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

[Iry]

No, Im expressly allowing it. Have said so twice.

I just assert your base reading of the rules is wrong, and I disagree with your arbitration of those rules which results in absurdities like a creature in heavy rain being hidden., despite being unable to hide in heavy rain, and being stared straight at, and despite the rules stating 'if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it sees you'.

No. You've expressly forbidden me from using DM arbitration, far more than twice. Far more. The consequence of your own declaration is that everyone is visible at all times without error or exception, provided they are not in heavy obscurement / total cover. By enforcing the lack of DM arbitration so fervently, you've created a situation of blatantly superhuman eyeballs. Constantly.

Far more.

 

[clearstream]

That being said, I personally think @Flamestrike's reading of the text is the stronger one. I just don't think the rules were written narrowly enough to preclude @Iry's interpretation.

What do you think of the mooted distinction between the literal "can try to hide" (skulker) and "can attempt to hide" (mask of the wild), and the implied "can hide" (hiding)?

Which I assume is what the blogger "Ronny" derives their ruling from, i.e. "If you move from a heavily obscured area to a lightly obscured area you can try to continue to hide but the creatures you are hiding from get a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect you." Perhaps they discovered it was too strong to do just as the words suggest (per their reading) and felt obliged to add in the check?

 

[Iry]

Which I assume is what the blogger "Ronny" derives their ruling from, i.e. "If you move from a heavily obscured area to a lightly obscured area you can try to continue to hide but the creatures you are hiding from get a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect you." Perhaps they discovered it was too strong to do just as the words suggest (per their reading) and felt obliged to add in the check?

@Flamestrike 's debate parameters aside, this is exactly the way I run it at my table.

 

[Hriston]

What do you think of the mooted distinction between the literal "can try to hide" (skulker) and "can attempt to hide" (mask of the wild), and the implied "can hide" (hiding)?

I'm not @Xetheral , but I don't think there is one, which is probably clear from my posts up-thread. Anyone can attempt to do a thing, but saying in the rules that you can try or attempt to do something implies that you can make the attempt with some chance of doing the thing successfully and also implies that others who are not you generally can't. If you don't have a chance of doing a thing successfully under certain (inapropriate) circumstances, then you certainly can't expect to continue doing that thing successfully under those same circumstances.

Which I assume is what the blogger "Ronny" derives their ruling from, i.e. "If you move from a heavily obscured area to a lightly obscured area you can try to continue to hide but the creatures you are hiding from get a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect you." Perhaps they discovered it was too strong to do just as the words suggest (per their reading) and felt obliged to add in the check?

Didn’t they already get a check to detect you which they failed, and which is presumably why you're still hidden?

 

[Flamestrike]

What do you think of the mooted distinction between the literal "can try to hide" (skulker) and "can attempt to hide" (mask of the wild), and the implied "can hide" (hiding)?

Which I assume is what the blogger "Ronny" derives their ruling from, i.e. "If you move from a heavily obscured area to a lightly obscured area you can try to continue to hide but the creatures you are hiding from get a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect you." Perhaps they discovered it was too strong to do just as the words suggest (per their reading) and felt obliged to add in the check?

If you can't hide somewhere you can't be hidden there.

Thr only way a creature can be hidden somewhere they can't hide is when their opponent is distracted (looking the other way) and as soon as he turns his head and looks in your general direction, youre automatically no longer hidden.

Like - you can hide in bright daylight if you can (DMs call) sneak up behind someone. Ditto in dim light.

But you can't walk down a hallway under direct observation in dim light and remain hidden unless you have a special ability that lets you do so

 

[clearstream]

If you can't hide somewhere you can't be hidden there.

I want to draw a distinction between what you might find descriptively plausible, and what is logically possible. It is logically possible to arrange things so that the set of locations an entity can transition from a non-hidden to hidden state in, is smaller than the set of locations that entity can remain in a hidden state in. It's easy to see that - logically - those locations don't even have to overlap.

Remember that I am not arguing for descriptive plausibility. We're discussing a game system: if we want entities in that system to be able to remain hidden in locations that they cannot become hidden in, nothing stops us.

But you can't walk down a hallway under direct observation in dim light and remain hidden unless you have a special ability that lets you do so

That special case is a clue into the possibility of the general case. Imagine a very particular type of wood elf - lignum elves, say - who cannot attempt to hide when lightly obscured, but if they are already hidden they are allowed to remain hidden unless their stealth check is beaten by a possible observer's perception.

EDIT You would agree that lignum elves are possible in 5e, right? Even if they don't exist in your game.

 

[Flamestrike]

I want to draw a distinction between what you might find descriptively plausible, and what is logically possible.

Im talking about the rules, as interpreted though logic

It is logically possible to arrange things so that the set of locations an entity can transition from a non-hidden to hidden state in, is smaller than the set of locations that entity can remain in a hidden state in. It's easy to see that - logically - those locations don't even have to overlap.

No, there is no overlap.

You cant hide in dim light alone without the DM ruling the observer is 'distracted' or you have some special ability to do so. That's RAW and is accepted by @Iry

Any attempt you make to Hide in such circumstances fails because your opponent can see you.

