So, my wife is playing a rogue, focused on stealth. Six levels in, we discover that the ROGUE can no longer take Hide in Plain Sight as an advanced talent.
Why!? I mean, this is just wrong. The ranger gets Hide in Plain Sight. Should not the sneakiest class in the game get this ability? I was thinking "someone must have screwed up somewhere, because let's face it, as stealth works, you NEED this one in order to use it at all, barring magic or circumstance" and checked the erratas and the APG, but nope. No HIPS.
What's going on?
Um...when could a Rogue ever take HiPS?
+1
Rogue never had it. Had to dip into Shadowdancer to get HIPS.
I think you're overestimating hide in plain sight. It doesn't do as much as you think. At best, it increases the effective radius of dim light by 10 feet for the purpose of stealth.
Huh. Just checked my 3.5 books, and it seems you're all right. Ranger, Assassin and Shadowdancer are the only ones who get it now.
Wow. It simply boggles the mind that you have to spend (some would say waste, considering Combat Reflexes and Mobility is among the requirements) 5 levels worth of feats to dip in a different class to obtain the most iconic sneaking ability in the game.
Suddently understand the "Rogues suck" thread more. Just... wow. Rogues are bad at stealth, how intuitive is that conclusion?
Thanks, I guess my wife's character is just gonna suck then. Gonna ask the GM if we can change around Skill Focus: Stealth for Nimble Moves, which seems abundantly useful, and focus on combat and trapfinding.
I think you're overestimating hide in plain sight. It doesn't do as much as you think. At best, it increases the effective radius of dim light by 10 feet for the purpose of stealth.
All HiPS are not made equally. Shadow Dancer HIPS lets you hide in shadows even if those shadows don't actually provide you concealment from your enemy, which is more than likely at mid to high levels, and is actually pretty big. Still not worth going into Shadow Dancer in all likelihood.
As ToZ says, the Ranger HIPS is pretty phenomenal, but at level 17 you should be the freaking predator.
Don't spaz out over it. Aside from the ranger's mad favoured terrain stealth, hide in plain sight is not very good. It's no loss that the rogue doesn't have it.
Shadow Dancer HIPS lets you hide in shadows even if those shadows don't actually provide you concealment from your enemy,
Didn't that get errata'd?
Shadow Dancer HIPS lets you hide in shadows even if those shadows don't actually provide you concealment from your enemy,Didn't that get errata'd?
Not that I know of. As written you don't need concealment, just to be in low light (shadows). If it is the other way around it is in fact utterly useless.
Probably wouldn't be game-breaking to add HiPS to the Advanced Talents. Give it a Stealth requirement of like 10 or 12 ranks and it would probably work fine.
Not that I know of. As written you don't need concealment, just to be in low light (shadows). If it is the other way around it is in fact utterly useless.
You need to be within 10 feet of dim light. Dim light grants concealment and lets you make a stealth check anyway. So it's only slightly useless.
3.5 edition unearthed arcana had a series of variant rogue talents tied to a specific rogue variant called the wilderness rogue. which was in the same book. one of these variant rogue talents was hide in plain sight. but it was the ranger version, not the shadowdancer version. in other words, only usable in natural terrain. which could be rather broad depending on the campaign you are playing. it would be easy to houserule this talent into the base rogue.
Not that I know of. As written you don't need concealment, just to be in low light (shadows). If it is the other way around it is in fact utterly useless.You need to be within 10 feet of dim light. Dim light grants concealment and lets you make a stealth check anyway. So it's only slightly useless.
Dim light grants you concealment...unless your opponent has Low Light Vision, Darkvision, Tremorsense Blightsight/Blindsense. HiPS allows you to hide even against such enemies. Very useful...if you think hiding is useful compared to just becoming invisible or teleporting away.
Dim light grants you concealment...unless your opponent has Low Light Vision, Darkvision, Tremorsense Blightsight/Blindsense. HiPS allows you to hide even against such enemies. Very useful...if you think hiding is useful compared to just becoming invisible or teleporting away.Not that I know of. As written you don't need concealment, just to be in low light (shadows). If it is the other way around it is in fact utterly useless.You need to be within 10 feet of dim light. Dim light grants concealment and lets you make a stealth check anyway. So it's only slightly useless.
The ability to hide is way more useful than Invisibility at higher levels due to things being able to see invisibility.
My Epic Rogue in 3.5 had an item that granted HiPS and it was the best magic item ever.
