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

[Taralan]

Hyperbole? It's useless to discuss something with someone who uses hyperbole for an argument. It makes me just ignore the rest of a post. If this is not hyperbole, please explain how there isn't "some surprises/randomness" in the game with Take 10/20.


I have never, ever, not once, seen Take 10 or Take 20 in any way hurt the game or hinder my DMing. In fact, it has always helped the game and helped my DMing. I've never had a problem with Take 10 or Take 20, and I consider it one of the best rules in d20. It's simple and useful, and does exactly what it's supposed to do every time it has been used.

Quasqueton

As I suspected, although those who believe the take10/take 20 rules are brilliant and claim that those who disagree just don't understand them, they seem rather to be the one who don't understand the problems and at least so far have not tried to comment on the core probability distortion and 0%-100% issue. At least Quasqueton admits that he doesn't see the problem.

I will try to explain one more time :

I am creating an adventure and decides to place a secret room that will be very difficult to find but with extremely great rewards as a fun little extra if the players look at the right place. I know my players have search at +5. Without take 10/take 20 I put the DC at say 20 and know they have about 25% chance to find it. With take 20 I am now stuck. Either I put a DC below 25 and now the room will automatically be found or I put a DC above 25 and the room will never be found and then what's the point in creating it. There is then no way to create a reward proportional to the challenge because it's now an all or nothing proposition and basicaly as a DM I just know the room WILL be found or I don't create it. This creates extremely predictible adventures and linear situations of the worst kind.

The same is true with take 10 and a climb check for example which removes all the risk, but here the greater problem is as mentionned by the OP the way it removes the risk entirely for someone with a climb +10 (DC 20) while someone who has climb +9 still has alsmost 50% chances of failure...

Frankly, I don't know how to explain it more clearly. It's not that its a game breaker of course, these rules can easily be removed, but this can create player resentment and of course we lose the advantage that you state about these rules and that we also recognize.

Therefore the idea is not to remove the take10/20 rules but to find a better implemantation. I am always astonished that poeple always seem to think that a rule is perfect and cannot be improved until somehow Wizards recognize the problem officialy and now suddenly they start posting that of course the rule was broken and needed to be replaced

 

[Gentlegamer]

To counter that, however, we'll see considerably more monsters in 4E encounters, meaning we'll still have a huge load of die rolls and comparing numbers.

Perhaps some of those opposed rolls will be turned into rolls against a static number, like how Saving Throws were changed in Star Wars Saga, or how AC works. This is really just Take 10, but the static number will be what the player rolls against, not what the player gets, in most cases (it is considered more interesting for the player to "control his fate" by rolling in most cases). So in Quas's example, he wouldn't Take 10 for his "Stealth" rolls, but the opponents would "Take 10" on their "Perception" rolls, so he would have to beat their "Perception" score.

Alternatively, the DM can make collective skill checks for groups of opponents to save die rolls.

If you don't want players to search for hard-to-find stashes, don't include them! The game isn't about rolling dice - it's about the players having fun, and sometimes "finding something carefully hidden in a sinister niche" is fun, even if you simply did it with a Take20.

I agree! It isn't about rolling dice: the player can search using descriptive action, which may simply be the prerequisite for allowing the Take 20; however, I would never keep a player from finding a secret just because his Search bonus is too low. Descriptive action gives the player a chance where the mere mechanical rules would dictate failure.

Please, don't hang up your game over little things like having the players groan over having to roll 60 times just to find that secret door, but instead have them be excited about what the evil mastermind might hide behind such a secret door.

I agree! The players shouldn't have to roll 60 times, but neither should they just automatically find it by declaring "I take 20 to search." There needs to be a bit more player effort than that in the matter. Descriptive action helps balance the roll with some role.

 

[KarinsDad]

In my gaming experience, most people who express that they think the rule doesn't work simply just don't understand the rule. Some folks in this thread have demonstrated that they don't understand the rule (like Take 10 taking longer to perform).

And, um, if you are against the rule, doesn't that mean you don't like it? I can't figure out how you could like a rule you think doesn't work. Especially when you're so adamantly against it.

I LOVE the idea behind Take 10 and Take 20. Not having to make a lot of rolls is great. In fact, not having to make a single roll is pretty good, but not the sole benefit of Take 10 and Take 20. Although I understand people will disagree with this, having no rolls at all is NOT the real goal behind Take 10 and Take 20. More of a side effect of which rule they came up with.

