Specific effects of hiding?

[Michael Silverbane]

Well, according to the RAW (what is posted in that previous post, there) hiding has no mechanical effect at all... What, then, is the benefit of hiding?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

I believe one of the prime assets of being hidden is that you cannot be targetted by magic. You can't target someone with a spell unless you can see or touch them.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Just as an addition:

- you can't target a hidden character with a ranged attack.
- you can target a 5 foot square region and if a hidden character happens to be in that square, you have a 50% chance of hitting them.

The Hide skill is actually very useful when used by an attentive DM and players.

As for the whole hidden/invisibility thing, an attacking creature gets a big penalty to their hide (-20) and so the chance of them remaining "un"visible is slim. I would give a spot check to the target at this point and only treat the attacker as invisible (+2 to hit and sighted opponent loses dex to AC) if the spot check was failed by the targeted opponent. I would not simply hand out a hidden attack just because an attacker "was" hidden. I'd force the new spot check.

Is this correct though?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise.

 

[melkorspawn]

Also, with HiPS, the AOO possibilities are incredible.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Sorry the RAW does not support that.

What about my post is incorrect per the RAW? I show that the RAW does support that.

Well, according to the RAW (what is posted in that previous post, there) hiding has no mechanical effect at all... What, then, is the benefit of hiding?

Did you read my post? I explain the benefits.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about my post is incorrect per the RAW? I show that the RAW does support that.

I think he means:

Assume that successfully hiding from someone means they can't see you.

You've shown that this means they don't have line of sight, which means you have total concealment. Total concealment grants a 50% miss chance, and people can't attack you directly (rather, they can attack the square you're in).

An invisible attacker gains total concealment. He also denies his opponent Dex bonus to AC.

A blind defender grants his attackers total concealment. He is also denied Dex bonus to AC.

A hiding character gains total concealment.

What you haven't shown is a rule for a hiding character to deny his opponent Dex bonus to AC. You've shown that he has total concealment; you haven't shown that a/ he has the invisible condition, or b/ his opponent is considered blind.

It's similar to the way that in 3.5, the Blind Fight feat doesn't actually let you retain your Dex bonus to AC if you're blind. In 3E, your attackers were treated as being invisible when you were blind, which meant that the feat - which allows you to retain Dex bonus to AC when struck by an invisible attacker - worked just fine when blind. In 3.5, 'Defender blind' and 'Attacker invisible' are two wholly different situations, so the feat doesn't let you retain Dex bonus.

Likewise, Uncanny Dodge.

-Hyp.

 

[Thaniel]

I think he means:

Assume that successfully hiding from someone means they can't see you.

You've shown that this means they don't have line of sight, which means you have total concealment. Total concealment grants a 50% miss chance, and people can't attack you directly (rather, they can attack the square you're in).

An invisible attacker gains total concealment. He also denies his opponent Dex bonus to AC.

A blind defender grants his attackers total concealment. He is also denied Dex bonus to AC.

A hiding character gains total concealment.

What you haven't shown is a rule for a hiding character to deny his opponent Dex bonus to AC. You've shown that he has total concealment; you haven't shown that a/ he has the invisible condition, or b/ his opponent is considered blind.

-Hyp.

Does this mean a hidden rogue does not get to use his sneak attack? This seems majorly counterintuitive.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Oh, I see. Let's go right for the first line of the definition of invisible then.

"Visually undetectable."

If you can't see him (poor Spot check, no true seeing, etc.), then he's visually undetectable and therefore is considered invisible.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Right; what there needs to be, in the Hiding rules, is something like, "Should your Hide check beat an observer's Spot check, you are considered to be invisible to that observer."

It doesn't have that, however.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, I see. Let's go right for the first line of the definition of invisible then.

"Visually undetectable."

If you can't see him (poor Spot check, no true seeing, etc.), then he's visually undetectable and therefore is considered invisible.

If you could see him with a good Spot check, is he not visually detectable?

Let's say I could Spot him with a roll of 15, and I roll a 5. The fact that he could be seen but has not been means he is visually detectable, but visually undetected.

As an aside - I ride into the forest clearing and dismount successfully. Am I prone?

-Hyp.