| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking 20 on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon/small item on your person, so why not do this any time you have the time?
Say I'm a rogue with a +10 modifier and bulky clothing. I could hide my dagger (DC 34) or shuriken (DC 36) in such a way that your typical guard (warrior 3, +3 perception; according to the NPC gallery) is NOT going to find it, even if they themselves take 20 AND do a hands on search (getting a +10 circumstance bonus).
Even non rogues could do this without ranks (as stated in the Sleight of Hand skill). A nobody with a +0 modifier could easily have a DC 22, 24, or 26, making it extremely hard for said guard to find anything short of taking 20 with a hands on search.
So...why not do this?
If you have someone at hand to check you until he is satisfied, I see no reason why you shouldn't.
However, taking 20 is game shorthand for trying 20 times, until getting done it really well, assuming all results have been rolled once. Since you get no feedback how well you hid your thingies, you have no idea how well you did.
Now, if you have someone at hand who can double-check your Sleight of Hand results by searching you (taking 20 on his check), and telling you what gave you away, you could retry until getting the optimum result.
Of course, that would take time of (20 hiding attempts, each one countered by 20 search checks), or, in total, 400 pat-downs... do you have that much time on your hands?
I don't think the victim is going to allow to get 20 chances to take something from them.
RD I am going to assume this is one of your theoretical arguments instead of one of your real one.
I don't think the victim is going to allow to get 20 chances to take something from them.
RD I am going to assume this is one of your theoretical arguments instead of one of your real one.
Whoever said anything about taking anything from anyone? This is about concealing items on your person so that others can't find them.
I forgot it does that. Well in that case I guess it would fall in the line of whether or not someone can take 20 on stealth checks if they have time to set up. I would allow it(both of them). I don't know if it is rules legal though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So we established that many people think this perfectly fine.
Now...what about taking 20 to create a mundane disguise with the disguise skill? It would take FOREVER, but for certain critical missions, it may well be worth it. Like my examples with Sleight of Hand above, this may well result in a disguise that no conventional NPC will ever have a hope of penetrating (unless the disguise in question is a rather drastic departure from your normal appearance).
I'm fine with that too -- you take the several hours needed and I'm good with you doing so.
Honestly in my opinion disguise is a very poor skill over all though -- it covers too much and is too vague.
Honestly in my opinion disguise is a very poor skill over all though -- it covers too much and is too vague.
Really? I use it all the time to great effect!
|
Yep again I have no problem with this. If you have time enough to prepare, and the materials on hand to mess up (you'll need to buy 2 disguise kits because it's assumed you'll fail 19 times before coming up with that perfect disguise), then go for it.
Watch any heist movie: Planning and Preparation are the hallmarks of a good heist, this includes smuggling in specialized equipment (sleight of hand), disguising one's self as guards or members of staff (disguise), even practicing on a dummy version of the safe so you can crack it perfectly (take 20 disable device).
Now the fun comes when something doesn't go according to plan: A guard had Dwarf Bread for example and had to use the facilities earlier than his scheduled 10:45 visit. Suddenly the PCs need to start making stealth and bluff checks. The disabler can no longer take that 20 (due to stress and distractions) etc. This is where rolling comes in. Another PC jerry-rigs a plan to come in as another officer and relieve the guard in charge. (Grabbing a spare uniform and a quick disguise self spell to do the trick. He'll either have to roll or take 10 (hoping for the best)). The rolls come in when you don't have the ability to take time and resources to try again until you get it right.
|
I personally don't allow take 20 on disguises. This assumes that everything thing is perfect and under your control. I believe the dice represent things that are out of your control. Maybe something changed about the appearance of someone you are trying to mimic. Maybe the adhesive you used was not up to par and your fake eyebrow begins to come off as you are talking to someone and you are not aware. There are still things left to chance that the characters cannot control, no matter how hard they try.
|
|
Now, if you have someone at hand who can double-check your Sleight of Hand results by searching you (taking 20 on his check), and telling you what gave you away, you could retry until getting the optimum result.
IMO, this is a critical point-- and the way I'd enforce it for Sleight of Hand, Disguise, and any other check which, in the getting away with it, really depends on how someone else sees you rather than how you see yourself.
