Can you "Take 20" to Hide?

[airwalkrr]

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.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not read the whole thread. There is a reason not to let your buddy help you if his Spot bonus is not equal to your Hide bonus -1. In any other case, it is either mechanically impossible to differentiate between a roll that simply beats your ally's Spot check and a 20 (in the case where your Hide modifier is greater than your ally's Spot by more than 1), or it is mechanically impossible for you to Hide from your buddy (in the case where your Hide modifier is equal to or less than your ally's Spot). See previous posts for a discussion of this aspect.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

Where do you draw the line? What if the character has +18 and is picking a DC 20 lock. Will you let him pick it earlier than the two minutes? If not, then you're treating this near-master the same as a newbie with +0 but completely different than someone with only a slight improvement at +19. By not houseruling, we simply treat everyone the same and lose this odd corner-case.

 

[airwalkrr]

Where do you draw the line? What if the character has +18 and is picking a DC 20 lock. Will you let him pick it earlier than the two minutes? If not, then you're treating this near-master the same as a newbie with +0 but completely different than someone with only a slight improvement at +19. By not houseruling, we simply treat everyone the same and lose this odd corner-case.

I wouldn't consider this a house rule. I consider house rules to be things that are stated ahead of time for everyone to realize, not on-the-spot rulings made to speed things up. I doubt everyone is quite so strictly adherant to the rules in actual play. Me? I'm a reasonable guy and would probably treat the guy with +18 like the guy with +19. I'd draw the line wherever I felt was appropriate. I may just say "you begin taking 20 but find it is easier than you expected and it only takes a few rounds." I am the DM after all. However, I have to admit in most cases, in-character time does not matter when a PC is taking 20, so I probably wouldn't bother mentioning it. If the PCs feel they have the time to take 20, I usually just let them. But that is certainly not because I feel like they MUST take 20.

 

[airwalkrr]

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right...

Note it does not say "you are failing until you get it right." So if you try until you get it right, but automatically succeed the first time anyway, what is the harm in not requiring the PC to take the extra 19 rounds? No harm done I say.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But there is no success or failure in a single hide check. In fact you cannot actually MAKE a hide check prior to someone being able to observe you. If there is no observer, then I am hidden since no one can see me. However, once there is an observer, THEN I make my hide check. So, the observer must make a spot check each and every time in order for the hider to hide.

That's why its absurd. Hypersmurf wants to make an opposed check without any opposition. You can't. It's like trying to bluff by yourself. Until such time as there is the opposed check, you cannot actually make a check.

In other words, the DC of hide is set by the observers Spot. Until such time as there is an observer who spots, there is no DC in which to try against. You can roll hide checks until the cows come home, but the only one that counts is the opposed one.

It doesn't matter if you assume that hide checks become fixed after hiding. In order to hide in the first place, you have to make an opposed check. If the observer takes 20 on his spot, the only hide check you know that you made is Hide=Observer's Spot+1.

You can take 20 on Spot checks since failing a spot check does not preclude trying again. However, if you fail a hide check, you are observed and cannot try again until you break LOS. Once you break LOS, you make a totally new opposed check. You could keep trying to hide, breaking LOS each time, until you succeed against someone's Spot Take 20. But, that still is not the same as taking 20 on your Hide.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

THe process is that you fail repeatedly during the time it would take to accomplish the task twenty times, at the end of which your result is calculated as if you had rolled a 20.

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?

How many Hide checks did you make? In this case, one. Making that Hide check is what caused you to become hidden; it is also the Hide check that failed against this opponent.

The Hide check you failed is the Hide check that caused you to become hidden.

Just because I am not hidden from one character does not mean I cannot be hidden from another.

In which case, how can a Hide check ever fail? It is always successful to a lesser or greater extent; it can be successful to the extent of hiding you from creatures with a Spot result of 5, or to the extent of hiding you from creatures with a Spot result of 55. Since the check is always successful, there can be no penalty for failure.

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).

Not 'on the twentieth try', but 'at the end of a period twenty times longer than would be required to execute the skill once', yes.

So if you try until you get it right, but automatically succeed the first time anyway, what is the harm in not requiring the PC to take the extra 19 rounds?

You don't succeed 'the first time', because Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as normal. The use of the skill is incomplete until that time is up. Anything that happens before that time is 'failing repeatedly'.

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.

I'm saying that as written, Take 20 means you fail repeatedly until eventually succeeding with a result calculated as though you had rolled a 20... even if you could normally succeed on a roll of 1.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf wants to make an opposed check without any opposition.

Not at all - in every case, the opposed check is made with someone there to oppose it.

It's just that for most of them, the person opposing them is on my side.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Not at all - in every case, the opposed check is made with someone there to oppose it.

It's just that for most of them, the person opposing them is on my side.

-Hyp.

But, it doesn't matter whose side they are on. Each check is distinct. That's what I'm failing to understand here. An opposed check is a distinct event. It requires two things - each side of the opposition. You can't make one check without the other.

You cannot take 20 simply because you cannot try 20 times. Each time you hide, succeed or fail, you are opposed by a different spot check. Taking 20 requires me to try 20 times. But, succeed or fail, when I try another time, the count never advances. Each hide is distinct from the previous hide check because it is opposed by a different spot check.

It would be like me trying to carry a charge with a skill check. I Take 20 on a different lock that is too difficult for me to unlock, then move over to a new lock and succeed immedietely because I haven't "spent" my Take 20.

How many Hide checks did you make? In this case, one. Making that Hide check is what caused you to become hidden; it is also the Hide check that failed against this opponent.

No it doesn't. Making a Hide check does nothing unless it is opposed by a spot check. If you are unobserved, you automatically succeed a hide check - no one can see you. However, once there is an observer, then you make a hide check. In other words, you cannot make a hide check until there is an observer. If the observer sees you, then you cannot make another hide check until there is no longer LOS. The next time the observer can see you, then you must make a new hide check. But, that hide check is in no way affected by any previous hide checks. If you are spotted again, you must break LOS and try again. However, each attempt - Break of LOS followed by a new spot check - is entirely independent of any previous attempt. It doesn't matter if it is the same observer or a line of 20 observers - each hide/spot opposition is unique.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Each time you hide, succeed or fail, you are opposed by a different spot check. Taking 20 requires me to try 20 times.

I don't understand how the two are exclusive.

No it doesn't. Making a Hide check does nothing unless it is opposed by a spot check. If you are unobserved, you automatically succeed a hide check - no one can see you. However, once there is an observer, then you make a hide check. In other words, you cannot make a hide check until there is an observer.

Remember, this was specifically in response to airwalkrr, under a persistent Hide check model where he ruled that the check is made when you attempt to go into hiding, and that check (already determined) is later opposed by the Spot check of a potential observer.

-Hyp.

 

[airwalkrr]

I'm saying that as written, Take 20 means you fail repeatedly

You keep repeating that phrase, but that is not found anywhere in the rules. Specifically, it says taking 20 "assumes you fail many times" before you get a 20. But an assumption is not ipso facto a correct assumption. Therefore, there has to at least be room to conceive of an alternative viewpoint, which you are simply refusing to do for the sake of being stubborn I guess.