D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Imaro]

I saw that line as mainly just asserting the primacy of common sense. E.g. If you're standing in the middle of a well lit room surrounded by people only a few feet away who are looking right at you, you can't hide simply because there is a "hide" skill written on your character sheet.

I think that's how most people read it unless they were purposefully looking for the most confusing interpretation of the sentence. I'm not sure what it is about stealth rules and D&D... didn't they end up re-doing/revising the stealth rules for 4e... 3 times?


EDIT: Personally I don't have a problem understanding the 5e stealth rules and applying common sense where necessary, but I guess I can understand that some need/want the rules to be more comprehensive...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that's how most people read it unless they were purposefully looking for the most confusing interpretation of the sentence. I'm not sure what it is about stealth rules and D&D... didn't they end up re-doing/revising the stealth rules for 4e... 3 times?


EDIT: Personally I don't have a problem understanding the 5e stealth rules and applying common sense where necessary, but I guess I can understand that some need/want the rules to be more comprehensive...

Total of three I think. And for all my problems with 5e, the Stealth rules as read (haven't used them in play yet) aren't one of them.

 

[Mistwell]

You've replaced a two syllable word with four words and 11 syllables;

Yes, and look at how long your post is in response. You are already lacking in self-editing and routinely post extremely long posts when short ones would do (a sin I commit often as well). Don't tell me you can't handle a few more syllables and words at the expense of clarity. This is a very poor excuse for using language which fails to communicate with your audience. You can deal with the extra text for the sake of extra clarity

I am saying exactly what I mean. It's non-trivial to dumb down my language,

You can strive to communicate better with your audience, or not. I am not trying to twist your arm to change how you write (in fact I was not trying to tell you anything) - I am telling you how it comes across. It's obviously feedback you don't like. Fortunately, it was not aimed at you, but at someone else. I care about what he has to say, and so let him know when he asked if he was making sense.

 

[occam]

You've replaced a two syllable word with four words and 11 syllables; that makes everything easier to read. Not only that, you replaced a word with another word that is one-fourth as common as the one you started with, so obviously replacing a word with its definition does not always make things clearer.

Yes, but... you're the one that asked him to replace the word "jargon". Faced with your abitrary restriction to replace a commonly understood English word, Mistwell came up with a less desirable alternative that still worked. Getting on his case for abiding by your restriction is hardly sporting.

 

[occam]

From the Basic PDF, p 60: "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you".

Does that mean that you can only hide if you are invisible, or the people you are hiding from are blind? That's the most literal reading.

Can you see me if I'm on the other side of an opaque wall? No, so I can hide behind a wall, or a wide column, or a large statue, etc. Does the rule really need to explain that?

The rules go on to reinforce this literal reading by mentioning invisibility as one important way to facilitate hiding. The rules also go on to reference the concealment rules in chapter 8. And p 65 tells us that things that are lightly obscured can be seen, but with disadvantage on the Perception check. Which seems to imply that a stealthy rogue can't sneak up on someone through patchy fog or moderate foliage. This implication is reinforced by the rules calling out, as a special ability for wood elves, that they can hide when only lightly obscured by fog or foliage - though this itself is ambiguous (does it mean that elves are invisible even in light mist or moderate foliage? or is it an exception to the "can't hide from someone who can see you" rule?).

It's clearly an exception. See p. 4 of the Basic Rules, "Specific Beats General":

This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

None of this seems to involve "rulings not rules". It looks like an attempt to write strict rules which are very punitive for non-elven rogues.

There are sources of confusion, however. For instance, the rules for concealment on p 65 don't mention cover or obstacles at all. They mention lighting, foliage and mist/fog. Which leaves it uncertain how the hiding rules are meant to interact with physical obstacles like walls and furniture. This uncertainy is compounded by the rules for total cover on p 74, which say that "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." How does the use of the word "concealed" on that occasion relate to the rules for concealment on p 65, which could have mentioned, but don't mention, the possibility of physical obstacles providing concealment?

