Disguise and taking 20

[Lord Pendragon]

can take 20 on any skill provided that you have enough time and that there is no immediate or direct penalty for failure. Basically, you're tweaking your disguise until you get it just right (rolling all those checks until you finally score a 20).

But there's more to a Disguise check than makeup. A part of it is attitude and acting ability, which is why the key attribute is Charisma, rather than Wisdom or Intelligence (for noticing discrepancies in the makeup). Disguise is a presentation, only part of which is the actual physical disguise. I'd go so far as to say that ranks in Disguise only partially represent a skill with makeup, but also represent the ability to act the part.

That said, how can a PC know how effective his Disguise will be, until it's put to the test in an opposed check? How can he know his makeup is worth a '20', when the makeup may only be a third-part of what makes up a perfect roll? In his repeated attempts to perfect his makeup, he could actually make it worse. God knows that as a part-time thespian myself, I've scrapped a makeup job only to do a worse job afterward.

For these reasons, I don't allow one to take 20 on Disguise. I don't make the roll myself, because I like to allow the PCs to make as many rolls as possible. But I do require they make the roll only when it becomes relevent (iow opposed).

 

[Ottergame]

I would give even lowly peasants at least a +5 modifier to their Spot checks. Gotta watch out for those unruly children and stray animals, y'know...

That's being a little to generous, are you saying every first level peasent in your game has a 12 wisdom and max ranks in spot?

 

[Ottergame]

oh, and taking 20 does NOT mean someone does 20 times. It means they try something ONCE, and take extra special precautions to do it as perfectly as they can.

 

[Tatsukun]

oh, and taking 20 does NOT mean someone does 20 times. It means they try something ONCE, and take extra special precautions to do it as perfectly as they can.

I disagree there. It takes 20 times as long becasue you are doing it 20 times. That's also why you can't do it for things where there is a penalty for failure.

Taking 10 means you are doing your best not to mess up, taking 20 means you are doing it over and over until you get it right.

-Tatsu

 

[mikebr99]

oh, and taking 20 does NOT mean someone does 20 times. It means they try something ONCE, and take extra special precautions to do it as perfectly as they can.

Really???

I beg to differ...

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. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure (for
instance, a Disable Device check to disarm a trap), your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task (in this case, the character would most likely set off the trap). Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open
Lock, and Search.

Mike

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree there. It takes 20 times as long becasue you are doing it 20 times. That's also why you can't do it for things where there is a penalty for failure.

Taking 10 means you are doing your best not to mess up, taking 20 means you are doing it over and over until you get it right.

-Tatsu

I think this is a myth. It does take 20 times as long, but it doesn't actually involve doing it 20 times to get it right (just "many" times, involving "many" failures, but not TWENTY times). That last part is just something people have repeated long enough so that others believe it is the case, despite the fact that it was always closer to a potential explanation or an analogy, and not what actually is reprsented by the rules.

 

[mikebr99]

I think this is a myth. It does take 20 times as long, but it doesn't actually involve doing it 20 times to get it right (just "many" times, involving "many" failures, but not TWENTY times). That last part is just something people have repeated long enough so that others believe it is the case, despite the fact that it was always closer to a potential explanation or an analogy, and not what actually is reprsented by the rules.

No myth... please see my post above.

Mike

 

[Lord Pendragon]

No myth... please see my post above.

Actually, Mistwell is technically correct. Reading the cite you provided, I cannot help but notice that nowhere does it say you are assumed to perform the task 20 times. It merely states that it takes 20 times as long, and that you're assumed to do it "many times." The cite never equates the 20x time requirement of "taking 20" with actually performing the task exactly 20 times, which is what Mistwell was pointing out. It seems that a lot of people read the cite and think 20x the time = 20x the attempts, which is not technically what's being said.

 

[mikebr99]

Actually, Mistwell is technically correct. Reading the cite you provided, I cannot help but notice that nowhere does it say you are assumed to perform the task 20 times. It merely states that it takes 20 times as long, and that you're assumed to do it "many times." The cite never equates the 20x time requirement of "taking 20" with actually performing the task exactly 20 times, which is what Mistwell was pointing out. It seems that a lot of people read the cite and think 20x the time = 20x the attempts, which is not technically what's being said.

Sure... it's says...

In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding.

It could take 20 rounds... it could take 2... but at some point over the 2 minutes (=20 rnds.) the mechanic assumed you've rolled a 20 on the dice.

Mike

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Sure... it's says...

It could take 20 rounds... it could take 2... but at some point over the 2 minutes (=20 rnds.) the mechanic assumed you've rolled a 20 on the dice.

Right. And my point in an earlier post was that the PC/player can't tell when that 20 was rolled. It could have been the fourth try, with the final try being a 12. Since the physical disguise is only a part of the totality of a Disguise check, and the PC has no idea what it might be that spoils his attempt (only the Spotter would know why the Disguise went wrong), the PC cannot stop his attempts at the 20.

This is my rationale for all opposed checks. With an Open Lock check it doesn't matter when you score that 20, only that you do. With a Disguise check, your last attempt is the only one that counts.