For Take 20, the real goal is to get rid of the out of character action of rolling the dice over and over again until a good roll is found. Rolling a lot is very slow at the table.

For Take 10, the real goal is to allow a PC to concentrate on the task at hand and get a reasonable result. The vaguaries of an entire D20 is not fun for simple tasks.

Those are the real goals and they are great goals. Not having to roll is a mere side effect of the implementation chosen.

I LOATHE the implementation of Take 10 and Take 20. While succeeding in it's goal nicely, it throws game elements like searching for traps right out the window.

Hence, I am ambivalent about the rule. I don't like it. I don't dislike it. I'm neutral towards it. They took two great ideas and screwed them up royally. I used to have a house rule against it, but I do not even have that anymore. My players only sometimes use Take 10 and Take 20, and do not abuse it, so I don't worry about it.

But, the implementation still sucks and if my players went to the well a lot with them, it would force me to implement a house rule.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm not using hyperbole, and I'm not trying to antagonize anyone. I simply cannot understand this complaint.

The DM sets the DC for how difficult every element in his game is. If the Rogue in the group has +7 to Search and the DM sets the difficulty at DC 27 or lower, the Rogue finds the trap every single time if the player declares Take 20. If the DM sets the difficulty at DC 28 or higher, the Rogue never finds the trap if the player declares Take 20.

The chance of success is either 100% or 0%. There is no 50% chance of success. The rule allows the player to force his best possible result, hence, the DM is railroaded into deciding when he puts together the adventure whether the Rogue succeeds or not.

The DM does not get a choice here. No matter what DC he picks, the player forces the DM to make a decision as to whether the trap is found or not. Period. And because the rules allow the player to make this decision, I have been in games where the player of a Rogue decides to Take 20 EVERY SINGLE ROOM, EVERY SINGLE WALL, EVERY SINGLE CHEST, etc. The counter argument of this that it takes time tends to be limited. Because this takes no out of game time, the player of the Rogue convinces the other players that it's the right thing to do.

Sure, the DM can throw more monsters at the PCs or force in game count downs or goal time limits to "penalize" this type of behavior, but that is merely a reaction to the bad rule, not to the bad behavior of the player.

In character, if a Rogue COULD guarantee his best chance of success, he would. When one's life is on the line, it could be reasonable to be extremely cautious. This is not bad behavior of a player, this is good behavior of a player (roleplaying his Rogue PC totally correctly) which might be reacted negatively by the DM because of a bad rule.

A better rule for Take 10 is to use 2 D20, take the best result.

It guarantees nothing for the player other than he gets rewarded for concentrating on the task at hand. It gives him a fairly good result on average and he will usually not do terrible at the task like with a single D20.

A better rule for Take 20 is to use 4 D20, take the best result.

It guarantees nothing for the player other than he gets rewarded for taking the time out and doing the task carefully. It gives him an average bonus and he will usually not do terrible at the task like with a single D20. With this type of rule for Take 20, the DM can set the DC for the +7 Search Rogue at DC 25 (or DC 23 or whatever else he wants) and the Rogue may or may not find it with a single D20 roll, or he may or may not find it with the modified 4 dice Take 20 rule. The DM is not railroaded into deciding ahead of time whether it will be 0% or 100% chance of success.

Do you understand it now? The DM is handcuffed with the current rules. The DM is not handcuffed with the modified rules I've stated here.

Hyperbole? It's useless to discuss something with someone who uses hyperbole for an argument. It makes me just ignore the rest of a post. If this is not hyperbole, please explain how there isn't "some surprises/randomness" in the game with Take 10/20.

It is not hyperbole.

For the DM, there is no surprises or randomness here other than if the players decide to search or not, and if the player decides to Take 10 or Take 20 or roll normal.

With some players, this means that Take 20 will always be used when it can be used and the DM is screwed in picking a DC. He's forced into the 0% or 100% situation. Always.

I have never, ever, not once, seen Take 10 or Take 20 in any way hurt the game or hinder my DMing. In fact, it has always helped the game and helped my DMing. I've never had a problem with Take 10 or Take 20, and I consider it one of the best rules in d20. It's simple and useful, and does exactly what it's supposed to do every time it has been used.

It does more than it's supposed to do and that is the problem. It's supposed to reward concentration with Take 10 and reward careful re-use with Take 20. But, it does this at the expense of imposing decisions on the DM. Great for the players. Terrible for the DM.

