| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Kolyana02-11-07, 01:48 PM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. At the end of the session while dirving home I observed that while I'm not super fmailiar with the rules, I did think that tkaing 20 in this situation may not be legit. Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. For clarity and the sanity of our new GM, can you tell me if a thief can take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find pit traps? Or really for any type of trap? Why not take 20 to find a trap on a chest? |
| Sildatorak02-11-07, 01:55 PM | Taking 20 on a search check is legit. It means you spend 2 minutes visually scouring a 5' square. You will be moving at a snail's pace, but it is within the rules. I recommend taking 10 as you walk. 5' per rounds isn't blindingly fast, but it isn't super slow either. It is a cautious creep forward, IMO. Save taking 20 for doorways, chests, and other things that are likely to be trapped. |
| StoneStokes02-11-07, 02:06 PM | This is one of the reasons that the Take 20 rule exists in the first place! Were it not for this rule, the rogue would just keep rolling until he rolled a 20 for each square. This would not only slow down the party of characters, but it would slow down the game in real life. Your DM should continue to allow the rogue to Take 20 on Search checks (not just to find traps, either). But you should also remind her that taking 20 requires 2 minutes per 5-ft. square to search, and that this should increase the probability that the party encounters a wandering monster. You should also remind her that traps that the PCs have no hope of finding are not a "challenge," nor are they much fun for the players. However, she could increase the Disable Device DC on these traps. You cannot Take 20 on Disable Device, without triggering the trap on yourself. Ideally, the Disable Device DC on a trap should be such that the rogue needs to roll somewhere between natural 11 (moderately challenging) and natural 20 (deadly). A fun challenge for players is the following situation: The PCs are trying to escape some terrible monster (something too tough for them to fight). It is just on the other side of the bronze doors that the fighter, cleric, and wizard are trying to hold shut (making Strength checks each round, using the Aid Another option). Meanwhile, the rogue is looking at that door on the other side of the room, trying to decide if it's trapped. If the DM sets the Search DC low, and sets the Disable Device DC such that the rogue must roll natural 11 or better, then the rogue might need to roll a couple of rounds before disarming the trap. For more info, see the PHB chapter on Skills (toward the beginning of the chapter). Cheers, StoneStokes |
| StoneStokes02-11-07, 02:09 PM | Save taking 20 for doorways, chests, and other things that are likely to be trapped. ...assuming, of course, that the DM puts traps in logical places. Some adventure designers (both professional and amateur) place traps in the most bizarre places that it is clear the only purpose is to play "Gotcha!" |
| FrostHammer02-11-07, 02:09 PM | The best way to deal with characters being too strong/prepared if they have all the time in the world, IS TO SET A TIME LIMIT! Do it via some IC way, of course. Maybe the end-of-the-world spell they're trying to stop will be cast within the next hour, and they need to get to the ritual room QUICKLY, so taking 20 would not be an option. |
| weasel002-11-07, 03:36 PM | or say a room has 3 things in it. 1- 22 trap 2- 25 trap 3- 27 secret door Player declares the take 20. Player auto-finds trap 1. Player assumes the room is now clean. Trap 2 mangles the party. And they miss the secret door, unless they declare they are searching more. |
| Neutronium_Dragon02-11-07, 05:03 PM | There was an article a while back about traps. Among other things, it pointed out that traps should really be something that the PCs are intended to find, and disabling or bypassing it should be the real challenge. Only when they're being willfully incautious should blundering into a trap be a significant possibility. |
| Cifer02-11-07, 05:05 PM | Taking 20 when you've got the time to spare is completely legit. You aren't throwing masses of dice - oooh, now that's terrible. |
| Kolyana02-11-07, 05:12 PM | Awesome feedback everyone ... thank you so much! It clarifies the situation for me, but also I think will give our GM a little inspiration on better ways of dealign with it; I particularly liked the higher DC disarm. Out of curiosity, how would you all deal with pit traps? The Take 20 finds the trap, and then the players describe in detail how they will navigate past it (using ropes, jumps and such). Our method of circumnavigating the pits pretty much meant that we'd take subdual damage only, and even then only if we failed some rope use and jump skills, but otherwise it was sound strategy. Should the DM require a disarm roll with perhaps a circumstance adjustment due to a good plan, or let us set the traps off and simply navigate around them? I guess that largely depends on the circumstances, so I apologize for the unfair question, but I'm curious how much you allow players to verbally talk their way around a trap with a DC to disarm? |
| Neutronium_Dragon02-11-07, 05:14 PM | That really depends on the trap. A fair number of them can be bypassed in ways that don't actually disable them, just circumvent them, and that's fine. You still need some kind of tools or resources (or appropriate skills) to do this, so it's not entirely a freebie. (If nothing else, you had to spend the skill points on Jump or Climb or whatnot rather than on something else you might have wanted.) |
| Neutronium_Dragon02-11-07, 05:18 PM | Ah, found it. The third section of this article is titled, "Reactive Traps" and talks about the issue: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060210a |
| Boraxe02-12-07, 10:10 AM | Search? Yes. Disarm? No. |
| Matthew7702-12-07, 10:48 AM | or say a room has 3 things in it. 1- 22 trap 2- 25 trap 3- 27 secret door Player declares the take 20. Player auto-finds trap 1. Player assumes the room is now clean. Trap 2 mangles the party. And they miss the secret door, unless they declare they are searching more. How do you "search more" than taking a 20? If the above player had only a +2 to search, there is no possible way they can find the secret door. If the above player had a +7 to search, they would find all three hidden features when they took 20 the first time. |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 10:54 AM | Boraxe is correct above. You can take 20 to search for traps. You cannot take 20 to disarm a trap. |
| curan6902-12-07, 11:11 AM | All I can say is "WOW" Even though we always take 20 to search a room, we've never considered taking 20 to look for traps. I guess we always thought that quote about not taking 20 if there is a consequence for failure applied. I suppose you could really stretch it and say that the springing of a trap has a consequence, not the failure to find it. |
| Norad302-12-07, 11:21 AM | Our group just never considered it a viable option. I know i would not wait around for hours upon hours waiting for someone to clear a room or hallway. And don't forget about checking the walls and cieling, they could contain traps as well. It just seemed to take a ridiculous amount of time. |
| PhaedrusXY02-12-07, 11:26 AM | How do you "search more" than taking a 20? If the above player had only a +2 to search, there is no possible way they can find the secret door. If the above player had a +7 to search, they would find all three hidden features when they took 20 the first time.No, he wouldn't. You only search one 5 foot square at a time. If he said "I search the entire room, taking 20 for each square", he'd find them all. The DM should certainly specify how much has been searched, and not searched, in any case. After the first trap, he should say something like "After carefully searching half of the room, you find a trap." Then it would be up to the player to tell the DM what he wants to do next. If he/she disarmed the trap, and then forgot to search the rest of the room, then they'd set off the second trap. |
| itwasntme02-12-07, 11:40 AM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. At the end of the session while dirving home I observed that while I'm not super fmailiar with the rules, I did think that tkaing 20 in this situation may not be legit. Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. For clarity and the sanity of our new GM, can you tell me if a thief can take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find pit traps? Or really for any type of trap? Why not take 20 to find a trap on a chest? if the Rouge is not challenge or distracted in any way the rouge can take 20 tell the DM that if she wants the traps spring that she should start distracting the Rouge in some way Like have some trap Misfunktion and dsitract the rouge in some way Maybe the trap was rigged and set to go off once being tamperd with? thouse are all Legit ways of solveing the problem distract the rouge in some way or rig the traps maybe there old or maybe someone is rigging some of the traps Allso taking 20 at some levels for the rouge isnt going to spot the traps he should be Serching for the traps and then Disable Trap ... cannot allways have a "Take" 20 in fact the DM Rolls on Disable Traps unknown to the player and on Seach checks as well So The DM Could a) Rig the traps b) Distract the rouge c) Do the normol rule thing and start rolling for the rouge behind the DM Screen (Its The Rules that the Player dos not know the Result on his Search/Spot/Disable Checks) Sometimes the player should roll (Like spoting an invis nme) But only once and cant reroll Other times the player dosnt fully know and the DM should state if he felt it was a good or a poor atempt if she wants to |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 11:45 AM | No, he wouldn't. You only search one 5 foot square at a time. If he said "I search the entire room, taking 20 for each square", he'd find them all If a rogue has only a +7 modifier on his search skill, and he takes 20, that is a result of only 27. Magical traps based on 3th level or higher spells (fireball), which have a DC of 28+ are not going to be detected, regardless of how long the rogue searches. To make things easy, I let the rogue say "I take 20 searching the room" I assume this search is looking for everything interesting, including secret doors, treasure, traps, and anything else that can be discovered with a search check. If the rogue has a high enough search skill, he finds everything. If his search is not high enough, his blundering about might set off a trap. Regardless of what happens, I report the results of his findings. |
| itwasntme02-12-07, 11:51 AM | Awesome feedback everyone ... thank you so much! It clarifies the situation for me, but also I think will give our GM a little inspiration on better ways of dealign with it; I particularly liked the higher DC disarm. Out of curiosity, how would you all deal with pit traps? The Take 20 finds the trap, and then the players describe in detail how they will navigate past it (using ropes, jumps and such). Our method of circumnavigating the pits pretty much meant that we'd take subdual damage only, and even then only if we failed some rope use and jump skills, but otherwise it was sound strategy. Should the DM require a disarm roll with perhaps a circumstance adjustment due to a good plan, or let us set the traps off and simply navigate around them? I guess that largely depends on the circumstances, so I apologize for the unfair question, but I'm curious how much you allow players to verbally talk their way around a trap with a DC to disarm? one problem to relize tho is you could find pittraps with a 10ft pole you should combine the traps with creaturs for example if players are useing 10ft poles to find pittraps the DM can not add in creatures to add to the danger Example In a room there are pittraps in it along with other traps on the other side of the room is creatures and some start fireing There bows at the characters and the others start casting spells Roll ini now if the players Charge across the room after the monsters they spring the traps if the characters stay on there side of the room and start fireing back then have the monsters hide behind Cover or have a lever behind the monsters that spring a trap by the starting area so the monsters pull the lever Spring the trap thats above the characters like i pull lever a big boulder now starts chargeing your way from behind you you have no choice but to charge forword where your protected becouse it gets skinnyer but by chargeing forword you spring the Traps in frount of you now the characters are faced with a challenge and in my games i like to be challenge evey so offtin not allways but theres gotta be a challenge knowing that i have to fight creatures stronger then me or beat situations that could very well kill me off if i dount try very hard to beat is rewarding to me I useoly do this and at times it can kill off some party members So have creatures useing the Traps to there advantage sometimes it adds to the diffculty sometimes not like if characters are immune to fire damage and the trap is a firetrap it dosnt increase the challenge what so ever thats just an example tho |
| Matthew7702-12-07, 12:09 PM | No, he wouldn't. You only search one 5 foot square at a time. If he said "I search the entire room, taking 20 for each square", he'd find them all. The DM should certainly specify how much has been searched, and not searched, in any case. After the first trap, he should say something like "After carefully searching half of the room, you find a trap." Then it would be up to the player to tell the DM what he wants to do next. If he/she disarmed the trap, and then forgot to search the rest of the room, then they'd set off the second trap. Good points. I was just assuming "I take 20 to search the room" meant he was searching each square in turn. But of course, once you find the first trap you stop to deal with it instead of just walking over it to search the rest of the room, unless its on a door and you want to finish the room before starting on doors :) |
| ciryx2k02-12-07, 12:17 PM | if the Rouge is not challenge or distracted in any way the rouge can take 20 tell the DM that if she wants the traps spring that she should start distracting the Rouge in some way Like have some trap Misfunktion and dsitract the rouge in some way Maybe the trap was rigged and set to go off once being tamperd with? thouse are all Legit ways of solveing the problem distract the rouge in some way or rig the traps maybe there old or maybe someone is rigging some of the traps This is the same thing as saying, "Okay, you have a +8 to search, so the Search DC is 29." Then next level saying, "Oh, your search check is now a +9, so the Search DC is 30." You have made the game DM vs. Players, not a RP game based on adventure. If the players are going up against a challenge that they SHOULD have at least a small chance to succeed, as a DM you should not just say, "You fail, because I want to win this time." Allso taking 20 at some levels for the rouge isnt going to spot the traps he should be Serching for the traps and then Disable Trap ... cannot allways have a "Take" 20 in fact the DM Rolls on Disable Traps unknown to the player and on Seach checks as well Taking 20 at some levels might not find the trap, but this is only if the trap is really something that the players shouldn't be messing with. If you're putting traps in that your players CAN NOT find EVER, you need to be sure that the trap isn't going to kill them out-right. What happens if the rogue clears the room and it ends up being the mage who trips the trap? You might kill the mage and he never had a chance at all. That's not very fair. As for not always having take 20 as an option, the only time this would be the case on a search check is if they do not have the time to do it. Searching a single door would take two minutes. That's fine if they have all the time in the world, but if they're being chased or something, it becomes a problem. Searching a 20' x 20' room would take over half of an hour, this might not always be feasible. Also, just a side note: Rouge = French for "Red" Rogue = English for "dishonest, knavish person" OR D&D for "sneaky, backstabbing little trap-finder" |
| jaspercrey02-12-07, 12:45 PM | Ick! Just tre-read the whole 'search' and 'checks without rolls' section and can only conclude that yes a rogue could indeed take 20 to find a trap. While this is useful in keeping the game moving in many situations, I can see something that makes my stomach turn a wee bit . . . The whole take 20 to search for traps makes the notion of placing any kind of trap that can be avoided a little absurd then, doesn't? Keeping in line with trap CRs versus character level, it almost impossible for a rogue not to locate a CR appropriate trap when he/she takes 20. Now assuming that said trap does not need to be disabled or bypassed, but can be easily avoided, we have just run an encounter that was a complete waste of time. There was no challenge, because the trap was automatically discovered, and there were no disable rolls needed, becuase the rogue simply walked around it. Where's the challenge in that? Where's the fun? |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 01:14 PM | If the players are going up against a challenge that they SHOULD have at least a small chance to succeed, as a DM you should not just say, "You fail, because I want to win this time. I don't think that's correct at all. Many traps have a set DC, especially things like magical traps, in which the search DC is always 25+spell level. It is also possible that a rogue might have a Search of +7, and the DC of the trap is 28... sure, they cannot normally find the trap, but if the wizard cast "fox's cunning" on the rogue, he suddenly has a +2 additional modifier to his INT and he can now find the traps. The problem you are describing above wouldn't happen if the DM played fair and was well prepared ahead of time. Any DM that wants to "win" is going to screw up the game regardless of whether you have a set DC or not. What you have described isn't a problem with the mechanics for searching for traps, but rather a sucky DM. |
| Cyanide30002-12-07, 01:29 PM | Taking 20 When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. I don't think I'd allow taking 20 for trap finding. Not finding a trap definately carries a penalty. Searching a body or searching a room for loot is different. Not finding loot doesn't result in being stabbed in the face, as may be the case with not finding a trap. I would allow taking 10, but not taking 20. |
| Chrono Nexus02-12-07, 01:37 PM | I'd say yes, but the act of taking twenty also entails taking 1s, so they would trigger the trap in the process. |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 01:46 PM | I don't think I'd allow taking 20 for trap finding. Not finding a trap definately carries a penalty. Searching a body or searching a room for loot is different. Not finding loot doesn't result in being stabbed in the face, as may be the case with not finding a trap. I would allow taking 10, but not taking 20. This is the old argument that is bandied about every time. The penalty for not finding a trap is NOT FINDING IT. Failing to find a trap does not mean that you set off the trap. Looking for a trap does not trigger it. Trying to disarm a trap and failing triggers it. Picture this scenario: A party includes a rogue, a fighter, a cleric, and a wizard. The cleric and wizard have travelled together, the rogue is a recent addition. The party has fought thier way into a secluded crypt where they find a sarcophagus that is very likely trapped. The rogue searches for traps, taking his time, looking closely, and CLAIMS that he doesn't find any. The fighter is about to open the sarcophagus when the cleric yells "Wait!" The cleric doesn't trust the rogue yet, so the cleric casts "find traps" and then he searches the chest for traps. He takes his time looking very closely, and then declares that there are no traps. The fighter is about to open the sarcophagus when the wizard yells "Wait!". The wizard decides to cast detect magic on the sarcophagus, in case there is a magical trap that is beyond the means of the cleric and rogue to detect. If the wizard detects a magic aura, he may even cast analyze dwoemer to find out if there really is a trap or not... or perhaps what kind of trap so the party can take proper precautions... if it is a fire trap, he'll cast "resist energy" on the fighter before the fighter tries to open the sarcophagus. Searching for traps doesn't trigger the trap, but at some later point, you might take an action based on the result of the search check that might put you in danger. Say the party comes to a room that has an evil-looking archway exiting on the other side. The archway is trapped so that anyone passing through gets hit by a power word kill. The rogue searches for traps, but doesn't find any. Rather than exit the room, the party might decide they don't like the looks of the archway and they might turn around and go back they way they came. Even though they didn't find a trap, they didn't necessarily take any action that would trigger the trap. |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 01:53 PM | If you are still in doubt about whether you can search for traps, look at the rules under "Take 20", "Try Again", and "Inherent penalty". The Balance, Climb, Jump, and Swim skills all specify explicit penalties for failure. The Search skill specifies no explicit penalties. |
| BW022202-12-07, 02:13 PM | Folks, Taking a 20 on a search check is permitted. Search is a passive skill. It assumes that you are not entering the square you are searching, nor touching any items in that square. A failed search check does not set off a trap. It is the future action of moving into that square, opening the door, or touching the item which sets the trap off. Your search check does not cause your future action which may or may not actually happen. If you don't find a trap, it may or may not go off in some future action. No one will know until the player says "I move forward". He could choose not to move into that square, open the chest, etc. In any case, it is a separate action which triggers the trap going off. Not the failed search check. Disarm is different. A failure by 5 or more sets off the trap. Failure immediately sets of the trap as part of the same action. olshanski_home is 100% correct. Taking a 20 only simulates rolling the dice twenty times. You search, roll a 1. Don't see anything. You remain where are are and search again. You roll a 2. Still nothing. Repeat. 3, repeat 4, repeat 5, etc. until you either find the trap or finally roll a 20 and stop searching. Also, many folks have mistakenly mixed up the rules for taking 10 and taking a 20. itwasntme said: if the Rouge is not challenge or distracted in any way the rouge can take 20 This is incorrect. You can take a 10 when not threatened or distracted. You can take a 20 when you have enough time to repeat the check twenty times and there is no penalty for failure. The two are different -- although threatened often means you don't have time to repeat something twenty times. However, presumably if there was loud yelling, gusting winds, etc. you could still take a 20 searching a square, but not a 10. You are are distracted, but not pressed for time. On the flip side, if some orcs were breaking down a door behind you, you couldn't take a 20 -- not because you are threatened or distracted, but because you know it won't take 2 minutes for them to break the door down -- but you could take a 10 if the DM ruled that the noise wasn't distracting. |
| jaspercrey02-12-07, 02:21 PM | Folks, Taking a 20 on a search check is permitted. Search is a passive skill. It assumes that you are not entering the square you are searching, nor touching any items in that square. A failed search check does not set off a trap. And yet the Players Hanbook states the following: The Search skill lets a character discern some small detail or irregularity THROUGH ACTIVE EFFORT. It also gives the example of RANSACKING a small chest - I would rule that you need to use your hands to ransack. |
| Finarin Panjoro02-12-07, 03:57 PM | jaspercrey, But you can also conduct a search from 10 feet away, so using hands is not required. If you can search a square 10 feet away you're certainly not at risk of activating a trap in that square. SEARCH (INT) Check: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. A rogue can actually take 10/20 searching for traps while not even being the lead character because he can always search the square in front of the character ahead of him in line. |
| Boraxe02-12-07, 04:05 PM | I suppose you could really stretch it and say that the springing of a trap has a consequence, not the failure to find it. How is that a stretch? :confused: |
| Boraxe02-12-07, 04:11 PM | I don't think I'd allow taking 20 for trap finding. Not finding a trap definately carries a penalty. Searching a body or searching a room for loot is different. Not finding loot doesn't result in being stabbed in the face, as may be the case with not finding a trap. I would allow taking 10, but not taking 20. It isn't different at all. The only consequence for not finding a trap is not finding a trap. Failing to find a trap does not result in being stabbed in the face either. That is what you get for failing to disarm the trap. The failure of the search attempt does not set the trap off or force the party to proceed. Unlike trying to disarm a trap, simply failing to find it does not in and of itself have any negative consequence. Why is this distinction so difficult for some people to comprehend? |
| curan6902-12-07, 04:23 PM | How is that a stretch? :confused: I suppose its a stretch in the same way that you could argue that falling doesnt kill you.....Its the sudden stop at the end. Therefore Falling has no consequence. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 05:18 PM | Taking 20 for Search is fine by RAW. Taking 20 overall is a major cop-out and encourages a meta-game thinking that sits poorly with many DMs and players. After all, how on earth is it possible for a person to know that they rolled poorly on something like a search roll? If you've ever spent 120 minutes searching for your keys in your home (in other words - meeting the time requirement for the Take 20 rule), and not finding them, only to have your wife come along and find them sitting on the coffee table under an envelope, then you will know what I am talking about. :dragon: **** |
| Sildatorak02-12-07, 05:48 PM | Taking 20 overall is a major cop-out and encourages a meta-game thinking that sits poorly with many DMs and players.I don't care for the flip side of it, though. I'd rather not roll 40 d20's behind my screen because the player wants to make sure he gets at least one 20. It is a minor strike against verisimilitude, but a major advantage for playability. Keeping in line with trap CRs versus character level, it almost impossible for a rogue not to locate a CR appropriate trap when he/she takes 20. Now assuming that said trap does not need to be disabled or bypassed, but can be easily avoided, we have just run an encounter that was a complete waste of time.The solution I've found to this is to only use avoidable traps where the party is unlikely to be taking 20 like pit traps in the middle of a room. Usually there is some clue in the architecture that reminds the inhabitants of the lair that there is a trap there, but that is mainly because I want my trap placement to make sense in terms of how the living inhabitants deal with a deadly trap in their home. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 05:58 PM | I don't care for the flip side of it, though. I'd rather not roll 40 d20's behind my screen because the player wants to make sure he gets at least one 20. It is a minor strike against verisimilitude, but a major advantage for playability. Sounds like your player already has a problem with meta-gaming if he is asking you to roll 40 times for him. The typical answer I give someone that is asking for more rolls than reasonable - "Why?" Playability is someone that states they are "thoroughly searching an area while taking my time to do so" and then accepting what the DM tells them. Again, Taking 20 is part of RAW - but it is a part that totally encourages meta-game thinking like "because the player wants to make sure he gets at least one 20." Lame. :dragon: **** |
| nightwing02-12-07, 06:06 PM | Suppose that a 5' wide hallway has one trap in it, such that when someone steps into a particular 5' square, there is a chance of setting off the trap. I would certainly rule that in order to try to "take 20" to find the trap, one must step into the square. Being in the square carries the danger of setting off the trap. So I would have the character roll until he finds the trap, and count the number of rolls. Then I would roll that many times to see if he set off the trap. If it takes fewer rolls for the character to find the trap than it did to set it off, he finds it and can attempt to disarm it. If he sets off the trap before he finds it, well... I think this directly follows from the logic in the SRD and PHB, that taking 20 safely can only be done if there is no rush and no danger in failing multiple times. Being in a square containing a trap is DEFINITELY a hazard and definitely carries a penalty for failure. I would probably decide that to search the square without stepping into it would be the equivalent to taking 10. Or, in other words, you could take 20 that way, but you would have a -10 penalty to your usual check because you can't exactly get up close that way. So, assuming there are no time constraints or other pressures, the best strategy would be to take 10 without stepping into the square, and if that didn't find any trap, step into the square and take 20, and hope for the best. Such is the nature of traps. They're meant to be dangerous and hard to find. If it weren't it wouldn't be a very good trap, would it? |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 06:18 PM | Except that you do not have to be in the trap location to search for it. Otherwise you would not be able to search at all! What kind of rule is it? "You cannot search for the pit trap unless you are standing on the pit trap, at which point you've triggered the trap" That is nonsense, and really isn't supported in any way by the rules. Of course, if you are a DM and you wish to play that you cannot search for a trap without triggering it, more power to you. I think most people would consider that before stepping on a location of a possible trap, you'd search as much as you possibly could to be sure it was safe... you'd take 20 from perhaps 5 or 10 feet away from the trap. Then, once you've determined that a square was safe, you could step on it and begin searching the next sqare forward. Such is the nature of traps. They're meant to be dangerous and hard to find. If it weren't it wouldn't be a very good trap, would it? How dangerous should a trap be? Would you expect that a party with an optimized rogue should have a 40% chance of bypassing a trap with a CR equivalent to party level? and a party with a sub-optimum rogue should have about a 5% chance of bypassing a trap, and a party with no rogue or a rogue with no search or disable skills should have a 0% chance of bypassing the trap? Does that sound fair? If so, consider the following. A 5th level optimized rogue (in a party of 4) vs a CR5 magical trap. The rogue has a search of +11 and a disable of +14 (including masterwork tools and skill focus (disable)). A CR5 magical trap has a search/disable DC of 29. The optimized rogue has a 100% chance to find the trap if you allow take20, and about a 30% chance to disable the trap. If you don't allow take 20, the optimized rogue has a 10% chance to find the trap, therefore only a 3% chance to both find and disable the trap. If you get rid of "take 20" on searches, the chance of a rogue finding and disabling a trap that is CR-appropriate to the party is so low as to make it not worth attempting. You'd be better off simply with a high HP barbarian simply blundering into the trap rather than having a lowHP rogue risk himself on an effort that is more than 95% likely to fail. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 06:32 PM | If you get rid of "take 20" on searches, the chance of a rogue finding and disabling a trap that is CR-appropriate to the party is so low as to make it not worth attempting. Not true, since most "optimized" trap-finding rogues will likely have a higher Search and Disable Trap total than you present. Much higher. Also, why would anyone pay for a trap that can be easily detected by a Take 20 circumstance? It doesn't make any logical sense to have a bunch of traps that are so easily found all the time. :dragon: **** |
| Mock2602-12-07, 07:04 PM | Tell your DM that one way to counter Take 20 is wandering monsters and patrols of guards. I'm not saying that she should punish the group, but taking twenty along 200 feet of corridor will take 80 minutes! Now, imagine doing this in a dungeon with thousands of feet of corridors! Some is bound to find the dead bodies and send out search parties and put more guards in the corridors. SEARCH (INT) Check: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. Well, sure, you can find the trap from 10' away. But how easily could you disarm it from 10' away? Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. |
| Matthew7702-12-07, 07:20 PM | Some general responses to previous comments: Should a Rogue be able to let the party easily bypass many traps? Of course he should, that's one of the big advantages of having someone with trapfinding ability. Do those of you that get upset about trapfinders making your trap encounters "too easy" also automatically double the HP of all your monsters when a greatsword wielding Barbarian joins the party? Because that's the same rationale as increasing the DC of traps or disallowing taking 20 on search just because a good trapfinder is in the party. As for taking 20 being meta-gaming: There are lots of reasons to continue searching until you find something. "The old wizard said the door was warded by a magical trap. Lets keep looking until we find it." "This dead-end corridor looks like it should have another room behind it, based on the outside dimensions of the building. Lets seach for secret doors until we find one or have exhausted our ability to search." "This dungeon has been abandoned for years, we've got no time pressure, and the last two corridors have had pit traps. Everybody take your time and be really careful, I'd rather spend half a hour getting to that door than fall on poisoned spikes again." When you lose your keys, do you look for 6 seconds and then stop, or do you keep searching until you get lucky and discover them? |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 07:32 PM | Tell your DM that one way to counter Take 20 is wandering monsters and patrols of guards. I think the problem is when DMs start allowing rules that need to be "countered." A much more simple solution is to just dump the whole meta-gaming idea behind Take 20. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 07:43 PM | As for taking 20 being meta-gaming: There are lots of reasons to continue searching until you find something. That doesn't remove the meta-game thought process you are applying here. Why is it more than 1 roll? How do your characters KNOW they are throwing a d20? "The old wizard said the door was warded by a magical trap. Lets keep looking until we find it." So, your characters sit there looking until they starve? Because how would they know to stop when they roll a 20? "This dead-end corridor looks like it should have another room behind it, based on the outside dimensions of the building. Lets seach for secret doors until we find one or have exhausted our ability to search." Again, how do your characters know to "keep rolling?" "This dungeon has been abandoned for years, we've got no time pressure, and the last two corridors have had pit traps. Everybody take your time and be really careful, I'd rather spend half a hour getting to that door than fall on poisoned spikes again." So, again - why not 1 roll? When you lose your keys, do you look for 6 seconds and then stop, or do you keep searching until you get lucky and discover them? Sometimes, I have given up on finding them - and after searching for hours. Only to have the wife come along and lift up an envelope to see them right there on the coffee table. Again, Take 20 does nothing more than create a meta-gaming mentality. :dragon: **** |
| BW022202-12-07, 07:44 PM | jaspercrey The Search skill lets a character discern some small detail or irregularity THROUGH ACTIVE EFFORT. Please don't use full caps when quoting things. Yelling is consider rude on the forums. Active effort means only that you have to say that you are using the skill as opposed to skills such as spot which are reactive and can operate even if you don't make them. It says nothing about needing to touch anything. The fact that the skill can be used at a 10' distance means that you can search without touching stuff. By passive, I only mean that one does not have to move anything. It also gives the example of RANSACKING a small chest - I would rule that you need to use your hands to ransack. Again, full caps is rude. Yes, you can use search for a variety of tasks. Ransacking is only one option. Obviously it requires a) coming within 10', b) opening the chest, and c) moving objects inside. No argument from me. However, ransacking and searching for traps are two separate actions. A person ransacking a chest will always set off a trap -- since they weren't checking for traps in the chest. Also, note that you don't need to be a rogue to ransack a chest, search for secret doors, etc. If they want to search for traps first (taking a 20 if they wish) and then ransack the chest (finding any hidden items in there), fine. However, the two aren't the same action and can not be combined. However, ransacking a chest wasn't what to poster said. He used the action of "rogue searching for traps". Rules says he can do this from 10' away and therefore does not need to enter the square. However, your argument that the trap goes off merely by failing to find it does not make sense. Say a firetrap is in a hallway. It does off by entering that square. I'm in the next square over and I search that square. Either you are saying that I must move into that square and feel around in order to search, or you are saying that I can search the square from where I'm standing, but if I don't find the trap, I must move into that square and set off the trap. The first case doesn't make sense because then the trap would always be triggered -- since moving into the square would set it off before I actually searched. Unless, you think I could find it and step back out? The second case makes even less sense, since I could easily say that I'm not moving into that square. Presumably, I could then search it again, and again, and again, etc. Each time not moving into that square. Use the door example if the above doesn't make it clear enough. Under your logic, searching a door for traps requires you do open the door, but only if you fail to find the trap? Nothing says that if I don't find the trap, I need to open the door. Rules certainly allow taking a twenty searching for traps. |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 07:44 PM | Not true, since most "optimized" trap-finding rogues will likely have a higher Search and Disable Trap total than you present. Much higher. OK, you've said I was wrong. What is a reasonable Search/Disable skills for a 5th level rogue, standard build. (15,14,13,12,10,8) which is what the system was balanced upon. Use core rules and core gear. Anything in the DMG is open. Lets say you use no more than 75% of your feats as geared entirely toward searching/disabling. (IE: 2 of 3 if human, or 1 of 2 if non-human). Feel free to make a grey-elf, which should give you the most bang-for-your buck, getting a bonus to INT and a +2 racial bonus on searches. Then compute the chance of that rogue both finding and disabling a CR5 magical trap, which has a DC29 search and DC29 disable. Rather than just say "You are wrong", I'd like to see you proove it. |
| Sildatorak02-12-07, 07:47 PM | Sounds like your player already has a problem with meta-gaming if he is asking you to roll 40 times for him. Spending 4 minutes to try to make sure you uncover a potentially deadly trap? I'd hardly call that metagaming. Playability is someone that states they are "thoroughly searching an area while taking my time to do so" and then accepting what the DM tells them.And why should that player get less than his best on this? As the time spent increases, the probability of failure decreases dramatically. If the character is convinced enough about a trap to spend 2 minutes or more going over a relatively small area, he should be willing to take plenty of time, and the DM should reward him with as many rolls as he spends rounds at the very least. I will concede that taking 20 is a break with reality. There is no way to be completely certain you have actually done your absolute best on finding everything there is to find. However, as you spend more time, you are more likely to find something. To use your own example, you spend 2 hours scouring your home for keys. Still convinced that your keys are somewhere, you look some more. It may take longer than the 120 minutes that taking 20 requires by RAW, but you will find them eventually. This of course, assumes there is actually something to find. Again, Taking 20 is part of RAW - but it is a part that totally encourages meta-game thinking like "because the player wants to make sure he gets at least one 20."Okay, change it to "because he wants to make sure he does his best." I consider it to be far from metagaming when a PC takes several minutes of in game time to make reasonably sure that a door, chest, or such the like is safe to procede through. The character's life may depend on it. |
| Matthew7702-12-07, 07:49 PM | So, your characters sit there looking until they starve? Because how would they know to stop when they roll a 20? No, they search until the expert trapfinder who has extensive training says "well guys, that's the best I can do. I've been over every inch twice, used my probes, listened and tapped. Either there's no trap, or it's hidden so well I would never be able to find it." |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:00 PM | Rather than just say "You are wrong", I'd like to see you proove it. Your example was a 5th level rogue if I remember correctly. You gave him an 11 Search total. 5th level max'd ranks is 8. With a 16 intelligence that gives an 11 total. An "optimized trap-finding" rogue could easily spend a feat to gain skill focus and add +3 to the total of search. Add into that, a dwarf would be a better trap-finder in a typical dungeon environment with his racial bonuses for stonework type traps. Other options are obviously available. :dragon: **** |
| Sildatorak02-12-07, 08:03 PM | That doesn't remove the meta-game thought process you are applying here. Why is it more than 1 roll?Because a single roll that represents how well you do for perpetuity is an even greater break with reality than taking 20. How do your characters KNOW they are throwing a d20?They don't need to. As long as they know that a few minutes of searching a small area is likely to turn up all that they can, it doesn't matter what sized die they're rolling. So, your characters sit there looking until they starve? Because how would they know to stop when they roll a 20?Eventually they'll either decide the wizard was lying or that the trap is past their skill to find. Whether they know this absolutely because you let them take 20 or whether they know this with less than 100% certainty because they just spent ten minutes trying to spot it makes little difference. Sometimes, I have given up on finding them - and after searching for hours. Only to have the wife come along and lift up an envelope to see them right there on the coffee table.And that just shows that taking 20 doesn't actually happen IRL, and sometimes you just don't hit the high enough DC. It doesn't mean that you should be allowed to keep trying. Unless you can honestly say that you never would have moved that envelope if you spent more time searching, I don't think this example does anything to justify barring repeated rolling. I'm much happier as a player and as a DM with the ability to take 20 rather than to have to state how long I'm willing to search, followed by the DM rolling die after die until either he says "OK you found it after 15 rounds," or "After 3 minutes of searching you still haven't found anything." I'll gladly trade away verisimilitude when the thing that would be emulated is monotony. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:09 PM | Spending 4 minutes to try to make sure you uncover a potentially deadly trap? I'd hardly call that metagaming. Asking to roll 40 times is definitely metagaming. If a player declares that his character is searching for 4 minutes and the DM decides instead of rolling 40 times that he will roll once with a bonus for the extra care taken, problem solved. No Take 20 rule was needed. And why should that player get less than his best on this? He is not. There is always a randomness to everything. The character's best is the amount of ranks, stat bonuses and any other bonus he can garner from circumstances, magic, etc. The universal randomness is that one thing the character may forget to think about. As the time spent increases, the probability of failure decreases dramatically. Not always true. If the character is convinced enough about a trap to spend 2 minutes or more going over a relatively small area, he should be willing to take plenty of time, and the DM should reward him with as many rolls as he spends rounds at the very least. It is far easier to "reward" the character with a nice circumstancial bonus and roll one time. I will concede that taking 20 is a break with reality. There is no way to be completely certain you have actually done your absolute best on finding everything there is to find. However, as you spend more time, you are more likely to find something. To use your own example, you spend 2 hours scouring your home for keys. Still convinced that your keys are somewhere, you look some more. It may take longer than the 120 minutes that taking 20 requires by RAW, but you will find them eventually. This of course, assumes there is actually something to find. And nowhere during my search do I wonder why I am not rolling better. Okay, change it to "because he wants to make sure he does his best." I consider it to be far from metagaming when a PC takes several minutes of in game time to make reasonably sure that a door, chest, or such the like is safe to procede through. The character's life may depend on it. Just because someone wants to do their best - doesn't necessarily mean that they will get the universal randomness to agree with their will. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:15 PM | No, they search until the expert trapfinder who has extensive training says "well guys, that's the best I can do. I've been over every inch twice, used my probes, listened and tapped. Either there's no trap, or it's hidden so well I would never be able to find it." So, your expert trapfinder spends all his ranks and skill points and feats to gain bonuses. On top of that he buys equipment to get more bonuses. On top of that he spends an extra amount of time to examine the area in question. All of that is fine and dandy, but there is no guarantee that he just missed something - it happens to the best. All his ranks and bonuses are his best hedge against missing something. But it still does. It happens to everyone. That is what the d20 is there for - to allow that universal fog to creep into the D&D game. Allowing players to remove that fog is an error on WotC's part, IMHO. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:21 PM | Because a single roll that represents how well you do for perpetuity is an even greater break with reality than taking 20. Eh? How so? Where is your definitive proof to correlate and justify such a statement? And who said we were shooting for reality? :dragon: **** |
| Kolyana02-12-07, 08:25 PM | So, your expert trapfinder spends all his ranks and skill points and feats to gain bonuses. On top of that he buys equipment to get more bonuses. On top of that he spends an extra amount of time to examine the area in question. All of that is fine and dandy, but there is no guarantee that he just missed something - it happens to the best. All his ranks and bonuses are his best hedge against missing something. But it still does. It happens to everyone. That is what the d20 is there for - to allow that universal fog to creep into the D&D game. Allowing players to remove that fog is an error on WotC's part, IMHO. :dragon: **** Wow, this thread took on some life; great discussion all around though and ultimately the reason why I asked the question in the first place. I tend to be somewhat 'old school'; editions 1 & 2 with plenty of need for houserules and enough time in both sets to make me feel comfortable bending the rules when they seemed ... odd. In 3.5 I have less of a comfortable feeling - as do my players - so we feel more comfortable sticking within the rules. That being said, this whole "taking 20 to find traps" seems to create a situation where the GM either has to spice up a trap with additional creatures/time constraints or she has to assume that everything will be found. I tend to agree with PenderGrass, at least in spirit, that "Taking 20" is a step towards "Meta Gaming", although that tends to be somewhat 'harsh', it's certainly iffy imho when it comes to the spirit of the game. I don't want to nerf thieves in any respect nor reduce the game to a bucket of die rolls per square, but I do love PenderGrass's suggestion of a hidden DM roll (as per the spirit of the game, as it were) with a circumstance bonus for taking ones time. I don't think that there is a great solution here, but I prefer PenderGrass's side of things to the other scenario: 1. The player stumble into a trap and decide to move excruciatingly slow and take 20 everywhere. 2. The DM has to add random encounters, a reason to keep things moving and a restriction on time and dream up interesting reasons why taking 20 isn't a viable option for every 5' square. I'm not saying that taking 20 isn't within the rules, but it sure seems like it undermines a part of the spirit of the game, or something. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:35 PM | Kolyana, my group has dropped the whole Take 20 rule with absolutely no dire problems - especially the ones that opponents of this idea are touting about. The group is a healthy mix of old-schoolers and newbies, none of whom miss the rule. We still use the Take 10 rule, when applicable. We also use hidden rolls for things/circumstances where the player/character wouldn't likely know the outcome right off the bat (like a search roll). It is an alternative, and not RAW, but dropping the Take 20 rule has only enhanced my game from the perspective of role-playing and leaving an element of randomness to the world. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7702-12-07, 08:49 PM | PenderGrass, I'm not questioning your gaming style, I'm asking because I'm still working on finding the right balance between skill and randomness for my own games. We also use hidden rolls for things/circumstances where the player/character wouldn't likely know the outcome right off the bat (like a search roll). How do you handle the situation when a PC legitimately knows that finding a trap or secret door is of the utmost importance and wants to spend extra time to do the best they can? Do you make several secret rolls and take the best? Add a circumstance modifier to the roll? Just tell them they get one shot and thats it? Or does it not come up enough to be worth bothering about? |
| olshanski_home02-12-07, 08:55 PM | Here's the re-analysis of a 5th level rogue vs a CR5 magical trap (search/disable DC 29) Lets take a grey elf, max ranks, 16 INT, 16 DEX, masterwork rogue's tools. The rogue has 8 ranks Search, +2 racial (elf), +3 Int. Total search DC +13. The rogue has 8 ranks disable device, +3 Int, +2 masterwork tools, +3 skill focus (disable device) Total +16. If you allow "take 20", the rogue has a 100% chance to find the trap if he has the opportunity to take 20. The rogue also has a 53% chance to disable the trap. If you do not allow "take 20", the rogue has a 25% chance to find the trap, and only a 13% chance to both find and disable the trap. I've done some additional calculations for a 5th level rogue vs various traps: Trap CR: w.Take 20: W/out take 20 CR3 66% 23% CR4 60% 18% CR5 53% 13% CR6 46% 9% CR7 40% 6% CR8 33% 3% Recall that this is a fairly optimized rogue (max ranks, max int, racial bonus to search, skill focus (disable). There is nothing wrong with Pender's style of play. I prefer to play by the rules whenever possible. It makes it easier to communicate with other players, and makes it easier to design adventures. If you play by the rules, there is still a great deal of chance involved in disabling a trap (where you cannot take 20). Also, this all assumes that your party has a rogue, and that the rogue has invested in Search. There is a famous scene at the introduction of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy knows a trap is present... that is not in doubt. (almost always the case in a treasure room, vault, etcetera, burial chamber, whatever) The first step is finding the trap, which any rogue worth his salt can do given enough time. The hard part is actually disabling the trap. Its not "metagaming" to know that the burial chamber probably has a trap, and that if you look long enough you'll probably find it. |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:57 PM | PenderGrass, I'm not questioning your gaming style, I'm asking because I'm still working on finding the right balance between skill and randomness for my own games. Please, if we can't discuss D&D here - where can we? How do you handle the situation when a PC legitimately knows that finding a trap or secret door is of the utmost importance and wants to spend extra time to do the best they can? Do you make several secret rolls and take the best? Add a circumstance modifier to the roll? Just tell them they get one shot and thats it? Or does it not come up enough to be worth bothering about? Definitely not the multiple rolls (unless there are multiple searching or assisting in the search). I typically add in circumstancial modifiers based on what they tell me they are wanting their character to do, and then roll once. My players, typically, accept that they have done their best under the given circumstance and move on. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-12-07, 08:58 PM | Recall that this is a fairly optimized rogue (max ranks, max int, racial bonus to search, skill focus (disable). LOL Dude, you are so mathematical. :dragon: **** |
| Sildatorak02-12-07, 10:31 PM | If a player declares that his character is searching for 4 minutes and the DM decides instead of rolling 40 times that he will roll once with a bonus for the extra care taken, problem solved.How hefty a bonus are we talking? +9 or +10 or so would seem to be fair for 2 minutes per square...on average it will hit about the same DC as taking 20 and compromises finding things you couldn't find otherwise with failing to find things you wouldn't normally find. As an added plus there is no way that it can possibly be worse than taking 10. Hmm...might add that one to the houserule file. He is not. There is always a randomness to everything.Though, given enough time or trials, randomness produces a predictable array of results. Not always true.Eh, dramatically may be overstating it a bit, but your probability for failure can't increase with additional time invested. It is far easier to "reward" the character with a nice circumstancial bonus and roll one time.Now that you're talking circumstance bonuses I'm more inclined to agree with your position. In your earlier posts it seemed to me like you were advocating a "one roll with your normal modifier and you're done" type approach. And nowhere during my search do I wonder why I am not rolling better.Then I am a much bigger nerd than you :D |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 12:25 AM | jaspercrey However, ransacking and searching for traps are two separate actions. A person ransacking a chest will always set off a trap -- since they weren't checking for traps in the chest. Also, note that you don't need to be a rogue to ransack a chest, search for secret doors, etc. They are? That's news to me. So you maintain that you must declare what "type" of search you are conducting before you roll or take 20? That's interesting, because the way I read it there is no distinction between the two, other than the DC. In other words, to use the search skill all a player has to do is declare that they are making a search in a specific area, up 5' square feet. Provided they meet or beat the DC , the said player finds whatever there is to find in that area - be it a item or value, a trap or a secret door, any combination thereof. It doesn't say that you have to declare what you are searching for anywhere in the skill description. If it did say that a search for traps check was somehow different than a search for secret doors check than that would only make me side with the position that you couldn't use the take-20 option for finding traps. However, your argument that the trap goes off merely by failing to find it does not make sense. Say a firetrap is in a hallway. It does off by entering that square. I'm in the next square over and I search that square. Either you are saying that I must move into that square and feel around in order to search, or you are saying that I can search the square from where I'm standing, but if I don't find the trap, I must move into that square and set off the trap. The first case doesn't make sense because then the trap would always be triggered -- since moving into the square would set it off before I actually searched. Unless, you think I could find it and step back out? The second case makes even less sense, since I could easily say that I'm not moving into that square. Presumably, I could then search it again, and again, and again, etc. Each time not moving into that square. I don't think I ever said that failing to find a trap triggers it. Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else? In fact I agree with you that - yes, the rules allow for a player to take 20 when searching for a trap. But the problem I have is that that very allowence makes a great deal of traps (those that do not need to be disarmed or bypassed but can simply be avoided) virtually pointless. As I said earlier, a rogue who takes 20 to find a trap of a comparable CR to his/her level will almost always find it automatically. And if that said trap is one that can be avoided - ei. okay DM, I walk around it - than what was the point of putting the trap into play in the first place? Any challenge that can automatically be overcome by a player without a single roll or decision is not a really a challenge at all, is it? It's not even an encounter. |
| weasel002-13-07, 01:22 AM | I understand all sides(player, DM, design) and still feel it's a cheap cop-out. "i have no reason to suspect this (insert every room) to have a trap or secret doors.... but i wanna take 20." and then there are the two who wanna actually role-play their easily bored dwarven brothers through the 2 and 1 half hours it was gonna take the 2 rogues to search. :banghead: |
| olshanski_home02-13-07, 07:12 AM | But the problem I have is that that very allowence makes a great deal of traps (those that do not need to be disarmed or bypassed but can simply be avoided) virtually pointless. This sounds like a problem with trap placement/design rather than a rules problem. If you have traps that could be avoided once discovered, then you probably should not have had a trap there in the first place. Good place for traps: On the treasure chest On the sarcophagus Inside the spellbook On the one and only door leading to treasure room. The entrance to the kobold warrens (that can be bypassed on command). Bad place for traps: Hallway that can by bypassed. Floor location that can be skirted. Non-plot specific statue. If you are placing traps in a spot that can be avoided, you'd probably be better off not placing a trap in that place at all. |
| Sildatorak02-13-07, 07:32 AM | As I said earlier, a rogue who takes 20 to find a trap of a comparable CR to his/her level will almost always find it automatically. And if that said trap is one that can be avoided - ei. okay DM, I walk around it - than what was the point of putting the trap into play in the first place? Perhaps to assist in combat with living inhabitants? A 20' wide hallway with a 10' x 10' pit trap in the middle makes a great setting for a battle when enemy archers open fire from the end of it. The first guy charges and most likely falls in, and no one else can charge since they have to skirt the pit. Hmm...I might have to stat up a kobold lair for my high level PC's and just be pure evil. |
| Matthew7702-13-07, 08:35 AM | I'm fine with it if you simply don't like the mechanics of taking 20 and want to houserule it away, but I still don't understand the "metagaming" argument. "i have no reason to suspect this (insert every room) to have a trap or secret doors.... but i wanna take 20." I'm in a world filled with magic and I know that Wizards and Clerics can create painful, and potentially deadly traps. I'm in a location where I think a trap might be likely, such as a ancient dungeon that has somehow remained unlooted for hundreds of years, or a kobold's warren, or a mage's tower. Two rooms back, impatient Joe got 3rd degree burns all over his face when he opened the door before the trapfinder gave the okay. You better believe I'm spending half an hour searching every single room after that. Unless you are playing a character with some sort of ADHD personality or with no patience at all, then it would be "metagaming" to not spend some extra time to save yourself from painful and possibly deadly traps. |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 08:36 AM | Perhaps to assist in combat with living inhabitants? A 20' wide hallway with a 10' x 10' pit trap in the middle makes a great setting for a battle when enemy archers open fire from the end of it. The first guy charges and most likely falls in, and no one else can charge since they have to skirt the pit. Hmm...I might have to stat up a kobold lair for my high level PC's and just be pure evil. That's a great point - except that I'm guessing it would be the fighter that does the charging in and not the rogue . . . |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 08:57 AM | And another thing that sits kinda funny with me is this: From the SRD: Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Okay, I can buy this when it comes to trying to pick a lock - because in that case it is evident whether or not you fail or suceed - either you pick the lock or you don't. That fact that the lock is still 'locked' lets you know that you failed. With search it's a little murky. How do you know if you didn't find a trap because you 'failed' your search check or because there is no trap to find in the first place? Or put another way, if your do find something with a search check, you know you are successful. But if you don't, there is no way of knowing (at that very moment at least) whether or not it is because you 'failed' your search check or because there is nothing there to find. There is no way to gauge whether or not you got it right or wrong. |
| olshanski_home02-13-07, 09:54 AM | How do you know if you didn't find a trap because you 'failed' your search check or because there is no trap to find in the first place? Or put another way, if your do find something with a search check, you know you are successful. But if you don't, there is no way of knowing (at that very moment at least) whether or not it is because you 'failed' your search check or because there is nothing there to find. There is no way to gauge whether or not you got it right or wrong. Picture a trap as being like a word-search. At first glance, you might find a hidden word, you might not. If you look at the puzzle for a while, you might find more and more words. Eventually, though, you will have exhausted your ability to search any more and you will be convinced that there is absolutely nothing left to find. That's the same type of mentality going on with searches: 1) is there a pressure plate? Do the seams and morter look correct? 2) does something look out-of-place? is the stonework the same cut and pattern? 3) do I smell traces of old poison or acid? 4) do I smell traces of previous victims? 5) If I were placing a trap, would it go here? 6 )is there residue of leftover material components? 7) are there fine bits of arcane writing? 8) is there drops of dried blood from a previous victim? if so, is it consistent with what a trap would do? Eventually a rogue decides that he has exhausted his knowledge on the subject, and he has found any trap he possibly could. As a rogue gets more experience, he can think of more things to look for, and he gets faster at looking for things he is familiar with. |
| nightwing02-13-07, 10:03 AM | When a character takes 20, as someone else already explained, he is just saying to himself "I'll keep doing it until I'm convinced that I've done as well as I can possibly do right now." Certainly, if his best is good enough, he'll succeed. If it simply is not possible, that is, it's just plain beyond the character's ability to do, he'll fail. The character, of course, won't know in that case whether he failed to find what was there or if there was nothing there in the first place. That's all fine and dandy. Everyone knows that they might search better under different circumstances, such as if they had higher "wisdom" (better eyesight and intuition), or if they had help (via "aid another") or if they had some magical x-ray vision glasses. Taking 20 is not a matter of searching until you "get it right," because clearly, if you fail, you don't know why. It's just trying long enough to convince yourself that you've done the best you can do. There's really no reason to believe that taking 20 is metagaming, IMHO. If a person has the time, and enough food and water...why wouldn't he take the time to convince himself that everything is safe and done properly? |
| Boraxe02-13-07, 10:06 AM | I suppose its a stretch in the same way that you could argue that falling doesnt kill you.....Its the sudden stop at the end. Therefore Falling has no consequence. There is no correlation between falling and not finding a trap. |
| Boraxe02-13-07, 10:14 AM | Suppose that a 5' wide hallway has one trap in it, such that when someone steps into a particular 5' square, there is a chance of setting off the trap. I would certainly rule that in order to try to "take 20" to find the trap, one must step into the square. Being in the square carries the danger of setting off the trap. So I would have the character roll until he finds the trap, and count the number of rolls. Then I would roll that many times to see if he set off the trap. If it takes fewer rolls for the character to find the trap than it did to set it off, he finds it and can attempt to disarm it. If he sets off the trap before he finds it, well... I think this directly follows from the logic in the SRD and PHB, that taking 20 safely can only be done if there is no rush and no danger in failing multiple times. Being in a square containing a trap is DEFINITELY a hazard and definitely carries a penalty for failure. Then your interpretation is wrong. One does not have to be in a position to set off a trap in order to find it. The very idea is patently ludicrous. There is no consequence to not finding a trap other than not finding a trap. The trap is not set off and the party is not forced to interact with the trap. Simply failing in the skill check is not a negative consequence that precludes a take 20. By that spurious and flawed logic one could not take 20 ever on anything. Fail a climb roll you fall, that's a negative consequence. Fail a diasarm roll you set off a trap, that's a negative consequence. Fail a disguise check a guard runs you throuh, that's a negative consequence. Fail an appraise check and you don't know an items true value, that's not a negative consequence. Fail a search check and you don't find something, that's not a negative consequence. Fail a listen check and you don't hear something, that's not a negative consequence. A negative skill check result is not the same thing as a negative consequence. Get it, now? |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 10:22 AM | Taking 20 is not a matter of searching until you "get it right" yet that is exactly what the Player's handbook says . . . Anywho . . . I'd like to point out that I am not saying you can't take 20 to search for traps - to me this isn't even open to debate - the raw says you can . . . it even gives the example . . . I answered the OP by saying "yes you can" . . . I am simply saying that in some cases, that by taking 20 when searching for traps, it makes certian traps presented in the DMG. entirely moot - I'll say it again: When a player does not have to roll or make a decision ingame to best a challenge than in my eyes, it really isn't a challenge at all. The only comparison I can think of off the top of my head is something like this: If you present a player-character with a chasm that requires a 10 to jump across and the player has +15 to jump - you haven't really offered that player a challenge have you? |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 10:33 AM | And here's something to consider: Check: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. The table below gives DCs for typical tasks involving the Search skill. Generally . . . hmmmmm . . . Well, they give the example of ransacking a chest - which I can only assume involves touching the chest and physically sifting thrhrough it's contents or dumping it over at the very least . . . It would be hard to do that form 10' away wouldn't it? Who's to say that searching for traps is another exception to the 'generally' tag . . ? Contact Poison smeared on the underside and back of door handle might very difficult to search for from 10' away as well . . . |
| nightwing02-13-07, 11:43 AM | Searching for something that is intensionally well hidden (as traps always are) from 10' away is "patently ludicrous." If you could search without touching, you might get away with it, with a penalty, but usually searching requires poking and prodding, and being close enough to see details well. So it seems to follow (to me) that if you are close enough to poke, prod, and see fine details, then you are close enough to accidentally set it off before you know it's there. |
| Sildatorak02-13-07, 11:44 AM | When a player does not have to roll or make a decision ingame to best a challenge than in my eyes, it really isn't a challenge at all. And the traps in the DMG are not that type of challenge, generally speaking. Most of them will be placed without the option of an easy bypass. If they cannot be bypassed, they must be disarmed, and that is where the risk comes into play. It seems to me that traps are generally only a "Gotcha!" for the incautious. I personally think it is great when the PC's find a trap on a door and then have to make the decision about whether they want to risk disarming it to find out what is behind. That is a much better encounter, IMO, than "make a reflex save, you take 5d6 fire damage." |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 12:10 PM | And the traps in the DMG are not that type of challenge, generally speaking. Most of them will be placed without the option of an easy bypass. If they cannot be bypassed, they must be disarmed, and that is where the risk comes into play. It seems to me that traps are generally only a "Gotcha!" for the incautious. I personally think it is great when the PC's find a trap on a door and then have to make the decision about whether they want to risk disarming it to find out what is behind. That is a much better encounter, IMO, than "make a reflex save, you take 5d6 fire damage." Oh, I agree 100% What I think would be a complete waste of time would this: DM: "You enter a 20' square room, lit by ambient light." Rogue: "I take 20 and search the first 5' directly in front of me." DM: "2 minutes pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I take 20 and search the next 5'." DM: "2 minutes pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I take 20 on the next 5'." DM: "Hmmm. You discover a covered pit trap." Rogue: "Do I need to disable the device or bypass the pit to get by?" DM: "Ah . . . well . . . not according to the DMG." Rogue: "Okay. I guess I walk around it then." DM: "Well . . that was exciting." I have seen this exact trap used exactly like this in more than one published adventure. |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 12:15 PM | Looking at the whole situation another way - if all it takes is a take 20 to find a trap and saying that the real challenge comes with disarming, bypassing or otherwise avoiding the trap ----- ----- why go to all the trouble of hiding the trap in the first place? Why not make it blatently obvious? |
| BW022202-13-07, 12:28 PM | jaspercrey, >However, ransacking and searching for traps are two >separate actions. A person ransacking a chest will always >set off a trap -- since they weren't checking for traps in the >chest. Also, note that you don't need to be a rogue to >ransack a chest, search for secret doors, etc. They are? That's news to me. They are specifically listed in the PHB (p81) as separate tasks. Just as separate tasks on the ride skill are listed as separate tasks. I certainly allow most to be combined into one check, but others do appear separate. So you maintain that you must declare what "type" of search you are conducting before you roll or take 20? That's interesting, because the way I read it there is no distinction between the two, other than the DC. I think certain ones would have to. First, ransacking is certainly active. It would imply opening things, moving things, taking things out of containers and looking at them. If you have a cabinet with six drawers, I don't think you can assume that a search of the 5' area containing the cabinet would imply opening the draws -- which would be necessary to search. I'm not going to rule that my players set off a trap by opening stuff without actually hearing it from them. Second, I'm not buying that one could search six drawers in six seconds. Each honestly needs a separate action to open and search. Third, players could certainly declare that they are looking for specific things and a DM would have to honor that request in priority. For example, if you said "I'm searching for hidden compartments in the chest.", a DM would have to ignore a special silver coin in the pocket of some clothing in the chest. Forth, it would ignore taking special actions to search specific objects. If someone says "I search the pockets of the clothing in the chest." I'm going to rule that they find the coin - or greatly reduce the search DC. The search is obviously limited to the clothing. Fifth, in the case of searching larger areas for traps, we can assume that folks are searching adjacent squares prior to moving into those squares. If the area contains lots of boxes, barrels, etc. I can assume that they aren't looking inside those as part of looking for traps. Sixth, in the case of traps, searching likely stops until the players decide on their next action. For example, if you find a trap on a chest -- you certainly aren't ransacking it, examining its contents, the floor under the chest, etc. Seventh, it is highly possible that finding something will alter future searches. It is generally assumed you find the lowest DC items first and stop searching. For example, if you are taking a 20 searching an area which has both wet tracks (DC 15), a trap (DC 25), and secret door (DC 30), it is assumed that they find (and you tell them about the tracks first). If they continue searching they might find the other things. However, you need to give them the chance to stop, cast spells, set guards, etc. rather than take them through 10 more rounds of searching -- while the trogs hiding behind the secret door ambush them. Seventh, the search skill deferentiates between area or object. In other words, to use the search skill all a player has to do is declare that they are making a search in a specific area, up 5' square feet. Provided they meet or beat the DC , the said player finds whatever there is to find in that area - be it a item or value, a trap or a secret door, any combination thereof. I think that brings up all the issues above. As a DM, I take it this way. If the player says they are looking for searching a general area... I allow the roll and describe what they see. I don't assume they are opening anything, touching anything, etc. If the find a box -- they aren't touching it. I continue describing things they find until they take some other action. If there are objects (chests, drawers, etc.) in the area, I require separate search checks on each specific item and give them a change to say how they are searching things. I differentiate between looking for traps (not touching) and opening and searching through contents (ransacking). If the player says they are looking for something specific, I describe what they generally see, but assume that they aren't noticing details of anything else... unless it is obvious -- a snake in the chest of something. However, it really doesn't matter as long as you let your players know and are consistent. My players know that if they find a check, they need to specifically search it for traps, and then specifically say they are opening and searching inside it. It doesn't say that you have to declare what you are searching for anywhere in the skill description. Ransacks does say specific object. Players could also explictly say so. If it did say that a search for traps check was somehow different than a search for secret doors check than that would only make me side with the position that you couldn't use the take-20 option for finding traps. Why? Both would just be separate search checks. It would take 4 minutes instead of two. I do feel ransack and other forms of searching would need to be separate actions. One can't be used at a distance and IMO must require actively touching and moving items. But the problem I have is that that very allowence makes a great deal of traps (those that do not need to be disarmed or bypassed but can simply be avoided) virtually pointless. As I said earlier, a rogue who takes 20 to find a trap of a comparable CR to his/her level will almost always find it automatically. And if that said trap is one that can be avoided - ei. okay DM, I walk around it - than what was the point of putting the trap into play in the first place? I honestly don't have an issue with taking a 20 on searching. There are simple, non-nerf ways to counter act this. * Buff spells. Taking a 20 down a long hallway immediately negates all your typical buff spells. From bless, bull's strength, etc. all gone. * Sneaking. If you want to spend two minutes per 5' square down a 60' long hallway, a guard will spot you -- or hear the party. Surprise is mighty hard. * Escape, prep, buffing, planning, etc. Most 3.x dungeons are not that large -- 3.x combat takes a long time to run 50 room encounters. Once you have had your first combat, changes are the other creatures in the dungeon (if aware of your presence) are fairly close by. Typically, spending large periods of time in small dungeons only ensures they get away or when you finally get to them they are well prepared. * Unusual locations. It doesn't take too much imagination to come up with traps in areas which folks don't think to search, concealing them in places hard to search, or covering them up with other items/traps. For example, put a 10' wide pit in a hallway and a dart trap on the otherside of the pit. Put an arrow trap on the stairway behind the secret door. Put the secret door up 10' on a wall or in a pit trap. Honestly, this rewards good roleplaying and thinking. If the know to search there... they should find it automatically. * In combat situations. Put some goblins in the room and a pit trap just inside the door. I've seen a hanging skeleton in the wind cause folks to rush into a room with two pit trap in it. * Large rooms. Try six 60x60' rooms. At nearly 5 hours for the rogue to search search room... the goblin horde is already marching returning from raiding the village. * Complex room. Fill a room full of 200 boxes, barrels, piles of skeletons, etc. It could take days to search it taking a twenty. Any challenge that can automatically be overcome by a player without a single roll or decision is not a really a challenge at all, is it? Actually, IMO, rolling is the worst. Someone who knows where the trap is (either through good detective work, charming an occupant, etc.) rolls a 3 and gets an arrow in the face as a reward. Rewarding good roles is the worst form of XP. I understand it isn't terribly rewarding or challenging if someone takes a 20, but... it is might boring not to find the secret door to the next level when you know where it is and you rolled low. Finally, remember that you might not have a rogue. In which cases, you can take 20 all day and still run into every trap! It's not even an encounter. Sure it is. In D&D certain classes can easily make light work of certain encounters. A bard can take a 10 and walk through most diplomatic encounters. Without such a character, the encounter would be a disaster. A barbarian with ranks in swim might be able to easily dive down into the wreak and tie a rope to the chest. You aren't going to get lost in the woods with a range. You aren't going to die of thirst or heat stroke in the desert with a druid. Paladins and detect evil ruin ambushes. The right character class will 'nerf' entire classes of encounters. I don't see why a rogue able to get you through most traps with little effort is any different than a druid getting you across almost every desert or a bard getting you through most diplomatic encounters. |
| olshanski_home02-13-07, 12:33 PM | why go to all the trouble of hiding the trap in the first place? Why not make it blatently obvious? Sometimes the party does not have a rogue. Sometimes the party rogue has not invested in maximizing Search skill. Sometimes the party has a rogue but does not consider searching. Sometimes the party has a rogue but doesn't have time to search. |
| jaspercrey02-13-07, 02:16 PM | j The right character class will 'nerf' entire classes of encounters. I don't see why a rogue able to get you through most traps with little effort is any different than a druid getting you across almost every desert or a bard getting you through most diplomatic encounters. Agreed. Which is my point. If you always win how is that fun for anyone involved? |
| Lord Nedd02-13-07, 02:35 PM | Sometimes the party does not have a rogue. Sometimes the party rogue has not invested in maximizing Search skill. Sometimes the party has a rogue but does not consider searching. Sometimes the party has a rogue but doesn't have time to search. Actually a lot of traps that I have run across recently are dc 15 or so. If you run Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, you have an area that is liberally laced with bear traps. They are moderately hidden (dc 15 or so to find), but given that you are likely to be in combat at the time that you are stumbling around them, it can be bad news. Things to consider, not every trap looks like a manufactured one. A trap can also be something that has been sabotaged. It could be a door that was rigged to fall, a wheel on the wagon that was meant to fall off after a while, etc. Recently, the party that I was running through said adventure made lots of noise. The villain quick rigged the bridge going to his lair so that it if it took any moderate amount of weight, that it would break one of the suspension lines (he sawed mostly through one lines). The warforged ran ahead and tried to cross the bridge. He managed to get about half way across the chasm before the bridge lines began to snap. He had to make both a reflex roll to keep form falling the 50 odd feet to the bottom. Then he needed a nice climb roll to cross the remaining line to get to the enemy. He burned a few action points on the encounter, which to me demonstrated his personal stress level regarding the trap. It was harrowing for the party as their frontliner was dangling there. It really slowed up the party as well. |
| PenderGrass02-13-07, 02:45 PM | ...but I still don't understand the "metagaming" argument. Metagaming is a thought process that is outside the game world. Essentially, any time you base your character’s actions on logic that depends on the fact that you’re playing a game, you’re engaging in metagame thinking. Taking 20 is inherently an overt metagaming action since it is your character failing over and over until all of a sudden he "knows" he rolled a 20, so at that point he stops his actions and declares - "I have done my best." :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-13-07, 02:46 PM | Looking at the whole situation another way - if all it takes is a take 20 to find a trap and saying that the real challenge comes with disarming, bypassing or otherwise avoiding the trap ----- ----- why go to all the trouble of hiding the trap in the first place? Why not make it blatently obvious? Cos not all traps can be found by all people even if they roll a 20. Remember, folks, take 230 means you take your skill check result as being a 20, it is not an automatic success. If you take 20 and add you search check of 7, say, then you have a result of 27. If the search DR is 28 or higher you are still SOL. Traps are not generally designed to catch the vanishingly small percentage of the population that are highly trained and skilled aedventurers, they are designed to catch the overwhelmingly vast majority that are not. It is the ability of adenturers to locate and disable said traps that, among other things, sets them apart. |
| olshanski_home02-13-07, 02:53 PM | Metagaming is a thought process that is outside the game world. Essentially, any time you base your character’s actions on logic that depends on the fact that you’re playing a game, you’re engaging in metagame thinking. Taking 20 is inherently an overt metagaming action since it is your character failing over and over until all of a sudden he "knows" he rolled a 20, so at that point he stops his actions and declares - "I have done my best." :dragon: **** That is not at all metagaming. You can look at the "take 20" rule as "doing your best". If a player declares that they are going to work slowly and stedily and do the best job they can, then the rule is that they can have a result of "20" for thier roll, but it took 20 times longer than a normal check. There is nothing metagaming about someone who wants to do thier best. I think you are hung up on the fact that "take 20" assumes some failures and some successes. I can tie a knot quickly. But when I am rock-climbing, I am very careful about the knot on my harness, it takes me a long time, and even when I am done I do a routine where I check the strands, turn the knot upside down and check it again, and then have a friend look at it. Whether or not I failed 20 times in the process doesn't matter... what matters is that I was patient, slow, and did the best I could. If I am looking for my lost keys inside my desk, I might glance in the desk and I might see them or not, this is an average check. I could also "take 20", I might look inside envelopes, turn over cardboard, push coins around, etcetera... Sure I've looked in a lot of places where the key isn't (20 failed rolls), but that doesn't mean I am going to give up until I am sure I've done my best. |
| Boraxe02-13-07, 03:01 PM | Oh, I agree 100% What I think would be a complete waste of time would this: DM: "You enter a 20' square room, lit by ambient light." Rogue: "I take 20 and search the first 5' directly in front of me." DM: "2 minutes pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I take 20 and search the next 5'." DM: "2 minutes pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I take 20 on the next 5'." DM: "Hmmm. You discover a covered pit trap." Rogue: "Do I need to disable the device or bypass the pit to get by?" DM: "Ah . . . well . . . not according to the DMG." Rogue: "Okay. I guess I walk around it then." DM: "Well . . that was exciting." I have seen this exact trap used exactly like this in more than one published adventure. It is better than the alternative… DM: "You enter a 20' square room, lit by ambient light." Rogue: "I search the first 5' directly in front of me." <rolls d20> "A 6. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 9. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1 again. Damnit! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 14. I think that's high enough, Let's hope so." DM: "30 seconds pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I search the next 5'." <rolls d20> "A 1. Aw come on! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 9 again? I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1. What the hell! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 12. Umm...I check again." <rolls d20> "A 3. Damn! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 2. Damn! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 3. Damn!!! I check again!" <rolls d20> "A 6. Damn! I check again!" <rolls d20> "A 3. WTF!!!! I check again!!!!" <rolls d20> "A 20. Woo hoo!!!" DM: "A inute passes. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "What? Screw this crap. We just wasted 10 minutes for me to search for like a minute and a half in the game, I'm bored, and Joe went to get snacks. There's no damned traps here. I just move into the next square." DM: "The floor opens up beneath you and you fall into a pit trap taking <rolls dice> 23 points of damage." Rogue: "Wait, how come I never found this?" DM: "You gave up after the first 2 squares, remember?" Rogue: "Well ****." <grabs blank character sheet and dice> DM: "Well, that was fun…" :bored: Take 20 exists to speed up gameplay. It accurate reflects a character being methodical and doesn't bore the players with excessively die rolling. This is a good thing. |
| PenderGrass02-13-07, 03:13 PM | That is not at all metagaming. Sure it is. You can look at the "take 20" rule as "doing your best". I would rather look at it as players bypassing the randomness and unpredictable nature of being alive. If a player declares that they are going to work slowly and stedily and do the best job they can, then the rule is that they can have a result of "20" for thier roll, but it took 20 times longer than a normal check. You're right. That is the rule. There is nothing metagaming about someone who wants to do thier best. Right again. I never said this was the case. I think you are hung up on the fact that "take 20" assumes some failures and some successes. Actually, the way WotC spells it out, it is not a matter of failures and successes at all. As many people have already pointed out, a 20 does not equate to an auto-success. So, it is a matter of a bunch of 1 thru 19s, followed by a 20. How the character realizes he rolled a 20, is beyond me. I can tie a knot quickly. But when I am rock-climbing, I am very careful about the knot on my harness, it takes me a long time, and even when I am done I do a routine where I check the strands, turn the knot upside down and check it again, and then have a friend look at it. Whether or not I failed 20 times in the process doesn't matter... what matters is that I was patient, slow, and did the best I could. Even though I am not sure you can Take 20 to tie a knot, it still doesn't explain how your character removes the randomness of the universe (otherwise known as the d20 roll). If I am looking for my lost keys inside my desk, I might glance in the desk and I might see them or not, this is an average check. I could also "take 20", I might look inside envelopes, turn over cardboard, push coins around, etcetera... Sure I've looked in a lot of places where the key isn't (20 failed rolls), but that doesn't mean I am going to give up until I am sure I've done my best. Again, by removing the d20 roll - which, to me, is universal chaos generator for D&D - you are not "doing your best." Doing your best, is training and creating the best circumstances to accomplish your goal. That is all represented by the skill ranks, circumstancial bonuses, magical buffing, etc. Now, after all that, the universe should have its say - roll the die. In your thought process, you are viewing the character as having control of the d20 - that the d20 is in fact something that is part of the character. If you look at the Fate Spinner prestige class, you will see that the d20 (or any die roll in the game, for that matter) of the D&D universe is not something that is typically controlled by the character - or even something that should be controlled by the character. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-13-07, 03:17 PM | It is better than the alternative… DM: "You enter a 20' square room, lit by ambient light." Rogue: "I search the first 5' directly in front of me." <rolls d20> "A 6. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 9. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1. I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1 again. Damnit! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 14. I think that's high enough, Let's hope so." DM: "30 seconds pass. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "Okay. I search the next 5'." <rolls d20> "A 1. Aw come on! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 9 again? I check again." <rolls d20> "A 1. What the hell! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 12. Umm...I check again." <rolls d20> "A 3. Damn! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 2. Damn! I check again." <rolls d20> "A 3. Damn!!! I check again!" <rolls d20> "A 6. Damn! I check again!" <rolls d20> "A 3. WTF!!!! I check again!!!!" <rolls d20> "A 20. Woo hoo!!!" DM: "A inute passes. You find nothing of interest." Rogue: "What? Screw this crap. We just wasted 10 minutes for me to search for like a minute and a half in the game, I'm bored, and Joe went to get snacks. There's no damned traps here. I just move into the next square." DM: "The floor opens up beneath you and you fall into a pit trap taking <rolls dice> 23 points of damage." Rogue: "Wait, how come I never found this?" DM: "You gave up after the first 2 squares, remember?" Rogue: "Well ****." <grabs blank character sheet and dice> DM: "Well, that was fun…" :bored: Take 20 exists to speed up gameplay. It accurate reflects a character being methodical and doesn't bore the players with excessively die rolling. This is a good thing. An even faster solution is not letting the player see whether he "makes" the search roll. The situation you present is also a reason why and how Take 20 is a metagame process. By allowing the player to see what is rolled, you are encouraging them to think about the search as being a die roll and not an actual process of looking. It instantly becomes a matter of what the roll is. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7702-13-07, 06:31 PM | Taking 20 is inherently an overt metagaming action since it is your character failing over and over until all of a sudden he "knows" he rolled a 20, so at that point he stops his actions and declares - "I have done my best." Aha! I think this may be the source of our disagreement, because this is not at all how I view taking 20. It isn't that you roll over and over until you get a 20 and then you stop. Instead, it represents trying over and over until you are positive you've done your best. Maybe you got lucky on your second try, maybe it wasn't until your fifteenth try, but your character doesn't stop until he knows he has completed everything his training has taught him. Your character knows that there is a large luck factor involved in his skills. Unlike the world we live in, sometimes you can jump 30' and sometimes you can only jump 10'. Sometimes you can bash an iron-bound oaken door, sometimes a sheet of plywood stops you. Sometimes you can find a trap, sometimes you can't. In my view, Taking 20 represents either repeating a task over and over to ensure you beat the "luck factor" which is an in-character concept, or it represents being so careful and methodical that you eliminate the "luck factor" and use only your raw skill and best effort. Thus, no metagaming, because it is your character's thought process that drives him to continue searching for several minutes, not some out-of-game concept of "keep rolling until I get a high number". |
| PenderGrass02-13-07, 07:21 PM | Matthew77, I think we disagree on the function of the die roll. To me, the die rolls in D&D are a factor that is beyond the grasp of a mere player or DM. Take 20 reduces this unknown quality of the universe to a simplistic statistical equation that is easily manipulated by the player and DM. It cheapens the game in my opinion. :dragon: **** |
| Empiro02-14-07, 01:36 AM | Matthew77, I think we disagree on the function of the die roll. To me, the die rolls in D&D are a factor that is beyond the grasp of a mere player or DM. Take 20 reduces this unknown quality of the universe to a simplistic statistical equation that is easily manipulated by the player and DM. It cheapens the game in my opinion. :dragon: **** Do you also disallow taking 10 if you like randomness so much? Out of game, taking 20 means you rolled a 20, in game it means that the character gave it the best he could. "Being careful" is not a metagame concept. Would you allow your players to declare, "Okay, my character is going to be super careful searching this room, please roll d20 40 times and tell me what I find." If you do, then you might as well allow taking 20. It's just a simplification so that you don't have to bother rolling so many times. In all honesty, in all the games I've played and DMed in, this has never been an issue. RP-wise players know that you wouldn't take hours searching something unless you suspected that there was something to find. Mechanics-wise, spending an hour searching every room means that your minutes and ten-minute buffs are running out. |
| PenderGrass02-14-07, 02:09 AM | Do you also disallow taking 10 if you like randomness so much? If you read all my earlier posts (and likely all the posts here), you would know I do allow Take 10. Out of game, taking 20 means you rolled a 20, in game it means that the character gave it the best he could. That is slightly moronic. I figure the character is always doing the best he could do. Why would he do anything less than the best he can do? All the modifiers on the d20 roll represent his "best." "Being careful" is not a metagame concept. Would you allow your players to declare, "Okay, my character is going to be super careful searching this room, please roll d20 40 times and tell me what I find." Why the heck would I do that? My answer right back at them would be - "No." It is far easier for them to tell me the amount of time and method of their search, me to apply circumstancial bonuses for those factors and roll once. I would never ever ever allow my players to tell me how to roll anything - or tell me how many times I am gonna roll. If you do, then you might as well allow taking 20. It's just a simplification so that you don't have to bother rolling so many times. I wouldn't be rolling so many times, so no problem. In all honesty, in all the games I've played and DMed in, this has never been an issue. RP-wise players know that you wouldn't take hours searching something unless you suspected that there was something to find. Mechanics-wise, spending an hour searching every room means that your minutes and ten-minute buffs are running out. In all honesty, I have never had a problem with not allowing the Take 20 rule. It is a crutch and also undermines the integrity of the game system and I am glad my table is rid of it. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7702-14-07, 09:49 AM | Matthew77, I think we disagree on the function of the die roll. Sounds like it :) Personally, the vast random factor of rolling a d20 when your total modifiers for skill are likely only +10 to +15 or so is my pet peeve with the d20 system, but I haven't found a better solution yet. I want consistent randomness at all levels, but in a small enough amount that skill is 80% and randomness 20%. In my games the take 20 option works better than not having that option, sounds like the opposite is true for you. Good gaming, and thanks for the discussion. |
| TarlSS02-14-07, 10:10 AM | Take the design and development advice. Traps should be found- when found they are an active impediment to PCs, and it creates an interesting situation? Pit traps and spikes not thrilling your players? Yeah, they wouldn't normally either. Don't use such things a 'wham gotcha' surprises. They're thoroughly dull. Use them as interesting terrain features to spice up combat. I don't think spike traps and pit traps in any vein are particularly interesting in..well, any light. |
| weasel002-14-07, 04:29 PM | Actually my post was too point out that despite the Taking 20 is supposed to do a time jump until A the search is complete or B they find something, the other characters wanted to role play through it so I might as well have had the them rolling a d20 anyway cause taking 20 wasn't making anything shorter. |
| Boraxe02-14-07, 04:45 PM | An even faster solution is not letting the player see whether he "makes" the search roll. Sorry I don't see how... DM: "You enter a 20' square room, lit by ambient light." Rogue: "I search the first 5' directly in front of me." <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" Rogue: "I better be sure. I check again." <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" Rogue: "That was 20 times. I probably should've found a trap if there is one. Guess we're safe. I search the next 5' square." <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" Rogue: "I better be sure. I check again." <DM rolls d20> DM: "You don't think there is a trap" Everyone: >SNORE< ...is any faster. Yes take 20 is a meta process, but it is no more meta than dice rolling in general. It is a mechanism used by players partaking of a game to represent an occurance in a fictional world. In the case of a search check, Take 20 represents the PC being very thorough and methodical as possible in his search for traps. Not all meta prosesses are bad. Indeed, without meta the game would not be a game. It wouldn't even exist. |
| PenderGrass02-14-07, 05:03 PM | Sorry I don't see how... Simple: Player: I search for traps. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: I suspect something is there, I decide to search again, this time taking 5 billion hours and looking at every micro-section. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Odd, I have read this module and I know there is something there. I search again - this time for 400 billion years. DM (not rolling): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Why didn't you roll again? DM: Because you already looked to the best of your ability. That is how simple it is. :dragon: **** |
| Kolyana02-14-07, 05:31 PM | Simple: Player: I search for traps. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: I suspect something is there, I decide to search again, this time taking 5 billion hours and looking at every micro-section. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Odd, I have read this module and I know there is something there. I search again - this time for 400 billion years. DM (not rolling): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Why didn't you roll again? DM: Because you already looked to the best of your ability. That is how simple it is. :dragon: **** I tend to concur with this ... I never let players roll their own dice for such checks and I think that's one of the fundamental differences between GMs in this discussion. For me the character doesn't roll a die, he checks an area and believes that nothing is found; he probably doesn't even have a good idea of how thorough he was or the degree of his thoroughness unless it's to one extreme or another. To simulate this 'grey area' *I* roll the die for the player, so the *character* searches, but can still be left wondering if there's one there or not. I think that's more realistic and keeps the player on his toes. It seems a bit silly (no slight intended) to let the player roll it themselves and then do so multiple times. |
| Empiro02-15-07, 12:29 AM | I think the crux of the issue is that we differ on what a Trap DC means. To me it represents how exactly how well hidden a trap is. Given a fixed DC, a character that searches with the exact same amount of skill should be able to find it every single time. To take a simple example, lets say there are two identical boxes trapped in exactly the same way. A rogue goes to one of the boxes and carefully examines it (take 20 in my game), and finds it. He then goes to the second box and searches it exactly the same way. There is no reason that if he put the same care in searching, he should not find the trap if they're identical. Under your system, even if you give the rogue a circumstance bonus while searching the second box, he could still roll very low and fail to find it, yet the traps were identical. Now you could argue that perhaps the trap designer hid the second trap more cleverly than the first or some such, but to me, that goes to the DC of the trap -- it should just be higher! I can understand how you may not like the fact that a rogue can just find all the traps if they searched everywhere taking 20, but that's how it should be. Traps are designed to surprise those who are rushed or not being careful. They certainly shouldn't surprise someone who's been training most of his life to finding traps, and who's also taking minutes just to move five feet at a time. |
| James1802-15-07, 04:08 AM | You can take 20 on any skill that doesn't have a penalty for failure. Pause to let that sink in....okay Search take 20 okay. What happens if you roll a 1 on search. Loss hp...no loss money no. take 20 on disarm traps nope can't do it. roll 20 great roll 1 bam loss hp. Now take this thought process and apply this to every skill.....K good. NOW just because a rouge can find the trap doesn't mean they can disarm said trap. You could take 10 on both of these skills or any skill as long as you are not threatened. eg in combat. Yup welcome to the auto succeed for weapon crafting. 10+ranks+2 for master tools+2 for aid another...hmmm nope three more levels for Master (insert item here). |
| BW022202-15-07, 10:27 AM | Folks, Taking 20 is inherently an overt metagaming action since it is your character failing over and over until all of a sudden he "knows" he rolled a 20, so at that point he stops his actions and declares - "I have done my best." Actually, it isn't meta-gaming. And it actually doing your best. It is merely simulating rolling 20 times. Like the entire game, it is a simulation of what your players could normally do. Assume you know or strongly suspect that there is a trap a head. Say, a dead skeleton in the hallway with darts sticking out of it... Well, you spends 6 seconds looking for a trap. You don't find it. Now your character is fully aware that he isn't too likely to find the trap (even if it is there) within six seconds. He knows that if he repeats the process for several minutes, he has a much better chance of finding it. There is nothing meta-gaming about spending a few minutes searching. So, say he rolls twenty times. 11, 8, 9, 15, 19, etc. Now... we can all wait until he begins rolling 20 times. Honestly, rolling a 16 might be high enough to find the trap and he would stop at that point. He could find the trap in the first six seconds, after sixteen rolls, or he might never roll higher than a 10. He might also roll a 20 and when the DM says, "You don't find anything" is he supposed to not meta-game and continue rolling? He could also choose to sit there for a half hour making hundreds of checks. However, WotC wanted to avoid having folks sit there and roll all day. So, they added the take 20 rule. It simulates rolling large numbers of times. Like all simulations it isn't perfect. It make approximations. It assumes it always takes exactly twenty times as long and that you eventually get a 20 during this period of time. Is this 100% accurate. Of course not. However, like any simulation, it sacrifices accuracy in exchange for not doing the real thing. It's honestly a friendly agreement at the table. I'm willing to accept the inaccuracies of one way of determining the outcome (that it takes me exactly twenty times as long and that I am 100% sure to get a 20) because the other way of doing it is way too time consuming. I.e. you say it takes 20 times as long and I get a twenty, and in return I won't roll twenty, thirty, or fifty times until I'm almost assured of getting a 20. Such approximations happens all the time. It isn't 'meta-gaming', it is merely a simplification of the simulation to save real-world time. For example, suppose you get into town and you want to buy and sell some mundane stuff -- suit of armor, arrows, etc. Could your DM make you roleplay the encounter? Could you demand to roleplay taking with every shopkeeper, negotiating every arrow bought, etc.? Sure. However, most DMs don't (baring special circumstances) and they approximate it with "Cost is as per PHB, only normal weapons and equipment. Sell items are at half value, nothing over 1000gp in this village." You use a gross approximation to buying and selling of items in order to save time at the game table. You do the same thing with long distance travel -- you say "Three days later and you arrive in the city." rather than making them roleplay every bridge, innkeeper, farmer with sheep crossing the road, migrating starling flying by, etc. |
| olshanski_home02-15-07, 10:55 AM | This isn't even about traps, at this point. Pendergrass doesn't believe in using the "take 20" mechanic. I happen to like the mechanic. It is very useful for things like people squeezing through a crawlspace. If the DC is 20, then you know anyone with an average Dex and no armor can eventually squeeze through it by taking 20. If there is a lock with a DC 30, then any rogue that can accomplish a +10 skill modifier can pick the lock... if he isn't skilled enough, then perhaps with magical aid (fox's cunning), he might achieve enough ranks, or with better tools he might be able to pick the lock. To me the take 20 mechanic is an essential part of the game. As a DM and as a player, you know what the best a charater can accomplish is. |
| Xavier Remic02-15-07, 11:00 AM | I have to agree with Pender. I still play 2nd Ed. from time to time and when we roll to search for traps you either find it with roll 1 or not. I do detest the mathematical demon this incarnation of DnD has become. I see people calculationg how often they can succeed at X level with X skill and it really makes me wonder if another version of DnD is even needed. Taking 20 to me represents a younger generations need to win, all the time. While DnD and reality never do match up well, the fact that most times you get one shot to do something right holds true. The only way a take a take 20 should apply is if the party is completely unable to progress because of the obstacle. Failure is a part of it, reality and DnD. A rogue looking for a trap needs one shot. If he fails to find it and sets it off, let his saving throws or AC do their job. |
| Atlanta DM02-15-07, 08:29 PM | Having read this entire thread I understand the two camps. However, I just can't figure out what reality the camp that thinks the d20 should introduce randomness into every skill check is referring to. I think in terms of a real world example, proofreading. I have limited but existant proofreading skills. I can check for spelling and basic grammar (well sometimes I did say limited right?). My wife is a professional copywriter, she has a much better grasp of proofing documents. In the randomness reality she needs to make a check to perform a very basic function. Lets be honest, neither one of us is going to send out a document that we spend a few minutes proofreading with a lot of errors. If I just read through it once then yes I might miss something, but if I actually take my time and read through it, read it from back to front, etc. I am going to catch all the errors I am capable of catching. Another example, combat engineers. They have the equipment and ability to find every mine in a mine field. IF they have an unlimited amount of time and are not under fire, they well mark every mine in a minefield. Now, if they have to disarm them, accidents happen, but they are never going to accidently step on amine because they "had a bad roll". They will not move forward until they are certain no mine exists. Taking 20 is a much more realistic way of simulating a persons ability than a single roll with circumstance bonuses. Takign 20 represents the pinicale of their skill and knowledge, which most people can achieve on any given day barring external factors. IF you give them a circumstance bonus and roll once you create a potential situation where they can not achieve a task that a person of thier skill and training could do 100 times in thier sleep, or worse yet an opportunity to achieve a task beyond the depth and bredth of their knowledge and skill. |
