can you take 10 on a hide check?

[evilbob]

Mistwell: I got about 1/3rd of the way through your response before I stopped reading. I do not believe you are trying to argue a point here anymore, but are just being insulting. I assume you continue to disagree with whatever I've said and am very content with that.


Sunfist: Your point is valid and you are right that there must exist a line - as you've suggested, probably distinguished by any given DM - between what is "threatening or distracting" and what is not. However, I'm proposing that any situation in which combat or serious damage is possible from a failed roll should count as threatening or distracting. Granted, in your "orc is 150 yards away" example, it would be hard to say with certainty if it would even be possible to fail a hide check - perhaps the distance is just too great - and that leads to some ambiguousness. I am advocating erring on the side of not taking 10 in this kind of situation. Additionally, this has the advantage of (to me, anyway) defining a more clear-cut rule.

 

[irdeggman]

According to RAW and this skill, though, it's really the only rule that matters. I also agree with your example. That's why I think it's largely up to the GM. The rogue in your example would clearly be distracted.

Conversely, if I were hiding up in a tree, about 150 yards away from an orc who was trying to spot me there, I wouldn't be remotely distracted by that. In fact, knowing he was there would help me to hide because I could position myself with more cover between me and him. (That's speaking in "in game" terms, of course. I'm not refering to the "cover" rules.

I pretty much agree here.

Whether or not a character can take 10 while hiding is situational (pretty much like anytime you take 10). If there is an active spot going on - I would probably not allow a take 10 on the hide, since IMO the "hider" is now distracted or rushed or whatever since the spotter is actively looking for him and not merely glancing about. But this again is situational and something the DM needs to consider when adjudicating the case.

I no longer think you can take 20 while hiding though - since somewhere along the way you must roll a 1 (and unless that is an automatic success) you will fail and be spotted. Once you are spotted you can no longer attempt to hide, unless the circumstances change (like getting cover, concealment or a distraction).

Oh and just for comparison in d20 Modern the rules specifically state that you can take 10 on hide but not 20.

 

[irdeggman]

Sunfist: Your point is valid and you are right that there must exist a line - as you've suggested, probably distinguished by any given DM - between what is "threatening or distracting" and what is not. However, I'm proposing that any situation in which combat or serious damage is possible from a failed roll should count as threatening or distracting. Granted, in your "orc is 150 yards away" example, it would be hard to say with certainty if it would even be possible to fail a hide check - perhaps the distance is just too great - and that leads to some ambiguousness. I am advocating erring on the side of not taking 10 in this kind of situation. Additionally, this has the advantage of (to me, anyway) defining a more clear-cut rule.

Hmm, so let me get this straight.

You are actually stating that you can take 10 on a hide check. But that the normal rules for when a character can take 10 apply.

And Mistwell is arguing that you can take 10 on a hide check too.

Really what are the two of arguing over, except semantics.

It seems to me that you are actually both stating the same thing then.

 

[evilbob]

Really what are the two of arguing over

I'd have to say at this point, nothing.

 

[TYPO5478]

So when you said "Forgery is an exception and listed as one,", were you lying, or mistaken?

You said "Forgery is an exception and listed as one". I'm not a grammar expert, but when you say "Forgery is an exception" that's the English word, not game term. But when you say "and listed as one", that seems pretty clear to me to be a game rule list. It's certainly not "listed" in a dictionary as an exception.

Evilbob was mistaken; it's not listed as an exception, it's described as an exception. He's still correct that it is an exception to the general rule.

Where is that rule?

He's already pointed it out (and so have I, in fact). It's the section on "Using Skills."

Here's another example. You are the same orc in the forest at night. You are not near any trees big enough to grant cover, but you are getting concealment from the dark night.

