| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking 20 can be done at any time you're not under duress or in some sort of a time constraint and there's going to be no penalty for a failure, so it's honestly just up to the GM. The idea is simply to save time at the table, because if there's no penalty for failure and that particular skill allows for multiple retries, theoretically you could just roll d20's all day until you get the number you need to pass the check.
Generally speaking, whenever you take 20, you're attempting to do all that you can to "get it right", so it takes 20x the normal amount of time the skill would normally take. So if you would normally take 1 round to do a particular skill, taking 20 should equate to about 2 minutes of time to "get it right".
So in your case, if you need multiple successes and there would be a penalty for failing any one of them, then you would be correct to tell your player that he couldn't take 10 or 20 (unless he has some sort of class ability that allows him to take 10 or 20 even while under duress).
Do you have an example? The way I see it if you need to get for instance 3 successes to pick a lock but there is no penalty for failure then sure let them. But if it's get x successes before y failures then no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One condition for taking 20 is that there must be no penalty for failure. If there is a penalty for failure, you can't do it but need to roll it out just in case you incur the penalty before you succeed.
Another is that the chance of success must be at least 5%. If the chance of success is less than 5%, then 20 attempts won't be enough time. A GM who is good at math might be able to calculate the chance of success for multiple successive rolls and then invert the result to get a multiplier greater than 20 for more complex cases.
But...But.... nosig what about the GM maintaining the sense of drama!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking 20 can be done at any time you're not under duress or in some sort of a time constraint and there's going to be no penalty for a failure, so it's honestly just up to the GM. The idea is simply to save time at the table, because if there's no penalty for failure and that particular skill allows for multiple retries, theoretically you could just roll d20's all day until you get the number you need to pass the check.
Generally speaking, whenever you take 20, you're attempting to do all that you can to "get it right", so it takes 20x the normal amount of time the skill would normally take. So if you would normally take 1 round to do a particular skill, taking 20 should equate to about 2 minutes of time to "get it right".
So in your case, if you need multiple successes and there would be a penalty for failing any one of them, then you would be correct to tell your player that he couldn't take 10 or 20 (unless he has some sort of class ability that allows him to take 10 or 20 even while under duress).
wait - why couldn't someone Take 10? realizing that the possibility of failure does not prevent you from Taking 10?
Why are we lumping "Take 10" rules into the "Take 20" rules?
"Taking 20 can be done at any time you're not under duress or in some sort of a time constraint and there's going to be no penalty for a failure," this is
** spoiler omitted **
correct...
But it really doesn't have anything to do with Take 10, which takes the same amount of (in game) time as a single skill check (which it is).so why are we mixing Take 10 into the Take 20 rule?
"if you need multiple successes and there would be a penalty for failing any...
That's an interesting assessment Nosig. I wonder why the taking 10 rules would say something like this then?
Taking 10When 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.
And why are there class abilities, feats, and even items that allow you to take 10 on certain skills while under duress? Why do these exist?
Why does the Kraken Caller Druid Archetype say this?
Dauntless Swimmer (Ex)
At 2nd level, a kraken caller can always take 10 on Swim checks, even if she is rushed or threatened.
This ability replaces woodland stride.
Why does the Climb Skill specifically call out that creatures with climb speeds can take 10 even while rushed or threatened?
Rope You can use a rope to haul a character upward (or lower a character) through sheer strength. You can lift double your maximum load in this manner.
Climb Speed A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing. If a creature with a climb speed chooses an accelerated climb (see above), it moves at double its climb speed (or at its land speed, whichever is slower) and makes a single Climb check at a –5 penalty. Such a creature retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) while climbing, and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it. It cannot, however, use the run action while climbing.
============================================
Answer: You can't take 10 when you're under duress, rushed, or otherwise in danger, and "Pass these Skill checks or the party dies or gets mortally wounded or gets caught by the bad guys or <insert random penalty or demise>" counts as duress, rushed, or otherwise in danger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 300-foot cliff face is just bad encounter design. If you let them take 10, it's not an encounter at all, so why does it exist? If you force them to roll six hundred times, it's boring and tedious and basically failing to be interesting gameplay on every level.
Add in a wyverns nest or an oncoming storm or a race with a rival group of adventurers; something that puts pressure on the players, that limits their resources.
With the rules as written, 300ft is apretty long climb for most characters. It would be hard to keep that fresh and interesting the whole way down. But taking 10 doesn't avoid the issue, though. It just turns a poorly designed encounter Into a non-encounter.
