Disguise and taking 20

[Lord Pendragon]

Remember, you cannot 'fail' a disguise check.

The text of the Disguise skill itself contradicts you.

 

[domino]

This is how I rule it as well. IMO a PC can't ever know when they've achieved a 20 on an opposed roll. The rogue trying to set up an ambush can't keep Hiding until he finally says "yeah, this is as hidden as I can get." The bard can't keep redoing his makeup until he comes to a point where he can say "yeah, this is the best I can do." Especially since such opposed checks are partially governed by raw ability scores.

While I agree, taking 20 on a hide check doesn't work, I'd have to allow a 20 on a disguise check, if there's other people around. They can look at him, and tell what works, and say that he looks completely different from normal, and so on.

Obviously, that would be dependant on a bunch of things, like the other people's spot checks, but for expediancy's sake, I'd just allow a take 20 on disguise.

 

[Apok]

The text of the Disguise skill itself contradicts you.

You can only 'fail' if someone sucessfully sees through the disguise, an occurence which you have no real control over. There is no minimum number you must roll to achieve a sucessful disguise; you could roll a 1 and come up with a total of 5. Granted, it won't be a very good disguise (some fake glasses and a Groucho Marks nose), but it's still a disguise.


Or you could have a nigh perfect disguise on (25 or somesuch) and a curious peasant just happens to roll a nat 20. "Oy! I know you! You're the man who stole the crown jewels!"

So the success or failure of a disguise all depends upon the scrutiny and Spot check of others.

 

[Saeviomagy]

More like:

Or you could have a nigh perfect disguise on (25 or somesuch) and a curious peasant just happens to roll a nat 20. "Oy! I wish that had been an attack roll instead - shame that skill checks don't use auto-successes on natural 20s. Carry on!

 

[Geoff Watson]

Given that the spirit of the 'Take 20' rule was designed so that you could take extra time and precautions to do something right, I see no reason to not allow it for disguise checks.

'Take 20' was designed to streamline gameplay, for situations where the PC can keep trying failed skill rolls until they either succeed to realise that they can't succeed, such as searching for secret doors.

It's not so PCs can get a maximum result on any skill just by taking extra time.

Geoff.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree with the "grants bonus to skill, no taking 20" reasoning. I don't think you can take 20 on disguise, but taking a lot of extra time should render a bonus to the check (like, say, +2 per extra hour, max +6).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't allow take 20s on any opposed checks.

 

[Tatsukun]

I don't have a problem with PCs taking 20 on disguise (or even hide for that matter) when disguising (or hiding) someone else.

In game terms, person A is dressing / kaing up person B to look different. Person A rolls, then makes a spot check. If he sees something wrong (a bit of hair undyed, a mis-applied fake scar, or some such) he tries again. Actually, I'd be tempted to let person A keep disguising until he beats 20+ his spot check.

If you don't allow taking 20, you will just force your players to roll again and again until they do well. . .

For example: We have a group of three PC's.
Sneaky the Rogue has a total spot of +2, and a total disguise of +10
Bob the fighter has nothing for spot or disguise
Woodsy the ranger has a spot of +4 and no disguise.

Sneaky and Woodsy make up Bob (Sneaky rolls and gets a 10, gets +2 from Woodsy's assistance = total disguise result of 22).
Woodsy and sneaky really check the work out for a while (Woodsy takes 20 on a spot and gets a +2 from Sneaky - generates a 26)
Woodsy sees a miskate and points it out to Sneaky. They try the disguise again (Sneaky rolls again, gets a 17, total of 29)
Woodsy and sneaky look for a long time again (same 26) and see nothing wrong.

Doesn't this sound like taking 20 to you ?

It's not like Disguise is an often used skill in my game, so I don't mind PCs finding a way to be more sure about it.

-Tatsu

 

[Apok]

More like:

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...

 

[Apok]

'Take 20' was designed to streamline gameplay, for situations where the PC can keep trying failed skill rolls until they either succeed to realise that they can't succeed, such as searching for secret doors.

It's not so PCs can get a maximum result on any skill just by taking extra time.

Geoff.

Indeed.

Thank the good lord I wasn't just talking about any skill, eh?

You 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).

The only compelling argument that I can see for not allowing the Take 20 rule to apply to disguise is the fact that the check is made in secret by the DM, so if you took the Take 20 rule as literally making the check 20 times, it wouldn't mean anything since you aren't supposed to know the result.