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

[Taralan]

I agree with Felon. and nobody yet commented on the main point in his original post. Take 10, although it looks fine at first view, introduces starnge probability distortions.

As for take 20, I find it is even worst. It makes it very difficult for a DM to choose a proper DC. For exemple, if my players have Search +5 and I chose a DC of 25 for a trap, they will find it immediately if they take 20. However, if they don't (lets say they are in a hurry or in a fight) then they have only a 25% chance of finding it. Even worst yet, what if I want a trap that can't be found automaticaly ? take 20 makes that impossible. Where is the fun in that. It transforms something that should present an interesting challenge into an all or nothing (and boring) proposition.

Finaly the endless debate and confusion about when one can or cannot take 20 is another reason why this rule should be removed.

Now don't get me wrong. I used to find this rule brilliant when I first read about it. But further inspection reveals major flaws which are curiously rarely discussed or acknowledged.

Now the real question is, can we (and wizard) find another system that has the same advantage of take 10-20, yet none of these (in my opinion) fatal flaws.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for take 20, I find it is even worst. It makes it very difficult for a DM to choose a proper DC. For exemple, if my players have Search +5 and I chose a DC of 25 for a trap, they will find it immediately if they take 20. However, if they don't (lets say they are in a hurry or in a fight) then they have only a 25% chance of finding it. Even worst yet, what if I want a trap that can't be found automaticaly ? take 20 makes that impossible. Where is the fun in that. It transforms something that should present an interesting challenge into an all or nothing (and boring) proposition.

If you declare with a house rule that retries on Search checks are impossible, then you can't Take 20 on them anyway.

If you declare that retries on Search checks are possible per the rules, then what's the issue with allowing Take 20?

"I check for traps."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "You don't find any."
"I check again."
[roll] "There's a trap."

If you roll 30 times, there's a better than 95% chance you'll roll a 19 or 20 at least once. If you roll 60 times, there's a better than 95% chance you'll roll a 20 at least once.

If I have time to take 2 minutes to search for a trap with Take 20 for a guaranteed 20, I probably have time to take 6 minutes to roll 60 times for a 95% chance of a 20... so is it worth saying "No Take 20!" when all you're going to do is require 60 die rolls for the same result we could have achieved with "I Take 20"?

-Hyp.

 

[Felon]

"You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched."

Fortunately, given that my arms aren't ten feet long, I'm confident that I didn't touch the object I was searching even slightly.

It's nice to be confident. It's often more important than being right, particularly on the internet. As you quoted, the rules say you "generally" need to be within 10 feet, but for the sake of arguement, let's pretend they say you always only ever need to be within 10 feet. Can you tell me how you found the aforementioned items completely hidden under a pile of refuse, or a slip of paper tucked away in a secret pouch (that's stuff that actually happens in official, honest-to-Pelor published D&D adventures, not just in house-rule-ridden homebrews) without a little hands-on rummaging? Maybe your arms do stretch to ten feet long--makes about as much sense as standing feet away and eyeballing. Either is impossible. Sadly, the rules are silent on the matter.

Heck, there's not even a great need for eyeballs; if you're blind, it's just a -4 penalty to Search checks. Personally, I'd say that's probably because a blind person can still search by touch. What do you think?

Close-ended, exclusive interpretations--based on the notion that the restrictions stated in the rules should be treated as all-inclusive rather than merely broad and general--are a dead end in an RPG, Hype. There are too many physical variables to account for. You'll be left making rulings that lack practical value ("10 foot long arms it is then"). Not allowing for that is pretty much your one weakness.

.. oh, wait... that would be me -Hyp.

Thanks!

 

[Felon]

I agree with Felon. and nobody yet commented on the main point in his original post. Take 10, although it looks fine at first view, introduces starnge probability distortions.

Thanks for chiming in. And I want to stress to the folks who are discussing a tangent about all-or-nothing successes that the probability distortions are what I'm throwing out there. I'm talking about the probability of success having this huge differential based on a meager differential in qualifications.

