hide rules clarification. please help

[tsarnowski2]

While already hiding if you attack somebody in melee do you become visible or unhidden? The rules aren't clear on this and I would like supporting evidence of what actually happens.

[Fouredged Sword]

Attacking in any manner reveals your character. There is a specific exception for sniping. It cannot be used with melee attacks. It also doesn't prevent them from seeing you right after the attack, it simply lets you ignore the fact that you have been seen when you attempt to re-hide yourself.

[Darrin]

While already hiding if you attack somebody in melee do you become visible or unhidden? The rules aren't clear on this and I would like supporting evidence of what actually happens.

It's possible to attack and then immediately hide afterward, but doing so incurs a -20 penalty. However, you also still need to satisfy the two conditions that allow you to hide in the first place: 1) you need some sort of cover/concealment and 2) your target can't observe you.

Obviously, the stickiest condition is that whole "observation" thing, as the rules aren't entirely clear that attacking someone automatically makes you observable to them. Presumably, making a successful Hide check with the -20 penalty means your target wasn't able to observe where the attack came from, but this tends to run into "Common Sense" issues that skew off into unpredictable directions. The easiest way to get around this is to get some variation of the "Hide in Plain Sight" ability, which generally removes the "not under observation" condition. However, there are multiple versions of this ability, and not all of them work the same way. Depending on which version you get, you may still need cover/concealment to use HiPS.

There is also the "Sniper" rule in the PHB/SRD, but I'm fuzzy on why anyone attacking from cover/concealment would ever waste a move action on this when you can just make a normal Hide check with the same -20 penalty after a ranged attack.

Curmudgeon is the expert on Hide issues. He'll probably be along shortly.

[Jowgen]

Curmudgeon is the expert on Hide issues. He'll probably be along shortly.

... the ancient words of summoning. *ominous wind*

[tsarnowski2]

All of this is a big argument that I'm having with a friend. The situation that brought this about is, our thief is using obscuring mist as his way to rehide because it gives him 20% concealment vs anyone who is 5 feet away. He has an enemy on each side of him. A monster that is in the mist as well and a monk who is outside of the mist. He insists that while hiding he can attack the monster and that the monk would not be able to see him do so. And that he would stay hidden.

As an additional argument if the monk is watching him would the thief be able to hide right in front of him because of the 20% concealment or does the monk have an 80% chance to see him thus fulfill the "casual observation " clause.
How does this work? Because to me it seems to go against common sense and logic.

[yoshi67]

Obscuring mist gives concealment to 5 feet and total concealment) to 15 feet(?) and a 20% miss chance. This means anyone in the mist can make a hide check as if concealed. So I would rule something like the attack is not seen, however the result brings the attention of the monk. The thief can make another hide check with a penalty against the monk's spot with a penalty (for the mist) and if the thief succeeds is not seen and is considered hidden from the monk. The exact penalties are subject to the DM.

[Darrin]

All of this is a big argument that I'm having with a friend. The situation that brought this about is, our thief is using obscuring mist as his way to rehide because it gives him 20% concealment vs anyone who is 5 feet away. He has an enemy on each side of him. A monster that is in the mist as well and a monk who is outside of the mist. He insists that while hiding he can attack the monster and that the monk would not be able to see him do so. And that he would stay hidden.


There are two requirements to successfully hide: 1) You must have cover/concealment and 2) your target must not be able to observe you. Obscuring mist may satisfy both of these conditions, but it depends on how much mist is between the thief and the target. If it's 5' or less, then the thief has concealment but can still be detected visually. To be considered hidden from a monster inside the mist that is only 5' away, the thief would have to be already hidden in that square when the monster moved into the mist, or he'd have to be using some sort of Hide in Plain Sight ability. Even if the thief was hidden and the monster cannot visually observe him, in order to sneak attack the monster the thief would have to find a way to negate the 20% concealment that the monster has while standing in the mist. You can't sneak attack anything that has any kind of concealment or cover. Faerie fire or Torch Bug Paste (25 GP, Complete Scoundrel) is a good way to negate concealment on your targets.

So, assuming the thief was hidden and has a way to ignore the monster's concealment, he can attack the monster and get sneak attack on his first attack. After that, if he wants to stay hidden, he needs some way to make sure this monster can't observe him. If his target is blind, if he can get into total concealment, or if he has Hide in Plain Sight, he could make a Hide check with a -20 penalty against the creature's Spot check. Unless he's using the Sniper rule after a ranged attack, he also has to move at least 5', although he can use a 5' step and make another Hide check. Inside obscuring mist, taking a 5' step away from the monster would probably qualify as "total concealment" and allow the thief to re-hide.

