Taking your time and being careful

[Li Shenron]

The way I see it, taking 10 is doing something in a careful and controlled manner - it would represent the best result you could expect without either good luck (as in a random roll) or some trial and error (take 20)

The problem is that, while you are not counting on good luck, you should not expect to utterly eliminate luck by being careful. It could be argued that you might expect to eliminate bad luck but not good luck!

Think of Indy with the bag of sand: perhaps it was very difficult to get it right (DC 25) even if he's good (+10). How is it possible that with all his carefulness he cannot succeed (Take10 -> result 20), but he can succeed when in a rush (if he rolls 15+)???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARNING: House Rule

I don't know how, but it just came to me RIGHT NOW, I've never thought about this before, but it seems pretty a good idea to me!

When taking 10 (normal conditions apply), instead of simply assuming you rolled 10, you roll a 1d10+10.

This would mean that when you are not in a rush, comfortable and concentrating etc... you roll 1d10+10 which means minimum 11 and maximum 20. When in a rush you roll the normal d20.

What do you think? This way there is no advantage in being reckless. No problem in taking10 and then finding out you shoud have rolled d20.

 

[Lorehead]

Taking your time and being careful is the default. The game imposes a penalty if you try to rush. For example, using Diplomacy normally takes a minute, but you can attempt it as a full-round action, at a -10 penalty, and you can Climb at normal speed instead of half speed, at a -5 penalty.

 

[Jhulae]

Taking your time and being careful is the default. The game imposes a penalty if you try to rush. For example, using Diplomacy normally takes a minute, but you can attempt it as a full-round action, at a -10 penalty, and you can Climb at normal speed instead of half speed, at a -5 penalty.

The game imposes a penalty if you rush only on a few specific skills. Most skills don't include penalties such as you list for the Diplomacy skill.

But, for sake of arguement, what happens if I wanted to take 6 minutes on a diplomacy check, instead of the normal 1 minute? We know there's a penalty if I try to make a check at at 1/10th the time, but what if I take 6 times the normal amount beacuse I want to make sure to say just the right things?

I like Li Shenron's house rule. I doubt I could get my DM to use it, but I like it.

 

[Ferrum]

In the example of Indiana Jones I would see him as rolling a d20 on that attempt and failing, simple as that. He was guessing the idol's weight, tossed off a bit of sand without measuring or making any real calculations. He was going on instinct (d20), and experience (ranks in kn(archeology) or sum such).

Taking ten, IMO, is sort of a calm yet lackadaisical approach. "I do this every day, I know what I'm doing" and just trusting on practice (taking 10) and experience (ranks). Even a doctor who's done the same surgery 100 times can screw up if there are complications he doesn't even attempt to predict.

The way I see it, is taking ten is putting in half your effort in such a way you that you know that half is always going to add up to 50% of what you can do.

Rolling the d20 is taking the chance on putting in 100 percent and allowing for simple human mistakes people can make when they focus too hard on one aspect of the process while another is falling apart.

I like the idea behind Li Shenron's House rule, but I'd probably make it a feat.

My house rule idea:
To allow for a better than 10 on taking 10, make a concentration check, DC 15, that allows you a +1 synergy (or insight maybe?) bonus which would account for taking your time, concentrating and being careful. The bonus increases by 1 for every 4 points you exceed the check.

 

[Bauglir]

The problem is that, while you are not counting on good luck, you should not expect to utterly eliminate luck by being careful. It could be argued that you might expect to eliminate bad luck but not good luck!

Think of Indy with the bag of sand: perhaps it was very difficult to get it right (DC 25) even if he's good (+10). How is it possible that with all his carefulness he cannot succeed (Take10 -> result 20), but he can succeed when in a rush (if he rolls 15+)???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARNING: House Rule

I don't know how, but it just came to me RIGHT NOW, I've never thought about this before, but it seems pretty a good idea to me!

When taking 10 (normal conditions apply), instead of simply assuming you rolled 10, you roll a 1d10+10.

This would mean that when you are not in a rush, comfortable and concentrating etc... you roll 1d10+10 which means minimum 11 and maximum 20. When in a rush you roll the normal d20.

What do you think? This way there is no advantage in being reckless. No problem in taking10 and then finding out you shoud have rolled d20.

Interesting scheme. I think the take-10 approach does reduce the influence of luck somewhat though;

Take the Indiana Jones example.

A straight roll might simply involve shovelling some sand into the bag and popping it onto the pedestal.

A Take-10 might involve looking at the statue, judging its weight, and adding enough sand so it feels about right.

A Take-20 approach could be to lift the statue off the pedestal, weigh it, and fill the sandbag as accurately as you can. (Obviously this falls under the category of things you can't take 20 on, due to consequences, but I hope you get the idea)


But what if the statue is actually quite a bit heavier than it looks? The take-10 guy is going to miss that since he's going to make the bag as heavy as he THINKS the statue actually is. The random roll guy on the other hand may through sheer luck throw in more sand than he intended too and as a result accidentally hit the right weight.

Maybe 1d8+6?