| PenderGrass02-15-07, 08:42 PM | Having read this entire thread I understand the two camps. However, I just can't figure out what reality the camp that thinks the d20 should introduce randomness into every skill check is referring to. I think in terms of a real world example, proofreading. I have limited but existant proofreading skills. I can check for spelling and basic grammar (well sometimes I did say limited right?). My wife is a professional copywriter, she has a much better grasp of proofing documents. I would dread to compare the real-world with D&D in any regard - that is not the purpose of dropping the Take 20 rule. But, since you insist on it.... I would compare the Skill of a trained proof-reader looking at a page of text to be high enough that even when they roll a 1, they still hit the minimum DC (let's say DC 5 for a standard page and a DC 10 for something turned in by a non-writer). So, the skill of the proof-reader has circumvented the randomness of correcting a standard page of text. The d20 should not be a representative object reflecting the 'skill' of anyone - it is the randomness of the universe. :dragon: **** |
| Atlanta DM02-15-07, 09:55 PM | But that is just the point, there is nothing random about grammar erors, they are there to be found, you either have the skill to find them or not. Traps are designed to be undetectable to "normal" folks. But to trained experts finding them is not all that tough. A dc 24 trap is not difficult for even a low level rogue to find if he is looing for it, but may be impossible for someone not trained in trapfinding to locate. |
| Lord Nedd02-15-07, 11:01 PM | But that is just the point, there is nothing random about grammar erors, they are there to be found, you either have the skill to find them or not. Traps are designed to be undetectable to "normal" folks. But to trained experts finding them is not all that tough. A dc 24 trap is not difficult for even a low level rogue to find if he is looking for it, but may be impossible for someone not trained in trapfinding to locate. Actually, only those with trapfinding can attempt to search for a trap with a dc21+. There is a certain amount of randomness in every action, especially if there is some kind of stress involved. When you are stressed, most folks tend to think faster than they should and mental error accrue. Sometimes they can miss things that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer. If you want to see some real life concrete examples of that, read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. Taking a 20 or even a 10 implies that typically, there are no real stressors involved in the process. Your heartrate is well below 125 bpm and you are not flooded with fight or flight adrenalin and other endorphins. I have no problem with either the take 10 or take 20 mechanics. My players often take 20 on attempt to do something, and if the rules allow it and it is sensical, we roll with it (proverbially speaking, of course :D ). My party typically seems to take a lot of 10s as well. When they are wandering about, their listen and spot rolls are typically taken with a 10, unless they stop and specifically state otherwise. They are usually content when they take a 20 that 'that is the best I could have done'. -LN |
| Shatteredtower02-15-07, 11:08 PM | Having experienced the rogue that keeps checking after finding nothing time after time after time after time because the DM's holding the dice, I much prefer the take 20 Search option. I've seen: "I check for traps." "You don't find any." "I keep searching." "You still don't find any." "Then I keep searching." No dice rolls? "I throw a rock at it." "Nothing happens." "I poke the ceiling with my wooden pole." "Nothing happens." "I shout, 'Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!'" "Wrong game, dude." Ever see a university club close down because the party thief refused to stop checking each and every inch of the walls, ceiling, and floor of the first room for the first two hours of play? Give me the option to have him take 20, thanks. The character be damned; what matters is that the player knows he can't possibly do any better. Besides, if you're no longer rolling a Search check, the player is already operating on the basis of metagame knowledge. They're trying to guess whether or not the increase in modifier is circumstantial, such that it would continue to increase if they kept looking for an hour or it never gets bigger after the first ten minutes. Meanwhile, if you're not rerolling, you're forcing metagame circumstances on your player. "I search this area." "You find nothing." "I keep searching." "Still nothing." "Keep searching." "Nope." Combat operates with a different set of rules, but consider the fact that sooner or later you, barring concealment or a very, very bad die, you will hit any opponent if you just keep swinging. We don't take 20 on the attack roll for two reasons: a) We tend to be rushed or threatened at such times, and b) You're giving your opponent two solid minutes in which your foe(s) get at least nineteen chances (each) to hurt you. Taking 20 is not, "Well, I just rolled a 20, so let's find out what we have here." For all you know, you rolled that 20 in round 1, but you're now stuck having to do it the long way. Your party has burned two minutes per square on spell durations, and given any enemies aware of you two minutes per square to make your day worse. This gives you plenty of reasons to not want to waste 72 minutes scouring a 30 ft square room. |
| Lord Nedd02-15-07, 11:18 PM | Having experienced the rogue that keeps checking after finding nothing time after time after time after time because the DM's holding the dice, I much prefer the take 20 Search option. I've seen: "I check for traps." "You don't find any." "I keep searching." "You still don't find any." "Then I keep searching." No dice rolls? "I throw a rock at it." "Nothing happens." "I poke the ceiling with my wooden pole." "Nothing happens." "I shout, 'Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!'" "Wrong game, dude." Ever see a university club close down because the party thief refused to stop checking each and every inch of the walls, ceiling, and floor of the first room for the first two hours of play? Give me the option to have him take 20, thanks. The character be damned; what matters is that the player knows he can't possibly do any better. Besides, if you're no longer rolling a Search check, the player is already operating on the basis of metagame knowledge. They're trying to guess whether or not the increase in modifier is circumstantial, such that it would continue to increase if they kept looking for an hour or it never gets bigger after the first ten minutes. Meanwhile, if you're not rerolling, you're forcing metagame circumstances on your player. "I search this area." "You find nothing." "I keep searching." "Still nothing." "Keep searching." "Nope." Combat operates with a different set of rules, but consider the fact that sooner or later you, barring concealment or a very, very bad die, you will hit any opponent if you just keep swinging. We don't take 20 on the attack roll for two reasons: a) We tend to be rushed or threatened at such times, and b) You're giving your opponent two solid minutes in which your foe(s) get at least nineteen chances (each) to hurt you. Taking 20 is not, "Well, I just rolled a 20, so let's find out what we have here." For all you know, you rolled that 20 in round 1, but you're now stuck having to do it the long way. Your party has burned two minutes per square on spell durations, and given any enemies aware of you two minutes per square to make your day worse. This gives you plenty of reasons to not want to waste 72 minutes scouring a 30 ft square room. Gah. I have seen that happen too. Hence, many of my players take a 10 on search as well! :D. They seem to take 10s when they are not paranoid about something. That paranoia is more of a player - GM relationship of trust issue. |
| Shatteredtower02-15-07, 11:44 PM | Let me simplify it a bit. PenderGrass, how large is that modifier you're handing out for taking a long Search check? If it's never larger than +2, the metagame thought is, "Why bother? If I don't find it in 6 seconds, I'm only wasting time." If it's +5, the metagame thought is, "I take 10 on my Search check, because if a 15 isn't good enough to find it, we only had a 20% chance of getting past this anyway." If it's +10, then you do allow players to take 20 on their Search checks. On the other hand, if you don't allow them to take 10 for their longer checks, the metagame thought is, "Take 10 for the first round and then lengthen the Search. Sure, the DM gets to roll, but if a 50% chance wasn't good enough to find the trap in the first round, odds are against me anyway. May as well take that automatic 50% chance right off the bat and hope for the best afterward." |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 12:03 AM | PenderGrass, how large is that modifier you're handing out for taking a long Search check? Now it would depend on many different factors which are too numerous to list here. Or, anywhere, really. Some of the factors that could influence how I would adjudicate: 1. Is there really anything to find? 2. What area is the character searching? 3. How is the character searching? 4. How long is the character devoting to this activity? 5. What extent is the in-character reasoning factoring into such an activity? 6. How well is the trap actually hidden? 7. What type of indications are there that a trap is actually there? 8. Has the trap ever been sprung? 9. Would the trap leave "evidence" if it was sprung previously? 10. Is the searching rogue focusing on the correct area or not? 11. Has the player added all his bonuses properly? Those would be some of the factors that go through my mind in the half second before I roll the search die roll. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 12:10 AM | Give me the option to have him take 20, thanks. The character be damned; what matters is that the player knows he can't possibly do any better. But, see, the player has no control over the die roll. He has no idea what was rolled. The player could ask himself - "Did I max out my search skill? Am I taking enough time to search the area? Should I magically buff my skill?" If he answers that he has max'd out his skill and it cannot be any greater, then he is always doing his best. Why would he not? Why would he randomly do poorly (i.e., rolling a 3) one moment and then the next all of a sudden do well (i.e., rolling a 17)? He is not. Unless he is some sort of functioning moron savant that randomly decides how well he is gonna function at any given moment. The die roll doesn't represent a factor that is controlled by the character - it doesn't (as you say) represent his ability or a factor of doing his best. That would be inane. When I swing a sword at something in the game, I know my character is doing his best to hit the target - the die roll represents the random "fog of war" factor that is inherent in any activity that I do in D&D. My character's BAB, feat selections, magical buffs and so on are representing me doing my best. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 12:15 AM | For all you know, you rolled that 20 in round 1, but you're now stuck having to do it the long way. People function that way all the time. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 12:21 AM | I guess, overall, I am just very thankful to have players that don't act moronic by insisting on wasting everyone's time. If one of them tells me that - "I search the area for traps, taking my time and doing the best search I possibly can." I roll once. Give the result. Everyone's happy. Game moves on. It is just as fast as Taking 20 - maybe faster in some circumstances. Probably because I don't game with morons that tell me that they "are doing their best" and then think they can do better. Why would someone tell me they are searching to the best of their ability and then tell me they are searching that same area? Because they want a hammer to the face? :dragon: **** |
| weasel002-16-07, 12:27 AM | Another example, combat engineers. They have the equipment and ability to find every mine in amine field. IF they have an unlimited amount of time and are not under fire, they well mark every mine in a minefield. Now, if they have to disarm them, accidents happen, but they are never going to accidently step on a mine because they "had a bad roll". They will not move forward until they are certain no mine exists. Emphasis mine. Never say never. ;) Also, even with all the time in the world, all the best tools in the world, things can happen and you miss stuff. Electronic glitches, going cross-eyed by staring too long, an associate bugging you, or simple "brain farts" can all effect you without being "stressful" or causing you to "rush". Those little things are the lower rolls on a d20. Take the "amine" up there as an example. Even with all the time in the world to make that post, there was still a mistake made. That, my friend, could have been you, had it been a trap. |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 12:41 AM | It is very useful for things like people squeezing through a crawlspace. If the DC is 20, then you know anyone with an average Dex and no armor can eventually squeeze through it by taking 20. Why would you assign a DC for crawling through a small space - and then, when you know without a doubt that everyone can make it through that space, enforce the roll? If you, as the DM have already decided that there is absolutely no way for an action to fail (or for that matter, for it to succeed) - why are you rolling? Now, if you aren't sure that everyone could make it through (maybe there is jagged edges and someone could get hung up on the side and it will take an additional 1d6 minutes to get through), you should roll regardless of how well you think they will do. After all, are you a DM of a game - or a storyteller writing a book where it doesn't matter what your players do, you've already decided what they can and can't do - the dice be damned? :dragon: **** |
| Kolyana02-16-07, 12:55 AM | But, see, the player has no control over the die roll. He has no idea what was rolled. The player could ask himself - "Did I max out my search skill? Am I taking enough time to search the area? Should I magically buff my skill?" If he answers that he has max'd out his skill and it cannot be any greater, then he is always doing his best. Why would he not? Why would he randomly do poorly (i.e., rolling a 3) one moment and then the next all of a sudden do well (i.e., rolling a 17)? He is not. Unless he is some sort of functioning moron savant that randomly decides how well he is gonna function at any given moment. The die roll doesn't represent a factor that is controlled by the character - it doesn't (as you say) represent his ability or a factor of doing his best. That would be inane. When I swing a sword at something in the game, I know my character is doing his best to hit the target - the die roll represents the random "fog of war" factor that is inherent in any activity that I do in D&D. My character's BAB, feat selections, magical buffs and so on are representing me doing my best. :dragon: **** I guess, overall, I am just very thankful to have players that don't act moronic by insisting on wasting everyone's time. If one of them tells me that - "I search the area for traps, taking my time and doing the best search I possibly can." I roll once. Give the result. Everyone's happy. Game moves on. It is just as fast as Taking 20 - maybe faster in some circumstances. Probably because I don't game with morons that tell me that they "are doing their best" and then think they can do better. Why would someone tell me they are searching to the best of their ability and then tell me they are searching that same area? Because they want a hammer to the face? :dragon: **** I love you. marry me and fatehr the children I don't really want. Or at least gm for me :p Seriously, I think you just summed up exactly how I feel on this subject. |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 01:12 AM | I love you. marry me and fatehr the children I don't really want. Or at least gm for me :p Seriously, I think you just summed up exactly how I feel on this subject. I think my wife would have something to say about the marrying part - and most definitely the children part. As far as the running a game for you - if you live in the SoCal area, can commit to Friday nights and have no problem with a solid, casual game amongst friends - well, PM me and we'll see how well we jive. Either way, thanks for the kudos. :dragon: **** |
| Shatteredtower02-16-07, 04:52 AM | People function that way all the time.So what you're saying is that the "take 20," method does work. No, really, because taking 20 is just another way of giving yourself two minutes to review something you could easily do in less than 6 seconds. I guess, overall, I am just very thankful to have players that don't act moronic by insisting on wasting everyone's time.And I'm grateful for a system that doesn't make it easy for people to get into a paranoid rut. If one of them tells me that - "I search the area for traps, taking my time and doing the best search I possibly can." I roll once. Give the result. Everyone's happy. Game moves on.And it only works because the players are content to let you arbitrarily decide how long it takes to make "the best search I possibly can." How do they know? Oh, right... you tell them. But it's not metagaming. :rolleyes: It is just as fast as Taking 20 - maybe faster in some circumstances.The only circumstances in which it would be faster are those in which you're thinking, "Nope, not gonna work." Or are you telling me that whatever you roll applies to every 5 ft square they Search? :rolleyes: Probably because I don't game with morons that tell me that they "are doing their best" and then think they can do better....well, that was an amazingly daft claim. Another way to put it, just as accurately, is "My players are content with letting my whims jerk them around, so they can't possibly be morons." If you take your time at a task which you can keep working at until you get it right, you're generally more likely to succeed than you would be if you rush yourself. You've already admitted this. Back in 1st Ed, no amount of time made you more likely to find a trap, which really sucked for most thieves. You got only one roll. Regardless of the nature of the trap, you only had a 50% chance of finding it, then a 50% chance of disarming it, at 7th level -- or 5th, if you were a dwarf. If you failed, everyone got ticked at you. But it wasn't just the traps. It was the secret doors that were supposed to be found 1 time in 6, but DMs were encouraged to make harder to find, or the random item you had a 1 in 20 chance of spotting if you just kept looking long enough. The twitchy guy who couldn't stop searching until he found something was rude, but considering how much experience some of these guys had with being screwed over by DMs or module design, they weren't morons. Why would someone tell me they are searching to the best of their ability and then tell me they are searching that same area?Because they hadn't found anything. Give them a mechanic that makes it clear that they are never going to be able to find anything (whether it's there or not) and there simply is no problem. Deny them that mechanic, and they're always going to be left wondering if they missed a vital clue for which they've gambled away a full two minutes per 5 ft square. Because they want a hammer to the face?Back before taking 20 became an option, it's more likely that it was because they'd already had their fill of hammers to the face and were hoping to avoid one more. But, see, the player has no control over the die roll. He has no idea what was rolled.The answer to, "How many fingers am I holding up?" is not, "My lawn is on fire." In other words, what does your reply have to do with the statement you just quoted? If he answers that he has max'd out his skill and it cannot be any greater, then he is always doing his best. Why would he not?What you've just claimed is that a rogue who searches a corridor, finding a hidden portcullis trap at its entrance, would automatically find the exact same trap at the far end of the corridor if such a trap was also there, assuming that the same degree of care went into the search. People are not always doing their best from moment to moment, especially if working quickly, moreso if quickly and under pressure. They can be distracted by a random thought, a sudden movement, the need to scratch or burp or hear what somebody else is saying... If "taking 10" is not sufficient to perform a task, you're requiring your players to be lucky -- or to enhance their chances of succeeding while still taking 10 (which is metagaming, by the way). You can only force them to be unlucky by forcing them to rely on luck -- not their skills -- to succeed. Fortunately, your players are too smart to notice that you're ripping them off. But hey, at least we have your word for it that they're having fun in the process. Why would he randomly do poorly (i.e., rolling a 3) one moment and then the next all of a sudden do well (i.e., rolling a 17)?Because in the first round, he's blinded by lantern light reflecting off the paladin's armor, which suddenly cues a flash of insight in the second. The die roll doesn't represent a factor that is controlled by the character - it doesn't (as you say) represent his ability or a factor of doing his best.Pendergrass... his best is getting a 20 on the die result. An old peasant woman on her last legs and wielding a vorpal axe hits a target with AC 95 on a roll of 20, and cuts its head off if it manages it twice. Yes, that's a fluke, but it's still based on her doing her best. The same old peasant woman survives contact with a DC 50 symbol of death by rolling 20 on the saving throw, even if the result is 30 short of the DC. Again, she was lucky, but she also gave her best. I hear you pointing out that those aren't skill checks. True. For skill checks, the proof is actually more solid. If you want your character to jump up onto a table, a DC 10 Jump check, and you fail despite your 10 Strength, Medium size, and lack of armor or any other sort of load, you were not doing your best at that moment. What's the proof? You could have taken 10 on the check and succeeded automatically. Instead, it seems you tried to show off and wound up with egg on your face. Given a running start, you can clear a 10 ft wide pit automatically merely by taking 10, but if you try to impress the ladies standing 10 ft beyond the pit by landing in front of them, you are pushing your luck. And as we all know, there's always a chance that pushing our luck backfires on us. Any check in which you have the option to either take 10 or roll includes the option to push your luck. Does this mean that taking 20 on a skill check is just repeating the task until you get lucky? Nope. It means having the luxury of enough time to eliminate luck as a factor. You feel it should always be an issue, that carelessness should always be a factor. (That is what you're arguing for, the possibility that the PC might be careless. It's the same cause for a grandmaster making an obvious blunder on the chessboard -- carelessness, not chance.) I think it's better to leave that up to circumstances (being rushed or threatened) or the players themselves. Now it would depend on many different factors which are too numerous to list here. Yet, somehow: Those would be some of the factors that go through my mind in the half second before I roll the search die roll.Right... too numerous to list, yet you process them all in half a second. :rolleyes: Considering from where you'd have to have pull these factors in that half second, I hope you wash your hands before you handle that die. |
| nightwing02-16-07, 09:04 AM | re: Shatteredtower Preach it, bruthuh. Given that one has time and opportunity (which is required for a 'take 20'), the luck factor should become negligably small. So in that case how well one does is based not on luck (good or bad) but on skill, items, enhancements, etc. Save rolling the dice for when there is pressure, danger, and other distractions that cause luck to be a significant factor in the success or failure of the activity. If you have only 10 or 20 seconds to pick the lock and get inside the room before the guard rounds the corner and spots you, you have many pressures: tension, time, danger, sweat getting into your eyes, diffuculty concentrating, etc. Make a die roll once per round until you succeed or are caught. Why is that so hard to understand? *shrug* |
| Finarin Panjoro02-16-07, 02:03 PM | All the debate over the Take 20's rules makes me wonder if those of you who do not use them also award additional experience points for defeating these traps because by disallowing Take 20 on Search you have made these traps MUCH more challenging. Just take a look at the Search DCs listed in the SRD. A rogue with max ranks in Search and a +1 Intelligence modifier or +1 racial Search bonus cannot fail to find every CR appropriate trap listed there if he can take 20 (as the rules assume he can). The Search DC is never more than 1 higher than 20+max ranks at that CR. The intent of the designers seems pretty clear to me. Finding CR appropriate traps, if you're willing to take the time, should be an automatic success. Disarming the trap is clearly a different story since the rules specifically preclude you knowing how well you did (I think Disable Device may be the only skill that specifically states that the DM makes the check for you). So if you're not allowing take 20 I hope you're bumping the CR on the trap as far as XP awards are concerned because they're going to be beating the snot out of your players a lot more often than intended. |
| PenderGrass02-16-07, 02:30 PM | Shatteredtower, I would like to know where you are reading your definition of the d20 roll. To my knowledge, it is more in-line to view the d20 as being a representative of fate. Again, I direct your attention to the Fate Spinner prestige class. Within the description of that class, it specifically indicates that the d20 is a representation of fate - uncontrolled by most other characters. You do understand fate, right? :dragon: **** |
| Shatteredtower02-16-07, 10:08 PM | Shatteredtower, I would like to know where you are reading your definition of the d20 roll. To my knowledge, it is more in-line to view the d20 as being a representative of fate.Fate is listed as a synonym for luck. You do understand luck, right, especially in regard to the idea of pushing it? You know, kind of like tempting fate? |
| Someone02-17-07, 02:19 AM | What's so wrong with referring to "you take longer, and do better" as "take 20"? You're just haggling on what constitutes "taking longer" and "doing better". |
| PenderGrass02-17-07, 02:54 AM | Fate is listed as a synonym for luck. You do understand luck, right, especially in regard to the idea of pushing it? You know, kind of like tempting fate? Fate and luck are similar to the uninformed, they are not the same (by the way synonym does not always mean "same", to think so would be wrong). So, you have nothing beyond the most basic understanding of fate, I see. No wonder you chafe at the idea that it can exist in D&D and not ruin anything, you obviously fear that which you do not understand. :dragon: **** |
| Kolyana02-17-07, 12:26 PM | What's so wrong with referring to "you take longer, and do better" as "take 20"? You're just haggling on what constitutes "taking longer" and "doing better". I think herein lies the fundamental difference in GMing styles; I tend to allow one roll (I make it) and the player tells me how careful and slow they are being; they don't get 20 rolls for one square and never have with my GMing style. I'm not saying that I'm 'right', btu then I don't think that there is a right or wrong way here, merely GMing preference, but those preferences conflict with the very nature of "Taking 20". |
| Marcus Majarra02-17-07, 12:58 PM | Again, I direct your attention to the Fate Spinner prestige class. Within the description of that class, it specifically indicates that the d20 is a representation of fate - uncontrolled by most other characters. This statement is false. I've just gone through the entire description for the Fatespinner, and nowhere does it indicate that the d20 is a representation of fate. The Fatespinner manipulates probability, and for every one of his abilities except Spin Destiny [Ex], this results in modifying the chances of success of one or more d20 rolls, not the result thereof. Fate has to do with predetermination, and this comes into play in two instances: 1) When success or failure is guaranteed 2) When probability is involved The problem I see is that you're sticking to #2 while ignoring number 1. If you cannot possibly fail at something, you're fated to succeed. If you cannot possibly succeed at something, you're fated to fail. The take 20 mechanic is intended as a guarantee of success. If you're not fated to fail, as long as you take your time to do something for which you can take your time, you're fated to succeed. |
| Someone02-17-07, 01:13 PM | The thing is, with take 20, you aren't letting the player roll twenty times. You aren't even letting them roll once. Its like take 10- there's no rolling involved, you just add up some numbers, and compare it to the DC. Taking 20 doesn't change the "do I succeed? yes/no" fundamental of skill checks. It just makes the "yes" far more likely. I guess some feel it just makes "yes" too easy... |
| Shatteredtower02-17-07, 03:17 PM | Fate and luck are similar to the uninformed, they are not the same (by the way synonym does not always mean "same", to think so would be wrong).Cite where in the rules it demonstrates this to be so, please. No, don't pull out a copy of a splatbook PrC: show me where the rules make a distinction. Show me where it says in the core rules where the d20 roll is a determination of this "fate" you so espouse. Then check out the power for the cleric's Luck domain. Now be sure not to overcook that crow. So, you have nothing beyond the most basic understanding of fate, I see.You presume a lot, and see less because of it. No wonder you chafe at the idea that it can exist in D&D and not ruin anything, you obviously fear that which you do not understand.:rofl: Please. Such misinformed prejudices are only a sign of more sloppy thinking. Taking 20 doesn't change the "do I succeed? yes/no" fundamental of skill checks. It just makes the "yes" far more likely. I guess some feel it just makes "yes" too easy...Thank you for this summation. :) |
| weasel002-17-07, 03:31 PM | I liken it to trying to remember something you just KNOW is in your head somewhere but no matter how hard you try, you just can't think of it. You know the kind that's right there on the tip of your tongue? There are times when you're trying your best but for some reason(skill ranks, tools, other bonuses), you simply can't perform to the maximum of your potential(d20 roll). And when you have such a brain fart as this. I don't care how long you poke and prod and stare at something, you simply arn't going to do any better unless you walk away and do something else to come back with a fresh perspective. Going back to the "tip of the tongue" example, how often does what you wanted to remember just pop into your mind A) 30sec after you needed the answer or B) 30 sec after you stop trying to remember? The answer to this for the OP in mind COULD be triggering the trap. All of the above is my personal opinion, but I still allow take 20 as it usually does allow to bypass the wasted hour of play down a long blank tunnel. |
| Shatteredtower02-17-07, 04:05 PM | For PenderGrass' sake, I shall examine fate and luck with a more pedantic eye. Curiously, the first definitions I found for "luck": "the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities" (dictionary.com) "a force that brings good fortune or adversity" (Webster's New Collegiate) --and for "fate": "something that unavoidably befalls a person" (dictionary.com) "the principle or determining cause or will by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do" (Webster's New Collegiate) --are virtually indistinguishable in their meaning. Oh, the former definition of luck suggests an outside cause influencing events, while the former for fate doesn't and yet portrays fate as synonymous ("alike in meaning or significance" according to Webster's New Collegiate*) with predestination, but the latter are effectively interchangeable. Wait, wait. No, I have not been precise enough. As written above, "luck" cannot bring about neutral results, while "fate" can. However, is there a meaningful distinction between the two when either you find the hidden trap or treasure or you don't? But let's reexamine that first definition for fate. See the word, "unavoidable"? That means that the result will always be the same no matter what you do. (Do I really need to provide a dictionary definition this time?) It is antithetical with the notion that the idea that the results of a given action might be determined randomly -- such as by the roll of a die. Instead, the result is fixed in advance, as would be the case if someone were to, say, take 20 on a check. If it's your fate to succeed, your total is higher than the DC of the task. If it's not, your total is lower. Perhaps PenderGrass is thinking in terms of far more esoteric models for fate and luck, in the process confusing the term "esoteric" with "superior". There are certainly places in which it's worth considering the concepts distinctly, but none that serve the game when it comes to determining die rolls. * Yes, I am aware that synonym is defined as having the same or nearly the same meaning. I await meaningful data to support why nearly the same is not good enough in this case, especially since PenderGrass is determining the ruling of "fate" by the "luck of the die." |
| PenderGrass02-17-07, 04:07 PM | Cite where in the rules it demonstrates this to be so, please. Seemed to me you were pulling dictionary terms as the rules don't necesarily cover a comparison of fate and luck. If you weren't bringing up dictionary terms, then please clarify your first statement and why you brought up the whole synonym thing. Show me where it says in the core rules where the d20 roll is a determination of this "fate" you so espouse. I have already clarified that it is my interpretation of the die roll. The die roll is what determines fate. Not the DM. Not the player. Neither participant has control over it. Therefore, it cannot be removed. Your continuing failure to understand the simple fact that, to me, the die rolls in D&D should be looked at as things beyond the control of the player or DM - demonstrates to me that you are being combative for no better reason than you wish to be "right." When, to maintain your precious righteousness, all you needed to do was skip back a few posts and realize that I ave already stated that Taking 20 is a legal, by the book, method for resolving situations. I may not agree with it and I still have as yet seen any sort of evidence that it doesn't create a metagaming attitude at the table, but I do not dispute that it is a part of the current edition. If a player is thinking - "I can roll better." Plain and simple. That is a metagame thought. You haven't been able to convince me otherwise. Please continue trying because I think you will eventually find that you can't. The player's focus is on the die rolling. The player's thought process is being controlled by the die result. In fact, the entire focus of the game has just become the die roll. Without Take 20, the player is no longer focused on the die roll. He simply states - "I am doing my best." The die is rolled and the outcome is determined by the fate of the roll. Removal of Take 20 removes metagame thinking. Simple as that. :dragon: **** |
| Shatteredtower02-17-07, 04:40 PM | I liken it to trying to remember something you just KNOW is in your head somewhere but no matter how hard you try, you just can't think of it.This is why you can't take 20 on a Knowledge check. I don't care how long you poke and prod and stare at something, you simply arn't going to do any better unless you walk away and do something else to come back with a fresh perspective.In real life, that's absolutely true. In real life, that "fresh perspective" can come to me at any time. It might never come at all. It could -- and has -- come to me within seconds, for what seems an entirely unrelated reason. (I can't count the number of times running into someone in the hall has reminded me that I left the stove on, forgot to buy rice milk, or caused me to suddenly realize that the answer to 17 down was "tachyon." What is it about people that causes the brain to scream words like, "tachyon" or "arepeggio" anyway?) It could require that I take a five minute walk, a half an hour nap, dinner with friends, or an evening searching my library. It is not in anyway reliant upon the completion of an average of 14 encounters of a challenge rating equal to my character level, which it would be if you only got to roll that Search check once. Giving yourself time to consider a fresh perspective is among the possibilities available to you in the time it takes to take 20. If that's still not enough, you obviously need to bring something more to the equation to get any more of a fresh perspective. "Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and assumes that you fail many times before succeeding." -- PHB, pg 65 ("Taking 20") The word "assumes" is important. Is means that it's likely that you keep trying until you succeed (or have a very good idea that it's not going to happen), but doesn't absolutely mean that you made more than one attempt in that two minute period. If you want it to mean that your character spent two straight minutes warming up and stretching before trying to leap up and grab the the bottom rung of a ladder that ends 15 feet beyond your reach, there's nothing wrong with that. With that Search check, the character is not necessarily thinking, "I need two minutes to be as sure as I can be," but rather, "Well, if I haven't found anything by now, how long do I want to keep at this before I give up? I've got the rest of this room to check and there's no telling when Lord Fearsomename* is going to realize we're here and send more of his elite guard after us. Besides, the sand's running out on those spells the witch cast to protect me. Best to get it over with." For example, of course. If the player wants the character to take two, three, or more times as long making that take 20 check, let them -- as long as you also let the other players, assuming it is their wish, have their characters make it clear that things will be run on a faster schedule or There Will Be Consequences. * Yes, I tend to suck at naming NPCs. |
| Shatteredtower02-17-07, 06:20 PM | Seemed to me you were pulling dictionary terms as the rules don't necesarily cover a comparison of fate and luck. Yet they do cover a comparison between the die roll and luck just fine. If you weren't bringing up dictionary terms, then please clarify your first statement and why you brought up the whole synonym thing. Because you inaccurately wrote: "To my knowledge, it is more in-line to view the d20 as being a representative of fate." Your assumption is not your knowledge. I have already clarified that it is my interpretation of the die roll.That is not compatible with the previously quoted statement. Your continuing failure to understand...Oh, I understand it. ...the simple fact that, to me, the die rolls in D&D should be looked at as things beyond the control of the player or DM - demonstrates to me that you are being combative for no better reason than you wish to be "right."This from the individual who wrote, in post #35 of this thread: Taking 20 overall is a major cop-out... --followed in post #40 by the oblivious claim that: It doesn't make any logical sense to have a bunch of traps that are so easily found all the time. -- which demonstrates the exact same sort of metagame thinking you so decry, because the reason one would think in such terms are designing everything with a level n rogue with a +x modifer on Search checks. A trap's CR is already based on notion of metagame thinking in one fashion or another. If it's completely beyond their ability to find, metagame thinking then dictates that it's up to you to make it abundantly clear that they really don't want to go finding it the hard way. If you prefer the in-game justification that the King Washpot would have spared no expense in guarding his sacred tomb for all eternity over the metagame realization that there is no way the players would know that this meant it was impossible for them to survive getting in and then let the chips fall where they may, are they supposed to appreciate it? Worse, you then go on to claim in post #43 that: I think the problem is when DMs start allowing rules that need to be "countered." A much more simple solution is to just dump the whole meta-gaming idea behind Take 20.The former sentence you state as opinion. You continue to maintain the latter sentence's claim as fact -- and again in post #44: Again, Take 20 does nothing more than create a meta-gaming mentality. In post #51, you repeat the claim that your method is simpler: It is far easier to "reward" the character with a nice circumstancial bonus and roll one time. But the claim that it's simpler flies in the face of the presentation you make in post #110, following a list of eleven of the many factors you purport to go through your head in half a second. You determine your circumstance bonus randomly based on the data given to you, a judgment call that can easily forget to acknowledge several factors (and assign inaccurate values to others), and claim that a system that will produce wildly varying results from one DM to the next (possibly even coming from the same DM, depending on "the fog of uncertainty" [referred to in post #52]) is simpler than the equation: "If 20 + modifier equals or exceeds the DC, success; if it does not, failure." Your preference is not based on truth. Let's not forget how you insist on leaping to the following conclusion from post #82: Taking 20 is inherently an overt metagaming action since it is your character failing over and over until all of a sudden he "knows" he rolled a 20, so at that point he stops his actions and declares - "I have done my best."It's true in the metagaming sense that the player has taken the best result for the character. It is untrue that the character must have done it from the perspective of reaching the same conclusion. Since the two are not identical, the claim that this is any more a metagame mechanic than rolling the dice is entirely suspect. Furthermore, in post #51, you wrote: There is always a randomness to everything.Really? So how can a 1st level commoner survive falling 200 feet in your game when fate is decided by the dice? If one can't, there's nothing random about it. I could be wrong, but it sounds like the problem is that you're afraid to leave that random element in the hands of your players, even though that would involve a lot less metagaming on your part. Do you have a more likely hypothesis to suggest? Reread this line from post #86 before you answer: I would rather look at it as players bypassing the randomness and unpredictable nature of being alive.Your players themselves bring the randomness to the table even when the die roll is preset. If you can't trust them to do that, you haven't avoided metagaming at your table at all. Incidentally, there's also this observation from post #52: That is what the d20 is there for - to allow that universal fog to creep into the D&D game. Allowing players to remove that fog is an error on WotC's part, IMHO.If that's the case, what's your automatic skill failure rule? Furthermore, in post #55, you declare: We still use the Take 10 rule, when applicable.How is that compatible with the possibility of randomly failing any skil check? If a grandmaster, with plenty of time on his clock, can make as obvious a blunder as handing his opponent mate on the move (it's happened more than once, one reason Dr. Tarrasch had for coining the term, ''amaurosis scachistica pernicosa"), the "fog of uncertainty" does not allow for taking 10, especially not on Search and Spot checks. So by your rules, how often does a elf with the Investigator and Skill Focus (Search) feats, a 14 Intelligence, and 12 ranks in Search overlook a DC 20 trap? How often does said elf fail to find a certain item while ransacking a chest? If the answer is never, since a +19 modifier gives always at least a result of 20, your entire claim about the "fog of uncertainty" is suspect. When, to maintain your precious righteousness, all you needed to do was skip back a few posts and realize that I ave already stated that Taking 20 is a legal, by the book, method for resolving situations.I saw that. I also saw the self-righteous, conceited ("IMHO" -- which rings as insincerely as the statement, "No offense, but...") declarations that: Taking 20 overall is a major cop-out... Again, Take 20 does nothing more than create a meta-gaming mentality. If a player is thinking - "I can roll better." Plain and simple. That is a metagame thought.Ah, I see where you go wrong. You forget the statement above is a metagame thought even if you leave the last word out. For some reason, you do not consider the notion that, "I can waive the roll and just take 10," to be a metagame thought, though, which is highly inconsistent. Choosing whether to roll or not to roll is metagaming, period. Whether you accept that as fact or not makes no difference. The player's focus is on the die rolling.No, it's on not die rolling -- just as it is with taking 10. What the player does, however, is neither here nor there. What matters is how relevant it is to the character's own behaviour. Since the character is free to say, "Aw, hell with it; let's just see what this does," or, "I'm as satisfied as I'm going to be today," or, "We haven't got all day and I've still got to check the rest of this room," to cover the issue, or is free to continue searching for another half an hour, the character is able to operate outside of the metagame, and I see no reason to not credit the player with the right to decide how the character is going to handle it. What am I to make of a DM that says, "I'll decide what the best of your ability is here and how much that's worth," hmm? That sort of hubris goes a long way toward trivializing a player's skill modifiers. The player's thought process is being controlled by the die result. In fact, the entire focus of the game has just become the die roll.Statements like this make the case that you don't have enough faith in your players a lot more convincing. Without Take 20, the player is no longer focused on the die roll.You cannot prove and have not proven this to be true. The player is choosing to have a die rolled, and is therefore focusing on the fact that there is a die roll involved -- and a DM who is arbitrarily messing with the skill modifier said player worked to create. You are also aware that your method also requires you to significantly retool any mechanism that allows one to reroll a skill check that would otherwise allow a player to take 20, aren't you? |
| PenderGrass02-19-07, 02:10 PM | You are also aware that your method also requires you to significantly retool any mechanism that allows one to reroll a skill check that would otherwise allow a player to take 20, aren't you? They work fine without re-tooling. I have dumped Take 20 since the second game we updated to v3.0 and have never looked back. I won't bandy words about how Luck (as discussed in D&D) has no real bearing on my interpretation of the d20 being a representation of Fate. In fact, my interpretation is likely not to be found in D&D RAW. You cannot prove and have not proven this [Without Take 20, the player is no longer focused on the die roll] to be true. The proof is in the pudding, as it were. My players do not focus on the die roll when they are searching. Instead, they focus on the character aspects of the skill - circumstances, tools used, methods utilized, etc. As for the continued "use" of the Take 10 option in my game, it was at the request of my players (and in compromise for the removal of the Take 20 rule all those years ago). They have, actually, never used it in play. The removal of it was never needed since their refusal to use it anyways has resulted in the same result. It is there, but they (my players) would always rather take the chance. Now, in regards to my claim that "it doesn't make logical sense for traps to be easily found by removing the d20" is metagame thinking. It is not. It is a perspective from within the game - as in, the trap builder (or person employing that trap maker) thinking to himself as he builds a trap that he knows will be used vs. trained personal. The point is, why build it if it isn't effective? Sure, some trap builders might be limited by tools, materials and so on. But, most people that would build a dungeon shouldn't be so limited. Look at it this way, a trap builder of certain level that is setting a trap vs a rogue of the same level should, at least, have a 50/50 chance of catching that rogue with his trap. That is what equal levels should mean. Equal chance of success on either side of the scale. Really? So how can a 1st level commoner survive falling 200 feet in your game when fate is decided by the dice? Your example is fairly inane, but, if I were to hazard a guess - my guess would be that most commoners in my game subjected to such a circumstance would likely die. The randomness in the commoner's circumstance is the amount of damage taken from the fall (typically, 1d6 per 10 feet of the fall minus the first 10 feet, or what have you for the rules of falling and taking damage). His fate is the damage taken, determined randomly. Back to the more relevant topic, Take 20 being a metagame-enducing rule. You still haven't clarified how it is not. The player is focused on the game mechanics (the d20 in the case of most skill checks), instead of being focused on the task at hand. Someone that says - "I take 20." Is, by the rules, actually saying - "my character rolls and rolls until he rolls a 20." That is a pure metagame thought process. :dragon: **** |
| weasel002-19-07, 07:27 PM | This is why you can't take 20 on a Knowledge check. No, that's because if you fail, you simply don't know it, not that you can't think of it. I like to think of it as, the luck of the die roll determines the fate of your characters actons. Your skill level improves the chances of having a better fate, but shouldn't insta-recieve the best fate. |
| Shatteredtower02-19-07, 09:44 PM | You are also aware that your method also requires you to significantly retool any mechanism that allows one to reroll a skill check that would otherwise allow a player to take 20, aren't you? [quote=PenderGrass]They work fine without re-tooling. This is easily demonstrated to be false. A cleric making "the best search that he can" is wasting the domain's power on rerolling a secret Search check. If the player knew what the result of the first roll was, there would be a point in making that reroll. ("An 8? That might not be good enough. I'm going to try again.") A player who rolled 20 would never use the power. However, if the player doesn't know, the player should never use the power at all for Search checks. It would be like playing blackjack with cards that only the dealer is allowed to see, and being charged a fee for every card drawn for you. My players do not focus on the die roll when they are searching.Even if I accepted that as true, you're claiming a cause and effect relationship that does not exist. Players in general are neither more nor less likely to focus on a die they can avoid rolling than they are one they don't get to roll. They are neither more nor less likely to preoccupy themselves with the circumstances involved in performing the skill -- only the interest value it holds to them. Maybe your players can't handle the sight of a die in such circumstances and this is just a patch you need to hold your game together. There'd be no shame in that, but not everyone appreciates such "helpfulness" from a DM. As for the continued "use" of the Take 10 option in my game, it was at the request of my players (and in compromise for the removal of the Take 20 rule all those years ago). They have, actually, never used it in play.I guess your players never have their characters make Climb, Jump, or Swim checks. It seems they don't find the game challenging enough if they insist on handicapping themselves like that all the time. Now, in regards to my claim that "it doesn't make logical sense for traps to be easily found by removing the d20" is metagame thinking. It is not. It is a perspective from within the game - as in, the trap builder (or person employing that trap maker) thinking to himself as he builds a trap that he knows will be used vs. trained personal.How trained? The answer to that question must be a metagame one, and thus, relies on metagame thinking. The point is, why build it if it isn't effective?So all of your traps are of a save-or-die nature, am I right? I mean, if they're not, then the intruders just use up a few resources to address the effects of the trap and carry on. Okay, so those resources can be pretty precious things, but you've forgotten the most precious of them all when it comes to building traps: time. The most vital service provided by any good security device is time. Every second spent looking for a trap or hidden vault is time a defender has to discover the intruders and take other measures. And sure, by the rules, the average person can find a simple trap in two minutes if left uninterrupted, but that's two minutes per square searched, and then what? There aren't that many people who can disarm your trap, and those that can aren't always certain of success. Assuming, however, that your intruders do have a rogue capable of finding the chute trap you've set up halfway down the entry tunnel (the ones your minions bypass with a switch hidden on the wall beside the trigger plate) and that rogue intuitively knows where to check straightaway and can, taking 10, find that trap within a round, that rogue still needs to find the bypass switch (assuming the rogue is working against a slightly higher Search DC for this purpose, though if the DM wants to require a separate search of the trap itself to find said switch, I'm fine with tat) or the means to disarm the trap. The whole process requires no less than two, maybe three, standard actions, which usually doesn't present too much of an inconvenience for a party. However, if the whole process requires an extremely careful search of every inch of the passage, it takes them more than 10 minutes to cover a 25 ft long corridor 5 ft wide. That's an acceptable investment in a static environment, but can be an unacceptable gamble in a dynamic one. In a dynamic environment, the trap has already paid for itself by slowing down the invasion. But what about the static environment? It plays by different rules. I've seen criticisms levelled at game designers for placing traps in places that don't make sense, some of which might not actually be valid. (There had better be a very good reason for traps that destroy your own treasure or otherwise make it inaccessible, however. Just don't forget to consider the mess at Oak Island before you rule out the possibility completely.) In a dynamic, vital dungeon, traps should only be placed on high traffic routes if they're designed to be easily avoided by those aware of them. In a static environment, however, such as a tomb, there isn't necessarily a need to treat anything as a high traffic area. You can put a deadfall in every single corridor, since the people who set up the trap (supposedly) did so without any intention of sneaking back in. Now if the only deterrent that exists to the wiley rogue in the crypt is the large collection of traps and they can all be found by taking 20 on a Search check, great. Can they all be disarmed by taking 10 on a Disable Device check? If the answer is yes, you might wish to vary the DC of your traps a little bit, but you also should consider mixing up your obstacles or encounters a bit more. Incorporeal undead make good crypt guardians in such cases, but there are also such pseudo-traps as "natural" gas pockets (explosive, poisonous, nauseating, mood altering...) and permanent spell effects (a tunnel filled by a wall of fire, a wall of force that fills an entire room almost to to the ceiling), clues that can be deciphered to make the entire search easier to perform (requiring checks for Decipher Script, certain Knowledge skills, bardic knowledge -- perhaps even offering some benefit from Gather Information checks made earlier). The option to take 20 on Search checks in such a place does not rob it of its challenging qualities. You're even within rights of putting the check beyond the norm, requiring the expenditure of short duration boosts to the skill modifier. Sure, some trap builders might be limited by tools, materials and so on. But, most people that would build a dungeon shouldn't be so limited.Unless they have infinite wealth and time, of course they should. Unless they are very stupid or insanely vindictive, of course they will -- who spends 150,000 gp on a trap designed to protect an investment worth a fraction of that? Look at it this way, a trap builder of certain level that is setting a trap vs a rogue of the same level should, at least, have a 50/50 chance of catching that rogue with his trap.Nonsense. The trap has several advantages already, all of which you don't seem to appreciate. First, the trap offers an advantage to any invading force that doesn't include a rogue. (It is metagame thinking to assume that most invaders would.) Second, the trap offers an advantage against any group that doesn't include a skilled enough rogue. Fourth, the rogue has to search in the right place for the trap, which is not always as self-evident as people assume it would be. Fifth, the rogue still has to disable the trap, which does not allow the rogue the possibility of taking 20. Sixth, even a sufficiently skilled rogue finds and disables the trap, it cut into said rogue's time by a matter of minutes (assuming the rogue took 20), which can be very valuable indeed. Seventh, a rogue's trap sense, good Reflex save, and high Dexterity tend to render the issue of failing to disarm a trap that makes an attack roll or requires a Reflex save rather unlikely to have a negative impact on the character. Does that mean you disallow those as well? Eighth, unless the trap prevents the rogue from functioning afterward, it doesn't really catch the rogue at all. So how can a 1st level commoner survive falling 200 feet in your game when fate is decided by the dice? [quote=PenderGrass]Your example is fairly inane...Not at all. Ordinary people do survive falling 200 feet on the rare occasion. They tend to be in pretty bad shape, but they do survive. ...but, if I were to hazard a guess - my guess would be that most commoners in my game subjected to such a circumstance would likely die.I am very impressed by this answer. Thank you. However, having stated that, you've as much as conceded that most individuals, even most rogues, subjected to the circumstances involving a trap would likely fail to find it. The fact that a specific PC rogue, by virtue of taking 20 on the check and searching everywhere during a quiet moment, would not makes no difference. The average 1st level commoner, even a human given Toughness (x2), will always die in the act of falling 200 ft. There's a possibility that that character might survive, but it's not happening by the RAW. Your rogue PC might, in theory, overlook the trap after several minutes of constant search, but does not. Others might. Knowing why they would if they searched as methodically as the PC did, is metagame knowledge only. The PC is free to assume that he just go lucky compared to those other fellows, not that he was necessarily better. He might even consider them role models -- and they might even have had a better Search modifier than he did. What you do to NPCs on their own time, when it has no direct impact on the PCs, is up to you. Back to the more relevant topic, Take 20 being a metagame-enducing rule. You still haven't clarified how it is not."Hang on a second, guys... let me just take a look before you step in something... okay, looks fine." "Hang on. No, wait now... wait. Yeah, it looks okay at first glance, but you know what Lord Windemup is like. I just don't want to rush myself if I don't have to, you know? Right, right, no obvious bloodstains, but does this section of floor look like it's been washed more recently than the rest, Reg? Naw, look, if there was blood and they did clean it up, it would be a little bit cleaner. Well, sure, they could have cleaned the rest of the place too so we couldn't tell, but... no, no, you're right. Let's do the comparison anyway. Say, you got any of that jerky left over. I mean, we've been running ourselves ragged this last half hour and I'm not sure when I'll get another bi-- look, I said don't rush me, alright? I can talk and look at the same time. Those cracks in the stone are natural enough, see? No, I don't think they stuffed any sort of trap in between them. Maybe underneath, sure, but that's not a big enough gap for-- okay, guys, I give up. I can see you're getting restless and I'm not seeing anything here. Let's go." Where's that metagame? Meanwhile, in your system: P1: "I search as best I can." DM: "Your search turns up nothing." P1: "I can't find anything, guys." P2: "Was your search as thorough as possible?" P1: "Of course it was!" P2: "What makes you so sure?" The final question is damning, because the only answer is, "The DM told me so." Now you can make any other reason you like up, but you haven't avoided metagaming at all. The player is focused on the game mechanics (the d20 in the case of most skill checks), instead of being focused on the task at hand. Someone that says - "I take 20." Is, by the rules, actually saying - "my character rolls and rolls until he rolls a 20."If it's actually saying anything, it's saying, "In lieu of rolling, I will simply take a two minute penalty on my skill check and we'll assume I rolled a 20." That's the metagame side of the action, just as, "I'm going to roll to hit," is the metagame side of "I attack", or "I want to make an Intimidate check to make him cooperate," is the metagame side of, "I loom menancingly until he realizes how much less painful it's going to be to just tell me what I want to know.." That is a pure metagame thought process.Not when you compare it to the, "I've done the best I can because the DM told me I did," method. |
| weasel002-19-07, 11:10 PM | Just to be a butt... What was #3? It seems to be missing. also PenderGrass, your PCs don't use "Take 10"? I'll bet that when in battle both your NPCs and the PCs are utilizing the built in "Take 10" on Amor Class. |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:15 AM | PenderGrass, your PCs don't use "Take 10"? I'll bet that when in battle both your NPCs and the PCs are utilizing the built in "Take 10" on Amor Class. Although I have toyed with removing that particular version of "taking 10" (in the context of this thread I would hardly classify it as a Take 10 action - that is, a concious choice of the player or DM to remove a die roll based solely on their character's desire), I have as yet done so. Most other "take 10" versions built into the game have fallen by the wayside though. Including, spell DC calculation, poison DC calculation, etc. Again, I would rather not shotgun out much from the debate that Shatteredtower seems stuck on (sort of). Now. Shatteredtower, P1: "I search as best I can." DM: "Your search turns up nothing." P1: "I can't find anything, guys." P2: "Was your search as thorough as possible?" P1: "Of course it was!" P2: "What makes you so sure?" P2 obviously must have been out of the room when P1 declared his action to the DM (or P2 is a total moron). For My Game: 1. Die Roll does not equal "best I can." 2. Actual character's desire to do well (as expressed by the player or DM) is what counts as "best I can" - not the die roll. If you cannot deal with that, too bad. My view of Take 20: Take 20 is player or DM focused on die roll outcome - not the actions of the characters, monsters, NPCs, etc. Therefore, it is a metagame thought process. If you cannot deal with that, too bad. I think that covers it. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:19 AM | Just to be extra clear how wrong you are: The final question is damning, because the only answer is, "The DM told me so." Now you can make any other reason you like up, but you haven't avoided metagaming at all. The actual only answer at my table is - "I told the DM so." :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:21 AM | If it's actually saying anything, it's saying, "In lieu of rolling, I will simply take a two minute penalty on my skill check and we'll assume I rolled a 20." Even in your defense of how it is not metagaming, you can't even express the player's (or DM's) decision without including a reference to the die roll. Absolute proof that it is a metagame process. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:27 AM | Not when you compare it to the, "I've done the best I can because the DM told me I did," method. Really? Is that how I run my game? :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:30 AM | Not at all. Ordinary people do survive falling 200 feet on the rare occasion. They tend to be in pretty bad shape, but they do survive. You do realize that this is D&D and not Physics 101 or "Explain Why Things Happen On Earth," right? :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 12:39 AM | First, the trap offers an advantage to any invading force that doesn't include a rogue. (It is metagame thinking to assume that most invaders would.) A world that has rogues and rangers would likely include one or both in an invading force. Unless rogues and rangers are unique, most trap-builders would likely consider them whilst building any trap. Since craft skills don't allow take 20 in your system, I would hardly say a trap in your world has a fair chance against someone that can readily pull a take 20 rule out of their player's mouth. Let's see - a guaranteed 20 vs. a variable crafting skill? I would lay bets on the rogue every time - after all, he is controlling fate. :dragon: **** |
| Someone02-20-07, 01:03 AM | Guess I'll stick my neck out again... Take 20 is player or DM focused on die roll outcome - not the actions of the characters, monsters, NPCs, etc. Therefore, it is a metagame thought process.I have to disagree on this point. Attack rolls are a "die roll outcome"- but that doesn't stop any DM from vibrantly describing the scene, with claws scraping against armor, and teeth that stink like a rotted fish inches from the PC's face. There are two extremes that I would not allow: first, that just because the player can describe the action in excessive detail, that a PC would automatically succeed. And second, that just because the player can't come up with a good description, that a PC would automatically fail. To me, your system seems backwards- you describe the action, and then determine the result. As opposed to determining the result (i.e. rolling dice) and then describing the action. Also, the Search DC to find a trap is not opposed by the Craft (traps) check. While better hidden traps are harder to make, the Craft check(s) determine how long it takes to make it, not how good the result is (that is determined by DC). And why do you seem so upset that a trained eye (ranks in Search) can notice the subtle signs of a trap (trapfinding) if they take enough time to thoroughly check an area (take 20), when they could have missed it with a quick scan (take 10)? |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 02:35 AM | I have to disagree on this point. Then, I would say you don't understand what metagaming is. The DMG says this about it - "Any time the players base their characters' actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game; they're using metagame thinking." The player declaring - "I search the room to the best of my ability, leaving nothing unturned or unexamined. I take as much time as needed" - is not a metagame thought process. The player declaring - "I search the room by Taking 20." - is a metagame thought process. No matter how you slice it, he is looking at an in-game situation (the searching of the room), and resolving it with metagame thinking (I want to have the best possible die result, I have plenty of time, I take 20). Metagaming at its most obvious and simplistic. Attack rolls are a "die roll outcome"- but that doesn't stop any DM from vibrantly describing the scene, with claws scraping against armor, and teeth that stink like a rotted fish inches from the PC's face. Not relevant. There are two extremes that I would not allow: first, that just because the player can describe the action in excessive detail, that a PC would automatically succeed. And second, that just because the player can't come up with a good description, that a PC would automatically fail. The current edition of rules does a fairly good job at preventing either situation. But, again, not relevant. To me, your system seems backwards- you describe the action, and then determine the result. As opposed to determining the result (i.e. rolling dice) and then describing the action. How so? A player tells me they are searching to the best of their ability. I roll the die and describe the outcome. Same order. No backwardness. Also, the Search DC to find a trap is not opposed by the Craft (traps) check. While better hidden traps are harder to make, the Craft check(s) determine how long it takes to make it, not how good the result is (that is determined by DC). In essence, any of the mechanically crafted CR10 traps are easily found by a 1st level rogue of moderate expertise. So, a 1st level rogue using a Take 20 action with a +2 search skill easily finds a CR10 trap? CR10. Versus a level 1 rogue??? While it takes a craft:trapmaking DC 30 to create one??? Yeah, don't tell me craft isn't related to how easily search overwhelms it. And why do you seem so upset that a trained eye (ranks in Search) can notice the subtle signs of a trap (trapfinding) if they take enough time to thoroughly check an area (take 20), when they could have missed it with a quick scan (take 10)? It doesn't upset me. I just don't allow Take 20 in my game because it is a blatant metagaming thought process. :dragon: **** |
| Nom02-20-07, 07:12 AM | At the risk of diverting this fascinating discussion, I'm going to go right back to the original post: Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll.As Olsh pointed out, there are actually two rolls required when attempting to deal with a trap. The first is the Search check. The second is the Disable Device check, or other alternative skill check (often Jump or Climb) to bypass the trap. Now, let's consider the metagame, but in rather the opposite way that has been done previously. D&D is at once a game and a story, with the DM and players as both participants and spectators. The most important rule of D&D is actually a metagame rule - it's about having fun. Elevating the game such that the metagame becomes less fun is like removing the passenger compartment of a car to improve its mileage - you've optimized away the actual point of the activity. As a general rule, an undiscoverable trap is boring and frustrating: "Now I'm going to roll random damage against your PCs". Surprise traps in movies can sometimes work, because the movie can make a big deal out of how the lead character escapes from it. But in D&D, most traps are "resolved" via a simple damage roll, possibly modified by an attack or save. The players only get a chance to witness and possibly suffer. Rolling a Ref save is barely reacting, let alone acting. In contrast, a discovered trap is interesting. The PCs now have to make decisions. Do they try to disarm it? Bypass it? Go around it? Go through it? Once the trap is discovered, control is in the players' hands and thus they are "playing" (aka "having fun"). Which isn't to say that all traps need to be discovered. There are three other ways of making traps interesting, all of which have been mentioned above: (1) As part of a larger encounter. Example: kobolds attacking from behind a hidden pit. Example: collapsing bridge. Traps work best when they are combined with a bigger encounter. A trap by itself is just the potential for random damage, which if not fatal is usually fairly easy to remove. Introduce the time pressure of monsters, and suddenly the trap becomes an additional environmental hazard (interesting) rather than a bland encounter. (2) Under time pressure. Example: hidden bear traps. This is similar to but subtly different than #1. In this case, you know there are traps there, but you don't have the time to take 20. The players need to balance the sureity of taking 20 against the time cost of doing so. Generally, these traps should be inconveniencing rather than deadly. "There's a deadly trap out there but I'm not going to let you search for it" is basically the "random damage" scenario except that the DM warns you that he will randomly kill off the PC rather than springing it as a surprise. (3) The Masked Trap The other way to make a trap hard to detect is to put a dummy trap or obstacle in front of it. Pits are particularly good for this, since you can have the real trap outside the 10 ft. range. This can reward creative thinking on the part of the players as their PCs outwit the trap designers. It can also be overused. If it occurs too often, PCs will become paranoid or give up. If it is used to make traps undetectable rather than tricky, it suggests that the DM intends to force the PCs to take random damage whether they like it or not, and whether they play smart or not. Finally, I should mention the dungeon of traps. Unlike the previous examples, this one doesn't use traps as an environmental hazard and doesn't use time pressure. Rather, the traps are the adventure. You just assume that the rogue will take 20, and that the party will move at a snail's pace. The challenge isn't finding the traps, it's figuring out how to get past each one. DM's need some finesse to pull this off, or it will simply become lots of Disable Device rolls. |
| Cantankerous02-20-07, 07:38 AM | I just don't allow Take 20 in my game because it is a blatant metagaming thought process. :dragon: **** It's USUALLY a metagame thought process, not always. If you've already run in to fifteen traps in the process of going through the caverns and all of them have been, let's say, soon after an area where there were murder holes in the wall (because before this place was deserted, they used to push people along into these traps by firing from the relative safety of their murder holes) or celing or both and now you've gotten to an area where there are the bloody murder holes but you haven't found a trap after a cursory search, you'd be a moron not to then take time, maybe alot of time, to be bloody damned sure. That is taking twenty without metagaming it at all. Planning and executing a VERY slow climb, being damned sure of your footing and of each hand hold is taking twenty... and take it from a climber, it is in no manner unusual if it looks like a rough passage. Take twenty definitively DOES have it's place in the game, and is not necessarily metagamy at all. Isshia |
| Lilinthra02-20-07, 11:14 AM | In essence, any of the mechanically crafted CR10 traps are easily found by a 1st level rogue of moderate expertise. So, a 1st level rogue using a Take 20 action with a +2 search skill easily finds a CR10 trap? CR10. Versus a level 1 rogue??? While it takes a craft:trapmaking DC 30 to create one??? Yeah, don't tell me craft isn't related to how easily search overwhelms it. Okay, I'll tell you that mechanical traps don't scale to higher CRs as well as magical traps do. There are only 3 CR 10 mechanical traps (in the SRD anyway), and two of them don't even need a trapfinding class to discover. The CR isn't for finding a trap so much as the combination of finding/disabling/surviving/bypassing it. |
| Marcus Majarra02-20-07, 12:18 PM | Kudos to Nom's post! |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 01:15 PM | As a general rule, an undiscoverable trap is boring and frustrating: "Now I'm going to roll random damage against your PCs". Surprise traps in movies can sometimes work, because the movie can make a big deal out of how the lead character escapes from it. But in D&D, most traps are "resolved" via a simple damage roll, possibly modified by an attack or save. The players only get a chance to witness and possibly suffer. Rolling a Ref save is barely reacting, let alone acting. As a general rule, a trap should never be boring. If you are running your traps in this general manner, then obviously, your players (and likely, yourself) will end up ruing their use in your game. As a general rule for a well-run trap, you should harken to Indiana Jones' giant stone ball of death, Star Wars' trash compactor, Tomb of Horrors' myriad of traps, and so on. Consider your trap to be an NPC - would you really place an important NPC into the game and give it no personality, no real voice and his sole purpose is to do one thing - yeah, boring. Your traps should have personality. If not, it is no wonder you would rather just not make them a challenge. EDIT - I would also note that much of the excitement in a "movie trap" is very possible in a D&D trap. :dragon: **** |
| Someone02-20-07, 01:48 PM | I'd say most of the movie drama comes from the character trying to bypass/disable the trap, with the tension building as they look over the device. Anyway, to back up a bit, its only a difference in description to say "[the PC] searches the area to the best of their ability, taking their time" instead of "I take 20 on a Search check". But they both mean the same thing, its just differences in DM style and how they want the players to describe the PC's actions. Also, most of a mechanical trap's CR come from how much damage they can do, not how hard they are to find. The CR 10 crushing wall trap, for example, does 16d6 damage! But its only a DC 22 Search and a DC 20 (!) Disable. |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 02:05 PM | I'd say most of the movie drama comes from the character trying to bypass/disable the trap, with the tension building as they look over the device. 90% or more of the tension in Temple of Doom is from the characters activating a trap and then having to deal with it as it works through its mechanical march towards their doom. Anyway, to back up a bit, its only a difference in description to say "[the PC] searches the area to the best of their ability, taking their time" instead of "I take 20 on a Search check". But they both mean the same thing, its just differences in DM style and how they want the players to describe the PC's actions. Although, I don't necessarily agree about them being the "same," I do agree it is a difference in DMing style. Also, most of a mechanical trap's CR come from how much damage they can do, not how hard they are to find. The CR 10 crushing wall trap, for example, does 16d6 damage! But its only a DC 22 Search and a DC 20 (!) Disable. Seems kinda inane, since the damage would likely never happen. The cost, time and skill required for a CR10 trap makes them the most useless things in D&D - as per RAW. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-20-07, 02:23 PM | Simple: Player: I search for traps. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: I suspect something is there, I decide to search again, this time taking 5 billion hours and looking at every micro-section. DM (rolling once): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Odd, I have read this module and I know there is something there. I search again - this time for 400 billion years. DM (not rolling): Nothing makes itself apparent. Player: Why didn't you roll again? DM: Because you already looked to the best of your ability. That is how simple it is. That's not simple, that is simplistic. Take 20 is a rule mechanic to speed up play, nothing more. If you chose to believe that all Take 20 checks involve player knowledge, and are unable to express that without absurd hyperbole, then there really is no point in discussing it at all. |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 02:42 PM | Take 20 is a rule mechanic to speed up play, nothing more. If you chose to believe that all Take 20 checks involve player knowledge, and are unable to express that without absurd hyperbole, then there really is no point in discussing it at all. Even without hyperbole, I have as yet seen anything to deter my thinking about Take 20. :dragon: **** |
| LCD2YOU02-20-07, 02:45 PM | ...assuming, of course, that the DM puts traps in logical places. Some adventure designers (both professional and amateur) place traps in the most bizarre places that it is clear the only purpose is to play "Gotcha!"Instead of calling it "playing gotcha", I prefer to call it what it really is, "Surprising the complacent". |
| Boraxe02-20-07, 03:10 PM | Even without hyperbole, I have as yet seen anything to deter my thinking about Take 20. That's too bad. I've found it really is a lot more fun to use the Take 20 mechanic to speed up the game rather than sitting around for 10 minutes watching one player make dozens of repetitive die rolls. YMMV of course. |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 03:14 PM | That's too bad. I've found it really is a lot more fun to use the Take 20 mechanic to speed up the game rather than sitting around for 10 minutes watching one player make dozens of repetitive die rolls. YMMV of course. Yeah, I would hate to sit around and do that too. I wonder if anyone plays that way. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-20-07, 03:15 PM | Yeah, I would hate to sit around and do that too. I wonder if anyone plays that way. Not when they use Take 20. ;) |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 03:40 PM | Not when they use Take 20. ;) Or play in my game. :P :cool: :dragon: **** |
| Shatteredtower02-20-07, 09:42 PM | What was #3? It seems to be missing.Whoops. That's what I get for changing the order but not the wording. P2 obviously must have been out of the room when P1 declared his action to the DM (or P2 is a total moron).There's nothing obvious about it. How does the player know? You say it's obvious, but haven't shown how this is so. For My Game:Yes, I got that -- except that you keep insisting that your way, in spite of the hassle it would create if it was adapted universally, is better. I have no objection to you playing that way. I strongly object to the falsehood that it's a superior system in any way. 1. Die Roll does not equal "best I can."In its place, the DM arbitrarily meddles with the player's skill modifier to set a value called, "best your DM thinks you ought to be able to do." 2. Actual character's desire to do well (as expressed by the player or DM) is what counts as "best I can" - not the die roll.Since the DM determines the modifiers on the spot, determining exactly how long it takes, and everything else, whether the player is informed of it or not, your claim is dubious at best. My view of Take 20:You forgot, "And it's a bad, bad thing that has done a major disservice to the game." Don't forget the most important part. I think that covers it.Considering how many more responses followed immediately after this one, it apparently does not. Just to be extra clear how wrong you are: The actual only answer at my table is - "I told the DM so."Whether you acknowledge it or not, that's not so. If the player didn't specify how long that ultra-thorough search takes, the DM decided it. The DM made judgment calls on many, maybe even all, of the measures the player took to improve chances of success. That doesn't sound like it offers much voice to the player at all. Lots to the DM, however. Even in your defense of how it is not metagaming, you can't even express the player's (or DM's) decision without including a reference to the die roll. Absolute proof that it is a metagame process.Then let me put it this way: "I look around." "I carefully look around." "I take some time and care to look around." Since you've demonstrated a thorough knowledge of how morons think in your posts, perhaps you could tell me which a moron would read as a Search check, taking 10 on a Search check, and taking 20. Perhaps you could also demonstrate how the difference might not be so clear to a brighter individual like yourself. Please note that at no time did my explanation require reference to the dice. So much for "absolute proof." You object to taking 20 because it eliminates the element of chance, a chance made all the more random (from a player's perspective) by the modifiers you choose to hand out at the time the check is made. However, taking 20 does nothing of the sort. There's a chance that the player will not search a particular square. There's a chance that the Search will be interupted. There's a chance that the players and their characters will want to hurry things up within game. There's even a chance that the DC to find a given item within that particular square is too high for the PC to achieve even with a result of 20. The difference between your method and taking 20 is that the chance is in the hands of the players in the latter case, in yours in the former. Admittedly, my years of gaming have left me biased in favour of taking 20 for one simple reason: the players have less to blame on me when they're the ones holding all the chances. Please refrain from calling them morons again, won't you? Is that how I run my game?It certainly seems to be. You do realize that this is D&D and not Physics 101 or "Explain Why Things Happen On Earth," right?Well, that came out of nowhere. Since you missed the point, allow me to explain it again: What occurs by the rules is meant to apply to circumstances in which the PCs are involved. The game mechanics are merely guidelines when it comes to determining the result of events that occur beyond their view. The trap that your party will find if they take the necessary amount of time to search the right five foot square space is the same trap many others would have missed, preferred to leave alone, been detained in the act of dealing with it, or overcome in a manner that left it in place (or else was restored afterward, possibly with a slight adjustment). A world that has rogues and rangers would likely include one or both in an invading force.Both require time, a commodity that is valuable to anyone investigating a space larger than that occupied by the orc guarding the chest in a 10 ft x 10 ft room. Unless rogues and rangers are unique, most trap-builders would likely consider them whilst building any trap.Consider? Well, no; that would be metagaming. They'd be aware of the fact that anything you can hide, someone else can find, but that's not the same thing. You work to make the trap as difficult as possible, but not all of that is built into the design. Since craft skills don't allow take 20 in your system, I would hardly say a trap in your world has a fair chance against someone that can readily pull a take 20 rule out of their player's mouth.Sure it does. You seem to assume that everyone in the world takes two minutes to comb every five foot square area before they take a step, and that they have the luxury to do so. Or maybe you just assume that people only put traps in obvious spots, saving those pesky trap-finders a lot of trouble. Right now, I am sitting in the middle of a space roughly 15 ft wide by 25 ft across. If taking 20 was an option for me, it would take me half an hour to search this entire area. If I wanted to search only a path from one particular exit to another, leaving off the stairs up and the room on either side of me, not to mention the alcove I'm in (in case it contained a secret door, not that it does), I'm still looking at ten minutes. Now imagine I'm doing that while 1 minute/level spells are counting down and there's even the slightest chance that someone will come through the area I'm searching, possibly driving me into the unexplored area. The defender's advantage is that the defense is already in place. The attacker is faced with the problem of overcoming the defenses with the minimum amount of hassle. Lost time can be a major hassle. Let's see - a guaranteed 20 vs. a variable crafting skill?Once more: a guaranteed 20 if you have the luxury of time and use it in the right space. You keep downplaying the importance of these factors because you're assuming PC-level thoroughness (even though it appears that many players don't enjoy being that thorough) and appear to also be assuming that a trap is surrounded by static conditions. Now I'm reasonably confident that you don't actually employ static "dungeon" design when it comes to trap placement, but your arguments say something else. I would lay bets on the rogue every time - after all, he is controlling fate.Only when operating without time constraints in a static environment. |
| Shatteredtower02-20-07, 09:50 PM | The DMG says this about it - "Any time the players base their characters' actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game; they're using metagame thinking.""I am taking more time on this to hopefully improve my chances of success," is taking 20. It doesn't necessarily improve one's chances of success. Sure, if they can succeed, the game mechanics assure that they will -- provided they can get the necessary two minutes to perform the task. Sometimes, they can't, but this isn't enough uncertainty. The claim is that the game is improved by allowing all DMs the freedom to arbitrarily adjust the difficulty level in accordance with personal whim every time a Search check is made, making the DM's whims more important than the effort put into the character design. Never mind that people will go from table to table, never sure that any DM (and certainly not any two DMs) will evaluate the same circumstances the same way twice; at least it prevents players from metagaming! Except it doesn't. A player, taking 20 on the roll, still doesn't know if that will assure success. Perhaps the player needs a 22. Perhaps the player will be distracted at some point during the Search, forcing the character to start over. The logic of their decision is not based on knowledge of playing a game. The mechanics are based instead on the logical notion that taking your time on a task often produces better results. The objection is to how much better those results are when there's a chance of success being possible. Why this is deemed inferior to a much more arbitrary system has yet to be explained. In essence, any of the mechanically crafted CR10 traps are easily found by a 1st level rogue of moderate expertise. So, a 1st level rogue using a Take 20 action with a +2 search skill easily finds a CR10 trap?The efficacy of a trap is determined by how easily it can be disabled, not found. Finding it does not solve all of the rogue's problems. It's incorrect to assume that the only reason the trap is relevant is because it's in the party's path. It's improper to base all reasoning concerning the trap on the idea that it's supposed to be hard for the PCs to find, rather than on virtually anyone that comes across it. Since a two minute Search time is a luxury that the party can't always afford, the time involved in taking 20 is clearly a measure of a trap's difficulty. It's not metagaming to take 20 on a check. It is metagaming to not take 20 when you know you only need to roll an 11 (or a 14 or wherever you draw the line) -- or when you assume in advance, based on what you know of the rules, that 20 is not going to succeed. Your traps should have personality.Not always. (And one should only play the Bowling Ball of Doom for laughs.) Most of the time, a pit should just be a pit. If not, it is no wonder you would rather just not make them a challenge.The challenge in finding a trap is doing so in a timely manner. However, finding the trap is not the end of the challenge. Once the trap is found, its personality can come out in the answers to several questions: 1) Where is it? Is it on a door, the floor, a wall, the ceiling, or some other feature? 2) Why is it here? Is it meant to keep people out of an area, in which case, you do want it to be more easily found than overcome? It it meant to keep them trapped within an area, in which case you want to reduce the likelihood of them looking for a danger. Is it meant to waste people's time, in which case you want to make sure anyone could find it? Is it meant to drive intruders to distraction? Is it meant to destroy them utterly and leave no trace of their passing -- and what does that say about the designer's motives? 3) Are there likely to more traps like it? If so, are they meant to lead the thinking of intruders along certain lines, away from the real obstacle further along their path? 4) What do the traps say about the place and its owner? Do they favour a theme, suggesting a weakness or other opportunity you can exploit? 5) Can the trap be used directly against your enemies? By resetting it, can you conceal the fact that you've been this way? Is it possible to make it appear that you were caught in the trap, only to lure your enemies into it themselves? I don't doubt you can come up with even better questions in about half a second, but all of this demonstrates that a trap's personality is not determined by the difficulty of the Search DC. Taking 20 on the check takes nothing away from the encounter. 90% or more of the tension in Temple of Doom is from the characters activating a trap and then having to deal with it as it works through its mechanical march towards their doom.The Disable Device check, in other words. We never saw the equivalent of a Search check. In the scene that follows the badly failed Disable Device check, our hero lacks enough time to make any more Search checks and is forced to rely on a very good Reflex save (coupled with his trap sense bonus) and how well he could avoid being hit by attack rolls (possibly aided by the Run skill, since he'd have had no Dexterity bonus to AC otherwise). But the tension comes as that first check is made. The audience typically spends the rest of the scene laughing, in my experience. It's not even that it's become trite with time -- it was considered amusing back when it first came out too. (Possibly more amusing, though.) Also, most of a mechanical trap's CR come from how much damage they can do, not how hard they are to find. The CR 10 crushing wall trap, for example, does 16d6 damage! But its only a DC 22 Search and a DC 20 (!) Disable.Seems kinda inane, since the damage would likely never happen.You're thinking in metagame terms again. This statement is only true in regards to the PC party, not the game world at large. Sure, that trap can be easily overcome by a 6th level rogue with 12 Intelligence and 9 ranks in Disable Device, just by taking 10 on the check. Max a 14 Intelligence rogue out for Disable Device checks by taking the appropriate feats and a human can pull it off at 1st level -- but so what? The trap was not designed with the PCs in mind, just as most guards were not selected with the PCs in mind. They were designed with the idea of taking care of most opposition, even those who could find and disable it easily -- but never thought (or never had a chance) to look there. As you say, it happens all the time. That doesn't mean it should happen all the time within game, however. It's enough that it can happen all the time within the greater game world, with or without a roll. Granted, individual DCs might be off, but that's an issue with DCs, not with the option to take 20 (or 10) |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 11:30 PM | "I am taking more time on this to hopefully improve my chances of success," is taking 20. It doesn't necessarily improve one's chances of success. If this were true, then why do it? Your logic is nonexistent. Of course taking 20 improves chances. 20 is a higher number than a 1. The higher number increases chance for success. Really, are you expecting people to believe that 20 is the same or less than 1? :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 11:33 PM | I have no objection to you playing that way. I strongly object to the falsehood that it's a superior system in any way. The only way I ever claimed it being superior is that it works superbly for my group. Since, you cannot accept that fact, you need more help than I can give you here. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-20-07, 11:43 PM | Whether you acknowledge it or not, that's not so. Sure, it is so. If the player didn't specify how long that ultra-thorough search takes, the DM decided it. So you assume. The DM made judgment calls on many, maybe even all, of the measures the player took to improve chances of success. More assumptions. That doesn't sound like it offers much voice to the player at all. Lots to the DM, however. I understand now that you are just going to assume I am trying to **** over my players from start to finish. Is it because you had a DM that ****ed you over in the past? Are you projecting because you can't DM properly by keeping yourself in a neutral, unbiased role? Are you just a bitter little person in a dark hole that likes attacking people from the safety of the internet? Who knows. Good luck and mahalo. :dragon: **** |
| Cantankerous02-21-07, 02:16 AM | Even without hyperbole, I have as yet seen anything to deter my thinking about Take 20. :dragon: **** Did you read mine? You seem to have avoided it. Isshia |
| PenderGrass02-21-07, 03:27 AM | It's USUALLY a metagame thought process, not always. If you've already run in to fifteen traps in the process of going through the caverns and all of them have been, let's say, soon after an area where there were murder holes in the wall (because before this place was deserted, they used to push people along into these traps by firing from the relative safety of their murder holes) or celing or both and now you've gotten to an area where there are the bloody murder holes but you haven't found a trap after a cursory search, you'd be a moron not to then take time, maybe alot of time, to be bloody damned sure. That is taking twenty without metagaming it at all. Planning and executing a VERY slow climb, being damned sure of your footing and of each hand hold is taking twenty... and take it from a climber, it is in no manner unusual if it looks like a rough passage. Take twenty definitively DOES have it's place in the game, and is not necessarily metagamy at all. Isshia I am not looking at the reason behind a player utilizing the Take 20 rule, I am looking at the player focusing on the die roll and mechanics of the game. Once that happens, it has become a metagame process. No matter what - or if anything - leads up to the decision of the Take 20 action, once it is stated, the mind has already moved away from the in-game world. So, it doesn't matter if the player has a "valid" reason for taking 20, the essence of the statement is - "instead of rolling, I use the rules to allow the die roll to be replaced by a 20." The focus has shifted to mechanics and die roll calculations. Granted, it is obviously not an easy concept for many to grasp (just look at the length and banging of heads in this thread), but plain and simple - it is a metagaming thought process that removes much of the flavor of D&D. Not everyone will see it this way. Heck, WotC obviously didn't - or maybe they didn't care. But, outside of RPGA, you won't ever catch me running a game that includes it. PS - Sorry if I didn't respond to this post initially. :dragon: **** |
| Nom02-21-07, 06:40 AM | No matter what - or if anything - leads up to the decision of the Take 20 action, once it is stated, the mind has already moved away from the in-game world.Agreed. But that's true of even a single roll. What taking 20 does is reduce the amount of mechanics processing. Rather than simulate every 6 seconds of activity, we simulate 120 seconds. Rather than iterate through "check - nothing - do I try again? - is there anything to find? - how long am I gonna spend on this?", we replace it with a single "I'll do a thorough check" mechanic. Or you can instead use a single check with a DM-determined fudge factor, but I'm not really sure what that gains in the big picture. Interestingly, I've recently read through the GNS articles on the forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/). This seems an almost textbook Gamist vs Simulationist dichotomy. From a Gamist perspective, searching for traps is boring. Just reveal the silly thing and let the PCs start trying to beat it ("game on!"). "Losing" a fight you didn't even know was there is spectating, not playing. In contrast, Pender seems to be coming from a Simulationist perspective, with references to "realism" factors about whether the PCs find the trap and heavy use of DM judgement (and Force) in the application of modifiers. In either case, the take 20 mechanic is not metagaming. Metagaming is not "out of character", it's "out of game model". Like all mechanics, it's out-of-character, but the fact that it is explicitly mappable with respect to in-character activity means that it's not inherently metagaming - the PC isn't "breaking the 4th wall", so to speak. Metagaming is "I know there's a trap here because I saw a trap marked on the adventure key and we haven't had one yet". Take 20 is a mechanic for "just keep trying until I decide to give up", which can be perfectly in-character in exactly the same way as any other skill check. Now, you might not like the mechanic or it's in-game effects, but that doesn't make it metagame. In contrast, your dislike for it is metagame. ;) |
| Marcus Majarra02-21-07, 01:29 PM | Exactly. If taking 20 is metagaming, then so is any other part of the game that allows you to change the value of a die roll for its maximum value (such as Maximize Spell, for example). |
| Caligula02-21-07, 05:40 PM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. At the end of the session while dirving home I observed that while I'm not super fmailiar with the rules, I did think that tkaing 20 in this situation may not be legit. Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. For clarity and the sanity of our new GM, can you tell me if a thief can take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find pit traps? Or really for any type of trap? Why not take 20 to find a trap on a chest? I'm sorry guys, but you may NEVER take 20 when a normal failed check would result in something happening or threatening the character. Indeed a failed normal check in this very example would result in the trap being sprung. The take 20 is used for standard kind of checks, where the character is not under stress, where he is not threatened by a missed check, and where he has plenty of time - about 20 times more than a normal check would take. |
| Shatteredtower02-21-07, 05:55 PM | Good catch, Caligula. "I am taking more time on this to hopefully improve my chances of success," is taking 20. It doesn't necessarily improve one's chances of success. If this were true, then why do it?Because "does not necessarily" is not the same as "does not". Of course taking 20 improves chances. 20 is a higher number than a 1. The higher number increases chance for success.If the DC is 30 and you can achieve a result of no better than 25, taking 20 cannot improve your chances. Why makes that difficult to comprehend? The only way I ever claimed it being superior is that it works superbly for my group.You called taking 20 a cop-out. You've derided it as a mechanism repeatedly. That is not consistent with your current claim. So you assume.You're changing your story again, are you? The DM made judgment calls on many, maybe even all, of the measures the player took to improve chances of success.More assumptions.Well, yes, I had assumed you were being honest in your earlier posts. Are you telling me that you've been less than honest? I understand now that you are just going to assume I am trying to **** over my players from start to finish.PenderGrass, your players are perfectly happy to play in your game no matter how you change the rules, it seems. That's cool, and to your credit for keeping them interested. But your system does lead to DM abuse, even if you, personally, are not (at least not intentionally) abusing that system. It's great that you're managing it just fine for your table, but I'd rather not see the condition spread. Is it because you had a DM that ****ed you over in the past?It's because I've seen the option to take 20 eliminate a lot of needless squabbling. I say this as a DM and a player. Now it might make you feel better to believe that only morons get wound up about such things, but that's not been my experience. Likewise, you might find that people ignore the possibilities within play (rather than mechanics) when they have a choice of rolling or not rolling a die, but I haven't found that to be true either. The rest is just glass houses. |
| mtrpcic02-21-07, 05:58 PM | This is how I consider it. When looking for a trap (or making a search check on the go), you get one chance. In game, your character doesn't know he rolled a 7 as opposed to a 20. Either way, the in game character did the best he could at that particular time to find it. Of course, later on he can search again, but nobody in their right mind searches an area to what they think is the best of their ability, only to search it again a few seconds later. |
| Matthew7702-21-07, 06:08 PM | Of course, later on he can search again, but nobody in their right mind searches an area to what they think is the best of their ability, only to search it again a few seconds later. What if "the best of their ability" involves spending 2 minutes to examine every square inch instead of spending 6 seconds to give a quick scan? |
| Sildatorak02-21-07, 07:51 PM | I'm sorry guys, but you may NEVER take 20 when a normal failed check would result in something happening or threatening the character. Indeed a failed normal check in this very example would result in the trap being sprung.A failed check here has no concequences of its own beyond failure. A failed swim check means you might go under, failed climb you may fall, failed disarm you might set off the trap. Failed search means you don't see it, not that you set it off. The take 20 is used for standard kind of checks, where the character is not under stress, where he is not threatened by a missed check, and where he has plenty of time - about 20 times more than a normal check would take.And all 3 of these can apply in cases where rogues are inclined to search for traps. Failure, in and of itself, has no concequences. |
| Nom02-21-07, 08:15 PM | I'm sorry guys, but you may NEVER take 20 when a normal failed check would result in something happening or threatening the character. Indeed a failed normal check in this very example would result in the trap being sprung.I thought we'd already covered this. There is no rule in the PH or DMG that directly links a failed search check with triggering a trap. Unless you're asking something completely different, in which case you've lost me. If you fail a search check, you don't find anything. If you fail 20 search checks, you don't find anything 20 times. In contrast, if you fail a Disable Device check badly enough, you trigger the trap. If you fail a Disable Device check badly 20 times, you potentially trigger the trap 20 times. Note that you can take 20 on Disable Device in the right circumstances, namely when the DC is sufficiently low compared to your bonus that you can't fail by 5 or more. However, one wonders why you're taking 20 in this case. This is how I consider it. When looking for a trap (or making a search check on the go), you get one chance. In game, your character doesn't know he rolled a 7 as opposed to a 20. Either way, the in game character did the best he could at that particular time to find it. Of course, later on he can search again, but nobody in their right mind searches an area to what they think is the best of their ability, only to search it again a few seconds later.Except that D&D uses fine-grained task resolution. You don't make one attack roll to see whether you beat the monster (yes, there are quite a few systems that work this way), you make one (or more) per round. If you miss, you get to try again if you wish. Similarly, if you fail to find anything in one round worth of searching, you get to try again next round if you wish. Search is a full round action. It is not "as well as you can", it's "6 seconds worth". |
| PenderGrass02-21-07, 08:46 PM | Search is a full round action. It is not "as well as you can", it's "6 seconds worth". By RAW you may be correct. Outside RAW - and in my game - it may take only 3-6 seconds to search the interior of an empty small pouch "as well as you can" - by simply stating you pick it up, turn it inside-out and inspect the material. Outside RAW - and in my game - a player that expresses his character's desire to search a 5 foot square "as well as he can" doesn't look at it as a bunch of 6-second time frames, each with their own individual die roll. Simply stated, searching "as well you can" in my game is a single action with a single die roll. Yes, there are many variables and "what-if's" beyond that simple statement - but, essentially, it boils down to a single roll with modifications based on how well you are searching. The die roll(s) have become inconsequential. The importance has shifted to how well the player builds and plays his character. It is not, the metagame thinking process of "I get this many die rolls in this amount of time so I decide to apply mathematical statistics to walk away with the best die roll possible." :dragon: **** |
| Shatteredtower02-21-07, 09:21 PM | The die roll(s) have become inconsequential.Not if the player is looking at the difference between "die roll plus my build," and, "die roll plus my build and whatever other scraps I can convince the DM to throw my way." It doesn't matter that the difference is actually between d20+1 and d20+3, since all that matters is the variable. Eliminating the variable does not make the die roll inconsequential. The importance has shifted to how well the player builds and plays his character.And the whims of the DM. It is not, the metagame thinking process of "I get this many die rolls in this amount of time so I decide to apply mathematical statistics to walk away with the best die roll possible."Of course it is: x + y + z, where x equals the d20 result, y are the sum of the character's modifiers, and z are the sum of any other modifiers granted by the GM. The player's likelihood of success can be manipulated based on how well the DM is known to said player, a clear metagame result. The better they can play you, the better they will perform. |
| Shatteredtower02-21-07, 09:34 PM | I thought we'd already covered this. There is no rule in the PH or DMG that directly links a failed search check with triggering a trap. Unless you're asking something completely different, in which case you've lost me.My mistake. I was reading it with the idea that you couldn't be moving at your normal speed while taking 20 on that Search check. Interestingly, I've recently read through the GNS articles on the forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/). This seems an almost textbook Gamist vs Simulationist dichotomy. From a Gamist perspective, searching for traps is boring. Just reveal the silly thing and let the PCs start trying to beat it ("game on!"). "Losing" a fight you didn't even know was there is spectating, not playing. In contrast, Pender seems to be coming from a Simulationist perspective, with references to "realism" factors about whether the PCs find the trap and heavy use of DM judgement (and Force) in the application of modifiers.Good observation, and thank you. The thing is, however, that a player can opt to approach the situation from a Simulationist perspective in a game that allows them to take 20, whereas one who takes the Gamist perspective is out of luck when that option is prohibited. When I've played rogues, I've been perfectly comfortable with searching entirely according to their personal preferences. Sometimes, it even means not checking at all and hoping for the best (as a player, since the character isn't worried at all). Sometimes, that's even backfired, though it's been no less fun for having done so. At least I had that choice. |
| Cantankerous02-22-07, 04:50 AM | I am not looking at the reason behind a player utilizing the Take 20 rule, I am looking at the player focusing on the die roll and mechanics of the game. Once that happens, it has become a metagame process. Heyya Pender, I don't get it. What you've limited it to makes EVERYTHING that happens in the game into a metagame process. It's not, unless your defintions are too braod to actually be useful. Saying that you're "taking your time" in trying to find a trap has no qualitative or quantitative difference from your saying that you're "trying to find a trap". Essentially they are the same thing, with a quantifier that means time is not of the essence and you're being careful because of it. The only difference that I see is the practical one that differentiates between doing a good quick job of a thing and doing a slow but exacting job of the same thing and you're simply objecting to the fact that the mechanic has been made clear and easy to understand for both the Player and the DM. Which would beg the question; why? Isshia |
| nightwing02-22-07, 10:19 AM | I think it is important to remember that a search check is used to search a 5' square (or equivalent). Searching a pouch or backpack is not a 5' square, it's just a single item that might be found in a 5' square. Searching a pouch is not something that would normally even require a search check. It doesn't take a search check to determine that there are 7 coins in the pouch... It is a very simple idea that to search a 5' square, and be sure you've done a pretty good job, takes TIME. I can guarantee that to do a careful search of a 5' square of my office will take at least 2 minutes. Here's what one might do in the first 6 seconds of searching a 5' square in my office: take a quick glance around, notice the biggest/most obvious details (there's a desk with drawers, a computer on it, a fish tank on it, and a bookshelf next to it) and yank open the nearest drawer. (Roll d20, if you roll well, the first drawer you opened had something interesting in it, if not, you'll have to spend more time.) In the second round, you yank open and dump the contents of all 6 drawers in my desk. (Roll d20 to see if you noticed the key to the filing cabinet.) Next round: rummage through the fish tank (freaking out the fish) to see if I've hidden the key to the filing cabinet in there (roll d20 again). Fourth round: start yanking books off the shelf... This goes on as you roll a search check again and again until you roll one high enough to indicate that you've found what you're looking for. You might get lucky (roll a 20) in the first 6 seconds, indicating that whatever your character started to search first was hiding the key. Hurray! But certainly, not finding anything in 6 seconds is no indication that you've done a thorough search. Taking 20 on searching a 5' square simply indicates that you've spent enough time to do a good job. It's an approximation, sure, everyone knows that. But it's one that is accurate enough for the suspension of disbelief and it keeps the game moving. And it does not require metagame thinking for a character to understand that searching longer equates to doing a better job. When it comes to searching for traps, however, I'm still inclined to believe that being close enough to a trap to search for it indicates possibly setting it off. It depends on the trap mechanisms, but...DM's discretion on that one. If the DM rules that poking and prodding for traps means possibly triggering the trap, then as per RAW, one can not take 20 on the search roll because failure could mean harmful consequences. |
