoiding the watch and passersby, that's fine. They might be noticed by that loyal, but alert, woodsman that happened to be in town meeting with the Baron. They might both be taking 10 and there might be circumstances later. But, it is very likely that the session went much faster rather than rolling a d20 every 2 minutes.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Basically, anytime there is a bad consequence to the skill, you cannot take 10 (or 20).

You can't take 20. But you can most certainly take 10. The "no consequences" rule only applies to take 20.

For something like disable device on a trap, I am not sure I would allow a take 10. It would probably depend on the situation, but in rare circumstances, I might award bonuses for a clever plan and a great deal of care. Still, you might biff it and that trap goes off as soon as you open the door.

I think maybe you're missing the point of the take 10 rule.

Suppose I'm a blacksmith. I've got a +5 blacksmithing skill, which is a fair amount. I'm producing something relatively normal (like iron pots) which require a dc 10 check.

Now - if I roll, I'll fail 25% of the time.

This isn't rocket science - I'm a good blacksmith, and I'm producing a simple item. Yet I fail 25% of the time.

So - I take 10. I know how to do this. It's well within my capabilities, so all I have to do is follow the procedure, and it'll work.

Same thing goes for disabling a trap. I've got a +15 in my skill, taking 10 gives me a 25. I've seen the trap before, I know how to deal with it.

So every time I try, and I'm not harried or distracted, I take 10, and I succeed.

And if the trap's DC was actually 27, then I obviously DON'T know enough to do that. I take 10, cautiously poking at the trap for a while (2d4 rounds) and that doesn't help (I get a 25 - not bad enough to set it off, but not good enough to disable it). I guess I'll need to do something else... but what? Hmm, let's see if this works?(Rolls - gets an 11 for a total of 26). Nope, didn't work. How about this?(Rolls, gets a 1, total of 16. Failure by more than 5 points and the trap goes off!).

After a bit of tinkering about with traps (ie - gaining levels), the rogue will be experienced enough with this breed of trap that he knows how to bypass it, and we're back to taking 10 being capable of disabling the trap.

 

[Mark]

...as long as you are not in direct combat.

This might be the lynchpin of the problem of the interpretation of your players.

From the SRD

Taking 10: 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

"such as" doesn't mean "only" so you have to expand the times when it will not work based on judgement calls. Any distraction, no matter how small, might have a chance to screw things up. You might want to mention while a take ten is in progress that something is happening and maybe allow the player to suggest they are ignoring the distraction, perhaps resolving it with a concentration check if the distraction is of a certain level (gun shot, dropped glass object shattering, etc.)

Adjudicating a situation where a take ten is requested doesn't need to be a yes or no thing. Tossing the ball back to the player with some defined options so they have to make the tough call can be very satisfying in a roleplaying game, even for those who generally prefer combat. Afterall, the most exciting thing about combat is bringing to bear whatever advantages as a character as you can, going for it, and watching as the die rollls, right? Treat the take ten with the same ominous tone as a critical hit (when it is appropriate) and I think the players will wind up praising you for making the game that much more exciting.

 

[BSF]

You can't take 20. But you can most certainly take 10. The "no consequences" rule only applies to take 20.

I think maybe you're missing the point of the take 10 rule.

Umm, no I am not. I specifically stated that I play a little fast and loose with the rules. As such, perhaps I should have replied in the house rules forum, but I saw this thread first.

Suppose I'm a blacksmith. I've got a +5 blacksmithing skill, which is a fair amount. I'm producing something relatively normal (like iron pots) which require a dc 10 check.

Now - if I roll, I'll fail 25% of the time.

This isn't rocket science - I'm a good blacksmith, and I'm producing a simple item. Yet I fail 25% of the time.

So - I take 10. I know how to do this. It's well within my capabilities, so all I have to do is follow the procedure, and it'll work.

Umm, I guess I should have specified what a bad consequence would be. I don't mean able to make/unable to make an item. I mean having that wand blow up in your face and you have to make a reflex save because you just unleashed a fireball where you are standing.

Same thing goes for disabling a trap. I've got a +15 in my skill, taking 10 gives me a 25. I've seen the trap before, I know how to deal with it.

So every time I try, and I'm not harried or distracted, I take 10, and I succeed.

And if the trap's DC was actually 27, then I obviously DON'T know enough to do that. I take 10, cautiously poking at the trap for a while (2d4 rounds) and that doesn't help (I get a 25 - not bad enough to set it off, but not good enough to disable it). I guess I'll need to do something else... but what? Hmm, let's see if this works?(Rolls - gets an 11 for a total of 26). Nope, didn't work. How about this?(Rolls, gets a 1, total of 16. Failure by more than 5 points and the trap goes off!).

After a bit of tinkering about with traps (ie - gaining levels), the rogue will be experienced enough with this breed of trap that he knows how to bypass it, and we're back to taking 10 being capable of disabling the trap.

