can you take 10 on a hide check?

[evilbob]

Just make the check whenever you do something that requires a check (unless the description says otherwise, like Forgery).

Right: and I am arguing that you make the Hide check when someone is trying to Spot you.

You don't "hide" suddenly when someone is watching - clearly, this is against the rules, and we all agree. I'll say this again so that hopefully no one continues to use this as a counter-point repeatedly: you don't "hide" suddenly when someone is watching - clearly, this is against the rules, and we all agree. You "hide" anytime you want (when unobserved or doing whatever meets the criteria necessary), but you don't make your opposed check until something has a Spot check to see you. That's how opposed checks work; like the Diplomacy example, you have to have two sides to make a check. Hide checks are necessary to counter Spot checks. You make your Hide check to counter a Spot check. You make the Hide check WHEN something is opposing your Hide with a Spot check; therefore, you do not make a Hide check when you are actually "hiding."

And lastly, because you make your Hide check when something gets a Spot check to see you, you are under conditions that are not consistent with those required for taking 10; you are "threatened or distracted," in that you are doing something under-the-gun. The interesting interpretation that all times the word "threatened" is used it refers to being inside a melee attack range aside, I believe the "distraction" or "immediate chance of failure" that can occur when you are trying to roll a Hide check while being opposed by a Spot check disallows taking 10.

 

[evilbob]

Here's an interesting side-thought: since you can attempt skill checks any time you meet the criteria, and even opposed checks can be made when nothing is there to oppose (a PC can attempt to Spot even when nothing is hiding - the PC simply fails the check), how's this for an interpretation: You can take a 10 on a Hide check when hiding; however, like taking a 10 on a Spot check when nothing is there, this check is basically wasted. When something gets an opposed Spot check to detect you, it is at this moment that you get to make a Hide check to avoid detection. Your previous Hide check - the one made without distraction with which you took 10 - is moot.

 

[evilbob]

I might agree with you if there weren't a specific game definition of "threatened," but there is. "Distracted," however, is another matter.

The rogue is not threatened by the balor until the balor is in range to attack him. However, I think you're right not to allow him to take 10; I would consider the rogue distracted by the immediately impending danger of being run through by a humongous demon. In the situation of hiding, I do not consider the potential of someone looking for you later to be a considerable distraction while attempting to hide (and I certainly wouldn't consider it being threatened).

While I must admit I disagree with this interpretation, it does conjure up a fascinating rule question side-bar to this whole tangent: if a rogue was deafened somehow and went to pick a lock and did not realize a balor was charging at him, would he be able to take 10 on his check? In this situation, he is clearly being threatened (unless you agree with the above that the description of taking 10 is refering specifically and only to a melee attack range that can provoke AoOs), but he's not really distracted because he is not aware of the threat.

Honestly, I'd let the poor bugger. Probably the last thing he'll ever do - why stress about it?

 

[javcs]

Evilbob, the rogue would also have a spot check, in all likelyhood, that he would make.

Thus, distracted, and no take 10.

 

[bodhi]

As an opposed roll, each check must be made separately. The alternative assumes identical conditions:

I disagree. With Disguise, you make a single check. The better you roll, the better your disguise, and that single check effectively sets the DC for the opposed Spot checks.

For Hide, I think I'd go with:

• In situations where you don't know if you've been seen or not, or if you're using Bluff to create a diversion, or are ducking around a corner, you roll. (City Guard yells at me, I duck around a corner and hide behind a crate.)
• In situations where you know they're coming, but know they haven't seen you (and are thus, not "distracted), you can take 10. (The INT 6 gem merchant always takes the same path, going past this dark alley. I step into the shadows and wait.)
• In situations where you have time to setup an ambush unseen (including from random bystanders), you can take 20. (The caravan's a day away, and I've got the skills to setup a duck blind in the perfect spot.)

So, in Hypersmurf's scenario, I'd say all three observers make their Spot check against the initial Hide check unless the ambusher does something to break cover (like shooting NPC A with a crossbow).

And in evilbob's scenario, if the thief was actually unaware of the incoming balor, I'd let him take 10. Otherwise, you end up potentially detecting an invisible assassin because you can't take 10, and therefore, you must be threatened by something.

 

[Hussar]

Now, if three observers wander past in three consecutive rounds, an hour after you prepared your ambush, do they all oppose a single Hide roll, or do you make a separate Hide roll for each?

-Hyp.

It should be a separate roll for each. Although, if I'm hiding behind something solid, then I don't have to make a hide roll at all since I have total cover. I would only make a hide check when I moved out to attack.

Really, that's the point right there. I'm only making a hide check when I can be seen. If I, as in Bohdi's example, make a duck blind, then I have total concealment and I can't be observed. Thus, no hide check needed. However, when I move to make an attack, then I make the hide check opposed by the spot check. I could get some very good bonuses for this check, but, I can't take 20.

