Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[Ranes]

Even if I walk past six of those people at 9.58, and the other six at 10am?

No. In that case, you'd make two checks, one for each time at which your skill was challenged. In the scenario you gave, I assumed you meant that you were observed by all twelve people at once.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. In that case, you'd make two checks, one for each time at which your skill was challenged. In the scenario you gave, I assumed you meant that you were observed by all twelve people at once.

Let's say I haven't moved between 9.58 and 10am. What leads to the potential for the dagger being well-hidden in one minute (Sleight of Hand natural 20), and in nearly plain sight the next (Sleight of Hand natural 1)? Why is is that two people looking in one round provoke a single check, but two people looking in two rounds provoke two?

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

Now that's a good question. But it's still an easy answer. You say you didn't move. But perhaps you did. The natural one says you might have. You got cramp. You twitched. You sneezed. Something startled you. Or the second viewer was slightly taller or shorter and just caught a glint in your eye. It's for the DM to explain the circumstance that accounts for the difference but the die roll says there was one that needs to be accounted for.

Edit: My answer refers to a new Hide check; your Q refers to Sleight of Hand but the principle is the same. One of your movements during the second check made the outline of the dagger more discernible.

 

[airwalkrr]

Would you please post an example of a skill use in which you can take 20 (without a friend taking 20 to check on you, so that it can actually be done in only 20x the standard time), so I can see how it differs from my examples.

Certainly! I happen to agree with the PH on this one.

Common "take 20" skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

These as just examples of course, but they are the best examples and the ones that I am most likely to allow in my games. Each represents an attempt against a static DC in a situation where you can keep trying without penalty for failure. And before you ask, yes, I define Escape Artist as a static DC because the DC does not change each time you make the check. The Use Rope check has already been rolled and it will not change if you attempt to break free again. If we treat Hide and Spot as analogous to Use Rope and Escape Artist respectively, there are some key similarities. A Spot check to find a hiding creature (at least according to my interpretation) is also against a static DC. That is, a person who is hiding and does not move keeps the same Hide check if you try to Spot again. Of course, I am not trying to argue that the two are exactly the same. There is a difference between the two in that a bound character knows he is bound, but a character who failed to see a hidden character does not know that there is a hidden character around. Nevertheless, taking 20 on a Spot check would still work in this situation because the character trying to spot the hidden character suffers no penalty for failure in the same way a character searching for a trap suffers no penalty for failure. As I have stated before of course, the hiding character might make a Sense Motive check to realize you are trying to Spot him and do something about it before you finish taking 20.

Using your arguments, I have doubts on every skill I can think of. I mean, even forgery. Sure, I can write the same forged document 20 times on different papers, but how can I tell the difference between a 17 + mod paper versus a 20 + mod paper just by looking at it any more than the Use Rope guy looking at his handwork?

I would not allow a character to take 20 on Forgery to forge a document for the same reason I would not allow them to take 20 on Hide. It has a penalty for failure; your document is recognized as a forgery! The opposed check for Forgery is the same because it states explicitly in the skill description that you only get one check to notice a Forgery. The opposed check for Spot is NOT the same because there is no prohibition stated explicitly in the skill description and therefore it categorically falls under the default take 20 rules. While it is certainly possible to make 20 forgeries taking 20 times the amount of time, only meta-thinking would allow your character to really know the difference. You could make 20 forgeries then take 10 to try to detect them each as false, but that would be almost mechanically identical to taking 10 anyway, which is not prohibited for Forgery. So why not take 10 in the first place?

Shilsen had said on the first page that he uses a rule of thumb that you cannot take 20 on an opposed check. This is a good rule of thumb, but I would refine it to say that you cannot take 20 on an opposed check when you are the one setting the DC.

 

[tomBitonti]

But ... dispel magic

Fixing a set DC -- for a use rope, or a hide check, or for many other checks -- is how I would run a lot of these cases. But, I don't think that's how the rules apply. Fixing the DC appears to be a new mechanic.

Also ...

If I cast a fireball that encompasses eight drow, how many caster level checks do I make?
-Hyp.

But, if I cast an area Dispel Magic then there are multiple caster level checks:

Area Dispel

When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius.

For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.

 

[airwalkrr]

I disagree emphatically.

That's like saying that in the case of Open Lock, there is a penalty for failure. The penalty is that you do not open the lock. Because there is a penalty for failure, you cannot take 20.

