Take 10/20 hate

[Doom]

And sometimes you're dealing with a safe that requires a diamond tip drill that you just don't happen to have...I just don't see you manufacturing a diamond tip drill in two minutes, so it doesn't make sense to me, at least.

>>you don't need the answer this instant--what's wrong with just assuming the player takes a few minutes and solves the problem long form?<<

Nothing wrong with it per se, but why assume the player has that particular knowledge at all? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...hence the roll.

Even a highly skilled mathematician with a huge skill bonus might not know the answer (or just not happen to have memorized the formula) to an easy question for a less skilled mathematician who just happens to have that particular knowledge. That's what the roll is for.

Now, the safecracker could go on E-bay or whatever and order the drill, and the mathematician can go to a library, and in those situations, take 20 works...but that's not just a few minutes, or workable in all situations, in my opinion.

Formula or drill, that's what the roll is about. "Taking 20" can make too many things too automatic. You can rationalize that it should work everywhere, but the bottom line is 'automatic everything' needs limitations more than it needs extensions.

[Maj]

You can rationalize that it should work everywhere, but the bottom line is 'automatic everything' needs limitations more than it needs extensions.

You sound like you don't get the concept of taking 20. It's largely mechanics - not real life - and it's not an absolute guarantee of success, either.

In D&D there are some skills that let you try again if you don't make the check. In other words, there's nothing bad that happens as a result of you failing. It's actually more like a lack of success. And given that there is plenty of time to accomplish the task, and nothing bad that happens if you don't succeed, a player will roll the die again for a second attempt.

And if they don't succeed the second time, but there is still plenty of time and nothing bad happens if they don't succeed, a player will try, try again until they finally roll high enough to pass the DC.

Taking 20 just means that the player doesn't have to roll over and over again.

Going back to making analogies for real life...

And sometimes you're dealing with a safe that requires a diamond tip drill that you just don't happen to have...I just don't see you manufacturing a diamond tip drill in two minutes, so it doesn't make sense to me, at least.

Then a lock that requires this might have a DC of 30 while the player only has a skill bonus of +9, which means that taking 20 still nets them the same outcome - a lack of success.

The information conveyed to the player is completely different than a roll followed by a failure. If you take 20 and the lock still can't be opened, then it's one tough lock. If you roll and you fail, then it could just be the dice. Try again.

[Doom]

Or it might have a DC of 30 and player has a skill bonus of +15. A failed roll could mean a slip and try again...or it could mean that this particular lock requires a particular skill that is not in this particular character's skill set.

[Kaelik]

Doom, stop being stupid.

An Open Lock check represents 6 fucking seconds of work. A take 20 represents two minutes.

If they can't make the check without a diamond studded drill, they then can't make the check even taking 20, and they have to go get a competence bonus item.

You don't roll a d20 to see if you have a Diamond stubbed drill, a Diamond studded drill is an item you either have or don't.

You roll the dice to see if your hand slips. If your hand slips, you do it a-fucking-gain.

Your problem isn't that they do or don't have a diamond studded drill. Your problem is that you are an idiot.

Or it might have a DC of 30 and player has a skill bonus of +15. A failed roll could mean a slip and try again...or it could mean that this particular lock requires a particular skill that is not in this particular character's skill set.

No, because if they have a +15 check, then all DC 30 locks are definitionally within their skill set you retard.

The Open Lock skill says right fucking there: "Retry: Yes"

[Maj]

Or it might have a DC of 30 and player has a skill bonus of +15. A failed roll could mean a slip and try again...

Yes!

In which case, the player can take 20 so that the rest of us don't have to wait for him or her to roll the die [up to] over and over again. It's a polite way of telling the player, "Yes, you can try again," while also NOT saying, "We're going out to get something to eat. Call us when you roll a 20."

or it could mean that this particular lock requires a particular skill that is not in this particular character's skill set.

No. At the minimum, that's a separate skill check the player should be rolling, if not a circumstance bonus to the DC rendering the lock unopenable (DC 46).

And really... If you're going through this much effort to make the players fail, just let them take 20, discover the lock's not openable, and then let them bash the door down.