The whole "this lock takes X successes to open" thing is even worse. Without a clockwork bomb or a rabid minotaur or the princess slowly dying from a curse/disease/poison, there is zero reason to do this. Ever.
If there is not a chance for failure, a chance for success and consequences for either, you shouldn't roll any dice at all.
Taking 10 and 20 are just ways to speed up gameplay and offer concrete, measurable thresholds as to when players may do so. hopefully though, you have a series of interesting and engaging encounters plan that your players will not want to rush through or skip over.
I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but can you take 20 on something where you need consecutive successes? My guess would be no, because the idea is you are failing many times before you succeed, so they wouldn't technically be consecutive successes.
So what skill or other rolls are you needing this for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking 10 is largely up to the DM.
And that 300ft climbing example, no I wouldn't allow for a take 10 on that. That's an exceptionally hard climb even for experienced climbers, and any number of things could go wrong with a bunch of guys with 3 points in their climb skill in full armor, weapons, and 100lbs of personal belongings and trying to manage all this weight with a bunch of pitons. That's not some "la la lalala, what a nice day for a leisurely climb, I think I'll just take 10 here and stroll on down this 300ft cliff side"-sort of climb.
Climbing 30ft? Sure, take 10. Climbing 300ft? You can certainly try. I'd probably send a swarm of monkeys or bats at the group just to show them how dumb that is to not simply find a path going up and down.
Partially correct. You can't take 10 when threatened or distracted. "Pass these skill checks or get hurt/die" is not necessarily either of those things. For instance, consider a rogue facing a trap in an otherwise empty room with no distractions, if he fails he might get hurt, but that doesn't disqualify him from using take 10 on the disable device check. Similarly when climbing, sure you may fall, but if you're not distracted or under attack you can take 10.
I'm full correct, not partially correct. If the rogue isn't under any duress to pick the lock, then yes he can take 10.
Just cuz there's a trap inside doesn't mean that's a "penalty for failure", I mean it IS a penalty for failing sure, but the rogue is under no obligation or rush to even open it. He can ho-hum around and play with the lock for 10 minutes if he wanted, or just walk away and leave it alone if he wanted.
Pick the lock or the party member dies? Yeah, that's a "penalty for failure", because if you fail someone dies, so the rogue is under duress, no taking 10.
Pick the Lock on this booby-trapped box while no other threats or distractions are present? There's no penalty for failure here. I can walk away from the box and that's still a "failure" to open the box. So if I "fail" to open the box because I walk away, nothing bad happens (other than not getting the loot). And if you do decide to pick the lock, you have all the time in the world to open up the box because there's no threats/distractions. So yeah, take 10. Take 20, if you want.
That's why Taking 10 or 20 is largely up to the GM. The GM decides whether whatever situation you're facing would count as duress or not.
Agreed. The threat of falling if you fail by 5 or more is a threat.
I would say that attempting to disarm a trap would be the same, though. Triggering the trap by failing is a threat. Unless there's precedent that the trap can't actually target you when triggered; you probably don't have to be standing on a trap door to disarm it, but you will most likely have to stick your hands in a hole that launches poison darts.
I think it depends entirely on the type of trap though. If it’s a trip wire or a pressure plate, you could probably take 20 if you wanted. If it’s an explosive rune in a treasure chest, probably not.
He can take 20 on every one of those Disable Device rolls.
Well, you could make that assumption that he's just not familiar enough with the puzzlebox yet, so he still screws up even when he takes 20.
But people who have figured out how to solve rubix cubes do it by memorizing the pattern you're supposed to follow, and once they figure it out, the don't even have to look at the colors anymore. Eventually your rogue will also be able to memorize the pattern without looking at the runes on the outside of the puzzlebox.
The whole "this lock takes X successes to open" thing is even worse. Without a clockwork bomb or a rabid minotaur or the princess slowly dying from a curse/disease/poison, there is zero reason to do this. Ever.
Yep. Quixote called it. Your player is going to roll the dice 9,341 times the next time you play, at least until he gets five consecutive 40DC+ successes. The whole point of take 20 is to prevent this stuff right here. It's not fun for the PC, it's noisy for the DM and the other players, and when it's over, the PC doesn't feel accomplishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the rules, "Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding." If you are failing many time before succeeding, then doesn't that mean that they are NOT successes in a row?He can take 20 on every one of those Disable Device rolls.
