Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viking Bastard" data-source="post: 6285252" data-attributes="member: 509">I don't really have anything against Take 20 conceptually, I just find it redundant in play.Generally, if there's a task that a PC should reasonably be able to do given time, they can just do it if given the time. If I request a roll, it's to check how long it will take (if I find that relevant).If it's just a normal lock, even if it's a good one, I expect that someone trained in lockpicking is going to be able to pick it. Again it's just a matter of whether the PCs have the time. If it's a fancy/expert/magic lock, I may make the PC check for whether they have the experience to crack it, too. And if they fail, they just don't--it's out of their league. Can try again when graduating to the next league* or the something else significantly changes about the situation.If the PC is baking a pie for the king, and it's established that the PC is an expert pie maker, they're not gonna have to check if they successfully bake the pie. The check is gonna be for whether the king finds the pie up to royal snuff.As I see it, a check will vary by what exactly is being checked--not which ability (although that as well, up to a point) but what specific result needs checking. The check is not the action, but a way to settle any uncertainty about the action's execution. As well as to add some much needed random, because that way it's more fun (to me, anyway).* In a perfect world and perfect game, gaining more in-game experience in picking locks should be tied to in-game lockpicking attempts, but as we're playing D&D, it's gonna be next level up.</blockquote>

Verification