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

[Nifft]

Well, this line of discussion underscores how D&D has experienced a shift in the way people are expected to play. Back in the day, players were expected to proceed with caution at every step. Dungeons were intended to be regarded as a place where sudden death was the customary price to pay for impulsive tactics. I recall the amount of time spent executing all kinds of crazy precautions on a door just because it happened to be sitting at the end of a long hallway ("bet there's a lightning bolt trap--or a ballista waiting to spring!"). And y'know what? Oddly enough, I recall enjoying it. As Nif points out, it was a kind of puzzle.

Exactly what I was getting at.

1e had a lot more implicit puzzles, and a lot more lethal puzzles. It was a game between the DM and the players, with the PCs as mere tools for use by the players.*

3.5e PCs are less disposable. So the puzzles need to be significantly different in terms of interaction.

Cheers, -- N

*) This play style may not cover all groups. Consult Cleric before poking. Your XP may vary.

 

[hong]

From anotehr perspective, take 20 can be considered a longhand for "if you persist, you can eventually succeed, no check required". As I've said, Search is noteworthy because it makes it possible to find stuff when you aren't looking for anything in particular or haven't even been paying much attention ("huh, there was a stuffed moose?").

That's more of a problem with Search, than with take 20 itself. The skill (or rather, the act of searching) could do with a complete rethink.

He's talking about DM fiat. If the DM thinks you'd succeed, you succeed. If he thinks you'd keep failing, you keep failing, at least until you tried something differently.

Well, DM fiat can be achieved just as easily with take 20. Set the DC to be 20 + PC's skill bonus if you want them to succeed, or 21 + bonus if you want them to fail. It still doesn't address the issue you had of people with similar bonuses getting completely different results, for which you need partial success/failure rules.

 

[Nifft]

Based on comments from Mike Mearls (and probably others), it sounds like you might get your wish. Trap rules are definitely changing, and it sounds like it might be more of a group effort thing.

Yeah, it's one of many things that make 4e sound like it's going to be a move in the right direction.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

The rogue's ability to find and diarm traps was usually just a fallback position; it was something to do to speed the game up in the instances where the players or DM rand out of the time or patience to treat a door or a hallway or a chest like a puzzle. It was something to resort to when it was three in the morning and the caffenated beverages were running low. Same thing with finding secret doors. Much of the time, the trigger for opening a secret door was incorporated into the room's description. It was a matter of being methodical. If you twisted stuffed moose's antler just so, a door would unlock. No check required. Again, it was a reward for being detail-oriented.

So, I'm back to wondering what purpose the Search skill check element serves in 3e. If the consensus now indicates that hidden suprises are considered a waste of time that could be beter spent rolling initiative, then instead of reducing the search to a bland, perfunctory skill check that kills the fun of looking for easter eggs ("OK, eventually you find that turning the stuffed moose's antler just opens a hidden panel--here, have some treasure"), just ditch the easter eggs. I recall enjoying Tome of Horrors immensely as a kid. I wouldn't touch the 3.5 version with a ten foot pole (ah, ten foot poles--anyone remember those?).

For me, I'd rather have a skill check so that a PC designed to be good at searching can be good at searching compared to one that is not. Plus, with a search check, I get to avoid the standard-door-searching-script or the standard-sconce-manipulating-script and all the things that we used to do to try to find the DM's idiosyncratic easter eggs.

Players can still use the room's description to explain how they're searching the room. "Hey, a moose head. That's strange. I'm going to search over that thing first." Then the die roll can determine whether or not you found the jewel hidden behind the eye rather than have the DM wait for the very specific reference the player might make to wiggling the stuffed moose's glass eyes.

That and I don't know a heck of a lot of about scything blade traps. Nor do I want to know much about them. Nor do most DMs I've played with. I'd rather have a rogue PC, well trained in traps, do the specifics of the searches using his own knowledge at my more general direction.

Cripes, the number of 10' poles we went through in Tomb of Horrors by poking them at and into everything! It was pretty damn dull!

 

[iwatt]

That's more of a problem with Search, than with take 20 itself. The skill (or rather, the act of searching) could do with a complete rethink.

What he said.

There's also the issue that when a GM hides something, he usually wants it to be found. The DC that he sets only determines how long it will take. Either a round or 2 minutes.

Given that situation, wouldn't it make more sense to set DCs lower but increase the time it takes to search. Then, for every 5 points you beat the DC you can cut the search time in half.

 

[Felon]

Yeah, it's one of many things that make 4e sound like it's going to be a move in the right direction.

Well, I have Dungeonscape. The basic idea of "encounter traps" was interesting enough, although sometimes it simply amounted to the traps having a lot of conveniently-exposed parts with AC, hardness, and hit points. They were effectively constructs with limited mobility and attack arcs. They can just be attacked and smashed to pieces.

The good part was that the traps could also be defeated with skill checks. But I wasn't convinced that smashing didn't render the skill element moot, which was the only thing that kept them from being monsters.

 

[kiznit]

Well, it's clear to me that the "Rules as Written" are indeed confusing to people. I hope 4E addresses this.

But since numerous people, including myself, have insisted that Take 10 and Take 20 make their games run faster and they value them as a (reasonably?) simple mechanic for baselining average or focused player efforts, I don't understand the hate.

Drop 'em from your own game, sure. But insist that they're broken when other people find them valuable? Maybe playstyles are just different, and the need (or lack thereof) for the mechanic reflects that?

There's a profound thought.

 

[Wormwood]

The good part was that the traps could also be defeated with skill checks. But I wasn't convinced that smashing didn't render the skill element moot, which was the only thing that kept them from being monsters.

As long as my players enjoy bashing away at the gears while they dodge squealing scythe blades, does it matter whether the encounter is a trap or a monster?

 

[Felon]

For me, I'd rather have a skill check so that a PC designed to be good at searching can be good at searching compared to one that is not. Plus, with a search check, I get to avoid the standard-door-searching-script or the standard-sconce-manipulating-script and all the things that we used to do to try to find the DM's idiosyncratic easter eggs.

Players can still use the room's description to explain how they're searching the room. "Hey, a moose head. That's strange. I'm going to search over that thing first." Then the die roll can determine whether or not you found the jewel hidden behind the eye rather than have the DM wait for the very specific reference the player might make to wiggling the stuffed moose's glass eyes.

That and I don't know a heck of a lot of about scything blade traps. Nor do I want to know much about them. Nor do most DMs I've played with. I'd rather have a rogue PC, well trained in traps, do the specifics of the searches using his own knowledge at my more general direction.

Cripes, the number of 10' poles we went through in Tomb of Horrors by poking them at and into everything! It was pretty damn dull!

The question remains: how is reducing the search process to a skill check more entertaining than prodding with a 10' pole or going through the motions of a "sconce-manipulating" SOP? It's faster, sure, but why bother having easter eggs at all if the parties concerned find the process of searching for them to be dull rather than intriguing? Just stick'em in a pile out in the open and be done with it.

 

[Felon]

As long as my players enjoy bashing away at the gears while they dodge squealing scythe blades, does it matter whether the encounter is a trap or a monster?

Why, in that event, it doesn't matter a whit whether it's called a trap or not! That's rather the point I was getting at. As I said, the trap is effectively a monster with limited ability to retaliate or maneuver. Actually, it's somewhere between being a monster and being a punching bag.

But if it's intended to promote fun by being a different sort of encounter--for the players who might bind bashing there way through yet another problem to be an interesting take on traps--then perhaps there is a problem.