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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TYPO5478" data-source="post: 3550099" data-attributes="member: 37531">I think this is getting more complicated than skill checks need to be.  We don't need this terminology.  Just make the check whenever you do something that requires a check (unless the description says otherwise, like Forgery).  Roll your Hide check when you hide, not when someone decides to look for you.  You're still hidden even if no one's looking for you.  As soon as they try to see you, they can oppose your Hide check with their Spot check.People seem to be ready to compare Hide to Disguise and Forgery.  There is no language in the Hide description that says a character shouldn't make a Hide check until someone else tries to Spot him.  Nor is there language to that effect in Disguise (even though the Forgery description makes it sound like there is).  In fact, Disguise states that "an individual makes a Spot check to see through your disguise immediately upon meeting you and each hour thereafter."  It doesn't say that your Disguise check has to be made at the same time.  Likewise, Hide says "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide."  How could you possibly Hide in reaction to someone Spotting you?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).Because that's when reactions happen: after the event they're reacting to.  You can't react to something that hasn't happened yet.  If you're using Hide reactively, it has to be in reaction to something, and that something is a Spot check.  But if the Spot check has already happened and you're not hidden, then he's already seen you; there's no point in hiding.  On the other hand, if you make your Hide check when you hide then anyone who comes along can oppose it (without having to react to it).Not true, unless you're saying that you can't spot something that isn't hidden.Here's the problem!  "In opposition to" does not mean the same thing as "in reaction to."  Here's the section on opposed checks:There's nothing there that says opposed checks are in reaction to another character's actions.  They could happen simultaneously (like during a Trip attempt) or hours apart (like with Disguise).  They're not reactive; they're just opposed. Again, not true.  You don't need to make a Hide check if you're not going to hide, not if someone is not going to look for you.  That's like saying you don't need to make a Diplomacy check when you attempt to negotiate; you make the check when the other party responds.  Can they simply negate your attempt by never responding?  Does an unopposed check automatically fail instead of automatically succeeding?How can someone attempt to oppose your Hide check with Spot if you're not already hidden?The rules don't say, "Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who is trying to see you."  They say, "Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you."  If they might see you, then they also might not see you.  You roll the check whether they're going to try to see you or not.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.Amen.</blockquote>

Verification