|
The line is if you're not in immediate danger, which at best falls into some weird Schrodinger's cat of you're theoretically not in danger if you make the stealth rolls but you can't make the stealth rolls if you're not in danger.
There's no ambiguity here at all. Other than the subject of the stealth check (dragon), if there's no distraction than you can take 10. The dragon, being the subject of the stealth check, is not in any way part of the equation as far as whether you can take 10 or not, as stated by SKR here:
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand.
Now just because he can take 10 doesn't mean he's automatically going to succeed or fail, which brings us to your next point:
What i think breaks this is, while it would be cheap on the part of the DM to have the dragon wake up at random (at which point blind sense kicks in and the stealthing rogue is just hosed), the rogue doesn't know he's playing a game ideally consisting of tough but fair challenges to his skill. For all the rogue knows the dragon could wake up at any moment to take a leak or head out for a midnight snack or double check an accounting error on his pile of gold.
The rogue made a take-10 based on what he thought was a dragon that was sound asleep. He doesn't get to know the DC, but that was his judgment call. In this case, turns out the dragon was a much lighter sleeper than the rogue thought and taking 10 wasn't good enough. So he blows his skill check and now has to deal with the consequences of an awake dragon.
That adds an element of immediate danger that i believe prevents someone from taking 10 without the rogue talent.
The danger was not external to the skill check in question. The skill check (the task at hand) is the only distraction. He's not in combat at the time of the skill check. SKR also elaborated on the climb check issue that you were so hung up on - in his example you would fail on a roll of 1 through 4, causing you to fall to the ground and hurt yourself. As long as that consequence for failure is still the only thing that you're worried about, it's the perfect and ideal opportunity to take 10. That's what the rule is for.
|
Can the dragon take 10 on Perception? if he can, can the rogue take 10 on perception?So the dragon takes 10 on perception, gets a 43. Dragon sees rogue.Yes, but if you're a 20th level rogue sneaking past a white dragon with the yolk sac still attached then you're not in danger either.It's not like you have to be a 20th level rogue to have a fairly ridiculous Stealth modifier if you're willing to go all-in on it.
Even the CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon has only +33 Perception. Getting +23 to hit that on a Take 10 on even a level 10 character isn't all that hard, and distance modifiers only make that easier and easier.
Yes.
So the dragon takes 10 on perception, gets a 43. Dragon sees rogue.Yes, but if you're a 20th level rogue sneaking past a white dragon with the yolk sac still attached then you're not in danger either.It's not like you have to be a 20th level rogue to have a fairly ridiculous Stealth modifier if you're willing to go all-in on it.
Even the CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon has only +33 Perception. Getting +23 to hit that on a Take 10 on even a level 10 character isn't all that hard, and distance modifiers only make that easier and easier.
Nope. He's -10 because we've already established he's sleeping.
And really, in most games a level 10 rogue is not going to be trying to sneak past a CR+9 dragon. The point is just that if you really want to be good at Stealth and you're willing to make the costly choices to do so, what would be hard or dangerous for someone else isn't, for you. A character that the dragon in question would actually be appropriately CR'd for could probably roll a 1 on his Stealth and still win.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nosig, I think those questions are way too broad. Most of them could go either way depending on the surrounding circumstances. Rather than trying to ask several broad questions to cover everything, you're probably better off asking a few very specific questions from which you can guess a likely ruling on similar situations. Relatedly, you also don't need to ask about any situations where you already know/believe that you couldn't take 10. Here are some suggestions:
1) The party approaches the entrance to a cave they were told to explore. Though there's no sign of trouble yet, the entrance is a hole and the floor of the cave is about 15-20 feet below. To get in safely, the PCs must either climb the wall or hop down with a DC 15 Acrobatics check to avoid falling damage. Can they take 10 on these checks?
2) The party has just defeated some bad guys in an unremarkable room. Having searched the bodies, they found a small, locked box. Either no one thinks to check for traps or everyone fails their attempts to do so - either way, the rogue believes the box to be entirely safe and decides to pick the lock. Can he take 10 on the Disable Device check?
