Snipe and Hide: So, there I wasn't... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Snipe and Hide: So, there I wasn't... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tengu
07-24-07, 05:35 PM So, after firing off an arrow, I decided to try and hide (i.e. the shoot and snipe option under the hide skill in the player’s handbook). Now, before hiding, I already need (and have) partial concealment or I would not be able to try and hide (OK cover would work, also). This gives my advisory a 20% miss chance already. So, then I hide (and even with the -20 on the DC for shooting the guy before trying to hide), he fails to spot me…
Now what? The guy still wants to attack me but does not see me? Am I treated as having total cover (so, now a 50% miss chance?), does the bad guy have to guess which squire I’m now in? Basically, is it like I’m invisible? On the next round, when I mercilessly snipe him from the shadows, is he flat footed? Does he lose his dexterity bonus to AC? Do I gain the +2 to attack rolls that an invisible attacker would? In short, am I invisible (vis-à-vis) this guy even if it was done by skill instead of by magic? If not, what would the ruling be?

Thanks and cheers,
Some_call_me_Tim
07-24-07, 07:17 PM Now what? The guy still wants to attack me but does not see me? Am I treated as having total cover (so, now a 50% miss chance?), does the bad guy have to guess which squire I’m now in?Yes and Yes. You have total cover concealment and he needs to guess where you are.
Basically, is it like I’m invisible?As far as your adversary is concerned you are invisible.
On the next round, when I mercilessly snipe him from the shadows, is he flat footed?No.
Does he lose his dexterity bonus to AC? Yes. Remember being denied your dexterity bonus to AC does not make you flat-footed, but being flat-footed can cause you to lose you dexterity bonus to AC. It is being denied your dexterity bonus to AC that makes you sneak-attackable.
Do I gain the +2 to attack rolls that an invisible attacker would?Yes.
In short, am I invisible (vis-à-vis) this guy even if it was done by skill instead of by magic?For all intents and purposes successfully hiding is just like being magically invisible.
clannagh
07-25-07, 07:38 PM Do remember hiding is not a free action, you cannot take a full round action to shoot and be then instantly be "hidden" as a free action. Shoot and move or move equivalent is fine though. (thats why a hide and shoot archer tends to prefer many shot over rapid shot)

I am also unsure about the +2 to hit for being hidden. I have not come across people trying to claim that one. I would want to see more rules evidence for that before allowing it.
control freak
07-25-07, 08:09 PM Do remember hiding is not a free action, you cannot take a full round action to shoot and be then instantly be "hidden" as a free action. Shoot and move or move equivalent is fine though. (thats why a hide and shoot archer tends to prefer many shot over rapid shot)

if you take a -20 with ranged attacks (or melee with a shadow dancer)
SYB
07-25-07, 08:19 PM Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect.

And, yes, the opponent would technically have to guess your square, but if you don't move, then it is pretty easy to guess.

-SYB
Jay_Ibero_911
07-25-07, 11:15 PM Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect.

And, yes, the opponent would technically have to guess your square, but if you don't move, then it is pretty easy to guess.

-SYB

Not really. If he was making a ranged attack, the only thing the enemy would know is direction the attack came from...
clannagh
07-26-07, 12:33 AM OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible.

"Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents"

I do not think by either RAW or by RAI you can feasably claim that every time you hide you count as invisible and get +2 to hit.

+2 to hit when shooting from hiding is something I would deem very much a house rule.
Jay_Ibero_911
07-26-07, 12:54 AM OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible.

"Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents"

I do not think by either RAW or by RAI you can feasably claim that every time you hide you count as invisible and get +2 to hit.

+2 to hit when shooting from hiding is something I would deem very much a house rule.

If you successfully hide you have total concealment from whoever fails to spot you. If you have total concealment you are invisible to those creatures. If you are invisible you get +2 to attack. Therefore if you a successfully hidden you get +2 to attack.
LGMoses
07-26-07, 11:36 AM well wouldn't you technically be "invisible until its too late" whenever you catch someone flatfooted?
Jay_Ibero_911
07-26-07, 11:53 AM well wouldn't you technically be "invisible until its too late" whenever you catch someone flatfooted?

No, because the only time someone is flat footed is when they haven't yet acted in combat. The reason they lose their dex their is because they haven't been able to properly ready themselves, but they are still see you. Whereas if you are hidden, they can't see you at all, so they not only lose their dex but you also get a bonus to attack because it's that much easier to attack someone who can't see you...
Some_call_me_Tim
07-26-07, 12:05 PM Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect.:doh:You're right. Mea Culpa.
I've edited it.
Some_call_me_Tim
07-26-07, 12:30 PM OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible.

"Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents""Visually undetectable." You can't be seen when you are hidden; is that not "visually undetectable?

Let's suppose you are correct and mundanely hidden is not the same as invisible. This has some serious consequences. Then if you are merely hidden you can NOT sneak attack because they are not denied their dexterity bonus (that is another effect of being invisible).

I don't know of anyone who claims this.
Rawveggie
07-26-07, 03:21 PM Tim is correct. For purposes of bonuses and penalties on attacks in combat, hidden is exactly like being invisible. The only difference is if you want to start talking about being invisible giving you bonuses to Hide and what not, *that* is when, obviously, you are not invisible via the spell and don't get those types of bonuses.

Therefore, you absolutely get the +2 to attack while hidden. Not getting the bonus would be a house rule by RAW.

-Raw
clannagh
07-26-07, 07:18 PM Tim is correct. For purposes of bonuses and penalties on attacks in combat, hidden is exactly like being invisible. The only difference is if you want to start talking about being invisible giving you bonuses to Hide and what not, *that* is when, obviously, you are not invisible via the spell and don't get those types of bonuses.

Therefore, you absolutely get the +2 to attack while hidden. Not getting the bonus would be a house rule by RAW.

-Raw

All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible.

Nowhere does it say "visually undetectable" characters are invisible.

The argument being presented here is the equivalent of "The new Ferrari is Red and does 200mph .... therefore all Red cars do 200 mph.
Some_call_me_Tim
07-26-07, 07:40 PM All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible.So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then?

While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a).
Tengu
07-26-07, 08:15 PM OK, so my party is fighting an evil party with a wizard and a fighter. I’m hiding and on my turn, I take a standard action to shoot the wizard and then re-hide, questions:

So, I take -20 vis-à-vis the wizard because I shot an arrow at him. Do I take -20 on the fighter as well? What if he is engaged in melee combat (so, not at all looking at me), do I still take -20 on him? What if he, the fighter, does not have line-of-sight on me?

Also, I have to agree that invisible is invisible no matter how it is achieved. Why would the victim of my unseen shooting suffer a -2 to be hit (or a +2 for me to hit him) form my invisibility only if it were magical. I think that a 12th ranger with +25 hide is just as invisible as or even "more" invisible than just a 2nd level spell.
Fakegoatee
07-26-07, 08:29 PM All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible.

Nowhere does it say "visually undetectable" characters are invisible.

The argument being presented here is the equivalent of "The new Ferrari is Red and does 200mph .... therefore all Red cars do 200 mph.

An earlier thread about Blood Spiked Charger had a long debate about whether or not to read the glossary entries as formal definitions.

If they are, then 'invisible' is defined as 'visually undetectable', just like 'even number' is defined as 'integer divisible by 2 without remainder'. In that case, everything visually undetectable is invisible, just like every integer divisible by 2 without remainder is an even number. The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent.

If they aren't formal definitions, then you're right. Invisible things are visually undetectable, but maybe visually undetectable things are invisible and maybe they aren't.

I'm in the formal definitions camp, partly becaues the PHB says the glossary contains definitions (I think it's on p. 3 or something). If you disagree, I won't try to convince you, because debates like that have a tendency to go nowhere.
clannagh
07-26-07, 08:50 PM So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then?

While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a).

SRD: "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

You are getting sneak by denying the dex nothing to do with being "invisible".

An earlier thread about Blood Spiked Charger had a long debate about whether or not to read the glossary entries as formal definitions.

If they are, then 'invisible' is defined as 'visually undetectable', just like 'even number' is defined as 'integer divisible by 2 without remainder'. In that case, everything visually undetectable is invisible, just like every integer divisible by 2 without remainder is an even number. The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent.

If they aren't formal definitions, then you're right. Invisible things are visually undetectable, but maybe visually undetectable things are invisible and maybe they aren't.

I'm in the formal definitions camp, partly becaues the PHB says the glossary contains definitions (I think it's on p. 3 or something). If you disagree, I won't try to convince you, because debates like that have a tendency to go nowhere.

Actually regardless of glossary definitions .... all I am saying is that state of being Invisible can be defined as having the quality "visually undetectable" without all visually undetectable things also being as a result "invisible".

Its a bit like a ball, by definition, can be defined as having the trait spherical but that doesnt make all spherical things balls. A soap bubble is spherical but not a ball.

