can you take 10 on a hide check?

[evilbob]

The basis for this question is whether or not hide (and honestly, by extension this could cover spot, listen, and move silently, since they are all opposed checks along the same lines) is something you do reactively or proactively - thus determining when you are actually "making the check," thus determining if you can actually take 10. In other words, in the classic "ambush from the bushes" scenario, would you allow your PCs to:

1) make the hide check ahead of time, representing them "hiding" and making a check; in this way, they are not threatened and can take 10

2) make the hide check only when opposed by something trying to spot them; in this way, they are threatened and cannot take 10


Just to get the discussion rolling, here's one point of view:

Making a reactive hiding check makes sense: you can "hide" in a bush when no one is looking, but who cares? It only matters once someone is looking, and you may have moved or lowered your guard or whatever by then. It seems reasonable to interpret "hide" as a reactive skill and not something you "prepare," although a DM may ask you to roll it ahead of time (or roll it for you ahead of time) to save time and use that check only when necessary (thus leading to confusion as to when the check is actually made). It also makes sense that a passer-by who is intent on what he's doing wouldn't even be entitled to a spot check (since he's not really looking) and the hide check would be unnecessary. (By this same reasoning, it would follow that you can't really "take 10" on spot, listen, or move silent checks, either.)

In the ambush example, I would imagine a carefully prepared "ambush from the bushes" tactic would grant you a bonus to your (reactive) hide check of at least +2, since you are in favorable conditions (of your own creation).

 

[TYPO5478]

The basis for this question is whether or not hide (and honestly, by extension this could cover spot, listen, and move silently, since they are all opposed checks along the same lines) is something you do reactively or proactively - thus determining when you are actually "making the check," thus determining if you can actually take 10.

I don't think I understand the premise. Why should whether a check is "reactive" or "proactive" have any bearing on whether you can take 10 on it or not?

2) make the hide check only when opposed by something trying to spot them; in this way, they are threatened and cannot take 10

Having to make an opposed check doesn't make you threatened. Being in range of a melee attack does.

Making a reactive hiding check makes sense...

No, it doesn't. You don't hide in reaction to being spotted; if someone's already spotted you, there's no point in hiding (unless you have Hide in Plain Sight).

What's wrong with making a hide check when a character actually hides and then making his result the DC for anyone trying to spot him? That's basically how opposed checks work anyhow, and it still allows both parties to take 10 if they want to. It also keeps both skills active rather than making one passive. (By this same reasoning, it would follow that listen and move silent would also be active skills and that you could still take 10 on them.)

In the ambush example, I would imagine a carefully prepared "ambush from the bushes" tactic would grant you a bonus to your (reactive) hide check of at least +2, since you are in favorable conditions (of your own creation).

It's fine to grant a circumstance bonus for favorable conditions, but that's no reason not to let someone take 10 when they should be able to otherwise.

 

[Mistwell]

In my view, hide is like disguise. You make the check in advance, when you hide. If someone is trying to see you, or see through your disguise, then you measure their check against your prior check to get the result of the opposed check.

There are times where a new hide check would be called for, like when you are moving to sneak up behind someone. In such circumstances I think you cannot take 10, as you are doing something that invovles a direct distraction or threat.

But for the typical use of hide, when you are laying in wait for an ambush, or sneaking around when nobody is nearby, I think you should be able to take 10.

I also agree that it's not a useful tool to call this "reactive" in nature. If you are reacting to someone trying to spot you by hiding, you probably cannot hide as you cannot hide while being observed. The spot check might be a reaction, but not the hide check.

 

[evilbob]

I must not have explained this very well at all.

I don't think I understand the premise. Why should whether a check is "reactive" or "proactive" have any bearing on whether you can take 10 on it or not?

Because if a check is what I'm calling "reactive" you cannot take 10: you're being threatened or distracted, and you are "reacting" to another creature. When I say "proactive" I mean taking a skill check before you need it; i.e. doing something ahead of time when you are not threatened or distracted, and you can take 10. I'm just trying to qualify the two situations with descriptive terms.

Having to make an opposed check doesn't make you threatened. Being in range of a melee attack does.

