Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?
|
Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?
I would have thought that you would suffer all of the penalties of rolling a 1, so...
Everyone would see you do it.Everyone would see that you had done it.
Everyone would see that you are doing it.
Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?I would have thought that you would suffer all of the penalties of rolling a 1, so...
Everyone would see you do it.
Everyone would see that you had done it.
Everyone would see that you are doing it.
I think the actual question is 'can I take 20 on Sleight of Hand, upstairs, alone, in the bedroom of the inn, to conceal a dagger on my person, and then when I go downstairs, take advantage of that 20 when the bodyguard frisks me for hidden weapons before I get to go talk to his employer'.
And in this case, I'd say yes. The 'conceal an object' portion of the skill is explictly opposed to someone frisking you, and you'd have to hide the item prior to being frisked for that to make any sense at all.
Of course, the person frisking you can take 20 on the perception check, too, if they are willing to perform an exhaustive search.
Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?I would have thought that you would suffer all of the penalties of rolling a 1, so...
Everyone would see you do it.
Everyone would see that you had done it.
Everyone would see that you are doing it.
This. In theory, you CAN take a 20 on opposed rolls, but you suffer all the consequences of rolling a 1. That means that everyone would know exactly what you are up to, which would qualify as a penalty for failure IMO.
You can't take 20 on Sleight of Hand by RAW;
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
This means that sense their is a penalty for Sleight of Hand(having what you are concealing found) you can't take 20 on the skill check.
Just like you can't take 20 on Disable Device for traps, for Disguise, etc.
Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?I would have thought that you would suffer all of the penalties of rolling a 1, so...
Everyone would see you do it.
Everyone would see that you had done it.
Everyone would see that you are doing it.I think the actual question is 'can I take 20 on Sleight of Hand, upstairs, alone, in the bedroom of the inn, to conceal a dagger on my person, and then when I go downstairs, take advantage of that 20 when the bodyguard frisks me for hidden weapons before I get to go talk to his employer'.
And in this case, I'd say yes. The 'conceal an object' portion of the skill is explictly opposed to someone frisking you, and you'd have to hide the item prior to being frisked for that to make any sense at all.
Of course, the person frisking you can take 20 on the perception check, too, if they are willing to perform an exhaustive search.
The problem with that is that without feedback, how do you know how well you hid the object? It is the same problem with taking a 20 on stealth to set up an ambush. You really don't know how well stealthed you are until someone attempts to perceive you. You really can't save up a 20 for an opposed check, because you have no way of knowing in character if you rolled a 20 or a 1. With picking a lock you know clearly when you succeed, with stealth or slight of hand, not so much.
I would go with if you took your time before you could get a +5 circumstance bonus to the opposed check, but you can't take a 20. There is a penalty for failure, and that penalty is being seen.
Hmm. I think it is possible to know 'how well' you are hiding something on your person, and taking 20 means you are doing it to the very best of your natural ability to do so, and checking your work.
Taking 10 on Sleight of hand means you aren't being observed, and just shove it somewhere you're pretty sure is hidden. If you can't take 10, then you shove it somewhere and hope for the best. If you have plenty of time though, and no one actively observing you, I'd allow the taking of 20.
A roll of '1' on Sleight of Hand isn't a failure, and in fact if a level 20 rogue with a 20 dex and 20 ranks of Sleight of hand can roll a 1 while putting a dagger in the folds of his cloak and get a 32 on his check... the level 5 guardsman frisking you with a +4 bonus could still fail to find the dagger on a roll of 20, it's not like a trap, where if you fail by enough, it is set off.
I think the actual question is 'can I take 20 on Sleight of Hand, upstairs, alone, in the bedroom of the inn, to conceal a dagger on my person, and then when I go downstairs, take advantage of that 20 when the bodyguard frisks me for hidden weapons before I get to go talk to his employer'.
And in this case, I'd say yes. The 'conceal an object' portion of the skill is explictly opposed to someone frisking you, and you'd have to hide the item prior to being frisked for that to make any sense at all.
