How does hiding without magic/supernatural help work?

[Andezzar]

I'm confused how hiding is supposed to work by RAW. There are two conditions to be met to be allowed to hide:

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.

So here's my problem:

Unless we are talking about a magical miss chance, cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) and concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment) can only be determined in relation to an observer, but if the one trying to hide is observed he cannot hide.

Apart from being invisible, even total cover/concealment does not allow the player to make a hide check.

[Zerter]

This is one of these situations where you have to want to see the problem for it to exist. The RAI seems pretty clear to me.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Well, think like this then: "If these creatures were observing me, would I have cover/concealment?" If yes: Hide is go! If no: Get cover/concealment!

[BRC]

I would say that one is hiding against a future observer.
Let | represent a low wall (Cover/concealment), O represent Ollie the observer, and P represent sneaky pete.

|P
There is no observer, so P makes his hide check. Later, Ollie arrives
O |P
Ollie now rolls his Spot against Pete's Hide check, which was made in advance.

If, however, Ollie shows up on the other side.
|P O
He spots Pete automatically, since Pete does not have cover in relation to Ollie, Pete's hide check is irrelevant.

You need Cover or Concealment to hide, because that is the only way you have any chance of hiding from anybody. Unless you have Cover or Concealment from every direction, there is always a chance that you'll remain exposed.

[jackattack]

This is where cleverness comes in handy.

Should you hide behind some empty barrels in the middle of the room, between some empty barrels and a wall, or inside an empty barrel?

Should you hide behind the door, in the closet, or under the bed?

Should you hide in an alley, or get lost in the crowds in the streets?

Should you hide in one spot and hope nobody finds you, or should you move (silently) to new positions as your pursuers move from one area to another?

This is also where shadows become the stealthy character's friend. Concealment in a shadow is not subject to angle of view, as long as the shadow remains. However, alternate visual spectra and new/moving light sources penetrate this form of concealment easily.

[Andezzar]

I get that the potential observer is RAI, but unfortunately the rules do not say so.


This is where cleverness comes in handy.

Should you hide behind some empty barrels in the middle of the room, between some empty barrels and a wall, or inside an empty barrel?

Should you hide behind the door, in the closet, or under the bed?By RAW it would not matter, as long as there is no observer you cannot determine which spots would grant cover/concealment.


Should you hide in an alley, or get lost in the crowds in the streets?Do crowds even grant cover/concealment? If so, where is that rule?


Should you hide in one spot and hope nobody finds you, or should you move (silently) to new positions as your pursuers move from one area to another?The problem with the latter option is that as soon as you no longer have cover/concealment you are obvious. Even being totally silent will not change that.


This is also where shadows become the stealthy character's friend. Concealment in a shadow is not subject to angle of view, as long as the shadow remains. However, alternate visual spectra and new/moving light sources penetrate this form of concealment easily.Where does it say that shadows grant concealment?

[BRC]

By RAW, the game is basically unplayable. By RAW, you can't see the sun, Monk's don't gain proficiency with unarmed strikes, drowning can cause you to recover HP, and Dead characters can still take actions as normal.

[blazinghand]

To directly answer your question, RAW hiding without magic is basically impossible without knowing exactly who you're hiding from, where they're looking from, and whether or not there's some sort of partial concealment. You need to be observable, observed, then become unobserved. Clearly RAW makes no sense.

This isn't a fun answer, but it's the truth. Most of us choose to abandon RAW and go with some version of RAI when we play, since RAW 3.5e is pretty much unplayable.

[Andreaz]

I get that the potential observer is RAI, but unfortunately the rules do not say so.There's a limit between reading mixed lines, funny holes and milking stones. You are milking stones.
By RAW it would not matter, as long as there is no observer you cannot determine which spots would grant cover/concealment.You hide from those you are concealed from.
Do crowds even grant cover/concealment? If so, where is that rule?Have you ever walked on a crowded street? It's the same as thick vegetation, except it moves more and the animals are slower-witted.
The problem with the latter option is that as soon as you no longer have cover/concealment you are obvious. Even being totally silent will not change that.Run and get behind his back. Or run further away to the point you can't be identified in the distance. Working as intended.
Where does it say that shadows grant concealment?At night, go to your room, close the windows, doors and turn off the lights. Bring a cat that just went into overdrive and try to keep track.

[Answerer]

go with some version of RAI when we play,
Sigh, this, again?

No, you don't.

You go with whatever works best for your table (which is exactly what you should do). But that does not, under any stretch of the imagination, match what was "intended" (and in more than one case I think what was likely intended a terrible idea anyway). No one knows exactly what was intended; as a result, you can't play by RAI. You (and everyone else) don't even know what that would be.

You play by RAMSTMG, or Rules As Make Sense To My Group. Everyone does, so we don't generally bother with an acronym. Some people go with just RAMS but that's problematic because there's no such thing as "makes sense" that's going to work equally well for every group.

[blazinghand]

Sigh, this, again?

No, you don't.

You go with whatever works best for your table (which is exactly what you should do). But that does not, under any stretch of the imagination, match what was "intended" (and in more than one case I think what was likely intended a terrible idea anyway). No one knows exactly what was intended; as a result, you can't play by RAI. You (and everyone else) don't even know what that would be.

