How the Heck Do You Hide in Plain Sight?

[Duke of Urrel]

The rules for Hide skill don't tell me enough to explain what the heck it means to hide in plain sight. I mean, what you you have to do to hide in plain sight? Here's what we have to go on in the description of Hide skill in the SRD:

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.

It's easy to see why opinions diverge. There are people who believe that hiding in plain sight is a free action that you can take between mêlée attacks, so that you can deal sneak-attack damage repeatedly. And there are others who believe that you must move in order to hide.

I would like to take a mediating position between these views. Presently, I am leaning toward house-ruling that hiding in plain sight always takes a move action, but not necessarily always a move. This move action provokes no attacks of opportunity in and of itself, but if you actually move (that is, try to leave a threatened game square), then you provoke attacks of opportunity according to the rules of movement.

But I would be interested to know whether my view is really in the mainstream, or somewhat outside of the general opinion. I have also recently heard it suggested that one may even combine a Hide check with other kinds of actions, such as attacks, which strikes me as bizarre. Can someone give examples of this?

And how does one come out of hiding in plain sight? If you can hide merely by standing still, then you can come out of hiding while standing still, too, right? But do you still have to take some kind of action to do so? I would say no - you should be able to "turn off" your concealment as a free action. Maybe something that breaks your concentration (such as an attack that hits and deals damage) should "turn off" your concealment in plain sight even against your will...

(Normally, I consider coming out of hiding to be a "hampered move of five feet." This is less than a whole move action – which you must take in order to stand up from prone position – because I assume that when you emerge from a hiding place, you rise up from a crouching or squatting position rather than a completely prone position. Therefore, you reduce the length of the rest of your move (should you wish to move farther) by only five feet, but since this is not a five-foot step, you provoke attacks of opportunity – just as you do when you stand up from a prone position. This is the kind of split-the-difference house rule that I favor.)

(I have also assumed that apart from sniping, you can't attack and remain hidden. Another way to come out of hiding - whether you want to or not - would be to make a mêlée attack. Or am I failing to give hiding in plain sight the power it deserves?)

Finally, I am interested in fluff. I imagine that a high-level ranger who hides in plain sight is like a chameleon; her entire body reacts alchemically with her gear so that she blends in perfectly with her surroundings. (If it's not magical, but still can't be explained by real-world physics, I am always tempted to call it "alchemical.") A shadowdancer or an assassin who hides in plain sight does something similar, only with magic. (Sometimes it happens that when the RAW can't help you, what you really need is some good fluff.)

What do you think?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Check
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

It does take a move-action or movement (5-ft. step) to begin hiding, but making an attack doesn't automatically mean you stop hiding. You can full attack and take a -20 to your hide check, and opponents should get a reactive spot check with every attack you make, but you don't need to re-hide between attacks unless you're spotted by your primary target.


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.

There are different versions of Hide in Plain Sight. The Ranger version and the Dark Creature version only override the second part of that, that you can hide while being observed under certain circumstances (in natural terrain or not in daylight, respectively), but you still need cover or concealment to even attempt to hide with either of those. The Shadowdancer and Assassin versions specify that you can hide while being observed, and also that you can hide if within 10 ft. of a shadow without anything to hide behind. Keep in mind what version of Hide in Plain Sight you have and what exactly it allows you to do.

[ericgrau]

If you could simply take a -20 to remain hiding then snipers would always full attack instead of ever relying on the snipe option which both imposes a -20 and requires a move action.

The FAQ has another example which includes hide in plain sight and the additional ability to hide without cover and it still relies on spring attack to hide again after the attack.

I think it's pretty clear that you need some kind of movement to hide again after striking, though this doesn't necessarily mean a move action. RAW is at best unclear and RAI says you need to hide again which means moving.

[TuggyNE]

If you could simply take a -20 to remain hiding then snipers would always full attack instead of ever relying on the snipe option which both imposes a -20 and requires a move action.

I'm not quite confident that WotC managed to get their rules together enough to make that make sense. After all, they managed to scramble Mounted Combat enough no one seems quite sure what RAW even is, and actions like Overrun are basically useless because of Bull Rush or Trample. So yeah, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turned out that by a certain strict reading Sniping was actually pointless as well.

[Duke of Urrel]

Thank you for your astute and thoughtful responses!


