Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Raven KrakHorn 12-14-07, 10:38 AM	I need a little help with the rules concerning Hide. In the official faq 3.5 the section explaining the feat "spring attack" has clues regard the use of the Hide skill. If someone hidden want to try a sneak attack to someone else must try a Hide check with a -20 penalty to check if the target notice the attacker (and the sneak attempt fails). Instead Complete Adventurer in the "Skills and feats" chapter ("Expanded skill descriptions" section) explains that you can use Hide to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealmente without revealing yourself. Also it says that "you can use this option to sneak up on someone from a hiding place". If I Apply the "Complete adventurer" rule, a rogue can try to sneak on someone far 5 feet from the nearest cover trying a Hide check with a -5 penalty. BUT The official faq says that I roll a Hide check with a -20 penalty SO In my opinion there are 2 alternatives: 1) Hide check with the "Complete Adventurer" rule. Es. You can think of the -20 penalty of the Faq as a substitution of the penalty due to the distance from the cover to the target. 2) Hide check with penalty due to the distance AND -20 for the attempt of sneak attack. In this case I think the rogue can reach the target withouth being notice and applying the further -20 you can decide if the target notice him just a moment before the attack. The question is very important because the combat power of a rogue change drastically. The second option is something only a rogue of mid/high level can try. Someone can explain me the rule? :confused: Raven
Captain_Kobold 12-14-07, 01:50 PM	The -20 penalty is to sucessfully hide after you have made an attack. I believe that the spring attack question was to come out of hiding, make a sneak attack, and then move back into hiding again. If all you are doing is sneaking up to someone and attacking them, its just the -5 for crossing the ground to reach them.
Dheran 12-14-07, 03:04 PM	The current FAQ has been accumulating questions and answers since 2003. Complete Adventurer came out in 2005, and the FAQ answer there had no knowledge of the Complete Adventurer Move between Cover use of the Hide skill, and has never been changed to reflect this. The -20 penalty is to Hide while attacking. If you've already successfully make your Hide check before that, the further -20 penalty will allow you to also be hidden after the attack -- which is what you want if you're making a full attack, but if it's just the single attack you probably don't need to try to remain hidden.
Sigma34561 12-14-07, 03:28 PM	Could you, theoretically 1.move from cover with a -5 hide check 2. attack someone 3. Hide with -20 using the person you attacked as cover. (i.e. stab them and spin around to thier back as they turned around) i know it sounds silly, but silly situations could arise where you can use a person as cover against themselves... I think there is a feat somwehere for halflings and whatnot to attack giants, and gain cover from them for being in thier square.
Raven KrakHorn 12-15-07, 08:26 AM	I think you're right in all but one thing Dheran. In my opinion the -20 penalty is only for the Hide "sniper option". I have an idea regard how use Hide but I'm also very reluctant to apply in this way. I explain myself: You move from a cover and take the penalty for the distance and then you try the sneak attack. Very simple in fact, but this has a great impact on the balance of the game. If you have hide in plain sight probably you don't have the penalty for the distance, so you're pretty sure to roll the sneak dices. Further this is something a low level rogue can do. Further more, think to something like a shadow dancer with spring attack; well, fearsome al least... My problem is: I think the rule is to apply in that way, but I think also is too unbalancing. About that Sigma34561 wrote: it's not possible trying to hide using a person as cover because is a "soft cover". What do you think guys?
Sigma34561 12-15-07, 11:27 AM	A tapestry is soft cover... does that mean you can't hide behind a tapestry, or drapes? How is it unbalancing if a rogue can sneak up on someone? I sneak up on people all the time. If they are distracted, and there is minimal backround noise - its too easy. There is no facing in D&D, because its a nightmare to keep track of, but that doesn't mean that you are looking in all directions at all times. Put your back to a wall, sit in a corner, and keep your eyes open if you are worried about someone sneaking up on you, thats what happens in real life. If you don't want people sneaking into a location, you get guards. I know it will be a big pain in the butt to add theese "guard" people to the game but I think you will manage. Don't forget, a guards job isn't to attack intruders on sight. The guard is supposed to sound an alarm. If you keep your guards at average intelligence you will be fine. For a real twist, give the guards the Track feat, and let them run a circut around the place they are guarding. A rogue might be able to stay out of view, but they always leave footprints.