I wouldn't have a problem with taking 10 though. The ambusher is assuming that his camo is good enough to foil the targets and isn't under any threat until he actually moves.

But, taking 20 on opposed checks is a no-no.

 

[TYPO5478]

Just make the check whenever you do something that requires a check (unless the description says otherwise, like Forgery).

Right: and I am arguing that you make the Hide check when someone is trying to Spot you.

Someone else trying to Spot you isn't something you do that requires a check; it's something someone else does. I'm saying roll the check when you do something that requires it (like Hide), not when someone else does something that requires them to make a check (like Spot).

You "hide" anytime you want (when unobserved or doing whatever meets the criteria necessary), but you don't make your opposed check until something has a Spot check to see you. That's how opposed checks work...

No fewer than two people have made this claim now. And again I say: cite your source. Prove it. Show me the rule that says opposed checks have to happen at the same time.

...like the Diplomacy example, you have to have two sides to make a check.

I'm not disputing that you have to have two sides to make an opposed check; I'm disputing that both sides of an opposed check have to make their rolls at the same time. Are you saying that one party of a negotiation cannot influence the attitude of the other party if the other party simply refuses to roll?

Hide checks are necessary to counter Spot checks.

Again, I don't contest that (although I disagree with the sequence). I contest that they must be made simultaneously.

You make your Hide check to counter a Spot check. You make the Hide check WHEN something is opposing your Hide with a Spot check...

I don't think they happen in that order. Hide comes first, not Spot. Look at the rules for Using Skills:

Using Skills

To make a skill check, roll: 1d20 + skill modifier (Skill modifier = skill rank + ability modifier + miscellaneous modifiers)

This roll works just like an attack roll or a saving throw— the higher the roll, the better. Either you’re trying to match or exceed a certain Difficulty Class (DC), or you’re trying to beat another character’s check result.

First, the rules say that to use a skill, you must make a skill check. Presumably you make this check when you're actually using the skill, not an indefinite period of time later (except, again, in the case of skills like Forgery that have language specifically precluding that statement). Second, you're not trying to beat their Spot with your Hide; they're trying to beat your Hide with their Spot. The Hide check must necessarily come first, otherwise there's nothing to oppose with Spot. And if the Hide check has to precede the Spot check, why must it immediately precede it? Why can't it come minutes or even hours beforehand?

...therefore, you do not make a Hide check when you are actually "hiding."

Of course. Nor should you make a grapple check when attempting an action within a grapple. Nor make opposed trip checks when trying to trip someone. You should wait until they attempt to resist you. Seriously? Again I ask: can an opponent negate your effort by merely not opposing you? That seems like grounds for automatic success, not inevitable failure.

And lastly, because you make your Hide check when something gets a Spot check to see you, you are under conditions that are not consistent with those required for taking 10...

This notion is predicated on a disputed point. Let's resolve the first things first.

 

[TYPO5478]

It should be a separate roll for each. Although, if I'm hiding behind something solid, then I don't have to make a hide roll at all since I have total cover. I would only make a hide check when I moved out to attack.

If you attack, you're not hiding anymore, unless you're specifically sniping, and even then you have to make a new Hide check.

 

[Hussar]

Cite your source. There's nothing in the Hide description nor the description of Opposed Checks to indicate that is the case. That may be why that clause is included in Forgery and not in Opposed Checks.

An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result.

When do I make a spot check to see a hidden person? When I can see him. So, when do I make the hide check? When I can be seen. Why would you make an opposed check when there is no opposition?

 

[bodhi]

When do I make a spot check to see a hidden person? When I can see him. So, when do I make the hide check? When I can be seen. Why would you make an opposed check when there is no opposition?

To effectively set the DC (once) for potential future opposing checks.

You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Spot checks against it.

There's certainly no requirement there for the multiple opposed Spot checks to happen simultaneously. You put on your Disguise. The DM rolls. That's how good your disguise is. So maybe you make it past the first checkpoint with the low-level grunts, but not past the second checkpoint with the sergeant with more ranks in Spot.

Also:

You must make a Disguise check when you cast a simulacrum spell to determine how good the likeness is.

So you make the check even without the opposing Spot check.

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.

Note that it says you don't need to make a check, not that you don't make a check. I really think this is in there so the DM doesn't have to keep track of the check result until it matters in-game. So you forge some ID. It doesn't really matter how good the forgery is until someone looks at it. So a player could say that during some downtime, his rogue forges papers from each of the major houses, granting safe passage, and the DM wouldn't have to keep track of which passport got which Forgery check result until they were actually used.

I think the same holds for Hide. You hide, you make your check, and that's how hard you are to Spot, until you do something to change that (including, but not limited to, move, or attack).