The OP posted an example of where it imposes a decision on the DM for the Take 10 case. Does he make the DC low enough so that the Rogue and the Ranger can both succeed with Take 10 at the task, or just the Rogue? And what about players. When a player needs a 20 with a +9 to the roll, he will NEVER Take 10. The moment the PC's skill gets to +10, he will ALWAYS Take 10. This is TOTAL metagaming. Playing the rules, not playing the PC.

I'm glad it has not been a problem in your game. But, it's obvious that it is a problem for some DMs, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people who feel so strongly about it being a bad rule.


People who love the implementation do not have their eyes on the real original goal of those rules.

If a different implementation handles all of the issues (both the original goals and the problems with the current implementation) and not just follows the original goals, then it should be used.

 

[Quasqueton]

I am creating an adventure and decides to place a secret room that will be very difficult to find but with extremely great rewards as a fun little extra if the players look at the right place.

What does this mean, exactly? "Will be very difficult to find", "if the players look at the right place"?

See, for me the whole search thing comes down to this:

The Players have to think of searching for the secret.

The PCs have to search the correct spot for the secret.

The group must have a character with a good Search modifier.

The rules, as written, already has the DC for secret doors codified. I don't have to come up with a DC unless I want to.

Let's say the DM creates a secret room with a DC 25 (either from the book or made up himself -- without regard to the Search mods of any PC).

The PCs have to think of looking for the secret. They have to pinpoint the location (5' square) to search. (This square may be part of a wider search area.) They must have someone in the group with at least a +5 Search modifier. They must get very lucky with their check roll, or they must have a lot of time to spend on the search for a Take 20.

If they miss any one of those four things, they don't find the secret.

I think of finding the secret room a matter of the party deducing the existence of a secret, figuring where it might be, ensuring that the party is well-rounded (has someone with the relavent skill), and arranging to have the time for the search.

I've seen many parties, with a very high Search skill, miss secrets because they don't think to look for one and/or don't figure where to look.

The DM sets the DC for how difficult every element in his game is.

The DM can use the skill rules, and the DC guidelines. The DM doesn't have to set *any* DCs in a game. Use the skill DCs, or use the general guidelines (in the book): Easy = DC 0, Difficult = DC 15, Heroic = DC 30 (if I remember the numbers correctly). If the adventure has a wall to climb, I don't have to think about assigning a DC -- the DC is written right into the rules. I don't have to give any consideration to the PCs' skill ranks. If they don't have enough, they need to figure a way to get a better roll -- rope, assist other, use a spell (levitate, fly), etc.

I just don't micromanage my DC numbers that much -- I don't need to. I can, if I want to, but then if I want to, and I do it, I don't see how I can complain about the result.

Quasqueton

 

[Jackelope King]

<snip>

While I disagree with part of KarinsDad's conclusion, his rationale is spot-on. The purpose of Take 20 is to stop the endless spree of rerolls until you succeed, and that part of the problem with it is indeed the binary nature of the skill system.

On one hand, the binary skill system is supremely easy to "get". If you hit the DC, you succeed. Easy as can be. On the other, it does lead to problems where a single DC difference by one point will differentiate between whether PCs can or can't succeed at a check.

Part of it, in my mind, is solved by what Gentlegamer suggested. As much as I loathed the "Mother May I" searches of old where the PCs went through a litany of standard twists/turns/pushes/shakes/clockwises/counter-clockwises of searches back in the day, having a PC narrow a search can give a circumstance bonus to the search, making it more likely that they find the trap/hidden treasure/whatever. If the desk drawer in a 10x10 room is rigged with a poison gas trap, the DC might be 30 to find it. If the PC said he was searching the desk specifically, it'd be a +2 bonus. If the PC was searching the large drawer on the bottom, it'd be a +4. If the PC was specifically searching the large drawer on the bottom for traps, it'd be a +6. Since it's a bonus, and not a penalty for failing to do these things, it's a reward for a player being thorough and descriptive, not a penalty for players disliking this sort of thing.

Alternatively, the suggestion for skill gradients upthread is a very good one. All we'd really need would be a little "Failed by less than 5" category that would describe "Thinking you saw something out of the corner of your eye" or "Don't feel easy with the deal the merchant is giving you" or "Can see the basic workings of the trap, but couldn't get at the mechanism without setting it off" (which actually exists in the rules). Gradients are only trouble because they make resolution take a little longer.

