Hiding as a skill has always been a tricky one for me to adjudicate. The SRD is clear on how to get into a hiding position:
"You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check."
This is clear enough. If you are out in the open, you can't go from unhidden to hidden. Makes sense.
Further, "you can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty" so one can move and still remain hidden.
But what if you leave cover? Are you still hidden? Does an opposed Spot roll only apply when the hider has cover? Or does it work when you leave cover as well? Or does leaving cover immediately invalidate the Hide roll? What if you Move Silently? Is that the only way to make Hide work outside of cover?
This gets even more interesting/complicated when "Hide in Plain Sight" pops up at higher levels.
Any thoughts?
Greg
Concealment is required to begin hiding because you can't hide if someone is looking at you. After you've succesfully hidden You don't need cover to maintain it, but if you're hiding behind the one tree in the otherwise barren tundra I would give bonuses to those trying to see you. Hiding while moving is the skill to move while the enemy is not looking at you. Guard turns his head then you run across the doorway and get behind something else before he looks back.
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.
I bolded the part relevant to your question. You need cover or concealment; you can't hide without it. If you leave cover or concealment you are no longer hiding, and no Spot check is needed to see you. A kind GM might allow the "1 foot per rank with a -10 penalty" rule to leave cover, but that isn't going to get you much further than a square or two.
Concealment is required to begin hiding because you can't hide if someone is looking at you. After you've succesfully hidden You don't need cover to maintain it, but if you're hiding behind the one tree in the otherwise barren tundra I would give bonuses to those trying to see you.
So, out of curiosity, what kind of penalties would you give in any particular circumstance?
Hiding while moving is the skill to move while the enemy is not looking at you. Guard turns his head then you run across the doorway and get behind something else before he looks back.
So, if you were adjudicating this in combat, where a rogue has successfully hidden behind cover, does he have to end his move in cover, if he doesn't want to stay there? Let say he wants to sneak up on someone and do a sneak attack (would need move silently, generally, but lets ignore that for now), would you argue that, regardless of the Spot roll, he'd have to end his movement behind cover in order to preserve his hide ckeck? Or only if the Spot roll succeeds? Imagine the distance between cover and the target is > 1/2 move (and he chooses not to increase the hide check by moving faster than 1/2 move).
This is the kinda thing where it gets dodgy for me.
Greg
I bolded the part relevant to your question. You need cover or concealment; you can't hide without it.
See, this is where I find the wording odd. It says you need cover to "attempt a Hide check". I have always ruled that a Hide check is made at the start and that as long as the rogue says he is "still hiding" the original roll applies. By your wording, a Hide check is made, what, every round? Or whenever his situation changes?
If you leave cover or concealment you are no longer hiding, and no Spot check is needed to see you.
This is sorta where I can see the skill going, which was my original thought in posting this thread, but I'm not 100% on it. Need to think more about this.
So, would a turned head be considered "cover" in your mind? In my idea, a failed spot roll would cover the case of someone not looking in the right direction, even if the rogue didn't have cover.
Greg
I see 'Hiding' as making a deliberate attempt to remain unobserved whilst in a place that is under surveillance, or at least where your presence would otherwise be noticed.
And this is sort of the happy medium approach. "Cover" is a nebulous term, used to indicate a general level of distraction.
So how do you adjudicate rogue in a bare dungeon, "hiding" behind a wall? Can you sneak up on the bugbear guard, even though he leaves the cover of the corner and starts "sneaking" down the otherwise bare corridor? Let's assume the bugbear guard is busing watching a noisy battle the other end of the hallway so hearing the rogue is not an issue. My question is the same as I put to ghettowedge: is a turned head considered "cover" or "concealment"?
Greg
...is a turned head considered "cover" or "concealment"?
Concealment. While it could be argued that the guard doesn't have "line of sight" because of his turned head and the hider is therefore concealed, the guard most definitely has "line of effect" no matter where he's looking so the hider does not have cover.
"Cover" is a nebulous term, used to indicate a general level of distraction.
No, it isn't; especially when used in conjunction with concealment. Cover means a physical barrier blocking partial or total line of sight and line of effect. It's primary statistical effect is providing a static AC bonus. Concealment blocks line of sight, but not line of effect, such as foliage or fog. It's primary statistical effect is to provide a miss chance represented by a static percentage.
No Hide check is necessary behind total cover or total concealment because there is no line of sight in the first place. If you are hiding around a corner and not peaking out at all, and all other things are equal, neither of us can see each other. No skill roll necessary. The same goes for total concealment.
