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

[samursus]

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.

This discussion has raised some neat questions.

Specifically, I think I will handle Lockpicking as Kobold Stew mentioned. If you fail your check (maybe by 5) the lock jams.

Generally, I don't love Take 20, as it bypasses aspects of the 3 pillars, those involving skill rolls. Assuming one considers skills an important aspect.

As for jumping, climbing etc I think I will handle it on a case by case basis. Having done some rock climbing myself, I know for a fact there are 20' walls that I could not climb no matter how much time I took, unless I had aid of some sort, that others (like my cousin) could do easily.

It all comes down to consequences of failure and to what degree you want player vs environment to be an important aspect to your game.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, in any edition of D&D, there has never been a chance of the lock becoming jammed. There has never been a critical failure mechanic for skill checks. I suppose you could say that an AD&D rogue that fails his lock pick check has jammed the lock, but, that doesn't make sense when he can try again next level and succeed. If the lock is jammed, it's jammed. You'd need to clear it first and then try to pick it, but, that's not what the mechanics say.

As far as the time element goes, meh, it's an abstraction. We do it all the time. Since it really doesn't matter if it takes you 1 minute 45 seconds or three minutes to open the lock, two minutes is a nice compromise. I dunno, I always liked the Take 20 rule. I suppose the 4e answer works too - just assume it, but, I like having the option.

 

[Kobold Stew]

But, in any edition of D&D, there has never been a chance of the lock becoming jammed. There has never been a critical failure mechanic for skill checks. I suppose you could say that an AD&D rogue that fails his lock pick check has jammed the lock, but, that doesn't make sense when he can try again next level and succeed. If the lock is jammed, it's jammed. You'd need to clear it first and then try to pick it, but, that's not what the mechanics say.

And that's fine if you allow only a single check: there doesn't need to be a critical failure mechanic. It's when one allows multiple checks (which is not in every edition) that it becomes an issue at all.

As far as the time element goes, meh, it's an abstraction. We do it all the time. Since it really doesn't matter if it takes you 1 minute 45 seconds or three minutes to open the lock, two minutes is a nice compromise. I dunno, I always liked the Take 20 rule. I suppose the 4e answer works too - just assume it, but, I like having the option.

This also misses the point. If your argument is going to be "We do it all the time" then you are appealing to real-world experiences, where we don't know the DC of a chore, and do not low that two minute's effort will resolve everything or not.

It's okay to like the Take 20 rule, but it necessarily changes the nature of skill checks and the DCs that get set.

 

[pemerton]

See, this means you're rolling to see how difficult the lock is. Why is the player rolling to see what the quality of an environmental obstacle is and what does his PC's skill have to do with it?

What happens if you have two PCs that can try the lock? The first guy is more skilled but really botches his rolls. Then the newb gets it on his first try with a good roll. How difficult was the lock? It's like the old open doors rule joke. The fighter heaves against the door with is enormous strength and fails. The weak mage steps up and shoves it open for him. Silly.

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 just don't like rolling for rolling's sake.

<snip>

But if there's no consequence to failure, there's no need to roll.

Unless I've misunderstood, this is not an argument for retries, though. It's an argument for "Say yes or roll the dice".

What's the problem with Take 20 though?

<snip>

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

I think Take 20 runs into issues with bounded accuracy.

4e kept "Take 20" in one place, I think, namely the following remark in the DMG (p 41):

PCs use Perception checks to find anything of interest in the room . . . The PCs scour the room, rolling a lot of Perception checks. Unless the characters are under a time constraint, assume that they’re going to roll a 20 eventually, and use the best possible Perception check result for the party. (Effectively, this result equals the best passive Perception check +10.) Assume the characters spend a minute or two searching, and move on to tell them what they find.​

For the reasons that KM gives, this doesn't work - it messes with (4e's version of) bounded accuracy. If you set the DCs such that a single Perception check (during combat, say, taking a minor action) is worthwhile, then the "Take 20" check will be automatically successful. So why bother with it at all?

"Say yes" is better - or, if for whatever reason the GM doesn't want to say yes, then require a roll. But allowing the players to take 20 on that roll just mucks up your DC-setting.

The problem with take 20 is that the DM also sets the difficulty level.

<snip>

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

This too.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

If the PC's are just going to repeatedly do a thing until they ultimately succeed or find it's impossible to succeed, there doesn't seem to be much cause for randomness or humanity. They're brute-forcing the thing, acting like robotic machines who just repeat an action until successful. The intent of the party there is to negate the randomness, so it would seem that the mechanics there should allow for a certain degree of that.

 

[Agamon]

Unless I've misunderstood, this is not an argument for retries, though. It's an argument for "Say yes or roll the dice".

True. But saying yes implies the unrolled reroll. I'm saying yes instead of keep rolling until you get it.

including the lock becoming jammed, the character giving up, etc.

Is allowing this the most realistic in detail? Not really, but I'm not going to drive myself insane trying to make D&D realistic in detail, because that goes a lot further past allowing a reroll in a skill check. I'm more about presenting a fun game. And letting a player use his PC to accomplish something that he is competent at makes the player happy and makes everyone else happy because we quickly move past the tedium of jostling picks in a door lock.

YMMV, of course.

 

[pemerton]

True. But saying yes implies the unrolled reroll. I'm saying yes instead of keep rolling until you get it.

Makes sense.

I see "saying yes", and the rolls, a bit differently. I don't see the roll as corresponding to a single attempt, but to the PC's overall effort within the situation. So "saying yes", for me, isn't about shortcutting the retries and hence the re-rolls, but is an alternative decision procedure to rolling.

 

[Agamon]

I see "saying yes", and the rolls, a bit differently. I don't see the roll as corresponding to a single attempt, but to the PC's overall effort within the situation. So "saying yes", for me, isn't about shortcutting the retries and hence the re-rolls, but is an alternative decision procedure to rolling.

Well, there is that, too. I guess mechanically, it's a bit of A, narratively, it's a bit of B.

 

[Nellisir]

Since this conversation is still going on, I'll post some additional thoughts.

I'm clearly in the "roll once" school of thought, but I'm not rigid about needing to advance a level before trying again. Some circumstance beyond time have to be different, though. I've actually never had players who were obsessive about Aid Another, and I'd probably allow a retry with an "aid another", but not unlimited retries. Jane the Thief tries the lock and fails. Then Jane tries again, but this time Jack is helping her. Another failure. Jane could try a third time, but someone other than Jack would have to provide an "aid another" attempt - Jack has exhausted his limited store of nefarious knowledge. Likewise, Jane could try again if a spell was cast that boosted her skill level, or if she found magical lockpicks in the goblin's pockets, but she couldn't just keep trying and trying.

That might not be by the book, but I think it does turn the door into something closer to a puzzle, rather than a simple obstacle.

 

[Agamon]

A question I'd have as a player in a "roll once" game is, what is the fail point? If I'm looking at a wall and deciding I'd like to try to climb it. Once i get to it, at what point do I stop and consider myself a failure? Same with lock picking. I'm jostling picks around in a lock, trying to align the tumblers correctly. At what point do I consider myself a failure at that?

Considering my supposed competency at such tasks, it almost seems like the die roll is a substitute for how much self-esteem I have at that moment.