Hiding and Blindness (updated)

[Oofta]

I've heard all that and don't believe for a second that if they'd had clearer rules they wouldn't have published them. In the end however, it doesn't matter what their motives are, nor do I need to second-guess them. As a DM, having just run numerous encounters where the rules in question played an important part, I'm happy to pull together some guidelines.


In looking at other DM and player's questions about vision and hiding, I found them numerous enough to easily justify contributing. But again, all I wanted here is help to make these guidelines as good as they can be, not approval to write and submit them. That sounds blunt, but you know - you're the one with that Disclaimer. If it means anything, if I am enjoying what I am doing why are you raining on my parade?


Honestly, this fact was acknowledge in every edition of D&D. There would be rules - as clear, well-tested, and resilient as the designers could craft - and these rules would inevitably not cover everything. The thing with vision and hiding is that it can come up a lot, especially in the Underdark. For some campaigns, it is core gameplay. I think WotC can do better in this area, and again, am happy to spend time mulling over what I've experienced, what others have written or told me about, and attempting to craft something that could help DMs.

Are you asserting that you won't use them in order to... what? Discourage me from writing them? Isn't that at odds with your Standard Disclaimer?

Feel free to write up your own house rules. I don't need them but more power to you.

What I take exception to is the statement is that you "don't believe for a second that if they'd had clearer rules they wouldn't have published them." It's rather insulting.

So believe what you want. I'm glad the rules on stealth are written like they are.

Have a good one.

 

[clearstream]

What I take exception to is the statement is that you "don't believe for a second that if they'd had clearer rules they wouldn't have published them." It's rather insulting.

Stealth rules have been a thorny area of mechanics across multiple editions of D&D. Vision and hiding plays a large role in many games. I think if the current design team had a concrete solution for it, they would have published that. Their approach is fine - it seems right to keep it vague if more robust mechanics haven't presented themselves - yet they do have a commercial PR aspect to their jobs, and typically will put a positive spin on the reasons for design decisions. On the other hand, perhaps what they say reflects the exact truth. Whatever the case, the mechanics as they stand have spawned a lot of questions from groups, including mine.

How are you imputing offense from that idea? It's sure not intended to be offensive.

 

[Oofta]

Stealth rules have been a thorny area of mechanics across multiple editions of D&D. Vision and hiding plays a large role in many games. I think if the current design team had a concrete solution for it, they would have published that. Their approach is fine - it seems right to keep it vague if more robust mechanics haven't presented themselves - yet they do have a commercial PR aspect to their jobs, and typically will put a positive spin on the reasons for design decisions. On the other hand, perhaps what they say reflects the exact truth. Whatever the case, the mechanics as they stand have spawned a lot of questions from groups, including mine.

How are you imputing offense from that idea? It's sure not intended to be offensive.

You are calling Jeremy a liar with no evidence. While I disagree with some of his sage advice, I think he deserves a reasonable amount of respect for the effort that was put in to 5E. Without him (and his team) I probably would no longer be playing D&D.

Obviously you think there could be a "perfect" set of rules for stealth and I don't. My games run quite smoothly without them.

Have a good one ... I just originally posted to this thread primarily to make a joke about stepping on D4's and cats.

 

[Satyrn]

I just originally posted to this thread primarily to make a joke about stepping on D4's and cats.

You really need to level up so you can get an ASI . . . of course you'll probably just use it to max out your Charisma instead of bolstering your Wisdom like you really really really really really really like you need to do.



(This would've been funnier in older editions when I could actually reference a Will save)

 

[clearstream]

You are calling Jeremy a liar with no evidence. While I disagree with some of his sage advice, I think he deserves a reasonable amount of respect for the effort that was put in to 5E. Without him (and his team) I probably would no longer be playing D&D.

Ah. So that massively overstates my intent. JC is a representative of a commercial organisation: it's his job to put a positive sheen on things. I'm sure he doesn't lie... rather represents the most positive among their moti

Obviously you think there could be a "perfect" set of rules for stealth and I don't. My games run quite smoothly without them.

I don't think there could be a perfect set of rules, because everyone has different preferences. I say that to point out that nowhere have I said I wanted to craft a perfect set. I just want something more concrete, that offers more consistent guidance. The current Stealth rules don't do that, whatever their other virtues are. That's not just from me... there are plenty of questions and remarks to that effect.

