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

[The Other Librarian]

I don't like saving time - players play the game, I adjudicate. It isn't for me to make things easy for them, and rules like this make it easy.

You want everything spoonfed to you, where it's all easy and simple, magic items can be bought for 50k gold and so on? Then don't sit at my table. Treasure isn't always easy to carry, xp ain't handed out in clumps of 500 and going up a level doesn't make a 'ding'.

Then perhaps the d20 mechanic is not for you. But none of the things you mention above are game mechanic issues, if you want to focus on the minutae of adventuring, that's up to you and your players. If you can be a stickler for those things (food, arrows, etc) then you can easily make sure they don't abuse taking 20 on a search roll.

Edit - Also, there is a big difference between saving time and wasting time. If you can reasonably assume that one out of twenty rolls will be a twenty, or hell one out of fifty, then why waste all that time? I for one have limited time available to play, and like a game to keep moving.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Knife, just because you disagree with the mechanic doesn't make *us* lazy.

It makes you disagreeable.

 

[Ranes]

The concept of taking 20 only applies to a situation where rolling a 20 is sufficient to succeed

Wrong.

- showing examples where a 20 isn't enough for success isn't applicable to the rule for taking 20.

Wrong.

This is because it is defined as a check without a roll - ie, that success is possible with sufficient TIME rather than skill.

Wrong.

So, the fact remains - a take 20 is the same as saying 'roll a 20, success is guaranteed'.

Wrong.

 

[Scion]

I don't like saving time

and that is the end of that really. You dont like a simple mechanic with no real abuses (maybe there are imaginary ones, but they dont exist on my real plane and I dont feel like working in the contour integrals tonight) and dislike players saying, 'I am going to do the best I can at this job'. Very unfortunate.

If one carefully takes time to tie their shoes then I expect it to be better than if they just hastily do it a good majority of the time. Also, sometimes it just makes more sense to take time to do the job right rather than roll a few dozen times (I quickly tie my shoe, then untie it, and then tie it again, over and over again.. hmm, why dont I just tie it slowly and make sure it is right? uh oh.. that lets in the broken 'take 20' mechanic, cant have that!).

In the end, I think the part I quoted above simply ends the discussion. Yet again it just comes down to how much time people want to waste and how much they like frustrating their players.

I prefer to not frustrate people myself. Take 20 works fine.

 

[knifespeaks]

Happily, I agree to disagree

 

[Darren]

"Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding". (PHB, page 65)

Success is therefore ASSURED if you get 20, no? Other bonuses notwithstanding, the 'rule' clearly states that a 20 = success.

Ok....
Let's look at the sentence right before the one quoted:
"Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20." [emphasis mine]

And again, from the glossary:
take 20: To assume that a character makes sufficient retries to obtain the maximum possible check result (as if a 20 were rolled on a d20). Taking 20 takes as much time as making twenty separate skill checks (usually at least 2 minutes). Taking 20 assumes that the character fails many times before succeeding, and thus can't be used if failure carries negative consequences.

If you take the last sentence strictly literally, you might be able to say that taking 20 means success, but that contradicts the first sentence, which says to treat it like a die roll. Would it have helped if the writers had said "Taking 20 assumes that the character fails many times before succeeding rolling a 20?

Finally, from PHB, page 63:
"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

When you take 20 you calculate the result as if you had rolled a 20, and rolling a 20 is not automatic success. I dunno how to say it more clearly... Anyway, this is the most amusing rules discussion I've read. Anyone want to discuss searching and Taking 10?...

 

[hong]

If they wish to search 100 times, then roll 100 dice. Taking 20 is a soft option - as a mechanic, it presents too many opportunities for abuse.

To be exact, taking 20 is a soft option under your ludicrous misinterpretation of the rules. Therefore, any deficiencies you may find point to your failings as a DM, not with any failings with the ruleset.

This is an RPG - that means, as a DM, the microcosm is as important, if not more so, than the macrocosm.

Where are your spell components stored? How many pinches of sand do you have? What hand is your character? How much food do you have left? How are you carrying all your gear? How are you lighting the torch with your hands full?

Magic items must be identified, wands don't usually have the command word carved onto them, armour rusts or goes out of shape in the rain, books get wet, familiars are randomly called, bows aren't carried for days already strung, some weapons are better at piercing armour than others....and you don't take 20 on searches.

