You can hide behind a tower shield while no one is directly observing you, however, and then stay hidden when they look right at you.

Only if you don't consider the shield as carried equipment. Otherwise it (something you carry) may be observed and you can't hide. I could imagine something like a pavise could lead to this conclusion. But if you treat the shield as terrain, it is no longer held equipment and would be like any other wall. If you hide behind a wall, does the wall disappear?

I think I am being unclear about the order of steps here. 1. You are not being directly observed, so you can use Hide. 2. Someone attempts to observe you, but you are hidden, so they must use Spot. 3. If their Spot check fails, they cannot see you (including your tower shield!), and you remain hidden. It’s stupid and absurd, but that is the process that the rules describe.

Tower shield does not grant hide. In a specific circumstance, it grants total cover, and total cover does not permit hiding if anyone can observe you. There is no case where a tower shield meets the requirements of cover required for hiding. Some other feature might otherwise meet the requirements, but the shield has nothing to do with it.

Non sequitur? You say it doesn't permit hiding if anyone can observe you (true, barring HiPS), and then claim it never meets the requirements of cover (how not? it grants cover; total cover is a form of cover), which does not follow from the previous statements nor is it supported by any other statement that I can see.

It never meets the requirements because you carry the shield. If you hid behind a wall with the shield, the shield is inconsequential. You can never hide the shield with the shield. It is by definition, observable. If you hide behind a wall, then move out from behind the wall, you are no longer hidden. If you take a piece of the wall with you, because the wall qualifies as total cover, are you hidden there as well? I don't think so.

@Wyrmwood you are arguing logic and sense; the rules do not have to, and often do not, make sense

the rules say you get cover from a tower shield

they also say cover is needed to hide

the cover granted by a tower shield is in no way restricted within the rule text to prevent it from qualifying as the cover needed to hide

and anything else is irrelevant in a question tagged rules-as-written

I would not be arguing in favor of this from any other standpoint, so it is meaningless to argue with me from any other standpoint

I know it makes no sense, I know it's stupid, I would never allow it my own game or recommend anyone allow it in theirs. I say as much in my answer, in no uncertain terms. But the question is what does the rule text say? and the rules make absolutely no mention of a requirement that the tower shield be visible in order to grant cover

Except, hide is an opposed check. It is not a state of existence. If no one is observing me, I don't need to hide (there's no one to make a spot check). This is why total cover obviates it, in most cases.

If a wall separates two enemies, you could say they are hidden with respect to one another without the need for a hide check. However, if one were to step out from behind the total cover - without cover or concealment (or some special ability) the cover is gone so there is no chance for a hide check.

@Wyrmwood the rules say you cannot hide while being directly observed (except when you can). If you take this to mean that anyone so much as attempting to look at you eliminates the ability to hide, then hide literally never serves a purpose ever. The entire point of that rule is that you have to do the actual hiding while no one is looking, and then you get to hide when they start to try to look

@Wyrmwood they don't need a hide check, but I see nothing saying they cannot make one

@Wyrmwood moreover, in this case, the cover never goes away so that part of the comparison doesn't exist

I completely agree with you that if the cover is removed, hiding cannot happen

but you can keep using your actions to maintain that cover

You need cover or concealment to hide, but it isn't a state, it's an opposed check. If no one's looking, who would roll a spot check?

@Wyrmwood it doesn't really matter if the hide check is rolled ahead of time or when they try to look; I'll stipulate that the rules are ambiguous on this point

but unless hide can offer a way to not be seen, it's pointless

so one way or another, you must get an opportunity to roll your hide check to prevent being seen

Some of the uses might make it a bit odd, like sniping, and move between cover and others, but in the end, it is always an attempt to hide versus a spot.

I tend to think it makes more sense to roll your Hide check when you attempt to hide, and then they roll their Spot check against that when they attempt to look, but rolling Hide every time they attempt to look works out OK

but again, suppose you are in some bushes, and they look right at the bushes: clearly this is the kind of situation where you're supposed to be using Hide checks

the only difference here is instead of bushes, you have a shield

which logically should be visible and obvious, but the rules don't work that way

I ran a game with an assassin player, and so we did get an opportunity to hash out some of the details, and he came up with some good strategies, mostly based on differentials in vision, but in the end, you have to differentiate when the rolls occur, as they impact (like in his case) whether or not special attacks came into play.

@Wyrmwood I am utterly unclear on the relevance of this statement

like, I (think I?) get what you're saying, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be taking away from it with respect to the rest of the conversation

The take away is that hide/spot is an opposed check, and it isn't an action (necessarily, although usually is part of movement), and it certainly isn't a state or condition, though it is sometimes treated like that (invisible).

The reason total cover obviates the need for a hide check is that no one can see you. But that will never be the case with a tower shield, since the spotter will always be able to see the shield. I don't go into a hidden state, then walk around, I make a hide check when the DM determines there's someone that has a chance of spotting me.

