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

[Felon]

The reactions I'm getting are unfortunately pretty representative of what I'd expected, and why posting on forums is often so fruitless. No matter how articulately you state your case or cite examples, it is really unlikely that you get anybody to think about what you're saying. They'll post to contradict, and that's about most of what one can expect.

Take 10 and Take 20 work great! As a DM I can glance at my PC Notes and handwave all sorts of stuff that I expect PCs to notice, succeed, or fail at if we don't want to take the time to roll stuff.

"You guys take 10 while crossing the chasm. The dwarf stumbles and slips a little, but with an aid another he manages to make it."

"You want to search the altar thoroughly? Sure, you take 20, and after a couple of minutes you eventually find a small, secret compartment in the back."

"Yeah, the cleric is too weighted down to make it up the ledge, the rock just keeps crumbling and he slides back down, despite taking 20 on climbing up. What do you do?"

Stuff like the Take 10 1-point-difference problem have never come up for me. You don't Take 10 with multiple checks, so a sense of difference in skill isn't so much there. I know you can't take 10 on an Aid Another check, but in relaxed, everyday non-combat skill checking, I usually let the players do it.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you don't take 10 with multiple checks". You certainly can take 10 on a check and then take on another one immediately following it, as in the the case of climbing up a wall.

OTOH, your cleric can't take 20 on a climb check, at least not one where there's a consequence for failing. This is covered under the Climb skill.

I'm not aware of any rule that says you can't take 10 on aiding another.

 

[Felon]

My problem with them is that many people have NO CLUE how they work. I played a bunch of games at GenCon and was shocked (and appalled) at how many people either a) flat-out didn't use them when it was blatantly obvious or b) got mad when I tried to encourage people to do so.

If anything, taking 10 and 20 are a 3ed rule that is intended to speed up play.

Actually, rolling dice only takes a few seconds. Even a whole group rolling dice and calling out results takes what, ten or fifteen? The most positive thing that comes of taking 10 is not some massive gain in speed, but rather a loss of pointlessly random results that come with attempting large quantities of checks that, by sheer law of averages, will have competent characters failing at checks that they should blow away.

Glassjaw, I don't know why you were shocked and apalled. Of course folks got mad. Nobody likes that kind of "help". Matter of fact, I had some obnoxious guy at GenCon's RPGA games pestering the other gamers about taking 10 and 20 for everything, and not listening when others tried to point out the instances where he was wrong in doing so (like taking 20 on checks with dangerous consequences for failure). Why do some folks not like taking 10? It's pretty simple. Rolling dice are among the things that people most enjoy about tabletop gaming. It is an essential part of the experience for them, thus it is not something they want to cut from the game just to gain a minor boost in gameplay speed. OTOH, telling people how to play the game consumes more time than dice-rolling, and it is not fun for the folks being "enlightened'.

Taking 20 to Search takes a LONG time but it's not against the rules.

True, there is nothing explicitly in the rules for Search checks or traps that specifically state a negative consequence for failing a Search check. This was Obnoxious Guy's intractible position. However, traps are largely morphic in nature, and morphic things can have their own little rules that override the PHB and DMG (as a card-carrying member of Rules Lawyers of America bar association, I am often shocked and appalled at how often my colleagues overlook this significant loophole). Consider, for instance, that a given trap is designed to go off if touched even slightly. It is perfectly conceivable that a botched Search check might prod it and set it off.

 

[kiznit]

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you don't take 10 with multiple checks". You certainly can take 10 on a check and then take on another one immediately following it, as in the the case of climbing up a wall.

As a DM, I'm going to assume that if a take 10 check succeeds for, say, part of a wall, it succeeds for all of it, but I've already established myself as something of a hand-waver.

OTOH, your cleric can't take 20 on a climb check, at least not one where there's a consequence for failing. This is covered under the Climb skill.

Yeah, that was a poor example. I'd assumed people could recognize the situation as just trying to get over a ledge or out of a pit, but you make a point.

I'm not aware of any rule that says you can't take 10 on aiding another.

Per the SRD

"If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once."

There, was that contradictory enough?

 

[argo]

True, there is nothing explicitly in the rules for Search checks or traps that specifically state a negative consequence for failing a Search check. This was Obnoxious Guy's intractible position. However, traps are largely morphic in nature, and morphic things can have their own little rules that override the PHB and DMG (as a card-carrying member of Rules Lawyers of America bar association, I am often shocked and appalled at how often my colleagues overlook this significant loophole). Consider, for instance, that a given trap is designed to go off if touched even slightly. It is perfectly conceivable that a botched Search check might prod it and set it off.

Ok, I don't mind the homebrew trap that is "designed to go off if touched even slightly", but the house-rule that a search check requires you to touch something is a bit much.

Search checks are the iconic skill for take 20.

Anyway, I love take 10 and 20. See no reason to change them unless it is part of a larger overhaul of the skills system.

Later.

 

[Nifft]

Searching for traps, etc...

I want searching for traps to die.

I want searching for secret doors to die.

I want "standard door procedure" to die.

I want "you didn't say you looked UP" to die.

I want everything that would encourage a player to think like a hostile contract lawyer writing boilerplate to die a horrible burning death.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

As a DM, I'm going to assume that if a take 10 check succeeds for, say, part of a wall, it succeeds for all of it, but I've already established myself as something of a hand-waver.

Well, that stands to reason. In my original example, the guy getting a 20 by taking 10 gets over the wall, even ten checks would be involved. It's the guy who only gets a 19 that is in trouble, because that single lack of a bonus has ensured his chances of success went from certain to abysmal.

"If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once."

Thanks, I'll file that reference away and treat this thread as a net gain.

 

[GlassJaw]

Of course folks got mad. Nobody likes that kind of "help".

"Nobody" likes help that improves their knowledge of the game? I'm glad I don't have to play with those "nobodies" on a regular basis. I find people that get upset at someone offeringin assistance equally obnoxious.

You call that being a rules lawyer? Fine. But I'll take that title over rules idiot any day.

 

[Felon]

Ok, I don't mind the homebrew trap that is "designed to go off if touched even slightly", but the house-rule that a search check requires you to touch something is a bit much.

It's not really a house rule. Sometimes searching involves touching things, even shifting things around. Can you find an object hidden under a pile refuse just by eyeballing? Or find a ring hidden in a concealed pocket? Not likely. Why is it a bit much to think you can't just eyeball a trap?

 

[GlassJaw]

It's not really a house rule.

Of course it is. The RAW Search skill does not list a penalty for failure. You added one. House rule, simple as that.

 

[Felon]

"Nobody" likes help that improves their knowledge of the game? I'm glad I don't have to play with those "nobodies" on a regular basis. I find people that get upset at someone offeringin assistance equally obnoxious.

How do you feel about people telling you that the way you're playing the game is wrong? Do you welcome unsolicited advice from people who presume that their knowledge of the game is superior to yours?