You want everything spoonfed to you, where it's all easy and simple, magic items can be bought for 50k gold and so on? Then don't sit at my table. Treasure isn't always easy to carry, xp ain't handed out in clumps of 500 and going up a level doesn't make a 'ding'.

... not, of course, that any of this babble had anything to do with taking 20.

 

[Jhulae]

Nay friend, I don't allow take 20 on searches at all

If you want to 'take 20', you are free to roll the die 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. Doesn't bother me. And in that time, you may find either something or nothing - and if you find nothing, you won't know whether that is because there is nothing to find, or you failed. That's all I am saying.

Take 20 falls down because it gives a definite answer, vis-a-vis:

player: "I'm gonna take 20 on searching this room"
DM: "You don't find anything"

The problem here is that the response is DEFINITE - that is, there was NOTHING TO FIND AND NOW THE PLAYER KNOWS THIS.

THAT'S the problem.

This would be fine, if it were true... but, you're wrong.

Example in action... PC has a +11 to search, the DC to find the trap is 32. He 'takes 20' and guess what? He finds nothing, even though there was something to find! The response is still not definite. (I'll use your same captial thingie to reiterate this..) THERE WAS SOMETHING TO FIND BUT THE PLAYER DOES NOT KNOW THIS EVEN WITH TAKING 20.

Taking 20 does not guarantee success, and that's where you're wrong. I'll repeat that because it bears repeating in this arguement. Taking 20 does not guarantee success.

 

[FireLance]

/sigh.

If the dc is so high that even with a pefect roll the goal is unachievable, then why have the mechanic of take 20 at all? I quote:

"Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding". (PHB, page 65)

Success is therefore ASSURED if you get 20, no? Other bonuses notwithstanding, the 'rule' clearly states that a 20 = success.

I can think of two situations. Other, more imaginative minds can probably come up with more.

Sometimes, the point of a secret door, lock, trap, etc. is not to keep the PCs out but to slow them down. Whether you take 1 round or 2 minutes to pick the lock can be an issue when there's a cleric who is aware of you and casting buff spells on the other side. Taking your time can be a penalty in itself. Five rounds is the difference between a 7th-level cleric and a 7th-level cleric with divine power, divine favor, bear's endurance, magic circle against good and shield of faith.

When you think about it, would the standard wooden door in a dungeon really stand up to assault from a determined party, even when locked? Same thing - it's not there to keep the party out, but to slow them down.

[Aside]According to my pals in the military, the same principle applies to minefields. The effectiveness of mines is not in killing enemy soldiers, but in slowing them down because they have to carefully search for and disable them, thus giving you the time to do what you want without interference.[/Aside]

Another is to create a plot hook which you don't want the PCs to follow up on until they reach a minimum level of experience. Early on the their careers, they might hear that something is hidden in a particular location, but until they get experienced enough (have enough ranks in Search), they won't be able to find it. It also really brings home the increased competence of their higher-level characters (although you have searched hard in the past, you have never been able to find it... until now).

 

[Thanee]

In response to your question Hyp, re: why is it metagaming to take another closer look, I ask why would you? You just looked, and found nothing - sure, look again....you still find nothing. At what point does nothing equate to "I may have missed something" ?

You just translate the abstract mechanics wrong.

Multiple Search rolls together still are a single chance, you can translate that to a single percentage (like 50% chance to succeed on one roll, 75% on two, 87.5% on three, and so on). It's just the mechanics instead of giving a bonus for a longer search interval, that you receive multiple rolls. The whole process is still one (thorough) Search.

There is nothing hindering you to search for minutes or even hours, so why shouldn't you search for so long until you decide to give up? That's how it works in real life, too.

The mechanics are, that you search multiple times (or save time by going take 20), but that does not mean you actually search multiple times, it just means you spend more time on your single search.

The take 20 mechanic even is very clever, since it stays within your personal limits. You cannot go beyond the level you can achieve with a single roll, only your chances to achieve this result are higher (with multiple rolls, or maximum with take 20, which is just to speed up things, thus maximum is the perfectly right choice here). If you would give a bonus for spending more time on the search (which otherwise you would, so it doesn't get silly), you could go beyond your personal limits. This rule nicely prevents that, while still providing you with a mechanic to improve your chances by spending more time on the search.

Bye
Thanee