Discussion between KRyan and Bradd Szonye - 2014-10-24

last day (15 days later) »

6:07 PM

4

A: What happens when Hiding behind one's tower shield?

The rules as written allow you to use the concealment granted by the tower shield to hide, since it doesn't have any caveat about that. The rules also do not recognize anything as partially hidden, so the tower shield is hidden if you are. It doesn't stop granting concealment, so this doesn't neg...

The rules do have such a caveat: You cannot hide while people are observing you, which includes your equipment.

@MatthewNajmon In D&D, “you” includes your gear, or your gear would be destroyed by every fireball cast around you, and spell casters wouldn’t be able to target you via the tower shield. Furthermore, the shield cannot hide you from all directions, so unless all of your foes stand in single file, at least some of them can see you at least momentarily. If anybody can see you even casually, you cannot hide.

@BraddSzonye 3.5 does not have facing. The tower shield does not grant you cover from particular people, it just grants you cover, period.

@KRyan D&D also does not have hemispherical tower shields. The rules assume that you turn as necessary to meet attacks, not that your shield is in all places at once.

@BraddSzonye The rules state that you get cover, without caveat and condition. That is what you get. If the only way you can imagine you getting that is a hemispherical tower shield, then congratulations, I suppose that is what the rules assume. Any other interpretation is entering into the territory of houserule and is not relevant to a rules-as-written question, which this is.

@KRyan The rules also state unconditionally that you can't hide while people can still see you. Cover alone is insufficient if people can see through it, or see that you're carrying it.

6:07 PM

@BraddSzonye If you are already hidden, they cannot see you unless their Spot check beats your Hide check. That rule is only relevant for checking whether or not you can begin to hide (and that is, in fact, the wording). Also, as you’ve repeatedly ignored, there are ways of explicitly removing that requirement while still leaving the requirement for cover or concealment.

Also, the rules do have a big caveat on the cover granted by tower shields; it doesn't apply to spells.

(I'm not ignoring the other rule, I read it differently. As written it doesn't say it only applies to the start of hiding, and some versions of the D20 rules make it more clear that coming out into plain sight spoils hiding. Please assume good faith.)

@BraddSzonye this does not affect hiding in any way. And if you are hidden, they cannot see the shield to target it.

@BraddSzonye no, as I've said repeatedly, there are options which give you a special exception to that rule, saying you can hide while being directly observed. For example, the Hide in Plain Sight offered by the Dark template, Tome of Magic

and your "reading" is irrelevant, because if they fail their Spot check, by definition they are not observing you because they cannot see you.

normally, yes, if you come out from cover or concealment, they can see you because you no longer have cover or concealment

but you do not lose cover in this case because the tower shield keeps providing it

(and if you could only hide when no one was looking, what would be the point of hiding?)

6:55 PM

Howdy! Sorry, was on mobile earlier.

When you’re hidden, people can’t see you directly, but if you stop meeting the prerequisites for hiding, then you’re no longer hidden.

If you’re only hidden by your shield, then they might not be able to see your body, but they can still plainly observe the shield, so you no longer meet the prerequisites to hide.

Being “hidden” is an all-or-nothing thing in D&D, but being observed is not. Somebody can observe your shield even if they can’t see you directly.

And there’s RAW evidence for that in the way that invisibility works.

Normally, total concealment would make it simply impossible to see you, obviating the need for a Hide check, but because people can see evidence of you, instead you only get to Hide with a very high bonus.

When the evidence of you is a tower shield, you don’t even get to Hide, because people can casually observe you.

@KRyan (ping)

@BraddSzonye the rules do not recognize that you are hidden "by your shield," the rules only see that you have cover; where you got it is irrelevant

The rules require discretion to apply, and they encode that with the observation rule.

