[3.P] Taking 10 on attacks

[Darius Kane]

A houserule: You can take 10 on attack rolls.
How would such a houserule impact the game?

[Thump]

It doesn't make much sense by RAW, mostly because taking 10 represents taking a bit of extra time (1 minute) in a non-threatened environment, as quoted by the rules. With the Weapon Supremacy feat, for one weapon, for one attack per round (Needs fighter 18 and a crap-load of other feats, but is well worth it), you can choose to treat one roll as a 10.

Don't make it a house-rule, though. Your players will abuse the crap out of it, especially in full attacks if they have high bonuses to-hit.

EXAMPLE:

20th-level fighter VS balor in melee combat.

The fighter would have, for example, a +5 weapon, 30 STR and Weapon Focus, for a total of +36/+31/+26/+21.

This means he can use the take 10 option to hit every single time except for the last attack, and... Oh right.

No natural ones if you take 10.

[Jeraa]

It doesn't make much sense by RAW, mostly because taking 10 represents taking a bit of extra time (1 minute) in a non-threatened environment, as quoted by the rules.

Wrong. Taking 10 takes the same amount of time as normal. It does not increase the time to make a check at all.


Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger 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.

[Thump]

Well... throw a bucket on my head.

Either way, it would still be just a little bit broken.

[RFLS]

I would not recommend it, but I believe unearthed arcana sets a precedent. I seem to remember a rule in which you make AC rolls, and don't add the flat 10 to your AC (the idea being that you'd been taking 10 on it).

However, if your goal is to speed combat up....go frigging nuts. My only reserve is that honestly, some players like rolling the dice and toying with fate; it's certainly part of the attraction to me.

[nedz]

It would work just fine, provided that you change the defenders AC to be d20+<whatever> instead of 10+<whatever>. A 20 would always miss, and a 1 would always hit. Crit threats would work on a basis of 1 upwards instead of 20 and down.

[Zdrak]

A houserule: You can take 10 on attack rolls.
How would such a houserule impact the game?

It will enhance metagaming. Instead of just rolling their attacks, players will spend time searching their memory for monsters' Armor Classes to figure out if they can take 10.

"So, a Hill Giant has +8 Natural AC, no wait, +9, and ... did you say this one is wearing Hide armor? I guess I'll take 10 on the first attack, but not the second ..."

[Person_Man]

I personally think it's a terrible idea. It doesn't speed up combat by more then a few seconds, it removes one of the funnest parts of the game, and it removes critical hits (thus making lower Tier builds slightly weaker, since they depend more on attack rolls).

[ericgrau]

So you go from hitting 3/4 of the time to always hitting on full BAB characters. That's an obvious buff to give 1/3 more damage. Medium BAB characters, the secondary attacks on full BAB characters or those who didn't pump their attack bonus very well get to play a guessing game on whether they should take a 10. Once they try it once they know what to do in all future attacks.

It isn't a fix for melee either because they already have plenty of damage and it takes away one of the few things many melee do. Hey take average damage too and every turn his action can be "I do 50 damage. Done."

[Darius Kane]

Don't make it a house-rule, though. Your players will abuse the crap out of it, especially in full attacks if they have high bonuses to-hit.
I don't see a problem with that. I make houserules mainly for my players benefit.
No natural ones is a good thing actually, because if the enemy can't be hit even with a 10 then they'll have to roll either way, and if they fight mooks then they can avoid silly stuff like missing an enemy which they should be able to easily hit, that way they won't waste time on insignificant cannon fodder.


However, if your goal is to speed combat up....go frigging nuts. My only reserve is that honestly, some players like rolling the dice and toying with fate; it's certainly part of the attraction to me.
Those type of players can still roll if they want.


It would work just fine, provided that you change the defenders AC to be d20+<whatever> instead of 10+<whatever>. A 20 would always miss, and a 1 would always hit. Crit threats would work on a basis of 1 upwards instead of 20 and down.
That misses the point.


It will enhance metagaming. Instead of just rolling their attacks, players will spend time searching their memory for monsters' Armor Classes to figure out if they can take 10.
Not a problem in the slightest.


"So, a Hill Giant has +8 Natural AC, no wait, +9, and ... did you say this one is wearing Hide armor? I guess I'll take 10 on the first attack, but not the second ..."
10 has to be taken on all attacks in the round. I dunno if that should also include AoOs or if I should disallow taking 10 on AoOs...


I personally think it's a terrible idea. It doesn't speed up combat by more then a few seconds, it removes one of the funnest parts of the game, and it removes critical hits (thus making lower Tier builds slightly weaker, since they depend more on attack rolls).
Except taking 10 is optional, so I don't know how it removes anything what you said. The players who care for this things can still do them. And speeding up combat wasn't really on my mind when I thought of this houserule.


So you go from hitting 3/4 of the time to always hitting on full BAB characters. That's an obvious buff to give 1/3 more damage. Medium BAB characters, the secondary attacks on full BAB characters or those who didn't pump their attack bonus very well get to play a guessing game on whether they should take a 10. Once they try it once they know what to do in all future attacks.
I see that as a benefit.


It isn't a fix for melee either because they already have plenty of damage and it takes away one of the few things many melee do.
It isn't intended as a melee fix, though. And what is it that it takes away from melee?


Hey take average damage too and every turn his action can be "I do 50 damage. Done."
I'm not doing that, though.

Alternatively: What about making it a feat? Maybe with +6 BaB and 13 Int as prereqs?

[Deophaun]

The basic theory behind the attack roll is that it incorporates both the attacker's and the defender's skill. You're looking for an opening, and the defender is trying to deny you that opening. We don't roll opposed checks because that slows the game down for little benefit (although, as others have noted, it is an option). So, my suggestion is that if you do allow the take 10 rule, you change it to opposed rolls. Now, both attacker and defender have to choose to take 10 for the attack to auto-succeed/fail. It just doesn't make sense for the attacker to decide that the defender is being average this round, as well.

[Darius Kane]

Except that by default of the rules the defender is already average ('10 + modifiers' instead of 'd20 + modifiers') and it's not like the attacker is deciding that the defender is average, he's just deciding that he's going to be less reckless with his attacks, focusing on making reliable hits rather than the best hits.
It's like when you're nailing a picture to the wall. You can make stronger hits with your hammer to get the job done faster, but you risk missing (and hurting your own fingers), or you can make more less strong but more steady strikes.

[Psyren]

I'd say it's unlikely to break anything (after all, the monsters can choose to do it too right?) but there aren't many groups that would want to roll less d20s in combat.

[Darius Kane]

Why is that?

[Zdrak]

Except that by default of the rules the defender is already average ('10 + modifiers' instead of 'd20 + modifiers') and it's not like the attacker is deciding that the defender is average, he's just deciding that he's going to be less reckless with his attacks, focusing on making reliable hits rather than the best hits.
It's like when you're nailing a picture to the wall. You can make stronger hits with your hammer to get the job done faster, but you risk missing (and hurting your own fingers), or you can make more less strong but more steady strikes.

Wall does not hit back.

[Jeraa]

It isn't intended as a melee fix, though. And what is it that it takes away from melee?

Critical hits. (Though that applies to ranged as well, not just melee.)

But if melee characters want a chance to critical hit, they just don't take 10. Their options would be:

1) Take 10, no chance for critical hits, but most likely hit their target
2) Roll normally, giving a chance for a critical hit, but also more of a chance to miss their target.

But as long as you don't force characters to take 10 on attack rolls, I see no real problem with it, besides the fact take 10 can't normally be used in combat.