That being the case, and the creature is NOT distracted, and you lack any special ability enabling you to hide in low light, explain to me how you can be hidden in low light when you cant hide there in the first place due to being seen?

Remember 'creatures are assumed to be aware of their surroundings, and if you come out of somewhere you can hide (and are hidden) and approach a creature, it sees you (unless the DM rules it is looking the other way).'

That special case is a clue into the possibility of the general case. Imagine a very particular type of wood elf - lignum elves, say - who cannot attempt to hide when lightly obscured, but if they are already hidden they are allowed to remain hidden unless their stealth check is beaten by a possible observer's perception.

And if those Elves existed, they could do it because they have an exception to the rule that lets them remain hidden.

As it stands there is no such 'remain hidden' vs 'hiding' distinction in the game, because the game uses plain English, and follows standard logic that if you cant Hide inn a particular set of circumstances, you cant remain hidden there either (because you couldn't hide in the first place).

It's like swimming in solid stone. The game doesnt need to detail what happens when you swim in solid stone, because you cant swim in solid stone, unless you have some kind of specific rule that lets you.

 

[Xetheral]

What do you think of the mooted distinction between the literal "can try to hide" (skulker) and "can attempt to hide" (mask of the wild), and the implied "can hide" (hiding)?

Which I assume is what the blogger "Ronny" derives their ruling from, i.e. "If you move from a heavily obscured area to a lightly obscured area you can try to continue to hide but the creatures you are hiding from get a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect you." Perhaps they discovered it was too strong to do just as the words suggest (per their reading) and felt obliged to add in the check?

Personally, I don't read the rules as creating a distinction between hiding and staying hidden. If the designers had intended such a distinction it would have been really straightforward to do so explicitly, using language similar to the blog you quoted. That they didn't do so I consider strong persuasive evidence that such a distinction wasn't intended.

That said, the designers have been explicit that the stealth rules are vague on purpose, and I think it's plausible that the designers could have intentionally written the rules broadly enough to permit the DM to make such a distinction. I don't see any evidence suggesting that they actually had such a distinction in mind, but it's certainly possible.

Also, given that @Iry and the blogger you quoted (and others over years of discussing the stealth rules) have inferred from the rules a distinction between hiding and remaining hidden, evidently the rules can indeed be read as creating such an inference, even though I don't think that's the strongest reading.

Ergo, whether the possibility for the distinction was created deliberately by the designers, or is simply a side effect of the fact that deliberately vague rules can be read a multitude of ways, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that @Iry's approach is contradicted by the text.

 

[Rabulias]

I still go back and forth on this, and I think I would have to rule on a case-by-case basis based on the situation.

As for the "initiating hiding" vs "remaining hidden" distinction, I kinda see it, and I am trying to find a rough analogy. Like a steady rain that makes it impossible to light a fire, but a fire that is already lit (and tended) can be kept burning. Or trying to fly across a river wearing a wingsuit. If I am on flat ground at the edge of the river, I can't do it. But if I walk up the mountain a mile away from the river and jump off the top, I can fly across the river with no problem. It's like momentum, in a way. Your skill makes the transition from darkness to light obscurement less jarring, less obvious. Surely there's a better analogy out there.

 

[Flamestrike]

I still go back and forth on this, and I think I would have to rule on a case-by-case basis based on the situation.

Thats the intent in the rules though; no-one is arguing otherwise ('the DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding').

My position is this.

N (creature without Skulker or similar ability) is in darkness. C is also present (has darkvision 60'). N is 50' away from C, and within the range of C's darkvision, and thus N is treated as if they were in dim light.

1) N cannot hide from C unless the DM rules C is sufficiently distracted (i.e. looking the other way, and thus effectively blinded with respect to N). N can try to Hide (via the Hide action if actions matter, by standing there for a few seconds totally quiet while C stares at him), but all such attempts automatically fail (for obvious reasons).

2) N can move outside of the range of Cs darkvision, and into the darkness (total obscurement) 10' behind him, and attempt to Hide once heavily obscured (again using the Hide action if actions matter).

3) If N becomes hidden in the Darkness, and then re-enters Cs Darkvision range of 60' and approaches C, N is automatically discovered by C, because C is assumed to be observing the area sufficiently enough to spot N as soon as N emerges from the darkness into an area he cannot hide in (dim light), unless the DM rules C is 'sufficiently distracted' and looking the other way.

4) If the DM rules C is looking the other way, but C is otherwise alert and listening for hidden enemies (i.e. searching) and looking around (but not behind him) he can make a Perception check to detect N as N moves up behind him (effectively, C is taking the Search action).

5) If the DM rules C is looking the other way, and C is also not alert (he's busy reading a map or taking other actions), he is not taking the Search action, and unless N does something to reveal himself, or the situation otherwise changes, N can sneak up behind C and stab C in the back.

Note that the general rule is that N is automatically discovered as soon as he enters the range of C's darkvision. The circumstances might dictate otherwise, and call for a DM ruling (C's player might have told the DM he is expressly looking the other way to the direction from which N is approaching him or similar), but the general rule of automatic detection holds in most cases.