Taking 20 in Use Rope - Bind a Character

[Trance-Zg]

Personally, I'm OK with taking 20 on use rope. A it should be near impossible to break loose if someone takes his time to tie you up for 20 minutes.

But for breaking out in those situation calls for some thinking and good luck to find some nail, loose screw in the call broken glass etc. those things give +2,+5 or +10 bonus to E.A. or might even break you free w/o any check.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Well... FAQ creates a bit confusing image here I must say...

No, but my quoting only part of the FAQ's text may have done so. My apologies. Here's the whole answer (with key concepts underlined):

How can I tell whether or not I can take 20 on a check, and what constitutes “failure” on a check?​

Taking 20 is simply a time-saving short-cut that avoids requiring a player to roll and roll until he gets a 20 on a check that everyone knows he’ll simply retry until he either succeeds or is convinced he can’t.

Ultimately, whether or not you can take 20 relies on only three criteria:

• The check allows you to try again. Each skill has a “Try Again” entry that lists whether you can attempt the same task again. If you can’t retry the task, you can’t take 20 (since taking 20 involves retrying the task). You can’t retry a Decipher Script check, so taking 20 is out of the question.

• Failure does not carry an inherent penalty (that is, a consequence). If something bad happens when you fail a check, you can’t take 20, since the DM needs to know exactly when or how often failure occurs. When you’re halfway up a wall and fail a Climb check, you might fall and take damage. That’s an inherent consequence, so you can’t normally take 20 on Climb checks.

• You have available time equal to making the check 20 times. If you have only 1 minute until the walls of the room slide together and crush you, you obviously can’t take 20 on a Search check to find the hidden off switch (since that takes 20 rounds).

There’s no perfect list of which checks do or don’t allow taking 20. For example, you can retry Spot checks, and it doesn’t seem like a failed Spot check carries any inherent consequence. Does that mean you can take 20 on Spot checks when keeping watch for monsters sneaking up on your campsite?

Well, yes and no. If you stare at the same sight for 2 minutes, you can absolutely take 20 on a Spot check to get a really good look at it. But if an assassin is sneaking through the shadows toward you, he’s probably not there for that whole 2 minutes. Thus, you couldn’t take 20, since you don’t actually have available time equal to making the check 20 times against that enemy. You’d have to roll your Spot check normally (opposed by the assassin’s Hide check) to notice the enemy.

Similarly, if a check’s success or failure depends on another character’s opposed roll, both sides have to roll when that opposition occurs—you can’t take 20 and “save up” the maximum result. If you hide in the bushes to attack a group of orcs that will walk by later, you can’t take 20 on the Hide check, since the success or failure of your Hide check isn’t resolved until the orcs make their Spot checks. You can’t take 20 on a Use Rope check to tie someone up, since you don’t really know how successful you’ve been until that enemy tries to struggle free.

If you’re having trouble with the concept, try ignoring it and instead allow characters to retry failed skill checks until they roll 20. You’ll soon recognize what checks are appropriate for taking 20—they’re the ones during which everyone sits around bored while one player rolls and rolls and rolls. Imagine a game without the “take 20” rule:

• After defeating hordes of monsters, the PCs stand before a strong wooden door blocking entry to the treasure room. The break DC is 23, which the 20-Strength Regdar shouldn’t have too much trouble getting eventually. The DM knows that there’s nothing left in the dungeon to harm the characters, so time (and noise) isn’t an issue. However, everyone has to sit around and wait until Regdar’s player rolls an 18 or better on the d20.

• Once inside, the PCs discover a locked chest. Wary of a trap, Lidda’s player rolls a 16 on her Search check. She finds nothing, but that doesn’t allay her suspicion, so she wants to keep rolling her Search check until she gets a 20. (She might as well, since the party has plenty of time and nothing bad happens to her if she fails the Search check.) If she’s lucky, this takes only a few rolls, but we’ve all played with players who couldn’t roll a 20 with a hundred tries.

• After finally determining that the chest seems safe, Lidda now turns to the lock. Her first Open Lock check garners a d20 roll of 11, which fails to open the lock even with her prodigious +14 modifier. Again, the party has plenty of time, so she tries again but rolls a 6. The DM knows the DC 30 lock is well within Lidda’s ability to unlock, but has to wait until she rolls a 16 or better on the d20. Meanwhile, the rest of the players are wandering off to check what’s on TV.

In the Sage’s experience, over 90% of all “take 20” checks are made for one of the following four reasons. Even if you only limit yourself to these few examples, you’ll save valuable game time:
Strength checks to open doors
Listen checks at closed doors
Open Lock checks​

Search checks

So as you can see, there is no problem taking 20 on an Escape Artist check to escape bindings. Although both sides have to roll their opposed checks when the opposition occurs, the binder is (presumably) not around to make a new Use Rope check after his first roll; thus, he is stuck with that result, while the bindee is free to try again. Effectively, the binder has set the DC of the Escape Artist check the bindee needs to make in order to escape.