Correct. Taking 20 on individual rolls would not result in five consecutive successes.
If this were just two successes--and with no penalty for failure--you could approximate this by allowing the player to take 400 (20 times 20). (The exact expected number of rolls is more complicated depending on how you play out this simulation, but it's good enough.)
For five successes, the approximation (taking 3,200,000; or 20 to the fifth power) is less accurate and very impractical. Just have them try a few times and then kindly suggest they approach the problem by finding ways to boost their odds of success.
Remember that taking 20 is a tool for players to skip boring stuff without complicated math getting in the way. If you have to introduce complicated math, it probably isn't worth the effort--unless your players are prob/stat geeks and have fun with this sort of thing.
Puzzle Box--
What's needed: 5 successful DC30 checks in a row
Penalty for failure: doesn't work
Tying your shoes--
What's needed: 2 successful DC2 checks
Penalty for failure: doesn't work
...pretty sure you're allowed to take 10/20 to tie your shoes.
Taking 20 means doing it over and over until they get it right. Can you do that, conceivably, with a puzzle box? Yes, assuming you are intelligent/skilled enough that opening it is possible at all.
Taking 20 means you take 20 times as long to compete the task because there'sa 1 in 20 chance of rolling a 20.
You said he's got a 1% chance of succeeding 5 times in a row? So instead of 20 times as long, make it 100. If each check is a minute, that's 8hrs 20 mins.
Opening a puzzle box isn't a boring concept or piece of story. But it IS boring gameplay, on it's own.
I think this is going to fall into the idea of failing forward, is the party blocked if they can't get this thing open? If so then either you might want to consider T20 being allowed (you might increase the time needed since its 5 in a row.) If its just extra stuff then let them work on it over time.
Also are they meant to open it on their own? It might be a good hook to move them towards an NPC you need/want them to meet.
The next question is what is the players DD check bonus at? if it's fairly high and someone can boost it (aid another, magical bonus, or something of the like) then it might not even be an issue.
Taking 20
When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you make a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Ability Checks and Caster Level ChecksThe normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.
I think it's unnecessary rolling that fits the description of "if you make roll a d20 roll enough times, eventually you'll get five consecutive 20's".
If your player used a die roll simulator to simulate 3,200,000 rolls of 5d20, basically until you get all nat 20's, would you accept that roll? Why or why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it took 1 minute per check, and they used a simulator to roll 3.2 million times before succeeding, I'd say "Working eight hours a day, you eventually succeed in opening the box. Please advance yourself an age category, as eighteen years have now passed."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 300-foot cliff face is just bad encounter design. If you let them take 10, it's not an encounter at all, so why does it exist?
I can see several reasons for that:
- you want to stress that reaching the destination is no easy feat for "normal" people:- you want to have the characters spend time or resources;
- you want to separate the non-flying animal companion or eidolon or mounts from the group (or have the character/players be inventive to get them over the obstacle);
- same for the spellcasters without ranks in climb, the guys in heavy armor et similia;
- give a moment in the spotlight for the guy with the climbing skill and equipment. No need to roll dices, but five minutes of narrative where Fred is the guy setting up the climbing route so that the other can climb without problems can be nice.
Generally, as an encounter in an AP it can be sub-optimal, but in a home game where you can aim it to some specific character, it can work very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 300-foot cliff face is just bad encounter design. If you let them take 10, it's not an encounter at all, so why does it exist?I can see several reasons for that:
- you want to stress that reaching the destination is no easy feat for "normal" people:
- you want to have the characters spend time or resources;
- you want to separate the non-flying animal companion or eidolon or mounts from the group (or have the character/players be inventive to get them over the obstacle);
- same for the spellcasters without ranks in climb, the guys in heavy armor et similia;
- give a moment in the spotlight for the guy with the climbing skill and equipment. No need to roll dices, but five minutes of narrative where Fred is the guy setting up the climbing route so that the other can climb without problems can be nice.Generally, as an encounter in an AP it can be sub-optimal, but in a home game where you can aim it to some specific character, it can work very well.
Everything you just wrote is absolutely correct and awesome.
My humble addition: The players might now know that the "encounter" is trivial. For all they know, there might be archers or harpies hanging about waiting for idiot travelers to be caught 150 up the cliff face, and suddenly a non-encounter becomes very dangerous.
