PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] A way to control Take 10/20 abuse?



newbDM
2009-02-11, 10:32 PM
Is in the current campaign I am in there is a player who is having trouble with the DM over taking 10/20.

The DM is a bit too lenient on this issue I believe, and is now just making the player roll for the check on his Search Checks for traps while still technically he is still technically taking 20. Basically if there is nothing there he just says "Nope, no need to take 20. You find nothing", or if there is something then he took 20. This player is known to be a bit difficult, but this just got me amazed.

So, to prevent myself from having the same issue if I ever DM again, I want to set some official house rules on the subject to my current house rules page now.


How would you handle this? How have you all handled this?


Some option I have thought about:
1. Simply not allow take 10/20s.

2. I was skimming through the World's Biggest Dungeon at a local store last week, and it offered a very interesting idea. It suggested having the PC/player need to take a concentration check to be able to take a Take 10/20 check. I personally feel this makes a lot of sense. However, I have no idea how make a mechanic for generating appropriate DCs. Can anyone here thing of some?

Here are some ideas so far on how to work this concept:

To Take 10 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check equal to the DC of the task he is trying to complete + 10, while to Take 20 he needs roll a Concentration check equal to the DC of the task he is trying to complete + 20.
To Take 10 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check of DC10, while to Take 20 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check of DC20. (This idea seems a bit too weak for me, since all you have to do is put 10 ranks in concentration to always take tens. Then again, would it make the skill system more useful, and would that be the point of taking those skills?)



Regardless of how it is done, how should the consequences of the check failing be? How far into the 10/20 rounds should the PC/player stop? By this I mean, how much crucial time in-game was wasted?


Also, are there any other/better ideas for handling the Take 10/20 issue?

holywhippet
2009-02-11, 10:53 PM
Concentration checks? Heck no. Only spellcasters bother with that skill, and rightly so.

I have no problem with take 10/20 as written. Taking 10 just lets you do something routine without relying on the whim of the dice. It represents just going through the motions are relying on your trained skills/stats.

Taking 20 takes extra time and rightly so - your character is doing things slowly and methodically to avoid mistakes. Depending on your circumstances, time might be in short supply so taking 20 might not be a good option. For example, in a dungeon taking 20 on a search check could result in monsters locating you and attacking.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-02-11, 11:04 PM
First of all, it takes a full round action to make a search check. Taking 20 means twenty rounds, or two minutes, of searching. You could say that a natural 1 on a search check and the character is confident that there's nothing to find and will not put the full effort into continuing the search. Any subsequent checks that character makes will automatically fail, therefore you cannot take 20 on a check for which a low result has a drawback.

Traps aren't exactly necessary anyway. In most cases the trap cost more than whatever it was placed to protect. The mechanics for traps were designed with the sole purpose of making a specific type of class necessary to have in the party. In general, traps and searching for traps slows down the game play and uses up buff durations. I fully understand why a DM would just wave the characters along when they try to sit around making checks, I've done the same. As a DM I don't see a problem with how Search is being used as you describe it. "Rolling to find these traps is slowing my game to a crawl, how do we fix it?" is a more likely/serious/valid complaint than getting past the traps in a timely fashion.

KillianHawkeye
2009-02-11, 11:08 PM
Okay, I have to ask: Why are we trying to stop people from taking 10 or 20 on their skill rolls? What is wrong with the existing system?

Taking 10 should always be allowed. It doesn't require any extra concentration. It is simply a time-saving method, by taking the average result of a d20 roll. I don't think there is any need to restrict it at all.

Taking 20 is also fine provided that you understand the limitations that already exist:

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

So, first of all, taking 20 on a skill check takes 20 times as long as the skill check normally takes.

Second of all, you must be free of threats or distractions, meaning you can't do it during combat, and if something big happens while you're doing it you have to start over.

Third, there can't be any negative consequence for failure. So you can take 20 on Open Lock, but not Disable Device, since failing on Disable Device runs the risk of triggering the trap or whatever. You can take 20 on a Jump check in order to reach something on top of your refrigerator, but not on a Jump check to get across a ravine.


---===---


Now that that's out of the way, I don't really understand what your DM is doing here. If the player is taking 20, he doesn't need to be rolling. That's the whole point of taking 20. Also, when you take 20, you don't stop in the middle (unless you are interrupted). You don't find out if you succeed or fail until 20x the normal time has passed.

Adding a Concentration check is a bad idea unless it's to try and continue taking 20 when a distraction appears. However, the Concentration DC should be determined by the guidelines of the Concentration skill, not by whether you are taking 10 or taking 20. (Most Concetration skill checks have set DCs.)

Kaihaku
2009-02-11, 11:11 PM
Concentration checks? Heck no. Only spellcasters bother with that skill, and rightly so.

And Kensai! :(

newbDM
2009-02-11, 11:14 PM
Traps aren't exactly necessary anyway. In most cases the trap cost more than whatever it was placed to protect. The mechanics for traps were designed with the sole purpose of making a specific type of class necessary to have in the party. In general, traps and searching for traps slows down the game play and uses up buff durations. I fully understand why a DM would just wave the characters along when they try to sit around making checks, I've done the same. As a DM I don't see a problem with how Search is being used as you describe it. "Rolling to find these traps is slowing my game to a crawl, how do we fix it?" is a more likely/serious/valid complaint than getting past the traps in a timely fashion.

Well, it was more on the lines of the player whining/arguing about it non-stop, as the whole group+DM agreed he was slowing things down and that it defeated the purpose of the mechanics, so the DM just decided "Screw it".

Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?

Also, I am personally fond of the trap/search system. How you word it, the only point of a game is to get strait to a battle. I am much more of a roleplaying/plot/experience person, so I do not feel it "slows down" the game. I feel it is a major part of the game. Think what action movies like Indiana Jones would be like without traps, and the PC (aka Jones) didn't have to spend some time figuring out the traps (which I feel made for some dramatic scenes). Also, using up buff time is a sound strategy for a DM out-of-game, and the BBEG in-game.

