Anyone else hope the rules for taking 10 & 20 see some revision?

[Treebore]

I had a DM one time that disallowed Take 10 for opposed rolls like Hide and Move Silently.

Our party of 4 PCs tried to stealth past some enemies. I said, "I get 18 on Hide and Move Silently."

"You didn't roll," the DM said.

"I Take 10 on them."

He explained his dislike and disapproval of the Take 10 mechanics. So I rolled for both skills.

"Okay. I get 12 on Hide, and 24 on Move Silently."

The the other 3 Players had to roll their two checks, and the DM wrote down all our numbers. Then the DM had to roll 2 checks (Spot and Listen) for each of the enemies.

So he wrote down 8 different numbers and rolled 8 times to compare results. The whole thing could have been handled with Take 10 much faster with less wildly varying numbers.


As for Take 10 with things like +10 vs. +8 skill modifiers -- use the "DM's best friend" rule. Let the less skilled character declare that he's taking his time on the climb to get a +2 circumstance bonus. Poof! The more skilled character scales the wall at the normal climb speed, and the less skilled climber manages to get up but takes more time.


Mark me down as one who thinks Take 10 and Take 20 are wonderful rules. When understood and used, they have always saved time and improved the play of the game, in my experience.

Quasqueton

My biggest problem with "Taking 20" is people thinking searching for traps should have no positive negative consequence be allowed. If you fail to find the trap you walk into it. So there is risk. However players will argue how did they set it off since they only came with in 10 feet of it, or some such nonsense. If the DM says you could have gotten nailed by the trap, if the DM thinks you would have had to practically be on top of the trap, then you do. Using the wording of "Take 20" to say you found a carefully hidden trap from 10 feet away is a "rules lawyer cop out", not anything based on realistic, or common sense.

Guaranteeing that people can find traps, unless you make them well above their level, is baloney. Guess I am old school in thinking that traps should be dangerous to find, let alone disarm. If so I am glad I am old school.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I had a DM one time that disallowed Take 10 for opposed rolls like Hide and Move Silently.

Our party of 4 PCs tried to stealth past some enemies. I said, "I get 18 on Hide and Move Silently."

"You didn't roll," the DM said.

"I Take 10 on them."

He explained his dislike and disapproval of the Take 10 mechanics. So I rolled for both skills.

"Okay. I get 12 on Hide, and 24 on Move Silently."

The the other 3 Players had to roll their two checks, and the DM wrote down all our numbers. Then the DM had to roll 2 checks (Spot and Listen) for each of the enemies.

So he wrote down 8 different numbers and rolled 8 times to compare results. The whole thing could have been handled with Take 10 much faster with less wildly varying numbers.

The number of die rolls will be reduced when Hide and Move Silently are rolled into "Stealth."

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'd have packed up and left right there. A DM who does not use the Take 10 and/or Take 20 rules because of "dislike and disapproval" (or even worse, inability to understand them) isn't worth wasting time on, regardless of any other considerations. He's basically saying "I like to pointlessly waste my time and yours for no benefit to the game".

Your way or the highway, eh?

 

[Felon]

A simple 1-round search is a roll. A search for a few minutes would be Taking 10. A search for half an hour would be Taking 20.

Where the heck did you get this from???

(hint: not the PHB)

 

[Storm Raven]

Your way or the highway, eh?

I don't have time to waste on games where the DM either doesn't know the rules, or wants to fritter away time on pointless busy-work. With work, wife, kids, and so on, my gaming time is limited. I see no reason to squander it on a foolish DM.

 

[FireLance]

My biggest problem with "Taking 20" is people thinking searching for traps should have no positive negative consequence be allowed. If you fail to find the trap you walk into it. So there is risk. However players will argue how did they set it off since they only came with in 10 feet of it, or some such nonsense. If the DM says you could have gotten nailed by the trap, if the DM thinks you would have had to practically be on top of the trap, then you do. Using the wording of "Take 20" to say you found a carefully hidden trap from 10 feet away is a "rules lawyer cop out", not anything based on realistic, or common sense.

I'm sure that it's possible to strike some balance between making things too easy for the players and giving them no benefit at all for investing in Search. The idea of partial successes has previously been mentioned - perhaps all the PC can tell from a visual inspection from 10 feet away is that something is wrong, and he needs to take a closer look (if he didn't have enough ranks in Search, he wouldn't even have realized that). Once he's right on top of the trap, he might be required to make a Dexterity or Disable Device check (to represent his ability to poke and prod stuff safely) each round that he Searches for the mechanism to avoid setting it off - thus making it impossible to take 20.

