Alternative to Taking 10

[Urbannen]

I don't like the Taking 10 mechanic. I want to propose this alternative to my players: "Doubling the time spent reduces the DC by 5."

Why get rid of Taking 10?

- It creates wide disparities in out-of-combat skill performance. For instance, a character with a +4 bonus performing a DC 15 skill check has a 50% chance to succeed; a character with a +5 bonus performing the same check has a 100% chance to succeed.

- There are many cases in which Taking 10 may not make sense yet it is allowed by the rules. For instance, a character can take 10 on an out-of-combat Knowledge check, but not during combat.

- The game already has another system for automatic skill success. If the skill bonus is equal to the DC minus 1, the check will always succeed. I think automatic successes are fine, but Taking 10 gives an automatic result.

I feel "Double the time, DC reduced by 5" mimics the intention of the Taking 10 rule and increases the likelihood of an automatic success, without giving players an automatic result.

The Taking 10 rule talks about how players who have plenty of time and aren't under pressure can take 10. But the game gives no skill check modifiers for actually taking more time to do something.

While Climbing, by going twice as slow (1/4 normal movement), the DC is reduced by 5. This makes sense to me - if I'm performing a physical feat like Climbing, going slowly is where the advantage comes from, not lack of pressure.

 

[Tilenas]

I've never liked the take 10 mechanic either, especially in cases where a failure has some meaningful drawback, like climbing...

Player: "I take a look at the crevice I'm about to scale. How hard does this seem to me?"
DM: "you should be able to climb to the top."
Player: "Alright, I take 10."
DM: "You fall."

I guess this is a really common problem. The DM doesn't want to give away the DC without some other check (such as geography or whatever) and the player is in a dilemma as well. Should he roll (and risk a low result) where he could have taken 10 and succeeded or should he play it save, only to find out he needed a higher result?

In your variant, neither problem arises, as the player rolls anyway. He can increase his chance of success by moving very carefully, but the chance of failure is still there, keeping up the excitement.

 

[Kerrick]

I like it. I've always thought take 10/take 20 was dumb, both logically and mechanically (especially take 20), but this alternative makes sense.

One (minor) quibble, though: someone with a +4 bonus taking 10 on a DC 15 check will never succeed, because he can only make 14.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

One (minor) quibble, though: someone with a +4 bonus taking 10 on a DC 15 check will never succeed, because he can only make 14.

I think the OP was referring to the odds of rolling an 11+ on a d20 -- 50%, when he was comparing a +4 vs. a +5. In other words, the players somehow figured out the DC and thus one knows to roll and the other not to.

I like take 10, even with the flaws, and especially for the fact that it speeds up gameplay. I mean, when i'm a Rogue geeze... so many times I just tell the DM, "ok, I'll just take 10 and actively perform the skill unless situations change." Like...sneaking. Or trap searching. I'm sorry if your experience is different, but in my groups, rolling frequently for traps gets really boring. This system would still require the rolls.

That said, it's OK for what the OP wants to fix. I'd almost recommend some kind of variation instead if it bothers him so much (like base 10, +/-2 as determined secretly by the DM with a d4 roll), but I guess that just stretches the arbitrary succeed/fail lines instead of erasing them. Not that the OP's solution isn't removing them, either. If a 10 would make it, then the OP's system is basically just making it "take 5" in terms of auto success.

I would limit this to out of combat usage, it's far too punative to force a player to waste two turns in combat for a guaranteed success. Especially since if they're able to take 10 at all, they probably burnt a class feature or feat (like the rogue's skill mastery) to do it. Which brings up a question...if you get rid of take 10, what happens to abilities that bolster it?

 

[Urbannen]

I guess this is a really common problem. The DM doesn't want to give away the DC without some other check (such as geography or whatever) and the player is in a dilemma as well. Should he roll (and risk a low result) where he could have taken 10 and succeeded or should he play it save, only to find out he needed a higher result?

I never thought about this problem before, but it's a good point. But I'm not usually secretive about DCs for Climbing since they are already laid out in the PHB.

I like it. I've always thought take 10/take 20 was dumb, both logically and mechanically (especially take 20), but this alternative makes sense.

I actually have no problem with Taking 20. With Taking 20 you're doing the action 20 times, so for the sake of smooth game play it's assumed that you will get a 20 at least once rather than having to roll until you get a 20 (or whatever result you need). Taking 10 is different because it gives you an automatic result for one attempt.

One (minor) quibble, though: someone with a +4 bonus taking 10 on a DC 15 check will never succeed, because he can only make 14.

The character with +4 can't take 20 on his out-of-combat skill check, and so has to roll randomly to achieve the 15. His chance of success is 50% (succeeds on 11-20). This contrasts with the character with +5 who can automatically succeed by Taking 10.

 

[Urbannen]

I like take 10, even with the flaws, and especially for the fact that it speeds up gameplay. I mean, when i'm a Rogue geeze... so many times I just tell the DM, "ok, I'll just take 10 and actively perform the skill unless situations change." Like...sneaking. Or trap searching. I'm sorry if your experience is different, but in my groups, rolling frequently for traps gets really boring. This system would still require the rolls.

I do things a bit differently in my game, it's true. A rogue moving at half speed automatically makes Search checks, meaning I, the DM, roll for him whenever he passes something. If a character is Moving Silently but doesn't know about a creature in his vicinity, I make the roll for him. Yeah, players don't always like it, but it moves the game along.