I suppose I could let my players do that, except if they fail, they won't know it. (Perhaps I need to re-read Disable Device, but I don't recall any criteria that the character will know if they were successful or not.) So, they could take their 10 and then open the door (or whatever). Ultimately, it really isn't any different than just rolling, they won't know success until they test it. But, the difference is that they may have just triggered something fairly deadly rather than messing up the craft check on a pot. So, in that case, a 10 may be a rather risky attempt. *shrug* Maybe I'll give them that as a choice and see if anyone bites.

 

[woolybearundertaker]

Umm, I guess I should have specified what a bad consequence would be. I don't mean able to make/unable to make an item. I mean having that wand blow up in your face and you have to make a reflex save because you just unleashed a fireball where you are standing.

I m one of Tatsukun s players, so admittedly I m a little biased. However, I don t really see the big deal in allowing PCs to Take 10 a lot of the time.

For the record, we play with a Natural 20 equal to a role of 30, and a Natural 1 equal to –10. So consider this: a second level party facing a 5 foot chasm 40 feet deep. DC to jump it (in 3.5) is 5. Big deal, right? However, as another player pointed out, every member in the party still had at least a 5% chance of rolling a 1 and falling to their deaths. We d each have to cross it at least twice.

That amounts to nearly a 10% chance that each character would die… from a stupid 5 foot chasm. No one I know would accept a 5% percent chance of death!! So should we have found materials and built a bridge? There would still be a 5% chance we d fail the Balance check and fall to our deaths.

There was no combat at the time, so why not Take 10 and make it automatic? My problem with saying that any time there s a distraction, Take 10 cannot be used, is that its too ambiguous. MOST skill check situations have some kind of distraction. A Character trying to jump that chasm would find the risk of a 40 foot fall distracting. Is that distracting enough to warrant not allowing Take 10? If one rules that the risk IS distracting, then the line between the restrictions for Take 10 and Take 20 starts getting really blurred.

Similarly, not allowing Take 10 makes spells overly powerful. A mid level rogue risks death (5% chance) every time he Climbs a rope down from a high building, but a stupid second level Spider climb, and the mage can do it 100% safely and twice as fast. Doesn t that take away from the fun of playing a Rogue?

Out of curiosity, BardStephenFox, would you consider the risk of fall “distracting” in such cases?

For contested skills like Hide, most Rogues can Take 10 and consistently slip past mook sentries Taking 10. Big deal. Can the Fighter in full plate? The cleric? So the Rogue will be ALL ALONE. In any case, he wont be able to Take 10 and sneak past an elven Ranger Taking 10.

And in such cases, the NPCs could always role, and have a good chance of rolling high enough that they spot the Rogue Taking 10.

 

[Ottergame]

One thing, you're players should not generally know what the DC of what they are attempting is, unless they have pretty good knowledge of what it is they are dealing with. (A crafter making iron pots is going to know how difficult that is to do, while a rogue messing around with a lock probley won't). That'll limit how often they take 10, and will leave those for tasks they know are simple, like swim, jump, and most climb checks, where rolling dice a bunch of time just slow things down.

If I'm not sure how hard something is going to be, I have a 60% chance of beating or tieing a 10 on a die roll, and I'll pretty much always take that. And I'd never take a 10 on an opposed roll, unless I was something like a very high level rogue doing sneak, where it'd be basically impossible to lose a hide or move silently roll, even by rolling a 1.

Trust me, all taking 10 does is speed up gameplay. It's almost silly to take it on any roll that really matters.

 

[Shallown]

I think one of the obstacles to judging "take 10" is that Gms and players think they are getting something for free. What you get is Average. Just the average number, a 10 out of 20. Just remember that they aren't getting away with something just assuming average means Average or normal or expected result. I let my players take 10 on most things (outside combat or serious distraction) and let the DC's and circumstantial modifiers deal with the rest.

Not everything we do all day is decided by random chance. Think about typing. If I had to roll for each letter I hit I would fail al lot as is I take 10 (With my negative modifier for dex means I suck but Oh well)

Later

 

[BSF]

I m one of Tatsukun s players, so admittedly I m a little biased. However, I don t really see the big deal in allowing PCs to Take 10 a lot of the time.

For the record, we play with a Natural 20 equal to a role of 30, and a Natural 1 equal to –10. So consider this: a second level party facing a 5 foot chasm 40 feet deep. DC to jump it (in 3.5) is 5. Big deal, right? However, as another player pointed out, every member in the party still had at least a 5% chance of rolling a 1 and falling to their deaths. We d each have to cross it at least twice.

By and large, I encourage people to take 10. It is much quicker for game play.

Your group uses a Natural 20 = 30 and Natural 1 = -10, I do not. A 1 = 1 and a 20 = 20.

A jump across a 5' chasm is not too hard, but it isn't assured either. You need at least a +4 to jump to get that. Now, if you are a weak mage with equipment, it might be tough. Generally, we aren't talking about optimal circumstances for most skill checks. If you are in a cavern where the floor surface is rough and the lighting less than perfect, you might have a little more difficulty.

