D&D 5E Cloak of Elvenkind - Advantage to Stealth AND -5 to passive perception?

[Flamestrike]

That's literally what obscured means.

I see his argument.

But Crawford has repeatedly said "It's a DMs call depending on the particular circumstances." There is no "right" on this one.

Look at the example I posted above. Iry asserts you can walk past a creature while under direct observation in dim light and remain hidden.

Dim light is darkvision remember.

Hes asserting you can't hide in low light, but you can remain hidden in lowlight, which is not the rules.

A DM can rule otherwise, but thats not the rule.

Being 'unable to be seen clearly' for hiding purposes is situations like being in total cover and peering around the corner of said cover (a sniper for example).

His interpretation is the wrong one.

 

[Flamestrike]

Possibly relevant to this discussion: the wording, “you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly” was an errata. The original wording was “you can’t hide from a creature that can see you.” In the same errata that changed this wording, they added the sentence “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” sentence to the beginning of the paragraph.

So, under the original wording it was definitely not possible to hide from a creature that could see you at all, but for whatever reason, the devs decided to change the wording so that you only need to not be seen clearly, and to emphasize that it’s up to the DM what exactly that means. I think pre-errata, @Iry ’s interpretation would clearly not be correct, but the new wording does leave room for it to be.

The change in wording was not meant to cover light concealment (an empty room being closely watched by a creature with darkvision).

It was meant to cover situations like a sniper observing his target from total cover and similar situations.

If you can see someone clearly enough to thwart the hiding attempt in the first place (which Iry accepts is the case in low light) then you can also see them clearly enough to automatically reveal them in the same situation (barring a special rule that lets them like Skulker).

 

[Charlaquin]

The change in wording was not meant to cover light concealment (an empty room being closely watched by a creature with darkvision).

It was meant to cover situations like a sniper observing his target from total cover and similar situations.

If you can see someone clearly enough to thwart the hiding attempt in the first place (which Iry accepts is the case in low light) then you can also see them clearly enough to automatically reveal them in the same situation (barring a special rule that lets them like Skulker).

I think the wording, “the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” by itself validates @Iry ‘s interpretation (and everyone else’s for that matter). As long as a character can’t be seen with perfect clarity, the DM can decide that circumstances are appropriate for them to hide.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think the wording, “the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” by itself validates @Iry ‘s interpretation (and everyone else’s for that matter). As long as a character can’t be seen with perfect clarity, the DM can decide that circumstances are appropriate for them to hide.

That wording validates ANY interpretation though.

If you can't hide in dim light (its impossible which he agrees with) then you can't remain hidden there.

 

[Mistwell]

Look at the example I posted above. Iry asserts you can walk past a creature while under direct observation in dim light and remain hidden.

Dim light is darkvision remember.

Hes asserting you can't hide in low light, but you can remain hidden in lowlight, which is not the rules.

A DM can rule otherwise, but thats not the rule.

Being 'unable to be seen clearly' for hiding purposes is situations like being in total cover and peering around the corner of said cover (a sniper for example).

His interpretation is the wrong one.

No matter how many times you assert you must be right and he must be wrong, that doesn't make it true. It is in fact a DMs call. That is the rule. If a DM rules in that situation he doesn't lose being hidden, that's within the existing rules as written. It's literally the first sentence of the Hiding section, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." And it is not contradicted directly by the "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" rule because "clearly" is up to the DM to determine in the situation.

 

[Mistwell]

That wording validates ANY interpretation though.

If you can't hide in dim light (its impossible which he agrees with) then you can't remain hidden there.

If you can't cast a spell while wildshaped, then you cannot concentrate on that spell when wildshaped? Oh wait, you can. Because some rules in the game provide for one set of conditions to initiate something, and a lesser set of conditions to maintain that same thing. His interpretation is one valid way to look at the Hiding rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

That wording validates ANY interpretation though.

Any interpretation that doesn’t allow a character to hide when they can be seen clearly, yes. That’s explicitly what the rules say.

 

[clearstream]

If you can't cast a spell while wildshaped, then you cannot concentrate on that spell when wildshaped? Oh wait, you can. Because some rules in the game provide for one set of conditions to initiate something, and a lesser set of conditions to maintain that same thing. His interpretation is one valid way to look at the Hiding rules.

