Hide in Plain Sight & Camouflage? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Hide in Plain Sight & Camouflage? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Wattas
04-05-07, 09:35 PM I have searched all over various forums (and found debate), but I have not found a definitive answer anywhere. My question is thus: if you receive hide in plain sight (e.g., say from the Wildrunner PrC, RotW), but you do not have the camouflage special ability (e.g., say from a ranger or scout), do you still need cover or concealment to hide in natural terrain?

I'm not really concerned about the "while being observed" aspect of hide in plain sight. What I'm really wondering is: can my Wildrunner PC (once he has hide in plain sight) go strolling through a forest (or any natural terrain for that matter) while hiding and moving silently without cover or concealment, or would he need to have camouflage in order to do that?

Thanks guys. And if this has already been definitively covered somewhere else, sorry for the inconvenience, and please direct me to said discussion.
tos_shai_hulud
04-05-07, 09:48 PM No, he cannot hide without concealment or cover. All hide checks (with camouflage or without) require cover or concealment. The difference is that camouflage provides concealment.
calronmoonflower
04-06-07, 02:05 AM You don't need cover or concealment as long as you are in a natural terrain.

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 13th level or higher can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.
Wattas
04-06-07, 03:45 AM Yeah, I actually found some info on it in the FAQ under Spring Attack. Seems pretty clear you need that cover or concealment.

However, that description in the FAQ raises some new questions and optimization possibilities. In the final example given, where a PC with camouflage & hide in plain sight is attacking via spring attack, there are at least 2 hide checks taking place, and possibly more. It also makes clear (earlier) that if you have hide in plain sight, you can hide while being observed (obviously), and doing so "doesn't require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver)." Also, the FAQ makes clear that a character who has successfully hidden is treated as invisible for rendering his opponent flat-footed.

Does this mean your opponent (that you have successfully hidden against) is only flat-footed against the 1st attack you make, or would he be flat-footed against all your attacks (say a full-attack in melee, or a full attack hail of arrows while hiding)? I could see them ruling that, esp in melee, after the first attack, you become "visible", and thus your opponent is not considered flat-footed anymore. I'm not so sure about a full attack with arrows though.

And what about if you have the pounce special ability? If you successfully hide your charge (-20 penalty), and then you attack (gaining a full attack sequence), would your opponent be flat-footed against just the first attack, or the entire sequence?
meabolex
04-06-07, 01:23 PM Does this mean your opponent (that you have successfully hidden against) is only flat-footed against the 1st attack you make, or would he be flat-footed against all your attacks (say a full-attack in melee, or a full attack hail of arrows while hiding)? I could see them ruling that, esp in melee, after the first attack, you become "visible", and thus your opponent is not considered flat-footed anymore. I'm not so sure about a full attack with arrows though.

And what about if you have the pounce special ability? If you successfully hide your charge (-20 penalty), and then you attack (gaining a full attack sequence), would your opponent be flat-footed against just the first attack, or the entire sequence?

I believe the hide check applies for each attack at -20:

3.5 SRD
It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

For the example where you are both charging and attacking (pounce), you'd need to roll a hide-20 check for the charge, then a hide-20 for after each attack -- assuming that you have the two ranger abilities. So if you have 8 attacks (including a haste attack and 3 off-hand attacks), you'd roll a hide-20 to get there and a hide-20 after each attack (9 hide checks total). If you fail one, you can't make the others because you're being observed at that point.

As long as you make the hide check before each attack, I don't see the problem in having the target flat-footed - whether you get the +2 to hit when you attack as an invisible attacker is slightly more debatable, but I'd probably allow it.
Limousine_Liberal
04-06-07, 01:51 PM I think Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage suffer from a bit of carelessness on the part of WotC. Sometimes it seems perfectly clear to me that they confused the two things. The Shadowdancer PrC, for example is "Hide in Plain Sight", but the ability description also clearly says that to don't need cover to Hide. I think it would be silly to read that PrC as still requiring concealment (though that reading is not technically, completely foreclosed).

I think many times when the authors write "Hide in Plain Sight" they mean "Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage." In my games, I assume as a default that the to abilities are separate and that the HiPS ability does not automatically grant Camouflage, unless the class ability seems to clearly suggest otherwise.
Wattas
04-06-07, 06:46 PM I believe the hide check applies for each attack at -20:
Seems to make sense I guess: after every attack, you run the risk of "exposing" yourself.

