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

[Klaatu B. Nikto]

You may definitely take 10 on a Hide check, especially if you're at least a 10th level Rogue and choose that as one of your skills (3 + Int mod).

So I'd say it wouldn't be that far off to take 20 as long as you have enough time and have a reasonable amount of hiding places: overgrown forest probably while a desert probably not.

 

[Urbannen]

Take 10 and Take 20 are two different things, so I'm not sure how you could compare them.

Here is a short analysis of the skills needed to detect and conceal objects and creatures.

There are 3 categories to consider:

creature or object
moving or unmoving
<10' away or >10' away (you can Search for something < or equal to 10' feet away, but not farther)

for each category, which skill is used to conceal and which is needed to detect the thing is question?

(moving/unmoving) (creature/object) (<>10' away)(skill to conceal/detect)
moving creature <10' away: Hide, Spot
unmoving creature <10' away: Hide, Spot
moving creature >10' away: Hide, Spot
unmoving creature >10' away: Hide, Spot
moving object <10' away: none, Spot
unmoving object <10' away: none , Search
moving object >10' away: none, Spot
unmoving object >10' away: none , Spot

You use Spot to detect all moving things.
You use Spot to detect all creatures.
You use Hide to conceal all creatures from view.
There is no skill for concealing objects from view.

You only use Search to detect unmoving objects that are <10' away. You don't use it to detect unmoving creatures. You don't use it to detect unmoving objects farther away than 10'.

This is not consistent because an unmoving creature is essentially no different from an object of the same size and shape, yet there is a different skills set associated with each one.

You can visually Search for something in a square 10 feet away from you, but you cannot Search for anything farther away than that, even though it is possible to see farther than 10 feet.

Hide is popularly used to conceal an unmoving creature from sight, but the skill description says that the skill is normally used with a move action.

An easy way to make the system consistent would be to get rid of the Search skill. Use Spot for both detecting stealthy creatures as well as traps. If you hide an unmoving object, including yourself, in a place that has less than 100% concealment, use an Intelligence check to determine the Spot DC. You could take 20 on this check. In order to find something with 100% concealment, a PC has to describe looking in the right place.

A complicated way to make the system consistent would be to use Search for all conscious detection and Spot for all unconscious detection. You would use a Search check to determine the Search DC for when a character hides an unmoving object, including himself. In essence you are Searching for the best hiding place, and thus could take a 20. You would use a Hide check for when a character moves stealthily. You could use both Search and Spot from a distance with a penalty. It would be easier to detect an unmoving object with Search. The chance to detect an unmoving object with Spot would be equal to the Search DC plus 5. Thus anyone could detect a secret door (Search DC 20) by making a DC 25 Spot check (elves would in essence get a +3 racial bonus on their chance to Spot secret doors).

You would determine the Search DC for traps and secret doors through some use of Craft(trapmaking) and Profession(architect) checks. Maybe: Hide a door in a structure with Search DC 20 - Profession (architect) check DC 15. Create a hidden trap with Search DC 20 - Craft (trapmaking) check DC 15.

Edit: things don't line up the same in the actual post.

 

[LokiDR]

An easy way to make the system consistent would be to get rid of the Search skill. Use Spot for both detecting stealthy creatures as well as traps. If you hide an unmoving object, including yourself, in a place that has less than 100% concealment, use an Intelligence check to determine the Spot DC. You could take 20 on this check. In order to find something with 100% concealment, a PC has to describe looking in the right place.

A complicated way to make the system consistent would be to use Search for all conscious detection and Spot for all unconscious detection. You would use a Search check to determine the Search DC for when a character hides an unmoving object, including himself. In essence you are Searching for the best hiding place, and thus could take a 20. You would use a Hide check for when a character moves stealthily. You could use both Search and Spot from a distance with a penalty. It would be easier to detect an unmoving object with Search. The chance to detect an unmoving object with Spot would be equal to the Search DC plus 5. Thus anyone could detect a secret door (Search DC 20) by making a DC 25 Spot check (elves would in essence get a +3 racial bonus on their chance to Spot secret doors).

You would determine the Search DC for traps and secret doors through some use of Craft(trapmaking) and Profession(architect) checks. Maybe: Hide a door in a structure with Search DC 20 - Profession (architect) check DC 15. Create a hidden trap with Search DC 20 - Craft (trapmaking) check DC 15.

Hide a small object: slight of hand.
Hide yourself: hide (whether or not you are "moving" you still twitch/blink/breath)
Hide a large object: not listed.

Here is how I rule it (when I remember). Hide a small *thing* is slight of hand. Hide anything larger is hide. Spot is for reactions (ambush) and any long range searching. Long range searching would be finding a person in a crowd by staring at the crowd. Search is for any time you can examine something more or less closely. If you hide in a bush, and I search all bushes, I might not spot you with the spot skill, but I might find you with a search, if I get within 10' of you and choose your square to search.

As for balace of taking 20 to hide vs taking 20 to spot an ambush, let me remind you that there is no spot check to see a person with full concealment or cover. All they need to do is stay out of sight and listen for your approach. Which would you prefer: getting a chance to spot or not?

 

[Aaron2]

My take ...

