Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pinotage" data-source="post: 1945538" data-attributes="member: 15194">I treat Hide in Plain Sight in a similar manner to invisibility with a few exceptions.1) It requires a hide roll2) You can only hide as part of a move action or as a move-equivalent action, essentially boiling down to doing it only once per round if you want to attack3) It requires a shadowI'd certainly allow a shadowdancer to use spring attack while hiding. If the shadowdancer is hidden and 20 ft away, I'd allow then to take -20 to the hide check they used to hide while attacking. If the defender spots the shadowdancer, it's no sneak attack, otherwise the shadowdancer can sneak attack and then hide again on the spring part of the attack. This hide also takes a -20 penalty since it's in the same round as an attack. I only allow one hide check per turn, so the previous round's check is still valid this round. A new hide check for each new attempt to hide. It doesn't work actively like spot or listen.My experience is that shadowdancers are generally not very powerful. Once attack with weak BAB and strong sneak attack generally pales in comparison to a full attack by a fighter. They're good support, but lousy fighters so I cut them some slack. Treating it as quasi-invisibility is by far the easiest way to handle it.Edit: Oh, and like invisibility, you become visible after an attack. There's no such thing as remaining hidden while attacking. It's certainly not Greater Invisibility  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Pinotage</blockquote>

Verification