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

[Hriston]

Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

Likewise, this implies that for any other creature it is not possible to hide behind a creature one size larger. Perhaps if it were two sizes larger, but not one.

Why? Because you aren't sufficiently obscured.

Furthermore, if the lightfoot in question were to attempt to hide behind a medium or larger creature while being observed, it could only be done in an area that was at least lightly obscured.

Otherwise the lightfoot could be seen clearly.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Notice that here if you are seen before you attack then you are no longer considered hidden. It doesn't say anything about being seen clearly. You must remain heavily obscured from the viewpoint of the creature you are attacking to remain hidden and gain advantage.

 

[Hriston]

While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter.

This is somewhat vague and could present some difficulty, so some misinterpretation is understandable.

However, I would interpret "not in the open" to be comprised of two factors.

1. The characters must be in an area that is at least lightly obscured.

2. They must have something to hide behind.

 

[Hriston]

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

Notice that these combatants are trying to escape notice, i.e. hide, by becoming heavily obscured.

 

[Hriston]

Ok, one more.

An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.

So, if being lightly obscured made just anyone eligible to hide, what possible "purpose" would it serve to be heavily obscured?

 

[AriochQ]

Check out this passage.



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.

Prior tweets from Mike Mearls also shed some light on his interpretation... https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2ftgjx/a_collection_of_rules_clarifications_from_mike/

Rogue hidden behind tree. Can he shoot an arrow with advantage, or does stepping out negate it? Re-hide behind same tree after? DM's call - suggest atk with advantage, but disad to hide again. IMO if rogue sees target from hiding while hidden, can attack. -M

Could a rogue hidden behind cover run to a target & Sneak Attack; are they hidden until after attacking or after leaving cover? hidden until leave, but Adam might rule creature is distracted -M

Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn? I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again. -M

If a rogue attacks an enemy when emerging from a cover source, does he still gain benefit of stealth in the attack? Only if the rogue is still hidden when making the attack. -M

 

[Hriston]

Prior tweets from Mike Mearls also shed some light on his interpretation... https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2ftgjx/a_collection_of_rules_clarifications_from_mike/

Rogue hidden behind tree. Can he shoot an arrow with advantage, or does stepping out negate it? Re-hide behind same tree after? DM's call - suggest atk with advantage, but disad to hide again. IMO if rogue sees target from hiding while hidden, can attack. -M

Could a rogue hidden behind cover run to a target & Sneak Attack; are they hidden until after attacking or after leaving cover? hidden until leave, but Adam might rule creature is distracted -M

Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn? I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again. -M

If a rogue attacks an enemy when emerging from a cover source, does he still gain benefit of stealth in the attack? Only if the rogue is still hidden when making the attack. -M

Mearls doesn't seem at any point here to be talking about hiding/remaining hidden while only lightly obscured or without the benefit of being heavily obscured. The space behind the tree or source of cover cited in all of these questions is presumably a heavily obscured area.

He says that the rogue is no longer hidden when he leaves the heavily obscured area. The only variable factor he brings up is whether the target is distracted, which as I've stated up-thread, is the equivalent of being heavily obscured. Another way of looking at this is that the target is making his perception check while looking in the wrong place, resulting in an auto-fail.

He says that the rogue only has advantage on his attack if he remains hidden and that the attack, once made, reveals his position, thus the need to hide again. Under the newly revised rules, I would only allow this re-hide attempt if the rogue is obscured from his target's view in some way as he reenters the heavily obscured area.

 

[Yaarel]

Check out this passage.

Basic Rules, p73
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.

The first point is, that quote means: ‘If you are remaining hidden - unseen ...’

So there is no rule that requires being completely unseen to ‘attempt to hide’.

The second point is, the errata makes it say: ‘If you are hidden - not clearly seen ...

So there is no rule that requires being completely unseen.

 

[Hriston]

The first point is, that quote means: ‘If you are remaining hidden - unseen ...’

I'm not sure what adding the word "remaining" is supposed to add to the meaning of the sentence. I think the quote is fine on its own. My point is that if you understand that being hidden/hiding is the same as being unseen and unheard then you can't say that someone could try to hide without at the same time trying to be unseen. It's really just the meaning of hidden that we're talking about.

The second point is, the errata makes it say: ‘If you are hidden - not clearly seen ...

No it doesn't. The quote I gave you is from the post-errata rules. You may not know that the Basic Rules were updated on June 10th. You can go to the Wizards website and read the rules as they now stand instead of making up rules text based on what you think the rules are. What you are doing is taking one erratum that applies to a single sentence and applying it to the entire rule set.

 

[Yaarel]

It doesnt say ‘If you are trying to hide - you must be completely unseen’

It says, if you are already ‘hidden’.

There is no rule that requires someone to be unseen in order to try hide.