Hide the same as Invisibility?

[Creatix]

For purposes of things such as Sneak Attack, Defender losing Dex bonus to attacker and bonuses to hit, would a rogue that is Moving Silently (and unheard) and Hiding (unseen by Defender), moving up to an enemy be considered the same as being invisible on the attack (+2 to hit, denying defenders Dex)

For consistency, I know there must be a general rule somewhere that helps deal with this for almost any game situation.

Thank you

 

[AGGEMAM]

For purposes of things such as Sneak Attack, Defender losing Dex bonus to attacker and bonuses to hit, would a rogue that is Moving Silently (and unheard) and Hiding (unseen by Defender), moving up to an enemy be considered the same as being invisible on the attack (+2 to hit, denying defenders Dex)

Yes, in fact the PHB says so.

 

[Maitre Du Donjon]

For purposes of things such as Sneak Attack, Defender losing Dex bonus to attacker and bonuses to hit, would a rogue that is Moving Silently (and unheard) and Hiding (unseen by Defender), moving up to an enemy be considered the same as being invisible on the attack (+2 to hit, denying defenders Dex)

For consistency, I know there must be a general rule somewhere that helps deal with this for almost any game situation.

Thank you

Like AGGEMAN said, he would be considered invisible but, of course, the defender would probably notice him once his sword went thru his chest.

Maitre D

 

[Dr. NRG]

Warning, this is slightly off topic.

In many respects, hide is even better than invisibility. It can't be dispelled, and the opposed roll necessary to spot someone hiding can exceed the DC 30 required to find invisibile folks.

Oddly, due to magic items commonly available (cloaks of elvenkind, silent moves gear), it becomes much easier to hide and move silently as levels increase, while spotting and listening are not only not bolstered by the same sort of widely-available buffs, they are also cross class for most characters.

NRG

 

[Grog]

In many respects, hide is even better than invisibility. It can't be dispelled, and the opposed roll necessary to spot someone hiding can exceed the DC 30 required to find invisibile folks.

IMO this is a good thing.

For many players, sneaking and hiding is the raison d'être for rogues. I wouldn't want a mage to be able to do it better with a couple of 2nd level spells.

 

[Taloras]

Hiding is MUCH better. Ive got a 10th level rogue w/ 6 ranks in hide....yet w/ a free action from his ring of chameleon power, he has a +23 hide. And if i max the skill out to 13 ranks, thats a.....+30 hide. (+4 from dex, -2 check penalty, +15 from the ring, +ranks......they dont see me coming.) Add to that spiderclimbing above them, and even taking the -20 after shooting, ive still got a +10 to my hide.....

 

[Creatix]

Thank you!

 

[MadScientist]

In many respects, hide is even better than invisibility. It can't be dispelled, and the opposed roll necessary to spot someone hiding can exceed the DC 30 required to find invisibile folks.
NRG

Of course I would give someone who was hiding while invisible a pretty significant circumstance bonus to their hide check.

 

[Stalker0]

Hide is better in some instances, except you have to constantly be in an area to hide to be able to use it. A rogue whose hiding in the bushes and then runes out in the open to stab a guy is seen as bright as day.