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

[jgsugden]

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)....

By the words of your very argument, this is in error.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

If a general perception check relies on all 5 senses, it relies upon sight (in addition to the other senses). It is only when sight does not play a factor, at all, that it is not implicated.

A PC can elect to focus on only one sense when making a perception check, but when passive is relied upon, they make no decisions. If the perception opportunity would benefit from sight (as in there is a potential to see some clue), and it is in Dim Light, then it is hampered with the -5 penalty (subject to the always present DM override).

 

[Seramus]

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.

Does directly observing someone guarantee success? Or does he have to roll every round?

 

[Flamestrike]

Does directly observing someone guarantee success? Or does he have to roll every round?

If you're directly observing someone they cannot hide from you. It guarantees failure in an Stealth attempts, and reveals them automatically if they were hidden.

 

[Flamestrike]

By the words of your very argument, this is in error.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

If a general perception check relies on all 5 senses, it relies upon sight (in addition to the other senses). It is only when sight does not play a factor, at all, that it is not implicated.

If I accept this argument, it is easier to Search for an invisible creature or a creature when blinded (a Perception check that does not rely on sight) than it is to Search for a creature in dim light (which apparently relies on sight).

So I dont accept this argument.

 

[clearstream]

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.

To say that misapprehends my meaning, ironically enough. What I am saying is that what the rule is, is a matter that is determined - at least in part - by local norms. It's not that the rule is ruled upon differently, it is that the rule in truth has different meaning at the other table.

As to how it is intended to work; I believe that - as @Xetheral points out - it is intended to be vague.

 

[clearstream]

If I accept this argument, it is easier to Search for an invisible creature or a creature when blinded (a Perception check that does not rely on sight) than it is to Search for a creature in dim light (which apparently relies on sight).

So I dont accept this argument.

Your insights on that were new to me, and I really feel you are right even though it makes it harder to correctly parse scenarios.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your insights on that were new to me, and I really feel you are right even though it makes it harder to correctly parse scenarios.

If the Perception check relies solely on sight, then it gets a -5 in dim light, or automatically fails if you have the Blinded condition (as described in the condition), or if the creature you are trying to observe is invisible/ in heavy obscurement (which causes the observer to have the blinded condition relative to that creature).

When I search (via the Search action) for a hidden invisible creature (or one in the radius of a Darkness spell) I do NOT have a penalty to my Perception check.

Why should I have one to search for (via the Search action) a creature in dim light?

Logically it doesn't make sense, and its incongruent with the rules for searching generally or for detecting hidden (unseen and unheard) creatures generally.

 

[jgsugden]

If I accept this argument, it is easier to Search for an invisible creature or a creature when blinded (a Perception check that does not rely on sight) than it is to Search for a creature in dim light (which apparently relies on sight).

So I dont accept this argument.

Try again. It relies upon sight, and you do not have it. So you get the -5 penalty for being blind to your passive perception there, too.

Now, if the PC said, "I stop and listen for the location of the enemy" they might not have that disadvantage, but that has nothing to do with the passive score.

Reminder: The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

 

[Hriston]

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

I'm not @Flamestrike , but no, I don't. I use Wisdom (Perception) checks to determine whether an attempt to notice something that is hidden is successful when the attempt is both genre appropriate and possible within the established fiction, and when success is in doubt and failure has a meaningful consequence.

 

[Seramus]

I'm not @Flamestrike , but no, I don't. I use Wisdom (Perception) checks to determine whether an attempt to notice something that is hidden is successful when the attempt is both genre appropriate and possible within the established fiction, and when success is in doubt and failure has a meaningful consequence.

That could also be a fundamental difference in approach. I know I use perception checks to notice things in game, though I also use passive perception to establish a baseline. I do restrict that to times when failure has a meaningful consequence, but I'm running into some narrative dissonance where someone actively trying to hide is automatically revealed even when there is a reasonable chance of failure. I'm not sure why the direct observer is automatically assumed to succeed without a check.

To each their own, of course.