How strict with Hide checks?

[Jimlock]

Serious question for the "no cover = no Hide, even with HiPS" folks.

Assume a long corridor of some sort (oriented north-south) with a doorway at the north end. There is a guard in the doorway, facing north (away from the corridor) and not looking behind him at all because he's not expecting to need to worry about anyone already in the corridor. Now, in the real world, it's possible to sneak up on that guard through the corridor if you move quietly and slowly enough, despite the fact that there is no cover and you're completely out in the open, because in real life because guard doesn't have 360-degree vision.

However, there's no facing in D&D as D&D assumes constant attentiveness in all directions, and therefore anyone wishing to sneak up on the guard can't even try to hide. How do you handle this sort of case, and if your answer involves any variation on "Well in this case cover isn't required," how do you determine when cover is required and when it isn't?

As far as combat is concerned i share the opinion of Greenfield.

Even though this holistic approach is not necessarily true in all cases of real life combat, because focus plays a major role... ruling otherwise would complicate your game to the point where you 'll need the time of an entire D&D session, simply to resolve who sees what in a single round of combat.

In non combat situations things are not necessarily so complicated... neither are they simple...

While sentinels and patrols (usually) look or move in a certain direction, this does not mean that one can move behind them so easily.
Keep in mind that human peripheral vision is about 180 degrees (animals reach even greater numbers), and heads tend to turn even though bodies stand still (not always).
Thus, 180 can easily turn into 250 and 300, which leaves an obscure area of a mere 60-110 degrees. Even this, can be negated by a slight body movement. And while we tend to think we are more narrow-sighted, our peripheral vision is pretty sensitive. Just extend your arms to the side and move your fingers while looking straight ahead, and you 'll notice how aware you really are of the movement.

In my game, if a player has clear view of the sentinel or the patrol, and if he can afford some time to observe them, and if he plays out how his character pays attention to their behavior, stance, and timing according to my descriptions, i allow a hide check without cover or concealment within the obscure cone mentioned above. Failure of the check means his timing was bad (the moment he attempted his pass the guard turned around). This hide check works only for the specific guard/patrol, and the player is automatically spotted by any third party.

What is also very important is the focus of the guard or patrol. In the case of a distraction the player may receive a bonus according to the distraction's influence on the guard/patrol. A proper distraction might also alter the direction of the obscure cone, although, usually, for a very short period of time. As Greenfield suggested, distractions, need not necessarily be arranged by the player. The angle of the obscure cone and its direction are always relevant to the "pattern" of the guard/patrol.

This rule or a similar one, should find a very limited and contained use, for if it is used lavishly, it can easily break the game. Also don't forget the move silent checks involved!

 

[Celebrim]

Well, this thread is a disaster. Like so many other threads, we seem unable to answer anyone's question without continuing arguments from other threads. It's almost like we'd rather tell someone about how they are doing it wrong than be helpful.

Anyway, as for the topic:

Last night, one of my players made a move silently check to open a door into a room quietly and a hide check to hide and moved slowly into the room. The room was an empty 3x4 square room with a chest in the far corner and 6 dretches. They attacked him and he was kind of upset that he didn't get to hide.

IMO, he doesn't get the hide check because there is no cover to hide behind. He argues that an improved hide skill gives you the ability to hide behind next to nothing. He does not have HIPS.

So I'm just curious how strict you guys are about hide checks and having cover, or is that part of the rule you just ignore?

Interesting question. Personally, I think the spot/hide system has a lot of flaws, but without going into the particular details of what I do about it, here's how I would think about the particular (fortunately fairly straight forward) case you bring up.

At the beginning of the situation, I think we have pretty general agreement on the game state. The PC has in the initial game state full cover (from the door). The dretches are in the room, currently unware of the PC but aware of the door (this is important). The room is dark, which would normally provide everyone in the room 100% concealment, but, the Dretches have darkvision which means at this distance the darkness provides no obstacle (and hense no cover or concealment).

To sneak up to the dretches, the PC must do three things: 1) Open the door quietly so as to attract no notice, move silently check #1 opposed by all 6 Dretches listen, 2) Cross the room quietly so as to attract no notice, move silently check #2 opposed by all 6 Dretches listen, and 3) hide while moving so as not to be seen, hide check opposed by all 6 Dretches spot.

Now, remember that I said the Dretches being aware of the door is important. The door cannot hide, because it has no cover. As soon as the PC opens the door, the Dretches will see the door opening. Likewise, as soon as the PC opens the door and steps inside, because the PC then has no cover, the Dretches will see the PC.

However, there is something else going on here in my mind which is not covered by the rules and which we haven't yet discussed which is equally important and that is this: "Are any of the Dretches looking at the door?"

The Dretches will only see the door open and the PC enter if they are looking at it. They can't see what they aren't looking at. So, we must ask a new question about the game state and that is, "What are the Dretches doing in the room?"

I can imagine five basic game states:

1) The Dretches are alert and looking at the door.
2) The Dretches are not alert, but looking at the door.
3) The Dretches are alert, but not looking at the door.
4) The Dretches are neither looking at the door nor alert.
5) The Dretches are asleep or otherwise incapacitated.

