Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gersidi 04-23-08, 03:05 PM	The Problem: My group has a swordsage / rogue / Umbral Disciple at around the level 10 mark. He uses the Umbral Disciple ability Child of Shadows to get constant 20% concealment, and also has Hide in Plain Sight from Umbral Disciple. He always has concealment and can hide while being observed. The rules in the PHB for "sniping" specify that if you make a ranged attack and then hide, you have to take a move action to hide and your hide check is at -20. However, this character has concealment all the time, doesn't ever have to leave concealment to attack, and is making a melee attack so it doesn't fall under the 'sniping' rules before or after the errata. He then uses sudden leap (Tome of Battle boost from Tiger Claw), attacks for sneak attack damage and then immediately hides. I've looked at applying the 'sniping' rules, but I can't find any rules to support giving him the -20 penalty to hide after making a melee attack since it specifies "ranged" and doesn't have a revision in the errata. That said, I don't want a focused hide build that consistently hits hide DCs in the 30s to 40s (at level 10) to be able to sneak attack someone and then hide again without penalty. That just doesn't make game balance sense to me, and I want to know if a rule exists to support me here. I haven't been able to find one yet.
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-08, 04:06 PM	This was in the FAQ 3.5. Hope it helps. Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class features? Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed. As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding place within the plants, having never left the area of concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide check. The third part of your question changes the situation entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re incredibly effective. A character with the hide in plain sight class feature (described on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) can make a Hide check even if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move (potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she delivers the attack. 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. Put all three of these elements together—such as in the hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get: The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment). He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be considered hiding when he attacks). He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or concealment while in natural terrain). The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”
Gersidi 04-23-08, 04:53 PM	The FAQ seems to illustrate that if you have a source of concealment after attacking, and Hide in Plain Sight, you can hide without penalty. In terms of whether it "helps," with my original hope being to find precedent for applying the sniping rules for ranged attacks to melee attacks, not so much. It seems to me like an oversight that while attacking from range and then hiding would carry a deliberate penalty, attacking while right next to the target would not. It might also have to do with the limited number of ways to gain concealment while moving and attacking that existed when the core books were printed...
Some_call_me_Tim 04-23-08, 07:26 PM	The PHB saysIt’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. This sentence doesn't say anything about only applying to ranged attacks such as sniping. Now, it can be argued that this only applies during the actual attack not while moving up and back (although there is -5 penalty for moving) or throughout your turn. Which would mean that the defender would have to ready an action to try and attack. I don't think this was the intent Minor aside: I don't know exactly how Umbral Disciple's Hide In Plain Sight is phrased, but I wouldn't let a shadowdancer do this as just having concealment doesn't necessarily allow Hide In Plain Sight to work (you need shadows to do this). Just as a ranger can't activate Hide In Plain Sight in a building even if he has concealment.
Gersidi 04-24-08, 03:43 PM	I agree that the FAQ quote supports taking a -20 to hide while attacking. To me there's still the issue of there being no provision for "right after you attack, hiding again is a move action and takes a -20 penalty" in the same way as the sniping rules apply. Child of Shadows provides you with 20% concealment for clinging shadows, too. I believe the Umbral Disciple HiPS wording is the same (not 100% sure), but even if its the same there's a constant cloak of shadows that moves with you. There's a stance in Shadow Hand that provides the same, incidentally. So... by the rules you can attack someone and then hide again without penalty as a free action so long as you're using a melee attack. The FAQ, not the rules, state that if you wanted to stay hidden for the actual attack you would have to roll a hide check at -20, but before and after hiding remains a free action. It seems like this is a very exploitable mechanic...
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-08, 07:00 PM	I don't know the wording for the class features you are using, but darkvision defeats shadow. So, a dwarf would likely see the Umbral Disciple without any trouble. In fact, all of the character's shadow-dependent abilities likely fail around a creature with darkvision. There isn't much to exploit in those situations.
