Hide Errata-ed again....

[User3]

Check the main FAQ

[Essence]

I don't know what you mean. Didn't it always work that way?

[MrWaeseL]

Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her
turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a
position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is,
invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class features?
Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after
attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed.
As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding place within the plants, having never left the area of concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide check. The third part of your question changes the situation entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re incredibly effective.

Seriously. Who goes around nerfing HIDE, for fuck's sake?

[The_Hanged_Man]

Maybe they read the WotC boards, where peeps are always complaining about how Hiding to get SA damage is overpowered, and peeps used to complaing about Bluff working on Fighters. And stuff.

[Username17]

That's just sad. Really really sad. I like the part where they claim that unless there is something to hide behind while you are actually attacking your enemy, you are no longer hiding before you make your attack.

Which means that no amount of hide skill can ever allow you to sneak up and stab someone in the back, because they are observing you before your attack goes off.

WTF? It's like they were angry that Rogues could compete at high level despite not being Wizards, Clerics, or Druids. They sure fixed that shit.

-Username17

[User3]

Damnit! I can't log back in.

When my sorcerer shapechanges into the form of a
creature with special attacks, what Hit Dice do I use to
calculate the DC of those abilities—the creature’s normal
HD, my caster level, or something else?
When you use shapechange (or related magic) to assume
another creature’s form, your Hit Dice are considered to be the
same as your normal Hit Dice.
For example, an 18th-level human sorcerer shapechanged
into a dire bear would be treated as a 12-HD creature (and not
an 18-HD creature) for the purpose of determining what effect
an evil cleric's blasphemy spell might have upon him. A 17thlevel
elf wizard shapechanged into a horned devil would use
the horned devil's 15 HD (rather than his own 17 HD) to
determine the save DC of his fear aura, stun, and infernal
wound supernatural attacks.
This has no effect on your hit points or any other statistics
derived from your HD, such as base attack bonus, base save
bonuses, and so on.

The hits just keep on coming!

Take a look at the first part... where it reverses the damage done in the last FAQ revision - recanting the bullshit about using creature hit dice while shapechanged:

When you use shapechange (or related magic) to assume
another creature’s form, your Hit Dice are considered to be the
same as your normal Hit Dice.

Now look at the example, where it says exactly the opposite:

A 17thlevel
elf wizard shapechanged into a horned devil would use
the horned devil's 15 HD (rather than his own 17 HD) to
determine the save DC of his fear aura, stun, and infernal
wound supernatural attacks.

Huh?

It's like they aren't even trying to make any sense.

-Username17

[User3]

More bullshit, and the log-in servers are still fazed out.

If the
Sage remembers his high-school physics, terminal velocity for
a human body is roughly 120 mph (equivalent to a speed of
1,200 feet per round, or 200 feet per second);

He does seem to remember his highschool physics - indeed terminal velocity is about 200 kph, which about 124 MPH. That's close enough.

What he doesn't seem to remember, is his English conversions. A mile is 5280 feet, not 6000 feet. 120 MPH is 176 feet per second, 1056 feet per round.

-Username17

[Maj]

I hate Hide.

Ess and I had a pretty loud debate about why big creatures have penalties to hide. The problem isn't that they can't hide, it's that they can't hide the same way humans do. You won't find colossal creatures hiding behind a tree or a rock... They are the rock or the whole hillside. They're islands in the middle of the ocean with trees and sand on them...

The whole having to be behind something is retarded. The whole size modifier thing is uncreative.

Hide blows, and I've stopped investing my rogues' skillpoints in it.

[RandomCasualty]

Hide rules are really tough to write because they dont' want stupid shit like a guy "hiding" while he's swinging a greatsword at you in the middle of combat 5' away. That's just stupid and too unbelievable. I mean at this point it needs the (Su) tag and it's the same as invisibility. You're no longer "hiding", you've got your own cloaking field, and as a storytelling game it is important to explore exactly what hide does in a descriptive sense.

