What's the DC to find my stuff?

[N N 959]

Ravingdork wrote:

Seems to me you are deliberately misreading my posts, N N 959.

I did not claim that a penalty for failure was the same as not succeeding. I was implying that, that's what was being said by others.

What's more, you have utterly failed to point out where Sleight of Hand rules, or the opposed check rules for that matter, explicitly states that you can't take 20.

I am not misreading your post. I'm refuting the arguments that you are putting forth. It is irrelvant if you are attributing them to others.

I don't have to show you a rule that explicitly says you can't Take 20 because the Take 20 rules define the conditions that preclude Take 20. SoH used to hide an object runs a foul of the penalty for failure clause. Every skill is precluded from using Take 20 if you don't have time, by your logic, I can still Take 20 because the skill doesn't "explicitly" say I can't take 20.

As was stated in the 3.5 text that you found convincing earlier, you don't get to "save up" rolls on opposed checks.

[Dave Justus]

Ravingdork wrote:

What's more, you have utterly failed to point out where the Sleight of Hand rules, or the opposed check rules for that matter, explicitly states that you can't take 20.

Take 20 says you can't do it if there is a penalty for failure. Sleight of Hand explicitly has a penalty for failure.

What part of that is confusing?

[Ravingdork]

I edited my previous post.

N N 959 wrote:

Every skill is precluded from using Take 20 if you don't have time, by your logic, I can still Take 20 because the skill doesn't "explicitly" say I can't take 20.

Not really what I was trying to say, or even imply, but seems to be a fair point nonetheless.

[Ravingdork]

Dave Justus wrote:

Take 20 says you can't do it if there is a penalty for failure. Sleight of Hand explicitly has a penalty for failure.

What part of that is confusing?

If it's so clear to you, please explain to me what part is the penalty for failure.

[Dave Justus]

From sleight of hand: Retry? Yes, but after an initial failure, a second Sleight of Hand attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10.

[Ravingdork]

Dave Justus wrote:

From sleight of hand: Retry? Yes, but after an initial failure, a second Sleight of Hand attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10.

Except there is no target when trying to conceal something on your person while unobserved. Therefore the quoted text does not apply.

Furthermore, the skill itself explicitly states it is opposed only while being observed:

When you use this skill under close observation, your skill check is opposed by the observer's Perception check. The observer's success doesn't prevent you from performing the action, just from doing it unnoticed.

Note the first sentence before the first comma? That's a qualifier; it needs to be met before everything after the comma can be true.

If you make the check while unobserved, it is not an opposed check, and you may therefore take 20.

EDIT: And I'm still not convinced that, RAW, you can't take 20 on opposed checks in any event (at least, not as a general rule).

[Dave Justus]

The hide object section has 2 things in it:

1) palming something like a coin
2) concealing an object on your person.

The 'under observation' the you just quoted is part of the first one.

When you continue reading to where it starts talking about hiding an object on your person it says: "Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone observing you or of anyone frisking you."

Therefore, it is opposed, unless no one tries to find it, in which case it doesn't matter.

If you conceal a dagger in your clothes, with sleight of hand and no one is watching you do it, no one is going to see the dagger, no matter what (well baring x-ray vision or something where the clothes are not going to be a factor.) If they frisk you though, it is an opposed check.

[N N 959]

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: And I'm still not convinced that, RAW, you can't take 20 on opposed checks in any event (at least, not as a general rule).

There isn't a RAW rule that you can't Take 20 on opposed check, it's the nature of the opposed check that trips the restrictions on Take 20 and usually Take 10.

First, there's a RAW rule that a penalty for failure precludes the Take 20. I'm guessing that most (if not all) opposed checks that are failed result in what is considered a "penalty for failure." SoH, Stealth, and Disguise all do when it comes to hiding something.

Even if a failure somehow didn't trip the "penalty" clause, you'd most likely be precluded from not having the time/opportunity to keep attempting the skill check. Since the "check" doesn't occur until the opposed roll, you don't have time to keep attempting and checking. The information gained from the first failure would result in actions taken that preclude another skill attempt. In the case of SoH, you roll to hide the object, it's discovered...and now you're arrested, get into a fight, the object is taken, etc.

This is exactly why you can't Take 20 when using Perception to see someone sneaking away. Your failure isn't a "penalty" but the thing you're searching for is no longer there.

So no, RAW doesn't explicitly preclude Take 20 on opposed rolls, it implicitly excludes them. The way the rules work, most (if not all) things that involve opposed rolls don't get past the Take 20 restrictions.

[Murdock Mudeater]

William Werminster wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Looking at Disguise, it doesn't mention take 10 or take 20 anywhere. Could you please quote the section that says you can't take 20 on Disguise?

I don't know if this has been already answered but.

The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can't be sure how good the result is.

This is a statement that nullifies the possibility of take 10/20.

Seems like the main issue of taking 20 on disguise is that it's an opposed check. So while you try 20 times to make a good disguise, you'd never really know what they rolled, so you don't really know if your success represents a good disguise, or a just bad rolling on behalf of the observer.

I think it would be more appropriate to grant a bonus to disguise for characters that spend lots of extra time on their disguise, rather than granting them a fix die roll.

[VIPfr33dom]

I'll bring a mirror or a buddy with 1 to 9 higher Perception than my Sleight of Hand; Then I'll go: Where's the hidden dagger? He'll take 10 every time. After about 20 tries I'm bound to have it hidden with atleast +1 DC over my buddy's Perception +10 score.

I'm with the sane people on this. So far no rules have evidently disabled the possibility to take 20 on a sleigh of hand attempt to hide an object while unobserved.

