FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
So all this talk about passive perception... I want to know when do we use passive stealth?
Oh. I had figured that since you had said "It's only odd if you're expecting it to work how it does in some other edition" that you had an edition in mind.I don't know. It may be an edition of D&D you imagined or made up yourself, but it isn't 5e.
You're mixing up 'noticed'. You are making 'un-noticed' = 'un-observed', but rules-wise 'un-noticed' = 'hidden'.
You have to be un-observed in order to attempt to hide (whether there are current witnesses or not). But before you successfully hide then, although 'un-observed' you are not 'un-noticed', because you can be heard, signs of your presence are un-concealed from senses other than sight. JC talks about bumping into things, creatures being aware that an invisible creature has struck them, and so on.
In the situation we're discussing, the rogue is in combat with the enemy. The enemy can see him. The rogue is currently being observed. He is not hidden.
The rogue wants to hide. He will have to take the Hide Action In Combat (because being in combat means he needs to take actions to do stuff), but he is not allowed to take the Hide action while he is being observed.
So the rogue has to do something to become un-observed. Note that being 'un-observed' is not the same thing as 'un-noticed' in 5E. The rogue can become invisible if he has the means, or he could move behind the big packing crate in the middle of the warehouse floor, which takes him out of the direct line of sight of his enemies.
Now he is 'un-observed', but not yet 'un-noticed'. The enemy watched him move behind the crate, they know he is there, they can hear his feet scuff the floor, hear his weapons and armour creak in their harnesses, whatever fluff reason you want to use to explain that he is not yet hidden.
The rogue's un-observed but un-hidden status still provides meaningful benefits: the benefits of being invisible with regards to his enemy, at least until they or he moves back into line of sight. But he is not 'hidden'. He is still 'noticed'.
If he wants to become 'hidden' (and 'un-noticed') then while he remains un-observed he must take the Hide Action In Combat.
In regard to JC's comments, when using 'natural language' we all tend to talk about 'who beats who'. We rarely talk about ties because it's a mouthful to say "equals or exceeds" every single time. JC wasn't commenting on what to do in a tie.
Ah, 'you're not the boss of me'. My four year old nephew pulled that one recently.
Oh. I had figured that since you had said "It's only odd if you're expecting it to work how it does in some other edition" that you had an edition in mind.
The rest of my post was a joking little ramble making fun of myself for not know one tiny little detail of rule. I mean, I don't cram my head with little details like which skill wins out on a tie in one specific case.
And it really does seem odd to me that that if you're trying to hide from someone you'd only need to match their perception. I see it as the Sneak trying to get an advantage over the Observer, which makes me judge that the Sneak needs to win the contest to succeed.
. . . And right now, I can't remember how I run attack rolls.
I just can't remember if we require the attack roll be greater than the AC.
Your nephew's right. You aren't the boss of him, and you aren't the boss of this forum. If you have a problem with someone's tone, take it to a mod.
Some of us prefer not to be tattletales and instead talk to the person directly. It's more respectful that way as well.
There was nothing respectful about the posts [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] addressed to me. Forum rules dictate that such issues be left to the moderators for the very good reason that otherwise you have certain posters playing policeman of the forums.
All I got to say is who is being the policeman now????? Who isn't leaving it to moderators now????