D&D 3E/3.5 Hide in 3.5

[LokiDR]

I'm afraid this isnt' entirely correct. The only time facing is discussed is in relation to combat. Outside of combat the DM is free to adjudicate it in whatever fashion makes the most sense.

So, because the rules do not state that no facing should be used at all, you think the rules say you should use facing?

Lack of facing should only "matter" in combat.

Aren't you saying just the opposite?

I disagree, I don't think it disallows it at all.

You need cover or concealment. What in the description of "large well lit room" implies either?

The best solution to sneaking around involves rolling initive, laying out the area on a battlemat, and running the situation from there. This may not be combat, but it does preclude facing as all the rules written for the use of the battlemat state there is no facing.

 

[Destil]

You need cover or concealment. What in the description of "large well lit room" implies either?

Do you have the new PH, Loki? I'd rather wait until we see the exact description before splitting hairs over the wording. [I'm assuming that the first post was a paraphrase, given how loose the language is]

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is it me, or does the concept that someone cannot hide in a large, well-lit, featureless (so no cover) room make perfect sense?

Also, is it me, or do players already say "is there somewhere I can hide?" before announcing that they hide. I've yet to be in a game where the DM announces that theres a featureless well-lit area, and the rogue simply says "I hide" without the other players asking him where he is hiding...

 

[Ravingdork]

They allow that already

If you allow the move from hiding is still a sneak attack, then I don't see the problem.

They don't have to "allow" anything. In 3.0 it states that you can sneak attack those you sneak up on so long as they don't know of your presence and don't have any reason to be wary.

To be more specific, you cannot sneak up on and then sneak attack a guard because he will always be watching for something (if not you in particular). Likewise you cannot sneak up on and sneak attack that guy you were hired to hit if he knows he is a target of assassins (because he'll likely be watching out for you).

So if you sneak up on victim A, and victim A hears the twig under your feet snap (a botched move silently roll) you can no longer sneak attack them because they know that there is something there.

You can however, sneak up on and sneak attack victim B in a dark ally on their way home from the grocery store so long as cictim B had no idea you were there and had no reason to be wary (which a dark alley might be reason enough).

I see no reason for this rule to change in 3.5

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I wait till I see how Move Silently and Hide let you leave cover on your move without being found out. (You hide behind that crate. The guard turns its head away from your direction. You quickly sneak up on it and put their head to the blackjack).

IMO, if it's your turn, you can leave cover a little (depending on your ranks in hide and/or move silently) to sneak up on someone. But if you end your turn away from cover, you're spotted. If it wouldn't be the case, you couldn't sneak up on someone unless he would be adjacent to cover or there were no real light (since a torch provides a zone of "clear light")

Could someone post the text of hide and move silently, maybe?

 

[Destil]

Re: They allow that already

They don't have to "allow" anything. In 3.0 it states that you can sneak attack those you sneak up on so long as they don't know of your presence and don't have any reason to be wary.

HUH?
Unless I've missed something really really big, it's never an issue of "have any reason to be wary." It's all about Dex bonus to AC and being flanked. And thus awareness / iniative / threatned area.

To be more specific, you cannot sneak up on and then sneak attack a guard because he will always be watching for something (if not you in particular). Likewise you cannot sneak up on and sneak attack that guy you were hired to hit if he knows he is a target of assassins (because he'll likely be watching out for you).

Other guy fails listen and spot checks vs. your hide and move silently. You get into melee range. They unaware, thus suprise round. Sneak attack! (unless they have uncanny dodge) If you win initative, more Sneak Attacks! If you use a scroll of Summon Monster X and put an earth elemental on the other size of them, more Sneak Attacks!

So if you sneak up on victim A, and victim A hears the twig under your feet snap (a botched move silently roll) you can no longer sneak attack them because they know that there is something there.

Both aware. No suprise round. If you win iniative and make it to melee range, Sneak Attack!

I see no reason for this rule to change in 3.5

I've been wrong quite a few times before, but I'm not sure that was ever a rule in 3E...

The main issue I'm still fuzzy on in 3E is when / how often to roll spot & move silently as you aproach someone and the possible distance modifier to move silently. How often is fairly easy, with the sneaking around the camp example in the DMG. Distance I'm not too sure on, I've been using the 'Listen DCs to Detect Invisible' chart on DMG 78: +1 per 10 feet. So if you beat the move silently check by 4 points you hear them when they're 50' away, and that's when iniative starts (both sides aware). This makes it very easy to sneak around some distance from a group, however...

 

[Kershek]

Re: Re: They allow that already

If you use a scroll of Summon Monster X and put an earth elemental on the other size of them, more Sneak Attacks!
Both aware. No suprise round. If you win iniative and make it to melee range, Sneak Attack!

How can you do that? It takes a full round to cast a close-range summon monster and it's a DC 0 +1 per 10 feet to hear the casting.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Re: They allow that already

In response to raven_dark64

I agree with Destil. I think your defining "being wary" too broadly. A guard is suppose to be wary but his level of concentration will vary during the six hours of guard duty, the same can be said for the person that knows there is a contract out on them. Both can still be sneaked attack. But, if an arrow flies by their head, or they hear an odd sound, or see a strange movement, then they are now sufficiently consentrating to be wary and avoid the sneak attack.

Why use this more narrow definition of warrieness? Because it doesn't counterdict the idea that you can sneak attack in combat. It is planely stated that you can sneak attack an opponent when you have a comrad on their opposite side. In this case your enemy knows your there, but cannot not concentrate aon being "wary" of you because they have to avoid your partners attacks. It works well with the narrower definition.

Anyway this is my reasoning,

Gully Foyle

 

[Destil]

Re: Re: Re: They allow that already

How can you do that? It takes a full round to cast a close-range summon monster and it's a DC 0 +1 per 10 feet to hear the casting.

I never said it was a very tough guard. You cast it in combat and they don't interupt you. But once the're flanked suprise is illrelevent to sneak attacks, anyway.

EDIT: Nevermind that you're casting summon monster X (ten)... by this point I think it's more a "look what I can do, let's see how much damage the 1st level warrior can take" sort of thing

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Originally posted by Saeviomagy
Is it me, or does the concept that someone cannot hide in a large, well-lit, featureless (so no cover) room make perfect sense?

Careful - bringing reality into D&D discussions has been known to threaten the fabric of space-time.

BTW, yeah - it is possible - rings of Chameleon Power, Elven Cloaks (the Tolkien concept anyway), Skulks, those sorts of things were made for the ability to blend into your brightly-lit, featureless rooms and still be hidden.

- Ma'at