Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[Hypersmurf]

The premise is that you take a 1, 2... 20 on your checks.

No, it isn't. The premise is that you take a fail, fail, fail, fail... 20 on your checks.

Even if I can open the lock with a roll of 1, Taking 20 will still result in my failing repeatedly until round 20, at which point I get a result of 20 + modifiers.

If I need a result of 11, I don't succeed on round 11; I succeed on round 20. If I need a result of 4, I don't succeed on round 4; I succeed on round 20.

If I need a result of 21, I fail on round 20 and stop.

The whole idea that there is a state associated with hide which remembers the first hide roll *seems* reasonable, but that's what I'm looking for justification for.

Which is why I asked the initial questions - does the PC make one Hide check or three to hide from the three goblins? Does he make an additional Hide check when the hobgoblin shows up?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is why I asked the initial questions - does the PC make one Hide check or three to hide from the three goblins?

Rules-wise, yes.

Hide from someone Hide (Dex) Spot (Wis)

Does he make an additional Hide check when the hobgoblin shows up?

Yes.

The rules allow for hiding from someone. If there are multiple someones, it would require multiple hides.

For one roll to handle all of the hiding, it would require an explicit rule for it. That rule, TMK, does not exist.

 

[airwalkrr]

Let's say I have a Hide score of +25 and my buddy has a Spot of +2. If I attempt to hide from him as a move action, then even if I roll a 1 and he rolls a 20, my 26 beats his 22. If, however, I Take 20 to try to hide from him, I fail repeatedly - he spots me every time, until I get to the end of my Taking 20, at which point my Hide check is calculated as 45.

Sure, you could keep rolling Hide checks until your buddy cannot see you, but in the case you described above, there is no way for your character to know the difference between rolling a 1 and a 20. Consequently, the first time you try to Hide, you suceed regardless of what you roll, so your friend is unable to offer constructive feedback. Hence you can't take 20 in this situation since you simply do not know.

The take 20 rules ASSUME you fail multiple times before succeeding, but that doesn't mean you actually do fail multiple times. But the way I interpret take 20, it also means you just keep trying until you succeed, at which point you stop. Why keep trying after that? So if you succeed on your +25 Hide check the first time against someone with Spot +2, you simply discover that taking 20 is unnecessary.

Now in the case where you have +10 to Hide and your buddy has +10 to Spot, he is able to offer more constructive feedback. But even then, to accurately simulate taking 20, you would need to Hide 20 times AND he would need to try to take 20 spotting you each time in order to maximize your Hide check. That seems just a little silly so I prefer to rule that you just can't take 20 on Hide.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the way I interpret take 20, it also means you just keep trying until you succeed, at which point you stop.

And you don't succeed until round 20 (for a one round skill), at which point your result is 20 + modifiers.

"Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take."

If you Take 20 on a one round skill check, it takes twenty times as long. There's no provision in the Take 20 rules for it taking up to twenty times as long; you don't have a chance of success until the end of 'twenty times as long as making a single check would take'.

The difference between "keeping rolling checks until your buddy can't see you" and Taking 20 is that, as you say, if you're rolling, you might roll a 3 and still successfully hide from a lousy Sopt check; if you Take 20, you know that your result (pass or fail) is a 20.

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

Difference between opening a lock and hiding ...

And you don't succeed until round 20 (for a one round skill), at which point your result is 20 + modifiers.

"Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take."

If you Take 20 on a one round skill check, it takes twenty times as long. There's no provision in the Take 20 rules for it taking up to twenty times as long; you don't have a chance of success until the end of 'twenty times as long as making a single check would take'.

The difference between "keeping rolling checks until your buddy can't see you" and Taking 20 is that, as you say, if you're rolling, you might roll a 3 and still successfully hide from a lousy Spot check; if you Take 20, you know that your result (pass or fail) is a 20.

-Hyp.

So ... when opening a lock, there is a clear signal when you've opened
the lock, and a clear finality to that result. The "take 20" rules
simulate repeated checks, until a high enough result is obtained.
On average, you will need 20 results to gain you maximum once, so
that's how long the action takes.

The result with hiding is different. If you hid 20 different times, how
does that make the last result your best result? The end result of
repeated attempts would perhaps be better than an average result,
assuming that you gained information between attempts. But the
end result would be somewhat random, and probably not the best
result.

 

[pawsplay]

Taking 20:When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.
Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

It appears to me that if taking 20 were allowed, you would be found before you succeeded in being hidden. Taking 20 always means you fail, then succeed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It appears to me that if taking 20 were allowed, you would be found before you succeeded in being hidden. Taking 20 always means you fail, then succeed.

Which is why the proposed scenario involves failing many times while being opposed by a friendly creature, before eventually succeeding with a result as if one had rolled a 20 and remaining hidden. The problem of "What if I rolled a lousy Hide check, but he rolled an even worse Spot check, so I'm not actually well-hidden" is avoided, because it doesn't matter what he rolls for the first 19 attempts, he'll spot you anyway... and on the twentieth, you know your result is optimal.

