the Hide skill - how do you beat it?

[Nail]

When facing a totally concealed foe, a creature is denied Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and the attacker gets a +2 attack bonus as well.

That's news to me. Where is that in the core books or SRD, exactly?

You'll also note that the RotG article does not say that being Hidden denies your opponent his Dex bonus. Total Concealment != Being Hidden. In fact, when you have total concealment being Hidden is irrelevant (no Spot check possible).

Again: Being Hidden does not deny your opponent his Dex bonus.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

On attacking from behind cover

double post

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

On attacking from behind cover

Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.

So what this seems to say is that only cover that counts as a low obstacle (undefined) can be ignored when attacking from behind that cover, and only if you're closer to it than the target.

 

[Darkness]

You'll also note that the RotG article does not say

So you still didn't read it? Okay...

I'll quote it for you:

To properly defend itself in combat, a creature must be able to see its foe

You can't misinterpret that, no matter how hard you try.

 

[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.

"To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall"

I was right for melee attack.
Wrong for Ranged attacks.
Interesting distinction I didnt realise.

Of course it doesnt actually have anything to do with what I was talking about, but it certainly is a useful rule I remeber. Thanks for that one

The rule on low cover, quoted by Dr. Awkward actually deals with the circumstances I was talking about. Again a useful little rule I hadnt seen before.

I bow to both of your rules-foo.

Majere

 

[Aaron2]

So you still didn't read it? Okay...

I'll quote it for you: You can't misinterpret that, no matter how hard you try.

I've read the article three times now but still can't find a single reference to hiding. The article is about invisible opponents, not hidden ones. Hidden characters are neither "unseen" nor "undetectable".


Aaron

 

[Kemrain]

I may be totally wrong, but..

I was always under the impression that a Rogue could sneak attack an opponent, flanking aside, any time that opponent was denied their dex bonus to AC. I thought it said nothign about your opponent needing to be flatfooted, merely that being flat footed makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC unless you have Uncanny Dodge. Uncanny Dodge doesn't prevent you from being Flatfooted, it merely lets you keep your Dex bonus to AC when you are Flatfooted - ie, it wouldn't let you make attacks of opportunity before your action in the first round of combat unless you also had Combat Reflexes.

I hear all sorts of people saying that you can sneak attack a flatfooted foe, but no one (that I could notice, I might be unobservant) is making sure to state the 'denied dex bonus' thing. this leads me to doubt myself, abd I don't have my books in front of me to prove it one way or the other. (I don't trust the SRD as far as I can throw it, and given that it's made up of electrons, that's nto very far indeed.)

My interpretation of the rules is that someone who successfully hides from an opponent has total consealment, and can sneak attack that opponent at a +2 bonus to hit, just as if they were invisible. I'd like to see this issue resolved, as it's still up in the air for me.

- Kemrain the Poorly Hidden.

 

[Aaron2]

I was always under the impression that a Rogue could sneak attack an opponent, flanking aside, any time that opponent was denied their dex bonus to AC. I thought it said nothign about your opponent needing to be flatfooted, merely that being flat footed makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC unless you have Uncanny Dodge.

You are correct. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point. Often "flat-footed" is incorrectly used as a general term meaning "denied your Dex bonus to AC".

My interpretation of the rules is that someone who successfully hides from an opponent has total consealment, and can sneak attack that opponent at a +2 bonus to hit, just as if they were invisible.

There is nothing in the rules to justify this interpretation. Hide is mentioned in the rules on concealment but only to state you need concealment to hide. It is not mentioned on the rules for line-of-sight nor is "being hidden" ever mention in any of the rules concerning invisibility. Finally, Invisible creatures gain a +20 bonus to Hide checks which would be silly if being hidden resulting in your being treated as invisible (which would mean successfully hiding gives you a +20 bonus to all other Hide checks!). Hiding is mainly used to deny your opponent an action in the surprise round (since he isn't aware of you yet). During this action (and possibly the next) the unaware target is flat-footed so he gets sneak attacked. I think this is why being flat-footed has come up so often in the thread since this is the main way a rogue gets sneak attacks (without flanking, of course).


Aaron

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hidden characters are neither "unseen" nor "undetectable".

I'm having a hard time buying into this, and I enjoy rules-lawyering as much as anyone here. I'd say that Hidden is defined as being unseen. You can be hidden by darkness. Hidden in the terrain. Hidden behind a door. Hidden in plain sight. And in every instance, it means unseen.

How exactly are you defining "Hidden" so that it somehow includes "Seen"?

 

[Darkness]

I've read the article three times now but still can't find

No problem, I can quote the point for you:

To properly defend itself in combat, a creature must be able to see its foe

You cannot realistically misunderstand this sentence except on purpose.

No amount or degree of rules-lawyering can change that.

Nor this:

Hidden characters are neither "unseen" nor "undetectable".

Use this skill to sink back into the shadows and proceed unseen