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

[Imaro]

I agree with @pemerton on the stealth rules. As I've said several times in other threads, I think the rules introduce a tremendous amount of confusion by using the word "hidden" to mean "made a successful Stealth check." The rules are explicit that it is possible to be invisible but not hidden ("an invisible creature... can always try to hide"), which means that despite 5E's focus on natural language, the word "hidden" is not being used in a natural way. It's a technical rules term, and a poorly chosen one at that.

I think you have it backwards... Invisible is the technical rules term used in 5e with a specific meaning... and a specific way it interacts with the action of hiding and being hidden.

Invisible
-An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. for the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
-Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage and the creatures attack rolls have advantage.

Thus in your example it's the word "invisible" which is not being used in a naturalistic way, not hidden...

Now let's look at the definition of hide...

hide:
-put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others.
-(of a thing) prevent (someone or something) from being seen
-keep secret or unknown.
-conceal oneself.

conceal:
-keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed
-keep from sight

IMO while hide can be used to refer to vision alone, it is also not wrong or incorrect usage (again according to some of the definitions above) for it to encompass a more broad approach which is the way it appears 5e is using it. thus I think your assumption is wrong.

Given this, I approach the stealth rules by mentally replacing all instances of "hidden" with "stealthy." When you do that, everything becomes a lot clearer, and it becomes obvious that Stealth is 95% about non-visual senses. By a strict reading, in fact, it's 100%*. If you can be seen, you can't become stealthy, period, end of story. Therefore, the Stealth check cannot possibly be about visual senses.

Could you perhaps give some quotes or evidence to back up this assertion? Maybe some of those lines that become more clear... or if you've provided them in another thread a link would suffice.

To address your other point... I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't become stealthy (really not seeing how this makes it clearer than using the word hidden but, ok) if you can be seen... the question is how do we determine if someone is seen after they've hidden... sorry after they've become stealthy?? The chances of seeing things are not equal and dependent upon environment, conditions, etc.having the chance to see someone does not equate to actually seeing them. That is where I feel your assumptions break down.

Now to the question of whether there is a difference between when you can hide (become stealthy) and when you can be hidden (be stealthy): I say no, there is no difference. However, we already know that "hidden" and "hide" are being used in non-natural ways here, so I can't just appeal to natural language. Instead, I point to the following sentence:


(Emphasis added.) This sentence uses "hiding" as an ongoing action, something that can be stopped. It is not the instantaneous act of crossing the threshold between the "non-hidden" and "hidden" states; rather, it is an action that causes you to be in the "hidden" state as long as you keep doing it. If you stop hiding, you're no longer hidden. Therefore, if something prevents you from hiding, you can't stay hidden.

Lol, so you made it a specific game condition because you felt it was being used in a non-natural way (which it wasn't) and then used your own commandeering of the meaning of the word hide/hidden to justify your own opinion of how it works... i'm sorry if that seems slightly suspect.

If we take a natural language approach then it would seem hiding is just being in a hidden state. Not the act of continuously trying to hide... when you try to hide you make a stealth check... so if hiding was continuously trying to hide you would continue making rolls as you tried to hide over and over again, correct?

[SIZE=-2]*The reason I consider it 95% is that I might call for a Stealth check to cover borderline cases between seen and unseen--e.g., you're trying to conceal yourself in heavy brush, which is on the edge between heavily and lightly obscured. However, nothing I can see in the written rules supports this. I consider it a logical extension of the rules, but it is technically a house rule.[/SIZE]

There is no state between heavily and lightly obscured but there is a precedent for DM adjudication of special circumstances to allowing hiding even if not obscured or in bright light... so more power to you.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you have it backwards... Invisible is the technical rules term used in 5e with a specific meaning... and a specific way it interacts with the action of hiding and being hidden.

Invisible
-An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. for the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
-Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage and the creatures attack rolls have advantage.

Thus in your example it's the word "invisible" which is not being used in a naturalistic way, not hidden...