| Marcus Majarra02-22-07, 03:43 PM | The die roll(s) have become inconsequential. The importance has shifted to how well the player builds and plays his character. It is not, the metagame thinking process of "I get this many die rolls in this amount of time so I decide to apply mathematical statistics to walk away with the best die roll possible." Considering the wide population of results a d20 can generate, I find that your statements lack realism. How the character builds his character is unimportant when the die can generate far more results than the player will be able to surpass for a long time. At the beginning, the die roll will be all but very consequential. If the importance would be shifted towards building/playing the character, there would never be worry about the result of the die roll (nor would there ever be a reason to hope for a high roll). And if you don't like the idea of artificially calculating the statistics, you can always decide that 20 rounds is only an average of the number of rounds you'll need to attain that natural 20. You could decide that a character taking 20 does so in 2d20 rounds (which averages out at around 20-21 rounds). In any case, what I see as a failing in your games is that you're eliminating the notion of attempting a retry on any sort of skill check (which is the foundation for the take 20 mechanic). After all, if the die roll decides what the best you can do is, it becomes problematic for certain skills, like Use Magic Device, which require a check every time you activate a device, even if it's the same magic item. |
| PenderGrass02-22-07, 05:29 PM | Considering the wide population of results a d20 can generate, I find that your statements lack realism. Besides the point that I am not trying bring realism to D&D (such an endeavour would likely have me in & out of rehab and getting tattoos), a d20 is likely not large enough to generate all the possible outcomes of any single action in "reality." How the character builds his character is unimportant when the die can generate far more results than the player will be able to surpass for a long time. Unimportant? Hardly. A single extra rank in a skill can make all the difference between success and failure. At the beginning, the die roll will be all but very consequential. If the importance would be shifted towards building/playing the character, there would never be worry about the result of the die roll (nor would there ever be a reason to hope for a high roll). The importance is shifted due to the very fact that the player and DM now no longer have control over the die roll itself. Only the factors of the build and play of the creature are important - as those are controlled by the player or DM. And if you don't like the idea of artificially calculating the statistics, you can always decide that 20 rounds is only an average of the number of rounds you'll need to attain that natural 20. You could decide that a character taking 20 does so in 2d20 rounds (which averages out at around 20-21 rounds). That is not my concern. In any case, what I see as a failing in your games is that you're eliminating the notion of attempting a retry on any sort of skill check (which is the foundation for the take 20 mechanic). Not true. Unfounded retries are discouraged. But, retries that are warranted are not discouraged at all. I don't see this as being different in either a Take 20 game or a non-Take 20 game. After all, if the die roll decides what the best you can do is, it becomes problematic for certain skills, like Use Magic Device, which require a check every time you activate a device, even if it's the same magic item. The die roll doesn't decide "the best you can do." Not in my game. The player decides the best his character can do by carefully choosing his skill point allocations, use of equipment, spells and using whatever circumstancial bonuses he can create. The die roll determines the things that are not under the control of the player (or DM for that matter). :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass02-22-07, 05:39 PM | The only difference that I see is the practical one that differentiates between doing a good quick job of a thing and doing a slow but exacting job of the same thing and you're simply objecting to the fact that the mechanic has been made clear and easy to understand for both the Player and the DM. The "mechanic" is very clear to both DM and player in my game. You control your character build. You control what your character does. You (and the DM) do not control the d20. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-22-07, 05:40 PM | I'm sorry guys, but you may NEVER take 20 when a normal failed check would result in something happening or threatening the character. Indeed a failed normal check in this very example would result in the trap being sprung. Sorry, but you are wrong. Failing to find a trap does not spring it, thus you can take 20 on the check. Also, nowhere in the rules does it say that you cannot take 20 if a "failed check would result in something happening or threatening the character." What it does say is you can't do it if "the skill being attempted carries penalties for failure." Failing to find a trap is not a "penalty for failure," it is simply a lack of success. Falling to your death on a failed claimb check is penalty of failure. See the difference? |
| Shatteredtower02-22-07, 07:36 PM | You (and the DM) do not control the d20.But since you and the DM can both manipulate the final result mechanically, you're still metagaming as much as you would be taking 20. |
| weasel002-23-07, 12:47 AM | The dice pool method of WoD from white wolf sounds like it fits the play style more. You start with dice = your skill lv then the ST adds/subtracts a # of dice by ad hoc modifiers(time, tools, area, help, etc.) and then you roll whatever dice are left. 9s and 10s (and sometimes 8s) are successes. 10s and you roll again for more success. If your successes beat the DC congrats. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 04:12 AM | After reading through the other Take 20 thread in the main WADMTD? section, I was wondering what all of you DMs that do allow take 20 to be used in your game do when your group encounters an area that must be searched by actually physically going into the area that is trapped. Thereby, the search roll itself - if failed badly enough - could set off the trap. The group has enough time to take 20 and decide to do so. By the rules they cannot take 20 - how are you going to handle that situation? I would imagine you just make sure that every single area of your game world can be searched at a distance. That seems kinda lame, but I can understand your need to do so. :dragon: **** |
| Cantankerous02-26-07, 07:17 AM | Mainly not worry about over doing the mechanic. That's like saying we NEED critical fumble rules in the game because the person could miss so badly they stab themselves in the eye with their own greatsword...fifty seven times. Isshia |
| Finarin Panjoro02-26-07, 11:20 AM | After reading through the other Take 20 thread in the main WADMTD? section, I was wondering what all of you DMs that do allow take 20 to be used in your game do when your group encounters an area that must be searched by actually physically going into the area that is trapped. I'm not sure I understand your question. The search rules allow you to search from 10 feet away under normal conditions. You're always looking for the trigger of the trap. So how (under normal circumstances) can you have a trap that you must trigger before you can look for the trigger? I would imagine that any such trap would place you in a situation where you couldn't take 20 anyway due to lack of time (such as falling into a trapped square). I can't really think of any other instances where you would have to enter the triggering square before you could search for the trigger. |
| Matthew7702-26-07, 11:57 AM | I'm not sure I understand your question. The search rules allow you to search from 10 feet away under normal conditions. You're always looking for the trigger of the trap. So how (under normal circumstances) can you have a trap that you must trigger before you can look for the trigger? Yes, please give example... Do you mean like a pit trap that fills an entire hallway and the only way to disarm it is to flick a switch hidden on the far side of the pit? In that case, the search check allows you to notice the faint outline of the trap door, and it would have a very high Disable DC for the hidden, far away switch. I can't offhand think of any trap that would be impossible to notice from outside the area of the trap. Remember this is a fantasy class ability, so the Rogue can notice stuff like a magical fire trap that fills the room with flames even though realistically there might not be any "faint crack" or the equivalent. Its kind of the whole point of the ability that you notice the trap before you step into it. Without an specific example, I'd say that the situation you describe I would handle with a normal Search check, and a high Disable DC. Or if I had a trap that I really didn't want anyone to find, I'd just put an arbitrarily high search DC on it, but that's poor tactics on the order of saying "its AC is so high you just can't hit it." |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 01:06 PM | There are no hard-fast rules that characters can search from a distance: You generally* must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. *Emphasis is mine. I would also point out that this sentence is not the same as saying - "you may search from 10 feet away under normal conditions" - as some of you allude to. But, to just give you an idea of a situation that would require a rogue to actually move into the area while searching: Room's floor is covered with (bubbles, papers, leaves, blankets, loose rubble, etc.). The trap on the floor is a pressure trigger that is hidden under the debris. Sure, a search can be performed from a distance, but the actual trap is hidden in such a way that the only way to find it is by actually moving into the debris and shifting it around. Now, don't tell me you guys have never had a situation where the searcher has had to move into the area being searched? Are you saying you thought a rogue can always search from a distance? Seems to me that some people should re-read the way the search skill actually operates. :dragon: **** |
| FriendoftheDork02-26-07, 01:12 PM | Haven't read this thread, just wanted to vote for: Take 20, in most circumstances (I.E searching does not activate trap). |
| Shatteredtower02-26-07, 01:15 PM | But, to just give you an idea of a situation that would require a rogue to actually move into the area while searching: Room's floor is covered with (bubbles, papers, leaves, blankets, loose rubble, etc.). The trap on the floor is a pressure trigger that is hidden under the debris.A 10 ft pole costs 2 sp and weighs 8 lbs. A quarterstaff does not give you the same range, but you still never have to enter the square you search in the examples you provide. If the debris is too heavy to move in such a manner, the pressure plate ought not be a threat at all. |
| Someone02-26-07, 01:25 PM | I'm just thinking: how many players would even think to search the floor under the debris? Wouldn't the Search check be described as "searching the pile of stuff"? A pit trap with a watertight trapdoor under a few inches of standing water would be really devious. Note to self- include water covered pit trap in next campaign... |
| Finarin Panjoro02-26-07, 02:49 PM | PenderGrass, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between 'You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched' and 'you may search from 10 feet away under normal conditions.' Those both tell me the same thing, that under normal or general circumstances searching from 10 feet away is possible. Thus the rules do clearly state that you do not have to be in a square to search it. Even if you ignore the 10 foot distance specified and make it an adjacent square, you're still always looking for the trigger and you can always expect to find a trigger before you have to trigger it (assuming that searching is at all possible). Even in your example, I don't have to enter the debris to search it. I can stand next to the beginning of the debris field and search the first square. Then move into it and search the next square, and so on. I never have to step into a square that I haven't searched to whatever level of satisfaction I require. Even if the debris is something that I can't completely move aside to search the square (as I could with the blankets or debris you mention) that would only provide a penalty to the Search check (like searching in total darkness or in murky water does by RAW) it would not require me to enter the square to conduct a search. So I'm left still unable to envision a trap that can't be found before it is triggered by a sufficiently talented searcher. It is certainly possible to be in the area of effect of a trap before you find the trigger (such as a fireball trap) or to find a trap with no trigger evident (such as a room trap that can only be activated by throwing a switch in an adjoining room by the evil mastermind who created it). A trap that can't be found might exist, but it is probably a plot device, not the kind of trap that could be found whether you allow taking 20 or not. Someone, A pit trap covered by murky completely opaque water would only add a -4 penalty on the search check to find it IIRC. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 04:11 PM | PenderGrass, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between 'You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched' and 'you may search from 10 feet away under normal conditions.' Those both tell me the same thing, that under normal or general circumstances searching from 10 feet away is possible. First, "generally" is not "always." Second, "within 10 feet" is clearly any distance from zero to 10 feet. Finally, if you cannot imagine that a trap cannot be found without actually moving into the threat zone, then you don't really have to worry about it. That answered my question in regards to searching for your game. I can - if I am a player in your game - can use search for anything from a distance of 10 feet. :dragon: **** |
| Finarin Panjoro02-26-07, 04:46 PM | I'm not trying to be obstinate or rude, I just don't see what the distinction is that you're making. I didn't say 'generally' means always. I said 'under normal circumstances' which clearly is not always the case. And yes any distance from 0-10 feet is included, but 'generally within 10 feet' implies anywhere within that range. It is therefore reasonable that under normal circumstances you can search a square with a completely empty five foot square between you and the square you are searching. If the trigger is in that square 5 feet away you are in no danger of activating it if you never move into that square. I also never said that a trap can't be found without moving into the threat zone. I expressely mentioned two examples where the trap can be found while you're in the threat zone. What I said is that the trigger can always be found before you activate it providing you are able to search adequately. There is always some square/squares/object which expressely activates the trap (enter this square and you activate the trap) whether by magic, pressure plate, trip wire, or whatever. That is what the Search skill is going to detect and if you can search, then you can always search for it before you step into that area, touch that handle, or open that chest because the search rules expressely state that you can. If this were not the case than the trapfinding ability of rogues would be utterly irrelevant because they could never find a magical proximity activated trap with an area of greater than 10 feet (such as burning hands CR 1) without first setting it off. As I've said you could very well be in the threat area of a trap with no danger whatsoever of triggering it because you're not entering the triggering square (such as with a fireball trap that emanates out from the trigger square). The fireball is going to effect everyone within 20 feet of the blast point, but only if the trap is triggered and the rogue can always search the triggering area without entering it (provided he is capable of searching). And to clarify, since you seemed to imply that I was not being clear about this, yes under normal circumstances in my game anyone can search for anything from 10 feet away because that's what the RAW says they can do and I've seen no reason to change it. Typically in my games the PCs learn to have the rogue be the second person in marching order, searching the square in front of the tank, who's taking lead. When they have the time they take 20 on their checks also as allowed by the game. They often find the trap, but then they never know if they disarmed it or not because by RAW I roll the disable device check and they can't take 20 on it because of the penalty for failure. That's where the drama is. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 04:59 PM | What I said is that the trigger can always be found before you activate it providing you are able to search adequately. So, no matter what, a trigger for a trap can always be found from a distance with no chance of a searcher accidentally triggering it - even, if he has to be in the same space as the trigger to find it? Seems like a pretty poorly designed trap if someone can stand right on top of the trigger and not set it off. Like I said, it answers the main question I had with those that use the Take 20 search rule - a searcher can never, no matter what the circumstances, ever set off the trap by searching - no matter how physically impossible it is to detect the trap without having to move around, on top of, or through the trigger area. I just wanted to be sure that was what I was reading. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7702-26-07, 05:18 PM | Why do we keep referring to finding the "Trigger" of the trap? Search skill just notices that the trap is there. Finding the actual mechanism that triggers the trap is part of the Disable Device check, not the Search check. To use the pit trap example... the search check would be the Rogue noticing "Hey.. all this debris looks like it has fallen randomly, but notice that there is no debris around the outline of a square. There must be a trap under there." Finding the pressure plate that triggers it so you can jam it with a rock is the disable device check, not the search. Obviously, the actual "Trigger" of the trap can be far away from the trap area... it could be a kobold yanking a rope from behind a peep-hole 50' away, but that's not what the Rogue notices with his search check, instead he sees the pit in the floor or the dart-holes in the walls or the burn marks from the last 5 fireballs that went off. The trapped area can always be noticed from outside its boundary, even if the actual mechanism that triggers the trap cannot. |
| Finarin Panjoro02-26-07, 05:26 PM | So, no matter what, a trigger for a trap can always be found from a distance with no chance of a searcher accidentally triggering it - even, if he has to be in the same space as the trigger to find it? That's what I'm asking you about. When would he EVER have to be in the same space as the trigger to find it? Seems like a pretty poorly designed trap if someone can stand right on top of the trigger and not set it off. I never said they could stand on the trigger without setting it off. By the flip side, if its possible to design traps where searching for it automatically sets it off (as you are describing) why would anyone EVER make a trap that didn't work that way? Thus rendering the ability to find traps completely obselete. Like I said, it answers the main question I had with those that use the Take 20 search rule - a searcher can never, no matter what the circumstances, ever set off the trap by searching - no matter how physically impossible it is to detect the trap without having to move around, on top of, or through the trigger area. This is WotC's official position on trap searching and has been referenced as the case several times. There's even an example on pg. 21 of the most recent FAQ of Lidda using Take 20 to search a chest for traps. If the trigger is inside the chest she still must be able to find it without opening the chest, otherwise every trapped chest would use this utterly infallible trapping mechanism. |
| Sildatorak02-26-07, 05:27 PM | Search skill just notices that the trap is there. Finding the actual mechanism that triggers the trap is part of the Disable Device check, not the Search check.My take on the rules is that it isn't particularly clear whether finding a trap consists of finding the area it effects, its trigger, or both. The way I play it, Search will hit either of them if you are looking in the right place, though it won't hit both unless the trigger and the trap happen to be in the same square. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 05:45 PM | That's what I'm asking you about. When would he EVER have to be in the same space as the trigger to find it? I did state an example - above. An open area is covered with stuff. The player states that he wants his character to search the area by Taking 20 (even if it means more time and that he has to walk through the area, he doesn't care - he wants to get a 20 on his search and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it). As a DM, you know that to search it thoroughly enough he must step into an area that may set off a trap - and even more importantly, the trap can be triggered by his searching actions (moving debris and so forth). :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw02-26-07, 06:37 PM | Of course, later on he can search again, but nobody in their right mind searches an area to what they think is the best of their ability, only to search it again a few seconds later.It only takes a single burning hands to the face to convince most rogues that it's worth repeating a search on something you suspect is trapped even if you don't see anything the first time. That's what taking 20 represents. |
| catsclaw02-26-07, 06:49 PM | As a DM, you know that to search it thoroughly enough he must step into an area that may set off a trap - and even more importantly, the trap can be triggered by his searching actions (moving debris and so forth).This whole debate comes down to the fact that you don't like the way trapfinding works in D&D, not one bit sir, and have invented a ton of house rules to fix it and another ton of house rules to fix the first house rules. And there's nothing wrong with that. It may even be better than the core D&D rules. But it's not D&D 3.5. Rogues can search areas to spot traps without risking triggering them, because they're specially trained to do it. Pressure plates have seams, dust motes glint in reflected beams of light, poisoned pins require springs and hinges. The very mechanisms that allow a trap to function allow a skilled rogue to find them. When you say "a trap that requires entering the area to find it" you really mean "a trap with a really high search DC". Or, more precisely, "a trap I want to hit my players with, so I'm going to just set the search DC infinitely high, so they can't find it no matter what their skills are." |
| Reversefigure402-26-07, 07:54 PM | As a DM, you know that to search it thoroughly enough he must step into an area that may set off a trap - and even more importantly, the trap can be triggered by his searching actions (moving debris and so forth). Keep in mind, that you and your player are not expert trapsmiths. Even the level 1 Rogue with decent Int and 4 ranks in Search is probably far better at it than the player is. You may not see a way to search without disturbing the trap, but an expert might. That's what those ranks represent. If you want to 'justify it', there's plenty of ways. The debris looks intentionally stacked, so the Rogue examines it with his eyes, seeing the hidden spring blades within the pile. That particular tile looks free from dust. He knows how to move debris slowly, piece by piece, so he could see whether there's a trap under it before he sets it off. These aren't great examples, by any means, but I'm sure a real trap expert would have all kinds of ways of searching without setting off traps. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 08:13 PM | Sounds to me like everyone is content to allow searches to happen from a distance, regardless. That is cool, I just wanted to check. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-26-07, 08:16 PM | After reading through the other Take 20 thread in the main WADMTD? section, I was wondering what all of you DMs that do allow take 20 to be used in your game do when your group encounters an area that must be searched by actually physically going into the area that is trapped. Thereby, the search roll itself - if failed badly enough - could set off the trap. The group has enough time to take 20 and decide to do so. By the rules they cannot take 20 - how are you going to handle that situation? By punching the DM in the junk for creating such a contrived scenario strictly to punish us for not wanting to waste our time on extraneous die rolls. |
| PenderGrass02-26-07, 08:36 PM | By punching the DM in the junk for creating such a contrived scenario strictly to punish us for not wanting to waste our time on extraneous die rolls. Cool. You obviously have the maturity take 20 is geared towards. :dragon: **** |
| Lord Nedd02-26-07, 08:42 PM | By punching the DM in the junk for creating such a contrived scenario strictly to punish us for not wanting to waste our time on extraneous die rolls. Too much order of the Stick for you, buddy! http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0418.html Hahaha. -LN |
| WizO_Cat02-26-07, 10:09 PM | Ok, let's knock off the personal attacks. Keep the discussion on the topic of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, I'm going to have to take personal (disciplinary) actions against the offenders, and I'm thinking that not what anyone wants. Fair warning. |
| Finarin Panjoro02-26-07, 11:34 PM | I did state an example - above. An open area is covered with stuff. The player states that he wants his character to search the area by Taking 20 (even if it means more time and that he has to walk through the area, he doesn't care - he wants to get a 20 on his search and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it). As a DM, you know that to search it thoroughly enough he must step into an area that may set off a trap - and even more importantly, the trap can be triggered by his searching actions (moving debris and so forth). Okay so that's the scenario. This scenario is impossible by RAW for several reasons. 1. Covered with Stuff implies cover or concealment. According to the rules these create penalties to Search checks they do not prevent them. A blind person takes a -4 penalty on Search checks (see blinded condition in the SRD) even thought the trap has total concealment from him. So something completely obscuring the area from sight does not prevent a search. This seems to indicate that you can search with your hands by touch (unless you wish to believe that the rogue is using echolocation..like a bat). 2. The SRD says this about traps: Creatures who succeed on a DC 20 Search check detect a simple mechanical trap before it is triggered. (A simple trap is a snare, a trap triggered by a tripwire, or a large trap such as a pit.) A character with the trap sense class feature who succeeds on a DC 21 (or higher) Search check detects a well-hidden or complex mechanical trap before it is triggered. It later says the same thing about magical traps. 3. So if a blind person can conduct a search by touch and a successful search check always detects the trap before it triggers then searching a square with your hands through a bunch of obscuring stuff and succeeding in your search check will still find the trap before it is triggered. 4. The rules clearly state that searches can generally (meaning usually) be conducted at a distance between 0 and 10 feet. At the very least this includes every adjacent square. The combat rules certainly support being able to reach into an adjacent square and we've already established that you can search by touch. So by RAW your scenario does not create a situation in which someone cannot search for a trap without entering the trapped area. The situation may not allow them the time or the opportunity to search, but if time is available then the only thing that would prevent them from succeeding is DM fiat which is what you appear to be endorsing. You appear to be saying that the DM should arbitrarily discard the rules when he wants the players to be affected by a given trap. There are ways within the rules to do this that are far more fair. Have an NPC trigger the trap. Have the Search DC higher than they can achieve (which will increase its CR and give them a greater XP award for facing it). This still gives them a chance however to stop the NPC or to boost their skill (by fox's cunning, bardic inspiration, and aid another actions they might still beat that ultra high DC). I don't mean to offend you when I say that your approach seems like railroading to me. You've decided that the PCs are going to be affected by this trap regardless if they've taken every skill, feat, spell, peice of equipment, and precaution possible to help them avoid it. |
| weasel002-27-07, 12:17 AM | Why do we ke*snip* from outside its boundary, even if the actual mechanism that triggers the trap cannot. Well, this makes me feel much better about allowing take 20. I personally feel it's cheap, but this does make much sense. There have been two instances that I still don't see it happening. 1) ward placed on the ceiling on the other side of a doorway set to go off at any living thing coming through the doorway, door already open into the room. Rogue goes to search and he triggers the trap by logic. 2) ward on the underside of a chest lid. If the lid is opened without the password spoken... boom. The chest explodes in a fireball. I mean really, these are both places I would hide a trap as well as traps discribed in modules I own. Any logical suggestions as to why Take 20 would really work? I mean, I see the rules and would go by them(against my better judgment) but in wanting to exersice my venacular, I'd like to be more verbose than, "You blindly spot the trap. What do you do?" |
| PenderGrass02-27-07, 12:31 AM | I don't mean to offend you when I say that your approach seems like railroading to me. You've decided that the PCs are going to be affected by this trap regardless if they've taken every skill, feat, spell, peice of equipment, and precaution possible to help them avoid it. Actually, without Take 20, the scenario is the furthest from rail-roading as you can possibly get since: The d20 roll is made and taken as is. The outcome of the roll is not controlled by player or DM. Therefore, a DM would have no idea what is going to happen - will the group find the trap or not? Who knows? Nobody knows, until you roll. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw02-27-07, 09:05 AM | 1) ward placed on the ceiling on the other side of a doorway set to go off at any living thing coming through the doorway, door already open into the room. Rogue goes to search and he triggers the trap by logic. 2) ward on the underside of a chest lid. If the lid is opened without the password spoken... boom. The chest explodes in a fireball. I mean really, these are both places I would hide a trap as well as traps discribed in modules I own. Any logical suggestions as to why Take 20 would really work? I mean, I see the rules and would go by them(against my better judgment) but in wanting to exersice my venacular, I'd like to be more verbose than, "You blindly spot the trap. What do you do?"Rogues have a special, finely honed sense for traps. Even magical ones. Someone searching the square inside the door might notice the architecture ("Hrm. There's just enough space on the other side of this doorway to plant a Power Word: Defenestrate. And if I lie on my back and poke my head in the corner -- yep! I can see the edge of it from here."), while someone searching the chest might check the hinges ("I removed the lock, but I can't believe there's no trap on a chest this expensive. The lid seems a little strangely weighted, and if I sniff at the hinges: that's ozone. It must be an electrical trap."). |
| Finarin Panjoro02-27-07, 10:38 AM | Again Pendergrass, I'm not trying to be obstinate or obtuse, but I'm clearly not getting something about your method. I've been assuming, based on your example and previous posts, that there is no way for the PCs to avoid triggering the trap (thus my impression of railroading). That is that they can't find it without entering the triggering area and the trap triggers as soon as they enter the triggering area...so they have no chance to avoid it. Are you saying, that they can actually move into the triggering area, but if they make their search check then they find it before triggering it and can still attempt to disarm it? Do you use a sort of 'stepped on a mine' approach to continuing? That is if they fail to disable the mine/trap then it goes off? How much time do they get? What if they find it, but don't attempt to disarm it or move? I play it that the trap triggers the instant someone steps into the triggering area. So if they don't find it before they enter the square they have no chance of avoiding its effects (beyond saving throws, etc). That is why I'm so adamant about being able to search a square that you haven't entered yet. I believe this is how the RAW intends it to work and it has always worked well in my campaigns. But if you are allowing this enter the square, search, and disarm thing then your method is not the railroading that I thought it was and would definitely create some interesting situations (finding a trap and knowing that its going to go off unless successfully disarmed). |
| Sildatorak02-27-07, 11:55 AM | I play it that the trap triggers the instant someone steps into the triggering area.I assume you mean "the instant they fullfil the triggering condition" so that you can allow for trapped doors and chests. |
| Finarin Panjoro02-27-07, 12:02 PM | I assume you mean "the instant they fullfil the triggering condition" so that you can allow for trapped doors and chests. You're right, sorry. Pendergrass and I had been talking so specifically about area traps that I perhaps overstated that point. But yes, I meant the instant they fulfill the triggering condition, which in the case of area traps is as soon as they enter the triggering square. |
| David_Roben202-27-07, 06:26 PM | I agree with Finarin on this specific trap instance. In my game (and according to RAW) the rogue would be able to find said trap without entering the triggering square. The debris would impart a search penalty per the rules. I am very interested as to how you would handle this type of trap. I believe the railroding comment is due to the fact that by RAW, stepping into a triggering square would immediately trigger the trap. That would mean that there would be no way to find the trap without triggering it, hence the player must trigger the trap. I do play with the Take 20 rule personally, and while it does have the occasional annoyance, it is a decent (for us) representation of a careful, slow, perfectionist attempt at whatever. I think that the (interpretted) house rule that I've seen is interesting. I read it as, instead of allowing a take 20, the player may take 20 times the amount of time needed to perform a specific action, and inturn are granted a +9 to the attempt. This takes away any arbitrary numbers assigned by a DM, which prevents "cheating" in the form of favoritism. It also allows some randomness to be involved for those of us that like that. It also means that there is a possibility of (skills+items+whatever)+29, meaning that with a good roll the rogue would be able to find traps they wouldn't normally be able too with a standard search roll. This gives them a little independance from the buff spells of the cleric/wizard and can really shine on their own. Occasionally. I think that the whole metagaming thing is moot, because it is entirely opinion. RAW says that it is allowed. The only way around that is to houserule. Don't like the take 20 feel? Fine. Houserule away. I don't play your game, so you won't get any argument from me. Don't mind the idea of taking 20, or even enjoy what it does for the game? Great. The rules are in place for you, use them. As for trap designers making traps that can be found. I feel that if you design a dungeon and place traps that are beyond your rogues ability to fine, that is metagaming of a different sort. DM Metagaming. The person that build the traps didn't know when they build them what level the rogue would be, or how good they are at finding traps, or even that a rogue would be there. I personally hire Bob Trapmaker to put traps in my dungeon to harm people that can't find traps. I don't know that a rogue will come through and find them all. If I do know that a rogue will most likely come through my dungeon, I don't know what level they will be. I want to keep the low level riffraff from being able to walk right up to the treasure room. A DC 21 pit trap will catch those level 3 fighters more often than not. If I design the traps to be super dangerous and unfindable, it means that I designed them for a specific person. I know that George Trapspringer is planning on trying to steal my treasure and I have designed the dungeon around him. That seems dumb, when I could take all of the money that I spent on those traps and simply put a hit out on him. ;) In my games, the rogues don't scour every square foot of hallway. They search key locations, and usually spend quite a bit of time on those spots. Of course I'm a jerk. When they do search every square of the map I give them results for every square of the map. I want the players to be as bored as their characters are. Probably not something that every group needs, but I had to do something to speed my party up. :) In the same vein, I don't try to screw them either. I only put a few traps in random places and only leave a few key locations untrapped. I don't punish them for how I impacted the game. I do metagame as a DM. I figure out what my party rogue's search will be before I assign DC's. I then put them at between +10 to +20 over the rogue's bonus to search. This means that If the rogue doesn't take the time to take 20 and simply gives the area a once over, they have a 50-99% chance of missing the trap. If they do have the time and take the time for a complete search, they are rewarded. I only put one trap in the dungeon that is 1 point over the take 20 ability of the rogue. (and that is usually on something important like the BBEG's lair or treasure room) Then the party needs to have the forethought to cast a buff to help them. This way the party isn't being led into unavoidable damage. There should be a solution to every challenge. If there is no solution, then it is railroading. |
| Matthew7702-27-07, 06:54 PM | I do metagame as a DM. I figure out what my party rogue's search will be before I assign DC's. I then put them at between +10 to +20 over the rogue's bonus to search. This means that If the rogue doesn't take the time to take 20 and simply gives the area a once over, they have a 50-99% chance of missing the trap. If they do have the time and take the time for a complete search, they are rewarded. I only put one trap in the dungeon that is 1 point over the take 20 ability of the rogue. (and that is usually on something important like the BBEG's lair or treasure room) Then the party needs to have the forethought to cast a buff to help them. This way the party isn't being led into unavoidable damage. There should be a solution to every challenge. If there is no solution, then it is railroading. Hmm.. do your players know this? If so, why do they ever bother investing resources (skill points, feats) into improving their search skills if it never makes them more likely to find the traps? |
| David_Roben202-27-07, 06:57 PM | Hmm.. do your players know this? If so, why do they ever bother investing resources (skill points, feats) into improving their search skills if it never makes them more likely to find the traps? Ooohh, no no no. It would ruin the whole idea. All they know is that The traps continue to get more difficult as they get more powerful. If one of them did catch on and try to abuse it, they would be punished with more difficult traps. We are all pretty good about playing together and not against each other. I don't think that they would try to pull anything like that. But if they did, there would be consequences... |
| Finarin Panjoro02-27-07, 10:57 PM | I don't necesarily think what you're doing is meta-gaming. Effectively you're doing exactly the same thing that the CR system is doing you've just personalized it to your party. I would say that if your party is investing significant additonal resources in being good at searching (such as if the rogue took skill focus: search and investigator as feats and spent a lot of money on lenses of minute seeing) then they should be rewarded for that by having an easier time finding things. Your technique kind of prevents that by always keeping the numbers at a 50% chance of success. But your players may be content with just having max ranks and not investing more valuable resources in that direction in which case I think what you're doing is fine since it keeps them challenged (something the CR system frequently fails to do without DM intervention). |
| Cantankerous02-28-07, 12:42 AM | Actually, without Take 20, the scenario is the furthest from rail-roading as you can possibly get since: The d20 roll is made and taken as is. The outcome of the roll is not controlled by player or DM. Therefore, a DM would have no idea what is going to happen - will the group find the trap or not? Who knows? Nobody knows, until you roll. :dragon: **** Actually it is railroading. It's telling the Player, no matter what you do, what precautions you take, how much time you spend to make sure that everything is done perfectly, there is no difference whatsoever between that and doing it off the cuff. Your character is always subject to my whims, like my whim in disregarding the take 20 mechanic. YOUR ACTIONS DON'T MATTER! Isshia |
| PenderGrass02-28-07, 01:12 PM | Actually it is railroading. It's telling the Player, no matter what you do, what precautions you take, how much time you spend to make sure that everything is done perfectly, there is no difference whatsoever between that and doing it off the cuff. Your character is always subject to my whims, like my whim in disregarding the take 20 mechanic. YOUR ACTIONS DON'T MATTER! That's kinda crass and presumptious of you. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 01:19 PM | That's kinda crass and presumptious of you. Not really. It is not a condemnation of you, it is simply pointing that the actions you describe are, in fact, railroading despite your assertations to the contrary. It doesn't make you a bad person, or a bad DM, or a hypocrite, rather it may mean that you are unconsciously railroading despite your attempts to avoid it and that you should cast a critical eye over what is actually happening and adjust that one aspect of your DMing to bring it in-line with your intent. |
| PenderGrass02-28-07, 01:22 PM | Not really. It is not a condemnation of you, it is simply pointing that the actions you describe are, in fact, railroading despite your assertations to the contrary. It doesn't make you a bad person, or a bad DM, or a hypocrite, rather it may mean that you are unconsciously railroading despite your attempts to avoid it and that you should cast a critical eye over what is actually happening and adjust that one aspect of your DMing to bring it in-line with your intent. When the overall intent is allowing randomness into the game, the statement that railroading to that end becomes an oxymoron. :dragon: **** |
| Boraxe02-28-07, 01:26 PM | When the overall intent is allowing randomness into the game, the statement that railroading to that end becomes an oxymoron. Hey, who are you calling a moron!?! ;) |
| PenderGrass02-28-07, 01:29 PM | Hey, who are you calling a moron!?! Oxy. Oxy is a moron. Just one look will confirm it. :dragon: **** |
| Finarin Panjoro02-28-07, 06:49 PM | When the overall intent is allowing randomness into the game, the statement that railroading to that end becomes an oxymoron.I think this is the part we're missing about your system. How is it allowing randomness into the game? It appears from your description to be removing randomness and in fact making your players incapable of avoiding your traps even through their best efforts (this is the 'must enter the triggering area to search for the trap' thing). This leads me to conclude that most of us, myself included, are misunderstanding you. |
| weasel002-28-07, 07:18 PM | What PenderGrass* (and myself) see when we look at this is as such: No matter how perfect a job you think you do, there is always room for screw-ups. With Take 20, unless a DM is purposefully trying to screw his rogue and makes a DC unreachable, the rogue will always find the traps. There is no randomness in a Take 20. If it's Lv appropriate, it's found. End of story. As well as, this unfairly levels the playing field for all rogues. Rogue A has sunk gp, feats, additional magic items all for his already maxed Search skill. Rogue B has merely maxed his search skill out. If all traps are Lv appropriate, both rogues will find all the traps on a Take 20. Not cool to Rogue A. He's better equipped and should have a better shot at finding traps than B. But he doesn't. More acurratly, Rogue B is now being given free passes to find all the traps that Rogue A had to work at to get. A trap is meant to not be found until it's sprung else it would not be a trap; merely an inconvenience. Removing the Take 20, and adding the d20 back into the equation adds the randomness back as well. Don't think it's right? Don't use it. Or instead use ad-hoc modifiers like you should with encounters that go in different easier/harder directions and may be worth more or less xp than normal. The rogue wants to use lots more time than normal? Reward it by adding +8 to his search. Only a little more time? +4. You already add +'s for MW theives tools. Why not do it for time as well? Yes it's his area of expertise.... maybe(given where his skill points are), but the trap builder had his area of expertise too. Yes some traps are more obvious by design, but that doen't mean an inventive builder can't figure out something... well, inventive. Well that was a bit more than I planned on typing out for the sake of the point on randomness, but there it is. *if I am wrong an any of these points PenderGrass, then I apologize for utilizing your name in my post. I'll remove it. |
| PenderGrass02-28-07, 08:58 PM | What PenderGrass* (and myself) see when we look at this is as such: No matter how perfect a job you think you do, there is always room for screw-ups. With Take 20, unless a DM is purposefully trying to screw his rogue and makes a DC unreachable, the rogue will always find the traps. There is no randomness in a Take 20. If it's Lv appropriate, it's found. End of story. As well as, this unfairly levels the playing field for all rogues. Rogue A has sunk gp, feats, additional magic items all for his already maxed Search skill. Rogue B has merely maxed his search skill out. If all traps are Lv appropriate, both rogues will find all the traps on a Take 20. Not cool to Rogue A. He's better equipped and should have a better shot at finding traps than B. But he doesn't. More acurratly, Rogue B is now being given free passes to find all the traps that Rogue A had to work at to get. A trap is meant to not be found until it's sprung else it would not be a trap; merely an inconvenience. Removing the Take 20, and adding the d20 back into the equation adds the randomness back as well. Don't think it's right? Don't use it. Or instead use ad-hoc modifiers like you should with encounters that go in different easier/harder directions and may be worth more or less xp than normal. The rogue wants to use lots more time than normal? Reward it by adding +8 to his search. Only a little more time? +4. You already add +'s for MW theives tools. Why not do it for time as well? Yes it's his area of expertise.... maybe(given where his skill points are), but the trap builder had his area of expertise too. Yes some traps are more obvious by design, but that doen't mean an inventive builder can't figure out something... well, inventive. Well that was a bit more than I planned on typing out for the sake of the point on randomness, but there it is. *if I am wrong an any of these points PenderGrass, then I apologize for utilizing your name in my post. I'll remove it. That is a nigh-perfect summation of the process. In regards to Finarin Panjoro's question regarding this whole supposed use of "unavoidable traps" in my game: Yes. You (and anyone else that thinks traps in my game are unavoidable, totally undetectable, death traps designed to do nothing more than stick it to the rogues in my game) are very much mistaken. My game does not include unavoidable or undetectable traps. Even if I used a trap with a Search DC 90, it can still be found in my game with a good search roll. Even a rogue with no search ranks and a stat penalty can still have a chance of finding the DC 90 trap. The reverse is quite true as well. A rogue that has 20 ranks in search and a stat bonus of +12, can still fail while looking for a Search DC 30 trap. The reasons why go well beyond the specific topic of this thread - suffice it to say that any number that you can imagine can be rolled in my game. It may not be a likely roll - but there will always be a chance anyone in my game can roll it using my variant system. And yes, we still use a d20. Therefore, since the goal of my game is to always include a chance for anything to happen, it is impossible for me to 'rail-road' my game. It is also impossible for me to make a trap totally undetectable or unavoidable. :dragon: **** |
| Finarin Panjoro02-28-07, 10:21 PM | Okay, well that clarifies a lot then. You actually are using a larger deviation from the standard rules than what we've even touched on. I believe the confusion was generated when you said that a rogue might have to enter the triggering area to detect the trap. To most of us that said "The rogue must trigger the trap to have a chance of detecting it." Because most of us play by the rule that you trigger the trap as soon as you enter the triggering square. So if you had to do that first finding it is moot because it already zapped you. I see where you and weasel0 are coming from and there is nothing wrong with your position, but there's nothing wrong with the official approach either, it's just different. If your circumstance rewards are applied consistently so that a player can account for them then I'm sure that it would avoid the pitfalls that a random circumstance bonus normally implies (DM railroading- big bonuses when he wants them to find the trap, penalties when he doesn't, not based on their actions or choices). I just don't see an unfound trap as a rewarding encounter. It's just an annoying blast of damage or whatever. I want my players to find every trap. I find dealing with the trap after you're aware of it to be interesting (especially if disabling it is not an option as it will be for my upcoming rogueless party). This also appears to be WotC's position since the Take 20 rules support it so heavily. |
| PenderGrass02-28-07, 11:53 PM | I just don't see an unfound trap as a rewarding encounter. It's just an annoying blast of damage or whatever. I want my players to find every trap. I find dealing with the trap after you're aware of it to be interesting (especially if disabling it is not an option as it will be for my upcoming rogueless party). This also appears to be WotC's position since the Take 20 rules support it so heavily. I think WotC created the rule because too many of their play-testers would roll over and over and over - which, obviously many of you agree with as well since many of you have used that as an argument to not dump take 20. I also think that using basic statistical math to remove a random factor is cheeseball and encourages metagame thinking - but, we covered all that. Traps are magnificent - if people cannot see them as such - more the pity. I have run everything from the mundane to the most elaborate - none of the traps ever proved to be "boring unless found." Imagine a trap that has a rumbling chains and gears working behind thick stone walls, shifting floors and morphing furniture. That right there is exciting beyond belief for my players and myself. The group rushes around trying not to freak out as doom rumbles towards them. Can they get past it? Can they disarm it before it goes off? How about a "bouncing Betty" trap? How about a trap for the mind? Traps for the soul? Traps that malfunction and teeter on the edge of activating? The best thing about D&D is that anything can be exciting if used properly. To dismiss the potential enjoyment of traps is a sorrowful outlook. :dragon: **** |
| Finarin Panjoro03-01-07, 10:02 AM | Pendergrass, I'm not saying you're wrong, and for your game you certainly cannot be. But I think you use non-standard traps based on what you are saying. Almost every trap in the DMG, what I'll call standard traps, is a 'you find it, you disarm/avoid it, or you take damage' event. Your traps appear to allow the PCs time to act after the trap is triggered (they have time to react to rumbling chains, shifting furniture, etc). So you're allowing them to interact with the trap in an interesting way which I applaud. Standard traps don't. If the trap goes off they make a save or they take damage, end of encounter. That's boring to me. So I suppose I should be saying that my opinions are based on standard trap usage. It sounds like not finding one of your traps might be more fun than finding it because the real challenge is avoiding its effects after its triggered. That's outstanding DMing, but its also a significant paradigm shift from what the standard trap experience is and most of our comments have been directed at the standard paradigm. |
| Sereno03-01-07, 10:30 AM | A rogue that has 20 ranks in search and a stat bonus of +12, can still fail while looking for a Search DC 30 trap. I'm going to have to say that this is the thing you've posted that is bugging me the most. Personally, I don't agree with your stance on "Take-20 = Inexcusable Metagaming" But, I don't want to argue that; other people have already been doing it, and you're entitled to your opinion whether I agree with it or not. But, as both a DM and a player, the idea that you might not find a DC 30 trap when the lowest you can roll is 33 just rubs the the wrong way. Now, if you're adding circumstance bonuses/penalties based on the behavior of the rogue, fine ... such as the player saying, "I don't have time for a thorough search, I'll just give it the once-over and kick it in." But, under normal circumstances a DC 30 trap is found if you roll 30 or above ... if I can't roll less than 33, but still cant find it, I'd certainly feel cheated. I know, I know ... most players never know the DCs of the things they're trying to do; but, I'm still talking about the "spirit" of fairness. It *feels* an awful lot like, "Uou'll find the trap if I want you to, and you won't find it if I don't." And, I've never been a fan of that style of DMing. |
| PenderGrass03-01-07, 06:04 PM | But, as both a DM and a player, the idea that you might not find a DC 30 trap when the lowest you can roll is 33 just rubs the the wrong way. As stated earlier, the reasoning of how this is possible in my game is beyond the scope of this thread's topic. A quick version of why follows: 1. Most combat, skill and saving throw d20 rolls are considered open-ended. Other d20 rolls may also be considered open-ended. 2. If an open-ended roll lands on a natural 1, roll again applying a -20 penalty. 3. If an open-ended roll lands on a natural 20, roll again applying a +20 bonus. 4. Continue rolling until neither a natural 1 nor a natural 20 is rolled. 5. Apply all penalties and bonuses from #2 and #3. 6. Apply all other modifiers. This is your open-ended roll's final total. I would also note that most static DC calculations are no longer static. Instead they are calculated by random d20 rolls. Examples, Spell DCs: d20 + spell level + applicable stat modifier = Saving Throw DC So, therefore, it is possible for a rogue that has a total Search modifier of +32 before rolling to roll virtually any number. Including rolling enough penalties to result in missing a Trap Search DC of 30. Also, it is quite possible for a rogue that has a total Search modifier of -5 before rolling to find a trap with a Search DC of 45. :dragon: **** |
| ryryguy03-01-07, 08:15 PM | Simply stated, searching "as well you can" in my game is a single action with a single die roll. Yes, there are many variables and "what-if's" beyond that simple statement - but, essentially, it boils down to a single roll with modifications based on how well you are searching. It is not, the metagame thinking process of "I get this many die rolls in this amount of time so I decide to apply mathematical statistics to walk away with the best die roll possible." Boy, I've read most of the thread, and I have to say, you're just completely off about Take 20 being an inherently metagaming thing. If you don't like the Take 20 rule because it allows (most) traps to be found automatically, that's understandable and it's reasonable to play without it for that reason. But metagaming it's not. And I guess it's pointless to try to convince you, since you've already stated that you absolutely will not change your mind no matter what anyone says (maybe that should be a clue that your case is not actually all that strong?). But I have to give it one shot. Taking 20 on a search check vs. making a regular search check is just an option for a player to trade time spent for higher chance of success. And yes, for the take 20 mechanic "chance of success" approaches certainty, which you may not like. But having a choice like this built into the rules in no way makes it metagaming for players to take the option. A Jump check will result in a greater distance jumped if a character does a running jump instead of a standing jump. It's really no different than the Take 20 on Search case - a player can decide how he wants to use the skill and can make a choice that will always lead to a better result, if he can satisfy certain constraints. For jump, the constraint is to have the space and opportunity to get a running start; for Take 20 Search, the constraint is time. You seem to be hung up on the way the Take 20 mechanic is described as being like trying 20 times and thus guaranteeing a roll of 20. It's an abstract mechanic! "I get this many die rolls in this amount of time so I decide to apply mathematical statistics to walk away with the best die roll possible" is not what the character or even player thinks. It's something the designer is telling you, to help explain why the mechanic works the way it does, and why it is balanced. Your system of adjudicating on the fly a circumstance modifier to represent the player searching "as best he can" is really not all that different, vis-a-vis metagaming, than the Take 20 mechanic. At least if I understand it correctly - is this right? A player says, "I search the door", you roll one search check with the regular modifier. A player says, "I take extra time to search the door thoroughly", you roll one search check with a circumstance modifier that you feel is appropriate based on whatever, and the action takes some amount of time longer than usual based on what you feel is appropriate. Yes, your method does remove that unattractive (to you) certainty that Take 20 can provide - it's a different mechanic! But the player is not "metagaming" any more or any less. In both cases, he's thinking, "I can trade time for a better result on my Search check." The only difference is in one case he knows exactly how much time and how much better of a result, in the other it's a bit mysterious because it's based on DM fiat. Not that DM fiat is necessarily bad by any means, but it's almost certainly less consistent than applying a clear rule. Each time a player decided to try a running jump instead of a standing jump, would you make up a circumstance modifier based on running speed and room rather than simply apply the clear rule? And note, you can always apply any circumstance penalty for footing or lighting or whatever you like no matter which mechanic you are using; this is true for Taking 20 as well. Your method just greatly increases the weight or importance of your DM judgement by making it all about circumstance modifier. So it also does remove a bit of control from the player and puts it with the DM - again, this isn't necessarily bad, it may be an acceptable tradeoff to get rid of the certainty you don't like. But how can you deny that shift is taking place? So there you have it... and probably you still won't be convinced, and you'll tell me how because there's language about 20 die rolls in the mechanic description, it fosters metagaming... in a game that is full of die rolls and mechanics involving die rolls that are described in terms of die rolls... :surrender |
| PenderGrass03-02-07, 12:17 AM | Boy, I've read most of the thread, and I have to say, you're just completely off about Take 20 being an inherently metagaming thing. I seriously doubt it. ...since you've already stated that you absolutely will not change your mind no matter what anyone says (maybe that should be a clue that your case is not actually all that strong?). I keep reading though. Actually, the only thing I see is a bunch of people that are upset because I made it known that take 20 is an inherently metagaming action. In fact, the whole idea of statistics used in a manner of this nature really is a lame and poor design decision. Let's apply it to everything else in D&D. How about a fighter that has 5 attacks per round - it should be okay for the player to decide that he will fail all his attacks for 3 rounds and then get a single automatic 20 on the 4th round. Afterall, that is just as statistically sound as Take 20. Statistically speaking, every 20th saving throw is now an auto 20. Character stats should also get their statistical auto 18. Pah! It is likely the worst aspect of all the mechanics of D&D v3.5 and I am glad to be rid of it. Your method just greatly increases the weight or importance of your DM judgement by making it all about circumstance modifier. So it also does remove a bit of control from the player and puts it with the DM - again, this isn't necessarily bad, it may be an acceptable tradeoff to get rid of the certainty you don't like. But how can you deny that shift is taking place? Actually it places more responsibility on the player. In fact, the removal of take 20 encourages the player to pay more attention to the game environment and how their character is acting in that environment. The shift - if any - is definitely more favorable to the player that is playing. Agreed that the shift - if any - would most likely hinder and irk a lazy player. The result of which would likely mean that a player unwilling to actually game would likely quit - which I guess is a benefit to the group as a whole. Again, it seems that everyone out-favors the DM. :dragon: **** |
| Sereno03-02-07, 09:07 AM | Actually, the only thing I see is a bunch of people that are upset because I made it known that take 20 is an inherently metagaming action. Actually, what you've done, as far as I can tell, is to consistently reject any opinions about how it might not be metagaming by relentlessly clinging to that one line in the book about rolling 20 times.... I'll grant you this, though; technically speaking, any time you pick up a die when playing d20, it's an "inherently metagaming" action. Any time you are relying on the mechanical rules, it's an "inherently metagaming" action. Increasing BAB, choosing feats to get into a prestige class or to get later feats in a chain ... basically all the rules! Why you hate this one, but accept all of the others, remains a mystery to me. Further mystery is that you apparently don't have a problem with Take 10, despite the fact that your players inexplicably don't ever use it. If "fate," as you put it, is that important to your game, why the hating for Take 20 but not for Take 10? Let's apply it to everything else in D&D. How about a fighter that has 5 attacks per round - it should be okay for the player to decide that he will fail all his attacks for 3 rounds and then get a single automatic 20 on the 4th round. Afterall, that is just as statistically sound as Take 20. Now, this is just being absurd! Combat is NOTHING like searching ... being in combat does not get easier if you 'take your time' or 'take longer.' Regardless of "statistically sound" or not, all the Take 20 option allows for is the simple fact that if you have time and take your time, you'll do your best. The difference between 6 seconds of effort and 2 minutes of effort can be dramatic. |
| Cantankerous03-02-07, 12:19 PM | That's kinda crass and presumptious of you. :dragon: **** Unfortunately, no. What you've done by taking the take 20 out and adding this thing where you can fail no matter how skilled you are at a task is to make it abundantly clear that it DOESN'T matter what the Player does or states, but only what the idiot dice say. If I'm a world class climber, 23 ranks, +3 stat modifier, +2 circumstance modifier for my equipment and I say I'm taking all the time I need to make the climb a safe one, there is absolutely no way on gods green earth that one in 400 times I'm going to fall on a simple and straightforward climb up "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging". Not once in 400 times! Hell, not once in 4000 times. It's simply ridiculous to put the "Hah, hah, you rolled ones back to back" ahead of the statements of the supposed world class expert with no liabilities against him, doing something he should be able to do in his sleep, but is STATING that he is taking his time and applying extra care too. THAT is meta-gaming, and a most grotesque form of it, IMO. Isshia |
| PenderGrass03-02-07, 12:32 PM | ...there is absolutely no way on gods green earth that one in 400 times I'm going to fall on a simple and straightforward climb.... "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes." :dragon: **** |
| ryryguy03-02-07, 02:04 PM | Actually, the only thing I see is a bunch of people that are upset because I made it known that take 20 is an inherently metagaming action. In fact, the whole idea of statistics used in a manner of this nature really is a lame and poor design decision. See, this is just a non-sequitur. You can make an argument that it's a poor mechanic because you don't like the statistical basis that was used to construct it. But where's the metagaming? Pretty much all the mechanics in the game have a statistical basis. Does one having an (arguably) poor statistical basis somehow make it more "metagamey"? Your critique of the mechanic is, itself, a metagame thing - of course! Because mechanics are inherently metagame things, to critique them you must reach for metagame concepts. I think you're confusing the metagame nature of your critique with the thing you are critiquing. "Blah, the statistics behind this are silly. So if you use it, you're appealing to silly statistics - metagamer!!!!" It is likely the worst aspect of all the mechanics of D&D v3.5 and I am glad to be rid of it. Glad it works out for you to get rid of it. It's just a bit silly how firmly you keep clinging to the illusion that it's "metagaming". I'll leave you to your enjoyment it. |
| PenderGrass03-02-07, 05:25 PM | But where's the metagaming? Pretty much all the mechanics in the game have a statistical basis. Does one having an (arguably) poor statistical basis somehow make it more "metagamey"? I think if you look at how the whole argument progressed you will see why take 20 is a metagame thought process. Me: Take 20 is bad. Remove it. INITIAL REACTION: I don't want to sit around and roll over and over and over.... In fact, the whole basis for defending it is all based on the exact metagame thought process that take 20 encourages. If you are fine with being that much of a metagamer at your table, that is fine. But, unless you have some sort of actual convincing argument as to how take 20 is not a metagame thought process, you aren't gonna convince me. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-03-07, 09:42 PM | I think if you look at how the whole argument progressed you will see why take 20 is a metagame thought process. Me: Take 20 is bad. Remove it. INITIAL REACTION: I don't want to sit around and roll over and over and over....Actually, it's more like: You: Take 20 is bad. Remove it. Initial Reaction: I don't want to sit around and roll over and over and over.... You: Oh, I fixed that by house ruling -- no retries on rolls Secondary Reaction: But what if you're being extra careful on finding a trap? You: Oh, I fixed that by house ruling -- now being careful results in a circumstance modifier on the roll Tertiary Reaction: But you can still arbitrarily set DC's on traps to be effectively so high they can't make it or so low they can't fail it You: Oh, I fixed that by house ruling -- now you reroll 20's and reroll 1's so there's always a chance to succeed or fail no matter what the DC is. Also, now you can trigger traps before you get to search to detect them Quaternary Reaction: And how is this easier than just "taking 20"? ..... Seriously. Giving someone a +10 circumstance modifier on the roll is more-or-less the same as letting them "take 20", but with the extra burst of randomness you seem to relish -- half the time they'll roll higher, half the time they'll roll lower, but on average they'll do the same as just letting them "take 20". As for the fact you don't want to mechanically set DC's that you'll know whether they can beat or not: First, that's your job as a DM. Second, you could just as easily randomly roll for the DC's of your traps when you design your adventure. Problem solved, without the bevy of house-rules. |
| PenderGrass03-04-07, 08:03 PM | You: Also, now you can trigger traps before you get to search to detect them An absolute inability on your part to actually pay attention - as I never said such a thing. Likely this sloppiness in your comprehension is done throughout your own replay in your head. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-05-07, 02:24 AM | Sorry about that. I assumed when you said ...... I was wondering what all of you DMs that do allow take 20 to be used in your game do when your group encounters an area that must be searched by actually physically going into the area that is trapped....you were implying that, contrary to the rules, you risked setting off a trap before you searched for it. You're actually stating that , contrary to the rules, you risk setting off a trap while you search for it. Big difference. |
| Cantankerous03-05-07, 09:58 AM | I think if you look at how the whole argument progressed you will see why take 20 is a metagame thought process. Me: Take 20 is bad. Remove it. INITIAL REACTION: I don't want to sit around and roll over and over and over.... In fact, the whole basis for defending it is all based on the exact metagame thought process take 20 encourages. If you are fine with being that much of a metagamer at your table, that is fine. But, unless you have some sort of actual convincing argument as to how take 20 is not a metagame thought process, you aren't gonna convince me. :dragon: **** Absolutely not. You're completely ignoring the REAL basis of the arguements because it is easier to go after that ONE arguement, seldom actually used here, because it is hard to defend as a stand alone. The main arguement is that the way you do it ignores the actions of the characters and exaltes the idiot dice to a degree that makes no sense. I really don't think anyone is trying to make you change your mind, they are simply responding to the many indefensible statements that you are making about their own statements. Like in this post. Isshia |
| BW022203-05-07, 12:21 PM | Folks, If you are fine with being that much of a metagamer at your table, that is fine. But, unless you have some sort of actual convincing argument as to how take 20 is not a metagame thought process, you aren't gonna convince me. Calling someone who uses the take 20 rule as a 'meta-gamer' is in pretty poor taste. It assumes that people are using the rule to somehow get around something which their character would not otherwise know. Take twenty is not a meta-gaming process. It simulates an action which the character could otherwise do. At any time his character could spent one, two, five, ten, etc. minutes looking for traps on the chest. The existing game mechanic is to start rolling search checks until either finds something or rolls say 50 times. The take twenty rule just simulates this in another (equally valid) way. Now, I understand that searching for exactly two minutes is 'meta-gaming'. But then again, so is searching for exactly six seconds. We all know that the character isn't timing himself to exactly six seconds. It just happens that the simulation says you get one check per six seconds and we assume that is a 'reasonable' length of time for most characters to do a causual search of a 5' cube with hopes of finding anything. Similiarly, we assume that two minutes is the standard length of time to do a repeated search of an area before folks determine that further searching is pointless. At some point, every action in D&D is meta-gaming. It relies on the player knowing the rules of the simulation, which the character certainly doesn't know. We all understand that. However, what is important is does does the rule simulate the intent of the action. Taking a twenty simulates the intent of a character spending larger amounts of time attempting the same task over and over. I makes lots of assumptions solely for the benefit of those running the simulation. But so does every other action in the simulation. As for specific cases when a character would intend to search over and over... that is a matter for the player to decide. Certainly, if the character saw a dart filled body in the hallway, if they have a map which says "trap here", if their goblin prisoner refuses to move ahead of them down this hallway, if there has been a trap on the last four doors they have opened, etc. it would be unreasonable to assume that the characters wouldn't search over and over again. You then get into the arguments over what is a reasonable fear of a trap. Players can easily take a ten, search once, search twice, search ten times, search for ten minutes, or take a twenty. The fact that one simulation is different than another makes it no less valid or 'meta-gaming' to use one over the other -- especially if you have no idea whether there is a trap to begin with. ... I was wondering what all of you DMs that do allow take 20 to be used in your game do when your group encounters an area that must be searched by actually physically going into the area that is trapped. Then you have to explain to the player why they need to go into that 5' area in order to search the area. Honestly, unless there is something physically in that square preventing the PCs from searching it... there is no reason they can't search if from 5' or 10' away. Player: "I search the 5' area for traps." DM: "There are a lot of boxes, half covered in tarps, so you can't see most of the floor and you can't examine most of the boxes in any detail." Player: "I search for trip wires between the boxes, examine the parts of the floor which I can see, and any of the wall and ceiling which I can see clearly for any dart holes, openings, etc." DM: "Ok. Give me a search check." Player: "I take a twenty. That's a 28." Now, it is clear that the PC can't look for traps inside the boxes (or even on the boxes), because of the tarps and inability to search behind boxes from his current position. His search is strickly for those areas which he can see. If he steps into the square between the boxes (if there is enough room), you can't hit him with a trap (with appropriate DC) such as a trip wire or pressure plate which he could see from outside. Nor, do you try "You could see and didn't search that part of the floor you stepped on" either. He intent is pretty clear. When a player says "I search for traps" that's all they mean. They don't mean open something, pull a rope, untie some tarps, move into the square, etc. If they need to move into a square to examine the traps... you need to say so. If they need to untie the tarps before searching the boxes for traps... again, just say so. Same if the square is behind a door. You just say "You can't search it until you open the door." |
| PenderGrass03-05-07, 05:40 PM | The main arguement is that the way you do it ignores the actions of the characters and exaltes the idiot dice to a degree that makes no sense. If this is the main argument, then I have already addressed this. First, the action of the character actually gains more importance in my method as the player describes the actions taken whereas in the Take 20 method a player is allowed to state "I take 20." Second, "exalting the idiot dice" removes the possibility of the DM becoming nothing more than a story-teller. Without the randomness of the dice, why even bother having players? Why not just call everyone up before the game and tell them what they did and how well they did it? Darn those "idiot dice" for making random things happen. :rolleyes: :dragon: **** |
| Nom03-05-07, 07:38 PM | Since it seems to have been missed by both groups, I'll repeat it. This isn't a rules argument or a "metagame" argument, it's a play style argument. Pender is coming from a "simulationist" perspective; he wants to preserve the concept of random generation within the game system. Many others are coming from a "gamist" perspective; "I can roll once, or 20 times, or 100 times, or just take 20. What's the big deal? Just let them find the dang trap and begin actual play.". It's not about right and wrong but' about what you're expecting the game model to do for you. |
| Shatteredtower03-05-07, 07:41 PM | Actually, the only thing I see is a bunch of people that are upset because I made it known that take 20 is an inherently metagaming action.A clearer reading would see that offense is taken over the rude, presumptuous, and above all condescending fashion in which taking 20 is declared to be bad and inferior. A "cop out" was the term used on one of those occasions. But why let facts get in the way of self-justification? How about a fighter that has 5 attacks per round - it should be okay for the player to decide that he will fail all his attacks for 3 rounds and then get a single automatic 20 on the 4th round. Afterall, that is just as statistically sound as Take 20.I'll bite: sure, why not? Let's say you allowed for that rule. What's the result in a case wherein the fighter and an equally matched opponent (same number of attacks) each have only a 25% chance of hitting each other? Said fighter gets his butt handed to him, that's what. Maybe he can do more damage with that "guaranteed" shot (assuming he doesn't bulk up on Power Attack, perhaps) than any single hit achieved by his opponent, but he's already been hit between three or four times on average. Unless he can put his opponent away with that one hit, he'll be hit five times on average before it's his turn to connect again. That's great if you've also ruled that he also gets to confirm the critical threat and he's using a scythe or military pick, but odds are that he's still behind the ball. If he's not dead by the time he finally hits his opponent, chances are it will only be because the rest of the party defeated the enemy first. Of course, this whole take 20 on an attack roll argument relies on us ignoring the rules for chances of failure, being rushed and threatened, and the 20 is automatic success on attack rolls rule -- but at least that last one was accounted for with the "subtract on a 1/add on a 20" rule option. Even if all the factors were ignored, it would still not be the same thing for one reason: it does not exist in a vaccuum. What I mean by that is attack rolls are not made in isolation, while Search checks are. If I could take 20 on every 20th attack roll, it's at the cost of giving my opponent(s) several rounds in which there are no consequences for swinging swords or casting spells at me. If I take 20 on a Search check to find a trap, what's the trap doing? If it can do anything to evade a Search check, which would make it comparable to attack rolls, then taking 20 would not be an option. Statistically speaking, every 20th saving throw is now an auto 20.Again, not a problem. Find a player who'd willingly fail 19 saving throws in a row to allow for automatic success on the last one, with knowing idea what they'll be saving against on that 20th attempt. Character stats should also get their statistical auto 18.Ignoring point buy, the argument is now that 1 in 216 is the same as 1 in 20? Okay, so assuming we accepted this as true and one in six characters gets an automatic 18. What are their other ability scores? What are the scores of your previous five characters? Taking 20 on a Search check requires only one result: taking 216 requires 36, only 6 of which are immediately of any significance. The number of variables that must be included is relevant. Therefore, the proposal is not even remotely the same in a statistical sense. In fact, the removal of take 20 encourages the player to pay more attention to the game environment and how their character is acting in that environment.The veracity of this claim has yet to be demonstrated in this thread. Agreed that the shift - if any - would most likely hinder and irk a lazy player. The result of which would likely mean that a player unwilling to actually game would likely quit - which I guess is a benefit to the group as a whole.Ah, yes. The claim is that anyone who'd prefer this system is lazy and the game is better off for driving away such lazy players. To imply that anyone who'd prefer to ignore the roll in favour of skipping to the chase, be it a description of the action or the results of said action, must be lazy and holding the game back is a remarkably ignorant claim to make. What does it matter that Larry is witty, clever, and very engaging in his play? If he'd rather take 20, we'd be better off without him, apparently. Darn those "idiot dice" for making random things happen.Yeah, especially when we'd prefer to leave the random factor in the hands of the players! Wouldn't it be nice if we could trust them a bit more? "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes."The fact that a Jedi made such an absolute statement ought is telling. Taking 20 doesn't qualify as an absolute either, in part because there is no automatic success on skill checks, in part because there isn't always the option to take one in a given scenario, but in greatest part because a player is not required to take one even when there's no reason not to. It's surprising how often they won't -- for the metagame reason that some of them enjoy having the option to occasionally leave the results to the die even when it's not necessary. |
| Shatteredtower03-05-07, 07:49 PM | Since it seems to have been missed by both groups, I'll repeat it.I addressed this earlier: the gamist style gives players the option to approach matters in a simulationist style. The simulationist ruling does not afford the same luxury to someone attempting a gamist approach. Significantly, the simulationist style has vilified the gamist approach as lazy, uninspired, and unworthy of the table, as demonstrated by this statement: Agreed that the shift - if any - would most likely hinder and irk a lazy player. The result of which would likely mean that a player unwilling to actually game would likely quit - which I guess is a benefit to the group as a whole. |
| PenderGrass03-05-07, 08:06 PM | Sorry that people are upset about how I view take 20. Take 20 to me is a cop out, a path to metagame mentality and overall just a really poor design decision that WotC made when it put it into the system. Some, may want to say I am coming from a "simulist" ideal, others may claim that I am just being a jerk for being adamant in how I feel, and everyone may totally disagree with me from start to finish, but none of that has convinced me otherwise. When a player (or DM) uses Take 20, to me, it removes the importance of the player-described action and replaces it with statistical mumbo-jumbo. "I take 20." This - in my mind - is a total cop out, metagame declaration and just generally bad role-playing. :dragon: **** |
| weasel003-05-07, 09:22 PM | Here be "perfect" combination of "simulists" and "gamist" You may already be playing dicless and not even know it. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/) Just to throw a monkey wrentch into the machinery! ;) |
| Shatteredtower03-05-07, 11:30 PM | Sorry that people are upset about how I view take 20.More like annoyed at the attitude toward people who use the option, but hey, it's your game, and no one ever said otherwise. |
| Cantankerous03-06-07, 08:00 AM | If this is the main argument, then I have already addressed this. First, the action of the character actually gains more importance in my method as the player describes the actions taken whereas in the Take 20 method a player is allowed to state "I take 20." Second, "exalting the idiot dice" removes the possibility of the DM becoming nothing more than a story-teller. Without the randomness of the dice, why even bother having players? Why not just call everyone up before the game and tell them what they did and how well they did it? Darn those "idiot dice" for making random things happen. :rolleyes: :dragon: **** In what bloody way does your ignoring all of the things that the player states that his character is doing allowing him to gain MORE importance? His actions have no input to the outcome. In exactly what way does this make his actions more important when you are ignoring them in favor of ONLY the dice!?! As to the idiot dice... they are really beyond idiot. They have no mind at all. Hopefully the DM does! Atleast enough of one to note that there are situations that are not random, although most (far and away most) will be. It is simply spectacular obsession to deny that not everything is random. When I drop a sword we do not need to roll to see if it will fall upward or downward except in obscure circumstances. It is not usually going to occur, but as a DM, for the love of God, keep enough flexibility to acknowldge that not everything is random! I bloody refuse to roll the dice everytime I drop an object in character to see if it will go up, down, hover sideways, or maybe shoot through my grandsons left kidney while singing show tunes. Random dice rolling has it's place. It determines almost all actions in game. As it should. But NOT ALL ACTIONS becuase there are many times when it makes no sense whatsoever to chain yourself to the dice roll. Or are you one of those DMs who make the character swing to hit the wall with their pick axe? That TOO is supposed to be an automatic action. So, can your 20th level fighters hit the broad side of the mountain from six inches away? Or will they miss one time in a few hundred, no matter how skilled they are, no matter how much time the controlling player says that they are taking to do it safely and correctly? Isshia |
| PenderGrass03-06-07, 11:31 AM | In what bloody way does your ignoring all of the things that the player states that his character is doing allowing him to gain MORE importance? His actions have no input to the outcome. In exactly what way does this make his actions more important when you are ignoring them in favor of ONLY the dice!?! My "ignoring"? Well, paint me red and call me the Red Baron. You really are missing a lot of what I say. I never said to ignore the player - but you already knew that. I never said the actions have no input - but you already knew that. And I definitely never said to ignore the player/character - but you already knew that, too. :dragon: **** |
| Daydreamer03-06-07, 05:39 PM | All I can say is "WOW" Even though we always take 20 to search a room, we've never considered taking 20 to look for traps. I guess we always thought that quote about not taking 20 if there is a consequence for failure applied. I suppose you could really stretch it and say that the springing of a trap has a consequence, not the failure to find it. This is how i read the rule as well....hmm im really torn on this, take 20 to find it or not issue...id almost wonder if there is an official answer somewhere. |
| Merestil Haye03-06-07, 05:56 PM | Such a discussion is found on page 21 of the January 07 issue of the FAQ. The discussion finishes with the following statement.In the Sage’s experience, over 90% of all “take 20” checks are made for one of the following four reasons. Even if you only limit yourself to these few examples, you’ll save valuable game time: Strength checks to open doors Listen checks at closed doors Open Lock checks Search checks. |
| jaspercrey03-07-07, 12:17 AM | Once again I have to ask: Taking twenty assumes that you will fail in your action several times before suceeding. This is right from the Player's Handbook. How exactly does one know whether or not they have failed at a search check? If I try to open a lock and after my attempt the lock remains . . . well . . locked, than I know I have failed. If I try to burst open a door with a strength check and after my attempt the door remains stuck, than once again I know I have failed. If I am attempting to search an area and I find nothing I don't know whether I have failed to find something or suceeding at finding nothing. |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 01:52 AM | In the Sage’s experience, over 90% of all “take 20” checks are made for one of the following four reasons. Even if you only limit yourself to these few examples, you’ll save valuable game time: Strength checks to open doors Listen checks at closed doors Open Lock checks Search checks. :rofl: "...save valuable game time"? Better yet, why not just add 20 to any skill check and really be done with all this mucking about? You'll save valuable game time: Diplomacy? boring. - add 20 and be done with it. Moving Silently is a bore - just add 20. Appraise? - sheesh, don't even add 20, just tell them what they have. Gather Information? - really, letting the rogue have all the fun again? - just give it to him. Yeah, "valuable game time." If that is a good reason to take 20, maybe you should switch to a collector card game, video game or just quit gaming altogether. :dragon: **** |
| Nom03-07-07, 02:18 AM | Diplomacy? boring. - add 20 and be done with it.No retries: "Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. ..." Moving Silently is a bore - just add 20.Penalty for failure: you're detected. Appraise? - sheesh, don't even add 20, just tell them what they have.No retries: "You cannot try again on the same object, regardless of success." Gather Information? - really, letting the rogue have all the fun again? - just give it to him.Yes, as long as you don't mind attracting attention to yourself: "Yes, but it takes time for each check. Furthermore, you may draw attention to yourself if you repeatedly pursue a certain type of information." Yeah, "valuable game time."In fact, you completely agree with his point: you object to players rolling 20 Search checks too. You just use a completely different method. |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 02:20 AM | Nom, you missed that plane that flew over your head - didn't you? :dragon: **** |
| Cantankerous03-07-07, 04:37 AM | My "ignoring"? Well, paint me red and call me the Red Baron. You really are missing a lot of what I say. I never said to ignore the player - but you already knew that. I never said the actions have no input - but you already knew that. And I definitely never said to ignore the player/character - but you already knew that, too. :dragon: **** No, you just say to ignore them when they say that they are going to take all the time they need to do the job perfectly. Or didn't you? Yep, I musta missed that. Isshia |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 04:44 AM | No, you just say to ignore them when they say that they are going to take all the time they need to do the job perfectly. Player says they're doing their best - as perfectly as they can - in my game? Definitely worth a bonus - likely +20 or there abouts depending on other factors - but +20 is a start. But, I could care less if you were Thor almighty, you're still gonna roll that d20. Now, where do I say ignore them? :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-07-07, 11:41 AM | Player says they're doing their best - as perfectly as they can - in my game? Definitely worth a bonus - likely +20 or there abouts depending on other factors - but +20 is a start.Oh, I see. Rather than allow a "take 20", you instead allow a "take 30". But make them roll to see if they botch the roll. I can see how much better that is than RAW. |
| catsclaw03-07-07, 11:46 AM | How exactly does one know whether or not they have failed at a search check?Because you didn't find anything. The critical part isn't that "you know you failed" it's that "you didn't get the outcome you wanted". If I don't find anything I can always try again. And again. I assume I might have missed something, so I keep searching. Eventually (after 2 minutes) I give up, because I assume if there was something to find I would have found it already. It could mean there really isn't a trap, or it could mean the trap's just too well hidden. |
| starfire31103-07-07, 12:34 PM | Definitely worth a bonus - likely +20 or there abouts depending on other factors - but +20 is a start. But, I could care less if you were Thor almighty, you're still gonna roll that d20. Actually, doesnt Thor get an auto 20 on any D20 rolls or some such like that. |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 01:32 PM | Oh, I see. Rather than allow a "take 20", you instead allow a "take 30". But make them roll to see if they botch the roll. I can see how much better that is than RAW. You have no clue as to what is being said, do you? :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 01:36 PM | Actually, doesnt Thor get an auto 20 on any D20 rolls or some such like that. I was alluding to the actual god of thunder, Thor - not the make-believe one that is written in some D&D book. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-07-07, 01:44 PM | I was alluding to the actual god of thunder, Thor - not the make-believe one that is written in some D&D book. :dragon: **** ok I get it, so if Thor was one of your players you would make him roll, but if you or one of your players were controlling Thor in the game, then they would be able to use the auto 20 rule for gods. |
| PenderGrass03-07-07, 01:49 PM | ok I get it, so if Thor was one of your players you would make him roll, but if you or one of your players were controlling Thor in the game, then they would be able to use the auto 20 rule for gods. Unknown, since I don't have a Thor god in my game. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-07-07, 10:58 PM | You have no clue as to what is being said, do you?I know exactly what's being said. You like random results, so you have replaced a number of the core rules with house rules designed to make people roll dice. This, somehow, prevents "metagaming". You then logged on to a website where people clarify d20 rules, and bragged about how your system was superior. You then proceeded to insult people who argued with you, saying they "didn't understand" and "just don't get it" when, in fact, they understand perfectly well. They just think you're being an idiot. Did I miss anything? |
| PenderGrass03-08-07, 12:21 AM | I know exactly what's being said. You like random results, so you have replaced a number of the core rules with house rules designed to make people roll dice. This, somehow, prevents "metagaming". You then logged on to a website where people clarify d20 rules, and bragged about how your system was superior. You then proceeded to insult people who argued with you, saying they "didn't understand" and "just don't get it" when, in fact, they understand perfectly well. They just think you're being an idiot. Did I miss anything? LOL Yeah, okay. Who's the more idiotic? The idiot or the idiot who argues with him? If people think I'm an idiot, I find it amusing that they would let an idiot influence their emotions so much. :dragon: **** |
| Cantankerous03-08-07, 07:02 AM | Player says they're doing their best - as perfectly as they can - in my game? Definitely worth a bonus - likely +20 or there abouts depending on other factors - but +20 is a start. But, I could care less if you were Thor almighty, you're still gonna roll that d20. Now, where do I say ignore them? :dragon: **** So, instead there is simply no internal consistency and no one has any idea ahead of time what you might feel like your whims will dictate this time. Ok, well, it listens, indeed it does, but the outcome is still the same as not listening roughly one time in 20 and now the Players know they can count on zero consistency. What this whole thing has been about is why this is btter or that is better is whatever. No one CAN change your mind about anything. Fine and dandy. Who'd want to try? But as long as you keep making the statemets the counters will continue to be presented as well to demonstrate that it is NOT, as you have so often avered, superior or better in any manner at all and is in fact, IMO, far inferior to the standard ruling in this case. Which is MY take on things and which I have every bit as much right to express and discuss as you have to express and discuss your ideas. It's nothing personal. Hey, you didn't start the thread anyway. Don't feel that anyones thinks poorly of you for your views. They don't HAVE TO agree with you after all. Isshia |
| PenderGrass03-08-07, 02:03 PM | So, instead there is simply no internal consistency and no one has any idea ahead of time what you might feel like your whims will dictate this time. Even in RAW a DM is asked - nay, a DM is required to be able to adjudicate for each and every circumstance. The "consistency" that you are looking for is the base +20 to the roll. :dragon: **** |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-08-07, 02:09 PM | Who's the more idiotic? The idiot or the idiot who argues with him? They are both equally idiotic. Everyone loses. |
| Nom03-08-07, 05:24 PM | I had an interesting idea - let's apply this rule to attack rolls! DM: Do you want to make only one attempt to hit him, or keep trying until you succeed? PC: Keep trying! Duh! DM: OK, you get a +4, roll your attack. ... You missed? Too bad, you'll never hit him, and no, you can't make multiple attempts. (And yes, I know you can't take 20 on an attack, but the objection to take 20 being presented is resampling, and most people allow you to resample attack rolls round after round) |
| Cantankerous03-09-07, 12:53 AM | Even in RAW a DM is asked - nay, a DM is required to be able to adjudicate for each and every circumstance. The "consistency" that you are looking for is the base +20 to the roll. :dragon: **** Within the RAW, so that the Players know what can be expected. Isshia |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 02:13 AM | Within the RAW, so that the Players know what can be expected. Is that your final stance? "Take 20 is good because it allows the Players to know what to expect." Okay, you got me there. Player: "I take 20." DM: "Okay, let's see-" Player: "I have it all calculated here. 20 + 5 ranks + 2 circumstancial that the DMG tells you to adjudicate for + 2 synergy bonus +.... blah blah blah.... versus what appears to be a standard stone door with a type 7 lock that means a DC of blah blah blah.. then when you add in the CR adjustments we should get blah blah blah XP according to the DMG you should also... blah blah blah..." Yep, sounds exactly like the player knows exactly what can be expected. Boring. But, you're right - the player knows exactly what to expect. :dragon: **** |
| Cantankerous03-09-07, 07:31 AM | Is that your final stance? "Take 20 is good because it allows the Players to know what to expect." Okay, you got me there. Player: "I take 20." DM: "Okay, let's see-" Player: "I have it all calculated here. 20 + 5 ranks + 2 circumstancial that the DMG tells you to adjudicate for + 2 synergy bonus +.... blah blah blah.... versus what appears to be a standard stone door with a type 7 lock that means a DC of blah blah blah.. then when you add in the CR adjustments we should get blah blah blah XP according to the DMG you should also... blah blah blah..." Yep, sounds exactly like the player knows exactly what can be expected. Boring. But, you're right - the player knows exactly what to expect. :dragon: **** Pretty much. Or there's your way. Player: "Ector is taking all the time he needs, making sure he checks and double checks every foothold, applies his weight evenly when possible, leans in, uses the climbing kit to it's best advantage, keep his eyes open for degree changes, the whole nine yards." (Same Player, in internal dialogue mode): Yeah gods, do I now get a plus 1 or a plus 20? Did he get laid last night? He seemed awfully tense earlier. Maybe his being torced off at Ted for the constant ooc-ness will screw me. Maybe I should compliment his DMing style again? Yeah, not having to guess and actually using the rules has something to be said for it. It probably just a DMing style thing. My Players are my equals. They help set the rules in between sessions (in session I run things) and how the world works. They find it easy to loose themselves in the story because they understand the world and how it works and don't have to guess whether running through that high grass field today that they ran through last night will slow their movement by, 1/4 or 1/2. They KNOW how how it works, so their characters can actually react to situations in a manner that eases the suspension of disbeleif. In unique situations they can still guess-timate pretty accurately, just as I could in unfamiliar terrain as a climber, because everything is consistent and at least makes sense in game terms and isn't subject to anyones whims. Isshia |
| nightwing03-09-07, 12:23 PM | Perhaps this discussion should be taken to a different topic, since it has long since abandoned the op's issue and is grossly off topic. The op didn't expect a discussion on the validity of the take 20 mechanic. He just wanted to know about the validity of using it to find traps. Perhaps the new thread should be titled, "Taking 20: Let's argue about it" |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 12:55 PM | Pretty much. Or there's your way. Ah, the old +20 then add in bonuses and penalties as per normal, then roll. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 12:56 PM | Perhaps the new thread should be titled, "Taking 20: Let's argue about it" Are you kidding? This is comic gold. :dragon: **** |
| Sereno03-09-07, 01:07 PM | This is comic gold. Agreed. But, .... Ah, the old +20 then add in bonuses and penalties as per normal, then roll. So, then, you give a +20 to the roll if they state that they're doing it "very carefully and methodically?" If you're starting out with a +20, that answers Cantankerous' claims about it all being up to the DM's whim ... but how is "I do it carefully, give me a +20." any different, or less meta-gamey, than "I do it carefully, assume I rolled a 20."...? If you're actually seeing a distinction here, please elaborate.... |
| Cantankerous03-09-07, 02:57 PM | Well, this way he can still say that he doesn't use the take 20 rule when he actually does, when he feels like it anyway. Or not, in some situations, because the Players can't know if it will be the same thing, then add the roll ... Which still adds the problem of 1/400 failure in the ability of the foremost expert in given field A to have a "funny" fumble even though it makes no sense whatever for it to happen even as often as 1/100,000 times. ... when what has been said for the last several pages is "the mechanic is screwed...ahhh, cause I say it is, but I still use it, sort of, I just make it less useful by adding a chance that when you drop your pen instead of falling down it will come alive on it's own right and skewer your characters left testicle 'cause, wow, that's random and randoms funny." Errr, or something like that. Isshia |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-09-07, 04:28 PM | Sorry that people are upset about how I view take 20. They're not. They are upset about the way you present your view of take 20. |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 05:02 PM | They're not. They are upset about the way you present your view of take 20. I just don’t have a more diplomatic way of saying it. Take 20 is a meta-gaming cop-out and likely one of the worst game design decisions that was made for the new evolution of D&D. I am not going to candy-coat it. As to the further twisting and squirming exhibited by Cantankerous in his seemingly personal affront and refusal to actually read and understand anything I post with regards to this matter – well, it is his right to behave thusly and he has not once violated any sort of CoC that I care about. Plus, his – and other posts similar to his – are very amusing to me. If you're starting out with a +20, that answers Cantankerous' claims about it all being up to the DM's whim ... but how is "I do it carefully, give me a +20." any different, or less meta-gamey, than "I do it carefully, assume I rolled a 20."...? If you're actually seeing a distinction here, please elaborate.... The distinction is simple. With Take 20, the player can easily calculate the grand total before he even makes the declaration. Without Take 20 – and using the method I put forth in an earlier post – the player is never sure what the die roll will hold. Therefore, although he may know that by declaring that he is “taking his time and doing his best” he will get a base +20, he has no ability to control the die roll. The die roll, as I said previously, remains beyond the control of the DM and players. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-09-07, 08:34 PM | With Take 20, the player can easily calculate the grand total before he even makes the declaration. Without Take 20 – and using the method I put forth in an earlier post – the player is never sure what the die roll will hold. Therefore, although he may know that by declaring that he is “taking his time and doing his best” he will get a base +20, he has no ability to control the die roll. The die roll, as I said previously, remains beyond the control of the DM and players. :dragon: **** I am confused, you will let him get a +20 to his die roll every time he attempts a check, but you will not let him just take a 20, do you just add 20 to all the DCs to account for this? I personally just dont understand the whole no retries thing, it makes little to no since to me. This was one of the 1st things that occured to us when we were brand new to 3rd ed, the rogue searched for traps, and didn't find any, we didn't know if there were any or not, and I said, hey just check again to make sure, and we all just looked at each other with stuned looks on our faces, like OMG you can just keep searching until you are sure you got a 20. |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 08:48 PM | I am confused, you will let him get a +20 to his die roll every time he attempts a check, but you will not let him just take a 20, do you just add 20 to all the DCs to account for this? Not everytime he rolls. The only time someone would get the +20 bonus would be when they are specifically taking their time and doing their best. For a search done in this manner, the die roll would be done by me - hidden from the player - with all the proper adjustments. I personally just dont understand the whole no retries thing, it makes little to no since to me. This was one of the 1st things that occured to us when we were brand new to 3rd ed, the rogue searched for traps, and didn't find any, we didn't know if there were any or not, and I said, hey just check again to make sure, and we all just looked at each other with stuned looks on our faces, like OMG you can just keep searching until you are sure you got a 20. Like, OMG, that is like the total meta-gaming attitude take 20 has created. Fer sure. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-09-07, 09:01 PM | Not everytime he rolls. The only time someone would get the +20 bonus would be when they are specifically taking their time and doing their best. **** and why wouldn't it be evrytime he rolls, I know if there was a chance I would die, if I spelled a word incorrectly when typing on here,you better believe I would take the time to make sure every word was typed properly, and do my absolute best everytime. Like, OMG, that is like the total meta-gaming attitude take 20 has created. Fer sure. :dragon: **** RIGHT, much easier to attack the way someone communicates than to actually attack their position. anyhow, it came up in a completly non-metagame way, and I think it is completly metagaming to say that they could not retry again if they wanted to... PC1 to rogue: so why can't you just check again to make sure? Rogue: um because that is the "laws" of the universe, we can not question why, it just can't be done. |
| PenderGrass03-09-07, 09:23 PM | and why wouldn't it be evrytime he rolls, I know if there was a chance I would die, if I spelled a word incorrectly when typing on here,you better believe I would take the time to make sure every word was typed properly, and do my absolute best everytime. The +20 replaces the Take 20. You cannot Take 20 in every circumstance in the game. Therefore the +20 cannot be used on every die roll. RIGHT, much easier to attack the way someone communicates than to actually attack their position. Sorry if I offended you, I thought you were typing a make-believe accent. I may not type "dude" or "yar" with every post - but, I do tend to speak in that dialect. anyhow, it came up in a completly non-metagame way, and I think it is completly metagaming to say that they could not retry again if they wanted to... Your example was not a retry based on in-game information, but as a result of a poor die roll. "Keep rolling until you get a 20." Is the metagame attitude that Take 20 has spawned. PC1 to rogue: so why can't you just check again to make sure? Rogue: um because that is the "laws" of the universe, we can not question why, it just can't be done. It is called "role-playing" and it is one aspect of role-playing that is removed by using the Take 20. When a player has proclaimed that his character is taking all the time to satisfy himself as an expert that he has done everything in his power and ability to perform a skill in the best possible manner - why would he go back to do it again? If he were to go back and do it again, it would mean that he still hadn't used all the time to satisfy himself that it was done properly - therefore it would still be the same try. Now, granted there may be circumstances that change this. But, there are also times where the circumstances change and another Take 20 is performed. As always, there are always exceptions - therefore the endless, "but what about this" "what happens here" and "if this were the case" type of posts in this thread. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-10-07, 11:58 AM | The +20 replaces the Take 20. You cannot Take 20 in every circumstance in the game. Therefore the +20 cannot be used on every die roll. You can take a 20 in a lot of situations, just about every search check we make in our games is by taking a 20, you would just let them take a +20 instead of a 20. Personally I feel that if someone takes the time to do something to the best of their ability, then they have removed all the luck from the situation, there is no oops I didn't do good this time Your example was not a retry based on in-game information, but as a result of a poor die roll. where did I say that? Heck I don't even remember what his result was, it was an incharacter comment that I made, because I was playing a cautious character and he was playing the not a care in the world rogue type. He just rolled his die and gave the DM his result, and I was like, why not just check again to be sure, we didn't know there was an option for "trying your best", why wouldn't you always try your best. The take 20 turned out to be a great way to simulate this. There is no luck in whether I can lift something or break something if given enough time, there should not be any luck in whether I find something if given time, it is either something that is within my ability to find or not. In the case for searching for a trap, I look at a search check as the best someone can do without the risk of setting off the trap. |
