Scent and Darkvision vs Shadowdancer

[Nail]

... Hide MUST be at least part of your move action...

Yup.

 

[Majere]

"I agree... Hide MUST be at least part of your move action... but what part of your turn is left after that? Seems like only a std. action remains. And in my books... you can strike once with a std. action."

This is a house rule
You can hide as part of a move action (eg. moving)
You can hide as part of a standard action (eg. attacking)
You can move as part of a full round action (eg. running)

All of those are clearly stated, iwith appropriate modifiers in the skill text.
Im afriad at this point you are quoting hourse rules not RAW.

I can also tell you allowing people to full attack while hidden is really not a big issue, shadowdancers need this ability to even land blows because otherwise they are even less effective that rogues in melee.

Majere

 

[DrSpunj]

I'm not fully decided one way or the other on the Full Attack vs Standard Attack stuff, as many people have made good points in this thread and others I've read, but here's a relevant (IMO) snippet to throw into the discussion from the Hide skill entry:

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.

Now, taking a step back from all this, I'm going to borrow something from Hide's opposite, the Spot skill entry:

Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute.

[rambling]So here's how I think things might play out using just these parts of the rules:
1. Shadowdancer uses HiPS in some situation without being observed, like before Grok, the 18th level Orcish fighter enters the room. SD is hiding on the other side of the door to said room to "get the jump" on Grok.
2. Grok opens the door, gets a passive/reactive Spot check to notice the SD. Fails horribly.
3. SD gets a Surprise Round and attempts to hide while attacking Grok. Takes the -20 and lets say SD succeeds at both the attack with Sneak Attack damage (so Grok knows someone is nearby) and the hide (but hasn't figured out where).
4. Let's assume that SD wins initiative and therefore wants to make a Full Attack while hiding.

Here's where, as a DM, I'd have to make a ruling. The Shadowdancer is already hidden because Grok hasn't Spotted him yet. Until Grok gets a turn to "try to spot something [he] failed to see previously [with] a move action" OR SD does something to potentially blow his hiding place giving Grok a reactive check, SD is successfully hidden.

So I'm wondering, therefore, whether SD should be able to make a Full Attack while hiding, however because of this part of the Spot rule I quoted above:

Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action.

I'd probably allow Grok a Spot check with each attack by SD to figure out where his attacker is. IMO having someone attack you from hiding with a melee weapon (otherwise we're dealing with sniping, a separate issue) is enough movement to qualify as a "chance to spot something" and therefore Grok deserves the roll, even if SD misses on the attack. As long as Grok can't figure it out (because SD won the opposed roll, even with the -20 penalty), SD continues to get Sneak Attack damage. Once Grok succeeds, he's spotted SD, he's no longer hiding, and Sneak Attack damage doesn't apply for the remainder of any of SD's attacks until he's able to successfully Hide/HiPS again.

Now, that seems like a lot of rolls, and for that reason I'm not thrilled with it, but it seems otherwise pretty fair to me. I suppose you could boil it down to a single opposed Hide/Spot roll if/when SD makes the first attack, and apply that to all the attacks, but as a Player I don't think I'd be too happy about that if I were Grok if the SD succeeded, nor as SD if the Hide failed.

The Spot rules, IMO, give Grok a shot at spotting SD with every attack, so SD is pretty much forced into making an opposed Hide check. As a DM I think it's a fair application of the Hide, HiPS & Spot rules.

Now, I'm not at all standing firm on everything there, but this is the first time I've actually tried to recreate a scene like this and that's what I came up with just now. I always appreciate feedback if I've overlooked something.[/rambling]

As to the darkvision argument: Shadows exist. Shadowdancers have a special connection to the Plane of Shadow through the shadows (other than their own) around them. Whatever anyone else sees or doesn't see is completely irrelevant to that mystical connection. That it exists for the Shadowdancer is more than enough.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[mikebr99]

"I agree... Hide MUST be at least part of your move action... but what part of your turn is left after that? Seems like only a std. action remains. And in my books... you can strike once with a std. action."