3) The bard is trying to calm down some local NPCs who are angry and preparing to scapegoat an innocent NPC. They're still able to be talked to, but if the bard fares poorly with his Diplomacy checks, then before long things might start to take a turn for the worse and they might end up as a torches-and-pitchforks mob in a few minutes. Can the bard take 10 on these Diplomacy checks?
That's all I've got off the top of my head. Note how each one is specific enough that there won't be any wondering about other circumstances, yet tests a broad enough concept that you can apply the answer to other circumstances as necessary. Feel free to use those or create your own. Hope this helps.
EDIT: Ninja'd into oblivion. This post was regarding nosig's "Help me understand my GM's take 10 interpretation" questionnaire.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thank you Jiggy. It does help. I do not fully understand #2, but it is perhaps because I would have as my SOP to do the Perception check once the box is found. Some of my rogues could easily miss a low DC. And the judge would know that (I try to have on my Table tent what my Perception Bonus is.)
Well, it could also be that there ARE no traps, or that the trap is very well hidden and even taking 20 wouldn't find it. The point is to contrast with #1 (PCs know there's danger if they fail) by having a situation where they believe there's no danger in failing.
By the way, where do you play - I take a lot of road trips and might like to take you to your area just to improve the chance to play with you (or with people that play like you).
Twin cities, MN. My local venues of choice for PFS are The Source and Fantasy Flight Games.
BNW - plainly we have different playing styles. If you see me show up at your table PLEASE ASK ME TO LEAVE. I wont be offended. Promace.
I doubt its THAT different.
Your response to my attemt to avoid problems during play shows I would not enjoy playing at your table. I did not ask the questions to "exploit" your answer. I would be asking this so I know how to play for you.
And sitting in my living room,having some sense of the kind of questions you ask with nothing else on my mind, I believe you. Focused on a convention event and given a questionnaire out of the blue like that I'd spend at least 5 minutes trying to figure out how to use the answers to make pun pun emerge from his cocoon and level Tokyo, the adventure, and ruin the day for everyone. It wouldn't be personal but since there ARE players like that you HAVE to be on the lookout for players like that if you don't know who's playing. Just trying to warn you about why your questionnaire might get a few odd looks.
Just like it wasn't personal with the nice people at the airport who had to do things to me that it normally takes dinner, a movie, and several bottle of vodka to get to...
To establish style (because i'm feeling maligned here)
1) a Knowledge(local) and/or Diplomacy roll to Gather Information during the start of this adventure?
Knowledge no. For two reasons. First off taking 10 on knowledge checks is a bard ability.
Lore Master (Ex)
If they bothered to put in something as a special ability that tells me that its not how its supposed to work without that ability. (unless they screw up, which has happened *cough* polearm fighter)
Secondly i can't think of a mechanism for that working. I know how to put an average amount of effort into a climb or craft, but how do you do an average job trying to remember something? Either you were paying attention 10 years ago while reading "The Sparkly Death: Vampires and their methods" or you weren't. The effort you put into it now won't change anything.
Gather info yes. You don't push the questions too hard, you don't make people suspicious by buying the good beer etc.
2) Disable Device to open a lock?
Yes... unless it has one of those "fail by 5 and get hit" needle traps.
I would not make a player paranoid by assuming that the character is an idiot. I do not want to get into one of those "but i said i was looking for.... i specifically said i wanted to look under... arguments. I don't want to hear 15 minutes of someone describing the rube Goldberg contraption they're using to pick up miscellaneous candlestick number 71 on the dining room table.(If its the glowing black candlestick of gothic death on the other hand...)
Unless its the barbarian trying to pick the lock with his toung piercing, any character with ranks in disable device and the sense the gods gave a rutabaga knows to check the damn thing first.
3) Perception to check a room for "items of note"? (Traps, treasure, monsters, Secret Doors, Hidden Compartments, etc.)
-Sure.
4) Climb if not in combat? (not currently in Init).
-Usually. If you're not under any time constraints.
5) Disguise before leaving a "safe area"?
Yes, but i can see the argument otherwise. Disguise is kind of funny because its partially done putting on the costume with no stress or time constraints and partially done under stress (acting like the thing you're dressed as)
6a) Heal (while still in Init) to stablize a character (PC or NPC) "bleeding out"?
