Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mxyzplk 04-11-07, 09:36 PM	OK, so the rules are very clear about when you can initiate a Hide check (unobserved or in concealment unless you have hide in plain sight, camo, Bluff, or something like those). But then you can move half your speed - under what conditions are you still considered Hiding during that move? The Hide answer in the 3.5 FAQ (p.32) seems to say that your movement has to be entirely in an area with cover or concealment, but it's also dealing in the context of attacking a given opponent. If you hide and then later move in a standard indoor/dungeon area, does everyone on the battlefield "see you"? How about the traditional "ninja hide" where you pop a smokestick, hide, then move away? If any of your movement is outside the concealment (and not around a corner or something), they can see you again? The FAQ also seems to say there's no way to attack anyone from hiding without a Hide check at -20; that's lame but luckily no DM I've ever played with does it that way - if you're a stationary, hiding rogue, and someone wanders by in reach of you, you get a sneak attack and then of course you're not hidden... IMO the FAQ writer is making an error here in equating the "hide after sniping" -20 penalty - sure, hiding *after* melee attacking should be at -20 or worse, but to attack while hiding - why even bother calling it "sneak attack" any more, just call it "flankomatic attack". Reason I ask is that I'm playing a low level rogue/swordsage(Shadow Hand), and I'm trying to figure out what various abilities and tricks I have allow me to actually move hidden around the battlefield and get sneak attacks and which aren't... Thanks, Ernest
dragynson1 04-11-07, 10:02 PM	well, MY dms seem to have a ploblem with this one, but the best trick you got is called UMD a wand of blur. or drink a potion of blur. AOE concealment such as darkness, fog cloud does you no good, as you cant sneak attack anything with concealment. shadows are only of limited use, anything with darkvision can see you if your within range. NOthing in the description of darkvision says it is canceled by light. A lot dms assume it is.
ravidubey 04-11-07, 10:05 PM	You can't normally hide without cover or concealment. Even hide in plain sight (HIPS) usually requires a shadow of some kind nearby. Blindsight eliminates hiding unless you are 100% behind cover. So if your ninja moves outside of his smoke cover and is not in shadowy illumination then he can't normally hide. Even if in shadowy illumination, he can't hide from those in range with darkvision. If he has the Supernatural ability to HIPS, then he still needs a shadow nearby to activate the magic (this has nothing to do with actual darkness, just the presence or absence of a shadow to focus the magic). Similarly a ranger needs the presence natural terrain to activate his hiding (a kind of camoflage). So revisit that -20 check to attacking, running, or charging. when hiding... Attacking: A rogue successfully hiding behind a rock strikes an adjacent opponent. His arm returns to him behind the rock. The attackee probably spotted the attack (he effectively gets a +20 bonus to have noticed it) but still has a small chance to lose track of it since the rogue is still behind cover and he didn't see the attack coming to start with. Now just because he didn't see it doesn't mean he doesn't know where the attack must have come from. All a failure means is he at that moment can't pinpoint the rogue using sight. The same holds true for fighting in shadowy illumination without darkvision; a rogue can continue to hide while attacking because it's dark. Again he has a -20 penalty, which is no joke. Even still, all this means if the spotter still fails a spot is that vision can't help him pinpoint the rogue. He could still use blind fighting or other means (or just guess what square the rogue was in). KEY: The moment he's spotted it's over because you normally can't hide while being observed (unless you have HIPS). Sniping: Straightforward. The rogue is successfully hidden behind a fern, fires a crossbow, and hides again as a move eq. The target didn't see it coming since the rogue was hidden and so still has a chance (again, a small one) to miss the rogue because of the concealment and the surprise at being shot at. Running, Charging: The rogue is running behind concealment or in shadowy illumination. It's easier to spot him, but not a sure thing. If he attacks at the end of a charge he can still remain hidden (if in shadowy illumination, for example), but at a -40 penalty (-20 for charging, -20 for attacking). At that point the DM may just say the rogue can't remain hidden, which is what a -40 penalty usually means anyway. But until he's been definitely spotted, the rogue has a chance (however small) to remain hidden.
