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

[captcorajus]

...how I've run it at my table is if a character is not specifically stating an action and I just want to see if they notice something (such as a rogue behind the remains of a disintegrated wall), I would compare the DC with the passive perception of the character. If they stated they were actively looking, I'd let them roll (perhaps through the use of a Search action detailed in the combat section).

Exactly right. The players have to help themselves to be successful, by relating to the Dm what they are doing.

 

[eryndel]

Two things;

The remains of a disintegrated wall are a pile of dust. That's why I chose that example: a rogue whose wall is disintegrated is in plain sight.

Eh, you're correct. This makes it a bit more situational. Really it depends on the intent of the caster.

If the caster knows where the rogue is (just can't see 'em), casts a spell to remove the obstruction to bring the rogue into view, then yep, no roll required (at my table) cast spots the rogue. I feel this is adequately backed by the 'can't hide if you can be seen' clause.

If the destruction of the barrier was the result of quasi-random attempt to find the rogue, or blowing a hole in a larger wall, which gives some doubt over if the caster actually got the right spot, I'd leave it to a roll. If the caster says as part of the action, "I'm looking for the rogue", they'd get a perception roll. Otherwise, just a stealth roll vs Passive Perception. I feel this is backed well enough by the "When in doubt, roll" principle.

If the destruction was incidental, and caster isn't really aware of the rogue's presence, the stealth roll would be contested with a passive perception, backed by the passive skills rules I previously cited.

But, the truth is, we could analyze this toy problem any number of additional ways. Doesn't really get to the bottom line of your concern that the rules could have been better written. From my perspective, there's always going to be some ambiguity in language they may not hit all people and all biases as effectively. This is especially true when writing in the English language vice, Lojban for instance. As a writer, your goal is to write to your audience, and with an audience as diverse as a the D&D crowd, that's a difficult challenge. Are the stealth rules among the more ambiguous rules in the PHB, sure... there are a lot more things clear cut. However, for me, I feel I have enough rules to effectively arbitrate a given situation... even some of the carefully constructed corner cases.

 

[pemerton]

Ipemerton, I think you're getting your "I think the rules are poorly phrased" needlessly mixed up with your "this is how I think the stealth rules should work" and it's making you kind of hard to follow.

That's fair.

I think that if the rules want the GM to adjudicate, they could say so. Or they could use descriptions that are natural language rather than mechanical (like the notion of being "in the open" used in the "activities while travelling" rules).

But the rules use a lot of technical terms, like WIS (perception) check, obscurement etc. Plus non-technical notions (like being unable to be seen) that interact with other technical terms (like the cover rules in the combat chapter). It's the combination of technical language plus non-flexible language ("you can't hide from someone who can see you") that I think are indicative of poor drafting if the goal was to make it clear that, and where, GM adjudication was required.

My view on how the rules actually work is a sincere best attempt to make sense of what is written - except that I'm not sure what to do with that bit under "activities while travelling", which I hadn't factored in until I read MerricB's blog.

Have a look at how the two posters just above me - [MENTION=6779503]captcorajus[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13120]eryndel[/MENTION] - would adjudicate the disintegrated wall case. The latter agrees with me that the rogue in in plain sight and hence can't be hidden (no WIS (perception) check required). The former thinks that the wizard needs to make a check to spot a rogue in plain sight. But those differences, as far as I can tell, aren't the result of different GM views about the fictional positioning, nor different GM views about how powerful Stealth should be in the game, but rather different readings of the rules.

I really think the Hermit background features illustrates how the rules could have been differently written, in a way that would - from my point of view - have been both (i) clearer and (ii) better.

 

[Mistwell]

Two things;

First, does the NPC who walks around behind the wall that my rogue was hiding behind need to make a Perception check to notice my rogue? If the area in which the wall is located is shrouded in fog, is that check made with Disadvantage?

