Does True Seeing see some who is using Hide in Plain Sight

[Nifft]

With your interpretation for HiPS, only the lowest level spell Detect Magic would actually work for this purpose and even that would be difficult to use at best.

True. Hey look, a skill is valuable! Even at high level.

No, Daylight typically creates both light and shadows. Daylight is not a Spread.

Yeah. Seems daylight is an unspecified area that acts like an emanation. How annoying. But even then, depending on the terrain, you may not have an easy source of shadows. (It is situational, but I do think it can help. Not nearly as much as glitterdust, though.)

Not necessarily unless the target is already in a brightly lit area with absolutely no shadows. The use of Faeire Fire is to put light in a shadowy illumination or dark area. But according to RAW (and your type of literal interpretation), it matters not if the HiPS user is in bright light. As long as there is a shadow within 10 feet, a 5 foot candle light on the HiPS user is irrelevant.

I'm not saying that HiPS would fail just because the target is incandescent -- I can't actually find a rule that says light sources provide a penalty to hide checks (but let's hope there is one) -- rather, that the fact you're a light source will help others locate you, even if you yourself are pseudo-invisible.

So, if it were pitch dark and there were absolutely no shadowy illumination or light anywhere near the target, Faerie Fire would work. But most of the time in a game, it is not pitch dark and most of the time, Faerie Fire does nothing against HiPS.

I'd really like to see someone jump in with a rules quote about light sources and visibility; I can't find anything.

Cheers, -- N

PS: But just because a tactic can't be trivially countered by a Core spell, that doesn't mean it's wrong. So this discussion is a bit of a side-quest.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not saying that HiPS would fail just because the target is incandescent -- I can't actually find a rule that says light sources provide a penalty to hide checks (but let's hope there is one) -- rather, that the fact you're a light source will help others locate you, even if you yourself are pseudo-invisible.

And I doubt you will find it.

Sometimes, the intent of the rules should take precedence over the literal RAW.

From my perspective, there are two cases of that in this thread:

1) True Seeing should trump HiPS Su because HiPS Su appears to be illusionary or shadowy magic that True Seeing should see through.

2) Faerie Fire should trump HiPS because it should not matter if one tries to hide in shadows, if he is lit up, he is lit up. He can hide himself, but not the light coming off of him. And, of course, Faerie Fire should not work well in a well lit area, only in shadowy illumination or dark areas. It should be based on contrast.

But, there really is very little in the rules about how HiPS (and several other Su abilities) work with the core rules because the rules are based off of ability phrases as opposed to game mechanics. Game mechanics are vastly preferable when discussing any aspect of the game.

 

[Nifft]

And I doubt you will find it.

Sometimes, the intent of the rules should take precedence over the literal RAW.

And I agree... particularly in cases where the RAW doesn't spell something out. For example, hiding while glowing, or fighting while dead (but not undead).

From my perspective, there are two cases of that in this thread:

1) True Seeing should trump HiPS Su because HiPS Su appears to be illusionary or shadowy magic that True Seeing should see through.

2) Faerie Fire should trump HiPS because it should not matter if one tries to hide in shadows, if he is lit up, he is lit up. He can hide himself, but not the light coming off of him. And, of course, Faerie Fire should not work well in a well lit area, only in shadowy illumination or dark areas. It should be based on contrast.

See, IMHO the rules do spell out how true seeing interacts with HiPS. It's magic, but not Illusion (or any of the other effects on the list)... and I'd point out that a Cloak of Elvenkind is a magic item that modifies your Hide check, radiates Illusion magic, but is not itself an Illusion effect, and isn't negated by true seeing.

But I agree with you that the rules don't spell out how Hide skill interacts with faerie fire... so I'd rule that faerie fire trumps all Hide (including HiPS).

But, there really is very little in the rules about how HiPS (and several other Su abilities) work with the core rules because the rules are based off of ability phrases as opposed to game mechanics. Game mechanics are vastly preferable when discussing any aspect of the game.

Word to that. I've already had to nail down exactly how the Shadow Blend ability works in my house rules -- none of my PCs have HiPS, or we might have to add stuff about that to the House Rules docs.

Cheers, -- N

 

[moritheil]

Yes. But none of those examples state that it is needed to continue hiding, only to begin hiding. Hence my question.

