D&D 3E/3.5 Hide Skill (3.5), It's at least a move action!

[Nail]

So, there I am, a 3rd level wizard hiding in the middle of a completely empty room, using my blur spell as concealment.

Now, someone enters the room and does not see me, if he fails his spot check!?

Suuuuure!

Oh, no, it gets even better that that!

A fighter stands in the middle of an empty room, with a blur spell on him. He hides. Then an orc comes into this completely empty room, and stands next to the fighter....but fails his opposed Spot check. Then the Fighter does a full attack on the orc, taking a -20 to his hide check.......

...it's possible (but not likely) that the orc will still be unable to spot him!

 

[RigaMortus]

So really, you can "hide in plain sight" (not a supernatural power) using a Blur spell. Fascinating.

Not exactly... You can HIDE using the Blur spell (if you are not being observed). But for "Hide in Plain Sight" you still need to meet the requirement of being within 10' of a shadow.

 

[Nail]

Not exactly... You can HIDE using the Blur spell (if you are not being observed). But for "Hide in Plain Sight" you still need to meet the requirement of being within 10' of a shadow.

You're missing the punch line, I'm afraid. Lemme try again:

Once you are hidden, you can attack and remain hidden, given a -20 on your hide check.......just like HiPS.

Moreover, you can stand in the middle of a completely empty well-lighted room and still Hide with the Blur spell.

 

[RigaMortus]

You're missing the punch line, I'm afraid. Lemme try again:

Once you are hidden, you can attack and remain hidden, given a -20 on your hide check.......just like HiPS.

Moreover, you can stand in the middle of a completely empty well-lighted room and still Hide with the Blur spell.

Oh gotcha... Apparently I should have re-re-re-read your post until I understood. My bad dawg.

 

[Artoomis]

You're missing the punch line, I'm afraid. Lemme try again:

Once you are hidden, you can attack and remain hidden, given a -20 on your hide check.......just like HiPS.

Moreover, you can stand in the middle of a completely empty well-lighted room and still Hide with the Blur spell.

True, but only when unobserved can you hide using the Blur spell. Further, while you are hidden, the fact that something is blurry in the middle of the room is somewhat obvious (Hide does not equal Invisibility). Normally, with concealment, that something would be whatever is concealing you - a bush or something, for example, but in this case the only thing to hide you is your own Blur spell, so that's what's seen - a blur.

Now, since what is seen is a blurry image of yourself, then you are indeed under direct observation and you cannot hide.

Thus, using the rules and a little logic, you cannot hide using only a Blur spell.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, that attacking and charging stuff is pretty nuts.

Especially, why would someone use the sniping rule, if he could simply hide while attacking!?

Same -20, no limit to a single ranged attack, no extra action needed, no 10' restriction.

Why would they even mention this special rule, if it is already included in and totally dominated by the regular rule!?

And that's not even melee... that's ranged, where I can at least comprehend, how attacking and hiding can work.

Bye
Thanee

 

[mikebr99]

Especially, why would someone use the sniping rule, if he could simply hide while attacking!?

Same -20, no limit to a single ranged attack, no extra action needed, no 10' restriction.

Why would they even mention this special rule, if it is already included in and totally dominated by the regular rule!?

And that's not even melee... that's ranged, where I can at least comprehend, how attacking and hiding can work.

Bye
Thanee

That is what the Sniping rule is for... to attack while hidden. It is just worded very poorly. Or it couldn't even be attempted at all unless you had HiPS.

And use the Sniping mechanic for a hidden melee attack also.

Any attack, melee or ranged is restricted to once per round while using your move equiv action to REMAIN hidden the entire round (-20 DC), and you could also take a 5ft. step, if that doesn't get you out from behind your cover or concealment.


Mike


Mike

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, since what is seen is a blurry image of yourself, then you are indeed under direct observation and you cannot hide.

It's the glamer that's under direct observation, not you, if you are successfully hidden.

You cannot 'hide' in the active sense while under direct observation, but if you are already hidden, then you are, by definition, not under direct observation.

The blurred image is absolutely visible, and is likely to draw suspicion Nevertheless, you are hidden, and gain the benefits thereof.

Which are often considered to include denying Dex against the first attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Perhaps so, Hyp. I'd allow a hefty circumstance bonus on the Spot check, especially given that virtually anyone would be looking pretty darn closely at some blurry thing in the middle of the room. I'm thinking a MIGHTY big circumstance bonus. Like +20. The whole idea is so improbable and stretches what hiding is all about to near the breaking point.

In fact, in my game I'd simply disallow it as being ludicrious, even if technically allowed the book.

It's the glamer that's under direct observation, not you, if you are successfully hidden.

You cannot 'hide' in the active sense while under direct observation, but if you are already hidden, then you are, by definition, not under direct observation.

The blurred image is absolutely visible, and is likely to draw suspicion Nevertheless, you are hidden, and gain the benefits thereof.

Which are often considered to include denying Dex against the first attack.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Perhaps so, Hyp. I'd allow a hefty circumstance bonus on the Spot check, especially given that virtually anyone would be looking pretty darn closely at some blurry thing in the middle of the room. I'm thinking a MIGHTY big circumstance bonus. Like +20. The whole idea is so improbable and stretches what hiding is all about to near the breaking point.

In fact, in my game I'd simply disallow it as being ludicrious, even if technically allowed the book.

I'd sort of picture it like Predator (the movie) invisibility, or Halo (the video game) invisibility.