From a personal point of view .. the extra +2 to hit would make my flying invisible couatl cloaked rogue archer even better .. I am more than happy for it to work like that if I can see a rules basis for it and I agree that fluff wise the two states seem interchangeable .. I just do not see it working that way from the arguments presented thus far according to RAW and LG is a RAW campaign.
clannagh
07-26-07, 08:52 PM So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then?

While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a).

This one at least implies total concealment gives +2 to hit .. which is closer to the RAW rules argument I am looking for.
Fakegoatee
07-26-07, 09:49 PM Actually regardless of glossary definitions .... all I am saying is that state of being Invisible can be defined as having the quality "visually undetectable" without all visually undetectable things also being as a result "invisible".

Its a bit like a ball, by definition, can be defined as having the trait spherical but that doesnt make all spherical things balls. A soap bubble is spherical but not a ball.

That's why 'spherical thing' is a bad definition of 'ball'. Not all spherical things are balls, and not all balls are spherical things.

The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent. That's just how formal definitions work.

If the glossary entries give formal definitions, then 'invisible' and 'visibly undetectable' are logical equivalent to one another. You might deny that the entries are formal definitions, but that's a different case.

I'll bow out now, though. I'm not interested in a pointless debate about what formal definitions are and what logical properties they have.
Rawveggie
07-27-07, 04:25 PM So, I take -20 vis-à-vis the wizard because I shot an arrow at him. Do I take -20 on the fighter as well? What if he is engaged in melee combat (so, not at all looking at me), do I still take -20 on him? What if he, the fighter, does not have line-of-sight on me?

You take a -20 on your Hide check against everyone. From the SRD:

You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

It's not so much as "against" anyone, you are hiding, period. You make one Hide check when you hide and if you shot someone you take a -20 penalty on it.

-Raw
Some_call_me_Tim
07-27-07, 08:29 PM SRD: "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