From a storystandpoint, the sage's rules make sense, kinda. The other complication is that D&D has no facing rules. And when you want to try to sneak up "behind" someone, not having facing rules really sucks beacuse everyone has 360 degree vision. In reality, a thief is going to wait until the guy's back is turned and then go after him. but 3E has no facing rules to actually deal with this, so sneaking up on someone in an alley is rather odd, because you've got to have at least concealment from darkness before this even becomes possible. And it's a consequence of facing rules and nothing more really. Perhaps the answer is to add a set of facing rules for noncombat situations. So you really can wait until the guard turns his back and then rush him.

Other than that, the hide rules are fairly sound from a logic standpoint. Really they probably need some kind of special provision made for camouflage, where you can remain hidden in the open at a reasonable distance. But you really shouldn't be able to sneak upon a guard who is staring directly down a hallway the entire time, at least not wtihout cover or concealment, that makes sense.

Really there is a balance complaint that comes with hide, but this can probably best be solved by nerfing invisibility a bit.

[Maj]

That's just stupid and too unbelievable.

I am an orcish liberator.

[Sma]

1107297103[/unixtime]]

I am an orcish liberator.

That's an actual class in Earthdawn

While there are no explicit facing rules in D&D, they are there in the form of spot checks, if you miss the check you didn´t happen to look that way, combat especially is a time where your mind is busy dealing with lots of things, so missing the guy coming for you is no biggie.

Making it impossible to sneak up on someone who is standing 6 feet from the dark alley is just plain stupid, and not a "no facing" legacy effect.

[Username17]

Hide rules are really tough to write because they dont' want stupid shit like a guy "hiding" while he's swinging a greatsword at you in the middle of combat 5' away.

Um... that kind of shit happens all the time. Five feet away is kind of a long way. Consider the room you are in right now, while reading this missive... it's what, 8' x 11'? Consider now that you are standing in the room having a brawl...

Is it so hard to believe that there could be an extra person pressed up against the wall or ceiling or floor with a very large sword that you didn't notice? Even after they take a swing at you, is it at all hard to imagine that you wouldn't have a firm grasp on where the person who struck you was?

We aren't saying that people shouldn't know that they've been attacked, or even that they shouldn't have a bonus in identifying where their attackers are - only that the attacker should be able to have a chance (however miniscule) of pulling that manuver off.

Real people pull that manuver off all the damn time, and I personally find it difficult to accept that any of them have +20 Hide Modifiers going - which means that the basic 3rd edition Hide Penalties for attacking were already way too high to simulate real life. The new "automatic failure" bullshit is just inexcusable.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

You know what? Unless they actually change the name of the skill from "hide" to "stealth," idiots at WotC are going to keep using flawgic to make hide ever-increasingly-stupid.

[RandomCasualty]

1107303637[/unixtime]]
Is it so hard to believe that there could be an extra person pressed up against the wall or ceiling or floor with a very large sword that you didn't notice? Even after they take a swing at you, is it at all hard to imagine that you wouldn't have a firm grasp on where the person who struck you was?

Yes, that's very hard to imagine, in fact impossible to imagine. I mean this is someone attacking you with a sword, and "hiding" within 5' of you, all without cover or concealment. I have enough trouble having someone hide WITH cover or concealment when they're within 5', but wtihout it, that can't happen. It's impossible, unless perhaps the thing is really small, like insect sized. For something mansized, there is no way in hell that could happen.

For one, just the act of being in combat creates motion that is going to draw your attention. In a well lit room, it is effectively impossible to hide within 5' without cover, concealment or invisibility.

Real people pull that manuver off all the damn time,

Huh? A guy flailing about with a fucking greatsword in a small well lit room with no cover and going unseen... real people do that all the time? I think you've been watching too many ninja movies...

[PhoneLobster]

Yes, that's very hard to imagine, in fact impossible to imagine. I mean this is someone attacking you with a sword, and "hiding" within 5' of you, all without cover or concealment.

Why is it people obsessed with realism always have such narrow unimaginative and in the end incorrect ideas about realism.

Here's a good real life close to combat type situation from my own past.

Back in high school we used to play soccer (the europeans call it football) using of all things a tennis ball. Now in a sunny open area with no obstacles whatsever there would be say about twelve or so of us in an area only about 20 to 30 or so feet square running around like hooligans (it was like miniature soccer).

That tennis ball used to run off on a tangent on a regular basis, only one or two guys running after it. And I knew that if I ran behind the one guy going after the ball who thought he was alone and stuck VERY close behind him (within about 3 or 4 feet) and ran quietly then he would not know I was there, relax his guard and get the shock of his life when I stole the ball. It didn't work every time or against everyone but surprisingly enough it worked MOST of the time against MOST of the guys.

And I did this all the damn time when we played this game, daily, to the same guys repeatedly even. And I may not have had a great sword but I did have a big ass pair of boots that were the terror of several of the players with fragile shins.

And if you do ever play a bit of any form of soccer, even if it isn't minature tennis ball soccer, suddenly and surprisingly coming out of nowhere (on that open well lit field without cover) is one of the best ways to take the ball from the guy who has it, its mostly about exploiting blind spots while moving quickly and quietly and isn't all that hard at all.

Your problem is you keep picturing your empty five foot space with the guy in the middle constantly looking around searching for trouble. You need to picture him trying to bounce a soccer ball 100 times without dropping it instead.

[RandomCasualty]

Now, there's no doubt that you can sneak up to a guy with his back turned, and you should be able to do that, quite easily actually. That's not even a hide check, that's simply move silently.

But this is again an issue that relates to the D&D lack of facing rules as opposed to the hide skill directly. And probably the solution here is to simply say that someone who is concentrating on a noncombat task, like picking a lock or donning armor, isn't focusing their vision everywhere anymore, and thus has blindspots.

The facing problem is certainly a real problem, but it's not a problem with the hide skill, it's a separate problem of its own.

I'd like hide to work similar to how it does in real life, where people are concerned wtih using cover and darkness and everything and you don't just get a bunch of dumbasses walking in open terrain and no camouflage because they rely entirely on the cloaking field. That's what 3.0 was and it was lame as hell.

I mean seriously, why hide in the bushes when you can just walk right through the courtyard in plain sight?

[Oberoni]

Because you've got a +24 Hide check? Because you're the absolute master of finding any damn way possible to evade notice, even if it's nearly superhuman?

[Username17]

No, I'm quite serious. Just stand in a room and stand really still. It doesn't matter what you are holding. Try carrying a broom, and just stand there.

Now watch people walk into the room while doing other things. Sometimes they will see you, and sometimes they won't. You'll be in their field of view, but detection is by no means guaranteed - just standing pretty still with a broom.

---

Here's the part I don't reccomend:

Now, when someone went into the room and didn't notice you, and begins doing something else, wait until they aren't even looking at you... and hit them with the broom.

Now, run past them under their leading side as they reflexively turn towards the place they were struck and hit them again.

You won't succeed every time. You probably won't succeed twice. But is it possible? Oh hell yes. It's not really all that hard.

---

Or to put it another way: there is exactly one time in my entire life that I was fighting for my life against more than one opponent. There was the first guy punching me in the face, and honestly he was taking up most of my attention.

I hit the ground, rolled away from him, threw my jacket up to stop the incoming knife, sprang to my feet, and ran down the street - straight arming one of the stragglers on my way throught their group.

But while I was on the ground, I nearly took a rock to the head. See one of the guys on my left had reached down, picked up a garden stone and attempted to bring it down on my head. I didn't see the rock until it was about 20 cm from my head, and even then I didn't know what it was - only that it was moving. If the guy had struck just a little bit earlier or later I probably wouldn't have seen the orck - or him - at all. And I'd probably be dead.

