D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] No Take 10/20 specifics?

[buzz]

For the record, I'm quite happy with 3.5e. The following item and the Pokemon paladin thing are the only aspects of the new edition that really bug me.

Anyway...

If there's any rule that I find players continually forgetting to use, it's Take 10/20.

The Star Wars RCR and d20 Modern both specifically state in each skill description when you can or can't Take 10/20. This was obviously a great idea, seemingly learning from the utter vagueness the 3.0e contained on the subject; we would end up consulting the SW skill descriptions all the time in our D&D games.

Why in deity's name couldn't they have done this in 3.5e as well? I can't fathom the logic.

 

[Joshua Randall]

They don't specify when you can Take 10 because you can always Take 10 as long as you are not threatened or distracted.

As for Take 20, I agree that it should've been specified. The PH 3.5 does address this in a roundabout fashion with the Try Again line in the skill descriptions: if you cannot Try Again, then you also cannot Take 20 (because Taking 20 implies trying again until you "roll" a 20). But the converse is not always true, and there are some skills which can be Tried Again under certain circumstances but not others.

There is an article on Sean K. Reynolds' web site about Take 20 that is a useful (albeit unofficial) reference. (Also keep in mind that the article was written for the 3.0 rules.)

 

[Psion]

They don't specify when you can Take 10 because you can always Take 10 as long as you are not threatened or distracted.

Which is not a good rule of thumb, IME. Do you think mages should be able to take 10 on spellcraft checks to learn new spells? I don't, even though it is obviously not something you are ever doing in a stressful sitation.

 

[bret]

Which is not a good rule of thumb, IME. Do you think mages should be able to take 10 on spellcraft checks to learn new spells? I don't, even though it is obviously not something you are ever doing in a stressful sitation.

I think they should be allowed to take 10.

If they have put the effort (read skill points) into spellcraft and are capable of casting the spell (they have spell slots of that level), the mage should be able to puzzle out the spell.

It should only be when they haven't invested the skill points or are trying to learn a spell they can't cast yet (too high of level) that they should fail.

When they take 10 on this, that is like an open book test. They have time to figure stuff out, so provided they have the background they should be able to figure it out.

It should only be when they haven't put enough effort into their skills or they are trying for a spell that they can't even cast yet that they fail the check.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Which is not a good rule of thumb, IME. Do you think mages should be able to take 10 on spellcraft checks to learn new spells? I don't, even though it is obviously not something you are ever doing in a stressful sitation.

No offense, Psion, but what you (or I) think is irrelevant. Here is the Take 10 rule:

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.

A mage trying to learn a new spell is (presumably) not being threatened or distracted, so by the rules he can indeed Take 10 on a Spellcraft check. The "not being threatened or distracted" part is the only qualifier on when you can Take 10.

 

[seankreynolds]

{There is an article on Sean K. Reynolds' web site about Take 20 that is a useful (albeit unofficial) reference. (Also keep in mind that the article was written for the 3.0 rules.)}

Here's the link for that. I suppose I could do a 3.5 update for it....

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/take20.html

 

[Jaws]

Here's the link for that. I suppose I could do a 3.5 update for it....

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/take20.html

A 3.5 update would be awesome.


Peace and smiles

j.

 

[Psion]

No offense, Psion, but what you (or I) think is irrelevant.

So you think what players think is reasonable and logical is irrelevant?

Here is the Take 10 rule:

Yes, I know what the rule says.

A mage trying to learn a new spell is (presumably) not being threatened or distracted, so by the rules he can indeed Take 10 on a Spellcraft check. The "not being threatened or distracted" part is the only qualifier on when you can Take 10.

It is. But that's not the question. The question is: should it be? Should it be that cut and dry? Should it not be permissible to have other specific situations that are random enough that they can have specific rules implied that trump this all too cut and dried ruling? I rather think so.

So yes, thank you for explaining the rules to me, but I understand the existing rules perfectly well. The point is that would have instituting this refinement been a boon to the game? My point is that, by allowing for the rules to be more explicit, make it easier for them to be applied to specific situations, which IME is better. Unlike the square bases thing, this is a case where 3.5 really should have followed suit after the other d20 system games.

As the sig says, the rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

 

[Pielorinho]

It is. But that's not the question. The question is: should it be? Should it be that cut and dry? Should it not be permissible to have other specific situations that are random enough that they can have specific rules implied that trump this all too cut and dried ruling? I rather think so.

For a standard campaign, I tink this is fine: a waizard's learning of news pells is an integral ability, and I have no problem with its being something they can do reliably. I'm good at memorizing poetry, and when I set my mind to it, I can memorize a complicated poem without too much trouble; I see a wizard's ability as roughly analogous.

If you want a campaign in which magic is more mysterious, of course, it is a fine and minor house-rule to declare that a wizard cannot take 10 in this situation. You can't take 10 on bardic knowledge checks, even when you're neither distracted nor threatened, so there are clearly exceptions to the rule already; you'll just be making one more exception.

However, I don't think in any way it cheapens the game to allow take-10 on learning-spells checks. In fact, because learning spells is a housekeeping occurrence and not a moment of excitement, plot, or spectacle, I'd just as soon make it as quick and easy as possible to do: I think the rules best serve the game by allowing taking 10 and elminating the roll in most cases.

Daniel

 

[Joshua Randall]

If we base the game on what people think is reasonable and logical as opposed to what's in the rules, then we are no longer playing vanilla D&D: we are playing a homebrew. I was merely pointing out that the Take 10 rule is unambiguous in when it can be used. Whether or not this is reasonable or logical is not really the point: Take 10 is a game mechanic designed to make things faster by obviating the need for dice rolls on everything.

Of course if you want to introduce more uncertainty and randomness into your campaign (not to mention lots more dice rolling), then you can eliminate the Take 10 rule or severely restrict its use. But I think that would be a change for the worse.