Hide in Plain Sight

[NiteCyper]

[What good] is HiPS?

You get to Hide in Plain Sight. You could ask the same about lesser Invisibility. The difference between "Hide in Plain Sight" and lesser "Invisibility" is that you have an unlimited amount of uses of the "Hide in Plain Sight" ability and the bonus to Hide.

...Also, the character with HiPS can actually make a full-attack, because if you read the hide action exactly it says:

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

So: You make a full-attack, then hide with a five-foot step with a -20 penalty. That's the real biggie here I think.

[optimization]

1. Actually, this was addressed in the "Hiding Question" GitP thread I linked earlier. Apparently, you make a Hide check after each attack. If you fail on one, you are finally spotted. Luckily, they remain flat-footed for the rest of your attacks.

2. Mindsight reams the optimization of the Hide check.

So: You make a full-attack, then hide with a five-foot step with a -20 penalty. That's the real biggie here I think.

Except that a 5' step is not "normal movement". So it is very debatable if you can hide as part of it. And this is a red herring, anyway. Per the rules I quoted above, the guy without HiPS can also do this (if anyone can), by taking a -20 attack penalty.

It doesn't have to be normal movement

Had to end this post quickly; may add more later.

[PhaedrusXY]

1. Actually, this was addressed in the "Hiding Question" GitP thread I linked earlier. Apparently, you make a Hide check after each attack. If you fail on one, you are finally spotted. Luckily, they remain flat-footed for the rest of your attacks.

So ok, maybe we're getting somewhere now. This sounds like a semi-reasonable interpretation. So both A and B can make a hide check "while attacking" at a -20, but even if A fails, he can try again because he has HiPS. B is done until he moves out of sight of his enemy. I don't see where they get that you have to make the check after/during every attack really, but I guess if you interpret "while attacking" to mean "during each attack", then it makes some sense.

It doesn't have to be normal movement

I guess it technically doesn't. So I could hide when someone Bullrushes me. That's kind of interesting. 

[Brainpiercing]

1. Actually, this was addressed in the "Hiding Question" GitP thread I linked earlier. Apparently, you make a Hide check after each attack. If you fail on one, you are finally spotted. Luckily, they remain flat-footed for the rest of your attacks.

So ok, maybe we're getting somewhere now. This sounds like a semi-reasonable interpretation. So both A and B can make a hide check "while attacking" at a -20, but even if A fails, he can try again because he has HiPS. B is done until he moves out of sight of his enemy. I don't see where they get that you have to make the check after/during every attack really, but I guess if you interpret "while attacking" to mean "during each attack", then it makes some sense.

It doesn't have to be normal movement

I guess it technically doesn't. So I could hide when someone Bullrushes me. That's kind of interesting. 

I don't think your quote "while attacking" works the way you think it does. Because the "Action " paragraph is the critical one. There is nothing there that says

"Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement or an attack

It just says "as part of movement". So you COULD hide while moving for a charge, but you could not hide without moving at all, hence, not as part of an attack action.

"While attacking" just means you try to hide after attacking, such as when you are sniping, or when (using HiPS or movement) hiding after making a melee attack. Also note:

So anyone without HiPS can NEVER hide while in view of a person he just attacked. He has to move out of sight, behind cover or into some sort of concealment first. With HiPS, however, he can hide with movement, i.e. a five foot step at least, after making an attack.

[PhaedrusXY]

It just says "as part of movement". So you COULD hide while moving for a charge, but you could not hide without moving at all, hence, not as part of an attack action.

It says it is normally a part of movement, which implies that it isn't always done as a part of movement. And since in the exact same paragraph it says you can hide while attacking, that seems to me to mean exactly what it says. Normally it is part of movement, but if you take a -20 penalty, you can hide while attacking.

"While attacking" just means you try to hide after attacking,

Says you. That's not what the rules say. They explicitly say "while attacking", not "after attacking". You're reading something into them that isn't there.

Also note:

But they're not observing him. He's hidden, and has never been spotted. Attacking doesn't automatically reveal you to the enemy obviously. Otherwise Sniping wouldn't work, either.

So anyone without HiPS can NEVER hide while in view of a person he just attacked. He has to move out of sight, behind cover or into some sort of concealment first. With HiPS, however, he can hide with movement, i.e. a five foot step at least, after making an attack.

If he makes the check with a -20, he was never in view. The rules explicitly say you can do it in the hide description, without referencing hide in plain sight. That means that you absolutely can do it without hide in plain sight, whether it "breaks" the other hiding rules or not. That's what the -20 penalty is supposed to represent: the difficulty of doing this (nearly impossible, as they say). If you had to have HiPS to do it, then it would have been written up in the HiPS section (or at least referenced it), not the Hide section.

