D&D 5E How does the errata on hiding affect the mask of the wild ability of the wood elf?

[Flamestrike]

I interpret the stealth clarification as follows:

(i) DM decides if you can hide. (ii) DM should ask himself, how clearly can the NPC see the PC? (iii) Most of the time they need something like half cover or pretty thick fog or lost of distraction or far away etc to try and hide.... But if it's a wood elf, less cover is needed - light fog might be enough for example, and for a Halfling, they also have a knack for hiding behind allies. (iv) Adjudicate and call for a stealth roll if required.

So MotW and the Halfling ability are still useful. Those races will have opportunities to hide more often than the others, coz they're better at it.

Thats pretty much it.

The racial abilities of the halfling and elf only come into the picture after the DM determines if the elf or halfling can be seen 'clearly enough' (assuming of course the Elf and Halfling arent already hidden!). If the DM determines that they cant be seen 'clearly enough' they can attempt to hide.

The racial abilities only change what they can hide in after this step is complete.

A human or dwarf needs to (1) First ensure no-one he wants to hide from can see him clearly enough (DM's call) and then (2) block LOS by moving into total cover or concealment (if not already in it) and then (3) make a Dex (stealth) check to Hide as an action (or bonus action if Rogue). Wood elves and Halflings only alter step (2) - they can attempt to Hide in light natural concealment or behind a medium creature in addition to what other races can hide in.

The abilities expand the types of terrain and features that a Halfling and a Wood Elf can hide in. They dont removed the prerequisite that the halfling and elf must not be able to be seen clearly before they make the Hide attempt.

Example: A Wood elf in the rain (that is not currently hidden) is facing an Orc 30' away. Both parties are aware of and warily watching each other.

In this case it is most likely the Elf cannot take the Hide action (despite being in light natural concealment due to the rain). The Orc is watching him intently and can see him 'clearly enough'. The DM could rule that the rain is so heavy that the Elf can Hide (i.e. he can rule that the rain itself obscures the Orc's vision to the extent that he cant see the Elf 'clearly' enough).

Assuming the Orc is distracted (say an arrow flies at him from just behind his right shoulder and he turns away from the Elf briefly or stops giving the Elf his undivided attention) the Elf can almost certainly attempt to hide in the rain (the Orc is no longer able to see him clearly due to being distracted, and the Elf can now attempt to hide in the rain).

Take the example of a halfling standing adjacent to a human fighter. Another Orc stands 30' away watching the two.

The halfling cannot attempt to hide as the Orc can see him clearly enough at the start of the halflings turn. He cannot 'go into hiding' as he is being observed - note even by using his movement to duck behind the fighter he will still not be able to take the Hide action' the Orc watched him go there and knows where he is.

If the Orc could not see the halfling clearly enough at the start of the halflings turn, the little bugger could attempt to hide behind the fighter.

If you cant Hide on your turn I suggest readying an action to do so (once the Orc is distracted).

The main change is it used to be if the creature could see you. Now they need to be able to see you 'clearly enough' meaning that 'Jack in the Box' rouge is possible as long as the creature in question cannot see you clearly enough during your attacks. If he can see you clearly enough (likely once you shoot him in the face with an arrow) you cant then attempt to re-hide unless he is sufficiently distracted.

The errata also expressly makes the rule DM's call (which it was anyways but hey). RAW is 'ask your DM'.

 

[Yaarel]

This seems to be the crux of the issue:

You can try hide from a creature that can see you! And you can remain hidden from a creature that can see you! As long as the creature can’t see you ‘clearly’, it works.

The erratum overrides this following sentence.

"
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.

"

Oh, but you can hide! As long as that creature can’t see you ‘clearly’, you can attempt to hide and remain hidden.

There is no requirement to be out of line-of-sight, when attempting to hide or while remaining hidden. Notice the original context of this sentence. ‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you’, applies in a context after you have already hidden yourself. Originally, the sentence suggested, if you come into line-of-sight in any way, the creature would automatically discover you. Similarly, if you make a noise like shouting, the creature would automatically discover you.

The erratum clarifies that you can remain hidden, even when entering the line-of-sight of a creature that you are hidden from, as long as that creature can’t see you clearly.

The point is: there is no rule that specifically says the attempt to hide must be while unseen. The sentence being quoted refers to after you are already hidden and trying to avoid discovery. This is the sentence that the erratum overrides. So you can remain hidden if not ‘clearly’ seen.

This same rule applies at all times, whether trying to hide or remaining hidden.

