Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5818440" data-attributes="member: 70707">There's a significant difference between the new edition's &quot;autosuccess&quot; rule, and Take 10.Under Take 10, you get to assume an average result.&nbsp; In 5E, it sounds like you have to assume the worst result.&nbsp; Even if you removed Take 10 and Take 20 from 3.5, 5E-style autosuccess was implicit.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In 5E, the autosuccess isn't even needed as a rule.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Both are, I think, good ideas.&nbsp; But they only work because they assume average results.&nbsp; For the kinds of routine checks expected to be made many, many times, they work.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It works OK for breaking doors, but what about spotting traps and secret doors?&nbsp; Are we going to have to start rolling perceptions at each door again, since the &quot;passive&quot; result is terrible?&nbsp; Or is it back to: &quot;roll for spot traps&quot; *low roll* &quot;OK, so you open the door?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5818440, member: 70707"] 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 [i]the[/i] 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 [i]want[/i] 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?" [/QUOTE]

Verification