"You can't hide from a creature that can see you." Does the obstacle block a creature from being able to see you? Then you can try to hide from it. It's a rule stated in plain English, interpreted by a DM.

I'm not sure why the problem of interpreting the rule exists. It seems perfectly clear to some people, and greatly unclear to others.

Another source of confusion is the reference in the hiding rules on p 60 to distracted creatures. In terms of the rule that you can't hide from someone who can see you, this barely makes sense, because a distracted but sighted person has the capacity to see a person sneaking up on him or her, but won't and doesn't because s/he is distracted.

Further confusion and ambiguity is introduced if we move beyond the actual rules themselves to procedures of play. For instance, if a distracted creature is someone who can be hidden from, then if my PC is very quiet presumably s/he can sneak past someone who has his/her back to my PC. So who gets to decide whether or not a given NPC has his/her back to my PC? One way to handle this: the GM gets to decide, therefore (in effect) opening up or shutting down the possibility of an attempt to sneak past. Another way to handle this: the player gets to roll the check, and if it fails then one option for the GM to explain that failure is that the NPC turned around and saw my PC trying to sneak past.

It's not just that the hiding rules don't tell us which procedure is to be preferred - they don't even canvass that a given table has to make a decision about such things.

Sure they do: "...under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden...". That wording clearly puts this into the realm of a particular DM's allowance at a particular table of players, depending on circumstances. It's meant to support an exception to the "can't hide from a creature that can see you" rule when the players ask if they can distract the guard by creating a ruckus in the street, allowing the rogue to sneak in where she would otherwise be seen. Whether the distraction is distracting enough, or the guard distractible enough, or there exists an avenue of approach for the rogue to use unseen, ... these are decisions made at the table depending on the circumstances. The mention of distraction in the hiding rules just opens up the possibility.

For a point of contrast, look at the hermit rules for the "discovery" background feature, which tell the player "Work with your GM to determine the details of you discovery and its impact on the campaign". Those rules actually talk about the need for the people at the table to make a decision, even if they don't specify the mechanism in much detail. The hiding rules don't. They are poorly written.

I don't dissent from that. But given that what you say is true, I also woudln't write stealth rules that begin with a blanket statement that you can't hide from someone who can see you. That statement is in direct contradiction to the notion of "infinite variety".

I don't get this last comment. Can you explain?

 

[pemerton]

I saw that line as mainly just asserting the primacy of common sense. E.g. If you're standing in the middle of a well lit room surrounded by people only a few feet away who are looking right at you, you can't hide simply because there is a "hide" skill written on your character sheet.

The problem is that much of stealth is all about remaining undiscovered by people who have the ability to see you.

For instance, if the rogue puts on a white suit and lies down in the snow, or puts on a mottled green-brown suit and walks behind some trees, it seems pretty logical to me that s/he might remain undisccovered even by people who can see him or her, because they mistake him/her for something else (snow; foliage).

The hide in shadow rules for Gygax's AD&D assumed that, once the thief took up a position in the shadows, s/he might remain effectively invisible even to people who could see him/her, because those people would not notice him/her.

If you can only be stealth when you're literally out of sight, that is - as I said - a rather punitive stealth rule. And doesn't seem to me to particularly favour rulings over rules.

 

[pemerton]

Can you see me if I'm on the other side of an opaque wall? No, so I can hide behind a wall, or a wide column, or a large statue, etc. Does the rule really need to explain that?

The rules state that you can't hide from someone who can see you. That is not "rulings not rules". It's a rule - and by the traditions of D&D a rule that is very punitive to thieves/rogues (because in 1st ed AD&D and in 4e, a rogue who takes up a hidden position can then remain hidden even if others can see him/her provided that (in AD&D) s/he remains motionless in the shadows or (in 4e) retains at least partial cover or concealment).

On its own it's not confusing, just strict. But it is confusing when read with reference to the concealment rules, that don't mention cover, and then the cover rules, which mention a type of concealment that is not mentioned in the concealment rules. Those rules could all be better written.

