D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] - Can you Take 10 or Take 20 on a Hide check?

[Corwin]

Exactly, "failure" and "consequence for failure" are two different things.

By definition, Taking 20 on a Hide check means no one is around to prevent it and cause the "consequence for failure". Otherwise, you couldn't attempt it in the first place.

 

[AuraSeer]

There can be no direct penalty for rolling low on a Hide check, since it's impossible to "fail" to Hide. A Hide check just sets the DC for the enemy's Spot check; no matter how low your result, you "succeed" in setting the DC, and you have a chance to avoid being spotted. (Bob the Halfling rolls a 1 on his Hide check, for a result of 5. Evil Ike rolls a 1 on his Spot check, for a result of 1. Bob remains unseen.)

I would allow taking 20 on Hide, as long as you have two minutes to spend. Your character looks around for possible hiding places, finds the best one, and then double-checks to make sure it's big enough and at the right angle to keep him hidden.

Taking 10 makes sense too. When not rushed or in immediate danger, you can take a second or so to glance around for a hiding place, instead of just diving for the nearest cover and crouching down.

 

[Corwin]

Bingo. As usual, some one else said it far better than I.

Well said, AuraSeer.

 

[Krinkle]

Taking 20 represents trying an action over and over until you get it perfect, as has been said. I would allow a character to take 20 while hiding, say while setting up an ambush, if they expressly mentioned that every round they were getting up and finding a new hiding place. Then I would laugh at them, impose a significant circumstance penalty for spending two minutes jumping around, and finally encourage them to take 10 next time.

Consider that if taking 20 were allowed, every kobold ambush against 1st level characters would require the characters to beat a 20+ on their spot check to avoid it, which is clearly unreasonable. Not to mention that there are definitive negative ramifications against the Kobolds if the characters do manage to beat it, which seems to invalidate taking 20.

 

[Mallus]

Theoretically, you could take 20 on a hide check before anyone is along to spot you. The question is whether you know when you've hidden well enough -- can you tell that you've found a perfect hiding spot? If not, you can't take 20, because you don't know when you've done the best job hiding: success on a hide check is determined by the opposed spot check, and absent that opposed spot check, you have no feedback to tell you that you've succeeded.

Generally, we don't allow it.
Daniel

I can think of a couple of situations where I would allow taking 20 on a Hide check. Basically anytime a character or a group attempts to find an ideal hiding place while unobserved --think of scouting out an alleyway or a copse of trees for a future ambush site. Being able to carefully search a garbage-strewn alley is lot different from just ducking in while being pursued. Plus, if multiple characters are present, feedback is available.

It would depend on the availability of cover --and input from others-- but I think such siutations come up pretty often.

 

[jgsugden]

Officially:

Taking 20:

You must have plenty of time, no threats, no distractions, and there must be no penalty for failure (other than time spent on the attempt).

Can this be used with hiding? No. Why? Because there is a penalty for failure. You can be spotted if you fail.

What about a situation where you can not fail because your hide skill is more than 20 points higher than all spot skills in the immediate area? You still can't. Why? Because others might enter the area who might have a higher spot skill. A possible penalty for failure is still present, even if all the nearby beings have no chance to spot you.

Taking 10:

If you are not being threatened or distracted, you can take 10.

Can this be used with hiding? Under certain circumstances, yes. For instance, if a thieving rogue knows that a rich nobleman is going to be visiting the nobleman's mistress that evening, the rogue might hide in the bedroom of the mistress and wait to ambush the nobleman. If nobody is in the room when he arrives, he may 'take 10' on his hide check.

Unofficially:

A rogue that has a 1/2 hour to find the perfect hiding spot should be able to find the best one he could find. As such, you might let the rogue repeat his roll once per round and use the best result (which will in effect be taking 20 in most cases). You need to be fluid with the rules to keep things from being nonsensical.

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: [3.5] - Can you Take 10 or Take 20 on a Hide check?

There can be no direct penalty for rolling low on a Hide check, since it's impossible to "fail" to Hide.

I think you're playing a bit too much with semsantics.

The Hide skill is essentially an opposed roll - opposed by Spot - and you certainly can fail an opposed roll. And there is a penalty for failure. Ergo, you may NOT take 20 on a hide check.

.....

However, you certainly can fudge, given time. Try this trick:

Hide, then have a friend try to spot you by having him take 20 on his check. If he succeeds, have him turn around, and then you try to hide again. (Don't follow my younger daughter's example and chose the very same spot to hide in!)

Continue until he can't find you.....or, if his spot is so good he would always find you, have him tell you when it was the "most difficult" to find you, and stay with that hide roll.

Essentially, you've just "taken 20" on your hide check, without breaking any rules. After all, you can't check your own "Hide" roll (presumably with a Spot check), since you are always observing yourself, and therefore can never hide from yourself..........

 

[Corwin]

Taking 20 represents trying an action over and over until you get it perfect, as has been said. I would allow a character to take 20 while hiding, say while setting up an ambush, if they expressly mentioned that every round they were getting up and finding a new hiding place. Then I would laugh at them, impose a significant circumstance penalty for spending two minutes jumping around, and finally encourage them to take 10 next time.

So if I want to Take 20 on Disable Device to pick a lock, do I need to find a different lock for each of the 20 tries?

This makes no sense to me. Taking 20 on Hide just means you are taking plenty of time to get it right.

Consider that if taking 20 were allowed, every kobold ambush against 1st level characters would require the characters to beat a 20+ on their spot check to avoid it, which is clearly unreasonable. Not to mention that there are definitive negative ramifications against the Kobolds if the characters do manage to beat it, which seems to invalidate taking 20.

I have no problem with the kobalds setting up an ambush. That's how it goes. Are you saying the PCs are toast because the battle is too difficult for their level because they didn't spot the kobalds first? If so, how is this different than the DM putting a Pit Fiend against that same low level party? It's up to the DM to understand if those kobalds are going to mop up the PCs. And if the ambush does go well for the kobalds, the PCs should retreat.

Look, all of this is beside the point, in truth. I'm just playing off your example, I guess.

 

[Nail]

I can think of a couple of situations where I would allow taking 20 on a Hide check. Basically anytime a character or a group attempts to find an ideal hiding place while unobserved ...

Nope.

Absolutely not.

You are mistaking a circumstance bonus (an "ideal spot") with the take 20 action (try and try again to get it right). They are distinct.

 

[Nail]

So if I want to Take 20 on Disable Device to pick a lock, do I need to find a different lock for each of the 20 tries?

Nope.

You are just able to try again until you get in right.

This makes no sense to me. Taking 20 on Hide just means you are taking plenty of time to get it right.

Nope.

The only way you know if you "got it right" is if someone spots you. Trying again isn't possible (normally).

I have no problem with the kobalds setting up an ambush. .....(snip).... If so, how is this different than the DM putting a Pit Fiend against that same low level party?

Completely OT. This is not a discussion of appropriate EL.

Kobolds, if they're smart, will set up an ambush in the best spot possible. Thus a circumstance modifier to their hide check. Moreover, they could have one of their number "check" the rest, given time, as I explained above.