Anytime your skill bonuses assure success, you don't even need to take a 10. You can take a 1. If you wanted to take a 10 in the above circumstance, I would probably wait for you to improve the lighting, divest yourself of your heavy equipment, etc.

That amounts to nearly a 10% chance that each character would die… from a stupid 5 foot chasm. No one I know would accept a 5% percent chance of death!! So should we have found materials and built a bridge? There would still be a 5% chance we d fail the Balance check and fall to our deaths.

You know, I remember being in High School and sneaking into the theater in the middle of the night. This involved climbing onto the roof, entering through the vents, edging your toes along a 1" piece of dust covered aluminum while holding onto another small, dust covered ledge a foot or so over your head, in the dark, until you could come to one of the catwalks and drop down onto it. That was definitely stupid! It was a needless risk where an error would result in a 30-40' fall onto a stage that might, or might not have anything on it (can't tell in the dark) while the orchestra pit may or may not be open. Of course, this is also in a building that was locked by padlocks on chains on the outside of the doors. So, it would have been a little harder to seek medical assistance and it would have been a bit more difficult for help to arrive. Maybe you were a little more conservative in your youth, but I was definitely one of the most conservative teenagers I knew. My point is that you probably perceive acceptable risks quite often. I think professional adventurers would more often than players would.

There was no combat at the time, so why not Take 10 and make it automatic? My problem with saying that any time there s a distraction, Take 10 cannot be used, is that its too ambiguous. MOST skill check situations have some kind of distraction. A Character trying to jump that chasm would find the risk of a 40 foot fall distracting. Is that distracting enough to warrant not allowing Take 10? If one rules that the risk IS distracting, then the line between the restrictions for Take 10 and Take 20 starts getting really blurred.

I definitely agree that the rules are a bit ambiguous on this one. It is a judgement call for each game.

Similarly, not allowing Take 10 makes spells overly powerful. A mid level rogue risks death (5% chance) every time he Climbs a rope down from a high building, but a stupid second level Spider climb, and the mage can do it 100% safely and twice as fast. Doesn t that take away from the fun of playing a Rogue?

In my game, I do not use a -10 for a natural 1. A 1st level rogue with a 10 Str and 4 ranks of climb will always make a climb check on a rope coming down from a building. In a situation where you had people assisting you down a building, and it wasn't a combat situation (or during a tornado or something like that) I would allow a Take 10. Otherwise, I would probably allow an assist for a +2. Crawling across a log bridge, as opposed to walking across, would be a Take 10. As for spell use, how many times can the spellcaster do that? How often can a rogue? Magic is wondrous, but it is a crutch.

Out of curiosity, BardStephenFox, would you consider the risk of fall “distracting” in such cases?

For a character that was very afraid of heights, maybe. Probably not though. For a character that was under a magical/supernatural affect that made them afraid of heights, yes it would be distracting.

For contested skills like Hide, most Rogues can Take 10 and consistently slip past mook sentries Taking 10. Big deal. Can the Fighter in full plate? The cleric? So the Rogue will be ALL ALONE. In any case, he wont be able to Take 10 and sneak past an elven Ranger Taking 10.

And in such cases, the NPCs could always role, and have a good chance of rolling high enough that they spot the Rogue Taking 10.

That matches my 1st post in the thread. I am not against Taking 10. I see no problems with it. However, I will not allow my players to take it in every circumstance. It depends on the situation. A rogue taking a 1 while jumping a 5' chasm probably didn't even break stride or think about the chasm being there. He is the guy that will absent-mindedly note the chasm while he is scouting ahead of the party. He might stop and clear away some of the rubble and look for a good spot for the less than athletic mage who might actually need help to cross. Similarly, you will have people that don't even need to think about walking across that 1 foot wide stone bridge that spans a 40' wide chasm, and you will have people that look at it and would prefer to crawl across on their hands and knees. After all, a 2nd level Rogue (or monk) with an 18 Dex and will be able to take a 1 and have a 10. They could crawl across a 2 inch span and if they took a 10, would be just short of the check. They would need to be 3rd level for that.

As I said, it is a judgement call. Taking 10 is a good way to streamline a game and move on to the action. In cases where the characters have enouch skill ranks + bonuses to assure success, Taking 1 is better, in my opinion. Of course, I also tend to think of a +10 to a skill as a good starting point.

I think I have digressed and gotten more into how I play the game. Hmm. Taking 10 is not a bad thing. I use it more than some, less than others. In the end, it really just depends on how you like to play the game and what your group finds to be "fun". If your players are trying to find more situations to Take 10, maybe you should listen to why they are doing that rather then whether the rules allow it. Maybe your players are finding some skill checks to be tedious and they are feeling less than heroic. Perhaps they want to get to a different part of the story, and the game, where they enjoy everything more, whether that is the action/combat part or the social/roleplay part. Ultimately, whatever works best for your group is "right".