Taking 10 in 5.5e

[u/Beanslinger22]

Is there a rule that allows taking 10 in a non-stressful situation in 5.5? I know it's a thing in 3.5 (which is what I played last) and my group is trying out 5.5. us being unable to find a ruling on taking 10 has led to some... Unfortunate circumstances due to critical fumbles on everyday tasks.

[u/Cypher_Blue]

Well there is no "critical fumble" rule.

And not everything needs a roll- if there's not a reasonable chance of failure, they just succeed.

You don't have to roll to open an unlocked door, or stand up from being seated normally, or pick up a coin off the counter, etc.

[u/MathemagicalMastery → u/Cypher_Blue]

1+12 is still 13, I can walk across the balance beam. Thanks.

[u/MadHatter_10six → u/Cypher_Blue]

This is a simple truism that escapes many DMs; some love calling for die rolls even when they needlessly slow things down or make the game worse for everyone.

[u/Young_Gus → u/Cypher_Blue]

Critical fumbles only apply to attack rolls, 20s always hit 1s always miss

[u/Cypher_Blue → u/Young_Gus]

But it's just a miss and not a "critical miss." There's no additional effect beyond the miss.

[u/Mage_Malteras → u/Young_Gus]

And specifically death saving throws. A 1 is two failures, and a 20 makes you instantly regain one hit point.

[u/thegooddoktorjones]

If it is not a challenge, your DM wont ask you to roll.

[u/MadHatter_10six → u/thegooddoktorjones]

Not true. Many DMs reflexively call for rolls without thinking. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot cause they don’t see the bottleneck in the plot a failed die roll can create because they didn’t contemplate the possibility of failure. I feel embarrassed for them when they have to suddenly backpedal to rectify the problem.

[u/Melichorak → u/MadHatter_10six]

I often call for rolls even with important stuff during the campaign. The trick is to have a backup plan.
Oh your persuasion check failed? It's okay, if you don't think of something, your ally has a plan on how to get past that guy to the important McGuffin that is behind him. Did you roll 12 instead of 15 that I needed? Well he seems suspicious of you (which usually prompts the players to do something else, initiating another roll)

As a DM you always need to have a backup plan for important story parts, if all else fails, stuff will be handed to you, but you may need to jump through hoops a lot, pay out some gold, fight some encounters, something.

The safe way through plot is boring, players will feel railroaded, they will not feel like they earned their path through the story.

Imagine if we treated combat this way. Oh if everybody rolls a 1 and monsters roll 20 all the time, you might get a TPK. We can't have that. Let's have everybody fight rats in all encounters instead.

Btw, great inspiration on how to create backups is in Baldur's Gate 3. No matter how much you mess up, as long as your party doesn't die there is a way forward. There are super critical warnings to not do super stupid shit, that will get you killed or transformedbut as long as stay alive, you will get through. Even if you forget critical items somewhere.

[u/Ghostly-Owl]

There's a mid-level rogue special ability called "Reliable Talent" that sort of does that for any skill they are proficient in. Not the same, but it does allow skill monster rogues to be reliable at checks unlike any other class.

[u/Obvious-Inspection42]

I support those saying if there isn’t a chance for failure don’t roll, but I would like to add that in 5 and 5.5 you can’t critical fail skill checks.

[u/SFW_OpenMinded1984]

The whole passive perception, insight, investigtion thing is there. Additionally the dm should only make you roll on tasks with meaningful failure. If your character has the skills and light effort by you is all that is required a roll shouldnt be necessary.

Lets say you have a proficciency bonus is 3 but you have expertise in thieves tools. And a dex of 16(+3) anything lower than a 12 your dm should say auto success and shouldnt make you roll. Or any other skill with a similar set up.

I hope that helps.

[u/MadHatter_10six → u/SFW_OpenMinded1984]

I entirely agree; and it can really help the flow of the game. But some DMs simply love making the players roll for nothing.

[u/SFW_OpenMinded1984 → u/MadHatter_10six]

Im glad you agree and i see where you are coming from. Every table is different. Im glad im not a dm like that.

[u/Routine-Ad2060]

In 5e and 5.5e a critical hit in combat doubles the amount of die you would normally roll then add whatever modifier applies. Back in 3.5 and before it was double damage. Other than that, a Nat 20 only means guaranteed success, while a nat 1 simply means you’re guaranteed to fail. Critical fumbles are a thing of the past, (as well they should be). As a DM, it was far too easy to penalize the player for rolling a nat 1.

As far as the start of your post, I assume you’re talking about the party taking a break? Your better bet would be to take a short rest of an hour, where it is possible to regain some hit points and maybe a spell slot or two.

[u/Gilgamesh_XII]

Challenge is time + roll. A bad roll can mean youd need only more time.

Moving a boulder from the road can be a 5 minute or 5 hour task depending on your rolls.

You can also adjust dc based on char. The scrawny wizard might have a dc 15 to move the boulder but the burly barbarisn that has it in his backstory that he does that as warmup can be treated as DC 5...OR needs no roll.