Unearthed Arcana has an option to roll 3d6 instead of 1d20 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm). Effectively its the same thing as allowing Take 10, but still allows the possibility of a critical hit or automatic failure. (3d6 averages a result of 10.5)

[Darius Kane]

Wall does not hit back.
Funny.


But as long as you don't force characters to take 10 on attack rolls, I see no real problem with it, besides the fact take 10 can't normally be used in combat.
Obviously taking 10 in combat would have combat taken out of the list of potential distractions. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to allow it in the first place. :smallconfused:


Unearthed Arcana has an option to roll 3d6 instead of 1d20. Effectively its the same thing as allowing Take 10, but still allows the possibility of a critical hit or automatic failure. (3d6 averages a result of 10.5)
I already use that.

[AlchemicalMyst]

So, you post asking for people's advice on what they think about the houserule but then argue their points? :confused:

Anyone willing to risk using your taking 10 rule is probably hitting on a 6 or higher at least, otherwise simply fighting defensively on either side, or a few common modifiers ruins the point of taking 10. Even then, why risk it? Giving up all attack rolling for that round would be way to much.

Personally, my advice... seems like a lot of trouble just to come up with a house rule that any smart player is nearly never going to use, just forget about it and have them take the 1/10th of a second to roll damage with their attack.

[Deophaun]

Except that by default of the rules the defender is already average ('10 + modifiers' instead of 'd20 + modifiers')
I direct you to the post that you are responding to, as that was already addressed.

and it's not like the attacker is deciding that the defender is average, he's just deciding that he's going to be less reckless with his attacks, focusing on making reliable hits rather than the best hits.
No such thing as a reliable hit when you are dealing with an intelligent moving target.

It's like when you're nailing a picture to the wall.
Walls do not move, do not dodge in response to your nailing, do not cover their studs from your nail, etc. etc. In other words, it's nothing like nailing a picture to the wall.

[Darius Kane]

So, you post asking for people's advice on what they think about the houserule but then argue their points? :confused:
No such thing. I'm not asking what you think about the houserule. I'm asking what impact it will have on the game.


Anyone willing to risk using your taking 10 rule is probably hitting on a 6 or higher at least, otherwise simply fighting defensively on either side, or a few common modifiers ruins the point of taking 10. Even then, why risk it? Giving up all attack rolling for that round would be way to much.
They will use the option, or not. Their choice.


Personally, my advice... seems like a lot of trouble just to come up with a house rule that any smart player is nearly never going to use, just forget about it and have them take the 1/10th of a second to roll damage with their attack.
I'm not concerned with whether someone will use it or not. It's just an option.


No such thing as a reliable hit when you are dealing with an intelligent moving target.
Um... okay?
It's an attack that forgoes its recklessness and flashiness for more steadiness.


Walls do not move, do not dodge in response to your nailing, do not cover their studs from your nail, etc. etc. In other words, it's nothing like nailing a picture to the wall.
Whatever. It was just a simple analogy.

[Psyren]

Why is that?

Because presumably, if they weren't there to roll dice, they'd be playing freeform or LARPing.

Again, it wouldn't really hurt anything, but it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It does make buffs/debuffs more powerful/desirable - AC effectively becomes a binary barrier (like DR/magic) so if you can pump the party's AB as low as 9 points below the enemy's AC, it effectively becomes 0. And if they can't, they can rely on rolls instead for a 55% (or higher) miss chance instead of 100%. So the option is a small boost to mundanes, just like most options.

[Darius Kane]

Again, it wouldn't really hurt anything, but it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
It's not, though. It's just an option.


AC effectively becomes a binary barrier (like DR/magic)
It would if you had to always take 10. You don't.


so if you can pump the party's AB as low as 9 points below the enemy's AC, it effectively becomes 0.
But they don't know what AC their opponents have and there will be opponents with varying ACs. So it really only helps against mooks who are expected to have lower numbers. Other than that it's just an option, which will be used or not, depending on the situation.

[Friv]

No such thing. I'm not asking what you think about the houserule. I'm asking what impact it will have on the game.

Impact: Anyone who has better than a 50-50 chance of hitting now always hits. As a result, having a slight combat edge over another character renders you almost unbeatable.

If I need an 11 to hit you, and you need a 9 to hit me, you have an edge, but luck could easily favor me. If I need an 11 to hit you and every attack you send my way hits automatically, you will curbstomp me.

Furthermore, many encounters involve a smaller number of more powerful enemies against a larger number of PCs. That tends to be the standard, in my experience. Since stronger enemies usually have better attacks, they will hit 100% of the time against PCs, who will take a lot more damage in such fights. Conversely, fights against tribes of weaker enemies are no longer actually fights at all; it's just a "how much damage do they deal before all being dead" simulator.

*EDIT*

But they don't know what AC their opponents have and there will be opponents with varying ACs. So it really only helps against mooks who are expected to have lower numbers. Other than that it's just an option, which will be used or not, depending on the situation.

In the vast majority of cases, it takes about one round of combat to figure out what an enemy's AC is. The instant that I know I can hit on 10 or less, why ever not use that rule?

[Psyren]

It would if you had to always take 10. You don't.

Right - and you don't have to wield a magic (or cold iron etc.) weapon, either. But rational players will generally take the most beneficial option available, and provided you can get your AB to a point where you will always hit on a 10 there is no reason not to use this option.



But they don't know what AC their opponents have and there will be opponents with varying ACs.

If you hit on a 10, congrats, you know your opponent's AC. And then can choose to roll 10s for the rest of the encounter.

Again, not broken by any means, but it makes the game that much more... predictable. (I need another word that isn't as harsh as "bland" or "boring." Pedestrian?) And yeah, you can choose not to use it even when it would be beneficial, just like you can choose to use a weapon you're not proficient with for the challenge, but it would still be irrational to do so. Regardless, if it works for you and your table, by all means enjoy.

[Darius Kane]

@ Friv
That's what I was looking for. Thank you.


Impact: Anyone who has better than a 50-50 chance of hitting now always hits. As a result, having a slight combat edge over another character renders you almost unbeatable.

If I need an 11 to hit you, and you need a 9 to hit me, you have an edge, but luck could easily favor me. If I need an 11 to hit you and every attack you send my way hits automatically, you will curbstomp me.
So options that can increase to-hit or AC will be more useful. Conversely options that decrease to-hit or AC will need a little more consideration.


Furthermore, many encounters involve a smaller number of more powerful enemies against a larger number of PCs. That tends to be the standard, in my experience. Since stronger enemies usually have better attacks, they will hit 100% of the time against PCs, who will take a lot more damage in such fights. Conversely, fights against tribes of weaker enemies are no longer actually fights at all; it's just a "how much damage do they deal before all being dead" simulator.
Well, if you fight stronger enemies then you should use some better tactics than just exchanging blows. But note that although monsters also can use this option, they don't have to.


In the vast majority of cases, it takes about one round of combat to figure out what an enemy's AC is. The instant that I know I can hit on 10 or less, why ever not use that rule?
The enemy will have some kind of ability to gain more AC. Like fighting defensively for example, a basic option, or Combat Expertise. If he doesn't or he's still being hit, then either he's a mook or being hit isn't something he cares for (because he's got some other defense or he thinks that he can kill the enemy before he gets killed for example).


But rational players will generally take the most beneficial option available, and provided you can get your AB to a point where you will always hit on a 10 there is no reason not to use this option.
AC can also get high. And there are options to heighten/lessen your AC, so the player won't know if he missed/hit on 10 because the opponents AC was so big/small or because the opponent was using some kind of an ability.


If you hit on a 10, congrats, you know your opponent's AC. And then can choose to roll 10s for the rest of the encounter.
I addressed this earlier.