Count Arioch the 28th 12-15-07, 11:50 AM	Personally, I rule that if you leave cover to sneak up on someone, you make a move silently check opposed by the target's listen check, at no penalty. I find the rules in this case to be stupid.
Sigma34561 12-15-07, 12:07 PM	Personally, I rule that if you leave cover to sneak up on someone, you make a move silently check opposed by the target's listen check, at no penalty. I find the rules in this case to be stupid. Naturally, there wouldn't be a penalty to move silently, but I think the intention of the rules is to see if you leave your cover while they aren't looking, hence the hide check.
Raven KrakHorn 12-15-07, 12:55 PM	When I refer to "soft cover" I mean what the Player's Handbook says at pag. 151 regard the cover you need to try a Hide check; it's simply a name the authors gave to a type of cover. Concerning the possibility of unbalancing the game, I can only try to understand the rules. If D&D authors made the rules and the classes thinking that a rogue can sneak on someone with a -20 or worst penalty it's very different respect a rogue that can sneak on someone with a -5 penalty. Simply I don't want to break the balance the authors tried to put in the game. I posted this thread with the intention of understand the Hide rule; if I don't understand it surely I cannot think to a house rule. Can you give me your interpretation of this rule? (not your house rule)
Sigma34561 12-15-07, 01:22 PM	The Rules... Rogue A is stalking a guard. The guard is patrolling. He is walking along a low wall, and the rogue is hiding on the other side. The rogue stands up, shoots him with a crossbow, and drops down again. He makes a hide check at -20 because he just attacked. If he succeeds, the guard has no idea where he was shot from, if he survives. He might know the direction in a 180 degree arc, front or back, but he cant say it was from behind the wall. If the rogue fails the check, he didn't drop down fast enough, or the guard can tell that the shot came from just behind that section of wall. second situation The rogue is stalking someone through tall grass, concealment, he dashes forward, strikes, and returns to the grass. He makes another hide check at -20 to dive back into the grass and avoid detection. Sucess means that the victim knows someone popped out of the grass and sliced him up, but has no idea where in the grass he is. Failure means that the victim can see where the rogue retreated to, precisely. third situation. Guard is standing under a lightpost... guarding. The rogue is watching him from behind a nearby dumpster or trashbin. The rogue leaves his cover to close in on him. He makes a hide check at -5 to see if the guard noticed him leaving his hiding spot and cover the distance. A move silently check to see if the guard hears death creeping closer. A loose cobblestone, or shifting equipement could spoil the whole thing... but no such luck for Mr.Poppleduck . Too bad... he was going to retire next week. Looks like someone will have to tell his wife and kids the bad news. Now notice that in all situations, the rogue has the upper hand. If the victim fails to notice the rogue in the first place, the odds are against them noticing him as he creeps up. Think about this. Are the guards the same level as the rogue? do they have as high a wisdom as the rogue has dex? do they have magic items and feats that make them as alert as the rogues magic items make him stealthy? Reguar guards will not catch a rogue who specializes in hiding. Should they? I guess not, then whats the point of spending all that time in being sneaky, otherwise you just spend all your time bluffing your way past the guards, or forging papers that let you past them, or charming them into letting you past.
Dheran 12-15-07, 07:58 PM	Could you, theoretically 1.move from cover with a -5 hide check 2. attack someone OK so far, assuming you only moved 5' away from cover to get into attack position. 3. Hide with -20 using the person you attacked as cover. (i.e. stab them and spin around to thier back as they turned around) No, because D&D has no "facing". All characters are assumed to be constantly checking in all directions, so there is no "back" or "front" direction of a character. You would need cover/concealment from some other source.
Optimator 12-15-07, 08:05 PM	I think the problem comes with the facing rules in D&D. The CA rules are almost implying that there is some sort of facing, whereas the PHB assumes there is no facing.
Dheran 12-15-07, 08:07 PM	I think you're right in all but one thing Dheran. In my opinion the -20 penalty is only for the Hide "sniper option". You've missed a bunch of the Hide rules, RK. The following situations allow you to Hide with a -20 penalty: Sniping, with a move action needed to get to where you can Hide again. Running -- as a full-round action, no move action is possible here. Charging -- again, as a full-round action, no move action is possible here. Attacking without needing a move action, as long as you meet the requirements to Hide in your current position.
