Hide Errata-ed again....

[User3]

See also this thread. If you must.

--d.

[RandomCasualty]

1107326072[/unixtime]]Are you somehow under the mistaken impression that the "hide in plain sight" character has no basis in source material? It does. Frankly, if I'm a 20th level Rogue surrounded by people who can ask gods for favors and destroy the world with a little preparation, I'd better be able to freakin' disappear *real* well. If that means your estimations of what is possible are a little disturbed, then *you* need to consider that maybe reality doesn't work quite the way you think it does. Because someone who was truly amazing at hiding could probably manage to somehow stay on the backside of your head for 6 seconds if pressed.

SUre, if you're talking balance that's one thing. I agree with you that under the current power level of spellcasters, allowing rogues to do stuff like that wouldn't be broken, it'd probably be more in the direction of balance. And if it were magic the gathering or a board game, I'd probably agree that that's what hide should do.

However, this is an RPG and story and description actually counts for something. Flavor wise, I find the invisihide use to be so stupid that I'd rather find another way to handle it. I'm not saying rogues are fine as is against casters, I'm just saying that this particular solution is so distasteful and descriptively that I wouldn't implement it.

[Username17]

You would do what then? Seriously, let's look at what "Hide" means:

1> There is some part of your body which is reflecting photons directly into the eye of your opponent.

2> If you beat their Spot check with your modified hide check, they don't see you. Or at least, they don't know they see you, because they obviously see you - thanks to part 1.

So, if you find the idea of invisihide to be stupid or repugnant, you'd better fvcking remove the whole skill from your game across the board, because that's the only thing that the skill ever does under any circumstances.

They see you. Get the fvck over that. There is a clear and distinct line of sight from them to all or part of your body. Then, for whatever reason, they don't react as if they see you anyway. Either it's because you are camoed into the background, or because you aren't in the field of view that they are paying attention to, or because you have a mind field that prevents detection, or whatever excuse you want.

The fact is that Hide only has one use, and that use is to not be visually detected while being in plain view. That is the only thing it does. So if that use bothers you, remove the skill from the game. It's the only possible solution.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107369794[/unixtime]]
They see you. Get the fvck over that. There is a clear and distinct line of sight from them to all or part of your body. Then, for whatever reason, they don't react as if they see you anyway. Either it's because you are camoed into the background, or because you aren't in the field of view that they are paying attention to, or because you have a mind field that prevents detection, or whatever excuse you want.

But the "excuse" actually matters here and matters a lot. Because many of them just plain don't work in combat. When you're attacking wtih a greatsword and simultaneously "hiding", it shouldn't be possible to remain unseen. Your attention is completely on the guy who just stabbed you, and he's moving wildly about within 5'. There's just no way he's going to be unseen for an entire 6 second round. Just quite simply... no.

What I propose is that the hide skill be redefined such that you make a roll to handle stealth tasks, and not "now you see me, now you don't." crap. In fact, I don't support a battle use of it at all, short of setting up the initial ambush.

You should have stuff like "Remain undetected while remaining motionless, with cover or concealment"

"Sneak past a sentry by moving when he's not looking in your direction" and so on.

"Set up an ambush in a well forested area"

Those should be the kinds of things wtih modifiers and DC checks. It would be more of a skil this way and less of an invisibility field ability.

[Username17]

When you're attacking wtih a greatsword and simultaneously "hiding", it shouldn't be possible to remain unseen.

But it is possible. By any of a number of means.

Your attention is completely on the guy who just stabbed you,

No, your attention is entirely upon where you think the stab came from - which is in no way always clear. Let me tell you, when someone stuck a knife into my jacket, I honestly could not tell you what square they were in, and if I had taken a swing at them, it would have been a blind attack.

And of course, that's assuming there's only one person stabbing you. If there's multiple people stabbing you, your attention isn't even wholly on any of them. There's a lot of things you are trying to keep track of simultaneously.

and he's moving wildly about within 5'.

Why would he be doing that? He's trying to hit you while staying out of your field of view.

Have you ever been in combat? Fighting for your life against one or more aggressors in melee? I have. And no, you can't see everyone all the time. Six seconds and more go by where you don't have a fvcking clue where everyone is, or how many enemies you are facing.