For the record, I'd totally allow a character to take 20 if they had a non stressful environment and enough time to do it, for hiding themselves (using stealth) within a room to attempt an assination or ambush. The opposed roll only comes later

[Oddman80]

Ravingdork wrote:

...you have utterly failed to point out where the Sleight of Hand rules, or the opposed check rules for that matter, explicitly states that you can't take 20.

Ok - let me try again.

when a task has no penalty of failure, and you have no time constraint n you can take 20. this assumes you take 20x as long as normal amd one of the 20 tries will result on a 20. this does not mean that the very last try results in a 20.

imagine programming a robot to do the task to times... if the task is getting out of bindings, regardless of wnen the 20 occurred, the end result after those 20 tries, is that the robot will have escaped the bindings so long as the roll of 20 beat the DC.

same with looking for traps. same for jumping high enough to grab the bag of gold from the high up ledge. after 20 tries, the objective will have been acomplished so long as whenever the 20 was rolled, the result beat the DC.

However - this is not the case with opposed checks. If the robot hid something 20 times, well sure, one of those times may have been great, but the final try may have actually been horrendous - and THAT is the check that will be used vs the opposed roll.

Taking 20 is not "taking 20 times as long as normal to ensure that the one time you do something, you do it your very best"

Taking 20 is literally doing the task over and over again 20 times. but the chance that the 20 roll is the final roll is no greater than for it to be the first roll.

in game - you don't actually know how well you do on a 20 point range. knowing the numeric result of a roll is just metaknowledge, and using it to determine your next actions is meta gaming. In game, your character only knows if they succeed or if they fail (and in some cases fail extra bad). but every time they try a skill they are trying their best - it's just that results may vary.

so when you make a disguise for yourself, or you hide something on your body, or you try to hide yourself from people that you know will be coming by in a few minutes, you just roll the skill - because until the opposed roll is made, you haven't completed the first attempt

[Bill Dunn]

Ravingdork wrote:

Using that same logic, N N 959, someone could argue that every skill has a penalty for failure: It's called not succeeding.

You can't fail at hiding something when no one is watching you, so how can there be a penalty for failure?

I have a gold coin on the table in front of me. I put a napkin over it to hide it. It is successfully hidden. No penalty for failure at all.

Now, three people walk by the following day. One fails to notice the napkin, much less the coin, sitting on the table. Another clearly sees the napkin, but fails to realize there is anything under it. The third not only sees the napkin, but notes the vague shape of the napkin, suggesting that a flat cylindrical object might be hidden beneath it.

None of those examples have any bearing at all on my initial success at hiding the coin under the napkin.

The third guy notices the coin under the napkin and it doesn't have any bearing on your success at hiding the coin??? He's spotted what you tried to hide - that's failure on the attempt to hide the coin. And that's the rub when it comes to taking 20 on an opposed check to hide, conceal, or disguise something. You don't know you've succeeded or failed until it's tested by someone else with their opposed check. And if it fails, it's too late. The jig is up and the PC has been spotted (ambush foiled), the hidden dagger found (possibly leading to an arrest or fight with a suspected assassin), or the disguise is seen through.

Taking extra time is a good place for a circumstance bonus for the PC taking extra care in their work, not for taking 20.

[N N 959]

VIPfr33dom wrote:

I'll bring a mirror or a buddy with 1 to 9 higher Perception than my Sleight of Hand; Then I'll go: Where's the hidden dagger? He'll take 10 every time. After about 20 tries I'm bound to have it hidden with atleast +1 DC over my buddy's Perception +10 score.

Yes, eventually you'll do a good enough job hiding the object your buddy won't be able to see it with a Take 10. But that isn't Take 20, that's doing the skill over and over with an opposed check. And the biggest reason why this is a disanalogy is that in your example, you're stopping as soon as your buddy fails to detect the object. If you used Take 20, you'd keep on attempting to hide the object.

Someone using Take 20 doesn't stop as soon as they roll a theoretical 20. With Take 20, you keep on attempting the skill during the entire duration of the attempt, even if your first roll would have been a 20.

However, you can't use a mirror and do the check on yourself as you already know where you hid the object and the opposed roll constitutes frisking someone.

Quote:

I'm with the sane people on this. So far no rules have evidently disabled the possibility to take 20 on a sleigh of hand attempt to hide an object while unobserved.

Except that there is an impediment to Take 20 because if your check fails the object is discovered.

PRD on Take 20 wrote:

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).

[N N 959]

Oddman80 wrote:

Taking 20 is not "taking 20 times as long as normal to ensure that the one time you do something, you do it your very best"

Taking 20 is literally doing the task over and over again 20 times. but the chance that the 20 roll is the final roll is no greater than for it to be the first roll.

I would disagree with this slightly. I think the IC concept is the player is trying to do his or her best. But I think you are spot on with the follow-up

Quote:

in game - you don't actually know how well you do on a 20 point range. knowing the numeric result of a roll is just metaknowledge, and using it to determine your next actions is meta gaming. In game, your character only knows if they succeed or if they fail (and in some cases fail extra bad). but every time they try a skill they are trying their best - it's just that results may vary.

Right. When using Perception, at some point during the Take 20, the PC has seen everything she can possibly see, but the PC doesn't know that, she just knows that she's spent enough time searching, that continued searching isn't going to do any better.

And as you point out, the another reason Take 20 doesn't work is that last attempt at the skill is a random number, and not necessarily a 20. So even if allow someone to perform a skill that has an "opposed" skill check, 20 times. The last attempt would be a random result.