This is a house rule

What? The part I stated from the books, or the part you are stating below?

You can hide as part of a move action (eg. moving)

This is correct.

You can hide as part of a standard action (eg. attacking)

Also correct, because you have a move equiv. action left in your turn with which to hide (-20 DC).

You can move as part of a full round action (eg. running)

Hey, we're on a roll here.... I also agree with this, and so do the rules.

All of those are clearly stated, iwith appropriate modifiers in the skill text.
Im afriad at this point you are quoting hourse rules not RAW.

I agree again... But all I've been quoting is the rules. It specifically says that the action of using Hide, can only be compined with movement (move equiv., or otherwise), OR it is a move equiv. action all on it's own. These are the only wasy to use it.

The only reason it says, "Action: Usually none", is because it must be... compined with movement (move equiv., or otherwise), OR it is a move equiv. action all on it's own (Sniping).

These are the RAW.

Mike

 

[Nail]

Shadowdancer uses HiPS in some situation without being observed, like before Grok, the 18th level Orcish fighter enters the room.

Hee, hee. This is fun! Lemme see if I can apraphrase, using rounds, actions, etc.

#1) SD hides in a room

#2) Grok enters the room, gets a reactive Spot check (free action) => fails

#3) Surprise round for SD. (Assume SD hidden within 5' of Grok.) SD uses a Std Action to attack, then rolls a Hide check (w/-20 penalty) as part of that Std Action => succeeds.

Problem: Can the SD hide when only 5 feet away from Grok? Note that the Hide(sniping) entry says you must be 10 feet away....and the Hide in Plain Sight says nothing to counter this requirement. Moreover there is no direct mention of any type of melee attack! None! Maybe melee attacks are not allowed?

Problem: Does Grok get 2 Spot checks, or just one opposed check here? That is, does Grok get a reactive Spot check when attacked, then an opposed Spot check when the SD attempts to hide again?

#4) Grok and SD roll initiative. SD wins. SD attacks.....
Problem: Can the SD use a full attack action and still use the Hide skill? The skill description implies that Hide can be used as part of a move action and as part of a Standard Action (missile weapon attack). Beyond that, it's up to the DM.

#5) The SD gets a Full Attack, and tries to HiPS after (during?) each attack....so how many Spot checks does Grok get? One reactive check per attack, then one opposed check when the SD attempts to HiPS?

How about one reactive Spot check (-20 on the SD Hide check), and if Grok succeeds, then (and only then) the SD can try to HiPS, forcing another Spot check from Grok.....?

Give 5 attacks from the SD, that's as many as 10 Spot checks, just during the SD turn.....then Grok could use a move action to spot the SD....

Eeeek.

 

[DrSpunj]

#3) Surprise round for SD. (Assume SD hidden within 5' of Grok.) SD uses a Std Action to attack, then rolls a Hide check (w/-20 penalty) as part of that Std Action => succeeds.

Problem: Can the SD hide when only 5 feet away from Grok? Note that the Hide(sniping) entry says you must be 10 feet away....and the Hide in Plain Sight says nothing to counter this requirement. Moreover there is no direct mention of any type of melee attack! None! Maybe melee attacks are not allowed?

Ooo, color!

I'm going from the first paragraph in the SRD under Hide which says "It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking...". It's true that the rest of the Hide entry does not flesh out what type of attacking is okay, and only describes Sniping further down, but this is fantasy game and I like Options! Not Restrictions!

I can certainly envision a super-stealthy assassin slipping around Grok in a poorly lit room full of pillars, always a step ahead of him, knife slicing out whenever Grok has unknowingly turned his back to the assassin. With HiPS it's that much easier given the mystical powers of shadow they have to command.

We're not sniping here, so the 10' requirement doesn't apply and HiPS doesn't need to have any text to override that.

