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

[Mistwell]

You dont even need dim light with a DM ruling. You could have a guard in a brightly lit room, and [hide] and sneak up behind him staying hidden the whole way.

But generally (sans DM ruling, or a special ability that lets you hide in other circumstances) you need total cover or heavy obscurement to hide, and if you leave either, you are generally noticed the instant you do so.

well no Crawford has said you have a split second to make an attack even when revealed and still gain advantage on that attack.

 

[Flamestrike]

well no Crawford has said you have a split second to make an attack even when revealed and still gain advantage on that attack.

That's already in the rules.

When you make an attack from hiding, you don't reveal yourself until after the attack is resolved (hit or miss).

Crawford was just clarifying that rule.

 

[Flamestrike]

The Skulker feat lets one do this:

• You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.

Mask of the Wild does this:

• You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

Lightfoot Halflings can do this:

• You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

AFAIK these are the only methods by which a PC can hide (or be hidden) when lightly obscured (barring DM ruling).

If you lose that obscurement, (the halfling wanders away from behind a M creature, the rain stops falling for a Wood Elf, or someone turns on the lights for a Skulker) you automatically cease being hidden (barring DM ruling).

Lacking those abilities (unless a DM rules otherwise) you need cover capable of concealing nearly all of you (or all of you), or heavy obscurement (such as thick fog, darkness or similar) in order to hide or remain hidden. Hiding behind a tree and peering through the leaves, or a sniper hiding on the roof of a building with a loaded crossbow, covering the street below are examples.

If the tree you are hiding behind is suddenly disintegrated leaving only a large pot plant, or the fog you are hiding in suddenly lifts leaving only light fog, you are automatically no longer hidden (unless the DM rules otherwise).

A creature without Skulker can not move down a hallway under direct observation and remain hidden, any more than a creature with Skulker can move down a brightly lit hallway under direct observation and remain hidden.

Why we have to continue this back and forth, when the rules are clear is beyond me.

 

[Hriston]

AFAIK these are the only methods by which a PC can hide (or be hidden) when lightly obscured (barring DM ruling).

The 10th-level ranger feature Hide in Plain Sight requires only a solid surface "at least as tall and wide as you are" to press yourself up against.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Why we have to continue this back and forth, when the rules are clear is beyond me.

Probably because there aren't that many DMs who, for all intents and purposes, never let you hide from something you can see, thus questions regarding sneaking up behind somebody, sidling up to a hallway junction and peeking around the corner, and so on, are relevant to actual play.

 

[Mistwell]

That's already in the rules.

When you make an attack from hiding, you don't reveal yourself until after the attack is resolved (hit or miss).

Crawford was just clarifying that rule.

Right, which means it's not "noticed the instant." His clarification makes it clear he intended there to be a split second there, which is language not in the rules.

You keep declaring the rules are clear. Crawford also says it's intentionally the least clear, most vague rules they put in the game. That they had a very clear set of hiding and sneaking rules originally written, and it was so long and still didn't cover all the possibilities that they opted to scrap it for intentionally vague and shorter rules. So the fact we see so many discussions about this rule is because it's vague.

If this is a rule that's clear and settled in your mind, that's cool. But, I hope you understand why it's not clear and settled in the minds of many others, and they can discuss the variations they see in interpreting what they view as a vague rule?

 

[Seramus]

I can't imagine stealth being broken just because a part of you is visible. Soldiers and hunters wouldn't need camouflage, I would spot everyone in a dark room, and I wouldn't miss all those speed limit signs when I go driving. ☺

This is exactly the kind of thing a perception check is supposed to resolve.

 

[fearsomepirate]

5e's ability checks are deliberately left open-ended because of how exploitable 3.5 was, not to give DMs an excuse for consistently shutting down players and disallowing them to do the kinds of things they've always been able to do in D&D.

 

[Iry]

No, you're not reading the rules as a whole.

Alternatively, I am and simply disagree with you?

 

[Flamestrike]

Right, which means it's not "noticed the instant." His clarification makes it clear he intended there to be a split second there, which is language not in the rules.

A clarification that was unnecessary for people that understood the rules in the first place.

The rules said when you attack from hiding you dont reveal yourself till after the attack, and people were trying to read that text leading to result of revealing yourself before the attack.