Recent Posts
Okay, here's my deal. I grew up chewing on polyhedron dice, infected by the D&D and AD&D bug. I played a lot and designed more, but for some reason quit playing (now why did I do that?). I am familiar with the 2e rules, but not 3e, 3.5, and definitely not 4--and from what I am reading on the net, I don't want to get into 4e at all.
I downloaded the Pathfinder PDFs to get a grasp on the 3e mechanics. I haven't gotten through them yet, but think I understand the basics okay. But to me it all feels like a different game and somewhat counter-intuitive. Since I'm used to 1e and 2e rules, AC seems kinda backwards, and these DC things seem like more work than anything in 2e. There just seem to be a lot more game mechanics in general.
Anyhow, I do have a question. While reading the Pathfinder beta rules, I've come across phrases like "take 10" or "take 20" in regard to DCs. What does this mean, to "take (#)"? My best guess is that it means that the character or NPC uses 10 or 20 as their DC, but sometimes it seems to refer to a modifier or to an oppositional DC... so I'm confused about it.
Any friendly enlightenment would be much welcomed. And also... anyone here have a fondness for the old editions?
:D
Yeah, AD&D (1E) lover here.
"Take Ten" and "Take Twenty" mean that, instead of rolling a d20, a character can opt to assume a roll of 10 or 20 for their action. You can take 10 in several instances, but you can only take 20 if you are in no danger and have ample time to perform the task at hand.
Hope that helped a bit.
Edit: Almost forgot! Welcome back to gaming!
Anyhow, I do have a question. While reading the Pathfinder beta rules, I've come across phrases like "take 10" or "take 20" in regard to DCs. What does this mean, to "take (#)"? My best guess is that it means that the character or NPC uses 10 or 20 as their DC, but sometimes it seems to refer to a modifier or to an oppositional DC... so I'm confused about it.
I think the take 10 and take 20 rules will be added to the book. Remember that what you have now is 'just' a beta, and is missing some information.
There are some skill checks you can perform as often as you like if time and other resources are not an issue. Searching a room is an example. Rather than rolling a d20 untill a 20 comes up, you 'take 20', and spend 20 times as much times as normal to perform the action. you then treat your check as if you rolled 20. You can only take 20 when there are no adverse effects to failing a skill check (you can't take 20 on a check to search for a trap or jump a pit
Taking 10 works a bit differently. If you have enough ranks that you would usually be able to make the check, and you are not rushed (being chased or attacked by enemies for example), you can take 10 on a check.
Taking 10 means you spend a single action to perform the skill, using an average result (as if you rolled a 10)
Ahha! Thanks for the quick replies. Yes, that helps quite a bit!
I think the take 10 and take 20 rules will be added to the book. Remember that what you have now is 'just' a beta, and is missing some information.
Yes, for 'just' a beta, the rulebook is thick and rad.
There are some skill checks you can perform as often as you like if time and other resources are not an issue. Searching a room is an example. Rather than rolling a d20 untill a 20 comes up, you 'take 20', and spend 20 times as much times as normal to perform the action. you then treat your check as if you rolled 20. You can only take 20 when there are no adverse effects to failing a skill check (you can't take 20 on a check to search for a trap or jump a pit
Okay, that makes sense, but brings up another question. You say that the character has to spend 20x as much time to perform the action? Whoa, that's a big multiplier. I can see how this option might streamline gameplay, but it seems to do so with quite a sacrifice in game time. If it's an action that normally just takes one round, it would suddenly take two turns! I think that as a player I would opt to roll a few times and as a DM I would encourage that and maybe bend the rules downward a bit on the multiplier.
Taking 10 works a bit differently. If you have enough ranks that you would usually be able to make the check, and you are not rushed (being chased or attacked by enemies for example), you can take 10 on a check.
Taking 10 means you spend a single action to perform the skill, using an average result (as if you rolled a 10)
Sensible. I like it.
Thanks for the answers, both of you!
Okay, that makes sense, but brings up another question. You say that the character has to spend 20x as much time to perform the action? Whoa, that's a big multiplier. I can see how this option might streamline gameplay, but it seems to do so with quite a sacrifice in game time. If it's an action that normally just takes one round, it would suddenly take two turns! I think that as a player I would opt to roll a few times and as a DM I would encourage that and maybe bend the rules downward a bit on the multiplier.
Spending 20x as much time for "taking 20" makes quite some sense IMO. Basically, with 20 rolls, one roll should come up a 20, statistically speaking (but you already know that). So, spending 20 tries upon a single task should get you the best possible result, but it takes that much time. Of course, this results from the game mechanic of using a d20, so this is the point at which criticism can start - what if you use a d6? d10? d30? d100?