More confusion arises when the rules say that you can hide from someone who can see you but is distracted. Because that is a direct contradiction of the rule "You can't hide from someone who can see you".

And yet more confusion arises because, in the real world, people can hide from people who can see them (eg by using camouflage while remaining still), so it makes no sense that in the D&D world that is impossible unless you're a wood elf.

"...under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden...". That wording clearly puts this into the realm of a particular DM's allowance at a particular table of players, depending on circumstances. It's meant to support an exception to the "can't hide from a creature that can see you" rule

If it's meant to do that, it would aid clarity if it stated that that was what was going on.

Just to give one drafting suggesion: there is a huge difference between "You can't hide from someone who can see you" and "Ordinarily you can't hide from someone who can see you, but sometimes you can eg if they are distracted, or if you are camouflaged."

I'm not sure why the problem of interpreting the rule exists. It seems perfectly clear to some people, and greatly unclear to others.

I've given a few reasons: the rules contain a contradiction ("You can't hide from someone who can see you AND you can hide from someone who can see you but is distracted"); the rules refer to concealment but not cover but seem to rely on cover as much as concealment, and the cover and conceament rules themselves do not interface very smoothly; the rules seem to state as impossible something that in the real world is possible, namely, hiding from people who can see you by remaining still and relatively camouflaged.

I don't get this last comment. Can you explain?

The contradiction with "infinite variety" I have illustrated above: there are ways of writing rules that permit infinte variety, but using blanket statements that "You can't hide from someone who can see you" is not one of those ways.

The contrast with the Hermit class feature is that the rules for hermits clearly point to a procedure for determining, at the table, how the hermit's discovery is to factor into play. The stealth rules don't. You cited this paragraph:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted​

These rules don't explain how the GM's discretion in respect of distraction interacts with the earlier stated rule that "You can't hide from someone that can see you". So the table is left to try and work out what is going on, factoring in the rules about "can't hide from someone who can see you", the rules about distraction which are based on GM discretion and seem to contradict the first rule, the rules about wood elves, etc. In my view it's a mess.

 

[Ratskinner]

The rules state that you can't hide from someone who can see you.

I dunno if it helps or hurts the discussion, but I interpreted that "hide" to be an active (as in taking action) verb, as in "you cannot make yourself hidden from someone who can see you" rather than passive "you cannot be in a hidden state from someone who can see you."

Thus, if the rogue or ranger is on a hillside and currently unobserved, they may make a stealth check to put themselves into hiding amongst the rocks or whatever (in the process setting a DC for discovering them.) If the pursuer is already there and observing the character, they cannot do so.

 

[SkidAce]

I dunno if it helps or hurts the discussion, but I interpreted that "hide" to be an active (as in taking action) verb, as in "you cannot make yourself hidden from someone who can see you" rather than passive "you cannot be in a hidden state from someone who can see you."

Thus, if the rogue or ranger is on a hillside and currently unobserved, they may make a stealth check to put themselves into hiding amongst the rocks or whatever (in the process setting a DC for discovering them.) If the pursuer is already there and observing the character, they cannot do so.

this was my thought also.

And if they rolled bad (low DC) well then their camo wasn't good enough.

 

[Imaro]

I dunno if it helps or hurts the discussion, but I interpreted that "hide" to be an active (as in taking action) verb, as in "you cannot make yourself hidden from someone who can see you" rather than passive "you cannot be in a hidden state from someone who can see you."

Thus, if the rogue or ranger is on a hillside and currently unobserved, they may make a stealth check to put themselves into hiding amongst the rocks or whatever (in the process setting a DC for discovering them.) If the pursuer is already there and observing the character, they cannot do so.

Which is pretty much the way @Dimitrios and I also interpreted it as well.

Edit: I honestly don't think the stealth rules/rulings are as hard to understand/make as some seem to want to make them out to be. Anything read literally and pedantically enough can be made to seem unclear.