D&D 5E Starter Set: Excerpt 3 (actual)

[Kobold Stew]

I'd rather just drop the arbitrary stopping point. If a player asks me why he can't try again and I can't give him a good answer, then of course he gets to try again. Maybe I just find verisimilitude to be more important than others though.

I understand where this view comes form, but (IME) it means that some skill challenges stop being interesting -- it becomes a "take 20" rule, and the DC is either set at a level where it is possible to overcome, or it is not.

One variant, inspired by the FATE system, would solve the problem in my view:

assuming the DC is within reach of the roll, the number by which the roll is missed is the number of minutes (not rounds) that are spent working on the lock. That's not a perfect solution (and ideally it would require an initial statement from the player along the lines of "I try the lock, and if I don't get it right away, I'll work at it for five minutes" (whereby the player is allowing herself to miss the roll by five). But eventually, human beings give up when they are unsuccessful -- this should be reflected in any skill roll, and is why a single roll is (for me) the cleanest expression of verisimilitude.

 

[Mistwell]

Have the DM roll a save for the lock vs. your lock picking DC of 8 + Dex + thieves tools proficiency bonus.

 

[Agamon]

One variant, inspired by the FATE system, would solve the problem in my view:

assuming the DC is within reach of the roll, the number by which the roll is missed is the number of minutes (not rounds) that are spent working on the lock. That's not a perfect solution (and ideally it would require an initial statement from the player along the lines of "I try the lock, and if I don't get it right away, I'll work at it for five minutes" (whereby the player is allowing herself to miss the roll by five). But eventually, human beings give up when they are unsuccessful -- this should be reflected in any skill roll, and is why a single roll is (for me) the cleanest expression of verisimilitude.

Failing forward is a good work around. Personally, though, I just don't like rolling for rolling's sake. It's a habit gained from AD&D were the thieves' abilities were percentage rolls and no one else could do them, so of course they need to be rolled for.

But if there's no consequence to failure, there's no need to roll. Just the same as riding a horse down a trail, even really fast. People don't roll that either. Adventurers are supposed to be competent, otherwise why risk your life being an adventurer? If there was a decent chance I'll fail anything I try without any recourse, I'd keep to the less risky ventures, as would anyone with a half a brain.

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

Maybe I just find verisimilitude to be more important than others though.

HERE, HERE!

 

[thalmin]

I understand where this view comes form, but (IME) it means that some skill challenges stop being interesting -- it becomes a "take 20" rule, and the DC is either set at a level where it is possible to overcome, or it is not.

One variant, inspired by the FATE system, would solve the problem in my view:

assuming the DC is within reach of the roll, the number by which the roll is missed is the number of minutes (not rounds) that are spent working on the lock. That's not a perfect solution (and ideally it would require an initial statement from the player along the lines of "I try the lock, and if I don't get it right away, I'll work at it for five minutes" (whereby the player is allowing herself to miss the roll by five). But eventually, human beings give up when they are unsuccessful -- this should be reflected in any skill roll, and is why a single roll is (for me) the cleanest expression of verisimilitude.

I think I will use this!

 

[CM]

assuming the DC is within reach of the roll, the number by which the roll is missed is the number of minutes (not rounds) that are spent working on the lock. That's not a perfect solution (and ideally it would require an initial statement from the player along the lines of "I try the lock, and if I don't get it right away, I'll work at it for five minutes" (whereby the player is allowing herself to miss the roll by five). But eventually, human beings give up when they are unsuccessful -- this should be reflected in any skill roll, and is why a single roll is (for me) the cleanest expression of verisimilitude.

That's a pretty nice solution. Have the player (or DM) roll the check in secret so only the DM sees the result, and if they don't get it opened immediately let them continue to work on it minute-by-minute until either it opens or they decide they're sick of it or run out of time.

 

[Hussar]

What's the problem with Take 20 though? I LIKE Take 20. I think it's a great rule. It makes things so much easier. When the PC's aren't under really strong time constraints, it makes sense. The rogue jimmies the lock, it takes two minutes. Done. It's not game breaking, it's believable, what's the problem?

It's not like opening a lock is actually a high point of the night, is it? If the lock is too difficult, fair enough, find another way through. If there is a time constraint, then opening the lock becomes interesting. Otherwise, just Take 20 and be done with it.

I never understood why 4e got rid of the Take 20 rule.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What's the problem with Take 20 though? I LIKE Take 20. I think it's a great rule. It makes things so much easier. When the PC's aren't under really strong time constraints, it makes sense. The rogue jimmies the lock, it takes two minutes. Done. It's not game breaking, it's believable, what's the problem?

It's not like opening a lock is actually a high point of the night, is it? If the lock is too difficult, fair enough, find another way through. If there is a time constraint, then opening the lock becomes interesting. Otherwise, just Take 20 and be done with it.

I never understood why 4e got rid of the Take 20 rule.

I think Take 20 runs into issues with bounded accuracy. And I think 4e's intention was basically if it wasn't fun to roll for a thing, you just don't roll. Which works well.

Take 10 has less issues, though, and Take 10 is already in the game under "Passive Perception," so I don't see why we don't just extend that idea.

 

[Kobold Stew]

What's the problem with Take 20 though? I LIKE Take 20. I think it's a great rule. It makes things so much easier. When the PC's aren't under really strong time constraints, it makes sense. The rogue jimmies the lock, it takes two minutes. Done. It's not game breaking, it's believable, what's the problem?

The problem with take 20 is that the DM also sets the difficulty level. Which means either the task is trivially possible (in which case why roll) or dimly impossible (in which case why try). It also assumes that the character always works at a project for a fixed amount of time (and never a second longer) in order to achieve a needed result. In both those ways, it's an artificial solution, that excludes a number of real-world possibilities, including the lock becoming jammed, the character giving up, etc.

Take 20, though very straightforward, removes randomness from the mechanics and humanity from the PCs., in my experience.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Take 10 has less issues, though, and Take 10 is already in the game under "Passive Perception," so I don't see why we don't just extend that idea.

Hmm...maybe I can find a way to integrate take 10 with my retry system. Maybe you can't make a re-roll without a change in the situation, but if you spend extra time you can automatically take 10 for a retry without needing a changed situation... Still needs work, but it's an interesting idea.