How the fuck does Hiding work? [D&D 3e]

[CatharzGodfoot]

First I'll quote the SRD:

Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover 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 (such 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 made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.

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.

Creating a Diversion to Hide

You can use Bluff to help you hide. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you.

See also: epic usages of Hide.

Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

Special

If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Hide checks.

A 13th-level ranger can attempt a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t grant cover or concealment. A 17th-level ranger can do this even while being observed.

---

Some things are a little bit unclear. First and foremost is what being hidden actually means. I'm going to assume that it includes the following two effects:
[*]Total concealment:

You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

[*]If a creature if successfully hidden from you, you have explicitly failed locate it via the Spot skill. You have to use other means, like Listen, Search, or blindsense if you want to find it. You can, of course, just guess. On a battle mat, you don't get to see where the hidden creature's miniature it placed.

Those seem pretty trivial, but it's important to know exactly what being hidden means.

---

When do you get (have) to make a Hide check? When do you get (have) to make a Spot check?
It's not clear from the SRD, but the logical conclusion is that whenever you perform an action that can include a hide check, you can make one. If you choose not to, you cease to be hiding. Similarly, any time you have to make a new hide check, everyone else gets to make a new spot check. This includes all actions, not just move actions.

Before I continue, I'd like to address another sticky point:

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.

Here I consider "observing" yo mean 'have successfully made a Spot check to find you'. Clearly the only way to adjudicate this is to interpret it as 'If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide from them'. After all, if you have an ally with a very good Spot skill, she will most likely always be 'observing' you. In the degenerate case, you are a "person". It is absurd to think that you must limit your own Spot check to avoid disrupting your ability to hide by seeing yourself.
Being unable to hide from a certain person, in this case, should be taken as that person automatically succeeding at her Spot check.

With that out of the way, we can consider multiple hide checks and multiple spot checks.

---

An example: The Alley Ambush
To avoid issues relating to one's ability to hide, consider this to take place in an area of shadowy illumination.

Betsy the Necromancer (Spot -1) has just wandered into a dark alley on her way home from the tavern. Her old enemy, Sheila Shadowstalker (Hide +10), has been lurking, waiting for just this opportunity. Little does she know, however, that Betsy's buddy Amy the Liontooth Barbarian (Spot +3) is just about to round the corner.

Sheila has been hiding in the alley. She's been here for a while, so she took 20 on her check. This means that Betsy stands no chance of spotting her immediately (max roll 19 vs. DC 30). She waits for Betsy to walk past, and then steps forward to strike (a move action at half speed) just as Amy rounds the corner.

At this point, Sheila has to make a new hide check at no penalty. She rolls a 9, setting the base DC at 19. Betsy and Amy both get to make spot checks. This is where things get confusing: The movement allows one Hide check, but Sheila is moving 15'. The DC to spot her is changing while she moves! It gets more difficult (increasing to 21) for Amy, and less difficult (moving back down to 19) for Betsy.

So, what DC do you use? Based on D&D's general goal to shaft people who sneak without magic, I'm just going to arbitrarily say that you always use the lowest DC. This means that it's 19 for Amy (because she starts next to Sheila) and also 19 for Betsy (because she ends up next to Sheila).

Betsy rolls her spot check, and gets a 15-1 = 14: not good enough. Amy is luckier, and rolls 17 + 3 = 20. She spots Betsy, and shouts out a warning (as a non action interrupt).

Within range, Sheila gets down to business and tries to take off Betsy's head with an ax. This standard attack action forces her to make another hide check, this time at -20. Sheila's player makes a prayer to Olidammara, blows on her dice, and rolls a natural 20. The DC to spot her is 10 for Betsy and 12 for Amy. Amy automatically succeeds at her Spot check, however, because she's already 'observing' Sheila. Betsy rolls a lucky 11-1=10, succeeding.

Sheila is revealed! So, does this mean that Betsy isn't flat-footed for the attack? No, because she wasn't flat footed when the attack action began: she noticed Sheila after the ax made its deadly swing.

I'll end the story here because I believe my point was made.

---

Example 2: The Sniper
Dennis is taking pot shots at his neighbor from behind a bush. Dennis is hidden with a DC of 14 (which the neighbor, 30' away, has not beat). Dennis takes his shot as a standard attack action, which forces a Hide check at -20. He somehow gets a result of 9, and his unobservant neighbor fails to beat that with a result of 4 and stands around clutching his head and looking dumb.

