3
\$\begingroup\$

The modifiers I could find are

When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

(Assume checks are at 10' or less for simplicity)

Does this mean?

  1. Immobile: Hide check +40
  2. Moving less than 1/2 speed: Hide check +20
  3. Moving >= 1/2 speed: Hide check +15 (+20 from 2, -5 for >1/2 speed)
  4. Running or Charging: Hide check -5 (+15 from 3, -20 for running)
  5. Attacking: Hide check +20 (not otherwise moving)
  6. Attack at the end of a charge: Hide check -25 (-5from 4, -20 for attacking)

Or

  1. Immobile: Hide check +40
  2. Moving less than 1/2 speed: Hide check +20
  3. Moving >= 1/2 speed: Hide check +20
  4. Running or Charging: Hide check +20
  5. Attacking: Hide check +20
  6. Attack at the end of a charge: Hide check +0 (charging + attacking)

In other words, do you take the -20 penalty for attacking, running or charging twice, once for charging and once for attacking or just once?

And, does the penalty for moving stack with the penalty for moving at > 1/2 speed or the penalty for running or charging?

The Hide bonus from Invisibility just says "moving" and doesn't specify a speed, but it's a hefty difference from the bonus from immobile.

Charging is one case where the move and attack action are linked, so it would be feasible to penalize the original Hide check, but in practice, the attack modifier seems to usually be ruled for a Hide check after the attack (see here).

The rules compendium only muddies this further, but adding that only an inanimate object qualifies for the -40 modifier, and an animate object, even if immobile only gains a +30 Hide modifier.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

I would say you have it mostly correct in the first list you have.

As for the penalties for charging while in "stealth" +20 from invisibility, - then -20 from running, as I would imagine that would superceed the penalty from moving above half speed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Good point. Since the penalties are both from moving, it doesn't make sense to "stack" them. \$\endgroup\$ – Wyrmwood Jul 6 '15 at 3:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Of course, 2, 3 and 4 are all about moving, thus this leads me back to the second list... \$\endgroup\$ – Wyrmwood Jul 6 '15 at 19:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ I see the different threads of logic on both tables, so yeah, not 100% sure either is correct. Just happen to agree a bit more with most of the first table, up until 6. Though that could be considered being inconsistent when applying the penalties to moving during stealth before the greater invisibility comes into play. \$\endgroup\$ – Apyollyon90 Jul 6 '15 at 20:17
1
\$\begingroup\$

RE 'does the penalty for moving stack with the penalty for moving at > 1/2 speed or the penalty for running or charging?'

Penalties do stack unless from the same source. Since two actions, I believe in this case they would stack.

So thus I agree with the first list except I do not believe #6 is right. Since "charge" is an action listed with the "or" condition with attack and run (same as these are disctinct actions in the section of the actions in the PH/srd), I believe charging penalty is "-5" same as answer #4.

Even if people disagree, I think you might be able to glean help from Spot as well. "Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action." (srd) To me each changing action (basically each penalty change) would be a new spot check. This backs up charge having the same penalty as attack or run, being a single action.

'In other words, do you take the -20 penalty for attacking, running or charging twice, once for charging and once for attacking or just once?' In brief summary, once (as a/per distinct action).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ are you saying only once because charging includes both running and attacking? Makes sense until someone moves and attacks and takes a heftier penalty :) \$\endgroup\$ – Wyrmwood Jul 13 '15 at 19:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Kinda. I'm saying once because charging is charging (not because it's running and attacking). I do not believe someone moving and attacking would take a heftier pentalty. I believe they'd take the same twice (so two spot checks, two reasons). Charge knocks it down to one spot check (which for -2 ac seems reasonable=)) \$\endgroup\$ – joedragons Jul 13 '15 at 19:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've always interpreted "every time" as you must be granted a spot check as a defender on your attacker's turn, otherwise you don't have a chance to see them until your turn, and whether or not you see them affects the attack modifiers, not that you should break down each action of the attacker and make it a separate Hide/Spot check. \$\endgroup\$ – Wyrmwood Jul 13 '15 at 20:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Wyrmwood I don't run or play a combat round that tightly. You move up to a guy, someone spots you. This may entail finishing your round with a second move away from the guy or casting a spell at the person who spotted you or dropping for cover. However, they don't see you on your move up, you attack. Something different has happened so they get another chance to spot. That's my take=) I could probably answer your Q to the way you are used to running spot but I wouldn't be able to defend it as well=) \$\endgroup\$ – joedragons Jul 13 '15 at 20:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.