Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hide and Seek

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:06:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Been meditating on the Search skill and how success at respective Hide and
Spot attempts are determined by opposed rolls. Then started thinking that a
character should be able to use the Hide skill not only to hide away himself
but any object, and how his Hide check would then oppose (or become the DC
of) any ensuing Search checks.

I then began to consider what sorts of modifiers, if any might effect the
Hide attempt(s). An example:

A human rouge 7/assassin 5 with 15 ranks in Hide has just rubbed out his
mark. Making himself scarce is no problem, but for various story reasons
(humour me) he needs to dispose of the murder weapon, a dagger, and the body
of the victim. He doesn't have time to move the body any great distance and
can't keep the weapon on his person, but is limited to hiding all the
evidence in the very room the murder took place (maybe he's been
masquerading as the victim's manservant and someone could come knocking at
any moment). He cleverly stows the dagger somewhere near the ceiling with a
roll of 12 and buries the body under old clothing at the back of the room's
wardrobe with a roll of 7. He figures he has at most two days before the
stench of decay leads to the discovery of the body.

With his 15 ranks his base hide attempts are 27 for the dagger and 22 for
the body. What should modify these results?

In this case Hide certainly wouldn't be modified by Dex. Personally I would
lean toward modifying it with Wis, but Search is modified by Int, which
might be just as fitting a candidate.

Should size of the objects be a factor? The dagger is diminutive; does the
+12 size modifier for diminutive creature apply?

I await your comments, flames, and accusations of my being a "bumbling
halfwit", etc.


--

Argentium Helm

More about : hide seek

Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:06:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

If you're looking for opposed rolls, I'd go for opposed Search checks.
They're both based on INT, giving the feel of a battle of wits with the
investigator.

Object size is tough - a dagger would be next to impossible to find
using size mods. I'd skip it for opposed rules. If you wanted to do
size modifiers, I'd go for straight DC checks.

Investigator checks (adjust to taste):
DC 15 figures out that things were rearranged
DC 20 finds a chair out of place (towards the dagger area)
DC 25 finds the dagger
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 6:40:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In a dizzying speech from his throne, Jimmer <jimmer@gmail.com>
imparted this wisdom:
>If you're looking for opposed rolls, I'd go for opposed Search checks.
>They're both based on INT, giving the feel of a battle of wits with the
>investigator.

Though I think I may know what you have in mind, I can't agree that a
character should make a Search check in order to hide an object. The
implication would then seem to me to be that investigators (I.i.e..
those
with many ranks in Search) would make the best stashers-away of
treasures in the world.

Remember also that in the RAW Hide and Spot oppose oneanother. Your
character doesn't oppose a hiding rogue's Hide check with his own Hide
check in an effort to deduce (with Intelligence) where the rogue might
be hiding, he makes a Spot check (using the common sense and gut
intution of his Wisdom) hoping to catch a glimpse of the rogue's hood
or sleeve peeking out from behind a stack of crates, or perhaps a glint
of light reflecting off a belt buckle.

Since certain characters invest a lot of time and effort (i.e. skill
points) into learning how to better keep themselves out of sight, I was
thinking that this training would extend to keeping other things
equally well out of sight. Therefore, IMHO, Hide should oppose Search.

I do, however, like you're remark about "a battle of wits". As I said,
I was leaning towards Wis as the ability modifier to this sort of Hide
check -- being that hiding an object could be considered an act of gut
instinct. OTOH, I was also considering that Search is an Int based
skill, and that performing this sort of opposed Hide check as Int
modified would set up that sort of endless "I know that you know that I
know that you think that I think you can't outsmart me..." kind of
agonizing.

>Object size is tough - a dagger would be next to impossible to find
>using size mods. I'd skip it for opposed rules. If you wanted to do
>size modifiers, I'd go for straight DC checks.

Agreed. Now that I've crunched some numbers, I see that my 12th-level
rogue/assassin's dagger would have a Search DC of at least 39 with its
size mod figured in, meaning a 20th-level investigator with max ranks
in Search and the Investigator feat (at least +25) would still only
have a 35% chance on d20 of finding it. That's way out of hand.

>Investigator checks (adjust to taste):
>DC 15 figures out that things were rearranged
>DC 20 finds a chair out of place (towards the dagger area)
>DC 25 finds the dagger

Hmmm. Varying degrees of success? I like it.

Thanks for your input.


--

Argentium Helm
Related resources
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:05:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Argentium Helm wrote:
> In a dizzying speech from his throne, Jimmer <jimmer@gmail.com>
> imparted this wisdom:
> >If you're looking for opposed rolls, I'd go for opposed Search checks.
> >They're both based on INT, giving the feel of a battle of wits with the
> >investigator.
>
> Though I think I may know what you have in mind, I can't agree that a
> character should make a Search check in order to hide an object. The
> implication would then seem to me to be that investigators (I.i.e..
> those
> with many ranks in Search) would make the best stashers-away of
> treasures in the world.

And why not?

They say that the most dangerous crooks are former cops gone bad, and
conversely, reformed criminals make the best detectives, because they
know how the other side thinks.

