Where is Take 20? Have the developers forgotten/not played all those previous DND computer games?

[susj]

Years ago when I played Neverwinter series, I found that all the lock and persuasion check automatically takes 20, unless you are playing saving-restricted mode. Later I learned that the game was designed so because computer game player almost ALWAYS load the game after they fail a lock/persuasion check and it is pointless for the game roll dice again and again. I consider this a clever design, saving the player repetitive labors of S/L. However in this game the stupidity of S/L returns... as if the designer never know there had been such mechanic.

[Casus]

It's not necessarily stupid to not guarentee success.

In fact, one might argue the stupid part would be to implement "open lock" mechanics at all, if you're going to auto-succeed with a minimum of skill.

This game is meant to be a challenge for the most part, and this includes having to decide if you're good enough to take a crack at any given lock. You can always come back at a later stage, if you're not certain you're good enough.

There was a time when accomodating every impulse of mainstream gamers wasn't considered the only viable way to design your game.

This is an attempt at going back to something like that.

Definitely not for everyone - but I would prefer they stick to their vision on this one, as I happen to appreciate not having everything served up on a plate.

For people who think that they should always succeed at everything - there's still the quick-load option.

[Baron Von Sucko]

Wait...So the actual Pathfinder rules are stupid?

[susj]

When you say that auto-succeeding cancels the open lock mechanics at all, I confirmed that you did not get what I meant. Taking 20 had nothing to do with canceling open lock. With 9 lock-picking you can not pick a DC 30 lock ,so the player still has to invest points into lock-picking skill. Also when in combat the player still needs to roll D20 because they cannot save in combat.

Again, Take 20 is not so-called accommodation to mainstream players or serving everything on plate. It simply saves you tons of time of saving and loading. You see there are some basic difference between a table game and a computer game, saving-loading system for one, absence of DM for another and so on. When a designer adapt a table game into computer game, he has to use his brain to make some changes, not sticking to every rule. And I know there are some guys loving suffering, but it doesn't change not using taking 20 mechanic.

[RPI]

In the paper rules, take 20 take one hour and can be done only for non stressfull check, so disable, openlock or all social skill cannot be taken 20. There could have implement the take 10 rules which is much more permissive.

[susj]

Again the key thing is we are NOT play a table game.

[xkuripuri]

Originally posted by susj:

Again the key thing is we are NOT play a table game.

But you ARE playing a game that is SIMULATING a tabletop game. And they specifically said they wanted the game to follow the corebook and its rules, as much as a CRPG format allows them.

Which means you can't just Take 20 on every single non-combat check, because Take 20 only works in very specific situations.

[Weaver]

Take 10 would be nice, I have Lizi wearing an armor with no penalty, maxed trickery with skill focus & I fail a LOT of lockpicking that should be successes on a 5+, and seeing that lockpicking is not triable again...

There should be an option to examine the lock, and then either roll or take 10, and then if you fail you can't try again before level up

That way it still has a chance but you won't fail easy locks because of random bad luck...

[susj]

They CAN follow the corebook and rules. And they WILL receive negative reviews. Have noticed that this is a COMPUTER game with S/L system and NO DM? What's the point for the designer actually force the gamer to repeat all these S/L tries? If the designer REALLY wants to simulate the lucky element, all they need is to had hardcore mode that disable manually save.

[xkuripuri]

Originally posted by susj:

They CAN follow the corebook and rules. And they WILL receive negative reviews. Have noticed that this is a COMPUTER game with S/L system and NO DM? What's the point for the designer actually force the gamer to repeat all these S/L tries? If the designer REALLY wants to simulate the lucky element, all they need is to had hardcore mode that disable manually save.

The thing is, you shouldn't be constantly S/L to pass checks. Just accept you'll fail some, and move on. You should roll with your failure, instead of just savescumming to get the desired result everytime.

I mean, by the logic of "they shouldn't include the lucky element", I guess everyone should always just roll nat20's in everything, including combat, so no one ever misses and is always dishing out critical hits.