And yeah, you can choose not to use it even when it would be beneficial, just like you can choose to use a weapon you're not proficient with for the challenge, but it would still be irrational to do so.
Please, no need to be smug. :smallsigh:
If it will be beneficial the players will use it. But that's the thing. Not always will it be obvious when it is beneficial and when not. It will depend on the situation, as I said.
There will be more strategic thinking. And options that let you change to-hit and AC on the fly (like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.) will probably get more use and importance. I don't see a problem with that.
It's not that I ignore what you guys are saying. I'm taking everything into consideration. It's just that nothing you say is that big of a problem to me.

[Mari01]

@ Friv

There will be more strategic thinking. And options that let you change to-hit and AC on the fly (like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.) will probably get more use and importance. I don't see a problem with that.
It's not that I ignore what you guys are saying. I'm taking everything into consideration. It's just that nothing you say is that big of a problem to me.

How much strategy is there to "take 10 and hit. Take 10 rest of combat." This houserule REMOVES some strategy. Once you hit, you know you can always hit.

[Psyren]

Please, no need to be smug. :smallsigh:

That was smug? :smallconfused:

I'm being sincere. If you give someone a strictly-better-option with the justification "they can always just not use it" - then yes, your statement is accurate, but it's also design based on irrational behavior.

[Darius Kane]

How much strategy is there to "take 10 and hit. Take 10 rest of combat." This houserule REMOVES some strategy. Once you hit, you know you can always hit.


I'm being sincere. If you give someone a strictly-better-option with the justification "they can always just not use it" - then yes, your statement is accurate, but it's also design based on irrational behavior.
Em... Except that I'm explaining to you that it isn't as simple as "Hit on 10, take 10 the rest of the combat". It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. :smallsigh:
As I said at least one time in earlier posts, the enemy that you hit/missed on a 10 could have a number of circumstances applied. He could:
- fight defensively
- get behind soft cover
- benefit from Aid Another
- get out of a flanking position
- use Combat Expertise
- use a maneuver (Punishing Stance for example)
- use an ability that heightened his AC temporarily (Cunning Defense for example)
- use an ability that lowered his AC temporarily (Rage for example)
Etc., etc.
The same with him attacking you. There's plenty of options that lower (or heighten) to-hit, so just because your opponent did/didn't hit you doesn't mean he did/didn't take 10.


That was smug? :smallconfused:
Maybe I used a wrong word.
I didn't say that the player has to make an irrational decision or forgo a benefit. I said that it can depend if the option will be useful or not based on the situation and circumstances (explained above). Yet you talk to me like I said something completely different, ignoring what I actually said. I believe it's called "making a strawman" argument? I do not appreciate that.

[Venusaur]

Crusaders have a stance that lets them take 11, so it isn't completely without precedent.

[Darius Kane]

Crusaders have a stance that lets them take 11, so it isn't completely without precedent.
But once per round, IIRC.

[Mari01]

Em... Except that I'm explaining to you that it isn't as simple as "Hit on 10, take 10 the rest of the combat". It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. :smallsigh:
As I said at least one time in earlier posts, the enemy that you hit/missed on a 10 could have a number of circumstances applied. He could:
- fight defensively
- get behind soft cover
- benefit from Aid Another
- get out of a flanking position
- use Combat Expertise
- use a maneuver (Punishing Stance for example)
- use an ability that heightened his AC temporarily (Cunning Defense for example)
- use an ability that lowered his AC temporarily (Rage for example)
Etc., etc.
The same with him attacking you. There's plenty of options that lower (or heighten) to-hit, so just because your opponent did/didn't hit you doesn't mean he did/didn't take 10.


Maybe I used a wrong word.
I didn't say that the player has to make an irrational decision or forgo a benefit. I said that it can depend if the option will be useful or not based on the situation and circumstances (explained above). Yet you talk to me like I said something completely different, ignoring what I actually said. I believe it's called "making a strawman" argument? I do not appreciate that.

So I take 10 until one of these things happen. That's still not very strategic.

[Darius Kane]

So I take 10 until one of these things happen. That's still not very strategic.
Um... I don't understand what is your problem. :smallconfused: Is there something that's not clear enough for you? AC and to-hit don't have to (and really shouldn't) be as binary as you guys suggest, because you can change them mid-combat quite easily.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

But once per round, IIRC.Yeah, and it's still a really good stance, which you get at level 11 at the earliest. Granted that's partly because it can also be used for saves, but for the most part the Crusader likes it because, properly buffed, his maneuvers always hit.

And yes, there are abilities that make AC and attack bonus fluctuate, but any time you don't use those - or any time AC lags behind attack enough that minor bonuses don't make up for it - you get the "always hit" scenario.

[Psyren]

As I said at least one time in earlier posts, the enemy that you hit/missed on a 10 could have a number of circumstances applied. He could:
- fight defensively
- get behind soft cover
- benefit from Aid Another
- get out of a flanking position
- use Combat Expertise
- use a maneuver (Punishing Stance for example)
- use an ability that heightened his AC temporarily (Cunning Defense for example)
- use an ability that lowered his AC temporarily (Rage for example)
Etc., etc.

The majority of these are subpar, some are downright infeasible in most fights, and one does nothing to address getting hit on a 10 (why would you lower your AC in such a situation?) I don't see how they're a counterargument in any way, shape or form.



Maybe I used a wrong word.
I didn't say that the player has to make an irrational decision or forgo a benefit. I said that it can depend if the option will be useful or not based on the situation and circumstances (explained above). Yet you talk to me like I said something completely different, ignoring what I actually said. I believe it's called "making a strawman" argument? I do not appreciate that.

I don't think you said something completely different. All we're (or at least, I'm) saying is that, under your system, an attacker that hits on a 10 has the option to hit 100% of the time.

The factors you listed above can go both ways. Just as it's possible to raise your AC (fighting defensively, staying away from a flank etc.) there are just as many ways to lower it even further (entangled, dazzled, blinded, forced to make a balance check, fatigue/exhaust etc.) And your countermeasures have disadvantages of their own - fighting defensively makes you more likely to miss (and you can't charge), moving to cover or out of a flank provokes, abilities require specific builds/feats etc.

The option to forgo a die roll makes all these defenses weaker. If I can stack the advantages and disadvantages enough to hit you on a 6 in this system, it means that fighting defensively is a total waste of time for you. It also means that you can't ever escape, since I'll e.g. take 10 on my AoO + Stand Still to keep you flanked while my partner wails on you etc. And this is a pretty standard melee tactic too. Luck will no longer be a factor, making such a hopeless situation even more hopeless, no chance of heroic victory... unless, again, the attacker behaves irrationally.

[Darius Kane]

And yes, there are abilities that make AC and attack bonus fluctuate, but any time you don't use those - or any time AC lags behind attack enough that minor bonuses don't make up for it - you get the "always hit" scenario.
Which I don't really consider a problem. Part of the reason for this houserule is to make killing mooks easier and quicker.


The majority of these are subpar, some are downright infeasible in most fights,
They change the AC, so hitting/not hitting on a 10 stops being a "100% hit".


and one does nothing to address getting hit on a 10 (why would you lower your AC in such a situation?) I don't see how they're a counterargument in any way, shape or form.
I was listing things that can change AC. The player could hit on a 10, because the enemy was using Punishing Stance. If he changes the stance, the player won't hit. Taking 10 stops being "100%".


I don't think you said something completely different. All we're (or at least, I'm) saying is that, under your system, an attacker that hits on a 10 has the option to hit 100% of the time.
Except he doesn't, as I demonstrated.