So likewise, you can attempt to hide while not ‘clearly’ seen.

There is never a requirement to be completely unseen. It is possible to try hide while in line-of-sight and partially seen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is never a requirement to be completely unseen. It is possible to try hide while in line-of-sight and partially seen.

This is true ONLY if you equate "attempting to hide" and "are hiding" as the same thing. I do not. I am not making that grammatical leap. I presume the former is everything occurring up to and including the DEX (Stealth) check the player is making... and the latter is only AFTER that DEX check is put up against anyone's Passive Perception and is found to be higher. At that point they have gone from "attempting to hide" to "being hidden" or "are hiding".

"Attempting to hide" is the process of figuring out whether someone can and is successful... "are hiding" is the state the character is in AFTER it has been proved they WERE successful. And in my opinion, the errata ONLY affects the latter-- when you ARE hiding. At that point you don't need to be completely unseen to gain the benefits of being hidden (which is you getting to attack with Advantage, and other creatures needing to guess which space you are in.)

But if you believe both statements above are synonymous... then great! Play that way! Have fun! I disagree wholeheartedly because it renders Mark of the Wild completely superfluous and means every single race can attempt to hide in Lightly Obscuring terrain... but if that's fun for you, then have at it.

 

[Yaarel]

This is true ONLY if you equate "attempting to hide" and "are hiding" as the same thing. I do not.

There is no sentence anywhere on page 177 that says, you cant attempt to hide when seen.

It appears, your reading of the Stealth rules is incorrect.

Here is the verse you refer to.

"
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.

"

You seem to interpret this to mean, ‘You cant attempt to hide from a creature that can see you’.

Notice, here, you are the one who interprets ‘hide’ as meaning ‘attempt to hide’. That is why you claim, you cant attempt to hide while seen.

But in fact, here the original sentence actually means, ‘You cant remain hidden from a creature that you can see’.

So, a creature who can see you automatically discovers you.

However, this is the sentence that the errata changed. Because of the errata, it now says:

‘You cant remain hidden from a creature that you can see clearly.’

This confirms, you can remain hidden. Even a creature who can see you will still not notice you are there, as long as the visibility is unclear.

But the new errata also destroys your interpretation that:

‘You cant attempt to hide from a creature that you can see’.

Because, indeed, the sentence was referring to remaining hidden, not to attempting to hide. This is the only sentence that mentions a creature that can see you.

There is no sentence anywhere that says, you cant attempt to hide when seen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is no sentence anywhere on page 177 that says, you cant attempt to hide when seen.

It appears, your reading of the Stealth rules is incorrect.

Here is the verse you refer to.

"
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.

"

You seem to interpret this to mean, ‘You cant attempt to hide from a creature that can see you’.

Notice, here, you are the one who interprets ‘hide’ as meaning ‘attempt to hide’. That is why you claim, you cant attempt to hide while seen.

But in fact, here the original sentence actually means, ‘You cant remain hidden from a creature that you can see’.

"You can't hide" can be understood both ways... the action of hiding, and the state of being hidden. I will agree to that. However, I would disagree with your interpretation that this sentence applies to the latter definition for one primary reason... this sentence is the second of three sentences in the Hiding block that are all talking about the process of hiding-- and the first *and* the third sentences both state "try to hide".

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity check...
You can't hide from a creature that can see you...
An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide...

So while I will concur that you could make the inference that the second sentence is about already being hidden... the fact that it is between two other sentences talking about the attempt to hide, leads me to make the logical conclusion that this should *also* be a sentence where you take "You can't hide" as about making the attempt, rather than already being hidden.

But yes, I will concede that "You can't hide" could be taken as having already been hidden, and thus as that is the only sentence that has the "creature that can see you" addendum, the errata could then be used to state that all creatures can try to hide even when partially seen. Personally... I still think that is a poor interpretation as it eradicates the Wood Elf's 'Mark of the Wild' ability and thus I refuse to believe this is what they meant... but again, I won't begrudge anyone else for going in that direction.

Best of luck in your future gaming.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

As I see it the perception check determines if your hide attempt is successful, not if you can try to hide.

So to me it seems that the mask of the wild ability is obsolete.

Before Errata: You can't try to hide when enemy can (could) see you
no line of sight / heavily obscured: everyone can try to hide
lightly obscured: you can't try to hide except for wood elf within natural phenomenon.

With Errata: You can try to hide as long as enemy can't see you clearly.
no line of sight / heavily or lightly obscured: everyone can try to hide

Thus mask of the wild has no effect.