[Weaver]

Originally posted by xkuripuri:

Originally posted by susj:

They CAN follow the corebook and rules. And they WILL receive negative reviews. Have noticed that this is a COMPUTER game with S/L system and NO DM? What's the point for the designer actually force the gamer to repeat all these S/L tries? If the designer REALLY wants to simulate the lucky element, all they need is to had hardcore mode that disable manually save.

The thing is, you shouldn't be constantly S/L to pass checks. Just accept you'll fail some, and move on. You should roll with your failure, instead of just savescumming to get the desired result everytime.

I mean, by the logic of "they shouldn't include the lucky element", I guess everyone should always just roll nat20's in everything, including combat, so no one ever misses and is always dishing out critical hits.

The problem is that if you're building a character to be good at something and he keep failing because eof roll between 1-5 that is frustrating.
A fight is several rolls, missing some is fine, a skill check most of the time means you just failed that opportunity (not even counting that they have linked skill check to exp gain...)

By focusing a character to skills you seriously diminish is fighting ability.

A possibility would be for skill feats to assure a minimum roll, or having feats to give take 10 on some skills.

I also find sad that knowledge/lore skills don't seem to give informations on ennemies as the tooltip is advising

[susj]

In fact people DO load after a terrible encounter or some crits lead to party wipe. This is why there need to be a hardcore mode that disable S/L. When the designer enables players S/L manually he should take S/L into consideration, not encouraging people wasting time on S/L. You see you can't save during combat. Have thought why they do that?

[xkuripuri]

Originally posted by Weaver:

Originally posted by xkuripuri:

The thing is, you shouldn't be constantly S/L to pass checks. Just accept you'll fail some, and move on. You should roll with your failure, instead of just savescumming to get the desired result everytime.

I mean, by the logic of "they shouldn't include the lucky element", I guess everyone should always just roll nat20's in everything, including combat, so no one ever misses and is always dishing out critical hits.

The problem is that if you're building a character to be good at something and he keep failing because eof roll between 1-5 that is frustrating.
A fight is several rolls, missing some is fine, a skill check most of the time means you just failed that opportunity (not even counting that they have linked skill check to exp gain...)

By focusing a character to skills you seriously diminish is fighting ability.

A possibility would be for skill feats to assure a minimum roll, or having feats to give take 10 on some skills.

I also find sad that knowledge/lore skills don't seem to give informations on ennemies as the tooltip is advising

Just gotta roll with bad rolls.
And I wouldn't say you seriously diminish their fighting ability, unless you picked a skill feat over a combat one, when you really needed the combat one. How many of your feats you actually need for combat does sort of depend on the class though.

Isn't even Taking 10 only allowed under specific circumstances? I'm not too familiar with PF, since this game is my first time actually doing it, but I seem to recall that even in D&D you can't just always Take 10.

[Takkik]

PoE 2 don't have any random skill checks, for lock or conversation. Only check your skill/stat value. That feel less random. Randomness in battle work because you roll lot of dices, and you can try many time, you have some time economy.

The random lock pick don't work well in a cRPG, because in PnP nothing stop you to smash the lock, use some acid on it, blow a door with spell (or use any spells that could help you to bypass it) and when you have a small locked box on the ground, nothing stop you to take the box with you and try another day instead of backtracking for hours to return to the place.

Personnaly Ithink they should just implement skills as traits/perks, you have them or not. Since we always end up with specialised characters, pts attributions only give illusion of choice. D&D 5 and Pathfinder 2 are closer to this.

[Meepichi]

Yeah I'd be behind the lock picking take 20 that Neverwinter used or at least allow multiple attempts until a crit fail breaks the lock or something. My rng luck is so stupidly bad that I seem to roll sub 7's on many of my checks. :(

[ChopSuey™]

As mentioned... the take20 rule there was purely a design decision to conform to ppl not wanting to load 300 times. Some of us dont NEED to open that door.... if we fail, we fail. Hey save scum and go again if you REALLY want.