It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

It does take a move-action or movement (5-ft. step) to begin hiding, but making an attack doesn't automatically mean you stop hiding. You can full attack and take a -20 to your hide check, and opponents should get a reactive spot check with every attack you make, but you don't need to re-hide between attacks unless you're spotted by your primary target.


If you could simply take a -20 to remain hiding then snipers would always full attack instead of ever relying on the snipe option which both imposes a -20 and requires a move action.

The FAQ has another example which includes hide in plain sight and the additional ability to hide without cover and it still relies on spring attack to hide again after the attack.

I think it's pretty clear that you need some kind of movement to hide again after striking, though this doesn't necessarily mean a move action. RAW is at best unclear and RAI says you need to hide again which means moving.

Maybe there's a mediating position here. Suppose we say that unless you're invisible (using magic at least equal to Greater Invisibility), hitting someone with a mêlée attack always means coming out of hiding – but only with respect to the person you hit, since it should be pretty obvious to that person where you are...? With respect to all other observers, you could still try to remain hidden, but with a –20 penalty.

On the other hand, it strains the imagination to consider how one remains hidden with respect to anybody at all while making multiple mêlée attacks. Suppose you come under attack and cry out: "Ow! Ow! Ow! Hey guys, I'm under attack here!" And suppose your comrades all respond by saying: "From where?" even though your attacker (who must have phenomenal Hide skill) is right next to you and you're looking right at her. Your comrades ought to see in which direction you turn your head to look after you are struck the first time, and if they know your attacker's location, and she's not invisible, then they should be able to see her, shouldn't they?

In any event, we should maintain a distinction here between mêlée and ranged attacks. Sniping is always done with a ranged attack, so if you make a Hide check as a move action after you snipe and succeed despite the -20 penalty (with the help of lots of poor Spot checks), you remain hidden with respect to everybody. You and your comrades can see in which direction the arrow came from, but they can't measure the ranged attacker's distance exactly, so in this case, she may remain hidden if she's really good at hiding.

I'm still wondering what this all means for attacks of opportunity. If the power to hide in plain sight means that you can hide within reach of an attacker, this immediately becomes an issue. Suppose we accept the rule that you must always move at least five feet in order to hide, as Biffoniacus_Furiou said. Can you take a five-foot step and avoid attacks of opportunity, or does the need for stealth make this a kind of "hampered movement" that disqualifies it from being a five-foot step?

[Duke of Urrel]

...and actions like Overrun are basically useless because of Bull Rush or Trample. So yeah, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turned out that by a certain strict reading Sniping was actually pointless as well.

Your general point about WotC confusing the heck out of their basic rules by adding advanced ones is a good one (applicable in lots of situations), but I don't think either the Bull Rush or Trample action makes the Overrun action pointless. The Trample action doesn't replace the Overrun action; it improves it. As for the Bull Rush action, you can't overrun someone over a cliff's edge, and you can't bull-rush someone, turn around, and bull-rush him again from the opposite direction, as you can with the Overrun action. Both actions have different tactical functions.

[Telonius]

Under the Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm)skill:

Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

Two things about the wording are awkward. First, they don't come out and say explicitly, "Hiding after a ranged attack is a Move Action." But the situation they describe is exactly what would happen if that were the case: you'd take a single attack (one standard action) and then hide (one move action).

The second problem is the word "immediately." I think that's where the idea that sniping is a free (or Swift, or Immediate) action comes from.

[Psyren]

Two things about the wording are awkward. First, they don't come out and say explicitly, "Hiding after a ranged attack is a Move Action." But the situation they describe is exactly what would happen if that were the case: you'd take a single attack (one standard action) and then hide (one move action).

The second problem is the word "immediately." I think that's where the idea that sniping is a free (or Swift, or Immediate) action comes from.

They do, in fact, explicitly state it.


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.

[Duke of Urrel]

Two things about the wording are awkward. First, they don't come out and say explicitly, "Hiding after a ranged attack is a Move Action." But the situation they describe is exactly what would happen if that were the case: you'd take a single attack (one standard action) and then hide (one move action).

The second problem is the word "immediately." I think that's where the idea that sniping is a free (or Swift, or Immediate) action comes from.