-No. You're in a race against time and by definition in a hurry.
6b) Heal (while not in Init) to stablize a character (PC or NPC) "bleeding out", or to render other medical uses (treat desease, poison, etc)?
Bleeding out- no. You're in a race against time.
Disease- Yes.
Poison- Hmmmmm... probably depends on the frequency and whether its con or not. If its not con poison I'd say yes.
Basically if you need someone to shout STAT the answer is no.
7) Intimidate or Diplomacy used on a helpless captive?
- Sure
8) Appraise while not in combat (not in Init)?
-Yes. Since keeping a secret list of how much the treasure is worth is double book keeping, most dm's seem to just cough up the value.
9) Acrobatics while not in combat (not in Init)?
-Sure. If you want to jump off the roof of the cottage onto the ground knock yourself out.
What i don't like about the (what i see as) overly permissive use of take 10 is that either i have to set the party up to fail by giving them less than a 50% chance of success, or there's absolutely no risk of them failing (in which case you're hiking, not adventuring)
I may want a party member to succeed 75% of the time at something they're good at... but don't want it to become automatic.
|
|
I know how the boards are going to answer it. I've started threads on this subject before. I want a procedure to figure out how each Judge will do it at his table in a timely a fashion as possible. I'm already working on the questionaire - I'd like to keep it as short as possible, perhaps I'll just start with a list of Skills and a check box for which I can't use T10 or T20 with.
Because a convention judge has plenty of free time and attention to fill out your survey? Your question is valid, I agree. And the use of this rule needs to be clarified loudly and publicly. But the rules are written by and used in practice by fallible humans. The convention time slot already has enough working against it without adding establishing surveys or questionnaires, continual rule disagreements, and other nonsense wastes of time. If a ruling is made, that's the judge's right. If said ruling is wrong but basically harmless, suck it up and move on. If it is damaging, then some discussion is acceptable. When I run a table I have one simple and public rule: If I make a ruling that is wrong, and it's in your favor, shut the [bleep] up. If it's not in your favor, call my attention to it and I'll check into it.
If a judge is a complete ogre and is out of bounds on rulings, it should be taken to the organizer or head GM. It is their job to keep their judges honest. Beyond that, sit down, play your character, kill the monsters, and have fun. Just make sure your preferred method of doing the above doesn't preclude the rest of the table from doing the same.|
|
No, I'm saying don't sit down at a table and hand the judge a questionnaire. Simply ask, "How do you do Take 10?" Then play by what he says. If you want to address things with the judge after certs are signed, be my guest. Just don't frontload the session with extraneous paperwork and possibly insult the guy who will direct the well-being of your character for the next 4-5 hours.
Every judge says "I play it the way the rules say." and then BigNorseWolf did. Like I was trying to pull something over on him.
So you're mad at me for warning you of a hypothetical... that you've empirically verified was the case?
You have to realize that the judge doesn't know YOU. People do not sit down at the table with "optimizer", "munchkin","kill kill kill!", "rules lawyer","I hug undead", "dual major roll/role player", "the bored friend" etc written in magic marker on their foreheads. If you're handing them a math problem "a donkey drawn cart leaving Absolom at 4 miles an hour..." they HAVE to sort through the thing (at a bad time) and make sure you're not trying to munchkin them. Once bitten twice shy.
Even with an innocent question/answer there's some mild rules exploits. For example, if you can take 10 on heal checks there's not much use having more than a +5 heal modifier.
"Can I take 10 on a perception check to see the ground after I am knocked over a cliff?" No. (that one got one of my characters killed, cause I made the mistake of saying "I'll cast Feather Fall when I see the ground" as I was falling into darkness with a continual torch.)
....? Ok, that dm needs a sunrod where the sun don't shine.
Most groups have individuals with different skill levels. The trick is to include DCs that some PCs will make with a take 10 (e.g. rogue, monk, ninja) while other PCs wouldn't succeed (e.g. fighter, paladin).
This has the added benefit of rewarding characters who develop particular skills, notably the rogue and monk who tend to be a little weaker in combat.
