Can you take 20 in 4th edition?

[HarbingerX]

Exactly. 4e's approach is to only require a roll if there is a chance of failure. I don't have my DMG here, but I believe it's on p.42. If you are only rolling when there is a chance of failure, then take 20 doesn't provide much value - since it was exactly for those situation where success would be automatic.

 

[James McMurray]

I use take 20 for my monsters, when they hide, making an ambush. That's about it.

Have the PCs ever noticed an ambush before it was sprung?

 

[evilbob]

If they have the time to do so, and they will succeed, in reality, they're not accomplishing a difficult task, but rather, it's a trivial task and should not require a roll in the first place. Don't bother assigning DCs, just hand wave it and move on.

I think this is an excellent solution to this issue. I think even works in the "concealed doors" example. And frankly I like it a lot better than the "you try once, and can't try again until next level" thing - I disliked that rule for 3.5 spellcrafting wizards and I dislike it still.

 

[Jack99]

Have the PCs ever noticed an ambush before it was sprung?

Quite often actually. The cleric has 30 in passive perception, so that might have to do with it. Off the top of my head, I would say that he spots most monsters, except those who are really good at hiding. He is still amply rewarded for specializing in perception.

Although, just to be fair, it's not as black and white as "the monsters always take 20 when they ambush". It's more a "if the monsters have a long time to prep for an ambush in a spot of their choosing, they can take 20 on the stealth rolls, to simulate the fact that well, they are really well hidden". I guess I could just give them some bonuses, but with multiple monsters and the roll of the dice, chances are someone always will spot at least one of them before they can spring the ambush.

 

[DracoSuave]

Unfortunately, Stealth does not work that way, being an opposed roll. You can't take twenty on an opposed roll in 3e for obvious reasons.

 

[Jack99]

Unfortunately, Stealth does not work that way, being an opposed roll. You can't take twenty on an opposed roll in 3e for obvious reasons.

I know how it worked in 3.x. But if you prefer, I guess I can say that I let them take 10, and add a +10 modifier for having a long time to set things up? Would that be better? Same result, last I checked.

Anyway, sorry I mentioned it, it seems to have derailed the discussion slightly.

Cheers

 

[DracoSuave]

If they set things up, then you design the encounter to have favorable man-made terrain to make their initial stealth checks with. Start the sneakier guys -behind cover- where Stealth checks don't mean a damn, as they start off unseen anyways.

I'm guesstimating your Cleric is either a level 14 cleric who started with 18 wisdom and took Skill Training/multiclassed to get perception, or is a level 24 cleric.

1) If you want to use stealth against your party, use stealth monsters. Night hag (level 14 Lurker) has a Stealth of +16, which your cleric is still good against, but it isn't auto lose. If it's the level 24 variant, taking 20 means your monster is never seen, period, with +24 to his checks.

2) If it's the former case, then the Cleric spent a feat or two to be perceptive. Instead of changing the rules just so you can continue to ambush the party the old 'cause the dice said so' way, create encounters where you flat out say 'Alright, here's the monsters you see' while having monsters use terrain in a way the Cleric -cannot- see them until the last. This way, the Cleric can feel like a hero for seeing monsters who hide (which is fair, he spent valuable character resources into being able to do so), and players who are NOT the Cleric can actually have a chance of seeing monsters -at all.-

It's not an arms race, this D&D.

 

[ceswiedler]

Am I missing something here?

Taking 20 never guaranteed success. It had nothing to do with whether or not you could fail. It simply meant that in cases where you could retry as many times as you wanted, you would eventually roll a 20, so it just short-circuited the process and gave you the 20, at the expense of some time used. Frequently, rolling a 20 doesn't mean you'll succeed, and so taking 20 won't help anyway.

The rules were pretty clear that you could only take 20 in a situation where trying 20-30 times was okay. That meant you couldn't do it in any combat situation, or in any situation where you couldn't retry without consequences (e.g. if failing to pick the lock carries the chance that the chest will explode).

A lock which requires a 19-20 to pick by the party rogue is not a trivial challenge. It's a lock which he/she finds difficult to pick but which can eventually be picked with enough time. A lock which requires a 21+ to pick is one which they just can't pick even with enough time on their hands.

So why does taking 20 not apply to 4e?

 

[Caliban]

If they set things up, then you design the encounter to have favorable man-made terrain to make their initial stealth checks with. Start the sneakier guys -behind cover- where Stealth checks don't mean a damn, as they start off unseen anyways.

I'm guesstimating your Cleric is either a level 14 cleric who started with 18 wisdom and took Skill Training/multiclassed to get perception, or is a level 24 cleric.

Doesn't need to be nearly that high. I have an 8th level wizard with a 31 passive perception. Elf (+2), 20 Wisdom (+5), Trained (+5), Skill Focus (+3), lvl 8 (+4), Diadem of Acuity (+2) = +21 bonus, 31 passive.

 

[Nail]

Doesn't need to be nearly that high. I have an 8th level wizard with a 31 passive perception. (Elf (+2), 20 Wisdom (+5), Trained (+5), Skill Focus (+3), lvl 8 (+4), Diadem of Acuity (+2) = +21 bonus, 31 passive.

Does your PC ever fail to spot an ambush?