Take 20 on Open Lock?

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re

Hmm? It applies to every skill.

The rules state that you can take 20 on any roll where retries are allowed and failure does not result in a negative outcome.

Example: Search. Failing a Search check has no inherent negative outcome. The rule applies, in the sense that you can Take 20 on Search.

Example: Disable Device. If you fail by 5 or more, "something bad happens". The rule applies - in this case, it states that you cannot Take 20, although you can retry by rolling again.

Example: Open Lock. There is no penalty for failure. The rule applies, once again to state that you can Take 20.

-Hyp.

I always assumed the negative outcome was that you don't unlock the door or with a search check you don't find the secret door or trap (I allow retries, but I don't allow a take 20 when searching for traps). They should state more specifically that a negative outcome that results in damage or a possible dangerous result does not allow a player to take 20. A negative outcome could be a variety of situations important to the campaign.

 

[Xeoble]

Failing to unlock a door isn't negative, it's neutral.

Disarming a trap is positive.

Failing to disarm or set off a trap is neutral.

Setting off a trap is negative.

 

[Philip]

Re: Re: Re: Re

I always assumed the negative outcome was that you don't unlock the door or with a search check you don't find the secret door or trap (I allow retries, but I don't allow a take 20 when searching for traps). They should state more specifically that a negative outcome that results in damage or a possible dangerous result does not allow a player to take 20. A negative outcome could be a variety of situations important to the campaign.

Keep in mind that take 20 is just an easy way of having to avoid the player making a lot of rolls, nothing more, nothing less.

Take Balance: if a PC is attempting to stand on one leg for one minute (DC 10 Balance) in the privacy of his own room, he is allowed to take 20 (it doesn't matter much if he succeeds after one try or after 40). If the PC is attempting the same on a small ledge near a 100 foot drop, he would not be allowed to do it. He would also no be allowed to do it to impress a friend (because a failure might ruin the effect).

In the Open Lock example: if you have a house rule that imposed a penalty on failure (like the lock jamming if the roll is 10 or more below the DC), the a PC would not be allowed to take 20. Otherwise he would.

Its the same with Search. If the PCs suspect there is treasure hidden in a particular room, they will attempt to search it intensively. Thus, they take 20. If they can't find it with a 20, its just too well hidden for them, and they can be content. If you just let them make a roll, and its a low number, players WILL try again.

In any situation where you find the players attempting skill check after skill check, and the thing is getting boring (because failing would never result in anything really bad, other than not succeeding), you can just allow them to take 20. That's all there is to it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re

They should state more specifically that a negative outcome that results in damage or a possible dangerous result does not allow a player to take 20.

The wording they use is "penalty for failure".

You cannot Take 20 if there is a penalty for failure.

"The lock doesn't open" isn't a penalty - it wasn't open before you tried. Take 20 no problem.

"You don't find anything" isn't a penalty - you didn't find anything before you tried. Take 20 no problem.

"You don't clear the chasm, and fall to your death" is a penalty. If you hadn't tried, you wouldn't have fallen. No Take 20 allowed.

There's a misconception sometimes. People think that not-finding a trap with a Search check is a penalty, "because then the trap kills you". But in that case, there's no difference between searching-and-failing, and not-searching. The trap doesn't go off because of the Search check, it's because of what you do next.

Whereas with Disable Device, there's a difference between disabling-and-failing, and not-disabling. It's the act of unsuccessfully attempting to disable the trap that sets it off. That is a penalty for failure.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's so obvious that you can use it.

IMC, I let people try an action once. If they don't succeed (and retries are allowed), they may not roll a second time: they have to take 10 (if possible). If that fails to (or they don't want to take 10 cause their roll was better), they have to take 20. So we don't have dozens of rolls.

In combat, they can try as often as they want, since every roll will cost them precious time.

 

[Coredump]

mumble grumble... double post....fricken frackin ....

 

[Coredump]

I wanted to reply, but realized it would be easier to just cut and paste what Hypersmurf said.

Even easier still:

Go re-read Hypersmurfs post, and pretend that I said it too.

 

[Destan]

Thanks

Thank ye, fellas. Good discussion. I think I'll toss my hat into Hyp's camp - seems like a good argument.

Cheers,
D

 

[Beckett]

Going the appeal to authority route, in Sean K. Reynold's Take 20 article , his comment for taking 20 on Open Locks is "Yes, because there is no penalty for failure."

 

[smetzger]

I sincerely believe that Search and Open Lock are the major reasons the Take 20 rule even exists.