Next round, Dennis tries more of the same. He shoots and makes his Hide check at -20, getting a -8. His neighbor rolls a 7, and spots him ('You little fucker, I'm gonna-'). Dennis decides that he's sniping, and immediately gets to make another Hide check even though he's being observed. The ability to snipe makes no sense outside of this context: Why would you grant a for another chance to see you? He rolls, at -20, a 2. The neighbor gets a -1, and searches the bush wondering where the hell that brat has gone.

---

This is basically just my attempt to make sense of the rules. If I've fucked things up, please poke holes in my reasoning. I dimly recall Frank already coving a lot of these issues, but with all the nerfing to the skill and the ambiguities it's a bit confusing what's still possible.

[ubernoob]

The reason every rogue should always have a tower shield:

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check.

However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so.

I can't seem to find the part where the hide skill actually hides your equipment, but if hiding only works while unarmed and naked who gives a shit anyways.

My point being, the hide rules are stupid and you should just houserule them to however you want them to be.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I can't seem to find the part where the hide skill actually hides your equipment, but if hiding only works while unarmed and naked who gives a shit anyways.

My point being, the hide rules are stupid and you should just houserule them to however you want them to be.

Your equipment is, by default, part of 'you'. If you're hidden, so are your attended items.

And yeah, that's a pretty clear expression of how dumb the rules for hiding are (although remember the massive penalty to hide checks given by the shield). Never the less, I'd like to know how the rules 'work'. They are, after all, the rules.

---

Another option for the effects of actions on hide/spot checks:
You only normally make Hide checks as part of movement. When a non-movement action (e.g. attacking) reduces your hide check, compare the previous Spot results against the previous Hide check modified by the new penalty.

[K]

The rules don't work. The designers don't know how they work, the players don't know, and attempts by both to clarify are doomed to fail.

Just toss it in the pile with illusion, charm, diplomacy, and all the other things in DnD that are almost entirely made of houserules.

[spasheridan]

When do you get (have) to make a Hide check? When do you get (have) to make a Spot check?
It's not clear from the SRD, but the logical conclusion is that whenever you perform an action that can include a hide check, you can make one. If you choose not to, you cease to be hiding. Similarly, any time you have to make a new hide check, everyone else gets to make a new spot check. This includes all actions, not just move actions.

I think this is where you lost it. My understanding was that hiding happened as you moved.

Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

So, in the alley scenario, you hide when you move but not when you attack. After you attack you are no longer hidden - but your opponent was flat footed when the attack started.

In the snipe scenario, same thing. You hide at normal, then attack. If your hide check beat your opponent's spot the defender is flat footed. After the attack you can hide again with the sniper rule at -20.

[CatharzGodfoot]

When do you get (have) to make a Hide check? When do you get (have) to make a Spot check?
It's not clear from the SRD, but the logical conclusion is that whenever you perform an action that can include a hide check, you can make one. If you choose not to, you cease to be hiding. Similarly, any time you have to make a new hide check, everyone else gets to make a new spot check. This includes all actions, not just move actions.

I think this is where you lost it. My understanding was that hiding happened as you moved.

The skill description clearly states that it's possible to remain hidden while attacking or charging:

It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

While charging could legitimately be considered a 'move', attacking clearly isn't.

Clearly, there must be some way to remain hidden while executing various kinds of attacks, both melee and ranged. Sniping isn't it: As you say, it's a move equivalent action that you use to hide yourself after the attack.

Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

So, in the alley scenario, you hide when you move but not when you attack. After you attack you are no longer hidden - but your opponent was flat footed when the attack started.

In the snipe scenario, same thing. You hide at normal, then attack. If your hide check beat your opponent's spot the defender is flat footed. After the attack you can hide again with the sniper rule at -20.

The problem with this is that it directly contradicts the claim in paragraph 1 that you can remain hidden while attacking or charging. The idea that you can only hide as part of a move or as special exceptions (such as sniping), but can remain hidden during an attack (or charge)--but with greater difficulty--was where the idea of retroactively penalizing the check came from.

[Danchild]

The mosquito bite skill trick adds more confusion. Namely you make an attack (sometimes penalising your hide check), but then the subject reacts as though they were not struck. Unfortunately, they still notice an attack...Which becomes even more confusing when coupled with the sniping rules. Regardless of the sucess of the attack, the subjects friends are aware of the successful attack, even if the subject is not.

The rules also seems to prevent hiding in a crowd, such as on a busy street or a crowded marketplace. Unless the term observed means something other than what I think it means.

So no chance of Assassins Creed style blade in the crowd antics, not without houserules anyway.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think the nature of hiding means that if you're successful, the attack won't be witnessed--but the damage most likely will if it's detected as it normally would be (e.g. a person holding her guts in and screaming).

Creating hidden, unfelt wounds and silencing strikes is within the realm of special abilities. You could, however, make a whirlwind attack which results in a small crowd toppling over with no assailant in sight.

You can make a Hide check at -30 to hide an adjacent character. This could quite possibly include somebody you just shiv'd. Unless you can somehow restrain them, though, they can reappear at will. Similarly, once somebody is dead they're an object: You can hide their body with Hide or Sleight of Hand as normal.

[Psychic Robot]

The rules don't work. The designers don't know how they work, the players don't know, and attempts by both to clarify are doomed to fail.

Just toss it in the pile with illusion, charm, diplomacy, and all the other things in DnD that are almost entirely made of houserules.

This.

[hogarth]

First, K is absolutely right; the rules don't really make sense, and you have to house rule the hell out of them. Having said that, it's possible to see some of Wizards of the Coast's house rules on the subject (namely the FAQ)...

Some things are a little bit unclear. First and foremost is what being hidden actually means. I'm going to assume that it includes the following two effects:
[*]Total concealment:

You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

[*]If a creature if successfully hidden from you, you have explicitly failed locate it via the Spot skill. You have to use other means, like Listen, Search, or blindsense if you want to find it. You can, of course, just guess. On a battle mat, you don't get to see where the hidden creature's miniature it placed.

Those seem pretty trivial, but it's important to know exactly what being hidden means.

The 3.0 FAQ says that "being unseen due to darkness is just like being invisible", so you can use some of those rules.

When do you get (have) to make a Hide check? When do you get (have) to make a Spot check?
It's not clear from the SRD, but the logical conclusion is that whenever you perform an action that can include a hide check, you can make one. If you choose not to, you cease to be hiding. Similarly, any time you have to make a new hide check, everyone else gets to make a new spot check. This includes all actions, not just move actions.

I agree with that logic.

Before I continue, I'd like to address another sticky point:

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.

Here I consider "observing" yo mean 'have successfully made a Spot check to find you'.

Not according to the FAQ; it suggests that once you've finished attacking, you're being observed (whether you successfully hid while attacking with a -20 penalty or not).

With that out of the way, we can consider multiple hide checks and multiple spot checks.

---

An example: The Alley Ambush
To avoid issues relating to one's ability to hide, consider this to take place in an area of shadowy illumination.

Betsy the Necromancer (Spot -1) has just wandered into a dark alley on her way home from the tavern. Her old enemy, Sheila Shadowstalker (Hide +10), has been lurking, waiting for just this opportunity. Little does she know, however, that Betsy's buddy Amy the Liontooth Barbarian (Spot +3) is just about to round the corner.

Sheila has been hiding in the alley. She's been here for a while, so she took 20 on her check.

According to the FAQ, you can't take 20 on an opposed skill check (since there's a penalty for failure. But for sake of argument, let's say that she rolled a 20.

This means that Betsy stands no chance of spotting her immediately (max roll 19 vs. DC 30). She waits for Betsy to walk past, and then steps forward to strike (a move action at half speed) just as Amy rounds the corner.

At this point, Sheila has to make a new hide check at no penalty. She rolls a 9, setting the base DC at 19. Betsy and Amy both get to make spot checks. This is where things get confusing: The movement allows one Hide check, but Sheila is moving 15'. The DC to spot her is changing while she moves! It gets more difficult (increasing to 21) for Amy, and less difficult (moving back down to 19) for Betsy.

So, what DC do you use? Based on D&D's general goal to shaft people who sneak without magic, I'm just going to arbitrarily say that you always use the lowest DC. This means that it's 19 for Amy (because she starts next to Sheila) and also 19 for Betsy (because she ends up next to Sheila).

Shafting aside, it makes a certain amount of logical sense. If a mosquito moves from 50' away to 2' away, when are you the most likely to spot it?

Betsy rolls her spot check, and gets a 15-1 = 14: not good enough. Amy is luckier, and rolls 17 + 3 = 20. She spots Betsy, and shouts out a warning (as a non action interrupt).

Within range, Sheila gets down to business and tries to take off Betsy's head with an ax. This standard attack action forces her to make another hide check, this time at -20. Sheila's player makes a prayer to Olidammara, blows on her dice, and rolls a natural 20. The DC to spot her is 10 for Betsy and 12 for Amy. Amy automatically succeeds at her Spot check, however, because she's already 'observing' Sheila. Betsy rolls a lucky 11-1=10, succeeding.

Sheila is revealed! So, does this mean that Betsy isn't flat-footed for the attack? No, because she wasn't flat footed when the attack action began: she noticed Sheila after the ax made its deadly swing.

"Flat-footed" (which mostly applies to not having acted in initiative, plus a few other isolated situations -- it has nothing to do with being unseen, generally) probably isn't the phrase you want here; the clunky "denied Dex bonus to AC" is standard. Of course, she may be flat-footed as well if initiative hasn't started yet.

I'll end the story here because I believe my point was made.

---

Example 2: The Sniper
Dennis is taking pot shots at his neighbor from behind a bush. Dennis is hidden with a DC of 14 (which the neighbor, 30' away, has not beat). Dennis takes his shot as a standard attack action, which forces a Hide check at -20. He somehow gets a result of 9, and his unobservant neighbor fails to beat that with a result of 4 and stands around clutching his head and looking dumb.

Next round, Dennis tries more of the same. He shoots and makes his Hide check at -20, getting a -8. His neighbor rolls a 7, and spots him ('You little fucker, I'm gonna-'). Dennis decides that he's sniping, and immediately gets to make another Hide check even though he's being observed.

That's not how I understand it. I think you only make one Hide check; it's just an improved version of hiding while attacking, in the sense that you never reveal your location (in exchange for costing a move action to perform).

[CatharzGodfoot]

The 3.0 FAQ says that "being unseen due to darkness is just like being invisible", so you can use some of those rules.

Good to know.

With that out of the way, we can consider multiple hide checks and multiple spot checks.

---

An example: The Alley Ambush
To avoid issues relating to one's ability to hide, consider this to take place in an area of shadowy illumination.

Betsy the Necromancer (Spot -1) has just wandered into a dark alley on her way home from the tavern. Her old enemy, Sheila Shadowstalker (Hide +10), has been lurking, waiting for just this opportunity. Little does she know, however, that Betsy's buddy Amy the Liontooth Barbarian (Spot +3) is just about to round the corner.

Sheila has been hiding in the alley. She's been here for a while, so she took 20 on her check.

According to the FAQ, you can't take 20 on an opposed skill check (since there's a penalty for failure. But for sake of argument, let's say that she rolled a 20.

I take issue at 'penalty for failure'. In the sense outlined in the skills chapter of the PHB, it seems to indicate that something bad happens when you fail the skill check: you ruin the cake batter, fall off the cliff, piss off the queen, or drown in the river. When you take 20 to hide, you just move around until you find the best hiding spot and then stay there. There's no penalty for failing, because there's nobody to spot you until after you've taken 20 (or spent 20 move-equivalent actions trying to roll a 20).

The opposed check issue might make sense; I wasn't aware of that rule. However, it isn't a normal opposed skill check (in that two characters roll skills and the best roll wins). In this case you roll a skill check which sets the DCs for future skill checks which may or may not be made buy some unknown number of other characters.

This means that Betsy stands no chance of spotting her immediately (max roll 19 vs. DC 30). She waits for Betsy to walk past, and then steps forward to strike (a move action at half speed) just as Amy rounds the corner.

At this point, Sheila has to make a new hide check at no penalty. She rolls a 9, setting the base DC at 19. Betsy and Amy both get to make spot checks. This is where things get confusing: The movement allows one Hide check, but Sheila is moving 15'. The DC to spot her is changing while she moves! It gets more difficult (increasing to 21) for Amy, and less difficult (moving back down to 19) for Betsy.

So, what DC do you use? Based on D&D's general goal to shaft people who sneak without magic, I'm just going to arbitrarily say that you always use the lowest DC. This means that it's 19 for Amy (because she starts next to Sheila) and also 19 for Betsy (because she ends up next to Sheila).

Shafting aside, it makes a certain amount of logical sense. If a mosquito moves from 50' away to 2' away, when are you the most likely to spot it?

Glad to hear that you agree. In a game that uses a lot of immediate interrupts, it's actually be relevant exactly where in the move the character becomes visible, so it might be worth stating that technically, the character becomes visible only at that moment when the DC drops enough.

Before I continue, I'd like to address another sticky point:

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.

Here I consider "observing" yo mean 'have successfully made a Spot check to find you'.

Not according to the FAQ; it suggests that once you've finished attacking, you're being observed (whether you successfully hid while attacking with a -20 penalty or not).

I'll end the story here because I believe my point was made.

---

Example 2: The Sniper
Dennis is taking pot shots at his neighbor from behind a bush. Dennis is hidden with a DC of 14 (which the neighbor, 30' away, has not beat). Dennis takes his shot as a standard attack action, which forces a Hide check at -20. He somehow gets a result of 9, and his unobservant neighbor fails to beat that with a result of 4 and stands around clutching his head and looking dumb.

Next round, Dennis tries more of the same. He shoots and makes his Hide check at -20, getting a -8. His neighbor rolls a 7, and spots him ('You little fucker, I'm gonna-'). Dennis decides that he's sniping, and immediately gets to make another Hide check even though he's being observed.[/spoiler]

That's not how I understand it. I think you only make one Hide check; it's just an improved version of hiding while attacking, in the sense that you never reveal your location (in exchange for costing a move action to perform).

So what's the point of hiding during an attack (at -20) if you automagically become "observed" after making it? Does it do anything?

[hogarth]

So what's the point of hiding during an attack (at -20) if you automagically become "observed" after making it? Does it do anything?

I think the idea is that if your rogue fails to hide while attacking, then that attack isn't a sneak attack at all (rather than being a sneak attack but revealing the rogue afterwards). With that interpretation, backstabbing once initiative has started is really tough unless you pimp your Hide skill to an obscene degree.

I'm not saying it's a good interpretation, but that's what I gather from the FAQ.

[RandomCasualty2]

The rules don't work. The designers don't know how they work, the players don't know, and attempts by both to clarify are doomed to fail.

Just toss it in the pile with illusion, charm, diplomacy, and all the other things in DnD that are almost entirely made of houserules.

I have yet to find an RPG with a good stealth system.

[Username17]

Just to buy some more tickets for the crazy train, consider the encounter distance rules in the DMG. Those actually are distance dependent and not binary at all.

You compare your Spot and Hide values and thedifference determines how far away the enemy is before you spot them. I mean, those rules don't work at all (especially in-doors), but the point is that's a completely different method of doing things. Another completely different way of doing things.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Alright, so how do you house rule the stealth system? Clearly you must have; you've played D&D!

[Psychic Robot]

Alright, so how do you house rule the stealth system? Clearly you must have; you've played D&D!

Roll when it seems appropriate.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Alright, so how do you house rule the stealth system? Clearly you must have; you've played D&D!

Roll when it seems appropriate.

Damn'. I was hoping that you hadn't stumbled across my secret method.

[Archmage]

You know, my initial reaction to the ability to hide behind a tower shield was "what the hell, no, I realize the rules say that, but that ought to be changed." Then it occurred to me that it wouldn't be much of a stretch that some people might paint tower shields with camouflage patterns or whatever specifically so that they could drop it and hide behind it. You shouldn't have to "equip" it to do so and therefore it shouldn't penalize your hide check--at that rate, it might allow a bonus in the right environment. Carrying around something to facilitate hiding is totally logical.

I mean, come on, it works for this guy:

[A Man In Black]

I mean, come on, it works for this guy:

The cardboard box disguise is going to be out of tone for a lot of games, heh.

[Crissa]

So hide in a shrubbery.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

There really should be a disguise self/chameleon/invisibility type spell that disguises you as something appropriate to the environment. I mean, sure, you can use silent image to put a cardboard box around yourself, but how about being a mop?

[hogarth]

There really should be a disguise self/chameleon/invisibility type spell that disguises you as something appropriate to the environment. I mean, sure, you can use silent image to put a cardboard box around yourself, but how about being a mop?

The old spell Massmorph used to do that, sort of (everyone would be disguised as trees, a la Macbeth).

[baduin]

I have created a variant of True20, which included reworked stealth rules.The whole rules can be found here:

http://true20.wikidot.com/true20-fantasy-variant

I think those rules make more sense than original D&D rules. Unfortunately, they are still too complicated to be really useful.