The Glyphstone
2009-02-11, 11:29 PM
Well, it's hard to make a DC much higher than 20 on your Ability scores + roll alone. Magical traps, for instance, have DC's that START at 20+ and go up, so any rogue who expects to be finding or disabling a nonmechanical trap needs ranks. Trained-only skills can't even be attempted in most cases without ranks, and even those that can like Knowledge are limited - a DC20 Knowledge check will identify the name of a 10HD or less monster at maximum.

monty
2009-02-11, 11:41 PM
And Kensai! :(

And martial adepts!

Reinboom
2009-02-11, 11:49 PM
Well, it was more on the lines of the player whining/arguing about it non-stop, as the whole group+DM agreed he was slowing things down and that it defeated the purpose of the mechanics, so the DM just decided "Screw it".

Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?

Also, I am personally fond of the trap/search system. How you word it, the only point of a game is to get strait to a battle. I am much more of a roleplaying/plot/experience person, so I do not feel it "slows down" the game. I feel it is a major part of the game. Think what action movies like Indiana Jones would be like without traps, and the PC (aka Jones) didn't have to spend some time figuring out the traps (which I feel made for some dramatic scenes). Also, using up buff time is a sound strategy for a DM out-of-game, and the BBEG in-game.

First, do you have an issue with taking 10 and 20 other than traps?

The inherent issue, I believe, is still how traps are designed. Either "on" or "off". They provide a significant need of one type of character when used (or fodder), without much benefit to the game.

I would recommend going through dungeonscape for traps, and removing the absolute need for trapfinding style effects. Having traps with pieces that can be hacked away, broken, or partially disabled has always seemed more effective to me.
Making traps 'active' rather than 'passive' is another way to break this. Mind, you can't use either while under pressure without mastery on the skill.

KKL
2009-02-11, 11:59 PM
Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?

Because if you don't, you'll never hit the higher DCs anyways?

sonofzeal
2009-02-12, 12:46 AM
Well, it was more on the lines of the player whining/arguing about it non-stop, as the whole group+DM agreed he was slowing things down and that it defeated the purpose of the mechanics, so the DM just decided "Screw it".

Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?

Also, I am personally fond of the trap/search system. How you word it, the only point of a game is to get strait to a battle. I am much more of a roleplaying/plot/experience person, so I do not feel it "slows down" the game. I feel it is a major part of the game. Think what action movies like Indiana Jones would be like without traps, and the PC (aka Jones) didn't have to spend some time figuring out the traps (which I feel made for some dramatic scenes). Also, using up buff time is a sound strategy for a DM out-of-game, and the BBEG in-game.
You can't take 10 if you're rushed, or if you're distracted. As long as those two conditions are met, I think it makes perfect sense to allow it; speeds up play (less rolling, easier adding) and removes really stupid things like botching some trivial activity like making a campfire in a boreal forest. At the same time, the DM will quickly learn what scores taking 10 will achieve, and can put the CR at just a smidgeon (1 or 2 points) higher, or can pressure the player with attackers with hails of arrows or other averse conditions. DMs have plenty of ways of discouraging the "take 10" attitude, without banning it. And it does serve its uses.

As for take 20, as long as the DM knows it takes "about 2 minutes", things should be fine. It wouldn't really make sense if characters automatically trusted a quick search for traps if some of those traps can be lethal, but repeated rollings get tiresome fast, and taking 20 gets around that. When the fate of the world is at stake, it makes sense if characters can spend longer and do things properly. But sometimes the PCs are in a rush and can't afford 2 minutes at every door, sometimes random encounters might start in the middle of that time as the dungeon denizens might not be quite so patient. DMs have plenty of ways of discouraging the "take 20" attitude, without banning it. And it does serve its uses.

Kyouhen
2009-02-12, 01:55 AM
If you really get annoyed with them constantly taking 20 when searching for traps, put one or two traps where they can't immediately find them just to shake them up a bit. For example, rig up an arrow trap that shoots at the first person who opens the door, but make it extremely primitive where the trigger part is a rope tied to the other side of said door. If you're on one side of the door the trap is immediately noticeable, but not even taking 20 on a Search check would let you notice it from the other side.

Urthdigger
2009-02-12, 02:36 AM
Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?


You've just been noticed sneaking through a dungeon by a group of monsters you most likely stand no chance against. The cries of battle alert more monsters down a side passage you passed a little ways back. Your only chance to flee is down another passage a short ways away, and you take it. After charging blindly through dungeon, you come to a door and unfortunately it's locked. The wizard casts Web on the monsters in the front of the group, slowing them down, but they're rapidly breaking free. You're the party's rogue, roll to detect traps, or just jump straight to picking it if you're feeling lucky.

I literally just thought of that example to add a time constraint to picking a lock in about 10 seconds. Other examples may be using a crude lockpick to open a cell door in plain view of the guard before he can rush off to spread the alarm, or trying to disable a crushing ceiling trap that has already begun it's descent. You can also use more subtle methods like keeping track of the time it takes the party to explore the dungeon and requiring them to get some rest each night (And thus the party probably won't appreciate the rogue spending half an hour at every door when it means they have to sleep in a monster infested dungeon), or in the case of traps just make it so fumbling Disarm Device or a search check to find traps triggers the trap, rendering it impossible to take 20 on it since it has a negative consequence. There's no problem whatsoever in having a character take 20, because the only times you are allowed to take 20 are times where you can just sit there rolling the dice again and again until you get a 20 anyway.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 02:50 AM
The easiest way to deal with this is to allow Take 10, but to ban Take 20.

Take 10 is a highly reasonable method for speeding up play. It allows players who have invested sufficient skill points to be able to do with ease what other people needed to work at. This removes the annoyance of getting a string of bad-luck on a roll that your High Spot Rogue really shouldn't have needed to worry about.

The problem with Take 20 is that it turns many situations into "always win / always lose" situations, which are no fun for anyone. If you cannot find it by Taking 20, then you can never find it. On the other hand, if it is something so hard to find that you would need to Take 20 to find it, you will still always find it... in fact, as easily as if you only needed an 11 to find it. So ban this troublesome rule.