QQmaster 12-15-07, 08:15 PM	I sneak up on people IRL and I always get SA damage! -QQ :incog:
Raven KrakHorn 12-16-07, 03:56 AM	You've missed a bunch of the Hide rules, RK. The following situations allow you to Hide with a -20 penalty: Sniping, with a move action needed to get to where you can Hide again. Running -- as a full-round action, no move action is possible here. Charging -- again, as a full-round action, no move action is possible here. Attacking without needing a move action, as long as you meet the requirements to Hide in your current position. My mistake. English isn't my first language, so I have some problem explaining myself. I was refering to the -20 penalty for the sniping option; i know there are other actions that can occur in a -20, but my thread is focused on trying to understand the action of sneaking on someone to deliver a sneak attack. So focused that sometimes i forgot to say it to the people I'm "talking" to. :D Also, when I explain the action I want to understand, usually people (from other forums, ecc) re-explain me the sniper option, confusing the -20 penalties one from another (sniper option Vs -20 from the official faq). Whoa, that was difficult to write. :cool: second situation The rogue is stalking someone through tall grass, concealment, he dashes forward, strikes, and returns to the grass. He makes another hide check at -20 to dive back into the grass and avoid detection. Sucess means that the victim knows someone popped out of the grass and sliced him up, but has no idea where in the grass he is. Failure means that the victim can see where the rogue retreated to, precisely. third situation. Guard is standing under a lightpost... guarding. The rogue is watching him from behind a nearby dumpster or trashbin. The rogue leaves his cover to close in on him. He makes a hide check at -5 to see if the guard noticed him leaving his hiding spot and cover the distance. A move silently check to see if the guard hears death creeping closer. A loose cobblestone, or shifting equipement could spoil the whole thing... but no such luck for Mr.Poppleduck . Too bad... he was going to retire next week. Looks like someone will have to tell his wife and kids the bad news. Instead, about this, I have a pair of question. Where does it comes from the check with the -20 in the second situation? In the faq is explained that the -20 is before the attack; the second check (the attempt to sneak away is withouth penalty). Also, in my opinion the third situation is simply the alternative way to sneak on someone if you don't have cover or concealement. You can use it in the second situation trying to do the same action (move, sneak attack and move away).
kkbkbl 12-25-07, 09:09 AM	Another situation. you're fighting against a big bad monster, he's spotted you, you hide behind the corner(which gives gives cover). Can you, on the next turn attempt to hide, and then 5 foot step out and full attack him with your throwing daggers? If you can, do attacks after the first one count as sneak attacks?
elonin 12-25-07, 07:44 PM	For someone who loves to play rogues, I've had problems with dm's being really hard on sneaky people. From the "they are aware in general due to the comotion the group has caused" even though I've been away from the group off on my own.
Raven KrakHorn 12-28-07, 08:52 AM	Ladies and Gentleman, here is THE rule. I wrote to the Wizard Customer Service this simple example: "A rogue is hidden 10 feet from a target, he wants to move across the 10 feet that does not offer cover and try a sneak attack. What happen?" I explained the confusion between the official faq and complete adventurer and the answer was "The expanded rules on the Hide skill in Complete Adventurer are correct. The situation you are describing would require a Hide check at -10 penalty. If successful the target is flatfooted against the rogue." Giving an answer to Elonin I can only say "I hate this kind of situation". There are rules that you can use to sneak during the combat so if your dm want to take the rules (and with them the game balance) and burn them... well it's his decision. You can talk to him and explain the rule (you can find a lot of forums with explanations). If he clearly says "it's a house rule" it's another matter, but for the moment he isn't using the game rules. Sooo, good sneaking to everyone :D
elonin 12-28-07, 12:47 PM	Do I understand the rules clarification correctly that it's -10 being equil to -5 per 5 ft traveled? So if the rogue had to travel 3 5 ft squares it would be -15 to hide? Also, do RAW indicate that if the rogue a rogue in this situation making a full attack that each attack would get the sneak dice?
