Opposed Skill Checks and Taking 20

[SirFredgar]

Hello, Playground.

I just asked a question in the RAW thread, but still was a little curious on a few points about it.

Here is my original post:


Q 606
Hat of Disguise allows a user to utilize the desguise self spell at will (for a standard action activation). Diguise Self says that it gives the player a +10 on disguise checks, and that it can be used as part of a mundane disguise. A mundane disguise check as an associated timeframe, but using the spell does not. How much time must be taken if mixing them?

If a character were to be using the hat of diguise, along with a mundane disguise, and he took 10 on the check, how long would that disguise check take? What if he had taken 20, would it be 20 standard actions, or 20 times the figure used in the skill description?

Edit: Forgot to add question number

And the answer I received:


A 606

You are not permitted to take 10 or take 20 on a Disguise check. The reason behind this restriction is: The opposed nature of the check ─ i.e., it's made in secret when someone is examining your disguise, not in the (likely more favorable) conditions when you created the disguise ─ means that it comes into play when failure provides a threat.


The reason for this thread is: I'm still not 100% on the taking 20/10 for disguise. Curmudgeon seemed to indicate that because it is an opposed roll, thus chance for failure, and so taking 20 is not allowed. Use rope, as I understand, is also an opposed check for binding a character, but taking 20 is allowed. Why is this? Or is my understanding of Use Rope also flawed?

It also does not state in the skill description WHEN you actually roll your check, it only tells you when they will make their spot checks. Assuming one cannot take 20 (I'm unsure about it, but tend to agree with Curmudgeon that you cannot), what's really to stop them from taking 10? Since it doesn't tell you when the disguise check is rolled, I would assume it would be when you first make the disguise... and thus allowing you to take ten since you likely wouldn't be threatened at that time. The only catch would be it's a "secret" 10.

Going a step further, and I will assume for this last question that Curmudgeon's position that disguise is rolled when the (first) spot check opposed to it is also rolled, would a rogue with skill mastery then be allowed to take 10 on the check?

Thanks, I really appreciate all help and attention to detail.

[Curmudgeon]

I believe your understanding of Use Rope to bind someone is also flawed; you can't take 20 on that (or anything else where there's a penalty for failure: in this case, the person gets loose). Instead, see this from the Escape Artist skill:
Check: The table below gives the DCs to escape various forms of restraints.

Ropes: Your Escape Artist check is opposed by the binder’s Use Rope check. Since it’s easier to tie someone up than to escape from being tied up, the binder gets a +10 bonus on his or her check.

[SirFredgar]

I believe your understanding of Use Rope to bind someone is also flawed; you can't take 20 on that (or anything else where there's a penalty for failure: in this case, the person gets loose). Instead, see this from the Escape Artist skill:

Awesome, thanks. That actually puts a lot of things in perspective for me. After looking through the srd and noticing the verbage you pointed out, i also picked up on a few things. Namely:


Try Again
Varies. You can make another check after a failed check if you’re squeezing your way through a tight space, making multiple checks. If the situation permits, you can make additional checks, or even take 20, as long as you’re not being actively opposed.

and



You get a +10 bonus on this check because it is easier to bind someone than to escape from bonds. You don’t even make your Use Rope check until someone tries to escape.

That makes the disguise/spot question a lot clearer, and buffs Skill Mastery from where I pegged it. At least, for certain skills.

[Psyren]

Actually, you can take 10 on a Disguise check; this is because you actually make your check at the time the disguise is created (See the "Action" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disguise.htm) entry) and this number is then retained to be the "DC" of the Spot check to see through your trickery for each onlooker or each hour of exposure. This is further supported by the fact that you only get to make one check per disguise, regardless of how many spot checks you find yourself subject to.

You can take 10 on any skill where taking 10 is not specifically forbidden, or whose use does not require you to be in a combat or otherwise distracting situation. Taking 10 in this case represents you creating a disguise without any pressure or disturbances.