If people are performing some activity - like reading or trying to not die - it's really really easy to sneak up on them. You can just be there in plain view and move kind of slowly and people will seriously just edit you out as unimportant.

Saying that it is impossible to sneak up on people just because there isn't a physical object to hide behind is retarded.

I mean seriously, why hide in the bushes when you can just walk right through the courtyard in plain sight?

If the bushes gave you a bonus or not having the bushes gave you a penalty? Seems pretty obvious. Sure, it's harder to hide in plain view than it is to hide behind a bush. It's harder to hide behind the bush than it is to hide behind an opaque brick wall. Noone's disputing that.

But more difficult =/= impossible. Not even close. All of these techniques that you are deriding as the work of ninjas are in fact regularly performed by scruffy Neo-Nazis on a joy ride. I know. I've seen them do it. Or rather, I haven't.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

In real life, I can pretty regularily sneak up on Darcy and tap her on the shoulder when she is walking down the street in broad daylight - (it gives her a royal start when she's smoking and trying to hide it from me). And as for stealth skills, I'm big, slow and clumsy as hell anymore.

Furthermore, I'd put serious money on it being easier to sneak up and tap her on the shoulder with a broom handle, pipe, or other sword-like object than it is to do so with my hand.

[RandomCasualty]

1107318971[/unixtime]]No, I'm quite serious. Just stand in a room and stand really still. It doesn't matter what you are holding. Try carrying a broom, and just stand there.

Now watch people walk into the room while doing other things. Sometimes they will see you, and sometimes they won't. You'll be in their field of view, but detection is by no means guaranteed - just standing pretty still with a broom.

Possibly, but there's really not much skill to this, it's just dealing with other peoples lack of observation. That is, you have the same chance of "hiding" as does an unintelligent object of your size.

And are people unobservant, sure. But being skilled doesn't make standing still and praying they miss you work any better.

Now, when someone went into the room and didn't notice you, and begins doing something else, wait until they aren't even looking at you... and hit them with the broom.

Now, run past them under their leading side as they reflexively turn towards the place they were struck and hit them again.

You won't succeed every time. You probably won't succeed twice. But is it possible? Oh hell yes. It's not really all that hard.

Sure, you can hit them twice probably, but you won't remain hidden for 6 seconds. And that's what a round is, 6 seconds. Now, it's possible that you may stun them or whatever and may throw their observation off simply by pain, but again, this isn't the hiding skill, this is something entirely different and it could happen in a normal battle agaisnt any mobile fighter. But in D&D, getting hit with a sword doesn't put you into shock or anything and doesn't impede your observational capacity.

If people are performing some activity - like reading or trying to not die - it's really really easy to sneak up on them. You can just be there in plain view and move kind of slowly and people will seriously just edit you out as unimportant.

Well, your example seemed more an example of flanking than it did the hide skill. Flanking is dealing with multiple opponents and one of them getting a cheap shot on you from your attention being distracted and that totally can happen. Now D&D as it is doesn't have rules for being flatfooted while you're distracted, thoguh I really believe it should. It does however have rules for sneak attacking someone while they're running because they lose dex and a few other activities.

But again, none of this actually has to do wtih the hide skill. What you're describing really isn't the ability to avoid detection but rather the opponent's inability to detect you. A master thief is going to be just about as good at hiding as a normal person if they're just hoping the other guy "edits them out as unimportant" . That is fundamentally a flaw with the observer, and has nothing to do with the skill of the guy hiding. It's not hiding at all.

Hiding is actively avoiding detection. It's techniques you learn to help prevent the other guy from seeing you. And quite simply your skill is nullified if you have no cover or concealment to use. It doesn't mean you'll automatically be seen, it just means that you have no real advantage over the common man (or the common object for that matter). So whatever DC it is to locate an object of your size and speed, that's the DC it should be to see you. Can people miss things this way? Sure. But they're no less likely to miss a statue than a master theif.