Let's say I'm standing in a position that the light from the guards' torches will not illuminate me (even shadowily) when they pass; that is, I'm not going to move when they approach but I can still maintain my concealment. I wasn't Hiding before they approached because there was no one to oppose my check (so I didn't get to make one); I can't Hide when they approach because I'm not going to move. Yet I'm concealed and unobserved. Should I roll a check? If so, when? If not, am I actually Hidden (per the skill) even though I didn't make a check? Do the guards automatically succeed or fail on their Spot check to notice me? Do they even get to make one?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I no longer think you can take 20 while hiding though - since somewhere along the way you must roll a 1 (and unless that is an automatic success) you will fail and be spotted. Once you are spotted you can no longer attempt to hide, unless the circumstances change (like getting cover, concealment or a distraction).

Failing on Take 20 has nothing to do with rolling a 1.

Let's say there's a lock with a DC of 20, and I have an Open Lock of +25.

If I Take 10, I open the lock.

If I roll, and roll a 1, I open the lock.

If I Take 20, I fail repeatedly... and then, after two minutes, I calculate my result as though I had rolled a 20, yielding 45 (which opens the lock).

The mechanics of Take 20 state that I fail repeatedly... even though, in this case, if I rolled, I'd succeed even on a 1.

-Hyp.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I too agree that the discussion has gotten to go around in circles.. but I could let this one pass...

I wasn't Hiding before they approached because there was no one to oppose my check (so I didn't get to make one); I can't Hide when they approach because I'm not going to move.

There seems to be a disconnect between when a character is hiding and when the player rolls a hide check.
The character can attempt a Hide anytime they have concealment and are not being directly observed {.. with special exceptions}
So, in TYPO5478's example, the character could be Hiding but there was no need to roll a check because there was no-one to oppose it. I suppose if you wanted to be techinical the GM could require a check each round.. but that would be a waste of time since there would be noway to fail.
Assuming the character is Hiding, once the guards come into the area they get to make a Spot check to see the Hiding character. At this point the Hide check result is important and should be rolled.
If the DM determines the character is not distracted, they should be able to Take 10.

The action for Hiding is listed as "Usually none", meaning you can Hide will not moving.


JMHO

 

[irdeggman]

Failing on Take 20 has nothing to do with rolling a 1.

Let's say there's a lock with a DC of 20, and I have an Open Lock of +25.

If I Take 10, I open the lock.

If I roll, and roll a 1, I open the lock.

If I Take 20, I fail repeatedly... and then, after two minutes, I calculate my result as though I had rolled a 20, yielding 45 (which opens the lock).

The mechanics of Take 20 state that I fail repeatedly... even though, in this case, if I rolled, I'd succeed even on a 1.

-Hyp.

My bad. But then it makes even more sense that you can't take 20 on a hide check since you have to fail at least once along the way - like the reason you can't take 20 on UMD.

And a failed hide check means that the target has "spotted" you and once spotted you can not hide unless circumstances change.

 

[irdeggman]

The action for Hiding is listed as "Usually none", meaning you can Hide will not moving.


JMHO

Actually its listed as "usually none" because it is usually part of movement and not its own action. Which is stated under the hide skill.

"Action; Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action."

 

[Hypersmurf]

My bad. But then it makes even more sense that you can't take 20 on a hide check since you have to fail at least once along the way - like the reason you can't take 20 on UMD.

And a failed hide check means that the target has "spotted" you and once spotted you can not hide unless circumstances change.

That's why Taking 20 on a Hide check requires, in my opinion, a/ a cooperative observer, and b/ a DM who feels that a single Hide check is opposed by multiple spotters.

If the DM rules that three orcs means three Spot checks opposed by three Hide checks, it's immaterial - hiding really well against your friend will provide no advantage against subsequent enemies. But if he feels that it means three Spot checks opposed by a single Hide check, we're in business.

Your cooperative observer spends 20 rounds opposing your Hide check, then closing his eyes (giving you the chance to Hide again). He'll automatically Spot you the first 19 times (since you fail, regardless of his Spot check), and on the 20th time, your Hide result is calculated as though you had rolled a 20. He may or may not see you this time (depending on his Spot check), but that 20 + modifier is the result opposed by the three orcs who come wandering along five minutes later.

-Hyp.