How about we put the rulebook down for a moment and pretend, just for a moment, that this not a game of rules, but a different kind of experience. And ask yourself this: if you, the guy who goes by the handle Pemerton on ENWorld, were to walk around that wall and there was a guy hiding behind it, and it's shrouded in fog, do you think you'd see the person hiding there, or not?

 

[Uchawi]

The rules mimic that situation because the guy is already hidden. If not, then a surprise round may occur, and if the guy attacked and try to hide again, it would be impossible if they are seen.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Picking up on this side issue (I won't even mention hid-- uh, that other thing!), this isn't really true. If you stopped buying 4e material early, you may have missed out on 4e Dark Sun, which was arguably a better fit for the setting than the 2e original. Plenty of world-specific rules innovation there, some of which went on to be applied more broadly.

That's good to know. Yes, by the time the 4th Ed was out in force I had stopped purchasing every item released. Since I wasn't running campaigns in Dark Sun, I never picked it up.

But they certainly dumped a lot of stuff into the Forgotten Realms that many don't believe belong there. I certainly see the benefit of a certain set of core rules that apply everywhere. But in my mind, that's what should apply - core rules, not necessarily classes, races, etc. In home campaigns it's easy to do that. But when they start tying those previously non-FR options into major storylines in those products, it makes it a bit more difficult to remove them.

Randy

 

[Ilbranteloth]

What is "situational" or "open-ended" about "You can't hide from a creature that can see you"? That seems pretty categorical to me, not open-ended at all. And I'm not sure what counts as taking that clause too literally. The only non-literal interpretation of it is to ignore it, ie to allow that sometimes you can hide from a creature that can see you.

Well, first off I said 'Stealth was very situational,' I did not say that particular sentence was. And I was also referring to stealth in both the real world and conceptually, not that the RAW was situational (although they are too, precisely because they are describing a situational activity).

The problem I have with that particular statement, it that it's too absolute when describing a situation that isn't that absolute and is very situational. Thus there are people who will take it too literally (as has already been shown by those who have asked if it means that you can't remain hidden if somebody can see you).

So, there's a big difference between a creature that can see you and one that does see you. For example, if a wizard is walking through a hall while reading a scroll, or even just having a deep conversation with another wizard, may not notice the thief that ducks between two statues, but still in plain sight. Yes, he could have made his initial hide check before they could see him, but it's also possible that he moved into position at the last moment and yet still avoided detection (in game terms he may have had disadvantage on his Hide check, but then they may have had disadvantage on their perception check).

If you think this doesn't make sense, do a search about how many accidents happen when somebody is walking or driving while looking at their smartphone. Everything they hit, or are hit by, are in plain sight and can be seen, but they aren't.

Disregarding even that, the way the rule is written 'You can't hide from a creature that can see you' implies that you don't even get to attempt to hide, and therefore your opponent doesn't have to make a Perception check to oppose your hide check. And yet, under the heading 'What Can You See?' it tells you to reference (being) 'lightly or heavily obscured' but being lightly obscured only gives the creature looking disadvantage on their Perception check. That's useless if the rule "You can't hide from a creature that can see you' means that they don't get to make a Perception check at all.

If you want to be bound by the written rule (as many rules lawyers do), then to me you end up with a less than realistic approach, and also fewer options that make for a great story. If it said 'It's much more difficult, if not nearly impossible, to hide from a creature that sees you. This sets a guideline that allows the DM and the players to understand, but isn't too restrictive either.

Taking this specific sentence too literally has already been discussed in this thread regarding whether an already hidden character that can now be seen is no longer hidden. In addition, taking rules too literally is what frequently gives birth to unintended loopholes. The so-called triceratops shuffle where a druid shapechanged into a triceratops could charge, trample, and retreat to deal massive damage and avoid taking it. The way the rules were written provided an opportunity to do something that probably wasn't intended, but because that's how the rule is written there are those that say it must be allowed.

