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

[pemerton]

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

So you're saying I'm lying about how I read the rules?

"...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...."

I have no idea how you think this sentence is relevant to whether or not "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" means that you can't remain hidden from a creature that can see you.

In some circumstances the DM can make a judgement call about it.

Circumstances of distraction. I don't think a wizard who just disintegrated the wall my PC is hiding behind will be distracted!

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 stated the fictional positioning: my PC was hiding behind a wall.

I beieve the rules state that, if my PC can be seen by someone who is not distracted then, unless I am a wood elf, I cannot remain hidden. Once the wall is disintegrated, I am revealed whatever my Stealth check.

There are plenty of posters on other threads that have debated this that have concluded that (for non elf/halfling characters) I only get to make the Stealth check, and force the observing NPC to a Perception check, if I have total cover or heavy concealment, with the function of the Stealth check being to make sure I don't make a noise etc.

Do you think they were all lying too?

 

[occam]

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.

No, you're right, I just didn't reread the ability's description. In fact, it's stated even more clearly than the main rules, as "You can attempt to hide even when…".

 

[Imaro]

So you're saying I'm lying about how I read the rules?

Nope, didn't say anything about lying, but biases (especially those that are negative towards a certain edition) could definitely influence one to present rules explanations in a more negative light than those of someone with no biases or even a positive view of the new edition. Do you disagree?

I have no idea how you think this sentence is relevant to whether or not "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" means that you can't remain hidden from a creature that can see you.

Wait so a person being hidden and stepping into the view of someone else (thus making them capable of seeing them) but that not being an auto-end of their ability to be hidden ... is not relevant to a discussion about whether one can stay hidden while being able to be seen... What???
I'm not even sure what to say at this point...

Circumstances of distraction. I don't think a wizard who just disintegrated the wall my PC is hiding behind will be distracted!

Why not? If a bunch of your Party members attack him at that moment he very well could be. Now if your answer is to create a situation where having one's cover taken away automatically reveals you, I never said it couldn't be an outcome of being able to be seen... only that it's not the only outcome and thus not a blanket rule and I've already given quotes from the rules that back up my position...

I stated the fictional positioning: my PC was hiding behind a wall.

What was the lighting? If it's dim you would still need to make a perception check with disadvantage to see someone who is hidden... Is he wearing camouflage, a DM might rule that's enough for him to stay hidden... What you've done is stated one particular aspect of the situation (unless we're talking about a small brightly lit room with a single wall between the NPC and PC with all participants wearing bright colors)... not all the factors that go into whether he can or can't stay hidden...

I beieve the rules state that, if my PC can be seen by someone who is not distracted then, unless I am a wood elf, I cannot remain hidden. Once the wall is disintegrated, I am revealed whatever my Stealth check.

I thought you said the reference to distraction was irrelevant? Again what about lighting? Efforts taken to blend into the surroundings beforehand and so on... there are numerous reasons the rules or a DM could rule that you stay hidden... thus it is not a blanket rule...

There are plenty of posters on other threads that have debated this that have concluded that (for non elf/halfling characters) I only get to make the Stealth check, and force the observing NPC to a Perception check, if I have total cover or heavy concealment, with the function of the Stealth check being to make sure I don't make a noise etc.

Do you think they were all lying too?

Nope, but point me to the posts and I might tell you if I think their biases are perhaps influencing how they are "interpreting" the rules in the book (also total cover does not grant the ability to hide, you realize you could have total cover behind something that is totally transparent, right?)... of course from reading the above it seems that you have now switched gears and went back to talking about the conditions necessary to take the hide action (and you don't mention anything about staying hidden), so which one are we talking about?

 

[Ratskinner]

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".

I hope I'm not being too pedantic to point out that at least IME, different fields can and do use widely varying style guides. Additionally, this PHB seems to be written in a much more casual style than the previous two. Which, I believe, is intentional. While I may have yearned for more stringent and clear rules in the past, I've come to appreciate the impact of that as a design goal. It seems to me a high cost for little gain (although there is gain, and cost is in the eye of the beholder, in this case.)

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).

