Post/Author/DateTime	Post
curan69 03-02-07, 09:37 AM	So can my Thief take 20 on a disguise check? I thought If it had an opposed check it was automatically "No" but now I'm not so sure. For example If I use sleight of hand to hide a dagger on my person someone can take 20 when they search me. So the opposed rule is out the window. Even in the disguise skill it talks about the DM assuming that guards are taking 10 on their spot checks. So what stops me from doing it till i get it right and taking 20 for disguise? Thats the premise for a Thief taking 20 on a search for traps.( that thread in the other section is what got me thinking) I mean in either case you dont know you've failed but for some reason you keep going to make sure you've done the best you can. Like searching for traps there is no consequence for failing a disguise check. failure is not a consequence, so failing to fool someone with a disguise is just that. Like Locks, some think that the consequence of failing to open a lock is that you cant get through the door, but its not, you just fail to open the lock. therefore you can take 20 on open lock checks
Inigo Carmine 03-02-07, 10:17 AM	Tangent: Can we stop saying "Thief"? So can my Thief take 20 on a disguise check? No. Let me start off by saying that if you're even the least bit confused on whether or not you can take 20 on something, just don't bother with taking 20. In any situation that allows you to take 20, it is not advantageous to do so. Nor is it very disadvantageous to do so. It is simply a mechanic for saving time out of game at the expense of time in game. That's it, it's simply a time-saving mechanic so you can get on with your game. If you take any significant time to think about & debate about whether or not you can use it, you have raped, pillaged, murdered and destroyed all the meaning that the rule has. I thought If it had an opposed check it was automatically "No" but now I'm not so sure. For example If I use sleight of hand to hide a dagger on my person someone can take 20 when they search me. So the opposed rule is out the window. You cannot take 20 to hide a dagger on your person, as there is a consequence for failure. While I don't know of a set rule that says anything with an opposed check does not allow taking 20 on, it does tend to hold fast because I don't know of any opposed check that does not have a consequence for failure. At least not off the top of my head. Even in the disguise skill it talks about the DM assuming that guards are taking 10 on their spot checks. So what stops me from doing it till i get it right and taking 20 for disguise? There is a consequence for failure. Thats the premise for a Thief taking 20 on a search for traps.( that thread in the other section is what got me thinking) I mean in either case you dont know you've failed but for some reason you keep going to make sure you've done the best you can. Like searching for traps there is no consequence for failing a disguise check. failure is not a consequence, so failing to fool someone with a disguise is just that. Like Locks, some think that the consequence of failing to open a lock is that you cant get through the door, but its not, you just fail to open the lock. therefore you can take 20 on open lock checks But someone seeing through your disguise is a consequence. I think you're not understanding what is meant by "consequence for failure". It's something that changes the status quo or has an effect. Failing to pick a lock doesn't have any effect on anything, you can simply try again. Now if failing to pick a lock (In D&D) had a chance of jamming the lock shut, you would no longer be allowed to take 20 on it. Even though the overall situation hasn't changed (door is still locked), something has actually happened as a result of your attempt; the lock is now more difficult to impossible to pick.
Thyrwyn 03-02-07, 10:39 AM	also note that the character does not know if he ahs failed, as the RAW states that "You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Spot checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is."
DrMorganes 03-02-07, 10:41 AM	Tangent: Can we stop saying "Thief"?Bah. "Rogue" is a character class. "Thief" is a character concept. I've played a thief for the last 22 years, and will continue to play thieves. Not all of them have been rogues! (Three cheers for Complete Scoundrel for bringing this concept to the masses!) As far as Taking 20 on Disguise Checks: Inigo Carmine has it right. You cannot Take 20 on ANY skill check where there is ANY penalty for failure. Read the rules for Taking 10 and Taking 20 again. Both are mechanics for speeding up the pace of the game. To Take 10, you're simply accepting an average roll on the d20 and applying your skill modifiers. Honestly, I've allowed this in combat against obviously inferior foes as a way to speed things along. Taking 20, however, is a different mechanic entirely. You're not accepting a statistically average d20 result. You're actually making the skill check 20 times with the understanding that, statistically, you'll "roll" a 20. Doing so takes 20 times as long, and actually assumes you make 20 rolls, 1 through 20. If there is a penalty for failure ("penalty" meaning something bad that prevents you from trying again), you can't Take 20. Climbing is a great example here. You CAN rely on your skill and Take 10 on a Climb Check, but you can't Take 20 because the penalty for outright failure on a Climb Check is FALLING. As it pertains to Disguise, you never quite know how good your disguise is going to be until you test it. If it wasn't good enough, you're discovered and at a minimum are very likely to be detained by the suspicious Watch - who will be VERY interested to know why you're running around wearing a wig, some lampblack, and pretending to have a hunchback. As this translates to the rules, you CAN Take 10. If your Disguise ranks are maxed, you have a decent CHA bonus, and you use a Disguise Kit, odds are that by Level 3 you'll be able to don a disguise that most Watchmen won't have a prayer of noticing. However, having your disguise noticed probably means Bad Things will happen. As such you CANNOT Take 20 on the check. You want something that good, you'll need to roll and take your chances!
Nathreet 03-02-07, 11:58 AM	Any time when you may roll 20 times in a roll, recognize which attempts are successful, and fail without consequence, you may take a 20. This takes 20 times longer than normal. Taking a 20 simply means, "I try 20 times in a row and we assume that 1 of them is a 20 to speed up the game".
Someone 03-02-07, 01:13 PM	Provided that taking 20 on a Disguise check would take 3-10 HOURS to complete, I don't really see how its viable. The only thing that comes close is Hollywood special effects (fat suits, full body costumes, etc.).
