Repost: How would you 'see' this?

[radmod]

irdeggman pointed out something I thought was interesting in the Rules Compendium (p. 92):

If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible.

So how do you 'see' this:
You fail a spot check to see a hidden creature. The creature does nothing and you make another spot check in it's location (or multiple spot checks or take 20).
Would you give the creature +20 on his hide check(s) as if it were invisible (or +20 to it's original hide)?
Or would you make it normal opposed rolls (or rolls vs. the original hide)?
Or give the 'spotter' a bonus to subsequent spot checks?
Or give the 'hider' a bonus against subsequent spot checks?
Something else?

 

[HoboGod]

How would that make sense with sniping rules? You get a -20 to hide, but a +20 because you're considered invisible? I can't trust that to be the intended interpretation.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I disagree with you that by RAW, the hider would get +20 to subsequent Hide checks, so I did not vote in your poll.

 

[radmod]

I disagree with you that by RAW, the hider would get +20 to subsequent Hide checks, so I did not vote in your poll.

Well, then I suggest you tell us why you disagree, rather than post some snippy comment.

Now hobo said why. I happen to agree with him.

@ hobo:
I've always presumed that once you snipe, you automatically lose any hide bonus you may have gotten beforehand (like distraction).

 

[HoboGod]

@ hobo:
I've always presumed that once you snipe, you automatically lose any hide bonus you may have gotten beforehand (like distraction).

*shrugs* There's nothing I can find to explicitly suggest that. Then again, there's not previously been bonuses to hide for being hidden. Another reason to think hidden creatures having invisibility bonus isn't the intended usage, why don't rules like snipping talk about this bonus?

 

[udalrich]

I wanted to vote for "Follow RAW, and treat subsequent spots normally"

Once you have to make another hide/spot check, something has changed so that the previous hide is no longer in effect.

 

[billd91]

I wanted to vote for "Follow RAW, and treat subsequent spots normally"

Once you have to make another hide/spot check, something has changed so that the previous hide is no longer in effect.

I would have voted that as well.
And here's my post from the previous thread:

You'd use the same spot vs hide checks you normally use. You wouldn't add the invisibility modifiers mentioned in the hide skill because there's no separate condition providing the invisibility prior to the hide check. That's why the hide skill is generally inferior to invisibility - a good spot check is all you need to foil it rather than a special power to see invisible.

For as long as the hide check exceeds the spot check, the hider gains the benefits listed under the invisibility condition against everyone whose spot check fails to beat the hide check: +2 on attack rolls vs sighted opponents and target loses Dex bonus to AC.

 

[irdeggman]

*shrugs* There's nothing I can find to explicitly suggest that. Then again, there's not previously been bonuses to hide for being hidden. Another reason to think hidden creatures having invisibility bonus isn't the intended usage, why don't rules like snipping talk about this bonus?

Well under the sniping rules (RC pg 92)

"If you've successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then take a move action to hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot."

You have to "hide again" after the shot - hence you are no longer hidden and thus not invisible.

 

[irdeggman]

See the following post with information on opposed checks and taking 20.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5307266-post23.html


I voted for the first option but I do feel it is misleading since it implies retrying spot checks as in taking 20.

I don't think you should be allowed to take 20 on an opposed roll (and the FAQ supports me on this opinion).

Opposed checks are not resolved until both parties make their checks - you don't get to save up the rolls to see if you could get a better one.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I voted to ignore RAW (2nd option). Don't really care if it IS the actual RAW. Partly because I don't follow the RC anyway.

I wanted to vote for "Follow RAW, and treat subsequent spots normally"

Once you have to make another hide/spot check, something has changed so that the previous hide is no longer in effect.

When it comes to free action "reactionary" spot checks, sure. But the rules also allow a creature to spend a move action to make a spot check again on its turn. As often as it likes. In those scenarios, nothing has changed but RC makes it sound like the hider gets an extra +20 to his check because he's invisible.