Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5815793" data-attributes="member: 1465">Take 10 (and Take 20 in a different way) was a very reasonable rule, and that's why 5e is going to have something equivalent: you don't roll for easy tasks, unless circumstances introduce additional difficulties (which in fact means they are not easy tasks anymore).The fact is, nobody said that &quot;10&quot; should have been the threshold for automatic success. &quot;Take 1&quot; could have been the intrinsic threshold if there had been no Take 10 rule.You can go farther than this. If you ignore the Take 10 rule or its equivalent and therefore roll for everything, you can in fact interpret this not only as randomness in your effort or circumstances but also in the randomness of the task itself. I mean, you can see a DC 15 for breaking wooden doors as average of all wooden doors in the world, but then not allowing Take 10 and Take 20 (i.e. also not allowing retries) means &quot;let's see if I can break down this door&quot;, and if the random rolls result in a failure it just means that: even if this is a wooden door, perhaps the construction is such that you still don't manage to break this one down.Generally speaking, I don't think the subject is simple at all to solve... Automatic success/failure is going to cause a lot of dissatisfaction with some tasks, such as detecting secret doors or traps. Players will just say &quot;from now on, I am always in detect mode&quot; and the DM has to decide if they will always or never find them. That's not fun...Eventually it all depends on the nature of the tasks.For example, I personally never allowed Take 10 on Knowledge checks. It's debatable, but I think it was the right thing to do. Knowledge checks are essentially clues, and allowing Take 10 means the DM is simply handling out a fixed set of clues. I always preferred instead to let the PC roll so that the clues would be random.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5815793, member: 1465"] Take 10 (and Take 20 in a different way) was a very reasonable rule, and that's why 5e is going to have something equivalent: you don't roll for easy tasks, unless circumstances introduce additional difficulties (which in fact means they are not easy tasks anymore). The fact is, nobody said that "10" should have been the threshold for automatic success. "Take 1" could have been the intrinsic threshold if there had been no Take 10 rule. You can go farther than this. If you ignore the Take 10 rule or its equivalent and therefore roll for everything, you can in fact interpret this not only as randomness in your effort or circumstances but also in the randomness of the task itself. I mean, you can see a DC 15 for breaking wooden doors as [I]average[/I] of all wooden doors in the world, but then not allowing Take 10 and Take 20 (i.e. [I]also not allowing retries[/I]) means "let's see if I can break down [I]this[/I] door", and if the random rolls result in a failure it just means that: even if this is a wooden door, perhaps the construction is such that [I]you[/I] still don't manage to break [I]this one[/I] down. Generally speaking, I don't think the subject is simple at all to solve... Automatic success/failure is going to cause a lot of dissatisfaction with [B]some[/B] tasks, such as detecting secret doors or traps. Players will just say "from now on, I am always in detect mode" and the DM has to decide if they will always or never find them. That's not fun... Eventually it all depends on the nature of the tasks. For example, I personally never allowed Take 10 on Knowledge checks. It's debatable, but I think it was the right thing to do. Knowledge checks are essentially [I]clues[/I], and allowing Take 10 means the DM is simply handling out a fixed set of clues. I always preferred instead to let the PC roll so that the clues would be random. [/QUOTE]

Verification