I agree. As we all know, the RAW are a rich source of confusion. I think even Hide skill is confusing as it is described (or can be, if you interpret the description the way I do). Consider this passage:

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.

When you make a skill check as a nonaction that is considered to be part of another action, there are two possibilities:

(1) You must make the skill check in order to complete the action. This seems to be the case with Balance skill and Concentration skill, for example.

(2) You must complete the action in order to make the skill check. This seems to be the case with Move Silently skill and may – or may not – also be the case with Hide skill. This seems to be part of what we are debating here.

Incidentally, I have long believed that you don't have to move in order to make a Move Silently check. Indeed, standing motionless, if there is no need to go anywhere at the moment, has always seemed to me to be the best way to avoid making any noise. If you do nothing but stand still during your turn in order to remain hidden and make no noise at all, I allow you (as my own house-rule) to make a Move Silently check that adds +10. (Of course, doing this is effectively a full-round action.)

So I have also long wondered whether you might be able to hide without moving, too, provided that you happen to be standing in a great place to hide in right now. Hiding might involve only crouching, squatting, or leaning a little one way or another, without taking a single step in any direction. I think making a Hide check should always be an action, however, and probably a move action. The question remains, though: What kind of move action is this? Should it provoke attacks of opportunity (as standing up from a prone position or stooping to pick something up off the ground does)? Or should it avoid attacks of opportunity, as a five-foot step does?

[Duke of Urrel]

They do, in fact, explicitly state it.

Yes, they do, but they do it elsewhere, which creates some confusion by itself.

Indeed, in this very thread, I believe we are divided on the question of whether the phrase "hide while attacking" refers exclusively to sniping (that is, to a single ranged attack) or whether it may also refer to one or even several mêlée attacks (provided that you have the power to hide in plain sight).

[TuggyNE]

Your general point about WotC confusing the heck out of their basic rules by adding advanced ones is a good one (applicable in lots of situations), but I don't think either the Bull Rush or Trample action makes the Overrun action pointless. The Trample action doesn't replace the Overrun action; it improves it. As for the Bull Rush action, you can't overrun someone over a cliff's edge, and you can't bull-rush someone, turn around, and bull-rush him again from the opposite direction, as you can with the Overrun action. Both actions have different tactical functions.

While Bull Rush may not be strictly superior to Overrun in a technical sense, have you ever seen someone use Overrun, and should they have? (That is, is there any actual game situation in which it is at all useful?) Also, I should have further noted the effect of Tripping, which actually is superior to Overrun in nearly every way.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm, well, I think, for one, that some limits in Hide in Plain Sight can be in order. Allowing someone, for instance a rogue with iterative attacks, get off more than one sneak attack per round on a single target (barring the use of other spells, feats or skill tricks...Mosquito Bite, for instance) seems silly. The target might not be able to see you if you have actions (whatever action we agree on) to hide again after the first melee attack, but, at least for the current round, without moving, the target should no longer be flat footed. The target knows something is up ("#*%#*$$, someone just shanked me?!!"), and is now alert.

Now, in terms of returning to or continuing to Hide. I have ruled that it takes some kind of an action, either some move distance remaining if this is Spring Attack, or if you began within reach of target, a move to return to your Hiding (though you don't actually have to move, since you don't need concealment to hide, and the whole point of moving somewhere to Hide is to get cover/concealment). Thus if you use up a full-round action doing something and don't have some kind of extra action buff, no Hide. It really shouldn't be a free action.

The silly thing here is that, at higher levels with skill optimization, when they say things like "practically impossible (-20 to Hide check)," that's not terribly impossible at all. With the right equips, optimized dex or certain races, Hide can be pumped up well above what 90% of enemies could manage on Spot checks. A -20 will only hurt against powerful enemies, and tanking while relying on Hiding sounds like a suspect tactic.

Anyway, I think the problem lies less with the Hide skill description, and more with the clarification that should have accompanied Hide in Plain Sight, which is a fairly common class/PrC ability.

[Piggy Knowles]

Making a hide check (ie, going from not-hiding to hiding) requires movement, unless you have a specific ability that lets you hide in other circumstances.

Hiding normally can't happen while being observed, and you need some form of cover or concealment. Rangers and folks with similar HiPS abilities can blend in well enough with their surroundings that they don't need cover/concealment, but they still need movement and a distraction. Shadowdancers and similar can even do this while being observed, because magic. (Seriously, that's why they have supernatural HiPS, while a ranger has an extraordinary version.)