Here's the general rule: "When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does."

Note that some skills, such as forgery specifically mention that: "The Forgery check is made secretly, so that you’re not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don’t even need to make a check until someone examines the work."

The description of Hide doesn't mention hidden rolls, nor does it claim that you only make the roll when someone observes you. Thus you make the Hide roll when you attempt to hide (regardless of whether anyone is observing you) and you know how well you rolled. From this it is logical that you can keep attempting to Hide until you roll a 20. Hence, Take 20 is allowed.


Aaron (beating a dead horse)

 

[Urbannen]

Hide a small object: slight of hand.

So the Slight of Hand check determines the DC of the Search check?



I really think that Hide is misnamed. You have Move Silently and Hide, and they are similar skills. Both are combined with a move action. You use Move Silently to avoid making noise while moving, you use Hide to avoid being seen while moving. A better name for Hide would have been Stealth. Can you take 20 on an attempt to move without being seen?

Using Hide to determine the Spot DC for ambushers is problematic. If the ambusher has total concealment, there is no reason to make this check. Wouldn't it require a Search check to find such a hiding place?

If you don't have 100% concealment, then Hide might be the appropriate skill to use. But does that mean you get to use the Hide skill to "hide" objects that also might be seen? For instance, does a parent playing the Easter Bunny use the Hide skill to hide a colored egg in plain sight, say among some flowers? Where's the difference? And then when does the Search skill come in? The rules for hiding people and objects and the skills used to find them are just plain muddy.

 

[Nail]

My take ...
The description of Hide doesn't mention hidden rolls, nor does it claim that you only make the roll when someone observes you. Thus you make the Hide roll when you attempt to hide (regardless of whether anyone is observing you) and you know how well you rolled. From this it is logical that you can keep attempting to Hide until you roll a 20. Hence, Take 20 is allowed.

A-ha! At last someone has found a flaw in my otherwise iron-clad (or is that: hide-bound ?) logic!

It's true that the rules don't mention a secret roll. However: Does that mean that the roll cannot be secret?

Nope.

IMO, a secret roll makes more sense. But, YMMV.

 

[Stormrunner]

+20 CIRCUMSTANCE BONUS???? Holeeee @%#$^@.

Let's stop and take a look at this, shall we?
Say I'm a lvl1 rogue with a 16 Dex. I've probably maxed out my Hide ranks, which gives me a Hide skill of 7 (4 ranks + 3 Dex) if I don't take any feats.
I try to Hide.
If I'm in a hurry, I roll normally, 1d20+7. Min 8, max 27, average 17-18. A first-level character with a 16 Wisdom and 4 ranks in Spot will see me about 50% of the time, which is as it should be, since our skills are equal.
If I Take 10, I'm guaranteed a 17. Not a good as I might get through luck, but it avoids the chance of a major screw-up.
If the Dm lets me Take 20, I've got a guaranteed 27. To have a 50% chance of seeing me, an observer needs a +17 Spot check (say, 13th level with an 18 Wisdom). The first-level character from above will Spot me only on a natural 20, so he might as well have spent those skill points on something else. This seems wrong.
If the DM gives me a +20 circumstance bonus, then I'm rolling 1d20+27, minimum 28, maximum 47, average 37. To have a 50-50 chance of spotting me, my foe needs a +27 Spot. That's equivalent to a 17th level character with 22 Wisdom. And I'm only first level!

Allowing Take 20 on Hide makes Spot nearly useless. Giving out +20 circumstance bonuses is flat-out broken.

Take 10 on Hide? Sure, if you're not in a hurry. Take 20? No.

 

[LokiDR]

Stormrunner, I make spot completely useless just by staying completely out of sight. At least with take 20, you have a chance. A well prepared ambush should have a very good chance of being successful, otherwise there is no point to ambusing and that would make the game very silly.

 

[Atridis]

I'm not sure if this is actually a rule, but I think any skill that involves an Opposed Roll (in this case, Hide-v-Spot) should not allow a Take 20.

For Hide in particular, I would apply modifiers for Concealment (esp. Light Level) just as they apply to combat, and I could see a reasonable argument for applying modifiers for distance, similar to Listen checks (though maybe less severe: -1 per 20 feet? dunno).

Also, I think a high-level Rogue _should_ have the ability to be virtually invisible to low-level characters, and I wouldn't allow an automatic success on a Natural 20. In real life, I'd probably have no chance at all to spot a Marine Corps or SAS sniper unless I stepped on him (and maybe not even then, those guys're crazy... ).

 

[Stormrunner]

LokiDR, it's true that you can negate the Spot check entirely by finding total cover/concealment. However, A) then there's no need to Take 20, is there?, and B) then you can't see your foe, either, and you both end up relying on Listen checks.
Atridis, I agree that a high-level rogue should be practically invisible to a low-level character. However, I don't think a low-level character should be practically invisible to a high-level one! Look at my example above - the 1rst-level character with the +20 circumstance bonus has a 35% chance of being harder to Spot than an invisible creature that's standing still (DC 40). If your average weekend deer hunter tried to hide from that SAS sniper, he shouldn't be able to do THAT well, even if he does take all day to pick out a spot.