Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Can you "Take 20" to Hide?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3325652" data-attributes="member: 1656"><p>Hang on... you only need to make a Spot check to see someone who is hiding. Someone who isn't hiding is in plain sight.</p><p></p><p>So the default condition is that you <em>can</em> be seen; failing a Hide check leaves you no worse off than not attempting to hide at all, which is how I define "No penalty for failure".</p><p></p><p>Let's say I'm trapped on a ledge in a canyon. There's a rope some distance up that I could use to escape, and there's a path across the canyon that I could walk up. Either way requires a Jump check.</p><p></p><p>If I don't try to jump, I stay on the ledge.</p><p></p><p>If I try to jump up to grab the rope and fail, I wind up back on the ledge. I'm no worse off than if I hadn't attempted the jump in the first place; there is no penalty for failure. Take 20 not a problem.</p><p></p><p>If I try to jump across the canyon and fail, I fall to a grisly death on the rocks below. I'm in a worse position than if I hadn't attempted the jump at all; there is a penalty for failure, and I cannot Take 20.</p><p></p><p>If there's a goblin coming and I don't attempt to hide, the goblin sees me. If I attempt to hide and fail, the goblin sees me. I'm no worse off for having tried and failed; there is no penalty for failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. Now, you earlier said:</p><p></p><p>"If your opponents were trying to Spot you and willing to let you keep trying to Hide until they failed to see you, then you could take 20."</p><p></p><p>So, let's say that before the enemy comes close, you have your buddy try to spot you. He is willing to let you keep trying to Hide until he fails to see you.</p><p></p><p>Once you stop making rolls, that's the result used for your Hide check until you move or take a move action to Hide again.</p><p></p><p>So, when you Take 20, per the rules for Taking 20, you fail repeatedly (meaning your friend will automatically Spot you) until the end of the duration - twenty times longer than a single skill check would take - at which point your result is calculated <em>as if you had rolled a 20</em>.</p><p></p><p>Let's say I have a Hide score of +25 and my buddy has a Spot of +2. If I attempt to hide from him as a move action, then even if I roll a 1 and he rolls a 20, my 26 beats his 22. If, however, I Take 20 to try to hide from him, I fail repeatedly - he spots me every time, until I get to the end of my Taking 20, at which point my Hide check is calculated as 45.</p><p></p><p>Now my buddy goes away, and I remain where I am until the opponent shows up... and makes a Spot check opposed by my 45.</p><p></p><p>Based on your two statements - the existing Hide roll opposes all the spotters until I move, and if someone lets me keep trying to Hide I can Take 20 - do you see any problems with the process?</p><p></p><p>-Hyp.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3325652, member: 1656"] Hang on... you only need to make a Spot check to see someone who is hiding. Someone who isn't hiding is in plain sight. So the default condition is that you [i]can[/i] be seen; failing a Hide check leaves you no worse off than not attempting to hide at all, which is how I define "No penalty for failure". Let's say I'm trapped on a ledge in a canyon. There's a rope some distance up that I could use to escape, and there's a path across the canyon that I could walk up. Either way requires a Jump check. If I don't try to jump, I stay on the ledge. If I try to jump up to grab the rope and fail, I wind up back on the ledge. I'm no worse off than if I hadn't attempted the jump in the first place; there is no penalty for failure. Take 20 not a problem. If I try to jump across the canyon and fail, I fall to a grisly death on the rocks below. I'm in a worse position than if I hadn't attempted the jump at all; there is a penalty for failure, and I cannot Take 20. If there's a goblin coming and I don't attempt to hide, the goblin sees me. If I attempt to hide and fail, the goblin sees me. I'm no worse off for having tried and failed; there is no penalty for failure. Okay. Now, you earlier said: "If your opponents were trying to Spot you and willing to let you keep trying to Hide until they failed to see you, then you could take 20." So, let's say that before the enemy comes close, you have your buddy try to spot you. He is willing to let you keep trying to Hide until he fails to see you. Once you stop making rolls, that's the result used for your Hide check until you move or take a move action to Hide again. So, when you Take 20, per the rules for Taking 20, you fail repeatedly (meaning your friend will automatically Spot you) until the end of the duration - twenty times longer than a single skill check would take - at which point your result is calculated [i]as if you had rolled a 20[/i]. Let's say I have a Hide score of +25 and my buddy has a Spot of +2. If I attempt to hide from him as a move action, then even if I roll a 1 and he rolls a 20, my 26 beats his 22. If, however, I Take 20 to try to hide from him, I fail repeatedly - he spots me every time, until I get to the end of my Taking 20, at which point my Hide check is calculated as 45. Now my buddy goes away, and I remain where I am until the opponent shows up... and makes a Spot check opposed by my 45. Based on your two statements - the existing Hide roll opposes all the spotters until I move, and if someone lets me keep trying to Hide I can Take 20 - do you see any problems with the process? -Hyp. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Can you "Take 20" to Hide?
Top