Cover, Concealment, And Hide

[KarinsDad]

I have a bit of an issue with the Cover and Concealment terminology with regard to Hiding.

It assumes that cover is opaque. It also assumes that concealment is always behind something that conceals.

So, there are some scenarios that do not appear to make sense with regard to hiding with cover or concealment:


1) Wall of Force and Hiding. According to the rules, a creature could hide behind an invisible Wall of Force because the WoF blocks line of effect, hence, it provides total cover.


2) Certain creature position issues:

1 . . . 2
. . . . .
. . A . .
. . B . .

B has cover from 1. B has cover from 2. B can hide behind A simultaneously from both 1 and 2, even though he is 5 foot away from A and at least one of his opponents should always be able to see him.


3) A Blur spell.


It would seem that these cases are ones in which a creature should not be able to Hide unless other concealment comes into play.

 

[Abraxas]

This part of the hide skill description should prevent the character from hiding in the examples you give "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."

In the Wall of Force example, Since the wall is invisible the hiding character would be observed and thus couldn't hide.

In the Blur example, the hiding character would have to begin an encounter blurred in order for it to work, if he casts the spell or drinks a Blur potion while being observed he would need to find total cover or distract the creature he was trying to hide from or get out of site and then technically he could hide using the concealment from the Blur spell.

As for example 2, well its a quirk of the rules, but like the Blur example the hiding character would need to find total cover or distract the opponents or start off with cover from both in order for it to work.

 

[irdeggman]

Invisibility is an example of something that provides concealment withut hiding behind something that conceals.

Wall of Force doesn't say anything about providing cover.

Line of effect only applies to spells and likewise doesn't say anything about providing "cover".

I think you are reading too much into it. You have a decent grasp (or at least it appears so) of how functionally the hide skill works just use it that way. If something doesn't specifically state it provides cover or concealment then don't assume it does. You can also apply circumstance bonus/penalty based on what is going on.

In the case where B is hiding from 1 and 2 apply a circumstance modifier to either the Hide or the Spot check involves to reflect the "difficulty" of the situation - perfectly legal.

Blur provides concealment so it allows a character to attempt to hide.

Treat it like using the Bluff check to create a situation that allows the character to hide - a momentary diversion or distraction.

 

[KarinsDad]

This part of the hide skill description should prevent the character from hiding in the examples you give "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."

Although a successful Bluff check could allow a Hide even if the character is casually observed.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wall of Force doesn't say anything about providing cover.

Line of effect only applies to spells and likewise doesn't say anything about providing "cover".

The cover rules talk about line of effect:

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

...

Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you.

I pointed out some time back that Wall of Force does not actually stop missile attacks in its description (since they are not spells or creatures), but somebody pointed out another rule that allowed it to do that (I forget what the rule was).

However, Wall of Force does stop line of effect since spells cannot penetrate it.

 

[Abraxas]

Although a successful Bluff check could allow a Hide even if the character is casually observed.

Yep, although not behind a wall of force

 

[KarinsDad]

Yep, although not behind a wall of force

Why not? Wall of Force provides cover (since it stops line of effect), hence, a Rogue could hide behind one with successful Bluff and Hide checks. According to RAW (but not according to common sense).

 

[Abraxas]

Why not? Wall of Force provides cover (since it stops line of effect), hence, a Rogue could hide behind one with successful Bluff and Hide checks. According to RAW (but not according to common sense).

The bluff check provides a distracton allowing another hide check, on the targets next turn he looks around and is once again observing the hiding character - who can no longer hide. Unless, of course you are suggesting that an invisible wall of force prevents observation.

 

[irdeggman]

Here is probably the best way to handle Hide and Wall of Force (I think the other cases have been covered).

Wall of Force does not block a line of effect for gaze attacks. Hence it provides no cover for them.

I guess you would have to read into this that sight and gaze are the same here and hence no cover for the pruposes of hide checks.

This would be similar to concealment not always working, like drakness not providing concelament against a creature with darkvision.