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

[Flamestrike]

Ooh, good observation!

Pretty sure the same rule applies to Darkvision as well, in that the Disadvantage due to Dim light only applies to Perception checks to 'see' something.

If a creature is invisible, all checks made purely to 'see' them auto-fail (but Perception checks generally are unaffected and made normally as long as other senses are available to the Perceiver, which they almost always are, and because other signs of the creatures passage such as footprints etc can still be seen just fine).

Same thing applies to the Cloak and Dim light which imposes disadvantage on visual perception checks. It wont affect most Perception checks, where the perceiver has other senses available to them.

It seems a little confusing, but its due to the rolling of Spot and Listen into the one skill.

If you pair the Cloak of Elvenkind (disadvantage on checks to see you) with the Boots of Elvenkind (you make no sound when you move), the disadvantage to Perception checks from the Cloak comes up a LOT more.

 

[billd91]

That is one of his most notoriously bad rulings. Like, I’ll grant that he thinks that’s how the rule should be applied, and maybe it really was the intent when the rule was written (though I very much doubt it). But at the end of the day it’s one guy’s opinion, and I don’t think it holds up well against a critical reading of the rules as written, nor does it produce gameplay outcomes I would find desirable.

I think it's a bad ruling as well. It's even weirder when you start to think about how the Observant feat works - you effectively get advantage on passive perception/investigation checks but nothing for other checks involving either of the two skills. And that's now the floor?!?

I suppose his argument is that anything that you could perceive with a specific rolled check, you'd also get a crack at with a passive check since it's the same skill. But at that point, I think he's muddling the idea of the passive check - which adapted the "Taking 10" from 3e into a default "first check" score that was convenient for smoothly running the game, not for any actively called upon skill check. And it should be confined to that.

 

[Iry]

Not really.

It only imposes disadvantage on perception checks to see you. Not to detect you.

Most perception checks don't fall into that category (they are checks that rely on different, or multiple senses, or rely on noticing signs of your passage, and not specifically 'you').

Perception is Spot, Listen (and Taste, Touch, Smell, Notice etc) all rolled into one skill.

Very few perception checks are solely visually based, and most dont depend on you being able to see your target at all.

Much like how magic boots that grant Advantage on Athletics checks to Jump dont also give that same advantage to checks made to swim or climb.

That's certainly fair, but if sight is being included in their attempt to detect you then that's probably grounds for disadvantage being applied. If sight is not being included in their attempt to detect you, you have the invisible condition in relation to them. Barring abilities that trump this, such as Blindsense.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's certainly fair, but if sight is being included in their attempt to detect you then that's probably grounds for disadvantage being applied.

No, that's not the case.

If it was then it would lead to the absurd situation where you have disadvantage on checks to detect a creature you can both see and hear (apply two different senses to detect), but perception checks to locate an invisible creature are made normally and without disadvantage.

Making an invisible creature easier to detect than one relying on just the cloak.

The cloak only applies disadvantage on perception checks made to see something. If another sense is involved, there is no disadvantage.

 

[Iry]

If it was then it would lead to the absurd situation where you have disadvantage on checks to detect a creature you can both see and hear (apply two different senses to detect), but perception checks to locate an invisible creature are made normally and without disadvantage.

That's a personal choice. If you only attempt to hear a creature you cannot see, then you have a normal perception check and they are treated as invisible to you. If you attempt to see AND hear, you're triggering the penalty of the Cloak. Also, please keep in mind that the Cloak requires a precious attunement slot, and the boots do not.

 

[clearstream]

We've always run it that it was disadvantage on perception checks to notice someone. If using passive perception, use a -5.

It's a little funky though because technically it only helps with checks that rely on sight even if the text does not say that.

I feel a group would be justified in ruling that Wisdom (Perception) checks that do not rely on sight are not penalised by the cloak. There's nothing mechanically problematic about that. Creatures using tremorsense or blindsight, for example.

EDIT And as @Flamestrike points out, often a check to notice you will rely on something other than sight. Hidden is unseen and unheard.

 

[clearstream]

That's a personal choice. If you only attempt to hear a creature you cannot see, then you have a normal perception check and they are treated as invisible to you. If you attempt to see AND hear, you're triggering the penalty of the Cloak. Also, please keep in mind that the Cloak requires a precious attunement slot, and the boots do not.

View attachment 132981

A hidden creature could stand still, forcing searchers to rely on sight (unless they had an additional sense like scent), right?

 

[R_J_K75]

According to Jeremy Crawford, a character's Passive Perception is a floor for their Perception.

His response seems strange. Actively searching (making a roll) to me seems all the more reason your passive perception wouldn't kick in. Because you are intently concentrating on one specific thing it would make it that much easier to be taken by surprise, snuck up on, or miss something passing by, etc.

 

[Shiroiken]

The Cloak (and Boots) are really good if you're not suspected. If someone's specifically looking for you (taking the action) they don't suffer disadvantage since they're suspicious of your presence. Otherwise they had disadvantage if sight/sound is the primary form of detection. If you are at a distance, sound is likely irrelevant (unless it's really, really quiet), so the Cloak would grant disadvantage to perception. If you're invisible or behind total cover, sight is irrelevant, so the Boots would grant disadvantage. If the target has another primary sense for perception (such as scent), neither will likely grant disadvantage.

PHB page 175: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check" that obviously rolls no dice. There's nothing that says it cannot be affected by modifiers and as others stated the section notes that to calculate "advantage" add 5 and "disadvantage" subtract 5. The Search action would contemplate an actual die roll, though as a DM I often request a roll in high-stress situations.

Your "obviously" is interesting, because nowhere in a 5E rulebook does it ever say how to use Passive Checks, except the one example of becoming Hidden. This example includes the roll of a die (the Dex/Stealth roll), so this "obviously" isn't always correct (if ever). Mike Mearls was asked early in 5E about Passive Checks, and he suggested the DM roll a die against the players score to determine if something/someone was hidden. It was only much later that Crawford "clarified" how Passive Skills were always supposed to work.

An interesting thing I had only realized, I'd say within the past year, is that your Perception check can never be lower than your passive Perception score. Makes sense.

According to Jeremy Crawford, a character's Passive Perception is a floor for their Perception.

Crawford made the mistake that many, many players in 5E do: carrying baggage from a prior edition. This was how Passive worked in 4E, but they never actually put it in the rules anywhere. I honestly don't know if they left it intentionally vague, allowing the DM to decide how they wanted to do it, or if it was inadvertently omitted. I believe the former, because if the latter, I'd image they would have added it in a later printing (and issued errata).

 

[Flamestrike]

That's a personal choice. If you only attempt to hear a creature you cannot see, then you have a normal perception check and they are treated as invisible to you. If you attempt to see AND hear, you're triggering the penalty of the Cloak. Also, please keep in mind that the Cloak requires a precious attunement slot, and the boots do not.

View attachment 132981

No, if they're invisible to you, perception checks to see them automatically fail.

Perception isn't just sight, just like athletics isn't just swim.