For the example where you are both charging and attacking (pounce), you'd need to roll a hide-20 check for the charge, then a hide-20 for after each attack -- assuming that you have the two ranger abilities. So if you have 8 attacks (including a haste attack and 3 off-hand attacks), you'd roll a hide-20 to get there and a hide-20 after each attack (9 hide checks total).
I realize the penalty is extreme, but at high levels, with maxed out hide, and some help from spells/magic, it is conceivable. Especially if you're opponent has no ranks in spot (and an unimpressive wisdom score). Either way, I can work on maxing out my hide--I just wanted to know if it was possible first.
If you fail one, you can't make the others because you're being observed at that point.
Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :)
As long as you make the hide check before each attack, I don't see the problem in having the target flat-footed - whether you get the +2 to hit when you attack as an invisible attacker is slightly more debatable, but I'd probably allow it.
If he is flat-footed after every successful hide, that is pretty sick for sneak attack. Also, if you could do it in melee, it goes without saying you must be able to do it in ranged combat. So, you should be able to fire off a full attack of arrows--once again, hiding after each individual shot at a -20 penalty (and then hiding after your final shot to remain hidden, so they don't know where the attack came from)--and treat your opponent as flat-footed for each attack (assuming you pull off the multiple hide checks of course). Makes for some nasty possibilities for a rogue with a splitting bow. Blehhh. :eek:

Also, one more thing about the original charging/melee/pounce example. If you successfully hide after your whole pounce/full attack routine--which you can do because you have camouflage & hide in plain sight, and you are in a natural setting--then your opponent will have just been attacked (theoretically) 8 times and not even know where his attacker is! Wtf? I mean, he'll only really have 8 possible choices in terms of adjacent squares, so that narrows it down a bit.

Unless, of course, you are using a reach weapon. Then it becomes much more problematic for your foe to figure out where you are. And, you could always enlarge yourself to make it even more difficult for your opponent to even begin to guess where you are (not to mention do more damage). Wow.

This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works?
tos_shai_hulud
04-06-07, 08:19 PM Seems to make sense I guess: after every attack, you run the risk of "exposing" yourself.

I realize the penalty is extreme, but at high levels, with maxed out hide, and some help from spells/magic, it is conceivable. Especially if you're opponent has no ranks in spot (and an unimpressive wisdom score). Either way, I can work on maxing out my hide--I just wanted to know if it was possible first.

Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :)

If he is flat-footed after every successful hide, that is pretty sick for sneak attack. Also, if you could do it in melee, it goes without saying you must be able to do it in ranged combat. So, you should be able to fire off a full attack of arrows--once again, hiding after each individual shot at a -20 penalty (and then hiding after your final shot to remain hidden, so they don't know where the attack came from)--and treat your opponent as flat-footed for each attack (assuming you pull off the multiple hide checks of course). Makes for some nasty possibilities for a rogue with a splitting bow. Blehhh. :eek:

Also, one more thing about the original charging/melee/pounce example. If you successfully hide after your whole pounce/full attack routine--which you can do because you have camouflage & hide in plain sight, and you are in a natural setting--then your opponent will have just been attacked (theoretically) 8 times and not even know where his attacker is! Wtf? I mean, he'll only really have 8 possible choices in terms of adjacent squares, so that narrows it down a bit.

Unless, of course, you are using a reach weapon. Then it becomes much more problematic for your foe to figure out where you are. And, you could always enlarge yourself to make it even more difficult for your opponent to even begin to guess where you are (not to mention do more damage). Wow.

This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works?

According to sniping rules, it takes a move action to make the hide check after the standard action attack roll. You cannot rapid-fire snipe, so I would think it would work similarly for a full attack action in melee using Hide in Plain Sight. After you make one attack, you make a hide check with a -20. If you succeed, the person knows he was attacked, but doesn't know that his attacker is standing right next to him. He spends time looking around.

