Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gnarl 04-09-07, 07:52 AM	Hi guys, I have some questions on 'Taking 10'. 1) Can you take 10 on opposed rolls ? Can my character take 10 on Bluff checks? 2) Can you take 10 on all skill checks unless it says you can? For instance, can my character take 10 on Search checks for find traps. 3) Can you take 10 on skills that don't allow retries? For instance, can my character take 10 on Diplomacy checks? If at all possible, could you please point me out to some sections of the rule to support your statements. Thank you for your help, Gnarl
Galadan_Ironstone 04-09-07, 08:09 AM	From the SRD: Checks without Rolls A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor. 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. Taking 20:When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks. RAW say you can take 10 as long as you are not threatened or distracted. It is really just taking an average "10" roll on a d20. The only thing that carries more restrictions is taking 20 which cannot be done if there is no "penelty of failure", such as a Rogue not seeing a trap and directing his party into a passage he thinks is "all clear". So in short, you can always Take 10 unless specified under the specific Skill entry.
Cartigan 04-09-07, 08:13 AM	So in short, you can always Take 10 He can't on the majority of things he listed. You can't take 10 on no retries (as taken from Knowledge - "what you know is what you know"). I doubt you can take 10 on bluffs because you are pitting your skill check against another skill check. You can on traps because it speeds up exploring and, unless you are being distracted, you can focus your concentration into finding the traps.
Bob Loblaw 04-09-07, 08:25 AM	Hi guys, I have some questions on 'Taking 10'. 1) Can you take 10 on opposed rolls ? Can my character take 10 on Bluff checks? Yes. Taking 10 just means you are doing an average job. You are sure you can bluff this guy without even trying. Note that you cannot do this in combat, so no feinting. 2) Can you take 10 on all skill checks unless it says you can? For instance, can my character take 10 on Search checks for find traps. There are some times when you cannot take 10. Use magic device says you cannot Take 10 with it at all (there are 2 classes not in the PHB that I know of that allow it). You also cannot Take 10 when distracted or threatened. So you can Take 10 when searching for traps under normal circumstances. 3) Can you take 10 on skills that don't allow retries? For instance, can my character take 10 on Diplomacy checks? Yes, Taking 10 is not the same as Taking 20. With Take 10, you are assuming that your average use of the skill is good enough. Taking 20 means that you are putting all you've got into the skill so you are taking 20 times as long to accomplish the same task, hopefully gauranteeing your success. If at all possible, could you please point me out to some sections of the rule to support your statements. Someone already quoted the SRD which is all I would have done.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-09-07, 10:34 AM	> You can't take 10 on no retries (as taken from Knowledge - "what you know is > what you know"). Yes, you can. You just can't do it when the skill specifically says otherwise in that case. (Knowledge and UMD being the two that do.) You can't Take 20 on "no retries", however. > I doubt you can take 10 on bluffs because you are pitting your skill check > against another skill check. Generally an opposed roll doesn't allow for it, although in certain circumstances it might be doable with some skills. (Primarily ones where the interaction is routine despite being opposed.)
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 11:11 AM	Published adventures allow guards to take 10 on spot checks. I'd suggest that's a pretty reasonable guide. If you're making the skill check frequently, then eventually you can just settle into "taking 10". The opposing check (Hide, Sense Motive or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to Take 10 though.