[Murdock Mudeater]

VIPfr33dom wrote:

I'll bring a mirror or a buddy with 1 to 9 higher Perception than my Sleight of Hand; Then I'll go: Where's the hidden dagger? He'll take 10 every time. After about 20 tries I'm bound to have it hidden with atleast +1 DC over my buddy's Perception +10 score.

I'm with the sane people on this. So far no rules have evidently disabled the possibility to take 20 on a sleigh of hand attempt to hide an object while unobserved.

For the record, I'd totally allow a character to take 20 if they had a non stressful environment and enough time to do it, for hiding themselves (using stealth) within a room to attempt an assination or ambush. The opposed roll only comes later

Wait, how are you hiding an object while unobserved? Have you read the skill? I don't think Sleight of hand can be used while unobserved.

I mean, you could certainly conceal things on your person while being unobserved, but that's hardly something that requires a skill check...

[Oddman80]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Wait, how are you hiding an object while unobserved? Have you read the skill? I don't think Sleight of hand can be used while unobserved.

I mean, you could certainly conceal things on your person while being unobserved, but that's hardly something that requires a skill check...

from the skill entry:

You can hide a small object (including a light weapon or an easily concealed ranged weapon, such as a dart, sling, or hand crossbow) on your body. Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone observing you OR of anyone frisking you.

this whole thread is about hiding something from someone frisking you - so they don't need to observe you while you hide the object

[Murdock Mudeater]

Oddman80 wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Wait, how are you hiding an object while unobserved? Have you read the skill? I don't think Sleight of hand can be used while unobserved.

I mean, you could certainly conceal things on your person while being unobserved, but that's hardly something that requires a skill check...

from the skill entry:

You can hide a small object (including a light weapon or an easily concealed ranged weapon, such as a dart, sling, or hand crossbow) on your body. Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone observing you OR of anyone frisking you.

this whole thread is about hiding something from someone frisking you - so they don't need to observe you while you hide the object

But you roll the check each time they frisk you, right? Just like you'd roll each time they observe you.

It's an opposed roll, so taking 20 should require them to frisk you and find your hidden items many times, before you manage to sneak the item past their frisking. Opposed rolls, as I understand, roll each time they are opposed, so I'm not sure how you intend to bypass getting caught by taking 20 on this check.

[N N 959]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

It's an opposed roll, so taking 20 should require them to frisk you and find your hidden items many times, before you manage to sneak the item past their frisking.

You generally can't take 20 on something that opposes your roll. You can Take 20 if your roll opposes a roll.

Quote:

as I understand, roll each time they are opposed, so I'm not sure how you intend to bypass getting caught by taking 20 on this check.

Not sure I follow you. There are several uses of skills that work this way e.g. making a disguise, forging a document, hiding in the shadows. When you attempt the skill, you get one roll. That roll can be opposed by multiple rolls and can be opposed some time after you initially take the action. Someone opposing your roll can certainly Take 20.

In the case of frisking someone, or seeing through a disguise, or examining a forged document, your betting on the fact that the opposer is not going to Take 20 because there is nothing about you that stands out. If you've ever been to sporting event, where they either check bags or frisk people entering, they simply don't have time to Take 20 on every single person. However, if you are going to meet some head of state, I'm sure they'll Take 20, as it were.

[Ravingdork]

Sounds to me like you're making up rules.

[PossibleCabbage]

The rules say you only make one disguise check no matter how many people could potentially see through your disguise, and "hiding your spare spellbook in your sock" really seems like an analogous situation to "crafting a disguise". You could make the argument that "well, you'd want to use body language to misdirect the person from looking in your socks" but you could make the same argument that "you'd use your body language to convince people of your disguise" and the rules state that you only make a single disguise check.

[N N 959]

Ravingdork wrote:

Sounds to me like you're making up rules.

Considering you don't seem to know or understand the rules, I can understand your perspective. Take 20 is one of like five rules concepts that people seem to really struggle to understand correctly. However, mostly I get the feeling that you were emotionally convinced that you could Take 20 and finding out that you can't has resulted in your lashing out and attempting to discredit anyone pointing out that the rules don't allow it. So yes, I get where you're coming from.

[Oddman80]

Ravingdork wrote:

Sounds to me like you're making up rules.

@Ravingdork are you referring to N N 959's statement that "You generally can't take 20 on something that opposes your roll"?

This is - like he states - "Generally" true. It would take some pretty odd corner cases to create a situation where it would be ok to take 20. Maybe you were boasting that you were the best hider in all the land, and someone challenges you - saying that they are certain they will find you every time you try to hide. And he is so pompous that he challenges you to an all day event where if you manage to allude him even a single time that day, he will give you a prize..

Yeah - I suppose in that bizarre situation, you could take 20 to see if you manage to beat him. A similar situation could occur with a disguise challenge - though the text stating that the targets would become more suspicious after you failed once, implies to me that the GM could comfortably add circumstantial bonuses to the target's perception checks to increase the DC - such a penalty would also make it so that you can't take 20 on the check, however. It's this exact reason why trying to hide something on your body so that it won't be noticed by a frisker is also impossible with taking 20.

I will direct you again to the text of taking 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 roll a d20 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...
[list]

Taking 20 assumes you fail many times before you succeed- and you do not know whether or not you have succeeded or failed until you are frisked by someone. Therefore, the prerequisite for taking 20 on this type of sleight of hand check is to be frisked all 20 times you attempt the check.

In order to succeed on a Sleight of Hand check to hide an object on you so that it will not be found by someone frisking you, the result of your roll must be greater than the first target's perception check (including the +4 circumstantial bonus they get for frisking you).

