Hiding with Concealment

[Fixer]

I want to get the rules down on a character concept.

Rogue/Umbral Disciple with Embrace of the Shadow (grants concealment = 10% per point of essentia, max 50%). At 2 essentia the character is considered 'concealed' at all times.

Questions:

The character who is hidden attempts to make a ranged attack and then hide again (essentially sniping) in one round.

Does the character use the standard rules for sniping (-20 to hide check) or can they take a standard action to attack, then use the concealment and a move action to hide normally (as they won't, technically, had a chance to be observed as no one else will have had a chance to act)?

Does it matter if they are attacking someone who is already engaged in combat?

Is the concealment doing anything to help them hide?

I believe I know what the rules tell me, but I want to ask the braintrust here.

[Epinephrine]

The character who is hidden attempts to make a ranged attack and then hide again (essentially sniping) in one round.

Does the character use the standard rules for sniping (-20 to hide check)

Yes

or can they take a standard action to attack, then use the concealment and a move action to hide normally (as they won't, technically, had a chance to be observed as no one else will have had a chance to act)?

No, unless they have Hide in Plain Sight. Concealment alone doesn't give you the ability to hide.

Does it matter if they are attacking someone who is already engaged in combat?

No.

Is the concealment doing anything to help them hide?

Yes. It makes it possible.

[KillianHawkeye]

No, unless they have Hide in Plain Sight. Concealment alone doesn't give you the ability to hide.

I thought Hide in Plain Sight allowed you to hide without concealment?

[Fixer]

I thought Hide in Plain Sight allowed you to hide without concealment?

That was part of what had me confused.

If you have concealment, you can hide unless you are being observed (casually or directly).
If you have hide-in-plain-sight, you can hide as long as a specific condition is met, regardless of whether or not you are being directly observed.

Thus, I wondered what would happen if you were hidden BEFORE you performed an action (and, thus, were not being observed at the moment you take the action), and then hid as part of that same action to avoid detection. It would only work if you had cover or concealment available to hide in.

Examples (assume 1st level characters):

A rogue is hidden next to a box (shadow, whatever). The rogue has line-of-sight to an opponent and attacks then ducks behind the box (full cover) to attempt to get a hide check.

A ninja is hiding in a shadow close to a guard fighting a companion. The ninja attacks the guard then uses their move action to go behind a corner. Does the ninja make a hide check?

A ranger is hiding in the woods (concealment 20%) and takes a step out to shoot then moves back into the woods (back into concealment at a different location) as part of the same action. He wants to make another hide check.

A rogue is in a crowd using Hide to blend with the group. They use a skill (sleight of hand, for instance), then attempt to blend back in with the crowd. If they were spotted in the skill attempt, can they still make the hide check normally? If not, why not?

In any of these cases, could a justification for hiding without using the sniping rules take effect?

[Epinephrine]

I thought Hide in Plain Sight allowed you to hide without concealment?

No, it allows you to make a Hide check while being observed. You still need cover or concealment.

The Camouflage special ability, however, reads: can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

A high level ranger (or scout) can thus Hide while observed when standing in the middle of a field, as they don't need cover or concealment in natural settings.

Thus, I wondered what would happen if you were hidden BEFORE you performed an action (and, thus, were not being observed at the moment you take the action), and then hid as part of that same action to avoid detection. It would only work if you had cover or concealment available to hide in.

Examples (assume 1st level characters):

A rogue is hidden next to a box (shadow, whatever). The rogue has line-of-sight to an opponent and attacks then ducks behind the box (full cover) to attempt to get a hide check.

Here (oddly), I expect the rogue could Hide. Full cover blocks line of sight, and is thus sufficient to say that you are no longer observed. If it's the only shadowed square though, the enemy pretty much knows where you are, and can swing into it. Since he attacked from within concealment, and is simply stepping to another spot with concealment (and full cover, to break LoS), I don't think there would even be a penalty on the Hide check.

A ninja is hiding in a shadow close to a guard fighting a companion. The ninja attacks the guard then uses their move action to go behind a corner. Does the ninja make a hide check?

If the ninja can get away from being observed, and into an area providing concealment, sure. I'm not sure how it is handled in RAW, but I suspect I'd look at how far the Ninja has to move without cover. I believe that you can only hide if you are within your Hide ranks in feet from the cover/concealment you wish to use.

A ranger is hiding in the woods (concealment 20%) and takes a step out to shoot then moves back into the woods (back into concealment at a different location) as part of the same action. He wants to make another hide check.

No. You can be observed the whole time, and have no chance to Hide, without the Hide in Plain Sight ability.