I think it makes sense that someone trained to search well would also
be great at hiding stuff.

> Remember also that in the RAW Hide and Spot oppose oneanother. Your
> character doesn't oppose a hiding rogue's Hide check with his own Hide
> check in an effort to deduce (with Intelligence) where the rogue might
> be hiding, he makes a Spot check (using the common sense and gut
> intution of his Wisdom) hoping to catch a glimpse of the rogue's hood
> or sleeve peeking out from behind a stack of crates, or perhaps a glint
> of light reflecting off a belt buckle.
>
> Since certain characters invest a lot of time and effort (i.e. skill
> points) into learning how to better keep themselves out of sight, I was
> thinking that this training would extend to keeping other things
> equally well out of sight. Therefore, IMHO, Hide should oppose Search.

This is also a valid way of looking at it. Especially since there's an
Epic use of Hide that involves Hiding another person.

> >Object size is tough - a dagger would be next to impossible to find
> >using size mods. I'd skip it for opposed rules. If you wanted to do
> >size modifiers, I'd go for straight DC checks.
>
> Agreed. Now that I've crunched some numbers, I see that my 12th-level
> rogue/assassin's dagger would have a Search DC of at least 39 with its
> size mod figured in, meaning a 20th-level investigator with max ranks
> in Search and the Investigator feat (at least +25) would still only
> have a 35% chance on d20 of finding it. That's way out of hand.

Don't forget that you can take 20 on a Search check, while you probably
wouldn't be able to take 20 on hiding the item. That tilts the odds
back quite a bit.

Laszlo
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 7:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In a dizzying speach from his throne, <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu>
imparted this wisdom:

> Argentium Helm wrote:
>>
>> ...I can't agree that a character should make a Search check in order
>> to hide an object. The implication would then seem to me to be that
>> investigators (i.e. those with many ranks in Search) would make the
>> best stashers-away of treasures in the world.
>
>And why not?
>
>They say that the most dangerous crooks are former cops gone bad, and
>conversely, reformed criminals make the best detectives, because they
>know how the other side thinks.
>
>I think it makes sense that someone trained to search well would also
>be great at hiding stuff.

I think Jimmer was making the same point, and in the "Real World(TM)"
sense, I don't disagree with either of you. It's in the conversion to
abstract game mechanics that Search opposing Search doesn't sit well
with me. How about +2 synergistic circumstance bonus from Search to
Hide when Hide is being used in this manner?

>> Remember also that in the RAW Hide and Spot oppose oneanother. Your
>> character doesn't oppose a hiding rogue's Hide check with his own Hide
>> check in an effort to deduce (with Intelligence) where the rogue might
>> be hiding, he makes a Spot check (using the common sense and gut
>> intution of his Wisdom) hoping to catch a glimpse of the rogue's hood
>> or sleeve peeking out from behind a stack of crates, or perhaps a glint
>> of light reflecting off a belt buckle.
>>
>> Since certain characters invest a lot of time and effort (i.e. skill
>> points) into learning how to better keep themselves out of sight, I was
>> thinking that this training would extend to keeping other things
>> equally well out of sight. Therefore, IMHO, Hide should oppose Search.
>
>This is also a valid way of looking at it. Especially since there's an
>Epic use of Hide that involves Hiding another person.

Thanks for the reference to the Epic use. I checked it out.

<snip!>

>Don't forget that you can take 20 on a Search check, while you probably
>wouldn't be able to take 20 on hiding the item. That tilts the odds
>back quite a bit.
>
>Laszlo

Right. I wasn't thinking of taking 20 when I typed that last bit, and
it makes all the difference in the world. Re-crunching the numbers, an
investigator would need Search +19 while taking 20 to find my DC 39
dagger: doable by 14th-level character with the Investigator feat, and
not even counting Int bonus (if any). That's on par with my 12th-level
rogue/assassin. Thank you.


--

Argentium Helm
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:53:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Argentium Helm wrote:
> In a dizzying speach from his throne, <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu>
> imparted this wisdom:
>
> >I think it makes sense that someone trained to search well would also
> >be great at hiding stuff.
>
> I think Jimmer was making the same point, and in the "Real World(TM)"
> sense, I don't disagree with either of you. It's in the conversion to
> abstract game mechanics that Search opposing Search doesn't sit well
> with me. How about +2 synergistic circumstance bonus from Search to
> Hide when Hide is being used in this manner?

Well, I'm not really a big fan of the whole synergy bonus system (it
doesn't scale). I guess it's not a bad way of handling it, though.

> >Don't forget that you can take 20 on a Search check, while you probably
> >wouldn't be able to take 20 on hiding the item. That tilts the odds
> >back quite a bit.
> >
> >Laszlo
>
> Right. I wasn't thinking of taking 20 when I typed that last bit, and
> it makes all the difference in the world. Re-crunching the numbers, an
> investigator would need Search +19 while taking 20 to find my DC 39
> dagger: doable by 14th-level character with the Investigator feat, and
> not even counting Int bonus (if any). That's on par with my 12th-level
> rogue/assassin. Thank you.

Happy to help.

Laszlo
!