• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Can't get my head around the Hide skill

RigaMortus2

First Post
frankthedm said:
I ammended the quoted post.

Hmmm... Is that the The way i think it was intended, part that you ammended? Or was there something else that my eyes are missing?

Assuming that is the only thing you ammended... Well... Ahhh... I have nothing more to say at the time. Good day :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
frankthedm said:
1. IF you are being observed, create a distraction so you can attemt to hide as the hide skill calls out.



2. Remain in squares that grant concealment or cover. If you have a battlefield so clear that there are few places with that, you are SOL. I'd suggest using the 'shadowy light' of the parties torches or light spells, but sadly that does not work so well in the dungeon since way too many fragging monsters have darkvision :\ . Your best bet at lowish levels would be a darkness spell. Of course that turns off any and all sneak attack damage for those inside it due to concealment.

Total concealment or total cover already offers you more protection than a hide check can. So how is this a benefit?
 

FireLance

Legend
Mistwell said:
Total concealment or total cover already offers you more protection than a hide check can. So how is this a benefit?
Total concealment and total cover, yes, but not "ordinary" concealment or cover.

If you are standing in an area of shadowy illumination (concealment) or behind a large tree (cover) you have a chance to remain unnoticed if your Hide check is high enough.

With total concealment or total cover, there is no usually need to make a Hide check. Without any form of concealment or cover, there is usually no need to make a Hide check, either - you will be noticed automatically. It's in the in-between cases (cover and concealment) where Hide checks become useful.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
FireLance said:
Total concealment and total cover, yes, but not "ordinary" concealment or cover.

If you are standing in an area of shadowy illumination (concealment) or behind a large tree (cover) you have a chance to remain unnoticed if your Hide check is high enough.

With total concealment or total cover, there is no usually need to make a Hide check. Without any form of concealment or cover, there is usually no need to make a Hide check, either - you will be noticed automatically. It's in the in-between cases (cover and concealment) where Hide checks become useful.

So is it your contention, along with Frank, that you can only remain hidden while under some form of cover. That you cannot seek cover, hide, and then move out of cover and make a hide check to remain hidden?

For me, that makes hide nearly useless as a skill. How often is there a situation where you not only have full cover or concealment so you can begin the hide (you cannot start it with partial cover or concealment because they you would still be "observed"), but sufficient cover or concealment to stretch the entire distance you want to move once you are already hidden?

In other words, what would the circumstances have to be to be able to hide and then get a sneak attack on someone if that target is not standing in an area that already provides cover or concealment? It sure sounds like you guys both think you cannot sneak up behind someone in this game if that person is not already standing in the shadows...
 

werk

First Post
Mistwell said:
It sure sounds like you guys both think you cannot sneak up behind someone in this game if that person is not already standing in the shadows...

That's part of the problem...there is no 'behind'. The target is always facing you and looking in your direction.

Hiding is for hiding. If you've ever played hide-&-seek, you know walking around in the open isn't usually a good tactic.

I think what you are talking about is what feint/improved feint is for. It's restrictive, as well, so probably isn't well liked.
 

FireLance

Legend
Mistwell said:
So is it your contention, along with Frank, that you can only remain hidden while under some form of cover. That you cannot seek cover, hide, and then move out of cover and make a hide check to remain hidden?
Going strictly by the rules in the PH, you can't do that. However, Complete Adventurer has a rule expanding the use of the Hide skill to allow this ("Move between Cover", pg. 101). It imposes some restrictions (5 ft. move per 5 ranks of Hide) and some hefty penalties (-5 penalty for every 5 ft. moved in addition to penalties for fast movement), but it does make it possible.

The PH rules do make a ranged rogue more viable than a melee rogue, especially when it comes to sneak attack. However, I'd also allow a rogue to make a sneak attack with a charge, if he is hiding at the start of his turn.