...and if your DM takes absolutely nothing into effect other than "what the rules say", he needs a swift kick to the junk.

Seriously. The "errata" basically reiterated in slighly different words "...bla bla bla...obscure...shadow...bla...within sight...bla... it's up to the DM to decide the particulars!" How frickin' hard is it to understand "Ask your DM"? Really? I don't get it.

NO! "Mask of the Wild" still has a LOT of effect. Unless, as I said, your DM is a complete and utter dingus who can't think for himself.

Before Errata: You can try to hide if your DM figures you'd have a chance.
No LoS/Heavy Obscurement: You can try to hide if your DM figures you'd have a chance.
Light Obscurement: You can still try to hide if your DM figures you'd have a chance.

With Errata: You can sill, as always, try to hide if your DM figures you'd have a chance.

Thus, Mask of the Wild, when logically taken into considerations by your DM, should give you a higher probability of "having a chance". As in "Ok, nobody can Hide here...not enough ground cover and the fog is sporadic and light. Except for the Wood Elf; go ahead, make a roll". Am I the only DM who DM's this way? Or does everyone else have whiny little players who would cry bloody-murder with "No Fair! If he has a chance, so should I!" and "Oh, sure, favor the wood elf again!"?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[mlund]

I just treat it as if wood elves have (super)natural camouflage that allows them to blend in with foliage in a way that other faces couldn't. Grog the Half-Orc isn't fooling anyone behind that lamp post, but it doesn't matter anymore because Legolandir just sniped you from the ficus in the corner.

Marty Lund

 

[Flamestrike]

I just treat it as if wood elves have (super)natural camouflage that allows them to blend in with foliage in a way that other faces couldn't. Grog the Half-Orc isn't fooling anyone behind that lamp post, but it doesn't matter anymore because Legolandir just sniped you from the ficus in the corner.

Marty Lund

Thats pretty much it.

Assuming Grog and Legolandir start their turns not being able to be seen 'clearly enough' they can both attempt to hide. Legolandir just needs to find himself a small ficus or some heavy rain or fog to Hide in. Grog needs to reach a wall or other cover, or total concealment without being seen clearly on his way there.

The MotW ability just widens the range of stuff the Elf can hide 'in' (presuming he meets the other precondition of not being seen 'clearly enough' at the start of his turn).

It's still a remarkably useful ability.

DM: 'Alright -the Ogre reels from the massive axe hit from Grog the Barbarian and roars in anger. Steve - its now your Elfs turn, you only have 3 HP left right?'
Steve: 'Yep... im sitting this one out. Hey DM, can the Ogre see me clearly or is he too distracted by the Bear barbarian who smashed him in the face with his axe last turn?'
DM: 'Yeah, looks to you that he is pretty distracted - you don't think he can see you clearly'
Steve: 'Is there any cover or concealment around?'
DM: 'Nope; the clearing you are in is pretty open. You do notice a small ficus that was nearly trampled by the Ogre last turn. It's about 20' from the Ogre, and about 20' from you. It provides light natural obscurement...'
Steve: 'Whew - I'll move over behind the ficus and attempt to Hide'.
DM: 'Cool - make a check' (Steve rolls and gets a 15 - enough to hide from the Ogre).
DM: 'Right (looks at Drogo Flaggins - Halfling Rogue 2's - player Bob) - its your turn'
Bob: 'I was watching the Elf and could see him clearly so he is not hidden from me right?'
DM: 'Yep; you saw him run behind the ficus and can see him peering out from behind it'.
Bob: 'Can the Ogre see me clearly?'
DM: 'Nope; it has its back to you.'
Bob: 'Sweet - ill move over to behind the ficus and attempt to Hide'
DM: 'Bob - youre a halfling - you cant hide in a ficus - you need total cover or concealment to hide'
Bob: 'Oh yeah - OK - I'll use my Halfling racial ability to hide behind the Elf lurking behind the ficus!'
DM: 'OK cool. Roll a Steath check'
Bob: 'I got a 13 - Does the Ogre see me?'
DM: 'It doesnt appear so'
Bob: 'Awesome - I moved 20' this turn and used my bonus action from cunning action to Hide - I still have my action left. I'll use my action for the turn to shoot at the Ogre from hiding with advantage! (Rolls, getting a 5 and a 16. Rolls damage, Ogre survives).
DM: The Ogre screams in pain and turns around. It's its turn.
Bob: The Ogre cant see me - I'm hidden!
DM: 'Nope. You revealed your position when you fired your shot. You are no longer hidden. The Ogre (which can now see the Halfling, but not the Elf he hides behind due to the ficus still concealing him) advances towards to you clobber you.
Steve: 'Good one bro. Youve brought it over here!'
Bob: 'Just stay in your ficus man. I got this'
etc

 

[Sadrik]

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.
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.