I would not reduce the time needed below 10x the time for one try, however - there should be some cost to (to stay with the example)search a given room high and low, namely spells and effects running out, or even wandering monsters coming if you use them. It is a nice thing to use if you have a time limit on the characters actions.
Stefan
Spending 20x as much time for "taking 20" makes quite some sense IMO. Basically, with 20 rolls, one roll should come up a 20, statistically speaking (but you already know that). So, spending 20 tries upon a single task should get you the best possible result, but it takes that much time. Of course, this results from the game mechanic of using a d20, so this is the point at which criticism can start - what if you use a d6? d10? d30? d100?
I would not reduce the time needed below 10x the time for one try, however - there should be some cost to (to stay with the example)search a given room high and low, namely spells and effects running out, or even wandering monsters coming if you use them. It is a nice thing to use if you have a time limit on the characters actions.
Stefan
Yes, I agree that there should be some cost.
I also now realize than in 3e and 3.5, a round is no longer the one-minute time period that it is in 2e, but is instead an increment of 6 seconds--which makes this 20x seem much more sensible in the world of game-time. Rather than a 1 round x 20 = 2 turns = 20 minutes of game-time, in 3e 1 round x 20 = 2 turns(?) = 2 minutes of game time.
Okay, that makes sense, but brings up another question. You say that the character has to spend 20x as much time to perform the action? Whoa, that's a big multiplier. I can see how this option might streamline gameplay, but it seems to do so with quite a sacrifice in game time. If it's an action that normally just takes one round, it would suddenly take two turns! I think that as a player I would opt to roll a few times and as a DM I would encourage that and maybe bend the rules downward a bit on the multiplier.
This is why taking 10 is usually preferred over taking 20. I generally reserve taking 20 for when I know the task is going to be really difficult (picking the lock on a really high-quality safe say) or where I know I need to be as thorough as possible (searching a crime scene or a room where I know something has been hidden but I just can't find it).
Intuitively, taking search checks as an example the usual rolled search check is like looking for your missing keys when you're late for work, you're trying to be thorough but you're also trying to be quick, so luck plays a big role. Taking 10 is looking for them when you've got no distractions or major time worries, you can be methodical and cautious and if you're smart you'll find what you're looking unless it's been hidden somewhere really obscure. Taking 20 on the other hand, is going all CSI on the place :), pulling out the furnishings, looking under the flooring, generally going over everything inch by inch with a fine toothed comb until you're certain that there's nothing you could possibly have missed. It gives you guarantees, but it's going to take you some time! Similarly if you're making a knowledge check it's the difference between recalling what you know off the top of your head and going to a library to do research on the subject.
[edit]ahh, never leave a reply window open for a couple of hours, you'll be ninjed :). Yeah I completely forgot about the AD&D one minute combat rounds, that would make things take an excessively long time :). There's no real equivalent to the old turns in 3e, anything that can't be easily expressed in terms of 6-second rounds are just given in real time eg. spell durations are written in round, minute, ten minute, or hour increments...
Intuitively, taking search checks as an example the usual rolled search check is like looking for your missing keys when you're late for work, you're trying to be thorough but you're also trying to be quick, so luck plays a big role. Taking 10 is looking for them when you've got no distractions or major time worries, you can be methodical and cautious and if you're smart you'll find what you're looking unless it's been hidden somewhere really obscure. Taking 20 on the other hand, is going all CSI on the place :), pulling out the furnishings, looking under the flooring, generally going over everything inch by inch with a fine toothed comb until you're certain that there's nothing you could possibly have missed. It gives you guarantees, but it's going to take you some time! Similarly if you're making a knowledge check it's the difference between recalling what you know off the top of your head and going to a library to do research on the subject.
This is the coolest explanation for the concept I've seen yet! Awesome :)
If it's an action that normally just takes one round, it would suddenly take two turns!
Also, just to confuse the 1e/2e players like you, me, and Derek, a "turn" is now defined as something like "the specific portion of one round during which a given individual is acting." So 10 rounds = 1 minute, NOT 1 turn, in 3.X.
This is another reason I like Castles and Crusades :)
You take all the nostalgia and simplicity of 1E, throw in the d20 mechanics to make all rolls better the higher you roll, remove skills and feats, and you are left with the skeleton of a great game that is super easy to add your own rules where you see fit, as you play.
You might find the Hypertext d20 SRD helpful:-
This holds all the "core" 3E (actually, 3.5E) rules upon which the PfRPG is based, neatly organised.
