Hide Skill and Cover/Concealment/Total Cover/Total Concealment

[Lucius]

Alright, so I just wanted to get some help on clearing up a ruling about the Hide skill.

This for a D&D 3.5 Game that i'm playing.

Now, I may be reading this wrong, but from what I read it says that "You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check." which means you only need to meet the requirements of having Cover or Concealment to make a Hide check, correct?

Because my DM thinks that you should only be able to hide with Total Cover or Total Concealment.

Can someone clarify this?

My references:
PHB pg. 76 and 150-153
and d20srd

[Deophaun]

You are correct. Point your DM to page 92 in the Rules Compendium, where it says:

You need cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually obviates the need for a Hide check, since nobody can see you anyway.

[Fouredged Sword]

You need two things to hide - Cover and not being observed (there are class features that let you ignore one or both of these).

Cover or concealment gives you half of the equation. To start stealth you need to also be unobserved (by your target). Total cover or concealment grant this. In practice this means you need total cover or total concealment to START stealth, but can use regular cover or concealment to maintain stealth (unless you have hide in plain sight).

You CAN lie in ambush in regular cover because you start hiding in the partial cover ditch while you still have total cover to your target because they are around a bend in the road.

[Swaoeaeieu]

from the srd on hide skill:

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.

So the dm would be wrong. Total cover and total concealment make the hide check obsolete. normal cover allows you to use hide.

Edit: i was too slow

[alex1g]

http://www.forgottenrealmsonline.com/Images/Dalelands/cover.jpg

Is that total cover? Don't think so.

[Lucius]

You need two things to hide - Cover and not being observed (there are class features that let you ignore one or both of these).

Cover or concealment gives you half of the equation. To start stealth you need to also be unobserved (by your target). Total cover or concealment grant this. In practice this means you need total cover or total concealment to START stealth, but can use regular cover or concealment to maintain stealth (unless you have hide in plain sight).

You CAN lie in ambush in regular cover because you start hiding in the partial cover ditch while you still have total cover to your target because they are around a bend in the road.

Ah, well here was the situation in the game, the party was holed up in a cabin and was attack by Shadow Guards in the plane of shadow. We heard them from outside, and then they appeared inside. We all prepared ourselves when we heard them so the rogue in our party named Nif Greyhand used the Hide skill so that he couldn't be found. They entered and appeared near us on the other side of the cabin, and Nif had succeeded in hiding. When it came to his turn, he successfully Moved Silently towards a wall that would grant him Cover, but not Total Cover, against the Shadow Guard he was going to attack. The DM said he needed Total Cover to hide, and that's when the confusion happened. After talking about it and disagreeing we just went with the ruling stated on the Hide skill, but the DM said it didn't make sense to him. Afterwards he ruled that you need Total Cover or Total Concealment to Hide, but he insists it isn't a house rule, he doesn't allow any house rules in his games so, this is the reason for my post, to clarify the confusion.

I can't post a screenshot of the battlefield to clarify it for everyone as this is a new account.

EDIT: Lol, the DM ninja'd me, but yeah that's a picture of the battlefield.

[Deophaun]

You need two things to hide - Cover and not being observed (there are class features that let you ignore one or both of these).

Cover or concealment gives you half of the equation. To start stealth you need to also be unobserved (by your target). Total cover or concealment grant this. In practice this means you need total cover or total concealment to START stealth, but can use regular cover or concealment to maintain stealth (unless you have hide in plain sight).

You CAN lie in ambush in regular cover because you start hiding in the partial cover ditch while you still have total cover to your target because they are around a bend in the road.
Observed does not mean what you think it means:

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.
"Around a corner" is only partial cover/concealment, and it does not say "total cover."

Keep in mind, you do not actually physically occupy the entirety of a 5' square in combat; it's an abstraction. You can be much smaller within that space, which is why you do not need total cover in order to not be observed for the purpose of hiding.

[Bronk]

Is that total cover? Don't think so.

As has already been mentioned, you don't need total cover to hide, to remain hidden, or to move around while hidden. That's right in the skill, and changing that would be a definite house rule.