I think that is at least part of it. Given the casual tone of the work, my interpretation of "hide" as denoting the action rather than the state seemed imminently natural and obvious to me. Especially so given the rest of the content in that "Hiding" sidebar on p.127, which begins with "When you try to hide..." and proceeds to delineate the relevant procedures for doing so, and when that gets blown. The discussion brought up here hadn't occurred to me until I read it here.

<snip>
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.

I think stealth and hiding are actually very difficult to model well in a system like D&D. I mean "Hidden" functions well as both a relationship (A is hidden from B) and a condition (A is hidden in the chest), but relationships and conditions tend to use (slightly) different mechanics to resolve, and hiding seems to be a special case even there. There is, for example, no analogous discussion about the relationship between Charisma(Deception) and Wisdom(Insight) or Intelligence(Investigation). Given that, the lack of specificity may, in fact, be intentional. It allows the DM to rule more clearly through fictional positioning, rather than mechanical constructions (which would then also have to be described.)

 

[pemerton]

If it's dim you would still need to make a perception check with disadvantage to see someone who is hidden...

Where do the rules state that? The rules state that dim light puts a disadvantage on perception checks, but they don't state that a creature in dim light remains hidden unless a successful perception check is made.

If I'm behind a wall in dim light does the Perception check to notice me get made at a disadvantage as well? But why is it harder to notice someone behind a wall when the light is dim? A wall is opaque whether or not the light is dim!

 

[pemerton]

this PHB seems to be written in a much more casual style than the previous two. Which, I believe, is intentional. While I may have yearned for more stringent and clear rules in the past, I've come to appreciate the impact of that as a design goal. It seems to me a high cost for little gain (although there is gain, and cost is in the eye of the beholder, in this case.)

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.

I think stealth and hiding are actually very difficult to model well in a system like D&D.\

<snip>

the lack of specificity may, in fact, be intentional. It allows the DM to rule more clearly through fictional positioning, rather than mechanical constructions (which would then also have to be described.)

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.

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 personally have no idea how [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] 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.

And I find it is the mixture of mechanical specificity and lack of detail in the 5e rules that throws me. It seems to make a fairly big difference, for instance, whether the wood elf has a special ability to become hidden (but anyone can remain hidden in light mist if s/he moves into it from heavier cover) or a special ability also to remain hidden (because elves are fey creatures of nature who can hide even in natural phenomena that does not conceal mere mortals). I assume the designers had one or the other in mind.

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.

 

[pemerton]

total cover does not grant the ability to hide

I assume it does if it is opaque, even though - per the concealment rules - it does not grant concealment.

point me to the posts and I might tell you if I think their biases are perhaps influencing how they are "interpreting" the rules in the book

Here is [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358787-Stealth-in-5E. There have been others. Contrary to your hypothesis, these people are not all enemies of 5e.

[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION], on his blog, points to a section of the rules that I have not seen quoted on this thread. From Basic PDF, p 63, "a slow pace makes it possible to sneak around", and from p 64, "While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter."

Merric says:

I interpret this as a character moving at two-thirds of normal speed whilst behind some form of cover or if obscured in any way.​

He goes on:

[T]he section on Hiding in Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores indicates that in combat, you’ll usually be seen if you approach a creature, but the DM may rule that if it’s distracted you can remain hidden. I believe this is a rule that modifies the rule for being in the open – you can remain hidden as long as you have cover or obscurement, but if you approach it in the open, you can remain hidden if it’s distracted (thus, looking the other way).​

I personally find it a bit counterintuitive that the rules for being stealthy in combat have to be constructed out of rules under the heading "activity while travelling", particularly when that section (p 64) says "See the rules for hiding in chapter 7" - which implies, to me at least, that the section in question is subject to those rules rather than adding to them.

But even if Merric is right - and for all I know, he has correctly discerned the designers' intentions - I fully agree with him that "the rules for Stealth in the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons [are] rather hard to follow."

 

[Imaro]

Where do the rules state that? The rules state that dim light puts a disadvantage on perception checks, but they don't state that a creature in dim light remains hidden unless a successful perception check is made.

