hiding = invisible?

[The Souljourner]

Methos... I'm not talking about a rogue standing in the middle of a field and trying to hide... say you have a rogue in an alley, hiding in the shadow of a bunch of crates (concealment). Two thugs get into a fight nearby, and the fight eventually meanders over to within 5' of the rogue. Without having to move from concealment, he can now make a sneak attack on one of the thugs, even after battle has started, because they can't see him until he's plunged his dagger into the guy's liver.

It's the same as if he were sitting in the exact same spot with Invisibility, and eventually attacked when they got close enough. One sneak attack due to the attack starting while the target is not aware of the rogue.

-The Souljourner

 

[Shadow_js]

wrong,
in the players handbook in the suprise round section, the rogue gets a suprise because she is expecting the troll and the troll wasn't aware of the rogue, suprise denies the troll of their DEX bonus, thus equaling SA damage to the troll.

 

[GlassJaw]

Nate, oh, uhh, I mean Souljouner (hi Nate ) is right on this.

This started as a simple question people! I go away for a few hours and it's 3 pages LONG!!

Anyway, here's the exact scenario. PC's enter a shadowy warehouse with shelves, creates, debris, etc. There are baddies sitting around a lantern in the far end. We notice them, they don't notice us. Rogue moves silently and hides. PC's move up and eventually a battle ensues (why wouldn't it?). During the melee, a thug moves by the rogue. The thug is unaware of the rogue. The rogue, with a readied action, sticks him. Thug loses his Dex bonus (he's not flat-footed) and thus it's a sneak attack.

This is where my question came from. Does the rogue get a +2 to hit as if she were invisible. The answer is no. End of story.

Now the topic that has been raised is whether the rogue would have to make a Hide check at -20. The answer to that is also no since in this case, she didn't try to rehide. After she attacked, she emerged from her hiding place.

If she wanted to stay hidden while and after she attacked, it would require an additional Hide check at -20. This same mechanic can be applied to sniping as well.

Now, one other thing I wanted to address was being flat-footed. The condition of being flat-footed arises ONLY if you haven't acted in the battle yet. Otherwise, you simply just lose your Dex bonus. The flat-footed condition is a specific case of losing your Dex bonus. I know the term flat-footed is used in other areas but technically it's not correct. WotC has corrected its usage in the past in other products but the developers tend to still throw it around. It's pretty much semantics anyway but whatever.

PHEW!

 

[RigaMortus]

Now, one other thing I wanted to address was being flat-footed. The condition of being flat-footed arises ONLY if you haven't acted in the battle yet. Otherwise, you simply just lose your Dex bonus. The flat-footed condition is a specific case of losing your Dex bonus. I know the term flat-footed is used in other areas but technically it's not correct. WotC has corrected its usage in the past in other products but the developers tend to still throw it around. It's pretty much semantics anyway but whatever.

PHEW!

As I stated previously... Flatfootedness is not always limited to the beginning of init. A Balance check, the Grease spell (in conjuction with a Balance check) and the Low-Blow feat (Races of Faerun) all can make an opponent flatfooted...

 

[Methos of Aundair]

Originally posted by Shadow js

wrong,
in the players handbook in the suprise round section, the rogue gets a suprise because she is expecting the troll and the troll wasn't aware of the rogue, suprise denies the troll of their DEX bonus, thus equaling SA damage to the troll.

Um, I don’t believe you are reading all of the posts. The new topic is not the surprise round, but once combat has already been started how would it affect the rogue who is successfully hidden from the opponents. Once combat has started you cannot have a surprise round in the middle of combat. Please reread the thread, you’ll find, as usual, the thread has changed the topic of discussion.

Quoted from the SRD

. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging

The way that sounds, especially the “to hide while attacking”, makes me believe it is referring to a rogue attempting to attack while hiding. Such as the cases we have brought up in the previous posts. In Souljourner’s example, the rogue who was hiding behind crates (cover) attacked two thugs who were in combat together. Now, say the rogue is attempting to attack but wishes to stay hidden, this in my opinion would require a new Hide check at the -20 penalty. If successful, in other words the thugs failed their spot check, then the attack would be considered a SA. I don’t believe the rules state that just because the rogue is hidden successfully the attack is automatically considered a SA. If it were, than why do they add these additional statements regarding penalty (the -20 while attacking, charging, running, and the specific section under sniping).

In a surprise round it is entirely different. If the rogue has a higher initiative than his opponent, it is a SA. But, in the above we are not talking about surprise rounds, we are talking about during combat after it has started.

Now the topic that has been raised is whether the rogue would have to make a Hide check at -20. The answer to that is also no since in this case, she didn't try to rehide. After she attacked, she emerged from her hiding place.

True. But, even if she was leaving her hiding place after the attack, she is still effectively attacking while hiding, behind the crates, in the shadows, whatever. It doesn’t matter in this instance that she doesn’t plan on re-hiding, in order to get the SA during an ongoing combat she must IMO attack while hiding. That round you are effectively attacking during a hide attempt. It doesn't matter what you are doing the next round, it's this particular round.

The re-hiding statement you mention, notice it is under the sniping section of hide and it states “You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot”. Notice the “after the shot” statement. This appears to only be for ranged attacks. Appears mind you.

@glassjaw

Haha. Isn’t it hilarious how quick a question or discussion can change direction. Oh well, that’s the fun of these boards.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I stated previously... Flatfootedness is not always limited to the beginning of init. A Balance check, the Grease spell (in conjuction with a Balance check) and the Low-Blow feat (Races of Faerun) all can make an opponent flatfooted...

Flick of the Wrist (Song and Silence) is another.

-Hyp.

 

[GlassJaw]

Flick of the Wrist (Song and Silence) is another.

And this is one of the cases that got errata'ed. Like I said, being flat-footed is a specific case of losing your Dex that only happens at the beginning of a round. People (and even developers) interchange them even though they are techincally not the same. Semantics yes, but they have been clarified as separate conditions in the past.

So all the cases mentioned you are technically just losing your Dex, you are not "becoming" flat-footed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And this is one of the cases that got errata'ed.

Got a source for that?

There are no Song and Silence Errata. There's nothing about it in the Song and Silence FAQ, or the 3E Main FAQ, or the 3.5 Main FAQ.

The 3.5 PHB clearly states that while Balancing, without five or more ranks in Balance, you are flat-footed. This has not been addressed in the 3.5 PHB errata, nor in the 3.5 Main FAQ.

Do you have anything to support your claim that Song and Silence and the PHB are wrong?

-Hyp.

 

[DemonAtheist]

from the way i read it, the ONLY difference between hiding while attacking and sniping is that sniping requires a move action to hide, and you must be 10 ft away

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

so with a melee weapon, you can hide, stab someone, rehide at a -20, then get away at half speed

with a ranged weapon, you can shoot, rehide at a -20, and stay where you are

seems simple to me. my question is what if there is a raging combat between your allies and opponents, but at the beginning of combat they were aware of you. my interpretation of the rules is that i can find a hiding spot (run there as a move action and hide as a move action), then next round i can start sniping for sneak attacks, as long as whoever i shoot out doesn't beat my hide with their spot. is this wrong? makes sense to me since they didnt know when i was going to shoot so they cant realistically dodge (they know where i am, not when i shoot, and they can't just pay attention to me, there's a battle going on), so they lose their dex bonus, and i get SA.

sound good?

 

[Hypersmurf]

so with a melee weapon, you can hide, stab someone, rehide at a -20, then get away at half speed

Well, no, because if you're making a melee attack, you can't use the sniping rules.

And since you can't use the sniping rules, then after your attack, you're being directly observed, and can't hide.

-Hyp.