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

[Felon]

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?

You will always somebody who will champion any element of the status quo, who are fine with things as they stand no matter how in need of remediation it may be. That alone doesn't evidence that everything's fine.

What I and other have presented are issues with these from an objective standpoint, of a logistical and practical nature, not some subjective personal pecadillo.

I also would like to add that it is a msitake to think that removing an element I dislike from my own game is the solution. That presumes it's only a problem for me when I'm the DM.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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

Does letting the rogue have his moment in the sun take that much time? A dice roll takes a couple seconds.

 

[Jackelope King]

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.

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?).

Ah, I see I was unclear then.

What I meant by what you quoted was that it was silly and archaic for only rogues to be able to do it. It was like a magical sign that popped up to let you know that you couldn't achieve X because, even if you were sufficiently skilled, you didn't have enough levels in rogue. It also unnaturally pigeon-holed all rogues into the expert-dungeoneer role. Instead, I dropped that ability and gave rogues a few itterations of Skill Focus and/or one of the +2/+2 to skills feats between levels 1 and 10. Just let everyone who puts points in search find traps.

 

[Felon]

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.

On this we're in agreement.

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.

I commented on this earlier. It's easy to make Search check DCs a sham.

I think part of the step in the right direction is likely what we'll wind up seeing in 4e. Search will likely be rolled into a Perception skill like it is in Star Wars Saga. It won't be some mandatory check that's made and tolerated just because a PC sank precious skill points into it. It will be a little more liberating to establish limitations on how much a Search check can help without taking some specific steps other than targeting a 5'x5' square.

 

[Nifft]

Does letting the rogue have his moment in the sun take that much time? A dice roll takes a couple seconds.

Once the trap is found, that may be all the time it takes.

Is forcing the Rogue to tell you "now I'm searching THIS five-foot square" really that rewarding?

Is forcing every Rogue to be the Search guy (or alternately forcing every Search guy to have at least one level of Rogue) good for anyone's fun?

I hate that traps:
1/ Force you to have a Rogue; and
2/ Force Rogues to Search & Disable.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Pygon]

I have no problem with Take 20, it beats waiting for the player to roll the dice repeatedly until a 20 comes up. If there is a problem with how long it takes, there is always the wandering monster factor, however that applies.

Take 10 is a little more touchy to me. I haven't used it much. I guess it's just an option to use in a non-critical situation rather than roll the dice.

What becomes more problematic are the DC's involved, including opposing rolls. Just because you're a rogue decked out with leather armor and elven boots doesn't mean that you're always trying to move silently. And just because you're a fighter in full plate with no ranks in Move Silently and the Dexterity of a one-legged cow doesn't mean your armor invariably alerts the whole dungeon to your presence. I would like clear rules on how well the opponents can notice your approach without really trying to hear you, if you aren't really trying to be quiet, but still moving cautiously. Just the same, it's possible for your party to hear a conversation through a door without really trying to hear it. If you have an incredibly high Move Silently modifier but aren't trying to be quiet, is the modifier entirely ignored? etc. etc.

 

[kiznit]

You will always somebody who will champion any element of the status quo, who are fine with things as they stand no matter how in need of remediation it may be. That alone doesn't evidence that everything's fine.

Huh, guess I need to practice my goose-stepping.

What I and other have presented are issues with these from an objective standpoint, of a logistical and practical nature, not some subjective personal pecadillo.

You raised one solid logistical problem with Taking 10 that I happily recognized - It separates characters into a binary between can-do's and can't. People have noted that this is a problem with the D20 skill system in general; I personally noted that I felt that Take 10 wasn't meant to reflect non-generalized or repeatable situations where that granularity comes to light anyway.

I haven't seen any logistical or practical responses to these counterpoints, just some vague internet snipery and a whole lot of personal pecadillo-type people who don't seem to understand the intention behind the rule.

I also would like to add that it is a msitake to think that removing an element I dislike from my own game is the solution. That presumes it's only a problem for me when I'm the DM.

Rule Zero, baby. Learn it and Love it.

 

[Felon]

You raised one solid logistical problem with Taking 10 that I happily recognized

Oh. Well, why didn't you say so. You're OK in my book then.

 

[hong]

I commented on this earlier. It's easy to make Search check DCs a sham.

I think part of the step in the right direction is likely what we'll wind up seeing in 4e. Search will likely be rolled into a Perception skill like it is in Star Wars Saga. It won't be some mandatory check that's made and tolerated just because a PC sank precious skill points into it. It will be a little more liberating to establish limitations on how much a Search check can help without taking some specific steps other than targeting a 5'x5' square.

Well, since we're agreed that Search is a problem in itself, if we still want to talk about take 20, then bringing up problems with skills other than Search might be better....

But yes, rolling Search into Perception sounds good. IMC I've usually allowed auto-take 10 on Spot to notice traps anyway. It's more intuitive than having people crawl through the dungeon one 5' square at a time.

Elaborate traps that are significant (ie, interesting) encounters in their own right seems the way to go.

 

[IceFractal]

I find the complaints about Take 20 odd, as it isn't even a new rule - it's just formalizing what you can already do! Don't like taking 20? Just keep rolling checks until you get a 20 - same exact thing!

Take 10, on the other hand, is a difference from the normal skill rules, but personally one that I like. For one thing, it lets you determine the effectiveness of ordinary tasks without rolling for every single thing. For another, it eliminates glitchy results like a world-class climber falling off a cliff after climbing for one or two minutes, or a master craftsman screwing up every 10th item they make.


However, I would like two changes:
1) Specify, prominently, that Taking 20 is equivalent to rolling 20 times. This will hopefully clear up misunderstanding about it and explain why it has the conditions it does.

2) Give Take 10 a different name, like Take Average or something. I've seen far too many people who make the mistake: "If Take 20 takes 20 times as long as normal, then Take 10 must take 10 times as long" And when these people are the DM, it can cause arguments and screw people over.