If you're worried about the act of hiding in the first place, it sounds like the PC in question hid when the opponents were still outside. That means he did have both total cover and total concealment from them at the time, nor was he being observed by them! He is hidden from the opponents, but not from his teammates.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would note there is the possibility that the enemies scried the space and observed him while he attempted to hide. This would cause his attempt to hide to auto-fail. This is a corner case though. You seem to have hidden before the enemies arrived and clearly have cover from them after their arrival. Even in the most stringent reading of the rules you should have been able to attempt to hide.

[alex1g]

http://www.forgottenrealmsonline.com/Images/Dalelands/cover.jpg

VS

http://www.forgottenrealmsonline.com/Images/Dalelands/Capture.JPG

Also just to clarify. He is not sneaking guys. He wants to make check that the circled halfing area. K. He is not sneaking around anything.
Forget about guard observing him, even causally. The question is can he hide. You can clearly see from the PH pic that is a no.
As for Concealment.
Hide Checks
You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.

TOTAL CONCEALMENT
If you have line of effect (see page 80) to a target but not line of sight (see page 81), that target is considered to have total
concealment from you.

[Deophaun]

Forget about guard observing him, even causally. The question is can he hide. You can clearly see from the PH pic that is a no.
No, the PH is talking about Line of Sight, not cover, not concealment, not hiding, not observing. The Hide skill does not reference line of sight.

As for Concealment.
Hide Checks
You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.

TOTAL CONCEALMENT
If you have line of effect (see page 80) to a target but not line of sight (see page 81), that target is considered to have total
concealment from you.
Yes, that's the definition of total concealment, which obviates the need for hiding.

verb (used with object), obviated, obviating.
1.
to anticipate and prevent or eliminate (difficulties, disadvantages, etc.) by effective measures; render unnecessary:

[alex1g]

No, the PH is talking about Line of Sight, not cover, not concealment, not hiding, not observing. The Hide skill does not reference line of sight.

Wrong p. 32 Rules Compendium
You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without
concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.

Yes, that's the definition of total concealment, which obviates the need for hiding.

So just to make sure I understand. The halfing in the picture above, with has his body clearly visible, against the wall; is enough to make a hide check. Just want a yes or no.

[Deophaun]

So just to make sure I understand. The halfing in the picture above, with has his body clearly visual, which you guys are saying is enough to make a hide check. Just want a yes or no.
Yes.

Cover and Hide Checks: You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Hide check.
Table
http://i.imgur.com/xwPsz9R.png


Wrong p. 32 Rules Compendium
You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without
concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.
Please bold the words "line of sight" in that passage.

[alex1g]

So from what I'm understanding is that if an elephant wants to hide, all he would have to do is be against the wall. So from your criteria a large dragon from that view point you are referencing can hide? Range cover I would assume be different from a visible person. Range melee is the criteria that dictates if someone can hide? Never mind that 3/4 of his body is out of cover.

[Swaoeaeieu]

So from what I'm understanding is that if an elephant wants to hide, all he would have to do is be against the wall. So from your criteria a large dragon from that view point you are referencing can hide? Range cover I would assume be different from a visible person. Range melee is the criteria that dictates if someone can hide? Never mind that 3/4 of his body is out of cover.

yes those large creatures can try to hide. But the size penalty does make it harder. If you are standing near a corner, you can try to hide behind it, that is what the skill check is for isnt it?

[Deophaun]

So from what I'm understanding is that if an elephant wants to hide, all he would have to do is be against the wall.
This is why you need to actually read the rules.

If you can draw a line from the corner of a square you occupy to any of the square's the target occupies and it doesn't pass through something that blocks line of effect, the creature cannot hide from you. An elephant, occupying four squares, is going to have cover from fewer squares than a halfling--because you only need one of those four to not have an obstruction--but it will still be able to hide from those it does.


Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

[alex1g]

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.

So just ignore the Total cover part of the hide description, right? Also ignore the fact that 3/4 of his body is not behind cover. Only criteria is that there needs to happen is that a wall be next to him and if the range cover rules are in play. Correct? Just want to clarify.

[Bronk]

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.

So just ignore the Total cover part of the hide description, right? Also ignore the fact that 3/4 of his body is not behind cover. Only criteria is that there needs to happen is that a wall next to him and if the range cover rules are in play. Correct? Just want to clarify.

Remember that the guy had already hidden (made his hide check while unobserved by the enemy).