A real life example that I've seen repeated many times is when a number of employees are chronically late to work. Work imposes a rule that says that if you're more than 5 minutes late, you'll get a warning. If it happens again you'll be written up, etc. What happens? Most of the staff starts showing up 4 minutes late. It's extremely difficult to write bulletproof and exact rules. And it takes a lot more rules to try to get close. And in the end you don't really stray that far from what a more general rule, common sense, and a good DM, and DM and player relationship can take care of with a lot less work. Plus it means you can focus more on the game and less on the rules.

There are other discussions, like 'can you stack short rests?' that don't typically occur to people like me because it doesn't make sense to me. But it might if your more focused on maximizing the numbers on your sheet.

Personally, I don't particularly have a problem with how the rules are written regarding hiding. Yes, initially I was thinking of limiting some potential actions more than I would now. And these discussions have been great to help come to my own conclusions as to how they make sense to me. I love these types of discussions, but not when playing the game.

Randy

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think that if the rules want the GM to adjudicate, they could say so. Or they could use descriptions that are natural language rather than mechanical (like the notion of being "in the open" used in the "activities while travelling" rules).

I really think the Hermit background features illustrates how the rules could have been differently written, in a way that would - from my point of view - have been both (i) clearer and (ii) better.

Two things - first, while it may not be spelled out in great detail, there are numerous places, including the introduction, with statements like: 'One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee.' or;

'But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.' or;

In chapter 7 under Adv/Dis, "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or imposed disadvantage as a result.'

I think the main difference is that some things - like those relating to the campaign itself like backgrounds, they are specifically calling out the need to consult with the DM - this is also referenced in the introduction: '...you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

In most cases, the rules as written work well for things like stealth and hiding. But that doesn't mean that it will 100%, and that's what the DM is there for.

--

Second - while I'm sure we all can come up with ways to make the rules clearer and better (and I've given examples myself), ultimately there will always be room for improvement. Not that I don't think that the rules for hiding couldn't be handled differently, because they can be read as somewhat contradictory and scattered throughout the PHB. But Mistwell's point is a good one - the rules are there to try to help describe and adjudicate a specific situation. What's the situation, and what makes sense? Does it make sense that a character could potentially hide even when he is seen? If so, is it harder than it would normally be? OK, then he can attempt it, but with disadvantage.

If you're actually looking for a response to the NPC walking behind the wall - it's very situational, and you haven't provided enough information.

Does the rogue know the NPC is coming? Is there any place, ability, or possibility that the rogue can hide? Is there rubble, or pillars, or something else that might look like the rogue's figure in the fog? Is the rogue going to just wait there until the NPC walks into him, or is he trying to sneak around the NPC, or away from the NPC to remain hidden? Because my ruling would be different depending on those or whatever other situation that arose.

Are you wondering whether the rogue gains advantage if he attacks the NPC?

Here's one possible ruling - If the rogue is just going to stay where he is, there's fog, and he's intending to attack as soon as he can see the shadow of the NPC, then I would rule that the NPC gets a Perception check with disadvantage as soon as he's in a position where he could potentially see the rogue through the fog. Assuming the NPC doesn't succeed, the rogue is hidden until after his attack hits or misses, and the attack is with advantage. After that he's no longer hidden, although he's still obscured. The distance involved for this will depend on how thick the fog is.

Of course if there's fog, the NPC is also potentially hidden from the rogue. If the Rogue succeeds in his Perception check and discovers the location of the NPC, he's still unseen for some period. And once his form can be seen through the fog, he may not be able to determine that it is, in fact, the NPC. It could be one of his allies. So now the Perception check that the rogue makes may be to confirm (through body motion, sounds, weapon carried, etc.) that it isn't an ally. If the NPC is an human and the rogue and all of his allies are halflings, then this check wouldn't be necessary because it would be fairly obvious that the figure in the fog is an enemy.

These types of examples are helpful for learning how to DM, but also take up too much space in the rulebook. In the past these made interesting articles in Dragon. It wasn't uncommon for several articles to appear over the years with differing viewpoints. Nowadays, these are more frequently discussions on forums. Which in many ways is like a game all in itself.

Randy