Tsuul 04-12-07, 01:43 AM	Comp adv added rules for moving between hiding spots. -5 penalty per 5' moved uncovered. You can even use the rule to sneak up on someone in the middle of an open room.
Dheran 04-12-07, 05:58 PM	OThe Hide answer in the 3.5 FAQ (p.32) seems to say that your movement has to be entirely in an area with cover or concealment, but it's also dealing in the context of attacking a given opponent. While the FAQ document has been updated recently, that doesn't mean that old answers have been updated as well. This is an example of an answer that's seriously out of date. You can't normally hide without cover or concealment. That was the rule when there was only the Player's Handbook to go by. But, as Tsuul has pointed out, they explain how you can sneak up on someone -- without either cover or concealment -- using the Move between Cover rule in Complete Adventurer. [Even at the time of the FAQ answer this has always been possible, because (check your DMG on page 4) the 3.0 book Song and Silence explained how to use Hide for this purpose.]
jadehawk 04-12-07, 06:20 PM	You can't normally hide without cover or concealment. Even hide in plain sight (HIPS) usually requires a shadow of some kind nearby. Blindsight eliminates hiding unless you are 100% behind cover. So if your ninja moves outside of his smoke cover and is not in shadowy illumination then he can't normally hide. Even if in shadowy illumination, he can't hide from those in range with darkvision. If he has the Supernatural ability to HIPS, then he still needs a shadow nearby to activate the magic (this has nothing to do with actual darkness, just the presence or absence of a shadow to focus the magic). Similarly a ranger needs the presence natural terrain to activate his hiding (a kind of camoflage). So revisit that -20 check to attacking, running, or charging. when hiding... Attacking: A rogue successfully hiding behind a rock strikes an adjacent opponent. His arm returns to him behind the rock. The attackee probably spotted the attack (he effectively gets a +20 bonus to have noticed it) but still has a small chance to lose track of it since the rogue is still behind cover and he didn't see the attack coming to start with. Now just because he didn't see it doesn't mean he doesn't know where the attack must have come from. All a failure means is he at that moment can't pinpoint the rogue using sight. The same holds true for fighting in shadowy illumination without darkvision; a rogue can continue to hide while attacking because it's dark. Again he has a -20 penalty, which is no joke. Even still, all this means if the spotter still fails a spot is that vision can't help him pinpoint the rogue. He could still use blind fighting or other means (or just guess what square the rogue was in). KEY: The moment he's spotted it's over because you normally can't hide while being observed (unless you have HIPS). Sniping: Straightforward. The rogue is successfully hidden behind a fern, fires a crossbow, and hides again as a move eq. The target didn't see it coming since the rogue was hidden and so still has a chance (again, a small one) to miss the rogue because of the concealment and the surprise at being shot at. Running, Charging: The rogue is running behind concealment or in shadowy illumination. It's easier to spot him, but not a sure thing. If he attacks at the end of a charge he can still remain hidden (if in shadowy illumination, for example), but at a -40 penalty (-20 for charging, -20 for attacking). At that point the DM may just say the rogue can't remain hidden, which is what a -40 penalty usually means anyway. But until he's been definitely spotted, the rogue has a chance (however small) to remain hidden. I would like to confirm this post. The penalties associated with moving faster and attacking while hiding are reasonable both in reality and for game purposes. Moving faster (which I don't think you contended anyways but here goes) obviously makes it harder to hide. Attacking not only requires a number of gestures that draw the eyes towards you, but it also tends to get someone's attention after they have been hit or nearly hit. For in game purposes, a rogue with proper bonuses to hide without taking a -20 penalty would kill just about any character easily...with the exception of characters with equally heinous spot checks and those with immunity to sneak attack damage. If you are playing the right type of rogue then nobody will ever match your hide with their spot. Case in point I have a 20th level rogue who can get a 99 on his hide check in shadows by taking 10, which he can do in combat. One note; I don't know where I got this from but I think you can move between squares of hiding (like behind cover and in concealment) as long as the number of squares between them is equal to or less than your ranks in hide. That is, if you have 10 ranks in hide you could move 10 squares from shadow to shadow. Please someone confirm or deny this for me as I may just be making this up.
