Hide Skill Confusion, Please Help (3.5)

[Realms of Chaos]

Okay, looking through the player's handbook, I just noticed that there were some questions abou the hide skill that aren't really addressed and that I wanted to ask.

1. What is the benefit of hiding? This isn't actually spelled out anywhere. It says that total cover and total concealment make it a bit redundant but I can't see what the benefits are (Total Concealment? Invisibility?)
2. Can somebody hide in plain sight while affected by a faerie fire spell. The spell states that they can't benefit from concealment but HiPS lets them hide without concealment. Does a successful hide check simply grant them more concealment that the spell destroys?
3. A 20 or higher on a spot check alerts you to the presence of nearby invisible creatures. Does this also alert you to nearby hidden creatures?
4. Am I correct in thinking that listen checks can only pinpoint a hidden/invisible creature if the listener has the keen-eared scout (PHB II) or Hear the Unseen (Complete Adv) feat.
5. Though the distinction is made clear in the rules, does anybody see a rationale for the diferent rulesets for total concealment and invisibility?
I mean, I kind of get it. Both seem to grant the same defensive benefits and most of the time, if one person can see the other but the second can't see the first, either one of them is invisible or one of them is effectively blind (which imposes defensive penalties equal to the attack bonuses for invisibility). This isn't the case with HiPS however so what happens there (is the second guy considered "blind" in relation to the first guy)?

I imagine that most of these questions are answered in the rules compendium (man I need to get that thing) but I really want to know.

[AslanCross]

Okay, looking through the player's handbook, I just noticed that there were some questions abou the hide skill that aren't really addressed and that I wanted to ask.

1. What is the benefit of hiding? This isn't actually spelled out anywhere. It says that total cover and total concealment make it a bit redundant but I can't see what the benefits are (Total Concealment? Invisibility?)

You are unseen, which is pretty much the same as Invisible. In general:
-opponent is not aware of your presence
-or cannot pinpoint your location.

Unless your opponent has a way of spotting you, no line of sight = cannot be targeted. This also gives you a +2 bonus to attack rolls, and the target is denied his dex bonus to armor.

2. Can somebody hide in plain sight while affected by a faerie fire spell. The spell states that they can't benefit from concealment but HiPS lets them hide without concealment. Does a successful hide check simply grant them more concealment that the spell destroys?

Hide in Plain Sight (Su)
At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.

A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.

I would rule that the Assassin can still Hide in Plain Sight (since it says "while being observed"). However, while the observer has line of sight to the Assassin, the Assassin is unfortunately still visible due to the glow.

3. A 20 or higher on a spot check alerts you to the presence of nearby invisible creatures. Does this also alert you to nearby hidden creatures?

Spot needs to oppose the Hide check.

4. Am I correct in thinking that listen checks can only pinpoint a hidden/invisible creature if the listener has the keen-eared scout (PHB II) or Hear the Unseen (Complete Adv) feat.

That's how I run it, at least. When monsters succeed on a Listen check vs Move Silently, they get to immediately make an active Spot check (instead of taking 10). Listen, IMO, is only a "someone's coming" alert, not a "THERE HE IS! KILL HIM!" alert.

5. Though the distinction is made clear in the rules, does anybody see a rationale for the diferent rulesets for total concealment and invisibility?
I mean, I kind of get it. Both seem to grant the same defensive benefits and most of the time, if one person can see the other but the second can't see the first, either one of them is invisible or one of them is effectively blind (which imposes defensive penalties equal to the attack bonuses for invisibility). This isn't the case with HiPS however so what happens there (is the second guy considered "blind" in relation to the first guy)?

I imagine that most of these questions are answered in the rules compendium (man I need to get that thing) but I really want to know.

I'm not sure I understand this question.

[Realms of Chaos]

The fifth question was basically asking, if hiding does not effectively make you invisible (which it turns out that it does), why?

As such, it's no longer an important question.

Edit: Wait. Does that mean that invisibility purge reveals hidden creatures?

[Kosjsjach]

Thankfully, no.
The mundane Hide skill stays in effect. You just can't benefit from the +20 or +40 to Hide with an invisibility effect.

[Ixahinon]

And spells that help reveal the unseen (True Seeing, See Invisibility, etc) won't (or shouldn't) reveal someone that is activally hiding, and not just relying on an invisibility spell. I've met so man DMs that think otherwise...and if I am wrong (True Seeing, See Invisibility, etc) DOES let you see someone that is hiding via the Hide skill....then that is just wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

See Invisibility doesn't reveal someone using the Hide skill any more than Dispel Magic prevents a Monk from using their Ki Strike. These spells do what their description states, and no more. Hide is opposed by Spot, not True Seeing.

[Hat-Trick]

True Seeing sees through magical deception. Invisibility, Displacement, Blur, useless. Hide, golden.

[Realms of Chaos]

The thing about invisibility purge that I was concerned about is that unlike see invisibility and true seeing, there isn't any clause saying that it only effects magical invisibility.