| Cantankerous03-10-07, 12:48 PM | So again, we go back to the same thing. It's not a +20 every time. So we're back to the Player having no idea how much he gets this time, and still fails on dropping his sword one time in four hundred and yet it can be mealy mouthed to death as: But I do use the mechanic, except I dont, except I have never yet clearly communicated what I'm actually doing in any iven case because I don't know ahead of time what I'm going to feel like it is worth this time around, except that I didn't really sday that because I haven't really said anything consistent for over a single page. ;) Isshia |
| Sereno03-10-07, 03:08 PM | Personally I feel that if someone takes the time to do something to the best of their ability, then they have removed all the luck from the situation, there is no oops I didn't do good this time Ahhh, I think you've nailed the fundamental difference between Pender and the rest of the pro-Take-20 crowd, here. Those of us who like Take-20 feel, essentially, the same way you do. All that Take 20 means to us is that "I take my time" and that I'm "doing the best I can" ... the only reason why we should fail in this instance is if the task is too hard* ... not because of some random 1-20 factor. Pender seems to like it the other way; regardless of how good you are sometimes "fate" steps in and you fail, regardless ... too bad ... tough luck.... In this area, I agree with Cantankerous ... experts (which is what even a 1st level PC is, compared to the rest of the world) don't fail in their chosen tasks 1 in 20 (or even 1 in 400) times when they have the time to do their best. Accomplished riders don't regularly fall off their horses, accomplished climbers don't regularly fall off the mountain. Even normal people don't crash their cars once every 400 hours of driving, let alone professional drivers.... People start to fail with greater frequency (maybe nearing the dice roll stats) when they're trying to do something too hard for them (a regular guy trying to join in a Nascar race) or being rushed or otherwise messed with. * the DM is entitled to tack on whatever circumstance modifiers he wants to account for why something is too hard, as well as simply setting the DC very high. |
| BW022203-10-07, 05:59 PM | Folks, For those who say that they would replace the take 20 rule with +20 to the die roll, there are a lot of problems with this. First, it doesn't eliminate rolling (over and over) at the table. If you take 2 minutes, you get +20 to the die roll. If you roll a 6, there is nothing stopping you from taking another 2 minutes so you can roll again. And then again, and again, and again, until you get a good (or exceptional result). Second, take 20, keeps the success within what could normally be accomplished. +20 allows them to perform things which they couldn't normally accomplish. I.e. "take 40". If I come to a stone door with a DC 35 break DC, and I'm only +5 on my strength checks, I can't open it. Even if I took a 20 using the current rules, I couldn't open it. Makes sense, it is a stone door. However, with the +20 rule, I could now get a DC 35 half the time (or just keep taking 2 minutes and trying over and over) until I succeed. DCs would need to be beyond epic to prevent even unskilled folks from doing so even half the time. Third, it obviously encourages meta-gaming. The current take 20 discourages it. Once you take a 20, there is no more point in trying again. With +20, you take 2 minutes and roll a 6? Gee... I try again. Fifth, folks with little or no ranks can by by-pass things with no trouble. Say you have a DC 30 door. Under the RAW no one could bash it down. However, a 8 strength wizard now has a 50% chance of bashing it down with his +20-strength. Suddenly, there is little point in putting ranks into skills where you can take a +20 on. Sixth, it encourages more wasting in-game time. Instead of taking 2 minutes to search a square, why not spend 10 minutes? That way you get 5 rolls at +20? And if you don't roll anything over a 10, take another 10 minutes. At least with the current rules, you know that further attempts are pointless. |
| PenderGrass03-10-07, 07:50 PM | The problem is for those that are equating a good roll with how well your character is trying: "Take 20 means my character is doing his best." It really doesn't make common sense. And, if you view it this way - how do you account for low rolls? LAMENTING PLAYER: "Oh darn, I rolled a 2 - I guess my character just really wasn't trying his best. I mean, I am the player and I want him to be trying his best - but, darn these low rolls telling me I am just a loser." That, to me, is just stupid. Especially since the player should be able to know how much effort the character is really putting into any action they are attempting. To randomize the character's enthusiasm and skill in such a manner just doesn't make sense. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-10-07, 08:23 PM | First, it doesn't eliminate rolling (over and over) at the table. If you take 2 minutes, you get +20 to the die roll. If you roll a 6, there is nothing stopping you from taking another 2 minutes so you can roll again. And then again, and again, and again, until you get a good (or exceptional result). The player has no idea what was rolled - so, you eliminate the player from metagaming in such a fashion (I also believe for a player to do this in either a Take 20 game or non-Take 20 it is a really poor faux pas). So, this "problem" is not a problem after all. Second, take 20, keeps the success within what could normally be accomplished. +20 allows them to perform things which they couldn't normally accomplish. I.e. "take 40". If I come to a stone door with a DC 35 break DC, and I'm only +5 on my strength checks, I can't open it. Even if I took a 20 using the current rules, I couldn't open it. Makes sense, it is a stone door. However, with the +20 rule, I could now get a DC 35 half the time (or just keep taking 2 minutes and trying over and over) until I succeed. DCs would need to be beyond epic to prevent even unskilled folks from doing so even half the time. Since I have no problem with my characters doing fantastic or heroic things from time to time, I don't see where your problem in this is. I do see, however, that your insistance that a DM would need to set epic level DCs just so no one could break down a door is fairly unreasonable and more than slightly an "me vs. them" type of thought process. Third, it obviously encourages meta-gaming. The current take 20 discourages it. Once you take a 20, there is no more point in trying again. With +20, you take 2 minutes and roll a 6? Gee... I try again. Again, the player has no idea what was rolled. Also, if he were to express that his character is doing the task until he is totally satisfied that it is done - for him to attempt the task again would not make sense and would definitely not be role-playing. Fifth, folks with little or no ranks can by by-pass things with no trouble. Say you have a DC 30 door. Under the RAW no one could bash it down. However, a 8 strength wizard now has a 50% chance of bashing it down with his +20-strength. Suddenly, there is little point in putting ranks into skills where you can take a +20 on. I believe your math is off. d20 + 20 - 2 = needs a 12 or more to equal 30 or higher. 12 on a d20 does not equal a 50/50 chance. Now that that is corrected - let's take your example into how it would play out in my game - for instance (based solely on the information you are giving me - everyone can jump in and add their own "what-if's" later on - and I am sure they will): 8 Str Wizard tells me he wants to bash at the door (DC 30) for as long as it takes until he is totally satisfied that he can do no more - fine. Looking at the door and the wizard, I tell the player that the ETA he is looking at is somewhere around 10-15 minutes and if all he is using is brute strength that he will take some hefty penalties. If the player still agrees to attempt it - more power to him. d20 +20 (for the effort/time) -2 (low strength) -10 (not using anything other than his bare hands vs. an obviously reinforced door). We roll and live with the consequences. Unlike your DMing style - I don't mind giving my players a chance to accomplish things - even when I don't think that they can. It is not my job to discourage the players from attempting things. In fact, DMs that do discourage players from trying are usually lousy DMs anyways. Sixth, it encourages more wasting in-game time. Instead of taking 2 minutes to search a square, why not spend 10 minutes? That way you get 5 rolls at +20? And if you don't roll anything over a 10, take another 10 minutes. At least with the current rules, you know that further attempts are pointless. The point is, if you are not searching to your complete satisfaction, you are not getting the +20. So, again, your 5 rolls at +20 example is just showing you don't understand anything that I have previously posted. 1. Player says he is searching until he is totally satisfied that he cannot search any better. 2. +20 and roll with all other modifiers. 3. Done. There is no more to do - because it has all been done according to the player (see #1). :dragon: **** |
| Nom03-10-07, 10:34 PM | I still think we should apply the same logic to attack rolls (see post #276). |
| starfire31103-11-07, 12:17 AM | I still think we should apply the same logic to attack rolls (see post #276). the idea meaning that you get no retries on attack rolls, yeah it obviously doesn't hold water if you tried to be consistant and apply it to attack rolls, I also dont think it should apply to most rolls, oh man I failed my jump check to jump over a 5ft hole guess I can never jump over that 5ft hole... but that 10ft one over there, I have a chance. |
| catsclaw03-11-07, 12:42 AM | I just don’t have a more diplomatic way of saying it. Take 20 is a meta-gaming cop-out ...You keep saying "meta-gaming cop-out" like that means anything. It doesn't. I still have no idea what you mean by meta-gaming; you seem to mean "ensuring a minimal die roll" which is not meta-gaming the way the majority of gamers use the term. Furthermore, there are thousands of these decisions in the game. Do you allow players to take 10 on tumble checks to avoid AOO's, if they have a class ability? To take 10 on climb checks? To adjust the amount they power attack for based on their opponent's AC? To track their own hit points? All of these are "meta-gaming", based on the way you use the term. If you're banning take 20, why are you allowing any of the above? |
| Cantankerous03-11-07, 04:37 AM | double post, ignore |
| Cantankerous03-11-07, 04:37 AM | Adding 20 though, or fifteen if you have a headache, or 12 if the guy is generally a bore, to the rolls they make, isn't a metagame cop out. It has the same, but rather inconsistent effect; takes no more time to take your time to do it perfectly (how this makes sense is anyones guess) and keeps the PCs guessing about how the main functions of their world works. It's hell not knowing if in a relative way doing this on this occasiona and the same thing on an other occasion will have two entirely different outcomes or not. Plus, ONLY because it's funny, there is always the possibility of disaster, even in the most normal activities, whether they make ANY sense or not. Somehow the suspension of disbelief lags FAR behind the sanctity of the dice, and THIS is supposedly meta-gamey-ness. Sorry, but he can say it until the cows come home. It doesn't make it vaguely accurate, or even add to it a modicum of common sense; take 20 is NOT meta-gamey any more than rolling the dice is meta-gamey. The two things (take 20 and meta game thinking) have no internal relationship to one another in any manner that thinking "now I roll the dice" has. Isshia |
| Molitor03-11-07, 04:43 AM | DMG page 32-33 Notice there is no degree of failure for the search skill. This would appear that one could take 20 searching. PHB page 65. "Krusk finds an old bronze key under a loose rock". This passage seems to me that you need to physically interact with the area to search. Which if it were trapped would trigger the trap while he was taking 20. The rules are conflicting. Or are they? The DMs job is to decide if the trap can or can't be triggered by searching. Some searching requires a physically interaction with what is being searched. Example: How would you search a chest, or find a secret door without experimenting with objects in the room or tapping on the wall? But then on the other side think about arrow traps and scything blades; the areas that they would be employed from would have holes or slots. These could be found with search check without touching the surroundings. |
| PenderGrass03-11-07, 08:43 PM | I still think we should apply the same logic to attack rolls (see post #276). Only if you apply Take 20 to attack rolls. You'll find your path of logic is filled with pot-holes and errors on either side. Attack rolls and rolls that represent care and time-eating methods do not mesh well - on either side of the debate. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-11-07, 08:44 PM | the idea meaning that you get no retries on attack rolls, yeah it obviously doesn't hold water if you tried to be consistant and apply it to attack rolls, I also dont think it should apply to most rolls, oh man I failed my jump check to jump over a 5ft hole guess I can never jump over that 5ft hole... but that 10ft one over there, I have a chance. I never stated no re-tries. Your continued thinking as such is ignorance on your part. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-11-07, 09:11 PM | You keep saying "meta-gaming cop-out" like that means anything. It illustrates the difference between: META-GAMING PLAYER: "I take 20." vs. NON-META-GAMING PLAYER: "I take my time and do my best." It doesn't. I still have no idea what you mean by meta-gaming; you seem to mean "ensuring a minimal die roll" which is not meta-gaming the way the majority of gamers use the term. Unless you have some sort of solid documented backing on what the "majority" of gamers is - we'll just have to leave your statement as pure conjecture on what the "majority" of gamers is. Regardless... 1. If a game suffers because it uses a single more die roll instead of Take 20s dice-less approach, I would suspect that the game was in dire trouble anyways. 2. If your sole basis on a better system is less die-rolling, than I would suggest a card game, or other change of hobby. Furthermore, there are thousands of these decisions in the game. No. There are not. Do you allow players to take 10 on tumble checks to avoid AOO's, if they have a class ability? Never seen it in my game. To take 10 on climb checks? Again, never seen it in my game. To adjust the amount they power attack for based on their opponent's AC? They still must roll an attack roll - they are adjusting the skill and method of attack. Not the die roll. The d20 is still rolled. Take 20 offers no such method - purely, it is a manipulation of the die itself. To track their own hit points? Rarely does a player express how their character feels in exact hit points - rather it is maintained in character when expressing it as such. Player: "I feel woozy and am going down... help." All of these are "meta-gaming", based on the way you use the term. If you're banning take 20, why are you allowing any of the above? Take 20 is the most pure meta-gaming rule from the list you provided. In fact, from the defenses given in this thread: 1. Die rolls 2. Odds of rolling a 20 3. Why not roll over and over 4. etc. It becomes more and more obvious that it creates an aspect of gamer mentality that I would rather not have at my table. Third edition heralded a huge step in D&D. Players not only became more empowered in how their characters were built, they were given a huge amount of control on how their character would grow. DMs are able to share in this empowerment by applying the same rules to their monsters and NPCs. But, to remove the random factors of the universe and give that power to the DM and player is wrong in my humble opinion. It creates the mentality that I am seeing over and over again in this thread - "keep rolling until you get a 20." A very unfortunate turn of events for the gaming community. When a player is paying more attention to the result of the die roll than he is to the actual in-game circumstance - that is a meta-game mentality. A mentality reinforced by the entire Take 20 and nearly every opponent in this thread that I have done my best to address. So unfortunate is it, that most of the people arguing are seemingly unaware of it within themselves. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-11-07, 09:16 PM | Adding 20 though, or fifteen if you have a headache, or 12 if the guy is generally a bore, to the rolls they make, isn't a metagame cop out. I agree that if a DM does this type of DMing - he himself is a metagaming rat jerk. I would doubt a removal of Take 20 would solve this problem. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that it is likely a DM like this would likely be exactly like this in everything he does and would probably be someone unpleasant to hang around. Adding penalties or bonuses based solely on the whims of how the DM feels physically or mentally is just poor gaming. And any set of rules given to this DM would likely end in a very biased game where - eventually - the DM no longer had any players. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-11-07, 09:35 PM | First it depends on the trap you are searching for, if it can be triggered if the search fails than no 20. ex.. stepping on the stone triggers an arrow trap or the pit trap that was spoken of. but if the trap is triggered by say opening the door or picking the lock then you can allow it. It is really a trap by trap case. 2nd If you have more than more trap in the room and you allow a 20 let them find the first trap, deal with it then let the PC decide if they want to keep seaching if they do go to the 2nd trap, repeat until the room is clear or they decide to move on. any good player knows to wait till the DM says it is clear before going any where. 3rd keep track of time PC's get tired in the long run. |
| Marcus Majarra03-11-07, 11:24 PM | First it depends on the trap you are searching for, if it can be triggered if the search fails than no 20. ex.. stepping on the stone triggers an arrow trap or the pit trap that was spoken of. but if the trap is triggered by say opening the door or picking the lock then you can allow it. It is really a trap by trap case. Actually, searching takes place before "stepping on the stone." If a certain area can trigger a trap, that area will be revealed as trapped by search. Keep in mind, however, that the search skill can be used up to 10 feet away from where you're searching, too. This is why searching usually entails no penalty for failure. Clever trapmakers can leave a 10-foot wide chasm right before a trapped area, to prevent detection. |
| Nom03-11-07, 11:56 PM | I never stated no re-tries.Post #44: "So, again - why not 1 roll?". Your entire argument is built on the premise that taking 20, and the resampling approximation it represents, is metagaming. Sure, there's a theoretical possibility of failure, but it mathematically approaches zero as you resample more times. At 20 rolls, the probability of not rolling a 20 is < 36%. At 40 rolls, the probability of not rolling a 20 is < 13%. At 60 rolls, the probability of not rolling a 20 is < 5%. At 80 rolls, the probability of not rolling a 20 is < 2%. At 100 rolls, the probability of not rolling a 20 is < 0.6%. How many times do you want your players to have you roll the dice, "just to be sure"? Heck, I can even think of a situation where I'd allow a PC to take 20 on an attack roll. Grog challenges Buck that he can't throw a stone to hit the tree on the other side of the river. Buck has a roughly unlimited supply of stones. The only factors limiting the challenge are Buck's talent vs the difficulty and Buck's willingingness to retry. We can wait for an indefinite period of time, or we can "take 20". D&D 3.5 has as an explicitly stated design goal to make the game more predictable. Read through the DMG, and note continual references to "unpredictability tends to favour monsters more than PCs". Downplaying the effect of extremes of luck is a deliberate decision. Reducing luck increases the impact of player choice, and vice versa. Take 10 and take 20 are both logical steps down that path. D&D assumes that players have a right to expect that their PCs won't be thwarted by random failures against miscellaneous challenges, and by and large (there are glaring exceptions) crafts mechanics to match, making the game-world less "random". But, to remove the random factors of the universe and give that power to the DM and player is wrong in my humble opinion.And this explains perfectly why you will never be happy with the current direction of D&D. In fact, it would be hard to find a better summary of the Simulationist position. You are a Simulationist playing a game written for Gamists by Gamists. D&D 3rd quite clearly puts the game world at the mercy of the DM and players, not the other way around. |
| Ace_of_time03-12-07, 12:54 AM | Page 65 PHB under Taking 20. "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutesfor a skill That can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure," Even if your PC's search 10 feet ahead if the thief miss his check on finding the traps and step on ahead to search the next 10 feet and falls in to the trap or triggers the arrows that fly down the hallways then that counts as a threat and no 20 should be give. Traps have cr's just like monsters do. If a beholder was floating in the room would you let your PC's take 2 minutes per 10 feet to find him, most would be dead before two minutes. But if that same beholder was wanting til thoose same PC's open the door to ambush them then as long as they don't make to much noise then most would let them take as long as they need before the beholder strikes. Hince they could take a 20. Some traps can't be disarmed only thing that can be done is to find a way around it in this case the search is put of the fun. If you let PC' take 20's on these then no XP's. Like the guy said before with throwing the rocks at the tree give a 20 on the check. but if that tree was a Treant turn evil by some spell and come running across the river to kill the dumb PC for attacking it. NO DM is going to to give them a 20 on the attack. If three is a chance even little bit that the end result of the roll is hp loss for one or more of the PC's then no 20 should be taken on the roll. |
| Sereno03-12-07, 09:35 AM | The problem is for those that are equating a good roll with how well your character is trying: "Take 20 means my character is doing his best." It really doesn't make common sense. And, if you view it this way - how do you account for low rolls? LAMENTING PLAYER: "Oh darn, I rolled a 2 - I guess my character just really wasn't trying his best. I mean, I am the player and I want him to be trying his best - but, darn these low rolls telling me I am just a loser." That, to me, is just stupid. Especially since the player should be able to know how much effort the character is really putting into any action they are attempting. To randomize the character's enthusiasm and skill in such a manner just doesn't make sense. Well, how do you explain it when a character rolls a low To Hit? Certainly you're always trying to do your best in combat ... why do you succeed sometimes and fail sometimes at hitting a person with a sword? It's the same thing with skills ... the less time you take, the less successful you are, because you really don't have the time or the inclination to do your *best*. Combat (and rolling for skills) doesn't represent you doing your best ... it represents you doing the best you can under the circumstances. Taking 10 just represents doing your "average" not doing your best and not being hurried ... just, the *normal* way you do things. Is there *really* that big a difference between: "I take my time, searching the desk slowly and methodically." and "I'm searching the desk, I Take 20." Really? |
| starfire31103-12-07, 09:57 AM | Is there *really* that big a difference between: "I take my time, searching the desk slowly and methodically." and "I'm searching the desk, I Take 20." Really? or more like is there that big of a difference between. "I take my time, searching the desk slowly and methodically."... so what kind of bonus do I get? and "I take my time, searching the desk slowly and methodically." ... I take a 20 |
| catsclaw03-12-07, 11:15 AM | Even if your PC's search 10 feet ahead if the thief miss his check on finding the traps and step on ahead to search the next 10 feet and falls in to the trap or triggers the arrows that fly down the hallways then that counts as a threat and no 20 should be give.This is the most common mistake when people think about taking 20 and finding traps. The statement about "threats and distractions" refers to things like combat or a slowly flooding room; it's no different than the take 10 mechanic. As a general rule, you can't be threatened or distracted by something you're not aware of, which an undiscovered trap certainly is. The clause about "no penalties for failure" means you can try over and over again. Most skills rule this out: the penalty for failing at an appraise check is you just don't know how much an item is worth, the penalty for failing at a climb or balance check is you fall, the penalty for failing at a swim check is you start to drown. A few skills -- Spot, Listen, Open Lock, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Escape Artist, and Search -- generally do not carry a direct penalty for failure. In all these cases, something bad might happen if you fail (you don't find a trap and blunder into it, or can't open a lock and thus miss out on the treasure inside, or you don't hear the ragged breathing of the ogre through the door and just walk in). This is different from the skill having a penalty for failure.Some traps can't be disarmed only thing that can be done is to find a way around it in this case the search is put of the fun. If you let PC' take 20's on these then no XP's.The XP for bypassing a trap should be dependent on finding a way past, not on noticing it. Whether they roll to find it, take 10, or take 20, the key is what happens once they figure out it's there. I'd never dock someone XP just because they were careful. |
| BW022203-12-07, 11:51 AM | PenderGrass, While I appreciate some of your arguments, like catsclaw I have to disagree with... META-GAMING PLAYER: "I take 20." vs. NON-META-GAMING PLAYER: "I take my time and do my best." First, it is the player saying this and not the character. Second, having players describe actions by their names is not meta-gaming, it is just saving time and it happens all the time. Is saying you "rolled a 16" or you take a "standard action to take out a potion" meta-gaming? Of course not. The character isn't rolling dice and saying such things. Third, this is just code. "I take my time and do my best." doesn't mean anything to me unless you say "Oh... sorry DM, that means 'taking a twenty'." Ok, why didn't you say so? If we both agree that 'I take my time and do my best' = 'take 20' then I'm not sure who you are fooling when you use a code phrase to represent an action. Forth, as a DM, I'd rather not try guessing at what you mean. Nice descriptive stuff is fine, but since we aren't fooling anyone just say what you are going in game terms. The rules are already complex enough that I'd rather not add "Didn't realize what you meant" to the list of mistakes I can make. Meta-gaming comes down to using out-of-character knowledge to affect that actions which characters take -- not in how players specify the actions of their characters. If a player looks at my map and then suddenly starts taking a twenty searching for traps at the only 5' square which has a trap... humm... meta-gaming. If they have a map from a goblin showing a trap in a square and they search it carefully -- the players choice of language in describing the action doesn't make it meta-gaming. Now... if that players wants to roleplay his desire to carefully search the area... PC: "Ok, folks... this is the location on the map where the goblin said he marked as being trapped. Grog... you are on guard, I'll take a few minutes looking for traps. Sillan see if your rat can smell any blood and if I don't find anything, maybe a detect magic would be smart. I take a twenty searching these 5' squares for traps." Maybe you give the PC a few XP for roleplaying his desire to search carefully. However, at some point the player needs to tell you the mechanic that his character is employing -- take 10, take 20, rolling several times, etc. Being percise on that is hardly meta-gaming. |
| PenderGrass03-12-07, 02:15 PM | Oh, blow it out your ass, you pompous windbag. You had to go and ruin a mostly civil debate. EDIT - It looks like the cat had its claws pulled or it decided to stop hissing. :dragon: **** |
| Molitor03-12-07, 04:53 PM | You had to go and ruin a mostly civil debate. :dragon: **** HAHAAHHAHA, I have been absent for more than 5 months and not a damn thing has changed on this board. |
| PenderGrass03-12-07, 04:59 PM | HAHAAHHAHA, I have been absent for more than 5 months and not a damn thing has changed on this board. After ~3 years of being a member, you should know better than to expect a change. :dragon: **** |
| Molitor03-12-07, 05:30 PM | After ~3 years of being a member, you should know better than to expect a change. :dragon: **** LOL, I know i really should, I really should.......... |
| Ace_of_time03-12-07, 11:00 PM | This is the most common mistake when people think about taking 20 and finding traps. The statement about "threats and distractions" refers to things like combat or a slowly flooding room; it's no different than the take 10 mechanic. As a general rule, you can't be threatened or distracted by something you're not aware of, which an undiscovered trap certainly is. The clause about "no penalties for failure" means you can try over and over again. Most skills rule this out: the penalty for failing at an appraise check is you just don't know how much an item is worth, the penalty for failing at a climb or balance check is you fall, the penalty for failing at a swim check is you start to drown. A few skills -- Spot, Listen, Open Lock, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Escape Artist, and Search -- generally do not carry a direct penalty for failure. In all these cases, something bad might happen if you fail (you don't find a trap and blunder into it, or can't open a lock and thus miss out on the treasure inside, or you don't hear the ragged breathing of the ogre through the door and just walk in). This is different from the skill having a penalty for failure.The XP for bypassing a trap should be dependent on finding a way past, not on noticing it. Whether they roll to find it, take 10, or take 20, the key is what happens once they figure out it's there. I'd never dock someone XP just because they were careful. Even in the DM's book it says that if you can't find it you can't disarm it. In my D&D world I give 25% of the XP's for finding the trap and 75% for disarm. to me part of what make a thief a thief is being able to search for them 20 plus DCs. now the whole meta game thing is simple the act of taking a 20 in this case is meta-game. players do it for two reason, 1. take a 20 on the search if the DM lets me do it then it is clear of anything harm and I can move on. If he does not then there is something about this area that needs to be dealt with. Now the players know this but the PC don't know that if they try there best a million times that anything will change what the result was. 2. cheating. they don't want to have to role play the encounter because the trap might be missed and someone might die. I can just take a 20 on myPC's roll and find all the traps and get them out of the way. getting some easy XP's in the end. enther way there is no reason for a PC to take a 20 down a hall if he has no real way of knowing searching a few 100 times will produce anything but a bad back and hurt knees. For me that means that no 20 should be given. How about we all just start rolling Listen, spot, & search check ourselves and that way the PC's and the players both don't know if they did bad or not because they never see what was rolled.( I also don't give my players a 2nd roll on these skills.)If they miss then they miss and they will have leave and come back with new eyes. (1 hour in game time) |
| catsclaw03-13-07, 02:28 AM | now the whole meta game thing is simple the act of taking a 20 in this case is meta-game. players do it for two reason, 1. take a 20 on the search if the DM lets me do it then it is clear of anything harm and I can move on. If he does not then there is something about this area that needs to be dealt with. Now the players know this but the PC don't know that if they try there best a million times that anything will change what the result was.Your DM is running it wrong. You can take 20, whether there's a trap to find or not. If you manage to beat the DC of the trap, you find it. If you don't, you don't. There is nothing to indicate the difference between a trap hidden too well for you to find, and a trap that just doesn't exist.2. cheating. they don't want to have to role play the encounter because the trap might be missed and someone might die. I can just take a 20 on myPC's roll and find all the traps and get them out of the way. getting some easy XP's in the end.The point of a trap is to put it someplace you don't expect it, or to put it someplace you don't have time to thoroughly search. Apparently, your DM only places traps where you expect them, with time to find them, perhaps with large signs over them which say "SEARCH HERE". In that case, you should absolutely just get them out of the way and get some easy XP's. When I design maps for my players, I usually put some traps where they make sense (deadfall traps at the entrance to a dungeon, to prevent an army from just charging in the front door), places where they're unlikely to have time to search (a trapped door opposite a Shrieker, so when they set off the alarm they're likely to try and rush through the door), and places where they're unlikely to think to search (a trap dead-center in the middle of the kobold leader's bedroom, set to go off when a medium-sized creature walks across it). All of these could be found if the rogue takes 20 to search them. Generally, they're only going to take 20 to find the first one. They'll probably take a round to roll to find the one across from the Shrieker -- assuming they don't just scramble through the door -- and the one in the bedroom is likely to be overlooked entirely.... enther way there is no reason for a PC to take a 20 down a hall if he has no real way of knowing searching a few 100 times will produce anything but a bad back and hurt knees. For me that means that no 20 should be given.It takes 2 minutes to search a 5x5 square. If you've got a 100-foot-tunnel leading into the dungeon, and the party has an hour to burn, why don't you let them search every square if they want to? Personally, my rogue doesn't think loitering in an entry hall is a good survival strategy. He'll search each square quickly once (taking 10, which takes 6 seconds) and move down the corridor in 3 minutes. If there's something suspicious -- the aforementioned "SEARCH HERE" sign, for example -- he might take 20 on that square, but the threat of a wandering monster should keep everyone moving quickly. There are better ways of getting the party to behave in ways you want them to without just telling them they're stupid and outlawing their choices.How about we all just start rolling Listen, spot, & search check ourselves and that way the PC's and the players both don't know if they did bad or not because they never see what was rolled.( I also don't give my players a 2nd roll on these skills.)If they miss then they miss and they will have leave and come back with new eyes. (1 hour in game time)First, you can't take 20 on opposed checks. If it's not an opposed check, then why are you making them wait an hour before trying again? Player A: "See that faint light out in the fog? What is that thing?" Player B: (rolls) "I can't see anything." (1 hour passes) Player B: "Oh, that light. Looks like a bullseye lantern to me." |
| PenderGrass03-13-07, 03:06 AM | Meta-gaming comes down to using out-of-character knowledge to affect that actions which characters take -- not in how players specify the actions of their characters. The out-of-character knowledge comes into play every post here that has stated - in one form or another - "my Players and I have a right to take 20 because it saves on having to roll over and over - why would I be happy with a low roll? Why wouldn't my character keeping rolling until I get a 20? take 20 eliminates the need for us to roll over and over, because I know I would keep on rolling anyways." When the die roll lands on whatever it lands on - that number facing up at you - is purely an out-of-game factor. It is as simple as a player stating that his character is searching to the best of his ability and taking all the time in the world to do so - never stopping until he is totally satisfied that he has left nothing undone. Then. Rolling a 4. In my opinion it takes a far better role-player to accept that 4 and continue the game as if he had done everything he had stated prior to that roll. Instead, the accepted norm is to not accept that 4. The current mentality of the 3rd edition rule sets is to either; 1. Keep rolling or 2. Take 20 There is no inherent role-playing in the rule. The rule actually seems to drain a lot of role-playing out of some people. For my money and time, I would much rather play in a group that is able to accept that 4 and role-play it out exactly as they had described their character's actions: Player <turning to the other players>: "Sorry about making you guys wait so long - but I wanted to be sure the coast was clear. Everything looks spanky-dory, we should move on!" :dragon: **** |
| BW022203-13-07, 03:12 AM | Ace_of_time, now the whole meta game thing is simple the act of taking a 20 in this case is meta-game. players do it for two reason, You are putting motives into people without any form of proof. There are lots of reasons why players might do this. You assume evil 'meta-gaming' is the only cause. 1. take a 20 on the search if the DM lets me do it then it is clear of anything harm and I can move on. If he does not then there is something about this area that needs to be dealt with. Now the players know this but the PC don't know that if they try there best a million times that anything will change what the result was. This one is false. Players never do this, if the DM is doing their job. A DM can never prevent someone from attempting to take a 20. The player declares that his character will going to try searching for two minutes, and the DM will interupt the attempt as need be. Personally, any PC taking a 20 without posting guards is asking to be surprised. There is no reason to tell a player that they can't do this. If there is a penalty for failure (including being surprised or interupted) then the failure just happens. 2. cheating. they don't want to have to role play the encounter because the trap might be missed and someone might die. I can just take a 20 on myPC's roll and find all the traps and get them out of the way. getting some easy XP's in the end. That is hardly cheating. First, it is allowed in the rules. Second, it makes perfect sense. If you know you are entering a mine field, you take your time searching. Similiarly, the PCs know or suspect that they are entering a trap filled hallway... there is nothing wrong with taking 10 minutes to check out a 25' long hallway. It is want any reasonable person would do unless time was otherwise preventing them from doing so. enther way there is no reason for a PC to take a 20 down a hall if he has no real way of knowing searching a few 100 times will produce anything but a bad back and hurt knees. Sure he does. I know that if I am looking for my MP3 player which I left somewhere in my room I have a better chance of finding it if I spend five minutes looking that if I spend 18 seconds. I also know that if I spend an hour, I'm not much more likely to find it that the five minutes. For me that means that no 20 should be given. Then sit at the table and roll 20, 50, or 100 times. You can roll secretly for me. Given 100 rolls, I'm 95% likely to get at least one 20 and 99.9% likely to get a 18+? I get almost exactly the same results. Unless you are telling me that I can't search twice, or 100 times or that my chances of finding something don't improve with repeated attempts? Someone spending 6 seconds to search a door has the same chance of finding a trap as someone spending 5 minutes? How about we all just start rolling Listen, spot, & search check ourselves and that way the PC's and the players both don't know if they did bad or not because they never see what was rolled.( I also don't give my players a 2nd roll on these skills.)If they miss then they miss and they will have leave and come back with new eyes. (1 hour in game time) Yup... that's exactly what you are telling me. Sorry, I don't buy it. You mean someone listening for six seconds has the same chance of hearing a waterfall as someone spending an hour listening? Someone searching a pile of clothing for six seconds has the same chance as someone who takes ten minutes doing so? You mean someone with a map saying "trap here" and seeing a dart-filled body in a hallway, spends six seconds looking for the trap and then can't search anymore? The other 59 minutes they can't find anything they didn't find in the first six seconds? Suddenly after an hour, they have another small chance to find the trap? You mean you've never lost your car keys and found them after six seconds of searching but before 1 hour? Nonsense... spending more time increases your chances of finding something since you can look over the area again and again. At some point, there is a law of diminishing returns. Take twenty simulates this well. If you spend 6 seconds searching you have a chance of finding something. If you spend 12 second, you have two attempts at finding something. After 2 minutes, you have twenty chances of finding something. Since you have a 5% chance of getting your best with each attempt, take twenty just says after twenty attempts chances are you do your best during one of those attempts. |
| PenderGrass03-13-07, 03:33 AM | Then sit at the table and roll 20, 50, or 100 times. You can roll secretly for me. Given 100 rolls, I'm 95% likely to get at least one 20 and 99.9% likely to get a 18+? LOL If that isn't a metagame mentality/rationale for rolling over and over.... :dragon: **** |
| BW022203-13-07, 04:00 AM | PenderGrass, Meta-gaming comes down to using out-of-character knowledge to affect that actions which characters take -- not in how players specify the actions of their characters. "my Players and I have a right to take 20 because it saves on having to roll over and over - why would I be happy with a low roll? Why wouldn't my character keeping rolling until I get a 20? take 20 eliminates the need for us to roll over and over, because I know I would keep on rolling anyways." The first part is not meta-gaming because he said "players". The players have the right because it is allowed in the rules. The second sentance is meta gaming because he said "character keeping rolling". Characters are not rolling dice. Again, you are mixing what the character intends with how the player is phrasing his directive to the DM. Character (Thinking) "I have a map showing a trap at this intersection. I don't see any here? I don't want to see my friends die, so I better take my time and search until I'm absolutely sure that there isn't a trap here." Player: "I take a twenty searching for traps." Now, most folks can't roleplay what their character is thinking. I'm more than happy assuming when he says the later... his character is thinking some variation of the former. When the die roll lands on whatever it lands on - that number facing up at you - is purely an out-of-game factor. Yes. It is as simple as a player stating that his character is searching to the best of his ability and taking all the time in the world to do so - never stopping until he is totally satisfied that he has left nothing undone. Then. Rolling a 4. The only problem with that is then there is no difference between saying "I search until totally satisfied" and "I search for six seconds". In reality there is a big difference between searching for my MP3 player for six seconds and searching for my MP3 player for two minutes. In the later I can search every inch of the room carefully. In my opinion it takes a far better role-player to accept that 4 and continue the game as if he had done everything he had stated prior to that roll. Actually, it would be extremely poor roleplaying if their character honestly suspected a trap and only searched for six seconds. Instead, the accepted norm is to not accept that 4. The current mentality of the 3rd edition rule sets is to either; 1. Keep rolling or 2. Take 20 There is no inherent role-playing in the rule. The rule actually seems to drain a lot of role-playing out of some people. Once could also take a 10. I do understand your point. However,... First, dice rolling rarely leads to better roleplaying. There are roleplaying systems which have no dice at all. I've seen better roleplaying from these systems. Second, roleplaying dice rolls rarely leads to good roleplaying. If someone describe in detail about how details a search they are doing... and then rolls a 4. Or rolls a 4, and then pretends to be an idiot. Either way, not good roleplaying. I'm not believing it. Third, dice rolling is already a simulation of something. Taking a 10 or taking a 20 does not change this. They remain a simulation. The point of a simulation is so that you don't have to roleplay through the details -- either because we can't expect folks to accurately describe things they can't do in real life or because it is too time consuming. For my money and time, I would much rather play in a group that is able to accept that 4 and role-play it out exactly as they had described their character's actions: Player <turning to the other players>: "Sorry about making you guys wait so long - but I wanted to be sure the coast was clear. Everything looks spanky-dory, we should move on!" I understand. I would certainly give some XP to folks who roleplay good or bad rolls well. However, I just can't buy that spending extra time does not increase one's chance of success. If I spend two minutes looking for my MP3 player in my room, I'm far more likely to find it than if I spend six seconds. Common sense says this. I also can't buy that a character would not know that they have an increased chance of success in spending more time on a task. I also think there are lots of cases when one can justify their characters spending that extra time. I really don't have problems with the take 20 rule. It doesn't lead to any better or worse roleplaying that dice rolling. It also doesn't lead to "meta-gaming" as long as you are willing to accept that a character realized that spending extra time leads to a higher chance of success -- and the simulation of rolling 20 times would lead to similiar results. If it bothers you, perhaps if you replaced "take 20" with a "d10+10" and taking say 10 times as long as normal? IMO, that might be enough to encourage folks not to attempt rerolling, but ensures that taking extra time and care does increase one's chance of success. |
| Merestil Haye03-13-07, 06:56 AM | It is as simple as a player stating that his character is searching to the best of his ability and taking all the time in the world to do so - never stopping until he is totally satisfied that he has left nothing undone.And exactly here is where you are failing to understand what the dieroll is. The die roll in a skill check is telling you just how well you have performed. The character's modifier is not "the best he can do" it is the very, very worst. That's what the dieroll is telling you - whether you have done a sloppy job because of that speck of dirt in your left eye causing iy to water, or you've put in a competent, workmanlike performance, or you've done the best you can. A character who has taken the time and done it "to the best of his ability" has rolled a 20. Why do you deny him this? The other thing I dislike about your system is that a DM can use it to railroad the characters. You want to make sure that the PCs set off the trap? You just decide tha the DC is increased by 100 for storyline reasons. The characters have no way of finding that trap now except by blundering into it, and because your system is inherently opaque, they'll never know the DM has railroaded them, but they'll sure suspet after they walk into trap after trap at seemingly critical locations. If they do find out, DM/player trust is seriously damaged. |
| Ace_of_time03-13-07, 11:30 AM | Players do think that way maybe not all but some do. so the hallway is 120' long and 10' wide that 240' devide that by 5' and that 48 space to seach times 2 minutes per space = 96 minutes. where is the random enc., patrol, undead. If I give my PC's 1 hour and 36minutes to search than how long would it take to get through the place whether it a town, castle, graveyard. that does not even count disarm the traps. About the search, spot, and listen. if your are rolling random enc. tables right each roll is a hour in game time so if you stop this to tell them that there is a light ahead tahn you have all ready move to combat rounds in which they will more than like try to move close than roll again. DM: you see a light ahead PC: Can my PC yell what kind of light? DM: roll 3+6 for spot dc15 " no it seem to far away for you it make out right now PC: I'll slowly move ahead and see if I can make out what it is. Keeping out of sight my self mind ! 3-4 round of move si. and hide check opp. by spot for the monsters DM:rollspot12+6for spot=18 now the dc is12 because he has move closer the hour is for me as DM not to tell the player for searches they search a room and I roll or they roll which ever you do it and they roll too low than I let them go clear another room or two than if they want come back to clear this one again. but it's ether you advan.. or some one elses, if you don't tell them that they can find any treasure, and the PC's don't know if there is even anything in the room or down the hallway then why as DM I'm I supposed to let them take a 20 on it. If some monster or NPC told them that the key to the treasure room key is in this room then they know it is here and they will come back as long as it takes to find that key even camping out in the room to rest and search during the night. Sometimes it is the DM's job to make the story the best it can be and to me if I let my PC's take 20's on these rolls just because it is faster. If I can make them really search for thing and make the story more fun and still let them get lots of GP, item, magic than it is better for all. If I loose my keys and search 3 times and can't find them than I go get my wife to help out instead of being 30 min or 1 hour late for work. where are the people they are supposed to be saving whilee their search this one room 400 times to find every peice of treasure in the castle. |
| PenderGrass03-14-07, 01:44 AM | Actually, it would be extremely poor roleplaying if their character honestly suspected a trap and only searched for six seconds. Thank goodness that '4' happened after an extensive thorough search and not just a hurried six seconds. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-14-07, 01:46 AM | The only problem with that is then there is no difference between saying "I search until totally satisfied" and "I search for six seconds". There is a difference in a game that doesn't have the Take 20. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-14-07, 02:06 AM | And exactly here is where you are failing to understand what the dieroll is. You state it perfectly - right here: That's what the dieroll is telling you - whether you have done a sloppy job because of that speck of dirt in your left eye causing iy to water, or you've put in a competent, workmanlike performance, or you've done the best you can. A character who has taken the time and done it "to the best of his ability" has rolled a 20. See? 1. Your poor die roll = a speck of dirt in the eye (something beyond the control of the character) 2. Your good die roll = performance & competency (something that is in the control of the character) 3. Your explanation for how you view the die results is an execution of poor logic. You are comparing apples to oranges - or rather, you are attempting to equate things beyond the control of the character with things inherent to the character. Why do you deny him this? I do not deny a roll of a 20. Take 20 is not a roll - it is a poorly designed short-cut to something that represents a roll of a 20. It is not a roll - ever. The other thing I dislike about your system is that a DM can use it to railroad the characters. Please. Railroading is far easier in a standard RAW game of D&D than in anything I have run. Especially since the die rolling is done under a modified open-ended rolling system. :dragon: **** |
| Merestil Haye03-14-07, 06:38 AM | You are comparing apples to oranges - or rather, you are attempting to equate things beyond the control of the character with things inherent to the character.The entire concept of the skill check is that the roll determines how well the creature executes the task. You don't like that. Fine. Just don't expect any form of agreement. I do not deny a roll of a 20. Take 20 is not a roll - it is a poorly designed short-cut to something that represents a roll of a 20. It is not a roll - ever.You do, exactly, deny him that. You deny him the ability to put his skill to use and achieve the finest possible result by careful, painstaking work in which the concept of "chance" is completely eliminated. This is denying the character the benefit of investing in the skills. Please. Railroading is far easier in a standard RAW game of D&D than in anything I have run. Especially since the die rolling is done under a modified open-ended rolling system.Nonsense. The problem is that you apply modifiers based on the description of the player. These modifiers are entirely based on your whim. You could simply decide that there is a +100 to the DC because you don't want the lock found. There is no transparency in your decision-making process whatsoever. The player can have no confidence that the result he's just gained is an honest one. None at all. You make it easy to fiddle any and every result according to your whims by hiding from the players what the modifiers actually are. A DM using your system could now just write a story - the PCs enter the dungeon, but cannot open any door but one, even though that door and the others are identical (according to your descriptions, and even your notes) but this one is the one that leads to the place you want them to go so they get trapped into servitude to the BBEG owing to the unavoidable trap placed in the room beyond. Thanks, but I'll take the rules as they are set out over yours. At least my players know I'm not fudging it so success is meaningless. |
| Nom03-14-07, 07:27 AM | You miss the point, Merestil. He's not advocating fudging or railroading. In fact, he's against that to the point that he objects to the DM or players being able to manipulate the world except as brokered by the world. You view the gameplay as being sacrosanct. He views the "world" as being sacrosanct. Part of the confusion is that both sides are discussing terms like "railroading" and "metagaming" when in fact the actual issue is totally orthogonal. The actual disagreement is what part of the gaming experience you are trying to preserve. You're trying to have a discussion on car design where one side is talking about luxury family wagons and the other is talking about F1s - there's very little common ground. If I turn up in a meeting to design a better F1 race car and start advocating extra space in the back seat then I will seem to be an idiot. And that's exactly what's happening (both ways) in the above discussion. |
| Merestil Haye03-14-07, 09:33 AM | I need to apologise to PenderGrass then. I didn't make clear what I was trying to say. I contend that his system enables the DM - any DM, not PenderGrass ersonally - to railroad by imposing hidden modifications to dierolls and DCs that have absolutely no basis in the game except the DMs desire that the player pass or fail. PenderGrass has given me no reason to suppose that he personally would behave like that. My concern is that the system enables less scrupulous DMs to do so and cloak what they are doing under a veneer of fairness. PenderGrass, any implication that you would fudge the results of a check that way were unintended and I apologise for them. I feel that D&D was written with the intention that the game be sacrosanct. if I wanted it another way I'd play other RPGs. :) |
| catsclaw03-14-07, 10:24 AM | The actual disagreement is what part of the gaming experience you are trying to preserve.Maybe, but I can't figure out what part of the gaming experience Pender is trying to preserve. He says he wants random results, but doesn't want players to know what those results are. He doesn't like adding 20 to the die roll and checking the result, but he's more than happy assigning a +20 circumstance modifier and then rolling the die roll. He's inconsistent on whether he allows players to retry failed checks. When people argue about the actual odds of success and failure in the game mechanics, he launches into vague, offensive diatribes about "aspect[s] of gamer mentality" and "empowerment" and how this is all a "very unfortunate turn of events for the gaming community". He also constantly tosses around "metagaming" as an insult, even though he doesn't know what it means. There is a conscious design decision in D&D to reduce or remove die rolls from places where they don't really matter. There's no dramatic tension searching a space for a trap, because the player doesn't know whether there's even one to find. And if your 20th level Rogue with a +34 to search fails to locate a CR 2 arrow trap and gets shot, you don't feel heroic. You feel incompetent. Once you've found a trap, there's suddenly dramatic tension. Success or failure matters, and you now have to weight the likely effects of the trap with how difficult it's going to be to disarm. That's why the system is designed the way it is. Traps are easy to find if you have enough time. They're virtually always more difficult to disable, whether you have time or not. And there's no autosuccess or autofailure on skill checks. It really sounds like Pender would be happier playing Amber -- where the DM is responsible for deciding everything that happens, and players don't need to worry about anything except the psychology of their characters. |
| Cantankerous03-14-07, 01:39 PM | I need to apologise to PenderGrass then. I didn't make clear what I was trying to say. I contend that his system enables the DM - any DM, not PenderGrass ersonally - to railroad by imposing hidden modifications to dierolls and DCs that have absolutely no basis in the game except the DMs desire that the player pass or fail. PenderGrass has given me no reason to suppose that he personally would behave like that. My concern is that the system enables less scrupulous DMs to do so and cloak what they are doing under a veneer of fairness. PenderGrass, any implication that you would fudge the results of a check that way were unintended and I apologise for them. I feel that D&D was written with the intention that the game be sacrosanct. if I wanted it another way I'd play other RPGs. :) There is alot of this from my perspective as well, since this discussion is basicly why his way is, as he put it, less metagamey. I disagree with him strongly and say that it is actually MORE metagamey and far more Player unfriendly in the hands of MOST DMs, and that the stability of KNOWING the rules set is much less Player unfriendly than otherwise. The system and rule set as it sits, I feel, is less metagamey, (as the modifiers are no different, except for their unknowable nature, than the results of the take 20) and VASTLY more Player friendly. When, as a Player, you better understand how your character interacts with his world, the suspension of disbelief becomes increasingly easier, which has exactly the opposite effect of metagame thinking. Isshia |
| Ace_of_time03-14-07, 08:28 PM | Ok I was looking in the PHB under skills and noticed that some skills do not have a" try again" part in it so I looked up try again on page 66 in 3.5. It say that " Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn't Allow you the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inhertent penalty ( such as with the climb skill), you can't take a 20. If this paragragh is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inhertant penalty, other than the additional time required." Now to me that means that your Pc's can retry roll seach to find anything including traps but can't take a 20. And for the record taking a 10 means that you are tring as hard as you can and take the time to do your best. All taking a 20 means is that you will keep trying until you find something. I can look at the same 5' by 5' space untill the cows come home but if my die roll says I can't find anything than I can't find it. But if I seach that same spot again and roll search and it is a total result 27 than I find the trap. It is not like their swimming here. they search a spot they roll to see if they find it or not and then they can search it a again and that is not the same action. People said it them self if I a roll 100 times I'll get a 20 but you still have to search that same spot a 100 times not the same search. |
| PenderGrass03-14-07, 08:30 PM | It really sounds like Pender would be happier playing Amber -- where the DM is responsible for deciding everything that happens, and players don't need to worry about anything except the psychology of their characters. I actually hate Amber. I don't want any more control than what my players get. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-14-07, 11:28 PM | Ok I was looking in the PHB under skills and noticed that some skills do not have a" try again" part in it so I looked up try again on page 66 in 3.5. It say that " Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn't Allow you the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inhertent penalty ( such as with the climb skill), you can't take a 20. If this paragragh is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inhertant penalty, other than the additional time required." Now to me that means that your Pc's can retry roll seach to find anything including traps but can't take a 20. And for the record taking a 10 means that you are tring as hard as you can and take the time to do your best. All taking a 20 means is that you will keep trying until you find something. I can look at the same 5' by 5' space untill the cows come home but if my die roll says I can't find anything than I can't find it. But if I seach that same spot again and roll search and it is a total result 27 than I find the trap. It is not like their swimming here. they search a spot they roll to see if they find it or not and then they can search it a again and that is not the same action. People said it them self if I a roll 100 times I'll get a 20 but you still have to search that same spot a 100 times not the same search. please dont try to argue this is RAW, I think Pendergrass understands full well that you can take a 20 on search checks by RAW, and that what he is doing is a houserule, no one, except I suppose you, thinks this way. The discussion has turned into the merits of the take 20 system, not the legality of it. |
| Molitor03-15-07, 03:38 AM | I need to apologise to PenderGrass then. I didn't make clear what I was trying to say. I contend that his system enables the DM - any DM, not PenderGrass ersonally - to railroad by imposing hidden modifications to dierolls and DCs that have absolutely no basis in the game except the DMs desire that the player pass or fail. PenderGrass has given me no reason to suppose that he personally would behave like that. My concern is that the system enables less scrupulous DMs to do so and cloak what they are doing under a veneer of fairness. PenderGrass, any implication that you would fudge the results of a check that way were unintended and I apologise for them. I have completely given up trying to sway anyone here to my views. But, I have to respond to this post.... Thank you Merestil Haye. Thank you for being a human being with honor and integrity. Those are rare qualities on the web, and you deserve to be recognized for them. |
| JustinA03-15-07, 11:23 AM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. Depends on the trap. If the trap could be triggered by an unsuccessful Search, you can't take 20. For example: If a poisoned needle trap is triggered when you try to open a box, you can take 20 on that Search (since you can Search the box without ever opening it). If, on the other hand, the trap is triggered by stepping on a pressure plate, you can't take 20 while searching the hallway (because, in the process of unsuccessfully searching the hall, you would step on the plate and trigger the trap). This can create something of a problem, however: You can't say "you can't take 20 on that check" without giving something away. What do you do? Couple of options: 1. Secretly roll a check result. 2. Since take 20 is literally like trying 20 times with each result on a d20 until you reach 20, resolve the skill check a if they had rolled a 1. If you choose the latter option, you'll generally find that your PCs will do a normal check first and then take 20 (effectively doing a quick check to make sure there's no obvious dangers and then doing a more thorough search). (Smart players tend to do this anyway because of the time it can save.) I've also added a houserule which allows you to Search without touching, but you take a -5 penalty on your check. Steep, but it avoids spell triggers, contact poisons, pressure plates, and the like. (The rule was added after running a group through the Tomb of Horrors. :cool: ) (It was initially -10 until I realized that this was identical to take 10 and offered no meaningful benefit for the extra time spent.) Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. The better solution here is to create scenarios where you don't always have the time to be completely thorough. Taking 20 when searching a 5 foot square takes 2 minutes. Thoroughly searching a 10' wide hallway that's 75' long will take an hour to search. As others have pointed out, traps are generally more useful in conjunction with more active elements (i.e. creatures). If the players are expecting traps, there's lots of ways in which clever gameplay will remove any risk. If the players have no reason to expect traps, then the trap is usually just random damage. Neither is that exciting. |
| JustinA03-15-07, 11:46 AM | The only time someone would get the +20 bonus would be when they are specifically taking their time and doing their best. like OMG you can just keep searching until you are sure you got a 20. Like, OMG, that is like the total meta-gaming attitude take 20 has created. I just want to make sure I understand this-- Scenario 1: The character is specifically taking their time and doing their best, so they get a +20 to their skill check. Scenario 2: The character is specifically taking their time and doing their best, so it's as if they rolled a natural 20 on their skill check. Now, which of these is "meta-gamey" again? I mean, I can see that Scenario 1 allows for munchkin uber-prowess. And I can see how Scenario 2 accurately models a character taking their time to make sure they achieve the best results they are capable of. But, beyond that, I'm just not seeing how "taking their time and doing their best" is considered to be "meta-gamey" in one scenario and "not meta-gamey" in the other scenario. I never stated no re-tries. I guess that's technically true... you just said it was "a really poor faux pas" for a player to do such a thing, and thus implied that such a thing would never happen and was therefore "not a problem after all". Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-15-07, 11:55 AM | I just don’t have a more diplomatic way of saying it. Take 20 is a meta-gaming cop-out and likely one of the worst game design decisions that was made for the new evolution of D&D. I am not going to candy-coat it. It's not about candy coating, it is about being abrasive. Civilized people can disagree without being disagreeable. |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 02:07 PM | The entire concept of the skill check is that the roll determines how well the creature executes the task. You don't like that. Fine. Just don't expect any form of agreement. You avoid your illogical reasoning with the skill of a politician. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 02:10 PM | It's not about candy coating, it is about being abrasive. Civilized people can disagree without being disagreeable. If you remember correctly, it was never I that suggested people blow it out their arses or accused people of being pompous jerks. I also never told people that my system is "superior" although many people here think so. In fact, overall, I would say that if anyone has been subjected to an inordinate amount of disagreeable attitudes - it would be me dealing with most of the posters in this thread. :dragon: **** |
| JustinA03-15-07, 02:26 PM | No, seriously PenderGrass, I want an answer to my question. Just don't ignore because it's inconvenient for you provide an answer. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 02:53 PM | No, seriously PenderGrass, I want an answer to my question. Just don't ignore because it's inconvenient for you provide an answer. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net I'm fitting you in at work, so just have patience. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-15-07, 03:08 PM | No, seriously PenderGrass, I want an answer to my question. Just don't ignore because it's inconvenient for you provide an answer. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net I have already tried to talk sense here they didn't want listen they said that they already decide on if it can be done by making some house rule. I guess us commoners are not allow to type to are betters!!! ha ha ha ha! I don't see how it matter which way the Player say it for it to be mata game. It is still going to depend on the person mind set. If they speak in character or out of character to say what their PC's are doing does not matter. If my Player has run up on a skeleton and has been using his longsword all the time for the last 15 games and this is the first time he has run into one then change to his greatclub is mata-game thinking. why does it matter if he say 1. "I'm putting up my longsword and get out my greatclub" 2. "my PC is getting out his greatclub and putting up the longsword" I don't see the difference is, someone please help the poor commoner! |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 03:12 PM | I don't see the difference is, someone please help the poor commoner! I have to admit this made me laugh. :dragon: **** |
| Merestil Haye03-15-07, 03:57 PM | You avoid your illogical reasoning with the skill of a politician.I'm not trying to reason with you. I am stating that the rules of skill checks are written with the underlying assumption that the dieroll represents how good a job the character does, in the contiuum from "a casual, careless effort" through "a competent, workmankile job" to "deliberate, painstaking application of his entire body of skill." This is entirely antithetical to your system. A character who "takes the time to do his best" is assumed, by the rules, to have gained the same result as he would have done had he rolled a 20 on the die. That assumption is something you reject in order to build your own edifice. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-15-07, 04:02 PM | If you remember correctly, it was never I that suggested people blow it out their arses or accused people of being pompous jerks. And they, too, are out of line. I also never told people that my system is "superior" although many people here think so. You did act is if it was, though, or rather that the existing system was inferior, which amounts to the same thing. In fact, overall, I would say that if anyone has been subjected to an inordinate amount of disagreeable attitudes - it would be me dealing with most of the posters in this thread. It is not a question of degrees or rudeness. Bans are not handed out on a curve. If a WizO gets a bug up their butt over this thread than everyone who is slinging insults and attitude will get slapped. Trust me, man, I have felt the sting. I have been burned a few times cos a particular WizO took what I said the wrong way, even when it was not intended to be rude or insulting. You don't need to candy coat anything, but a little bit of diplomacy will go a long way towards keeping your butt out of trouble whether it is justified or not. Cheers. |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 04:19 PM | Trust me, man, I have felt the sting. I have been burned a few times cos a particular WizO took what I said the wrong way, even when it was not intended to be rude or insulting. You don't need to candy coat anything, but a little bit of diplomacy will go a long way towards keeping your butt out of trouble whether it is justified or not. Cheers. I have been dealing with WizOs for more than 6 years (look at my join date), but I appreciate your advice. Back on topic. :dragon: **** |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-15-07, 04:46 PM | I have been dealing with WizOs for more than 6 years (look at my join date), but I appreciate your advice. Back on topic. Ans I have been dealing with them for five (ignore my most recent join date). No matter how long you have been posting for a WizO can take you down if he feels it is justified, no matter whether it actually was justified or not. You could be posting here since day-one and it wouldn't matter if enough people complained or a particular WizO got a bug in his bonnet over you. Despite how abraisve you are I feel you do make a valuable contribution to the WotC community so I just wanted to provide you with a bit of hard-won advice. Take it or no as you see fit, no hard feelings. Cheers, man. :) |
| PenderGrass03-15-07, 05:02 PM | Ans I have been dealing with them for five (ignore my most recent join date). No matter how long you have been posting for a WizO can take you down if he feels it is justified, no matter whether it actually was justified or not. You could be posting here since day-one and it wouldn't matter if enough people complained or a particular WizO got a bug in his bonnet over you. Despite how abraisve you are I feel you do make a valuable contribution to the WotC community so I just wanted to provide you with a bit of hard-won advice. Take it or no as you see fit, no hard feelings. Cheers, man. :) I have heard the rumors about certain ego-maniacal WizOs - even know people that were banned by them. It sucks. I appreciate the sentiments and the recognition. I for one never have hard feelings - what is said in the Take 20 thread, stays in the Take 20 thread - at least, as far as I am concerned. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-15-07, 09:01 PM | so where do we stand on the issue at hand. And do we all here know that a 20 on the die of skills don't mean you get a automatic success, right?!? If you have a +3 to search and you take a 20 if the dc 29 to find it you still fail. page 63 PHB 3.5 |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 12:15 AM | Now, which of these is "meta-gamey" again? Which? The system where people claim that they deserve to Take 20 because otherwise they would just roll over and over again. I guess that's technically true... you just said it was "a really poor faux pas" for a player to do such a thing.... Out of context, you possibly have a point. The faux pas of re-trying is when it happens with no in-character reason. The faux pas of re-trying is when it is has no basis other than to obtain a better die result. :dragon: **** |
| Geogoose03-16-07, 04:36 AM | Taking 20 is meta-gamey. (I've never used that word before) It represents a realistic idea that a character is willing to try something over and over again to make absolutely sure the best result possible has been obtained. It like when you go to the fridge 5-10 times and search it for that package of lunchmeat you "know" is in there somewhere. What skills take 20 can be applied to are fairly limited and logical. It makes sense that a group of adventurers who are pretty sure there is a secret door somewhere in a room will be willing to go through a much lengthier search. So how is it meta-gamey? Because somehow characters in a D20 world know that they can spend 20x amount of time on something and be certain the result is the best they could get. Not 10x, not 33x, but they somehow know 20x? How could they possibly know the universe was centered around a 20 sided die? I for one excuse the metagame aspect of take 20. I understand it is representing something which is NOT metagame, and the 20x time modifier is there for the convienience of the DM to keep track of time (rounds, encounters, etc). The groups I've been in don't just say, "I take 20 to search the room". We usually preface it somehow to be believable, "Guys, this room's location is awfully suspicious. We need to take our time searching because I think the secret entrance is somewhere nearby." |
| KurenaiYami03-16-07, 05:00 AM | So how is it meta-gamey? Because somehow characters in a D20 world know that they can spend 20x amount of time on something and be certain the result is the best they could get. Not 10x, not 33x, but they somehow know 20x? How could they possibly know the universe was centered around a 20 sided die? It's fairly easy to explain the fluff behind an action. Off the top of my head: They are experienced adventurers. Over the course of their adventures they have found that if there is something to be found, they normally find it after about twenty minutes. It's sort of like the economic idea of decreasing marginal utility. It's the most effective they can do without overkill. |
| Ace_of_time03-16-07, 10:44 AM | It's fairly easy to explain the fluff behind an action. Off the top of my head: They are experienced adventurers. Over the course of their adventures they have found that if there is something to be found, they normally find it after about twenty minutes. It's sort of like the economic idea of decreasing marginal utility. It's the most effective they can do without overkill. It doesn't matter how many times they search 1,000,000 times if the DC is over the ammount they could max out on they can't find it be it trap , gp, chest. if they need DC 29 and with a 20 can only get 26 they can't find it. A roll of 20 on the die roll doesn't produce a auto success on skill checks. |
| JustinA03-16-07, 12:31 PM | Scenario 1: The character is specifically taking their time and doing their best, so they get a +20 to their skill check. Scenario 2: The character is specifically taking their time and doing their best, so it's as if they rolled a natural 20 on their skill check. Now, which of these is "meta-gamey" again? But, beyond that, I'm just not seeing how "taking their time and doing their best" is considered to be "meta-gamey" in one scenario and "not meta-gamey" in the other scenario. Which? The system where people claim that they deserve to Take 20 because otherwise they would just roll over and over again. No, seriously. I'd like an answer to my question, not some other question you've whipped up as a strawman. Let's try it again: Which player is being more meta-gamey? 1. The player who says "I'm taking my time and doing my best" and is playing in a system with the take 20 mechanic; or 2. The player who says "I'm taking my time and doing my best" and is playing in a system with your +20 mechanic. The faux pas of re-trying is when it happens with no in-character reason. The faux pas of re-trying is when it is has no basis other than to obtain a better die result. By context you seem to be implying that die rolls have no analog to the experience of the characters -- that a poor roll does not represent poor conditions, a stupid mistake, or bad luck; that a good roll does not represent favorable conditions, above average performance, or good luck. Which is why, in situations which allow it, a character can work longer and harder and with more care to eliminate the random chance which affects their performance: They can double-check their work; repeat the task again to make sure nothing was missed; test the product to make sure its working properly; and so forth. Perhaps it would help if you could explain what you think a die roll represents in terms of the game world. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-16-07, 12:47 PM | So how is it meta-gamey? Because somehow characters in a D20 world know that they can spend 20x amount of time on something and be certain the result is the best they could get. Not 10x, not 33x, but they somehow know 20x? How could they possibly know the universe was centered around a 20 sided die? That's a definition of metagame which really renders the term useless, because it can be ascribed to essentially every single element of the system. For example, you could similarly argue that the Jump skill is meta-gamey because you could theoretically run different trials and find out that, no matter who you're running the trial with, they will never jump farther than (Jump + 20) ft. or less than (Jump + 1 ft.), and thus discover the "d20 nature of the universe". Plus, every jump is always exactly X feet, never X feet and so many inches. They could analyze boxing matches and discover that they always last a length of time which can be precisely divided by 6 seconds, and thus "discover the quantum round of physical combat". You can also discover levels by analyzing, for example, clerical spell progression. While it might be an interesting experiment to design a world where, in fact, the rules of the game ARE the rules of reality (and the characters in the game are beginning to figure it out), it's probably better to assume that these artifacts of the abstract nature of the system are just that: Artifacts. Thus, you can't analyze the Jump skill (for example) because in reality there's some variance in the result of every Jump check -- six inches here, two inches there. Similarly, the six second combat round is an abstraction, not a reflection of actual game world reality. And when you take 20 on your skill there's still some variance. For example, if you made a pot and took 20 on your Craft check, you end up with a pot which -- from a mechanical standpoint -- is identical every time. But it's not hard to imagine, in the game world, there are variances: One pot is a little nicer than the other. The other is just slightly stronger. Or whatever. Details that slip through the abstraction, but are still part of the game world. And, as far as the characters know, there is no "x20" sweet spot. Sure, beyond a certain point they know that it doesn't make any difference if they spend 2 minutes or 20 minutes doing something -- they've done it as well as they can. But they can't really narrow it down to some specific time range. That, again, is an abstraction useful for gameplay but not truly representative of the game world experience. Now, if you're unhappy with that level of abstraction (and remember that you're always going to be dealing with SOME level of abstraction), one easy variant would be to roll 1d20 when taking 20: The result would be the number of attempts it took before you achieved your best result (or realized that you've achieved your best result). This gives some accordance to the variance of the game world without radically increasing PC competency. |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 01:31 PM | No, seriously. I'd like an answer to my question Your scenarios are incomplete. Because one of them must also include the statement - "I take 20." One of them also must include that the die is never rolled. One of them also must include faulty, cop-out mechanism that allows gamers to think that their characters control the die. One of them is purely metagaming. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7703-16-07, 01:38 PM | Your scenarios are incomplete. Because one of them must also include the DM assigning arbitrary modifiers to the roll. One of them also must include that the die is rolled secretly so there is no check on the DM fudging it. One of them must also include faulty, cop-out house rules that removes control from the players and leaves their fate to blind chance. Luckily, neither of them are metagaming, they are just alternate mechanisms for resolving the same in-game action. |
| jaspercrey03-16-07, 01:54 PM | WAIT A SECOND!!!!!!!!! To answer the original poster: "Can thieves 'take 20' to find traps?" The only answer is this: Only if it is a simple trap with a search DC of 20 or less. Otherwise, no. Only a rogue can find traps of a higher DC. Seriously though, although this thread has convinced me that yes indeed, taking 20 to search for traps is allowed and in fact encouraged by the RAW . . . . . . but I can't help but find myself agreeing with Pendergrass that it is meta-gamey. In fact the whole take-20 option is meta-gamey to me. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-16-07, 02:43 PM | I have heard the rumors about certain ego-maniacal WizOs - even know people that were banned by them. It sucks. It does indeed. :( I for one never have hard feelings - what is said in the Take 20 thread, stays in the Take 20 thread - at least, as far as I am concerned. Ditto. I've had people ask me why I was responding to them in one thread cos we had a disagreement in another. They figured cos we'd argued that there was a riff between us. I explained that I respond to posts, not posters. |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 05:12 PM | One of them also must include faulty, cop-out mechanism that allows gamers to think that their characters control the die.Don't you think this is insulting to everyone who disagrees with you? You refuse to answer any of the questions people ask you, and instead just smugly ridicule their position. That's not very constructive.:dragon:Didn't someone politely ask you to move this to your sig block? Is there a reason you've decided to ignore them? |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-16-07, 05:18 PM | …but I can't help but find myself agreeing with Pendergrass that it is meta-gamey. In fact the whole take-20 option is meta-gamey to me. Take 20 is no more meta-gamey than any other part of the game that is rules or dice based. Take 20 may be meta but so is any alternative to it, including PenderGrass'. The very act sitting around a table rolling dice and describing what our fictional alter-egos are doing rather than going into the woods with a longsword to slay a bear is meta. There is nothing "more" meta about one particular rule or mechanic over another, and "meta" is not inherently a bad thing; it is what makes the game of D&D possible. |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 05:21 PM | Your scenarios are incomplete. I'll assume you're speaking to me. Because one of them must also include the DM assigning arbitrary modifiers to the roll. If by assigning arbitrary modifiers to the roll means that the DM must adjudicate for the situation and apply modifiers dictated by those situations - well, then both scenarios should have this. A DM that is unwilling to apply situational modifiers is a DM that shouldn't be DMing. One of them also must include that the die is rolled secretly so there is no check on the DM fudging it. If the group of players are so distrustful of the DM "fudging" secretive rolls, they should seek a different DM. One of them must also include faulty, cop-out house rules that removes control from the players and leaves their fate to blind chance. The same chance is applied to both sides of the table. Luckily, neither of them are metagaming, they are just alternate mechanisms for resolving the same in-game action. Incorrect. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 05:34 PM | Don't you think this is insulting to everyone who disagrees with you? No. I have stated clearly that it is my opinion. For my game. People may not agree with it - and I am not asking them to. You refuse to answer any of the questions people ask you, and instead just smugly ridicule their position. I have answered every question. Didn't someone politely ask you to move this to your sig block? Is there a reason you've decided to ignore them? I haven't ignored them. I saw the post and read it. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 05:35 PM | Take 20 is no more meta-gamey than any other part of the game that is rules or dice based. Take 20 may be meta but so is any alternative to it, including PenderGrass'.Even more to the point, being aware of game mechanics is not "metagaming". Using a knowledge of game mechanics to make decisions your character would not otherwise make is. So, if your character sees someone in a set of full plate with a tower shield and you think "I've only got a +2 BAB, his armor probably gives him a 23 AC, I'm not going to bother trying to hit him with a sword" -- that is not metagaming. It's all information your character has access to: plate armor is hard to damage, you kind of suck as a fighter, you're not going to land very many effective blows. It's the same thing with a trap -- if you suspect there's a trap somewhere, you might think "I've only got 7 ranks in Search, but there aren't many traps with a Search DC of 27, so if I take 20 I'll be pretty sure it's clear" but it's not using any information your character wouldn't have: you're not great at searching, but traps are usually easy to find if you're careful. Now, if you knew there was a trap in the square before you searched, and there was no way your character could have, then you'd risk metagaming. But just because "I'm being careful and taking my time" is represented by a particular game mechanic doesn't make it inherently metagaming. |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 05:50 PM | So, you have a scenario where I as a rogue state I am taking my time and carefully searching the square. I have 10 ranks, 5 points from stats, 2 from MW tools and 3 from skill focus (20 points total). Under the RAW I get to take 20, so getting a result of 40. Under PenderGrass I get a d20+20, thus getting 40+d20 which can explode either way if I read it correctly. Well, although this arguement should long ago have moved to house rules, I actually prefer PenderGrass's system, and for a metagame reason. Unless I explode low, I get a higher score... The system still involves metagaming as this allows me to know that my average roll is about 50 (rather than the 40 I would get normally), and if I have a fair idea of the types of traps that can be expected in a situation (possibly from research, inhabitants or having found one by accident) I can meta game to know I should find them. |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 05:59 PM | No. I have stated clearly that it is my opinion. For my game.No, you haven't. You've gone on and on about how take 20 was the worst design decision in the game, how everyone else doesn't understand your points, described someone else's posts as "further twisting and squirming" which "are very amusing to me". You've called other posters "crass" and "presumptuous". You're insulting everyone who disagrees with you by dismissing them and ridiculing their arguments, and whenever anyone calls you on it you retreat by saying, effectively, "I was only expressing my opinion".I haven't ignored them. I saw the post and read it. :dragon: ****And ignored it. Someone asked you, politely, for a simple and reasonable request. You didn't even bother to acknowledge it, let alone explain why you're not going to agree to it. I don't know why I expected better, but I did. |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 06:02 PM | The system still involves metagaming as this allows me to know that my average roll is about 50 (rather than the 40 I would get normally)...Several people have pointed out that Pender's system is worse, mechanically, than taking 20. But considering the mechanical effects of the rules is "metagaming" and, therefore, clearly bad. |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 06:06 PM | Thus, there's a reason why I try not to play skill bunnies. I instinctively try to get maximum milage out of individual skills, and let my cronies cover the other relevant skills. I mean, isn't it meta gaming to take 5 or more ranks in a skill in order to get synergy bonuses? |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 06:27 PM | No, you haven't. Please make a list of any question which you feel I need to answer. And ignored it. Someone asked you, politely, for a simple and reasonable request. You didn't even bother to acknowledge it, let alone explain why you're not going to agree to it. I don't know why I expected better, but I did. I don't feel that this has any place in any of the threads that it has been placed. It is off-topic and if you really want to know or make accusations, you can do so through my PM. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 06:29 PM | So, you have a scenario where I as a rogue state I am taking my time and carefully searching the square. I have 10 ranks, 5 points from stats, 2 from MW tools and 3 from skill focus (20 points total). Off the top of my head you would actually lose at least 2 points of those bonuses. :dragon: **** |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 06:33 PM | How so, or have you made other adjustments? Assuming I have a stat of 20 (not unreasonable by level 7, especially with magic) I get +5. Do I lose the tool bonuses or some of the skill focus as part of my taking a longer time to do the necessary task? In any case, if I did lose two points, that would still leave me on 38+d20 as opposed to 40. Have you similarly altered other DCs? |
| starfire31103-16-07, 06:50 PM | How so, or have you made other adjustments? Assuming I have a stat of 20 (not unreasonable by level 7, especially with magic) I get +5. Do I lose the tool bonuses or some of the skill focus as part of my taking a longer time to do the necessary task? In any case, if I did lose two points, that would still leave me on 38+d20 as opposed to 40. Have you similarly altered other DCs? I think he is refering to the fact that MW tools don't help you search. |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 07:00 PM | I think he is refering to the fact that MW tools don't help you search. But I love the way they automatically assume that I am totally being a jerk and "arbitrarily" attempting to mess with them. It just validates that anything I say will be met with hostility and unreasonable attacks. :dragon: **** |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 07:07 PM | Generic MW Tool 50gp. Gives +2 circumstance bonus to a related skill check. PHB 130-131 I was envisaging a magnifying glass of some sort... However, for 1,250gp I can get Goggles of Minute seeing, for +5 circumstance to search. [eye slot] 3,000gp Lens of Detection +5 untyped bonus to search. [hand held]. Neither of these is the point though, I get X+d20 by PenderGrass's method, and X from taking 20. How can I not love the extra metagamed bonuses of knowing my check is (on average) 10 points higher (assuming the trap DC is static...)? And, PenderGrass hopw is this justified? But I love the way they automatically assume that I am totally being a jerk and "arbitrarily" attempting to mess with them. It just validates that anything I say will be met with hostility and unreasonable attacks. I had asked if you had different modifiers and what other changes you had made. Out of interest, as I have played under take 20 systems, +10/-10 systems and 1's fail/20's succeed systems and wondered how your changes worked. For my part at least, I am not making any attacks against you, and I don't appreciate the suggestion I might be, as I am merely enquiring how your system works so I can understand it better. |
| Ace_of_time03-16-07, 07:12 PM | What does RaW mean. |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 07:13 PM | Not sure exactly what it stands for, but it gets used for the core rulebooks. |
| starfire31103-16-07, 07:18 PM | What does RaW mean. Rules as Written, I am not sure if you are joking or not. |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 07:18 PM | Not sure exactly what it stands for, but it gets used for the core rulebooks.Rules As Written. Basically, anything that's not a house rule. |
| Ace_of_time03-16-07, 07:20 PM | They could just type core what is that one extra letter. |
| Lindwyrm03-16-07, 07:20 PM | *nod* Makes sense. I just acquired the acronym... |
| Retinal Haze03-16-07, 07:22 PM | After reading through this thread, i think some people make alot of good points. Personally i dont think the just taking 20 is very fun. It removes versitility from the game as the check is always the same. So i'm thinking of imposing a house rule for search checks. normal: you take 2 mins and get 20+skill=same outcome always. house: you take 2 mins and get a +10 to your check, so d20+skill+10 The player or dm can roll the check, but it makes sense for the dm to. |
| Ace_of_time03-16-07, 07:23 PM | No I didn't know " FOR REAL FOR REAL". I thought it was better to ask then guess. thanks all. |
| catsclaw03-16-07, 07:44 PM | house: you take 2 mins and get a +10 to your check, so d20+skill+10 The player or dm can roll the check, but it makes sense for the dm to.Be careful when you make the change. It basically requires a number of related house rules -- for example, do you allow people to search again for something they missed? If you make finding a trap random, the logical result is to try to find it a number of times (which is exactly what the Take-20 rule is designed to cover). So you have to ban retrying search checks. However, if you decide people can't try again on search checks, you run the risk of having some important plot object hidden in a desk, and because the party got unlucky on a single roll, they'll never find it. You might think to impose a time delay, so the party can only reroll a search check once an hour, but then you run into situations where the party is raiding a dungeon, reaches the throne room just as the evil king is escaping through a secret door, and miffs the roll to find the trigger for the door. And spends an hour waiting until they can search again. You could just start declaring when they can and can't search again by GM fiat, but then you're going to come across as arbitrary to your players. Or start tipping them off as to when there are traps present by whether you'll let them reroll a search or not. Basically, if you're going to change the rules, be very careful to consider all the side-effects. There was an awful lot of design work that went into the game to start with. Things generally have a very good reason for being they way they are. |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 08:30 PM | Generic MW Tool 50gp. Gives +2 circumstance bonus to a related skill check. Since you weren't clear, other than using the word "Tools" - which indicated to me (and at least one other poster) Thieves' Tools. An error on all sides. Back to your original scenario: Under the RAW I get to take 20, so getting a result of 40. The final result is 40. That never will alter as you have presented it. More than enough to easily find any trap given in the DMGs standard traps. Any player that has researched traps in the DMG will know this. Under PenderGrass I get a... 40+d20 which can explode either way if I read it correctly. The final result is unknown. The player may know that odds are more than in his favor to find most traps (since a roll of a 10 or 11 is typically seen as "average"), but he cannot know for sure since the roll of a natural 1 would incur a -20 penalty and another roll (with possibly another -20 penalty stacking on top of the first and so on). Now back to your current post: For my part at least, I am not making any attacks against you, and I don't appreciate the suggestion I might be, as I am merely enquiring how your system works so I can understand it better. True enough. You may consider me properly reprimanded and I apologize for having lashed out unreasonably. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-16-07, 08:35 PM | They could just type core what is that one extra letter. There is a difference between RAW and Core, insofar as RAW can be applied to books beyond Core. For example, "The RAW in Stormwrack indicates that my dwarf can be washed away by greenwater - but does his dwarven stability help him in any way?" For the most part, though, most uses of the term "RAW" are interchangeable with the term "Core." :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-16-07, 09:16 PM | There is a difference between RAW and Core, insofar as RAW can be applied to books beyond Core. For example, "The RAW in Stormwrack indicates that my dwarf can be washed away by greenwater - but does his dwarven stability help him in any way?" For the most part, though, most uses of the term "RAW" are interchangeable with the term "Core." :dragon: **** The one dude said that RaW meant just the three core books. so thats why I said that but we were corrected later but thanks anyway. And if the Evil king escapes and the PC's can't find another way to find him then it is better for the story. (maybe a chase or he appears later to cause trouble) they don't have to kill everything and find everything. If they can't find the plot item needed then they come back and try again or find another way that's why they make the big bucks for. (the dirty work) |
| JustinA03-17-07, 12:22 AM | Because one of them must also include the statement - "I take 20." Umm... Okay. Lemme try again: Which player is being more meta-gamey? 1. The player who says, "I'm taking my time and doing my best, so I add 20 to my skill modifier and have a result of 26." 2. The player who says, "I'm taking my time and doing my best, so I add 20 to my skill modifier and have a result of 26. And then I roll a d20 and get an 11, for a final total of 37." Now will you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to clumsily dodge it again? One of them is purely metagaming. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-17-07, 12:24 AM | WAIT A SECOND!!!!!!!!! To answer the original poster: "Can thieves 'take 20' to find traps?" The only answer is this: Only if it is a simple trap with a search DC of 20 or less. Otherwise, no. Only a rogue can find traps of a higher DC. MY GOD! YES! HOW COULD WE HAVE BEEN SO BLIND?!?! . . . but I can't help but find myself agreeing with Pendergrass that it is meta-gamey. In fact the whole take-20 option is meta-gamey to me. Feel free to answer the same question Pendy has dodged twice already. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| Ace_of_time03-17-07, 01:56 AM | Will someone help me understand why it matters which way it is said in a game cause I don't see it sorry. |
| starfire31103-17-07, 12:37 PM | Feel free to answer the same question Pendy has dodged twice already. Well, it may seem metagame, because it is meta to the game... every mechanic is meta. charging someone and attacking them is metagame even, becuase it requires your character to know that he can get there and attack them if they are x ft or less away, and if they are over that distance he can not charge them. the take 20 is meta aswell, so is the take the +20 the pender uses. |
| BW022203-17-07, 01:47 PM | JustinA Umm... Okay. Lemme try again: Which player is being more meta-gamey? 1. The player who says, "I'm taking my time and doing my best, so I add 20 to my skill modifier and have a result of 26." 2. The player who says, "I'm taking my time and doing my best, so I add 20 to my skill modifier and have a result of 26. And then I roll a d20 and get an 11, for a final total of 37." Now will you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to clumsily dodge it again? Both this one and your previous post are extremely well put. I'm going to make the prediction, based on the fact that no one proposing the "+X" rule would answer it the first time, that no one will answer your post this time. Again, the only choices to the question arer "1" or "2". However, IMO, neither is meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is using knowledge your characters do not know to base decision on. D&D is a simulation. One must assume that characters (while not understanding the mechanics of the simulation) understands their effects and merrits. A character may not understand that d20s are rolled by 'the gaming gods', but a character knows that when searching a messy shed for some lost pots... taking six seconds rarely works. Taking two minutes usually finds them. Searching for twenty minutes either (1) never seems to do any better than looking for two minutes, or (2) often find things better than searching for two minutes. Repeat hundreds times over their lifetimes and they understand if you really want to find something in a small area either (1) search for two minutes or (2) search for as long as you can. (depending upon which rule you go with) IMO, neither is meta-gaming because the characters would know if continuing to search was productive or not. Day to day experience would tell them this. Imagine a new player to D&D. They have no idea of the skill check rules. They ask to search and you roll secretly. After six seconds the character finds nothing. Now, the player asks "Will I have better results if I continue searching?", even if you said "You don't know that." (which is hard because he must have noticed that by now after years of rogue school or common experiences), but assume he didn't. Fine. The player then says "Ok, I try it anyway. I search for another 30 seconds." The DM (roling five more times) says "You find something." Well, the player isn't meta-gaming (they don't know what the rules are, they just tried something), but no they now know that the more time they take the better. A few more attempts will likely start confirming that. Over a year of playing (no one explaining the rules to them), they try various durations (1 minute, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, etc.) and come to the facinating discovery that either about 2 minutes appears to yield the best results (or they may discover that 20 minutes gives better results). Now, without meta-gaming (because they have no ideas of the rules) it is perfectly reasonable that they (and their characters) would realize the effects of the simulation. Thus, I have absolutely no problem when characters strongly suspect that a trap is present saying "I spend 2 minutes looking at this square for traps." It isn't meta-gaming, it is a life time of experience which says that's the optimal time to search. If it worked that way 500 times in the past, I don't see any reason why a character would choose to search for only 30 seconds or an hour this time? The only difference between "Take 20", "Roll +10", "Roll +20" is that the later gives unrealistic results -- a 8 strength wizard breaking down a stone door -- and it wastes game time. In either case, characters will become familiar with the effects of the simulation and search for the appropriate time period without any idea of what the rules are. |
| Genkitty03-18-07, 02:56 AM | The only consequence for not finding a trap is not finding a trap. Failing to find a trap does not result in being stabbed in the face either. That is what you get for failing to disarm the trap. The failure of the search attempt does not set the trap off or force the party to proceed. Unlike trying to disarm a trap, simply failing to find it does not in and of itself have any negative consequence. Why is this distinction so difficult for some people to comprehend? I know why I was confused on the issue at first. In 1e and 2e, if you failed badly at finding the trap you did set it off. I played 2e, seven years ago, and I still have that concept in my head. I had to sit down and completely reread the rules to identify my confusion and rid myself of it. |
| KurenaiYami03-18-07, 02:59 AM | It doesn't matter how many times they search 1,000,000 times if the DC is over the ammount they could max out on they can't find it be it trap , gp, chest. if they need DC 29 and with a 20 can only get 26 they can't find it. A roll of 20 on the die roll doesn't produce a auto success on skill checks. Right. How does that have anything to do with my post? |
| Ace_of_time03-18-07, 08:55 PM | Right. How does that have anything to do with my post? I was really typing to everyone not just you. sorry. It is really bad for us DM's to come on and post thing and just say that most PC's will have the right pluses to find everything in 20 mins. It gets tiring to see all the post on here of people saying that taking a 20 is ok with the rules and that it will let them find the traps and not post the stat of this PC's with maxed search check. if they pc is 1st level there is no way he is going to be able to search for 20mins and find all the traps. If the search check fails it can set off some traps. A pit trap for exp.. If it is well hidden say a illusion spell and fail to see the trap and keep walking forward he is more than likely he is going to fall at sometime in the pit. If failing to find a trap can cause the PC to trigger the trap ahead way should even allow the 20. If the trap has a search DC 40+ and the PC only has +6 to search He can take to years search that some spot over and over and he is never going to find it. Why should I as DM give a + 10 for just searching the same spot the same way he was only taking longer to do it? Why does it matter which way they say I'm taking a 20? If they know from past games from past PC's that they can find every trap just by taking a 20 then that is mata game. I don't see why the way the player says it matters. How many here really would give their players a 20 if they were search I torch lit room with a shadow mastiff in it wait on the PCs to leave the room to caught them by surprise. what is the difference in the two? |
| Lindwyrm03-18-07, 09:26 PM | OK As far as I can see no-one has said that a level one character is going to find all the traps in the world by taking 20. Taking 20 is OK with the rules, and if you have read my earlier posts a scenario where I as a rogue state I am taking my time and carefully searching the square. I have 10 ranks, 5 points from stats, 2 from MW tools and 3 from skill focus (20 points total). Take this as my level 7 rogue sun elf (yes, it's a forgotten realms race - so sue me) with Int 20. I may even be lacking some possibly bonuses as the party casters could potentially boost my Int further. Now, with this should I take 20 I get a total of 40 to find any trap. It is possible there may be a trap with a find DC of 50. Yes, I wouldn't find it. No, it would not automatically trigger if I fail to find it, as I may never tread on the pressure plate, or reach through the relevant opening. In almost no case will failing to find a trap trigger it, although failing to find it and continuing down the corridor may trigger it, although this is the act of continuing down the corridor triggers it not failing to find the trap. If as in your example the rogue has only +6 in search he probably hasn't got the experience or tools to help him find really well hidden traps. However if he searches for a few minutes (standardised at 2 minutes per 5'x5'x5' cube by the take 20 rule) he gets to thoroughly exhaust his stock of tricks which just isn't possible in 6 seconds. A 6 second check you try the likely checks, and then you may get lucky and look in the right place (a 20) or unucky and not look in the right place at all (a 1). Finding a trap and bypassing it are entirely different. A trap could be really cunningly hidden (Actually built into the structure of the building of the same materials, behind an illusion that is actively maintained by use of magic with other magic to distract you from looking at it in the first place (DC 100)) but when you find it it could be really easy to disarm (cut a thin wire that once you are digging around in the trap is really easy to get to and cut (DC 5)), or conversely really easy to find (Neon pink, sat in the middle of a room with a magic mouth screaming "Hey look I'm a trap" (don't even bother rolling - I'll give you it) (DC -several hundred)) but nigh on impossible to disarm (parts of the mechanism are on different planes of existence, there are multiple overlapping triggers (DC 100?)). Also, a trap can be really lethal, completely non lethal (hits you with prestidigitation - You are now three different shades of orange), or eventually lethal (you're trapped in an antimagic field with no way to escape the large sealed adamantine box you are now in...). The suggestion you give with the Shadow mastiff isn't a trap as such. It's an ambush. If it waits for the party to leave the room, it'll attack them when they leave the room whether that is immediate or if they take hours to search every last crevice. Of course, if it knows the party are taking so long to search, it may wait for the party to sit down and wait for the rogue to finish, then attackj while they aren't ready. Remember it is 2 minutes per 5' cube, and it is entirely legitimate for creatures to realise someone is in their "base" and muster forces to attack. Finally, and I apologise for the long post, Why should I as DM give a + 10 for just searching the same spot the same way he was only taking longer to do it? Because in a RaW D&D campaign, to reflect the ability to try every trick you know we have been provided with a take 20 mechanic. Other systems provide a mechanic where you get extra dice, or increased success margins for taking time, then allow you to trade the extra dice for successes. If you want to house rule in a replacement for take 20, then do so, but that is a discussion for the house rules forum as to what should be done to replace it. |