The factors you listed above can go both ways. Just as it's possible to raise your AC (fighting defensively, staying away from a flank etc.) there are just as many ways to lower it even further (entangled, dazzled, blinded, forced to make a balance check, fatigue/exhaust etc.)
Exactly. There's incentive to do something more than just blindly attack. Lower your opponents AC so you can take 10 and slaughter him.


And your countermeasures have disadvantages of their own - fighting defensively makes you more likely to miss (and you can't charge), moving to cover or out of a flank provokes, abilities require specific builds/feats etc.
Unimportant. You're saying that AC is binary. It doesn't have to be.


unless, again, the attacker behaves irrationally.
If it's a monster/NPC, then that's not really a problem. If it's a player then, well, he'd be stupid to not take the better option. It's there for a reason after all.

[RFLS]

I think we can safely say that the Playground has given its opinion, as requested, and it's been politely asked to go away, please. Pretty sure that anything from here on in is going to be inane bickering with no outcome other than perhaps a thread lock and a warning for someone.

[Darius Kane]

I think we can safely say that the Playground has given its opinion, as requested
No, actually. Only one, maybe two people posted what the thread actually was about. Others just complain about the houserule, even though it's not the point of this thread to evaluate it. There's a difference between asking for opinions on a houserule and what this thread is about.


and it's been politely asked to go away, please
That's a lie.


Pretty sure that anything from here on in is going to be inane bickering with no outcome other than perhaps a thread lock and a warning for someone.
With posts like yours? Probably.

Now, anyone wants to add something constructive for a change? Friv made a good post. Psyren made some good points. Anything else?

[Chambers]

First thing I thought of was Disciple of Dispater. That Prestige Class can get an abnormally large critical threat range and I'm pretty sure they can get it below 10, so if they're taking 10 then every hit it is a critical hit.

[Darius Kane]

First thing I thought of was Disciple of Dispater. That Prestige Class can get an abnormally large critical threat range and I'm pretty sure they can get it below 10, so if they're taking 10 then every hit it is a critical hit.
Isn't it 3.0 though? And if he actually hits his opponent then sure, he can make a critical hit, why not.

[RFLS]

First thing I thought of was Disciple of Dispater. That Prestige Class can get an abnormally large critical threat range and I'm pretty sure they can get it below 10, so if they're taking 10 then every hit it is a critical hit.

Aptitude Kukris + Lightning Maces + Snap Kick, anyone?

Disregarding obvious cheese, I'd say that it would speed game play up, but would remove strategy from the game that was previously there. Wait...that might have been said a few times up-thread. [/sarcasm]

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Which I don't really consider a problem. Part of the reason for this houserule is to make killing mooks easier and quicker.As long as you know this will also affect more important enemies who happen to have low AC or mediocre+invariant AC and plan accordingly, then you're fine. If this houserule is designed specifically for mooks, you might just want to houserule that the PCs auto-hit mooks and be done with it.

[HunterOfJello]

{{Scrubbed}}

[RFLS]

Also, taking 10 on attacks sounds retarded. If you're not interested in rolling dice, play a different game.

As has been pointed out, this is apparently not the question he asked. Instead, you should tell him what it does to gameplay, mechanically speaking.

[Darius Kane]

Aptitude Kukris + Lightning Maces + Snap Kick, anyone?

Disregarding obvious cheese, I'd say that it would speed game play up, but would remove strategy from the game that was previously there. Wait...that might have been said a few times up-thread. [/sarcasm]
You're so funny I forgot to laugh.


Also, taking 10 on attacks sounds retarded. If you're not interested in rolling dice, there are far better games for it.
What the gentleman above me said. Also, I'm not interested in rolling dice, per se. But they're part of the game and I don't mind. I dunno what you're talking about. :smallconfused:

[RFLS]

What the gentleman above me said. also, I am interested in rolling dice. That's why I play 3.P. I dunno what you're talking about. :smallconfused:

Right, you need to tell him why you think it's retarded.

[Darius Kane]

Right, you need to tell him why you think it's retarded.
No. he needs to read the OP and do what is said in there. Or not, in which case he doesn't have a reason to post here.

RFLS, if you don't have anything relevant to say, could you maybe get of my back?

[RFLS]

RFLS, if you don't have anything relevant to say, could you maybe get of my back?

Point taken, I'm being a jackass. My apologies; long day.

Seriously, though, Hunter- if you think it's bad, and you have a line of reasoning supporting what you think it would do to combat, he's after that reasoning, not the "well it does <X>, and <X> is bad, so it's a bad idea" reasoning.

[Mari01]

I still fail to see how this increases tactical decisions. If it's just for mook killing, then why is it so important? And you haven't addressed how tactical it is to go in swinging 10's and then switch when you miss.

To reiterate once more, this doesn't increase tactical decisions any more than deciding to power attack for a lower number.

[Psyren]

They change the AC, so hitting/not hitting on a 10 stops being a "100% hit".

You're still missing my point. If I hit on a 6, fighting defensively or from soft cover does nothing. If I hit on an 8, escaping my buddy's flank does nothing.

In other words, it's still binary. All your tactics above do is change the exact point at which the bit flips.

Compare to the regular system - if I hit on an 8, 35% of my attacks will still miss. Escaping my buddy's flank increases that to 45%. But with this system, I will hit 100% of the time no matter which one you do - there is no longer a tactical difference between the two options. It's a no-brainer for me - 10, 10, 10, 10, dead - and it's a no brainer for you, because neither option is better. So as others were saying, it actually reduces the game's strategy.

There, that's all I really had to say on this.

[Darius Kane]

Seriously, though, Hunter- if you think it's bad, and you have a line of reasoning supporting what you think it would do to combat, he's after that reasoning, not the "well it does <X>, and <X> is bad, so it's a bad idea" reasoning.
The bolded part is the ONLY thing I am after. I really don't care if the houserule is bad or not, because I will (or won't) use it regardless of what you guys think of it. I only care about the implications. Not "are they bad or good", just raw implications, without any judgment or opinion about them.


I still fail to see how this increases tactical decisions. If it's just for mook killing, then why is it so important? And you haven't addressed how tactical it is to go in swinging 10's and then switch when you miss.

To reiterate once more, this doesn't increase tactical decisions any more than deciding to power attack for a lower number.
Well, we have different opinions on what is tactical, then. It's not relevant to the topic though, so allow me to ignore this discussion.


You're still missing my point. If I hit on a 6, fighting defensively or from soft cover does nothing. If I hit on an 8, escaping my buddy's flank does nothing.
... and? If the players to-hit is so high or the enemy's AC is so low that he will hit regardless of any abilities or feats or whatever, then... he will hit. What's the problem? :smallconfused: If it's so easy to hit him then the enemy is most probably a mook. Mooks die all the time.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Where exactly is the line for mook? Bear in mind that some BBEG's will be several points higher on the CR scale than the party, effectively making the players mooks to him. You've created a houserule that makes it easier for serious baddies to slaughter the PC's with minimal effort.

Here's an alternative I've been toying with to make fighting types more reliable without eliminating chance altogether.

Attack rolls use a d20 till BAB 6, then 2d10 to BAB 11, then 3d6 till BAB 16, then 4d4 ever after. You can always choose to use fewer dice on an attack than you're entitled to.

The best fighters can choose make very reliable strikes over and over or swing for the fences at their discretion, while those that aren't as skilled just can't swing as reliably.

[RFLS]

Attack rolls use a d20 till BAB 6, then 2d10 to BAB 11, then 3d6 till BAB 16, then 4d4 ever after. You can always choose to use fewer dice on an attack than you're entitled to.

