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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Huh?

If anything, it shows why they should stay.

 

[Lanefan]

Take 10 is a useful rule now and then, when the PCs have time to do what needs doing and it's not too difficult a task.

Take 20 is an awful rule, in that it is *so* absolute. If it must be kept, it should be refined to Take 18, to take away that absoluteness and keep some of the mystery.

Also, there needs to be a rule stating that declaring an attempt to do 'x' needs to be accompanied by a declaration of whether you are taking 10, taking 18, or rolling. If you choose the roll, that roll represents your best random attempt for the day...you can then choose to try again but *must* take 18...this prevents the silliness of rolling 30 times until something good comes up. And if you fail, you fail.

As for Nifft's idea that searching etc. should Go Away completely...why? How do you expect to find a secret door if you don't look for it? Or avoid/disarm a trap? Or are you suggesting traps and secret doors should also Go Away?

Lanefan

 

[hong]

Take 20 is an awful rule, in that it is *so* absolute. If it must be kept, it should be refined to Take 18, to take away that absoluteness and keep some of the mystery.

Oh dear.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I absolutely agree take ten and take 20 should be very limited, or just gotten rid of completely. The were bad rules to start with, and have not improved.

After all, it is called the d20 rules for a reason. If someone does not want to roll dice, there are systems for them out there.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Presumably you inform a player beforehand whether searching a particular area involves hands on work or not? I can imagine players deciding against searching something if the DM says 'you'll have to shift a lot of papers to search that corner'; Similarly If someone says "I want to use search to spot any triggers or tripwires in this area" and you said "when you touch the door jamb, the bomb goes off" I could imagine an aggrieved player coming back with 'hey, I didn't say I was *touching* anything!'

i.e. Saying that search sometimes involves touching things seems OK to me as long as you let the PC know beforehand whether it will or not, so they have the choice as to whether to proceed with the search (knowing likely consequences).

Cheers

 

[Horacio]

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

I think that proves that logic works differently for different people...

 

[shilsen]

I think that proves that logic works differently for different people...

Agreed. Personally I think the take 10 and take 20 rules work just fine, and I'm not seeing anything in this thread which changes that opinion.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Taking 20:
If an action allows rerolls, then taking 20 is just a "short-hand" for rerolling your dice until you succeed.

If search wouldn't allow a reroll, then players would ask? "What if I searched longer? I mean, there is no way I could have searched a 10 ft cube area in 1 round thoroughly, would it?"

So, the alternative to take 20 is to have a role for "taking your time". That is certainly a viable alternative. But now you need a new mechanic for this.
1) Does "taking time" give a character a bonus to his skill check? What is the limit of this bonus?
2) Does it mean that you allow rerolls?
3) Do you assume a "minimum dice result" (if you take n times the normal time, you roll is treated as least as "n", if the number you roll is lower")

2) and 3) quickly turn into taking 20.
1) has some appeal to me. But note that this means characters can get results beyond their "usual" ability.


Taking 10:
The problem with taking 10 is partially based on the granularity of skill check results, and that it changes the probability of a success from values different from 0 % and different from 100 % to 100 & and 0 %. It's basically "rounding the odds", or adding a further abstraction to skill checks.

I don't see it as really problematic. It is an abstraction. Any task you can do by taking 10 is a common task for you. If you just follow your "standard procedure" (without trying something risky or new) and are not disturbed by something around, you will just do it.

The granularity of skill checks in D&D is a common problem, but some skills have a mechanic for "non-total failure". You make no progress if your Climb Check fails, but you're only in real trouble if you fail by 5 or more. You fail to disable a trap if you fail your disable device check, but you only trigger it when you fail by 5 or more.

Maybe the "Take 10" rule should always be applied when it is possible to take 10 at all, except that you can still roll to get a better result (Similar to as rolling 10+d10 + skill modifier, except that the probability curve looks different). Or you change it to an automatic 5 if the character still rolls (though this doesn't really help with the existing system - if you can't succeed with taking 10, taking 5 means catastrophic failure for all skills that have such a clause)

 

[Nifft]

As for Nifft's idea that searching etc. should Go Away completely...why? How do you expect to find a secret door if you don't look for it? Or avoid/disarm a trap? Or are you suggesting traps and secret doors should also Go Away?

Traps need to go away as written. I'd like to see them completely re-done to be better.

Why? Because traps are "fun" for one PC (the Rogue). Everyone else sits there and watches.

Secret doors are "fun" for one PC (the Elf). Everyone else sits there while he walks within 5 ft. of every square in the room. (This whole concept is a relic from when we thought having players make their own map was fun. And actually mapping kinda was fun. It just took too much time away from other, more fun stuff.)

If you have a required activity, make it a group activity, and one that's fun for the whole group. Puzzles are an example of possibly fun for the whole group -- there's nothing inherent in a puzzle that only one person can work on it, and the whole group can discuss the puzzle. But if only one person in your group likes puzzles, I'd suggest they NOT figure heavily as required elements of your campaign.

Traps are similar to puzzles, except there are mechanical constraints that exclude many classes from "playing" when it's trap-time.


Solutions:

1/ Keep traps as rules, but reserve them for "rogue games" (e.g. everyone is from a thief's guild, breaking and entering is what everyone is trained to do, you can all "play" during trap-time). Give copious tips on how to incorporate traps into encounters without making traps into single-player required encounters.

2/ Modify traps greatly (which I think is what 4e is doing), so they are fun for everyone.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jackelope King]

Traps need to go away as written. I'd like to see them completely re-done to be better.

Why? Because traps are "fun" for one PC (the Rogue). Everyone else sits there and watches.
<snip>
2/ Modify traps greatly (which I think is what 4e is doing), so they are fun for everyone.

Cheers, -- N

And the first thing they can do along the way? Get rid of the silly "find traps" ability and just give rogues a healthy bonus to it if they still want to keep rogues as the dungoneer experts class. It's silly and archaic in a skill-based system.