Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Daverius 03-08-07, 03:33 AM	I was wondering if anyone has used this skill during combat in LG. According to the PHB, pg 79, you can't hide if someone is observing you, even casually. However, if you run behind total cover you can make a hide check but they know what direction you are in. So my question is what if a rogue threw down a smoke stick while in combat and hid behind the fog. Can they sneak around the fog (making move silent checks) and get off a sneak attack on the next around? Provided of course that the target is sneak attackable and does not have uncanny dodge. On pg. 79, it also says that a rogue can hide if their is a distraction. So can it be argued that in combat when the baddies are engaged in melee with the party tanks, that they are in a sense distracted and a rogue can sneak around? I would like to hear inputs from people, and has anyone used these tactics in combat before? Aside from using the abilities "hide in plain sight," and camoflauge. How can a low level rogue make use of smoke sticks to creating places so that they can attempt a sneak attack on their next turn? Thanks in advance.
Maesto 03-08-07, 06:23 AM	Try the bluff skill for feinting :) In fact, there's even a feat for it - improved feint. There's a charisma 8 rogue in my area who at 15th level will be able to take a free action to feint, getting 50 odd on the bluff check consistently. However, it requires a wizard level to pull it off.
Timlagor 03-08-07, 12:59 PM	Feinting only works if you plan to make a melee attack. You can indeed hide behind the smoke cloud. I would not allow you to gain sneak attack if you were actually inside the cloud however (I consider concealment of this sort to be mutual -not sure the rules are clear on that though)... but you could hide there so long as you had total concealment at some point. Once you are hidden you don't need total cover or concealment any more. I would not accept that combat is sufficient distraction: you are still being 'casually observed'. You would have to make the bluff check (or have someone else do it as a Readied action or while you Readied).
Jay_Ibero_911 03-08-07, 05:00 PM	I was wondering if anyone has used this skill during combat in LG. According to the PHB, pg 79, you can't hide if someone is observing you, even casually. However, if you run behind total cover you can make a hide check but they know what direction you are in. So my question is what if a rogue threw down a smoke stick while in combat and hid behind the fog. Can they sneak around the fog (making move silent checks) and get off a sneak attack on the next around? Provided of course that the target is sneak attackable and does not have uncanny dodge. On pg. 79, it also says that a rogue can hide if their is a distraction. So can it be argued that in combat when the baddies are engaged in melee with the party tanks, that they are in a sense distracted and a rogue can sneak around? I would like to hear inputs from people, and has anyone used these tactics in combat before? Aside from using the abilities "hide in plain sight," and camoflauge. How can a low level rogue make use of smoke sticks to creating places so that they can attempt a sneak attack on their next turn? Thanks in advance. You pretty much can only hide in combat if you have hide in plain sight...You can use the bluff skill to create a diversion as a standard action, and there is a feat that reduces it to a move action, Improved Diversion from Complete Adventurer. So if you have some kind of cover or concealment, you can create a diversion and then hide...then next round you could make your sneak attack.
Daverius 03-08-07, 06:27 PM	So simply throwing down a smoke stick and hiding behind the smoke (not in the smoke) is not enough? If the baddies do not move behind the smoke cloud to look for you, because they are engaged in melee with the party's tanks...can you then move silently around the smoke clould to make a sneak attack? Here's an example: Round 1: rogue wins initiative, shoots off a crossbow (gets sneak attack damage) and moves behind party fighters. Baddies charge the party fighters. Fighters and baddies are engaged in melee Round 2: Rogue throws down a smoke stick and hides behind total concealment...changes location by making a move silent check. Baddies and figthers are still engaged in melee. Round 3: Rogue moves silently to another location and attacks baddies with crossbow from 30 ft away. Would they be denied dex? Would he get sneak attack damage?