First let me understand this... 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... We've already seen examples where it is not necessary to be heavily obscured to stay hidden. Hiding, except in special cases is another matter altogether.

Perhaps my logic is informed by having the full rules in the PHB but I'll step you through it...

1.One cannot hide from a creature that can see you... and most creatures (barring exceptions like Darkvision) can only see normally in bright light

2. Taking the above that means that there are 2 states of light where a character cannot see normally dim light and darkness, thus seeing someone would not be automatic in either situation since vision is impaired in these conditions.

3. Since darkness is a heavily obscured area it blocks vision entirely and imposes the blinded condition thus Perception checks relying on sight automatically fail... and when making a Perception check vs. Stealth in these conditions you are in fact relying on things like hearing, intuition, etc.

4. Since 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). In order to determine whether one is able to notice specific things a Perception check is necessary (and this is one of the two lighting conditions where sight is actually a factor in determining whether something is noticed or not). Thus one can stay hidden in dim light if the creature trying to locate them isn't perceptive enough.

This is also supported by the example given in the perception skill description where it cites "thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley" as something that requires a perception check to notice.

If I'm behind a wall in dim light does the Perception check to notice me get made at a disadvantage as well?

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. Now as a DM I would put disadvantage on the perception check for the NPC if you're character wasn't moving since that reduces the noise you are making and thus makes it harder for him to use his other senses to detect you... but this is getting into that territory where individual DM's will make their own rulings (and I like this aspect of the rules).

Now of course once the wall is disintegrated that's a different story all together... If the NPC is then relying on sight to locate you he must make a perception check with disadvantage...

But why is it harder to notice someone behind a wall when the light is dim? A wall is opaque whether or not the light is dim!

It's not. Your original situation was that the wall had been disintegrated... Right?

 

[Imaro]

I assume it does if it is opaque, even though - per the concealment rules - it does not grant concealment.

If it's opaque then it counts as heavily obscured terrain... I like that 5e keeps these distinct because cover is not the same as being obscured though depending on the situation a piece of terrain may count as both.

Here is @Dausuul: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358787-Stealth-in-5E. There have been others. Contrary to your hypothesis, these people are not all enemies of 5e.

I never put forth a hypothesis that anyone finding the stealth rules unclear was an enemy of 5e... Let's please stop the hyperbole.

@MerricB, on his blog, points to a section of the rules that I have not seen quoted on this thread. From Basic PDF, p 63, "a slow pace makes it possible to sneak around", and from p 64, "While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter."

Merric says:

I interpret this as a character moving at two-thirds of normal speed whilst behind some form of cover or if obscured in any way.​

Which is interesting because this supports my assertion about being able to stay hidden in dim light and when someone could see you.

He goes on:

[T]he section on Hiding in Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores indicates that in combat, you’ll usually be seen if you approach a creature, but the DM may rule that if it’s distracted you can remain hidden. I believe this is a rule that modifies the rule for being in the open – you can remain hidden as long as you have cover or obscurement, but if you approach it in the open, you can remain hidden if it’s distracted (thus, looking the other way).​

Yes, I also cited this as proof of being able to stay hidden while having the possibility that someone can see you.​

I personally find it a bit counterintuitive that the rules for being stealthy in combat have to be constructed out of rules under the heading "activity while travelling", particularly when that section (p 64) says "See the rules for hiding in chapter 7" - which implies, to me at least, that the section in question is subject to those rules rather than adding to them.

Could it have been better organized, sure but I think that's a failing in all editions of D&D, my issue is that some things being brought up as unclear are not as obfuscated as certain posters are making them out to seem, they just require a thorough reading of the rules and a little thought.

But even if Merric is right - and for all I know, he has correctly discerned the designers' intentions - I fully agree with him that "the rules for Stealth in the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons [are] rather hard to follow."

I don't find them any harder than any other editions first attempt at stealth and much less so for certain previous editions. But to each his own I'm more interested in seeing what others think of how I have discerned the rules (and in turn seeing their readings and whether they make more sense than my own for the type of game I want to run) than I am in proving how unclear they are.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 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.

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.

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:

Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested...

(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.

[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]