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

[prosfilaes]

You can strive to communicate better with your audience, or not.

People use jargon because it helps them communicate better, because a concise word can cover quite a few words of definition. Unlike you, if I'm asked, I will be happy to explain a word or phrase if someone doesn't understand it.

 

[occam]

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).

You can't hide (i.e. become hidden) from someone that can see you, but you can stay hidden "ntil you are discovered or you stop hiding". If you're already hidden, it takes a Perception check to find you unless you do something to "give away your position".

I can't help but feel that you're making this way more complicated and confusing than it is. A plain English reading (at least, plain to me) seems to result in very clear rules.

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".

It's not a contradiction, it's an exception. OK, maybe that's a semantic distinction, but what I mean is that the "contradiction" is intentional, as are the "contradictions" (exceptions) contained in the wood elf's Mask of the Wild or the lightfoot halfling's Naturally Stealthy.

It's like saying that killing someone is against the law. Except that if someone is trying to kill you, you may be justified in responding with violent action that results in the attacker's death. There are exceptions all over the place in law, just as there are in D&D rules or any other complex set of rules.

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.

I think you're misreading the rules in interpreting "hide" as both active/passive. The word "hide" is used to refer to the act of becoming hidden; it's an active thing that you do (as is "stop hiding", apparently). Once you're hidden, you don't have to "hide" anymore. (Looking at the rest of thread: What Ratskinner said.) This may clear up a lot of things.

And to note, this doesn't mean that a wood elf can hide in foliage or heavy rain while someone is watching him. He has to be unseen before he can hide behind leaves, just like anyone else; it's just that he can hide in a light mist while anyone would need a dense fog.

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'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.

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.

I think it's really a lot easier than you're making it out to be.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Sorry for not reading 18 pages, but where is this interview?

 

[pemerton]

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."

The problem results from the fact that the verb "to hide" denotes both the act of becoming hidden, and the state of remaining hidden. If a door is opening and I call out "Hide!", I am telling you to engage in the act of becoming hidden. If I say "No one can hide from me for long" then I am stating that, even if someone successfully becomes hidden from me, that state will not endure for very long.

Both are quite acceptable and literal uses of the verb "to hide". If the rules want to distinguish between them, they need to be clear. The AD&D rules have a bit of ambiguity in this respect, but not as badly as 5e (they say that you can't use the Hide in Shadows ability while being observed, but that once you have successfully used the ability you remain effectively invisible provided you don't move). In 4e, the rules avoid the problem by being very clear that the act of becoming hidden requires a lot of cover/concealment, whereas maintaining the hidden state requires only a bit of cover and concealment.

There is no corresponding clarification in the 5e rules. Hence my view that they are ambiguous and poorly written.

For instance, the rules could state "You cannot become hidden from someone who can see you. Once you become hidden, however, you may remain hidden provided that . . ." and then state some conditions that end the hidden state (making noise, moving violently, having no significant cover, concealment or camouflage, etc). But they don't.

I think you're misreading the rules in interpreting "hide" as both active/passive. The word "hide" is used to refer to the act of becoming hidden; it's an active thing that you do (as is "stop hiding", apparently). Once you're hidden, you don't have to "hide" anymore. (Looking at the rest of thread: What Ratskinner said.) This may clear up a lot of things.

That may well be what they intended. But that is not a "plain English" reading. There is nothing deviant or atypical about my reading of the rules. As I will explain below, it also has an interpretive virtue that otherwise is absent.

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.

I don't see how the fact that you interpreted it one way, when another interpretation is equally available - because of the ambiguity between event and state in the English verb "to hide" - shows that the rules aren't ambiguous.

You can't hide (i.e. become hidden) from someone that can see you, but you can stay hidden "ntil you are discovered or you stop hiding". If you're already hidden, it takes a Perception check to find you unless you do something to "give away your position".

I can't help but feel that you're making this way more complicated and confusing than it is. A plain English reading (at least, plain to me) seems to result in very clear rules.