I have to completely disagree with you here: being in range of a melee attack does threaten you, but "being threatened or distracted" includes much more than "being in range of a melee attack." It includes any kind of battle situation. For example, if a balor is running at your rogue, you can't "take 10" on an open lock check just because he's not currently in melee range. In the same way, if someone is actively looking for your character, you cannot take 10 on a hide.

You don't hide in reaction to being spotted; if someone's already spotted you, there's no point in hiding (unless you have Hide in Plain Sight).

Why would you believe I was talking about hiding after being spotted? If someone has spotted you, then it was because you were hiding and they beat your hide check. But silly semantics aside, I will try to explain again: you roll a hide in reaction to or "in opposition to" an opposed spot check. If no one is spotting you, then you don't need to roll a hide check. You are just - to use the english language word that is not a D&D term - hidden. In the same way, if nothing is "hidden," then you don't get a "reactive" spot check to try to find it. You can still attempt to "spot" to see something using a move action, but that's a different use of the skill.

What's wrong with making a hide check when a character actually hides and then making his result the DC for anyone trying to spot him?

Nothing, so long as you realize that you're actually "making the check" once someone is trying to "spot" you, and not beforehand. That's why I mentioned that above.

That's basically how opposed checks work anyhow, and it still allows both parties to take 10 if they want to.

My argument is that it is not. Neither skill is passive; they are made in reaction to each other. There is no need for a hide check if nothing is spotting you.

It's fine to grant a circumstance bonus for favorable conditions, but that's no reason not to let someone take 10 when they should be able to otherwise.

Unless they should not be able to.

 

[evilbob]

In my view, hide is like disguise.

The difference here is that disguise takes 1d3x10 minutes and is pretty much something you never would do while threatened or distracted. Hiding is "normally part of movement" and not even its own action, but part of another action - which implies that you cannot even try to "hide" unless you're doing something that would necessitate you making a check (thus implying it is reactive). I just don't think that's a fair comparison.

Edit: In my view, disguise is like forgery. Both work under the same general mechanic, and both allow easily for taking 10 under most circumstances.

 

[Mistwell]

The difference here is that disguise takes 1d3x10 minutes and is pretty much something you never would do while threatened or distracted.

I disagree. Go into a changing room backstage of a play. You tell me that isn't a distracting situation. This is one of the principle reasons people have their own changing rooms, makeup rooms, and trailors. You can definitely be distracted while putting on a disguise. Even one that takes longer than 1d3x10 minutes to put on.

Hiding is "normally part of movement" and not even its own action, but part of another action - which implies that you cannot even try to "hide" unless you're doing something that would necessitate you making a check (thus implying it is reactive). I just don't think that's a fair comparison.

You are reading more into it than is there. You're inferring that you cannot hide unless you are doing something that would challege it. But that isn't implied by the rules. It's a standard skill, and covered by the standard skill traits (unless otherwise specified - like with Use Magic Device).

Edit: In my view, disguise is like forgery. Both work under the same general mechanic, and both allow easily for taking 10 under most circumstances.

I think forgery, disguise, and hide can all be done with a take 10, and all be done under distracting circumstances in which case you could not take 10. Trying to forge a document on the fly while writing over someone's back in the middle of a crowd on a street just before you need the document you are forging is a distracting environment and therefore cannot be done with a take 10.

There are not categories of skills that you can always take 10, or always not take 10, except if specified in the skill description itself like Use Magic Device.

 

[evilbob]

Go into a changing room backstage of a play. You tell me that isn't a distracting situation...

Sorry, but now you are reading more into it than is there. I've done exactly the thing you're talking about there and I find it in no way like a steamroller coming at me at 55 mph.

Regardless, the point is that if you have the time, you can take 10 - we all agree on that. If you're distracted and can't do it, then fine - I handily retract the word "never" and replace it with "almost never" in my above statement about disguise if it will stop folks from coming up with exceptions that don't actually argue against the point. My point is that it takes time and it's specifically described as something you do beforehand - hide is not.

You're inferring that you cannot hide unless you are doing something that would challege it. But that isn't implied by the rules.

