You don't speak for "standard 5e".
No, not if they aren't staying alert for danger. Creatures that focus their attention on other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats.
Have you heard of a heavily obscured area? Or the DM ruling the target's distracted, for that matter?
I started this thread to get an idea of the kinds of circumstances under which other DMs and players would expect hiding to take place. Some recent discussions led me to believe there would be a wide variety of opinions on this subject. I'm actually surprised at the degree of consensus expressed so far, although there has been quite a bit of derailment that doesn't really address the OP. I don't want to make this about how hiding works in general, just what circumstances in the fiction and what game-identified factors and conditions create the opportunity to hide.
You say, "pretty much". I'm curious what the differences are, keeping in mind that when I say "hide", I'm talking about any attempt to avoid or escape the notice of another creature.
Let's take these one at a time.
Hiding, as the term is used in the game, is an attempt to avoid or escape the notice of another creature, whether you are moving or not. In game terms, it's an action, separate from your movement. Synonyms for hiding or trying to hide found in the game-book are: concealing yourself from someone, slinking past someone, slipping away from someone, sneaking up on or by someone, moving stealthily, trying to be stealthy, or using stealth. A creature that is hiding is also referred to in the game-book as a stealthy creature. In all cases, the thing which is being attempted is to keep someone from noticing you.
Stealth is a skill which, if you are proficient, lets you add your proficiency bonus to any DEX (Stealth) checks you make when you try to hide (as above).
So yes, I find your distinction between hiding and stealth to be inaccurate to say the least.
Now, I agree with you that Perception relies on more of your senses than just vision. The odd thing here is that you assume I hold an incorrect opinion when I've made no statement to that effect, but I notice that's consistent with the general bent of your comments to other posters as well and not just me.
I've listened to the podcast and I disagree. Perhaps it would serve your argument better if you had some specific quotes from the podcast that you felt supported you. Simply repeating your assertion that the podcast supports your position isn't very effective.
When you say that I don't speak for standard 5e, are you just saying I don't work for WofTC? That is true. But I am speaking for standard 5e, that is my intention. I have tried to understand what standard 5e is and that is what I am speaking about. Now ofcourse I am probably wrong about alot, and all that, but it kind of goes without saying. None of us here work for WofTC do we? no us "speak for standard 5e". Not sure what you intend to convey with that sentence really.
When I said "creatures PP is always operational as long as they are conscious", well again, you keep saying you watched the podcast but you deny that? That is a quote from that podcast from Crawford. Now your denial of that statement is completely correct, there are situations when a pcs PP does not contribute to noticing stuff, as outlined in teh PHB. However I suspect Crawford is aware of that, and since he said that and we assume he knows the rules, denying that statement of his is a bit pedantic. Although I agree it needs to be mentioned for people who have not yet read the rule books.
Sneaking up on things, heavily obscured; that is fine, but it seems to me that RAI do not require such strict conditions.
So I said I agree "pretty much" with your OP on hiding. Now you want to say hiding and stealth are basically the same, this is new and I do not agree with that. But in your OP, I just don't agree with this;
"I would add to the top two above circumstances the requirement that the area or object must be of sufficient size to create uncertainty as to your precise location, or you must not be observed entering the area or getting behind the object by the creature from which you are hiding, whereas invisibility creates its own uncertainty as long as the invisible creature is free to move."
This contradicts hiding clarifications in the podcast. And again I think your confusion is thinking hiding and stealth are synomins, which you then go into attempting to justify from supposed prose in various books.
It doesnt matter how we individually fluff up in our minds what different things means, it only matters if it effects mechanics. Which it seems to me that this is basically emerging into mechanics, like this;
You require concealment (or some other special condition) to stealth past things.
I do not. I merely require that the players are sufficiently low perceptual footprint (stealth check beats PP).
Ok, the last thing about you wanting specific quotes; it is one thing for me to give quotes and another for you to notice them.
Really getting formal on this stuff doesnt interest me, I assume people are charitable and truthful and all that. If you want to get all formal - you can start and ill join. Otherwise I just believe you are speaking truthfully and so based on that, infer things.
So forinstance if some writer had a famous book, and a podcast where he explains extra information not in that book. Say the main character in the book is clearly very confident, and the podcast explains that the characters backstory not in the book is that he is only that way because of event A. And then in a forum, I state well that guy is only that way due to event A. Then someone says, no he isnt. And I say it is clarified as the case in the podcast, and they say they have watched the podcast... Assuming they are honest, and I can only assume that at the point in the podcast where that fact was stated, they were distracted and missed it. They should watch the podcast again, that is on them, even if they feel insulted by me saying to watch the podcast, I am only trying to help them...