However, Curmudgeon is correct in that you cannot take 20. First, there is a consequence for failure (i.e. the observers are more suspicious), and second, it's an opposed check, so whether you succeed or fail depends on the specific person looking at you.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, you can take 10 on a Disguise check; this is because you actually make your check at the time the disguise is created (See the "Action" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disguise.htm) entry) and this number is then retained ... I don't think it's that simple. The Disguise "Action" entry doesn't refer to making the Disguise check:

Action: Creating a disguise requires 1d3×10 minutes of work. Anyway, that's a side issue, because the Disguise skill has a specific preclusion of "taking 10":
The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is. If you're not allowed to be sure, you're not allowed to use a known d20 value.

[ericgrau]

The simple way to handle taking a 20 is to ask yourself if it would help to redo and reroll the action over and over again. If not then you can't take a 20. Taking a 20 is supposed to have no effect or advantage whatsoever except for saving players table time on a million retries.

In a disguise, for example, you don't know what your roll is so a reroll is useless.

Taking a 10 is another matter and ya you usually can unless threatened or etc. I usually take that as meaning any time outside of an encounter. Because other definitions I've seen could be used to argue that you can never take a 10 except when it has no useful effect at all. So I'd say taking a 10 is peachy dandy with disguise.

[Siosilvar]

Actually, you can take 10 on a Disguise check; this is because you actually make your check at the time the disguise is created (See the "Action" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disguise.htm) entry) and this number is then retained to be the "DC" of the Spot check to see through your trickery for each onlooker or each hour of exposure. This is further supported by the fact that you only get to make one check per disguise, regardless of how many spot checks you find yourself subject to.

You can take 10 on any skill where taking 10 is not specifically forbidden, or whose use does not require you to be in a combat or otherwise distracting situation. Taking 10 in this case represents you creating a disguise without any pressure or disturbances.

However, Curmudgeon is correct in that you cannot take 20. First, there is a consequence for failure (i.e. the observers are more suspicious), and second, it's an opposed check, so whether you succeed or fail depends on the specific person looking at you.

This looks correct to me, but the DM can pull this line on you and roll it anyway:


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

EDIT: Ninja'd with the same exact line.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's that simple. The Disguise "Action" entry doesn't refer to making the Disguise check:
Anyway, that's a side issue, because the Disguise skill has a specific preclusion of "taking 10": If you're not allowed to be sure, you're not allowed to use a known d20 value.

That's not necessarily true, because "How good" is a relative term. Whether a disguise is "good enough" depends on the variable Spot check(s) of the NPC observers that see you in it, and you are never privy to those. (e.g. a Disguise check that can fool a random guard is unlikely to fool the childhood friend of the person you're impersonating.)

In other words, even if you take 10, you still never know how good your disguise really is because that determination is subjective; the letter of the RAW is therefore satisfied.


As for the "Action" entry, that does in fact refer to the check itself. PHB 66:


Action: The type of action using the skill requires, or the amount of time required for a check.

Because "minutes" are an amount of time rather than a type of action, the Action entry under Disguise is referring to making the Disguise check itself, by RAW.

[Siosilvar]

How good the disguise is is directly proportional to the roll you made. The variable perception (or lack thereof) on the guard's part does not affect your disguise, only their seeing through it.

[Psyren]

How good the disguise is is directly proportional to the roll you made. The variable perception (or lack thereof) on the guard's part does not affect your disguise, only their seeing through it.

Yet it remains subjective, because every individual observer gets their own Spot check, including unique situational modifiers. Just because a disguise is good enough to fool someone's coworker doesn't mean it will fool that same person's wife - your disguise could therefore be "good" under one circumstance, and very poor under another. And even if you personally know the identity of every person your handiwork will be exposed to, you still don't know their Spot checks - the most important factor for determining the effectiveness of your Disguise check. So taking 10 does not at any time contradict the quoted clause.

Even magic doesn't eliminate this risk, because you don't know who has true seeing up, or a boosted save vs. illusions etc.

[Siosilvar]

First line: "Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Spot check results." If you take 10, you know exactly how good your result is: 10 + your modifiers.