JamesMaissen 03-08-07, 07:10 PM	I was wondering if anyone has used this skill during combat in LG. According to the PHB, pg 79, you can't hide if someone is observing you, even casually. However, if you run behind total cover you can make a hide check but they know what direction you are in. So my question is what if a rogue threw down a smoke stick while in combat and hid behind the fog. Can they sneak around the fog (making move silent checks) and get off a sneak attack on the next around? You can easily do so. In fact you can hide within the smoke as well. If there is a full square between you and your target then you have full concealment from him and he has concealment from you. If you are within the cloud but don't have a full square between the two of you then you have concealment from him but he doesn't from you. So you throw down the smokestick and have a square between you. Now he doesn't see you at all. Next round you 5' step within the cloud, make a hide check (as you still have concealment from him) and can sneak attack him if he's within range. You could have attacked without the 5' step but then he would have concealment from you and thus you wouldn't get the sneak dice (but he would be flatfooted without a hide check as you have full concealment from him). -James
Jay_Ibero_911 03-08-07, 07:53 PM	So simply throwing down a smoke stick and hiding behind the smoke (not in the smoke) is not enough? If the baddies do not move behind the smoke cloud to look for you, because they are engaged in melee with the party's tanks...can you then move silently around the smoke clould to make a sneak attack? Here's an example: Round 1: rogue wins initiative, shoots off a crossbow (gets sneak attack damage) and moves behind party fighters. Baddies charge the party fighters. Fighters and baddies are engaged in melee Round 2: Rogue throws down a smoke stick and hides behind total concealment...changes location by making a move silent check. Baddies and figthers are still engaged in melee. Round 3: Rogue moves silently to another location and attacks baddies with crossbow from 30 ft away. Would they be denied dex? Would he get sneak attack damage? Unfortunately...if you don't have hide in plain sight, the only way to hide in combat is to use bluff to create a diversion, then hide, provided you have concealment or cover. Just because they are currently engaged in melee with other party members does not mean they are not aware of you, and therefore you cannot hide without either Hide in Plain Sight or creating a diversion with bluff. Here is a set of valid tactics: Round 1: Rogue wins initiative, shoots at baddies who are flat footed, tanks engage baddies. Round 2: Rogue pulls out smokestick (move action), and lights it (standard action). Round 3:Rogue creates diversion with bluff (Standard action), hides in smoke (move action) Round 4:Rogue snipes bad guys(standard action, then hides afterward at -20 (move action) Repeat round 4 until spotted. An easier way to get sneak attack damage at range is with the Deadeye Shot feat. Ready an action to shoot when they are hit by one of your allies, and they are considered flat footed. The only way you can get sneak attack on a full attack at range is if you have improved invisibility, or the enemy is blind, balancing, or otherwise deprived of his dex bonus anyway.
Timlagor 03-09-07, 09:06 AM	Jay 1) he wants to hide BEHIND the smoke. 2) you don't need a diversion if you have total concealment.
trollbill 03-09-07, 11:09 AM	I think the question that needs to be answered here is, if you have total concealment in combat and successfully use the Hide skill (which is all legal), are you still considered hidden, even if you no longer have that concealment (or any concealment of any kind)? In other words, even though you can't Hide in plain sight, can you still be considered hidden in plain sight if you hid when you weren't in plain sight? Logically, I would think not. But I have seen people argue, 'yes,' because the rules only state you need concealment to Hide. They don't say you need it to stay hidden.
Timlagor 03-09-07, 12:10 PM	You are getting a little muddled. There are two things required to hide: (A) Concealment or Cover (B) Not being observed The HiPS ability removes (B). You need something a bit stranger to hide without cover or concealment (I think: Druids /Rangers in natural environment and Shadowdancer's HiPS) Having total Concealment and hiding will allow you to continue hiding when you no longer have total cover or concealment (and therefore could be observed) but you still need some cover or conealment to remain hidden (unless you have some special ability).
trollbill 03-09-07, 01:19 PM	Having total Concealment and hiding will allow you to continue hiding when you no longer have total cover or concealment (and therefore could be observed) but you still need some cover or conealment to remain hidden (unless you have some special ability). While I completely agree with that, can you point to something in the rules that specifically states this? This argument has come up at several tables in the area. Essentially I see rogues try to dive behind total concealment, then sneak back out of it to get a ranged sneak attack or close with someone for a melee sneak attack. This doesn't make any sense to me logically, but the logic they use behind it to justify their interpretation of what the rules say (or in this case, don't say) is that they are using the Hide ability to stay unnoticed (rather than unseen) once they come out from behind cover, or in one case where the cover was removed from in front of them. I think this is a throwback to the only 2E Thief Backstab ability way of thinking (they are trying to think of sneak attack as backstabbing when you don't have facing rules) and I don't agree with this. But its nice to have something hard to point to when I say, 'No, you can't run your rogue like you have been in your region.'