-Many skill checks either only need one person (such as a locked door) or
-Everyone can participate but 1 success in the group is as good as 4 (like finding the secret door)
Making other party members roll skills to advance, IMO, takes AWAY from the rogues success. The rogue can't help Sir ClanksaLot move silently, so if the party needs to sneak somewhere, the rogue is pretty useless.
I hate to say it, but the real/pragmatic answer to the problem is: you cultivate a reputation as someone who's fun to judge for. This gives you a better chance of having your pick of convention judges / a better chance of the good judges volunteering to take your table.
Being female and attractive produces pretty good results here, too -- but being cool/fun to judge for does just fine.
Too bad Judges don't have that choice to do that...I will avoid them because it is not fun to play at their table (NOT the same thing).
No? As a convention judge I've certainly said "Marshaller guy, give me table 12, they're a fun crowd" or "Send me somewhere that isn't table 8, that group will have more fun with a judge that isn't me."
But it's possible that I'm an a!%%$$% and other people wouldn't think of doing that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nosig, based on your stated goal, I suggest the following course of action:
No front-end questionnaire or anything. Instead, every time you want to take 10, just phrase it as a question: "Mind if I take 10 on this?"
If they say yes, announce your total. If they say no, then just say okay and roll it.
Nosig, based on your stated goal, I suggest the following course of action:
No front-end questionnaire or anything. Instead, every time you want to take 10, just phrase it as a question: "Mind if I take 10 on this?"
If they say yes, announce your total. If they say no, then just say okay and roll it.
Good call.
Nosig, I sympathize with you wanting to know exactly how things will run. I do. There are rules, and ideally, everyone would know them and follow them the same way. The problems is that people are animated sacks of meat on sticks. You've got some extremely well read people on these boards, who are familiar with most of the massive volume of PF material, and all the time in the world to research and post about it, and we all can rarely agree on things.
If I was a judge in a convention, and a player approached me with a rules questionnaire before the game, I would take it as a hostile action. I would refuse, and if the player stayed, I would be waiting for him to pull something all night long.
If he asked me "I like to use the take-10 rules a lot, is that ok with you?" I would say sure, and any time he's not in combat or whatever, let him take 10. I would be prepared for him to do so, and ready to overrule the newbie lawyer across the table who says it takes 10 rounds or whatever. (And if I wasn't familiar with that rule because no one ever uses it at my table, I would look it up real quick before we get started) And, on the occasion that the player and I disagree, I would expect the player to accept my ruling and get on with things.
Having a small printout available of the unmodified take 10 (and take 20) rules text would actually be handy, but don't whip it out until the DM asks for it or starts thumbing through a book.
How about a T-shirt with the T10 rule on the front (maybe with T20 on the back)?
Personally, I'd rather have a print from the PRD, or CRB photocopy, or even just a bookmarked page number. But that's more for readability than choice of format. (Also cheaper to update if they errata it!)
Perhaps I just need to go back to home games, or just judge all the time and give up playing in Organized Play.
This subject/thread has depressed me greatly.
=(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or perhaps some of us (starting with me and you, nosig) can begin campaigning for greater rules knowledge. We could make little pamphlets focusing on one topic or another, relating to commonly misunderstood (or overlooked) rules, or recent errata/FAQ text, etc. Maybe switch topics every month or two.
|
Just for the fun of it, I answered how I would rule it....
Can a character take 10 on...
1) a Knowledge(local) and/or Diplomacy roll to Gather Information during the start of this adventure?
Yes. Both rolls actually provide more information for higher rolls so you might be shorting yourself the potential for an important bit here or there.
2) Disable Device to open a lock?
Yes. Even if it is trapped. Danger is not a distraction if you're ignorant to it.
3) Perception to check a room for "items of note"? (Traps, treasure, monsters, Secret Doors, Hidden Compartments, etc.)
Usually not with one all-purpose roll... but yes. I break it up into what would seem to be logical search methods. I think you do different stuff while looking for a trap than when you're looking for a hidden treasure.
4) Climb if not in combat? (not currently in Init).
Yes. My wife is a rock climber so I'd never try to push the notion that she or anyone else, fictional or not, is going to fall on anything but the least difficult climbs (for her) about 5% of the time. Similarly, I worked in construction for about 10 years... all my falls were off the floor (contrary to Paul's Law).
