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

[Yaarel]

Regarding the Wood Elf feature.

Maybe reword it to say something like ...

"
Mask of the Wild. When you are lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena, you can become invisible and then attempt to hide.

"

The idea here is both camouflage and hunting skills. The wording clarifies that despite extra-obscurity, the Wood Elf must still make an effort to avoid detection (by misdirection, finding a good spot, remaining silent, etcetera).

Just saying the word ‘invisible’ makes it sound so much cooler, but doesnt seem that much different from being hidden anyway.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Both abilities do nothing to prevent a target from seeing you clearly; they only change what you can attempt to hide 'in' if you cant be seen clearly in the first place.

A Wood Elf standing behind a ficus (light natural obscurement) or in the rain is no harder to see than an Orc or a Human standing behind a ficus or in the rain.

The only difference being that the Elf can attempt to hide behind the ficus or in the rain (when not being directly observed), where the human and the orc cannot.

 

[AriochQ]

Both abilities do nothing to prevent a target from seeing you clearly; they only change what you can attempt to hide 'in' if you cant be seen clearly in the first place.

A Wood Elf standing behind a ficus (light natural obscurement) or in the rain is no harder to see than an Orc or a Human standing behind a ficus or in the rain.

The only difference being that the Elf can attempt to hide behind the ficus or in the rain (when not being directly observed), where the human and the orc cannot.

Just reread your post...

You are basically arguing semantics at this point. Why does a wood elf get to hide in light concealment? I say because they are harder to see. You say it is some other thing (not sure what else it would be, but I guess it could be something). In the end, it makes no difference in terms of gameplay.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your interpretation essentially guts MoTW and is the reason for the errata IMHO. You can attempt to hide in light concealment, but since everyone can see you in light concealment, you can never hide. Everyone can hide when your target can't see you! Light concealment with MoTW='not see clearly'

If you want to rule that light obscurement = 'cant be seen clearly enough' then go for it. It's certainly arguable.

Personally, I would rule that one needs something more than just light obscurement. The observer to be distracted (by combat for example).

And it does nothing to 'gut' the abilities. They remain as useful as always. They greatly widen the range of stuff a Wood Elf or Halfling can hide 'in' (where an Orc or Human could not). A Human rogue needs to first 'not be seen clearly' and second needs to get himself into cover or total obscurement to hide. A Wood elf needs only to 'not be seen clearly' and then he can hide in any natural obscurement in addition to total obscurement and cover.

Before the errata, it was virtually impossible to use the Hide action in combat (barring before combat began) as creatures are assumed to observe all other creatures involved in a combat. This errata ruling loosens that restriction allowing creatures to hide even while under casual observation when the observer is sufficiently distracted.

Remember - MoTW doesnt allow the Elf to circumvent the restriction on hiding while under observation. It simply widens the scope of things the Elf can hide 'in' when a creature cannot see the Elf 'clearly enough'.

And I can see an Elf standing behind a ficus or in the rain, as clearly as I can see a human or an orc. If light obscurement is enough to allow a Stealth check to hide for an Elf (by having that light obscurement enough to obscure vision to the point that the observer cannot see the elf 'clearly enough'), the light obscurement of the ficus also allows an Orc standing behind the ficus to make a Stealth check to hide.

The only difference being the Orc needs to move into full cover to hide whereas the Elf can remain behind the ficus and hide.

Re: "Direct Observation"...if a target is doing nothing else but watching the wood elf, sure, hiding is impossible. But if there is anything else going on that may distract the target (i.e. active defensively in combat), I would say it does not count as 'Direct Observation'. In that case, line of sight would need to be broken to make a hide attempt, and then the wood elf could move into light concealment and remain hidden.

Youre interpreting 'cant be seen clearly enough' as 'direct observation'. That's not the wording used. You dont have to be focusing intently on the creature who wants to hide from you to prevent the attempt. You only need to be able to see them 'clearly enough'.

It's up to each DM to determine what being able to 'see someone clearly enough' means. Personally I use a common sense interpretation (if the creature can see you clearly enough to know where you are, and can observe you going into your hiding spot, you cannot hide from that creature - it knows where you are).

 

[Flamestrike]

Just reread your post...

You are basically arguing semantics at this point. Why does a wood elf get to hide in light concealment? I say because they are harder to see.

I'm arguing rules not semantics. The Elf ability does nothing to remove the restriction that you can only hide when you are 'not able to be seen clearly enough' - it only allows the Elf (when unable to be seen clearly enough) to hide in light natural obscurement once that condition is met (something an Orc or Human cannot do - those races have to first 'not be seen clearly enough' and THEN they need to find cover or total obscurement).

Despite a creature not being able to see you clearly enough at the start of your turn (it may have its back to you, or be distracted on account of a swirling combat) and thus you meeting the first condition of making a stealth check to Hide, you may not be able to meet the second condition of making a Hide check - reaching appropriate cover or concealment to hide 'in'... all while remaining unobserved in the process.

A Human who starts his turn 'unable to be seen clearly enough' and thus able to Hide still needs to reach appropriate cover or concealment to attempt the check. He might not have any cover or total obscurement to hide in within his movement distance. Or in order to reach that cover or concealment, he might have to run across the open ground or in front of the creature, thus blowing his position (and denying him the ability to hide) before he gets the chance to make the check.