The alternative would be that you make your attack, then roll a hide check without the -20. In this case, you attack, breaking your hide, then you take a move action to hide again. This is different because now the enemy knows exactly where you are. Just because you are hiding does not mean that he will not still attempt to swing at where he believes you to be. The fact that you can take a 5' step to hide would be a benefit, though, and might conceal your true location (provided you haven't taken a 5' step before in the round). Moving at half speed, you may also be able to hide at a penalty (don't remember the rules on that).
Wattas
04-06-07, 08:33 PM According to sniping rules, it takes a move action to make the hide check after the standard action attack roll. You cannot rapid-fire snipe, so I would think it would work similarly for a full attack action in melee using Hide in Plain Sight.
I was thinking something along these lines too, except that the FAQ makes it explicitly clear that you do not have to take a move action in order to hide after firing if you have hide in plain sight (check out the section on spring attack).

The alternative would be that you make your attack, then roll a hide check without the -20. )
Once again, the same FAQ section seems to indicate you keep the -20 penalty (which is good I think--otherwise it would be far too easy).
tos_shai_hulud
04-06-07, 09:07 PM It seems to be treated in a similar vein to Greater Invisibility. If that is the case, then you can maintain hidden through all of your attacks, but you are not hidden during the attack itself (according to the FAQ). After you make your full attack action, you do not have a move action left to make a hide check, and are then not hiding.
Wattas
04-06-07, 11:50 PM It seems to be treated in a similar vein to Greater Invisibility. If that is the case, then you can maintain hidden through all of your attacks, but you are not hidden during the attack itself (according to the FAQ).
The problem is that the FAQ only deals with a single attack scenarios (e.g., Spring Attack). It doesn't deal with what happens if you try to use hide on a full attack, so we don't know if it is like Greater Invisibility or not. If you have to keep re-hiding, it is more like Invisibility each time.
After you make your full attack action, you do not have a move action left to make a hide check, and are then not hiding.
But the question is, do you need a move action to hide or not? The description of the hide skill says Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so is doesn't take a separate action. However hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

However, as I wrote before, the FAQ says you don't need a move action to hide if you have hide in plain sight. It says it doesn't require any extra action at all. So, do you even have to move to hide? What about a 5 foot step, does that qualify as movement? Actually, you obviously don't need to move in order to hide. Anyone who lies in wait in ambush is digging in, not moving, and hiding. Invisibility even gives you a bonus to hide if you are immobile.

I guess the question is: do you need a move action in order to hide? I don't know for sure. It almost sounds like the drawing-a-weapon-as-a-free-action-combined-with-a regular-move if you have +1 base attack bonus. Except that specifically states a "regular move," whereas hide just says it is "normally" part of movement.

I suppose you probably do need a move action to do it though. If someone tries to hide in ambush (i.e., not moving), our group ususally treated that as a move action (I think?). It would seem to make sense to limit hide this way, even if just for simplicity's sake--let alone game balance. What do you guys think?
tos_shai_hulud
04-07-07, 12:44 AM The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to hide after the attack.

If I am not mistaken, the last sentence says that even with camouflage and hide in plain sight, you cannot make a hide check after an attack. You may have been hidden during the attack, but after the attack is over, you are no longer hidden. Unless I am mistaken.
Wattas
04-07-07, 12:55 AM Yeah, the wording is a bit confusing, but if you reread the whole entry there in the FAQ, it becomes clear that the author is going through step-by-step what would happen. In that particular pragraph you pulled, he discusses what would happen if you just had camouflage. In the paragraph prior, he disscusses what would happen if you only had hide in plain sight. In the final paragraph, he discusses what would happen if you had both camouflage and hide in plain sight (where he illustrates how you could actually hide after the attack).

Unfortunately, as I alluded to before, he doesn't deal with a PC full-attacking. He only deals with a very specific type of attack that requires a full round action (i.e., Spring Attack).
meabolex
04-09-07, 02:13 PM Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :)

Actually, yes. The combination of those two mechanics (HiPS and Camouflage) is sort of difficult to follow. Oops (; Well, you'd still be observed for the attack where you fail the hide check, but you can then hide again after the next attack - since you aren't technically being observed (Camouflage) and you don't need concealment or cover to hide (HiPS).

This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works?

Well, consider that you have 17 levels in one class (ranger), which is pretty much end game. That puts, at least in non-epic games, a damper on how much sneak attack you can have. And sneak attack itself is a very limited mechanic in terms of the sheer numbers of counters to it.

You can only use this in a particular setting - in many situations (wizard's tower, tavern, castle dungeon) this combination is worthless.

Also, the ranger is fairly far behind in the needed armor to avoid attacks from high BAB opponents in the late game. This method increases survivability considerably in the late game, but massive spot checks can still counter massive hide checks. Tremor/blindsense is fairly common.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wattas 04-05-07, 09:35 PM	I have searched all over various forums (and found debate), but I have not found a definitive answer anywhere. My question is thus: if you receive hide in plain sight (e.g., say from the Wildrunner PrC, RotW), but you do not have the camouflage special ability (e.g., say from a ranger or scout), do you still need cover or concealment to hide in natural terrain? I'm not really concerned about the "while being observed" aspect of hide in plain sight. What I'm really wondering is: can my Wildrunner PC (once he has hide in plain sight) go strolling through a forest (or any natural terrain for that matter) while hiding and moving silently without cover or concealment, or would he need to have camouflage in order to do that? Thanks guys. And if this has already been definitively covered somewhere else, sorry for the inconvenience, and please direct me to said discussion.
tos_shai_hulud 04-05-07, 09:48 PM	No, he cannot hide without concealment or cover. All hide checks (with camouflage or without) require cover or concealment. The difference is that camouflage provides concealment.
calronmoonflower 04-06-07, 02:05 AM	You don't need cover or concealment as long as you are in a natural terrain. Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 13th level or higher can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.
Wattas 04-06-07, 03:45 AM	Yeah, I actually found some info on it in the FAQ under Spring Attack. Seems pretty clear you need that cover or concealment. However, that description in the FAQ raises some new questions and optimization possibilities. In the final example given, where a PC with camouflage & hide in plain sight is attacking via spring attack, there are at least 2 hide checks taking place, and possibly more. It also makes clear (earlier) that if you have hide in plain sight, you can hide while being observed (obviously), and doing so "doesn't require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver)." Also, the FAQ makes clear that a character who has successfully hidden is treated as invisible for rendering his opponent flat-footed. Does this mean your opponent (that you have successfully hidden against) is only flat-footed against the 1st attack you make, or would he be flat-footed against all your attacks (say a full-attack in melee, or a full attack hail of arrows while hiding)? I could see them ruling that, esp in melee, after the first attack, you become "visible", and thus your opponent is not considered flat-footed anymore. I'm not so sure about a full attack with arrows though. And what about if you have the pounce special ability? If you successfully hide your charge (-20 penalty), and then you attack (gaining a full attack sequence), would your opponent be flat-footed against just the first attack, or the entire sequence?
meabolex 04-06-07, 01:23 PM	Does this mean your opponent (that you have successfully hidden against) is only flat-footed against the 1st attack you make, or would he be flat-footed against all your attacks (say a full-attack in melee, or a full attack hail of arrows while hiding)? I could see them ruling that, esp in melee, after the first attack, you become "visible", and thus your opponent is not considered flat-footed anymore. I'm not so sure about a full attack with arrows though. And what about if you have the pounce special ability? If you successfully hide your charge (-20 penalty), and then you attack (gaining a full attack sequence), would your opponent be flat-footed against just the first attack, or the entire sequence? I believe the hide check applies for each attack at -20: 3.5 SRD It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. For the example where you are both charging and attacking (pounce), you'd need to roll a hide-20 check for the charge, then a hide-20 for after each attack -- assuming that you have the two ranger abilities. So if you have 8 attacks (including a haste attack and 3 off-hand attacks), you'd roll a hide-20 to get there and a hide-20 after each attack (9 hide checks total). If you fail one, you can't make the others because you're being observed at that point. As long as you make the hide check before each attack, I don't see the problem in having the target flat-footed - whether you get the +2 to hit when you attack as an invisible attacker is slightly more debatable, but I'd probably allow it.
Limousine_Liberal 04-06-07, 01:51 PM	I think Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage suffer from a bit of carelessness on the part of WotC. Sometimes it seems perfectly clear to me that they confused the two things. The Shadowdancer PrC, for example is "Hide in Plain Sight", but the ability description also clearly says that to don't need cover to Hide. I think it would be silly to read that PrC as still requiring concealment (though that reading is not technically, completely foreclosed). I think many times when the authors write "Hide in Plain Sight" they mean "Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage." In my games, I assume as a default that the to abilities are separate and that the HiPS ability does not automatically grant Camouflage, unless the class ability seems to clearly suggest otherwise.