| jaspercrey03-18-07, 10:55 PM | MY GOD! YES! HOW COULD WE HAVE BEEN SO BLIND?!?! Feel free to answer the same question Pendy has dodged twice already. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net Taking 20 is meta-gamey (at least to me) in the following sense: It's static. In other words, if I try something for 2 minutes I know that that is the very best I can do. There is no randomness, since I know what my highest possible check result is and that every time I try and do my best it takes 2 minutes. No more. No Less. Now if I were a game designer (and of course I am not, so take this with a grain of salt) I would do things a bit differently . . . I would remove the take 20 option and replace it with (are you ready?) the "I give it my full attention" option. You still in effect take 20 (you skill modifier + 20) but the difference is the TIME it takes to achieve that "take 20 total" is random . . . anywhere from 1 to 6 minutes. Furthermore (and I have said this multiple times already), the langauge that explains the take 20 option doesn't always support the mechanic. It states that in taking 20 it is assumed you FAIL mutiple times before SUCEEDING. With the search skill it is impossible to measure failure - since you can't be sure if the reason you failed to find anything is because you didn't look hard enough or if there is nothing there to find. And lastly, if you encourage the use of taking 20 to find traps, why even hide them in the first place? You just nerfed one of the classic elements of D&D: ROLLING to see whether you find trap has been a core element of the game since it's inception. What's next? Melee combat without a to-hit roll? As a player, I'd rather fall victem to a trap which I failed to find due to a roll (wherein there was a chance that I could have found it) as opposed to failing to find it because the DC is too high and beyond my capabilities and my roll didn't matter one or another (which feels like the DM is cheating) or, even worse, automatically finding every trap I search for WITHOUT rolling (which feels like I'm cheating). Maybe I'm old-school, but I have always felt that finding the trap is every part of the challenge as is disarming it. |
| Lindwyrm03-19-07, 12:55 AM | As a general rule of thumb, I don't encourage taking 20 because it takes 2 minutes per 5' cube, otherwise known as 20 minutes to go 25' down a 10' corridor. During that time, anything could try to ambush us. Taking 20 is meta-gamey (at least to me) in the following sense: It's static. In other words, if I try something for 2 minutes I know that that is the very best I can do. There is no randomness, since I know what my highest possible check result is and that every time I try and do my best it takes 2 minutes. No more. No Less. Now if I were a game designer (and of course I am not, so take this with a grain of salt) I would do things a bit differently . . . I would remove the take 20 option and replace it with (are you ready?) the "I give it my full attention" option. You still in effect take 20 (you skill modifier + 20) but the difference is the TIME it takes to achieve that "take 20 total" is random . . . anywhere from 1 to 6 minutes. Errr.... How is this less metagame (if you insist on calling using a rule metagame). You still get the same result, it just takes longer to do it. The reason the rule is associated with taking 20 is because you effectively ... Take 20 ... on the dice. Even in your "full attention" version. Anyway, it isn't metagame, anymore than quantifying the skill in the first place is metagame. What would be metagame is using OOC knowledge to try to find where to search (knowing the module, using knowledge about the DM style, or knowing that the DM won't set unsolvable problems, so there has to be a way to bypass it). The bit about you will fail multiple times before suceeding is a generalisation, that applies to most uses of taking 20, if it doesn't make sense, ignore that line for a skill where you can't quantify failing. Unless you are deliberately stopping to check a particular object or location, you are still likely to be rolling for almost any trap finding check you make. I'd only take 20 if I was sure something was trapped. (I'd triggered it and it resets, it's a chest that I expect to be trapped, it's the door to the treasury that sort of thing...). In any case, apart from the IC time taken to do the task, what's the difference between Taking 20 and your system? Nothing. You already effectively "Take 10" on armour class, saving throw DC and similar anyway. You could roll that implied take 10 (The base 10 for AC and saves), but that'd complicate and slow things down. |
| Ace_of_time03-19-07, 01:07 AM | I'll tell you what we should do lets tell Wizards to make the next character sheets with every stat to have take 10 slot and a take 20 slot. We use average roll rules for damage and then the only person that has to roll the die is the DM. Don't even have to worry about cheaters. don't even have to worry about luck. It will be the perfect game. (the PHB only says 5' by 5'. so that you know it is a space on the map.) |
| Lindwyrm03-19-07, 08:31 AM | I'll tell you what we should do lets tell Wizards to make the next character sheets with every stat to have take 10 slot and a take 20 slot. We use average roll rules for damage and then the only person that has to roll the die is the DM. Don't even have to worry about cheaters. don't even have to worry about luck. It will be the perfect game. (the PHB only says 5' by 5'. so that you know it is a space on the map.) I already keep track of what my take 10 and take 20 results are for relevant skills. Survival beinng the main one I consider taking 10 on it (tracking, foraging and reducing hazards). It's hardly difficult though to add 10 or 20 to the skill ranks on the sheet. Also, the Take 10 result is your average, or likely result for checks, so it gives a good idea of what DC you'll be likely to hit. If you want to use average damage then go for it. It'll be dull though, and it won't be D&D as we know it. However, if you want to do that, go ahead but that would be this glorious thing known as a house rule, used when you don't like the RAW. I've tried to explain why the Take 20 rule exists, and seems that people either don't understand, don't want to understand, or are deliberately being obtuse. |
| jaspercrey03-19-07, 09:02 AM | Errr.... How is this less metagame (if you insist on calling using a rule metagame). You still get the same result, it just takes longer to do it. The reason the rule is associated with taking 20 is because you effectively ... Take 20 ... on the dice. Even in your "full attention" version. Well, since meta-gaming is defined by making a decision in-game based on the knowledge that you are playing a game . . . . . . both examples are meta-gamey. But at least in my version there is a variable. Time. 1 to 6 minutes. To me the variable is the key. Without the variable the challenge remains static. That is to say, the character will automatically succeed (because he has no chance of failing) or he will automatically fail (the DC is too high and he could never have done it even if he had rolled a 20). Either way, he spends precisely 2 mintues every time. So I won't call it meta-gamey. But I will call it cheesey. Would I allow it in my game? Sure. Is there a way of speeding up skill checks that is less cheesey? I'm sure there is. PS. Would the flesh of a Ogre Magi taste somewhat meta-magic-gamey? |
| Cantankerous03-19-07, 09:43 AM | Taking 20 is meta-gamey (at least to me) in the following sense: It's static. In other words, if I try something for 2 minutes I know that that is the very best I can do. There is no randomness, since I know what my highest possible check result is and that every time I try and do my best it takes 2 minutes. No more. No Less. Now if I were a game designer (and of course I am not, so take this with a grain of salt) I would do things a bit differently . . . I would remove the take 20 option and replace it with (are you ready?) the "I give it my full attention" option. You still in effect take 20 (you skill modifier + 20) but the difference is the TIME it takes to achieve that "take 20 total" is random . . . anywhere from 1 to 6 minutes. Furthermore (and I have said this multiple times already), the langauge that explains the take 20 option doesn't always support the mechanic. It states that in taking 20 it is assumed you FAIL mutiple times before SUCEEDING. With the search skill it is impossible to measure failure - since you can't be sure if the reason you failed to find anything is because you didn't look hard enough or if there is nothing there to find. And lastly, if you encourage the use of taking 20 to find traps, why even hide them in the first place? You just nerfed one of the classic elements of D&D: ROLLING to see whether you find trap has been a core element of the game since it's inception. What's next? Melee combat without a to-hit roll? As a player, I'd rather fall victem to a trap which I failed to find due to a roll (wherein there was a chance that I could have found it) as opposed to failing to find it because the DC is too high and beyond my capabilities and my roll didn't matter one or another (which feels like the DM is cheating) or, even worse, automatically finding every trap I search for WITHOUT rolling (which feels like I'm cheating). Maybe I'm old-school, but I have always felt that finding the trap is every part of the challenge as is disarming it. Randomness in every action is simply not always a good thing. THAT is really what this is about. Randomness where it is no longer beneficial. When the conditions are right to take your time and to your best and you do, there will be too little deviation to make rolling a D20 (the STANDARD deviation) worthwhile. This is one of the reasons that you can NOT take 20 if the conditions do not warrant it and even need feats or other methods to take 10 with a skill in a pressure situation. If I drop a hammer it will not fall downwards and then start floating upward in any stasticly valid number of situations. No matter how cutesy it may be to require the dice roll, it's simply not beneficial to do so, period. The same can be said of any number of situation that are handled under take 20. Isshia |
| jaspercrey03-19-07, 11:15 AM | Randomness in every action is simply not always a good thing. THAT is really what this is about. Randomness where it is no longer beneficial. When the conditions are right to take your time and to your best and you do, there will be too little deviation to make rolling a D20 (the STANDARD deviation) worthwhile. This is one of the reasons that you can NOT take 20 if the conditions do not warrant it and even need feats or other methods to take 10 with a skill in a pressure situation. If I drop a hammer it will not fall downwards and then start floating upward in any stasticly valid number of situations. No matter how cutesy it may be to require the dice roll, it's simply not beneficial to do so, period. The same can be said of any number of situation that are handled under take 20. Isshia Agreed. I never make my players roll to see if they can pick up their tankard of ale and put it to their lips. Some things are academic. But in the case of searching to find I trap I do require a roll. Why? Because rolling to see whether or not you find a trap has been part of D&D since the beginning. It's not a challenge if success is gauranteed. Nor is it a challenge if failure is guarunteed (whereas the DC is too high). The whole point of rolling the die is overcoming the unknown variable that comes with it. Look at it from this perspective. If all the characters at your game table have a +10 to their Jump Skill, then would you put in a chasm that only requires a only a 5 to clear? I wouldn't, because it's academic at this point. It's not a challenge. The same goes for traps. If your rogue can always find them by taking 20 (which is always the case when you scale a trap according to the rogue's level), then why hide it in the first place? To me it comes down to the concept of "challenge". I think that rolling to find traps is one of D&D's core challenge-types. Just as core as swinging a sword to hit any enemy or attempting to make a saving throw. They remain challenges because despite your bonuses, the rolling of the die adds a variable. Take away that variable and success is either gaurenteed or failure is gaurunteed. Again, I only apply to this to what my players and I agree to be core challenges. Drinking your ale is not a core challenge. Neither is hitting the broad side of a barn. But in my campaign, finding a hidden trap is. Thus do I require a roll. |
| Lindwyrm03-19-07, 01:29 PM | Look at it from this perspective. If all the characters at your game table have a +10 to their Jump Skill, then would you put in a chasm that only requires a only a 5 to clear? I wouldn't, because it's academic at this point. It's not a challenge. I might put the chasm in, as after all that is still a 5' wide gap in the dungeon, but I'd likely be putting it in as dressing. It's also fairly unlikely the whole party has +10 effective skill in jump, but the challenge then would be to rig up something to get the less skilled characters past. The same goes for traps. If your rogue can always find them by taking 20 (which is always the case when you scale a trap according to the rogue's level), then why hide it in the first place? Because the person building and hiding the trap doesn't know the skill of the rogue in question? Setting the DC to match the party rogue is definately a metagame issue for the DM. Also, you only get to take 20 if you spend the extra time searching and are not interrupted, which isn't always a luxury that you have. To me it comes down to the concept of "challenge". I think that rolling to find traps is one of D&D's core challenge-types. Just as core as swinging a sword to hit any enemy or attempting to make a saving throw. They remain challenges because despite your bonuses, the rolling of the die adds a variable. Take away that variable and success is either gaurenteed or failure is gaurunteed. But there is no more challenge if you can take 20, regardless of if it takes 2 minutes, d6 minutes, or 5 weeks. |
| jaspercrey03-19-07, 01:51 PM | So we agree: If it isn't a challenge, then it's just dressing . . . As for setting the find the trap DC to match the rogue being a meta-game issue I would agree . . . but forcing a die roll still makes it challenging. Again, if you constantly put challenges into the game world that the player-characters automatically defeat then they aren't really challenges at all are they? Same goes the other way around. If the PC's have no chance in defeating the challenge (because the search DC is beyond their maximum) then it really isn't a challenge either. But there is no more challenge if you can take 20, regardless of if it takes 2 minutes, d6 minutes, or 5 weeks. You are correct. But at least there is a variable. The time it takes to find the trap. The longer it takes you, the greater the chance something might happen to interupt you. That is the way I would do it if I were allow the take-20 option for finding traps in my campaign. But I don't, because, as I said before, I would rather make finding the hidden trap a challenge (one where the die roll influences success or failure) and not just a frogone conclusion one way or the other. But that's just me. And my players happen to agree with me. |
| catsclaw03-19-07, 01:59 PM | Again, if you constantly put challenges into the game world that the player-characters automatically defeat then they aren't really challenges at all are they? Same goes the other way around. If the PC's have no chance in defeating the challenge (because the search DC is beyond their maximum) then it really isn't a challenge either.If I play a rogue in your campaign, what's the motivation for increasing my Search skill? I know you're going to set the DC's of traps based on my ranks in search. If I add 2 skills ranks, all I'm effectively doing is increasing the DC of every trap I'm going to run across by 2. |
| Lindwyrm03-19-07, 02:19 PM | Jaspercrey: what DC would you put the search DC of a trap at for a 7th level party? Assume it is the treasure room door for the Big Bad. I'm not going to say what stats and gear the rogue I have in mind has, because that might bias the trap DC. Once I know what DC you would set I'll post the effective search skill for the rogue. Also, do you reduce the XP award for the party preparing for encounters? A fire temple with fire elementals and a red dragon, so the party obtain resistance/immunity to fire as part of their preparation for example. In this case the challenge is much less than if the party haven't picked up fire resistances. Do they get: a) less XP b) the same XP, or c) more XP for thinking to prepare? What about if the party are expecting to go underwater, and so pick up water breathing and items of +swim skill? |
| Daydreamer03-19-07, 04:41 PM | This would be an awesome question for the sage. |
| Ace_of_time03-19-07, 05:00 PM | Jaspercrey: what DC would you put the search DC of a trap at for a 7th level party? Assume it is the treasure room door for the Big Bad. I'm not going to say what stats and gear the rogue I have in mind has, because that might bias the trap DC. Once I know what DC you would set I'll post the effective search skill for the rogue. Also, do you reduce the XP award for the party preparing for encounters? A fire temple with fire elementals and a red dragon, so the party obtain resistance/immunity to fire as part of their preparation for example. In this case the challenge is much less than if the party haven't picked up fire resistances. Do they get: a) less XP b) the same XP, or c) more XP for thinking to prepare? What about if the party are expecting to go underwater, and so pick up water breathing and items of +swim skill? OOOOOOoooooooooo. a test I think we would do better with a true or false test today teacher. |
| Ace_of_time03-19-07, 05:04 PM | I already keep track of what my take 10 and take 20 results are for relevant skills. Survival beinng the main one I consider taking 10 on it (tracking, foraging and reducing hazards). It's hardly difficult though to add 10 or 20 to the skill ranks on the sheet. Also, the Take 10 result is your average, or likely result for checks, so it gives a good idea of what DC you'll be likely to hit. If you want to use average damage then go for it. It'll be dull though, and it won't be D&D as we know it. However, if you want to do that, go ahead but that would be this glorious thing known as a house rule, used when you don't like the RAW. I've tried to explain why the Take 20 rule exists, and seems that people either don't understand, don't want to understand, or are deliberately being obtuse. Why is it that you can pick through peoples post an answer what you want to and not answer every question? And that post about the character sheet was a joke. I thought I might get people to laugh so they would not be mad all the time. |
| starfire31103-19-07, 06:26 PM | Agreed. I never make my players roll to see if they can pick up their tankard of ale and put it to their lips. Some things are academic. But in the case of searching to find I trap I do require a roll. Why? Because rolling to see whether or not you find a trap has been part of D&D since the beginning. It's not a challenge if success is gauranteed. Nor is it a challenge if failure is guarunteed (whereas the DC is too high). The whole point of rolling the die is overcoming the unknown variable that comes with it. Look at it from this perspective. If all the characters at your game table have a +10 to their Jump Skill, then would you put in a chasm that only requires a only a 5 to clear? I wouldn't, because it's academic at this point. It's not a challenge. The same goes for traps. If your rogue can always find them by taking 20 (which is always the case when you scale a trap according to the rogue's level), then why hide it in the first place? To me it comes down to the concept of "challenge". I think that rolling to find traps is one of D&D's core challenge-types. Just as core as swinging a sword to hit any enemy or attempting to make a saving throw. They remain challenges because despite your bonuses, the rolling of the die adds a variable. Take away that variable and success is either gaurenteed or failure is gaurunteed. Again, I only apply to this to what my players and I agree to be core challenges. Drinking your ale is not a core challenge. Neither is hitting the broad side of a barn. But in my campaign, finding a hidden trap is. Thus do I require a roll. IMO, finding the trap isnt always the challenge, actually it is rarely if ever the challenge,, you don't award XP for finding a trap, you award it for overcoming the trap. |
| JustinA03-19-07, 06:52 PM | Taking 20 is meta-gamey (at least to me) in the following sense: You make an interesting post. However, I want to immediately point out that you still haven't answered the question. You still in effect take 20 (you skill modifier + 20) but the difference is the TIME it takes to achieve that "take 20 total" is random . . . anywhere from 1 to 6 minutes. Good suggestion. Actually, since take 20 represents "doing it 20 times", I would recommend simply rolling 1d20 to determine which attempt was the successful attempt. If the character has no way of distinguishing between success and failure (as is the case with a Search check), they must spend the full amount of time necessary to resolve the check 20 times to make sure they've done it thoroughly. Furthermore (and I have said this multiple times already), the langauge that explains the take 20 option doesn't always support the mechanic. It states that in taking 20 it is assumed you FAIL mutiple times before SUCEEDING. With the search skill it is impossible to measure failure - since you can't be sure if the reason you failed to find anything is because you didn't look hard enough or if there is nothing there to find. This is incorrect. Just because the character has no way of knowing whether they've failed or succeeded does not mean that a success or failure has not occurred. And lastly, if you encourage the use of taking 20 to find traps, why even hide them in the first place? As noted elsewhere in the thread: Even if the trap is one which you can take 20 on (and I'm of the school of thought that there are some traps which will be triggered if you unsuccessfully search for them), that doesn't mean you can always take 20 while searching for traps. Taking 20 is time consuming, and time is not always something you can freely consume. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| Ace_of_time03-19-07, 07:06 PM | IMO, finding the trap isnt always the challenge, actually it is rarely if ever the challenge,, you don't award XP for finding a trap, you award it for overcoming the trap. He is talking about a story challenge you know in the game. Yes you can give xp for finding traps if the DM sees fit to do so. |
| catsclaw03-19-07, 08:23 PM | He is talking about a story challenge you know in the game. Yes you can give xp for finding traps if the DM sees fit to do so.Yes, but you can also give XP for using a funny accent or fetching the DM a cold beer from the fridge. The question is if you offer XP for finding a trap as a matter of course, and if you do, it's a house rule, neither suggested nor encouraged by the rules. |
| Ace_of_time03-19-07, 09:37 PM | Yes, but you can also give XP for using a funny accent or fetching the DM a cold beer from the fridge. The question is if you offer XP for finding a trap as a matter of course, and if you do, it's a house rule, neither suggested nor encouraged by the rules. Where? what page? show me where a DM can't give XP bonus for what he decide is good role playing! And I would never give XP for a beer maybe a mr. pib but never a beer. |
| JustinA03-19-07, 11:36 PM | The question is if you offer XP for finding a trap as a matter of course, and if you do, it's a house rule, neither suggested nor encouraged by the rules. DMG, pg. 39: "Overcoming the challenge of a trap involves encountering the trap, either by disarming it, avoiding it, or simply surviving the damage it deals. A trap never discovered or never bypassed was not encountered (and hence provides no XP award)." There is an extremely narrow window here in which finding a trap would not result in XP: The party finds the trap but, for whatever reason, decides to turn around and avoid whatever the trap is guarding. So while you are technically correct, in actual practice, finding a trap (willingly or unwillingly) is essentially synonymous with earning XP for it. |
| PenderGrass03-20-07, 12:03 AM | So while you are technically correct, in actual practice, finding a trap (willingly or unwillingly) is essentially synonymous with earning XP for it. So is bypassing a trap - as in taking an alternate route rather than the one that is suspected (but not confirmed) of holding a trap. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-20-07, 12:05 AM | Which player is being more meta-gamey? The player using the Take 20 method. I've said it all along - do you expect your scenarios are gonna change that? :dragon: **** |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 12:15 AM | Jaspercrey: what DC would you put the search DC of a trap at for a 7th level party? Assume it is the treasure room door for the Big Bad. I'm not going to say what stats and gear the rogue I have in mind has, because that might bias the trap DC. Once I know what DC you would set I'll post the effective search skill for the rogue. I don't put the search DC of a trap. The DMG does. (I have never really felt the need to design my own traps, as there are plenty to choose from in the DMG.) That being said, the DC would depend on what kind of trap it was. But, seeing as how you say it should be fit for BBEG lair, I would say it she probably be one of, if the the, most difficult trap to find. Usually, at least in my campaigns, the BBEG is somewhere around 2 CRs higher than the party's ECL - - - usually, mind you. Off the top of my head, I think that a CR 8 trap would provide a decent challenge for the said rogue. Granted, this would be for a rogue in my campaign world . . . Also, do you reduce the XP award for the party preparing for encounters? A fire temple with fire elementals and a red dragon, so the party obtain resistance/immunity to fire as part of their preparation for example. In this case the challenge is much less than if the party haven't picked up fire resistances. Do they get: a) less XP b) the same XP, or c) more XP for thinking to prepare? What about if the party are expecting to go underwater, and so pick up water breathing and items of +swim skill? I don't award XP. Believe or not, my players have been playing long enough that they can make their own decisions as to when they feel their character is ready to level up. In my campaign, PC leveling is not the primary reward. But, if I did grant XP I would choose C. The players used the heads and resources to prepare for an anticpated encounter, and should be rewarded accordingly - but only if they do this in character and in game. Which is something I encourage. An in-game/in-character solution to a challenge is far better than a meta-game one. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 12:18 AM | You make an interesting post. However, I want to immediately point out that you still haven't answered the question. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net I agree with Pendergrass. The player using the take 20 method is more meta-gamey because he is forgoing the variables of a d20 roll, knowing he will get the best result possible in 2 minutes flat. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 12:23 AM | This is incorrect. Just because the character has no way of knowing whether they've failed or succeeded does not mean that a success or failure has not occurred. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net So if they don't know whether or not they have failed or suceeded, why would they keep trying? Which is what makes the whole take 20 seem so silly to me. |
| Cantankerous03-20-07, 04:03 AM | Agreed. I never make my players roll to see if they can pick up their tankard of ale and put it to their lips. Some things are academic. But in the case of searching to find I trap I do require a roll. Why? Because rolling to see whether or not you find a trap has been part of D&D since the beginning. It's not a challenge if success is gauranteed. Nor is it a challenge if failure is guarunteed (whereas the DC is too high). The whole point of rolling the die is overcoming the unknown variable that comes with it. Look at it from this perspective. If all the characters at your game table have a +10 to their Jump Skill, then would you put in a chasm that only requires a only a 5 to clear? I wouldn't, because it's academic at this point. It's not a challenge. The same goes for traps. If your rogue can always find them by taking 20 (which is always the case when you scale a trap according to the rogue's level), then why hide it in the first place? To me it comes down to the concept of "challenge". I think that rolling to find traps is one of D&D's core challenge-types. Just as core as swinging a sword to hit any enemy or attempting to make a saving throw. They remain challenges because despite your bonuses, the rolling of the die adds a variable. Take away that variable and success is either gaurenteed or failure is gaurunteed. Again, I only apply to this to what my players and I agree to be core challenges. Drinking your ale is not a core challenge. Neither is hitting the broad side of a barn. But in my campaign, finding a hidden trap is. Thus do I require a roll. The whole point is the concept of challenge, yes. But not everything that can be challenging if you rush it is at all challenging if you can take the time to do it perfectly. The example I've used multitudes of times now is from rock climbing (and more so from personal experience with it). There are slopes that if I'm free climbing 15' every six seconds I'll bloody well expect to be very challenged. On the same slope, using gear, there is ZERO challenge if I'm taking two minutes to move the same 15'. Take 20 has it's place, without doubt, because it helps cover such situations where with adequate time you'd almost have to try to fail to fail. Adding a die roll which ARTIFICIALLY FORCES A FAILURE every so often is insane in such situations. It harms (greatly most of the time) the suspension of disbelief that makes a Role Playing game work. Isshia |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 08:07 AM | The whole point is the concept of challenge, yes. But not everything that can be challenging if you rush it is at all challenging if you can take the time to do it perfectly. The example I've used multitudes of times now is from rock climbing (and more so from personal experience with it). There are slopes that if I'm free climbing 15' every six seconds I'll bloody well expect to be very challenged. On the same slope, using gear, there is ZERO challenge if I'm taking two minutes to move the same 15'. Take 20 has it's place, without doubt, because it helps cover such situations where with adequate time you'd almost have to try to fail to fail. Adding a die roll which ARTIFICIALLY FORCES A FAILURE every so often is insane in such situations. It harms (greatly most of the time) the suspension of disbelief that makes a Role Playing game work. Isshia In real life I often do things that offer ZERO challenge, simply because I enjoy doing them. But in the D&D setting, I believe that without offering challenges, you aren't really playing a game then. You are telling a story. Which is great if everyone else is on board. My players want to play a game. They want challenges. Bottem line for my players and myself is that we think rolling to find a hidden trap is fun and exciting! That's a good thing, isn't it? |
| starfire31103-20-07, 08:39 AM | So is bypassing a trap - as in taking an alternate route rather than the one that is suspected (but not confirmed) of holding a trap. :dragon: **** Exactly, you never get xp for finding the trap, you only get the XP for getting passed it, one way or another. If you find a trap, then fail to disable it on a nat 20, but don't set it off, you can decide that it just isnt worth the risk and head back home, in this case you get no xp for finding the trap, since you don't get xp for finding traps, only overcoming them. The only time I can think of where finding a trap would award xp is if the act of finding it was the same act as overcoming it, and even then you would still be getting xp for overcomnig it and not for finding it. |
| Cantankerous03-20-07, 09:28 AM | In real life I often do things that offer ZERO challenge, simply because I enjoy doing them. But in the D&D setting, I believe that without offering challenges, you aren't really playing a game then. You are telling a story. Which is great if everyone else is on board. My players want to play a game. They want challenges. Bottem line for my players and myself is that we think rolling to find a hidden trap is fun and exciting! That's a good thing, isn't it? It's a good thing in it's place. But suspension of disbelief and reasonability are better things. Not everything needs to be the same all the time. If you can THINK you way around a challenge, that too takes away the dice roll, sometimes that isn't terribly challenging either, but it's a gank load better than thwarting what the PCs are doing for the sake of a supposed challenge. Example: "The door's trapped again and it looks like another electrified set up, but this one looks like it is going to be a bear to disarm and we're out of protective magic. We've got the time, why do we need to rush it?" "Hell, don't disarm it! These rooms are pretty homogenous. Lets just go through the right bloody wall and bypass it entirely." *** DM: "Wheres the challenge in that?" The DM then quickly changes the set up of the trap so that it also works if the wall is breached: *** Hey, everything to it's place and time, including dice rolls. Having that "extra challenge" is simply not worth making the game less reasonable, less subject to suspension of disbelief. Isshia |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 10:15 AM | It's a good thing in it's place. But suspension of disbelief and reasonability are better things. Not everything needs to be the same all the time. If you can THINK you way around a challenge, that too takes away the dice roll, sometimes that isn't terribly challenging either, but it's a gank load better than thwarting what the PCs are doing for the sake of a supposed challenge. Example: "The door's trapped again and it looks like another electrified set up, but this one looks like it is going to be a bear to disarm and we're out of protective magic. We've got the time, why do we need to rush it?" "Hell, don't disarm it! These rooms are pretty homogenous. Lets just go through the right bloody wall and bypass it entirely." *** DM: "Wheres the challenge in that?" The DM then quickly changes the set up of the trap so that it also works if the wall is breached: *** Hey, everything to it's place and time, including dice rolls. Having that "extra challenge" is simply not worth making the game less reasonable, less subject to suspension of disbelief. Isshia "Thinking" your way around a challenge is also fun and exciting and should be wholly encouraged since that is an in-game and in-character solution to overcoming an obstacle rather than a meta-game one. Please undetsand that I am not advocating that everything should come down to a die roll. I feel strongly that searching for a trap should, unless of course the player presents a valid, in-game/in-character alternative. Poor example might be a wizard using detect magic to scan a door, and disocvering that there is the presence of magic (due to a proximity trigger or Alarm). He still doesn't know for sure that there is trap there, but he is pretty darn suspicious, so he avoids it. No roll needed. As for your suspension of disbelief arguement, I don't think forcing a die roll on searching for trap effects that. Forcing someone to make a DEX check to see if they can bring a mug of ale to their lips without knocking themselves out cold with a hit to the forehead, does. There's quite a divide there. Besides, I am running a role-playing game, not a fantasy simulation. I'll take fun and excitement over precision realism anyday. So will my players. Thats why we play! |
| JustinA03-20-07, 10:41 AM | So is bypassing a trap - as in taking an alternate route rather than the one that is suspected (but not confirmed) of holding a trap. No. Finding a trap is essentially synonymous with earning XP because finding a trap is almost always the first step to taking any number of actions which will actually earn you the XP. Bypassing a trap, however, is one of the things which actually earns you the XP. It is not essentially synonymous with earning XP, it just earns the XP. |
| JustinA03-20-07, 10:42 AM | The player using the Take 20 method. I've said it all along - do you expect your scenarios are gonna change that? Okay, now for the follow-up question: Is it the fact that you're rolling dice or the fact that you're increasing the capabilities of 1st level characters to munchkinesque extremes that makes your option less meta-gamey? Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-20-07, 10:44 AM | The player using the take 20 method is more meta-gamey because he is forgoing the variables of a d20 roll So, for you, rolling the dice automatically removes the metagame element of whatever a player declares. Thus, if a player declares "I saw the DM's notes earlier, so my character is going to pick the lock on the chest" and then rolls some dice to pick the lock, that isn't metagaming. Or is rolling the dice, not in fact, the discerning criteria for you when it comes to metagaming? In which case, you still need to explain why the take 20 mechanic is metagaming. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-20-07, 10:47 AM | So if they don't know whether or not they have failed or suceeded, why would they keep trying? Which is what makes the whole take 20 seem so silly to me. Say that you've lost your car keys. You're not sure where they are. You spend six seconds looking for them... and you don't find them. Do you keep looking, or do you conclude that your keys have been lost forever and can never be found? I suspect that you keep looking. Which means that either the take 20 mechanic doesn't really seem silly to you, or that you consider spending more than six seconds looking for something to be "silly behavior". Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-20-07, 11:04 AM | But in the D&D setting, I believe that without offering challenges, you aren't really playing a game then. You are telling a story. Which is great if everyone else is on board. Why are you designing such painfully boring adventures that your characters are free to spend several mind-numbing hours searching every square inch of a hallway in painstaking detail? |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 11:22 AM | So, for you, rolling the dice automatically removes the metagame element of whatever a player declares. Thus, if a player declares "I saw the DM's notes earlier, so my character is going to pick the lock on the chest" and then rolls some dice to pick the lock, that isn't metagaming. Or is rolling the dice, not in fact, the discerning criteria for you when it comes to metagaming? In which case, you still need to explain why the take 20 mechanic is metagaming. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net No. That isn't meta-gaming. That's cheating. It's not about whether or not the take 20 option is meta-gaming. It's that my players and I would rather roll to search for traps because we find that more fun, challenging and exciting. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 11:28 AM | Say that you've lost your car keys. You're not sure where they are. You spend six seconds looking for them... and you don't find them. Do you keep looking, or do you conclude that your keys have been lost forever and can never be found? I suspect that you keep looking. Which means that either the take 20 mechanic doesn't really seem silly to you, or that you consider spending more than six seconds looking for something to be "silly behavior". Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net Thank you for asking the very question I was hoping for someone to ask. Yes I keeping looking for my lost car keys. But I don't stop looking for them in a particular 5x5' area after exactly 2 minutes because I now know that I have given it my best shot and either the keys aren't here or they are hidden too well for me to find, despite my best attempts. I keep looking for however long it takes to find them. It's not the behaivor that's silly. It's the game mechanic that I find silly. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 11:29 AM | Why are you designing such painfully boring adventures that your characters are free to spend several mind-numbing hours searching every square inch of a hallway in painstaking detail? I don't recall you ever sitting down at my table to play in my campaign, JustinA. Do not presume to know what occurs in the course of one of my sessions. For all you know it could be the most fun, challenging and exciting rpg experience you will ever have. |
| catsclaw03-20-07, 11:32 AM | It's that my players and I would rather roll to search for traps because we find that more fun, challenging and exciting.That's funny. My players think rolling to find traps is boring, since they search virtually every freaking square of the dungeon for traps. That's what take 10 and take 20 is for -- it speeds up the game, and ensures the players feel like they're skilled and important when they find things. Blowing an easy roll to find a trap makes you feel like an incompetent twit, not a skilled and dangerous rogue. We roll to disable the trap, and that's where it feels fun, challenging, and exciting. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 11:37 AM | That's funny. My players think rolling to find traps is boring, since they search virtually every freaking square of the dungeon for traps. That's what take 10 and take 20 is for -- it speeds up the game, and ensures the players feel like they're skilled and important when they find things. Blowing an easy roll to find a trap makes you feel like an incompetent twit, not a skilled and dangerous rogue. We roll to disable the trap, and that's where it feels fun, challenging, and exciting. Then I wouldn't bother to hide the traps in the first place! The point is you need to do what you think is fun. As a DM I prefer rolling to find traps because taking-20 to find traps seems a bit meta-gamey. As Player, I prefer to roll to find traps because it's more fun and challenging than always suceeding. |
| Cantankerous03-20-07, 12:59 PM | "Thinking" your way around a challenge is also fun and exciting and should be wholly encouraged since that is an in-game and in-character solution to overcoming an obstacle rather than a meta-game one. Please undetsand that I am not advocating that everything should come down to a die roll. I feel strongly that searching for a trap should, unless of course the player presents a valid, in-game/in-character alternative. Poor example might be a wizard using detect magic to scan a door, and disocvering that there is the presence of magic (due to a proximity trigger or Alarm). He still doesn't know for sure that there is trap there, but he is pretty darn suspicious, so he avoids it. No roll needed. As for your suspension of disbelief arguement, I don't think forcing a die roll on searching for trap effects that. Forcing someone to make a DEX check to see if they can bring a mug of ale to their lips without knocking themselves out cold with a hit to the forehead, does. There's quite a divide there. Besides, I am running a role-playing game, not a fantasy simulation. I'll take fun and excitement over precision realism anyday. So will my players. Thats why we play! There is no realism here, but you NEED to be reasonable to be able to suspend disbelief effectively! And yes, forcing the die roll can not help but damage that. If these were d10,000's we were rolling and you needed to hammer 0001's twice in a row to screw up something that is almost as easy as falling off a log then you'd have a point. But these are d20's! Just 1 time in 20 there is going to be something woefully stupid occuring in these situations because of the whims of the idiot dice. Even 1 in 400 (a roll of 1 stacked on a roll of 1) is an order of magnitude, or more, to bloody often in many of these cases. Here we go again: If I'm a world class climber, 23 ranks (meaning I'm 20th level in a class that has climbing as a class skill), +3 stat modifier, +2 circumstance modifier for my equipment and I say I'm taking all the time I need to make the climb a safe one, there is absolutely no way on gods green earth that one in 400 times I'm going to fall on a simple and straightforward climb up "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging". Not once in 400 times! Hell, not once in 4000 times. And without any reservation; I will NOT possibly fall 1 time in 20! This is simply to ridiculous for words. It is almost dropping a sword and having it float upward. THAT is what destroys the suspension of disbelief. Hell, I certainly couldn't believe it. We aren't talking realism here at all, just reasonability, Isshia |
| BW022203-20-07, 01:22 PM | jaspercrey, Yes I keeping looking for my lost car keys. But I don't stop looking for them in a particular 5x5' area after exactly 2 minutes because I now know that I have given it my best shot and either the keys aren't here or they are hidden too well for me to find, despite my best attempts. I keep looking for however long it takes to find them. It's not the behaivor that's silly. It's the game mechanic that I find silly. The mechanic does not bother me. First, it is no less arbritrary that assuming that folks taking exactly six seconds to perform a 'normal' search of a 5'x5' area. All actions in the game require an arbitrary amount of time. Either 6 seconds, minutes, or hours. Characters live in a quantum universe where nothing takes less than six seconds. Second, at some point, you are going to give up. A minute, five minutes, an hour, a day? Don't tell me someone is going to spend an hour searching a 5'x5' for their keys. At some point you are going to assume that either they aren't there or they are too well hidden to find in a passive search. Two minutes is a lot of time carefully looking over a 5'x5' area. It appears to be a perfectly reasonable amount of time at which a person would conclude that they just aren't going to find there keys there and move on to some other 5'x5' area or try some other method to find them. Third, there is nothing preventing the player from spending any amount of time (which is a multiple of 6 seconds) on a task. I the player says "I spend 5 minutes searching", then the DM could (secretly roll 50 search checks). Forth, if 2 minutes isn't a reasonable amount of time, what is? 4 minutes, 10 minutes, 1d3 minutes, etc.? How is this any less arbitrary? At some point someone has to say "How long does it take us to search this 50'x50' room really carefully?" Why not two minutes per 5'x5'? Is it any better to roll 20d20s secretly for each square containing something to find, just so that there is an unbelievably tiny possibility of finding it sooner. Fifth, when the rule is used repeatedly, the time issue averages itself out or becomes meaningless. In the above example, 50x50 room, you are searching 100 squares. That takes over 3h 20m. Either the time is fixed or random. Personally, I find it hard to imagine why someone would spend random amounts of time on squares in which they don't find anything, but assuming it was 1d3 minutes or 9d20 seconds per square.... does anyone care if the total as 100d3 minutes, 900d20 seconds, or can we just say 3 hours and 20 minutes. (Heck most DMs would just say about 3 hours) Sixth, when normal checks are repeated, you end up with nearly the same results. Whether a play decides on having the DM roll 20, 50, or 100 times, the results are mighty similiar. You get high enough roll in there that the results are almost identical to taking a 20. Seventh, is dice rolling any less silly? I mean whether or not some rogue finds a trap depends upon some god-like player rolling dice while eating pizza? The game is not mirroring any type of reality. Dragons fly, elves cast spells, etc., etc. I personally, don't find it any more silly than rolling a piece of plastic twenty times and calling numbers on the top out. (Especially considering that the results are almost identical) There are RPGs which have no dice. Many consider any form of dice rolling to be against the spirit of roleplaying. Someone could roleplay searching for traps in intricate detail -- blowing smoke, using thread, pouring water on the floor, etc, etc. In D&D you roll a d20, get a 4, and subsequently find nothing. Another player could say "I search for traps", roll a 19, and find it. Dice rolling is not a great mechanic either -- one which many argue is a much worse mechanic. Take twenty is a mechanic to simulate another action which a character could normally do -- repeating an action twenty times. It is no less silly than using dice rolling to simulate the search in the first place. |
| catsclaw03-20-07, 02:10 PM | As a DM I prefer rolling to find traps because taking-20 to find traps seems a bit meta-gamey.Define "meta-gamey", in a way that doesn't just mean "knowing what my skill check will be without rolling the die". Also, I'd like to know if you allow people to take 10 on skill checks, and if not, how do you handle prestige classes like the dervish which explicitly allow it? |
| Lindwyrm03-20-07, 02:12 PM | Why is it that you can pick through peoples post an answer what you want to and not answer every question? And that post about the character sheet was a joke. I thought I might get people to laugh so they would not be mad all the time. Sorry, I genuinely think I missed something. What question did I miss? PenderGrass: Quote: Originally Posted by JustinAWhich player is being more meta-gamey? The player using the Take 20 method. I've said it all along - do you expect your scenarios are gonna change that? I still don't understand what is more metagamey about taking 20 by searching for 2 minutes, rather than taking the 2 minutes to get a 20 point bonus to the roll. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 02:17 PM | jaspercrey, There are RPGs which have no dice. Many consider any form of dice rolling to be against the spirit of roleplaying. Someone could roleplay searching for traps in intricate detail -- blowing smoke, using thread, pouring water on the floor, etc, etc. In D&D you roll a d20, get a 4, and subsequently find nothing. Another player could say "I search for traps", roll a 19, and find it. Dice rolling is not a great mechanic either -- one which many argue is a much worse mechanic. But we are talking about D&D - which does require the Dice mechanic. |
| jaspercrey03-20-07, 02:28 PM | There is no realism here, but you NEED to be reasonable to be able to suspend disbelief effectively! And yes, forcing the die roll can not help but damage that. If these were d10,000's we were rolling and you needed to hammer 0001's twice in a row to screw up something that is almost as easy as falling off a log then you'd have a point. Isshia Guess what? I don't to NEED do anything for anyone but my players. None of them feel that by forcing a d20 roll when searching for traps I am being unreasonable or unrealistic in any way. In fact, THEY embrace it. You seem to be the only person concerned about reasonability. |
| Sereno03-20-07, 02:35 PM | You seem to be the only person concerned about reasonability. Actually, I made (pretty much) the same argument as Cantankerous somewhere earlier in this thread ... experts in their field don't fail at routine tasks 1 in 400 times, let alone 1 in 20! |
| Lindwyrm03-20-07, 04:03 PM | Well done them. Have any of them read the section on taking 10 and 20? Do you allow taking 20 on other skills? If so which? |
| Sereno03-20-07, 04:24 PM | Do you allow taking 20 on other skills? If so which? Any one that allows a retry. Just as the rules state. |
| starfire31103-20-07, 04:32 PM | Guess what? I don't to NEED do anything for anyone but my players. None of them feel that by forcing a d20 roll when searching for traps I am being unreasonable or unrealistic in any way. In fact, THEY embrace it. You seem to be the only person concerned about reasonability. Actually, I made (pretty much) the same argument as Cantankerous somewhere earlier in this thread ... experts in their field don't fail at routine tasks 1 in 400 times, let alone 1 in 20! Yes I am with sereno on this one. Experts do not routinly fail 1 in 20 times at their choosen field, I would love to mountain climbers fall to their deaths 1 in 20 times, there would be a lot less mountain climbers. However if the task of climbing a mountain or a particular part of a mountain is just beyond someones ability, they will never succeed either. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-20-07, 04:40 PM | So if they don't know whether or not they have failed or suceeded, why would they keep trying? Which is what makes the whole take 20 seem so silly to me. Tek 20 does not mean that the character knows he failed, it means that he exhausts every option, examines every nook in cranny in minute detail, within the limits of his abilities. This can be accomplished by rolling the check over and over again until you get a 20 and you, as a player, know that your PC cannot do any better or it can be accomplished, and the gameplay sped up, by using the Take 20 mechanic. That's it. It has nothing to do with the PC knowing whether he has succeeded or failed, it is just a mechanic used to speed up play, to avoid tedious die-rolling and to get on with the game. |
| PenderGrass03-20-07, 04:53 PM | Actually, I made (pretty much) the same argument as Cantankerous somewhere earlier in this thread ... experts in their field don't fail at routine tasks 1 in 400 times, let alone 1 in 20! Actually, they do. Experts fail in routine tasks all the time. If they didn't, shows like America's Wildest Videos and the like wouldn't have entertaining clips to broadcast all the time. Heck, even America's Funniest Videos has "experts" fail in the simple task of walking across a typical living room space (not that I am endorsing making people roll to walk across a typical inn's room). The point is, humans are very fallible. Believing otherwise is nothing more than hubris. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-20-07, 05:25 PM | Exactly, you never get xp for finding the trap, you only get the XP for getting passed it, one way or another. If you find a trap, then fail to disable it on a nat 20, but don't set it off, you can decide that it just isnt worth the risk and head back home, in this case you get no xp for finding the trap, since you don't get xp for finding traps, only overcoming them. The only time I can think of where finding a trap would award xp is if the act of finding it was the same act as overcoming it, and even then you would still be getting xp for overcomnig it and not for finding it. The XP is to help the PC players decide the right way in the DM's world. I don't see the players of his game on here saying it is wrong to give XP's in this way. Why don't you play in his world for a game or to and see if it is right or not. It IS the DM's choose to give XPs or not. (no one elses) |
| weasel003-20-07, 08:04 PM | Side note to all the "climbing experts": you can't take 20 where there is a penalty for failure. Falling from a failed climb check maybe leading to death means you can't take 20 for this so the example fails due to the "apples to oranges" senario. And as far as the "idiot dice" goes, why is it called a d20 game? (retoric) Think of the justice system(highly simplified). Person commits his actions. The courts judge his actions. The courts give him an appropriate(remember, highly simplified here) judgement. Some people hate the judgement that's handed down. Both justice(highly simplified) and fate are blind and so are the dice. Just cause you don't like the result doesn't mean the dice are idiotic. |
| Shatteredtower03-20-07, 10:30 PM | The only thing that would make taking 20 on a Search check metagame thinking would be acting on the player knowledge that nothing is going to interupt your check within the 2 minutes/square time frame. You may as well claim that casting bull's strength before going for a swim in rough water is metagaming. Fixing the value of a variable is just another way to modify it - no more, no less. |
| Lindwyrm03-20-07, 10:39 PM | *applaud* Of course, there is nothing to say you won't get interupted in that 2 minutes, and have to start from scratch, possibly having lost track of how far through the pattern of squares you are searching you have completed. |
| starfire31103-20-07, 11:28 PM | Actually, they do. Experts fail in routine tasks all the time. If they didn't, shows like America's Wildest Videos and the like wouldn't have entertaining clips to broadcast all the time. Heck, even America's Funniest Videos has "experts" fail in the simple task of walking across a typical living room space (not that I am endorsing making people roll to walk across a typical inn's room). The point is, humans are very fallible. Believing otherwise is nothing more than hubris. :dragon: **** ah but if they were concentrating and putting all their effort into walking across a typical living room space, I doubt they would fall, you see experts failing, when they don't take their time to do their absolute best. |
| starfire31103-20-07, 11:35 PM | The XP is to help the PC players decide the right way in the DM's world. I don't see the players of his game on here saying it is wrong to give XP's in this way. Why don't you play in his world for a game or to and see if it is right or not. It IS the DM's choose to give XPs or not. (no one elses) Yes you can also award xp for making skill checks, for just the heck of it, and in a recent thread here everyone replied that it was a very bad idea, I will also reply with the notion that just finding a trap, but failing to overcome it and rewarding xp for the trap anyway is also a very bad idea. BTW I highly doubt anyone actually gives XP for just finding the trap. One poster suggested that finding a trap was akin to overcoming it, I would say it is basically the same as rolling a spot check to notice an enemy at the beginning of an encounter, would you give xp for an encounter if the PCs failed to overcome the encounter, but succeeded on a spot check to notice it. Side note to all the "climbing experts": you can't take 20 where there is a penalty for failure. Falling from a failed climb check maybe leading to death means you can't take 20 for this so the example fails due to the "apples to oranges" senario. yes but you can take a 10, and this discussion is now onto the merits of take 10 and take 20. And as far as the "idiot dice" goes, why is it called a d20 game? (retoric) Think of the justice system(highly simplified). Person commits his actions. The courts judge his actions. The courts give him an appropriate(remember, highly simplified here) judgement. Some people hate the judgement that's handed down. Both justice(highly simplified) and fate are blind and so are the dice. Just cause you don't like the result doesn't mean the dice are idiotic.[/QUOTE] this would only apply if the judge actually rolled a die to see if what the punishment is. |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 12:33 AM | ah but if they were concentrating and putting all their effort into walking across a typical living room space, I doubt they would fall, you see experts failing, when they don't take their time to do their absolute best. Not always true, either. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 01:12 AM | The only thing that would make taking 20 on a Search check metagame thinking would be acting on the player knowledge that nothing is going to interupt your check within the 2 minutes/square time frame. And the player knowledge that the die roll is - in fact - a 20. Something that would normally not be privvy. You may as well claim that casting bull's strength before going for a swim in rough water is metagaming. Fixing the value of a variable is just another way to modify it - no more, no less. Bull's Strength doesn't "fix" any variable. It adds to the d20. Using the Bull's Strength in this manner is a solid, non-metagame, action. The result of Bull's Strength is something that is knowable in-game by the character ("it gives me strength"). The act of Taking 20 results in something that is not knowable in-game by the character ("I roll a die in another reality that allows me to accomplish things here"). For those of you that are harping on and on about experts and taking their time and so on - Bull Droppings. First, this isn't reality we are shooting for (if you are shooting for reality, your playing the wrong game). Second, an expert puts days and days into their training (if not years and years). This is represented by a character placing ranks in the applicable skill - and enhanced by the expert hedging bets against the worst by gaining as many bonuses as possible. The higher ranks and bonuses give a better chance of nothing untoward happening. Third, if the result of a natural 20 is equal to "doing my best to accomplish the task" - then, getting a natural 1 is equal to "doing my worst to accomplish the task." With those extremes, you make your character seem like a walking insane asylum - one round he is "doing his best" and the next "he is doing his worst." Wouldn't a so-called expert always "do his best to accomplish the task?" And if not, then explain why someone would do their worst. Finally, the question from JustinA: Is it the fact that you're rolling dice or the fact that you're increasing the capabilities of 1st level characters to munchkinesque extremes that makes your option less meta-gamey? It is the fact that when my players attempt something there is always a chance of making the "impossible" happen and the "guaranteed" fail. There is a reason why people look at the owner of the Titanic claiming that she was "unsinkable," to have said what is called "famous last words." There is also a reason why people tell the story of the Little Engine That Could. An integral part of humanity's need to believe in overcoming overwhelming odds and doing what is said can't be done. People readily identify with a chance of failure throughout history. People also readily identify with a chance of success - no matter the odds. I would go so far as to say to remove the random chance for either to happen weakens a game's believability. The only reasons I can think of for forsaking those chances is because the DM were too unmotivated to thinking on their feet when anything is possible, or, the DM were too rigid to give up their ability to know the outcome in these given situations. :dragon: **** |
| Lindwyrm03-21-07, 07:25 AM | The act of Taking 20 results in something that is not knowable in-game by the character ("I roll a die in another reality that allows me to accomplish things here"). Or alternatively : The act of spending 2 minutes searching an area to gain a circumstance bonus results in something that is not knowable in-game by the character ("I roll a die in another reality, and then add an amount dependant on how long I search, that allows me to accomplish things here"). |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 08:20 AM | I would go so far as to say to remove the random chance for either to happen weakens a game's believability. **** BINGO! Which is precisely why when it comes to combat a 1 is always a miss and a 20 is always a hit. In combat, there is always a chance. Why should it be any different for skills? Bravo Pender. |
| starfire31103-21-07, 08:43 AM | BINGO! Which is precisely why when it comes to combat a 1 is always a miss and a 20 is always a hit. In combat, there is always a chance. Why should it be any different for skills? Bravo Pender. please don't compare this to combat, And pender putting forth the whole notion that 20 = doing my best and 1 equals doing my worst is not what I am arguing about at least. Skills represent, what you have control over die roll represents what you don't have control over if you take your time and you are not distracted from doing your task you can remove the things you don't have control over from the equation. A character is always trying to do their best, at least that is what is assumed, in the given situation. If I only have 6 seconds to accomplish a task, then I still try my best but I may or may not do my best, because I didn't take my time, but there is still a chance for me to do the best possible for me. If given sufficient time to accomplish the task, and while attempting to do my best, it can be a near certainity that I will always get the best result possible for me. For me there is no luck involved in accomplishing most tasks when you are given enough time, it all comes done to skill. If I am better at something than someone else, for example painting minis, and we are both given sufficient time to do our work, and we are both trying our best, my work will always be better than theirs, there is no 1 in 20 chance that I screw up and some novice painter out paints me if I am a master. |
| catsclaw03-21-07, 08:56 AM | Side note to all the "climbing experts": you can't take 20 where there is a penalty for failure. Falling from a failed climb check maybe leading to death means you can't take 20 for this so the example fails due to the "apples to oranges" senario.No, but you can take 10. And virtually all the arguments presented against taking 20 equally apply to taking 10. I'm still waiting for those who don't let people take 20 explain whether they allow take 10. Especially in light of those classes which can take 10 on some skills even when threatened or distracted, like Warlocks and Dervishes. The only one who has is Pender, who apparently has never had anyone in his game ever take 10. And he didn't bother explaining whether he would let someone do it if they tried, or how he would modify the classes that can. |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 09:10 AM | No, but you can take 10. And virtually all the arguments presented against taking 20 equally apply to taking 10. I'm still waiting for those who don't let people take 20 explain whether they allow take 10. Especially in light of those classes which can take 10 on some skills even when threatened or distracted, like Warlocks and Dervishes. I don't allow taking 10 when searching for traps. But realize that I am only talking about using the search skill to find traps. While I agree with Pendergrass in that the take-20 mechanic is a bit meta-gamey, I have been arguing all along that I don't allow it in regards to searching to find a hidden trap only. Do I use the take 20 method (or take 10) with other skills? Of course. Why not with Searching for Traps specifically? Not because I feel it's meta-gamey. But because both my players and I want it that way. We all agree it makes the game more fun and challenging. Would I do the same with other skills? If everyone agreed and it somehow improved our enjoyment of the game - damn straight. |
| Sereno03-21-07, 09:20 AM | Heck, even America's Funniest Videos has "experts" fail in the simple task of walking across a typical living room space (not that I am endorsing making people roll to walk across a typical inn's room). The point is, humans are very fallible. Are you telling me that the funny stuff you see on AFV's happens 1 in 20 (or 1 in 400)? If so, there's a hell of a lot of guys taking tennis balls and baseballs to the nuts every day. While I agree with you that humans *are* fallible; experts are not fallible at the rate indicated by a single die roll or even open-ending rolling when taking their time in their chosen field. I'm not an expert driver but I drive almost every day and haven't had a accident in about 18 years ... by the dice, I should probably be getting in one wreck a year (or one a month, depending). Either that, or the DC for driving to work is so low that I'm always Taking 10 with a couple of ranks in Drive(car). |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 09:59 AM | Are you telling me that the funny stuff you see on AFV's happens 1 in 20 (or 1 in 400)? If so, there's a hell of a lot of guys taking tennis balls and baseballs to the nuts every day. While I agree with you that humans *are* fallible; experts are not fallible at the rate indicated by a single die roll or even open-ending rolling when taking their time in their chosen field. I'm not an expert driver but I drive almost every day and haven't had a accident in about 18 years ... by the dice, I should probably be getting in one wreck a year (or one a month, depending). Either that, or the DC for driving to work is so low that I'm always Taking 10 with a couple of ranks in Drive(car). Real life is real life. If your real life was more "fun" than D&D you probably wouldn't be playing rpgs as much as you do! In D&D, success and failure (and dozens of other things) are exaggerated - it wouldn't be a "game" if it were otherwise - or at least not a very fun one. D&D is not about "accurately simulating real-world laws and physics". D&D is about magic, adventure and heroics in worlds that don't exist. It is FANTASY role-playing game. Sure there should be some moderate degree or realism, and I want a believable game-world as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of fun and excitement and general "oh man, that was cool"-ness. |
| Cantankerous03-21-07, 10:14 AM | Actually, they do. Experts fail in routine tasks all the time. If they didn't, shows like America's Wildest Videos and the like wouldn't have entertaining clips to broadcast all the time. Heck, even America's Funniest Videos has "experts" fail in the simple task of walking across a typical living room space (not that I am endorsing making people roll to walk across a typical inn's room). The point is, humans are very fallible. Believing otherwise is nothing more than hubris. :dragon: **** I'll lay you a bet...one thousand dollars at ten to one odds that I can walk across a room four hundred times in a row without stumbling once, even on my crutches. One in one hundred thousand MAY have a point, it may still be too small a sampling, but it might have one. One in four hundred has NO realistic chance...and saying so is anything but hubris. The point that Sereno made about no accidents in 18 years can be exceeded by thirty years with my own uncle, and he's not even a decent driver, just an obsessively safe one. Isshia |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-21-07, 10:16 AM | Actually, they do. Experts fail in routine tasks all the time. If they didn't, shows like America's Wildest Videos and the like wouldn't have entertaining clips to broadcast all the time. If experts failed all the time then their failures would not be noteworthy enough to make a TV show out of. |
| Cantankerous03-21-07, 10:17 AM | Guess what? I don't to NEED do anything for anyone but my players. None of them feel that by forcing a d20 roll when searching for traps I am being unreasonable or unrealistic in any way. In fact, THEY embrace it. You seem to be the only person concerned about reasonability. Well, as we've seen, there are few (only you and Pender that I've seen) who don't give a hoot about resonability. Taking twenty times as long to perform an action can not feasibly, reasonably, be compared to combat. Although, if you want to stretch the analogy that far I'd be inclined to let the Player who gave up his first nineteen attack oppurtunities against the same opponent in a combat have an auto crit on the twentieth. At any rate, since what is being discussed is not, obviously, what you do in your own group, but which method is over all more sound and intelligent and useful I'd be inclined to go with what's reasonable over that which is not anytime, maybe especially in respect to this game. Isshia |
| Sereno03-21-07, 10:28 AM | Real life is real life. If your real life was more "fun" than D&D you probably wouldn't be playing rpgs as much as you do! In D&D, success and failure (and dozens of other things) are exaggerated - it wouldn't be a "game" if it were otherwise - or at least not a very fun one. D&D is not about "accurately simulating real-world laws and physics". D&D is about magic, adventure and heroics in worlds that don't exist. It is FANTASY role-playing game. Exactly. I play an expert rogue because I am not anything roguish in real life. However, I don't see anything fun or cool when my EXPERT PC fails routinely at tasks that even *I* could accomplish. Or, for that matter, at tasks that should be routine for him. An expert rogue, sitting at his workbench with all tools at hand and all the time he needs, should NEVER fail to open a lock (assuming a DC within said rogue's Disable Device). What's *fun* and *cool* is that he can sometimes do this same task while monsters are roaring and trying to eat him and magical spells are exploding around him IN SIX SECONDS! |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 12:10 PM | An expert rogue, sitting at his workbench with all tools at hand and all the time he needs, should NEVER fail to open a lock (assuming a DC within said rogue's Disable Device). I agree, which is why I allow the tak 20 option for open locks. |
| JustinA03-21-07, 12:50 PM | It's not about whether or not the take 20 option is meta-gaming.[/I][/B] Guh... what? Jaspercrey: "The player using the take 20 method is more meta-gamey because he is forgoing the variables of a d20 roll." (emphasis added) That was your last post to this thread. In a discussion which has been entirely about whether or not the take 20 mechanic is "meta-gamey". I thank you for your concession, but pretending that the discussion has never been about the topic of discussion is... well, it's bizarre. |
| JustinA03-21-07, 12:55 PM | But I don't stop looking for them in a particular 5x5' area after exactly 2 minutes because I now know that I have given it my best shot and either the keys aren't here or they are hidden too well for me to find, despite my best attempts. I keep looking for however long it takes to find them. So there is never, ever a point at which you conclude that something has been lost and you can't find it? If someone actually stole your car keys without you knowing it, you would be forever stuck in a "searching for my car keys" loop, unable to do anything else for the rest of your days? Of course not. The reality is that, when people are looking for something, they will frequently do a quick, cursory search (a single skill check). If they don't find it, they'll proceed with a more thorough search (take 20). After some period of time, they will conclude that they can't find it or there's nothing there to find. Now, you can argue that it's "meta-gamey" for the system to quantify exactly how much time a "thorough search" takes. But if you want to make that claim, then it means that the system is "meta-gamey" whenever it says "doing X takes Y amount of time". There are two problems with this: 1. It still means that PenderGrass' "solution" is still just as "meta-gamey" as the Take 20 mechanic. 2. It means that the term "metagame" has been rendered meaningless, since you are claiming that any time the rules of the game are used to resolve an action the players are engaging in "meta-gamey" behavior. Redefining terms in ways which render them meaningless and useless is not particularly productive. |
| JustinA03-21-07, 01:00 PM | I don't recall you ever sitting down at my table to play in my campaign, JustinA. Do not presume to know what occurs in the course of one of my sessions. For all you know it could be the most fun, challenging and exciting rpg experience you will ever have. You've already told us that your campaigns are so mind-numbingly boring that your PCs have nothing better to do with their time than spend entire afternoons studiously searching empty hallways. Maybe that's your idea of "fun, challenging, and exciting", but it's not mine. Thanks anyway. The fact that you actually make the players roll dice over and over and over again in order to simulate the sheer tedium of such an endeavor only makes it worse. On the other hand, it's possible that your campaigns are not actually like that. But if that's the case, your argument against the take 20 mechanic falls apart. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 01:27 PM | Skills represent, what you have control over die roll represents what you don't have control over if you take your time and you are not distracted from doing your task you can remove the things you don't have control over from the equation. Tell me again how someone can remove things they don't have control over? Seems to me, if someone can remove them - they do in fact have control over them. Which, again, throws everything in the face of what you feel is true. :dragon: **** |
| Sereno03-21-07, 01:36 PM | Tell me again how someone can remove things they don't have control over? I think all he's talking about is lowering or eliminating variables. For example looking for a trap in a freezing cold, slipperly, poorly lit passageway; just taking the roll is doing it under those conditions; the cold might affect you, your footing my affect you, the lighting might affect you ... you're just rolling. Just relying on your basic skill in the presence of all obstructions. You take your time, though and scatter a little gravel on the floor for better footing, get your wizard friend to warm the place up a little with a couple spells or just light a torch (which solves the lighting problem) ... these things could easily be reflected by circumstance bonuses tacked on by the DM -OR- by the player stating that they're Taking 20 to do the best possible job of eliminating possible causes for failure. There's really nothing more "metagame" about the player doing something to get bonuses or to get a particular die roll -- what the *PC* is actually doing is setting up the best possible "win conditions" for themselves. |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 01:46 PM | The only one who has is Pender, who apparently has never had anyone in his game ever take 10. And he didn't bother explaining whether he would let someone do it if they tried, or how he would modify the classes that can. Can I help it if my players would rather not use the Take 10 option? I figure I would probably not allow it if it ever became an issue - since it hasn't, and likely never will, it has become a non-issue. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 01:52 PM | I think all he's talking about is lowering or eliminating variables. No. He is talking about the removal of all variables and control of the universe. :dragon: **** |
| Descended03-21-07, 02:02 PM | Sounds to me Pendergrass should just make up a table of reasons a trap is unvoidably easier or more difficult than other, similarly designed traps (traps of the same construction and DC), and then allow his players to take 20. Roll on this Unexpected Circumstances and Freak Accidents chart to sometimes get a modifier (and, possibly, an in-game description). So, for example, 10% of the time a trap search and/or disable gets a +4 bonus. Maybe you have a chart of reasonable explanations for this bonus: evidence of recent triggering of the trap, previous experience with trap builders from the same school of gnomish defensive technology, a flash of insight into shortcuts the area's constructors may have taken, etc. With enough variablility in the bonuses and penalties, no particular trap that would otherwise be barely but always findable remains so, and no trap that is almost but never findable remains so. Using a bell curve roll for the modifer (such as rolling 2d6 and using the deviation from 7 as the modifier) would further a sense of realism, at least to me. |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 02:05 PM | Guh... what? Jaspercrey: "The player using the take 20 method is more meta-gamey because he is forgoing the variables of a d20 roll." (emphasis added) That was your last post to this thread. In a discussion which has been entirely about whether or not the take 20 mechanic is "meta-gamey". I thank you for your concession, but pretending that the discussion has never been about the topic of discussion is... well, it's bizarre. I am sorry that I haven't made myself clear. "The player using the take 20 method is more meta-gamey because he is forgoing the variables of a d20 roll." But that is not why I do not allow it my campaign. The fact that taking 20 to find traps is meta-gamey is not why I don't use it. I am simply in agreement with Pengergrass that it is meta-gamey. As for concession . . . I wasn't aware that we were in negotiations. I sorry that you feel the need to have turned this into a contest. All along I have said the following (and nothing more): Yes, taking 20 to search for traps is allowed by the RAW. Yes, I agree that the take 20 option, while allowable, is still meta-gamey. I do not employ the take 20 option when dealing with the Search for Hidden Traps scenerio only, because my players and myself prefer to roll. I am not trying to compete with anyone or change anyone else's mind. |
| jaspercrey03-21-07, 02:10 PM | You've already told us that your campaigns are so mind-numbingly boring that your PCs have nothing better to do with their time than spend entire afternoons studiously searching empty hallways. Maybe that's your idea of "fun, challenging, and exciting", but it's not mine. Thanks anyway. The fact that you actually make the players roll dice over and over and over again in order to simulate the sheer tedium of such an endeavor only makes it worse. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net Could you please refererence exactly where it was that I told you my campiagns were are so mind-numbingly boring that my PCs have nothing better to do with their time than spend entire afternoons studiously searching empty hallways? Could please reference the exact post that I said I actually make the players roll dice over and over and over again in order to simulate the sheer tedium of such an endeavor. I don't recall telling you any of this. Perhaps I am mistaken. Then again, perhaps you should be careful not to make a lair out of yourself. |
| Tzor03-21-07, 02:46 PM | By the rules this is possible, and if this was done in a game where I was DM I would allow it, but part of me would be jumping up and down screaming wildly. In my not so humbe opinion, take 20 makes an assumption but never spells it out. It assumes that there is a known criteria for success. If you are picking a lock, opening the lock is success. If you are crafting an item, the crafted item is success. After a while one can eaily determine if success is possible or just out of your reach. But what is success in a search? If you fail to spot something is it because you didn't look properly or because there was nothing there to spot? And what if there are multiple things that you could spot? Is success really the point where you should stop? But in the end I allow it because if you really are wasting all that time on somthing as stupid as taking 20 everywhere you go, I have far more nastier things to do to you. :devil: |
| Sereno03-21-07, 03:08 PM | But what is success in a search? If you fail to spot something is it because you didn't look properly or because there was nothing there to spot? And what if there are multiple things that you could spot? Is success really the point where you should stop? I think I can speak for most of the pro-Take-20 crowd by saying that the main use of Taking 20 on a Search is best used when you are already suspicious and you want to be sure that their is either A) really nothing there -OR- B) if it IS there, it's hidden too well for you to find. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to go through an entire dungeon Taking-20 for every 5' the party walks. However, when you find a big iron-bound and heavily-decorated chest in the back of the BBEG's closet, that's were taking your time (and 20) is warranted. For some of us, the concept of "taking longer to be sure" doesn't feel like it's being any more metagamey than any other rule. That's, for me, the biggest beef I've got with Pender ... I could care less how he plays HIS game, but when you start throwing the "metagame" term around that's really darn close to saying that "my way is better than yours" ... I disagree (as do others). I'm not trying to change the way Pender plays his game -- it's obviously working for him -- I'm just stating the case that Take-20 is no more-or-less metagamey than other methods (his included). |
| starfire31103-21-07, 04:04 PM | No. He is talking about the removal of all variables and control of the universe. :dragon: **** not exactly removing all variables, but it would definatly reduce the variablity so much so that you would almost certainly achieve within 5% of your best possible result every time. |
| starfire31103-21-07, 04:12 PM | I think I can speak for most of the pro-Take-20 crowd by saying that the main use of Taking 20 on a Search is best used when you are already suspicious and you want to be sure that their is either A) really nothing there -OR- B) if it IS there, it's hidden too well for you to find. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to go through an entire dungeon Taking-20 for every 5' the party walks. However, when you find a big iron-bound and heavily-decorated chest in the back of the BBEG's closet, that's were taking your time (and 20) is warranted. For some of us, the concept of "taking longer to be sure" doesn't feel like it's being any more metagamey than any other rule. That's, for me, the biggest beef I've got with Pender ... I could care less how he plays HIS game, but when you start throwing the "metagame" term around that's really darn close to saying that "my way is better than yours" ... I disagree (as do others). I'm not trying to change the way Pender plays his game -- it's obviously working for him -- I'm just stating the case that Take-20 is no more-or-less metagamey than other methods (his included). exactly, IMO take 20 is not metagaming at all, the Character just sees it as taking his time, take 20 is the mechanic used to represent this. It is just like any other action in game that has an out of game mechanic associated with it, the only metagame part of the take 20 mechanic is that it takes exactly 20 times longer to accomplish the task than it normally would. |
| Ace_of_time03-21-07, 05:54 PM | Yes you can also award xp for making skill checks, for just the heck of it, and in a recent thread here everyone replied that it was a very bad idea, I will also reply with the notion that just finding a trap, but failing to overcome it and rewarding xp for the trap anyway is also a very bad idea. BTW I highly doubt anyone actually gives XP for just finding the trap. One poster suggested that finding a trap was akin to overcoming it, I would say it is basically the same as rolling a spot check to notice an enemy at the beginning of an encounter, would you give xp for an encounter if the PCs failed to overcome the encounter, but succeeded on a spot check to notice it.. Ok as I said before I don't give full XP on just find the trap I giv 25% for find and 75% for disarms. The XP is so I as DM don't have 400n house rules so I can say If you take a 20 NO xp If you roll play finding the trap than you get a bonus. Sometimes I like to let them decide what is right for themselfs. I hate having to tell them what to do all the time. this way I don't seem so bossy.what the bad part of that? |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 06:41 PM | not exactly removing all variables.... Without the d20 roll, all variables have been eliminated - since the d20 is the only variable in the equation for these situations. :dragon: **** |
| starfire31103-21-07, 06:46 PM | Without the d20 roll, all variables have been eliminated - since the d20 is the only variable in the equation for these situations. :dragon: **** yeah pretty much, this is due to the D20 being way too coarse of a variable to represent the situation. Basically in this situation a person should be rolling somewhere between 98-100% of there maximum achievable result, a D20 just cant represent this. |
| weasel003-21-07, 08:00 PM | I think really my biggest beef is the amount of in-game time that some players waste that others want to use role-playing their characters. I really don't have anything against the whole bonus for taking 20x longer or even allowing the Take 20 when you're highly suspicious of an area(ie: BBEG treasure trove) and taking into account extra modifiers(aid another). What I do have an issue with is a player taking 20 on every square in every room and hallway becasue the munchkin or min/maxer in him(i do play with all guys) knows that this will yeild the highest gp/xp availible in the campain. If I remove the Take 20, they can't waste my time with it and we can get our game moving in a forward direction in story. |
| Elthbert03-21-07, 08:10 PM | I don't think I'd allow taking 20 for trap finding. Not finding a trap definately carries a penalty. Searching a body or searching a room for loot is different. Not finding loot doesn't result in being stabbed in the face, as may be the case with not finding a trap. I would allow taking 10, but not taking 20. I agree. |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 08:28 PM | yeah pretty much, this is due to the D20 being way too coarse of a variable to represent the situation. Basically in this situation a person should be rolling somewhere between 98-100% of there maximum achievable result, a D20 just cant represent this. Hence the reason I use the modified open-ended d20, so that a character that is an "expert" has a very minor chance of failure and an overwhelming chance of success. The chance is there for either outcome - always. It creates tension in the play of the game. It gives the game much more believability (see the above post dealing with the need for people to know there is always a chance of either outcome). And, it also encourages players to take chances they might otherwise forego. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-21-07, 08:40 PM | I think really my biggest beef is the amount of in-game time that some players waste that others want to use role-playing their characters. I really don't have anything against the whole bonus for taking 20x longer or even allowing the Take 20 when you're highly suspicious of an area(ie: BBEG treasure trove) and taking into account extra modifiers(aid another). What I do have an issue with is a player taking 20 on every square in every room and hallway becasue the munchkin or min/maxer in him(i do play with all guys) knows that this will yeild the highest gp/xp availible in the campain. If I remove the Take 20, they can't waste my time with it and we can get our game moving in a forward direction in story. On a side note, I was playing in an RPGA tournament where someone wanted to Take 20. This was all fine and dandy - since RPGA uses Take 20. The problem was the Take 20 character (a rogue searching for traps) didn't take into account that we had an impatient half-orc barbarian in the group. Rogue: I take 20 to search the area in front of us for traps. DM: Okay, that takes you about 10 minutes. So, after you are done- Half-Orc: Wait a sec! We are sitting here for how long? DM: About 10 minutes..., but, we- Half-Orc: F*** THAT! I barge past the rogue and yell at him for taking so long - stupid rogues! Rogue & DM: :uh-huh: Everyone Else: :rofl: :clap: :bow: It just goes to show you, even sometimes when the rogue's taking so much time in-game and only a matter of seconds IRL, people sometimes forget to role-play out how their characters would actually react to sitting around for minutes and minutes (if not hours) while the rogue is carefully picking through each piece of lint on some stupid floor. :dragon: **** |
| Lindwyrm03-21-07, 09:08 PM | Ok as I said before I don't give full XP on just find the trap I giv 25% for find and 75% for disarms. The XP is so I as DM don't have 400n house rules so I can say If you take a 20 NO xp If you roll play finding the trap than you get a bonus. Sometimes I like to let them decide what is right for themselfs. I hate having to tell them what to do all the time. this way I don't seem so bossy.what the bad part of that? So on this principle you won't give the party experience for being careful, and taking their time to check for dangerous situations? What about if the characters take time to prepare for other dangers, such as buffing up on fire protection before going near a red dragon? Do you cut the XP for this too? |
| Ace_of_time03-21-07, 10:22 PM | So on this principle you won't give the party experience for being careful, and taking their time to check for dangerous situations? What about if the characters take time to prepare for other dangers, such as buffing up on fire protection before going near a red dragon? Do you cut the XP for this too? Normally no I don't but If they kill the dragon they are going after in 2 rounds when it should take at least 10 a would think about it. But I also like to keep them on there toes so I would more than likely put some sorc levels on the dragon so as to be make sure it was a challenge. For me it is all about the story. And taking a long time outside the game to make a better storyline inside the game is better for me. For me A hallway full of traps is sub post to slow them down in the game so I like to make the players feel like it is taking forever to get to the end of the hallway. Taking a 20 cuts the time they are taking at the table in half. Why should I lose one of my best story tools just to make it faster on them when the whole point is for the player to feel like it is taking forever. It is not always about the rules sometimes you as DM have to think about the game's story first. |
| Elthbert03-21-07, 10:39 PM | So on this principle you won't give the party experience for being careful, and taking their time to check for dangerous situations? What about if the characters take time to prepare for other dangers, such as buffing up on fire protection before going near a red dragon? Do you cut the XP for this too? Did they make a knowledge arcane check to determine that red dragons breath fire? If yes then I would not think an XP penalty is in order, if no then they are meta gaming and they're getting an XP hit. |
| JustinA03-22-07, 01:43 AM | Could you please refererence exactly where it was that I told you my campiagns were are so mind-numbingly boring that my PCs have nothing better to do with their time than spend entire afternoons studiously searching empty hallways? If that isn't the case, then why are you so worried about the take 20 mechanic? If the PCs don't have the time to take advantage of it every single time they want to search a hallway, then you haven't actually removed dice rolling from the game. Could please reference the exact post that I said I actually make the players roll dice over and over and over again in order to simulate the sheer tedium of such an endeavor. You don't force yor players to reroll the dice repeatedly instead of using the Take 20 mechanic to represent attempting the same task repeatedly? Then again, perhaps you should be careful not to make a lair out of yourself. If you're seriously claiming that you never advocated removing the take 20 mechanic so that your players would be forced to roll the dice, then the only liar here is you. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-22-07, 01:51 AM | That's, for me, the biggest beef I've got with Pender ... I could care less how he plays HIS game, but when you start throwing the "metagame" term around that's really darn close to saying that "my way is better than yours" ... I disagree (as do others). The problem with Pender is that he honestly believes that when his players say "I take my time to make sure I've thoroughly searched the room", that's not metagaming. But when somebody else's players say, "I take my time and make sure I've thoroughly searched the room", that's metagaming. The fact that the two decisions are IDENTICAL is apparently lost on Pender. The real problem, however, is that Pender and his ilk are using the word "meta-gamey", but what they actually mean is "not a member of the holy cult of dice worshippers". They honestly seem to think that any mechanic which doesn't involve rolling dice violates some vital principle of game design. One can only imagine what they must make of a game like Chess. |
| JustinA03-22-07, 01:54 AM | If I remove the Take 20, they can't waste my time with it and we can get our game moving in a forward direction in story. I find this assertion so bizarre it demands comment: The Take 20 mechanic REDUCES the amount of time wasted by zealous searchers. More specifically, it reduces the amount of time the players need to spend resolving a meticulous search. If you eliminate the take 20 mechanic, the only other option is for the players to roll the dice over and over and over again until they're sure they've searched as thoroughly as they can possibly search. Take 20 can be abused. But it can only be abused if the DM fails to enforce the consequences of taking 20: The time it takes to perform a task with such thoroughness. |
| JustinA03-22-07, 01:57 AM | For me A hallway full of traps is sub post to slow them down in the game so I like to make the players feel like it is taking forever to get to the end of the hallway. Taking a 20 cuts the time they are taking at the table in half. Why should I lose one of my best story tools just to make it faster on them when the whole point is for the player to feel like it is taking forever. It is not always about the rules sometimes you as DM have to think about the game's story first. There are better ways to do this than pointlessly rerolling the same skill check over and over and over again. Again, the trick is to emphasize the time involved. When the rogue says he's going to take 20 to search a 10' x 50' hallway, ask the other players what they're doing during the 40 minutes that the rogue is combing over that hallway. Make a random encounter check. Ask the characters to make Spot and Listen checks. Sometimes the rogue's meticulous search should be interrupted; in other cases there should just be the paranoia that they might be discovered. |
| weasel003-22-07, 02:08 AM | Rogue: I take 20 to search the area in front of us for traps. DM: Okay, that takes you about 10 minutes. So, after you are done- Half-Orc: Wait a sec! We are sitting here for how long? DM: About 10 minutes..., but, we- Half-Orc: F*** THAT! I barge past the rogue and yell at him for taking so long - stupid rogues! Rogue & DM: :uh-huh: Everyone Else: :rofl: :clap: :bow: :dragon: **** Look. I even quoted the dragon. This is what I wish they would do. But no, my group consists of min/maxers and munchkins and powergamers to the exclusion of role-playing.Disclaimer: There's nothing wrong with building a character in a certain direction. It should simply be balanced. All I wish for is a little immersion from the players; a little common sense in where they utilize the Take 20, not: Rogue: I take 20 to search this square and then I'll move on to the next. Myself: Okay, you don't find anything there. Rogue: I take 20 to search this square and then I'll move on to the next. Myself: Okay, you don't find anything there. Rogue: I take 20 to search this square and then I'll move on to the next. Myself: Okay, you don't find anything there. Rogue: I take 20 to search this square and then I'll move on to the next. Myself: Okay, you don't find anything there. How many more times are you gonna do this? Rogue: How big was this room again? Sure it's saved me the time of having him roll 20 times per square, but it still doesn't save me from the headaches of the meta-gaming mindset my players have. Yes. I know about the interruptions. My group is 10 strong + DM. The party deals with whatever I try and interrupt them with and then simply starts over with slightly more xp than before. If I wanted to have people taking 20 on squares all night, I'd go play Wolfenstein 3d or Duke Nukem and run along all the walls holding the space bar down so I'm 100% likely to find all the secret doors. Now if they've explored a few rooms, taking the time to map, and find there seems to be enough room "here" for another room and the want to take 20s searching the walls then okay, that doesn't bother me. That's an in game reason. Simply taking 20 on searching everything is meta-gaming because it's the player assuming the DM must have put something somewhere, and by George he's gonna make sure his character finds it. Just as the DnD example is there must be a way around this cause the DM wouldn't put in anything we couldn't get around. |
| Cantankerous03-22-07, 02:21 AM | The above is one of the reasons for arguing about reasonability. It simply isn't reasonable that such exacting care will be taken in ALMOST any situation. If you're fairly sure that death is on the line if you fail, RIGHT NOW, you take your time, otherwise it's ludicrous to do so. Thankfully a smart DM has his own answer to that. The opposotion isn't sitting on it's undead hands in most tombs while yo spend three hours on a given wall. There is always something that can be done to bugger the idiot who tries it and the opposition will gladly do so. In any given assault situation the first thing is the alarm. In low level dungeons it's the one kobold out of the eight in the room who immediately races away to raise the alram, in a higher level one it's a spell or a guardian creature instructed to do so or whatever else, the point being, now the clock is ticking. You don't take unlimited time unless the opposition is ALL just traps and mindless creatures (which would be a brain dead way for a powerful whatever to guard a tomb or treasure house anyway). If the situation arises that the Players are taking advantage of the take 20 rule it is only half their fault...the other half doesn't belong to the rule either, but to the DM; the poorly skilled unthinking DM. Isshia |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 07:23 AM | Simply taking 20 on searching everything is meta-gaming because it's the player assuming the DM must have put something somewhere, and by George he's gonna make sure his character finds it. Just as the DnD example is there must be a way around this cause the DM wouldn't put in anything we couldn't get around.That's not a problem with the Take 20 mechanic; that's a player decision that could just as easily be modelled by the player saying "I'll search until I'm satisfied" and then rolling the Search check. Hundreds of times. Or worse, the DM rolling the Search check in secret hundreds of times. How such a player decides to stop - that is a metagame decision, because he likely won't do so until he rolls a 20 (which is why DMs should really roll Search checks in secret anyway). That (I think) is what PenderGrass is so opposed to. However, "taking 20" doesn't actually involve rolling until the player gets a 20, but rather eliminating chance as a factor in what the character is doing. With Search in particular, the idea that the character is performing the same action over and over again is not really that reasonable, when you stop and think about it. It's more likely that the searcher is performing a series of checks to detect different typical trap features - moving the viewing angle slowly to check for irregularities using perspective tricks, light testing for the stone being unevenly set, visual inspection for holes a scythe might spring out of - that he can do in six seconds in a less thorough fashion. Six seconds is a fast scan; two minutes is a slow, deliberate examination that misses nothing the character is capable of finding. You change the player's mentality by making him realise that while he's fixated on finding this trap that may or may not exist, his fellows have just participated in a rousing little fight outside the room that's earned them xp, and he didn't because he refused to get involved. Or he gets back to his base to find that the dungeon denizens have managed to get him framed for a crime; so he's simply seized and put into jail Or he runs out of food as the dungeon is so big. |
| Leilond03-22-07, 07:57 AM | Usually the problem "I won't allow 'take 20' on traps" happens because or the "timing" Take 20 in search require 2 minutes each 5'x5' square. In a tipical 10x10 room, it require 3 hours and 20 minutes. In a tipical 500-1000 square dungeon (10-20 rooms) it require 16-32 hours. In a big multilevel dungeon it could require several days only to search for traps... and the party have to search for secret doors too! More than a week "only for searching"!!! Sure it could be done, but do the party have always so much time? Do your quest never must be resolved in a limited amount of time? Do you dungeon have some big bosses that can use this "wasted time" to prepare and ambush very well your party? Isn't there an hostage that could be sacrificed if the party do not reach the "final room" before sunrise? The rule admit to take 20 in searching for traps in a square before entering it. You can house rule different if you don't like, but I always suggest to use the "timing" to prevent that instead of changing the rules... because I change the rules only when "necessary" and never because "I don't want to think how to do it within the rules" |
| jaspercrey03-22-07, 08:13 AM | If that isn't the case, then why are you so worried about the take 20 mechanic? If the PCs don't have the time to take advantage of it every single time they want to search a hallway, then you haven't actually removed dice rolling from the game. I have repeatedly explained my issues with the take 20 mechanic. To say that I a "worried" about it is an overstatement. This thread is about the use the take-20 search skill to find traps. Like you, I am simply offering my opinion on the subject. You don't force yor players to reroll the dice repeatedly instead of using the Take 20 mechanic to represent attempting the same task repeatedly? Absolutely not. Only on skills that are except from the take-20 option. And of course, the use of the search skill when searching for hidden traps. Note that I still allow the take 20 option when searching for secret doors or ransacking chests for treasure. If you're seriously claiming that you never advocated removing the take 20 mechanic so that your players would be forced to roll the dice, then the only liar here is you. I once claimed that if I were a game designer I would add a variable element to the take 20 mechanic - insted of 2 minutes it should be a random number, from 1-6 minutes. At least there is some degree of randomness with that suggestion. However, if you read my posts you will see the following: I am in agreement with pendergrass that the take 20 option is a bit meta-gamey. (Please don't ask me how. Pendergrass' explanation should be sufficient. I'm sorry if you don't like it.) Also, I do not allow the take 20 option specifically when using the search skill to find traps. That is the only time where I have removed it. You make it sound like I am trying to convince the gaming world that I want the take 20 option striken from the core rulebooks, in regards to every skill. That is just simply not the case. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net[/QUOTE] |