I think there is no parsing of attempting to hide and attempting to stay hidden. They are one of the same. I wanted to add that the observer has disadvantage to their perception checks due to the lightly obscured area. I think most groups do not do that. It used to be an automatic thing if the monster or PC leaned out of cover (which I believe is the intent of heavily obscured btw - even though it does not say that) to fire a weapon they were automatically seen. So the disadvantage to the perception check did not matter. Now I think it matters. They lean out of cover and I would have the monster or PC roll again with the observer gaining disadvantage (2d20 take lowest or passive perception -5).

This could have been so simple. These are poorly worded rules. Rather than DM adjudication you just let the dice determine what light obscured area is enough to warrant hiding or not hiding and grant advantage or disadvantage based on DM adjudication. Instead we have something far different.

I have rewritten the rules in this part of the game to my liking but the rules as written here are pretty clear too - I just don't like them.

 

[AriochQ]

‘When you are hiding’.

When you hide - when you decide to hide - when you are in the process of hiding yourself - even before you become hidden.

Errata: Using Ability Scores: Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

So, ‘when you’re hiding’, you can do so even when a creature partially sees you. As long as the creature can’t see you clearly, go head. Hide.

PH 177 Textbox: Hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

The textbox says, ‘you can’t hide from a creature that can see you’. But the erratum precisely overrides this sentence, to clarify, you can hide from it as long as this creature can’t ‘see you clearly’.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position.

Oh, but you can hide from a creature that can see you! As long as the creature can’t see you clearly, it is ok.

There is no requirement to be out of line-of-sight, when attempting to hide or when being hidden. Notice the original context of this sentence. ‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you’, applies in a context when you are already hidden. Thus, if you happen to be in line-of-sight in any way, the creature would automatically discover you. Similarly, if you make noise like shouting, the creature will discover you. The erratum clarifies that you can remain hidden, even during the line-of-sight of a creature that you are hidden from, as long as that creature can’t see you clearly. The point is: you can try to hide while being not being seen clearly, and you can remain hidden while not being seen clearly.

There is never a requirement to be completely unseen. It is still possible to hide.

You can hide at any time, as long as you can’t be seen ‘clearly’.


Note, you can even ‘come out of hiding’ to attack someone and still ‘stay hidden’ (!) - as long as you can’t be seen clearly. A creature that is ‘distracted’ also can’t see you ‘clearly’.

... In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

The possibility of hiding during partial visibility makes it much more useful during combat.

It seems to me, the intent of the errata was to make the Dex Stealth check of the Rogue more powerful. The Rogue becomes able to attack and then hide again in the same round, thus being able to ‘stealth kite’. At high levels, this is as powerful as a Wizard who fights while invisible and levitating or flying. The difference is, the Rogue can pull off this stunt without using magic.

The extra powerful Rogue is working as intended. It is a feature, not a bug.

The problem is, the authorship of the erratum focusing on the Rogue, forgot about the obscure wording of the racial feature of the Wood Elf. Which is fine, the features of the Wood Elf and especially the features of the High Elf are kinda lame, and probably need a boost anyway.


Finally, there is only one check. That Dex Stealth check applies versus all Wis Perception checks, whether active or passive, when unseen or at least not seen clearly.

PH 177: Dexterity: Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

There is only one Dexterity Stealth check to hide. This one result applies in all circumstances. It doesn’t matter if the check happens while a creature can see you - as long as the creature can’t see you clearly the check is in effect.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. ...

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.

So, a Rogue who is stealth-kiting a creature that has low Wisdom Perception, is very effective, indeed.

For what it is worth, I agree with Yaarel.

I believe the intent was to clarify the hiding rules to allow hiding in circumstances other than 'not being seen' by your target. Now it is up to the DM as to whether you will be able to hide.

At my table for example:

1. In a very dim alley 30 feet away, target knows you are there? Sure, I assume there are some deep shadows nearby which would prevent 'seeing clearly'.
2. 10 feet away? Probably not. At that close distance, could still 'see clearly'.
3. In combat using either halfling or elf abilities? Almost always unless target is specifically watching you (even then I would allow it is target was also being targeted by attacks). Both abilities essentially prevent a target from 'seeing you clearly' assuming their conditions are met.