Take 20, sure if you've got the time-- and, like Midnight Angel suggests, someone else, presumably well-qualified in the skill in question, to double-check your work. 'Course I probably would allow a little time compression for groups doing this, on the grounds that 2 well-qualified characters are checking each others work as they also help each other with their disguises, hiding of gear, etc.
With this line of reasoning, I think you could remove take 20 from most skills.
Well, most opposed skills. I've found that many GMs are leery about taking 20 for a skill that will be used for setting the DC for an opposed skill check.
|
|
With this line of reasoning, I think you could remove take 20 from most skills.Well, most opposed skills. I've found that many GMs are leery about taking 20 for a skill that will be used for setting the DC for an opposed skill check.
It is also one of those skills where you don't know how good you did. You may think that disguise is spot on, but you may be off. I would offer a circumstance bonus for using additional time and/or kits to make it look better. It is in the same line as Disable Device for traps. That is a roll I do in secret, since you may think you disabled it, but it is really active. I will note that the character is not totally confidant with how well they did and they can choose to try again if they wish. I may not see dice rolls as a big deal since I play virtually most of the time and it takes no more time to roll.
My opinions on this may also be swayed by the fact I like rolling checks and having that element of chance in the game, as a player and a GM. My characters rarely ever take 10 or take 20. I would also prefer to roll my stats over doing a point buy (most or our GMs do point buy, so I rarely get to). I guess I am just endeared to the old systems and not this "everyone is built equal" and makes it more of a storytelling session rather than a game. I'd play White Wolf if I wanted that
I'm with Shar Tahl on this one. The Take 20 mechanic is for when there's no ill effects of a failed check.
For example, you're trying to pick an untrapped lock. You can just keep on trying over and over until you roll a 20. It's not like you'll unlock the door and go "oh what the heck, one more try."
On the other hand, trying to hide a dagger 20 times?
"I think I'll hide it in my sleeve."
"No wait, across the small of my back."
"Nah, down the front of my trous ... OW never mind."
"Yeah, in my boot'll be good."
Each time you try, you're hiding it again, and you should have no idea how well you've actually hidden it.
Now, you could Take 10 per the rules, hoping that your check was sufficient, but the rules for Take 20 specifically state there has to be no consequences for failure. It's the same reason you can't Take 20 to hide, or jump, or climb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
If you can take 20 on escape artist and finding traps then setting a perfect disguise by taking 20 doesn't seem so odd to me.
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).If you can take 20 on escape artist and finding traps then setting a perfect disguise by taking 20 doesn't seem so odd to me.
Like I said, it's skills that are used for setting the DC for someone else's skill check that GMs are often leery of.
Like escape artist?
Like escape artist?
?
How can you use Escape Artist to set another skill's DC?
You have me backwards -- it's a skill you can take 20 on to succeed at an opposed check with, not one that sets the DC (though I can come up with examples of those too I imagine).
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.
The DC of your Escape Artist check is equal to the binder’s combat maneuver bonus +20.
Varies. Making an Escape Artist check to escape from rope bindings, manacles, or other restraints (except a grappler) requires 1 minute of work. Escaping from a net or an animate rope, command plants, control plants, or entangle spell is a full-round action. Escaping from a grapple or pin is a standard action. Squeezing through a tight space takes at least 1 minute, maybe longer, depending on how long the space is.
To explain -- tying someone up while they are pinned or unconscious is taking 20 for all intents and purposes -- after all it's 20+your CMB.
Now ignoring that we can see this means that any check to escape is honestly an opposed check -- you are opposing their escape artist with your 'take 20' use of CMB.
What's more you can escape a grapple with an escape artist check... which is given as an example of a situation you can take 20 in (I fully agree this part is ridiculous but it is all still there -- RavingDork would have a field day if he actually thought about this).
You have me backwards -- it's a skill you can take 20 on to succeed at an opposed check with, not one that sets the DC (though I can come up with examples of those too I imagine).