If you fail to roll a greater sleight of hand than the frisker's perception, at the very least, the penalty for failure is that if you try again against the same target, there is an increase to the DC of 10 (though, depending on the situation, the result could be that the object you are hiding is confiscated, or you are arrested and jailed, etc). Since Taking 20 "...assumes that you fail many times before succeeding", the base DC for the check should have a minimum +20 added to it, though more likely it would have something in the range of +50 to +80 on it (+10 to the DC for each failure). But all that is moot, due to the fact that if there is ANY penalty for failure, you cannot take 20.

[Murdock Mudeater]

N N 959 wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

It's an opposed roll, so taking 20 should require them to frisk you and find your hidden items many times, before you manage to sneak the item past their frisking.

You generally can't take 20 on something that opposes your roll. You can Take 20 if your roll opposes a roll.

So, maybe I'm having trouble grasping your scenario.

For example. You are trying to get past a checkpoint with contraband. So you hide the contraband on your person, and when you get to the checkpoint, you roll sleight of hand vs the guards perception. If you succeed they fail to notice, and if you fail, they notice and confinscate the item. So how does this qualify as situation without penalty for failure?

Now, I do understand if you wanted to take 20 in a situation where merely taking longer would be the only penalty.

For example, you are in prison and need to get certain object past the guards and to a certain point. For this example, the penalty of getting caught merely results in a day of solitary confinement (object is returned to you), and presents a fresh oppertunity on the next day. In this case, if you wanted to take 20 and have it take many days of solitary confinement due to trial an error, then yeah, this sitaution you could take 20 on.

Does that make sense?

[Oddman80]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

So, maybe I'm having trouble grasping your scenario.

For example. You are trying to get past a checkpoint with contraband. So you hide the contraband on your person, and when you get to the checkpoint, you roll sleight of hand vs the guards perception.

I am pretty sure you roll the sleight of hand check at he moment of hiding it - and that is the DC anyone would need to beat to find it. SO if no one ever stops to frisk the person who made the check, then nothing happens and the person moves on.

if someone stops the person to frisk them, the perception check is rolled. if the item is not found the pc who made the sleight of hand check continues with there day - but until they remove the item from the hiding spot, the item still keeps the original sleight of hand check DC - so if another person stops the character and demands to frisk him, they do not roll a new sleight of hand check.

this is similar to the stealth and disguise skills. you roll your skill check to set the dc for people trying to catch you later. Disguise says outright that the check should be rolled secretly - but honestly - it would be good practice for GMs to roll the sleight of hand check secretly as well, so the player isn't tempted to meta-game and say something like "my character is getting nervous that he didn't hide it well enough so he takes the dagger out of his pant leg and hides it again (rolls check again).

This is a little less of a problem for stealth - as this skill is usually used either right before the targets from whom you are hiding would roll their perception checks. If your characters are setting up an ambush, you can all roll perception checks against one another to see how well you are all hidden and maybe have time to try again before the targets from whom you are hiding make there way into a location where they roll their checks.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

If you succeed they fail to notice, and if you fail, they notice and confiscate the item. So how does this qualify as situation without penalty for failure?

it doesn't - especially because if they gave you the item back without penalty, the dc to hide the item from them again will still go up by 10 each time you fail to get past them.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Now, I do understand if you wanted to take 20 in a situation where merely taking longer would be the only penalty.

For example, you are in prison and need to get certain object past the guards and to a certain point. For this example, the penalty of getting caught merely results in a day of solitary confinement (object is returned to you), and presents a fresh opportunity on the next day. In this case, if you wanted to take 20 and have it take many days of solitary confinement due to trial an error, then yeah, this situation you could take 20 on.

Even in this scenario, taking 20 wouldn't work, unless their were 20 different guards each of the times you attempted to pass by - and for some reasons the guards weren't talking to one another about "the idiot who keeps trying to sneak poison flasks into town" or whatnot... one of those tries, you will surely find a crudely drawn picture of you hanging at the entry post, with instructions for the guards to EXTREME FRISK you - and then they will get to take 20, and have additional circumstance bonuses for the disrobing, and cavity checks they will start to force upon you..

if that isn't a penalty.. i don't know what is.

[Ravingdork]

How is it an opposed roll if no one is rolling against you as you make the check?

Sounds to me like you're merely setting the target DC; a static DC which is rolled against later. No different than setting the DC to an Escape Artist check to break out of rope bonds with one's grapple modifier.

I just don't see how it could be considered an opposed roll unless it were a sleight of hand check to hide something from an active observer, or to pickpocket them.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

It seems relevant to me that Sleight of Hand is typically a standard action (i.e. something you could do in 6 seconds). That makes sense if it is a mutation of the old Thieves' skill Pick Pocket, but it doesn't really fit smuggling goods on your person.

If I needed to smuggle a small object though customs I might sew it into the lining of my coat, hollow out a compartment in my shoe, put it in a acid proof container and swallow it, etc... Something that would take much more than 6 seconds to set up but be very difficult to detect.

If a Sleight of Hand roll is something you could attempt in seconds if surprised by an approaching guard, what bonus should you get for spending an hour developing elaborate hiding methods?

Taking 20 seems like a fairly natural way to model that. Its the game's go to method of taking a lot of extra time to eliminate chance and guarantee the best result you can hope for.

This isn't meant as an opinion on the textual merits of the RAW arguments, but it does strike me that as a GM I would need *some* way of representing the extra time and care taken over what can be accomplished in just a few seconds. What's the alternative, an ad hoc +X bonus for taking a long time?

[N N 959]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

So how does this qualify as situation without penalty for failure?