You play by RAMSTMG, or Rules As Make Sense To My Group. Everyone does, so we don't generally bother with an acronym. Some people go with just RAMS but that's problematic because there's no such thing as "makes sense" that's going to work equally well for every group.

RAI by myself, then, rather than by the authors.

EDIT: Even so, I'm not a psychologist but I'm fairly certain the authors did intent hiding to be possible without magic.

[Psyren]

Do crowds even grant cover/concealment? If so, where is that rule?


Rules Compendium provides the rules for hiding in a crowd (RC 92). Basically, you can hide in a crowd from someone scanning the area to find you (e.g. you run from the guards and turn the corner into the marketplace - if you make it to the crowd before the guards see you, they have to make spot checks), but not from the crowd itself (e.g. if you're being chased by an angry mob, you wouldn't be able to just turn around, dive into their midst and make a hide check to escape them, because they're the ones looking for you.) Furthermore, if the people in the crowd around you are hostile and know that you're trying to hide in their midst, they can point out your location and ruin your hide check (causing you to automatically fail it) even if they aren't the ones actually searching for you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First and foremost, remember that total cover/concealment obviates the need for a hide check. If you can't be seen anyway why are you trying to make a skill check?

Then there's the matter of observation. Being observed means that someone's watching you. If you can get to total concealment or otherwise completely block his LOS for a moment you can hide in that moment. The distraction use of the bluff skill can also momentarily break an enemy's observation of you, allowing you to hide if there is a source of concealment nearby.

Moving from one point of concealment to another unobserved is covered by RAW, it's just not in the PHB. It's in Complete Adventurer. You take a penalty on your hide-check based on the unconcealed distance you have to cover. The same skill expansion also covers getting lost in a crowd, IIRC.

Shadowy illumination (read: shadows) grants concealment according to PHB pg 164.

It's all there, and it isn't a terrible analogue to how evading visual detection works IRL.

[jackattack]

Sometimes total cover or concealment aren't that total, and skill rolls cover that possibility. They also keep player abilities from completely overwhelming the DM/NPCs abilities.

The character who hides in the chimney might be discovered if an NPC notices soot falling into the fireplace, or a footprint in the ashes. The character who hides in an empty barrel might sneeze. The character hiding behind the drapes might be betrayed by a gust of wind. The character who has five feet of stone between him and an observer might cast a shadow that same observer can see. These tell-tales come up after the successful Spot check.

Frankly, most of this can be resolved RAW. But IMO, PCs should probably always get a roll to notice a hidden NPC, and NPCs should always get a roll to spot a hidden PC when they are actively searching.

[Curmudgeon]

I would say that one is hiding against a future observer.
No, that can't be right because Hide vs. Spot is a standard opposed skill check: i.e., it's made at the same time. (Disguise and Forgery are examples of nonstandard opposed checks, which are not made in the same round; there are explicit exceptions for those skills.) You cannot Hide if nobody is there to (potentially) Spot you. Total cover or total concealment usually makes it impossible under the rules to make a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway: you don't get to keep making unopposed Hide rolls and then stop and maintain your best result, round after round, waiting for someone to come along with their single opposed check.

Kelb_Panthera has summarized the rules options pretty well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You actually can make a hide check when there's noone around to see it. It won't do you much good though. Technically, hide V spot is supposed to be a secret roll handled by the DM. You're not supposed to know how well you did unless you took 10 if the situation allowed for it. Gimme a minute and I'll get a page citation for that.

Edit: huh. I can't seem to find that particular rule. It may have been a houserule, I suppose. If anyone else has heard this, can you help me out?

Even if it is a houserule, it's a good one. It helps immensely with immersion.

[nedz]

I normally give a Sense Motive against Bluff, after the Hide against Spot.
This is in response to the question: "Has he seen me?"

[ericgrau]

You can't hide while being observed. You need to already be hidden before you are observed. Either before the fight or you need to break line of sight, hide, then sneak in closer. I wouldn't recommend the latter though because it wastes too much time to be worth it. Usually you shouldn't hide during combat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You can't hide while being observed. You need to already be hidden before you are observed. Either before the fight or you need to break line of sight, hide, then sneak in closer. I wouldn't recommend the latter though because it wastes too much time to be worth it. Usually you shouldn't hide during combat.

You're forgetting about the distraction use of bluff.

As for whether hiding during a combat encounter is a good idea, that really depends on how your character's built and what you're fighting. Sometime things go south and it's time to GTFO, or maybe the target is impervious to your usuall routine so you just need to lay low while the rest of the party takes care of it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You can't hide while being observed. You need to already be hidden before you are observed. Either before the fight or you need to break line of sight, hide, then sneak in closer. I wouldn't recommend the latter though because it wastes too much time to be worth it. Usually you shouldn't hide during combat.

You're forgetting about the distraction use of bluff.

As for whether hiding during a combat encounter is a good idea, that really depends on how your character's built and what you're fighting. Sometime things go south and it's time to GTFO, or maybe the target is impervious to your usuall routine so you just need to lay low while the rest of the party takes care of it. Maybe you're seperated from the party and botched a previous hide check and are trying to get back into hiding before the mass of enemies that aren't already observing you arrive and they all collectively skewer you.

[Gwendol]

There are non-magical ways to get concealement in combat which allows for hiding, such as the shrouded dance skill trick, or the cloak dance feat, provided the necessary bluff check is successful.