That is a very harsh reading of the term penalty. If that were my argument, then no one can ever take 20. But my argument is based on a different definition of the term "penalty." If you were only able to try to pick each lock once, then there would be a penalty for failure. But you do not suffer any form of punishment if you fail to pick the lock. The default condition of the lock not being picked remains. You are not worse off than when you had started trying to pick the lock just because you fail.

In the case of Search, there is a penalty for failure. The penalty is that you do not find a trap. Because there is a penalty for failure, you cannot take 20.

This is the same case as Open Lock. You are not worse off for not having found the trap. If failure to Search for a trap meant you set the trap off, that would be a penalty. But just because I fail to find a trap does not mean I set it off. In fact, I could decide to go another way. You can use Search from 10 feet away. So if I am searching for traps and just standing in one place, I can search all squares within 10 feet of me and suffer no consequences for failing a Search check. I suffer consequences only if I trigger a trap, which the skill check itself has nothing to do with.

The result of not attempting a Disable Device check is that the device is not disabled. The result of failing a Disable Device check might be springing a trap and dying horribly. The failure effect is worse than the no-attempt effect; a penalty for failure.

You cannot take 20 on Disable Device because you might accidentally set the trap off if you fail. That is a penalty. Failing to disable the trap is not a penalty. Failing to disable the trap and setting it off accidentally is!

The result of not attempting a Craft check is that the item is not constructed. The result of failing a Craft check might be the loss of raw materials. The failure effect is worse than the no-attempt effect; a penalty for failure.

Failing to make progress on the item is not the penalty in question. Ruining half of the raw materials is!

The result of not attempting a Hide check is that you are in plain sight. The result of failing a Hide check is that you are in plain sight. The failure effect is no worse than the no-attempt effect; there is no penalty for failure.

You cannot use the same criteria to define an opposed check like Hide to define something with a static DC like Open Lock or Craft. Of course, this also depends on your definition of penalty, which I suppose is where we differ. The way I see it, once you attempt a Hide check, that sets the default conditions. I am now hidden; that is the default condition until I do something to make me unhidden. If someone succeeds on a Spot check to see me, I fail to Hide and am worse off than if I had remained hidden. If I succeed, I am simply still hidden, maintaining the default condition.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Shilsen had said on the first page that he uses a rule of thumb that you cannot take 20 on an opposed check. This is a good rule of thumb, but I would refine it to say that you cannot take 20 on an opposed check when you are the one setting the DC.

Nobody 'sets the DC' in an opposed check.

If you make a skill check that equals the DC, you succeed. If you make a skill check that equals the opposed check, the character with the higher modifier wins; in that's still a tie, you both roll again.

Let's say I have a Forgery modifier of +10, and you have a Forgery modifier of +5, and I forge a document. I roll a 10, for a total check result of 20. You roll a 15, for a total check result of 20, when you examine the document. If my check had set the DC for you, you would successfully detect it as a forgery. But instead, since our opposed checks are tied, we compare modifiers; my +10 beats your +5, so you are fooled.

Neither of us 'set the DC' for the other.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The way I see it, once you attempt a Hide check, that sets the default conditions.

The default conditions are the ones that exist before you attempt the skill check. You can only fail if you attempt the skill in the first place... you can't assume success and then call not achieving that success a penalty for failure!

-Hyp.

 

[airwalkrr]

Nobody 'sets the DC' in an opposed check.

If you make a skill check that equals the DC, you succeed. If you make a skill check that equals the opposed check, the character with the higher modifier wins; in that's still a tie, you both roll again.

Let's say I have a Forgery modifier of +10, and you have a Forgery modifier of +5, and I forge a document. I roll a 10, for a total check result of 20. You roll a 15, for a total check result of 20, when you examine the document. If my check had set the DC for you, you would successfully detect it as a forgery. But instead, since our opposed checks are tied, we compare modifiers; my +10 beats your +5, so you are fooled.

Neither of us 'set the DC' for the other.

-Hyp.

I stand corrected. But that's a straw man. It is hardly my strongest argument for why you cannot take 20 on Hide.

 

[airwalkrr]

The default conditions are the ones that exist before you attempt the skill check. You can only fail if you attempt the skill in the first place... you can't assume success and then call not achieving that success a penalty for failure!

-Hyp.

If I bind someone with a rope, that person is bound. Being bound is now the default condition for that person.

If I hide, I am hidden. That is now the default condition for my character.

They are very analagous to each other with the exception that the default condition applies to a different character. But in either case, one default condition is more advantageous to me, and the other is a penalty.

Anything that makes me worse off from my default condition is a penalty for failure, hence I cannot take 20 on either Hide or Use Rope.