Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 1832205" data-attributes="member: 876">Well, for what it's worth, I basically agree with "knifespeaks" on this issue. I've said it before, but the non-randomness of the Take 10 and Take 20 rules make for some really degenerate probability plateaus. A smith wants to make a complex item (DC 20). At one level, he's got a +9 bonus and fails 50% of the time. He gets one single more skill point and he fails 0% of the time due to being able to Take 10. I want the success to curve smoothly over increased skill, not jump cartoonishly like that.Particularly with regard to scenarios that are dangerous and have established Challenge Ratings -- such as Search, Disable Device, etc. Those things really feel like they need to be dicey, like combat, not metagamed away. I want a good Rogue in my campaign to have a 95% chance of Search success, not either 50% or 100% due to the Take 10 rule.As DM, I started backing out Take 10 and Take 20 for CR-related things like Search, and consider that justified under the existing rules as one of the rolls the DM can take over. But myco-DM liked the mechanics even less than I did, and persuaded me to scrap them altogether in our campaign.For something like Search, where there's no clear "success at finding nothing", the PCs shouldn't be able to know when further searching does no good. In addition, if it's a trap-like Challenge, it should resemble the combat mechanic (re: rolling probabilities, not talking about auto-success/fail).(Also, regarding the ship's rigging, everyone realizes you only need skill +5 to avoid ever actually falling, right? Easily accomplished by a fit 1st-level Commoner?)</blockquote>

Verification