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

[Yaarel]

The latest Basic Rules with the errata, says:

‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.’

Thus:

You can hide from a creature that can partially see you.

 

[aramis erak]

If that's the case the errata is not very helpful, but confusing. I understood the Wood Elf ability as an exception to the rule that you can't hide in line of sight. That was the benefit.

Also, I (and my group) didn't have any trouble with the hide /move silently rules of 3.x. Of course we had situations where the DM had to make a call. But we had no problem to apply the rules.

Here it's still unclear to me.

Can a human hide in light fog?

A. No. Only Wood Elves can do that.
B. Yes. He can't be seen clearly (disadvantage on perception)
C. Perhaps. It depents on how dense the light fog is.

If he's far enough away, yes... light fog isn't actually in the rules, but should be limited to a certain radius before it's considered opaque.

Define your fog.. set the density by how many feet until it is opaque enough to create heavy obscurement.

It's really surprising to me that they don't have fog more carefully in the rules... but their definition of fog is pretty much a pea-soup fog.

 

[Hriston]

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.

It is equating being hidden with being unseen and unheard. They are one and the same. That is why you can't be hidden and be seen at the same time.

You can try to hide all you want but if you are seen you have failed. I wouldn't let you roll a Stealth check if you are not attempting to be unseen. A Wood Elf has the ability to be unseen while lightly obscured by natural phenomena. Other creatures do not. Unless they have the Skulker feat, they cannot attempt to hide by relying only on being lightly obscured.

 

[Hriston]

The latest Basic Rules with the errata, says:

‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.’

Thus:

You can hide from a creature that can partially see you.

Not really.

What it actually means is if a creature can see you clearly, then you cannot hide from it.

See the difference?

It does not grant everyone who is not seen clearly carte blanche to hide in any circumstance.

That is determined by the DM.

The DM may decide that conditions are such that you have a chance to be unseen, as long as you are not being seen clearly. Whether you can become hidden in this situation depends on whether you can become unseen. If you continue to be seen, you cannot be said to be hidden.

I'm glad we are finally talking about the words that actually appear in the rules.

 

[Hriston]

If he's far enough away, yes... light fog isn't actually in the rules, but should be limited to a certain radius before it's considered opaque.

Define your fog.. set the density by how many feet until it is opaque enough to create heavy obscurement.

It's really surprising to me that they don't have fog more carefully in the rules... but their definition of fog is pretty much a pea-soup fog.

Patchy fog is given as an example of a lightly obscured area.

 

[aramis erak]

Patchy fog is given as an example of a lightly obscured area.

Patchy fog is different from thin fog or light fog. I've (personally) experienced fog where visibility was down to under 5', and also for where visibility was over 60'. Fog really deserves a better treatment. Patchy fog is still got to have answered the question: how many feet until it becomes heavy obscurement - but if that's longer than encounter range, it can be ignored.

 

[ShadowSeeker]

If he's far enough away, yes... light fog isn't actually in the rules, but should be limited to a certain radius before it's considered opaque.

Define your fog.. set the density by how many feet until it is opaque enough to create heavy obscurement.

It's really surprising to me that they don't have fog more carefully in the rules... but their definition of fog is pretty much a pea-soup fog.

Ok, I meant mist = light obscurement.

 

[Yaarel]

I was once in a rare mosquito swarm, where the skies were so full of mosquitoes, it was like a thick dark grayish fog. At its height, visibility was obscure after about 10 yards away. It only lasted about a day or two, but it was freaky, disgusting, and kinda vampirish. Ick! You would run to the car, and by the time you got in it, you would be layered in crawling starving mosquitoes trying to feast.

I agree it helps to think of various kinds of haze as the opposite of a light source. For some radius around the viewer, visibility can be clear. Looking beyond that, it becomes lightly obscured, and after some distant radius away, it can even become opaque in some situations.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The latest Basic Rules with the errata, says:

‘You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.’

Thus:

You can hide from a creature that can partially see you.

Only if the DM agrees. First line of new Basic Hiding Sidebar: "The DM decides if circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The rest of the paragraph is guidance.

 

[Hriston]

Patchy fog is different from thin fog or light fog. I've (personally) experienced fog where visibility was down to under 5', and also for where visibility was over 60'. Fog really deserves a better treatment. Patchy fog is still got to have answered the question: how many feet until it becomes heavy obscurement - but if that's longer than encounter range, it can be ignored.

Why not use the rules this way? If a creature cannot be seen through the fog, whether because of the thickness of the fog or the creature's distance from you, then it is heavy fog. If the creature can be seen, but not clearly, then it is patchy fog. If the creature can be seen clearly through the fog, then it doesn't matter.