Hide and dex bonus to AC

[Deset Gled]

This is probably a somewhat silly question, but...

I was under the impressiong that if a person who was hiding made an attack against someone who failed their spot check to see the hiding person, the defender was denied their dex bonus to AC for that attack. However, I can't seem to find this spelled out in the SRD. Am I mistaken? Is there possibly something in the PHB that makes this clearer?

 

[dcollins]

Basically, that's not in the rules. If you look at PHB Table 8-8 ("Attack Roll Modifiers") you see that Dex bonus to AC is lost if "attacker invisible" or "defender surprised or flat-footed". The thing is, surprise is a very specific situation in the rules which only occurs in the first round of a combat (see PHB ch. 8 or the glossary). There's some wiggle room for the DM, but no explicit language that hiding attackers cause a defender to lose the Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Most people interpret a successful Hide as "attack invisible". It is not obvious that you can Hide and attack at the same time; the rules are not explicit on the matter.

House rules/interpretations:

The DMs I play with allow a Hiding Rogue one attack roll as "effectively invisible" -- only the first attack if making a full attack. After the first attack it is assumed the target can now react with the benefit of Dex because the attack reveals the Rogue.

Our reasoning is that the benefits of Hiding should be comparable to actual Invisibility in the best case. Furthermore, we want Rogues who choose to forego the surprise/1st round blitz to have some tactical advantage because it seems fair/balanced and fits with our tactical play style.

 

[billd91]

I think the interpretation that a hidden character counts as invisible to an opponent who fails the spot roll is implied by the rules and by checking the information under the condition "invisible" tells us that invisible attackers deny their target their dex bonuses. And the definition the DMG gives for invisible is "Visually undetectable." Any character who successfully hides from a target is also, at that time, visually undetectable.
Depending on the circumstances, a character can conceivably remain hidden even while attacking. Snipers would, of course, depend on this. It's a much harder Hide roll to make if I recall correctly, though.

 

[Erratic K]

Furthermore, we want Rogues who choose to forego the surprise/1st round blitz to have some tactical advantage because it seems fair/balanced and fits with our tactical play style.

I agree with this sentiment, but I don't allow hiding to deny dexterity (unless the hiding leads to a surprise round).

The tactical advantage I do allow is flanking, and generally flanking for the rogue and getting the sneak attack on all attacks while flanking is plenty (and explicitly allowed by the rules). It also encourages team work.

-E

 

[SJ]

I fail to see how a victim hit by an unseen attacker could use a dex bonus. It would be the same as an invisible attacker, right?

The interesting question to me in this thread is the next step:

After the hidden rogue snipes the victim from his hiding place, how do you determine the next sequence of actions? Should the combat go to initiative (assuming the snipe action is the surprise partial action)? And then the victim gets an opposed spot vs. the rogue's hide again? Should there be a bonus/penalty? Is the spot automatically successful?

I never found this in the core books, anybody else know?

 

[CCamfield]

SJ, check out the section on sniping under Hide, p76 of the 3.5 PHB. It's a -20 penalty, so yes, the snipee should get a chance to spot the sniper (the book suggests that this is resolved after the sniper's attack, i.e. as the second part of the sniper's turn). And I'd definitely go to initiative determination, because at that point the rate at which characters are moving is going to be important. (Can the target reach the sniper or cover before getting shot again? etc.)

 

[SJ]

Thanks CCamfield. I knew it was in there somewhere. Now I'm off to go buy a new 3.5 phb, since I left mine at the con last weekend.

 

[Eltern]

If an archer is hiding 20' away from a target surrounding by enemies and then fires how does this effectively work any differently than a normal archer?

FFF
FXF
FFF

A

Now if you think about it, is someone in such a situation actually watching the archer anyway, even if he is visible? This may not work out in the rules well, but it is why I'm inclined to say the invisible attacker thing should only work with a melee attack. You're watching the -arrow-, not the attacker, in such a case. Just ignore the fact that X is flanked, too.

Eltern