| Leilond03-22-07, 08:26 AM | You're perfectly free to remove/add any rule from the PHB You added the rule "Take 20 rule cannot be used to search for trapple" I do not agree with that, but it's a matter of personal opinions. I prefer to play by the RAW in this situation and I prefer to put "speed needs" to block the "overuse" of the rule. If the quest must be accomplished before sunrise and the sunrise will arrive within 2 hours, the thief cannot "take 20 for traps" in a 10x6 room, because it will require 120 minutes... The thief must wisely choose where to use it... that isn't "metagaming" at all: in front of a treasure chest it is perfectly "in-game" that the thief use all his skill and attention to find for traps. It is a DM job to put "traps" where the thief do not think there could be and do not put them where it is obvious they must be. Another issue is the "realism". Are the other characters (not players) happy to wait 6 hours for the thief to search that 20x10 room? They must "role-play" this. If they role-play that issue correctly there isn't nothing bad. But if the half-orc barbarian simply say "ok, we will wait without doing nothing 6 hour while you search for traps in this room and another 6 hour to search for secret doors" I will penalize the party for "bad roling", not for "bad rule using" |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 09:08 AM | And taking a long time outside the game to make a better storyline inside the game is better for me. For me A hallway full of traps is sub post to slow them down in the game so I like to make the players feel like it is taking forever to get to the end of the hallway. Taking a 20 cuts the time they are taking at the table in half. And this is the role that the take 20 rule is meant to have! It is meant to stop the game being slowed down by repeated rolling for finding stuff. After all, I as myself like to get on and do stuff because we can only play for 3-4 hours, and I have to make a special effort to get to my games. I do not want to spend an hour while the rogue searches, have a fight, then spend another hour while the rogue searches for traps again. Now, as my character I may have harsh words with the rogue if he is searching every 5 feet unnecessarily, but if we "know" there is a secret door or a trap in a particular area (by seeing it triggered and resetting, or because the kobold we captured two rooms back told us where the trap is, I'd expect him to take the necessary time. (Unless I am playing really low WIS, easily bored characters of course, but all that takes is the rest of the party to find a way to keep me off the rogue's back :)). The idea of the game is fun, and it is not fun to have the players bored as the rogue makes roll after roll on a particular area, or even on a succession of areas. The idea in the quote leads to the concept that the players have to take 2 minutes doing stuff whilst the rogue does his search, as otherwise how do you get the feeling of time passing? I much prefer the option of "OK, the rogue starts searching, from experience it'll take about a hour to check the room out. What are you all doing in that time?" Usually in my case, that'll be have the characters make a hot drink if we can afford to have a fire, or keep a watch for anything sneaking up behind us. If we're really confident we've cleared anything behind us out, I might have my character take the others on at cards or dice. You don't force yor players to reroll the dice repeatedly instead of using the Take 20 mechanic to represent attempting the same task repeatedly? Absolutely not. Only on skills that are except from the take-20 option. And of course, the use of the search skill when searching for hidden traps. Note that I still allow the take 20 option when searching for secret doors or ransacking chests for treasure. OK, but then the same objections come up: how do you know you have failed to find the secret door, rather than looking in the wrong place? What if finding the secret door would be dangerous as when opened a monster will step out and hit you (read as equivalent to finding the trap would be dangerous as it might go off). |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 09:11 AM | But if the half-orc barbarian simply say "ok, we will wait without doing nothing 6 hour while you search for traps in this room and another 6 hour to search for secret doors" I will penalize the party for "bad roling", not for "bad rule using" So do Barbarians have to have no patience? What about a high wisdom Barbarian? Surely he'd have the sense to wait whilst the party expert in the field checks for danger, and then tries to find the way further on, in to the BBEG's lair. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 09:53 AM | There are better ways to do this than pointlessly rerolling the same skill check over and over and over again. Again, the trick is to emphasize the time involved. When the rogue says he's going to take 20 to search a 10' x 50' hallway, ask the other players what they're doing during the 40 minutes that the rogue is combing over that hallway. Make a random encounter check. Ask the characters to make Spot and Listen checks. Sometimes the rogue's meticulous search should be interrupted; in other cases there should just be the paranoia that they might be discovered. I have a very simple rule at my table--- you check for traps, if you don't find any traps ----- YOU BELIEVE there are no traps. Why would you check over and over and over, you checked, there weren't any, move along. Now if you know there is a trap and are just searching to find it, well then I have no problem with taking a 20 but this idea that you would keep searching over and over and over and over is stupid--- the Character doesn't know they didn't roll a 20. Takinga 20 when searching for traps IS metagaming because there is no ingame method of determining that you have succeded or failed until you move on and get wacked by a trap. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 09:59 AM | There are better ways to do this than pointlessly rerolling the same skill check over and over and over again. Again, the trick is to emphasize the time involved. When the rogue says he's going to take 20 to search a 10' x 50' hallway, ask the other players what they're doing during the 40 minutes that the rogue is combing over that hallway. Make a random encounter check. Ask the characters to make Spot and Listen checks. Sometimes the rogue's meticulous search should be interrupted; in other cases there should just be the paranoia that they might be discovered. Again, as I have posted before they only get one check to find it if they don't they don't, if they do they do. No matter what anyone post on here the only way the Players are going to know if their is a trap there is if the DM says you find a trap. They have no reason what so ever to search a hallway for 40 mins unless someone in game has told them there is trap down here. The boss could have put the dead thing/things there and are watch them laughing as they waste 40 searching this hallway. I do in deed use these other things to help move them along. They don' have to search a 100 times in the same spot. That is their option not mine. They can always take a 10 which means they take there time. ALL THE TAKE 20 THING MEANS IS THEY WILL KEEP SEARCHING THE SAME SPOT UNTIL THE FIND SOMETHING Besides they would have to say they were taking a 20 for each space with this hallway thats 20 differant take 20 checks and waiting on the DM to tell them what the result is for each one. In my games it wouldn't be any faster at the table. The only reason for the take 20 (in my games) is to make sure they find every little thing. And that is matagaming. (to me) |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 10:11 AM | No matter what anyone post on here the only way the Players are going to know if their is a trap there is if the DM says you find a trap. They have no reason what so ever to search a hallway for 40 mins unless someone in game has told them there is trap down here. The boss could have put the dead thing/things there and are watch them laughing as they waste 40 searching this hallway. The only way you know is if the DM has said, yes. The characters suspecting there is a trap there because some lying prisoner has told them or they have a map that shows trap locations and deliberately stopping to take the extra time is reasonable, especially if the BBEG has taken the time to have bodies and stuff put there to look like a trap. The rogue starts taking time to search, and at this point the ambush kicks off, or the BBEG is taking that time to pack and leave, intending to come back and fight the party on his own terms. They can always take a 10 which means they take there time. Take 10 is still a normal length use of the skill, so takes 6 seconds for search. Besides they would have to say they were taking a 20 for each space with this hallway thats 20 differant take 20 checks and waiting on the DM to tell them what the result is for each one. "OK, what I'm going to do is go along the corridor, taking 20 to check each square until I either get to the end of the corridor or find something. That'll be a 40." Takes only a little longer to say than "I'm checking the first square and taking 20. That's a 40" would do, but is a clear indication of intent, and the DM can either interrupt at any point with his ambush, or can just let the player know that 5 squares down the corridor (10 minutes in) he found smoething suspicious, and tell him what it is. The only reason for the take 20 (in my games) is to make sure they find every little thing. And that is matagaming. (to me) So you do consider it metagaming to use a character's abilities in a way consistent with his training, and allowing him to take his time to make sure no traps have been placed on a box, when it is entirely reasonable to think that the BBEG may have trapped his box o'stuff to stop people stealing it? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:13 AM | Again, as I have posted before they only get one check to find it if they don't they don't, if they do they do. No matter what anyone post on here the only way the Players are going to know if their is a trap there is if the DM says you find a trap. They have no reason what so ever to search a hallway for 40 mins unless someone in game has told them there is trap down here. The boss could have put the dead thing/things there and are watch them laughing as they waste 40 searching this hallway. I do in deed use these other things to help move them along. They don' have to search a 100 times in the same spot. That is their option not mine. They can always take a 10 which means they take there time. ALL THE TAKE 20 THING MEANS IS THEY WILL KEEP SEARCHING THE SAME SPOT UNTIL THE FIND SOMETHING Besides they would have to say they were taking a 20 for each space with this hallway thats 20 differant take 20 checks and waiting on the DM to tell them what the result is for each one. In my games it wouldn't be any faster at the table. The only reason for the take 20 (in my games) is to make sure they find every little thing. And that is matagaming. (to me) No it's not just metagaming to you--- it is metagaming. THey checked there as no trap, move along. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:19 AM | The only way you know is if the DM has said, yes. The characters suspecting there is a trap there because some lying prisoner has told them or they have a map that shows trap locations and deliberately stopping to take the extra time is reasonable, especially if the BBEG has taken the time to have bodies and stuff put there to look like a trap. The rogue starts taking time to search, and at this point the ambush kicks off, or the BBEG is taking that time to pack and leave, intending to come back and fight the party on his own terms. Take 10 is still a normal length use of the skill, so takes 6 seconds for search. "OK, what I'm going to do is go along the corridor, taking 20 to check each square until I either get to the end of the corridor or find something. That'll be a 40." Takes only a little longer to say than "I'm checking the first square and taking 20. That's a 40" would do, but is a clear indication of intent, and the DM can either interrupt at any point with his ambush, or can just let the player know that 5 squares down the corridor (10 minutes in) he found smoething suspicious, and tell him what it is. So you do consider it metagaming to use a character's abilities in a way consistent with his training, and allowing him to take his time to make sure no traps have been placed on a box, when it is entirely reasonable to think that the BBEG may have trapped his box o'stuff to stop people stealing it? If they have a map or a captive then that is a incharacter reason to think they missed something, butthere is absolutly NO reason why they should think that under normal circumstances. So you do consider it metagaming to use a character's abilities in a way consistent with his training, and allowing him to take his time to make sure no traps have been placed on a box, when it is entirely reasonable to think that the BBEG may have trapped his box o'stuff to stop people stealing it? This is the quote I have issue with. Is it metagaming to think that the box may be traped? No. Is it metagaming to check for them? No. Is it metagaming for your character to KNOW that if they spend 2 minutes they cannot possibly fail? Yes. They get a check, if they don't find any traps, and they have no additional KNOWLEDGE of traps then they should BELIEVE there are no traps--- anything else is indeed metagaming. |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 10:24 AM | No it's not just metagaming to you--- it is metagaming. THey checked there as no trap, move along.No, metagaming is using out-of-game knowledge to affect in-game decisions. If the characters have reason to suspect a trap - visual cues, information received, or simply that this is where they would place a trap - then searching thoroughly is not metagaming. Taking 20 is not metagaming. The only thing that would be metagaming in such a case would be stating that the character is sure there are no traps because he rolled high on the dice, when the character would say something else if he'd rolled low. Saying "No, I'm not sure - I'll check thoroughly" is not metagaming - it is reasonable caution. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 10:26 AM | No it's not just metagaming to you--- it is metagaming. THey checked there as no trap, move along. The rule mechanic of taking 20 is in there to allow for someone taking time to check that they have done their absolute best. For example, when playing football as a child, have you ever seen the ball go towards somewhere you no has a lot of weeds, lost sight of the ball and then tried to search the patch of weeds? Did you after a few seconds go "No, we can't find it" and walk away? Or, rather did you carefully prod the weeds, trying to find safe footing to get deeper into the weeds, making sure that you wouldn't trip over roots, get scratched by thorns, carefully probing all the way to look for the ball and any hazards? Because that approach is akin to the "metagame" decision to keep looking for something that you are sure is there. The take 20 mechanic then specifies what you get for taking that time. If they have a map or a captive then that is a incharacter reason to think they missed something, butthere is absolutly NO reason why they should think that under normal circumstances. If my group insist on taking 20 on every square of the "dungeon", then as stated earlier it will take ages, and all that time, the inhabitants can be gathering their forces and ready to attack en masse. Also, in a patrolled dungeon you can't afford the time, or you will be interrupted. This is the quote I have issue with. Is it metagaming to think that the box may be traped? No. Is it metagaming to check for them? No. Is it metagaming for your character to KNOW that if they spend 2 minutes they cannot possibly fail? Yes. They get a check, if they don't find any traps, and they have no additional KNOWLEDGE of traps then they should BELIEVE there are no traps--- anything else is indeed metagaming. Is it meta gaming to know that you can get better results by being calm and taking your time than to just give it a quick look over and then decide it's safe? This is all the mechanic allows for. If you don;t like it, then propose an alternative in a thread on homebrew, and post a link to it here. Then we can discuss the merits of different suggetions. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:27 AM | No, metagaming is using out-of-game knowledge to affect in-game decisions. If the characters have reason to suspect a trap - visual cues, information received, or simply that this is where they would place a trap - then searching thoroughly is not metagaming. Taking 20 is not metagaming. The only thing that would be metagaming in such a case would be stating that the character is sure there are no traps because he rolled high on the dice, when the character would say something else if he'd rolled low. Saying "No, I'm not sure - I'll check thoroughly" is not metagaming - it is reasonable caution. No it is not, because taking 20 assumes that you know you did not do your best. THe character has no knowledge of the dice roll, that is player knowledge. THe only way taking 20 is not metagaming is when a character can have knwledge of thier failure. Since not finding something presents you no such knowledge, you would have to know in advance that there indeed was a trap to justify taking a 20. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:35 AM | The rule mechanic of taking 20 is in there to allow for someone taking time to check that they have done their absolute best. For example, when playing football as a child, have you ever seen the ball go towards somewhere you no has a lot of weeds, lost sight of the ball and then tried to search the patch of weeds? Did you after a few seconds go "No, we can't find it" and walk away? Or, rather did you carefully prod the weeds, trying to find safe footing to get deeper into the weeds, making sure that you wouldn't trip over roots, get scratched by thorns, carefully probing all the way to look for the ball and any hazards? Because that approach is akin to the "metagame" decision to keep looking for something that you are sure is there. The take 20 mechanic then specifies what you get for taking that time. THis is absrdly not analgous. When I lost a ball as A kid I knew that there was indeed a ball to find. However, when walking around in the field behind my house I did not stop and look for 2 minutes every 5 feet because there might be a ball there. If the guy KNOWS there is a trap to find taking 20 is legit, but unless he has such knoledge there is no reason to check after the first check, becasue he has no reason to believe there is anything there. If my group insist on taking 20 on every square of the "dungeon", then as stated earlier it will take ages, and all that time, the inhabitants can be gathering their forces and ready to attack en masse. Also, in a patrolled dungeon you can't afford the time, or you will be interrupted. That a DM has tools for dealing with metagaming is not in dispute Is it meta gaming to know that you can get better results by being calm and taking your time than to just give it a quick look over and then decide it's safe? This is all the mechanic allows for. If you don;t like it, then propose an alternative in a thread on homebrew, and post a link to it here. Then we can discuss the merits of different suggetions. Not at all, thats what taking 10 is for. Taking 10 implies taking your time to make sure you do it right, taking 20 means you do it over and over until you do it right, there is no way a character knows that he didn't " do it right" the first time when searching for traps so there is no reason for him to take a 20, in fact since he has no idea that he failed it is incomprehesible thathe could take a 20, how would he know that he suddenly " checked as well as could be checked? |
| Sereno03-22-07, 10:39 AM | No it is not, because taking 20 assumes that you know you did not do your best. THe character has no knowledge of the dice roll, that is player knowledge. THe only way taking 20 is not metagaming is when a character can have knwledge of thier failure. Since not finding something presents you no such knowledge, you would have to know in advance that there indeed was a trap to justify taking a 20. You seem to be forgetting a feature of many successful PCs; a suspicious nature. PC: "Let's see, this is the last door in the dungeon ... the one guarding Lichlord Xykon's legendary treasure. I'll search for traps." Six SECONDS later, which makes more sense: PC: "Hmmm, guess he didn't bother to trap the door ... it must be safe!" -OR- PC: "Hmmm, I'm quite sure he would have trapped this door, let me keep looking until I'm *sure* it's safe." Certainly, the PC doesn't know the player rolled a one ... but, if you *suspect* a trap and don't find one right on the first six-second search, I think only an idiotic character would assume that it wasn't trapped. Not at all, thats what taking 10 is for. Taking 10 implies taking your time to make sure you do it right.... Wrong. Taking 10 is just giving it your "average" ... basically relying on your skills (ranks) and an average roll to overcome an average (DC12-15) challenge. |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 10:41 AM | No it is not, because taking 20 assumes that you know you did not do your best. THe character has no knowledge of the dice roll, that is player knowledge. THe only way taking 20 is not metagaming is when a character can have knwledge of thier failure. Since not finding something presents you no such knowledge, you would have to know in advance that there indeed was a trap to justify taking a 20.The character - not the player, the character - has already learned that he might well miss something on a six-second scan that he picks up with a more thorough effort. it's entirely reasonable for such a character to suggest that he might have missed it and take his time. As I pointed out earlier, Search checks can be rolled in secret by the DM. Suppose that your DM does this. All you get is a reply "No traps". A decision to search more thoroughly is not a metagame decision, because the player has no information on out-of-game factors to base a metagame decision on. For all you know he might have rolled a 20. In this context, "metagaming" is deciding to stop searching based on the known result of the dieroll. A decision to search thoroughly, ignoring the result of the dieroll, is not metagaming. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:42 AM | You seem to be forgetting a feature of many successful PCs; a suspicious nature. PC: "Let's see, this is the last door in the dungeon ... the one guarding Lichlord Xykon's legendary treasure. I'll search for traps." Six SECONDS later, which makes more sense: PC: "Hmmm, guess he didn't bother to trap the door ... it must be safe!" -OR- PC: "Hmmm, I'm quite sure he would have trapped this door, let me keep looking until I'm *sure* it's safe." Certainly, the PC doesn't know the player rolled a one ... but, if you *suspect* a trap and don't find one right on the first six-second search, I think only an idiotic character would assume that it wasn't trapped. had this exact issue last gaming session---- the place was traptastic, and the rogue was suspicious when he didn't find any traps His roll was mediocre but not bad--- He asked to search agian and I let him, but that is differant than taking a 20 he didn't find anything so he looked agian, sisn't find anything agian, but there is no way a charcter " can be sure" unless thay know what thier rolls are, and that is metagaming. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 10:43 AM | The rule mechanic of taking 20 is in there to allow for someone taking time to check that they have done their absolute best. For example, when playing football as a child, have you ever seen the ball go towards somewhere you no has a lot of weeds, lost sight of the ball and then tried to search the patch of weeds? Did you after a few seconds go "No, we can't find it" and walk away? Or, rather did you carefully prod the weeds, trying to find safe footing to get deeper into the weeds, making sure that you wouldn't trip over roots, get scratched by thorns, carefully probing all the way to look for the ball and any hazards? Because that approach is akin to the "meta-game" decision to keep looking for something that you are sure is there. The take 20 mechanic then specifies what you get for taking that time. If my group insist on taking 20 on every square of the "dungeon", then as stated earlier it will take ages, and all that time, the inhabitants can be gathering their forces and ready to attack en masse. Also, in a patrolled dungeon you can't afford the time, or you will be interrupted. Is it meta gaming to know that you can get better results by being calm and taking your time than to just give it a quick look over and then decide it's safe? This is all the mechanic allows for. If you don;t like it, then propose an alternative in a thread on homebrew, and post a link to it here. Then we can discuss the merits of different suggetions. As I have posted before The take 20 system just means that they will keep trying till they find it The take 10 system means they are taking their time to do their best. Please stop getting the two confused. And so we don't have to argue over and over here is the PHB page 65 "Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right" |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 10:52 AM | As I have posted before The take 20 system just means that they will keep trying till they find it The take 10 system means they are taking their time to do their best. Please stop getting the two confused. And so we don't have to argue over and over here is the PHB page 65 "Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right"This is not correct, really. Taking 10 is in no way shape or form doing your best. It means you are settling for an average, competent, workmanlike performance. It is Taking 20 that is trying your very best. As your quote shows. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 10:54 AM | Not at all, thats what taking 10 is for. Taking 10 implies taking your time to make sure you do it right, taking 20 means you do it over and over until you do it right, there is no way a character knows that he didn't " do it right" the first time when searching for traps so there is no reason for him to take a 20, in fact since he has no idea that he failed it is incomprehesible thathe could take a 20, how would he know that he suddenly " checked as well as could be checked? Taking 10 is still a 6 second check for search. It relies on you being calm yes, but not taking your time. That is Take 20. The stopping after 2 minutes is meant to indicate the rogue has exhausted his supply of methods to search for and locate traps, and that he is now satisfied that if there is a trap there, he cannot find it because it must be beyond his excperience or ability. Does it make sense that a rogue who is in situation A is likely to do more or less well that that same rogue presented with situation A' which is identical to A when given time to use all his tricks on both? Originally Posted by Lindwyrm The rule mechanic of taking 20 is in there to allow for someone taking time to check that they have done their absolute best. For example, when playing football as a child, have you ever seen the ball go towards somewhere you no has a lot of weeds, lost sight of the ball and then tried to search the patch of weeds? Did you after a few seconds go "No, we can't find it" and walk away? Or, rather did you carefully prod the weeds, trying to find safe footing to get deeper into the weeds, making sure that you wouldn't trip over roots, get scratched by thorns, carefully probing all the way to look for the ball and any hazards? Because that approach is akin to the "metagame" decision to keep looking for something that you are sure is there. The take 20 mechanic then specifies what you get for taking that time. THis is absrdly not analgous. When I lost a ball as A kid I knew that there was indeed a ball to find. However, when walking around in the field behind my house I did not stop and look for 2 minutes every 5 feet because there might be a ball there. If the guy KNOWS there is a trap to find taking 20 is legit, but unless he has such knoledge there is no reason to check after the first check, becasue he has no reason to believe there is anything there. I'm not talking in the field, where it is in plain sight, I am talking a bramble bush or a patch of tall nettles, or even tall grass (2-3' tall). The same tool you idly brush off as being for dealing with metagaming is one that is more for dealing with any situation where the party are taking a long time to move, and not evading search parties. Oh and AceOfTime, please use the whole quote, not just the bit that supports your half of the arguement. 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. Nothing here about taking your time, just that you do the routine thing, and don't do anything too inventive. Taking 20 When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. Once again, note the penalty for not finding something, is not finding something, but you can keep looking. I fail to find my keys regularly, even though I know they are in my pockets somewhere. I often have to search quite well as I have a lot of stuff in my pockets. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 11:00 AM | Taking 10 is still a 6 second check for search. It relies on you being calm yes, but not taking your time. That is Take 20. The stopping after 2 minutes is meant to indicate the rogue has exhausted his supply of methods to search for and locate traps, and that he is now satisfied that if there is a trap there, he cannot find it because it must be beyond his excperience or ability. Does it make sense that a rogue who is in situation A is likely to do more or less well that that same rogue presented with situation A' which is identical to A when given time to use all his tricks on both? I'm not talking in the field, where it is in plain sight, I am talking a bramble bush or a patch of tall nettles, or even tall grass (2-3' tall). The same tool you idly brush off as being for dealing with metagaming is one that is more for dealing with any situation where the party are taking a long time to move, and not evading search parties. Agian in briars and the brambles I would take as long as I needed to o find my precious ball--- IF i knew there was something to find, but I would not take 2 minutes to search through each 5 foot of the briar patch for something I didn't know was thier. I would ank through being careful to look for snakes and hole and the like, but not take 2 minutes to take 2 strices as I did it--- not unless I KNEW there was something to find. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 11:02 AM | Agian in briars and the brambles I would take as long as I needed to o find my precious ball--- IF i knew there was something to find, but I would not take 2 minutes to search through each 5 foot of the briar patch for something I didn't know was thier. I would ank through being careful to look for snakes and hole and the like, but not take 2 minutes to take 2 strices as I did it--- not unless I KNEW there was something to find. And what about if you knew the briar patch harboured snakes or rabbit holes? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 11:04 AM | Once again, note the penalty for not finding something, is not finding something, but you can keep looking. I fail to find my keys regularly, even though I know they are in my pockets somewhere. I often have to search quite well as I have a lot of stuff in my pockets. But you KNOW your keys are there somewhere. FOr that matter YOU KNOW your keys exist. A Rogue has no knowledge of that nature with regards to traps. Do you look for gold in your yard every day, how about a fighter jet--- I mean one could be thier right? I assume you do not, because you have no reason to think thatgold or a fighter is thier, you might look around you yard, and when you don't see anything out o the norm you move on. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 11:05 AM | And what about if you knew the briar patch harboured snakes or rabbit holes? I live in texas every briar harbors snakes and rabbit holes, but I never took an hour to go 100 feet in the woods. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 11:09 AM | This is not correct, really. Taking 10 is in no way shape or form doing your best. It means you are settling for an average, competent, workmanlike performance. It is Taking 20 that is trying your very best. As your quote shows. You're confusing out of game knowledge with in the game knowledge. If a Player wants his player to take a 10 then he says his player will slow down and take his time. Hence doing his best. Take a 20 would sound like this. My PC will keep searching this spot until he finds something. That's more like coming acrossed it by failling to find it 19 times. how is that trying your best? No where on that page does it say the PC is trying his best to do it. It is more finding by luck do it over and over. No sane DM is going to allow Players to take 40 mins for said hallway in a castle full of guard patrol. Which is why you should be rolling random encounters after each 5' by 5' space. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 11:13 AM | But you KNOW your keys are there somewhere. FOr that matter YOU KNOW your keys exist. A Rogue has no knowledge of that nature with regards to traps. Do you look for gold in your yard every day, how about a fighter jet--- I mean one could be thier right? I assume you do not, because you have no reason to think thatgold or a fighter is thier, you might look around you yard, and when you don't see anything out o the norm you move on. OK, the fighter jet. No chance, it wouldn't fit ;) Gold - I've never checked anywhere for gold because you don't get much in sandstone or limestone,but I did check my parents' garden over thoroughly for glass when they moved, digging it up, sifting through the dirt, breaking apart clods of earth. No gold there, but it sure as hell took me more than 2 minutes per 5'x5' square when you take into account the time it took to sift it, taking lots of precautions to avoid cutting myself on anything that was in there. Take a 20 would sound like this. My PC will keep searching this spot until he finds something. Or, our group tending to use 1st person (stylistic issue, not for debate here): "OK, I stop, and start searching the corridor slowly and careful, making sure I don't miss anything. If I find anything at all suspicious, I stop and double check that bit. Once I'm sure there's nothing here that I can find, we continue." |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 11:26 AM | Or, our group tending to use 1st person (stylistic issue, not for debate here): "OK, I stop, and start searching the corridor slowly and careful, making sure I don't miss anything. If I find anything at all suspicious, I stop and double check that bit. Once I'm sure there's nothing here that I can find, we continue."[/QUOTE] Then he is taking a 10 down the hallway and if he finds anything suspicious and you allow take 20 actions in your game world than he takes a 20 to search 20 times on that one spot. He still has to search each spot apart. He searches one space ask you what happens, decides to take a 20 action to search this one spot againand then moves on to the next space, and so up the hallway but there is no action that will let him search the whole hallway at one time. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 11:30 AM | Then he is taking a 10 down the hallway and if he finds anything suspicious and you allow take 20 actions in your game world than he takes a 20 to search 20 times on that one spot. He still has to search each spot apart. He searches one space ask you what happens, decides to take a 20 action to search this one spot againand then moves on to the next space, and so up the hallway but there is no action that will let him search the whole hallway at one time. There would be no point finding something suspicious on a take 10 and then taking 20 on that square unless you expect multiple levels of trap, as if you found it by taking 10, you found it! And yes, the action does exist, but you break it down mechanically into search each square in the same way you do for searching any large area, it just takes 2 minutes per square to do. |
| Wopple03-22-07, 11:45 AM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. At the end of the session while dirving home I observed that while I'm not super fmailiar with the rules, I did think that tkaing 20 in this situation may not be legit. Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. For clarity and the sanity of our new GM, can you tell me if a thief can take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find pit traps? Or really for any type of trap? Why not take 20 to find a trap on a chest? It is legit, but the DM usually needs to balance this. If it's actualy taking you 2 minutes per 5 foot square, what are other members liable to do? What is the liklyhood of those in the place being aware of you? Hell, say the place is like 1000's of feet long (as corridors and such in a dungeon are liable to do when you walk through it all). 1000 feet = 200 5' squares, or 400 minutes. That's over 6 and a half hours. If he does it for only small spaces, it's no big deal. But if he take-20 trap find walks through a whole dungeon, I'd either make the players wait some set amount of time (1/10th of real time or something) or worry about what NPCs might do while you waste time. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 11:48 AM | There would be no point finding something suspicious on a take 10 and then taking 20 on that square unless you expect multiple levels of trap, as if you found it by taking 10, you found it! And yes, the action does exist, but you break it down mechanically into search each square in the same way you do for searching any large area, it just takes 2 minutes per square to do. It is your ex-sample not mine. Some DM let their Player know if they get real close to finding it say they needed 26 and got 25. I would let them know that that space doesn't look right. As for the hallway if there is trap in the area Than they can't search past that point without setting off the trap. If you as DM want to fast forward to the trap then that is your choice as DM. But each take 20 action on search check is for one 5' by 5' space. If there is 3 traps up that hallway the thief seaches up to that 1st trap disarm check, search to the next trap disarm check, and the last trap disarm check. If after the 2nd trap the party decides there is no more traps than that is there bis.. It's your job to tell them what happens not do it for them. (not that you would just saying that for others) That means that you still have to break that hallway up into three searches and roll random encounter when needed. If you have decide that they atleast check this hall every 30 mins that meen that guard patrols will find atleast once during just the search part. If your are rolling random encounters then after each search. |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 11:50 AM | You're confusing out of game knowledge with in the game knowledge. If a Player wants his player to take a 10 then he says his player will slow down and take his time. Hence doing his best.No, no, no! What part of "Taking 10 does not mean doing your best" do you fail to understand? Taking 10 is not, and has never been, taking the time to do it right. it is considered an average performance. Not a character's best possible work. Take a 20 would sound like this. My PC will keep searching this spot until he finds something. That's more like coming acrossed it by failling to find it 19 times. how is that trying your best? No where on that page does it say the PC is trying his best to do it. It is more finding by luck do it over and over.Again, nonsense. It's more like "I'm going to go over this spot thoroughly and find anything that lies within my capacity" than what you suggest. All you are doing here is demonstrating that you are failing to comprehend what the rules say on some fundamental level. No sane DM is going to allow Players to take 40 mins for said hallway in a castle full of guard patrol. Which is why you should be rolling random encounters after each 5' by 5' space.Now there is a fine example of metagaming. My notes tell me that guards patrol these halls regularly, and that there is a chance someone might march down the hall every 30 minutes. But just because the PCs start searching slowly and methodically, I'm supposed to increase the check frequency to once in two minutes. That is exactly what metagaming is. |
| Sereno03-22-07, 11:52 AM | but there is no way a charcter " can be sure" unless thay know what thier rolls are, and that is metagaming. Actually, the character *can* be sure about certain things. An experienced rogue is going to be experienced at finding all manner of traps. They'll *know* that if they take their time and search with the greatest detail and time that there's very little that they couldn't find. Actually, I think that Taking 20 is *less* metagaming than searching a second time (if you get to see your dice roll). If the player goes to do a normal search (for whatever reason), gets a 2 and *then* decides to search again ... yeah, they're probably metagaming. |
| BW022203-22-07, 11:56 AM | jaspercrey, >There are RPGs which have no dice. Many consider any form >of dice rolling to be against the spirit of roleplaying. ... >Dice rolling is not a great mechanic either -- one which many >argue is a much worse mechanic. But we are talking about D&D - which does require the Dice mechanic. Actually it does not require a dice mechanic. You can go entire game sessions without rolling a dice. Mundane activities do not require dice rolling. Shopping, talking for folks, travelling down a road, etc., etc. Even non-mundane actions can easily be handled by taking a 10 with the exception of combat. There are RP gaming systems which do not require dice rolling. On the flip side, there are some which require rolling dice for every conceivable action with dozens of tables needed for to cover every concievable outcome. There are also gaming systems which replace dice with other methods -- computer D&D games used computer generated random numbers, some tournament D&D games use random number tables, etc. There are also systems whose dice systems generate much more averaged results -- 3d6 rather than 1d20 for example. To say that D&D must use dice rolling is false. Yes, D&D designs choose to allow dice rolling for some actions, but they also specifically choose not to use it for actions which had less than a 1 in 20 chance of happening. IMO, this is good since it adds some excitement and avoids arbitrariness of some roleplaying only RPGs and yet still provides a sense of control over your actions which some "roll for everything" systems do not provide. Thus, one needs to accept that not rolling dice is also part of the D&D game. Designers didn't plan on every action requiring a dice roll. You can draw a weapon without rolling to see if you stabbed yourself in the heart, you can buy and sell goods without making dozens of diplomacy and sense motive checks, you order a meal at an inn by just roleplaying, and yes... no dice rolling is needed to carefully search a 5'x5'. The designers realized that certain actions are not worth rolling dice for -- the outcome is almost assured. There are systems where you roll 5d100% just to check for that 0.01% chance that you stab yourself when drawing a weapon. D&D designers obviously figured this was unnecessary and not fun wasting so real world much time for such a small percentage. So, they just said "Close enough to 100%" and rule that you can alway perform the action. Now, they did the same thing with take 20. If a character spends sufficently long enough (1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or 10 minutes) searching a 5'x5' area, we all know that the percentage chance of not getting a high roll is almost 0%. In 99% of cases, you'd either find the trap if the DC was within 20+ your skill check modifier, or you'd find it if the DC was higher than your skill check modifier. The designers merely set this length of time at 20 attempts. At less than 20 attempts, you have to roll. At 20 or more attempts they rule that your chance of not succeeding is so low that it is not worth rolling. |
| Sereno03-22-07, 11:57 AM | But you KNOW your keys are there somewhere. FOr that matter YOU KNOW your keys exist. A Rogue has no knowledge of that nature with regards to traps. Do you look for gold in your yard every day, how about a fighter jet--- I mean one could be thier right? I assume you do not, because you have no reason to think thatgold or a fighter is thier, you might look around you yard, and when you don't see anything out o the norm you move on. I have no reason to believe there's any gold (or a jet fighter) in my backyard ... I have *every* reason to believe that the BBEG trapped the chests in his private chambers (and, for that matter, the DOOR into his chambers, too!). If my players were using Take 20 in ridiculous situations, I'd tell them to knock it off and get on with it. If they're using it in reasonable situations, that's what it's there for. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:03 PM | Exactly Wopple: The disadvantage to the take 20 tactic is the length of time it takes! It isn't worth making the players sit around for a length of time as most groups are on fairly limited time for a session. I would (and do) stress the length of time it takes to my party, both as a GM and a players. E.G. "OK guys, that's a big chest it's going to take me about 5 minutes to check it for traps. Keep an eye out for anything sneaking up behind us." It is your ex-sample not mine. Some DM let their Player know if they get real close to finding it say they needed 26 and got 25. I would let them know that that space doesn't look right. As for the hallway if there is trap in the area Than they can't search past that point without setting off the trap. If you as DM want to fast forward to the trap then that is your choice as DM. But each take 20 action on search check is for one 5' by 5' space. If there is 3 traps up that hallway the thief seaches up to that 1st trap disarm check, search to the next trap disarm check, and the last trap disarm check. If after the 2nd trap the party decides there is no more traps than that is there bis.. It's your job to tell them what happens not do it for them. (not that you would just saying that for others) That means that you still have to break that hallway up into three searches and roll random encounter when needed. If you have decide that they atleast check this hall every 30 mins that meen that guard patrols will find atleast once during just the search part. If your are rolling random encounters then after each search. No, my example was : "OK, I stop, and start searching the corridor slowly and careful, making sure I don't miss anything. If I find anything at all suspicious, I stop and double check that bit. Once I'm sure there's nothing here that I can find, we continue." You stated that was taking 10, and then a 20 if I found something suspicious. As for DM's telling the party that they almost got it, or what the DC was, I don't agree with that, as it doesn't matter how much you missed by, you still failed. As to there being three traps in the corridor, yeah I tell the party they've found one, and ask what they're doing next. As a player though, finding a trap in a corridor usually means I'm going nto look more careful at the corridor as if they've trapped it once, they may well have trapped it agian, especially if it isn't the main access route. With a castle or even a patrolled dungeon, I tend to keep track of where the patrols are, rather than use random encounters, but even so, provoking a random encounter because the party just spent 2 minutes doing a search is a bit harsh, unless this is the ususal frequency of patrols/encounters in the dungeon. I mean do you provoke a random encounter check just because the party spent 2 minutes tending to their wounds after a fight, or re-establishing buff spells after a dispel magic trap? To pull a point out though: I would let them know that that space doesn't look right. SO you'd let them know the sapce doesn't look right when they've potentially at least missed the DC by 10? A DC 40 trap for example that they'd find under Take 20, but because they took 10 you'd warn them it was suspicious when they get a 30? If not, and they have to hit the DC, then there's no point stopping and telling them they've found a "suspicious" spot. That's a successfully found trap. Actually, I think that Taking 20 is *less* metagaming than searching a second time (if you get to see your dice roll). If the player goes to do a normal search (for whatever reason), gets a 2 and *then* decides to search again ... yeah, they're probably metagaming. Sereno: you as always are a light of reason. That would, and has to be metagame. It is also a good reason why the DM should roll spot/listen/search checks. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 12:06 PM | No, no, no! What part of "Taking 10 does not mean doing your best" do you fail to understand? Taking 10 is not, and has never been, taking the time to do it right. it is considered an average performance. Not a character's best possible work. Again, nonsense. It's more like "I'm going to go over this spot thoroughly and find anything that lies within my capacity" than what you suggest. All you are doing here is demonstrating that you are failing to comprehend what the rules say on some fundamental level. Now there is a fine example of metagaming. My notes tell me that guards patrol these halls regularly, and that there is a chance someone might march down the hall every 30 minutes. But just because the PCs start searching slowly and methodically, I'm supposed to increase the check frequency to once in two minutes. That is exactly what metagaming is. With the take 20 action you still have to search that one spot 19 times before find it the 20 time(not my rules). If your fail 19 times and happen to find it on the 20th time I just don't see how thats the best you could do. and as for the rules page 65 PHB "Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding" Most people say that that means 20 rolls which means that the take a 20 action means 19 fails and one success. The best you could do to me as DM in my worldmeans thatyou find it on one try of searching and the take 20 action just doesn't mean that. It means you fail many times before your finally success. to me that is just blind luck and nothing else. If your using random encounters the do it after each search or take 20 ( if you allow it). If you already decided to have someone check this hallway than they come and check it every time you decide. It is ether/or thing you don't do both. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:09 PM | Once again, you are only quoting the bits you want: Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. From the PHB. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 12:21 PM | Once again, you are only quoting the bits you want: From the PHB. I already said If you as DM decide to allow it. Some DM will not allow take 20 action while in a dungeons because your not supposed to get the time to do this action. As for the quoting I assume Most DM's have a players handbook,(hence the page number) so they can Read it in full for themselves and decide as DM whether they should or should not allow it. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:26 PM | OK, the fighter jet. No chance, it wouldn't fit ;) What if it just really really well hidden?;) Gold - I've never checked anywhere for gold because you don't get much in sandstone or limestone,but I did check my parents' garden over thoroughly for glass when they moved, digging it up, sifting through the dirt, breaking apart clods of earth. No gold there, but it sure as hell took me more than 2 minutes per 5'x5' square when you take into account the time it took to sift it, taking lots of precautions to avoid cutting myself on anything that was in there. Kind of my point, you don't look for gold because you have no reason to belive that gold is there, a rogue who found nothing has no reason to believe a trap is there and look agian, so why would he? You bring up your parnets garden, did you have reason to suspect that there was indeed glass or was it just paranoia? I do indeed search for glass when I am digging because I spotted glass in my soil in the past, since I spotted such stuff in the past I now "search" for it, but I don't sift all the dirt, that just seems excessive. Now I might allow a character to take 20 on traps if they regularly roleplayed being that **** about everything. I am a big advocate of allowing things mechanicly that fit with the roleplay of the character. I'll give you an example, years ago, when I had finally broken down and agreed to playthe vile 2nd edition of this game, I had a character Elthbert ( obviously I really liked this character) I wrote out my Character history and personality and in it I discribled im as fearless, death was simply not a big deal to him compared to ever acting in a manner that might be percieved as cowardly by anyone. I role played this to the hilt, even performing actions which I as a player was sure would lead to his death ( which all hail the angel in charge of d20's,didn't occur) because that is what he would do. I waited for the time that a fear effect would cause ol' Elthbert to break and run, and how I would roleplay that unimaginable shame. One day we ran into a dragon of significant age, the DM told us to role a save vs dragon fear, when I went to pick up my D 20, the DM told me to put it down becasue " Your fearless" I reminded him I was not a paladin or cavalier ( I did manage to pull some first edition stuff with me) and was not immune to fear effects, he responeded that it didn't matter, for over a year I had played him that way, even when it should have gotten him killed. So we altered the mechanics of the game to allow for the role playing of the character, that I do not have a problem with. If the character is always meticulaous and **** even when it is bad for him, example does he check his seat for traps at the kings table, or have a taster taste his food everywhere he goes, does he agravate those around him because he takes so long to do everything because he has to do it right? Then I migh allow him to take 20 on looking for a trap. But not normally, normally people just do not keep checking something they have already checked. Or, our group tending to use 1st person (stylistic issue, not for debate here): "OK, I stop, and start searching the corridor slowly and careful, making sure I don't miss anything. If I find anything at all suspicious, I stop and double check that bit. Once I'm sure there's nothing here that I can find, we continue." So do we, in fact I almost require it. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:30 PM | I have no reason to believe there's any gold (or a jet fighter) in my backyard ... I have *every* reason to believe that the BBEG trapped the chests in his private chambers (and, for that matter, the DOOR into his chambers, too!). If my players were using Take 20 in ridiculous situations, I'd tell them to knock it off and get on with it. If they're using it in reasonable situations, that's what it's there for. You have a reason to suspect the BBEG chest is trapped so You SEARCH it, you don't keep searching it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. THere thats 20 overs if it is that annoying reading it 20 times imagie how annoying it would be to do it that many times. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:31 PM | In which case Ace, why are you so keen to quote part of a section in order to support your point, but dislike others quoting the remainder to support theirs? You can't have it both ways either quote and let other people quote, or don't. After all, that'd be lke quoting something from the court record in a trial, and then when the opposing lawyer tries to quote to refute your point, or to support their arguement, saying "I believe the judge and jury have access to that, so stopping quoting and let them draw their own conclusion." Some DM's may not allow Take 20 in a dungeon. That is their right, but disallowing it just because "You aren't supposed to have the time" smacks of house ruling. Now, if the party are in a situation where they don't have the time - regular patrols, for example, then disallow it, or allow them to start, and then interupt them. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:34 PM | I just don't allow it becuase I find the idea absurd--- you check, you find nothing so you check 19 more times? no. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:40 PM | Kind of my point, you don't look for gold because you have no reason to belive that gold is there, a rogue who found nothing has no reason to believe a trap is there and look agian, so why would he? You bring up your parnets garden, did you have reason to suspect that there was indeed glass or was it just paranoia? I do indeed search for glass when I am digging because I spotted glass in my soil in the past, since I spotted such stuff in the past I now "search" for it, but I don't sift all the dirt, that just seems excessive. We were trying to set the garden up for my little brother to grow stuff and play in, so we were trying to make sure we got it all. If the character is always meticulaous and **** even when it is bad for him, example does he check his seat for traps at the kings table, or have a taster taste his food everywhere he goes, does he agravate those around him because he takes so long to do everything because he has to do it right? He doesn't expect his seat to be trapped, or for someone to try to poison him. He does however expect doors in a dungeon to be trapped, and he really expects the BBEG to trap his treasury, and the chests within. To use the example of lost keys on a desk, if you can't find them after a few seconds of searching do you give up? After all, you might have left them on your chest of drawers, or in the door, or in your coat. They don't have to be there. Personally I like to make sure they aren't on my desk before going through my desk and coat. It can take several minutes to do a careful search, and I don;t have a big desk. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:44 PM | We were trying to set the garden up for my little brother to grow stuff and play in, so we were trying to make sure we got it all. He doesn't expect his seat to be trapped, or for someone to try to poison him. He does however expect doors in a dungeon to be trapped, and he really expects the BBEG to trap his treasury, and the chests within. To use the example of lost keys on a desk, if you can't find them after a few seconds of searching do you give up? After all, you might have left them on your chest of drawers, or in the door, or in your coat. They don't have to be there. Personally I like to make sure they aren't on my desk before going through my desk and coat. It can take several minutes to do a careful search, and I don;t have a big desk. no I don't If I think i put them on my desk i look on my desk--- I probably only look 6 seconds or so, before I determine they are not there and check my pockets and other places I might have put them, and of course I KNOW the keys exist and are there somewhere, a charaacter does not KNOW that about a trap. Edit: of course if I do't find them in one of those places I come back and thoughly search my desk. But agian I know they exist and are there somewhere. |
| ShadowDragon868503-22-07, 12:45 PM | I think this thread really highlights the wrong issue. It's clearly a case of Bad DMing. The players who are willing to Take 20 on every single five-foot-square have obviously been burned in the past. Nobody else is that paranoid. So either you have a long history of putting traps in stupid, illogical, or downright malicious places where they should not be (5-ton deadfall block of stone on the second floor of someone's expensive mansion over top of a treasure chest comes to mind) and have burned the players before, or they've had a previous DM who's burnt them. It's really shaping. Human behavior is a result of our experiances. If our experiances tell us you're going to burn us with stupid and illogical traps, then we're going to be paranoid about finding them. And frankly, the DM whinging in this thread seems to back that up. Here's how I'm reading it: DM's complaining about Take 20: OMG NO FAIR! The players keep Taking 20 and I can't hit them with any 1337 dethtraps waaaah waaaah waaaah! Make them stop111! Give me the validation I want to punish them for taking 20, waaaaaaah!11!!11!!1oneoneeleventyone1!11 !11! |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:47 PM | What if that's the most likely place for your keys to end up, or you don't find them elsewhere? Do you then redo your search on the desk? If so, you're now doing the very thing you don't let characters do in your game, recheck searched areas. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 12:51 PM | In which case Ace, why are you so keen to quote part of a section in order to support your point, but dislike others quoting the remainder to support theirs? You can't have it both ways either quote and let other people quote, or don't. After all, that'd be lke quoting something from the court record in a trial, and then when the opposing lawyer tries to quote to refute your point, or to support their arguement, saying "I believe the judge and jury have access to that, so stopping quoting and let them draw their own conclusion." Some DM's may not allow Take 20 in a dungeon. That is their right, but disallowing it just because "You aren't supposed to have the time" smacks of house ruling. Now, if the party are in a situation where they don't have the time - regular patrols, for example, then disallow it, or allow them to start, and then interupt them. That only works if it supports what they are say and where did jump on any one for that? I think I had a mind wipe or something. Ok I'll stop if you will but their is nothing in there that says they are trying their best. As for your 2nd part I've already said that too. This thread is to help decide if it should be allowed in general. As long as it is understood that The take 20 is their to speed up everyday act not to help cheat the system( in my mind). that what the PC's are doing trying to get out of really finding. " I can take the 20 and get the search part out of the way" that how most players think and how is that right. I'm supposed to allow it just because it doesn't say to allow or not on a thieves trap search. why do you look over post by others and only answer the parts you don't like isn't that the same thing? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:52 PM | What if that's the most likely place for your keys to end up, or you don't find them elsewhere? Do you then redo your search on the desk? If so, you're now doing the very thing you don't let characters do in your game, recheck searched areas. I really don't understnad what the commication issue is here. I will happly allow my players to search agian for anything they KNOW has to be there. Ex. BBEG throughs the key the characters need into a well and runs the other way, the characters SEE the key go into the well, they take a 20 to find it no problem. For that matter, as long as they KNOW the key is suppose to be here somewhere I would letthem take a 20. But if they don't even know the key exist I am not going to let them take a 20 searching to find it. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:54 PM | OK, drag up the points you want me to answer, get them in a line, and I'll shoot them down (an in targets) point by point. I may have missed them, especially with the almost simultaneous posting that occurs on here. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 12:56 PM | OK, drag up the points you want me to answer, get them in a line, and I'll shoot them down (an in targets) point by point. I may have missed them, especially with the almost simultaneous posting that occurs on here. to whom are you speaking? |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 12:58 PM | Sorry there, that was aimed at Ace_Of_Time. That simultaneous posting issue... |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 01:02 PM | I will happly allow my players to search agian for anything they KNOW has to be there. Ex. BBEG throughs the key the characters need into a well and runs the other way, the characters SEE the key go into the well, they take a 20 to find it no problem. For that matter, as long as they KNOW the key is suppose to be here somewhere I would letthem take a 20. But if they don't even know the key exist I am not going to let them take a 20 searching to find it. OK, so I as a suspicious rogue have every reason to believe that a door that is seldom opened, and shows signs of the people who use it pausing before opening it, may be trapped, but because I do not know it is trapped I can't take 20. However, if just as I am about to search it a kobold falls from the sky and says there is definately a trap I can? Why do I take the word of the kobold? And why can't I take the apparent indication that someone rarely comes to the door, pauses whilst they manipulate a bypass for the trap and then opens the door as an indication the door is trapped? |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:06 PM | I'm posting this on behalf of my GM who allowed our thief last night to Take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find traps; we had to move slow - sure - but otherwise he had 'x skill' after taking the 20 and found everything automatically. At the end of the session while dirving home I observed that while I'm not super fmailiar with the rules, I did think that tkaing 20 in this situation may not be legit. Additionally, the GM is somewhat flustered, because she now has to put traps beyond the players ability to spot them on a "Take 20" in order to challenge him. This now creates a situation when he either spots them on the 'take 20' or cannot spot them at all and it completely removes the requirement for a roll. For clarity and the sanity of our new GM, can you tell me if a thief can take 20 while walking down a corridor in order to find pit traps? Or really for any type of trap? Why not take 20 to find a trap on a chest? This is the OP 1st post and no where in here doesn't it say he had any clues that would lead us to believe that there was any clue that there is a trap down this hallway. The Player just decided to try to take a 20 to find all the traps down the hall. Now in what is given here there is no clues that there are trap in this hallway why else would he take a 20? Why should we allow him to search a hallway 20 times if in this case there is nothing that would point out different. To me if the player searches the same spot 19 times and hasn't found anything why would he search the 20 time. In game that would be 400 different searches. |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 01:08 PM | I just don't allow it becuase I find the idea absurd--- you check, you find nothing so you check 19 more times? no. The reason you find this absurd is because you imagine a search check as being the same thing every time to try it. Picture it like this and see if it helps: Normal search check or take 10 - Do a quick visual inspection, maybe tap at likely spots to look for trap triggers or secret panels. You only have 6 seconds, so all you can do is hit the most common places for hidden stuff. Taking 20: Round 1 - visually glance at the area, see if any obvious tripwires are present Round 2 - Take a closer look at the corners and seams Round 3 - Blow gently on the area, see if any tiny holes or cracks are revealed Round 4 - Tap on walls and floor, see if you find any hollow spaces. Round 5 - Use a probe to inspect any uneven patches on the floors Round 6 - Touch each stone or board in the wall to see if any are loose Rounds 7-20 etc, etc.. I'm not a rogue with multiple ranks in Search, so I can't come up with all 20 ideas, but the point is that when you take a 20, you do a careful, methodical job on every possible way known to you to search the area. When you do a single-round search check, you only have time to check a few likely places. A taking 20 does not represent doing the same thing 20 times. It means you try searching methods that take longer than 6 seconds to do. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 01:12 PM | Nowhere does he say there weren't clues that the corridor was trapped either. Lack of evidence to contradict an arguement is not ipso facto evidence to support an opposing arguement. Also, if the group isn't under a time pressure, i.e. they have cleared out everything they believe to be in the area, why not take 20, provided your rogue is capable of maintaining concentration (so probably not more than an hour or so before having to stop)? The question in any case was not "should the DM allow this" but can someone do this. The answer to which is by RAW yes, and you move on by at most 5' every 2 minutes, and you risk being disturbed. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:13 PM | OK, drag up the points you want me to answer, get them in a line, and I'll shoot them down (an in targets) point by point. I may have missed them, especially with the almost simultaneous posting that occurs on here. It is not just me. if someone on here has a problem with some that is in a post They just post what they have a problem with and don't post anything they agree with.. If you have I problem with my whole post and don't agree with any of it why not just post the whole thing or atleast which post number it was but you don't. you take what you need/don't agree with and post reply to that part. |
| ShadowDragon868503-22-07, 01:14 PM | I really don't understnad what the commication issue is here. I will happly allow my players to search agian for anything they KNOW has to be there. Ex. BBEG throughs the key the characters need into a well and runs the other way, the characters SEE the key go into the well, they take a 20 to find it no problem. For that matter, as long as they KNOW the key is suppose to be here somewhere I would letthem take a 20. But if they don't even know the key exist I am not going to let them take a 20 searching to find it. They're not Taking 20 to search for the key. They're Taking 20 because they're damned well not going to stop until they are as certain as certain can be that there is nothing out of the ordinary that is at all within their power to discover |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:17 PM | Nowhere does he say there weren't clues that the corridor was trapped either. Lack of evidence to contradict an arguement is not ipso facto evidence to support an opposing arguement. Also, if the group isn't under a time pressure, i.e. they have cleared out everything they believe to be in the area, why not take 20, provided your rogue is capable of maintaining concentration (so probably not more than an hour or so before having to stop)? The question in any case was not "should the DM allow this" but can someone do this. The answer to which is by RAW yes, and you move on by at most 5' every 2 minutes, and you risk being disturbed. If the hallway is 10' wide that 4 mins before move forward. So most DM would assume the averge trapped hallway and all you do is think ex. that you would allow a take 20 action. If I say that my PC's have no Knowledge of any trap being down this hallway and their in a dungeon where the bad guy has his own army in the castle that make reg patrols every 15 minutes and atleast check down this one in that time would you allow my players to take a 20 on their PC's actions of searching for traps? what if this happened just a yes or no will do please. If they have cleared the dungeon then it is not a dungeon any more. If they haven't cleared in that means their is always going to be a danger somewhere that might come this way and that is a threat for them even if it is not right on. can't assume that in that 40 mins some is going to find? |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 01:22 PM | OK, the reason I try not to copy the whole post is that this will often include a certain amount of rebuttal to another post which isn't necessarily relevant to what I am trying to answer. It's fairly standard on most forums and in academic review or discussion as well to quote the relevant points from a previous piece of text. As I have said before, if there is a specific question that has been asked that you want me to answer, post it/them here, and I will try to answer, without missing any out. Also, for the sake of trying to keep things readable, can you please not run sentences together and try to use punctuation and capital letters? It is just that what looks like a sentence but is actually three with no punctuation between them can be difficult to read, and can lead to entirely irrelevant things to the sentence being introduced; like that I am not in fact a cyborg penguin who is overly concerned with grammar and obsessed with punctuation. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 01:25 PM | OK, so I as a suspicious rogue have every reason to believe that a door that is seldom opened, and shows signs of the people who use it pausing before opening it, may be trapped, but because I do not know it is trapped I can't take 20. However, if just as I am about to search it a kobold falls from the sky and says there is definately a trap I can? Why do I take the word of the kobold? And why can't I take the apparent indication that someone rarely comes to the door, pauses whilst they manipulate a bypass for the trap and then opens the door as an indication the door is trapped? Oh you can, if you have some indication of that. I adjucate such things with a spot check, that indication that something is wrong, or that something else is amiss--- that i do with a spot, and if you make that spot then that is a reason to think you might have missed it. But the OP was talking about a halway in which the rogue took 20 on every square. that is absurd and NO ONE does that unless they know there is something wrong. I will give you real world example dealling with real world traps. Soldiers are walking through a feild in hostile teritory, they are watchful, careful, they scan the way infront of them, they move deliberately slowly, say 50 feet a minute. They know things are dangerous they know they could be attacked or tha tere could indeed be traps, punji sticks, dead falls, mines so they go forward slowly, searching the ground beform them attempting to spot anything out of the ordinary. They simply are not going to spend a hour to go 150 feet unless they KNOW there is something there to find. Even if bob blows up they are not going to start searching every inch in front of them so that they move 20 times as slow, they might at first but not for an extended period, because they know that to do so will invite enemy attack. they will search ahead and move forward. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-22-07, 01:29 PM | I already said If you as DM decide to allow it. Some DM will not allow take 20 action while in a dungeons because your not supposed to get the time to do this action. Well then that is just stupid. A good DM should actually do something to prevent one spending the time to Take 20, not just say you can't cos you don't have the time. Any DM who tells his players they don't have 2 minutes to search a door after they've just spent 5 hours wandering the Dungeon of Despair without a single encounter is a DM who needs a slap in the groin. For DM who don't want to use Take 20, who want a random element, how about this: - Write out the numbers 1 through 20 twenty times, each in a different order - Number each line 1 through 20 - Each time someone would Take 20 have them instead roll a single d20 roll and compare the number against your chart. - Now read across the line - with each number being a round - until you get to the 20. - For each round determine - using your preferred method as normal - if there is an encounter or some other event which could occur, appropriate to the situation at hand. - If no event occurs tell them "you work away at it for X rounds" and then whether they have found something or are certain there is nothing to find, based on their skill+20 result. - Change the numbering of the lines each session The result is the same as Taking 20, you allow for interruptions and the passage of time, it doesn't always take a full 2 minutes, and you still get the benefit of a random die-roll. See, now isn't everyone happy? |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 01:33 PM | Oh you can, if you have some indication of that. I adjucate such things with a spot check, that indication that something is wrong, or that something else is amiss--- that i do with a spot, and if you make that spot then that is a reason to think you might have missed it. But the OP was talking about a halway in which the rogue took 20 on every square. that is absurd and NO ONE does that unless they know there is something wrong. I will give you real world example dealling with real world traps. Soldiers are walking through a feild in hostile teritory, they are watchful, careful, they scan the way infront of them, they move deliberately slowly, say 50 feet a minute. They know things are dangerous they know they could be attacked or tha tere could indeed be traps, punji sticks, dead falls, mines so they go forward slowly, searching the ground beform them attempting to spot anything out of the ordinary. They simply are not going to spend a hour to go 150 feet unless they KNOW there is something there to find. Even if bob blows up they are not going to start searching every inch in front of them so that they move 20 times as slow, they might at first but not for an extended period, because they know that to do so will invite enemy attack. they will search ahead and move forward. A perfect example. It takes a full round action (6 seconds) to check a 5'x5' area, so at this you cover 10 times 5' (50') if you are doing normal search checks. At the point you suspect there is really likely to be a trap (you reach the area marked with "MINES" on your map, or Bob blows up) you then break out the take 20 check. Once you are sure the immediate area is clear, you will then return to the 50' a minute method of advancing. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 01:33 PM | Nowhere does he say there weren't clues that the corridor was trapped either. Lack of evidence to contradict an arguement is not ipso facto evidence to support an opposing arguement. Also, if the group isn't under a time pressure, i.e. they have cleared out everything they believe to be in the area, why not take 20, provided your rogue is capable of maintaining concentration (so probably not more than an hour or so before having to stop)? The question in any case was not "should the DM allow this" but can someone do this. The answer to which is by RAW yes, and you move on by at most 5' every 2 minutes, and you risk being disturbed. I disagree that by the raw this is allowed, in fact I would sa that by the raw this is specificlly forbiden. There indeed are concquinces to not finding a trap--- not finding it. That is a concequence and "by the raw" a take 20 check can have none. Edit: thought to be fair I think that the raw should never take precedence over common sense. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 01:34 PM | A perfect example. It takes a full round action (6 seconds) to check a 5'x5' area, so at this you cover 10 times 5' (50') if you are doing normal search checks. At the point you suspect there is really likely to be a trap (you reach the area marked with "MINES" on your map, or Bob blows up) you then break out the take 20 check. Once you are sure the immediate area is clear, you will then return to the 50' a minute method of advancing. Eactly, bob blew up--- YOU KNOW there are mines. This is not the behavior that the OP is discribing. |
| Sereno03-22-07, 01:38 PM | You have a reason to suspect the BBEG chest is trapped so You SEARCH it, you don't keep searching it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. THere thats 20 overs if it is that annoying reading it 20 times imagie how annoying it would be to do it that many times. BS! I don't really give a crap how annoying "over and over...." is to you, or me, or anyone. If I'm the rogue getting ready to open the BBEG's footlocker, and I have every reason to believe that it A) contains neat stuff I really want and B) is very likely to KILL me if I don't do it right, I'm going to take every last precaution I possibly can and keep searching until I'm as sure as I can possibly be that there are no traps. In the "real world" it might take a bomb squad 15 minutes to determine where all the triggers in a suitcase bomb are, or six hours, or twelve hours; all that's certain is that they don't proceed until they're sure they've found everything there is to find. It's fine if someone wanted to implement a supplemental "how long does it take to Take 20" houserule, but by RAW it's just 20X. And, that's fine with me. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:39 PM | Well then that is just stupid. A good DM should actually do something to prevent one spending the time to Take 20, not just say you can't cos you don't have the time. Any DM who tells his players they don't have 2 minutes to search a door after they've just spent 5 hours wandering the Dungeon of Despair without a single encounter is a DM who needs a slap in the groin. For DM who don't want to use Take 20, who want a random element, how about this: - Write out the numbers 1 through 20 twenty times, each in a different order - Number each line 1 through 20 - Each time someone would Take 20 have them instead roll a single d20 roll and compare the number against your chart. - Now read across the line - with each number being a round - until you get to the 20. - For each round determine - using your preferred method as normal - if there is an encounter or some other event which could occur, appropriate to the situation at hand. - If no event occurs tell them "you work away at it for X rounds" and then whether they have found something or are certain there is nothing to find, based on their skill+20 result. - Change the numbering of the lines each session The result is the same as Taking 20, you allow for interruptions and the passage of time, it doesn't always take a full 2 minutes, and you still get the benefit of a random die-roll. See, now isn't everyone happy? AMEN |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 01:41 PM | Elthbert: you raised the concept of the minefield. Now, how does my response answer your scenario? Also, tell me where the OP states they didn;t have good reason to believe the corridor to be trapped. If he doesn't say one way or the other neither of us can assume one way or the other. In the RAW it isn't so much consequence as dangerous penalties for failure (it then quotes disable device as you can set the trap of by failing to disarm it) failing to find a trap does not have a penalty as such, as you might never move into the trapped square, or touch the trapped device. Failing a craft check has consequences: you destroy materials. Do you prevent taking 20 on craft? |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 01:42 PM | The problem with Pender is.... Really, aren't you better than this? :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 01:44 PM | The fact that the two decisions are IDENTICAL is apparently lost on Pender. If they are identical as you claim, then you should have no problem dumping Take 20 and adopting a different resolution tactic. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:46 PM | I know we can just make the check take 2mins real time. There now both take the same amount of time. If their is something you don't understand about my question than post it and I'll fix that part but say that you couldn't understand this fable commoner's post just so you don't have to ans. is cheesy. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 01:47 PM | BS! I don't really give a crap how annoying "over and over...." is to you, or me, or anyone. If I'm the rogue getting ready to open the BBEG's footlocker, and I have every reason to believe that it A) contains neat stuff I really want and B) is very likely to KILL me if I don't do it right, I'm going to take every last precaution I possibly can and keep searching until I'm as sure as I can possibly be that there are no traps. In the "real world" it might take a bomb squad 15 minutes to determine where all the triggers in a suitcase bomb are, or six hours, or twelve hours; all that's certain is that they don't proceed until they're sure they've found everything there is to find. It's fine if someone wanted to implement a supplemental "how long does it take to Take 20" houserule, but by RAW it's just 20X. And, that's fine with me. Um--- agian pople on this board seem to have issues with analogies. The bomb squad does indeed seach extensively for trigers on any type of bomb they are dealling with---- when they know there is a bomb. They do not however take 133 man hours to clear a 10 story building. If you have areason to believe something is traped--- a reason is not --- "well there is money in here"--- but more like "hmmm this lock looks funny" I.e. Spot check. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-22-07, 01:48 PM | I disagree that by the raw this is allowed, in fact I would sa that by the raw this is specificlly forbiden. There indeed are concquinces to not finding a trap--- not finding it. Not so. Simply failing to find the trap has no negative consequence (such as falling if you fail a Climb check) it is meely a negative result of the check. There is a big difference. By your reasoning any failure is a consequence, and as any skill roll can fail one can never Take 20 on any skill check. Sorry, but that is just utter shash. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 01:51 PM | Elthbert: you raised the concept of the minefield. Now, how does my response answer your scenario? Also, tell me where the OP states they didn;t have good reason to believe the corridor to be trapped. If he doesn't say one way or the other neither of us can assume one way or the other. In the RAW it isn't so much consequence as dangerous penalties for failure (it then quotes disable device as you can set the trap of by failing to disarm it) failing to find a trap does not have a penalty as such, as you might never move into the trapped square, or touch the trapped device. Failing a craft check has consequences: you destroy materials. Do you prevent taking 20 on craft? No you can allow it but they have to pay for 19 fails on materials cost so most Player don't. The RAW says three thing time, threat/distactions, and penalties. Having to pay more for materials for rolling to low is a penalty for failure set by RAW. |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 02:01 PM | That's not a problem with the Take 20 mechanic; that's a player decision that could just as easily be modelled by the player saying "I'll search until I'm satisfied" and then rolling the Search check. Hundreds of times. Or worse, the DM rolling the Search check in secret hundreds of times. How such a player decides to stop - that is a metagame decision, because he likely won't do so until he rolls a 20 (which is why DMs should really roll Search checks in secret anyway). That (I think) is what PenderGrass is so opposed to. However, "taking 20" doesn't actually involve rolling until the player gets a 20, but rather eliminating chance as a factor in what the character is doing. And yet, even the WotC designers have stated that the Take 20 was created to eliminate the need to roll over and over until a 20 is rolled. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs in-character knowledge (the act of searching or whatever). That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. Moreso than anything else in the current version of D&D. :dragon: **** |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-22-07, 02:03 PM | That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. Yes. Moreso than anything else in the current version of D&D. No. |
| Sereno03-22-07, 02:04 PM | Um--- agian pople on this board seem to have issues with analogies. The bomb squad does indeed seach extensively for trigers on any type of bomb they are dealling with---- when they know there is a bomb. They do not however take 133 man hours to clear a 10 story building. Actually, the bolded text above should read "when they SUSPECT there is a bomb." How they come to suspect that there's a bomb doesn't matter. And, clearing a building is not the same thing ... if you're trying to protect people you go to each floor and tell everyone to get out, there might be a bomb. You don't need to go searching because their *might* be people hiding in closets or in desk drawers. However, you can bet that if a SWAT team is going into a building because they suspect there's a terrorist that they ARE going to search and clear every room they possibly can and search anyplace a person is likely to hide. If you have areason to believe something is traped--- a reason is not --- "well there is money in here"--- but more like "hmmm this lock looks funny" I.e. Spot check. So, what ... you're (as the DM) is going to decide if my PC is suspicious or not? I thought it was the player's job to determine how their PC feels about anything.... |
| Merestil Haye03-22-07, 03:03 PM | And yet, even the WotC designers have stated that the Take 20 was created to eliminate the need to roll over and over until a 20 is rolled. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs in-character knowledge (the act of searching or whatever). That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. Moreso than anything else in the current version of D&D.The Take 20 mechanic is designed to take the chance out of a skill check. I disagree that it is metagamey, precisely because it removes the element of "what's my dieroll result?" The DM could remove that by rolling the Search check in secret so that the player never knows exactly what his dieroll is, just whether he found something or not (although the DM can provide hints about whether the dieroll was low, average or high if he wishes). However, I doubt whether any further discussion between us will shift either of us. Shall we agree to disagree? With the take 20 action you still have to search that one spot 19 times before find it the 20 time(not my rules). If your fail 19 times and happen to find it on the 20th time I just don't see how thats the best you could do. and as for the rules page 65 PHB "Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding" Most people say that that means 20 rolls which means that the take a 20 action means 19 fails and one success. The best you could do to me as DM in my worldmeans thatyou find it on one try of searching and the take 20 action just doesn't mean that. It means you fail many times before your finally success. to me that is just blind luck and nothing else. If your using random encounters the do it after each search or take 20 ( if you allow it). If you already decided to have someone check this hallway than they come and check it every time you decide. It is ether/or thing you don't do both.There are two big issues with this. Firstly, I've already said upthread that the conception of repeating the same action time and time again is not correct for a search check. For Open Locks it's fine but it is simply wrong for a Search check. When you take 20 on a Search check, you might spend about half a minute belly-down with your face inches from the floor, moving your head slowly back and forth, up and down, so that any slight irregularities are spotted as they move in your vision. (Focus your eyes on the wall behind your monitor. Now move your head to the left. See how the monitor appears to move to the right? That's the sort of effect I'm talking about.) More time might be spent probing for superthin tripwires, or lightly tapping with a hammer, or simply opening the supernatural senses to detect the way the magic trap has been placed. The "repeat until you get it right" model works for some skill checks but by no means all, and Search is one for which it does not. The second issue is that you still don't grasp skill checks and what the result means. Simply put, a skill check is an attempt to perform a task, and the skill check result is the measure of the quality of the way the task was performed. The introduction to the Skills section of the SRD reads :Using Skills When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does. The higher the result of the skill check, the better. Based on the circumstances, your result must match or beat a particular number (a DC or the result of an opposed skill check) for the check to be successful. The harder the task, the higher the number you need to roll. Circumstances can affect your check. A character who is free to work without distractions can make a careful attempt and avoid simple mistakes. A character who has lots of time can try over and over again, thereby assuring the best outcome. If others help, the character may succeed where otherwise he or she would fail.This equates the result with the quality of work. To determine quality, look at the check result. The d20 roll decides how well you did within the range of possible outcomes for you. The best result you can manage is 20 plus your skill modifier. There is no basis whatsoever for your contention that taking 10 represents the best you can do. Taking 10 is your average performance. How quickly you find something will not always matter. When it does matter, you cannot take 20 at all, or even take 10 - because you will be "under pressure" and therefore have to take the dieroll. When it does not, why does it matter if you find it on the first try, or the 13th, or the 20th? Also, while I am perfectly happy that the denizens of the place react to the PC actions as and when they are discovered, making a random encounter check every two minutes just because the players have decided to take 20 and search their way around a particular room smells of DM metagaming. if you don't know, make something up on the spot. Maybe the security wizard is watching a bank of continually shifting crystal balls, and calls in an when he sees the party? (Now that's a reasonable system for a 2-minute check cycle. I'll have to use it sometime...) |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 03:12 PM | I disagree that by the raw this is allowed, in fact I would sa that by the raw this is specificlly forbiden. There indeed are concquinces to not finding a trap--- not finding it. That is a concequence and "by the raw" a take 20 check can have none. Edit: thought to be fair I think that the raw should never take precedence over common sense. Failing to find something is not a consquence. A consquence is something that would prevent you from repeating the check infinite times, like falling off a wall for a climb check, or ruining your raw materials for a craft check. The fact that a search check is one of the examples provided in the rules about taking 20 should make it clear that by RAW, yes you can take a 20 on a search check. |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 03:21 PM | And yet, even the WotC designers have stated that the Take 20 was created to eliminate the need to roll over and over until a 20 is rolled. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs in-character knowledge (the act of searching or whatever). That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. No. It is simply not metagaming at all. You are persistently confusing the character's and player's motivations with the mechanic used to adjudicate their actions. Several times on this thread it has been described how the logical reaction from a player who knows absolutely nothing about the rules of D&D would be, "I want to keep searching in case I missed something the first time." Taking 20, or your own DM-assigned modifer solution, are the game mechanics used when a player says "I want to keep searching for a while." There is absolutely nothing "metagamey" about a player wanting to spend more than 6 seconds searching something, and the player can make that decision no matter what mechanics are used to decide on the result of that action. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 03:30 PM | Elthbert: you raised the concept of the minefield. Now, how does my response answer your scenario? Also, tell me where the OP states they didn;t have good reason to believe the corridor to be trapped. If he doesn't say one way or the other neither of us can assume one way or the other. In the RAW it isn't so much consequence as dangerous penalties for failure (it then quotes disable device as you can set the trap of by failing to disarm it) failing to find a trap does not have a penalty as such, as you might never move into the trapped square, or touch the trapped device. Failing a craft check has consequences: you destroy materials. Do you prevent taking 20 on craft? the srd says penalties not dangerous penalties. So BY THE RAW ( why do I feel like Spock here) you cannot use it. I only alow you to take a 20 on a craft check if you spend 20 times the amount of materials needed to do it. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 03:37 PM | Failing to find something is not a consquence. A consquence is something that would prevent you from repeating the check infinite times, like falling off a wall for a climb check, or ruining your raw materials for a craft check. The fact that a search check is one of the examples provided in the rules about taking 20 should make it clear that by RAW, yes you can take a 20 on a search check. failing to find something is not a concequence? consequence 1.the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving. 2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome. sounds like a concequence to me. You don't find it. That is the effect. result , or outcome of your failure to find it. Of course the rules actually say penalties, penalty is a bit vague but too many meanings. But certianly "consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc." fits the bill and I would say not finding a trap is definantly a disadvatage. the fact that sometimes a search check can be used with the take a 20 rule does not mean that all cases of search would apply. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 03:39 PM | No. It is simply not metagaming at all. You are persistently confusing the character's and player's motivations with the mechanic used to adjudicate their actions. Several times on this thread it has been described how the logical reaction from a player who knows absolutely nothing about the rules of D&D would be, "I want to keep searching in case I missed something the first time." Taking 20, or your own DM-assigned modifer solution, are the game mechanics used when a player says "I want to keep searching for a while." There is absolutely nothing "metagamey" about a player wanting to spend more than 6 seconds searching something, and the player can make that decision no matter what mechanics are used to decide on the result of that action. So they want to take 2 minutes to do it? not 3 minutes or 10 minutes or 45 seconds but precisly 2 minutes, the exact amount of times it would take to statisically speaking be entitled to a 20? No that is indeed metagaming. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 03:44 PM | A consequence is at least in my mind something that is an active result of doing something. After all, if we hadn;t searched for it, but just wandered around next to it the trap wouldn;t have gone off. If we look at the wall it is on we don;t trigger it (very limited exceptions aside - Glyphs, symbols???). If we don't find it, we shouldn;t trigger it. There is therefore no consequence of not finding the trap! The effect of not sucessfully searching is no more than not searching. As for the timing issue, in a case where you do allow take 20 (assuming there is anything that you might allow take 20 for) how long does it take? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 03:46 PM | Actually, the bolded text above should read "when they SUSPECT there is a bomb." How they come to suspect that there's a bomb doesn't matter. And, clearing a building is not the same thing ... if you're trying to protect people you go to each floor and tell everyone to get out, there might be a bomb. You don't need to go searching because their *might* be people hiding in closets or in desk drawers. However, you can bet that if a SWAT team is going into a building because they suspect there's a terrorist that they ARE going to search and clear every room they possibly can and search anyplace a person is likely to hide. No I meaning clearing it of explosives. My father in law is an EOD specialist for the airforce, with the exception of the building in Kuwait which they simply abandoned do to the boobytraps ( too many EOD specialist got gotten) and which to my knowledge was never ever cleared, they did not take hundreds of hours to clear buildings of traps and bombs even when clearing out military buildings on military bases left by the boobytrap happy Iraqi military. So, what ... you're (as the DM) is going to decide if my PC is suspicious or not? I thought it was the player's job to determine how their PC feels about anything.... no the dice are going to determine if the character is suspicious OR you are going to have to justify why the CHARACTER not YOU is suspicious. |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 03:46 PM | Is it metagaming for your character to KNOW that if they spend 2 minutes they cannot possibly fail? Yes.How would a character know they could not possibly fail, if they didn't know the DC of the trap ahead of time? And if they knew the DC of the trap ahead of time (and, by implication, knew there was a trap there), how would rolling a die fix the problem?They get a check, if they don't find any traps, and they have no additional KNOWLEDGE of traps then they should BELIEVE there are no traps--- anything else is indeed metagaming.Which leads to the following:Player: Hrm. This is odd. The assassin puzzle master we've been tracking left a unprotected treasure chest out in the middle of the room with my name on it. I'll check it for traps. GM: (rolls) You don't find any. Player: That can't be right. I search again. GM: You already searched. You don't think it's trapped. Player: But this guy is the head of the kobold trapmaker's guild! He left a trapped chest in the each of the last four rooms! The note even says this chest is trapped! GM: Too bad. You failed your search. Player: Fine. I'll stand 10 feet away and lever up the lid with a pole. GM: You can't do that. You don't think it's trapped. Player: Get someone else to open it? GM: Sorry. Player: (sighs) ... I open the chest. GM: Make a fort save. Player: @!$& |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 03:53 PM | So they want to take 2 minutes to do it? not 3 minutes or 10 minutes or 45 seconds but precisly 2 minutes, the exact amount of times it would take to statisically speaking be entitled to a 20? No that is indeed metagaming. 1) It's not metagaming any more than spending exactly 6 seconds on a task is. They are both artifacts of the game rules, not metagaming. 2) Second, where in my post did I specify a length of time? If I see a 50' long 10' wide hallway, and I say "I want to spend as long as I need to and carefully search this hallway to the best of my abilities", then I would expect the DM to tell me how long it takes and what I find. The DM would then look at the rules and tell me "It takes you about 2/3 of an hour and you don't find anything." 3) As an experienced trapfinder, I would know roughly how long it takes me to exhaust all my searching techniques (about 2 minutes for a 5' square), just as anyone skilled at a task can estimate how long it will take. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 03:56 PM | How would a character know they could not possibly fail, if they didn't know the DC of the trap ahead of time? And if they knew the DC of the trap ahead of time (and, by implication, knew there was a trap there), how would rolling a die fix the problem?Which leads to the following:Player: Hrm. This is odd. The assassin puzzle master we've been tracking left a unprotected treasure chest out in the middle of the room with my name on it. I'll check it for traps. GM: (rolls) You don't find any. Player: That can't be right. I search again. GM: You already searched. You don't think it's trapped. Player: But this guy is the head of the kobold trapmaker's guild! He left a trapped chest in the each of the last four rooms! The note even says this chest is trapped! GM: Too bad. You failed your search. Player: Fine. I'll stand 10 feet away and lever up the lid with a pole. GM: You can't do that. You don't think it's trapped. Player: Get someone else to open it? GM: Sorry. Player: (sighs) ... I open the chest. GM: Make a fort save. Player: @!$& Your joking right See go back and read the quote you posted from me. If they don't have any additonal knowledge of traps. SO if their were a note that would of course be additional knowledge, even if the room was suspiciously like previous rooms that where indeed traped I could see this as justification for repeated checks, but not for 20 repeated checks. |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 03:58 PM | ...I could see this as justification for repeated checks, but not for 20 repeated checks. Again. You are not repeating the same thing 20 times. You are spending more time to do a better job. If a 6 second search is a quick visual inspection, then taking a 20 is not 19 more quick visual inspections, it is taking enough time to carefully use every single searching technique you could possibly apply. |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 04:01 PM | The rule mechanic of taking 20 is in there to allow for someone taking time to check that they have done their absolute best. Again, this begs the question if this is the case then why would someone do their absolute worst (a roll of a 1) in such a situation? Fighter: "Hey, rogue, can you check for traps here?" Rogue (taking a normal search): "Okay." Fighter: "Why are you looking at your boots?" Rogue: "Because I am doing my absolute worst." :dragon: **** |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 04:03 PM | No I meaning clearing it of explosives. My father in law is an EOD specialist for the airforce, with the exception of the building in Kuwait which they simply abandoned do to the boobytraps ( too many EOD specialist got gotten) and which to my knowledge was never ever cleared, they did not take hundreds of hours to clear buildings of traps and bombs even when clearing out military buildings on military bases left by the boobytrap happy Iraqi military. Fair enough. Is this hundreds of hours, or hundreds of man-hours we are talking here? Also, (although I am not an expert on this) I would expect there are limits to what you can trap in a military building? D&D has the additional potential problem that the graffiti on the wall can itself be a trap, and rogues know this, so they are suspicious of almost everything (as a stereotype). no the dice are going to determine if the character is suspicious OR you are going to have to justify why the CHARACTER not YOU is suspicious. Pardon? The dice determine if my character is suspicious, or I have to come up with a reason? Well, I can come up with a reason right now: No one in their right mind would leave large chest of treasure/the door to his treasury/the only back door into his lair unprotected. I don't see any guards, so I'm guessing theres a trap here somewhere. I'm going to be really careful about this. |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 04:04 PM | I disagree that by the raw this is allowed, in fact I would sa that by the raw this is specificlly forbiden. There indeed are concquinces to not finding a trap--- not finding it. That is a concequence and "by the raw" a take 20 check can have none.By that logic, you can't take 20 on Open Lock, because the consequence of not opening a lock is not opening it. In fact, the consequence of not doing something is always not doing it. By that interpretation, the game designers created a mechanic which can only be used when it doesn't have an effect. Doesn't that seem a little unlikely? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 04:05 PM | A consequence is at least in my mind something that is an active result of doing something. After all, if we hadn;t searched for it, but just wandered around next to it the trap wouldn;t have gone off. If we look at the wall it is on we don;t trigger it (very limited exceptions aside - Glyphs, symbols???). If we don't find it, we shouldn;t trigger it. There is therefore no consequence of not finding the trap! The effect of not sucessfully searching is no more than not searching. As for the timing issue, in a case where you do allow take 20 (assuming there is anything that you might allow take 20 for) how long does it take? Well that is sometimes but not always the case. Sometimes the concequince for searching is setting off the trap. It depends on what you are searching and why. For example if a trap has a proximity trigger searching could certianly set it off. I allow the taking of 20 only very rarely, for things which it truely doesn't matter if you fail, for example open lock, but I give everthing which might hear it a 20 on thier listen checks--- after all they had 20 times as long. Of course I have a house rule that a 1 skill check fails and a natural 20 skill check succeeds too ( and I have critical successes and critical failures possible as well) . And no I don't want to debate that here, been there done that no one had thier mind change so taking 10 or taking 20 has the added assurnce of not fudging it up. However, if you take 20 you never get a roll so you have given up your chance at glorious luck. As for time--- if you take 20 I normally assign 20 times the time it takes, but it depends. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 04:08 PM | By that logic, you can't take 20 on Open Lock, because the consequence of not opening a lock is not opening it. In fact, the consequence of not doing something is always not doing it. By that interpretation, the game designers created a mechanic which can only be used when it doesn't have an effect. Doesn't that seem a little unlikely? Well not finding a trap and not opening a lock are not exactly analgous, a lock isn't going to kill you ( normally). But in fact, I agree which is why I said above that the RAW should never get in the way of common sense. I just don't like people throughing the RAW around when the RAW actually says something else. |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 04:09 PM | Again, this begs the question if this is the case then why would someone do their absolute worst (a roll of a 1) in such a situation? Fighter: "Hey, rogue, can you check for traps here?" Rogue (taking a normal search): "Okay." Fighter: "Why are you looking at your boots?" Rogue: "Because I am doing my absolute worst." Because when you have 2 minutes to seach, you methodically start with the simplest techinques and work your way through your skills, checking everything as you go. A "1" might represent just standing in one place and looking at the area to be searched. For a very skilled trapfinder, (or a very easy trap) this might be enough to locate the trap. If that doesn't work, you proceed onto looking closer, maybe start poking and touching the area until either you find something, or you run out of techniques to try. If you know you are going to take your time and try everything, and you might be able to easily find the trap with simple, easy techniques, why would you start with the most complex techniques? If you only have 6 seconds to search, you'll either use your standard, tried and true method (taking a 10), or you'll take your best guess as to what the most likely technique of finding the trap will be and do it in a rush (rolling a die). |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 04:09 PM | Well not finding a trap and not opening a lock are not exactly analgous, a lock isn't going to kill you ( normally). And neither is not finding a trap. Triggering it is different |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 04:10 PM | Fair enough. Is this hundreds of hours, or hundreds of man-hours we are talking here? Also, (although I am not an expert on this) I would expect there are limits to what you can trap in a military building? D&D has the additional potential problem that the graffiti on the wall can itself be a trap, and rogues know this, so they are suspicious of almost everything (as a stereotype). Pardon? The dice determine if my character is suspicious, or I have to come up with a reason? Well, I can come up with a reason right now: No one in their right mind would leave large chest of treasure/the door to his treasury/the only back door into his lair unprotected. I don't see any guards, so I'm guessing theres a trap here somewhere. I'm going to be really careful about this. Sure an overly cocky BBEG would. Heck how many characters actually trap thier belongings? I mean some do sure, but how many? |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 04:12 PM | ... I just don't like people throughing the RAW around when the RAW actually says something else. Except the RAW specficially says you can take 20 on a search check. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. |
| Lindwyrm03-22-07, 04:14 PM | Sure an overly cocky BBEG would. Heck how many characters actually trap thier belongings? Anyone who can afford said trap, and is willing to remember to disarm it with the off switch that they know where it is through having commissioned the item, or having been shown how to arm and disarm it. Also, it's possible to just be immune to the trap. If say it hits you with electricity and you are sufficiently resistant, why not use a lightning trap? Oooh, yeah and do you what the consequence of failing an Escape Artist Check is? You're still tied up. So can I take 20 on this, or do you just not believe in the idea at all? |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 04:15 PM | Again, this begs the question if this is the case then why would someone do their absolute worst (a roll of a 1) in such a situation?Huh? You're now arguing in favor of a "take 1" rule? You have three approaches to doing something in the game, according to the rules. You can do something quickly and routinely; you can do something quickly but calmly and methodically, checking yourself to ensure you didn't overlook some detail; and you can take as much time as you need to do the best job you're capable of. This is simulated in the rules by rolling the die, taking 10, and taking 20. Where does "doing your absolute worst" enter into this? |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 04:23 PM | And yet, even the WotC designers have stated that the Take 20 was created to eliminate the need to roll over and over until a 20 is rolled. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs in-character knowledge (the act of searching or whatever). That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. Moreso than anything else in the current version of D&D.Sure, if by "metagame activity" you mean "a rule designed to simulate the real world in a game environment" and if by "moreso than anything else" you mean "exactly like everything else". You're still misusing the basic terms of the debate, which you must admit casts some doubt on your ability to understand the arguments. |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 04:37 PM | DM's complaining about Take 20: OMG NO FAIR! The players keep Taking 20 and I can't hit them with any 1337 dethtraps waaaah waaaah waaaah! Make them stop111! Give me the validation I want to punish them for taking 20, waaaaaaah!11!!11!!1oneoneeleventyone1!11 !11! LOL Yep. And here are the people that refuse to read: "I am gonna just post something inflammatory instead of reading." If you had bothered to read, no one ever made such a statement as inane as that - other than yourself. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 04:41 PM | For DM who don't want to use Take 20, who want a random element, how about this: - Write out the numbers 1 through 20 twenty times, each in a different order - Number each line 1 through 20 - Each time someone would Take 20 have them instead roll a single d20 roll and compare the number against your chart. - Now read across the line - with each number being a round - until you get to the 20. - For each round determine - using your preferred method as normal - if there is an encounter or some other event which could occur, appropriate to the situation at hand. - If no event occurs tell them "you work away at it for X rounds" and then whether they have found something or are certain there is nothing to find, based on their skill+20 result. - Change the numbering of the lines each session The result is the same as Taking 20, you allow for interruptions and the passage of time, it doesn't always take a full 2 minutes, and you still get the benefit of a random die-roll. See, now isn't everyone happy? I like my system better, but - since you are hot on this one - go ahead and use it and let me know how it goes. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 04:46 PM | However, I doubt whether any further discussion between us will shift either of us. Shall we agree to disagree? I have never felt otherwise. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 04:51 PM | How would a character know they could not possibly fail, if they didn't know the DC of the trap ahead of time? And if they knew the DC of the trap ahead of time (and, by implication, knew there was a trap there), how would rolling a die fix the problem?Which leads to the following:Player: Hrm. This is odd. The assassin puzzle master we've been tracking left a unprotected treasure chest out in the middle of the room with my name on it. I'll check it for traps. GM: (rolls) You don't find any. Player: That can't be right. I search again. GM: You already searched. You don't think it's trapped. Player: But this guy is the head of the kobold trapmaker's guild! He left a trapped chest in the each of the last four rooms! The note even says this chest is trapped! GM: Too bad. You failed your search. Player: Fine. I'll stand 10 feet away and lever up the lid with a pole. GM: You can't do that. You don't think it's trapped. Player: Get someone else to open it? GM: Sorry. Player: (sighs) ... I open the chest. GM: Make a fort save. Player: @!$& See? That is just an unintelligent player. Regardless of whether Take 20 was allowed or not in the above situation, the players do not find a trap. They know it is likely there. In fact, they are 99.9% sure it is there. Take 20 doesn't automatically mean they find it. And a Search allows for nothing more than a chance to Disarm the trap. So, and I have gone through this situation in a Take 20 game, if a player were so stupid as to go ahead and mess with what everyone suspects is a dangerous chest - he got what he deserved. So, your example really is just a representation of how stupid the player was. Not the merits of Take 20 or other systems of Searching or skill checks. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 04:54 PM | So, your example really is just a representation of how stupid the player was. Not the merits of Take 20 or other systems of Searching or skill checks. Nah, its an example of the absurdities that occur when a DM tries to tell a player that his character has no reason to be paranoid. |
| Ace_of_time03-22-07, 05:26 PM | Again. You are not repeating the same thing 20 times. You are spending more time to do a better job. If a 6 second search is a quick visual inspection, then taking a 20 is not 19 more quick visual inspections, it is taking enough time to carefully use every single searching technique you could possibly apply. As for as the RAW says you fail at the search check many times before the success. If you want us say it is really one long action than you have to says that they fail to see the trap 19 times before the see it the 20 times. It does not matter if it one or 20 check the result is the same.( they have to fail to see the trap 19 times to see it the 20th) |
| Dragonteuthis03-22-07, 05:29 PM | And a Search allows for nothing more than a chance to Disarm the trap. Interesting house rule. |