As for take 20, I find it is even worst. It makes it very difficult for a DM to choose a proper DC. For exemple, if my players have Search +5 and I chose a DC of 25 for a trap, they will find it immediately if they take 20. However, if they don't (lets say they are in a hurry or in a fight) then they have only a 25% chance of finding it. Even worst yet, what if I want a trap that can't be found automaticaly ? take 20 makes that impossible. Where is the fun in that. It transforms something that should present an interesting challenge into an all or nothing (and boring) proposition.

True. It becomes a simple matter of not even bothering with having a Search check DC. In fact, since--as has been stated elsewhere--Search is the "poster child" for taking 20, why even have a Search skill for that matter? It reaches a point where a DM setting the DC becomes a sham, as it is just a matter of him deciding "well, do I want them to find this darn thing or not?" Players tend not to be ones for half-measures. Either they won't look at all or they'll take a couple of minutes to be thorough.

If you declare with a house rule that retries on Search checks are impossible, then you can't Take 20 on them anyway.

If you declare that retries on Search checks are possible per the rules, then what's the issue with allowing Take 20?

Once you're making house rules to make something work better, you're back to begging the question that's in the topic line of this post--namely, wouldn't it be nice to get some revision?

A lot of the quirky, potentially-problematic things about taking 20 stems from the fact that for most skills that lend themselves to taking 20, the basic increment of time required to making a single check is small, so the supposed cost for taking 20--spending twenty times as much time--doesn't amount to much.

I suspect the solution is right in front of us. Just have something attack the players once every minute. Then the players can't take 20, and there's a nice dramatic element where the player bites his nails as he makes the check every round.

 

[hong]

Thanks for chiming in. And I want to stress to the folks who are discussing a tangent about all-or-nothing successes that the probability distortions are what I'm throwing out there. I'm talking about the probability of success having this huge differential based on a meager differential in qualifications.

Yes. The meager differential in qualifications.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Maybe the DC should have been 21 and the guy that Takes 10 always fails and the guy that rolls succeeds 45% of the time.

 

[Taralan]

True. It becomes a simple matter of not even bothering with having a Search check DC. In fact, since--as has been stated elsewhere--Search is the "poster child" for taking 20, why even have a Search skill for that matter? It reaches a point where a DM setting the DC becomes a sham, as it is just a matter of him deciding "well, do I want them to find this darn thing or not?" Players tend not to be ones for half-measures. Either they won't look at all or they'll take a couple of minutes to be thorough.

Exactly. With take 20 (and to be honest this is also true but to a lesser extent with the previous editions) Search DC are a sham.

Wouldn't it be better if skills like search would be simply 1 try only, but with some bonus if you state that your character takes all his time to try it ? For example, our PC has +5 search. The DC of the trap is 15. If the character is rushed he rolls and has 50% chances of success. Lets say he misses. Now he says that he will take the necessary time to make a very thorough search. Lets say this gives him +5. He now has 75% chances of success. If he still fails, there is no possible retries.

This way the ranges of probabilities are kept meaningful, yet the effect of taking your time is taken into account.


As for the take 10 distortion, the only way to remove it seems to replace it by a Take 1 i.e. you only automatically succeed if there is no normal chance of failure... I would like to think of a better wat, but sees none at this point.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thanks for chiming in. And I want to stress to the folks who are discussing a tangent about all-or-nothing successes that the probability distortions are what I'm throwing out there. I'm talking about the probability of success having this huge differential based on a meager differential in qualifications.

The probability distortions are one aspect of it. The all or nothing is another. Both are annoying.

I like 2D10 for Take 10 and 10+D10 for Take 20.

Random. Higher rolls on average. And it resolves both problems.

Then, the DM can make the DCs for a given adventure fall into the high end in some cases (i.e. PC skill level + 15 or so) and the PCs may or may not succeed. I find the argument that "Well, if the DM took the time out to put something into his game, his players should find it" inadequate at best (not in this thread yet, but I've read it multiple times before).

Course, with the D20 system, WotC would never go for this. They are too focused on simplifying the game and probably would never dream of improving Take 10 and Take 20. It's already simple. Mathematically lame, but simple.

And, it is interesting how many people fall in love with those rules without ever really doing the math.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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

I agree with everything but the secret doors. and traps can be cool in some places, but its inappropriate for others.

 

[Treebore]

I think this whole thread proves why Take 10 and Take 20 should be tossed.