Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[Felnar]

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.

especially with spots -1 penalty "per 10 feet of distance"
couple that with "Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action."
then when the PCs fail their free "reactive manner" spot check from 100 feet away, they wont ever see the creature unless they declare an active spot check as a move action or the creature loses its concealment/cover

and Hypersmurf - the mere fact that you pose your scenario as a question leads me to believe that there is no definitive answer

 

[Hussar]

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.

*snip*

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.

However, there is a very significant difference that you are missing. In the case of open lock, failing to open the lock does not preclude trying again. It simply means the lock didn't open. However, failing a hide check means that you are seen. If you are seen, you cannot hide. No matter what, you cannot attempt to hide if you are under observation. Full stop. There is a penalty for failure. If you fail, you can't try again until you block line of sight somehow.

That you are in plain sight if you don't attempt to hide is irrelavent. You cannot attempt to hide if you are in plain sight. Failing a hide attempt means that you cannot try again. Any skill that doesn't allow retries automatically precludes taking 20.

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?

The opponent's spot check is opposed by my hide check which I roll at the same time as his spot. In fact, I don't roll a hide check UNTIL he rolls a spot check. If there is no observer, there is no need to hide. If I want to sneak past that guard, I don't make a hide check until that guard has a chance to see me. If I have full cover, I never have to make a hide check. However, at the point where the guard could see me, I have to make my check.

This is why you cannot make hide checks ahead of time. Preparing a position could give you all sorts of bonuses to your hide check, but, you still don't make the check until you can be seen.

I would also point out this bit:

Action

Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action.

A non-action is purely reactional. There are no proactive non-actions that I can think of.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No matter what, you cannot attempt to hide if you are under observation.

This is why the process is undertaken with an ally who deliberately ceases to observe you after each failed attempt.

The opponent's spot check is opposed by my hide check which I roll at the same time as his spot.

I've said multiple times that all of this only applies if the DM considers a single Hide check to be opposed by all relevant Spot checks, not if the DM considers each Spot check to require an individual Hide check.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

I've said multiple times that all of this only applies if the DM considers a single Hide check to be opposed by all relevant Spot checks, not if the DM considers each Spot check to require an individual Hide check.

-Hyp.

Although that probably doesn't apply (the rules seem to strongly suggest otherwise), I will go ahead and disagree with you. If your friend Bob tries to find you and Jimmy the Goblin later searches for you, since the roll is applied against both, each check generates the consequence. If twenty people search for you, you get twenty results where you fail to hide a number of times before hiding (which, naturally, causes you to fail). That is true whether one roll or twenty is used. In your scenario, it is incomplete, yet still certain, that you will fail before you succeed for each observer.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Although that probably doesn't apply (the rules seem to strongly suggest otherwise), I will go ahead and disagree with you. If your friend Bob tries to find you and Jimmy the Goblin later searches for you, since the roll is applied against both, each check generates the consequence. If twenty people search for you, you get twenty results where you fail to hide a number of times before hiding (which, naturally, causes you to fail). That is true whether one roll or twenty is used. In your scenario, it is incomplete, yet still certain, that you will fail before you succeed for each observer.

This is where you lose me; it's why I asked these questions before:

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?

Are you suggesting that in both cases, the opponent who shows up later will make two Spot checks?

If I hide, and then change my mind and walk out in the open, will someone showing up later need to make a Spot check to oppose the Hide check that is no longer applicable since I'm not hiding there any more?

If I make a Hide check, and then in the next round make a second Hide check, the first Hide check is no longer relevant. It applied to a situation that no longer exists; it has been superceded by a new situation.

If we consider, as an analogy, a Hide check of 3 to represent hiding behind a chair, and a Hide check of 12 to represent hiding behind a couch, and I make two rolls in successive rounds, rolling a 3 followed by a 12, someone coming along with a Spot check of 9 won't see me behind the chair, because I'm not there any more. I'm now behind the couch.

While my ally is present for all my failed results while I Take 20, someone coming along later doesn't care about any of those. The only one that is applicable is the most recent... the one that relates to how well I am hiding now. Not how well I was hiding before I hid again.

... assuming persistent Hide checks.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

If I walk up to a gate guarded by three sentries, and explain that I have a very important message for the Captain of the Guard and they have to admit me, how many Bluff checks do I roll?

If I secrete a dagger in my boot and then step outside and walk past a dozen observers, how many Sleight of Hand checks do I make?

If I perform a magic show and make a coin disappear before a crowd of a hundred, how many Sleight of Hand checks do I make?

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

If a DM rules "one" for any of those, wouldn't consistency suggest he should also rule in persistent Hide checks?

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

If I walk up to a gate guarded by three sentries, and explain that I have a very important message for the Captain of the Guard and they have to admit me, how many Bluff checks do I roll?

One. Each guard gets to roll Sense Motive.

If I secrete a dagger in my boot and then step outside and walk past a dozen observers, how many Sleight of Hand checks do I make?

None. None of the observers could have observed you hiding the dagger.

If I perform a magic show and make a coin disappear before a crowd of a hundred, how many Sleight of Hand checks do I make?

One. You have attempted one Sleight of Hand in front of a number of observers. Each member of the audience is entitled to a Spot check but nobody's going to begrudge the DM hand waving that and making one check for the crowd.

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

One. (Or eight, DM's call. Most, I strongly suspect, would say one, for a number of reasons.)

If a DM rules "one" for any of those, wouldn't consistency suggest he should also rule in persistent Hide checks?

Not sure I understand this. I don't believe Hide checks should be persistent. I don't believe you can make a Hide check unless it's opposed by a Spot check and I don't see how holding those views has any bearing on the preceding scenarios you mention.

 

[Hypersmurf]

None. None of the observers could have observed you hiding the dagger.

Check Sleight of Hand for concealing weapons - people can observe that you have a weapon concealed, opposing your Sleight of Hand with Spot.

Not sure I understand this. I don't believe Hide checks should be persistent. I don't believe you can make a Hide check unless it's opposed by a Spot check and I don't see how holding those views has any bearing on the preceding scenarios you mention.

At 9.55am, I get to the park, find a shadowy spot, and nestle down to observe.

At 9.58am, two joggers run past.

At 10.00am, the drug dealer and his two customers meet not far from where I am hiding, and conduct their deal.

Five people have the opportunity to notice me hiding. How many hide checks do I roll, and when do I roll them?

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

Check Sleight of Hand for concealing weapons - people can observe that you have a weapon concealed, opposing your Sleight of Hand with Spot.

I should have checked beforehand. I stand corrected. In that case, you would make one check, in the scenario you gave. It could be opposed by twelve Spot checks.

At 9.55am, I get to the park, find a shadowy spot, and nestle down to observe.

At 9.58am, two joggers run past.

At 10.00am, the drug dealer and his two customers meet not far from where I am hiding, and conduct their deal.

Five people have the opportunity to notice me hiding. How many hide checks do I roll, and when do I roll them?

-Hyp.

Two. One at 9.58, opposed by the joggers' two Spot checks. One at 10.00, opposed by the dealer's and the two mugs' Spot checks.

If, when you find your spot at 9.55, you tell me that you're picking out a good hiding place and positioning yourself as discretely as possible, I'll give you a +2 circumstance bonus on each check.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I should have checked beforehand. I stand corrected. In that case, you would make one check, in the scenario you gave. It could be opposed by twelve Spot checks.

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

If so, what's the difference between hiding a dagger once, opposed by multiple spot checks at different times, and hiding a person once, opposed by multiple spot checks at different times? Why is only one check needed to determine how well-hidden the dagger is, but multiple checks to determine how well-hidden the person is?

-Hyp.