How do Rogues and Rangers hide during combat?

[LokiDR]

Bluff is also useful for feinting. An opposed bluff vs sense motive and you can deny a foe his dex against you. Would that let you dart past him?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bluff is also useful for feinting. An opposed bluff vs sense motive and you can deny a foe his dex against you. Would that let you dart past him?

By the rules, no - you'd still provoke an AoO. "Denied Dex bonus" does not mean "Flat-footed".

Now, if you have the Quicker then the Eye feat, the results are debated...

So in that case, it's up to your DM's interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[melkoriii]

My thinking on the Rogue sneaking up on the Guard was this.

Guard is guarding a gate. Its night and there is a torch by the gate. The Rogue sneaks up and when in range the Guard makes a Spot/listen check against the Rogues Hide/Move Silently.
The Guard succeeded and spots and so Combat starts. Initiative is rolled and the Rouge wins this of course. For the Rogues action he bluffs and hides in the darkness and the Guard fails his roll and so loses the Rogue. The Guard draws his sword not wanting to be ambushed unarmed.

Now the Rouge sneaks up and passed the Guard still guarding the Gate, but the Rogue passes though two of the Guards threatened spaces in a double sneak move of 30’ (two 15’ moves). The Rogue is not wanting to fight the Guard but to just slip past.

Now I read the rules that because the Rogue is hidden the Guard does not get an AoO. Others read it some how that he does get his AoO even though he is totally unaware of the Rogue’s location or that he has made it past him.

 

[Olive]

I'd say that having someone swing a sword at one's head is pretty distracting. Using a Bluff check is given as an example, not as the only mechanism for distractions.

- Eric

yeah, but youd need to work out a mechanic for it... like if you're hit in combat, or flanked or something...

 

[LokiDR]

By the rules, no - you'd still provoke an AoO. "Denied Dex bonus" does not mean "Flat-footed".

Now, if you have the Quicker then the Eye feat, the results are debated...

So in that case, it's up to your DM's interpretation.

-Hyp.

It seems to me that making an oppent who is denied their dex to you not be allowed to take an AoO against you be the most complete solution. I know it isn't supported by the rules, but it seems to simplify a lot of problems.

 

[Apok]

The best way to be able to hide in combat is simple; choose your terrain beforehand.

An ambush situation is best for hit, run & hide tactics. Other than that, you're basically looking (as others have said) at a Bluff check or some other action to distract the combatants. Thunderstones and Flahsbombs would work well for that.

 

[magnas_veritas]

I don't think so. The people watching you actually have to take their eyes off you for a moment. That's why the bluff skill is usable in combat, because just being in combat isn't enough of a distraction. Plus, with no facing in 3e, everyone has eyes in the back of their heads

I think combat would count as a distraction. It'd be hard to keep tabs on EVERYONE. At the very least, you should get the Hide check, if at a penalty of some sort, since you're sort of bound to be on someone's radar, but if your talents and equipment are good enough, you can go to ground from almost anybody. I figure that if you're not specifically engaged, you should be able to hide as long as you can find a hiding place. And, with high Hide scores, that hiding place can be a little fold in the ground that you'd swear nobody could fit behind...

(Takes Shilsen's last sentence entirely too seriously) While people do have 360 degree vision of sorts in 3e, that just represents the chance that they're looking in that direction when the event occurs. Otherwise, rogues could not sneak attack. And, for rogues, that would blow. (/Takes Shilsen's last sentence entirely too seriously)

Brad

 

[dkilgo]

Granted there is no facing in 3e, but that is what the sense motvie and spot checks are makeing up for. But, the way that I might handle it would be to first give the opponent a chance for a spot check to see if he even notices the rogue. Then, I would proceed with the bluff vs. sense motive and hide vs. spot checks. Giving the opponent the chance to see the rogue sneaking around gives the feel of there being a facing element in the game. Also, if the opposing character is unable to see the rogue in the first place, then why the sense motive check?

 

[LokiDR]

Spot checks don't indicate any sort of facing. To the contrary, if you can spot anything in any direction, you can't possibly have any sort of facing. Spells like shield and detect * make you believe in facing.

 

[Cygnus]

I don't belive that there is an issue. If you read the description for Hide, part of the description details skulking through the shadows to avoid being seen, and another details how to use bluff to achieve a hidden state while being observed, at which point the rogue is not observed. Now proceed to the sections of the PHB that covers Movement and AoO. There are two types of movement that don't draw AoOs: 1) Non-running, no-other-action movement and 2) 5-foot steps. Neither of those draw AoOs. Re-read the section on AoOs and note that it states that "...certain actions provoke(s) an attack of opportunity....include moving (except as noted above in the Movement section), casting a spell, and attacking with a ranged weapon." As far as I can tell, the rogue in this situation is simply moving, not running, casting, or attacking with a ranged weapon. Someone even suggested moving in 5' steps, which would entail (strictly by the written WotC word) that there is no AoO allowed.

Edit: typing faster than brain would follow