@BraddSzonye this is several logical leaps away from what the rules actually say, and does not follow from the rules alone

It’s the sanity check to prevent things like hiding behind glass walls, or when somebody is watching exactly where you go.

you have to inject your own assumptions into it to get that conclusion

7:02 PM

Also, keep in mind that the D20 SRD does not contain the full D&D rules, especially not the parts instructing how to apply them.

@BraddSzonye again, there are ways to be exempt from that rule altogether

Examples, etc.

@BraddSzonye I do not recognize examples as part of the rules, and I strongly recommend you do not either, as they are very frequently wrong, clearly contradictory to what the rules say

almost every single example prestige class character has a mistake or three

several don't even qualify for the prestige class

moreover, the errata rules definitively rule out examples as valid when they contradict the rules text

The rules there for Hide are not just what you need to start hiding, but also to remain hidden.

@BraddSzonye then it is impossible, under your understanding, to ever benefit from hiding?

7:04 PM

These rules for Hide originally came from errata, and have been modified several times as the devs tweak them to get them right.

as soon as someone looks for you, you can no longer hide?

You can hide so long as there is not blatant evidence of your presence that would make observation inevitable.

@BraddSzonye that is not what the rules say

They actually say it a few different ways!

this is a rules-as-written question

7:06 PM

For example, even if you are hidden, you cannot attack or move quickly.

and it's meaninless to argue from any other perspective, because from any other perspective I agree with you

@BraddSzonye you are reading a "because" into that statement that does not exist in the rules

“It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging,” and it is impossible to hide if “people are observing you, even casually.” It’s not even a sure thing to hide if you’re invisible (“+40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving”) because people can observe evidence of your presence.

Also, Hide does not protect you from all senses.

but if you are already hidden, they cannot observe you, even casually, unless they succeed on a Spot check (or have one of those other senses that's relevant)

A tower shield that is not behind cover or concealment is inescapable evidence of your presence, so people can casually observe you.

@KRyan I don’t see that in the rules.

@BraddSzonye so someone doesn't have to make a Spot check to see you, or sees you even if they fail? what is the point of having the Hide check then?

@BraddSzonye false; if they fail their Spot check, they cannot see you, including the tower shield. It is not visible (on a failed Spot check)

7:13 PM

@KRyan I also don’t see that in the rules. Instead, the rules give several examples where people can observe you even while you are hidden or invisible, because you give them evidence of your presence.

I also don’t see how that argument works in the presence of a glass wall.

@BraddSzonye yes, that is what Spot vs. Hide is for

they may see you, based on evidence of your presence

but if they fail the Spot check, they don't

they could have, but failed

There’s no need for a check if you wave your arms and yell “Hey, I’m over here!”

There’s also no need for a check if the only cover you have is a glass wall.

Or if there’s a neon sign pointing right at you, saying “He’s here!”

A tower shield is that neon sign, practically speaking.

All of those are examples where even a casual observer could spot you trivially.

And you are not allowed to Hide in any of those cases.

If the situation is such that you would not be allowed to start hiding, you are also not allowed to continue hiding.

@BraddSzonye unless the glass wall defined itself as being unusable for hiding, that's incorrect

There used to be a rule that you could cover some distance outside of cover before becoming unhidden, but they removed it before this version.

@BraddSzonye that's knowledge of which square the person is in, which is not the same as being able to see him

@BraddSzonye Incorrect:

> 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
fl at-footed with respect to you.

7:17 PM

@KRyan DMs are not computers which need explicit instructions to tell which things can and cannot be seen through, unless it’s subtle. This case is not subtle.

@BraddSzonye for the purposes of a rules-as-written question, yes they are

Ah OK, they didn’t remove it, thanks.

and for any other purpose, I don't disagree with you so it's meaningless to debate it

@BraddSzonye that's from Rules Compendium; Core is notoriously weak on defining how the hell stealth is supposed to work

That rule would also apply in the tower shield case (as well as the bluff rule that requires you not only to create a distraction but also get to a hiding place).

Because people can easily observe you while carrying the shield, it is not a hiding place.