And I am arguing that it is, and your disguise example I believe goes a good way in this interpretation's favor. Disguise specifically says you need to make the check, and then it is later opposed. Forgery does, too. If hide worked like that, it would say that.

Trying to forge a document on the fly while writing over someone's back in the middle of a crowd on a street just before you need the document you are forging is a distracting environment and therefore cannot be done with a take 10.

I completely agree with this statement. But showing that forgery can sometimes be used without taking 10 doesn't prove that hiding can be used with taking 10.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, but now you are reading more into it than is there. I've done exactly the thing you're talking about there and I find it in no way like a steamroller coming at me at 55 mph.

The steamroller was your example, not a rule. The rule says distracting. That's a DM call, but in my opinion a busy street or room full of yammering people is distracting to any skill check.

Regardless, the point is that if you have the time, you can take 10 - we all agree on that. If you're distracted and can't do it, then fine - I handily retract the word "never" and replace it with "almost never" in my above statement about disguise if it will stop folks from coming up with exceptions that don't actually argue against the point. My point is that it takes time and it's specifically described as something you do beforehand - hide is not.

The text of hide does not say you cannot do it in advance. I just says that it's often done while moving. Unless the text limits your actions, in general D&D encourages the widest application of your imagination to the various things you can do with skills and the like. I don't think we should start reading in artificial limitations to skills.

And I am arguing that it is, and your disguise example I believe goes a good way in this interpretation's favor. Disguise specifically says you need to make the check, and then it is later opposed. Forgery does, too. If hide worked like that, it would say that.

No it wouldn't, because if a skill is sometimes done in advance and sometimes not, you wouldn't put that language in the skill because it would often not be applicable. Instead you default to the general skills section - which says when you can and cannot take 10 on skills in general.

I completely agree with this statement. But showing that forgery can sometimes be used without taking 10 doesn't prove that hiding can be used with taking 10.

It just goes to show that there are no groups of skills which "can alwayes involve taking 10" or "can never involve taking 10" unless specified in the text of the skill, like UMD. Your trying to create a category of skills where one of those two "always" or "never" apply, and it just doesn't exist in the rules. ANY skill except UMD can use the take 10 rule depending on the circumstances, because that's what the general skills rule says.

 

[irdeggman]

Regardless, the point is that if you have the time, you can take 10 - we all agree on that. If you're distracted and can't do it, then fine - I handily retract the word "never" and replace it with "almost never" in my above statement about disguise if it will stop folks from coming up with exceptions that don't actually argue against the point. My point is that it takes time and it's specifically described as something you do beforehand - hide is not.

"Time" has nothing to do with taking 10 and everything to do with taking 20. This is a common misconception on what taking 10 is. It has nothing to do with "time", it only has to do with being distracted (or threatened). LIkewise it does not take 10 times as long, like taking 20 takes twenty times as long {I'm not saying you are saying this, but it isn't uncommon for people to make that assumption IME.}

 

[evilbob]

The steamroller was your example, not a rule. The rule says distracting. That's a DM call, but in my opinion a busy street or room full of yammering people is distracting to any skill check.

I promise I already agreed with you.

The text of hide does not say you cannot do it in advance. I just says that it's often done while moving. Unless the text limits your actions, in general D&D encourages the widest application of your imagination to the various things you can do with skills and the like. I don't think we should start reading in artificial limitations to skills.

I agree that "options and not restrictions" is the goal of the game. I also am arguing that this is by no means an "artificial limitation" but, in fact, how the skill works. Hide is not an action (the exception given is for a specific manuver; I believe it was intended for this to be an example of the "type" of exceptions you would encounter, which are specific actions regarding Hide) so you can't "hide" when no one is Spotting you.

Instead you default to the general skills section - which says when you can and cannot take 10 on skills in general.
...
Your trying to create a category of skills where one of those two "always" or "never" apply, and it just doesn't exist in the rules.

And my argument about the use of Hide defaults to the description of the Hide skill. I disagree with your statement: I'm not trying to say that there "is not and never will be" an application of Hide that is not reactive, nor am I trying to limit the rules in some additional way; I'm saying that if you want to use a Hide check to hide, it is a reactive check and you cannot do it under the circumstances dictated by "taking 10."