Sigma34561 12-28-07, 01:08 PM	As a DM I hate people trying to Hide during combat. I've had players try to "Hide" behind a table they just knocked over, so they can pop out the next round to sneak attack. The same with running around a corner, or behind a tower shield. I would say that unless you have a feat or class feature that spells out how you can do it, you can't hide during combat. The exception would be if you were able to prefrom some sort of subterfuge. Hide behind a table or whatnot, and teleport (or be teleported) to a different hiding spot, and attack from there. Run around a corner, down a hallway, and sneak back into the room from a different entry. This probably would'nt work twice, and it might not even work the first time if the defender was very familiar with the location, enough to know that if you disapeared into the dining room, you might appear from the kitchen in a few seconds, because they connect.
Dheran 12-28-07, 04:27 PM	Do I understand the rules clarification correctly that it's -10 being equil to -5 per 5 ft traveled? So if the rogue had to travel 3 5 ft squares it would be -15 to hide? Yes, you understand this correctly. Also, do RAW indicate that if the rogue a rogue in this situation making a full attack that each attack would get the sneak dice? Normally, no; only the first attack would qualify for sneak attack damage. (Also it's hard to make a full attack in the same round that you moved 10'.) For the rest of the attacks to qualify for sneak attack damage the Rogue would need the following: Cover/concealment, or the Shadowdancer Hide in Plain Sight and nearby shadows. Success on each Hide check with a -20 penalty to Hide while attacking.
Raven KrakHorn 12-29-07, 08:39 PM	As a DM I hate people trying to Hide during combat. I've had players try to "Hide" behind a table they just knocked over, so they can pop out the next round to sneak attack. The same with running around a corner, or behind a tower shield. I would say that unless you have a feat or class feature that spells out how you can do it, you can't hide during combat. The exception would be if you were able to prefrom some sort of subterfuge. Hide behind a table or whatnot, and teleport (or be teleported) to a different hiding spot, and attack from there. Run around a corner, down a hallway, and sneak back into the room from a different entry. This probably would'nt work twice, and it might not even work the first time if the defender was very familiar with the location, enough to know that if you disapeared into the dining room, you might appear from the kitchen in a few seconds, because they connect. Well, I can say only one thing: you are the dm so you can apply all the house rules that you want. BUT As a former dm, I want to add also that with this house rule you are cutting the combat power of some kind of classes. Actually I don't see any reason to change this rule. In a combat situation it seems to me that someone can take cover behind a knocked over table and sneak on someone the round after. It's a very fast situation and an adventurer with high sneak skills can try to use a distraction moment of an enemy to try a sneak approach (you can think of this as a fast approach to the enemy's back). Well, your choice. The only thing that matters is that you and your players have a good time every time you play. :cool:
BananaB 12-30-07, 12:16 AM	Also, do RAW indicate that if the rogue a rogue in this situation making a full attack that each attack would get the sneak dice? Ignoring the fact that the rogue has moved 10ft, if it did full attack in this situatioin i would say that it would get sneak attack dice on all attacks because the opponent is caught flat footed which is in effect the entire round. The opponent stays flat footed regardless if he notices you or not and therefore you should get all of you sneak damage for a full attack. But others may think differently.
elonin 12-30-07, 03:53 PM	I'm trying to get a sense of what the difference between invisibility and hide is. According to an SRD when using invisibility only the first attack gets sneak dice, but apparently if a rogue is hidden s/he could get any number of sneak attacks.
Dheran 12-30-07, 03:56 PM	Ignoring the fact that the rogue has moved 10ft, if it did full attack in this situatioin i would say that it would get sneak attack dice on all attacks Huh? Why would you say that? because the opponent is caught flat footed OK so far ... which is in effect the entire round. No, that's exactly not what the rule in Complete Adventurer says:If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn't notice you until you attack or make some other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated as flat-footed with respect to you. As soon as you attack, your target notices you and is no longer flat-footed. You get sneak attack damage once, unless you meet the requirements to Hide there, and do so as you swing with a -20 penalty.
Raven KrakHorn 12-31-07, 07:05 AM	As soon as you attack, your target notices you and is no longer flat-footed. You get sneak attack damage once Ok unless you meet the requirements to Hide there, and do so as you swing with a -20 penalty. Well, No. There is no -20 penalty; the only question is: "do you have hips?" and, if yes, "do you have also spring attack?". If you have both you can: move next to the target (hide check with no penalty), roll an attack (with sneak damage), move away (hide check with no penalty). A realistic example (for a normal rogue) is: I move from a cover to the target (hide check with -5 penalty every 5 foot of space without cover), I roll an attack (with sneak damage if I am successfull in the previous hide check). The -20 penalty exist only for the sniper attempt with the ranged attack; the wizard customer support said clearly that -20 wrote in the faq does not exist anymore. You use the penalty (if you have no cover) shown in complete adventurer. With this rule a rogue with a good hide skill can be really dangerous.