Move Silently may still be necessary, however, depending on the exact circumstances.
My question is the same as I put to ghettowedge: is a turned head considered "cover" or "concealment"?
Neither. It's a failed Spot check, assuming a situation in which a Hide check could be attempted in the first place. Just as the rules don't cover facing, they don't take into account turned heads. These are relegated to descriptions of why skill checks failed, rather than as modifiers affecting the skill checks themselves while still being rolled.
Alternately, you can use a Bluff check to create an opportunity to Hide by forcing the observer(s) to turn away, as per the RAW and SRD, but that still is neither concealment nor cover.
As far as requiring cover or concealment to Hide, I read it as necessary to attempt a Hide check and to remain hidden if moving out of cover for more than half one's movement. In other words, if a human rogue with an unaltered speed of 30 feet wants to begin using his Hide skill, he needs to be unobserved and find some kind of cover and concealment. If he wants to dart from curtain to curtain to remain hidden, he can do so with successive Hide checks so long as the curtains are no more than 15 feet apart, and both begins and ends his movement behind said curtains. If he wants to sneak out and attack someone, he can also do so with a successful Hide check so long as the target is within 15 feet of the curtain behind which the rogue was standing at the start of his turn. Any attempt to remain hidden without cover or concealment for a distance of greater than 15 feet automatically fails.
Part my reasoning here is that the rogue needs to be able to step away from cover or concealment at least momentarily to move in on a target. Otherwise, if such a move is completely invalid, then the entire strategy of sneaking up on someone is also completely invalid. While the Hide skill would still not be useless in such an interpretation, its effectiveness is diminished greatly, and it seems like an extremely arbitrary decision on the part of the game designers to disallow such a classic tactic. I can't see any justification for it, nor does such a limitation seem in keeping with the tone established throughout the rest of the Player's Handbook/SRD.
In conclusion, I admit the rules can be interpreted variously here, as in many parts of the SRD. The DM and players therefore need to reconcile within their own ranks what reading they accept, and why. The above is mine and my justification thereof. I'm sure others have their own.
"Cover" is a nebulous term, used to indicate a general level of distraction.No, it isn't; especially when used in conjunction with concealment.
My sentence was too short. It should have read that "in this context cover is a nebulous term" (and including concealment with that). Basically that being "lost in the crowd would satisfy the "cover and concealment" requirement for the Hide skill.
I agree, as per RAW, cover and concealment are quite well defined. But when you add that to the Hide skill, something would seem to have to give. Is hide less useful than it would seem, or is cover and concealment more nebulous in this context?
Cover means a physical barrier blocking partial or total line of sight and line of effect. It's primary statistical effect is providing a static AC bonus. Concealment blocks line of sight, but not line of effect, such as foliage or fog. It's primary statistical effect is to provide a miss chance represented by a static percentage.
Concealment would then apply to the crowded tavern or crowded street scenario. Each would have a blocking of "line of sight" if only momentarily, allowing for the rogue to begin hiding.
No Hide check is necessary behind total cover or total concealment because there is no line of sight in the first place. If you are hiding around a corner and not peaking out at all, and all other things are equal, neither of us can see each other. No skill roll necessary. The same goes for total concealment.
I agree, if you stay there.
My question is the same as I put to ghettowedge: is a turned head considered "cover" or "concealment"?Neither. It's a failed Spot check, assuming a situation in which a Hide check could be attempted in the first place. Just as the rules don't cover facing, they don't take into account turned heads. These are relegated to descriptions of why skill checks failed, rather than as modifiers affecting the skill checks themselves while still being rolled.
Ok, this is where I was coming from in the beginning. So, two rogues, both trying to sneak up on the same guard with his attention diverted. One rolls a 10 on his Hide check, the other a 20. The bugbear rolls a 15 on his Spot and so, the "10" rogue managed to pop into his peripheral vision and become noticed?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Now, for the sake of argument, if the bugbear then turned his head to see the "10" rogue, would he automatically see the "20" rogue who was standing right next to him? I'm guessing yes, just like a group is only as silent as it's quietest member.
