Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[FitzTheRuke]

I am in the "Take 10" and "Take 20" are awesome camp. It had better exist in some form in 5e.

Don't worry - it does. Perhaps more than ever before.

 

[catsclaw227]

Some things are supposed to be a risk, and they have a chance of failure. But some things are not. What should and shouldn't require a roll is rooted in the effort to bring consistency to a setting.

So actually, that lift gate or bash door check should say: "I takes at least 220lbs of force to try to open/lift, and 350lbs to auto succeed."

So he'd roll if a single PC's strength gives them an auto 250lb check, but if helped by someone adding in 100lb STR, then why roll?

They seem to be removing take 10 anyway.
It's Take Ability Score now.

And I like it.

Honestly it doesn't matter what the "take" is, higher takes will just mean higher DCs. Sure, the 18str breaks down the DC 15 door, but lets face it, the guy with 18 str was probably going to have a 5-8 in their athletics skill and break down the door anyway. Really, a guy with 18 str is probably not going to fail on a DC 15 check anyway. Probability is low.

So then why add in the additional subsystem of "athletics" when it wasn't necessary?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Rolling over and over when it doesn't matter isn't fun, in my own opinion.

PCs know there's a secret door in a room, DC 20. PC has +10 to find it.

Player rolls, 12, roll again

Player rolls, 17, roll again

Player rolls, 15, roll again

Player rolls, 11, roll again

Player rolls, 19, roll again

I can keep going, but you get the picture.

No, I don't get the picture. Because it is hidden behind that secret door, and you haven't found it yet. Keep rolling!

 

[riotshieldnation]

As a GM, I'm against the idea of "taking ten" as an active tool that players have. If they could take ten in the situation, I just give it to them anyway. However, if they need to jump the five foot spiked pit (or anything with a moderate penalty for failure), I'm going to make them roll even with a low DC because rolling is part of the fun. To me, a lot of times when players ask to take ten, it feels like a slap in the face - like I'm above the system and just do what I want. I understand that take ten is useful at times, but I really don't like when my players try to force it on me as a gm.

Taking twenty is fine. If there's no penalty for failure, it's just saving everyone time.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The players know or the PC's know? If the PC's know then why are you having them roll anyway?

NPC Thief to PC: There is a secret door in the king's chambers. Go find it, and behind the door is a priceless picture. Bring it to me, and you will be rewarded well.

PC goes off and sneaks into the king's chambers when no one is looking, thinks to himself "I know there is a secret door here somewhere, now to find it."

There, PC knows there is a secret door, must still try to discover it before king returns to his chambers. How do you determine this?

(a) Well, NPC told him it was there, so no need to roll, he just knows where to look and finds it automatically (ie hand waving it)
(b) Keep rolling until you find it. If too many rounds go by, you'll be discovered! (ie rolling over and over again)
(c) PC is pretty wise, he knows the usual places to look for a secret door, under a rug, behind a curtain, behind the bookshelf. A few minutes go by and you discover the location of the secret door. (ie Wisdom + 10 or Taking 10 is enough to find it without rolling a bunch of times)

Which selection speeds up the game? Hint... NOT option (b)...

 

[Vegepygmy]

As a GM, I'm against the idea of "taking ten" as an active tool that players have. If they could take ten in the situation, I just give it to them anyway. However, if they need to jump the five foot spiked pit (or anything with a moderate penalty for failure), I'm going to make them roll even with a low DC because rolling is part of the fun. To me, a lot of times when players ask to take ten, it feels like a slap in the face - like I'm above the system and just do what I want. I understand that take ten is useful at times, but I really don't like when my players try to force it on me as a gm.

I'm the exact opposite of you. While I like rolling dice as much as the next gamer, I don't consider rolling "part of the fun." Having a chance of failure is only fun for me when the task is one that should be an actual challenge for my character. If my character has heavily invested in the Jump skill and now needs to jump over a pit, I don't want to have a chance of failure unless that pit is one no ordinary character would have any chance of leaping. I mean, obviously I'm a Jumper; I've made that one of those Things I Do, and it will only be frustrating and embarrassing for me if I fail to make an ordinary, run-of-the-mill jump now.

As a player, the take 10 rules make the game world more believable to me. I have a better idea of what my character is capable of doing. The world seems less "gamey" because of it. In my opinion, that's a good thing.

