Hide Errata-ed again....

[User3]

1107643544[/unixtime]]
From a *balance* standpoint, I don't know that there's anything wrong with a rogue having this ability. But for me, it strains believability more than Polymorph cheese.

Don't feel bad, I'm sure that plenty of other gamers find suspension of disbelief difficult when non-spellcasters actually do something worthwhile.

[grey_muse]

You're right, Frank, I am being a baby. I shouldn't've be whining about how Hide works. Except I'm not -- you are, and I'm explaining why it makes sense to work the way it does.

It's interesting that the counterexample you give, losing a dog in the woods, is one in which the dog would (by D&D standards) have concealement or cover. It isn't really germaine, though, to the example I gave: a rogue in a position where there's nowhere to hide suddenly, nonmagically disappearing.

Heck, change my example so the rogue is a prisoner, on the end of a rope leash to keep him from escaping. He just disappears, despite the fact that everyone's staring at him and he's not moving out of a 5' square, and is on THE END OF A FVCKING LEASH. But you seem to think it's ok and that they just don't realize they aren't seeing him, thus elevating the Hide skill to a form of mind control.

Since the wizard is altering the fundamental fabric of reality at higher levels and the cleric is rubbing elbows with demigods, I don't think this is really too powerful -- but I don't think it's even vaguely believable in the real world, and so it shouldn't be a regular skill usage.

@Murtak, Sma:
I agree with both of you. Actually, the Epic Level Handbook pretty much covers the use of skills to do unrealistic things, and has obscenely high DC's for them. Frankly, I hate the D&D magic system, and I'd be really interested in seeing it replaced by a skill-based or feat-based system. If you used a skill-based system, it could obviate this whole argument by just having Hide and Invisibility be the same skill.

[Murtak]

1107676051[/unixtime]]
Heck, change my example so the rogue is a prisoner, on the end of a rope leash to keep him from escaping. He just disappears, despite the fact that everyone's staring at him and he's not moving out of a 5' square, and is on THE END OF A FVCKING LEASH. But you seem to think it's ok and that they just don't realize they aren't seeing him, thus elevating the Hide skill to a form of mind control.

Ok, so you have a party rolling spot. Some of them are going to have a few ranks in spot, some are going to have some wis. Let us say at least one of them gets a spot result of 15 (20 is more likely though).

Now, the modifier for "hiding fast" is -20 if I recall correctly.. Let's just stay with the -20 though. So our rogue rogue needs at the very least a 35 on his hide check, meaning he is firmly in "hey that is magic"-land. And that is without the DM giving any modifiers because the rogue can not move from his square.

As for ways to pull that off - In your example, why do you assume the rogue just stands in the middle of the room, not moving at all? Just have him press against a wall or the ground and pull a cloak over him that is colored just like the ground (or wall). You are amazingly hard to see with the right coloring, even in good light. Why is it so hard to imagine someone pulling that trick off who is so good at hiding that he is better then a color-shifting cloak (cloak of elvenkind) and a cloaking field (invisibility gives you +20 to hide) combined? For a decent visualisation of the trick just watch LoTR, there is a scene where Frodo and Sam just drape one of their elven cloaks over them and are not seen because of it.

[grey_muse]

Yeah, but Frodo's cloak gave them concealement.

Penalty for fast hide is -10. I was figuring the party to be around 10th level, but we can use whatever numbers float your boat.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone take Spot as a cross-class skill. That may just be the people I know, but the general consensus among them is that by, say, 10th level, you're going to be completely useless compared to the person who actually has it as a class skill -- for any skill, including Spot.

Let's assume the cleric, say, has a 20 wisdom and a few cross-class ranks in spot, for a total of +9. The others, due to poor wisdom and/or no ranks, only have a +3. The rogue also has a 20 dex, and maxed ranks in Hide for a total of +18. He also gets that -10 for fast hide, for a grand total of +8.

Numbers seem reasonable so far?

If so, then the rogue has a 45% chance of not being seen by the cleric. I don't want to run the numbers on the chance of the cleric failing but someone else managing to see him, but I think it ends up being around 25.3% to go unseen. (It's worth noting that 20% of the time, *only* the cleric has any chance to see him.)

25% doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that one time in four, you're unable to see someone standing in front of you juggling torches. This is the part where I have to get up and say, "Thank you, have a nice day," which is exactly what my players would do if I pulled something like that on them.

The reason I assume he's standing there chanting, "I'm HIDING," is because that's all he has to do, by the rules. Heck, if he's on a leash with his hands tied behind his back, then he can't very well take off his cloak and use it to hide under. And per D&D rules, he can't move more than 5' (-- this is related to Evasion silliness, wherein a rogue in a 10'x10' room gets fireballed and takes no damage by "dodging out of the way.")

And he doesn't have to be wearing good camoflauge to do this. He can be naked in the middle of a field waving a neon banner ON FIRE and you're still not able to see him. All he has to do is say, "I'm hiding and my Hide 0wnz0rz your Spot, n00b."

[PhoneLobster]

And he doesn't have to be wearing good camoflauge to do this. He can be naked in the middle of a field waving a neon banner ON FIRE and you're still not able to see him. All he has to do is say, "I'm hiding and my Hide 0wnz0rz your Spot, n00b."

This, like most of your post is really misleading.

It isn't an argument between those who want rogues to be able to hide no matter what and people in favour of "reasonable modifiers for neon on fire banners".

Its an argument between people who want a rogue's hide to work EVER and people who want it to work NEVER.

Pointing out that outlandish situational modifiers are/were/(or just might be in your imagination) either vague/crap/or not present and that skill point inflation in general sucks is totally irrelevant when the position you are taking is that it should be IMPOSSIBLE for rogues to actually hide at all, ever, regardless of those modifiers/skill points.

[Murtak]

1107695368[/unixtime]]Yeah, but Frodo's cloak gave them concealement.

As opposed to the rogue's cloak in my example? Mind you, Frodo's cloak was not recognized as a cloak either - it looked just like the earth around it. And this is exactly was that example was about - how to be seen but not recognized.

1107695368[/unixtime]]<snip numbers>

If so, then the rogue has a 45% chance of not being seen by the cleric. I don't want to run the numbers on the chance of the cleric failing but someone else managing to see him, but I think it ends up being around 25.3% to go unseen. (It's worth noting that 20% of the time, *only* the cleric has any chance to see him.)

25% doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that one time in four, you're unable to see someone standing in front of you juggling torches.

No. You have a 25% chance of not seeing him if he is in his default adventuring gear. Inappropriate clothing should be at least a -5, neon clothing a -10, juggling torches a -20 on top of that and probably more of that because you keep moving your hands.

And if you want to have any chance of not being seen while juggling torches in neon clothing you are going to need something like a 20th level rogue with skill modifier items against a party with noone with ranks in spot. And those are the levels where characters chop through iron and stone, stop time, wrestle giants, shoot 2 miles and take 15 attacks in 6 seconds, which all seem pretty impossible to me too.

[Oberoni]

grey muse:

1. I take it you don't like using situational modifiers?

2. It'd be ok if the Rogue just cast Invisibility before all this, right?

[Josh_Kablack]

1107695368[/unixtime]] (-- this is related to Evasion silliness, wherein a rogue in a 10'x10' room gets fireballed and takes no damage by "dodging out of the way.")

You were on track to making a decent argument that "situational modifiers are too low" until this particular aside. You're trying to argue for logic and realism as regards Hide, but then you try to pull this crap where it's unrealistic for people to counter *magic*

Goodbye.

[RandomCasualty]

Frodo's cloak use of hide should be some of the most powerful stuff hide can do. Camouflage you against an orc a very short distance away. But being camouflaged as you attack someone in melee is crazy. At the very least they're going to see you moving. If Frodo was moving, the orc would have seen him. Only because he laid perfectly still and used proper camouflage was he able to successfully hide.

So again it takes us back to the three fundamentals of physical hiding: Cover, Concealment or camouflage. Seriously you need one of those.