I'm glad you find the rules clear. I don't, and I'm used to reading much more complex material than the D&D rules. (Not all of that is clear, either. Bad drafting is rife outside of RPG rules.)

For instance, here is a sentence from p 60 of the Basic PDF:

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.​

The second clause of that sentence - about making noises - is clearly discussing how a hidden character loses the state of being hidden. Yet you are saying that it is plain that the first clause - "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" - is not about how one loses the state of being hidden, but how one attains it in the first place. I don't think that's plain at all. If that is the intended meaning - which for all I know, it is - it could hardly be drafted more ambiguously.

Contrast: You can't become hidden from a creature that can see you. Once hidden, you give away your position if you make noise. That introduces 2 more words (and 17 characters, including spaces). And unambiguously conveys the meaning that you are saying is plain. It also makes it clear that if the authors intended your preferred interpretation - which, for all I know, they did - then they also left something of a gap. Namely, they discussed auditory but not visual cues for ceasing to be hidden. Whereas my reading of the current rules is that any visibility ends the hidden status, because you can't hide from a creature that can see you. It is a virtue of an interpretation that it exhibits the rule as covering an obviously common case.

If the authors of the rules intended to leave that gap - eg, to be interpreted by the GM - then it would have been very easy for them to say so. Their failure to do so is a reason to think that they thought the gap was covered. And that is a reason to favour my suggested interpretation, namely, that any visual cue ends hiding because you can't hide from a creature that can see you.

It's not a contradiction, it's an exception.

<snip>

There are exceptions all over the place in law, just as there are in D&D rules or any other complex set of rules.

When rules are well-drafted, the exceptions are called out as such. The easiest way to do so, when the drafting is relatively informal (as is the case for RPG rules) is to use a word like "ordinarily" or "typically" before introducing the general rule, or to use a word like "however" or even the phrase "As an exception, however . . ." when introducing the exception.

this doesn't mean that a wood elf can hide in foliage or heavy rain while someone is watching him. He has to be unseen before he can hide behind leaves, just like anyone else; it's just that he can hide in a light mist while anyone would need a dense fog.

Now I'm confused. If a wood elf can't become hidden when being watched in a light mist, what benefit does s/he get from his/her racial ability? Perhaps you're saying that a wood elf can remain hidden in a light mist whereas a human can't - but then you seem to be agreeing with me that a sufficient condition for a non-elf to lose the state of being hidden is for him/her to be visible (because "you can't hide from someone who can see you").

And why does the verb "to hide" denote the action of becoming hidden on p 60 of the PDF, but not in the rules for wood elves?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but your remark about wood elves is not persuading me that your interpretation is a simple matter of plain English.

 

[Ratskinner]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

Maybe its dialectical? I mean, yes, imperative case is "Hide!" for both of us. However, contextually, the interpretation you're talking about wouldn't have even occurred to me. I would expect to read "You cannot be hidden from someone who can see you." if that were the intention. I mean, if I say "You hide" then I interpret that to mean that you are a person who on occasion engages in the act of hiding, not that you are currently in the state of being hidden.* For that, I would say "You are hiding" or "You are hidden". Which, I realize is not the way all languages work, so maybe our dialects weight them differently.

...and I don't wanna address how this all works with certain shorter adventurers. I'm fairly certain that that was left intentionally vague to give DMs a "dial."

That being said, stealth/hiding has been an area that I've always found D&D to dance with awkwardly. Especially when it comes to things like surprise in the earlier editions. Much like shields, I feel the game is wary of giving them the weight they have in real life (for both balance and aesthetic reasons). Additionally with hiding, there is the problem of its close interaction with non-mechanized fictional positioning.

*barring an exclamation point to indicate the imperative in text.

 

[Dimitrios]

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 is a clearer version of what I was trying to say. If someone already sees you and is looking right at you, you can't just go "poof" and disappear. Something has to happen to make it feasible, like there's a loud noise behind them that makes them turn around and while their back is turned you can try to dive behind something (assuming that there is anything there to hide behind).

 

[Imaro]

I'm glad you find the rules clear. I don't, and I'm used to reading much more complex material than the D&D rules. (Not all of that is clear, either. Bad drafting is rife outside of RPG rules.)

For instance, here is a sentence from p 60 of the Basic PDF:

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.​

The second clause of that sentence - about making noises - is clearly discussing how a hidden character loses the state of being hidden. Yet you are saying that it is plain that the first clause - "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" - is not about how one loses the state of being hidden, but how one attains it in the first place. I don't think that's plain at all. If that is the intended meaning - which for all I know, it is - it could hardly be drafted more ambiguously.

I am still not seeing any ambiguity except for the ambiguity you are (purposefully??) introducing. Let's read that sentence...

First part: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you,"... seems simple enough You can't hide, as in performing the act of hiding from a creature that can see you. Of course if you are already hidden from a creature it can't see you so we don't need to worry about the case of being hidden in this instance as being hidden implicitly implies you cannot be seen, otherwise you wouldn't be hidden would you? Why would you assume it is referencing the action of already being hidden? I seriously can't think of a situation where that interpretation would make sense... It doesn't say "you can't stay hidden..." which would then support your interpretation, it says you can't hide.

Second part: ",and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."... Again this seems pretty simple. First we have and which is used to supply supplementary information. So in addition to not being able to initially hide if someone can see you, you also can give away your position (regardless of being hidden or not), if you make noise thus you cannot hide or stay hidden if you make noise...

The other thing is context, you're snatching sentences out of context and then complaining they are unclear... Well yeah, context is part of understanding the text....

I don't know it just seems like you're trying to present these rules in the most convoluted way possible to prove they are hard to understand when they really aren't...

Contrast: You can't become hidden from a creature that can see you. Once hidden, you give away your position if you make noise. That introduces 2 more words (and 17 characters, including spaces). And unambiguously conveys the meaning that you are saying is plain. It also makes it clear that if the authors intended your preferred interpretation - which, for all I know, they did - then they also left something of a gap. Namely, they discussed auditory but not visual cues for ceasing to be hidden. Whereas my reading of the current rules is that any visibility ends the hidden status, because you can't hide from a creature that can see you. It is a virtue of an interpretation that it exhibits the rule as covering an obviously common case.

I would say if you actually read the preceding paragraph in the section you are quoting it becomes much more clear (context is important) as the only way you become visible to a creature once hidden is through your Dex (stealth) check being beaten by their Wis (perception) check.

If the authors of the rules intended to leave that gap - eg, to be interpreted by the GM - then it would have been very easy for them to say so. Their failure to do so is a reason to think that they thought the gap was covered. And that is a reason to favour my suggested interpretation, namely, that any visual cue ends hiding because you can't hide from a creature that can see you.

Now this is convoluted... what gap? You do realize within that same section you are quoting from, passive perception is addressed (the chance someone notices you once you are hidden)...approaching a creature in combat is addressed and there is a section called... What Can You See that refers you to the section on vision and light which pretty much covers the difficulty of noticing someone depending on the conditions they are hiding in.

When rules are well-drafted, the exceptions are called out as such. The easiest way to do so, when the drafting is relatively informal (as is the case for RPG rules) is to use a word like "ordinarily" or "typically" before introducing the general rule, or to use a word like "however" or even the phrase "As an exception, however . . ." when introducing the exception.

Oh, you mean like the rules for whether a combatant notices another that was hidden and is approaching him?

Now I'm confused. If a wood elf can't become hidden when being watched in a light mist, what benefit does s/he get from his/her racial ability? Perhaps you're saying that a wood elf can remain hidden in a light mist whereas a human can't - but then you seem to be agreeing with me that a sufficient condition for a non-elf to lose the state of being hidden is for him/her to be visible (because "you can't hide from someone who can see you").

Being seen stops anyone from hiding... thus if the wood elf was being watched he wouldn't be able to make a hide check... in the same way

And why does the verb "to hide" denote the action of becoming hidden on p 60 of the PDF, but not in the rules for wood elves?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but your remark about wood elves is not persuading me that your interpretation is a simple matter of plain English.