You are getting sneak by denying the dex nothing to do with being "invisible".How are you denying the victim his dexterity bonus to AC? What rule (other than being invisible) denies the victim his dexterity bonus to AC when the rogue is mundanely hidden?
control freak
07-27-07, 11:15 PM when you are hidden you cannot be seen even if you arent invisable when you cant be seen you are effectivly invisable :rolleyes:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tengu 07-24-07, 05:35 PM	So, after firing off an arrow, I decided to try and hide (i.e. the shoot and snipe option under the hide skill in the player’s handbook). Now, before hiding, I already need (and have) partial concealment or I would not be able to try and hide (OK cover would work, also). This gives my advisory a 20% miss chance already. So, then I hide (and even with the -20 on the DC for shooting the guy before trying to hide), he fails to spot me… Now what? The guy still wants to attack me but does not see me? Am I treated as having total cover (so, now a 50% miss chance?), does the bad guy have to guess which squire I’m now in? Basically, is it like I’m invisible? On the next round, when I mercilessly snipe him from the shadows, is he flat footed? Does he lose his dexterity bonus to AC? Do I gain the +2 to attack rolls that an invisible attacker would? In short, am I invisible (vis-à-vis) this guy even if it was done by skill instead of by magic? If not, what would the ruling be? Thanks and cheers,
Some_call_me_Tim 07-24-07, 07:17 PM	Now what? The guy still wants to attack me but does not see me? Am I treated as having total cover (so, now a 50% miss chance?), does the bad guy have to guess which squire I’m now in?Yes and Yes. You have total cover concealment and he needs to guess where you are. Basically, is it like I’m invisible?As far as your adversary is concerned you are invisible. On the next round, when I mercilessly snipe him from the shadows, is he flat footed?No. Does he lose his dexterity bonus to AC? Yes. Remember being denied your dexterity bonus to AC does not make you flat-footed, but being flat-footed can cause you to lose you dexterity bonus to AC. It is being denied your dexterity bonus to AC that makes you sneak-attackable. Do I gain the +2 to attack rolls that an invisible attacker would?Yes. In short, am I invisible (vis-à-vis) this guy even if it was done by skill instead of by magic?For all intents and purposes successfully hiding is just like being magically invisible.
clannagh 07-25-07, 07:38 PM	Do remember hiding is not a free action, you cannot take a full round action to shoot and be then instantly be "hidden" as a free action. Shoot and move or move equivalent is fine though. (thats why a hide and shoot archer tends to prefer many shot over rapid shot) I am also unsure about the +2 to hit for being hidden. I have not come across people trying to claim that one. I would want to see more rules evidence for that before allowing it.
control freak 07-25-07, 08:09 PM	Do remember hiding is not a free action, you cannot take a full round action to shoot and be then instantly be "hidden" as a free action. Shoot and move or move equivalent is fine though. (thats why a hide and shoot archer tends to prefer many shot over rapid shot) if you take a -20 with ranged attacks (or melee with a shadow dancer)
SYB 07-25-07, 08:19 PM	Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect. And, yes, the opponent would technically have to guess your square, but if you don't move, then it is pretty easy to guess. -SYB
Jay_Ibero_911 07-25-07, 11:15 PM	Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect. And, yes, the opponent would technically have to guess your square, but if you don't move, then it is pretty easy to guess. -SYB Not really. If he was making a ranged attack, the only thing the enemy would know is direction the attack came from...
clannagh 07-26-07, 12:33 AM	OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible. "Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents" I do not think by either RAW or by RAI you can feasably claim that every time you hide you count as invisible and get +2 to hit. +2 to hit when shooting from hiding is something I would deem very much a house rule.
Jay_Ibero_911 07-26-07, 12:54 AM	OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible. "Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents" I do not think by either RAW or by RAI you can feasably claim that every time you hide you count as invisible and get +2 to hit. +2 to hit when shooting from hiding is something I would deem very much a house rule. If you successfully hide you have total concealment from whoever fails to spot you. If you have total concealment you are invisible to those creatures. If you are invisible you get +2 to attack. Therefore if you a successfully hidden you get +2 to attack.
LGMoses 07-26-07, 11:36 AM	well wouldn't you technically be "invisible until its too late" whenever you catch someone flatfooted?
Jay_Ibero_911 07-26-07, 11:53 AM	well wouldn't you technically be "invisible until its too late" whenever you catch someone flatfooted? No, because the only time someone is flat footed is when they haven't yet acted in combat. The reason they lose their dex their is because they haven't been able to properly ready themselves, but they are still see you. Whereas if you are hidden, they can't see you at all, so they not only lose their dex but you also get a bonus to attack because it's that much easier to attack someone who can't see you...
Some_call_me_Tim 07-26-07, 12:05 PM	Tim's repsponse was mildly incorrect. You do NOT have total cover from your opponent when hiding. You have full concealment. Concealment provides a 50% miss chance. Total cover blocks line of effect.:doh:You're right. Mea Culpa. I've edited it.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-26-07, 12:30 PM	OK .. having gone over the PHB at lunch time the only mention of getting +2 to hit is specifically if you are invisible. "Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents""Visually undetectable." You can't be seen when you are hidden; is that not "visually undetectable? Let's suppose you are correct and mundanely hidden is not the same as invisible. This has some serious consequences. Then if you are merely hidden you can NOT sneak attack because they are not denied their dexterity bonus (that is another effect of being invisible). I don't know of anyone who claims this.
Rawveggie 07-26-07, 03:21 PM	Tim is correct. For purposes of bonuses and penalties on attacks in combat, hidden is exactly like being invisible. The only difference is if you want to start talking about being invisible giving you bonuses to Hide and what not, that is when, obviously, you are not invisible via the spell and don't get those types of bonuses. Therefore, you absolutely get the +2 to attack while hidden. Not getting the bonus would be a house rule by RAW. -Raw