A rogue is in a crowd using Hide to blend with the group. They use a skill (sleight of hand, for instance), then attempt to blend back in with the crowd. If they were spotted in the skill attempt, can they still make the hide check normally? If not, why not?

No, unless, again, they manage to break line of sight. If they are spotted, they count as being observed. Running through the crowd, and behind a tent though? Sure. Again, I suspect there is something about how far you can move and still make a hide check.

Shot on the Run and Spring Attack could both be used to move, attack, and then hide - provided there's a way to esape Line of Sight. You wouldn't count as hidden when making the attack (so no sneak attack/sudden strike), however, unless you made a Hide check and had cover/concealment at the time you made the attack. Running out from behind a corner, hitting someone, and running back into the dark behind the corner can allow you to hide again, but you can't claim that you denied them their dex bonus when you ran 20' in broad daylight to hit them.

The FAQ looks at the issue of Spring Attacking from hiding, but tangentially addresses some of these issues.

Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her
turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a
position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is,
invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the
character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class
features?

Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after
attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her
(even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The
sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a
character to make a move action to hide immediately after
making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but
this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with
reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply
can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed.
As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s
approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that
is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a
Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still
when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might
begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the
undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding
place within the plants, having never left the area of
concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she
made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide
check.
The third part of your question changes the situation
entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight
class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re
incredibly effective.
A character with the hide in plain sight class feature
(described on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) can make a
Hide check even if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require
any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver).
The character could attack a foe, then move to a place with
sufficient cover or concealment to allow a Hide check, making
the Hide check as part of movement. The character doesn’t
need Spring Attack to pull this off, although that feat would
allow her to move (potentially from a place of hiding, although
that’s not necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a
place of hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or
concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be
hidden when she delivers the attack.
The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the
Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check
in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or
concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden,
move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack
while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer
the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has
Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make
a Hide check to hide after the attack.
Put all three of these elements together—such as in the
hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get:
1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in
natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment).
2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an
attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be
considered hiding when he attacks).
3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide
check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or
concealment while in natural terrain).
4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”

From what I understand of the situation as described in the FAQ, the -20 Hide check isn't needed to simply hide in the example. The -20 Hide check is to ensure that they were never seen at all. If they had done the exact same thing without the -20 Hide check, they'd approach the target, suddenly lunge out of the brush (visibly), and disappear again into the underbrush.

As I understand it, the main differences between the two options are:
1) with that -20 hide check, even a readied action won't be triggered, you were never seen, while otherwise the enemy could declare that they ready an attack for if anything bursts out of the bushes.
2) You only deny dexterity (get sneak attack/sudden strike damage) on the first of multiple hits unless hidden the whole time.

Obviously, to be hidden while moving you have to make the hide check with the appropriate penalty for movement (hence the -20 for attacking), but if you were willing to be seen while attacking, and moved no farther than half move (and had Camouflage/Hide in Plain Sight), you could attack, and vanish as you moved with no penalty. A high level scout or ranger in the wild is a deadly thing.

[Fixer]

As I understand it, the main differences between the two options are:
1) with that -20 hide check, even a readied action won't be triggered, you were never seen, while otherwise the enemy could declare that they ready an attack for if anything bursts out of the bushes.
2) You only deny dexterity (get sneak attack/sudden strike damage) on the first of multiple hits unless hidden the whole time.

In the case I mentioned in the original post, the Rogue/Umbral disciple with Embrace of the Shadow, they would have continuous concealment. If they were to get Hide in Plain Sight (or some equivalent ability) they could perform melee under the same circumstances to never be noticed.

My question now is how to handle it if they were not trying to perform melee, just ranged attacks, under the same circumstances (bearing in mind that this character would be considered concealed EVEN WHILE ATTACKING, because of the Embrace).

[Epinephrine]

In the case I mentioned in the original post, the Rogue/Umbral disciple with Embrace of the Shadow, they would have continuous concealment. If they were to get Hide in Plain Sight (or some equivalent ability) they could perform melee under the same circumstances to never be noticed.

My question now is how to handle it if they were not trying to perform melee, just ranged attacks, under the same circumstances (bearing in mind that this character would be considered concealed EVEN WHILE ATTACKING, because of the Embrace).

Still requires sniping if you don't want to be seen. You can be seen while concealed.

If you had Hide in Plain Sight, you could attack and then make a Hide check without a penalty. You would be visible while attacking unless you made a hide check at -20 to stay hidden while attacking.

[Fixer]

Does 50% concealment = unseen (like being invisible)?

I don't remember any rules to this effect.

[Epinephrine]

Does 50% concealment = unseen (like being invisible)?

I don't remember any rules to this effect.