Jay_Ibero_911 03-09-07, 04:55 PM	Jay 1) he wants to hide BEHIND the smoke. 2) you don't need a diversion if you have total concealment. Ah..didn't realize that it provided Total Concealment. He would still need to be in some kind of cover or concealment to be considered hidden when he makes his attack. Because unless you have a special ability that says otherwise, you need cover or concealment to be considered hidden.
myshkingfh 03-09-07, 07:46 PM	Because unless you have a special ability that says otherwise, you need cover or concealment to be considered hidden. With all due respect, says who?
evilaustintom 03-09-07, 07:53 PM	Since I have a question along a similar thread, I thought I would just add it here. There are rules for hiding after a ranged attack (say, shooting a bow from the cover of trees). You apply a -20 to the Hide check to stay hidden (I believe is listed under the Hide skill). What about using Hide in Plain Sight? Does that negate this? What about Shadowdancers who attack in Melee? Would they take the -20 after attacking and hiding. What about a Shadowdancer with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run? I've had some rules disagreements with people in the past on these, so since it seemed related to the topic, I thought I would throw it into the mix. Tom Thowe
Jay_Ibero_911 03-09-07, 08:05 PM	With all due respect, says who? Says the hide skill. You can't hide unless you have cover or concealment, and you can't hide if being observed. If observed, you can still hide with total cover or concealment. If you do not have cover or concealment, you can't hide. You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway. The moment you leave the cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden.
myshkingfh 03-09-07, 09:03 PM	The moment you leave the cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden. This is the says who part. I don't think that follows. Once I have full cover, I am hidden. If I leave full cover/concealment, you only see me if your spot beats my hide. I don't need to be concealed to remain hidden from you, I just need to be out of your field of vision. I think that's the plain reading.
JamesMaissen 03-09-07, 10:37 PM	This is the says who part. I don't think that follows. Once I have full cover, I am hidden. If I leave full cover/concealment, you only see me if your spot beats my hide. I don't need to be concealed to remain hidden from you, I just need to be out of your field of vision. I think that's the plain reading. I disagree. "You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check" is straight from the Hide skill. There are three parts to being hidden from sight. 1st part is that you have concealment or cover relative to the person in question. 2nd part is that you are not being observed by the person in question. 3rd part is making the opposed roll against that person. So a rogue who had yet to be seen by PC A and who has cover relative to A could attempt to make an opposed Hide check roll to remain unseen by A. If this fails then the rogue cannot try to Hide again as A now sees him. He would need to create a distraction or move completely out of sight to be able to begin anew. On the other hand if the rogue makes the opposed check then he is currently hidden from A until he does something to alter that. One thing he could do would be attack, while another would be to move out into the open... both would allow A to then see him. -James
Daverius 03-09-07, 10:54 PM	This is a great discussion: Here's a question. Can a rogue move from one hiding spot to another during combat? Lets stay they start the combat by creating a diversion and hiding behind a smoke cloud. ON the next turn can they move out from behind the smoke stick and sneak behind the party tank? The open space between the cloud and tank has no cover...so would their hide check automatically fail? If it can be done, then can it be argued that a rogue can sneak up to a bad guy in combat and sneak attack em.
Crazy Boro 03-10-07, 01:40 AM	This is a great discussion: Here's a question. Can a rogue move from one hiding spot to another during combat? Lets stay they start the combat by creating a diversion and hiding behind a smoke cloud. ON the next turn can they move out from behind the smoke stick and sneak behind the party tank? The open space between the cloud and tank has no cover...so would their hide check automatically fail? If it can be done, then can it be argued that a rogue can sneak up to a bad guy in combat and sneak attack em. The Complete Adventurer on pages 101-102 does go over these sort of situations for using the hide skill. It goes over moving between cover sources for hiding and using the hide skill to sneak up on someone in order to have them flat-footed.
