taking 10 - exactly what skills and skill uses are covered?

[TYPO5478]

Can you literally take 10 on any check as long as you are not threatened/distracted? This makes no sense to me on certain checks, like when you only get 1 shot no matter what and being threatened/distracted makes no difference.

Unlike taking 20 (which represents multiple attempts), taking 10 only represents one attempt: an average one. Taking 10 doesn't represent any particular degree of failure (like taking 20 does), it simply represents average effort. If average effort isn't enough to succeed, then so be it. Obviously, average effort made by someone well-trained (i.e. with a lot of ranks) will be superior to average effort made by someone moderately or minimally trained.

My best example is Knowledge checks. It makes no sense that you could take 10 on something that is a measure of your knowledge, especially when being threatened makes no difference on the roll: you get one roll, and that's it. You either know or you don't. Spellcraft checks to determine properties of stuff also seem to fit into this category. Can you take 10 on these rolls?

If you consider ranks in Knowledge skills to be study or that particular subject, then taking 10 on a Knowledge roll would simply represent average knowledge for someone with that amount of study. For example, suppose a character has 11 ranks in Knowledge (religion) and Int 18 (+4). A DC 25 Knowledge check should be average information for him even though it would be uncommon or rare knowledge for someone with 5 ranks and Int 14 (and unattainable for someone with only 2 ranks and Int 14).

Spellcraft functions like a knowledge check in many cases, though the circumstances are usually more practical. A character with 10 ranks and Int 20 should, with average effort, be able to identify any potion he looks at (provided he's not pressured by being threatened or distracted).

What about hiding? If you're hiding and getting ready for an ambush and have all the time you need, can you take 10? What about jumping? What about profession checks to earn money - you're never really distracted or threatened then, can you just take 10? Handle animal? Survival checks to find food?

Sure, why not? If a character has invested enough skill points in each of those skills to make the DCs with average effort, why not let them? If you don't think the DCs are high enough, increase them. You are the DM, after all.

 

[TYPO5478]

Taking 10 has nothing to do with threat from possibility of failure. It has to do with the ability to concentrate on a task at hand. A DC 10 climb check should not be some huge obstacle to the party.

Indeed!

 

[Mistwell]

You're exactly right. A Hide check is an opposed roll made by the person you're trying to hide from. A Move Silent check is an opposed roll made by the person who might hear you. Miss the check once and you are heard/seen.

So by their very nature, Hide and Move Silently cannot be used with either Take 10 or Take 20.

I'm sorry, but the fact that something is an opposed check does not mean that it involves distraction or threats. A disguise check is often opposed, but it's also a pretty clear example of being able to take 10.

Guys, potential danger, or even actual eventual danger, is not relevant to taking 10. That is the taking 20 rules. Taking 10 just involves distraction WHEN YOU MAKE THE CHECK or a threat WHEN YOU MAKE THE CHECK. So unless you are actually requesting a new move silent or a new hide check at the time they are being opposed (which may well be the case, in which case you cannot take 10 if it involves a threatening or distracting foe at the time of the check), then you can in fact take 10.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And even more, it keeps the game going along smoothly. A DC 10 climb check should not be some huge obstacle to the party.

So we have an uphill slope to negotiate. DM calls it a DC 5 Climb check

"Okay!" calls the cleric. "I'll start up... oh. A 1."
"You get about ten feet up, then slip and tumble back to the bottom," the DM informs him. No damage, and we weren't under any time pressure, but...
"Ooh, wait!" the cleric cries. "I have the Luck domain - I'll reroll! ... a 9!"
The rest of us looked at each other.
"We Take 10," we said in unison.

"Ooh, wait, I have the Luck domain!" still gets quoted today.

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

Hm, 5g/week. Call it 50 silver.

Common meals are 3 sp per day. We're down to 29 silver, assuming a 7 day week.

A common inn stay is 5 sp per day - but we already can't afford that. A poor inn is 2 sp per day. Knock off another 14 silver, putting us at 15 sp left for all our additional expenses.

5gp/week doesn't seem very out of line with the game economy as written at all. Granted we can assume that an artisan might have his own place and not have the inn expenses - but he may also be supporting a family, so multiply that food price as needed, and add in clothing, supplies, etc.

5 gp/week is a pretty poor lifestyle according to the SRD, when you get down to it.

 

[James McMurray]

I like take ten because it removes tedious rolling and empowers the players, two things that make a GM's life easier.

 

[evilbob]

5 gp/week is a pretty poor lifestyle according to the SRD, when you get down to it.

And an untrained laborer makes 1sp/week. So they must all starve to death.

Seriously, though, you've calculated based on someone purchasing all their meals and lodging. If I lived off of restaurants and hotels only, then my living expenses would be 10x what they are now, easily. 5g/week is a ton of money for the D&D system if you're a commoner.

And yes, this isn't really important, but it just goes to show my point that there are holes in the way "take 10" works.

 

[evilbob]

Spellcraft functions like a knowledge check in many cases, though the circumstances are usually more practical. A character with 10 ranks and Int 20 should, with average effort, be able to identify any potion he looks at (provided he's not pressured by being threatened or distracted).

This sums up my problem with the ability nicely. If you're threatened or distracted, suddenly you have a chance not to know something? But if you can "take your time," you might know it? That's intuitively wrong for something "you either know or don't know." Why does "being distracted" allow you to potentially not know something that not being distracted didn't?

And I guess I don't think of Knowledge checks as "amount of study," since the "amount you studied" will be potentially different based on whether or not you are threatened when you try to remember it.

 

[James McMurray]

You've never had to take a moment to search your memory for something? Or had something slip your mind because you were distracted (perhaps by a boot flying at your face)?

The amount you studied isn't different based on how much you're threatened, but your ability to consciously access that information can be.

 

[phindar]

So we have an uphill slope to negotiate. DM calls it a DC 5 Climb check...

In a situation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the Climb check. Situations where there's no risk involved and no time limit imposed, its safe to assume the pcs will make it up the wall. But when the characters are climbing down a sheer rock face in the dead of night with a 200' fall being the bad side of failing, making it a Take 10/no chance of failure for anyone doesn't work for me. In a situation like that, there should be some element of risk reflected in the rules. (I mean, the 20d6 is far and away the most dangerous thing a party that is low enough level to have to bother with Climb checks is going to face. It should probably be at least as threatening as an orc doing d8+2.)