Here I disagree with @occam as the text does say a Wood Elf can attempt to hide even when he is only lightly obscured and specific supersedes general... now it does not say the Wood Elf is conferred the advantages of being in heavily obscured terrain... so I would allow someone observing him a perception check w/disadvantage to keep track of the elf while he is trying to hide... as opposed to applying the blinded condition as I would in heavily obscured terrain.

 

[Haffrung]

People use jargon because it helps them communicate better, because a concise word can cover quite a few words of definition. Unlike you, if I'm asked, I will be happy to explain a word or phrase if someone doesn't understand it.

Jargon helps people in the 'in-group' communicate. It impairs communication with non-experts. In any forums where people are trying to communicate with non-experts, jargon should be excised. In fact, prompted by clarity laws (and lawsuits), most governmental and corporate bodies in the anglo world are rooting out and removing jargon and arcane technical language from their documents and communication. Academia has not followed suit, which only shows how out of step academia is with wider public discourse.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe its dialectical?

<snip>

the interpretation you're talking about wouldn't have even occurred to me. I would expect to read "You cannot be hidden from someone who can see you."

Here are some more thoughts on word choice and usage.

At least in English and Australian style guides, the general advice is to use active rather than passive constructions. So conventional notions of "good style" would favour "You cannot hide from someone who can see you" over "You cannot be hidden from someone who can see you".

Also, I wouldn't generally regard "You cannot be hidden from someone who can see you" as synonymous with "You cannot remain hidden from someone who can see you". The first is ambiguous between an event (of becoming hidden) and a state (of being hidden) whereas the latter is unambiguously about a state (of being, and remaining, hidden). Hence the former can bear an interpretation that the latter can't. Hence they are not synonymous.

Maybe there are difference of usage in play here. Australian English is not identical to UK English (and has its own, modest, regional variations), and US usage is more different from both than the difference between the former two (and exhibits wide regional variations).

Nevertheless, some things are the same, I think. Consider "You can run but you can't hide!" In Australian English, that does not imply that you cannot become hidden temporarily. Rather, it is an assertion that even if you manage to temporarily become hidden, you will be found in short order. In other words, the verb "to hide" in that sentence is denoting the state of remaining hidden rather than the event of becoming hidden. I am pretty confident that in standard American English it has the same meaning as I have just described.

Also I assume that, for you, "You cannot remain hidden from someone who can see you" is not any less clear than "You cannot hide from someone who can see you". Which is why I think that, if that is what they meant, then that is what they should have said.

I am still not seeing any ambiguity except for the ambiguity you are (purposefully??) introducing.

What does the "purposefully" mean?

I read the sentence "You cannot hide from someone who can see you". To me, that means if someone can see me then I cannot hide from them - neither become, nor remain, hidden. If, in fact, the authors meant to communicate to me that I cannot become hidden from someone who can see me but, once hidden, I can remain hidden even if someone can see me then they failed to communicate that to me. Becuase it would never have occurred to me to read the sentence in that way until Ratskinner explained that reading.

Hence my contention that the sentence is ambiguous.

First part: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you,"... seems simple enough You can't hide, as in performing the act of hiding from a creature that can see you.

The whole point is that the verb "to hide" in English also denotes the state of being hidden. So what you say is "simple enough" is in fact one of two possible readings, and a reading that did not occur to me, for some of the reasons I posted upthread, until Ratskinner explained it.

I am not denying that it occurred to you. But that does not show that the meaning is unambiguous. Some people look at the duck-rabbit and see ony the duck. That doesn't mean others aren't looking at the same picture and seeing only the rabbit.

Of course if you are already hidden from a creature it can't see you so we don't need to worry about the case of being hidden in this instance

<snip>

the only way you become visible to a creature once hidden is through your Dex (stealth) check being beaten by their Wis (perception) check.

So are you saying that if my PC is hiding behind a wall, and then a NPC mage disintegrates the wall, the ony way that mage can see my PC is by succeeding on a WIS (Perception) check (active or passive, as appropriate) that beats my DEX (Stealth) check?