Timlagor 03-10-07, 12:12 PM	Hiding is an ongoing process. If you accept that you must have cover/concealment to hide then it follows inevitably that if you don't ahve cover/concealment you cannot hide. If you cannot hide then you cannot continue hiding. If you cannot continue hiding then you are no longer hiding. Do you accept that you cannot make a hide check without cover/concealment? (to those who contend that you can stay hidden without cover or conealment) If so then what do you do when someone makes an active attempt to spot you? What happens if someone comes round the corner or recovers from blindness (getting a reactive spot check in either case) while you are in this strange state of hiding? myshkingfh: does this cover the objection? The rules in CV are not core in LG. They may be used at the Judge's discretion. The existence of the new rules tends to support the idea that you cannot move between cover without them. (not very strongly though since there are plenty of cases of WotC introducing rules for things that were perfectly allowable already) Daverius: No they cannot (barring the rules in CV which mention hefty penalties: -5/5' travelled) If you have total cover/concealment then you are no longer being observed. I would not say that total cover/concealment negates the need not to be observed; merely satisfies it. In the event that you have total cover that someone can see through (wall of force?) I would rule that you cannot hide because you are observed. [discussion? counterarguments? -it may say explicitly that you can always hide if you have total cover: I'd invoke the "not well modelled" clause in that case.]
Timlagor 03-10-07, 12:18 PM	There are rules for hiding after a ranged attack (say, shooting a bow from the cover of trees). You apply a -20 to the Hide check to stay hidden (I believe is listed under the Hide skill). What about using Hide in Plain Sight? Does that negate this? What about Shadowdancers who attack in Melee? Would they take the -20 after attacking and hiding. What about a Shadowdancer with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run? I've had some rules disagreements with people in the past on these, so since it seemed related to the topic, I thought I would throw it into the mix. HiPS allows you to hide while being observed. I would say that it does indeed negate the -20 penalty for having attacked. Failing that they could simply move about and hide again in the same place without penalty. The Shadowdancer could hide again as part of their post-attack movement (no penalty). The purpose of the 'hide at -20' is to allow people to snipe when ordinarily the first attack would make them observed and therefore completely unable to hide at all until they got into total cover/concealment. With HiPS you don't need to invoke this rule at all since you can already hide again if you are spotted. EDIT: EXCEPTION If the person with HiPS wants to avoid being spotted at all then they would have to make the sniping check at -20. The 'no penalty' option above assumes they allow themselves to be spotted and then hide again afterwards. There may well be very good reasons why they might not want to be seen at all.
Daverius 03-10-07, 03:08 PM	Hiding is an ongoing process. If you accept that you must have cover/concealment to hide then it follows inevitably that if you don't ahve cover/concealment you cannot hide. If you cannot hide then you cannot continue hiding. If you cannot continue hiding then you are no longer hiding. Do you accept that you cannot make a hide check without cover/concealment? (to those who contend that you can stay hidden without cover or conealment) If so then what do you do when someone makes an active attempt to spot you? What happens if someone comes round the corner or recovers from blindness (getting a reactive spot check in either case) while you are in this strange state of hiding? myshkingfh: does this cover the objection? The rules in CV are not core in LG. They may be used at the Judge's discretion. The existence of the new rules tends to support the idea that you cannot move between cover without them. (not very strongly though since there are plenty of cases of WotC introducing rules for things that were perfectly allowable already) Daverius: No they cannot (barring the rules in CV which mention hefty penalties: -5/5' travelled) If you have total cover/concealment then you are no longer being observed. I would not say that total cover/concealment negates the need not to be observed; merely satisfies it. In the event that you have total cover that someone can see through (wall of force?) I would rule that you cannot hide because you are observed. [discussion? counterarguments? -it may say explicitly that you can always hide if you have total cover: I'd invoke the "not well modelled" clause in that case.] I am going to introduce another point. The move silent skill. It says: "You can use this skill to sneak up behind an enemy or slink away wihtout being noticed." phb pg. 79. So, using the above example: round 1: rogue wins initiative, fires off a shot and steps behind party fighter. round 2: rogue bluffs to create a diversion and hides behind cover (can be from a smoke stick, or a teammeber, other characters provide cover for hiding) Meanwhile party fighters engage baddies in melee. now if in round 2 the rogue was succussful, and is out of sight. Meaning the baddies failed their sense motive, + spot checks. Then is it safe to say that the rogue can now be considered out of combat? Meaning the 360 degree facing rules would not apply to the baddies since they are no longer aware of his pressence? So from that point on it would be a move silent vs. listen checks as the rogue sneaks up behind the baddie or sneaks around from cover to fire off a shot? If your answer is no, then what is the purpose of having the hide and move silent skill? How would one use the hide and move silent skill outside of combat? Meaning how would a rogue be able to sneak into a castle? Can a rogue ever sneak past a guard if they always have 360 vision and there is no cover? I don't see it being beyond the scope of possibiltiy to incorporate the move silent + hide skills in combat. I mean in a game of football sometimes the defensive tackle can swerve in and out and catch the quarter back or the running back unawares. That is pretty much a close example to combat in terms of its chaos, and how everyone is generally aware of everyone. Daverius
Timlagor 03-10-07, 05:31 PM	0) Are you sure that other characters provide cover for hiding? (I'd want a reference if I was the judge but you may well be right) 1) You always have "360degree facing"; in fact there is no "facing" at all (though there is 'direction' for flight) 2) The Rogue would not in any way shape or form be considered out of combat just because they were hiding 3) Move Silently only applies to sound. There's no point trying to sneak up on someone by being silent if you are in plain sight. This is not real life. You cannot sneak into a castle if you cannot contrive Cover or Conealment (or an absence of guards; or the HiPS ability). In many cases you can do so however. Most encounters do not involve castles. Hide is to stop you being seen when you have cover/concealment. MS is to stop you being heard. You can use these skills just fine to scout ahead of the party in almost every environment (even open plains usually have hills). They removed facing for simplicity. That means it isn't there and you can't take advantage of it. I get the definite impression that you're talking about that strange American game... it sounds like feinting but I don't really know what you're talking about.
Daverius 03-10-07, 06:33 PM	0) Are you sure that other characters provide cover for hiding? (I'd want a reference if I was the judge but you may well be right) 1) You always have "360degree facing"; in fact there is no "facing" at all (though there is 'direction' for flight) 2) The Rogue would not in any way shape or form be considered out of combat just because they were hiding 3) Move Silently only applies to sound. There's no point trying to sneak up on someone by being silent if you are in plain sight. This is not real life. You cannot sneak into a castle if you cannot contrive Cover or Conealment (or an absence of guards; or the HiPS ability). In many cases you can do so however. Most encounters do not involve castles. Hide is to stop you being seen when you have cover/concealment. MS is to stop you being heard. You can use these skills just fine to scout ahead of the party in almost every environment (even open plains usually have hills). They removed facing for simplicity. That means it isn't there and you can't take advantage of it. I get the definite impression that you're talking about that strange American game... it sounds like feinting but I don't really know what you're talking about. other players provide cover. If you try to shoot an enemy caster with your bow, and another character (PC or NPC) blocks your line of sight to the caster, the caster gets +4 cover bonus to AC. That's hard cover. I disagree with you. It says under the move silent rules that it allows you to sneak up behind an enemy PHB pg. 79. It doesn't say anything about requiring cover. If the enemy is unaware of you, then you should be allowed to sneak up to him. There needs to be an erratta or an FAQ ruling on this. Rogues and Rangers might have some use for their maxed out hide and move silent skills in combat with some judges, and no use whatsoever with other judges.
