Harzel
Adventurer
It is not ignoring the rules, it is making a ruling in a case the rules do not unambiguously cover. Per Mearls:
D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!
- Thread starter Klaudius Rex
- Start date
It is not ignoring the rules, it is making a ruling in a case the rules do not unambiguously cover. Per Mearls:
Yes, I amended my post to acknowledge that.
The game says (1) that a person who is clearly seen be another person can't hide from that person.
The rules also say (2) that a person who is hidden from another person can't be seen by that person.
As best I can tell, neither of the above is in dispute.
What is in disupte is whether an elf, who is being observed (ie actually noticed) by a person can hide when there is nothing except snowfall or foliage to provide (light) obscurement. And a significant driver of this dispute is that even an elf in a snowfall is visible unless hidden.
Some people (including [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION]) think that the elf is able to hide despite being seen, as an exception to (1). When asked, but how in the fiction does the exception work, the answer is that the elf "steps behind" the snow and "blinks from the radar" much as an ordinary person who is in darkness and hence unable to be seen. To me, this seems like magical at-will camouflage.
Others (eg [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]) think that, until the elf can satisfy the "not actually under observation" requirement, s/he can't attempt to hide with any prospect of success because (1) is not satisfied.
I incline to the second view, but am curious about how it fits with the remark on p 64 of the Basic PDF that a character can be stealthy as long as s/he is not in the open. If light obscurement amounts to "not being in the open", then this seems to give all players the elf special ability, which seems wrong. So how should "not in the open" be interpreted?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The bolded portions are mutually exclusive.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Looking at that section, it isn't talking about hiding. It's talking about moving quietly, which is different. You can be stealthy without being hidden. Page 64 is part of the movement section. So say the group is moving stealthily through some light brush. They come across a group of orcs who are not moving stealthily. Since they aren't out in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak past.
ThePolarBear
First Post
[MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] Except that the elf is not invisible, and as such the second image is wrong. If that was a Waldo image where someone is difficult to see but it's possible to, then the image would be relevant. As it is, it's a misrepresentation. The rule states "it can't be clearly seen", not "it must be absolutely invisible".
ThePolarBear
First Post
The second part is false, albeit yours is a logical conclusion. The rule say that "until you stop hiding or you are discovered". How you are discovered is not mentioned specifically
but there's a check that people can do to notice your presence. There's also to say that the most logical application of "discovery" from sight should follow the guidelines for hiding, not restricting them further, by making it "can't be clearly seen". Every single other instance either tells you that "you give away your position", "they notice you" or for moving "stealthly" "if you want to attack you must not be in the open" (if you want to be hidden at the start of combat). But i'm digressing.
Not only that. It's also in dispute for some reason if a person that is in full view can or not go behind something and hide. For some reason that is still not clear to me for @Flamestrike this is not possible because the fact that one moves and then hides counts as "looking for somewhere to hide into" and then, since the action started in full view, is not possible.
Then there's the "elves can't hide in full view in appropriate conditions". And i have no idea why the phrase "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." or "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lighlly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena." has to be limited to "attempt to = attempt to stay", expecially from a person that argues natural language to be applied. And again, if it's fine for your game, it's fine for your game. What i argue is that it's not a valid, logical, common sensical?, plain english reading interpretation. It's not an interpretation at all since it relies on limiting the reading to a single specific modification of the meaning of a phrase. And such modifications are not interpretations.
It does not matter what it seems to you. That's you. There's no fluff given. There's the rule. Asking for fluff to other people will give you their interpretation of how they see the ability works, not how the ability is intended to work.
Context. The rule is in the "Special rules while travelling" section. It deals with long distance movements and rules to deal with what is usually narrated in a couple of phrases in between pillars - either social, exploration and combat. It does not apply directly to anything else, but it can be a source of inspiration on how to rule things like tailing or stealthy actions while not in combat: There's a specific exception in the same paragraph that deals with start of combat and then there is the pointer on rules for hiding.
It does not give all the players the special ability since the special ability allows WE to do what nobody else can do: Do the same in combat or if otherwise observed. Provided that there are adequate conditions.
If an elf is being observed - ie someone is looking at and noticing the elf - then what does s/he actually do, in the fiction, to become hidden behind falling snow or a tree branch?
If s/he is not under observation, I understand that s/he "blends in" like your Where's Wally example.
But if s/he is under observation, how does s/he blend in? The observer can follow the elf and his/her movements, defeating the attempted blending.
I don't follow this.
If you are seen by someone, that is sufficient for you not to be hidden from them. Hence, if you are hidden from them it can't be the case that they can see you.
ThePolarBear
First Post
And that's where the rule says you are wrong. The observer cannot follow the elf. The situation is enough for the elf to escape notice. Remember that we are not talking about a light snowfall, it's a snowfall that's heavy enough to make all sight based perception rolls at disadvantage. It is a pretty heavy snowfall, so heavy that the visibility is pretty much the same as anything between 5ft (1.5m) and 10ft (3m) from a single lit candle. Well... that game wise has the same penalities, at least, and you still need to abstract a lot of things. But that's pretty damn dark.
I'm not saying it's not a situation where others could not, given enough distance, also hide. The elf can very simply just make others go "uhhhh?" by doing that in front of them (at least by the rules). By the way: I do not remember who posted it and where, nor exactly what was said... but iirc Mearls said that for him the ability represented how magically nature moved to shield WElves from sight when they needed it. Even in this interpretation there's nothing that the elf has to do... is nature moving for him. And it's definetly magical. If you prefer this, use it. Still, there should be no roll as it's something that simply happens. The roll for dex is for all the other components of hiding that are still required and still can make the elf lose "nature protection", as that ability simply levies restrictions and does not confer any other advantage. You can still fluff it up a "seen" elf as "surrounded by snowflace that seem to dance to greet him" or a just discovered elf as "Even if you were sure there was nobody you now notice a set of footprints that should not be there and simply following them with your eyes you notice movement between the flakes, finally recognising the elf shape in between the snow".
Edit; Working on answering to post 2.
No, the rule explicilty says that to hide you need only to not be CLEARLY seen. The same logic should apply to being "no longer hidden". I can look in the direction of the crates and notice that there's a little bit of cloth above such crates. I might dismiss that as a sack on top of the crates and go on, or i can move to investigate. In both cases i've "seen" the rogue, but DM decision was different on "clearly". I agree that being seen is enough. It implies being seen clearly. But the rule makes a distinction that's important to keep in mind. It's a subtle difference but it's an important one that anyone when adjudicating usually intrinsecally and unconsciously already applies. It's just better to state that openly. And that is why being invisible is not a strict requirement for hiding and the image from Flamestrike is misleading. Waldo is hiding, even if you, at least in theory, by looking at the image you are "already seeing" him.
It's why shooting from out of cover can work and why you get spotted when "you give away your location" because of the attack. The two things work together to make you realize what happened, focusing on the figure that attacked. That's why for me neither of those, alone, would be enough to "break" hiding - assuming only those things are the only factors to keep in mind.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
