Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[airwalkrr]

(Sorry to keep posting like this but ideas keep coming to me after I click "submit.")

Put another way, if I am in the middle of climbing 50 feet up a cliff and fail a Climb check, but not enough to make me fall, I am still climbing right? I still suffer penalties for the "climbing" condition. Similarly, if I am hiding, and someone comes along and succeeds on his Spot check, but makes no indication of it (let's say the person does not care) and walks away, that does not automatically mean I am no longer hiding. It simply means that person could see me. It does not change the fact that I am hiding. I am still hiding until I decide to stop hiding or take some action (such as attacking) that precludes hiding. If I do not move a muscle and a second person comes along, must I make a second Hide check? Of course not. I have not moved and I am still hiding in the exact same place. Nor have I received any indiciation from another character that I am no longer hiding.

 

[Ranes]

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

I am standing at the end of a fifty-foot-long corridor, next to a door that opens inwards to the corridor. I am next to the hinged side of the door. I'm standing there, because that side of the door is in shadow. It's in shadow because the corridor's nearest lit torch is thirty feet away. I'm trying to hide in that shadow.

You materialise at the other end of the corridor and try to spot me. We make opposed checks. You win, as usual. Now I am in direct observation.

Then a goblin opens the door. I get to make new hide checks against the goblin and you. Maybe the open door blocks line of sight to you. Maybe the open door deepens the shadow in which I'm standing.

All right, that example is a little contrived. But perhaps I wasn't being clear enough when I presented the original scenario. When two or more observers attempt to spot me at the same time, I make one hide check. If one observer makes a check and then some time passes and another observer moves into the area. I get to make another check against both observers, because I have also been able to take a move action in that time and I've used it to try and hide. (I believe I gave the example of my toes being all that were visible when you succeeded at spotting me and I turned my feet, to try and hide them.)

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.

Just as an aside, I sometimes wonder why some cultures call that game Hide and Go Seek. Here in Britain we call it Hide and Seek. Verb and Verb. Why Verb and Verb Verb? Anyway...

I think the contention here arises from a difference in the semantic use of the word hide. In our game of Verb and Verb Verb, you close your eyes and count to, say, six. In that time, I hide. I hide in the sense that we both understand the word in everyday use. I do not hide in the sense of testing the D&D skill. I do that only when you open your eyes and we make opposed checks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How?

Because you fail repeatedly, and then calculate your result as though you rolled a 20.

I was hidden before he tried to Spot me.

And yet had you not attempted to Hide in the first place, you would not have been. The Hide check you failed was the one that caused you to become hidden in the first place; as far as the second spotter is concerned, you were never hidden at all.

Similarly, if I am hiding, and someone comes along and succeeds on his Spot check, but makes no indication of it (let's say the person does not care) and walks away, that does not automatically mean I am no longer hiding. It simply means that person could see me.

In which case you were not hidden from him.

I get to make another check against both observers, because I have also been able to take a move action in that time and I've used it to try and hide.

Unless you've moved to a new position where you are not under direct observation by the original observer (who knows where you are), you can't attempt to hide from him. Basically, you'll need to arrange total cover or total concealment from that first observer, because unless you can do that, you aren't eligible to try to hide from him.

I do that only when you open your eyes and we make opposed checks.

Right. And if I do that repeatedly over a period twenty times as long as a normal hide check, you can keep hiding (and failing) until you eventually calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Trying to Take 20 on a Hide check is like trying to Take 20 on a Bluff check. It just doesn't work.

I think we're having a problem with the definition of penalty. For me, penalty is defined as a situation in which you cannot try again. There is a penalty for Disarming Traps, for example, the trap goes off. If the trap goes off, you cannot try again.

I see what you're saying Hypersmurf, but there is a flaw in your arguement. From what I understand, you are having an ally do a new spot check each time until he cannot see you. However, the problem is that each time the ally breaks line of sight and then reestablishes it makes for a new spot check. Granted, he could Take 20 on the spot check and if he can't see you, that means that you have a Hide of his spot check skill+1

Again, though, this is not taking 20. If my friend's total spot after taking 20 is, say, 21, then my hide score can be any score higher than that. If I have 16 ranks in Hide, I could still have only a 22 Hide score and still be hidden from my friend. However, that won't help me against the enemy with 22 ranks in spot.

There's no real way you can Take 20, even with persistent Hide checks. At best you can Take Hide (My friend's spot score+1).

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, the problem is that each time the ally breaks line of sight and then reestablishes it makes for a new spot check.

That's exactly right. There need to be new Spot checks to oppose your repeated failures while you're Taking 20 on your Hide check... right up until the one that opposes your Hide check calculated as if you had rolled a 20.

The spotter isn't taking 20. The hider is taking 20. It doesn't matter what the spotter's bonus is, because when the hider automatically fails, the spotter sees him no matter what his result, and when the hider gets his 20, it doesn't matter if the spotter can see him or not... what's important is the 20.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yep--Hyp is, as usual, technically correct. Taking 20 is defined as 19 arbitrary failures with no actual number assigned, followed by a 20.

Let's imagine a Rogue with +30 to Open Lock foolishly decides to Take 20 to open a DC 20 lock. Even though he would succeed on a roll of 1, he still fails 19 times and then succeeds with a 20, thus proving that the arbitrary failures before the 20 at the end cannot be assigned any number.

 

[airwalkrr]

Because you fail repeatedly, and then calculate your result as though you rolled a 20.

I did not ask "why," I asked "how?" Explain to me what process goes on for it to occur.