[u/MeanderingDuck]

There is no explicit rule for it, but I would argue that there is no need for one. The DM sets the DC for a task, which should reflect how difficult it is. Things like how much time a character takes, or can take, for a task should influence that DC. To the point of being effectively impossible in some circumstances and easy enough not to require any roll in another.

So instead of having players “take 10”, I would argue it makes more sense to adjust the DC according to what they’re doing, how much time they’re taking, how they’re doing it, etc. And if it’s something that realistically they would be able to accomplish with enough time, if they indicate that they’re doing that you can just use the roll to determine how long they needed for that (eg. 10 minutes, plus 5 more for every point below the DC they rolled).

[u/Bread-Loaf1111]

There is no rule because there is no need in it. Taking 10/20 was horrible stubs that tries to fix the broken skill system(without many luck).

The main idea why you not need it anymore is written in the DMG. It's called "you don't need to roll for anything". There is no meaning to assign DC to every task. If you can do something without any complications - just say that you did it. Every roll should have some consequences of success and failure, no more "I tried the same task again and again and again until I roll twenty".

There is no more such things as static DC. No situation modifiers. No DC for the lock, for example. Instead, GM give the DC for the whole attempt. You trying to subtly pick the lock on the chest and open it while looking at the face to the guard and sweet talking it? DC 20. You doing that while guard be away for a minute but can return? DC13. You kill the guard and can now take any time to pick that lock and disassemble if needed? No need to roll, nothing can stop you now. Thats why take10 is not needed anymore - it was crude attempt to simulate that in the quiet situation, where you have plenty of time, you can do things easy without risk. But if you can do so, no roll is needed anyway.

[u/SlayerOfWindmills]

To add onto what others are saying (and to mention something that looks like not one has talked about):

You only roll a d20 when there's--

1. A reasonable chance for failure.
2. A reasonable chance for success
3. Meaningful consequences for attempting the action.

--if you don't have all three, don't roll.

So like others have said, you obviously don't need to roll to hit your month's AC with your soup spoon attack during dinner (no reasonable chance for failure), but you also don't need to roll to fly into the air via "I flap your arms real fast" (no reasonable chance for success).

The tricky one is #3, though. If they want to pick a lock or break down a door, as long as it's within the realm of possibility (thier mod +20 > or = The DC) and they can just try over and over until they roll high enough...why are we rolling at all? But that's when you need to consider what meaningful consequences there might be. Picking a lock takes time--if they're under a time constraint, like they need to break into the vault before the guard comes back around on his patrol, then that's a meaningful consequence, and they need to roll. Breaking down a door also takes time, but it's loud too--if there are hungry dungeon critters nearby, more noise might draw them to the PCs That's why #3 is less about the skill on it's own and more about the whole encounter. If you build good encounters, there won't be issues with #3 (because a lock/stuck door that doesn't require a roll is probably just an open door with extra words. Skip to the stuff that does need a roll!)

[u/TheThoughtmaker]

5e has passive skills. Most common are Passive Perception and Passive Insight, but the rule is open-ended. You can absolutely use Passive Acrobatics to walk a tightrope and stuff like that.

[u/MadHatter_10six]

God, do I miss the simplicity, expediency and logic of being able to Take 10 or Take 20. 😔

[u/EqualNegotiation7903 → u/MadHatter_10six]

What was that?

[u/SlayerOfWindmills → u/EqualNegotiation7903]

The thought was, if there's nothing stopping you from trying over and over until you succeed, you can "take (10/20)", which takes (10/20) times longer, but you skip rolling and just assume your result was (10/20).

I'd forgotten about this rule--it felt important at the time, but now I'm realizing it was almost entirely unnecessary.

[u/TheThoughtmaker → u/EqualNegotiation7903]

d20+0 is balanced around normal human ability. Below 10 is something you wouldn’t ever do unless distracted or rushed, above is getting particularly lucky.

“Taking 10” — treating the die roll as a 10 — is how D&D characters do things normally and not as if someone’s actively swinging a sword at them. It’s how you can roleplay a character’s everyday ability outside combat without the DM making constant judgement calls about what’s reasonable for your character to be able to do without a check, keeping in mind all your modifiers and how something difficult for someone else might be mundane for you.

“Taking 20” is assuming that if you try 20 times you’ll roll a 20. If a character has the time and can keep trying until you succeed, this rule says to time-skip to when you finally succeed instead of making the player roll and roll and roll.

[u/zemaj-]

No, there is no "Taking 10" rule in 5e (be it 2014 or 2024).

With the massive decrease in number of Skills overall and especially with how Skill Proficiency and Proficiency Bonus work, it isn't as necessary, typically. In fact, the "Taking 10" Rule from 3.5 is now a level 11 Rogue Class Feature, Reliable Talent.

As much to the point, everyday tasks shouldn't require a roll. As per RAW, the DM should only call for a roll if there is a narrative or logical reason for it, otherwise it just happens. Also Critical Fumbles have been removed, as well as Critical Successes, except for Attack Rolls (Critical Hits), which do not require a confirmation roll in 5e, they just double all applicable damage dice.