Of course, the person frisking you can take 20 on the perception check, too, if they are willing to perform an exhaustive search.
This is exactly what I mean. It seems many of you read the subject title and not my post.
When I think of taking 20 to conceal something, I'm thinking of extreme measures like hiding something orally (as some drug mules sometimes do).
On the other end, somebody taking 20 to "search me" is likely doing a full blown strip/cavity search.
In the end, I mostly want to be able to keep a few spell components on hand when my spellcaster gets captured.
Marshall Jansen wrote:
Hmm. I think it is possible to know 'how well' you are hiding something on your person, and taking 20 means you are doing it to the very best of your natural ability to do so, and checking your work.
It also means you fail many times during the process meaning no taking 20 for any skill that has a penalty for failure.
Marshall Jansen wrote:
If you have plenty of time though, and no one actively observing you, I'd allow the taking of 20.
It doesn't matter if you would allow it, by RAW you can't take 20 if there is a penalty for failure, like having someone see the concealed object. Your opinion doesn't factor in for RAW.
So no taking 20 on skills that have a penalty to failure.
|
It doesn't matter if you would allow it, by RAW you can't take 20 if there is a penalty for failure, like having someone see the concealed object. Your opinion doesn't factor in for RAW.
So no taking 20 on skills that have a penalty to failure.
Taking a 20 for hiding a few spell components on himself when he is under no duress is a perfectly legal use of the skill assuming that he isn't trying to hide it when someone that would threaten him because of this is observing him.
|
|
I think that taking the time to hide something really well on your person would be better shown with taking 10 or a bonus on a roll.
Taking 20 would assume that you fail many times with someone else spotting. If you did have a spotter/searcher, I would have them take 20 on the perception check (assuming a lot of time to work with here), and have either that or your take 20 SoH check (which ever was lower) as the guards DC to find it.
For example:
You want to hid a dagger on you, you have a SoH skill of +15
your friend is acting as a spotter, and only has a perception of 6.
The DC to find the dagger on you would be 26 (since your friend cannot find the dagger at anything higher than that, you have no idea if it is truly hidden "better" or not.)
On the same note, if you friend has a Perception check of +20, they are always going to find it, and thus can give better feedback. So your dagger is hidden with a DC of 35.
Now, as I said, this assumes that you have a heck of a lot of time to work with.
Carbon D. Metric wrote:
Taking a 20 for hiding a few spell components on himself when he is under no duress is a perfectly legal use of the skill assuming that he isn't trying to hide it when someone that would threaten him because of this is observing him.
It not a legal use of Sleight of Hand, by RAW you can't take 20 on an action that has a penalty for failure, for concealing the object regardless of where you do it there is a penalty for failure. That penalty being someone either seeing you conceal it or later finding the concealed object.
Its the same reason you can't take 20 on Disable Device(for traps).
You can however take 20 for Disable Device(picking a lock), since there is no penalty for failure it just takes longer to pick the lock.
A penalty for failure refers to things like trying to climb a wall and falling off and breaking your neck.
I don't think this applies to sleight of hand. If it did, you could argue away taking 20 with any and all skills.
Failing a skill check is not in itself a penalty for failure.
You can't take 20 on pick locks if the lock is trapped. Or if there is a penalty for failure (like a guy standing behind you with a dagger saying that if you don't open that lock 'RIGHT NOW' he's gonna gut you).
EDIT: In other words, taking 20 is highly situational. The only way I'd let you take 20 on concealing something on yourself is if you had (as stated above) someone testing you after each attempt by trying to find it.
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved. Even with a "spotter", you are still just practicing. It is only "in the field" that you find out how good your attempt really was.
That having been said, the DM should award significant bonuses for having a helper or two (aid another) and for taking extra time/care (circumstance). The total bonus probably shouldn't exceed 5 or 6, tho, in the absolute best of all possible circumstances.
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved. Even with a "spotter", you are still just practicing. It is only "in the field" that you find out how good your attempt really was.