| Matthew7703-22-07, 05:47 PM | As for as the RAW says you fail at the search check many times before the success. If you want us say it is really one long action than you have to says that they fail to see the trap 19 times before the see it the 20 times. It does not matter if it one or 20 check the result is the same.( they have to fail to see the trap 19 times to see it the 20th) Of course they fail many times. Once you succeed at finding something, you would stop searching to deal with it before continuing to search. My point is that you aren't repeating the same action over and over. Two minutes of searching isn't repeating what you did in the the first six seconds 20 times and hoping for a different result. It means you can use multiple searching techniques to improve your chances of finding something. If looking visually fails to find something, then you try tapping the walls or pushing against the stones or using a probe, etc.. See post 556 in this thread for a longer explaination. |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 05:49 PM | So, your example really is just a representation of how stupid the player was. Not the merits of Take 20 or other systems of Searching or skill checks.Now you're just not making sense. Did you only read the lines that started with Player? Because if so, you missed most of it. Take 20 is a way of quickly and easily resolving what happens when you carefully search for a trap. If you don't allow players to take 20, it follows that you don't allow characters to repeat their search -- because if you do, the character can simply try again some arbitrary number of times (20? 40? 60?) until they satisfy their suspicion. |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 05:58 PM | See go back and read the quote you posted from me. If they don't have any additonal knowledge of traps. SO if their were a note that would of course be additional knowledge, even if the room was suspiciously like previous rooms that where indeed traped I could see this as justification for repeated checks, but not for 20 repeated checks.How do you determine how many additional search checks some level of suspicion is worth? Is there an absolute limit? Is it different for different characters? This comes awfully close to telling people how to play their characters -- "You see a scorched body in front of the door. You're suspicious enough to search the door three times, but if you don't find a trap, you'll think there isn't one." How is this better than allowing Take 20? |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 06:11 PM | Interesting house rule. Not a house rule - you cannot use disable device on a trap unless you find it. If you can disable device on a trap that hasn't been found per RAW - please point out where it states this as it would be a very interesting ruling. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 06:15 PM | Now you're just not making sense. Did you only read the lines that started with Player? Because if so, you missed most of it. I am merely point out the fact that this situation of the character not finding a trap the player knows is there is a result that can be obtained in Take 20 or any other system that has been put forth here. Take 20 doesn't guarantee success. For the player to decide to keep messing with the suspected trap/chest is - essentially - a moronic player choice. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 06:42 PM | For the player to decide to keep messing with the suspected trap/chest is - essentially - a moronic player choice.I was right. You missed the point. Failing to find a trap does not make you think there's no trap. GM's who don't let you repeat searches based on your suspicion -- and I include those who throw around the term "metagamey" like it was an epithet -- are wrong. Wrong in the rules as written, and wrong in the spirit of the rules as written. They have built jury-rigged cathedrals of subjective GM calls and ill-considered house rules. And yes, pointing out their fallacies and contradictions is tedious, but it's honest work, and if I can dissuade even one fledgling GM from starting to "tweak" the system to be a little more "realistic", it will have been worth it. |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 06:51 PM | I was right. You missed the point. I think you miss the point that in any situation where a character suspects a trap, yet does not find it, and still continues to mess with it - that character is asking to be hit. Remember, even in a take 20 situation - finding a trap is not guaranteed. So, if a player is thinking that Take 20 instantly grants him 100% guaranteed trapfinding ability - well..., that player is in for a surprise, eventually. EDIT (just to make you happy) - And any DM that makes a character with reasonable doubts forego an action like using a 10' foot pole on a trap that he suspects but can't find - is just a poor DM. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-22-07, 06:55 PM | EDIT (just to make you happy) - And any DM that makes a character with reasonable doubts forego an action like using a 10' foot pole on a trap that he suspects but can't find - is just a poor DM.Ah, now you get the point. Better late than never. |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 06:55 PM | Failing to find a trap does not make you think there's no trap. GM's who don't let you repeat searches based on your suspicion -- and I include those who throw around the term "metagamey" like it was an epithet -- are wrong. Wrong in the rules as written, and wrong in the spirit of the rules as written. They have built jury-rigged cathedrals of subjective GM calls and ill-considered house rules. And yes, pointing out their fallacies and contradictions is tedious, but it's honest work, and if I can dissuade even one fledgling GM from starting to "tweak" the system to be a little more "realistic", it will have been worth it. Funny that the only ones around here that are harping on and on about "realism" have been the pro-Take 20 side. :dragon: **** |
| JustinA03-22-07, 08:40 PM | Usually the problem "I won't allow 'take 20' on traps" happens because or the "timing" Take 20 in search require 2 minutes each 5'x5' square. In a tipical 10x10 room, it require 3 hours and 20 minutes. A 10x10 room is 4 squares. Taking 20 to search the room takes 8 minutes. Other than that, your point is generally sound. I don't think it's coincidental that none of the people complaining about the take 20 mechanic seem to take the time involved in taking 20 into account. I have a very simple rule at my table--- you check for traps, if you don't find any traps ----- YOU BELIEVE there are no traps. Why would you check over and over and over, you checked, there weren't any, move along. To repeat myself again: A simple search is six seconds. It is a quick glance at the 5' square or door or chest in question. Even if you didn't find anything in that six second glance, it's not unreasonable to say, "Hey, all I did was glance at it. I might have missed something." We can go through the whole, "When you've lost your keys, do you really only spend eighteen seconds looking in your kitchen for them before concluding -- for all time -- that they could not possibly be in the kitchen?" thing again if you'd like to. (Assuming your kitchen is 75 square feet.) Or if you don't like the key example, let's take the bomb squad example: You're called in because a suspicious package has been found at the airport. Do you really spend six seconds and then conclude it's just a normal cardboard box? Or do you maybe take a little extra time to make sure that you're not about to be blown up, skewered by spikes, or dropped into a pit? The idea that your typical D&D adventuring party would have no reason to be suspicious that a dungeon corridor might be trapped (even if they don't have specific information about that specific dungeon corridor) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't even have to be the rogue to figure this one out: DM: You approach a door. ROGUE: I spend six seconds looking at it. DM: Looks okay. ROGUE: Okay, looks good. Ragnarr, go for it! RAGNARR: Hell, no. Remember that door that nearly electrified me last week? I'm not going through that again. Six seconds, my ass. Look again, rogue-boy. Is it metagaming for your character to KNOW that if they spend 2 minutes they cannot possibly fail? Yes. Has the player looked at the DM's notes to know what the DC of the trap is or something? If the only reason the player knows they're "almost certain to find anything there is to find" with take 20 is because their character's skill bonus is high enough to beat extremely high DCs, then that's something their character would also know. To be specific: The character would not know about DCs or dice rolling or taking 20. But they would know that they're really good at finding stuff and, when they take a couple minutes to make sure they've checked for anything they can think to check, they almost always find anything there is to find. It's not metagaming to use knowledge your character would have. Similarly, it's not metagaming for your character to know that a typical commoner is not a threat to them when they're wearing plate armor. The player may have reached that conclusion by looking at AC and typical attack bonuses, but the character is going to know it because they're familiar with what happens when a commoner with a pitchfork throws themselves at a fully-armored knight. |
| JustinA03-22-07, 08:41 PM | If they are identical as you claim, then you should have no problem dumping Take 20 and adopting a different resolution tactic. Present me with a better mechanical representation of "I take my time and do a thorough job", and I'll adopt it in a heartbeat. Your mechanic, however, doesn't actually represent that well. Your mechanic says, "If you've got a +1 skill modifier, then you can take your time and be twenty times better at the skill than you were before." Your mechanic also says, "If you've got a +10 skill modifier, then you can take your time and be... only three times better at the skill than you were before?" That mechanic doesn't even make sense. Why is the person who's more skilled less capable of leveraging the extra time to his advantage? |
| PenderGrass03-22-07, 09:16 PM | Present me with a better mechanical representation of "I take my time and do a thorough job", and I'll adopt it in a heartbeat. You're the one that claimed they were identical. Your mechanic, however, doesn't actually represent that well. Your mechanic says, "If you've got a +1 skill modifier, then you can take your time and be twenty times better at the skill than you were before." That is crazy, unless you relate giving that same character a +2 normal DM adjudication circumstancial bonus being equivalent of telling them "you are now three times better at the task at hand." Circumstancial bonuses to die rolls are not equivalent to telling people they are better skilled than previously. Circumstancial bonuses are given because of the circumstances. If I am wrong - please show me in the RAW where it states that a +2 circumstancial bonus to a +1 skill is equal to being 3x more skillful all of a sudden. Your mechanic also says, "If you've got a +10 skill modifier, then you can take your time and be... only three times better at the skill than you were before?" Again, you give the same character a +2 circumstancial bonus, are you now saying he is only increasing his skill +20%? Are you even saying he is increasing his skill at all? No. You are giving a circumstancial bonus. That mechanic doesn't even make sense. Why is the person who's more skilled less capable of leveraging the extra time to his advantage? Character A +1 skill. Character B +10 skill. SITUATION A Both roll natural 1s in my system. -20 penalty and roll again. Final roll is a 5 for a total of -15. Character A: +1 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus -15 roll = 6 total. Character B: +10 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus -15 roll = 15 total. SITUATION B Both roll natural 10s in my system. Final roll is a 10 total. Character A: +1 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus +10 roll = 31 total. Character B: +10 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus +10 roll = 40 total. SITUATION C Both roll natural 20s in my system. +20 penalty and roll again. Final roll is a 5 for a total of +35. Character A: +1 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus +35 roll = 56 total. Character B: +10 Skill +20 Circumstancial Bonus +35 roll = 65 total. Now, where again is Character B not benefitting from having a higher skill (i.e., getting a lower total than Character A)? :dragon: **** |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:10 PM | Again. You are not repeating the same thing 20 times. You are spending more time to do a better job. If a 6 second search is a quick visual inspection, then taking a 20 is not 19 more quick visual inspections, it is taking enough time to carefully use every single searching technique you could possibly apply. I understand that interpretation--- I even knid of like it, but it is your interpretation, there is nothing in the rules which say that, the rules however do say that you are assumed to fail many times before you succed. I fail to see any reason why one would continue to check an area which one has no reason to suspect is trapped after a quick search found nothing. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:11 PM | Except the RAW specficially says you can take 20 on a search check. But it does not say you CAN on every search. EDIT: and actually it doesn't say you can, it says that it is common to do, it could be common and be a violation of the RAW. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:16 PM | And neither is not finding a trap. Triggering it is different Well As I said above I contend that searching and failing to find can be enough to set of some traps. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:19 PM | Anyone who can afford said trap, and is willing to remember to disarm it with the off switch that they know where it is through having commissioned the item, or having been shown how to arm and disarm it. Also, it's possible to just be immune to the trap. If say it hits you with electricity and you are sufficiently resistant, why not use a lightning trap? Oooh, yeah and do you what the consequence of failing an Escape Artist Check is? You're still tied up. So can I take 20 on this, or do you just not believe in the idea at all? And so I ask you agian how many Characters do this? How many characters in games that you have run or played in actually traped thier stuff? I have occasionally had players trap their bases and even a few firetrap their spell books but nothing more than that--- how many characters that you have played with traped their treasure chest? |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:30 PM | How do you determine how many additional search checks some level of suspicion is worth? Is there an absolute limit? Is it different for different characters? This comes awfully close to telling people how to play their characters -- "You see a scorched body in front of the door. You're suspicious enough to search the door three times, but if you don't find a trap, you'll think there isn't one." How is this better than allowing Take 20? You search you don't find anything unless you have a reason to believe there is indeed a trap you think there is nothing there. Why would you check agian. Lets take a simple thing here--- You are going to go on a trip, you check the fluids in you car, how many times to you check your oil, 1 time? 2? how paranoid do you have to be to check the oil 20 times before you accept you got it right? Like I said, if you play your character as an obsessive compulsive rogue with rampid paranoia and I'll let you take 20. Otherwise you are going to have to justify why you feel the need to check agian. Checking 20 times without cause is a sign of insanity nothing else. |
| Elthbert03-22-07, 10:58 PM | A 10x10 room is 4 squares. Taking 20 to search the room takes 8 minutes. Other than that, your point is generally sound. I don't think it's coincidental that none of the people complaining about the take 20 mechanic seem to take the time involved in taking 20 into account.. I have taken into account in every post we have discussed it in so I really don't know what you are talking about here. To repeat myself again: A simple search is six seconds. It is a quick glance at the 5' square or door or chest in question. Even if you didn't find anything in that six second glance, it's not unreasonable to say, "Hey, all I did was glance at it. I might have missed something." We can go through the whole, "When you've lost your keys, do you really only spend eighteen seconds looking in your kitchen for them before concluding -- for all time -- that they could not possibly be in the kitchen?" thing again if you'd like to. (Assuming your kitchen is 75 square feet.). As I said this is not analgous--- I KNOW the keys exist and I KNOW they are in my house ( thats how I got home) so I KNOW they have to be there. Now in specific I probably do only spend 18 seconds in the kitchen looking, 6 seconds per 5x5 area sounds about right, until I have searched everywhere I think they could be--- then and only then would I do a indepth search. However, I would not do an indepth search for something I was not even sure existed no. Or if you don't like the key example, let's take the bomb squad example: You're called in because a suspicious package has been found at the airport. Do you really spend six seconds and then conclude it's just a normal cardboard box? Or do you maybe take a little extra time to make sure that you're not about to be blown up, skewered by spikes, or dropped into a pit? . Agian this is not analgous the suspecious package is already discovered so they are checking it out in depth to make sure there are not multiple triggers ( which in D&D terms would be multiple traps) I doubt seriously that the bomb squad when called to an airport terminal to check on a suspicous package takes an hour to go 150ft down the corridor to ge to the package. that would take 5 or 6 hourse to reach the suspected bomb in many airports. The idea that your typical D&D adventuring party would have no reason to be suspicious that a dungeon corridor might be trapped (even if they don't have specific information about that specific dungeon corridor) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Well to continue with the bomb squad above--- if there is a bomb then there is reason to believe their might be others yet they do not suspect that there is a bomb at every step only at suspicious locations. I don't even have to be the rogue to figure this one out: DM: You approach a door. ROGUE: I spend six seconds looking at it. DM: Looks okay. ROGUE: Okay, looks good. Ragnarr, go for it! RAGNARR: Hell, no. Remember that door that nearly electrified me last week? I'm not going through that again. Six seconds, my ass. Look again, rogue-boy.. On a positive note this made me laugh aloud--- I can hear my party having a discussion like that. Has the player looked at the DM's notes to know what the DC of the trap is or something? If the only reason the player knows they're "almost certain to find anything there is to find" with take 20 is because their character's skill bonus is high enough to beat extremely high DCs, then that's something their character would also know. To be specific: The character would not know about DCs or dice rolling or taking 20. But they would know that they're really good at finding stuff and, when they take a couple minutes to make sure they've checked for anything they can think to check, they almost always find anything there is to find. It's not metagaming to use knowledge your character would have. Christ Alive! 5 pages is a long way back to go to find a single sentence which I slightly misphrased. A 20 is as close to an autosuccess as is possible. If it is possible for the Rogue to find it at all then this is an auto success. Similarly, it's not metagaming for your character to know that a typical commoner is not a threat to them when they're wearing plate armor. The player may have reached that conclusion by looking at AC and typical attack bonuses, but the character is going to know it because they're familiar with what happens when a commoner with a pitchfork throws themselves at a fully-armored knight. know but it is metagaming for them to act as if a commoner with a pitch fork is no threaaaat if he gets cought in bed with out his armour, just becasu he has a huge number of hitpoints. Armour is a real thing the Character can experiance, HP like skill bonus are not. |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 12:08 AM | Will someone tell me what is so hard to understand about a average trapped hallway with no clues of it being trapped. Every time this is posted nobody will answer yes or no about if they would let the Players take a 20 on it. Some times there is just one trapped hallway, in fact most dungeons only have one or two trapped rooms. But every one keeps posting about the players breaking into a thieves den. I just would like someone to say yes in a real dungeon with a good DM the players won't have time to take a 20 nor would they think they needed to with no clues to say different. But that won't happen because someone will take this and post it with something off the wall and then the next post will be about the thieves den again. |
| Nom03-23-07, 12:15 AM | As I said this is not analgous--- I KNOW the keys exist and I KNOW they are in my house ( thats how I got home) so I KNOW they have to be there.Not exactly. You BELIEVE the keys to exist and BELIEVE they are in your house. Anyone who BELIEVES that putting an item in a particular spot necessarily implies that it must be still there has never lived with wives, children or small animals. Or thieves, for that matter, though most thieves won't stop at just stealing your keys. Pender's objections are at least rational, if predicated on a completely different model of gaming. The forge has a very apposite comment about Simulationists adding rule upon rule to stop Gamists taking shortcuts and optimisations that bypass the simulationist model of reality. And that's exactly what both take 10 and take 20 are: shortcuts. When converted to a number, d20 models that your range of possible results can be represented by the uniform distribution 1..20 (mean 10.5). Take 10 is "no stress, you're not really trying hard, so we'll just assume no unusual factors and take the mean or thereabouts". Take 20 is "it may take you a while to get this right, so we'll just call it 20 attempts and say 'yes' or 'never'". Or, to put it another way, take 10 is "we don't want you to unheroically fail on a simple task in a no-pressure situation" and take 20 is "resampling is boring". Take 10 is more anti-simulationist than take 20. Take 20 approximates out extremes of probability; take 10 can remove up to half the sample space. I'll also point out that Open Lock or Use Rope don't assume you do the exact same thing 20 times either. If you did the exact same thing, you ought to get the exact same result. Rather, they assume you try a variety of different techniques. Some might be more effective than others (high vs low roll). At some point, you'll have tried every trick you know and thus have either succeeded or given up. Yes, you could keep trying, but at some point you have to accept that the task is beyond you (note: it's worth noting that in d20 you can never 'get lucky' and do the 'impossible' on a skill check). d20 follows its usual policy of gameplay over simulation and declares that you can assume that in 20 checks you'll have rolled a 20 somewhere (and a 1 too), rather than keep rolling for an indefinite period of time "just in case". |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 12:35 AM | I was right. You missed the point. Failing to find a trap does not make you think there's no trap. GM's who don't let you repeat searches based on your suspicion -- and I include those who throw around the term "metagamey" like it was an epithet -- are wrong. Wrong in the rules as written, and wrong in the spirit of the rules as written. Time out. So what happens when you take 20 or mutliple checks and still don't find a trap? Player: "I'm sure this chest belongs to Count Rottenbottom and I'm certain he wouldn't leave it here without discouraging looters with one hell of sinister trap." DM: "So you search for traps." Player. "Yes" rolling d20. DM: "You fail to uncover any evidence of a trap." Player: "I just don't trust that slimy villain. I'll search again." He rolls again. DM: "You find nothing unusual." Player: "Drat. I'm sure there is one mean mutha of a trap on this thing. You know, what, I'm gonna totally focus on this, giving it all my effort and attention." DM: "So, you are taking 20 then?" Player: "Yes." DM: "You search the chest throruoghly but find nothing out of sorts." (Now obviously we have a character is acting on his suspicions. Keeping that behaviour in mind, that those "suspicions" have guided his behaviour insofar, what would the character's appropriate response be at this juncture?) A) "Well. I guess the old fart didn't bother to trap it after all. I open her up!" or B) "Damn, that must be one hell of a trap on this thing if I can't find it. And if it's that to hard to find, just imagine what it'll do to me. I leave it alone and starting looking for other valuables to pilfer." Don't take this as an attack on your point. I think that your argument is a valid one (and I am one of those DMs who says that taking 20 when searching for traps is meta-gamey). Using your character's suspicions to justify in-game actions can be good role-playing --- providing the character stays true to those suspicions. |
| JustinA03-23-07, 01:48 AM | I disagree that by the raw this is allowed, in fact I would sa that by the raw this is specificlly forbiden. There indeed are concquinces to not finding a trap--- not finding it. That is a concequence and "by the raw" a take 20 check can have none. That's a ridiculous interpretation of the rules. The consequence of failing the check is that you fail the check, so you can't take 20? What skill does that not apply to, exactly? |
| JustinA03-23-07, 01:52 AM | And yet, even the WotC designers have stated that the Take 20 was created to eliminate the need to roll over and over until a 20 is rolled. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs in-character knowledge (the act of searching or whatever). That is why Take 20 is a metagame activity. Your arguments become more and more ridiculous as this thread goes on. According to WotC designers, traps were given DCs to disable them and the skill check for Disable Device was designed so that DMs would not have to construct working models of their traps and ask their players to actually disarm the traps. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs. in-character knowledge (the act of disabling the trap or whatever). ... Puh-leeze. Your continued insistence that using game mechanics to represent a concept such as "disabling a device" or "taking time to make sure you do a thorough job" is "metagaming" is completely absurd. It robs the term of all meaning. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-23-07, 01:57 AM | Again, this begs the question if this is the case then why would someone do their absolute worst (a roll of a 1) in such a situation? Fighter: "Hey, rogue, can you check for traps here?" Rogue (taking a normal search): "Okay." Fighter: "Why are you looking at your boots?" Rogue: "Because I am doing my absolute worst." Here's a simple test: 1. Ask someone to draw a picture in six seconds. 2. Ask the same person to draw a picture in two minutes. Which picture do you think is going to be better? Repeat for any task you care to name: Making a sandwich. Tying your shoes. Setting your alarm clock. Your continued insistence that someone saying "I take the time to make sure I do it right" is willfully screwing up when they don't have the time to make sure they do it right is... well, it's as absurd as everything else you've asserted in this thread. |
| Nom03-23-07, 01:57 AM | A) "Well. I guess the old fart didn't bother to trap it after all. I open her up!" or B) "Damn, that must be one hell of a trap on this thing if I can't find it. And if it's that to hard to find, just imagine what it'll do to me. I leave it alone and starting looking for other valuables to pilfer."C) "Well, whatever trap is on this is beyond my ability to find. Should I smash it open or just rely on my reflexes to (hopefully) avoid it? ... Guys, give me some magic goodness and then stand well back." Note that the mechanical difference between taking 20 and checking 20+ times is pretty negligible. Although you do need to check about 100 times to reduce the chance of not rolling a 20 to less than 1%. (~ 40 for 19-20, ~ 30 for 18-20). |
| JustinA03-23-07, 02:03 AM | Sure an overly cocky BBEG would. Heck how many characters actually trap thier belongings? I mean some do sure, but how many? Does it matter? Tell ya what: I'll give you ten chests to open. One of them is trapped with a lethal and dangerous device. Now, someone else gives you a chest to open. Are you really saying that you have no reason to even suspect that this chest might be trapped? That you, indeed, have no motivation for checking that chest very carefully before you flip open the lid? I call ********. |
| JustinA03-23-07, 02:10 AM | You're the one that claimed they were identical. You're lying. Why are you lying? What do you possibly think lying is going to accomplish? Or is it just that you're illiterate? That is crazy, unless you relate giving that same character a +2 normal DM adjudication circumstancial bonus being equivalent of telling them "you are now three times better at the task at hand." It's logical that favorable circumstances could make it possible for a poorly skilled character (with a +1 bonus) to achieve something that it would take a person with three times their skill level to achieve in not-so-favorable conditions. But the ridiculous +20 bonus in your system doesn't represent a variance in outside circumstances -- it is literally saying that, with a little time and effort, the character is capable of achieving things which only a person with twenty times their skill would normally be able to achieve. You are literally saying that even the most unskilled incompetent person -- indeed, people who have never even trained in the skill -- should be capable of achieving things which only grandmasters should be capable of accomplishing. All they've got to do is take a little more time to do it. That's not the way things work in the real world. Now, where again is Character B not benefitting from having a higher skill (i.e., getting a lower total than Character A)? Could you try and keep the ridiculous strawmen to a minimum? I never said that Character B would not benefit from having a higher skill. If the only debating "tactic" you have left is liberally lying about what other people said, then you have nothing left saying which is worth listening to. |
| JustinA03-23-07, 02:26 AM | Agian this is not analgous the suspecious package is already discovered so they are checking it out in depth to make sure there are not multiple triggers ( which in D&D terms would be multiple traps) I doubt seriously that the bomb squad when called to an airport terminal to check on a suspicous package takes an hour to go 150ft down the corridor to ge to the package. that would take 5 or 6 hourse to reach the suspected bomb in many airports. Here's a simple question for you (which you failed to answer): You keep saying that the characters have no reason to be suspicious. Then why are the players suspicious? Did they sneak a peek behind your DM screen? What knowledge, precisely, do the players have which makes them suspicious that you don't feel their characters would have? Be specific. know but it is metagaming for them to act as if a commoner with a pitch fork is no threaaaat if he gets cought in bed with out his armour, just becasu he has a huge number of hitpoints. Armour is a real thing the Character can experiance, HP like skill bonus are not. I'm sorry, but this is just not the case. Characters are not aware of AC. They don't know that plate armor offers a bigger bonus to AC than leather armor does. But they are aware that plate armor is more effective than leather armor at protecting them from damage. Characters are not aware of skill bonuses. They don't know that Bob has a +10 Craft skill bonus while Roy only has a +5 Craft skill bonus, but they know that Bob is a better swordsmith than Roy is. Characters don't know the take 10 mechanics. They don't know that Bob can take 10 on a Craft check and reliably produce a masterwork sword. Nor do they know that Roy can't do that. But they do know that Bob can produce a masterwork sword every single time, whereas Roy usually has to start over several times. Characters don't know Intelligence scores. They don't know that Betty has Int 17 while Veronica only has Int 15. But they know that, although they're equally well-trained, Betty can cast one extra Fireball spell each day. These are abstract mechanics, but they represent realities of which the characters are aware. As one last example, it's not metagaming for a player to say, "My character is good enough at balancing that he knows he can safely cross that 8-inch wide beam without any problems." The player knows that because his character has a +9 bonus to his Balance skill. The character knows that because he's walked across dozens of 8-inch wide beams before, and he's skilled enough that he hasn't fallen off of one since he was a wee tot practicing at his acrobatic mother's side. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 02:37 AM | That's a ridiculous interpretation of the rules. The consequence of failing the check is that you fail the check, so you can't take 20? What skill does that not apply to, exactly? It is actually a perfectly legitimate interpretation. Just because you don't want to interpret it that way, doesn't make it any less worthwhile. In fact, it was one of the first steps I took when looking at the new rules that gave me pause about the whole take 20 rule. :dragon: **** |
| JustinA03-23-07, 02:42 AM | I just would like someone to say yes in a real dungeon with a good DM the players won't have time to take a 20 nor would they think they needed to with no clues to say different. What dungeon are we talking about here? What hallway? To use a published example, look at the Sunless Citadel. There are sections of that dungeon which are heavily traversed by kobolds and goblins. Attempts to take 20 in those hallways will probably result in the effort being interrupted by kobolds or goblins. But there are other sections of that same complex which have been abandoned for centuries, and if the PCs decide to do their best archaeologist impersonations in those sections of the complex it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone would interrupt their work. In neither case should the DM simply say, "Well, you don't have time for that." Let the PCs do what they do and adjudicate the reactions of the environment around them normally. A) "Well. I guess the old fart didn't bother to trap it after all. I open her up!" or B) "Damn, that must be one hell of a trap on this thing if I can't find it. And if it's that to hard to find, just imagine what it'll do to me. I leave it alone and starting looking for other valuables to pilfer." Depends on the circumstances. I recently ran a group through my version of the Tomb of Horrors. There were times when, no matter how hard they searched, they couldn't find a trap... and they would proceed trepidatiously. At other times, unable to find a trap but convinced it was there, they would turn away and explore in a different direction. This was actually a shift from their earlier attitude. When they first entered the tomb, they were perfectly happy to do a single Search check and then assume the way was clear enough. (They had fairly high bonuses, so even on a roll of 1 they felt pretty good about it.) I knew the adventure had been a success when they thoroughly searched a door and found no traps. Then most of the group stepped back around a corner while one of them buffed up and opened the door... to no effect. So then they carefully searched the floor on the other side and, by taking 20, discovered that it was a pit trap! Ha! So they activated an immovable rod and, while holding onto it, triggered the pit trap by standing on it. Then they climbed down carefully into the pit and walked across it... triggering the pressure plate that caused all the spikes in the pit to shoot out as ranged attacks and pin-cushion them. That's emergent behavior. I could have tried to enforce it through DM fiat ("thou shalt not suspect a trap here"; "thou hast suffered enough that thou may suspect a trap here"), but that wouldn't be any fun for me or the players. |
| JustinA03-23-07, 02:46 AM | It is actually a perfectly legitimate interpretation. Just because you don't want to interpret it that way, doesn't make it any less worthwhile. The interpretation is wrong. Saying that an interpretation you KNOW to be wrong is "a perfectly legitimate interpretation" is, frankly, a really stupid thing to say. Above and beyond that, the interpretation -- horribly mangled as it is to begin with -- only exists because the guy misquoted the rulebook. So it's not only a stupid interpretation of the rule, it's a stupid interpretation of a misquoted version of the rule. Hint: The first sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation makes it so that the rule would never be used. The second sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation relies on misquoting the rulebook. :rolleyes: |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 02:55 AM | Your arguments become more and more ridiculous as this thread goes on. Same argument. Round and round. Take 20 = Player Saying Give Me A 20 On My Roll Take 20 = WotC Saying Give Them A 20 On Their Roll Take 20 = A Lame Statistical Justification To Remove A Die Roll That Should Be There Take 20 = The Totally Unbelievable Circumstance That All Chance Factors Are Removed Take 20 = The Equivalent of buying a Cheat Book for a video game etc. etc. etc. I will even go one step further by saying that by using the Take 20 you are creating a game that fits more in line with a video game, since it removes the possibility that anything can happen. That possibility of anything happening is what had always set Pen & Paper beyond the limitations of things like a PS3 or X-Box. According to WotC designers, traps were given DCs to disable them.... Who the heck was talking about disarming in the post you quoted? Anyways, continue on... According to WotC designers, traps were given DCs to disable them and the skill check for Disable Device was designed so that DMs would not have to construct working models of their traps and ask their players to actually disarm the traps. Another fairly lame idea. I easily integrate both skill checks and working models of traps. That is simply a design decision that is based around player knowledge (the die rolls) vs. in-character knowledge (the act of disabling the trap or whatever). Again, I don't know where or why you are bringing any of this up - especially since Disarming is not possible with Take 20. Puh-leeze. Your continued insistence that using game mechanics to represent a concept such as "disabling a device" or "taking time to make sure you do a thorough job" is "metagaming" is completely absurd. It robs the term of all meaning. Possibly in your mind you thought I was speaking about disarming a trap? You can't take 20 to disarm a trap. Since you are one of its defenders, I figured you would know how it works at the very least. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:08 AM | Here's a simple test: 1. Ask someone to draw a picture in six seconds. 2. Ask the same person to draw a picture in two minutes. How does this relate to Take 20? Again, you are using things as examples that you cannot Take 20 on. The least you could do is stick to skills that can be used with the Take 20 option. Which picture do you think is going to be better? Considering we have no clue the skill of the artist or the picture being attempted (are they doing Order of the Stick or Whistler's Mother?) we have no idea, but with some added circumstancial modifiers, it will likely be the 2 minute attempt. Now, if you are speaking about real world - I have seen many Pictionary games that had some awesome drawings while art class students made some really horrible drawings. Hopefully you aren't speaking about the real world since this is D&D. Repeat for any task you care to name: Making a sandwich. Tying your shoes. Setting your alarm clock. Other than the sandwich making (which you cannot take 20 on either, BTW - you do know that the Take 20 rules are on page 65 in the PHB, right?), none of the other activities would require a die roll in most games. Are you requiring your players to roll to see if their characters can tie their shoes? That is harsh. Your continued insistence that someone saying "I take the time to make sure I do it right" is willfully screwing up when they don't have the time to make sure they do it right is... well, it's as absurd as everything else you've asserted in this thread. No, I am asking someone to explain how one extreme of a linear equation can logically be "I am doing my best" and the other extreme not be "I am doing my worst." You would think an "expert" would be able to do his best at all times - if not, if he is only "doing his best" 5% of the time - that ain't much of an expert in my opinion. And Take 20 representing that is even less on my opinion-ometer. The circumstances may change - but that is why we have circumstancial modifiers to use as a DM. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:21 AM | You're lying. Why are you lying? What do you possibly think lying is going to accomplish? "Liar, liar, pants on fire..." LOL Oh-kay. You just got through going through however many posts so you could say that your 2 scenarios were so the same and so on. Hey, if you don't want to own up to your own statements and you need to call me a liar, okay. Whatever. Or is it just that you're illiterate? Seriously, you really are pulling out the big guns now. Oh my gods, I am illiterate. Darn, you found out my secret ability to be illiterate and literate at the same time. It's logical that favorable circumstances could make it possible for a poorly skilled character (with a +1 bonus) to achieve something that it would take a person with three times their skill level to achieve in not-so-favorable conditions. But the ridiculous +20 bonus in your system doesn't represent a variance in outside circumstances -- it is literally saying that, with a little time and effort, the character is capable of achieving things which only a person with twenty times their skill would normally be able to achieve. Who said anything about a little time and effort? Why are you tossing in qualifiers that weren't in there before? Do you even understand the use of Circumstancial Modifiers as a DM? Could you try and keep the ridiculous strawmen to a minimum? I never said that Character B would not benefit from having a higher skill. Then please reiterate what you said, or do you want me to go back and quote you? If the only debating "tactic" you have left is liberally lying about what other people said, then you have nothing left saying which is worth listening to. Please. You can't even dredge up a decent example of Take 20, the rule you so lovingly defend. You can't make sandwiches with Take 20. You shouldn't make your players roll to see if their characters can tie their shoes. Seems to me the best you can do is point fingers and claim that I am lying (without proof), change your own clearly written statements and yammer on and on about things you don't understand. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:23 AM | Ah, now you get the point. Better late than never. And yet your point had nothing to do with Take 20 or non-Take 20 games, but more to do with a poorly DMd scenario. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:26 AM | The interpretation is wrong. Saying that an interpretation you KNOW to be wrong is "a perfectly legitimate interpretation" is, frankly, a really stupid thing to say. Above and beyond that, the interpretation -- horribly mangled as it is to begin with -- only exists because the guy misquoted the rulebook. So it's not only a stupid interpretation of the rule, it's a stupid interpretation of a misquoted version of the rule. Hint: The first sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation makes it so that the rule would never be used. The second sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation relies on misquoting the rulebook. :rolleyes: His writing of it may have been mangled, but the point is that each and every skill carries an inherent penalty for failure. You cannot take 20 when there is a penalty for failure. Therefore, that rule just begins the nullification process of why Take 20 is inherently flawed. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:28 AM | The fact that the two decisions are IDENTICAL is apparently lost on Pender. See how easy it is to find that quote that proves I am lying? Now you have your proof - no, wait, that is a quote from you? Well, bless my soul. :dragon: **** |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 03:36 AM | That mechanic doesn't even make sense. Why is the person who's more skilled less capable of leveraging the extra time to his advantage? Your words again. I merely put forth a simple example of a more skilled person that is quite capable of out-performing a lesser skilled person using my system. I then asked you to prove your statement. Instead you jump around and call names and throw hissy fits. :dragon: **** |
| Merloth03-23-07, 04:06 AM | What are you arguing about. Of course a thif can't take 20 to find traps. It is stated in the take 20 rule that if there are consequences of failing, you can't take 20. There are obvious consequences if you fail your search check looking for a trap; If you don't find it, you're probably setting off the trap. Even that probably is enough to not let you take 20 by the rules. And JustinA, it seems that you are getting heated here. Are you forgetting that we discuss a DnD rule here, not the Iraq war? You're seemingly taking this discussion waaay too personal. |
| Merestil Haye03-23-07, 07:35 AM | Will someone tell me what is so hard to understand about a average trapped hallway with no clues of it being trapped. Every time this is posted nobody will answer yes or no about if they would let the Players take a 20 on it. Some times there is just one trapped hallway, in fact most dungeons only have one or two trapped rooms. But every one keeps posting about the players breaking into a thieves den. I just would like someone to say yes in a real dungeon with a good DM the players won't have time to take a 20 nor would they think they needed to with no clues to say different. But that won't happen because someone will take this and post it with something off the wall and then the next post will be about the thieves den again.If the players decide to take 20 moving down an otherwise featureless hallway then that is their decision. My group do it in some situations. Typically when they've cleared (or think they've cleared) a dungeon, and mapped out the place to such accuracy as I can draw or describe it. They'll look at the map, pick an area where there's a large empty space or a corridor - especially a dead-end one - and do the Take 20 routine. They've also been known to do this in rooms of significant NPCs. Sometimes they even find things that way. Time out. So what happens when you take 20 or mutliple checks and still don't find a trap? DM: "You search the chest throruoghly but find nothing out of sorts." (Now obviously we have a character is acting on his suspicions. Keeping that behaviour in mind, that those "suspicions" have guided his behaviour insofar, what would the character's appropriate response be at this juncture?) A) "Well. I guess the old fart didn't bother to trap it after all. I open her up!" or B) "Damn, that must be one hell of a trap on this thing if I can't find it. And if it's that to hard to find, just imagine what it'll do to me. I leave it alone and starting looking for other valuables to pilfer." Using your character's suspicions to justify in-game actions can be good role-playing --- providing the character stays true to those suspicions.(I've snipped some bits for ease of rereading). My reaction would probably be C. Buff myself up (wand of Delay Poison and ask the cleric for a Death Ward) then open the chest. My logic goes something like "If there's no trap, then we risk nothing by opening it and might gain something back. If there is a trap, it's so well hidden that it might kill me outright. People don't go to that sort of expense to protect something valueless. Unless it's a decoy - but we've searched everywhere else, so it's here or nowhere". His writing of it may have been mangled, but the point is that each and every skill carries an inherent penalty for failure. You cannot take 20 when there is a penalty for failure. Therefore, that rule just begins the nullification process of why Take 20 is inherently flawed.If you in fact read the original post, his claim showed such a basic misunderstanding of the rules that it does no favour to anyone who's side he happens to be agreeing with. His assertion was "If you fail a skill check, the there is a consequence for failing, namely that you fail. Therefore you cannot take 20." But that means every use of every skill, which means that the entire Take 20 mechanic can never, ever be used. I assume that designers are rational beings (most of the time) and would not introduce a mechanic whose use they outlawed in the same section of the rulebook. (They'd use the space for something more worthwhile, like an explanation of why custard doesn't exist in D&D worlds. :P ) What are you arguing about. Of course a thif can't take 20 to find traps. It is stated in the take 20 rule that if there are consequences of failing, you can't take 20. There are obvious consequences if you fail your search check looking for a trap; If you don't find it, you're probably setting off the trap. Even that probably is enough to not let you take 20 by the rules.Sorry, no. There are no directly harmful consequences for failing to find an actually-present trap. You cannot set the trap off by the act of searching for it.. There is always a way to search for a trap without setting it off. If the activation for a trap is setting foot in a particular space, then the trap can be found from the adjacent space if you succeed in the Search check. |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 08:07 AM | Sorry, no. There are no directly harmful consequences for failing to find an actually-present trap. You cannot set the trap off by the act of searching for it.. There is always a way to search for a trap without setting it off. If the activation for a trap is setting foot in a particular space, then the trap can be found from the adjacent space if you succeed in the Search check. There is no directly harmful consequence for falling either. Its the sudden stop at the end that hurts. :-) |
| Leilond03-23-07, 08:20 AM | Failing to find a trap do not set up the trap, otherwise it would be written Disable Device report that if you fail by 5 or more, you set up the trap... Search do not |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 08:22 AM | C) "Well, whatever trap is on this is beyond my ability to find. Should I smash it open or just rely on my reflexes to (hopefully) avoid it? ... Guys, give me some magic goodness and then stand well back." . "guys give me some magic goodness." Excellent, Nom. You are so convinced that there must be a trap that you are now willing to commit the expenditure of resources to try and avoid it's effects (when in fact there may not be a trap there at all.) See, that's staying true to your character's suspicions. You haven't let the outcome of a d20 or the take 20 alter your character's behaviour --- you tried your best to find the trap but failed, but you are still proceeding under the assumption that a trap is there. Bravo. |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 11:44 AM | And commiting the expenditure of resources is what gives a trap its Challenge Rating. After all all encounters should cause the expenditure of resources, typically 25% for an equal level challenge for the iconic party. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 12:34 PM | Not exactly. You BELIEVE the keys to exist and BELIEVE they are in your house. Anyone who BELIEVES that putting an item in a particular spot necessarily implies that it must be still there has never lived with wives, children or small animals. Or thieves, for that matter, though most thieves won't stop at just stealing your keys. Pender's objections are at least rational, if predicated on a completely different model of gaming. The forge has a very apposite comment about Simulationists adding rule upon rule to stop Gamists taking shortcuts and optimisations that bypass the simulationist model of reality. Huh only half my post showed up! Well this version of my response will have to be shorter than the first because I a not typing all of that agian--- here is a summary: Now who's not being rational, the keys exist. They were forged out of steel and unless you are going to take a gnostic view of matter being illusionary they exist. I have seen them and felt them and heard them and even smelled them, so short of an animated blast furnace appearing in my home and swollowing them they still exist SOMEWHERE. Perhaps they are not where I believe I left them but they ARE somewhere, and so searching for them is a reasonable action--- however extensive searching for something for which there is no cause to believe exist is irrational. continued searching for a trap with no clue to it being there is irrational. I'll also point out that Open Lock or Use Rope don't assume you do the exact same thing 20 times either. If you did the exact same thing, you ought to get the exact same result. Rather, they assume you try a variety of different techniques. Some might be more effective than others (high vs low roll). At some point, you'll have tried every trick you know and thus have either succeeded or given up. Yes, you could keep trying, but at some point you have to accept that the task is beyond you (note: it's worth noting that in d20 you can never 'get lucky' and do the 'impossible' on a skill check). d20 follows its usual policy of gameplay over simulation and declares that you can assume that in 20 checks you'll have rolled a 20 somewhere (and a 1 too), rather than keep rolling for an indefinite period of time "just in case". Actually I assume that when you make a use rope or open lock you indeed try the exact same thing over and over until you do it correctly. lets take rope use. You need a knot, so the untrained guy wraps the rope arounda bunch and pulls, he either gets a servicable knot or he doesn't. The Trained guy looks atthe situation and say to himself " THis requires a sheepshank" ( or a slip knot, or a clovehitch, or whatever) and ties it--- if he fails his check he doesn't suddenly conclude that the sheepshank was the wrong choice, he concludes that he is a clutz today and unties his screwed up knot and does it agian--- he does it until he gets it right. |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 12:37 PM | Actually I assume that when you make a use rope or open lock you indeed try the exact same thing over and over until you do it correctly. lets take rope use. You need a knot, so the untrained guy wraps the rope arounda bunch and pulls, he either gets a servicable knot or he doesn't. The Trained guy looks atthe situation and say to himself " THis requires a sheepshank" ( or a slip knot, or a clovehitch, or whatever) and ties it--- if he fails his check he doesn't suddenly conclude that the sheepshank was the wrong choice, he concludes that he is a clutz today and unties his screwed up knot and does it agian--- he does it until he gets it right. Or alternatively he takes the time to reinforce the knot, add stopper knots to prevent it running, where possible adds additional knots designed to do the same thing, and thus provide a safety margin as if one knot goes, there are others to take up the strain. With open lock, it will be trying different tricks, just from what I know of trying to open a lock with paperclips and hair grips. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 12:46 PM | That's a ridiculous interpretation of the rules. The consequence of failing the check is that you fail the check, so you can't take 20? What skill does that not apply to, exactly? Of course it's ridiculous! I said that--- but it is still the Rules As Written. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 12:52 PM | Does it matter? Tell ya what: I'll give you ten chests to open. One of them is trapped with a lethal and dangerous device. Now, someone else gives you a chest to open. Are you really saying that you have no reason to even suspect that this chest might be trapped? That you, indeed, have no motivation for checking that chest very carefully before you flip open the lid? I call ********. Of course it matters. I'll tell you what I'll give you a divice that you can use everyday, it will make your life so much easier, but their is a chance that it will break and if it does it is likely to cause you death or injury. In fact this device is so lethal that 50,000 or so people are accedently killed by this device every year and many times more than that are maimed and injured by it. Now how much time do you spend checking it out before you use it. If you tell me you spend 2 minutes carefully checking out your car every time you drive it I call ********. I probably spend about 6 seconds every morning looking my car over, if I notice something out of the ordinany I check it out, if not I don't. I fail to see why a hall way in a doungen would be any differant. |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 12:56 PM | RAW is that you can take a 20 on a skill check if there is no penalty for failure. Not succeeding at a skill is not a penalty. Not finding something is not a penalty to failing a search check. Not tying a knot is not a penalty to failing a use rope check. Failing to untangle yourself from ropes is not a penalty to failing an escape artist check. Failing to find information is not a penalty to failing to gather information, but you will almost certainly attract attention in the same way as if you just ask around a lot more. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 12:58 PM | Or alternatively he takes the time to reinforce the knot, add stopper knots to prevent it running, where possible adds additional knots designed to do the same thing, and thus provide a safety margin as if one knot goes, there are others to take up the strain. See agian this is a nice interpretation, certianly more realistic, but not what is happening in a take 20 situation because a take 20 assumes repeated failure not that one is taking the time to do it with the utmost safety. With open lock, it will be trying different tricks, just from what I know of trying to open a lock with paperclips and hair grips. Well I am not a locksmith but I did do some extracurricular lockpicking in my Youth and pretty much I looked at the lock figured out how to pick and and tried until it gave or I figured I could not do it. Maybe this is an issue of thought process, I assume that someone who is trained always thinks about what is best to try before they act notthat they keep progressively trying differant things. In addition I assume that all searching for traps is essentially none invasive if it where not then it would come with a risk of setting the trap off. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 12:58 PM | I like my system better, but - since you are hot on this one - go ahead and use it and let me know how it goes. "Hot on this one?" What on God's Green Earth gave you that odd idea? :confused: |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 12:59 PM | If you tell me you spend 2 minutes carefully checking out your car every time you drive it I call ********. I probably spend about 6 seconds every morning looking my car over, if I notice something out of the ordinany I check it out, if not I don't. I fail to see why a hall way in a doungen would be any differant. Because you know what state you left your car in last night? It isn't likely to have suddenly been trapped and turned into a deliberately lethal object? If you have a bombing campaign where it is known that people are attaching bombs to seemingly random cars (as in Britain in the '80s with the IRA campaign) do you then spend time checking it over or do you just glance at it and then drive off? What if it is a car you have never driven before - do you then check it to make sure it is safe? |
| Matthew7703-23-07, 01:02 PM | Of course it's ridiculous! I said that--- but it is still the Rules As Written. No. It is not. Elthbert, you are simply wrong when you say the RAW don't define when a skill has a penalty for failure or not. Go to the SRD or your Player's Handbook. Look up the description of the skill "Climb". There is a line in the description that begins with the phrase "A climb check that fails...." This is the penalty for failure. Now look at the skill "Open Lock". There is no line in the description that begins with the phrase "If you fail the check...." There is no penalty for failure. *Do you see how this is different from the Climb check?* Now look at the skill "Knowledge". There is no penalty for failure, but under the subheading "Try Again", you are not allowed to re-try a knowledge check. The RAW specifies two conditions for a skill to allow taking 20. A) No penalty for failure, and B) You are allowed to try again. "Search" has no penalty for failure, and does not say you cannot re-try, thus by RAW, you can take 20. We've had a lot of discussion about various house rules and so on, but the Rules as Written are extremely clear, and you are just wrong when you keep repeating that "not suceeding" counts as a penalty. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 01:02 PM | RAW is that you can take a 20 on a skill check if there is no penalty for failure. Not succeeding at a skill is not a penalty. Not finding something is not a penalty to failing a search check. Not tying a knot is not a penalty to failing a use rope check. Failing to untangle yourself from ropes is not a penalty to failing an escape artist check. Failing to find information is not a penalty to failing to gather information, but you will almost certainly attract attention in the same way as if you just ask around a lot more. Any disadvantagous concequence is a penalty. Such is the english language--- please see 2 post above yours for whether or not I think that is a logical interpretaion of the rules. THe point is exactly that some rules require interpretation and cannot be taken by thier literal meaning, in this case, if one follows the rules literally then NOTHING would qualify. And that is the point, this is a rule tat requires common sense and interpretation, and I fail to see where common sense applies in the taking of 20 to find traps which you do not have reason to supect. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 01:06 PM | Because you know what state you left your car in last night? It isn't likely to have suddenly been trapped and turned into a deliberately lethal object? If you have a bombing campaign where it is known that people are attaching bombs to seemingly random cars (as in Britain in the '80s with the IRA campaign) do you then spend time checking it over or do you just glance at it and then drive off? What if it is a car you have never driven before - do you then check it to make sure it is safe? no If I have no reason to suspect that it is unsafe I on't spend to much time checking it out--- lets say your average car is 4 5 ' squares--- no I don't spend 8 minutes checking out a car I have never driven unless I have suspecion that there is something wrong. Do you? |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 01:07 PM | Of course they fail many times. Once you succeed at finding something, you would stop searching to deal with it before continuing to search. My point is that you aren't repeating the same action over and over. Well yes and no, and this may be, perhaps, where the confusion lies for some people. Just as a Cleave is a single stroke of your weapon but is represented by a number of distinct die rolls for each target, so too is Taking 20 a single detailed skill attempt with a die roll assumed for each 6 second round that passes. The Take 20 mechanic replaces the actual individual die-rolling part, instead assuming that you will have a statistically perfect array of rolls within that 20-round period and will apply the best of those rolls, which in this case is a 20. Take 20 is a rules mechanic to replace a lot of tedious die-rolling, nothing more. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 01:16 PM | His writing of it may have been mangled, but the point is that each and every skill carries an inherent penalty for failure. You cannot take 20 when there is a penalty for failure. It really doesn't, though if this entirely erroneous belief is the basis for your difficulties with Take 20 then I can at least understand why you have a problem with it, even if said problem is wrong. After reading this thread and seeing the manner in which some people elect to interpret, misinterpret, or pedantically over-literally interpret, the D&D rules am I astoundingly grateful of the gaming group of which I am a part. I feel the sheer heart-dropping sense of relief and good-fortune as must be experienced by those people who miss a plane that later explodes in flight. |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 01:19 PM | Well I am not a locksmith but I did do some extracurricular lockpicking in my Youth and pretty much I looked at the lock figured out how to pick and and tried until it gave or I figured I could not do it. Maybe this is an issue of thought process, I assume that someone who is trained always thinks about what is best to try before they act notthat they keep progressively trying differant things. In addition I assume that all searching for traps is essentially none invasive if it where not then it would come with a risk of setting the trap off. OK, so you are faced with an area that you believe to be trapped. For the sake of arguement a chest. Some possible techniques that you might use (please note that I am not an expert on searching for stuff, so this is just what I can think of whilst sat at my desk. 1) Are there holes around the lock or hinges that might conceal darts or needles? 2) Is there a double seam on the lid that could conceal a blade? 3) Looking closely at the hinges do they look like the hinge is hollow, and thus might contain some kind of fragile glass vial full of a volatile liquid? 4) Is there a layer of non-conducting material (i.e rubber, cloth or wood) on the lid separating two bands of metal (could be an electric trap)? 5) Does the chest smell "odd"? 6) Does the chest look stained anywhere? (Could be poison spray/acid spray/fire/cold based.) 7) Does the chest look like it is attached to the ground or is it resting on the ground? 8) Is the area near the chest warmer or colder than the surrounding area? 9) Is the chest smooth, or covered in barbs/blades/needles? 10) Around the base of the chest are there any glints of metal that might be needles or wires? 11) Does the floor around the chest match the rest of the room? 12) Does the chest appear delicately balanced? 13) Does the chest appear to have any false seams? 14) Shine a light on it at an angle, does this produce any unlikely reflections, or show any unexpected shadows? 15) Look for paralax errors by moving around the chest looking closely. Does any of the surface appear to be wrong? 16) Try shining a light into the gaps between the lid and the rest of the chest, does this show antything 17) Tap the chest lightly with something. Does it sound unduly hollow (i.e 1/8" of wood rather than 1")? Does it sound like a different material to what it looks like? Does it move at a gentle tap? OK, I'm not an expert and I got to 17 before needing to touch it. The rogue is more experienced than I am, but I don't think he could go through all of those in 6 seconds. He's likely to go with what his gut tells him is most likely for this type of situation (if he takes 10), guess wildly and hope (Rolls the dice) or try all of those, and things I haven't thought of (Take 20 and 2 minutes). |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 01:26 PM | Elthbert> Yes, if I am taking a car I have never driven before I will take 10 minutes to check things like the engine being well maintained, there's no petrol leak , the radiator is filled, there's a full reservoir for the windscreen wipers and that the battery isn't leaking, and is correctly connected. I'll then check there is a spare tyre, it's correctly inflated and so on. That might not take more than 10 minutes, but I feel it is worth doing. I might skip most of this, and just give it a looking over if it is a friend's car and they have checked it recently and believe it to be safe, but by default I'll check it unless I have reason to believe it to be safe. Now imagine the situation where you have been given a strange car to drive, and there is a possible risk that someone has attached a bomb to it. How much more careful would you tend to be? |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 01:30 PM | Any disadvantagous concequence is a penalty. No. A penalty is a bad outcome based on something you have done, usually something that happens because you got it wrong that places you in a worse position than if you had not done it. For example touching live wires as a penalty - an electric shock. Failing to see those wires, but not touching them - no penalty. Stepping into a trap has a penalty - it goes off. Not seeing the trap, bit not stepping into it - no penalty. How can I make that clearer? No penalty for failing the roll to find a trap. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 01:32 PM | OK, so you are faced with an area that you believe to be trapped. For the sake of arguement a chest. Some possible techniques that you might use (please note that I am not an expert on searching for stuff, so this is just what I can think of whilst sat at my desk. 1) Are there holes around the lock or hinges that might conceal darts or needles? 2) Is there a double seam on the lid that could conceal a blade? 3) Looking closely at the hinges do they look like the hinge is hollow, and thus might contain some kind of fragile glass vial full of a volatile liquid? 4) Is there a layer of non-conducting material (i.e rubber, cloth or wood) on the lid separating two bands of metal (could be an electric trap)? 5) Does the chest smell "odd"? 6) Does the chest look stained anywhere? (Could be poison spray/acid spray/fire/cold based.) spot 7) Does the chest look like it is attached to the ground or is it resting on the ground? spot 8) Is the area near the chest warmer or colder than the surrounding area? 9) Is the chest smooth, or covered in barbs/blades/needles? spot 10) Around the base of the chest are there any glints of metal that might be needles or wires? 11) Does the floor around the chest match the rest of the room? spot 12) Does the chest appear delicately balanced? spot 13) Does the chest appear to have any false seams? 14) Shine a light on it at an angle, does this produce any unlikely reflections, or show any unexpected shadows? 15) Look for paralax errors by moving around the chest looking closely. Does any of the surface appear to be wrong? 16) Try shining a light into the gaps between the lid and the rest of the chest, does this show antything 17) Tap the chest lightly with something. Does it sound unduly hollow (i.e 1/8" of wood rather than 1")? Does it sound like a different material to what it looks like? Does it move at a gentle tap? taping the chest! you see this is an action that I would contend SOME traps could be set off by. OK, I'm not an expert and I got to 17 before needing to touch it. The rogue is more experienced than I am, but I don't think he could go through all of those in 6 seconds. He's likely to go with what his gut tells him is most likely for this type of situation (if he takes 10), guess wildly and hope (Rolls the dice) or try all of those, and things I haven't thought of (Take 20 and 2 minutes). Agian I never said I wouldn't allow you to take a 20 if you had cause to believe it was traped--- in fact, I have said quite the opposite. However you must have cause to believe that it is trapped to take a 20. I find it facinating that the entire " of course you can take a 20" crowd seems locked on a chest, when the OP mentioned a hallway. Furthermore I would classify much of the things above as spot related not search and as such rolled into the spot check to determine if something is indeed suspicous. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 01:35 PM | No. A penalty is a bad outcome based on something you have done, usually something that happens because you got it wrong that places you in a worse position than if you had not done it. For example touching live wires as a penalty - an electric shock. Failing to see those wires, but not touching them - no penalty. Stepping into a trap has a penalty - it goes off. Not seeing the trap, bit not stepping into it - no penalty. How can I make that clearer? No penalty for failing the roll to find a trap. I posted the appropriate definitions above, I assure you ANY DISADVANTAGOUS concequence of an action is a penalty. looking for a trap ( that is there) not finding it--- disadvantage. i.e. penalty Again you are argueing a point I do not contest in essence my statement was only to show that the RAW requires interpretation. please read my above post on the matter. |
| Matthew7703-23-07, 01:43 PM | I posted the appropriate definitions above, I assure you ANY DISADVANTAGOUS concequence of an action is a penalty. looking for a trap ( that is there) not finding it--- disadvantage. i.e. penalty. Still wrong. Read post 662. |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 01:48 PM | In the majority of cases people tend to take 20 on chests and doors rather than hallways. This is in general due to the time factor. In the event that the party thinks it has missed something, or is faced with a situation where the place appears deserted, provided there is time available then by all means take 20. Most of the things in my arguement can be applied to a flagstone in a corridor. If you don't have the time, and get interuptted, then you won't get to take 20. Imagine a corridor in a pyramid. Someone has constructed this place to stop thieves, but hasn't put any living guardians in. I feel that it is reasonable for the party to be suspicious and carefully check every few feet, especially as they may also wish to check for hidden side passages. For most purposes spot is applied to large scale things and is most often a passive skill. Search is applied to detail like any and all of these above points, and is an active skill. However what you seem to have said is you make the party roll a spot check to determine if they are suspicious of a corridor or chest or door? Correct me if I am wrong. You there make the party risk failing two rolls to be able to find a trap, and you are forcing the dice to determine if the party are suspicious of something? I posted the appropriate definitions above, I assure you ANY DISADVANTAGOUS concequence of an action is a penalty. And how is not finding something actually disadvantageous? How does it put you in a worse position than you were in before you searched? Elthbert: can you please answer regarding 1) My live wire analogy 2) The potentially bomb trapped car? |
| High Octane03-23-07, 02:01 PM | Lets clarify. Replacing "No penalty for failure" with "When the ONLY penalty for a failed check is the lost time spent doing the activity." Since apparantly people need the language normally reserved for legal documents. You dont like the take 20 rule? Fine. Watch your players roll. Roll over and over and over again until that die says 20. Wait, you can just hide the die from them. Of course then they will just ask YOu to roll the die. Over and over and over. You can expect at least a dozen times. Many will ask for 20. Some even for 30 since they dont want to take that chance. So now you are spending frustratingly long times rolling excess amopunts of dierolls because the persons character wants to spend all the time he needs to make sure he cant find any traps. Rogues are craftsmen often enough, viewing their skills as art. They WILL take their time because they will WANT to. So instead you are left with 3 options, allow the players to roll until it comes up 20, roll several times yourself since the player will ask, or punsh a player for "metagame" thinking when in fact it is a totally valid concept that a rogue would take the time they need for trapfinding since they are artists and traps are dangerous. Or you know, just let the players say "I take 20. Total is 35." Edit: As for the taking 20 on every square of a dungeon, just roll random encounters every hour (or 30 squares searched at 2 minutes a search) and "happen" to have a lot appear. Make one a rust monster. |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 02:10 PM | Of course it's ridiculous! I said that--- but it is still the Rules As Written.No, it is not the "Rules As Written", anymore that the statement "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round" means you never roll an attack roll when it's not your turn. If you genuinely believe the designers created the take 20 rule and then intended to remove any possibility it could be used, then email WotC and find someone -- anyone -- who agrees with you. If, instead, you don't believe that, then stop being an ass and pretending you do. |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 02:15 PM | And commiting the expenditure of resources is what gives a trap its Challenge Rating. After all all encounters should cause the expenditure of resources, typically 25% for an equal level challenge for the iconic party. I agree, but as an aside I must have very smart or very lucky players. It always seems that they breeze through challenges of equal difficulty to their ECL . . . and frankly I know play it pretty close to the Wealth-by-Level guidelines , so it's not like they are overpowered. They hardly use any resources for an encounter of equal level challenge for the iconic party, much less ever find themselves in any real jeopardy. Maybe it's my dice . . . |
| Lindwyrm03-23-07, 02:17 PM | I agree, but as an aside I must have very smart or very lucky players. It always seems that they breeze through challenges of equal difficulty to their ECL . . . and frankly I know play it pretty close to the Wealth-by-Level guidelines , so it's not like they are overpowered. They hardly use any resources for an encounter of equal level challenge for the iconic party, much less ever find themselves in any real jeopardy. Remember it counts hit points and spells as resources as well. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 02:23 PM | How can I make that clearer? You can't, but for some it simply is not a question of clarity. You can explain to someone "this is a wall" till you run out of breath, if they have decided it is a door they will simply not be swayed. The unfortunate part is that this leads to them claiming doors are impossible to walk through and that the only viable solution is to break out the saw… |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 02:32 PM | The unfortunate part is that this leads to them claiming doors are impossible to walk through and that the only viable solution is to break out the saw…And going on and on about how much better the game was before all these "wallists" showed up and ruined it. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 04:55 PM | In the majority of cases people tend to take 20 on chests and doors rather than hallways. This is in general due to the time factor. In the event that the party thinks it has missed something, or is faced with a situation where the place appears deserted, provided there is time available then by all means take 20. Most of the things in my arguement can be applied to a flagstone in a corridor. If you don't have the time, and get interuptted, then you won't get to take 20. Imagine a corridor in a pyramid. Someone has constructed this place to stop thieves, but hasn't put any living guardians in. I feel that it is reasonable for the party to be suspicious and carefully check every few feet, especially as they may also wish to check for hidden side passages. For most purposes spot is applied to large scale things and is most often a passive skill. Search is applied to detail like any and all of these above points, and is an active skill. However what you seem to have said is you make the party roll a spot check to determine if they are suspicious of a corridor or chest or door? Correct me if I am wrong. You there make the party risk failing two rolls to be able to find a trap, and you are forcing the dice to determine if the party are suspicious of something? And how is not finding something actually disadvantageous? How does it put you in a worse position than you were in before you searched? Elthbert: can you please answer regarding 1) My live wire analogy 2) The potentially bomb trapped car? I missed the live wire analogy I'll have to go back and find it--- I'm sorry, lots of post here. As for the bomb traped car--- if I lived in an area where there were routinely bombed cars, I would pop my hood, glance around under it, and look under the car and make sure nothing is attached to the startedr or obviously attached down there. I would not check my car bumper to bumper every time. Not unless I actually had a reason to suspect that there was something wrong. for example, my hood was slightly up, or my wheels seemed turned in an odd direction. I live in an area where burglaries and robberies are not that uncommon, but I do nto search my house every time I go in. Now if I spot something out of the ordinary, or hear something out of hthe ordinary THEN I search my house. I don't understand what the problem with this is. I require that you give an explanation for why you are continuing searching when you have already searched and found nothing--- when I have searched my house, rifle in hand, hyped up and ready to have to kill someone--- I didn't search it agian and agian and agian and agian and again and so on--- i searched it and then was satisfied that nothing was there. Edit: I didn't mean to neglect answering your question. I give a spot check--- if they notice something is wrong then they have justification for numerous searches. And more than that there is an indication that you NEED to search there. But I will happly allow someone to make a search where ever they like, they get a search, if they don't find it then thats it unless they have more reason to keep looking. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 04:59 PM | No, it is not the "Rules As Written", anymore that the statement "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round" means you never roll an attack roll when it's not your turn. If you genuinely believe the designers created the take 20 rule and then intended to remove any possibility it could be used, then email WotC and find someone -- anyone -- who agrees with you. If, instead, you don't believe that, then stop being an ass and pretending you do. Actually you never do roll an attack roll unless it's your turn--- when you get an AoO or what ever, it is your turn to do so---- that does not mean that it is your initative order. But that is niether here nor there. Most D&D rules require some level of interpretation because of either the finite nature of language, or the poor language choices of the designers. This is just one of those times. I will not suddnely say that indeed the rules say what you say they say--- because I do not believe that is what is intended. I think that failing to find a trap is indeed a penalty and that taking a 20 is a cheeseball BS move. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:02 PM | Lets clarify. Replacing "No penalty for failure" with "When the ONLY penalty for a failed check is the lost time spent doing the activity." Since apparantly people need the language normally reserved for legal documents. You dont like the take 20 rule? Fine. Watch your players roll. Roll over and over and over again until that die says 20. Wait, you can just hide the die from them. Of course then they will just ask YOu to roll the die. Over and over and over. You can expect at least a dozen times. Many will ask for 20. Some even for 30 since they dont want to take that chance. So now you are spending frustratingly long times rolling excess amopunts of dierolls because the persons character wants to spend all the time he needs to make sure he cant find any traps. Rogues are craftsmen often enough, viewing their skills as art. They WILL take their time because they will WANT to. So instead you are left with 3 options, allow the players to roll until it comes up 20, roll several times yourself since the player will ask, or punsh a player for "metagame" thinking when in fact it is a totally valid concept that a rogue would take the time they need for trapfinding since they are artists and traps are dangerous. Or you know, just let the players say "I take 20. Total is 35." Edit: As for the taking 20 on every square of a dungeon, just roll random encounters every hour (or 30 squares searched at 2 minutes a search) and "happen" to have a lot appear. Make one a rust monster. I think you miss the point--- I would never allow my players to roll for the finding of a trap 20 times--- not except under very unusual circumstances. |
| Matthew7703-23-07, 05:03 PM | ... I think that failing to find a trap is indeed a penalty and that taking a 20 is a cheeseball BS move. Its fine to think that, as long as you don't try to claim that your opinion is the Rules as Written, which clearly state that Search checks are one of the intended uses of the "Take 20" rule. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:12 PM | Elthbert> Yes, if I am taking a car I have never driven before I will take 10 minutes to check things like the engine being well maintained, there's no petrol leak , the radiator is filled, there's a full reservoir for the windscreen wipers and that the battery isn't leaking, and is correctly connected. I'll then check there is a spare tyre, it's correctly inflated and so on. That might not take more than 10 minutes, but I feel it is worth doing. I might skip most of this, and just give it a looking over if it is a friend's car and they have checked it recently and believe it to be safe, but by default I'll check it unless I have reason to believe it to be safe. Now imagine the situation where you have been given a strange car to drive, and there is a possible risk that someone has attached a bomb to it. How much more careful would you tend to be? Well you are an exceptionally cautious person. I do not, if given a strange car to drive I look it over, see if there is a jack and a tire ( no, much to my dismay on at least one occasion, I don't check if it is inflated) and I get in the car to drive. If given a strange car to drive which I "suspect" of being bombed, i am going to check it with a fine tooth comb. But hell any car could have a bomb in it--- I have people who would be all to happy to blow me up. These are adventurers, people who laugh in face of death daily, assured of thier skill, i simply do not see why THEY would act in such a manner. Thus i believe it is metagaming, because this is the player intruding on the character--- I allow a spot check because that is what represents the characters ability to decern noticing something amiss. If the character notices something amiss then thats one thing, if not well then the character has no reason to keep looking. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:13 PM | Its fine to think that, as long as you don't try to claim that your opinion is the Rules as Written, which clearly state that Search checks are one of the intended uses of the "Take 20" rule. But not searching for traps. |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 05:19 PM | I don't understand what the problem with this is. I require that you give an explanation for why you are continuing searching when you have already searched and found nothing.It's that a lot of people have problems with your assertion that rogues don't assume every square inch of dungeon corridor is covered in traps. That's why they're called "dungeons", after all. Put more broadly, I don't like the DM telling me what my character thinks. If I distrust a merchant, I don't suddenly trust him because I botch a Sense Motive check. I may not know how well I tied someone up, but I don't automatically think I did a good job if I botch the Use Rope check. Similarly, if I roll a search check, and I didn't find anything, my first thought is that I should check again to be sure -- not that there's nothing to find. There's a reason NPC's don't roll Diplomacy checks against PC's.if I lived in an area where there were routinely bombed cars, I would pop my hood, glance around under it, and look under the car and make sure nothing is attached to the startedr or obviously attached down there. I would not check my car bumper to bumper every timeRight. If you lived someplace where there were a lot of car bombs, you wouldn't spend five minutes checking your car every morning? I call bulls**t. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:23 PM | No. A penalty is a bad outcome based on something you have done, usually something that happens because you got it wrong that places you in a worse position than if you had not done it. For example touching live wires as a penalty - an electric shock. Failing to see those wires, but not touching them - no penalty. Stepping into a trap has a penalty - it goes off. Not seeing the trap, bit not stepping into it - no penalty. How can I make that clearer? No penalty for failing the roll to find a trap. Sorry I completly missed this post. Searching for live wires-- don't find them, this is a disadvantage why because there are live wires which you didn't find. Therefore you should have no reason to conclude that there is anything unsafe and you act accordingly. The penalty for not finding a trap is that you searched and did not find it, ergo you think that there are no live wires there. I am with you I CANNOT make it any clearer. |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 05:25 PM | I think you miss the point--- I would never allow my players to roll for the finding of a trap 20 times--- not except under very unusual circumstances.Invariably, when I've found GM's who were both willing and anxious to tell me what my character thought and forced me to behave accordingly, they were terrible judges. If you're going to control what your players do, why don't you just run DMPC's instead? |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 05:28 PM | But not searching for traps. Yes searching for traps. Nowhere does it state or suggest in the RAW that Take 20 does not apply to search checks used to find traps. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-23-07, 05:29 PM | Sorry I completly missed this post. Searching for live wires-- don't find them, this is a disadvantage why because there are live wires which you didn't find. Therefore you should have no reason to conclude that there is anything unsafe and you act accordingly. The penalty for not finding a trap is that you searched and did not find it, ergo you think that there are no live wires there. I am with you I CANNOT make it any clearer. Your position is clear, it is simply wrong. |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 05:34 PM | Searching for live wires-- don't find them, this is a disadvantage why because there are live wires which you didn't find.It's like arguing with a rock. Not only a rock, but a particularly dense rock. You are wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, utterly, wrong. If you insist on arguing this point, you might as well admit that you have such a poor grasp of the rules (and, for that matter, basic logic) that there is no humanly possible way of convincing you otherwise. If "not succeeding" was the same as "a penalty for failure" then WHY DID THE DESIGNERS INCLUDE THE TAKE 20 RULE? |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:35 PM | It's that a lot of people have problems with your assertion that rogues don't assume every square inch of dungeon corridor is covered in traps. That's why they're called "dungeons", after all. Put more broadly, I don't like the DM telling me what my character thinks. If I distrust a merchant, I don't suddenly trust him because I botch a Sense Motive check. I may not know how well I tied someone up, but I don't automatically think I did a good job if I botch the Use Rope check. Similarly, if I roll a search check, and I didn't find anything, my first thought is that I should check again to be sure -- not that there's nothing to find. I don't tell anybody what there character thinks, but in many cases the dice do. If you fail a sense motive check, and you don't incorperate what I tell you you do sense into yor roleplaying then you are just a crappy player and you will get crappy roleplaying XP. If you do incorperate it and show allow it to just soften but not eliminate your disrust thats fine assuming you are playing a natureall;y distrustful character. If you are playing a character which is normally a happy go lucky gregarious fellow and you distrust him, and you check is botched and I say " he seems completly genuine and sincere" and you still act distrustful --- wel we are back to example A. A search check is a skill where I assume the character is doing his best. Why would they distrust there own best? There's a reason NPC's don't roll Diplomacy checks against PC's.Right. If you lived someplace where there were a lot of car bombs, you wouldn't spend five minutes checking your car every morning? I call bulls**t. Well actually it would be closer to 8 or 10 but whether you call BS or not, that is a fact, do you think most people who live in those places check thier cars every morning? They do not. More than that As I said I live in what most people would concider a very dangerous area, and I don't check everything all the time. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:40 PM | It's like arguing with a rock. Not only a rock, but a particularly dense rock. You are wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, utterly, wrong. If you insist on arguing this point, you might as well admit that you have such a poor grasp of the rules (and, for that matter, basic logic) that there is no humanly possible way of convincing you otherwise. If "not succeeding" was the same as "a penalty for failure" then WHY DID THE DESIGNERS INCLUDE THE TAKE 20 RULE? You obviously cannot read--- either go back and read my post or go back to school and learn the skill because obviously you either do not have the skill or are not useing it. I am not going to adress this issue to you anymore, if the following does not suffice please go back and read the other 10 or so post I have adressed on it. The rules as they are written in fact do not allow for a take 20 check, that is obviously not what is intended, and that is my point, interpretation of the rules is necessary. So, as is often the case shouting that it is " the RAW" is simply not so becasue the RAW is not coherent within the obvous intent and it's literal meaning. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:42 PM | Your position is clear, it is simply wrong. have you ever inspected wiring? Just to inspect it, not because you had cause to suspect a short. How may times did you check it before you were confidentthat your search was accurate? |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:48 PM | Invariably, when I've found GM's who were both willing and anxious to tell me what my character thought and forced me to behave accordingly, they were terrible judges. If you're going to control what your players do, why don't you just run DMPC's instead? Well I am sorry you have had such a poor experiance with DM's. I have been DMing since 1981 and have never had anyone quit anyone of my games unless they moved away, or the like. I have been told by many players that I am the best DM they have ever played with. In one case I had a former player pay for me to come across coutry to "guest DM" their group for a week. So I don't think most of my players have been disatisfied. I do not control characters at all--- but I require that you play your character, in 3rd edition that means responding to skill checks appropriatly. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 05:49 PM | Your position is clear, it is simply wrong. Well you may assert that as much as you like--- but I am afraid you have not, nor likely will, prove it. |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 06:41 PM | What dungeon are we talking about here? What hallway? To use a published example, look at the Sunless Citadel. There are sections of that dungeon which are heavily traversed by kobolds and goblins. Attempts to take 20 in those hallways will probably result in the effort being interrupted by kobolds or goblins. But there are other sections of that same complex which have been abandoned for centuries, and if the PCs decide to do their best archaeologist impersonations in those sections of the complex it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone would interrupt their work. In neither case should the DM simply say, "Well, you don't have time for that." Let the PCs do what they do and adjudicate the reactions of the environment around them normally. Depends on the circumstances. I recently ran a group through my version of the Tomb of Horrors. There were times when, no matter how hard they searched, they couldn't find a trap... and they would proceed trepidatiously. At other times, unable to find a trap but convinced it was there, they would turn away and explore in a different direction. This was actually a shift from their earlier attitude. When they first entered the tomb, they were perfectly happy to do a single Search check and then assume the way was clear enough. (They had fairly high bonuses, so even on a roll of 1 they felt pretty good about it.) I knew the adventure had been a success when they thoroughly searched a door and found no traps. Then most of the group stepped back around a corner while one of them buffed up and opened the door... to no effect. So then they carefully searched the floor on the other side and, by taking 20, discovered that it was a pit trap! Ha! So they activated an immovable rod and, while holding onto it, triggered the pit trap by standing on it. Then they climbed down carefully into the pit and walked across it... triggering the pressure plate that caused all the spikes in the pit to shoot out as ranged attacks and pin-cushion them. That's emergent behavior. I could have tried to enforce it through DM fiat ("thou shalt not suspect a trap here"; "thou hast suffered enough that thou may suspect a trap here"), but that wouldn't be any fun for me or the players. Why not? It was forgotten for centuries and not one monster, animals, insect, plants, oozes, or undead have developed/found there way down here. That is madness. There is no reason to give 1 hour to get down a hallway in a dungeons unless everything is dead, and if everything is dead then there is no dungeon. |
| Doodle03-23-07, 06:48 PM | I'm a guardsman named Ballsy McHacknSlash and have a good friend named Roguesy McPickaLock. This one time last year we were wandering through the Barrow of the Forgotten Lich-King Spellsy Mc TrapsaLot. Let me tell you, the going was slow. Roguesy was out in front, sneaking, tiptoeing, looking, sniffing - you name it. Hell it took us almost an hour to go down a hallway and open the door to the Thrown room. But in the end I was glad, Roguesy found two deadly fireball traps that would have turned us to ash. There were a few times we were interuppted by some wandering zombies- Rogeusy stepped backed and I had to slice and dice 'em. But then he went back to his searching. Poor Roguesy though - the last trap he found - on the Kings tomb no less, was a hidden dagger. He thought he propped it out of the way, but - snickety snack - we was wrong and lost his hand. I wonder if the ruby he found was worth it? Now the player playing Roguesy - the paranoid thief (aren't they all) has two choices: 1) Hey DM - Roguesy is a super careful, paranoid little bugger wandering through a dungeon. He's going to take 20 on his search checks. or 2) Hey DM - Roguesy is a super careful, paranoid little bugger wandering through a dungeon. I know you don't allow the "take 20 mechanic" but in order to properly role play the thief, I figure he's going to spend a good 10 minutes, maybe even 20, searching every 5 foot space, door, etc. as he moves through the dungeon - please roll all those dice behind your screen for me. Me. |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 06:56 PM | If the players decide to take 20 moving down an otherwise featureless hallway then that is their decision. My group do it in some situations. Typically when they've cleared (or think they've cleared) a dungeon, and mapped out the place to such accuracy as I can draw or describe it. They'll look at the map, pick an area where there's a large empty space or a corridor - especially a dead-end one - and do the Take 20 routine. They've also been known to do this in rooms of significant NPCs. Sometimes they even find things that way. If the dungeon is clear then it is not a dungeon and the PC can take as long they want to to stare at that one 5' by 5' space. they're are here for a reason and by it self should tell them they don't have the time take a 20. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 07:01 PM | Watch your players roll. Roll over and over and over again until that die says 20. Wait, you can just hide the die from them. Of course then they will just ask YOu to roll the die. Over and over and over. You can expect at least a dozen times. Many will ask for 20. Some even for 30 since they dont want to take that chance. So now you are spending frustratingly long times rolling excess amopunts of dierolls because the persons character wants to spend all the time he needs to make sure he cant find any traps. You must have some really crappy role-players. I pity you and your roll-happy players. I pity that you don't have the backbone to stand up to them. :dragon: **** |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 07:08 PM | RAW is that you can take a 20 on a skill check if there is no penalty for failure. Not succeeding at a skill is not a penalty. Not finding something is not a penalty to failing a search check. Not tying a knot is not a penalty to failing a use rope check. Failing to untangle yourself from ropes is not a penalty to failing an escape artist check. Failing to find information is not a penalty to failing to gather information, but you will almost certainly attract attention in the same way as if you just ask around a lot more. Yes but setting off the trap after not finding it is a penalty. Just because you don't think it should be doesn't mean it isn't |
| High Octane03-23-07, 07:16 PM | I think you miss the point--- I would never allow my players to roll for the finding of a trap 20 times--- not except under very unusual circumstances. So you wont let him try again? Wait, you played a whole ton of first edition didnt you? |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 07:26 PM | So you wont let him try again? Wait, you played a whole ton of first edition didnt you? If they have to roll 20 times they ether don't have a high enough skill for the trap or there is nothing there. there is no reason for a player to roll more 5 times. there is the same number of high numbers as low ones so they have a 50% chance of rolling a high number each roll. If they have to roll 20 times just to find it they might want to try there luck finding another hallway. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 07:30 PM | So you wont let him try again? Wait, you played a whole ton of first edition didnt you? In first edition, you would state what you are doing - "I search for traps as thoroughly as possible on the door until I am satisfied I cannot search any more thoroughly." - the DM would roll once and relay what your character finds. A player that would say - I do the same thing - so roll those percentile again, and again, and again and again and again..... A player such as this would likely be excused from the table by the whole group. You already searched as thoroughly as possible until you were 100% satisified. Why would you do it again? :dragon: **** |
| High Octane03-23-07, 07:36 PM | You must have some really crappy role-players. I pity you and your roll-happy players. I pity that you don't have the backbone to stand up to them. :dragon: **** Why'd you go and do that? I like you man, why did you go and have to make me mad at you? Alright now before yougo into your condescending attitude, let me inform you that its not roll playing to want to take that time to want to check for traps. Way to go though on the concept that will truly frustrate people playing rogues to the point that they wont want to play a rogue anymore. Trapfinding is one of the rogues biggest draws. Its something that makes them feel needed and special. Now you want to throw a good high percentage of failure to find traps in because "Oh its metagaming" By not allowing rerolls you are regressing the edition to the time when thieves had a starting 55% chance to not be able to detect the trap and thus 55% of the time couldnt even TRY to be useful And thats when they KNEW when to search for a trap. Now lets go into the fact that a search check is 6 seconds. Are you honestly telling me that someone could check a door in 6 seconds and it would be a full thorough check that was equal to the same as a guy spending a couple minutes looking over every detail? Now if the player is taking 20 when there is a time crunch, or on every damn square in the game thats fine, but that kind of player is a problem with the PLAYER, not the take 20 rule. Know how to handle that player who is taking all that time where you say metagaming? Ask all the other players what THEY are doing during all of this. Its perfectly logical that the rogue would want to take all that time on traps if its his passion, but expect the fighter wizard and cleric to be a little less patient. If the OTHER players arent getting mad at the timetaking, then you need to give them a cold slap. There is nothing wrong with the take 20 option. Its just subject to abuse like any other rule in the game. Dont make a rogue feel out of control by limiting one search check for anything. Thats unfair and illogical. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 07:47 PM | Why'd you go and do that? I like you man, why did you go and have to make me mad at you? Don't get mad. I was wondering if your players really act like that? In situations where they know they can't Take 20, do they make you roll 12 times when they know they can spare 12 rounds but not a full 20? Do they make you toss 17 times when they need those extra 3 to do something else? How about 19 times when they need that one last time to do something else? Isn't that the justification for Take 20 by claiming your players would be well-within their rights to make you throw a die 20+ times without take 20? Well, even with take 20, players should be "well within their rights" to make you throw that die 1 to 19 times without needing to use a Take 20 action and thereby increase their chances. Seems to me to be easier and more logical to assign a Circumstancial modifier based on time, effort and all other circumstances than to create a situation where people can roll over and over like circus seals. :dragon: **** |
| catsclaw03-23-07, 07:55 PM | Don't get mad.Yes, you've always been the voice of reason and respect on this thread, Pender.Well, even with take 20, players should be "well within their rights" to make you throw that die 1 to 19 times without needing to use a Take 20 action and thereby increase their chances. Seems to me to be easier and more logical to assign a Circumstancial modifier based on time, effort and all other circumstances than to create a situation where people can roll over and over like circus seals.Translation: "You want your characters to inhabit a stable world that doesn't wholly depend on the monomaniacal whims of the GM? Isn't it easier just to make it all up on the fly, and relentlessly mock anyone who disagrees?" Come to think of it, that is easier. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 08:04 PM | Yes, you've always been the voice of reason and respect on this thread, Pender. Before you start tossing rocks - let's not forget your little gem of "reason and respect": Oh, blow it out your ass, you pompous windbag. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7703-23-07, 08:07 PM | Well you may assert that as much as you like--- but I am afraid you have not, nor likely will, prove it. Wow. Just.... Wow. Of all the stuff I've seen on this board, I've never before seen someone read a simple, clear sentence in the PHB and proceed to declare that the exact opposite is the RAW. Umm... are you perhaps not understanding that RAW means "Rules as Written" ? Seriously.. say you don't like them or think they are stupid, but don't make stuff up and insist its in the rulebooks. |
| PenderGrass03-23-07, 08:11 PM | Translation: "You want your characters to inhabit a stable world that doesn't wholly depend on the monomaniacal whims of the GM? Isn't it easier just to make it all up on the fly, and relentlessly mock anyone who disagrees?" Come to think of it, that is easier. So, do you attack any DM that assigns a circumstancial modifier? If you are DMing do you even assign circumstancial modifiers - or do you deem them to be too dangerous or tempting to the "dark side?" :dragon: **** |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 11:15 PM | So you wont let him try again? Wait, you played a whole ton of first edition didnt you? since 1979 and I was a particularly long hold out agianst switching to 2nd edition, I finally made that ( very unhappy) switch in late 1994, and I still pulled some stuff with me. The thought has occured to me that the view on what a search entails might be colored by which edition one started with. |
| Elthbert03-23-07, 11:28 PM | Wow. Just.... Wow. Of all the stuff I've seen on this board, I've never before seen someone read a simple, clear sentence in the PHB and proceed to declare that the exact opposite is the RAW. Umm... are you perhaps not understanding that RAW means "Rules as Written" ? Seriously.. say you don't like them or think they are stupid, but don't make stuff up and insist its in the rulebooks. I took a simple line from the SRD and quoted it, then I presented commonly excepted definitions for the words used in it, as proported by the dictionary. And simply by the words used in the rule there is virtually no time that "technically" it could be used. I then commented that this was obviously not intended and therefore one had to "interpret the rules in a logically consistant manner. However no one seems to be able to read that little portion of 6 or 7 post. I quoted the SRD and I quoted the dictionary--- THAT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN! If you don't like it, take it up with the MLA or Merriem-- Webster. My point was exactly that even though that is what it literally says that is not what is intended and therefore it requires interpretation, and that that interpretation is open for debate. That you interprete it differantly is fine, that you claim some sacrosanct RAW bs is not. The RAW are, in this case, impossible to follow if the take 20 rule is to exist at all. |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 11:40 PM | Ok here is the math on this one people. A search takes 6s and that for you to search all over a 5' by 5' space.(THERE IS NO QUICK CHECK. Now when you take a 20 you search the same 5' by5' space 20 different 6s searches. That's 120s/60s in a min makes 2 mins. That is why it takes 2 mins because you are seaching it 20 times. Even if you use different type of searching each time it still alone takes 6s each time. The take 20 action means that you have searched this one space 19 (6s) seaches and on the 20th (6s) you finally spot the trap. I really hope this helps people not post about a thief deciding to search long for a better job searching. Even if the thief does a better job searching it is still alone 6s in game time. |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 11:48 PM | Here is something to ponder: Is it fair for DM to knowingly place a trap that the rogue has no chance in finding even when he/she takes 20? If so, how often? |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 11:52 PM | That's why you keep one of the enemies alive. If you throw him down the hallway and he dies then you can find the trap. (it only takes 6s) |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 11:52 PM | The take 20 action means that you have searched this one space 19 (6s) seaches and on the 20th (6s) you finally spot the trap. . Funny how every time I take 20, I always find the trap on the 20th attempt . . . |
| Ace_of_time03-23-07, 11:56 PM | Funny how every time I take 20, I always find the trap on the 20th attempt . . . That is how it RAW works. It is not my personal thoughts on the matter. |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 11:58 PM | The thought has occured to me that the view on what a search entails might be colored by which edition one started with. I agree 100% Half of my game table came from playing 1st edition so we are all in favour of rolling to find traps because that's how we have always done it , and we find it more dramatic than the take-20 method . . . Like I have said before, the d20 option has it's time and place, and I fully understand why it came about. That being said, I think it could have been designed a wee bit less cheesey with a wee bit more variance. And while while taking 20 to search for traps is 100% kosher by 3.5 RAW, we still prefer to do things the old fashioned way at my table, and roll when searching for traps. |
