"Hide in Plain Sight" and "Camouflage" - WHO SAYS???

[ZenFox42]

As a long-term RPG'er but new to 3.5/Pathfinder, I am trying to understand Stealth and I received these statements on a different thread :

1. "Note that HIPS does not allow you to enter Steath without Cover or Concealment" [C/C = "Cover or Concealment" from now on]
2. "Camouflage does not allow you to enter Steath while you're being observed"

And everyone seemed to agree with those assumptions (and I'm going to argue that they ARE assumptions, until someone can quote an authoritative reference).

So, here's the RAW for HIPS (emphasis mine) : "[A rogue] is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed."

And for Camouflage : "A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant Cover or Concealment."

My argument is : HIPS says you "can use the Stealth skill even while observed" - it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether you have C/C, so my interpretation is that C/C is irrelevant. Try turning it around : "If you are being observed, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without C/C (to my way of thinking).

Likewise, Camouflage says you "can use the Stealth skill without C/C" - it says NOTHING about being observed, so I would say that observation does not matter. Try turning it around : "If you have C/C, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without being observed.

So my question is : where did statements 1 and 2 above come from? They seem to be firmly entrenched in everyone's mind, but can anyone refer to any *authority* (statements in the RAW, discussion in a WotC tutorial, etc.) that specifically states these ADDED limitations for HIPS and Camouflage, that are NOT part of their description? This is what boggles my mind, that statements 1 and 2 are not mentioned in the descriptions of their special abilities, but everyone accepts them as true.

Or perhaps that's the way the rules work? : the requirements/limitations for entering Stealth always take priority, and if a description of a special ability does not specifically mention or address that requirement, it still stays in effect? That seems like a very bad way to run how your rules work, but if it's true, where is that written??? And does that apply to all skills, and all special abilities that modify the way a skill works?

I'm very confused, any clarification will be greatly appreciated...

 

[the Jester]

Generally speaking, in D&D, a specific rule trumps the general rules on a subject. In other words, the Stealth rules apply except that you can e.g. make a Stealth check while being observed when you have HiPS. It doesn't trump any of the general Stealth rules except for exactly what it says.

As for where this is written, I'm not sure- I haven't played 3e in quite a while. But that's the general principle, and it's somewhere in the PH or DMG. Sorry I can't be more specific. The 3e Rules Compendium probably mentions this, too, but I don't own it, so I'm not sure.

 

[pemerton]

My argument is : HIPS says you "can use the Stealth skill even while observed" - it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether you have C/C, so my interpretation is that C/C is irrelevant. Try turning it around : "If you are being observed, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without C/C (to my way of thinking).

Likewise, Camouflage says you "can use the Stealth skill without C/C" - it says NOTHING about being observed, so I would say that observation does not matter. Try turning it around : "If you have C/C, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without being observed.

I don't have any strong view on HiPS or Camouflage, and I know they cause interpretive controversies on a pretty regular basis, but your reasoning is flawed.

Here is an example to show why: Suppose a venue has a rule that you can't enter without wearing a jacket and a tie. If I am given permission to enter "even without a jacket" it doesn't follow that I can also dispense with the tie.

Each ability exempts the character from one requirement - "even while being observed", "even if lacking cover and concealment". Taken on their own, these exemptions don't tell us that other requirements are also being relaxed.

 

[Abraxas]

The reason a shadowdancer with HiPS can use stealth without cover or concealment is because the rules say she can . . . "Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."

 

[ZenFox42]

Here is an example to show why: Suppose a venue has a rule that you can't enter without wearing a jacket and a tie. If I am given permission to enter "even without a jacket" it doesn't follow that I can also dispense with the tie.

Each ability exempts the character from one requirement - "even while being observed", "even if lacking cover and concealment". Taken on their own, these exemptions don't tell us that other requirements are also being relaxed.

That's the best argument I've heard so far, thanks! It still would be nice to know that that's how the writers intended it, tho...

 

[pemerton]

That's the best argument I've heard so far, thanks! It still would be nice to know that that's how the writers intended it, tho...

No worries. As to designer intent on those abilities, I've seen all sorts of arguments and have no idea how they're meant to be played. (I don't play 3E myself.)

I've cut and pasted the text for reference:

Hide in Plain Sight (SRD Assassin, Shadowdancer): can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. Cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.