That having been said, the DM should award significant bonuses for having a helper or two (aid another) and for taking extra time/care (circumstance). The total bonus probably shouldn't exceed 5 or 6, tho, in the absolute best of all possible circumstances.
That's why I'd just allow the take 20. Take 10 with a +6 or 8 is basically the same, but just allowing the take 20 with a helper is easier and quicker than figuring out all the bonuses. Mainly it's just a speed things up aid.
Here's a different spin on the question. Does your character know precisely how successful s/he is at the action? If so, then you should be able to reroll a d20 until you get a result you like. If you can do that, that's a brute force way to take 20.
If you allow for rerolls without a "spotter" on Sleight of Hand to improve how well something is hidden, then taking 20 is a shortcut to rolling the dice, which is exactly what it is meant for.
If a character can't tell if they did a good job with Sleight of Hand, then there's no rationale for attempting it again (all attempts are equivalent to them), and you shouldn't be able to take 20.
If you have a "spotter", I'd think it would actually be pitting your Sleight of Hand vs. their Perception to see if they found the item. If they do, in game, your character still may not know if they got lucky, or if you did a bad job. But, I see no harm in having your character keep retrying to hide an item until all of the "spotters" fail to find it.
I generally don't allow 3.5 material into my Pathfinder games, but we can still use some of their precendants. I recall in the 3.0 discussion of taking 10 and taking 20, it gives and example of taking 10 on a hide check to set an ambush my making sure you are adequately hidden and covered. It implicitly states that taking 20 on a check is not an option. That's a guideline I (personally) still go by, and I think it would apply here. I'd say you've got a strong argument for taking 10 on your SoH in such a case, but definitely not 20.
|
You can't take 20 on Sleight of Hand by RAW;
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
This means that sense their is a penalty for Sleight of Hand(having what you are concealing found) you can't take 20 on the skill check.
Just like you can't take 20 on Disable Device for traps, for Disguise, etc.
Escape Artist: Unless there is some penalty for failure, or you are on a time constraint.
Disable Device: With an untrapped lock, sure. The door is locked, you use DD, and its still locked? Well do it again? You use DD to make sure that a bridge is secured enough for everyone to cross, as per the situation in on Adventure Path, your not going to know if you did it well enough until your on the bridge, therefore, youd have no reason to think you did it badly the first time, so why do 19 more tries?
Perception: If you look once, you arent going to know whether or not you missed anything, so your likely, in many cases, to only look once, not 19 more times.
@ Marshall Jansen, raegarding the 'taking 10 means you shoved it someplace and hoped for the best': I would say taking 10 implies you hid it in your normal hiding spot, someplace you think is well hidden. Just shoving it someplace and hoping for the best is just making a roll.
And, as per the topic...no, you cannot take the 20, and even if you did hide something in a body cavity...1. Gross...2. Yea, still gross...
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved.
Funny. I can't seem to find the rule that says that anywhere.
Would you mind helping me find it? :P
Is there anything preventing me from taking a 20 on Sleight of hand checks to conceal something on my person, such as a spare spell components or a dagger?
mechanically: Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Since you don't get searched 20 times and take the penalty for that (being thrown in jail from the sound of it) you can't take 20 on the check.
role playing wise: you know where your DM is going to insist where it is, and you really really don't want to go there.
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved.Funny. I can't seem to find the rule that says that anywhere.
Would you mind helping me find it? :P
I think this really boils down to a DM judgment call. Can a character, in game, determine the quality of the result for things he can try again in private (reapply a disguise, find a better hiding spot in an empty room, better conceal an object, etc)? If yes, then roll till you get a 20 (aka Take 20). If not, then take 10 or roll once and accept the result, since all outcomes are equivalent as far as the character can tell.
I would say. you can't take 20 on this check. It sounds to me like this falls into the same category as a disguise or a forgery, where the DM should make a secret roll because the PC doesn't really know how successful he is.
