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

[knifespeaks]

Yeah, I hear ya....

*grumbles to self* "old dog, new tricks" ....../cry....



I am DM'ing a bunch of 3.x folks in a campaign commencing this weekend - I can hear you all roaring with laughter from here But it's true

I can't convince many of you that I do like skills and feats and some other aspects of 3.5....but I do! But, well, the part of my brain that deals with d&d just finds some of the rules hard to digest

 

[Jhulae]

knifespeaks,

You may want to look into Castles & Crusades.

It's based on the SRD, so it's got core of the d20 mechanic (i.e. rolling high is always good, AC is the to hit #, etc.), but it's purported to have an 'old school feel', like 1st ed AD&D. The PHB for it should be out soon. A 'collector's edition' is already out and people say it's rules light, fast, and easy, allowing for more 'action' and less 'rules lawyering'.

 

[billd91]

I read with awe the rules for NPC classes in the DMG...level 20 commoners??? I couldn't believe it. Now peasants have levels too??

Like I said, I come from an earlier gaming era, where it was enough to be a level 10 fighter with 80 hps and attack 2/round - that to me is enough. I don't need all the other stuff on top - I can make the world an interesting place with finding secret doors 1 in 6, hearing noise 2 in 20 and missing on a 1.

3.x has some good ideas - and those ideas I will take. But everything else on top just removes most of the imagination from the game. It makes it less fun, not more fun. And I don't expect many of you to agree - but then I am not trying to change your minds, I am merely giving my point of view.

If 3.5, as written, works for you, then that's great. But not me - it makes things less colourful and more confined.

Darn straight commoners (and other NPCs) have levels! About time too. Now there's a game-related difference between some wet-behind the ears young shepherd and his grizzled and experienced uncle. Now, you don't have to have every bartender be a retired adventurer if you need to keep the higher-level PCs in line. Now, the captain of the militia doesn't have to be a high level fighter with all the perks, he can be a high level warrior: formidable but without the bells and whistles of a heroic class. And best of all, no 0-level NPCs that the fighter PCs can mow down at the rate of 1/level/round.

I come from an earlier gaming era too and nothing in 3.x editions take any iota of imagination from the game. It's YOU who are ceding your imagination because you can't adapt to the new tools or have too much nostalgia for the old tools.

 

[dcollins]

D, I was *also* responding to that. Don't be dense, mmkay?

Then, in the strange world where all DCs are balanced such that the only way to fail is on a roll of a 1, you have a world where a 1 is an autofail.

Who's really being dense here? I didn't say all rolls are set up to fail on 1. I didn't say every DC in the world is the same. How freaking stupid would you have to be to do that?

What I said was, with a rule like Take 10/ Take 20, every Rogue-type skill has either a 0% chance or a 100% chance of success, because it's entirely preordained where a Rogue player will Take 10 or Take 20 on anything of interest. I would like a variety of success rates at things like Search, including the possibility of 55%, 75%, or 95% success rate. In practice that requires getting rid of Take 10/20 for things like Search.

Stop trolling me because it's pretty offensive.

 

[irdeggman]

Knifespeaks,
I think the underlying problem here is due to understanding what the concept and application of a DC is all about.

It appears that you think the ones listed are hard and fast. They ar actually supposed to be guidelines. Setting the DC of a check is up to the DM to make things the appropiate level cahllenge for the situation he wants to produce.

Something else to think about is how to handle the following situations which (unless I'm very much mistaken) will pop up in just about any campaign.

The player says "I'm taking my time to do a thorough check"

The player says "I'm being careful {insert appropriate action}"

Both of this situations have come up frequently since 1st ed and will continue to come up because realistically players have a right to expect different things to happen if they perform a thorough check or do something carefully. These are the situations that the taking 10 and taking 20 mechanic were designed to simulate. They basically give the DM a game-mechanic to use to address the PC's action instead of having to work off the cuff in handling them.

Remember that the DM sets the DC for an action and this is supposed to reflect the difficulty of the situation being proposed to the characters/players.

The exact same mechanic applies to CR of encounters. They are supposed to provide an easy mechanic for the DM to use to avoid severe use of the DM fiat and off-the-cuff gaming. That is they were designed to make the DM's life easier and to streamline the game so it can flow smoothly and not get bogged down in endless calculations made by the DM and players. Just to make it clearer the EL is based on the CR of the creatures being encountered and modified by the situational modifiers inserted by the DM - things like traps being set up, an ambush with a lot of cover, etc.

I have been in far too many games where the DM insisted on running things off the cuff instead of ahving them prepared before hand. This really detracts from the enjoyment level of the game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What I said was, with a rule like Take 10/ Take 20, every Rogue-type skill has either a 0% chance or a 100% chance of success,

Completely incorrect.

In fact, someone else posted an excellent example of how this is not the case, and how their player actually uses in-character commentary to describe how they go about things when picking locks.

Take 10: "I try the standards - maybe this lock uses one of the common methods I've practiced up on."

If they fail:

Roll X Times: "Huh... Not a standard model. OK - I'll try a couple of tricks; maybe one will work."

If they fail:

Take 20: "Ok. I'll start from the top, and run through each and every possible configuration. It'll take me a bit, but hopefully I'll hit the right one eventually."

Now, Take 10 and Take 20 are only possible when the PCs have time on their hands - until the Rogue gets Skill Mastery, at any rate.

In other words, the chances of success are only "0% or 100%" assuming the PCs aren't under pressure and have at least two minutes to spend attempting a particular task.

Otherwise, the chances of success *are* 55%, or 80%, or 5%.

Now, how did you put it? Oh, right, "How freaking stupid would you have to be to" believe that?

Stop trolling me because it's pretty offensive.

Pot, have you met my friend Mr. Kettle? He's black, too.

 

[Storm Raven]

Now, Take 10 and Take 20 are only possible when the PCs have time on their hands - until the Rogue gets Skill Mastery, at any rate.

One minor note: Take 10 doesn't require any more time than a standard skill check.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One minor note: Take 10 doesn't require any more time than a standard skill check.

But can't be done in combat or under certain other stressful circumstances, and therefore is "standing around" time.

 

[Nail]

....still, "taking 20" on trap searches does take the guesswork out, for the players anyway.

"I didn't find a trap after taking 20? Okay, that means it's either not there or it's way too freaking difficult. Either way, lets move on."

 

[smetzger]

Let me beat this dead horse some more

Here is what I like about take 20 on Search checks and generally being able to retry something. In 1e and 2e when the characters had a reasonable suspicion that there was a secret door in a specific area they got to roll once and if they didn't find it, oh well. This could be a major plot problem if they needed to get through the door in order to defeat the BBEG. Now as the DM I can set the DC for a secret door to be high enough that the door will most likely not be found untill the party has sufficient time to do a thorough check (take 20). This allows the game to move on and also allows for the puzzle aspect of the game where the players must actually choose to do a search and take 20.