mxyzplk 04-12-07, 07:38 PM	OK, good points all. So wanted to clarify opinion though - so a rogue melee attacks from hiding ("behind a rock" with a previously successful hide roll). No movement, let's say the target wanders up to them. Does he have to reroll hide at -20 in order for the initial attack to catch the target flat-footed and be a sneak attack? Or is the first shot a sneak attack, and just like a sniper you'd have to roll at -20 to stay hidden AFTER the attack? And thanks for pointing out the CAdv movement from hiding thing, very useful. It gives me confidence the former interpretation above is valid. Also, does it make sense to say that you have concealment as long as LOS to you passes through an area with concealment? So if you pop a 10' cube smokestick in a 10' wide corridor and then Hide, move 20' back and around a corner or whatnot - your movement wasn't all in the smoke, but if all your opponents are in the smoke or on the other side of it, it'd still count right? So as a corollary (still looking for clever ideas...) The new Mithralmist Shirt in the Magic Item Compendium. Mithral shirt, fills your square with smoke giving concelament but that doesn't inhibit *your* vision 3/day. In melee with someone, you could pop that smoke, Hide in it, then SA them from out of it right? (Not really imbalanced, it's only 3/day and the smoke doesn't move with you...) I like the mental visual of that one. I think I can just afford it and a +1 deadly precision shortsword...
Vegepygmy 04-12-07, 07:45 PM	OK, good points all. So wanted to clarify opinion though - so a rogue melee attacks from hiding ("behind a rock" with a previously successful hide roll). No movement, let's say the target wanders up to them. Does he have to reroll hide at -20 in order for the initial attack to catch the target flat-footed and be a sneak attack? Or is the first shot a sneak attack, and just like a sniper you'd have to roll at -20 to stay hidden AFTER the attack?You're confusing two issues here: invisibility and flat-footedness. If a rogue is hiding behind a rock and his target wanders up to him, he can attack and catch the target flat-footed because (presumably) the target is surprised. The rogue is not hidden (i.e., invisible) when he makes the attack roll, but he will still get to sneak attack because the target is flat-footed due to surprise. If the rogue's attack is a ranged attack, he can "snipe" and try to hide again at -20. If it's a melee attack, he's just done. Also, does it make sense to say that you have concealment as long as LOS to you passes through an area with concealment?Well, that's what the rules say. To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
Dheran 04-12-07, 08:22 PM	OK, good points all. So wanted to clarify opinion though - so a rogue melee attacks from hiding ("behind a rock" with a previously successful hide roll). No movement, let's say the target wanders up to them. As Vegepygmy has mentioned, this is a surprise situation, not being invisible. We have to assume less than total cover because you can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover. If the Rogue's Hide check beats the target's Spot when within melee attack range, the target is surprised and thus flat-footed. Does he have to reroll hide at -20 in order for the initial attack to catch the target flat-footed and be a sneak attack? Surprise makes the target flat-footed. No additional Hide check is necessary. Or is the first shot a sneak attack, and just like a sniper you'd have to roll at -20 to stay hidden AFTER the attack? If the Rogue had cover/concealment from the rock, they still wouldn't be able to Hide while being observed, and sticking a pointy object in someone tends to get their attention. If the Rogue had cover/concealment and also Hide in Plain Sight, then it would be possible to try to Hide again, and you'd apply the -20 penalty for doing so while attacking. (That's the same number as the Sniping penalty, but this isn't Sniping -- don't confuse the two situations.) If the new Hide check succeeds despite the penalty, the target got attacked yet still failed to Spot the Rogue behind the rock. The new Mithralmist Shirt in the Magic Item Compendium. Mithral shirt, fills your square with smoke giving concelament but that doesn't inhibit *your* vision 3/day. In melee with someone, you could pop that smoke, Hide in it, then SA them from out of it right? Yes, this will work as long as there's nothing else providing concealment for your target.