Steal the concept of "Passive Checks" from 4E; find the "Take 10" value for your players' Spot, Listen, Search, and Sense Motive checks, and just let them know if they come upon something they would have seen, heard, or noticed with a casual glance. Otherwise, say nothing unless they ask.

For things like Picking Locks or Finding Secret Doors; if they fail by 5, then they cannot do it until they've had time to clear their head (say, a good night's sleep). This will encourage your PCs to put more than a +10 modifier in Pick Locks or Search, and restore a little drama to the game.

EDIT:
On Concentration Checks - any fix that requires more, not less, die rolling is just going to slow the game down more. Plus, it'll force characters who already don't have enough skill points to waste more skill points to regain the tremendous advantage that Take 20 grants.

Fjolnir
2009-02-12, 02:54 AM
this is a moot point as other people said so far taking 20 represents 20 minutes of attempts and possible failures, meaning it can really only be used on things like looking for traps and secret doors or other instances where time is not an issue, it can also be noted that it cannot be used on social skills such as bluff and diplomacy because of the fact that poor rolls can negatively influence the person you're using the social skill on. taking 10 on the other hand represents the fact that you (the character) believes that they can bypass the obstacle with a merely average effort, also of note that this cannot be used in combat or when otherwise distracted without certain class abilities (skill mastery as a rogue allows you to pick three skills you can take 10 on whenever, also the 3.x warlock gets a similar ability to UMD on their tree are two examples I can think of)

Curmudgeon
2009-02-12, 03:08 AM
Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. No, "take 10" is the point of the D&D 3.5 skill system; it's the way things are supposed to work normally. 4th Edition simplified the skill system drastically, removing nearly all user control over skills; there is no option but "take 10" now for ordinary skill checks. That part, at least, is fine; the only difficulty is that 3.5 permitted rolling for these everyday checks, which does slow the game down drastically. You're allowed one Spot check and one Listen check to react to every new experience; rolling for all of these is way tedious.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 03:19 AM
No, "take 10" is the point of the D&D 3.5 skill system; it's the way things are supposed to work normally. 4th Edition simplified the skill system drastically, removing nearly all user control over skills; there is no option but "take 10" now for ordinary skill checks. That part, at least, is fine; the only difficulty is that 3.5 permitted rolling for these everyday checks, which does slow the game down drastically. You're allowed one Spot check and one Listen check to react to every new experience; rolling for all of these is way tedious.


:confused:

I... I roll for skills when I play 4E. It's only up in Paragon when tasks (climbing rough stone walls and such) become trivial for people trained in it. The majority of skills still require rolling.

What exactly did you mean?

Panda-s1
2009-02-12, 03:24 AM
Take 10 exists for the sole purpose of it being kinda hard to roll average on a d20. Say in a game where you roll 3d6, because you're rolling on a bell curve the "average" roll of 11 or 12 is gonna come up more often than any other number, and a 3 or 18 is much more rare. The issue with the d20 system is that you have the same chance of rolling average on your d20 as you do every other number, so the designers put in this nice rule saying you can do "average" work when not under stress instead of having a chance of screwing up entirely.

Let me put it this way: do you "roll" for everything you do in your life? I mean I've gone through the past week without really rolling any ones, haven't made my computer explode, haven't tripped and fallen on the frozen sidewalk, no real brain farts when trying to remember something, and that's all 'cause it's pretty mundane for me. That's what taking 10 is. Now let's say for some crazy reason I had to sneak into the school's database and use their computer, or some mugger is chasing me down the street, or someone asked me the last time Venus occultated Regulus, then I'm gonna "roll" 'cause either unexpected things could happen, or it's just beyond the normal scope of mundane for me that chance becomes an important factor.

But anyway, that's why take 10 exists, so a PCs life isn't entirely dominated by some twenty-sided figure their personal god rolled around.

SaiphSDC
2009-02-12, 03:45 AM
In general, I allow my players to take 10 at nearly any time. Indeed, I encourage their use as that as a default. Whenever I have to 'roll in secret' I usually use this value. Often one of the players with the highest, or near highest, will ask that I roll theirs though, so that they get the chance of an unusually high score (while the rest take 10).

When it comes to taking 20, however, I require a bit more in character reasoning for it. First, I point out that it's 2 minutes per 5' square or action. So going down a typical dungeon hallway of say, 20' takes 8 minutes, if you search each square for traps. No character would put up with such a slow pace unless they had reason for it.

If the player can give me no reason why the character would suspect traps, they take 10, or they roll. If they wish to take 20 at doorways in a dungeon they suspect to be trapped, fine, that's a logical place for a trap (that being said...if they don't suspect traps at all I'll often say no). If they spot a skeleton dead nearby, they can use that for justification to take 20 on a search for the room.

I make sure my players know this beforehand though, and I try to justify it in game by using mild 'time limit' encounters. Like needing to be gone before dawn, guards being gone for only a few minutes, mysterious noises of possible monsters....an indiana jones style rolling rock of doom. etc.

Roog
2009-02-12, 04:19 AM
If they wish to take 20 at doorways in a dungeon they suspect to be trapped, fine, that's a logical place for a trap(that being said...if they don't suspect traps at all I'll often say no).

Doesn't wanting to take 20 mean that they suspect it might be trapped? And don't they know whether their characters suspect traps better than you do?

Curmudgeon
2009-02-12, 05:00 AM
I... I roll for skills when I play 4E. It's only up in Paragon when tasks (climbing rough stone walls and such) become trivial for people trained in it. The majority of skills still require rolling.

What exactly did you mean? I mean this (from page 179 of the 4th Ed. PH):
Passive Checks

When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. The DM doesn't ask you to roll, or roll for you; they just use your "take 10" number for any skills you use passively: Perception, Insight, Dungeoneering, and Arcana.

