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

[Patlin]

Whether an attacker can't be seen (invisible) or isn't seen (hidden) is a distinction without a difference. You ought to be able to remain hidden for at least some time after leaving cover, and in this case it was only a round. I think the ruling was entirely correct. At most, you could have given the players a new spot check, possibly with circumstance bonuses.

A rogue ought to be able to run out of the shadows and stab someone before he is noticed, gaining a sneak attack. It might not work every time, but it should work when the apropriate skill checks are made.

 

[Aaron2]

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.

This is a problem for me. A character can't hide if being observed. So, if the goblin rogue had been seen by the party he can't just walk into cover and make a Hide check. Who is he fooling? If you ruled the tree was big enough to provide 100% cover (not too much a stretch depending on the tree), he wouldn't actually need to make the Hide check until he decided to move.

How far did he move from the original tree? If the goblin simply steps out from behind the same tree, I'd rule that the party was still observing that area and, thus, they weren't unaware and, thus, no sneak attack.

There is nothing in the rules that says a "hidden" character is the same as an "invisible" character. (Actually, the rules don't explicitly state that hidden characters get sneak attacks either.) If a goblin steps behind a tree and then steps out again on the next round, the party should still know where he.

Nothing in the original description indicated that the goblin went behind the party so I don't think facing is an issue. Besides, characters are already penalized for looking 360 degrees by the brutal -1 per 10 ft. rule. A character looking 100 yards away (something I can easily do with my crummy eyes) takes a -29 penalty. Certainly the -1/10 ft. assumes the character is focusing all his attention on his immediate surroundings.


Aaron

 

[Psimancer]

The first edition of Star Wars used ‘Attacker Concealed’ rather than ‘Attacker Invisible’ and I have always used it thus. So I would say you are right on the money!