Help me nail down this 'take 10, take 20' nonsense

[Aesmael]

Not true. It is predicated on a situation where you want to take the time to make sure you have done your best. This does not mean that a twenty is necessary, although itmight well be. To take your example, if it were, say, a rogue trying to open a lock, they might take ten. Or roll for it. Doesn't matter, even if its in secret. All they know is they made their regular amount of effort and it wasn't enough so now they decide it needs a more thorough effort. Even if what they need was a 12 and they rolled 11. The character knows they made a casual attempt, it failed, and now they want to put the extra effort in to get it right. That's where the take twenty comes in.
Hey, I feel like repeating my example a third time so: Rogue walks up to the lock, jiggles the pick around in it, nothing happens (rolled 11, needed twelve). decides it must be tough one. Gets out the magnifying glass, or whatever, gives it a thorough going over (taking about two minutes to make sure of it in the process), sticks the pick in at a slightly different angle (almost got it right the first time), and click, the lock opens.

Or maybe they just happen to be meticulous and do a thorough job. Takes 20 every time. Frustrating and slow to wait for, but very reliable. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Edit - This was what I originally wanted to post, before seeing the most recent one: What I thought knifespeaks was saying was that, having taken twenty, the player knows for certain that they have done their best, even if there is still something to find it is beyond their ability to do so. The problem is that knifespeaks rolls search checks in secret (not something I disagree with), so if a player says "I search again," they can't know for certain that they have rolled a twenty, even if they do it fifty, or a hundred times. Taking twenty eliminates that uncertainty.

 

[Timeboxer]

To be honest, I prefer not to think of take 10 and take 20 as Take 10 and Take 20. It's a lot easier to translate it to different terms, to wit:

Take 10: "I don't take any special effort to do this."

Take 20: "I keep trying until I'm pretty sure that I can't do better."

"You can't tell when you're pretty sure that you can't do better."
"Well, let's just say, oh, I don't know, twenty times the normal amount of time it would take. That should be enough, shouldn't it?"

I'd rather give them the 20 rather than max(20d20). But if you're comfortable with the fact that you're not actually adding anything to your game other than making it more cumbersome, feel free.

 

[knifespeaks]

Thank you Aesmael, that is indeed the problem I have with taking 20.

If I allow it, then there is never uncertainty.
If I don't, then the players have to keep searching and I keep rolling.

This is because, imo, players cannot ever know the result of this sort of roll based on what was on the dice.

I realise my problem is based on a specific situation, one in which the take 20 rule can be used as an exploit; consequently, whilst I understand what the design of the rule is trying to achieve, I don't think it is as tight as it can be.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The issue I have with take 20 is this:

It is predicated on a situation wherein the ONLY ROLL that will succeed, with all modifiers added in, is a 20. It can be a search check at +4 vs DC 24 if you wish to give an example. Ok? I'll say it again - it's a situation where there is a chance, a 1 in 20 chance, for success.

Therefore, such a situation is trivialised if the players can take 20. That's it. The end. Fini.

What if I have a Search check of +14, against a DC of 24? Isn't that trivialised if I can Take 10?

After all, I could, theoretically, roll a thousand times and never beat a 9... Take 10 lets me know, for certain, that I can find anything with a DC of 24 or less.

How is it different?

-Hyp.

 

[knifespeaks]

To be honest, I prefer not to think of take 10 and take 20 as Take 10 and Take 20. It's a lot easier to translate it to different terms, to wit:

Take 10: "I don't take any special effort to do this."

Take 20: "I keep trying until I'm pretty sure that I can't do better."

"You can't tell when you're pretty sure that you can't do better."
"Well, let's just say, oh, I don't know, twenty times the normal amount of time it would take. That should be enough, shouldn't it?"

I'd rather give them the 20 rather than max(20d20). But if you're comfortable with the fact that you're not actually adding anything to your game other than making it more cumbersome, feel free.

I'm not making it more cumbersome - I am adding the element of uncertainty to a situation.

The attack roll is uncertain. Hell, look at the rules for delivering a coup de grace, and there is uncertainty even there. But searching for a secret door? Apparently you cannot have uncertainty in that exercise. Surely you agree that searching for something that may/may not be in existence should be less certain than killing a helpless creature?

And yet, with take 20, that isn't the case.

 

[knifespeaks]

What if I have a Search check of +14, against a DC of 24? Isn't that trivialised if I can Take 10?

After all, I could, theoretically, roll a thousand times and never beat a 9... Take 10 lets me know, for certain, that I can find anything with a DC of 24 or less.

How is it different?

-Hyp.

I guess I should point out that taking 10, taking 20 = all bad for the purposes of this discussion, vis I don't like either of them.

Hyp, see my last comment re: coup de grace.

Consider further: with the same bonus to your attack roll, you are no certainty to hit an unarmoured commoner with an AC of 10. Heck, you aren't even certain of hitting the broadside of a barn.

I don't see why having the element of uncertainty in skill use is given such an easy 'way out' in some circumstances.

 

[nimisgod]

Therefore, such a situation is trivialised if the players can take 20. That's it. The end. Fini.

So you're saying the option of taking 20 makes the situation trivial because you chose to make all the search rolls secret from your players and that they should never know their exact roll?

LOL. Silly me. It is certainly awe-inspiring of you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I guess I should point out that taking 10, taking 20 = all bad for the purposes of this discussion, vis I don't like either of them.

So you prefer the situation where someone who is in no rush and is not threatened has a 45% chance of being unable to climb a ship's rigging?

Heck, you aren't even certain of hitting the broadside of a barn.

Certainly you are. It's an inanimate object. "Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon."

I don't see why having the element of uncertainty in skill use is given such an easy 'way out' in some circumstances.

So if it were 'Take 19' instead, you'd have less problem with it?

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

Surely you agree that searching for something that may/may not be in existence should be less certain than killing a helpless creature?

No. Specifically, not when the former is being done over the course of 6 hours and the latter being done in 6 seconds.

 

[knifespeaks]

Lol, I should never have posted on this thread

Nay Hyp, take 0 is about my limit

As far as climbing rigging is concerned, isn't it possible for a rope to break? A foot to be caught and a character slip? My point is that nothing should be so certain as to enable automatic success - I concede that having even a 5% chance of failing to climb rigging to a crows nest is perhaps a trifle excessive; nevertheless, the rope COULD BE rotten and you MIGHT slip. A 1% is more in order in that specific example, although it could be an old rope....