BW0222 04-09-07, 11:32 AM	Merestil Haye, Published adventures allow guards to take 10 on spot checks. I'd suggest that's a pretty reasonable guide. If you're making the skill check frequently, then eventually you can just settle into "taking 10". The opposing check (Hide, Sense Motive or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to Take 10 though. Since spot is an opposed check (opposes hide checks) then your last statement can not be true. Nothing prevents you from taking a 10 on an opposed roll (hide, spot, sense motive, bluff, listen, move silently, etc.) check unless you are threatened or distracted. Whether a situation is threatening or distracting is certainly up to the DM. Combat is almost always threatening. However, if you are moving through the woods and hiding without seeing anything dangerous, it would be hard to argue that you are being threatened or distracted. You could certainly take a 10 on a hide check. If you are sneaking into an orc camp... the DM can certainly rule that the orcs are a threat and you need to keep looking around to see if there aren't some moving around and negating your cover - this could certainly be considered distracting. If you are trying a bluff check against a merchant... you likely aren't threatened. Nothing says that you can't take a 10. If you have been questioned by the guards and there is a sign "Smugglers will be executed on the spot." and you have a wagon full of illegal goods... your DM can rule that that is a threat and you can't take a 10 on a bluff check. I'll also point out that several published adventures specifically say that folks take a 10 on various skills (including hide, move silently, sense motive, etc.), rogues have an ability which allows them to take a 10 on various skills when threatened (and lists several opposed skills, meaning that you obviously can take a 10 on these normally when not threatened), the DM lists examples of opposed skills under its "take 10" discussion, since most skills are opposed skills the take 10 rule would be generally useless since it would have so many exceptions, and the PHB specifically lists those skills which you can't take a 10 for.
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 12:21 PM	Merestil Haye,Published adventures allow guards to take 10 on spot checks. I'd suggest that's a pretty reasonable guide. If you're making the skill check frequently, then eventually you can just settle into "taking 10". The opposing check (Hide, Sense Motive or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to Take 10 though.Since spot is an opposed check (opposes hide checks) then your last statement can not be true.I guess I wasn't quite clear on what I meant by that, since I agree with most of what you say. I meant "if one party in an opposed skill check is being allowed to take 10, then the other should not be." I obviously failed to convey that, and I apologise. I was also thinking that it is not desirable to eliminate the dieroll completely - remove it from one side but require the other to make the roll. I argue that if a creature is attempting to sneak into a guarded place, it is hardly true that the infiltrating creature is free from distractions and/or threat, which suggests that infiltrator should not be allowed to take 10. Using that logic, it's the person attempting to evade detection or scrutiny who should be making the rolls (ie the creature using Disguise, Bluff, Hide or Move Silently). Hence while Take 10 can theoretically be taken by both sides, one (or even both) sides may be disqualified from doing so by the rules. I was also considering only the standard case - class abilities that allow this to be done take precedence over these opinions of mine. Hope that makes what I was thinking a little bit clearer.
Vegepygmy 04-09-07, 12:54 PM	> You can't take 10 on no retries (as taken from Knowledge - "what you know is > what you know"). Yes, you can. You just can't do it when the skill specifically says otherwise in that case. (Knowledge and UMD being the two that do.)Actually, UMD is the only one that does. There is nothing that bars one from taking 10 on a Knowledge check. 1) Can you take 10 on opposed rolls ? Can my character take 10 on Bluff checks? 2) Can you take 10 on all skill checks unless it says you can? For instance, can my character take 10 on Search checks for find traps. 3) Can you take 10 on skills that don't allow retries? For instance, can my character take 10 on Diplomacy checks?1) Yes. Yes. 2) You can take 10 on any skill check, unless it says you can't. Yes. 3) Yes, you can take 10 on skills that don't allow retries (including Diplomacy). If at all possible, could you please point me out to some sections of the rule to support your statements.Everything you need to know is on page 65 of the PHB. The general rule is: "When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10." Anything else is an exception to that rule. Unless an exception is specifically stated, it is presumed not to exist. It's just that simple. Can you take 10 on Knowledge checks? Yes. Why? Because there is no exception to the general rule that bars you from doing so. Can you take 10 on opposed skill checks? Yes. Why? Because there is no exception to the general rule that bars you from doing so. Etc., etc. The only "gray area" that exists is what constitutes "being threatened or distracted." Everyone agrees that combat qualifies, since that is the example given in the book. Others (like Merestil, evidently) seem to think that if there is even the potential for combat, you are "being threatened or distracted." I disagree, but I think it's one of those issues on which two reasonable DMs can disagree. The bottom line is that you can take 10 unless your DM says you can't. And if your DM says you can't, he must think you are "being threatened or distracted" (or there must exist a specific exception, like for UMD). If he's disallowing it for any other reason, he's making up his own rules.