Note that this, again, is only of use where the DM applies a single Hide roll against all opposers; if the DM has the hider roll a separate Hide check for each opposer, the Take-20-vs-an-ally process is pointless.

-Hyp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Sure, you could keep rolling Hide checks until your buddy cannot see you, but in the case you described above, there is no way for your character to know the difference between rolling a 1 and a 20. Consequently, the first time you try to Hide, you suceed regardless of what you roll, so your friend is unable to offer constructive feedback. Hence you can't take 20 in this situation since you simply do not know.

The take 20 rules ASSUME you fail multiple times before succeeding, but that doesn't mean you actually do fail multiple times. But the way I interpret take 20, it also means you just keep trying until you succeed, at which point you stop. Why keep trying after that? So if you succeed on your +25 Hide check the first time against someone with Spot +2, you simply discover that taking 20 is unnecessary.

If I have a +20 skill modifier and attempt to take 20 on a DC 80 task, do I fail every try until the last, in which I succeed?

If I decide to take 20 on a skill check when at the time a 1 will suffice, am I forced to not take 20, even if all the conitions are met?

What about when the same check result could potentially apply later, with a different opposed modifier? If I have a Use Rope modifier of +11 and my foe i'm tying up has an escape artist modifier of +1, must I take a 1 on the check (the guy tying gets a +10 bonus, remember, for a total of +21)? What if while not being watched later on, he manages to find a greasy puddle to roll around in for a +2 circumstance to escape being bound? Perhaps a mage friend secretly (Silent and Still Spell) greases him, for a full +10 bonus. If my character making the Use Rope check is paranoid of these things and wants to Take 20 just to be safe, isn't that his choice to make? For the example, we'll just say at the time the captured foe is unconcious at -200 non-lethal damage or something, plenty of time to work with!

This applies to Hide depending on how you answer Hyp's question. I would say if no movement or adjustment has been made since the original Hide check, the Troll would spot against the same check result. Maybe if the hider successfuly spots the Troll coming, he could readjust his postion and make a new check. If the Troll comes in from a direction that gives him a better vantage point or whatever, that should be a circumstance bonus. No new hide is actually being attempted. My opinion, at least.

Now in the case where you have +10 to Hide and your buddy has +10 to Spot, he is able to offer more constructive feedback. But even then, to accurately simulate taking 20, you would need to Hide 20 times AND he would need to try to take 20 spotting you each time in order to maximize your Hide check. That seems just a little silly so I prefer to rule that you just can't take 20 on Hide.

Fair enough, I'd be willing to compromise on having the spot buddy nearly your match. But why is it so silly to you? If an assassin and a "face" rogue are pulling a job in a lord's mansion, with the face rogue succeeding in posing as a chef, I could easily see this scenario come into play. While supposedly preparing the meal, he helps his assassin friend find the best possible hiding spot from which to pull off the hit, critiquing each attempt. He hides, meal's served, lord is hit with a miniscule blowgun dart that goes completely unnoticed and contains a deadly poison with a delayed effect: only after a few hours in the bloodstream do the first signs emerge. By which time, they're both gone. Heh, my example got a little unnescessarily complicated.

 

[airwalkrr]

And you don't succeed until round 20 (for a one round skill), at which point your result is 20 + modifiers.

"Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take."

If you Take 20 on a one round skill check, it takes twenty times as long. There's no provision in the Take 20 rules for it taking up to twenty times as long; you don't have a chance of success until the end of 'twenty times as long as making a single check would take'.

The difference between "keeping rolling checks until your buddy can't see you" and Taking 20 is that, as you say, if you're rolling, you might roll a 3 and still successfully hide from a lousy Sopt check; if you Take 20, you know that your result (pass or fail) is a 20.

-Hyp.

That sounds too much like a meta reason to me. I would agree with the technicality of your statements, but I disagree that the spirit of the rule mandates it work that way.

The take 20 rule is founded on the principle that you can try a task until you succeed. The fact that it takes 20 times longer is based on the statistical likelihood that you will make at least one roll of a 20 on a d20 if you roll 20 times. This is useful when the player is trying to open a lock because the player need not waste time rolling the d20 until he succeeds. He simply tells the DM he tries until he gets the maximum roll rather than rolling, adding the numbers, and telling the DM his result until he gets the maximum roll.

I also believe that it is implied in the rules for taking 20 that situations allowing you to take 20 are unconditional. Hence, you shouldn't be able to take 20 on Hide when an ally is trying to Spot you, but not when you are all by yourself. You can either take 20 or you cannot. Having someone help you might grant a +2 bonus to aid your check, but it is not listed as one of the conditions allowing one to take 20. Fulfilling those conditions is all that is necessary.

In the case of Hide, there is a penalty for failure. The penalty is that you are seen. Because there is a penalty for failure, you cannot take 20. You cannot fail multiple times before succeeding against your ally and not against the enemy who comes into the room later. Because the Hide DC is based on the Spot check of any who might see you, the conditions for the Hide check are variable, and therefore not testable until they occur. So I cannot test my Hide check out against anyone who might see me and then try again without some penalty for failure (being noticed).