 

[Vegepygmy]

As you said it, there is logic in there. On the other hand I find it also logical that one can test his bonds to see if they are well tied and try again in case they are not... if one has the time that is.

Sure, I agree. That would be a good place for the DM to use "the DM's best friend," and assign a +2 (or greater, if he feels it appropriate) bonus to the binder's Use Rope check, to reflect the extra effort he's making.

Unfortunately, this proves the OP right. If the binder cannot take 20, and the bindee can, well then it is awfully easy to escape the bonds.

Not really...

It means that an average binder ( Use Rope 0, Dex 10-12) who takes 10, sets a DC of 20 to 21 ...and an untrained bindee with a Dex of 10-12 brakes loose automatically. That kinda sucks.

Not only do we have the "DM's best friend," silk ropes, and armor check penalties to consider, there is this as well:

helpless: Paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier).

So technically, the bindee should be making his Escape Artist check with an effective Dexterity of 0, meaning that your "untrained bindee" can only hit a DC of 15 by taking 20.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

How can I tell whether or not I can take 20 on a check, and what constitutes “failure” on a check?​

Taking 20 is simply a time-saving short-cut that avoids requiring a player to roll and roll until he gets a 20 on a check that everyone knows he’ll simply retry until he either succeeds or is convinced he can’t.

Ultimately, whether or not you can take 20 relies on only three criteria:

• The check allows you to try again. Each skill has a “Try Again” entry that lists whether you can attempt the same task again. If you can’t retry the task, you can’t take 20 (since taking 20 involves retrying the task). You can’t retry a Decipher Script check, so taking 20 is out of the question.

• Failure does not carry an inherent penalty (that is, a consequence). If something bad happens when you fail a check, you can’t take 20, since the DM needs to know exactly when or how often failure occurs. When you’re halfway up a wall and fail a Climb check, you might fall and take damage. That’s an inherent consequence, so you can’t normally take 20 on Climb checks.

• You have available time equal to making the check 20 times. If you have only 1 minute until the walls of the room slide together and crush you, you obviously can’t take 20 on a Search check to find the hidden off switch (since that takes 20 rounds).

There’s no perfect list of which checks do or don’t allow taking 20. For example, you can retry Spot checks, and it doesn’t seem like a failed Spot check carries any inherent consequence. Does that mean you can take 20 on Spot checks when keeping watch for monsters sneaking up on your campsite?

Well, yes and no. If you stare at the same sight for 2 minutes, you can absolutely take 20 on a Spot check to get a really good look at it. But if an assassin is sneaking through the shadows toward you, he’s probably not there for that whole 2 minutes. Thus, you couldn’t take 20, since you don’t actually have available time equal to making the check 20 times against that enemy. You’d have to roll your Spot check normally (opposed by the assassin’s Hide check) to notice the enemy.

Similarly, if a check’s success or failure depends on another character’s opposed roll, both sides have to roll when that opposition occurs—you can’t take 20 and “save up” the maximum result. If you hide in the bushes to attack a group of orcs that will walk by later, you can’t take 20 on the Hide check, since the success or failure of your Hide check isn’t resolved until the orcs make their Spot checks. You can’t take 20 on a Use Rope check to tie someone up, since you don’t really know how successful you’ve been until that enemy tries to struggle free.

If you’re having trouble with the concept, try ignoring it and instead allow characters to retry failed skill checks until they roll 20. You’ll soon recognize what checks are appropriate for taking 20—they’re the ones during which everyone sits around bored while one player rolls and rolls and rolls. Imagine a game without the “take 20” rule:

• After defeating hordes of monsters, the PCs stand before a strong wooden door blocking entry to the treasure room. The break DC is 23, which the 20-Strength Regdar shouldn’t have too much trouble getting eventually. The DM knows that there’s nothing left in the dungeon to harm the characters, so time (and noise) isn’t an issue. However, everyone has to sit around and wait until Regdar’s player rolls an 18 or better on the d20.

• Once inside, the PCs discover a locked chest. Wary of a trap, Lidda’s player rolls a 16 on her Search check. She finds nothing, but that doesn’t allay her suspicion, so she wants to keep rolling her Search check until she gets a 20. (She might as well, since the party has plenty of time and nothing bad happens to her if she fails the Search check.) If she’s lucky, this takes only a few rolls, but we’ve all played with players who couldn’t roll a 20 with a hundred tries.

• After finally determining that the chest seems safe, Lidda now turns to the lock. Her first Open Lock check garners a d20 roll of 11, which fails to open the lock even with her prodigious +14 modifier. Again, the party has plenty of time, so she tries again but rolls a 6. The DM knows the DC 30 lock is well within Lidda’s ability to unlock, but has to wait until she rolls a 16 or better on the d20. Meanwhile, the rest of the players are wandering off to check what’s on TV.

In the Sage’s experience, over 90% of all “take 20” checks are made for one of the following four reasons. Even if you only limit yourself to these few examples, you’ll save valuable game time:
Strength checks to open doors
Listen checks at closed doors
Open Lock checks​

Search checks

That quote supports not only taking 20 to Escape Artist from bindings, but also to take 20 in use rope to bind the person.