You're seriously going off the deep end trying to create a weird scenario where the players can't win - but that scenario is already built into the rules. I don't get it.

[virgil]

Yeah, it's already been stated that some skills have it explicitly stated whether they have a retry option, which gives an answer to the Take 20 question (the answer is no if retry is no).

And importantly, it's been stated before that the rules for Take 20 don't work if there's a penalty for failure. Some have decided that "not succeeding" is a penalty, and use that as justification to not allow Take 20. Others understand what 'penalty for failure' means, but decide that a penalty constitutes sufficient threat to prevent Take 10.

I could say that it's more annoying when they make stupid house rules and pretend that they have a superior understanding of the RaW, but I'd be lying. It's just as annoying if they admit it as a house-rule.

[Doom]

I'm not sure what's up with all the hate. I believe there are situations where take 20 makes sense, and there are situations where take 20 does not make sense, and that these situations may be independent of actual numbers written on a page. Yes, there are words written in a book that say some stuff, but I'm more concerned about the actual game play, and I got confused and thought that was the issue. My bad.

See, in my campaigns, it's assumed a player with skill has the tools, or many of the tools, relevant to that skill (barring unusual circumstances). In my campaign, I just sort of assumed that an herbalist useds herbs, for example, but it's clear others don't play this way. Anyway, for me, a highly skilled herbalist HAS herbs, just as a thief has some sort of tools (do the rules now say it's fundamentally impossible to pick locks or disarm traps without 'thieve's tools' now?), a mage has a few reference works or divination tools or special inks or whatever for using arcana skills, and same for most all other skills.

I'd rather do it this way, than force a player to read 100 books on herbalism and list every single herb on his person, or force the thief player to list the hundreds of various tools he could theoretically carry around, above and beyond the stupidity of forcing players to actually acquire such things in game.

I respect other's opinions, but I think it's just stupid to force players to do it that way.

So, for me, skill bonus models capabilities, rather than this stupidity. So, a failed skill roll can mean different things (although I respect the excluded middle arguments given above).

This way, I can always give players a chance to do stuff, instead of the above recommended technique of just making all DC's so high that 'take 20' will be pretty much the only way anything gets done (since it's a sure thing, it SHOULD be the only way, since no other ways are necessary).

But, again, just how I roll, and certainly, retries are reasonable in some situations....but just because the book says something, doesn't mean it's the absolute unnegotiable truth.

In my opinion, of course.

[Kaelik]

I'm not sure what's up with all the hate. I believe there are situations where take 20 makes sense, and there are situations where take 20 does not make sense. Yes, there are words written in a book, but I'm more concerned about the actual game play, and I got confused and thought that was the issue. My bad.

The point being that you have so far presented zero situations in which take 20 is not acceptable. Because you are terrible person made of terrible shittiness who thinks that you should never allow people to retry things.

[RobbyPants]

I'm not sure what's up with all the hate. I believe there are situations where take 20 makes sense, and there are situations where take 20 does not make sense, and that these situations may be independent of actual numbers written on a page. Yes, there are words written in a book that say some stuff, but I'm more concerned about the actual game play, and I got confused and thought that was the issue. My bad.

Well, I'd say any weird you-can't-retry locks are the exception, not the rule. I know they make these safes now days that will go into lockdown if you try to drill into them, but that's not common.

Other than that, retries, DCs, skill-boosting items, and taking 20 all seem to have the open-lock minigame covered pretty well. If you can do it (DC <= your skill + 20) and you have time, then take 20. If you can't do it, get a skill booster and try again. If you're rushed, then you have to roll the dice (literally!).

Done and done.

[Doom]

I'm not sure what's up with all the hate. I believe there are situations where take 20 makes sense, and there are situations where take 20 does not make sense. Yes, there are words written in a book, but I'm more concerned about the actual game play, and I got confused and thought that was the issue. My bad.

The point being that you have so far presented zero situations in which take 20 is not acceptable. Because you are terrible person made of terrible shittiness who thinks that you should never allow people to retry things.

Uh, situations have been presented, and I've actually said "retries are reasonable in some situations", which isn't quite what you've indicated, above.

But other than those two sentences, you're right on track there.