Dim light grants you concealment...unless your opponent has Low Light Vision, Darkvision, Tremorsense Blightsight/Blindsense. HiPS allows you to hide even against such enemies. Very useful...if you think hiding is useful compared to just becoming invisible or teleporting away.
Does it now? Last I saw, that was being debated furiously to no reasonable conclusion.
Huh. Just checked my 3.5 books, and it seems you're all right. Ranger, Assassin and Shadowdancer are the only ones who get it now.
Wow. It simply boggles the mind that you have to spend (some would say waste, considering Combat Reflexes and Mobility is among the requirements) 5 levels worth of feats to dip in a different class to obtain the most iconic sneaking ability in the game.
Suddently understand the "Rogues suck" thread more. Just... wow. Rogues are bad at stealth, how intuitive is that conclusion?
Thanks, I guess my wife's character is just gonna suck then. Gonna ask the GM if we can change around Skill Focus: Stealth for Nimble Moves, which seems abundantly useful, and focus on combat and trapfinding.
Rogues don't suck at stealth. You just have to apply some common sense to how Stealth works and everything is just fine. They can get their Stealth scores through the roof and do just fine against CR appropriate enemies. No, they things won't always go their way but they should be just fine most of the time. Stealth is only a problem when the GM over thinks how it works with regards to facing and concealment.
No matter how hard I try, I just can't get this to feel like the end of the world it seems to be made out to be. I really just can't see this coming up so much in-game as to really ruin anything.
If you do, just house rule it.
Don't spaz out over it. Aside from the ranger's mad favoured terrain stealth, hide in plain sight is not very good. It's no loss that the rogue doesn't have it.
This is why they should not have changed the wording from 3.5 even though they changed light, where all you have to be is close to some sort of shadow, your Halfling Paladin friend, yeah his shadow counts, also clarify that it hides you from extraordinary special sight.
Huh. Just checked my 3.5 books, and it seems you're all right. Ranger, Assassin and Shadowdancer are the only ones who get it now.
Wow. It simply boggles the mind that you have to spend (some would say waste, considering Combat Reflexes and Mobility is among the requirements) 5 levels worth of feats to dip in a different class to obtain the most iconic sneaking ability in the game.
Suddently understand the "Rogues suck" thread more. Just... wow. Rogues are bad at stealth, how intuitive is that conclusion?
Thanks, I guess my wife's character is just gonna suck then. Gonna ask the GM if we can change around Skill Focus: Stealth for Nimble Moves, which seems abundantly useful, and focus on combat and trapfinding.
Last I checked Rogues do not = Ninja
Rogues represent a broad category of characters. They are people of skill and resources. Not masters of stealth, surprise, and death. They can be spies, infiltrators, diplomats, thieves, crime lords, opportunists, explorers, etc. They represent those that rely on their own guile and resources to survive in the most dangerous aspects of the world. Not weapon and armor training and tanking hordes of enemies head on. Not relying on divine guidance. And not relying on arcane power or musty old arcane books. But a mix of all of these and all things outside of such categories. This also explains why they can dish out a lot of damage when catching opponents unaware or off-guard. They can't stand toe-to-toe like people trained to be warriors, they try to stay alive and then go for the one-shot kill when opportunity presents itself.
As someone pointed out, it makes sense for a Ranger to have it, as he is to be the silent predator of the wilderness. Hence why it only works in the wilderness. Assassins, likewise, they are silent killers. Their job is to kill as efficiently as possible, meaning they can't be detected. Shadowdancers are essentially "shadow rogues", so HiPS makes sense and it only works in shadowy conditions.
Rogues don't need it. They have the ability to be stealthy, and also be extremely stealthy while mastering a number of other skills, but they're not meant to perfect the art of stealth.
Even if I DO THINK that rogues can work perfectly without HiPS, I can see how someone would want to take it without a Shadowdancer dip. I can perfectly see it as, at least, and advanced talent.
Ranger HiPS is very powerful, but I can see a Shadowdancer dip for rogues for a use.
A player of mine uses shadowdancer to improve some combo with spring attack + maneuver + agile maneuvers.
It's quite useful in case of solo scenarios, exploration and such.
Of course, scenarios 'til now helped him.
Said this, is not the best option so I wouldn't mind if rogue cannot have it.
It's not HiPS per say, but a Lesser Cloak of Displacement gives you permanent Blur, i.e. the concealment needed to hide.
It's not HiPS per say, but a Lesser Cloak of Displacement gives you permanent Blur, i.e. the concealment needed to hide.