Your basic hang-up on this issue is non-sensical. And game balance doesn't support you either. There is literally no reason why you should cling to this particular point of view. None.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107374005[/unixtime]]
No, your attention is entirely upon where you think the stab came from - which is in no way always clear. Let me tell you, when someone stuck a knife into my jacket, I honestly could not tell you what square they were in, and if I had taken a swing at them, it would have been a blind attack.

Well, in 6 seconds you could be pretty sure where the stab came from, assuming you didnt' have other problems to worry about.

And of course, that's assuming there's only one person stabbing you. If there's multiple people stabbing you, your attention isn't even wholly on any of them. There's a lot of things you are trying to keep track of simultaneously.

Yeah, but this has litlte to do wtih actual hiding skill. The people attacking you weren't trying to hide from you. They were just overwhelming you with numbers. And like I said this is more an issue of flanking and standard flat footedness than it is of hiding. Flanking takes into account multiple foes being able to distract you and then allowing for lowered defenses. ANd whenever you talk about it being hard to fight multiple guys at once, that's a flanking argument, not an argument about hide.

It's odd you keep using that particular example becaus nobody in your example was trying to hide... the thought of going unseen probably didn't play into their tactics at all. The fact that you were distracted by other attacks has nothing to do with using the hide skill.

Why would he be doing that? He's trying to hit you while staying out of your field of view.

You've got a greatsword. Assuming the greatsword misses you the first time, chances are you know where it is. Now if you get hit, you're most certainly in shock at this point. And that's different, but D&D doesn't worry about shock. WHen a guy is swigning a 6' sword at you, it's a little hard to miss. Once the initial element of surprise is gone, you're going to have a good idea of where he is, again unless you're flanked.

Have you ever been in combat? Fighting for your life against one or more aggressors in melee? I have. And no, you can't see everyone all the time. Six seconds and more go by where you don't have a fvcking clue where everyone is, or how many enemies you are facing.

Well I don't know if a fist fight is considered 'fighting for my life', but yes I've fought against one opponent before and I can say that I'm pretty sure that there's no way I'd lose track of him on open ground. He's not going to be able to just dissapear on me at any point. No way in hell.

I've never went against multiple opponents, but that's largely irrelevant because as I said, that's a flanking argument. Having multiple attackers on you does reduce your ability to defend against them.

[Username17]

Every time you get struck a good blow, you lose visual accuity. Your head moves involuntarily, your vision becomes blurred. If someone hit with a maul or greatsword and you retained conciousness, it would be extremely easy for them to vanish from your field of view, as there is a period aftersuch a blow in which it is impossible for your eyes to track them.

If someone moves fast enough and just keeps hitting you, you'll never see them at all. If anything, BAB should be opposed by Spot. But that's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue here is whether it is possible for someone to hit you in melee and subsequently have you not know where they are to within 5 feet for six seconds.

The answer to that question is unequivocably yes. That is extremely possible. You may have disagreements on how difficult that is, or how likely, or whatever. But I don't care. The question wasn't about how easy it was. The question was whether it could be done at all.

Yes. Real people do that every day. Get the fvck over it.

-Username17

[Tae_Kwon_Dan]

Let's add some fuel to the fire here. The guy with a fucking martial art in his name has lost an opponent in a one one one fight in the middle of a ring of peers while said opponent was actively trying to kick and\or punch me.

Some of that was my observational problems mostly compounded by me a) not having my glasses on and b) actively trying to kick my opponent. But it was also because my opponent was fast and dodged my kick so quickly that I "lost" them. Considering I got scored on right after that I'd say they had me flat-footed and a bonus for striking undetected.

I was far from a poor fighter in fact I was possibly the best all around non-blackbelt fighter in my class. So losing a person hitting you is not that un-realistic at all.

[Maj]

Random Casualty, why don't you want this to be possible? You are looking for reaons to make the disparity between casters and noncasters even fucking bigger. You are making casters better with every word you write because you are flat-out unwilling to allow the possible to be possible.

YOU are the one down on your knees. Stop sucking and stand up.