Now, what I propose for high rank uses of hide is the ability to hide lots of people simultaneously. So you can help your entire party sneak into a place for instance. This promotes more stealth based stuff. I think most of the problem with people wanting invisihide is that using hide like a thief instead of the invisibile man is almost useless when you've got a guy walking around next to you in full plate, which is a legitimate concern. But it's best solved by making hide useful for the entire party, as opposed to trying to turn it into invisibility.

[Username17]

I take it that you've never seen any of the movies where the guard goes in and looks at the prisoner only to find that he's gone! And when the guard opens the cell and runs in to investigate, our ninja hero drops down off the ceiling to attack him?

Right, that's impossible, in a story, because there is nothing in the room to hide behind. That's what you're saying, and that's retarded. Your argument makes no sense.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

Heck, Princess Toadstool did that in one of my old Nintendo Powers.

And if Princess Toadstool can do it, but not Shinobi...that's just sad.

[RandomCasualty]

1107717272[/unixtime]]I take it that you've never seen any of the movies where the guard goes in and looks at the prisoner only to find that he's gone! And when the guard opens the cell and runs in to investigate, our ninja hero drops down off the ceiling to attack him?

Tends to be a use of cover. The cell door can't see the ceiling of the cell beyond, thus granting cover, and then by the time the guards have entered the ninja takes them flat footed.

Sometimes it may be darkness. Depending on torch position, the ceiling may be especially dark or whatever.

I get most of my hide/spot conclusions drawn from real life and playing stealth action games, namely splinter cell 2. That game alone gives you a much better idea what the hide skill is all about.

If you want to get an idea of what hiding and spotting is like, I advise you play that. It doesn't take the camera off of batman whenever he conviently wants to hide. The camera is on you the entire time. You get to peek around corners, stay low and to the shadows and all sorts of other cool stuff. Guys can jump at you from the ceiling and all kinda of other cool stuff. You can even run circles around the guy if you're good enough, staying out of his sight.

Playing that game will show you that hiding isn't simply a matter of putting up your "I'm hiding" sign. It's a matter of timing your movements, controling your sound, sending distractions, using cover and concealment and finding alternate entrances.

You simply can't walk down a well lit corridor and espect not to get shot. You can tell the other players you're "hiidng" but they're going to shoot you all the same.

[Username17]

Oh, shut up about Splinter Cell 2. Seriously, I don't care about it.

Regardless, once the guard runs into the room, there is no cover between him and the ninja. Does he automatically see the ninja before the ninja can atack?

Andy Collins says yes, and so did you, by claiming that having no cover or concealment made you unable to hide. Since even in Splinter Cell 2 the guards don't automatically see you before you drop on them, we have to assume that this endeavor is a win for the pro-hide camp.

Can you hide in a featureless 10'x10' room? Yes you can. This discussion should be over now.

-Username17

[grey_muse]

Let me reiterate: I don't have a problem with the level of power, just the believability. If you say anything above DC 25 or 30 is inherently magical, then I'm fine with it, though it should probably be (Su) at that point.

Oberoni, I do use situational modifiers, but they're not there as written. It's DM fiat what kind of modifiers get applied for "Gee, that's unbelievably difficult," and "unbelievably difficult", as I think is obvious from the conversation, is pretty subjective.

It would be ok with me if the rogue were, in fact, invisible. The idea of an invisible light source has always kind of bothered me, but if I write it off to magic, it's ok.

If you want to have nonmagical events that occur that strain the bounds of realism, great. That's what high level nonmagical characters should be able to do. At some point, though, it just becomes too much to be believable without magic. It's the difference between John Henry and Paul Bunyan -- John Henry is legend, Paul Bunyan is myth.

Regarding the hero-ninja example, D&D just doesn't model this well, in any edition. You could use opposed Spot and Hide checks, sure, but what if that ninja is an NPC and the PC says, "I look up as I walk in the room, to make sure there's nothing on the ceiling." Either he sees him automatically, or he somehow doesn't, but then how can you explain that? He could've been in the shadow in the corner of the ceiling, but then he's got concealment anyway, per 3.5 rules.

I was going to say he's just high enough level that he had Hide in Plain Sight, but then I realized that Rogues don't get it. Rangers do, and rogues don't. I'd somehow convinced myself that in 3.5, they got it as a special ability. Meh.

Josh: The dig at Evasion is the only problem I have with the ability, and it's really a relic of D&D movement -- that same system that lets you end your movement mid-jump over a pit, because you don't have enough movement left to finish falling to the ground. It really would make more sense it, on Evading an area-filling effect like a fireball, you just ended up at the edge of the effect (having dodged it) but that's not the way the system works.

[RandomCasualty]

You get people flatfooted on the opening attack. SO if you're sitting there with a readied action on the ceiling and drop down, it doens't matter if they saw you or not. It's still considered a surprise attack. After you hit them (assumign they're still conscious) they'll know where you are. Yeah they'd know that in the movie too.

D&D doesn't really care if you saw the guy or not prior to him making his attack and neither should you. In either case you get no dex bonus. You're taken flat footed or the attacker is invisible, they're basically the same condition. pouncing on someone from the ceiling is attacking them while they're flat footed.

So you get on the ceiling using climb, you've got cover at this point. You ready an action to jump them. The guards look in, they don't see you, they open the cell and walk in. Readied action triggers. You take out guard 1, then cleave guard 2 both using sneak attacks because they're flat footed.

You can accomplish the ceiling pounce using the current rules. I dont' see what your problem is.

[Murtak]

1107710909[/unixtime]]Frodo's cloak use of hide should be some of the most powerful stuff hide can do.

That is ridiculous. This stuff happens in this very world, right now, whenever a hunter, SWAT member or soldier drapes some camouflaged netting over himself. Given some very basic training and the right equipment (read: adventurer gear) you could do it yourself, easily.

It is quite hard to see someone with proper clothing and facepaint, even if you are looking at him from a couple of meters. Add some camo netting to break up the outline and it becomes damn close to impossible without stepping on the guy. That would be a comatose level 0 commoner though. If you accept the premise of training making you better at this stuff then I do not have a clue why you are not willing to accept that a level 10 rogue might not be able to pull the same trick at 5 feet that real world people pull at 50.

And before you start with cover and concealment again - this is not only possible in the woods. This happens on a freshly mowed lawn, in cities and plains lightly dusted with snow (certainly not enough to actually burrow in to).

1107710909[/unixtime]]But being camouflaged as you attack someone in melee is crazy. At the very least they're going to see you moving. If Frodo was moving, the orc would have seen him. Only because he laid perfectly still and used proper camouflage was he able to successfully hide.

And I guess it would be totally inconceivable for him to wait until the orc turned his back, stab him, cause a diversion (yell and point, throw sand in his eyes) and then rehide?

And after he did that he would be invisible again, yet the orc knows someone is there. The orc knows the direction he was stabbed from and that's about it. According to you that is overpowered.

Of course the orc could always ready an attack for "when that sucker tries to stab me again". Frodo appears, attacks, orc has his readied attack, Frodo rehides again. Apart from the initial attack it is a 1 to 1 trade of attacks - how is that overpowered?

Oh, right, Frodo could attempt to keep hiding while attacking - for another -20 to his hide check. And frankly, if he is far enough ahead in skills to to reliably make checks with a -40 modifier (-20 attacking while hiding, -10 fast hiding, -10 circumstance after the third round or so) and all he gets out of the deal is a miss chance and an attack bonus then Hide is underpowered.

1107710909[/unixtime]]So again it takes us back to the three fundamentals of physical hiding: Cover, Concealment or camouflage. Seriously you need one of those.

A bit ago it was only cover and concealment. Which is why I (and others) are arguing with you. Yes, you need some way too hide if you want to hide. So now you accepted a third way to hide, that being camouflage. That clears up pretty much every example brought forth so far, except the dodging out of line of sight examples which you keep insisting are not hiding. Apart from that you are agreeing with everyone you are arguing with.

[RandomCasualty]

1107724975[/unixtime]]
A bit ago it was only cover and concealment. Which is why I (and others) are arguing with you. Yes, you need some way too hide if you want to hide. So now you accepted a third way to hide, that being camouflage. That clears up pretty much every example brought forth so far, except the dodging out of line of sight examples which you keep insisting are not hiding. Apart from that you are agreeing with everyone you are arguing with.

Well, camouflage is great to use while actually hiding, but generally it requires you blend in with your background and remain motionless. In a forest you can remain standing and be camouflaged. In flat terrain, like plains you must be prone or you'll be spotted, regardless of how good you are.

I'm not saying that we shouldnt' acknowledge camouflage, I said a while back in this thread that it probably needs to be included as a mechanic and I included it in my list of types of hiding. So it's not just something I'm pulling out now.

But camouflage doesn't happen when you're swinging a bastard sword at someone. And I think that's an important distinction. Camouflage really just doesn't work when you're moving. Because it's easy to track a moving object at short range.

And camouflage also requires some preparations. You can be camouflaged for a specific surrounding, but not for others. Wearing forest camo in an urban or desert environment just isnt' going to work. And I think camouflage is complex enough to warrant its own special mechanics.

[grey_muse]

Actually,

PHB p. 152,"Concealment encompasses all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but where something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."

I think concealment covers camoflauge. Which means the 3.5 way works. The DM can just rule that sufficiently good camoflauge provides concealment, since the observer can't make out the hider's body.

Frank, it's possible to hide in a 10' room to an outside observer because you have cover from the wall. If the observer were sitting in the corner of the 10' room and you were trying to hide on the ceiling, it wouldn't be possible.

[Murtak]

1107725462[/unixtime]]
Well, camouflage is great to use while actually hiding, but generally it requires you blend in with your background and remain motionless.

Which is why you get these -10 and -20 modifiers to your hide checks when you try to move anyways.

1107725462[/unixtime]]In a forest you can remain standing and be camouflaged. In flat terrain, like plains you must be prone or you'll be spotted, regardless of how good you are.

Unless you are disguised as a tree or bush. Or unless you happen to look just like what is behind you from the observers point of view.

1107725462[/unixtime]]But camouflage doesn't happen when you're swinging a bastard sword at someone. And I think that's an important distinction. Camouflage really just doesn't work when you're moving. Because it's easy to track a moving object at short range.

Which is why you hide, attack, bluff, then rehide. All you need is for your opponent to not look your way for a second. Heck, you do not even need that - you would still be invisible to him even if he saw you hide, it is just that he would know exactly where you are.

1107725462[/unixtime]]And camouflage also requires some preparations. You can be camouflaged for a specific surrounding, but not for others. Wearing forest camo in an urban or desert environment just isnt' going to work.

Well, I for one don't have trouble imagining someone who spent his life learning how to hide actually carrying the gear to do so. You know, different patterns on in and outside of clothes, a few differently colored blankets in easily accessible pockets is really all you need.

Remember, all this stuff is still hard. It is just not impossible. You are looking at something like a -30 to -50 penalty for, as you put it, "combat invisibility". Even with the too cheap skill items that is supposed to be a 15 to 25 level advantage. That is pretty much the entire width of non-epic DnD. So basically the only way to get schooled like that is if you never got more aware of your surroundings in 15+ levels or if you are attacked by a stealth character 15+ levels above you.

15 levels is supposed to be a lot of power. If every 2 levels are supposed to double your overall power you are getting schooled by a character 256 times more powerful then you. And all he gets out of the deal is a miss chance and an attack bonus.

[Oberoni]

1107721708[/unixtime]]
Regardless, once the guard runs into the room, there is no cover between him and the ninja. Does he automatically see the ninja before the ninja can atack?

Andy Collins says yes, and so did you, by claiming that having no cover or concealment made you unable to hide. Since even in Splinter Cell 2 the guards don't automatically see you before you drop on them, we have to assume that this endeavor is a win for the pro-hide camp.

Can you hide in a featureless 10'x10' room? Yes you can. This discussion should be over now.

I second this one. If the ninja's hiding on the ceiling, as soon as the guard walks into the room, he should automatically spot the ninja, and that should be that.

You can't have readied actions out of combat, RC, so there goes that excuse. If you could, everyone would have a readied action of "attack whoever is attacking me," and surprise rounds wouldn't exist.