I would potentially run each game state silently different.

For this case, I think only in case #1 will I have the PC automatically fail owing to a lack of cover. In each of the other four cases, either the Dretch is not eligible for a spot check or else player does have cover - provided by the Dretches themselves as they block each others clear view of the door.

So for example, if the Dretches were previously bound to gaurd the door, they are awaiting the slightest quivering of the door which they will hardly fail to notice, much less someone stepping through it. But if for example, the Dretches are sitting in a circle playing Liar's Dice on the floor with the knucklebones of their former victims, then they are busying watching each other (lest the other cheat) and arguing over the rules and the wagers and so a particularly clever PC might be able to sneak inside unnoticed.

In this later case, I'd rule the move silently checks normally. If either fails, the Dretches that here the PC will turn in his direction - and since he lacks any real cover will spot him immediately. That done, the PC must move so cleverly that he avoids being caught in the glance of the three Dretches that are looking in his direction but preoccupied by events near at hand and their neighbor.

The distance here would be about 10', not enough for a penalty on the spot check. I would apply a -5 penalty on the spot check because the observers are unalert and distracted. The Dretches have +5 to spot, meaning they aren't exactly dull eyed creatures despite their lack of wit. I quickly rolled a 5,9,15 for the three evil creatures, so to sneak into the room unseen our PC needs a 15on his hide check. This is more than possible, but the PC better have considered one other important factor: light.

The room is dark. If the PC is carrying any sort of light, or there is any sort of light beyond the door, then it is impossible that the dretches will not notice the opening of the door and with it the attendent entrance of the PC. The light which would draw their attention to the would be sneaky PC automatically fails its 'hide check' in this sort of situation.

Incidently, being Invisible doesn't change this situation by all that much. Why? Because once again, the Dretches are aware of the door and even if invisible, if the PC is radiating light his location will be easy to note. The act of opening the door itself reveals the presence of something (even if that something is invisible), and in a world where magic really exists its only natural and reasonable to assume magic forces are at work. (Although, given the stupidity of the Dretches, I'd probably make an intelligence check to see if they could work this simple puzzle out on their own.) Invisibility in this case really only acts like a very effective temporary boost to your hide skill.

So, I've given you two answers. In one case, it is impossible without exceptional aid to sneak into the room. In the other, it's something any mid-level thief ought to have a decent chance of accomplishing. Both cases are in my opinion correct depending on the game state. Since I tend to work out game state before I determine the fortune, this works for me. If you work out game state after fortune, you'll have to come up with different rules and approaches.

 

[Celebrim]

However, there's no facing in D&D as D&D assumes constant attentiveness in all directions, and therefore anyone wishing to sneak up on the guard can't even try to hide. How do you handle this sort of case, and if your answer involves any variation on "Well in this case cover isn't required," how do you determine when cover is required and when it isn't?

I agree with Greenfield. Even though there is assumed to be no facing in combat, outside of combat game state can dictate facing.

In this case, the player has 100% cover provided by the guard's head and therefore no hide check is even necessary.

If two guards were facing each other so that the PC was at best on the edge of their vision, then I'd make this hide vs. spot to reflect the possibility of sneaking across unnoticed.

And if the guard was looking alertly down the corridor, assuming his vision was unobstructed then hide would automatically fail unless the PC had some exceptional ability that aided his hiding. (Although, I probably could be tempted to treat hiding without cover as a hide check with a -20 penalty so that if the corridor was long enough or the guards vision bad enough, the attempt would at least be possible.)

 

[Greenfield]

A point to consider in this debate: People (and creatures in general) are presumed to be doing a "Take 10" on their Spot any time their eyes are open. There's a -5 penalty to Spot for being "distracted".

If the door into the room is facing squarely at the Dretches, the DC for them seeing it move is pretty much a zero.

If the door is on a "side wall" relative to them, then it becomes important to consider whether it opens into the room or out from it. If it swings out, and they're viewing it from an angle, then the doorframe itself can provide concealment. And, in the hands of the PC, it's an "attended object", and he can apply his own Hide skill to move it slowly enough not to draw notice. Of course, he'll have to close it again once he's inside, or he won't be able to keep it's new open position hidden once it stops being an "attended" object.

And, in the non-combat situation, I could see the argument that the Dretches nearest the door could provide concealment w/regards to the ones on the other side of the group.

So it really comes down to positioning, which is why maps and minis are so important in D&D 3.*.

If the Dretches are in a huddle or circle, facing each other in conversation, or perhaps passing the time with a game of stone/parchment/dagger, then they're distracted and providing some cover for our intrepid adventurer.

Of course, if he tries to move that chest we're back to the situation of hiding behind your own shield: They won't see you, but they're more than likely to notice the chest trying to sneak across the room. Chests have really lousy stealth skills.

 

[Vegepygmy]

However, there's no facing in D&D as D&D assumes constant attentiveness in all directions...

As others have said, D&D doesn't assume "constant attentiveness in all directions" at all times.

...and therefore anyone wishing to sneak up on the guard can't even try to hide. How do you handle this sort of case...?