Your math went a little sideways there, man. That gives an average of 10.5, 11, 10.5 (with a cap at 3 and 18), and then 10 (cap at 4 and 16). I'm not entirely sure what this gets you, except perhaps a slight nerf to melee, more die rolling for the same feeling on the results, and a nerf to crit fishers.

[BowStreetRunner]

Just have everyone take 10 on everything. Get rid of the dice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game) altogether!

[Darius Kane]

Where exactly is the line for mook?
Someone significantly weaker than the players, often encountered in big numbers. Cannon fodder basically. Will be thrown on the group with full intent to be pushovers, either as support for some more appropriate baddie, or just as a warmup or stress reliever. PCs need to have an easy encounter from time to time.


Bear in mind that some BBEG's will be several points higher on the CR scale than the party, effectively making the players mooks to him. You've created a houserule that makes it easier for serious baddies to slaughter the PC's with minimal effort.
Which encourages tactical thinking and gives the players a challenge. Win-win.


Here's an alternative I've been toying with to make fighting types more reliable without eliminating chance altogether.

Attack rolls use a d20 till BAB 6, then 2d10 to BAB 11, then 3d6 till BAB 16, then 4d4 ever after. You can always choose to use fewer dice on an attack than you're entitled to.

The best fighters can choose make very reliable strikes over and over or swing for the fences at their discretion, while those that aren't as skilled just can't swing as reliably.
That's nice, but this isn't a homebrew thread (or forum, for that matter).


Just have everyone take 10 on everything. Get rid of the dice altogether!
No thanks.

[AlchemicalMyst]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Mari01]

The bolded part is the ONLY thing I am after. I really don't care if the houserule is bad or not, because I will (or won't) use it regardless of what you guys think of it. I only care about the implications. Not "are they bad or good", just raw implications, without any judgment or opinion about them.


Well, we have different opinions on what is tactical, then. It's not relevant to the topic though, so allow me to ignore this discussion.


... and? If the players to-hit is so high or the enemy's AC is so low that he will hit regardless of any abilities or feats or whatever, then... he will hit. What's the problem? :smallconfused: If it's so easy to hit him then the enemy is most probably a mook. Mooks die all the time.

What it means is no one will care about actual strategy. Why should we try surrounding the bad guys and cut off their escape route if we can just mow them down? Why do any sneaking if we can just autohit our way through anything appropriately leveled? On the flip side, why would an enemy ever not take 10? Mooks die all the time, so if they can hit, may as well do some automatic damage. Let alone bosses or higher level NPC's.

[RFLS]

^This 100%^

When the guy (me) who posted what you're quoting has admitted he was a jackass and apologized for it later in the thread, you might wish to reconsider your statement.

[Darius Kane]

What it means is no one will care about actual strategy. Why should we try surrounding the bad guys and cut off they're escape route if we can just mow them down? Why do any sneaking if we can just autohit our way through anything appropriately leveled? On the flip side, why would an enemy ever not take 10? Mooks die all the time, so if they can hit, may as well do some automatic damage. Let alone bosses or higher level NPC's.
We've been through this already. :smallsigh: Lets agree to disagree. How about that?


When the guy (me) who posted what you're quoting has admitted he was a jackass and apologized for it later in the thread, you might wish to reconsider your statement.
You didn't really have to apologize. It was a simple misunderstanding.

[Mari01]

We've been through this already. :smallsigh: Lets agree to disagree. How about that?


You didn't really have to apologize. It was a simple misunderstanding.

Then how about addressing the fact that in encourages meta-gaming. This rule is for mook killing. Does that mean that auto 10's are for boss fights only? As soon as someone misses won't that put people on high alert, or vice versa? I hit with auto-10 so this is an easy breezy fight.

[GolemsVoice]

Well, it might be a boss + mooks. Only mooks would likely be an easy fight anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your math went a little sideways there, man. That gives an average of 10.5, 11, 10.5 (with a cap at 3 and 18), and then 10 (cap at 4 and 16). I'm not entirely sure what this gets you, except perhaps a slight nerf to melee, more die rolling for the same feeling on the results, and a nerf to crit fishers.

The idea was to make it possible to swing ever more reliably as your skill increases. Crit fishers can always choose to take 1d20 on all of their attacks if they like.

I'm aware of how different 3d6 is from the rest, but it's also the best you can do for 3 dice averaging near the 10-11 point. Fortunately UA already has the conversions for crits for 3d6 and the first two sets don't need conversion. I suppose I'll need to come up with something similar for the 4d4 set.

I didn't say it in the last post, but lowest possible result is always equal to a natural one.

@ op: technically any thread about a houserule is a homebrew thread because all houserules are the most basic form of homebrew.

We're just talking about dice rolling variants, not creating an entirely new subsystem or new material for existing subsystems. This is the appropriate forum. I think I'll post a thread similar to this one asking for thoughts on my attack roll houserule.

[Darius Kane]

@ op: technically any thread about a houserule is a homebrew thread because all houserules are the most basic form of homebrew.
Except this thread is about implications of said houserule. If I wanted comments on the houserule itself I would have posted it in the homebrew forum and worded it differently.

[Arcanist]

Wrong. Taking 10 takes the same amount of time as normal. It does not increase the time to make a check at all.

Still can't do it in combat. :smallsigh:

As a House Rule to state otherwise it would be incredibly broken that Fighter V Balor incident is a prime example. Especially considering how it is possible to get an obscenely high to-hit ratio. :smalltongue:

[Darius Kane]

Still can't do it in combat. :smallsigh:
As was stated earlier, yes you can.


As a House Rule to state otherwise it would be incredibly broken that Fighter V Balor incident is a prime example. Especially considering how it is possible to get an obscenely high to-hit ratio. :smalltongue:
Did you miss the two pages of me explaining that this isn't what this thread is about? :smallconfused:

[Arcanist]

As was stated earlier, yes you can.


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.

I might be a little crazy here, but I'm pretty confident that is a flat out reason for not being able to take 10 on an attack roll. Unless of course you have a voodoo method of taking 10 in combat with an attack :smallconfused:


Did you miss the two pages of me explaining that this isn't what this thread is about? :smallconfused:

Let me correct myself then: Allowing a player to take 10 on an attack roll is bad as it removes an important mechanic from the game. If you are able to take 10 on attack rolls you remove the chance of players being able to luckily survive an attack or any chance of guessing the creatures AC since if you can hit it on a 10 you just take 10 the entire encounter and call it a day. you have just made it so that miss chances are the only real thing that matter in the game now... Congrats on making combat more broken then it already is.

[Darius Kane]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Arcanist]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Darius Kane]

You made a varying circumstance that:

If it's a monster/NPC, then that's not really a problem. If it's a player then, well, he'd be stupid to not take the better option. It's there for a reason after all.


You asked what it would do mechanically and I told you
No. you told me it's a bad houserule (it was explicitly stated by me that I don't care and this isn't a thread to discuss the houserule) and repeated arguments that were already addressed.


Did that already.
Apparently not closely enough.

I'm done talking with you.

[Arcanist]

No. you told me it's a bad houserule (it was explicitly stated by me that I don't care and this isn't a thread to discuss the houserule) and repeated arguments that were already addressed.

I told you it was a bad houserule and then explained why it was a bad houserule. Lets examine the question you addressed us with.


A houserule: You can take 10 on attack rolls.
How would such a houserule impact the game?

interestings...


Allowing a player to take 10 on an attack roll is bad as it removes an important mechanic from the game. If you are able to take 10 on attack rolls you remove the chance of players being able to luckily survive an attack or any chance of guessing the creatures AC since if you can hit it on a 10 you just take 10 the entire encounter and call it a day. you have just made it so that miss chances are the only real thing that matter in the game now... Congrats on making combat more broken then it already is.