@BraddSzonye [Citation Needed]

7:21 PM

@KRyan You can interpret the not-in-plain sight rule to cover things like transparent cover, and have a sensible rules-as-written, or you can say only if they explicitly point out painfully obvious things, and have an absurd rules-as-written. Why do you favor the latter?

I don’t think many rules stand up to that level of scrutiny, in any game.

@BraddSzonye because your interpretation of the not-in-plain-sight rule makes it impossible to actually hide from anyone who's looking for you

i.e. it renders Hide completely meaningless

I don’t see how that follows at all.

If you have cover or concealment that makes you not plainly obvious, you can attempt to hide, and stay hidden.

Likewise if you have a special ability that allows you to hide even when you are plainly obvious.

But if somebody is watching you, or can see you without even trying, then you can’t hide.

As far as I can tell, that’s all perfectly consistent with a literal reading of the rules, while avoiding any absurdity.

Gotta run for lunch, happy to discuss more later if you’re still around.

@BraddSzonye except this statement does not exist in the rules, it just says "someone observing you, even casually"

to me, that means "someone has already been established as being able to see you"

if you are trying to hide (and have cover), and someone hasn't already seen you, you can hide

because otherwise, if just looking at you eliminates Hiding, there's no reason to Hide in the first place

Hide must have an opportunity to prevent observation

that is its purpose

I’m not saying that “just looking at you eliminates Hiding.” There are degrees of revealing yourself.

(Lunch got delayed a bit)

@BraddSzonye [Citation Needed]

7:32 PM

@KRyan Several already given above!

like, you have to understand: I do not disagree with you for any purposes other than extremely literal interpretations of what the rules say

every claim has to be backed up with rules text

@BraddSzonye I do not think so at all; you refer to related things and extrapolate from them in ways the rules do not even suggest

Moving gives you a penalty, attacking gives a bigger penalty. Invisibility allows a Spot check when otherwise it wouldn’t even be allowed, because you can still be faintly observed.

Those are all exceptions to the general rules that you can’t hide at all if you are observable, and that you can’t be seen at all if you have total concealment.

Likewise the rules that give you a break when you first emerge from hiding.

@BraddSzonye and they are all explicit specific exceptions that cannot be generalized outward to other cases under the rules

They make it clear that ordinarily, leaving a hiding spot would make you plainly visible, but you can move a short distance first.

there's not even a rule saying that these are examples of situations where you'd make exceptions

they're just individual special cases

@BraddSzonye they do not; they only say that these specific cases are exceptions

7:35 PM

Yes, exceptions to the general rule that you could otherwise not hide at all in circumstances like that.

they do not suggest the existence of other exceptions or imply that any specific unmentioned case should be an exception

(In the case of coming out of hiding, at the very least)

@BraddSzonye I hit the wrong arrow, it seems; the exceptions I'm referring to are the fast movement, attacking, and invisibility things

Oh I realized that I overstated a little.

But this I think is very important here:

> If your Hide check succeeds, your target
doesn’t notice you until you attack or perform some other
attention-grabbing action.

That’s for coming out of hiding.

@BraddSzonye that line is completely irrelevant in any other situation other than coming out of hiding

any rule that comes from a special case cannot be extrapolated back to the general case

7:39 PM

But it exactly covers the situation where a person has hidden their tower shield by finding a hiding place, and then later emerge from the hiding place.

Then you are making an attention-grabbing action (moving while carrying a huge, obvious shield).

e.g. you do not have an "off hand" except when you use the two-weapon fighting special combat option, because the entire concept of an "off hand" is only introduced, mentioned, or used within that special case

@BraddSzonye they left one hiding place while under the cover of another (mobile) hiding place; they still have cover

The only way you can hide with a tower shield in the first place is by having a hiding place, or by having a special ability that lets you hide in plain sight.

@KRyan Citation needed for calling a tower shield a “hiding place.”