Wattas 04-06-07, 06:46 PM	I believe the hide check applies for each attack at -20: Seems to make sense I guess: after every attack, you run the risk of "exposing" yourself. For the example where you are both charging and attacking (pounce), you'd need to roll a hide-20 check for the charge, then a hide-20 for after each attack -- assuming that you have the two ranger abilities. So if you have 8 attacks (including a haste attack and 3 off-hand attacks), you'd roll a hide-20 to get there and a hide-20 after each attack (9 hide checks total). I realize the penalty is extreme, but at high levels, with maxed out hide, and some help from spells/magic, it is conceivable. Especially if you're opponent has no ranks in spot (and an unimpressive wisdom score). Either way, I can work on maxing out my hide--I just wanted to know if it was possible first. If you fail one, you can't make the others because you're being observed at that point. Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :) As long as you make the hide check before each attack, I don't see the problem in having the target flat-footed - whether you get the +2 to hit when you attack as an invisible attacker is slightly more debatable, but I'd probably allow it. If he is flat-footed after every successful hide, that is pretty sick for sneak attack. Also, if you could do it in melee, it goes without saying you must be able to do it in ranged combat. So, you should be able to fire off a full attack of arrows--once again, hiding after each individual shot at a -20 penalty (and then hiding after your final shot to remain hidden, so they don't know where the attack came from)--and treat your opponent as flat-footed for each attack (assuming you pull off the multiple hide checks of course). Makes for some nasty possibilities for a rogue with a splitting bow. Blehhh. :eek: Also, one more thing about the original charging/melee/pounce example. If you successfully hide after your whole pounce/full attack routine--which you can do because you have camouflage & hide in plain sight, and you are in a natural setting--then your opponent will have just been attacked (theoretically) 8 times and not even know where his attacker is! Wtf? I mean, he'll only really have 8 possible choices in terms of adjacent squares, so that narrows it down a bit. Unless, of course, you are using a reach weapon. Then it becomes much more problematic for your foe to figure out where you are. And, you could always enlarge yourself to make it even more difficult for your opponent to even begin to guess where you are (not to mention do more damage). Wow. This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works?
tos_shai_hulud 04-06-07, 08:19 PM	Seems to make sense I guess: after every attack, you run the risk of "exposing" yourself. I realize the penalty is extreme, but at high levels, with maxed out hide, and some help from spells/magic, it is conceivable. Especially if you're opponent has no ranks in spot (and an unimpressive wisdom score). Either way, I can work on maxing out my hide--I just wanted to know if it was possible first. Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :) If he is flat-footed after every successful hide, that is pretty sick for sneak attack. Also, if you could do it in melee, it goes without saying you must be able to do it in ranged combat. So, you should be able to fire off a full attack of arrows--once again, hiding after each individual shot at a -20 penalty (and then hiding after your final shot to remain hidden, so they don't know where the attack came from)--and treat your opponent as flat-footed for each attack (assuming you pull off the multiple hide checks of course). Makes for some nasty possibilities for a rogue with a splitting bow. Blehhh. :eek: Also, one more thing about the original charging/melee/pounce example. If you successfully hide after your whole pounce/full attack routine--which you can do because you have camouflage & hide in plain sight, and you are in a natural setting--then your opponent will have just been attacked (theoretically) 8 times and not even know where his attacker is! Wtf? I mean, he'll only really have 8 possible choices in terms of adjacent squares, so that narrows it down a bit. Unless, of course, you are using a reach weapon. Then it becomes much more problematic for your foe to figure out where you are. And, you could always enlarge yourself to make it even more difficult for your opponent to even begin to guess where you are (not to mention do more damage). Wow. This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works? According to sniping rules, it takes a move action to make the hide check after the standard action attack roll. You cannot rapid-fire snipe, so I would think it would work similarly for a full attack action in melee using Hide in Plain Sight. After you make one attack, you make a hide check with a -20. If you succeed, the person knows he was attacked, but doesn't know that his attacker is standing right next to him. He spends time looking around. The alternative would be that you make your attack, then roll a hide check without the -20. In this case, you attack, breaking your hide, then you take a move action to hide again. This is different because now the enemy knows exactly where you are. Just because you are hiding does not mean that he will not still attempt to swing at where he believes you to be. The fact that you can take a 5' step to hide would be a benefit, though, and might conceal your true location (provided you haven't taken a 5' step before in the round). Moving at half speed, you may also be able to hide at a penalty (don't remember the rules on that).