SaiphSDC
2009-02-12, 05:17 AM
Roog: In theory, asking to take 20 means they suspect traps. In practice it means the rogue wants to save his bacon by exploiting a very high check result with no effort or risk. I.e. he'll try to use it on every single square in a dungeon. To be fair, I tend not to use arbitrarily scattered traps. You'll find traps on ornate chests, display pedastals, inscribed doorways, etc. But not random footplate in front of a typical dungeon door.

I also like to use more elaborate traps than: Footplate triggers spear to the face!. Puzzle room sorta things that require a few of the PC's to work together, even if the Rogues disable device check helps figure out what to do.

And yes, they do know when their characters suspect a trap more than I do...which is why they are encouraged to tell me, and I often consent. Though every now and again I call shenanigans.

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-02-12, 06:07 AM
Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?

If you take 20 it doesn't mean you don't roll. It means you roll enough times to statistically get at least one 20.

In searching for traps though, it's not very useful unless you suspect where the trap is; you'd need to take 20 on every square and in a corridor with 30 squares or so (50 ft long, 15 ft wide) you'd need more than an hour of in-game time.

Tehnar
2009-02-12, 06:45 AM
I think part of the problem some people have with accepting the 3E skill system is that they are not using the take 10 mechanic. As a DM and as a player I try to use it every chance I get, for any skill that allows such.

Climb a wall-->take 10.
Climb a wall while under fire of enemy archers-->roll.

Its stupid to roll on mundane tasks that are not threatening in any way. A experienced acrobat wont fall down walking on a wide ledge. However walking on the same ledge while dodging spells and projectiles might cause him to fall off.

And the fact that it speeds up play is another point in its favor.


As for taking 20, I kind of discourage it. The only point I see in it is searching for traps or opening locks. And that takes a great amount of time, so the players usually don't do that either. If they are in a hurry and the rogue cant find the trap or pick the locked door in a few rounds they are going to either bash the door down, or suppose the trap is not there.

If they have time to check every square for traps, or take half an hour or more to pick a lock; then why did the DM put that there? Its faster to bash the door down, or run through the eventually trapped room, disarm the trap the hard way, heal up and continue.

PinkysBrain
2009-02-12, 06:56 AM
Plus, I feel taking 10/20 defeats the point of the system/mechanics. Why even bother putting ranks in it then?
To actually find stuff with any degree of consistency? If I don't find traps 50% of the time I'm better off just playing a barbarian and finding traps the hard way.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 07:49 AM
How would you handle this? How have you all handled this?

Use the 4e Perception rule, where you can't retry an active search check unless circumstances change. Lower search DCs by ~7 to compensate. Do the same with pick lock, or anything else where folks would want to take 20.

Michaelos
2009-02-12, 08:02 AM
To actually find stuff with any degree of consistency? If I don't find traps 50% of the time I'm better off just playing a barbarian and finding traps the hard way.

That is surprisingly effective. I ran a dungeon which consisted of every trap in the DMG, and the characters (Bearwarrior Barbarian, Cleric, Druid) Blew through it with ease even without the use of trap finding magic. It's amazing what several uses of resist energy mass, healing magic, summoning, a ring of feather fall, and good Fort and Will saves will solve. (At one point, the party was standing in a phantasmal Killer trap pondering their next move, and the trap went off again. To be fair, the Bear-Barbarian was 18 and the others were 15-16, and those traps cap at CR 10, but the idea of standing in a trap that could kill you instantly by fear is hilarious. The only trap they didn't have a solution for was the Forcecage trap. I allowed Dispel Magic Greater to work since http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm only explicitly states Dispel Magic is resisted (Not Greater Dispel Magic) and I set up a plot point for explaining it later in case I was wrong. I actually end up with "I take 1" situations several times. When peoples modifiers can get to 30+ with no problems, several times you don't have to roll at all.

Riffington
2009-02-12, 08:16 AM
As many have already said, take 10 is a great mechanic, and should be encouraged whenever one isn't under pressure.

I do have a couple contrary points about Take 20.
1. It shouldn't always be exactly 20x the usual time to Take 20. It depends on the situation. If a cursory search of a room takes a minute, an exhaustive search typically takes hours. If the characters don't have hours, don't let them take 20.

2. Searching for Traps is an active process, and one may occasionally set off a trap during the search. If this is true of your specific location, you cannot Take 20 on that kind of check...

3. Decide for yourself how much rolling you really want to do. If a big part of the game is "satisfying handfuls of dice", then make em roll. If that gets in the way, narrate. This goes for combat and skills alike.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 08:22 AM
The DM is a bit too lenient on this issue I believe, and is now just making the player roll for the check on his Search Checks for traps while still technically he is still technically taking 20.
I'm not sure why this is such a big deal?

See, the thing is this: the skill system of D&D is essentially way too random (in that the random factor of 1-20 is much bigger than the realistic spread in skill ranks or difficulty factors). Taking 10 is a kludge to counteract this, and is really necessary to keep the skill system working properly, unless you find it desirable that the dextrous ranger routinely falls out of trees.

Another flaw in the skill system is that it allows you to reroll as often as you like until you get things right (at least, for most skills). Taking 20 is a kludge not so much to counteract this, but to make it take up less playtime. It simply simulates "rerolling until you get a 20", and the only essential part here is that it takes a long time for your character. It is also really necessary unless you enjoy rerolling dice over and over again.

Concentration checks are a bad idea. (1) they overly complicate things, (2) they are too easy for casters and too hard for anyone else, (3) they don't even make sense for taking-10. You're adding another kludge to an already kludgy system, and I would strongly recommend against this unless your point is to make skill use nearly worthless for non-casters.


An elegant way of dealing with this is to (1) roll on 3d6 rather than 1d20, and forbid taking 10; and (2) rule that skill checks cannot be retried-until-you-get-them-right, and forbid taking 20. Incidentally, this is similar to what nearly every other roleplaying system does.

olelia
2009-02-12, 09:27 AM
So, first of all, taking 20 on a skill check takes 20 times as long as the skill check normally takes.

Second of all, you must be free of threats or distractions, meaning you can't do it during combat, and if something big happens while you're doing it you have to start over.

