Hiding = invisible?

[Barcode]

Does a hidden character count as "invisible" with regards to the "Attacker Invisible" entry on table 8-8 of the PHB, thereby giving a +2 to attack and denying the target its dex bonus to AC?

If not, does the hidden character deny the target its dex bonus to AC implicitly, perhaps without the +2 modifier?

If not, is a hidden character at least considered 100% concealed for defensive purposes?

I have heard arguments that the entry in table 8-8 is not italicized, and therefore refers to the condition "invisible" (defined as visually undetectable on pg 84 of the DMG) rather than the magical effect, but I was hoping that there was a more specifically stated rule reference or clarification. There is also an offhand mention in the official FAQ in the question on how many sneak attacks a rogue can make:

"A rogue deals extra damage with a sneak attack anytime the target is denied Dexterity bonus to AC or anytime the rogue flanks the target, no matter how many attacks the rogue makes. These conditions are not likely to occur during an attack of opportunity, but if they do (such as when the rogue is unseen), the rogue gets her sneak attack bonus damage."

However, this is specific to rogues and still does not mention the +2 modifier one way or the other. Has this been clarified further in any official or quasi-official way?

Apologies if this has been discussed to death, but the search being disabled is a bit inconvenient.

 

[Piratecat]

Barcode and I had this conversation this weekend, and didn't reach any clear agreement. I'd love clarification from other folks.

Thanks!

 

[Ristamar]

Interesting question. I've sent it off to Skip. If I receive a reply, I'll post it ASAP.

Not that my opinion counts for much, but I believe the attacker is considered effectively invisible, thus granting the +2 bonus and denying the target its Dex bonus to AC.

 

[Galfridus]

I don't think there's an official rule on this.

Logically, it makes sense that a Hidden character gets the benefits described above. The concern, obviously, is a character who is able to remain hidden and thus get repeated sneak attacks (in the non-rogue-ability sense).

I have a pseudo-house rule which states that after making an attack from a hidden position, anyone in a position to see the attack gets +20 to their Spot checks to find you. It has never come up, but I would probably make the bonus cumulative, so even high level rogues couldn't expect to be hidden forever.

This doesn't make a whole lot of real-world sense, but I lump it in with the "30 foot sneak attack" rule as being a situation where game balance requires a rule which is clearly not realistic.

 

[DMFTodd]

No, I'd rule they are not invisible. From table 8-8, I'd use the
"Defender Surprised" entry. No +2 on attack but they do lose Dex bonus.

 

[Ristamar]

I have a pseudo-house rule which states that after making an attack from a hidden position, anyone in a position to see the attack gets +20 to their Spot checks to find you. It has never come up, but I would probably make the bonus cumulative, so even high level rogues couldn't expect to be hidden forever.

This doesn't make a whole lot of real-world sense, but I lump it in with the "30 foot sneak attack" rule as being a situation where game balance requires a rule which is clearly not realistic.

I like that... I think I'll implement that rule for missile attacks from hidden positions, perhaps with a cumulative circumstance bonus to the Spot check if the firing continues for multiple rounds from the same postion.

In regards to hidden melee attacks, I've always assumed the victim of the attack generally knows exactly where you are after the attack, of course, unless there is a very plausible explanation as to why they would not be aware of your immediate position.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I do not think there is a clear cut answer to this one. I have participated in heated debates on this topic.

On one side we have those who assert that invisible is simply the same thing as not visible. In-visible. Not-visible. Same as hidden. Right? On the extreme wing of this argument, there are those who say the rules don't mention anything explicitly about attacks revealing your position, so Rogues can get their full multi-sneak even while still Hiding.

The other side points out there are no rules that explicitly equate Invisibility with Hiding. Furthermore there are no rules that say you can attack while Hiding at all. So when you attack, you are no longer Hiding. If initiative has already begun, no one is flatfooted, so no sneak attack at all.

Of course there is also the middle ground.

I advocate that during combat (well after initiative starts) allow the first attack of a multiattack from (normal) Invisibility or Hiding to be a sneak attack and the rest to be normal. In this case, Hiding is the same as Invisible. Furthermore attacking presumes no attempt to remain hidden, so you are spotted automatically (unless viewing conditions are especially bad). Of course you may move and attempt to hide again, conditions allowing.

I think this "house interpretation" is simple, consistent, playable, and gives appropriate rewards and incentives to Rogues without making every Halfling with an Elven Cloak a sneak attack machine.

IMHO, even a +20 bonus is not adequate to stop the Hiding Sneak Attack Machine. A 10th level Rogue can easily automatically hit 40+ on his Hide every single check. So +20 is not quite as high as you might think.

 

[Barcode]

Song and Silence does clarify that, under the proper circumstances, you can sneak up on someone and attack before he or she sees you. If you can attack before being seen, then you are still unseen as you attack. What exact advantage this gives you is not stated.

As far as immediately rehiding is concerned, your opponent is now aware of you, and you are no longer hiding. The rules state that you can't hide while even casually observed but you can use Bluff to create a diversion to hide or can hide in plain sight if you are a Shadowdancer.

There is a specific rule in Song and Silence regarding sniping, whereby a hidden character at least 10 feet from his target can make a ranged attack and immediately hide again as a move action, at a -20 penalty to the hide check. What combat advantage this character gets from being hidden is again not stated.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you can attack before being seen, then you are still unseen as you attack. What exact advantage this gives you is not stated.

Maybe the opponent is unable to react!

-Hyp.

 

[Barcode]

Maybe the opponent is unable to react!

And maybe the attacker also gets a +2. Either way I'd love to eventually see a semi-official answer.