BW0222 04-09-07, 01:03 PM	Merestil Haye, I meant "if one party in an opposed skill check is being allowed to take 10, then the other should not be." I obviously failed to convey that, and I apologise. I was also thinking that it is not desirable to eliminate the dieroll completely - remove it from one side but require the other to make the roll. That can't possibly work if the two sides are unaware of each other. A gnoll is hiding in some trees on is on guard duty. You are moving through the forest hiding and scouting the area. You don't know that gnolls are around, he doesn't know that you are out scouting. No reason you both can't take a 10 on either spots or hides. You could walk past him with neither of you knowing, he could spot you, you could spot him, or you could spot each other. Neither of you are threatened until each of you becomes aware of the other. I argue that if a creature is attempting to sneak into a guarded place, it is hardly true that the infiltrating creature is free from distractions and/or threat, which suggests that infiltrator should not be allowed to take 10. I said, it is the DMs call when a situation is threatening. However, if you can't see any guards... then it is hard to say that a situation is threatening because there might be guards and they might kill you. If you go to that extreme, no one could ever take a 10 because there might be an invisible ogre behind them with a readied action to smash them if they start making arrows. If you don't know you are threatened then you aren't threatened. Using that logic, it's the person attempting to evade detection or scrutiny who should be making the rolls (ie the creature using Disguise, Bluff, Hide or Move Silently). Hence while Take 10 can theoretically be taken by both sides, one (or even both) sides may be disqualified from doing so by the rules. Sorry, but you are taking threatened or distacted to a level which is unplayable. With disguise or bluff, you don't even know if your opponent is going to attempt a check against you. In the case of disquise, presumbly you have put on the disquise in a safe place. In either case, nothing says that possible failure will result in an immediate attack. Nothing says that further actions couldn't prevent that outcome. If you are disquised as a merchant and say that your name is "Grof" to the guards... nothing says that they are threatening you when you go through the gates. Even if caught in your disquise, you could always say that your owe your brother-in-law a lot of money and your wife told to not to let him know you were in town. The possiblity of being arrested, detained, etc. can not be itself rise to the level of a threat. i.e. unless there is a sign saying "Anyone using a false name will immediately be killed" and guards with there axes raised... it is pretty hard to claim that you are under any immediate threat. If you try expanding threat to mean "any possible negative outcome whether known or unknown" or "a possible attack in the future" then no one could ever take a 10. Failed disquise, bluff, hide, etc. does not equal an immediate attack against you. You aren't under any immediate threat unless circumstances are might unusual. Even in those cases, most of the time you wouldn't be aware of it. Same with distraction. Normal talking with guards is not a distraction. Moving through a forest is not distracting. Moving past a guard post, down a hallway, etc. is not distracting. You honestly need combat, high winds, a dozen goblins banging pots, or something equally impossible to prevent you from giving 'normal' attention to something. Just because you are moving past some guards doesn't mean you turn into a nervous wreck who needs to look in a dozen directions at once. My rules for being threatened. 1. You are in combat, or 2. You are in a situation where if the check fails, the next action must reasonably result in an attack of some type against you, and 3. You know that there is such a threat present. The mere possibly of them attacking you or the possibly of some future attack is not sufficient to be a threat. Bluff, disquise, hide, etc rarely meet the above conditions. If a guard sees you... he might attack (possible), or he might sound the alarm and yell for you to halt (at least as likely). If a bluff check fails, you might be stabbed to death by the guards (highly unlikely) or you might be subjected to futher questioning (far more likely).