It's opposed by others' Spot checks, but that's their Spot check, not your disguise.

[Psyren]

I see what you're saying; however:


If you take 10, you know exactly how good your result is: 10 + your modifiers.

Actually, this would be 10 + modifiers, not all of which are under your control or known to you. For instance, the circumstance modifier is under DM discretion . You can never be sure if the DM will apply one or not, hence even taking 10 will not give you a foolproof value.

[Curmudgeon]

For instance, the circumstance modifier is under DM discretion . You can never be sure if the DM will apply one or not, hence even taking 10 will not give you a foolproof value.


Give the skill user a +2 circumstance bonus to represent conditions that improve performance, such as having the perfect tool for the job, getting help from another character (see Combining Skill Attempts), or possessing unusually accurate information.
Give the skill user a -2 circumstance penalty to represent conditions that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information.
It doesn't seem from these rules that circumstance modifiers would be kept secret. "Give the skill user" is a directive to tell the user as they're about to make a check, not a directive to secretly modify their results afterward.

[Psyren]

It doesn't seem from these rules that circumstance modifiers would be kept secret. "Give the skill user" is a directive to tell the user as they're about to make a check, not a directive to secretly modify their results afterward.

The bonus/penalty you get is a set quantity, but the circumstance itself is not something you can be sure of. Examples are given ("such as") but this is an inclusive rather than exclusive list of circumstances.

If there is even the tiniest hair of doubt, then you are no longer sure and RAW is satisfied.

[Hashmir]

Nonetheless, I think we're getting into somewhat silly interpretive territory here. Technically, if there is any doubt at all, then yes, "you can’t be sure how good the result is," but it seems obvious that the intent is for disguises to be meaningfully unknown. Plus, I think you're on shaky ground if you're arguing that "the Disguise check is made secretly" allows for taking 10, so long as there could be some unknown modifier.

Personally, I would say that the simplest and most straightforward interpretation is as follows:


The check is made by the DM ("the Disguise check is made secretly")
The roll and any modifiers the character should not know about are kept secret ("you can’t be sure how good the result is")
The Disguise check is made at the time of the actual disguising
Favorable conditions, such as having party members qualified to judge the quality of the disguise, or having luxurious amounts of time to perfect the disguise, are simply represented by providing circumstance bonuses like anything else
To me, this seems to reasonably satisfy the demands of both RAW and simple verisimilitude.

[Psyren]

Nonetheless, I think we're getting into somewhat silly interpretive territory here.

Welcome to the playground :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Since RAW is a LITTLE fuzzy, we should maybe try for RAMS (Rules As Makes Sense), since it doesn't actually contradict. You can take special care in making a disguise, so long as you aren't hurried. You aren't making a check against a Spot check that takes place immediately as you make it, but instead make it against something that happens later (the same as with a Forgery check, generally). And so if you Take 10, you just make a little extra effort to ensure that your disguise is decent, rather than slapping it together and hoping for the best.

I see nothing wrong with allowing the T10 option.

[Curmudgeon]

Since RAW is a LITTLE fuzzy, we should maybe try for RAMS (Rules As Makes Sense), since it doesn't actually contradict. You can take special care in making a disguise, so long as you aren't hurried. You aren't making a check against a Spot check that takes place immediately as you make it, but instead make it against something that happens later (the same as with a Forgery check, generally). And so if you Take 10, you just make a little extra effort to ensure that your disguise is decent, rather than slapping it together and hoping for the best.
Well, if you're trying to make sense, you're not doing so well. The average of a d20 die roll is 10.5. "Take 10" guarantees worse-than-average performance. That's not what makes sense (to me, at least) when someone tries to "take special care in making a disguise". Or is what's special the fact that they do below-average work consistently? :smallconfused:

[Rubik]

Well, if you're trying to make sense, you're not doing so well. The average of a d20 die roll is 10.5. "Take 10" guarantees worse-than-average performance. That's not what makes sense (to me, at least) when someone tries to "take special care in making a disguise". Or is what's special the fact that they do below-average work consistently? :smallconfused:If you have a decent modifier, it's usually better to have a near-average roll than a bad roll, even if there's a half-chance of rolling better.