It doesn't. Your penalty for failure is that the opposer has discovered your item. Perhaps you are asking something different?

Now, I do understand if you wanted to take 20 in a situation where merely taking longer would be the only penalty.

Quote:

For example, you are in prison and need to get certain object past the guards and to a certain point. For this example, the penalty of getting caught merely results in a day of solitary confinement (object is returned to you), and presents a fresh oppertunity on the next day. In this case, if you wanted to take 20 and have it take many days of solitary confinement due to trial an error, then yeah, this sitaution you could take 20 on.

Does that make sense?

This is similar to VIPfr33dom's scenario. It isn't a Take 20.

Take 20 is a game mechanic designed to simulate a concept of someone being able to attempt something enough times that they know they can't do better if they keep trying. In the game, rolling a 20 is the best you can do. If you're in situation where you can keep rolling the die because nothing happens between rolls, eventually you'll get a 20. So the Developers said we'll just add a game mechanic so the player or GM doesn't have to sit there and roll the die until they get a 20.

What's a scenario that Take 20 works outside of Perception checks? It really depends on the skill and the circumstances. The classic example is picking a lock. You try to pick the lock...you fail...nothing happens, you try again. If the lock had an alarm and the alarm called guards, then you could not Take 20.

Another example? Escaping Artist to get out of bindings. Assuming you had the time before someone discovered your attempts, you can keep struggling against the ropes. Or, building a fire with flint.

In your example, the GM could allow you to Take 20 if the GM determined that no additional punishment would result that would increase the difficulty of your check AND (this is the most important part) the opposed roll was a fixed number e.g. the guard always Takes 10. As you said, you'd only have to pay the time tax of 20 days of attempts. The key here, however, is that it takes you the full 20 days, where as if you actually rolled it, you might get high enough on the first roll and save yourself 19 days.

Logically, this doesn't work because if you succeeded, you'd stop rolling, but there is no Take 20 restriction based on success. Why might the GM allow it? Because you're going to keep trying after every failure, the opposed DC is fixed, and there is no substantive penalty for failure. So to speed up the game, the PC gives up 20 days and then gets to act as if they rolled a 20. But most prisons won't let a prisoner attempt an escape over and over without imposing greater restraint for exactly that reason, eventually the prisoner might succeed in slipping past the guard if given enough opportunities.

Take 20 is really like an agreement between player and GM that instead of having you roll 20 times, let's just concede you'll get a 20 at some point and proceed from there after taking 20 times as long. But you have to be able to actually roll the die 20 times, in-character. If for some reason you could not do that, because failure means you get attacked, then you can't take 20.

[N N 959]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

If a Sleight of Hand roll is something you could attempt in seconds if surprised by an approaching guard, what bonus should you get for spending an hour developing elaborate hiding methods?

I think this is what confounds people with Disguise and Linguistics to forge documents. Shouldn't I get a bonus for being meticulous?

Yes, but it isn't via Take 20. What you're thinking of is a circumstance bonus, which RAW allows for in just such an occasion. A GM might also award other bonuses, e.g. aid another, competence, etc. as fitting the situation.

Quote:

Taking 20 seems like a fairly natural way to model that. Its the game's go to method of taking a lot of extra time to eliminate chance and guarantee the best result you can hope for.

No, that's not accurate. Take 20 is the games go to method for not having to sit and watch someone roll the die 20 times. That's it. It does not eliminate chance in any way, because when you Take 20, you're considered to have also rolled 1,2,3,4, etc. So if rolling a 1 means something bad happens, then you can't Take 20. Take 10 is used for eliminating chance, not Take 20.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

If a Sleight of Hand roll is something you could attempt in seconds if surprised by an approaching guard, what bonus should you get for spending an hour developing elaborate hiding methods?

Taking 20 seems like a fairly natural way to model that. Its the game's go to method of taking a lot of extra time to eliminate chance and guarantee the best result you can hope for.

This isn't meant as an opinion on the textual merits of the RAW arguments, but it does strike me that as a GM I would need *some* way of representing the extra time and care taken over what can be accomplished in just a few seconds. What's the alternative, an ad hoc +X bonus for taking a long time?

Hmmm.... might actually have that be a craft check to create a secret compartment in an object or clothing. In that case, I'd give the guards only a check to notice the secret compartment if they actually were looking for one (or had cause to look for one, like when the "empty" box rattles...). For items sewn into clothing, unless there's some obvious weight change or very obvious pointy objects sticking though your shirt, I don't think I give the guards any checks to notice the objects. Just like I wouldn't give the guards a check to notice the contents of a chest, unless they opened it.

I've always though of slight of hand being more in how you move to not give away that it is there, rather than just concealing the object from view. Remember that for slight of hand, it is opposed, meaning it's something the observer/frisker can also do quickly. I don't think Slight of hand is intended to cover extended searches.

Additionally, a weapon concealed by sleight of hand can be drawn as a standard action without provoking. I don't think sewing weapons into your cloths would allow you to draw in this manner, further supporting the idea that sleight of hand doesn't apply here.

Besides, the sewing idea is really smart, but doesn't require physical dexerity (not in pathfinder anyway). Slight of hand is a dex based skill. Craft is int based. I think this sort of smuggling would be Craft, not slight of hand.

[N N 959]

Ravingdork wrote:

How is it an opposed roll if no one is rolling against you as you make the check?

Sounds to me like you're merely setting the target DC; a static DC which is rolled against later. No different than setting the DC to an Escape Artist check to break out of rope bonds with one's grapple modifier.

That's exactly what it's like, except the static DC is determine by your one roll.