All makes perfect sense to me...

[Archmage1]

Why go for hide in plain sight?
Go for a ring of blinking, and save yourself a lot of levels, and become much tougher.

As far as how you hide in plain sight: You do something to lose the eyesight of onlookers(A distraction, some handy shadow, shire light into their eyes), and hide.
Or you be evil, and cut out their eyes(which may or may not cause blindness by RAW)

[Phelix-Mu]

Making a hide check (ie, going from not-hiding to hiding) requires movement, unless you have a specific ability that lets you hide in other circumstances.

Hiding normally can't happen while being observed, and you need some form of cover or concealment. Rangers and folks with similar HiPS abilities can blend in well enough with their surroundings that they don't need cover/concealment, but they still need movement and a distraction. Shadowdancers and similar can even do this while being observed, because magic. (Seriously, that's why they have supernatural HiPS, while a ranger has an extraordinary version.)

All makes perfect sense to me...

I agree that the "observed point" stands, but if you were previously already hidden via HiPS, you aren't being observed. Stab the opponent. Still hidden, as long as you beat the opponent's Spot. As I mentioned, they aren't flat-footed anymore, and they will likely attempt to see you, so you need to make another Hide check at this point (since it can't be done reactively, I always rule that you need to take some kind of non-free action to do it...not sure about RAW interpretation here). The "observed" thing only seems to apply if they see you, and you are hidden, so it would seem to me that they didn't see you (you already beat their Spot). You don't need concealment, and you only need a distraction/move once someone has seen you (beat your Hide check).

Also, not really sure that it says you have to move. Source pls.

Please, I do like being corrected when I am wrong, so clarify if I've read it wrong. I also agree that this is some very complicated skill interaction.

[Piggy Knowles]

Also, not really sure that it says you have to move. Source pls.

Here's the quote from the SRD:



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.


Emphasis mine. You make a Hide check as part of a movement. That's the general rule. There are some exceptions to the general rule, such as the sniping action, but in general hiding is not an action in and of itself, but rather something you do as part of your regular movement.

[Curmudgeon]

The rules for Hide skill don't tell me enough to explain what the heck it means to hide in plain sight. I mean, what you you have to do to hide in plain sight?
...
It's easy to see why opinions diverge. There are people who believe that hiding in plain sight is a free action that you can take between mêlée attacks, so that you can deal sneak-attack damage repeatedly. And there are others who believe that you must move in order to hide.
Excepting the special case of Sniping -- which you would never use if you had Hide in Plain Sight -- a Hide check is never a separate action. Instead, it's not an action and there are a few other actions which permit you to make a Hide check while performing them.

So, Hide is never a free action, and it's never performed between attacks. With both the Hide requirements met (as they would be by the better forms of HiPS) you may Hide while attacking. That's not before attacking, or after attacking, mind. It's part of the attack. If you were already hidden you're already going to get the benefits (+2 to hit and target denied their DEX to AC) for the attack, and if you Hide while attacking you're also going to get those benefits. The special thing that happens if you were already hidden and also successfully Hide while attacking is that your enemy never knows (even vaguely) where the attack is coming from, because you never become visually apparent, even for a moment. They don't have a clue if you're in your actual location, or 40' in the opposite direction.

Attacking is pretty much the only action which allows you to Hide without moving somewhere. That's counter-intuitive, because in the real world staying still is advantageous for stealth. But by the D&D rules you've generally got to move at least one square to be allowed to Hide; staying still doesn't permit a Hide check.

The Hide skill description is pretty poorly organized. The information is all there, though.

[Phelix-Mu]

Still seems a little unclear that, once you have succeeded on Hide check, do you need to move to remain hidden? Opponent doesn't see you (successful Hide check, which it does seem you need to move for, excepting sniping), so do any new Spot checks they make face the DC of your original Hide check, or provoke a new Hide check (which you can't make unless you move?)?

