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

[Charlaquin]

The playtest packets (which are kindly archived here) actually contradict themselves. I've researched each one, and the contradiction stays consistent from Packet 1 to Packet 10.

• "A creature can attempt a Dexterity (Stealth) check to sneak around, moving quietly and using cover and heavily obscured areas to avoid detection. [...] If a creature might see you, you need to keep behind cover or stay in heavily obscured areas to remain hidden."
• "You can't simply stand in the middle of an empty, lit room and hope to avoid notice. Something must conceal you, perhaps a large object, a piece of terrain, or an immobile creature of an appropriate size, such as a slumbering dragon. Regardless of what obscures you, the thing must cover at least half your body for you to hide."

In the first passage, it outright states that you need to keep behind cover (not specified which) or stay in heavily obscured areas (VERY specific) to remain hidden. In the second passage, it outright states the thing must cover at least half your body for you to hide (VERY specific).

That doesn’t seem contradictory to me. You need to be in a heavily obscured area or behind cover, which the second passage specified needs to be at least half cover.

That’s actually not far off from the published rules, though it’s a bit more generous in that it allows you to hide with only half cover. And in fact, it makes it pretty clear that, if a creature might see you, you need to stay behind cover or in a heavily obscured area, so moving into a lightly obscured area would seem to break stealth. Though IIRC there was a feat in some of the early packets that let you attack a target with advantage as long as you started your turn hidden from it. I remember cause I used it a lot on the rogue I played at the time.

 

[Iry]

That doesn’t seem contradictory to me. You need to be in a heavily obscured area or behind cover, which the second passage specified needs to be at least half cover.

That’s actually not far off from the published rules, though it’s a bit more generous in that it allows you to hide with only half cover. And in fact, it makes it pretty clear that, if a creature might see you, you need to stay behind cover or in a heavily obscured area, so moving into a lightly obscured area would seem to break stealth. Though IIRC there was a feat in some of the rail packets that let you attack a target with advantage as long as you started your turn hidden from it. I remember cause I used it a lot on the rogue I played at the time.

I think that's a fair assessment. You're right, it doesn't seem contradictory when I look at it that way.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes, obscurement means you cannot be seen clearly.
No, Mask of the Wild, Lightfoots, and Skulkers can take the Hide action in light obscurement. Other people cannot.
A person cannot Hide in partial cover / light obscurement (exceptions not included), but they can remain hidden if they move from total cover / heavy obscurement into a place of partial cover / light obscurement. The condition for ending Hidden is being clearly seen.
You can if the other person fails their Perception check.

N begins to Hide in the darkness. This is acceptable because N has Total Cover / Heavy Obscurement
N begins moving towards C and enters Light Obscurement. This triggers a Perception (Wisdom) check.
DM interpretation time (you may rule differently) "He's staring right down the hallway, so... you have disadvantage and he has advantage for reasons (you decide why)."
N passes the check? N is still hidden!

Could the DM step in and rule that hiding is impossible because N is standing right in front of C? Yes, absolutely.
Otherwise, it's up to the DM to decide why C failed to notice N sneaking up on him.

Thats not how hiding works. There is no 'triggering perception checks'

As soon as N moves into Cs vision (walks down a dimly lit hallway that C is looking down) he is automatically revealed.

Youre doing it wrong.

If N was a Skulker he could remain hidden in the hallway and there would be no perception check triggered (although C could take the Search action as normal to find him).

At this point seeing as you're using your own rules for hiding and stealth there is no point continuing to debate this with you.

Take care.

 

[Iry]

Thats not how hiding works. There is no 'triggering perception checks'
As soon as N moves into Cs vision (walks down a dimly lit hallway that C is looking down) he is automatically revealed.

The condition for ending Hidden is being clearly seen. Being obscured means not being clearly seen. Hence, a Wisdom (Perception) check comes into play to determine if you are seen regardless of not being clearly seen.

At this point seeing as you're using your own rules for hiding and stealth there is no point continuing to debate this with you.
Take care.

We're laying out our points so current and future readers can come to their own informed rulings.

 

[Flamestrike]

The condition for ending Hidden is being clearly seen. Being obscured means not being clearly seen.

No youre conflating light obscurement with 'not being seen clearly enough'.

Thats clearly not the case as Skulker, Mask of the Wild and other abilities clearly demonstrate.

Dim light is not enough to Hide in or remain Hidden in.

And there is no 'triggering a perception check'. If you're hidden you remain so until you reveal yourself or someone takes the Sesrch action to locate you.

A DM can rule otherwise, but what youre asserting is not the rules.

 

[Iry]

No youre conflating light obscurement with 'not being seen clearly enough'.

Thats clearly not the case as Skulker, Mask of the Wild and other abilities clearly demonstrate.

Dim light is not enough to Hide in or remain Hidden in.

And there is no 'triggering a perception check'. If you're hidden you remain so until you reveal yourself or someone takes the Sesrch action to locate you.

A DM can rule otherwise, but what youre asserting is not the rules.

Light obscurement is not being seen clearly. It's both in the definition of obscurement, and literally gives you disadvantage on seeing.
Skulker, Mask of the Wild, and Lightfoot allow someone to hide in light obscurement, which is otherwise not possible.
Dim light is not enough to hide in, but not enough to reveal you either. Because the condition for ending Hidden is being clearly seen.
Triggering the perception check is DM perogative. That's always been my position.

 

[Hriston]

Light obscurement is not being seen clearly. It's both in the definition of obscurement, and literally gives you disadvantage on seeing.
Skulker, Mask of the Wild, and Lightfoot allow someone to hide in light obscurement, which is otherwise not possible.
Dim light is not enough to hide in, but not enough to reveal you either. Because the condition for ending Hidden is being clearly seen.
Triggering the perception check is DM perogative. That's always been my position.

This synthesis doesn't add up for me. If you can't be seen clearly in a lightly obscured area, then where in the rules does it say you can't become hidden in it?

 

[Flamestrike]

Light obscurement is not being seen clearly.

Not for hiding purposes its not. Its a dimly lit room mate. You can't be hidden in the middle of a dinly lit room unless you're a shadow demon or skulker or have an ability that allows it.

Ask Sage advice if you want. Youre wrong here.

 

[Mistwell]

No youre conflating light obscurement with 'not being seen clearly enough'.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.