(OK, actually lunch time now. Back later.)

@BraddSzonye it grants cover; I was using "hiding place" as shorthand for a thing which grants cover or concealment, since the rules themselves do not use the term at all.

@BraddSzonye or some one walks into a room while you're already using the shield for cover, or you walk into a room while using the shield for cover

8:13 PM

@KRyan Thought about this some more, and the can’t-be-observed rule actually works fine if you interpret Hide as your ability to keep the cover between you and the person attempting to Spot you.

Or in the case of concealment, to blend in with the concealment.

For example, only peeking out from behind the cover when nobody is looking.

sure, but "cover" is uniform thing

you have cover or you don't

So, if they can see you, then you can’t hide. But if you have cover (that you are not holding), then you can use skill to position yourself that that can’t see past the cover, and won’t notice anything sticking out.

if you're using a tower shield that way, then boom, you have cover and can attempt to hide

That is, they can’t see anything that they would recognize as a person.

nope, sorry

8:15 PM

Except that a tower shield makes it painfully obvious that there is a person there, if you are holding it.

do, or do not; there is no try

the rules do not recognize anything but "you see him" and "you don't" as the result of a Spot vs. Hide check

The rules don’t say it’s all or nothing; in several places they say it’s just the opposite.

Yes, if they don’t, then they haven’t seen anything they’d recognize as a person.

But if you try to sneak up on somebody, and you come out of a hiding place (a shield is not a “place”), then they will see you, and your only recourse is to take an action before they notice you.

@BraddSzonye so it's convenient that the rules never specify that you need a hiding "place"

They do, in two places.

> If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.

@BraddSzonye no, they really don't; they specify situations where you take penalties to Hide (or need to Hide when you otherwise wouldn't even have to), but in all cases the result of Spot vs. Hide is binary

@BraddSzonye specific rule that you cannot generalize back outward to other uses of Hide

so yes, while using Bluff to distract someone, you must get to a hiding "place"

8:19 PM

But this is exactly the case that is under discussion: Where you are trying to hide but observed.

What other ways are there to get hidden while you are observed?

@BraddSzonye no, it isn't; I posited several variations where you are not yet under observation

(That are relevant to the question.)

you can attempt to hide to prevent said observation

Walking into a new room, you are coming out of a hiding place.

@BraddSzonye you have cover and someone walks into the room

you walk into a room behind cover

in both cases, anyone in there had not previously observed you

you get to hide to prevent that observation

and the game does not distinguish between different sources of cover

i.e. the tower shield is just as good as a low wall or whatever

8:21 PM

@KRyan That is untrue, as the rules explicitly state that a tower shield is cover with special rules.

@BraddSzonye with respect to being targeted with spells, not with respect to anything else

3.x is an exception-based ruleset

which means, among other things, that when you have an exception, anything not in that exception works the same as normal

Yes, and the rules say that there are exceptions here.

With the biggest one being, you can’t hide where people can clearly see you.

Unless you have a special ability that creates an exception.

Not that you cannot start hiding, but that you cannot hide.

@BraddSzonye [Citation Needed]

Which honestly is something the rules should not even need to say.

that phrasing is not used

and it matters

8:24 PM

The rules simply say “you can’t hide.” You are making a distinction between beginning and continuing that I do not see anywhere in the rules.

I am familiar with versions of the rules that did distinguish between the two. And the only distinction they made was how much cover you needed to start hiding, versus continuing.

Now they make no distinction.

If somebody can plainly see you, then you can’t hide.

I can imagine situations where I would let somebody hide behind a tower shield, but it wouldn’t be the case where they’re wielding it.

And definitely not where they are moving while carrying it.

Also, could you please knock off the [citation needed]? It was amusing a couple times, but now it just sounds snarky.

I just can’t see where the rules allow you to hide behind a tower shield, or a glass wall, or anything else that you can plainly see past.

Because the rules explicitly says that you can’t hide if they can still see you.