Finally, and I think it bears mentioning even though ENWorlders seem loathe to admit it, balance is a good reason not to allow taking 20 on Hide. Otherwise, DMs would be able to catch PCs by surprise all the time and PCs would rarely benefit since PCs often go looking for monsters, but rarely the other way around. I do not know any DMs who even occassionally allow monsters to take 20 on Hide checks so this is a good indicator that it was not intended to be possible. It certainly isn't concrete evidence, but it is still evidence and it is worth considering.

To conclude, it is enough of a logistical nightmare to try to conceive of corner cases where taking 20 on Hide should be allowed to rule that it simply is not possible. The rules are not as clear as they could be on the subject, but the description of the Hide skill strongly suggests that while retrying a check is possible, it is usually fruitless, meaning they did not intend for people to be able to retry until the got a 20 (hence taking 20).

 

[airwalkrr]

If I have a +20 skill modifier and attempt to take 20 on a DC 80 task, do I fail every try until the last, in which I succeed?

Ok, you caught me in semantics. But it proves nothing more than that I misquoted the rules. Taking 20 means rolling until you get a 20 on the d20, not rolling until you succeed. You can still fail while taking 20. My mistake. I hope you feel like a big man for pointing it out. I think it was clear what I meant.

If I decide to take 20 on a skill check when at the time a 1 will suffice, am I forced to not take 20, even if all the conitions are met?

What about when the same check result could potentially apply later, with a different opposed modifier? If I have a Use Rope modifier of +11 and my foe i'm tying up has an escape artist modifier of +1, must I take a 1 on the check (the guy tying gets a +10 bonus, remember, for a total of +21)? What if while not being watched later on, he manages to find a greasy puddle to roll around in for a +2 circumstance to escape being bound? Perhaps a mage friend secretly (Silent and Still Spell) greases him, for a full +10 bonus. If my character making the Use Rope check is paranoid of these things and wants to Take 20 just to be safe, isn't that his choice to make? For the example, we'll just say at the time the captured foe is unconcious at -200 non-lethal damage or something, plenty of time to work with!

This is a very good example that actually helps me illustrate my point. When you make a Use Rope check, you do not know how good the check is until someone tries to escape. I can try to tie a rope 20 times, but if the guy is unconscious, how do I know which attempt was the best? To imply that you can take 20 on Use Rope in this situation implies that your character knows what he rolled on the d20, which is meta-thinking and therefore not within the spirit of the game.

In order to effectively take 20 on an opposed check, it would actually take 400 times as long. A character would need to make a Use Rope check, then let the other character take 20 trying to escape until he could be sure his Use Rope check was good enough. But even then, there is no feedback that guarantees the tying character received a 20. In the case of opening a lock, the take 20 rules assume that I roll a 20 if I try a task 20 times. Essentially, if you fail at a skill check against a fixed DC 20 times in a row, then odds are very good that at least one of those rolls was a 20 and therefore the task is impossible for your character under the present conditions. Take 20 rules simply ASSUME that one of those 20 rolls is a 20 for simplicity. But under the conditions of an opposed check, that assumption is not likely possible because taking 20 simulates trying until you do your best. In order to do that with an opposed check, you cannot verify that you did your best unless the person you are making the opposed check against is able to do his best against each of your checks, hence my position that you cannot take 20 on an opposed check unless you take 400 times as long (20 times 20). And even then, you may not have to do your best to do well enough so that the other person's check cannot possibly succeed. If you have to roll a 17 or higher on your Use Rope check to make it impossible for the bad guy to escape, how do you know the difference between a 17 and a 20? You do not. The only way to guarantee that you have done your best is if your Use Rope modifier is no more than 9 points worse than the captive's Escape Artist modifier (bearing in mind the +10 the tying character gets) because only one check in 20 will you be able to make it possible for him to escape. If your Use Rope modifier is 10 points worse or lower than the captive's Use Rope modifer, then you will never be able to guarantee he cannot escape without somehow adjusting the conditions of the check. But if your Use Rope modifier is 8 points worse or higher than his Escape Artist modifier, then there will be ambiguity in how well you actually tied the rope because once you tie it well enough at a certain point, escape is impossible regardless of whether you roll higher or not.

In fact, in the specific case of Use Rope, you do not even make your Use Rope check until someone tries to escape. If that does not mean that you cannot take 20 on Use Rope, I do not know what does. It implies that you do not know how well your Use Rope check actually was until someone tries to escape, which is exactly what I was trying to demonstrate above. I do not think you should be allowed to know how well you are hiding either.

Now conceivably, I believe the rules do allow you to make a Hide check, then let an ally take 20 trying to Spot you, then keep trying until your ally finds it impossible to Spot you, but this would only work if your Hide modifier is better than your ally's Spot modifier. (If you could get a bad guy to cooperate, you could do the same with Use Rope.) But as I said above, the only way you could guarantee your d20 roll was a 20 is if your ally's Spot modifier is 1 point lower than your Hide modifier. Now I would not tell you that you are wrong if you allow this process, although I would find it impractical. It can be very time-consuming (i.e. a waste of time) so I simply do not allow it.