What is non-natural about this use of the word "invisible?" That entire definition comports perfectly with the natural meaning of the word "invisible," that is, not visible, impossible to see.

"Hide," on the other hand, has a strong connotation of visual concealment. All of its non-visual uses refer to keeping something secret/unknown, which is quite different from physical hiding.

Could you perhaps give some quotes or evidence to back up this assertion?

Sure. Basic Rules page 60, the Stealth sidebar: "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you." It follows from this that the Stealth check you make when trying to hide can't possibly be to determine if you are seen--if you can be seen, you can't hide, period. Thus, the Stealth check must be about non-visual senses.

Lol, so you made it a specific game condition because you felt it was being used in a non-natural way (which it wasn't) and then used your own commandeering of the meaning of the word hide/hidden to justify your own opinion of how it works... i'm sorry if that seems slightly suspect.

Either we are carefully parsing the language here, or we're not. Your distinction between "hiding" and "being hidden" relies on such careful parsing. Therefore, it's highly relevant whether "hiding" is something you do once to transition to the hidden state, or something you do continuously to maintain the hidden state. The fact that you can "stop hiding" indicates it's the latter.

If you don't want to carefully parse the language, then trying to distinguish between "hiding" and "being hidden" is silly.

 

[Imaro]

What is non-natural about this use of the word "invisible?" That entire definition comports perfectly with the natural meaning of the word "invisible," that is, not visible, impossible to see.

It is a specific game condition that carries with it specific game mechanics that go with it... that's what makes it non-naturalistic.

Edit: I find your reply to this and the one below interesting since I noticed in the other thread many posters believed invisible had strong connotations of being hidden...

"Hide," on the other hand, has a strong connotation of visual concealment. All of its non-visual uses refer to keeping something secret/unknown, which is quite different from physical hiding.

Well I see one about keeping something from being noticed (broad enough to encompass numerous senses)... concealing oneself, again encompasses more than sight. Assuming hiding is only a visual thing is a misconception on your part about the meaning of the word... not a mis-use of the word itself.

Sure. Basic Rules page 60, the Stealth sidebar: "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you." It follows from this that the Stealth check you make when trying to hide can't possibly be to determine if you are seen--if you can be seen, you can't hide, period. Thus, the Stealth check must be about non-visual senses.

Did you even read my last post about this? First being unseen and being hidden are not the same thing, both the game and the possible definitions of the word support that. The stealth check can be used to determine if you can be seen in different situations... as well as if you are heard, smelled, etc. If your stealth check is beat you are seen, heard, smelt, etc. if not you are hidden (which also encompasses all those things).

Either we are carefully parsing the language here, or we're not. Your distinction between "hiding" and "being hidden" relies on such careful parsing. Therefore, it's highly relevant whether "hiding" is something you do once to transition to the hidden state, or something you do continuously to maintain the hidden state. The fact that you can "stop hiding" indicates it's the latter.

No it really doesn't. Again when you hide it is accomplished mechanically in the game by making a roll... if you are not rolling you are either in the state of being hidden or the state of not being hidden. that's a simple binary.

If you don't want to carefully parse the language, then trying to distinguish between "hiding" and "being hidden" is silly.

It's not that hard especially when one is represented by an out of game action and the other isn't... but hey if it takes careful parsing of the words for you to recognize a difference... be my guest.

 

[Ratskinner]

Gosh I'm slow at writing these. This ground has probably been covered 8 times by now.

I've got nothing against casual rules. But rules can be casual and precise at the same time. This is coming up on the "is a crit on a 19 an auto-hit?" thread, where simple changes in the wording would have been no harder to read, but would have eliminated doubt.

AD&D used more fictional positioning rather than mechanical constructions: anyone who could see the thief did see the thief, unless a hide in shadows check succeeded while unobserved - at which point the thief is "effectively invisible" as long as s/he remains still and quiet.

The problem for post-AD&D editions is the introduction of a Perception skill.