You have me backwards. I've been saying that GMs complain about taking 20 on "active" opposed checks (ones that are used to set a target DC, like Disguise, Stealth and Sleight of Hand), not "reactive" opposed checks (like Perception and Escape Artist).
I don't allow taking 20 for most applications of opposed skill checks (I say most because I'm not convinced I've thought of all possible uses for them). Taking 20 isn't just taking 20 times as long. It's also trial and error. That's why you can't use it on anything with an immediate negative consequence - your first failure resolves the situation and not in your favor. In order to take 20 to conceal something on yourself (or disguise yourself), you'd have to validate all of the results up to 20, including the bad ones. And the only way to do that is to try to sneak the concealed weapon past the guard trying to find it.
If someone has really good idea or method for hiding something (or disguising themselves, setting up an ambush, whatever), that's a good time to use a circumstance bonus, not taking 20.
Why shouldn't it be allowed?
It shouldn't be allowed because taking 20 on a disguise is like those farces where the dude keeps coming back in different disguises trying to slip by the guard.
The Take 20 mechanism hand-waves those attempts because for something like trying to slip from bonds or trying to pick a lock, those initial failures don't matter.
If you're trying to fool someone, those failures do matter.
Edit: fixed important typo. SHOULDN'T, not SHOULD :)
Why shouldn't it be allowed?
Only one reason I can think of lies in the beginning of the second paragraph of "Take 20" in the pfsrd: "Taking 20 means you continue trying until you get it right." With opposing DC's, there is no rubric for "getting" it right, and therefore you don't know when the 20 happened (unless you have the opposition take a standardized check for every one of yours). Under normal circumstances, it just means you have passed, and the desired result occurs.
As far as RAW, I am not certain to its legality. The first paragraph says it is legal, whereas the second clarifies and makes it illegal (arguably) for checks where there is no way to "get it right."
So the failure of the bluff check to convince the guards you are who you look to be? After all Disguise only covers the looks not what you do.
Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Perception check results. If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.
It isn't even assumed they will get a check to see through the disguise!
What's more failure is fine:
Try Again
Yes. You may try to redo a failed disguise, but once others know that a disguise was attempted, they’ll be more suspicious.
So it's not initial failure that's the problem.
Why shouldn't it be allowed?Only one reason I can think of lies in the beginning of the second paragraph of "Take 20" in the pfsrd: "Taking 20 means you continue trying until you get it right." With opposing DC's, there is no rubric for "getting" it right, and therefore you don't know when the 20 happened (unless you have the opposition take a standardized check for every one of yours). Under normal circumstances, it just means you have passed, and the desired result occurs.
As far as RAW, I am not certain to its legality. The first paragraph says it is legal, whereas the second clarifies and makes it illegal (arguably) for checks where there is no way to "get it right."
However failing to find a trap should just as easily convince you there isn't one -- and there are important consequences for failing such a check.
However failing to find a trap should just as easily convince you there isn't one -- and there are important consequences for failing such a check.
Actually, there are important consequences to acting on the assumption that you got it right. There are no direct consequences for a single failed perception check. This is all, of course, beyond the point I was making, which is that you cannot "reliably" take a 20 on a check for which there is no indication of success. Though, this all changes if you have a spotter.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.
Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.
Perhaps one would be prudent to include the necessity of a discerning observing party, as such a party is present in your examples and would account for a "DC to beat."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.Perhaps one would be prudent to include the necessity of a discerning observing party, as such a party is present in your examples and would account for a "DC to beat."
Or... a mirror?
|
Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.
And that's how I made a half-orc look like a really tall gnome!
Or... a mirror?Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.Perhaps one would be prudent to include the necessity of a discerning observing party, as such a party is present in your examples and would account for a "DC to beat."
I generally find that one cannot be an impartial observer to one's own work. But of course this is only my preference and my appeal to such a standard can only be seen as a preference, not a vindicated ruling. Not without proper acknowledgement of course :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally find that one cannot be an impartial observer to one's own work.
I agree--I think an artist tends to be more critical of his own work, noticing little imperfections and shortcuts that a casual observer wouldn't notice or care about. "You're your own worst critic" holds true here.
