Taking 10/20 on Survival Checks?

[Alistaroc]

I haven't found any official sources that say you can, or that you can't. My players are looking to hire an NPC to forage for their squad as they travel, but I don't know whether or not the guide can take 10. I realize as DM I can just decide, but I don't know whether or not I want to allow/deny it.

Are there any official resources for this?

If not, are there any key points to making a decision?

[The Insanity]

I'd say there's no reason you couldn't take 10, but because a Survival check to forrage for food takes hours (to a full day) you can't take 20 since then you would take 20 times that much time.

[Ashtagon]

The official rule is (paraphrased) "only when you're not threatened or distracted", with combat being given as the only example. Which basically leaves this open to a LOT of interpretation.

Clearly, you're not actually in combat all day.

But although the character is not actually in combat, in any place that's wilderness enough to make Survival checks sensible, there's a fairly constant threat that the next blind corner you turn around or hill you go over will reveal a combat. That's enough to be distracting in some peoples books.

An intermediate approach would be to base things on Maslow's theories. As long as basic physiological needs (food, water, warmth, rest) and basic safety needs (security, safety) are met, you can take 10. That would exclude most Survival checks, but allow long-term Craft checks back at home base.

In gamist terms, take 10 is intended to speed up "nuisance rolls", where the result is reasonably certain but constant checking would slow the game down unacceptably. Using this as the sole criterion would, however, result in revealing to the players whether food supplies (or whatever else is being checked for) are a plot point or not.

Basically, it's a GM call, but common sense would suggest that the group collectively decide what is allowed before the session where it becomes critically important.

[Reversefigure4]

The official rule is (paraphrased) "only when you're not threatened or distracted", with combat being given as the only example. Which basically leaves this open to a LOT of interpretation.

I'd take "is the environment dangerous enough to be an outright threat?" as a good measuring stick.

In a standard woodland full of deer, hunting for a day's food isn't that hard (for a standard 10 Wisdom adventurer who grew up in that environment). Taking 10 merely removes a tedious roll, and having to deal with pointless complications. You're merely travelling through the woodland on the way to the adventure.

On a desert island filled with hostile cannibals, the environment is the adventure, so no Take 10.

As mentioned, Taking 20 is infeasible due to the time it takes. You spend longer collecting the food than the period you need to eat it for.

If relevant, it's also worth remember that while the standard DC is 10, it changes based on the environment. Finding food and water in the pleasant woodlands is only a DC10 - anyone can do it - while finding it in the barren wastelands might be DC15 or 20.

[Gallowglass]

I would just like to understand how it's more economical to hire a guy to walk along with you, hunting and gathering (and potenially making pots of stew for you) than to buy a few bags of iron rations when you pass through a town.

Adventuring styles of the 1%.

"Jeeves, I'm so sick of juniper spiced wild boar! can't you forage something else?"

"My name isn't Jeeves, sir, its Gruff Huntington."

[grarrrg]

I would just like to understand how it's more economical to hire a guy to walk along with you, hunting and gathering (and potenially making pots of stew for you) than to buy a few bags of iron rations when you pass through a town

Economical? No.
In character sanity saving? Possibly.

It's all well and good to state, out of character, that you just brought along a metric ton of cheap, bland food and eat nothing but that.

But if _you_ were _actually_ traveling, how happy would you be looking forward to your next meal? The same mystery meat and infinite shelf life bread every. single. day.

So yeah, if you got a few coin to spare, and don't have a caster capable/willing to magic up some food, then employing Mr. Huntington isn't the worst thing.

[Alistaroc]

The reason for the guide is hopefully he'll support and train the settlers as they move into the frontier.

As for ruling the closest thing I can find (still) is the 3rd party feat Grazing which allows taking 10 to forage, implying you can't without it.
I don't know if i should take that perspective though.

EDIT: Not enforcing alignment restrictions, a Bloody Jake Slayer makes the best low-level survivor I can find. Survivalist trait for +5, +4 and moving at full speed from Live Off the Land, and double effectiveness from Explorer. All told, with 18 Wis, Fishing Tackle, Cracked Incandescent Blue Sphere, and Masterwork Tools we're looking at +21 bonus.

[Glimbur]

I would rule that you can take 10 unless you are already starving, dehydrated, etc. Not sure how RAW that is but it feels reasonable.