@Wyrmwood "Hidden" most certainly is a state or condition

With respect to the rules, hidden is not a condition. However, Invisible is, and with respect to modifiers, being hidden with respect to an opponent grants those modifiers. But again, part of the reason it isn't a condition, is that hidden is a dynamic result of whether or not you succeed on hide vs spot. Hidden is the result of that opposed check.

@Wyrmwood Rules Compendium disagrees with you, e.g. “If you’re successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you. That creature treats you as if you were invisible (see page 76).”

being hidden is a state equivalent to invisibility for the people you’re hidden from

I am still unclear on when you think someone can hide

ignoring tower shields, assume the cover or concealment is from bushes or fog or shadow or whatever

Sure, but it purely with respect to that creature, and a result of that successful hide/spot, not a spell with a duration.

There is no reason to hide with total cover. You cannot hide in the absence of cover/concealment.

if someone is trying to establish the fact that they see you, and you are trying to prevent them from doing so, Hide vs. Spot should come into play

I am not clear on how you think that does or should happen

There's this notion that I could hide behind a wall, then move out "hidden". It doesn't work that way. (Albeit except for a few specific situations)

I never suggested such a thing and have repeatedly stipulated to that statement

I do not know why you keep bringing it up

it clearly has some relevance that I am just not seeing

Did you not suggest that one could hide behind his shield, because no one was looking, then remain hidden when someone was?

@Wyrmwood yes, but that's a very different situation because he still has cover

So if someone walks into a room with a guy hiding behind his shield, does he get a spot check?

I could imagine a situation, where there were rows of tower shields along the wall, and you could hide behind it, but there has to be something to make the shield unobservable. Otherwise the cover doesn't grant the hide check (or obviate it).

@Wyrmwood yes

if he succeeds, no issue

if he fails, he does not see the person or his equipment

including the tower shield itself

that is what the rules say

@Wyrmwood this is not a part of the rules in any book

But, he would need cover or concealment to grant the hide and thus spot check.

The guy walks in, he has no need (otherwise) to roll a spot check.

I still think there's a fundamental difference in what hiding is required to come to this conclusion. I understand hiding as an opposed check.

@Wyrmwood he has cover

But it can be seen and thus doesn't grant a hide check.

@Wyrmwood I understand it as an opposed check too, and don't see why you keep referring to it as one as if that invalidates what I'm saying

@Wyrmwood [Citation Needed]

Because there's no way the rules support this ending, without a "state" of hidden.

that is the key thing you are missing for me: you keep saying the shield can be seen and thus does not count

exactly

the thus does not count bit? that does not exist in the rules

sure it does

@Wyrmwood [Citation Needed]

also, for that matter, the statement that the shield itself can be seen also needs a citation

because if the Spot check fails, he cannot see you

that includes the tower shield

so actually, the tower shield cannot be seen; if it could, that would imply that you as a whole could be seen, because it is your equipment and therefore a part of you

We come back to the hide/spot check. If it's the dynamic result, hide rules precludes hiding if someone can see you. They can see what you are carrying, thus they can see you.

How can the shield not be seen?

@Wyrmwood I don't know and it doesn't matter; the rules say it can't be unless they succeed on the Spot check

how or why are irrelevant

Oh, because you are assuming a "hidden" state; but remember what environment granted you the hide check?

that no one was observing, and that's what changed, the shield has nothing to do with it

I can't take a former environment and impose it on a new environment

@Wyrmwood I'm not assuming it, the rules clearly indicate it, but I'm also not seeing the relevance

whether you are "hidden" or you "roll Hide to prevent him from seeing you," it amounts to the same thing

the shield grants total cover. Total cover obviates the need for a hide check, but you can't hide if someone is watching you. If hiding is the result of hide/spot, there's nothing to carry forward from when no one was observing you.

it clearly doesn't :)

ok, stop for a second.

explain to me when can Hide prevent someone from seeing you?

in your own understanding

when it is successful with respect to a spot check

because right now, my understanding of what you are saying is that if anyone is looking for you, you cannot Hide, which eliminates any purpose the skill could have had

@Wyrmwood when can you make a Hide check, then, where it would be relevant?

when can Hide be used to prevent someone from seeing you?

When you are not being observed, have cover/concealment. For example, if I am behind a wall, and the room is shadowy illumination, and I walk into a doorway, I need to make a hide (and the DM makes a spot) for the enemy in the room and vice versa (unless I have darkvision - which is what I was alluding to earlier - vision differentials help a great deal since I typically gain no benefits from hiding if I too an hampered by concealment).

maybe this explains it a bit better

@Wyrmwood that's not a rules-as-written question and is therefore irrelevant; no one in their right mind would argue for the position I am arguing in any context aside from rules-as-written

Yeah, I was just attempting to demonstrate my understanding of how hide/spot works, in response to your question.

@Wyrmwood how is that different then?

why does that work, and the tower shield doesn't?

remember, you cannot see the tower shield itself unless you can see the person, i.e. they should be able to Hide and you'd have to beat it with the Spot check

I have a meeting, but would like to pick this up later. I think the distinction is there.

I know a distinction exists in reality, but I do not believe any exists under the rules