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 04:02 PM	BW022 I don't actually think you and I are to far apart, but there are some things I disagree with. Moving through the woods mutually unaware of an enemy? Both can take 10, no problems. If a creature is attempting to enter a structure that may or may not be guarded, he'd be a bit silly in assuming "I see no guards" = "There are no guards". Either he can take 10 and set the DC for the guard's attempt to spot him (which will be rolled) or he can roll, and I will take 10 on the guard's Spot skill. Personally, I'd rather let the players roll their skill checks to increase the feeling of involvement - and they will generally be the infiltrators. Likewise, a spy trying to infiltrate a city under the eye of the gate guards, will have to roll his Bluff check. The guards are there, and scrutinising the people as they pass. He's going to feel a little threatened that if he blows it he'll have to run. He's got his retreat all worked out - but this is a "bottleneck" he has to pass through. once in the city he can happily take 10 until he either has to pass through the next bottleneck or make a risky move where someone will be watching for oddities. Most of the time, I agree that creatures can take 10; when there's little or nothing riding on it. But at times when they are attempting things that are actively detrimental to observers, or the observers have orders to look for and stop, there is sufficient distraction that taking 10 is not possible. At these points (which tend to be dramatic points) I think that calling for the rolls is both warranted by the rules and good DMing. However, I don't agree withIf you don't know you are threatened then you aren't threatened.Because "threatened" in D&D terms means "within the reach of a hostile armed with a melee weapon". If yo have a character in my last campaign standing 5' from you you wouldn't know it - unless you bumped into him, saw his footprints, or made a DC40 Spot check. But he threatens you in the D&D sense. You might believe you are not threatened, but the condition is not necessarily subjective.
Lucas Blackstone 04-09-07, 04:45 PM	The reason he is saying you can take a 10 while threatened in that sense is because if you do not know you are threatened, nothing would change your action, or your thought processes on the subject. Take this example, even though it is contrived slightly to prove the point at hand. Bob the adventurer found a letter marked with a seal of a noble house that the local kingdom believes is no longer existing. In this letter are plans to kill the mayor of the town for interfering in their plans. One of the assassins within this house sees Bob find the letter and tails him to his room in the local inn, manages to slip into the room and take up a hiding position in the room while Bob eats dinner. Bob eats dinner and makes his way into the room, and takes out the letter from earlier. The assassin casts detect thoughts, and begins reading Bob's mind. He readies an action that if Bob begins to think about what the symbol means ( ie makes a Knowledge: Heraldry check), that he will attack him. Bob has NO idea he is being threatened ( in the D&D term or in the regualr meaning of the word) and so his ability to take a 10 on the Knowledge: Heraldry check would be unhampered, because he would be reacting to a threat that he doesn't know is there. He isn't able to respond to said threat by not taking a 10, it doesn't make sense that he suddenly becomes aware of the hidden attacker because he wanted to take a 10 on his Knowledge: Heraldry check. Hopefully that makes more sense. It's not a way to try to cheat around the taking 10 rule as much as applying the reasoning on why you can't take a 10. You can't take a 10 because you are responding to said threat. If you can't respond to said threat because you are unaware, then you should be able to take a 10.
Cartigan 04-09-07, 05:49 PM	With disguise or bluff, you don't even know if your opponent is going to attempt a check against you. Bluff is made directly at an opponent's Sense Motive check. The opponent makes the check because he has to if you use Bluff.
Vegepygmy 04-09-07, 07:36 PM	Bluff is made directly at an opponent's Sense Motive check. The opponent makes the check because he has to if you use Bluff.Yes, but he doesn't know you're Bluffing unless he makes his Sense Motive check. See?
Neutronium_Dragon 04-09-07, 09:13 PM	The basis behind Take 10 is that you're doing a routine job of the task in question. That's probably the best arbiter of whether or not you can Take 10 in a given circumstance. Bluffing the guards at the gate isn't generally something you can do as a routine activity, barring special circumstances or perhaps having an "in" with them. You're on the spot, and at that point there's always the chance that you'll flub the attempt somehow. Most other opposed rolls have the same problem - whatever prompts an opposed roll is rarely something which you can handle as a routine task.
Nom 04-09-07, 11:28 PM	The DM (and players) should simply look at it from the perspective of the actor. Is the actor "trying to do their best" or just "doing it routinely"? In the former case, you roll. You might actually do your best (20) or the extra pressure might cause you to flub (1). In the latter case, you just take 10. This applies even for opposed checks. If the guard is "standing there watching for threats", he likely takes 10. If he is "trying to spot those dissidents who are planning an attack sometime today", then he probably rolls; the risk of messing up is probably worth the extra chance that he'll spot a sneaky dissident. Similarly, the elite sneak trying to slip past the "normally attentive" guards probably takes 10 - he does this every day. But if "Eagle Eye Jones" is on the prowl too, then he'll probably elect to roll, thinking that an "average effort" might not be enough.