Quote:

I just don't see how it could be considered an opposed roll unless it were a sleight of hand check to hide something from an active observer, or to pickpocket them.

It's an opposed roll because that's how the game defines it. The game says A rolls and the B rolls to determine if A succeeded or not. Only in this case, B can roll at any time after A so long as the object hasn't been removed. Yes, A can put in and take it out, but you only get a roll at the end.

Let's look at the Linguistics skill for forging a document:

PRD on forgeries wrote:

The Linguistics check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don't make a check until someone examines the work. Your Linguistics check is opposed by the Linguistics check of the person who examines the document to verify its authenticity.

This same logic should apply to SoH if you're hiding something. You can create a hundred copies of the document you're trying to forge, but you only present one and that's the one you roll on. The game doesn't allow you to roll on every copy and simply take the one that you got a 20 on.

I will concede, however, that the SoH language for hiding an object isn't as robust. There is some legitimate ambiguity about when the roll is made and whether it's just one roll for all future searches. Where it's spelled out for Disguise/forgeries, it's not as explicit for SoH.

[Murdock Mudeater]

N N 959 wrote:

Let's look at the Linguistics skill for forging a document:

PRD on forgeries wrote:

The Linguistics check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don't make a check until someone examines the work. Your Linguistics check is opposed by the Linguistics check of the person who examines the document to verify its authenticity.

This same logic should apply to SoH if you're hiding something. You can create a hundred copies of the document you're trying to forge, but you only present one and that's the one you roll on. The game doesn't allow you to roll on every copy and simply take the one that you got a 20 on.

I will concede, however, that the SoH language for hiding and object isn't as robust. There is some legitimate ambiguity about when the roll is made and whether it's just one roll for all future searches. Where it's spelled out for Disguise/forgeries, it's not as explicit for SoH.

I should probably re-read the whole skill entry, but with just your quote, doesn't seem like you can take 20 on that either, since you can't determine which is the better copy until after someone opposes it. Sounds like the check isn't made until someone opposes it, so I'm not sure how you are taking 20 unless you using "take 20" to represent attempts and failures over a lenthy time period.

I'd certainly give you a circumstance bonus if you spent extra time on it, making multiples and only bringing the best one. That seems reasonable. But you still wouldn't know the secret check result until it was time to oppose it.

[Oddman80]

@Murdock Mudeater - i think you misread what N N 959 wrote. he was saying you CAN NOT take 20 on those rolls for the exact reason you said. You two are on the same page.

@Ravingdork - Seriously? You are now questioning why hiding something on you - even when not observed - requires a Sleight of Hand check that is opposed by a perception check of someone who later might be frisking you? You have accused other people of making up rules, but now you seem to be just wanting to ignore the rules that are written.

That said, unless you are specifically hiding something to get past a guard that you know is going to frisk you, you and your GM may not be thinking of frisking potential at the thime you hide the object. This gives more credence to the idea that the skill should work like disguise or linguistics (forgery). Either the roll should just be made by the GM in secret, at the point when the player mentions that they are going to hide something on them, OR the GM should just wait (to ask for the player's SoH roll) until the time comes that it needs to be opposed. In that case, the GM just needs to make sure they don't include any bonuses or penalties that would not have been present at the time of the original hiding (dex damage, a newly purchased belt of Dex, etc)

[Loengrin]

Oddman80 wrote:

@Murdock Mudeater - i think you misread what N N 959 wrote. he was saying you CAN NOT take 20 on those rolls for the exact reason you said. You two are on the same page.

@Ravingdork - Seriously? You are now questioning why hiding something on you - even when not observed - requires a Sleight of Hand check that is opposed by a perception check of someone who later might be frisking you? You have accused other people of making up rules, but now you seem to be just wanting to ignore the rules that are written.

That said, unless you are specifically hiding something to get past a guard that you know is going to frisk you, you and your GM may not be thinking of frisking potential at the thime you hide the object. This gives more credence to the idea that the skill should work like disguise or linguistics (forgery). Either the roll should just be made by the GM in secret, at the point when the player mentions that they are going to hide something on them, OR the GM should just wait (to ask for the player's SoH roll) until the time comes that it needs to be opposed. In that case, the GM just needs to make sure they don't include any bonuses or penalties that would not have been present at the time of the original hiding (dex damage, a newly purchased belt of Dex, etc)

Usually my players ask for a third party "assessment" when they disguise or do forgery... Think they'd do the same in this case... Ask another player if he see something can help you assess your roll (it's a secret roll... Well they roll it and as a tacite agreement their players don't know). If one-eye Joe who usually can't find right fromp left and don't hear an elephant galopping behind him find it you know you can retry... :p

[Murdock Mudeater]

Oddman80 wrote:

@Murdock Mudeater - i think you misread what N N 959 wrote. he was saying you CAN NOT take 20 on those rolls for the exact reason you said. You two are on the same page.

Fail. Well, glad we agree. Thanks Oddman.

[d'Eon]

OK, so everyone seems to agree that taking one's time concealing an object or crafting a disguise should give a bonus, whether it be taking 20 or a circumstance bonus.

Here's my question for the circumstance bonus people. How much of a bonus, and how long do I need to take? Allowing someone to take 20 is consistent from GM to GM, and has a defined length of time needed to get the bonus. So what should it be if we don't allow taking 20 and use a circumstance bonus? X times as long for a +10? +5? +π?

[Oddman80]

when you are just doing something routine, and you aren't trying your absolute best, you can consistently accomplish your average (taking 20).

when you put it all on the line and hope to pull of an inspiring display with a skill (hoping to roll a natural 20) you risk screwing up completely (rolling a 1)

when you take your time, and make sure you have the best setup you can to attempt to do something, i would say it gives you between a +2 to +5 to the task, as determined by the GM based on description of what you are doing to prep, before committing to the task.