But that's also the difference between someone who has 1 rank and someone with 10 ranks; the latter is probably a perfectionist... or so confident they become sloppy. ;)
Suddenly I am sensing the need for a "Masterwork Mirror" with the following description: "+2 competence bonus on disguise checks. Allows user to take a 20 on self-disguise checks."
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The take 20 rules are often scary to GMs.
"If my PCs can take 20 where will the fun come from?"
Well let's look at the rules. The PCs are attempting to infiltrate the Palace in order to assassinate the Vizier who has wrongfully taken over the kingdom. The PC assassin is a human rogue/assassin. Let's say 6/3 for 9 ranks of disguise. With other mods it's reasonable to say he has a +18 bonus. The assassin buys two disguise kits (one masterwork). He needs to get close to the Vizier and dresses as the Vizier's favored concubine. The vizier has a taste for elf girls.
Assassin takes 20 (including masterwork bonus), with penalties for gender and race means a total of DC 34 to detect the disguise. Rolls a 3 on the 1d3 so it takes about 600 minutes (10 hours) to perfect the disguise.
A lot can happen in 10 hours:
Complication
- have visitors or the vizier's policia show up. the assassin must scramble to hide his two disguise kits in the one round he has before opening the door (sleight of hand or stealth, no taking 20)
The PC now has a perfect disguise (thank goodness for gauze veils).
He then hides a poison blade, again taking twenty assuming max ranks etc we're talking about DC 35-38.
Now comes the tricky part. The PC needs to switch places with the concubine: can he talk her into colluding? Or will he have to knock her out and tie her up? There's an encounter there.
Assuming he finally works his way into the harem he needs to seduce the vizier with a sexy and alluring dance that reveals nothing but hints at more. This is an opposed perform (dance) check (against the other girls in the harem) with the winner going to the Vizier's room (wish you were a shadowdancer now eh)?
Assuming success again before being let into the Vizier's room again his guard (a lecherous monk named Ubu) needs to pat you down. He really enjoys his work: Taking 20. This is opposed to both the assassin's Disguise and Sleight of Hand DCs. Ubu knows the Vizier's harem on sight so he has a +4 bonus. Monks tend to have High Wisdom this could go either way.
But assuming the PC fast talks his way past the pat down he's finally in the Vizier's chamber. The vizier is eager to get up close and personal he knows the concubine "intimately". The Vizier brags about how he gained power and how he has the king locked up! Now the PC has a choice assassinate the Vizier or try to glean the location of the true king?
The Vizier decides it's time to get "intimate" at this point a perception check gets made, Vizier gets a +10 bonus on top of everything else. Let the PC ROLL FOR THE VIZIER.
There plenty of tension and opportunity for complications. Everything you need is right there in the room.
Or... a mirror?Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.Perhaps one would be prudent to include the necessity of a discerning observing party, as such a party is present in your examples and would account for a "DC to beat."
lol. You beat me to it!
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.
It says right here you can't take 20 when using disguise or hiding small objects... Why? Because there is a penalty for failure. Getting caught is a pretty big penalty. Sure the penalty doesn't happen till much later when you are trying to get past guards, but it is still a penalty.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.It says right here you can't take 20 when using disguise or hiding small objects... Why? Because there is a penalty for failure. Getting caught is a pretty big penalty. Sure the penalty doesn't happen till much later when you are trying to get past guards, but it is still a penalty.
Obviously, many of the initial posters don't see that as being a penalty. Why do you think that is?
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.It says right here you can't take 20 when using disguise or hiding small objects... Why? Because there is a penalty for failure. Getting caught is a pretty big penalty. Sure the penalty doesn't happen till much later when you are trying to get past guards, but it is still a penalty.
I would argue that the penalty refers to an immediate or direct circumstance brought about by a failed check. Not one that may or may not happen in the future, based on a DC that has not been set.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.It says right here you can't take 20 when using disguise or hiding small objects... Why? Because there is a penalty for failure. Getting caught is a pretty big penalty. Sure the penalty doesn't happen till much later when you are trying to get past guards, but it is still a penalty.
No worse than the penalty for not finding a trap and you can take 20 on that.