Timlagor 03-10-07, 08:44 PM	other players provide cover. If you try to shoot an enemy caster with your bow, and another character (PC or NPC) blocks your line of sight to the caster, the caster gets +4 cover bonus to AC. That's hard cover. That's very explicitly SOFT cover: it says so right there: that's what soft cover is. It also doesn't apply to melee attacks. There's no way that is enough justification to let you hide behind another PC. I disagree with you. It says under the move silent rules that it allows you to sneak up behind an enemy PHB pg. 79. It doesn't say anything about requiring cover. If the enemy is unaware of you, then you should be allowed to sneak up to him. There needs to be an erratta or an FAQ ruling on this. Rogues and Rangers might have some use for their maxed out hide and move silent skills in combat with some judges, and no use whatsoever with other judges. Ok but it says under Hide that you can't hide without cover so you can sneak all you like but I'm still going to see you coming. You still get some use with me you just have to work at it (and rightly so). I really don't think it's unclear to more than a very few people but you're always free to raise it with CS and hope it gets into the FAQ.
myshkingfh 03-11-07, 12:36 AM	Once I'm hidden, you only see me if you make a spot check. I need total concealment (or whatever) to hide. Once I'm hidden I don't need it any more. After that you need a spot check to see me after I leave cover/concealment. If I have total cover/concealment, of course you can't see me. I'm behind something. The hide skill becomes useful only once I leave cover concealment. I don't need a high hide bonus to hide behind a barn, I need it after I leave the barn. It would never occur to me to read it differently, and I have, in fact, done this at a LG table.
copper_wyrmling 03-11-07, 01:47 AM	The answers to many of your questions may be found in the font of wisdom known as the FAQ :P (copper feels like she says this, or some variation, all the time... is she the only one who reads the thing?) p28-29: 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: 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?!”
Timlagor 03-11-07, 12:41 PM	Once I'm hidden, you only see me if you make a spot check. I need total concealment (or whatever) to hide. Once I'm hidden I don't need it any more. After that you need a spot check to see me after I leave cover/concealment. If I have total cover/concealment, of course you can't see me. I'm behind something. The hide skill becomes useful only once I leave cover concealment. I don't need a high hide bonus to hide behind a barn, I need it after I leave the barn. I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch on hiding. You still need a bush or some long grass or smoke (or whatever) to hide behind. If you have no concealment or cover you can't hide at all. If you are observed you can't hide at all The hide skill is useful when you have cover or concealment but not total cover/concealment.
Daverius 03-11-07, 02:03 PM	That's very explicitly SOFT cover: it says so right there: that's what soft cover is. It also doesn't apply to melee attacks. There's no way that is enough justification to let you hide behind another PC. Ok but it says under Hide that you can't hide without cover so you can sneak all you like but I'm still going to see you coming. You still get some use with me you just have to work at it (and rightly so). I really don't think it's unclear to more than a very few people but you're always free to raise it with CS and hope it gets into the FAQ. I was just going to post that. I found that myself looking through the PHB. I made a mistake about hiding behind characters. Ahh the little details. I would think though a hafling would be able to hide behind a human, I mean they are two feet tall. but rules are rules. As to the FAQ...I read that as well. Oh well I suppose if I want hiding to be valid in combat I'll have to take levels in shadowdancer. Good thing I don't have to worry about that...I play a fighter.
myshkingfh 03-11-07, 07:15 PM	Well the FAQ sure makes it pretty clear I am wrong. Hiding and even hiding in plain sight are really not very useful I guess. :(
Gallaway 03-11-07, 07:43 PM	Well the FAQ sure makes it pretty clear I am wrong. Hiding and even hiding in plain sight are really not very useful I guess. :( Most people would say that being able to work up to something big and scarey whack it and then disappear is pretty useful even if you do not get a sneak attack. As for ranged a combination of able siper and woodland archer can do wonders.
Timlagor 03-11-07, 10:00 PM	It's not very useful in LG because you are unlikely to have a party wholely capable of stealth so hit-and-hide isn't really a valid strategy: the enemy will just pound someone else. Hiding is still useful for scouting and sometimes infiltration/exfiltration.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-11-07, 10:55 PM	It's not very useful in LG because you are unlikely to have a party wholely capable of stealth so hit-and-hide isn't really a valid strategy: the enemy will just pound someone else. Hiding is still useful for scouting and sometimes infiltration/exfiltration. Exactly. They'll pound someone esle...like someone with more HP and AC than you. If you're the hit+hide type...you probably don't have the best HP or AC.....