Hiding while charging (but before the actual attack) would be hiding while running, which indeed also has the -20 penalty, but is another thing entirely.

[Brainpiercing]

It says it is normally a part of movement, which implies that it isn't always done as a part of movement. And since in the exact same paragraph it says you can hide while attacking, that seems to me to mean exactly what it says. Normally it is part of movement, but if you take a -20 penalty, you can hide while attacking.

The specific exception is in the same line. While your interpretation that you could hide while attacking might be correct, there is no action present in the Action section to clarify this. Hence, you can't actually do it.

"While attacking" just means you try to hide after attacking,

Says you. That's not what the rules say. They explicitly say "while attacking", not "after attacking". You're reading something into them that isn't there.

Right, I may be interpreting things in this specific line.

Hiding while charging (but before the actual attack) would be hiding while running, which indeed also has the -20 penalty, but is another thing entirely.

Correct, here.

[PhaedrusXY]

The specific exception is in the same line. While your interpretation that you could hide while attacking might be correct, there is no action present in the Action section to clarify this. Hence, you can't actually do it.

They said that hiding is normally a part of movement. They gave an exception. They didn't say that that is the only exception. Since they say you can hide while attacking, that must be another exception.

You know... I don't even know that I believe what I'm arguing here, anymore. Basically, these damned rules don't make any fucking sense at all. What the fuck does it mean when it says you can hide while attacking? And how does all this crap interact with Hide in Plain Sight? And why didn't the jackasses at WoTC every clarify this shit? Just reading this crap makes me angry.

[Brainpiercing]

Heh, it's just the normal process of making sense of unclear rules. Now, IMHO there are certainly worse contenders, but... yeah, they really could have clarified that.

IMHO there are certainly different ways of seeing this. I remember I recently read somewhere that all this damned cover, concealment etc. bullshit requirement in the hide skill should just disappear. I mean, we are talking about a game where magic is totally commonplace. I found myself agreeing whole-heartedly. What the fuck, just let people hide when and where they want, it's not as if this stuff has to make sense by real-world measures...

[NiteCyper]

We're arguing on how to interpret the rules in terms of the application of the Hide (in Plain Sight) skill and/or ability in combat.

Points of inquiry:
- attacking while hiding (e.g. make a check at the end of one's turn, after each attack, or..?).
- what actions can Hide take (other than normal movement or a 5-foot step) (e.g. being bullrushed is movement, is that grounds for a Hide check?).

re: being bullrushed: No, that'd be an immediate action. (Let me say right now, I feel unsatisfied with my ruling as Curmudgeon, as I mention at the bottom, would take such a better, rules-solid approach.)

re: as part of an attack, not Hiding prior (with HiPS): I'd allow this. (See above statement about Curmudgeon.)

re: "while attacking": I take this clause to mean that you decide to perform an attack FROM hiding. This action is impossible without already riding on a Hide check before-hand. In this case, the phrasing would be better worded as "attacking while hiding" rather than vice-versa. Then again, they mean the same, and your worries are gone. The clause this subclause is contained within I would generalize as addressing the penalty applied to Hiding while performing a noisy action.
I'd go with one Hide check after an attack sequence.

re: contact detection: what is this called in real life when we feel something and know the general direction the feeling originates from? I rule the victim <verb> a cone in the direction which their character senses the attack originates from.
Somatosensory research is required for appropriate nomenclature.

I highly recommend seeking wisdom from "Curmudgeon" from the GitP forums. Their deduction is uncanny.

P.S. In my case, I use the "Blend into Shadows" feat (DotU) which has its granted ability as a swift action, i.e. without spending a swift action on anything else, it leaves out the question of how many Hide checks are required for hiding while attacking since I can make one at the end of the turn (for better if the GM rules the requirement of a Hide check per attack). On that note, do people generally allow swift actions and the like to be taken as longer actions such as a standard action? In this case, it would allow the performance of two swift actions (by sacrificing one's standard action), and three if you allow the tribute of a move action as well.

[PhaedrusXY]

Heh, it's just the normal process of making sense of unclear rules. Now, IMHO there are certainly worse contenders, but... yeah, they really could have clarified that.

IMHO there are certainly different ways of seeing this. I remember I recently read somewhere that all this damned cover, concealment etc. bullshit requirement in the hide skill should just disappear. I mean, we are talking about a game where magic is totally commonplace. I found myself agreeing whole-heartedly. What the fuck, just let people hide when and where they want, it's not as if this stuff has to make sense by real-world measures...

