Scent and Darkvision vs Shadowdancer

[mikebr99]

Actually, with HiPS (and only with HiPS) you can use mikebr99's interpretation and hide while grappling.

You can start a grapple as a standard action. Once grappling you can make a grapple check to move - if you win you are moving and a hide check can be made while moving

Maybe...

But I'd put some heavy situational modifiers on the check, since you're attached to a guy.

And you can't hide from the guys you are attached to.


Mike

 

[DrSpunj]

"attacking" includes any number of actions ...including grappling!!! (Can you be hidden while grappling!!??? "Wow, you're good!")

Umm, cute. Not correct, but cute!

Hide & Spot, as defined in the context of the rules, only pertain to the visual sense. This is the whole reason we House Ruled Sneak, Spot & Sense for your game, Nail. However, in the Core Rules any time another sense comes into play Hide & Spot may become irrelevant. If you have Scent, that mechanic will likely trump Hide & Spot, same with Blindsense and...here's the common sense kicking in from the DM...so would touch! Unless we're dealing with a target who's completely numb there's no way to continue Hiding vs that target once you've touched them.

If you allow that a Rogue can sneak up on someone and get a single backstab attack, there's no reason the Rogue couldn't instead choose to use the Grapple Special Attack instead of a backstab attack. If the Grab succeeds then you're now touching them and you're no longer Hiding vs that target. The Hide roll (with the -20 penalty) is still important here because if you miss on the Grab attack (even though you've caught your target in a surprise round making that touch attack extremely easy) you can fade back into the woodwork, so to speak. I'd probably also give the Hidden Rogue a +2 circumstance bonus on their opposed grapple check in the Hold stage in this situation since they literally got the jump on their opponent.

....is the claim, then, that hiding is simply "being invisible, with a skill check"? Functionally equivalent, anyway? That doesn't sit right, I think.

Good, cuz they aren't functionally equivalent. If you're invisible this part kicks in:

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

Furthermore, if you're under the effect of a Greater Invisibility spell you don't become visible after attacking, so a Full Attack while Invisible is possible. If you're just using the Hide skill (presumably with HiPS), under my interpretation you're forced to make an opposed check with each attack during a Full Attack action, all of them with the -20 penalty. Fail one and you're no longer successfully Hiding so you don't get Sneak Attack damage and will have to try and Hide again on your turn.

Stabed (sic) you 5 times, and gets 35 on his hide check, you may now roll your spot check.

IMC you could certainly attempt that, but I would require a Hide check with each attack with the -20 penalty. If any of them are unsuccessful then any later attacks that round would not be from Hiding (and therefore would not allow Sneak Attack damage unless some other condition were in place).

Thanks.

 

[mikebr99]

IMC you could certainly attempt that, but I would require a Hide check with each attack with the -20 penalty. If any of them are unsuccessful then any later attacks that round would not be from Hiding (and therefore would not allow Sneak Attack damage unless some other condition were in place).

Thanks.

If you allow this in your campaign... couldn't the guy, who made his hide check for attack #1, failed #2... why couldn't he re-hide during any and all his remaining attacks?



Mike

 

[DrSpunj]

If you allow this in your campaign... couldn't the guy, who made his hide check for attack #1, failed #2... why couldn't he re-hide during any and all his remaining attacks?

Good point!

I guess the difference for me is how I'm visualizing everything, and I admit I can only do so with HiPS in action because of it's magical nature. I don't have a problem with someone who starts out Hidden (that unofficial condition again) making a Full Attack action and trying to stay Hidden while doing so, but once you're successfully Spotted you need to find a better Hiding place. Since you've used this turn to stand and fight that will have to be done on your next turn.

You know, I think much of the discussion here is based around whether you can attempt to Hide while Attacking or whether you can attempt to Attack while Hiding.

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this some more....

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[mikebr99]

Hopefully clearing the waters a little (from 3.0 FAQ)

The shadowdancer’s hide in plain sight ability is asupernatural ability, so by definition it takes a standard action to hide in plain sight, right? The monk’s speed becomes a supernatural ability at 9th level. Does a monk have to spend a standard action to move greater than 50 feet in one action?

Though supernatural abilities usually require a standard action to use, a few of them do not. Hide in plain sight, for example, works just like any other use of the Hide skill, so you use it as a move action or as part of a move action. A monk’s supernatural speed works anytime the monk moves. In general, whenever a supernatural ability changes the way one of the user’s actions works, it works just like the action it modifies.
​

​

In 3.0... hide was used as a move action or as part of a move action.​

Nothing I've seen has changed that in 3.5.​

YMMV​

Mike​

 

[DrSpunj]

Hopefully clearing the waters a little (from 3.0 FAQ)
<snip>
YMMV

Right, I'd found that before commenting on the topic the first time, but thanks for bringing it to the discussion for others that may not have been aware of it.

For me personally, however, I don't put nearly as much faith in the FAQ (and the Sage Advice it's compiled from) as I did shortly after 3.0 came out, and what faith I did have dropped significantly with the release of 3.5. Too many errors (both little and big) have lowered whatever pedestal he started out on.

Going back to my statements before, I support a version of Hide that allows Attacking (even Full Attacking) while Hiding, limited by frequent opposed checks to keep things balanced. As you pointed out to me, mikebr99, I'm not sure I support a version of Hide that allows Hiding while Attacking. HiPS may indeed allow exactly that, but I need to think on it a bit more.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Majere]

Hopefully clearing the waters a little (from 3.0 FAQ)

In 3.0... hide was used as a move action or as part of a move action.​

YMMV​

Mike​

Sadlyclears nothing
This is a 3.5 rules forum. As far as 3.5 is concerned, 3.0 never existed.
So precidents cant be drawn.
IF that was in the 3.5 Text I would agree with you fully

Majere

 

[Nail]

This is a 3.5 rules forum. As far as 3.5 is concerned, 3.0 never existed.
So precidents cant be drawn.

That's not even remotely true, Majere.

This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules ....(snip)...—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.”

Looks like you'll be agreeing with us after all.....

 

[Nail]

Umm, cute. Not correct, but cute!

Unreasonable, certainly. But not incorrect wrt RAW.

As long as the grapler had concealment, he could Hide....and still be grappling. ...of course, that's way too silly, but it illustrates my point: when attacking there has to be a point at which you say "Hide cannot be applied here".

I'd argue that the reasonable, even cinematic, ruling would be to say that the attacker is restricted to one missile weapon attack, or one melee weapon attack per turn. If missile weapon, then use the sniping rules; if melee, then use the -20 on the hide...and allow a circumstance bonus on the opposed Spot check. Or heck: rule that there is no longer concealment, so you can no longer Hide.

In any case, RAW doesn't explicitly cover a Full Round melee attack, so it's a DMs call. (BTW: allow Full Round melee attack but NOT allow Full Round ranged attack? Why?)

Hide & Spot, as defined in the context of the rules, only pertain to the visual sense. This is the whole reason we House Ruled Sneak, Spot & Sense for your game, Nail.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But, given this isn't the House Rules forum.....

If the Grab succeeds then you're now touching them and you're no longer Hiding vs that target.

Why? No concealment? HiPS doesn't require conventional concealment. Moreover "touching" or "hearing" is not covered by the Hide skill. This means (presumably) that you can Hide, and still be heard.

...again: silly (thus probably not IMC), but RAW.

 

[mikebr99]

That's not even remotely true, Majere.

Looks like you'll be agreeing with us after all.....

ROTFL


Mike