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

[Flamestrike]

Wood elves in Cloaks dont suddenly get easier to detect when they become invisible.

If that makes as much sense to you, as it does to me, then you'll know my interpretation is the correct one.

 

[clearstream]

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

@Iry I can see how you can take the wording and say that it naturally implies the converse - that you can hide whenever a creature cannot see you clearly - but the halfway house of allowing a creature to stay hidden when they move from a heavily to lightly obscured area seems untenable for two reasons

1. How do you justify excluding the implication that any creature can try to hide when it can't be clearly seen. The least thing you should believe - if reading it as you do - is simply that creatures should be able to hide whenever they cannot clearly seen.
2. But if you do read it that way, how do you justify their presence of skulker and mask of the wild in the game? Just designer mistakes?

@Flamestrike and I exclude designer mistake (at least in this regard) and don't pick-and-choose among implications. So we feel our reading is the more consistent.

 

[Flamestrike]

@Iry I can see how you can take the wording and say that it naturally implies the converse - that you can hide whenever a creature cannot see you clearly - but the halfway house of allowing a creature to stay hidden when they move from a heavily to lightly obscured area seems untenable for two reasons

1. How do you justify excluding the implication that any creature can try to hide when it can't be clearly seen. The least thing you should believe - if reading it as you do - is simply that creatures should be able to hide whenever they cannot clearly seen.
2. But if you do read it that way, how do you justify their presence of skulker and mask of the wild in the game? Just designer mistakes?

@Flamestrike and I exclude designer mistake (at least in this regard) and don't pick-and-choose among implications. So we feel our reading is the more consistent.

See my example above for a discussion on this.

I have a distinct feeling that Iry is going to assert the Ninja can remain hidden on the way down the hallway.

 

[clearstream]

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.

The check is always prospective: it is about what is going to happen. If I beat a stealthy creature's check, then I am going to see and/or hear it even though I cannot currently see or hear it.

Is the Perception check only in order to HEAR the creature (because it is behind total cover and cannot possibly be seen). If yes, the cloak doesn't hinder the check.

Is the Perception check only to SEE the creature (because it is lightly obscured but silent - for whatever reason). If yes, the cloak hinders the check (which in most cases would be hindered anyway).

Is the creature invisible and silent? If yes, Perception can't break its hiding. That's strictly better than applying disadvantage.

 

[Flamestrike]

The check is always prospective: it is about what is going to happen. If I beat a stealthy creature's check, then I am going to see and/or hear it even though I cannot currently see or hear it.

No, that's not the case.

If you cant see or hear something, there is no check to be made. Your check doesn't determine the reality of the situation.

 

[Flamestrike]

Is the Perception check only in order to HEAR the creature (because it is behind total cover and cannot possibly be seen). If yes, the cloak doesn't hinder the check.

Is the Perception check only to SEE the creature (because it is lightly obscured but silent - for whatever reason). If yes, the cloak hinders the check (which in most cases would be hindered anyway).

What if the check is for a hidden creature where only a little bit is possible to be seen (hiding in a thickish bush for example)?

Disadvantage?

If you say 'Yes' to that question (due to the cloak), then why is this creature harder to perceive than one that is utterly impossible to see (fully behind total cover)?

 

[clearstream]

No, that's not the case.

If you cant see or hear something, there is no check to be made. Your check doesn't determine the reality of the situation.

To ensure then that I am clear, because I have a sense of doubt. When a creature is presently unseen and unheard, there is no check to be made?

 

[clearstream]

What if the check is for a hidden creature where only a little bit is possible to be seen (hiding in a thickish bush for example)?

Disadvantage?

If you say 'Yes' to that question (due to the cloak), then why is this creature harder to perceive than one that is utterly impossible to see (fully behind total cover)?

It comes down to what senses are being relied on

• Relying on sight? Both the cloak and light cover impose disadvantage on Perception.
• Relying on hearing? Neither the cloak nor light cover impose disadvantage on Perception.
• Relying on both? Up to the DM - creatures that rely on a combination of senses to have their normal chance of Perception, will justifiably be hindered.
• Impossible to see? No Perception check possible if relying only on sight - which doesn't affect creatures that can hear exceptionally well anyway, and should hinder creatures that habitually rely on a combination of senses.
• Impossible to hear? No Perception check possible relying on hearing - so the cloak and light cover impose disadvantage on Perception.
• Impossible to see or hear? No Perception check possible.

The issue you describe arises due to approximations in the game as simulation. RAW generally guides to disadvantage when a creature that habitually relies on a combination of sight and hearing can use only one of those senses. Because that is an added factor of difficulty. The problem arises if a DM is reluctant to impose disadvantage on such creatures when denied one of their senses. Similar arguments will apply to creatures that rely principally on one sense or other.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

There's no redundancy.

The wood elf and skulker have the priviledge of being able to say "I hide from the goblins" when the goblins are looking directly at them with only light obscurement. No other creature has that priviledge.

However, all creatures have the priviledge to stay where they are and not be seen when a character goes from fully covered from them to only light obscurement.

This isn't a combat thing. In combat, all creatures are highly alert. Much more than out of combat. But outside combat, creatures are usually more lax and won't take something in the shadows as deadly serious.

 

[jgsugden]

On the halfing and elf abilities, something to consider: There are two ways to consider them:

* These creatures get an ability to hide when lightly obscured (whenever they are under the specified conditions), and nobody else can hide when lightly obscured.

* These creatures get an ability to hide when lightly obscured (whenever they are under the specified conditions), and other creatures can hide when lightly obscured at the DM's discretion.

The second reading is RAW. How do we know this? The errata added the sentence as the first sentence under the HIDE description: The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.

Hiding (p. 177). The following sentence has been added to the beginning of this section: “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.”

If you listen to the infamous Crawford interview, you'll learn that they wrote detailed hiding rules and then made the EXPLICIT and INTENTIONAL decision to gut them and replace them with DM judgment and interpretation. They overwrite that DM judgment and interpretation in certain places, such as the halfling and elven abilities people bring up, the skulker feat, etc... but in general, the exercise is up to the DM - so when those exceptions do not overrule the broad rules, it is up to the DM if a PC can hide in light obscurement.