ravidubey 04-12-07, 10:36 PM	Good points in other posts regarding being flat footed, flanked etc. For the sake of this thread I'm sticking with sneak attacks gained because of hiding. OK, good points all. So wanted to clarify opinion though - so a rogue melee attacks from hiding ("behind a rock" with a previously successful hide roll). No movement, let's say the target wanders up to them. Does he have to reroll hide at -20 in order for the initial attack to catch the target flat-footed and be a sneak attack? Not unless the rogue is spotted when the target wanders up in the moment before the attack. Spot checks suffer penalties for every ten feet of distance. It's up to the DM how great a change in circumstances warrants a re-check. I wouldn't grant a re-check for moving a paltry ten feet, but thirty feet means a difference of +3. He could also move into or through a square with a better view of the rogue, reducing the net cover or concealment-- that would certainly warrant another opposed check. Or is the first shot a sneak attack, and just like a sniper you'd have to roll at -20 to stay hidden AFTER the attack? The first attack is a sneak attack if you successfully hid up to the moment you attacked. Period. Unlike sniping, the -20 penalty you are referring to doesn't apply to hide checks made after your attack; it's meant for staying hidden during your attack. Of course, during this attack you must still have at least partial concealment from vision (shadowy illumination or attacking through cover like an attack through a door or a bush) to even get a hide check at all. Once the target observes you (you fail your hide check), you can't hide without completely breaking line of sight or using special skills or abilities like bluff or HIPS or a special rule like sniping. One last note, concealment gained from a spell like Blur can't help you hide if it is the only source of concealment. You are still visible, plain as day. I use this line from the more powerful Displacement spell "However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
mxyzplk 04-12-07, 10:40 PM	Well, it's a "surprise" situation, but one made possible due to the Hide, right? Let's say it's not the beginning of combat; there's an ongoing combat and someone wanders next to a Hidden rogue. Sneak attack, but not technically in a surprise round. (Our DM doesn't have people flat-footed at the beginning of combat, so the fine point is important to me...) Hmm. I just noticed something I guess I was missing, which was that the cover/concealment requirement is separate from the "not observed" requirement. So would the Mithrilmist Shirt I mentioned above not allow a Hide check, since though concealed you'd be "observed" by someone you're in melee with? It's strange, it seems like there's quite a gap between "you can't hide, even with cover or concealment, if being observed" (default) and "you can hide when observed just within 10' of a shadow" (hide in plain sight). Where's "you can hide while observed if you're in cover or concealment"?
ravidubey 04-12-07, 10:55 PM	Well, it's a "surprise" situation, but one made possible due to the Hide, right? It's a sneak attack because the target is denied his dex bonus to AC against you because he didn't see you. It has nothing to do with surprise. Where's "you can hide while observed if you're in cover or concealment"? That doesn't exist unless you're sniping or break LOS entirely.
Vegepygmy 04-13-07, 04:53 PM	It's a sneak attack because the target is denied his dex bonus to AC against you because he didn't see you. It has nothing to do with surprise.You have it exactly backwards. It's a sneak attack because the target is surprised (and thus flat-footed). It has nothing to do with him not seeing you, because he does see you. You're no longer hidden when you make the attack (unless you take a -20 penalty on your Hide check). If the target is already in combat, you cannot surprise him. Some DMs will allow you to treat such an opponent as flat-footed, but by the RAW he is not...and that makes sense, because people in combat situations are not oblivious to the possibility of attacks from unexpected sources.
