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

[clearstream]

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.

That's about where I land. The wording contains wriggle room. For me the pre-errata text was - ironically - clearer!

 

[Flamestrike]

That's about where I land. The wording contains wriggle room. For me the pre-errata text was - ironically - clearer!

That wriggle room is addressed by:

1) The wording of the rule of 'The DM determines when hiding is OK'

and

2) Common sense.

@Irys interpretation results in a situation where a (hidden) Orc can walk down a hallway, while under direct observation by a creature with darkvision at the end of that hallway, and remain hidden right up until touching that creature on the nose.

His interpretation also requires one to accept that is is possible to be unable to hide in certain conditions, but also being able to be hidden those exact same conditions, which is equally absurd.

It's an interpretation to be rejected, in favor of common sense, and a clear reading of the specific rule of 'If you're hidden, and enter an area you cant hide in and approach a creature, it sees you unless its distracted (DMs call on distracted as there are no rules on facing in 5E)'

 

[clearstream]

That wriggle room is addressed by:

1) The wording of the rule of 'The DM determines when hiding is OK'

Also the word "clearly".

For me, a situation where observers have disadvantage on their sight-based perception checks is plausibly a situation where the subjects of their observation are seen unclearly. QED.

2) Common sense.

Which this thread robustly shows can mean different things to different groups.

I understand how you run hiding when lightly obscured, and your motives for doing so. I run things a similar way for my group. I can still see why others might run it differently - and with more justice than simply "I'm the DM".

 

[Flamestrike]

Also the word "clearly".

For me, a situation where observers have disadvantage on their sight-based perception checks is plausibly a situation where the subjects of their observation are seen unclearly. QED.

If that was the case, then creatures could also hide in dim light, (you cant be seen clearly remember) which creatures cant do.

So clearly you're wrong.

You cant hide in dim light (barring some special rule that lets you, or the ruling of the DM that your target is looking the other way, in which the light situation doesnt matter at all).

Nor can you remain hidden in dim light, again unless you have some special rule that lets you, or the DM has ruled your target is looking the other way (again - in which case the light situation doesnt matter at all).

I understand how you run hiding when lightly obscured.

Yeah, by the rules.

 

[clearstream]

If that was the case, then creatures could also hide in dim light, (you cant be seen clearly remember) which creatures cant do.

So clearly you're wrong.

That for me is the mystery in @Iry's RAI. Were I interpreting along similar lines, I would conclude that creatures can hide in dim light. That forces an exacting - and I think unsatisfying - reading of skulker and mask of the wild. In turn requiring to-hide and hidden to be separate things.

Unsatisfying, but not "wrong". Or at least, not wrong at the tables of those who apply that particular line of reasoning.

Yeah, by the rules.

Something I've noticed here and in a few other threads (one on climbing, one on resting) is that when the rules admit more than one reading, there can be more than one way of playing by them. I would call your interpretation the stronger - I prefer it - but it doesn't have an exclusive claim to be playing "by the rules".

That's really what interests me most in this discussion. The meaning of an RPG rule is arrived at normatively, and local norms have the final say. I think what posters are doing when they reiterate (disputed) claims to the high-ground, is really a normative performance. Through careful laying out of arguments, and repetition, the idea is to influence others to see their interpretation as the normal one.

Once a reader accepts a version as normal, it seems that it becomes really hard for them to see how the other version could even be arrived at, because they have rejected that the words could even have the meanings needed to reach it. Perhaps that speaks to needs of language: the need to insist on valencies between words and meaning.

 

[Flamestrike]

Something I've noticed here and in a few other threads (one on climbing, one on resting) is that when the rules admit more than one reading, there can be more than one way of playing by them. I would call your interpretation the stronger - I prefer it - but it doesn't have an exclusive claim to be playing "by the rules".

Im talking about the rule that states when a creature leaves somewhere they can and are hidden in (darkness for example, or total cover) and enter somewhere they cannot hide (bright light, or dim light without the skulker feat) and approach a creature, that creature automatically notices the other creature UNLESS the DM rules the observer is not looking at the creature, by virtue of some distraction.

