Degrees of success

[aaronil]

I've fleshed out, corrected, and refined this system. See my more recent "Dramatic Conflict" post.

[FickleGM]

Almost FUDGE-like, but it gives some a descriptor to the roll. Nice.

[CatKnight]

It would seem using this chart banishes the 'Take 20' rule (which I have no problem with doing.) There's now always a potential penalty for failure.

[The Shadow]

It would seem using this chart banishes the 'Take 20' rule (which I have no problem with doing.) There's now always a potential penalty for failure.

Why do you say that? It's not clear to me why you couldn't take 20 with this system?

[aaronil]

I think the issue with taking 20 is that it guarantees a great (or possibly excellent) outcome on low Difficulty tasks.

For example, a hero sneaks out at night and takes 20 to sabotage the wheel of an enemy's carriage (a DC 10 Disable Device check). By taking 20 the hero automatically gets an excellent result! Not only does he rig the wheel to fall off, but he also rigs it fall off only at high speeds.

You may or may not want this to occur in your game.

If you don't like the idea that taking 20 improves your outcome, one option is to impose a "maximum outcome" you can acheive when taking 5, taking 10, or taking 20. For example: "You can only attain a Success when taking 20."

[FickleGM]

I always took "Taking 20" as "Trial and Error", since you are assumed to go through all of the alternatives to reach 20. Once 20 is reached, you add your modifiers and if you succeed (if) then you barely achieve that degree of success (whatever it is). This is why you can't take 20 in many pressure situations or for combat...

[mwalsh867]

Why not simply:

"The preceeding effects do not apply when a character takes 10 or 20 on a skill check. The repetition of attempts required to take 10 or 20 has a cumulative effect that cancels out the bonuses and penalties mentioned."

Or something like that. Just nix it for PC's too chicken to roll the dice.

-Matt

EDIT: Oh, first post. Long time ENWorlder, been lurking here for awhile. Love True20, putting together a campaign.

[FickleGM]

Why not simply:

"The preceeding effects do not apply when a character takes 10 or 20 on a skill check. The repetition of attempts required to take 10 or 20 has a cumulative effect that cancels out the bonuses and penalties mentioned."

Or something like that. Just nix it for PC's too chicken to roll the dice.

-Matt

EDIT: Oh, first post. Long time ENWorlder, been lurking here for awhile. Love True20, putting together a campaign.

Welcome to the forums. Good thoughts, by the way.

[CatKnight]

It would seem using this chart banishes the 'Take 20' rule (which I have no problem with doing.) There's now always a potential penalty for failure.

Why do you say that? It's not clear to me why you couldn't take 20 with this system?

Take another look at that chart, specifically the major failures. (-5 to future checks. May not recheck.)

Page 5 (the D&D rule is identical): When you have plenty of time, and when the task carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. Taking 20 means you keep trying until you get it right. If there are potential consequences for failing the check, you cannot take 20.

Taking 20 assumes that you try 20 times. That's why it takes 20 times as long. Eventually you'll get a 20.

This is incompatible with aaronil's idea, because I could theoretically fail by 10 or more before I got my 20. If I fail by 10 or more, I will never get the chance to get my 20. If I fail by between 5 and 9, I will have a 5 point penalty when I finally do get my 20...in effect I can never score higher than a 15.

Whether I like or don't like Taking 20 (and you've correctly guessed I don't) isn't really at issue. So long as there is a potential penalty for failing, the principle behind Taking 20 cannot hold.

[aaronil]

I've fleshed out, corrected, and refined this system. See the more recent "Dramatic Conflict" post.