Why chance a nat 1?

[Curmudgeon]

Why chance a nat 1?
A natural 1 isn't a guaranteed failure on a skill check; it's just a low roll.

[sreservoir]

A natural 1 isn't a guaranteed failure on a skill check; it's just a low roll.

if a low roll means the viewers have a small chance of success...

[Rubik]

This is why I like playing factotums. Take 10, add your class level, and blow away anything even remotely level-appropriate. Later on even a nat 20 on an even-level character (with Spot maxed out) won't hit that DC...unless I roll low.

[SirFredgar]

....
Personally, I would say that the simplest and most straightforward interpretation is as follows:


The check is made by the DM ("the Disguise check is made secretly")
The roll and any modifiers the character should not know about are kept secret ("you can’t be sure how good the result is")
The Disguise check is made at the time of the actual disguising
Favorable conditions, such as having party members qualified to judge the quality of the disguise, or having luxurious amounts of time to perfect the disguise, are simply represented by providing circumstance bonuses like anything else
To me, this seems to reasonably satisfy the demands of both RAW and simple verisimilitude.

After reading through the skills, I found something in forgery that leads me to beleive the check is made when first observed, not when made.



The Forgery check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise you don't even need to make a check until someone examines the work.

The whole "you don't even need" part throws me off though, cause what if I want to make the check before that point. Because if it's always rolled while be observed, I'd say that automatically rules out taking 10, unless you have skill mastery. If you can make it, at your leasure,before that time... then we're still iffy on if it's possible to take ten on something you shouldn't know the result for.

[Psyren]

Well, if you're trying to make sense, you're not doing so well. The average of a d20 die roll is 10.5. "Take 10" guarantees worse-than-average performance.

It actually makes perfect sense. You round fractions down in d20. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#roundingFractions) 10.5 therefore becomes 10, hence "take 10."

[Mystify]

In response to the "you don't know how good it is because what may be good enough to fool a coworker won't fool a wife" argument:

The bonuses for being familiar with the person apply to the other person's spot check, not your disguise check. Your disguise check is a fixed number, and if you take a 10, you know how good it is. How good it is in comparison to someones spot check is different than its absolute quality.

And rolling the check only when it comes under scrutiny is just to save everyone's time. I've played with people who were always in disguise. We didn't bother rolling their disguise check every single day, and its not relevant every day. When we encounter someone who might see through it, then its rolled to see what it is at the moment, and use that number for the rest of the day. The rule is not meant to imply the action isn't occurring until that point. While it could be argued that the disguise is just as much acting as physical makeup, the forgery example makes it clear. How good the forgery is will be determined when its created, but you don't need to bother with the roll unless it is actually being looked at.

I've always interpreted taking 10 as being the level at which you can do something consistently. Under duress, you are panicking and not doing it normally, and hence may do worse than normal. Certain abilities say that you are so adept at doing a certain action that you can take 10 under duress anyways.

When you are doing something consistently, you aren't going to mess up, but you aren't going to do an amazing job either. You aren't pushing yourself. When you make the roll, you are trying to push yourself in some manner. You may mess up because of it, but it is the only way to perform spectacularly.

This doesn't have much basis in the rules, but here is how I would run it:
you can take 10 on a disguise that you use regularly. If your character has the alternate persona of jimbob humbleman, and use it frequently, they are adept at putting on their disguise and can take a 10 on it. They know what elements of the disguise to put on, how they fit together, how to slip into the character. However, if instead they try to disguise as princess jasmine, a persona they have never used, they must roll. They don't know if any given element of the disguise will be convincing, and have to try things. It may end up as a unpassable mess, or be extremely convincing.

This has the added advantage of supporting people who go undercover long-term. The spy that has infiltrated the palace for 10 years is taking 10 on his disguise, and is not going to be outed one day because he rolled a 1 on his disguise check. Combine that with reverse familiarity penalties (people are familiar with the disguised persona, not the original character, and hence would take a penalty on their spot check based on the familiarity), and you can easily support long-term undercover agents. However, one cannot get that degree of reliability on a new disguise.

[Psyren]

The bonuses for being familiar with the person apply to the other person's spot check, not your disguise check. Your disguise check is a fixed number, and if you take a 10, you know how good it is. How good it is in comparison to someones spot check is different than its absolute quality.

As an opposed check, "how good it is" inherently depends on two factors, not one. There is no static DC to beat.

[Mystify]

As an opposed check, "how good it is" inherently depends on two factors, not one. There is no static DC to beat.

No, how good you are is only dependent on yourself. Whether that is sufficient is dependent on the other person.

If someone rolls a 30 on a disguise check, they have a really food disguise. If their opponent rolls a 5 on his spot check, it doesn't mean the disguise is any better. If they roll a 100, it doesn't mean the disguise is pathetic. All it means is that they saw through it, or didn't.

[Psyren]

No, how good you are is only dependent on yourself. Whether that is sufficient is dependent on the other person.

When your only metric IS the other person, those are the same thing. There is no objective "disguise-o-meter" and no guidelines handed down in the clergy of Olidammara and Mask.

I don't think we'll ever agree though, so let's shake hands on it and move on.

[Mystify]

When your only metric IS the other person, those are the same thing. There is no objective "disguise-o-meter" and no guidelines handed down in the clergy of Olidammara and Mask.

I don't think we'll ever agree though, so let's shake hands on it and move on.
Regardless, arguing that you can take a ten because you don't know how well you did because you don't knowhow good your opponent is makes a very silly argument. Not knowing the DC you need to beat has nothing to do with being able to take 10.

[Psyren]

Regardless, arguing that you can take a ten because you don't know how well you did because you don't knowhow good your opponent is makes a very silly argument. Not knowing the DC you need to beat has nothing to do with being able to take 10.

It's exactly as silly as saying you can't take 10 when every other skill that prevents that says so explicitly. So yeah: semantics, meet semantics.

[Mystify]

It's exactly as silly as saying you can't take 10 when every other skill that prevents that says so explicitly. So yeah: semantics, meet semantics.
Arguing that you can take 10 unless otherwise specified, and that it is not otherwise specified, seems like a good argument to be putting forth.

Looking at the rules, I don't see anyplace that says you can't take 10 on opposed checks. It says you can't take 10 when you are being threatened or distracted, which would rule out most opposed skill checks. But disguise is made when setting up the disguise. If you have nothing distracting you, and you are in good conditions for the disguise, you should be able to take ten. If you are ducked behind a corner trying to disguise yourself before being discovered, you are being distracted by the urgency of the situation, and can't take 10.

The argument against it was that the check is made when you are seen, not in the ideal circumstances beforehand. I don't think this applies. "You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Spot checks against it."
This clearly shows that you are not making the disguise check against them. You are making a single check, you have a fixed level of disguise, and everyone else has to try to see through it.

"The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is. "
This clause clearly prevents you from taking 20, and you can't judge how good a disguise is when you roll. If you roll, you have to use it and hope for the best. Even though you don't roll until someone makes a check, you would still be able to have someone else, perhaps even a party member, make the spot check, see what you roll for how good it is, and decide whether or not to go through with the plan, or put on a new disguise if there is time. It would be like being able to roll your climb check before climbing the wall, see that you only rolled a 5, and decide to not even attempt the climb. However, even though you must roll the climb check when actually performing the action, you are still permitted to take 10.

Hence, I would conclude that you can take 10. The RAW indicates you can, and as far as I can tell, RAI supports it as well.

[Psyren]

Arguing that you can take 10 unless otherwise specified, and that it is not otherwise specified, seems like a good argument to be putting forth.

Indeed - which is why I did, in my very first post in this thread :smalltongue:
But as much as I may find the other dance distasteful, I can certainly dance it when challenged.

Anyway... I said I'd bow out of this and ended up staying half a page longer than I intended, so, peace to all.