The cloak does not give necessarily grant you concealment. It grants a 20% miss chance similar to blur. Blur grants concealment, the cloak does not necessarily grant concealment.
It's not HiPS per say, but a Lesser Cloak of Displacement gives you permanent Blur, i.e. the concealment needed to hide.
It gives a miss chance, but not concealment. It functions similar to Blurm not as Blur
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character, its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.
Also, HiPS allows you to duck out while under observation. Nothing under Light and Vision rules trumps the clause under the Stealth skill, "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." I would go so far as to suggest that exempting this clause is *exactly* the purpose of HiPS. Normally you must have Concealment (Dim light, bushes, smoke...) to make a Stealth skill check at all. However, even with Concealment (less than total) you cannot even attempt the roll. So, to use Stealth you actually have two qualifiers: 1) Not Observed (by *any* sense, scent, sound, sight...) *and* 2) Have concealment. HiPS allows a Shadowdancer to ninja/vanish while under observation and allows them to 'extend' nearby dim light benefits (concealment).
Sounds like a good ability to me.
Rogues do not suck at stealth; observation is very rough on stealth. ie, You can't stealth while being observed. So, yeah, the Noon-Chicken-Thief is a dumb chicken thief. Come back when the sun has gone down...
GNOME
Is cool. We found that it is better to revamp the skill focus to UMD, and buy a wand of vanish for 750 gp. Because first level spells can do what a high level rogue cannot.
Is cool. We found that it is better to revamp the skill focus to UMD, and buy a wand of vanish for 750 gp. Because first level spells can do what a high level rogue cannot.
And you are one step further on the path to enlightenment.
Meh.
A lot of monsters are able to see invisibility or just true see once you level up, as well as spellcaster NPC. Don't understimate the skill.
And if you play with the grid, carefully consider Fast Stealth as an option.
It's not HiPS per say, but a Lesser Cloak of Displacement gives you permanent Blur, i.e. the concealment needed to hide.The cloak does not give necessarily grant you concealment. It grants a 20% miss chance similar to blur. Blur grants concealment, the cloak does not necessarily grant concealment.
Lesser Cloak of Displacement grants concealment.
The spell Blur grants concealment, which in turn grants a 20% miss chance. Therefore, if the cloak effect works "Similar to blur" it works by granting concealment. If the cloak doesn't grant displacement and the only similarity between the spell and the item was the miss chance, then the sentence would read something like, "Grants a 20% miss chance, the same amount as the Blur spell." It is quite clear in the wording that the word "similar" modifies the phrase "works like" and not the phrase "miss chance".
Also, the cloak only requires one spell to create, blur! It follows the cost formula for an item of Blur with continuous use. "Minor cloak of Displacement" is simply an "item of continual blur".
It's not HiPS per say, but a Lesser Cloak of Displacement gives you permanent Blur, i.e. the concealment needed to hide.The cloak does not give necessarily grant you concealment. It grants a 20% miss chance similar to blur. Blur grants concealment, the cloak does not necessarily grant concealment.Lesser Cloak of Displacement grants concealment.
The spell Blur grants concealment, which in turn grants a 20% miss chance. Therefore, if the cloak effect works "Similar to blur" it works by granting concealment. If the cloak doesn't grant displacement and the only similarity between the spell and the item was the miss chance, then the sentence would read something like, "Grants a 20% miss chance, the same amount as the Blur spell." It is quite clear in the wording that the word "similar" modifies the phrase "works like" and not the phrase "miss chance".
Also, the cloak only requires one spell to create, blur! It follows the cost formula for an item of Blur with continuous use. "Minor cloak of Displacement" is simply an "item of continual blur".
Some important points:
1) The spell(s) used to create items do not necessarily impart their full benefits on said items. For evidence of this read the belt of dwarvenkind and see what spell is needed to make the item.2) Similar only means "close to but not exactly the same." So it is close to but not exactly the same as blur. If it granted blur, then it would be more like boots of levitation which specifically state that they act as if the spell levitate was cast on the wearer.
3) For 12,000 gold do you think the rogue should have a permanent Stealth ability or should the GM use some common sense and say, "Well that doesn't make any sense. He can Stealth on an open plane simply because he has a 20% miss chance? I must be reading something wrong." Could he pull off the same trick if he carried around a plant? Yes. Does that seem as odd? Yes.
4) No matter how much something follows the formula for crafting items, it does not mean that it uses the spell exactly as written.
