Those tricksy skills: Hide and Move Silently!

[Breakdaddy]

Hi all! Lately my PCs have been "pushing the envelope" more and more in our bi-weekly games. Specifically, the Ranger and Thief (both Level 8) have been using Hide and Move Silently extensively in a wide array of scenarios that are not covered in the rules. While I can handle most of this with house rules, I am curious to see how others handle this. My questions are as follows:
When do you tend to use the move silently skill IYC (at what range does it become relevant, etc.)?
Do you tend to make the PCs roll a new hide/ms check every round or does 1 roll fit all, even on a fluid battlefield with combatants moving dangerously close to the hiding PC? If someone fires a bow, for example, then takes a move-equivalent action to HIDE, isnt it apparent that they are still in the immediate vicinity (ie- a sorc/wiz might still fireball for effect the area, or if someone wants to fire back with a bow does it count as concealment with appropriate penalties, or do I arbitrarily say they cannot even try to fire back at the hiding PC)?

Apologies in advance if this has already been covered, but please enlighten/indulge me!


thanks!

 

[DanMcS]

Hi all! Lately my PCs have been "pushing the envelope" more and more in our bi-weekly games. Specifically, the Ranger and Thief (both Level 8) have been using Hide and Move Silently extensively. My questions are as follows:
When do you tend to use the move silently skill IYC (at what range does it become relevant, etc.)?

This is decided by the players, since MS has to be used explicitly- it reduces your movement rate, among other things. If they're not moving silently, but just walking, I generally consider the PCs to be taking 0 on their MS check- you might not hear a lightly-armored rogue padding down the hallway, even if he's not trying to be stealthy, but the fighter with the plate mail will clock in around -5 and be very easy to hear. Clank clank clank.

Do you tend to make the PCs roll a new hide/ms check every round or does 1 roll fit all, even on a fluid battlefield with combatants moving dangerously close to the hiding PC?

If they aren't moving, then their old HS check sticks around. If they are moving, they must make a new check for each skill, every round. For MS, every move action.

If someone fires a bow, for example, then takes a move-equivalent action to HIDE, isnt it apparent that they are still in the immediate vicinity (ie- a sorc/wiz might still fireball for effect the area, or if someone wants to fire back with a bow does it count as concealment with appropriate penalties, or do I arbitrarily say they cannot even try to fire back at the hiding PC)?

This is covered explicitly in the rules, to wit:
Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

 

[Breakdaddy]

This is covered explicitly in the rules, to wit:
Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

Excellent info! Thanks for your insight and for the reference. On the off-chance that the Rogue gets off a shot then actually successfully hides (with -20 to his check no less!) due to the shoddy spot check of the enemy ranged attacker, will this negate any and all chance that the enemy can fire at him or does he just take big penalties to fire at the successfully hiding Rogue?

 

[Aaron2]

When do you tend to use the move silently skill IYC (at what range does it become relevant, etc.)?

Because of the -1 per 10 ft. rules, I don't use MS until the PCs are fairly close to the targets. 100 ft. usually (just slightly more than a double move away)

If someone fires a bow, for example, then takes a move-equivalent action to HIDE, isnt it apparent that they are still in the immediate vicinity?

Yes. As a general rule, I don't allow SAs if your opponents know where you are attacking from. The rules make a distinction between being Hidden and being Hidden and you opponents don't know where you are. By the RAW, nothing about being Hidden guarantees a sneak attack, so don't let your PCs get away with nonsense (like Hiding behind a tower shield or in a Blur).

The "attack and then move to Hide" might not even be legal. After the attack, the firer is now "observed" and thus can't hide without some sort of distraction. Enforce the -20 penalty.


Aaron

 

[ARandomGod]

Excellent info! Thanks for your insight and for the reference. On the off-chance that the Rogue gets off a shot then actually successfully hides (with -20 to his check no less!) due to the shoddy spot check of the enemy ranged attacker, will this negate any and all chance that the enemy can fire at him or does he just take big penalties to fire at the successfully hiding Rogue?

Well...
The penalty would be the same as if they were attempting to hit the rogue before he fired and they hadn't seen him... with the additional fact that they now *know* something's out there, so they're more likely to *try*. But if the rogue does make that hide check at -20, well, they don't see him.

 

[DanMcS]

Excellent info! Thanks for your insight and for the reference. On the off-chance that the Rogue gets off a shot then actually successfully hides (with -20 to his check no less!) due to the shoddy spot check of the enemy ranged attacker, will this negate any and all chance that the enemy can fire at him or does he just take big penalties to fire at the successfully hiding Rogue?

The sniping rules assume the rogue was hiding previously. He is thus unknown; on his turn in the action, he shoots the arrow from behind his cover/concealment, and then makes his hide check at -20 vs the spot check of everyone who might see him. Anyone he beats does not know where he is, even though he has taken the shot, and cannot attack him.

Anyone who beats him knows where he is. If he is behind concealment (soft cover) they can try to shoot through it at him, with the usual 50% miss chance for full concealment. If it is hard cover, he has full cover and cannot be attacked unless they move to negate his cover.

Those who blew their spot checks might still know the general direction the attack came from, or have it pointed out to them, and be able to move that way to try to find the rogue. If they move so that the rogue's cover/concealment is negated, he is no longer hidden, and they automatically see him. Blasters can lay down area-effect spells in the vicinity and hope to hit him. That kind of thing.

 

[Aaron2]

Anyone who beats him knows where he is. If he is behind concealment (soft cover) they can try to shoot through it at him, with the usual 50% miss chance for full concealment.

Why would you give him the miss chance for total concealment, if he only has normal concealment and failed his Hide check?

If it is hard cover, he has full cover and cannot be attacked unless they move to negate his cover.

If he had total cover he wouldn't even need to make a Hide check (but couldn't have fired in the first place). I guess the firing character can use a free action to duck behind the obstacle (or crouch down below the top of a wall) after he shoots. However, while he has total cover he can't see any opponents. Its up to the DM to inforce any penalties incured.

If the enemy can deduce the hider's location either because there are limited spaces to hide in or they used something like Detect Magic, they can attack the square with the normal concealment miss chance. Just like attacking an invisible character.


Aaron

 

[Breakdaddy]

If the enemy can deduce the hider's location either because there are limited spaces to hide in or they used something like Detect Magic, they can attack the square with the normal concealment miss chance. Just like attacking an invisible character.
Aaron

I like this take on it, I will probably use this as circumstances permit. I dont have a copy of the rules here in front of me, but would faerie fire automatically negate invis or just provide bonuses against invisible opponents affected by Faerie Fire?

 

[DanMcS]

Why would you give him the miss chance for total concealment, if he only has normal concealment and failed his Hide check?

I was assuming total concealment, I should have said, if he fails his hide check vs their spot, they can make their attack with the appropriate miss chance for concealment.

If he had total cover he wouldn't even need to make a Hide check (but couldn't have fired in the first place). I guess the firing character can use a free action to duck behind the obstacle (or crouch down below the top of a wall) after he shoots. However, while he has total cover he can't see any opponents. Its up to the DM to inforce any penalties incured.

Yeah, I'm munging "ducking behind something" and the "-20 to hide after sniping" in my mind. If you have total cover, you could lean out to 9/10 cover, shoot, and lean back; the leaning would be a free action, and then the hide check at -20 would represent trying not to be spotted AS you shoot, not afterward. I keep forgetting that you can HS with only partial cover or concealment.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It removes the miss chance associated with invisibility.

So, they're still invisble, however.

Thus, you couldn't determine what color hair they have, what race they are (broadly speaking, anyway), or any other important details, but you could attack them without penalty.