And it only gives you a few options for hiding while they can see you.

All of which require either having a special ability (thus making the question irrelevant) or getting into a hiding place (which a shield is not)

@BraddSzonye stop using phrasing that does not exist as if it holds weight; every time you say that I just ignore it because it's irrelevant because it's not present in the rules

It says it right here:

> 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.

@BraddSzonye it is not

You can only hide if you get out of sight, or get to a hiding place.

"plainly see you" is not used anywhere in that statement

@BraddSzonye so you can only hide if no one is looking for you

8:30 PM

And when you come out of the hiding place, you are spotted almost immediately.

great, why do we have this skill again?

@KRyan That’s also not what the rule says.

Cover and concealment both make it possible to position yourself so that nobody can observe you.

@BraddSzonye stop using "hiding place" if you are going to try to argue that the tower shield's cover doesn't count

because that is another distinction that does not exist in the rules

we are arguing about the minutiae of the rules-text here

At some point, we have to read words to have the meaning the words have, no?

using other phrasing is a waste of time

8:31 PM

The rules say that if somebody can see you, then you need to go around the corner or dash to a hiding place.

@BraddSzonye great, I have cover, and you try to see me: I get to roll Hide, and you have to beat it with Spot, right?

@BraddSzonye note the "observing" in this quote: the tense indicates that this is an ongoing action, i.e. something that is already true

someone attempting to observe you for the first time is not observing you

not yet

and if you have cover or concealment, you can roll Hide, and they have to beat it with Spot

that is what the rules say, and they make no mention whatsoever about the cover from a tower shield not counting as cover for this purpose

if they succeed, they can see you, now they are observing you

now you cannot hide from them

but if they fail, they cannot see you

they are not observing you

and you can continue to Hide

@KRyan The present continuous tense isn’t that specific in English.

Present continuous (English)

The present continuous, also called the present progressive, is one of the present tenses used in modern English, the others being the simple present and the emphatic present. All of these can be employed in both the indicative and subjunctive moods. == Common uses == The present continuous is used in several instances. To describe something which is happening at the exact moment of speech: The boy is crying. To describe an action that is taking place now, but not at the exact moment of speech: He is working in Dubai. To describe an event which is planned in the future: I'm resitting my French...

I agree that it’s one of the uses of the tense, but it’s not unambiguous enough to back up that reading.

Given that one can read it in a way that is not absurd, why would anybody want to read it in the way that makes it absurd?

It’s not even a tortuous reading to get the not-absurd result.

You just point out that you can’t Hide while you’re in plain sight, unless you have one of the abilities that lets you Hide in Plain Sight.

And the rule is right there to say it, even in the stripped down rules in the D20 SRD.

Along with all of the other rules that say it indirectly, like sneaking up on somebody, or using bluff to get into a hiding place.

@BraddSzonye to be blunt, any other interpretation invalidates using Hide for anything useful in any circumstance whatsoever

@KRyan How?

@BraddSzonye your reading is far more absurd unless you make distinctions that do not exist in the rules

8:42 PM

Hiding behind a low wall works just fine.

@BraddSzonye not under your interpretation!

While you crouch behind the wall, nobody can see you.

they're observing you

@BraddSzonye they can if they succeed on their Spot check

Not if you’re crouched behind the wall effectively, they’re not.

@BraddSzonye if you were, you'd have Total Cover and they couldn't draw Line of Sight

they wouldn't even be entitled to a Spot check

8:42 PM

Yes, which means that they’ve managed to get into a position where they can now see you behind the wall, or you hid poorly enough that you stuck out.

No, a low wall is not total cover if you’re crouched behind it.

@BraddSzonye injecting rules where there are none, since that is not what they say

Cover is determined from your whole space.

@KRyan It’s simply a reading of the rules as written that does not lead to absurdity.

People can hide when they’re actually trying to hide.

By staying behind things that cover them.

