Taking 20, Take 10

[radmod]

I don't really want my players rolling spot checks. Why? It alerts them that something is there or might be there.

Yes, that is always a problem. Like Hobo essentially said, players who metagame need to be punished. Severely.
When I start a new group I always give them one encounter that's a non-encounter. For example, in one world I've run several times, the PCs are walking down a road. I ask for their Spot info (I roll most Spots, etc.) and tell them they don't see anything. Invariably, they pull out weapons, ready spells, etc. The thing is there's NO encounter. They usually get the message. (One group wasted an hour before they realized there was no encounter.)

So...I want to figure a way around that.

You are suffering from a common fallacy of most new DMs. You do not give a Spot/Listen check at the earliest opportunity. Instead, you give a Spot/Listen check and adjust the encounter according to the roll(s). Refer to p.22 of the DMG. Also, if you have a 3.0 look at chapter 3 in it.
If the PCs roll well, then they see the ambush before they walk into it. "You see a guy 100' off pissing in the bushes, he finishes and skulks over to hide behind a tree."
If they roll just good enough, then they may be in the trap but aren't ambushed (no surprise round). "Just as you start walking between two low hills, you notice some pebbles come trickling down. What do you do?"
If they roll kind of poorly, then they are in the trap and get hit with a surprise round. "As you walk between two low hills, a couple of orcs pop up and start firing."
If they roll very badly, then they are in the trap at the absolute worst possible time. "As you walk between two low hills, twenty orcs pop up and start firing. Apparently, no one heard the orc Cleric who was chanting either."

Specifically, this is what I do:
1) Every party must have a default marching order. They should have one for 5' wide, 10' wide and open field (usually the 10' wide).
2) Constantly trying to be aware of your surroundings is fatiguing. If players attempt that, after a bit of time I fatigue them*. If they continue they start taking subdual damage and start 'seeing' and 'hearing' things that aren't there.
3) The party rolls Spot(s). I usually only allow the closest PCs to the encounter to make a check. If everyone can make a check I allow a single party roll.
4) As above, I adjust where the encounter occurs according to their spot(s). Players locations on the map are based on their current marching order (or default if no current).

*Note: The Quick Reconnoiter Feat provides a free Spot and Listen every round. I treat this as a sixth sense about danger rather than a constant attempt to be aware.

Second, your Taking 20 example brings up another issue that can be hard to handle. The Taking 20 result occurs after two minutes, and it is successful. But, the gobbies, seeing the human stair their way, decide to launch the attack after the human has stared their way for only 30 seconds.

Nothing says the Taking 20 actually occurs after 20 rounds. So what I do is give them a description based on the overall roll over the course of time.
"You've rolled a 32? Okay, at first you don't see anything but a lone goblin. Then three rounds later you see him motioning to another goblin. That guy leaves hurriedly and the first goblin starts to rummage around on the ground. It looks like he's picking up a weapon ..."
At any time, my players know to say "Wait!" and the encounter would begin at that point.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Personally, i simply use the Take 10 as the default check. If someone wants to roll, they can knock themselves out, but otherwise it's just a given that they perform at that level.

The basic approach is, if it's an "unstressed" situation then they get 10 + skill + whatever. Combat is a "stressed" situation. You've gotta roll.

I also don't tend to use fixed DCs; they bug me.

 

[irdeggman]

And...there's always that question: If a character can Take 10, then why isn't he Taking 20?

You can't take 20 on a Spot check - well even if you could it would do you no good because you automatically fail on the check during the checking process and you can't retry Spot without making it a move action instead of a reflexive one.

Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute

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, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

If someone is hidden to you (i.e., you failed your Spot check then they are invisible to you (Rules Compendium) and if they are invisible to you then they get a bonus on their Hide check - so it just keeps on getting more difficult to ejudicate.

I don't allow taking 20 on opposed checks becasue you have to fail before you complet the attempt.

Note that this autofail applies even if the character in question couldn't normally fail due to modifiers to his skill check - quirk of the rules.

 

[IronWolf]

Sometimes if it REALLY ruins a surprise, I often have multiple things they can notice in a spot or listen check. DC 8? A half-eaten dead ogre! DC 14? A black onyx gem worth 300 gp in the clutches of it's hands! DC 22? The dead ogre's decayed, lifeless eyes just looked at you.

This is a great way to handle checks that have the potential to ruin a surprise. Very cool.

 

[TheClone]

We "visualized" taking 20 as doing 20 tries. Maybe rolling twenty times or first rolling a 1, then a 2 and so on until 20. Maybe that helps judging when to take 20 and when not.

I guess in 3.0 taking 10 took twice the time compared to a regular role. But they revised that latest in 3.5. But I like that rule. It reflects applying care to the task. I'd apply that as a house rule. With that rule taking 10 often helps, but once you put up some time pressure it will not be used anymore.

 

[radmod]

You can't take 20 on a Spot check - well even if you could it would do you no good because you automatically fail on the check during the checking process and you can't retry Spot without making it a move action instead of a reflexive one.

Even though Irdeggman sort of corrected himself here I want to clarify the definitive statement.
You can take 20 on a Spot check. You just have to live with the consequences of your actions as the DM sees it.
Take as an example, you are viewing the enemy fortress from the distance. You take 20 and after two minutes (or more) of study you realize that there's a hidden double-barreled ballista.
OTOH, let's say you want to take 20 on a huge boulder. Yes, your take 20 would let you know that there is a gold vein in the rock, but it doesn't do you much good if the flying boulder squishes you dead before you've finished your take 20.

 

[irdeggman]

I guess in 3.0 taking 10 took twice the time compared to a regular role. But they revised that latest in 3.5.

Nope the rule was the same in both 3.0 and 3.5.

Taking 20 takes about 20 times the normal time and taking 10 only require not being rushed (3.0 ) or distracted (3.5) or threatened.

 

[irdeggman]

Even though Irdeggman sort of corrected himself here I want to clarify the definitive statement.
You can take 20 on a Spot check. You just have to live with the consequences of your actions as the DM sees it.
Take as an example, you are viewing the enemy fortress from the distance. You take 20 and after two minutes (or more) of study you realize that there's a hidden double-barreled ballista.
OTOH, let's say you want to take 20 on a huge boulder. Yes, your take 20 would let you know that there is a gold vein in the rock, but it doesn't do you much good if the flying boulder squishes you dead before you've finished your take 20.

You will autofail on a take 20 check.

So in case of Spot - if it is an opposed check (i.e., against a Hide check) you automatically fail to notice the hidden thing (or creature).

Note that the normal Spot versus Hide checks is reflexive and no action. If retrying or "actively" attempting to Spot it is a move action.

If you fail to spot someone Hiding then they are invisible to you (Rules Compendium pg 92).

No an ivisible creature gets a +20 on his Hide check).

So it is no different circumstances than when the check was first started - kind of real difficult to say that the Spotter is attempting the check over and over again when he is now looking for something different than he was before.

Spot checks at the beginning of an encounter or versus a set DC are not opposed rolls and even if you autofail the target DC does not change.

Oh and lloking for a gold vein in a bolder is probably closer to a Search check - which is an example of something that can commonly be done via take 20.

Basically IMO a Spot is a check to "notice" something while a Search is a check to get details on something.

For the bolder a spot check might let someone know that there is something different about that rock but a subsequent search check would reveal the veins and a knowledge check would reveil the information associated with the material.

 

[radmod]

I'm sorry, ir, but there are several problems with your post.

You will autofail on a take 20 check.

So in case of Spot - if it is an opposed check (i.e., against a Hide check) you automatically fail to notice the hidden thing (or creature).

From your earlier post

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, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

Presume that a 20 does eventually succeed (since technically the above rule is wrong if even a 20 would not succeed, e.g. a +5 Spot vs. a DC 30 hide check).
Yes, you will auto-fail, but you would also auto-succeed. For a spot check, this means you will fail to notice until you eventually see. So if someone is hiding from you, and a roll of 20 will allow you to see them, then if you look at that location for a full two minutes you will eventually see them even though most of the time you just don't see them. Now if they are aiming at you with a ranged weapon then it's up to your DM to decide if you see them before they surprise you. (I usually give a percentage chance depending on how long it takes them to fire, e.g. if they don't fire at you for five rounds then you get a 25% chance to not be surprised.)

Note that the normal Spot versus Hide checks is reflexive and no action. If retrying or "actively" attempting to Spot it is a move action.

I've never quite liked this part because, technically, it means if all you do is try to spot something then you can take 20 in a minute by making the equivalent of double spot checks a round (e.g. a double move).

If you fail to spot someone Hiding then they are invisible to you (Rules Compendium pg 92).

No an ivisible creature gets a +20 on his Hide check).

No, for two reasons.
1) The RC says:
"If you're successfully hidden ... that creature is treated as flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible."
This is all based on the 'if' statement. If you fail to see something then the hidden creature gets to treat you as if it were invisible. Likewise, you are not 'invisible' but 'treated' as invisible, which is discretionary. I'm 101% sure what they intended is simply for the purposes of things like combat or sneak attack. Not for the purposes of making another spot (the +20).
2) While taking 20 is treated as if it were rolling 20 times in 20 rounds, it is still a single check: "Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20."

While Take 20 does say if the check "carries no penalties for failure", quite frankly, I can't see any competent DM playing it any other way. The idea that just because you didn't see something the first time means that it becomes invisible to later checks is ludicrous. (Unless we're talking about car keys!)

Oh and lloking for a gold vein in a bolder is probably closer to a Search check - which is an example of something that can commonly be done via take 20.

I think you missed the 'joke' there. The idea was:
DM:"Something is moving toward you through the air."
PC: "Okay, I want a Spot check. Um, I'll take 20."
DM: "Ooookkaayy. You're taking 20. Hm, after a few seconds, you realize it's a boulder coming straight toward you. You also, curiously, notice that there's a streak of gold in it. As you ponder if that really is a gold vein, the boulder lands on you. You're dead. Next character."

 

[DumbPaladin]

Some great suggestions for you in this thread already, WaterBob. I think Radmod's is exactly how I'd approach it: it's best to train your players that you aren't always asking for checks for a reason. Give them spot checks whenever there's no encounter at all.

You could also always suggest a missed positive opportunity: the party rolls spot checks, but fails to make the DC: "Out of the corner of your eye, you notice a fey creature carrying an overly large and powerful looking magical wand wake up from her restful nap and vanish in a flash of light. She looked very friendly. It's too bad you didn't notice her earlier."

Hopefully they won't spend an hour waiting for the encounter after that.

But Radmod's suggestion is cooler.