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

[Scion]

But 'rolling enough times' is different to taking 20. Taking 20 argues that you will get 19 failures for one succes. As we all know, dice don't work like that.

It says that you are assumed to fail many times. In essence, if there is something bad that can happen because of failure then it 'does' happen.

Otherwise, it is just someone taking their time to get it as well as they can.

It can be done with enough rolls, this is true and cannot be denied. Might as well make it easy.

 

[knifespeaks]

So the only people on the ships are those who have been climbing rigging for years? They never had new people? There are never people below level 10 on the ship and everyone always maxes out climb?

Doesnt seem right, especially going by the core where most people are 'very' low level. Without take 10 it is possible that someone will 'never' make it up that rope, seems silly

Thats only true if you equate skill levels with experience levels. We are getting off-topic here, but I don't see climb +10 for a sailor meaning he has to be level 10. I just see him as having +10 climb, but he is a 0 level commoner, or maybe a 1st level fighter.

 

[Scion]

Thats only true if you equate skill levels with experience levels. We are getting off-topic here, but I don't see climb +10 for a sailor meaning he has to be level 10. I just see him as having +10 climb, but he is a 0 level commoner, or maybe a 1st level fighter.

So... you arent even talking about d&d anymore?

I just dont see where you are coming from. Not a rules standpoint, not a balance standpoint, not an ease of use standpoint, not a d&d standpoint... there just doesnt seem to be anything there.

What is left?

 

[knifespeaks]

It says that you are assumed to fail many times. In essence, if there is something bad that can happen because of failure then it 'does' happen.

Otherwise, it is just someone taking their time to get it as well as they can.

It can be done with enough rolls, this is true and cannot be denied. Might as well make it easy.

Ok, then Hyp's incredibly agile barbarian leaping the 5' gap over an 800' chasm couldn't take 20? With his skill of +4, he is better off rolling rather than' taking his time'?

I must be wrong there, surely?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ok, then Hyp's incredibly agile barbarian leaping the 5' gap over an 800' chasm couldn't take 20? With his skill of +4, he is better off rolling rather than' taking his time'?

He can't Take 20; there is a penalty for failure. (He could Take 20 on a jump to grab the bottom rung of the fire escape if he's locked himself out of his apartment, though, because there's no penalty for failure.)

But he can Take 10 (which you've also said you would nix).

But the point is that if you introduce auto-fail on a 1, then if he has to jump that chasm every day on his way to the office, and on his way home, he'll almost certainly be dead in three weeks.

Even if he's the world's best jumper.

-Hyp.

 

[knifespeaks]

So... you arent even talking about d&d anymore?

I just dont see where you are coming from. Not a rules standpoint, not a balance standpoint, not an ease of use standpoint, not a d&d standpoint... there just doesnt seem to be anything there.

What is left?

We are having a quote fest here, which we really should stop!

But to answer your question, it is d&d. I just don't subscribe to skill levels = character levels; the 2 operate independantly.

 

[knifespeaks]

He can't Take 20; there is a penalty for failure. (He could Take 20 on a jump to grab the bottom rung of the fire escape if he's locked himself out of his apartment, though, because there's no penalty for failure.)

But he can Take 10 (which you've also said you would nix).

But the point is that if you introduce auto-fail on a 1, then if he has to jump that chasm every day on his way to the office, and on his way home, he'll almost certainly be dead in three weeks.

Even if he's the world's best jumper.

-Hyp.

Or he could simply build a bridge, which makes more sense

 

[Scion]

Ok, then Hyp's incredibly agile barbarian leaping the 5' gap over an 800' chasm couldn't take 20? With his skill of +4, he is better off rolling rather than' taking his time'?

It doesnt matter how much time the barb takes, he cant fail. There isnt any point in taking 20, but taking 20 isnt possible on such a check anyway.

I believe the smurfs point was that even if he rolls a one he will always make it across (given no extenuating circumstances of course, one can always be made to fail anything given proper conditions). So, there is no '1 in X' chance of failure.

There is still a penalty 'if' it is failed, but there is no chance of failure without incredible mitigating circumstances. He can take 10 if not rushed, he could likely take a 0 and still make the jump twice over.

No taking 20, no point anyway. But, he could take 10 unless pressed for time.

 

[Pbartender]

Thats only true if you equate skill levels with experience levels. We are getting off-topic here, but I don't see climb +10 for a sailor meaning he has to be level 10. I just see him as having +10 climb, but he is a 0 level commoner, or maybe a 1st level fighter.

Meaning your average 1st-level human sailor has to drop 4 ranks into climb, and burn all two of his feats on Athletic and Skill Focus (climb), just so that won't fall out of the rigging once a week?

Let's hope he doesn't ever have to tie a knot... or swim.

 

[Scion]

Or he could simply build a bridge, which makes more sense

so one has to build a ramp to walk down a step? after all, there is a chance to fall and break your neck so obviously it must be rolled over and over again, every step.

I take several hundred steps each and every day, why am I not dead yet?

I just don't subscribe to skill levels = character levels; the 2 operate independantly.

This is not d&d. Skill is tied directly to level in d&d. Higher level means ability to have higher ranks and more skill points to spend. Also, there arent any 0 level commoners like in 2nd ed and good riddance!