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.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 ?
If you go the "you're not using your DEX to hide quickly something" road then an INT based check to try to smartly hide it is a better interpretation... Perhaps a craft "type of cloth you want to hide the object in", or a profession soldier 'cause you know how guards usually frisk people to find hidden object... The best of the two... Decide after the player explain how he intend to hide the object...
There's plenty of possibility when you think homebrew...RAW it's a sleight of hand, no "take 20", circumstances bonus as GM wish...
I think Sleight of Hand might be the wrong skill for this situation.
i'm gonna stop you there. This is a rules discussion and the rules of the game specifically state this is the skill you use when hiding an object on your body, even when unobserved, to prevent it from being noticed buy someone frisking you. Proposing otherwise is a house rule.
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... 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.
That is LITERALLY letting them take 20.
(smh)
No it isn't. It's giving them a circumstance bonus, at my discretion, and using the basic take 10 rules.
Perception allows taking 20. If Sleight of Hand does not, any PC hiding something is at a massive disadvantage. A guard with no bonus to Perception can always roll a 20 if they choose, I want my players to have a chance of success without needing to go all out on a skill they may not have the points to spend.
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.
Nope. The arguments are not analogous.
The people that were trying to make that faulty argument were trying to state, as fact, that a "penalty for failure" equaled a "distraction" and therefore you couldn't take 10 in many situations when there was a clear penalty for failure.
However, unlike the rules for Taking 20, Taking 10 had no rule stating that a "penalty for failure" prevented one from utilizing the mechanic. The fact that the very next rule in the book DID include "penalty for failure" as a disqualifying factor for using the Take 20 mechanic should have made people realize that "distraction" and "penalty for failure" were two separate and unique things within the game. i cannot explain why there were people that couldn't see this simple distinction.
So the reason the arguments in THIS thread are nothing like the arguments in the thread you linked, is that we are arguing that a "penalty for failure" is a "penalty for failure", while you (alone) seem to be arguing that a "penalty for failure" is NOT a "penalty for failure"
The people that were trying to make that faulty argument were trying to state, as fact, that a "penalty for failure" equaled a "distraction" and therefore you couldn't take 10 in many situations when there was a clear penalty for failure.
However, unlike the rules for Taking 20, Taking 10 had no rule stating that a "penalty for failure" prevented one from utilizing the mechanic. The fact that the very next rule in the book DID include "penalty for failure" as a disqualifying factor for using the Take 20 mechanic should have made people realize that "distraction" and "penalty for failure" were two separate and unique things within the game. i cannot explain why there were people that couldn't see this simple distinction.
Yep take 10 is : you're not really trying hard you're doing it in an efficient way without zeal, no stress like... It's routine for you... For example I would authorize a guard frisking everyone all day long to take 10 to his Perception check to find hidden object if he has no reason to suspect that the person he frisk is at particular risk... ;)
If the same guard has his superior picking on him while and criticizeing him while he frisk someone he will try harder but in the panick can fail hard...If you're trying to hide something on you in your hotel room you can take 10, if you're trying to hide it under the eyes of guards going and coming, watching you with suspicious eyes, you can't... they distract you when they pass by, stress you out so you can epic fail, but you're trying hard to hide it so you can epic win ;)
Part of the problem is that people are applying WAAAY too broad an interpretation of what a 'penalty for failure' means.
If I tell my party rogue that if he tries and fails to pick a lock, I'll dock him 1sp for each failure. Does this mean he can never 'take 20'? Of course not.
No - if nothing changes other than the total sum you have spent on making the checks, in the above example, you would simply pay 2 gold (or 20 sp) flat, and then take 20. If you did not have 2 gp in your possession, though, then you couldn't take 20.
Similarly, if every time you failed, you took 1d3+4 damage from a whip-wielding task master, you could still take 20 on the check, and just agree to take 19d3+76 damage... now if you are incapable of staying conscious after taking 133 hp worth of damage, you would not be able to take 20 on that check.
Because both hp and gp are measurements of cost or price.