myshkingfh 03-12-07, 01:13 AM	Exactly. They'll pound someone esle...like someone with more HP and AC than you. So the monster won't pound you, but your party will out of character. Walking up to something and then poking it for 1d6 damage and then shifting back into the shadows seems like no way to make a living, if you need to be level 9 to take shadowdancer. 1d6 of damage just ain't gonna cut it for level 10 ecounters
Jay_Ibero_911 03-12-07, 01:19 AM	So the monster won't pound you, but your party will out of character. Walking up to something and then poking it for 1d6 damage and then shifting back into the shadows seems like no way to make a living, if you need to be level 9 to take shadowdancer. 1d6 of damage just ain't gonna cut it for level 10 ecounters If you are a shadowdancer, you probably have some rogue levels...which means you'll most likely be getting sneak attack. Even with the -20 to be considered hidden while attacking, with maxed out hide and the usual additional bonuses, you still will beat most thing's spot checks, since most things have no ranks and probably not much wisdom....
Timlagor 03-12-07, 01:29 AM	You just don't do enough damage that way for someone who contributes nothing else to the combat ..unless you can persuade the whole party to get to safety while you whittle the enemy away which is very often not an option.
Gallaway 03-12-07, 01:35 AM	So the monster won't pound you, but your party will out of character. Walking up to something and then poking it for 1d6 damage and then shifting back into the shadows seems like no way to make a living, if you need to be level 9 to take shadowdancer. 1d6 of damage just ain't gonna cut it for level 10 ecounters Although the BDF advocates on this forum will disagree there is a lot more to combat than dealing out HP damage. Any viable attack including a disarm or trip could be part of a hide attack rehide sequence. You could also be using a prepared action to attack a caster and then hide again. Or possibly tanglefoot a caster so someone else can silence the ground around him. In the case of extremely large nasties you may be able to move in beside one of the tanks flank and sneak or use a reach weapon to get flank from behind and then disappear and hide. There are two basic approaches to combat .. be a BDF who carries gear for every situation and just walks up and smacks things or alternatively travel light and think laterally. Hide in plain sight is not really a viable way for the power attacking BDF to get some extra damage but can be very useful for the tactical fighter.
Timlagor 03-12-07, 04:15 AM	There are two possible benefits of hiding: - Sneak Attack - Not being hit (not much use to the party if they can just hit someone else) Hiding doesn't significantly help you with tanglefoot bags or tripping and doesn't help at all with disarming.
katrick 03-12-07, 12:57 PM	said sneaky ranger could use two spell storing starmetal longswords ( a lot more than d6)and with the Camouflage spell gets a +10 to hide making those combos extremely useful especially if its a favoured enemy katrick
myshkingfh 03-24-07, 10:43 PM	Said sneaky ranger would have 4 attacks per round at that point and would be wasting them mightily to only attack once.
Japangirl 03-25-07, 07:02 PM	Also, a shadowdancer has a shadow. Against a lot of big nasty monsters that don't have magical weapons/attacks, that shadow will just eat strength. I've seen a shadow take a 42 Str thingy down to about 20 before we finally killed it, and the damage it was outputting was much much smaller by the end. It probably saved our tank that the damage was going down every round.
pimeister 03-26-07, 07:36 AM	One more thing to add onto the wood pile. The Shadowdancer's hide in plain sight has a different ability from rangers of being able to hide in shadows instead of natural terrain. so dungeon settings could often allow shadowdancers the sneak attack melee hits. Empty streets at noon could be difficult though.
lostpike 04-16-07, 11:59 PM	how about Arcane trickster? A Blurred AT dual wand wielding can do 22d6 at 9th. That is two scorching ray wands with 3d6 sneak each. Hiding is a god send if you know how to use it right especially for a ray blaster with either dual wand wielding or split ray. David
Japangirl 04-17-07, 12:49 AM	Blur does not allow you to sneak attack. Blink does though. Just blurring yourself doesn't let you hide without cover, either.