That's part of what I meant about the distinction between a relationship between two entities and a condition of one entity. IRL (or at least in the vernacular), both are true (or can be).

I must say that I found the overall topic of stealth, surprise, and thieving abilities much more baffling in 1e. Hide in Shadows seemed to vary from a trap option to minor superpower, depending on the table in question. I never did figure out how to resolve the various combinations of (Unarmored) Elf, (90' away) Halfling, Move Silently, and whatnot that would lead to surprise in certain conditions, or even the order of operations for attempting it. At least in 5e, there's a singular mechanic, even if that mechanic is a worded a little unclearly.

I think 4e had a nice solution: high degree of cover/concealment to become hidden (basically the same as AD&D), with success on the opposed Perception check equating to noticing some tell-tale sign (eg noise, odour, something unexpectedly visible, etc). For maintaining Stealth, some cover or concealment is enough - with the same opposed Perception check applying. It is clear where the fictional positioning applies (how much cover/concealment do you have) and where the mechanics apply (once you have sufficient cover/concealment to enliven the rules, you're entitled to force the opposed Perception check to be noticed).

I don't find this significantly different from how I read the 5e rules, with some adjustments for differing mechanical structures. Of course, my impression is based on reading "Hide" in the PHB as mostly an active rather than passive thing. Given the current discussion, I wonder if they instead shouldn't have favored the use of word "hidden" in their constructions.

I personally have no idea how @Imaro is extracting a version of the 4e rules, only more generous to the thief (because he thinks that dim light makes the opposed Perception check take place at a disadvantage), out of the 5e rules.

Hunh? PHB p.183 "In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on sight." It doesn't specify whether the Perception checks are opposed or not. So that part's explicit. As for whether or not they approximate 4e's rules in function...I guess that's a matter of opinion, but they seem to do so for me.

And I find it is the mixture of mechanical specificity and lack of detail in the 5e rules that throws me.

I haven't found this to be any worse with 5e than with other games of the D&D line. It is a necessity when dealing with the interface of freeform fiction and rigid mechanisms. There will always be "edge" or "corner" cases.

But the rules leave it unclear: Imaro thinks the rules say that anyone in light fog, who was already hidden when s/he entered the fog, not only can remain hidden but forces the opposed check to be made with disadvantage; whereas I still find that the most natural reading of the rules is that any non-wood elf who steps into light fog becomes visible to any non-distracted person and hence is no longer hidden.

I'm not sure what to make of this argument at this point. The more I think about it, the more I think that my/ [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s interpretation is the only one that makes sense. I've included the definitions of Hide and Hidden below. It seems to me that "You cannot hide from someone who can see you" doesn't apply to someone that has already made an attempt to hide and is currently hiding, because they are presumed to be "not seen" until someone makes a Wisdom(Perception) check that beats their Dexterity(Stealth) check or they stop hiding. (from the "Hiding" sidebar on p.177 and the definitions of hide/hidden*)

To take the situations in the paragraph above:

Someone who is hidden is "out of sight" or "not seen". Entering the fog, by itself, makes no difference to that state. Others attempting to locate/see said person in the fog, are at a disadvantage to do so, because fog is noted for its ability to lightly obscure the area. Now, whether that's good or bad depends on PoV and from where you are entering the Fog (i.e. entering the fog from a Heavily Obscure area will make it easier to detect you).

The second situation, Wood-Elf vs. anyone else. Mask of the Wild says that "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, or other natural phenomenon." If they are both hiding, they are already "unseen" and thus disadvantaged check(s) to discover them or make them seen. If they are not hiding as they enter the fog non-chalantly (or are discovered via those checks), then they are generally presumed to be "seen" (albeit poorly) by creatures around them. The difference is that the specifics of MotW, trumps the more general rule about not hiding while being seen, and allows the Elf to "attempt to hide even when lightly obscured by blah, blah, blah."