What we are saying prevents you from taking 20 is different. One of the things we are saying prevent you from taking 20 are things that prevent you from performing the skill again (i.e., falling into a ravine after failing a jump, triggering the trap you were trying to disable, having the item you were trying to hide taken away upon discovery, having your presence in the royal palace noticed by a guard with a signal whistle, etc). Some of these things are obvious and built into the text of the skill itself, while others are case specific and must be determined by the GM when the even arises.
The penalty for failure only applies if that penalty would prevent you from continuing to make the skill check, such as falling while climbing or crossing a narrow surface. Or trying to disarm a trap.
Yes - this is what i described above. However it is NOT the only thing that is considered a penalty for failure that would prevent you from taking 20
The other thing we are saying prevents you from taking 20 is when the DC to succeed on the check is not a fixed number, because you have know way of knowing whether you succeed or fail. This could be due to the fact that it relies on an opposed check by an as yet unknown individual, but it could also be because the DC increases with each failure.
Since taking 20 assumes you take 20x as long, and that you fail many times before passing, is it safe to say it assumes you roll a 1 and then a 2 and then a 3, etc. in order until you succeed? In such a situation, unless you can pass the check on the first try with a roll of 1 (in which case the GM often says "you can't fail this check" and doesn't ask you to roll in the first place), if the penalty for failure is that the DC increases by even just 1 - you would never be able to pass the DC. You would be forced to roll the attempts individually, to see if you pass before the DC gets too high that it becomes impossible.
In the example that this thread was started for, the penalty for failing to hide the object on you so that a frisker does not find it, is that the DC goes up by 10. That is a huge penalty. When combined with the fact that you don't even know whether the frisker will confiscate the item upon finding it, or simply return it to you and send you to the back of the line (which, I admit, would be a really odd decision on their part) there are a stack of reasons why taking 20 is not a valid option for the OP.
There is no 'penalty for failure' that prevents me from taking my time to make sure I do the best job possible when hiding a small object, or taking my time making sure I'm well hidden for my ambush.
You are confusing Taking 20 with asking the GM for a circumstance bonus to the roll. There have been a few others in this thread that have confused the two.
...If I'm not under observation, there's no reason why I can't find the best hiding spot on my person even if it takes me multiple attempts...does it fit well up my sleeve? Nope, how about the boot...nope, hmm, how about tucked inside my belt, great!
Again - for the most part, you are simply describing situations where asking your GM for a circumstance bonus to the roll would be appropriate. You can't take 20 because in these scenarios you have NO CLUE whether or not you have succeeded or failed, and taking 20 assumes you keep trying until you succeed. If taking 20 were allowed in this situation it would require you never leave your room because you just never know if someone is still going to find it... your uncertainty over the matter would become crippling, and you would become a hermit forever and ever...
Joking aside, the description of the taking 20 mechanic prevents you from using it in this regard. Just ask for a circumstance bonus - or if you are a GM, offer one to the player that seems appropriate given their description of what they do to prepare, and have them either take 10 or roll the check to see their final result.
_Ozy_ has the right of it. Peoples' interpretations are much, much too broad.
|
Part of the problem is that people are applying WAAAY too broad an interpretation of what a 'penalty for failure' means.
If I tell my party rogue that if he tries and fails to pick a lock, I'll dock him 1sp for each failure. Does this mean he can never 'take 20'? Of course not.
The penalty for failure only applies if that penalty would prevent you from continuing to make the skill check, such as falling while climbing or crossing a narrow surface. Or trying to disarm a trap.
That's basically it. It needs to be something you can repeat, over and over, should it fail. Taking 20 is failing until you succeed (or do your best and still fail...)
Even climbing a narrow ledge. If they have the time, the hit points for fallin, and getting back up is easy enough, sure, take 20 on it.
Part of the problem is that people are applying WAAAY too broad an interpretation of what a 'penalty for failure' means.
If I tell my party rogue that if he tries and fails to pick a lock, I'll dock him 1sp for each failure. Does this mean he can never 'take 20'? Of course not.
The penalty for failure only applies if that penalty would prevent you from continuing to make the skill check, such as falling while climbing or crossing a narrow surface. Or trying to disarm a trap.
