Strange things that break hide or don't break hide

[Jihelu]

I wish stop would stop 'you begin foccusing on whatever'.
Otherwise I just do 'op pack' or something to stop something stupid I may have qued up.

[nauta]

I once tried to stop a 'backstab dude' with the 'sit' command; it didn't work.  Sorry dude!

Wait... this is a thread about hide.  How'd... what just happened?

[Reiloth]

I once tried to stop a 'backstab dude' with the 'sit' command; it didn't work.  Sorry dude!

Wait... this is a thread about hide.  How'd... what just happened?

>backstab thread
You scrape your foot and the thread whirls around!

[Majikal]

Maybe roll to see if you successfully hide, then roll separately but on the same skill (or on hide+scan?) to see if you correctly guess that you're hidden?

This would be pretty neat.

[Jihelu]

Maybe roll to see if you successfully hide, then roll separately but on the same skill (or on hide+scan?) to see if you correctly guess that you're hidden?

This would be pretty neat.

I would suggest at advanced/master ranks it's almost a given you can tell.

[Hauwke]

I suggest it just being an across the board: you are hiding.

To say that you are still in hide status.
Like shove it in a prompt command or something, make it part of the status command.

[Beethoven]

Thanks for the update on 'hide', staff. I didn't know for sure that change ldesc was breaking hide, although I had worried that it might be.

Does anyone know about 'remove' and 'hold'? If they always break hide, could there perhaps be a sleight of hand check for those as well?

[nauta]

Thanks for the update on 'hide', staff. I didn't know for sure that change ldesc was breaking hide, although I had worried that it might be.

Does anyone know about 'remove' and 'hold'? If they always break hide, could there perhaps be a sleight of hand check for those as well?

This is an interesting case.  

As far as I know there's no way to stealthily move something to/from your inventory into a hand.

There's 'stow' and 'ready' which only go to/from the belt object -- roughly parallel to draw/sheath.  (Even though the stow/ready help files say you can 'stow/ready object sheath' you can't actually do this.  See the Improving the Help Files Thread -- it's been reported.)

There's also 'slip' and 'palm' which do allow you to move something equipped in your hand into a container object.

So a work-around would be to: 'slip/palm object bag'.

(I could be wrong on this.)

[Beethoven]

I'm thinking specifically of shields, which do not work with stow/ready.

[nauta]

I'm thinking specifically of shields, which do not work with stow/ready.

Not that I know of.  You can do:

Code Select Expand


slip shield bag

And that would attempt to stealthily remove the shield from your hand and put it in a bag.  But there's no way to equip a shield stealthily, since:

Code Select Expand


palm shield bag

would just put it in your inventory, and there's no way to move it (stealthily) from inventory into your hand.

Also NB that the stealth commands like stow/ready/slip/palm/steal/plant all recognize reasonable weight limits -- you'll get a message like: Derrr, that's way too heavy to attempt to steal.

[Beethoven]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

[nauta]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

Agreed.  Here's a proposal:

1. For 'remove/rs/rp': Allow 'slip object' (with no further argument) to move an equipped object into your inventory.  (You can still do 'slip object container' like normal too.)

2. For 'hold/ep/etwo':

(i) Allow 'palm object' (with no further argument) to move an object from inventory into an available hand (ep first, then etwo if ep is occupied);

(ii) Force 'palm object container' to move an object from that container into an available hand (ep first, then etwo if ep is occupied) rather than (as it is now) into the inventory.  After all, this is a stealthy command so your hands (or at least one hand) should be free to palm things.

[WarriorPoet]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

[nauta]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

Other than the classic 'what breaks hide?' question, the hardest thing about a sneak (for me at least) was navigating semote/hemote/emote in terms of what is presented to someone else -- do they see: a shadow wrinkles her nose?  someone wrinkles her nose?  my sdesc wrinkles her nose?  You notice: my sdesc wrinkles her nose?  You notice: someone wrinkles her nose?

The rules I've used came from the gdb:

1. If the action is one that a stealthy character would do and remain (hopefully) undetected, then use 'semote'.
2. If the action is subtle, use 'hemote'.
3. If the action is not subtle, type 'vis' first then use 'emote'. (NB: You can't stack these since the emote will come first, that is, you can't do: vis; em snickers.  You have to do 'vis', then hit enter, then do 'em snickers'.)

Very very rarely should you use 'emote' while hidden -- except to perhaps set some atmosphere, e.g.,  someone brushes up against you, passing through the busy crowds.

[BadSkeelz]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

If we had the code to actually "Draw" a shield from your back or belt or shoulder (assuming it's slung) then I imagine we could run the check with something like the existing slight of hand code that checks belts and sheaths. Maybe. I know nothing of code. I do know Warriors would appreciate being able to draw shields for their own reasons.

I also think a lot of shields are big and bulky enough that stealthily bringing one around would be troublesome at best. Could inspire some new crafts to fill the buckler niche.

[Beethoven]

Well, you can't use slight of hand on things that are too big, anyway, so yeah, it'd probably only work for bucklers. And that's fine.

[valeria]

Since "semote" stands for "silent emote" I use it for actions that are silent.  I use "hemote" for actions that are subtle or not silent, even when I'm hiding.

[Yam]

Backstab/sap will break hide even if they don't complete (i.e. because your target leaves the room or because you aren't wielding the right sort of weapon).

[Inks]

Hide breaks hide. So don't spam it.

[Beethoven]

Raise and lower appear to break hide. I wish they didn't because sometimes you're hiding and then you realize that oh shit, your hood is down and you need to be covert.

[SuchDragonWow]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

QFT.  Even if my chars had hide, I usually never bothered to use it.  Funny, too, because in pretty much any other fantasy game, my initial attraction is to sneaky types.

[Beethoven]

What do you guys who dislike hide think of my hide ideas on the other thread? Do you think they'd be an improvement or still be too gamey?

[SuchDragonWow]

Literally the only thing I think needs to happen is you get a message when something obviously breaks hide.  "You come out of hiding."  Does it already do that?  I don't think so, but I couldn't say for certain.  I remember thinking it was a little Byzantine in what does or doesn't and figuring that out.

I'll check out your thread when I have more time, I have not read it as of yet.

[nauta]

What do you guys who dislike hide think of my hide ideas on the other thread? Do you think they'd be an improvement or still be too gamey?

While I dislike not knowing what breaks hide/what doesn't break hide, one thing I like about hide here is that there's always this feeling that your character might not be as well hidden as she thinks she is.  I played another MUD where hide was 100% and you knew exactly whether or not you were hidden, and it wasn't as fun.  I like that nerve-wracking feel I as a player get when my character is hiding somewhere where being seen will mean some serious trouble.

I'm not saying that's what your ideas are -- I guess what I'd like is:

1. Current system with what breaks hide spelled out: absolutely breaks hide; possibly breaks hide; never breaks hide.  This is important so that the sneak can RP appropriately, more than anything else.

2. (If this isn't the case) A hide check every tick -- so there's always a chance that you'll fail hide.

[Beethoven]

My idea (which is not written up to be a feasible code change, just to provide an ideal that could inspire smaller changes) is more or less that hide would be a status that you could put in your prompt, but it only means you're attempting to hide, not that you're successful at it. If you do something obvious, then you reveal yourself to anyone who's currently in the room, but not people entering the room later. If you see a hiding person, you can "point" to them and reveal their hiding place to another person or everyone in the room, but that doesn't mean they can't find another hiding place (re-hide). You will never not be attempting to hide and not know it, or attempting to hide and not know it. That doesn't mean you can know whether or not you are successfully hiding from anyone, although sometimes you may be aware that you can't find a good hiding place.