I'm not sure if they ever make a bidirectional equivalence statement.

Being unseen -> 50% concealment is stated in the books.

Total concealment (which is 50%) does explicitly state

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment). You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

It doesn't state that anytime a person has 50% Concealment they have Total Concealment, but it's a logical interpretation of the rules.

I'd say that if you can get 50% concealment you've broken line of sight, but I reserve the right to change my mind if the method of concealment implies that it doesn't provide that type of benefit.

Now, I don't know Umbral Disciple, but does it allow one to make Hide checks based on it's concealment? I know that the Child of Shadow Stance specifically doesn't, and Displacement for example states that it is not "actual total concealment" - so there is at least evidence of some 50% concealment that doesn't act as total concealment.

Oh, and I'm not a rules expert (though I do a lot of hiding/sneaking in one campaign). I could be misinterpreting some of this, but nobody has spoken up so far to crush my ego/correct my interpretation.

[Heliomance]

Displacement gives 50% concealment, but doesn't break LoS.

[Epinephrine]

Displacement gives 50% concealment, but doesn't break LoS.

I gave that example already, but Displacement doesn't actually grant concealment - it reads:

The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.

[Fax Celestis]

Concealment
To determine whether your target has concealment 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 provides concealment, the target has concealment.

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.

Concealment Miss Chance
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

Concealment and 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 to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Ignoring Concealment
Concealment isn’t always effective. A shadowy area or darkness doesn’t provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance with the same light source than other characters. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Spot checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Hide checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Hide checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual clues).

Varying Degrees of Concealment
Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.

Bolded pertinent statements. Sufficient to say, the concealment makes the hide check possible without Hide in Plain Sight. You would still suffer the sniping penalty. This is partially why Cloak Dance and the ranger's Camouflage ability are like HiPS-lite.

Hide in Plain Sight makes it so you don't need concealment or cover at all to make a hide check. That's all. You still suffer sniping penalties, etc.: all it does is remove the concealment/cover requirement.

In short: the Umbral Disciple can make a hide check as a move action or part of a move action while being observed as long as he has at least two points of essentia invested in his Embrace of the Shadow ability. As a nice side effect, it also makes him immune to sneak attack:

Sneak Attack

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

[ericgrau]

(-20 to hide check) or can they take a standard action to attack, then use the concealment and a move action to hide normally (as they won't, technically, had a chance to be observed as no one else will have had a chance to act)?

Really the two are the same thing. You get a -20 to hide checks after engaging in vigorous action, including attacks. Even if others haven't acted yet, even if they're totally surprised, they still might observe you. In future rounds the penalty might disappear, depending on your actions.

Beyond that the rules aren't clear, but I'd say that you could not move any significant distance or could only move a short distance for the hide. After all, you don't want anyone to see you do the shooting. Think of the sniping example of peeking out from behind a tree, firing a shot, then immediately returning. This seems similar.

(above post)

You need both concealment and not-being-previously-observed to hide. Hide in plain sight only lets you hide while being observed; it does not negate the need for concealment. Sometimes there is confusion perhaps because the shadowdancer's HiPS also lets you hide without concealment. Using a bluff check to create a diversion (a standard action IIRC) can also let you hide even while being observed, but it's at a -10 penalty and your hiding spot must be close by (within roughly 1 foot per rank you have in hide). The rules, the FAQ and common sense are clear on this.

[Fixer]

Is there an ability/feat/something that allows you to make such a bluff as a free action? Or at least a move action?

[Fax Celestis]

Improved Feint.

[Fax Celestis]

You need both concealment and not-being-previously-observed to hide. Hide in plain sight only lets you hide while being observed; it does not negate the need for concealment. Sometimes there is confusion perhaps because the shadowdancer's HiPS also lets you hide without concealment. Using a bluff check to create a diversion (a standard action IIRC) can also let you hide even while being observed, but it's at a -10 penalty and your hiding spot must be close by (within roughly 1 foot per rank you have in hide). The rules, the FAQ and common sense are clear on this.

Lies.

This quote:

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)

While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed.

Overrides this quote:

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.

Note the repeated use of the word "observed".

So yes, HiPS does still require the use of concealment, but you don't need to be unnoticed.

[Epinephrine]

Is there an ability/feat/something that allows you to make such a bluff as a free action? Or at least a move action?

Invisible Blade prestige class (gets move action feint, then free action at 5th)

[Darrin]

In the case I mentioned in the original post, the Rogue/Umbral disciple with Embrace of the Shadow, they would have continuous concealment. If they were to get Hide in Plain Sight (or some equivalent ability) they could perform melee under the same circumstances to never be noticed.