Even if you could have readied actions outside of combat, the guard surely has "club that sucka ninja down if he jumps out at me!" as his.

Which means that each person gets to do something in the surprise round...which means that the round simply becomes a matter of initiative...and which means that the ninja gains no special advantage from hiding and then striking.

[Murtak]

1107726256[/unixtime]]Actually,

PHB p. 152,"Concealment encompasses all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but where something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."

I think concealment covers camoflauge. Which means the 3.5 way works. The DM can just rule that sufficiently good camoflauge provides concealment, since the observer can't make out the hider's body.

You can also use camouflage to hide in front of a background and you can use disguise to look like a tree or the likes (or even an animal).

[Oberoni]

Oh, another twist on the "guard and cell" example.

Guardsman hears some rustling in the king's allegedly-empty bedroom.

He runs in and looks around, not knowing that Shinobi is hanging on the ceiling through some method or other.

Now, let's say that Shinobi isn't wearing especially Ninjaish clothing today, or that his all-black pajamas clash with the white ceiling.

Shinobi doesn't drop down or anything; his goal is to remain on the ceiling for as long as possible while the guard is beneath him, quickly scouting the room.

Under what most of us would consider to be acceptable circumstances, the guard scans the room, even peaks under the bed, and doesn't see anything. He turns and leaves. (game terms: Shinobi's Hide check is way more bitchin' than the guard's Spot)

Under 3.RC, the guard automatically spots Shinobi hangin' out on the ceiling. (game terms: Since Shinobi doesn't have any particular cover, concealment, or camouflage, he's automatically detected)

Keep in mind that the only thing that Shinobi is doing is simply staying out of the guard's line of sight. That's it.

[grey_muse]

So, we have the 'rogue turns invisible on rope leash' at one end of the spectrum, and the 'auto-detect ceiling ninjas' at the other, and neither makes sense.

At what point do we just say D&D Hide mechanics don't work at all?

edit:
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?

[Essence]

Well, camouflage is great to use while actually hiding, but generally it requires you blend in with your background and remain motionless. In a forest you can remain standing and be camouflaged. In flat terrain, like plains you must be prone or you'll be spotted, regardless of how good you are.

Once again, I have to tell a ninjitsu story.

One day, about two years ago, I came into class with my bundle of weapons and my black gi ( no shozoku for students ), and everyone was waiting for the sensei.

We waited for several minutes, doing stretches, probably discussing Escrima disarming techniques and the bruises from our last grappling lesson. Finally, someone said "Where's Mani?", and a few scattered people answered. "Probably late." "He's just in the bathroom or something".

Then, someone's "duffel bag" said "No, seriously, where's Mani?".

Well lit room. Six or more students all standing around, just doing their thing. Mani (he gets to wear his shozoku, the bastard) is just laying on the floor, arms tucked into his shirt, legs bent upward like he was trying to suck on his toes, and his head rolled downward between his ankles. Right in the middle of everyone else's clothes and weapons bags. Trying not to laugh.

No cover. No concealment. Just miitsushika ("body unnoticed").
We spent the entire day on that concept -- if you can make your body look like something that's not a human body, people won't see you as a human trying to hide. We went over the most basic techniques for a couple of hours, and then went outside at dusk to play And Go Seek in the woods (no Hiding allowed).

I stepped on people twice. Yeah, at that point, there was probably a little concealment from the impending darkness, but still, these people were in a leaf-strewn clearing deliberately not hiding behind or inside of anything.


My point is that none of us really know what the high end of Hide skill looks like, because none of us have been there.

All of this talk about "invisihide" is bullshit, because the act of making a hide check means that you're fucking 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.

But that thing you do doesn't necessarily have to be "gaining cover or concealment", nor does it have to exclude you from attacking immediately before or after you do it.

[Essence]

Under 3.RC, the guard automatically spots Shinobi hangin' out on the ceiling. (game terms: Since Shinobi doesn't have any particular cover, concealment, or camouflage, he's automatically detected)

I'd be forced to declare, at that point, the guard's head acts as concealment for the ninja. ;p