SPYCRAFT: The greatest RPG ever made! The best d20 game ever!

[Doc_Klueless]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mal Malenkirk


Taking 20 isn't litterally about rolling 20 times and getting a 20 at the end of the serie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's EXACTLY what it is for.

If Spycraft adds critical failure on 1's for skill checks to the system, then taking 20 wouldn't be possible.

Geoff.

As written in the Player's Handbook, yes. As written in Spycraft, no. There is no mention whatsoever of rolling 20 times, etc. It just says that if you take 20, you get a 20 but forfeit the ability to score a Threat and therefore roll for Critical Success and it takes 20 times longer than normal.

 

[gustavef]

You can take a 20 if you have 20 time normal time and there isn't a penality for failure. (PHB Rule, and Spycarft rule)

Rolling a natural 1 is an "Automatic Failure" and is an Error, or Thret for a Cricical Failure. However, rolling a natural 1 by itslef does not become a critical faliure unless the GC activates the Error by spending an action die.

In the Spycraft "Take 20" rule, you are explictly not subjected to any Threts (Errors or Successes).

In other words the rule is fine. Rolling a natural 1 by itself does not produce any penality of action. It only provides the Opportunity for a crictical failure.

-gustavef

 

[Jester_OC]

The way I read it if you throw the dice (and thus take your chances) you have a 5% chance to open any lock in the world (as long as you are trained in lock picking of course). This also means you have a 5% chance to Error which could break the lock. If you play it safe and Take 20, you simply add your skill to 20 and see if you have what it takes to pick the lock, no risk, no chance of complete failure.

I think that thses rules work well together, for example imagine a player sneaks into an apartment to break into a safe, he figures he has 3 hours before anyone returns. The spy could 'Take 20' to see if he can open the safe with his usual routine, if that fails he can start rolling dice. This can simulate that he is trying riskier methods to open the lock, methods that he knows about, but might not be able to pull off all of the time. If he gets unlucky, he may just break or jam it before he succeeds in opening it.

All in all I think the designers know d20, I think they know it better than most other people that create prestige classes, or other rule suplements.

The bottom line is this game is fun. Real Fun. Me and my players had a ball with it this last Sunday. They where introduced to their characters and were up and running within 45 minutes. We all had a blast.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

When you take 20 in D&D, do you get a critical threat on your skill check?

No because that mechanic doesn't exist in D&D. It exists in Spycraft and the rules require you to roll natural 20 and spend an action die in order to activate it.

Rationalize it any way you want, a take 20 doesn't grant you a critical threat. That's not all; Take 20 are not automatic success but a natural 20 is. Furthermore, I you can't add action dice to a take 20 in order to improve your check.

To take the safecracker example given by jester, let's assume a fixer with +9 open lock trying to open a high quality lock. Let's say the DC secretly is 30.

The fixer can take 20, try everything in the book and fail (result of 29) after working fruitlessly for 2 minute.

Or he can deftly play it by ear, roll a 13, spend an action die to add 2D4* (4s explode) to his skill check and get a grand total of 31, thus succeeding in 6 seconds.

If he had been even luckier and had rolled a 20, he would have automatically succeeded and could have spent an action dice to get a critical success. In that case that would have meant that the fixer would have opened the lock in only an half-action (3 seconds) and left no trace of forced entry.

Of course he could have rolled a 1 and the GC could then have spent an action die to permanently jam the lock and perhaps another one to break the lockpicking tools in the lock.

*Fixer get double dice when spending an action die on a dex check.

 

[Sigmund]

What Hong said.

What is their explanation for adding auto-success and auto-failure to skill checks? Did they give a reason? They didn't explain it in Spycraft Lite. With that, a character with one rank in Open Locks, 1 Dex, and improvised tools will be able to 'Take 20' and open the most difficult lock in the world in two minutes.

Unless they have a good explanation for this change it is clear that they do not understand the d20 system.

Geoff.

The reason for adding this mechanic is to allow the spectacular successes (and failures) that the superspy genre is known for.

They (the game designers) operate under the premise that, if there is a way to even attempt something (the GC says the character can try), then there is always a chance (no matter how small) that the character can succeed. I agree with this premise and applaud their method for dealing with it. Perhaps you might be better served by reserving such broad criticisms as "...they do not understand the d20 system" until after you've actually read and applied the rulebook yourself.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Perhaps you might be better served by reserving such broad criticisms as "...they do not understand the d20 system" until after you've actually read and applied the rulebook yourself.

He sure would.

Thanks, Geoff, for hijacking my thread and turning it into this lame back-n-forth about some minor nitpick you have with the rules, instead of the glory that is SPYCRAFT! Let's turn this thread back to more productive topics than Geoff's sincere but bizarre obsession with how "Take 20" is applied in Spycraft vs. D&D 3e. Sheesh!

 

[Jester_OC]

Very true, as I said at the end of my post, the game is fun. I'm not sure if I will like their world book, but I love the mechanics in the core book. I intend to run a chase this Sunday, that will be a good test of the system, I can't wait. It will probably involve a chase through a large park in France!

Wish us luck!

Jester_OC

 

[Geoff Watson]

The reason for adding this mechanic is to allow the spectacular successes (and failures) that the superspy genre is known for.

They (the game designers) operate under the premise that, if there is a way to even attempt something (the GC says the character can try), then there is always a chance (no matter how small) that the character can succeed. I agree with this premise and applaud their method for dealing with it. Perhaps you might be better served by reserving such broad criticisms as "...they do not understand the d20 system" until after you've actually read and applied the rulebook yourself.

I've read Spycraft Lite. There are several other problems with the rules. I'm not going to buy a book with known flaws, unless there is a good explanation.
If you or Kaptain Kantrip are willing to send me a copy (it's not available in Australia yet anyway), I will try reading and applying it. Until then, all I have to go on is Spycraft Lite and what has been posted in this thread.

Geoff.

 

[Geoff Watson]

When you take 20 in D&D, do you get a critical threat on your skill check?

No because that mechanic doesn't exist in D&D. It exists in Spycraft and the rules require you to roll natural 20 and spend an action die in order to activate it.

Rationalize it any way you want, a take 20 doesn't grant you a critical threat. That's not all; Take 20 are not automatic success but a natural 20 is. Furthermore, I you can't add action dice to a take 20 in order to improve your check.

Fine. Semantics. Replace 'Take 20' with 'keep rolling until you get a 20'.

Geoff.

 

[Voneth]

I've read Spycraft Lite. There are several other problems with the rules. I'm not going to buy a book with known flaws, unless there is a good explanation.
Geoff.

Then don't get the PHB, Monster Manual, DMG (all have erratras) or the WotC class books.

In my years of gaming, I have discovered that a "Lite" game usaualy has a few flaws since it was done 1.) at the last minute and 2.) contains a simplfied rule of a concept that is done in more depth and examples in the main book.

The best example of a Lite version that almost tanks a good game is the Lone Wolf version of Mage Knight Dungeons. The LW version had a lame map, two random heroes who may not really be suitable for solo play and a vauge ule book that is written three different ways to scale up the complexity. The full game that's played with a Hero Team, room tiles instead of cards, and with the FAQ is a blast.

So my advice to Sherlock's friend is to simply wait until he can peruse the real deal and then make his judgement. Frankly, if I had to pay Aussie prices for games, I'd problay take up fencing and theater instead.