Now that said, you could have the person hide the item, then have another PC (the spotter) roll an opposed check, (maybe even taking 20 on a through search check) against the PC hiding the item, to see if he can find said item. That way he can kinda figure out if his roll was bad or not.
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved.Funny. I can't seem to find the rule that says that anywhere.
Would you mind helping me find it? :P
I think this really boils down to a DM judgment call. Can a character, in game, determine the quality of the result for things he can try again in private (reapply a disguise, find a better hiding spot in an empty room, better conceal an object, etc)? If yes, then roll till you get a 20 (aka Take 20). If not, then take 10 or roll once and accept the result, since all outcomes are equivalent as far as the character can tell.
I'm beginning to think that too as I can't find this rule that Jake speaks of.
I would say. you can't take 20 on this check. It sounds to me like this falls into the same category as a disguise or a forgery, where the DM should make a secret roll because the PC doesn't really know how successful he is.
Um... why can't a forger try 20 times (using 20 times the amount of resources and time) and then pick the most authentic look piece of the bunch?
I would say. you can't take 20 on this check. It sounds to me like this falls into the same category as a disguise or a forgery, where the DM should make a secret roll because the PC doesn't really know how successful he is.Um... why can't a forger try 20 times (using 20 times the amount of resources and time) and then pick the most authentic look piece of the bunch?
Because the PC is assumed to use the best of his abilities on the forgery, only crazy people make 20 copies of a document they are happy with the first time. The skill itself notes that you don't actually roll the check for your forgery until someone examines it. But there are no rules that another PC couldn't try to vet it for you with his own opposed roll before you let any NPCs view it.
If this weren't the case then every PC could just take 20 on every forgery, making every forgery successful to the casual glance that a normal person would give a document. This way there is a chance for failure.
You cannot take 20 on opposed rolls, no matter the time/help/practice involved.Funny. I can't seem to find the rule that says that anywhere.
Would you mind helping me find it? :P
Its derived from the needing to take the results of the failure clause, and a pretty good rule of thumb for when you can/can't take 20. Since you can't take the results of failure every time someone rolls (each roll is a different dc with a different result) you can't take 20 against it.
There's no rule that states that the PC is automatically happy with the result of any check. There's no blanket rule stating that you can only make a certain check once; in fact, the rules specifically state that you can try a Sleight of Hand check more than once. In fact, the very existence of the Take 20 rules implies that not only can a character retry checks without checking for success or failure first, but that they are not automatically satisfied with any single attempt at a skill.
Here are the rules for Take 20:
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. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. 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 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Failing a Sleight of Hand check made before being observed does not incur penalties for failure before the character could complete the task, and the scenario in question gives plenty of time and a distraction-free environment. Thus, yes, in the scenario presented, the character could Take 20 to hide spell components on his person. Note that if he was not trained in Sleight Hand, his maximum result would still be 10 (untrained Sleight of Hand checks are capped at DC 10, like Knowledges).
Note the bold there: the key isn't "is there a penalty for failure?". The key is "is there a penalty for failure in the process of making the check?" as in, if I fail will the trap go off, will I fall off the wall, will I lose my balance and fall into the fiery lava pit. Not as in will I maybe get a penalty to an undetermined and possibly never-to-happen future check (which only debatably applies anyway).
I'm inclined to disagree. Taking 20 assumes the character simply tries a task over and over again to get it right. This is one of those checks that assumes a character is pleased with their result regardless of what the actually roll is - as far as they're concerned, they've done their best. It's not feasible for a character to "masterfully" hide an item on their person, then decide "Nope! Something tells me they'll find that!"
Yes, the immediate consequences of a low roll aren't apparent, but the PC cannot immediately accertain the consequences of such a check, nor can they tell with any certainty that they've suceeded. The nature of the opposed rolls makes these things all relative, unlike trying to shove open a door or vault over a short wall. In these cases, you've either done it or you have't, and this type of "yes or no" check is what taking 20 is for. When you're hiding an item, yes, you've hidden it on a 4 - you just haven't hidden it very well.