Dheran 04-13-07, 06:55 PM	It's a sneak attack because the target is surprised (and thus flat-footed). It has nothing to do with him not seeing you, Hold on there. The situation as stated was that the Rogue was hiding behind a rock (partial cover). If the target's Spot doesn't beat the Rogue's Hide check, the target is suprised and also doesn't see the attack. Just because the target is denied their DEX bonus due to surprise doesn't prevent them from being denied their DEX bonus due to some other condition as well. Being unseen also provides a +2 bonus on the attack, a fact I overlooked in my previous post. because he does see you. You're no longer hidden when you make the attack (unless you take a -20 penalty on your Hide check). That's wrong, too -- a result of overlooking that the Rogue is hidden initially. An attack from a character who's already hidden is treated as if invisible. The "invisibility" disappears after the hit. It's possible to start out visible and manage to be not seen by the time the blow lands (a consequence of being able to Hide while attacking -- not just before or after) if you satisfy all the Hide requirements, with the -20 penalty as you stated. But that's not the situation here, because both surpise and (effective) invisibility are in place at the time of the attack.
Tsuul 04-13-07, 08:03 PM	because he does see you. You're no longer hidden when you make the attack (unless you take a -20 penalty on your Hide check). That's wrong, too -- a result of overlooking that the Rogue is hidden initially. An attack from a character who's already hidden is treated as if invisible. The "invisibility" disappears after the hit. I am posting a FAQ answer in full, and coloring points. FAQ01262007 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. (1)Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she delivers the attack. (2)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?!” (1) Comp Adv has added rules for crossing a space between a hiding place and an opponent. But it only makes the opponent flatfooted with respect to you. (Comp Adv pg 102) Since there are ways of making a person flatfooted in the midst of combat, I assume this is just another one of those ways and can be used after combat has started. (2) I don't agree with all of this but it is written so must be brought up. Camouflage + no Hide in Plain Sight ability means you can sneak up on someone (similar to using the Comp Adv rules for crossing open areas). You not "invisible" for the attack unless you take a -20 penalty to the hide check. After the attack, you can not hide even if you took the -20 penalty to hide while attacking; because you are visible.
mxyzplk 04-13-07, 08:10 PM	Interesting... So I totally buy Dheran's thinking in terms of the being hidden even when you attack but not after. However, the +2 to hit... I bet I'll get pushback from my DM on that. The real question I think I have is where a successful Hide check is equated to invisibility - technically the +2 to hit is for "attacker invisible". Entertainingly, the SRD Hide definition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) talks a lot but never comes out and says what the effect of Hide *is*. Now, I totally see Vegepygmy's point because of the way the FAQ pp.32-33 is stated, which seems to indicate you need to Hide at -20 to be hiding when you make the attack... I think though that's pretty retarded and against the concept of hiding; if you have to be epic to strike someone from the shadows something's wrong.
Vegepygmy 04-14-07, 01:08 AM	Now, I totally see Vegepygmy's point because of the way the FAQ pp.32-33 is stated, which seems to indicate you need to Hide at -20 to be hiding when you make the attack...It's not just the way the FAQ is stated, it's the way the core rules are stated: It's practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. I can't see any way you can read that as allowing you to (1) be hidden and (2) attack at the same time without taking a -20 penalty on your Hide check. That's what "while" means.
Tsuul 04-14-07, 01:27 AM	I can't see any way you can read that as allowing you to (1) be hidden and (2) attack at the same time without taking a -20 penalty on your Hide check. That's what "while" means.The interpretation I seem to come across a lot on the boards is that it keeps you hidden through your iterative attacks and isn't needed for that initial strike. The invisibility spell doesn't help either with it's text on being removed after the attack. I don't follow that interpretation but many seem to.
mxyzplk 04-14-07, 09:38 AM	But then you have the moving between cover example in CAdv, which indicates that you can move up to someone out of hiding with a -5 per square, and they're flat-footed when you get there. This could be interpreted as a completely new rule, but it looks suspiciously like a extension to me, of the base case of hiding and not moving and thus being able to attack an opponent flat-footed. The -20 to Hide isn't mentioned.
Tsuul 04-14-07, 03:37 PM	And if you were in a hiding spot and attacked an unaware foe adjacent to you, what makes you think you get invisibility modifiers to your attack? Common sense doesn't fit what the FAQ and Comp Adv say. The FAQ says you must take the -20 to be considered hidden for the attack, and Comp adv says you only make a person flatfooted (which I interpret as due to surprise).