This turns handling certain traps (not all traps, especially those with low CR, need to be like this) into a three stage process:

1. Search (with take 20) or possibly Spot: something's wrong
2. Search (cannot take 20): find the mechanism; secondary check to ensure you don't set it off while Searching
3. Disable Device: neutralize the trap

Similarly, when searching for other things which should not be discovered by a simple visual search, the Search check can turn up something which the PC has to interact with further. If something is hidden behind a painting, the Search check could reveal that the painting is slightly tilted, or the wall behind the painting is scuffed, as if the painting was constantly moved. The player will then have to decide whether the PC moves the painting (possibly triggering an alarm or a trap) or leaves it alone.

As a DM, I prefer tension to surprise. When bad things happen to the players, I would rather it to have been the result of a meaningful decision (e.g. moving the painting instead of leaving it alone) and not because the player decided to go east instead of west.

 

[Felon]

So he wrote down 8 different numbers and rolled 8 times to compare results. The whole thing could have been handled with Take 10 much faster with less wildly varying numbers.

I'll grant that that your DM's actions seem excessive, but there are considerations that are more important to some folks than speed. He probably wanted varying numbers.

I'd have packed up and left right there. A DM who does not use the Take 10 and/or Take 20 rules because of "dislike and disapproval" (or even worse, inability to understand them) isn't worth wasting time on, regardless of any other considerations.

I don't have time to waste on games where the DM either doesn't know the rules, or wants to fritter away time on pointless busy-work. With work, wife, kids, and so on, my gaming time is limited. I see no reason to squander it on a foolish DM.

Wow. With such an unwillingness to compromise, with such quickness to deem a DM foolish for not running his game according to your preferences, there is little point to gaming with other people, period. Do you?

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd have packed up and left right there. A DM who does not use the Take 10 and/or Take 20 rules because of "dislike and disapproval" (or even worse, inability to understand them) isn't worth wasting time on, regardless of any other considerations. He's basically saying "I like to pointlessly waste my time and yours for no benefit to the game".

What if the DM were your best friend? What if the DM were your brother? What if every single game, the group laughed its ass off several times a session because of the enjoyable people there?

This is an extremist attitude. There are a LOT of other considerations which would keep me in a game. This is way too trivial of an issue to make such a stink over.

Note: A DM could rule that Take 10 does not apply in that circumstance since the PC is distracted (i.e. worried about being spotted). Would you leave under that circumstance as well? Is your interpretation of the rule better than the DM's?

 

[Yalius]

Guess this qualifies me as a RBDM, but in my campaigns, not only can you not take 20 for anything, but if you fail your roll, you can't try again until your skill improves. I'm OK with taking 10, though. But if you take 10 and it still isn't enough, you can't try again until your have a higher skill.

 

[Taralan]

I may be wrong but it seems I detect a players/DM dichotomy about take 10 and take 20.

The players seems to find these extremely useful since it really empowers them removing randomness and of course allowing them to maximize the skill. However, as a DM I wonder if these players have considered the impact of the automatic fail or success that it creates for the DM.

Its not that the DM is out to get them and likes to roll a ton of useless rolls, its rather that some DM prefers that there remains some surprises/randomness in the game. With the way take10/take 20 works, it means that I basicaly have to decide in advance if my players will or not find the trap or if they will or not be able to sneak in the cavern or if they will be able or not to climb the mountain etc. This in facts forces the DM into the worst kind of railroading in a sense. The game in much fairer and much more interesting for the DM (and the players) if he knows there is a POSSIBILITY of success but not if there will be or not success even before the adventure begings.

Therefore I think the goal is to find a new mechanic that allows to retain these advantages that players (and DM) likes, while still keeping an element of uncertainty, and of course while removing the extreme distortion of probability mentionned by the OP.

The solution may not be easy, but I have seen some interesting suggestion on these boards. Maybe one solution would be in fact to have some randomness in the DC themselves (DC20+1d6 for example), but that doesn't seem optimal to me.

To anyone that does not seem to recognize the problem, I dare suggest that you have not attempted to set a lot of DC since 3e came along and probably are a player or rely on pre-made adventures...