I just originally posted to this thread primarily to make a joke about stepping on D4's and cats.

The best laid plans of mice and men... you should have guessed that would end in disaster

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, your focus on "not clearly seen" helped draw my attention to cases - such as with Skulker - where a character might be not-unseen but able to take the hide action. In such cases, I believe that successfully hiding makes them unseen. Those cases aren't intended to be usual so far as I can see, but if you think so - all power to you. I need to make a tweak and then it feels like I will have a resilient set of guidelines. I'll then cast the net wider and see what others have proposed to deal with these similar instances.

"Not clearly seen" is not a caveat that allows Skulker to work. 5e is exception based design and the general rules do not have call outs to the exceptions -- they're exceptions all on their own. "Not clearly seen" is, in fact, the general case and are, in fact, the usual case. Again to revisit formal logical construction, if all A is B that doesn't mean all B is A. If A is unseen and B is "not clearly seen" then A is just a sub-case of B. Your restriction to only A without exception purchased through character options actually limits play, it doesn't enhance it.

For example, there's the trope of hiding behind a curtain. Now, usually in this trope, the feet of the hider are visible, but that doesn't mean they aren't successful. Yet, with your rule, unless an exception is purchased, there's no chance to be able to hide behind a curtain if your feet are visible because you are not unseen. Using RAW, though, you can be "not clearly seen" and attempt to hide without a specific exception purchased. A second example of this is the trope of spying through the cut out eyes of a portrait which turns out the same. These are easy tropes that are possible under RAW but not your ruling. Consider what issues you're adding to the game by restricting hiding to only when unseen or if you have a purchased exception.

"Not clearly seen" is hedging language that includes a spectrum from unseen to, to some extent, seen. It applies precisely to my guidelines, as there are indeed cases across that spectrum where hiding is possible. The usual case, that characters without extenuating abilities can rely on, is unseen.

No, man, no. If they meant the usual case to be you must be unseen, they would have written 'you must be unseen to hide.' Instead they chose the very specific language -- errata'd even to be extra clear -- of "not seen clearly." The rule is intentional and does not mean 'must be unseen unless you've bought a coupon with a special ability'. The special abilities are already exceptions to the general rule. You don't write a general rule to include the exceptions -- that's not how exception based design works, at all. Again, I'll point out that the "not clearly seen" is a result of errata to the core rules to clarify intent, so they really mean it.

A direct question then - do you concur that if a creature is in a situation that it is seen, such as in a dimly lit room with other creatures that can see it, and has a feat like Skulker; upon successfully hiding (beating all their passive or active perceptions) it becomes both unseen to those other creatures and its location is no longer known by them? Or do you think something else happens?

I'm trying to be charitable, but this really makes it hard to understand where you're coming from. You're asking me if skulker allows you to become unseen if you hide successfully in dim lighting. The problem with this is that you initially said it's impossible for hiding to make you unseen (because you said you have to be unseen already to hide) and I pointed Skulker out to you specifically as a case where you can hide while seen and become unseen. So, you're asking me if I agree that this happens as if I didn't already directly point this out to you as a correction to your understanding of RAW earlier in this thread! How, exactly, am I supposed to take this question as honest engagement?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah. So that massively overstates my intent. JC is a representative of a commercial organisation: it's his job to put a positive sheen on things. I'm sure he doesn't lie... rather represents the most positive among their moti

So... he's just being professionally dishonest? I'm not [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], but I'm not sure I see the difference here, either.

I don't think there could be a perfect set of rules, because everyone has different preferences. I say that to point out that nowhere have I said I wanted to craft a perfect set. I just want something more concrete, that offers more consistent guidance. The current Stealth rules don't do that, whatever their other virtues are. That's not just from me... there are plenty of questions and remarks to that effect.

And plenty of people who do just fine with them. You really can't judge the pervasiveness of an issue by how often people on a message board about arguing about games argue about games. Even here, it doesn't really come nearly as often as, say, GWM and SS. Given those are optional bits of the rules, you'd think an issue with the core would be more discussed, yeah?

