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

[bensei]

One important aspect is missing for taking 20:
There must be the possibility for controling the result.

Taking 20 means doing a task over and over again. E.g. with search it works, because it is no problem to roll a one (one just does not find the hidden item) and one would know whenever a roll was bad (because the item was not found). With open lock it is the same (control: lock not open).
On the contrary, with skills like disguise or hide it is harder to have such a control, especially if you are alone. How do you know that you are well disguised? How do you know that you are hard to spot?

 

[Mallus]

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.

I ain't mistaking nothing [except the correct use of English]

Why do the two have to mutually exclusive? The objective presence of cover would be reflected as a circumstance bonus, the ability to find/make optimal use of it while unobserved would be the taking 20....

How is a character trying every possible combination of tumblers in a lock fundememtally different from an adventuring party [lets say some soldiers] trying every possible place place of concealment in a perspective ambush site? Otherwise, you'd be implicitly stating it doesn't matter how much time the party spent planning the ambush --6 seconds or 6 hours-- it wouldn't make a difference under the rules.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it...[oops, just noticed realized you'd chalk all the extra time up as a circumstance bonus... hmmm, not really sure it matters one way or the other...]

 

[Snipehunt]

IMO, shouldn't be allowed. Taking 20 is doing it over and over until you get it right, and here you wouldn't know if you got it right until you were spotted. Having another person spotting you until you get it right doesn't work for me, they could roll a 1 on their spot check, and as far as the hider would know, the hider was hidden.

 

[Nail]

I ain't mistaking nothing [except the correct use of English]

Me too.

....and hey: no hard feelings, eh?

Why do the two have to mutually exclusive? The objective presence of cover would be reflected as a circumstance bonus, the ability to find/make optimal use of it while unobserved would be the taking 20....

But the problem here is knowing if you've succeeded or not. As this is an opposed roll, you don't know if you've succeeded until someone tries to spot you. Pretty simple, really.

...[oops, just noticed realized you'd chalk all the extra time up as a circumstance bonus... hmmm, not really sure it matters one way or the other...]

Honesty really is the best policy.

It is different, both in intent and magnitude. After all, do you ever hand out +20 circumstance bonuses? And, if you do, could I join your game?

 

[Dingleberry]

But the problem here is knowing if you've succeeded or not. As this is an opposed roll, you don't know if you've succeeded until someone tries to spot you. Pretty simple, really.

You may not know if you'll succeed against the spotter, but I've always played that - at least with regard to physcial skills - you know how well you did on a skill check relative to your own abilities, i.e., if you rolled a 2, you knew you could do a lot better. From that perspective, "Take 20" just means you keep trying until you know you've done your best.

 

[Krinkle]

I appreciate the logic of wanting the character to be able to take 20 in order to reflect them taking time and caution in choosing a hiding place. However, the "take 20" rule is the wrong mechanism to reflect this. You are looking for circumstance bouses:
Player: I'm gonna hide and ambush when they walk by.
DM: OK
Player: I'll stay about 20' feet away.
DM: That's a -2 for their Spot.
Player: I'll look for a nice little ditch I can crouch in
DM: That's a +2
Player: Do I see a ditch with dense cover and lots o' shadows?
DM: Sure, thats another +2
Player: I'm gonna carefully remove some of the brush so I have good line of sight but make sure its shadowed so they have trouble seeing me
DM: Another +2
Player: Since I have time, I'll bend some braches of the tree where they'll round the corner so it obscures their vision as the come into the area
DM: +2
Etc., Etc., Etc.

SRD: Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding....Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task.

You can't hide twenty times until you get it right.
You can't even "fail many times" while trying in any meaningful way.
Beyond the legalese, it is not within the spirit of the take 20 rule. Imagine threading a needle, you keep trying you will get it right. Compare this to making a free throw. You might make it after 20 shots, buts thats twenty free throws, and spending two minutes staring at the net won't help for a single shot. (Taking a moment to collect your thoughts and carefully shoot does, i.e., Taking 10.)

You can always make it easy and say "Since you are taking time to carefully hide I will you give you circumstance bonus of +x" if you don't want to roleplay the specific factors. This is better anyway because, as a DM, you can consider not just the time the characer spends but also their environment. On a barren hill with a single bush there's not much to be gained in spending 2 minutes carefully hiding behind the bush.

 

[Nail]

Player: I'll stay about 20' feet away.
DM: That's a -2 for their Spot.....

Sorry, can't help myself:

Are you saying that the only way to avoid the distance penalty to spot is to stand right next to the hiding creature?

Surely that was not the intent. I've always thought of this as "-1 per 10 feet beyond a reasonable distance". Usually, in daylight, moderate concealment, etc, this "reasonable distance" is 30 feet.

I admit, I have no rules to back this up.

 

[Nail]

You may not know if you'll succeed against the spotter, but I've always played that - at least with regard to physcial skills - you know how well you did on a skill check relative to your own abilities, i.e., if you rolled a 2, you knew you could do a lot better. From that perspective, "Take 20" just means you keep trying until you know you've done your best.

Sure, I can understand this perspective. That way you can have the players roll the dice and not "meta-game".

And for the small things, that's fine. But surely for the larger scenes, like the rogue hiding under the demon queen's bed, a hidden check by the DM is in order?

PC: "I've got 20 minutes before the Demon Queen of All That is Lewd and Carnal(tm) comes into her bedroom. I take 20 to hide under her bed!"

DM: "Think again, bub. Hand me that d20........pray I roll well...."

PC: <Gulp!>

 

[Krinkle]

Surely that was not the intent. I've always thought of this as "-1 per 10 feet beyond a reasonable distance". Usually, in daylight, moderate concealment, etc, this "reasonable distance" is 30 feet

Its pretty clear, -1 per 10'.

The 30' rule sounds very reasonable and certainly quicker but, as far as I know, would be a house rule. We use the distance penalties for Spot and Listen and it can make things very hard very quickly (which isn't nessarily a bad thing).

 

[Nail]

Its pretty clear, -1 per 10'.

The 30' rule sounds very reasonable and certainly quicker but, as far as I know, would be a house rule. We use the distance penalties for Spot and Listen and it can make things very hard very quickly (which isn't nessarily a bad thing).

The Spot DC for someone not hiding, then, is 0? If that person is 30 feet away, your Spot DC is 3? Hmmmmmm.

BTW, how do y'all determine Spot DC for random encounters at distances where neither hides, and neither initially knows the other is there?