Third, there can't be any negative consequence for failure. So you can take 20 on Open Lock, but not Disable Device, since failing on Disable Device runs the risk of triggering the trap or whatever. You can take 20 on a Jump check in order to reach something on top of your refrigerator, but not on a Jump check to get across a ravine.


I think people kinda ignored Killian. With the rules as written you CAN'T take a 20 on a trap since it has negative consequences.

monty
2009-02-12, 10:16 AM
As for taking 20, I kind of discourage it. The only point I see in it is searching for traps or opening locks. And that takes a great amount of time, so the players usually don't do that either. If they are in a hurry and the rogue cant find the trap or pick the locked door in a few rounds they are going to either bash the door down, or suppose the trap is not there.

If they have time to check every square for traps, or take half an hour or more to pick a lock; then why did the DM put that there? Its faster to bash the door down, or run through the eventually trapped room, disarm the trap the hard way, heal up and continue.

You've never played Tomb of Horrors, have you?

KillianHawkeye
2009-02-12, 10:22 AM
I think people kinda ignored Killian. With the rules as written you CAN'T take a 20 on a trap since it has negative consequences.

LOL

Yeah, I had kinda noticed that, too. :smallconfused:

Well, I tried... :smallsigh:

ericgrau
2009-02-12, 11:21 AM
Is in the current campaign I am in there is a player who is having trouble with the DM over taking 10/20.

The DM is a bit too lenient on this issue I believe, and is now just making the player roll for the check on his Search Checks for traps while still technically he is still technically taking 20. Basically if there is nothing there he just says "Nope, no need to take 20. You find nothing", or if there is something then he took 20. This player is known to be a bit difficult, but this just got me amazed.

So, to prevent myself from having the same issue if I ever DM again, I want to set some official house rules on the subject to my current house rules page now.


How would you handle this? How have you all handled this?


Some option I have thought about:
1. Simply not allow take 10/20s.

2. I was skimming through the World's Biggest Dungeon at a local store last week, and it offered a very interesting idea. It suggested having the PC/player need to take a concentration check to be able to take a Take 10/20 check. I personally feel this makes a lot of sense. However, I have no idea how make a mechanic for generating appropriate DCs. Can anyone here thing of some?

Here are some ideas so far on how to work this concept:

To Take 10 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check equal to the DC of the task he is trying to complete + 10, while to Take 20 he needs roll a Concentration check equal to the DC of the task he is trying to complete + 20.
To Take 10 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check of DC10, while to Take 20 the PC needs to roll a Concentration check of DC20. (This idea seems a bit too weak for me, since all you have to do is put 10 ranks in concentration to always take tens. Then again, would it make the skill system more useful, and would that be the point of taking those skills?)



Regardless of how it is done, how should the consequences of the check failing be? How far into the 10/20 rounds should the PC/player stop? By this I mean, how much crucial time in-game was wasted?


Also, are there any other/better ideas for handling the Take 10/20 issue?

This really doesn't need to be nerfed. Skills already get shafted enough as it is. Just allow it. If the player wants to spend 2 minutes per 5 foot square searching each room top to bottom (and no monsters come in the mean time) then let him. If the party wants to take 10 on their move silently checks, let them. Instead of, "Haha another trap your low HP low fort save rogue fell into! Geeze you really could do better if a barbarian just walked through this dungeon and triggered all the traps intentionally". Or "everyone roll move silently checks, even though we all know one of you will botch it and there's almost no point." That's what you get for not putting all your ranks into spot and listen where this instead works in your favor (even though the rules say the DM can make one listen roll for the whole party, btw).

Someone actually takes the time to make proper use of the skill rules, does well and immediately gets hit with a nerf bat? Come on, this is the big thing rogues and rangers have going from them. Otherwise people only play them for the coolness factor that doesn't actually exist when stuff like this happens. Martially they are significantly weaker than other classes. Let them shine at what they're good at. The whole point of the take 10/20 rules is to remove the factor of chance causing repeated random failures on things the character should be good at.

Also take a look at the trap rules for more interesting traps. Most traps aren't over and done with just because you found them.

Arbitrarity
2009-02-12, 04:13 PM
Time. Time. Time. A 10x10x10 room, as tiny as they come (generally) takes 48 minutes to search entirely. 20x20x10? 2 hours 16 minutes.

30x30x10? 4 hours.

Search a hallway, 40x10x10? 2 hours 24 minutes.

Searching everything with take 20 takes FOREVER. Take every individual square, on walls, ceiling, etc, multiply by 2 minutes, and that's the amount of time it takes. While you could ask if the other players get bored during this time, that's unlikely to work with player paranoia. Time can be cut down by removing walls, etc. If this is common, you can trap those areas, or not bother. Just roll for encounters, and add time pressure. Maybe add fatigue, for really extended jobs.

Actually, that would be neat. Using more than a single action for more than two hours during a day fatigues you, because it's about as demanding as hustle, no (note: This is a houserule option)? Fatigue and exhaustion penalties hurt enough that this discourages excessive time spent searching, or necessitates a LOT of rest.

Atamasama
2009-02-12, 05:28 PM
It's pretty much been said already, but newbDM, here is the way to reconcile it to yourself when you're running the game.

As the DM, you have the power to decide whether or not the players have a chance to take 10 or 20. You can always tell them no. But I encourage you not to completely disallow it from your game, or even hamper it with Concentration checks.

It's very simple. Every time the player asks you if he can take 10 or 20 on a skill, ask yourself one question: can he fail? If the answer is yes, then don't allow it.

If someone needs to make a skill check to pick a lock on a door, and you, as the DM, feel that there's a chance his character just can't pick the lock because it's a difficult lock and he might have to give up, then give him the chance to "prove himself" with a roll. If he fails, you can tell him that he has the feeling that it's just too well-made to open and he lacks the skills and/or tools to succeed no matter how long he takes.

In another situation, if a small precious gem is dropped in the sand and lost, and someone wants to search for it, and you figure that given enough time they'd find it, let her take 20 and just find it without rolling a die over, and over, and over, until a success comes up (that would just be a waste of time).