Here is how I see it. If I take 20 on a Search check, the mechanical result is the same as if I kept rolling until I got a 20. I may make the DC with a roll of 15, but I keep rolling until I get the 20, just to be sure. But this is not based on the fact that my CHARACTER knows he rolled a 20. It is based on the simplicity of assuming that I just keep rolling until I get a 20, which statistically, is VERY likely to occur if I roll 20 times. In this case, I am trying to accomplished a specific task with a specific DC. But Hide is much different. It does not represent accomplishing a specific task so much as it represents your relative ability to accomplish a task. It is a variable and relative task because it has a variable and relative DC. If I retry "just to make sure," how can I make sure my roll is actually a 20? I may have a friend helping me, but there is no feedback to tell me that my Hide check was good enough to stop retrying. Once I make a Hide check, I could keep the process of hiding going for a theoretically indefinite amount of time. If I make a Search check and I take twenty times as long so that I am reasonably sure I have done my best, everything I need to know I have done my best is right there in that 5 foot square I am searching. But if I am making a Hide check, everything I need to take 20 is not there unless there is someone "aiding" me with a Spot bonus one point lower than my Hide check.

And yet had you not attempted to Hide in the first place, you would not have been. The Hide check you failed was the one that caused you to become hidden in the first place; as far as the second spotter is concerned, you were never hidden at all.

I think you misspoke somewhere in there because that does not make sense to me. How does the Hide check I failed cause me to become hidden?

Assuming that you meant to say "the Hide check you failed caused you to become seen," then I believe you are simply mistaken. If I have a Hide check of +40 and make a Hide check of 50, then an invisible, incorporeal character who is making no noise (essentially undetectable) enters the room and spots me, but does absolutely nothing about it, how does that cause me to become "unhidden?" Relative to that character, yes, but not to a goblin with a +1 Spot check who walks into the room later.

In which case you were not hidden from him.

I believe that is what I said (although I choose a different way of phrasing it). So what is your point? Just because I am not hidden from one character does not mean I cannot be hidden from another. If I make a Hide check, then two goblins enter a room, #1 sees me and #2 does not, then we roll initiative, I beat goblin 2 and make an attack against him. Goblin 2 is still flat-footed regardless of what goblin 1 saw unless goblin 1 was able to take some action that revealed me to goblin 2 (like casting glitterdust). Goblin 1 does not confer the "unhidden" quality upon me just because he saw me. It only means I was unhidden relative to him and not goblin 2.

 

[airwalkrr]

That's exactly right. There need to be new Spot checks to oppose your repeated failures while you're Taking 20 on your Hide check... right up until the one that opposes your Hide check calculated as if you had rolled a 20.

The spotter isn't taking 20. The hider is taking 20. It doesn't matter what the spotter's bonus is, because when the hider automatically fails, the spotter sees him no matter what his result, and when the hider gets his 20, it doesn't matter if the spotter can see him or not... what's important is the 20.

-Hyp.

So you admit you are making the rationally absurd (but literally plausible) assertion that when you take 20, you automatically fail many times regardless of how good you are, and then on the twentieth try you succeed (if your bonus is high enough).

Me? I prefer to base my rulings on what makes a reasonable amount of sense and not allow technical definitions to obscure my position on otherwise rational rules. But as long as you are willing to admit that your position is rationally absurd (but literally plausible), then I will concede the argument to you. But if you maintain your argument is both rational AND correct, then you are deluding yourself. Like I said before, you sound like a lawyer trying to get your client off on technicality when you know he's guilty.

Edit: After reading Hussar's post, I decided to actually reference the rule and this resulted in me changing some of my wording a bit. It does not, in fact, say you fail 19 times before getting a 20. It says the rules "assume" you fail many times before getting a 20. Some may read "assume you fail" to mean "you do fail," but an assumption is not, by definition, correct.

 

[airwalkrr]

Yep--Hyp is, as usual, technically correct. Taking 20 is defined as 19 arbitrary failures with no actual number assigned, followed by a 20.

Let's imagine a Rogue with +30 to Open Lock foolishly decides to Take 20 to open a DC 20 lock. Even though he would succeed on a roll of 1, he still fails 19 times and then succeeds with a 20, thus proving that the arbitrary failures before the 20 at the end cannot be assigned any number.

Actually, that is not precisely correct. As I just examined the rules, it does not mention that you fail automatically many times, merely that the take 20 rules "assume you fail many times" before getting it right. This assumption is not purported to be correct however. Thus, the rogue in your example would succeed on his first try, but because he was taking 20, he takes extra time before trying the lock just to make sure.

Edit: Personally, I think it is completely reasonable for a DM to not enforce the time requirement for a character who takes 20 but is capable of automatically succeeding. The time requirement is merely a game-time-saving measure for when there is plenty of in-character time to accomplish a task.

 

[hong]

So you admit you are making the rationally absurd (but literally correct) assertion that when you take 20, you automatically fail 19 times regardless of how good you are, and then on the twentieth try you succeed (if your bonus is high enough).

Me? I prefer to base my rulings on what makes a reasonable amount of sense and not allow technical definitions to obscure my position on otherwise rational rules. But as long as you are willing to admit that your position is rationally absurd (but literally correct), then I will concede the argument to you. But if you maintain your argument is both rational AND correct, then you are deluding yourself. Like I said before, you sound like a lawyer trying to get your client off on technicality when you know he's guilty.

I fail to see anything absurd about Hyp's argument.

If you want a less technical way of putting it: the take 20 mechanic is basically a convenient shortcut for rolling the dice over and over again. Would you let someone hide repeatedly, while a buddy tries to spot him, as a way of finding the best possible hiding spot? If yes, then taking 20 on Hide is allowed. If no, then taking 20 on Hide is not allowed.

What Hyp is saying is that there's no reason not to let your buddy help you hide, and therefore taking 20 on Hide is allowed.