clannagh 07-26-07, 07:18 PM	Tim is correct. For purposes of bonuses and penalties on attacks in combat, hidden is exactly like being invisible. The only difference is if you want to start talking about being invisible giving you bonuses to Hide and what not, that is when, obviously, you are not invisible via the spell and don't get those types of bonuses. Therefore, you absolutely get the +2 to attack while hidden. Not getting the bonus would be a house rule by RAW. -Raw All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible. Nowhere does it say "visually undetectable" characters are invisible. The argument being presented here is the equivalent of "The new Ferrari is Red and does 200mph .... therefore all Red cars do 200 mph.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-26-07, 07:40 PM	All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible.So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then? While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a).
Tengu 07-26-07, 08:15 PM	OK, so my party is fighting an evil party with a wizard and a fighter. I’m hiding and on my turn, I take a standard action to shoot the wizard and then re-hide, questions: So, I take -20 vis-à-vis the wizard because I shot an arrow at him. Do I take -20 on the fighter as well? What if he is engaged in melee combat (so, not at all looking at me), do I still take -20 on him? What if he, the fighter, does not have line-of-sight on me? Also, I have to agree that invisible is invisible no matter how it is achieved. Why would the victim of my unseen shooting suffer a -2 to be hit (or a +2 for me to hit him) form my invisibility only if it were magical. I think that a 12th ranger with +25 hide is just as invisible as or even "more" invisible than just a 2nd level spell.
Fakegoatee 07-26-07, 08:29 PM	All I see is a ruling that says Invisible Characters are "visually undetectable" and also get +2 to hit becasue they are invisible. Nowhere does it say "visually undetectable" characters are invisible. The argument being presented here is the equivalent of "The new Ferrari is Red and does 200mph .... therefore all Red cars do 200 mph. An earlier thread about Blood Spiked Charger had a long debate about whether or not to read the glossary entries as formal definitions. If they are, then 'invisible' is defined as 'visually undetectable', just like 'even number' is defined as 'integer divisible by 2 without remainder'. In that case, everything visually undetectable is invisible, just like every integer divisible by 2 without remainder is an even number. The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent. If they aren't formal definitions, then you're right. Invisible things are visually undetectable, but maybe visually undetectable things are invisible and maybe they aren't. I'm in the formal definitions camp, partly becaues the PHB says the glossary contains definitions (I think it's on p. 3 or something). If you disagree, I won't try to convince you, because debates like that have a tendency to go nowhere.
clannagh 07-26-07, 08:50 PM	So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then? While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a). SRD: "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." You are getting sneak by denying the dex nothing to do with being "invisible". An earlier thread about Blood Spiked Charger had a long debate about whether or not to read the glossary entries as formal definitions. If they are, then 'invisible' is defined as 'visually undetectable', just like 'even number' is defined as 'integer divisible by 2 without remainder'. In that case, everything visually undetectable is invisible, just like every integer divisible by 2 without remainder is an even number. The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent. If they aren't formal definitions, then you're right. Invisible things are visually undetectable, but maybe visually undetectable things are invisible and maybe they aren't. I'm in the formal definitions camp, partly becaues the PHB says the glossary contains definitions (I think it's on p. 3 or something). If you disagree, I won't try to convince you, because debates like that have a tendency to go nowhere. Actually regardless of glossary definitions .... all I am saying is that state of being Invisible can be defined as having the quality "visually undetectable" without all visually undetectable things also being as a result "invisible". Its a bit like a ball, by definition, can be defined as having the trait spherical but that doesnt make all spherical things balls. A soap bubble is spherical but not a ball. From a personal point of view .. the extra +2 to hit would make my flying invisible couatl cloaked rogue archer even better .. I am more than happy for it to work like that if I can see a rules basis for it and I agree that fluff wise the two states seem interchangeable .. I just do not see it working that way from the arguments presented thus far according to RAW and LG is a RAW campaign.
clannagh 07-26-07, 08:52 PM	So, are you saying that at your table a mundanely hidden rogue does NOT get sneak attack damage? That is a very big consequence of ruling that hidden characters are not 'invisible.' What exactly do you get for being hidden then? While not 'official' see the section about Facing Unseen Opponents in the Rules of the Game article, All About Sneak Attacks Part II (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a). This one at least implies total concealment gives +2 to hit .. which is closer to the RAW rules argument I am looking for.
Fakegoatee 07-26-07, 09:49 PM	Actually regardless of glossary definitions .... all I am saying is that state of being Invisible can be defined as having the quality "visually undetectable" without all visually undetectable things also being as a result "invisible". Its a bit like a ball, by definition, can be defined as having the trait spherical but that doesnt make all spherical things balls. A soap bubble is spherical but not a ball. That's why 'spherical thing' is a bad definition of 'ball'. Not all spherical things are balls, and not all balls are spherical things. The two sides of a formal definition are logically equivalent. That's just how formal definitions work. If the glossary entries give formal definitions, then 'invisible' and 'visibly undetectable' are logical equivalent to one another. You might deny that the entries are formal definitions, but that's a different case. I'll bow out now, though. I'm not interested in a pointless debate about what formal definitions are and what logical properties they have.
Rawveggie 07-27-07, 04:25 PM	So, I take -20 vis-à-vis the wizard because I shot an arrow at him. Do I take -20 on the fighter as well? What if he is engaged in melee combat (so, not at all looking at me), do I still take -20 on him? What if he, the fighter, does not have line-of-sight on me? You take a -20 on your Hide check against everyone. From the SRD: You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot. It's not so much as "against" anyone, you are hiding, period. You make one Hide check when you hide and if you shot someone you take a -20 penalty on it. -Raw
Some_call_me_Tim 07-27-07, 08:29 PM	SRD: "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." You are getting sneak by denying the dex nothing to do with being "invisible".How are you denying the victim his dexterity bonus to AC? What rule (other than being invisible) denies the victim his dexterity bonus to AC when the rogue is mundanely hidden?
control freak 07-27-07, 11:15 PM	when you are hidden you cannot be seen even if you arent invisable when you cant be seen you are effectivly invisable :rolleyes: