Hide Errata-ed again....

[Username17]

You could just as easily hide behind B. So even your example isn't outlandish, nor is it beyond the scope of human skill. Or even junior-high-schooler skill.

But you are correct. D&D doesn't bother to distinguish between "running around the Ogre throwing javelins from different angles while it tries to find you" and "crouching in the badger's den with a camo-tarp avoiding all detection". Maybe it should. But it doesn't.

But the solution here is not to announce that noone can hide ever, the solution is to make a targetted hide action with penalties that are astoundingly less ricockulous than the ones in the book.

--

D&D doesn't have rules for specific positions. Remember, the battlemat does not distinguish from being in the bathroom in front of the toilet, being behind the toilet, and being in the shower stall. All of those are in a single 5' square, and some of them make much better hiding places than others. A human is roughly 2.8 cubic feet, an average indoor D&D square is four hundred cubic feet (assuming an 8 foot ceiling). There is a lot of room for one person to be in!

D&D doesn't have specific rules for what direction people are looking, when people blink, or any of that other crap that would determine whether you saw, noticed, and comprhended the visual stimulus presented by a specific enemy during a 6 second period.

It could be a lot more complex and cover some section of those rules, but it isn't and doesn't. As is, the rules are that you are either seen or not seen based on the spot checks of each particular character. As is, it is thus entirely possible for you to be hiding next to someone in the bushes and have them lose track of you while the sentry spots you.

That's a conceivable, if somewhat unlikely result. But the hide rules aren't complicated enough to have that occur less than the other way around.

So the question is: is having more complicated Hide rules worth having more complicated hide rules?

The answer is: Maybe. But in no way is the answer "Nerf the crap out of Hide until noone cares anymore because it sucks anyway!"

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107921672[/unixtime]]You could just as easily hide behind B. So even your example isn't outlandish, nor is it beyond the scope of human skill. Or even junior-high-schooler skill.

Well, possibly, but in the diagram you're not actually behind B. not to mention based on the hide rules you can have an observer on all sides. There can be a ring of observers and the hide rules allow you to hide from all of them simultaneously, all while charging. THis is why the 3.0 hide rules completely sucked.

But the solution here is not to announce that noone can hide ever, the solution is to make a targetted hide action with penalties that are astoundingly less ricockulous than the ones in the book.

Targetted hide I think will only create more crazy ass problems. That way you can actually be invisible to oine spectator 30' away and visible to ten standing right next to him. Unless you want to purely make hide a mental assault, I don't see how making it targetted will help anything. Then it just becomes a targetted invisibilty, and you get some really stupid shit, because there's not necessarily any logic to which targets can see you and which can't.

Targetted hide would actually end up worse than the original hide rules.

Requiring cover or concealment allows targetted hiding, but also applies some logic to it. That way, if you're hiding behind the trees, everyone to which you have cover has trouble seeing you.

It could be a lot more complex and cover some section of those rules, but it isn't and doesn't. As is, the rules are that you are either seen or not seen based on the spot checks of each particular character. As is, it is thus entirely possible for you to be hiding next to someone in the bushes and have them lose track of you while the sentry spots you.

Well, sure this is all possible and I think the diversion to make a hide check while being observed can more or less apply here.

The answer is: Maybe. But in no way is the answer "Nerf the crap out of Hide until noone cares anymore because it sucks anyway!"

Well, I'd like to not make it suck. I don't mind adding functionality to it, but under no conditions do I want a weird situation where a rogue wearing all black can somehow hide in an entirely bare white room filled completely with daylight. That just shouldn't happen at all.

Like I said, I'd really want to revamp hide to be more of a noncombat skill and something you can extend in some ways to your fellow party members. So you can help everyone sneak by the sentries and so on.

If there's anything about hide that sucks, it isn't that it's not a good combat skill in 3.5, it is rather that it is a skill which isn't designed to be used in a group. Hide is something individual for sneaking into places, which while its great for a solo quest, kinda sucks when you've got 5 others in the group who can't hide worth a damn.

Instead of trying to make it some weird personal invisibility skill, I'd like to make it a skill you can use for your group to help sneak them into places. Also, it could help the rogue hide from divination magic as well as a second usage.

Therre are many ways to make hide useful without making the rogue into the invisible man. If our goal is to allow him more sneak attacks, lets just do that by making the feinting rules not suck. If you make hide into invisiblity, why would someone ever want to feint? Why not just make feinting not suck so rogues don't have to be invisible in combat?

[Username17]

I don't mind adding functionality to it, but under no conditions do I want a weird situation where a rogue wearing all black can somehow hide in an entirely bare white room filled completely with daylight.

But the real world already allows that. Even in such a circumstance there is a ceiling, an observer, and the observer's exectations - all of which can be hidden behind.

Basically, the only way to know how cool your hiding planactually is, is to fvcking roll the dice and add your hide modifier. Until you figure out how well you are attempting to hide, it's pretty pointless to even argue about whether it is realistic for you to be hiding under the circumstances.

Even in the white sunny room, a man in all black can escape detection. It happens. If the observer isn't in the room, he probably doesn't have LOS to the wall opposite the one he is facing while looking in. If the observer is in the room, there's an area behind him. And so on.

With a 400 cubic foot space containing a 3 cubic foot body, there is a lot of space to potentially be, and it isn't even important where the character actually is until you figure out whether they have been spotted or not. If they aren't, then you can go ahead and start apologizing for why they weren't seen. But until then, what's the point?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107976271[/unixtime]]
Even in the white sunny room, a man in all black can escape detection. It happens. If the observer isn't in the room, he probably doesn't have LOS to the wall opposite the one he is facing while looking in. If the observer is in the room, there's an area behind him. And so on.

Denying LOS really isn't hiding. When you're hiding they have to have LOS to you. I mean anyone can potentially deny LOS and be unseen. But to actually try to camouflage yourself in an all white room just isnt' going to happen. And likely even if you're on the ceiling your contrasting color will still draw attention to you.

While the guy might miss you, it's really not hiding skill here, but rather incompetence on your observers part. He just has to look up, and that's it. If he does, you're spotted immediately.

[Username17]

Denying LOS really isn't hiding. When you're hiding they have to have LOS to you.

So we're back to hide doing nothing again, eh?

Either the skill:

[*] Allows you to be in a portion of the square your figure is in that is not in the LOS of your enemies.

or it

[*] Allows you to avoid detection despite being within the LOS of your enemies.

That's an inclusive or, but there is nothing else for it to do. If you say that avoiding LOS (by pressing yourself up against a wall) is not hiding, then it must cause you to not be seen in some fashion while actually being in the field of view of your enemy.

You can't simultaneously argue against both.

Edit: As to the "incompetence on the observer's part" - well, yeah. The Hide DC is your opponent's Spot check. People who are being really observent and neurotically checking all the corners and having a good grasp of what their opponent might be doing to escape detection are hard to hide from. People who are just walking along whistling are easy to hide from.

I'm not convinced that we need Hide modifiers at all. Just roll your hide check and roll your spot check and see whether whatever the fvck it is that you are doing got noticed by whatever the fvck it is that they are doing.

Because it's an opposed roll, the whole question of whether it's something you do or soemthing they do that gets you seen is irrelevent.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107978675[/unixtime]]
I'm not convinced that we need Hide modifiers at all. Just roll your hide check and roll your spot check and see whether whatever the fvck it is that you are doing got noticed by whatever the fvck it is that they are doing.

We definitely need modifiers. Otherwise there's no difference to a guy running around screaming and swinging a greatsword in broad daylight to one in full black sneaking cautiously about on hands and knees on a moonless night.

Modifiers are a given, really the only question is where do we draw the line between hide modifiers, spot modifiers and can't hide at all.

The real question is when things get to a point that you can't hide at all. If you're standing in the midst of a flat green field wearing a bright blue suit and standing up, should you be able to hide from someone looking at you? I'd say no.

Similarly if you're carrying a torch in a darkened dungeon area, you shouldn't be able to hide at all.

[Username17]

We definitely need modifiers. Otherwise there's no difference to a guy running around screaming and swinging a greatsword in broad daylight to one in full black sneaking cautiously about on hands and knees on a moonless night.

Sure there is. One represents a very low stealth roll and the other represents a very high stealth roll.

This whole idea that somehow you could do something very unstealthy and still be undetected because you rolled a very high stealth check is completely disingenuous. If you rolled veyr high on your stealth checks it is because you did something very stealthy.

Screaming during an attack involves a completely low roll on your move silently check. If you rolled very high on your move silently check you didn't scream.

It's that simple.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

But a lot of factors actuall ymodify what you're doing too. For instance if you're carrying a big statue, it should be a lot harder to hide. If you're dressed in contrasting clothing, it should also be tougher to hide. Depending on the value of your cover or concealment it should be tougher to hide as well and so on.

It should be alot harder to sneak across a well lit courtyard with no cover than it is to sneak across a jungle at night. .

[Sma]

It should be alot harder to sneak across a well lit courtyard with no cover than it is to sneak across a jungle at night. .

But since it´s a check that gets opposed by Spot and there are already rules in place for modifying spot checks, there´s little need to add those modifiers twice.

[The_Hanged_Man]

You at least need Hide modifiers for equipment and certain actions. If I'm juggling flaming torches while singing the Star Spangled Banner, it has to be harder to hide than if I'm actively trying to avoid attention.

The only other option is to say you can't use the Hide skill if you do anything that attracts attention. I wouldn't like that option, as it should be possible for certain very skilled peeps to hide while juggling fire and singing loud songs.

YMMV.

[Essence]

If I'm juggling flaming torches while singing the Star Spangled Banner, it has to be harder to hide than if I'm actively trying to avoid attention.

Go back and read Frank's post, three above yours.

Multiple people have made this point.

I don't know what about it is so challenging to grasp.

If you aren't hiding, you're not fucking hiding!
And if you're not hiding, you don't get to roll a Hide check.
If you are juggling torches and singing, you aren't hiding.

Period. There is no room for 145th level characters to be jugging torches and singing and still attempt to roll Hide. No matter how good you are, you cannot overcome the principle of identity*. Hiding is fucking hiding, and not hiding...isn't. If you aren't attempting to hide, you'll never succeed.

...unless you add some wierd shit to the skill checks, like "You can make a DC 300 Hide check to cast Stalking Spell on yourself at an infinite caster level and with a duration of "until I damn well feel like being detected"." But that's irrelevant to the discussion of what Hide actually does...


*(Actually, one of my players recently finished a long story arc that culminated in her overcoming the Principle of Identity. It was one of the hardest things I've ever tried to DM, what with everything suddenly no longer necessarily being itself anymore. I don't suggest it. )

[erik]

As much as I don't like the flame juggling example, there is merit to the idea of penalties to hiding.

Sometimes you're doing something that makes it harder to hide, but still are trying to hide.

A cat with a bell around its neck when it tries to hunt some birds isn't "not attempting to hide", but it makes things harder certainly. I imagine the bright orange jumpsuits that prisoners are forced to wear make it harder for them to hide too.

There's plenty of cases where there really seems like there should be a penalty to hiding.

-=-=-=-
Minor nitpick, Frank. Isn't a volume of a 5x5 foot square at 8 feet height equal to 200 cubic feet, not 400?

The point still remains as the difference between finding a needle in one haystack may as well be as crappy as finding one in two haystacks.

[Neeek]

1108026677[/unixtime]]

There's plenty of cases where there really seems like there should be a penalty to hiding.

I believe the suggestion at hand is just giving bonuses to Spot. Since the rolls are opposed, there is literally no differeence between the two.

[RandomCasualty]

1108052989[/unixtime]]
I believe the suggestion at hand is just giving bonuses to Spot. Since the rolls are opposed, there is literally no differeence between the two.

True, though I'd prefer if the modifiers were assigned logically. If you're going to have a bonus to spot assigned to everyone trying to see you, then it should just be a penalty to hide. If the effect is personal, like because the guy just got a big slash from a greatsword or is distracted, then it should be a personal penalty to spot.

While mechanically it makes no difference, logically I think it runs much smoother that way.

[The_Hanged_Man]

1108006241[/unixtime]]

If I'm juggling flaming torches while singing the Star Spangled Banner, it has to be harder to hide than if I'm actively trying to avoid attention.

Go back and read Frank's post, three above yours.

Multiple people have made this point.

I don't know what about it is so challenging to grasp.

If you aren't hiding, you're not fvcking hiding!

Ok, so when you're not hiding, you're not fvcking hiding. What does that have to do w/ having modifiers to your hide roll?

Without hodifiers, it doesn't matter what you do to hide. Instead of having scaled chances to do things, you either can do them, or you can't, and it's all up to the DM. You want to juggle torches and hide? OK, in RC's campaign, that's "not hiding" and you can't do it. In my campaign, it's "hiding," and you can do it - with no modifiers to your hide check. That doesn't seem right to me.

Hide should cover both sitting completely still in the shadows, and creeping forward through the shadows. But both of those things aren't the same level of difficulty, regardless of who is trying to spot you.

Likewise, hiding when there's lots of stuff to hide behind, or while wearing camoflage, shouldn't be the same level of difficulty as hiding where there's little to hide behind, or if you're wearing normal clothes. Regardless of who is trying to spot you.

Without modifiers to reflect different conditions, all of those situations are the same. There's no point to sitting still and hiding, you might as well just run full speed. Why wear dark clothes? It wouldn't matter. Why blacken your weapons so they don't reflect torchlight? It's irrelevant.

That's what no modifiers means. It means what you do literally doesn't matter.

I also don't see the logic of having modifiers to Spot instead of to Hide, but maybe it's there and I'm just overlooking it.

[Sma]

But since it´s a check that gets opposed by Spot and there are already rules in place for modifying spot checks, there´s little need to add those modifiers twice.

I´m going to take that back. After taking a look in the obvious places all I can find is the "distracted", and the "I´ll have to pull a number out of my ass" circumstance modifiers.
Seems like I´ve been using the DC system wrong all the time.

[Username17]

I´m going to take that back. After taking a look in the obvious places all I can find is the "distracted", and the "I´ll have to pull a number out of my ass" circumstance modifiers.

Well, if you look in the Dungeon Master's Guide, there is a whole list of guidelines for the spot skill, nominally under encounter distances. Page number varies depending upon edition, unfortunately.

The real kick here is that range is counted backwards from maximum range, rather than forward from zero. This makes a lot more sense in many cases (like, you can see enemy ships at 3000 yards on the open sea), and is really stupid in others (like, it's technically virtually impossible to ever see anyone inside since "extreme range" is defined as the far side of the room).

I'm not saying that the Hide/Spot rules aren't horribly in need of an overhaul. I am saying that coming from the standpoint of the hide skill actually functioning is the place to start an overhaul from. And I'm also saying that if we are going to accept Hide/Spot not working well, the guidelines in the DMG are at least playable, while the guidelines in the latest FAQ are not.

-Username17

[Sma]

Well, if you look in the Dungeon Master's Guide, there is a whole list of guidelines for the spot skill, nominally under encounter distances. Page number varies depending upon edition, unfortunately.

Seems they dropped that table from the 3.5 DMG, since I still can´t find it. Could also be me having an attack of selective awareness of course. But thanks that 3.0 table was what I was looking for.
Now that I take a second look at it, I also remember why I chose to ignore it.
I´ve basically been using the SR table with a base TN of 10. That´s also the way I arrive at all other DC´s, base 10 and add/subtract appropriate modifiers, never a monolithic DC of 16.

[erik]

Just to clarify-

I am aware that giving a +X bonus to notice checks against a cat because it is wearing a bell around its neck is mechanically the same as giving it a -X penalty to the sneak check for the cat, I'm just not certain I like putting them all in one basket.

But the idea is growing on me.

[Essence]

Ok, so when you're not hiding, you're not fvcking hiding. What does that have to do w/ having modifiers to your hide roll?

Nothing. If you're actually trying to hide, you should have appropriate modifiers. But if you're juggling torches and singing, you aren't trying to hide. Period.

I never said modifiers shouldn't happen. But this bullshit that people keep spouting about "I'm on fire and shouting and running around like a maniac hitting shit with a tire arn!!! ANd i'M HiDiNG, tOo!!11!" is just that -- it's bullshit.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Well, I'm opposed to the "can't do it" school of hiding, or any skill for that matter. Whatever a player wants to try, I'm going to let them try. If a player wants to climb a glass wall covered w/ oil, wearing flipflops and her hands tied behind her back, I'd let them try. Same with trying to hide while juggling torches. I'd give it a lot of modifiers, or a high DC, and let the player try. Otherwise, I feel like as a DM I'm dictating players actions too much. It's a fantasy, let 'em try.

This whole tangent started b/c of this:

I'm not convinced that we need Hide modifiers at all.

I am convinced we need hide modifiers. I don't know why you're swearing at me for defending that position, but whatevs.

