Taking 9.. or 8, or 7....

[The Souljourner]

Is there ever a time when it would be advantageous to "take 9" (or any other number lower than 10) on a skill roll as opposed to taking 10? I'm really more curious than anything. This was brought on by the "take-10" thread that some people though meant "take -10".

So... a challenge for you rules type people - come up with a scenario where it would be advantageous to "take" a number lower than 10.

Also, followup - if you were a DM, would you allow it?

-The Souljourner

 

[Jdvn1]

... No, I don't think so. Taking 10 just means you do something carefully.

If you want to fail a check, you can choose to fail.

 

[frankthedm]

I am not sure you have that option on a reactive skill check or a fort save vs. non spell effects.

If a medusa is hiding, I might request to "Take 0" on my spot checks.

In 3.0, IIR your jump check determined how far you went, in 3.5 i believe it is now you roll on or over the DC to go as far as you wanted.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I wouldn't "allow" it, I'd impose it. It could never be beneficial to just take a lower number unless some hidden advantage went along with it. I might impose a take 0 or take 5, however, for cases like where someone might be on watch and not paying attention (a low alert level).

 

[Scion]

That sounds rather a lot like 'taking 10 with a circumstance penalty of X' there infiniti


I would allow people to take 0 if they wanted. In effect, giving themselves a 10 point penalty for whatever reason, most likely RP. Of course, I would also treat it just like taking 10 with a circumstance penalty of 10, just in case something else would modify that.

But then I also allow negating of certain skills by saying so if they are able to achieve it in some reasonable fashion (spot check? close your eyes. Listen check? cover ears and sing/shout to keep all other noise out. etc)

 

[The Souljourner]

... No, I don't think so. Taking 10 just means you do something carefully.

If you want to fail a check, you can choose to fail.

Nah, not talking about failing... you can obviously always choose to fail... just curious if anyone can think of a reason why you'd want to get a specifically lower result.

-The Souljourner

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nah, not talking about failing... you can obviously always choose to fail... just curious if anyone can think of a reason why you'd want to get a specifically lower result.

The archery contest from Disney's Robin Hood.

You want to do just well enough to advance into the next round, but you don't want to blow the competition away and reveal your true talents.

 

[rtricher]

Nah, not talking about failing... you can obviously always choose to fail... just curious if anyone can think of a reason why you'd want to get a specifically lower result.

-The Souljourner

I could see a player want to take a lower skill result in a craft apple pie contest if he had a really high skill check and wanted to win but not by that much in order to pass as a good baker but not as a level 16 baker.. catch my drift???

Like someone else said it would definately be for some role playing reason or just for personnal flavour or to show off, to the other players, or something like that.

 

[Jdvn1]

Nah, not talking about failing... you can obviously always choose to fail... just curious if anyone can think of a reason why you'd want to get a specifically lower result.

-The Souljourner

The only instance I can think of wold be to try to not show off your expertise.

But I'd call that a Bluff check.

 

[wuyanei]

I wouldn't allow 'taking 9' per se, but a character is always free to impose any amount of circumstance penalties on himself.

A bluff check might still be need to prevent others from noticing that 'he's not doing his best'.