Wattas 04-06-07, 08:33 PM	According to sniping rules, it takes a move action to make the hide check after the standard action attack roll. You cannot rapid-fire snipe, so I would think it would work similarly for a full attack action in melee using Hide in Plain Sight. I was thinking something along these lines too, except that the FAQ makes it explicitly clear that you do not have to take a move action in order to hide after firing if you have hide in plain sight (check out the section on spring attack). The alternative would be that you make your attack, then roll a hide check without the -20. ) Once again, the same FAQ section seems to indicate you keep the -20 penalty (which is good I think--otherwise it would be far too easy).
tos_shai_hulud 04-06-07, 09:07 PM	It seems to be treated in a similar vein to Greater Invisibility. If that is the case, then you can maintain hidden through all of your attacks, but you are not hidden during the attack itself (according to the FAQ). After you make your full attack action, you do not have a move action left to make a hide check, and are then not hiding.
Wattas 04-06-07, 11:50 PM	It seems to be treated in a similar vein to Greater Invisibility. If that is the case, then you can maintain hidden through all of your attacks, but you are not hidden during the attack itself (according to the FAQ). The problem is that the FAQ only deals with a single attack scenarios (e.g., Spring Attack). It doesn't deal with what happens if you try to use hide on a full attack, so we don't know if it is like Greater Invisibility or not. If you have to keep re-hiding, it is more like Invisibility each time. After you make your full attack action, you do not have a move action left to make a hide check, and are then not hiding. But the question is, do you need a move action to hide or not? The description of the hide skill says Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so is doesn't take a separate action. However hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action. However, as I wrote before, the FAQ says you don't need a move action to hide if you have hide in plain sight. It says it doesn't require any extra action at all. So, do you even have to move to hide? What about a 5 foot step, does that qualify as movement? Actually, you obviously don't need to move in order to hide. Anyone who lies in wait in ambush is digging in, not moving, and hiding. Invisibility even gives you a bonus to hide if you are immobile. I guess the question is: do you need a move action in order to hide? I don't know for sure. It almost sounds like the drawing-a-weapon-as-a-free-action-combined-with-a regular-move if you have +1 base attack bonus. Except that specifically states a "regular move," whereas hide just says it is "normally" part of movement. I suppose you probably do need a move action to do it though. If someone tries to hide in ambush (i.e., not moving), our group ususally treated that as a move action (I think?). It would seem to make sense to limit hide this way, even if just for simplicity's sake--let alone game balance. What do you guys think?
tos_shai_hulud 04-07-07, 12:44 AM	The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to hide after the attack. If I am not mistaken, the last sentence says that even with camouflage and hide in plain sight, you cannot make a hide check after an attack. You may have been hidden during the attack, but after the attack is over, you are no longer hidden. Unless I am mistaken.
Wattas 04-07-07, 12:55 AM	Yeah, the wording is a bit confusing, but if you reread the whole entry there in the FAQ, it becomes clear that the author is going through step-by-step what would happen. In that particular pragraph you pulled, he discusses what would happen if you just had camouflage. In the paragraph prior, he disscusses what would happen if you only had hide in plain sight. In the final paragraph, he discusses what would happen if you had both camouflage and hide in plain sight (where he illustrates how you could actually hide after the attack). Unfortunately, as I alluded to before, he doesn't deal with a PC full-attacking. He only deals with a very specific type of attack that requires a full round action (i.e., Spring Attack).
meabolex 04-09-07, 02:13 PM	Unless you have hide in plain sight, right? :) Actually, yes. The combination of those two mechanics (HiPS and Camouflage) is sort of difficult to follow. Oops (; Well, you'd still be observed for the attack where you fail the hide check, but you can then hide again after the next attack - since you aren't technically being observed (Camouflage) and you don't need concealment or cover to hide (HiPS). This all seems really nasty. I wonder if other people could verify if this truly works? Well, consider that you have 17 levels in one class (ranger), which is pretty much end game. That puts, at least in non-epic games, a damper on how much sneak attack you can have. And sneak attack itself is a very limited mechanic in terms of the sheer numbers of counters to it. You can only use this in a particular setting - in many situations (wizard's tower, tavern, castle dungeon) this combination is worthless. Also, the ranger is fairly far behind in the needed armor to avoid attacks from high BAB opponents in the late game. This method increases survivability considerably in the late game, but massive spot checks can still counter massive hide checks. Tremor/blindsense is fairly common.