Still haven't seen a satisfactory proof of this one way or another. I acknowledge that it depends heavily on how you parse the term "hide," but I don't see definitive support for one interpretation over another.

 

[KarinsDad]

Still haven't seen a satisfactory proof of this one way or another. I acknowledge that it depends heavily on how you parse the term "hide," but I don't see definitive support for one interpretation over another.

Sorry, I did not realize you were looking for an answer since this was answered a long time ago (and since HiPS allows hiding without concealment).

With regard to your earlier question, yes hiding requires continuous concealment or cover. I posted earlier in this thread the relevant rules.

Rogue is out in the open with no cover or concealment. He cannot hide.

Rogue is out in the open with a Fog Cloud spell. He has concealment, so he hides. The Fog Cloud expires, so he no longer has any concealment, so the "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide." rule applies. This doesn't mean that he cannot begin to hide, it means he cannot hide period.

 

[moritheil]

With regard to your earlier question, yes hiding requires continuous concealment or cover. I posted earlier in this thread the relevant rules.

Rogue is out in the open with no cover or concealment. He cannot hide.

Rogue is out in the open with a Fog Cloud spell. He has concealment, so he hides. The Fog Cloud expires, so he no longer has any concealment, so the "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide." rule applies. This doesn't mean that he cannot begin to hide, it means he cannot hide period.

But nothing you posted directly supports that interpretation over the alternate interpretation, which is the frustrating part of reading this rules discussion. I thank you for your answers, but you just keep posting variations of the statement, "because you no longer have concealment, you can't keep hiding." I want to know where in the rules it states that continuing to hide also requires concealment. Without such a statement, both interpretations are equally valid due to the wording of the passages you posted.

It seems to me that "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide," is a direct response to a player stating, "Oh no, the guards are coming? I hide." ("You can't hide." As opposed to "You may have hidden successfully, but you are suddenly unhidden.")

I hope I was clear this time.

 

[Sejs]

So essentially the argument boils down to this - correct me if I'm wrong -


(Pro-HiPS)
True Seeing doesn't automatically detect someone who is simply hiding. Hide In Plain Sight is a function of the hide skill, therefore True Seeing does not automatically detect someone hidden in plain sight.


-vs-


(Pro-TS)
True Seeing doesn't automatically detect someone who is simply hiding. Hide In Plain Sight is a supernatural extension of the hide skill and because it's some form of magic, True Seeing does therefore automatically detect someone hidden in plain sight. Except rangers, who do the same thing, only non-magically.


If that's it, if that's the whole crux of the argument ... that seems pretty irreconcilable.

 

[Caliban]

I'm with you when you say "hide" as in "begin to hide." However, I'm not so sure that RAW, one must stay behind cover/concealment the entire time one is hiding once one has already successfully hidden. Can you elaborate?

Can you provide any support for your position that someone can remain hidden once they have left cover/concealment? And by support, I mean something that actually says you can do it, not just the lack of rules that say you can't.

I'm just having difficulty with the concept of hiding in a shadow (or other form of concealment), and then moving across an open and well lit room while claiming that I remain hidden, just because at some point in the past I can claim that I had concealment.

Cause a position that really needs something concrete to back it up.

 

[KarinsDad]

It seems to me that "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide," is a direct response to a player stating, "Oh no, the guards are coming? I hide." ("You can't hide." As opposed to "You may have hidden successfully, but you are suddenly unhidden.")

I hope I was clear this time.

Clear as mud.

I don't really get your issue.

You think someone who was hiding in a dim alleyway who moves out into a brightly lit street full of people is still hiding, even though he gave up his concealment?

Ditto for the guy whose concealment vanished for one reason or another (e.g. the Fog Cloud spell duration expiring)?

 

[Elethiomel]

But nothing you posted directly supports that interpretation over the alternate interpretation, which is the frustrating part of reading this rules discussion. I thank you for your answers, but you just keep posting variations of the statement, "because you no longer have concealment, you can't keep hiding." I want to know where in the rules it states that continuing to hide also requires concealment. Without such a statement, both interpretations are equally valid due to the wording of the passages you posted.

My take on it is that you roll the hide check each time someone has a chance to spot you, and that is the meaning of the verb "hide" in the passage quoted - rolling a hide check. So if you don't have cover or concealment when someone has a chance to spot you, you don't get to roll a hide check because that requires cover or concealment, and thus you are automatically spotted. Unless you have HiPS.