[RandomCasualty]

1107376200[/unixtime]]Every time you get struck a good blow, you lose visual accuity. Your head moves involuntarily, your vision becomes blurred. If someone hit with a maul or greatsword and you retained conciousness, it would be extremely easy for them to vanish from your field of view, as there is a period aftersuch a blow in which it is impossible for your eyes to track them.

This is shock from taking a blow. D&D doesn't consider that in its combat system. If you want to include a shock system where people get dazed and are unaware after getting hit with weapons then you can, and it might be realistic, but its' not the kind of heroic style fantasy that D&D is meant to represent.

Sure, it's very possible to lose enitre rounds while you're dazed after taking a blow. I don't deny that. But that's not really a part of D&D combat, and again it's not a matter of your "skill" at hiding. It's simply a matter of landing a powerful blow and throwing your opponents senses into chaos.

BUt lets remember that in this case there is not necessarily a hit. You could be a 3rd person watching this fight and the rogue would still be invisible to you. You're trying to justify hiding with all sorts of other crap that has nothing to do with it, like wound shock or flanking and whatnot. And quite simply this is how it works...

A is hiding and hits B. C observes.

A hides successfully after the attack (while in plain sight) and neither B nor C can see them. Now if anyone thinks its ok for an observer to be totally unaware of a guy 5' away who is kicking the shit out of someone, well I don't know what to say to you.

If you want an abiltiy by which you stun a foe with wound shock or you manuever around him so as to effectively make him blind to you, that'd be a fine feat. And if you want a fighting move based on that, sure that'd be ok.

Let's add some fuel to the fire here. The guy with a fvcking martial art in his name has lost an opponent in a one one one fight in the middle of a ring of peers while said opponent was actively trying to kick and\or punch me.

Yeah, but everyone else observing you didn't lose track of the guy hitting you... that's not hiding, that's wound shock you're describing.

Getting mentally stunned from pain is certainly possible, but it's just not hiding. Hiding works on everyone watching too, not just the guy that just got punched.

Random Casualty, why don't you want this to be possible? You are looking for reaons to make the disparity between casters and noncasters even fvcking bigger. You are making casters better with every word you write because you are flat-out unwilling to allow the possible to be possible.

Yes, in this case, I am going against the balanced choice and instead going with the one that makes for a better story. Telling someone that they can't see the guy who is cutting thier companion to shreds because he's "hiding" in the open is completely stupid.

At the end of the day I'm still playing a role playing game and trying to tell a story of some kind. As important as balance is, telling a coherent story is a bit more important to me.

[User3]

1107383464[/unixtime]]
At the end of the day I'm still playing a role playing game and trying to tell a story of some kind. As important as balance is, telling a coherent story is a bit more important to me.

You can have balance and a coherent story, even with high-powered wizards.

What you can't have is balance, a coherent story, and strict realism on people without the blue glow. That's something you appear to be really attached to, and, unfortunately, D&D is not really the way to provide criterion #1 (balance) alongside it.

I in no way mean this sarcastically, but it sounds to me like you are probably happiest with D&D at levels 1-2. That's pretty much the level where you can apply strict realism to everybody without spells and have it still come out sort of even -- the spells available at that level are nice, but they're more on the level of technological gadgets than super-science and sorcery.

--d.

[RandomCasualty]

I don't have so much of a problem with unrealism as I have a problem with just indescribeability. I'm ok with someone jumping 50' straight up at high levels. It's certainly unrealistic but it's not indescribeable. The same goes for beating an iron golem to death wtih your fists.

How you can't see someone who is perfectly mobile and swinging a greatsword in broad daylight with no cover and 5' away is pretty much indescribeable short of invisbility. Sooner or later in a descriptive game you're going to have to ask why it's so hard to see someone. I mean man sized object, dressed in a purple cape, in broad dayligth, with no cover or concealment at a distance of five feet? And from a story point the answer is either invisibility or some weird stupidity about how your 20th level fighter really is that blind.

And since it is effectively invisibility, the next step is flavorwise if I'd like it to be invisibility. Personally I see rogues and hiding/move silent as similar to the splinter cell and Thief series of video games. That's how I see someone sneaking into places and taking people by surprise and what a rogue should be like. And game rules IMO should have that style.

And I dont' think it's entirely impossible to balance a game using that style.

[Username17]

Some things to keep in mind:

* D&D does not have an offensive penalty for being flanked. If you are in the situation where you are being harried from multiple angles the only real mechanic the game has to deal with your resultant wild swings is concealment.

* D&D does not distinguish who you are hiding from. Maybe there should be, but as written the game doesn't distiguish hiding behind a tree between two people on opposite sides of the tree.

So perhaps we should make hide more complicated:

* Add a flanking bonus to hide.
* Add a targetted restrictability to hide - the more targets you attempt to hide from the worse your numbers will be against any one of them.

Net result: If more than one enemy is attacking you, it will be easier for any of them to slip out of your field of view. If more than one enemy is attacking you, it will be harder for you to slip out of the field of view of them.

It would be a little more complicated, but right there it would solve the whole 360 degree nature of hiding places without doing anything patently retarded like keep people from becoming unseen while fighting in melee.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

1107386843[/unixtime]]I don't have so much of a problem with unrealism as I have a problem with just indescribeability. I'm ok with someone jumping 50' straight up at high levels. It's certainly unrealistic but it's not indescribeable. The same goes for beating an iron golem to death wtih your fists.

How you can't see someone who is perfectly mobile and swinging a greatsword in broad daylight with no cover and 5' away is pretty much indescribeable short of invisbility.

Except that people have described that to you, repeatedly, in this very thread, based on real-life experiences they've had.

Nothing will ever convince you, because you refuse to acknowledge the truth. What a fun debate!

[RandomCasualty]

Well, the current hide kinda works agaisnt multiple targets since you need concealment or cover versus something to hide. Thus if you're hiding behind a tree from some group, someone on the other side can see you perfectly. If you're hiding in darkness, someone wtih darkvision can see you perfectly.

And that works pretty well. Descriptively it's how I see hide should work.

Now, in terms of creating a distraction to hide, someone swinging a sword at your back should be well enough of a distraction to allow someone to try to hide, assuming they can get behind cover or concealment. So perhaps the whole "hiding while being observed" clause could use a little work, since in combat agaisnt multiple foes your observation is at best partial.

But eliminating the cover/concealment requirement creates lots of other problems namely that you can hide from all the spectators in a one on one fighting match at the center of the ring. I think everyone can agree that's just incredibly stupid.

Now giving penalties to hide from more people isn't great because routinely you do have rangers hiding from huge numbers of orcs and such, and I wouldn't want to make it impossible to be a stealthy scout who relays troop movements back to your army. If hiding skill were modified by the number of people you're hiding from it would be virtually impossible to be a scout.

The current system actually seems to make a lot of sense to me logically. It deals with the rogue peeking around a corner, hiding in the bushes, lurking in the shadows and doing other rogue things. The lack of a facing system is about the only thing that kinda screws things up, but beyond that, it works fairly well.

[Username17]

In the current rules it is already impossible to be a scout, since the moment you have an unobstructed view of the scout - even from five miles away - you automatically see them.

And remember, if you turn on 3.5 Darkness you can still hide from everybody since you always have concealment.

But you can't look at an army and count horses from a distant mountain top and ride away because they will automatically see you.

The current belchings of stealth errata don't work at all to do things that real people with no training can physically do.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107388443[/unixtime]]
Except that people have described that to you, repeatedly, in this very thread, based on real-life experiences they've had.

Nothing will ever convince you, because you refuse to acknowledge the truth. What a fun debate!

What they're describing isn't actually hide skill at all, but flanking, wound shock and other stuff that doesn't have anything to do with hide. It's like claiming your hide skill is so possible because you can sneak past a guy in a coma without him noticing you, and really pretty meaningless.

I mean really the ultimate test of hide is this. Get in a well lit corridor with no cover, say 15-20'. Now get a chair and stare down it. Have someone else start on the opposite end of the corridor, and they must get to you without you noticing. That's a test of the hide skill wtihout cover or concealment. And you're pretty much going to find that as long as your attention is posted down that corridor, it is absolutely impossible to move down it while in plain sight without getting spotted. The corridor in fact would have to have something to hide behind (cover), or be dark or fog filled (concealment).