When the enemy came in, they'd make their spot checks versus the hide check he made earlier, when the opponents were still outside.

If they see him, fine, if not, he can move at up to half speed without needing another check, even if he's not still behind cover.

If some see him but others don't, he's still hidden to those who didn't succeed in their checks.

[alex1g]

Remember that the guy had already hidden (made his hide check while unobserved by the enemy).

No he is not hidden, he is making his hide check as a movement after an attack.

When the enemy came in, they'd make their spot checks versus the hide check he made earlier, when the opponents were still outside.

No he already attacked and wants to make a hide check.

If they see him, fine, if not, he can move at up to half speed without needing another check, even if he's not still behind cover.

For the sake of the cover/hide rules question, ignore the part about them obviouslu being able to observe him. So ignore that part.

If some see him but others don't, he's still hidden to those who didn't succeed in their checks.

Again he attacked and wants to make a hide check.

The player is stating that just being next to the wall and with the rules of range weapon cover in play is enough for him to make a hide check. Which Deophaun is stating that is clearly allowable. I would also argue why have the Darkstalker feat or Hide in Plain sight since these rules Deophaun stated are as good for someone to hide.

[Fizban]

You need two things to hide - Cover and not being observed (there are class features that let you ignore one or both of these).

Cover or concealment gives you half of the equation. To start stealth you need to also be unobserved (by your target). Total cover or concealment grant this. In practice this means you need total cover or total concealment to START stealth, but can use regular cover or concealment to maintain stealth (unless you have hide in plain sight).

You CAN lie in ambush in regular cover because you start hiding in the partial cover ditch while you still have total cover to your target because they are around a bend in the road.
An excellent summation, though I use the phrase "break line of sight" for the second requirement. If you are currently being observed, all you need to do is break line of sight.

Making stealth checks is part of a move action, and all you need to do to roll is break line of sight, which can often be done by moving (remember if you move more than half your speed you take -5). Standing at a corner where they can see you? Move back until they can't, then turn around and move forward and roll when you reach the square that provides cover. If you can do that distance in one move action, congratulations you're hidden and can use you standard for a sneak attack. Have a patch of fog or smoke? Pull back 10' into the cloud, breaking line of sight as you gain total concealment, then step forward 5' into the partial concealment at the edge and make your hide check, and you're ready to sneak attack.

Dropping prone behind a low wall should also be enough to break line of sight for people that aren't right on top of you. Then you can hide as you peek over the edge, possibly moving in a low crouch if your DM allows. And you can also maintain hide while moving through an open area from cover to cover, taking a serious -5 per 5' you move between covered positions.


As for "Hide in Plain Sight," that ability is all sorts of wonky. Shadowdancers have a supernatural ability that is phrased implying that "while observed" is referring to cover/concealment, while 3.5 Rangers have an extraordinary ability with separate bits for hiding in non-standard "cover" and hiding while observed, and other classes refer to either or both or have completely different phrasing. It's probable that the Shadowdancer is meant to get both the shadow cover and ignore observation at 1st level, but one should always check carefully where they got HiPS and trace how it works, because it's not covered in Rules Compendium nor is it a single standard ability.

And as for that screenshot, the rogue has cover with respect to the guard:

To determine whether your target has cover from you ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature the target has cover.
(Note: I'm sure you're not allowed to hide behind creatures but I can't remember where it's at).

The guard's best corner is his bottom right. From there, the rogue's top left corner is still obstructed by the wall. Thus the rogue has cover from the guard. The rogue could hide, if he could break line of sight (by making a Bluff check, turning invisible for a second, blinding the guard for second, etc).

The question is where the rogue was last turn, before he moved up to that wall. If when the guard moved in he stopped in a position where he could see the rogue at the start of combat, then he could see the rogue. So where was everybody when initiative was rolled, and where were they right before the rogue's turn? That's what you need to answer in order to find out if the rogue had already been observed.

Since the rogue needed to move in order to reach the position in the screenshot, and the guard was already out in the middle before the rogue moved, the rogue was almost certainly seen out in the open, regardless of intent to remain hidden.

A significant part of the problem in arguing might be this line:

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.
Which does clearly state that if you "run. . . behind cover" you can hide, but the important part is "so that you're out of sight."

