Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 6370800" data-attributes="member: 9789">This is the main issue with the &quot;taking 20&quot; variants people are mentioning.&nbsp; If you just assume someone will get it eventually, then all manacles are 100% pointless, and the normal locks you can buy are 100% useless.&nbsp; Why would anyone use a normal lock on an unguarded dungeon door if literally anyone can pick it in about 20 minutes?&nbsp; Certainly there's a use for someone who has a good change to beat a DC 15 check in 6 seconds, but if anyone else can do the same thing in ~20 minutes, it definitely diminishes that role.Also why would you ever tie up prisoners or capture anyone?&nbsp; Anyone can escape anything eventually so it just doesn't matter.&nbsp; It also means that all mundane jails are pointless and you should never happen upon a skeleton in manacles because they could have gotten out with half an hour's worth of effort.&nbsp; That's right:&nbsp; a halfling child can physically break manacles given 20 minutes.While I agree with the idea that most things just don't need to be rolled if you expect the PCs will get it eventually and time isn't an issue, it also means that at least a few game mechanics are pointless.Personally I am starting to like the idea mentioned in other threads and above that each retry takes a longer time increment (1 turn, then you have to try for another minute to roll again, then an hour, then a day, etc. - something like that).&nbsp; This is a complete houserule but it at least gives some meaning to locks and manacles, and it represents the increasing amount of time invested in the task.&nbsp; You'd have to have an end point as well, at which point it's simply impossible and cannot be done by that person, ever.&nbsp; (Or maybe the time increments simply increase to the point at which they would outlast that creature's lifespan.)&nbsp; The nice thing is that it also allows players to judge an increasing time risk vs. what they are trying to do.Anyway, the point of this thread is that there is no one right way, and every idea has issues one way or another, so yeah:&nbsp; do what you think is best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 6370800, member: 9789"] This is the main issue with the "taking 20" variants people are mentioning. If you just assume someone will get it eventually, then all manacles are 100% pointless, and the normal locks you can buy are 100% useless. Why would anyone use a normal lock on an unguarded dungeon door if literally anyone can pick it in about 20 minutes? Certainly there's a use for someone who has a good change to beat a DC 15 check in 6 seconds, but if anyone else can do the same thing in ~20 minutes, it definitely diminishes that role. Also why would you ever tie up prisoners or capture anyone? Anyone can escape anything eventually so it just doesn't matter. It also means that all mundane jails are pointless and you should never happen upon a skeleton in manacles because they could have gotten out with half an hour's worth of effort. That's right: a halfling child can physically break manacles given 20 minutes. While I agree with the idea that most things just don't need to be rolled if you expect the PCs will get it eventually and time isn't an issue, it also means that at least a few game mechanics are pointless. Personally I am starting to like the idea mentioned in other threads and above that each retry takes a longer time increment (1 turn, then you have to try for another minute to roll again, then an hour, then a day, etc. - something like that). This is a complete houserule but it at least gives some meaning to locks and manacles, and it represents the increasing amount of time invested in the task. You'd have to have an end point as well, at which point it's simply impossible and cannot be done by that person, ever. (Or maybe the time increments simply increase to the point at which they would outlast that creature's lifespan.) The nice thing is that it also allows players to judge an increasing time risk vs. what they are trying to do. Anyway, the point of this thread is that there is no one right way, and every idea has issues one way or another, so yeah: do what you think is best. [/QUOTE]

Verification