can you take 10 on a hide check?

[SlagMortar]

Ok. Since its an abstract system, then why not go the route of only one die roll for the hide or move silently check and all the observers roll their spot or listen check? Is there a rule that says an the same roll can not be used for multiple opposed checks?

 

[Hussar]

Ok. Since its an abstract system, then why not go the route of only one die roll for the hide or move silently check and all the observers roll their spot or listen check? Is there a rule that says an the same roll can not be used for multiple opposed checks?

Actually, rereading the PHB, I think I would agree with that.

To sneak up on someone, you make a Move Silently check. Anyone who might hear you can make a Listen check to react to your presence. For the opponent ot hear you, his or her Listen check result must equal or exceed your Move Silently check result

I think it's a fair interpretation to say that one roll could cover two listeners. Or two spotters for that matter I suppose.

In any case, if you take 10, then it wouldn't really matter.

 

[Mistwell]

Because skill checks are an abstract system?

I would interpret it as, the guy on the left heard you, while the one on the right didn't, despite your attempt to be sneaky. That's what the dice say.

Trying to determine exactly what happened in an abstract system is like trying to determine exactly how large a wound 5 hp of damage is.

Except you just agreed with Dheran's Hide analysis that is the opposite of that kind of analysis. Why would be it be a precise non-abstract system where you can determine exactly what happened with a spot check against a hide check, but a vague abstract system where you cannot determine exactly what happened with a listen check against a move silently check?

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, rereading the PHB, I think I would agree with that.



I think it's a fair interpretation to say that one roll could cover two listeners. Or two spotters for that matter I suppose.

In any case, if you take 10, then it wouldn't really matter.

Ah now we are coming to agreement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Spot sets the DC for any hide check.

The DC of your hide check is whatever Spot check is made.

Neither skill sets a DC for the other. It's an opposed check.

Let's say we have a Hider and a Spotter, and they both roll 15.

If Hide sets the DC for Spot:
The Spotter's roll of 15 has met or exceeded the DC (15), and the Spotter has succeeded.

If Spot sets the DC for Hide:
The Hider's roll of 15 has met or exceeded the DC (15), and the Hider has succeeded.

What actually happens:
The two participants in an opposed check have tied (15 vs 15); whoever has the higher skill modifier is successful. If the skill modifiers are identical, both participants reroll.

So we can see that neither the Hide check nor the Spot check has a DC (since the 15 would be successful); rather, the check is an opposed check.

Your assertion "You must have a DC to make a skill check" is inaccurate, since there is no DC in an opposed check.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Except you just agreed with Dheran's Hide analysis that is the opposite of that kind of analysis. Why would be it be a precise non-abstract system where you can determine exactly what happened with a spot check against a hide check, but a vague abstract system where you cannot determine exactly what happened with a listen check against a move silently check?

Actually, I cannot determine exactly how the hider was spotted either. All I know is that you saw the guy hiding.

However, I was wrong in saying that you would have to roll multiple hide checks. My bad.

What actually happens:
The two participants in an opposed check have tied (15 vs 15); whoever has the higher skill modifier is successful. If the skill modifiers are identical, both participants reroll.

So we can see that neither the Hide check nor the Spot check has a DC (since the 15 would be successful); rather, the check is an opposed check.

Your assertion "You must have a DC to make a skill check" is inaccurate, since there is no DC in an opposed check.

I'm guilty of using fuzzy language, but I'm not wrong here. True, it's not exactly the same as setting a DC. However, you still cannot perform an opposed check without opposition, in exactly the same way as you cannot perform a standard skill check without a DC. While it is innacurate to use DC in opposed checks, the end result is pretty much the same.

I can make bluff checks while sitting alone in the toilet all day long. But, when I try to bluff the guard, I still have to make an opposed check. I can lie behind a tree for a week, but, I still have to roll a hide check opposed by someone's spot check when he can possibly see me.

To make a regular skill check, I must have a DC. To make an opposed check, I must have opposition. They are pretty close.

 

[TYPO5478]

I'm guilty of using fuzzy language, but I'm not wrong here. True, it's not exactly the same as setting a DC. However, you still cannot perform an opposed check without opposition, in exactly the same way as you cannot perform a standard skill check without a DC.
...
To make a regular skill check, I must have a DC. To make an opposed check, I must have opposition.

You still haven't explained why opposition is necessarily simultaneous.

 

[Hussar]

You still haven't explained why opposition is necessarily simultaneous.

Then I should be able to make Bluff checks while sitting at home, wait until I roll a really good one and then use that roll on the guards that I meet.

Or, better yet, I should be able to simply use that same roll for every person I meet. Since I don't reroll for performing the same task, why should I have to reroll for bluffing different people if I use the same bluff?

Or, could it be, that an opposed roll, which, by the rules requires two rolls, has to be done at the same time?

 

[irdeggman]

Or, could it be, that an opposed roll, which, by the rules requires two rolls, has to be done at the same time?

Like, say a grapple check for example.

 

[evilbob]

I still agree with Hussar. It still seems that you couldn't "save up" a Hide check, or else by that logic you could just take 20 and do it over and over (when there is no penalty for failure) until you got the best result and use that.

(As for the "taking 10 on initiative" side-bar: I'd have to say that any situation that is causing a battle or leading to initiative being taken is probably threatening or distracting and thus doesn't qualify for taking 10.)