It's a cool set of rules to exploit. I love stealth, it's just a little hard to figure it out sometimes. I was DMing a campaign with a shadar-kai npc, and this would have come up a lot at later levels, since she was going AoO rogue with spiked chain. Since I was DM, I just fudged my way through a lot of her in-combat actions unless she was closely interacting with other players (i.e., flanking,etc.).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd argue that since the description says you can move up to half your speed before taking a penalty and that moving via move action doesn't actually list any kind of minimum distance you must cover you could spend a move action to move 0 feet and make a hide check as part of that move action.

I can't refute curmudgeon's interpretation that you can hide as part of the act of attacking, but it certainly doesn't sound right to me. I'll check into that and edit this post if I find anything.

I am pretty sure that once you've successfully hidden, you remain hidden until someone spots you or you voluntarily stop hiding.

[Duke of Urrel]

Many thanks to all commenters, and a particular thank-you to Curmudgeon, who has finally succeeded in making me understand the pertinent RAW – I think.

I still have a hard time accepting the absurdity of two juxtaposed notions: (1) that you can hide while attacking, though it's very hard (but no harder than hiding while running); and (2) that it's absolutely impossible to hide while standing still. Nonetheless, I believe it is my duty to accept rule (1) above; like it or not, that's what the RAW say. So it's time to start thinking of fluff that makes this plausible. (Your help would be appreciated.)

I think I am on my way to solving the "coming out of hiding" problem that Phelix-Mu alluded to in his latest comment (and that also interests me).

1. Firstly, you are likely to come out of hiding before you choose – when somebody spots you. If you stand still after you hide (which absolutely must be allowed, I think), your Hide check may be subject to periodic challenges from the opposed Spot checks of enemies – your DM would have to determine the appropriate length of intervals between Spot checks if your enemies remain nearby (or you spy on them) for an extended time. But if you ever tried to move or to attack, you would have to make another Hide check, because every enemy should be granted a chance to spot you again. This rule should apply (in my opinion) to each iterative attack that you take in a full-attack action, too. Every time you attack, you should have to make another Hide check to stay hidden, so that if you get three attacks in a full-attack action, you must make three Hide checks at –20 in order to stay hidden at the end of the round. At least, that's how I'd prefer the rule to be interpreted.

2. Secondly, if you choose to come out of hiding before anybody spots you, then I propose my house rule once again: You must at take at least a hampered move of five feet. (Any longer move or obvious standard action, such as an attack, would work, too.) This move is "hampered" because it is like standing up from a prone position, which is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

[Duke of Urrel]

For those of you still waiting for the other shoe to drop... Here it comes. (Your patience is to be commended, even if what I write won't seem like much of a reward.)

I still have a hard time accepting rule (2) from my previous posting, above: You must move in order to hide (unless you attack). Come on... You can hide while walking, while hustling, while running flat-out, or while attacking, but not while standing still – regardless of having all the concealment you need right where you are, and regardless of having the extraordinary or supernatural power to hide in plain sight?

Who says you have to travel from one game square to another in order to move? Can't you just take a move action instead? After all, we could argue that ducking, crouching, squatting, or leaning behind something also counts as a move as far as hiding is concerned. We could even call this move an "honorary" five-foot step for formality's sake. And I agree that the action that you take in order to make a Hide check should be more than a free action; if it's not a move in the strictest sense of the word, then it must take the place of a move – precisely as a five-foot step does. Finally, if you move no more than five feet to hide (and moving no feet at all in any direction satisfies this condition), then you provoke no attacks of opportunity by hiding.

I am actually a little more comfortable demanding an actual move – at least a five-foot step (in the strict sense, that is, a move that provokes no attacks of opportunity and by which you travel no farther than five feet on easy terrain) – when the one doing the hiding has the ability to hide in plain sight and must rely on this power alone to hide (that is, in the absence of any concealment that would enable a normal human to hide). We can think of this move as "hiding behind yourself" or some weird fluff like that.

[Kerilstrasz]

That is how you do it...
go at 1:32 and keep your eyes on the red/yellow armchair!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETmKMP8Nu0

[Duke of Urrel]

I'd argue that since the description says you can move up to half your speed before taking a penalty and that moving via move action doesn't actually list any kind of minimum distance you must cover you could spend a move action to move 0 feet and make a hide check as part of that move action.

I am pretty sure that once you've successfully hidden, you remain hidden until someone spots you or you voluntarily stop hiding.

Brilliant! That's exactly what I meant to say, but you said it sooner and used fewer words – as you've done before, in my experience.

