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: 3552604" data-attributes="member: 37531">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).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.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?Again, I don't contest that (although I disagree with the sequence).  I contest that they must be made simultaneously.I don't think they happen in that order.  Hide comes first, not Spot.  Look at the rules for Using Skills: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?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.This notion is predicated on a disputed point.  Let's resolve the first things first.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification