Take 20 is stupid

Remove all ads!

Anybody else think so? As a DM I put a locked door into a module. Either you can bash/pick it on a roll of 20, in which case I might as well leave it open, or you can't - in which case I might as well put a wall there.

 

I agree completely. With 'Take 20' there really isn't a challenge anymore - it just becomes a simple 'can I' or 'can't I' action. Might as well put a sign on it saying "Bob's Character can open, but not Jill's Character". The whole point of making difficulty checks is that sometimes, no matter how good your character is at something, they just might fail! A good DM never puts anything (lock or trap) that the characters couldn't conceivably deal with. A decent lock (e.g., DC 22) is feasible for a character with a decent Open Lock skill (say 4 to 8 ranks) because they succeed on a good roll, and fail on a bad one. What's the point if you know for sure that they'll open it? The only way to make any sort of challenge out of it is to make the DC just a little too high for the character so they need to enhance their skill somehow, or wait until they level up. Which is a pretty stupid method of introducing challenges

 

I agree with you guys. Taking 20 removes a lot of fun from the game. As the DM you can just not allow it. Our DM don't use it and I won't either. In order to have some bonus for 'studying' a problem the DM can assign a +2 to +5 depending on how complete the examination is. This helps character who have or take the time to deal with a challange but at the same time doesn't give away the result. They still have to make the roll and they still might fail. It's just they have a little better chance of success. So if a thief has 10 minutes to examine that DC 22 trap he will improve his skill by +2. Thus with 8 ranks in open locks he has a 50/50 chance of success.

 

I think taking 20 is ok in certain situations, but it depends on each situation. Else just make a custom rule of taking 20 not possible.

Since it means basicly 20 retries, one could make "incidents" for every attempt though, like traps going off or doors jamming. Some things takes a long time, and since it takes 20 times longer to take 20, one could put a random wanderer to interrupt the whatever the party is trying to do.

 

Battering rams might not open a door/gate on the first try either, but that doesn't mean the people using it will stop because they don't succeed the first time. The 'take twenty' rule essentially means that your players don't have to roll each time they do something, but can 'compress' all those dice rolls into one. It's not automatic success, as it can fail if the difficulty rating is high enough. Remember you can't take twenty for things like attacking someone in combat, nor other 'under pressure' things. I guess you can keep your players re-re-rolling a task until they succeed, that's up to you. And that taking twenty automatically takes as much time as doing the task twenty times, and any interruptions will make it fail.

 

Volar Blackmane, I think the main flaw in your logic is that you are not compressing 20 rolls into one roll. You are compressing 20 rolls into one success. When you take 20 you don't roll at all so there is no randomness to the outcome. It's just taking the randomness out of the equation that bugs me.

 

I let my players take 20 if there isn't risk in terms of damage or penalty for failing, other than failing in itself.

 

I will have to agree with the people that are saying that taking 20 makes sense, but should only be allowed in very limited situations. Locks is one, they are designed to be taken 20 on. If you dont allow your chars to take 20 they will never get any lock open if they dont have a +20 modifier. A normal good lock is DC 30. You dont roll that very often. Either you lower the DC's or you allow your players to take 20 because if they dont they will never get that lock open.

 

I still think it's a stupid rule Think of it from the DM's point of view. Either it's necessary for the characters to be able to unlock something, or it's not. If it's not necessary, then either they keep rolling for as long as they want to spend time on it, or they come back later when they're better at it. If it's necessary, and you know that the party will have difficulty with it (i.e., an Open Locks skill of 8 with all mods, on a lock that is say DC 25) there are several ways to actually roleplay the situation without using a 'rule' designed to handle these situations. This is where the *DM* needs to be creative. Maybe there is a key somewhere, and they just have to find it; maybe there is an NPC around who they could 'convince' to help them, one way or another; maybe there are some ability enhancing items, potions, scrolls, etc. As I stated before, the DM should *never* create impossible or near to impossible situations without a good reason. And if player's want to say that they're going to spend umpteen hours trying to open a lock, or something similar, give them a bonus, but don't just give it to them. In some rare occasions it might be applicable to make it a gimmee (and I do mean might). But this rule allows players to basically say "I have very little chance of making this happen (which is really what the situation means) so I'm going to spend as long as it takes to make certain it does". Of course, when your the DM, it's your choice. I just think it takes too much away from the randomness and chance of the game, as well as wasting opportunities to be really creative.

 

I really don't see the difference between taking 20 and rolling over and over for lock picking or some similar activity. If someone can pick a lock, they will succeed in doing so if they have all the time they need. Situations in which they are required to roll mean that there is some distraction or need for haste. I think the "take 20" rule is perfectly fine myself. Sitting and rolling over and over seems rather silly. It slows down game play when game play need not be slowed.

