Talk:Cunning Fox Camouflage (3.5e Maneuver)

Redundant?
Is this not redundant with Distracted Foe Misses the Thief? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Except this is a stance while Distracted Foe Misses the Thief is a boost.--Stryker (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my point. Stances are typically powerful in the sense that they last all day and you only get a few.  Why, then, is it exactly the same as DFMtT?  You'd expect that since it's all day, it would be higher level, or DFMtT has some extra benefit the stance doesn't have as a trade off for its short duration.  Right now, they just overlap uncomfortably since they appear on the same level. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "While observed" and "without cover or concealment" are two different things. --Foxwarrior (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, even after 2 years I still don't get this maneuver. Dat wording... what IS the difference between those phrases and why are both not effectively Hide in Plain Sight? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the distinction seemed perfectly clear to me because it immediately makes me think of Neverwinter Nights duels where once you had Hide in Plain Sight you could duck around a corner, stealth, and come back to follow the other player around hot on their heels, but on further reflection, I'm no longer certain D&D works the same way. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, Hide in Plain Sight would give the ability to hide without cover, though the two example versions have conditions shadow or nature for shadowdancer and ranger respectively). So you can do a batman and vanish in front of someone, conditions allowing. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And now I go back and check the Hide skill, and am confused in a new way. It clearly indicates that "You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check" in one clause and "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide" as a distinct, separate clause. --Foxwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I read it, it's just clarifying. That is, you need cover or concealment, and if people can see you, you are not concealed and therefore cannot hide. I wonder if anyone else can chime in on this to be sure. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)