Dheran 12-31-07, 10:04 PM	unless you meet the requirements to Hide there, and do so as you swing with a -20 penalty.Well, No. There is no -20 penalty; the only question is: "do you have hips?" and, if yes, "do you have also spring attack?". It would be a good idea to pay attention to the context. The question asked about a full attack, which is unlikely with Spring Attack. My answer was correct for making multiple attacks while staying hidden. the wizard customer support said clearly that -20 wrote in the faq does not exist anymore. Customer Support cannot make a D&D rule "not exist". All these rules exist: You can move from where you are hidden, without cover/concealment and still Hide with a -1 penalty per 1' moved. (Starting out hidden means you are not observed.) With Hide in Plain Sight you can Hide while being observed, if you meet the other requirements for the skill use. You can Hide, with a -20 penalty, while running, charging, or attacking, if you meet the other requirements (HiPS/not being observed, and cover/concealment if needed) for the skill use. You can use the Sniping rules to shoot from where you are already hidden, then Hide again at a -20 penalty with a move action, even though you are observed when you shoot. Adding the Move between Cover rule in Complete Adventurer did not change any of the existing Hide rules. It just created another way to use the skill.
elonin 12-31-07, 10:48 PM	Yes the hide is at -20 but not the attack. And the hide at the beginning of the round does not suffer the penalty only the one after the attack.
Raven KrakHorn 01-01-08, 08:39 AM	You can Hide, with a -20 penalty, while running, charging, or attacking, if you meet the other requirements (HiPS/not being observed, and cover/concealment if needed) for the skill use. Do you want to laugh, guys? In the italian player's handbook (I'm italian) someone forgot to mention the word "attacking". Someone forgot the damn word in the traduction. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: ARGH!!!! I spent hours, trying to understand this damn rule and I haven't thought to check the english manual: I always do it, but not this time.... :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: I want to cry :weep:
Tsuul 01-01-08, 05:08 PM	My take: You apply both the -20 (hiding while attacking)and the -5(moving outside of cover). Both are separate penalties for different things. If you were moving at greater then half speed, you would apply that penalty as well. If the DM gave you a circumstance penalty, guess what, you add that in as well. And the hide at the beginning of the round does not suffer the penalty only the one after the attack.For melee attacks, it does.
elonin 01-01-08, 06:44 PM	Where are you getting the -20 to melee attacks? Melee attacks are not mentioned in the PHB.
Tsuul 01-01-08, 08:05 PM	The -20 penalty isn't for the "to hit" roll on melee attacks. It is for the hide check when you make an attack while hidden. The rule is in the PHB, but there is no example of how to use it properly. The FAQ gives an example that is consistent with the PHB. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.
elonin 01-01-08, 10:49 PM	Perhaps there has been a bit of confusion Tsuul. A couple of posts ago I said "Yes the hide is at -20 but not the attack. And the hide at the beginning of the round does not suffer the penalty only the one after the attack." Then you replied For melee attacks, it does. Then me Where are you getting the -20 to melee attacks? Melee attacks are not mentioned in the PHB. My focus for that was the comment about -20 for the attack roll. Also someone had commented about going around a corner and hiding. The phb explicitly allows the hide check, though it's qualified that the other person still has the information is there. This and the bluff for distraction leads me to think that they are being literal about under observation. Otherwise just knowing that the hider was in the general area would be enough to foil a re hide attempt. Along this same line there are a few ways to know which square an invisible being is in while the hider still has concealment.
Tsuul 01-02-08, 05:04 AM	Let me clarify, my focus was on your second sentence, not the first. Its what I quoted. And the hide at the beginning of the round does not suffer the penalty only the one after the attack." For melee attacks,[the hide at the beginning of the round does suffer a -20 penalty].This is gone over in the FAQ and given examples. Ranger moves up to opponent, taking a -20 penalty to hide. Ranger attacks. Ranger spring attacks away, making a new hide check.