I'm inclined to disagree. Taking 20 assumes the character simply tries a task over and over again to get it right. This is one of those checks that assumes a character is pleased with their result regardless of what the actually roll is - as far as they're concerned, they've done their best. It's not feasible for a character to "masterfully" hide an item on their person, then decide "Nope! Something tells me they'll find that!"
Can you provide any rules support whatsoever for this position? As far as I can tell, you're totally wrong. Linguistics specifically points out that checks to create or identify forgeries are made in secret because the character cannot know how well they did. Ditto with Disguise. Sleight of Hand has no such text.
Note that if he was not trained in Sleight Hand, his maximum result would still be 10 (untrained Sleight of Hand checks are capped at DC 10,...
Actually, that's wrong in this specific instance (I know cause my untrained wizard checked). :P
"Untrained: An untrained Sleight of Hand check is simply a Dexterity check. Without actual training, you can't succeed on any Sleight of Hand check with a DC higher than 10, except for hiding an object on your body."
What I should have said was, "In almost every conceivable situation, you can't take 20 on opposed rolls." There are some very corner case situations where it might be allowed.
Similarly, if a check’s success or failure depends on
another character’s opposed roll, both sides have to roll when
that opposition occurs—you can’t take 20 and “save up” the
maximum result. If you hide in the bushes to attack a group of
orcs that will walk by later, you can’t take 20 on the Hide
check, since the success or failure of your Hide check isn’t
resolved until the orcs make their Spot checks. You can’t take
20 on a Use Rope check to tie someone up, since you don’t
really know how successful you’ve been until that enemy tries
to struggle free.
No matter how many times you practice your skill in front of a mirror or with a friend, you cannot know how well you've actually performed until your opposition gets to roll their check.
Again, bonuses for aid another and possibly a circumstance bonus for a hidden compartment (or something similar)? Sure. Achieving your absolute best possible outcome, the best that you can absolutely possibly do, just because someone is there to check your work? No.
Taking 20 is meant as a convenience to save game time, not to encourage abuse. The RAW supports it, the RAI supports it, and the 3.5 FAQ supports it.
We are all, of course, free to run things as we see fit, but I think the rules are pretty clear on this one.
Taking 20 is meant as a convenience to save game time, not to encourage abuse. The RAW supports it
(assuming you mean "Taking 20 on Sleight of Hand to hide an object on your person isn't allowed by the rules" in the above, as otherwise it's nonsensical to the discussion at hand)
False. See my post above. Nothing in the rules prevents the scenario described in the original post. Sleight of Hand is NOT a secret check which the player isn't allowed to know the result of (as Linguistics and Disguise are). It is NOT rolled only when the opposition is made (as Disguise is). There are no penalties for failure that occur before the act is complete. There are no distractions to the check and there is enough time. Thus, the RAW fully support taking 20 on a Sleight of Hand check to hide an object on your person when you are not being observed.
Seriously, think about it. It makes perfect sense. When you're being watched by the town guard, you can't pull down your pants and tie your spell component pouch between your buttocks without drawing undue attention to yourself, despite it being an essentially foolproof method of hiding the pouch from sight. When you are NOT being observed, however, you're still aware that it's a mostly foolproof method and you're more than able to shuck your pants to secrete away your spell components.
Works in RAW? Check.
Makes sense logically? Check.
Where's the problem, again?
What I should have said was, "In almost every conceivable situation, you can't take 20 on opposed rolls." There are some very corner case situations where it might be allowed.
Similarly, if a check’s success or failure depends on
another character’s opposed roll, both sides have to roll when
that opposition occurs—you can’t take 20 and “save up” the
maximum result. If you hide in the bushes to attack a group of
orcs that will walk by later, you can’t take 20 on the Hide
check, since the success or failure of your Hide check isn’t
resolved until the orcs make their Spot checks. You can’t take
20 on a Use Rope check to tie someone up, since you don’t
really know how successful you’ve been until that enemy tries
to struggle free.