As a DM, I want to give my players as much control over their fates as I can. I'm no more offended by them wanting to take 10 in a given situation than I am by them wanting to Delay their turn or sell a magic item they've found. On the contrary, I love it when my players demonstrate their mastery of the rules and take our game to that "next level." It takes pressure off me and provides me a certain spectator-like enjoyment if I don't have to suggest to them that they move here to get a flanking bonus or Ready to interrupt the enemy spellcaster instead of just immediately attack him. I wish I could get my players to tell me they're taking 10 on a routine skill check, rather than continually have to ask them: "Taking 10 or rolling?"

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[Li Shenron]

Take 10 (and Take 20 in a different way) was a very reasonable rule, and that's why 5e is going to have something equivalent: you don't roll for easy tasks, unless circumstances introduce additional difficulties (which in fact means they are not easy tasks anymore).

The fact is, nobody said that "10" should have been the threshold for automatic success. "Take 1" could have been the intrinsic threshold if there had been no Take 10 rule.

The thing is it's not always about you failing to do something. If you try and lift a heavy gate and you fail, that failure could be anything from the gate slipped off the track or it became stuck. Also doing certain tasks you may do everyday is still inclined to failure at some point, that bad roll is supposed to represent those uncommon instances when something does happen. Professionals do mess up at times, professional isn't another word for perfection.

You can go farther than this. If you ignore the Take 10 rule or its equivalent and therefore roll for everything, you can in fact interpret this not only as randomness in your effort or circumstances but also in the randomness of the task itself. I mean, you can see a DC 15 for breaking wooden doors as average of all wooden doors in the world, but then not allowing Take 10 and Take 20 (i.e. also not allowing retries) means "let's see if I can break down this door", and if the random rolls result in a failure it just means that: even if this is a wooden door, perhaps the construction is such that you still don't manage to break this one down.

Generally speaking, I don't think the subject is simple at all to solve... Automatic success/failure is going to cause a lot of dissatisfaction with some tasks, such as detecting secret doors or traps. Players will just say "from now on, I am always in detect mode" and the DM has to decide if they will always or never find them. That's not fun...

Eventually it all depends on the nature of the tasks.

For example, I personally never allowed Take 10 on Knowledge checks. It's debatable, but I think it was the right thing to do. Knowledge checks are essentially clues, and allowing Take 10 means the DM is simply handling out a fixed set of clues. I always preferred instead to let the PC roll so that the clues would be random.

 

[Dausuul]

I have never liked the taking 10 rule because I feel that all things should have a chance of failure. Sometimes PC's would get to the point that they maxed out certain skills and then would just take 10 vs something that was meant to be a big deal.

If you can't take 10, then you have a 5% chance of failure in everything you do. Think about the sheer number of things that you, yourself, do which have the potential to kill you if you fail (e.g., driving to work). You'd be dead inside a month.

If it's a big deal for something to have a chance of failure, its DC should be high enough that taking 10 won't work, and/or it should force the PCs to attempt it under pressure. If PCs are able to optimize their way to grotesque skill bonuses and hit those DCs, that's a problem with the skill rules that let them get those bonuses.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I have a Feat in my game called Consistent Skill. It gives you a +1 bonus, and lets you take a 10 on one skill (or more than one skill if you have a high Intelligence). It's extremely popular, but usually only to about 2 skills per character. (In my point-buy RPG, a feat costs 1/5 of a level's worth of points, so not a tremendous investment, like it was in 3.X.)

A character with a high Intimidate and Consistent Skill at hit die 10 can reliably scare hit die 4 warriors. This is fine with me. He can't necessarily do so to hit die 10 characters, so rolling becomes attractive. This is also fine with me.

Certain character types, like assassins, want to be able to balance, climb, jump, and the like reliably. These concepts rely heavily on this feat. I'm fine with that.

Basically, if the player invests in it, he obviously wants to be able to reliably use his skill. There will be times when he can't, and he'll have to roll, but he'll outshine the party members most of the time in his area, without rolling. To me, that's great. It reflects that (N)PC's dedication, training, and talent in that area.

So, personally, I love the "take 10" rule. I'm fond of the "take 20" rule, as well. I know that if I was running the system, it'd get added in, just as I'd house rule it into other systems (especially systems where botches are possible). As always, play what you like

 

[Li Shenron]

If you can't take 10, then you have a 5% chance of failure in everything you do.

Only if you have an "automatic failure" rule, which was not the case in 3ed.

Anyway, some people would actually like that there is always a chance at failure.