Use your own judgment, don't be afraid to say no. If anyone complains, just tell them that you won't allow it whenever there's a chance for failure, and as the DM you've decided that there is a chance for failure in this case. They can't really argue against that.

woodenbandman
2009-02-12, 08:31 PM
If someone needs to make a skill check to pick a lock on a door, and you, as the DM, feel that there's a chance his character just can't pick the lock because it's a difficult lock and he might have to give up, then give him the chance to "prove himself" with a roll. If he fails, you can tell him that he has the feeling that it's just too well-made to open and he lacks the skills and/or tools to succeed no matter how long he takes.


http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr106a.jpg
http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr106b.jpg

{scrubbed}

Jack_Simth
2009-02-12, 09:49 PM
The inherent issue, I believe, is still how traps are designed. Either "on" or "off". They provide a significant need of one type of character when used (or fodder), without much benefit to the game.

Traps aren't exactly necessary anyway. In most cases the trap cost more than whatever it was placed to protect. The mechanics for traps were designed with the sole purpose of making a specific type of class necessary to have in the party. In general, traps and searching for traps slows down the game play and uses up buff durations. I fully understand why a DM would just wave the characters along when they try to sit around making checks, I've done the same. As a DM I don't see a problem with how Search is being used as you describe it. "Rolling to find these traps is slowing my game to a crawl, how do we fix it?" is a more likely/serious/valid complaint than getting past the traps in a timely fashion.
They're more there because they're part of the genre (Indiana Jones ran across a lot of traps - in a movie, they can be interesting by themselves), and for whatever reason, only rogues are permitted to find the "hard" ones ... which is not to say a clever person can't find ways to deal with them regardless.

But yeah - for the most part, traps in isolation are a waste of time. They're two rolls and moving on (Search, Disable Device). Sure, by the book, you can take 10 or 20 on Search, but that's a no-go on Disable Device (consequences for failure - miss the DC by 5 or more, and it springs).

The solution? Don't use traps in isolation. Use them with critters that are immune to / benefit from the trap in question. A few examples:

1) Have an undead creature walking on an Inflict X Wounds (or, high-level, Harm) floor - each round of battle, everyone in the party on the floor makes a save for half-damage. Each round of battle, the undead creature heals up. The undead creature takes action to prevent anyone from disabling the trap. Once the undead creature is re-dead, the party rogue can disable the trap quite easily.

2) The BBEG (or local bad evil guy) in his throne room (or other room he could have reasonably prepared) ... surrounded by concealed 10 or 20-foot pit traps (Fighter or buffed Cleric charges and... whoops!). The BBEG, of course, knows where they are and/or uses Air Walk, Fly, or similar. They're only about 1-3 CR per trap, but they're still going to alter the face of the battle noticeably, even at moderately high levels.

3) The Red Dragon that LOVES Fireball traps for all those pretty flashes. He's immune, but the party isn't. Or maybe he scatters them all over the dungeon and keeps several colonies of Ash Rats (Immune to Fire...) running around to keep them randomly active.

4) The Cure X Wounds trap. Anyone who touches the dark altar and intones "All Hail to [insert name of evil diety/major demon here]" gets hit with a Cure X Wounds (or Heal). Variants use any buff spell that's available. A low-CR trap that boosts the baddies, and (if the party is willing), the party too, after ... but it's immobile, and can't be taken along after.

I'm sure you get the idea.


I think people kinda ignored Killian. With the rules as written you CAN'T take a 20 on a trap since it has negative consequences.

On Disable Device, you can't (trap goes off if you fail by more than a certain amount) - on Search, you can (no consequences for failure if you take 20 prior to stepping in the trigger-square).

You can also simply insert a threat of some kind - if you're threatened, you can't take 10 or 20.


If you really get annoyed with them constantly taking 20 when searching for traps, put one or two traps where they can't immediately find them just to shake them up a bit. For example, rig up an arrow trap that shoots at the first person who opens the door, but make it extremely primitive where the trigger part is a rope tied to the other side of said door. If you're on one side of the door the trap is immediately noticeable, but not even taking 20 on a Search check would let you notice it from the other side.
Don't do this. There's a few reasons.
1) It'll backfire. Everyone expects traps to be searchable (the Rogue class ability actually specifies "before they go off"), so if they were taking 10 before, they'll be taking 20 after (thinking you upped the DC). All you'll end up doing is increasing paranoia and precautions, which will take even longer.
2) It breaks verisimilitude for anyone who thinks about it for long. If there were traps that had a reasonable chance of being lethal, but simply could not be located until after they already hit you, then there wouldn't be any other kind, and nobody would bother learning how to disable traps (because they never can anyway).

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-12, 09:56 PM
Best way to control Take 10/20 Abuse?

Enforce the rule!

Seriously, if it is something that you can have Bad Things happen if you roll a 1, or if it is a stressful situation, then you cannot take 10. This includes disabling traps (because they could poke you and harm you). It also takes a LOT longer, which means it cannot be done in 'rushed' situations (ie.e "Quick! We need through this door before the ECL +6 Encounter is gaining on us!"). Take 20 is even worse about it, as it takes HOURS, which means I get to start rolling random encounters, and if he does ANYTHING but 'search for traps' during combat, or if he gets hit, he's got to start all over again.

Also, Jack? Tucker called, he wants his Kobolds back...

Riffington
2009-02-12, 10:06 PM
Why do you think you have the right to tell him he can't try and open the lock as long as he damn well pleases?

Your post, while exuberant, totally misses the point. <b>Atamasama</b> wasn't suggesting that the DM should tell the character what to do. He was suggesting that the DM give the player information that the character would have: namely, that what he was doing wouldn't work. After a certain number of rolls, a DM has every right to simply rule that the door is beyond the skill of the character. He's informing him of that fact because any skilled character knows what they are and aren't capable of. The player has every right to take that info and say "oh, let me try something different", or "my character shakes off that feeling and keep on plugging away," but he just doesn't get to open the dang lock.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-12, 10:13 PM
Also, Jack? Tucker called, he wants his Kobolds back...How'd he find out!?!? I didn't mention Kobolds even once!