As far as the monk goes, it depends on how many squares of obscuring mist are between the monk and the thief. If the thief is on the edge of the mist, then the monk can still observe him visually and the monk can see the thief make his attack. If there is more than 5' of mist between the monk and the thief, then the thief has total concealment and the monk can't see anything the thief is doing. If the thief is on the edge of the mist and then takes a 5' step deeper into the mist, then the monk's line-of-sight would be broken and the thief could hide from the monk.



As an additional argument if the monk is watching him would the thief be able to hide right in front of him because of the 20% concealment or does the monk have an 80% chance to see him thus fulfill the "casual observation " clause.


No. Unless the concealment is 100%, the monk can observe the thief.



How does this work? Because to me it seems to go against common sense and logic.

"Rules As Written" and "Common Sense" are not really on speaking terms.

[Curmudgeon]

It's possible to attack and then immediately hide afterward, but doing so incurs a -20 penalty. Except for the odd special case of Sniping, that's not how it works. You Hide while attacking. If you were already hidden and your Hide beats the enemy's Spot, you never become visually apparent. They can't even tell if it's a ranged or melee attack because they never see you.

However, you also still need to satisfy the two conditions that allow you to hide in the first place: 1) you need some sort of cover/concealment and 2) your target can't observe you.
That's all correct.

Curmudgeon is the expert on Hide issues. He'll probably be along shortly.
:smile:

[Jowgen]

Attacking imposes a -20 penalty on the rogue's hide-check (Rules Compendium p. , meaning that with each attack the rogue makes the Monk has a chance to reactively spot him. If he succeeds even once at Spotting, the rogue will then be observed and can not attempt to re-hide unless a) he's at least 10 ft from the target and uses a move-action to re-hide via the Sniping rules as a move action b) the monk is distracted either via a bluff of by taking a distracting action (e.g. anything that provokes an AoO).


EDIT: The summon hath been answered... *even more omnious wind*

[Darrin]

Except for the odd special case of Sniping, that's not how it works. You Hide while attacking. If you were already hidden and your Hide beats the enemy's Spot, you never become visually apparent. They can't even tell if it's a ranged or melee attack because they never see you.


This is the part I was fuzzy about, because to a lot of the "Common Sense" crowd, attacking should automatically give away your position, and if you're attacking from a square that the target has clear line-of-sight to observe, then you shouldn't be able to re-hide without Hide in Plain Sight or shutting down your target's ability to observe.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you can make a Hide check as part of the attack and if successful then you can continue hiding in that square, regardless of whether your target can observe the square. So... that's pretty darned cool.

In the example mentioned by the OP, the thief would make one hide check, and anyone with line-of-sight to his square would make Spot checks to see if they observe the thief hiding.

If the thief has multiple attacks, he has to make a Hide check after every attack. If all the Hide checks are successful, he stays hidden. I'm not sure what happens if the thief has three attacks, makes three Hide checks, but only successfully hides on the 1st and 3rd check. What's your call on that, Curmudgeon? Once "observation is broken", then does the thief need to re-establish total concealment or move to a new square to re-hide? Or do you just use the last Hide check as successfully re-hiding?

(I seem to recall there was an old FAQ answer about a Ranger using Camouflage/HiPS, but it was abundantly clear that the Sage had no idea what he was talking about, and didn't understand the implications of the "hide while attacking" option.)

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not sure what happens if the thief has three attacks, makes three Hide checks, but only successfully hides on the 1st and 3rd check. What's your call on that, Curmudgeon? Once "observation is broken", then does the thief need to re-establish total concealment or move to a new square to re-hide?
If any observer notices you attacking, you would need to find a way to satisfy the "not being observed" requirement to Hide, or have some form of Hide in Plain Sight to bypass that requirement.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. However, that's simply not going to happen. The wrinkle is in this Spot skill restriction:
Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. It's the DM's responsibility to interpret the scope of "something"; it could be any of the following:

the same creature/object
the same creature/object in the same location
the same creature/object in the same location repeating an action (or no action)
But regardless of which of these options your DM picks, if you're making a full attack with the same weapon in the same square, you're covered. That is, succeeding on the Hide check with the first swing means any observer is then required to use a move action to see you because they failed previously. And no observer gets to take a move action during your full attack — except in the (very) rare event of them using Ready to make a Spot check. :smalltongue: (Or, of course, if you make a 5' adjustment during the full attack and the DM allows new reactive Spot checks. So don't do that. :smallwink:)

[tsarnowski2]

So if I hide successfully and then attack someone I become visible? But I haven't found any RAW that states that.

[Curmudgeon]

So if I hide successfully and then attack someone I become visible? But I haven't found any RAW that states that.
From page 102 of Complete Adventurer:
If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn’t notice you until you attack or make some other attention-grabbing action.