Casting a spell and concentrating on a spell are different things: which we can tell as just because a spell is cast does not mean it must be concentrated on. But hiding and being hidden are one thing: there's no mode of hiding that doesn't result in being hidden. The better argument is DM discretion, which can mean whatever a DM likes it to mean.

Say that we want to exercise our discretion in a way that reliably meets the expectations of other players. Probably therefore we want to exercise our discretion consistently. It feels to me like we are not doing that very well if treat becoming hidden and hiding differently.

Another and perhaps more important consideration is the effect in play. In dim light (or darkness counting as dim light) our rogue can step around a corner (out of sight) to become hidden, and then sneak back. Other creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to notice them, so if not actively searching many creatures in the MM will remain oblivious to them. Even actively searching, many will be very unlikely to see our rogue due to their expertise in Stealth.

On the good side, that will mean rogues will far more frequently be able to make melee attacks from hidden. (A stricter DM ruling results in rogues mostly being limited to ranged attacks from hidden.) Assassins will be more effective. On the bad side, a group will see Stealth become far more powerful in their game - and they will get some bald-faced acts that feel almost as if they are sneaking-in-plain-sight. That might jar their narrative (I backed away from stronger hiding in part due to this).

Of course, a DM might avoid OP Stealth and jarring the narrative by exercising their discretion differently at different times, but I believe that has a negative impact on player control over the narrative. Usually it's better for character abilities to work in a reliable way. If you think of those as levers that let players choose modify a narrative in specific ways, then hopefully you can see why this can be an important consideration.

That is why for me, I favour the stronger consistency, and the weaker rather than stronger use when lightly obscured.

 

[Iry]

Possibly relevant to this discussion: the wording, “you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly” was an errata. The original wording was “you can’t hide from a creature that can see you.” In the same errata that changed this wording, they added the sentence “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” sentence to the beginning of the paragraph.

So, under the original wording it was definitely not possible to hide from a creature that could see you at all, but for whatever reason, the devs decided to change the wording so that you only need to not be seen clearly, and to emphasize that it’s up to the DM what exactly that means. I think pre-errata, @Iry ’s interpretation would clearly not be correct, but the new wording does leave room for it to be.

Yeah, adding the world clearly was an intentional choice. We don't know exactly why it was added, but it creates emphasis that seeing clearly is important and distinct from other forms of seeing. My version would definitely be wrong prior to the errata. The errata is what solidified my belief in how stealth is supposed to work.

It passes the Rules check. Nothing in this interpretation is contradicted by any other rule. It also passes the RL check. I have absolutely failed to notice people in foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, and mist. I've even failed to notice people in poorly lit rooms (both when they were just sitting there, and when they were intentionally trying to hide from me). That's anecdotal, of course. There is no "One Right Way". But it's the way that seems to encompass and allow the most situations, prior to DM arbitration of circumstances.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, adding the world clearly was an intentional choice. We don't know exactly why it was added, but it creates emphasis that seeing clearly is important and distinct from other forms of seeing. My version would definitely be wrong prior to the errata. The errata is what solidified my belief in how stealth is supposed to work.

It passes the Rules check. Nothing in this interpretation is contradicted by any other rule. It also passes the RL check. I have absolutely failed to notice people in foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, and mist. I've even failed to notice people in poorly lit rooms (both when they were just sitting there, and when they were intentionally trying to hide from me). That's anecdotal, of course. There is no "One Right Way". But it's the way that seems to encompass and allow the most situations, prior to DM arbitration of circumstances.

Three issues I see with your ruling are

1. The inconsistency in application - you seem to take "You can't hide..." to imply "you can stay hidden" but not "you can hide". Surely if anything, the language speaks to the latter even more strongly than the former?
2. Weakens some game features - this might be a wash. It really depends how much a group values those features.
3. Strengthens Stealth - the skill is already a must-take for many characters, this reading makes it very powerful in play. It's particularly problematic that the condition that allows remaining hidden also applies disadvantage to Perception.

Regarding 1. in particular, it is really hard to see how you justify reading that way. The balance issues are just whatever each table wants to value or tolerate, but the language issue feels like you really have to squint at the page. One can fall back to DM discretion, but then that falls afoul of conceding words meaning (that is, a reading that concedes meaning to all the words ought to be preferred to one that makes some of them empty of meaning).

EDIT Incidentally, I hope I am properly ascribing rulings - I think you are saying remains hidden, but can't become hidden, ordinarily in light cover, right?