hiding = invisible?

[Ovinomancer]

Question: If a rogue is hiding during combat, should he take a -20 penalty to all of his hide check unless he opts to forego all attacks of opportunity? An AoO is an attack, and if you have the option of making one, you could technically be said to be planning an attack, and therefore must take the -20 penalty to your hide checks. According to the wisdom posted here, this would be a logical conclusion, or do I misunderstand?

 

[The Souljourner]

Careful of your/you're mixups there HS

I don’t believe the rules state that just because the rogue is hidden successfully the attack is automatically considered a SA.

That's where we differ. I point you again to Invisibility. Do you believe you get a sneak attack when you are invisible via the Invisibility spell? I say yes. I also say, that if it is true of invisibility, it is true of hide.

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).

That's specifically for staying hidden after you finish the attack. Just like invisibility, you become un-hidden when you attack, but it doesn't change the fact that you were hidden when the attack started, and thus get a sneak attack.

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.

No, that's not true at all. You've already *made* a hide attempt. You are currently hidden. If you wanted to do something that would reveal you, you need to make a hide check to remain hidden. But by default, you are hidden until you do something that reveals you (or something causes someone to make another spot check). Thus, the -20 doesn't matter, because you're not even bothering to try. You're not trying to stay hidden.

-The Souljourner

 

[Hypersmurf]

Careful of your/you're mixups there HS

Fixed.

That's not like me... :\

-Hyp.

 

[The Souljourner]

Don't worry, HS, it happens to everyone*, once in a while.

-The Souljourner

*except me

hey, no re-editing my posts! For a minute, I was horrified that I made a typo while criticizing yours... then realized that of course it wasn't my fault, it must be little smurfy gremlins!!

 

[rangerjohn]

So your saying its practically impossible for a low level rogue to sneak attack?

 

[Len]

Well, there's always flanking, but I've found it darn hard for a low-level rogue to sneak attack, even allowing a sneak attack from hiding without the -20 penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

hey, no re-editing my posts! For a minute, I was horrified that I made a typo while criticizing yours... then realized that of course it wasn't my fault, it must be little smurfy gremlins!!

Heh.

-Hyp.

 

[rangerjohn]

Well,back to the original intent of the thread. Hiding and invisibility or not the same conditions. For instance, this came up in my last game, the spell see invisible does not help against a hidden opponent. Nor if I remember correctly does true seeing.

 

[Ghostknight]

Ok, quoting the SRD

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target

So, the opponnet does not need to be flatfooted for the rogue to SA, ONLY unable to respond appropriately. A rogue stepping outof hiding and attacking the unsuspecting, hapless victim, is not giving the person a chance to respond. Me, I would rule that a hidden rogue gets the snak attack and is then visible. The -20 would apply when trying to rehide after the attack or when running away.

So I echo what lots of others say- reading the hide skill to say that no matter how ell hidden you are, it will never give a combat advantage is a massive disservice to rogues/rangers (the two most common ambusher's in my experience). A literal reading support this- yep, difficult to hide while attacking- but the rogue is no longer hiding, merely using the opportunity of the previous hiding to gain an advantage.

 

[mikebr99]

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

Nope, sorry... they use the same mechanic. The hide skill can either be used during (combined with) your movement, or as your movement all on it's own... ie. staying hidden while attacking once (melee or ranged). Those are the only ways (time wise) to use the skill. The "usually none" stuff is BS...

According to the Hide skill description, hiding isn't an action at all, except when you use the sniping option (see page 76 in the Player's Handbook), in which case hiding is a move action. For all practical purposes, however, you hide as a move action or as part of a move action. That is, if you're moving, you hide as part of your movement (something like drawing a weapon, see Part 2). If you don't move, it still takes you a move action to hide.

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

... so with a melee weapon (if you were successfully hidden last round), you can stab once, while continuousily remaining hidden, via -20 dc check, and get away with a 5ft. step... Is how it really works.

It has to work this way... because if your target spots you during this, you can't re-hide at all. Unless you have HiPS. So you never become visible to the target with a successful "melee-SA" full round action.

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

Please drop the "re-hide", and change it to "remain hidden the whole time". You are also able to use your 5ft. step while sniping, unless something else prohibits it... or it would take you away from cover/concealment.

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?

Nope. Except that hiding in the 1st round can be accomplished during your 1st movement.. unless that doesn't get you to your hiding spot, that is...

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?

With some revisions... Yes

Mike