That's from Frank and K's tomes (the Dungeonomicon, I think). And yeah, the questions I'm asking are actually for a Tome game. So I won't be needing concealment/cover to hide, and I have an item that lets me hide while in plain view (basically HiPS). So I'm just trying to figure out how this crap should work. I know it is ultimately up to the DM (Hijax), but I'm also running a Tome game, and have a couple of sneaky characters in that, and I'd like to know how to go with it there, also.

The sneaky PCs in my game usually have Invisibility also. So I haven't had to worry about it too much. But my character won't in Hijax's game (at least initially).

[NiteCyper]

The sneaky PCs in my game usually have Invisibility also. So I haven't had to worry about it too much. But my character won't in Hijax's game (at least initially).

(Lesser) Invisibility won't help unclear rules, but Greater Invisibility will.

...or am I making a fool of myself with a misreading?

[PhaedrusXY]

The sneaky PCs in my game usually have Invisibility also. So I haven't had to worry about it too much. But my character won't in Hijax's game (at least initially).

(Lesser) Invisibility won't help unclear rules, but Greater Invisibility will.

...or am I making a fool of myself with a misreading?

They have Rings of Darkhidden, and the game takes place in a world where the sun has went out. So it's basically Greater Invis, 24/7.

[Anklebite]

The sneaky PCs in my game usually have Invisibility also. So I haven't had to worry about it too much. But my character won't in Hijax's game (at least initially).

(Lesser) Invisibility won't help unclear rules, but Greater Invisibility will.

...or am I making a fool of myself with a misreading?

They have Rings of Darkhidden, and the game takes place in a world where the sun has went out. So it's basically Greater Invis, 24/7.

up yours, darkvision!

[PhaedrusXY]

The sneaky PCs in my game usually have Invisibility also. So I haven't had to worry about it too much. But my character won't in Hijax's game (at least initially).

(Lesser) Invisibility won't help unclear rules, but Greater Invisibility will.

...or am I making a fool of myself with a misreading?

They have Rings of Darkhidden, and the game takes place in a world where the sun has went out. So it's basically Greater Invis, 24/7.

up yours, darkvision!

This has led me to discover just how good Low-light Vision is, though.

[Brainpiercing]

Low-light vision is, strictly speaking, very often much better than Darkvision. Low-light vision doesn't have a range, so you can use ANY lightsource no matter the distance. You can also throw or shoot lightsources to illuminate only hostiles at great distance, while staying in the dark yourself. Darkvision with it's puny range is rather less than useful in many situations.

The same goes for things like True-seeing vs. See Invisibility. I'd rather have both, most of the time.

[SorO_Lost]

HiPS is one of the most awesome abilities ever made. The problem is HiPS is a title shared by many completely different abilities.

As noted, you can remain hidden while attacking with a -20 to your check and you can take a move action after a standard attack (or strike) and hide anyway. HiPS isn't required for any of that. Aww it looks like HiPS is craptastic right?

Nope.

What HiPS does to is skip some but not all of hiding requirements. Keep in mind HiPS varies from class to class.

1. Normally you have to be completely hidden before you can hide.
It's bizarre and very true. You can hide in total cover and total concealment just fine, but those effects already mean you already cannot be seen to start with. To hide in cover or concealment no one see you hide in it, IE be hidden before hiding. Any person that saw you use cover or concealment to hide means you are not hiding to them and they see you just fine, no amount of hide bonus can make up for it. You can burn a standard action to roll a bluff check and hide in cover/concealment even if someone can already see you, but that requires ranks in another skill and a whole standard action.

All forms of HiPS bypass the problems with not being able to hide using cover/concealment after being seen. Ideally you were not seen to start with making this basic feature of HiPS a little lackluster though it does cover your rear when you are the one being ambushed.


2. You must remain concealed or behind cover to remain hidden failure to do so, regardless of skill check, means you are unhidden to all.
In the examples of attacking melee wise this is problematic. Concealment wise; say your target is walking down a road, if he is outside of your attack range while standing in whatever is granting you concealment you must move out meaning you are no longer hidden and cannot rehide. Ranged attacks or longer reach overcomes this of course since you remain within the area granting you concealment. Cover wise; almost any given case if you have cover against them they have cover against you awarding them +4 AC against your attacks, this applies to ranged attacks as well.

