Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 3546251" data-attributes="member: 9789">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 102) make the hide check only when opposed by something trying to spot them; in this way, they are threatened and cannot take 10Just 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).</blockquote>

Verification