Another Shadowdancer Thread

[Darkness]

Isn't sniping specific to ranged attacks?

Yes. The very word itself implies that and the rules don't seem to put a twist on its meaning.

Anyways, seems to me like you go out of hiding during the attack and indeed have to hide again.

Yes, you need to pass a new Hide check to avoid being seen, resisted by Spot checks as usual.

 

[silentspace]

The RAW...

Let's say there is an area of shadowy illumination. There are two rogues, Rogue A and Rogue B, neither of which has the HIPS ability. Rogue A is hidden 5' from Target. Rogue B is hidden 10' from Target. Rogue A can melee attack Target and remain hidden if she makes a Hide check at a -20 penalty that beats the Target's Spot check. Rogue B has two options. She can snipe, then hide at a -20 penalty per the Sniping rule. Or she can can make a ranged attack at a -20 penalty to remain hidden while attacking. The standard attacking rule (-20 penalty to hide while attacking), is superior to the sniping rule (which makes you visible before hiding again), since if you become visible before hiding again, you become vulnerable to readied attacks.

* * *

Not the RAW...

IMO, the thing that stands out about the sniping rule is that it is sort of a HIPS ability. The sniping rule says Rogue B is not hiding while attacking, but hiding after attacking. Since Rogue B is not hiding while attacking, she is visible to Target. But after Rogue B's attack, she can hide again, at a -20 penalty, even though she is visible to Target. In other words, Rogue B can HIPS with a -20 penalty in certain conditions (if she was hidden before the ranged attack and was at 10 feet away). But is she fails her hide check, she apparently cannot hide again.

Rogue A cannot hide again once Target spots her, since she is visible and in plain sight.

As an extrapolation of the sniping rule, I'd allow anyone to hide in plain sight while being observed at a -20 penalty as a move action if they have cover or concealment and are at least 10 feet away from all observers.

* * *

RAW again...

In contrast...

A ranger with the HIPS (Ex) ability can hide while being observed in natural environments at no penalty, but only if the ranger has concealment or cover. So if in a forest with shadowy illumination, the ranger can attack while hiding at a -20 penalty. If the ranger is spotted, he can make a new hide check (as a move action or combined with a move action) at no penalty. Likewise, he can hide after sniping at no penalty. (Rambo lives!)

A shadowdancer with the HIPS (Su) ability can hide while being observed as long as she is within 10' of shadow, even without concealment or cover. So if within 10 feet of a target that casts a shadow, she can attack while hiding at a -20 penalty. If the shadowdancer is spotted, she can make a new hide check (as a move action or combined with a move action) at no penalty. Likewise, she can hide after sniping at no penalty.

 

[Darkness]

So you think the general rule, hiding while attacking, is superior to sniping?

Now, I suppose the rules can be read this way, but wouldn't you agree that it's counter-intuitive and makes the sniping rule kinda redundant?

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

A ranger with the HIPS (Ex) ability can hide while being observed in natural environments at no penalty, but only if the ranger has concealment or cover. So if in a forest with shadowy illumination, the ranger can attack while hiding at a -20 penalty. If the ranger is spotted, he can make a new hide check (as a move action or combined with a move action) at no penalty. Likewise, he can hide after sniping at no penalty. (Rambo lives!)

A ranger with HiPS does not need cover or concealment. The ranger's HiPS ability does not state so, but there is another ability, Camouflage (Ex), which is obtained before HiPS, and removes the cover or concealment restriction, so in practical terms the ranger can hide while being observed in natural environments even without cover or concealment...

As for the Sniping rules, I will try to explain how I see it.

See, a rogue is hidden behind some cover. In order to attack, the rogue has to get partially visible, so the cover does not get in the way of the attack. After the attack, the rogue has to hide again behind that cover fast enough so that the opponent (who now knows the relative location of the rogue) does not see him.

I don't really know how to explain it for a rogue concealed in shadows, though. But IMHO, that's basically what the Sniping rules try to simulate.

 

[silentspace]

Darkness - yes, by the RAW, hiding while attacking is clearly superior to sniping. It is clearly how the rules are written. It's not counter-intuitive, it just seems kind of silly, which is why everyone has problems with it.

Please note that the 'hiding while attacking rule' is a general rule, stated early in the description, while the 'sniping' rule is a special rule described later. Anyway, what I said in my previous post is how I've chosen to interpret it.

Sheng Long Gradilla - You're right, the ranger doesn't need cover and concealment. I should've read the Camouflage ability!

Whether there is cover or concealment, if you're attacking and not hiding, you're visible. By the RAW, you can choose to hide while attacking, at a -20 penalty. They describe this as 'practically impossible', not 'impossible'.

 

[Darkness]

It's not counter-intuitive

For certain values of counter-intuitive.
Personally, I find shooting people at a distance and staying hidden easier than whacking them and staying hidden. If you are more of a ninja than I am, it might not be counter-intuitive to you, but it certainly is to me.

Please note that the 'hiding while attacking rule' is a general rule,

I know that. Which is why I said:

So you think the general rule, hiding while attacking, is superior to sniping?

 

[silentspace]

For certain values of counter-intuitive.
Personally, I find shooting people at a distance and staying hidden easier than whacking them and staying hidden. If you are more of a ninja than I am, it might not be counter-intuitive to you, but it certainly is to me.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, comparing it to real life it is counter-intuitive. But then again, this is a game filled with magic and incredible abilities, so why question that and not, say, mage hand? I don't think its a counter-intuitive reading of the rules though, and I think you're in agreement.

But I hate it when I come across rules like this. All rules that make you stop and scratch your head should be re-written!

 

[Darkness]

this is a game filled with magic and incredible abilities, so why question that and not, say, mage hand?

Apples and oranges, mate.

Right, I generally don't try to apply real-world logic to special abilities. They just work 'cause they're magic or near-inhuman skill or whatever. I'm fine with that.

However, if it's a basic game rule that applies to everyone in the world, rather than some special power of the unusually skilled, I just might take notice if something feels odd.

Which is exactly the case if you read the rules this way. It's... odd.

I don't think its a counter-intuitive reading of the rules though, and I think you're in agreement.

But I hate it when I come across rules like this. All rules that make you stop and scratch your head should be re-written!

Yep, yep and yep.

 

[silentspace]

Sniping still has its uses though. A sniper from 100' or more could be pretty deadly. If the conditions are right, it could be an ability that leads to an auto kill. It's just that sniping from 10' away isn't so useful.

 

[Tyrol]

Can someone link to the other Shadowdancer thread? I asked a related question last night, but sounds like it may be already being discussed elsewhere?

Any links to other threads would be much appreciated (I can't search, sorry :\ )