Umbral Disciples get Hide in Plain Sight if they have 20% or more concealment due to Embrace the Shadow.

My question now is how to handle it if they were not trying to perform melee, just ranged attacks, under the same circumstances (bearing in mind that this character would be considered concealed EVEN WHILE ATTACKING, because of the Embrace).

A Hide check is normally combined with a move action. So you could attack (either ranged or melee) as a standard action, and then hide as a move action. Embrace the Shadows at 20% or more would allow you to hide even if you're being observed, so you wouldn't have to actually move anywhere. You would still get the -20 penalty for attacking in the same round.

I don't think it's possible to full attack and then hide, unless you have the Blend into Shadows feat (Drow of the Underdark), which allows you to hide as a swift action. Requires darkness as a SLA, so consider Whisper Gnome or a dip into Warlock/Dragonfire Adept. Add Mage Slayer/Pierce Magical Concealment to ignore any concealment your enemies might have.

[Fixer]

I missed it where she'd get HiPS with 20% concealment. That makes this much easier. Is that under the ability description? I forgot to check that last night.

She is using a soulmeld for her ranged attacks, so no more than one attack per round anyway. Her build is not for damage dealing, I just want to make sure she can hit from hiding then sneak back away in case she gets separated from her group.

Thank you everyone for your information.

[Curmudgeon]

Lies.

There wasn't a single lie (or error) in what you quoted from ericgrau's post. He accurately described the two requirements for the Hide skill. And you didn't disagree with anything he wrote, so why the "Lies." statement?

The only thing that's confusing to me is the reference to the Ranger's version of Hide in Plain sight in the Umbral Disciple's Embrace of Shadow class ability. It doesn't need to be the Shadowdancer/Assassin version of HiPS (which overrides the usual Hide concealment requirement), because this HiPS only kicks in when the Umbral Disciple makes concealment. But by referencing the Ranger version of HiPS, does this restrict the UD's use of HiPS to only natural terrain, as stated in the Ranger ability?

[Darrin]

But by referencing the Ranger version of HiPS, does this restrict the UD's use of HiPS to only natural terrain, as stated in the Ranger ability?

Hmmm... probably just an oversight by the designer. Actually, I'm not really sure why they even reference the ranger ability. The text of Embrace the Shadow appears to cover when you can or can't use HiPS, there's no reason to check the ranger ability. It just says, "see this ability" and doesn't specify why you'd even need to look at the ranger ability.

[Person_Man]

The Hide rules are needlessly confusing. When I DM, the rule for using Hide is simple:

Is it reasonable that you'd be able to Hide? If so, then make a Hide check. If not, sorry, you can't Hide. What's reasonable depends on the specific circumstances of the encounter, and is directly converse to the level of PC Hide abuse. If you've got some sort of special ability, then I give you a lot more leeway in the spirit of that special ability. So Hide in Plain Site lets you hide in plain sight (duh).

[Neithan]

I agree.
I don't stick too much to what the exact words say and more so when it's about combining two different effects.

I think the idea behind Hide in Plain Sight is, that you can slip into a room while being observed, but you're so good at hiding that the observer has to make a spot check when he enters, even though he knows that you must be in there.
Usually, he wouldn't have to, because when he's aware that someone is in the room, it's easy to look for shoes under the curtains, peek under the bed and open the closet. When you make a normal hide check, it's assumed that he doesn't pay that much attention.

Camouflage is, well, camouflage. A ranger can press himself to the ground and stay completely unmoving and probably wears clothing and armor in camouflage colors. Normally people lying in 20cm high grass would instantly stick out.
I think you can only make use of one of these ablities at a time, but not both. If someone sees you lying down on the ground and you keep lying there, there's just no way he won't find you if he comes to your position.


And Hiding in concealment was probably originally meant to mean, that you press yourself to a wall within the shadows or inside a cloud of thick fog, so even though people can see your form, they don't take note of it and subconciously percieve it as background.
Just standing within a 1m radius cloud of darkness wouldn't help at all in hiding in a brightly lit and empty corridor. So usually I say that you can hide only within an area that provides concealment, but not if you're simply covered by an effect that provides concealment.

[Fixer]

Well, part of the Embrace of Shadows is that the shadows actively attempt to help you hide. So, while your opponents might know which particular 5x5 square you are hiding in if your shadows are concealing only your square, they still cannot pinpoint you for direct attacks. If you are hiding, you have a 50% miss chance. If you are not hiding, you have the normal concealment chance of missing (depending on essentia investment) which can be as high as 50%.

I suppose, if you have a 50% miss chance, hiding sort of becomes irrelevant at that point unless you simply want to not be seen at all.