That said, my problem with your effort is that you started by misstating the RAW and continue to misstate it even after multiple passes. Whatever you do to "fix" it for your games is groovy. I still think you should have a solid grasp of the is before you start crafting the ought.

 

[Oofta]

Ah. So that massively overstates my intent. JC is a representative of a commercial organisation: it's his job to put a positive sheen on things. I'm sure he doesn't lie... rather represents the most positive among their moti

Saying that someone isn't telling the truth is calling them a liar not matter what their motivation. A rose by any other name and all.

I don't think there could be a perfect set of rules, because everyone has different preferences. I say that to point out that nowhere have I said I wanted to craft a perfect set. I just want something more concrete, that offers more consistent guidance. The current Stealth rules don't do that, whatever their other virtues are. That's not just from me... there are plenty of questions and remarks to that effect.


The best laid plans of mice and men... you should have guessed that would end in disaster

You are right, I was overstating your quest for perfect rules. The problem is that the further you go down the path of concrete rules the more you have to add exceptions to those rules. Or at least you do if it's published materials, for house rules you can probably just wiggle a little bit to get a logical conclusion.

All I can say is that I like the rules the way they are, vagueness and all. The only people that have had an issue in my (albeit naturally limited) experience are those that are old school grognards who played with more concrete rules. The newbies never seemed to have much of an issue with it.

 

[clearstream]

"Not clearly seen" is not a caveat that allows Skulker to work. 5e is exception based design and the general rules do not have call outs to the exceptions -- they're exceptions all on their own. "Not clearly seen" is, in fact, the general case and are, in fact, the usual case. Again to revisit formal logical construction, if all A is B that doesn't mean all B is A. If A is unseen and B is "not clearly seen" then A is just a sub-case of B. Your restriction to only A without exception purchased through character options actually limits play, it doesn't enhance it.

This is what I meant about your focus on not clearly seen: it risks making Skulker a recital of the general rule. I don't believe Skulker is intended to be a recital, ergo one cannot usually hide in dim light.

For example, there's the trope of hiding behind a curtain. Now, usually in this trope, the feet of the hider are visible, but that doesn't mean they aren't successful. Yet, with your rule, unless an exception is purchased, there's no chance to be able to hide behind a curtain if your feet are visible because you are not unseen. Using RAW, though, you can be "not clearly seen" and attempt to hide without a specific exception purchased. A second example of this is the trope of spying through the cut out eyes of a portrait which turns out the same. These are easy tropes that are possible under RAW but not your ruling. Consider what issues you're adding to the game by restricting hiding to only when unseen or if you have a purchased exception.

More thought needs to be given to the concept of usually. I'm giving the baseline: if you are unseen, you can expect to be able make a hide check. There could be instances of lesser tests passing, but not usually, and instances of being not clearly seen such as dim light, will usually not be sufficient.

I'm trying to be charitable, but this really makes it hard to understand where you're coming from. You're asking me if skulker allows you to become unseen if you hide successfully in dim lighting. The problem with this is that you initially said it's impossible for hiding to make you unseen (because you said you have to be unseen already to hide) and I pointed Skulker out to you specifically as a case where you can hide while seen and become unseen. So, you're asking me if I agree that this happens as if I didn't already directly point this out to you as a correction to your understanding of RAW earlier in this thread! How, exactly, am I supposed to take this question as honest engagement?

"and its location is no longer known by them"... this is the key element of what I am asking about. I accepted your argument that hiding when not unseen results in being unseen, and I noticed a feature that is often not discussed - it makes your location not known. Do you agree?

I didn't say before, but will add now - parts of your arguments changed my mind, I folded those in and carried on: I should make a point of expressly acknowledging that when it happens. I all too often fail to.

 

[clearstream]

Saying that someone isn't telling the truth is calling them a liar not matter what their motivation. A rose by any other name and all.

I think Jeremy Crawford does an excellent job, and I like his work. My intent was very far from as harsh as it seems to have sounded.

Let's put it this way - I ended up using the vision and stealth rules a lot, felt they could be beneficially made more concrete, and wanted to offer something in that regard back to the community. You're not doing it wrong just because you don't do it my way, but on the other hand, I can't honestly welcome anyone coming into this thread and making a point about not wanting to use what I've offered. I hope that makes sense!


Edited to shorten, upon reflection.