Hide Errata-ed again....

[grey_muse]

Ess, your ninjitsu stories sound more like what should be the upper end of human ability.

But I would much rather have the rules say you can't do it and the the DM ad hoc allow it, than allow it by default and have the DM tell the player his torch-rogue can't hide despite what the rules say.

[Oberoni]

1107728067[/unixtime]]
Actually, Oberoni, I'd like to direct my earlier question to you. What would you do if the PC were that guard, and he said he looked up at the ceiling to make sure there wasn't anything there? The ninja just doesn't register to his sight?

Spot check!

[Oberoni]

1107731872[/unixtime]]Ess, your ninjitsu stories sound more like what should be the upper end of human ability.

But I would much rather have the rules say you can't do it and the the DM ad hoc allow it, than allow it by default and have the DM tell the player his torch-rogue can't hide despite what the rules say.

So you'd rather explicitly say "I won't let high level PCs do what people in the real world can do, and just sort of force the DM to change the rules situationally"

than

"People in the real world can do crazy shit, and fantasy people (who are more hardcore) can do it as well, possibly a little better."

I thought so.

You actually want people to be able to do less in a fantasy game than they can in real life.

That's hilarious.

[grey_muse]

I'm not really convinced people in the real world can do that. I've certainly never seen it. All I have is Essence's word for it and, no disrespect intended to Ess, but I don't know him from Adam and he could be blowing smoke for all I know.

At any rate, you have to either explicitly say what's allowed (in which case everything that's not listed is by default not allowed) or vice versa. I prefer to say, "You cannot hide in an empty 10' room" and later qualify that with, "unless you're hiding on the ceiling and the guard's not looking up," than "you can hide wherever and whenever the fvck you want to," and have the player feel cheated when I stop him from hiding somewhere (a la torches and leash.)

[Murtak]

But I would much rather have the rules say you can't do it and the the DM ad hoc allow it, than allow it by default and have the DM tell the player his torch-rogue can't hide despite what the rules say.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or something so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went. If your observers are momentarily distracted (as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is at –10 because you have to move fast.

Now, if we accept that disguise/camouflage counts as a hiding place what does this mean? It means you can not stand there and do nothing and turn invisible. You need to actually do something to hide, that being a bluff check for the diversion and then pull off some camouflage trick (or get to a hiding place).

A DM should then apply circumstance modifiers to this check. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that someone skilled at hiding has camouflage kits for various backgrouns on his person, so if you attempt to camouflage in most any natural or urban setting there should be no special modifier for missing camouflage kits except in extreme cases such as blank rooms with monocolored walls.

However you still need to do the following:
- make your bluff check
- make a fast hide (-10)
- actually do something such as lie on the floor and pull your floor-patterned cloak above you.

Now, for your extreme example, IF the DM allows the rogue to "hide without hiding" he should apply:
- an additional -20 for not actually hiding
- an additional -10 for the torches
- an additional -10 for juggling
- an additional -10 for wholly unappropriate camouflage

for a total of -60 and a minimum DC of 80 to reliable hide from the most nearsighted of characters in that fashion. And that DC is firmly in epic land.

To recap:
Hiding by proper use of camouflage = DC 30 (Level 10ish?)
Simply turning invisible = DC 80 (Level 40ish?)

[Username17]

I'm not really convinced people in the real world can do that. I've certainly never seen it.

Well yes, exactly. That's because it works.

If you saw them avoid being seen in bizzare ways, then it's not working. But if it works, you don't see it. That's the whole fvcking point.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

[RandomCasualty]

1107729076[/unixtime]]
All of this talk about "invisihide" is bullshit, because the act of making a hide check means that you're fvcking DOING SOMETHING to hide. Claiming that someone can make a hide check while standing still and juggling torches is stupid. Claiming that someone can make a hide check while standing perfectly still within your LOS and doing nothing is stupid. Hide is an *action*. You have to *do* something to hide.

I have no problem with someone actually lying on the ground or whatever to hide. I do have a problem when he's swinging his sword and declaring he's "hiding" at the same time. That's bullshit. And that's what invisihide is. People want to be swinging a fucking greatsword and hiding at the same time.

I don't have a problem with people being lying still on the ground and hiding using camouflage. I do have a problem with people attacking with a sword, while standing there and then calling it hiding.

At the very least there should be a prone requirement.

It's a reason I push for a camouflage mechanic, rather than just allowing people to use hide to turn invisible.

[Essence]

Now, hold on. Where did you get the idea from that there are actually people who think they can stand there, without any special ability, and attack you with a Greatsword while they are hiding?

