Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[airwalkrr]

Let me just say one more thing and then I'll be done. Randomness is part of the game. A player who tries to take 20 is just like the player who tries to munchkin their save DCs so that monsters only pass on a 20. The player is trying to elimate (or virtually eliminate) randomness from the game. That is bad for the game. If you disagree, then I think you should be playing chess and not D&D. At any rate, we probably disagree on a philosophical level and should just agree to disagree in that case.

Fun is also part of the game. When a DM takes undue advantage of strict interpretations of the rules to use them to allow monsters to take 20 on Hide checks, the PCs will be taken by surprise very often. I don't know about you, but when I'm a player, getting taken by surprise all the time grows trite and unfun because I feel like I have no control over the game and the DM is pushing me around. So whenever there is a rule I see that will tend to add an unfun element to the game, I tend to ignore it or interpret it in a way that will not interfere with fun.

That is pretty much all I can say on the subject. If you are not convinced by these last three posts, then we probably disagree on a fundamental level (and changing someone's philosophy is a lot harder than enlightening someone about rules they are unsure of). I do not care to get into a (fruitless) philosophical argument, so I will let my opinion stand as that, my opinion. I admit that the rules on this subject are vague and ill-defined, but I think they definitely support my position and the game is more fun when played my way. But if you and your players have fun playing your way, keep playing that way. It would be pointless for me to try to convince you to play a way you would consider unfun.

 

[shilsen]

Let me just say one more thing and then I'll be done. Randomness is part of the game. A player who tries to take 20 is just like the player who tries to munchkin their save DCs so that monsters only pass on a 20. The player is trying to elimate (or virtually eliminate) randomness from the game. That is bad for the game. If you disagree, then I think you should be playing chess and not D&D. At any rate, we probably disagree on a philosophical level and should just agree to disagree in that case.

I would qualify your second sentence to say that "a certain degree of randomness is part of the game." After all, the game also supports point buy stats, which is designed to remove one area of randomness, and PCs are expected to be around the same level, which reduces randomness in another area. There are a number of other areas where that could be said. A player trying to take 20 (or take 10, for that matter) on a skill check is hardly eliminating randomness from the game as a whole.

BTW, as mentioned on the first page of this thread, I agree that taking 20 on Hide doesn't work.

And a P.S. Telling people that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't play D&D is a little presumptuous, in my book.

 

[airwalkrr]

And a P.S. Telling people that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't play D&D is a little presumptuous, in my book.

Specifically, I meant anyone who thinks randomness should not be part of D&D. And yes, they should play chess (or some other purely tactical game). They will be much happier playing a game with no randomness than they would trying to excise all the random elements out of D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

That doesn't work. You have to fail in order to succeed, and since you can be seen or not seen by all searchers, if you use one roll... you are not hidden before you are hidden.

Also, taking 20 gives you an eventual result of a 20... it takes 20x as long to generate a 20, that does not mean you generate a series of rolls, of which exactly the 20th and last is a 20.

Hiding is not something that responds to persistent attempts... each and every hide and spot routine is a potential success or failure. EDIT: Explicitly, then, each check means you must accept the price of failure (being found).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I was going to say that Take 20 is okay, but I changed my mind.

Take 20 would allow modestly stealthy creatures inhabiting dungeon crawls to reach DCs in the 25+ range easily. The top shelf ambush specialists would be outright unspottable.

I think that would break the feel of how the rules were intended to scale.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

No, that wasn't why I asked. Some people were using the "first I roll a 1, then a 2, then a 3..." interpretation in a way that made it sound as if a player in said game who attempts to take 20 would be forced to stop once he acheives a success, since he's "trying until he succeeds," and has no in-game knowledge of the difference between a 12 and a twenty. Hence, my later example, where such an outlook would screw the player over if a later opposed check was made, and why I said it depends on how you answer Hyp's question on whether or not new spotters require new hide checks (if you'd require new hide checks, the analogy is meaningless). Maybe I misunderstood what people were saying.

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 I 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.

If a character has actual ranks in Use Rope, I would think he knows quite a bit about tying knots and how to test whether one is good by checking how it slides, if a sliding knot, how snug the rope is to the body, etc... I have no RL knowledge of tying knots and such, so I just made those criteria up, but you get the idea, right? 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. 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?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Let me just say one more thing and then I'll be done. Randomness is part of the game. A player who tries to take 20 is just like the player who tries to munchkin their save DCs so that monsters only pass on a 20. The player is trying to elimate (or virtually eliminate) randomness from the game. That is bad for the game. If you disagree, then I think you should be playing chess and not D&D. At any rate, we probably disagree on a philosophical level and should just agree to disagree in that case.

Agreeing to disagree is probaly the best thing to do.

Fun is also part of the game. When a DM takes undue advantage of strict interpretations of the rules to use them to allow monsters to take 20 on Hide checks, the PCs will be taken by surprise very often. I don't know about you, but when I'm a player, getting taken by surprise all the time grows trite and unfun because I feel like I have no control over the game and the DM is pushing me around. So whenever there is a rule I see that will tend to add an unfun element to the game, I tend to ignore it or interpret it in a way that will not interfere with fun.

See, I think of this more as an issue for the PC hiders. If a DM wants a monster hidden, he has plenty of ways in which to do so, regardless of the decision on whether taking 20 is ok. And my definition of fun is different from yours, I guess. I seldom waste the time taking 20, but take 10 whenever possible. Contrary to your view that this is for more tactical use than anything, I find it aids in the role playing to reduce randomness at times. And even more so, the extra time saved from all the dice rolling, as opposed to a static mod + 10, is great. If my rogue is searching for traps, does it really aid in the "fun" to have him take the time to roll for each door, checst, etc...; or just give his modifier to the DM, take 10/20, and roleplay according to what that generates?

 

[Hussar]

I would point out a couple of things here.

Firstly, hide is an opposed roll. I know that's pretty obvious, but, bear with me. That means that it's opposed by EVERYONE. In the 3 goblins example, by RAW, you would roll three hide checks vs three spot checks. If you succeeded against each one, then you're groovy. When the hobgoblin shows up, you roll another opposed check vs the hobgoblin.

No, you cannot take 20 on this, since, there is only a single roll ever made in each circumstance. For each observer, you should be making a separate hide roll opposed by his spot.

Now, that's a whole lot of rolling, but, that's the way it should be done.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

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.

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.

I can't agree with that in the case of Hide, Open Lock, or Search.

The result of failing an Open Lock check is the same as not attempting an Open Lock check. There is no penalty for failure.

The result of failing an Search check is the same as not attempting an Search check. There is no penalty for failure.

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.

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.

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.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, taking 20 gives you an eventual result of a 20... it takes 20x as long to generate a 20, that does not mean you generate a series of rolls, of which exactly the 20th and last is a 20.

It generates an eventual result in which that final result is a 20. All the failures precede it.

That doesn't work. You have to fail in order to succeed, and since you can be seen or not seen by all searchers, if you use one roll... you are not hidden before you are hidden.

And while you are not-hidden, the only searcher present is your ally.

Assuming persistent Hide checks, if I hide from my ally and roll a 7, then attempt to hide from him again and roll a 15, and subsequently don't move, what result does the opponent's Spot check oppose when he eventually shows up?

Assuming persistent Hide checks, if I hide from my ally and roll a 15, then attempt to hide from him again and roll a 7, and subsequently don't move, what result does the opponent's Spot check oppose when he eventually shows up?

-Hyp.