@BraddSzonye no, it's pretending the rules work differently than they say they do, making a distinction that they never make, in order to pretend the rules are not absurd

which is, itself, absurd, since the rules plainly are absurd

And if they come out briefly to attack, then they must make a very difficult Hide check to stay hidden.

don't even have to consider this case at all, the rules are still absurd

healing-by-drowning, monk non-proficiency in unarmed strike, etc.

anyway, I maintain stridently that the distinction you are making is not made by the rules, and you must treat all forms of cover equally

and if you are treating all forms of cover equally, interpreting "observing" as anything other than continuous, ongoing action results in Hide being completely useless

8:45 PM

Why must you? When the rules explicitly say that there are exceptions, without enumerating all of them?

What purpose does it serve?

@BraddSzonye it does not say that there are exceptions aside from the ones listed

it does not introduce that list as non-exhaustive

under the rules, there are exceptions, but they are all explicitly enumerated

because the rules do not so much as even suggest that there are others

It does not say that cover is sufficient to hide.

@BraddSzonye the purpose it serves is to not inject our own assumptions and biases into the rules, but only to read what is written

It says that concealment or cover is necessary, not sufficient.

@BraddSzonye that is true, I could not be standing there in front of a bunch of people with a tower shield, and then use it for cover and suddenly disappear

8:47 PM

It also says that staying out of sight is necessary.

that is not an option, because they are observing me

@BraddSzonye it does not say that

you keep saying that

They are observing you any time your shield is plainly visible.

and I keep telling you not to because it only confuses the issue

use the term that the rules themselves do: you cannot hide if someone is observing you

Yes, which is the case any time you are holding a tower shield in plain sight.

@BraddSzonye yes, but if you successfully Hide, it isn't

8:48 PM

How can you interpret that as other people not observing you?

@BraddSzonye it's not in plain sight if you are hidden

@KRyan You have not yet shown me where the rules say that.

@BraddSzonye because they failed their Spot check, and cannot see me

@BraddSzonye the rules do not recognize any form of partially-hidden state, you (and all your equipment) either are, or are not, hidden

this is consistent throughout the rules everywhere

"you" includes your equipment

@KRyan They cannot see you until one of you does something that changes the circumstances.

Like moving around a corner.

@BraddSzonye if that corner was what provided cover, yes

in this case, they cannot remove your cover

you can only stop using it

anyway, I've got to leave

8:51 PM

You stop being hidden as soon as you do something that draws attention to yourself, unless there’s an exception that allows you to remain hidden.

it's fairly evident to me that you are going to insist that the rules make distinctions they do not actually make, because you have some vested interest in the idea that the rules are not absurd

And carrying a tower shield draws attention to yourself.

I welcome any new evidence you care to bring, but if all you are going to do is keep repeating the same arguments, this seems pointless to me

These rules aren’t absurd, and now you’re making personal attacks again.

@BraddSzonye you can heal completely by partially-drowning

8:52 PM

And now you’re system-bashing again.

monks, masters of unarmed strikes, take a -4 nonproficiency penalty while using them

@BraddSzonye also, what personal attacks? I have only said that you have repeated the same arguments rather than providing new ones, which is a true statement

to be honest, I have done the same

neither of us has anything new to offer

“you have some vested interest in the idea that the rules are not absurd”

“you keep ignoring”

etc.

@BraddSzonye criticizing a system for the factual flaws in it is system-bashing?

@BraddSzonye fair, that toes the line more than I intended

I am also trying to get going on things I need to be doing

Sorry! Have a good weekend.

so I'm rushing a little

my apologies for that

8:54 PM

Nah it’s cool. And I think I’ll actually update my answer a little bit to deal with some legitimate concerns you brought up.

I think there is a sane reading of these rules, but it’s not quite as pat as my original answer made it.

Anyway, take care dude.

last day (15 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '1424

Discussion between KRyan and Bradd Sz…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...

dnd-3.5e rules-as-written

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile