Can't get my head around the Hide skill

[frankthedm]

Wow Frank, you must think there is no point to hide. Your rulings result in never being able to hide. You cannot attempt a hide check when being observed, and you only attempt a hide check when being observed, and even if that impossible circular reasoning resulted in a hide attempt, you still don't appear to get the benefit of invisibility if you did hide (which means you get what benefit exactly?). Oh, and if someone hears you, but doesn't see you, you apparently still fail your hide check...

Frank, under what circumstances do you feel a hide check could result in something useful for the character?

You can't hide while being observed is part of the rules no matter how much you dislike it. You don't get to roll your hide check if you don't have cover or concealment is just the way things are. The core rules don't give an exact benefit of being hidden. Glad you finally noticed that. A DM is free to use his or her judgment, wotc's judgement or any other way of determinine that benefit. And if someone does not try to move silently, they get heard. The player still would fail if he did not use Sleight Of Hand to take the objects. I actually suspected the OP was exaggerating whe he said the PC was "only" using a high hide bonus.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.

 

[Mistwell]

Frank, under what circumstances do you feel a hide check could result in something useful for the character?

 

[frankthedm]

Frank, under what circumstances do you feel a hide check could result in something useful for the character?

That hinges on what I feel the benefit of hiding should be. I feel it should take the person hiding off the selectable targeting menu for that Big Hungry Monster and Big Bad Magic Attack and allow him to pass ignored to a better position in or outside combat so foes don’t rearrange their ranks to avoid flank and the guards keep guarding. Hiding should let one be unnoticed so initiative can break, the foes can drop their guard and the hider can assault again.

I’ll also loudly admit I feel it was a mistake to make the “impossible DC” be only -20.

 

[Umbran]

Try reading the rules ...

I will take this as an opportunity to remind folks that the Rules Forum has some extra standards you're supposed to meet. Please take a moment to review Pielorinho's Excellent Addendum to The Rules.

Please keep it civil, folks. Outright statement that the other guy is somehow ignorant is dismissive. Always consider the possibility that you differ in interpretations, rather than try to state the other's ignorance is an established fact.

 

[SWAT]

- If I'm being observed by person A, but not by person B, can I just use Hide against person A? (Logically yes, according ot the RAW, I have no idea).

Uh-oh, my bad. That should have read:

If I'm being observed by person A, but not by person B, can I just use Hide against person B?

And thanks for all the answers everyone. I'm at work now, but I'll try to digest everything and see what new questions come of it tomorrow.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you could, that would completely remove the usefulness of the Hide In Plain Sight ability.

I'm glad someone mentioned that. Here's the passage from the Shadowdancer PC:

Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how that's supposed to work.

Taken literally, a shadowdancer would be able to hide almost always, e.g. directly after attacking a foe by utilizing that foe's shadow! According to the description he doesn't even have to move into the shadowy area, being within 10' of a shadow seems to be sufficient.
On the other hand it would be impossible for a shadowdancer to hide in an area of darkness while being observed (e.g. by someone with darksight) because there are no shadows anywhere nearby.

What am I missing?

BTW: One of my player's just took the first level in the shadowdancer PC. So far I let him get away with it, but I just can't believe that's how this ability is supposed to work. Any helpful comments would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Mistwell]

That hinges on what I feel the benefit of hiding should be. I feel it should take the person hiding off the selectable targeting menu for that Big Hungry Monster and Big Bad Magic Attack and allow him to pass ignored to a better position in or outside combat so foes don’t rearrange their ranks to avoid flank and the guards keep guarding. Hiding should let one be unnoticed so initiative can break, the foes can drop their guard and the hider can assault again.

I’ll also loudly admit I feel it was a mistake to make the “impossible DC” be only -20.

Could you describe how such a hide check would function. Such as "Get behind total cover, then...."?

 

[phindar]

I’ll also loudly admit I feel it was a mistake to make the “impossible DC” be only -20.

I'd agree with this. A set penalty to a DC in an open-ended skill system makes "impossible" a relative term. (Personally, I think "You Can't" is a better modifier for Impossible, countered only by a "Oh Yes I Can" class ability or feat.)

A lot of how Hide works depends on when you make the rolls. If you make a Hide check when you decide to Hide, and then people oppose it with Spot as they wander by, that's one thing. If you announce you're intention to Hide, but don't make the check until someone wanders by, that's another. The RAW is a little ambiguous in this regard. Rather than arguing either is correct, I think its better to pick one, inform your players, and be consistent.

 

[werk]

What am I missing?

It is a SUPERNATURAL ability, it's magic!

Accept that's how it's supposed to work and go from there. It is a great ability.

If someone had Blur, that would count as concealment, and would allow a hide, right? It's basically an at will blur spell without the miss chance unless they succeed on their hide check.

It's also done during a move action or is considered a move action to hide. That should limit it more than anything else.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Wow Frank, you must think there is no point to hide. Your rulings result in never being able to hide. You cannot attempt a hide check when being observed, and you only attempt a hide check when being observed, and even if that impossible circular reasoning resulted in a hide attempt, you still don't appear to get the benefit of invisibility if you did hide (which means you get what benefit exactly?). Oh, and if someone hears you, but doesn't see you, you apparently still fail your hide check...

You need cover or concealment to hide. But since partial cover or partial concealment would result in you being observed (meaning you cannot attempt a hide check), you must have total cover or total concealment (which already means you cannot be seen, and you need not attempt a hide check). But the moment you have anything less that total cover or total concealment, you would lose all benefits of being hidden because you are now being observed again. So, if I read your answers correctly, there is no possible way for hide to benefit you in any way. Because as soon as you could be spotted, you are always spotted, because you are being observed, and you cannot hide when bening observed.

Frank, under what circumstances do you feel a hide check could result in something useful for the character?

I'm not frank, but I think the way you would run it under RAW is that you would use the total cover/concealment to make your Hide check, and then you can come out of total cover/concealment while remaining hidden.

For example, the person that ducks behind the wall. They would have total cover. They can then make a Hide check in order to see their enemies by using partial cover. So effectively, you duck behind the wall (total cover), then stick your head up (partial cover) and make a Hide check to see if you get spotted. This allows you to see your enemies w/o them seeing you (assuming you win Hide vs Spot).

Or, as another example, if you go around a corner and duck behind a wall (total cover), you can cross a cooridor by making a Hide & Move Silently check to get to the other side w/o being seen.

That would be RAW IMO...

How I would play it, I would allow someone to make a Hide check if they can get partial cover/concealment even if they are being observed (they duck back into the fog which is giving them the concealment for example).