BAM! Just told you how it would impact the game. :smallsigh:


I'm done talking with you.

I hope you have a wonderful and enlightened day :smallsmile:

[Darius Kane]

BAM! Just told you how it would impact the game.
And I told you that all that was already addressed. :smallsigh:


I hope you have a wonderful and enlightened day
Same to you, gentleman.

[Mari01]

Then there's nothing more. Seems most people think that it's a bad idea and that it trivializes combat on both sides. Looks like you've gotten your answer.

[Darius Kane]

Seems most people think that it's a bad idea
I would care if that would be relevant to this thread.


and that it trivializes combat on both sides.
I explained why it doesn't.


Looks like you've gotten your answer.
I'd prefer more people to post, but on topic this time.

[RFLS]

I would care if that would be relevant to this thread.


I explained why it doesn't.


I'd prefer more people to post, but on topic this time.

At this point, you're just prolonging it; people have posted, and on topic. They've said that it would, by their reasoning, have X, Y, and Z effects, and that they think XYZ are bad effects. You've had a handful of others say that think it will cause A, B, and C effects, and that they like ABC. As far as I can tell, you've been asking what effects people think this will have, which both groups have given you. You've been categorically throwing out any opinion which doesn't coincide with yours, and waiting for reinforcements for your point of view. If you've already decided that you're dead right about the effects, you shouldn't have come here and asked about it. Saying you've "explained why" doesn't make you right, it means that you've explained your reasoning. Your reasoning is not necessarily correct.

[Darius Kane]

You're right. I apologize. I just have this bad habit of always wanting to have the last word. And the fact that posting in this thread was at times highly irritating didn't help. :smallfrown:

[XionUnborn01]

It seems to me that part of this is wanting players to be able to hit mooks reliably instead of taking time to roll and risking missing against someone that shouldn't be a problem. (That's just what I'm gathering, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I wouldn't allow this as a normal option because I think most of the fun of this game, as others said, is rolling dice. Though I could see it as an option when fighting against mooks that are obviously mooks. Maybe using it if their CR is like, 4 or more lower than yours wouldn't be terrible and could speed up wading through minions to get to the BBEG. Maybe adding in that they must've fought them before to use it.

"You walk into the room and see [BBEG] sitting on a throne with 50 of his servants waiting for you, all with weapons drawn."

"These the same guys we've been fighting in the halls?"

"Yes, they look to be the same."

"Sweet. Take 10 on the attacks, tell me when they're dead and I can attack [BBEG]."

[Darius Kane]

I wouldn't allow this as a normal option because I think most of the fun of this game, as others said, is rolling dice.
You can still do that if you reaaaally want. :smallconfused:

[XionUnborn01]

You can still do that if you reaaaally want. :smallconfused:

I understand that. Also, was I correct in the assumption that this is targeted, at least partly, towards lower level mooks?

[Darius Kane]

Yes. Partly, because it's not targeted at mooks per se, but just to avoid prolonging an otherwise easy battle because of unlucky rolls. Really, the point is the same as in taking 10 on skills. And, apart from combat, you still can't take 10 if your somehow distracted, so the option isn't guaranteed.

[Mari01]

Yes. Partly, because it's not targeted at mooks per se, but just to avoid prolonging an otherwise easy battle because of unlucky rolls. Really, the point is the same as in taking 10 on skills. And, apart from combat, you still can't take 10 if your somehow distracted, so the option isn't guaranteed.

What's more distracting that trying not to die?

[Darius Kane]

What's more distracting that trying not to die?
I see you missed or ignored the part where I said that combat is specifically an exception. :smallsigh:

[Squirrel_Dude]

It should also be noted that anything that makes mooks easier to kill make the big bad easier to kill. It allows players to spend fewer resources on the mooks, and instead allow the fighter and barbarian to just auto-hit their way to victory as the sorcerer can then focus on debuffing the BBEG.

An example.
---------------------------------
The party consists of a sorcerer (S), cleric (C), rogue (R), and fighter (F). The enemies consist of 4 mooks with AC 18, and 1 BBEG with AC 26. All the enemies are vulnerable to fire.

R and F each have +8 to hit. They flank the enemy mooks, so they now have a +10 to hit, so they can power attack and two-weapon fight and still hit on a 10. S and C no longer need to spend spells on the mooks, R, or F, and instead focus on attack BBEG. S is a blasty so he just uses scorching ray and C waits to buff the fighter and rogue until after the melee, focusing on the BBEG in the meantime. BBEG is taken down quickly from scorching rays/fireballs/flame spheres while the mooks are dealt with by R and F who now have a 100% hit chance.
---------------------------------

Normally in that fight, the party sorcerer and cleric may spend spells buffing the rogue and fighter or blasting the mooks to deal with them faster. Now that attention is being put on the big bad.

The BBEG is now much easier to defeat because the mooks are easier to defeat. Mooks have the important role of absorbing party spells, attacks, and resources for the big bad. By making them easier you will also be making enemies that need mooks weaker.

If mooks are so weak that you just see them as a time-waste and not worth being in the fight at all, don't put them in the fight. The proposed rule doesn't make those fights go any quicker (a 85% chance to hit is not much worse than 100%), but it will harm fights where mooks/underlings actually have a role in the combat.

[ahenobarbi]

It would be a great power boost for casters. Because hitting with touch attacks would be guaranteed hit they'd get more "just suck" spells.

[Darius Kane]

If mooks are so weak that you just see them as a time-waste and not worth being in the fight at all, don't put them in the fight.
I never said that I see mooks as time-waste or not worth being in the fight. And never having any mooks in the game would break my and my players suspension of disbelief.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I never said that I see mooks as time-waste or not worth being in the fight. And never having any mooks in the game would break my and my players suspension of disbelief.Apologies, that was just me trying to understand the motives behind this rule change. You've constantly said that you simply wanted the rule so that fights with mooks would go faster. I assumed that you thought fights with mooks were wasting time or were running on for too long.


But you know what they say about assuming.

[Darius Kane]

I did say at some point that IMO players should have easy encounters from time to time, so that they can get a breather or just a chance to feel like real strong heroes and show off their power. There's nothing like decimating a group of enemies with your superior combat prowess or magic. :smallbiggrin:

[Zherog]

Normally in that fight, the party sorcerer and cleric may spend spells buffing the rogue and fighter or blasting the mooks to deal with them faster. Now that attention is being put on the big bad.

So... there's 4 mooks. F and R flank one of them. What prevents the other three from charging S or C and disrupting their grand plans to set BBEG on fire for the rest of his life? Darius's potential house rule certainly makes it possible for F and R to hit the mook without a roll if they so choose, but it doesn't mean the other three mooks stand in a line waiting for their turn to die.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I did say at some point that IMO players should have easy encounters from time to time, so that they can get a breather or just a chance to feel like real strong heroes and show off their power. There's nothing like decimating a group of enemies with your superior combat prowess or magic. :smallbiggrin:Okay, I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to make mooks fun by letting them be ego-boosters for the player. It's a fine goal, especially for DM's who like to constantly challenge their players with very tough combat.

Let caution you with the implications of this rule though. It might make what you want to be a fun experience for the players where they would enjoy stomping the mooks to a boring delay of time. If your players know that they are going to hit, it becomes killing boars in the forest. You're just watching hit points decrease, and drinking a healing potion every so often.

If you think you can handle that, then have a ball.


So... there's 4 mooks. F and R flank one of them. What prevents the other three from charging S or C and disrupting their grand plans to set BBEG on fire for the rest of his life? Darius's potential house rule certainly makes it possible for F and R to hit the mook without a roll if they so choose, but it doesn't mean the other three mooks stand in a line waiting for their turn to die.Threatened areas, flanking conga lines, 5 foot steps... REASONS!!!11!1one. . .