[Essence]

I'm not swearing at anybody for defending the position of "we need modifiers". I'm swearing at everybody who is defending the position of "I can make a Hide check without making any effort to hide."

I'm not adverse to someone who is oiled up, wearing flipflops, and has no arms trying to climb an ice wall. I am 100% opposed to someone who is sitting at the dinner table eating french fries and only vaguely looking at the wall attempting to make a Climb check to get up the wall. The first person is Climbing. The second person is Eating, and not actively doing ANYTHING to attempt to climb the wall.

Similarly, a person who is glowing with radioactive light, shouting obsenities at the top of his lungs, and hitting anything within arm's reach with a Volvo is absolutely not doing *anything* to actively hide, and simply won't be given the chance to roll a Hide check.

If you allow that motherfucker to make a Hide check, then you have to allow me, right now, sitting at my sister-in-laws' computer in a desk chair inside a small room in Sequim, Washington, to make a Jump check to attempt to leap to your place in California without getting out of my chair or even moving my legs except to the beat of the latest Ludacris album.

That's what I'm swearing about. It's fucking bullshit, modifiers or no. If the glowing, screaming, attacking character has some in-game reason to be able to make a Hide check under those circumstances:

I am an Orcish Liberator!(Su): The character is an Orcish fucking Liberator, and can make a Hide check at any time, for any reason, regardless of anything, without actually attempting to conceal himself from anyone's sight in any way. This is considered, for some Orcish Liberator reason, only "practially impossible". Deal with it.

Then and only then does he get to make a Hide check. Otherwise, absolutely motherfucking not. You have to attempt to climb to roll a climb check, you have to attempt to bluff to roll a bluff check, and you have to attempt to hide to roll a hide check.

(Yes, this also applies to the whole "I'm bored. You look like a ham sandwich!" school of letting people roll Bluff whenever the fuck they want. It's bullshit -- if you're not actually coming up with something meaningful and believable under at least the most extreme set of amazing coincidences the mortal mind can comprehend, you're just not fukcing bluffing. Cope.)

[virgil]

1108006241[/unixtime]]
*(Actually, one of my players recently finished a long story arc that culminated in her overcoming the Principle of Identity. It was one of the hardest things I've ever tried to DM, what with everything suddenly no longer necessarily being itself anymore. I don't suggest it. )

I don't care if there's a bit of thread necromancy going on here, but I'm really curious about this. What does that even entail to the person who overcomes such a fundamental rule? Did they go on to make sure 2+2=acetazolamide? Will that person head out, expand their nonreality, and proceed to be beaten AND not beaten by a drunken Avicenna trying to come to terms with this?

[Voss]

Meh. So they reject Aristotle's view of the world in favor of something else. So what? They've labored through an RPG weighed down with some amateur attempt at deep philosophy... they've probably suffered enough to declare that their character is the king and queen of the universe and NOT, all at the same time. I'm perfectly comfortable with Essence jumping and not jumping to California all at once. Whether Ludacris is involved or not. He's utterly failing to do it, but that wasn't apparently ever an issue.

Alternatively, in D&D, ditching the Principle of Identity is dead simple. They go to Limbo and join the Giant Frog of the Giant Frog. They are both Giant Frog and not Giant Frog at the same time, and perfectly comfortable and not perfectly comfortable with that state, all at the same time.

[Judging__Eagle]

This is the way I run hide/move silently.

1. You can make a set of checks any time you want to.

2. They can't make a spot check unless they're you know; trying to actually keep a lookout (people in real life don't do this and I've been able to 'sneak up' on people who were in front of me, who knew I was with them, while walking on on a wide open and featureless surface; I'd probably be some sort of bard/rogue with knowledge skills if I was a character).
They do however get a listen check, but they could be distracted/deafened.

3. If your check move silently and hide checks beats theirs, they can't see or hear you while you make your movement.

If they can hear you, they will probably try to spot you next round you try to move silently.

If they see you, you're spotted, deal with it.

4.Start at step 1 again.

Now, this is based on experience.

The argument that being able to be in melee without concealment or cover and still try to hide is preposterous however.

You can only really hide and engage in combat if your enemy can't tell where you are.

This happens when two people are trying to kill each other with knives in a completely dark room (nigh time, no lights, curtains drawn), they are always hiding from each other and try to rely on listen checks to figure out where their opponent is.