Hide Skill Confusion

[wedgeski]

That is correct. Without that cover/concealment you are no longer able to hide. You re-enter your foe's LOS and he sees you provided we are only talking about the PHB.

What about facing? Irrelevant?

 

[frankthedm]

What about facing? Irrelevant?

Facing does not exist in wotc versions of D&D unless the optional rules from uneathed arcana are used.

 

[Markn]

OK, so using PHB only, if you have no cover/concealment then you are automatically seen. So, what if you are using CAd? How does that differ?

Edit- Er. Never mind - I guess the above post explains it.

Thanks everyone.

 

[ninja.assassin]

If you're already acting in initiative order, though, when you leave your Hide-granting cover/concealment and you act before your target it won't matter that your victim has seen you -- if you're angle is simply a sneak attack they'll be surprised anyway.

 

[frankthedm]

If you're already acting in initiative order, though, when you leave your Hide-granting cover/concealment and you act before your target it won't matter that your victim has seen you -- if you're angle is simply a sneak attack they'll be surprised anyway.

That is only on the first round of combat before they act.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What about facing? Irrelevant?

The rules seem to suggest so. Of course, everyone with a bit of common sense makes its save against that suggestion.

I like the "you can move (skill rank) feet out of cover without being noticed" rule. Makes sense. You wait while he's looking the other way and sneak past. A game that doesn't care where you're facing needs to make some concessions.

 

[Markn]

That is only on the first round of combat before they act.

That was my understanding too.

My impression has always been that hiding isn't really for sneak attack purposes anymore since it is so easy to get into sneak attack situations now. Hiding is for...welll...hiding.

 

[TheGogmagog]

OK, so using PHB only, if you have no cover/concealment then you are automatically seen. So, what if you are using CAd? How does that differ?

Edit- Er. Never mind - I guess the above post explains it.

Thanks everyone.

Using the PHB only, there is still one more possibility they are using for how they handle hide. Invisibility is a condition givin in the back of the book, most notably granted by the spell invisibility. Aside from not beeing seen (same as hide), defenders are denied their dex (same as hide), they are {NOT} considered flat footed against you (not mentioned in hide SRD, but 'clarified/added' in CAd), and invisible attackers gain +2 to attack targets that can not see them (not mentiond in hide SRD or CAd or SRD flat footed for that matter). {EDIT: I thought this was part of invisibility but don't see it in SRD.}

It's concievable that the DM is using the flat footed condition to consider the target flat footed with respect to your attack. This depends on whether you see CAd addition of the flat footed conditon as a change or stating the debatable 'common sense'. As indicated above it's not the most common interpretation as invisibility = visually undetectable (even though there is a spot DC) <> visually undetected (lower spot DC by 20).

I think this flat footed with resect to condition, either abstract SRD, or defined with CAd ruling is what ninja.assassin was referring.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, and the FAQ does seem to assume that a hidden character is an invisible character for most purposes.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Well, and the FAQ does seem to assume that a hidden character is an invisible character for most purposes.

I haven't heard of anyone granting a hidden character +2 to attack. I'm sure they are considered the same in all other respects by FAQ, and most games.