As for the "observation" rule, I see that as a mechanism to prevent easy hiding again after the rogue has done something to draw attention to himself (in much the same way that invisibility expires after one attack). A rogue that starts out in an area of concealment (not necessarily total concealment) and succeeds at a Hide check remains "unobserved".
 

AzraelLOD

First Post
There's actually a couple things I'd like to add to this thread, suggest, and point out in my efforts to be helpful. :D

Regarding the invisibility issues and 'visually undetectable' scenarios, I'd like to point out that that the SRD/PHB allows characters to detect an invisible opponent using a Spot check:

"A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it."

For purposes of spotting invisible foes, I treat the Spot skill similar to the Scent ability. The DMG specifies ranges for spotting people in certain terrain and conditions. If someone succeeds on making an appropriately modified DC 20 Spot check while an invisible opponent is within spotting range (as defined in the DMG), then I say the person notices something in a certain direction. Once the character moves and comes within 5 ft. of the invisible opponent, I then allow another DC 20 Spot check to pinpoint the opponent. Since the opponent is invisible (granting total concealment), the character still has a 50% miss chance when attacking the pinpointed invisible foe. If the PC has difficulty trying to pinpoint an invisible foe (because the foe keeps moving, for example), then the PC may make a Spot check to notice the direction of the invisible foe as a standard action. Ultimately, this means that invisible foes are incredibly hard to pinpoint with Spot checks (and rightly so), since the invisible foe can take two move actions to move around each turn while the PC can only take one move action after attempting an appropriately modified DC 20 Spot check as a standard action.

Under the method I just described, it does in fact make ranged attacks against invisible foes impossible unless the ranged attacker has some other way to pinpoint the 5 ft. square where the invisible opponent is standing. However, this difficulty is somewhat easily overcome if the ranged attacker can see an ally actively trying to hit something in melee combat in a specific 5 ft' square.

Regarding the Hide skill specifically, I have three comments.

1. Some people have been asking how often they should have the players make Hide checks when the players are tailing someone. I'd like to point out that recent published adventures (including the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft adventure I'm presently DMing) only allow characters to make Spot checks every 10 minutes to detect a foe using Hide checks to tail the characters. I think that's also a pretty fair guideline to use for NPCs being tailed by the players. However, this is restricted by the players' ability to actually keep the target they're tailing within visual range. Once again, look to the DMG to provide Spot ranges in specific terrain conditions.

I run the situation in the following order:
(NOTE: This assumes the PCs are at a distance where Listen checks would be moot.)
-The PCs must acquire the target they're tailing within visual Spot range as determined in the DMG.
-The PCs make appropriate Hide checks modified by penalties necessary to keep up with the target they're tailing; the PCs must be in terrain that allows cover or concealment (or have some other way of providing it themselves). I depart from the SRD here and allow crowded streets to provide 'hard' cover instead of 'soft' cover to allow a Hide check.
-The target gets its first Spot check, which is also limited to Spot ranges according to terrain conditions; if the PCs are outside the Spot range of the target, then the target automatically fails its Spot check.
-10 minutes later the PCs must make appropriately modified Hide checks opposed by the Spot check of the target they're tailing as before.
-If at any point the target moves outside of the PCs' Spot range as determined in the DMG, then the PCs fail to tail the target and must start this process over again by first relocating the target within Spot range.

In situations where someone is trying to tail/shadow someone else, I also recommend checking out the Skill Tricks available in Complete Scoundrel, since often times they let you make additional skills checks (like bluff) to try to cover the fact that you're tailing the person who spots you.

2. I suggest you treat someone as being 'observed' only when the person does not have cover (partial or total) or concealment (partial or total) to interfere with the view of the observer. This still allows the Hide check to be very useful.

Some people may claim that this makes spells/items with effects like Blur or Displacement overpowered and equal to invisibility, since technically someone could don a Cloak of Greater Displacement (50%) and constantly Hide 'in the open' so to speak. My counterclaim to that line of thought is that, UNLIKE invisibility, someone with only a concealment effect is actually Spotted and visible for purposes of targeting, line of sight, etc. for both ranged and melee attacks if the Hide check is overcome. An invisible foe never needs to make a Hide check, and even if the location of the foe is pinpointed individuals are still forced to target the 5 ft. square where the foe is standing instead of the actual foe. The ultimate result of this situation is that non-invisible foes with only concealment can still be targeted for purposes of spells like Hold Person, while invisible foes cannot be targeted for such purposes because they can not be seen (thus they must be detected in some other manner for purposes of such spells).

It doesn't help that the condition of 'invisible' also includes 'total concealment,' but I think people need to stop equating the two since there are tangible differences as just described. Venn Diagrams would probably be helpful in this situation. =D All invisible foes also have total concealment, but all foes with total concealment are not also invisible.

3. Hiding from someone, particularly in combat situations, should be a very difficult task. As previously pointed out in this thread, the PHB and Complete Adventurer already contain highly restrictive rules when trying to Hide while moving or moving from cover to cover. Please familiarize yourself with these as they help resolve a number of questions already asked in this thread. These are restrictive for a reason since the skill can become overpowered as others have also pointed out in this thread.

I think that two combat scenarios have been mentioned where the Hide skill was intended for use:

1) Ambush scenarios, where an opponent is considered flat-footed.

2) Breaking initiative and hence combat rounds to allow escape from an enemy.

Outside of those two specific instances where someone either lies in wait to ambush a foe or attempts to Hide in an effort to flee, Hiding in combat to gain advantages should be extremely difficult.


Hopefully my opinion and this info was helpful to you folks. :D
 

Rogue problem

First Post
Bluff, Hide,move silent, then sneak attack

I was thinking about trying this with my Rogue:

Smoke stick to created concealment. Bluff check(to distract enemy) to attempt a hide check in said concealment. Come out of smoke area of concealment staying hiden with another hide check (taking hide check penalty per foot of open space crossed-per "complete Adventurer"). Make a move silent check as I approach target who is 5-10 feet from the fog I just left. Then sneak attack him cause he didn't notice me and he's flat-footed.

Does this sound feasable? I'm not sure how many actions it would take to do all of this.
 

Klaus

First Post
Rogue problem said:
I was thinking about trying this with my Rogue:

Smoke stick to created concealment. Bluff check(to distract enemy) to attempt a hide check in said concealment. Come out of smoke area of concealment staying hiden with another hide check (taking hide check penalty per foot of open space crossed-per "complete Adventurer"). Make a move silent check as I approach target who is 5-10 feet from the fog I just left. Then sneak attack him cause he didn't notice me and he's flat-footed.

Does this sound feasable? I'm not sure how many actions it would take to do all of this.
Light a smokestick = Standard
Bluff to Create a Diversion = Standard
Move out of smoke cloud while Hiding and Moving Silently = Move action (your speed is reduced by both the Hide and Move Silently uses)
Sneak Attack = Standard

So you're needing 3 standard actions and as many move actions as needed to reach the target.

Note that if the viewer is more than 5 feet away from you when you light the smoke stick, you have total concealment, so you don't need to use Bluff. In that case:

Round 1: Light smoke stick (and drop it as a free action), move out of the fog cloud (hiding and moving silently).

Round 2: Move up to target, sneak attack.
 

sirwmholder

First Post
frankthedm said:
...The Core rules NEVER equate hiding with being invisible. Wotc {or at least their employees] has said in other places taking the -20 to the hide check to attack while doing so does give effective invisibility if the foe does not make the spot.
We have equated this to be... if your opposed Hide check beets their Spot check by 20 or more and you are effectively invisible to them. Anything less you are Hidden not Invisible. In our game we use a Blur effect (20% miss chance that stacks with concealment from other sources) for Hidden condition. We have yet to locate an official Hidden condition, hence the confusion that lies with the Hide skill.

Thanks for your time,
William Holder
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top