| jaspercrey03-23-07, 11:59 PM | That is how it RAW works. It is not my personal thoughts on the matter. Absolutey, my friend. Thank goodness for house rules. |
| catsclaw03-24-07, 03:15 AM | Before you start tossing rocks - let's not forget your little gem of "reason and respect"I never claimed to be reasonable, only right. And you lost whatever respect I had for you when you went back in the thread and posted pissy little comments like "It looks like the cat had its claws pulled or it decided to stop hissing". You are a sad, petty thing. Really. |
| PenderGrass03-24-07, 04:26 AM | I never claimed to be reasonable, only right. Too bad. :dragon: **** |
| Matthew7703-24-07, 09:03 AM | I took a simple line from the SRD and quoted it, then I presented commonly excepted definitions for the words used in it, as proported by the dictionary. ... I quoted the dictionary--- THAT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN! If you don't like it, take it up with the MLA or Merriem-- Webster. Aha! I think we have discovered the source of your confusion. You are attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a game term (penalty for failure). No wonder the rules are confusing to you, in the same way you would be confused if you applied a dictionary definition to other game terms, such as "Level". When the PHB refers to "Level" it never means "an instrument for determining the horizontal". "Penalty for failure" means "the skill description specifies negative results if your check is too low", not some dictionary definition that can be stretched to cover "lack of success" |
| High Octane03-24-07, 11:01 AM | Aha! I think we have discovered the source of your confusion. You are attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a game term (penalty for failure). No wonder the rules are confusing to you, in the same way you would be confused if you applied a dictionary definition to other game terms, such as "Level". When the PBH refers to "Level" it never means "an instrument for determining the horizontal". "Penalty for failure" means "the skill description specifies negative results if your check is too low", not some dictionary definition that can be stretched to cover "lack of success" Ed Zackery. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 12:17 PM | Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to the board for a few hours, but I will attempt to answer you: I require that you give an explanation for why you are continuing searching when you have already searched and found nothing--- when I have searched my house, rifle in hand, hyped up and ready to have to kill someone--- I didn't search it agian and agian and agian and agian and again and so on--- i searched it and then was satisfied that nothing was there. When someone has broken into your house, you are unlikely to find that he has taken the time to trap the place, and is still lurking there. In which case as you are playing cat and mouse through the house you would be using spot/listen opposed by his hide/move silently. The analogy falls down a little when you compare stalking someone through the house to trap finding. Perhaps you could try "If a thief breaks into your house and is looking for your wall safe in which your deeds and valuables are held, will he take several minutes to check each wall, and the floor and ceiling to find the hidden safe and to check said safe for alarms?" After all, this is directly analogous to being in the BBEG's lair looking for his hidden treasury, with traps on the door. In this case, my thought is that yes, if he suspects the safe is there he will. If he doesn't, then why has he broken in and not just nicked the TV and stereo? The players have to suspect the trap/treasury to be there to be interested in searching in the first place. It's unlikely the thief will check the hallway in my house as it is unfeasible the place is trapped. However in a custom built location with no laws about trapping the buildinig it could be trapped in some fashion. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 12:21 PM | By the way, from wiktionary.org: Penalty: Noun penalty 1. A legal sentence. The penalty for his crime was to do hard labor. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. 1. (finance) A payment forfeited for an early withdrawal from an account or an investment 3. (soccer) A direct free-kick from the penalty spot, taken after a defensive foul in the penalty box. 4. (ice hockey) A punishment for an infraction of the rules, often in the form of being removed from play for a specified amount of time. A penalty was called when he tripped up his opponent. Consequence (not actually used in the Take 20 thing but hey) Noun Singular consequence Plural consequences consequence (plural consequences) 1. That which follows something on which it depends; that which is produced by a cause. 2. A result of actions. 3. A proposition collected from the agreement of other previous propositions; any conclusion which results from reason or argument; inference. 4. Chain of causes and effects; consecution. 5. Importance with respect to what comes after; 6. The power to influence or produce an effect. Now, how is the description of "penalty" of use to the "strict English" debate of Elthbert? |
| Elthbert03-24-07, 05:41 PM | Here is something to ponder: Is it fair for DM to knowingly place a trap that the rogue has no chance in finding even when he/she takes 20? If so, how often? Only very rarely. Or if the rogue is attempting something they have no buiesness attempting at thier level. For example, the 3rd level thieves who are trying to break in to the master assassins stronghold, at thier own insistance. If my players want to take on the legendary great wyrm on top of the highest mountian top in the realm, and they are 6th level well I will discourage them highly, but if they really want to go and die they can. However, in an intentionally crafted adventure a DM should not be placing traps that a rogue with maxed ranks in search cannot find. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 05:47 PM | For once I agree with Elthbert. I'd say it's legit if the party are getting themselves far too deep in, but even so I'd tend to make it not lethal : Hold person, paralysis that sort of thing. On a slightly different note I always prefer my traps to be capture types rather than killing outright, as you can't (from BBEG's POV) learn anything from corpses. After all, a captured would-be thief might tell you how he broke in and if he knows any other ways in in order to be released. |
| Elthbert03-24-07, 05:59 PM | Aha! I think we have discovered the source of your confusion. You are attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a game term (penalty for failure). No wonder the rules are confusing to you, in the same way you would be confused if you applied a dictionary definition to other game terms, such as "Level". When the PHB refers to "Level" it never means "an instrument for determining the horizontal". "Penalty for failure" means "the skill description specifies negative results if your check is too low", not some dictionary definition that can be stretched to cover "lack of success" NOw that is a logical position and one which I respect. Would you direct me to where it defines penalty in such a manner? Like they do level and numerous other terms. If the rules do indeed define it so I will concide the point. However, if they do not, then I am going to continue to assume that indeed it requires interpretation. Now I think your interpreation of the word penalty is a reasonable one, even a good one and it certianly may be what the designers intended, but unless they said as much--- by defining the word penalty, then I will still have to conclude that is simply your interpretation. By the way Matthew77, and concidering the generally rude tone of most people on this thread I think this needs to be said. As far as I can recall you have been polite and civil the entire time you have actually tried to see why someone might put see something differantly and tried to respond to that. You have been a gentleman and I for one appreciate that a great deal. |
| Elthbert03-24-07, 06:00 PM | By the way, from wiktionary.org: Penalty: Consequence (not actually used in the Take 20 thing but hey) Now, how is the description of "penalty" of use to the "strict English" debate of Elthbert? Wiki? your kidding me right. |
| Elthbert03-24-07, 06:03 PM | Lets try one that isn't assembled by who ever the hell wants to do it. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source pen·al·ty /ˈpɛnlti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pen-l-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties. 1. a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule. 2. a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation. 3. something that is forfeited, as a sum of money. 4. a disadvantage imposed upon one of the competitors or upon one side for infraction of the rules of a game, sport, etc. 5. consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc. |
| Elthbert03-24-07, 06:04 PM | For once I agree with Elthbert. I'd say it's legit if the party are getting themselves far too deep in, but even so I'd tend to make it not lethal : Hold person, paralysis that sort of thing. On a slightly different note I always prefer my traps to be capture types rather than killing outright, as you can't (from BBEG's POV) learn anything from corpses. After all, a captured would-be thief might tell you how he broke in and if he knows any other ways in in order to be released. And t hen you kill him? ;) |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 07:16 PM | Again though, I ask you to consider that a disadvantage or penalty is something that places you in a worse position after an action than you were before you took that action. How are you disadvantaged or penalised by failing to find something? Oh, and as for the BBEG and the prisoner? Try Mark of Justice never to try to break into any structure or bypass any security device. Watch the rogue howl in despair. I mean, it can be removed with remove curse, but they have to be high enough level... |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 07:20 PM | Anyway, if you don't like the wiktionary entry, update it. That's the whole idea... |
| Merestil Haye03-24-07, 07:20 PM | I looked up the FAQ for a question on Taking 20. There's a little bit relevant to this discussion.How can I tell whether or not I can take 20 on a check, and what constitutes “failure” on a check? Taking 20 is simply a time-saving short-cut that avoids requiring a player to roll and roll until he gets a 20 on a check that everyone knows he’ll simply retry until he either succeeds or is convinced he can’t. Ultimately, whether or not you can take 20 relies on only three criteria: • Failure does not carry an inherent penalty (that is, a consequence). If something bad happens when you fail a check, you can’t take 20, since the DM needs to know exactly when or how often failure occurs. When you’re halfway up a wall and fail a Climb check, you might fall and take damage. That’s an inherent consequence, so you can’t normally take 20 on Climb checks.So what they are saying is that you can take 20 on a skill check if failure does not have a direct, immediate negative consequence. (I prefer "negative consequence" to "penalty" because the latter has a defined meaning in D&D, and should therefore not be used in its regular English sense.) Examples of a direct, immediate negative consequence include : If you fail a Climb check badly enough, you fall and take damage. If you fail a Swim check badly enough, you start to drown.I contend that if a character fails a Search check to find a trap, there is no direct, immediate negative consequence. Nobody dies, takes damage, suffers from a detrimental status effect or has to make a saving throw to avoid same. Therefore it is permissible to Take 20 on a Search check to find a trap. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 08:23 PM | Again though, I ask you to consider that a disadvantage or penalty is something that places you in a worse position after an action than you were before you took that action. How are you disadvantaged or penalised by failing to find something? Oh, and as for the BBEG and the prisoner? Try Mark of Justice never to try to break into any structure or bypass any security device. Watch the rogue howl in despair. I mean, it can be removed with remove curse, but they have to be high enough level... Not finding the trap puts you at a disadvantage as you move forward down the hallway. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 08:26 PM | No, stepping onto the trap places you at a disadvantage. Failing to find a trap does not place you at a disadvantage, as nothing new happens, in exactly the same way as if you look into a room with a creaky floor of loose floor boards but don't see they're rotten doesn't place you at a disadvantage until you step in there if you never enter the room you suffer no penalty. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 08:31 PM | I looked up the FAQ for a question on Taking 20. There's a little bit relevant to this discussion.So what they are saying is that you can take 20 on a skill check if failure does not have a direct, immediate negative consequence. (I prefer "negative consequence" to "penalty" because the latter has a defined meaning in D&D, and should therefore not be used in its regular English sense.) Examples of a direct, immediate negative consequence include : If you fail a Climb check badly enough, you fall and take damage. If you fail a Swim check badly enough, you start to drown.I contend that if a character fails a Search check to find a trap, there is no direct, immediate negative consequence. Nobody dies, takes damage, suffers from a detrimental status effect or has to make a saving throw to avoid same. Therefore it is permissible to Take 20 on a Search check to find a trap. When you’re halfway up a wall and fail a Climb check, you might fall and take damage. That’s an inherent consequence, so you can’t normally take 20 on Climb checks. What is the difference between this and not find a trap getting half up the hallway and takeing damage from the trap you didn't find? |
| Matthew7703-24-07, 08:32 PM | NOw that is a logical position and one which I respect. Would you direct me to where it defines penalty in such a manner? Elthbert... I was starting to get frustrated because it seemed like you were just denying how the RAW work, but now that we've clarifed its a definition problem, maybe we can reach some agreement. I haven't found a glossary definition, but the best evidence I've dug up is this quote from the PHB, page 66, bottom of second column. If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required. This isn't a definition of "penalty", but it indicates that if no consequences of failure are contained in the "Try again" section of the skill description, then failure has no "penalty" for the purposes of Taking 20. *Edit: Oddly, the Climb skill has no "try again" paragraph, although it does specify an inherent penalty in the full description. |
| Matthew7703-24-07, 08:36 PM | When you’re halfway up a wall and fail a Climb check, you might fall and take damage. That’s an inherent consequence, so you can’t normally take 20 on Climb checks. What is the difference between this and not find a trap getting half up the hallway and takeing damage from the trap you didn't find? Because you can stand still in front of a square and search it repeatedly as many times as you want, and will never set off the trap no matter how badly you roll on your skill check. Failing a climb check has a inherent penalty (you fail by 5 or more and you fall). Failing a search check does not have an inherent penalty. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 08:36 PM | Because you don't take the damage from the trap by failing the roll. You do with climb, as you fall off the wall and hit the floor (a direct consequence btw). With the trap example: you fail the roll, but then check around you checking the rest of the adjacent squares. By luck you happen to advance up the corridor and not hit the trapped square (for some reason the BBEG staggers hit traps in the corridor - possibly so that those in the know can travel along the corridor safely). Now, what is the penalty for not finding the trap again? That's right, not finding it, but then again it didn;t trigger so there were no negative effects or consequences |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 08:37 PM | No, stepping onto the trap places you at a disadvantage. Failing to find a trap does not place you at a disadvantage, as nothing new happens, in exactly the same way as if you look into a room with a creaky floor of loose floor boards but don't see they're rotten doesn't place you at a disadvantage until you step in there if you never enter the room you suffer no penalty. So your telling me that if Player a and player b are moving up the same hallway and player a sees a trap in player b's path and doesn't tell him that that will not put player b at a disadvantage move up the hallway because he hasn't stepped in it yet. |
| Matthew7703-24-07, 08:41 PM | So your telling me that if Player a and player b are moving up the same hallway and player a sees a trap in player b's path and doesn't tell him that that will not put player b at a disadvantage move up the hallway because he hasn't stepped in it yet. Definitions again. "Disadvantage" is an English word with no special game mechanics definition. "Inherent penalty" is a definable game mechanic. Failing a search check could easily put you at a disadvantage. It does not result in an inherent penalty. |
| Dragonteuthis03-24-07, 08:49 PM | Not a house rule - you cannot use disable device on a trap unless you find it. If you can disable device on a trap that hasn't been found per RAW - please point out where it states this as it would be a very interesting ruling. :dragon: **** You stated that a search check allows for "nothing more" than a chance at disabling a trap. In the rules, it's also used for finding doors, hidden treasure, and etc. THAT is the house rule of yours I was referring to. I'm curious how you determine if a player has found a hidden door or whatever with such a restricted search check, or if you simply don't put hidden things, or what. Obviously, you can't purposefully disable a trap without finding it. Can you give me more credit than that? =D |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 08:50 PM | But player a is the one who made the check. Until b steps into it, regardless of whether a or b has seen it, they are not placed at a penalty. For example: I come across a minefield. Now not reading the language the signage on the minefield is in, and not understanding the symbol for mines, (perhaps I'm an alien who has just landed) I walk into the field. I don;t search because I'm not in a situation which I believe to be dangerous. So far no disadvantage, other than being stood in a minefield. Suddenly a rabbit hops into the minefield and triggers a mine. *BOOM*. Worried, I now check around me for disturbances in the soil and unexpected bits of wire, but not being good at this don't find anything. I am still at no disadvantage other than being stood in a minefield. I would only become at a disadvantage if I moved, such that I interact with a mine. At any stage I can retreat out of the situation following my tracks. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 08:51 PM | Because you don't take the damage from the trap by failing the roll. You do with climb, as you fall off the wall and hit the floor (a direct consequence btw). With the trap example: you fail the roll, but then check around you checking the rest of the adjacent squares. By luck you happen to advance up the corridor and not hit the trapped square (for some reason the BBEG staggers hit traps in the corridor - possibly so that those in the know can travel along the corridor safely). Now, what is the penalty for not finding the trap again? That's right, not finding it, but then again it didn;t trigger so there were no negative effects or consequences So if you're searching the space right in front of you, don't find the pit trap, step forward to search the next space and fall in that that is not a consequence of not finding the trap? |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 08:59 PM | But player a is the one who made the check. Until b steps into it, regardless of whether a or b has seen it, they are not placed at a penalty. For example: I come across a minefield. Now not reading the language the signage on the minefield is in, and not understanding the symbol for mines, (perhaps I'm an alien who has just landed) I walk into the field. I don;t search because I'm not in a situation which I believe to be dangerous. So far no disadvantage, other than being stood in a minefield. Suddenly a rabbit hops into the minefield and triggers a mine. *BOOM*. Worried, I now check around me for disturbances in the soil and unexpected bits of wire, but not being good at this don't find anything. I am still at no disadvantage other than being stood in a minefield. I would only become at a disadvantage if I moved, such that I interact with a mine. At any stage I can retreat out of the situation following my tracks. OH, SO THIS IS IN THE PLAYER'S POINT OF VIEW? I was just asking because I thought that the DM would see that you were at a disadvantage even if you could not see it. In this light you could take a 20 on any skill because the player doesn't see the danger. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 09:07 PM | We have solved the problem at last people. Since the player doesn't see the danger ahead he can take a 20 because it doesn't matter what the DM knows about the hallway. It all makes perfect sense now. I think I'm getting goose bumps from knowledge in-trusted to me by the rules gods. Please forgive the meek commoner for ignorance. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 09:07 PM | OH, SO THIS IS IN THE PLAYER'S POINT OF VIEW? I was just asking because I thought that the DM would see that you were at a disadvantage even if you could not see it. In this light you could take a 20 on any skill because the player doesn't see the danger. No, it is a statement about how not finfing something does not put you at a disadvantage. The disadvantage to finding a mine the hard way is that you decorate the landscape. As if you don't find a mine, and don't happen to interact with the mine you are not at a disadvantage, this seems a clear solution to the not finding something/disadvantage arguement. Especially as the first thing to do in that situation is to have a quick look at where you are stood then the area around you (take 10 on search). Then you might have a better look (take 20) at the way you came in. Just because you don't find something doesn't mean you are disadvantaged in any way. So if you're searching the space right in front of you, don't find the pit trap, step forward to search the next space and fall in that that is not a consequence of not finding the trap? No, it's a consequence of entering the trapped square rather than failing the search check. A fine distinction, but necessary. {edit} And that finely tuned sense of sarcasm isn't working either - you could give me more than about 8 minutes to come back to you, especially as it is now 2 am in my part of the world. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 09:19 PM | No, it is a statement about how not finfing something does not put you at a disadvantage. The disadvantage to finding a mine the hard way is that you decorate the landscape. As if you don't find a mine, and don't happen to interact with the mine you are not at a disadvantage, this seems a clear solution to the not finding something/disadvantage arguement. Especially as the first thing to do in that situation is to have a quick look at where you are stood then the area around you (take 10 on search). Then you might have a better look (take 20) at the way you came in. Just because you don't find something doesn't mean you are disadvantaged in any way. No, it's a consequence of entering the trapped square rather than failing the search check. A fine distinction, but necessary. {edit} And that finely tuned sense of sarcasm isn't working either - you could give me more than about 8 minutes to come back to you, especially as it is now 2 am in my part of the world. So if you're driving down the road and decide to move to the next lane you check to see if it is clear than move your car over but crash in to the car you failed to see, That you did crash because you didn't see the car you crashed because you moved over. But if you had seen the car would you have moved over yes or no. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 09:27 PM | So if you're driving down the road and decide to move to the next lane you check to see if it is clear than move your car over but crash in to the car you failed to see, That you did crash because you didn't see the car you crashed because you moved over. But if you had seen the car would you have moved over yes or no. OK, so to break this to D&D (for illustration). I make a spot check (not search) and fail to see the other car. Consequences of this : nil. I then decide to maneuver, and hit the other car. Consequences : significant. Of course if I had spotted the other car I would not have moved, however the crash is a consequence of moving into the other lane and intersecting with the other car, not failing to spot it. The two are linked, but not the same. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 09:41 PM | OK, so to break this to D&D (for illustration). I make a spot check (not search) and fail to see the other car. Consequences of this : nil. I then decide to maneuver, and hit the other car. Consequences : significant. Of course if I had spotted the other car I would not have moved, however the crash is a consequence of moving into the other lane and intersecting with the other car, not failing to spot it. The two are linked, but not the same. It is still cause and effect. So yeah Bob go ahead and take a 20 on your search check to find that sword you dropped, Says the DM as he rolls to see when geyser he is stand next to will go off and pour boiling hot water everywhere. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 09:41 PM | In general, freeze the action mentally as soon as the skill check is complete. Now ask what will happen as a direct result of the failed skill check. For example: Climb - you fall Balance - you fall off Jump - you don't clear the distance. All of those are disadvantageous to you in some sense. Now Spot - you don't see anything Listen - you don't hear anything Search - you don't find anything Not inherently disadvantageous. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 09:44 PM | It is still cause and effect. So yeah Bob go ahead and take a 20 on your search check to find that sword you dropped, Says the DM as he rolls to see when geyser he is stand next to will go off and pour boiling hot water everywhere. OK, so if Bob doesn't know there is a geyser due to go off, and thinks he can take the time, why wouldn't he start to take 20? It'll fail and Bob will get interrupted if the geyser does go off. Taking 20 can be interrupted and the action will fail in that case, causing you to have to start over. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 09:52 PM | Bob can search all he want with out the search doing anything but allowing or not allowing him to find his sword. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 09:57 PM | OK, so if Bob doesn't know there is a geyser due to go off, and thinks he can take the time, why wouldn't he start to take 20? It'll fail and Bob will get interrupted if the geyser does go off. Taking 20 can be interrupted and the action will fail in that case, causing you to have to start over. Because the geyser is a threat to bob even if he doesn't see it. There for no 20 should have been give one because the geyser is going off and 2nd he doesn't have time not to find the sword before it goes off. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 10:00 PM | Bob can search all he want with out the search doing anything but allowing or not allowing him to find his sword. Sorry, I don't quite understand this statement. I think what you're asking is if Bob will find the sword. It depends on: 1) the DC 2) if the geyser goes off whilst he is searching If he takes 20, and the action is interrupted (say by the geyser going off in round 14) it will fail and he won;t find his sword. If however he doesn't take 20 and beats the DC, or the geyser doesn't go off until round 21, and taking 20 lets him beat the DC, he will find his sword. |
| Lindwyrm03-24-07, 10:04 PM | Because the geyser is a threat to bob even if he doesn't see it. There for no 20 should have been give one because the geyser is going off and 2nd he doesn't have time not to find the sword before it goes off. What I'd do in this case is basically state "As you are searching and taking your time, a geyser erupts, breaking your concentration, and dealing (X) damage (reduced for saves and resistances)." I'd then ask what he wants to do next. I would expect a quick check and then try to get out the area of the geyser and try to find if it has a particular timing. He still gets to declare he wishes to take 20 though. Otherwise you a tipping him off to the fact that there is something going to happen. |
| Ace_of_time03-24-07, 10:23 PM | What I'd do in this case is basically state "As you are searching and taking your time, a geyser erupts, breaking your concentration, and dealing (X) damage (reduced for saves and resistances)." I'd then ask what he wants to do next. I would expect a quick check and then try to get out the area of the geyser and try to find if it has a particular timing. He still gets to declare he wishes to take 20 though. Otherwise you a tipping him off to the fact that there is something going to happen. But that's not the question now is it. The thread is should you allow it. In this one you don't and choose not to tell the player. what is different? There are also the fact that he would have search every 5' by 5' space in the area until he finds it, that would take longer than 20 rounds |
| JustinA03-24-07, 11:40 PM | Possibly in your mind you thought I was speaking about disarming a trap? You can't take 20 to disarm a trap. Since you are one of its defenders, I figured you would know how it works at the very least. Let me re-iterate the central thesis here without the examples which are apparently confusing your feeble intellect: You are incapable of distinguishing between the statement "I want to use the rules" and actual metagaming. Until you acknowledge that there is a difference between the two, you are demonstrating functional illiteracy which makes further discussion irrelevant. Considering we have no clue the skill of the artist or the picture being attempted (are they doing Order of the Stick or Whistler's Mother?) we have no idea ... it will likely be the 2 minute attempt. Glad we finally got you to admit that taking more time generally results in better results. Perhaps you'll stop posting your ridiculous strawmen about how people who don't take 20 aren't "doing their best" now. But somehow I doubt it. You don't seem like the type of person who will stop posting a strawman no matter how ridiculous and strained your antics become. No, I am asking someone to explain how one extreme of a linear equation can logically be "I am doing my best" and the other extreme not be "I am doing my worst." See? What did I tell you? Same dumbass strawman even after you admit that a person spending two minutes on a task is going to have better results than the same person spending six seconds on a task. Now, if you are speaking about real world - I have seen many Pictionary games that had some awesome drawings while art class students made some really horrible drawings. From the same artist? I highly doubt it. Which makes this yet another example of either your illiteracy or your willful lying. "Liar, liar, pants on fire..." LOL Oh-kay. You just got through going through however many posts so you could say that your 2 scenarios were so the same and so on. Then quote me saying that both the take 20 mechanics and your +20 mechanic is the same mechanic. I'll wait. If you fail to provide this quote, of course, you'll be admitting that you're a filthy liar. Since there is no such quote, you will fail to provide it. At which point I will expect an apology for your filthy lies. Who said anything about a little time and effort? You did, liar. Many, many times. Here's one of them: "Scenario 1: The character is specifically taking their time and doing their best, so they get a +20 to their skill check." This quote, BTW, also makes your ridiculous strawman about "doing their best" vs. "doing their worst" even more hilarious. Every time you try to draw a distinction between take 20 and your own busted mechanic, it turns out that there's no distinction at all (except that your mechanic is horribly busted). Originally Posted by JustinA View Post Could you try and keep the ridiculous strawmen to a minimum? I never said that Character B would not benefit from having a higher skill. Then please reiterate what you said, or do you want me to go back and quote you? Sure. Under your system a character with a +1 skill modifier is suddenly 20 times better when he takes time and does his best. A character with a +10 skill modifier, on the other hand, is only three times better. A character with a +20 skill modifier, on the other hand, is only twice as good as he'd normally be. Now: Why is it that the more skilled the character becomes, the less successful they are in leveraging the extra time to better results? In your self-admitted illiteracy, you apparently believe that I'm suggesting that the guy with a +1 skill bonus is suddenly better than the guy with a +20 skill bonus. This is not the case. Please learn to read English for comprehension before replying to this post. Hint: The first sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation makes it so that the rule would never be used. The second sign that your interpretation is stupid is if your interpretation relies on misquoting the rulebook. His writing of it may have been mangled, but the point is that each and every skill carries an inherent penalty for failure. You cannot take 20 when there is a penalty for failure. Allow me to repeat myself: If your "interpretation" makes is so that the rule would never be used, your interpretation is almost certainly wrong. Your interpretation is DEFINITELY wrong, so why keep repeating it like an illiterate fool? What, exactly, do you think that's going to accomplish? Now, here's what needs to happen: 1. You need to stop lying about what I've said. 2. If you are only inadvertently lying because you're functionally illiterate, then you need to learn English before attempting to post again. 3. You need to apologize for lying about what I've said. It's not mature behavior. Thanks. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| JustinA03-24-07, 11:47 PM | Of course it matters. I'll tell you what I'll give you a divice that you can use everyday, it will make your life so much easier, but their is a chance that it will break and if it does it is likely to cause you death or injury. In fact this device is so lethal that 50,000 or so people are accedently killed by this device every year and many times more than that are maimed and injured by it. Now how much time do you spend checking it out before you use it. If you tell me you spend 2 minutes carefully checking out your car every time you drive it I call ********. I probably spend about 6 seconds every morning looking my car over, if I notice something out of the ordinany I check it out, if not I don't. I fail to see why a hall way in a doungen would be any differant. I would like you to cite the statistic which backs up your claim that 50,000 people are killed by their cars malfunctioning every year. Not as a result of being in an accident when their car is functioning perfectly fine, but as a result of their car, I dunno, spontaneously exploding. And, of course, the scenario is not even remotely similar to what I suggested. I was talking about chests with which you had no previous interaction. You're talking about a car that I drove yesterday. But even if I had a character who, in a fit of OCD or paranoia, checked their car thoroughly for booby traps every morning, that wouldn't be unreasonable: It would just be a facet of their character. The question you have still failed to answer is this: You say that the players are basing their decision to take 20 on a Search check on the basis of knowledge not available to their characters. What, precisely, is this knowledge? This is a simple question. If you fail to answer it this time, one can only assume that it's because you have no answer and you know you are wrong. |
| JustinA03-24-07, 11:59 PM | Why not? It was forgotten for centuries and not one monster, animals, insect, plants, oozes, or undead have developed/found there way down here. That is madness. This is, of course, why archaeologists are routinely mauled by the wild creatures they find in their dig sites. :rolleyes: There is no reason to give 1 hour to get down a hallway in a dungeons unless everything is dead, and if everything is dead then there is no dungeon. This is a cute assertion, but it's also complete ********. First off, in the example you quoted and replied to, there were two instances of taking 20: Searching a door and searching a 5' x 5' square. That's a grand total of 4 minutes, not 1 hour. And even if it was 1 hour, your assertion that there is no location in any dungeon ever designed that a group should be able to work undisturbed for an hour is completely absurd. Although I'm sure Gary Gygax and Bruce Cordell will be surprised to hear your thoughts on their adventure designs. |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 12:07 AM | JustinA, I'll go with you on the better thing on a 20 ether with a natural or take a 20, But for 1,000 time no matter how good or bad you (even at your complete best) it only takes 6s to search. In a take 20 action you search 19 times on the same space which automaticly count as fails so that the last search to get a 20. Each seach in this take 20 action takes 6s each for a total of 2 mins. Now I don't know how the other guy does his thing but the time can't change, They would still have to fail at the 19 other times to get the + 20 at 6s per check. And that is only for one space. hope this helps. |
| JustinA03-25-07, 12:14 AM | I'll go with you on the better thing on a 20 ether with a natural or take a 20, But for 1,000 time no matter how good or bad you (even at your complete best) it only takes 6s to search. You need to go read the rules: "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20." This is very clear: The take 20 attempt takes 2 minutes (for a skill that can normally be checks in 1 round). The fact that many things you attempt in those 2 minutes will fail doesn't change that fact. And even if you did want to break your efforts in to many different 6 second "attempts", the distinction is meaningless for any skill which doesn't carry a consequence for failure. |
| JustinA03-25-07, 12:18 AM | It's like arguing with a rock. Not only a rock, but a particularly dense rock. You are wrong. Dead wrong. Completely, utterly, wrong. If you insist on arguing this point, you might as well admit that you have such a poor grasp of the rules (and, for that matter, basic logic) that there is no humanly possible way of convincing you otherwise. If "not succeeding" was the same as "a penalty for failure" then WHY DID THE DESIGNERS INCLUDE THE TAKE 20 RULE? Howdy. For the record, you guys are both wrong: The RAW does not forbid you from taking 20 on a skill which carries consequences or penalties or naughty words for failing. What the RAW actually say are this: "Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search." So, yes, you incur the full "penalty" for failing a Search check if you attempt to take 20 on it: You would fail to find something before you completed the task and found something. |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 12:24 AM | This is, of course, why archaeologists are routinely mauled by the wild creatures they find in their dig sites. :rolleyes: This is a cute assertion, but it's also complete ********. First off, in the example you quoted and replied to, there were two instances of taking 20: Searching a door and searching a 5' x 5' square. That's a grand total of 4 minutes, not 1 hour. And even if it was 1 hour, your assertion that there is no location in any dungeon ever designed that a group should be able to work undisturbed for an hour is completely absurd. Although I'm sure Gary Gygax and Bruce Cordell will be surprised to hear your thoughts on their adventure designs. ???????????????????????????????????????w hat? It would take a hour to seach the whole hallway. What post did I say one hour for a door. If it is trap it is trap for a reason and someone is going to come to check it at sometime. Why is it that we keep switching to real world after a D&D exsample is give. They are not the same thing. How many PC's do you know that go around getting xp for going through dead ruins with nothing in them. as to your ex. dungeon most of this dungeon you buy have that one part in them that you as DM are supposed to fill in. How did they get down there, can it also be found by a patrol of kobolds, If so they are going to know someone unwanted is in there and start patroling it too. You should not be giving you pc's all the time they need to do everthing. If you want to give them 8-10 hours to rest when needed that's fine as long as they find a place that will be undisrupted for that time. ( trapped hallway does not count) |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 12:35 AM | You need to go read the rules: "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20." This is very clear: The take 20 attempt takes 2 minutes (for a skill that can normally be checks in 1 round). The fact that many things you attempt in those 2 minutes will fail doesn't change that fact. And even if you did want to break your efforts in to many different 6 second "attempts", the distinction is meaningless for any skill which doesn't carry a consequence for failure. The take 20 action does as I already stated take 2 min, it is (the best) part of your statement that only takes 6s. If you read on down a little you will see where it says that you are consided to have failed many times and that's why it takes 20 times as long, To cover for all the failed check. We are talking about the check it self not the act of searching. I can say I search the hallway up and down (talking about the act of searching) but will still have to roll "a search check" for each space. |
| catsclaw03-25-07, 12:44 AM | For the record, you guys are both wrong: The RAW does not forbid you from taking 20 on a skill which carries consequences or penalties or naughty words for failing. What the RAW actually say are this: "Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search."You missed the first part of that section. "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20." Oddly, you quoted this earlier. |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 12:45 AM | Howdy. For the record, you guys are both wrong: The RAW does not forbid you from taking 20 on a skill which carries consequences or penalties or naughty words for failing. What the RAW actually say are this: "Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search." So, yes, you incur the full "penalty" for failing a Search check if you attempt to take 20 on it: You would fail to find something before you completed the task and found something. It's giving an ex sample of why it isn't allowed. They can't take a 20 on disarm checks because they are assumed to have failed to disarm many times and might set off the trap. If you read the whole skill section then you will find where it is say that you can't be threated, that you have lots of time, and the check doesn't carry penalties for failure Than you can take a 20. But all these rules have been posted already if you would like to check back post you will find them. |
| jaspercrey03-25-07, 07:44 AM | I contend that if a character fails a Search check to find a trap, there is no direct, immediate negative consequence. Nobody dies, takes damage, suffers from a detrimental status effect or has to make a saving throw to avoid same. Therefore it is permissible to Take 20 on a Search check to find a trap. I not sure than anyone here is saying that you can't take 20 to find traps. I don't think anyone is disputing the RAW. There are those of us who house-rule differently, however, for a variety of reasons. |
| Lindwyrm03-25-07, 09:31 AM | Just read pages 24 and 25, there are people who are disputing you can ever take 20. This basically seems to come down to "there is always a penalty for failure - not successfully using the skill. Therefore you can never take 20" Slightly paraphrased, and for some reason at least one of them seems to think you trigger a trap if you don't find it when searching. |
| Kolyana03-25-07, 02:25 PM | #770 posts? Whoah, didn't I hit on quite the subject :eek: |
| Saberus03-25-07, 03:56 PM | Haven't read the thread, but... If I were to take 20 on a trap, it's cause I'm a masochist. |
| jaspercrey03-25-07, 07:12 PM | Just read pages 24 and 25, there are people who are disputing you can ever take 20. This basically seems to come down to "there is always a penalty for failure - not successfully using the skill. Therefore you can never take 20" Slightly paraphrased, and for some reason at least one of them seems to think you trigger a trap if you don't find it when searching. You trigger a trap by meeting the requirements of the trap's trigger mechanism . . . the act of searching itself is not listed a trigger mechanism so I take exception to the notion that a failed search triggers the trap. I suppose you may in fact trigger a trap while searching (regardless of failure or success) by meeting the "proximaty" trigger type requirement , usually within 10 feet, I believe, by coming within the said proximaty. But that would be the character's physical position, not the act of searching itself. That aside, I am curious about another aspect of the search skill. You can use the search skill to search an area within 10' of you, or so it states in the description of the search skill. To me that seems to indicate (against my better judgement) that search is a purely visual skill. The description makes no mention of needing special tools (such as the 10' pole) to search an area 10' away from you, and generally speaking, most PCs don't normally have a 10' reach. So, unless I am mistaken, you don't need to physically manipulate the 5x5' area to search it (at least according to the RAW). It really sounds like you simply need to "look" at an area to search it (at which point, you would think the Spot skill would surfice.) I have always assumed the searching did in fact involve some degree of physical interaction (tapping, pushing testing etc.) Any comments? |
| Lindwyrm03-25-07, 07:20 PM | Search is up close, detailed checks of a surface. Spot is used for attempts to find macroscopic details. Presumably in the case of taking your time you move from visual inspection to checking gaps with probes and so on, however the "real explanation" is irrelevant to the rule (Unfortunately). |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 07:30 PM | You trigger a trap by meeting the requirements of the trap's trigger mechanism . . . the act of searching itself is not listed a trigger mechanism so I take exception to the notion that a failed search triggers the trap. I suppose you may in fact trigger a trap while searching (regardless of failure or success) by meeting the "proximaty" trigger type requirement , usually within 10 feet, I believe, by coming within the said proximaty. But that would be the character's physical position, not the act of searching itself. That aside, I am curious about another aspect of the search skill. You can use the search skill to search an area within 10' of you, or so it states in the description of the search skill. To me that seems to indicate (against my better judgement) that search is a purely visual skill. The description makes no mention of needing special tools (such as the 10' pole) to search an area 10' away from you, and generally speaking, most PCs don't normally have a 10' reach. So, unless I am mistaken, you don't need to physically manipulate the 5x5' area to search it (at least according to the RAW). It really sounds like you simply need to "look" at an area to search it (at which point, you would think the Spot skill would surfice.) I have always assumed the searching did in fact involve some degree of physical interaction (tapping, pushing testing etc.) Any comments? It just means you can do a sight based search from atleast 10' (max feet away from the 5' by 5' space). You can get closer for a more hands on search. Spot is more of a quick look at some thing. It's like if you do a word search, You use a spot to look over the page and find some words or you search it letter by letter to find the words. |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 07:43 PM | Just read pages 24 and 25, there are people who are disputing you can ever take 20. This basically seems to come down to "there is always a penalty for failure - not successfully using the skill. Therefore you can never take 20" Slightly paraphrased, and for some reason at least one of them seems to think you trigger a trap if you don't find it when searching. All I said was that it is cause and effect, But I'm dropping because It doesn't matter. I think that they don't say if you can or can't take a 20 on each skill in the PHB is because they want the DM to decide if the take 20 action should be allowed on a case by case basis. For me if the thief could set the trap off by move forward after not see it than there should be no 20, If they are in dungeon that they need to finish quick then no 20. But that is just me and I don't play in anybody elses world. |
| catsclaw03-25-07, 08:01 PM | For me if the thief could set the trap off by move forward after not see it than there should be no 20.Suppose you have a trap, set off by a pressure plate, which goes off as soon as a creature of medium or larger steps into the space. In this case, you would allow a halfling rogue to take 20, but not a human rogue? |
| jaspercrey03-25-07, 08:59 PM | Search is up close, detailed checks of a surface. Spot is used for attempts to find macroscopic details. Presumably in the case of taking your time you move from visual inspection to checking gaps with probes and so on, however the "real explanation" is irrelevant to the rule (Unfortunately). Agreed. Again, if it were up to me I would stipulate that search involve some degree of physical maipulation. It just means you can do a sight based search from atleast 10' (max feet away from the 5' by 5' space). You can get closer for a more hands on search. Spot is more of a quick look at some thing. It's like if you do a word search, You use a spot to look over the page and find some words or you search it letter by letter to find the words. If that were the case, you think there would be a cirscumstantial penalty for searching farther away if it is less hands on than a close proximity search. |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 10:54 PM | Suppose you have a trap, set off by a pressure plate, which goes off as soon as a creature of medium or larger steps into the space. In this case, you would allow a halfling rogue to take 20, but not a human rogue? As I have posted I don't allow Take 20 action on any search checks. I was talking about us DM's in the world should decide what is allowed or not and when! |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 10:57 PM | Agreed. Again, if it were up to me I would stipulate that search involve some degree of physical maipulation. If that were the case, you think there would be a cirscumstantial penalty for searching farther away if it is less hands on than a close proximity search. There is -1 per ten feet away |
| Ace_of_time03-25-07, 11:03 PM | Suppose you have a trap, set off by a pressure plate, which goes off as soon as a creature of medium or larger steps into the space. In this case, you would allow a halfling rogue to take 20, but not a human rogue? And their line of thinking is that both would be allowed because they could stand there till they die of old age search that space without setting it off so they both would be allow to take a 20. I think that's dumb and will not argue anymore. |
| catsclaw03-25-07, 11:07 PM | As I have posted I don't allow Take 20 action on any search checks.You said "For me if the thief could set the trap off by move forward after not see it than there should be no 20". What's that -- a house rule you'd consider using if you dropped the house rule you're currently using to ban take 20s? Do you want people to argue against the house rules you don't use, too? Or are you just volunteering irrelevant bits of trivia? |
| weasel003-25-07, 11:39 PM | When one walks into a dungeon, he is already at the disadvantage of not knowing where the traps are. Failing to find them on a search(T20 or normal) check introduces no new disadvantage. I prefer the "Your always trying your best: the d20 is the wheel of Fate. Sometimes fate hands you a turd." approch. I did however start with a less PC friendly gaming environ so as the 1st Eds, I like this approach. It add a bit of edge, tension, suspense, whatever to the feel of the game for me. Playing with T20 has already been conceded as completly legal. Some of us simply prefer the "old school" style. We like our PCs the same as our tea. Plenty of lumps. PS- It's a shame really that one has to read 10-15 posts before getting any real, non-offensive debating done. |
| JustinA03-26-07, 12:16 AM | ???????????????????????????????????????w hat? It would take a hour to seach the whole hallway. What post did I say one hour for a door. If it is trap it is trap for a reason and someone is going to come to check it at sometime. Why is it that we keep switching to real world after a D&D exsample is give. They are not the same thing. How many PC's do you know that go around getting xp for going through dead ruins with nothing in them. as to your ex. dungeon most of this dungeon you buy have that one part in them that you as DM are supposed to fill in. How did they get down there, can it also be found by a patrol of kobolds, If so they are going to know someone unwanted is in there and start patroling it too. You should not be giving you pc's all the time they need to do everthing. If you want to give them 8-10 hours to rest when needed that's fine as long as they find a place that will be undisrupted for that time. ( trapped hallway does not count) This entire post was unintelligible. Please try it again in legible English. I would also suggest carefully reading the posts you're responding to for comprehension, as the little sense you are making in the midst of your gibberish has absolutely no relationship to the posts you're replying to. Thanks. |
| jaspercrey03-26-07, 07:57 AM | There is -1 per ten feet away Really? I can't seem to find that anywhere. Could you list a reference for me? |
| jaspercrey03-26-07, 08:04 AM | Playing with T20 has already been conceded as completly legal. Some of us simply prefer the "old school" style. We like our PCs the same as our tea. Plenty of lumps. PS- It's a shame really that one has to read 10-15 posts before getting any real, non-offensive debating done. Call me old school - I have felt that rolling to find traps is way more suspenseful, challeneging and fun. |
| Lindwyrm03-26-07, 09:13 AM | Call me old school - I have felt that rolling to find traps is way more suspenseful, challeneging and fun. Unless someone is going to take time and effort to search, and thus would otherwise need to roll multiple times if the Take 20 rule wasn't present. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 09:37 AM | Elthbert... I was starting to get frustrated because it seemed like you were just denying how the RAW work, but now that we've clarifed its a definition problem, maybe we can reach some agreement. I haven't found a glossary definition, but the best evidence I've dug up is this quote from the PHB, page 66, bottom of second column. This isn't a definition of "penalty", but it indicates that if no consequences of failure are contained in the "Try again" section of the skill description, then failure has no "penalty" for the purposes of Taking 20. *Edit: Oddly, the Climb skill has no "try again" paragraph, although it does specify an inherent penalty in the full description. Thats because if you fail you can fall--- but if you live you can try to climb it agian so indeed a cliber can try agian but he cannot take 20 ( though I might let you if you agreed to take damage from 19 falls ;) ). I am thinking more and more this is a problem with the idea of what a search is. I assume that someone has already done thier very best ( I really think searchs time taken should be dependent on what one is searching for.). If you have done your best, then with out new information or reason why would you find the second or third time what you missed the first. People keep bringing up the searching for you keys---- how many times have you searched the same area over and over and missed something only to have someone else walk up and find it right where you looked? Perhaps it is the fact that I played 1st edition so long, but I just do not see continiued searching in the same place without cause as logical at all. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-26-07, 11:29 AM | Well you may assert that as much as you like--- but I am afraid you have not, nor likely will, prove it. This is neither a debate club nor a court of law. I don't need to prove it. That doesn't make it any less wrong. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 12:06 PM | I would like you to cite the statistic which backs up your claim that 50,000 people are killed by their cars malfunctioning every year. Not as a result of being in an accident when their car is functioning perfectly fine, but as a result of their car, I dunno, spontaneously exploding. And, of course, the scenario is not even remotely similar to what I suggested. I was talking about chests with which you had no previous interaction. You're talking about a car that I drove yesterday. But even if I had a character who, in a fit of OCD or paranoia, checked their car thoroughly for booby traps every morning, that wouldn't be unreasonable: It would just be a facet of their character. The question you have still failed to answer is this: You say that the players are basing their decision to take 20 on a Search check on the basis of knowledge not available to their characters. What, precisely, is this knowledge? This is a simple question. If you fail to answer it this time, one can only assume that it's because you have no answer and you know you are wrong. Traps are not malfunctioning--- they are functioning the eway they are intended. What, precisely, is this knowledge? That if they check it 20 times they will search as well as they can possibly do it. That if there isa trap that it is possible to find there that indeed they will find it, and that if they don't find it that there is no possible way that they could. All of those things are things that the character could not know. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 12:10 PM | This is neither a debate club nor a court of law. I don't need to prove it. That doesn't make it any less wrong. No if I am wrong, then I am indeed wrong, and if you are wrong then you are indeed wrong. However your asserting that I am the one who is wrong does not make it so, it is simply the mantra of one who cannot prove his claim. I have given actual evidence as to why I believe the Take 20 rule is poorly written enough so as to require interpretation. You say it does not require interpretation, well then give evidence to support it. If not, then kindly--- shut up. |
| PenderGrass03-26-07, 12:41 PM | You stated that a search check allows for "nothing more" than a chance at disabling a trap. In the context of this discussion. This thread essentially covers Searching for traps. You cannot Disable a trap without having found it first (either by Search or Spot). :dragon: **** |
| Merloth03-26-07, 12:47 PM | This entire post was unintelligible. Please try it again in legible English. I would also suggest carefully reading the posts you're responding to for comprehension, as the little sense you are making in the midst of your gibberish has absolutely no relationship to the posts you're replying to. Thanks. JustinA, you do it again. The way you're posting, one would almost think someone insulted your mom. After all, we are discussing whether you can take 20 on search checks to find traps or not. Please consider that before you go bite someone. I suggest you post again with decency, you'll only get enemies the way you're posting. |
| Merloth03-26-07, 01:00 PM | After having read most of the posts here, I do agree with JustinA. You obviously can take 20 on search for finding traps. As I interpret it, you can take 20 as long as there are no consequences for doing so. By consequences I'm sure the guys who made the rule thought of consequences that interrupt the check or make it impossible to try again. As a general rule, you can always take twenty on skills that you can try again with no consequences. Examples of skills you can't take 20 on are; - Hide, because you can't hide after you've been spotted. - MS, basically the same. - Jump(sometimes), if you fail the jump check you fall into a pit. When you search something for a trap, you don't get interrupted by something like this, and you can therefore take 20. Please, if you disagree with this, it's ok, but I think we've heard all we need to hear on this topic now. Let it be up to each and one DM to rule how they see fit. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-26-07, 02:10 PM | No if I am wrong, then I am indeed wrong, and if you are wrong then you are indeed wrong. However your asserting that I am the one who is wrong does not make it so, it is simply the mantra of one who cannot prove his claim. I have given actual evidence as to why I believe the Take 20 rule is poorly written enough so as to require interpretation. You say it does not require interpretation, well then give evidence to support it. If not, then kindly--- shut up. The guys who believe the moon landing was faked and that alien hytbrids run the government also provide evidence to back up their claims. The evidence doesn't hold up and they are still wrong. What, pray, is the "actual evidence" for the grossly erroneous assumption that a failed Search check counts as a negative consequence which precludes Taking 20 on it? The Take 20 rule is worded fine, you have simply interpreted it poorly. BTW, you might want to back off a little on telling people to "shut up." Not only is is a CoC violation it is also very rude. |
| Matthew7703-26-07, 02:39 PM | That if they check it 20 times they will search as well as they can possibly do it. That if there isa trap that it is possible to find there that indeed they will find it, and that if they don't find it that there is no possible way that they could. All of those things are things that the character could not know. Why can't these facts be character knowledge? My character knows he can't dodge a magic missile. He knows how far he can jump when he's not being threatened (taking 10). He knows exactly how far he can move in 6 seconds and still be able to attack. Why can't he know that searching for two minutes gives him the best chance of finding a trap, and that if he hasn't found anything after two minutes, searching for ten more won't help at all. Since this is a rule that governs the universe, why wouldn't a character be aware of it? |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 04:49 PM | The guys who believe the moon landing was faked and that alien hytbrids run the government also provide evidence to back up their claims. The evidence doesn't hold up and they are still wrong. What, pray, is the "actual evidence" for the grossly erroneous assumption that a failed Search check counts as a negative consequence which precludes Taking 20 on it? The Take 20 rule is worded fine, you have simply interpreted it poorly. BTW, you might want to back off a little on telling people to "shut up." Not only is is a CoC violation it is also very rude. You have already way past rude. So I say agian--- put up or shut up. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-26-07, 04:55 PM | You have already way past rude. I've not. Concision is not rudeness. So I say agian--- put up or shut up. "Rude and hostile" is not an improvement over "just rude." The only proof I need is the RAW and common sense. Use both, or don't, in your game as you see fit. There really is no need to get so aggro over it. |
| JustinA03-26-07, 04:58 PM | Traps are not malfunctioning--- they are functioning the eway they are intended. You say that as if it were somehow relevant. I guess you're simply admitting that your car analogy was horribly, horribly flawed and has no relevance to the discussion. Glad we could get that out of the way. That if they check it 20 times they will search as well as they can possibly do it. That if there isa trap that it is possible to find there that indeed they will find it, and that if they don't find it that there is no possible way that they could. All of those things are things that the character could not know. Your objection does not seem to be the Take 20 mechanic, it seems to be to the fact that skill checks can never generate a result higher than 20 + the character's skill bonus. That, beyond a certain point, a character has done the best that they are going to do (without further training) and no lucky confluence of events is going to change that. Of course, this is remarkably similar to the real world. So clearly this can't be metagaming, either. But it is, at least, a complaint which can be remedied without resorting to Pendy's busted rule. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 05:03 PM | Why can't these facts be character knowledge? My character knows he can't dodge a magic missile. He knows how far he can jump when he's not being threatened (taking 10). He knows exactly how far he can move in 6 seconds and still be able to attack. Why can't he know that searching for two minutes gives him the best chance of finding a trap, and that if he hasn't found anything after two minutes, searching for ten more won't help at all. Since this is a rule that governs the universe, why wouldn't a character be aware of it? You see your character shouldn't know he can' dodge magic missle unless he has spellcraft. He knows how far he can jump when he's not being threatened (taking 10). He knows exactly how far he can move in 6 seconds and still be able to attack. --- If you play as if your character knows that he can move X number of feet and still attack I will excuse you from my game.that too is player knowledge, he should know about hoe far but not exactly how far. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 05:12 PM | You say that as if it were somehow relevant. . Totally relevant to your question I guess you're simply admitting that your car analogy was horribly, horribly flawed and has no relevance to the discussion. Not at all, Cars kill people en masse daily. Often accedents are due to malfunctions but not certianly not always. a malfunction with your car can be instantly fatal--- how often do you do a complete search of it? Now I don't think it is a flawed analogy at all. You simply don't like the analogy because it shows the absurdity of spending that much tme checking something you have already checked for. And agian --- I know my car is there and a malfunction could kill me, but a rogue does not know a trap is there at all. Glad we could get that out of the way. What was that that we were gettting out of the way? Your objection does not seem to be the Take 20 mechanic, it seems to be to the fact that skill checks can never generate a result higher than 20 + the character's skill bonus. That, beyond a certain point, a character has done the best that they are going to do (without further training) and no lucky confluence of events is going to change that. Of course, this is remarkably similar to the real world. So clearly this can't be metagaming, either. But it is, at least, a complaint which can be remedied without resorting to Pendy's busted rule. No thats not my complaint at all--- my complaint is that in this case, take 20 rule allows a character to know precisely when he has done his absolute best, which assumes they were not doing there best when they have taken a roll. That is metagaming, and I don't like metagaming. |
| Elthbert03-26-07, 05:14 PM | I've not. Concision is not rudeness.. Your right--- but you have been rude not concise. "Rude and hostile" is not an improvement over "just rude." BOy that is the pot calling the Kettle black now isn't it. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-26-07, 05:35 PM | Your right--- but you have been rude not concise. Good thing I have been concise, then, and not rude. However, as I have learned to my peril, sometimes offense can be taken where none is intended. If you feel I have been rude then I apologize. BOy that is the pot calling the Kettle black now isn't it. No. Regardless, whether I - or anyone, for that matter - have been rude or not it does not make you any less so or any less in violation of the CoC. Insult me as you wish, I'll not report it but others may. Really, though, is it worth getting this upset over a friendly discussion about a game? I think not. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-26-07, 05:37 PM | If you play as if your character knows that he can move X number of feet and still attack I will excuse you from my game.that too is player knowledge, he should know about hoe far but not exactly how far. I know a lot of things about my PC that the PC does not know about himself, rules-based things that I use in order to play the game. I know that he can move at speed X and so move him at that speed. Likewise I know that Take 20 represents the best chance he has of finding a trap, for example, and so I Take 20. Neither one is more meta than the other. |
| Dragonteuthis03-26-07, 05:41 PM | You cannot Disable a trap without having found it first (either by Search or Spot). True. Although, you can also find it by triggering it. Just to cover all the bases. |
| Matthew7703-26-07, 05:55 PM | You see your character shouldn't know he can' dodge magic missle unless he has spellcraft. --- If you play as if your character knows that he can move X number of feet and still attack I will excuse you from my game.that too is player knowledge, he should know about hoe far but not exactly how far. I don't understand why you think a character wouldn't know this, it can be experimentally proven in-game. "Hmm.. every time I try to run 40 feet towards an Orc and attack, it gets to hit me first, but if I only have to cover 30 feet I am quick enough to swing before it can react." "When a Wizard fired a burning ray of flame at me, I was able to duck aside, but I've never been able to avoid those darts of magical force." This is in-game experiential evidence, not metagaming. Tactical maneuvering is such an important part of D&D combat, I think every character would train in knowing exactly how far they can move and still attack. It should be a fundamental part of any weapons training in D&D. Just as knowing exactly how long to spend searching to reach optimum performance should be a fundamental part of trapfinding training. |
| weasel003-26-07, 07:36 PM | Thats because if you fail you can fall--- but if you live you can try to climb it agian so indeed a cliber can try agian but he cannot take 20 ( though I might let you if you agreed to take damage from 19 falls ;) ). Funny enough.... SRD: Taking 20:When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced wit *snip* nce taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding,if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. |
| Lindwyrm03-26-07, 08:17 PM | Not at all, Cars kill people en masse daily. Often accedents are due to malfunctions but not certianly not always. a malfunction with your car can be instantly fatal--- how often do you do a complete search of it? Now I don't think it is a flawed analogy at all. You simply don't like the analogy because it shows the absurdity of spending that much tme checking something you have already checked for. And agian --- I know my car is there and a malfunction could kill me, but a rogue does not know a trap is there at all. Elthbert: Please drop the car arguement. There is a significant difference between a car which if no-one has tampered with it is 99.several 9's percent safe, and a chest or corridor which has been deliberately made dangerous by the addition of a trap. The rogue may not know there is a trap, but since he is searching there he suspects it. Either it is a logical place for a trap as it is where he would put one, or something has triggered his suspicion. In most cases, either he will not have the time, or will not consider it significant enough to do more than a quick check (roll search), but in some cases (near the treasury, in a strangely unused corridor, on a chest in the BBEG's treasury) he will get out all of his gear for checking these situations, and take his time (take 20). Now, where is your difficulty that someone will do a better job taking their time and checking something thoroughly? If there is no problem with this, how would you handle someone taking extra time and care to do a thorough job? if I am wrong, then I am indeed wrong, and if you are wrong then you are indeed wrong. However your asserting that I am the one who is wrong does not make it so, it is simply the mantra of one who cannot prove his claim. I have given actual evidence as to why I believe the Take 20 rule is poorly written enough so as to require interpretation. You say it does not require interpretation, well then give evidence to support it. In which case, in clear English, assert why your interpretation of what is meant by a penalty is more correct than anyone elses. We disagree that what is intended is that a rule has been written that can never be used. IMHO: A penalty in this situation is something that places you in a worse situation than you were before the roll, not in an identical situation. After all, a penalty in sport means that the opposition is given an advantage - sometimes a choice of advantages. In a court of law a penalty will be imposed as either a fine or a loss of liberty. Both these situations leave you worse off. If you disagree with this opinion, please give an example of a penalty that leaves you in the same situation as you were before that penalty was imposed. No thats not my complaint at all--- my complaint is that in this case, take 20 rule allows a character to know precisely when he has done his absolute best, which assumes they were not doing there best when they have taken a roll. That is metagaming, and I don't like metagaming. The character knows that at some point in that 2 minutes he has performed every possible method he has to search the area in question. He only stops when he has finally cleared everything his training has taught him. Any one of those actions could be responsible for locating the trap, trigger mechanism or valuable item. You see your character shouldn't know he can' dodge magic missle unless he has spellcraft. Unless he has experienced one, or seen someone try to dodge one, or been told by the mage, or a more experienced character... ...shall I continue? --- If you play as if your character knows that he can move X number of feet and still attack I will excuse you from my game.that too is player knowledge, he should know about hoe far but not exactly how far. OK, so what you are saying here is that characters in your game don't know how far they can move relative to each other. Do you impose some sort of penalty if a character professes to realise that Plate slows her down? (After all, they quickly find they can't move as far, or charge as far and that they can now only run 100 yards (that's 60 squares - 300 feet) in 30 seconds as opposed to the usual 15 seconds. (5 rounds as opposed to 2.5 rounds).) What about spell distances and areas? Do you punish mages for knowing how far away they are placing spell effects and trying to avoid hitting their comrades? How much leeway do you give on a character knowing how far he can move and attack? 5'? 10'? |
| Merloth03-26-07, 08:31 PM | Weasel0 just posted the rule from the srd. How can you misinterpret that rule? Some of you are obviously thinking that if the rogue takes twenty on searching a trap, it's metagame thinking... Well, that can be true, and if you know the reason is metagame thinking, talk to your player about it, and let him provide you an in-game reason as to why he takes twenty. Here and now, I can think of several examples where I'd allow take 20, and also several situations where I wouldn't. But, generally, as long as the character has a good or even fair reason for taking twenty, I'd allow that... I think someone has misinterpreted the rule, as I myself did at first. Some of you think that by failing the search check, you're oblivious to any traps that might be there, and might fall into the trap later on. But this does not happen automatically after you fail the search check, and is thus no direct consequence of failing the check. Therefore, you can take twenty. It also seems like the guys voting against the take 20 rule here, thinks take 20 is like this; - "I try and search this tile for traps..." (rolls 9) "Hmmm, I try again" (4) "and again..." This happens when you roll in the open and have immature players in your game. The player mentioned above obviously sees that he can search better than this, and tries again or takes 20. It all comes down to how you play things out, and how you use the rules to describe the PCs' actions. This interpretation is a bit different; DM: You see a big chest at the end of the BBEG's room, and it has several locks upon it. PC: I walk up to the chest and take my time searching for any traps. (background knowledge: The PC knows that the BBEG is really powerful and that he would probably trap the chest containing his belongings. In addition, the party has seen lots of traps before and they do not want to see nor feel any more of them.) PC OOC: Soo I take 20 This is how you should play out the rules in your game. It does not involve metagame-thinking, and it is perfectly fine for the PC to take twenty, as long as he doesn't trigger no traps while searching. And as I believe I've read or heard somewhere, you do not trigger traps while searching for them. |
| Ace_of_time03-26-07, 08:33 PM | You said "For me if the thief could set the trap off by move forward after not see it than there should be no 20". What's that -- a house rule you'd consider using if you dropped the house rule you're currently using to ban take 20s? Do you want people to argue against the house rules you don't use, too? Or are you just volunteering irrelevant bits of trivia? I do use take 20 action just not on search, spot, and listen checks. Along with most checks when the PC's would not know if they are a success. I am not the OP and was just typing my opinion on if it should be allowed in the over all game of D&D. Don't see what the big deal is about that. |
| Ace_of_time03-26-07, 08:40 PM | Really? I can't seem to find that anywhere. Could you list a reference for me? It is really under spot but can be used with any check taken at a distance if it would normally be a close action. PHB page83 |
| Ace_of_time03-26-07, 08:49 PM | This entire post was unintelligible. Please try it again in legible English. I would also suggest carefully reading the posts you're responding to for comprehension, as the little sense you are making in the midst of your gibberish has absolutely no relationship to the posts you're replying to. Thanks. I was posting about the other post you made to me too. Originally Posted by Ace_of_time ???????????????????????????????????????w hat? It would take a hour to search the whole hallway. What post did I say one hour for a door? If it is trapped it is trapped for a reason and someone is going to come to check it at sometime. Why is it that we keep switching to real world things after a D&D ex sample is given. They are not the same thing. How many PC's do you know that go around getting xp for going through dead ruins with nothing in them. As to your ex sample dungeon, most of the dungeons you buy have that one part in them that you as DM are supposed to fill in. How did they get down there, can it also be found by a patrol of kobolds, If so they are going to know someone unwanted is in there and start patrolling it too. You should not be giving you PC's all the time they need to do everything. If you want to give them 8-10 hours to rest when needed that's fine as long as they find a place that will be undisrupted for that time. ( trapped hallway does not count) There, Is that for the little guy. |
| Ace_of_time03-26-07, 08:55 PM | What dungeon are we talking about here? What hallway? To use a published example, look at the Sunless Citadel. There are sections of that dungeon which are heavily traversed by kobolds and goblins. Attempts to take 20 in those hallways will probably result in the effort being interrupted by kobolds or goblins. But there are other sections of that same complex which have been abandoned for centuries, and if the PCs decide to do their best archaeologist impersonations in those sections of the complex it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone would interrupt their work. In neither case should the DM simply say, "Well, you don't have time for that." Let the PCs do what they do and adjudicate the reactions of the environment around them normally. Depends on the circumstances. I recently ran a group through my version of the Tomb of Horrors. There were times when, no matter how hard they searched, they couldn't find a trap... and they would proceed trepidatiously. At other times, unable to find a trap but convinced it was there, they would turn away and explore in a different direction. This was actually a shift from their earlier attitude. When they first entered the tomb, they were perfectly happy to do a single Search check and then assume the way was clear enough. (They had fairly high bonuses, so even on a roll of 1 they felt pretty good about it.) I knew the adventure had been a success when they thoroughly searched a door and found no traps. Then most of the group stepped back around a corner while one of them buffed up and opened the door... to no effect. So then they carefully searched the floor on the other side and, by taking 20, discovered that it was a pit trap! Ha! So they activated an immovable rod and, while holding onto it, triggered the pit trap by standing on it. Then they climbed down carefully into the pit and walked across it... triggering the pressure plate that caused all the spikes in the pit to shoot out as ranged attacks and pin-cushion them. That's emergent behavior. I could have tried to enforce it through DM fiat ("thou shalt not suspect a trap here"; "thou hast suffered enough that thou may suspect a trap here"), but that wouldn't be any fun for me or the players. This is the post that was part of the my post. I still can't find where I said 1 hour for a door your help please. |
| weasel003-26-07, 09:03 PM | Can we kill this thread yet? Someone? |
| JustinA03-27-07, 09:50 AM | I do use take 20 action just not on search, spot, and listen checks. Along with most checks when the PC's would not know if they are a success. For the umpteenth time: Knowing whether you've succeeded or not is irrelevant when it comes to taking 20. The take 20 mechanic is specifically designed to model a character taking their time, not characters retrying failure. It is really under spot but can be used with any check taken at a distance if it would normally be a close action. PHB page83 That's a house rule. It's even more of a house rule because Search can't be used at a distance. I was posting about the other post you made to me too. Originally Posted by Ace_of_time ???????????????????????????????????????w hat? It would take a hour to search the whole hallway. What post did I say one hour for a door? If it is trapped it is trapped for a reason and someone is going to come to check it at sometime. Why is it that we keep switching to real world things after a D&D ex sample is given. They are not the same thing. How many PC's do you know that go around getting xp for going through dead ruins with nothing in them. As to your ex sample dungeon, most of the dungeons you buy have that one part in them that you as DM are supposed to fill in. How did they get down there, can it also be found by a patrol of kobolds, If so they are going to know someone unwanted is in there and start patrolling it too. You should not be giving you PC's all the time they need to do everything. If you want to give them 8-10 hours to rest when needed that's fine as long as they find a place that will be undisrupted for that time. ( trapped hallway does not count) There, Is that for the little guy. Nope. Still gibberish. "The other post you made to me too"? "Is that for the little guy"? "How many PCs do you know"? The post is filled with phrases which are completely nonsensical. Those few phrases which can be linguistically parsed are seemingly random non sequiturs. But the general gist seems to be that there is no location in the entire game world which is not regularly patrolled by kobolds once every hour. A claim which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense in itself. And let's not forget that you originally claimed that it was "madness" to allow my PCs to take 20 while searching a door and a 5x5 square -- activities which, even combined, take a grand total of 4 minutes. So your original claim was that no party should ever be allowed to stand still for 4 minutes without being ambushed by roving monsters. This is the post that was part of the my post. I still can't find where I said 1 hour for a door your help please. You realize you're quoting my post, right? The odds of me finding you saying something in my post are pretty low, wouldn't you say? (This is a prime example of the type of nonsense that you're repeatedly spamming this thread with.) What I said: There was a time my group took 20 on a door and then took 20 on the 5x5 square on the other side of the door. Your Reply: "There is no reason to give 1 hour to get down a hallway in a dungeons unless everything is dead, and if everything is dead then there is no dungeon." Now, it's fully possible that this was just another one of your whimsical and ridiculous non sequiturs, which had no connection to the post you were replying to. If so, I'd appreciate it if (a) you stopped posting such ridiculous nonsense; and (b) apologize for doing it so much already. If not, you're implying that the example you're replying to involves "1 hour to get down a hallway". Basic English. Learn it, love it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| Ace_of_time03-27-07, 12:34 PM | For the umpteenth time: Knowing whether you've succeeded or not is irrelevant when it comes to taking 20. The take 20 mechanic is specifically designed to model a character taking their time, not characters retrying failure. That's a house rule. It's even more of a house rule because Search can't be used at a distance. Nope. Still gibberish. "The other post you made to me too"? "Is that for the little guy"? "How many PCs do you know"? The post is filled with phrases which are completely nonsensical. Those few phrases which can be linguistically parsed are seemingly random non sequiturs. But the general gist seems to be that there is no location in the entire game world which is not regularly patrolled by kobolds once every hour. A claim which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense in itself. And let's not forget that you originally claimed that it was "madness" to allow my PCs to take 20 while searching a door and a 5x5 square -- activities which, even combined, take a grand total of 4 minutes. So your original claim was that no party should ever be allowed to stand still for 4 minutes without being ambushed by roving monsters. You realize you're quoting my post, right? The odds of me finding you saying something in my post are pretty low, wouldn't you say? (This is a prime example of the type of nonsense that you're repeatedly spamming this thread with.) What I said: There was a time my group took 20 on a door and then took 20 on the 5x5 square on the other side of the door. Your Reply: "There is no reason to give 1 hour to get down a hallway in a dungeons unless everything is dead, and if everything is dead then there is no dungeon." Now, it's fully possible that this was just another one of your whimsical and ridiculous non sequiturs, which had no connection to the post you were replying to. If so, I'd appreciate it if (a) you stopped posting such ridiculous nonsense; and (b) apologize for doing it so much already. If not, you're implying that the example you're replying to involves "1 hour to get down a hallway". Basic English. Learn it, love it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net Ether post the post where i said the door thing or not type about it. Here a quote from the rules Fact! How can I tell whether or not I can take 20 on a check, and what constitutes “failure” on a check? Taking 20 is simply a time-saving short-cut that avoids requiring a player to roll and roll until he gets a 20 on a check that everyone knows he’ll simply retry until he either succeeds or is convinced he can’t. Ultimately, whether or not you can take 20 relies on only three criteria: I Will not Argue about this with you. If you need reading lessons I suggest you take night claases. |
| Ace_of_time03-27-07, 12:41 PM | Originally Posted by JustinA What dungeon are we talking about here? What hallway? To use a published example, look at the Sunless Citadel. There are sections of that dungeon which are heavily traversed by kobolds and goblins. Attempts to take 20 in those hallways will probably result in the effort being interrupted by kobolds or goblins. But there are other sections of that same complex which have been abandoned for centuries, and if the PCs decide to do their best archaeologist impersonations in those sections of the complex it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone would interrupt their work. This is your post about the Sunless Citadel. It is what my post with the kobolds was about not every dungeon ever made. Let me guess if we don't think your way we are wrong is that what your saying? |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-27-07, 12:43 PM | Look, people, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Will everyone please keep it civil and stop telling other people to "shut up." Not only is it a CoC violation it is just plain rude. |
| Ace_of_time03-27-07, 12:44 PM | Look, people, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Will everyone please keep it civil and stop telling other people to "shut up." Not only is it a CoC violation it is just plain rude. Sorry. |
| Elthbert03-27-07, 03:50 PM | Good thing I have been concise, then, and not rude. However, as I have learned to my peril, sometimes offense can be taken where none is intended. If you feel I have been rude then I apologize. No. Regardless, whether I - or anyone, for that matter - have been rude or not it does not make you any less so or any less in violation of the CoC. Insult me as you wish, I'll not report it but others may. Really, though, is it worth getting this upset over a friendly discussion about a game? I think not. I accept your appology and offer the same. |
| Elthbert03-27-07, 04:16 PM | Elthbert: Please drop the car arguement. There is a significant difference between a car which if no-one has tampered with it is 99.several 9's percent safe, and a chest or corridor which has been deliberately made dangerous by the addition of a trap. I am not the one who keeps bring it up. Go back and read and you will see that that is the case. In the context in which I used the example, I fail to see the differance, you said that an unknown trap could kill the rogue, and you are indeed correct, I responded that a faulty car could indeed kill you, how often do you do a complete search on it? If the fact that something could happen which might be injurious or fatal is justification for numerous searches then this is something I would expect people to do. The rogue may not know there is a trap, but since he is searching there he suspects it. Either it is a logical place for a trap as it is where he would put one, or something has triggered his suspicion. In most cases, either he will not have the time, or will not consider it significant enough to do more than a quick check (roll search), but in some cases (near the treasury, in a strangely unused corridor, on a chest in the BBEG's treasury) he will get out all of his gear for checking these situations, and take his time (take 20). Now, where is your difficulty that someone will do a better job taking their time and checking something thoroughly? Well I assume that people are doing thier best--- So I don't see the issue. I assume that the rogue is already checking the best he can. Of course I also assume that the search is completly non- invasive no toughing or anything else. That is the only way one can explain that a search can't set it off. If there is no problem with this, how would you handle someone taking extra time and care to do a thorough job? Circumstance bonus. In which case, in clear English, assert why your interpretation of what is meant by a penalty is more correct than anyone elses. We disagree that what is intended is that a rule has been written that can never be used. IMHO: A penalty in this situation is something that places you in a worse situation than you were before the roll, not in an identical situation. After all, a penalty in sport means that the opposition is given an advantage - sometimes a choice of advantages. In a court of law a penalty will be imposed as either a fine or a loss of liberty. Both these situations leave you worse off. If you disagree with this opinion, please give an example of a penalty that leaves you in the same situation as you were before that penalty was imposed. I do not disagree that a penalty is an event which leaves you worse off. I simple contend that a rogue who has searched and found nothing is worse off that a rogue that has not ever searched. Because his suspicion should be reduced, he searched and didn't find anything. This goes back to what i saiid earlier regarding the understanding of what is going o n during a search check. The character knows that at some point in that 2 minutes he has performed every possible method he has to search the area in question. He only stops when he has finally cleared everything his training has taught him. Any one of those actions could be responsible for locating the trap, trigger mechanism or valuable item. Ah but this implies that the rogue is always successful at imploying his technique and it is variation in the technique which is the deciding factor in succesful searches. I do not think that that is the intended case. Unless he has experienced one, or seen someone try to dodge one, or been told by the mage, or a more experienced character... ...shall I continue? No becuase it should not matter if he has experianced one, or seen someone else try to dodge one ( I am iffy on e the being told by another character, if you want to start using knowledge from another character you are going to have to put points in either knowlede arcane or speelcraft.) I of course should have added knowledge arcane. OK, so what you are saying here is that characters in your game don't know how far they can move relative to each other. Do you impose some sort of penalty if a character professes to realise that Plate slows her down? (After all, they quickly find they can't move as far, or charge as far and that they can now only run 100 yards (that's 60 squares - 300 feet) in 30 seconds as opposed to the usual 15 seconds. (5 rounds as opposed to 2.5 rounds).) What about spell distances and areas? Do you punish mages for knowing how far away they are placing spell effects and trying to avoid hitting their comrades? How much leeway do you give on a character knowing how far he can move and attack? 5'? 10'? [/QUOTE] Well often I play with minitures on a non gridded surface and have players declare thier actions and then measure. Sometimes people get hosed, if they make an unfortunate mistake. By the way this is the way most of my players prefer. If we are not using minis that day ( for what ever reason) then I am pretty nice about telling the players " he looks to far away to move to and attack" or he is right there, you can step over to him and give him everything you've got" etc If we ae playing on a grid--- well then I am fine with the player moving the character mechanically, as long as the Characer is not roleplayed in such a mechanical way. |
| JustinA03-27-07, 06:47 PM | Ether post the post where i said the door thing or not type about it. I did. I guess this is your way of admitting that your were posting non sequiturs and gibberish. :rolleyes: Here a quote from the rules Fact! Hey, look! More gibberish! How can I tell whether or not I can take 20 on a check, and what constitutes “failure” on a check? Taking 20 is simply a time-saving short-cut that avoids requiring a player to roll and roll until he gets a 20 on a check that everyone knows he’ll simply retry until he either succeeds or is convinced he can’t. Ultimately, whether or not you can take 20 relies on only three criteria: That's not a quote from the rules, that's a quote from the FAQ. It is probably not accidental that you snipped the list of criteria, which includes: "• You have available time equal to making the check 20 times. If you have only 1 minute until the walls of the room slide together and crush you, you obviously can't take 20 on a Search check to find the hidden off switch (since that takes 20 rounds)." You'll note that this implicitly assumes that there will be times when you can take 20 on a Search check. And then, a little later on, as the FAQ discusses what a game without take 20 would be like: "• Once inside, the PCs discover a locked chest. Wary of a trap, Lidda's player rolls a 16 on her Search check. She finds nothing, but that doesn't allay her suspicion, so she wants to keep rolling her Search check until she gets a 20. (She might as well, since the party has plenty of time and nothing bad happens to her if she fails the Search check.) If she's lucky, this takes only a few rolls, but we've all played with players who couldn't roll a 20 with a hundred tries." Wow. You really found a great cite for supporting your position that you should never be allowed to take 20 on a Search check. :rolleyes: I Will not Argue about this with you. If you need reading lessons I suggest you take night claases. What is a "claas", exactly? Is it like a "class" except that it's run by illiterates? |
| weasel003-27-07, 08:24 PM | "• You have available time equal to making the check 20 times. If you have only 1 minute until the walls of the room slide together and crush you, you obviously can't take 20 on a Search check to find the hidden off switch (since that takes 20 rounds)." Sure you can. By RAW, you would automatically incur all penalties before reaching the 20th time. In this case, a crushed body. You'll note that this implicitly assumes that there will be times when you can take 20 on a Search check. And then, a little later on, as the FAQ discusses what a game without take 20 would be like: "• Once inside, the PCs discover a locked chest. Wary of a trap, Lidda's player rolls a 16 on her Search check. She finds nothing, but that doesn't allay her suspicion, so she wants to keep rolling her Search check until she gets a 20. (She might as well, since the party has plenty of time and nothing bad happens to her if she fails the Search check.) If she's lucky, this takes only a few rolls, but we've all played with players who couldn't roll a 20 with a hundred tries." And here is where a chance for abuse arises. If a DM will let you T20 to search here, and then later not there, everyone now knows somethings up. So you can take one of two ways out. 1) Remove T20 on search checks and roll behind the screen. Disallow most re-rolls as it would be poor role playing. I do however, add hints in my discriptions of the die rolls if the roll was particulaly bad(say 5 or under). IE- You don't see anything but that may have been due to a piece of dust in your eye. I mean I'm not out to hose them down for bad rolls but I like to think they're always trying their best. 2) Always allow T20 and then interrupt them as nessecary. Remove spot and listen checks for their character for enemies. They are focusing for 2min on one particular spot. |
| Lindwyrm03-27-07, 08:49 PM | I do not disagree that a penalty is an event which leaves you worse off. I simple contend that a rogue who has searched and found nothing is worse off that a rogue that has not ever searched. Because his suspicion should be reduced, he searched and didn't find anything. This goes back to what i saiid earlier regarding the understanding of what is going o n during a search check. Well Elthbert, way to dodge the question of what possible penalty could leave you in the same position as you were before the attempt to do something. I would be only marginally less suspicious if I couldn;t see a trap after 6 seconds when I expect one... After all, if I am suspicious enough to want to take 2 minutes per 25 square feet, something has to have made me nervous. With regard to the magic missile issue: No becuase it should not matter if he has experianced one, or seen someone else try to dodge one ( I am iffy on e the being told by another character, if you want to start using knowledge from another character you are going to have to put points in either knowlede arcane or speelcraft.) I of course should have added knowledge arcane. So what, characters in your games can only learn case by case stuff by buying ranks in a skill? They can't know simply that they have never been able to dodge homing magic missiles, neither has anyone else in the party, or anyone he has ever spoken to, including more experienced members of the group? I am of course talking experience in play, or from talking in play to people who have had the experience. Well often I play with minitures on a non gridded surface and have players declare thier actions and then measure. Sometimes people get hosed, if they make an unfortunate mistake. By the way this is the way most of my players prefer. Not to call you a liar, but I have to point out we only have your word for what method your players prefer. I still would like to know how much leeway you give for moving miniatures. 1/8"? 1/16" ? Do they have to come to contact? OK How do you distinguish a player deciding to make a mechanical movement of 30' towards the enemy and hitting them, and acharacter deciding to make the same movement? Well I assume that people are doing thier best--- So I don't see the issue. I assume that the rogue is already checking the best he can. Of course I also assume that the search is completly non- invasive no toughing or anything else. That is the only way one can explain that a search can't set it off. [QUOTE]If there is no problem with this, how would you handle someone taking extra time and care to do a thorough job? Circumstance bonus. With regard to taking time, how much circumstance bonus do you give for searching a 5' space for 30 seconds? 1 minute? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? How do you reconcile giving a circumstance bonus for taking their time with the statement that they're already doing their best when checking a surface? The take 20 mechanic is meant to remove the dice in a situation where time is not important and nothing bad will happen as a direct result of failing the check. After all, failing a search check does not trigger a trap, render a secret door or treasure forever lost. |
| Ace_of_time03-27-07, 11:02 PM | I did. I guess this is your way of admitting that your were posting non sequiturs and gibberish. :rolleyes: Hey, look! More gibberish! That's not a quote from the rules, that's a quote from the FAQ. It is probably not accidental that you snipped the list of criteria, which includes: "• You have available time equal to making the check 20 times. If you have only 1 minute until the walls of the room slide together and crush you, you obviously can't take 20 on a Search check to find the hidden off switch (since that takes 20 rounds)." You'll note that this implicitly assumes that there will be times when you can take 20 on a Search check. And then, a little later on, as the FAQ discusses what a game without take 20 would be like: "• Once inside, the PCs discover a locked chest. Wary of a trap, Lidda's player rolls a 16 on her Search check. She finds nothing, but that doesn't allay her suspicion, so she wants to keep rolling her Search check until she gets a 20. (She might as well, since the party has plenty of time and nothing bad happens to her if she fails the Search check.) If she's lucky, this takes only a few rolls, but we've all played with players who couldn't roll a 20 with a hundred tries." Wow. You really found a great cite for supporting your position that you should never be allowed to take 20 on a Search check. :rolleyes: What is a "claas", exactly? Is it like a "class" except that it's run by illiterates? You read the FAQ, so what does it say in there about a player taking there time to do their best. I seemed to have miss that one in there. Didn't you post about that being what the take 20 system was about. Everybody has already heard the three reason why you can't take a 20 and I didn't feel like reliving it. The only reason they say that they made the system is because they knew that there would be players that would sit there and roll 500 time till they got a 20 and that the take 20 action would save the other players' time. You post the number of the post where I said that a door takes 1 hour to search. If you won't tell me where I said it how am I going to answer you. If my post was in respose to your post then post that, but quit skipping it. And last quit typeing nonsense nobody understands but you. It was your dungeon ex sample not mine and instead of you answering me you insult me for no reason but to make yourself look smarter. (wow what a big man you most be) |
| JustinA03-28-07, 11:34 PM | And here is where a chance for abuse arises. If a DM will let you T20 to search here, and then later not there, everyone now knows somethings up. So you can take one of two ways out. There's no need to get "out". You are ALWAYS allowed to Take 20, unless the skill doesn't allow you to try again. There are no exceptions to this. You suffer the consequences of failure while taking 20, but that doesn't mean you can't take 20: It means you suffer the consequences. Remove spot and listen checks for their character for enemies. They are focusing for 2min on one particular spot. No. This is not correct. From the SRD: "ACTION: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action." The character can still make reactive Spot checks because reactive Spot checks don't require an action. The character's distraction is modeled in two ways: First, they cannot retry their Spot check by using a move action (since they are spending their action taking 20 on a different skill). Second, they suffer a -5 penalty on the reactive Spot check because they're distracted (by their task). |
| JustinA03-28-07, 11:39 PM | You read the FAQ, so what does it say in there about a player taking there time to do their best. I seemed to have miss that one in there. Didn't you post about that being what the take 20 system was about. Look, I'm deeply sorry that you're functionally illiterate. But it's making any kind of meaningful discussion impossible. If you are truly unable to compose meaningful posts in sensible English, I'm just going to start ignoring you completely. You post the number of the post where I said that a door takes 1 hour to search. If you won't tell me where I said it how am I going to answer you. If my post was in respose to your post then post that, but quit skipping it. Seriously, your illiteracy makes this impossible. I have quoted you saying it twice. What more do you need? And last quit typeing nonsense nobody understands but you. It was your dungeon ex sample not mine and instead of you answering me you insult me for no reason but to make yourself look smarter. (wow what a big man you most be) What exactly is a dungeon ex-sample? Is it a dungeon that used to be sample, but is no longer a sample? A sample of what? If English is not your first language, then you're doing a passable job of throwing somewhat sensible phrases out into the digital ether. But if it is your first language, then I weep for our education system. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-29-07, 10:53 AM | Can everyone please dial back the personal attacks and instults, it is rude and unbecoming. Civilized people can disagree without being disagreeable. |
| JustinA03-29-07, 12:40 PM | Can everyone please dial back the personal attacks and instults, it is rude and unbecoming. Civilized people can disagree without being disagreeable. And can those responsible also dial back the illiteracy? Civilized people are literate. Thanks. |
| Ace_of_time03-30-07, 01:23 AM | And can those responsible also dial back the illiteracy? Civilized people are literate. Thanks. Weren't you posting earlier about people on here not answering you? I spell check mine every time I post it to make sure that it is right. Even If I type the wrong word you still should be able to get the jest of what I'm saying. I think it is pretty low of someone to insult someone when all they were doing is having a discussion that might help some DM later. Now as much as you would hate to be civil was that your dungeon you posted or not. And try not to laugh because someone can't spell or type as good as you can. |
| Geogoose03-30-07, 02:48 AM | Is anyone still debating the topic creator's question? I know some posters disagree with the rules and have made houserules, but that is irrelevent. I think this thread has degenerated into too much flaming and name-calling to be of any use. |
| Ace_of_time03-30-07, 01:26 PM | It is hard to debate anything when a person post a view point and someone else post something that has nothing to do with the OP's 1st post, mostly being a point of insult. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_03-30-07, 04:42 PM | And can those responsible also dial back the illiteracy? Civilized people are literate. Thanks. >sigh< Oh well, I tried. This thread is officially pooched. |
| Shatteredtower03-30-07, 06:22 PM | Playing with T20 has already been conceded as completly legal. Some of us simply prefer the "old school" style. We like our PCs the same as our tea. Plenty of lumps.But here's the thing: in a game that allows you to take 20 on your Search checks, you still have the option to risk your lumps. It's entirely in the player's hands. Now other players might, through their characters, try to pressure you into taking more care, and you can actually choose to do so without taking 20. You could tell your GM, "I'll take 10 on this check, and if I don't find anything with that, I'll spend up to another two rounds rolling." If that's not enough time as far as the other players are concerned, you have the option of taking several minutes on a check but telling the DM that it's all based on one result of 10 and then a single die roll. They can argue it with you out of game if they want to, but not in game. How are they to determine your character didn't make a decent attempt to find something? I don't always choose to use the option, even when my character has time, but it's nice to have the choice. |
| WizO_Cat03-31-07, 12:05 AM | Ok kid, now it's time to play nice. Please keep in mind that Baiting is against the Code of Conduct. Thus, keep the posts to the subject of the thread, not other guests. If the personal posts continue, disciplinary actions will be taken including Official Warns. Consider this your one any only warning on the subject. |
| Wopple03-31-07, 06:21 PM | What I often do if I really expect to find something is first make a normal check, and if I find nothing then take 20. I tell my DM this before hand, and regardless of what I roll on initial check (sometimes a 20), I continue to take 20 if I don't find something. I think this is very realistic. Think about looking for your keys. Do you start off taking 30 mins to scour your entire house? No, you start with a quick search of the most obvious places. And I don't really know how trap searching ends up being a problem. If they think it a dangerous enough dungeon to check every friggen room, let them. Of course, spending dozens of hours, if not days, in the same dungeon usually does not work well with alot of things. Those things being... Other character's temperments Time-based events in the world Your own stamina (go into your house and search every 5ft square for 20 minutes each, then 4 hours into it tell me how much you want to do it again) Your positon if found. It's not RAW, but I usually associate taking 20 with a greater amount of effort and concentration. For example, a take 20 search check, if interrupted by combatants, could leave you prone Your age as a character. It seems crazy, but if you are actualy doing all this stuff nonstop, days will go by much quicker, and your character's inevitable death may come much sooner. |
| Ace_of_time03-31-07, 09:14 PM | Your positon if found. It's not RAW, but I usually associate taking 20 with a greater amount of effort and concentration. For example, a take 20 search check, if interrupted by combatants, could leave you prone. This is the best way to explain the take 20 action I've seen so far. |