I consider the sneaking character to be invisible with regard to the guard, because the guard's eyes are pointed the wrong way to see him.

...and if your answer involves any variation on "Well in this case cover isn't required," how do you determine when cover is required and when it isn't?

I rely on common sense.

 

[aboyd]

I always thought that in 3.5 edition, the Spot check itself determined your facing. If you rolled low, it implied that you were observing something else, or had your eyes closed, or your back turned, or whatever. If you got a 30 on your Spot, clearly you were looking right at the door, noticed it opening, and caught someone creeping through.

/me shrugs

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

 

[Jimlock]

In this case, the player has 100% cover provided by the guard's head and therefore no hide check is even necessary.

Considering the fact that when you do have cover/concealment you have to roll a Hide check, why would you give one 100% chance of success in a situation where not only he does not have cover/concealment, but there is a chance that the guard might turn slightly and spot him? Even if in a given situation the chances of the guard's head turning are minimal, you could still grant a bonus on the hide check.
But removing a check completely isn't that like removing suspense from situations that should have plenty?

Let apart the factor "suspense", i fear that a player could exploit that so as to move unseen without checks...

Your game is your game. I'm just saying...

 

[Celebrim]

I always thought that in 3.5 edition, the Spot check itself determined your facing. If you rolled low, it implied that you were observing something else, or had your eyes closed, or your back turned, or whatever. If you got a 30 on your Spot, clearly you were looking right at the door, noticed it opening, and caught someone creeping through.

/me shrugs

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

No, that's called fortune at the beginning. You use the fortune to determine the game state. I prefer to begin from the game state and then put the fortune a little further down the resolution process. That's just more intuitive for me. But fortune at the beginning is fine too.

 

[Celebrim]

Considering the fact that when you do have cover/concealment you have to roll a Hide check, why would you give one 100% chance of success in a situation where not only he does not have cover/concealment, but there is a chance that the guard might turn slightly and spot him? Even if in a given situation the chances of the guard's head turning are minimal, you could still grant a bonus on the hide check.
But removing a check completely isn't that like removing suspense from situations that should have plenty?

A good question.

If we describe the game state as "The Guard is looking the other way.", then no hide roll is needed to adjudicate the game state. We've described the game state as 'The Guard can't see you'. Provided you don't draw attention to yourself by making noise or otherwise doing something the gaurd could detect, why worry about a hide check? Perhaps the guard is being successfully distracted or some other factor is insuring the guard doesn't turn around like for example the King is passing in that direction and protocol demands he remain facing that direction at attention and unmoving. Whatever.

The point is that the required rolls are a function of the game state. If we alter the game state and say, "the gaurd is mostly looking in one direction but occassionally glancing around" then a hide roll opposed by the guards spot is required. We've described the game state as being random, and that's exactly what fortune mechanics exist to resolve. If the guard is distracted by something else so that he's increasingly unlikely to look in the PC's direction, then we apply some sort of penalty to his spot roll. Conversely, if the gaurd is mostly alert in the PC's direction then we apply a bonus.

And if the guard has orders to watch a corridor and is dutifully doing so, then while the guard is watching it might not be possible to hide in the corridor. In that case, the sneaky PC might have to wait until the game state naturally evolves, and the guard becomes less alert before he can risk sneaking through the corridor. (Unless of course the PC has some extraordinary sneaking ability that lets him hide without cover.) When the game state does change, the PC with the higher hide skill will do better at it, whether this is interpreted as 'the PC chooses his moment better' or 'the PC is almost supernaturally invisible' isn't to me very relevant and I'll choose either interpretation as I feel suits the PC and the campaign.

Set apart the factor "suspense", i fear that a player could exploit that so as to move unseen without checks...

Absolutely. That requires something of a sneaky player to pull off, and even then every little bit of bluff, sense motive, hide and move silently that his character has will enhance his ability to pull off his goals. But really, when I say that I play 3e with a old school feel, I mean it. In 'old school D&D', particularly the really old school before the Thief class existed, you were sneaky by making sneaky choices and not by throwing the dice. Even in 1e D&D, your thief skills particularly at low levels are very unreliable so - if your good at playing the class - you learn to treat your thief skills like saving throws and to rely on them only when your choices as a player begin to go awry.

I always prefer that player skill is tested along side character skill, both when I'm the DM and when I'm the player. Also one of the upsides of this methodology is that - particularly under the direction of a sneaky PC - the whole party finds it easier to be at least somewhat sneaky.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Much like spacing (e.g., 10-feet square horses (with which, BTW, I have no problem), facing in D&D (specifically, the lack of it) only comes up in combat. Otherwise it's the DM's call.

In the OP, I'd find it highly unlikely that none of a half-dozen monsters would look in the direction of the PC.

On the other hand, if the PC pulls an Obi-Wan (three cheers for ghost sound), I'm much more likely to rule that the dretches are looking in the other direction. (In which case the PC doesn't even need a Hide check ... just a Move Silently check.)

In combat, characters are assumed to be aware on all sides ... not necessarily simultaneously, but with frequency enough to limit stuff like Hide to only being workable with cover or concealment.