Hide checks -need help w/ clarification. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Hide checks -need help w/ clarification. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
hda777
03-30-07, 01:43 PM The rules on hiding state that the PC/NPC must have cover or concealment in order to make a hide check, but what happens if they lose that concealment after their turn in initiative? Do they become obviously visible?

Here is an example: A 3rd level rogue (i.e. without Hide in Plain Sight ability) is being chased by a city watchman in bright daylight. On his initiative the rogue moves 30 ft., including 5 ft. down a well-light alley. The watchman is on the street, the rogue has total cover, and makes a hide check of 25. On his initiative, the watchman moves 30 ft down the street to a point where hr can so down the alley, and the rogue has no cover. Is the rogue no longer hidden from the watchman? Or must the watchman make a spot check to see him, because the rogue made his hide check at a point in time when he (the rouge) had cover, and hasn't moved since.

I could use some help with this - Thanks!
tarkin
03-30-07, 02:16 PM The Rogue uses the cover to find a hiding spot, not to be the hiding spot.

What you describe should not have negated the hiding spot. Hiding does not consist merely of obtaining total cover. Why? Because if you have total cover, then guess what, you don't even need to have made a hide check, people can't see you.

He used the cover to find a hiding spot, the guard may have (by accident) removed the cover, but he is already hiden, too late.

Note, the guard might lose a penalty to spot the rogue by moving to accidently remove the cover.
ClementWillowbreaker
03-30-07, 02:47 PM After the rogue went around the corner, the guard lost him because of total cover. No Hide check required. The guard knows where the rogue went, of course. So he runs towards the alley. What the corner has done is made the rogue unobserved, allowing him to make a Hide check in the first place to remain unobserved with less than total cover. He couldn't hide behind a low wall or by running into light undergrowth without first getting around the corner, because the guard still has some line of sight and observes him.

The Hide check applies to anyone with less than total cover/concealment to him, but at least some. If the alley was completely bare, then the rogue would no longer be able to hide after the guard turned the corner. If there was a barrel there, the rogue could be hidden from anyone on the other side of it.

So yes, completely negating the cover/concealment reveals you and removes your ability to subsequently hide without a special ability. Negating it only partially, such as turning a corner but still looking down an alley filled with debris and toppled crates, does not undo any Hide checks made beforehand. Having total cover/concealment at the beginning gives you the two requirements of attmepting to hide- being unobserved, and having some sort of cover. Remaining hidden only requires some cover (since by definition you are unobserved until a Spot check beats you).
Shadowhowler
03-31-07, 01:14 PM Yup... what he said. :)

Although it surprises me that it needs to be clarifed in those terms, using the rules and whatnot. I mean, when it comes to something like hide, can't we just apply a little real world comon sense? I mean... you turn down an alley and stand still... a guy follows you around the alley and sees you.

Obvously, you need something to hide behind. Hide is not invisability.

More often then not, at least when using skills, just look to what could really be acomplished with that skill. If it can't be done in the real world, it most likely can't be done with the skill.

That is, untill you add skill tricks. Heh.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hda777 03-30-07, 01:43 PM	The rules on hiding state that the PC/NPC must have cover or concealment in order to make a hide check, but what happens if they lose that concealment after their turn in initiative? Do they become obviously visible? Here is an example: A 3rd level rogue (i.e. without Hide in Plain Sight ability) is being chased by a city watchman in bright daylight. On his initiative the rogue moves 30 ft., including 5 ft. down a well-light alley. The watchman is on the street, the rogue has total cover, and makes a hide check of 25. On his initiative, the watchman moves 30 ft down the street to a point where hr can so down the alley, and the rogue has no cover. Is the rogue no longer hidden from the watchman? Or must the watchman make a spot check to see him, because the rogue made his hide check at a point in time when he (the rouge) had cover, and hasn't moved since. I could use some help with this - Thanks!
tarkin 03-30-07, 02:16 PM	The Rogue uses the cover to find a hiding spot, not to be the hiding spot. What you describe should not have negated the hiding spot. Hiding does not consist merely of obtaining total cover. Why? Because if you have total cover, then guess what, you don't even need to have made a hide check, people can't see you. He used the cover to find a hiding spot, the guard may have (by accident) removed the cover, but he is already hiden, too late. Note, the guard might lose a penalty to spot the rogue by moving to accidently remove the cover.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-30-07, 02:47 PM	After the rogue went around the corner, the guard lost him because of total cover. No Hide check required. The guard knows where the rogue went, of course. So he runs towards the alley. What the corner has done is made the rogue unobserved, allowing him to make a Hide check in the first place to remain unobserved with less than total cover. He couldn't hide behind a low wall or by running into light undergrowth without first getting around the corner, because the guard still has some line of sight and observes him. The Hide check applies to anyone with less than total cover/concealment to him, but at least some. If the alley was completely bare, then the rogue would no longer be able to hide after the guard turned the corner. If there was a barrel there, the rogue could be hidden from anyone on the other side of it. So yes, completely negating the cover/concealment reveals you and removes your ability to subsequently hide without a special ability. Negating it only partially, such as turning a corner but still looking down an alley filled with debris and toppled crates, does not undo any Hide checks made beforehand. Having total cover/concealment at the beginning gives you the two requirements of attmepting to hide- being unobserved, and having some sort of cover. Remaining hidden only requires some cover (since by definition you are unobserved until a Spot check beats you).
Shadowhowler 03-31-07, 01:14 PM	Yup... what he said. :) Although it surprises me that it needs to be clarifed in those terms, using the rules and whatnot. I mean, when it comes to something like hide, can't we just apply a little real world comon sense? I mean... you turn down an alley and stand still... a guy follows you around the alley and sees you. Obvously, you need something to hide behind. Hide is not invisability. More often then not, at least when using skills, just look to what could really be acomplished with that skill. If it can't be done in the real world, it most likely can't be done with the skill. That is, untill you add skill tricks. Heh.