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

[Hypersmurf]

Where is everyone getting the language that taking twenty is doing it twenty times? That is wrong, incorrect and wrong!

While I personally tend to handle Take 20 the same way you do, I suspect they're getting the language from the description of Take 20.

From the 3.5 SRD, SkillsI.rtf:

"Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take."

-Hyp.

 

[Urbannen]

Number47: It takes 2 minutes to make 20 Search checks. It takes 2 minutes to take 20 on a Search check. One Search check represents looking for something for 6 seconds. If you look for something for two minutes, you have effectively made 20 Search checks. There is no statistical certainty that you will roll a 20 if you make 20 attempts - the Take 20 mechanic is a shortcut.

As for Hide, it is normally done as part of movement and is opposed by a Spot check. Finding a hiding place may involve movement, but if no one can see you at the time, there is no Spot check involved. If you aren't moving, then you effectively become a hidden object. Having a bad Hide check wouldn't matter if you had the best hiding place of your group. It would matter if you tried to change hiding places while the goblins were 50 feet away. You can't move from one hiding place to another as many times as it takes to get it right while the goblins are 50 feet away - either you beat the goblins' Spot check the first time or you don't.

 

[RigaMortus]

Some people have stated that Taking 20 is performing the same action over and over again. While this *could* be possible, I think it is just flavor text and it isn't the only flavor text that is available. You could certainly make your arguement look good by saying "Take 20 on a Hide is equivalent to Hiding behind a bush, coming out from that bush, Hiding behind the bush again, coming out from that bush..." repeat 20 times. Yes, when you think about it this way, then it makes no sense. But the other "arguement" using flavor text is also viable, "I take 2 minutes of my time to locate the best spot to hide. I want to take time to conceal myself well, cover myself with leaves, bend this branch so the leaves are covering my face, make sure none of my appendages are exposed, etc."

We can even apply this to Use Rope, to make Taking 20 with Use Rope seem ridiculous. If you have an unconcious opponent, and want to tie him up, and you are not threatened, distracted, and have 2 minutes of free time to do it, then you can Take 20 on Use Rope to tie them up. Does this mean you tie them up, untie them, tie them up again, untie them, tie them up again... repeat 20 times until you "get it right"? That doesn't seem logical to me. But if you are going to apply the "Hide behind the bush multiple times" arguement to it, then that is what you get. I think it makes more sense that you are taking extra time to make sure the knots are secure, that you've wrapped the rope around the opponent enough times, that you securely bound his hands and feet, etc.

 

[Cugel]

I really have to disagree with one of the assumptions made in this thread: namely, that there is a negative consequence to failing a Hide check. What happens to you if you fail a Hide check? Nothing. You're just not hidden. It's the same principle as failing a Search check. What happens to you if you fail a Search roll? Nothing. You just don't find anything. A check with failure consequences would cause something to happen to you, such as when you fail a Climb check by 5 or more, you fall.

That having been said, a better mechanic for hiding would probably be to not have the hider make a roll until someone is in a position to make a spot check, even if there's no one around to see when the hide attempt is made. That way, the uncertainty of "How well did I hide" gets emphasized, and only one roll gets made, thus eliminating the whole Take 20 problem.

 

[melkoriii]

I personally follow the "Can take 20" on Hide.

RigaMortus states exactly what I think of when you take 20 on hide.


How would you "No take 20" ppl do RigaMortus' situation in the game mechanic?

We all know from hide and go seek that the more time you have the better your hiding place is.
How do you explain that phenomenon in game mechanics?

 

[Nail]

I really have to disagree with one of the assumptions made in this thread: namely, that there is a negative consequence to failing a Hide check. What happens to you if you fail a Hide check? Nothing.

Nope.

Follow along here:

• You can't fail a hide check in the same way as you could fail some other check....the Craft check, for example.
  
• If you are hidden, even if you roll poorly on the Hide skill check, you can only been seen if someone successfully Spots you.
  
• Hide is an opposed roll, and requires someone else's roll to determine failure.
  
• Once someone spots you, you cannot hide. Again: you CANNOT hide if you are being observed.

In other words, you can't take 20, as you can't try 20 times. You get to try once.

 

[Nail]

How would you "No take 20" ppl do RigaMortus' situation in the game mechanic?

We all know from hide and go seek that the more time you have the better your hiding place is.
How do you explain that phenomenon in game mechanics?

That's almost too easy to mention: it's called a circumstance bonus. +2, +4, +6..........

Look, people: there are balance issues here. Ignore the rule text for a moment and check this out:

When the PCs are approaching a potential ambush site, you have them roll spot checks, right? Allowing them to take 20 on such a check would be ludicrous...imagine how long it would take to travel from point A to point B while taking 20 on spot checks.

And yet, if you did not allow them to take 20 on spot checks, but did allow ambushers to take 20 on hide checks.....I hope you see where I'm going with this.......people that ambush would almost always surprise even people with decent spot skills.

 

[Nail]

Some people have stated that Taking 20 is performing the same action over and over again. While this *could* be possible, I think it is just flavor text....

Sure. But that's a pretty hard point to argue from, especially here.

We can even apply this to Use Rope, to make Taking 20 with Use Rope seem ridiculous. ......(snip)...... I think it makes more sense that you are taking extra time to make sure the knots are secure, that you've wrapped the rope around the opponent enough times, that you securely bound his hands and feet, etc.

Except that this is explicitly prohibited by the text.

from the 3.5e SRD
Bind a Character: When you bind another character with a rope, any Escape Artist check that the bound character makes is opposed by your Use Rope check. You get a +10 bonus on this check because it is easier to bind someone than to escape from bonds. You don’t even make your Use Rope check until someone tries to escape.

You don't even make the check until someone is trying to escape. You can't take 20, as this is an opposed roll.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here, but you're not reading through the very rule text you try to use to reinforce your arguement!

 

[melkoriii]

That's almost too easy to mention: it's called a circumstance bonus. +2, +4, +6..........

Look, people: there are balance issues here. Ignore the rule text for a moment and check this out:

When the PCs are approaching a potential ambush site, you have them roll spot checks, right? Allowing them to take 20 on such a check would be ludicrous...imagine how long it would take to travel from point A to point B while taking 20 on spot checks.

And yet, if you did not allow them to take 20 on spot checks, but did allow ambushers to take 20 on hide checks.....I hope you see where I'm going with this.......people that ambush would almost always surprise even people with decent spot skills.

Hmmm ok I can see that.

So how good someone hides is based on the enviorment and there skill to hide.

I like that.

Hiding in the Forest could give really good ambush sites.

+2 Dim lighting
+2 Wooded area
+2 Camaflaged
+2 Obcured Brush
+2 50% cover
+2 Underbrush
+2 Can only be viewed from after passing hiding place


Dang you could go on for quite some time with this.

 

[Nail]

Hmmm ok I can see that.

So how good someone hides is based on the enviorment and there skill to hide.

I like that.

See, and following these rules provides some side-benefits:

• a bonus that's under the DMs control.
• a clear way of rewarding smart behavior.
• a compelling way of encouraging the players to be descriptive.