Again, if you try your absolute best, you may pull off a truly remarkable feat, and if you fail, you are unlikely to fail in quite so spectacular a manner as if you were just winging it.

but with the +2 to +5, you can still just take 10, and it gives you a nice edge on your roll... basically auto taking 12-15.

don't forget aiding another to help boost your static bonus to the check by +2 per assistant.

[Oddman80]

Loengrin wrote:

Usually my players ask for a third party "assessment" when they disguise or do forgery... Think they'd do the same in this case... Ask another player if he see something can help you assess your roll (it's a secret roll... Well they roll it and as a tacite agreement their players don't know). If one-eye Joe who usually can't find right fromp left and don't hear an elephant galopping behind him find it you know you can retry... :p

To me, this should just be considered Aiding Another to gain a static bonus to the roll. if you have 3 party members willing to pat you down to see if you hid the object on you well, that's a +6 to the check from their assistance. now you can basically "take 16" which might not be quite as good as taking 20, but when

taking 20 isn't an option, taking 16 sounds pretty DAMN good.

[William Werminster]

I really like the idea of capped circumnstance bonus.

[Oddman80]

Oddman80 wrote:

when you are just doing something routine, and you aren't trying your absolute best, you can consistently accomplish your average (taking 20).

Okay - I clearly meant to say this was (Taking 10), but the website won't let me edit my post... so I guess I'll just habe to post this correction.

[Ravingdork]

You can take 20 to pick a lock whether or not there is an alarm spell on it that will summon the guards. Though the guards could interrupt your work, that's NOT a penalty for failure. Penalties for failure (for the purposes of taking 20 at least) are defined by their respective skill, not by external phenomena.

You can't take 20 on Climb checks, because the skill says if you fail, you could fall. You can't take 20 on Craft, because the skill says if you fail, you could waste materials. Those are penalties for failure.

What many of you are arguing is a lot like that silly argument last year where people were saying you can't take 10 to jump the 10-foot pit that was a thousand feet deep into lava or spikes, because the depth and hazards at the bottom of the pit qualified as distractions. The depth/hazards of the pit are wholly inconsequential.

You guys are attempting to apply the same kind of logic here. There is no penalty for failure listed in the Sleight of Hand skill for hiding an object on your person unobserved. Ergo, it is possible to take 20.

[Loengrin]

Ravingdork wrote:

You guys are attempting to apply the same logic here. There is no penalty for failure listed in the Sleight of Hand skill for hiding an object on your person unobserved. Ergo, it is possible to take 20.

You can't take 20 'cause you can't fail your check... ;)

Quote:

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right,

and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding.

[Ravingdork]

Loengrin wrote:

You can't take 20 'cause you can't fail your check... ;)

Quote:

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding.

Well, uh, um...hm?

EDIT: An assumption is not necessarily a requirement.

[Loengrin]

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: An assumption is not necessarily a requirement.

To assume mean to take for granted... So to take 20 you HAVE to fail many times... Since you have no meaning to know if you have made it right (it's the very definition of the Take 20 rule : you're trying until you get it right, it's not a requirement it's the Core Mechanism of Take 20.) and since the only way to know if you make it right is a floating number (1d20+PER is not a fixed number) you can't try your best since the goal is not a fixed number...

The only way to improve your check is to do one, have someone try to find your hidden object and determine if he doesn't find it, if this is satisfactionnal for you (your character don't know if the other person has made a 1 or a 20 on his dice remember...) you keep your check else you try again...

[N N 959]

Ravingdork wrote:

You can take 20 to pick a lock whether or not there is an alarm spell on it that will summon the guards. Though the guards could interrupt your work, that's NOT a penalty for failure. Penalties for failure (for the purposes of taking 20 at least) are defined by their respective skill, not by external phenomena.

There is no such citation in the rules, now you're making stuff up. Penalty for failure is anything that prevents you from attempting the check again as a result of your failure. It isn't defined because the GM must have latitude in deciding whether something truly constitutes a penalty. The guard interrupting your attempt is directly a result of your failing = penalty for failure. If the alarm didn't summon guards, then there would be no penalty for failure, even if there was an alarm.

Quote:

You can't take 20 on Craft, because the skill says if you fail, you could waste materials.

There's no reason not to allow a Take 20 on Craft skill if the PC/NPC had twenty resupplies of the material used and had the time to keep attempting. The entire point of Take 20 is to skip past the rolling of the die 20 times. It serves no other purpose than to obviate the need to sit there while the player keeps rolling over and over. It is not to simulate real life, it is to save everyone real time wasted in someone rolling over and over.

Quote:

What many of you are arguing is a lot like that silly argument last year where people were saying you can't take 10 to jump the 10-foot pit that was a thousand feet deep into lava or spikes, because the depth and hazards at the bottom of the pit qualified as distractions. The depth/hazards of the pit are wholly inconsequential.

No one is making that argument. You're grasping at straws in an effort to discredit the reality that you can't Take 20.

Quote:

You guys are attempting to apply the same kind of logic here. There is no penalty for failure listed in the Sleight of Hand skill for hiding an object on your person unobserved. Ergo, it is possible to take 20.

Your statement here tells me you are not connecting the dots. You're right, you can remove the object and re-hide it twenty times. Heck you can do it one hundred times. But the game does not allow you to make a "check" until someone opposes your last attempt at hiding the object. So all the other attempts you made to to hide the object are irrelevant. You don't get to keep the best attempt to hide the object because you have no idea what the roll was until someone makes an opposed roll. You don't get to roll it, see the number, then try again before someone opposes your roll.