I've never seen or heard of anyone ever attempting this. At the very least, they have to have Hide in Plain Sight (to hide while observed), and Camoflauge (to hide without needing cover or concealment).

If you have those special powers, then fuck, you have special fucking powers, and you're doing what your ninja training allows you to do.

If you don't, then you're flat not able to even attempt that action, and I have no idea what you're bitching about.

[grey_muse]

Well, thanks, Frank, now I'm going to be paranoid about being ambushed by ninjas every time I walk through an open field with no cover.

@Murtak:
Those numbers are way out of whack, though. Using those, the same guy, minus torches and with invisibility would still have to make a DC 50 to hide from a nearsighted peasant. Yes, the DM should apply circumstance modifiers to the roll, but they're not covered in the rules -- they're entirely subjective.

And there's still nothing stopping the rogue from hiding at the edge of town and strolling through town shouting, "I'm hiding!" since he wasn't observed when he actually hid.

[RandomCasualty]

1107741873[/unixtime]]Now, hold on. Where did you get the idea from that there are actually people who think they can stand there, without any special ability, and attack you with a Greatsword while they are hiding?

People have been saying that the whole thread. To which I've disagreed. But the majority of the thread has been about combat hiding. Not the kind where you just lay down and remain still, but the kind where you're actively in a fight and hiding at the same time.

[Oberoni]

I do know that people have said that a rogue should be able to run out of a hiding spot, into open ground, and whack an opponent in the liver before he knows what's going on.

Also, there seems to be some talk about a rogue simply being able to continually bob and weave to avoid falling into the sight of his opponent.

I don't know if this is what you meant when you talk about "invisihide."

[Murtak]

I have no problem with someone actually lying on the ground or whatever to hide. I do have a problem when he's swinging his sword and declaring he's "hiding" at the same time. That's bullshit. And that's what invisihide is. People want to be swinging a fvcking greatsword and hiding at the same time.

No. People say it should be possible to hide, attack, then rehide somehow. You say "you cannot hide while attacking". There is a huge difference between spending most of your time hiding, trying to fit in the odd attack and simply going invisible without actually attempting to hide.

If some rogue wants to actually stay hidden the entire time while he is trading full attacks he better be an epic character or it will simply never work - and I am not even sure we are ever given rules for trying to pull this stunt. Combat hiding however is decently covered. Bluff, then hide at -10, meaning you need a hiding place or proper camouflage. Feel free to slap on another -5 or -10 if you feel the rogue is missing a decent camouflage kit for his surroundings or if the area is especially featureless.

And amazingly, even in the screwed up world of DnD skills the ability to pull off stunts like that comes at appropriate levels. You can reliably combat hide from opponents without bluff or spot at 10ish level and actually turning invisible is reserved for "well into epic"-territory.

@Murtak:
Those numbers are way out of whack, though. Using those, the same guy, minus torches and with invisibility would still have to make a DC 50 to hide from a nearsighted peasant. Yes, the DM should apply circumstance modifiers to the roll, but they're not covered in the rules -- they're entirely subjective.

Yes, he would have to make a DC 50 check to hide without attempting to hide AND after attacking said peasant. If he is actually trying to make his hiding trick work it goes down to needing a 30 hide instead - which sounds pretty reasonable to me.

And there's still nothing stopping the rogue from hiding at the edge of town and strolling through town shouting, "I'm hiding!" since he wasn't observed when he actually hid.

What does this have to do with the act of hiding?

[RandomCasualty]

1107768925[/unixtime]]
No. People say it should be possible to hide, attack, then rehide somehow. You say "you cannot hide while attacking". There is a huge difference between spending most of your time hiding, trying to fit in the odd attack and simply going invisible without actually attempting to hide.

3.0 hide had a modifier where you could hide while charging.

Yes, I'm serious about that. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Charging. As in flailing about madly with your greatsword, no cover, no concealment. fucking charging. And there wasn't even a modifier for attacking while hiding in 3.0, that's how shitty the hide rules were. And there was nothing in the rules that said attacking made you unhide.

So, really I just don't see how the 3.0 hide rules can be put up as any kind of good example at all. They sucked ass, and arguing that they were somehow better than the 3.5 rules is just crazy.

[Essence]

3.0 hide had a modifier where you could hide while charging...Charging. As in flailing about madly with your greatsword, no cover, no concealment. fvcking charging

First of all, there is no flavor text associated with charging. You are making up the "flailing about madly" aspect of a charge. I can easily visualize a charge action being taken by ducking low, weaving back and forth (within your 5' wide path of movement, of course), and then attacking at the last second without making any kind of sound or gesture other than stabbing something with your knife.

