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

[Iry]

No, you cant.
Not without a special rule such as Mask of the Wild, or the DM's permission (the creature is looking the other way etc).
The rules are clear, if you leave heavy obscurement or total cover, you instantly cease being hidden.

The condition for ending the Hidden state is being seen clearly.
Partial Cover / Light Obscurement is not being seen clearly by definition (it's obscured sight).

 

[clearstream]

The condition for ending the Hidden state is being seen clearly.
Partial Cover / Light Obscurement is not being seen clearly by definition (it's obscured sight).

"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 DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

It's left up to the DM, but has nothing to do with being obscured necessarily. I can't currently find text that directly supports what you say. Can you point to it?

 

[clearstream]

The condition for ending the Hidden state is being seen clearly.
Partial Cover / Light Obscurement is not being seen clearly by definition (it's obscured sight).

Oh right - I think you are referring to this -

"You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

I've always understood that as literally and simply true. Only applying to becoming hidden in the first place, not staying hidden. I can see why you might take it the way you do.

 

[Flamestrike]

The condition for ending the Hidden state is being seen clearly.
Partial Cover / Light Obscurement is not being seen clearly by definition (it's obscured sight).

No dude, that requires an interpretation of [being unable to be seen clearly] = [light obscurement].

Such an interpretation makes the Mask of the Wild feature, Skulker feat and similar abilities totally redundant, so it's obviously the wrong interpretation.

What being 'unable to be seen clearly enough' means is a person behind total cover peering around the cover and similar can Hide (and remain hidden). It doesnt mean a person can Hide (or remain hidden) in a dimly lit room with no cover to hide behind.

You cant move from behind a pillar, to behind another pillar 20' away in dim light under direct observation, and remain hidden as you move.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's kind of problematic, isn't it.

Only with your interpretation, which is the wrong interpretation.

In my interpretation, that problem does not arise. Which is why it is to be favored over yours.

The lightly obscured elf is noticeable using sight and sound,

So the cloak does nothing.

 

[Flamestrike]

Not quite. The elf could have instead been moving quietly, out of sight.

Of course he is. If the Elf is hiding (or hidden), that's exactly what he's doing.

A hidden elf is (by definition) unseen and unheard. Ergo the Cloaks ability to impose disadvantage to perception checks specifically relying on sight does not apply.

 

[Flamestrike]

Unless the DM rules otherwise:

1) You can only Hide (and remain hidden) if you are behind total cover, or heavy obscurement and unable to be seen clearly.
2) Light obscurement does not count as being unable to be seen clearly. If it did, then Mask of the Wild and Skulker feat do nothing and are redundant.

A creature hidden behind (but peering around from) a pillar in a dimly lit room, who leaves that hiding spot, to move to another pillar 30' away while under direct observation, instantly ceases being hidden when he leaves his hiding spot.

If you assert otherwise, you're reading the rules wrong.

 

[clearstream]

Of course he is. If the Elf is hiding (or hidden), that's exactly what he's doing.

A hidden elf is (by definition) unseen and unheard. Ergo the Cloaks ability to impose disadvantage to perception checks specifically relying on sight does not apply.

So where that runs into a glitch for me is this - "Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage" - must be oriented toward what is going to happen, not the current state. So the Wisdom (Perception) check that I make is one that is going to see or hear the hidden creature, if it beats their Stealth.

By your reading it seems to be impossible to attempt to see or hear a hidden creature because they can't be seen or heard. By my reading, we're talking about what is going to happen if the check is successful. I am going to see the creature if my sight-based check is successful (assuming they are not in total cover).

 

[Flamestrike]

@Iry

Scenario:

A creature (C) stands inside a dimly lit room looking directly through a dimly lit doorway and down a dimly lit hallway, leading to another distant room (that is full of magical darkness). C has no way to see into the darkness.

A Ninja (N) is hiding in the darkened room (in a corner).

N decides to walk down the dimly lit hallway towards C, who is staring straight down that hallway.

Is it your position that N can remain hidden from C as he walks down that hallway under direct observation, without the Skulker feat, or similar special ability?

 

[Flamestrike]

So where that runs into a glitch for me is this - "Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage" - must be oriented toward what is going to happen, not the current state.

No, it is to be read as plain English.

Is the Perception check a check to SEE the creature, and the answer is 'No'. It's a Perception check to notice the location of the creature, using several different senses.