I might continue to run it differently (as I have no problem needing a master spotter to spot a master spy's hidden contraband), but the FAQ is enough for me to know the official intent of the rules.
Thanks for posting it.
No problem, RD. Glad I could help.
Technically this 3.5 FAQ doesn't translate as easily as you would first think. Since there is no more use rope skill, the actual formula for tying someone up is....20+CMB. That's very similar to taking 20 with CMB as an adder to determine the difficulty. I'm going to have to agree with Zurai in that a take 20 situation for sleight of hand would be possible.
|
If you really wanted to do this, you weren't bothered about incurring the ire of your GM, and you have another PC to help (and an hour or so in game) you could literally keep rolling until you got a twenty.
Standard Action (10 Seconds) roll Sleight of Hand while other PC has back turned.
20 x Move Actions (1 minute) other PC takes 20 on Perception check to search for item.
Choose another PC with a lower Perception modifier than your Sleight of Hand modifier and you keep repeatng the above until he doesn't find the item (i.e. you roll a 20 or maybe an 18, 19 and he can't find it with a take 20). Then you just leave the item where you hid it.
If you don't have another PC with a Perception modifier less than your sleight of hand you could just repeat the above until you roll a 20, and although the other PC would still find the item they would likely be able to report that it was your best hiding place yet. Of course the GM may rule that finding the item means removing it from its hidin place, and replacing it would require a new Sleight of Hand check :)
And of course some GMs may hate you for this :) But do it only occassionally (e.g. when trying to smuggle spell components into a prison) then it seems reasonable, and a reasonable GM will just let you Take 20.
If you really wanted to do this, you weren't bothered about incurring the ire of your GM, and you have another PC to help (and an hour or so in game) you could literally keep rolling until you got a twenty.
Standard Action (10 Seconds) roll Sleight of Hand while other PC has back turned.
20 x Move Actions (1 minute) other PC takes 20 on Perception check to search for item.
Choose another PC with a lower Perception modifier than your Sleight of Hand modifier and you keep repeatng the above until he doesn't find the item (i.e. you roll a 20 or maybe an 18, 19 and he can't find it with a take 20). Then you just leave the item where you hid it.
This is brilliant cheese! Here's a twist so you can handle all of the details in-game, without discussing skill modifier by the players.
Step 1 - PC takes 10 and hides the object on his body
Step 2 - Rest of party takes 10 and tries to find the object
Step 3 - Take a PC that succeeds. He becomes the spotter
Step 4 - PC rehides the item, taking 10
Step 5 - Spotter moves another 10' away, which reduces his perception by 1, and takes 10 to spot
Step 6 - Repeat 4 & 5 until the spotter can no longer find the object. Now Sleight of Hand = Perception + 1
Step 7 - PC rolls to hide the object
Step 8 - Spotter takes 20 to find the object. If spotter succeeds, go back to 7.
Fully legit by RAW, but time consuming in and out of game. I'd probably cut to the chase and say it takes 1 hour to perform such a dance and move on. You have a 78.5% chance of rolling a 20 in 30 tries, and taking 20 to spot takes 2 minutes.
I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but I thought I'd chime in for those (like me) who come across this thread by searching the forums:
I don't understand why it's been suggested someone else is required to Take 20 on a Sleight of Hand (SoH) check.
The character using SoH ALSO HAS Perception! They can evaluate how well the item is hidden with their own Perception checks. Also, since a Perception check is a Move Action and a SoH check is a Standard Action, both actions can be performed in the same round, allowing one to Take 20 on BOTH Skill Checks simultaneously, within the same 2 minutes.
So, a character tries to hide a dagger in their boot, and frisks their own boot to see if they can find it. They do, and reposition the dagger slightly to make it harder to detect, but they find it again. The character fails to hide the items multiple times, as per the Take 20 rules, as they Perceive the quality of their own work throughout the 2 minutes.
Am I crazy? It says "Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone observing you or of anyone frisking you." Why can't that Perception check be your own?
:Byronus