Myrmex
2009-02-13, 12:02 AM
QUIT. TALKING.

This is by far the greatest breach of DM power ever. You're reaching directly into the character and telling him how to roleplay. If the character is subjected to something that would make him afraid, he gets a save. If he doesn't get a save, or he gets an impossible save, you're railroading. If you tell him how he feels, and he's not under some form of charm or compulsion effect that a character of his level could have possibly resisted (or if he's geased), you're railroading.

Why do you think you have the right to tell him he can't try and open the lock as long as he damn well pleases? Hell, if I thought that treasure was behind a door MADE FROM THE CROSS OF JESUS CHRIST, and I had to BREAK THE LOCK MADE FROM THE BONES OF MOSES to get it, I'd do it. Don't tell me that you think an adventurer would enter a dungeon and NOT be prepared to try as long as it took to open the lock that is potentially standing between him and his bread?

Sometimes my players will encounter situations that are impossible for them to overcome in a certain way. The halfling fighter, in fullplate, carrying a 200lb idol, for instance, stands a 5% chance of jumping over a ten foot ravine. I think it is fair that I inform the halfling's player that his character has a pretty good idea that he couldn't jump the gap. Likewise, it is fair to let the rogue's player know that his character faces a lock of such craftsmanship that he would have difficulty picking it, ie, you could continue rolling to get a 20, or jump down off the catwalk into the murky sewer below, in hopes of eluding those ogres. They are closing fast.

Anything else is bad DMing.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-13, 12:14 AM
Best way to control Take 10/20 Abuse?

Enforce the rule!

Seriously, if it is something that you can have Bad Things happen if you roll a 1, or if it is a stressful situation, then you cannot take 10. This includes disabling traps (because they could poke you and harm you). It also takes a LOT longer, which means it cannot be done in 'rushed' situations (ie.e "Quick! We need through this door before the ECL +6 Encounter is gaining on us!"). Take 20 is even worse about it, as it takes HOURS, which means I get to start rolling random encounters, and if he does ANYTHING but 'search for traps' during combat, or if he gets hit, he's got to start all over again..

Not quite the case. Take 10 is "anytime you can't give your full concentration, you can't do it." It doesn't have the "bad things on 1" rule: that's Take 20.


Taking 10
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

Roog
2009-02-13, 01:45 AM
Roog: In theory, asking to take 20 means they suspect traps. In practice it means the rogue wants to save his bacon by exploiting a very high check result with no effort or risk.

In theory it means that the character is worried about traps enough to take his time searching for them. In paractice it means the same thing.

No effort? He just took 2 minutes to search that square! Unless you mean that the player was getting something without an effort or risk. In which case, you should give the charcters an XP penalty every time they find a way to circumvent any obstacle you put in front of them in a way that avoids risking their characters. Or even better, you could poke them with a pointy stick - that will teach them that they can't get something for nothing.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-13, 01:59 AM
Time. Time. Time. A 10x10x10 room, as tiny as they come (generally) takes 48 minutes to search entirely. 20x20x10? 2 hours 16 minutes.

30x30x10? 4 hours.

Search a hallway, 40x10x10? 2 hours 24 minutes.

Searching everything with take 20 takes FOREVER. Take every individual square, on walls, ceiling, etc, multiply by 2 minutes, and that's the amount of time it takes. While you could ask if the other players get bored during this time, that's unlikely to work with player paranoia. Time can be cut down by removing walls, etc. If this is common, you can trap those areas, or not bother. Just roll for encounters, and add time pressure. Maybe add fatigue, for really extended jobs.I love when people bring up time issues as a reason in-character not to do something. I'm invading the private sanctuary of an immortal genious psycopath with a talent for cruelty and inventiveness(standard lich). I'm going to be more than a little careful.

Urthdigger
2009-02-13, 05:06 AM
I love when people bring up time issues as a reason in-character not to do something. I'm invading the private sanctuary of an immortal genious psycopath with a talent for cruelty and inventiveness(standard lich). I'm going to be more than a little careful.

That is indeed the kind of situation where I'd expect, the player to start taking his sweet time and taking 20s :)

caden_varn
2009-02-13, 05:53 AM
Well, it has kinda been said before, but the issue here is not a broken rule. Its a DM allowing a player to abuse a rule. If your DM is going to allow this sort of thing, any rule or system can be abused, whether it is 'broken' or not.
The problem is with the DM/player interaction here, and that's what needs to be fixed.

Fixer
2009-02-13, 08:25 AM
I think people kinda ignored Killian. With the rules as written you CAN'T take a 20 on a trap since it has negative consequences.Actually, I believe that is incorrect. Failing a SEARCH check for a trap doesn't actually set off the trap. As a result, there are no direct negative consequences to failing to search for a trap. While you can assume that not finding something harmful would be a 'negative consequence' it truly isn't, because if you don't trigger it it isn't a factor. It is a potential negative consequence, not an actual negative consequence. As an example, there was a comic where Hailey was taking a 20 to search for a trap.

You cannot take a 20 on DISABLE DEVICE because that does state, in the skill description, that failing by more than X will trigger the trap. That is a direct negative consequence of the skill roll and is what prevents taking a 20.

Telonius
2009-02-13, 09:54 AM
I love when people bring up time issues as a reason in-character not to do something. I'm invading the private sanctuary of an immortal genious psycopath with a talent for cruelty and inventiveness(standard lich). I'm going to be more than a little careful.

Point taken, but there's a limit to what makes sense. Whenever someone starts abusing the "take 20" rule and looking at every square of a 50 by 10 hallway, here's what I picture in the room at the end.

Grubluk the Orc: ::yawns, looks at his sundial:: Hey Kraldar, aren't they supposed to be here by now?
Kraldar the Bugbear: ::stretches:: Who cares, we're gettin' paid by the hour. 'sides, Pointy Hat in the other room finished with the planar conjunction ritual five minutes ago.