Problem: Does Grok get 2 Spot checks, or just one opposed check here? That is, does Grok get a reactive Spot check when attacked, then an opposed Spot check when the SD attempts to hide again?

Nope, not in my mind. SD is forced to make a Hide check because attacking while hiding comes with a hefty penalty. Since it's opposed, Grok gets a Spot check. There is no event there that offers a separate reactive Spot check, IMO.

#4) Grok and SD roll initiative. SD wins. SD attacks.....
Problem: Can the SD use a full attack action and still use the Hide skill? The skill description implies that Hide can be used as part of a move action and as part of a Standard Action (missile weapon attack). Beyond that, it's up to the DM.

Right, and if I was the DM in this situation, I believe I'd allow a Full Attack Action. Why? Because SD is successfully Hidden (I'm seeing it like an unofficial condition, like Flanked) until Grok spots him. Grok gets a chance with each attack on SD's turn, and can take a MEA on his own turn to see something he failed to see previously. Until he's successful, though, SD remains hidden and can do whatever he wants. Most of SD's actions (including attacking) will trigger an opposed roll, but if SD continues to beat Grok's Spot check, Grok is screwed!

#5) The SD gets a Full Attack, and tries to HiPS after (during?) each attack....so how many Spot checks does Grok get? One reactive check per attack, then one opposed check when the SD attempts to HiPS?

One opposed (not reactive) for each attack. Since I'm thinking of high level characters here (levels 16-20) that would be 4. SD doesn't need to try HiPS as a separate action since he's already successfully hidden and Grok hasn't spotted him yet, but Grok gets new chances to spot him with an opposed roll each time SD does something that could reveal SD's position.

How about one reactive Spot check (-20 on the SD Hide check), and if Grok succeeds, then (and only then) the SD can try to HiPS, forcing another Spot check from Grok.....?

If any of Grok's Spot checks (that he got as opposed checks whenever SD did something besides stand still or move less than half his speed) succeed, then SD will have to try to HiPS again and in doing so will allow Grok another opposed Spot check.

It's goofy, and I can be swayed with some good argument, but I'm not seeing anything in the RAW that says this viewpoint is incorrect. I'm sure someone will point it out to me if this thread lives long enough!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[mikebr99]

The rules say, the use of the hide skill must as least be completed as part of your movement during your turn... so that means you have to at least use your move equiv. action to either move & hide, or just hide without moving anywhere.

No where in any books does it say that the hide skill can be accomplished as a free action... which is the least amount of time usable right?

The next step up in the time scale is (without CW) the move equiv. action.

The Hide skill falls somewhere in between those two... BUT as it says in the books... it normally is part of the move equiv. action. NOT LESS THEN.

And the book goes on to say the only other duration would be as a complete move equiv. action all on it's own... ie. Sniping, or a melee attack (ONCE) from a hidden position, while staying hidden (with the move equiv. action).

When attacking, you can full attack and have a 5ft. step. The 5ft. step isn't a move equiv. action... and the full attack action doesn't leave you enough time in your turn TO complete a move equiv. action.

When attacking you could also use the std. attack action, which DOES allow enough time in you turn to complete a move equiv. action.

So, to sum up...

You want to attack from a hidden position, and remain hidden? You get one attack per round, and you need to complete a hide check with a further -20 to the DC. Why the -20 you say? Because it's extra hard to mask the extra movements needed to fire a bow... throw a dagger etc.

You want to full attack while remaining hidden??? Get yourself Improved Invisibility.

That's it folks...


Mike

 

[Abraxas]

The rules say, the use of the hide skill must as least be completed as part of your movement during your turn

The RAW don't say this.

No where in any books does it say that the hide skill can be accomplished as a free action...

However, the rules do say you can hide while performing full round actions - charging and running (at a -20 penalty) - they also include attacking at this point in the text. A full attack is also a full round action - since the rules say you can attempt to hide while attacking and also gives examples of hiding while performing full round actions it seems to follow that you can attempt to hide while making a full attack by taking the (-20) penalty.