Cartigan 04-09-07, 11:48 PM	Yes, but he doesn't know you're Bluffing unless he makes his Sense Motive check. See? That are going to get a Sense Motive check if you are Bluffing. They can take 10 if they don't know you are Bluffing.
Vegepygmy 04-10-07, 01:59 AM	The basis behind Take 10 is that you're doing a routine job of the task in question. That's probably the best arbiter of whether or not you can Take 10 in a given circumstance.I agree. Bluffing the guards at the gate isn't generally something you can do as a routine activity, barring special circumstances or perhaps having an "in" with them.I disagree.
Vegepygmy 04-10-07, 02:02 AM	That are going to get a Sense Motive check if you are Bluffing.I don't think you're getting the point. The character has no idea that he's making a Sense Motive check. As a matter of fact, if the DM makes such opposed checks in secret (as I do), the player doesn't even know his character is making an opposed check.
Cartigan 04-10-07, 08:36 AM	I don't think you're getting the point. The character has no idea that he's making a Sense Motive check. As a matter of fact, if the DM makes such opposed checks in secret (as I do), the player doesn't even know his character is making an opposed check. Which is different from them not making an attempt at all, which is what you keep saying.
Bob Loblaw 04-10-07, 09:29 AM	There are times when you can Take 10 on Sense Motive, as with most other skills. The local constable catches a few honest looking people in an unsual place so he just routinely goes to check on them. He isn't suspecting anything to be wrong, but talks to them anyway just in case. This is a good example of Taking 10 with Sense Motive. Of course if no one tries to Bluff him, then his Sense Motive check is for naught.
Vegepygmy 04-10-07, 11:46 AM	Which is different from them not making an attempt at all, which is what you keep saying.You clearly haven't understood what I keep saying.
BW0222 04-10-07, 12:15 PM	Merestil Haye, I'll start by your definition of "threatened" Because "threatened" in D&D terms means "within the reach of a hostile armed with a melee weapon". If yo have a character in my last campaign standing 5' from you you wouldn't know it - unless you bumped into him, saw his footprints, or made a DC40 Spot check. But he threatens you in the D&D sense. You might believe you are not threatened, but the condition is not necessarily subjective. If you are going by that definition, then no one threatens anyone outside of initiative - since they are flat-footed until they go first in initiative. However, it is an easy one to rule on if you wish to use it. In which case, you could always take a 10 outside of initiative as you are never threatened. If folks have ranged weapons, they never threaten you either. If a creature is attempting to enter a structure that may or may not be guarded, he'd be a bit silly in assuming "I see no guards" = "There are no guards". Again, you could apply that to everything. It can't make a rule based on that. There could be invisible ogres behind you when you take a 10 on a craft check. I doubt either of us honestly consider the possibility of inivisible ogres as honest threats, so we are now left arguing about what is reasonable for a character to see as a threat. If you don't see or detect any type of threat, you can't rule that fear of some possible unknown threat is enough to cause a player not to be able to take a 10. That is way too subjective as to what someone elses character might be thinking. If not seeing guards is not enough to allow someone to take a 10, then what is? If the player concluded that they must be on a break, now can he take a 10? What if the guy is a 15th-level rogue sneaking into an empty warehouse? i.e. even taking a 10, only super-humans would be able to see him. Are you going to rule that it is impossible for the player to conclude that they aren't going to have 15th-level rangers guarding an empty warehouse? How unlikely does something have to be for someone to conclude that there isn't any real threat? 1 in 100, 1 in 1000? Sorry, fear of the possible unknown is way too subjective to make such rulings based on. IMO, the threat needs to be known and almost certain. Either he can take 10 and set the DC for the guard's attempt to spot him (which will be rolled) or he can roll, and I will take 10 on the guard's Spot skill. Again, why can't they both take a 10? And if not, which group is force to roll and where in the rules does it say this. I think it is a stretch to assume that folks unaware of each other could ever constitute a threat. And how could they possibly know? We honestly could walk past each other and never known either was there. Personally, I'd rather let the players roll their skill checks to increase the feeling of involvement - and they will generally be the infiltrators. Well... that is your play style. Whether players wish to roll or take 10 should be up to them. Taking a 10 saves time on mundane tasks. Whether a player wishes to consider