5) In the end, the cloak does not say that it grants concealment nor does it say that the cloak acts as if the wearer had blur cast on him. While we may disagree on the intention, the facts are still the same. You are free to rule your way in your games and I will rule my way in mine.
3) 3) For 12,000 gold do you think the rogue should have a permanent Stealth ability or should the GM use some common sense and say, "Well that doesn't make any sense. He can Stealth on an open plane simply because he has a 20% miss chance? I must be reading something wrong." Could he pull off the same trick if he carried around a plant? Yes. Does that seem as odd? Yes.I think you're confusing things here.
If the PC in question were under the effects of a blur spell then it would be allowed, but with the same exact misgivings that you have above.
-James
I understand the position he is using but I still don't agree with the conclusion. I don't think that the item is meant to make it so that a character can always use stealth. Since blur can't be made permanent, then I use the reading of the items along with my own understanding of the rules to make a ruling. The item does not say that it acts as if the blur spell were cast on the wearer. Blur is not a permanent effect in the game.
If we were to create the cloak of minor displacement assuming it grants blur, then it would be worth 24,000 gold (spell level: 2 x caster level: 3 x2,000 gold x2 [duration is normally 1 min/level]). As it stands, the cloak cost 12,000.
According to the magic item creation guidelines:
If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
Since the cost of the item is half what it should be, and that was a supporting argument, then why should we assume that it actually grants the full benefits of the spell?
EDIT: I realized that I forgot to actually address your point. My bad. I understand where he's coming from. I also don't think that you can just use the concealment from blur to use stealth. The rule is actually a little ambiguous (it says "can" which can be read to mean: it is possible). This is where I err on the side of common sense. Just because you are a little blurry doesn't mean you can just hide in the open behind your blurry lines. You still need something to hide behind.
I think that the notable difference between blur and a displacement effect is that blur fuzzes out your features so that you look like an amorphous blob, while displacement just moves your visible self a few feet to the left. Both provide miss chance, however, the former is useful in hiding, especially at a distance. The latter is not.
And as the item says it gives a miss chance like the blur spell, which is by concealment I'd say that the item does give concealment.
It says something like that, but that's not what it says. It says the "displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer."
As pointed out, "similar" does not mean it has to work exactly the same as Blur. If the intent was to grant concealment, why not just say that instead of "20% miss chance"? They're not the same things after all, so I have to believe that the text as written is intentional (until provided evidence contrary to that).
Note that the text for the Major Cloak of Displacement states that it works exactly like the Displacement spell. If the minor version was meant to exactly mimic Blur, why not say that?
And as the item says it gives a miss chance like the blur spell, which is by concealment I'd say that the item does give concealment.
There's the problem:
A miss chance doesn't grant concealment -- concealment does grant a miss chance though.
Square == rectangle: Rectangle =/= Square
This is one of those cases where it is easy to say whether an item does or does not do X, but instead it is left vague. I am about to chalk it up to an FAQ, and let someone else sort it out.
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the minor cloak of displacement grant concealment?
I only made this post to have something to FAQ.
As an alternative, create a magic item for yourself that allows you to hide by either a)granting concealment or b) some other effect that provides cover. The rules are in the PFRB and I imagine a low charges per day item wouldn't be all that expensive to come up with.
Had a friend who modified a Darkness spell into a ring for his old Shadowdancer to allow him to change local light levels around him and create false shadows. DM allowed it, wasn't overly game breaking and I don't think he ever needed to use all 3 charges in one day anyway. Wouldn't be too hard to come up with something similar (or even a magic item that ALLOWED hiding in dim-light/plain sight if your DM is ameniable to it)
Now we are past submission time for RPG Superstar, I guess there is no harm in hearing other ideas on this front.
And the 'spells > skills' argument begins anew.
Did it ever end?
.
.
To the original poster, I think multiple perfectly acceptable solutions for your wife's character:
- Make Hide in Plain Sight as an advanced Rogue talent. Just choose some circumstance that must prevail to make her HIPS work: shadows, terrain, distraction, or whatever seems to work. Basically, there should be 1) an explanation so that the ability makes sense, and 2) a mechanic, so that the ability can potentially be foiled.
- Make Ring (cloak, shirt, whatever) of Vanish, caster level 2, use activated, some number of charges per day. It's a very cheap item, and temporary invisibility would give her the chance to hide using stealth. It won't work on enemies who can see through invisibility, but it will work on many.
- Wear a Minor Cloak of Displacement (or a Cape of Blurring) so that she has concealment.