There is no 'penalty for failure' that prevents me from taking my time to make sure I do the best job possible when hiding a small object, or taking my time making sure I'm well hidden for my ambush.
If someone was observing me while I was trying to hide the object, sure, they would notice. If I'm not under observation, there's no reason why I can't find the best hiding spot on my person even if it takes me multiple attempts...does it fit well up my sleeve? Nope, how about the boot...nope, hmm, how about tucked inside my belt, great!
Well if you want to take it like this you can't hide something on you in your room since there's no rule for this... The rules only let you to hide something in front of someone by making a Sleight of Hand check against a Perception Check no more no less...
Everything else is homebrew... :p
One way I could see taking 20 in this case would be to have a friend taking 20 on his Perception checks against yours and letting you know how hard it was to find whatever you are hiding. Of course, since 20 x 20 = 400, the combined time with both of you taking 20 would be 400 times the normal time required for the task.
Make the cover of the spellbook "Inspector #6' d tell them it came with the garmit. :-)
The table in Creature-Sizes shows every change in size is a +/-4 change in stealth. Stealth is opposed to perception, so it should be the same as a -/+4 on perception.
Tiny vs. Gargantuan is a 16X size change, and is 5 step size change, therefore +/- 20.
Instead of shrinking a spellpouch, shrink a pathfinder pouch/bag of holding. Contents re inaccessable, but won't poke through the shrinking bag.
Perception is a move. Sleight of hand is a standard. Take 20 Percepton = 20 move actions = 10 rounds = 1 minute. Take 20 Sleight of hand = standard and 1 minute = 11 rounds. 20 times = 220 rounds = 22 minutes.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens if I want to make 20 Sleight of hand checks to hide something upon my person?
Well - if it is for the purpose of hiding 20 different items, it shouldn't be a problem. roll 20 individual SoH checks and keep track of which roll belongs to which item. Then - later - when you are frisked, anything that was hidden with a SoH less than the target's frisk-based perception check would be discovered.
If you are asking "what if i want to try to hide a single item 20 times?" Well, then I (as the GM) would say "Okay, sure. Give me one roll to represent the final attempt, and you can have a +3 circumstance bonus from your previous attempts shredding some light on a few hiding spots you now know really won't work"
|
|
What happens if I want to make 20 Sleight of hand checks to hide something upon my person?Well - if it is for the purpose of hiding 20 different items, it shouldn't be a problem. roll 20 individual SoH checks and keep track of which roll belongs to which item. Then - later - when you are frisked, anything that was hidden with a SoH less than the target's frisk-based perception check would be discovered.
If you are asking "what if i want to try to hide a single item 20 times?" Well, then I (as the GM) would say "Okay, sure. Give me one roll to represent the final attempt, and you can have a +3 circumstance bonus from your previous attempts shredding some light on a few hiding spots you now know really won't work"
That sounds about right.
Though I am of the opinion that the sleight of hand check is made when they frisk you, not when you hide the object. So much easier that way, since you only keep track of it when it matters.
Paizo is unclear on the matter, therefore one should probably rely on the base assumption for skills unless something says otherwise: The assumption being that you roll the skill check when you use the skill.
The assumption being that you roll the skill check when you use the skill.I would strongly advise against that as it only serves to allow the players to meta-game the result. PC hides the mcguffin and player rolls and sees a 1, what are the odds the players decide to go through with it? As a player, I would much rather not know what I rolled until it was time to make the check.
If that's a concern, then the GM should tell the player that he will roll it in secret to avoid that possibility, unless the player opts to take 10 or 20 instead.
If that's a concern, then the GM should tell the player that he will roll it in secret to avoid that possibility, unless the player opts to take 10or 20 instead.
You just couldn't help yourself, could you?
"Taking 20" is not an option in such a situation.
|
|
Paizo is unclear on the matter, therefore one should probably rely on the base assumption for skills unless something says otherwise: The assumption being that you roll the skill check when you use the skill.
Just announce to the GM what is hidden, and if inspected, roll sleight of hand.
The easiest solution is often the best solution, for GMs and Paizo alike.