Take 20 might be best respresented, as described earlier, as "taking your time". Rather than an all-or-nothing "take twenty times as long", for each extra unit of time a PC spends working at something, that PC gains an extra die to his "skill pool" or what have you. So if it normally takes a round to open a lock, and the PC spends 5 rounds doing it, he builds up a skill pool of five dice. He rolls them all at once, then selects the highest result. As with KarinsDad's 4d20 method, this one makes success more likely without removing chance completely (which is really just an abstracted composite of the PC's ability on that particular day and the specific circumstances of that particular encounter that get left out for the sake of brevity in the description). It also has the added benefit of being a little bit of a time-management system: if you have the time, you'll probably get your 20, but if you can only spare a few extra rounds, then it's less likely. The PCs have to decide how much time to devote to a problem.

...

Taking 10, on the other hand, is a code a player uses for, "My character is good enough at this to succeed on average, so can we just say I succeed?" It's usually something unimportant, and almost always removed from the "action" of an encounter. It's a fine shorthand to sidestep a minor challenge that the players consider "boring", and since it doesn't get into the binary problem like Taking 20 does as much, it's probably fine as-is.

So that would leave us with two alternatives to standard skill checks: Taking 10 and Taking Your Time. One is a non-random rule for hand-waving unimportant skill checks. The other is a less random way to improve your chances of succeeding on a difficult task when you can spend the time on it. Both reduce the number of times players will roll the dice to what is really needed to keep the game going.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The description of setting traps or secret door Search DCs to a certain value based on the DMs knowledge about the possible Search Check modifiers of the PC is interesting, but there are some points to consider:

1) You might not know the exact numbers for a PCs skill checks. I certainly don't.
I can extrapolate reasonable numbers (traps expert: ~Level + 5. Traps Dabbler ~1/2 Level; Untrained: +0). That's on what I would base DCs for Search. Maybe the groups Rogue is actually better - good for him. Maybe it's a lot worse - a bit disappointing in case of Secret Rooms, but for traps - well, let's see how he deals with that one...

2) Traps specifically do have a Challenge Rating. Based on the above consideration, you can adjust the CR. If it was supposed to be find only by the expert, well, it might be worth one point more on its CR. If it could have been found by anyone (Untrained), well, let's drop its CR by 1). If the group encounters the trap at all (and survives), they will all get the same XP, but the ones with the good skill checks weren't hurt or injured (assuming the didn't trigger the trap when trying to disable or avoid it)

3)
Skill Checks modifiers during an adventure do not need to be constant.
- Spells can increase or decrease ability scores, or otherwise affect skill checks
- Items can increase skill checks, especially magical items. These items might be found, bought or activated during the adventure.
- Aid Another can sometimes change things, too (not in case of traps as long as that is a "Rogue Only" feature, but in case of secret doors certainly)
- In some cases, characters even advance during the same adventure and might change around (improve) skills.

4)
Not every group will rely on Take 10 or Take 20. Taking 20 takes a lot of time for each square (20 rounds per square? That's 2 minutes! Will the Rogue really have enough time for such Search if there are monsters around or Damsels in Distress to be rescued?)

So unless there is a very obvious place for a trap (like at a important door) or secret door (like a room in the middle of a building/dungeon with no exits except the one they entered), they will probably be fine with Take 10. If they trigger a trap while taking 10, the Rogue will probably decide that his skill isn't good enough for Take 10 to get usable results. So he will roll for his Search checks again, and now might also "accidently" find secret doors.
In our games, we sometimes got a bit "stuck" because we missed a secret door when taking 10 (or not actively searching at all). So after clearing anything else, our group would make a thorough Search (Taking 20). It seems pretty reasonable to me that sometimes adventurers will first mop up all resistance before they spent time analyzing every wall and door for something hidden.

---

I don't like the idea of saying: "You failed this skill check, you may not try again until you have improved your skill." If Take 20 or Take 10 doesn't allow for a bad day, this rule certainly doesn't either. And for which skills does this apply? Only Search? What about Spot? If I can't spot the Rogue now, I will never ever be able to see him again until I improved my Spot check (obviously not, but where is the dividing mark between Search and Spot, or mSearch and Forgery?). What if the Dungeon Keeper was a bit uncreative and used the same trap model twice? Can I reroll the second time around? Or used the same type of lock twice (Open Lock instead of Search)? Do you want to keep track of that?