[Curmudgeon]

I am pretty sure that once you've successfully hidden, you remain hidden until someone spots you or you voluntarily stop hiding.
I'm afraid the nature of opposed checks spoils that theory. You only make a Hide check when it's opposed by a potential observer's Spot check. That is, you can't Hide when there's nobody who could Spot you.
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. And, while you only make one Hide check per action (moving to a hiding place, most likely), that check is only good for the next round; a new Spot check in a new round requires a new Hide check (and a new action that round to permit that check) to oppose it.

[Duke of Urrel]

Excepting the special case of Sniping -- which you would never use if you had Hide in Plain Sight -- a Hide check is never a separate action.

I have some more questions about sniping, for you and everybody else (especially EricGrau).

1. How does hiding after you make a ranged attack – taking a move action and making a Hide check at –20 – differ from hiding while you make the ranged attack, likewise making a Hide check at –20? Is it that you have to make more Hide checks at –20 if you make more than one ranged attack (as a full-attack action)?

2. I used to suppose that the rules required you to take a move action to hide after sniping because no actual movement was necessary. In order to snipe (I assumed), you just leaned out, took a shot, and leaned back, but doing this without being spotted required you to make a Hide check at –20 that still beat all Spot checks. I assumed that the rules demanded a move action only so that you wouldn't be able to make more than one ranged attack first. Was this assumption really off base?

3. What really changes about sniping when you can hide in plain sight? I think it's that with this ability, it doesn't matter if somebody sees you shoot; you can still vanish again by moving afterward (let's say by taking at least a five-foot step), and this move doesn't impose a –20 penalty on your Hide check. Have I got this right?

4. There is another problem that I think EricGrau mentioned. Unless you have the Shot on the Run feat, you can't move, shoot, and move again in one round. So if hiding is a move and emerging from hiding is another move (a favorite notion of mine that I may have to drop), then it follows that you can snipe every round only if you have the Shot on the Run feat. I thought I had eliminated this problem with my assumption in (2.) above, namely that sniping didn't actually involve moving at all, only leaning out and leaning back without being seen. But now, I'm not so sure...

[Curmudgeon]

1. How does hiding after you make a ranged attack – taking a move action and making a Hide check at –20 – differ from hiding while you make the ranged attack, likewise making a Hide check at –20? Is it that you have to make more Hide checks at –20 if you make more than one ranged attack (as a full-attack action)?
The big difference: with Sniping, the archer is always seen (becomes visually apparent) after they attack, until they make a successful Hide check again. Reactive Spot checks take no action and occur on the archer's turn. The enemy generally always knows what square the archer fired from (unless their perception skills are pathetic and they can't Spot the archer when they're in plain view anyway).

With Hide in Plain Sight if the archer starts out hidden and also makes their Hide check to remain hidden while attacking, the enemy never glimpses them and has no clue where the archer fired from. (D&D has no hit locations and no facing, so the target doesn't even get a general direction for the source of that ranged attack; arrows don't stick into any particular body parts and the shafts doesn't point back toward the archer.) Plus, of course, the archer doesn't need to use a move action and can make a full attack.

[Duke of Urrel]

Thanks again for the elaboration, Curmudgeon.

It seems that you have to move both before and after you snipe, which means that there are only two ways to look at sniping. Either (1) you can't do it unless you have the Shot on the Run feat, or (2) it is a special exception to the general rule that you can't split a move with a ranged attack – like the Overrun action. I feel inclined to take the second view, because sniping is hard enough without applying another restrictive rule. (See, Tuggyne, I told you the Overrun action was good for something!)

I am actually crazy enough to apply alternative facing rules – but only partly. Here's how I do it. You have indeterminate facing during your turn, according to the standard rules, because otherwise, tactics would be too complicated to be fun. But when your turn ends, you must decide in which direction your character faces – and must continue to face until your next turn begins. Alternative facing rules apply outside your turn, as well as whenever your character is surprised. I think this adds some interesting realism to the game without making it too complex.

For sniping, my use of alternative facing rules (combined with Curmudgeon's clarification of what sniping involves) means that unless you can hide while you snipe, you had better move after you snipe – as far as you can – because the enemy you shot sees where you are, or at least saw where you were, when you made the shot.