[RandomCasualty]

1107388833[/unixtime]]In the current rules it is already impossible to be a scout, since the moment you have an unobstructed view of the scout - even from five miles away - you automatically see them.

And remember, if you turn on 3.5 Darkness you can still hide from everybody since you always have concealment.

But you can't look at an army and count horses from a distant mountain top and ride away because they will automatically see you.

The current belchings of stealth errata don't work at all to do things that real people with no training can physically do.

Well this is why you constantly use cover and concealment. The ranger is poking his head up behind some leaves and branches, or over a hill top. WHile it's true that there could afford to be some better rules for being unseen at long distances using camouflage, more or less you can still do scout things using cover and concealment.

Though yeah, a camouflage rule for long range spotting would be nice.

[Username17]

...or just a thrown rock followed by running down the corridor. If you distract somebody, it's pretty easy to move down a 15' corridor before somebody could notice and react.

What you're describing is some Clown having a readied action - which sould probably increase spot checks or something - but you aren't even describing an impossible task. Just a difficult one.

-Username17

[Essence]

How you can't see someone who is perfectly mobile and swinging a greatsword in broad daylight with no cover and 5' away is pretty much indescribeable short of invisbility.

You are wrong. You've managed to totally ignore every single other personal testimonial everyone has made in this thread as to why you are wrong, but I'll add mine to the pile as well, and even go a step further and provide you with some flavor text AND mechanical justification along with it. Pay attention.


I was sparring with Mani Gomez, my Kobudo, Escrima, Tae Kwon Do, and Ninjistu sensei. We had six students armed with boffer swords (3), a polearm, a staff, and daggers (me). He had a boffer staff. (God the word "boffer" looks stupid after a while.)

Mani is a ninja. Straight up, he has the skillz. He could (and has) whipped my ass with boffer weapons while blindfolded. Suffice to say, he's got ranks in Hide and Move Silently. And Bluff. But he's a real dude, and this really happened.

We're sparring, and Mani's surrounded. Like usual. His move, this time, was to flip one end of his staff at my eyes. I blocked and blocked again because I know his style. When I looked back up from the low block, Mani was gone, and three of the students were charging me.

I was confused for a second, then I got it. I spun around, and swung my boffer daggers kinda blindly. Mani wasn't there. I got more confused, and then I heard Mani's kiai from behind me. I spun back around, and Tim and Geoff were recovering from getting a boffer staff to the chest. Mani still wasn't there.

Now, you figure at least six seconds has passed at this point. Keep in mind, we're in a well-lit, totally open room, and I have five allies helping me out here. What happens next?

I get disarmed. Both hands, at once. Mani has now mananged to stay behind his ever-whirling student long enough to kick two other student's asses, and now he's brought his hands down across my thumbs at the right angle to pop both boffer daggers out of my grip. And I still haven't seen him.

This isn't magic. It's skill. He has a Dex, and ranks in Hide. I have no Wisdom, and no Spot. He's a goddamn ninja, and I'm just a student.

Suffice to say, when I bent over to get my daggers, he whipped the staff into my ankles, and I ended up on my face, still not seeing him. I have no idea how he "killed" the other two students, but I didn't see him from the first move he made until he had totally won the fight.

And he didn't even have anything except me to hide behind.

I gathered later that Mani was rolling past my knees as I spun around the first time, and just stayed behind me as I spun the second time.


The problem, RC, is that you're envisioning the Hiding character as standing there like a Paladin in a ray of sunlight as he attacks, and that's stupid. You have to accept that a Hiding attacker is just like someone with Evasion: he doesn't leave his square, but that hardly means there's no room for movement within it. 5x5 is a pretty big place for a human to maneuver in, really. Combine the adrenaline of battle with the skill of the Hider, and there is lots of opportunity to simply miss someone who is actually taking advantage of his space and your lack of time to make a good scan of the area.

Change your mental image of what's happening, and you can explain the Hide thing while perfectly staying within the rules.

[RandomCasualty]

1107389573[/unixtime]]
Change your mental image of what's happening, and you can explain the Hide thing while perfectly staying within the rules.

ONly again, it's not actually going to make him undetectable by observers following the battle.