Your hide skill pretty much tells you to find some cover or concealment and not walk in the open like a dumbass. To use the hide skill you need something to work with. When you have no cover, camouflage or concealment, you're relying on blind luck and the lack of your observer to notice an object in plain sight.

Stealth as a whole is about staying behind cover and concealment. Stick to the shadows, crawl through the tall grass, and otherwise minimize your visibility. When you must break cover, wait until when your opponent isn't looking and do it as quickly and quietly as possible. When you're wide open without any cover, there is pretty much nothing you can do. At that point you just have to rely on your camouflage and your opponent's inability to notice you.

[Maj]

Ask for your limitations and they are yours, but please don't push your limitations of imagination on anyone else.

Other people have found it possible in real life... Why are you fighting so hard for impossibilities in a fantasy game?

[Username17]

Possibly, but there's really not much skill to this, it's just dealing with other peoples lack of observation.

I could debate this all day, and I truly don't agree with you. But it also doesn't matter. In D&D, surviving being lit on fire is skill based. As you go up in levels, you automatically gain skill in "doing amazing crap".

If some of that amazing crap could be "not getting noticed when it was to your advantage" - and it can be - what's the fvcking problem.

Let's face it, if your criteria for something being a skill is that it has anything at all to do with what you do as opposed to what other people notice - then Hide shouldn't be a skill at all. Move Silently, sure. You make more noise, or less noise. But if you are completely behind a wall, there is no chance of people seeing you. If any part of you is sticking out there is some finite chance of them seeing you. Period.

You could just have spot checks and have everything based on cover and concealment bonuses to the DC to spot you. That would be very realistic.

But there is a Hide Skill. And it represents people not noticing you. People have skill in other people not noticing them. Because that's how it works in fantasy literature. Certain characters get not noticed repeatedly, while other characters get caught every time.

And in that case, you've got nothing. Andy Collins has nothing. Stop getting your dick in the mashed potatoes of fantasy roleplaying.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1107321881[/unixtime]]
If some of that amazing crap could be "not getting noticed when it was to your advantage" - and it can be - what's the fvcking problem.

The problem is that it gets ridiculously stupid to the point where it's invisibility. At this point, suspension of disbelief is out the window. When a guy can know you're there, absolutely know it, and be actively looking right at you, but somehow misses you because you've accumulated a certain amount of hide bonuses, That's a problem.

If invisibility isn't actually skill to minimize your visibility, but is instead some kind of mental or physical cloaking field, the its uses become remarkably different. Because it's no longer a stealth skill, but becomes combat invisibility, and that's clearly not a part of fantasy literature.

I'm not really sure what the problem is with having hide require cover or concealment. There's a reason why thieves prefer to go burglarizing places under the cover of darkness instead of in direct sunlight. If anything requiring cover or concealment is good to keep thieves attached to the basic stealth archetype instead of just playing bonus whore until they have enough bonuses to pretend they're invisible. And that's all invistealth encourages. I'd rather have skillful thieves as opposed to rogues who simply have an astounding amount of luck when it comes to people failing to notice them.

WHile it might be cool to have a ninja or something with the ability to mentally block the perceptions of his foes, having every thief like that is just dumb. I realize it may help game balance, but I'd prefer to find another way that doesn't involve mutliating the basic fantasy thief archetype in such a vicious fashion.

[Neeek]

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.

[User3]

1107323207[/unixtime]]
When a guy can know you're there, absolutely know it, and be actively looking right at you, but somehow misses you because you've accumulated a certain amount of hide bonuses, That's a problem.

That's ... how camouflage actually works. In the real world, when you're looking right at something you know is out there and yet don't actually see it, we don't call that a cloaking device, we call it "camouflage".

This whole subthread is seriously deja vu all over again.

--d.