This restriction is not part of Take 20, it's part of the SoH rule.

Sleight of Hand wrote:

Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone observing you or of anyone frisking you.

This section has been repeatedly post in answer to your question. You don't get a "check" until your attempt is opposed. So you can't keep rolling the die. As was stated in 3.5, you can't "save up" opposed roll attempts, and that's exactly what you're trying to do here.

To put it another way, while you the player may see the number of your SoH check, you the PC has no idea what you rolled.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Loengrin wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: An assumption is not necessarily a requirement.

To assume mean to take for granted... So to take 20 you HAVE to fail many times... Since you have no meaning to know if you have made it right (it's the very definition of the Take 20 rule : you're trying until you get it right, it's not a requirement it's the Core Mechanism of Take 20.) and since the only way to know if you make it right is a floating number (1d20+PER is not a fixed number) you can't try your best since the goal is not a fixed number...

Yeah, that's another concern, that if you are taking 20 on your sleight of hand, why can't the observer take 20 in observing you?

Regarding the extra time and circumstance bonuses, the bonus should be determined in how the players describe what they are doing, not the time required to do so. Like the players that take the time skin the goblins and make bloody flesh suits to disguise as goblins, those players are not going to fool goblins at all (and will probably be attacked on sight). So describe what the character is doing in that extra time, and the GM should give a circumstance bonus based on how effective they think that would be vs the NPC that opposes it.

And, as suggested by others, aid another should be the result of another ally checking your work.

In the case of Crafting, you could look at similar mundane objects with secret compartments, they use a fixed perception DC to notice the secret compartment. Not sure how that would be handled for Craft, whether your craft would affect this DC, or just generate a fixed value based on similar items, but that is another option. Though the advantage here is that they won't find the compartment unless they examine the item it is part of, merely frisking you should not be enough to qualify for the secret compartment perception check (though, as mentioned, if they shake the box and it rattles, but there's nothing inside, they have cause to examine the item more closely). Might need a Bluff check if they ask about it.

[d'Eon]

I think Sleight of Hand might be the wrong skill for this situation. If I'm just taping a small object to me, or dropping it in a hidden pocket, there's no active work on my part, just hoping that the hiding place is good enough. Trying hide an object by palming it, sliding it around a sleeve, and other active tricks to avoid someone finding it while frisking is a different story.

I think my solution if a player wants to conceal an object beforehand and takes their time will be giving them a +10 circumstance bonus for doing so and letting them take 10 on the check.

[Loengrin]

d'Eon wrote:

I think my solution if a player wants to conceal an object beforehand and takes their time will be giving them a +10 circumstance bonus for doing so and letting them take 10 on the check.

Using which skills or ability ?

[Bill Dunn]

Ravingdork wrote:

You can take 20 to pick a lock whether or not there is an alarm spell on it that will summon the guards. Though the guards could interrupt your work, that's NOT a penalty for failure. Penalties for failure (for the purposes of taking 20 at least) are defined by their respective skill, not by external phenomena.

You can't take 20 on Climb checks, because the skill says if you fail, you could fall. You can't take 20 on Craft, because the skill says if you fail, you could waste materials. Those are penalties for failure.

What many of you are arguing is a lot like that silly argument last year where people were saying you can't take 10 to jump the 10-foot pit that was a thousand feet deep into lava or spikes, because the depth and hazards at the bottom of the pit qualified as distractions. The depth/hazards of the pit are wholly inconsequential.

You guys are attempting to apply the same kind of logic here. There is no penalty for failure listed in the Sleight of Hand skill for hiding an object on your person unobserved. Ergo, it is possible to take 20.

So what happens if you fail to hide the object? It is detected. Clearly, that's a consequence more significant than failing to pick a lock, something that just sits there and doesn't react or care that you failed before. It might as well be like not having tried the check in the first place. Fail at being stealthy or hiding an object and the opposed check maker knows you or the object is there. How are you going to reset to the pre-check situation? That's a consequence.

[d'Eon]

Loengrin wrote:

d'Eon wrote:

I think my solution if a player wants to conceal an object beforehand and takes their time will be giving them a +10 circumstance bonus for doing so and letting them take 10 on the check.

Using which skills or ability ?

Sleight of Hand for now, even though it seems like passively hiding something should just be a flat Perception DC instead of an opposed check.

[Ravingdork]

N N 959 wrote:

The guard interrupting your attempt is directly a result of your failing = penalty for failure. If the alarm didn't summon guards, then there would be no penalty for failure, even if there was an alarm.

That's not a penalty for failure, that's a consequence of there being an alarm spell on the lock. The guard would have come regardless of whether or not you passed or failed. It's an external, unrelated consequence.

N N 959 wrote:

There's no reason not to allow a Take 20 on Craft skill if the PC/NPC had twenty resupplies of the material used and had the time to keep attempting. The entire point of Take 20 is to skip past the rolling of the die 20 times. It serves no other purpose than to obviate the need to sit there while the player keeps rolling over and over. It is not to simulate real life, it is to save everyone real time wasted in someone rolling over and over.

A moot point as there is no reason to take 20 on Craft checks anyways, even if you could. It doesn't save time, it doesn't save money, and it doesn't save materials. There is literally never a reason to take 20 on a Craft check to make something.

N N 959 wrote:

No one is making that argument.

Not in this thread they're not, but lots of people certainly made a big stink about it a while back. I was merely presenting it as an example of the same faulty logic being used in this thread.