I don't think that is what the authors of the rules intended. I think they intended that, even if a character has become hidden, certain visual cues can end that status regardless of any checks. And for me, the most natural reading is that any visual cue ends that state because you cannot hide from someone who can see you.

I disagree with @occam as the text does say a Wood Elf can attempt to hide even when he is only lightly obscured and specific supersedes general.

Is this more evidence that the rules are unambiguous plain English?

stealth/hiding has been an area that I've always found D&D to dance with awkwardly. Especially when it comes to things like surprise in the earlier editions. Much like shields, I feel the game is wary of giving them the weight they have in real life (for both balance and aesthetic reasons). Additionally with hiding, there is the problem of its close interaction with non-mechanized fictional positioning.

I definitely agree with this. But I still think there are better and worse ways to write the rules. In particular, if you want to differentiate the event of becoming hidden from the state of remaining hidden, there are very simple, plain language devices for doing so.

 

[Imaro]

What does the "purposefully" mean?

It means you could be reading the rules in the most pedantic way due to the fact that you're not particularly enamored with 5e and because it helps you to make your case against 5e's clarity... when numerous other posters including @Neonchameleon don't seem to be having all these hang ups with the stealth rules that you do.

I read the sentence "You cannot hide from someone who can see you". To me, that means if someone can see me then I cannot hide from them - neither become, nor remain, hidden. If, in fact, the authors meant to communicate to me that I cannot become hidden from someone who can see me but, once hidden, I can remain hidden even if someone can see me then they failed to communicate that to me. Becuase it would never have occurred to me to read the sentence in that way until Ratskinner explained that reading.

Hence my contention that the sentence is ambiguous.

Really... I guess in total isolation that would be the case, which is exactly why I brought up context in my earlier post (something you didn't really address in any of your replies). The section you are quoting from also states...

"...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, allowing you to gain an attack before you are seen...."

"What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8."

So from the first quote we see that just because a creature has the ability to see you... doesn't necessarily mean it auto-sees you and cancels your hidden state. In some circumstances the DM can make a judgement call about it. We also see from the second quote that the vision portion of stealth is addressed in chapter 8...

The whole point is that the verb "to hide" in English also denotes the state of being hidden. So what you say is "simple enough" is in fact one of two possible readings, and a reading that did not occur to me, for some of the reasons I posted upthread, until Ratskinner explained it.

It's only possible if you read that and only that sentence with no context...

I am not denying that it occurred to you. But that does not show that the meaning is unambiguous. Some people look at the duck-rabbit and see ony the duck. That doesn't mean others aren't looking at the same picture and seeing only the rabbit.

How about we step back from the picture and try taking it all in as a whole?

So are you saying that if my PC is hiding behind a wall, and then a NPC mage disintegrates the wall, the ony way that mage can see my PC is by succeeding on a WIS (Perception) check (active or passive, as appropriate) that beats my DEX (Stealth) check?

No I'm saying the NPC disintegrating that wall does not mean you are automatically revealed. Please again refer to the sentences I quoted and chapter 8. Does the DM feel that there are any circumstances that would allow you to stay hidden and possibly attack the NPC with advantage? What's the lighting? What was the fictional positioning used to hide (am I using that correctly??)...

I don't think that is what the authors of the rules intended. I think they intended that, even if a character has become hidden, certain visual cues can end that status regardless of any checks. And for me, the most natural reading is that any visual cue ends that state because you cannot hide from someone who can see you.

Yes but certain visual cues ending the status is not the same as pronouncing a blanket statement that a creature cannot remain hidden if he/she can be seen... the game is saying the lighting conditions as well as the DM should be deciding if that's the case through examining the fictional environment and actions.

Is this more evidence that the rules are unambiguous plain English?

Is it? I have a different understanding of the ability than @occam has... one of us could be wrong but determining whether it is or isn't because the rules are clear... well I'll wait to see what @occam says after reading my own thoughts on it and reply then. He may be able to convince me that I am mistaken... or maybe I'll convince him he is.