*Dictionary:

hidden
hid·den
1. past participle of hide.
adjective
1. kept out of sight; concealed.
"hidden dangers"
synonyms: concealed, secret, undercover, invisible, unseen, out of sight, closeted,covert;secluded, tucked away; camouflaged, disguised, masked, cloaked

hide
hīd
verb
1. put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others.
"he hid the money in the house"
synonyms: conceal, secrete, put out of sight; camouflage; lock up, stow away, tuck away, squirrel away, cache;

 

[Dausuul]

The second situation, Wood-Elf vs. anyone else. Mask of the Wild says that "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, or other natural phenomenon." If they are both hiding, they are already "unseen" and thus disadvantaged check(s) to discover them or make them seen. If they are not hiding as they enter the fog non-chalantly (or are discovered via those checks), then they are generally presumed to be "seen" (albeit poorly) by creatures around them. The difference is that the specifics of MotW, trumps the more general rule about not hiding while being seen, and allows the Elf to "attempt to hide even when lightly obscured by blah, blah, blah."

See, this is where I have a major problem: By this reading, a wood elf in light fog who makes a Stealth check to hide is trying to avoid being seen. So it's Perception that depends on sight, and the fog imposes disadvantage on the opponent's Perception. But when the opponent can't see you at all, it's straight-up Stealth versus Perception. The logical consequence is that if you're worried about being ambushed in wood elf territory, you should blindfold yourself.

By my reading of the 5E rules, you must meet two requirements to be stealthy (or "hidden" if you prefer):

a) You must be unseen. This is determined partly by the blindness and obscurement rules, and partly by DM fiat.
b) You must be unheard, unsmelled, et cetera. This is determined by a Stealth check.

If you are a wood elf in an area lightly obscured by natural phenomena, you get to ignore requirement a). You still have to meet requirement b). Since the opponent's Perception check is not dependent on vision, the fog doesn't affect it. Same thing with distraction: At the DM's option, if your opponent is distracted, you may be able to ignore requirement a).

 

[Imaro]

See, this is where I have a major problem: By this reading, a wood elf in light fog who makes a Stealth check to hide is trying to avoid being seen. So it's Perception that depends on sight, and the fog imposes disadvantage on the opponent's Perception. But when the opponent can't see you at all, it's straight-up Stealth versus Perception. The logical consequence is that if you're worried about being ambushed in wood elf territory, you should blindfold yourself.

Uhm... I don't think it works like that. Let's look at the Perception rules...

Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to
miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door

what this tells me is the fiction is relevant... you don't just make a perception roll, you have to tell the DM what your character is doing and that action determines what the roll is for. Is the character listening for the sound of the assassin's footsteps in the pitch black corridor... or is he looking for any sign that someone is crouched in the darkness of the room... both of these actions in the same environment will have different mechanical results.

In the wood elf situation... the elf is still trying not to be seen since it is still possible to see him in lightly obscured terrain (there is no statement to the fact that the elf is made unseen/invisible by this power in those conditions, only that he can try to hide in them) and sight is most creatures primary mode of detection. If the primary perceptive ability being used isn't based on sight then there is no disadvantage and it's a normal perception roll (or passive perception)... the rules actually state this.

When the opponent can't see you at all, he auto-fails if that is how he is trying to detect you (again refer to what is actually happening in the game world). Otherwise it's the exact same situation as above, regular perception check (or passive perception) because it is based on something other than sight.

By my reading of the 5E rules, you must meet two requirements to be stealthy (or "hidden" if you prefer):

a) You must be unseen. This is determined partly by the blindness and obscurement rules, and partly by DM fiat.
b) You must be unheard, unsmelled, et cetera. This is determined by a Stealth check.

You already know I don't agree with this interpretation... Unless you are talking about initially hiding or entering the hidden state.

If you are a wood elf in an area lightly obscured by natural phenomena, you get to ignore requirement a). You still have to meet requirement b). Since the opponent's Perception check is not dependent on vision, the fog doesn't affect it. Same thing with distraction: At the DM's option, if your opponent is distracted, you may be able to ignore requirement a).