 

I know it really doesn't have to do with randomness (if you need a roll of 20 on a d20 to succeed, then you have a 1:20 chance of succeeding, which should theoretically happen after 20 roles). But I still don't believe that there are many things that should *require* this rule. While I think that there should always be a chance for failure in what the player's want their characters to do, I honestly believe that a DM should never place something in an adventure that the PCs can't handle in some form or another, or that would require a 'Take 20' in order for them to succeed. From time to time I do allow player's to 'take 20', many times without them knowing that the rule is being applied ("After spending nearly 3 hours working on it, the lock on the heavy iron chest comes free"). And to me, that's really what the rule should be used for: very uncommon circumstances. It shouldn't be used simply because the player's want a certainty of something. And in real life, just because you can spend an immense amount of time on something doesn't mean that you will succeed. I'm sure that we've all spent hours and hours on some problem, only to be frustrated and annoyed enough to walk away. Of course, it often happens that a day or so later something 'clicks', a little light bulb appears, and the answer comes to you.

Anyways, enough of my ranting. For those who do use it, what amount of 'in-game' time is usually alloted to be 'as much time as they need' in your games?

Edit: Just to add, the main reason I don't like the Take 20 rule very much is that I think it takes away from players (and DMs) being creative. E.g., If the party's thief fails to open a door, and they think they need to get to the other side, then without the Take 20 rule, I find they usually come up with some other inventive method.

[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 03, 2002).]

 

I see nothing wrong, but I agree, it depends on the situation. In my old campaign, I let my players use take 20, but then again, now that I think of it, out of 4 players only 1 of them knew about that rule and she wasn't even a rogue...

It's ok, because I mean, why waste half an hour just rolling a 20 when you have all the time in the gaming world?

 

I think the "Take 20" rule makes sense in situations where ability is not the main factor of the equation, meaning that you can retry as much as you want until you succeed.

As far as opening a lock, in my opinion, a PC should only have one chance of trying to pick the lock per level, and if the pick fails, well it means that the lock was too complicated for the PC at the moment. Another try could be given upon gaining a level, now that the PC is better experienced, or upon using some magical means to increase his abilities, be it drinking a potion or using magical picking tools. This magical means could give new insights as to how to solve this "difficult" task that the PC could not have solved on his first try.

And as it was stated earlier in this tread, opening this door should not be a must to continue on the adventure, and that there should always exist alternatives just in case the task cannot be accomplished by the PC. It might just mean that they will have to face some monsters or cross a huge chasm instead of taking the shortest way directly to their goal.

Anyway, those were my two cents!!

 

One try per level? That's just stupid, nothing says you have to solve a puzzle (like how to pick that lock) on your first try, nor that you couldn't figure it out given time.

 

Volar, you might think the "one try per level" is stupid for your game, but it always worked out fine in my games and nobody ever complained about it. Instead, the player's one roll was very important and everyone was getting very anxious when the required roll was being made. And if it failed, players had to think of alternatives, which were always available, be it taking the longuer route or resorting to magic to improve the skill for a retry.

Would it have been more fun if I told my players "well, go ahead, roll your dice, and when you finally roll a XX, let me know, it would mean you have succeeded!"

Of course, it could have been presented in a much better way instead of what I just stated, but in the context of the original post of this tread, i.e. lock picking, our rule was always a lot of fun, no time was wasted, players had to think of alternatives, and nobody was ever killed because of it. What else could be better??! You don't like that rule, don't use it!! I merely suggested an alternative to the "take 20" rule.

 

I'm not arguing which rule is better than the other, but which one makes more sense. Remember, most thieves do that stuff for a living, I doubt they'd give up if they couldn't open a lock in the first six seconds (one round). More like see it as a challenge and try even harder to open it. If you want your players to have only one chance, it'd be better if you gave them a reason like "it's warded, and becomes impossible to open if you fail a lockpick attempt". Or you might rule that the lock rating is too high (21+skill rank), but a natural 20 on the first opening attempt will crack it. I know I would wonder if my character with maxed skill ranks in lockpicking couldn't try again if he rolled abysmally low while trying to open a barn door, at least without a reason for it.

Anyhow... Instead of judging the rule based on just bashing/picking, let's have another skill as an example: search. It's a one round action, and covers a 5'x5' area. If a character takes twenty, and searches for *twenty* rounds such a small area, how could he not spot anything hidden on it, provided that the dc to spot is is not higher than 20+character's skill rank, i.e. impossible? That would be one blind adventurer.

 

To start with a DM can use or not use any rule at will. As long as the stick with it and don't flip-flop. With that said I except we are talking about the use of the rule not the rule itself. On that note I think the fear of some DM's is having players abose the take 20 rule. PC "with my 5 ranks in open locks I can open any lock with a DC of up to 25." Does this encourage the PC to improve his open locks skill? I don't like have impossible tasks in my game as a 20 on a skill will always succedd. It just makes thing more fun at way. But I'm not giving that 20 away. First try or no deal. I don't want PC to look at the dice roll as fixed part of their skill. by very defination that is the ramdom part. I know the issue has been raised out rolling enough dice and you'll get the 20 but that not the point. D&D should be more about creative thinking not try the same thing over and over until it works. That is boring. Let's keep the game interesting and limit or eliminate the whole 'take 20' roll.

Next weeks topic is 'taking 10' only half as bad?