Hide makes you undetectable to pretty much everyone, unless they have extroardinarily high spot checks. And quite simply it's actually easier for people a bit farther away from the action to spot him than it is for you, which clearly says to me that it's mechanically something other than hide, since hide actually gives a benefit to people closer. Just because he does something and temporarily goes out of sight, doesn't mean its a use of hide.

Now how exactly you simulate a move like that in D&D, I'm not sure. It could be simply described as monk AC plus a hell of a lot of base attack. Possibly it could be a manuever using the tumble skill. But for it to be hide, he'd have to be invisible to everyone, including any potential audience. Otherwise it just doesn't fit the pattern of a use of the hide skill. If I had to place it in D&D, I'd call it a feint+tumble combo. It started out with a sort of attack, which resulted in no damage but caused you to lose your dex bonus to AC. So feint seems like the most likely classification.

[Essence]

I'm sorry, I generously assumed you had the imaginative capacity to extrapolate.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Vlad Taltos, anyone?

Seriously, RC, even if you're right, and it's absostinkinglutely impossible to just stand 5' away from someone, in an empty room, and hide from that person just b/c you're really, really good at hiding, why can't you do it in D&D?

Here's a list of non-magical impossible's from D&D that we ignore all the time:

1. Surviving a 5-mile fall onto a bunch of sharp sticks stuck in the ground;

2. Chopping through a 6-inch-thick block of iron with your pinkie;

3. Throwing 6 daggers in 6 seconds - while drawing the daggers from a quiver - and hitting something 50' away, each time;

4. A 3' tall guy throwing a Javelin 30' long (thank you, 3.5 weapon sizing rules);

5. Turning your worst enemy into your best friend in 6 seconds;

6. Holding your breath forever (well, not "forever," but at least until your DM gets bored).

So why not this simple thing, that lets you be cool?

[User3]

1107386843[/unixtime]]I don't have so much of a problem with unrealism as I have a problem with just indescribeability.

That doesn't seem to be the entire issue, though. I mean, take a look at the posts since then in this thread -- the discussion has revolved exclusively over whether a real person really can do this kind of thing.

If you have no problem with realism, then there really isn't a problem -- because a 20th level rogue does not necessarily need to abide by the same laws of physics that a normal human does. He runs up and jabs a dagger in the base of someone's spine -- and then the guy turns around and he can't see the person who just stabbed him, and neither can the other people watching the fight. Why not?

Well, are you indoors? Maybe he's clinging to the ceiling. Maybe he's dropped prone to the floor and covered himself with a dull gray stone-colored cloak. Maybe he feinted going in one direction after the attack -- so your eyes go that way -- and then went into a different square and is taking cover behing the body of the guy he just stabbed. Maybe he tucked and rolled between the guy's legs when he spun around.

But even those explanations show an unbecoming attachment to how things "really do" work. Maybe he's wearing an elaborately constructed ghillie suit that he built himself with his incredible level of camouflage so that whatever environment he's in, he can always blend in by twisting and turning and contorting a particular way. Maybe he's grown so expert in the arts of stealth that he can hide between the air and the floor. Maybe he reached down, ripped the fabric of reality away from the flagstones, wedged himself in under it and dropped it back down again. Maybe he's mastered the art of being so inconspicuous that people just plain don't notice him even when he's standing right in front of their face -- he's discovered the perfect combination of clothing, facial features, and expression that is so forgettable you can't remember it when you're looking right at it.

If you step away from the idea that you must obey the laws of physics -- there are literally infinite ways to explain how someone can hide right in front of you after he's just stuck a knife into you. But first you have to be willing to give up the idea that only spellcasters get to step outside that box.

--d.

[Neeek]

RC, what it seems you are missing from Ess's example is this:

There are things to hide behind in the middle of combat in an open field in the daytime. Your opponent, for example. If you want to give people who are farther away from the action ginormous bonuses because they have a good angle on the action, that's fine, but out-and-out claiming that it is impossible(or even stretching the bounds of probable) is clearly false.

EDIT:Also, claiming it is indescribable is complete redundant. You *should* find it hard to describe, since you are attempting to describe the *lack* of something. If you are trying to describe something that you are specifically *not seeing* you are going to have trouble, so stop trying.