Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[Kynn]

Taking 10 is NOT in the 5e rules as core, but something similar is.

How would you know this?

 

[BryonD]

While I understand where you're coming from, I have to say that I don't mind it so much in combat. Mostly because one roll either way usually isn't going to be the deciding factor. Combat usually isn't binary pass/fail, so, one great hit or one bad miss makes things more exciting.

Although, to be fair, I found 3e's crit rules too punishing to PC's. Orcs should not be one shotting 3rd level fighters.

In 2e, our crit rules worked a bit different. When you rolled a crit, it gave you a bonus attack that round. A crit fumble meant that you lost your next attack. That seemed to work rather well in 2e. And, it's a bit more exciting than the 4e "you max your damage" crit, if a smidgeon slower.

It doesn't have anything to do with it being pass/fail.

The idea that the chance of a wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a dragon as a warrior is to crit a hobgoblin is a real weak plan to me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It doesn't have anything to do with it being pass/fail.

The idea that the chance of a wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a dragon as a warrior is to crit a hobgoblin is a real weak plan to me.

What about if the wizard crits that dragon for less damage than the fighter's minimum damage on the hobgob? Not all crits are created equal, after all.

 

[Dausuul]

It doesn't have anything to do with it being pass/fail.

The idea that the chance of a wizard swinging a stick is just as likely to crit a dragon as a warrior is to crit a hobgoblin is a real weak plan to me.

Keep in mind that the wizard is likely to do less damage with a crit than the warrior does with a regular hit.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How would you know this?

I'm sorry, I should have phrased it "What we know of 5e does not use Take 10, but something effectively similar"

By which I mean "take 10" is something the players choose to do. What we know of 5e is that the DM need not (should not?) ask for a roll if the ability score beats the DC.

They are quite different, if mathematically similar (and we don't really know how mathematically similar they are - we've been working under the assumption that a 16 Str (for example) beats a 14 DC because it offers a +6, or something equivalent).

I suppose it could ALSO use "take 10" but I can't really see why it would need to.

Besides, if it works anywhere near what we're guessing, rolling, taking 10, using static values, or opposed rolls, passive values, etc would all be easily chosen by player/DM preference.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There's a significant difference between the new edition's "autosuccess" rule, and Take 10.

Under Take 10, you get to assume an average result. In 5E, it sounds like you have to assume the worst result. Even if you removed Take 10 and Take 20 from 3.5, 5E-style autosuccess was implicit. If your skill was equal than or greater to the DC (technically DC+1), then you literally could not fail, and it was silly to roll, since skills don't auto-fail on 1s.

The difficulty with Take 10 is adjudicating when it's OK to accept average results, and when to force a roll that could be worse than average. In 5E, the autosuccess isn't even needed as a rule. It's a natural consequence of a system where ability + d20 has to exceed a DC, assuming no auto-fails on 1, as in previous editions.

I'm concerned that 5E autosuccess is poised to become the replacement for Take 10, and Passive Perception. Both are, I think, good ideas. But they only work because they assume average results. For the kinds of routine checks expected to be made many, many times, they work. But if you are assuming the worst possible result every time, then players are going to want to roll constantly, unless their skill is truly enough. It works OK for breaking doors, but what about spotting traps and secret doors? Are we going to have to start rolling perceptions at each door again, since the "passive" result is terrible? Or is it back to: "roll for spot traps" *low roll* "OK, so you open the door?"

You seem to be under the impression that the 5e autosuccess is based on the equivalent of rolling a 1, whereas I see it as compared to rolling a 10. The comparison in the example we've been given is a DC compared to the ability SCORE not compared to the ability modifier.

 

[BryonD]

Keep in mind that the wizard is likely to do less damage with a crit than the warrior does with a regular hit.

What about if the wizard crits that dragon for less damage than the fighter's minimum damage on the hobgob? Not all crits are created equal, after all.

I'm aware. It makes no difference to the point.

 

[On Puget Sound]

A critical hit used to mean "life threatening." Nowadays it just means "the best hit you could make with the weapon/ spell you are using." Wimps can do that just as well as bruisers; it just won't be as effective.

"Is that the best you can do, puny human?" "Yes, I'm afraid so..."

 

[underfoot007ct]

When did this thread change to a 5E Next Critical thread ?

 

[Hussar]

This is where DM skills come into play. You can't always retry on certain things. Trying to climb out of a pit and you fail, well a good DM would tell you that the roots you were using to climb have come out, or you pulled a muscle etc...

Comparing skills and combat are like trying to compare apples and oranges. Skills also have to take into account outside interferences. Can't make that jump because there is great gusts of wind that are messing with the PC, or he slipped on some loose gravel etc....

Umm, I would point out that climbing is a skill that allows retries. Granted, you might run out of hit points, but, then again, you only actually fall if you failed your check by 5 or more. If the DC is 13, and I have a +10 on my climb, I might fail to make any progress this round, but, I can never fall, regardless of what I roll.