5) Disguise before leaving a "safe area"?
It depends. Considering you don't get to roll until someone tries to penetrate your disguise (either actively or just via their familiarity with the person, or type of person, being impersonated, by then you're in danger... so, technically, you can't Take 10. But, IMO, you're rolling for something you did earlier so that seems to be a little too literal for my tastes. I would let the PC Take 10 if there were good reasons to (he had a kit rather than improvising something, mirrors rather than someone saying, "You look mahvelous!", etc.). If, on the other hand, he was using some dirt to make a beard or chucking two oranges in his shirt to appear as a woman, or something else equally impromptu, I think the value of the disguise is so arbitrary compared to the perception of the observer that he just can't Take 10.
6a) Heal (while still in Init) to stablize a character (PC or NPC) "bleeding out"?
No. The need to stabilize is the epitome of being in clear, present danger.
6b) Heal (while not in Init) to stablize a character (PC or NPC) "bleeding out", or to render other medical uses (treat desease, poison, etc)?
Depends. You can be in init but clearly not a part of the action. In fact, being in init is only a good measure, not the only measure of the danger to a character. More often than not, it indicates you're almost certainly in some kind of danger but there's always the odd case.
7) Intimidate or Diplomacy used on a helpless captive?
Yes. I'd have a hard time figuring out why not to allow it.
8) Appraise while not in combat (not in Init)?
Yes. I think GM's shy away from this because they think there should be an uncertainty factor and, seeing as the DC's are outlined for all to see, a player will figure out what he can safely appraise with Take 10 rolls and what he can't pretty easily. He'll only Take 10 when he thinks it will guarantee his success. I don't really see this as a bad thing.
9) Acrobatics while not in combat (not in Init)?
Yes.
Any suggestions?
I'm not sure if I'm liberal with Take 10 but I feel The d20 is generally too arbitrary to accurately reflect what someone should expect from their attempts.
Sorry for the tangent but... I remember, in the days of TORG, at some point we realized that anything we tried to do, no matter how good at it we were, was so dependent on the D20 that the best, most masterful plans could fail or the laziest, nonsensical plans could succeed based on the opening rolls. So we simply stopped trying. Why waste time planning when the results are that arbitrary? Cards would sorta help with that but, generally, as a scene started, you had no cards to play. WEG corrected that in Masterbook by using the same system with 2D10's instead of a D20. Maybe TORG was meant to be that wild and unpredictable. I just don't feel my Pathfinder game should be. So I really don't worry all that much about Take 10.
That D20 in TORG caused one character to be so securely held by a bear trap (terrible roll) that we decided it must be chained to the center of the earth... and, that same character mucking up the guidance of a heat seeking missile by lighting a roll of toilet paper on fire and throwing it out of his plane.
I can understand you desire to take ten when ever you can. As a DM/GM my self (even though it has been to long ago now if you ask me) the way I tend to handle it is this: If I call for a roll and you want to take ten
I will give one of three answers, Yes, No, or You may want to roll. I do this most generally for a reason with concern for game play.
Personally I am not a black and white sort of guy. Rules in my opinion often much up the play as much as dice roles as the arguing over them take over the table most often I fear and though I understand your intention for wanting to keep it all down I do not think a work sheet would be a good idea to give an often already taxed GM.
As a default though before getting a worksheet drawn up or a tshirt made I would say keep your d20 handy, I have a purple one myself in plain sight at all times just in case myself as a player. Though I may want one of those shirts myself for giggles.
I know this does not answer you original question but I do hope it helped a bit.
Game on playas.
It's all good, I was just weighing in with how I try and handle things both in front of and behind the screen.
4) Climb if not in combat? (not currently in Init).Yes. My wife is a rock climber so I'd never try to push the notion that she or anyone else, fictional or not, is going to fall on anything but the least difficult climbs (for her) about 5% of the time. Similarly, I worked in construction for about 10 years... all my falls were off the floor (contrary to Paul's Law).
Since you don't auto-fail skill checks on 1's, it's quite possible to be so good at something you can roll a 1 and succeed. (Even UMD only has special rules for a 1 when that results in a failure, with nothing special if it was successful.) So 5% failure rate isn't really relevant to the ability to take 10.