Yeah. I know that was a problem. I was just trying to find an easy way for the party to get a cheap and easy attack modifier that would change the to-hit roll required from a 12 to a 10. A better example might have been:

4 mooks have 14 AC, and go behind cover to get 18 AC. F and R have +8 to attack rolls. The mooks moving behind cover does nothing if the players can roll 10s, and now the sorcerer and cleric can focus on the BBEG.

I still think the argument holds, even if the example was bad. If you weaken mooks you are weakening the big bad. If the OP is aware of this then there shouldn't be a problem.

[Mari01]

I see you missed or ignored the part where I said that combat is specifically an exception. :smallsigh:

Now you're just coming across as rude. You really won't get any constructive responses if you try to talk down to people. You said this wouldn't be allowed pending other distractions.

And I quote, "Really, the point is the same as in taking 10 on skills. And, apart from combat, you still can't take 10 if your somehow distracted, so the option isn't guaranteed."


Taking 10 isn't allowed because of combat taking up so much of your attention. What kind of distracting event would be more attention-consuming than combat?

[Arcanist]

And I told you that all that was already addressed. :smallsigh:

So... You don't think the fact that people keep saying the same thing over and over again might not be a sign that consensus has been reached? :smallconfused:

[Darius Kane]

{{Scrubbed}}

[TuggyNE]

Considering that this topic isn't about discussing the houserule or reaching a consensus of any kind...

I think this may well be the source of your difficulty. Telling a group of armchair theorists and analysts, "Go analyze this for me except don't tell me your opinion of it and don't discuss whether it's a good idea or a bad one" or, as you put it, "don't attempt to agree on anything or discuss the nominal topic"... well, I don't think I have to tell you that doesn't go over too well. Just accept what analysis you can get, discard what you don't need quietly, and don't waste too much energy herding cats.

Or, if you really want to, go ahead and buck the tendencies. Fight the power?

1
More directly to the point, you've already been given just about all the information you need. Specifically: the implications of this houserule favor mook-stomping, have certain odd interactions (sometimes plausible, sometimes not so much) with cover/flanking/prone/etc, are generally more useful for high-attack-bonus characters, and tend to have paradoxical effects on boss fights; there's an existing high-level stance in ToB that does something very similar, and I believe a Devotion feat that also fits, but both are somewhat non-trivial to acquire for most characters. What more do you need?

[nedz]

You could take an empirical approach:
Allow your players to take 10 if they want to.
I suspect that the innovation will be short lived, for the reasons mentioned previously in this thread.

[Darius Kane]

You could take an empirical approach:
Allow your players to take 10 if they want to.
But... that's how it already works. :smallconfused: They can take 10, not have to. Was that not clear, even though I explained it at least once?
Or do you mean that I should include this houserule only if the players approve? If they won't approve then they can simply not use it. I won't get mad or sad. It's just an option. The same as when you're taking Fighter instead of Warblade or Barbarian.

[Mystral]

Just answering the OP:

Such a houserule would propably have a short term and a long term effect.

Short term, people would most likely get into positions where they always hit with 10 and make no more effort in terms of tactics to improve their to hit. They would use flanking, tanglefoot bags or similiar things. Enemies could start fighting defensively, but then they would severly hinder their own hit chance and put themselves in anoher disadvantage.

In the long run, players would only concentrate on boosting their to hit and take power attack, so they could get the maximum damage out of their auto hits. Characters with touch attacks like wizards, sorcerers or warlocks would get severly strengthened, wizards and sorcerers would get as many touch attack spells as they could. Also, ways of defense that don't rely on AC would get even stronger then they already are. In high level games, enemies already don't have a hard time hitting anything but the tankiest of player characters, and when they can take 10 on their attack, that problem gets even worse. (I'm not saying that they will, just that they could would be enough reason for the players). Things like Blink, Mirror Image, Blur et cetera would abound. Most likely, players would focus heavily on such measures and forgo AC entirely (If you are always hit on 10, might as well be always hit on two and spend your AC budget on other defenses)

On a side note, yes, I think a houserule should only be in effect if everyone on the table is cool with it (even if they don't use it, they should be okay with it being in play at least)

[Darius Kane]

That's useful. Thank you.

[nedz]

But... that's how it already works. :smallconfused: They can take 10, not have to. Was that not clear, even though I explained it at least once?
Or do you mean that I should include this houserule only if the players approve? If they won't approve then they can simply not use it. I won't get mad or sad. It's just an option. The same as when you're taking Fighter instead of Warblade or Barbarian.

No - I meant try it out and see what your players think about it.

I doubt I could sell this to any of the groups I play with, but YMMV.

[Darius Kane]

I meant try it out and see what your players think about it.
And what does that accomplish? :smallconfused:

[Mari01]

And you're being purposefully obtuse.
This houserule allows taking 10 on attacks. Part of this houserule is that as an exception "combat" doesn't distract you. What don't you understand? :smallsigh:
If you're saying that combat should distract, then... that's good for you, but not really relevant.


Considering that this topic isn't about discussing the houserule or reaching a consensus of any kind... I don't really see the relevance of your posts.

You're just not getting it. You, yourself, stated that other distractions would make taking 10 not plausible. I am asking you what are examples of these other distractions?

[AlchemicalMyst]

And what does that accomplish? :smallconfused:

It accomplishes seeing how your players feel about it. They are the ones the game is about, not us on the forum.

[Darius Kane]

Anything that distracts and isn't combat?
It is you who doesn't get it. I know fully well that combat is probably the most distracting thing that could possibly prevent you from taking 10. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER, because this houserule allows you to take 10 on attacks and makes an exception for combat not being a distraction.


It accomplishes seeing how your players feel about it.
And why is that relevant? :smallconfused: The houserule is there mostly for their benefit. If they don't want to use it it's their choice, but I don't know why that should concern me or in any way influence if the houserule will get added or not. :smallconfused:
If wanted to add a houserule that is a straight out penalty or nerf to all the players then maybe their feelings would be relevant. But I don't.

[nedz]

And what does that accomplish? :smallconfused:

What does this thread accomplish ? :smallconfused:

You are not interested in what the playground thinks about this idea.
You are not interested in what your players think about this idea.

[Jeff the Green]

And why is that relevant? :smallconfused: The houserule is there mostly for their benefit. If they don't want to use it it's their choice, but I don't know why that should concern me or in any way influence if the houserule will get added or not. :smallconfused:
If wanted to add a houserule that is a straight out penalty or nerf to all the players then maybe their feelings would be relevant. But I don't.

Because, as has been pointed out, if NPCs take advantage of this rule it could have some pretty severe negative effects on their characters. That's something they should probably have some input on.

If NPCs can't take advantage of it, sure, go ahead and let them choose.

[Darius Kane]

What does this thread accomplish ? :smallconfused:

You are not interested in what the playground thinks about this idea.
This thread, as I explained multiple times, isn't for opinions on the houserule. It never was and I repeated it many times on those past 4 pages, which was ignored by most posters. This thread is about objective implications of the houserule. And every time I was presenting a counter-argument, it was to explain why I don't consider something a problem.


Because, as has been pointed out, if NPCs take advantage of this rule it could have some pretty severe negative effects on their characters. That's something they should probably have some input on.