Having and enforcing some sort of time constraint is reasonable, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Roderick_BR
2009-02-13, 11:40 AM
And remember that even taking a 20, doesn't actually means you was successful, in case of something simply too far above your league: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0036.html

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-13, 12:24 PM
Every time one of my players Takes 20 on something in a dangerous area, I pick up my Random Encounter dice and grin...

they quickly got the hint... staying in one place too long is going to end up with having the encounters come to you.

Zeful
2009-02-13, 04:54 PM
QUIT. TALKING.CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.


This is by far the greatest breach of DM power ever. You're reaching directly into the character and telling him how to roleplay. If the character is subjected to something that would make him afraid, he gets a save. If he doesn't get a save, or he gets an impossible save, you're railroading. If you tell him how he feels, and he's not under some form of charm or compulsion effect that a character of his level could have possibly resisted (or if he's geased), you're railroading.Err... no. Giving the player an impossible save is only railroading if the plot demanded that that character dies NOW, and the save is the player rolling the die to remove the illusion of railraoding. If the genre savvy player figures out and attacks the campaign BBEG before they were capable of actually defeating him, then the impossible saves they will be facing are the opposite of railroading. Situation determines what is railroading and what isn't. Telling a player that the character he's playing knows that something is beyond him is never railroading.


Why do you think you have the right to tell him he can't try and open the lock as long as he damn well pleases? Hell, if I thought that treasure was behind a door MADE FROM THE CROSS OF JESUS CHRIST, and I had to BREAK THE LOCK MADE FROM THE BONES OF MOSES to get it, I'd do it. Don't tell me that you think an adventurer would enter a dungeon and NOT be prepared to try as long as it took to open the lock that is potentially standing between him and his bread?Why do you think all obstacles presented are passable? I've included DC40 locks in my first dungeons before. Simply because I want the players to comeback and explore that area later. Just because something's there does not mean you have instant access to it. Some things require out-thinking the DM, others require that you turn around and come back later.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-13, 05:37 PM
Why do you think all obstacles presented are passable? I've included DC40 locks in my first dungeons before. Simply because I want the players to comeback and explore that area later. Just because something's there does not mean you have instant access to it. Some things require out-thinking the DM, others require that you turn around and come back later.You misread his post. What he was objecting to was someone saying to a Rogue with +20 open lock after rolling a 5 "You feel the lock is beyond your capabilities." Even if the lock is only DC 30.

Zeful
2009-02-13, 07:31 PM
You misread his post. What he was objecting to was someone saying to a Rogue with +20 open lock after rolling a 5 "You feel the lock is beyond your capabilities." Even if the lock is only DC 30.

Not really, the post was in direct reference to:
If he fails, you can tell him that he has the feeling that it's just too well-made to open and he lacks the skills and/or tools to succeed no matter how long he takes.
the bolded part indicates that even by taking 20 the character cannot succeed. If I as a rogue player ever heard that line, I would add twenty to my open locks modifiers and round to the nearest ten. and assume that number is the DC. If I found out later that it was well within my capacities to open that lock I'd talk to the DM and explain what "beyond your capabilities" actually means. Calling it railroading is inaccurate at best.

woodenbandman
2009-02-14, 05:12 PM
Your post, while exuberant, totally misses the point. <b>Atamasama</b> wasn't suggesting that the DM should tell the character what to do. He was suggesting that the DM give the player information that the character would have: namely, that what he was doing wouldn't work. After a certain number of rolls, a DM has every right to simply rule that the door is beyond the skill of the character. He's informing him of that fact because any skilled character knows what they are and aren't capable of. The player has every right to take that info and say "oh, let me try something different", or "my character shakes off that feeling and keep on plugging away," but he just doesn't get to open the dang lock.

But they ARE capable of it.

He's also ignoring an important part of the rules, which is the rule of take 20. taking 20 signifies that the character took his time and did his very best. If he cannot take his time and do his very best, that's one situation. But if the DM says, "oh no, you can't do that, you have to roll" even though they have all the time in the world, and THEN, when he rolls, says that he is not capable of opening the lock, THAT's bad DMing.

The take 10 and take 20 rules are not abusive in the slightest. If a character can't open a lock because they're not that good at opening locks, that's fine. If a character can open a lock, but it'll take them a few minutes because they need to concentrate, also fine. The DM saying that, for no reason, they can't try and open the lock as long as they want, is not fine. He can say that they don't think that they could open the lock, but if by rolling a 20 they could open the lock, then they should be able to take 20 and open that lock.


you can tell him that he has the feeling

That's what we in the business call a LIE. The character in this example could, if he took 20, open that lock. Now, if he couldn't take 20, because, say, the lock had sovereign glue in it that absorbed his lockpick and stuck the lock closed forever when you try and open it and you aren't careful, then you could say "you have a very good chance of permanently destroying this lock." I suppose, if you wanted, you could trap every conceivable necessary skill check (with spiked pits, etc), to avoid having them take 20 and THEN make it impossible to succeed by taking 10, but that's not only bad DMing, that's antagonistic DMing.

I am not suggesting that the players should never encounter things that they cannot defeat. They could not, for example, defeat a cliff, or a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. But at the same time, Great Wyrm Red Dragons should not track down and kill PCs on a regular basis. If the PCs go attack a Red Dragon, let stupidity take its course. But the situation provided herein is a character opening a lock. If you don't want them to take as much time as they want and open the lock, then here's a real simple solution: Don't put in the lock. If you don't want them to take as much time as they want and try to jump over the spiked pit... that's a different story. They can still take 10 on it and succeed, if there's no distraction. But you should probably tell them whether or not they could succeed by taking 10, so they know whether or not they need to roll.

monty
2009-02-14, 06:26 PM
They could not, for example, defeat a cliff

My barbarian would like to have a word with you (just one word, because he doesn't know very many). Cliffs are easy. A gazebo, on the other hand...

Fan
2009-02-14, 06:29 PM
I can, and HAVE defeated a cliff.... If you count a entire mountian, and a large portion of the earths crust as including the cliff.
The earths crust only has like 1,000,0000,000 Hp with alll its thickness.....
It's doable you just need TIME.