How strict with Hide checks?

[Jimlock]

How hard is it? Noticing a very rusty door will probably not be quiet is easy - DC 5 tops. If there is something special about the door it may be a harder task to anticipate whether it makes a sound.

Agreed.

I just mean that a stealthy Rogue should know when to open a door.

Yep. that is correct

To use you "door Listen DC" idea, you might actually say that if the Rogue rolls below the DC in Move Silently that is the actual DC.

Could you rephrase that somehow please?

I think you are over-thinking it.

I guess that is true...

Thing is that in my games, both as a DM and as a player, there is quite a lot of stealth & spying involved... and unfortunately RAW is pretty weak regarding such matters. So in order to resolve such encounters properly, a certain amount of "house-ruling" is necessary... and in most cases you don't actually twist a rule, for there is none! ...you have to make up your own...

 

[slwoyach]

[URL="http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html"]In which case they would suffocate.
[/URL]
And Shadow Dancers... don't?

A) Who cares? I'm not a biologist, my players aren't biologists, and if they were I'd tell them I don't care.

B) Hiding in plain sight is a SUPERNATURAL ABILITY. The OP made no mention of the player possessing this SUPERNATURAL ABILITY, thus he can't hide in plain sight. And I don't allow rangers to do so, as theirs is listed as extraordinary and it's a ridiculous ability. They can have a free non-combat feat instead.

 

[aboyd]

No cover or concealment? No hide possible.

Rogue casts blur on himself. This grants concealment. Rogue rolls for hide, then sneak attacks the enemy right in front of him.

Yes?

 

[Dandu]

A) Who cares? I'm not a biologist, my players aren't biologists, and if they were I'd tell them I don't care.

Your players aren't magicians, rogues, shadow dancers, glooms, or anything in DnD either, so why do you care about this bit of something implausible vs something else that's equally implausible?

B) Hiding in plain sight is a SUPERNATURAL ABILITY. The OP made no mention of the player possessing this SUPERNATURAL ABILITY, thus he can't hide in plain sight.

I brought up this SUPERNATURAL ABILITY because you said you wouldn't allow SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES at all because they were "unrealistic". Despite it being magic, and you having no problems with magical hiding in plain sight.

I'm extremely strict, I don't even allow special abilities that allow characters to hide without cover. I don't check logic at the door.

Remember?

And I don't allow rangers to do so, as theirs is listed as extraordinary and it's a ridiculous ability. They can have a free non-combat feat instead.

Ironically, I'm real life Rangers would disagree.

 

[slwoyach]

I brought up this SUPERNATURAL ABILITY because you said you wouldn't allow SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES at all because they were "unrealistic". Despite it being magic, and you having no problems with magical hiding in plain sight.

Really? Where exactly did I say I wouldn't allow supernatural abilities? Supernatural abilities are magic, thus they don't follow the same limitations. The character in the OP lacked magical assistance.

 

[Dandu]

Really? Where exactly did I say I wouldn't allow supernatural abilities? Supernatural abilities are magic, thus they don't follow the same limitations. The character in the OP lacked magical assistance.

First page.

I'm extremely strict, I don't even allow special abilities that allow characters to hide without cover. I don't check logic at the door.

 

[Greenfield]

Rogue casts blur on himself. This grants concealment. Rogue rolls for hide, then sneak attacks the enemy right in front of him.

Yes?

Presuming that Rogues could cast spells, maybe.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

So if there's someone or something in the room, you are being observed while you cast Blur, and can't Hide.

The guy who drops his own pack to use as cover may technically be able to Hide behind it, the pack itself is still visible, and will draw attention. And, of course, as soon as someone goes to investigate this really neat backpack they found, your cover disappears. (It's no longer between you and the creature investigating it, so...)

When it comes to twisting rules in most games, the old saying applies: Hogs get slaughtered.

DM's appreciate a bit of cleverness. Get too greedy with it though, and the DM will cast "Dispel Bullpucky" on it, and you're done.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Serious question for the "no cover = no Hide, even with HiPS" folks.

Assume a long corridor of some sort (oriented north-south) with a doorway at the north end. There is a guard in the doorway, facing north (away from the corridor) and not looking behind him at all because he's not expecting to need to worry about anyone already in the corridor. Now, in the real world, it's possible to sneak up on that guard through the corridor if you move quietly and slowly enough, despite the fact that there is no cover and you're completely out in the open, because in real life because guard doesn't have 360-degree vision.

However, there's no facing in D&D as D&D assumes constant attentiveness in all directions, and therefore anyone wishing to sneak up on the guard can't even try to hide. How do you handle this sort of case, and if your answer involves any variation on "Well in this case cover isn't required," how do you determine when cover is required and when it isn't?

 

[Greenfield]

I've always played the "No facing" as meaning "No facing in combat". In a melee, you're moving constantly, so your field of vision sweeps around the field. Two people represented by figs facing each other could in fact be circling each other, dodging and dancing around. The figs represent relative positions only.

Out of combat, I figure that there's facing. The guard finds a comfortable spot with a good view of the territory he's supposed to be watching, then sits or leans back against something, and that's his post unless his sargeant comes by. If he's walking a patrol, he's facing the way he's walking unless something draws his attention elsewhere.

The rules specifically say that someone can become distracted and look away, giving someone a chance to hide. A Bluff check can set up such a situation, but the fact is that a distraction can happen without someone intentionally trying to arrange it.

And if a distraction can cause someone to look away, then it's possible for them to be looking away, hence non-combat facing.

 

[Jhaelen]

And I don't allow rangers to do so, as theirs is listed as extraordinary and it's a ridiculous ability. They can have a free non-combat feat instead.

I guess this doesn't need commenting.

Have fun playing your stripped-of-all-ridiculous-abilities version of the game!