Again (for the seventh time now) - @Iry posits that a creature (lacking Skulker but already hidden in darkness further away) does not automatically reveal themselves when entering a dimly lit hallway (a hallway a second creature that is not distracted and is intently staring down), with the first creature being able to walk down that hallway under direct observation, and touch the second creature on the nose, unless the second creature makes a Perception check.

Barring some special rule such a thing is (RAW) impossible. The RAW states that when you come out of hiding and approach a creature it sees you, unless (DMs call) it is 'distracted', which the second creature, is not.

The creature looking down the hallway instantly notices a man shaped form emerging from the darkness, and into the dimly lit hallway.

That's really what interests me most in this discussion. The meaning of an RPG rule is arrived at normatively, and local norms have the final say.

Yeah but 'this is how it works at my table/ under my rulings' isnt really relevant to a discussion on how it's intended to work.

 

[Seramus]

Again (for the seventh time now) - @Iry posits that a creature (lacking Skulker but already hidden in darkness further away) does not automatically reveal themselves when entering a dimly lit hallway (a hallway a second creature that is not distracted and is intently staring down), with the first creature being able to walk down that hallway under direct observation, and touch the second creature on the nose, unless the second creature makes a Perception check.

Barring some special rule such a thing is (RAW) impossible. The RAW states that when you come out of hiding and approach a creature it sees you, unless (DMs call) it is 'distracted', which the second creature, is not.

The creature looking down the hallway instantly notices a man shaped form emerging from the darkness, and into the dimly lit hallway.

I'm curious. Do you use perception checks to notice things in your game?

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm curious. Do you use perception checks to notice things in your game?

When a PC takes the Search action (if actions are important) and is actively looking for a hidden thing, then yes. Otherwise its Passive Perception.

With hidden creatures/ hiding and Perception checks, a creature wanting to Hide:

1. Must be in a place where they can Hide (generally heavily obscured, or total cover or similar, unless the DM rules the creature they're trying to hide from is looking the other way and 'distracted' and thus unable to see them clearly)
2. Must by trying to hide (via the Hide action, if action economy is important) by being quiet, keeping their head down, concealing signs of their presence, and staying in their opponents 'blind spot' if hiding from a 'distracted' creature.
3. Must roll Stealth higher than the Passive Perception of any relevant nearby observer in order to be hidden relative to that observer.
4. Once hidden, must not give away their position by doing anything that reveals them automatically (calling out, moving out from their hiding position and approaching the observer (unless the observer is 'distracted'), making an attack etc)
5. As long as they're hidden and do not reveal themselves, they remain hidden until the nearby observer takes the Search action, and rolls higher than the Stealth check result of the hidden creature with a Perception check, or otherwise does something to reveal them (disintegrates their cover, ceases being 'distracted', or turns the lights on etc)

Broadly speaking, unless a DM rules it's a special case, you need something to hide in (total cover or heavy obscurement), the Hide action, and a successful Stealth check to Hide. Once hidden you remain hidden until and unless you do something to reveal yourself automatically, and as long as your opponent does not attempt to find you via the Search action, or attempts the Search action and fails its Perception vs your Stealth check result, or doesnt get lucky and reveal you by accident.

 

[Seramus]

When a PC takes the Search action (if actions are important) and is actively looking for a hidden thing, then yes. Otherwise its Passive Perception.

What about someone with very low passive perception? I think the lowest you can get is 3 Wisdom, so -4. Then disadvantage from passive perception. That makes a passive perception of (10-4-5) = 1. Does he also notice someone moving in dim light?

 

[Flamestrike]

What about someone with very low passive perception? I think the lowest you can get is 3 Wisdom, so -4. Then disadvantage from passive perception. That makes a passive perception of (10-4-5) = 1. Does he also notice someone moving in dim light?

The -5 to Perception in dim light only applies to Perception checks to see stuff. It doesn't apply to Perception checks (or passive perception) generally (which rely on all 5 senses).

Him searching for a hidden creature doesnt incur the -5/ Disadvantage to Perception because he is not relying solely on sight (and in fact a hidden creature often cant be seen at all).

And 'yes'. He notices non hidden things within the range of his vision automatically (doors, trees, people, walls, chairs etc). That said, its dead easy for those non hidden things in his vision to become hidden (as long as there is something to hide behind) and if they are hidden creatures or are concealed objects, it's insanely hard for him to find them.