Some_call_me_Tim 04-25-08, 11:13 AM	So... by the rules you can attack someone and then hide again without penalty as a free action so long as you're using a melee attack. The FAQ, not the rules, state that if you wanted to stay hidden for the actual attack you would have to roll a hide check at -20, but before and after hiding remains a free action.It's important that to remember that it is NOT a free action but rather 'not an action.' This means you have to either use a move action to hide or hide as part of movement. It seems like this is a very exploitable mechanic...That's why you need to interpret the rule to prevent this. The -20 penalty should apply for the entire turn. Anytime you have two equally valid ways to interpret a rule and one of those seems like an exploit, it's time to exercise rule zero.
Gersidi 04-25-08, 11:57 AM	BTW, I checked the description under Umbral Disciple and the ability grants concealment per essentia invested and, past 20% concealment, also grants Hide in Plain Sight. It reads like the ability is specifically meant to allow people to hide in their portable concealment. It is magical concealment btw, and doesn't say anything about darkvision seeing through it. I wouldn't be comfortable nerfing the ability that badly... I want to balance the game without ruining the player's fun. Now, I understand you're saying that there's an alternate interpretation and that the -20 'should' apply to the entire turn. The FAQ quote above disagrees with that, because it states that the second portion of the Spring Attack movement and subsequent hide check would not carry a penalty to hide. *snip* 1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment). 2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be considered hiding when he attacks). 3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or concealment while in natural terrain). 4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!” *snip* In point 3 there is no mention of a penalty to hide. Its only the actual moment of the melee attack that carries a penalty to hide, which from this example I think is pretty clear. Which isn't to say that I disagree with you about what's right... I was just hoping to find a rule somewhere that supported what I think of as the "right" rule, which is the -20 to hide applying until the beginning of the character's next action. Its still looking like the rules and FAQ don't have anything to support that, however. Correct me if I'm wrong.
tos_shai_hulud 04-25-08, 01:10 PM	I suppose it really depends on how you view "weaving incarnum into an obscuring shadow that clings to you". If that is a "magical darkness", then you are right, darkvision would not defeat it. If it is merely flavor text for "you are cloaked in shadows which in and of themself are not magical darkness", then darkvision would defeat it. It seems to me that the ability is powerful enough when it works as normal shadows. Once you throw in the fact that it is magical darkness, you must determine the appropriate spell level with which it is defeated so that a character wielding Light spells can defeat the Umbral Disciple's magical darkness. From the description, if it is magical darkness, it is entirely undefeatable by any magics. Where is the downside? Why would a character not use that permanently? Heck, if you have 10 points of essentia available, pump them all in to the ability and you have a 100% miss chance, hide in plain sight at will, and the only creatures that can defeat it are those with truesight and blindsight? That seems a bit rediculous.
Kragg Bonemeal 04-25-08, 03:57 PM	I'd put the "-20 to remain hidden while attacking" to fall under the need to be essentially invisible during the attack to get the sneak damage. Because of the vigorous motion of attacking someone, its near impossible (as pointed out, carries -20 to skill check) to do. Check these scenarios... Normal, unoptomized rogue... hides in a corner, waits for someone to come by, and is the first to initiate combat and gains a surprize round and deals damage to a flatfooted person to get sneak damage. After that, its a straight up fight... feints notwithstanding. Unless someone flanks, no more sneaky dice. Your optimizer... waits until combat begins, has swirly shadow obscuring his form from the enemy. He gets close and wants to use sneaky dice... so, he hides in his shadows so the adversary can't tell where the attack is coming from (i.e. invisible attack), but its near impossible to hide while performing such a strenous/vigorous activity (-20 to roll). If he can hide himself in the shadows while swinging his weapon like mad, the opponent can't defend against it because he doesn't see it (invisible to him). I'd say that's how the FAQ is seeing it. -20 to an optimizer isn't that hard to beat. And an opponent with good Spot (who has good spot anyway?? isn't that a dump skill???) won't be fooled every time.