The rest of your answers I like, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that t shirt going very badly.
"But mr DM, i'm not in any danger!"
'Pull the lever cronk'
"Wait what leveeeeeeeeeeeeeeer"
|
|
4) Climb if not in combat? (not currently in Init).Yes. My wife is a rock climber so I'd never try to push the notion that she or anyone else, fictional or not, is going to fall on anything but the least difficult climbs (for her) about 5% of the time. Similarly, I worked in construction for about 10 years... all my falls were off the floor (contrary to Paul's Law).Since you don't auto-fail skill checks on 1's, it's quite possible to be so good at something you can roll a 1 and succeed. (Even UMD only has special rules for a 1 when that results in a failure, with nothing special if it was successful.) So 5% failure rate isn't really relevant to the ability to take 10.
The rest of your answers I like, though.
SKR on climbing:
The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.
The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I can see that t shirt going very badly.
"But mr DM, i'm not in any danger!"
'Pull the lever cronk'
"Wait what leveeeeeeeeeeeeeeer"
You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences.
|
I am surprised at the number of people both here and in games that think that a roll of 1 on a skill check is always a failure. There is no 5% chance to always fail at skills. By the same token, there is no 5% chance to always succeed at a skill.
For example.
DC 15 check to know which direction is North? If you have a 14+ survival, don't bother, you know North.
DC 20 Knowledge check and you have a 22 in that knowledge skill? Don't bother, you know it.
sneaking by a peasant who has a +2 wisdom mod and no ranks in perception and you have a stealth of 23? don't bother, even if you roll a 1, and they roll a 20, you sneak by.
DC 30 perception to locate a hidden object and the best character in the party has a perception of 6, don't bother rolling it, they are not going to find it.
I am surprised at the number of people both here and in games that think that a roll of 1 on a skill check is always a failure. There is no 5% chance to always fail at skills. By the same token, there is no 5% chance to always succeed at a skill.
For example.
DC 15 check to know which direction is North? If you have a 14+ survival, don't bother, you know North.
DC 20 Knowledge check and you have a 22 in that knowledge skill? Don't bother, you know it.
sneaking by a peasant who has a +2 wisdom mod and no ranks in perception and you have a stealth of 23? don't bother, even if you roll a 1, and they roll a 20, you sneak by.
DC 30 perception to locate a hidden object and the best character in the party has a perception of 6, don't bother rolling it, they are not going to find it.
But don't forget that new to Pathfinder is the rule that 1 on a Grapple check is an auto-failure and a 20 is an auto-success. In 3.5e they were checks like skill checks and there was no auto-success or auto-failure.
For the DC30 Perception check: don't forget aid another. Since there's no penalty for failing (in this case), and they can roll as many times as they like, sooner or later that guy with the +6 is going to get a 20 at the same time as his allies all assist.
|
|
I am surprised at the number of people both here and in games that think that a roll of 1 on a skill check is always a failure. There is no 5% chance to always fail at skills. By the same token, there is no 5% chance to always succeed at a skill.
For example.
DC 15 check to know which direction is North? If you have a 14+ survival, don't bother, you know North.
DC 20 Knowledge check and you have a 22 in that knowledge skill? Don't bother, you know it.
sneaking by a peasant who has a +2 wisdom mod and no ranks in perception and you have a stealth of 23? don't bother, even if you roll a 1, and they roll a 20, you sneak by.
DC 30 perception to locate a hidden object and the best character in the party has a perception of 6, don't bother rolling it, they are not going to find it.
But don't forget that new to Pathfinder is the rule that 1 on a Grapple check is an auto-failure and a 20 is an auto-success. In 3.5e they were checks like skill checks and there was no auto-success or auto-failure.
For the DC30 Perception check: don't forget aid another. Since there's no penalty for failing (in this case), and they can roll as many times as they like, sooner or later that guy with the +6 is going to get a 20 at the same time as his allies all assist.
In that case, sure, if they have the time for the party to take 20 on searching for it, then you have a new max roll (26+((number of players-1)*2)).
I could have used a better example for the fail, but I just could not think of one right off the top of my head other then that one. I figured that it still got the point over.