hiding = invisible?
- Thread starter GlassJaw
- Start date
To attack while hiding is a full round action... which requires a -20 hide check. If you make the check, you can attack once from a hidden position, and never become visible. You are also able to take a 5ft. step... if that wont remove you from behind cover or concealment.
Mike
Mike
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Mike, isn't that -20 penalty for running or charging?
Daniel
Daniel
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
D'oh! Reread that section, and the -20 does apply to attacking. Thanks, Mike!
Daniel
Daniel
RigaMortus
Explorer
Huh? That doesn't make much sense... If I am already hiding (out of combat) I don't take the -20 penalty to Hide. Yet, as soon as I go to make the attack I need to suddenly apply a retroactive -20 penalty? I can see if you attack, then try to Hide afterwards, you'd impose a penalty for that.
Right, you are hiding, from previous rounds... but this round comes up, and you want to attack from a hiding position, in order to get your SA damage, it's a full round action to do so... in that full round, you roll your hide check, at -20, if this is successful, you are hidden the whole time and your attack is from an unaware position, and will have SA damage attached to it.RigaMortus said:
If you are hidden from last round and don't want to attack from that hidden position (ie. without SA damage), you attack as normal, and then you have your move action left to move back into a hidden position or whatever you want to do with that move equiv. action.
Mike
Last edited:
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
mikebr99 said:
Except that this does not apply in this case. The rogue used his Hide skill to spring a surprise round on the thug, and then attacked normally. In other words, "Suddenly, a masked man leaps out of the shadows and attacks you with a rusty dagger. You are unable to get your guard up in time, and he scores an opportune and painful hit on your shoulder (10 damage)."
He would accept the -20 on his Hide roll if and only if he tried to attack him from the shadows while remaining unseen; as in, "Suddenly, you feel a sharp pain - looking down you see a bright red line across your midsection, which begins to bleed freely (10 damage). You are confused, because you never even saw the blade that cut you."
From the scenario as written the rogue has already hidden himself (while not attacking) and just readied an action (which is not attacking). So, no -20 to the check.
The thug then gets a spot check to notice the rogue before he attacks. Since he failed his check, the rogue gets a surprise round. Which he then uses to attack. So during the surprise round, should the rogue wish to remain hidden, there would be a -20 to his hide check, as he is now attacking.
The thug then gets a spot check to notice the rogue before he attacks. Since he failed his check, the rogue gets a surprise round. Which he then uses to attack. So during the surprise round, should the rogue wish to remain hidden, there would be a -20 to his hide check, as he is now attacking.
no... no... no...
This is the difference between hiding and invisibility. Unless you hide while attacking (ie. take the -20 dc check)... your target becomes aware of you before the attack, so no SA damage.
Hiding is either combined with a move action OR is a move action all on it's own, as in this case or during the sniping mechanic.
So... therefore, you cannot ready to SA from a hidden position, just using hide, unless your move equiv. action during the round you readied was hiding at -20.
Mike
This is the difference between hiding and invisibility. Unless you hide while attacking (ie. take the -20 dc check)... your target becomes aware of you before the attack, so no SA damage.
Hiding is either combined with a move action OR is a move action all on it's own, as in this case or during the sniping mechanic.
So... therefore, you cannot ready to SA from a hidden position, just using hide, unless your move equiv. action during the round you readied was hiding at -20.
Mike