moving through the forest hiding mundane or not... is up to them. Likewise, a spy trying to infiltrate a city under the eye of the gate guards, will have to roll his Bluff check. Again why? First, that assumes that the guards are actually making sense motive checks. If they don't have any reason to question you in some detail, you wouldn't need to make any bluff checks. i.e. Q: "Where you from?" A: "Dyvers" That hardly reaches the six seconds of conversation needed to actually need to make checks. Second, even if he was making checks, a failed check is far from any real threat. Q: "Where are you from?" A: "Dyvers" (asks a number of questions about Dyvers, bluff check fails) Q: "You don't have the accent of someone from Dyvers and I've never seen anyone from there dressed like you?" A: "Well... sorry, I'm come from Dyvers, but I'm originally from Verbobonc. I assumes you wanted to know where I just came from for tax reasons or such." (possibly more checks) Third, even if everything goes for stink, the guard is highly unlikely to attack you. He is going to ask that you come with him, drop your weapons, etc. Maybe in a couple of days, you'll actually be threatened with immediate harm, but otherwise it is just some future possiblity of harm. He's going to feel a little threatened that if he blows it he'll have to run. Why? You are making a subjective call. If he is +25 to his bluff checks... is he going to feel threatened? If he has practiced for years lying to folks and has been by guards lots of times is he really going to see this as a threat? If he has five back-up stories which he can try? What if he has been through this post ten times a month smuggling goods and never been caught? Way too subjective. No DM can tell a player what her PC "feels" - baring magical compulsions. Cartigan, Bluff is made directly at an opponent's Sense Motive check. The opponent makes the check because he has to if you use Bluff. And how does a character know this? Heck, the rolls could all be done completely secretly and even the player might not know. If I come to the city gates and a guard comes out and asks me "Where are you from?" and I answer "Dyvers" (falsely), is the guard performing a sense motive or is he going through the same motions as the previous two hundred people in line? If he then says he has an uncle in Dyvers and asks me what I think of the place, is this a sense motive or is he just bored out of his skull and wanting to talk to someone? I honestly don't know. Even if I suspected that he might be trying a sense motive, maybe all he wants to know that I'm not a refugee and can support myself. This is just a gate guard. I'm not expecting the inquisition or him looking specifically at me. Even if he catches me up on something unimportant, he isn't going to attack immediately, and I still might be able to con my way through. It's probably a pretty routine bluff check -- most likely something I've specifically trained with, had some time to prepare for, I know the "drill" for passing through gates, etc. It's a reasonable lie, not easily checked up on without special precautions, etc. Now, if when I enter the city, there are twenty guards at the gate, several in robes, weapons drawn, folks subjected to minutes of detailed questioning, groups separated, etc. Then, maybe you can argue that you know that they will be trying a sense motive. However, nothing states that knowing that something is being opposing your roll is specifically threatening.
Cartigan 04-10-07, 01:58 PM	You clearly haven't understood what I keep saying. An inane argument based around a personal theory that reasons out as well as my theory does. Well... that is your play style. Whether players wish to roll or take 10 should be up to them. Taking a 10 saves time on mundane tasks. Whether a player wishes to consider moving through the forest hiding mundane or not... is up to them. If he can take 10 when sneaking around, then there is no point having a DC check for any skills that require DC. And how does a character know this? Heck, the rolls could all be done completely secretly and even the player might not know. It doesn't matter. The Sense Motive check is automatic. This is a game of generalities, why don't you go argue that shields don't cover your back. If I come to the city gates and a guard comes out and asks me "Where are you from?" and I answer "Dyvers" (falsely), is the guard performing a sense motive or is he going through the same motions as the previous two hundred people in line? Which is why he can take 10 (and add the -5 for not giving a rat's ass). Sense Motive automatically occurs. It is a passive skill, it's always there and especially on Bluff checks because the skill itself says you make a Bluff against the opponent's Sense Motive.
Vegepygmy 04-10-07, 03:46 PM	You clearly haven't understood what I keep saying.An inane argument based around a personal theory that reasons out as well as my theory does.That's just further proof that you haven't understood what I keep saying.