Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[Hypersmurf]

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

At the point that someone attempts to Spot me, what happens if I elect not to make an opposed check?

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.

I'd say the reason you generally couldn't Take 20 on Use Rope (to bind a character; I don't see any reason why one couldn'y Take 20 to tie a firm knot, tie a special knot, tie a rope around yourself one-handed, or splice two ropes together) is because the skill states that "You don’t even make your Use Rope check until someone tries to escape."

If the person you were attempting to bind was cooperating - attempting to escape for twenty minutes, but not preventing you from trying again - Take 20 would be permitted, resulting in my failing for 20 minutes, and finally succeeding really well.

-Hyp.

 

[airwalkrr]

If the person you were attempting to bind was cooperating - attempting to escape for twenty minutes, but not preventing you from trying again - Take 20 would be permitted, resulting in my failing for 20 minutes, and finally succeeding really well.

I do agree with you there on principle, but I disagree about the way it would work. As I posted earlier, this is how I think it should work.

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.

 

[airwalkrr]

At the point that someone attempts to Spot me, what happens if I elect not to make an opposed check?

I would say in the case of Hide, that is not technically an option. You make the Hide check when you attempt to Hide. Suppose I bound someone with a rope, then later the bound character attempts to escape. Would you allow the character who originally tied the rope to not make a Use Rope check?

If the hiding character desired to, I would probably allow a free action to reveal oneself, but that is a character-elected change in the default condition, and hence a change in what constitutes a penalty.

Now are you actually trying to discuss this rationally or are you just trying to play with my head? You keep pointing out minor flaws in diction or asking questions about things that are largely irrelevant to my main points. This sounds much like a lawyer's attempt to get his client free on technicality when he realizes his client is actually guilty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would say in the case of Hide, that is not technically an option. You make the Hide check when you attempt to Hide.

In that case, the default condition is your state before you make the Hide check - not hiding. There is, then, no penalty for failure, because failing has the same result as not-attempting.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

In that case, the default condition is your state before you make the Hide check - not hiding. There is, then, no penalty for failure, because failing has the same result as not-attempting.

-Hyp.

It might not be necessary for me to say this but, just in case, let me make the point that I really enjoy these debates and your contributions to them and, as I'm sure you'll agree, I rarely take issue with your arguments.

But I do here.

There is no penalty for failing an open lock check, because the result is the same as if you had not tried. 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.

It doesn't matter that Hussar's spelling of irrelevant is flawed; his logic is not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't matter that Hussar's spelling of irrelevant is flawed; his logic is not.

You only fail to hide if you are still under observation when you try again. If your ally ceases to look after each failed attempt, you're not under observation.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

I understand what you're getting at but I submit that, if your ally stops observing you after you fail a hide attempt, you are not hiding, in as far as testing the skill is concerned. Only when someone, an ally or otherwise, is attempting to spot you, are you testing your hide skill.

 

[Ranes]

I attempt to hide. You come along and make a spot check. It beats my hide check. I have to take a move action to hide again, from you. Depending on where exactly I'm trying to hide, that doesn't necessarily mean moving from the space I'm in. It might mean I have to turn my toes parallel to the wall against which I'm trying to remain unnoticed. But for now, I'm spotted by you and cannot hide from you until I move.

At exactly the same time as you spot me, another door opens to the room we're in. The creature entering the room still has to roll to spot me. Even though we're out of combat, if the DM rules that this new creature has entered the room at exactly the same time as you make your spot check, the creature makes its spot check against the same hide check I just made against you. That check failed to beat your spot check but it might succeed against the newcomer's check.

If, on the other hand, the DM rules that the newcomer arrived just after I failed my hide check against you, I would be entitled to a new check against the incoming creature and you! It might be that we all roll skill checks and this time I beat both you and the newcomer. You know where I am but you can't see me any more. Maybe that's down to a subtle change in the lighting as the door opens. Maybe it's because I just turned my toes to be parallel to the wall against which I'm standing and that's enough to conceal me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If, on the other hand, the DM rules that the newcomer arrived just after I failed my hide check against you, I would be entitled to a new check against the incoming creature and you!

But since you just failed a Hide check against me, aren't you under direct observation?

I understand what you're getting at but I submit that, if your ally stops observing you after you fail a hide attempt, you are not hiding, in as far as testing the skill is concerned. Only when someone, an ally or otherwise, is attempting to spot you, are you testing your hide skill.

The ally is attempting to spot you. And if he succeeds, he closes his eyes (so you aren't under direct observation) while you try to hide again, then attempts to spot you again.

Like Hide and Go Seek. If you're 'it', you have to close your eyes while people hide, or it isn't a game. Then you try to spot them.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

No, not at all. In fact, your example to me fits perfectly into my line of thinking. In each case, the last Hide check made prevails. Taking 20 is a special case; you get the benefit of the 20, but you first must take the penalties of failure. Just as the 7, in the second example, persists for later observers, so too would the 20... and the consequences of a failed skill check. Taking 20 is not the same as a naked 20.

Now, if the game is using persistent Hide checks, as a GM, I would certainly roll them in secret, along with the Spot checks. They can, if they wish, experiment to determine how will the character is hidden. However, to me this sounds properly like aiding a Hide check, not Spotting an enemy.

There are other objections I might raise; is hiding from enemies the same task as hiding from your friend? Is it not within the GM's purview to make you "freshen" your Hide check when the enemies approach, to represent your ability to hide at that time? After all, nothing in the description of hide says one attempt to remain hidden works indefinitely... that would be impossible, since you can already hide from one person and fail to hide from another. Even if you use persistent Hide checks, it's still up to the GM to call when the check is made. Playing hide and seek may not be deemed a legitimate use of the skill.

In any case, whether or not you actually care about the failure to hide from your friend Bob, it disqualifies taking 20.

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.

Obviously, failing to hide means you not hidden. Since failing to hide from Fred the Goblin carries a penalty for failure, it is illegal to take 20 to do so, even if there is no penalty for hiding from Bob.