How can you get out of sight behind normal cover? Like I said above, ducking behind a low wall should break line of sight even though it's only partial cover to a standing creature, but that's not technically a rule (and mechanically would still extract a cost in dropping prone or crouching). In the screenshot given, the top left corner of the rogue's space is far enough back that he has cover. If the rogue squeezed his physical body into that corner he could conceivably get far enough back that the foe couldn't see him without actually leaving his space, but this requires you to ignore combat space rules and would effectively mean there's no point in the observation rule. This we must assume that merely standing in partial cover and squeezing is insufficient to break line of sight: one must have enough room to move far enough back to properly sever the line between all corners of their squares. Allowing someone to use a move action to temporarily squeeze against the wall so they can pop out with a hide check would be reasonable, but it's not as obviously effective as dropping prone in a foxhole would be so it's also reasonable to enforce hard line of sight.


So the guard moves in and stops in a position where the rogue has no cover. The guard has seen the rogue. The rogue moves to a north position with cover, but unfortunately even if they moved all the way to the north wall they would not be able to break line of sight to that guard. The rogue should have made for the south wall, the square all the way at the bottom edge with the chair in it. That space would have broken line of sight for both nearby guards (but not the big guy), allowing him to backpedal 5' and peek out with a hide check to avoid being seen by the guards. Unless of course the main goal was staying out of sight of the big guy, in which case they had no option to avoid all sight of the guards- good positioning on the guards' part.

Or if we must be combative: the DM was right.

[Deophaun]

The player is stating that just being next to the wall and with the rules of range weapon cover in play is enough for him to make a hide check.
There is ranged cover, and there is melee cover. That's it. There is no rule for determining cover that is not one of those, but they are both cover.

So the wall provides cover, the Hide skill says you can Hide if you have cover... where is the confusion?

[alex1g]

No confusion. I just disagree and stated why i disagree. I'd like to hear others option. My argument is that he needs Total Cover as per description but you are stating to ignore that part because any type of cover makes you able to hide. Doesn't matter if half his body is showing.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I want to point out this passage in the rules:

Move between Cover: If you’re already hiding thanks to cover or concealment, and you have at least 5 ranks in Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try to move across an area that doesn’t offer cover or concealment without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open space you must cross between hiding places, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. Movement speed penalizes the check as normal.

Sneak up from Hiding: You can sneak up on someone after emerging from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn’t notice you until you attack or perform some other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated as being flat-footed with respect to you.
The rogue was able to hide before the guards entered. The rogue is currently in a position to hide. The above rules could have been invoked; I don't know where the rogue was prior to moving.

[Bronk]

No he is not hidden, he is making his hide check as a movement after an attack.

No he already attacked and wants to make a hide check.

Again he attacked and wants to make a hide check.




... We heard them from outside, and then they appeared inside. We all prepared ourselves when we heard them so the rogue in our party named Nif Greyhand used the Hide skill so that he couldn't be found. They entered and appeared near us on the other side of the cabin, and Nif had succeeded in hiding. When it came to his turn, he successfully Moved Silently towards a wall that would grant him Cover, but not Total Cover, against the Shadow Guard he was going to attack.

Well, it sounds like your accounts don't match up then.

If he attacked first, you are absolutely right about him not being able to hide afterwards, but it's due to being observed, not because of a lack of cover.

If Lucius' account is accurate, then the PC had hidden, as we've already stated. He could attack, but could only hide again if he'd used the 'sniping' feature of hide to make a ranged attack, and would have a -20 penalty to his hide check.

[Swaoeaeieu]

No confusion. I just disagree and stated why i disagree. I'd like to hear others option. My argument is that he needs Total Cover as per description but you are stating to ignore that part because any type of cover makes you able to hide. Doesn't matter if half his body is showing.

Hiding would be the act of moving that half exposed body behind the wall. people are not 5 foot cubes, so with some effort (a skillcheck) you can hide behind that piece of wall.

[Deophaun]

My argument is that he needs Total Cover as per description
Per what description? The only mention of total cover is that you don't need to make Hide checks if you have it.

You're saying you can only Hide if you don't need to Hide. Why have the skill, then?