I believe the RAW support this view completely - however, they are just ambiguous enough that I can see how someone could arrive at a different conclusion.

The Sniping rule appears to have been written without taking the HiPS ability into account. The line of reasoning behind the sniping rule appears to go something like this.
1) Normally you need cover or concealment to hide.
2) If your target has concealment you can't make a sneak attack.
3) The only way to make a sneak attack in this situation is to momentarily come out of concealment.
4) Once you no longer have concealment, you normally can't hide.
5) Sniping from concealment should be a viable tactic - so we'll use a mechanic similar to the bluff/hide tactic
6) However - sniping at someone is hard to ignore so instead of the -10 penalty for moving quickly to concealment we'll use the -20 penalty for hiding while attacking.
7) Because the sniper had to leave concealment and must now return to concealment to attempt to hide - we'll make hiding in this way a move action.
8) Because it requires a move action to hide in this specific case you can only make 1 attack.


So - to get a full round attack in and remain hidden you need cover or HiPS and have to suffer a -20 penalty to the hide check.

 

[mikebr99]

The RAW don't say this.

Sure it does...

you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action.

However, the rules do say you can hide while performing full round actions - charging and running (at a -20 penalty)

Correct, because both these action contain actual movement.

- they also include attacking at this point in the text. A full attack is also a full round action - since the rules say you can attempt to hide while attacking and also gives examples of hiding while performing full round actions it seems to follow that you can attempt to hide while making a full attack by taking the (-20) penalty.

They just weren't explicit enought to spell out that it is a std. attack action that can be accomplished while also hiding as your move equiv. action.

I believe the RAW support this view completely - however, they are just ambiguous enough that I can see how someone could arrive at a different conclusion.

And I am trying to show you the error in your thinking.

The Sniping rule appears to have been written without taking the HiPS ability into account.

That is because HiPS has no bearing on Sniping... as you are already hiding, and HiPS simply removes some of the restrictions to initiate hiding.

The line of reasoning behind the sniping rule appears to go something like this. <snip>

This is where, beleive the the wording of the skill went wrong... if you complete the harder hide skill DC check for sniping... you never do come into view. You remain hidden for the complete turn. Now this may be a house rule, but I beleive it's the intent of the RAW. So, in that vein... you don't need HiSP, as you are already hidden, and HiSP just removes some of the restriction to initiate...

So - to get a full round attack in and remain hidden you need cover or HiPS and have to suffer a -20 penalty to the hide check.

Nope... you need Improved Invisibility.


Mike

 

[Nail]

Ooo, color!

Absolutely....especially when it makes the formating clearer. The problem with "DarkOrchid": doesn't show up well against black. Ah well.

I'm going from the first paragraph in the SRD under Hide which says "It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking...". It's true that the rest of the Hide entry does not flesh out what type of attacking is okay, and only describes Sniping further down, but this is fantasy game and I like Options! Not Restrictions!

Sure. ..But there are always restrictions...called "rules", of course! The problem with the rules here is that although it says "attacking", that's not specific enough: "attacking" includes any number of actions ...including grappling!!! (Can you be hidden while grappling!!??? "Wow, you're good!")

Only later, with the paragraph on "Sniping", are we given any clearer information. And even then, we see nothing about melee combat, and nothing about Full Attack actions. That's a problem!

Putting aside the special ability "Hide in Plain Sight", it must be possible for even a lowly rogue to sneak up on someone and "backstab" them. Right? But can he attempt to re-hide as a Move Action, and try again next round?

Sure. Why not. It's cool!

But during a Full Attack action? <shakes head> I don't buy it. I'm not firmly against it, but it just doesn't "play well", I think, either cinematically or logistically (high level rogues could have more than 4 attacks per round!).

(And the rules don't say otherwise.)