KarmaInferno 04-17-07, 02:51 AM	Hiding behind a square of smoke just means you'll probably have some area-of-effect damage landing on you soon. How not to be seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ) Pay particular attention to the lesson Mr. Nesbitt demonstrates. :D -karma
Timlagor 04-17-07, 03:45 PM	Just blurring yourself doesn't let you hide without cover, either. That is definitely one for table variation: Blur grants concealment.
katrick 04-17-07, 08:30 PM	9th level Scorching rays do 2 rays at 4d6 each(thats 8d6 with duel wand wielder and 3d6*4=12 total 20d6 not 22) at 11th however Empowered as a 4th it would be 42d6 and I'm sure you can stack the Sneak attack for more than 3d6 at 11th with 6 chances at a crit throw in Improved crit and PBS, Precise, Empower Crit, meta-Magic Spell Trigger and your talkin Eberron(Raging Spell Card, Admixture it for 66d6 at 11th no wonder they shut it down) eerrr finished the campaign katrick
lostpike 04-17-07, 11:51 PM	9th level Scorching rays do 2 rays at 4d6 each(thats 8d6 with duel wand wielder and 3d6*4=12 total 20d6 not 22) at 11th however Empowered as a 4th it would be 42d6 and I'm sure you can stack the Sneak attack for more than 3d6 at 11th with 6 chances at a crit throw in Improved crit and PBS, Precise, Empower Crit, meta-Magic Spell Trigger and your talkin Eberron(Raging Spell Card, Admixture it for 66d6 at 11th no wonder they shut it down) eerrr finished the campaign katrick Incorrect. It is: Wand A 4d6+3d6sneak+4d6=11d6 Wand B 4d6+3d6sneak+4d6=11d6 Total=22d6 FAQ rules for barrage only the first ray for each wand gets the sneak.
lostpike 04-17-07, 11:52 PM	That is definitely one for table variation: Blur grants concealment. That is correct. As per the rules of Hiding, you only need concealment to be able to hide.
JamesMaissen 04-18-07, 01:27 AM	That is correct. As per the rules of Hiding, you only need concealment to be able to hide. That is to remain hidden. You need to be unobserved to begin hiding. And after attacking the first time you are then visible (if you didn't snipe) and need to achieve full cover or concealment to hide again (or create a distraction, have hide in plain sight, etc). -James
myshkingfh 04-18-07, 12:19 PM	So if I were blurred, and then hid in plain sight, I could then make melee sneak attacks?
trollbill 04-18-07, 12:34 PM	So if I were blurred, and then hid in plain sight, I could then make melee sneak attacks? From my understanding it would work like this: You cannot Hide while being so much as casually observed unless you have an ability like Hide in Plain Sight. If you are in combat, you are at a minimum, being casually observed. Therefore, you cannot normally Hide while in combat. If you can gain Total Concealment, you can no longer be observed and thus could Hide in combat. The moment you leave your concealment/cover you are no longer hidden. However, if you retain concealment/cover when you leave your total concealment and successfully Hide, you are still hidden and thus could perform a Sneak Attack. Doing so would make you instantly visible since you cannot remain hidden while attacking (baring the Sniping rules). Since Blur grants Concealment, you could technically walk behind a wall, cast Blur, then use a Hide check when you step out from behind the wall to remain hidden. If you succeed, you could remain hidden until such time as you do something to make yourself no longer hidden. I would expect some table variance on this, though.
JamesMaissen 04-18-07, 11:40 PM	I would expect some table variance on this, though. Much in the way that I would expect table variation whenever anyone grapples. The rules for hiding are more clear than those for grapple though. It takes awhile to parce them all, as evidenced by this thread. You come across certain sticking points with some people over blur and the like. Likewise on the issue of taking 20 for hide checks (which I think the FAQ finally nixed once and for all if memory serves). -James
katrick 04-20-07, 06:11 PM	Incorrect. It is: Wand A 4d6+3d6sneak+4d6=11d6 Wand B 4d6+3d6sneak+4d6=11d6 Total=22d6 FAQ rules for barrage only the first ray for each wand gets the sneak. But man you are not Diggin that the Split, Empowered, Admixtured,Scorching Ray came from a Goblin(Female) 11th Wiz with 28 Dex, gotta love MoH, Xendrix ain't seen proper Camambert yet. With 38 Hp (Mwahahawhaaa) And just be glad now killed me with a look (not a gaze) katrick
Timlagor 04-20-07, 09:32 PM	When Xendrik makes the next level bump you will see the Blastificers I'm sure.. though most of them will probably get bored soon afterwards.