[alex1g]

See the game for yourselves. Yeah I gave him -20. But the core of the argument is whether he can hide in partial cover.
https://youtu.be/P64zfTIDPSg?t=13730

[Swaoeaeieu]

See the game for yourselves. I should have mentioned the -20 to hide yes. But the core of the argument is whether he can hide in partial cover.
https://youtu.be/P64zfTIDPSg?t=13730

be the definittion of the hide skill, he sure can.

[Zanos]

Cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm)
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Cover and Hide Checks
You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment to make a Hide check.

As the guard in the image cannot draw lines from one of his corners to all of the halflings corners that do not pass through that wall, the halfling has cover(+4 AC), and can hide from the guard. Total concealment is when line of sight is completely blocked (I.E. you are in another room behind a wall), so there's no need to make a hide check, as people cannot see through walls normally. You would still have to make a move silently check with total cover, though.

[Deophaun]

Here I think is the problem: the DM thinks this renders HiPS useless. It does not. Let's look at what the various conditions get you:

Total Cover/Total Concealment: No need for a Hide check.
Cover: May enter into Hiding by breaking observation. Maintain Hiding.
Concealment: Maintain Hiding.

Without HiPS, you cannot use less than Total Concealment to enter Hiding, because concealment less than Total Concealment does not prevent you from being observed. Cover--not just Total Cover--meanwhile, is explicitly called out as allowing you to break observation, which is why the halfling can start Hiding just by being by the wall.

Edit: And regarding creatures providing cover:

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

[Daefos]

No confusion. I just disagree and stated why i disagree. I'd like to hear others option. My argument is that he needs Total Cover as per description but you are stating to ignore that part because any type of cover makes you able to hide. Doesn't matter if half his body is showing.

1. So you know that this isn't how it works and just want everyone to know that? It's written plain as day that the halfling is allowed to make a Hide check; denying that is a houserule.

2. The only part of the description you're talking about that references Total Concealment is the part that says Total Concealment bypasses the need for a Hide check entirely. As Deophaun said, why bother having the skill if you can only use it when you explicitly don't need it? It's like house-ruling that cure light wounds has no effect unless your HP is already full because the description has the word "maximum" in it.

3. I know they eat a lot, with their second breakfasts and afternoon tea, but halflings are not actually five feet wide. They're small, compact, and quite good at slinking around unseen. The fact that a halfing needs a five foot space to comfortably fight in is an abstraction; he needs that space because the game assumes that a character is constantly moving in place to look around themselves and trade petty blows with nearby enemies (that's why facing rules are optional). When you are not fighting, like when you're making a Hide check, a halfling is about three feet tall, maybe thirty pounds on average. I can't imagine why something that size can't hide behind a corner without "half his body" hanging out.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would also consider the ability to squeeze into small spaces when determining if something can hide. You cannot hide if something can currently see you. I personally consider line of sight to be the determination of "able to be seen". That said, a character can squeeze into a 2.5x2.5x2.5 square. This can deny your enemy the ability to see you by moving your far corner of your space from the exposed edge of the 5ft edge of the square you occupied to it's center. This means that you gain total cover from anyone not able to get a better than 45 degree view around the corner.

You can squeeze, hide, and unsqeeze as a move action. Because you maintain cover VS your target you can hide even after you resume occupying the whole 5ft square. This is mechanically what I consider throwing yourself up on the wall and carefully leaning out with your crossbow to take a stealthy shot.

[rrwoods]

Someone else said it but it's worth repeating:

Creatures do not occupy the entire square they are in. If there's a wall you can use as (partial) cover, then making a Hide check represents attempting to move (within your square) so that your body is entirely behind that wall.

[Fizban]

Except you can't hide while being observed, which means you must break line of sight first, and you can't break line of sight standing in a square where someone has line of sight to you without doing something that actually breaks line of sight. Allowing someone to do so by hugging the wall without leaving that square is a houserule, reasonable but not an actual rule.

[Deophaun]

Allowing someone to do so by hugging the wall without leaving that square is a houserule, reasonable but not an actual rule.
No, it is an actual rule, because having cover is explicitly called out as allowing you to break observation, and observation is never otherwise defined.

[Fouredged Sword]

Cover does not let you qualify as unobserved or otherwise the sniping rule makes absolutely no sense. Sniping allows you to make a hide check at a -20 after attacking to hide despite the fact that you just revealed yourself. Why would you ever do this if you can just take a move action to hide without a -20 penalty?