Not that the OP's solution isn't removing them, either. If a 10 would make it, then the OP's system is basically just making it "take 5" in terms of auto success.

I don't see it as Taking 5. It's like a +5 circumstance bonus. +4 and +5 are still just one rank apart to hit a DC 10 after the DC 15 has been lowered by 5. Using the rule, a +4 bonus would automatically succeed at any DC 10 task out of combat, while a +5 bonus would automatically succeed at any DC 11 task out of combat. That's pretty reasonable. Otherwise your average 1st level character can automatically succeed at so-called "tough" tasks (DC 15) when not in combat.

I would limit this to out of combat usage, it's far too punative to force a player to waste two turns in combat for a guaranteed success. Especially since if they're able to take 10 at all, they probably burnt a class feature or feat (like the rogue's skill mastery) to do it. Which brings up a question...if you get rid of take 10, what happens to abilities that bolster it?

Right now there is no way to get a guaranteed success in combat unless your skill bonus is >= to DC minus 1. Characters would still be able to use it in combat, unlike Take 10. The prime example are moving maneuvers like Climb and Balance. I figure if the character is willing to risk moving at 1/4 speed during combat, the Climb/Balance task should be easier for them. Or say a character is trying to get a lock open while his comrades are holding off enemies: is he better off going slowly to earn -5 to the DC for a check every two rounds or attempting one normal check per round? It would be a tactical decision.

Skill Mastery would function normally, making it a more attractive option.

 

[Runestar]

I am not sure what the gripe with taking 20 is. It is really just the game's way of consolidating the player continually rerolling until a natural 20 comes up into a single check. Instead of the player wasting time rerolling over and over again until he gets a result he is satisfied with, you just say 'I take 20". Quick and concise.

Same with taking 10. The whole point is so that players don't waste time making rolls on checks they are likely to succeed with in the first place. From a risk mitigation POV, I like it. You can either choose to roll and accept the final result, for better or worse, or take 10, which essentially removes all chance from the equation. Especially for dcs you know you are likely to succeed on a roll of around 10 or more. Why wouldn't you take 10? This effectively lets you do away with all the downside risks.

- The game already has another system for automatic skill success. If the skill bonus is equal to the DC minus 1, the check will always succeed. I think automatic successes are fine, but Taking 10 gives an automatic result.

That might be the whole idea, you know. In short, the DCs are what they are precisely because the designers assumed that the players would be able to take 10. So dcs for automatic successes are 10 points higher than what they normally would be because of this ability to take 10!

You rarely ever encounter situations where the rogue encounters a trap whose DC is lower than his disable device rating.

 

[Tilenas]

Same with taking 10. The whole point is so that players don't waste time making rolls on checks they are likely to succeed with in the first place.

I don't see how an effective DC (actual DC - skill modifier) of 10 equates a likely success. It's a 55% success rate (and I strongly believe it'd be 50/50 if it weren't for simplicities sake...). Since you cannot take 10 when in a stressful situation (like combat), I'd say the option was only implemented to prevent PC failure at very mundane tasks. Either way, I don't like the idea that taking 10 can bump up your success rate from 50% to 100% by increasing the skill modifier by 1 (which is only 5% by itself).
I believe it breakes the whole game mechanic of d20 by doing away with the chance element that is supposed to be there (at least if the DC is higher than your modifier, as Urbannen rightfully pointed out).
As for the feats that build on taking 10: I'd allow one reroll per check and making the second roll count so it doesn't get abused.

 

[Runestar]

Either way, I don't like the idea that taking 10 can bump up your success rate from 50% to 100% by increasing the skill modifier by 1 (which is only 5% by itself).

Then simply use challenges with dcs which require the PCs to roll an 11 or higher to succeed.

Afterall, the PCs won't know the DC required before they roll, so taking 10 represents a sort of risk in itself. The party still needs to determine and decide if the challenge involved can be passed on a roll of 10 or lesser (meaning that they can, and should use the take10 option), or if they should roll (meaning that they suspect the challenge can only be succeeded on a roll of 11 or better).

In the very least, I just have all npcs take 10 on their relevant skill checks to avoid the hassle of having to roll multiple times, and to avoid the extreme unpredictability of opposed d20 rolls.

 

[Tilenas]

Then simply use challenges with dcs which require the PCs to roll an 11 or higher to succeed.

That is exactly what I've been doing for quite some time.

Afterall, the PCs won't know the DC required before they roll, so taking 10 represents a sort of risk in itself. The party still needs to determine and decide if the challenge involved can be passed on a roll of 10 or lesser (meaning that they can, and should use the take10 option), or if they should roll (meaning that they suspect the challenge can only be succeeded on a roll of 11 or better).

True.

In the very least, I just have all npcs take 10 on their relevant skill checks to avoid the hassle of having to roll multiple times, and to avoid the extreme unpredictability of opposed d20 rolls.

Perfectly true, opposed checks are way too risky.
But I'd consider this use of taking 10 as being different from the PC option of taking 10, since it is done to reduce randomness and emphazise the difference in skill modifiers.
While trying to figure out whether or not to take 10 can be a fun challenge in itself, I handle any DC that is 10 higher than the PC's skill mod as appropriate: 55% success rate. And I don't think this is making things too difficult or putting PCs at shame on a regular basis by making them fail everyday tasks: Lvl1 PCs succeed on average tasks (DC 10) 75% of the time in their primary skills (those they bought 4 ranks in). Everyone else still has a decent chance of 55%, even though they are untrained.