I think that this can be interpretted in one of two ways:

1. If Asiancross is right in that hiding in plain sight = invisibility, invisibility purge cancels a hide check made using that ability.
2. Although hiding in plain sight gives the same benefits as invisibility, it is not the same and thus invisibility purge fails to end it.

In the end, this all hinges on whether or not any book specifically defines invisibility in the way that Asiancross described it.

Which way is right?

[lsfreak]

Invisibility is not hiding. It grants similar or the same benefits, but it is not the same. Just like having armor and a shield grant similar benefits, but they are not the same and can be stacked together. Getting rid of one does not negate the other.

Things that see through invisibility never see through hide checks, hence the importance of having a good hide (especially at high levels, where everyone has true seeing).

[Curmudgeon]

The thing about invisibility purge that I was concerned about is that unlike see invisibility and true seeing, there isn't any clause saying that it only effects magical invisibility.

The Hide skill does not grant invisibility. Rather, both make you visually undetectable, and so does blinding your enemy. All three of these are different, and all have different counters:

1. Remove Blindness/Deafness for a blinded foe
2. True Seeing/See Invisibility/Invisibility Purge for Invisibility
3. Spot for Hide

Remove Blindness isn't going to counter Invisibility; Spot isn't going to counter blindness; and See Invisibility isn't going to counter Hide.

[awa]

i was playing a game recently and i tired to sneak attack from hiding but i was told being hidden does not cause an opponent to lose their Dex bonus against you. Now that seemed wrong so i went to look it up and it specifically mention this for invisibility but i couldn't find it anywhere for the hide skill.

Now ill admit it's possible that i just couldn't find it it but since it was killing my entire build i did look pretty hard.

Is losing your Dex bonus against someone hiding actually in the rules or just something pepole have assumed is in the rules becuase it makes so much sense?

[Curmudgeon]

i was playing a game recently and i tired to sneak attack from hiding but i was told being hidden does not cause an opponent to lose their Dex bonus against you.

If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage?
Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flatfooted, and thus deals sneak attack damage.

The rules don't come right out and say it, because it should go without saying. Here's the dictionary definition of Hide:

to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered

... and here's the D&D definition of Invisible:

Visually undetectable.

They're mechanically the same, so of course being hidden provides the same mechanical benefits as being invisible.

[AslanCross]

The thing about invisibility purge that I was concerned about is that unlike see invisibility and true seeing, there isn't any clause saying that it only effects magical invisibility.

I think that this can be interpretted in one of two ways:

1. If Asiancross is right in that hiding in plain sight = invisibility, invisibility purge cancels a hide check made using that ability.
2. Although hiding in plain sight gives the same benefits as invisibility, it is not the same and thus invisibility purge fails to end it.

In the end, this all hinges on whether or not any book specifically defines invisibility in the way that Asiancross described it.

Which way is right?

1. It's AsLancross, sir.

2. Let me clarify: I said it was similar in terms of benefits (namely, cannot be normally targeted, a total concealment miss chance even when targeted, opponents being denied their Dex bonus to AC, and a +2 bonus to your first attack roll), but I did not say it counted as a magical effect.

3. What the rules do say is that being invisible gives the character a +40 Hide modifier when immobile and +20 when mobile. This means, then, that the two conditions are not exactly the same thing.
One wants to Hide while invisible to avoid an active spot check to pinpoint their location. It's very difficult to do, but it's possible.

Hide is poorly defined, but it is logically one step up from being concealed, in that you can still pinpoint a concealed creature, but doing anything to him is difficult. Since you require concealment or cover to Hide (in general), Hide can be interpreted to be "improving" concealment by vanishing from sight altogether.

Page 310 of the PHB (glossary) tells us that line of sight is negated even if there is nothing in between the two creatures concerned as long as one cannot see the other. The examples given only mention blindness and invisibility, but any method of being unseen negates line of sight.

If you want an definition of "Hidden" as close to RAW as we can get, it could simply be "line of sight is negated."

Finally, here's this unnoticed little tidbit from the Hide check entry:

Use this skill to sink back into the shadows and proceed unseen, to approach a wizard's tower under cover of brush, or to tail someone through a busy street without being noticed.

All of these strongly hint at not being visually detectable. Mind you, the glossary definition of invisibility does not specify magical invisibility. I can see why the invisibility purge entry seems to bypass even mundane hiding (since the true seeing entry explicitly mentions them), but a 6th-level spell should logically be better than a 3rd-level spell. If this really troubles you, ask your DM to houserule it or if you are a DM, houserule it yourself.

As to Dex-denial, it doesn't make sense at all to say that a rogue can't sneak attack a person by Hiding. That kind of ruins the whole point of that sneaking fighting of the class, doesn't it?

[Realms of Chaos]

Okay, I just wanted to check all of this.

Oh, and sorry for mistaking an l for an i. I do stupid stuff like that sometimes.