Alvoros Darkleaf 03-02-07, 01:15 PM	Our "in house" check to see if taking 20 makes sense is it is the same as "Taking 1, Taking 2, Taking 3, Taking 4......Taking 20"...seems to work pretty well. Example...searching for a trap in the square ahead. I have lots of time..."I take 20". Take 1....find nothing...no bad effect. Take 2....find nothing...no bad effect. .. etc. etc. .. Take 20....find trap....good result. Took 20 rounds though. Now...compare that to disable device (trap)....Hmmmm...lots of time...."I take 20". Take 1...disable fails...fails by a huge amount...trap goes off...BOOM! Hmmm...guess I should have "Taken 10" on that disable device....oops. Alvo
curan69 03-02-07, 01:37 PM	Ok , so take 10 is OK , but no take 20. Got it
ShinAkuma2 03-02-07, 01:42 PM	Taking 20 doesn't necessarily mean getting a 1-20 in that order. It means, in 20 tries, you got a 20. Now, how do we know that your last attempt (the one that matters) is the 20? Well, I guess you'd roll for it...See what I'm getting at here? With, say, a Search check, it doesn't matter when that 20 comes up; it only matters that it did. With Disguise, however, you'd be reapplying that disguise over and over, and only the latest one would be seen.
jameswilliamogle 03-02-07, 01:48 PM	Notice this, though: If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Spot checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks. So, unless someone has reason to suspect you, or is "suspicious", you automatically are disguised. There's another way to get effectively really high Disguise rolls, too: the party Cleric is bound to have at least a +3 Wis mod, and +3 Spot. Disguise yourself, and see if the Cleric can spot the disguise. You'll know you at least have a higher number than his/her roll. Disguise mod's are crazy easy to boost. Hat of Disguise, or UMD+Disguise Self, gives a +10 bonus on a Disguise check. Even though Disguise Check has a duration, the Disguise skill does not. Around 5th level, w/ maxed Disguise and no Cha mod, you'll be looking at a 30 Disguise check by taking 10, hat of Disguise, and masterwork disguise kit. I don't know too many "suspicious" NPCs that could penetrate that.
ravenshrike 03-02-07, 05:19 PM	How much time do you have? If you take quite a few hours to apply the disguise, as in you will be wearing it for extended periods of time, then sure, you can take 20. Of course, is an added 10 to your check worth taking 20 times longer than the normal amount of time? Most times, it wouldn't.
Jaxgaret 03-02-07, 09:44 PM	Note also the fact that Disguise uses Charisma as the modifying attribute. As Charisma has nothing to do with how well one would apply a Disguise, this means that part of the Disguise check is the character's assumption of the role, their skill at becoming another person. This is the primary reason that there is no 20 to be taken on a Disguise check. Even if the Disguise is perfectly put on, there can still be some little thing that the PC does not know about the Disguise they are using, or a momentary lapse in concentration of keeping perfectly in character, that will tip them off to anyone suspicious. And thus, the randomness roll of the d20. One of the better examples of a d20 roll actually being logical and realistic in application. As opposed to Strength checks where a 100-pound weakling has a chance of beating a 200-pound musclehead at arm wrestling.
ShinAkuma2 03-02-07, 10:21 PM	As opposed to Strength checks where a 100-pound weakling has a chance of beating a 200-pound musclehead at arm wrestling. I don't think there's any luck involved in arm wrestling, and as the PHB says, "Just as you don't need to make a height check to see who's taller, you don't need a Strength check to see who's stronger." ...That's probably not an exact quote, but it gets the point across.
Gatecrasher 03-02-07, 10:29 PM	Bah. "Rogue" is a character class. "Thief" is a character concept. I've played a thief for the last 22 years, and will continue to play thieves. Not all of them have been rogues! (Three cheers for Complete Scoundrel for bringing this concept to the masses!) (Originally sent to DrMorganes via PM, but then felt it was worth posting here as well). I really enjoyed reading your response, especially when you made it clear that you play a thief and not a rogue. The emphasis here is that you, "play a thief." Many players these days don't know what it is they are playing and couldn't answer that question if they tried. Gone are the days when most people "play" a character or a class. These days people just "take levels" in classes, a little bit here and a little bit there, like they are baking a cake. I started playing Dungeons and Dragons again after being away for many years and my first game was at an RPGA convention. I was shocked by some of "characters" I saw. One of the most outrageous (and I'm sure there are worse) was a Paladin/Monk/Sorcerer. I think he had a serious identity crisis. How does one even attempt to explain this in their character biography or do players even bother to write character biographys anymore? Later, I had the opportunity to play a game with Dave Arneson in his original Blackmoor campaign and it was quite the contrast! It was good to go back to the roots of an olde fashioned dungeon crawl. And let me add, there were no "rogues" in Dave's game. Certainly, there have been many great additions to Dungeons and Dragons over the years, but we have lost a lot as well. These days many players are more interested in "building" a character, like they build a Magic deck, always looking for that extra edge to "maximize" their game. Well.. this has just been the ramblings of a nostalgic gamer. Thanks again for keeping the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons alive and thanks for actually playing a character.
Jaxgaret 03-03-07, 12:46 AM	I don't think there's any luck involved in arm wrestling, and as the PHB says, "Just as you don't need to make a height check to see who's taller, you don't need a Strength check to see who's stronger." ...That's probably not an exact quote, but it gets the point across. Woops. Picked the exact example the PHB states as the exception! :) But there are others that make little sense, by RAW.
Someone 03-03-07, 02:11 AM	With Disguise, however, you'd be reapplying that disguise over and over, and only the latest one would be seen.I think this is the best explanation so far. I think we can all think of people who wear too much makeup, to the point that they look fake.