The Elf doesnt have this problem. Any natural obscurement will do. A ficus, pouring rain, mist, long grass etc.

Practically speaking, the ability enables the Elf to Hide far more often than a Human or Orc will be able to.

And personally I don't view the ability as making the Elf harder to see when not hiding at all. If the ability was supposed to represent the Elf being harder to see, then it would say so. An Elf is just as easy to see as an Orc when the two aren't trying to Hide. The ability just makes the Elf better at not being seen when he actively tries not to be seen, and is in appropriate natural terrain, and isnt under direct observation.

An Elf cant walk behind a ficus in full view and gain total obscurement or attempt a stealth check to Hide. He is as easy to spot behind the plant as a Dwarf who followed him behind a ficus.

What the Elf can do is (when no-one is can see him move behind the ficus clearly enough) use his supernatural inherent ability to attempt to hide behind a ficus. No matter how good the Dwarf is (barring the Dwarf picking up the Skulker feat) he will need to reach a wall, hole or other total concealment or cover to hide in.

I personally rule that one needs more than just light obscurement to satisfy the 'cant be seen clearly enough' requirement to be able to make a stealth check to Hide. If all it took was light obscurement, then the rules would just say so (Something like: You can attempt a stealth check to Hide any time you have light obscurement or partial cover relative to the creature you wish to hide from). Instead it leaves it up to the DM to determine when you cant be seen 'clearly enough'. For mine, this implies more than just light concealment. The creature needs to be distracted as well, focusing on something else, or be looking the other way.

 

[Hriston]

My initial reaction to the errata on hiding (see my post up-thread) was that it wouldn't change how I run stealth in the slightest. I already knew, after all, that the DM had full discretion as to what constituted the proper conditions for hiding, and I saw the word "clearly" as a relative term that could serve the DM when comparing different circumstances as to their suitability for hiding. We already knew about remaining hidden when approaching a distracted creature in combat, for example. It isn't much of a stretch to acknowledge that you could probably also go into hiding in the presence of the same creature, as long as it was distracted when you did so.

After reading over the revised rules, however, I have decide to change the way I run stealth, and in particular how I regard areas that are lightly obscured.

First of all, under what circumstances can you see something clearly? I would argue that you can do so only in unobscured areas of bright light. If the area is obscured at all, that means that you can no longer see clearly. That's why you have disadvantage on sight-based perception in a lightly obscured area. Obscured = can't see clearly. Even lightly obscured areas inhibit vision to the extent that you cannot see clearly.

Does this mean that just anyone can hide when only lightly obscured? Obviously not. The existence of features like Mask of the Wild and Skulker tells us that this is normally not the case. The implication of those features is that most characters need to be heavily obscured to be hidden. Of course this makes sense because to be hidden is to be unseen, (as well as unheard), not just to be not seen clearly.

What this does mean, however, and the way it is changing my game, is that a creature whose location is known, because it has already been noticed by an opponent, can still attempt to hide behind an object that provides total cover, thus rendering the creature heavily obscured, as long as the object is in a lightly obscured area. This works even when the opponent is not momentarily distracted. The creature cannot be seen clearly and its opponent may lose sight of it when it tries to hide.

Mask of the Wild and Skulker simply allow a character to take full advantage of this aspect of a lightly obscured area by using not being seen clearly to elude any observer's gaze, and hiding within the lightly obscured area itself.

 

[Yaarel]

In the rules, there is no requirement to be heavily obscured to hide.

 

[Hriston]

In the rules, there is no requirement to be heavily obscured to hide.

Check out this passage.

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

It defines hidden, for game purposes, as "unseen and unheard". Unseen is synonymous with heavily obscured. You can't be one and not the other, not with reference to a single observer.

I think that part of the problem is that obscured is a subjective term. You can be obscured from the point of view of one creature, while another creature can see you clearly. If my back is to you, you are heavily obscured to me, no matter what the lighting or other conditions are like in the room we're both in. The area on the other side of a dense hedge is heavily obscured to an observer on one side, while to an observer on the other side, it is brightly lit, and the area in which the first observer stands is heavily obscured.

The term obscured only has meaning with reference to a particular creature's point of view.

To be hidden from a creature is, by definition, to be heavily obscured from that creature's point of view. The exceptions to this general rule are Mask of the Wild, Naturally Stealthy, and Skulker. If you are trying to hide, you need to have some means of not being seen. The phrase, "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly," doesn't mean that you can always try to hide from a creature that doesn't see you clearly. It hasn't waived the "requirement" that is still to be found in the rules, that to be hidden, you must make yourself unseen and unheard, since that's the meaning of hidden.

 

[Hriston]

An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide.

Why is this true? What about an invisible creature allows it to hide under all circumstances?

It can always hide because it is always heavily obscured.

 

[Hriston]

Mask of the Wild. You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

This implies that for any other creature just being lightly obscured is not enough to hide.

Now if you were lightly obscured and had a cardboard box nearby to hide in you'd be in business.