43
\$\begingroup\$

In 3rd edition D&D there was the option to Take 10 or Take 20 on a skill check. Does an equivalent rule exist in 5th edition?

If the answer is no, have you tried houseruling it in, and what effect did it have on your game?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I’ve asked a followup question to this, asking what to do instead of just taking 20 or repeating until you succeed. \$\endgroup\$ – Bradd Szonye Oct 9 '14 at 2:02
47
\$\begingroup\$

10 yes (sort of), 20 no.

Taking 20 was not a thing in 4th edition, and is similarly absent from 5th. Taking 10 however is sort of a thing in 5th, but it's not implemented the way you might think it should be.

Basically, the way "taking 10" works in 5e is that every ability (And by extension, skill), has a "passive" score (Basic Rules v2 page 59). This is 10 + modifier, and it sort of represents your natural, not at all under pressure ability in a specific discipline.

The best example of this is Passive Perception. Basically, if you walk into a room, your passive perception is what you instantly notice. Many items in 5e have a higher DC if someone is passively looking for it than when they are actively doing so. But Passive Perception doesn't draw attention that actively looking might.

Ultimately, when it comes to taking 20, this gets back to a fundamental D&D principle. If failure isn't interesting on a specific roll, there is no sense in rolling the check at all. This is the problem that take 20 solved, and while 5e could fall victim to it, I've found in practice that it really doesn't. I've run several sessions where there was no need to roll dice at all, as situations pretty much just were RP and the characters often found automatic success on things like Diplomacy or bluff etc because their passive scores are high, but also because the DCs were really low for things like that (what can I say, folks in Phandalin aren't shy when it comes to telling PCs stuff).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Nice; I like that idea for passive perception; I may steal it for other systems... \$\endgroup\$ – Rob Sep 15 '14 at 10:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Failure costs time; that's sometimes a factor (and of course explicitly addressed in the Take 20 rule from 3e). In any case, take 20 isn't really important - it's a natural consequence of simply sticking with it (i.e. rolling a lot); even without the explicit rule you can expect roughly the same outcome. \$\endgroup\$ – Eamon Nerbonne Sep 21 '14 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, the rule about not rolling unless failure is interesting makes clear sense. Perhaps in the real world, you are quite good at debugging null reference exceptions in Java. Now, can you find an error while you are on a sinking ship? You have 3 minutes before the ship will sink, hurry! \$\endgroup\$ – Robert Columbia Mar 9 '18 at 14:17
3
\$\begingroup\$

D&D Next, as of present, has no direct equivalent to either Take-10 nor Take-20. At present, 4 "final" rulebooks have been released: The Starter Set, the Players Basic Rules, the DM's Basic Rules, and the Player's Handbook. Yet to be released are the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual.

The passive scores, generated using a base of 10, are similar in concept to Take-10, but are used primarily in situations where no active effort is used. Players are not given the option to "take 10" on a called for roll, with the exception of a few specific class abilities.

There are certain class abilities which replace die rolls with minimums. For example, the Rogue's Reliable Talent replaces rolls of ≤9 on proficient abilitiy checks with a minimum 10. This is conceptually not the same as the take 10, tho' the effect in play is not too dissimilar.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.