This is another reason I like Castles and Crusades :)
You take all the nostalgia and simplicity of 1E, throw in the d20 mechanics to make all rolls better the higher you roll, remove skills and feats, and you are left with the skeleton of a great game that is super easy to add your own rules where you see fit, as you play.
I really think I need to look into this. I haven't given C&C a look since the 80s...
I recommend Basic Fantasy RPG
Thanks for that!
Man, my options keep expanding. Strange how much that kinda sucks. There are so many options available for D&D now that it really is quite out of hand. I'm quickly learning the 3.5/Pathfinder ropes, though, and am beginning to feel like an addict who has been clean for over a decade and now has been given some primo junk to sample--and all around me are pushers.
Thanks, y'all. :P
I recommend Basic Fantasy RPG
Thanks for that!
Man, my options keep expanding. Strange how much that kinda sucks. There are so many options available for D&D now that it really is quite out of hand. I'm quickly learning the 3.5/Pathfinder ropes, though, and am beginning to feel like an addict who has been clean for over a decade and now has been given some primo junk to sample--and all around me are pushers.
Thanks, y'all. :P
*Enjoys the sweet irony of this post...*
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
You know, I have so much 2E stuff laying around, I'm tempted to start up a 2E game.
That's exactly what I am doing actually. I'm running a Dark Sun game with some friends via email and play by post, and initially I was going to use Savage Worlds, but it didn't really have everything I wanted. So I looked at C&C which was a closer match, but still, something was missing.
Then I just said "to hell with this" and announced we're using AD&D 2E. My players were quite excited to go "old school" again. I also resisted the urge to go "Player's Option" knowing full well what that did to my old Dark Sun campaign years ago.
So we're sticking with the core PHB, DMG, all the Dark Sun supplements, and the original psionics rules (don't like the revised Dark Sun ones with MTHACO and MAC).
Got a mul gladiator, halfling thief, and human sun cleric all rolled up and ready to go (almost).
What is it about old school that appeals to you?
For me, it is simply that I am familiar with the older systems, for one. Beyond that, I honestly think--and this is qualified by my limited exposure to 3.5/OGL--that the 'rules light' version that is 2e makes for a more intriguing and open game. There are many things that I do like about 3.5, and I am actually seriously considering using it my future campaign. Yet the 2e core books really emphasize that the game rules are there to serve the players and DM, and that while they operate well and have a purpose, they are not sacred. They are meant to be secondary, a mechanical skeleton for the primary event of story-telling with creativity and enjoyment.
The reason that I started looking at PF and the OGL stuff is because I am interested in developing content for fun and profit at some point. Unfortunately, while there is much that I like about 3.5, I do consider it a rules-heavy system. I would be very happy to hear of lucrative opportunities to develop content for 2E games, simply because that is what I am familiar with and it suits my free-wheeling style of play and design much better than the blocky, mechanics-laden 3.x stuff.
I would be really interested to hear more from people out there who are reverting to 2e or who just never left. To my mind, it is a great system, and if there is a community out there that is loyal to it, I would be happy to make some contacts.
I have been an ardent Hero fan for some time. However, I can not deny the pull of rule light systems. I have been dabbling in Mutants and Masterminds which strikes me as a Hero light. I have also been very curious to try out PDQ, Savage Worlds and Spirit of the Century (Fate 3e).
With Hero 6e coming out, I do not know if I will be continuing with them. From what I understand, they do not want to make major changes, more like an update. I do not really feel like buying an entire library of 5.5e…not that I feel any anger at them trying to make a living.
Savage Worlds is another favourite of mine, but it only really works for certain genres. It can do fantasy D&D, but it is more suited to Swords and Sorcery games like Conan or Lankmar, and most encounters needs to either be toned down, or have minions added. Single creatures tend to get worked over pretty hard in Savage Worlds vs 4 PC's, unless they are uber tough monsters.
I liked 2E D&D for some of its conventions and rules, and also the fact that I would not have to convert anything to play. I like ability score requirements, and restricting certain classes to certain races. I also liked how 2E psionics was way different than magic.
Proficiencies were also something I rather enjoyed using. Some of them are a little too specialized, or completely useless, but as DM I used them as a tool to flesh out character backgrounds. Basically, if you put something in your background that corresponded to a certain proficiency, and it wasn't for powergaming puposes, I would award the PC that proficiency for free. Things like being a tailor's son, or being raised as a slave in a mine, etc.
And yeah, the DM prep work was way easier. Monsters only had a few abilities and they were pretty easy to use, hit points were lower and easier to keep track of. There's a lot of notalgia in there as well, but I think 2E (minus skills and powers) was a decent system with only a few flaws.