If NPCs can't take advantage of it, sure, go ahead and let them choose.
As I stated, this houserule, as almost every other houserule I add, is for the players benefit. My job, as the DM, is to challenge, not slaughter the PCs. So obviously I'm not going to abuse a houserule to do the later. :smallannoyed: I see no reason for it to be PCs-only because of that.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Anything that distracts and isn't combat?
It is you who doesn't get it. I know fully well that combat is probably the most distracting thing that could possibly prevent you from taking 10. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER, because this houserule allows you to take 10 on attacks and makes an exception for combat not being a distraction.I think his point is that your completely ignoring both the rules as written (you can't take 10 while distracted) and the rules as intended (taking 10 represents intently focusing/taking extra time on your task so that you can do well) for this house-rule. You are also doing this without fully understanding the potential ramifications of the rule (You wouldn't be asking the question if you did), and without wanting to hear any contrary opinion. I think he has a right to be a little angry.

On topic:
It should also be noted that AC builds will need to be much higher. The goal of most AC builds (in my limited experience) is to make the standard to-hit by good enemies less than 50%. The take 10 rules will mean that your NPCs will need much higher ACs than normal for your players to have a small chance to hit them.

This actually leads to another problem, it means that your players to-hit chance is going to go from 100% (on enemies with an AC < 10+the player's to hit modifier) to 45% if not 20% and continue to steadily drop. Basically, players are going to have either a perfect chance to hit an enemy, to one that could be exceptionally impossible.

This could be a very frustrating thing for your party's martial characters to deal with, if not outright infuriating. Hitting BBEG is normally tough, but it's not as annoying if you don't have such a high level of success everywhere else. Touch AC's would become much more reliable targets, while the take 10 rule would make touch AC's extremely easy to hit for spellcasters.


Side Question:
What event made you want to give your players the option to take 10 on attack rolls? I'm interested in what problem reared its head that you thought this rule would be a solution to.

[Mari01]

I think his point is that your completely ignoring both the rules as written (you can't take 10 while distracted) and the rules as intended (taking 10 represents intently focusing/taking extra time on your task so that you can do well) for this house-rule. You are also doing this without fully understanding the potential ramifications of the rule (You wouldn't be asking the question if you did), and without wanting to hear any contrary opinion. I think he has a right to be a little angry.

On topic:
It should also be noted that AC builds will need to be much higher. The goal of most AC builds (in my limited experience) is to make the standard to-hit by good enemies less than 50%. The take 10 rules will mean that your NPCs will need much higher ACs than normal for your players to have a small chance to hit them.

This actually leads to another problem, it means that your players to-hit chance is going to go from 100% (on enemies with an AC < 10+the player's to hit modifier) to 45% if not 20% and continue to steadily drop. Basically, players are going to have either a perfect chance to hit an enemy, to one that could be exceptionally impossible.

This could be a very frustrating thing for your party's martial characters to deal with, if not outright infuriating. Hitting BBEG is normally tough, but it's not as annoying if you don't have such a high level of success everywhere else. Touch AC's would become much more reliable targets, while the take 10 rule would make touch AC's extremely easy to hit for spellcasters.


Side Question:
What event made you want to give your players the option to take 10 on attack rolls? I'm interested in what problem reared its head that you thought this rule would be a solution to.

Close. What I want is a concrete example. For example, you can't normally take 10 when you want to rush or are in combat. Those are two hard examples of when this rule isn't allowed. For the houserule, we are throwing out combat. It doesn't make sense for combat to be "rushed" so that one also gets thrown out. What I want is a scenario where this rule is an option but is disallowed, because he stated earlier there would be circumstances where taking 10 COULD NOT be done.

[Zherog]

No - I meant try it out and see what your players think about it.

Putting on my game designer hat (which I don't wear too often on the forums, actually)... Nedz' idea isn't all that bad, actually. The best way to test what a rule will do is to playtest it. So, in this case, what you might want to do would be to consider talking to your players and running a session or two with the rule in place. After the "trial period" you and your group talk about it and determine if the rule is worth keeping around, if there were any serious flaws with the rule, if there were flaws, can they be fixed up, etc.

Go into it with an open mind, and if something comes up in the first 10 minutes that nobody thought of that demonstrates a serious flaw, don't be afraid to call an end to the playtest until you can patch. Otherwise you'll likely get the information you need - whether or not the rule does what you want without breaking something else.

[Darius Kane]

I think his point is that your completely ignoring both the rules as written (you can't take 10 while distracted) and the rules as intended (taking 10 represents intently focusing/taking extra time on your task so that you can do well) for this house-rule.
I'm ignoring nothing. I'm houseruling. If he doesn't comprehend that I don't care that normally you can't take 10 while distracted, because the houserule specifically allows taking 10 in combat and isn't distracted by combat, then I'm done talking with him.


What event made you want to give your players the option to take 10 on attack rolls? I'm interested in what problem reared its head that you thought this rule would be a solution to.
There was no event. There is no problem. It is simply an option. Nothing more and nothing less.

@ Zherog
I don't see the point.

[Zherog]

@ Zherog
I don't see the point.

The idea would be to see how the rule plays out at the actual table.

I'll give a vague-ish example. Bear with me. I once was designing rules for running a marathon. I designed it as a series of Con check, getting progressively harder the further you got into the race. I chose Con check instead of Fort save to avoid the whole "1 is an auto-fail" scenario. The rules seemed good to me on paper, they seemed good to some game designer friends of mine, and they seemed clear to my players. Then we started play testing, and the high Con dwarf couldn't finish the race.

I took my playtest data, compared what happened to what I expected, and tweaked the rules. The rules seemed good to me on paper, they seemed good to my game designer friends, and they seemed clear to my players, including the, "Oh! That was the problem" moment. Then we ran the same scenario, and the dwarf once again failed to complete the race (though he did get further).

Sometime shortly after that second playtest, the need for the rules went away, so I never actually finished figuring it out. But the buried moral of the story is that sometimes a rule looks really good on paper - even to several different sets of eyes - but once it gets to the table, it falls apart. Your rule seems like something that may fall into that category. It's decently thought out, it's had several sets of eyes look at it here, with a few things pointed out like touch attacks getting even easier and such. But for the most part, you seem to be at the stage of design where you need real data rather than theoretical data. In your case, what would happen at my table or Mari01's table or whoever else doesn't really matter; what does matter is what will happen at your table, with your players.

Or putting it another way, I think you've received all the feedback you're going to get from this thread. Your next step is to introduce the rule to your table, and monitor it. There's a good chance it'll work out exactly as you hope - but there's also a chance that there's something that nobody thought of. That's the sort of things playtesting finds - those oddball cases. Maybe after it happens, you decide you don't care about the fringe-case problem; whatever. But what you need now is real data, rather than theory.

Just my thought as to where you are in the design stage, is all.

[Darius Kane]

The idea would be to see how the rule plays out at the actual table.
I already know how it will play out, thanks to the info that some posters here were kind enough to give. Half of the things that they said are actually what I want, the other half is not a problem.

[Mystral]

You don't know how it will play out. You only got opinions how it might play out. I have no experience concerning such a houserule and even my post, which you called helpfull, is nothing more then educated guessing.

Nothing can substitute practical testing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just for some perspective.

Several posters have pointed out, including the OP, that this particular houserule either can't or won't be used by most players except in times where it will make trivial events even more trivial, and can't or won't be used by most npc's that it would be useful to.

It also wasn't created for any particular purpose.

Why does this rule need to exist? Especially given the concensus that it will actually detract from the game if anyone it would benefit chooses to use it?

[Darius Kane]

Because I want it to exist. And it won't detract from my game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because I want it to exist. And it won't detract from my game.

You don't think it will detract from your game, but have you tried it to be certain?

No matter how predictable the rules and the math are, the players will always be unknown variables, until empirical data is collected and trends are extracted from the data.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Thread Closed. Play Nice, Children.