 

[KarinsDad]

The DM can use the skill rules, and the DC guidelines. The DM doesn't have to set *any* DCs in a game. Use the skill DCs, or use the general guidelines (in the book): Easy = DC 0, Difficult = DC 15, Heroic = DC 30 (if I remember the numbers correctly). If the adventure has a wall to climb, I don't have to think about assigning a DC -- the DC is written right into the rules. I don't have to give any consideration to the PCs' skill ranks. If they don't have enough, they need to figure a way to get a better roll -- rope, assist other, use a spell (levitate, fly), etc.

I just don't micromanage my DC numbers that much -- I don't need to. I can, if I want to, but then if I want to, and I do it, I don't see how I can complain about the result.

This has nothing to do with whether a DM wants to micromanage his numbers. Using the DCs in the books IS the DM setting the DCs by definition.

Your point here changes nothing about the problem, it's merely a red herring in the discussion. The actual DC used is irrelevant to the problem. What is relevant is whether a given DC for a given task always succeeds or always fails (in the case of Take 20) or of the give DC has the player never Take 10 or always Take 10.

The problem still exists, regardless of where the DM gets his DCs from.

Plus, if the DM uses the ones in the book exactly as written, it merely gives the player an idea of the skill milestones for his PC that he should attempt to get: +5 to the skill, +10 to the skill, etc. +6 to the skill is mostly a waste compared to +5 for skills that he will be using Take 10 or Take 20 on. A powergaming Take 20 all of the time player would get each skill up to a multiple of +5 and then not worry about that skill for another 5 levels until he can get it up to +10. He would instead, focus on getting other Take 10/20 type skills up to +5 in the interim levels or getting skills he normally would not. By definition, the Take 10 and Take 20 rules encourage this type of metagaming by players if the DM always uses the DCs in the DMG or assigns them to 15, 20, 25, or 30 like often done in game adventures.

The Rogue could keep the dynamic DC single roll skills like Spot and Listen up to max ranks and the more static DC Take 10 and Take 20 ones like Search and Open Lock and Climb at multiples of 5 which would save him skill ranks for other skills.

 

[Thundershield]

This has nothing to do with whether a DM wants to micromanage his numbers. Using the DCs in the books IS the DM setting the DCs by definition.

Your point here changes nothing about the problem, it's merely a red herring in the discussion. The actual DC used is irrelevant to the problem. What is relevant is whether a given DC for a given task always succeeds or always fails (in the case of Take 20) or of the give DC has the player never Take 10 or always Take 10.

The problem still exists, regardless of where the DM gets his DCs from.

Really, it's only a problem if you make it one.

Maybe if they wrote somewhere in the book, just for all the rules lawyers and rules over-interpreters, that Take10 and Take20 are just to speed up play and cover trivialities, so you can get on with the real action and adventure. Don't start using Take10 or Take20 for other and more exciting things, such as setting up an ambush or sneaking past a dragon (is possible with the right feat). That'll simply take the excitement out of the game and make Take10 and Take20 look bad... Oh, wait.

No, you use Take10 and Take20 to cover things like the players looking for a hard-to-find secret door they know is there, or to get them through wilderness lesser beings would get lost in, etc.

I mean, saying that the PCs traverse the huge wasteland with little difficulties due to the Famous Ranger Anrohir's unsurpassed wilderness skills (he did Take10 on Survival all the way across the wilderness) doesn't take the excitement out of traversing the wasteland. Not like that's exciting anyway, but instead you describe the ranger's great abilities and let the character shine, and you speed up play by having them cross that barren land with a single sentence.

 

[Storm Raven]

I am creating an adventure and decides to place a secret room that will be very difficult to find but with extremely great rewards as a fun little extra if the players look at the right place. I know my players have search at +5. Without take 10/take 20 I put the DC at say 20 and know they have about 25% chance to find it.

This is where you go wrong. You put the DC at 20, they have a 100% chance of finding it. You just have to waste a bunch of time rolling dice to get there.

"I Search"
Roll. "You don'f find anything"
"I Search again"
Roll. "You don't find anything"
"I Search again"
Roll. "You don't find anything"
"I Search again"
Roll. "You don't find anything"
"I Search again"
Roll. "You don't find anything"

And so on, until the players feel certain that they rolled a 20.

The problem you are having is that you think that setting the DC to 20 somehow gives the players only a 25% chance of finding something. It doesn't. Under the circusmstances you describe, they will always find it, you just have to go through a lot of useless die rolling to get there.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

I game with many people. I just don't game with people who needlessly complicate the game for trivial purposes.