Nothing in the power makes the elf unseen... you don't have disadvantage on attacks against him or anything else that would indicate he is no longer subject to being seen or can ignore that condition except when initially hiding... it is a pretty narrow and clear exception to which you appear to be adding your own interpretations to.

Also you're assuming that the perception vs. stealth check can't be based on vision but if a player says, my character looks around for the elf in the foliage and underbrush... are you then saying the player's action is meaningless, auto-changed or what? How can you dictate what a player's perception roll is for, their actions do that... don't they?

 

[captcorajus]

Okay, I'm confused

Having read the rules on hiding and perception I found them quite clear and easy to interpret... from a DM's perspective, so no problem.

Then I saw this thread, and I'm like... wha???

After reading through the posts... not all, because the darn thing is 20 pages long, the thing I see
is that those who are complaining either didn't understand what they read, or they wan the rules to
act for their character. They want the rules to automatically do for them things that they should
be making clear to the DM.

There's already a D&D system out there that does that. Its called 4e. The rules in 5e are intuitive and logical.

You don't need to muscle memory a bunch of rules to play it. Things work like you think they should work, thus making it
easy for a DM to interpret situations not readily covered. Adding additional levels of complexity is simply not needed or wanted.

 

[pemerton]

Could it have been better organized, sure

My contention is that the stealth rules are ambiguous and unclear. If your reply is "No, not at all, they just suffer from poor organisation" I'm not sure how much you're disagreeing with me. I've already pointed to that poor oragnisation as one of the sources of confusion: for instance, that the concealment rules are in a different place from the stealth rules; and that the cover rules are in a different place from the concealment rules, don't refer back to those rules, and use the word "conceal" in a way that is different from the way it is used in the concealment rules.

you believe that a creature can only stay hidden in/with total concealment? Let me first say, just looking at it from a logical perspective that makes no sense to me

This is a reason that I stated upthread for why I find the rules confusing. Because I think the most natural reading of the rules is that (unless you're an elf or hafling) you do need heavy concealment or opaque total cover to be hidden, but I think that is counterintuitive from the point of view of verisimiitude.

The only text I've seen that favours the 4e approach - thanks to [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] pointing it out in his blog - is also confusing, because (i) it is in a different section of the rules, under the heading "Activity while travelling", and (ii) it seems to indicate that it is subordinate to, rather than adding to, the rules in the hiding sidebar.

I don't find this significantly different from how I read the 5e rules, with some adjustments for differing mechanical structures.

Yes, I understand that is how you read it. MerricB reads it basically the same way, based on the text about not being in the open in the "activies while travelling" section.

I can see how that interpretation is extracted. My view is that it is not the only feasible interpretation, and certainy not one that occurred to me until it was pointed out.

Purely from the point of view of autobiography, when I first noticed threads complaining about the stealth rules I assumed they must be mere whinging, because the 4e rules are pretty clear and I assumed that some version of them would just have been ported over. Then when I looked at the rules I found myself agreeing with the complainers!

It seems to me that "You cannot hide from someone who can see you" doesn't apply to someone that has already made an attempt to hide and is currently hiding, because they are presumed to be "not seen" until someone makes a Wisdom(Perception) check that beats their Dexterity(Stealth) check or they stop hiding. (from the "Hiding" sidebar on p.177 and the definitions of hide/hidden*)

For me, here is the confusion:

If my PC is hidden behind an opaque wall in an otherwise open, clear-aired area, then what happens if the wall is disintegrated? My opinion is, at that point, the presumption that my PC is not seen is defeated, without the need for any opposed checks to be made and compared. For me, the next question is - what other visual cues, less obvious than that, will also end the hidden state without the need for checks? And for me, the answer is found in the sentence "You can't hide from a creature that can see you". And in dim light or thin mist you can be seen, however poorly.

one cannot see normally in dim light (again barring special abilities) it only stands to reason that there is a chance you won't be able to see (or hear) someone who is hidden (otherwise why give disadvantage or differentiate it at all).