Gersidi 04-25-08, 04:43 PM	I'd put the "-20 to remain hidden while attacking" to fall under the need to be essentially invisible during the attack to get the sneak damage. Because of the vigorous motion of attacking someone, its near impossible (as pointed out, carries -20 to skill check) to do. Can you reference a rule for "strenuous activity" affecting hide checks? I'm hoping to be able to identify a rule (other than rule 0) to balance this mechanic out. To me, using rule 0 should only close abusable loopholes that haven't been addressed by the rules. I'd prefer to stay within the rules if its at all possible... especially within my group, changing something using rule 0 seems to challenge a pretty basic assumption that we're all playing the same game.
tos_shai_hulud 04-25-08, 05:20 PM	Can you reference a rule for "strenuous activity" affecting hide checks? I'm hoping to be able to identify a rule (other than rule 0) to balance this mechanic out. To me, using rule 0 should only close abusable loopholes that haven't been addressed by the rules. I'd prefer to stay within the rules if its at all possible... especially within my group, changing something using rule 0 seems to challenge a pretty basic assumption that we're all playing the same game. He is referencing the FAQ. The term "strenuous activity" is not a game term, but simply his description for why the -20 penalty is applied. Note that it is his own description, not one described in the rules. Again, though, this shouldn't be a problem so long as you don't treat the concealing shadows in a way that violates every aspect of the rules. Darkvision cannot defeat magical darkness, but light spells do defeat magical darkness. You have a few choices here. Either make it so that his supernatural ability has an effective spell level (so that some light effect can dispel it), or treat it as mundane shadows, in which case Darkvision itself can defeat it. Either way, it makes the character no longer invulnerable. The vulnerability puts a limitation on an otherwise broken ability, but it does not "gimp" the character in any way. Should every enemy the party faces possess darkvision, you as a DM are doing something wrong (unless the campaign is specifically designed to be subterranean, in which case, I would not expect any sort of shadow abilities to work, anyway. I mean, if he were a shadowdancer, he would have the exact same problems!)
Kragg Bonemeal 04-28-08, 12:49 PM	Can you reference a rule for "strenuous activity" affecting hide checks? I'm hoping to be able to identify a rule (other than rule 0) to balance this mechanic out. To me, using rule 0 should only close abusable loopholes that haven't been addressed by the rules. I'd prefer to stay within the rules if its at all possible... especially within my group, changing something using rule 0 seems to challenge a pretty basic assumption that we're all playing the same game. Ask and ye shall receive... HIDE (DEX; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY) Check: Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. First few lines of "Hide" skill in SRD. Practically impossible to hide WHILE attacking. The portion about sniping is covered later in a separate subsection of Hide. So... to swing wildly with a weapon makes it tough for someone to not see you moving right there. :)
Gersidi 04-29-08, 03:02 PM	So... to swing wildly with a weapon makes it tough for someone to not see you moving right there. :) I definitely see your point, but as soon as the attack is over this particular character just hides again at no penalty. The only time that he takes a -20 to hide, by the rules, is during the moment he's actually attacking. This creates a situation where the character can only be attacked with a readied action, so long as he continues making his hide checks. Not only can he hide while being observed, but he has "portable" concealment through Umbral disciple that states pretty clearly that you're allowed to hide in it. So yes I understand the above rule, but the rule still supports that you can hide after attacking at no penalty, because the penalty only applies *during* the attack, not before or after. From what I've seen, I don't think there's an alternative to using rule 0. Otherwise I'll never be able to address this character except with readied actions. In a solo game I wouldn't resist that so much, but in a 6 PC party it just doesn't work for me.
tos_shai_hulud 04-29-08, 03:14 PM	Gersidi, you continue to ignore everything that I have mentioned about his shadows not being magical darkness. Darkvision works fine at seeing through them. Having darkvision see through the shadows does NOT gimp the class. It seems to be the intended balancing factor. Unless everyone in your campaign setting automatically has darkvision, he is still a very potent character.
