Whirtlestaff's Wizards' Acad. Revisited, OOC02

[Scott DeWar]

lets look at the mysterious door first, then plan what we need to do about it and then visit the jewler or ask capi for an appraisal, then do some identifying and then go attack the monsters in the basement!

 

[Leif]

Hehe, too late! You're already through the door and down the passage!

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Can you take 10 (or 20) on checks where failure means damage or inability to retry the check?

 

[KerlanRayne]

Can you take 10 (or 20) on checks where failure means damage or inability to retry the check?

You can take 10 but not 20.

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

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.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Ah. For some reason, I find the whole notion a little disturbing. Maybe it's because it seems to lessen the importance of skills and I've always been a proponent of moving toward a skill based system.

Or maybe it's because I have a problem with the whole idea of 'when failure carries a penalty.' Doesn't failure carry a penalty by definition? You don't get to do whatever you were trying to do.

Not trying to argue with the rules, just 'typing out loud' and trying to get my head around something that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Scotley]

I think there are a couple of good reasons for taking 10 and taking 20. They are different. You take 10 to represent the easy things that any reasonably skilled person should be able to do. If you are a true master of the skill +20 or better then when taking 10 you can do even really hard stuff (DC30 or better) with ease. Makes sense. If you have little or no skill say less than 5, then even moderately difficult stuff DC15 or better is out of reach. Makes sense too.

Taking 20 is a little different. If you have plenty of time to kill then eventually you should be able to accomplish even fairly hard things if you have some skill. Again that makes sense. If there is a decent chance you could get hurt doing it then it no longer makes sense that you should be able to keep at it until you succeed. Presumably that's where you get hurt before you succeed. Thus the limit on 'when failure carries a penalty'. At least that's the way I understand it.

The idea has grown with 4e into skill challenges--now taking 10 or 20 isn't enough. It actually makes skills more important which you may like. Now it takes multiple successes often with more than one person and skill to succeed on something important. If you screw up too many times then there is no chance of success. Taking ten grew into passive perception checks and knowledge checks. Instead of a roll the assumption is that anyone with a certain level of skill is automatically going to succeed. Which isn't a bad assumption, but it also has an important advantage of speeding things up from a purely mechanical stand point.

 

[Leif]

Ah. For some reason, I find the whole notion a little disturbing. Maybe it's because it seems to lessen the importance of skills and I've always been a proponent of moving toward a skill based system.

Not trying to argue with the rules, just 'typing out loud' and trying to get my head around something that doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree. And please quit typing so loud?

I think there are a couple of good reasons for taking 10 and taking 20. They are different. You take 10 to represent the easy things that any reasonably skilled person should be able to do. If you are a true master of the skill +20 or better then when taking 10 you can do even really hard stuff (DC30 or better) with ease. Makes sense. If you have little or no skill say less than 5, then even moderately difficult stuff DC15 or better is out of reach. Makes sense too.

Taking 20 is a little different. If you have plenty of time to kill then eventually you should be able to accomplish even fairly hard things if you have some skill. Again that makes sense. If there is a decent chance you could get hurt doing it then it no longer makes sense that you should be able to keep at it until you succeed. Presumably that's where you get hurt before you succeed. Thus the limit on 'when failure carries a penalty'. At least that's the way I understand it.

The idea has grown with 4e into skill challenges--now taking 10 or 20 isn't enough. It actually makes skills more important which you may like. Now it takes multiple successes often with more than one person and skill to succeed on something important. If you screw up too many times then there is no chance of success. Taking ten grew into passive perception checks and knowledge checks. Instead of a roll the assumption is that anyone with a certain level of skill is automatically going to succeed. Which isn't a bad assumption, but it also has an important advantage of speeding things up from a purely mechanical stand point.

....uh, yeah, what the Rules Guru said.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

Makes sense, I guess . . .

 

[Scott DeWar]

imagine if yoou will, your mom. she had eyes in the back of her head, or you could say she could take a 10 on spot and listen to know exactly what yoou were doing. thus passive listening.

 

[Leif]

DeWar, got your pm, and life is pretty okay!