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

[Caliban]

As a side note, when I'm running a game I do make allowances for "moving from cover to cover" - i.e. if you begin and end your move in a place of concealment/cover, you can effectively remain hidden even if part of your movement was in an area without concealment. Basically you are attempting to time your movements for when they are not looking your direction. Circumstance penalties may apply depending on the situation, etc.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I think Pro-HiPS (SU) says True seeing as written does only these things:

The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.

And Hide in Plain Sight is not on that list of things that True Seeing would effect. It is not darkness, blur, displacement, invisible, illusion covered, polymorphed, changed, transmuted, or ethereal.

Arguments pro TS seem to be HIPS seems like it uses shadow or illusion or invisibility type effects that are pierced.

 

[moritheil]

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)?

If he hides, he is hidden. If he is hidden, what mechanically makes him unhidden?

I'm not asking for a common sense response like "well, obviously he can be seen now," because we can all apply our common sense if we want to. I just want to know if the precise meaning of 'hide' is unambiguously laid out in the rules text. And if so, where.

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.

I'm honestly not trying to be annoying here, but . . . my concern is that there is nowhere I have seen in the rules that someone can point to and say, "this is unambiguously what they mean by 'hide.' Not just the action of hiding oneself away, but also the passive or reactive portions of being hidden."

I'm trying to find out precisely how well-defined it is in the rules.

Thanks!

 

[moritheil]

Can you provide any support for your position that someone can remain hidden once they have left cover/concealment?

That's not my position. My position is that the term "hide" may simply denote the act of actively going into hiding, unless the rules contain text that unambiguously identify the term as inclusive of remaining hidden. As such, I would like to see all ambiguity removed by identifying said text if it exists.

 

[Nifft]

Pro-HiPS position is that HiPS allows you to Hide without concealment, and true seeing has no effect on Hide except to eliminate some forms of concealment.

-- N

 

[Umbran]

If you don't like what the rules say, go to House Rules and let your spirit be free! Here, we like rules.

REMINDER TO ALL:

Please go read this post from Morrus about civility in this forum.

Specifically: "So, please do not tell other posters to go and post in the House Rules forum. We here at EN World are not that anal. Don't prove us wrong, please. Let the conversations flow naturally, be polite and respect each others' opinions."

No more should need be said here.

 

[Nifft]

REMINDER TO ALL:

Please go read this post from Morrus about civility in this forum.

Specifically: "So, please do not tell other posters to go and post in the House Rules forum. We here at EN World are not that anal. Don't prove us wrong, please. Let the conversations flow naturally, be polite and respect each others' opinions."

No more should need be said here.

Sorry! I meant that constructively!

-- N

 

[Caliban]

That's not my position. My position is that the term "hide" may simply denote the act of actively going into hiding, unless the rules contain text that unambiguously identify the term as inclusive of remaining hidden. As such, I would like to see all ambiguity removed by identifying said text if it exists.

You seem like an intelligent fellow. Go ahead and research that and tell us what you find out.

You know, instead of trying to push people who really ARE NOT interested in that particular hypothesis into researching it for you.

Because I don't get the impression that Karinsdad cares to much, and you are just annoying him by asking the same fricken question over and over again.

Just a thought.

 

[moritheil]

You seem like an intelligent fellow. Go ahead and research that and tell us what you find out.

As I stated previously, I haven't found any such definitive text. (Or why would I bother asking here?)

You know, instead of trying to get people who aren't interested in that particular hypothesis to research it for you.

I apologize for holding your eyes open, demanding that you read this particular thread, and forcing you to type words on the subject against your will. No wait, I didn't do any of that.

 

[Caliban]

I apologize for holding your eyes open, demanding that you read this particular thread, and forcing you to type words on the subject against your will. No wait, I didn't do any of that.

Apology accepted. Please don't do it again.