Gersidi 04-29-08, 04:04 PM	I haven't ignored it, I considered it. I am choosing not to use your suggestion in my game. Partly because I don't think the rules support it, and partly because I know my players well enough to know that my enforcing the rule would upset them. My reasons... Its a supernatural ability, making it magical darkness. I'm 95% sure of that, although if you have Magic of Incarnum around and can check Umbral Disciple I'm open to being corrected. And also it would give the player the feeling that I'm restricting an ability that his build is based around, rather than just making it more of a challenge. To me, better to make it harder all the time than impossible a good portion of the time - its less likely to upset my players and I consider it more fair.
tos_shai_hulud 04-29-08, 05:58 PM	Embrace of Shadow (Su): Starting at 3rd level, you can weave incarnum into an obscuring shadow that clings to you, providing you with a limited amount of concealment. While you are thus cloaked in shadow, each attack made against you has a 10% miss chance per point of essentia invested in this ability. This miss chance does not stack with miss chances provided by any other ability or effect. If the miss chance granted by this ability is 20% or higher, you also gain the ability to hide in plain sight--that is, you can use the Hide skill even while being observed. See the ranger class feature, page 48 of the Player's Handbook. Embrace of shadow is usable at will. From this description, I see no protection from darkvision. Here is the description for Darkvision: Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision. Where in that description does it say that mundane shadows gathered from a supernatural ability would defeat darkvision? It doesn't. In fact, the ONLY place where darkvision is defeated is in the Darkness spell (and higher level darkness spells). That is because those spells which specifically state they defeat darkness are the only ones that do. Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness. That is where you are thinking of the entry for magical darkness, however the original ability doesn't grant magical darkness. It grants clinging shadows. The fact that the shadows cling may be an effect of magic, but that doesn't make the shadows themselves magical darkness. Magical darkness is pulled from the plane of shadow, not incarnum woven into shadows.
Kragg Bonemeal 04-30-08, 09:46 AM	Ok... so you are on to the "needs a -20 to Hide to attack as Invis to get Sneaky dice" idea. But now he just hides after attacking... ok... you might need some semi-house ruling on this. The "10% miss chance per point invested" has to be capped at 50%. Why "has to" you ask??? Because if I close my eyes, and you then cast blur, displacement, and invis on yourself, I still have only a 50% chance to miss if I pick the correct square to swing into. Seriously, totally blind vs totally visual distortion = 50% miss. I would allow the shadows to block Dark Vision. But I'd also say that the Shadows do not emminate farther than your square. Which means the enemy just has to swing blindly into the darkness (see that black blob... stick something sharp in there and listen for an "ouch!") and has a max miss chance of 50% for reasons already stated. Does that help???
tos_shai_hulud 04-30-08, 12:00 PM	Let's take a look at some comparison classes that grant Hide in Plain Sight: Ranger--Grants both by level 17, only in natural terrain (in non-natural environments, Hide in Plain Sight is impossible). The entry for the Embrace of Shadow ability tells you to reference the Ranger Hide in Plain Sight, so at the very least, it fails in non-natural environments. Scout--Grants both by level 14, only in natural terrain (in non-natural environments, Hide in Plain Sight is impossible). Assassin--Grants Hide in Plain Sight in shadows only, but darkvision defeats the shadows and an assassin cannot hide in them when a creature with darkvision is around. Since this class's main ability is based on hiding and attacking from shadows, this seems to be a perfect example of how an entire build that is based around hiding is completely nullified in certain circumstances. Earliest level to gain Hide in Plain Sight: 13th. Shadowdancer--Same as assassin, but grants Hide in Plain Sight by 8th level (again, the entire purpose of taking the class is for Hide in Plain Sight, and it grants no concealment). And then you have Umbral Disciple, whereby you can gain Hide in Plain Sight by 8th level, as well. Why are you willing to interpret the rules for this class so as to make it more powerful than all of the previous classes listed? It seems clear that was NOT the intention. You have made it EASY for an 8th level character to have permanent, nearly undefeatable 50% miss chance AND Hide in Plain Sight (only defeated by True Seeing, which has a minimum caster level 9th if you are a cleric, 11th if you are a wizard, 13th if you are a druid). So if you still think that darkvision should not defeat the character's ability, so be it. We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't have any more rules examples or precedences to offer you.