[Crake]

If you allow take 10 on survival checks, then there's literally 0 reason to bring along someone to survival for food for you, as you would literally need a penalty on your survival check to not be able to provide for yourself. Bringing along an expert is pointless, because the expert is slowed just as much, so everyone is equally slowed, and there's no benefit gained overall. Everyone may as well survival for themselves at no loss.

[Elkad]

Of course if Huntington has a REALLY good survival check (+40ish), he can take10, move full speed, and provide for the whole party.
Moving half-speed and taking 10 matters. Some of your trips will be in a hurry. Even if they aren't, you might have twice as many wandering monster checks to deal with. (depends if your DM is a 1/day or a 1/trip kinda guy).

There is also "non-wild" to consider. If you are riding down the King's Highway, poaching the King's Rabbits might be looked on harshly. Now hopefully in this situation there will be inns, but maybe not.

Someone always moves slow too. So if they are selfish the 40' barb just eats berries and squirrels, while the 20' dwarf has to eat rations the whole time. This is the actual solution to Huntington. If he has a move of 40 and a good check, he can go half-speed and still keep up with the heavy armor types while feeding everyone.

The gripping hand is that if you have a reasonably sized party, and they all roll individually, it's pretty darn likely that someone will roll well enough to provide for those that fail. So as long as you don't mind moving half-speed the whole time, you can start the trip with a couple days of emergency rations to cover when everyone rolls bad, and forage the whole way anyway. Which means allowing them to take10 is pretty minimal impact unless they are either solo or starting with nothing.

[Jack_Simth]

I would just like to understand how it's more economical to hire a guy to walk along with you, hunting and gathering (and potenially making pots of stew for you) than to buy a few bags of iron rations when you pass through a town.

A Per Spellcasting and Services, a "trained hireling" is 3 sp/day. It's unclear exactly what that trained hireling looks like, but the text is "The amount given is the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings. This value represents a minimum wage; many such hirelings require significantly higher pay."

A human Expert-1 with ranks in Survival would probably be a Trained Hireling, and would be rolling at a +4 bonus (or taking ten at a +4 bonus, for a 14), possibly higher (e.g., Skill Focus, Masterwork tool, a Wis score above 11...). Per Survival, that lets the hireling take care of himself and two others in "normal" circumstances at the "minimum expert".

On the other hand, trail rations are 5 sp/person/day (and you need to pack them), or 10 sp/day compared to what the hireling would cost. You're moving at half speed with the hireling, so for distance traveled, that's effectively 5 sp/day compared to the hireling's 3 sp/day.

...

So yes, if you've got a party, it's more cost-effective to hire someone to forage for you than it is to pack trail rations.

[Elkad]

Probably more like 3/4 speed with the hireling, on the assumption that someone moves 20 and the hireling is moving half of 30. So you might manage a small savings.

[Jon_Dahl]

I have random encounters in my games and a poor survival check (less than 10) means that your chances of random encounters rise up significantly. Survival works by RAW but random encounters are, as they should be, somewhat ad hoc. In other words, taking 10 is not possible because rolling less than 5 in a survival check should have dire consequences in what you could consider as a dark forest in fantasy context.

[zlefin]

Balance-wise, it shouldn't be a problem to have the guide providing food; there's plenty of other ways to cover all your food needs from very levels anyways.

note that a hireling is also someone you'll have to protect if they get into trouble; and they'll need a plan for when you get to your destination. (i.e. for them to accept a job, they'd need a reliable plan for how they get back to where they want to be/were initially; whether that's a problem depends on the situation. but they may not want to wander back through wilderness alone).

it seems to me like there aren't enough modifiers to the survival roll; there should be more modifiers to account for season, terrain, and random local variation.

[Minion #6]

According to developer James Jacobs, you can take 10 on all skill checks - I would assume that "other than UMD" is implied, as you can't take 10 on UMD.

[Ashtagon]

According to developer James Jacobs, you can take 10 on all skill checks - I would assume that "other than UMD" is implied, as you can't take 10 on UMD.

His reply is that all skills have use-cases in which take 10 is an option. However, he doesn't say that all use-cases present the option of taking 10. He doesn't even say that all use-cases outside of combat allow for taking 10.