As far as requiring cover or concealment to Hide, I read it as necessary to attempt a Hide check and to remain hidden if moving out of cover for more than half one's movement. In other words, if a human rogue with an unaltered speed of 30 feet wants to begin using his Hide skill, he needs to be unobserved and find some kind of cover and concealment. If he wants to dart from curtain to curtain to remain hidden, he can do so with successive Hide checks so long as the curtains are no more than 15 feet apart, and both begins and ends his movement behind said curtains. If he wants to sneak out and attack someone, he can also do so with a successful Hide check so long as the target is within 15 feet of the curtain behind which the rogue was standing at the start of his turn. Any attempt to remain hidden without cover or concealment for a distance of greater than 15 feet automatically fails.
So, in your mind, a turned head can only be fooled for 1 round? Even if the bugbear guard fails his Spot, if the rogue doesn't directly act (sneak attack, say) or find cover/concealment, the bugbear will see him on the following round?
In conclusion, I admit the rules can be interpreted variously here, as in many parts of the SRD. The DM and players therefore need to reconcile within their own ranks what reading they accept, and why. The above is mine and my justification thereof. I'm sure others have their own.
No argument there. And I appreciate your input. My main goal as a DM is to make the game fun for my players. Fortunately or unfortunately, I also tend to be very heavily "left brained" and tend to over-analyse the logic of certain rules. So I don't want to unnecessarily nerf their skills for the sake of my own sense of logic. But at the same time, I would like it to make some sense to me.
Thanks to everybody for their input.
Greg
Fortunately or unfortunately, I also tend to be very heavily "left brained" and tend to over-analyse the logic of certain rules.
Oh, I completely understand. I used to be the same way, looking at all the infrequent but completely possible situations which various rules disallow, and nitpicking said rules in response. But then I realized that the rules have to be generalized, or they will be too cumbersome to use on a routine basis. And the game has always supported the tradition of ad hoc adjudications for unusual circumstances, if the DM and players so choose. Which, after consulting the rules and the opinions of other players, is ultimately what you have to make with Hide or other unclear mechanics.
Concealment would then apply to the crowded tavern or crowded street scenario. Each would have a blocking of "line of sight" if only momentarily, allowing for the rogue to begin hiding.
Correct. Depending on the situation, I could see crowds being treated as either cover or concealment. But for the purposes of Hide and opposed Spot checks, I would definitely consider a crowd to be concealment.
Now, for the sake of argument, if the bugbear then turned his head to see the "10" rogue, would he automatically see the "20" rogue who was standing right next to him? I'm guessing yes, just like a group is only as silent as it's quietest member.
No. If they were in a wide open space, that would make sense; except they couldn't have been hiding in the first place. Let's say the bugbear is in a forest. Then the rogue who rolled a 10 was spotted through a hole in the foliage, whereas his ally managed to stay concealed. Or some other such justification appropriate to the "fluff" of the scenario. One rogue beat the bugbear's Spot check, and therefore the bugbear doesn't notice him. It's up to the DM or players to figure out what that translates into as narrative description, but the end effect of the rules shouldn't change.
Likewise, to examine your analogy to Move Silently, if a party is trying to pass unheard by a monster, and some fail their rolls, the monster only hears those characters who failed said rolls. In moving to investigate, the monster may then come to discover the rest of the party as well through more failed rolls, but he does not immediately discern them.
So, in your mind, a turned head can only be fooled for 1 round? Even if the bugbear guard fails his Spot, if the rogue doesn't directly act (sneak attack, say) or find cover/concealment, the bugbear will see him on the following round?
Yes, that's how I look at it. Unless the character has Hide in Plain Sight, they need cover or concealment to continue hiding. It makes sense they would be able to move from source to source of that cover or concealment if they are close together; but there needs to be some limit to how long they can remain undetected when moving away from whatever they are hiding behind.
But I will hear counter my earlier position after looking at the SRD again. Since you can move faster than half speed and still make a Hide check at a penalty, I would say the distance involved is irrelevant. What's important is the amount of time you remain in the open. I think a round is a reasonable limitation.
Given this, you can imagine a fortress with a large front gate and a guard tower to observe it. If a rogue is hiding behind one wall of the gate and wants to get to the other side, say 20 feet away, we can imagine him making a quick dash when the guard looks away for a moment, taking a penalty for moving more than 15 feet but hopefully successful when the rolls are compared and distance modifiers applied. If, however, the rogue wants to dart between two buildings which are separated by a field so large that the rogue couldn't even run between them in a single round, ignoring the problem of the -20 Hide penalty for running, I would simply rule it impossible because he would be exposed for more than a round.
Don't forget that you can use Bluff to create a diversion. You do not necessarily have to reveal yourself to do so. For example: tossing a pebble against the far away window can divert the attention of the guard long enough to make the move across the doorway.