<snip>

I would say no, not for the dim light. If it's based purely on vision it's an auto-fail because the wall counts as heavily obscured terrain for these purposes and imposes the blind condition when it comes to the detection of something on the other side of it.

PHB p.183 "In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on sight." It doesn't specify whether the Perception checks are opposed or not.

By this reading, a wood elf in light fog who makes a Stealth check to hide is trying to avoid being seen. So it's Perception that depends on sight, and the fog imposes disadvantage on the opponent's Perception. But when the opponent can't see you at all, it's straight-up Stealth versus Perception. The logical consequence is that if you're worried about being ambushed in wood elf territory, you should blindfold yourself.

I share Dausuul's concern, here, and I alluded to it upthread.

The reply from [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], that the perceiving player has to declare the mode of their perception, doesn't really work for me - first, because hearing (unlike, say, head direction and the opening or shutting of the eyes) is to a signficant extent non-voluntary; second because you can both look and listen at the same time; third, because passive perception by definition doesn't involve any action declaration.

So it is silly if, while the wood elf is hidden behind a wall I get a passive perception chance to notice it, but once the wall is disintegrated and all that is between me and the elf is some light mist or foliage it actually becomes harder for me to spot it (-5 to the passive perception check). The rule about disadvantage to perceptions relying on sight seems to me more relevant to a character who is deaf, or to an attempt to spot something small or far off, than to trying to spot a sneaking elf.

I also think the reading of a wall, or similar opaque total cover, as providing "heavy obscurement" and imposing the blinded condition is quite counterinutive. The rules on p 65 of the Basic PDF say that "a creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition", including suffering disadvantage on attacks. But an opaque wall is not "an area" which a creature is in - in fact, a creature can't occupy the same area as a wall! And a wall doesn't impose disadvantage on attacks - it just blocks them.

I must say that I found the overall topic of stealth, surprise, and thieving abilities much more baffling in 1e.

<snip>

I never did figure out how to resolve the various combinations of (Unarmored) Elf, (90' away) Halfling, Move Silently, and whatnot that would lead to surprise in certain conditions, or even the order of operations for attempting it.

I agree that the interface, in AD&D, between the rogue stealth rules and the elf/halfing/ranger stealth rules is not clear; and nor is the interface between the rouge stealth rules and the surprise rules.

As best I have managed to make sense of it in a recent re-reading, only a rogue can hope to auto-avoid an encounter outside of the surprise rules (by sneaking past it) whereas a ranger, elf or halfling can only avoid an encounter if they successfully surprise.

 

[pemerton]

Having read the rules on hiding and perception I found them quite clear and easy to interpret... from a DM's perspective, so no problem.

Then I saw this thread, and I'm like... wha???

After reading through the posts... not all, because the darn thing is 20 pages long, the thing I see
is that those who are complaining either didn't understand what they read

It's very easy to assume that your reading is the only natural one, and that others who read the rules differently "didn't understand what they read".

But [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] is not new to playing D&D, nor to reading rules. In my own case I've been doing both (in the context of D&D) for over 30 years, and I make my living reading rules (of a different sort) and teaching others how to read them.

Just for fun: please point me to the rule in the Basic PDF which explains what happens when a rogue is hidden behind a wall, and that wall is then disintegratd. Does the disintegrating wizard have to succeed at a Perception check to notice the rogue?

 

[dd.stevenson]

It's very easy to assume that your reading is the only natural one, and that others who read the rules differently "didn't understand what they read".

Mearls said, in his interview, that D&D customers don't read read rules text very closely, and for that reason 5E rules are written to confirm whatever biases the reader brings with him or her. To me, this thread confirms he has accomplished his goal.

I hope forum users will internalize this fact. Things are going to get pretty tedious if every thread for the next five-odd years boils down to people insisting that their understanding of deliberately ambiguous rules text is the only correct one.