[Kaelik]

Uh, situations have been presented

No, your situtation, singular, so far has been "I'm too stupid to know what DCs are, and think that all locks can be opened in 6 seconds or never."

[Maj]

See, in my campaigns, it's assumed a player with skill has the tools, or many of the tools, relevant to that skill

Then what's with the weird examples? I'm pretty sure this is how most people here play. Why discuss people who don't play by the rules?

This way, I can always give players a chance to do stuff, instead of the above recommended technique of just making all DC's so high that 'take 20' will be pretty much the only way anything gets done (since it's a sure thing, it SHOULD be the only way, since no other ways are necessary).

Taking 20 isn't about a guarantee of success. It's about not having to roll dice over and over and over again.

The DC for an amazing lock in the SRD is 40. If you're a low-level character, this is going to be almost impossible to hit - even taking 20.

[Kaelik]

So apparently I missed the collection of stupidity that was your post.

We aren't the ones claiming that people can't open a lock because they don't have the tools. That's you moron.

We say that if they have the skill, they can fucking open the goddam lock. You have to start inventing bullshit like "a d20 roll of 12 represents the fact that the rogue doesn't have the right tools in his masterwork thieves tools to get the job done."

That was you. We say the herablist has the herbs if they have a spell component pouch, and you say "Roll a d20 to see if you have the herbs."

This way, I can always give players a chance to do stuff, instead of the above recommended technique of just making all DC's so high that 'take 20' will be pretty much the only way anything gets done (since it's a sure thing, it SHOULD be the only way, since no other ways are necessary)."

No one said to make the DCs so high that only take 20 succeeds. They said that if you don't want them to succeed, make it so high that they can't even taking 20. You are the dumbass who insists that people should fail a DC 31 check with their +10 modifier and then never be allowed to retry, because the roll represents whether they have the right tools.

We think you just let the DCs be whatever the fuck they are, and if your PCs can open it, let them fucking open it, and if they have to take 20, that's better than having them actually fucking roll 10-30 times and waste everyone's time.

And no, just because take 20 works on anything that it can work on doesn't mean it's the only thing you do. If you are in any situation in which you are in a hurry, you might want to just, for example, not take 20, and have the fighter break the door down, which takes like 3 rounds instead of 20.

And regardless of your level of hurry, every single Open Lock check in the universe should start with a take 10, because there is no fucking reason to roll a few times to find out if you need to take 20.

[Doom]

Fair enough, guess I'm playing a different game. I'd always thought the skills were abstractions, as opposed to precise quantifications of unquantifiable things, but it's clearly changed and I missed the memo. It's funny that tools can give a bonus to skill check and thereby be a factor in success, but it's utterly inconceivable that they be a factor in failure.

So where's the rules that say a thief can't open locks or disarm traps unless he has tools, and if he has tools, those represent all possible tools that can be conceptualized, so that skill isn't a factor? And, same for herbalist, same for mages, same for all other skills.

You guys can calm down now, I just didn't know the rules had been changed.

>>And regardless of your level of hurry, every single Open Lock check in the universe should start with a take 10, because there is no fucking reason to roll a few times to find out if you need to take 20.<<

EXACTLY! Changing the rules from a roll system to a non-roll system changes the game. Not everyone wants everything to be strictly pass/fail.

[Kaelik]

Fair enough, guess I'm playing a different game. I'd always thought the skills were abstractions, as opposed to precise quantifications of unquantifiable things, but it's clearly changed and I missed the memo. It's funny that tools can give a bonus to skill check and thereby be a factor in success, but can't be a factor in failure.

So where's the rules that say a thief can't open locks or disarm traps unless he has tools, and if he has tools, those represent all possible tools that can be conceptualized, so that skill isn't a factor? And, same for herbalist, same for mages, same for all other skills.

You guys can calm down now, I just didn't know the rules had been changed.

If you are going to be a passive aggressive troll, don't be a stupid one.

You are the only one claiming that skill isn't a factor. You are the one saying "if you roll poorly, then you don't have the tools, and therefore cannot open the lock."

Every time you keep attributing your own fucking position to us, you come off even stupider.

[Doom]

Um, I also gave an example with the mathematical problem...but you're so consistently misrepresenting what I've said that it's hardly worthwhile to keep correcting you.

[Kaelik]

>>And regardless of your level of hurry, every single Open Lock check in the universe should start with a take 10, because there is no fucking reason to roll a few times to find out if you need to take 20.<<

EXACTLY! Changing the rules from a roll system to a non-roll system changes the game. Not everyone wants everything to be strictly pass/fail.

No one is changing the fucking rules. If a Lock is within the range of things you can pick, you can fucking pick it. That's how it's always fucking been. Because that's how picking a lock works. The only determinant is time.

If it's outside of the range of things you can pick, then you can't fucking pick the damn thing.

If you don't want success to be strictly binary, then don't have a challenge that is strictly binary.

It's a fucking lock for damn sakes. It's on a door. There is a 100% chance that your PCs can go through a fucking door, the only things that changes is how, and how long it takes.

Um, I also gave an example with the mathematical problem...but you're so consistently misrepresenting what I've said that it's hardly worthwhile to keep correcting you.

Oh, you mean the fucking skill that says "Retry: No" and so doesn't allow taking 20 anyway?

So fucking what? The fact that situations you shouldn't be able to take 20 in don't allow you to take 20 is not a condemnation of the take 20 rules.

And no, you really did say that rolling a 12 means not having the tools to open the lock, that was your fucking idea.

[Ice9]

One thing I've never really understood - what do DMs that make it hard to open doors or find traps think will happen as a result? Because what does happen is that people disarm traps using the "toss a heavy sack down the corridor" or "summoned creature" method, and they get doors open using the "big hammer, power attack" method.

And often, the DM likes that even less (and to be fair, it does suck for any supposed "trapfinder" characters). But seriously, what do they expect? That the players will see a locked door, give up, and go home? That they'll blunder blindly into the traps even after they've already been hit by one?

I've seriously seen it called "metagaming" to break a door down after lockpicking failed. So I guess all those people that used a battering ram during sieges were just metagaming assholes, eh? Clearly, they should have accepted their defeat gracefully after a bar was put on the door.

[virgil]

Um, I also gave an example with the mathematical problem...but you're so consistently misrepresenting what I've said that it's hardly worthwhile to keep correcting you.

And it was already countered that Knowledge skills have been accounted that the roll represents final capability (you just don't know it) by the fact it doesn't allow retries, and "Rety: No" means you can't use Take 20.

[RobbyPants]

It's funny that tools can give a bonus to skill check and thereby be a factor in success, but it's utterly inconceivable that they be a factor in failure.

Um, they can be, and there are rules for that.

From the SRD:

Attempting an Open Lock check without a set of thieves’ tools imposes a -2 circumstance penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed. If you use masterwork thieves’ tools, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on the check.

There you go. Good tools give you a bonus. Bad tools give you a penalty. Now, mix that in with the DC of the lock and the skill of the character, and you're all set.

What's the big deal here? How is taking 20 on Open Lock wrecking anything?

I've seriously seen it called "metagaming" to break a door down after lockpicking failed. So I guess all those people that used a battering ram during sieges were just metagaming assholes, eh? Clearly, they should have accepted their defeat gracefully after a bar was put on the door.

I think it's a holdover from older editions. You used to get one shot to open a lock, and if you failed, you had to go up a level before you could try again. There weren't really good rules for breaking down doors.

[hogarth]

Fair enough, guess I'm playing a different game. I'd always thought the skills were abstractions, as opposed to precise quantifications of unquantifiable things, but it's clearly changed and I missed the memo. It's funny that tools can give a bonus to skill check and thereby be a factor in success, but it's utterly inconceivable that they be a factor in failure.

Masterwork tools certainly increase your lockpicking ability. For instance, if my skill modifier is +10, I can pick locks up to DC 20 with regular tools and lock up to DC 22 with masterwork tools.

I find it a bit amusing to imagine your game.
"Okay, I try to pick the lock on the south door. I rolled a 1."
"I guess you forgot your tools at home."
"Grumble...I'll try to pick the lock on the north door. I rolled a 20."
"Oh wait, I guess you had your tools in your pocket the whole time."
"Really? Then I'll try to pick the south door again."
"Nope, now they're gone, sorry."

[Tenrin]

I think it's a holdover from older editions. You used to get one shot to open a lock, and if you failed, you had to go up a level before you could try again. There weren't really good rules for breaking down doors.

Well there was the Break Doors part of the Strength table, but I would hardly call that 'good'.

[Doom]

What's the big deal here? How is taking 20 on Open Lock wrecking anything?

.

Fair enough, tools do increase skill, but the thought of not having tools making something impossible drives some folks nuts. It does seems like the tools are abstracted, however, unless there's a list somewhere of what exactly is in the set? No biggie, but abstracted tools/precisely defined skills seems an odd thing to sum...if part is abstract, the whole thing is abstract, after all.

Under the no roll system, a skill of 1 means you can pick every single DC 21 lock in the world in 2 minutes, guaranteed; all such locks are apparently made in the exact same way, and the same goes for all other skill based problems. A somewhat inorganic world, but there's nothing wrong with a gamist approach, especially for a computer game where you don't want to make separate artwork for each lock or whatever.

"Wrecking" is a strong word, but let me try to explain how auto-always-20s alters the game.

Suppose I'm making a dungeon (it happens), and I reckon a player will have about a +5 to lockpicking (it happens). I set a lock in a wall, opening up access to some minor treasure, not a big part of the game (it happens).

Now, I have to set a DC for that possibility. If I use the 'roll to open' method, I have options:

a) Set the DC to 1, so he has an automatic chance of getting the irrelevant loot.
b) Set DC low (DC12) so he has a good chance of getting the irrelevant loot
c) Set the DC high (DC 23), so he has a low chance of getting the irrelevant loot
d) Set the DC impossibly high (DC30), so he has no chance of getting the loot.

Under the 'roll' system, all of these are options.

Under the "no roll" system, I only have options a and d. A lock with DC 23 is just as easy to open as DC1 as far as a no-roll campaign is concerned, because he can just take 20/retry until he gets a 20. The game collapses into pass/fail, and skills no longer model reality. Either he has the treasure, or does not, and it may as well be decided before they enter the dungeon, perhaps via an empty/full gift basket.

Now, removing options isn't exactly 'wrecking', but some folks like options, honest. Not a big deal by any means, I admit, but as DM, I kind of like not knowing exactly what's going to happen sometimes, and am confident in my ability to play a fun game whether they get the treasure or not.

[Doom]

I find it a bit amusing to imagine your game.
"Okay, I try to pick the lock on the south door. I rolled a 1."
"I guess you forgot your tools at home."
"Grumble...I'll try to pick the lock on the north door. I rolled a 20."
"Oh wait, I guess you had your tools in your pocket the whole time."
"Really? Then I'll try to pick the south door again."
"Nope, now they're gone, sorry."

Heh, reading the wrong posts can cause this kind of confusion. It'd be more fair to say something like "you left copper-tipped iron pick 7-B at home" or "7-B snapped" or "your pick broke off in the lock, jamming it" or "You didn't study over-under locks"...but this is really, really, trying hard not to understand what I'm talking about. There are a thousand rationalizations why a reroll might not be possible in some circumstances.

There are many reasons one lock could be easy while another could be hard. The game has something called a "DC" that can control this. Even with the same DC, pure luck might determine whether you can open one equivalent lock but not another, much in the same way as treating 200 apparently identical injuries via herbalism, some get infected, some don't...even if you take a whole 2 minutes on each injury.

[LR]

Now, I have to set a DC for that possibility. If I use the 'roll to open' method, I have options:

a) Set the DC to 1, so he has an automatic chance of getting the irrelevant loot.
b) Set DC low (DC12) so he has a good chance of getting the irrelevant loot
c) Set the DC high (DC 23), so he has a low chance of getting the irrelevant loot
d) Set the DC impossibly high (DC30), so he has no chance of getting the loot.

Under the 'roll' system, all of these are options.

No. A is the only option. If you're assuming that the players will take the time to Take 20 on the check, then they'll take the time to use the Breaking and Entering rules to Break through the door and Enter the room. If your players are determined to go somewhere, then there's really nothing you can do to stop them without entering Gygax territory.