Furthermore, the Hide modifier while charging is defined as "practically impossible", which means you have to have 10 ranks in Hide to even attempt it. And the note under "practically impossible" specifically says:

Just remember that characters with very high skill modifiers are capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just as characters with very high combat bonuses are.

So, you have to be a ninja. You have to be at least 7th level (the same level, notice, that wizards get Improved Invis), and you have to make a Hide check with a penalty that, at it's absolutely most favorable, totally negates the d20 and forces you to compare yout Dex+10 ranks in Hide vs. your opponent's Wis+Spot+1d20. At level 7, that means a 1st level commoner with a Wisdom of three and no Spot ranks still has a 10% chance of seeing you coming, and your average 1st-level warrior sees you coming half the time.

Is it really overpowered at 7th level to have a 50% chance of hide-charging a 1st level warrior when you roll a 20 on your Hide check?

Not to mention that you have to make Move Silently checks at the same penalty at the same time. How is this so uber that you can't tolerate it?

[Username17]

Somebody has to play Tenchu: Return from Darkness. Yeah, you can charge people while hiding. It's not even that complcated. You just sneak up to a place that they can't see you, and then run over and cut their throat out before they figure out what's going on. Or you start standing on top of a building and then jump down on the fool with your knives out.

Nobody actually sees you charging, and in the second example, noone hears you either. In what way are you not charging and hiding?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107802031[/unixtime]]Somebody has to play Tenchu: Return from Darkness. Yeah, you can charge people while hiding. It's not even that complcated. You just sneak up to a place that they can't see you, and then run over and cut their throat out before they figure out what's going on. Or you start standing on top of a building and then jump down on the fool with your knives out.

Nobody actually sees you charging, and in the second example, noone hears you either. In what way are you not charging and hiding?

IN what way are you not hiding? Because if the other guy survives the attack, he can now see you. If you were hiding he wouldn't be able to see you.

Gaining surprise on a charge because you were hiding previously is different from hiding while you're charging.

What you're talking about is simply getting surprise, and hide can let you do that, but the moment you actually break cover and make a surprise attack, you're no longer hiding. Then your opponents are aware of you.

You seem to want to think that for some odd reason you have to be hiding up until you actually thrust the dagger into someone. Well, you don't. As long as you're close enough to charge them, you still get surprise out of it.

[Username17]

Because if the other guy survives the attack, he can now see you.

No. He can't. If he survives, he can turn around and see you if you are still there. That's not the same thing at all.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107819540[/unixtime]]
No. He can't. If he survives, he can turn around and see you if you are still there. That's not the same thing at all.

Yeah it is. Rehiding is another action. But when you attack you do unhide until you hide again. So there's no need to be able to be hidden while you charge.

[Murtak]

You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. At more than one-half and up to your full speed, you suffer a –5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while running or charging.

What do these lines have to do with attacking anyways? That looks like a statement about the effects of fast movement on hide checks to me. As far as I can see there is nothing in hte hide skill that allows you to hide while attacking. You can hide up until right before your attack and with leftover actions you can hide after your attacks, Given the lack of facing in DnD you will also need to make a bluff check to hide while observed.

So you can:
1: partial charge at -20 hide (possibly gaining surprise, sneak attack and the likes)
2: take a move action to bluff
3: take a standard action to hide fast (-10 or worse)

And to do this you also need 3.0 haste. In 3.5 it looks to me as the best you can do using the "hide while charging" rule is to gain 2 single attacks, one of them with sneak attack, against your opponents full attack.

[Thoth_Amon]

Gaining surprise on a charge because you were hiding previously is different from hiding while you're charging.

What you're talking about is simply getting surprise, and hide can let you do that, but the moment you actually break cover and make a surprise attack, you're no longer hiding. Then your opponents are aware of you.

Hide can let you get surprise.

The moment you break cover, by the erratted rules, you are no longer hiding and thus you might not be eligible for your assumed surprise attack. The surprise attack is only a surprise if you remain hidden until the attack actually takes takes place. Thus the hiding while charging number.

I agree that after your attack your opponent is aware of you and you should have to spend a round making a clean bluff/hide action to re-establish your hiding status. However I do not agree that if you are hiding using some obfuscation technique that you are boned of your sneak damage the moment you step out to stick the shiv in someone.