Gersidi 04-30-08, 12:28 PM	I'll admit I don't know the essentia rules terribly well, but I'm pretty sure that there's a cap on the amount of essentia invested based on your sort of "essentia caster level." I don't know the proper term for it, I'm sure there is one. With his current mix of classes, he only has 2 points of essentia to invest. I trust my player, he won't abuse it, and that aside right now he can't abuse it. I also agree that if he found a way to invest more than 5 essentia I'd cap the concealment at 50% since that's what you get from total blindness. I really appreciate the ideas from this thread (even the ones I'm not using tos - I'm taking your suggestions to heart), they're all good ideas on how to balance out the ability. I was just hoping for a crystal clear rules citation that I could point them to, that wouldn't invite debate on interpretation, but it doesn't look like there is one. I try like the dickens to stick to the rules as written. I think it helps everyone feel like a) they're playing the same game and b) the DM won't steal the ground out from under their feet.
tos_shai_hulud 04-30-08, 12:40 PM	If you are going by the rules as written, then even though it doesn't make any sense, because the Ranger Hide in Plain Sight is limited to natural terrain only, so then is the Hide in Plain Sight granted by his shadows. The entry specifically references the ranger's ability, making no changes to it. That is a pretty clear-cut rules reference (even though common sense might tell us that is likely not what is meant). If you are looking for a clear-cut rule that might promote balance, that might be a start.
Kragg Bonemeal 04-30-08, 03:37 PM	I know that Tos believes that Darkvision should defeat it. But if that is his only point of contention (Is it, Tos?), then there are other ways to circumvent the ability... Blind Sight, Tremorsense, etc. These limit the effectiveness of "hiding" (Yes, Tremorsense just gives the square and still has the concealment miss chance). But most builds have their "trick". This is his. You originally were upset about the Sneak Attack from hiding in his own shadows. This is part of his "trick". If you want to make it more difficult, others have suggested Obscuring Mist in the whole area (no sneaks because everyone is obscurred), or Darkness the spell, Fortified armor, undead, etc to get rid of the sneak dice... use in moderation. If you are just worried that he "hides" again after an attack, I'm assuming he needs that as part of his "trick". He probably has lower AC, lower HP than a fighter. This means he has to hit and run. Hiding is his running equivalent. As an equalizer I suggested that the manifested shadows are a visible thing... the enemy sees the blot of darkness and figures the guy is hiding inside of it. If there aren't many deep shadows around, its a safe bet that the jerk that hit you is in that shadow... or is that Shadow in a fantasy world. :) Just for my own sake... stop and answer this question... Do you really think the guy is overpowered or has he caught your sensibilities offbalance and you just "don't like" how the abilities play out??? That thought may answer your need for "concrete rules" and such. PS... there has NEVER been a rule written that doesn't invite debate on interpretation
Gersidi 04-30-08, 07:36 PM	I don't think he's just caught my sensibilities off balance. I'm surprised, I thought it was pretty self-evident that the rules around melee attacking and hiding could be abused. Badly. Am I wrong? about the whole "see ranger" note... if you take that too literally, you would have to be a 17th level ranger in addition to being an Umbral Disciple to gain any benefit from the ability. Hide in Plain Sight (Ex) While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed. emphasis mine.
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-08, 12:49 AM	"While in natural terrain" is a description of how it works while "a ranger of 17th level or higher" is a description of who it works for. Since the Umbral Disciple is the who, it replaces that portion of the text, but the reference seems to indicate that it works the same way as the ranger ability, which would mean only in natural terrain. It does not seem to indicate that it works only for the same level ranger.
Kragg Bonemeal 05-01-08, 10:08 AM	I believe the "see Ranger" bit was the link between an accessory book and the Core 3 scripture. It gives you a Core point of reference for the over-all ability of "Hide in Plain Sight". As Tos said, replace Ranger with UD and natural terrain with shadows. I think any rules can be used-and-abused if you try to do it. But in any battle, that's what you DO try to do. You send the barbarian after their mage. You use the tripper and rogue to occupy their tank and sneak him. You use the druid to... well, druid can do everything from crowd control to direct damage spells to area spells to tank (in beast form). This is his trick. His way of getting around a chancy straight up fight with opponents. The true abuse comes if you can't figure out a way for anyone to at least ATTEMPT to hit him back. If his shadows are a visual manifestation, they can attack back. How is it any different than if he'd gotten the mage to Greater Invis him before battle? With Gr Invis, no check rolls are needed and you don't even know for sure which square he is in... no blackness to swing through.