Exactly my point; either the 300ft cliff face is one element of a more layered and dynamic encounter (harpies, archers, etc) or its not an actual encounter (a bit of narration to give Fred the spotlight). The prior wants to be rolled. The latter begs not to be.
An encounter begins when a dramatic question is asked. It ends when the question is answered. If the question is "can the characters make it to the bottom of the cliff?", that is a pretty weak encounter.
Now, if it's "can the characters make it down the cliff while fighting off harpies and get the lycanthropy antidote to the village before the moon rises and the beast kills again?", that's a little more interesting.
I'm not saying having a big cliff in your game is bad storytelling; not every scene of the story needs to be an encounter. But scenes that contain encounters should be interesting and worthy of the time they take up at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is absolutely zero reason not to take the concept behind taking 20 and apply it to this situation.
There's a 5% chance you roll a 20.
There's a...certain percent chance you'll roll 13+ five times in a row.
Find that percent, turn it into a multiplier and determine how long it takes to open the thing.
Do that, or explain how rolling hundreds (or thousands) of times makes sense from a narrative or mechanical perspective.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is absolutely zero reason not to take the concept behind taking 20 and apply it to this situation.
There's a 5% chance you roll a 20.
There's a...certain percent chance you'll roll 13+ five times in a row.
Find that percent, turn it into a multiplier and determine how long it takes to open the thing.Do that, or explain how rolling hundreds (or thousands) of times makes sense from a narrative or mechanical perspective.
That is exactly what my group did when tackling the anathema archive. They did see what they could use that gave a bonus to the rolls for enough time or that was repeatable enough times in a day, get the most skilled guy and have the people that could use aid another help and calculate how much retries were needed to get the appropriate numbers of successes.
I added a "you can try for more than 8 hours in a day" limit and the lock was open in a few days.As they did that in the middle of the adventure the enemies had the time to restock some people, move stuff around and prepare better for their actions.
We did see the need for the heavy requirements for opening the scroll case as a way to say "you can spend the time now and pay the consequences and get the rewards of doing that or you can do it later and pay the consequences and get the rewards of that choice".
At that point, you don't really need to roll the dices, you need to decide what is the narrative effect of the time spent opening the scroll case. The requirements for opening the scroll case simply give a way to determine how much time you will have to spend.
The only potential problem is that it is possible you don't have anyone savvy enough in your playing group to do the math or the GM feeling that is needed to roll the dices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that forcing them to sit there and roll over and over again isn't going to be fun for anyone. But if it's just hand waved away, that...would basically eliminate any non-time constrained things.
...There are various things that they could do to increase their chances. Use aid another, various spells, level up and put points into the disable device skill...
If there is a "challenge" that is constrained by nothing but time and time is not limited, hand-wave away. Because that's not a challenge. You need more elements present before it becomes a challenge.
You say rolling over and over wouldn't be fun. Okay. Well...this is a game. A hobby. A past time. If it's not fun, why are we doing it?
That is exactly what my group did...the enemies had the time to restock some people, move stuff around and prepare better for their actions.
At that point, you don't really need to roll the dices, you need to decide what is the narrative effect of the time spent opening the scroll case. The requirements for opening the scroll case simply give a way to determine how much time you will have to spend.
Yes. Spending time when time is a valuable resource within the narrative means it suddenly matters how long it takes. This is how you turn a tedious bit of gameplay into something the players actually care about and enjoy.
Then what is the point of ANY challenge...You're advocating making things easier the more difficult they actually are. Which just.. shouldn't be.
Please don't tell me what I'm advocating. If it seems like I am making a nonsensical point, feel free to ask for clarification. I will be more than happy to explain.
A challenge exists when the are consequences for failure.If these characters are allowed to sit around the campfire for as long as it takes, trying over and over until they succeed, there is no consequence.
If they need to expend the use of resources to even have a chance to open it and then also face whatever other encounters await that day, or they could potentially miss some other opportunity due to the time spent on this project, then you have a challenge. In that case, roll 5d20, check for a 12 or less, and move on with the game. Repeat until they succeed or acquire more reliable means to solve the puzzle.
But as I said, if they have unlimited time and no consequences, please explain to me how forcing them to roll five dice 100 times makes for a good story or an enjoyable in-game experience. If you cannot and the only argument you have is that "it's the rules", I would point out that Rule Zero exists for a reason, and we must common sense at least as much as our encyclopedic knowledge of the rules set.