Both the Assassin and Shadow Dancer versions of HiPS override this. You don't have to be concealed or have cover in order to be hidden. All you have to be is within 10ft. of a shadow. So as a lame diagram: [X][you][][Sa] where Sa a sizable shadow, you is you, X is the target. As you can see the range of attack with 5ft reach is 15 feet from the source of a shadow allowing you to use it with less limits on range making melee attacks feasible. You can in many cases use you will use a shadow instead of having to use cover to skip the AC bonus as well. This version of HiPS is nice primarily due to the increasing the number of areas you can hide in allowing you to TWF your daggers for tons of SA damage.

The Ranger's version however skip the requirements of shadows for any natural terrain. Caves, forests, deserts, swamps, mountains, tundra and prairies just to name a few. Suddenly your range to move about while hidden becomes nearly unlimited. Foes will never have cover against you as you will never use it to hide. You won't have any limit on your concealment's range or even having to remain close to sizable shadow as you don't use those either. This version of HiPS truly is awesome but at the cost of 17 (13 if using unearthed arcane) levels in a subpar class of suckage it goes ignored.

The Dark Creature template's HiPS requires any sort of darkness. Not necessarily concealment, just the lack of daylight-like effects. For instance an area lit up by torches is an area in which a Dark Creature can hide in. It's really more limiting than the Ranger's version since you have 10~14 hours of daylight preventing you from using it all the time, but at night it's nice. Also it comes on a magic item and doesn't require you to waste levels and the very same magic item grants +8 to hide and resistance 10 to cold makes this the best form of HiPS ever.

Hellbreaker has an HiPS ability of a different name. It's more limited than Dark Creature and even Shadowdancer/Assassin as you have to be in darkness though there is no note of requiring concealment. But in the case of Hellbreaker you're taking level in it to steal supernatural abilities and that ability alone is so great the rest of the  levels could lack class abilities and you would still want to take levels in it. Only mentioned becuase I felt like it.


Edit: lols I forgot [ then S then ] is a BB tag.

[PhaedrusXY]

Low-light vision is, strictly speaking, very often much better than Darkvision. Low-light vision doesn't have a range, so you can use ANY lightsource no matter the distance. You can also throw or shoot lightsources to illuminate only hostiles at great distance, while staying in the dark yourself. Darkvision with it's puny range is rather less than useful in many situations.

The same goes for things like True-seeing vs. See Invisibility. I'd rather have both, most of the time.

Low-light vision also has this gem:

Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.

I also saw in one book that it said they could see as well on a star-lit night as during the day, which means that as long as it isn't cloudy, they can see perfectly well at night. This is right out of Tolkien's books about the elves awakening before the sun was in place, but I can't remember where I saw it in the D&D rules. Anyone remember seeing that?

2. You must remain concealed or behind cover to remain hidden failure to do so, regardless of skill check, means you are unhidden to all.
In the examples of attacking melee wise this is problematic. Concealment wise; say your target is walking down a road, if he is outside of your attack range while standing in whatever is granting you concealment you must move out meaning you are no longer hidden and cannot rehide. Ranged attacks or longer reach overcomes this of course since you remain within the area granting you concealment. Cover wise; almost any given case if you have cover against them they have cover against you awarding them +4 AC against your attacks, this applies to ranged attacks as well.

You can move up to 1 foot per rank in the Hide skill between concealment/cover and still remain hidden. I don't remember exactly where this is stated, but I'm sure that's the case. I'll post a quote/link if I can remember where I saw it.

[SorO_Lost]

You can move up to 1 foot per rank in the Hide skill between concealment/cover and still remain hidden. I don't remember exactly where this is stated, but I'm sure that's the case. I'll post a quote/link if I can remember where I saw it.

Hide skill, under Check.

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.

Requires the diversion to use. And also to move into the place granting concealment rather than remaining outside of it.

[PhaedrusXY]

No, I think you can just move from one concealment granting area to another, aside from the diversion thing. If you can do that, you should be able to move out of concealment that far and attack someone without being automatically noticed as well.

Like I said, I don't remember where I saw that at. If I can find the quote, I'll post it. No sense arguing about something I can't find the rules text for.

Even just given what you quoted and assuming the DM is being strict, you should technically be able to create a diversion (the classic version is tossing a rock), then move out of hiding and attack. As long as you're stated original "intent" is to move to another source of concealment, you'll remain hidden while moving. Nothing seems to stop you from changing your mind and attacking before you get there, though.

[SorO_Lost]

Complete Adventurer, page 101, hide skill, move between cover.
Can't directly quote (no text based pdf) but it notes if you use it to sneak up to someone they won't notice you until you attack (and further notes they remain flat-footed against your attack). Which probably means they notice you when you do thus you're unhidden and have to dash off and get behind something again.

[snakeman830]

Spoilered for length.  I do have a text-based PDF [spoiler]

[/spoiler]