You can use cover or concealment to hide. They meet half of the hide requirements. You must also be out of sight to your target to start hiding.

[Deophaun]

Cover does not let you qualify as unobserved or otherwise the sniping rule makes absolutely no sense. Sniping allows you to make a hide check at a -20 after attacking to hide despite the fact that you just revealed yourself. Why would you ever do this if you can just take a move action to hide without a -20 penalty?
Yes, why would you... if you can do what you say, which nothing in the sniping rules says is a possibility. You take a -20 on your Hide check after the shot. It doesn't say the -20 goes away if you use a move action.

You can use cover or concealment to hide. They meet half of the hide requirements. You must also be out of sight to your target to start hiding.
The rules have been stated; you are wrong on this, but you choose to ignore them. I'm not going to go around in circles.

[Zombimode]

No confusion. I just disagree and stated why i disagree. I'd like to hear others option. My argument is that he needs Total Cover as per description but you are stating to ignore that part because any type of cover makes you able to hide. Doesn't matter if half his body is showing.

I think you ARE confused about the issue.

There is this "3/4 or half of their Body showing" Thing you Keep mentioning.

If this is the "but you can see part of the halfling's square" issue: again, creatures do not occupy the entirty of their squares, save for Special cases like the Gelatinous Cube (but those have a Hide mod of -9 to compensate).

If this is the elephant case, please read Deaphauns post again. I will reiterate: if a creature can draw lines unobstructed to all 4 Corners of any square the creature seeking cover occupies it has effectively no cover.

And here may be the Point where your confusion lies: "Cover" is not a simple boolean state that can be true or false for a creature. Rather, it is a relational state: you always have cover with respect to someone else. The same is true for concealment, btw.

[Duke of Urrel]

Cover does not let you qualify as unobserved or otherwise the sniping rule makes absolutely no sense. Sniping allows you to make a hide check at a -20 after attacking to hide despite the fact that you just revealed yourself. Why would you ever do this if you can just take a move action to hide without a -20 penalty?

You can use cover or concealment to hide. They meet half of the hide requirements. You must also be out of sight to your target to start hiding.


Yes, why would you... if you can do what you say, which nothing in the sniping rules says is a possibility. You take a -20 on your Hide check after the shot. It doesn't say the -20 goes away if you use a move action.

The rules have been stated; you are wrong on this, but you choose to ignore them. I'm not going to go around in circles.

I believe Fouredged Sword is right. Fouredged Sword's point is that moving behind cover, even total cover, after enemies have already spotted you (and can watch where you go) either does not enable you to make a Hide check or makes it pointless to do so. The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) make very clear what happens when you try this.


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 we read into that sentence that you can make a Hide check, what do you achieve even by succeeding? Your enemies don't see you anymore, but they know where you went, so that during their next turn, they move until you're no longer out of sight (that is, until you no longer have total cover), at which time they see you again.

Fouredged Sword also made a very good point about sniping. Making a Hide check after making a ranged attack is a move action; indeed, this Hide check is the only one that actually represents an action and not a non-action that merely modifies another action (that is, an ordinary move, an attack, or a charge or run action). The sniping rule really does make sense only if we assume two things:

(1) Making a single ranged attack, even from at least 10 feet away, brings you out of hiding. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to hide afterward at all. Indeed, the rules make very clear that attacking normally brings you out of hiding, because they allow you to make a Hide check to stay hidden while you attack. Not coincidentally, staying hidden while you make a single attack imposes a the same penalty as sniping (that is, making a single ranged attack from at least 10 feet away and then hiding afterward), namely -20.

(2) Going back into hiding after you have come out of hiding is normally (that is, without creating a diversion first or having a special ability to hide in plain sight) impossible or at best impractical as explained above, even with cover and even with total cover. Because if it were possible, then after making a single ranged attack, you could simply move and hide with no -20 penalty, because the rules don't impose one. The rules do impose a "hiding between cover" penalty if you want to hide in a different place at some significant distance away (i.e., at some multiple of five feet away), for example behind a different tree, but that's only -5 for every five feet, which could still easily be less than -20. So... why "snipe" if you can just move and hide with a much lower penalty? That's a good question.