It explicitly says you COULD take 20 on spot to find a hidden assassin if that assassin remained in the same place the whole time. Well, an unconscious character you're tying up is right there to tie up as repeatedly as you like, seems pretty analogous to me.

Likewise, it uses an example of Lidda rolling a 16 on search but still feeling wary, decids to keep going till she gets a 20. In the end, there was nothing there. She has no reasonable way of knowing how effective her first try was, as there's nothing observable to test it against. And yet she can keep trying (this might actually be metagaming, I don't know) till she gets that 20. And still sees nothing. How is she judging her own work, and how is it any different than someone tying someone up until they've decided it's the best they can do?

 

[Vegepygmy]

That quote supports not only taking 20 to Escape Artist from bindings, but also to take 20 in use rope to bind the person.

Except, you know, where it explicitly says the opposite.

It explicitly says you COULD take 20 on spot to find a hidden assassin if that assassin remained in the same place the whole time. Well, an unconscious character you're tying up is right there to tie up as repeatedly as you like, seems pretty analogous to me.

It is analagous, but you've got the analogy backwards. Hide is to Spot as Use Rope is to Escape Artist (not Escape Artist is to Use Rope, as you're trying to make it). You don't make a Hide check until someone tries to Spot you, just as you don't make a Use Rope check until someone tries to Escape Artist their way free.

But even if we reverse the analogy, an unconscious prisoner isn't making any Escape Artist checks (so there can be no opposed check), while a stationary assassin is making (or has made) a Hide check.

Likewise, it uses an example of Lidda rolling a 16 on search but still feeling wary, decids to keep going till she gets a 20. In the end, there was nothing there. She has no reasonable way of knowing how effective her first try was, as there's nothing observable to test it against. And yet she can keep trying (this might actually be metagaming, I don't know) till she gets that 20. And still sees nothing. How is she judging her own work, and how is it any different than someone tying someone up until they've decided it's the best they can do?

Good points. Obviously, some people play differently than others / have a different tolerance for metagaming.

Personally, I prefer to make Search checks for my players for the exact reasons you articulate and would consider what Lidda's player is doing to be metagaming (though I have no problem with a player telling me they want to take 20 to insure that they do the best they possibly can). I know many others, however, who detest having the DM roll any dice for the players.

 

[Hassassin]

I think the RAW + FAQ makes it quite clear that you cannot take 20 when tying someone up, but can take 20 when trying to escape (unless someone's there stopping you). You won't even know (ingame or out) how well someone's bound, since you only roll when they try to escape.

However, is there anything preventing you from using e.g. three ropes to get a maximum result of 16-20 most of the time?

 

[Arrowhawk]

Except, you know, where it explicitly says the opposite.
.

Veg, great job in arguing the point based on the logic in the FAQ.

I don't know if you agree with this or not, but based on your argument, you can take 20 to escape because you get the opposed roll is fixed and you get to try as many times as you want (Maybe you said this and I just missed it as I was quickly browsing).

[MENTION=14053]ST[/MENTION]ream

She has no reasonable way of knowing how effective her first try was, as there's nothing observable to test it against. And yet she can keep trying (this might actually be metagaming, I don't know) till she gets that 20. And still sees nothing. How is she judging her own work, and how is it any different than someone tying someone up until they've decided it's the best they can do?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The point is not that she knows she got a 20..the point is that at some point will roll a 20, and for the sake of playability the game says let's forgoe the rolling...and just concede she rolls one. The convention here is that D&D has the construct that someone will know when they've performed a task to the best of their ability regardless of success or failure. So it doesn't matter that she won't know how effective she is...only that she knows that within the Take 20 convention, she can't be more effective and there is no point in continuing to search. Maybe that's not RL, but it's D&D. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know...just reminding you of what you already know.

 

[Herzog]

Except that with Search, you will have had a '20' on one of your rolls.
With Use Rope, only your last roll is used (re-binding someone would require you to unbind them first)
Unless you want to use a seperate rope for each Use Rope check, resulting in a large number of ropes tying up your prisoner, one of which has the '20' roll......
(resulting in a big ball of rope. possibly with a prisoner inside )

 

[RedTonic]

According to the PHB, pg. 73, Escape Artist:

Try Again: Varies. You can make another check after a failed check if you’re squeezing your way through a tight space, making multiple checks. If the situation permits, you can make additional checks, or even take 20, as long as you’re not being actively opposed.

Does being bound and unattended equal active or passive opposition? I would rule it's passive. On the other hand, I do prefer a roll off in the situation of tying up a captive who later tries to escape; intuitively, I just feel it's more "fair." Likewise, since an (uninterrupted) captive can try to escape 1x/minute, in 20 minutes, you have the same effect as taking 20.

Who actually really gets down to the nitty gritty of watch rotations on a captive? That's a level of granularity I've yet to reach.

 

[Dandu]

Next time my character has to tie someone up, she's cutting off his hands.