***

There is no facing, so all of this BS about I look at the ceiling or I drop on him from the roof two stories up is just fluff. The rule needs to actually work rather than having a character have to go through all of the motions just in case. (I look up, I look down, I look all around. Move 5 feet. I look up, I look down, I look all around. blah blah blah.) Now I need to run an errand and pick a peck of snide in dark and gloomy snide feed that was almost 9 miles wide.

It would be one thing if they made it harder to make a hide based sneak attacker, but I agree that the new rules simply make hiding impossible. I run around the corner and hide is a fucking joke. I liked it better when I made my roll and my character jumped in a trashcan. Or I ran around a tree and slid under a pile of leaves like I was sliding into home plate and poof.

Now a clean battlemat is the death knell for any rogue who attacks every other round using sneak attack damage and hiding to be a factor in combat.

Now you have to take horrible PrC's to get Hide in Plain sight to be decent at what you basically train your whole life to do --Assuming you are maintaining max ranks as most of the examples in this thread indicate.

TA

[Username17]

1107822010[/unixtime]]

1107819540[/unixtime]]
No. He can't. If he survives, he can turn around and see you if you are still there. That's not the same thing at all.

Yeah it is. Rehiding is another action. But when you attack you do unhide until you hide again. So there's no need to be able to be hidden while you charge.

And that's where we get the bullshit I'm talking about. See, in the real world, noone automatically sees you just because you hit them in the back of the head with a hammer - quite the opposite! Walking up behind someone and hitting them in the back of the head (surprise round), and then slamming them again and again before they recover their wits and turn around (full attack after winning initiative) isn't even difficult. Or unusual. Let alone being incredible.

In the 3e rules as written, running up and stabbing some fool in the back and then running away again or finishing your opponent off before he can turn around is already too difficult. -20 for that manuver is absurd, because real people who are in no way equivalent in power to even a single basilisk pull this shit off every day.

The -20 penalty to hide-charge is way too large. Like, so damn huge that only high-level people can do it at all, when it should be a plausible tactic for idle street hoodlums. I'm not saying that it should always work for low level characters, but right now it never works - which is crazy.

Nerfing it more is exactly the wrong direction.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

1107790934[/unixtime]]3.0 hide had a modifier where you could hide while charging.

You make it sound like a -20 modifier isn't enough to show how difficult that is. Ever see Spiderman 2?

Spidey swoops in on a line outta nowhere and knocks guys flat at least 3 times. That's definitely a charge. Spidey's definitely hidden the whole time, the movie viewer doesn't even see him.

OK, it's a movie, not "real life." But I like movies, and I think most of us play RPG's at least in part to do the stuff we see in movies. if your game doesn't let you do the purely physical, non-magical things Spiderman can do, your game sucks. I'd like D&D not to suck.

[Zherog]

1107826285[/unixtime]]
Now I need to run an errand and pick a peck of snide in dark and gloomy snide feed that was almost 9 miles wide.

I love Dr. Seuss.

[RandomCasualty]

1107849704[/unixtime]]
In the 3e rules as written, running up and stabbing some fool in the back and then running away again or finishing your opponent off before he can turn around is already too difficult. -20 for that manuver is absurd, because real people who are in no way equivalent in power to even a single basilisk pull this shit off every day.

Why is it you look at things from the most twisted perspective? When you hide, you aren't hiding from just the guy you hit. Get that through your head please. Wound shock is totally fucking irrelevant.

If there are ten guys and you hit one, you go invisible to ALL of them. You have to hide against ALL of them. Sure maybe it seems rational to you when you create a sculpted best case scenario, but consider the case where you have some outside observer who doesn't actually get hit, and it makes no sense at all.

Hide isnt' a directed action. You hide, you hide from everyone, or in 3.5, everyone you have cover or concealment against. This BS about hitting someone and being able to hide beacuse of wound shock is BS.

If you want to simulate wound shock, that would be a penalty to the other guy's spot checks, or simply not counting him as an observer for the purposes of hiding.

In no way should that be factored onto the hide check. It's clearly a modifier to the spot check.

Here let me draw a diagram.

A -------------> B


O

A charges out at B, going say 30'. O is an observer just watching. Now, if you think that you should be able to hide and charge, you're saying that A should be able to cross that 30' without any cover or concealment, launch an actual attack on B and still remain hidden, again without cover or concealment.

If you want hide to work that way, then you need to be able to hide from O too, and he has no wound shock or any other mitigating circumstances, he's just a guy observing you. And he should damn well see A.