Hide Skill questions, esp. pertaining to attacking and sneak attacks

[WonkaMania]

Hello there everyone. The Hide skill says "use this skill to sink back into the shadows and proceed unseen". I"m focusing on that "proceed" part.

A situation came up in my game I run this past week. The party was fighting some goblins in the woods. One of the goblins was a Rogue, and on his turn he used his movement to go behind a tree and "hide". I gave the players that could possibly see him a spot check, they failed.

On his next turn the (still hidden) goblin moved silently (oppossed by listen checks which failed) and moved around the tree out into the open to attack one of the PC's. Now, I ruled that since he went behind the tree and used the Hide skill, he was "hidden", and the PC's failed there spot checks, so they didn't know where he was. Still using that same Hide vs. spot, the goblin moved towards the character and I ruled was "attacking as an invisible creature". Therefore his target was denied his dex bonus and the goblin got a +2 to his attack. As a result of the target being denied his dex bonus, the goblin also got to apply sneak attack dmg.

So, did I rule that correctly? Can you get behind something and "hide", and then move silently while still using that "hide" check and walk into "open" area and sneak up on someone and apply sneak attack dmg when you attack them?

~Wonka

 

[Shazman]

Sounds reasonable to me. Though you have to have concealment to hide, the goblin was concealed for at least part of his movement. Just make sure that you're fair and allow the PC's a resonable chance to do the same thing if they try.

 

[WonkaMania]

Sounds reasonable to me. Though you have to have concealment to hide, the goblin was concealed for at least part of his movement. Just make sure that you're fair and allow the PC's a resonable chance to do the same thing if they try.

I'd definately be fair and allow the PC's to do the same thing. What I really wanted to make sure though, was that I was using the Hide skill correctly. That is, that it could be used to move around after you "hid" and come out into open area and make a sneak attack against someone.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I'd have to say no. Once you lose or move out of the concealment/cover you are no longer hiding. Unless you had concealment/cover all the way to the target then you were out in the open at the time of attack and I dont see any reason the target would be denied a DEX bonus. Now if you had some kind of hide in plain sight thing going on that would be a different story, but doesn't sound like that was going on. My 2 cents anyhoo.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'd have to say no. Once you lose or move out of the concealment/cover you are no longer hiding. Unless you had concealment/cover all the way to the target then you were out in the open at the time of attack and I dont see any reason the target would be denied a DEX bonus. Now if you had some kind of hide in plain sight thing going on that would be a different story, but doesn't sound like that was going on. My 2 cents anyhoo.

Any other thoughts on this? This just came up in my game. I had thought the Hide skill was straightforward until I started poking around here.

Once you successfully hide, do you need to keep cover and concealment to remain hidden?

Thaumaturge.

 

[Darklone]

Well, you need cover or concealment to attempt a hide check... any hide check.

But in this case I'd go with common sense. Perhaps ask for a bluff check or sense motive check to get the right moment when everyone is looking somewhere else.

 

[Coredump]

A problem crops up because "there is no facing" in DnD. This is done to simplify things, but to me it is taken to an extreme. The reality is that most creatures *do* have a facing, it just isn't covered in the rules. If two guards are staring forward, and you are sneaking past behind them, I don't think they should get a normal Spot check to see you. But the rules make no allowances for which way they are facing. So by the rules it is the same to sneak in front of them, as behind them.


In this case, I would rule that the Goblin has cover, he is hiding behind the players heads. Their eyes can't see the rogue behind the tree, and then can't see the rogue that is behind their head.

Now, they also may be looking around, so I might give them another spot check, probably with a minus unless they say they are looking around. But it depends. I think it is ludicrous to assume that all creatures/monsters/PC's/NPC's are contantly looking all around. And if they are, they should get a minus to see anything, since they keep looking elsewhere... or maybe they just get dizzy...or whatever.

To make a determination on your part, it would depend on how sparse the trees were, what the orientation was, how dark it was, if some were facing towards the rogue, etc.

.

 

[Li Shenron]

On his next turn the (still hidden) goblin moved silently (oppossed by listen checks which failed) and moved around the tree out into the open to attack one of the PC's. Now, I ruled that since he went behind the tree and used the Hide skill, he was "hidden", and the PC's failed there spot checks, so they didn't know where he was. Still using that same Hide vs. spot, the goblin moved towards the character and I ruled was "attacking as an invisible creature". Therefore his target was denied his dex bonus and the goblin got a +2 to his attack. As a result of the target being denied his dex bonus, the goblin also got to apply sneak attack dmg.

So, did I rule that correctly?

My opinion is that you shouldn't have ruled it "invisible", but only granted him the surprise round. The target would still be denied its Dex bonus against the goblin, but without the extra +2 to attack.

Once the goblin exits the concealment he's no longer hiding, but he should get some advantage because he was hiding immediately before, and that advantage is to catch the party by surprise. Since there is no facing in standard D&D, you can also imagine that the party is casually looking around all the time, and a failed spot check doesn't mean they are all facing and looking straight to the other direction

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

I think it was done just fine.

I agree there should be a "Facing" rule and do employ one in my games. That part has already been stated. I agree with Coredump's logic on that line about hiding behind the player's head.

The other part I'd like to mention is...how many have ever been in a melee with one's life at stake? I do not believe you can be actively looking around at all times while trying to fend off a short sword to your gut. I would allow a Spot check from other PC's facing the goblins way but, as also already mentioned, with a moderate penalty (at least -5). When someone is trying to kill you and you're fairly confident that the others are engaged, you are concentrating. (This experience just comes from growing up in the inner city and having engaged in a few scuffles. My life might not have been at stake, but a lot of pain was, which was a decent motivator).

Heck, I would include a penalty to AC and To Hit if the PC said he was actively looking around while someone was trying to kill him.

I would allow a listen check from the PC getting snuck upon. I would include a slight penalty since I would give the benefit of the doubt to the PC and believe he was trying to listen as best as he could to his surroundings without interfering with his melee.

 

[Jarrod]

I think your ruling was partially right

I would have definitely called the target flat-footed, but I wouldn't have counted the attacker as invisible (and thus getting the +2).

Agreed that you need cover or concealment to attempt to hide, but I don't think you need said cover to remain hidden. Otherwise it is practically impossible to sneak up on someone, unless there are knee-high bushes everywhere in your campaign world. Thus, once the rogue was hidden he remains hidden until he does something to become apparent again.

The one thing I would have done differently (IMC) is to give a second Spot check to observant PCs when the rogue broke cover. If someone said "He went behind that tree, I'm going to keep an eye out for him" they would get a second Spot check. If they said "He's gone, I'm dealing with this guy over there" then they deserved what they got.

I've played in live action combat games, and trust me, it's very easy to lose track of people. Lack of facing does not mean that people are always looking in all directions.