the Hide skill - how do you beat it?

[Saeviomagy]

My simple rule? If you can't see them, they qualify as invisible.

That's it. So if someone successfully hides, and you don't make a successful spot check, they're invisible.

If you're blind, all your foes are invisible.

etc etc.

Makes things a lot easier.

Oh, and you can't get full cover/concealment against someone without moving at least 5' - because if you could make an attack, they have line of sight to the square you occupy, and you to them. It doesn't matter how you maneuver or scrunch up, unless you actually move.

 

[Pickaxe]

Flat footed is just that.
Its a guard standing about bored out of his brains, finger up his bum, making a shopping list n his head. Its someone who is not expecting immediate immanent dainger.

Once you start firing arrows at him he is no longer flat footed, he is moving, duck, diving, weavng, dodging, not letting you get time to snipe him. Irrespective of wether or not he knows you are there he is just making to to difficult for you to pick out a vulnerable part of his body. If people are running into combat, they know they are running into dainger and are not flat footed.

Majere

No. Flat-footed is a condition that applies to every creature at the beginning of a battle, until they act. (Uncanny Dodge allows you to keep your Dexterity bonus to AC while flat-footed; I don't know if that technically means that you are not flat-footed.) A party of characters skulking around a dungeon, weapons in hand, is flat-footed at the beginning of a combat until each character acts. This is prime sneak attack time. Regardless of the hiding issue, the initial sneak attack for the rogue is correct.

--Axe

 

[Pickaxe]

If you have cover from your enemy he has cover from you.
If you have concealment from your enemy, he has concealment from you.

That actually doesn't sound correct. If you're firing arrows from behind, say, an overturned table that provides cover, your target does not get the benefit of cover. Concealment is determined by which squares have the concealing effect. If I'm in a square with fog, and you're not, I get concealment, and you are only concealed from me if there is fog in another square that lies between us. Note that line of sight is measured from corner to corner, so the above will be true only when the cover or concealing effect lies between the two combatants. And, obviously, if I'm invisible, I have total concealment from everyone, but they don't have concealment from me.

--Axe

 

[Lord Pendragon]

My simple rule? If you can't see them, they qualify as invisible.

That's it. So if someone successfully hides, and you don't make a successful spot check, they're invisible.

If you're blind, all your foes are invisible.

This is how I've always ruled it, and I think the quotes that Darkness provided back it up from a Rules standpoint.

Taking this into account, it's still not possible for the rogue in question to do what he's doing. You cannot attack around a corner. If you want to attack, you have to move into a square that has a clear line of sight to the target. So the best the rogue can do, afaik, is:

Surprise Round: Rogue sneak attacks.
Round1: Rogue sneak attacks (standard action), and moves behind cover (move action).
Round2: Rogue hides (move action), takes a 5' step, sneak attacks (standard action).
Round3: Rogue attacks (standard action), takes a 5' step (behind cover), hides (move action).
Round4: Rogue moves out from behind cover (move action), sneak attacks (standard action).
Round5: Rogue attacks, takes a 5' step (behind cover), hides.
etc.
etc.

So the rogue is attacking only once each round, and only getting a sneak attack every other round, assuming he makes his attack roll and his target doesn't make his Spot.

Frankly, it's simpler to use Spring Attack to jump in and out of flanking position with the party fighter.

 

[Thanee]

Against a stationary target, that might work...

However, the rogue needs total cover to be able to hide again, after first being seen, since otherwise the "under observation" clause steps in.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Against a stationary target, that might work...

However, the rogue needs total cover to be able to hide again, after first being seen, since otherwise the "under observation" clause steps in.

I agree with your "however" but don't see that it invalidates my scenario. The OP stated that the rogue was firing through a doorway, wasn't he? If you 5' step out of the doorway that puts you behind the wall, and I'd definitely say you have full cover. Or at least, that's what I was assuming when I fashioned the scenario.

Certainly, if the rogue doesn't have full cover to duck behind, then it becomes even more difficult for him to use the Hide skill alone to get his sneak attacks.

 

[MerakSpielman]

If somebody makes a high enough listen check and hears the rogue behind the cover between shots, can the rogue still sneak attack him?

 

[Majere]

That actually doesn't sound correct. If you're firing arrows from behind, say, an overturned table that provides cover, your target does not get the benefit of cover. Concealment is determined by which squares have the concealing effect. If I'm in a square with fog, and you're not, I get concealment, and you are only concealed from me if there is fog in another square that lies between us. Note that line of sight is measured from corner to corner, so the above will be true only when the cover or concealing effect lies between the two combatants. And, obviously, if I'm invisible, I have total concealment from everyone, but they don't have concealment from me.

--Axe

According the RAW this is wrong
There arent any rules as written for objects like arrow slits.
Squares either provide cover and concealment, or they dont. If they do then it applies bothways as the same line of sight applies to both parties.
This is because there are no written rules for objects which take up sqaure sides so that you can occupy a square and gain cover frm an object lying along one square of that side, but which isnt actually in a square between yourself and the opponent.

If you want some fluff I can give you some. If you are trying to shoot while keeping as much of yourself as possible covered, you cant shoot as accuratly, hence cant sneak attack. Your more focused on trying to keep safe than get the best possible shot.

But unless Im mistaken (which I might be) there are no RAW for the situation above and even if there were they would not apply to the situation that was being described and to which I was replying.

Majere

 

[billd91]

According the RAW this is wrong
There arent any rules as written for objects like arrow slits.
Squares either provide cover and concealment, or they dont. If they do then it applies bothways as the same line of sight applies to both parties.
This is because there are no written rules for objects which take up sqaure sides so that you can occupy a square and gain cover frm an object lying along one square of that side, but which isnt actually in a square between yourself and the opponent.

<snip>

Majere

I believe this is incorrect. I don't have the PHB handy but the SRD does make a distinction about drawing the line of sight for determining cover/concealment between the attacker and the target. When checking with ranged attacks, the attacker gets to pick which corner of his square to draw the line from and that corner could be one that isn't blocked by the attacker's own cover. But, when determining which corner of the defender to check, all are checked.
So if an obstacle projects halfway out into the square ahead of the attacker, he could use the corner of his own square that is free of the obstacle for checking his own attacks. But on the defense, every attacker checks against all of his corners, including the two almost certainly obscured by that obstacle.

 

[billd91]

The description of Invisibility states, "Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision." So either this statement is a lie or, by vision they mean normal vision and not spells or special powers. Since a hidden creature can be detected by normal vision, they are not visually undetectable.


Aaron

Hidden characters can be detected by normal vision if the potential target makes a successful spot roll. Invisible characters can be detected if the potential target has see invisible. There really are caveats on both cases of detectablility. And if that target fails the spot roll against a hidden attacker, that attacker, for the duration of his ability to remain hidden (including -20 to the rolls and whatnot if sniping), is visually undetectable. Full invisibility bonuses apply.