Camouflage (SRD Ranger): can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight (SRD Ranger): can use the Hide skill even while being observed.​

It seems to me that Camouflage permits a hide check without cover or concealment but otherwise as normal. I would have thought that being observed still matters. HiPS for a ranger then looks like a (limited) upgrade - you can make the check even if you are being observed, but outside natural terrain you will still need cover or concealment. So a ranger with Camouflage who is walking along a sea-cliff can hide in the morning mist if no one is looking; and with HiPS can hide in the mist even if someone is looking. A ranger inside a castle cannot benefit from Camouflage, but can still hide by ducking behind a pillar or tapestry if no one is looking; and a ranger with HiPS can hide behind a pillar or tapestry even if someone is looking.

The assassin/shadowdancer ability seems to grant ranger HiPS, and also the equivalent of Camouflage but with shadow (other than the character's own shadow) taking the place of natural terrain.

 

[Starfox]

Stealth rules are sort of lacking. The way I read the stealth rules now, it is a list of priority causes, each one triumphing the previous one. As long as any of the lower cases apply, it negates all the causes above it.

* You cannot hide while being observed
* You can hide if you cause a distraction to hide
* You can hide if you have concealment or cover
* You can hide if you have an applicable Camouflage
* You can hide if you have Hide in Plain Sight

That is, ANY of the causes of being able to hide lets you hide.

Making a difference between Camouflage/Hide in Plain Sight from different causes seems to be very much against how 3E rules are written. Similar rules in 3E are generally intended to be identical, unlike 4E with it's exceptional game design philosophy.

 

[pemerton]

Making a difference between Camouflage/Hide in Plain Sight from different causes seems to be very much against how 3E rules are written. Similar rules in 3E are generally intended to be identical, unlike 4E with it's exceptional game design philosophy.

I don't fully follow the way you've set it out, in part because the top of your list is a "cannot" clause while the rest are "can" clauses.

But Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight must do different things for a ranger, because they are different abilities gained at different levels. Hide in Plain Sight is also clearly a different ability on a ranger compared to a shadowdancer or assassin. (In all cases I'm referring to the online 3.5 SRD. I don't know what, if anything, PF has done to these abilities.)

 

[frankthedm]

(In all cases I'm referring to the online 3.5 SRD. I don't know what, if anything, PF has done to these abilities.)

Well, it can be kinda important since the SRD & WOTC FAQ does not apply to Pathfinder and changes made by Paizo in Pathfinder don't apply to d20.

Paizo has their own PRD. There is also a fan maintained version that sometimes get linked to.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/ranger.html#_ranger

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html#_stealth

As a long-term RPG'er but new to 3.5/Pathfinder, I am trying to understand Stealth and I received these statements on a different thread :

If you are new to this ruleset, just understand the logic this system uses is that of a computer programming language.

Try turning it around : "If you are being observed, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without C/C (to my way of thinking).

A common error for those new to this ruleset, computer code rarely works when turned around.

So my question is : where did statements 1 and 2 above come from? They seem to be firmly entrenched in everyone's mind, but can anyone refer to any *authority* (statements in the RAW, discussion in a WotC tutorial, etc.) that specifically states these ADDED limitations for HIPS and Camouflage, that are NOT part of their description? This is what boggles my mind, that statements 1 and 2 are not mentioned in the descriptions of their special abilities, but everyone accepts them as true.

Observations of the ruleset seemingly authored by modrons and translated from BASIC.

Or perhaps that's the way the rules work? : the requirements/limitations for entering Stealth always take priority, and if a description of a special ability does not specifically mention or address that requirement, it still stays in effect? That seems like a very bad way to run how your rules work,

You are starting to understand. It is positively maddening to some folks. but hardly "bad". It might make the game unplayable to some gaming groups but it gave me YEARS of fun in the rules forum.

but if it's true, where is that written???

It is what is what IS written, right there in camouflage and HIPS. Just remember, treat the rules as computer code and equations and you'll understand.

 

[Starfox]

I don't fully follow the way you've set it out, in part because the top of your list is a "cannot" clause while the rest are "can" clauses.

But Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight must do different things for a ranger, because they are different abilities gained at different levels. Hide in Plain Sight is also clearly a different ability on a ranger compared to a shadowdancer or assassin. (In all cases I'm referring to the online 3.5 SRD. I don't know what, if anything, PF has done to these abilities.)

I hadn't observed this (thx for pointing it out) and I must say it adds even more confusion to hos Stealth really works. My impression was that Hide in Plain Sight was the same as Camouflage, only not restricted to terrain. That is patently not how it is written now that I read it.

Obviously whoever wrote the ranger has a different interpretation of Stealth than I do, but I cannot say which interpretation or it it is "right" or shared amongst all developers. This adds even further confusion to how Stealth works. Which is very bad, actually, since it is the core ability of one class and a peripheral ability of several more.