POSTSCRIPT: I think it's reasonable to assume that with a special ability to hide in plain sight, you don't have to add the -20 penalty to your Hide check after you make a single ranged attack from at least 10 feet away. Why not? Because you can normally make a Hide check with no penalty when you move after making a single attack of any kind, at any distance from your enemy, under any circumstances that allow you to hide, such as being in natural surroundings if you're a 17th-level ranger or being within 10 feet of some kind of shadow if you're a shadowdancer.

[Fizban]

No, it is an actual rule, because having cover is explicitly called out as allowing you to break observation, and observation is never otherwise defined.
Not, it is not. The part of the hiding rules you're trying to use as justification is not as ironclad as you think it is, and with no definition of what observation means or how to break it, you default to the rules for line of sight, because that is what's actually defined.

There is nothing that explicitly says you can squeeze within cover in order to avoid being seen, only that "You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide". Guess what word that sentence starts with? Run, as in move, as in leave the space you're currently standing in and go to a different one, take a move action to move so you can hide as part of that move action, like you do with the hide skill which is under Movement in the Rules Compendium. It does not say you can hide without moving. Moving means leaving your space. Attempting to make a hide check while observed without moving, without leaving your space, is not explicitly allowed.

Note also how the being observed clause comes after the need for cover/concealment. The run behind cover line comes after that. You need cover/concealment to hide. If you already have cover but you're being observed, you can't hide. In order to "run behind cover" you need to. . . ? Not defined. Either you use existing action types, which are move from one square to another or hide after sniping, or follow existing line of sight rules to become un-observed, or you make something up.

If you want to argue that moving into a square with cover is enough to hide even while observed, then maybe you have a case, but there is no RAW case for being able to hide without moving except the hide after sniping action. It may be eminently reasonable in some situations and the writer may or may not have intended it to work that way, but it's not explicit.


Checking the recording, it's clear that Nif moved from the bed on the left to the north position behind that wall, and then attacked. No hide check made after sniping, since he'd already used his move action and wasn't sniping. The DM then gave him the hide after sniping roll anyway, because people wanted to argue about it, so the player got a free hide check when he shouldn't have. I expect that if the character had started with total cover and moved up from hiding, the DM would have had no problem with a hide check to hide at the corner, because duh. Running from the open to the corner and no further is murky enough that it's not RAW and the DM is under no obligation to let them hide without pulling far enough back to break line of sight. It's inconvenient and means that you need more move speed to hide around corners (no one's trying to argue you can hide while observed in concealment, right?) than with the more generous ruling, but that's what you get if you want things by the book. Sometimes the guy in charge says your "by the book" is too generous.


The rules have been stated; you are wrong on this, but you choose to ignore them. I'm not going to go around in circles.
Actually you are going around in circles: you're trying to use "you need cover" from the earlier part and "run behind cover" from the later part to ignore "people observing you" from the middle part, running a nice loop around the ends while cutting out the middle.

[Fouredged Sword]

The squeezing rules are actually RAW. Squeezing is covered here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm). While this does not allow to hide behind ALL cover it may allow you to have a RAW basis for reducing the space you occupy and places limits on how small of a space you can reduce yourself into for minimizing line of sight.

A medium creature can occupy a space 2.5ft wide. This means you can potentially move the corner of a space behind a solid barrier like a wall to turn it from partial to total cover depending on the angle from you to your target. Nothing in the squeezing rules requires the space you squeeze though to be bounded by physical walls. You suffer penalties from every OTHER angle while doing this. It is a state you can pass through during a move action so you can squeeze yourself up on a wall and then return to your unsqueezed profile to start and end your turn without the squeezing penalties. If you gain total cover during a move action you may attempt to hide during that move action.

[Fizban]

Nothing in the squeezing rules requires the space you squeeze though to be bounded by physical walls.
And nothing says you can make up a reason to do it on your own either. "In some cases." Which cases? If it's not listed, ask your DM. And even if you squeeze into a "2 1/2 ft square," it still doesn't break line of sight because you can't occupy less than a 5' square for combat and line of sight rules. All the squeezing reminder does is remind the DM that they should use logic to bend the rules when it makes sense, still doesn't let you do anything more than squeeze past opponents and physical barriers without DM approval.